To change these two images, click on the
individual image (NOT the larger
“canvass”] and then select Shape Fill from
the Drawing Tools Format Menu, then
Picture and select the .jpg image from the
server.
To change these two images, click on the
individual image (NOT the larger
“canvass”] and then select Shape Fill from
the Drawing Tools Format Menu, then
Picture and select the .jpg image from the
server.
To change these two images, click on the
individual image (NOT the larger
“canvass”] and then select Shape Fill from
the Drawing Tools Format Menu, then
Picture and select the .jpg image from the
server.
To change these two images, click on the
individual image (NOT the larger
“canvass”] and then select Shape Fill from
the Drawing Tools Format Menu, then
Picture and select the .jpg image from the
server.
SMEC INTERNAL REF. 7076457 D05
EIA Report Volume I: Main Text
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure
Upgrade Project
Revision 7.3 – Final
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
20 October 2021
Table of Contents
i
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Designated Projects Under the EIA Ordinance .......................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the EIA Study .................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Structure of this EIA Report ....................................................................................................... 1-2
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Project ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Details of the Project ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Background and History of the Project ................................................................................... 2-13
3 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Description of Environment....................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Air Sensitive Receivers ............................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Identification of Pollutant Sources – Construction Stage .......................................................... 3-4
3.6 Assessment Methodology – Construction Stage ....................................................................... 3-5
3.7 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 3-7
4 NOISE IMPACT ........................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Prevailing Noise Environment ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Assessment Area........................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.5 Noise Sensitive Receivers .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.6 Identification of Noise Sources – Construction Stage ............................................................... 4-4
4.7 Assessment Methodology – Construction Stage ....................................................................... 4-5
4.8 Assessment Results – Construction Stage ................................................................................. 4-5
4.9 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 4-6
5 WATER QUALITY IMPACT .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Historic and Current Setting ...................................................................................................... 5-6
5.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage ......................................................... 5-9
5.5 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage ............................................................ 5-14
5.6 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................ 5-14
5.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 5-15
6 WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Types of Waste .......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage ......................................................... 6-2
6.5 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage .............................................................. 6-6
6.6 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................. 6-6
6.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 6-8
7 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Ecological Baseline and Literature Review ................................................................................ 7-2
Table of Contents
ii
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
7.4 Ecological Survey Methodology ............................................................................................... 7-18
7.5 Results of Ecological Surveys ................................................................................................... 7-22
7.6 Habitat Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 7-35
7.7 Species Evaluations .................................................................................................................. 7-42
7.8 Potential Ecological Impacts .................................................................................................... 7-48
7.9 Mitigation of Impacts .............................................................................................................. 7-67
7.10 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 7-70
7.11 References ............................................................................................................................... 7-74
8 FISHERIES IMPACT..................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage ......................................................... 8-1
8.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage .............................................................. 8-5
8.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 8-5
9 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ............................................................................................ 9-1
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................................... 9-2
9.4 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework ...................................................... 9-5
9.5 Landscape and Visual Baseline Study ........................................................................................ 9-6
9.6 Impact Assessment and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 9-15
9.7 Mitigation/Enhancement Measures ........................................................................................ 9-23
9.8 Residual Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 9-24
9.9 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................. 9-24
9.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit ...................................................................................... 9-25
9.11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 9-25
10 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDIT (EM&A) REQUIREMENTS ............................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.3 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.4 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 10-2
10.5 Waste Management ................................................................................................................ 10-5
10.6 Ecology ..................................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.7 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.8 Landscape and Visual ............................................................................................................... 10-5
11 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 11-1
11.1 Summary of Environmental Outcomes ................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 11-3
11.3 Key Assessment Assumptions, Limitation of Assessment Methodologies, and related Prior
Agreement(s) with the Director ............................................................................................... 11-7
11.4 Summary of Alternative Options and Mitigation Measures ................................................. 11-10
11.5 Documentation of Public Concerns ....................................................................................... 11-11
12 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 12-1
Table of Contents
iii
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Photographs
Photograph 2-1 Existing Tower Hide 1
Photograph 2-2 Desilting Channel (from Pontoon)
Photograph 2-3 Desilting Channel (from Land)
Photograph 2-4 Island Creation Within Drained-down Gei Wai
Photograph 2-5 Bulldozer Working on the Bed of a Drained-down Gei Wai
Photograph 2-6 Transferring Material during Drain-down of Gei Wai
Photograph 2-7 Excavators Working on Drained-down Gei Wai
Photograph 9-1 Top Three LRs by Extent
Photograph 9-2 Top Three LCAs by Extent
Tables
Table 2-1 Update to Project Elements after Stakeholder Views
Table 2-2 Consideration of Environmental Impact of Development Options and Resulting Changes to Project
Elements
Table 2-3 Bare Ground Area Cleared for Boardwalk Construction
Table 2-4 Consideration of MPNR Management Objectives Supported by Project Elements
Table 2-5 Five-year Work Timetable for Capital and Other Works at MPNR (NOT This Project)
Table 3-1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives
Table 3-2 Background Air Pollutant Concentrations at Yuen Long AQMS (in µg/m
3
)
Table 3-3 Representative ASRs
Table 3-4 Ambient Air Quality at ASR 1 and ASR 2
Table 4-1 Noise Standards for Daytime Construction Activities
Table 4-2 Measured Background Noise Levels
Table 4-3 Representative NSRs
Table 4-4 Predicted Noise Impact at Representative NSRs
Table 5-1 Water Quality Objectives for Deep Bay WCZ
Table 5-2 Standards for Effluent Discharged into Group C Inland Waters
Table 5-3 Summary of EPD Routine Water Quality Monitoring Data in Deep Bay WCZ Between 2015 and 2019
Table 5-4 Representative WSRs
Table 6-1 Estimate of Inert C&D Material Arising During Construction Stage
Table 6-2 Estimate of C&D Waste Arising During Construction Stage
Table 6-3 Summary of Waste Generation During Construction and Management Options
Table 7-1 Numbers of Ardeid Nests at Egretries in MPNR and Surrounding Area, 2007 to 2020
Table 7-2 List of WWF MPNR Ecological Baseline and Monitoring Data Reviewed Under the Current Study
Table 7-3 Non-flying Mammal Species Recorded Within the Project Site and Assessment Area in 2016 and 2019 by
WWF Camera Traps and in 2016 by Small Mammal Traps
Table 7-4 OI Values of Non-flying Mammal Species of Conservation Importance Recorded by Infra-Red Cameras
Within the Project Site and Assessment Area in 2016/2019 by WWF
Table 7-5 Bat Species Recorded by WWF Bat Detector and Relative Abundance 2015-17
Table 7-6 WWF Collared Crow Monitoring: Summer 2019 and Winter 2019-20
Table 7-7 Maximum Counts of Black-winged Stilt Nests in MPNR, 2007-21 (Source WWF)
Table 7-8 Reptile Species Recorded in MPNR 2015-16 (Source WWF)
Table 7-9 Maximum Count of Four-spot Midget in Mangroves Outside Boundary Fence, 2011-16 (Source WWF)
Table 7-10 Number of Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly Recorded in the Environs of MPNR, 2015-16 (Source WWF)
Table 7-11 Schedule of Ecological Surveys (November 2016 – December 2017, September 2019 – August 2020)
Table 7-12 Area of Habitat Within the Project Site and Assessment Area
Table 7-13 Noteworthy Plant Species Recorded in Verification Surveys in 2020
Table 7-14 Maximum Counts of Bats at Roosting Sites in the Project Site and Assessment Area 2017
Table 7-15 Maximum Counts of Bird Species of Conservation Importance and/or Wetland-dependant Species within
the Project Site and Assessment Area, 2017-2020
Table 7-16 Winter Roost Counts of Great Cormorants at Mai Po Nature Reserve, Lok Ma Chau and Nam Sang Wai,
November 2016 to March 2017
Table 7-17 Winter Roost Counts and Location of Great Cormorants at Mai Po Nature Reserve, November to March
2016-2017 and 2019-2020
Table 7-18 Herpetofauna Species of Conservation Importance Recorded in 2017 and 2019-20 Surveys
Table of Contents
iv
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-19 Areas of Microhabitat in MPNR Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Ponds 2020
Table 7-20 Ecological Evaluation of MPNR Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Ponds
Table 7-21 Ecological Evaluation of Mangroves
Table 7-22 Ecological Evaluation of Commercial Fishponds
Table 7-23 Ecological Evaluation of Brackish Marshes and Natural Watercourses
Table 7-24 Ecological Evaluation of Channelised Watercourses
Table 7-25 Ecological Evaluation of Wooded Areas
Table 7-26 Ecological Evaluation of Developed Areas
Table 7-27 Ecological Evaluation of Mammals
Table 7-28 Ecological Evaluation of Herpetofauna
Table 7-29 Ecological Evaluation of Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly and Dragonflies
Table 7-30 Ecological Evaluation of Butterflies
Table 7-31 Ecological Evaluation of Fish
Table 7-32 Change in Habitat Areas in the Project Site
Table 7-33 Direct Permanent Loss of Brackish Gei Wai Bund and Rain-fed Pond Bund
Table 7-34 Direct Temporary Loss of Brackish Gei Wai Bund and Rain-fed Ponds Bund
Table 7-35 Predicted Distances at Which Regularly Occurring Waterbird or Wetland-associated Bird Species of
Conservation Importance are Predicted to be Affected by Disturbance Impacts During Construction Phase
and Operation Phase
Table 7-36 Habitats and Areas Potentially Subject to Disturbance Impacts Arising from Construction and Operation of
the Project in respect of birds
Table 7-37 Disturbance Impacts on Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Pond Habitats
Table 7-38 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Non-flying Mammals
Table 7-39 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bats
Table 7-40 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bird Species of Conservation Importance
Table 7-41 Numbers of Large Waterbirds Recorded in Selected Ponds During Wet Season 2020
Table 7-42 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Roosting and Pre-roosting Ardeids
Table 7-43 Potential Disturbance Impacts on the Collared Crow Roost
Table 7-44 Potential Disturbance Impacts on the Great Cormorant Roost and Flight Lines
Table 7-45 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bird Flight Lines (excluding Great Cormorants)
Table 7-46 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Non-bird Non-mammalian Fauna
Table 7-47 Potential Fragmentation Impacts
Table 7-48 Potential Impacts of Hydrological Disruption
Table 7-49 Potential Direct Mortality Impacts
Table 7-50 Other Impacts (Noise, Glare, Dust and Run-off)
Table 7-51 Potential Ecological Impacts Requiring Mitigation under EIAO.
Table 7-52 Summary of Proposed Ecological Mitigation Measures Required to Address Predicted Significant Impacts
and Predicted Residual Impacts
Table 8-1 Annual Pond Fish Production and Fishpond Area
Table 8-2 Status and Area of Ponds Within the Assessment Area
Table 8-3 Summary of Construction Stage Impacts to Fisheries
Table 9-1 Matrix Showing Impact Significance of Landscape and Visual Impacts
Table 9-2 List of LRs within the 500m Assessment Area
Table 9-3 LRs and their Sensitivity
Table 9-4 List of LCAs within the 500m Assessment Area
Table 9-5 LCAs and their Sensitivity
Table 9-6 List of VSRs
Table 9-7 VSRs and their Sensitivity
Table 9-8 Summary of Magnitude of Change in Landscape Resources (LRs) and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
Before Mitigation
Table 9-9 Summary of Significance of Landscape Impacts
Table 9-10 Summary of Magnitude of Change in Visual Quality of VSRs Before Mitigation
Table 9-11 Summary of Significance of Visual Impacts after Mitigation
Table 10-1 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Table 10-2 Event / Action Plan for Water Quality
Table 11-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 11-2 Summary of Key Assessment Assumptions and Limitation of Assessment Methodologies
Table of Contents
v
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Abbreviations
AFCD Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
ANL Acceptable Noise Levels
APCO Air Pollution Control Ordinance
AQOs Air Quality Objectives
ASR Air Sensitive Receiver/Area Sensitivity Rating
ATC Annual Traffic Census
BC Barrier Correction
BMP Best Management Practices
BMZ Biodiversity Management Zone
BOD
5
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BSAP Hong Kong Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2021
C&D Construction and Demolition
C&DMMP Construction and Demolition Material Management Plan
C&SD Census and Statistics Department
CA Conservation Area
CEDD Civil Engineering and Development Department
CEPA Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness
CNP Construction Noise Permit
CO Carbon Monoxide
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CWTC Chemical Waste Treatment Centre
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DC Distance Attenuation
DEP Director of Environmental Protection
DP Designated Project
EA Education Area
EcoIA Ecological Impact Assessment
EDB Education Bureau
EEA Environmental and Ecological Assessment of PSFSC
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIAO Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
EM&A Environmental Monitoring and Audit
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EP Environmental Permit
EPD Environmental Protection Department
ESB EIA Study Brief
FC Façade Correction
FEHD Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
FSD Fire Services Department
FSP Fine Suspended Particulates (=PM
2.5
)
G/IC Government, Institution or Community (planning zone designation)
GLTM Greening, Landscape and Tree Management
GRG2 Generalized Reduced Gradient
GW Gei Wai
GW-TM Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling
HKBWS Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
HR Haul Road
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IND-TM Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places Other Than Domestic Premises, Public
Places or Construction Sites
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
Table of Contents
vi
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
LCA Landscape Character Area
LR Landscape Resources
MPNR Mai Po Nature Reserve
NCO Noise Control Ordinance
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NO
2
Nitrogen Dioxide
NRMMs Non-road Mobile Machinery
NSRs Noise Sensitive Receivers
OI Occurrence Index
OVTs Old and Valuable Trees
OZP Outline Zoning Plans
PATH Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong
PFAs Public Filling Areas
PFC Public Fill Committee
PFRF Public Fill Reception Facilities
PlanD Planning Department
PM
2.5
Particulate Matter suspended in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of ≤2.5µm
PM
10
Particulate Matter suspended in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of ≤10µm
PME Powered Mechanical Equipment
ProPECC PN Professional Persons Environmental Consultative Committee Practice Notes
PSFSC Peter Scott Field Studies Centre
RSP Respirable Suspended Particulates (=PM
10
)
SO
2
Sulphur Dioxide
SPLs Sound Pressure Level
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
SWLs Sound Power Levels
TD Transport Department
TH Tower Hide
TIA Traffic Impact Assessment
TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen
TM Technical Memorandum
TM-DSS Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland
and Coastal Waters
TM-EIAO Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
TPB Town Planning Board
TPU Tertiary Planning Unit
TPZ Tree Protection Zone
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
VSRs Visually Sensitive Receivers
WBTC Works Branch Technical Circular
WCZ Water Control Zone
WDO Waste Disposal Ordinance
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WMP Waste Management Plan
WPCO Water Pollution Control Ordinance
WQOs Water Quality Objectives
WSRs Water Sensitive Receivers
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong
ZVI Zone of Visual Influence
Introduction
1-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
For decades, the Mai Po Nature Reserve (“MPNR”) has served Hong Kong as one of the most
valuable ecological assets in the city, and is managed by the World Wide Fund for Nature Hong
Kong (“WWF”). Tens of thousands of visitors have shared collective memories of connecting with
nature and understanding gei wai cultural heritage over the years. As an internationally
recognized important wetland, it has also welcomed numerous local and overseas ecologists and
trained wetland managers in the region.
Being a leading and responsible conservation and education Non-Government Organisation
(“NGO”), WWF aspires to bring the outdoor nature’s classroom that is MPNR to an even broader
section of society, and to the Mai Po experience with the “21st Century Nature Classroom” – a
first class learning environment. To realise this aspiration WWF (the Project Proponent)
proposes an upgrade of key infrastructure – the Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade
Project (“the Project”) – that will cater for visitors, ensuring that facilities within the MPNR meet
the expectations of visitors now and in the future.
SMEC Asia Limited (“SMEC”) in association with aec Limited (“aec”) have been engaged by WWF
as the Project Environmental and Ecological Consultant, responsible for carrying out an
Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) for this Project.
1.2 Designated Projects Under the EIA Ordinance
MPNR is located within an area zoned “Site of Special Scientific Interest” (“SSSI”) on the
approved Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 (the OZP). Project
Elements within MPNR are Designated Projects (“DPs”) under Item Q.1 of Part I, Schedule 2 of
the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (“EIAO”) as follows:
“All projects including new access roads, railways, sewers, sewage treatment facilities,
earthworks, dredging works and other building works partly or wholly in an existing or
gazetted proposed country park or special area, a conservation area, an existing or gazetted
proposed marine park or marine reserve, a site of cultural heritage, and a site of special
scientific interest (SSSI) …”
1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the EIA Study
On 13 July 2017, a Project Profile was submitted under Section 5(1)(a) of the EIAO for application
of an EIA Study Brief (“ESB”). The Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) issued ESB No.
ESB-301/2017 to WWF on 25 August 2017.
As per the ESB, the purpose of this EIA study is to provide information on the nature and extent
of environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project and
associated works that will take place concurrently. This information will contribute to decisions
by the Director of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on:
1. The overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that are likely to arise
as a result of the Project.
2. The conditions and requirements for the detailed design, construction and operation of the
Project to mitigate against adverse environmental consequences wherever practicable.
3. The acceptability of residual impacts after proposed mitigation measures are implemented.
As per the ESB, the objectives of the EIA Study are:
1. To describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements and
environmental benefits for carrying out the proposed project.
Introduction
1-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
2. To identify and describe the elements of the community and environment likely to be
affected by the Project and/or likely to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both
the natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints.
3. To identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on
sensitive receivers and potential affected uses.
4. To identify and quantify any potential losses or damage to flora, fauna and natural habitats.
5. To propose the provision of infrastructure or mitigation measures so as to minimise pollution,
environmental disturbance and nuisance during construction and operation of the Project.
6. To investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation
measures.
7. To identify, predict and evaluate the residual (i.e. After practicable mitigation) environmental
impacts and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation
phases of the project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses.
8. To identify, assesses and specify methods, measures and standards to be included in the
detailed design, construction and operation of the Project, which are necessary to mitigate
residual environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels.
9. To design and specify the environmental monitoring and audit requirements.
10. To identify any additional studies necessary to implement the mitigation measures or
monitoring and proposals recommended in the EIA report.
1.4 Structure of this EIA Report
The EIA Report is presented in five volumes. Volume I: Main Text is this document, and following
this introductory section, the remainder of Volume I is as follows:
Section 2 – Description of Project. Describes the background of MPNR, the current
management of MPNR and justifies the purpose and objectives of the Project; provides
details of the Project Elements initially proposed in the Project Profile, those included in the
revised concept design, and finally the preferred options taken forward to schematic design,
and the justifications for these changes; and discusses the background and history of the
Project, including the role of the Mai Po Habitat Management Plan and the proposed
construction methodology and sequence.
Section 3 – Air Quality Impact. Assesses the potential air quality impact on representative
Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) due to the construction of the Project and associated works.
Section 4 – Noise Impact. Assesses potential noise impact on representative Noise Sensitive
Receivers (NSRs) due to the construction of the Project and associated works (see also
Appendix A).
Section 5 – Water Quality Impact. Assesses potential water quality impact due to the
construction and operation of the Project and associated works, including but not limited to
construction site drainage, discharge of stormwater, surface runoff and treated effluent
generated from the facilities taking into account the cumulative impact from the existing,
committed and planned projects in the vicinity of the Project (see also Appendix B).
Section 6 – Waste Management Implications. Assesses potential waste management
implications arising from the construction and operation of the Project and associated works.
Section 7 – Ecological Impact. Assesses potential ecological impact due to the Project and
associated works (see also Appendix C).
Section 8 – Fisheries Impact. Assesses potential fisheries impact due to the Project and
associated works.
Section 9 – Landscape and Visual Impacts. Assessment of potential landscape and visual
impacts due to the construction and operation of the Project and associated works (see also
Appendix D).
Introduction
1-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Section 10 – Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements. Presents the
recommended EM&A programme for the Project; and provides a Project Implementation
Schedule (see also Appendix E).
Section 11 – Summary Information. Provides a summary of environmental outcomes;
summary of environmental impacts; documentation of key assessment assumptions; summary
of alternative options and mitigation; and documentation of public concerns (see also
Appendices F and G).
Section 12 – Conclusion. Concludes the overall acceptability of the Project.
Volume II: Figures contains the A4-size and A3-size figures referred to in the Main Text.
Volume III: Appendices provides supplementary information as follows:
Appendix A – Noise Impact. Provides supplementary information for the noise impact
assessment, including background noise measurement data, photographs of NSRs,
construction plant inventory and construction noise impact calculations.
Appendix B – Water Quality Impact. Provides supplementary information for the water
quality assessment, i.e. water quality record for gei wai.
Appendix C – Ecological Impact. Lists of species recorded in MPNR – both during this study
and previously by others. Species cover plants, mammals, birds (including Black-faced
Spoonbill), amphibians, reptiles, odonates, butterflies, and aquatic fauna including fish.
Appendix D – Landscape and Visual Impact. Provides supplementary information for the
LVIA, including the Tree Preservation Application for MPNR and the phasing arrangement for
construction of the tower hides and footpaths in terms of visual impact.
Appendix E – Project-wide Implementation Schedule. This contains all the EIA study
recommendations and mitigation measures referenced to the implementation programme.
Appendix F – Correspondence with the Authority. Correspondence between SMEC/aec and
relevant Authorities regarding agreement on assessment approach and parameters.
Appendix G – Documentation of Public Concerns. A summary of the main concerns raised by
Mai Po stakeholders, i.e. the general public, special interest groups and relevant
statutory/advisory bodies as received and responded to by WWF.
Volume IV: EM&A Manual is the stand-alone EM&A Manual for the statutory EM&A programme.
Volume V: Executive Summary provides a summary of the scope and findings of the EIA Study
and is presented in English and Chinese.
Description of the Project
2-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
2.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Project
Overview
In 2015, WWF-Hong Kong received a grant for the proposed Project, which aims to create a 21
st
Century Nature Classroom that provides the facilities needed by students, teachers, public
visitors, families, community groups, and those interested in wetlands research and wetlands
training. This includes creating universal access to experience nature. This is in support of WWF’s
mission to create a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.
In preparing this EIA submission, WWF undertook a thorough study of the proposed design,
construction and operation of the Project to mitigate against adverse environmental
consequence wherever practical. This process was carried out in conjunction with Mai Po
stakeholders comprised of the general public; special interest groups, in particular green groups
and local villagers; and relevant statutory/advisory bodies, including EPD, the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) and the Education Bureau (“EDB”), as well as
the Project architects, designers and technical consultants.
An examination of the overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences likely to
arise as a result of the Project, and the acceptability of residual impacts after proposed mitigation
measures, resulted in an alteration of the Project Elements stated in PP-554/2017 and ESB-
301/2017. This included a change to the number of Project Elements, as well as the methods,
measures and standards to be included in the design, construction and operation of the Project.
In preparing PP-554/2017, the Project Proponent identified the most similar off-site project as
the development of the Hong Kong Wetland Park, and the Project Profile “An Extension to the
Existing Boardwalk and New Floating Mudflat Bird-watching Hide at Mai Po Nature Reserve for
Education and Conservation Purposes" (DIR-139.2006), which was submitted for permission to
apply directly for an Environmental Permit (“EP”). PP-554/2017 noted that there have been no
similar works, other than the boardwalk extension and floating mudflat bird hide, carried out in
the vicinity of or with MPNR since it was originally established.
Like the Hong Kong Wetland Park, MPNR is a landmark in wetland conservation education,
indeed, as mentioned in AFCD’s Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Management Plan 2011,
both the Hong Kong Wetland Park and MPNR serve the Ramsar Communication, Education,
Participation and Awareness (“CEPA”) programme for different target visitors. Hong Kong
Wetland Park and MPNR will continue their roles to complement each other in the CEPA
implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Hong Kong.
As outlined in AFCD’s Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Management Plan 2011, the CEPA
programme for MPNR offers various educational walks, special tours, and workshops to the
general public. Since 1991, WWF has organized the Wetland Management Training Programme at
the MPNR for wetland managers and decision makers, who are responsible for the management
and conservation of wetlands in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway for migratory waterbirds.
While the CEPA activities of MPNR and the Hong Kong Wetland Park are complementary, the
link between the proposed infrastructure upgrade at MPNR, and the 10,000m
2
visitor centre at
Hong Kong Wetland Park, is no longer pertinent given the reduced number of Project Elements
and the adjustments to the design, the construction and operation methods, following the
advice of Mai Po stakeholders.
In fact, the reduced scope of the Project has highlighted its similarity to the regular
infrastructure work carried out under the Mai Po Habitat Management Plan 2019-2024 and the
boardwalk extension and new floating mudflat hide constructed at MPNR in 2006, for which
permission to apply directly for an EP was given.
Description of the Project
2-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
As the city’s leading NGO, WWF plays an important role in ensuring that the public is aware of
biodiversity and its values by supporting community education and working with partner
networks and organisations. In proposing this infrastructure upgrade, WWF is aligning its goals
with key actions set out in the government’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (“BSAP”) and
Aichi Biodiversity Target 1.
BSAP Action 20b aims to “promote awareness and community involvement through citizen
science monitoring programmes,” Action 21b aims to “engage NGOs to provide capacity building
for teachers on biodiversity” and 21c aims to “engage the resources for early childhood
education on nature conservation”.
Aichi Target 1 states, “By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and
the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably”. The zero draft of the post-2020
global biodiversity framework was released on 13 January 2020. The draft noted that a post-
2020 framework should be accompanied by an inspirational and motivating 2030 mission as a
stepping stone towards the 2050 Vision of “Living in Harmony with Nature”, and that it should
be supported by a comprehensive and innovative communication strategy.
Visitor to MPNR enter on permits issued by AFCD and AFCD has supplied WWF with permits for
365 people. Visits organised by WWF are all guided by WWF staff who ensure that visitors follow
the visitor guidelines. Public visits to MPNR began in 1985. By the early 1990s, visitor numbers
were in excess of 35,000 per year, hitting a peak of over 45,000 in 2002, and stabilising at
around 40,000 per year for the remainder of that decade. These figures are based on records
from Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Management Plan. Due to the commencement of
operations at Hong Kong Wetland Park, the number of visitors to MPNR dropped to 24,000 per
year. The Project Proponent targets 32,000 visitors per year by 3 years after the completion of
the build, which is less than the number that visited Mai Po during its peak.
Mai Po has left an indelible impact on a wide range of people, from students and researchers to
birdwatchers. They come to Mai Po to discover Hong Kong’s rich local biodiversity, the latest
scientific research methods and to learn about conservation. At MPNR our community can
“Connect with Nature” to better understand the need to protect wetlands and biodiversity.
The Project aims to highlight to all visitors the beauty and importance of nature in their own
lives. Visitors can discover biodiversity year-round, have opportunities to observe the reserve’s
bird life, and connect to nature. For more than three decades, the biodiversity of over 2,050
species at MPNR has served to educate and enlighten Hong Kongers from all walks of life.
With the Project in Place
The Project will facilitate universal access and provision of new educational components through
the provision of two new Tower Hides and the replacement of the existing footpaths with
boardwalks. The Mai Po Education Centre will also be refurbished internally for safe and flexible
provision for public education programme. With enhancement of the hardware of the public
education programme, the software/ programming can be further developed and diversified for
the general public.
In other words, the Project will provide opportunities to empower people from different
backgrounds and sectors of society with important knowledge about wetland and environmental
protection and sustainable development in a unique natural setting. In doing so, the Project will
also help government achieve some of the actions set out in BSAP.
Without the Project in Place
If the Project does not go ahead, MPNR will be left with its existing aging infrastructure – some
of it more than 30 years old – that cannot cope with the demands of the community; WWF will
not be able to help government achieve BSAP Actions 21b and 21c; it will remain difficult to
monitor the southern part of MPNR; and WWF will not be able to realise their aspirations to
transform Mai Po into a first class learning institute.
Description of the Project
2-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Furthermore, organisations that use MPNR, such as the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
(HKBWS), will not be able to benefit from the provision of the new Tower Hides.
2.2 Details of the Project
Location
MPNR is located in Yuen Long District in the north of Hong Kong. Within Yuen Long District is the
1,540ha Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. This was recognised in 1995 as a “Wetland of
International Importance” and acts as a key way station and wintering site along the East Asian-
Australasian Flyway through which 50 million migratory water birds travel each year.
Within the Ramsar Site is the 427.5ha Mai Po Marshes SSSI. This comprises 372.1ha zoned as
“SSSI” (Tai Long Kei and Shek Shan) and 55.4ha zoned as “SSSI(1)” (Lut Chau) on the approved
Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6, which was gazetted on 18
February 2005.
Within the Mai Po Marshes SSSI is the 372.1ha MPNR (corresponding to the “SSSI” (Tai Long Kei
and Shek Shan) zone) and within MPNR is the 211.7ha Project Site, which is land leased by WWF
from government.
To the east and south of the Project Site there is an area zoned “Conservation Area” (CA) on the
OZP, in which there are a number of fish farms and abandoned fish ponds. The planning
intention of the "CA" zone is to conserve the ecological value of wetland and fishponds. Outside
the “CA” zone to the southeast of the Project Site lies the Fairview Park residential development.
To the south of the Site, at Lut Chau, there are more fishponds located in an area zoned “SSSI(1)”
on the OZP. The northern and western boundary of the Project Site abut the Frontier Closed
Area Boundary (boundary road and fence), beyond which are mangroves and then Deep Bay.
The Project Site and its environs are shown on Figure 2-1.
Project Elements
Project Profile No. PP-554/2017 and the ESB covered the construction and operation of one or
more of the following Project Elements and associated works, such as upgrading of existing
access tracks/bunds:
1. Refurbishment of the Mai Po Education Centre (“MPEC”)
2. Widening of the existing footpath (“New Boardwalk”)
3. Construction of new Tower Hide (“TH2”)
4. Expansion of existing Tower Hide (“TH1”)
5. Construction of new Tower Hide (“TH1E”)
6. Construction of new “Circular Route” footpath
For a variety of reasons, three of the above Elements have been removed from the Project; two
carried forward with adjustments; and one carried forward without adjustments, as shown on
Figure 2-2. A description of the Project Elements and the reasons for adjustments, is given
below.
Refurbishment of Mai Po Education Centre (MPEC)
This Element has been removed from the Project. While the MPEC building structure is sound,
the facilities it offers are no longer considered to be adequate. It was intended to comprise
internal refurbishment and the upgrade of Fire Services installations, which included structural
works with a water tank and pump room adjacent to the MPEC. The Project Proponent has
resolved to only move forward with an internal renovation of the facilities, requiring no structural
works adequate for use of the area for educational purposes, both by schools and public.
Description of the Project
2-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Widening of the Existing Footpath (New Boardwalk)
This Element remains in the Project, with adjustments. The concrete footpath running between
the MPNR entrance and the MPEC to the existing TH1 and the new TH3 (formerly referred to as
“TH1E”) is in a poor state of repair, cracked and in some places subsiding, making passage
challenging for some visitors. Currently, when visitors encounter other groups, or stop to watch
birds or wildlife, there is no space for others to pass, forcing visitors to step off the path. This is
particularly problematic for wheelchair users. Additionally, there are no safety features to
prevent wheelchairs from going off the path. The original intention was to break up and remove
the old concrete footpath, laying a new concrete path in its place. The new path was designed to
provide universal access, with six Education Areas (“EAs”) utilising interactive materials. The plan
also made provision for seven wheelchair passing bays. The shape of the concrete path was
designed to not affect adjacent trees or their roots. Any concrete footpath, however, may result
in fragmentation of habitat for reptiles and small mammals. As such, the design was reconceived
as a raised wooden boardwalk over the original concrete path. The raised wooden boardwalk
design, including the six interactive EAs and seven passing bays, as shown on Figure 2-3, ensures
no fragmentation of habitat and fully meets the needs for visitors, researchers, and for
educational purposes.
Construction of New Tower Hide (TH2)
This Element remains in the Project. As a feature of the infrastructure upgrade, the Project
Proponent recognised the need for more than one tower hide, in appropriate locations, to
accommodate the different needs of researchers, school groups and public visitors. The increase
in elevation that a tower hide affords, not only gives a view over a greater area of habitat than a
one-storey hide, but provides occlusion for a larger part of the reserve. As shown on Figure 2-4,
TH2 is planned to be built on the bund between gei wai 19/20, facing towards gei wai 20e, for
research work.
TH2 is a new three-storey tower hide, modelled on the design of the existing TH1 at gei wai 8
and hence will be of the same height. Photo of the existing TH1 is shown in Photograph 2-1,
below, for reference. TH2 is essentially a 7.9m three storey, metal-framed structure, clad in
“Onduline” (a brand of lightweight roofing and cladding material) for water proofing. Some
internal components such as window frames, and floors will be made of wood coated in fire
retardant paint. The Onduline roof will further be overlaid with racks that support solar panels,
which will take the height of TH2 to 8.4m. Batteries on the ground floor will store electricity that
will be used to power minimal floor lighting, internal fans and WiFi. No toilets or washrooms will
be provided.
This area of the reserve is of particular value for the observation of raptors in MPNR and
required a hide of several storeys. This area is generally off-limits to public and school visitors,
and is primarily used for research purposes. Previously, there was a temporary two-storey tower
hide at this location, facing gei wai 23. This tower hide was removed as it became dilapidated,
but one is needed by the research team to fulfil the requirements of Mai Po Inner Deep Bay
Ramsar Site Management Plan. This area in the south of the reserve is ideal for research on
waterbirds that utilise rain-fed ponds, open-water gei wai, and reedbeds. Researchers should be
able to use bird hides, reducing disruption to wildlife. The location was selected to meet
research needs, and the hide is designed to have no effect on species, particularly trees or their
roots. The work will also involve constructing an access path leading towards the hide from bund
between gei wai 18/19. The access path will be a raised wooden boardwalk, similar to the “new
boardwalk” described above, which will preventing any habitat fragmentation for reptiles and
small mammals. Visitors could reach this access path from the entrance of MPNR along the “new
boardwalk” and the existing bund between gei wai 18/19 that no additional boardwalk would be
required other than this access path.
Description of the Project
2-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Photograph 2-1 Existing Tower Hide 1
Expansion of Existing Tower Hide (TH1)
This Element has been removed from the Project. TH1 is an existing tower hide located at gei
wai 8a. The tower hide was intended to be partially demolished and extended in order to
facilitate separate groups of public, school visitors, and researchers. Researchers have greater
space needs due to their extensive equipment, and on average they utilise the hides for a longer
period of time than school and public visitor groups. The Project Proponent wants to ensure that
research work can continue in hides undisturbed, while also raising public awareness and
education of the importance of wetlands and their conservation. The tower hide was planned as
a three-storey structure expansion. It was found that to provide the expansion the footing may
cause an adverse impact on nearby trees and roots, and therefore the Project Proponent did not
proceed with this element. Instead, a new location near to gei wai 8a was conceived where such
impacts could be avoided, to be delivered as TH1E.
Construction of New Tower Hide (TH3, formerly TH1E)
This Element remains in the Project, with some adjustments and has been renamed TH3. It is a
new three-storey tower hide that follows the same design as the new TH2, discussed above. TH3
is planned to be built on the bund between gei wais 7 and 8, facing towards gei wai 8a, as shown
on Figure 2-5. The area to the west of TH3 is ideal for viewing and learning about waterbirds
that utilise rain-fed ponds, open-water gei wai, and reedbeds. The Project Proponent has
designed the location of the hide to ensure that visitors are occluded on the reserve as much as
possible when stopping to view waterbirds. As such, public and students will use bird hides
wherever possible. The location and construction of the hide is designed to have no effect on
trees or their roots. The work will also involve constructing an access path leading towards TH3
from bund #9. The access path will be a raised wooden boardwalk, similar to the “new
boardwalk” described above, which will prevent any habitat fragmentation for reptiles and small
mammals. Following the construction of TH3, there will be two tower hides in this location. They
are the closest hides to the entrance of the reserve. The Project Proponent plans to further
implement the strategy of facilitating separate groups of public, school visitors, and researchers.
Construction of New “Circular Route” Footpath
This Element has been removed from the Project. The “circular route” footpath was conceived
to provide alternative access to TH3, and for shorter visits to the reserve. It was planned to run
roughly parallel with the AFCD footpath. This element was removed from the project due to
concerns over concrete mixing and loss of habitat.
Description of the Project
2-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Update to Project Elements after Stakeholder Views
Since the Project initiation document in 2015, WWF has conducted a series of consultations with
Mai Po stakeholders comprising the general public; special interest groups, in particular green
groups and local villagers; and relevant statutory/advisory bodies, including EPD, AFCD and EDB.
The Project Elements as outlined above (and in PP-554/2017 and ESB-301/2017) have
undergone revisions based on feedback received in our consultations, and have been reduced to
just three Elements. Two of those Elements have also been further adjusted based on the
feedback WWF received from stakeholders. See Table 2-1, below, for details.
The six Project Elements described in PP-554/2017 and ESB-301/2017, comprising work on three
tower hides, two footpaths, and a refurbishment of MPEC, have been reduced to just three
Elements with adjustments, comprising work on two tower hides and one footpath, following
consultation meetings.
As outlined in Table 2-1, below, stakeholder views provided a good level of input on Project
Elements that can be delivered with a greater acceptability of any adverse environmental and
residual impacts.
Consideration of Development Options
Since the issue of the Project Profile (i.e. the initial development option) in 2017, the Project
Elements have moved to concept design (i.e. the revised development option) and to schematic
design (i.e. the preferred development option), taking into account environmental impacts
relating to air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, ecology, fisheries and landscape
and visual impact. Table 2-2, below, summarises how these potential environmental impacts
shaped and improved upon the design of the original Project Elements.
Description of the Project
2-7
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 2-1 Update to Project Elements after Stakeholder Views
REFURBISHMENT OF
MPEC
WIDENING OF EXISTING
FOOTPATH (NEW BOARDWALK)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
TOWER HIDE (TH2)
EXPANSION OF EXISTING
TOWER HIDE (TH1)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
TOWER HIDE (TH3)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
“CIRCULAR ROUTE” PATH
SITING
Concerns over the
extent of structural
changes at MPEC led
to removal of project
element and internal
renovation only.
No comments from stakeholders
requiring update to element.
Concerns over disruption
to wildlife led to decision
to build tower hide. This
tower hide best meets
raptor and south reserve
research requirements.
Concerns over impact on
tree roots led to a
decision to remove
project element.
Concerns over disruption to
wildlife led to decision to build
tower hide. This tower hide
best meets public and school
education requirements.
Concerns over loss of
habitat due to location of
footing on “mangrove
islands” led to decision to
remove project element.
ALIGNMENT
No comments from
stakeholders
requiring update to
element.
Concerns over impact on tree
roots led to a change in
alignment of footpath. Concerns
over habitat fragmentation led to
raised boardwalk design.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
Concerns over impact on tree
roots led to a change in
alignment of footpath and
ramp.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
SIZE
Concerns over the
extent of structural
changes at MPEC led
to removal of project
element and internal
renovation only.
Concerns over impact on
trees/roots led to widening only
for accessibility, EAs and passing
bays, without impact to trees.
Concerns over the visual
impact of a 4-storey
tower hide led decision
to only building 3-storeys
Concerns over habitat
fragmentation led to
raised boardwalk design.
Concerns over the visual
impact of a 4-storey tower
hide led decision to only
building 3-storeys.
Concerns over loss of
habitat due to location of
footing on “mangrove
islands” led to decision to
remove project element.
DESIGN
Concerns over the fragmentation
of habitat led to a boardwalk
design 6cm above the old
footpath.
Concerns over impact on tree
roots led to a change in
alignment of footpath and
ramp. Concerns over habitat
fragmentation led to raised
boardwalk design.
Concerns over use of
concrete and footing on
“mangrove islands” led to
decision to remove
project element.
CONSTRUCTION
METHODS
Concerns over concrete mixing
and concrete dust generation
from breaking up the old path
led to the decision to create a
wooden structure above old
footpath made from element
fabricated off-site.
Concerns over onsite
concrete mixing led to
decision to conduct off-
site concrete mixing and
prefabrication of
elements.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring update
to element.
Concerns over concrete
mixing led to decision to
remove project element.
SEQUENCE OF
CONSTRUCTION
No comments from
stakeholders
requiring update to
element.
Concerns over onsite concrete
mixing led to decision to
conduct off-site concrete
mixing and prefabrication of
elements.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
ACCESS
ARRANGEMENT
No comments from
stakeholders
requiring update to
element.
No comments from stakeholders
requiring update to element.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
Concerns over impact on tree
roots led to a change in
alignment of footpath and
ramp.
No comments from
stakeholders requiring
update to element.
OUTCOME
PROJECT ELEMENT
REMOVED
PROJECT ELEMENT RETAINED
PROJECT ELEMENT
RETAINED
PROJECT ELEMENT
REMOVED
PROJECT ELEMENT RETAINED
PROJECT ELEMENT
REMOVED
Description of the Project
2-8
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 2-2 Consideration of Environmental Impact of Development Options and Resulting Changes to Project Elements
CRITERION
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
INITIAL
(PROJECT PROFILE)
REVISED
(CONCEPT DESIGN)
PREFERRED (THE PROJECT)
(SCHEMATIC DESIGN)
EXTERNAL WATER TANK STRUCTURE AT MPEC; 3-
STOREY TH2; EXPANSION OF TH1; CONCRETE “CIRCULAR
ROUTE”; CONCRETE FOOTPATH EXTENSIONS
EXTERNAL WATER TANK STRUCTURE AT MPEC; 4-STOREY
TH2; EXPANSION OF TH1; PREFABRICATED RC SLAB
“CIRCULAR ROUTE” AND FOOTPATH EXTENSIONS
3-STOREY TH2 AND TH3; WOODEN BOARDWALKS OVER
EXISTING FOOTPATH WITH EXTENSION TO NEW HIDES
AIR
Dust from breaking concrete footpath, and on-site
construction of tower hides, and vehicle and dust
emissions resulting from vehicle movements
transporting heavy construction materials.
Leaving existing concrete paths in situ, and off-site
fabrication of footpath and tower hides, as far as
possible, to reduce on-site dust generation and
vehicle emissions.
Wooden boardwalk above concrete footpaths and
assembly on-site with manual labour, plus off-site
concrete mixing for tower hide foundations, and
off-site prefabrication of steel/wood structures,
minimises dust and vehicle emissions.
NOISE
Noise from PME used for breaking concrete
footpath, on-site construction of tower hides, and
vehicle movements transporting heavy
construction materials.
No PME required for concrete removal, off-site
fabrication of footpath sections and tower hides, and
off-site concrete mixing, reduces noise and onsite
construction. Transportation of heavy construction
materials remains.
Wooden boardwalk above concrete footpaths and
fewer tower hide sections assembled with manual
labour on site, reduces the need for PME and
minimises noise. Transportation of heavy
construction from site is significantly reduced.
WATER
Potential runoff in the event of cement mixing on-
site reaching gei wai and local water courses.
Off-site concrete mixing minimises concrete runoff.
Off-site pre-fabrication, off-site concrete mixing,
and reduced tower hide materials, further
minimises runoff.
WASTE
Significant quantity of waste concrete from
removal of footpath and from on-site construction.
Some waste incurred from tower hide extension.
Less waste from on-site construction due to off-site
pre-fabrication, but still waste from existing concrete
footpath removal. Minimal waste from new tower
hides approach, i.e. building the new TH3 instead of
partially demolishing and extending the existing TH1.
Minimum waste generation as no concrete waste
from footpath removal. Minimal waste from new
tower hide construction approach, i.e. building the
new TH3 instead of partially demolishing and
extending the existing TH1.
ECOLOGY
Loss of bund vegetation due to “Circular Route”
concrete path, widening of existing concrete paths,
and damage to tree roots from TH1 extension. TH2
no such concerns, with no impact to trees or roots.
“Circular Route” and existing concrete footpaths
improved as wooden boardwalk, however, concerns
over some loss of wetland for “Circular Route”, and
damage to tree roots from TH1 extension. TH2 no
such concerns, with no impact to trees or roots.
“Circular Route” route not pursued. TH1 extension
replaced by TH3, which is a three-story hide with
reduced ramp length with no impact to trees or
roots. TH2 no such concerns, of similar design, with
no impact to trees or roots.
FISHERIES
Potential runoff to adjacent fish ponds due to
breaking main concrete footpath that runs
alongside, and cement mixing on-site.
Off-site cement mixing minimises concrete runoff to
adjacent fishponds.
Wooden boardwalk situated above concrete path
eliminates risk of concrete runoff.
LANDSCAPE
& VISUAL
New external water tank structure at MPEC, 3-
storey TH2, Expansion of TH1 and the concrete
“Circular Route” will have limited visual impact.
New external water tank structure at MPEC, 4-storey
TH2, expansion of TH1 will have limited visual impact,
but less for boardwalk “Circular Route”.
No impact from MPEC external works or “Circular
Route” as not pursued. 3-storey TH2; TH3; wooden
boardwalks over existing footpath with extension
to new hides is visually in keeping with the nature
reserve’s setting.
Key:
Severe Impact
High Impact
Moderate Impact
Low/Negligible Impact
Description of the Project
2-9
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Construction of the Project
A site hoarding/fencing will be erected, likely light fencing, subject to Buildings Department
(“BD”) requirements, and adjusted to the size of works area.
A detailed plant inventory showing the types and quantities of Powered Mechanical Equipment
(“PME”) to be used during construction is discussed in Section 4. The speed of construction
vehicles within the Project Site will be limited to 20km/h to minimise noise and dust emission.
Tower Hides
The construction of TH2 and TH3 will be in two phases; Phase 1 for footings, to be carried out
from mid April to mid May 2022; and while Phase 2 for superstructure, to be carried out from
September to mid October in 2022. The works will comprise the following:
1. Phase 1 – Construction of Footings:
a. MPNR staff temporarily lower (draw-down) the water level in gei wais 7, 8a, 19 and 20e
in accordance with the latest Mai Po Management Plan 2019-2024
b. Excavate to the required level
c. Off-site prefabrication of Reinforced Concrete (“RC”) footing
d. Lay blinding layer at excavation level
e. Erect timber formwork shutter to the footing
f. Rebar fixing work to the footing with starter bars for columns and walls
g. Construction of substructure
h. Rebar fixing to stud walls/columns
i. Timber formwork erection to stud walls/columns
j. Concreting to stud walls/columns and allow it to cure
k. Backfill footing with soil
2. Phase 2 – Construction of Superstructure:
a. Install steel column, beams and bracing between G/F and 1/F by pulley
b. Repeat above to build up steel main structure up to roof level
c. Installation of floors, stairway, and façade and other necessary components, e.g.
handrails, wooden chairs, windows and doors, and equipment
d. Apply intumescent paint to steelwork and woodwork
e. MPNR staff raise the water level in gei wais 7, 8a, 19 and 20e back to the original level in
accordance with the latest Mai Po Management Plan 2019-2024
For TH2, construction of footings will require a works area of 835m
2
and construction of
superstructure will require a works area of 355m
2
. For TH3, construction of footings will require
a works area of 940m
2
and construction of superstructure will require a works area of 350m
2
.
For both tower hides, the works area is assumed to be cleared bare ground, which could be a
potential source of dust and also of muddy runoff during rainstorms.
Boardwalk and EAs
The new boardwalk will be around 1.65m wide. The boardwalk for the Main Footpath (921m-
long) and for Access to TH1 (66m-long) will be constructed above the existing 1.5m-wide
concrete footpath, which will not be removed. The boardwalk for Access to TH2 (156m-long), for
Access to TH3 (85m-long) and for the EAs (various dimensions) will be constructed above natural
ground.
Construction of the boardwalks will be carried out in sections, each up to 100m in length. The
works will comprise the following:
1. Lay pre-fabricated wooden decking sections over existing concrete footpath at 2m spacing
either side of the new footpath alignment, with sections for EAs and passing bays
2. Connect horizontal bracing between sections
3. Bolt the pre-fabricated wooden decking sections onto the horizontal bracing
Description of the Project
2-10
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The new boardwalk is intended to be installed in three phases to minimise impacts to visitors
and maximise access to the reserve and MPEC through diversions. Each phase will take roughly
three weeks to complete and the works will start from MPNR entrance towards MPEC. The
phased construction traffic and visitor routes during construction and thereafter are shown
schematically in Appendix D2.
For the Main Footpath and the Accesses to TH1, TH2 and TH3, the works area will include the
1.65m-wide boardwalk plus up to 1.5m on each side, i.e. 1.5m + 1.65m + 1.5m = 4.65m wide. As
the boardwalk will be constructed in 100m lengths, the maximum works area at any one time
will be 4.65m x 100m = 465m
2
.
The Main Footpath and Access to TH1 boardwalks will be constructed above the existing 1.5m-
wide concrete footpath, which is not considered to be bare ground. Therefore, for the Main
Footpath and Access to TH1, the area of bare ground will be smaller than the works area. For a
typical 4.65m width of works area, 1.5m will be the existing concrete path, and 3.15m will be
cleared bare ground on each side. So, for a typical 100m length, of the 465m
2
works area, 1.5m x
100m = 150m
2
will be the existing concrete footpath and 3.15m x 100m = 315m
2
will be cleared
bare ground. For the Accesses to TH2 and TH3 there is no existing concrete footpath, and
therefore all of the 465m
2
works area is assumed to be cleared bare ground.
For construction of the six EAs along the Main Footpath, the works area will be up to 2m on each
side (except the side that abuts the boardwalk of the Main Footpath, which is counted as part of
the Main Footpath works area). The total works area will be 299m
2
, all of which is assumed to be
cleared bare ground. The largest EA will have a works area of 53.2m
2
and will be constructed
next to a 100m section of new boardwalk above the main footpath, which would have cleared
bare ground of 315m
2
, giving a maximum combined area of cleared bare ground of 353.2m
2
,
which is less than that for a 100m section of boardwalk.
Bare ground could be a potential source of dust and also of muddy runoff during rainstorms.
Table 2-3, below, and Figure 2-3, summarise the boardwalk areas, the works areas and the bare
ground areas for the boardwalks and EAs. The total area of bare ground cleared for boardwalk
construction will be 4,529.2m
2
. However, as only up to 100m length of boardwalk will be
installed at a time, the maximum area of bare ground at any one time due to boardwalk
installation is only 465m
2
.
Description of the Project
2-11
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 2-3 Bare Ground Area Cleared for Boardwalk Construction
DESCRIPTION
BOARDWALK AREA
WORKS AREA
BARE GROUND AREA
LENGTH (m)
WIDTH (m)
AREA (m
2
)
LENGTH (m)
WIDTH (m)
AREA (m
2
)
LENGTH (m)
WIDTH (m)
AREA (m
2
)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BOARDWALKS ABOVE EXISTING FOOTPATHS
Main Footpath
921.0
1.65
1,519.7
921.0
4.65
4282.65
921.0
3.15
#
2,901.2
Access to TH1
66.0
1.65
108.9
66.0
4.65
306.9
66.0
3.15
#
207.9
1,628.6
4,589.6
3,109.1
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BOARDWALKS TO ACCESS NEW TOWER HIDES
Access to TH2
156.0
1.65
257.4
156.0
4.65
725.4
156.0
4.65
725.4
Access to TH3
85.0
1.65
140.3
85.0
4.65
395.3
85.0
4.65
395.3
397.7
1,120.7
1,120.7
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BOARDWALKS FOR EAs
EA No. 1*
2.0 + 3.8
1.8 + 1.8
3.6 + 6.8
6.0 + 7.8
3.8 + 3.8
22.8 + 29.6
6.0 + 7.8
3.8 + 3.8
22.8 + 29.6
EA No. 2
10.0
1.8
18.0
14.0
3.8
53.2
14.0
3.8
53.2
EA No. 3
4.4
1.0
4.4
8.4
3.0
25.2
8.4
3.0
25.2
EA No. 4*
3.2 + 4.8
1.8 + 1.8
5.8 + 8.6
7.2 + 8.8
3.8 + 3.8
27.4 + 33.4
7.2 + 8.8
3.8 + 3.8
27.4 + 33.4
EA No. 5
8.0
1.8
14.4
12.0
3.8
45.6
12.0
3.8
45.6
EA No. 6*
1.4 + 4.9
3.5 + 1.7
4.9 + 8.3
5.4 + 8.9
5.5 + 3.7
29.7 + 32.5
5.4 + 8.9
5.5 + 3.7
29.7 + 32.5
74.6
299.4
299.4
TOTAL BOARDWALK AREA
2,100.9
TOTAL WORKS AREA
6,009.7
TOTAL BARE GROUND AREA
4,529.2
Notes:
#
For Construction of New Boardwalks Above Existing Footpaths, since there is an existing 1.5m wide concrete footpaths that will not be removed and does not count as bare ground, the width of bare
ground area is therefore 4.65m - 1.5m = 3.15m. Thus, the works area for the Main Footpath is 4,282.65m
2
and for the Access to TH1 is 306.9m
2
, but the bare ground area is 2,901.2m
2
and 207.9m
2
,
respectively, the difference being the area of the existing 1.5m wide concrete path.
* These EAs comprise two sections, each shown separately.
Description of the Project
2-12
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Operation of the Project
Visits organised by WWF are all guided by WWF staff who ensure that visitors act responsibly.
Tower hides and footpaths are screened to keep human disturbance to a minimum. With these
measures in place wildlife has, to some extent, become used to human presence within MPNR
but there is, nevertheless, an unavoidable impact caused by human presence.
The impact caused by human presence within MPNR is not simply to do with the number of
visitors, but also where they go and how long they remain within MPNR. In 2016 there were
approximately 24,100 visitors. The existing facilities within MPNR – MPEC, TH1, various
footpaths, boardwalks and bird hides – mean that visitors spent on average around four hours
within MPNR, concentrated at these few facilities.
Visitor-hours is considered to be a more holistic measure than visitor numbers, since this
accounts for the time visitors spend in MPEC. In 2016 there were 96,400 visitor-hours in MPNR,
or around 264 visitor-hours per day on average.
The Applicant anticipates an increase of 36% in visitor numbers by three years after the Project
is completed, equivalent to 32,800 visitors per year. However, with the provision of additional
facilities such as TH2, TH3, and improved indoor space at MPEC (from internal refurbishment),
the average duration of a visit will reduce from four hours to three hours or less and visitors will
spend less time moving around within MPNR. In terms of visitor-hours, this equates to 98,400
visitor-hours per year, or around 270 visitor-hours per day – an increase of just 6 visitor-hours
per day compared to the present. Furthermore, human presence with MPNR will be less
concentrated along the main footpath, MPEC and TH1 because TH2 and TH3 will also be
available to absorb visitors over a larger area of MPNR.
The new tower hides and associated access paths will be screened, as in the existing practice, to
keep human disturbance to a minimum. Based on a negligible (2%) increase in daily visitor-hours
coupled with a lower concentration of visitors at key locations within MPNR, it is considered that
the Project will not lead to any noticeable increase in environmental impact due to human
presence when compared to the current situation.
The increase in visitor numbers can be handled within the existing quota of visitors permitted by
AFCD and there is no intention to ask AFCD for any additional permits.
Overall, therefore, once the Project has been completed, there are not expected to be any
additional impacts resulting from the visitors’ use of the upgraded and new facilities.
Project Programme
November to March is the dry season and the most ecologically sensitive period within MPNR
when there are a high number of migratory water birds resident that may be susceptible to
outdoor construction work, particularly noise. Therefore, no noisy outdoor construction work
shall be permitted during this period. As a further precaution, a two-week buffer will also be
included before the start and after the end of this period. Thus, no noisy outdoor construction
work shall be permitted from mid-October to mid-April.
The construction programme for TH2 and TH3 is based around the planned drain-down of
adjacent gei wai as stipulated in the MPNR Management Plan. These planned drain-downs are
not specifically for the construction of TH2 and TH3 and would have occurred with or without
the Project. As such, these drain-downs do not form part of the works for TH2 and TH3, which
are merely making use of the fortuitous timing of the drain-down of adjacent gei wai. Details of
the MPNR Management Plan are provided in Section 2.3.
Figure 2-6 shows the works for the Project commencing in April 2022, after completion of the
planned drain down of gei wai for 2022 under the MPNR Management Plan. This means that the
construction of the Project will not be concurrent with planned maintenance works. In mid-May
2022 the Project works will stop for the habitat management and planned gei wai refill under
the MPNR Management Plan and recommence in early-September 2022 for completion in mid-
October 2022.
Description of the Project
2-13
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will not commence until end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project and so
there will be no cumulative impacts for these two projects.
2.3 Background and History of the Project
History of Mai Po
“Gei Wai” is a technique to rear shrimp in inter-tidal areas. Shrimp ponds – gei wai – were first
constructed around 1940-1945, when immigrants from China settled in the Deep Bay area and
brought this farming technique with them. Located where inter-tidal marshes and mangroves
occur, the original construction of gei wai required significant alteration of the natural mangrove
environment that existed at that time. Details of gei wai operation can be found in Historical
Management Practices of the Mai Po Gei Wai
[Ref.#
1
]
.
The gei wai at Mai Po are of great cultural significance as they are the only remaining examples
in Hong Kong. They are also one of the few traditionally (extensively) managed shrimp ponds
that remain in Asia, and are increasingly being seen as an example of the “wise use” of wetlands,
as gei wai operators utilise natural resources sustainably as livelihood without exhausting them,
and at the same time benefiting the wildlife without posing impact on the natural environment.
History of Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve started in 1982, the Hong Kong Government’s
Executive Council approved WWF’s request for permission to develop a nature reserve at MPNR.
On 2 September 1983, WWF was given its first license from the government for a portion of land
at MPNR next to Pond #15b for the purpose of erecting a small visitor centre, which was later
converted into a bird ringing station following construction of the Mai Po Marshes Wildlife
Education Centre (i.e. MPEC) in 1986.
In the intervening years, MPNR further developed its education and training programmes,
alongside habitat management and research. Between 1983 and 1995, WWF obtained licenses
for 24 gei wai. In relation to this Project, WWF has the licenses for gei wai 8a and #20e.
WWF currently manages and maintains 211.7ha of the 372.1ha MPNR, as well as a 45ha extent
of mudflat in the Inner Deep Bay. It is important to understand that while MPNR is an
ecologically sensitive area, it is not a pristine wilderness. It is a modified and actively managed
environment.
The Mai Po Habitat Management Plan
MPNR is actively managed by WWF to meet specific goals that are set out in the Mai Po Nature
Reserve Habitat Management, Monitoring and Research Plan (“the MPNR Management Plan”),
which is prepared according to the objectives and restrictions of the management zones of the
Ramsar site and covers a five years period. The current version is the MPNR Management Plan
2019-2024
[Ref.#
2
]
. In carrying out its management of MPNR, WWF is advised by the Mai Po
Management Committee – the most knowledgeable group of experts advising on the
management of MPNR – whose members include representatives from AFCD and HKBWS
together with independent wetlands and water birds experts.
The development and management of MPNR was established in 1983 with four aims:
1. Maintain, and if possible, increase the diversity of native wildlife in the area
2. Promote use of the area for educational purposes, both by schools and public, including
the provision of universal access
1
. Historical Management Practices of the Mai Po Gei Wai.
http://awsassets.wwfhk.panda.org/downloads/historical_management_practices_of_the_mai_po_gei_wai.pdf.
2
. Mai Po Nature Reserve Habitat Management, Monitoring and Research Plan, 2019-2024, published by WWF.
https://www.wwf.org.hk/en/reslib/programme_resources/water_wetlands/
Description of the Project
2-14
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
3. Provide facilities for training overseas personnel in wetland management and research
techniques
4. Promote scientific research
Please refer to Table 2-4 for an overview of how the Project Elements complement the goals of
the habitat management plan.
Table 2-4 Consideration of MPNR Management Objectives Supported by Project Elements
MPNR MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES
WIDENING OF EXISTING
FOOTPATH
(NEW BOARDWALK)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
TOWER HIDE 2
CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW TOWER HIDE 3
To maintain or increase
populations of priority
species by managing the
required habitat diversity
that integrates climate
adaptation strategies.
Replacing the concrete
footpath with a raised
wooden boardwalk will
decrease habitat
fragmentation
The location of the hide is
designed to ensure that
visitors are occluded as
much as possible.
Additionally, tower hides
provide occlusion for a
larger area of the reserve
The location of the hide
is designed to ensure
that visitors are
occluded as much as
possible. Additionally,
tower hides provide
occlusion for a larger
area of the reserve.
To raise public
awareness and
education of the
importance of wetlands
and their conservation,
including the provision of
universal access.
The wooden boardwalk
is conceived with six EAs
and seven wheelchair
passing bays. The EAs
will have interactive and
up-to-date information
on wetlands
N/A
The west of MPNR, at
gei wai 8a, is ideal for
public and students,
and this tower hide will
be purpose built for
such activities
To share experience and
knowledge with other
wetland staging areas in
the East Asian-
Australasian Flyway
(EAAF) for coordinated
conservation and
persistence of the EAAF
avian landscape.
N/A
The south of MPNR is ideal
for research, and
programmes such as
wetland management
training and this tower
hide will be purpose-built
for such activities
N/A
To establish Mai Po as a
regional centre of
excellence for wetland
research.
N/A
The south of MPNR, at gei
wai 20e, is a key area for
scientific research and this
tower hide will be purpose-
built for such activities
N/A
During the previous five-year MPNR Management Plan 2013-2018 recurrent work included
controlling vegetation on bunds, islands, channels, and pathways in and along the biodiversity
management zones and visitor areas; controlling invasive species; maintaining water quality and
levels; and draining gei wai to provide feeding habitats for waterbirds and to remove large,
predatory fish. Activities to control feral dogs were carried out, including programmes to trap,
neuter and release dogs. Equipment and infrastructure maintenance was also carried out. Major
habitat management included desilting gei wai channels (see Photograph 2-2 to Photograph
2-7, below), ponds, and reedbeds; restoring and building islands as planned to provide habitat;
and renovating and strengthening bunds.
Each year, specific gei wai within MPNR are drained in accordance with the planned schedule set
out in the five-year MPNR Management Plan – this activity has been part of the management of
MPNR for decades and is not related to the Project. When drained, the gei wai will be as shown
in Photograph 2-5 to Photograph 2-7 – large mud pits with dredging and digging of material by
machine carried out over several months during the summer.
Description of the Project
2-15
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Photograph 2-2 Desilting Channel (from Pontoon)
Photograph 2-3 Desilting Channel (from Land)
Photograph 2-4 Island Creation Within Drained-down Gei Wai
Description of the Project
2-16
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Photograph 2-5 Bulldozer Working on the Bed of a Drained-down Gei Wai
Photograph 2-6 Transferring Material during Drain-down of Gei Wai
Photograph 2-7 Excavators Working on Drained-down Gei Wai
Description of the Project
2-17
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The programme for construction of the three Project Elements is planned in accordance with
AFCD’s Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Management Plan 2011 and has been timed to tie-in
with the Management Plan 2019-2024, as shown in Table 2-5, below, which summarises the
latest updated timetable for capital and other works at MPNR during the period 2019 to 2024.
These include raising the floor of the hut at gei wai 14 by up to 0.5m above the Frontier Closed
Area (“FCA”) road; electrically-motorized sluice gate trial at gei wai 8; repairing the floor and
walls of the floating bird hide; repairing the floor of bird hides #5 and #6; and replacing the roof
and exterior wall of the gei wai museum
Specifically, the construction of footings for TH2 and TH3, have been aligned with the planned
draining of gei wais 19 and 20e as well as gei wais 7 and 8a, respectively, in spring 2022:
Gei wai 19 (TH2) desilting of channels at 19 and reconnecting 19a and 19b (requiring drain-
down).
Gei wai 20e (TH2) is one of the six sub-ponds (20a to 20e) that will be merged into one pond
to create deep water open areas for foraging, which includes re-profiling the pond floor
(requiring drain-down).
Gei wai 7 (TH3) drain-down to allow installation of a sluice gate to connect 7 and 8a.
Gei wai 8a (TH3) enhancement and connecting 8a and 7 (requiring drain-down).
By scheduling the construction of footings to align with the pre-arranged gei wai drain-down,
WWF will ensure that this aspect of construction avoids adverse water quality impacts
attributable to the Project – gei wais 7, 8a, 19 and 20e would have been drained anyway, with or
without the Project, and the resulting hydraulic isolation prevents any pollution of other gei wais
or Deep Bay. The gei wai draining scheduled is overseen by MPNR staff, and seeking approval
from the Mai Po Management Committee, whose members include academics from HKU, CUHK,
AFCD and HKBWS, together with independent wetlands and waterbird experts.
All infrastructure work scheduled under the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, including gei
wai draining, is carried out from April to October. As such, the Project Proponent has planned to
conduct all proposed infrastructure upgrade work during the same period.
Description of the Project
2-18
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 2-5 Five-year Work Timetable for Capital and Other Works at MPNR (NOT This Project)
CAPITAL WORK ITEM
YEAR 1
2019
YEAR 2
2020
YEAR 3
2021
YEAR 4
2022
YEAR 5
2023
Creation of 2ha deep water reedbed in GW #8b
H
Enhancement of reedbed at Pond #23b
H
Reprofile of Pond #24 f/g
H
*Desilting of channels and open water restoration
at GW #7
H
Desilting of perimeter channel and control of
vegetation encroaching perimeter channel at Pond
#16b
M
Desilting of channels and trial on electrically-
motorized sluice gate at GW #8b
H
Desilting of channels and open water restoration at
GW #6
H
Desilting of channels and trial on removing the
internal bunds in GW #12
H
M
*GW #8a enhancement and connecting GW #8a
with GW #7
H
Merging of the 6 sub-ponds (#20a to #20f) and
habitat enhancement at Pond #20
H
Desilting of channels at GW #19 and reconnecting
GW #19a and #19b
H
Desilting of channels at GW #18 and reconnect GW
#18a and #18b
H
Modification of Pond #15a or #15b into aquatic
plant demonstration site
L
Open water restoration at GW #3
M
Strategic tree management work:
Tree survey and planning
H
Phase I (GW #16, #17, #8, #11)
H
Phase II (BMZ 1, GW #21, Pond #20)
H
Phase III (GW #13, #14, #22, #23)
H
Phase IV (GW #18, GW #19, all paths, Pond #15)
H
Source: Summarised from Chapter 10 and Annex H of the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 (see
https://wwfhk.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/mpnr_management_plan_updated_version_june2021.pdf)
and its latest updates after the mid-term review in March 2021.
Note: * This table is an excerpt from the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and its latest updates, and illustrates
how the works for the two Tower Hides have been timed to tie-in with the planned maintenance works for
MPNR, specifically the drain-down of gei wai. The planned maintenance activities shown in this table do not
form part of this Project are also not concurrent projects as shown on the project programme (Figure 2-6).
According to the original MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, GW #7 was drained in the wet season of 2020
to carry out “Desilting of channels and open water restoration at GW #7”. In 2020, the Mai Po Management
Committee advised that that GW #8a and GW #7 should be connected with a sluice gate, when the GW #8a
enhancement is carried out. Therefore GW #7 will need to be drained again to facilitate the construction of
sluice gate in the summer of 2022. The construction programme for this Project has been revised to align the
foundation works to TH3 with the second planned draining of GW#7.
Key: H = High Priority, M = Medium Priority, L = Low Priority.
Bold indicates draw down of gei wais 7, 8a, 19 and 20e in summer 2022 (the foundation works at TH2 and TH3 have
been planned to coincide with this).
Air Quality Impact
3-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
3 AIR QUALITY IMPACT
3.1 Introduction
This air quality impact assessment has been carried out to identify, qualify and quantify potential
air quality impacts arising from the construction of the Project. The criteria and guidelines listed
in Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM are referred to.
The Assessment Area for assessing air quality impact is 500m from the boundary of the Project.
3.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
Air Pollution Control Ordinance
The principal legislation controlling air quality is the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap.
311). The legislation provides a statutory framework for establishing the Air Quality Objectives
and for the control of air pollution from stationary sources and motor vehicles. Air Quality
Objectives (AQOs) specifying the statutory limits for seven pollutants and the maximum number
of exceedance allowed over a specified period of time are set out under the APCO. The AQOs are
periodically reviewed at least once every five years.
The prevailing AQOs and the new AQOs to be enacted from 1 January 2022 for seven pollutants,
including Sulphur Dioxide (SO
2
), Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP, PM
10
), Fine Suspended
Particulates (FSP, PM
2.5
), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2
), Ozone (O
3
), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Lead
(Pb), are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives
POLLUTANT
AVERAGING
TIME
PREVAILING AQOs (EFFECTIVE
FROM 1 JANUARY 2014)
NEW AQOs (TO BE EFFECTIVE
ON 1 JANUARY 2022)
CONCENTRATION
LIMIT
[I]
(µg/m
3
)
NUMBER OF
EXCEEDANCES
ALLOWED
CONCENTRATION
LIMIT
[I]
(µg/m
3
)
NUMBER OF
EXCEEDANCES
ALLOWED
Sulphur Dioxide
(SO
2
)
10-minute
500
3
500
3
24-hour
125
3
50
3
Respirable
Suspended
Particulates
(RSP, PM
10
)
[ii]
24-hour
100
9
100
9
Annual
50
N/A
50
N/A
Fine Suspended
Particulates
(FSP, PM
2.5
)
[iii]
24-hour
75
9
50
35
Annual
35
N/A
25
N/A
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO
2
)
1-hour
200
18
200
18
Annual
40
N/A
40
N/A
Ozone (O
3
)
8-hour
160
9
160
9
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1-hour
30,000
0
30,000
0
8-hour
10,000
0
10,000
0
Lead (Pb)
Annual
0.5
N/A
0.5
N/A
Notes:
i. All measurements of the concentration of gaseous air pollutants, i.e. SO
2
, NO
2
, O
3
and CO, are to be adjusted to a
reference temperature of 293Kelvin and a reference pressure of 101.325 kilopascal.
ii. RSP are suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10µm or less.
iii. FSP are suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less.
Air Quality Impact
3-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Annex 4 of Technical Memorandum under Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinace
(EIAO-TM)
For construction dust impact assessment, the EIAO-TM stipulates that the hourly Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) concentration should not exceed 500µg/m
3
measured at 298K (25C)
and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation
Construction dust is controlled by the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation which
is enacted under the Section 43 of the APCO. The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation defines notifiable works and regulatory works as follows:
Notifiable Works:
– Site formation
– Reclamation
– Demolition of a building
– Work carried out in any part of a tunnel that is within 100m of any exit to the open air
– Construction of the foundation of a building
– Construction of the superstructure of a building
– Road construction work
Regulatory Works:
– Renovation carried out on the outer surface of the external wall or the upper surface of
the roof of a building
– Road opening or resurfacing work
– Slope stabilization work
– Any work involving stockpiling of dusty materials, loading, unloading or transfer of dusty
materials, transfer of dusty materials using belt conveyor system, use of vehicles,
pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting and polishing, debris handling, excavation or
earth moving, concrete production, site clearance, or blasting
This Regulation stipulates that for any notifiable works, notice shall be given to EPD before the
proposed notifiable work commences to be carried out. For both notifiable and regulatory works,
the contractor responsible for the construction site shall ensure that the work is carried out in
accordance with the Schedule which provides the control requirement of construction dust.
Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission) Regulation
This Regulation requires Non-road Mobile Machinery (NRMM), other than those exempted, to
comply with the prescribed emission standards. From 1 September 2015, all regulated machines
sold or leased for use in Hong Kong must be approved or exempted with a proper label in a
prescribed format issued by EPD. Starting from 1 December 2015, only approved or exempted
NRMMs with a proper label are allowed to be used in specified activities and locations including
construction sites, container terminals and back up facilities, restricted areas of the airport,
designated waste disposal facilities and specified processes.
3.3 Description of Environment
There are no areas of industrial use found within the Project Site nor in its vicinity and no
chimneys have been identified within 200m of the Project Site.
The closest major road to the Project Site is the New Territories Circular Road/San Tin Highway,
which is located about 1.5km from the Project Site. The closest road to the Project Site is Tam
Kon Chau Road, a local access road. Within the Project Site is the Boundary Road, which follows
the boundary fence.
Tam Kon Chau Road is a local access road, from which significant vehicular emission generated is
not anticipated. Vehicles travelling within the Project Site, mainly on the Boundary Road, are
Air Quality Impact
3-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
restricted to those used by WWF, the police and AFCD. Considering the limited number of
vehicles travelling along Tam Kon Chau Road and within the Project Site, significant impacts from
vehicular emissions is not expected.
Background Air Quality
The Project Site is in a rural part of Yuen Long, where the land and its surroundings are mainly
gei wai, freshwater ponds, inter-tidal mudflats, mangroves, reedbeds and fishponds. To
determine background air quality at the Site, reference can be made to EPD’s nearest Air Quality
Monitoring Station (“AQMS”), which is at Yuen Long. The latest five-years background air quality
concentrations from 2016 to 2020 recorded at Yuen Long AQMS are summarised in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Background Air Pollutant Concentrations at Yuen Long AQMS (in µg/m
3
)
POLLUTANT
AVERAGING
TIME
AQO
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
AVERAGE
RSP
10
th
highest
24-hour
100
86
87
75
83
77
82
Annual
50
37
40
37
37
30
36
FSP
10
th
highest
24-hour
75
63
52
46
45
36
48
Annual
35
23
22
20
20
16
20
NO
2
19
th
highest
1-hour
200
149
156
150
161
135
150
Annual
40
46
41
43
44
32
41
SO
2
4
th
highest
10-mins
500
58
80
52
42
26
52
4
th
highest
24-hour
125
17
20
16
11
10
15
CO
1-hour
30,000
2,080
1,450
1,720
2,150
1,530
1,786
8-hour
10,000
1,474
1,324
1,574
1,903
1,279
1,511
Notes:
1. Data extracted from EPD’s Yuen Long AQMS.
2. Bold values exceed the AQO.
It can be seen that there are a few exceedances of the AQOs recorded at the Yuen Long AQMS,
in particular for annual NO
2
. This is likely due to influence from exhaust emissions from traffic on
the busy Castle Peak Road, which is close to the Yuen Long AQMS. Such exceedances would not
be expected at the Project Site given that it is some distance from major roads. The background
NO2 at the Project Site is expected to be lower than that recorded at the Yuen Long AQMS due
to lower traffic and less exhaust emission from road vehicles at surrounding road network.
3.4 Air Sensitive Receivers
Within the 500m Assessment Area, 13 no. representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) have
been identified in accordance with the guidelines for air quality assessment provided in Annex
12 of the EIAO-TM, as shown in Table 3-3, below. These ASRs include domestic premises at
Fairview Park and Palm Springs and a number of village houses in proximity to Tam Kon Chau
Road; and offices for AFCD and Yeung’s Fish Farm as well as the PSFSC. With the exception of
ASR 2 (which is a container converted into a dwelling) and ASR 5, all ASRs are two storey
buildings without rooftop access.
Details of the ASRs are shown in Table 3-3 and locations are shown in Figure 3-1.
Air Quality Impact
3-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 3-3 Representative ASRs
ASR
ID
DESCRIPTION
USE
PATH
2016
GRID
DISTANCE
FROM SITE
BOUNDARY
[Note 1]
(m)
DISTANCE
FROM
NEAREST
WORKS AREA
[Note 2]
m)
ASSESSMENT
HEIGHT
(mAG)
[Note 3]
ASR 1
Village House, Tam
Kon Chau Road
Residential
(28, 52)
218
341
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 2
Occupied Container,
Tam Kon Chau Road
Residential
(27, 52)
92
247
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 3
Village House,
Boundary Road
Residential
(27, 52)
< 1
193
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 4
Village House, Off
Tam Kon Chau Road
Residential
(27, 52)
< 1
185
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 5
Village House/AFCD
Nature Warden Office
Residential
/Office
(27, 52)
< 1
20
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 6
House 43, Lychee
Road West, Fairview
Park
Residential
(27, 51)
118
331
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 7
House 1, Lychee Road
South, Fairview Park
Residential
(27, 51)
149
274
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 8
House 1, Bauhinia
Road West, Fairview
Park
Residential
(27, 51)
100
445
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 9
House 89, Bauhinia
Road West, Fairview
Park
Residential
(27, 51)
91
846
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 10
House 183, Bauhinia
Road West, Fairview
Park
Residential
(27, 50)
400
1,227
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 11
House 2, Ficus Road,
Palm Springs
Residential
(27, 52)
462
586
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 12
Yeung’s Fish Farm
Office
(27, 52)
145
145
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
ASR 13
Peter Scott Field
Study Centre, Tam
Kon Chau Road
Educational
Institute
(27, 52)
116
257
1.5, 4.5, 9.5
Notes:
1. Distance measured between ASRs and nearest boundary of Project Site.
2. Distance measured between ASRs and nearest boundary of nearest works area within Project Site.
3. mAG represents meters above ground.
3.5 Identification of Pollutant Sources – Construction Stage
Fugitive dust is the major impact during construction activities, such as excavation, stockpiling,
earth moving, transferring or handling of dusty materials. Dust can also arise from bare ground
that is cleared for new boardwalk. The construction works that will be carried out within the Site
will be described in the following sections.
Figure 3-2 shows the locations of the pollutant sources within the Site.
Air Quality Impact
3-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Construction Works within the Project Site
Tower Hides
TH2 has a footprint of 60m
2
. The maximum works area will be in Phase 1 and will occupy 835m
2
,
which is assumed to be cleared bare ground – see Figure 2-4. TH3 also has a footprint of 60m
2
.
The maximum works area will be in Phase 1 and will occupy 940m
2
, which is also assumed to be
cleared bare ground – see Figure 2-5.
Construction of TH2 and TH3 will involve excavation for footings/substructure, followed by
construction of superstructure works. Given that the new tower hides are simple 3-storey
buildings with a relatively small works area, air quality impacts due to construction are not
expected to be significant.
Boardwalks
As discussed in Section 2.3, the maximum area bare ground for boardwalk construction at any
one time is 465m
2
. Nonetheless, given that the equipment used for new boardwalk will be hand-
held power tools and manual labour, dust emissions and emissions from PME are expected to be
minor.
Vehicle Movement Within the Site
Fugitive dust emissions will be generated from the movement of vehicles along existing paved
roads (the Boundary Road), the unpaved temporary access routes within the Project Site, and
external paved roads. Vehicles will include dump trucks, concrete trucks, and light trucks, etc.,
within the range of 5.5 tonnes to 38 tonnes. Figure 3-2 shows the worst-case vehicle movements
on each of these haul routes, as agreed with the Project Proponent and the Project Engineer. As
the scale of construction works is small, the total numbers of vehicle movement within the Site
at one time will be not more than 5 vehicles/hour, which is considered limited.
Construction Works of Concurrent Projects
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will commence at end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project. There are
also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts for this
Project is not anticipated.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative air quality impacts.
3.6 Assessment Methodology – Construction Stage
For typical construction projects, fugitive dust – measured as Total Suspended Particulates (TSP),
RSP and FSP – is the major impact during construction activities, such as excavation, stockpiling,
earth moving, transferring or handling of dusty materials. Dust can also arise from bare ground.
However, for this Project, the construction activities that could generate dust are small in scale
and short in duration, as the outdoor works for the Project within the MPNR will be completed
within three months. Furthermore, the area of bare ground (for new boardwalk) is also relatively
small.
One of the key design features of this Project is the use of off-site pre-fabrication. Building
elements – wall panels, roof segments, windows, etc. – will be fabricated off-site and brought to
MPNR for assembly. This way, typical dust impacts associated with on-site construction will be
avoided as most construction work is simple assembly. Some excavation is required for
foundations of the tower hides, but the excavated material will be wet and will not generate dust.
Baseline air quality monitoring was carried out (in March and April 2020) at ASR 1 and ASR 2 and
the measured TSP concentrations are summarised in Table 3-4, below.
Air Quality Impact
3-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 3-4 Ambient Air Quality at ASR 1 and ASR 2
DATE
TIME
1-HOUR TSP (µg/m
3
)
ASR 1
VILLAGE HOUSE,
TAM KON CHAU ROAD
ASR 2
OCCUPIED CONTAINER,
TAM KON CHAU ROAD
30 March 2020
10:00 – 11:00
78
41
11:00 – 12:00
19
13
12:00 – 13:00
15
16
31 March 2020
10:00 – 11:00
90
82
11:00 – 12:00
23
22
12:00 – 13:00
102
99
1 April 2020
10:00 – 11:00
50
45
11:00 – 12:00
51
46
12:00 – 13:00
63
54
2 April 2020
08:45 – 09:45
69
67
09:45 – 10:45
63
59
11:45 – 12:45
68
63
3 April 2020
10:00 – 11:00
107
106
11:00 – 12:00
123
118
12:00 – 13:00
116
143
Average (µg/m
3
)
69
65
The baseline air quality monitoring results represent ambient air quality in the vicinity of MPNR
and it can be seen that averaged 1-hour TSP is less than 70µg/m
3
, which is more than 7x lower
than 500µg/m
3
limit mentioned under Annex 4 of TM-EIAO. These findings indicate that the
vicinity of the Project Site has a very low ambient TSP concentrations.
Given the small scale of construction works and its short duration, limited vehicle movement
and well planned routing of vehicles within the Site, together with the use of off-site pre-
fabrication as far as practicable, adverse construction dust impacts generated from construction
activities and vehicle movement around the Site is not anticipated. Also, the nearest ASR is
about 20m from the works area, adverse construction dust impact is not expected. With the
implementation of good site practices and mitigation measures as recommended in Section 3.7,
the overall generation of construction dust during construction phase will be minimal.
Since the construction works will be of small scale there will be limited use of plant such as
NRMM during construction. Also, it is a statutory requirement under the Air Pollution Control
(Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission) Regulation that only those regulated machines which
have been approved or exempted with a proper label in a prescribed format issued by EPD will
be allowed to be used on-site during construction phase. The contractors shall strictly fulfil the
relevant requirement, and therefore emissions from NRMMs shall be controlled and adverse air
quality impacts on ASRs arising from vehicle emissions is not anticipated.
As shown in Table 3-2, the actual ambient concentrations of RSP and FSP at Yuen Long AQMS in
2020 are well within the AQO limits. Given that most of the dust impacts typically associated with
on-site construction have been avoided due to the off-site pre-fabrication of building elements
and that the area of bare ground (for new boardwalk) is also relatively small, it is not considered
that dust arising from the construction stage will result in any exceedance of the AQOs.
On this basis, no unacceptable air quality impacts are anticipated. Nevertheless, mitigation
measures will be implemented at all times to further reduce dust impacts to minimum possible,
as discussed below.
Air Quality Impact
3-7
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
3.7 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures During Construction Stage
Fugitive dust generation can be controlled with the implementation of mitigation measures that
are recommended in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, such that
significant fugitive dust impact is not anticipated.
Good practice and mitigation measures to be implemented are as follows:
Regular watering to reduce dust emissions from exposed site surfaces and unpaved roads,
particularly during dry weather.
Open stockpiles shall be avoided or covered. Where possible, prevent placing dusty
materials storage piles near ASRs.
Side enclosure of any aggregate or dusty material storage piles to reduce emissions. Where
this is not practicable owing to frequent usage, spraying with water shall be carried out.
Tarpaulin covering of all dusty vehicle loads transported to and from the Site.
Use of water sprinklers at the loading area where dust generation is likely during the loading
process of loose material, particularly in dry weather.
Imposition of speed controls for vehicles within the Site.
Establishment and use of vehicle wheel and body washing facilities at the exit of the Site to
minimise the fugitive dust emissions generated.
Site layout should be carefully planned such that machinery and dust causing activities (e.g.
haul roads and stockpiling areas) could be located away from the ASR as far as possible.
Where possible, routing of vehicles and positioning of construction plant should be at the
maximum possible distance from ASRs.
Solid screens are recommended to be erected around any dusty construction activities.
3.8 Conclusion
Baseline air quality monitoring results at ASR 1 and ASR 2 reveal that ambient air quality in terms
of averaged 1-hour TSP is less than 70µg/m
3
, which is more than 7x lower than 500µg/m
3
limit
mentioned under Annex 4 of TM-EIAO. Given the small scale of construction work and the small
area of bare ground that could be a source of fugitive construction dust emissions, it is not
expected that there will be any exceedance of the 500µg/m
3
limit at ASRs, the majority of which
are located at some distance from works areas.
The actual ambient concentrations of RSP and FSP at Yuen Long AQMS in 2020 are well within
the AQO limits. Given that most of the dust impacts typically associated with on-site
construction have been avoided due to the off-site pre-fabrication of building elements and that
the area of bare ground (for new boardwalk) is also relatively small, no significant increase in air
quality impact at ASRs is anticipated during construction and no exceedance of AQO limits for
RSP and FSP is expected.
Given the small scale of construction works and its short duration, limited vehicle movement
and well planned routing of vehicles within the Site, together with the use of off-site pre-
fabrication as far as practicable, adverse construction dust impacts generated from construction
activities and vehicle movement around the Site is not anticipated.
Since the construction works will be of small scale there will be limited use of plant such as
NRMM during construction. As contractors shall follow the Air Pollution Control (Non-road
Mobile Machinery) (Emission) Regulation, emissions from NRMMs shall be controlled and so
adverse air quality impact at ASRs arising from mobile machinery emissions is not anticipated.
Overall, therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures and good site practice, no
adverse air quality impact is anticipated during the construction stage.
Noise Impact
4-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
4 NOISE IMPACT
4.1 Introduction
This noise impact assessment has been carried out to identify, qualify and quantify potential
noise impacts arising from the construction of the Project. The criteria and guidelines listed in
Annex 5 and Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM are referred to.
The Assessment Area for assessing noise impact is 300m from the boundary of the Project.
4.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
Construction Noise
The principle legislation controlling environmental noise impact is the Noise Control Ordinance
(NCO) (Cap. 400). The NCO enables regulations and Technical Memoranda (TM) to be enacted,
which introduce detailed control criterion, measurement procedures and other technical
matters.
General Construction Activities During Non-restricted Hours
For general construction works other than percussive piling, although TM does not provide
control over daytime (0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday)
construction activities, noise limits are set out in Table 1B of Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM for
Designated Projects. The relevant noise standards are summarised in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Noise Standards for Daytime Construction Activities
USES
0700 TO 1900 HOURS ON
ANY DAY NOT BEING A
SUNDAY OR GENERAL
HOLIDAY L
EQ(30 MINS)
dB(A)
1900 TO 0700 HOURS OR ANY TIME
ON SUNDAYS OR GENERAL HOLIDAY
All domestic premises including
temporary housing
accommodation
75
The criteria laid down in the relevant
technical memoranda under the
NCO for designated areas and
construction works other than
percussive piling may be used for
planning purposes. A Construction
Noise Permit (CNP) shall be required
for carrying out of the construction
work during these periods
Hotel and hostels
75
Educational institutions including
kindergartens, nurseries and all
others where unaided voice
communication is required
70
65
(during examinations)
Notes:
i. The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.
ii. The above standards should be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1 m from the
external façade.
General Construction Activities During Restricted Hours
Noise impacts arising from general construction activities (excluding percussive piling)
conducted during the restricted hours (19:00-07:00 hours on any day and anytime on Sunday or
general holiday) are governed by the NCO.
For carrying out of any general construction activities involving the use of any Powered
Mechanical Equipment (“PME”) within restricted hours, a Construction Noise Permit (CNP) is
required from the Authority under the NCO. The noise criteria and the assessment procedures
for issuing a CNP are specified in Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work
Other Than Percussive Piling (GW-TM) under the NCO.
The use of Specified PME (“SPME”) and/or the carrying out of Prescribed Construction Work
(“PCW”) within a Designated Area (“DA”) under the NCO during the restricted hours are also
prohibited without a CNP. The relevant technical details can be referred to Technical
Noise Impact
4-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM) under NCO.
Designated Areas, in which the control of SPME and PCW shall apply, are established through
the Noise Control (Construction Work Designated Areas) Notice made under Section 8A(1) of the
NCO. According to the latest Designated Areas defined under the NCO [Plan No. EPD/AN/NT-01
by the Environment Bureau], the Project Site is not within Designated Areas, however, prior to
construction, the Contractor has the responsibility to check the latest status and coverage of the
Designated Areas.
Percussive Piling
Percussive piling is only permitted when the Authority has granted a CNP. The Technical
Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM) under the NCO sets out the permitted
hours of operation of percussive piling and Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”) requirements, which
are dependent on the level of exceedance of the Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”). For this
Project, percussive pilling will not be carried out.
4.3 Prevailing Noise Environment
Prevailing Noise Environment
The Project Site is the MPNR, known for its wildlife and tranquillity. There are no major roads
nearby and very little vehicular traffic. Inside MPNR there are no major noise sources and the
prevailing noise environment is rural and low noise.
Outside the Site, the closest development to the Site is the Fairview Park residential estate,
which itself is a low-density development of predominantly two-storey terraced houses. The
prevailing noise environment of Fairview Park is also rural and low noise. Near to the entrance of
the Site are some scattered village houses, the closest being those two-storey dwellings on
Boundary Road and near AFCD Nature Warden Office. Again, the prevailing noise environment is
rural and low noise.
In terms of the noise environment with and without the Project, there will be almost no
difference. The new structures to be constructed – TH2, TH3 and the footpaths – are not
themselves noise sources. The only possible increase in noise will be from the increased number
of visitors that are anticipated after completion of the Project. However, given that visitors to
MPNR are usually quiet so as not to disturb wildlife, and that group visits are guided by WWF
Education Officers/Eco-guides, in terms of the noise environment it is not considered to be any
dis-benefit with the Project, compared to without the Project.
Background Noise Survey
A prevailing background noise survey was conducted on 27 August 2019 during the day time
period at a number of locations in proximity of and within the Project boundary. The measured
background noise levels are summarised in Table 4-2, below, and the locations of the
measurement are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Details of the measurement are presented in
Appendix A1.
Table 4-2 Measured Background Noise Levels
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
NOISE LEVEL
L
EQ(30MIN)
dB(A)
ON-SITE MONITORING LOCATIONS
M1
Existing Footpath
49
M2
Existing Tower Hide TH3
69
*
M3
Existing Footpath
58
M4
Mai Po Education Centre
58
M5
Temporary Access Road in the Middle of the Site
50
M6
South of the Site
47
Noise Impact
4-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
NOISE LEVEL
L
EQ(30MIN)
dB(A)
M7
Location of Proposed Tower Hide TH2
42
M8
North of the Site Boundary
49
M9
North of the Site
51
M10
Northwest of the Site Boundary
50
M11
North of the Site
41
M12
West of the Site Boundary
49
M13
Southwest of the Site Boundary
45
M14
South of the Site Boundary
49
OFF-SITE MONITORING LOCATIONS
M15
Entrance of the Site/Village Houses Near Ranger Station
46
M16
Mai Po Visitor Centre at PSFSC
47
M20
Near Fairview Park Bauhinia Road West House 1
56
M21
Near Fairview Park Lychee Road South House 1
56
M22
Tam Kon Chau Road Village House
51
Notes: Measurements were conducted in free-field condition.
* A diesel generator was operating around 10m from M2, which is the reason for the relatively high reading.
4.4 Assessment Area
The Assessment Area is the area within 300m of the Project boundary, as shown in Figure 4-3.
Although the Assessment Area extends 300m from the Project boundary, only the first-tier,
closest, Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) are chosen as representative NSRs, as these would be
affected to a greater extent than those further away. Further than 300m from the Project
boundary there are no significant NSRs that need to be included in the assessment.
4.5 Noise Sensitive Receivers
All existing NSRs are shown in Figure 4-3 and comprise all residential units within 300m of the
Project boundary. However, only the first-tier, closest, NSRs have been identified as
representative NSRs for the purpose of assessment. These are summarised in Table 4-3 and their
locations are shown in Figure 4-3. Photographs of the representative NSRs showing the
Assessment Points are provided in Appendix A2. MPEC, which is located within the Project Site,
does not rely on openable windows for ventilation and so the noise standards stipulated in
Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM are not applicable, which is why MPEC is not selected as a
representative NSR.
Table 4-3 Representative NSRs
NSR ID
DESCRIPTION
USE
DISTANCE FROM
SITE
[Note 1]
(m)
NO. FLOORS
ASSESSMENT
POINT
[Note 2]
NSR 1
Village House, Tam Kon
Chau Road
Residential
218
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
NSR 2
Occupied Container, Tam
Kon Chau Road
Residential
92
G/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
NSR 3
Village House, Boundary
Road
Residential
< 1
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
NSR 4
Village House, Off Tam Kon
Chau Road
Residential
< 1
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
NSR 5
Village House, near AFCD
Nature Warden Office
Residential
< 1
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
Noise Impact
4-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
NSR ID
DESCRIPTION
USE
DISTANCE FROM
SITE
[Note 1]
(m)
NO. FLOORS
ASSESSMENT
POINT
[Note 2]
NSR 6
House 43, Lychee Road
West, Fairview Park
Residential
118
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.9mPD)
NSR 7
House 1, Lychee Road
South, Fairview Park
Residential
149
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
NSR 8
House 1, Bauhinia Road
West, Fairview Park
Residential
100
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.4mPD)
NSR 9
House 89, Bauhinia Road
West, Fairview Park
Residential
91
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.2mPD)
NSR 10
Peter Scott Field Study
Centre, Tam Kon Chau Road
Educational
Institute
116
G/F, 1/F
G/F
(5.6mPD)
Notes:
1. Distances are measured between NSRs and the nearest boundary of Project Site.
2. mPD represents meters per datum. This value is 1.2m above ground level at each NSR.
4.6 Identification of Noise Sources – Construction Stage
Construction Works within the Project Site
Noise impacts arising from construction of the Project are mainly due to the use of PME for
various construction activities. The major construction works of the Project are:
Construction of New TH2 (including Boardwalk Access)
Construction of TH3 (including Boardwalk Access)
Construction of Main Boardwalks
– above existing paths (including passing bays)
– for EAs
In addition to the construction of the above Project Elements, there will also be movement of
construction vehicles within and adjacent to the Project Site, running along the existing
Boundary Road (paved), temporary access routes along the top of bunds (unpaved) within the
Project Site, and external paved roads. Vehicles will include dump trucks, concrete trucks and
light pick-up trucks, etc., within the range of 5.5 tonnes to 38 tonnes. The locations of the above
construction works and haul roads were shown in Figure 4-4.
The construction programme has been arranged such that construction work during Restricted
Hours will not be required. Also, percussive piling will not be required. To avoid disturbance on
habitats and birds, there shall be no noisy outdoor construction work other than mobilisation
and vehicle movement from 16 October to 15 April. This recommended constraint on
construction period are recommendations from ecological point of view and has been adopted
in the construction programme given in Figure 2-6.
The types and quantities of PME to be used are limited. An inventory of the PME used in the
construction work of the Project is given in Appendix A3, which has been confirmed by the
Project Engineer.
Construction Works of Concurrent Projects
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will commence at end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project. There are
also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative noise impacts for this Project is
not anticipated.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative noise impacts.
Noise Impact
4-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
4.7 Assessment Methodology – Construction Stage
As discussed above, the noise impact assessment is focused to the potential noise impact arising
from the construction stage of the Project.
The assessment of construction noise impact was carried out quantitatively based on the
guidelines given in GW-TM issued under the NCO where appropriate. Sound Power Levels
(SWLs) of PME make reference to Table 3 of the TM and the Sound Power Levels of Other
Commonly Used PME available in EPD’s website
[Ref.#
3
]
. Notional source position has been adopted
for each work area with respect to each NSR. For construction of new tower hides involving two
working phases, Phase 1 with a larger site area has been used to determine the notional source
position as this will give the shortest distance to NSRs, which is the more conservative approach.
The works areas of Phase 1 construction of the 2 tower hides, the notional source positions and
NSRs are shown in Appendix A4.
The noise assessment includes erection of site hoarding/fencing around the works areas for the
two new tower hides – this is subject to BD requirements but has been included to provide a
conservative estimate of construction noise. In the event that erection of site hoarding is not
required, the predicted noise levels are expected to be lower than predicted as works for site
hoarding is eliminated.
For the assessment of noise from the mobile plant and vehicles travelling along existing paved
roads and temporary access roads within the Project Site, the Method for Mobile Plant Using a
Regular Well-Defined Route stipulated in BS5228-1 Annex F was adopted.
A positive 3dB(A) correction was applied to the predicted noise level to account for the façade
effect at each assessment point.
4.8 Assessment Results – Construction Stage
The noise impact arising from construction of the Project at the representative NSRs has been
predicted and the results are summarised in Table 4-4. Details of the assessment are presented
in Appendix A4.
Table 4-4 Predicted Noise Impact at Representative NSRs
NSR ID
NOISE CRITERIA, dB(A)
PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL L
EQ(30 MIN)
dB(A)
UNMITIGATED SCENARIO
NSR 1
75
50 – 58
NSR 2
75
54 – 60
NSR 3
75
56 – 61
NSR 4
75
56 – 61
NSR 5
75
66 – 68
NSR 6
75
49 – 57
NSR 7
75
50 – 57
NSR 8
75
48 – 56
NSR 9
75
45 – 54
NSR 10
70
53 – 59
Note: Bold indicates exceedance of noise criteria (no exceedance due to Project).
Results show that the construction noise impacts at all NSRs comply with relevant noise criteria.
3
. http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/application_for_licences/guidance/files/OtherSWLe.pdf
Noise Impact
4-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
4.9 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures During Construction Stage
The Contractor should adopt good working practices in order to further minimise noise, such as:
No noisy outdoor construction work other than mobilisation and vehicle movement from 16
October to 15 April 2021 to avoid disturbance on habitats and birds as recommendations
from ecological point of view.
The Contractor shall adopt the Code of Practice on Good Management Practice to Prevent
Violation of the NCO (for Construction Industry) published by EPD.
Before commencing any work, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Engineer for
approval the method of working, equipment and noise mitigation measures intended to be
used at the Site.
Devise and execute working methods to minimise the noise impact on the surrounding
sensitive uses, and provide experienced personnel with suitable training to ensure that
those methods are implemented.
PME should be kept to a minimum and the parallel use of noisy equipment/ machinery
should be avoided.
Turn off unused equipment.
Regular maintenance (off-site) of all plant and equipment.
4.10 Conclusion
The noise impact arising from the construction of the Project at representative NSRs has been
assessed and shows that noise levels at these NSRs will comply with relevant noise criteria. As
such, further noise mitigation measures during construction are not necessary.
Overall, therefore, no adverse noise impact is anticipated from the construction of the Project.
.
Water Quality Impact
5-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
5 WATER QUALITY IMPACT
5.1 Introduction
This water quality impact assessment has been carried out to identify, qualify and quantify
potential water quality impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project. The
criteria and guidelines listed in Annex 6 and Annex 14 of the EIAO-TM are referred to.
The Assessment Area for assessing water quality impact is 500m from the boundary of the
Project, which includes water courses and ponds in the vicinity of the Project, and also the Deep
Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ).
5.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
Water Pollution Control Ordinance
The principle legislation controlling water pollution is the Water Pollution Control Ordinance
(WPCO) (Cap. 358). Under the WPCO, Hong Kong waters are classified into 10 Water Control
Zones (WCZ). The Project Site is situated within the catchment area of the Deep Bay WCZ.
Statutory Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are specified for each WCZ. The WQOs for any
particular waters, as defined in the WPCO, shall be the quality, which should be achieved and
maintained in order to promote conservation and best use of those waters in the public interest.
The WQOs designated for Deep Bay WCZ are listed in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Water Quality Objectives for Deep Bay WCZ
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
PART OR PARTS OF ZONE
A. AESTHETIC APPEARANCE
(a)
Waste discharges shall cause no objectionable
odours or discolouration of the water.
Whole Zone
(b)
Tarry residues, floating wood, articles made of
glass, plastic, rubber or of any other substances
should be absent.
Whole Zone
(c)
Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
Whole Zone
(d)
There should be no recognisable sewage-derived
debris.
Whole Zone
(e)
Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects
of a size likely to interfere with the free
movement of vessels, or cause damage to
vessels, should be absent.
Whole Zone
(f)
Waste discharges shall not cause the water to
contain substances which settle to form
objectionable deposits.
Whole Zone
B. BACTERIA
(a)
The level of Escherichia coli should not exceed
610 per 100 mL, calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in one calendar
year.
Secondary Contact Recreation Subzone and
Mariculture Subzone
(b)
The level of Escherichia coli should be zero per
100 ml, calculated as the running median of the
most recent 5 consecutive samples taken at
intervals of between 7 and 21 days.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper) Subzone, Beas
Subzone, Indus Subzone, Ganges Subzone
and Water Gathering Ground Subzones
Water Quality Impact
5-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
PART OR PARTS OF ZONE
(c)
The level of Escherichia coli should not exceed
1000 per 100 ml, calculated as the running
median of the most recent 5 consecutive samples
taken at intervals of between 7 and 21 days.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Lower) Subzone and
other inland waters
(d)
The level of Escherichia coli should not exceed
180 per 100 mL, calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected from March to
October inclusive in one calendar year. Samples
should be taken at least 3 times in a calendar
month at intervals of between 3 and 14 days.
Yung Long Bathing Beach Subzone
C. COLOUR
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause the colour of
water to exceed 30 Hazen units.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper) Subzone, Beas
Subzone, Indus Subzone, Ganges Subzone and
Water Gathering Ground Subzones
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the colour of
water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Lower) Subzone and
other inland waters
D. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause the level of
dissolved oxygen to fall below 4 milligrams per
litre for 90% of the sampling occasions during the
year; values should be taken at 1 metre below
surface.
Inner Marine Subzone excepting Mariculture
Subzone
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the level of
dissolved oxygen to fall below 4 milligrams per litre
for 90% of the sampling occasions during the year;
values should be calculated as water column
average (arithmetic mean of at least 2
measurements at 1 metre below surface and 1
metre above seabed). In addition, the
concentration of dissolved oxygen should not be
less than 2 milligrams per litre within 2 metres of
the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
Outer Marine Subzone excepting
Mariculture Subzone
(c)
The dissolved oxygen level should not be less
than 5 milligrams per litre for 90% of the
sampling occasions during the year; values should
be taken at 1 metre below surface.
Mariculture Subzone
(d)
Waste discharges shall not cause the level of
dissolved oxygen to be less than 4 milligrams per
litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper and Lower)
Subzones, Beas Subzone, Indus Subzone,
Ganges Subzone, Water Gathering Ground
Subzones and other inland waters in the Zone
E. pH
(a)
The pH of the water should be within the range
of 6.5-8.5 units. In addition, waste discharges
shall not cause the natural pH range to be
extended by more than 0.2 units.
Marine waters excepting Yung Long Bathing
Beach Subzone
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the pH of the
water to exceed the range of 6.5-8.5 units.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper and Lower)
Subzones, Beas Subzone, Indus Subzone,
Ganges Subzone and Water Gathering
Ground Subzones
(c)
The pH of the water should be within the range
of 6.0-9.0 units.
Other inland waters
Water Quality Impact
5-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
PART OR PARTS OF ZONE
(d)
The pH of the water should be within the range
of 6.0-9.0 units for 95% of samples. In addition,
waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.5 units.
Yung Long Bathing Beach Subzone
F. TEMPERATURE
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural daily
temperature range to change by more than 2.0
degrees Celsius.
Whole Zone
G. SALINITY
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural
ambient salinity level to change by more than
10%.
Whole Zone
H. SUSPENDED SOLIDS
(a)
Waste discharges shall neither cause the natural
ambient level to be raised by 30% nor give rise to
accumulation of suspended solids which may
adversely affect aquatic communities.
Marine waters
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the annual
median of suspended solids to exceed 20
milligrams per litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper and Lower)
Subzones, Beas Subzone, Ganges Subzone,
Indus Subzone, Water Gathering Ground
Subzones and other inland waters
I. AMMONIA
Un-ionized ammoniacal nitrogen level should not
be more than 0.021 milligram per litre, calculated
as the annual average (arithmetic mean).
Whole Zone
J. NUTRIENTS
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in quantities
sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance growth
of algae or other aquatic plants.
Inner and Outer Marine Subzones
(b)
Without limiting the generality of objective (a)
above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not
exceed 0.7 milligram per litre, expressed as
annual mean.
Inner Marine Subzone
(c)
Without limiting the generality of objective (a)
above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not
exceed 0.5 milligram per litre, expressed as
annual water column average (arithmetic mean
of at least 2 measurements at 1 metre below
surface and 1 metre above seabed).
Outer Marine Subzone
K. 5-DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause the 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand to exceed 3
milligrams per litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper) Subzone, Beas
Subzone, Indus Subzone, Ganges Subzone
and Water Gathering Ground Subzones
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand to exceed 5
milligrams per litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Lower) Subzone and
other inland waters
Water Quality Impact
5-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
PART OR PARTS OF ZONE
L. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause the chemical
oxygen demand to exceed 15 milligrams per litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Upper) Subzone, Beas
Subzone, Indus Subzone, Ganges Subzone
and Water Gathering Ground Subzones
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause the chemical
oxygen demand to exceed 30 milligrams per litre.
Yuen Long & Kam Tin (Lower) Subzone and
other inland waters
M. TOXINS
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause the toxins in
water to attain such levels as to produce
significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or
teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any other
aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically
cumulative effects in food chains and to toxicant
interactions with each other.
Whole Zone
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause a risk to any
beneficial uses of the aquatic environment.
Whole Zone
N. PHENOL
Phenols shall not be present in such quantities as
to produce a specific odour, or in concentration
greater than 0.05 milligrams per litre as C
6
H
5
OH.
Yung Long Bathing Beach Subzone
O. TURBIDITY
Waste discharges shall not reduce light
transmission substantially from the normal level.
Yung Long Bathing Beach Subzone
Note: Refers to Key WQOs for river monitoring stations in the Northwestern New Territories, River Water Quality in
Hong Kong in 2018 published by EPD and Statement of WQOs (Deep Bay Control Zone), Schedule of Cap 358R.
An amendment to the WPCO was enacted in 1990 and provides a mechanism for setting effluent
standards. These are included in the Technical Memorandum Standards for Effluents Discharged
in to Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters. All discharges into
government sewerage systems, marine and inland waters are required to comply with the
standards stipulated in the Technical Memorandum.
Any discharge from the Project Site shall comply with the standards for effluent discharge into
inland waters. Standards for effluents discharged into Group C inland waters are adopted, which
are also provided in Table 5-2 for reference.
Table 5-2 Standards for Effluent Discharged into Group C Inland Waters
DETERMINAND
FLOW RATE (m
3
/DAY)
≤100
>100 AND ≤500
>500 AND ≤1000
>1000 AND ≤2000
pH (pH units)
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
Temperature (°C)
30
30
30
30
Colour (lovibond units)
1
1
1
1
Suspended solids
20
10
10
5
BOD
20
15
10
5
COD
80
60
40
20
Oil & Grease
1
1
1
1
Boron
10
5
4
2
Barium
1
1
1
0.5
Iron
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Water Quality Impact
5-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
DETERMINAND
FLOW RATE (m
3
/DAY)
≤100
>100 AND ≤500
>500 AND ≤1000
>1000 AND ≤2000
Mercury
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Cadmium
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Silver
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Copper
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
Selenium
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
Lead
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Nickel
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Other toxic metals
individually
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Total toxic metals
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Cyanide
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
Phenols
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Sulphide
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Fluoride
10
7
5
4
Sulphate
800
600
400
200
Chloride
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Total phosphorus
10
10
8
8
Ammonia nitrogen
2
2
2
1
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen
30
30
20
20
Surfactants (total)
2
2
2
1
E. coli (count/100ml)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Note: All units in mg/L unless otherwise stated; all figures are upper limits unless otherwise indicated.
Construction Site Drainage, ProPECC PN1/94
Under ProPECC Practice Note PN1/94 Construction Site Drainage (ProPECC PN1/94), various
guidelines for the handling and disposal of construction site discharges are included. The
guidelines include the use of sediment traps, wheel washing facilities for vehicles leaving the
Site, adequate maintenance of drainage systems to prevent flooding and overflow, sewage
collection and treatment, and comprehensive waste management (collection, handling,
transportation, and disposal) procedures.
Town Planning Board Guidelines for Application for Developments within Deep Bay
Area under Section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance (TPB PG-No. 12C)
TPB PG-No. 12C (Revised May 2014) are the Town Planning Board (TPB) Guidelines for
Application for Developments within Deep Bay Area under Section 16 of the Town Planning
Ordinance. The Project is located within the Deep Bay Area and is subject to a Section 16
Planning Application.
TPB PG-No. 12C simply requires that new developments “…should not add to the pollution
loading of the Deep Bay Area”. Essentially this means that no additional pollution loading shall
be allowed above existing levels.
WWF understand the reasoning behind the need to protect the Deep Bay Area and so will also
follow this requirement as it pertains to the Project, primarily in achieving “Zero Pollutants”, as
described in “Zero Water Pollution – the WWF Approach” in paragraphs 5.4.12 to 5.4.34, below.
Water Quality Impact
5-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Deep Bay Guidelines for Drainage, Reclamation and Drainage Works
These Guidelines were prepared back in 1991 to ensure that any necessary dredging,
reclamation and drainage works carried out in the Deep Bay Area are executed in such a way
that the particular environmental value and sensitivity of the area are fully recognised,
respected and adequately taken into account.
Although these Guidelines are out of date and the works do not involve dredging, reclamation or
drainage works out in the Deep Bay Area, these Guidelines have nevertheless been reviewed to
ensure that the works have been designed to achieve the intent of the Guidelines.
5.3 Historic and Current Setting
Deep Bay
Deep Bay is an ecologically important one, with extensive intertidal mudflats backed by mangal,
tidal gei wai and fishponds. Oyster culture is a feature of Deep Bay and it has the largest and
most important mangrove habitat in Hong Kong. The mudflats of Inner Deep Bay also have high
conservation value as an important feeding ground for a huge number of resident and migratory
birds. The Mai Po and Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site was recognised in 1995 as a “Wetland of
International Importance”.
The Bay is large, shallow, and sediment-laden, with an average depth of about 2.9m and a mean
tidal range of 1.4m. Because of its shallowness, the presence of these muddy habitats as well as
the strong riverine inputs from within and outside, the Bay naturally has high Suspended Solids
(SS) levels.
Pollution flows into the bay from the catchments and rivers on both the Hong Kong and
Shenzhen sides. This has resulted in poor water quality especially in Inner Deep Bay, which
typically records high levels of SS, turbidity, organic matter (BOD5 and Chemical Oxygen
Demand), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphate) and E. coli bacteria, but better water quality in
Outer Deep Bay, indicating that pollutants are being gradually diluted as they move out to sea.
Specifically, according to the most recent water quality monitoring data from EPD
[Ref#
5
]
, the
overall compliance rate of the Deep Bay WCZ with its WQOs (shown in Table 5-1) was 67% in
2019 as compared to a ten-year average of 47% in 2009‐2018.
The Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Unionised Ammonia Nitrogen (NH
3
-N) WQOs were fully
complied with. Although Deep Bay, as compared with other WCZs, had higher nutrient levels
with annual depth-averaged Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) levels exceeding the respective TIN
WQOs, a noticeable long-term decrease in TIN levels since mid-2000s has been seen.
Also, there were only few reported cases of red tides in Deep Bay, likely ascribed to the presence
of considerable areas of unique wetland habitats and the high background turbidity which could
become a key factor limiting the photosynthesis and growth of phytoplankton in the bay despite
ample local nutrients supply.
The extent of the Deep Bay WCZ and the location of EPD’s water quality monitoring Stations
DM1 – DM5 are shown in Figure 5-1. A summary of water quality monitoring results for stations
in Deep Bay for the past five years are given in Table 5-3, below.
5
. Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2019, published by EPD in 2020.
Water Quality Impact
5-7
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 5-3 Summary of EPD Routine Water Quality Monitoring Data in Deep Bay WCZ Between 2015 and 2019
WATER QUALITY PARAMETER
STATION DM1
STATION DM2
STATION DM3
STATION DM4
STATION DM5
MEAN
MIN
MAX
MEAN
MIN
MAX
MEAN
MIN
MAX
MEAN
MIN
MAX
MEAN
MIN
MAX
Temperature (
o
C)
25.4
24.3
26.0
25.3
24.4
26.0
25.2
24.3
25.7
25.0
24.3
25.4
24.7
24.1
25.0
Salinity
13.4
10.8
15.2
15.2
12.1
16.7
19.7
17.7
21.3
21.3
19.9
22.7
24.0
22.8
25.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
4.8
4.5
5.5
5.2
4.9
5.8
5.8
5.5
6.4
5.9
5.7
6.1
6.0
5.8
6.1
Bottom
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
5.8
5.6
6.0
5.8
5.8
5.9
Dissolved Oxygen (% Saturation)
63
58
72
69
63
78
79
75
87
80
76
83
82
79
84
Bottom
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
79
75
82
80
79
82
pH
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.9
Suspended Solid (mg/L)
49.2
39.9
69.3
38.3
28.7
47.6
13.7
11.6
16.5
9.6
8.0
11.8
7.5
5.7
8.9
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L)
3.2
1.9
4.3
2.6
1.5
3.5
1.1
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.9
0.6
1.1
Unionised Ammonia (mg/L)
0.013
0.007
0.018
0.012
0.005
0.019
0.004
0.002
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.005
0.013
0.002
0.050
Total Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/L)
2.74
2.16
3.10
2.16
1.75
2.34
1.29
1.10
1.43
1.08
0.89
1.25
0.88
0.71
1.07
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
3.77
2.75
4.70
2.87
2.23
3.52
1.60
1.45
1.76
1.33
1.18
1.57
1.12
0.96
1.35
Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)
10.0
4.4
19.6
9.8
5.1
19.3
4.3
2.7
7.5
2.8
2.0
3.9
2.7
2.0
3.5
E.coli (cfu/100mL)
4170
760
14000
1256
340
4500
48.8
11
140
95
27
210
268
92
350
Source: Compiled from Appendix B of Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong from 2015 to 2019, published by EPD.
Notes:
1. For Station location, please see Figure 5-1.
2. Data presented is the depth-averaged value averaged over 5 years, unless stated otherwise.
3. Total Inorganic Nitrogen and Unionised Ammonia is presented as the depth averaged annual mean over 5 years and the depth averaged annual range.
4. E.coli is presented as depth averaged annual geometric mean.
5. N.M. – not measured.
Water Quality Impact
5-8
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Gei Wai
At the seaward side of the gei wai, a sluice gate connecting the inter-tidal outlet allows water to
flushing in and out of the gei wai according to the tide. The opening and closing of the sluice
gate is controlled by placing wooden sluice boards at the gate. During high tide in Deep Bay,
brackish water can enter the gei wai through the sluice gate via the inter-tidal outlet. During low
tide water in the gei wai can be drained out.
From September to November (Autumn), and from March to May (Spring) in the Lunar calendar,
the inter-tidal mangrove in Deep Bay that borders MPNR is a natural nursery for shrimp and fish.
During high tide at these times, the gei wai operators fully open the sluice gate to allow brackish
water to flushing into the gei wai, bringing in the shrimp and fish larvae. Fallen leaves of the
mangrove decompose in the gei wai and become organic nutrients that shrimp and fish can feed
on. Harvesting is normally carried out at night during low tide, when the gei wai operators fully
open the sluice gate to allow water from the gei wai to drain out into Deep Bay, catching shrimp
and fish in a net placed at the entrance of the sluice gate.
At the end of the harvesting season, gei wai operators will fully drain down the gei wai so that
the bacteria in the sediment will be killed by the ultraviolet sunlight. The drain-down process
creates areas of shallow water with exposed mud on the gei wai floor that provide feeding and
roosting habitat for hundreds of fish-eating birds, particularly herons, egrets and the
endangered Black-faced Spoonbill.
It is through the regular water exchange and gei wai drain-down that any pollutants present in
the waters of the gei wai can then enter Deep Bay.
In terms of existing water quality within gei wai, WWF carry out routine monitoring of a range of
parameters, including salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Monitoring results are
shown in graphical form in Figures 5-2 to 5-5 and have been summarised in tabular form in
Appendix B.
It can be seen that while there is not much variation in water temperature between gei wai (i.e.
difference between the maximum and minimum values is fairly constant) the other parameters
vary quite significantly between gei wai and also over time.
Other Water Systems and Sensitive Receivers
A number of natural watercourses of varying sizes run through the Assessment Area, connecting
different types of wetland habitats and providing drainage to the area. The most important
watercourse is the Shan Pui River that flows from Fairview Park, around the southeast boundary
of MPNR and then between the Reserve and Lut Chau, before joining the Kam Tin River in the
extreme southeast of the Assessment Area. In addition, two smaller watercourses discharge into
the Shenzhen River to the north of Tam Kon Chau.
The only channelised watercourse in the Assessment Area is located in the Fairview Park estate.
Despite its downstream connection with a natural watercourse, the artificial features of the
concrete channel section severely limit its ecological value and potential.
As the location of the Project is at the coast, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated on
the inland, upstream water systems. Thus, the Project will not affect existing nearby uses, such
as Fairview Park, Palm Springs and Royal Palms, nor future developments, such as those at Wo
Shang Wai, Yau Mei San and East of Kam Pok Road.
Surrounding the Project Site, there are also a number of commercial fishponds while the Site
itself is located within the Mai Po Marshes SSSI and the Inner Deep Bay SSSI is located west of
the Project Site. The identified water sensitive recievers (WSRs) are summaried in Table 5-4 and
their locations are shown in Figure 5-6.
Potential impacts to the commercial fish ponds that abut the Project Site Boundary are
discussed in the Fisheries Impact Assessment in Section 8.
Water Quality Impact
5-9
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 5-4 Representative WSRs
WSR ID
WSR
DESCRIPTION
WSR 1
Deep Bay
One of the WCZs and an ecologically important bay, with
extensive intertidal mudflats backed by mangal, tidal gei
wai and fishponds
WSR 2
Gei Wai Within The Site
Man-made tidal ponds that provide organic nutrients on
which shrimp and fish can feed on, and provide feeding and
roosting habitat for hundreds of fish-eating birds
WSR 3
Shan Pui River
Flows from Fairview Park, around the southeast boundary
of MPNR and then between the Reserve and Lut Chau,
before joining the Kam Tin River in the extreme southeast
of the Assessment Area.
WSR 4
Watercourses discharging
into the Shenzhen River
Smaller watercourses discharge into the Shenzhen River to
the north of Tam Kon Chau.
WSR 5
Channelised Watercourse
Located in the Fairview Park estate.
WSR 6
Commercial Fishponds
Commercial fishponds within the Assessment Area.
WSR 7
Mai Po Marshes SSSI
SSSI including the Project Site and south of the Project Site.
WSR 8
Inner Deep Bay SSSI
SSSI located west of the Project Site.
5.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage
The construction and operation of the Project will not result in the alternation of any water
courses, natural streams, ponds, change of water holding/flow regimes, change of catchment
types or areas, erosion or sedimentation. There will be no hydrological change due to the
construction and operation of the Project.
Typical Pollution Sources
For a typical construction site, water quality impacts can arise from the following:
General construction activities.
Construction site runoff.
Construction works near Waterbodies.
Accidental spillage.
Sewage effluent from construction workforce.
General Construction Activities
Construction works have the potential to cause water pollution if not carefully managed. Various
types of construction activities may generate wastewater, including general cleaning and
polishing, wheel washing, dust suppression and utility installation. These types of wastewater
could contain high concentrations of SS. Various construction works may also generate debris
and rubbish, such as packaging, construction materials and refuse. Uncontrolled discharge of site
effluents, rubbish and refuse generated from the construction works would lead to deterioration
in local water quality.
Construction Site Runoff
Surface runoff generated from the construction site may contain increased loading of SS and
contaminants. Potential pollution sources of site runoff may include:
Runoff and erosion of exposed bare soil and earth, drainage channel, earth working area and
stockpiles.
During rainstorms, site runoff would wash away soil particles on work areas and areas with the
topsoil exposed. Construction runoff is generally characterised by high concentrations of SS.
Release of uncontrolled site runoff would therefore increase SS levels, turbidity and cause
Water Quality Impact
5-10
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
depletion of dissolved oxygen levels in nearby water bodies. Site runoff may also wash away
contaminants and therefore cause water pollution.
Windblown dust could be generated from exposed soil surfaces in the works areas and it is
possible that windblown dust could fall directly onto the nearby water bodies when a strong
wind occurs. Dispersion of dust within the works areas may increase the SS levels in surface
runoff causing a potential impact to the nearby sensitive receivers.
Construction Works near Water Bodies
Pollution of inland waters may occur due to potential release of construction wastes and
wastewater from the adjacent works area. Construction wastes and wastewater are generally
characterised by high concentrations of SS and elevated pH.
Accidental Spillage
The use of chemicals, such as engine oil and lubricants, and their storage as waste materials has
the potential to create impacts on the water quality if spillage occurs and enters adjacent water
bodies. Waste oil may infiltrate into the surface soil layer, or runoff into the nearby water
bodies, increasing hydrocarbon levels.
Sewage Effluent from Construction Workforce
During construction of a project, the workforce on site will generate sewage, which is
characterized by high levels of BOD, ammonia and E. coli counts. Based on the DSD Sewerage
Manual, the sewage production rate for construction workers is estimated at 0.35m
3
per worker
per day. Thus, for every 100 construction workers working simultaneously at the construction
site, about 35m
3
of sewage would be generated per day. Potential water quality impacts upon
the local drainage and fresh water system may arise from these sewage effluents, if uncontrolled.
Traditional Approach to Controlling Pollutants
Traditionally, construction sites have collected muddy/contaminated water from perimeter
drains and treated it in sedimentation tanks prior to discharge to municipal drains or to local
water courses. However, during intense rainfall or typhoon conditions, the site drainage systems
are inevitably overwhelmed by the sheer volume of rainfall and muddy/contaminated water
then discharges, untreated, from the site.
In less ecologically sensitive areas there is unlikely to be any lasting damage from this discharge,
but this Project is located in a Ramsar Site, one of the most ecologically valuable and sensitive
wetlands in Hong Kong. Any leakage or discharge of muddy/ contaminated surface water from
works areas could quickly enter a gei wai. Not only is there the possibility of direct impacts to
the gei wai themselves, but due to the normal water exchange process, pollutants could also
enter Deep Bay and induce secondary impacts there. This risk is not acceptable to WWF.
Zero Water Pollution – the WWF Approach
Given that traditional approaches for control of water quality on construction sites are not
sufficient for this Project, an alternative approach must be found. Particularly since the work
sites are adjacent to water bodies, where any runoff containing pollutants would end up, and
from there may ultimately flow into Deep Bay.
One approach is to attempt full containment of all runoff from each works area to prevent it
from entering adjacent water bodies. In theory, this could be achieved by provision of tall bunds
or double bunds to contain rainwater, but it is unrealistic to expect the Works Contractor to
guarantee full containment of water within each works area, irrespective of rainfall – water will
inevitably overflow during severe rainstorms. Also, the muddy/contaminated water contained
within the bunds would then need to be treated somehow and the effluent discharged. Within
MPNR, there are no public drains and all water bodies have high ecological value, therefore even
the discharge of treated effluent from the works site is not acceptable to WWF.
Water Quality Impact
5-11
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
It is not considered practicable or desirable to implement “end of pipe” solutions such as these
to protect gei wai from pollution and protect Deep Bay from “polluted” gei wai. The better
solution is to ensure that the gei wai never become polluted due to Project activities in the first
place. Indeed, this is the only way to avoid water quality impacts and ensure that aquatic species
are protected, both in the gei wai and in Deep Bay.
This “Zero Water Pollution” approach adopted by WWF relies on two key elements; avoiding
pollution of adjacent gei wai and Deep Bay; and avoiding generating polluted runoff from works
areas in the first place.
Avoiding Pollution of Adjacent Gei Wai and Deep Bay
As discussed in Section 2.3, specific gei wai within MPNR are drained each year in accordance
with the planned schedule set out in the five-year MPNR Management Plan. The drained gei wai
undergoing such maintenance are not hydraulically connected to any other gei wai nor to Deep
Bay, i.e. they are fully isolated from surrounding water bodies. The foundation works for TH2
and TH3 will involve earthworks and because of this, can only be carried out when the adjacent
gei wai have been fully drained so as to avoid water seepage and destabilising the bunds.
The “Zero Water Pollution” approach aligns the schedule of foundation works at TH2 and TH3
with the schedule of draining the adjacent gei wai set out in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-
2024, thereby making use of the hydraulic isolation to avoid pollution of other gei wai and Deep
Bay. A perimeter bund will be constructed around the TH2 and TH3 work sites to ensure that any
runoff generated from within these sites is discharged only into the adjacent drained gei wai and
does not discharge into any other water-filled gei wai.
It should be reiterated that the drain-down of gei wai according to the MPNR Management Plan
2019-2024 would occur anyway, with or without the Project. WWF is simply making use of the
planned draining of gei wai to avoid any additional water quality impact to MPNR due to
construction of the Project.
Construction of TH2 and TH3 will require the temporary drain-down of Pond 19 and 20e (TH2)
and 8a and GW 7 (TH3). This drain-down will be conducted during the first wet season of the
construction phase in accordance with the rolling pond and gei wai desilting programme
specified in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, hence does not comprise additional impact
arising from the Project. Water levels will be restored to normal dry season operating levels at
the end of the wet season.
It should be noted that the drain-down of gei wai does provide a benefit to MPNR. In terms of
water quality, draining the gei way enables bacteria in the bottom soil to be killed by ultraviolet
sunlight. There are also ecological benefits in terms of providing feeding and roosting habitat for
hundreds of fish-eating birds.
So although foundation works are a potentially polluting period during construction in terms of
runoff, during this period there will in fact be no water in the adjacent gei wai. With no water in
the adjacent gei wai, it will not be possible for any contaminants from the works (which are not
anticipated anyway, as explained below) to flow into other gei wai or, ultimately, flow into Deep
Bay. Hence, full hydraulic isolation is achieved and maintained throughout the entire period of
foundation works and therefore water quality impact is avoided.
To order to avoid adverse water quality impact in the event of adverse weather conditions such
as heavy rainfall, a perimeter bund shall be constructed around the work sites for TH2 and TH3
to ensure that any runoff generated from these sites is discharged only into the adjacent drained
gei wai and not into any other water-filled gei wai that are hydraulically connected to each other
and to Deep Bay. Runoff is therefore prevented from entering other water-filled gei wai and
Deep Bay and so potential pollution of these water bodies is avoided. Also, materials, plant or
equipment that could give rise to contaminated runoff during extreme rainfall will be protected
by being covered, either by tarpaulin or by small gazebos that can be erected and folded up
within a few minutes.
Water Quality Impact
5-12
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Any increase in accumulated material at the base of the drained gei wai due to runoff from the
TH2 and TH3 work sites will be negligible in comparison to that generated by the maintenance
works themselves and will not be discernible. As the gei wai are gradually refilled according to
the schedule set out in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, suspension of sediment will
occur as usual. But since water will be flowing into the previously drained gei wai from the
adjacent filled gei wai, there will be no escape of any suspended sediments against the flow of
incoming water. When the previously drained gei wai have fully refilled, suspended sediments
will settle and the previously drained gei wai will reconnect hydraulically with the surrounding
water bodies. Throughout this process, there will have been no adverse impact on water quality
of the surrounding gei wai or Deep Bay from the works that were carried out at TH2 and TH3.
The new Boardwalks are generally at some distance from water bodies and does not require any
excavation work, and so no muddy run-off is expected. As such, no impact on gei wai or on Deep
Bay is anticipated from construction of the Boardwalks.
Avoiding Polluted Runoff from Works Areas
For the gei wai within MPNR and Deep Bay to become polluted as a result of contaminated run-
off from the works sites within MPNR, there would need to be a hydraulic connection through
which the pollutants could travel, i.e. through the gei wai adjacent to the work sites. However,
as explained above, this will not be the case, and any polluted runoff from works areas will be
isolated from the rest of the gei wai and from Deep Bay.
The specific construction methods and configurations for the three Project Elements were
described in Section 2.2. From this, it can be seen that potential water quality impacts could
result from runoff from works areas that is contaminated due to the presence of temporary
stockpiles of soil excavated for the foundations of TH2 and TH3 (mud); the presence of concrete
for construction of the footings of TH2 and TH3 (concrete washings); cleaning and maintenance
of plant and equipment (oily wastes); and general site waste (refuse from construction
packaging and sewage from workers).
To further ensure that there is “Zero Water Pollution” from the works areas, the following
additional measures will be adopted by WWF, its Designers and its Works Contractors:
Perimeter Bund. A perimeter bund shall be constructed around the work sites for TH2 and
TH3 to ensure that any runoff generated from these sites is discharged only into the
adjacent drained gei wai and not into any other water-filled gei wai that are hydraulically
connected to each other and to Deep Bay. Runoff is therefore prevented from entering
other water-filled gei wai and Deep Bay and so potential pollution of these water bodies is
avoided. Suggested positions for these bunds are shown in Figures 2-4 and 2-5.
Off-site Pre-fabrication. The majority of construction components shall be pre-fabricated
off-site to avoid adverse impacts associated with construction on-site. With this approach,
the construction activities will mainly involve assembly of pre-fabricated components.
Off-site Concrete Mixing. One of the main sources of contaminated runoff from
construction sites is concrete washings from concrete mixing on site. To avoid this problem,
all concrete will be mixed off-site and brought into each works area only when needed and
only in the quantities required, so that there is no need to store (or dispose of) any surplus
concrete. Any concrete spilled within the works area will be immediately cleaned up and
removed from the works area.
Off-site Maintenance/Repair of Plant. Plant, equipment and vehicles shall not be
maintained or repaired within any works area in the Project Site. Instead, all such servicing
shall be undertaken off-site, such that any resulting oil, chemical waste or other polluting
substances can be handled and treated off-site in an appropriate manner.
Extreme Care When Re-fuelling Plant. In the event that non-mobile plant and equipment
require re-fuelling, and it is not practicable to move off-site for re-fuelling, then re-fuelling
shall be carried out with extreme care. Drip trays shall be provided at any fuel connection
Water Quality Impact
5-13
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
point, e.g. between the delivery pipe and the fuel tank. Any spilled fuel shall be collected
and taken off-site for proper treatment/disposal.
Covering Materials, Plant and Equipment During Rainstorms. Materials, plant or equipment
that could give rise to contaminated runoff during extreme rainfall will be protected by
being covered, either by tarpaulin or by small gazebos that can be erected and folded up
within a few minutes.
Provision of Chemical Toilets. Each works area will be provided with at least one chemical
toilet for use by workers. Sewage collected in these chemical toilets will be treated off-site
by the toilet provider.
Bunded, Covered C&D Material Storage Areas. Each works area will be provided one bunded
and covered area for the temporary storage of C&D material – one section for inert C&D
material and one area for C&D waste. These areas will be emptied frequently, using
construction material delivery vehicles that are empty on their return journey. All inert C&D
material and C&D waste will be transported off-site for recycling or treatment as appropriate.
Waterproof General Waste Receptacles. Each works area will be provided with at least one
set of waterproof waste receptacles – one for recyclable waste and one for non-recyclable
waste. These receptacles will be emptied frequently.
In addition to the above, the Works Contractor shall follow good site practice (as discussed in
Section 5.6, below) and shall be responsible for the design construction, operation and
maintenance of relevant mitigation measures specified in ProPECC PN 1/94 for construction site
drainage. Specified good site practice and code of behaviour shall be included in the works
contract documents.
With the above measures in place – and regularly checked/audited by the Environmental Team
(ET) and the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) – there will be no point or non-point
pollution sources due to the construction of the Project. Other than the control measures
proposed above, no facilities, plant or equipment will be required to reduce pollution arising
from the point and non-point sources, as there will be no pollution. Runoff from works areas will
not enter surrounding water bodies, only the adjacent drained gai wai, and so there can be no
pollution of fishponds or full gei wai and, consequently, no pollution of Deep Bay.
Zero Water Pollution – Conclusion
So, for this Project, the preferred approach to water quality management is not to attempt to
control runoff or use an “end of pipe” solution, but effectively prevent adverse impact to
surrounding gei wai and Deep Bay by ensuring that there is no hydraulic connection between the
works areas and sensitive water bodies. Additionally, by adopting a more stringent approach to
design, construction and site management, the chance of pollutants being generated in the first
place is further reduced.
As there will be no pollution sources due to the construction of the Project entering the
environment of MPNR, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated on the water systems –
gei wai or Deep Bay – or associated sensitive receivers. There will be no alteration of any water
courses, natural streams, ponds, change of water holding/flow regimes, change of catchment
types or areas, erosion or sedimentation. There will be no change to the hydrology within the
Project Site or within the Assessment Area for water quality; there will be no release of
contaminants, such as fuel oil or chemicals, since none will be permitted on site; and there will
be no land decontamination required.
The above measures will result in zero polluted runoff from the works areas entering
surrounding water bodies. After refilling of the gei wai there will not be any residual impact due
to construction of the Project and the Project will not hinder the attainment of the WQOs for the
Deep Bay WCZ.
Given that there will no pollution sources – point or non-point – due to the construction of the
Project entering the environment of MPNR and given that the draining of the gei wai adjacent to
Water Quality Impact
5-14
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
the works areas for the tower hides effectively isolates these areas from the surrounding water
bodies, there is no possibility of any water pollution due to the Project entering Deep Bay.
Therefore, it is not possible (and indeed not necessary) to carry out water quality modelling in this
regard – simply put, the “Zero Water Pollution” approach ensures that there will be no impact.
Cumulative Impact
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will not commence until end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project. There are
also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative water quality impacts for this
Project is not anticipated.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative water quality impacts.
As the “Zero Water Pollution” approach will ensure that this Project will not cause pollution of
gei wai, or water courses, natural streams, and ponds that discharge into Deep Bay, there is no
contribution from this Project to cumulative water quality impacts within the Assessment Area.
5.5 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage
The two new tower hides will not be provided with toilets or washrooms and so no wastewater
will be generated. Runoff from the roof of the tower hides and from the footpaths will not be
contaminated. As such, there will be no point or non-point pollution sources due to the operation
of the Project and therefore no impact to the water systems – gei wai or Deep Bay – or associated
sensitive receivers within the Project Site or within the Assessment Area for water quality.
Overall, therefore, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated during operation stage.
5.6 Mitigation Measures
Construction Stage
Zero polluted runoff from works areas (as described in Section 5.4) shall be achieved by
programming the construction of footings/substructure at TH2 and TH3 only when the adjacent
gei wai are drained in accordance with the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and also
through the implementation of:
Perimeter Bund
Off-site Pre-fabrication
Off-site Concrete Mixing
Off-site Maintenance/Repair of Plant
Extreme Care When Re-fuelling Plant
Covering Materials, Plant and Equipment During Rainstorms
Provision of Chemical Toilets
Bunded, Covered Construction C&D Material Storage Areas
Waterproof General Waste Receptacles
In addition to the above, the Works Contractor shall follow good site practice and be responsible
for the design construction, operation and maintenance of applicable mitigation measures
specified in ProPECC PN 1/94 for construction site drainage:
Perimeter channels at site boundaries shall be provided to intercept surface runoff from
outside the works areas so that it will not wash across the works areas and to direct all site
runoff only into adjacent drained gei wai.
For the purpose of preventing soil erosion, exposed slope surfaces shall be covered e.g. by
tarpaulin, and temporary access roads shall be protected by crushed stone or gravel.
Intercepting channels shall be provided (e.g. along the crest/edge of excavation) to prevent
storm runoff from washing across exposed soil surfaces. Arrangements shall always be in place
Water Quality Impact
5-15
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
to ensure that adequate surface protection measures can be safely carried out well before the
arrival of a rainstorm.
Earthworks final surfaces shall be well compacted and the subsequent permanent work or
surface protection shall be carried out immediately after the final surfaces are formed to
prevent erosion caused by rainstorms.
Measures shall be taken to minimise the ingress of rainwater into trenches. If excavation of
trenches in wet seasons is necessary, they shall be dug and backfilled in short sections.
The Works Contractor(s) shall be required to prepare and implement a risk management plan to
minimise risks and to prepare and implement an emergency response plan in case of accident,
particularly in works areas close to gei wai and commercial fishponds.
As a precautionary measure, and to demonstrate that the “Zero Water Pollution” approach is
working, it is proposed to carry out water quality EM&A within Deep Bay before, during and
after the foundation works at TH2 and TH3. Further details are given in Section 10.4.
Operation Stage
No mitigation measures are required during the operation stage.
5.7 Conclusion
WWF will adopt a “Zero Water Pollution” approach during construction, particularly for TH2 and
TH3. This relies on two key elements; avoiding pollution of adjacent gei wai and Deep Bay; and
avoiding generating polluted runoff from works areas in the first place.
To avoid pollution of adjacent gei wai and Deep Bay, the schedule of foundation works at TH2
and TH3 – the most potentially polluting period during construction in terms of runoff – will be
aligned with the schedule of draining the adjacent gei wai in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-
2024. The drained gei wai undergoing such maintenance are not hydraulically connected to any
other gei wai nor to Deep Bay, i.e. they are fully isolated from surrounding water bodies. A
perimeter bund will be constructed around the TH2 and TH3 work sites to ensure that any runoff
generated from within these sites is discharged only into the adjacent drained gei wai and does
not discharge into any other water-filled gei wai. With no water in the adjacent gei wai into
which all site runoff will flow, it will not be possible for any contaminants from the works (which
are not anticipated anyway) to flow into other gei wai or, ultimately, flow into Deep Bay.
To avoid generating polluted runoff from works areas in the first place, zero contaminated
runoff will be achieved through implementation of a series of measures, including off-site pre-
fabrication; off-site concrete mixing; off-site maintenance/repair of plant; taking extreme care
when re-fuelling plant; covering materials, plant and equipment during rainstorms; provision of
chemical toilets; bunded, covered construction C&D material storage areas; and waterproof
general waste receptacles.
In addition to this, the Works Contractor shall follow good site practice and be responsible for
the design construction, operation and maintenance of applicable mitigation measures specified
in ProPECC PN 1/94 for construction site drainage.
With the above measures in place during the construction stage, it is unlikely that there will be
adverse water quality impact to the gei wai or to Deep Bay as a result of the works. Furthermore,
no cumulative impact is identified. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure and to demonstrate
that the “Zero Water Pollution” approach is working, it is proposed to carry out water quality
EM&A within Deep Bay before, during and after the foundation works at TH2 and TH3.
During operation, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated as the two new tower hides will
not be provided with toilets or washrooms, and so no wastewater will be generated. Runoff
from the roof of the tower hides and from the footpaths will not be contaminated.
Overall, therefore, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated during the construction or
operation stages of the Project.
Waste Management Implications
6-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
6 WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Introduction
This assessment of waste management implications has been carried out to identify, qualify and
quantify solid waste arising from the construction and operation of the Project. The criteria and
guidelines listed in Annex 7 and Annex 15 of the EIAO-TM are referred to.
The assessment of waste management implication includes measures proposed for waste
avoidance, minimisation, re-use and recycling. Waste management options and potential
environmental impacts with the waste handling and disposal options are assessed.
6.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
The principle legislation governing waste management is the Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO)
(Cap. 354) and its subsidiary regulations. The WDO generally encompasses all stages of waste
management, from place of arising to final disposal point of waste. The Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation, provides controls on all aspects of chemical waste
disposal, including storage, collection, transport, treatment and final disposal.
In carrying out the solid waste assessment, reference has been made to the following relevant
legislation, documents and guidelines:
The WDO setting out requirements for storage, handling and transportation of all types of
wastes, and subsidiary legislation such as the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of
Construction Waste) Regulation and the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation
The Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) setting out requirements for
individuals or companies to obtain Dumping Licences for delivering public fill to the public fill
reception facilities.
The Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) providing further control on
illegal dumping of wastes on unauthorized (unlicensed) site.
Environmental, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) Technical Circular (Works) No.
19/2005, Environmental Management on Construction Sites.
Environmental, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) Technical Circular (Works) No.
22/2003A Additional Measures to Improve Site Cleanliness and Control Mosquito Breeding
on Construction Sites.
Project Administration Handbook for Civil Engineering Works (2014 Edition) – Section 4.1.3
Development Bureau (DevB) Technical Circular (Works) No. 6/2010, Trip Ticket System for
Disposal of Construction & Demolition Materials.
Practice Note for Registered Contractor No. 17 – Control of Environmental Nuisance from
Construction Site.
Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong – Waste Statistics for 2019.
6.3 Types of Waste
The following types of waste may be generated during the works such as site clearance,
construction of TH2 and TH3 as well as construction of new boardwalks, etc.:
Inert C&D Material. Does not decompose, such as debris, rubble, earth and concrete, and is
suitable for land reclamation and site formation. The major source of inert C&D material will be
generated from the construction of TH2 and TH3 during the construction stage.
C&D Waste (or Non-inert C&D Material). Can decompose and generate odour, such as
bamboo, timber, vegetation, packaging waste and other organic material, and is therefore
unsuitable for land reclamation. The major source of non-inert C&D material will be from site
clearance for TH2, TH3 and the footpaths during the construction stage.
Waste Management Implications
6-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
General Refuse. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) includes paper, packaging, food waste, etc.
arising from workers during the construction stage. There will be no general refuse from
visitors during the operation stage because no rubbish bins will be provided within MPNR.
Chemical Waste. Liquid, semi-solid and solid wastes (e.g. waste lube oil, asbestos, etc.) that
are hazardous or polluting and must therefore be managed, treated and disposed of in a
controlled manner. There will be no chemical waste generated during the construction stage
as there shall be no maintenance or repair of vehicles, plant or equipment on site.
The works under the five-year MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 discussed in Section 2.3 are
planned maintenance works for MPNR and do not form part of this Project. No dredging or
desilting works are required during the construction and operation of the Project.
6.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage
To ensure that the inert C&D materials is acceptable at Public Fill Reception Facilities (PFRFs) or
for recycling, all waste materials arising from or in connection with the construction work shall
be sorted on-site and be separated into different groups for disposal at landfill, PFRFs, or
recycling. As a minimum, separation of inert from non-inert materials shall be provided, as
research in A Guide for Managing and Minimizing Building and Demolition Waste (“the
Guide”)
[Ref.#
6
]
indicates that 90% of construction waste produced could be used for reclamation if
sorting is performed.
Inert C&D Material
Section 3.2 of The Guide provides a “waste index” for building waste generation in Hong Kong
based on the GFA of three different building types:
Private Housing Projects 0.250m
3
/m
2
GFA
Government Housing Projects 0.174m
3
/m
2
GFA
Commercial Office Projects 0.200m
3
/m
2
GFA
To provide an estimate of building waste from the construction of the new tower hides, the
“waste index” for commercial office projects has been used, which is the closest fit to the tower
hides. However, this index does not truly reflect the simple design of the tower hides and does
not take into account the pre-fabrication approach that will be used for construction of the
tower hides. As such, calculations using the above factors are considered to be very
conservative.
In addition to inert C&D material, this “waste index” also includes C&D waste but The Guide does
not identify what proportion of building waste is inert C&D material and what proportion is C&D
waste. However, Plate 2.12 of Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong – Waste Statistics for
2019
[Ref.#
7
]
identifies that in 2019, 92% of construction waste was public fill sent to PFRFs or
transferred to projects for beneficial reuse. In line with this, 92% of the total construction waste
to be generated during construction of this Project is also assumed to be public fill (inert
materials).
The proportion of inert C&D material in the “waste index” can therefore be estimated by
applying the Hong Kong-wide proportion of inert C&D material in construction waste, i.e. 92%,
to the “waste index” as follows:
Waste Index
INERT C&D MATERIAL
= 0.92 x “waste index” for commercial office projects
= 0.92 x 0.200m
3
/m
2
GFA
= 0.184m
3
/m
2
GFA
6
. A Guide for Managing and Minimizing Building and Demolition Waste, C. S. Poon, T.W. Yu and L. H. Ng, Research Centre for Urban Environmental
Technology and Management, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, May 2001.
7
. Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong – Waste Statistics for 2019, EPD, December 2020.
Waste Management Implications
6-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
There will be some excavation work required for the installation of footings for TH2 and TH3,
however, all of the excavated soil will be backfilled after completion of the footings and no on-
site or off-site disposal or surplus soil will be required. No dredging of mud will be required for
the Project.
The inert C&D material component of building waste from the construction of the new tower
hides can be calculated as follows, as shown in Table 6-1:
Building Waste = Waste Index
INERT C&D MATERIAL
x GFA
Table 6-1 Estimate of Inert C&D Material Arising During Construction Stage
PROJECT ELEMENT
AREA
(m
2
)
VOLUME
(m
3
)
WEIGHT
[ NOTE 1]
(TONNES)
REMARKS
INERT C&D MATERIAL FROM BUILDINGS AND BOARDWALKS
Construction of TH2
145.0
26.7
48.0
Includes surplus material
from foundation excavation
Construction of TH3
145.0
26.7
48.0
Boardwalks Above Existing
Concrete Paths
1,628.6
0.0
0.0
Concrete will remain in situ,
no concrete waste will arise
Boardwalks to Access New THs
397.7
0.0
0.0
No excavation required.
Boardwalks for EAs
74.6
0.0
0.0
No excavation required.
Total
53.4
96.0
Note:
1. Assume inert C&D material has a density of 1.8 tonnes/m
3
.
The 96.0 tonnes inert C&D material equates to 32.0 tonnes per month on average over the three
months during which construction will be carried out, equivalent to six trips per month for a 5.5
tonne dump truck. This is a highly conservative estimate and in reality the quantity of waste is
likely to be much lower. This waste will be sent to the nearest PFRF, which is at Tuen Mun Area
38, around 16km from the Site.
CEDD Technical Circular No. 03/2015 Management of Construction and Demolition Materials
requires a project that generates more than 50,000m
3
of C&D material to have a Construction
and Demolition Material Management Plan (C&DMMP). As this Project will generate an
estimated 53.4m
3
of inert C&D material a C&DMMP will not be required.
In terms of impacts from the handling, transportation or disposal of inert C&D material, there is
no potential hazard; no odour emission; no on-site noise other than vehicle movement; and no
ecological impact. Dust will be controlled through appropriate methods to be proposed in the
Waste Management Plan (WMP); run-off will be controlled; and the use of public roads for
transportation is limited, as described above. With proper implementation of good site practices
and mitigation measures as recommended in Section 6.6, no adverse environmental impact is
anticipated from management of inert C&D materials during the construction stage.
C&D Waste
For building work, C&D waste, such as timber formwork, packaging waste, vegetation from site
clearance and other wastes, is included in the “waste index” provided in The Guide, together
with inert C&D material.
However, Plate 2.12 of Waste Statistics for 2019 identifies that in 2019, 8% of construction
waste was disposed of at landfills, which is assumed as C&D waste. The proportion of C&D waste
in the “waste index” can therefore be estimated by applying the Hong Kong-wide proportion of
C&D waste in construction waste, i.e. 8%, to the “waste index” as follows:
Waste Index
C&D WASTE
= 0.08 x “waste index”
= 0.08 x 0.200m
3
/m
2
GFA
= 0.016m
3
/m
2
GFA
Waste Management Implications
6-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The C&D waste component of building waste from the construction of the new components can
be calculated as follows:
Building Waste = Waste Index
C&D WASTE
x GFA
In addition to this, there will be vegetation waste from clearance of each works area. These
waste quantities are estimated in Table 6-2:
Table 6-2 Estimate of C&D Waste Arising During Construction Stage
PROJECT ELEMENT
AREA
(m
2
)
VOLUME
(m
3
)
WEIGHT
[ NOTE 1]
(TONNES)
REMARKS
C&D WASTE FROM BUILDINGS AND BOARDWALKS
Construction of TH2
145.0
2.3
4.2
Construction of TH3
145.0
2.3
4.2
Boardwalks Above
Existing Concrete Paths
1,628.6
4.9
3.7
Assume timber off-cuts at 10% of
volume of wood used for 3cm thick
decking (includes vertical posts and
horizontal bracing)
Boardwalks to Access
New Tower Hides
397.7
1.2
0.9
Boardwalks for EAs
74.6
0.2
0.2
Total
10.9
13.1
VEGETATION FROM SITE CLEARANCE
[NOTE2]
Phase 1 for TH2
835.0
208.8
20.9
Phase 1 for TH3
940.0
235.0
23.5
Boardwalks Above
Existing Concrete Paths
3,109.1
777.3
77.7
Excludes 1,480.5m
2
of existing
concrete footpaths
Boardwalks to Access
New Tower Hides
1,120.7
280.2
28.0
Boardwalks for EAs
299.4
74.9
7.5
Excludes areas overlapping with
adjacent boardwalk of main footpath
Total
1,576.0
157.6
Notes:
1. Assume C&D waste has a density of 1.8 tonnes/m
3
. Assume of wood (boardwalk off-cuts) has a typical density of
0.75 tonnes/m
3
. Assume vegetation (compressed) has a density of 0.1 tonnes/m
3
.
2. Vegetation from site clearance assumed to be 0.25m
3
per m
2
based on typical vegetation cover).
The 13.1 tonnes of C&D waste that requires off-site disposal equates to 4.4 tonnes per month on
average over the three months during which construction will be carried out, equivalent to one
trip per month for a 5.5 tonne dump truck. The 157.6 tonnes of vegetation waste will be reduced
in size to aid biodegradation and then all will be composted within MPNR – it will not require off-
site disposal.
On-site sorting should be carried out for the other C&D waste generated from the construction
works. Recyclable materials, such as metal, paper products, timber and plastic, should be collected
by local recyclers for off-site recycling. Plate 3.1 in Waste Statistics for 2019 identified that 29% of
MSW was recovered in 2019. Assuming a similar recovery rate for C&D waste, this could be
around 3.8 tonnes. Landfill disposal of the remaining 71%, or 9.3 tonnes, should be adopted as the
last resort. The nearest disposal facility is NENT Landfill, which is 22km from the Site.
It is estimated that there will be 4.4 tonnes per month of C&D waste generated. Nevertheless, to
minimise waste generation mitigation measures proposed below should be implemented.
In terms of impacts from the handling, transportation or disposal of C&D waste, there is no
potential hazard; no odour emission; no on-site noise other than vehicle movement; and no
ecological impact. Dust will be controlled through methods to be proposed in the WMP; run-off
will be controlled; and the use of public roads for transportation is limited, as described above.
Waste Management Implications
6-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
With proper implementation of good site practices and mitigation measures as recommended in
Section 6.6, no adverse environmental impact is anticipated from management of C&D waste
during the construction stage.
General Refuse
General refuse from construction workers is similar to domestic waste and includes packaging
and organic material. The numbers of workers who will be engaged on the construction works
will depend on which contractor is engaged to carry out the work. However, based on industry
experience, we estimate for a project of this size there would be no more than 100 workers per
day over the six months during which construction will be carried out.
Each construction worker will generate general refuse, which is similar to domestic waste. Plate
2.7 of Waste Statistics for 2019 identifies that the per capita domestic waste disposal rate in
2019 was 0.87kg/person/day. Although the per worker generation rate of general refuse will be
less than this, to be conservative the per capita domestic waste disposal rate in 2019 has been
adopted for general refuse generation by construction workers. On this basis:
General Refuse/day = No. workers/day x per capita generation rate
= 100 workers x 0.87kg/worker/day
= 87kg/day
Total General Refuse = General Refuse/day x duration of construction contract
= 87kg/day x (6 days/week x 6 months)
= 13,572kg
= 13.6 tonnes
The 13.6 tonnes of general refuse equates to 4.5 tonnes per month on average over the three
months during which construction will be carried out, equivalent to one trip per month for a 5.5
tonne dump truck/flatbed/refuse collection vehicle.
On-site sorting should be carried out, with recyclable materials, such as metal, paper and plastic,
given to local recyclers for off-site recycling. Based on the 29% recovery rate for MSW achieved
in Hong Kong in 2019, as shown on Plate 3.2 in Waste Statistics for 2019, this could be around
3.9 tonnes. Landfill disposal of the remaining 71%, or 9.7 tonnes, should be adopted as the last
resort. The nearest disposal facility for general waste is the NWNT Transfer Station in Yuen Long,
around 18km from the Site, equivalent to one trip per month for a 5.5 tonne dump truck.
It is estimated that there will be 4.5 tonnes per month of general refuse generated.
Nevertheless, to minimise waste generation mitigation measures proposed below should be
implemented.
In terms of impacts from the handling, transportation or disposal of general refuse, there is no
potential hazard; no dust emissions; no on-site noise other than vehicle movement; and no
ecological impact. Odour will be controlled through appropriate methods to be proposed in the
WMP; run-off will be controlled as per the 8
th
Bullet under paragraph 5.4.25; and the use of
public roads for transportation is limited, as described above. With proper implementation of
good site practices and mitigation measures as recommended in Section 6.6, no adverse
environmental impact is anticipated from management of general refuse during the construction
stage.
Chemical Waste
Chemical waste that typically arises during construction on other projects includes spent
lubricants, waste batteries, etc. from vehicles, plant and equipment that are maintained on site.
For the Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project, however, WWF will mandate in
all contract documents that there shall be no maintenance or repair of vehicles, plant or
equipment on site. On this basis, therefore, no chemical waste is anticipated to arise during the
construction stage.
Waste Management Implications
6-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
6.5 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage
Inert C&D Material, C&D Waste and Chemical Waste are not anticipated to be generated during
operation of the Project.
General refuse may be generated by visitors but to minimise the amount WWF will continue to
encourage visitors to bring their own reusable water bottles and food containers, rather than
single-use containers, and to provide free drinking water for visitors at the MPEC.
No waste receptacles are provided within MPNR and visitors will be encouraged to take their
waste home with them. As such there will be no general waste deposited within MPNR during
operation. Outside the Project Site, at PSFSC, recycling bins will be provided for visitors before
and after their visit to the MPNR.
As no waste receptacles are provided within MPNR, visitors deposit any waste in recycling bins
outside the MPNR that are provided by WWF. According to WWF’s records, the general refuse
collected in 2018 was between 5kg and 7kg per day, which around 0.09kg per person per day.
WWF estimates that visitor numbers will increase 32,800 per year within three years after the
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project is completed:
No. Future Visitors = 32,800 visitors per year
Refuse per Visitor = 0.09 kg per visitor per year on average (based on 2018 rate)
Predicted Refuse = 2,981kg per year
= 248kg per month
= 8kg per day
This waste will not be disposed of within the Project Site but in recycling bins outside the MPNR.
6.6 Mitigation Measures
Construction Stage
Waste management shall be controlled through contractual requirements as well as through
statutory requirements, including:
Environmental, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) Technical Circular (Works) No.
19/2005, Environmental Management on Construction Sites
Project Administration Handbook for Civil Engineering Works (PAH) Section 4.13
Development Bureau (DevB) Technical Circular (Works) No. 6/2010, Trip Ticket System for
Disposal of Construction & Demolition Materials
According to ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005, the Waste Management Plan (WMP) becomes part of
the Environmental Management Plan that should be developed by the contractor and to be
submitted to Architect/Engineer for approval before the commencement of any demolition or
construction works. The objectives of the WMP will be to identify any potential environmental
impacts from the generation of waste at the Site; to recommend appropriate waste handling,
collection, sorting, disposal and recycling measures in accordance with requirements of the
current regulations; and to categorise and permit segregation of C&D material (i.e. inert C&D
materials, C&D waste, etc. for off-site reuse, recycling, treatment and/or disposal.
The contractors should adopt good housekeeping practices with reference to the WMP such as
waste segregation prior to disposal. Besides the provision of stockpiling and segregating areas at
site, effective collection of site wastes is required to prevent waste materials being blown
around by wind, flushed or leached into nearby waters, or creating odour nuisance or pest and
vermin problems. Waste storage areas should be well maintained and cleaned regularly.
Mitigation measures listed in Practice Note for Registered Contractors No. 17 Control of
Environmental Nuisance from Construction Sites shall be adopted. C&D Material shall be
delivered to the appropriate designated outlets by dump trucks fitted with covered box type
dump bed and such dump trunks shall comply with the particular specification listed in Part B of
Waste Management Implications
6-7
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Annex 2 to Appendix C of ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005 to minimise potential nuisance during
transportation of waste. Refuse pending removal should be stored in receptacles provided with
close fitting covers to avoid waste materials be flushed or leached under inclement weather
conditions such as heavy rainfall.
A trip-ticket system shall be established in as per DevB TC(W) No. 6/2010 and the Waste
Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation to monitor the disposal of
public fill and solid waste at PFRFs and landfills, and to control fly-tipping. A trip-ticket system
shall be included as one of the contractual requirements for the contractor to strictly implement.
General refuse should be stored in enclosed bins or compaction units separate from C&D
material. A reputable waste collector should be employed by the construction contractor to
remove general refuse from the Site, separately from C&D materials. Preferably an enclosed and
covered area should be provided to reduce the occurrence of “wind-blown” materials.
The Contractor should adopt good working practices in order to further minimise the
environmental impacts related to waste arising from the Project, such as:
The Contractor shall observe and comply with the Waste Disposal Ordinance and its
subsidiary regulations.
The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval a WMP with appropriate mitigation
measures including allocation of an area for waste segregation and shall ensure that the
day-to-day site operations comply with the approved WMP.
The Contractor shall minimise the generation of waste from his work. Avoidance and
minimisation of waste generation can be achieved through changing or improving design
and practices, careful planning and good site management.
The Contractor shall ensure that different types of wastes are segregated on-site and stored
in different containers, skips or stockpiles to facilitate reuse/recycling of waste and, as the
last resort, disposal at different outlets as appropriate.
The reuse and recycling of waste shall be practised as far as possible. The recycled materials
shall include paper/cardboard, timber and metal etc.
The Contractor shall ensure that C&D materials are sorted into public fill (inert portion) and
C&D waste (non-inert portion). The public fill, which comprises soil, rock, concrete, brick,
cement plaster/mortar, inert building debris, aggregates and asphalt, shall be reused in
earth filling, reclamation or site formation works. The C&D waste, which comprises metal,
timber, paper, glass, junk and general refuse, shall be reused and recycled and, as the last
resort, disposal of at landfills.
The Contractor shall record the amount of waste generated, recycled and disposed of
(including the disposal sites).
The Contractor shall use a trip ticket system for the disposal of C&D materials to any
designated PFRFs and/or landfill.
Training shall be provided for workers about the concepts of site cleanliness and appropriate
waste management procedures, including waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
The Contractor shall not permit any sewage, wastewater or effluent containing sand,
cement, silt or any other suspended or dissolved material to flow from the Site onto any
adjoining land or allow any waste matter to be deposited anywhere within the Site or onto
any adjoining land. He shall arrange removal of such matter from the site in a proper manner
to the satisfaction of the Engineer in consultation with the Director of Environmental
Protection.
The Contractor shall observe and comply with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)
(General) Regulation.
Waste Management Implications
6-8
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
When inclement weather (e.g. heavy rain, typhoon, etc.) is forecast, additional control measures
should be adopted as follows:
Construction material, stockpiles, chemical and waste storage/recycling facilities should be
immediately moved to secured area.
Construction material, stockpiles and waste storage/recycling facilities should be covered by
an impermeable sheeting, if necessary.
Intercepting channels will be provided at the edge of the excavated area to prevent storm
runoff from washing across the exposed surface.
Operation Stage
In order to minimise the amount of waste generated by visitors to MPNR, WWF will continue to
encourage visitors to bring their own reusable water bottles and food containers, rather than
single-use containers, and to provide free drinking water for visitors at the EC. No waste
receptacles are provided within MPNR and visitors will be encouraged to take their waste home
with them. As such, no mitigation is required.
6.7 Conclusions
Construction Stage
An estimated 96.0 tonnes of inert C&D material will be generated, which equates to 32.0 tonnes
per month on average. This waste will be sent to the PFRF at Tuen Mun Area 38, around 16km
from the Site.
An estimated 13.1 tonnes of C&D waste will be generated, which equates to 4.4 tonnes per
month on average. An estimated 157.6 tonnes of vegetation waste, which equates to 52.5
tonnes per month on average, will be reduced in size to aid biodegradation and then composted
within MPNR – none will require off-site disposal.
On-site sorting should be carried out for the other C&D waste generated from the construction
works. Recyclable materials, such as metal, paper products, timber and plastic, should be
collected by local recyclers for off-site recycling. Assuming a similar 29% recovery rate for C&D
waste as was achieved for MSW in 2019, this could be around 3.8 tonnes. Landfill disposal of the
remaining 71%, or 9.3 tonnes, should be adopted as the last resort. The nearest disposal facility
is NENT Landfill.
With the on-site biodegradation and composting as well as off-site recycling, the amount of C&D
waste required to be disposed of at landfills is minimized.
An estimated 13.6 tonnes of general refuse will be generated, which equates to 4.5 tonnes per
month on average. Even if the construction period is longer than assumed, meaning that the
quantity of general refuse produced will be larger, it will still be insignificant and the conclusions
of this waste assessment will remain unchanged.
On-site sorting of general refuse should be carried out, with recyclable materials, such as metal,
paper and plastic, given to local recyclers for off-site recycling. Based on the 29% recovery rate
for MSW achieved in Hong Kong in 2019, this could be around 3.9 tonnes. Landfill disposal of the
remaining 71%, or 9.7 tonnes, should be adopted as the last resort. The nearest disposal facility
for general waste is the NWNT Transfer Station in Yuen Long.
With proper waste segregation and recycling as well as provision of waste management training,
the amount of general refuse required to be required of at landfills is minimized.
In terms of chemical waste, WWF will mandate in all contract documents that there shall be no
maintenance or repair of vehicles, plant or equipment on site. On this basis, therefore, no
chemical waste is anticipated to arise during the construction stage.
Waste Management Implications
6-9
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Operation Stage
Inert C&D Material, C&D Waste and Chemical Waste are not anticipated to be generated during
operation of the Project.
General refuse may be generated by visitors but to minimise the amount WWF will continue to
encourage visitors to bring their own reusable water bottles and food containers.
No waste receptacles are provided within MPNR and visitors will be encouraged to take their
waste home with them. As such there will be no general waste deposited within MPNR during
operation. Outside the Project Site, recycling bins will be provided for visitors before and after
their visit to the MPNR.
Overall
Table 6-3 summarises the generation of waste during the construction stage and identifies the
appropriate management options for treatment and disposal of each waste type. Of the 280.3
tonnes of waste generated it is anticipated that up to 261.3 tonnes could potentially be treated
/recycled/recovered, which is a 93% waste diversion rate from landfill.
Table 6-3 Summary of Waste Generation During Construction and Management Options
WASTE
TYPE
ESTIMATED WASTE
GENERATION DURING
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
REUSE/RECYCLE
DISPOSAL
TOTAL
TONNES
TONNES/
MONTH*
APPROACH
TOTAL
TONNES
TONNES/
MONTH*
APPROACH
TOTAL
TONNES
TONNES/
MONTH*
Inert C&D
Material
96.0
32.0
PFRF at Tuen
Mun Area 38
96.0
32.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
C&D Waste
(non-inert)
13.1
4.4
Segregation
+ off-site
recycling
3.8
1.3
Disposal at
NENT
Landfill
9.3
3.1
C&D Waste
(vegetation)
157.6
52.5
Composting
within MPNR
157.6
52.5
N/A
0.0
0.0
General
Refuse from
Workers
13.6
4.5
Segregation
+ off-site
recycling
3.9
1.3
Residual to
NWNT RTS
> Landfill
9.7
3.2
Chemical
Waste
#
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
Total
280.3
93.4
261.3
87.1
19.0
6.3
Note: *Based on a 3 months construction period from mid-April to mid-May 2022 and early-September to mid-
October 2022.
#
No maintenance or repair of vehicles, plant or equipment will be allowed onsite and therefore no chemical
waste will be generated during the construction phase of the Project.
Overall, provided that the recommended mitigation measures are followed, there should be no
adverse waste impact from the handling, transportation or disposal of inert C&D material, C&D
waste or general waste during construction.
During operation, there will be no waste of any type generated within the Project Site. No waste
receptacles are provided within MPNR and visitors will be encouraged to take their waste home
with them.
Finally, the works contractor is recommended to source any G200 rockfill that may be needed
for the construction works from CEDD’s crushing plant at Tseung Kwan O Area 137, i.e. use G200
recycled rockfill if permitted in the design specifications.
Ecological Impact
7-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
7 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
7.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the ecological impact of the Project Elements on the Project Site and on
areas within 500m of the Project Site, as shown in Figure 7-1.
The Project Elements and the Project Site are within MPNR, which is an area of brackish coastal
wetland set up and managed for more than 30 years by WWF. MPNR itself and its surrounding
wetlands (collectively referred to as the Inner Deep Bay area) is designated as a wetland of
International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (i.e. Ramsar Site), an Important Bird Area
by Birdlife International, a Flyway Network Site by the Partnership for the East Asian-Australasian
Flyway and is identified as one of 16 critical inter-tidal areas in Asia for migratory waterbirds by
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (WWF 2013). The MPNR and Lut Chau to
its south comprise the Mai Po Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
7.2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines
General
Relevant legislation and associated guidelines related to ecological assessment include:
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapter 10 "Conservation”
Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) and Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.
499) and subsidiary legislation and guidelines
Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and its subsidiary legislation, the Forestry
Regulation (Cap. 96A)
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170)
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) and its
subsidiary legislation
Specific legislation and guidelines relating to the EIA Process includes:
Technical Memorandum for the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499)
(EIAO-TM), particularly Annexes 8 (Criteria for Evaluating Ecological Impact) and 16
(Guidelines for Ecological Assessment)
EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2010 – Some Observations on Ecological Assessment from the
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Perspective
EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010 – Ecological Baseline Survey for Ecological Assessment
EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2010 – Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological
Baseline Surveys
International conventions and guidelines that are relevant to this study include:
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN maintains, through its
Species Survival Commission, a “Red List” of globally threatened species of wild plants and
animals (see www.iucnredlist.org/).
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This requires parties to regulate or
manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether
within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable
use. It also requires parties to promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the
maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings. The People’s Republic of
China ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 5th January 1993. The convention
came into force in Hong Kong during 2011. In the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-
2020, the Aichi Biodiversity Target 1 calls for people’s awareness of the value of biodiversity
and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably by 2020, at the latest.
Ecological Impact
7-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention). This relates to
the protection and wise use of wetland ecosystems for the protection of biological diversity
and sustainable development. The Convention requires signatories to designate at least one
wetland site for inclusion in a list of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites); Mai
Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site is designated under this convention and supports
internationally important numbers of several bird species.
Guidelines for Developments in the Deep Bay Area
Town Planning Board Guideline No. 12C (TPB PG-No.12C, revised in May 2014) sets out the
Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) and Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) in the Deep Bay area to
protect the wetlands of high ecological value in and around the Ramsar Site. Under the Guideline,
any development is required to demonstrate conformity to the “No-Net-Loss in Wetland”
principle. According to the guideline, the ‘no-net-loss’ can refer to both loss in “area” and
“function”. No decline in wetland or ecological functions served by the existing fishponds’,
especially as a source to provide abundant and accessible food and roosting grounds to ardeids
and other species, should occur. Consideration will only be given to developments that can be
demonstrated not to cause any loss in the ecological functions of existing ponds, whether arising
from direct loss or adverse disturbance impact.
7.3 Ecological Baseline and Literature Review
Sites of Conservation Importance in the Area
Mai Po Nature Reserve
MPNR was set up in 1983 and is managed by WWF with support from Government. The overall
responsibility for the Reserve lies with AFCD. It contains microhabitats such as dwarf mangroves,
gei wai and rain-fed ponds, that provide important roosting and foraging sites for many
waterbirds, including internationally important species such as the globally threatened Black-faced
Spoonbill. All the Project elements covered by this EIA are within MPNR.
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site was designated by the Government in 1995, under the
“Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat” (the
Ramsar Convention). The Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site covers an area of about 1,500ha and
includes an area of intertidal mudflats and mangroves in Deep Bay as well as MPNR and some of
the nearby fishponds. The mangroves and fishponds at Lut Chau are also included within the
Ramsar Site.
Management of the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site is determined by a management plan
maintained by AFCD
[Ref.#
8
]
, known as the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Management Plan
2011. Under this plan, the Ramsar Site is divided into several zones, determining the management
actions for the area. MPNR, where the Project elements are located, is within the Biodiversity
Management Zone (BMZ), the intention of which is to provide a refuge for waterfowl (including a
high tide roost) with a focus on biodiversity conservation, education and training in a relatively
intensively managed environment. Activities such as construction of visitor facilities and other
infrastructure require management approval under the management plan.
Mai Po Marshes SSSI
Mai Po Marshes SSSI was designated in 1976 in recognition of the ecological importance of the
mangrove communities and gei wai, and the importance of the site for ducks, shore and marsh
birds. The SSSI site includes the MPNR and the fishpond area at Lut Chau.
8
. https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_wet/con_wet_look/con_wet_look_man/con_wet_look_man.html
Ecological Impact
7-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Inner Deep Bay SSSI
Inner Deep Bay SSSI was designated in 1986. Inner Deep Bay SSSI contains the largest and most
important dwarf mangrove communities in Hong Kong and an extensive natural intertidal mudflat
of estuarine nature and a bay with shallow water. Both the dwarf mangroves and mudflat provide
an important feeding and resting ground for waterbirds, especially during the wintering season.
Much of the mangrove at Lut Chau lies within this SSSI. It borders MPNR, with the shortest
distance from the Project elements being approximately 600m.
Wetland Conservation Area (WCA)
The Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) covers all existing contiguous and adjoining
active/abandoned fishponds in the landward part of the Ramsar Site. It has a planning intention to
conserve the ecological value of the fishponds, which form an integral part of the wetland
ecosystem in the Deep Bay area. Mai Po NR and the Project Site lie on the seaward side of these
fishponds, and part of the Project Site is immediately adjacent. Impacts arising from the Project
Site would constitute impacts on the WCA, and description and mitigation of these is dealt with as
part of the ecological impact assessment below.
Wetland Buffer Area (WBA)
The Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) is an approximately 500m wide strip of land along the landward
side of the WCA designated to protect the ecological integrity of the fishponds and wetlands
within the WCA, and to prevent developments that would have a negative off-site impact on the
ecological value of fishponds. Impacts arising from the Project Site would constitute impacts on
the WBA, and description and mitigation of these is dealt with as part of the ecological impact
assessment below.
Priority Sites for Enhanced Conservation (PSEC)
Under the New Nature Conservation Policy, new proactive measures aimed at promoting
conservation of several sites in collaboration with the private sector were established. These
include Priority Sites for Enhanced Conservation (PSEC), the Management Agreement Scheme
(MAS) and the Public-Private Partnership Scheme (PPPS). MPNR lies within the Ramsar Site PSEC,
and near to the Wetland outside Ramsar Site PSEC. Impacts arising from the Project Site would
constitute impacts on the Ramsar Site PSEC, and description and mitigation of these is dealt with
as part of the ecological impact assessment below.
Egretries
Previous studies have found that breeding egrets in Hong Kong forage up to 4km from their
egretry (Anon 1997), with most activity within approximately 1.5km. The Project Site is therefore
within the foraging distance for egrets breeding at the following five existing and former egretries
(as of 2020). It is unlikely that egrets from other egretries forage on site to a significant extent.
Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve egretry (first recorded in 2015, active in 2016 but moved to
the mangrove area outside the Boundary Fence in 2017)
Mai Po Mangrove egretry (active from 2017)
Shan Pui River egretry (active from 2019)
Mai Po Village egretry (active in 2020)
Mai Po Lung Village egretry (active from 2000)
Tam Kon Chau egretry (abandoned since 2009)
Established in 2015, Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve egretry was in mangroves at gei wai 14, close
to the Boundary Fence Road. It contained nests of Great Egret Ardea alba, Little Egret Egretta
garzetta, Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax and Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus
coromandus. It was the second largest colony of the year in Hong Kong (204 nests, 14.4% of the
total number of nests in Hong Kong (Anon. 2015a) and supported the highest number of nests of
Ecological Impact
7-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Great Egret. However, in the following year, the total number of nests at this egretry decreased
dramatically to 79 (61.3% decrease, Anon. 2016), although the trees where the ardeids nested
appeared undisturbed. The breeding location within the Project Site was not occupied in 2017,
again for unknown reasons as there was no apparent change in site conditions. Based on
subsequent count data, it is assumed that the egretry has moved to the mangrove area outside
the Boundary Fence. However, on a precautionary basis, it is assumed the site within the Project
Site may be reoccupied in the future.
Shan Pui River Egretry was first noted in 2019 when it supported five nests of Little Egret and 86 of
Chinese Pond Heron. In 2020 it grew to hold ten nests of Little Egret and 129 of Chinese Pond
Heron. At its closest point it lies approximately 1.7km from the nearest Project Element (TH2).
Located close to the Shenzhen River channel, Mai Po Mangrove egretry is a very large colony that
first established in 2017; in 2020 it supported 757 nests, of which 670 were those of Great Egret. It
lies at least 2.4km from the nearest Project Element.
As of 2020 Mai Po Village egretry is marginally part of the Mai Po Village SSSI but its boundary has
varied in recent years. In 2007, 34 nests were present, which increased to 236 nests in 2015 and
239 nests in 2017; however, this figure has since declined, and there were 113 nests in 2020. Little
Egret and Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus have been the dominant species, with the latter
usually most numerous; however, in 2019 and 2020 Little Egret was most numerous. Mai Po
Village egretry is about 1.4km east of the MPNR boundary..
Mai Po Lung Village egretry held a total of 49 nests in 2007, but then declined in importance,
presumably because birds moved to the Mai Po Village egretry (Anon. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and
2011). However, the number of nests has risen in recent years to reach 160, the highest nest
count at this egretry, in 2020. Chinese Pond Herons have always dominated at this site. Mai Po
Lung Village egretry is about 2km east of the MPNR boundary.
Tam Kon Chau egretry used to be located on banyan trees next to the car park associated with the
former Peter Scott Field Studies Centre (PSFSC). It supported 26 nests of Chinese Pond Heron in
the 2007 breeding season and 23 nests of the same species in 2008, but has been abandoned
since 2009, probably due to increased human activities underneath the trees, i.e. the presence of
a container dwelling (Anon 2007, 2008, 2009).
Table 7-1 summarises the numbers of nests of ardeids breeding at the above-mentioned egretries
during 2007-2020 as reported by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
[Ref.#
9
]
, while their locations
are shown on Figure 7-1.
Table 7-1 Numbers of Ardeid Nests at Egretries in MPNR and Surrounding Area, 2007 to 2020
YEAR
SPECIES
MPNR
MAI PO
VILLAGE
MAI PO LUNG
VILLAGE
TAM
KON
CHAU
SHAN PUI
RIVER
MAI PO
MANGROVE
2007
Little Egret
-
4
18
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
30
31
26
-
-
Total
-
34
49
26
-
-
2008
Little Egret
-
2
16
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
55
21
23
-
-
Total
-
57
37
23
-
-
2009
Little Egret
-
8
3
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
135
6
-
-
-
Total
-
143
9
-
-
-
9
. https://www.hkbws.org.hk/web/eng/egret_report_eng.htm
Ecological Impact
7-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
YEAR
SPECIES
MPNR
MAI PO
VILLAGE
MAI PO LUNG
VILLAGE
TAM
KON
CHAU
SHAN PUI
RIVER
MAI PO
MANGROVE
2010
Little Egret
-
19
2
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
109
5
-
-
-
Total
-
128
7
-
-
-
2011
Little Egret
-
34
1
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
114
4
-
-
-
Total
-
148
5
-
-
-
2012
Little Egret
-
29
-
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
125
12
-
-
-
Total
-
154
12
-
-
-
2013
Little Egret
-
21
-
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
125
12
-
-
-
Total
-
146
12
-
-
-
2014
Little Egret
-
80
3
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
122
33
-
-
-
Total
-
202
36
-
-
-
2015
Great Egret
123
-
-
-
-
-
Little Egret
10
104
5
-
-
-
Black-crowned Night
Heron
62
-
-
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
131
68
-
-
-
Eastern Cattle Egret
9
1
-
-
-
-
Total
204
236
73
-
-
-
2016
Great Egret
54
-
-
-
-
-
Little Egret
11
72
16
-
-
-
Black-crowned Night
Heron
9
-
-
-
-
-
Chinese Pond Heron
-
130
68
-
-
-
Eastern Cattle Egret
5
-
-
-
-
-
Total
79
202
84
-
-
-
2017
Little Egret
-
99
14
-
-
18
Chinese Pond Heron
-
140
41
-
-
-
Great Egret
-
-
-
-
-
26
Night Heron
-
-
-
-
-
5
Total
-
239
55
-
-
49
2018
Little Egret
-
99
14
-
-
21
Chinese Pond Heron
-
123
53
-
-
-
Great Egret
-
-
-
-
-
13
Night Heron
-
-
-
-
-
4
Eastern Cattle Egret
-
-
-
-
-
2
Total
-
222
67
-
-
40
Ecological Impact
7-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
YEAR
SPECIES
MPNR
MAI PO
VILLAGE
MAI PO LUNG
VILLAGE
TAM
KON
CHAU
SHAN PUI
RIVER
MAI PO
MANGROVE
2019
Little Egret
-
91
41
-
5
5
Chinese Pond Heron
-
68
68
-
86
Great Egret
-
-
-
-
-
6
Eastern Cattle Egret
-
-
-
-
-
4
Night Heron
-
-
-
-
-
2
Unidentified
-
-
-
-
-
540
Total
-
159
109
-
91
557
2020
Little Egret
-
70
34
-
10
4
Chinese Pond Heron
-
43
126
-
129
Great Egret
-
-
-
-
-
670
Cattle Egret
-
-
-
-
-
73
Night Heron
-
-
-
-
-
10
Total
-
113
160
-
139
757
Previous Ecological Surveys Conducted in the Assessment Area and its Vicinity
Long Term Monitoring at Mai Po Nature Reserve by WWF
Long-term, regular monitoring surveys have been conducted at MPNR for several years by WWF.
Data from these surveys constitute a crucial part of the ecological baseline for the current
submission. The following paragraphs review systematically the data of relevance collected in year
2015/16 or later (Table 7-2). In addition, Project-specific baseline ecological surveys were
undertaken from November 2016 to December 2017; detailed survey methodology and findings
are presented in Sections 7.4 and 7.5, respectively.
Due to the time elapsed between survey completion in 2017 and the anticipated submission date
of this report, data collected by WWF in the interim were also reviewed.
Table 7-2 List of WWF MPNR Ecological Baseline and Monitoring Data Reviewed Under the
Current Study
FLORA/FAUNA GROUP
TIME AND FREQUENCY
PERIOD OF DATA FOR DETAILED REVIEW
Habitat Map
-
2015 and 2018
[Note 1]
versions
Flora
daytime
Aug - Oct 2016, May 2019 flora species list
(Appendix C1-1)
Non-flying Mammals
cameras and traps working 24/7,
data retrieved every 2 months
2019 species list (Appendix C2-1)
2016 and 2019 camera trap records
Bats
1 time/3 months
2019 species list (Appendix C2-1).
Camera trap records since Sep 2015
Avifauna
morning (high tide if possible), 2
times/month, all year
2015 – 2019 (Appendix C3-1, C3-4)
Black-faced Spoonbill
noon, 2 times/month, Nov - Mar
2015 – 2019 (Appendix C3-2)
Roosting Anatidae
evening (high tide preferably), 2
times/month, late Oct - early Apr
2019-20 winter (Appendix C3-3)
Roosting Collared Crow
evening , twice/month, winter
(mid-Dec to mid-Feb) and summer
(Jul to Aug)
2019-20 winter and 2019 summer (Table
7-6)
Breeding Black-winged
Stilt
Apr - Jun, min. 2 times/year
2007 - 2019 (Table 7-7)
Ecological Impact
7-7
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
FLORA/FAUNA GROUP
TIME AND FREQUENCY
PERIOD OF DATA FOR DETAILED REVIEW
Reptiles
not specific
2019 species list (Appendix C4-1)
2016 survey data (Table 7-8)
Amphibians
3 times in Apr, Jun and Aug
2019 species list (Appendix C4-1)
2016 survey data (Appendix C4-2)
Butterflies
1 time/2 months, wet season
2019 species list (Appendix C5-1)
Survey data Apr - Oct 2016
Adult Odonates
monthly (am and pm), wet season
2019 species list (Appendix C6-1)
Survey data Apr - Oct 2016
Four-spot Midget
Jun - Oct, 1 time/month
2019 odonate list (Appendix C6-1)
Survey data Apr - Oct 2016 (Table 7-10)
Fireflies (two species)
Monthly, Apr – Sep
2018 & 2019 survey data (Appendix C7-1)
Aquatic Fauna Survey
(fish and crustaceans)
1 time/3 months
Fish species list 2019 (Appendix C8-1)
Survey data 2016 (Appendix C8-2)
Note:
1. Mai Po Nature Reserve Management Plan: 2019-2024. 2019. WWF-Hong Kong.
Habitat and Flora
Apart from small areas occupied by educational facilities, helipad and access roads etc., most of
MPNR comprises wetland habitats, which can be broadly subdivided into brackish wetlands (gei
wai) and rain-fed wetlands (ponds) (Figure 7-2). While the salinities of brackish habitats typically
range from 2-3‰ (parts per thousand) in summer and 16-18‰ in late winter, those of rain-fed
habitats also vary greatly between ponds with a range of 2-10‰ (WWF 2013); water bodies with
salinities > 3ppt are generally considered to be brackish.
A flora survey commissioned by WWF was conducted within the MPNR and its vicinity between
August and October 2016. A total of 187 plant species were recorded in the Reserve during the
survey, of which three were species of conservation importance: Water Fern Ceratopteris
thalictroides, Small Persimmon Diospyros vaccinioides and Hong Kong Pavetta Pavetta
hongkongensis (Figure 7-8).
In the 2016 surveys, colonies of Water Fern were recorded near the southern edge of Pond 7, the
rain-fed Pond 16, the northern edge of the reedbed in Pond 8b, and Pond 18. Water Fern is
regarded as Rare by Xing et al. (2000) and considered as “Vulnerable” and under State Protection
(Category II) in China.
Saplings of Small Persimmon were recorded next to the rain-shelter at gei wai 18, on the bund of
Pond 16 and in the middle of the bund between Ponds 12 and 13. This species is classified as
Critically Endangered (CR) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. According to the IUCN Red
List, the wild population of this species has been heavily exploited and collected as an ornamental
species in Taiwan, leading to the complete absence of mature trees in the wild. However, it is
regarded as a common to very common species in Hong Kong and is found in shrubland, thin
forest and thickets in ravines or hillside habitats (Xing et al. 2000; AFCD 2007).
A single Hong Kong Pavetta was recorded in the middle of the bund between Ponds 12 and 13.
Another three individuals were planted in the butterfly garden of Pond 15 for amenity reasons
and to attract butterflies. Hong Kong Pavetta is commonly found in lowland forest, fung shui wood
and thickets in Hong Kong (Xing et al. 2000, AFCD 2009), and is locally protected under Cap. 96A.
However, due to frequent management work in the form of vegetation-cutting and bund
maintenance affecting the locations of some specimens, the locations of species of conservation
importance shown on Figure 7-2 are those from the more recent flora survey carried out by AEC in
2020. The results of this are summarised in paragraphs 7.5.9 to 7.5.11 and Table 7-13.
Ecological Impact
7-8
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
In addition, WWF updated its Mai Po Species list online in May 2019; this plant list containing all
species previously recorded in MPNR is provided (as Appendix C1-1). Apart from the above
mentioned three species, Zeuxine strateumatica, a species in the family of Orchidaceae and
therefore locally protected under Cap. 96A and Cap. 586, Rhododendron simsii, a Cap. 96A
protected but locally common species, and Ruppia maritima, one of the five seagrass species in
Hong Kong, are also on the list. Zeuxine strateumatica is regarded as Restricted in Xing et al.
(2000), and ‘Infrequent Widespread’ in The Wild Orchids of Hong Kong (Barretto et al. 2011). This
species in Hong Kong usually grows in full sun on disturbed, open, grassy areas and in low rolling
country. The exact locations of Zeuxine strateumatica and Rhododendron simsii are not published.
With regard to Ruppia maritima, it was observed in gei wai 3, 6, 7, 10 & 11 in 2015; however,
during the vegetation surveys in 2016 and 2017 conducted by WWF, it was not found. This
seagrass species has a very restricted distribution in Hong Kong. It was first recorded in Mai Po,
and thus far has only been recorded in one other site, in Sai Kung.
Mammals
All the mammal species (including bats) that have been recorded in MPNR by WWF are presented
in Appendix C2-1, which is also available on WWF’s website
[Ref.#
10
]
.
Non-flying Mammals
Infra-red cameras and small mammal traps have been installed to monitor presence of non-flying
mammals in the Reserve and in nearby areas such as the commercial fishponds and mangrove
stands outside the Boundary Fence. In 2016, eleven mammal species, plus some unidentified rats,
were recorded by these devices (Table 7-3, see Appendix C2-2 for gei wai/pond specific data). Of
these, East Asian Porcupine Hystrix brachyura, Eurasian Otter Lutra lutra, Leopard Cat Prionailurus
bengalensis, Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus and Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica
are considered species of conservation importance in China, albeit the population of Small Asian
Mongoose in Hong Kong is of uncertain origin and may not be of natural origin.
Table 7-3 Non-flying Mammal Species Recorded Within the Project Site and Assessment Area
in 2016 and 2019 by WWF Camera Traps and in 2016 by Small Mammal Traps
SPECIES NAME
FELLOWES
ET AL
IUCN
CAP. 170
CAP. 586
AFCD ASSESSMENT
RED LIST OF CHINA'S
VERTEBRATES (2016)
NO. RECORDS
WITHIN
PROJECT
SITE
WITHIN
500m
Assessment
Area
CAUGHT BY INFRA-RED CAMERAS
Eurasian Otter
Lutra
RC
NT
Y
Y
Rare; Species of
Conservation Concern
EN
18
0
Leopard Cat
Prionailurus bengalensis
-
LC
Y
Y
Uncommon
VU
84
82
Small Asian Mongoose
Herpestes javanicus
-
LC
Y
Y
Uncommon
VU
7
1
Small Indian Civet
Viverricula indica
-
LC
Y
Y
Very Common
VU
168
7
East Asian Porcupine
Hystrix brachyura
PGC
LC
Y
-
Very Common
LC
1
0
Unidentified Rat
-
-
-
-
-
-
30
13
Wild Boar Sus scrofa
-
-
-
-
Very common
-
2
0
10
. https://www.wwf.org.hk/en/reslib/programme_resources/water_wetlands/?16241/res-Mai-Po-Species-List
Ecological Impact
7-9
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
SPECIES NAME
FELLOWES
ET AL
IUCN
CAP. 170
CAP. 586
AFCD ASSESSMENT
RED LIST OF CHINA'S
VERTEBRATES (2016)
NO. RECORDS
WITHIN
PROJECT
SITE
WITHIN
500m
Assessment
Area
Rhesus Macaque
Macaca mulatta
-
LC
Y
Y
Common
-
1
0
Pallas’s Squirrel
Calliosciurus erythrateus
Y
Common
-
1
0
Domestic Cat
Felis catus
-
-
-
-
Uncommon
-
34
3
Domestic Dog
Canis lupus familiaris
-
-
-
-
Common
-
637
0
CAUGHT BY SMALL MAMMAL TRAPS
Musk Shrew
Suncus murinus
-
LC
-
-
Common
LC
1
0
Ryukyu Mouse
Mus caroli
-
LC
-
-
Rare
LC
3
0
Lesser Rice-field Rat
Rattus losea
-
LC
-
-
Recorded in Mai Po
area
-
21
0
Asian House Rat
Rattus tanezumi
-
LC
-
-
Common
LC
3
1
Unidentified Rat
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
0
Notes:
i. 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. : PGC = Potential Global Concern; RC = Regional
Concern;
ii. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org): LC = Least Concern; NT = Near
Threatened;
iii. AFCD Assessment: Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. Accessed from
https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/hkbiodiversity/database/search.php in Feb 2017.
iv. Red List of China's Vertebrates (2016). Red List of China’s Vertebrates. Biodiversity Science: 24 (5) 500-551.: LC = Least
Concern; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered.
In 2019, eight mammal species, plus an unidentified rat, were recorded by these devices (for
detailed results see Appendix C2-2). Of these, Eurasian Otter Lutra, Leopard Cat, and Small Indian
Civet are considered species of conservation importance in China.
Eurasian Otter is a species of Regional Conservation significance (Fellowes et al. 2002), is listed as
“Near-threatened” in IUCN Red List (www.iucnredlist.org) and as “Endangered” in the Red List of
China’s Vertebrates (Jiang et al. 2016). Locally it is protected under both Cap. 170 and Cap. 586,
and AFCD considers it as Rare and a Species of Conservation Concern (AFCD 2017). Its distribution
in Hong Kong appears to be confined to the northwest New Territories. Due to its sensitivity to
disturbance, the potential impact of the proposed works will be assessed on a precautionary basis
by assuming that it is present throughout the MPNR area.
According to the Mai Po Nature Reserve Management Plan: 2019-24
11
, evidence of otters has
been recorded in both fresh water and brackish ponds; historically there are records of otters in
the following ponds/gei wai: 8, 10, 11, 15c, 16b, 22 and 24. Although no evidence of an otter holt
11
. https://www.wwf.org.hk/en/reslib/programme_resources/water_wetlands/?16260/res-Mai-Po-Nature-Reserve-Habitat-Management-Monitoring--
Research-Plan
Ecological Impact
7-10
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
or natal den, either underground or the above-ground couch-like structures reported by McMillan
et al. (2020), has been found in MPNR, camera trap photos of an adult with pups indicated
breeding has occurred there. As an apex predator, Eurasian Otter may play an important role in
maintaining the ecological structure of the wetland.
Leopard Cat was the non-flying mammal species most frequently recorded by infra-red cameras,
followed by Small Indian Civet. Both species are listed as Vulnerable under the Red List of China’s
Vertebrates (Jiang et al. 2016) and are protected under Cap. 170 and Cap. 586. East Asian
Porcupine, a species of Potential Global Concern and protected under Cap.170, was captured once
by a camera in 2016.
Occurrence Index (OI) values were calculated for the four mammal species of conservation
importance. The OI was calculated as the number of photographs taken of each species for every
100 days of camera-trapping activities. Multiple photographs of the same individual at the same
time were counted as a single observation. OI values of the non-flying mammal species of
conservation importance at each camera trap location are given in Table 7-4, and shown on
Figures 7-3a to 7-3c.
Table 7-4 OI Values of Non-flying Mammal Species of Conservation Importance Recorded by
Infra-Red Cameras Within the Project Site and Assessment Area in 2016/2019 by WWF
CAMERA TRAP
(ON FIGURES 7-3A AND
7-3B)
CODE
(ON FIGURES 7-
3A AND 7-3B)
LEOPARD
CAT
SMALL
INDIAN
CIVET
EAST ASIAN
PORCUPINE
Eurasian
Otter
PROJECT SITE
EC Access track HR2 /
pond 16B
Dirt track
6.67/0
0/0
0/0
0/1.37
Gate 107
Gate107
5.51/0.72
3.48/0
0.29/0
0/0
gei wai 11
GW11
*/0.98
*/0.98
*/0
*/0
gei wai 13/14#
Gw1314
0
0
0
0
gei wai 18
Gw18
1.69/2.94
3.37/9.56
0/0
0/0
gei wai 19#
Gw19
0
0
0
0
gei wai 19/23#
Gw1923
0.87
1.74
0
0
gei wai 22/23#
Gw2223
16.67
16.67
0
0
gei wai 22a
GW22a
*/2.82
*/1.13
*/0
*/0
gei wai 22b#
Gw22b
1.31
2.61
0
0
gei wai 7#
Gw7
2.00
0
0
0
gei wai 8b#
Gw8b
0.39
0
0
0
Helipad#
Helipad
2.35
0
0
0
Pond 15 b/c#
P15bc
3.03
1.52
0
0
Pond 15 c
floating platform#
P15cp
0
0
0
9.68
Pond 20/21#
P2021
0.57
1.72
0
0.57
Pond 24a
*/0
*/26.09
*/0
*/0
Pond 24f
P24f
8.88/2.93
19.74/6.84
0/0
0/0
ASSESSMENT AREA
Fixed boardwalk in
intertidal mangroves
fixedbw
24.65/5.88
1.06/0
0/0
0/0
Shek Shan
Shekshan
6.00/2.87
4.00/0.96
0/0
0/0
Yeung’s Fisheries ponds#
Mr_Yeung_Pond
60
0
0
0
Notes: * indicates no camera in 2016 | # indicates no camera in 2019
Ecological Impact
7-11
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Bats
Dusk bat transect survey using a bat detector (Echo Meter Touch) was conducted every three
months since September 2015. The survey transects covered most of MPNR and nearby areas at
Lut Chau and Mai Po (Figure 7-4). While all bat species recorded in the Reserve are presented in
Appendix C2-1, the species detected by bat detector (mainly those using echolocation for
foraging), their conservation status and their relative abundance are listed in Table 7-5, below.
Table 7-5 Bat Species Recorded by WWF Bat Detector and Relative Abundance 2015-17
SPECIES NAME
FELLOWES
ET AL
IUCN
RED LIST OF
CHINA'S
VERTEBRATES
(2016)
AFCD ASSESSMENT
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
Intermediate Horseshoe Bat
Rhinolophus affinis
(LC)
LC
LC
Uncommon
+
Least Horseshoe Bat
Rhinolophus pusillus
PRC (RC)
LC
LC
Uncommon
+
Horsfield's Myotis
Myotis horsfieldii
PRC (RC)
LC
LC
Rare; Species of
Conservation Concern
+
Chinese Noctule
Nyctalus plancyi
PRC (RC)
LC
LC
Common
++
Japanese Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus abramus
-
LC
LC
Very Common
+++
Least Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus tenuis
-
LC
NT
Uncommon
+++
Chinese Pipistrelle
Hypsugo pulveratus
(LC)
LC
NT
Rare; Species of
Conservation Concern
++
Lesser Bamboo Bat
Tylonycteris pachypus
(LC)
LC
LC
Very Common
++
Lesser Yellow Bat
Scotophilus kuhlii
(LC)
LC
LC
Uncommon
++
Greater Bent-winged Bat
Miniopterus magnater
PRC (RC)
LC
NT
Data Deficient
++
Lesser Bent-winged Bat
Miniopterus pusillus
(LC)
LC
NT
Uncommon
+
Notes:
i. All bat species in Hong Kong are protected under Cap. 170.
ii. 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. : LC = Local Concern; PGC = Potential Global
Concern; RC = Regional Concern;
iii. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org): LC = Least Concern; NT = Near
Threatened;
iv. Red List of China's Vertebrates (2016). Red List of China’s Vertebrates. Biodiversity Science: 24 (5) 500-551.: LC =
Least Concern; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered.
v. AFCD Assessment: Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. Accessed from
http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/hkbiodiversity/database/search.asp?lang=en in Feb 2017.
vi. Key for abundance: + = Scarce, ++ = Occasional, +++ = Frequent.
AFCD installed several bat boxes in MPNR in 2008 and 2009; some of them are along the existing
footpath or near MPEC (Figure 7-4). Japanese Pipistrelle has been the only species reported to
utilize the bat boxes since their installation (Shek et al. 2012). In addition, AFCD has also
conducted mist net surveys and bat acoustic surveys at Mai Po Marshes Restricted Area (MPMRA)
since 2003-04, with a total of 13 species recorded; these species are also listed in Appendix C2-1.
Ecological Impact
7-12
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Morning Bird Count
For long-term tracking of bird populations in MPNR, WWF commenced systematic bird surveys in
2003. All birds seen and/or heard along a fixed transect, which basically follows the perimeter of
the part of the Reserve inside the boundary fence, are recorded twice per month all year round,
starting at sunrise.
Between 2015 and 2019, the total number of bird species recorded during these surveys was 191,
with 103 of conservation importance. Observations of all bird species recorded in surveys during
this period are listed in Appendix C3-1.
Black-faced Spoonbill
Black-faced Spoonbill is an Endangered species listed under the IUCN Red List with a population
currently estimated at 2250
12
. Deep Bay is a very important wintering site to the global population
of the species.
At MPNR, the numbers of roosting Black-faced Spoonbills have been monitored over the last
decade. The surveillance is conducted during the middle of the day and covers all the Reserve
inside the boundary fence with a particular focus on gei wai 3, 4, 6 and 7, forming Biodiversity
Management Zone 1 (BMZ 1), which has the management intention of adjusting environmental
conditions to support higher numbers of Black-faced Spoonbills. Monitoring is conducted during
the peak period for Black-faced Spoonbills from November to March every year, twice per month.
The findings of the five winter periods 2014-15 to 2018-19 are summarised in Appendix C3-2.
Maximum numbers of roosting Black-faced Spoonbills at MPNR have fluctuated between 115
individuals in 2018-19 and 295 individuals in 2014-15 winter. In the 2015-16 winter there was a
maximum of 206 individuals of Black-faced Spoonbill roosting, which accounted for approximately
6% of its global population census in 2016 (3,356 birds, IUCN 2017). In winter 2020-21 the highest
count was 132 birds, which constitutes 5.8% of the global population. In terms of spatial
distribution, BMZ 1 (especially gei wai 3) constantly supported high numbers of roosting Black-
faced Spoonbills, while other roost concentrations were recorded at gei wai 10-12, gei wai 16/17
and gei wai 21-23.
Roosting Anatidae
Anatidae (mostly ducks) are one of the most abundant waterbird groups to use MPNR as a
wintering site or a stopover on their migration route.
A roosting anatidae survey is conducted during the main period of duck occurrence (i.e. Oct – Apr)
every year. The survey transect encircles the perimeter of the MPNR, with a particular focus on
ponds used by roosting anatids, especially BMZ 5 (i.e. Gei wai 16/17) and BMZ 7 (gei wai 11a, 21,
22a and 22b), both of which are managed as a secure high-tide roost for wintering waterfowl.
Based on the 2019-20 winter survey findings, the mean and maximum counts of anatid species in
each pond/gei wai are summarised in Appendix C3-3. High abundance of anatids occurred in three
areas: Pond/gei wai 3-8, gei wai 16/17 and Pond/gei wai 20-22. This is largely in line with the
management intention of BMZs, with a third area of concentration around BMZ 1.
Roosting Collared Crows
Collared Crow is listed as a globally Vulnerable species under the IUCN Red List (2017) and was
considered as of Local Concern by Fellowes et al. (2002). Given the global importance of Deep Bay
in supporting the second-largest Collared Crow population in the world (Leader et al. 2016), many
of which roost in the intertidal mangroves adjacent to MPNR, the roosting population of this
species has been monitored regularly since 2003 at pre-roosting locations within the Reserve. The
monitoring is conducted during two peak periods for the species, i.e. July and August (summer)
12
. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/black-faced-spoonbill-platalea-minor
Ecological Impact
7-13
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
and late December to early February (mid-winter). Findings from summer 2019 and winter 2019-
20, which are presented in Table 7-6, indicate a winter peak count of 85 individuals and a summer
peak count 197 individuals. The known pre-roosting locations include the central islands in gei wai
16/17 and 21 and trees along Ponds/gei wai 14, 18-22 and the southern section of the FCA road.
Table 7-6 WWF Collared Crow Monitoring: Summer 2019 and Winter 2019-20
DATE
MAX COUNT
FINAL ROOSTING LOCATION
COUNT LOCATION
WET SEASON
5 July
197
Pond 21
FCA Road & Pond 22 helipad
24 July
175
Pond 21
FCA Road & Pond 22 helipad
6 August
175
Pond 18/19 path
FCA Road & Pond 22 helipad, Pond
18/19 path
28 August
174
Ponds 19, 21
FCA Road & Pond 22 helipad, Pond
18/19 path
DRY SEASON
18 December
85
Pond 19W/20a bund trees
Ponds 20a, 21 road and 22 helipad
8 January
49
Pond 19W/20a bund trees
Ponds 20a, 21 road and 22 helipad
16 January
54
FCA mangrove
Ponds 19, 20a, 21 road, 23a path, 22
helipad
18 December
85
Pond 19W/20a bund trees
Ponds 20a, 21 road and 22 helipad
Breeding Black-winged Stilt
Black-winged Stilts started to breed at MPNR in 2003, and then bred annually in MPNR until 2012
and again in 2015; no breeding individuals of the species were reported in 2016 (but the birds
bred at Pond 2a (outside the Boundary Fence) in 2017, as indicated in data from the current
Study). Since 2007, numbers of nests and juveniles of Black-winged Stilt have been surveyed at
least two times between April and June every year at all potential nesting sites, in particular the
shallow water gei wai and rain-fed ponds where nesting by the species has taken place in the past.
Yearly maximum counts of Black-winged Stilt nests from 2007 to 2019 (excluding 2013 and 2014
when no birds nested) are listed in Table 7-7. After peaking at 53 in 2011, the number of nests
declined to zero in 2016; however, nest numbers were 37 in 2018 and 32 in 2020.
Table 7-7 Maximum Counts of Black-winged Stilt Nests in MPNR, 2007-21 (Source WWF)
YEAR
POND/GEI WAI NO.
TOTAL
6
7/8
8
10
11
15A
15B
17B
16/17
21
23
2007
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
18
0
15
23
2008
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
8
0
0
14
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
27
0
0
28
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
9
2011
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
21
39
0
53
2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
6
0
27
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2017
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
2018
10
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
20
0
0
37
2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
17
2020
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
1
0
15
2021
4
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
32
Ecological Impact
7-14
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Reptiles
Reptile monitoring is not routinely scheduled by WWF, however, reptiles observed during other
surveys are noted. A list of all reptile species (23 in total) recorded in MPNR is presented in
Appendix C4-1, together with their conservation status.
Table 7-8 lists the reptile species recorded in WWF surveys during 2015-16. Reptile data for
subsequent years is not available.
Table 7-8 Reptile Species Recorded in MPNR 2015-16 (Source WWF)
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
Red-eared Slider
[Note 2]
Trachemys scripta
-
Malayan Box Turtle
[Note 2]
Cuora amboinensis
IUCN(VU); Cap.586
Reeves' Turtle
Mauremys reevesii
GC; RLCV(EN); IUCN(EN); Cap.170; Cap.586
Chinese Soft-shelled Turtle
Pelodiscus sinensis
GC; RLCV(EN); IUCN(VU); Cap.170
Grass Lizard
Takydromus sexlineatus
-
Long-tailed Skink
Eutropis longicaudata
-
Chinese Skink
[Note 3]
Plestiodon chinensis
-
Reeves' Smooth Skink
Scincella reevesii
-
Four-clawed Gecko
Gehyra mutilata
RLCV(VU)
Bowring's Gecko
Hemidactylus bowringii
-
Copperhead Racer
Coelognathus radiatus
PRC; RLCV(EN)
Taiwan Kukri Snake
Oligodon formosanus
RLCV(NT)
Indo-Chinese Rat Snake
Ptyas korros
PRC; RLCV(VU)
Common Rat Snake
[Note 3]
Ptyas mucosus
PRC; RLCV(EN); Cap.586
Many-banded Krait
Bungarus multicinctus
PRC; RLCV(EN)
Chinese Cobra
[Note 3]
Naja atra
PRC: RLCV(VU); IUCN(VU); Cap.58
King Cobra
Ophiophagus hannah
PRC: RLCV(EN); IUCN(VU); Cap.58
Mangrove Water Snake
Myrrophis bennettii
LC
Chinese Water Snake
Myrrophis chinensis
RLCV(VU)
Checkered Keelback
[Note 3]
Xenochrophis flavipunctatus
-
Burmese Python
[Note 3]
Python bivittatus
PRC; RLCV(CR); IUCN(VU); CSMPS(I);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Common Blind Snake
Indotyphlops braminus
-
Notes:
1 Conservation status recommended in Fellowes et al. (2002) apply to all fauna groups: LC = Local Concern; GC = Global
Concern; PRC = Potential Regional Concern; RC = Regional Concern. Letters in parentheses indicate that the
assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in nesting and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.
Other codes used in the column of Conservation and protection status:
i. RLCV - Red List of China's Vertebrates (2016). Red List of China’s Vertebrates. Biodiversity Science: 24 (5) 500-
551.: VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR= Critically Endangered.
ii. IUCN - IUCN (2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2014.3): VU = Vulnerable. Please note the
“Least Concern” status is not denoted particularly in the table.
iii. Cap. 170 - Chapter 170 Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.
iv. Cap. 586 - Chapter 586 Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance.
2 Non-native species, hence not of conservation significance in a Hong Kong context.
3 In 2016, five reptile species were reported on an ad-hoc basis, of which four (i.e. Burmese Python, Common Rat
Snake, Checkered Keelback, and Chinese Skink) were observed within the Reserve and one (Chinese Cobra) was on
the boardwalk outside the Boundary Fence . Within the Reserve, Burmese Python was recorded around P16b, P24,
and along the footpath; Common Rat Snake, Checkered Keelback and Chinese Skink were found near P15b, P15c and
the Education Centre, respectively.
Ecological Impact
7-15
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Burmese Python is listed as of Potential Regional Concern by Fellowes et al. (2002). It is listed as
Critically Endangered in China by RLCV (2016) and as Vulnerable by IUCN (2017) but is widely
distributed in Hong Kong. It was reported at several locations in the Reserve in 2016, including
Pond 16b, Pond 24 and on the footpath east of Pond 8a. Common Rat Snake, which is common in
a variety of open habitats in Hong Kong (Karsen et al. 1998), is of Potential Regional Concern
(Fellowes et al. 2002) and listed as ‘Endangered’ in RLCV (2016). It was found at Pond 15b near to
the Education Centre floating platform. Chinese Cobra is also of Potential Regional Concern
(Fellowes et al. 2002). It is listed as Vulnerable by both RLCV (2016) and IUCN (2017), although is
widespread throughout the territory. In 2016, it was seen on the northern fixed boardwalk among
the mangrove outside the Boundary Fence, and this species has been recorded inside the
boundary fence too.
Amphibians
Amphibians at MPNR are present in the rain-fed ponds. In 2016, amphibian surveys were
conducted three times in every other month between April and August. Appendix C4-2 lists the
survey findings, while a list of all amphibian species ever recorded in MPNR is presented in
Appendix C4-1. Amphibian data after 2016 are not available.
A total of four amphibians were found during surveys, i.e. Brown Tree Frog, Chinese Bullfrog,
Günther's Frog and Paddy Frog. Most species were present in low numbers, although Günther's
Frog was moderately common. All species are considered common throughout Hong Kong except
Chinese Bullfrog, which is listed as being of Potential Regional Concern by Fellowes et al. (2002)
and listed as ‘Endangered’ in Jiang et al. (2016). One individual of Chinese Bullfrog was recorded in
Pond 16a during a survey in June 2016.
Butterflies
All butterfly species recorded at MPNR are detailed in Appendix C5-1. In 2016, butterfly surveys
were conducted four times every other month from April to October (see Figure 7-6 for survey
transect). Data from subsequent years are not available. The diversity and abundance of
butterflies recorded on surveys in 2016 were both low, with a total of 35 species found (Appendix
C5-2), likely due to the habitat types present on site, which are not suitable for most butterflies
and provide few potential food sources for adults or larvae.
Three species of conservation importance were recorded: Common Awl, Danaid Egg-fly and a
Catochrysops species. Two individuals of Common Awl were seen in October 2016. While this
species occurs in a range of habitats, from coastal areas to upland forests, it is of Local Concern
according to Fellowes et al. (2002) and is considered very rare in Hong Kong (by AFCD 2017). A few
Danaid Egg-flies were found in October 2016. This agricultural land and fishpond associated
species is of Local Concern (Fellowes et al. 2002) and is considered locally uncommon (by AFCD
2017). In addition, a Catochrysops species (one individual) was recorded between gei wai 18 and
gei wai 19 in October 2016. Currently two Catochrysops butterflies have been recorded in Hong
Kong, i.e. Catochrysops panormus and Catochrysops strabo; both are very rare and considered as
Species of Conservation Concern (by AFCD 2017).
Odonates (Dragonflies and Damselflies)
Over 40% of Hong Kong’s odonate species have been recorded in MPNR and/or its close vicinity
(WWF Hong Kong 2013; also see Appendix C6-1 for all odonate species recorded in the Reserve).
During 2006-16, WWF conducted long-term monitoring of adult odonates at the majority of rain-
fed ponds in MPNR (i.e. Pond 16b, Pond 17b, Pond 20 and Pond 24; see Figure 7-5 for the transect
route for odonate surveys), and has utilised species abundance and diversity findings to inform
habitat management decisions.
According to the survey findings for 2016, MPNR supports a moderately diverse dragonfly
community, with 25 species recorded (Appendix C6-2). Among the surveyed ponds, Pond 16b had
the highest number of recorded odonate species (18 species). Most species recorded are
widespread in lowland wetlands in Hong Kong. The only dragonflies in Fellowes et al. (2002) were
Ecological Impact
7-16
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Coastal Glider, Blue Sprite, Ruby Darter and Scarlet Basker, all of which were listed as being of
Local Concern despite their being common in suitable habitats. Some species were present in high
abundance during surveys, most notably Common Bluetail, the peak count of which was 400
individuals; this species is abundant in Hong Kong in almost all wetlands, in particular marshes,
ponds and even brackish water.
Four-spot Midget Mortonagrion hirosei was not found in the gei wai or rain-fed ponds of the
Reserve during the 2016 odonate survey, as its favoured habitat is largely absent. The most recent
record of this species within the MPNR Project Site was in May 2010, when a single male was seen
on emergent vegetation composed of Phragmites stems and mats of grasses on the edge of a
deep water channel (Stanton and Allcock 2011). Outside the Boundary Fence, Four-spot Midget
was regularly reported in the intertidal mangrove stands, adjoining extensive intertidal mudflats in
Deep Bay, as shown in Table 7-9.
Table 7-9 Maximum Count of Four-spot Midget in Mangroves Outside Boundary Fence, 2011-16
(Source WWF)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Maximum Count
10
85
82
N/A
5
25
Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly
In May 2015, WWF launched a two-year project, Discovering Biodiversity in Hong Kong Wetlands,
with survey data collected between May 2015 and December 2016. The findings of this project
provided evidence of the importance of Deep Bay for some rare and/or endemic species, including
Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly Pteroptyx maipo, a species endemic to Deep Bay and named in 2011
(Ballantyne et al. 2011), as shown in Table 7-10. In September 2016, a peak count of 915 Mai Po
Bent-winged Fireflies was logged in the environs of MPNR, of which 310 individuals were recorded
at the tidal creek near gei wai 19, accounting for approximately 34% of the total.
Table 7-10 Number of Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly Recorded in the Environs of MPNR, 2015-16
(Source WWF)
DATE
POND/GEI WAI NO.*
TOTAL IN
MPNR
#18
#19
#24G,F
#24E
#24C
#24A
#23
#22B
#22A
8-Aug-15
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
3
0
9
12-Sep-15
0
0
0
1
11
25
26
10
11
84
17-Oct-15
0
0
0
0
2
5
2
2
0
11
30-Apr-16
0
5
0
0
0
1
6
4
17
33
14-May-16
8
32
20
12
10
4
17
14
12
129
30-May-16
4
32
11
10
20
0
0
0
0
77
18-Jun-16
0
0
0
0
0
13
14
3
12
42
21-Aug-16
21
72
26
17
22
9
24
38
20
249
3-Sep-16
20
310
100
60
210
15
45
122
33
915
17-Sep-16
46
19
2
5
35
9
6
19
11
152
1-Oct-16
1
3
0
0
5
3
4
5
10
31
Max. No.
46
310
100
60
210
25
45
122
33
Note: * All Mai Po Bent-winged Fireflies were recorded in the tidal creek, outside the boundary of MPNR. The pond/gei
wai numbers are used to indicate sections of the creek, rather than actual habitat/site they were recorded in.
The most recent WWF firefly survey data available relates to 2018 and 2019, and these are
presented in Appendix C7-1. Surveys were carried out in the southern gei wai and along the
boundary fence road. The two highest totals of Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly were 184 on 27
September 2018 and 148 on 19 May 2019, mostly from the managed area of the reserve inside
the boundary fence; favoured ponds were numbers 19 and 24A, C, E, F and G.
Ecological Impact
7-17
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Aquatic Fauna (Fish, Crabs and Shrimps)
Until 2016, to understand the composition of aquatic fauna in MPNR (in particular, fish, crabs and
shrimps), traps were placed in several ponds and gei wai and examined quarterly. In addition,
fishing nets are set in front of sluices when the gates were opened to drain the ponds and fish and
crustaceans are flushed out. Appendix C8-2 presents the maximum counts of fish, crab and shrimp
species that were recorded in the ponds/gei wai surveyed in 2016, using the two methods.
Among the other fish recorded in 2016, there are some taxa which were not identified to species
level and thus their conservation status is not defined. These include Channa spp., Chelon spp.,
Scorpaenopsis spp., eels, gobies and tilapias. When checked against the online list of all fish
species recorded in MPNR (Appendix C8-1), the unidentified fish species are unlikely to be of
conservation importance except for an eel recorded in gei wai 19; it is possible that this individual
was a Japanese Eel Anguilla japonica, a species considered as Endangered by IUCN (2017) and
Jiang et al. (2016). Some crabs and shrimps were not identified to species level.
Other Ecological Studies in the Assessment Area and its Vicinity
In addition to WWF’s long-term monitoring work, several studies under the EIAO conducted
surveys in areas which partially overlap with the current 500m Assessment Area. These are listed
below; their survey findings were reviewed as part of the baseline:
EIA-144/2008 Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai (Mott Connell 2008)
EIA-161/2008 Construction of a Secondary Boundary Fence and New Sections of Primary
Boundary Fence and Boundary Patrol Road (Mott MacDonald 2009)
EIA-169/2009 Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
(AECOM 2009)
DIR-139/2006 An Extension to the Existing Boardwalk and New Floating Mudflat Bird-watching
Hide at Mai Po Nature Reserve for Education and Conservation Purposes (WWF 2006)
Flora and fauna surveys for the Wo Shang Wai EIA study (Mott Connell 2008) were conducted in
2005/06; the survey area covered a small part of the commercial fishpond area to the southeast of
Tam Kon Chau. Species of conservation importance reported by the project were detailed to
habitat-level, without locations marked on a map. Therefore, on a precautionary basis, all the
species of conservation importance, which were found in the habitat types present in the
overlapped area, are considered to have the potential to occur in the current Assessment Area.
The project site of the Boundary Fence EIA (Mott MacDonald 2009) was divided into four sections;
Section 1 overlaps with the current Assessment Area in Tam Kon Chau and its surrounding area
including a small part of MPNR in its northeast. Baseline data presented in this EIA is section
specific only. In view of the dominance of fishpond and gei wai in Section 1, which is similar
habitat to the current Assessment Area, all species of conservation importance reported in Section
1 of the Boundary Fence EIA are considered to have the potential to occur in the current
Assessment Area.
The survey area for the Mai Po Ventilation Building of the XRL alignment (AECOM 2009)
encroaches onto the eastern edge of the current Assessment Area. According to the published EIA
report, two bird species of conservation importance were reported in the Assessment Area. Both
of these, together with the other fauna species of conservation importance noted above or
recorded previously in MPNR, are summarised in Appendix C3-1. No flora species of conservation
importance recorded in these studies fell within the Assessment Area.
To assess the potential ecological impacts arising from the extension of the boardwalk and
construction of a new bird-watching hide on the intertidal mudflat of MPNR, a study primarily
based on a review of the available literature, in particular the Mai Po Nature Reserve Habitat
Management Plan (2006) was conducted. In addition, surveys were conducted along the proposed
boardwalk alignments, and at the location of the bird-watching hide, between June and October in
2004 and 2005, including structure and composition of mangrove trees/saplings, species and
Ecological Impact
7-18
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
abundance of birds associated with the intertidal mangrove and creek, and benthic fauna. All the
flora and benthic fauna recorded during the surveys were typical of the habitats (i.e. mangrove,
mudflat and intertidal creek); and the recorded bird species are widespread in Hong Kong and of
low conservation significance in a Hong Kong context.
7.4 Ecological Survey Methodology
General
It is considered that the data of WWF’s long-term ecological monitoring programme form an
important part of the baseline for this EcoIA. However, supplementary surveys between
November 2016 and December 2017 were conducted to provide more project-specific data and
collect ecological information concerning the area outside MPNR but within the 500m Assessment
Area. These comprised surveys of habitats, flora, mammals (bat roosts), birds (including transect
surveys of birds, surveys of roosting Great Cormorant, and surveys of flight lines of cormorants
departing from the roost), herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles), odonates (dragonflies and
damselflies), butterflies and benthic fauna. Survey methodologies are presented in the following
sections; survey periods and frequencies for all surveys are detailed in Table 7-11, below, and
transects and counting points are shown in Figure 7-7.
In addition, due to the time elapsed since the supplementary surveys were completed,
‘verification surveys’ were carried out from September 2019 to August 2020 to verify that
ecological conditions in MPNR and adjacent areas remained broadly similar, and that the analysis
and conclusions based on the data previously collected remained valid. These comprised surveys
of habitats, flora, mammals, birds, butterflies, dragonflies, fireflies, herpetofauna and benthic
fauna.
Survey methodologies are presented below; survey periods and frequencies for all surveys are
detailed in Table 7-11, below, and transects and count points are shown in Figure 7-7. The
transect route followed in 2019-20 broadly matched that carried out in the earlier period with the
exception of the section alongside the channelised watercourse in Fairview Park, which was not
surveyed as a site check indicated it remained of low ecological value. In addition, two sections
were added: one from the footpath to the location of TH3 and the second along the bund
between ponds 21 and 20b in order to better survey relevant ponds. To minimise disturbance,
however, the latter transect stopped at that point.
According to Clause 3.4.8.2 of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017), for aquatic ecology, the
assessment area shall be the same as that for Water Quality Impact Assessment, which is 500m
from the boundary of the Project and the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ). Aquatic and
wetland-dependent fauna (fish, crustaceans, waterbirds and dragonflies etc.) of the water courses
and gei wai/ ponds in the vicinity of the Project were covered by literature review of WWF’s long-
term monitoring data and the Project-specific 12-month ecological survey on the landward side of
the 500m Assessment Area; epifauna and benthic infauna surveys were carried out not only within
gei wai of the MPNR but also intertidal mudflat/mangrove of Inner Deep Bay.
Habitats and Flora
An updated habitat map has been created for MPNR and its vicinity, including all habitats within
500m of the Project Site. The map was prepared based on the most recent aerial photos and
reviewed literature, in particular WWF’s detailed Habitat Distribution at the Mai Po Nature
Reserve in 2018, which was included in Mai Po Nature Reserve Habitat Management, Monitoring
and Research Plan 2013-2018 (Volume II). Then, to account for any recent changes in habitats,
ground truthing of the Project Site and Assessment Area was undertaken in the dry and wet
seasons in 2020. The habitats of the entire site and the surrounding 500m were mapped using the
software ArcGIS 10.2 and the area of each habitat was calculated.
Ecological Impact
7-19
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-11 Schedule of Ecological Surveys (November 2016 – December 2017, September 2019 – August 2020)
FLORA / FAUNA GROUP
FREQUENCY OF SUPPLEMENTARY SURVEYS
2016
2017
2019
2020
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
DRY
WET
DRY
WET
DRY
WET
Habitat and Flora
1
1
1
1
1
1
Non-flying Mammals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bats (Roosts)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Birds
Transect survey
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cormorant roosts
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dry-season cormorant flight lines
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve egretry
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Herpetofauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Odonata (incl. Four-spot Midget)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Butterflies
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fireflies (Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Benthic Fauna*
1
1
Note: * A further dry season benthic survey was carried out in January 2021.
Ecological Impact
7-20
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Flora surveys by direct observation to identify the plant species and their relative abundance in
different habitat types within the Assessment Area were conducted in March, May, August and
November 2017 and verification surveys were carried out in March and August 2020. Survey
methodology for plant species followed the guidelines set out in the EIAO Guidance Note
10/2004. These verification surveys paid particular attention to the footprint of the project
elements, and a separate plant list for these was created.
Bat Roosts
In view of the daytime nature of construction works, possible bat roost sites including trees (e.g.
Chinese Fan Palms Livistona chinensis potentially used by Short-nosed Fruit Bats Cynopterus
sphinx), man-made structures and AFCD’s bat boxes within MPNR (Shek et al. 2012) were
assessed to determine whether any bat roosts would be impacted by the proposed construction
works. Checks on bat roosts within MPNR and its vicinity were conducted monthly from January
2017.
Non-flying mammals
Data for non-flying mammals have been collected continuously by WWF-HK as part of its camera-
trapping activities. Given the difficulty of surveying mammals by direct observation in the field, it
was considered appropriate to rely on these as the primary source of non-flying mammal data.
The verification surveys carried out during 2019-20 recorded mammals in tandem with other
faunal and floral surveys.
Birds
Transect Survey (Outside MPNR)
To supplement the established, routine morning bird count conducted by WWF within MPNR and
provide a comprehensive baseline dataset of bird utilisation of all habitats within the 500m
Assessment Area, fixed transect survey outside MPNR but within the Assessment Area was
carried out monthly in 2017. During the surveys, a transect was followed to permit observation of
most ponds present within the site, as well as the adjacent tidal creeks (see Figure 7-7). All bird
species seen or heard were recorded; birds recorded in pond habitat were detailed to individual
pond level (pond numbers provided in Figure 7-7). Special attention was paid to wetland-
dependent species and species of conservation importance.
Verification surveys to confirm that ecological conditions in respect of birds remained similar in
MPNR and adjacent areas were carried out from September 2019 to August 2020. The survey
transect route broadly followed that previously used, with the addition of close approach to the
footprints of the two tower hides, TH2 and TH3. Vegetation growth prevented survey along the
access track to TH2. to minimise disturbance to Pond 21 in particular, which supported moderate
numbers of waterbirds during the period, the surveyor did not walk to its proposed footprint.
Great Cormorant Roosts
Evening surveys were conducted to investigate the number and distribution of Great Cormorants
roosting at MPNR. Surveys were conducted once per month from November 2016 until March
2017, and again from November 2019 to March 2020. All surveys started approximately one hour
before sunset to permit a count of all roosting sites before it became too dark to accurately count
the number of birds, although care was taken to avoid underestimating numbers on days when
birds were still arriving at the start of the count. During the 2017 surveys, all groups of trees
providing suitable conditions for roosting cormorants were observed and the total number of
birds seen in each group of trees was recorded. Simultaneous counts were also conducted at
Nam Sang Wai and Lok Ma Chau to ascertain the relative importance of the three roost sites and
estimate the total Deep Bay population of this species. During the 2020 verification surveys,
counts of the number of cormorants roosting according to pond/gei wai were carried out.
Ecological Impact
7-21
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Dry-season Great Cormorant Flight Lines
Most Great Cormorants roosting at MPNR were observed leaving the site during the day to
forage at wetlands around the Deep Bay area and in Deep Bay itself (Carey et al. 2001). To
confirm the direction these birds flew when departing the site, and thus to establish whether the
proposed works may affect the departure of roosting cormorants, flight line surveys were
conducted once per month from November 2016 to March 2017. These surveys involved
observers positioned between the main MPNR roost areas (Figure 7-7), recording the
approximate route taken by cormorants and the approximate number seen departing in each
direction. Surveys started 30 minutes before sunrise and continued until one hour after sunrise.
The verification surveys carried out in winter 2019-20 were made from a position near the centre
of pond 8 from where a single surveyor was able to observe flight lines to the intertidal areas of
Deep Bay and those that might pass close to the location of the proposed TH 3.
Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve Egretry
Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve egretry was first occupied in 2015 and reoccupied in 2016
(Anon. 2015, 2016) and was the only egretry within the Reserve. To obtain the up-to-date status
of this egretry such that potential impacts of the project could be assessed, checks were
conducted during the breeding season between March and July 2017 to determine if there was
any nesting activity; however nonewas observed. Further checks were made in the 2020
breeding season, but no nesting activity was observed.
Herpetofauna
Daytime herpetofauna (amphibian and reptile) surveys were conducted at MPNR and the
Assessment Area. A transect was followed around the site during sunny weather (Figure 7-7),
recording all species of herpetofauna seen or heard. Specific effort was given to microhabitats
likely to provide suitable conditions for herpetofauna, such as underneath stones, logs or other
objects lying on the ground.
Amphibians are most easily located by their breeding vocalisations, which are given most often
during the evening, especially in the early wet season. To survey the amphibian community at the
Project Site and Assessment Area, night-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once per
month. Surveys started shortly after dusk, and during the surveys all amphibian species heard
calling were recorded and their abundance counted or estimated. Any reptiles seen during the
surveys were also recorded. Both daytime and night-time surveys were carried out in April to
October 2017, September to October 2019 and April to August 2020.
Odonates and Butterflies
Odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) and butterflies were surveyed monthly, within the Project
Site and Assessment Area. During the surveys, a fixed transect was followed (Figure 7-7); all
species of odonate or butterfly were recorded and their abundance counted or estimated.
Particular effort was given to habitats that may support greater abundance of odonates,
especially rain-fed ponds with emergent vegetation.
Brackish reedbeds, brackish marsh and mangroves in the Deep Bay area are known to provide
habitat for Four-spot Midget. During the odonate surveys, specific attention was paid to the
possible presence of this species on site; however, it was not found either in MPNR or elsewhere
in the Assessment Area.
Surveys of dragonflies were carried out from April to October 2017, September to October 2019
and April to August 2020. Surveys of butterflies were carried out from March to November 2017,
September to October 2019 and April to August 2020.
Ecological Impact
7-22
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Fireflies
Bent-winged Firefly surveys were conducted once per month from March to August 2020 in areas
of suitable habitat in the Assessment Area. Surveys started shortly after sunset and continued
until 90 minutes after sunset when the fireflies are most active. All Bent-winged Fireflies
observed were recorded and their locations were marked onto a map. Particular effort was given
to mangrove areas as this firefly species is mangrove-dependent.
Benthic Fauna
Gei Wai – Within Project Site
The abundance and species of the main benthic fauna communities associated with the locations
of the two bird-watching hides (TH2 at gei wai 20 and TH3 at gei wai 8) were assessed in
September 2017, August 2020 and January 2021. An epifauna survey was undertaken, counting
individuals (e.g. crab and mudskipper) in each gei wai potentially affected. All benthic epifauna
were counted using binoculars from a 10m distance.
Benthic infauna associated with the sediment near the hide’s footprint was determined by
collecting core samples (8cm diameter x 20cm depth) at randomly selected locations in the
concerned gei wai. Infauna was sieved using a 5-micron mesh pan and classified to family level.
Intertidal Mudflat/Mangrove – Wider Assessment Area
Appropriate intertidal/benthic surveys to cover the intertidal mudflat/mangrove habitats within
the Assessment Area were also conducted along the floating boardwalk outside of the Boundary
Fence in September 2017 and August 2020. It should be noted that the closest potential works to
both mangrove habitats (c. 500m distance at closest point) and intertidal mudflats (c. 1250m
distance at closest point) would be those for the erection of TH2 at gei wai 20. Intertidal open
mudflat does not fall within the 500m Assessment Area for this Project.
An epifauna survey was undertaken, counting individuals (e.g. crabs and mudskippers) along a
transect covering the first 100m of the boardwalk. All benthic epifauna were counted using
binoculars from a 10m distance.
Benthic infauna associated with the sediment were determined by collecting core samples (8cm
diameter x 20cm depth) from alongside the floating boardwalk at two points; directly outside the
border fence and at a point c. 100m from the border fence. Core samples were collected by
randomly selecting three locations along a 1m line perpendicular to the floating boardwalk.
Infauna was sieved using a 5-micron mesh pan and classified to family level.
7.5 Results of Ecological Surveys
Habitat and Vegetation
A habitat map of the 500m Assessment Area and the Project Site is provided in Figure 7-8. A total
of nine habitat types were identified, of which two (i.e. rain-fed pond and brackish gei wai) are
present in the Project Site only. Appendix C1-2 provides the plant species recorded in each of
these habitats during the 12-month survey period in 2017. Representative photos of each
identified habitats are included in Appendix C11. No plant species of conservation importance
were recorded in areas outside the Project Site.
Most habitat types in Assessment Area are wetlands, which constitute 90.7% of the whole
Assessment Area and 99.3% of the Project Site in terms of area. Apart from the developed area
of Fairview Park, areas of non-wetland habitats, such as the wooded area at Tam Kon Chau and
village houses along Tam Kon Chau Road, are small and fragmented. Most of the wetlands in the
whole Assessment Area comprise commercialfishpond, both active and abandoned (27.8% of the
total area), mangrove (21.0%), marsh (3.6%), natural watercourse (2.8%) and channelised
watercourse (0.2%). Areas of habitats present are detailed in Table 7-12, below.
Ecological Impact
7-23
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-12 Area of Habitat Within the Project Site and Assessment Area
HABITAT
WHOLE ASSESSMENT
AREA
PROJECT SITE
ASSESSMENT AREA
EXCL PROJECT SITE
AREA (ha)
%
AREA (ha)
%
AREA (ha)
%
Brackish gei wai
161.67
26.80%
161.67
75.15%
Rain-fed Pond
51.2
8.49%
51.2
23.80%
Mangrove
126.88
21.03%
0.11
0.05%
126.77
32.66%
Commercial Fishpond
167.82
27.82%
167.82
43.24%
Brackish Marsh
21.66
3.59%
0.62
0.29%
21.04
5.42%
Natural Watercourse
17.02
2.82%
17.02
4.39%
Channelised Watercourse
1.01
0.17%
1.01
0.26%
Wetland Subtotal
547.26
90.72%
213.6
99.29%
333.66
85.97%
Wooded Area
0.89
0.15%
0.89
0.23%
Developed Area
55.07
9.13%
1.52
0.71%
53.55
13.80%
Total
603.22
215.12
388.10
Note: Habitat areas are rounded to the nearest 0.1ha. and percentages to one decimal place.
Habitats within Project Site
Rain-fed Ponds
Rain-fed ponds are present in the southern and eastern portions of the Project Site, i.e. Ponds 8a,
9, 15a-c, 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b, 20, 23 and 24 (Figure 7-8). These ponds vary in water depth and
contain microhabitats such as open water, stands of reeds, sedges waterlilies and small islands of
trees, which are all managed with the aim of providing roosting and feeding sites for waterbirds
including egrets, herons and ducks. These rain-fed ponds are also of particular importance to the
Reserve’s odonate and amphibian species.
The emergent vegetation dominant in rain-fed ponds includes grasses Panicum dichotomiflorum
and Brachiaria mutica, and aquatic herbs Ipomoea aquatica and Alternanthera sessilis. Common
trees such as Hibiscus tiliaceus, Celtis sinensis, Cerbera manghas, Casuarina equisetifolia and
Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa grow along the pond bunds. Pond 16 supports aquatic
vegetation such as the floating plant Nymphaea spp., and other common wetland plants Bacopa
monnieri, Schoenoplectus subulatus and Lepironia articulata.
Reedbeds of Phragmites australis occur in both freshwater ponds and brackish gei wai, and
dominate Ponds 8b, 9, 11, the landward half of 14, 17a, 23 and 24. These reed marsh areas are
important for a suite of wetland-dependent waterbirds, particularly passage migrants and
wintering species, including Eurasian Bittern, Purple Heron and Manchurian Reed Warbler. They
are used for breeding by Yellow Bittern. Open water pools and channels within the reeds may be
used by ducks, Little Grebe and rallids such as Common Moorhen and White-breasted Waterhen.
Eurasian Otter has been recorded in reedbeds elsewhere in the Deep Bay area (e.g. Lok Ma Chau
Loop), and presumably occurs in this habitat in MPNR.
Brackish Gei Wai
Brackish gei wai within the Reserve are connected with the tidal water from Deep Bay through
operational sluice gates. As is detailed in WWF’s MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, they are
managed either to rear shrimps and fish following traditional practices (at gei wai 8b, 10 to 14, 18
and western portion of 19) or to provide habitat for roosting waterbirds through provision of
shallow water areas (at gei wai 3, 4, 6, 7, 16/17, 21 and 22). In the shrimp rearing gei wai, water is
periodically drained across the dry season under a conservation management scheme; as the
water level drops in each gei wai, the fish and shrimps inside are trapped in shallow pools and
thus become available to piscivorous waterbirds. Typically, each gei wai is drained for an
approximately two-week period.
Ecological Impact
7-24
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
In terms of vegetation, large stands of mangroves dominated by mature Kandelia obovata and
Aegiceras corniculatum are present in gei wai 12, 13, 14, 18 and the western portion of gei wai
19, while gei wai 3, 4, 6 and 7 contain scattered mangal vegetation including true mangrove and
mangrove associates Kandelia obovata, Aegiceras corniculatum, Acrostichum aureum and
Acanthus ilicifolius. The gei wai 8b, 10, 11b and 22 contain areas of Phragmites australis to
varying extents. On the central islands of all these gei wai there are groups of trees such as Melia
azedarach, Ficus subpisocarpa and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa. Additionally, although it
is not desirable, the invasive exotic weed Mikania micranthus has established extensively on top
of many of these trees as well as the mangrove trees. The gei wai 16/17 and 21 are largely devoid
of internal vegetation, with the aim to provide open water and shallow islands for roosting
shorebirds and ducks.
Bunds of varying height and width are present throughout the Reserve, between ponds and gei
wai, constituting an indispensable part of the wetlands. Vegetated bunds are dominated by
grasses such as Panicum spp. and a variety of tree/shrub species such as Celtis sinensis, Melia
azedarach, Ficus spp., Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa and Sapium sebiferum. Unvegetated
bunds are typically found close to recent desilting works.
Dry and wet season plant verification surveys were carried out in March and late August to early
September 2020. Plant species recorded were very similar to those recorded in in 2017. Habitats
found within the Mai Po Nature Reserve have remained stable, and mainly consist of brackish gei
wai, rain-fed pond, mangrove and natural watercourse. In terms of flora species of conservation
importance, the survey findings of the current ecological survey within the Project Site are in line
with those reviewed in Section 7.3 (Figure 7-8).
A list of plant species recorded under accessible footprint and immediately adjacent areas of the
Project Elements during verification surveys in 2020 is provided in Appendix C1-3. It should be
noted that a precautionary approach was taken in regard to deciding which individual plant
species should be included; consequently, not all the plant species will be directly impacted.
Five plant species identified in the above surveys are noteworthy; these are listed in the table
below. Of these, Water Fern Ceratopteris thalictroides, and the two shrubs Diospyros vaccinioides
and Pavetta hongkongensis are of conservation importance due to their protection and regional
conservation status. The wetland herb Sphenoclea zeylanica and seagrass Ruppia maritima were
not reported in the plant survey in 2017. A fairly extensive patch of Sphenoclea zeylanica was in
Pond #8b. According to the plant monitoring survey conducted by WWF in May 2020, the
seagrass Ruppia maritima was present in Ponds #3, #4, #6, #7, #10-#12, #19 and #21.
Table 7-13 Noteworthy Plant Species Recorded in Verification Surveys in 2020
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
ORIGIN
GROWTH
FORM
STATUS IN HK
SOURCE
Ceratopteris
thalictroides
Native
Herb
"Rare" in Xing et al. (2000), and "Vulnerable" in
Threatened Species List of China's Higher Plant
and Status in China, under State protection
(Category II) in China (AFCD 2003)
AEC surveys
2017 & 2020
Diospyros
vaccinioides
Native
Shrub
"Critically Endangered" on IUCN Red List and
"Endangered" in Threatened Species List of
China's Higher Plant; very common in Hong Kong
AEC surveys
2017 & 2020
Pavetta
hongkongensis
Native
Shrub/Tree
Protected under Cap. 96A; Common in Hong Kong
AEC surveys
2017 & 2020
Ruppia
maritima
Native
Herb
"Very Rare" in Xing et al. (2000); restricted
distribution in Hong Kong
WWF survey
Sphenoclea
zeylanica
Native
Herb
Regarded as "Rare" by Xing et al. (2002);
restricted distribution in Hong Kong
AEC survey
2020
References:
AFCD. 2003. Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong. AFCD. 234pp.
Xing, F.W., Ng, S.C. & Chau, L.K.C. 2000. Gymnosperms and angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong
Natural History Society 23: 21-136.
Ecological Impact
7-25
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Developed Area
Developed area in the Project Site comprises buildings/facilities associated with the management
of the reserve, primarily the Education Centre. These are of negligible ecological significance.
Habitats within Assessment Area but Outside Project Site
Mangroves and Intertidal Mudflats
Apart from the mangrove stands to the west of Lut Chau, most mangrovein the Assessment Area
occurs within the MPNR, outside the Boundary Fence. Due to strict controls on entry, the area
suffers very little anthropogenic disturbance, and it is one of the largest mangrove communities
in Hong Kong. True mangrove tree species Kandelia obovata and Aegiceras corniculatum
dominate the canopy, on which climbers such as Derris trifoliata and sometimes Paederia
scandens spread. In addition, although great efforts have been paid to remove invasive
Sonneratia spp. and Mikania micranthus, these species remain present in the area, but in low
abundance.
Areas of pure intertidal mudflat in the Assessment Area are small. This habitat is used by
waterbirds, including both large species such as ardeids and smaller species such as rallids (e.g.,
Slaty-breasted Rail) foraging on the benthic community. The broader area of intertidal mudflat
adjoining these this habitat in the Assessment Area is of critical importance for thousands of
migratory waterbirds that pass through in large numbers on migration or spend the non-breeding
season here.
It should be noted that the gei wai are not intertidal and are more prone to invasion by non-
wetland plant species; together with the disconnection from intertidal mangrove areas, this may
have implications for habitat quality.
Commercial Fishponds
Commercial fishponds in the Assessment Area are present both within (at Shek Shan) and outside
the MPNR. The fishponds outside the MPNR include the extensive clusters at Lut Chau, Pak Hok
Chau, Tam Kon Chau and the western area of Mai Po, comprising mostly active fishponds and a
small number of abandoned fishponds.
Active fishponds are maintained with mostly open water and little emergent vegetation. They are
occasionally drained to permit harvesting of fish or maintenance of ponds. The composition and
structure of vegetation is typical of fishponds in the Deep Bay, with simple vegetation structure
and low vegetative diversity dominated by grassy vegetation (such as Brachiaria mutica and
Panicum maximum); planted fruit trees such as lychee Litchi chinensis, logan Dimocarpus longan,
wampee Clausena lansium and jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus occur along some of the bunds
surrounding the ponds. Scattered village houses and other temporary structures are often
associated with this habitat.
Several ponds, in particular those to the south of Pak Hok Chau, have been abandoned for
decades. These abandoned ponds have become progressively colonised by vegetation to varying
extents, so that some retain open water while others have become overgrown with grasses,
reeds Phragmites australis and/or reedmace Typha angustifolia. Some ponds are connected to
nearby channels via sluices or damaged bunds, and as a result the water within these ponds is
tidal. Bund vegetation around the abandoned ponds is mostly grassy, dominated by Brachiaria
mutica and Panicum maximum. Some bunds support groups of trees such as Macaranga tanarius
var. tomentosa, Melia azedarach and Hibiscus tiliaceus.
Brackish Marshes
Marsh areas link strongly with and form an integral part of the banks of the natural watercourses
that run between Shek Shan and Mai Po as well as along the southeastern perimeter of the
MPNR. As the watercourses are subject to tidal influence, the marsh habitat within the
Assessment Area is brackish in nature. Marsh ferns including Mangrove Fern Acrostichum aureum
Ecological Impact
7-26
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
and Interrupted Tri-vein Fern Cyclosorus interruptus and aquatic/wetland species Eichhornia
crassipes, Brachiaria mutica and Ipomoea aquatica are the most abundant plants. In addition,
small patches of Phragmites australis are scattered throughout the marshy area. Due to their
patchy occurrence, these reedbeds are not differentiated from the marsh or treated as a
separate habitat in this study.
Natural and Channelised Watercourses
Several natural watercourses of varying sizes run through the Assessment Area, connecting
different types of wetland habitats and providing drainage to the area. The most important
watercourse is that which flows from Fairview Park around the southeast boundary of MPNR and
then between the Reserve and Lut Chau, before joining the Kam Tin River in the extreme
southeast of the Assessment Area. In addition, two smaller watercourses discharge into the
Shenzhen River to the north of Tam Kon Chau. As there is no physical boundary between these
streams and their neighbouring habitats, the vegetation composition of the riparian zone is
similar to adjacent areas. Commonly recorded plants within this habitat include wetland herbs
Cyperus malaccensis, Brachiaria mutica and Ludwigia hyssopifolia, mangal vegetation
Acrostichum aureum and Acanthus ilicifolius, and occasionally some trees/shrubs such as Morus
alba, Melia azedarach and Musa x paradisiaca, which also grow on pond bunds.
The only channelised watercourse in the Assessment Area is located in the Fairview Park
residential estate. Its concrete surface excludes any colonisation by wetland species, with only a
line of ornamental trees including Hibiscus tiliaceus, Grevillea robusta and Acacia spp. planted on
its banks. Despite its downstream connection with the natural watercourse, the artificial features
of the channel section severely limit its ecological value and potential.
Wooded Areas
Two woodland patches are present in the Assessment Area, one at Shek Shan within the MPNR
but outside the Project Site, and the other on the knoll at Tam Kon Chau Police Post and its
adjacent area, also outside the Project Site.
The wooded area at Shek Shan is relatively small and isolated. It is dominated by naturally
regenerated native tree species such as Ficus microcarpa, Ficus tinctoria and Ficus subpisocarpa
in the canopy and Bridelia tomentosa and Aporusa dioica on the understorey. The woodland at
Tam Kon Chau receives comparatively greater human disturbance, which is indicated by the
presence of household waste and construction materials scattered around the woodland
understorey. Trees such as Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Microcos nervosa, Ficus elastica
and Ficus microcarpa are the dominant species, while some fruit trees including Litchi chinensis
and Syzygium jambos were also found in this area.
Developed Areas
Developed areas within the Assessment Area refers to the residential area at Fairview Park and
small groups of domestic dwellings and associated farm structures, together with some
government, institutional and community facilities mainly along Tam Kon Chau Road. Vegetation
of Developed Areas is dominated by ornamental trees such as Lagerstroemia speciosa, Bauhinia x
blakeana, Caryota maxima and Archontophoenix alexandrae and fruit trees such as Dimocarpus
longan, Litchi chinensis, Mangifera indica and Averrhoa carambola, indicative of the relatively
high level of human influence on this habitat. Other plant species frequently recorded included
ornamental and garden shrubs such as Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Catharanthus roseus, Osmanthus
fragrans and Codiaeum variegatum.
Bat Roosts
The bat boxes installed by AFCD and other potential roosting sites for bats were checked monthly
in 2017. During the monthly roost check, two bat roosts were found within and in close vicinity of
MPNR; one is a roost for Short-nosed Fruit Bat on Chinese Fan Palms adjacent to Pond 182, and
the other was found in a crevice between the wall panels of the green hut to the north of MPEC
Ecological Impact
7-27
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
(Figure 7-4). The species using the latter was not identified; however, this hut was renovated,
and there appears to be little opportunity for roosting at present. Both roosts consisted of adults
and juveniles; therefore, it is very likely that these were maternity roosts. In addition, Japanese
Pipistrelle was found roosting under the roof tiles of the first floor of the MPEC in May and July
2017 (one individual each time), but not subsequently. Table 7-14 lists the maximum counts of
bats at all these locations in 2017.
Verification surveys carried out in 2019-20 counted the number of Short-nosed Fruit Bats using
Chinese Fan Palms adjacent to Pond 182. The number roosting varied between 3 bats in July
2020 and 18 in February 2020. The latter is similar to the peak count of 16 in 2017, and the
difference is not considered significant in terms of this Project.
Table 7-14 Maximum Counts of Bats at Roosting Sites in the Project Site and Assessment Area
2017
LOCATION
SHORT-NOSED
FRUIT BATS
JAPANESE
PIPISTRELLE
UNIDENTIFIED
ADULT
JUVENILE
ADULT
JUVENILE
ADULT
JUVENILE
AFCD bat box (M102)*
-
-
-
-
4
-
AFCD bat box (M103a)*
-
-
-
-
-
-
AFCD bat box (M402w)*
-
-
-
-
7
-
AFCD bat box (M402g)*
-
-
-
-
2
-
AFCD bat box (M402b)*
-
-
-
-
5
-
AFCD bat box (M407w)*
-
-
-
-
11
-
AFCD bat box (M407g)*
-
-
-
-
6
2
AFCD bat box (M407b)*
-
-
-
-
3
-
AFCD bat box (M408w)*
-
-
-
-
3
-
AFCD bat box (M408g)*
-
-
-
-
3
-
AFCD bat box (M408b)*
-
-
-
-
7
-
AFCD bat box (M405s)*
-
-
-
-
5
-
AFCD bat box (M105a)*
-
-
-
-
-
-
Green hut to north of MPEC
-
-
-
-
8
3
Chinese Fan Palm at Pond 182
13
3
-
-
-
-
MPEC
-
-
1
-
-
-
Note:* According to Shek et al. (2012), Japanese Pipistrelle is the only species utilizing the bat boxes since installation.
Non-flying Mammals
Data collected by WWF Camera Trap surveys is presented and discussed in 7.3.26-31. Two non-
flying mammal species were recorded during flora and fauna transects in 2019-20: Pallas’s
Squirrel Callioscurus javanicus and Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus (Appendix C2-3).
Neither is considered of conservation importance.
Birds
Bird Species Within MPNR and the Assessment Area
Five years of WWF Morning Bird Count data in MPNR up to 2019 are provided in Appendix C3-1
in the form of mean and maximum counts for each species on the Reserve. The mean and
maximum counts of all avifauna species at each pond and gei wai in MPNR are presented in
Appendix C3-4 (2017) and Appendix C3-6 (2019-20). For the remaining part of the Assessment
Area outside MPNR, the mean and maximum counts in 2017 are presented in Appendix C3-5, and
those in 2019-20 are presented in Appendix C3-7. The mean and maximum counts of Black-faced
Ecological Impact
7-28
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Spoonbills at each pond/gei wai for the five winter periods from 2014-15 to 2018-19 are
presented in Appendix C3-2. The mean and maximum count of anatid species at each pond/gei
wai in MPNR during winter 2019-20 are presented in Appendix C3-3.
As there is a wealth of data regarding the internationally important MPNR, Appendix C10
summarises the key elements by providing all species of conservation importance that have been
recorded at MPNR in a single list that includes a total of 110 bird species. The importance of the
reserve to birds locally, regionally and internationally is undisputed.
The maximum count of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent
species recorded during the various surveys referenced in this Study in the gei wai/pond mosaic
of MPNR, the mangrove habitat of MPNR (outside the Boundary Fence) and the Assessment Area
(excluding the Project Site), respectively are provided in Table 7-15, below.
Table 7-15 Maximum Counts of Bird Species of Conservation Importance and/or Wetland-
dependant Species within the Project Site and Assessment Area, 2017-2020
NAME
[NOTE 1]
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 2]
MPNR
GEI WAI
AND PONDS
[NOTE 3]
MPNR
MANGROVES
[NOTE 4]
ASSESSMENT AREA
EXCL. MPNR
[NOTE 4]
Tundra Bean Goose*
Anser serrirostris
-
3
Greater White-fronted Goose*
Anser albifrons
CSMPS(II)
3
Eurasian Wigeon*
Anas penelope
RC
222
Mallard*
Anas platyrhynchos
RC
1
Chinese Spot-billed Duck*
Anas zonorhyncha
-
7
Northern Shoveler*
Anas clypeata
RC
756
10
Northern Pintail*
Anas acuta
RC
582
Garganey*
Anas querquedula
-
15
Eurasian Teal*
Anas crecca
RC
677
Tufted Duck*
Aythya fuligula
LC
478
7
Little Grebe*
Tachybaptus ruficollis
LC
37
56
Eurasian Spoonbill*
Platalea leucorodia
LC RLCV(NT) CITES(II)
CSMPS(II) Cap.586
2
1
Black-faced Spoonbill*
Platalea minor
PGC RLCV(EN) IUCN(EN)
CSMPS(II)
203
94
Yellow Bittern*
Ixobrychus sinensis
(LC)
6
1
Cinnamon Bittern*
Ixobrychus cinnamomeus
LC
1
Black-crowned Night Heron*
Nycticorax
(LC)
60
4
11
Striated Heron*
Butorides striata
(LC)
11
Chinese Pond Heron*
Ardeola bacchus
PRC (RC)
48
3
52
Eastern Cattle Egret*
Bubulcus coromandus
(LC)
56
17
Grey Heron*
Ardea cinerea
PRC
174
1
28
Purple Heron*
Ardea purpurea
RC
6
1
Great Egret*
Ardea alba
PRC (RC)
308
5
183
Intermediate Egret*
Egretta intermedia
RC
7
8
Little Egret*
Egretta garzetta
PRC (RC)
640
4
211
Great Cormorant*
Phalacrocorax carbo
PRC
2246
130
Western Osprey*
Pandion haliaetus
RC RLCV(NT) CITES(II)
CSMPS(II) Cap.586
2
Ecological Impact
7-29
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
NAME
[NOTE 1]
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 2]
MPNR
GEI WAI
AND PONDS
[NOTE 3]
MPNR
MANGROVES
[NOTE 4]
ASSESSMENT AREA
EXCL. MPNR
[NOTE 4]
Greater Spotted Eagle
Clanga
GC RLCV(EN) IUCN(VU)
CITES(II) CSMPS(II) Cap.586
2
Eastern Imperial Eagle
Aquila heliaca
GC RLCV(EN) IUCN(VU)
CITES(II) CSMPS(I) Cap.586
1
Crested Goshawk
Accipiter trivirgatus
RLCV(NT) CITES(II)
CSMPS(II) Cap.586
2
Japanese Sparrowhawk
Accipiter gularis
CSMPS(II) CITES(II)
Cap.586
1
Eastern Marsh Harrier
Circus spilonotus
LC RLCV(NT) CITES(II)
CSMPS(II) Cap.586
2
Black Kite
Milvus migrans
(RC) CITES(II) CSMPS(II)
Cap.586
19
8
2
Eastern Buzzard
Buteo japonicus
CSMPS(II) CITES(II) Cap.586
3
1
1
White-breasted Waterhen*
Amaurornis phoenicurus
-
31
6
5
Watercock*
Gallicrex cinerea
RC
2
Common Moorhen*
Gallinula chloropus
-
22
5
Eurasian Coot*
Fulica atra
RC
9
Siberian Crane*
Grus leucogeranus
RLCV(CR) IUCN(CR) CITES(I)
CSMPS(I) Cap.586
1
Black-winged Stilt*
Himantopus himantopus
RC
95
22
Pied avocet*
Recurvirostra avosetta
RC
1033
5
Grey-headed Lapwing*
Vanellus cinereus
LC
1
Pacific Golden Plover*
Pluvialis fulva
LC
7
6
Grey Plover*
Pluvialis squatarola
RC
5
Little Ringed Plover*
Charadrius dubius
(LC)
3
8
Kentish Plover*
Charadrius alexandrinus
RC
1
Lesser Sand Plover*
Charadrius mongolus
LC
3
Greater Sand Plover*
Charadrius leschenaultii
RC
31
Greater Painted-snipe*
Rostratula benghalensis
LC
1
Pheasant-tailed Jacana*
Hydrophasianus
chirurgus
LC RLCV(NT)
1
Pintail/Swinhoe's Snipe*
Gallinago stenura/
Gallinago megala
LC for Swinhoe's Snipe
1
Common Snipe*
Gallinago
-
2
1
Asian Dowitcher*
Limnodromus
semipalmatus
RC RLCV(NT) IUCN(NT)
4
Black-tailed Godwit*
Limosa
RC IUCN(NT)
125
Bar-tailed Godwit*
Limosa lapponica
LC RLCV(NT) IUCN(NT)
2
Whimbrel*
Numenius phaeopus
LC
83
Eurasian Curlew*
Numenius arquata
RC RLCV(NT) IUCN(NT)
100
Far Eastern Curlew*
Numenius
madagascariensis
LC RLCV(VU) IUCN(EN)
1
Spotted Redshank*
Tringa erythropus
RC
7
Common Redshank*
Tringa totanus
RC
432
3
Ecological Impact
7-30
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
NAME
[NOTE 1]
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 2]
MPNR
GEI WAI
AND PONDS
[NOTE 3]
MPNR
MANGROVES
[NOTE 4]
ASSESSMENT AREA
EXCL. MPNR
[NOTE 4]
Marsh Sandpiper*
Tringa stagnatilis
RC
705
3
Common Greenshank*
Tringa nebularia
RC
412
2
Green Sandpiper*
Tringa ochropus
-
6
1
Wood Sandpiper*
Tringa glareola
LC
17
7
Terek Sandpiper*
Xenus cinereus
RC
1
Common Sandpiper*
Actitis hypoleucos
-
10
5
Red-necked Stint*
Calidris ruficollis
LC IUCN(NT)
51
70
Long-toed Stint*
Calidris subminuta
LC
2
Curlew Sandpiper*
Calidris ferruginea
RC IUCN(NT)
3
Dunlin*
Calidris alpina
RC
9
Black-headed Gull*
Chroicocephalus
ridibundus
PRC
200
Heuglin's Gull*
Larus fuscus
LC
1
Caspian Tern*
Hydroprogne caspia
RC
3
Whiskered Tern*
Chlidonias hybrida
-
41
8
White-winged Tern*
Chlidonias leucopterus
-
50
Greater Coucal
Centropus sinensis
CSMPS(II)
25
2
4
Asian Barred Owlet
Glaucidium cuculoides
CITES(II) CSMPS(II) Cap.586
1
1
White-throated Kingfisher*
Halcyon smyrnensis
(LC)
6
1
2
Black-capped Kingfisher*
Halcyon pileata
(LC)
1
Common Kingfisher*
Alcedo atthis
-
11
4
Pied Kingfisher*
Ceryle rudis
(LC)
8
5
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
(LC) RLCV(NT) CITES(I)
CSMPS(II) Cap.586
1
Black-naped Oriole
Oriolus chinensis
LC
2
Collared Crow*
Corvus torquatus
LC RLCV(NT) IUCN(VU)
31
18
2
Chinese Penduline Tit
Remiz consobrinus
RC
5
Oriental Reed Warbler*
Acrocephalus orientalis
-
7
2
2
Black-browed Reed Warbler*
Acrocephalus bistrigiceps
-
2
2
2
Zitting Cisticola
Cisticola juncidis
LC
1
Chinese Hwamei
Garrulax canorus
RLCV(NT) CITES(II) Cap.586
2
Red-billed Starling
Spodiopsar sericeus
GC
236
10
390
White-cheeked Starling
Spodiopsar cineraceus
PRC
13
8
White-shouldered Starling
Sturnia sinensis
(LC)
12
33
Common Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
LC
2
2
Green-backed Flycatcher
Ficedula elisae
RLCV(NT)
1
Red-throated Pipit
Anthus cervinus
LC
1
Chinese Grosbeak
Eophona migratoria
LC
4
6
Chestnut-eared Bunting
Emberiza fucata
LC
1
Black Swan*
Cygnus atratus
-
1
Notes:
1. * indicates wetland-dependent species,
Ecological Impact
7-31
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
2. Conservation and protection status refer to:
- 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.: LC=Local Concern; PRC=Potential Regional
Concern; RC=Regional. Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in
breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.
- IUCN (2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU =
Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern.
- Red List of China's Vertebrates (RLCV, 2016). Red List of China’s Vertebrates. Biodiversity Science: 24 (5) 500-551.:
CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD =
Data Deficient.
- Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2002) China State Major Protection Status:
I = Class I Protected Species; II = Class II Protected Species.
- Cap. 170 = Chapter 170 Wild Animals Protection Ordinance. All wild birds are protected under Cap. 170.
- Cap. 586 = Chapter 586 Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance
3. Data of MPNR (gei wai and ponds) are generated from WWF’s Morning Bird Count Data 2017
4. Data of MPNR (mangrove) and the Assessment Area generated from the 12-month ecological survey for the Project.
Appendix C3-4 presents the bird species recorded on each gei wai/pond in 2017. A total of 146
bird species were recorded at MPNR during the year, of which 91 species (62%) are considered as
of conservation importance and/or wetland dependent. The diversity of birds was highest at gei
wai 21, while the lowest was at Pond 20e. In the gei wai with highest diversity, the most
abundant waterbirds were Common Greenshank, Eurasian Wigeon and Grey Heron.
Across the whole Reserve, Great Cormorant, Great Egret, Pied Avocet, Northern Shoveler and
Common Greenshank were the most abundant species; all of these are species of conservation
importance.
Appendix C3-5 presents the bird species recorded in 2017 in the Assessment Area outside the
Project Site (MPNR) according to the habitat utilised, while Appendix C3-7 presents the same
data collected in 2019-20. Commercial fishponds supported the highest number of species and
the highest abundance of birds. The importance of commercial fishponds to waterbirds in Hong
Kong is well-established, and these data confirm that.
Appendix C3-6 summarises the data collected in the verification surveys of 2019-2020. A total of
107 bird species were recorded at MPNR during the year, of which 68 (64%) are of conservation
importance or wetland dependent. The number of species was highest at gei wai 16/17, while it
was lowest at Pond 17a. In the gei wai with the highest diversity, the most abundant waterbirds
were Northern Shoveler and Pied Avocet. It is not considered that the difference in the number
of species recorded is significant in terms of this Project (i.e., the lower number of species does
not indicate a decline in habitat quality).
Great Cormorant Roosting in MPNR
MPNR contains a large overnight roost of wintering Great Cormorants. Most leave the night roost
during the early morning, but many remain throughout the day. Surveys of roosting cormorants
were conducted monthly between November 2016 and March 2017 (Table 7-16). Surveys
recorded both the number and the distribution of cormorants roosting at MPNR. Simultaneous
counts were conducted at Nam Sang Wai and Lok Ma Chau.
Table 7-16 Winter Roost Counts of Great Cormorants at Mai Po Nature Reserve, Lok Ma Chau
and Nam Sang Wai, November 2016 to March 2017
DATE
MPNR
ROOST
LOK MA CHAU
ROOST
NAM SANG
WAI ROOST
OVERALL DEEP
BAY TOTAL
%AGE OF DEEP BAY
TOTAL IN MPNR
Nov-16
1,720
1,185
3,453
6,358
27%
Dec-16
2,530
1,570
3,688
7,788
32%
Jan-17
3,177
2,170
5,615
10,962
29%
Feb-17
2,431
1,396
3,967
7,794
31%
Mar-17
1,435
1,226
1,886
4,547
32%
Ecological Impact
7-32
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Up to 10,962 Great Cormorants were recorded roosting in the Deep Bay area during the 2016-17
winter. The peak count at MPNR was 3,177 recorded in January 2017. The population trends for
the Great Cormorants roosting at MPNR, Lok Ma Chau and Nam Sang Wai were the same among
the three areas, with a progressive increase in numbers over the first half of the winter, a peak in
January 2017, and then a decline over the second half of the winter.
The distribution of roosting Great Cormorants across the three areas did not change significantly
during the survey period, with Nam Sang Wai the largest roost (accounting for 41-54% of the
total roosting Great Cormorants), Lok Ma Chau the smallest (18-27%) and MPNR holding the
remainder (27-32%) throughout the five roost counts.
At MPNR, there were two main areas for the roosting Great Cormorants in the 2016-17 winter
(Figure 7-9). Most individuals roosted in groups of trees on the bunds of Ponds 15a - 15c and
adjacent commercialfishponds, where up to 2,501 birds were recorded. Birds in this area roosted
in a variety of tree species, including Casuarina equisetifolia, Melia azederach and Albizia lebbeck.
In addition, cormorants roosted along the bunds of gei wai 10 and 11, mostly in C. equisetifolia,
M. azederach and Ficus subpisocarpa; up to 658 birds were recorded roosting in this area.
Although the Pond 15 roosting area always supported larger numbers of Great Cormorants, its
percentage of the total decreased from 87% recorded in November 2016 to 66% in March 2017,
while the percentage using the area of gei wai 10 and 11 increased from 13% to 34%. The change
in the proportion of birds using different parts of the roost suggests individual birds may not use
the same area within a roost site throughout the winter. Local research has found that
cormorants may change major roost sites during the winter; a radio-telemetry study undertaken
in 2011-12 (Ma 2014) showed that a single tracked individual was recorded roosting mostly at
Nam Sang Wai but sometimes changed to roost at Mai Po.
On the same day of each monthly Great Cormorant roost count in the 2016-17 winter a survey
was conducted in the morning to record the direction of departure of the birds leaving their
MPNR night roost. The surveys from November 2016 to January 2017 showed that, despite the
lack of any clearly defined flight lines, the majority of cormorants departed broadly towards the
north and the east; most of them are likely to forage in the fishponds around Mai Po and in Deep
Bay. However, during the surveys in February and March 2017, fewer than five individuals of
Great Cormorant were observed leaving their night roost; almost all the birds stayed on the
trees. The reason for the cormorants lingering on their roost rather than flying out for foraging in
these surveys is unknown but may be weather-related.
Great Cormorant roost counts were also carried out as part of the verification surveys in winter
2019-20 at MPNR. The number of roosting birds in each monthly count is presented in Table
7-17. Numbers were, thus, much lower than those recorded in the 2016-17 surveys, though the
pattern of an increase to a January peak was the same. The establishment of a large cormorant
roost at Lok Ma Chau appears to have caused a decline in the number of birds roosting at MPNR
in recent years.
Table 7-17 Winter Roost Counts and Location of Great Cormorants at Mai Po Nature Reserve,
November to March 2016-2017 and 2019-2020
DATE
ROOST
TOTAL
Pond 10-8
Pond 10-
11
Casuarinas
at Pond 12
Pond 15A
Pond 15B
Pond 15C
Nov-16
1,720
19
208
12
70
781
630
Dec-16
2,530
131
422
30
137
660
1150
Jan-17
3,177
8
650
18
156
966
1379
Feb-17
2,431
35
458
875
1063
Mar-17
1435
192
290
25
286
642
Nov-19
50
50
Dec-19
310
210
63
37
37
Ecological Impact
7-33
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
DATE
ROOST
TOTAL
Pond 10-8
Pond 10-
11
Casuarinas
at Pond 12
Pond 15A
Pond 15B
Pond 15C
Nov-16
1,720
19
208
12
70
781
630
Dec-16
2,530
131
422
30
137
660
1150
Jan-17
3,177
8
650
18
156
966
1379
Feb-17
2,431
35
458
875
1063
Mar-17
1435
192
290
25
286
642
Jan-20
855
260
30
350
350
Feb-20
283
188
15
80
80
Mar-20
108
83
25
In terms of distribution, excluding November, the highest number of birds were generally in trees
along the bunds of ponds 10 and 11 or in trees around ponds 15A to 15C. Thus, although
numbers were substantially lower than the 2016-17 winter, distribution was broadly similar,
although no birds were recorded roosting above the bund between ponds 10 and 8.
A survey to record the direction of departure of birds leaving the roost was also conducted the
morning after the evening roost count. In November the movement of birds from the MPNR
roost was to the north, with other birds flying south across the reserve, both close to the line of
Casuarina trees; there were, however, no well-defined flight lines. In December, there was no
clear pattern of departure. In January to March there were two major flight lines, to the north
toward commercial fishpond areas and to the west toward intertidal areas. The former is close to
the footpath and over or very near the location of TH3. It is likely these birds originated at Nam
Sang Wai given the location and orientation of this flight line. The location of these flight lines
recorded is presented in Figure 7-11.
Egretries and Ardeid Roosts
Checks to determine whether an egretry formed in MPNR egretry site were conducted from the
beginning of the breeding season in March 2017 and March 2020, but no nesting activity was
observed, and it can be concluded that the site was not used in either year. The former egretry at
Tam Kon Chau was last used in 2008.
A new egretry in the mangrove area outside the Boundary Fence was active in 2017, 2018 and
2019 (Table 7-1). The approximate location of the egretry is at the northwest of the mangrove
stand next to the Shenzhen River. The shortest distance of the egretry to all Project Elements is
approximately 2.4 km. A second egretry at Shan Pui River was active from 2019; this lies at
approximately 1.7km from the nearest Project Element.
An ardeid night roost occupies the group of large trees just north of the PSFSC site; the distance
to the nearest project element is approximately 280 m. During surveys from April 2019 to April
2020 in relation to the demolition of the PSFSC, the number of birds utilising this roost ranged
from 10 to 648, with highest counts occurring in the first four months of the year. Most birds flew
to the roost site from the south-southeast (i.e. over the Tam Kon Chau fishponds, possibly from
the Tai Sang Wai-Lut Chau-Nam Sang Wai area) in the 30 minutes around sunset (AEC unpub).
In addition, pre-roosts of ardeids near GW8a and 10, and a small winter night roost at GW15a
have also been recorded (AFCD in litt.).
Herpetofauna
Herpetofauna diversity recorded in the Assessment Area is relatively low in general, and only 30
species have been recorded in MPNR (Appendix C4-1). Mean and maximum counts of amphibian
species in each pond/gei wai in 2016 are presented in Appendix C4-2; four species were
recorded. A total of seven amphibian species and 13 reptile species were recorded during the 12-
month survey in 2017; of these, six amphibian species and seven reptile species were recorded in
the ponds and gei wai of the Project Site (Appendix C4-3).
Ecological Impact
7-34
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The only amphibian species of conservation importance, as shown in Table 7-18, below, was
Chinese Bullfrog, which was recorded near the MPEC. Chinese Bullfrog is of Potential Regional
Concern (Fellowes et al. 2002) and is listed as Endangered in China (Jiang et al. 2016); it is also a
Class II protected species in Mainland China. It is, however, widespread in Hong Kong.
In terms of reptile species of conservation importance, a Burmese Python was recorded on the
access road next to gei wai 22b in the southern part of MPNR. The shed skin of a Chinese Cobra
was found on the access road outside the AFCD Mai Po Warden Post. Common Rat Snake was
recorded along the bund of gei wai 23 and in the bat box M405s (Figure 7-4). Indo-Chinese Rat
Snake and Many-banded Krait were found along Tam Kon Chau Road. The conservation and
protection status of the five reptile species are summarised below. Locations where species of
conservation importance were observed are shown on Figures 7-8a-e.
Verification surveys carried out in 2019-20 recorded five species of amphibian and three species
of reptile (Appendix C4-4). The only amphibian species of conservation importance was again
Chinese Bullfrog, while the only reptile of conservation importance was Common Rat Snake.
Table 7-18 Herpetofauna Species of Conservation Importance Recorded in 2017 and 2019-20
Surveys
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION STATUS
*
AMPHIBIANS
Chinese Bullfrog
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
PRC; RLCV(EN); CSMPS(II)
REPTILES
Indo-Chinese Rat Snake
Ptyas korros
PRC; RLCV(VU)
Common Rat Snake
Ptyas mucosus
PRC; RLCV(EN); CITES(II); Cap.586
Many-banded Krait
Bungarus multicinctus
PRC; RLCV(EN)
Chinese Cobra
Naja atra
PRC: RLCV(VU); IUCN(VU); CITES(II); Cap.586
Burmese Python
Python bivittatus
PRC; RLCV(CR); IUCN(VU); CITES(II); CSMPS(I);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Note: * Conservation and protection status refers to:
a. Conservation status by Fellowes et al. (2002): PRC = Potential Regional Concern.
b. Conservation status by Red List of China’s Vertebrates (RLCV) (Jiang et al. 2016): CR = Critically Endangered;
VU = Vulnerable.
c. Protection status by CITES (2017): II = Listed in CITES Appendix II.
d. China State Major Protection Status (CSMPS): I = Class I Protected Species in China.
e. Cap. 170 = Wild Animal Protection Ordinance
f. Cap. 586 = Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance.
Butterflies
The diversity and abundance of butterflies in the Assessment Area is relatively low (Appendix C5-
1, C5-2). In general, the habitat types present, which support a low diversity of native plant
species and relatively low vegetative structural diversity, are not suitable for most butterflies,
providing few potential sources of food for adults or larvae. The only species of conservation
importance listed that was not recorded in surveys for this study is Danaid Egg-fly.
Four species of conservation importance were recorded in surveys carried out in 2017 and 2019-
20 (Appendix C5-3, C5-4), namely Common Awl, Small Cabbage White, Forget-me-not and Grass
Demon. Common Awl was recorded in mangrove area at the floating boardwalk and on edges of
gei wai 16/17, while Small Cabbage White was recorded from edges of brackish gei wai,
commercial fishpond and wooded area. Forget-me-not was seen in rain-fed pond and the wooded
area near the former PSFSC, and Grass Demon was recorded at gei wai 14 (Figures 7-8 a-e). In
Hong Kong, Common Awl and Small Cabbage White are considered Very Rare and Rare,
respectively (by AFCD 2017), albeit Small Cabbage White is a globally invasive pest species Holland
(1931). Forget-me-not and Grass Demon are both considered as Rare (by AFCD 2017). During the
2019-20 surveys, the only species of conservation importance recorded was Common Awl.
Ecological Impact
7-35
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Odonates (Dragonflies and Damselflies)
Much of the area within MPNR is brackish wetland habitat and hence does not support a diverse
community of dragonflies. The species recorded in MPNR are all considered either abundant or
common in Hong Kong (AFCD 2017), though seven are of conservation importance (Appendix C6-1).
The species of conservation importance recorded during the surveys in 2016, 2017 and 2019-20
were Coastal Glider, Blue Sprite, Ruby Darter, Scarlet Basker, Four-spot Midget, Eastern
Lilysquatter and Mangrove Skimmer (Appendices C6-2, C6-3, C6-4). All are common in HK apart
from two. Mangrove Skimmer is an uncommon species recorded in several locations, mainly in
the Sai Kung area (AFCD 2017).
In addition, Four-spot Midget was recorded in the mangrove along the floating boardwalk
outside the Boundary Fence. This species is considered as of Global Concern (Fellowes et al.
2002) and listed as Near Threatened by IUCN (2017). It was not recorded near any of the Project
Elements.
Bent-winged Firefly
The numbers and distribution of Pyrocoelia analis and Bent-winged Firefly Pteroptyx maipo
recorded by WWF are presented in Appendix C7-1, while the number and distribution of Bent-
winged Firefly recorded in verification surveys in 2020 is presented in Appendix C7-2 and
illustrated in Figure 7-10. The distribution of Bent-winged Firefly is confined to the brackish water
channel outside but immediately adjacent to the reserve along the southern and southeastern
boundary, adjacent to ponds 22a, 22b, 23, 24a, 24c, 24 e-g and 19. The highest densities occurred
adjacent to ponds 24e, f and g. At the nearest point, the area of occurrence is 340m from the
footpath element to be upgraded; the shortest distance to TH2 is approximately 500m.
Aquatic Fauna
Maximum counts of fish recorded in gei wai and ponds at MPNR during benthic fauna verification
surveys in 2019-20 are, for the sake of completeness, provided in Appendix C8-3.
Benthic Fauna
A total of eight benthic taxa were identified from the samples collected in September 2017;
among these, six were from the samples within the Project Site. The diversity of benthic fauna
within the Project Site and outside the boundary fence is low. Detailed survey findings are
provided in Appendix C9-1 and Appendix C9-2.
7.6 Habitat Evaluation
Introduction
This section provides an ecological evaluation of the habitats within the Assessment Area. The
brackish gei wai and rain-fed ponds of MPNR are treated as comprising a single ‘habitat’
containing several linked microhabitats (see below). The portion of MPNR that comprises
relatively homogenous intertidal mangroves outside the Boundary Fence, is ecologically very
different, however; thus, it is evaluated separately below.
MPNR Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Ponds (‘Project Site’)
MPNR brackish gei wai and rain-fed ponds contain a complex mosaic of wetland microhabitats,
including former gei wai (brackish shrimp ponds), rain-fed ponds, reed marsh, emergent
vegetation and mangroves, together with non-wetland areas including vegetated and bare
ground, all of which are actively managed for wildlife. In addition, there are small areas of
development, including service roads, footpaths and buildings such as MPEC and existing tower
hides. The areas of each of these microhabitats are detailed in Table 7-19, below, with their
distribution within the Project Site shown on Figure 7-2, which was generated from aerial photos
and ground-truthing in 2020.
Ecological Impact
7-36
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-19 Areas of Microhabitat in MPNR Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Ponds 2020
HABITAT
AREA (HA)
%
Open Water (Gei Wai)
87.66
40.75
Open Water (Rain-fed)
28.59
13.29
Mangrove
27.05
12.57
Reedbed
26.90
12.50
Other Emergent Vegetation
6.27
2.91
Terrestrial Vegetation
29.92
13.91
Bare Ground
8.44
3.92
Buildings/ Facilities
0.30
0.14
Total
215.13
100
MPNR inside the boundary fence comprises a mosaic of different wetland and some non-wetland
microhabitats that together provide habitats for a wildlife community that differs from and is
more diverse than that which is present in large homogenous blocks of just one of the habitat
types in the mosaic. The interconnectedness of the various microhabitats is complex and
intimate, and for this reason we believe treating them as separate would not be the most
accurate representation of their function. Evaluation of these components individually would
provide a misleading picture of the overall value of the habitat mosaic and the management
practices, which are to a substantial extent focussed on ponds, rather than habitats. In addition,
the active conservation management results in many of these having a considerable higher value
than physically superficially similar habitats elsewhere in the Assessment Area.
Accordingly, MPNR is evaluated as a single ‘habitat’ containing several linked microhabitats.
Ecological evaluation of MPNR Brackish gei wai and Rain-fed Ponds is given in Table 7-20. Where
project elements potentially impact microhabitats, this will be addressed in the section
addressing impact significance.
Table 7-20 Ecological Evaluation of MPNR Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Ponds
CRITERIA
MPNR BRACKISH GEI WAI AND RAIN-FED POND
Naturalness
Originally a modified habitat mosaic but actively managed to enhance its
natural features.
Size
Approximately 214ha in the Project Site.
Diversity
High diversity of fauna, especially birds, moderate diversity of flora.
Rarity
Actively managed wetlands are few in Hong Kong and MPNR is much the
largest, thus rendering it unique in a local context and rare in a regional context.
Re-creatability
Potentially re-creatable, especially if baseline conditions include existing coastal
wetland habitats such asfishponds, though some habitats such as mangroves
would take some time to reach maturity and resource inputs would be high.
Fragmentation
Not fragmented.
Ecological linkage
Strong ecological linkages to other habitats in the Ramsar Site.
Potential value
Despite its high existing value, ongoing active management has the potential to
increase value incrementally.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Significant breeding ground for birds, aquatic invertebrates and fish.
Age
Actively managed as a nature reserve for just over 30 years.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
Bird diversity and abundance are high to very high especially during migration
and winter seasons. Other faunal groups are also more abundant and diverse
than in most Deep Bay wetland areas.
Ecological value
Very High Ecological Value.
Ecological Impact
7-37
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Mangroves
The Assessment Area includes an extensive intertidal mangrove area outside the boundary fence
that is contiguous with the extensive mangroves around Deep Bay. Most of the intertidal
mangroves in the Assessment Area are within the reserve, while a small area around Lut Chau is
not, but is protected by its being included in the Inner Deep Bay SSSI.
Mangrove habitats are important for their invertebrate and fish communities and are also used
by a number of wetland bird species, though both numbers and diversity of the latter are lower
than in either gei wai or rain-fed ponds inside the boundary fence, or the intertidal mudflats
outside the Assessment Area. The endemic Bent-winged Firefly has recently been described from
mangrove fringed tidal creeks around Deep Bay and occurs in such habitat in the Assessment
Area. The ecological requirements of Bent-winged Firefly are not yet fully known (Ballantyne et
al. 2011); however tidal creeks and the surrounding mangroves and wet grassland are important
habitats Ecological evaluation of Mangroves is given in Table 7-21, below. In recent years, the
mangrove has supported a large egretry.
Table 7-21 Ecological Evaluation of Mangroves
CRITERIA
MANGROVE
Naturalness
A natural habitat in intertidal areas in Hong Kong.
Size
126.77ha in the Assessment Area of which 87.2ha are in MPNR.
Diversity
Low vegetation diversity but a high diversity of microhabitat and fauna, with
many habitat-dependent invertebrate species.
Rarity
Mangroves are relatively common in Deep Bay intertidal areas. The mangroves
in Deep Bay are of better quality than most remaining stands in south China.
Habitat for the endemic Bent-winged Firefly.
Re-creatability
Could be re-created by planting in sheltered inter-tidal areas with suitable
substrates but might take some time for establishment.
Fragmentation
Not fragmented.
Ecological linkage
Part of, and with very strong ecological links with the contiguous mangrove area
around Deep Bay and intertidal mudflat areas.
Potential value
Value could be enhanced by removing exotic Sonneratia spp.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Provides a breeding ground for mangrove fauna, including Bent-winged Firefly,
and currently supports a large egretry that supported an estimated 557 nests in
2019. An important spawning ground for some marine fish and an important
nursery ground for some fishes and shrimps.
Age
Age not known but is a well-established mangrove stand.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
Mangrove communities in Deep Bay are known to support a high diversity of
fauna, especially invertebrates.
Ecological value
Part of, and continuous with, the extensive mangroves around Deep Bay and
considered to be of High Ecological Value.
Commercial Fishponds
Fishponds are the dominant habitat in the Assessment Area outside MPNR. Most of these ponds,
are actively maintained for the cultivation of fish species. Management includes periodic stocking
and rearing and harvesting of fish, management of water quality and adjustment of pond
profiles. Where fish harvesting is accomplished by draining down ponds, large waterbirds
(including egrets and spoonbills) are frequently attracted into fishponds. Bund vegetation is
regularly managed and is mostly maintained at very low levels. The dominant plant species are
common grasses and ruderal herbs. Some trees are also present, especially fruit trees. To enable
vehicular access, some fishpond bunds have been strengthened by import of fill material, limiting
the colonisation of vegetation. Assessment of the ecological value of these active fishponds (and
Ecological Impact
7-38
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
indeed abandoned ponds) includes an evaluation of the bunds, which are an integral part of the
pond structure and thus are a key element of wetland function.
Management of the active fishponds requires a significant amount of human and vehicular
activity around the ponds. This leads to the disturbance of large waterbirds and other
disturbance-sensitive wildlife. Fishponds operators are often resident on site, so some degree of
disturbance is present throughout the day (albeit at significantly lower levels overnight). Dogs are
often present, creating an additional source of disturbance to wildlife. Man-made structures and
utility services around the fishponds further increase the levels of disturbance, whilst some
ponds in the Assessment Area are wired to deter large waterbirds, in particular Great
Cormorants, from feeding on fish stocks. Conversely, Management Agreements (MAs) supported
by the Environment and Conservation Fund, whereby fishpond operators receive a subsidy if they
follow a pond management protocol intended to increase the attractiveness of ponds to foraging
waterbirds, have covered some ponds in the Assessment Area since 2012. However, there is no
published information on where these MA protocols are in effect.
Several of the former fishponds in the Assessment Area, notably in the area to the south of Pak
Hok Chau, have been abandoned (meaning that considerable effort would be required to bring
them back into production). Some of these ponds have open water areas, but most have been at
least partially overgrown with reeds, while the bunds are well-vegetated with trees, shrubs and
grasses. Compared to active fishponds, the abandoned ponds receive considerably less human
disturbance, increasing their value to disturbance-sensitive species. Thus, these ponds support a
somewhat different wetland bird community to the active fishponds with larger numbers of
cryptic species including bitterns and rails, while the bunds are often used by roosting and loafing
ardeids. Conversely, these ponds lack the drain-down period of actively managed ponds and the
fish stocks are expected to be lower than in commercial ponds. Ecological evaluation of
Fishponds is given in Table 7-22.
Table 7-22 Ecological Evaluation of Commercial Fishponds
CRITERIA
ACTIVE FISHPOND
ABANDONED FISHPOND
Naturalness
Man-made habitat with high levels of
human activity.
Man-made habitat but now with low levels of
human disturbance.
Size
Out of 167.82ha of ponds in the
Assessment Area, approximately
91.6% are active.
Out of 167.82ha of ponds in the Assessment
Area approximately 8.4% are abandoned.
Diversity
Low habitat and vegetation diversity
but moderate diversity of fauna,
especially birds.
Diversity of vegetation and microhabitats
higher than in managed ponds, similar overall
faunal diversity but species composition differs.
Rarity
Fishponds are a common habitat in
the Deep Bay area but are becoming
less common throughout Hong Kong.
Fishponds are a common habitat in the Deep
Bay area but are becoming less common
throughout Hong Kong. Blocks of contiguous
abandoned fishponds with such low levels of
human disturbance as those to the south of Pak
Hok Chau are unusual.
Re-creatability
Easily re-creatable.
Easily re-creatable.
Fragmentation
Not fragmented.
Not fragmented.
Ecological
linkage
Ponds have strong ecological linkage
to nearby wetland habitats, including
abandoned ponds and intertidal
rivers. A pre-roost of ardeids is
currently present in active fishponds
near GW8a and 10.
Ponds have strong ecological linkage to nearby
fishponds and other wetland habitats.
Ecological Impact
7-39
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
CRITERIA
ACTIVE FISHPOND
ABANDONED FISHPOND
Potential value
Value could be increased by more
ecologically-friendly management
methods. The MAs may be effective
in this respect. However, value may
also decrease if fisheries
management becomes more
intensive.
Value could be increased by more ecologically-
friendly management methods. However, value
may also decrease (or, at least, change) if
fisheries management is resumed and becomes
intensive.
Nursery/breedi
ng ground
No significant nursery or breeding
grounds.
No significant nursery or breeding grounds
known but doubtless supports breeding
wetland-dependent fauna including
disturbance-sensitive species.
Age
Not known but moderately old.
Not known but moderately old.
Abundance/rich
ness of wildlife
Some waterbird species, notably
ardeids, are routinely present in
moderate numbers and may be
abundant during pond-drain down.
Low abundance and diversity of
other fauna (dragonflies and
amphibians).
Abundance generally of waterbirds typically
lower than in active ponds but this is partly a
function of species using this habitat being more
solitary than those which favour active ponds;
other faunal groups, such as amphibians,
generally more abundant and diverse than in
managed ponds.
Ecological value
In their current state the ponds
attract moderate numbers and
diversity of wetland species, although
some wetland birds are present in
good numbers and the ecological
linkages are good; these active ponds
are therefore considered currently to
be of moderate to high importance.
Given their scale and location and
their ecological linkages to MPNR,
there is considerable potential to
improve these ponds by MAs and
similar means and taking this
potential value into account, these
ponds are considered to be of High
Ecological Value.
These abandoned ponds support smaller
numbers of birds of conservation importance
than active ponds. However, taking into
account their value for other wetland fauna,
the fact that they support a different suite of
wetland birds to active ponds, the relatively
large area and its freedom from disturbance,
these ponds are considered to be of High
Ecological Value.
Brackish Marshes and Natural Watercourses
Brackish marsh is present in the Assessment Area in association with natural watercourses. The
most important watercourse is that which flows from Fairview Park, around the southeast
boundary of MPNR and then between the Reserve and Lut Chau, before joining the Kam Tin River
in the extreme southeast of the Assessment Area. In addition, two smaller watercourses
discharge into the Shenzhen River to the north of Tam Kon Chau. Natural watercourse and
brackish marsh habitats are intimately linked in this Assessment Area, hence are evaluated here
as an ecological unit. The watercourse channels are intertidal, at least at spring tides; hence the
linked marsh areas are periodically inundated with brackish water, a feature which has an
important influence on the marsh floral and faunal communities.
Fauna present include moderate numbers and diversity of bird species, including small numbers
of ardeids, rails and wetland-dependent or associated passerines, such as Oriental Reed, Black-
browed Reed and Dusky Warblers. Perhaps the most significant fauna species present is Bent-
winged Firefly, which is present in large numbers in the brackish marsh between MPNR and
Fairview Park, in particular. Ecological evaluation of Brackish Marshes and Natural Watercourses
is given in Table 7-23, below.
Ecological Impact
7-40
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-23 Ecological Evaluation of Brackish Marshes and Natural Watercourses
CRITERIA
BRACKISH MARSHES AND NATURAL WATERCOURSES
Naturalness
Natural habitat with few recent anthropogenic influences.
Size
Within the Assessment Area there are 21.66ha of brackish marsh and 17.02ha of
natural watercourse. Moderate in size when taken in combination; but
watercourses are narrow with little open water. These habitats are not present
in the Project Site.
Diversity
Low diversity of microhabitat types but reasonably high faunal diversity,
especially birds and invertebrates.
Rarity
Habitat is relatively rare in Hong Kong, and many areas are threatened by
anthropogenic activities and succession. Most species using this habitat are not
rare, but some are habitat specialists, notably Bent-winged Firefly.
Re-creatability
Could be re-created at a suitable location by restoring channelised watercourse
and adjacent habitats.
Fragmentation
Not fragmented.
Ecological linkage
Ecologically linked to mudflats and mangrove and fishpond areas, but upstream
linkages are blocked by channelised watercourse and urban development.
Potential value
Could be enhanced by conservation management and reduction in pollution
load to watercourses.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Breeding area for Bent-winged Firefly.
Age
Not known, but area between MPNR and Fairview Park probably formed not
long after estate construction, hence around 40 years old.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
High abundance and diversity of wetland birds and some invertebrate groups.
Ecological value
Considered to be of High Ecological Value, especially in view of its importance
for Bent-winged Firefly.
Channelised Watercourses
One channelised watercourse is present in the Assessment Area. This is a concrete u-shaped
channel that flows through Fairview Park and joins the natural watercourse to the southeast of
MPNR. Its ecological value is severely constrained by the absence of vegetation and the proximity
of residential and other developments. Ecological evaluation of Channelised Watercourses is
given in Table 7-24.
Table 7-24 Ecological Evaluation of Channelised Watercourses
CRITERIA
CHANNELISED WATERCOURSE
Naturalness
Entirely man-made.
Size
Narrow. None is within the Project Site. Area only 1.0ha.
Diversity
Low diversity of microhabitat types and low faunal diversity.
Rarity
Habitat is common in Hong Kong. Used by small numbers of bird species of
conservation importance on a casual basis.
Re-creatability
Readily re-creatable.
Fragmentation
Not fragmented.
Ecological linkage
No significant ecological linkages, but hydrologically linked to natural
watercourse downstream.
Potential value
Could be enhanced by re-engineering to create a more ecologically diverse
channel but little likelihood of this taking place.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Not suitable as a nursery/breeding ground.
Ecological Impact
7-41
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
CRITERIA
CHANNELISED WATERCOURSE
Age
Presumably formed when Fairview Park was built, hence around 40 years old.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
Low abundance and diversity of fauna, no macroflora.
Ecological value
Low Ecological Value.
Wooded Area
Two small areas of secondary woodland are present in the Assessment Area: immediately to the
north of the former PSFSC and around Tam Kon Chau Police Post; and at Shek Shan, an area
between the Boundary Road and the Boundary Fence. Both of these areas are dominated by
naturally regenerated native tree species, in particular Ficus microcarpa. . The wooded area to
the north of the PSFSC site supported an egretry utilised by Chinese Pond Herons from 2000 to
2008; the number of nests peaked at 47 in 2004 (HKBWS data). A pair of Chinese Blackbirds,
which is a rare breeding species in Hong Kong, has bred in this wood in 2017 (this study). A
Livistona chinensis tree in this wood is utilised as a roost site by Short-nosed Fruit Bat (ibid).
Ecological evaluation of Wooded Areas is given in Table 7-25.
Table 7-25 Ecological Evaluation of Wooded Areas
CRITERIA
WOODED AREA
Naturalness
Naturally regenerated but some anthropogenic influences and planted/exotic
species present.
Size
Small: 0.89ha in the Assessment Area; none is within the Project Site.
Diversity
Low diversity of woody flora and resident fauna due to small size.
Rarity
Disturbed secondary woodland is a common habitat in Hong Kong.
Re-creatability
Can be re-created in suitable locations, although trees would take a long time to
reach maturity.
Fragmentation
Internally fragmented by buildings; fragmented from other woodland habitats
by wetland areas.
Ecological linkage
Utilised as roosting sites by birds foraging in adjacent wetland areas; wooded
area north of PSFSC was formerly utilised by breeding Chinese Pond Herons.
Potential value
Value will increase naturally over time as trees mature; areas around former
PSFSC could be increased if brought under conservation management.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Wooded area north of PSFSC site currently used by night roosting ardeids,
breeding Azure-winged Magpies and Chinese Blackbird and roosting Short-
nosed Fruit Bats.
Age
Uncertain but many trees are large.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
Low abundance but moderate diversity of fauna, notably birds.
Ecological value
Most trees are native but small areas and disturbance compromises the habitat
value to some extent, thus assessed as of Moderate Ecological Value.
Developed Areas
The southeastern part of the Assessment Area includes part of the developed area of Fairview
Park, a low-rise housing development. Elsewhere in the Assessment Area developed areas largely
comprise small groups of domestic structures and farm structures, together with government,
institutional and community facilities, including those associated with MPNR, such as MPEC, the
latter being located in the Project Site along with a number of birdwatching hides and service
structures. In addition to areas occupied by structures, the single track Boundary Road runs
around the north and west sides of the Project Site, whilst northeast side of the Project Site
comprises the concrete footpath which serves MPEC.
Ecological Impact
7-42
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The environs of domestic structures around Tam Kon Chau are well vegetated with ornamental
trees, shrubs and fruit trees that attract a moderate number and diversity of mostly common and
widespread bird and butterfly species, but include nesting White-shouldered Starlings, which
breed in nest boxes and electrical installations, and appear to be largely dependent on man-
made breeding sites in Hong Kong (Carey et al. 2001); whilst some structures may be utilised by
roosting bats. Ecological evaluation of Developed Areas is given in Table 7-26.
Table 7-26 Ecological Evaluation of Developed Areas
CRITERIA
DEVELOPED AREA
Naturalness
An artificial, man-made habitat.
Size
Fairview Park occupies a relatively large part of the southeast of the Assessment
Area, other developed areas are small; the habitat occupies 55.07ha in the
Assessment Area.
Diversity
A low to moderate diversity of vegetation managed for cultivation and
ornamental purposes around houses.
Rarity
A common habitat in Hong Kong.
Re-creatability
Easily re-creatable.
Fragmentation
Except for Fairview Park, most developed areas in the Assessment Area are rather
fragmented and do not pose a significant barrier to faunal movement; the narrow
Boundary Road is lightly used by a small number of permitted police and service
vehicles. However, fences around commercial fishponds, together with the
Boundary Fence, may pose a barrier to movement of some terrestrial fauna species.
Ecological linkage
No significant ecological linkages.
Potential value
Little scope for an increase in ecological value.
Nursery/breeding
ground
Some structures are used by breeding White-shouldered Starlings and perhaps by
bats.
Age
Fairview Park development is over 40 years old; most other areas occupied by
structures have been developed for many years, with little recent change in the
areas and extent of development. However, there has been an increase in the
area occupied by on-farm structures in recent years, especially to the south of
Tam Kon Chau.
Abundance/richness
of wildlife
Moderate abundance and diversity of bird and butterfly species associated with
domestic and farm structures; most species are habitat-generalists but the locally
distributed White-shouldered Starling appears to be largely dependent upon
anthropogenic breeding sites in Hong Kong.
Ecological value
In general, developed areas are of Low Ecological Value; however, the domestic
structures and their environs at Tam Kon Chau are considered to be of Low to
Moderate Ecological Value in view of their importance to breeding White-
shouldered Starlings.
7.7 Species Evaluations
Avifauna
Approximately 370 species of bird have been recorded in MPNR, of which 50 are of global
conservation importance. Due to their dependence on wetland habitats and the threats to
wetlands regionally, many wetland-dependent species are assessed as of conservation
importance. Large waterbirds such as cormorants, egrets, herons and spoonbills are of particular
significance in a Mai Po context, as it supports a large proportion of the Deep Bay area and/or
regional population. Of especial importance in the context of this Study and the areas where
project elements are located are the following species (threat status available at
www.iucnredlist.org):
Black-faced Spoonbill. Listed as Endangered by IUCN, MPNR is a core component of its range
in the winter in HK, primarily in terms of the undisturbed roost site that it occupies.
Ecological Impact
7-43
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Greater Spotted and Imperial Eagle. Listed as Vulnerable by IUCN, they occur in small numbers
in the Deep Bay area. Daytime roosting appears to be an important feature of their use of
MPNR, while foraging opportunities are provided by the large number of ducks in MPNR.
Collared Crow. Listed as Vulnerable by IUCN, MPNR is a key site for this species as it supports
breeding birds and a year-round roost in the intertidal mangrove.
Manchurian Reed Warbler. Listed as Vulnerable by IUCN, this species occurs in low numbers
in the reed marsh on autumn passage.
In terms of overall conservation importance, waterbirds in general and the group of species listed
above in particular must be rated as High.
Non-bird fauna
Table 7-27 to Table 7-31, below, assess the ecological value of non-bird species of conservation
importance recorded historically in MPNR and species recorded as part of surveys carried out for
this Study. Species recorded outside MPNR that had not already been recorded inside are
indicated with a double asterisk; species that have been recorded in MPNR and in the
Assessment Area outside MPNR are indicated with a single asterisk, in both cases with the
habitat indicated. Notes applicable to all tables are provided below the last Table 7-31.
Table 7-27 Ecological Evaluation of Mammals
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Leschenault's
Rousette
Rousettus
leschenaulti
(LC); Cap.170
Fairly widely distributed in
rural areas
Common
Medium
Short-nosed
Fruit Bat* (DA)
Cynopterus
sphinx
RLCV(NT); Cap.170
Widely distributed in urban
and rural areas
Very
Common
Medium
Intermediate
Horseshoe Bat
Rhinolophus
affinis
(LC); Cap.170
Widely distributed in rural
areas
Uncommon
Medium
Least
Horseshoe Bat
Rhinolophus
pusillus
PRC (RC); Cap.170
Widely distributed in rural
areas
Uncommon
Medium
Horsfield's
Myotis
Myotis
horsfieldii
PRC (RC); Cap.170
Found in Shek Kong, Pak Tam
Chung, Fung Yuen, & Plover
Cove, Pat Sin Leng and Shing
Mun CP
Rare
Medium
Chinese
Noctule
Nyctalus
plancyi
PRC (RC); Cap.170
Fairly widely distributed in
rural areas
Common
Medium
Least Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus
tenuis
RLCV(NT); Cap.170
10-20 records in rural NT
Uncommon
Medium
Chinese
Pipistrelle
Hypsugo
pulveratus
(LC); RLCV(NT);
Cap.170
Several records in rural NT;
also records stray individuals
in buildings
Rare
Medium
Lesser Bamboo
Bat
Tylonycteris
pachypus
(LC); Cap.170
Fairly widely distributed in
rural areas
Very
Common
Medium
Lesser Yellow
Bat
Scotophilus
kuhlii
(LC); Cap.170
Fairly widely distributed in
rural areas
Uncommon
Medium
Greater Bent-
winged Bat
Miniopterus
magnater
PRC (RC); RLCV(NT);
Cap.170
Data deficient
Data
Deficient
High
Lesser Bent-
winged Bat
Miniopterus
pusillus
(LC); RLCV(NT);
Cap.170
Fairly widely distributed in
rural areas
Uncommon
Medium
Common Bent-
winged Bat
Miniopterus
schreibersii
(LC); IUCN(NT);
Cap.170
Widely distributed in rural
areas
Common
Medium
Himalayan Leaf-
nosed Bat
Hipposideros
armiger
(LC); Cap.170
Widely distributed in rural
areas
Very
Common
Medium
Rhesus
Macaque
Macaca
mulatta
CSMPS(II); CITES(II);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Mainly Kam Shan, Shing Mun
and Tai Po Kau; also Ma On
Shan, Sai Kung, Tai Lam
Common
Medium
Ecological Impact
7-44
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Country Parks and North
District
Greater
Bandicoot Rat
Bandicota
indica
LC
Found Mai Po, Pat Sin Leng
Country Park and Lantau
Rare
Medium
East Asian
Porcupine
Hystrix
brachyura
PGC; Cap.170
Widely distributed in rural
areas, except Lantau
Very
Common
Low
Eurasian Otter
Lutra lutra
RC; RLCV(EN);
IUCN(NT);
CSMPS(II); CITES(I);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Restricted to Mai Po, Hoo
Hok Wai, and nearby areas
Rare
High
Small Indian
Civet
Viverricula
indica
RLCV(VU);
CSMPS(II);
CITES(III); Cap.170;
Cap.586
Widely distributed in rural
areas, except Lantau
Very
Common
High
Small Asian
Mongoose
Herpestes
javanicus
RLCV(VU);
CITES(III); Cap.170;
Cap.586
Fairly widely distributed in
rural NT
Uncommon
High
Leopard Cat
Prionailurus
bengalensis
RLCV(VU); CITES(II);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Widely distributed in rural
areas, except for Lantau
Island
Uncommon
High
Table 7-28 Ecological Evaluation of Herpetofauna
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG KONG
[NOTE 2]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Malayan Box
Turtle
Cuora
amboinensis
IUCN(VU);
CITES(II); Cap.586
Released individuals found in some
parts of NT
Medium
Reeves' Turtle
Mauremys
reevesii
GC; RLCV(EN);
IUCN(EN);
CITES(III);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Widespread in the territory Used to be
a common species but sightings have
been rare in recent years Found in
most local reservoirs
High
Chinese Soft-
shelled Turtle
Pelodiscus
sinensis
GC; RLCV(EN);
IUCN(VU);
Cap.170
Locally found in reservoirs and
fishponds in Deep Bay area
Medium
Four-clawed
Gecko
Gehyra mutilata
RLCV(VU)
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
Low
Copperhead
Racer
Coelognathus
radiatus
PRC; RLCV(EN)
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
Medium
Taiwan Kukri
Snake
Oligodon
formosanus
RLCV(NT)
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
Medium
Indo-chinese rat
snake* (DA)
Ptyas korros
PRC; RLCV(VU)
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
Medium
Common Rat
Snake
Ptyas mucosus
PRC; RLCV(EN);
CITES(II); Cap.586
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
High
Banded Krait
Bungarus
fasciatus
RC; RLCV(EN)
Distributed in few localities of the NT,
Hong Kong Island and Lantau Island
Medium
Many-banded
Krait* (DA)
Bungarus
multicinctus
PRC; RLCV(EN)
Widely distributed in NT, Hong Kong
Island and Lantau Island
Medium
Chinese Cobra
Naja atra
PRC: RLCV(VU);
IUCN(VU);
CITES(II); Cap.586
Found throughout the territory
High
Ecological Impact
7-45
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG KONG
[NOTE 2]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
King Cobra
Ophiophagus
hannah
PRC: RLCV(EN);
IUCN(VU);
CITES(II); Cap.586
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
High
Mangrove
Water Snake
Myrrophis
bennettii
LC
Recorded in the muddy coastal areas
in Deep Bay area
Medium
Chinese Water
Snake
Myrrophis
chinensis
RLCV(VU)
Distributed in freshwater or brackish
wetlands in central and northern NT
Medium
Burmese Python
Python bivittatus
PRC; RLCV(CR);
IUCN(VU);
CITES(II);
CSMPS(I);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Widely distributed throughout Hong
Kong
High
Spotted
Narrow-
mouthed Frog
Kalophrynus
interlineatus
RLCV(NT)
Widely distributed from low to
moderate altitudes in northern and
central NT
Medium
Chinese Bullfrog
Hoplobatrachus
rugulosus
PRC; RLCV(EN);
CSMPS(II)
Widely distributed in Lantau Island
and NT
Medium
Table 7-29 Ecological Evaluation of Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly and Dragonflies
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION
/ PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Mai Po Bent-
winged Firefly
Pteroptyx
maipo
-
Deep Bay only. Endemic.
Locally
common
High
Asian Bluetail
Ischnura
asiatica
-
Historical record in 1865
(Brauer 1865)
Rare
Medium
Four-spot
Midget* (MAN)
Mortonagrion
hirosei
GC; IUCN(NT)
Double Island, Luk Keng, Mai
Po Marshes, Nam Chung,
Sam A Tsuen and Sha Po
Common
High
Eastern
Lilysquatter
Paracercion
melanotum
LC
Hong Kong Wetland Park, Lai
Chi Wo, Luk Keng and Shek
Kwu Chau
Common
Medium
Blue Sprite
Pseudagrion
microcephalum
LC
Kai Kuk Shue Ha, Kau Sai
Chau, Lai Chi Wo, Mai Po,
Mui Wo, River Jhelum and
Tung Ping Chau
Common
Medium
Blue-spotted
Dusk-hawker
Gynacantha
japonica
LC
Hoi Ha, Ngong Ping, Sha Lo
Tung and Wu Kau Tang
Common
Medium
Little Dusk-
hawker
Gynacantha
saltatrix
LC
Kau Sai Chai, Ping Yeung, Tai
Po Kau, Tsim Sha Tsui and
Yeung Ka Tsuen
Uncommon
Medium
Dingy Dusk-
hawker
Gynacantha
subinterrupta
LC
Hong Kong Wetland Park,
Lantau, Ping Shan Chai, Sha
Lo Tung and Tai Mo Shan
Common
Medium
Tawny Hooktail
Paragomphus
capricornis
RC
Lion Rock Country Park, Tai
Lam Chung Country Park, Tai
Tong and Yeung Ka Tsuen
Uncommon
Medium
Ecological Impact
7-46
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION
/ PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Black-tipped
Percher
Diplacodes
nebulosa
LC
Lamma Island, Lo Wu, Luk
Keng, Sum Wut and Yuen
Long.
Uncommon
Medium
Coastal Glider
Macrodiplax
cora
LC
Hong Kong Wetland Park,
Kam Tin, Lai Chi Wo, Nim
Wan and Luk Keng
Common
Medium
Mangrove
Skimmer*
(MAN)
Orthetrum
poecilops
GC; IUCN(VU)
Double Island, Lai Chi Wo,
Nam Chung, So Lo Pun, Yim
Tso Ha (Starling Inlet), Yung
Shue au and Yung Shue O
Uncommon
High
Blue Chaser
Potamarcha
congener
LC
Widely distributed in marsh
throughout Hong Kong
Common
Medium
Scarlet Basker
Urothemis
signata
LC
Common in areas containing
abandoned fishponds
throughout Hong Kong
Common
Medium
Ruby Darter**
(Pond)
Rhodothemis
rufa
LC
Widely distributed in ponds
and marshes throughout
Hong Kong.
Common
Medium
Table 7-30 Ecological Evaluation of Butterflies
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Swallowtail
Papilio xuthus
-
Kap Lung, Ma On Shan, Tai
Tam, Sha Lo Wan, Kat O,
Lung Kwu Tan, Wu Kau Tang,
Lung Kwu Chau
Rare
Medium
Common
Birdwing
Troides helena
CITES(II);
Cap.170; Cap.586
Widely distributed
throughout Hong Kong
Uncommon
High
Chocolate
Albatross
Appias lyncida
LC
Kam Tin
Very Rare
Medium
Small Cabbage
White* (WA)
Pieris rapae
-
Shep Mun Kap, Fan Lau,
Ngong Ping, Kam Tin, Ho
Chung, Luk Keng, Tuen Mun
Ash Lagoon
Rare
Medium
Colon Swift
Caltoris bromus
-
-
Very Rare
Medium
Common Awl*
(MAN)
Hasora badra
LC
Wu Kau Tang, Lai Chi Wo,
Hong Kong Wetland Park
Very Rare
Medium
Banded Awl
Hasora
chromus
-
Sham Wat, Lai Chi Wo, Po Toi
Rare
Medium
Lesser Band
Dart
Potanthus
trachala
-
Widely distributed in
grassland throughout Hong
Kong
Rare
Medium
Pale Palm Dart
Telicota colon
LC
Widely distributed in
grassland and shrubland
throughout Hong Kong
Rare
Medium
Powdered Oak
Blue
Arhopala
bazalus
-
Shing Mun, Yung Shue O, Tai
Po Kau, Mount Nicholson,
Victoria Peak
Rare
Medium
Ecological Impact
7-47
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION /
PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
RARITY
[NOTE 3]
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Burmese Bush
Blue
Arhopala
birmana
LC
Ma On Shan, Tsiu Hang, Shan
Liu, Lai Chi Shan, Yung Shue
O
Very Rare
Medium
Forget-me-not*
(WA)
Catochrysops
strabo
-
Pui O, Tai Po Kau, Fung Yuen,
Shing Mun, Sha Lo Wan
Very Rare
Medium
Cornelian
Deudorix
epijarbas
-
Lam Tsuen, Shan Liu, Wu Kau
Tang, Pak Sha O, Fung Yuen
Rare
Medium
Common Onyx
Horaga onyx
-
Common and widespread
throughout rural area in
Hong Kong
Rare
Medium
White Royal
Pratapa deva
-
Tai Po Kau, Pokfulam, Kuk
Po, Pak Sha O, Victoria Peak,
Wu Kau Tang, Fung Yuen
Very Rare
Medium
Danaid Egg-fly
Hypolimnas
misippus
LC
Ngau Ngak Shan, Lung Kwu
Tan, Hong Kong Wetland
Park, Mount Parker, Cloudy
Hill, Lin Ma Hang
Uncommon
Medium
Painted Lady
Vanessa cardui
LC
Widely distributed
throughout Hong Kong
Rare
Medium
Grass Demon**
(Brackish gei
wai)
Udaspes folus
-
Widely distributed in
farmland throughout Hong
Kong
Rare
Medium
Table 7-31 Ecological Evaluation of Fish
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
CONSERVATION
/ PROTECTION
STATUS
[NOTE 1]
DISTRIBUTION IN HONG
KONG
[NOTE 2]
ECOLOGICAL VALUE
Japanese Eel
Anguilla
japonica
RLCV(EN);
IUCN(EN)
Records from Lantau Island,
Hong Kong Island, Sai Kung and
Tsuen Wan in low abundance
High
Small
Snakehead
Channa asiatica
LC
Uncommon in the wild.
Records from a few streams in
North district and on Lantau
Island. Also cultivated in fish
farms and are available from
fish market
Medium
Common Carp
Cyprinus carpio
IUCN(VU)
-
Medium
Topmouth
Gudgeon
Pseudorasbora
parva
LC
Uncommon in streams and
reported in several streams in
North District. Considered a
pest in Mainland China and
available locally as fish food
Medium
-** (Pond)
Gobiopterus
macrolepis
RLCV(VU)
-
Medium
Notes (all tables):
1. Conservation and Protection Status refers to Fellowes et al. (2002), Red List of China's Vertebrates (RLCV) (Jiang et al. 2016),
IUCN (2020), China State Major Protection Status (CSMPS) (2018), CITES (2020), Cap. 170, and Cap. 586.
- Conservation status by Fellowes et al. (2002): LC = Local Concern; PRC = Potential Regional Concern; RC = Regional Concern;
PGC = Potential Global Concern; GC = Global Concern. Letters in Parentheses indicate that assessment is on the basis of
restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than general occurrence.
Ecological Impact
7-48
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
- Conservation status by Red List of China's Vertebrates (RLCV) (Jiang et al. 2016): NT= Near Threatened; VU =
Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered.
- Conservation status by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species (2020): NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered.
- Protection status by China State Major Protection Status (CSMPS) (2018): II = Class II Protected Species in
China.
- Protection status by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) (2020): I = Listed in CITES Appendix I; II = Listed in CITES Appendix II; III = Listed in CITES Appendix III.
- Protection status by Cap. 170 = Chapter 170. Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.
- Protection status by Cap. 586 = Chapter 586. Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance.
2. Distribution follows Hong Kong Biodiversity Database (AFCD, 2020).
3. Habitats in the Assessment Area outside MPNR at which the indicated species were recorded are: DA – Developed
Area; MAN – Mangrove; WA – Wooded Area.
7.8 Potential Ecological Impacts
Introduction
In this section details are provided as to how design and construction methods of the preferred
development have considered the need to avoid ecological impacts where feasible. The
significance of any unavoidable direct and indirect, primary and secondary, on-site and off-site
and fragmentation impacts of the project are then assessed and the proposed mitigation
measures to minimise or compensate for these potential impacts are described. For the purposes
of the impact assessment, it is considered that current conditions represent the baseline against
which potential impacts are assessed.
Due to changes in the project timetable the demolition and rebuild of PSFSC (outside the Project
Site) will be completed prior to construction at MPNR commencing.
Measures to Avoid and Minimise Impacts
The following measures have been adopted to avoid and/or minimise impacts.
External Construction Works During Wet Season Only. The three project elements will be
assembled/constructed over a two-month period between mid-April and mid-October, thus
avoiding impacts on the high number of waterbirds and wetland-dependent species present
in the dry season. This is, perhaps, the most significant of the impact avoidance measures.
Off-Site Prefabrication of Building Components. To minimise impacts to ecologically
sensitive areas, activities within MPNR will mainly concern assembly of prefabricated items.
Construction of New TH2. The location of the new TH2 has been chosen primarily to enhance
visitor experience by allowing more serious birdwatchers to view a section of the Reserve
that has not previously been visible to visitors. The exact location has been chosen to avoid
loss of wetland (gei wai) area, the need to avoid loss of existing trees, both arising from the
construction of the hide itself and the access route, to allow researchers to survey the birds
in the southern part of MPNR, and to minimise the requirement for new footpath for access.
Construction of New TH3. The new TH3 will provide a new tower hide near the entrance of
the MPNR for nature education particularly for families, students and those not disposed to
long walks. As with TH2, the location has been chosen on an existing bund to avoid wetland
loss and loss of existing trees.
Construction of Footpath. The location of this Project element is fixed, as it is situated above
the existing footpath. However, the proposed footpath has been designed to avoid intrusion
into wetland areas (either gei wai or rain-fed ponds) and to avoid felling of existing trees. In
addition, construction will be carried sequentially in three phases in order to minimise
disturbance impacts and will cease a minimum of one hour prior to sunset.
Construction Access. To avoid habitat loss impacts, construction access will occur along the
existing Boundary Fence Road and via existing pond/gei wai bunds. Haul roads are shown on
Figure 7-2. Transport of construction materials will occur over a two-month period between
mid-April and mid-October.
Ecological Impact
7-49
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Tower Hide Design. This will allow visitors to be close to disturbance-sensitive species with
minimum impact.
Completion of pond draindown before commencing work. In order to ensure that there are
no disturbance impacts on birds attracted to ponds that are being drained down,
construction will only commence once the pond is fully drained.
Permanent Direct Habitat Loss due to Construction and Operation
In accordance with the requirements of TPB PG No. 12C there will be no loss of wetland function
resulting from the Project arising from either direct habitat loss or adverse disturbance impact.
Only a very small amount of permanent direct habitat loss will arise. New hide construction will
require the permanent loss of approximately 120m
2
of bund (100m
2
of gei wai bund and 20m
2
of
rain-fed pond bund), which will be along gei wai 9 and 19. Widening of the main footpath from
1.5m to 1.65m together with formation of the Education Areas (EAs) will result in permanent loss
of approximately 100m
2
of gei wai bund and 40m
2
of rain-fed pond bund. In addition, the new
footpaths leading to TH2 and TH3 will be built on vegetated bunds and result in a loss of
approximately 290m
2
of gei wai bund and 110m
2
of rain-fed pond bund. Direct habitat loss is
detailed in Table 7-32, and the impact of this direct habitat loss is evaluated in Table 7-33.
Table 7-32 Change in Habitat Areas in the Project Site
HABITAT
CURRENT
AREA (ha)
AREA AFTER
WORKS
NET CHANGE
SOURCE OF LOSS
Brackish
gei wai
Bund
19.74
19.69
-490m
2
/ -0.05ha
Paths to TH2/TH3: 290m
2
GW9/19: 100m
2
Footpath: 100m
2
Non-bund
143.06
143.06
0.00ha
Rain-fed
Pond
Bund
6.54
6.52
-170m
2
/ -0.02ha
Paths to TH2/TH3: 110m
2
GW9/19: 20m
2
Footpath: 40m
2
Non-bund
44.66
44.66
0.00ha
Developed Area
2.76
2.81
+660m
2
/ +0.07ha
Total
216.76
216.76
0.00
Table 7-33 Direct Permanent Loss of Brackish Gei Wai Bund and Rain-fed Pond Bund
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
Habitat Quality
Brackish gei wai and rain-fed ponds are both of very high ecological value. However,
the bunds are of much lower value as they are heavily disturbed by desilting works
every few years and the vegetation is dominated by ruderal terrestrial species
including the invasive exotic Mikania micrantha.
Species
The affected bunds are little used by waterbirds as they are either already moderately
to heavily disturbed by visitors (the sections along the existing footpath and alongside
GW9) or are unsuitable as a roost or foraging site due to being heavily vegetated
(footpath to TH2). With regard to habitat loss at TH3, this area is too close to the
footpath to provide an attractive roost site to waterbirds, and the footprint of TH2 is
too vegetated. Bird species diversity, especially that of waterbirds (which, as a group,
are of high ecological value), using the bunds to be impacted is low to moderate due
also to small area, heavy disturbance by desilting works every few years and the
presence of the invasive Mikania and other ruderal species. Diversity of other fauna is
low.
Size/Abundance
The area to be lost (approximately 0.07ha of bund) is small, both in absolute terms
and relative to the area of these habitats within MPNR. The number of individuals of
flora and fauna that will be impacted is correspondingly small.
Duration
Habitat will be permanently lost to new bird hides.
Reversibility
Removal of structures and restoration of natural bund vegetation would be easy to
accomplish in principle but is unlikely in practice.
Ecological Impact
7-50
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
Magnitude
Magnitude will be relatively low as only a very small area (approximately 0.07ha of
bund, 0.033% of these habitats) will be converted to developed areas.
Impact Severity
Impact severity would be Low to Moderate in both construction and operational
phases of the project in view of the relatively small area and the relatively low value
usage of the land lost. It is considered there will be limited loss of wetland function.
Construction Phase Direct Impacts on Habitats
In addition to habitat lost permanently as described above, habitat will be lost temporarily during
the construction phase of the Project, which will be the last week of April and first half of May,
and September and the first half of October. These impacts are evaluated below.
TH2
To construct TH2, it is necessary to temporarily drain down Ponds 19 and 20e. This drain-down
will be conducted during the first wet season of the Project in accordance with the rolling pond
and gei wai desilting programme specified in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, and hence
does not constitute an additional impact arising from the Project. Water levels will be restored to
normal dry season operating levels at the end of the wet season.
The works area for TH2 and its associated footpath will occupy approximately 1,560m
2
, which it is
assumed will be temporarily cleared ground during the 2021 wet season. As with drain-down,
temporarily cleared ground constitutes a normal element of the routine pond and gei wai
desilting programme and hence does not constitute an additional impact due to the Project.
TH3
Construction of TH3 will require the temporary drain-down of Pond 8a and GW 7. Again, this
drain-down will be conducted during the first wet season of the construction phase in
accordance with the rolling pond and gei wai desilting programme specified in the MPNR
Management Plan 2019-2024, hence does not comprise additional impact arising from the
Project. Water levels will be restored to normal dry season operating levels at the end of the wet
season. According to the original MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024, GW #7 was drained in the
wet season of 2020 to carry out “Desilting of channels and open water restoration at GW #7”. In
2020, the Mai Po Management Committee advised that GW #8a and GW #7 should be connected
with a sluice gate when the GW #8a enhancement is carried out. Therefore, GW #7 will need to
be drained again to facilitate the construction of sluice gate in the summer of 2022. The
construction programme for this Project has been revised to align the foundation works to TH3
with the second planned draining of GW#7.
The works area for TH3 and its associated footpath will occupy approximately 1,335m
2
,
which it is
assumed will be temporarily cleared ground during the 2021 wet season. As with drain-down,
temporarily cleared ground constitutes a normal element of the routine pond and gei wai
desilting programme and hence does not constitute an additional impact due to the Project.
Boardwalks (Main Footpath and Access to TH1)
All works will be kept within the upper (dry) portions of the bund and no drain-down of pond/gei
wai or works in wetland areas will be required.
The works area for construction will comprise approximately 0.31ha/3,100m
2
(additional to the
footpaths), of which approximately 0.25ha/2,500m
2
will consist of gei wai bund and
0.06ha/600m
2
will consist of rain-fed pond bund. These areas would not normally be affected by
desilting operations; hence this temporary impact is considered additional to that which would
occur during routine management operations. However, the temporary loss of this small area of
habitat, which is routinely disturbed by humans, is not considered to be of significance, especially
since the phasing of construction will limit the works area to a maximum of 0.0465ha/465m
2
at
any one time. Direct temporary loss of brackish gei wai (bunds) and rain-fed ponds (bunds) is
shown in Table 7-34, below.
Ecological Impact
7-51
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-34 Direct Temporary Loss of Brackish Gei Wai Bund and Rain-fed Ponds Bund
CRITERIA
BRACKISH GEI WAI & RAIN-FED POND
Habitat Quality
Brackish gei wai and rain-fed ponds are both of very high ecological value. However,
the bunds along the main footpath and leading to TH1 are of much lower value as
they are heavily disturbed by human activities.
Species
Whilst gei wai and rain-fed pond habitats have a high diversity of waterbirds
including many species of conservation importance, species diversity, especially that
of waterbirds, using the bunds to be impacted is low to moderate due to the small
areas and routine disturbance by human activities. Diversity of other fauna is low.
Size/Abundance
The area to be lost (approximately 0.31ha/3,100m
2
of bund) is small, both in absolute
terms and relative to the area of these habitats within MPNR. The number of
individuals of flora and fauna which will be impacted is correspondingly small.
Duration
2.5 months at most, but the maximum works area at any one time will be
0.0465ha/465m
2
.
Reversibility
Fully reversible in a short time as vegetation is re-established.
Magnitude
Magnitude will be low as only a very small area (approximately 0.31ha of bund,
0.15% of these habitats) will be temporarily lost and only 0.05ha will be affected at
any one time.
Impact Severity
Impact would be of Low Severity in view of the short duration and very small areas
involved and existing high levels of disturbance.
Construction and Operational Phase Disturbance Impacts
Overview
Disturbance occurs when activities within a development site result in a reduction of the value of
a habitat outside the site, usually because of fauna being deterred from using the habitat.
Examples of disturbance include noise disturbance (which can scare certain species away from
suitable habitat), visual disturbance from the presence of humans or vehicles within the site or in
surrounding areas, or disturbance to nocturnal species or species roosting in the area at night
from lighting resulting in glare to surrounding habitats. Disturbance may occur during construction
and/or operation, and the nature and severity of the impact may differ at these times.
The severity of disturbance varies considerably depending on species (generally, larger birds and
mammals are more disturbance-sensitive, smaller birds and mammals and other vertebrates are
less sensitive, whilst most invertebrates are not sensitive) and activity (breeding individuals are
often more prone to disturbance). In practice, for purposes of assessment, the most disturbance-
sensitive impacts on larger birds and mammals can be used as a proxy for identification of most
disturbance impacts. Open habitats, such as open water area in gei wai and rain-fed ponds and
fishponds, provide less screening to sources of disturbance, and species living in such habitats are
therefore usually more sensitive to disturbance impacts. Woodland, on the other hand, provides
screening to the source of disturbance, and species using woodlands are often less concerned by
the presence of human activity nearby. Wetlands such as mangroves, marshes and reedbeds that
support dense vegetation, are particularly effective in providing cover for disturbance-sensitive
species or disturbance-sensitive activity.
At its most severe, disturbance might result in a species entirely vacating a habitat. More often,
however, it results in species occurring in lower numbers or less regularly. In many cases there
will be an exclusion zone close to the source of disturbance, surrounded by a zone of reduced
density where disturbance gradually drops until the disturbance has no impact on the species.
The extent of exclusion zones and zones of reduced density are affected by several factors.
Perhaps the most important is that disturbance-sensitivity varies greatly between species. Also
very important is the degree of habituation to human activities – individual mammals and birds
quickly learn if a location, such as a city park or nature reserve, is largely safe from frequent
human interference. However, a number of other factors may be important, including the
Ecological Impact
7-52
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
presence of screening (whether intrinsic to the site or deliberately provided), the attractiveness
of a site to a species (for example, species may tolerate more disturbance at a valuable food
source), numbers of individuals present (large groups tend to be more sensitive than small
numbers), and interspecific relationships (in mixed flocks of birds, less disturbance-sensitive
species tend to be more sensitive than usual if more sensitive species are present).
Whilst some of the above factors are specific to particular location and circumstances, the two
principal factors, species-specific sensitivity to disturbance and habituation, can be predicted
with sufficient confidence to allow a quantitative assessment of potential impacts on species
arising from project disturbance. Table 7-35, below, details the evaluation of disturbance
sensitivity of bird species found in MPNR and the Assessment Area and provides estimated
distances for the exclusion zone and the zone of reduced density in respect to low-rise
development. These are based on previous EIA reports for large-scale development projects in
the Deep Bay area and are, thus, precautionary assessments of potential disturbance impact in
respect of the small-scale development that the elements of this project constitute. The table
also provides estimates for those species for which sensitivity to disturbance has not previously
been assessed in the area based on field experience and knowledge of species’ ecologies.
Table 7-35 is based on the disturbance distance estimate methodology originally generated to
assess disturbance impacts of the construction and operation phases of the Lok Ma Chau Spur
Line (Binnie, Black & Veatch 2002) and the operation phase of the Fung Lok Wai private
development (CH2M Hill 2008). The small scale of this Project means it would be inappropriate to
use the distances for the construction phase of the Fung Lok Wai project, which comprises multi-
storey residences immediately adjacent to fishponds. Similarly, the scale of the LMC Station and
Spur Line far exceeds that of the project elements proposed under this study; thus, the use of
operational phase disturbance predictions from that study is very conservative indeed and
provides a large degree of tolerance.
For species not assessed during those studies, disturbance distance estimates have been
generated using similar methodology. Such species are identified except where they are within
the same genus and with similar ecological characteristics to species assessed under those
studies. This approach has not been followed for ducks in recognition that Eurasian Teal, which
was assessed under Binnie, Black & Veatch (2002), is less sensitive to disturbance than several
larger species in the same genus Anas. Distances generated by Binnie, Black & Veatch (2002)
assumed the implementation of screen planting, but no other in situ mitigation; application of
these distances to impacts from the current development project is broadly comparable in this
respect, subject to the assumption that hoardings are in place around any works area.
Regarding disturbance to species, within the exclusion zone it is assumed that all individuals are
disturbed and displaced. Meanwhile, within the zone of reduced density, as disturbance is
considered to decline progressively from complete exclusion to no impact; it is estimated that
half of the individuals potentially present in the zone are disturbed.
In respect to ecological impact evaluation, exclusion zones and zones of reduced density apply to
habitats and areas that are predicted to be newly disturbed or where there is a qualitative or
quantitative increase in disturbance as a consequence of the project being assessed, i.e., the
baseline assessment of habitat value takes into account existing disturbance levels. In the case of
the present project, the existing concrete footpath is a ‘disturbed area’ from which disturbance-
sensitive species are already excluded (the ‘Exclusion Zone’) and around which numbers of
disturbance-sensitive species are already reduced (the ‘Zone of reduced Density’).
Based on this table, the most disturbance-sensitive species, Greater Spotted and Eastern Imperial
Eagles, are estimated to have an exclusion zone of 0 to 200m and a zone of reduced density of
200 to 500m from construction sites and low-rise operational buildings (the disturbance source);
whilst most larger waterbirds (larger ducks, spoonbills and larger ardeids) have an exclusion zone
of 0 to 100m and a zone of reduced density of 100 to 200m.
Ecological Impact
7-53
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-35 Predicted Distances at Which Regularly Occurring Waterbird or Wetland-associated Bird Species of Conservation Importance are Predicted to be
Affected by Disturbance Impacts During Construction Phase and Operation Phase
SPECIES
EXCLUSION DISTANCE
(m)
MAX DISTANCE OF
REDUCED DENSITY (m)
SENSITIVITY TO
DISTURBANCE
Larger Duck (Anas and Aythya) spp.*
100
200
High
Eurasian Teal, Garganey*
50
100
Moderate-High
Little Grebe*@
20
50
Moderate
Spoonbills*
100
200
High
Eurasian Bittern*
100
200
High
Yellow Bittern, Striated Heron*
20
30
Low
Chinese Pond Heron
20
30
Low – Moderate
Black-crowned Night Heron
20
30
Low
Eastern Cattle Egret*
20
30
Low – Moderate
Grey Heron
100
200
High
Purple Heron*
100
200
High
Great Egret
100
200
High
Intermediate Egret
100
200
High
Little Egret
20
100
Moderate – High
Great Cormorant
100
150
High
Eagles/Large Raptors*
200
500
Very High
Black Kite/Small & Medium Raptors*
20
30
Low
Western Osprey*@
100
200
Moderate
Black-winged Stilt
50
50
Moderate
Pied Avocet*
50
50
Moderate
Little Ringed Plover1=*
50
50
Low – Moderate
Med-large waders *
50
50
Moderate
Small Waders *
50
50
Moderate
Black-headed Gull*
50
50
Moderate
Larger kingfishers*
20
30
Low
Collared Crow*
50
100
Moderate
Small Reedbed/Marsh Passerines*
20
20
Low
Other small/med. Passerines*
20
100
Moderate
Notes: *: distances have been generated for this Study using similar methodology.
#: distances are greater than those used in CH2M Hill (2008).
@: the distances used in previous studies have been re-assessed for this project and new estimates are provided.
Ecological Impact
7-54
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
There is caveat that applies in the case of Black-winged Stilt, 20 nests of which were present on
the bund between ponds 7 and 8 in 2021. Given that this bund provides construction access to
TH3, there would be a significant impact if they again bred here in 2022.
Construction Phase
As noted above, to minimise potential construction phase disturbance impacts arising from the
project it is proposed to avoid all external (outside) works during the dry season (mid-October to
mid-April). This avoids the period when most large waterbirds are present in Deep Bay. It avoids
the entire period when some of the most disturbance-sensitive species are present, notably
Eastern Imperial and Greater Spotted Eagles and Great Cormorant (entirely absent) and Black-
faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron and ducks (largely absent). This leaves a suite of small to medium
wetland-dependent species and the large ardeids Great Egret and Purple Heron subject to
potential disturbance impacts from construction and construction access. The most sensitive of
these are the two species of large ardeid.
As the new footpath is being built in three phases, it is predicted that construction phase
disturbance will not exceed that arising from pre-construction operation of the existing
footpath. Potential disturbance impacts must be considered in respect of construction of the
new TH2 and new TH3 and the access path for TH2, where these introduce disturbance to areas
in rain-fed ponds and gei wai within MPNR that are not currently disturbed.
Regarding construction access, as the scale of works is relatively small and will involve, as much
as possible, prefabrication off site, the amount of material to be transported is not large. The
worst-case assumption of the increased number of heavy vehicles along Haul Road (HR) 2 is one
vehicle per hour, while that along the Boundary Fence Road is between one and three (see
Figure 4-4), neither of which are considered to impose a significant additional impact. In
addition, although the HR2 access track to MPEC is adjacent to GW16/17 (Figure 2-2), which
serves as a high tide roost for migratory shorebirds, there is a raised mud bund between the
track and GW16/17 that screens vehicles from roosting birds. There is one exception to this,
however, and that relates to the use of area around P20 by Collared Crows as a pre-roost site.
Consequently, with the exception of the Collared Crow pre-roost sites, the use of the paved
Boundary Road and the access track to MPEC by construction vehicles is not considered to
constitute either a quantitatively or qualitatively different source of disturbance to that existing
at present, as the number of vehicles will not be materially different to the present situation as
these roads are regularly used by MPNR vehicles transporting materials and equipment, as well
as police and AFCD vehicles.
In addition, the speeds at which trucks can drive will naturally be limited by the terrain of bunds
between ponds (HR1 between ponds 20 and 21, HR2 and HR3 between GW7 and GW8); along
the narrow boundary road, the speed of trucks is highly unlikely to be greater than the smaller
vehicles currently using it. In any event, the speed of construction vehicles will be limited to
20km/h to minimise noise and dust generation.
Construction access to the new TH3, which will use HR3, a track that is not routinely used by
vehicles, is not expected to result in disturbance or open water microhabitat loss additional to that
caused by the desilting works in GW7. The non-open water microhabitats in GW7 are mangrove
and emergent vegetation. However, the areas of both are relatively small and fragmented;
furthermore, the timing of the works in the wet season (last week of April, first half of May,
September and first half of October) means that bird species of conservation importance are
relatively low in number. For these reasons, the significance of impact on GW7 is assessed as low.
GW8 will also be subject to routine management works during the construction period, and for
the same reasons the potential for disturbance impacts on large waterbirds is very low. The
brackish part of GW8 is largely occupied by reed marsh, a closed habitat in which fauna are
much less disturbance-sensitive than open habitats. For these reasons, the impact of
disturbance on most fauna using these habitats is considered low.
Ecological Impact
7-55
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Construction access for TH2 along that section of HR1 between ponds 20 and 21 will also
introduce disturbance to a largely undisturbed area. However, as noted above, as the scale of
works is relatively small and as much as possible will be prefabricated off-site, the amount of
material to be transported is not large. The worst-case assumption of the increased number of
heavy vehicles along this section of HR1 is one vehicle per hour. The wet season nature of the
works will reduce the scope and magnitude of impact considerably, but there is the potential for
disturbance impacts on small numbers of foraging waterbirds in pond 21, as this has an open
aspect and low water levels. Regarding pond 23, the adjacent areas are occupied by reed marsh,
and the potential for disturbance is much lower due to the closed nature of this habitat. In
addition, Collared Crows roost and gather at pre-roost in this area, including on a tree along the
bund between ponds 20 and 21. The potential for impacts on these species is dealt with below.
Black-winged Stilts nest on recently-cleared ground largely or entirely devoid of vegetation.
Given that as of 20 July 2021 there was already significant grass growth along the P7/8 bund that
makes it unsuitable for nesting by this species, it is not predicted that this species will breed here
again in 2022, when the growth will be denser. Consequently, no impacts are predicted.
Operation Phase
Significant disturbance impacts are not predicted to occur during operation of the Tower Hides
as their design and management is specifically intended to allow visitors to be close to
disturbance-sensitive species with minimum impact. They will be of a sober, olive-green colour
and have narrow openings to keep those inside largely hidden in order minimise the visual
impact on the habitat. Disturbance from the increased number of visitor groups in MPNR is
predicted to be lower due to a smaller number of visitor hours. Human presence in MPNR will be
less concentrated along the main footpath, MPEC and TH1 because TH2 and TH3 will also be
available to absorb visitors over a larger area of MPNR.
The operation of TH2 introduces to that part of MPNR a higher amount of foot traffic, primarily
from a small number of birdwatchers and researchers wishing to use the hide. However, those
using the hide will need an annual permit based on a demonstrated commitment to
birdwatching or other interests, and it is reasonable to assume that they will behave in a manner
that minimises disturbance. Furthermore, appropriate screening of the access paths to both TH2
and TH3 in the form of bamboo or shrub planting will minimise disturbance impacts on adjacent
areas. For these reasons, it is predicted that there would not be significant impacts arising from
this source.
The habitats and areas potentially subject to disturbance impacts arising from construction and
operation phases of the Project are detailed in Table 7-36. These areas have been calculated
based on their being regularly utilised at present by the most disturbance-sensitive species
within the area potentially impacted by TH2 and TH3. (Great Egret and Purple Heron). No
increase in disturbance from visitors is anticipated in the wet season, as described in Section 2.3.
Table 7-36 Habitats and Areas Potentially Subject to Disturbance Impacts Arising from
Construction and Operation of the Project in respect of birds
HABITAT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE (HA)
OPERATIONAL PHASE (HA)
WET SEASON
DRY SEASON
WET SEASON
DRY SEASON
TH2 AND ACCESS TRACK
Brackish Gei Wai
3.3 (6.8)
0
0
0
Rain-fed Pond
3.4 (5.9)
0
0
0
TH3 AND ACCESS TRACK
Brackish Gei Wai
1.9 (3.4)
0
0
0
Rain-fed Pond
1.8 (3.5)
0
0
0
Ecological Impact
7-56
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
HABITAT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE (HA)
OPERATIONAL PHASE (HA)
WET SEASON
DRY SEASON
WET SEASON
DRY SEASON
ALL PROJECT ELEMENTS
Brackish Gei Wai
5.2 (10.2)
0
0
0
Rain-fed Pond
5.2 (9.4)
0
0
0
Note: Zones of Reduced Density are shown (in parentheses).
Potential disturbance impacts of significance, which are confined to the construction phase, on
habitats in the absence of mitigation measures are detailed in Table 7-37.
Table 7-37 Disturbance Impacts on Brackish Gei Wai and Rain-fed Pond Habitats
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
Habitat Quality
Both habitats are of Very High ecological value. Microhabitats potentially impacted
are reed marsh, open water and terrestrial vegetation.
Species
Low to moderate numbers and diversity of birds, including some species of
conservation importance, are present during the wet season. Diversity of other
fauna is moderate and includes Eurasian Otter, a mammal species of high
conservation importance that is sensitive to disturbance.
Size/Abundance
Both the potential exclusion zones and zones of reduced density are moderate in
size (up to 10.4ha and 19.6ha respectively) relative to the areas of these habitats in
MPNR. Number of waterbirds of conservation importance present during the wet
season is low. Numbers of Eurasian Otters are uncertain but likely to be very small.
Duration
Disturbance from Tower Hide construction will be restricted to a period of 2.5
months in the wet season.
Reversibility
Removal of boardwalks and structures would be easy to accomplish in principle but
is unlikely in practice. However, disturbance from human activity could be quickly
reversed by preventing access.
Magnitude
Magnitude of potential disturbance arising from construction of TH2 and TH3 is
considered low due to small numbers of waterbirds present.
Impact Severity
Impact would be of Low Severity in respect to hide construction as works will be
confined to the wet season. During the operational phase of the Tower Hides,
magnitude of disturbance would be of Low Severity throughout the year as hides
are designed to avoid disturbance to wildlife.
Impacts on Fauna of Conservation Importance
Non-flying Mammals
Of the terrestrial mammal species of conservation importance recorded within the Project Site,
Eurasian Otter, which is present in the Deep Bay area at a low density and is listed as Near
Threatened by IUCN and as Endangered in the Red List of China’s Vertebrates (2016), is of the
highest significance.
Eurasian Otter and other mammal species present in MPNR are shy and largely nocturnal, except
for Small Asian Mongoose which is frequently seen in the daytime. It is clear from work such as
that carried out by McMillan et al. (2019) that otters are adaptable and can live in reasonable
proximity to human activity if foraging and resting habitat remains and there is no frequent
intrusion into areas of activity by humans or dogs. Given this and their largely nocturnal
behaviour, it is not considered that the small-scale and diurnal nature of this project would
necessarily lead to unacceptable disturbance. Diurnal disturbance would only occur if the project
elements commenced in an area where there already exists an otter holt or natal den.
As footpath assembly is occurring in three phases to minimise disturbance impacts, adverse
impacts of this element are predicted to be similar in magnitude to those occurring already in
the pre-construction operational phase when the whole footpath is being used, and thus no
Ecological Impact
7-57
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
marginal impact is predicted. Disturbance impacts from the increased number of visitors in the
post-construction operational phase are predicted to be lower due to a smaller number of visitor
hours.
Disturbance impacts during creation of the tower hides are predicted to be of low magnitude
due to the fact the process involves diurnal assembly of prefabricated units over a relatively
short period of time (2.5 months). Furthermore, WWF camera trap data acquired in 2019
recorded otters only at pond 16B, which is not close to the proposed tower hide locations
(minimum 600m distant from the nearest, TH2). Based on this, they are unlikely to be affected
by the Project as there will be no loss of habitat or significant increase in human activity
(construction works or visitor movements) in the areas or the times they are active.
Small Asian Mongoose may be deterred from daytime use of works areas, but avoidance of such
a small area of potential habitat is not considered to be of significance for a species that is
common in Hong Kong.
Accordingly, no significant direct or indirect adverse impacts on terrestrial mammals are
predicted. However, on a precautionary basis, pre-construction checks for evidence of activity by
mammals, in particular otters, of the footprint and adjacent areas of project elements are
advisable. In this regard, camera traps were set up in December 2020 at or in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed TH2 and TH3.
Table 7-38 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Non-flying Mammals
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
Habitat Quality
Wetland habitat in the Project Site and Assessment Area is of high value for mammals,
some of which are of conservation importance.
Species
Of most significance is Eurasian Otter, which is of high ecological value and of which
the Deep Bay area supports a regionally important population. Leopard Cat and Small
Indian Civet are of conservation importance in a China context, but both are
widespread in HK.
Size/Abundance
Habitat lost through conversion to developed area is very small and constitutes bund
habitat and is not likely to impact mammals significantly. However, disturbance could
be an issue regarding certain species. Numbers of animals impacted would be low,
however.
Duration
Impacts of direct habitat loss would be permanent but insignificant; disturbance
impacts due to tower hide construction would be confined to 2.5 months of the wet
season construction phase of the Project (last week of April, first half of May,
September and first half of October).
Reversibility
Removal of boardwalks and structures would be easy to accomplish in principle but is
unlikely in practice. However, disturbance from human activity could be quickly
reversed by preventing access.
Magnitude
No operation phase impact, while scope of diurnal disturbance impacts on nocturnally
active fauna likely to be low. Should mammals use areas near the tower hide or access
path locations, this may cause some disturbance.
Impact Severity
Impact would be of Low Severity on all species during the operation phases (hides are
designed to avoid disturbance to wildlife). Diurnal construction activity could
potentially impose disturbance impacts on mammals if they have established a resting
or breeding area. For species other than Eurasian Otter, the impact this would be of
Low Severity. Regarding Eurasian Otter, which is of regional conservation importance
and high ecological value, construction activity would beof Moderate Severity if a
natal den or holt was established at or near the hide footprint, but of Low Severity
otherwise.
Bats
Bats are generally insensitive to disturbance while they are active (at night). However, they are
potentially vulnerable at their roosts, especially at maternity/nursery roosts where females with
Ecological Impact
7-58
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
dependent young are present. As detailed in Appendix C2-1 and Table 7-14, a total of eleven bat
species have been recorded in MPNR since 2015, in addition, two bat roosts were found during
the surveys conducted for this Project. Based on findings of the 12-month survey in 2017, apart
from two AFCD bat boxes (M103a and M105a), which were occupied by ant nests and not used
by bats, all the other bat boxes, as well as the two bat roosts at the Chinese Fan Palm near Pond
182 and the green hut next to the MPEC, were used by bats in different months of the year. The
MPEC is also used as an occasional roosting site by bats in low numbers. The roosts at bat box
407g, Chinese Fan Palm trees and the green hut consisted of adults and juveniles; therefore, it is
very likely that these are maternity roosts.
Neither bat roosts nor bat boxes are present in the vicinity of TH2 or TH3. AFCD bat box M102
lies above a section of the footpath to be upgraded. However, given the relatively small scale of
the works, it is not anticipated that these will pose significant disturbance to roosting bats,
which are relatively tolerant of activity in the vicinity of bat boxes.
All bat species are protected by law in Hong Kong. Accordingly, prior to any tree pruning or
felling works, a careful check should be conducted by an experienced ecologist to ensure that
bats are not present.
Table 7-39 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bats
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
Habitat Quality
Wetland habitat in the Project Site and Assessment Area is of moderate value for bats,
though none of the species recorded appears to be wetland-dependent.
Species
Most species recorded are of medium conservation value, with one (Greater Bent-
winged Bat) of High conservation value.
Size/Abundance
Habitat lost through conversion to developed area is very small and constitutes bund
habitat that is of negligible significance to bats. However, disturbance could be an
issue regarding certain species. Numbers of animals impacted would be low, however.
Duration
Impacts of direct habitat loss would be permanent but insignificant; disturbance
impacts due to tower hide construction would be confined to 2.5 months of the wet
season construction phase of the Project (last week of April, first half of May,
September and first half of October).
Reversibility
Removal of boardwalks and structures would be easy to accomplish in principle but is
unlikely in practice. However, disturbance from human activity could be quickly
reversed by preventing access.
Magnitude
No operation phase impact, while scope of diurnal disturbance impacts on nocturnally
active fauna will be low.
Impact Severity
Impact would be of Low Severity on all bat species during the construction and
operation phases.
Birds
Potential Impacts on Bird Species of Conservation Importance
Many bird species of conservation importance occur regularly in the Project Site and the
Assessment Area in significant numbers. On and off-site impacts on these species will take place
if they are displaced due to the direct habitat loss arising from Project and/or displaced due to
disturbance arising from construction of the new footpath, TH3 and TH2. As noted above, as
construction will occur in the wet season (last week of April, first half of May, September and
first half of October) the potential scope of adverse impacts is reduced considerably.
No significant disturbance impact is predicted from construction of new footpaths as there will
be no significant increase in disturbance in the area. Similarly, no significant disturbance impacts
are predicted from operation of the new TH3 and TH2 as these facilities will be designed with
the explicit objective of permitting visitors to observe wildlife without causing disturbance.
Ecological Impact
7-59
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
An assessment of potential disturbance impacts on bird species of conservation importance is
provided in Table 7-40.
Table 7-40 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bird Species of Conservation Importance
CRITERIA
BIRDS OF CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE
Habitat Quality
Wetland habitat in the Project Site and Assessment Area is of high to very high value
for waterbirds of conservation importance.
Species
High numbers and diversity of birds, in particular waterbirds of conservation
importance, are present during the dry season; moderate numbers and diversity of
birds, but still including species of conservation importance, are present during the
wet season. The suite of waterbirds at MPNR is of high ecological value.
Size/Abundance
Habitat lost through conversion to developed area is very small and all constitutes
bund habitat, which is very little used by waterbirds. The potential exclusion zones
and zones of reduced density due to disturbance are moderate (10.4ha and 19.6ha,
respectively) and support large numbers of waterbirds of conservation importance
during the dry season. Numbers of such waterbirds present in these areas during the
wet season are low however, and disturbance-induced loss of wetland function is
considered negligible.
Duration
Impacts of direct habitat loss would be permanent but insignificant; disturbance
impacts due to tower hide construction would be confined to the wet season
construction phase of the Project.
Reversibility
Removal of boardwalks and structures would be easy to accomplish in principle but
is unlikely in practice. However, disturbance from human activity could be quickly
reversed by preventing access.
Magnitude
Low construction phase impact as works will be conducted during wet season.
Impact Severity
Impact would be of Low Severity during the wet season in both construction and
operation phases (hides are designed to avoid disturbance to wildlife and number of
visitor hours will be lower).
Potential Impacts on Breeding and Roosting Ardeids
Several egretries are present in the vicinity of MPNR, and some of the birds breeding at these
could use MPNR as a foraging area; data from the relevant egretries is presented in Table 7-1. To
determine the potential disturbance impact of the works on the egretries, Table 7-41 presents
the number of large waterbirds recorded in ponds adjacent to the works in the wet season
months of May to October 2020. HR3 passes between ponds 7 and 8, while HR1 includes bunds
between ponds 20 and 21 and between 20 and 23. As noted above, Pond 7 will be drained as
part of routine management activities ahead of construction and is excluded.
Table 7-41 Numbers of Large Waterbirds Recorded in Selected Ponds During Wet Season 2020
POND NO.
MONTH
GREAT
EGRET
PURPLE
HERON
LITTLE
EGRET
CATTLE
EGRET
CHINESE
POND
HERON
TOTAL
8
April
25
71
96
May
6
2
8
June
2
2
4
July
6
5
1
12
August
2
1
1
4
September
1
1
5
5
12
October
1
5
6
Ecological Impact
7-60
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
POND NO.
MONTH
GREAT
EGRET
PURPLE
HERON
LITTLE
EGRET
CATTLE
EGRET
CHINESE
POND
HERON
TOTAL
19
April
1
1
May
1
1
2
June
0
July
0
August
2
2
4
September
1
2
3
October
1
1
20
April
1
1
May
0
June
0
July
1
1
1
3
August
0
September
0
October
0
21
April
9
2
11
May
19
1
20
June
2
2
July
4
1
5
August
2
2
September
3
3
October
1
1
23
April
0
May
1
1
2
June
8
8
July
0
August
4
1
5
September
0
October
1
1
2
The sum of large waterbirds recorded at individual ponds during the wet season surveys varied
from zero to 20 plus one count of 96. Highest numbers were recorded at Ponds 8 and 21. A total
of 142 ardeids were recorded in pond 8, and this relatively high figure was due to low water
levels during the period because of management work in pond 8 in relation to the reedbed and
the water channels. The dominant species were Great Egret (42), Little Egret (85) and Chinese
Pond Heron (14), the three most abundant ardeids in Hong Kong in the wet season.
A total of 44 birds were recorded in pond 21, of which 33 were Great Egrets, 19 of which were
present in May. Nine Great Egrets were present in April, but otherwise between one and four
birds were recorded during the year. It is likely that the higher numbers of Great Egret in April
and May refer to passage migrants, and not locally wintering or breeding birds. However, ponds
or gei wai in the process of being drained down could attract large numbers of waterbirds to
forage, and this needs to be borne in mind.
As can be seen from Table 7-1, the total number of nests of Great Egret, Little Egret and Chinese
Pond Heron in the potential foraging range of MPNR in 2020 was 1169 (i.e. 2338 adult birds),
which included 670 nests (1340 individuals) of Great Egret, the most numerous species recorded
Ecological Impact
7-61
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
in the relevant ponds at MPNR. Thus, the potential magnitude and significance of impact of the
Project on birds using these sites in terms of the overall Deep Bay population is predicted to be
very low.
The only other species of potential concern in this habitat in the wet season is Purple Heron,
which is primarily a passage migrant in low numbers and a winter visitor to HK, and thus is
potentially an issue in May and August to October. Transect surveys are less than fully effective
at recording a species such as Purple Heron, which occupies densely vegetated areas;
observations by the surveyors at other times, however, have recorded up to six separate Purple
Herons in MPNR. However, these are still low densities, which is to be expected for a large
generally solitary species. Thus, the potential impacts on this species during the construction
phase are also considered low.
In regard to roosting ardeids, the larger night roost near the site of the former PSFSC is approx.
280m from the nearest point of the Project Elements, and there is thus considered to be no
impact on this. In regard to the pre-roost and roost sites identified on the reserve next to GW 8a,
10 and 15a, given the close proximity of a section of the footpath, construction works should
cease one hour before sunset. By doing this, potential impacts on birds using both the Deep Bay-
Shenzhen night roost and the pre-roost next to GW 8a and 10 will be avoided. Table 7-42 shows
the potential disturbance impacts on roosting and pre-roosting ardeids
Table 7-42 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Roosting and Pre-roosting Ardeids
CRITERIA
ROOSTING ARDEIDS
Habitat Quality
Roost and pre-roost sites are some ecological value due to their use by egrets, but
such activity is often only temporary in response to foraging area location.
Species
Mainly Little Egrets and Chinese Pond Herons.
Size/Abundance
Roosts are generally small in size.
Duration
Uncertain, but could be long-term.
Reversibility
TH3 and footpath could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
No operational phase impacts. However, construction of footpath TH3 could impose
disturbance impacts.
Impact Severity
Low to Moderate during construction phase.
Potential Impacts on Collared Crow Roost Sites
Regarding Collared Crow, Stanton et al. (2014) and monitoring work by WWF indicates that pre-
roost and roost sites are in the southwest quadrant of the reserve, and the nocturnal roost site is
in the mangrove outside the boundary fence opposite pond 16-17. Data from roost surveys
carried out by WWF in 2019-20 are presented in Table 7-6. These indicate nocturnal roosts at
Ponds 18/19 and 21 in the wet season, and Ponds 19W/20A and the mangrove outside the
boundary fence in the dry season.
The proximity of the bund between P18 and P19, and Pond 21 to the location of TH2 and its
construction access route suggests substantial impact could accrue because of disturbance from
construction activities. Direct loss of roost site will not happen as no trees will be felled.
Table 7-43 Potential Disturbance Impacts on the Collared Crow Roost
CRITERIA
COLLARED CROW ROOST
Habitat Quality
Collared Crow roost site of high ecological value due to the presence of the roost.
Species
Collared Crow (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List), of ecological value.
Size/Abundance
Roost is large (up to 197 individuals in 2019) and of regional importance.
Duration
2.5 months during the wet season.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Ecological Impact
7-62
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
CRITERIA
COLLARED CROW ROOST
Magnitude
Low construction and no operational phase impacts from construction/operation of
TH3 and the footpath, and from operation of TH2. However, construction of TH2 could
impose substantial disturbance impacts.
Impact Severity
Moderate during construction phase in relation to TH2.
Potential Impacts on Great Cormorants
In addition to exclusion or reduction in numbers due to disturbance, which may potentially
affect all wetland bird species of conservation importance, particular consideration must be
given to the Mai Po Great Cormorant roost, together with flight lines to and from the roost. As is
shown in Table 7-16, the MPNR Great Cormorant roost, one of three roosts in the Deep Bay
area, held up to 32% of the Deep Bay wintering population in winter 2016-17.
Cormorants departing from the roost in 2016-17 took a variety of individual flight paths, with no
evidence of any defined flight lines. However, cormorants leaving roost sites in January to March
2020 adopted two broad paths, as indicated in Figure 7-11. One of these led directly from the roost
between GW10 and GW11 out to the bay, while the second flew north, probably for the length of
the reserve to the west of the Casuarinas, and thus over the location of TH3. The footprint of both
tower hides is small, however, and they only reach three storeys in height; for these reasons,
negligible impact on cormorant flight lines is anticipated during the operation phase.
The roost is occupied during the dry season only (October to April, with most birds present during
November to March); thus, there is very limited scope for impacts during the wet season
construction period on roosting cormorants or those using flight lines above MPNR. Furthermore,
even for the very small number of birds present in the first half of October, as is shown in Figure
7-9, the roost is not within the predicted exclusion zone or zone of reduced density for this
species of 100m and 150m respectively arising from the proposed TH2 and TH3. As discussed
above, in the operation phase there will be no significant increase in disturbance along the
existing footpath because of the Project, as the number of visitor hours will decrease despite the
number of visitors increasing. In addition, most visitors to the reserve have departed by the time
the nocturnal roost assembles. Accordingly, no significant potential disturbance impacts would
arise from the Project on the Great Cormorant roost in MPNR or flightlines to/from these.
Potential disturbance impacts on the cormorant roost and the associated flight lines are
evaluated in Table 7-44.
Table 7-44 Potential Disturbance Impacts on the Great Cormorant Roost and Flight Lines
CRITERIA
GREAT CORMORANT ROOST AND FLIGHT LINES
Habitat Quality
Cormorant roost tree habitat is of high ecological value due to the presence of the
roost.
Species
Great Cormorant (PRC in Fellowes et al. (2002); the Deep Bay wintering population is
of high ecological value.
Size/Abundance
Roost was large with up to 3177 individuals in 2016/17), though a maximum of only
855 birds were recorded in 2019-20; none is within the potential exclusion zone or
the zone of reduced density.
Duration
No disturbance impacts are predicted from construction and operational use of TH2
and TH3 and no additional disturbance relative to the baseline is predicted for other
project elements.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
No construction phase impact as works will be conducted during wet season; no
operational phase impact as roost locations are outside the potential disturbance and
exclusion zones and hides are designed to avoid disturbance to wildlife from users.
Insignificant impact to flight lines given the small footprint and height of TH2 and TH3.
Impact Severity
No and Very Low Impact during construction and the operational phase of the
project respectively.
Ecological Impact
7-63
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Potential Impacts on Bird Flight Lines
A flight line is a route which is regularly followed for local movements of one or more individuals
over a period (unlike a flight path, which is the route of a single individual on a single occasion,
or a flyway, which is a broad route followed by many migrating individuals over a long distance).
A common example relevant to Hong Kong is the flight line between an egretry and the foraging
sites used by breeding egrets; birds will follow such a flight line regularly over the course of the
day to collect food and then return to the nest to incubate or to feed young. Flight lines also
regularly occur between foraging areas and roost sites, especially those of species that roost
communally. Starting and finishing points of flight lines may be tightly defined (such as a roost
site or a breeding site) or cover a wider area (for example a foraging area covering a wide area of
habitat). Geographical features may influence the location of flight lines; for example waterbirds
tend to follow water features such as rivers and may follow valleys even when a route crossing a
line of hills would be shorter. An assessment of potential impacts is provded in Table 7-45.
Table 7-45 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Bird Flight Lines (excluding Great Cormorants)
CRITERIA
BIRD FLIGHTLINES
Habitat Quality
MPNR is a high quality and relatively undisturbed habitat.
Species
Wetland dependent species and certain birds of prey, many of which are of high
ecological value.
Size/Abundance
Large numbers of waterbirds occur in the non-breeding season from October to early
May. Relatively low numbers of ardeids occur in the breeding season from March to
August.
Duration
No disturbance impacts are predicted from construction and operational use of TH2
and TH3 for this group of birds, and no additional disturbance relative to the baseline
is predicted for other project elements.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
Very low magnitude.
Impact Severity
Low Impact during both construction and operational phases of the project.
Development located on a flight line may result in a decrease in the suitability of a foraging,
breeding or roosting site by preventing movement to another site or by reducing the efficiency
of movement between sites. In an extreme case, this may lead to the total abandonment of one
or both sites. There may also be an increased risk of mortality by collision with structures
constructed on or close to a flight line.
The Project includes elements that involve construction works at ground level only (i.e.
construction of new footpaths) and construction works up to three storeys (i.e. the two new
tower hides). In the current case no significant flight line impacts are predicted, as the footprints
of the tower hide works are so small there will not be a barrier effect, especially as there are
wide open spaces above MPNR. In addition, for the same reasons project elements will not block
or otherwise influence flight lines between egretries and foraging areas or between brackish
water habitats and the Deep Bay mudflats, the latter being utilised by migrant shorebirds and
wildfowl.
Dry season flight lines will be unaffected as construction will occur in the wet season.
Other Fauna
The loss of small areas of gei wai bund and pond bund will not reduce the habitat available to
fauna other than birds and mammals; nor will the proposed works result in significant
disturbance impacts as the proposed relatively small-scale works will not materially add to
baseline disturbance impacts on these groups for which ongoing routine management measures
are of far greater significance. Reptiles such as Burmese Python and other snakes have been
noted utilising the existing concrete footpath, but the placement of a wooden walkway above
this will ensure that uninterrupted passage remains, although it is possibly equally likely that
such animals would go over rather than under.
Ecological Impact
7-64
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Bent-winged Firefly (and other fireflies) are potentially sensitive to light disturbance (which may
interfere with breeding activities that rely on visual signals). However, no new temporary or
permanent lighting sources are proposed, hence, again, no impacts on fireflies are predicted.
An assessment of potential disturbance impacts on other fauna is provided in Table 7-46.
Table 7-46 Potential Disturbance Impacts on Non-bird Non-mammalian Fauna
CRITERIA
NON-BIRD NON-MAMMAL FAUNA
Habitat Quality
MPNR is a high quality and relatively undisturbed habitat.
Species
Herpetofauna, dragonflies, butterflies all present though diversity is not particularly
high. Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly occurs in areas abutting the reserve boundary. This
area is far from the location of project elements however.
Size/Abundance
Numbers of non-bird fauna are not high.
Duration
No disturbance impacts are predicted from construction and operational use of TH2
or TH3 for this group, and no additional disturbance relative to the baseline is
predicted for other project elements.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
Very low magnitude.
Impact Severity
No Impact during both construction and operational phases of the project.
Fragmentation Impacts
Fragmentation impacts arise where development or other human activities impede or sever
ecological linkages between or within habitats and areas. Construction of a development
between habitats which show ecological linkage may result in the loss of these links and thus a
decrease in the suitability of the habitat for species and a reduction in the overall value of the
habitat. The isolation of two patches of habitat can prevent the movement of organisms
between these habitat patches, resulting in an effective reduction in population size and genetic
isolation of the population.
Construction within a large, continuous habitat patch may result in an edge effect reducing the
overall value of the habitat. Generally, larger areas of habitat are of higher importance than
smaller areas; this is not simply an arithmetical relationship (for example doubling the area of a
particular habitat may result in more than double the ecological value). Many species require a
minimum area of a habitat and would not utilise two smaller fragments amounting to the same
area. The severity of fragmentation impacts will depend upon the extent to which severance
occurs (whether this is partial or total), the relative sizes of resulting fragments, the extent and
complexity of previous linkages, the baseline species diversity and the mobility of the species
concerned.
At its most extreme, fragmentation impacts may result in the loss of populations of a species if
the remaining fragments are too small to support a viable population. Species most affected by
fragmentation impacts are habitat specialists, terrestrial species and species with low mobility.
Birds and flying insects are generally less affected than mammals, herpetofauna and non-flying
invertebrates.
Evaluation of both types of fragmentation impact described above (i.e. severance of linkages
between habitats and areas and the introduction of fragmentation within a continuous habitat
area) has been undertaken. With regard to severance of linkages, it is considered that the
construction of new footpaths will not materially affect linkages, as the main linkages of
importance between the fishponds and habitats in MPNR are for birds and mammals. The
former will not be deterred from flying over the footpaths, whilst mammals readily use the
existing footpaths and boardwalks as movement corridors.
Similarly, most of the proposed project elements will not increase fragmentation within a
continuous habitat: construction of the TH3 and construction of associated new boardwalks are
Ecological Impact
7-65
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
within already disturbed areas and the small scale of the proposed TH2 and associated footpath
will not materially alter the character of the extensive area of gei wai in which it will be located.
An assessment of potential fragmentation impacts is provided in Table 7-47.
Table 7-47 Potential Fragmentation Impacts
CRITERIA
FRAGMENTATION IMPACTS
Habitat Quality
MPNR is a high quality and relatively undisturbed habitat.
Species
Of primary importance to a large suite of wetland dependent species, primarily birds;
herpetofauna, dragonflies, butterflies all present though diversity is not high. Mai Po
Bent-winged Firefly occurs in areas abutting the reserve boundary. This area is far
from the location of project elements however.
Size/Abundance
Numbers of birds are high, numbers of non-bird fauna are not high.
Duration
No fragmentation impacts are predicted from construction and operational use of
TH2 or TH3.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
Very low magnitude.
Impact Severity
No Impact during both construction and operational phases of the project.
Hydrological Disruption
Hydrological disruption may have significant impacts to wetland habitats, either by increasing or
decreasing water inputs or changing water quality (changes in salinity, temperature, pH and
suspended solids) – Such impacts have the potential to adversely affect fauna and flora.
However, none of the project elements has the potential to result in hydrological disruption.
Accordingly there are no predicted hydrological impacts of significance arising from the Project.
An assessment of potential impacts of hydrological disruption is provided in Table 7-48.
Table 7-48 Potential Impacts of Hydrological Disruption
CRITERIA
FRAGMENTATION IMPACTS
Habitat Quality
MPNR is a high quality and relatively undisturbed habitat.
Species
Of primary importance to a large suite of wetland dependent species, primarily birds;
herpetofauna, dragonflies, butterflies all present though diversity is not high. Mai Po
Bent-winged Firefly occurs in areas abutting the reserve boundary. This area is far
from the location of project elements however.
Size/Abundance
Numbers of birds are high, numbers of non-bird fauna are not high.
Duration
No hydrological impacts are predicted from construction and operational use of TH2
or TH3.
Reversibility
Hides could be removed but this is unlikely in practice.
Magnitude
Very low magnitude.
Impact Severity
No Impact during both construction and operational phases of the project.
Direct Mortality
Direct mortality involves the death of organisms because of the development, including
individuals killed during the construction process or individuals killed from the structures
constructed. Animals may be hit and killed or injured by rapidly-moving vehicles or by collision
with stationary objects. Birds and mammals appear to be most susceptible (Van der Grift and
Kuijsters 1998), though herpetofauna are also prone. Whilst the risk of animal mortality arising
from road kill and collision with buildings is likely to be greater in rural areas than in already
developed, urban areas, as wildlife populations are higher in the former, the nature and scale of
the Project is such that mortality impacts from most sources and on most animals are not
considered to be significant.
Ecological Impact
7-66
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Nevertheless, the Project should seek to ensure that mortality to terrestrial fauna caused by
construction vehicles is minimised by ensuring that drivers adhere to appropriate speed limits
and safe driving practices (the latter being essential in any case due to road and site conditions).
In addition, the speeds at which trucks can drive will naturally be limited by the terrain of bunds
between ponds; along the narrow boundary road, the speed of trucks is highly unlikely to be
greater than the smaller vehicles currently using it. Nonetheless, the speed of construction
vehicles within the Project Site will be limited to 20km/h. Potential direct mortality impacts are
evaluated in Table 7-49.
Table 7-49 Potential Direct Mortality Impacts
CRITERIA
DIRECT MORTALITY
Habitat Quality
Not relevant.
Species
Mammals and herpetofauna during construction and (from collisions with traffic)
during operation; birds during operation; all species, especially roosting/nesting
animals during site clearance.
Size/Abundance
Areas where impacts could occur are relatively small in the context of the
Assessment Area; numbers of terrestrial fauna are low, but bird numbers are large.
Duration
Death of terrestrial fauna from construction activities would only occur during the
construction phase. Other impacts would be permanent.
Reversibility
Not reversible.
Magnitude
Number of individuals likely to be affected is small; hence magnitude of impact is low.
Impact Severity
Low Severity during construction so long as appropriate speed limits and safe
driving practices are adhered to, and Low Severity during operation.
Cumulative Impacts
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR is scheduled to have been completed by March
2022 whereas the construction of this Project will commence in the final week of -April 2022,
leaving a three-week buffer. As such, the rebuild of the PSFSC is not likely to be concurrent with
this Project. There are also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative ecological
impacts from this source for this Project are not anticipated. However, if the PSFSC project was
to overrun more than three weeks, it is still predicted that there would be no significant
cumulative impact at the distance of the PSFSC site is a minimum of 290m from the nearest
Project Element and the scale of works at the PSFSC by that time will be small in nature and
intrinsically of low impact. Furthermore, any concurrence will be in the wet season when the
number of waterbirds at MPNR is substantially lower.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative ecology impacts.
Other Impacts
Other potential types of impact include noise, glare and dust. The scope for these is not
considered great due to the small scale of the project. The potential impacts of all will be
minimised via the assembly of prefabricated units on site. The noise of vehicles will be additive
to that currently occurring due to WWF, AFCD or Police vehicles driving along the boundary
fence road, or that arising from management works along pond or gei wai bunds. However,
given the wet season timing of construction, this is only likely to be of significance in the vicinity
of Pond 20 and the pre-roost site of Collared Crow.Dust production is also likely to be relatively
low due to the wet season nature of works. Regarding glare, which is strong or bright light that,
in this case, causes disturbance, this is predicted to be negligible as no nocturnal (i.e. before
sunrise or after sunset) activity will be carried out that produces excessive lighting.
Regarding run-off, as noted in Section 5, the creation of the boardwalk does not require
excavation work and is some distance from water bodies, and so no muddy run-off is anticipated
from this source. In regard to the tower hides, draining of gei wai according to the MPNR
Ecological Impact
7-67
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Management Plan will provide hydraulic isolation that will avoid discharge into water-filled gei
wai. In addition, the construction of perimeter bunds around the work sites for TH2 and TH3 will
ensure that any discharge only reaches adjacent gei wai, and not other water-filled gei wai. Off-
site prefabrication, off-site cement mixing and off-site maintenance/repair of plant will further
reduce the potential for run-off impacts. Consequently, no impact is from this source is predicted.
Table 7-50 Other Impacts (Noise, Glare, Dust and Run-off)
CRITERIA
OTHER IMPACTS
Habitat Quality
MPNR is a high quality and relatively undisturbed habitat.
Species
Of primary importance to a large suite of wetland dependent species, primarily
birds; herpetofauna, dragonflies, butterflies all present though diversity is not high.
Mai Po Bent-winged Firefly occurs in areas abutting the reserve boundary. This area
is far from the location of project elements however.
Size/Abundance
Numbers of birds are high; numbers of non-bird fauna are not high.
Duration
Noise impacts from construction vehicles will last for a maximum of 2.5 months.
Other impacts not predicted.
Reversibility
Construction phase impacts arising from noise could be stopped at a point in time,
but not reversed.
Magnitude
Number of individuals likely to be affected is small; hence magnitude of impact is low.
Impact Severity
Moderate Severity regarding noise impacts on Collared Crow pre-roost site, but
other aspects of Low Severity during construction so long as appropriate speed
limits and safe driving practices are adhered to, and none during operation.
7.9 Mitigation of Impacts
Introduction
Mitigation measures are required to ensure that the potential ecological impacts of significance
described above are avoided, minimised or compensated (summarised in Table 7-51, below).
Avoidance and minimisation measures were described above in Section 7.8.3 and 7.8.4, as they
were considered prior to assessing impact. This section describes the remaining impact, and the
mitigation proposed to deal with these. In addition to impacts that require mitigation under the
requirements of the EIAO, reference is also made to other measures that reflect the ecological
sensitivity of the site.
The mitigation measures proposed follow the principles and guidelines laid out in Annex 16 of
the EIAO-TM. All proposed mitigation measures are feasible to implement within the context of
Hong Kong, will be undertaken on-site (i.e. within the Project Site). The applicant will consult
relevant government departments, particularly AFCD, on the appropriate measures to avoid
adverse impact to roosting or breeding species, should this become necessary.
Table 7-51 Potential Ecological Impacts Requiring Mitigation under EIAO.
POTENTIAL IMPACT
POTENTIAL SEVERITY
Direct permanent loss of brackish gei wai bund and rain-fed pond bund
Low to Moderate
Construction phase disturbance to mammal resting or breeding sites, in
particular those of Eurasian Otter, from diurnal construction activity.
Moderate
Construction phase disturbance in vicinity of footpath and TH3 on ardeid
roost and pre-roost sites.
Low to Moderate
Construction phase disturbance to roost or pre-roost sites of Collared Crow
from diurnal construction activity in relation to TH2.
Moderate
Ecological Impact
7-68
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Proposed Mitigation and Precautionary Measures
Measures to Avoid and Minimise Impact
The following measures will be adopted to avoid and/or minimise impacts.
External Construction Works During Wet Season Only. The three project elements will be
assembled/constructed over a two-month period between mid-April and mid-October, thus
avoiding impacts on the high number of waterbirds and wetland-dependent species present
in the dry season. This is, perhaps, the most significant of the impact avoidance measures.
Off-Site Prefabrication of Building Components. To minimise impacts to ecologically
sensitive areas, activities within MPNR will mainly concern assembly of prefabricated items.
Construction of New TH2. The location of the new TH2 has been chosen primarily to enhance
visitor experience by allowing more serious birdwatchers to view a section of the Reserve
that has not previously been visible to visitors. The exact location has been chosen to avoid
loss of wetland (gei wai) area, the need to avoid loss of existing trees, both arising from the
construction of the hide itself and the access route, to allow researchers to survey the birds
in the southern part of MPNR, and to minimise the requirement for new footpath for access.
Construction of New TH3. The new TH3 will provide a new tower hide near the entrance of
the MPNR for nature education particularly for families, students and those not disposed to
long walks. As with TH2, the location has been chosen on an existing bund to avoid wetland
loss and loss of existing trees.
Construction of Footpath. The location of this Project element is fixed, as it is situated above
the existing footpath. However, the proposed footpath has been designed to avoid intrusion
into wetland areas (either gei wai or rain-fed ponds) and to avoid felling of existing trees. In
addition, construction will be carried sequentially in three sections in order to minimise
disturbance impacts.
Construction Access. To avoid habitat loss impacts, construction access will occur along the
existing Boundary Fence Road and via existing pond/gei wai bunds. Haul roads are shown on
Figure 7-2. Transport of construction materials will occur over a two-month period between
mid-April and mid-October.
Tower Hide Design. This will allow visitors to be close to disturbance-sensitive species with
minimum impact.
Completion of pond draindown before commencing work. In order to ensure that there are
no disturbance impacts on birds attracted to ponds that are being drained down,
construction will only commence once the pond is fully drained.
Potential Construction Phase Disturbance to Mammals, in Particular Eurasian Otter
As a precautionary measure, adequate site checks in the works area and in the vicinity of the
footprint of all project elements will be conducted by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to
commencement of works to search for substantive usage of the habitat by flora and/or fauna of
conservation concern, e.g. the presence of an otter holt. If roosting or breeding species are
found appropriate measures should be taken to avoid adverse impact, including adjustments to
the timing of the works.
In addition, WWF has placed camera traps at both tower hide sites since January 2021 in order
to monitor these areas for use by otters and other mammals. This precautionary measure will
allow a better assessment of the frequency with which they use these areas and the nature of
that use.
It is proposed to reduce the potential for disturbance impacts during the construction phase on
species using adjacent habitats by installing a 2m-high solid, opaque screen around works areas.
In addition, planting bamboo using the native species Bambusa tuldoides (青稈竹, 花眉竹) a
minimum of 2m high and of sufficient depth to provide an effective screen will be provided
along the access path to the new Tower Hides to reduce disturbance during the operational
Ecological Impact
7-69
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
phase. It may be necessary to install artificial screens in the early phase while the natural screen
planting reaches acceptable height/depth.
Potential Construction Phase Disturbance to Collared Crow Roost and Pre-roost Sites
Stanton et al. (2014) noted that Collared Crows were often present at pre-roost sites before the
start of their surveys, which began 60 minutes prior to sunset. Consequently, to avoid impacts
on nocturnal roost sites and associated pre-roost gatherings of Collared Crow in the vicinity of
Pond 20, all construction activity for TH2 and its associated access path, including the passage of
construction vehicles, will cease two hours before sunset. This means 4pm in the wet season
construction period.
Precautionary Measures to Address Potential Impacts on Breeding Ardeids
Ahead of construction, ET checks will be conducted during the breeding season to check for the
presence of breeding ardeids within 500m of the footprint of project elements. These checks
should be carried out two weeks prior to construction commencing and the day before. Should
any egretry be discovered in the vicinity of works areas, the need for mitigation measures shall
be assessed in consultation with AFCD.
To avoid disturbance to pre-roost and roost sites in the vicinity of the footpath and TH3,
construction works associated with these elements will cease one hour before sunset.
Precautionary Measures to Address Potential Mortality Impacts
Whilst predicted potential direct mortality impacts are considered as of low severity, this
evaluation is predicated on there being speed limits for construction vehicles and safe driving
practices being followed. The contractor shall be instructed to inform its drivers of the
importance of these measures.
Adequate site checks along haul roads and in the works area and in the immediate vicinity
should be conducted prior to the commencement of works at TH2 and TH3 to detect substantive
use of adjacent habitat by species of conservation concern. If roosts or breeding species are
found, appropriate measures should be taken to avoid adverse impact, including adjustments to
the timing of works.
All bird and bat species are protected by law in Hong Kong. Accordingly, prior to any tree pruning
or felling works, a careful check should be conducted by an experienced ecologist to ensure that
bats or active bird nests are not present.
Mitigation for Pollutant Runoff and Surface Runoff
Pollution of wetland areas, in particular any areas with a hydrological connection to the wider
Deep Bay wetland ecosystem has the potential to be a significant adverse ecological impact.
However, based on the water quality impact assessment in Chapter 5, a number of measures
will be put in place that will prevent contaminated run-off from works areas from entering
surrounding gei wai, and from there potentially into Deep Bay. Mitigation measures are detailed
in paragraphs 5.4.18 and 5.4.19. With these measures in place, there is no credible potential for
adverse ecological impacts to occur because of polluted run-off. No further mitigation is
considered necessary from an ecological perspective.
Mitigation of Wetland Loss
As the new TH2 and TH3 and boardwalk path construction will cause a loss of very small areas of
gei wai bund and pond bund, desilting channels at gei wai 19, reconnecting gei wai 19a with gei
wai 19b, and merging the six sub-ponds (20a to 20f) of gei wai 20 in order to enhance the habitat
there will be the measures to mitigate the potential wetland loss due to TH2. For the potential
wetland loss related to TH3, it will be mitigated by enhancement of gei wai 8a through
reprofiling and connection of gei wai 8a with gei wai 7.
Ecological Impact
7-70
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
7.10 Conclusions
The current ecological conditions and potential ecological impacts of the Project have been
assessed. Based on this review, measures to avoid and minimise ecological impacts have been
recommended. With these measures in place and having considered the relevant assessment
criteria listed in the EIAO-TM (effects on health of biota, the magnitude, geographic extent,
duration and frequency of adverse impacts, the likely community size affected, the degree to
which the adverse impacts are irreversible, the ecological context, the international or regional
importance of the species or habitats and both the likelihood and degree of uncertainty of
adverse environmental impacts), it is considered that all significant ecological impacts from the
Project will be addressed and there will be no unacceptable residual impacts. Table 7-52, below,
summarises the conclusions.
Ecological Impact
7-71
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 7-52 Summary of Proposed Ecological Mitigation Measures Required to Address Predicted Significant Impacts and Predicted Residual Impacts
POTENTIAL IMPACT
SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACT
DIRECT LOSS OF HABITATS (CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION PHASES)
Direct Loss of
Wetland Habitats
due to Development
Loss of very small areas of gei wai bund and pond bund to Tower
Hide and boardwalk path construction would be of Low
significance in the construction phase and of Low to Moderate
significance in the operation phase.
Habitat enhancement of adjacent Gei Wai/Rain-fed
pond by desilting.
Residual impacts are of very
low severity. No loss of wetland
function as per TPB Guidance
Note 12C.
DISTURBANCE IMPACTS (OPERATION PHASE)
Disturbance Impacts
on Wetland Habitats
and associated fauna
Potential disturbance impacts on large waterbirds of Low
significance as tower hides designed to allow close observation
of disturbance-sensitive fauna.
Number of visitor hours is lower, despite the number of visitors
being higher.
Assumes use of 2m high bamboo screening along
access paths to hides to minimise operational phase
disturbance by visitors
Residual impacts are of very
low severity. No loss of wetland
function as per TPB PG-No.
12C.
DISTURBANCE IMPACTS (CONSTRUCTION PHASE)
Disturbance Impacts
on Wetland Habitats
Potential disturbance impacts on large waterbirds of Low
significance as works will be undertaken during the wet season.
Avoidance/Minimisation: No construction works
between 16 October to 15 April each year.
2m high solid and opaque site hoarding to screen
some construction activities from adjacent areas.
Residual impacts are of very
low severity.
IMPACTS ON FAUNA SPECIES OF CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE
Non-flying Mammals
Indirect adverse disturbance impacts in both construction and
operation phases Low, except in the case of Eurasian Otter for
which it could be of Moderate significance in the construction
phase.
Pre-construction monitoring of the footprint and
vicinity of all project elements should be carried
out to identify any use by otters or other mammals
of conservation importance.
Residual impacts of Low
Severity.
Bats
Given the relatively small scale of the works, it is not anticipated
that these will pose significant disturbance to roosting bats,
which are relatively tolerant of activity in the vicinity of bat
boxes. Impact significance Low in both construction and
operation phases.
Not required. However, as all bat species are
protected by law in Hong Kong, prior to any tree
pruning or felling works a careful check should be
conducted by an experienced ecologist to ensure
that bats are not present
No residual impact.
Roosting Great
Cormorants
No impact is predicted during the construction phase as works
will be conducted during the wet season and, Tower Hides are
located away from roost sites. Operation phase impacts are
predicted to be Very Low, and mitigation is not required.
Avoidance/Minimisation: No mitigation other than
avoiding construction works between 16 October to
15 April each year.
No residual impact.
Ecological Impact
7-72
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
POTENTIAL IMPACT
SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACT
IMPACTS ON FAUNA SPECIES OF CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE (CONT’D)
Collared Crows
Construction phase disturbance to roost or pre-roost sites of
Collared Crow from diurnal construction activity in relation to
TH2 could be of Moderate significance.
All construction activity associated with TH2 and its
access path, including the passage of construction
vehicles, will cease two hours before sunset.
Residual impact of low severity.
Other Bird Species
Impact predicted to be of Low Severity during the wet season
construction phase. During the operational phase of the Tower
Hides, magnitude of disturbance would be of Low Severity
throughout the year as hides are designed to avoid disturbance
to wildlife.
Avoidance/Minimisation: No mitigation other than
avoiding construction works between 16 October to
15 April each year and utilising 2m high bamboo
screening along the access paths to the Tower Hides
to minimise operational phase disturbance by
visitors.
Residual impacts of Low
Severity.
Bird flight lines
Flight line impacts of Low significance are predicted, since the
footprint of each of the tower hides is so small and will not
create a barrier effect.
No mitigation measures are required.
Residual impacts of Low
Severity.
Ardeids breeding or
roosting in MPNR
and its vicinity
In absence of an egretry in MPNR, no significant impacts
predicted. However, precautionary checks are required ahead of
construction. The significance of the potential impact will
depend on the distance from project elements, and could range
from no impact to high.
In regard night roosts, only the pre-roost next to GW 8a and GW
10 and the roost in GW 15a could potentially be impacted during
the construction phase.
Checks to ensure that no egretry has established
within 500m of the footprint of project elements.
These checks should be carried out two weeks prior
to construction commencing and the day before. If
an egretry has developed, appropriate mitigation
measures should be implemented after consultation
with AFCD.
Construction activities in relation to TH3 and the
footpath should cease one hour before sunset.
In absence of egretry, no
residual impacts.
Other Fauna and
Flora
No significant impacts are predicted.
No mitigation measures are required. On a
precautionary basis however, pre-construction
monitoring of the the footprint and vicinity of all
project elements should be carried out to identify
use or presence of species of conservation
importance.
No residual impacts.
Fragmentation
Impacts
No impacts predicted.
No mitigation measures are required.
No residual impacts.
HYDROLOGICAL DISRUPTION
Hydrological
Disruption to Wetland
Habitats
Project elements have no potential to cause hydrological
disruption.
No mitigation measures are required.
No residual impacts.
Ecological Impact
7-73
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
POTENTIAL IMPACT
SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACT
DIRECT MORTALITY
Mortality Impacts on
Fauna
Direct mortality on terrestrial mammals is predicted to be low
assuming precautionary checks are carried out before
construction to ensure the Project Elements and their
immediate vicinity are not used by Eurasian Otters.
All non-agile fauna is potentially vulnerable to mortality during
site clearance; terrestrial fauna during construction; and birds
(due to collision) during operation. However the number of
potential targets is low; hence potential impacts are considered
to be of Low Severity.
Avoidance: Direct mortality of roosts/nests to be
avoided by checking haul roads and Project Element
footprints prior to site clearance . If roosts or
breeding species are found, appropriate measures
should be taken to avoid adverse impact, including
adjustments to the timing of works.
Residual impacts of Low
Severity
OTHER IMPACTS (NOISE, GLARE, DUST AND RUN-OFF)
Noise arising from
construction vehicles
Low significance except in the area where Collared Crows form a
pre-roost, on which species the impact could be of Moderate
significance.
All construction activity associated with TH2,
including the passage of construction vehicles, will
cease two hours before sunset.
Residual impacts of Low
Severity
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Disturbance impacts
from concurrent
projects.
No concurrent projects, and thus no cumulative impacts.
None required.
No residual impact.
Ecological Impact
7-74
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
7.11 References
AFCD. 2003. Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong. AFCD, HKSAR, Hong Kong.
AFCD. 2007. Flora of Hong Kong Vol. 1. Edited by Hong Kong Herbarium, AFCD & South China
Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
AFCD. 2008. Flora of Hong Kong Vol. 2. Edited by Hong Kong Herbarium, AFCD & South China
Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
AFCD. 2009. Flora of Hong Kong Vol. 3. Edited by Hong Kong Herbarium, AFCD & South China
Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
AFCD. 2011. Flora of Hong Kong Vol. 4. Edited by Hong Kong Herbarium, AFCD & South China
Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
AFCD. 2012a. Check List of Hong Kong Plants 2012. AFCD, HKSAR, Hong Kong.
AFCD. 2016. Hong Kong Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2011. Environment Bureau.
AFCD.
AFCD. 2017. Hong Kong Biodiversity Database (February 2017) online at
https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/hkbiodiversity/database/search.php
Anon. 1997. Study on the Ecological Value of Fishponds in Deep Bay Area. Report by Aspinwall &
Co. Hong Kong Ltd. In association with Wetlands International to PlanD.
Anon. 2007. Summer 2007 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon, 2008. Summer 2008 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2009. Summer 2009 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon, 2010. Summer 2010 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon, 2011. Summer 2011 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2012. Summer 2012 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bat Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2013. Summer 2013 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bat Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2014. Summer 2014 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bat Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2015a. Summer 2015 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Anon. 2015b. Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2014 – 15.
Monthly Waterbird Monitoring. Biannual Report 2, October 2014 to March 2015. Report by
HKBWS to AFCD Government.
Anon. 2016. Summer 2016 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by HKBWS to AFCD.
Ballantyne, Lesley, Fu, Xin Hua, Shih, Chun-Hat, Cheng, Chui-Yu, Yiu, Vor. 2011. Pteroptyx maipo
Ballantyne, a new species of bent-winged firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) from Hong Kong, and
its relevance to firefly biology and conservation. Zootaxa 2931: 8-34
Ecological Impact
7-75
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Baretto, G. Cribb, P. & Gale, S. 2011. The Wild Orchids of Hong Kong. Natural History Society
Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu and Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, Hong Kong.
Binnie, Black and Veatch. 2002. Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line. EIA-71/2001. At:
https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/aeiara/nd.html
CH2M Hill. 2008. Proposed Development at Fung Lok Wai, Yuen Long, Lot 1457 R.P. in D.D. 123.
EIA-149/2008. At: https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/aeiara/yld.html.
Holland, W. J. 1931. The Butterfly book. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Co.
Jiang, Z.G., Jiang, J.P., Wang, Y.Z., Zhang, E., Zhang, Y.Y., Li, L.L., Xie, F., Cai, B., Cao, L., Zheng,
G.M., Dong, L., Zhang, Z.W., Ding, P., Luo, Z.H., Ding, C.Q., Ma, Z.J., Tang, S.H., Cao, W.X., Li, C.W.,
Hu, H.J., Ma, Y., Wu, Y., Wang, Y.X., Zhou, K.Y., Liu, S.Y., Chen, Y.Y., Li, J.T., Feng, Z.J., Wang, Y.,
Wang, B., Li, C., Song, X.L., Cai, L., Zang, C.X., Zeng, Y., Meng, Z.B., Fang, H.X., and Ping, X.G.,
2016. Red List of China’s Vertebrates (RLCV). Biodiversity Science: 24 (5) 500-551.
Karsen, S.J., Lau, M.W.N. & Bogadek A. 1998. Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Provisional
Urban Council Hong Kong.
Ma, C.K.W. 2014. Post-release monitoring of the northward migration of a Great Cormorant
Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis from its wintering site in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Report 2012:
255-277
McMillan, S.E., Hau, B.C.H. and Bonebrake, T.C. 2020. Eurasian Otter Conservation: contrasting
experiences in the UK and Hong Kong. In Practice Issue 107, March 2020.
McMillan, S.E., Wong, T.C., Hau, B.C.H. and Bonebrake, T.C. 2019. Fish farmers highlight
opportunities and warnings for urban carnivore conservation. Conservation Science and Practice
2019. DOI: 10.1111/scp2.79.
Shek, C. T. 2006. A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country
Parks, Cosmos Books, Hong Kong.
Shek, C., J. W. K. So, C., T. Y. Lau, C. S. M. Chan, A. O. Y. Li, W. S. H. Chow, and C. S. K.
Liu. 2012. Experimentation on the use of bat boxes in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiversity (AFCD
Newsletter), 22: 10-15.
Stanton, D.J. & J.A. Allcock (2011). Habitat characteristics and odonate communities at selected
sites used by Mortonagrion hirosei Asahina (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) in Hong Kong. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 3(12): 2242–2252. Xing, F.W., Ng, S.C., Chau, L.K.C. 2000. Gymnosperms and
angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 23: 21-136.
Stanton, D.J., Smith, B. & Leung, K.K.S. (2014). Collared Crow Corvus torqauatus at the Mai Po
Nature Reserve, Hong Kong. Forktail 30 (2014): 79-83.
Van der Grift, E.A and Kuijsters, R.M.J. (1998). Mitigation measures to reduce habitat
fragmentation by railway lines in the Netherlands. ICOWET February 9-12: 166-170.
WWF Hong Kong. 2013. Mai Po Nature Reserve Habitat Management, Monitoring and Research
Plan 2013-2018. Volume I Habitat Management. WWF Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Fisheries Impact
8-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
8 FISHERIES IMPACT
8.1 Introduction
This fisheries impact assessment has been carried out to identify, qualify and quantify potential
fisheries impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project. The criteria and
guidelines listed in Annex 9 and Annex 17 of the EIAO-TM are referred to.
It should be noted that fisheries impacts refer to the impacts to the fisheries industry – in this
case the commercial fishponds adjacent to the Project Site – and not the impact to the fish
themselves. The impacts to wildlife were considered in Chapter 7.
8.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
In carrying out the fisheries assessment, reference has been made to the following relevant
legislation, documents and guidelines:
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499)
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO), Annexes
9 and 17
8.3 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Construction Stage
Assessment Methodology
A literature review and internet search have been conducted to assess the baseline status of
pond fish culture activity within the assessment area (500m from the Project Site Boundary) as
well as elsewhere in Hong Kong:
AFCD annual reports (2000 to 2017-18)
http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/publications/publications_dep/publications_dep.html
AFCD website http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/fish_aqu/fish_aqu.html
AFCD Accredited Fish Farm Scheme Website http://www.hkaffs.org/en/index.htmlOther
Other relevant EIA reports, viewed from the EPD Website
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/aeiara/all.html) include:
Development of Lok Ma Chau Loop, EIA-212/2013
North East New Territories New Development Areas (EIA-213/2013)
Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen (EIA-
227/2015)
Proposed Low-rise and Low-density Residential Development at Various Lots and their
Adjoining Government Land in DD 104, East of Kam Pok Road, Mai Po (EIA-242/2016)
Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area (EIA-248/2016)
In addition to desktop survey, site visits were undertaken to investigate actual fisheries status
within the assessment area between January and November 2017. Activities related to fisheries
observed during other field surveys were also recorded. During site visits, local villagers, fish
farmers and pond owners were interviewed.
Ponds observed were categorised as follows:
Active. Currently utilized for commercial aquaculture activities, including commercial
fishponds, fish fry ponds and water flea ponds.
Inactive. No current commercial aquaculture activities, but no major physical constraints to
its resumption in the short-term, including ponds with fish present in non-commercial
quantities and ponds for casual sport fishing or water sports.
Fisheries Impact
8-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Abandoned. Ponds in which there is physical evidence that no aquaculture has occurred for
many years (typically ponds overgrown with vegetation) and/or where there are obvious
physical constraints to the resumption of fisheries activity (e.g., ponds which are fenced off
and thus inaccessible); concreted ornamental ponds are also included in this category.
Gei wai. These ponds are a main feature of MPNR and are classified here separately given
their management for conservation purposes.
Baseline Condition
Pond fish culture has been centred in the northwestern New Territories for a long period of time.
Traditionally, primarily freshwater fish and several brackish species, such as Bighead Carp
Aristichthys nobilis, Edible Goldfish Carassius auratus, Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idellus, Mud
Carp Cirrhinus chinensis, Flathead Mullet Mugil cephalus and Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus,
are farmed. However, in recent years, certain high-value marine species such as Giant Grouper
Epinephelus lanceolatus, Yellowfin Seabream Acanthopagrus latus and Spotted Scat Scatophagus
argus have also been cultured in diluted seawater by fish farms close to the coast (e.g. at Mai
Po). Most ponds in Hong Kong practice polyculture of carp, tilapia and/or grey mullet
[Ref.#
13
]
.
Several fish farms have started to culture new species and AFCD has carried out much
promotional work. According to the data extracted from AFCD’s website and AFCD’s annual
reports, the production of pond fish in Hong Kong has stabilised in recent years. Annual pond
fish production and fishpond area in the territory are listed in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 Annual Pond Fish Production and Fishpond Area
YEAR
POND FISH
PRODUCTION
(TONNES)
FISHPOND AREA (ha)
OVERALL POND FISH
PRODUCTION RATE
(kg/ha/YEAR)
2000
2,817
1,060
2,657
2001
2,550
1,059
2,407
2002
1,989
1,030
1,931
2003
2,114
1,029
2,054
2004
1,977
1,026
1,927
2005
1,897
1,026
1,849
2006
1,943
1,024
1,897
2007
1,927
1,160
1,661
2008
2,266
1,160
1,953
2009
2,105
1,160
1,814
2010
2,190
1,109
1,975
2011
2,315
1,130
2,049
2012
2,306
1,150
2,005
2013
2,187
1,150
1,902
2014
2,001
1,140
1,755
2015
2,092
1,140
1,835
2016
2,543
1,135
2,240
2017
2,543
1,132
2,246
2018
2,500
1,130
2,212
2019
2,278
1,131
2,014
2020
2,516
1,130
2,226
Source: AFCD Annual Reports, 2000 to 2020 and Ref. #12.
13
. AFCD (2020), Marine Fish Culture, Pond Fish Culture and Oyster Culture.
www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/fish_aqu/fish_aqu_mpo/fish_aqu_mpo.html
Fisheries Impact
8-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
According to the latest information from AFCD
[Ref.#12]
, local pond fish production accounted for
approx. 75.7% of production of the aquaculture sector, valued at more than $60 million in 2020.
There are no capture fisheries known within the assessment area, and no assessment of impacts
thereon has been carried out. Any polluted runoff from work areas will be isolated from Deep
Bay as explained from Section 5.4.12 to 5.4.31, and hence no adverse water quality impact to
fisheries resources in Deep Bay are predicted.
Site Investigation
Project Site
According to base maps, aerial photos and site visits, there are no fishponds within the Project
boundary. Whilst the Gei wai within MPNR are traditional tidal shrimp ponds constructed in
coastal areas, these are no longer considered a fisheries resource; instead they are managed for
nature conservation.
Assessment Area
Commercial fishponds are present within the 500m assessment area, mainly located around the
northern perimeter of MPNR (Tam Kon Chau) and to the south of the Project Site (Lut Chau and
Tai Sang Wai). Figure 8-1 shows the location of fishponds, fish culture zones and oyster production
within Hong Kong. Figure 8-2 shows the fishpond locations adjacent to the Project Site.
Summary of Site Investigation
Table 8-2 summaries the status and area of the ponds within the assessment area. The total
area of the fishponds is very small when compared to the 1,130 ha of fishponds in Hong Kong.
Table 8-2 Status and Area of Ponds Within the Assessment Area
AREA
CATEGORY
FISHERY STATUS
TOTAL AREA (ha)
Project Site
Gei wai
No fisheries status
190.89
Assessment Area
Active
Commercial fishponds
127.54
Inactive
Production of fish for self-consumption
or not in a commercial manner
0.67
Abandoned
Abandoned/ overgrown/ ornamental/
mitigation ponds
13.64
Identification and Evaluation of Impacts
There will be no direct fishery impact during construction phase as no ponds have been
identified within the Project Site. The range of potential indirect impacts is as follows:
Blockage of Existing Access. There is the potential for access to fishponds to be blocked due
to construction works, which may have an impact on management activities and fisheries
production. According to the current design, the construction work will not adversely affect
the access to the closest ponds in Tam Kon Chau. Hence, there is no significant impact to
active fishponds.
Temporary Occupation of Fishponds. There will be no temporary occupation of fishponds,
hence this impact is not anticipated.
Deterioration of Water Quality. As discussed in Section 5, there will be zero polluted runoff
from the works. Specifically, those works areas closest to the commercial fishponds, i.e. the
construction of new boardwalk above the main footpath, only minor construction works will
be carried out; there will be no concrete breaking or removal, so there will be no dust
generation; and there will be no exposed ground, so there will be no risk of muddy water
flowing into the ponds. As such, the deterioration of water quality due to construction works
is not considered to be a significant impact.
Fisheries Impact
8-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Impacts to Capture Fisheries. No capture fisheries are present within the Survey Area.
Hence, no impact is predicted to the capture fisheries during construction.
Impacts to Water Systems of Fisheries Importance. Given the scale of works and distance
from open water habitats of Deep Bay, it is considered that construction and/or operational
impacts to water systems of fisheries importance (e.g. Deep Bay) are insignificant.
Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The identified impacts on fisheries are expected to be very low and are summarised in Table 8-3.
Good site practices during the construction phase to prevent water pollution is also
recommended and discussed in the following section.
Table 8-3 Summary of Construction Stage Impacts to Fisheries
CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION (CONSTRUCTION PHASE)
Nature of impact
No direct impact. Potential indirect impacts include
blockage of access roads, hydrological disruption, and
deterioration of water quality during construction, which
are considered a Very Low fisheries impact.
Size of affected area
No direct impact and indirect impacts of very low
significance.
Loss of fishery resources/production
Destruction and disturbance of nursery and
spawning grounds
Loss of fishery resources/production
Impact on fishery activity
Impact on aquaculture activity
Cumulative Impacts
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will commence at end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project. There are
also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative fisheries impacts for this Project
is not anticipated.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative fisheries impacts.
Mitigation Measures
All fisheries impacts are predicted to be of low significance, hence no mitigation measures are
proposed. However, good site practices during the construction to prevent the deterioration of
water quality are also recommended.
Illegal dumping of waste and excavated material will be properly managed (see Section 6 for
details) and thus such impact is not predicted to occur.
There is the potential for access to fishponds to be blocked due to construction works, which
may have an impact on management activities and fisheries production. Temporary traffic
arrangements should be instigated to maintain or provide alternative access to fishponds during
construction, if required.
Other Indirect Impacts
With the mitigation measures proposed to control dust (Section 3.8), water pollution (Section
5.5) and waste generation (Section 6.6), indirect impacts on fisheries due to construction
activities will be insignificant. This includes the fishponds in the vicinity of the Site and also
fisheries in the wider area, including oyster farms in Deep Bay and fish culture zones elsewhere.
Fisheries Impact
8-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Residual Environmental Impacts
There will be no direct loss of fishponds due to the development and the indirect impacts are of
low significance. With the above measures and measures for mitigating dust, avoiding water
pollution and managing waste, no residual impact is anticipated.
No specific quantitative monitoring programme for fisheries is deemed necessary, though
regular inspection and audit of the works area should include assessment of potential impacts
on adjacent fish culture ponds.
8.4 Potential Impacts and Assessment – Operation Stage
The two new tower hides will not be provided with toilets or washrooms and so no wastewater
will be generated. Runoff from the roof of the tower hides and from the footpaths will not be
contaminated. As such, there will be no point or non-point pollution sources due to the
operation of the Project and therefore no impact to the water systems – fishponds, gei wai or
Deep Bay – or associated sensitive receivers within the Project Site or within the Assessment
Area for fisheries impact.
Overall, therefore, no adverse fisheries impact is anticipated during the operation stage and no
mitigation measures are required.
8.5 Conclusion
There are no commercial fishponds in the Project Area and so there will be no direct impact on
fisheries within the Project Area during construction. Adjacent to the Project Site are commercial
fisheries. However, with the mitigation measures proposed to control dust (see Section 3.8),
water pollution (see Section 5.5) and waste generation (see Section 6.6), indirect impacts on
fisheries due to construction activities will be insignificant. This includes the fishponds in the
vicinity of the Site and also fisheries in the wider area, including oyster farms in Deep Bay and
fish culture zones elsewhere. Overall, therefore, no adverse fisheries impact is anticipated
during the construction stage.
The two new tower hides will not be provided with toilets or washrooms and so no wastewater
will be generated during the operations stage. Runoff from the roof of the tower hides and from
the footpaths will not be contaminated. As such, there will be no point or non-point pollution
sources due to the operation of the Project and therefore no impact to the water systems –
fishponds, gei wai or Deep Bay – or associated sensitive receivers within the Project Site or
within the Assessment Area for fisheries impact. Overall, therefore, no adverse fisheries impact
is anticipated during the operation stage.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
9 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
9.1 Introduction
This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been carried out to identify, qualify and
quantify potential landscape and visual impacts arising from the construction and operation of
the Project. The criteria and guidelines listed in Annex 10 and Annex 18 of the EIAO-TM are
referred to and further guidance given by the EIAO Guidance Note 8/2010.
The LVIA includes a review of the planning and development control framework, including
review of relevant outline development plan(s), OZPs, and any approved and planned
developments in the 500m Assessment Area. The Landscape Impact Assessment (LIA) assesses
impacts both on Landscape Resources (LRs) and Landscape character areas (LCAs) in all the areas
within 500m from the Project boundary. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) identifies and
predicts type and extent of impacts from visual obstruction, changes in visual amenity and
compatibility of the Project within a defined Assessment Area.
In view of the limited scale of the Project, which comprises new boardwalk and low-rise
buildings (proposed Tower Hides), the VIA for the purposes of this EIA only focuses on local
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) and the Assessment Area for VIA is defined by the primary
Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) within which the Project can be viewed by local VSRs.
Specific objectives of the LVIA include:
Definition of the scope of the LIA and VIA including description of the assessment
methodologies.
Review of relevant planning and development control framework.
To conduct a baseline study to describe, appraise, analyse and evaluate the existing and
planned LRs and LCAs of the Assessment Area.
Identification and plotting of a visual envelope which defines the ZVI of the Project.
Identification of the key groups of existing and planned sensitive receivers within the visual
envelope with regards to views from ground level and elevated vantage points.
Description of the visual compatibility of the Project with the existing and planned visual
context, and its obstruction and interference with the key views within the visual envelope.
Identification and description of the severity of visual impact in terms of nature, distance
and number of sensitive receivers. The visual impact of the Project with and without
mitigation measures is included and illustrated so as to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed mitigation measures across time.
Evaluations and explanations with supportive arguments of factors considered in arriving at
the significance thresholds of visual impact.
Recommendation of effective and practicable mitigation/ enhancement measures, and
identification and evaluation of the acceptability of residual impacts.
9.2 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
The LVIA has been conducted with reference to the local legislation, guidelines, plans and
relevant studies as follows:
EIAO, Cap. 499 Guidance Note No. 8/2010
Annexes 10 and 18 to the EIAO-TM
Study on Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong
Landscape Character Map of Hong Kong (PlanD, 2005)
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapters 4, 10 and 11
Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131)
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Forest and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96)
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586)
Check List of Hong Kong Plants 2012 (AFCD, 2012)
Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong 2003 (AFCD,2003)
AFCD Nature Conservation Practice Note Nos. 01, 02 (Rev. Jun 2006) and 03
Guidelines on Tree Preservation during Development (Greening, Landscape and Tree
Management Section, Development Bureau, April 2015)
Guidelines on Tree Transplanting (Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section,
Development Bureau, September 2014)
DEVB TC No. 4/2020 – Tree Preservation
DEVB TC No. 6/2015 – Maintenance of Vegetation and Hard Landscape Features
DEVB TC No.3/2012 – Site Coverage of Greenery for Government Building Projects
ETWB TCW No. 5/2020 – Registration and Preservation of Old and Valuable Trees
ETWB TCW No. 34/2003 – Community Involvement in Greening Works
WBTC No. 7/2002 – Tree Planting in Public Works
Approved Mai Po and Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6
9.3 Assessment Methodology
Landscape Baseline Review and Impact Assessment
Identification and Examination of Baseline LRs and LCAs
With reference to the most recently published studies, literature, topographical maps and aerial
photographs, available LRs and LCAs within the 500m Assessment Area were identified and
mapped on a plan based on a government base map. Supplementary field surveys were
conducted in December 2017, September and October 2020 to verify the extent and conditions
of the identified LRs and LCAs. Possible landscape resources include natural components of
landscape such as soil, vegetation communities, water bodies (hydrology), geological and
topographical features, and man-made features such as pattern of settlement of built features
and green building features.
The LCAs formed by various broadly homogenous units of similar landscape characters within
the 500m Assessment Area have been identified and mapped on a plan with reference to the
Landscape Character Map of Hong Kong.
Assessment of Sensitivity of LRs/LCAs
With reference to the study of Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong and other relevant
information, sensitivity of LRs and LCAs is rated as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ and are influenced
by rarity, importance, quality and maturity, statutory or regulatory limitations/ requirements
and the ability of LRs and LCAs to accommodate change.
Identification of Sources and Magnitude of Potential Landscape Impacts
Potential sources of landscape impacts could arise from construction and operation of the Project.
The magnitude of changes for assessing landscape impacts depends on the following criteria:
Compatibility of the Project with the surrounding landscape
Duration of impacts under construction and operational phases
Scale of development
Reversibility of change
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The magnitude of landscape change is classified as follows:
Large: the landscape or landscape resources would suffer a major change.
Medium: the landscape or landscape resources would suffer a moderate change.
Small: the landscape or landscape resources would suffer slight or barely perceptible
changes.
Negligible: the landscape or landscape resources would suffer no discernible change.
Identification of Potential Landscape Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Possible landscape mitigation measures may include minimization of extent and duration of
construction works, adoption of alternative design, and implementation of mitigation measures,
such as landscape planting to provide visual buffers/ screening.
Significance of Landscape Impacts
The significance of landscape impacts before and after implementation of mitigation and/ or
enhancement measures are defined as follows:
Substantial: Adverse/ Beneficial impact where the proposal would cause significant
deterioration or improvement in existing landscape quality.
Moderate: Adverse/ Beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a noticeable
deterioration or improvement in existing landscape quality.
Slight: Adverse/ Beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible
deterioration or improvement in existing landscape quality.
Insubstantial: No discernible change in existing landscape quality.
The degree of significance of landscape impacts has been derived from the combination of the
magnitude of change and the sensitivity/ tolerance of the sensitive receivers to change as shown
in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1 Matrix Showing Impact Significance of Landscape and Visual Impacts
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
SENSITIVITY OF RECEIVERS
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MAGNITUDE
OF CHANGE
LARGE
Moderate
Moderate/ Substantial
Substantial
MEDIUM
Slight/ Moderate
Moderate
Moderate/ Substantial
SMALL
Slight
Slight/Moderate
Moderate
NEGLIGIBLE
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Visual Baseline Review and Impact Assessment
Identification and Examination of ZVI and VSRs
In view of the limited scale of the Project, the Assessment Area for visual impacts has been
defined as a visual envelope covering the primary ZVI within which the Project can be viewed by
local VSRs. The ZVI and the affected key groups of VSRs were initially identified from
topographical maps and aerial photographs, and the exact extent of ZVI and the visibility of local
VSRs were further verified by site surveys conducted in December 2017, September and October
2020, and March 2021 The local VSRs to be affected by the Project are categorized as follows:
Functional (F) who view the Project from their workplaces, institutional and educational
buildings
Residential (R) who view the Project from their homes
Leisure (L) who view the Project when they are enjoying leisure or recreational activities
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Assessment of Sensitivity of VSRs
The sensitivity of VSRs to change is rated as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ as influenced by the value
and quality of existing views, availability and amenity of alternate views, type and estimated
population of VSRs, duration or frequency of view and degree of visibility.
Identification of Sources and Magnitude of Potential Visual Impacts
Potential sources of visual impacts could arise from both construction and operational phases of
the Project. Factors to be considered in determining the magnitude of changes in assessment of
visual impacts include:
Compatibility of the Project with the surrounding landscape
Duration of impacts under construction and operational phases
Scale of development
Reversibility of change
Viewing distance
Potential blockage of view
The magnitude of visual change is classified as follows:
Large: VSRs would suffer a major change in their viewing experience
Medium: VSRs would suffer a moderate change in their viewing experience
Small: VSRs would suffer a slight change in their viewing experience
Negligible: VSRs would suffer no discernible change in their viewing experience
Identification of Potential Visual Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Possible visual mitigation measures will primarily take the form of adoption of alternative design
to avoid or minimize visual obstruction resulting from the Project, careful consideration of the
orientation, colour and texture treatment of building features and finishes to soften the outlook
of building structures; and provision of green features and screening to neutralize negative
impacts from hard elements.
Photomontages were prepared based on photographs taken at representative vantage points/
viewpoints to illustrate visual impacts during Project operation in relation to other existing and
known planned developments and prominent visual features.
Significance of Visual Impacts
The degree of significance of visual impacts has been derived from the combination of the
magnitude of change and the sensitivity/ tolerance of the receivers (i.e. VSRs) to change as
shown in Table 9-1, above. The significance of visual impacts before and after implementation of
mitigation and enhancement measures are defined as follows:
Substantial: Adverse/Beneficial impact where the proposal would result in significant
deterioration or improvement in existing visual quality perceived by the general population
Moderate: Adverse/Beneficial impact where the proposal would result in a noticeable
deterioration or improvement in existing visual quality perceived by the general population
Slight: Adverse/Beneficial impact where the proposal would result in a barely perceptible
deterioration or improvement in existing visual quality perceived by the general population
Insubstantial: No discernible change in visual quality perceived by the general population
Acceptability of Residual Landscape and Visual Impacts
The acceptability of residual landscape and visual impacts after implementation of
recommended mitigation/ enhancement measures were predicted in accordance with the
criteria as set out in Annex 10 of EIAO-TM as follows:
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Beneficial: The Project will complement the landscape and visual character of its setting, will
follow the relevant planning objectives and will improve overall and visual quality.
Acceptable: There will be no significant effects on the landscape, no significant visual effects
caused by the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views.
Acceptable with mitigation measures: There will be some adverse effects, but these can be
eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures.
Unacceptable: Significant adverse effects are likely, but the extent to which they may occur
or may be mitigated cannot be determined from the Study. Further detailed study will be
required for the specific effects in question.
9.4 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework
The 500m Assessment Area of the Project is covered by the approved Mai Po and Fairview Park
OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. The 500m Assessment Area covers Tai Long Kei and Shek Shan SSSI and a
large portion of Lut Chau SSSI, the adjoining Conservation Area (CA), Residential Group (C) zone
(part of the residential area of Fairview Park and Palm Springs), and a Government, Institute or
Community (G/IC) zone (i.e. the existing PSFSC and the Hong Kong Police Force Pak Hok Chau
Operational Base), as shown in Figure 9-1.
The Project Site (211.7ha) is located within the 372.1ha Tai Long Kei and Shek Shan SSSI. The
planning intention of this zone is to conserve and protect the features of special scientific
interest, such as rare or particular species of fauna and flora and habitats, corals, woodlands,
marshes or areas of geological, ecological or botanical/biological interest. It intends to deter
human activities or developments unless they are needed to support the conservation of the
features of special scientific interest in the SSSI, to maintain and protect the existing character of
SSSI, or for educational and research purposes. The Project Elements include construction of TH2
and TH3, widening and renewal works to existing footpath to TH1, and new footpaths
connecting TH2 and TH3, fall within the uses of “Column 2” of the OZP Notes. As such,
permission from the Town Planning Board (TPB) under Section 16 of the Town Planning
Ordinance is required. All the proposed works aim to provide new education components and
are considered to fully comply with the planning intention and development control framework
as stipulated within the OZP.
The adjoining Lut Chau SSSI zone is intended to conserve the ecological value and function of the
existing fish ponds within the zone and to deter development (other than those which are
necessary to sustain or enhance the ecological value of the fish ponds within the zone or to
serve educational or research purpose) within this zone.
The CA zone on the eastern side of Mai Po Marshes SSSI (i.e. Tai Long Kei and Shek Shan SSSI and
Lut Chau SSSI) is intended to conserve the ecological value of wetland and fish ponds which form
an integral part of the wetland ecosystem in the Deep Bay Area.
According to TPB Guidelines No. 12C (TPB PG-No. 12C), the Tai Long Kei and Shek Shan SSSI, Lut
Chau SSSI(1) and the CA zone described above fall within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA)
within which the principle of “no-net-loss in wetland” applies. The “no-net-loss” can refer to
both loss in “area” and “function”, whether caused by habitat loss or adverse disturbance
impact. New developments are discouraged unless they are required to support conservation of
ecological integrity of wetland ecosystem or the development is an essential infrastructure
project overriding public interest.
Further to the southeast of the Project site are the existing residential areas (parts of Fairview
Park and Palm Springs) which are zoned as R(C). This zone is intended primarily for low-rise, low-
density residential developments where commercial uses serving residential neighbourhood
may be permitted on application to the TPB.
The G/IC zone at the end of Tam Kon Chau Road is intended primarily for the provision of
Government, institution or community facilities serving the needs of local residents and the
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
district population. There is no planning stipulation on building height, plot ratio or site coverage
according to the OZP.
9.5 Landscape and Visual Baseline Study
Landscape Resources
The identified LRs were classified into three categories based on their nature: LR1 – Vegetation;
LR2 – Water Bodies (Hydrology); and LR3 – Developed Area. Table 9-2 lists the LRs identified
within the 500m Assessment Area.
Table 9-2 List of LRs within the 500m Assessment Area
REF.
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
EXTENT (m
2
)
LR1 – VEGETATION
LR1-1
Mangrove
1,268,814
LR1-2
Brackish Marsh
216,600
LR1-3
Wooded Area
9,068
LR1-4
Reed (within Gei Wai and Rain-fed Pond)
N.A.
LR2 – WATER BODIES (HYDROLOGY)
LR2-1
Brackish Gei Wai
1,626,739
LR2-2
Rain-fed Pond
492,035
LR2-3
Commercial Fishpond
1,668,279
LR2-4
Channelised Watercourse
10,064
LR2-5
Watercourse
170,241
LR2-6
Buffalo Marsh
20,000
LR3 – PLANTING SURROUNDING DEVELOPNENT AREA
LR3-1
Planting surrounding Development Area
550,464
Note: The extent of reed and mangrove stands within the water bodies (i.e. Gei Wai and rain-
fed ponds) are dynamics and can vary from time to time due to seasonal changes and
vegetation management. The approximate extent of these vegetation within ponds are
indicated in Figure 9-2, and their area(s) are included in the calculated areas of their
corresponding ponds/ water bodies.
Figure 9-2 shows the locations and extent of the LRs and Figure 9-3 provides a photographic
record showing typical views of each of these LRs, with Photograph 9-1 showing examples of the
most prevalent types of LR.
Photograph 9-1 Top Three LRs by Extent
LR1-1 Mangrove
LR2-1 Brackish Gei Wai
LR2-3 Commercial Fish Pond
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-7
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
LR1 – Vegetation
LR1-1 Mangrove
This is the most extensive vegetation type within the 500m Assessment Area. The entire LR1-1
falls within Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. A Ramsar Site is a designated wetland site
considered to be of internationally importance under the Ramsar Convention (an
intergovernmental treaty signed on 2 February 1971 in the city of Ramsar in Iran and entered
into force in 1975). Most of LR1-1 occurs within the MPNR outside the Boundary Fence. It forms
a part of the largest mangrove community in Hong Kong. Dominant species include the
mangrove trees Kandelia obovata and Aegiceras corniculatum, and climbers such as Derris
trifoliata and Paederia scandens. LR1-1 is a unique natural landscape in the Deep Bay Area with
minimal human intervention. It is considered to have low ability to accommodate change arising
from developments. As part of the Ramsar Site, LR1-1 is considered to be of regional importance
and the sensitivity of LR1-1 is considered to be High.
LR1-2 Brackish Marsh
The brackish marshes are located at the banks of the natural watercourses running between
Shek Shan and Mai Po, as well as along the southeastern perimeter of MPNR. LR1-2 falls entirely
within Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. These brackish marshes are subject to tidal influence
and are dominated by marsh ferns including Mangrove Fern Acrostichum aureum and
Interrupted Tri-vein Fern Cyclosorus interruptus, wetland plant species Eichhornia crassipes,
Brachiaria mutica and Ipomoea aquatica, and interspersed with patches of reeds (Phragmites
australis). As a unique natural landscape in the Deep Bay Area with minimal human intervention,
LR1-2 is considered to have low ability to accommodate change arising from developments.
LR1-2 is considered to be part of the regionally importance landscape resources of the Ramsar
Site. Due to its high naturalness and unique nature, LR1-2 is considered to be of High sensitivity
to change.
LR1-3 Wooded Area
LR1-3 refers to the two wooded patches outside the Project site, one at Shek Shan within MPNR,
and the other on the knoll at Tam Kon Chau Police Post and its adjacent area next to PSFSC. LR1-
3 falls within Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. The wooded area at Shek Shan is small and
isolated. It is dominated by naturally regenerated native tree species such as Ficus microcarpa,
Ficus tinctoria and Ficus subpisocarpa. The wooded area at Tam Kon Chau is subject to higher
levels of human disturbance as evidenced by the presence of household waste and construction
materials in the woodland understory. This wooded area is dominated by typical native tree
species of woodland fringe areas, including Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Microcos
nervosa, Ficus elastica and Ficus microcarpa, and common fruit trees such as Litchi chinensis and
Sygium jambos. Both of these wooded areas are small in size and very common and widespread
features in Hong Kong. LR1-3 is readily re-creatable through replanting. As such, it is considered
to have a medium ability to accommodate change arising from developments. The sensitivity of
LR1-3 is considered to be Low.
LR1-4 Reed
LR1-4 is derived from colonization of reed Phargmites australis into the water bodies (brackish
gei wai or rain-fed ponds). With varying water level due to seasonal changes and active
management, the extent of reed within these water bodies can vary from time to time. LR1-4 is
readily re-creatable through replanting or natural recolonization. As such, it is considered to
have a medium ability to accommodate change from developments. The sensitivity of LR1-4 is
considered to be Medium given it is a natural component of the existing ponds and within the
regionally important Rasmar Site.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-8
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
LR2 – Water Bodies (Hydrology)
LR2-1 Brackish gei wai
Brackish gei wai is the most dominant LR type within the Project Site and within the boundary of
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. These water bodies are connected with the tidal water of
Deep Bay through operational sluice gates, and are managed either to rear shrimps and fish
following traditional practices to provide food for birds, or to provide shallow-water habitats for
roosting of waterbirds in MPNR. Some of the gei wai ponds are dominated by mangrove stands
such as Kandelia obovata and Aegiceras corniculatum, whilst in their centres there are small tree
islands formed by naturally established tree species such as Ficus subpisocarpa, Macaranga
tanarius var. tomentosa and the exotic tree Melia azedarach. The bunds between ponds and gei
wai are varying in width and height dominated by grasses Panicum spp. and common tree and
shrub species such as Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Melia azedarach and Ficus spp.
Brackish gei wai is a unique landscape feature in Mai Po and the largest area of shrimp culture in
Hong Kong, albeit this is no longer undertaken for commercial purposes. The traditional
management practices of these tidal shrimp ponds form a unique landscape feature. In view of
its uniqueness in the Deep Bay area, LR2-1 is considered to have low ability to accommodate
change arising from developments. LR2-1 constitutes a key part of the Ramsar wetland which is
considered of regional importance. The sensitivity of LR2-1 is considered to be High.
LR2-2 Rain-fed Ponds
These ponds are located within the Project Site and Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, vary in
water depth and contain a mosaic of microhabitats such as open water, stands of reeds, sedges,
waterlilies and small tree islands, which are actively managed areas to provide roosting and
feeding sites for waterbirds and a wide range of wildlife species in MPNR. The pond bunds are
dominated by common tree species such as Hibiscus tilaceus, Celtis sinensis, Cerbera manghas,
Casuarina equisetifolia and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa. Due to the unique composition
and layout of LR2-2, and being a key part of the internationally important Ramsar Site and as a
unique landscape feature in the Deep Bay area, it is considered to have low ability to
accommodate change from developments. LR2-2 is considered to have High sensitivity to
change and regionally important landscape resources.
LR2-3 Commercial Fish Ponds
This LR is comprised of mostly active fish ponds and a small number of abandoned fish ponds
present both within (at Shek Shan) and outside the MPNR, all within Mai Po Inner Deep Bay
Ramsar Site. The fish ponds form extensive clusters at Lut Chau, Pak Hok Chau, Tam Kon Chau
and the western area of Mai Po. The pond bunds of the active fish ponds are dominated by
grassy vegetation (such as Brachiaria mutica and Panicum maximum), planted fruit trees (Litchi
chinensis, Dimocarpus longan and Clausena lansium) which are typical pond bund vegetation in
village areas. The abandoned ponds have been progressively overgrown with vegetation such as
grasses, reeds Phragmites australis and/or reedmace Typha angustifolia, with scattered trees
such as Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Melia azedarach and Hibiscus tiliaceus along the
bunds. Although commercial fishponds are man-made/ modified landscape features and are not
uncommon in rural areas, these extensive fishpond clusters are the largest in Hong Kong and
form a unique LR in the district context. In view of its man-made/ readily re-creatable nature
LR2-3 is considered to have medium ability to accommodate change arising from developments.
The overall sensitivity of LR2-3 is considered to be Medium.
LR2-4 Channelised Watercourse
This LR refers to the only channelised watercourse in the Assessment Area located in the
Fairview Park residential estate. It is an artificial feature with a concrete surface occasionally
colonized by wetland plant species. This type of LR is very common in Hong Kong and offers
limited greening opportunities. As an entire man-made and common feature in the developed
areas, LR2-4 is considered to have high ability to accommodate change arising from
developments. The sensitivity of LR2-4 is considered to be Low.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-9
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
LR2-5 Watercourse
LR2-5 refers to those natural watercourses of varying sizes connecting different types of
wetlands and providing drainage to the Assessment Area. LR2-5 is entirely within Mai Po Inner
Deep Bay Ramsar Site. The riparian vegetation are naturally established dominated by species
including herbs Cyperus malaccensis, Brachiaria mutica and Ludwigia hyssopifolia, mangal
vegetation Acrostichum aurreum and Acanthus ilicifolius and some tree and shrub species such
as Morus alba, Melia azedarach ad Musa x paradisiaca. LR2-5 is a fairly common feature in the
New Territories and is largely natural but might have been subject to minor modifications (e.g.
channelization/ drainage diversion works at intervals to connect to existing drainage systems).
As such, LR2-5 is considered to have medium ability to accommodate change arising from
developments. ILR2-5 is considered to have Medium sensitivity to change.
LR2-6 Buffalo Marsh
LR2-6 (pond no. 17b) of approximately 20,000 m
2
was previously a rain-fed pond which was
overgrown with spreading reed with little aquatic plants. As a reed control experiment, habitat
enhancement work had been implemented by WWF in pond no. 17b since 2020 to remove
excessive reeds. Water buffalos had also been introduced to control reed growth and
vegetation height through grazing. LR1-6 was found containing some water in low-lying area
portions and little vegetation during the recent site visit. As an actively manged, almost drained
pond with little vegetation and low amenity, LR2-6 is considered to have high ability to
accommodate change and Low sensitivity to change from developments.
LR3 – Planting Surrounding Development Area
LR3-1 Planting Surrounding Development Area
LR3-1 mainly refers to the existing plantings in residential areas at Fairview Park and Palm
Springs, a few village houses next to the MPNR’s entrance, other associated man-made facilities
(e.g. PSFSC) in the G/IC zone, and any man-made features (e.g. paved foot-paths) and facilities in
MPNR. Landscape resources such as trees/ shrubs in this category is found surrounding/
adjacent to buildings, walls, roads, car parks, and open space, etc. Vegetation in the developed
areas are confined to the open space in the residential estates and roadside plantings,
dominated by ornamental species such as Lagerstroemia speciosa, Bauhinia x blakeana, Caryota
maxima and Archontophoenix alexandrae and fruit tree species. This type of man-made
landscape resources is common and widespread throughout Hong Kong, and is subject to on-
going modifications/ redevelopment and undergoing small-scale changes. It is considered to
have high ability to accommodate change. Sensitivity of LR3-1 is considered as Low.
The list of LRs and their sensitivity to change are summarised in Table 9-3, below.
Existing Trees Within the Project Site
Based on the Updating Tree Survey Report prepared in March 2021 for this Project (Appendix
D1), a total of 383 nos. of trees of 22 species were found within the Project Site. No registered or
potentially registrable Old and Valuable Tree (OVT) or rare/ protected tree species were
recorded within the Project Site. In general, the conditions of the trees within the Project Site
were found to be fair to poor. The average tree height was found to be 9m. The dominant native
tree species are Celtis sinensis and Cerbera manghas, and the main exotic plantation species are
Casuarina equisetifolia and Melia azedarach.
As there will be no excavation work along the existing footpath during the construction phase,
and the design of the new footpaths has carefully taken into account the existing tree locations,
all trees within the Project Site will be retained and no tree felling or pruning is required.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-10
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-3 LRs and their Sensitivity
REF.
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
QUALITY
(HIGH/
MEDIUM/
LOW)
RARITY
(HIGH/
MEDIUM
/ LOW)
IMPORTANCE OF LANDSCAPE
RESOURCES IN LOCAL AND
REGIONAL CONTEXT
(LOCAL/DISTRICT/REGIONAL)
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS/
REQUIREMENTS
ABILITY TO
ACCOMMODATE
CHANGE
(HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
SENSITIVITY
(HIGH/
MEDIUM/
LOW)
LR1-1
Mangrove
High
High
Regional
SSSI/ Ramsar Site
Low
High
LR1-2
Brackish Marsh
High
High
Regional
CA/ Ramsar Site
Low
High
LR1-3
Wooded Area
Medium
Low
Local
GIC/SSSI/ Ramsar Site
Medium
Low
LR1-4
Reed
Medium
Low
Regional
SSSI/ Ramsar Site
Medium
Medium
LR2-1
Brackish gei wai
High
High
Regional
SSSI/ Ramsar Site
Low
High
LR2-2
Rain-fed Pond
High
High
Regional
SSSI/ Ramsar Site
Low
High
LR2-3
Commercial Fishpond
High
Medium
District
CA/SSSI/SSSI(1)
Medium
Medium
LR2-4
Channelised Watercourse
Low
Low
Local
R(C)
High
Low
LR2-5
Watercourse
High
Medium
Local
CA/SSSI/SSSI(1)/ Ramsar Site
Low
Medium
LR2-6
Buffalo Marsh
Low
Low
Regional
SSSI/ Ramsar Site
High
Low
LR3-1
Planting surrounding
Development Area
Low
Low
Local
CA/R(C)
High
Low
Notes: 1. “Local importance”: landscape resources which are generally common and widespread locally; “District importance”: landscape resources which are significant to the district; “Regional
Importance”: landscape resources considered to be of international significance.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-11
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Landscape Character Areas
With reference to the Landscape Character Map of Hong Kong (PlanD 2005) and supplemented
by field surveys, a total of four LCAs were identified within the 500m Assessment Area as listed
in Table 9-4 and described in the following sections.
Table 9-4 List of LCAs within the 500m Assessment Area
REF.
LCA
EXTENT (m
2
)
LCA1
Comprehensive Residential Development Area: Fairview Park and Palm Springs
548,620
LCA2
Inter-tidal Coast Landscape: Mai Po Nature Reserve (Frontier Closed Area)
1,298,286
LCA3
Offshore Water Landscape: Shan Pui River and Deep Bay
45,075
LCA4
Rural Coastal Plain Landscape: Mai Po Nature Reserve and Adjacent Ponds
4,253,713
Figure 9-4 shows the locations of these LCAs and Figure 9-5 provides a photographic record
showing typical views of each of these LCAs, with Photograph 9-2 showing examples of the most
prevalent types of LCA.
Photograph 9-2 Top Three LCAs by Extent
LCA4 Mai Po Nature Reserve
LCA2 MPNR (Frontier Closed Area)
LCA1 Fairview Park and Palm
Springs
LCA1 Comprehensive Residential Development Area: Fairview Park & Palm Springs
LCA1 is characterized as ‘Comprehensive Residential Development Area’. It comprises two major
low-rise residential development areas (Fairview Park & Palm Springs). They consist of generally
low-rise buildings with generous soft landscape provision. The Landscape Value Map of Hong
Kong categorises it as ‘High (Qualified)’ in value. Quality and maturity of LCA1 is considered high
given its generous greenery provision and active management to optimize the aesthetic value.
LCA1 is considered a common landscape character in the New Territories (i.e. of low rarity) and
it has high ability to accommodate change through active management. The sensitivity of LCA1 is
considered as Low when it is subject to potential impacts from low-rise developments.
LCA2 Inter-tidal Coast Landscape: Mai Po Nature Reserve (Frontier Closed Area)
LCA2 is characterized as ‘Inter-tidal Coast Landscape’ and is largely covered in Tai Long Kei and
Shek Shan SSSI. Lying between the high and low water tidal levels, it comprisesextensive
mangrove habitats. As mangrove supports high biodiversity from the ecological perspective, as
well as being rated as ‘High’ in value in the Landscape Value Map of Hong Kong, quality and
maturity of LCA2 is considered high. Being designated as a SSSI, LCA2 is an uncommon
landscape character both locally and internationally. LCA2 is considered to have low ability to
accommodate change arising from developments, and its sensitivity is generally considered as
High when it is subject to potential impacts from most types of developments.
LCA3 Offshore Water Landscape: Shan Pui River and Deep Bay
LCA3 is characterized as ‘Offshore Water Landscape’ which refers to the open water leading from
Shan Pui River entering Deep Bay. It forms part of the Mai Po Ramsar site and part of Lut Chau
SSSI and thus considered to be of regional importance. LCA3 is a marine LCA considered as ‘High’
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-12
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
in value in the Landscape Value Map of Hong Kong as it is predominately undeveloped and
natural, with high quality and maturity. There is only a small portion of this LCA lying along the
southwestern margin of the 500m Assessment Area. LCA3 is considered to be of high sensitivity
to change arising from reclamation, quarry or landfill works which are not involved in this Project.
LCA4 Rural Coastal Plain Landscape: Mai Po Nature Reserve and Adjacent Ponds
LCA4 is characterized as ‘Rural Coastal Plain Landscape’ and includes the majority of Tai Long Kei
and Shek Shan SSSI, part of Lut Chau SSSI and some areas of the CA zone. It comprises
commercial fishponds, brackish marshes as well as gei wai. LCA4 is rated as “High” in value in the
Landscape Value Map of Hong Kong. As it comprises an extensive plain of wetland mosaic, it is
considered of high quality and amenity and an uncommon landscape character area in Hong
Kong. The Project Site is entirely within this LCA4. LCA4 is subject to routine management for
conservation purposes. It is considered to be of medium ability to accommodate change. LCA4
is considered to have Medium sensitivity to change due to the proposed works (low-rise
developments) of the Project.
A list of LCAs identified in the 500m Assessment and their sensitivity to change are summarised
in Table 9-5.
Table 9-5 LCAs and their Sensitivity
REF.
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
TYPE
QUALITY & MATURITY
(HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
RARITY
(HIGH/ MEDIUM/ LOW)
IMPORTANCE
(LOCAL/DISTRICT/ REGIONAL)
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS &
REQUIREMENTS
ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE
CHANGE
(HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
SENSITIVITY
(HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
LCA1
Comprehensive Residential
Development Area: Fairview
Park & Palm Springs
High
Low
Local
CA/R(C)
High
Low
LCA2
Inter-tidal Coast Landscape:
Mai Po Nature Reserve
(Frontier Closed Area)
High
High
Regional
SSSI
Low
High
LCA3
Offshore Water Landscape:
Shan Pui River and Deep Bay
High
Medium
Regional
SSSI
Low
High
LCA4
Rural Coastal Plain Landscape:
Mai Po Nature Reserve and
Adjacent Ponds
High
High
Regional
SSSI/CA
Low
Medium
Note: 1. “Local importance”: landscape character areas which are generally common and widespread locally; “District
importance”: landscape character areas which are significant to the district; “Regional Importance”:
landscape character areas considered to be of international significance.
Existing Visual Context
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
VSRs of the Project are listed in Table 9-6 and Table 9-7, below, and the baseline conditions of
their views and sensitivity to change during the construction and operation phases of the Project
are described as follows. The proposed scheme for visitor routing during construction of Project
is shown in Appendix D2.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-13
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-6 List of VSRs
VSR
NO.
LOCATION
DISTANCE TO CLOSEST
SOURCE (m)
HEIGHT OF
VIEWPOINT (mPD)
TYPE OF VIEW
(RURAL/DEVELOPED)
(OPEN/RESTRICTED)
(STATIC/TRANSIENT)
FUNCTIONAL VSRs
F-1
Commercial Fishpond
0
6
Rural
Open
Static
F-2
MPEC
0
12
Rural
Restricted
Static
F-3
Along Pond Bund of MPNR (near Pond No.20)
0
0
Rural
Restricted
Transient
LEISURE VSRs
L-1
Visitors outside the Entrance of MPNR
0
0
Rural
Restricted
Transient
L-2
Visitors in MPNR along the boardwalk
0
0
Rural
Restricted
Transient
L-3
Visitors in Main Tower Hide (TH1)
0
12
Rural
Restricted
Static
RESIDENTIAL VSRs
R-1
Villagers next to the Entrance of MPNR
23
6
Rural
Restricted
Static
Table 9-7 VSRs and their Sensitivity
VSR
NO.
LOCATION
APPLICABLE TO
DIFFERENT PHASE
(CONSTRUCTION/
OPERATION)
ESTIMATED NO.
RECEIVERS (FEW/
TYPICAL/ MANY)
VALUE &
QUALITY OF
EXISTING VIEW
(GOOD/FAIR/POOR)
AVAILABILITY &
AMENITY OF
ALTERNATIVE VIEWS
(GOOD/FAIR/LIMITED)
DEGREE OF VISIBILITY
(FULL/PARTIAL/GLIMPSE)
DURATION OF VIEW
(LONG/
MEDIUM/
SHORT)
SENSITIVITY
(LOW/ MEDIUM/ HIGH)
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
FUNCTIONAL VSRs
F-1
Commercial Fishpond
Con/Op
Few
Good
Good
Glimpse
Glimpse
Medium
Low
Low
F-2
MPEC
Con/Op
Few
Good
Good
Glimpse
Glimpse
Short
Low
Low
F-3
Along Pond Bund of MPNR (near Pond No.20)
Con/Op
Few
Good
Good
Partial
Partial
Short
Medium
Medium
LEISURE VSRs
L-1
Visitors outside the Entrance of MPNR
Con/Op
Typical
Fair
Fair
Glimpse
Glimpse
Short
Low
Low
L-2
Visitors in MPNR along the boardwalk
Con/Op
Few
Good
Good
Partial
Partial
Short
Medium
Medium
L-3
Visitors in Main Tower Hide (TH1)
Con/Op
Few
Good
Good
Glimpse
Glimpse
Short
Low
Low
RESIDENTIAL VSRs
R-1
Villagers next to the Entrance of MPNR
Con/Op
Few
Fair
Limited
Glimpse
Glimpse
Short
Low
Low
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-14
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Zone of Visual Influence
The Project only involves low-rise components (two 3-storey tower hides and new boardwalk
above the existing footpath at ground level). The Project Site is surrounded by ponds on all sides
and can only be accessed through existing visitor routes of MPNR and some pond bunds of the
adjacent commercial fish ponds. In view of the limited footprint of the Project, the Assessment
Area for VIA is defined by the ZVI within which the proposed scheme/ works can be viewed only
by local VSRs. Types of VSRs and their ZVI are shown on Figures 9-6.1, 9-6.2 and 9-6.3.
Functional VSRs
Functional VSRs generally refer to those viewers who view the Project from their workplaces,
institutional and educational buildings. These viewers are generally more focused on their work
or the educational activities that they are engaged in, and are considered to be relatively less
sensitive to change compared to Residential VSRs. A total of three Functional VSRs were
identified (all are present in very few numbers), including the workers from commercial fish
ponds (F-1), staff/workers at MPEC (although this is not a true “educational building” such as a
school or university) (F-2) and workers along the pond bund of MPNR near Pond No. 20 (F-3).
For the workers of commercial fish ponds (F-1), the only visible Project Element would be a
portion of the proposed footpaths along the existing visitor route. Other Project Elements would
be significantly screened off by existing tall trees at MPNR. As F-1 can enjoy 360 degrees of open
outdoor view of good amenity value and can possibly view the Project Elements at ground level,
the sensitivity of F-1 to visual change as a result from the Project is considered to be Low.
F-2 refers to a few WWF staff who are working at MPEC and can view a small portion of the
works areas of the new footpaths from the small windows or the platform on the second floor of
MPEC. F-2 can glimpse the Project Site when they travel to their workplace. Sensitivity of F-2 is
considered to be Low.
F-3 refers to the very few WWF field workers and researchers working along the pond bund near
Pond No. 20. Views of F-3 are intermittently restricted by existing trees at intervals and they can
only view the proposed TH2 and the new access when they come close to the Project site. F-3 is
considered to have Medium sensitivity to visual change due to the Project.
Leisure VSRs
Leisure VSRs are viewers who are enjoying leisure, cultural, recreational and/or educational
activities and their views could be easily distracted by the immediately adjacent amenity
landscapes or activities they are engaged in. Leisure VSRs in this Project refer to the visitors of
MPNR; and their views and sensitivity can vary according to their locations: visitors just outside
the entrance of MPNR (L-1) are considered to have Low sensitivity to the Project as they can
only glimpse a tiny portion of the Project site (the proposed footpaths). After the visitors enter
the MPNR and walk along the visitor route (L-2), they can partially view the proposed footpaths
and TH3 during construction phase(s) and all other development components during the
operation of Project, with most of the views being intermittently blocked by existing trees. The
visitors (L-3) are considered to be least sensitive when they are bird-watching at the existing
tower hide TH1, from which they are only expected to notice minor changes due to the
proposed works at TH3 approximately 100m from TH1. Sensitivity of L-2 and L-3 to visual change
due to the Project is considered to be Medium and Low respectively.
Residential VSRs
Residential VSRs (R-1) refers to the very few village residents next to the entrance of MPNR. R-1
cannot view the Project site from their home(s). However, R-1 can glimpse a tiny portion of the
proposed footpaths at the entrance of MPNR when they are travelling home. Sensitivity of R-1
to visual change due to the Project is considered to be Low.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-15
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
9.6 Impact Assessment and Evaluation
Potential Sources of Impacts
During the construction phase, landscape and visual impacts may result from the following:
Minor site clearance works (from trimming of existing vegetation (shrubs, bamboo and herbs)
for the construction of new Tower Hides 2 & 3 and new access paths)
Building works
Construction traffic
Presence of construction machinery and equipment. temporary parking areas, construction
storage, site offices and facilities of works areas
Temporary works hoardings, barriers and enclosures
Construction dust and waste materials
During the operational phase, landscape and visual impacts may result from the following:
Operation of the new footpaths and Tower Hides 2 and 3
Routine vegetation maintenance along the new access to Tower Hides 2 and 3
Loss of visual amenity previously present at the Project Site
Landscape Impact Assessment
Construction Phase without Mitigation
The Project will have direct impacts on the following LRs and LCA:
LR3-1 Planting Surrounding Developed Area due to upgrading of existing paved footpath (no net
loss in any man-made features (e.g. paved foot-paths) and facilities in MPNR and no loss of
existing trees)
LR2-1 Brackish Gei Wai (~490m
2
) and LR2-2 Rain-fed Pond (~170m
2
) due to construction of
the two new Tower Hides (TH2 and TH3) and the new access paths connecting the new THs
LCA4 Rural Coastal Plain Landscape: Mai Po Nature Reserve and Adjacent Ponds within
which the Project elements are located
Given the small-scale and limited footprints of the Project Elements and that no felling or
pruning of existing trees is anticipated, the magnitude of change in all the affected LRs and LCA
is considered to be Small (Table 9-8).During the construction phase (a short, temporary period),
the Project is considered to result in Moderate impacts on LR2-1 and LR2-2 which are
considered to be of High sensitivity; and only Slight impacts on LR3-1 which is an already
“developed area” having Low sensitivity. The overall construction phase impacts on LCA4 with
Medium sensitivity are considered to be Slight.
The Project is not considered to result in any noticeable changes to any off-site LRs or LCAs
during the construction phase of the Project.
Operation Phase without Mitigation
The Project will result in permanent loss of small areas of LR2-1 (~490m
2
) and LR2-2 (~170m
2
),
but no net loss of LR3-1 (due to construction of new boardwalks above existing paved footpath).
The magnitude of change in all affected LRs and LCA4 is considered to be Small. During the
operation phase for an unmitigated scenario, the Project is expected to result in Moderate
severity of landscape impacts on LR2-1 and LR2-2 which are considered to have High sensitivity
to developments. Only Slight landscape impacts on LR3-1 are anticipated from the operation of
the upgraded boardwalks which are a previously paved footpath. LCA4 which is considered to
have Medium sensitivity to low-rise/ small-scaled developments will experience Slight impacts
from the operation of Project.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-16
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The Project is not considered to result in any noticeable changes to any off-site LRs or LCAs
during the operation of Project. Table 9-9, below, summarises the severity of landscape impacts
during construction and operation phases of Project.
Visual Impact Assessment
Construction Phase without Mitigation
The magnitude of change in visual quality of the VSRs depends on a number of factors including
compatibility of the Project with the surrounding visual environments, duration of impacts, scale
of development, reversibility of change, viewing distance and blockage of view when the Project
is in place. The Project is considered to have Fair compatibility with the surrounding
environment given its small scale of development and the low level of blockage of existing view.
The field workers working at the pond bund near gei wai No. 20 (i.e. F-3) who can partially view
the proposed TH2 and the new access connecting TH2 when coming close to these Project
elements are expected to notice a Medium level of visual changes during the construction
phase. L-2 who are the visitors in MPNR are relatively more mobile and will notice Small to
Medium level of visual changes when they travel along the visitor routes during Project
construction, with most of their views being intermittently blocked by existing trees at intervals.
These VSRs are expected to experience Moderate visual impacts at Project construction phase.
The remaining VSRs with Low sensitivity are expected to notice Negligible visual changes and
experience Insubstantial impacts from the construction of Project.
Operation Phase without Mitigation
The VSRs L-2 and F-3 who are expected to notice Small to Medium level of visual changes are
expected to experience Moderate visual impacts from the operation of the Project without
mitigation. As in the construction phase, the remaining VSRs who are considered to have Low
sensitivity are expected to experience only Negligible changes and Insubstantial visual impacts
during operation of Project.
Table 9-10 and Table 9-11, below, summarise the severity of visual impacts during construction
and operation phases of Project.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-17
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-8 Summary of Magnitude of Change in Landscape Resources (LRs) and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) Before Mitigation
REF.
LANDSCAPE
SENSITIVE
RECEIVERS
COMPATIBILITY
WITH
SURROUNDINGS
(GOOD/FAIR/POOR)
DURATION OF
IMPACTS
(LONG/MEDIUM/
SHORT/NIL)
SOURCE AND DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS
REVERSIBILITY OF
CHANGE
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL
/ NEGLIGIBLE)
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES (LRs)
LR1-1
Mangrove
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR1-2
Brackish Marsh
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR1-3
Wooded Area
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR1-4
Reed
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR2-1
Brackish Gei
Wai
Fair
Fair
Short
Short
Approximately 490m
2
area of Brackish Gei
Wai will be lost due to construction of two
new Tower Hides (TH2 and TH3) and the new
access paths connecting the new THs.
No
No
Small
Small
LR2-2
Rain-fed Pond
Fair
Fair
Short
Short
Approximately 170m
2
area of Rain-fed Pond
will be lost due to construction of two new
Tower Hides (TH2 and TH3) and the new
access paths connecting the new THs.
No
No
Small
Small
LR2-3
Commercial
Fishpond
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR2-4
Channelised
Watercourse
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR2-5
Watercourse
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR2-6
Buffalo Marsh
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LR3-1
Developed
Area
Good
Good
Short
Short
Upgrading of existing paved footpath will be
conducted within LR3-1. This will involve
conversion of the existing paved footpath
into a new wooden boardwalk. There will be
no net loss of any man-made features and
facilities in MPNR and no net loss of existing
trees.
No
No
Small
Small
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-18
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
REF.
LANDSCAPE
SENSITIVE
RECEIVERS
COMPATIBILITY
WITH
SURROUNDINGS
(GOOD/FAIR/POOR)
DURATION OF
IMPACTS
(LONG/MEDIUM/
SHORT/NIL)
SOURCE AND DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS
REVERSIBILITY OF
CHANGE
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL
/ NEGLIGIBLE)
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS (LCAs)
LCA1
Comprehensive
Residential
Development
Area
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LCA2
Inter-tidal
Coast
Landscape
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LCA3
Offshore Water
Landscape
Good
Good
Nil
Nil
Nil
No
No
Negligible
Negligible
LCA4
Rural Coastal
Plain Landscape
Good
Good
Short
Short
The construction of new Tower Hides and
upgrading of existing footpaths/ construction
of new access linking these Tower Hides (i.e.
the impacts on LR2-1, LR2-2 and LR3-1 as
stated above) are all within LCA4.
No
No
Small
Small
Note: CON = construction phase, OP = operation phase.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-19
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-9 Summary of Significance of Landscape Impacts
REF.
LANDSCAPE
SENSITIVE
RECEIVERS
SENSITIVITY
(HIGH/
MEDIUM/
LOW)
TOTAL
AREA TO
BE
AFFECTED
(m
2
)
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL/
NEGLIGIBLE)
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD WITHOUT
MITIGATION
(SUBSTANTIAL/MODERATE/
SLIGHT/INSUBSTANTIAL)
MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESIDUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD AFTER MITIGATION
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
DAY 1
YEAR 10
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES (LRs)
LR1-1
Mangrove
High
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR1-2
Brackish Marsh
High
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR1-3
Wooded Area
Low
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR1-4
Reed
Medium
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR2-1
Brackish Gei
Wai
High
490
Small
Small
Moderate
Moderate
CM1,
CM2
CM3,
CM4
OM1,
OM2
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
LR2-2
Rain-fed Pond
High
170
Small
Small
Moderate
Moderate
CM1,
CM2
CM3,
CM4
OM1,
OM2
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
LR2-3
Commercial
Fishpond
Medium
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR2-4
Channelised
Watercourse
Low
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR2-5
Watercourse
Medium
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR2-6
Buffalo Marsh
Low
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LR3-1
Developed Area
Low
Nil (No net
loss)
Small
Small
Slight
Slight
CM1,
CM2
CM3,
CM4
OM1
Insubstantial
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Beneficial with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Beneficial with
Mitigation)
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-20
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
REF.
LANDSCAPE
SENSITIVE
RECEIVERS
SENSITIVITY
(HIGH/
MEDIUM/
LOW)
TOTAL
AREA TO
BE
AFFECTED
(m
2
)
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL/
NEGLIGIBLE)
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD WITHOUT
MITIGATION
(SUBSTANTIAL/MODERATE/
SLIGHT/INSUBSTANTIAL)
MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESIDUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD AFTER MITIGATION
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
DAY 1
YEAR 10
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREA (LCAs)
LCA1
Comprehensive
Residential
Develop. Area
Low
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LCA2
Inter-tidal Coast
Landscape
High
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LCA3
Offshore Water
Landscape
N/A
-
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
LCA4
Rural Coastal
Plain Landscape
Medium
660
Small
Small
Slight
Slight
CM1,
CM2
CM3,
CM4
OM1,
OM2
Insubstantial
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Insubstantial
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Insubstantial
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Note: CON = construction phase, OP = operation phase.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-21
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-10 Summary of Magnitude of Change in Visual Quality of VSRs Before Mitigation
VSR
NO.
LOCATION
COMPATIBILITY
WITH
SURROUNDINGS
(GOOD/FAIR/
POOR)
DURATION OF
IMPACTS
(LONG/MEDIUM
/SHORT/NIL)
SCALE OF
DEVELOPMENT
(LARGE/
MEDIUM/
SMALL)
REVERSIBILITY
OF CHANGE
(YES/ NO)
THE
SHORTEST
VIEWING
DISTANCE
(m)
POTENTIAL
BLOCKAGE OF
VIEW
(HIGH/MEDIUM/
LOW)
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL
/NEGLIGIBLE)
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
FUNCTIONAL VSRs
F-1
Commercial Fishpond
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
F-2
MPEC
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
F-3
Along Pond Bund of MPNR
(near Pond No.20)
Poor
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
LEISURE VSRs
L-1
Visitors outside the
Entrance of MPNR
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
L-2
Visitors in MPNR along the
boardwalk
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Small to
Medium
Small to
Medium
L-3
Visitors in Main Tower
Hide (TH1)
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
0
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
RESIDENTIAL VSRs
R-1
Villagers next to the
Entrance of MPNR
Fair
Good
Short
Long
Small
No
No
23
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Note: CON = construction phase, OP = operation phase.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-22
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 9-11 Summary of Significance of Visual Impacts after Mitigation
VSR
NO.
LOCATION
SENSITIVITY
(HIGH/MEDIUM/ LOW)
MAGNITUDE OF
CHANGE
(LARGE/MEDIUM/
SMALL/NEGLIGIBLE)
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD WITHOUT
MITIGATION
(SUBSTANTIAL/MODERATE/
SLIGHT/INSUBSTANTIAL)
MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESIDUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD AFTER MITIGATION
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
CON
OP
DAY 1
YEAR 10
FUNCTIONAL VSRs
F-1
Commercial Fishpond
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
F-2
MPEC
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
F-3
Along Pond Bund of
MPNR (near gei wai
No.20)
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
CM2, CM3,
CM4, OM1,
OM2
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
LEISURE VSRs
L-1
Visitors outside the
Entrance of MPNR
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
(Beneficial)
Insubstantial
(Beneficial)
L-2
Visitors to MPNR along
the boardwalk
Medium
Medium
Small to
Medium
Small to
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
CM2, CM3,
CM4, OM1,
OM2
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigaiton)
Slight
(Acceptable
with
Mitigation)
L-3
Visitors in Main Tower
Hide (TH1)
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
RESIDENTIAL VSRs
R-1
Villagers next to the
Entrance of MPNR
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
-
Insubstantial
Insubstantial
(Beneficial)
Insubstantial
(Beneficial)
Note: CON = construction phase, OP = operation phase.
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-23
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
9.7 Mitigation/Enhancement Measures
The Project itself is considered to enhance the landscape/visual quality of the existing footpath
overall through conversion of a hard-paved path into natural-looking wooden boardwalks.
However, the Project also introduces new features (i.e. the new Tower Hides TH2 & TH3 and
new access paths connecting the new THs) with surface treatment suitable to a rural context.
The following types of mitigation/ enhancement measures or good site practice will be
implemented to avoid/ minimize potential construction impacts and enhance overall landscape/
visual quality of the site during Project operation:
Parties shall be identified for the ongoing management and maintenance of the proposed
mitigation works to ensure their effectiveness throughout the construction phase and
operational phase of the Project. Agreement from relevant authorities responsible for funding,
implementation, management and maintenance of proposed mitigation measures have to be
obtained before including into the LVIA. A practical programme for the implementation of the
recommended measures shall be provided
During construction, the following mitigation measures/good site practice shall be implemented,
managed and maintained by the Contractor, who shall be supervised by the Engineer. These
mitigation measures will be included in the Contractor’s construction programme, which shall be
approved by the Engineer:
CM1: No night-time lighting
CM2: Preservation and protection of existing trees and vegetation
CM3: Arrangement of the storage of materials
CM4: Erection of screen hoarding for new Tower Hides (TH2 and TH3) with surface colour
treatment suitable for a rural context
During operation, the following mitigation measures will be funded, implemented, managed and
maintained by the Project Proponent as part of the ongoing MPNR maintenance programme:
OM1: Suitable design of the proposed footpaths and bird-watching hides:
– Use of wooden boardwalks to fit in with the surrounding natural landscapes
– natural colour and non-reflective materials shall be used for the building façades of the
new Tower Hides
OM2: Screen planting at the access to the new Tower Hides:
– bamboo shall be used for screening, proposed bamboo species is Bambusa tuldoides (青
稈竹, 花眉竹)
To illustrate the predicted effectiveness of the proposed landscape/ visual mitigation measures
during operation of the Project, a series of photomontages (Figure 9-8) have been prepared at
representative viewpoint locations (Figure 9-7) to provide comparison between the existing
views, proposals on Day 1 of operation without mitigation, on Day 1 after mitigation, and in Year
10 after mitigation. The locations and details of proposed mitigation measures to mitigate
operation phase impacts are displayed in Figure 9-9.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoint VP01
The viewpoint VP01 represents a view from VSRs just outside the entrance of MPNR, including
the visitors of MPNR (L-1) and the nearby villagers (R-1) just passing by the entrance who can
both view a tiny portion of the proposed footpaths. These VSRs are expected to notice negligible
changes due to the conversion of the hard paved footpath into wooden boardwalks. With the
responsive design of the new footpaths, the overall visual impacts on these VSRs are considered
to be Acceptable and potentially Beneficial.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoint VP02
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-24
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The viewpoint VP02 represents a typical view from the workers of commercial fishponds (i.e. F-
1). Although F-1 can walk along the pond bund immediately linked with the existing visitor route
proposed for the new footpaths, it is expected that F-2 are more frequently working between
the fishponds at considerable distances from the new footpaths. As illustrated with the
photomontage, F-2 will notice negligible changes due to the construction of new footpaths
which are located at ground level and to be screened off by existing vegetation. The visual
impacts on F-2 are considered Insubstantial in the absence of mitigation, and Acceptable
during construction and operation of Project when mitigation measures are implemented.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoint VP03
The viewpoint VP03 represents a typical view seen by visitors who are bird-watching in the
existing Tower Hide (TH1)(i.e. L-3) when looking towards the location of the proposed TH3. As
shown in the photomontage, the proposed TH3 is located some 100m from L-3 who are
expected to notice negligible changes due to the Project when these VSRs are concentrating on
their bird-watching activities. The overall visual impacts on L-3 are considered to be
Insubstantial without mitigation, and Acceptable when mitigation measures are implemented.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoint VP04
The viewpoint VP04 represents a typical view from visitors of MPNR (L-2) and staff of MPEC (F-2)
who travel to work at the entrance of MPEC and be able to view a small portion of the new
footpaths. As shown in the photomontage, the finishes of the new footpaths appear to fit in well
with the existing natural environments. These VSRs are expected to notice negligible visual
changes with the responsive design of the new footpaths.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoint VP05
The viewpoint VP05 represents a view the workers along the pond bund of MPNR near gei wai
No. 20 (i.e. (F-3) who can view the proposed new access path connecting the proposed Tower
Hide TH2 when they come close to the Project elements. F-3 are expected to notice a Medium
level of visual changes and experience Moderate impacts from the construction of the new
access without mitigation (in the absence of screen planting). As illustrated in the
photomontages Day 1 and Year 10 of project operation, the view of the new access path will be
significantly softened and screened off by proposed bamboo planting on both sides of the path.
The overall visual impacts on F-3 are considered to be Acceptable when mitigation measures are
in place.
Photomontage for Key Viewpoints VP06 and VP07
The viewpoints VP06 and VP07 represent medium to long ranged views from distant viewers
who can be occasional visitors or staff of MPNR. As illustrated in the photomontages, the
viewers are not expected to perceive any noticeable visual changes as a result of the Project.
The severity of visual impacts after implementation of mitigation measures are summarised in
Table 9-9 and Table 9-10, above.
9.8 Residual Impacts
With full implementation of the mitigation/enhancement measures as detailed above, no
adverse residual impacts are anticipated from the construction and operation of the Project. All
the residual landscape and visual impacts from the upgrading of existing facilities due to the
Project are considered to be Acceptable, and potentially Beneficial.
9.9 Cumulative Impacts
The demolition and rebuild of PSFSC near MPNR will have been completed by March 2022
whereas the construction of this Project will commence at end-April 2022. As such, the
demolition and rebuild of PSFSC will not be carried out concurrently with this Project. There are
Landscape and Visual Impact
9-25
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
also no other concurrent projects near MPNR. Thus, cumulative landscape and visual impacts for
this Project is not anticipated.
As shown in the Project Programme in Figure 2-6, there are also no concurrent works related to
the MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and so no cumulative landscape and visual impacts.
9.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
Implementation of the recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures described in
Section 9.7 should be conducted in accordance with the standalone Environmental Monitoring
and Audit (EM&A) Manual. Key components of EM&A requirements are summarised as follows:
Baseline monitoring of conditions of LRs and LCAs prior to start of construction works.
Regular site inspection and audit during the construction phase to ensure proper
implementation of mitigation measures/ good site practice to minimize or mitigate potential
landscape and visual impacts.
The extent of works areas should be regularly checked by the Environmental Team (ET) to
ensure no damage to existing vegetation or trees outside the works limits.
Implementation of bamboo screen planting (at TH2 and TH3) and subsequent maintenance
for an establishment period over 36 months.
The conditions and growth performance of the implemented bamboo screen plantings
should be regularly checked and monitored by a qualified plant specialist of the ET to ensure
the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
9.11 Conclusion
Based on the assessment, the Project will result in loss of small areas of natural landscape
resources (i.e. LR2-1 Brackish gei wai (bund, not water area) and LR2-2 Rain-fed Pond (bund, not
water area)) due to the construction of new tower hides and new access connecting the new
tower hides. There will be no net loss of LR3-1 Developed Area due to the proposed new
boardwalk. The Project is considered to result in only Small changes in the affected LRs and LCA4
Rural Coastal Plain Landscape within which the Project elements are located. The resulting
construction and operational phase impacts on the affected LRs/ LCA4 range from Slight (LR3-1
and LCA4) to Moderate (LR2-1 and LR2-2) without mitigation.
The Project is considered to have Fair compatibility with the surrounding environments given its
small scale/ limited footprints of development and low level of blockage of existing view that
may arise. Most of the VSRs who are considered to have Low sensitivity will only notice
Negligible changes and experience Insubstantial visual impacts from the construction and
operation of the Project. However, there are some VSRs including the visitors in MPNR (L-2) and
workers along the pond bund near Pond No. 20 (F-3) who can view different portions the Project
elements and will notice Small to Medium level of visual changes during construction and/or
operation of the Project. The resulting visual impacts on L-2 and F-3 are expected to be
Moderate without mitigation.
With full implementation of the mitigation measures as recommended in Section 9.7 including
responsive design of the new Tower Hides and footpaths, and implementation of bamboo
screen plantings at the new Tower Hides, the overall landscape and visual impacts resulting from
the construction and operation of Project are all considered to be Acceptable, and some of the
receivers (e.g. LR3-1 Developed Area, and the VSRs L-1 and R-1 located outside the entrance of
MPNR) may experience potentially Beneficial impacts from new boardwalk that is more
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding natural landscapes.
The Project is not anticipated to result in any cumulative impacts from concurrent projects as
there are no concurrent projects in the 500m Assessment Area.In conclusion, any potential
landscape and visual impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project are all
considered to be Acceptable when appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
10 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDIT (EM&A)
REQUIREMENTS
10.1 Introduction
An EM&A programme is proposed to ensure compliance with the recommendations in the EIA
study to assess the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures and to identify any
further need for additional mitigation measures or remedial action.
In addition to the Project Proponent (as the Employer’s Representative) and the Construction
Contractor, the EM&A programme also requires the participation of an Environmental Team (ET)
and an Independent Environmental Checker (IEC), both of whom shall be engaged by the Project
Proponent.
Full details of the EM&A programme, the monitoring requirements, site inspection/audit
requirements, and the primary responsibilities and duties of the key EM&A programme
participants are provided in Volume IV: EM&A Manual for the Project. The following sections
summarise these requirements:
10.2 Air Quality
Air quality impacts were assessed in Chapter 3. Based on the assessment results, and with the
implementation of the recommended dust suppression measures, no adverse air quality impact
from the Project is anticipated at off-site ASRs during construction. No air quality monitoring is
therefore deemed necessary. Nevertheless, regular site environmental audit is recommended to
ensure the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. When there are ongoing construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall
carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once
every two weeks.
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
Mitigation measures to prevent construction phase dust impacts have been recommended in
Section 3.7. All the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the implementation
schedule in Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be responsible for the
design and implementation of these mitigation measures.
10.3 Noise
Noise impacts were assessed in Chapter 4. Based on the assessment results, and with the
implementation of recommended noise control measures, no adverse noise impact from the
Project is anticipated at off-site NSRs during construction. No noise monitoring is therefore
deemed necessary for NSRs. Nevertheless, regular site environmental audit is recommended to
ensure the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. When there are ongoing construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall
carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once
every two weeks.
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
Mitigation measures to prevent construction phase noise impacts have been recommended in
Section 4.9. All the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the implementation
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
schedule in Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be responsible for the
design and implementation of these mitigation measures.
10.4 Water Quality
Water quality impacts were assessed in Chapter 5 and identified that Deep Bay, the gei wai,
Shan Pui Rivier, commercial fishponds and SSSIs adjacent to and within the Site and the natural
watercourses running through the Assessment Area as Water Sensitive Receivers (WSRs).
Paragraph 5.4.12-5.4.29 therefore recommended a series of stringent mitigation measures to
be implemented at each works site to ensure that no contaminated run-off enters the fishponds
or gei wai, and from there potentially into Deep Bay.
With the implementation of water pollution control measures no adverse water quality impact
from the Project is anticipated during construction. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure and
to demonstrate that the “Zero Water Pollution” approach is working, it is proposed to carry out
water quality EM&A before, during and (if required) after the foundation works at TH2 and TH3.
Monitoring
Parameters, Equipment and Analysis
The following parameters are related to construction activity:
Water depth – to be measured in-situ
pH – to be measured in-situ
Temperature in
o
C – to be measured in-situ
Salinity in mg/L – to be measured in-situ
Turbidity in NTU – to be measured in-situ
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) in % saturation and mg/L – to be measured in-situ
Suspended Solids (SS) in mg/L – to be determined in a laboratory
Oil and Grease (O&G) in mg/L – to be determined in a laboratory
Equipment provided by the ET to measure the above parameters shall include:
Portable, battery-operated echo sounder shall be used for the determination of water depth
at each designated monitoring station.
Portable pH Meter, which shall be checked, calibrated and certified before use by a HOKLAS
laboratory.
DO and Temperature Measuring Equipment capable of measuring DO in the range of 0 to 20
mg/L and 0 to 200% saturation and measuring temperate of 0-45
o
C, which shall be checked,
calibrated.
Portable salinometer capable of measuring salinity in the range of 0-40 mg/l shall be
provided for measuring salinity of the water and certified before use by a HOKLAS
laboratory.
Turbidity Measurement Equipment capable of measuring turbidity between 0-1000 NTU and
certified before use by a HOKLAS laboratory.
A high density 1L capacity polythene bottle shall be used to collect a water sample from just
below the water surface for SS measurements while water sample for O&G measurement
shall be collected in glass bottles and preserved by addition of H
2
SO
4
. At least two replicate
samples should be collected from each location. After fully filling the bottles, they shall be
cooled to 4
o
C without being frozen.
All in-situ monitoring equipment shall be checked, calibrated and certified by a laboratory
accredited under HOKLAS or any other international accreditation scheme before use, and
subsequently re-calibrated at 3 monthly intervals throughout all stages of the water quality
monitoring. Responses of sensors and electrodes shall be checked with certified standard
solutions before each use. Wet bulb calibration for a DO meter shall be carried out before
measurement at each monitoring location.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The water samples shall be delivered to a HOKLAS laboratory as soon as possible for analysis,
which shall start the next working day after collection of samples. Analyses shall follow standard
methods as described in APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th Edition, unless otherwise specified (APHA 2540D for SS and APHA 5520C for
O&G). The submitted information should include pre-treatment procedures, instrument use,
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) details (such as blank, spike recovery, number of
duplicate samples per-batch, etc.), detection limits and accuracy. The QA/QC details shall be in
accordance with requirements of HOKLAS.
In addition to the water quality parameters, other relevant data should also be measured and
recorded in field logs, including coordinates of the sampling stations, the location of
construction works at the time of sampling, sampling depth, weather conditions, special
phenomena and work activities undertaken around the monitoring and works area that may
influence the monitoring results, etc.
Monitoring Locations
Monitoring shall be carried out adjacent to the sluice gates connecting MPNR to Deep Bay that
are closest to the tower hides works areas, i.e. Sluice Gate 7 (closest to TH3) and Sluice Gate 19
(closest to TH2). Sluice Gate 7 and Sluice Gate 19 are the only connection of Gei Wai 7 and Gei
Wai 19 to Deep Bay. These locations are show Figure 10-1. Samples to be taken at the sluice
gate shall be at the depth of 1m below water surface. For stations with a water depth of less
than 1m, monitoring shall be carried out at the mid-depth. Water sampling shall not be taken if
water depth is less than 0.25m.
Baseline Monitoring
Baseline water quality monitoring at Sluice Gate 7 and Sluice Gate 19 shall be carried out three
times per week, with a minimum interval of 36 hours, for a period of four weeks prior to the
commencement of foundation works at TH2 and TH3. EPD shall be advised two weeks prior to
the start of baseline monitoring. A Baseline Monitoring Report shall be prepared by the ET,
verified by the IEC and then submitted to EPD within two weeks after completion of monitoring.
Baseline conditions for water quality shall be established and agreed with DEP prior to the
commencement of works.
Precautionary Monitoring
Precautionary water quality monitoring at Sluice Gate 7 and Sluice Gate 19 shall be carried out
three times per week, with a minimum interval of 36 hours, when foundation works are carried
out at TH2 and TH3. Each month that foundation works are carried out at TH2 and TH3, a
Monthly EM&A Report shall be prepared by the ET, verified by the IEC and then submitted to
EPD within two weeks after the end of the month.
Post-construction Monitoring (if Needed)
If, at the completion of foundation works, the final week of precautionary monitoring shows
more than two consecutive exceedances of Action and/or Limit Levels attributable to the
Project, then post-construction monitoring at Sluice Gate 7 and/or Sluice Gate 19 (as needed)
shall be carried out three times per week until readings return to baseline levels. On completion
of post-construction monitoring, a Final Summary EM&A Report will be prepared by ET, verified
by the IEC and then submitted to EPD within two weeks after completion of monitoring.
Action and Limit Levels and Event/Action Plan for Precautionary Monitoring
Precautionary monitoring results shall be evaluated against Action and Limit levels shown in
Table 10-1, below, with action being taken as per the Event/Action Plan shown in Table 10-2,
also below. Please note that the Event/Action Plan relates only to exceedances that are directly
attributable to the construction works of this Project, over which the installation contractor has
control. The advice of the IEC shall be sought in case of any concern.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-4
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 10-1 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
PARAMETER
ACTION LEVEL
LIMIT LEVEL
DO in mg/L
5
th
percentile of baseline data
1
st
percentile of baseline data
SS in mg/L
95
th
percentile of baseline data
99
th
percentile of baseline data
Turbidity in NTU
95
th
percentile of baseline data
99
th
percentile of baseline data
Table 10-2 Event / Action Plan for Water Quality
EVENT
CONTRACTOR / ET
IEC
ER
Action
Level
Exceedance
1. Repeat sampling event.
2. Inform EPD and AFCD
and confirm
notification of the non-
compliance in writing.
3. Discuss with contractor
and the IEC the most
appropriate method of
reducing water quality
pollution during
construction and agree
with EPD.
4. Repeat measurements
after implementation
of mitigation for
confirmation of
compliance.
5. If non-compliance
continues, increase
measures in Step 3 and
repeat measurement in
Step 4. If non-
compliance occurs a
third time, suspend
construction works and
continue sampling until
normal water quality
resumes.
1. Discuss with
Contractor/ET on the
mitigation measures
2. Review proposals on
mitigation measures
submitted by
Contractor and advise
the ER accordingly
3. Assess the
effectiveness of the
implemented
mitigation measures.
1. Discuss with IEC on the
proposed mitigation
measures;
2. Make agreement on
the mitigation
measures to be
implemented;
3. Assess the
effectiveness of the
implemented
mitigation measures.
Limit Level
Exceedance
Suspend construction
works and undertake Steps
1-4 immediately.
Construction works should
only continue when the
water quality shows
compliance again.
Undertake Steps 1-3
immediately.
Undertake Steps 1-3
immediately and consider
and instruct, if necessary,
the Contractor to slow
down or to stop all or part
of the marine work until no
exceedance of Limit level.
Audit
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. When there are ongoing construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall
carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once
every two weeks.
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
Mitigation measures to prevent construction phase water quality impacts have been
recommended in Section 5.6. All the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the
implementation schedule in Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be
responsible for the design and implementation of these mitigation measures.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-5
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
10.5 Waste Management
Waste Management impacts were assessed in Chapter 6. Based on the assessment results, and
with the proper handling, storage and disposal of wastes arising from the construction of the
Project, it is anticipated that the potential adverse environmental impacts relating to waste
would be avoided or minimised.
Measures to address potential waste management implications have been recommended in
Section 6.6. All the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the implementation
schedule in Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be responsible for the
design and implementation of these mitigation measures. When there are ongoing construction
works within the Project Site, the ET shall carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall
carry out audits jointly with the ET once every two weeks.
The Contractor should submit a WMP prior to the commencement of construction work, in
accordance with ETWB TC(W) No 19/2005 to provide an overall framework of waste
management and reduction.
10.6 Ecology
Ecological impacts were assessed in Chapter 7. Based on the assessment results, and with the
implementation of the recommended measures to minimise potential direct and indirect
impacts to ecological resources, no unacceptable ecological impact is anticipated.
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted both prior to and during the
construction phase of the Project to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. This should include checking that construction activity associated with TH2 has
completed two hours before sunset.
When there are ongoing construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall carry out
inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once every two
weeks.
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
Measures to address potential ecological impacts have been recommended in Section 7.9. All
the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the implementation schedule in
Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be responsible for the design and
implementation of these mitigation measures.
10.7 Fisheries
Fisheries impacts were assessed in Chapter 8. Based on the assessment results, no adverse
fisheries impact from the Project is anticipated.
Regular inspection and audit of each works area adjacent to fishponds shall be conducted during
the construction phase of the Project. When there are ongoing construction works within the
Project Site, the ET shall carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits
jointly with the ET once every two weeks.
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
10.8 Landscape and Visual
Landscape and visual impacts were assessed in Chapter 9. Based on the assessment results, and
with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no unacceptable landscape and
visual from the Project is anticipated during construction.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
10-6
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Baseline Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of construction works, a Baseline Landscape and Visual Report shall
be prepared to check, record and report the status of the Landscape Resources (LRs) and
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) within the works areas and the Visually Sensitive Receivers
(VSRs) within the visual envelope. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in the EIA
Report may be used to formulate the Baseline Monitoring Report provided that there have been
no significant changes to the status of LRs, LCAs and VSRs since the approval of the EIA Report.
If there have been significant changes to the status of LRs, LCAs and VSRs since the approval of
the EIA Report, the recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures should be reviewed
to determine if such changes warrant a change in the design of the landscape and visual
mitigation measures.
Audit
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure that proposed landscape and visual mitigation measures are
properly implemented and maintained as per their intended objectives. When there are ongoing
construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall carry out inspections once per week and
the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once every two weeks.
In addition to regular monitoring and audit of each works area, the required screen planting of
bamboos at TH2 and TH3 shall be inspected and audited on a monthly basis for the first twelve
months after planting; on a bi-monthly basis during the second twelve months (months 13 to 24
inclusive); and on a quarterly basis for the third twelve months (months 25 to 36 inclusive).
Inspection findings shall be logged in a site monitoring report with any discrepancies or concerns
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures highlighted.
Measures to address potential landscape and visual impacts have been recommended in Section
9.7. All the recommended mitigation measures are detailed in the implementation schedule in
Appendix E. Appropriate parties have been identified to be responsible for the design and
implementation of these mitigation measures.
Summary of Information
11-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
11 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
11.1 Summary of Environmental Outcomes
Chapter 2 outlines the details and benefit of the Project together with the consideration of
alternatives during the preliminary design stage, in which has taken into account of public
concern and findings of various engineering and environmental reviews. All of the options
considered have ensured that environmental impacts could be avoided or minimised where
practicable and mitigated, as needed, by implementing suitable measures to fulfil all the
statutory requirements.
The technical assessments in Chapters 3 to 9 have demonstrated compliance with all statutory
requirements in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017) and the EIAO-TM.
This section summarises the key environmental outcomes arising from this EIA study, the
estimated population protected from various environmental impacts, environmentally sensitive
areas protected, environmentally friendly options considered and incorporated in the preferred
option, environmental designs recommended, key environmental problems avoided,
compensation areas included and the environmental benefits of environmental protection
measures recommended.
Estimated Population Protected
Due to the remote location of the Project there is a relatively low resident population in the
vicinity. The environmental impacts resulting from the Project are minimal and no unacceptable
impacts on surrounding populations are predicted. There is no population that requires
“protection” due to this Project.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protected
The whole of the Project Site is an environmentally sensitive area – the Mai Po Nature Reserve –
as is the area surrounding the Project Site. It has been a fundamental requirement for the
Project Proponent that full protection to the unique ecology of MPNR is provided at all times
throughout the construction and operation of the Project.
The design decisions that have been made, the construction methodologies employed and the
EM&A programme that will be followed are all focused on avoiding or minimising impacts to the
ecologically sensitive MPNR and surrounding areas and to the fauna and flora contained therein.
As indicated in the Chapter 7, no adverse ecological impacts are predicted to result from the
construction and operation of the Project.
Environmentally Friendly Options and Designs
As described in Section 11.4, below, a number of environmentally friendly options and
environmental designs were considered and have been incorporated into the preferred design.
These can be summarised as follows:
Use of off-site pre-fabricated building elements for TH2 and TH3 to avoid the need for
construction on-site – the works on site will be predominantly assembly of pre-fabricated
components.
Concrete will be mixed off-site and brought into each works area only when needed and
only in the quantities required, so that there is no need to store (or dispose of) any surplus
concrete.
The existing concrete footpaths will be widened by construction of new boardwalks above
the existing paths and does not require the existing concrete to be removed – this will
remain in situ and untouched.
Summary of Information
11-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Key Environmental Problems Avoided
The key environmental problems that have been avoided in the preferred design can be
summarised as follows:
Choosing to construct TH3 rather than expand TH1 avoids root damage (possibly resulting in
its death) to an adjacent large tree from foundations works associated with the TH1
expansion.
Choosing not to construct the Circular Route avoids loss of mangrove and also avoids potential
loss of wetland habitat due to the physical presence of supporting posts in the gei wai.
Leaving the existing concrete footpaths in situ and untouched avoids the dust and noise
impacts associated with concrete breaking. Furthermore, there will be no concrete waste to
remove from site, which also reduces environmental impacts associated with the handling
and transportation off-site of this waste.
Off-site pre-fabrication of building elements for the two tower hides means that only
assembly is required on site and the typical dust impacts associated building construction
are avoided.
Mixing concrete off-site avoids the potential for runoff contaminated by cement fines and
concrete washings entering the gei wai adjacent to works areas. It also avoids the noise
impacts associated with concrete mixing.
Off-site maintenance/repair of plant avoids potential for runoff contaminated with resulting
oil, chemical waste or other polluting substances entering the gei wai adjacent to works areas.
Compensation Areas
No compensation areas have been proposed or are included in the Project.
Environmental Benefits of Environmental Protection Measures
The environmental benefits of the environmental protection measures recommended can be
summarised as follows:
Air Quality. Fugitive dust emission is reduced by regular watering of exposed site surfaces and
unpaved roads; by avoiding or covering open stockpiles; by enclosing any aggregate or dusty
material storage piles or else spraying them with water; by using tarpaulin to cover dusty
vehicle loads; by using water sprinklers in material loading areas; and by imposing speed
controls for vehicles within the Site.
Noise. There are no unacceptable noise impacts at off-site NSRs. Noise impacts on wildlife
will be avoided or minimised by employing off-site pre-fabrication of building elements for
TH2 and TH3; by keeping PME to a minimum and avoiding the parallel use of noisy
equipment/machinery; turning off unused equipment; and by regular maintenance (off-site)
of all plant and equipment.
Water Quality. During construction, zero contaminated runoff from works areas will be
achieved by programming the construction of footings/substructure at TH2 and TH3 only
when the adjacent gei wai are drained in accordance with the MPNR Management Plan
2019-2024. The draining of the gei wai adjacent to the works areas for the tower hides
effectively isolates these areas from the surrounding water bodies, there will be no
possibility of any water pollution due to the Project from entering Deep Bay. Furthermore,
zero contaminated runoff from works areas will be achieved through implementation of off-
site pre-fabrication; off-site concrete mixing; off-site maintenance/repair of plant; taking
extreme care when re-fuelling plant; covering materials, plant and equipment during
rainstorms; provision of chemical toilets; bunded, covered C&D Material storage areas; and
waterproof general waste receptacles. In addition, perimeter channels at site boundaries
shall be provided where necessary to intercept surface runoff from outside the works areas
so that it will not wash across the works areas; temporarily exposed slope surfaces shall be
Summary of Information
11-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
covered and temporary access roads shall be protected by crushed stone or gravel;
intercepting channels shall be provided to prevent storm runoff from washing across
exposed soil surfaces; earthworks final surfaces shall be well compacted and the subsequent
permanent work or surface protection shall be carried out immediately; and measures shall
be taken to minimise the ingress of rainwater into trenches.
Waste. The off-site disposal of waste shall be minimised by implementation of a WMP,
segregating waste to avoid cross-contamination, transporting inert C&D Material to the PFRF
at Tuen Mun Area 38, sending non-inert C&D waste to off-site recyclers, composting
vegetation waste within MPNR and sending recyclable waste to local recyclers. By
minimising the quantity of residual non-recyclable waste, the secondary impacts associated
with handling, transportation and disposal will be reduced.
Ecology. Flora and fauna will benefit from all of the above environmental protection
measures and aquatic species in gei wai and the wider Deep Bay area will benefit from zero
polluted run-off from construction areas. Disturbance on habitats and birds will be avoided
or minimised by prohibiting noisy outdoor construction work from 16 October to 15 April
each year.
Fisheries. All fisheries impacts are predicted to be of low significance, hence no mitigation
measures are proposed.
Landscape and Visual: With full implementation of the mitigation measures as
recommended in Section 9.7 including responsive design of the new Tower Hides and
footpaths, and implementation of bamboo screen planting at the new Tower Hides, the
overall landscape and visual impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
Project are all considered to be Acceptable, and some of the receivers may experience
potentially Beneficial impacts from new boardwalk that is more aesthetically compatible
with the surrounding natural landscapes.
11.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 11-1, below, summarises the environmental impacts, showing the assessment points,
results of impact predictions, relevant standards or criteria, extents of exceedances predicted,
impact avoidance measures considered, mitigation measures proposed and residual impacts
after mitigation.
Summary of Information
11-4
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 11-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
REF.
DESCRIPTION
CRITERIA
CUMULATIVE PREDICTION (MAX)
EXCEEDANCE
IMPACT AVOIDANCE
FURTHER MITIGATION
RESIDUAL IMPACT
AIR QUALITY
RSP
(24HR)
RSP
(ANNUAL
FSP
(24HR)
FSP
(ANNUAL)
ASR 1
Village House, Tam Kon Chau Road
(Residential)
Hong Kong AQOs:
RSP (24hr):
100µg/m
3
(9 exceedances)
RSP (Annual):
50µg/m
3
FSP (24hr): 75µg/m
3
(9 exceedances)
FSP (Annual):
35µg/m
3
The predicted background
concentrations of RSP and FSP
are well within the AQO limits.
Given that most of the dust
impacts typically associated with
on-site construction have been
avoided due to the off-site pre-
fabrication of building elements
and that the area of bare ground
(for construction of the
boardwalks) is also relatively
small, it is not considered that
dust arising from the
construction stage will result in
any exceedance of the AQOs
Not anticipated
Do not remove existing concrete footpaths –
leave in situ to avoid dust generation from
breaking
Off-site fabrication and off-site concrete
mixing reduces on-site dust generation
Measures that are recommended in the Air Pollution
Control (Construction Dust) Regulation
Regular watering to reduce dust emissions from
exposed site surfaces and unpaved roads, particularly
during dry weather
Open stockpiles shall be avoided or covered. Where
possible, prevent placing dusty materials storage piles
near ASRs.
Side enclosure of any aggregate or dusty material
storage piles to reduce emissions. Where this is not
practicable owing to frequent usage, spraying with
water shall be carried out
Tarpaulin covering of all dusty vehicle loads
transported to and from the Site
Use of water sprinklers at the loading area where dust
generation is likely during the loading process of loose
material, particularly in dry weather
Imposition of speed controls for vehicles within the
Site
Establishment and use of vehicle wheel and body
washing facilities at the exit of the Site to minimise
the fugitive dust emissions generated
Site layout should be carefully planned such that
machinery and dust causing activities (e.g. haul roads
and stockpiling areas) could be located away from the
ASR as far as possible
Where possible, routing of vehicles and positioning of
construction plant should be at the maximum
possible distance from ASRs
Solid screens are recommended to be erected
around any dusty construction activities
Nil
ASR 2
Occupied Container, Tam Kon Chau
Road (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 3
Village House, Boundary Road
(Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 4
Village House, Off Tam Kon Chau
Road (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 5
Village House/AFCD Nature Warden
Office (Residential/Office)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 6
House 43, Lychee Road West,
Fairview Park (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 7
House 1, Lychee Road South,
Fairview Park (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 8
House 1, Bauhinia Road West,
Fairview Park (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 9
House 89, Bauhinia Road West,
Fairview Park (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 10
House 183, Bauhinia Road West,
Fairview Park (Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 11
House 2, Ficus Road, Palm Springs
(Residential)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 12
Yeung’s Fish Farm (Office)
Not anticipated
Nil
ASR 13
Peter Scott Field Study Centre, Tam
Kon Chau Road
Not anticipated
Nil
NOISE
UNMITIGATED SCENARIO
NSR 1
Village House, Tam Kon Chau Road
EIAO-TM Table 1B:
Noise Level Leq(30
min): 75dB(A)
50 – 58
Nil
Do not remove existing concrete footpaths –
leave in situ to avoid noise generation from
breaking
Off-site fabrication and off-site concrete
mixing reduces on-site noise generation
Adopting the Code of Practice on Good Management
Practice to Prevent Violation of the NCO (for
Construction Industry) published by EPD
Before commencing any work, the Contractor shall
submit to the Project Engineer for approval the
method of working, equipment and noise mitigation
measures intended to be used at the Site
Devise and execute working methods to minimise the
noise impact on the surrounding sensitive uses, and
provide experienced personnel with suitable training
to ensure that those methods are implemented
PME should be kept to a minimum and the parallel
use of noisy equipment/machinery should be avoided
Turning off unused equipment
Regular maintenance (off-site) of all plant and
equipment
Nil
NSR 2
Occupied Container, Tam Kon Chau
Road
54 – 60
Nil
Nil
NSR 3
Village House, Boundary Road
56 – 61
Nil
Nil
NSR 4
Village House, Off Tam Kon Chau
Road
56 – 61
Nil
Nil
NSR 5
Village House, Near AFCD Nature
Warden Office
66 – 68
Nil
Nil
NSR 6
House 43, Lychee Road West,
Fairview Park
49 – 57
Nil
Nil
NSR 7
House 1, Lychee Road South,
Fairview Park
50 – 57
Nil
Nil
NSR 8
House 1, Bauhinia Road West,
Fairview Park
48 – 56
Nil
Nil
Summary of Information
11-5
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
REF.
DESCRIPTION
CRITERIA
CUMULATIVE PREDICTION (MAX)
EXCEEDANCE
IMPACT AVOIDANCE
FURTHER MITIGATION
RESIDUAL IMPACT
NSR 9
House 99, Bauhinia Road West,
Fairview Park
45 – 54
Nil
Nil
NSR 10
Peter Scott Field Study Centre, Tam
Kon Chau Road
Noise Level Leq(30
min): 70dB(A)
53 – 59
Nil
Nil
WATER QUALITY
Gei wai
adjacent to
works areas
and Deep
Bay WCZ
N/A
WQOs for Deep Bay
WCZ
No increase above ambient
conditions
Nil
Zero polluted run-off will be achieved by:
Off-site Pre-fabrication
Off-site Concrete Mixing
Off-site Maintenance/Repair of Plant
Extreme Care When Re-fuelling Plant
Covering Materials, Plant and Equipment
During Rainstorms
Provision of Chemical Toilets
Bunded, Covered C&D Material Storage Areas
Waterproof General Waste
In addition, by draining gei wais 7, 8a, 19 and
20e before start of foundation works for TH2
and TH3, full hydraulic isolation is achieved
and therefore zero impact on other gei wais
or Deep Bay WCZ.
As a precautionary measure and to demonstrate that
the “Zero Water Pollution” approach is working, it is
proposed to carry out water quality EM&A within
Deep Bay before, during and after the foundation
works at TH2 and TH3.
Nil
WASTE
TH2, TH3
and
Footpaths
N/A
N/A
Inert C&D Material: 96.0
tonnes
C&D Waste (non-inert): 13.1
tonnes
C&D Waste (vegetation):
157.6 tonnes
General Refuse:
13.6 tonnes
N/A
PFRF at Tuen Mun Area 38
Segregation + off-site recycling by local
recyclers
Composting within MPNR.
Segregation + off-site recycling by local
recyclers
9.3 tonnes of C&D waste and 9.7 tonnes of
general refuse to be properly disposed of at
landfill
Implementation of a WMP
Segregating waste to avoid cross-contamination
Practice Note for Registered Contractors No. 17
Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction
Sites shall be adopted
C&D Material shall be delivered to the appropriate
designated outlets by dump trucks fitted with
covered box type dump bed and such dump trunks
shall comply with the particular specification listed in
Part B of Annex 2 to Appendix C of ETWB TC(W) No.
19/2005
Refuse pending removal should be stored in
receptacles provided with close fitting covers
A trip-ticket system shall be established as per DevB
TC(W) No. 6/2010 and the Waste Disposal (Charges
for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation
Nil
ECOLOGY
TH2, TH3
and
Footpaths
N/A
The works at Mai Po
are aligned to AFCD’s
Mai Po Inner Deep
Bay Ramsar Site
Management Plan
2011, which requires
that no outdoor work
is carried out from
October to April each
year.
N/A
N/A
No noisy outdoor construction work will be
permitted within MPNR from 16 October to
15 April each year
Do not remove existing concrete footpaths –
leave in situ to avoid noise generation from
breaking
Off-site fabrication and off-site concrete
mixing reduces on-site noise generation
Nil
Nil
Summary of Information
11-6
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
REF.
DESCRIPTION
CRITERIA
CUMULATIVE PREDICTION (MAX)
EXCEEDANCE
IMPACT AVOIDANCE
FURTHER MITIGATION
RESIDUAL IMPACT
FISHERIES
Commercial
fisheries
adjacent to
the Project
Site
N/A
EIAO-TM Annex 9
Low significance
Nil
Mitigation measures proposed to control
dust, water pollution and waste generation
The two new tower hides will not be provided
with toilets or washrooms
Nil
Nil
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES (LRs)
LR1-1
Mangrove
EIAO-TM Annex 10 &
18;
EIAO GN No. 8/2010
Insubstantial
Nil
Avoid felling/ pruning of existing trees
No night time lighting for construction works
Avoid use of contrasting colour/ reflective
materials for the design of building façades
Preservation and protection of existing trees and
vegetation
Arrangement of storage of construction materials
Erection of screen hoardings for the Tower Hides
(where appropriate, with surface treatment/ colour
suitable to the rural context)
Responsive design of the Tower Hides and Footpaths
to fit in well with the surrounding natural landscapes
Bamboo screen planting at the new access to the
Tower Hides to soften the outlook of hard elements
Acceptable
LR1-2
Brackish Marsh
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LR1-3
Wooded Area
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LR2-1
Brackish gei wai
Moderate
Nil
Acceptable with
Mitigation
LR2-2
Rain-fed Pond
Moderate
Nil
Acceptable with
Mitigation
LR2-3
Commercial Fishpond
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LR2-4
Channelised Watercourse
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LR2-5
Watercourse
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LR3-1
Developed Area
Slight
Nil
Acceptable
(potentially
Beneficial) with
Mitigation
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS (LCAs)
LCA1
Comprehensive Residential
Development Area
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LCA2
Inter-tidal Coast Landscape
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LCA3
Offshore Water Landscape
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
LCA4
Rural Coastal Plain Landscape
Slight
Nil
Acceptable
VISUALLY SENSITIVE RECEIVERS (VSRs)
F-1
Commercial Fishpond
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
F-2
MPEC
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
F-3
Along Pond Bund of MPNR (near gei
wai No. 20)
Moderate
Nil
Acceptable with
Mitigation
L-1
Visitors outside the Entrance of
MPNR
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
(Beneficial)
L-2
Visitors in MPNR
Moderate
Nil
Acceptable with
Mitigation
L-3
Visitors in Main Tower Hide (TH1)
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
R-1
Villagers next to the Entrance of
MPNR
Insubstantial
Nil
Acceptable
(Beneficial)
Summary of Information
11-7
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
11.3 Key Assessment Assumptions, Limitation of Assessment Methodologies,
and related Prior Agreement(s) with the Director
Construction Noise Assessment
Pursuant to para.3.4.5 of the ESB, the noise impact assessment for the construction of the
Project shall follow the detailed technical requirements given in Appendix B of the ESB. Appendix
B requires the following to be agreed with the Director of Environmental Protection before
commencing the assessment:
Para.2.2.1(a) Noise Assessment Area
Para,2.2.1(c) Representative Noise Assessment Points
Para.2.3.1 Representative Phases of Construction
Appendix F2 contains correspondence with the Authority regarding the above matters.
Ecological Impact Assessment
Pursuant to para.3.4.8 of the ESB, ecological impact assessment of the Project shall follow the
detailed technical requirements given in Appendix E of the ESB. According to Appendix E, the
Applicant shall examine the flora, fauna and other components of the ecological habitats within
the assessment area. Specifically, the assessment shall include the following major tasks
regarding survey methodologies:
Evaluate the information collected, identify any information gap relating to the assessment
of potential ecological impacts to terrestrial and aquatic environment, and determine the
ecological field surveys and investigations that are needed for a comprehensive assessment.
Carry out any necessary ecological field surveys with a duration of a least 12 months
covering both wet and dry seasons, and investigations to verify the information collected
and fill in the information gaps identified. The field surveys shall cover flora, fauna and any
other habitats/species of conservation importance, and shall include surveys for
intertidal/benthic communities.
Fisheries Impact Assessment
Pursuant to para.3.4.9 of the ESB, fisheries impact assessment of the Project shall follow the
detailed technical requirements given in Appendix F of the ESB. According to Appendix F,
existing information regarding the assessment area shall be reviewed. Based on the review
results, the assessment shall identify data gap and determine if there is any need for field
surveys to collect adequate and updated baseline information.
To supplement literature review, site visits were undertaken to investigate actual fisheries status
within the Assessment Area between January and November 2017. Activities related to fisheries
observed during other field surveys were also recorded. The investigation of pond status within
the Assessment Area is considered straight forward.
Summary of key assessment assumptions and limitation of assessment methodologies are listed
in Table 11-2, below.
Summary of Information
11-8
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Table 11-2 Summary of Key Assessment Assumptions and Limitation of Assessment Methodologies
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
KEY ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS
LIMITATIONS OF
ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES /
ASSUMPTIONS
PRIOR AGREEMENTS WITH EPD / OTHER AUTHORITIES
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT TOOLS /
ASSUMPTIONS (IF APPLICABLE)
EIA STUDY BRIEF (ESB-
301/2017) CLAUSE
REFERENCE
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION
AIR QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The air quality impact assessment for the Project was conducted
following Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM and requirements
from the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
Qualitative assessment was conducted for the air quality impact
during the construction phase
The construction works would be of small-scale and short duration
Limited vehicle movement and well planned routing of vehicles within
the Site, together with the use of off-site pre-fabrication will be
carried out
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NOISE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The noise impact assessment for the Project was conducted
following Annex 5 and Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, the requirement in
the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017) and Technical Memorandum on
Noise from Construction Works other than Percussive Piling (GW-
TM) under the Noise Control Ordinance
Quantitative assessment was conducted to predict the construction
noise impact
Construction noise impact was predicted based on standard acoustic
principles Sound Power Levels (SWLs) of powered mechanical
equipment (PME) make reference to Table 3 of the GW-TM, EPD’s
Sound power levels of other commonly used PME, Quality Powered
Mechanical Equipment (QPME) available at EPD’s website, and other
similar studies or from measurements taken at other sites in Hong
Kong
Notional source position has been adopted for each work area with
respect to each NSR PME were assumed to be located at the notional
source of the works sites
For construction of new tower hides involving two working phases,
Phase 1 with a larger site area has been used to determine the notional
source position as this will give the shortest distance to NSRs, which is
the more conservative approach
The construction
programme and
plant inventory were
indicative and
subject to
contractors’ actual
operation
Clause 345 and 221 &
231 of Appendix B
Correspondence with the
Authority on Construction Noise
Assessment.
N/A
WATER QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The water quality impact assessment for the Project was conducted
following Annex 6 and Annex 14 of the EIAO-TM and the
requirement in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
Qualitative assessment was conducted for the water quality impact
during the construction phase
The construction of footings/substructure at TH2 and TH3 only when the
adjacent gei wai are drained in accordance with the MPNR Management
Plan 2019-2024
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OPERATION PHASE
The water quality impact assessment for the Project was conducted
following Annex 6 and Annex 14 of the EIAO-TM and the
requirement in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
Qualitative assessment was conducted for the water quality impact
during the operation phase
The two new tower hides will not be provided with toilets or washrooms
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Summary of Information
11-9
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
KEY ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS
LIMITATIONS OF
ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES /
ASSUMPTIONS
PRIOR AGREEMENTS WITH EPD / OTHER AUTHORITIES
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT TOOLS /
ASSUMPTIONS (IF APPLICABLE)
EIA STUDY BRIEF (ESB-
301/2017) CLAUSE
REFERENCE
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION
WASTE MANAGEMENT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The waste management implication assessment for the Project was
conducted following Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO-TM and the
requirements in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
Waste quantities to be generated from the Project were estimated based
on the engineering assessment and Project design
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OPERATION PHASE
The waste management implication assessment for the Project was
conducted following Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO-TM and the
requirements in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
No waste receptacles are provided within MPNR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ECOLOGY
The ecological impact assessment for the project was conducted
following Annex 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM for the criteria, general
approach and methodology for assessment of ecological impacts;
EIAO Guidance Note No 6/2010, 7/2010 and 10/2010 for general
guidelines and methodology for conducting ecological assessment
and ecological baseline survey; and the requirement in the EIA Study
Brief (ESB-301/2017)
The ecological assessment and evaluation were undertaken based on
results of baseline and literature review, and ecological surveys
The assessment includes the following major tasks regarding survey
methodologies:
Evaluate the information collected, identify any information gap relating
to the assessment of potential ecological impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic environment, and determine the ecological field surveys and
investigations that are needed for a comprehensive assessment
Carry out any necessary ecological field surveys with a duration of a least
12 months covering both wet and dry seasons, and investigations to
verify the information collected and fill in the information gaps identified
The field surveys shall cover flora, fauna and any other habitats/species
of conservation importance, and shall include surveys for
intertidal/benthic communities
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FISHERIES
The fisheries impact assessment for the Project was conducted
following Annexes 9 and 17 of the EIAO-TM and the requirements in
the EIA Study Brief (ESB-301/2017)
The fisheries impact assessment was undertaken based on results of
literature review and field surveys
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
The landscape and visual impact assessment was prepared in
accordance with Annexes 10 and 18 of the TM and EIAO Guidance
Note No 8/2010 and the requirement in the EIA Study Brief (ESB-
301/2017)
In view of the limited scale of the Project, which comprises new
boardwalk and low-rise buildings (proposed Tower Hides), the VIA for the
purposes of this EIA only focuses on local VSRs and the Assessment Area
for VIA is defined by the primary ZVI within which the Project can be
viewed by local VSRs
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Summary of Information
11-10
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
11.4 Summary of Alternative Options and Mitigation Measures
Initial Development Option
Within the Project Site one or more of the following were initially proposed in the Project Profile
that was prepared in July 2017:
1. Refurbishment of MPEC – included internal refurbishment and construction of external FS
Water Tank and Pump Room
2. Widening of the Existing Footpath – removal of existing concrete footpath and replacement
with a wider concrete footpath
3. Construction of New TH2 – a new three-storey tower hide
4. Expansion of Existing TH1 – renovation of existing TH1 and an extension building
5. Construction of New TH3 – a new three-storey tower hide
6. Construction of New “Circular Route” Footpath – construction of a new concrete footpath
connecting to New TH3
All of the above were DPs due to being located within the SSSI. At the time the Project Profile
was submitted, the Project Proponent could not confirm which of these components would be
implemented – clearly, EITHER Expansion of TH1 OR Construction of New TH3 would be carried
out, but not both.
Revised Development Option
During the public inspection period for the Project Profile, a number of comments were received
from green NGOs. One of the key comments related to the provision of the “Circular Route” as a
concrete footpath and the suggestion that to minimise environmental impacts, a boardwalk
design should be considered. Another comment related to need for concrete mixing on-site and
the environmental impacts associated with this.
In response to these concerns, to mitigate the environmental impacts and to address other
design issues, a Revised Development Option was prepared:
1. Refurbishment of the Mai Po Education Centre – included internal refurbishment and
construction of external FS Water Tank and Pump Room.
2. Widening of the Existing Footpath – removal of existing concrete footpath and replacement
with a wider concrete footpath, with the addition of EAs.
3. Construction of New TH2 – a new three-storey tower hide, with off-site prefabrication of
components and no concrete-mixing on-site.
4. Expansion of Existing TH1 – renovation of existing TH1 and an extension building, with off-site
prefabrication of components and no concrete-mixing on-site.
5. Construction of New TH3 – a new four-storey tower hide, with off-site prefabrication of
components and no concrete-mixing on-site.
6. Construction of New “Circular Route” Footpath – construction of a new wooden boardwalk
above gei wai Nos. 6 and 7.
The key improvements to the design were changing the “Circular Route” Footpath from a
concrete design to a boardwalk above the gei wai and changing its alignment from straight,
parallel to the existing footpath, to a meandering route. Also off-site pre-fabrication of
components and no concrete mixing on-site.
Preferred Development Option
Initial environmental assessments indicated that dust and noise levels due to mechanical
breaking of existing concrete when removing the footpaths could give rise to adverse
environmental and ecological impacts. For this reason, it was decided to install boardwalks
above the existing concrete footpaths, leaving them in situ and untouched.
Summary of Information
11-11
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
It was always intended to EITHER Expand TH1 OR Construct a New THIE. As the design
progressed, it was revealed that the foundations required to expand TH1 would severely impact
a nearby tree and likely cause its death. Subsequently, the results of the ground investigation
indicated that the site for TH1E was satisfactory. It was therefore decided to delete the
Expansion of TH1 and also to rename TH1E as TH3 for consistency.
Even with the boardwalk design for the “Circular Route”, there would still be a loss of mangrove.
Furthermore, initial ecological assessment and discussions with the Authority indicated that the
presence of the boardwalk above the gei wai and the physical presence of supporting posts in
the gei wai would constitute a loss of wetland habitat in terms of area, although not a loss of
wetland function. As such, the “Circular Route” was deleted.
The Project now comprised the following Elements:
1. Construction of New TH2
2. Construction of New TH3
3. Construction of New Boardwalks
a. above existing paths
b. for EAs
11.5 Documentation of Public Concerns
Appendix G documents concerns raised by the general public, special interest groups and
relevant statutory/advisory bodies – by letter, email, etc. – and the responses from the Project
Proponent. The following sections summarise the concerns raised by stakeholders and how
these concerns were addressed by the Project Proponent through changes to the Project scope,
as described in this EIA Report.
Stakeholders engaged by the Project Proponent include:
Conservancy Association
Designing Hong Kong
Green Power
Hong Kong Birdwatching Society
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens
Prominent individuals in the field of conservation/environmental protection
Relevant government departments and bureaux
First Round Consultation (July 2017)
The Project Profile was made available for public inspection on 14 July 2017 as part of the EIA
process. A number of comments were received from green groups regarding the scope of the
Project as it was envisaged at that time.
WWF arranged to meet with those stakeholders who provided comments in order to provide
further information, obtain additional feedback and to answer questions. Meetings were held
with stakeholders on 25 July 2017, with follow-up discussions extending into August 2017 (see
Appendix G1).
WWF took these comments seriously and as a result, a number of changes were made to the
Project, which have been discussed in Section 2.3, and which culminated in the Preferred
Development Option that has been assessed in this report.
General Comments. Lack of information in the Project Profile was a common concern, with
some stakeholders asking for detailed assessments. The Project Proponent advised that
detailed information would be included in the EIA Report.
Widening of Existing Footpath. Queries were raised regarding the use of the widened
footpath by vehicles and damage to wetland and felling of trees. The Project Proponent
responded that the new boardwalk will be for pedestrians only, it will not encroach on
wetland nor will any trees be felled.
Summary of Information
11-12
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
The New “Circular Route” Footpath. Originally proposed as a concrete footpath,
stakeholders questioned the construction method, its impact on the gei wai that the Circular
Route would cross, and the need for it. The Project Proponent confirmed the need and
agreed to change from concrete path to a boardwalk. Subsequently, after further
consideration by the Project Proponent, the Circular Route was deleted from the Project.
Expansion of Existing TH1 and Construction of New TH3. There was confusion regarding the
need to carry out both of these works. The Project Proponent clarified that only one of these
two works would be needed, and that the preference was for Construction of New TH3.
Construction of New TH2. Stakeholders requested justification on the site selection for TH2
and how it would be accessed. The Project Proponent explained that justification for the
siting of TH2 would be provided in the EIA Study and explained how it would be accessed.
Demolition and Rebuild of PSFSC. Although PSFSC was not mentioned in the Project Profile as
a DP (only as concurrent project), most stakeholders said it should be included in the EIA
Study. The Project Proponent agreed that PSFSC was an integral part of the MPNR
Infrastructure Upgrade Project but because it is not in itself a DP, then it should not be
included in the actual EIA Study (other than as a concurrent project). On this basis, the Project
Proponent intends to provide a detailed Environmental and Ecological Assessment (EEA) of
the works at PSFSC as an appendix to the EIA Study. [Update: The detailed EEA was released to
the public in May 2019, prior to the start of demolition works. Due to changes in construction
programme, work on the MPNR Infrastructure Upgrade Project will now not start until after
the rebuild of PSFSC has been completed. As such, PSFSC will no longer be a concurrent project
(instead, an ASR and NSR) and so the EEA is not included as appendix to this EIA. The EEA for
PSFSC is, however, available to download from the WWF website.
Increase in Visitor Numbers. Some stakeholders were concerned about impacts of a larger
number of visitors at MPNR in the future. The Project Proponent explained that “visitor
hours” (i.e. the amount of time spent within MPNR) rather than simple visitor numbers is
the most appropriate metric to determine operational impact. Visitor hours would be
reduced in the future thanks to the new infrastructure, which would to a large extent offset
impacts from more visitors.
Which Components will be Constructed. Some stakeholders were concerned that the
“worst case scenario” to be assessed in the EIA Study would mean that the “worst case”
could actually be constructed. The Project Proponent advised that since the Project Profile
was published, the design of the Project had evolved and a number of components, such as
the Circular Route and External Works at MPEC, had been removed from the Project scope.
Marine Ecological Impacts/Fisheries Impact/Survey Species Other than Birds. The Project
Proponent explained that marine ecological impacts (either in gei wai or Deep Bay) will be
unlikely because of the exceptional care taken to avoid any construction-related
contamination to gei wai. The Project Proponent confirmed that at Fisheries Impact
Assessment would be carried out and that a 12 months ecological survey of covers mammals
(including bats), herpetofauna, odonates, butterflies, fireflies, and aquatic fish, not just
birds, would be carried out.
Second Round Consultation (December 2017)
The second round of consultation was carried out on 14 December 2017, with follow-up
discussions extending in February 2018 (see Appendix G2). Updated information about the
Project was provided to stakeholders. The key discussions were:
Need for Tower Hide TH3. Stakeholders continued to question the need for the new TH3.
The Project Proponent justified the need by explaining the overcrowding currently
experienced by school classes in the adjacent TH1, which is not large enough to
accommodate more than one class. The situation of inadequate space is aggravated when
birdwatchers and/or photographers are in the hide with a class.
Summary of Information
11-13
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Location of Tower Hide TH2. Stakeholders questioned the location of TH2, asking if the
location was only chosen because that is where an old canvas hide used to be. The Project
Proponent explained that the southern part of the reserve has most of the freshwater
habitats and is a regular spot for the eagles in the winter. The location chosen immediately
faces pond 20, the three-storey structure will provide a good general view of the southern
ponds and is selected being close to the existing footpath between GW18/19 so that users
do not need to venture deep into the southern part of the reserve.
Use of MPEC and PSFSC. MPEC was previously included in the Project Profile when there
were going to be external works carried out. It was later decided not to go ahead with these
external works and so MPEC is no longer a DP. The only works at MPEC will be internal
redecoration. The Project Proponent said that works at PSFSC was justified is fully explained
as not being a DP.
Inclusion of PSFSC in the EIA Study and Planning Application. Stakeholders again wanted
PSFSC to be included in the EIA Study and the Planning Application. The Project Proponent
again explained that PSFSC is not a DP and does not require planning approval, but said that
a detailed EEA of the works at PSFSC would be included as an appendix in the EIA Report.
The EIA Report relates to DPs, which is why assessment of PSFSC is not included in the main
body of the EIA. [Update: Please see 6
th
bullet under First Round Consultation, above.]
Increased Disturbance due to Increased Visitor Numbers. Stakeholders were concerned
about the adverse impact of wildlife of an increased number of 32,000 visitors per year
targeted after completion of the Project, compared to the present 24,000 per year. The
Project Proponent explained that from 1993 to 2004, the number of visitors hovered at a peak
of between 35,000 and 45,000 per year until the Wetland Park opened and numbers declined.
During this period water birds using Mai Po and Deep Bay, including Black-faced Spoonbill,
were not affected by visitors. As such, no adverse impacts are expected in the future.
Traffic Impacts. The Project Proponent explained that parking spaces for private cars and
coaches would be provided at PSFSC and that a TIA had been carried out, which indicated no
adverse impacts. However, the Project Proponent was also exploring the provision of shuttle
bus services with links to public transport or nearby parking and intends to promote
environmentally friendly transport, rather than private vehicles.
Marine Ecological Impacts. Stakeholders were concerned about the impacts to the marine
environment, which they said included the gei wai and also Deep Bay. The Project
Proponent explained that the foundation works for the Tower Hides would be carried out
when adjacent gei wai would be drained (as part of the normal management of MPNR) and
so there could not be any water pollution from the construction works.
Mai Po Sesarmine Crab. There was a discussion between stakeholders who believed that the
Mai Po Sesarmine Crab was present, or could be present in the future. The Project Proponent
maintained that the gei wai and bund habitat was unsuitable for the Crab and that none had
been found in MPNR, either in past surveys or during the 12 months ecological survey carried
out for this Project. In any case, if the Crab was present, it would not be affected by the
works, since the mangroves in the gei wai are not affected by the Project.
Barrier Effect. Some stakeholders believed that the new boardwalks and screening around
the Tower Hides would act as a barrier to some fauna species. The Project Proponent noted
that the existing screens around TH1 did not seem to adversely affect wildlife. In fact, many
mammals within MPNR use the footpaths to move around. Subsequently the Project
Proponent decided to elevate the new boardwalks and screens by a few centimetres to
allow smaller animals to pass beneath, while at the same time allowing larger animals to
walk over the top (of the boardwalks).
Third Round Consultation (June 2018)
The third round of stakeholder consultation was carried out between 11 and 15 June 2018 and
involved green NGOs as well as relevant government departments/bureaux (see Appendix G3).
Summary of Information
11-14
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
Based on the latest Project information provided to the stakeholders, the feedback was largely
positive. The key discussions relating to environmental issues were:
Internal Renovation Works at EC. Since the EC was mentioned in the EIAO Project Profile, a
stakeholder suggested that the Project Proponent may have to wait until the EIA was
approved before starting work on the renovation or resubmit the Project Profile. On 12
December 2017, the Project Proponent explained that the refurbishment works stated in
the Project Profile (i.e. the internal renovation and the new external fire services structures)
were deleted from the Project; and provided further clarification on 21 March 2018. The
Authority agreed on 11 April 2018 that the Project Profile remained valid for the present
scope. The internal renovation works are not a DP and the laying of the new power line is
also not a DP. Thus, the starting of the renovation works at EC shall not be restricted by the
approval of the EIA. A stakeholder also wished to know how the public would be informed
about the start date and duration of the renovation works EC. The Project Proponent
advised that the tenders had not yet been awarded but it is expected that a notice could be
issued in July 2018. The internal renovation works at EC began in September 2018 and
finished in September 2020.
Septic Tank and Soakaway Pit System at EC. The Project Proponent advised a stakeholder
that since the EC was principally for school visits and there would only be a marginal 10%
increase in the number of school visits forecast at the EC after renovation, this was still
within the design capacity of the current system. A survey had been conducted and the
system was still working perfectly.
Operational Expenses (OPEX) for Tower Hides and Footpath. A stakeholder was concerned
about the OPEX for the Tower Hides and Footpath given the materials being considered. The
Project Proponent advised that financial modelling would be carried out to take OPEX into
consideration and had started setting aside contingency funds to cater for any increase in OPEX.
Minimum Gap Below Screening and Boardwalk of 6cm. The Project Proponent has
suggested raising the base of the screening along Tower Hide access paths and the base of
the Boardwalks 6cm off the ground to allow small animals to pass beneath. A stakeholder
was not convinced that this was the correct gap but did not suggest any other, and also
suggested if animals always followed the same route, then underpasses could be provided at
appropriate locations. However, another stakeholder did not think there were any set
routes. The size of gap will be kept under review by the Project Proponent.
Height of Tower Hides. A stakeholder doubted that whether the need for three storeys for
the Tower Hides could be justified on capacity alone. The Project Proponent explained that
capacity was only one consideration and in Tower Hide 2, for example, this was not the
major consideration. The major benefit of a three-storey hide was to provide sufficient
elevation to allow views over a much greater area, meaning visitors would not need to go to
these areas, hence less disturbance on the ground.
Hoardings for Footpath and Tower Hides. A stakeholder asked about the nature of the
hoardings for the Footpath and the Tower Hides. The Project Proponent advised that they
would, as far as possible, control the hoardings to be minimal and largely demarcational,
consisting in mesh fences or netting.
Works for Tower Hides. A stakeholder queried the duration of the works, especially the
footings for the Tower Hides, and the line to the Mai Po Habitat Management Plan. The
Project Proponent advised that the Project will follow the Habitat Management plan as this
is where the ecological priority lay and stressed that effort would be made to ensure that all
the work could be finished in one bird season (six months) by greater use of pre-fabrication.
It was targeted to finish the footings in two months for example.
Bird and Bat Roosting Boxes. A stakeholder suggested featuring bird and bat roosting boxes
in the designs of the new PSFSC and Tower Hides. The Project Proponent agreed to look into
the suggestion. The Project Proponent also agreed to examine the use of solar pipes (“light
pipes”) or optical fibre solutions to improve natural lighting inside the Tower Hides.
Conclusion
12-1
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
12 CONCLUSION
The aim of the Project is to provide a unique experience in educational recreation, groom local
scientists and contribute to a greater understanding of the unique Mai Po environment through
cutting-edge research in ecology. It is crucial to transform MPNR into a 21st Century Nature
Classroom in order to facilitate this unique learning experience and effectively manage this
important, world-class wetland ecosystem.
To do this, the following three infrastructure upgrades will be carried out within a six months
period from mid-April to mid-October 2022 tentatively:
1. Construction of New TH2
2. Construction of New TH3
3. Construction of New Boardwalks
a. above existing paths
b. for EAs
The construction programme for the footings/substructure for TH2 and TH3 follows the planned
draining of gei wai Nos. 19 and 20e and gei wai Nos. 7 and 8a, respectively, as set out in the
MPNR Management Plan 2019-2024 and its updates.
Air Quality
A qualitative assessment of air quality impacts was carried out for the construction stage. No
exceedance of AQO limits for RSP and FSP at representative ASRs is expected, and no
exceedance of the EIAO-TM limits for 1-hour TSP at representative ASRs is expected. No
significant increase in air quality impact at ASRs is anticipated during the construction stage.
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and good site practice,
adverse impacts during the construction stage are not anticipated.
Noise
The noise impact arising from the construction of the Project at the representative off-site NSRs
has been assessed. The results of the assessment indicate that noise levels at the off-site NSRs
will comply with the relevant noise criteria. As such, further noise mitigation measures during
construction are not necessary.
Water Quality
WWF will adopt a “Zero Water Pollution” approach during construction, particularly for TH2 and
TH3. This relies on two key elements; the avoiding pollution of adjacent gei wai and Deep Bay;
and avoiding generating polluted runoff from works areas in the first place.
To avoid pollution of adjacent gei wai and Deep Bay, the schedule of foundation works at TH2
and TH3 – the most potentially polluting period during construction in terms of runoff – will be
aligned with the schedule of draining the adjacent gei wai in the MPNR Management Plan 2019-
2024. The drained gei wai undergoing such maintenance are not hydraulically connected to any
other gei wai nor to Deep Bay, i.e. they are fully isolated from surrounding water bodies. A
perimeter bund will be constructed around the TH2 and TH3 work sites to ensure that any runoff
generated from within these sites is discharged only into the adjacent drained gei wai and does
not discharge into any other water-filled gei wai. With no water in the adjacent gei wai into
which all site runoff will flow, it will not be possible for any contaminants from the works (which
are not anticipated anyway) to flow into other gei wai or, ultimately, flow into Deep Bay.
To avoid generating polluted runoff from works areas in the first place, zero contaminated
runoff will be achieved through implementation of a series of measures, including off-site pre-
fabrication, off-site concrete mixing, off-site maintenance/repair of plant, taking extreme care
when re-fuelling plant, covering materials, plant and equipment during rainstorms, provision of
chemical toilets, bunded, covered construction C&D material storage areas, and waterproof
general waste receptacles.
Conclusion
12-2
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
In addition to this, the Works Contractor shall follow good site practice and be responsible for
the design construction, operation and maintenance of applicable mitigation measures specified
in ProPECC PN 1/94 for construction site drainage.
With the above measures in place during the construction stage, it is unlikely that there will be
any adverse water quality impact to the gei wai or to Deep Bay as a result of the works.
Furthermore, no cumulative impact is identified.
During operation, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated as the two new tower hides will
not be provided with toilets or washrooms, and so no wastewater will be generated. Runoff
from the roof of the tower hides and from the footpaths will not be contaminated.
Overall, therefore, no adverse water quality impact is anticipated during the construction or
operation stages of the Project.
Waste Management
During construction is estimated that a total of 280.3 tonnes of waste will be generated, which
equates to 93.4 tonnes per month over the three months during which construction will be
carried out. This waste comprises inert C&D material, C&D waste and general refuse. Chemical
waste will not be generated as WWF will mandate in all contract documents that there shall be
no maintenance or repair of vehicles, plant or equipment on site. Of the 280.3 tonnes of waste
generated it is anticipated that up to 261.4 tonnes could potentially be treated/recycled/
recovered, to avoid disposal at landfill, which is a 93% waste diversion rate. Provided that the
recommended mitigation measures are followed, there should be no adverse waste impact from
the handling, transportation or disposal of inert C&D material, C&D waste or general waste
during construction.
During the operation, inert C&D material, C&D waste and chemical waste are not anticipated to
be generated. General refuse may be generated by visitors but to minimise the amount WWF
will continue to encourage visitors to bring their own reusable water bottles and food
containers. No waste receptacles are provided within MPNR and visitors will be encouraged to
take their waste home with them. As such there will be no general waste deposited within
MPNR during operation. Outside the Project Site, recycling bins will be provided.
Overall, therefore, no adverse waste management implications are anticipated during the
construction or operational stages of the Project.
Ecology
The current ecological conditions and potential ecological impacts of the proposed Project have
been assessed. Based on this review, measures to avoid and minimise ecological impacts have
been recommended. With these measures in place it is considered that all significant ecological
impacts of the project will be addressed and residual impacts will be acceptable.
Overall, therefore, no adverse ecological impact is anticipated during the construction or
operation stages of the Project.
Fisheries
There are no ponds in the Project Area and so there will be no direct impact on fisheries within
the Project Area during construction. Adjacent to the Project Site are commercial fisheries.
However, with the mitigation measures proposed elsewhere in this report to control dust, water
pollution and waste generation, indirect impacts on fisheries due to construction activities will
be insignificant. This includes the fish ponds in the vicinity of the Site and also fisheries in the
wider area, including oyster farms in Deep Bay and fish culture zones elsewhere.
The two new tower hides will not be provided with toilets or washrooms and so no wastewater
will be generated during the operations stage. Runoff from the roof of the tower hides and from
the footpaths will not be contaminated. As such, there will be no point or non-point pollution
sources due to the operation of the Project and therefore no impact to the water systems – fish
Conclusion
12-3
EIA REPORT VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT
Mai Po Nature Reserve Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Prepared for World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong
SMEC Internal Ref. 7076457 D05
20 October 2021
ponds, gei wai or Deep Bay – or associated sensitive receivers within the Project Site or within
the Assessment Area for fisheries impact.
Overall, therefore, no adverse fisheries impacts are anticipated during the construction or
operational stages of the Project.
Landscape and Visual
With full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, including responsive design
of the new tower hides and footpaths, and implementation of bamboo screens at the new tower
hides, the overall landscape and visual impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
Project are all considered to be Acceptable. Some of the receivers (e.g. LR3-1 Developed Area,
and the VSRs L-1 and R-1 located outside the entrance of MPNR) may experience potentially
Beneficial impacts from the upgrading of the existing paved footpath to the new wooden
boardwalks, which are more aesthetically compatible with the surrounding natural landscapes.
No cumulative landscape and visual impacts are anticipated as no concurrent projects are
identified in the 500m Assessment Area.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
An EM&A programme is proposed to ensure compliance with the recommendations in the EIA
study to assess the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures and to identify any
further need for additional mitigation measures or remedial action.
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, no adverse environmental
impact from the Project is anticipated. As a precautionary measure, water quality monitoring
will be carried out and regular site environmental audit is recommended to ensure the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Regular inspection and audit of each works area shall be conducted during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. When there are ongoing construction works within the Project Site, the ET shall
carry out inspections once per week and the IEC shall carry out audits jointly with the ET once
every two weeks.