|
||
|
Title: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Owlet-nightjar on Oct 23rd, 2003, 7:44am I thought the concreting progress would only be to those serious flooding areas. It seems that the government are going to cover all the streams and rivers in the N.T. It is understood that it is important to prevent flooding by improving the drainage in the problem area. Still our nature is not ready for such disaster. Besides waiting for the implementation of acting in accordance with the same principles to conserve our nature by our government departments. Do you think we can do something to stop them (Drainage Services Department) concreting all the streams and rivers? Hang Tau Sheung Yue River http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/concrete/hangtausheungyueriver.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/onhangtausheungyueriver.jpg Lam Tsuen River http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/concrete/lamtsuenriver1.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/onlamtsuenriver1.jpg Lam Tsuen River http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/concrete/lamtsuenriver2.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/onlamtsuenriver2.jpg Sha Po Tsuen http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/concrete/031021kamtin-01.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/on031021kamtin-01.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Oct 23rd, 2003, 1:16pm Apparently there is some conflict between flood prevention and conservation. Does anyone know the answers to the following questions? 1. Are these projects subject to Environmental Impact Assessment? 2. If so, how do they weigh the need against conservation? 3. What are the roles of AFCD and EPD in the planning, evaluation, approval and monitoring of such schemes? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Forrest FONG on Oct 23rd, 2003, 2:28pm on 10/23/03 at 13:16:20, 鳥友Ａ(BWA) wrote:
I don't agree. Flood prevention and conservation should not have any conflict with each other. We can do something to prevent flooding and protect the natural environment at the same. The existing problem of the flooding prevent works damaging our nature environment is due to the responsible officers/engineers (DSD) only concern the flooding problem from the engineering & financial aspects. There is no sustainable design or nature conservation concept in their minds and in our government's policy. As I understand, all these projects are subject to EIA and have been approved by AFCD and EPD, at least they don't have any comment regarding nature conservation and environment except noise & pollution problem. Our naive Government claimed in the Nature Conservation Policy Review Document that the existing policy/regulations being implemented to protect sites of high ecological values are effective and adequate. Too bad, too bad.... It is poor that they are still feeling that all the public are as ignorant as they are. >:( :-[ :'( |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by felixcat on Oct 24th, 2003, 12:09pm I am not going to answer the questions here but I just want to say DSD is responsible for design & build the drainage system to prevent flooding. Nevertheless, the issue, implementation and enforcement of environmental policies are duties of EPD as well as Planning Dept. and TDD. I understand the general public when seeing the contruction work on site by DSD may blame DSD. But you have to think DSD is just one of the Works Dept and who make such bad policies? Of course, those projects prior to implementaiton are subject to EIA. You have to know our Government usually have their own views. Just like the recent case of Reclamination of Victoria Habour. I think public consultation becomes more important in EIA. Be alert, responsive and reactive to those projects that you think are damaging our environment. Long Valley is a good example that we can still remember. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Oct 24th, 2003, 9:38pm Some info. on the "improvement works" in DSD's website: http://www.dsd.gov.hk/flood_prevention/long_term_improvement_measures/major_projects/index.htm "In recent years, the flooding problem has been further exacerbated. Rapid developments in the rural areas have expanded the built up and paved areas. Rainwater which formerly stored in fields or fish ponds or infiltrated as groundwater in undeveloped land will now become surface runoff and enter into the drainage system within a short period, thus increasing the flow in the system. This results in more frequent flooding because the existing drainage system is incapable of coping this additional flow." Thanks to development, we are going to see more and more concrete channels as there are less and less fields and fishponds. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by felixcat on Oct 25th, 2003, 10:46am I understand the feeling of 鳥友Ａ(BWA) and I want to say pinpointing DSD is not fair as human beings (not just DSD) keep developing our environment into concrete forests, which believed to be our masterpieces providing a more comfortable environment for us with the environmental costs from other plants and animals. :'( Anyway, to make the development wisely done and make our government as well as the general public understand the importance of Conservation 自然保|, voice out as you are real environmentists but they aren't. Support any sustainable design or nature conservation concept as claimed by Forrest. And I am interesting in understanding more in this aspects. Let's discuss! |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Mr X on Oct 25th, 2003, 3:21pm DSD, AFCD, TDD and EPD have some so-called env-friendly drainage design for the concrete channel. http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/eia_planning/guide_ref/drainage.html From the visual pt of view, it is better than just bare concrete. However, the grass makes no compensation or mitigation for the loss of stream habitats, which are home to freshwater fish and birds. Pls note that the env-friendly designs are focused on the bank along the stream, which are useless to the fish and most birds. I guess nobody will put artificial reef on the land for enhancing the habitat for marine fish. |
||
|
Title: Environmental Friendly Design? Post by 青蛙仔 on Oct 25th, 2003, 5:15pm 啊！又學到口野啦！原來這就是所謂環保友善的渠務設計，好像和以前的石屎渠沒有分別，只是用草皮蓋在厚厚的石屎上，在旁加些樹木以增多些綠色在圖紙上，對我們這些土生土長(應該是水生水長)的青蛙(我有勞文氏樹蛙咁矜貴架)又有用嗎？有尊重河床及兩岸原有的生態環境嗎？ 以下是我們政府對環境保護的一些政策，如有機|一看它們的環保工作報告，便|知道所謂的環保工作和措施是甚麼，唉… 環保政府 為了全力保護香港的環境，政府盡量避免其本身活動損害環境。1992年，所有提交行政局的議案文件均需設有「環保」章節，說明工程項目可能造成的環境影響。自1994年起，所有政府部門和決策局均委派環保經理監察本身的環保措施及環保表現。政府為了樹立良好榜樣，差不多所有決策局及部門已由2000年開始每年編製環保工作報告。 http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/eia_planning/eia_maincontent.html |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Oct 25th, 2003, 11:30pm I am not against DSD, EPD nor flood prevention. I just want to know what has been done to find a more environment-friendly solution. Do we know of any better solutions than decorated concrete channels that have been proven elsewhere? ??? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by felixcat on Oct 27th, 2003, 9:57am If you were the decision maker in Gov't (whatever the department) and you had to deal with the flooding problems causing loss of life and resources, what you propose to do more environmental-friendly? Make good, practiceable and cost-effective suggestions with the consideration of affected parties. I am interested to know!! |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Nov 19th, 2003, 10:17pm Dear fellow nature lovers, I am a birdwatcher and practising civil engineer. I would like to share with all of you my personal experience in flood prevention in Hong Kong. The mode of flooding in HK is quite different from other parts of the world. First of all, the annual average rainfall in Hong Kong is about 2200 millimeters, one of the highest among the cities in the Pacific Rim. On the other hand, we have some very high and rocky mountains. Rain falling on the mountains can turn into surface runoff and flow into the rivers in a very fast rate. We also have extensive lowlands in Yuen Long and Sheung Shui areas which we called "flood plains". The land is so flat and the river flowing down from the mountains through these flood plains will suddenly slow down. The situation got worse in the 1980s and 1990s when much of the agricultural ground in the flood plains were developed, causing obstruction in the rivers and reducing the flood storage. Hence, when there is heavy rain, a very large amount of flood water can accumulate at the lowland at a very fast rate, causing severe risk to lives. Here we have one of the most challenging flood protection task in the world. http://www.dsd.