In March 2005, the Project Proponent, Profit Point Enterprises Limited, acquired the development site in Yuen Long at Wo Shang Wai. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was then carried out under the EIA Ordinance (EIAO), and the Environmental Permit (EP-311/2008) for construction of the comprehensive development in Wo Shang Wai was first granted by EPD on 9 September 2008 and has been subsequently varied, with the current version (EP-311/2008/E) issued by EPD on 19 December 2017.

The Project involves the residential development and associated infrastructure and wetland restoration area and linear landscape area. The construction works under the Environmental Permit commenced on 12 May 2010. The site formation construction works of the Wetland Restoration Area (hereafter WRA) were completed on 15 November 2010, and the WRA was established by October 2012, within 30 months from the commencement of construction as stipulated in the EP. This indicated that planting works as scheduled in the approved Wetland Restoration and Creation Scheme (WRCS; November 2009) was completed, except along the western and southern boundary where the planting is affected by the existing site boundary and noise barrier, and for which a Variation to Environmental Permit (EP-311/2008/C) to defer planting at the location was approved. The current valid EP (EP-311/2008/E) includes specific mitigation measures to minimise certain identified noise impacts during the operation phase of the Project.

Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Ltd. (“MMHK”) has been commissioned by the Contractor, Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd., to undertake the Environmental Team (ET) services to carry out environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) for both pre-construction and construction phases of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long. From August 2016, the Project Proponent, Profit Point Enterprises Limited, commissioned MMHK to continue the ET services.

According to the EP Condition 4.6, the EM&A results on ecological aspects during the construction phase should be reported to the EIA Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE), EPD and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on a biannual basis. This is the17^th Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 May 2018 to 31 October 2018. This report documents surveys and management activities conducted in the Survey Area and WRA from 1 May 2018 to 31 October 2018, which is based on ecological surveys and advices on management which were undertaken by the appointed Non-Government Organisations (Green Power / Eco-Education & Resources Centre) during the reporting period.

1.2 Survey Area

Surveys were conducted within 500m of the Project area. The WRA was surveyed since early September 2010. The survey area and transect are provided in Figure 1.1.

1.3 EM&A Requirement on Ecological Impact

The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of ecology as specified in the approved EM&A Manual. A summary of ecological impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 1.1:

Table 1.1: Summary of Ecological Impact EM&A Requirements

Descriptions	Locations	Frequencies
Birds	Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m	Weekly
Dragonflies and Butterflies	Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m	Once per month during Mar and Sep to Nov, and twice per month during Apr to Aug
Herpetofauna	Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m	Day-time: Once per month during Apr to Nov Night-time: Once per month during Mar to Aug
Water quality of Wetland Restoration Area (WRA)	WRA	After filling of WRA with water, monthly for in situ water quality and every six months (end of wet season and end of dry season) for laboratory testing
Site Inspections	Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m	Weekly

2 Ecological Monitoring

2.1 Ecological Monitoring

In accordance with the EM&A requirements, monitoring of birds, dragonflies and butterflies, and herpetofauna were carried out during the reporting period. In addition, monitoring of mammals was also conducted concurrently with other surveys and the results were reported although it is not required by the EM&A Manual. The dates of surveys are summarised in Appendix A.

2.2 Monitoring of Birds

Monitoring was undertaken following the survey methodology in the EM&A Manual (Table 7-1). Since September 2010, monitoring included the newly formed cells to monitor faunal usage of this area. All bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland dependent were identified and enumerated. Flying birds were not recorded unless they were foraging and/or associated with the habitat (such as swifts). Further, notable bird observations during other surveys were also recorded.

Bird surveys were conducted on a weekly basis throughout the period. A total of 49 bird species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in the survey period (i.e. May 2018 to October 2018), 25 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix B.

