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 the21^st Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 May 2020 to 31 October 2020. This report documents surveys and management activities conducted in the Survey Area and WRA from 1 May 2020 to 31 October 2020, which is based on ecological surveys and advice on management which was 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 68 bird species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in the survey period (i.e. May 2020 to October 2020), 36 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix B.

A total of 79 species were recorded in the WRA in the survey period, 38 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent species. All of the three target species [1] (i.e. Little Egret, Egretta garzetta, Eastern Cattle Egret, Bubulcus coromandus, and Chinese Pond Heron, Ardeola bacchus) 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), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea), Great Egret (Ardea alba), Intermediate Egret (Egretta intermedia), Yellow Bittern (Ixobrychus sinensis), Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), Black-winged Kite (Elanus caeruleus), Black Kite (Milvus migrans), Crested Serpent Eagle (Spilornis cheela), Eurasian Hobby (Falco subbuteo), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Pheasant-tailed Jacana (Hydrophasianus chirurgus), Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus), Oriental Pratincole (Glareola maldivarum), Pintail/Swinhoe’s Snipe (Gallinago stenura/G. megala), Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius), Pied Kingfisher (Ceryle rudis), Zitting Cisticola (Cisticola juncidis), Amur Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone incei), Japanese Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone atrocaudata), White-shouldered Starling (Sturnia sinensis) and Collared Crow (Corvus torquatus). Little Grebe, Eastern Cattle Egret, Yellow Bittern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Black-winged Kite, Peregrine Falcon, Eurasian Hobby, Crested Serpent Eagle, Pheasant-tailed Jacana, Oriental Pratincole, Little Ringed Plover, Pintail/Swinhoe’s Snipe, Pied Kingfisher, Zitting Cisticola, Amur Paradise Flycatcher, Japanese Paradise Flycatcher, White-shouldered Starling and Collared Crow are listed by Fellowes et al. (2002) as of “Local Concern”. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, Great Egret, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron are listed by Fellowes et al. (2002) as of “Potential Regional Concern”. Black Stork is Class I protected in China and was listed as of “Regional Concern” by Fellowes et al. (2002). Intermediate Egret, Black Kite and Black-winged Stilt are listed by Fellowes et al. (2002) as of “Regional Concern’. Collared Crow is also listed as “near threatened” species on the IUCN list.

In addition to wetland dependent birds and/or species of conservation importance, the WRA also attracts a number of terrestrial birds including Greater Coucal (Centropus sinensis), Asian Barred Owlet (Glaucidium cuculoides) and Emerald Dove (Chalcophaps indica) which are protected under terrestrial wildlife state protection (Category II). Greater Coucal is also listed as vulnerable (VU) in the China Red Data Book. 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, 36 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. 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 2020 and October 2020. Night-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once a month between May 2020 and August 2020. Further, notable herpetofauna observations during other surveys were also recorded.

A total of two amphibian species and six reptile species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) during the reporting period. Within the WRA, a total of three amphibian species and five reptile species were recorded during the reporting period.

No amphibian species was recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in May 2020, June 2020, July 2020, September 2020 and October 2020. In August 2020, two amphibian species (Asian Common Toad, Bufo melanostictus and Gunther’s Frog, Hylarana guentheri) were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA).

No reptile species was recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in May 2020, June 2020, July 2020, September 2020 and October 2020. In August 2020, six reptile species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA), including five species during regular surveys (Bowring’s Gecko, Hemidactylus bowringii, Reeve’s Smooth Skink, Scincella reevesii, Long-tailed Skink, Eutropis longicaudata, Red-eared Slider, Trachemys scripta elegans, and Many-banded Krait, Bungarus muticinctus multicinctus) and two species (Common Rat Snake, Ptyas mucosus and Long-tailed Skink, Eutropis longicaudata) outside surveys.

No amphibian species was recorded within the WRA in May 2020, July 2020 and October 2020. In June 2020, one amphibian species (Gunther’s Frog, Hylarana guentheri) was recorded in the WRA during regular surveys. In August 2020, three amphibian species (Asian Common Toad, Bufo melanostictus, Gunther’s Frog, Hylarana guentheri and Ornate Pigmy Frog, Microhyla ornate) were recorded in the WRA during regular surveys. In September 2020, one amphibian species (Gunther’s Frog, Hylarana guentheri) was recorded in the WRA during regular surveys.

