%20Nov%202015%20-%20Apr%202016%20Rev%20A_files/image002.jpg)
|
Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai Yuen Long |
|
|
|
|
|
Biannual EM&A Report on Ecology for Nov 2015 - Apr 2016 (Rev A) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%20Nov%202015%20-%20Apr%202016%20Rev%20A_files/image004.jpg)
Certification
by Environmental Team Leader and Verification by Independent Environmental
Checker
Chapter Title Page
Tables
|
Table 1.1:__ Summary of Ecological Impact EM&A Requirements Table 4.1:__ Summary of Ecological Monitoring in WRA and Survey Area
|
List of Figures
Figure
1.1
Survey Area and Transect Walked
Figure
1.2
Water Quality Monitoring Locations for Ecological Monitoring
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Schedule of Ecological Monitoring
Appendix
B Summary of Bird
Surveys
Appendix
C Summary of Herpetofauna Monitoring, Mammals and Insects Surveys
Appendix
D Summary of Water
Quality Monitoring
1
Introduction
|
1.1
Background
In March 2005, the Project Proponent, Profit Point Enterprises Limited, acquired the development site at Wo Shang Wai in Yuen Long. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was then carried out and approved under the EIA Ordinance (EIAO), and the Environmental Permit (EP) for construction of the comprehensive development in Wo Shang Wai was first granted by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) on 9 September 2008 (EP-311/2008) and has been subsequently varied, with the current version (EP-311/2008/D) issued by EPD on 20 March 2013.
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, while the 30-month establishment period of the WRA was concluded in October 2012 – this indicated that planting works as scheduled in the approved Wetland Restoration and Creation Scheme (WRCS; Nov 2009) were completed, except along the western and southern boundaries 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. This factor remains applicable in the current valid EP (EP-311/2008/D) which also 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.
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 the 12th Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 November 2015 to 30 April 2016. This report documents surveys and management activities conducted in the Survey Area and WRA from 1 November 2015 to 30 April 2016, 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 Requirements 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 |
Daytime: Once per month during Apr to Nov
|
|
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
Introduction
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 and frequency outlined 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 78 bird species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in November 2015 to April 2016, 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 periods, 43 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent species. Of all three target species (i.e. Little Egret Egtretta garzetta, Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus coromandus and Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus), two of them i.e. Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in the WRA during regular survey. One of the target species, Eastern Cattle Egret, was not recorded during regular survey. However, it was recorded in outside regular survey. The WRA continues to attract a number of species of conservation importance, including Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea, Intermediate Egret, Egretta intermedia, Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax, Northern Shoveler, Anas clypeata, Yellow Bittern, Ixobrychus sinensis, Black-faced Spoonbill , Platalea minor, Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, Black Kite, Milvus migrans, Black-winged Stilt, Himantopus himantopus, Pacific Golden Plover, Pluvialis fulva, Little Ringed Plover, Charadrius dubius, Spotted Redshank, Tringa erythropus, Common Greenshank, Tringa nebularia, Wood Sandpiper, Tringa glareola, Pied Kingfisher, Ceryle rudis, White-throated Kingfisher, Halcyon smyrnensis, Chinese Penduline Tit, Remiz consobrinus, White-cheeked Starling, Spodiopsar cineraceus, White-shouldered Starling, Sturnia sinensis and Collared Crow, Corvus torquatus. Black-crowned Night Heron, Yellow Bittern, Pacific Golden Plover, Little Ringed Plover, Common Greenshank, Wood Sandpiper, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher, White-shouldered Starling and Collared Crow are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002; Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt, Chinese Penduline Tit, Intermediate Egret, Northern Shoveler and Spotted Redshank are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, White-cheeked Starling is listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Potential Regional Concern” in 2002. Black-faced Spoonbill is listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Potential Global Concern” in 2002. Black-faced Spoonbill is also listed as “endangered” species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list and Collared Crow is also listed as “near threatened” species on the IUCN red list; indicating that the WRA was effective in providing habitats suitable for species of conservation interest.
In addition to wetland-dependence 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, 43 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, 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 per month in November 2015 and April 2016. One night-time herpetofauna survey was conducted once a month between March 2016 and April 2016. Further, notable herpetofauna observations during other surveys were also recorded.
Gunther's Frog, Hylarana guentheri, was recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) in the survey period. No reptile species was recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) in the reporting period.
Paddy Frog, Fejervarya limnocharis and Gunther's Frog, Hylarana guentheri were recorded in the WRA in the survey period. No reptile species was recorded in the WRA in the reporting period.
A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix C.
2.4
Monitoring of Dragonflies and Butterflies
Monitoring of dragonflies and butterflies was conducted once per month in November 2015 and March 2016 and twice per month in April 2016. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other surveys were recorded.
A total of four dragonfly species and four 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 (13 species) and butterfly species (9 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.
