5 Ecology

5.1 Introduction

This section presents the baseline conditions of ecological resources within the Study Area, results of the assessment of ecological value of the habitat and the potential impacts from the construction and operation of the wind turbine, on ecological resources in the Study Area (Figure 5.1). Baseline conditions for each ecological component of the terrestrial environment are evaluated based on information from the literature and focussed field studies conducted for the purposes of this EIA. Measures required to mitigate identified adverse impacts are recommended, where appropriate.

5.2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines

A number of international conventions and local legislation and guidelines provide the framework for the protection of species and habitats of ecological importance. Those related to the Project are:

· Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96);

· Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170);

· Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance (Cap 187);

· Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131);

· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines Chapter 10 (HKPSG);

· The Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO TM);

· United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992); and

· PRC Regulations and Guidelines.

The Forests and Countryside Ordinance prohibits felling, cutting, burning or destroying of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on Government land. The subsidiary Forestry Regulations prohibit the picking, felling or possession of listed rare and protected plant species. The list of protected species in Hong Kong which comes under the Forestry Regulations was last amended on 11 June 1993 under the Forestry (Amendment) Regulation 1993 made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance.

Under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, designated wild animals are protected from being hunted, whilst their nests and eggs are protected from destruction and removal. All birds and most mammals including all cetaceans are protected under this Ordinance, as well as certain reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. The Second Schedule of the Ordinance that lists all the animals protected was last revised in June 1997.

The purpose of the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance is to restrict the import and export of scheduled species. The Ordinance is primarily related to controlling trade in threatened and endangered species and restricting the local possession of them.

The recently amended Town Planning Ordinance provides for the designation of areas such as “Coastal Protection Areas”, “Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)”, “Green Belt” and "Conservation Area” to promote conservation or protection or protect significant habitat.

Chapter 10 of the HKPSG covers planning considerations relevant to conservation. This chapter details the principles of conservation, the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historic buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. It also addresses the issue of enforcement. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong, and Government departments involved in conservation.

Annex 16 of the EIAO TM sets out the general approach and methodology for assessment of ecological impacts arising from a project or proposal, to allow a complete and objective identification, prediction and evaluation of the potential ecological impacts. Annex 8 recommends the criteria that can be used for evaluating ecological impacts.

The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. The Convention requires signatories to make active efforts to protect and manage their biodiversity resources. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has stated that it will be “committed to meeting the environmental objectives” of the Convention (PELB 1996).

The PRC in 1988 ratified the Wild Animal Protection Law of the PRC, which lays down basic principles for protecting wild animals. The Law prohibits killing of protected animals, controls hunting, and protects the habitats of wild animals, both protected and non-protected. The Law also provides for the creation of lists of animals protected at the state level, under Class I and Class II. There are 96 animal species in Class I and 156 in Class II. Class I provides a higher level of protection for animals considered to be more threatened.

5.3 Literature Review of Ecological Characteristics of Lamma Island

5.3.1 Methodology

A literature review was conducted to determine the existing ecological conditions within the Study Area and to identify habitats and species of potential importance that may be affected by the Project. The review of the existing conditions also covered the entire Lamma Island. The local literature review included:

· EIA for Outlying Islands Sewerage Stage 1 Phase 1 (Maunsell 1997);

· Hong Kong Bird Reports;

· Porcupine! (Newsletter of Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, University of Hong Kong);

· Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles (Karsen et al 1998);

· Avifauna of Hong Kong (Carey et al 2001);

· Memoirs of Hong Kong Natural History Society;

· EIA for 1800MW Gas-Fired Power Station at Lamma Extension: Terrestrial Ecological Impact Assessment (ERM 1998);

· Ecological Survey for Additional Transmission Route from Lamma Power Station to Pak Kok Tsui Landing Point (ERM 2001);

· EIA for Outlying Islands Sewerage Stage 1, Phase II Package J - Sok Kwu Wan Sewage Collection, Treatment & Disposal Facilities (Maunsell 2003);

· Service on Providing Information on the Suitability of South Lamma, Tung Lung Chau and Po Toi Islands to be Established as Country Park, Report to AFCD (Department of Geography, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 1999);

· Ecology and Biodiversity of a Degraded Landscape: Lamma Island, Hong Kong, HKU PhD. Thesis (Wong 1999); and

· Wind Monitoring Station on Lamma Island: Monthly Report of Bird Strike Incidents (FOE 2001-2002).

