|
(16 December
2007/amended on 25 Dec 2007) The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Subcommittee under Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) will
convene an open meeting tomorrow to discuss the development of a
bathing beach in Lung Mei, Tai Po. The Conservancy Association (CA)
opposes the construction project, as it will wipe out the habitat.
Even if the beach is constructed, it will be closed for at least 30
days during the 214-day bathing season from March to September each year;
and there will be 51days with very poor beach water quality, about
800 swimmers may be subjected to minor illness. It is definitely an
irresponsible act.
CA disagrees with the conclusion of the EIA report which claimed
that ‘no long term unacceptable impacts on the environment are
anticipated.’ The report stated clearly that the habitat and the
riverbed nearby will be permanently lost, though the impacts are
considered as acceptable because they are of ‘low ecological value’.
We definitely cannot agree what the report said that species can be
eliminated just because they are commonly found and labeled as low
ecological value. In fact, Lung Mei Beach is home to a high
diversity of species which should be at least of moderate or even
higher ecological value. The report also mistakenly regarded
swimming, especially swimming in the beach as the only recreation
activity to satisfy the community and arrived at the erroneous
conclusion that the development of the bathing beach should be
supported. We understand that there is a demand to promote local
economy. The existing Lung Mei Beach with its interesting and
natural environment has already attracted some visitors; this could
be further enhanced with minor upgrade of facilities and promotion.
Lung Mei Beach is adjacent to Ting Kok wetland, a Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). If there will be 2,000 visitors per day
during swimming season and up to 4,000 visitors at peak days, the
impact of human disturbance to Ting Kok will be considerable even if
only a small portion of visitors go to the wetland.
We also query whether Lung Mei is suitable for the development of a
bathing beach. Of the water quality in Lung Mei Beach, only 19% of
time from March to September in 2007 has been graded as fair Regarding,
43% of time as poor and 38% of time as very poor. Although the
report anticipates that approximately 60% of the private sewers
would be connected to the public sewer, still 24% and 14% of time
has been graded as poor and very poor in Lung Mei Beach. Minor
illness rate for very poor beach water quality is 11-15 cases per
1,000 swimmers. With a construction cost of 130-million-dollar and
the operation and maintenance cost of the beach still unknown, such
result is definitely intolerable for an artificial beach that claims
attract more visitors.
An allegedly “conservative” assumption of 60% sewerage connection
rate was used in the report. However, the Administration can only
mandate new buildings to connect to the public sewer but not the
existing houses? We notice in the report that even if sewerage
connection rate is below 20%, the percentage of time the beach opens
is the same as 60% sewerage connection (86%); The only difference is
the percentage of beach water quality graded poor and fair (EIA
Report p.127). The beach water quality is graded as poor and very
poor over 47% of time during bathing season. As a bathing beach
aiming at attracting more visitors, poor and very poor beach water
quality for 38% of time with 60% sewerage connection during bathing
season is already not acceptable. If the sewerage work is delayed or
the connection rate is not satisfactory, the days of poor water
quality will be longer and give a bad impression to visitors. We
also do not understand why the EIA Report has included a paragraph
about community demand on beach development in the chapter ‘Water
Quality Impact Assessment’ (EIA Report p.129) to promote the benefit
of the construction project.
The EIA Report states that the beach will be closed in case beach
water quality tends to be deteriorated and not desirable for
swimming, but extracting water samples and analyzing them takes
time. Despite closing the beach immediately after the lab report is
out, the bathers’ health who visited the beach before cannot be
safeguarded. CA believes that it is absolutely irresponsible of the
Administration if the project is to continue even though it
contravenes the principle of sustainable development.
|