A total of 62 species were recorded in the WRA in the survey period, 31 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent species. All three target species [1] (i.e. Little Egret, Egretta garzetta, Chinese Pond Heron, Ardeola bacchus and Eastern Cattle Egret, Bubulcus coromandus) were recorded in the WRA during regular survey. The WRA continues to attract a number of species of conservation importance, including Little Grebe, Tachybaptus ruficollis, Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, Purple Heron, Ardea purpurea, Great Egret, Ardea alba, Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea, Intermediate Egret, Egretta intermedia, Yellow Bittern, Ixobrychus sinensis, Cinnamon Bittern, Ixobrychus cinnamomeus, Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax, Black Kite, Milvus migrans, Pheasant-tailed Jacana, Hydrophasianus chirurgus, Greater Painted-snipe, Rostratula benghalensis, Little Ringed Plover, Charadrius dubius, Pied Kingfisher, Ceryle rudis, White-throated Kingfisher, Halcyon smyrnensis, Red-billed Starling, Spodiopsar sericeus, White-shouldered Starling, Sturnia sinensis and Collared Crow, Corvus torquatus. Little Grebe, Yellow Bittern, Cinnamon Bittern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Pheasant-tailed Jacana, Greater Painted-snipe, Little Ringed Plover, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher, White-shouldered Starling and Collared Crow are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron and Great Egret are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Potential Regional Concern” in 2002. Purple Heron, Intermediate Egret and Black Kite are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Collared Crow is also listed as “near threatened” species on the IUCN red list. Red-billed Starling is listed as of Regional Concern (Wetland Restoration Plan, Mott, 2008).

In addition to wetland dependent birds, the WRA also attracts a number of terrestrial birds including Greater Coucal, Centropus sinensis which are listed as vulnerable (VU) in the China Red Data Book and it is protected under terrestrial wildlife state protection (category II). Survey findings indicate that the WRA not only provides important habitat for wetland-dependence birds but also the terrestrial birds.

The fish ponds to the north of the WRA are at a greater distance from the residential portion and any disturbance impact(s) from the construction works would have first affected the WRA. Further, 31 bird species of conservation importance and /or wetland dependence, were observed using the site during survey period, including some bird species which are highly sensitive to disturbance and three target species (i.e. Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron). Thus, the WRA is considered to be effective both in acting as a buffer against potential disturbance impacts from the construction site, and in providing suitable wetland habitats at the fringe of the Deep Bay system.

2.3 Monitoring of Herpetofauna

Monitoring was undertaken following the survey methodology in the EM&A Manual. Day-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once a month between May 2018 and October 2018. Night-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once a month between May 2018 and August 2018. Further, notable herpetofauna observations during other surveys were also recorded.

No Amphibian and one reptile species was recorded in the survey area (excluding the WRA) within the survey period.

Asian Common Toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus, was recorded in the WRA within the survey period. Checkered Keelback, Xenochrophis flavipunctatus, Common Rat Snake, Ptyas mucosus, Red-necked Keelback, Rhabdophis subminiatus helleri and Long-tailed Skink, Eutropis longicaudata were recorded in the WRA within the survey period.

Nevertheless, neither amphibian nor reptile species was recorded during regular surveys in all survey areas (including WRA) while all those sightings were recorded outside regular survey within the reporting period. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix C.

2.4 Monitoring of Dragonfly and Butterflies

Monitoring of dragonflies and butterflies was conducted once per month in September 2018 and October 2018, and twice per month between May 2018 and August 2018. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other surveys were recorded.

A total of 6 dragonfly species and 7 butterfly species were recorded using the ponds in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) in the reporting period. At the WRA, a higher diversity of dragonfly species (15 species) and butterfly species (11 species) were recorded. A summary of the survey findings is provided in Appendix C.

2.5 Monitoring of Mammals

Monitoring of mammals was conducted concurrently with other surveys. No mammal species was recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) within the reporting period.

Two unidentified bat species and Leopard Cat, Prionailurus bengalensis were recorded within the WRA outside regular survey during the reporting period. A summary of the survey findings is provided in Appendix C.