5.3.2 Results

Lamma Island

Habitat and Vegetation

The most comprehensive habitat and vegetation surveys on Lamma Island were undertaken by Wong (1999) and Department of Geography, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (1999). Wong (1999) revealed that Lamma Island is an outlying island of an area of approximately 13.7 km² and of different habitats including forests, shrublands, grassland, urbanized area, cultivation field, bare soil and water body. The details of the habitat types recorded on Lamma Island are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Habitat Type of Lamma Island

Habitat Type	Area (km^2)	Percentage Cover (%)
Forest	0.943	6.90
Ravine Forest	0.113	0.84
Forest Plantation	0.4	2.97
Tall Shrubland	0.994	7.37
Tall Shrubland with Grass	1.453	10.77
Low Shrubland	0.413	3.06
Low Shrubland with Grass	2.954	21.89
Grassland	3.873	28.69
Urbanized/Developed Area	1.448	10.73
Cultivation Field	0.251	1.86
Abandoned Cultivation Field	0.263	1.95
Bare Soil	0.495	3.67
Water Body	0.08	0.60

(Information extracted from Wong 1999)

Lamma Island was dominated by grasslands and shrublands which occupied 71.8% of the island. The Island has very limited size water bodies. Grassland and shrubland are mostly found in the north of the Island and north of Ling Kok Shan and Ngai Tau. Urbanized areas and cultivation were mainly located on the north of Lamma Island, around Yung Shue Wan. Small patches of urbanized areas were found around Sok Kwu Wan, Lo Tik Wan and Lo So Shing.

According to Wong’s study (1999), 648 plant species were recorded on Lamma Island and 151 of those were classified as either very rare or rare and most of them were located at the fringe or within the forests, despite the small forest area on the island. The representative rare and very rare plant species are listed in Annex C Table 1.

Birds

There has been no systematic study of the avifauna on Lamma Island and the majority of the information available comes largely from anecdotal records. A total of 102 bird species have been sighted over time on Lamma Island from published literature and bird watchers’ unpublished data since 1970s and the sightings were reported from different seasons (Annex C Table 2). Among the recorded bird species, 12 species were listed either as Class II protected species in PRC or Appendix II of CITES or in China Red China Book including White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster, Black Kite Milvus migrans and Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Protected Bird Species Recorded on Lamma Island (from Literature Review)

Species*	Habitat	PRC Protection Status	China Red Data Book	CITES Appendix
Pacific Reef Egret	Coastal area of Hong Kong	II	Rare
Black-eared Kite	Found in many types of habitat	II
Common Buzzard	Found in many types of habitat	II
Crested Goshawk	Usually found in wooded hillsides	II	Rare	II
Chinese Goshawk	Usually in marshes or lightly-wooded hillsides	I
White-bellied Sea Eagle	Hong Kong's coastal area, much scarcer in other parts of China	II	Rare	II
Bonelli's Eagle	Found in many types of habitats, but usually in lightly-wooded hillsides	II	Rare	II
Kestrel	Found in many types of habitats	II
Greater Coucal	Mainly found in shrubland and woodland edge	II
Lesser Coucal	Mainly found in shrubland	II
Emerald Dove	Mainly found in woodland		Vulnerable
Hill Myna	Mainly found in woodland and woodland edge		Vulnerable	III

Note: * All birds are protected in Hong Kong under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170).

South Lamma Island was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 1980, aiming to protect the nesting habitats of White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster and Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraetus fasciatus near Mount Stenhouse. However, neither White-bellied Sea Eagle nor Bonelli’s Eagle nesting records have been reported in the SSSI in recent years.

