%20May%202021%20-%20Oct%202021%20Rev.%20A_files/image001.jpg)
%20May%202021%20-%20Oct%202021%20Rev.%20A_files/image003.jpg)
|
Document reference: |
370161 | 05|03 | A |
|
Information class: |
Standard |
|
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. |
|
This report has been prepared solely for use by the party which commissioned it (the ‘Client’) in connection with the captioned project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of reliance with us (the ‘Recipient(s)’) may rely on the content, information or any views expressed in the report. We |
%20May%202021%20-%20Oct%202021%20Rev.%20A_files/image005.jpg)
Contents
1.3 EM&A Requirement on Ecological Impact
2.3 Monitoring of Herpetofauna
2.4 Monitoring of Dragonfly and Butterflies
2.6 Monitoring of Water Quality
4 Summary of Wetland Restoration Area Performance
4.2 WRA Performance for the Bird Target Species
Figure 1.1
General Site Layout and Locations
of Monitoring Stations
Figure 1.2
Survey Area and Transect Walked
A. Schedule of Ecological Monitoring
C. Summary of Herpetofauna Monitoring, Mammals and Insect Surveys
D. Summary of Water Quality Monitoring
Tables
Table 1.1: Summary of Ecological Impact EM&A Requirements
Table 4.1: Summary of Ecological Monitoring in Survey Area and WRA Survey Area
1 Introduction
1.1
Background
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 (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”) was 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 the 23rd Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 May 2021 to 31 October 2021. This report documents surveys and management activities conducted in the Survey Area and WRA from 1 May 2021 to 31 October 2021, which is based on ecological surveys and advice on management undertaken and provided by the appointed Non-Government Organisation (Eco-Institute) during the reporting period.
1.2
Survey
Area
Surveys were conducted within 500m of the Project area. The WRA has been 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, summarised 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 |
Source: Extract from Table 7-1 of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long EM&A Manual (March 2008)
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 requirements 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 reporting period. A total of 67 bird species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) in the survey period (i.e. May 2021 to October 2021), 33 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix B.
A total of 80 species were recorded in the WRA in the survey period, 35 of which were species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependent species. All of the three target species[1] 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-winged Kite (Elanus caeruleus), Black Kite (Milvus migrans), Eastern Buzzard (Buteo japonicus), Eurasian Hobby (Falco subbuteo), Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus), Oriental Pratincole (Glareola maldivarum), Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius), Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Pied Kingfisher (Ceryle rudis), White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis), Zitting Cisticola (Cisticola juncidis), White-shouldered Starling (Sturnia sinensis) and Collared Crow (Corvus torquatus). Little Grebe, Eastern Cattle Egret, Yellow Bittern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Black-winged Kite, Eurasian Hobby, Oriental Pratincole, Pacific Golden Plover, Little Ringed Plover, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher, Zitting Cisticola, 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”. Intermediate Egret, Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt and Common Greenshank 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 Besra (Accipiter virgatus), Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), Greater Coucal (Centropus sinensis) and Asian Barred Owlet (Glaucidium cuculoides) which are protected under terrestrial wildlife state protection (Category II). Greater Coucal is also listed as vulnerable (VU) in the China Red Data Book[EY1] . 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 (i.e. within the Survey Area (excluding 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 (with 33 bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence recorded during the survey period). Nevertheless, 35 bird species of conservation importance and /or wetland dependence were observed using the site within the WRA during the 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 which includes the Mai Po Marshes and the Ramsar Site as a whole.
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 in May, June, July, August, September and October 2021. Night-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once a month in May, June, July and August 2021. Further, notable herpetofauna observations during other surveys were also recorded.
A total of seven amphibian species and five reptile species were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) during the reporting period. Within the WRA, a total of seven amphibian species and eight reptile species were recorded during 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 a month in September and October 2021, and twice a month in May, June, July and August 2021. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other surveys were recorded.
A total of 19 dragonfly species and 28 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 (29 species) and butterfly species (42 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 were recorded in the Survey Area (excluding WRA) during the survey period. Within the WRA, two mammal species were recorded during the survey period, including Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus abramus) and Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) which were both recorded in July 2021.
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 and June 2021, the water level of all cells reached the action level. In July 2021, the water level of Cell 1 and Cell 2 reached the action level. Between August and October 2021, the increased rainfall raised the water level and hence no cells reached the action level.
Water level of all Cells had been maintained to suppress weed growth along the edges of the cells, as well as to maintain a suitable habitat for fish, aquatic invertebrate and water plants which will provide food and habitat for wetland birds.