2.6 Monitoring of Water Quality

Monthly water quality monitoring continued during the reporting period. Monitoring parameters followed that in the EM&A Manual. In May 2018, the pH of Cell 2, Cell 3 and Cell 4 reached action level; In May 2018, the water level of Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3 and Cell 4 reached the action level. In June 2018, the water level of Cell 2 reached the action level.

According to the ecological monitoring data, the low water level in the WRA attracted wetland-dependent species including Little Grebe, Great Egret, Yellow Bittern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Little Ringed Plover, Green Sandpiper, Common Sandpiper and White-throated Kingfisher. As the low water level attracts wetland-dependent birds, the existing water level will be maintained. Monitoring data is presented in Appendix D. Locations for the monitoring of water quality for the ecological monitoring are shown in Figure 1.2.

3 Ecological Issues

3.1 Vegetation Management

Removal of exotic vegetation in all cells was undertaken; these included but not limited to Ipomoes sp., Mikania sp., Mimosa sp., Pennisetum sp. and Typha sp..

Vegetation management activities undertaken at the site primarily involved watering of plants, weeding and grass cutting.

3.2 Wildlife Management

Golden Apple Snails were removed on an “as-seen” basis.

All red fire ant nests were treated with approved pesticide and covered with overturn baskets for a week. All pesticide used was in powder form and the pesticide usage was confined to Fire Ants’ nest found on terrestrial area which were further away from the Cells to prevent the contamination of water. All treated fire ant nests were inactive within one week of treatment.

Preliminarily actions have been taken to increase the WRA utilization by birds. The mitigation actions are:

1. Lowering the water level of Cell 3 and Cell 4;

2. Controlling the vegetation at Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3 and Cell 4.

These mitigation actions aim to increase the foraging area and maintain suitable habitat for target species.

4 Summary of Wetland Restoration Area Performance

4.1 Summary of Findings

Ecological monitoring between 1 May 2018 and 31 October 2018 was carried out following the survey methodology and frequency outlined in the EM&A Manual.

Summary of ecological monitoring in the Survey Area and WRA between May 2018 and October 2018 (Table 4.1):

Table 4.1: Summary of Ecological Monitoring in WRA and Survey Area

Species	Number of species recorded in Survey Area (excluding WRA)	Number of species recorded in WRA
Birds (total)	49	62
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence)	25	31
Amphibians	0	1
Reptiles	1	4
Mammals	0	3
Dragonflies	6	15
Butterflies	7	11

A total of 62 bird species, 1 amphibian species, 4 reptile species, 3 mammal species, 15 dragonfly species and 11 butterfly species were recorded in the WRA, including 31 bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence, while all dragonfly species are wetland-dependent. These findings indicate that the WRA is supporting wetland-dependent birds and other species of conservation importance.

Survey findings indicate that the WRA is attracting the three target species to varying degrees. During the survey period (i.e. May 2018 and October 2018), the site was particularly attractive to Little Egret. Little Egret was recorded on nearly weekly basis, with monthly means ranging from 2.3 to 4.4 birds per survey; while Chinese Pond Heron was also recorded on nearly weekly basis in regular survey period (May 2018 and October 2018) with monthly means ranging from 1.0 to 2.4 bird per survey. Eastern Cattle Egret was least attracted to the site. Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded in a monthly survey on September 2018 with monthly mean of 0.5 during the recorded month during regular survey and October 2018 during outside survey. A list of the bird species recorded at the WRA since completion of site formation is provided in Appendix B (Table B4 to B7).

With the completion of planting as scheduled in the approved Habitat Creation and Management Plan (HCMP) in August 2012, establishment work at the WRA is considered complete (except along the western and southern boundary where the planting is affected by the existing site boundary and noise barrier, and for which an approved Variation to Environmental Permit (EP-311/2008/D) to defer planting at the location applies), and the 30-month establishment period concluded in October 2012. A review of the performance of the WRA during the review period in terms of target species attraction is provided in Section 4.2 below.