During monthly monitoring of bird strike incidents for a Wind Monitoring Station on Lamma Island (located at Ngau Tau, approximately 4 km from the Study Area), Black Kite were frequently recorded and White-bellied Sea Eagle was occasionally recorded (FOE 2001-2002). No bird strike incident was recorded during the monitoring period from October 2001 to July 2002.

Nearly half of the previously recorded bird species are summer visitors, residents or species present in Hong Kong all year round (48 out of 102 species). Thirteen out of the 102 previously recorded species are migrants that utilise the open water areas (usually in East Lamma Channel). More than 25 species out of the 102 previously recorded species either utilise coastal or wetland habitats.

Herpetofauna

Aside from the Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri, all of the amphibian species recorded in Lamma Island, including Asian Common Toad Bufo melanostictus, Gunther’s Frog Rana guentheri, Paddy Frog Rana limnocharis, Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus, Asiatic Painted Frog Kaloula pulchra and Ornate Pigmy Frog Microhyla ornate, are common and widespread in Hong Kong (Lau and Dudgeon 1999). Romer’s Tree Frog is endemic to Hong Kong and is considered as a rare species. The Romer’s Tree Frog was first recorded in Lamma in 1952, and the species was rediscovered there in 1984 (Karsen et al 1998). The species was recorded near caves and cultivated fields on the island, mostly near Sok Kwu Wan or south Lamma (ibid.). Romer’s Tree Frog also occurs on several other islands, including Lantau and Po Toi (ibid.), and since then has been introduced to Hong Kong Island and the New Territories under a conservation program.

Reptiles recorded in terrestrial habitats of Lamma Island included Checkered Keelback Xenochrophis piscator, Bamboo Snake Trimeresurus albolabris, Plumbeous Water Snake Enhydris plumbea, Taiwan Kukri Snake Oligodon formosanus, Burmese Python Pythonmolurus bivittatus, Reeves’ Terrapins Chinemys reevesii, Red-eared Sliders Trachemys scripta and Three-banded Box Terrapin Cuora trifasciata (Anon 1996, 1997; Karsen et al 1998; Maunsell 2003). Burmese Python is listed in Appendix II of CITES and is a Class I protected species of the PRC (Zhao 1998). Three-banded Box Terrapin is a Class II protected species of the PRC and is considered as “endangered” by IUCN (Zhao 1998). All terrapins and Burmese Python are protected in Hong Kong under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.

Dragonflies and Butterflies

Forty butterfly species were reported in Lamma Island previously (Maunsell 2003). All the species are presented in Annex C Table 3. The reported butterflies included 6 rare and 10 uncommon species, including the protected species Birdwing Troides helena. There were only two dragonfly species, Orthetrum sabina and Pantala flavescens, recorded previously (Maunsell 2003).

Mammals

Mammals recorded on Lamma Island included Javan Mongoose Herpestes javanicus, Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus, Lesser Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus pusillus and Bi-coloured Round-leaf Bat Hipposideros pomona (Ades 1999; Maunsell 2003). All bats are protected in Hong Kong under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.

Stream Fauna

There is limited information on aquatic fauna available on Lamma Island.

Study Area

The literature review revealed that limited published information on flora and fauna was available within the Study Area.

5.4 Effects of Wind Farms on Ecological Resources (Overseas Experience)

It has been acknowledged in the international literature that the operation of wind turbines and wind farms have limited effects on ecological resources. The exception to this has been reported effects on migratory birds. Poor site selection has lead to the siting of windfarms on bird migration routes leading to subsequent bird strikes. An overseas literature review was subsequently undertaken to determine the effects of wind power projects on ecological resources and in particular birds. The major overseas literature review included:

· Lochelbank Wind Farm: Environmental Statement (ERM-UK 2004)

· Heemskirk Wind Farm: Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (Hydro Tasmania 2003)

· Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues (BirdLife International 2003)

· Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States (Erickson et al 2001)

· Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at North Cape, Prince Edward Island (Kingsley & Whittam 2001)

· Wind Farms and Birds (RSBP 2004)

It should be noted that the above aspects are concerned with windfarms and are thus larger scale than the proposed single wind turbine on Lamma Island.