In October 2021, the pH value of Cell 2 reached the action level (pH 8.1). Water gates between Cell 1 and Cell 2, and between Cell 2 and Cell 3 were let open to allow the water to mix between these three Cells. Subsequent measurements in November 2021 indicated that the pH value returned to normal levels.
In October 2021, water samples were also taken for ex-situ laboratory testing.
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 emergency vehicular access (EVA)[EY2] . 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’ nests found on terrestrial areas further away from the cells to prevent water contamination. 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 a suitable
habitat for target species.
4 Summary of
Wetland Restoration Area Performance
4.1
Summary
of Findings
Ecological monitoring between 1 May 2021 and 31 October 2021 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 2021 and October 2021 (Table 4.1):
Table 4.1: Summary of Ecological Monitoring in Survey Area and WRA Survey Area
|
Species |
Number of species recorded in Survey Area (excluding WRA) |
Number of species recorded in WRA |
|
Birds (total) |
67 |
80 |
|
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence) |
33 |
35 |
|
Amphibians |
7 |
7 |
|
Reptiles |
5 |
8 |
|
Mammals |
0 |
2 |
|
Dragonflies |
19 |
29 |
|
Butterflies |
28 |
42 |
A total of 80 bird species, 2 mammal species, 29 dragonfly species, 42 butterfly species, 7 amphibian species and 8 reptile species were recorded in the WRA, including 35 bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence. These findings indicate that the WRA is supporting wetland-dependent birds and other species of conservation importance. The diversity of dragonflies and butterflies within the WRA is higher than those in the Survey Area (excluding WRA), indicating that the wetland and vegetation management works have increased the ecological value of the WRA.
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 2021 to October 2021), Little Egret was recorded on nearly a weekly basis, with monthly means ranging from 0.6 to 4.5 birds per survey. Chinese Pond Heron was recorded in all months between May and October 2021, with monthly means ranging from 2.0 (May 2021) to 7.8 (October 2021) birds. Eastern Cattle Egret was least attracted to the site. Out of the 26 regular bird surveys, Eastern Cattle Egret was recorded once in August 2021 (mean 0.3 birds per survey), twice in September 2021 (mean 1.0 bird per survey) and twice in October 2021 (mean 0.5 birds per survey). A list of the bird species recorded at the WRA since completion of site formation is provided in Appendix B (Tables B4 to B9).
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 the planted vegetation are 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 were identified during the EIA process: Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron. Target levels of these species are the annual mean numbers 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).
All three target species (i.e. Little Egret, Eastern Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron) were recorded using the WRA during the survey period (May 2021 to October 2021). Among them, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were recorded in all six months during regular surveys.
Table 4.2: Biannual mean & Annual mean of the three target species of the WRA from May 2020 to October 2021
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status (1) |
Baseline Annual Mean (2) |
Biannual Mean(3) |
Annual Mean(3) |
|||
|
May 20 - Oct 20 |
Nov 20 - Apr 21 |
May 21 - Oct 21 |
Nov 19 - Oct 20 |
Nov 20 - Oct 21 |
||||
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (RC) |
1.3 |
3.2 |
1.8 |
3.7 |
3.2 |
2.7 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (RC) |
5.5 |
1.8 |
1.6 |
2.1 |
5.1 |
1.8 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
(LC) |
1.3 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
Notes:
(1) Conservation Status follows that of Fellow et. al. (2002). See Appendix B (Table B3).
(2) Annual mean number recorded during Baseline Ecological Monitoring.
(3) Values in bold indicated the Target Level was achieved.
Based on Table 4.2 above, the target level of the Chinese Pond Heron has been achieved between May 2021 to October 2021, while the target level for Little Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret have not been achieved.
According to the ecological monitoring data of the Survey Area (excluding the WRA), Eastern Cattle Egret was observed in 9 out of 26 regular surveys and the biannual mean of the Eastern Cattle Egret at the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) is 5.0 bird per survey (May 2021 – October 2021). During this period, pond 45 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 to fed on them (highest count for pond 45 was 19 birds on 2 September 2021).
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. The large expanse of grassland in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) and the open storage areas in the vicinity of the WRA and the Survey Area (excluding the WRA) provide foraging sites for the Eastern Cattle Egret. Upon the completion of the WRA the area had changed from open storage to restored open-water wetland, reedbeds, tall vegetation as well as short grassland along the cell bunds. In the coming months the vegetation along the EVA and pond bunds of the Cells will be closely monitored, controlled and maintained, in order to attract more insect and Eastern Cattle Egrets.
Although the biannual mean of Little Egret did not meet the target level, the species was recorded in 19 out of 26 regular surveys within the WRA. The highest count in this period was 3 birds in Cell 4 on 11 May 2021.
