Content
Chapter Title Page
|
1.3 EM&A Requirements on Ecological Impact 1 2.3 Monitoring of Herpetofauna_ 2 2.4 Monitoring of Dragonflies and
Butterflies2 2.6 Monitoring of Water Quality3 |
|
Table 1.1:__ Summary of Ecological Impact EM&A Requirements Table 4.1:__ Summary of Ecological Monitoring in WRA and Survey Area |
Figure 1.1 Survey
Area and Transect Walked
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
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 carried out under the EIA Ordinance (EIAO)
since then and the Environmental Permit (EP-311/2008B) for construction of the
comprehensive development in Wo Shang Wai was granted by EPD on 29 July 2010. 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.
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 ACE, EPD and AFCD on a biannual basis. This is the 4th Biannual EM&A report and it summarises the findings on EM&A results of ecological aspects during the period from 1 November 2011 to 30 April 2012.
Surveys were conducted within 500m of the Project area. The
Wetland Restoration Area (hereafter WRA) was surveyed since early September
2010. The survey transect is provided in Figure
1.1.
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 November, and twice per month during Apr to Aug |
|
Herpetofauna |
Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m |
Once per month during Apr to Nov |
|
Water quality of WRA |
Wetland Restoration Area |
After filling of WRA with water, monthly for in situ water quality and every size 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 |
In accordance with the EM&A requirements, monitoring of birds, dragonflies
and butterflies, and herpetofauna was 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.
Monitoring
was undertaken following the survey methodology in the EM&A Manual. In
addition, low intensity monitoring of the WRA was undertaken (on a monthly
basis) to monitor faunal usage of the newly formed cells since September 2010;
monitoring intensity will follow that outlined in the EM&A Manual at the
completion of the WRA. 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 50 bird species
of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence were recorded in the Survey
Area (excluding WRA). A summary of
survey data is provided in Appendix B.
A total of 61 species were recorded in the WRA
in the survey periods, 30 of which were species of conservation importance
and/or wetland-dependent species. All three target species (i.e. Little Egret Egtretta garzetta, Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis and Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus) were recorded in the
WRA, including high counts of 12 Chinese Pond Heron. The
species composition and abundance of the avifauna recorded within the Study
Area were typical of fish pond areas between November and April (i.e. dry
season/early wet season).
Further, the WRA has attracted a number of species of conservation interest,
including the near-threatened Collared Crow Corvys
torquatus; indicating that the WRA was effective in
providing habitat suitable for species of interest and acting as a buffer
between the site and the fishpond areas. A summary of survey data is provided in Appendix
B.
Monitoring was undertaken following the survey methodology in the
EM&A Manual. Day-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted once a
month in November 2011 and April 2012,
while night-time herpetofauna surveys were conducted twice per month between March
and April 2012. Further, notable
herpetofauna observations during other surveys were also recorded.
Four amphibian species
and two reptile species
were recorded using the ponds in the
survey area (excluding WRA) in the survey period, while
four amphibian species
and no reptile species were
recorded in the WRA in the surveys conducted in the
reporting period. No species of conservation interest
was recorded. A summary of survey
data is provided in Appendix C.
Monitoring of dragonflies and butterflies was conducted once a
month in November 2011 and March 2012
and twice-monthly in April 2012. Further, notable dragonfly and butterfly observations during other
surveys were recorded.
A total of eight dragonfly species and eight butterfly species were recorded using the ponds in the
survey area (excluding WRA) in the survey period. At the
WRA, a higher diversity of dragonfly species (14
species) and six butterfly species were recorded. One
dragonfly species of conservation importance (Coastal Glider Macrodiplax cora) was recorded in the
survey area (excluding WRA). A summary of the survey findings is provided in Appendix C.
Monitoring of mammals
was conducted concurrently with other surveys. Two
species were recorded in the Study
Area in the survey period. There was no mammal
sighting in the WRA. A summary of the
survey findings is provided in Appendix C.
Monthly water quality
monitoring continued during the reporting period. Monitoring parameters
followed that in the EM&A Manual. No action/limit level exceedances were
observed.
Monitoring data are
presented in Appendix D.
Vegetation management activities undertaken at the site primarily
involved watering of plants, reviewing
and adjusting tree supports, some replacement planting, patching up
hydroseeding where germination was considered unsatisfactory and treating
unhealthy/heavily infested Litsea and
Sapium plants with fungicide.