Habitat loss, habitat fragmentation/isolation and disturbance to wildlife are the typical ecological impacts due to the development projects including wind farm/ turbine. In addition to such typical ecological impacts, the wind farm could result in the following impacts on birds and their movement (Erickson et al 2001; Kingsley & Whittam 2001; Hydro Tasmania 2003; BirdLife International 2003; ERM-UK 2004):

· Habitat avoidance/ disturbance;

· Creation of a barrier effect to bird movement; and

· Bird injuries or death through collision with operating turbines and wires or as a result of being attracted to the turbine at night time by lighting used for safety reasons to mark the turbine location.

BirdLife International recently reviewed and analysed the effects of windfarms on birds with the following recommendation:

· The effects attributable to wind farms are variable and are species-, season- and site-specific.

· There is some indication that wind turbines may be barriers to bird movement. Whether this is a problem will depend on the size of the wind farm, spacing of turbines, the extent of displacement of flying birds and their ability to compensate for increased energy expenditure.

· The majority of studies have quoted low collision mortality rates per turbine, but in many cases these are based only on found corpses, leading to under-recording of the actual number of collisions.

· Relatively high collision mortality rates have been recorded at several large, poorly sited wind farms in areas where large concentrations of birds are present, especially migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, eg Altamont Pass in California, USA, Tarifa and Navarra in Spain. In these cases, actual deaths resulting from collision are high, notably of golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos and griffon vulture Gyps fulvus, respectively.

· The weight of evidence to date indicates that locations with high bird use, especially by species of conservation concern, are not suitable for wind farm development (eg in Spain, regional recovery plans prohibit wind farms in areas important for the breeding and feeding of imperial eagles Aquila heliaca). Site selection is crucial to minimizing collision mortality. The precautionary principle is advocated where there are concentrations of species of conservation importance. It is, therefore, very important that alternative locations are proposed for the potentially most hazardous wind farms.

On the basis of the literature review, conservation status of bird species and more than 10 years collective experience of BirdLife International (2003) a number of indicative bird groups which are considered to be particularly sensitive, or potentially so, to wind farms have been identified and these are listed in Table 5.3.

The bird species recorded in Lamma Island (from the literature review) were consequently evaluated in Table 5.3 in order to classify the primary species which are considered to be more vulnerable to wind turbine collisions during operation.

Table 5.3 Bird Species Identified to be Sensitive to Wind Farm (Collisions) (Extracted from BirdLife International 2003)

Species Group	Local Status
Gaviidae divers	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Podicipedidae grebes	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Sulidae gannets & boobies	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Ciconiiformes herons & storks	Recorded in Hong Kong. Species recorded in Lamma Island (mainly wetland and coastal habitats) included Pacific Reef Egret (Egretta sacra), Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea), Striated Heron (Butorides striatus), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Chinese Pond Heron (Ardeola bacchus), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) and Yellow Bittern (Ixobrychus sinensis).
Anserini swans and geese	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Anatinae ducks	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Accipitridae raptors	Recorded in Hong Kong. Species recorded in Lamma Island (mainly resident) included Black Kite (Milvus lineatus), Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo), Bonelli’s Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), Crested Goshawk (Accipiter trivirgatus) and Chinese Goshawk (Accipiter soloensis).
Stenidae terns	Recorded in Hong Kong. Species recorded in Lamma Island (mainly in the open waters) included Black-napped Tern (Sterna sumatrana), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica) and Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica).
Alcidae alcids/suks	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Strigiformes owls	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Tetraonidae	No records in Hong Kong.
Gruidae cranes	Recorded in Hong Kong but not in Lamma Island.
Otididae bustards	No records in Hong Kong.
Passeriformes especially nocturnal migrants	Recorded in Hong Kong and some species (mainly non- nocturnal migrants) can also be found in Lamma Island.

In addition to the above recommendations of BirdLife International (2003), the definitions below have been used in this study to classify all the previously recorded bird species in Lamma Island into primary (most at risk from impacts) or secondary species:

Primary Species

· Study Area comprised suitable foraging or breeding habitats for the species, and the flight heights and paths of their usual activities fall within the height of the proposed wind turbine (approximately 19 - 71 m above ground level); and

· Aerial foragers, including all raptors, swifts, swallows, which spend a large proportion of their behaviour flying.