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/flood_prevention/flooding_problems/problems/Shenzhen_River_1993.jpg The only practical strategy to control the flooding in the Northern New Territories is to increase the conveyance capacity of the major river networks by training the rivers. DSD has been trying hard not to interrupt the environment while carrying out river training work but obviously the "natural" form of the meandering rivers must be altered to achieve the goal. To compensate, a lot of "green" features have been incorporated into the trained rivers, as some of you here have already pointed out. However, due to our steep and mountaineous topography in HK, the velocity of river flow can be very very fast during rainstorm. In some places "hard" material must be applied at the channel beds and banks to prevent erosion. Otherwise, if these rivers are made of soft materials, the banks might collapse during heavy rain, causing greater danger to people living around the area. As the flow velocity are expected to exceed 6m/s in some steep channels, any drainage engineer would tell you that concrete or grasscrete are the only suitable material for the river beds and banks. That's why we have the concrete channels in Upper Shing Mun River and mid-reach Lam Tsuen River. http://www.dsd.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/flood_prevention/flooding_problems/problems/Shenzhen_River_2002.jpg I can assure every one here that the government is not going to train every rivers in Hong Kong and turn them into concrete monsters. River training works are identified based on sophisticated analysis, including advanced computational modelling works. Works would only be carried out when there is the necessary need to provide flood protection to nearby residents. All the works must satisfy the requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. One of the excellent example of making a balance between river training and environment protection is Kam Tin River near Nam San Wai in Yuen Long. This is where we are now seeing the crocodile playing happily with Mr. John Lever from Australia. In late 90s, DSD built a new drainage channel at the fish ponds in Nam San Wai to convey flood water from Kam Tin and Yuen Long. To prevent affecting the ecology, the original river was retained in its natural state, as you can see from the TV News. http://www.ptd.net/webnews/xwd/am/photo-cnt50680.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Nov 20th, 2003, 10:39pm on 11/19/03 at 22:17:20, Typhoon Faye wrote:
Could you tell us, according to current plans, roughly how many more (can be length in metres) concrete monsters will be created before the flooding problem can be kept under control? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Forrest FONG on Nov 21st, 2003, 12:16am I think we can never control the flooding problem even all the stream/rivers are trained to concrete channels. As mentioned in Typhoon Faye's message, the geographical charactres of NW of New Territories make it becoming a flood plain in the past and today. No flood plain could avoid flooding. It is natural. 天要下雨，娘要嫁人, no one can change it even he is Einstein or Yang Liwei. According to the existing Government Policy, more and more rivers need to be become lifeless concrete channels day after day. What is the existing Government Policy? no long-term planning strategy, useless land use control, so-called nature conservation policy, non-sustainable infrastructure design, illegal soil dumping, small (village) house development ... ... Engineering approach is not the only way to solve flooding problem in our New Territories and our Government can't just rely on concrete channels. Forrest |
||
|
Title: 銀河鐵道999 Post by 青蛙仔 on Nov 21st, 2003, 9:53am 這個問題令我想起以前曾經看過的一套松本零木的漫畫「銀河鐵道999」，內容描述未來世界的大多數人類為了避免疾病、衰老及死亡，將身體改造為冇血肉的機械，但雖然得到了所謂的永生，同時亦令他們失去愛情，失去對別人及大自然各種生物的關懷及保護，更忘記生命的意義，漫畫的情節令讀者再三反思人與人和人與大自然的關係，以及科技背後帶來的問題和甚麼才是問題的根源。 :-[ |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by John Holmes on Nov 22nd, 2003, 1:31pm on 11/19/03 at 22:17:20, Typhoon Faye wrote:
I note that "Bo-bo" the crocodile prefers the original UNCONCRETED section of the river ! |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Nov 23rd, 2003, 11:48am on 11/20/03 at 22:39:41, 鳥友Ａ(BWA) wrote:
In Hong Kong, there is no official survey on how many natural rivers we have because some stream cannot be identified from aerial photographs. The rough estimation is not less than 1000km rivers in the territories. To date, about 150km of rivers have been channelized while there are plans to carry out drainage improvement works for another 50km of existing channels/semi-channelized rivers/rivers. There should be no more plan for further channel works because the existing drainage plans have already taken into account the "ultimate development" scenarios in all parts of HK. Under the current policy, any rivers within the country parks or zoned as "Conservation Areas" or "Site of Special Scientific Interest" would be protected and no channelization works could be carried out. Moreover, flood protection by completely channelizing a river by plain concrete is definitely a thing of the past. The design philosophy of channel improvement and flood protection works was changed after the establishment of Drainage Services Department in the early 90s. Nowadays, many existing rivers or segments have been retained after the flood protection works while concrete was used only when situation is absolutely necessary in the new portion of the channel. The natural part of Kam Tin River where the crocodile lives is an example of the retained natural river AFTER flood protection works. The current flood prevention strategies adopted by the government consist of both structural and non-structural measures and land control is definitely part of the strategy. However, there is difficulties in controlling the land use in the flood plains because most of the lands involved are PRIVATE land. Some rivers are even within private land lots. For traditional Chinese, land is regarded as a private asset and the money-earning power of the land is always fully exploited. Traditional land owners hate to leave their land unused or ecologically rich. The government can do very little about it because the land owners' property rights have to be respected. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Nov 23rd, 2003, 2:03pm on 11/21/03 at 00:16:21, Forrest FONG wrote:
The flooding problem in HK can be managed, if not eliminated. After decades of works, we are now seeing some significant improvement in the prevention of flooding. In the major flood plains in the New Territories including Kam Tin, Nam San Wai, Ngau Tam Mei, San Tin, River Beas, River Indus, the risk of regional flooding has already been eliminated through the implementation of the government's structural and non-structural flood prevention strategies. Thousands of villagers and people are no longer at risk. At these locations, the ecologies after flood prevention works are still rich. e.g. Long Valley, Sha Po Village, Nam San Wai. Therefore, I think well-planned flood protection works would not necessary be an enemy to the ecology. Careful planning and professional knowledge are always required to strike a balance. To learn more about the government's flood prevention strategy and effort, you may visit the following web-site: http://www.dsd.gov.hk/flood_prevention/flood_prevention_strategy/adopted_strategy/index.htm |