All red fire ant nests were treated with
approved pesticide and covered with overturn baskets for a week. All treated
fire ant nests were inactive within one week of treatment.
Ecological monitoring between
1 November 2011 and 30 April 2012
was carried out following the survey
methodology and frequency outlined in the EM&A Manual.
Summary of survey findings listed as follow:
Table 4.1: Summary of Ecological Monitoring in WRA and Survey Area
|
Number of Species |
Survey Area (excluding WRA) |
WRA |
|
Birds (total) |
93 |
61 |
|
Birds (of conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence) |
50 |
30 |
|
Amphibians |
4 |
4 |
|
Reptiles |
2 |
0 |
|
Mammals |
2 |
0 |
|
Dragonflies |
8 |
14 |
|
Butterflies |
8 |
6 |
61 bird species, 4 amphibian species, 14
dragonfly species and 6 butterfly species were recorded in the WRA, including
30 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 support that the WRA was
effective in providing habitat for some species of conservation interest known
to occur in the fringes of the Deep Bay Area and in acting as a buffer between
the residential portion of the site in the north and the fishpond areas in the
south.
Chan, S.
K.F., K.S. Cheung, C.Y. Ho, F.N Lam & W.S. Tam, 2005. A Field Guide to
the Amphibians of
Fellowes et al., 2002. Wild Animals to Watch: Terrestrial and Freshwater Fauna of Conservation
Concern in
Karsen, S., M.W.N. Lau & A. Bogadek, 1998.
IUCN 2011.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 7 October 2011.
Lo, P. Y.
F. and W.L. Hui, 2004.
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
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
Young,
J.J. & Yiu, V., 2002. Butterfly Watching In
|
Nov 2011 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
Mammals |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birds |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
Dragonflies &
butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2011 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Mammals |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
Birds |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies &
butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
Jan 2012 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
Birds |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies &
butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
Feb 2012 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies & butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
Mar 2012 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Mammals |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
Birds |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies &
butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
Apr 2012 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
Mammals |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
Birds |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies &
butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
Note:
* Light
grey cells indicate public holidays, Saturdays or Sundays.
Table B1.
Summary of bird monitoring within the Survey Area
(excluding the WRA)
|
Common Name(4) |
Scientific Name(4) |
Conservation Status (2) |
Mean(3) |
|||||
|
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Eurasian Wigeon |
Anas penelope |
(RC) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
|
Northern Shoveler |
Anas clypeata |
RC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Eurasian Teal |
Anas crecca |
RC, (1) |
0.0 |
5.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
LC, (1) |
26.8 |
14.6 |
9.6 |
9.0 |
8.4 |
3.2 |
|
Eurasian Spoonbill |
Platalea leucorodia |
PGC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill |
Platalea minor |
EN, PGC, (1) |
2.5 |
3.2 |
3.8 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
3.6 |
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
(LC), (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (1) |
0.0 |
26.6 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
10.8 |
13.2 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
(LC), (1) |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
5.3 |
4.0 |
8.0 |
|
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
PRC, (1) |
10.5 |
6.8 |
7.6 |
8.3 |
1.8 |
0.0 |
|
Eastern Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
PRC, (1) |
30.3 |
3.4 |
2.6 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
5.0 |
|
Intermediate Egret |
Egretta intermedia |
RC, (1) |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (1) |
115.3 |
46.0 |
9.8 |
10.7 |
12.0 |
40.8 |
|
Great Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax carbo |
PRC, (1) |
8.8 |
6.6 |
0.0 |
20.3 |
14.0 |
0.4 |
|
Western Osprey |
Pandion haliaetus |
RC |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
(RC) |
0.5 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
(1) |
0.8 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
2.2 |
0.6 |
|
Common Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
(1) |
4.0 |
2.6 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
|
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus himantopus |
RC, (1) |
1.0 |
4.5 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
|
Pied Avocet |
Recurvirostra avosetta |
RC, (1) |
0.5 |
9.3 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
3.0 |
|
Grey-headed Lapwing |
Vanellus cinereus |
LC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
LC, (1) |
7.8 |
10.0 |
4.0 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
4.8 |
|
Kentish Plover |
Charadrius alexandrinus |
RC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Pheasant-Tailed Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
LC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Snipe |
Gallinago gallinago |
(1) |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Spotted Redshank |
Tringa erythropus |
RC, (1) |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Marsh Sandpiper |
Tringa stagnatilis |
RC, (1) |
3.0 |
2.5 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
|
Common Greenshank |
Tringa nebularia |
PRC, (1) |
0.0 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
4.7 |
1.2 |
1.6 |
|
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
(1) |
2.5 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
|
Wood Sandpiper |
Tringa glareola |
LC, (1) |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
7.0 |
2.6 |
4.4 |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
(1) |
0.0 |
8.4 |
8.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
Red-necked Stint |
Calidris ruficollis |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.6 |
|
Little Stint |
Calidris minuta |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
Temminck's Stint |
Calidris temminckii |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
1.2 |
|
Long-toed Stint |
Calidris subminuta |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
5.4 |
|
Red-necked Phalarope |
Phalaropus lobatus |
(1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
Black-headed Gull |
Chroicocephalus ridibundus |
PRC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Whiskered Tern |
Chlidonias hybrida |
(1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
(LC) |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
(1) |
3.8 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.2 |
|
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
(LC), (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
Collared Crow |
Corvus torquatus |
NT, LC |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
0.6 |
|
Oriental Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus orientalis |
(1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
LC |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
|
Red-billed Starling |
Spodiopsar sericeus |
GC(5) |
0.0 |
100.8 |
80.2 |
52.0 |
11.6 |
0.0 |
|
White-cheeked Starling |
Spodiopsar cineraceus |
PRC |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Sturnia sinensis |
(LC) |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Eastern Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla tschutschensis |
(1) |
4.3 |
6.6 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
|
Grey Wagtail |
Motacilla cinerea |
(1) |
0.3 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Red-throated Pipit |
Anthus cervinus |
LC |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1.4 |
0.3 |
1.4 |
0.4 |
|
No. of Species Recorded |
25 |
33 |
31 |
23 |
25 |
28 |
||
(1) Indicates wetland-dependant or wetland-associated
species.
(2) Conservation status follows
that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and
BirdLife International listing (2010). See Table B3 for brief description of
status codes.
(3) Refers to the mean number of
individuals recorded in each survey in the Survey Area (excluding the WRA)
(4) Follows HK bird list (dated 4
Dec 2011)
(5) 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 no longer considered globally
threatened (BirdLife International 2010).
A listing of Regional Concern (RC), based on the importance of the large
roost present near
Table B2. Summary
of bird monitoring in the WRA
|
Common
Name(4) |
Scientific Name(4) |
Conservation
|
Mean(3) |
|||||
|
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
LC, (1) |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill |
Platalea minor |
PGC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Yellow Bittern |
Ixobrychus sinensis |
(LC), (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (1) |
5.3 |
2.4 |
0.3 |
2.3 |
2.6 |
1.4 |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus coromandus |
(LC), (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
PRC, (1) |
2.5 |
1.8 |
0.8 |
2.3 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
|
Purple Heron |
Ardea purpurea |
RC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Eastern Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
PRC, (1) |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
|
Intermediate Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
RC, (1) |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (1) |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
2.0 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
|
Great Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax carbo |
PRC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
(RC) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
(1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
Pied Avocet |
Recurvirostra avosetta |
RC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
|
Pheasant-tailed Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
LC, (1) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Greenshank |
Tringa nebularia |
RC, (1) |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
(1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
|
Wood Sandpiper |
Tringa glareola |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
(1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
|
Long-toed Stint |
Calidris subminuta |
LC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
(LC) |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
(1) |
0.8 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
|
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
(LC), (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
Collared Crow |
Corvus torquatus |
NT, LC |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Chinese Penduline-Tit |
Remiz consobrinus |
RC, (1) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.2 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
LC |
0.8 |
1.8 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
|
Red-billed Starling |
Spodiopsar sericeus |
GC |
0.8 |
1.6 |
6.6 |
39.0 |
17.4 |
0.0 |
|
Eastern Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla tschutschensis |
(1) |
2.0 |
1.2 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
4.0 |
1.0 |
|
Red-throated Pipit |
Anthus cervinus |
LC |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
18 |
11 |
16 |
11 |
17 |
11 |
||
(1)
Indicates wetland-dependant or
wetland-associated species
(2)
Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and BirdLife International listing (2010). See Table
B3 for brief description of status codes.
(3) Refers to the mean number of individuals
recorded in each survey in the WRA
(4) Follows HK bird list (dated 4 Dec 2011)
Table B3. Status Categories of Bird Species
|
Code |
Category |
Brief Description |
Source |
|
GC |
Global
Concern |
Habitat
loss/damage in |
Fellowes et al.
(2002) |
|
RC |
Regional
Concern |
Habitat
loss/damage in |
|
|
LC |
Local
Concern |
Habitat
loss/damage in |
|
|
PGC |
Potential
Global Concern |
Large,
secure population in |
|
|
PRC |
Potential
Regional Concern |
Large,
secure population in |
|
|
CR |
Critically Endangered |
Best available evidence indicates that it meets any
of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered, and it is therefore
considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. |
BirdLife International (2010) |
|
EN |
Endangered |
Best available evidence indicates that it meets any
of the criteria A to E for Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be
facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. |
|
|
VU |
Vulnerable |
Best
available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for
Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild. |
|
|
NT |
Near
Threatened |
Does not
qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close
to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the
near future. |
Table C1. Summary of herpetofauna monitoring within the Survey
Area (excluding the WRA)
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Mean(2) |
|||
|
Amphibian |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Asian
Common Toad |
Bufo melanostictus |
- |
0.0 |
7.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
Asiatic
Painted Frog |
Kaloula pulchra |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
|
Günther's
Frog |
Rana guentheri |
- |
0.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
Brown
Tree Frog |
Polypedates megacephalus |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
|
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
0 |
2 |
4 |
|||
|
Reptile |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Chinese Gecko |
Gekko chinensis |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
|
Bowring’s Gecko |
Hemidactylus bowringii |
- |
1.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|||
(1) Conservation status follows that
of Fellowes et al. (2002), Chan et al. (2005) and Karsen et al. (1998).
(2)
Refers to the number of individuals recorded in each month in the survey
area (excluding the WRA)
Table C2. Summary of herpetofauna monitoring
conducted in the WRA
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Mean(2) |
|||
|
Amphibian |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Asian
Common Toad |
Bufo melanostictus |
- |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
Ornate Pigmy Frog |
Microhyla ornata |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
|
|
Paddy
Frog |
Fejervarya limnocharis |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
|
Günther's
Frog |
Rana guentheri |
- |
0.0 |
5.0 |
10.5 |
|
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|||
|
Reptile |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
No records in the
reporting period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||
(1) Conservation status follows
that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Chan et al. (2005) and Karsen et al. (1998).
(2)
Refers to the number of
individuals recorded in each month in the WRA
Table C3. Summary of mammal monitoring within the Study Area
(excluding the WRA)
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Max(2) |
|||||
|
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
Unidentified
Rat |
Rattus sp. |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
Japanese
Pipistrelle |
Pipistrellus abramus |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.0 |
|
No. of Species Recorded |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
||
(1) Conservation status
follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and Shek (2006).
(2) Refers to the maximum number of individuals
recorded in each month in the survey area (excluding WRA).
Table C4. Summary of mammal monitoring conducted
in the WRA
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Max(2) |
|||||
|
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
|||
|
No records in the reporting period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
No. of Species Recorded |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
(1) Conservation status
follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and Shek (2006).
(2) Refers to the
maximum number of individuals recorded in each month in the WRA.
Table C5. Summary of dragonfly
and butterfly
monitoring within the Survey Area (excluding the WRA)
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Mean(2) |
||||
|
Odonate |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
||||
|
Orange-tailed Midget |
Agriocnemis femina |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
||
|
Common Bluetail |
Aschnura senegalensis |
- |
3.0 |
1.0 |
13.5 |
||
|
Asian Amberwing |
Brachythemis contaminate |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
15.5 |
||
|
Green Skimmer |
Orthetrum Sabina |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
8.5 |
||
|
Coastal Glider |
Macrodiplax cora |
LC |
2.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
|
Wandering Glider |
Pantala flavescens |
- |
25.0 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
||
|
Variegated Flutterer |
Rhyothemis variegate |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
||
|
Saddlebag Glider |
Tramea |
- |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
||
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
4 |
1 |
7 |
||||
|
Butterfly |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
||||
|
Common Mormon |
Papikio polytes |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
||
|
Red-base Jezebel |
Delias pasithoe |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
||
|
Mottled Emigrant |
Catopsilia pyranthe |
- |
3.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
|
Common Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe |
- |
5.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
- |
3.0 |
2.0 |
15.5 |
||
|
Long-tailed Blue |
Lampides boeticus |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.0 |
||
|
Pale Grass Blue |
Zizeeria maha |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.5 |
||
|
Great Egg-fly |
Hypolimnas bolina |
- |
3.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
4 |
1 |
5 |
||||
(1) Conservation status follows
that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Lo
& Hui (2004), Wilson (2004) and Young & Yiu (2002).
(2) Refers to the mean number of individuals recorded in each month in the survey area (excluding the WRA)
Table C6. Summary of dragonfly
and butterfly
monitoring conducted in the WRA
|
Common
Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation
Status(1) |
Mean(2) |
||
|
Odonate |
Nov |
Mar |
Apr |
||
|
Orange-tailed Midget |
Agriocnemis femina |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
19.5 |
|
Orange-tailed Spirit |
Ceriagrion auranticum |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
|
Common Bluetail |
Aschnura senegalensis |
- |
0.0 |
8.0 |
82.0 |
|
Pale-spotted Emperor |
Anax guttatus |
- |
4.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Flangetail |
Ictinogomphus pertinax |
- |
2.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Regal Pond Cruiser |
Epophthalmia elegans |
- |
2.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Asian Pintail |
Acisoma panorpoides |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
|
Blue Dasher |
Brachydiplax chalybea |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
Asian Amberwing |
Brachythemis contaminate |
- |
3.0 |
0.0 |
4.0 |
|
Crimson Darter |
Crocothemis servilia |
- |
2.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
|
Pied Percher |
Neurothemis tullia |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.5 |
|
Green Skimmer |
Orthetrum sabina |
- |
10.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
|
Wandering Glider |
Pantala flavescens |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
Variegated Flutterer |
Rhyothemis variegata |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
6 |
1 |
11 |
||
|
Butterfly |
Nov |
Mar
|
Apr |
||
|
Red-base Jezebel |
Delias pasithoe |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
|
Mottled Emigrant |
Catopsilia pyranthe |
- |
3.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Common Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe |
- |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
- |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
Dark Brand Bush Brown |
Mycalesis mineus |
- |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
|
Great Egg-fly |
Hypolimnas bolina |
- |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
No.
of Species Recorded |
3 |
1 |
2 |
||
(1) Conservation status follows
that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Lo
& Hui (2004), Wilson (2004) and Young & Yiu (2002).
(2) Refers to the mean number of individuals
recorded in each month in the WRA
Table D1. Water quality at WRA
November 2011
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
25.2 |
7.80 |
0.920 |
11 |
3.94 |
|
2 |
26.2 |
7.71 |
1.110 |
10 |
4.51 |
|
3 |
25.9 |
7.80 |
1.110 |
18 |
5.48 |
|
4 |
25.6 |
7.47 |
1.260 |
2 |
3.07 |
December 2011
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
17.3 |
7.85 |
0.960 |
17 |
6.12 |
|
2 |
17.8 |
7.88 |
1.280 |
12 |
8.24 |
|
3 |
17.8 |
7.99 |
1.160 |
8 |
6.65 |
|
4 |
18.8 |
7.74 |
1.370 |
2 |
5.46 |
January 2012
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
17.2 |
7.86 |
1.100 |
36 |
5.87 |
|
2 |
17.3 |
7.85 |
1.457 |
8 |
5.03 |
|
3 |
17.7 |
7.78 |
1.333 |
12 |
5.94 |
|
4 |
18.3 |
7.72 |
1.597 |
2 |
6.12 |
February 2012
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
18.9 |
7.71 |
1.027 |
31 |
3.67 |
|
2 |
18.9 |
7.77 |
1.380 |
11 |
6.36 |
|
3 |
18.9 |
7.63 |
1.240 |
17 |
4.27 |
|
4 |
20.3 |
7.63 |
1.457 |
23 |
5.50 |
March 2012
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
25.1 |
7.53 |
1.060 |
18 |
4.13 |
|
2 |
24.4 |
7.49 |
1.440 |
9 |
3.56 |
|
3 |
23.9 |
7.71 |
1.303 |
14 |
3.67 |
|
4 |
23.7 |
7.61 |
1.453 |
2 |
3.93 |
April 2012
|
Cell No. |
Temp. (°C) |
pH |
Salinity (ppt) |
Turb (mg/L) |
DO (mg/L) |
|
1 |
28.0 |
7.26 |
0.923 |
219 |
3.66 |
|
2 |
27.1 |
7.26 |
1.087 |
16 |
2.16 |
|
3 |
27.6 |
7.55 |
1.180 |
23 |
5.97 |
|
4 |
27.9 |
7.81 |
1.147 |
12 |
7.08 |
Notes:
Values Bold
indicate Action Level exceedance.
Values Underlined
and Bold indicate Limit Level exceedance.