Meanwhile, one unidentified bat species and two unidentified bat species were recorded in December 2015 and February 2016 respectively in the WRA during regular survey. 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. Water level of Cell 4
reached action levels on January 2016. According to the ecological monitoring
data, the low water level in the WRA attracted wetland-dependent species
including Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax
carbo, Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea, Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax
nycticorax, Yellow Bittern, Ixobrychus
sinensis, Pheasant-tailed Jacana, Hydrophasianus chirurgus
and White-throated Kingfisher, Halcyon smyrnensis.
As the low water level attracts wetland-dependent birds, the existing water
level will be maintained and monitored regularly. Monitoring data are presented in Appendix D.
Locations for the monitoring of water quality
for the ecological monitoring are shown in Figure
1.2.
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;
2. Restocking the Cell in the WRA;
3. Installing flooding platform; and
4. Controlling the vegetation.
The first two measures aim to increase the foraging area and food sources for the target species respectively. The third measure aims to increase foraging ground for the target species. According to Horiuchi et al (2007), floating platform can gather fish in the pond and this provides opportunities for the target species to prey for the fish, so it can be used as a fishing platform. The fourth measure aims to maintain suitable habitat for target species.
4.1
Summary of Findings
Ecological monitoring between 1 November 2015 and 30 April 2016 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 November 2015 and April 2016 (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) |
78 |
79 |
|
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence) |
36 |
43 |
|
Amphibians |
1 |
2 |
|
Reptiles |
0 |
0 |
|
Mammals |
0 |
2 |
|
Dragonflies |
4 |
13 |
|
Butterflies |
4 |
9 |
A total of 79 bird species, 2 amphibian species, 2 mammal species, 13 dragonfly species and 9 butterfly species were recorded in the WRA, including 43 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. November 2015 to April 2016), the site was particularly attractive to Little Egret, which was recorded on nearly-weekly basis, with monthly means ranging from 1.6 to 8.2 birds per survey. Chinese Pond Heron was also recorded every month in regular survey period (November 2015 to April 2016) with monthly means ranging from 0.6 to 8.2 birds per survey. Eastern Cattle Egret was least attracted to the site. Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded in April under survey period (November 2015 to April 2016), out of the regular survey. A list of the bird species recorded at the WRA since completion of site formation is provided in Appendix B (Table B4 to B6).
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 fulfill 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 (Nov 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 were recorded using the site under the reporting period (November 2015 – April 2016). Among all target species, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in all six months and Eastern Cattle Egret was only recorded outside regular surveys in one month during the six month survey period.
Table 4.2: Annual Mean of the Three Bird Target Species Recorded at the WRA between May 2010 and Apr 2016
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status (2) |
Baseline Annual Mean (3) |
May 10 – Apr 11 |
May 11 – Apr 12 |
May 12 – Apr 13 |
May 13 – Apr 14 |
May 14 – Apr 15 |
May 15 – Oct 15 |
Nov 15 – Apr 16* |
May 15 – Apr 16 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (RC) |
1.3 |
0.2 |
2.7 |
1.3 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
3.3 |
2.7 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (RC) |
5.5 |
1.6 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
3.8 |
2.6 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
(LC) |
1.3 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
/ |
0.1 |
Note:
(1) Values in bold indicate that the Target Level was achieved.
(2) Conservation Status follows that of Fellowes et. al. (2002). See Appendix B (Table B3).
(3) Annual mean number recorded during Baseline Ecological Monitoring.
* The mean number of the target species was calculated in annual basis.
Based on Table 4.2 above, the target level of the Chinese Pond Heron have been achieved between November 2015 and April 2016 while the target levels for Little Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved.
As the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai is still under construction phase, it is considered acceptable. According to the ecological monitoring data of the Survey Area (excluding the WRA), Eastern Cattle Egret was observed only in one of the regular ecological survey (i.e. 1 out of 28) and the annual mean of the Eastern Cattle Egret of the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) is 0.1 birds per survey (November 2015 – April 2016), the results indicated the number of Eastern Cattle Egret in the whole area was 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.
In addition, though the target levels for Little Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved between November 2015 and April 2016, the WRA continuous to attract wetland dependent species. Among all the wetland dependent species, Yellow Bittern, Pacific Golden Plover, Little Ringed Plover, Common Greenshank, Wood Sandpiper, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher, White-shouldered Starling and Collared Crow are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002. Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt, Chinese Penduline Tit, Intermediate Egret, Northern Shoveler and Spotted Redshank are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Grey Heron, White-cheeked Starling is listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Potential Regional Concern” in 2002. Black-faced Spoonbill is listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Potential Global Concern” in 2002.
Compared to the baseline ecological monitoring, the total number of bird species recorded, the number of species of wetland-dependent and the number of species of conservation importance recorded in the WRA increased from 54, 19 and 14 to 79, 41 and 32 respectively in the ecological monitoring between November 2015 and April 2016.