||
|
Title: 替大嶼山東涌河悲哀 Post by 青蛙仔 on Dec 4th, 2003, 9:16am 新聞頭版報導大嶼山東涌河被破壞： http://hk.news.yahoo.com/031203/10/vs99.html http://hk.news.yahoo.com/031203/60/vsad.html 香港的河流和小溪，不是被石屎化，便是被填平和破壞。 :'( 環保政策條例有等於冇，官員建築師工程師疏忽，政府有錯不認不改! 我青蛙仔的未來…嗚呼哀哉！唉~唉~唉! :'( 青蛙仔痛泣上 蛙~~哇~哇 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Dec 4th, 2003, 12:31pm "承建商未經准許便在官地上挖石屬非法行為，違反非法挖掘未批租政府土地條例 。根據土地雜項條文，非法挖石之最高刑罰是罰款五千元及入獄半年。" 破壞生態環境，殺害河中生物，損毀自然資源又如何罰法？不單單是土木署，漁護署／環保署也應該參 與調查和檢控！ |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Dec 15th, 2003, 6:41am 今天明報報導: 渠務署認河道工程破壞生態 "【 明 報 專 訊 】 東 涌 鄉 事 委 員 | 涉 非 法 挖 掘 東 涌 河 ， 事 件 近 日 鬧 得 滿 城 風 雨 ， 環 境 運 輸 及 工 務 局 長 廖 秀 冬 更 曾 指 要 為 港 人 保 | 意 識 薄 弱 感 慚 愧 。 其 實 ， 渠 務 署 多 年 來 為 防 洪 ， 在 新 界 為 不 少 溪 澗 河 道 進 行 渠 道 工 程 ， 曾 把 一 些 流 水 潺 潺 的 迂 迴 河 道 ， 變 為 人 工 拉 直 的 「 石 屎 河 」 ， 致 河 道 生 態 受 破 壞 。 "環 團 促 補 救 "渠 務 署 承 認 10 多 年 前 環 保 意 識 不 足 ， 世 界 自 然 （ 香 港 ） 基 金 | 促 請 政 府 為 已 渠 道 化 的 河 道 進 行 補 救 工 作 ， 包 括 在 河 道 放 置 石 籠 和 亂 石 ， 讓 生 物 可 重 獲 石 隙 間 游 | 的 生 態 環 境 。 "渠 務 署 技 術 秘 書 李 鉅 標 回 覆 查 詢 時 承 認 ， 10 多 年 前 環 保 意 識 不 足 ， 主 要 改 建 石 屎 渠 道 的 方 法 為 河 道 進 行 防 洪 工 程 ， 但 近 3 至 5 年 已 開 始 注 意 綠 化 河 道 ， 除 在 河 旁 栽 種 植 物 ， 並 盡 量 以 不 影 響 河 道 為 主 ， 留 下 自 然 的 低 窪 地 區 ， 保 留 生 物 在 河 道 生 態 ， 其 中 的 例 子 包 括 近 期 被 視 為 「 鱷 魚 潭 」 的 山 貝 河 ， 同 樣 已 進 行 防 洪 工 程 ， 但 河 道 仍 然 是 一 片 淤 泥 ， 保 留 其 自 然 生 態 環 境 。 "世 界 自 然 （ 香 港 ） 基 金 | 高 級 環 境 保 護 主 任 梁 士 倫 批 評 ， 新 界 大 部 分 低 窪 河 流 都 已 被 渠 道 化 ， 破 壞 了 生 態 環 境 。 以 大 埔 林 村 河 為 例 ， 被 渠 道 化 前 原 有 90 種 生 物 的 記 錄 ， 還 不 包 括 魚 類 ， 但 渠 道 化 後 大 部 分 生 物 已 無 法 適 應 生 存 。 "他 建 議 ， 渠 務 署 目 前 仍 可 以 補 救 ， 包 括 在 已 渠 道 化 的 河 道 放 置 石 籠 或 天 然 亂 石 ， 新 工 程 則 可 多 預 留 一 些 淺 流 區 和 水 潭 ， 營 造 自 然 環 境 ， 盡 量 協 助 生 物 尋 回 適 合 牠 們 的 生 態 環 境 。" Typhoon Faye 11月23日留言: "There should be no more plan for further channel works because the existing drainage plans have already taken into account the "ultimate development" scenarios in all parts of HK. " 不知當局又能否以此作出承諾呢？ |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Dec 15th, 2003, 10:08pm Dear 鳥友Ａ(BWA): You have missed the preceding sentences in my previous post: To date, about 150km of rivers have been channelized while there are plans to carry out drainage improvement works for another 50km of existing channels/semi-channelized rivers/rivers. There should be no more plan for further channel works because the existing drainage plans have already taken into account the "ultimate development" scenarios in all parts of HK. What happened in Tung Chung River is a sad incident. The villagers have abused the term "flood prevention" to cover their illegal acts. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Dec 16th, 2003, 6:40am 多謝 Typhoon Faye 提點，本人並無斷章取義之意，現修正如下： Typhoon Faye 11月23日留言: “To date, about 150km of rivers have been channelized while there are plans to carry out drainage improvement works for another 50km of existing channels/semi-channelized rivers/rivers. There should be no more plan for further channel works because the existing drainage plans have already taken into account the "ultimate development" scenarios in all parts of HK. ” 不知當局又能否詳細交代相關計劃，並以此作出承諾呢？ |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by felixcat on Dec 16th, 2003, 11:30am I am so :D to learn much from different view-points of the experts in conservation and civil eng. I am not an engineer but I respect Typhoon Faye trying to put the issue from the angle of his profession. I think we all want a better HK through contribution our knowledge. Regarding "不知當局又能否詳細交代相關計劃，並以此作出承諾呢？", can HKBWS formally approach relevant gov't parties or environment consultation committees if this is also the view-point of HKBWS? As pointed out by Typhoon Faye, our gov't may not have any environmental policy before DSD was formed. But now we are so educated that we can contribute our knowledge from different fields to our problems in HK. Instead of putting the issue polically or just pointing our fingers at individual gov't department, I think we can do something more constructively. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Dec 16th, 2003, 1:43pm I am an ordinary person who is concerned about conservation, but not an expert in the subject. I regard this BBS as a public forum where everyone interested in birds can share his personal views and concerns. Such views (including this one) do not necessarily represent that of the HKBWS. However, I believe if enough noise is made here, HKBWS may like to pursue it further with relevant bodies. There is nothing wrong in bringing out issues (I prefer this to "finger-pointing") for discussion. A problem has to be recognized first before people start to look for solutions. To deal with a complex problem like river conservation, the information and expertise are usually confined to the hands of experts and officials. However, everyone has the right to voice out their concerns and are free to express how they feel about what is happening. From what Typhoon Faye has said earlier, it appears that a good plan is already in place to control flooding and minimize channelization. I would like to learn more about it and assure myself that further development would be on the positive side. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by felixcat on Jan 29th, 2004, 10:18am From the website of DSD, it is said that it is their policy to incorporate environmental friendly features into their drainage improvement and flood prevention projects as far as possible. http://www.dsd.gov.hk/flood_prevention/long_term_improvement_measures/ecological_enhancement/index.htm What is your view on their committment to environmental protection and the achievement they said they made to our environment? Read also the DSD Annual Report 02/03 (esp Environmenal Performance) [url]http://www.dsd.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/publications_publicity/publicity_materials/annual_reports/0203rpt/index_e.htm[/url]. What do think DSD should do further? ??? Let's discuss :D |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by me_domchan on Feb 2nd, 2004, 4:15pm on 11/19/03 at 22:17:20, Typhoon Faye wrote:
I agree with Typhoon Faye that Kam Tin River is still quite a good place for birds and other wildlifes after river training. We can still see mangrove in the area, large number of herons and egrets are feeding there. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Feb 6th, 2004, 9:31pm on 01/29/04 at 10:18:28, felixcat wrote:
I have seen their showcase projects on the web and appreciate their effort. But I am more interested in the big picture - what is the extent of channelization compared to those "green banks", and what are their plans for other rivers waiting to be trained. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Owlet-nightjar on Feb 13th, 2004, 10:29pm Ugly channels near Airfield Road, Shek Kong. I hope they don't clear the undergrowth in the old channels.Many species have been seen along the old section. Woodcock, several species of thrushes, Chinese Grosbeak, Common Rosefinch, Daurian Redstart, Red Flanked Bluetail, Red-throated Flycatcher, Asian Brown Flycatcher, Common Blackbird, Little Bunting, Mask Bunting White Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, Wood Sandpiper, Green Sandpiper Dusky, Palla's, Yellow-browed Warbler, Bulbuls & other common birds...etc. http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/shekong/DSCN8990-01.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/DSCN8991-01.jpg http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/shekong/DSCN8991-01.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/DSCN8990-01.jpg http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/shekong/DSCN8986.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/DSCN8986-01.jpg http://www.geocities.com/csooso2003/shekong/DSCN8987-01.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/DSCN8987-01.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Stanley Chan on Feb 15th, 2004, 8:19pm "flood protection by completely channelizing a river by plain concrete is definitely a thing of the past" This is what Mr. Typhoon said, but according to Sha Kok Mei Streams events, this is not true, about 100 meters of river bed was completely cover with concerte, because of DSD said "Flood control" We send complaint letter to various department, AFCD said the river is no ecology value?? In August 2003 to Oct 2003, I have observed more than 31 dragonfly and damesfly species along this streams, for more details, please visit the website: http://www.redbuilding.com/dragonfly Sha Kok Mei story is a good example to tell us the govermnent officers how do care our environment. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by bjingbar on Feb 15th, 2004, 9:05pm Congratulations Stanley on the well designed website, a lot of hard work has gone into your environmental challenge. I hope that the relevant government departments take notice and that the media comes to your help in the promoting the beauty of the Sha Kok Mei area. Hong Kong needs more people like you, so that we save some of the less known areas. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Feb 15th, 2004, 10:03pm on 02/15/04 at 20:19:40, Stanley Chan wrote:
No surprise. Who said that it won't be a thing of the future - except perhaps for a few showcases? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Stanley Chan on Feb 16th, 2004, 9:59am I usaully go to Sha Kok Mei once a week, except the 31 dragonfly species, I have also observed 64 bird species, 45 butterfly species. It may all gone in the middle of this year because of the development. I am surprised to hear that AFCD still said that there is no any ecology value in Sha Kok Mei, I am not a professional ecologist, I just know that except the richest life in Sha Kok Mei, it is still a beautiful countryside to go around. I am gonna to revised the Sha Kok Mei website to cover both birds and butterfly, before they all varnished ps: according to Samson form WWF said, the no. of dragonfly species are more than Mei Po. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Keith on Feb 16th, 2004, 11:27pm What happened in Sha Kok Mei is a tragedy.... I would like to clarify on some of the facts that I learnt from the others which might not be well-reported by the media: 1. The river training works in Sha Kok Mei is a private development, not a government project. 2. The developer proposed to build "small houses" near the river in 1997 and submit his proposal to Buildings Department. 3. As the proposed houses are very close to the river, Drainage Services Department required the developer to provide lining to the river, so as to prevent erosion that might cause danger to the river slope bank and the houses that would be bulit on the slope. 4. In the design manual of the government, there are two types of river linings: a) the rigid concrete; or b) the more environment-friendly mobile lining, e.g. grass/gabion 5. In 1999, the developer revised their proposal and proposed to use the cheaper concrete lining. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Stanley Chan on Feb 17th, 2004, 10:13am Dear Keith, Thanks for your information, please refer to SCMP from January to Feb about Kevin reports, we already know the planning was "approved" by the gov. department, we just surprised to heard that before those department make any decision, they assume there are no any ecology value in thsoe streams and therefore no need to do any ecology survey. If the "approved" was base on mistake, irresponsible and neglect of the environment, did the govt. or our civil servents like to correct it. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Keith on Feb 17th, 2004, 7:50pm Dear Stanley, Actually I'm not directly dealing with the case. I don't quite understand why the departments directly involving with natural conservation, e.g. Environmental Protection Department or Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department, were not involved in the Sha Kok Mei Case. The structure of the government is that the division of responsibility is very clear and every department has their own set of duties and authority. I understand in this case, constructions-related departments like the Buildings Department, Drainage Services Department and Geotechnical Engineering Office have no right nor power to reject the building of village house and the proposed concreting of river because this is not their area of responsibility. So long if the design submitted by the village house developer is technically (engineering) okay, they have to approve it. Otherwise, the villagers can go to the Ombudsman to complain that the departments are withholding their application without reason. Moreover, if the departments request them to use certain kind of special lining, the villagers could make complain to the ICAC as the departments might be seem as giving flavour to the lining supplier. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Feb 17th, 2004, 11:04pm on 02/16/04 at 23:27:22, Keith wrote:
It is understandable that lining has to be installed to prevent erosion. However, to be serious about the environment, the design manual should specify that environment friendly linings (assuming that there is no better alternative) MUST be used, and identify exceptions where concrete lining can be tolerated. If there is no such requirement, the developer (and perhaps government engineers) will obviously go for the cheaper solution - at the expense of the environment. If I understand the story correctly, the developer applied for approval in 1999 but did not start the work until 2003. Does anyone know how many of these "things of the past" will pop up around us? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Stanley Chan on Feb 19th, 2004, 9:55pm I would like to quote the comments from Kevin of SCMP, Two Legislative Council panels will today hear views from environmental groups about the impact of construction works on rivers and streams. Desecration of the Tung Chung River on Lantau, which was ordered and carried out by rural village elders, is one topic that will be discussed. The way in which government departments encouraged and supported a contractor who shotcreted two hillside streams in Sai Kung is also expected to top the agenda. The panels on Environmental Affairs and Planning, Lands and Works have a joint meeting scheduled for this afternoon. The meeting in the LegCo Chamber is open to the public. But environmental concern groups will not be able to make full statements of concern, several have been told. Among environmental groups which will attend the meeting are World Wide Fund for Nature and Kadoorie Farm and Botanical Gardens. According to LegCo secretariat staff, at least 16 Members will attend the meeting. End Environmentalists are outraged that Drainage Services Department staff involved with work that affected the streams at Sha Kok Mei apparently ignored official guidelines issued by their own department. The South China Morning Post has obtained a copy of Drainage Services Department technical circular Numer 4/2002 which was sent to departmental officials in September 2002. It was signed by the Director of Drainage Services, Mr Raymond Cheung Tat-kwing. That is a guide to good practice for maintenance works on environmentally sentimental watercourses. The document says government is bound by the strict provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) when handling major projects which are designated.?br> But minor works do not come under this protection. The departmental circular said that a list of 17 lowland streams were listed in a 2001 report issued by the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity of the University of Hong Kong. This list had been sent to government departments asking for them to make conservation efforts when any work was being carried out on these waterways. As a result of the academics?warning, the Drainage Services Department circular warned staff that it was their mission to carry out their work in an environmentally responsible manner.? The department must take appropriate measures in the execution of maintenance works to minimise any impact caused