It should be noted that the high planting density was intended to ensure a rapid establishment of the site prior to occupation intake, and not intended to be maintained as a long-term tree density at the WRA. It is a standard arboricultural practice to apply appropriate horticultural/ arboricultural maintenance methods in the subsequent five or six years after initial planting to remove less desired specimens to facilitate the successful growth of those which are of higher landscape and/or ecological value. Further, some fine tuning of planting locations and tree/shrub mix is required in order to fulfil the design intent of the habitat structure at WRA after reviewing the site configuration following site formation. Vegetation management hereafter should largely consist of maintenance of planted trees and shrubs for the creation of suitable habitats for target species and long-term habitat structure of the site.

4.2 WRA Performance for the Bird Target Species

The provision, maintenance and operation of a WRA are a requirement under the Environmental Permit for compensation for predicted ecological impacts to species of conservation importance. Three bird target species were identified during the EIA process; they are Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron. Target levels of these species are the annual mean number recorded during the Baseline Ecological Monitoring (i.e. a mean of 5.5 Little Egret, 1.3 Eastern Cattle Egret and 1.3 Chinese Pond Heron over a 12-month period) thus, the ecological impact of the project to the species concerned is considered to have been fully compensated when the target level for each of the three species is achieved. Whilst further discussion and agreement regarding the target level is yet to be undertaken with the relevant Government departments prior to the operation of the WRA, the proposed level offers a clear reference to the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. According to the approved Wetland Creation and Restoration Scheme (November 2009, hereafter WCRS), the WRA is anticipated to be fully operational after an establishment period of 2.5 years (30 months).

Of the three target species, all of them (i.e. Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron and Eastern Cattle Egret) were recorded using the site under survey period (May 2018 to October 2018). Among all target species, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in all six months and Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded in September 2018 during the regular survey and October 2018 during the outside survey within the six-month survey period.

Table 4.2: Biannual mean & Annual mean of the three target species of the WRA from November 2016 to October 2018

Common Name	Scientific Name	Conservation Status ⁽²⁾	Baseline Annual Mean ⁽³⁾	Biannual Mean			Annual Mean
Common Name	Scientific Name	Conservation Status ⁽²⁾	Baseline Annual Mean ⁽³⁾	May 17 - Oct 17	Nov 17 - Apr 18	May 18 - Oct 18	Nov 16 - Oct 17	Nov 17 - Oct 18
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	PRC, (RC)	1.3	2.4	2.4	1.9	3.5	2.1
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	PRC, (RC)	5.5	6.6	15.7	3.6	6.3	9.6
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	(LC)	1.3	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	-	<0.1

Notes:

(1) Value in bold indicated the Target Level was achieved.

(2) Conservation Status follows that of Fellow et. al. (2002). See Appendix B (Table B3).

(3) Annual mean number recorded during Baseline Ecological Monitoring.

Based on Table 4.2 above, the target annual mean level of the Chinese Pond Heron and Little Egret have been achieved between November 2017 to October 2018 while the target level for Eastern Cattle Egret was not achieved.

As the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai is still under construction phase, it is considered acceptable for the target species levels have not been achieved. According to the ecological monitoring data of the survey area (excluding the WRA), Eastern Cattle Egret was observed only in 5 of the regular ecological survey (i.e. 5 out of 27) between May 2018 and Oct 2018 and the biannual mean of the Eastern Cattle Egret of survey area (excluding the WRA) is 1.4 bird per survey (May 2018 – October 2018), the results indicated that the number of Eastern Cattle Egret in the whole area is low and the low number of Eastern Cattle Egret in the WRA is considered acceptable. However, should this situation continue, a review of the management of the WRA and adaptive management steps will be required.

The mitigation actions including: 1) Lowering the water level; and 2) Controlling the vegetation; have been taken in the WRA since November 2014 to increase the WRA utilization by birds, especially for the three target species of the WRA. Since the implementation of the mitigation actions, the annual means of Chinese Pond Heron and Little Egret, two of the three target species reached the target level and the annual means of Little Egret, increased gradually from 6.3 to 9.6 respectively (Table 4.2). This may indicate the mitigation actions taken in the WRA are effective. The mitigation actions will be continued in the WRA and monitoring will be continued to investigate the effectiveness of the mitigation actions.