Although the target level for Eastern Cattle Egret has not been achieved between May 2021 and October 2021, the WRA continues to attract wetland dependent birds and/or species of conservation importance, as well as terrestrial birds of conservation importance.
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 2021 to October 2021 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 (1) |
Wetland Dependence |
Conservation Status (2) |
Annual mean number recorded during the Baseline Ecological Monitoring[NNN3] |
Mean number recorded between May 2021 - Oct 2021 (3) |
|
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
Y |
LC |
0.0 |
0.7 |
|
Great Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax carbo |
Y |
PRC |
0.5 |
0.3 |
|
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
Y |
PRC |
0.1 |
0.5 |
|
Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
V |
1.3 |
|
Intermediate Egret |
Egretta intermedia |
Y |
RC |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
5.5 |
2.1 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
Y |
(LC) |
1.3 |
0.3 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
Y |
PRC, (RC) |
1.3 |
3.7 |
|
Yellow Bittern |
Ixobrychus sinensis |
Y |
(LC) |
0.0 |
0.6 |
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
Y |
(LC) |
0.2 |
3.8 |
|
Black-winged Kite |
Elanus caeruleus |
Y |
Class II, LC |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
Y |
Class II, (RC) |
1.2 |
0.8 |
|
Eastern Buzzard |
Buteo japonicus |
Y |
Class II |
0.0 |
<0.1 |
|
Eurasian Hobby |
Falco subbuteo |
Y |
Class II, (LC) |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
Y |
- |
0.2 |
1.2 |
|
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus himantopus |
Y |
RC |
0.0 |
V |
|
Oriental Pratincole |
Glareola maldivarum |
Y |
LC |
V |
<0.1 |
|
Common Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
Y |
- |
0.0 |
0.7 |
|
Pacific Golden Plover |
Pluvialis fulva |
Y |
LC |
0.0 |
V |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
Y |
(LC) |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Common Greenshank |
Tringa nebularia |
Y |
RC |
0.0 |
V |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
Y |
- |
0.2 |
0.4 |
|
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
Y |
- |
0.0 |
<0.1 |
|
Chlidonias leucopterus |
Y |
- |
0.0 |
<0.1 |
|
|
Common Snipe |
Gallinago gallinago |
Y |
- |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Pacific Swift |
Apus pacificus |
N |
(LC) |
V |
0.0 |
|
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
Y |
(LC) |
0.0 |
0.3 |
|
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
Y |
(LC) |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
Y |
- |
0.0 |
0.9 |
|
Motacilla tschutschensis |
Y |
- |
10.0 |
0.2 |
|
|
Grey Wagtail |
Motacilla cinerea |
Y |
- |
2.2 |
0.0 |
|
White Wagtail |
Motacilla alba |
Y |
- |
0.9 |
1.5 |
|
Oriental Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus orientalis |
Y |
- |
0.1 |
<0.1 |
|
Black-browed Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus bistrigiceps |
Y |
- |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
Y |
LC |
0.1 |
<0.1 |
|
Red-billed Starling |
Spodiopsar sericeus |
Y |
(RC)* |
0.9 |
0.0 |
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Sturnia sinensis |
Y |
(LC) |
0.1 |
0.9 |
|
Collared Crow |
Corvus torquatus |
Y |
LC, NT |
0.0 |
0.3 |
Notes:
(1) Follows the List of Hong
Kong Birds (ver. 2020-03-10)
(2) 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)
(3) Refers to the mean number of individuals recorded between May 2021 – Oct
2021 in the WRA
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 now not 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 159 bird species have been recorded within the WRA since completion of site formation. Of the 159 species, 89 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 2021
|
Common Name |
- 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 |
Nov 20 - Oct 21 |
|
Bird species of conservation importance and/ or wetland-dependence |
48 |
33 |
36 |
39 |
45 |
46 |
46 |
42 |
34 |
52 |
51 |
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.
Carey, G. J., Chalmers, M. L., Diskin, D. A., Kennerley, P. R., Leader, P. J., Leven, M. R., Lewthwaite, R. W., Melville, D. S., Turnbull, M., and Young, L. 2001. The Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Hong Kong.
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 2020. List of Hong Kong Birds - 2020-03. <www.hkbws.org.hk>.
Hong Kong Observatory Climate Information Service. <https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/wxinfo/pastwx/mws/mws.htm>
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.
IUCN 2016. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 7th December 2016
Karsen, S., M.W.N. Lau & A. Bogadek, 1998. Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong.
List of National Protected Animal (updated on 5 Feb 2021) http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-02/09/5586227/files/e007df5cdb364bcdbcb89d169047d6c5.pdf, 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 (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.
Zheng Guangmei and Wang Qishan (1998) (Edited), China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Aves, Science Press, Beijing.