to streams of high ecological value,?the official circular noted. At the same time, it had to ensure flood protection. To educate staff, the circular set out guidelines in dealing with waterways of ecological value. In addition to the 17 listed streams, drainage staff were told they had to pay attention to watercourses with good landscape value and visual appeal?and to watercourses with plant and animal life of environmental value. Before carrying out work, engineers should check to see if these were located near environmentally sensitive areas. If works were planned in such areas, careful consideration must be given to minimise any adverse impact.?br> It said the Environmental Protection Department and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department should be told and consulted about how best the work should be carried out. Their comments on necessary mitigation measures should be seriously considered and incorporated as far as practicable,?the circular continued. If there was a dispute between the need for works and the necessity for conservation, this had to be brought to the attention of a chief engineer. The circular specifically warned that animals that lived in streams should have refuge from works. The use of concrete or the like should be avoided or minimised,?the departmental guidelines told drainage officials. Environmental friendly measures for riverbank stabilisation such as planting surfaces and turfing riverbanks should be used. Ponds and the natural bottom of the river beds should be preserved wherever possible to avoid damage to habitats. Removal of vegetation along streams should be kept to a minimum, the drainage staff were told. Disclosure of the instructions issued to government officials about how to properly deal with streams and waterways has angered environmentalists. They claim that every single instruction in the guidelines was broken both at the Tung Chung River and at Sha Kok Mei. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Keith on Feb 19th, 2004, 11:35pm The circular DSD 4/2002 was issued in 2002, in view of the research works by Dr. Bosco Chan of HKU. The private river training project was approved in 1999, 3 years before the circular. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by 鳥友Ａ(BWA) on Feb 19th, 2004, 11:55pm Dear Keith, Do you know how many of these "approved" works are outstanding? Can they (or at least the major ones) be recalled for re-assessment if they haven't been started? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Captain on Feb 20th, 2004, 9:24am Panel on Environmental Affairs and Panel on Planning, Lands and Works Joint meeting on Monday, 23 February 2004, at 2:30 pm in Conference Room A of the Legislative Council Building Agenda Election of Chairman (2:30 pm - 2:35 pm) Impact of construction works on rivers in Hong Kong (2:35 pm - 3:25 pm) Meeting with deputations Meeting with the Administration |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Samson So on Feb 20th, 2004, 12:20pm Dear Stanley, I would like to backup what you have mentioned about the dragonflies. Sha Kok Mei's 31 species of dragonflies (some 1/4 of HK's total) include both stream species and pond-dwelling species. The wetlands next to the stream are also home to many wetland species. Mai Po's dragonfly composition is very different from Sha Kok Mei's. Habitat difference is the major reason. My personal observation for the past 30 months is 26 species at MP. Previous surveys done by other dragonfly experts added up to a longer list of dragonfies at Mai Po. Samson |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by stanley chan on Feb 21st, 2004, 12:43pm Dear Samson, Thanks for your help, I will send the dragonfly report to you later. Regards, Stanley Chan |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Ben on Mar 5th, 2004, 6:45pm I think if the whole HKBWS and MAI PO explained what damage concreting will do to our nature, the government will perhaps listen and do so. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Forrest FONG on Mar 5th, 2004, 9:50pm on 03/05/04 at 18:45:12, Ben wrote:
Do you really think the Government doesn't know the bad effect from concreting? ??? :-[ Forrest 8) |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Ben on Mar 6th, 2004, 9:18am Possibly, but the government is just ignoring or keeps forgetting this knowledge. If a society keeps on repeating this, the government will not forget it. After this, if anyone in the government likes HK's nature, they could write a report to the heads. Then the heads may consider and likely to reduce concreting only for the major problem areas. This is only my prediction, it might not come true. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Hinson on Mar 7th, 2004, 1:53pm Hi, I do not check the content of each reply in very detail. But, I just want to express my point to the topic. I do believe that some of the stream should be modified to prevent from flooding where loss of lives and properties may happen and impact to society may be. However, the use of method should be sustainable and kept matching to the surrounding environment and its inhabitants. Recently I visited Malaysia and found thier streams and rivers never people also widened and made straight. However, they used a lot of natural rock putting into a wire-mesh net to build the wall of the canal. Vegetables and animals still have place to live. The stream and river were still in green. Again, the man-made canal and the environment were still in harmony. It also applied to the retaining wall to the steep slope. Of course, construction still required concreting but the qty. I thought would become less. It is not nice to see there are so many ugly canals in Yuen Long nowadays as well as the bridge. Still, there should be a way to get 2 things harmonic by good environmental sustainable design of construction method. Remeber, originally, the stream and the river and the natural environment belong to the living animals and plants. Human is an invader. Barry |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Mar 7th, 2004, 2:33pm on 03/07/04 at 13:53:30, Hinson wrote:
Hi Hinson, The method you saw in Malaysia is called "gabion wall". This method has also been widely used in Hong Kong, e.g. in Lam Tsuen River and She Shan River in Tai Po. It is regarded as more environment friendly than concrete lining. The problem is that it cannot withstand very high flow velocity or turbulence and hence the application in Hong Kong is limited. As I wrote earlier, the landscape in Hong Kong is quite unique in the world and the ground level difference is quite sharp along the river, causing very big challenge to drainage engineers. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Apr 16th, 2004, 7:22am 今日東方日報 鄉紳涉受賄出賣東涌河 http://orientaldaily.com.hk/new/new_a50.html http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/0416nhkm01b5%20tung%20chung%20river%20Oriental.jpg 東 涌 河 | 百 噸 巨 石 被 盜 竊 的 案 件 ， 揭 發 東 涌 鄉 事 委 員 | 懷 疑 集 體 貪 污 。 廉 政 公 署 前 日 拘 捕 十 一 人 ， 當 中 包 括 東 涌 鄉 事 | 主 席 兼 離 島 區 議 員 羅 錦 輝 、 副 主 席 李 桂 武 、 秘 書 莫 廣 明 及 六 名 委 員 。 行 動 中 ， 廉 署 又 拘 捕 東 涌 鄉 紳 黃 日 華 父 子 ， 二 人 是 負 責 挖 掘 石 塊 的 工 程 公 司 經 營 者 ， 廉 署 懷 疑 羅 等 涉 嫌 收 受 利 益 ， 以 撰 寫 授 權 書 容 許 黃 氏 父 子 非 法 挖 掘 東 涌 河 石 塊 。 廉 政 公 署 執 行 處 Ｅ 組 展 開 代 號 「 漢 水 」 的 搜 捕 行 動 ， 於 前 日 早 上 拘 捕 羅 錦 輝 等 十 一 人 ， 他 們 的 年 齡 介 乎 二 十 多 至 六 十 多 歲 ， 至 昨 晚 仍 被 扣 查 。 廉 署 於 去 年 十 二 月 傳 媒 揭 發 事 件 前 已 接 獲 貪 污 | 報 ， 指 一 名 鄉 委 | 主 席 涉 嫌 收 受 賄 賂 ， 容 許 有 人 從 東 涌 河 非 法 挖 掘 石 塊 ， 為 政 府 在 迪 士 尼 樂 園 旁 興 建 人 工 湖 。 有 關 工 程 為 政 府 與 私 人 企 業 合 作 ， 並 由 土 木 工 程 署 負 責 監 督 ， 而 承 建 商 較 早 前 將 興 建 人 工 湖 邊 的 工 程 分 判 予 一 間 建 築 公 司 ， 而 有 關 工 程 需 要 大 量 河 石 。 廉 署 調 查 顯 示 ， 兩 名 被 捕 的 東 寶 工 程 公 司 經 營 者 ， 即 一 直 向 傳 媒 堅 稱 挖 掘 石 塊 是 為 治 理 東 涌 河 氾 濫 的 居 民 兼 新 界 鄉 議 局 特 別 議 員 黃 日 華 父 子 ， 涉 嫌 承 諾 為 分 判 商 提 供 工 程 所 需 的 石 塊 ， 並 聲 稱 該 等 石 塊 是 從 東 涌 河 合 法 挖 掘 所 得 ， 政 府 其 後 接 獲 投 訴 ， 指 有 關 挖 掘 石 塊 破 壞 環 境 。 呈 鄉 | 信 件 稱 大 禹 治 水 至 去 年 十 二 月 ， 偷 石 事 件 被 傳 媒 揭 發 破 壞 大 自 然 生 態 後 ， 黃 日 華 父 子 涉 嫌 向 分 判 商 提 供 一 封 由 鄉 事 | 發 出 的 信 件 ， 聲 稱 其 公 司 獲 授 權 為 東 涌 河 進 行 防 洪 工 程 而 將 石 塊 搬 移 ， 分 判 商 則 將 有 關 信 件 交 予 政 府 作 證 明 。 