In addition, though the target levels for Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved between May 2018 to October 2018, the WRA continues to attract wetland dependent species. Among all the wetland dependent species, Little Grebe, Yellow Bittern, Cinnamon Bittern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Pheasant-tailed Jacana, Greater Painted-snipe, Little Ringed Plover, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher, White-shouldered Starling and Collared Crow are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron and Great Egret are listed by Fellowes et al. “Potential Regional Concern” in 2002. Purple Heron and Black Kite are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Collared Crow is also listed as “near threatened” species on the IUCN red list. Red-billed Starling is listed as Regional Concern (Wetland Restoration Plan, Mott, 2008).

A summary of the annual mean of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in the WRA from May 2018 to October 2018 is shown in Table 4.3.

The increase of the number of the species of conservation interest indicates the WRA is providing suitable habitat for them.

Table 4.3: Mean number of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence in the WRA during reporting period

Common Name	Scientific Name ⁽³⁾	Wetland Dependence	Conservation Status ⁽¹⁾	Annual mean number recorded during the Baseline Ecological Monitoring	Mean number recorded between May 2018 - Oct 2018 ⁽²⁾
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	Y	LC	0.0	2.8
Great Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	Y	PRC	0.5	<0.1
Grey Heron	Ardea cinerea	Y	PRC	0.1	0.4
Purple Heron	Ardea purpurea	Y	RC	0.0	V
Great Egret	Ardea alba	Y	PRC, (RC)	V	0.8
Intermediate Egret	Egretta intermedia	Y	RC	0.0	V
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	Y	PRC, (RC)	5.5	3.6
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	Y	(LC)	1.3	0.1
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	Y	PRC, (RC)	1.3	1.9
Yellow Bittern	Ixobrychus sinensis	Y	(LC)	0.0	0.4
Cinnamon Bittern	Ixobrychus cinnamomeus	Y	LC	0.0	V
Black-crowned Night Heron	Nycticorax nycticorax	Y	(LC)	0.2	0.1
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Y	(RC)	1.2	0.5
White-breasted Waterhen	Amaurornis phoenicurus	Y	-	0.2	0.5
Common Moorhen	Gallinula chloropus	Y	-	0.0	1.0
Pheasant-tailed Jacana	Hydrophasianus chirurgus	Y	LC	0.0	V
Greater Painted-snipe	Rostratula benghalensis	Y	LC	0.0	V
Little Ringed Plover	Charadrius dubius	Y	(LC)	0.1	0.3
Green Sandpiper	Tringa ochropus	Y	-	0.0	0.1
Common Sandpiper	Actitis hypoleucos	Y	-	0.2	0.2
Common Snipe	Gallinago gallinago	Y	-	0.1	V
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	Y	(LC)	0.0	0.1
White-throated Kingfisher	Halcyon smyrnensis	Y	(LC)	0.0	0.2
Common Kingfisher	Alcedo atthis	Y	-	0.0	0.7
Grey Wagtail	Motacilla cinerea	Y	-	2.2	V
White Wagtail	Motacilla alba	Y	-	2.2	0.2
Oriental Reed Warbler	Acrocephalus orientalis	Y	-	0.1	V
Black-browed Reed Warbler	Acrocephalus bistrigiceps	Y	-	0.0	V
Red-billed Starling	Spodiopsar sericeus	Y	(RC)*	0.9	0.1
White-shouldered Starling	Sturnia sinensis	Y	(LC)	0.1	V
Collared Crow	Corvus torquatus	Y	LC, NT	0.0	0.3
Oriental Pratincole	Glareola maldivarum	Y	LC	V	0.0
Pacific Swift	Apus pacificus	N	(LC)	V	0.0
Eastern Yellow Wagtail	Motacilla tschutschensis	Y	-	10.0	0.0
Zitting Cisticola	Cisticola juncidis	Y	LC	0.1	0.0

Notes:

(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and BirdLife International listing (2017). Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence. (Fellowes et al. 2002)
(2) Refers to the mean number of individuals recorded between May 2018 – Oct 2018 in the WRA
(3) Follows HK bird list (dated 2017-09-05)
V indicates the species is recorded outside regular surveys

- indicates the species is not recorded during the survey
* Red-billed Starling is considered by Fellows et al (2002) to be of Global Concern. Since publication, however, the global population estimate has been revised and the species is not now considered globally threatened. A listing of Regional Concern (RC) based on the importance of the large roosts present near Deep Bay, is considered to be more appropriate. (Wetland Restoration Plan, Mott, 2008). Red-billed Starling is now listed as Least Concern by IUCN. (IUCN, 2016)

4.3 Conclusions

A total of 135 bird species have been recorded within the WRA since completion of site formation. Of the 135 species, 84 were species of conservation importance and/or wetland dependence – indicating that the WRA provides suitable habitats for these species despite the construction work within the residential portion of the Project Site.

The site is also considered achieving the no net loss of wetland in terms of area and function because it continuously attracts bird species of conservation importance, indicating that the WRA not only provides a buffer for potential disturbance during construction phase, but also a valuable habitat for wetland dependent species and species of conservation importance.

5 References

5.1 List of References

BirdLife International. 2017. Important Bird Areas factsheet: Inner Deep Bay and Shenzhen River catchment area. <http://www.birdlife.org> on 06/07/2017

Chan, S.K.F., K.S. Cheung, C.Y. Ho, F.N Lam & W.S. Tam, 2005. A Field Guide to the Amphibians of Hong Kong. Cosmos Books Ltd., Hong Kong.

Fellowes et al., 2002. Wild Animals to Watch: Terrestrial and Freshwater Fauna of Conservation Concern in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Bird Watching Society 2016. List of Hong Kong Birds - 2017-01-26. <www.hkbws.org.hk>.

Horiuchi, S., Odawara, T., Yonemura, S., Hayashi, Y., Kawaguchi, M., Asada, M., Kato, M. & Yasuhara, K. (2007, November). Floating structure using waste tires for water environmental remediation. In Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials-Opportunities and Challenges: Proceedings of the International Workshop IW-TDGM 2007. p. 291. CRC Press.

Karsen, S., M.W.N. Lau & A. Bogadek, 1998. Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong.

IUCN 2016. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 7th December 2016

Lo, P. Y. F. and W.L. Hui, 2004. Hong Kong Butterflies. Hong Kong, Cosmos Books Ltd.

Mott, 2008. WSW Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual (March 2008).

Mott, 2008. WSW Environmental Impact Assessment Report Volumes 1 to 3 (March 2008).

Mott, 2008. WSW Wetland Restoration Plan (March 2008).

Shek, C. T. 2006. A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country Parks Cosmos Books Ltd., Hong Kong.

Tam, T.W., K.K. Leung, B.S.P. Kwan, K.K.Y. Wu, S.S.H. Tang, I.W.Y. So, J.C.Y. Cheng, E.F.M. Yuen, Y.M. Tsang, and W.L. Hui, 2011. The Dragonflies of Hong Kong (1^st edition). Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Friends of Country Parks and Cosmos Books Ltd., Hong Kong.

Wilson, K.D.P., Tam, T.W., Kwan, B.S.P., Wu, K.K.Y., Wong, B.S.F., Wong J.K. 2004. Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Hong Kong. AFCD, Friends of Country Park and Cosmos Books Ltd. Hong Kong.

Young, J.J. & Yiu, V., 2002. Butterfly Watching in Hong Kong. Wan Li Book Co. Ltd., Hong Kong.

[1] The target species are: Little Egret, Egretta garzetta, Eastern Cattle Egret, Bubulcus coromandus (formerly known as Cattle Egret, Bubulcus ibis) and Chinese Pond Heron, Ardeola bacchus.