No reptile species was recorded within the WRA in May 2020, June 2020, July 2020 and October 2020. In August 2020 there were four reptile species recorded in the WRA during regular and outside surveys (Bowring’s Gecko, Hemidactylus bowringii, Reeve’s Smooth Skink, Scincella reevesii, Checkered Keelback, Xenochrophis flavipunctatus and Red-eared Slider, Trachemys scripta elegans). In September 2020, one reptile species (Many-banded Krait, Bungarus multicinctus multicinctus) was recorded in the WRA during regular surveys.

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 2020 and October 2020, and twice per month between May 2020 and August 2020. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other surveys were recorded.

A total of 21 dragonfly species and 23 butterfly species were recorded using the ponds in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) during the reporting period. Within the WRA, a higher diversity of dragonfly species (27 species) and butterfly species (36 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.

Two species of mammal were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) during the survey period (Short-nosed Fruit Bat, Cynopterus sphinx and Ryukyu Mouse, Mus caroli).

Within the WRA, three mammal species were recorded during the survey period, including an unidentified bat, Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus abramus) and Small Asian Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus).

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. In May 2020, the water level of all Cells reached the action level. In June 2020, the water level of Cell 2 reached the action level. In July 2020, the water level of Cell 1 and Cell 2 reached the action level. In August 2020, the water level of Cell 3 and Cell 4 reached the action level. In September 2020 and October 2020, the water level of Cell 2 reached the action level.

In August 2020, the water level of Cell 3 and Cell 4 was lowered to facilitate massive removal of exotic and excessive water plants in these two cells. Subsequent rainfall had raised the water level in September 2020 and October 2020. In September 2020 and October 2020, the water level of Cell 2 was lowered by releasing some of the water to facilitate the removal of exotic and excessive vegetation in the water. The water level of all remaining Cells will be kept allowing gradual water evaporation throughout the dry season, and to maintain the habitat for fish, aquatic invertebrate and water plants which will provide food and habitat for wetland birds.

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

Vegetation management activities undertaken within the WRA included the removal of exotic and excessive vegetation in all cells and along the EVA. These activities primarily involved tree-trimming, weeding, grass cutting, uprooting of exotic water plants and removal of climbers. Removal of vegetation included and was not limited to Leucaena leucocephala, Phragmites australis, Lantana camara, Mikania sp., Mimosa sp., Pennnisetum sp., Typha sp., and Ludwigia erecta.

3.2 Wildlife Management

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

All sighted fire ant nests were treated with approved pesticides. 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. Maintaining the low water level of Cell 1, Cell 2, 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 2020 and 31 October 2020 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 2020 and October 2020 (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)	68	79
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence)	36	38
Amphibians	2	3
Reptiles	6	5
Mammals	2	3
Dragonflies	21	27
Butterflies	23	36

A total of 79 bird species, 3 mammal species, 27 dragonfly species, 36 butterfly species, 3 amphibian species and 5 reptile species were recorded in the WRA, including 38 bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence, while all dragonfly species were 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 all of the three target species (Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron) to varying degrees. During the survey period (i.e. May 2020 to October 2020), the site was particularly attractive to Little Egret. Little Egret was recorded on nearly a weekly basis, with monthly means ranging from 1.3 to 2.3 birds per survey. Peak count in this period was recorded on 17 Oct 2020 during an outside survey, with 22 Little Egret recorded in Cell 3. Chinese Pond Heron was recorded in all months between May 2020 and October 2020, with monthly means ranging from 0.2 to 7.8 bird per survey. In addition, the species was recorded in all regular surveys between August 2020 and October 2020. Eastern Cattle Egret was least attracted to the site. Out of the 25 regular bird surveys Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded two times in September 2020 (mean 1.5 bird per survey) and October 2020 (mean 0.5 bird per survey), respectively. 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. Regular horticultural/ arboricultural practice is applied in the WRA to remove excessive and less desired specimens to facilitate the successful growth of those which are of higher landscape and/or ecological value. Vegetation management is largely consistent of maintenance of planted trees and shrubs for the creation of suitable habitats for target species, as well as removal of excessive and exotic species. These works should maintain and uphold the long-term habitat structure and the overall biodiversity of the WRA.

4.2 WRA Performance for the Bird Target Species

The provision, maintenance and operation of a WRA are requirements under the Environmental Permit for compensation for predicted ecological impacts to species of conservation importance. Three bird target species page 8 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 all three target species, all of them (i.e. Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron) were recorded using the site under survey period (May 2020 to October 2020). Among all target species, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in all six months during the regular survey.

Table 4.2: Biannual mean & Annual mean of the three target species of the WRA from May 2019 to October 2020

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 19 - Oct 19	Nov 19 - Apr 20	May 20 - Oct 20		Nov 18 - Oct 19	Nov 19 - Oct 20
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	PRC, (RC)	1.3	3.1	3.5*	3.2		2.8	3.2
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	PRC, (RC)	5.5	5.4	8.4*	1.8		5.7	5.1
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	(LC)	1.3	0.0	<0.1	0.3		0.0	0.2

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.

* Reviewed since previous biannual report.

Based on Table 4.2 above, the target level of the Chinese Pond Heron has been achieved between May 2019 to October 2020, while the target level for Little Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved.

Eastern Cattle Egret is mainly a spring and autumn passage migrant in Hong Kong with peak count in August (Carey et al. 2001). This species mainly forages along short grass habitat, preying on insects, invertebrates and small vertebrates. From May 2020 to July 2020 the islets and pond bunds within the WRA were largely covered with long grass and exotic Ludwigia erecta. This could be one of the reasons for the Eastern Cattle Egret’s absence from the WRA during this period. After significant clearing of long grass and exotic plants within the WRA during August 2020 and September 2020, Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded in Cell 1, Cell 2 and Cell 3 (with peak counts of 3 birds in Cell 2 and Cell 3 on 4 and 29 September 2020, respectively).

According to the ecological monitoring data of the Survey Area (excluding the WRA), Eastern Cattle Egret was observed in 11 out of 25 of regular surveys and the biannual mean of the Eastern Cattle Egret for the survey area (excluding the WRA) is 11.2 bird per survey (May 2020 – Oct 2020). During this period pond 44 had fish-harvesting and the operators left many dead fish along the pond bunds. These dead fish attracted many insects which subsequently attracted many of the Eastern Cattle Egret in the vicinity that fed on them. The highest count of Eastern Cattle Egret at pond 44 was 33 and 70 birds on 30 August 2020 and 4 September 2020, respectively.

Although the target level for Eastern Cattle Egret and Little Egret were not achieved between May 2020 and October 2020, Little Egret was recorded in 17 out of 25 regular surveys within the WRA. The highest count of this species within this period was 22 birds in Cell 3 during an outside survey on 17 October 2020. The WRA continues to attract wetland dependent birds and/or species of conservation importance, as well as terrestrial birds of conservation importance, as indicated in Section 2.2.

As the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai is still under construction phase, it is considered acceptable for the target species levels to have not been achieved. 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 biannual mean of Chinese Pond Heron has reached the target level. 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.

A summary of the annual mean of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in the WRA from May 2020 to October 2020 is shown in Table 4.3.

The increase in the number of the species of conservation interest indicates that the WRA is providing a 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 2020 - Oct 2020 ⁽²⁾
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	Y	LC	0	0.9
Great Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	Y	PRC	0.5	0.2
Grey Heron	Ardea cinerea	Y	PRC	0.1	0.3
Great Egret	Ardea alba	Y	PRC, (RC)	V	0.9
Intermediate Egret	Egretta intermedia	Y	RC	0	0.1
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	Y	PRC, (RC)	5.5	1.8
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	Y	(LC)	1.3	0.3
Yellow Bittern	Ixobrychus sineneis	Y	(LC)	0	0.8
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	Y	PRC, (RC)	1.3	3.2
Black-crowned Night Heron	Nycticorax nycticorax	Y	(LC)	0.2	1.8
Black Stork	Ciconia nigra	Y	RC	0	<0.1
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Y	(RC)	1.2	0.6
Black-winged Kite	Elanus caeruleus	Y	LC	0	0.1
Crested Serpent Eagle	Spilornis cheela	N	(LC)	0	V
Eurasian Hobby	Falco Subbuteo	Y	(LC)	0	<0.1
Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus	N	(LC)	0	V
White-breasted Waterhen	Amaurornis phoenicurus	Y	-	0.2	0.8
Common Moorhen	Gallinula chloropus	Y	-	0	0.2
Pheasant-tailed Jacana	Hydrophasianus chirurgus	Y	LC	0	0.1
Black-winged Stilt	Himantopus himantopus	Y	RC	0	V
Oriental Pratincole	Glareola maldivarum	Y	LC	V	<0.1
Little Ringed Plover	Charadrius dubius	Y	(LC)	0.1	0.2
Green Sandpiper	Tringa ochropus	Y	-	0	0.1
Common Sandpiper	Actitis hypoleucos	Y	-	0.2	0.2
Common Snipe	Gallinago gallinago	Y	-	0.1	0.2
Pintail/Swinhoe’s Snipe*	Gallinago stenura/G. megala	Y	LC	0.0	V
Pacific Swift	Apus pacificus	N	(LC)	V	0
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	Y	(LC)	0	<0.1
Common Kingfisher	Alcedo atthis	Y	-	0	0.4
Eastern Yellow Wagtail	Motacilla tschutschensis	Y	-	10	0.1
Sand Martin	Riparia riparia	Y	-	0.0	0.1
Grey Wagtail	Motacilla cinerea	Y	-	2.2	0
White Wagtail	Motacilla alba	Y	-	0.9	1
Oriental Reed Warbler	Acrocephalus orientalis	Y	-	0.1	<0.1
Black-browed Reed Warbler	Acrocephalus bistrigiceps	Y	-	0	0.1
Zitting Cisticola	Cisticola juncidis	Y	LC	0.1	<0.1
Japanese Paradise Flycatcher	Terpsiphone atrocaudata	N	LC	0	<0.1
Amur Paradise Flycatcher	Terpsiphone incei	N	LC	0	V
White-shouldered Starling	Sturnia sinensis	Y	(LC)	0.1	0.6
Red-billed Starling	Spodiopsar sericeus	Y	(RC)*	0.9	0
Collared Crow	Corvus torquatus	Y	LC, NT	0	0.2

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 2020 – Oct 2020 in the WRA
(3) Follows HK bird list (dated 2017-09-05)
V indicates the species is recorded outside regular surveys
* 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 146 bird species have been recorded within the WRA since completion of site formation. Of the 146 species, 85 were species of conservation importance and/or wetland dependence – indicating that the WRA provides suitable habitats for these species.

The site is also considered achieving 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.

After commencement of works in May 2010, the site formation of the Wetland Restoration Area (WRA) was completed on 15 November 2010. In accordance with the requirement as stipulated in Clause 7.2.12 of the EM&A Manual, the WRA was in operation since October 2012 (i.e. within 2.5 years of commencement of construction). The biannual change of bird species number and composition since the WRA establishment in Oct 2012 is presented in Table 4.4, which shows a steady number of conservation importance species and/or wetland-dependent species continuously recorded in the WRA. This indicates that the WRA provides a suitable habitat for these species.

Table 4.4: Total number of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in the WRA from November 2010 to October 2020

Common Name	Nov 10 – Oct 11	Nov 11 – Oct 12	Nov 12 – Oct 13	Nov 13 – Oct 14	Nov 14 – Oct 15	Nov 15 – Oct 16	Nov 16 – Oct 17	Nov 17 – Oct 18	Nov 18 – Oct 19	Nov 19 – Oct 20
Bird species of conservation importance and/ or wetland-dependence	48	33	36	39	45	46	46	42	34	52

Common Name

Nov 10 –

Oct 11

Nov 11 –

Oct 12

Nov 12 –

Oct 13

Nov 13 –

Oct 14

Nov 14 –

Oct 15

Nov 15 –

Oct 16

Nov 16 –

Oct 17

Nov 17 –

Oct 18

Nov 18 –

Oct 19

Nov 19 –

Oct 20

Bird species of conservation importance and/ or wetland-dependence

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, J.F., M.W.N. Lau, D. Dudgeon, G.T. Reels, G.W.J. Ades, G.J. Carey, B.P.L. Chan, R.C. Kendrick, K.S. Lee, M.R. Leven, K.D.P. Wilson, Y.T. Yu, 2002.Wild Animals to Watch: Terrestrial and Freshwater Fauna of Conservation Concern in Hong Kong. Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Bird Watching Society 2016. List of Hong Kong Birds - 2017-09-05. <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 7^th 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.