黃 日 華 當 日 接 受 傳 媒 訪 問 時 更 表 示 ， 東 涌 河 年 年 氾 濫 ， 影 響 下 游 多 條 農 村 居 民 生 計 ， 令 農 民 蒙 受 損 失 ， 他 今 次 自 告 奮 勇 找 人 搬 走 大 石 ， 有 如 「 大 禹 治 水 」 ， 以 便 治 理 河 道 。 揭 偽 造 文 件 涉 詐 騙 政 府 廉 署 調 查 續 顯 示 ， 羅 錦 輝 及 莫 廣 明 涉 嫌 受 賄 ， 以 協 助 提 供 有 關 授 權 信 件 詐 騙 政 府 ， 使 政 府 人 員 相 信 石 塊 是 由 於 進 行 防 洪 工 程 而 被 移 走 ； 但 調 查 發 現 鄉 委 | 從 未 進 行 防 洪 工 程 ， 有 關 文 件 屬 偽 造 。 不 過 ， 羅 亦 曾 向 傳 媒 稱 ， 東 涌 河 非 一 條 河 ， 而 是 一 條 | ， 且 該 河 道 是 公 家 資 產 ， 挖 石 是 長 遠 解 決 水 浸 問 題 。 事 實 上 ， 今 次 事 件 亦 揭 發 懷 疑 政 府 人 員 監 管 不 力 ， 環 境 運 輸 及 工 務 局 局 長 廖 秀 冬 於 去 年 十 二 月 曾 親 到 東 涌 河 視 察 ， 對 河 道 生 態 受 到 破 壞 大 感 震 驚 ， 除 表 示 | 檢 控 涉 案 人 士 ， 亦 | 追 究 失 職 的 政 府 人 員 。 據 悉 ， 警 方 亦 接 獲 | 報 ， 警 方 發 言 人 表 示 ， 已 就 事 件 展 開 調 查 ， 迄 今 未 有 人 被 捕 。 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Apr 16th, 2004, 7:26am 今日明報 東涌河偷石涉賄廉署拘鄉委主席 http://full.mingpaonews.com/20040416/gna1r.htm http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/0416gnx%20tung%20chung%20river.gif 【 明 報 專 訊 】 非 法 挖 掘 東 涌 河 石 頭 事 件 疑 涉 貪 污 。 廉 署 前 日 起 拘 捕 11 人 ， 包 括 東 涌 鄉 事 委 員 | 主 席 和 成 員 等 9 人 ， 以 及 一 間 工 程 公 司 2 名 經 營 者 ， 懷 疑 在 搬 石 事 件 曝 光 後 ， 鄉 委 | 主 席 及 秘 書 涉 嫌 收 受 工 程 公 司 的 利 益 ， 「 證 明 」 該 工 程 公 司 獲 授 權 以 「 防 洪 工 程 」 為 名 ， 挖 取 東 涌 河 數 百 斤 石 塊 。 廉 署 周 三 起 展 開 「 漢 水 」 行 動 ， 拘 捕 東 涌 鄉 事 委 員 | 的 主 席 羅 錦 輝 、 副 主 席 李 桂 武 、 1 名 秘 書 及 6 名 委 員 ， 以 及 一 間 提 供 石 頭 的 工 程 公 司 兩 名 經 營 者 ， 各 人 年 齡 約 20 至 60 歲 不 等 。 廉 署 早 前 接 獲 貪 污 投 訴 ， 指 一 名 鄉 委 | 主 席 涉 嫌 收 受 賄 賂 ， 容 許 有 人 從 東 涌 河 非 法 挖 掘 石 塊 ， 為 竹 篙 灣 一 項 建 築 工 程 提 供 材 料 ， 遂 展 開 調 查 。 有 關 建 築 工 程 為 政 府 與 私 人 企 業 的 合 作 計 劃 ， 由 土 木 工 程 署 負 責 監 督 ， 工 程 包 括 興 建 一 個 人 工 湖 。 承 建 商 早 前 將 湖 畔 的 興 建 工 程 ， 分 判 予 另 一 間 建 築 公 司 ， 有 關 工 程 要 採 用 大 量 石 塊 。 廉 署 調 查 發 現 ， 兩 名 被 捕 的 工 程 公 司 經 營 者 ， 為 分 判 商 提 供 有 關 石 塊 ， 並 聲 稱 ， 該 批 石 塊 是 在 東 涌 河 合 法 掘 取 所 得 。 資 料 顯 示 ， 是 一 間 名 為 東 寶 工 程 公 司 負 責 為 分 判 商 提 供 石 塊 ， 公 司 負 責 人 為 東 涌 鄉 委 | 特 別 委 員 黃 日 華 。 賄 賂 鄉 委 | 取 授 權 信 此 外 ， 兩 名 工 程 公 司 的 經 營 者 ， 涉 嫌 賄 賂 鄉 委 | 主 席 及 秘 書 ， 取 得 一 封 鄉 委 | 授 權 信 件 ， 以 東 涌 河 「 防 洪 工 程 」 為 名 ， 將 河 道 石 塊 搬 移 ， 並 將 此 信 交 予 分 判 商 。 分 判 商 其 後 將 有 關 信 件 交 給 政 府 ， 但 有 關 防 洪 工 程 實 際 並 無 其 事 。 去 年 12 月 環 保 團 體 綠 色 力 量 發 現 東 涌 河 河 道 的 石 頭 被 移 走 ， 河 道 儼 然 變 成 「 爛 地 盤 」 ， 生 態 受 到 破 壞 。 環 境 運 輸 及 工 務 局 長 廖 秀 冬 曾 親 身 到 場 視 察 。 偽造授權信廉署土木署版本有異 http://full.mingpaonews.com/20040416/gna2r.htm 【 明 報 專 訊 】 環 保 團 體 去 年 12 月 揭 發 東 涌 河 被 非 法 挖 掘 ， 廉 署 消 息 透 露 ， 涉 案 人 物 於 傳 媒 報 道 事 件 後 ， 才 偽 造 鄉 委 | 證 明 授 權 挖 石 的 信 件 ， 但 土 木 工 程 署 今 年 2 月 在 解 釋 事 件 經 過 的 文 件 中 卻 稱 ， 人 工 湖 工 程 分 包 商 於 去 年 9 月 曾 出 示 鄉 委 | 的 授 權 文 件 。 (莫非有人在出事後企圖補鑊，掩飾過失 ??? >:() 東 涌 河 被 非 法 挖 石 遭 揭 發 後 ， 土 木 署 被 批 評 未 盡 責 任 查 證 石 卵 來 源 ， 採 用 非 法 挖 河 取 得 的 石 卵 興 建 竹 篙 灣 人 工 湖 。 土 木 署 今 年 2 月 刊 印 解 釋 有 關 事 件 的 單 張 ， 說 明 署 方 的 工 程 顧 問 去 年 9 月 查 證 石 卵 來 源 時 ， 工 程 分 判 商 雅 緻 石 藝 遠 東 有 限 公 司 出 示 一 封 去 年 6 月 26 日 發 出 的 「 授 權 信 」 ， 上 有 東 涌 鄉 委 | 主 席 的 署 名 及 委 員 | 印 鑑 ， 證 明 委 員 | 授 權 治 理 東 涌 河 ， 搬 走 石 卵 。 不 過 廉 署 消 息 稱 ， 鄉 委 | 授 權 搬 石 的 信 件 ， 是 於 去 年 12 月 事 件 曝 光 後 才 偽 造 出 來 ， 與 土 木 署 所 指 的 時 序 不 吻 合 。 地 政 總 署 早 前 已 按 法 例 要 求 涉 案 的 鄉 委 | 主 席 羅 錦 輝 負 責 河 道 復 修 工 程 ， 並 由 黃 日 華 的 工 程 公 司 負 責 復 修 ， 有 關 工 程 已 於 本 月 1 日 完 成 ， 並 已 獲 環 保 團 體 代 表 組 成 的 專 家 小 組 接 納 ， 認 為 已 大 致 恢 復 河 道 的 原 貌 。 http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/0416gn03.jpg%20tung%20chung%20river%202 東 涌 河 復 修 工 程 本 月 已 完 成 ， 大 部 分 卵 石 已 放 回 河 道 ， 但 漁 護 署 未 來 2 年 要 繼 續 監 察 河 道 的 生 態 。 （ 圖 片 由 世 界 自 然 （ 香 港 ） 基 金 | 梁 士 倫 提 供 ） |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by BLee on Apr 17th, 2004, 12:30pm ;D 真相大白 大快人心 Barry |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Apr 28th, 2004, 6:50am 今日蘋果 發 展 東 涌 吊 車 破 壞 自 然 生 態 地 鐵 違 諾 填 平 400 米 昂 平 河 To make way for their Tung Chung Cable Car project, the MTR filled up 400 metres of a river at Ngong Ping and constructed a diversion as replacement. MTR said the work was to prevent flooding but the Drainage Services Department disagreed. http://www1.appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?sec_id=4104&showdate=20040428&art_id=4010948&Reminder=23223# http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/28la7p1%20anping%20river.jpg 改 道 前 昂 平 河 舊 貌 ， 現 已 填 平 。 地 鐵 公 司 圖 片 【 本 報 訊 】 地 鐵 公 司 為 發 展 東 涌 至 昂 平 吊 車 工 程 ， 犧 牲 了 昂 平 一 條 長 達 | 百 米 的 天 然 河 溪 ， 另 挖 一 條 人 工 水 渠 作 補 償 。 有 立 法 | 議 員 及 環 保 團 體 不 滿 地 鐵 漠 視 自 然 生 態 的 保 | ， 地 鐵 公 司 則 辯 稱 ， 溪 流 改 道 有 助 預 防 氾 濫 及 改 善 水 質 ， 渠 務 署 則 表 示 ， 此 項 工 程 根 本 並 非 為 了 防 洪 。 記 者 ： 蔡 元 貴 東 涌 旅 遊 吊 車 工 程 已 於 今 年 初 展 開 ， 預 計 二 ○ ○ 六 年 初 投 入 服 務 。 為 了 配 合 吊 車 觀 光 ， 地 鐵 公 司 將 | 在 昂 平 興 建 一 條 主 題 村 ， 設 置 購 物 及 飲 食 商 店 ， 吸 引 遊 客 。 為 覓 地 闢 設 主 題 村 ， 地 鐵 公 司 已 把 昂 平 河 改 道 。 大 量 砍 伐 林 木 民 主 黨 立 法 | 議 員 羅 致 光 指 出 ， 昂 平 河 從 來 沒 有 氾 濫 的 紀 錄 ， 渠 務 署 要 求 在 昂 平 山 頂 上 興 建 一 條 十 米 闊 的 雨 水 渠 ， 是 難 以 理 解 的 。 更 大 問 題 是 為 了 改 道 ， 新 建 的 雨 水 渠 竟 在 郊 野 公 園 範 圍 內 挖 掘 ， 結 果 需 要 大 量 砍 伐 林 木 。 地 鐵 公 司 未 能 把 昂 平 這 條 天 然 河 流 保 存 ， 令 人 遺 憾 。 地 鐵 公 司 發 言 人 表 示 ， 被 遷 移 的 一 段 昂 平 河 ， 雨 季 造 成 氾 濫 ， 旱 季 則 被 附 近 村 落 的 化 糞 池 廢 水 流 入 污 染 ， 水 質 惡 劣 ， 改 道 工 程 有 助 改 善 這 些 情 況 。 地 鐵 公 司 亦 答 允 工 程 完 成 後 進 行 生 態 重 建 ， 當 新 河 道 本 周 通 水 啟 用 後 ， 三 至 六 個 月 內 就 | 回 復 良 好 自 然 生 態 。 不 過 ， 渠 務 署 表 示 ， 昂 平 河 改 道 工 程 本 身 並 非 防 洪 工 程 ， 溪 流 改 道 只 是 為 了 配 合 吊 車 站 及 主 題 旅 遊 村 發 展 而 繞 道 而 行 。 環 保 組 織 綠 色 大 嶼 山 協 | 對 河 流 改 道 工 程 十 分 不 滿 ， 該 | 幹 事 Clive Noffke 指 出 ， 地 鐵 公 司 曾 承 諾 保 存 天 然 河 道 ， 最 後 反 口 把 它 填 平 。 被 填 平 的 一 段 昂 平 河 長 約 三 百 九 十 米 ， 擁 有 多 樣 性 生 態 ， 盧 文 氏 樹 蛙 、 棕 脊 蛇 和 赤 胸 鶇 等 動 物 都 在 這 裡 棲 息 。 唉！一波未平，一波又起，我們的河流和小溪遲早全部人工化、石屎化、改道化、標本化......！ >:( |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Stanley Chan on Apr 28th, 2004, 2:36pm There will be a meeting with the Drainage Services Department at 2:30 pm 30th April 2004 about the flooding construction project in Sai Kung, three rivers: Ho Chung River, Pak Kung River and the Sha Kok Mei River will bb affected, pls contact the officier Mr. Tsang Tel: 25947286 for details. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Apr 29th, 2004, 6:51am 今日明報 昂坪河改道砍百樹 http://full.mingpaonews.com/20040429/ghb1r.htm http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/29gh10%20anping%20a.jpg 環 保 團 體 認 為 被 改 道 的 昂 坪 河 已 盡 量 「 天 然 化 」 ， 河 底 鋪 上 天 然 石 塊 。 http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/29gh11%20anping%20b.jpg 民 主 黨 議 員 羅 致 光 （ 左 二 ） 及 李 柱 銘 （ 左 三 ） 昨 日 到 昂 坪 河 實 地 視 察 ， 並 指 河 道 乾 旱 ， 根 本 沒 有 氾 濫 跡 象 。 被指漠視天然河保| 【 明 報 專 訊 】 地 鐵 公 司 為 興 建 昂 坪 吊 車 ， 恐 河 水 氾 濫 ， 按 渠 務 署 建 議 將 流 水 淙 淙 的 昂 坪 河 ， 改 道 入 郊 野 公 園 ， 因 此 砍 伐 百 棵 樹 木 。 民 主 黨 昨 日 批 評 工 程 漠 視 保 | 天 然 河 流 ， 更 開 先 例 「 禍 及 」 郊 野 公 園 。 地 鐵 承 諾 重 植 600 棵 樹 不 過 ， 地 鐵 、 渠 務 署 和 環 保 團 體 均 表 示 有 實 際 必 要 改 道 防 氾 濫 。 地 鐵 承 諾 在 河 道 沿 岸 重 植 600 棵 樹 ， 及 在 郊 野 公 園 內 「 包 辦 」 一 公 頃 土 地 的 栽 樹 區 ， 補 償 砍 伐 。 地 鐵 公 司 改 道 昂 坪 河 延 伸 入 郊 野 公 園 範 圍 ， 早 前 已 獲 郊 野 公 園 委 員 | 接 納 為 防 洪 工 程 ， 並 需 要 砍 伐 百 棵 樹 木 。 民 主 黨 環 保 小 組 召 集 人 熊 永 達 批 評 ， 「 這 是 開 了 很 壞 的 先 例 。 」 他 解 釋 ， 地 鐵 公 司 於 改 道 工 程 獲 環 境 諮 詢 委 員 | 通 過 批 准 後 ， 才 修 改 將 河 道 改 道 工 程 伸 入 郊 野 公 園 。 熊 永 達 認 為 ， 渠 務 署 動 輒 建 議 河 流 改 道 或 渠 道 化 ， 假 設 所 有 河 道 都 要 應 付 「 五 十 年 一 遇 的 洪 水 」 ， 否 則 便 要 進 行 防 洪 工 程 ， 漠 視 盡 量 保 | 天 然 河 道 的 重 要 性 。 環 團 ﹕ 有 需 要 改 道 渠 務 署 高 級 工 程 師 李 鉅 標 解 釋 ， 昂 坪 河 途 經 地 鐵 公 司 發 展 昂 坪 吊 車 興 建 的 主 題 村 ， 若 不 改 道 河 流 ， 不 排 除 氾 濫 ， 水 淹 主 題 村 。 他 承 認 ， 過 去 5 年 從 未 收 過 昂 坪 河 氾 濫 的 投 訴 ， 改 道 工 程 並 非 因 過 去 有 氾 濫 個 案 ， 主 要 是 擔 心 河 道 排 水 系 統 因 發 展 而 增 加 水 浸 風 險 ， 故 建 議 地 鐵 公 司 擴 闊 河 道 或 改 道 。 環 保 團 體 綠 色 力 量 高 級 環 境 事 務 主 任 胡 麗 恩 指 出 ， 村 民 反 映 昂 坪 河 有 河 水 氾 濫 問 題 ， 而 且 河 流 污 染 問 題 嚴 重 ， 生 態 價 值 不 高 ， 亦 有 需 要 改 道 。 她 指 ， 地 鐵 已 採 用 石 籠 鋪 設 改 道 河 流 ， 河 底 鋪 上 天 然 石 頭 ， 唯 一 不 足 是 河 道 太 直 ， 欠 彎 曲 和 一 些 淺 水 區 ， 環 團 已 向 地 鐵 反 映 意 見 。 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Apr 29th, 2004, 7:07am 今日太陽報 大嶼山建吊車填平昂平河 http://the-sun.com.hk/channels/news/20040429/20040429030214_0001.html http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/040429_big%20anping%20c%20sun.jpg 【本報訊】地鐵公司在大嶼山發展昂平至東涌的吊車及主題旅遊村項目，昂平河須改道，原本天然的河道須填平，另建一條長三百多米的人工雨水渠。有立法|議員質疑興建人工渠漠視自然河道保|。地鐵反駁指昂平村受河水氾濫威脅，有需要將河改道。 地鐵稱改善氾濫情況 立法|議員羅致光昨日視察東涌吊車地盤時批評，地鐵為興建吊車及主題旅遊村項目，將天然河流改道，成為闊十米的人工河道，並砍伐逾百棵樹木破壞生態環境。 不過，居於昂平村數十年的居民陳女士則歡迎昂平河改道。渠務署亦表示，河道阻礙地鐵的工程進行，有必要改道。 地鐵公司回應，將昂平河改道是改善附近一帶河水在雨季的氾濫情況，以及在旱季附近村落流出化糞池污水的問題，改道前已進行生態評估，過程亦一直有與環保組織溝通。工程完成後|重建生態環境，在河岸兩邊種植六百棵樹木，河堤及河床的植物|重新生長，在半年至一年後環境便|回復自然面貌。 世界自然（香港）基金|高級環境保護主任梁士倫表示，昂平河改道工程對環境生態影響並非太嚴重，地鐵在環境評估過程中已考慮不同方案，而採納部分環保團體的意見，例如興建河堤採用填石籠而非石屎，部分原有植物亦|移植等。他希望地鐵繼續嘗試利用對生態友善的設計。 |