Among all 21 species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in previous baseline ecological monitoring, 17 of them were recorded during the ecological monitoring between November 2015 and April 2016. A summary of the annual mean of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in the WRA from November 2015 to April 2016 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 recorded in the WRA from November 2015 to April 2016
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name(3) |
Wetland Dependence |
Conservation Status(1) |
Annual mean number recorded during the Baseline Ecological Monitoring |
Mean number recorded between Nov 2015 - Apr 2016(2) |
|
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
Y |
LC |
- |
2.9 |
|
Great Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax carbo |
Y |
PRC |
0.5 |
0.1 |
|
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
Y |
PRC |
0.1 |
1.1 |
|
Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
V |
0.4 |
|
Intermediate Egret |
Egretta intermedia |
Y |
RC |
- |
V |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
1.3 |
3.3 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
Y |
LC |
5.5 |
3.8 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
1.3 |
/ |
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
Y |
(LC) |
0.2 |
V |
|
Yellow Bittern |
Ixobrychus sinensis |
Y |
LC |
- |
0.5 |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill |
Platalea minor |
Y |
PGC |
- |
V |
|
Northern Shoveler |
Anas clypeata |
Y |
RC |
- |
0.3 |
|
Western Osprey |
Pandion haliaetus |
Y |
RC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
Y |
RC |
1.2 |
0.5 |
|
Crested Serpent Eagle |
Spilornis cheela |
N |
LC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Greater Spotted Eagle |
Clanga clanga |
Y |
GC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Eastern Buzzard |
Buteo japonicus |
Y |
- |
- |
0.1 |
|
Peregrine Falcon |
Falco peregrinus |
Y |
- |
- |
V |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
Y |
- |
0.2 |
0.3 |
|
Common Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
Y |
LC |
- |
V |
|
Pheasant-tailed Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
Y |
LC |
- |
V |
|
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus himantopus |
Y |
RC |
- |
0.4 |
|
Pacific Golden Plover |
Pluvialis fulva |
Y |
LC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
Y |
(LC) |
0.1 |
V |
|
Spotted Redshank |
Tringa erythropus |
Y |
RC |
- |
V |
|
Common Greenshank |
Tringa nebularia |
Y |
LC |
- |
V |
|
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
Y |
- |
- |
0.2 |
|
Wood Sandpiper |
Tringa glareola |
Y |
(LC) |
- |
0.3 |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
Y |
- |
0.2 |
0.8 |
|
Common Snipe |
Gallinago gallinago |
Y |
- |
0.1 |
V |
|
Savanna Nightjar |
Caprimulgus affinis |
Y |
- |
- |
V |
|
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
Y |
(LC) |
- |
0.1 |
|
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
Y |
LC |
- |
0.3 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
Y |
- |
- |
2.0 |
|
Eastern Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla tschutschensis |
Y |
- |
10.0 |
1.2 |
|
Grey Wagtail |
Motacilla cinerea |
Y |
- |
2.2 |
0.1 |
|
White Wagtail |
Motacilla alba |
Y |
- |
0.9 |
2.1 |
|
Yellow-browed warbler |
Phylloscopus inornatus |
Y |
LC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
Y |
LC |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Chinese Penduline Tit |
Remiz consobrinus |
Y |
RC |
- |
0.1 |
|
White-cheeked Starling |
Spodiopsar cineraceus |
Y |
PRC |
- |
0.1 |
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Sturnia sinensis |
N |
(LC) |
0.1 |
V |
|
Collared Crow |
Corvus torquatus |
Y |
LC |
- |
0.1 |
|
Oriental Pratincole |
Glareola maldivarum |
Y |
LC |
V |
- |
|
Pacific Swift |
Apus pacificus |
N |
(LC) |
V |
- |
|
Oriental Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus orientalis |
Y |
- |
0.1 |
- |
|
Red-billed Starling |
Spodiopsar sericeus |
Y |
(GC)* |
0.9 |
- |
Note:
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and BirdLife International listing (2010).
(2) Refers to the mean number of individuals recorded between Nov 2015 – Apr 2016 in the WRA
(3) Follows HK bird list (dated 2015-1-12)
V indicates the species is recorded outside regular surveys
Light grey cells indicate species recorded during baseline ecological monitoring.
* 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, it is evaluated as a “Least Concern” species (IUCN, 2013)
4.3
Conclusions
A total of 126 bird species have been recorded within the WRA since completion of site formation. Of the 126 species, 85 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.
5.1
List of References
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 2014. List of Hong Kong Birds -
2015-1-12. <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 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 October 2011.
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).
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 (1st edition). Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Friends of Country Parks and Cosmos Books Ltd., Hong Kong.
Young, J.J. & Yiu, V., 2002. Butterfly Watching In Hong Kong. Wan Li Book Co. Ltd., Hong Kong.
Appendix C. Summary of Herpetofauna Monitoring, Mammals and Insects Surveys |