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/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; 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/D) 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 the14^th Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 November 2016 to 30 April 2017. This report documents surveys and management activities conducted in the Survey Area and WRA from 1 November 2016 to 30 April 2017, 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	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 Are 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 64 bird species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in November 2016 to April 2017, 34 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix B.

A total of 77 species were recorded in the WRA in the survey periods, 41 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent species. Of all three target species, two of them (i.e. Little Egret, Egtretta garzetta, 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 Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea, Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax, Yellow Bittern, Ixobrychus sinensis, Cinnamon Bittern, Ixobrychus cinnamomeus, Black-faced Spoonbill, Platalea minor, Black Kite, Milvus migrans, Black-winged Stilt, Himantopus himantopus, Oriental Pratincole, Glareola maldivarum, Little Ringed Plover, Charadrius dubius, Kentish Plover, Charadrius alexandrinus, Wood Sandpiper, Tringa glareola, Pied Kingfisher, Ceryle rudis, White-throated Kingfisher, Halcyon smyrnensis and White-cheeked Starling, Spodiopsar cineraceus. Black-crowned Night Heron, Yellow Bittern, Cinnamon Bittern, Oriental Pratincole, Little Ringed Plover, Wood Sandpiper, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002. Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt and Kentish Plover are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, White-cheeked Starling are 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, and is also listed as “endangered” species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list.

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, 41 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 per month in November 2016 and April 2017. 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 were recorded in the survey area within the survey period.

No amphibian species were recorded in the WRA within the survey period. Red-necked Keelback, Rhabdophis subminiatus helleri, was recorded in the WRA within the survey 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 November 2016 and March 2017 and twice per month in April 2017. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other surveys were recorded.

A total of 1 dragonfly species and no 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 (6 species) and butterfly species (7 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, Small Asian Mongoose, Herpestes javanicus, Leopard Cat, Prionailurus bengalensis and Small Indian Civet, Viverricula indica, were recorded were recorded in the WRA 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 February 2017, Water level of Cell 4 reached action level; In March 2017, Water level of Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4 reached action level and the pH of Cell 1 and Cell 2 reached action level; In April 2017, Water level of Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4 reached action level. According to the ecological monitoring data, the low water level in the WRA attracted wetland-dependent species including Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Yellow Bittern, Cinnamon Bittern, Black-faced Spoonbill, Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt, Oriental Pratincole, Little Ringed Plover, Kentish Plover, Wood Sandpiper, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher and White-cheeked Starling. 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 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 and Cell 4.

These two 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 November 2016 and 30 April 2017 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 2016 and April 2017 (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)	64	77
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence)	34	41
Amphibians	1	0
Reptiles	0	1
Mammals	0	5
Dragonflies	1	6
Butterflies	0	7

A total of 77 bird species, 1 reptile species, 5 mammal species, 6 dragonfly species and 7 butterfly species were recorded in the WRA, including 41 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 2016 to April 2017), the site was particularly attractive to Little Egret. Little Egret was recorded on weekly basis, with monthly means ranging from 4.0 to 9.3 birds per survey; while Chinese Pond Heron was also recorded on nearly-weekly basis in regular survey period (November 2016 to April 2017) with monthly means ranging from 1.0 to 6.5 bird per survey. Eastern Cattle Egret was least attracted to the site. No Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded within the WRA during the survey period (November 2016 to April 2017). 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 (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, two of them (i.e. Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron) were recorded using the site under survey period (November 2016 – April 2017). Among all target species, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in all six months and No Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded 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 April 2017 (including Biannual Mean between May 2016 and April 2017)

Common Name	Scientific Name	Conservation Status (2)	Baseline Annual Mean (3)	Annual Mean							Biannual Mean
				May 10- Apr 11	May 11- Apr 12	May 12-Apr 13	May 13- Apr 14	May 14-Apr 15	May 15- Apr 16	May 16-Apr 17	May 16-Oct 16	Nov 16- Apr 17
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	PRC, (RC)	1.3	0.2	2.7	1.3	1.9	2.0	2.7	4.2	3.8	4.6
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	PRC, (RC)	5.5	1.6	1.0	0.9	2.3	2.0	2.6	4.7	3.5	5.9
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	(LC)	1.3	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0

Note:

(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 level of the Chinese Pond Heron was achieved between November 2016 and April 2017 while the target levels 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. According to the ecological monitoring data of the survey area (excluding the WRA), Eastern Cattle Egret was observed only in 7 of the regular ecological survey (i.e. 7 out of 28) and the annual mean of the Eastern Cattle Egret of survey area(excluding the WRA) is 2.8 bird per survey (November 2016 – April 2017), 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; 2) Restocking the Cell in the WRA; 3) Installing flooding platform; and 4) Controlling the vegetation; have been taken in the WRA since November 2014 to increase the WRA utilization by birds, especically for the three target species of the WRA. Since the implementation of the mitigation actions, the annual means of two (Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron) out of three target species increased gradually from 2.7 to 4.2 and 2.6 to 4.7 for Chinese Pond Heron and Little Egret 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 monitorings will be continued to investigate the effectiveness of the mitgation actions.

In addition, though the target levels for Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved between November 2016 and April 2017, the WRA continuous to attract wetland dependent species. Black-crowned Night Heron, Yellow Bittern, Cinnamon Bittern ,Oriental Pratincole, Little Ringed Plover, Wood Sandpiper, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Local Concern” in 2002. Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt and Kentish Plover are listed by Fellowes et al. as of “Regional Concern” in 2002. Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, White-cheeked Starling are 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, and is also listed as “endangered” species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list.

Among all 21 species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in previous baseline ecological monitoring, 15 of them were recorded during the ecological monitoring between November 2016 and April 2017. A summary of the annual mean of bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded in the WRA from November 2016 to April 2017 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 Nov 2016 & Apr 2017 (2)
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	Y	LC	-	3.0
Great Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	Y	PRC	0.5	0.6
Grey Heron	Ardea cinerea	Y	PRC	0.1	2.3
Great Egret	Ardea alba	Y	PRC, (RC)	V	1.6
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	Y	PRC, (RC)	5.5	5.9
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	Y	PRC, (RC)	1.3	4.6
Black-crowned Night Heron	Nycticorax nycticorax	Y	LC	0.2	V
Yellow Bittern	Ixobrychus sinensis	Y	(LC)	-	0.4
Cinnamon Bittern	Ixobrychus cinnamomeus	Y	LC	-	V
Black-faced Spoonbill	Platalea minor	Y	PGC, EN	-	0.1
Eurasian Teal	Anas crecca	Y	RC	-	V
Northern Pintail	Anas acuta	Y	RC	-	V
Western Osprey	Pandion haliaetus	Y	RC	-	V
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Y	(RC)	1.2	0.4
Eastern Buzzard	Buteo japonicus	Y	-	-	0.1
Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus	N	(LC)	-	<0.1
White-breasted Waterhen	Amaurornis phoenicurus	Y	-	0.2	0.4
Common Moorhen	Gallinula chloropus	Y	-	-	0.3
Black-winged Stilt	Himantopus himantopus	Y	RC	-	0.1
Pied Avocet	Recurvirostra avosetta	Y	RC	-	V
Oriental Pratincole	Glareola maldivarum	Y	LC	V	V
Little Ringed Plover	Charadrius dubius	Y	LC	0.1	0.6
Kentish Plover	Charadrius alexandrinus	Y	RC	-	0.1
Spotted Redshank	Tringa erythropus	Y	RC	-	V
Common Redshank	Tringa totanus	Y	RC	-	V
Common Greenshank	Tringa nebularia	Y	RC	-	V
Marsh Sandpiper	Tringa stagnatilis	Y	RC	-	0.4
Green Sandpiper	Tringa ochropus	Y	-	-	0.9
Wood Sandpiper	Tringa glareola	Y	LC	-	0.2
Common Sandpiper	Actitis hypoleucos	Y	-	0.2	0.9
Black-headed Gull	Chroicocephalus ridibundus	Y	PRC	-	V
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	Y	(LC)	-	0.3
White-throated Kingfisher	Halcyon smyrnensis	Y	(LC)	-	0.2
Black-capped Kingfisher	Halcyon pileata	Y	LC	-	V
Common Kingfisher	Alcedo atthis	Y	-	-	1.7
Eastern Yellow Wagtail	Motacilla tschutschensis	Y	-	10.0	0.3
Grey Wagtail	Motacilla cinerea	Y	-	2.2	V
White Wagtail	Motacilla alba	Y	-	2.2	1.1
Black-browed Reed Warbler	Acrocephalus bistrigiceps	Y	-	-	V
Red-billed Starling	Spodiopsar sericeus	N	(GC)	0.9	0.1
White-cheeked Starling	Spodiopsar cineraceus	Y	PRC	-	0.1

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 May 2016 – Oct 2016 in the WRA

(3) Follows HK bird list (dated 2015-1-12)

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, it is evaluated as a “Least Concern” species (IUCN, 2013)

4.3 Conclusions

A total of 130 bird species have been recorded within the WRA since completion of site formation. Of the 130 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 References

5.1 List of References

BirdLife International. 2010. Important Bird Areas factsheet: Inner Deep Bay and Shenzhen River catchment area. http://www.birdlife.org on 29/04/2010

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.

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.