||
|
Title: 「2004年香港最美麗河溪選|暨河溪攝影比賽」 Post by Forrest FONG on May 9th, 2004, 10:33am Below is a message from Tai Po Environmental Association: http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/forrest/banner_river.gif 香港雖然地少山多，卻造就出數百條的小河溪。每條天然的河溪本身已是一個生態系統，潤澤著河溪兩旁的生境。靜聽流水潺潺、細看每一河溪小生物的有趣行為，都可為生活在壓力下的城市人忘憂解煩。 為了讓我們世世代代都能享受天然的河溪美景和生態，大埔環保協進|聯同香港郊野活動聯|獲AEON教|及環保基金贊助，首次|辦了一項名為「2004年香港最美麗河溪選|暨河溪攝影比賽」，希望透過選|和攝影比賽以加強大眾對保|天然河溪的意識。 請各鳥友擁躍投票和參加河溪攝影比賽（分河溪生態組、河溪歡樂組和河溪威脅組）。 http://www.hktraveler.com/river_election/ |
||
|
Title: 16/5/04 美 麗 河 溪 選 | ： 橫 涌 石 澗 剛 柔 並 Post by Webcreeper on May 16th, 2004, 6:30am 16/5/04 蘋果日報 Second candidate in the most beautiful river and stream in Hong Kong election: Wang Chung Stream between Wang Shan Keuk and Chung Mei in Pat Sin Range Country Park. The Plumbeous Redstart is an inhabitant of rivers and streams 美 麗 河 溪 選 | ： 橫 涌 石 澗 剛 柔 並 濟 http://www1.appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?sec_id=4104&showdate=20040516&art_id=4049101# http://www1.appledaily.atnext.com/images/apple-photos/640pix/20040516/Article_news/16la7p4.jpg 「 2004 年 香 港 最 美 麗 河 溪 選 | 暨 河 溪 攝 影 比 賽 」 由 大 埔 環 保 協 進 | 聯 同 香 港 郊 野 活 動 聯 | | 辦 ， 希 望 透 過 選 | 和 攝 影 比 賽 加 強 大 眾 對 保 | 天 然 河 溪 的 意 識 。 候 選 美 麗 河 溪 ： 2 號 「 橫 涌 石 澗 」 位 於 八 仙 嶺 郊 野 公 園 ， 源 起 八 仙 嶺 東 北 部 ， 經 橫 山 腳 廢 村 、 涌 尾 ， 流 入 船 灣 淡 水 湖 。 橫 涌 石 澗 上 段 則 抱 谷 懷 幽 ， 下 段 雄 瀑 天 嘯 ， 有 兩 種 不 同 的 境 界 。 上 、 下 「 龍 珠 瀑 」 瀑 百 呎 ， 上 瀑 流 態 輕 柔 ， 下 瀑 柱 狀 的 洪 流 瀑 音 轟 然 。 其 上 為 「 黃 嶺 」 以 東 的 丘 陵 腹 地 ， 河 流 以 側 蝕 力 為 主 ， 故 產 生 時 窄 時 寬 的 「 繞 絲 溪 」 流 帶 河 道 。 河 溪 生 態 ─ ─ 紅 尾 水 鴝 （ Plumbeous Redstart ） 紅 尾 水 鴝 （ 粵 音 ： 渠 ） 屬 少 見 的 冬 候 鳥 ， 每 年 十 一 月 至 | 月 到 訪 。 身 軀 只 有 五 吋 多 長 。 雄 性 身 體 為 暗 深 藍 色 、 尾 部 啡 紅 色 ； 雌 性 背 部 灰 色 、 胸 腹 部 呈 鱗 片 狀 花 紋 、 尾 部 黑 白 兩 色 。 喜 愛 多 石 塊 的 小 河 溪 中 、 下 游 位 置 或 引 水 道 棲 息 。 可 在 大 埔 鳳 園 、 林 村 、 碗 窯 等 地 見 到 。 歡 迎 網 上 投 票 及 參 看 攝 影 比 賽 ： www.taipoea.org 或 www.hkfca.org.hk 。 查 詢 請 電 2739 2481 或 電 郵 至 taipoea@sinatown.com 。 |
||
|
Title: 東涌河修復 Tung Chung Stream is Recovering Post by Webcreeper on Jun 16th, 2004, 6:46am 16/6/04 明報 Mingpao 東涌河修復 「東 涌 河 被 非 法 挖 掘 卵 石 ， 生 態 遭 受 破 壞 。 河 道 在 完 成 復 修 兩 個 月 多 後 ， 一 度 失 蹤 的 稀 有 「 北 江 光 唇 魚 」 ， 近 日 終 重 現 於 有 關 河 道 ， 但 能 否 全 面 恢 復 當 地 生 態 ， 仍 有 待 觀 察 。 律 政 司 本 月 初 已 正 式 起 訴 東 涌 鄉 委 | 主 席 羅 錦 輝 和 負 責 工 程 的 村 代 表 黃 日 華 ， 控 以 非 法 取 石 及 挖 掘 兩 控 罪 。 律 政 司 要 求 押 後 案 件 ， 研 究 是 否 合 併 廉 署 和 警 方 擬 起 訴 的 控 罪 。 」 Two months after the restoration works at Tung Chung Stream was completed, a rare fish, Acrossocheilus beijangensis, re-appears. This is a sign that the stream is recovering. Two villagers were being prosecuted for unauthorized taking of boulders and rocks. http://full.mingpaonews.com/20040616/gha1hr.htm 有關東涌河的近況，世界自然基金|（香港）的網頁有更詳細的報道： http://www.wwf.org.hk/chi/conservation/intro/tcr_index.html More about the recent conditions of the stream can be found at WWF(HK)'s website: http://www.wwf.org.hk/eng/conservation/intro/tcr_index.html |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Webcreeper on Jul 10th, 2004, 6:58am 10/7/04 Two months after the completion of restoration works, Tung Chung Stream is recovering from the damage done by illegal stone taking. The rare fish Acrossocheilus beijangensis reappears. (9/7/04) 明報 Mingpao 生機再現光唇魚重現東涌河 http://hk.news.yahoo.com/040709/12/12200.html 「去年底遭非法挖掘的東涌河，經過兩個月的復修工程後，河道已大致恢復原貌，再發現稀有淡水魚北江光唇魚。」 10/7/04 明報 Mingpao 有淡水魚再現東涌河 http://full.mingpaonews.com/20040710/ghb1r.htm 「【 明 報 專 訊 】 東 涌 河 被 非 法 挖 石 供 興 建 迪 士 尼 主 題 公 園 外 的 人 工 湖 ， 當 日 被 破 壞 後 有 如 「 地 盤 廢 墟 」 的 河 道 ， 經 復 修 後 已 恢 復 流 水 潺 潺 的 原 貌 ， 本 港 稀 有 的 北 江 光 唇 魚 不 單 重 返 河 流 ， 種 群 更 頗 為 活 躍 ， 隨 便 一 小 角 落 也 可 發 現 8 至 10 條 在 清 澈 河 水 中 游 | 。 」 文匯 Wenwei生態復原 光唇魚重現東涌河 http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=YO0407100012&service_id= 「【本報訊】（記者 羅敬文）歷盡生態大災難的東涌河，生態環境曾奄奄一息，經過兩個月復修工程，受破壞的下游河道已大致恢復原貌，河流中魚兒躍動，至今已有7種魚類再棲息於復修的河段中，連稀有的北江光唇魚也重新出現！有生態專 家形容，東涌河生態回復情況理想，相信三至|年內便可大致復原！ 」 東方 Oriental Daily東涌河「復活」 稀有魚重臨 http://orientaldaily.com.hk/new/new_a16cnt.html 太陽 The Sun東涌河現游魚復生機 http://the-sun.com.hk/channels/news/20040710/20040710021039_0001.html |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Alan Leung on Aug 10th, 2004, 12:58pm I have recently attended a number of consultations regarding the "drainage improvement" works in various parts of Hong Kong and commented on their proposals. A good observation that the mind of the DSD and engineers are changing. Now they are willing to accept more environmental friendly designs on future projects, such as: 1. The use of gabions (stones inside metal-wire cages) to protect the stream banks instead of concrete or grasscrete as far as possible (in some places, land is a limiting factor, e.g. some houses have been built along the sides of the stream and the use of gabions occupies more land); 2. The leave the natural stream course and streambed untouched as far as possible (widening rather than deepening); 3. To build floodwater by-pass channel to carry away excessive water only during heavy rain; Together with better landuse planning, say, should we keep building houses on the floodplain and then complain about flooding or should we protect the floodplain as a component of a stream ecosystem? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Glorfin 格洛芬 on Oct 8th, 2004, 11:17am Dear all, Thank you for of all your opinions on the issue of local river channelisation. Understanding different attitudes towards the same issue is really meaningful (^_^). Many of you may receive my private e-mail, about asking for your opinions and photos. I sincerely say thanks to those who have responded me and concerned my research. About local river channelisation, I avoid to express my own attitude in the public BBS. I just leave some basic questions here, and let us think about them. 1) Don't mix up river restoration/rehabilitation and river channelisation. River restoration takes place on degraded rivers; but river channelisation takes place on nature rivers. So EFD is not river restoration. 2) River involves a system. Dealing with a river channel does not mean dealing with the whole river system. Any river works which ignore the concept of ''river system'' go fail. 3) To the government, does EFD mean ''landscape beauty''? ''wildlife resort''? ''mitigation measures of EIA''? Or other meanings? Why our EFD is different from other countries' is because our government has an ''interesting'' attitude towards the EFD. on 08/10/04 at 12:58:44, Alan Leung wrote:
Dear Alan, Would you offer the examples/the names of these consultation? Because I am afraid that I may miss some of them (-_-) THX. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers Post by Typhoon Faye on Oct 10th, 2004, 8:10pm on 10/08/04 at 11:17:37, Glorfin 格洛芬 wrote:
It is very difficult to compare the situation in Hong Kong with other parts of the world. As I pointed out in the earlier posts, rivers in Hong Kong are considered as an intergral part of the stormwater drainage system to discharge a very large and rapid amount of flood water during rainstorm event, because nowhere else in the world has rainfall so high while with very high density population living in the floodplains at the same time. The rainfall in Hong Kong is even greater than tropical areas like Singapore. Land is a scarce property and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to restrict people from living in the floodplains. The present environmental measures adopted in river channelization works in Hong Kong may not be prefect from the ecological conservation point of view but a compromise must be sought for effective functioning of the flood mitigation capability of the rivers to protect loss of life and property during rainstorm. |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治2z?u程 Post by John Holmes on Oct 23rd, 2004, 8:37pm Muddy sediments from summer rainfall can form reasonable habitat for a variety of wintering birds, but not when the watercourse gets scraped clean every autumn! location: Beas River (Long Valley / Ho Sheung Heung) date: 23/10/2004 http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/owlet-nightjar/StreamsRiversLongvalley041023_9137.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/StreamsRiversLongvalley041023_9137.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Glorfin 格洛芬小姐 on Oct 23rd, 2004, 8:43pm :-[How many kinds of ''environmental friendly measures'' can you find in existing Kam Tin River (22/10/2004)? http://www.geocities.com/glorfin_wws/WaiToishan1.JPG http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/WaiToishan1.jpg Location: near Wai Toi Shan (6-NE-8D) http://www.geocities.com/glorfin_wws/Hache.JPG http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/Hache%202.jpg Location: near Ha Che Tsuen (6-NE-9C) http://www.geocities.com/glorfin_wws/WaiToishan.jpg http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/WaiToishan%203.jpg Location: near Wai Toi Shan (6-NE-8D) http://www.geocities.com/glorfin_wws/KTbarrier.JPG http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/webcreeper/News/KTbarrier%204.jpg Location: pumping station (6-NE-6D) >:( |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治2z?u程 Post by Glorfin 格洛芬小姐 on Oct 23rd, 2004, 8:54pm on 10/23/04 at 20:37:53, John Holmes wrote:
What about the sediment which has *already* been contaminated by headward pollution sources? Also, how long can muddy sediment sustain, especially during flooding period and dry flow (as Holmes mentioned above)? Finally, do wintering birds like the places which have muddy sediment, but also have construction sites, housing estates and traffic roads nearby ???? |
||
|
Title: Flood prevention vs Conservation Post by M Kilburn on Oct 25th, 2004, 9:29am DSD is currently consulting the environmental groups on a number of flood prevention works in northern NT. Having conducted a number of site visits and consultation meetings it is becoming clear that: 1. Some members of DSD are becoming more aware of their conservation rsponsibilities (but some are not). 2. The design of flood channels is greatly influenced by the "demands" of the maintenance teams 3. The Environmental NGOs have a much deeper knowledge of biodiversity matters than EPD or AFCD on certain aspects of biodiversity - we have an important role to play in bringing these issues 4. The Environmental NGOs can influence the design of ongoing works by direct consultation with DSD. 5. The Env NGOs will discuss the role of the maintenance teams in the design of channels - often the need for roads and a conrete bed is at the request of the maintenance section 6. The flood reporting system which leads to plans for improvement is often weak - there is no objective standard and often no data except for "reports" from villagers. Hopefully we can have consultation on the justification for flood prevention works with DSD. Welcome any response - especially from those with connections to DSD. Cheers Mike K |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by John Holmes on Nov 4th, 2004, 9:33am Glorfin's pictures of the river near Kam Tin show a similar open concrete ditch there, too. This time last year there was still a layer of sediment at the bottom of the Beas (Sheung Yue) River floodway channel. There were dry patches and damp patches, with small clumps of vegetation, and birds included Grey Herons, Egrets, Chinese Pond Heron, and waders such as Common,Wood and Green Sandpipers, Little Ringed Plover and Common Snipe. (Sadly, I didn't take any photos). Even though some of the deposits at the bottom of the floodway included waste from farms upstream, there still seemed to be a balance of nutrients to attract the birds . A good example of an old, concreted floodway that has attracted a few birds in past winters (because of dirt-and-vegetation feeding opportunities) has been the channel next to Airfield Road in Shek Kong. SURELY the flood-prevention effectiveness of these newer floodways would NOT be adversely affected by Drainage Services Department allowing a small layer of "natural" mud and vegetation at the bottom ? |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Webcreeper on Apr 9th, 2005, 1:11am 28/3/05 明報 Mingpao http://full.mingpaonews.com/20050328/28gbx.gif ETWB has issued a new technical circular on preventing destruction to natural streams by engineering works. Effective from September, the document requires that government works not subject to EIA shall consider advice from AFCD and relevant experts regarding the need and scale of the project, and that the use of concrete channels shall be avoided as far as possible. 防東涌河事件重演 河溪施工指引出台 (http://full.mingpaonews.com/20050328/gbb1r.htm) 【 明 報 專 訊 】 香 港 有 超 過 2500 公 里 的 天 然 河 流 和 溪 澗 ， 其 中 33 條 被 漁 護 署 評 為 具 高 生 態 價 值 （ 見 圖 ） ， 但 過 去 4 年 ， 最 少 有 30 公 里 天 然 河 溪 的 河 H 因 河 道 工 程 被 鋪 石 屎 ， 當 中 最 經 典 的 ， 包 括 東 涌 河 遭 村 民 破 壞 事 件 。 針 對 可 能 | 破 壞 河 溪 生 態 的 小 型 工 程 ， 環 境 運 輸 及 工 務 局 於 本 月 中 完 成 制 定 技 術 指 引 ， 規 定 政 府 部 門 在 規 劃 及 進 行 工 程 期 間 須 按 守 則 ， 保 護 天 然 及 具 高 生 態 價 值 河 溪 ， 防 止 東 涌 河 事 件 重 演 。 指 引 規 定 ， 政 府 部 門 必 須 就 工 程 的 需 要 和 規 模 ， 逐 一 諮 詢 漁 農 自 然 護 理 署 及 有 關 部 門 專 家 的 意 見 ， 有 關 意 見 必 須 於 規 劃 、 設 計 及 進 行 工 程 時 加 以 考 慮 ， 包 括 盡 量 避 免 採 用 石 屎 建 新 河 道 （ 見 圖 ） 。 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Webcreeper on Apr 20th, 2005, 1:12pm 20/4/05 明報 Mingpao Four persons, including the chairman of Tung Chung Rural Committee, were convicted yesterday of illegal quarrying from the Tung Chung Stream. 東涌河挖石案 4人罪成押後判 (http://full.mingpaonews.com/20050420/ged1r.htm) 【 明 報 專 訊 】 東 涌 鄉 事 委 員 | 主 席 羅 錦 輝 ， 以 整 治 東 涌 河 患 為 藉 口 ， 串 謀 非 法 挖 掘 東 涌 河 石 頭 ， 賣 予 迪 士 尼 樂 園 興 建 人 工 湖 。 昨 日 他 於 區 域 法 | 被 裁 定 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 、 串 謀 偷 竊 等 5 項 罪 名 全 部 成 立 。 而 鄉 委 | 副 主 席 李 桂 武 （ 62 歲 ） 與 秘 書 莫 廣 明 （ 66 歲 ） 及 工 程 公 司 的 東 主 黃 日 華 （ 52 歲 ） ， 亦 被 指 串 謀 假 稱 曾 召 開 鄉 委 | | 議 授 權 挖 石 ， 分 別 被 裁 定 其 中 3 項 罪 名 成 立 。 辯 方 呈 上 立 法 | 議 員 劉 皇 發 等 的 求 情 信 ， 指 首 被 告 熱 心 公 職 ， 服 務 東 涌 區 多 年 ， 為 保 存 鄉 委 | 聲 譽 ， 才 否 認 非 法 挖 石 。 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Webcreeper on May 4th, 2005, 7:42pm 4/5/05 4 persons found guilty of illegal quarrying at the Tung Chung Stream were sentenced to 11 to 24 months in prison. 文匯 Wenwei 東涌河偷石案鄉委|主席囚2年 (http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=HK0505040060&service_id=) 【本報訊】非法於東涌河挖石賣予迪士尼樂園興建人工湖一案，東涌鄉委|主席羅錦輝因以治水謊話掩飾偷石，昨就串謀偷竊及串謀妨礙司法公正等5罪被判監兩 年，罰款1萬元。法官指賣石合約最多獲利72萬，各人卻蓄意撒謊阻礙政府調查， 打擊本港司法公正，更破壞生態。羅縱使曾貢獻社|良多，亦難免入獄，主席公職亦將遭褫奪，可謂身敗名裂。 除鄉委|主席羅錦輝外，副主席李桂武及秘書莫廣明被判監11個月，他們亦將被取消公職資格；工程公司東主黃日華則被判監20個月及罰款1萬元。各人被定的5罪包括串謀詐騙、串謀妨礙司法公正、串謀盜竊、將未批租土地的石頭移走及擅自挖掘未批租土地。 東涌河偷石事件簿 (http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=HK0505040062&service_id=) 日期 經過 09-2003 土木工程署承辦商透過二判，經供應商為竹篙灣水上活動中心提供石材 。 10-2003 地政總署發現東涌河有人非法挖掘石塊。 26-10-2003 首批石材被運到竹篙灣建人工湖。 11-11-2003 地政總署向涉嫌非法採石的村民發警告信，限令兩星期內修復河道。 14-11-2003 土木工程署接獲地政總署通知，證實竹篙灣石材是經非法開採得來。 25-11-2003 村民要求延遲修復期。 03-12-2003 綠色力量揭發「偷石」醜聞。 19-12-2003 地政總署建議律政司起訴東涌鄉事委員|主席羅錦輝及村代表黃日華。 02-2004 東涌河修復工程展開。 15-04-2004 廉署拘捕11人，包括東涌鄉事委員|部分委員，懷疑他們涉嫌參與非法挖掘東涌河石塊，當中有人涉收受利益。 4被告判刑 (http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=HK0505040063&service_id=) 明報 Mingpao 東涌河偷石 鄉委主席囚2年 (http://full.mingpaonews.com/20050504/gca1r.htm) 蘋果 Apple Daily 串 謀 三 人 分 判 監 11 至 20 月 挖 河 賣 石 鄉 委 | 主 席 囚 兩 年 (http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?sec_id=4104&showdate=20050504&art_id=4859801) 惡人終於有惡報。 |
||
|
Title: Re: Our Streams and Rivers 河溪治理工程 Post by Webcreeper on Jun 11th, 2005, 6:48pm 11/6/05 明報 Mingpao The Drainage Services Department's improvement scheme for Tai Po River has included features that would restore part of the natural state of the river after the works. The bank on one side of a 150m section of the river (out of the 600m involved) would be left intact, while the other side would be lined with gabbions instead of concrete. 大埔河改善工程加環保元素 (http://www.mingpaonews.com/20050611/gzb1r.htm) 【 明 報 專 訊 】 渠 務 署 計 劃 明 年 進 行 大 埔 河 改 善 工 程 ， 改 善 附 近 鄉 村 的 排 洪 能 力 ， 改 善 暴 雨 時 的 水 浸 情 況 ， 但 由 於 河 道 工 程 往 往 破 壞 自 然 生 態 ， 而 今 次 施 工 的 河 道 中 ， 又 有 珍 貴 的 魚 類 、 生 物 ， 例 如 香 港 蠑 螈 、 異 及 條 紋 擬 鱨 ， 故 今 次 工 程 ， 渠 務 署 特 別 加 入 環 保 元 素 ， 其 中 一 段 河 流 只 | 沿 一 邊 河 岸 挖 掘 ， 待 工 程 完 成 後 ， 更 | 還 原 現 有 狀 況 ， 將 挖 出 的 石 頭 放 回 ， 重 塑 天 然 生 境 。 |
||
|
HKBWS BBS 香 港 觀 鳥 會 新 聞 組 » Powered by YaBB! YaBB 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |