Confirmed Minutes of the 127th Meeting of the Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee held on 23 June 2014 at 2:00 pm Present: Dr Dorothy CHAN, BBS (Chairperson) Dr HUNG Wing-tat, MH (Deputy Chairman) Dr Gary ADES Prof CHAU Kwai-cheong, JP Dr HAU Chi-hang, Billy Prof FUNG Tung Prof NG Cheuk-yee, John Miss NG Yuen-ting, Yolanda Dr TSANG Po-keung, Eric Prof YEP Kin-man, Ray Miss Evelyn LEUNG (Secretary) Absent with Apologies: Prof TAM Fung-yee, Nora, BBS, JP Mr WONG Lok-tak, Luther Prof LI Xiang-dong Dr YIP Chee-hang, Eric In Attendance: Mr K F TANG Assistant Director (Environmental Assessment), EPD Mr Y K CHAN Assistant Director (Conservation), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) Ms Joanne CHIN Executive Officer (CBD), EPD Ms Daicie TONG Executive Manager (CBD), EPD In Attendance for Agenda Item 3: Mr Ken WONG Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Metro Assessment), EPD Mr Steve LI Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Metro Assessment)3, EPD Project Proponent Team Mr Arthur WONG Project Development Director, Ocean Park Corporation Mr Stephen CHENG Executive Director, Aedas Ltd. Mr Eric CHING Associate, Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Ltd. (Mott MacDonald) Ms Funny WU Principal Environmental Consultant, Mott MacDonald Mr Gary CHOW Senior Environmental Consultant, Mott MacDonald Mr CHAN Pak-kin Environmental Consultant, Mott MacDonald Ms Heidi YU Environmental Consultant, Mott MacDonald ****************************** Action Item 1 : Confirmation of the draft minutes of the 126th meeting held on 19 May 2014 The draft minutes were confirmed without amendment. Item 2: Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting 2. The Chairperson informed that in response to the suggestion of inviting relevant authorities to give Members an overview of the cumulative impacts imposed by the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) projects in the Lantau area, the Secretariat had arranged the Highways Department to brief the full Council on the environmental performance of the HZMB projects at the ACE meeting to be held on 21 July. 3. The Chairperson informed Members that the EIA report on “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the 3RS EIA report) was on public inspection between 20 June and 19 July. The EIA report had been selected for submission to ACE. EIASC meetings had been scheduled on 11 August (full day), 13 August (AM session) and 18 August (PM session) to discuss the objectives of and the key environmental aspects covered in the 3RS EIA report, and for consolidating its recommendation to the full Council. Non-EIASC Members would be invited to join the discussion. The Chairperson also encouraged Members to attend the public forum organized by the Airport Authority Hong Kong on 28 June. She had also asked the Secretariat to explore the practicability of setting Secretariat up a data centre where Members could access the relevant materials on the 3RS EIA report and the public comments received for Members’ reference before EIASC would meet on 11 August. Item 3 : EIA Report on“Tai Shue Wan Development at Ocean Park” (ACE-EIA Paper 2/2014) Internal Discussion Session 4. The Chairperson advised that today’s meeting would discuss the EIA report on “Tai Shue Wan Development at Ocean Park”. It was a designated project under “Schedule 2” of the EIA Ordinance (EIAO). The public inspection period of the report was from 20 May 2014 to 18 June 2014. The main concerns were related to protection / improvement of the roosting site for ardeids. As an administrative arrangement, public comments and the gist of major issues / concerns received by EPD had been circulated to Members for reference before the meeting. Written response from the project proponent (i.e. the Ocean Park Corporation, OPC) to the questions raised by Members had also been circulated for Members’ information before the meeting. - 2 - Action 5. The Chairperson informed Members that the discussion of the EIA report would be divided into the following four sessions – (a) Internal Discussion Session (b) Presentation Session (c) Question-and-Answer Session (d) Internal Discussion Session The Presentation Session and Question-and-Answer Session would be opened to the public. The Internal Discussion Sessions and all other parts of the meeting would remain closed. 6. The Chairperson asked Members if they had any interest to declare. A Member declared that he was a member of the Ocean Park Conservation Foundation Scientific Advisory Committee which advised OPC on funding conservation projects. He advised that the Committee had no involvement in the present EIA report to be discussed. The meeting agreed that the Member could stay and continue participating in the discussion. 7. The Chairperson reminded Members to keep confidentiality of the discussion on the EIA report as the full Council had yet to consider the Subcommittee’s recommendations before tendering its comments on the report under the EIAO. Members were advised to refer any enquiries to the Secretariat for follow up in case they were approached on the discussion and/or decision of the Subcommittee. 8. For a more structured and focused discussion, the Chairperson suggested and Members agreed to raise questions on the key subject areas of the EIA report in the order of – (a) Ecology (b) Visual and landscape impacts (c) Air quality and noise impacts (d) Water conservation [The project proponent team joined the meeting at this juncture.] Presentation Session (Open Session) 9. Mr Stephen Cheng first gave an overview of the need and the layout of the Tai Shue Wan Development (the Project), followed by Mr Eric Ching who briefed Members on the different environmental aspects of the EIA report. 10. In reply to the question from a Member during the powerpoint presentation that the table comparing the total number of night-roosting ardeids in Ap Lei Chau and Tai Shue Wan areas should give a full-year picture instead of from August to November 2013, Mr Eric Ching explained that the table served to give a direct - 3 - Action comparison of the findings of the EIA report with the Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) findings collected for the South Island Line project, which had used data for these four months only for the study. Question-and-Answer Session (Open Session) Ecology 11. A Member enquired if the project proponent would first re-provision the Flamingo Pond in the south-western part of the project site as an alternative roosting site for ardeids and other wild birds before commencement of construction works of the Project. He further enquired if there were any developments associated with the Flamingo Pond that might cause disturbance in the vicinity of the re-provisioned Flamingo Pond. Mr Eric Ching said that there would not be any water rides or major human activities in the vicinity of the area which could serve as a buffer area between the new Water Park main campus and the Ecological Enhancement Area. Mr Arthur Wong supplemented that they were willing to consider the practicability of advancing the re-provisioning of the Flamingo Pond, taking into account the schedules of other construction works of the Project. 12. In response to a Member’ concern on the possible impact on the northern and eastern streams in the project site, Mr Gary Chow informed that the current project design would avoid construction works on the eastern stream completely. Having regard that the northern stream was only a seasonal seepage with slow water flow, any impact imposed on it arising from the project would be insignificant. 13. Regarding the concern on the drop in the number of birds in Tai Shue Wan, Mr Arthur Wong said that egrets were noted to have moved out of the project site since mid 2013. The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS) had advanced a suggestion that the previous presence of flamingos might have provided certain assurance to egrets that the area was safe. Egrets probably sought alternative roosting site when the flamingos were removed. Woodland loss and compensation planting 14. A Member asked for clarification on the different terminologies used in the EIA report for permanent woodland loss, temporary woodland loss, woodland compensation and woodland reinstatement. Mr Eric Ching explained that felling trees and planting them back later in situ was regarded as temporary woodland loss as the woodland would be reinstated in the same locality after the trees were planted back. The Member opined that tree felling already represented a permanent loss of the woodland as the trees newly planted could never be of the exact species and comparable maturity as those which had been felled. Two Members echoed that the newly planted trees might not re-create the same ecological functions that originally existed in the area. 15. A Member asked for details of the compensatory tree planting plan including the objectives, species to be selected, as well as the management and - 4 - Action monitoring of the planted trees. Another Member also asked about the criteria for selecting the species. Mr Chan Pak-kin replied that they would plant native species in the woodland compensation area. As the site had a direct marine frontage, they would select species with high tolerance to strong wind and salt sprays. The species should be those currently existed in the area that could adapt to the unique site conditions. They would also select those species that were the roosting substrates for ardeids. In answering a Member’s further question that only four species were named in the EIA report for planting in the compensated woodland areas, Mr Eric Ching said that the tree planting list was not meant to be exhaustive, and the four species named were for general reference purpose. Mr Arthur Wong supplemented that the species to be planted basically would be the same as those currently being identified in the local environment.