Secondary Species

· The species has been recorded on Lamma Island, but the areas within and in the vicinity of the Project Area do not provide suitable habitat for the species; and

· The species usually does not fly over the Study Area at similar height of the proposed wind turbine (approximately 19 - 71 m above ground level).

Details and results of the evaluation are presented in Annex C Table 4.

5.5 Identification of Information Gap

5.5.1 Introduction

Lamma Island is generally dominated by grassland and shrubland, and lacks wetland habitats (ie marsh). The majority of the habitat types within the Study Area, based on the recent aerial photographs (CW39442 dated 17^th April 2002 at 3500 ft and CW48755 dated 3^rd July 2003 at 4000 ft) and the reconnaissance survey undertaken on 17^th May 2004, are hilly shrubby grassland, shrubland, and lowland woodland.

5.5.2 Scope of Field Surveys

In accordance with the literature review discussed in Section 5.3 (since 1970s) and the site condition of the Project Area as well as the Study Area, the habitat characteristics of hilly areas, dominated by shrubby grassland and shrubland with relatively low ecological value, indicates that few migratory birds are expected to utilise the area. Lamma Island is not considered to be located along/within the major flight paths of migratory birds due to the lack of their preferred habitats (ie wetlands and marshes). The literature review also indicated that the seasonality of the bird population in Lamma Island is not significant. From the bird reports it was apparent that raptors would therefore be considered to be the major bird species that could be influenced by the wind turbine during operation (bird sensitivities to wind turbines are discussed in Section 5.4 and Table 5.3). Since the raptors including the Black Kite and White-bellied Sea Eagle are mainly resident and could be recorded all year round, bird surveys focussing on the raptors can be undertaken at any time of the year.

With consideration of the listed issues as discussed above and the bullet points below, six months of ecological baseline surveys were not considered necessary:

· only one wind turbine to be constructed;

· proposed site avoided known ecologically sensitive areas;

· small areas to be affected;

· habitats within the Project Area as well as the Study Area dominated by hilly shrubby grassland and shrubland with relatively low ecological value;

· lack of preferred habitats for migratory birds within the Study Area; and

· low seasonality of bird population.

As a consequence, a number of wet season ecological baseline surveys (recommended in the following section) were conducted to collect ecological baseline information for the construction and operational impact assessment.

The surveys were conducted during May-June 2004 (ie wet season), which is expected to be adequate to collate sufficient ecological baseline data for the impact assessment due to the nature of the project (only one turbine), small size of Project and Works Areas (approximately 0.5 ha in total) and the ecological characteristics of the Study Area (areas avoided ecological sensitive areas including potential Country Parks and SSSI during site selection, with relative low ecological significance). The surveys included habitat/vegetation, bird, invertebrates (butterfly and dragonfly), herpetofauna, mammal and stream fauna surveys.

5.6 Assessment Methodology

5.6.1 Ecological Baseline Survey

The Study Area was defined as the area within 500 m of either side and along the Project boundary. Following a literature review of available ecological data characterising the Study Area, reconnaissance survey was undertaken in May 2004 to update and field check the validity of the information gathered in the review. A number of more focused baseline field surveys were then identified and carried out to characterise the existing ecological conditions. The surveys were designed to fill data gaps identified in Section 5.5 in order to facilitate a compliant assessment of the Project’s impacts upon ecology and the development of appropriate mitigation measures. Special attention was paid to those areas which will be directly impacted by the proposed construction works.

The following baseline surveys were identified as being required:

· Habitat and vegetation surveys;

· Bird survey;

· Other wildlife including invertebrates, mammals and herpetofauna survey (including night surveys); and,

· Stream fauna survey.

Habitats and Vegetation

Field surveys were focused on the habitats within the Study Area and were performed on 17^th and 20^th May 2004. The aim was to record ecological data within the Study Area and establish the ecological profile.

Habitats were mapped based on government aerial photographs (year 2002 and 2003) and field ground truthing. Representative areas of each habitat type were surveyed on foot. Plant species of each habitat type encountered and their relative abundance were recorded with special attention to rare or protected species. Nomenclature and conservation status of plant species follow Xing et al (2000) and Wu and Lee (2000).

Birds

Habitats and areas of potential ecological importance for avifauna within the Study Area were identified in a reconnaissance survey. Baseline surveys of bird populations were undertaken within those selected habitats using two quantitative methods (point count and vantage point methods). Bird surveys were carried out on 20^th, 23^rd, 26^th, 29^th & 30^th May, and 6^th June 2004. Night surveys were undertaken on 29^th and 30^th May 2004.

Point Count Method

Bird communities in each habitat type recorded within the Study Area, including mainly young woodland, shrubland and shrubby grassland, were surveyed using the point count method. A total of 9 sampling points were selected and their locations are shown in Figure 5.1. Ten minutes were spent counting birds at each sampling point. All birds seen or heard within 30 m of the sampling points were counted. Activities of the birds were categorized into 4 classes: perching/preening (P), foraging (Fr), flying above (Fl) and engaging in breeding activities (Br). Signs of breeding (e.g. nests, recently fledged juveniles) within the Study Area were also recorded. Observations were made using 8X binoculars and photographic records were taken if possible. Bird abundance in each type of habitat was expressed in number of birds per hectare (total birds counted divided by total surveyed area).

Bird species encountered outside counting points but within the Study Area were also recorded to produce a complete species list. Signs of breeding (e.g. nests, recently fledged juveniles) were also recorded. Ornithological nomenclature followed Carey et al (2001).

Vantage Point Method

The aim of the vantage point method was to determine flight activity patterns over the proposed Project site in order to (1) identify areas of critical importance to birds and (2) estimate collision likelihood at wind turbine sites with reference to the recorded flight path of the potentially affected bird species (ERM-UK 2004). Two vantage points (VPs) were identified to observe the entire Study Area. It is noted that the wide coverage of the two VPs meant that ~ 90% of the Study Area was visible. Watches were undertaken by a single observer (bird specialist) in any weather conditions except poor visibility (<300m). Weather conditions (wind direction, precipitation and visibility) were recorded at start of each watch, then at every subsequent hour. At each vantage point the observer spent at least 3 hours for each survey. The Study Area was divided into five zones, Zone 1-5, to facilitate the data recording (Figure 5.1). During each watch, 2 hierarchical recording methods were used to record data as follows:

(a) The arc visible from the VP was scanned constantly until a primary species (ie raptors, terns and herons) was detected in flight. Once detected, the bird was followed until it ceased flying or was lost from view. The time of the bird detected was recorded to the nearest minute. The route followed by the bird was plotted in the field on to 1:5 000 scale maps, regardless of whether or not the bird was within the Study Area. For each flying bout the time spent within the Study Area was recorded to the nearest second. The bird’s flying height was estimated at the point it entered the Zone 5 (interval 0) and at 15 sec intervals thereafter, and classified as flying height > 10 m, < 100 m or > 100 m above ground level. Due to the topography of the Study Area, the bird’s flying height cannot be estimated outside Zone 5. These observations had priority over method (b).

(b) At the end of each 5-min period, flight activity within the Study Area by secondary species (ie rails, bulbuls, cuckoos, and white eyes) were summarised. Data recorded included the number of flying birds, i.e. the minimum number of individuals that could account for the activity observed, details of notable movements, e.g. number, height and direction of secondary species flights.

Nest Searches

Searches for evidence of avian breeding activity within the Study Area were undertaken during the surveys. Species targeted for nest searches were raptors and waterbirds. Searches for raptor nests involved roaming around areas of high raptor activity (e.g. coastal cliffs) and other areas of suitable nesting habitat (e.g. woodlands). Searches for waterbird breeding activity involved roaming along the coastal areas. In addition to visually searching for nests, any observations of bird behaviour that might indicate a nest in the vicinity were noted.

Other Wildlife

Surveys of other wildlife (herpetofauna, dragonfly, butterfly and mammals) within the Study Area were carried out on 27^th May, 2^nd and 7^th June 2004. Night surveys for the wildlife, particularly amphibians and mammals, were carried out on 7^th June 2004.

Invertebrate Survey

Surveys of terrestrial invertebrates (butterflies and Odonate) were undertaken within the Study Area. The invertebrate survey was designed to search for and to record dragonfly and butterfly species, as well as their relative abundance in each habitat type within the Study Area. Nomenclature for butterflies follows Walthew (1997) and dragonfly nomenclature followed Wilson (2003).

Herpetofauna Survey

Herpetofauna surveys were conducted through direct observation and active searching in potential hiding places such as among leaf litter, inside holes, under stones and logs within the Study Area. Dip-netting was used to survey tadpoles in aquatic habitats such as streams and pools. Auditory detection of species-specific advertisement calls was also used to survey frogs and toads. All major habitat types within the Study Area were surveyed. No quantification of abundance of herpetofauna in the Study Area will be made, due to the secretive nature of these fauna. Therefore, efforts were made to produce a species list in the Study Area through active searching. During the surveys, all reptiles and amphibians sighted and heard were recorded. Night time surveys for amphibians were also undertaken. Nomenclature used in this report for reptiles follows Karsen et al (1998) while that of amphibians follows Lau and Dudgeon (1999).

Mammal Survey

As most mammals occur at low densities, all sightings, tracks, and signs of mammals were actively searched. Night time survey was also undertaken during the survey. Nomenclature for mammals followed Reels (1996) and Wilson and Reeder (1992). No quantification of abundance of mammals in the Study Area was made, due to the difficulties in translating sights and tracks (eg burrows) to actual abundance.

Stream Fauna Survey

Streams identified within the Study Area were visited. The stream fauna were studied by direct observation and active searching.

5.6.2 Assessment Methodology

The information presented in the following sections has been based on the findings of baseline surveys performed during the period May to June 2004. The importance of potentially impacted ecological resources identified within the Study Area was assessed using the EIAO TM. The potential impacts due to the construction and operation of the wind turbine and associated construction were then assessed (following the EIAO TM Annex 16 guidelines) and the impacts evaluated (based on the criteria in EIAO TM Annex 8).

5.7 Ecological Baseline Condition

5.7.1 Existing Habitat and Vegetation

Most of the Study Area remained natural with some areas partly disturbed by rural/village developments. Habitats found within the Study Area include secondary woodland, shrubland, shrubby grassland, village/developed area and streams (Figure 5.2). Colour photographs of all recorded habitat types, as well as other features and species of conservation interest, are presented in Figures 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7.

A total of 122 plant species were recorded (Annex C Table 5). A locally protected species Pavetta hongkongensis was recorded within the Study Area (Figure 5.8). The number of plant species and the size of each identified habitat type are presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Habitat Types Recorded Within the Study Area

Habitat type	Area (hectare)/ Length (Km)	Number of Plant Species Recorded
Secondary Woodland	20.5 ha	64
Shrubland	49.4 ha	74
Shrubby Grassland	5.7 ha	25
Stream		42
Stream S1	0.03 km
Stream S2	0.38 km
Stream S3	0.46 km
Stream S4	0.23 km
Village/Developed Area	3.8 ha	18

Secondary Woodland

Secondary woodlands were found mainly at the east and southwest of the Study Area. A total of 64 plant species were recorded in the secondary woodlands.

The secondary woodlands located at the southwest of the Study Area were semi-natural with exotic plantation at the fringe of the woodland and the understory was dominated by native plant species. The secondary woodlands were fragmented by the 275 kV Cable Route, which was covered by cement and grass-crete acting as a concrete road connecting to other areas on Lamma Island. The exotic plantation was found mainly at the fringe of the woodland and along the 275 kV Cable Route at Tai Wan Kau Tsuen, Long Tsai Tsuen and Tai Ling Tsuen. Village houses were scarcely located within the woodland, which were mainly on both sides of the 275 kV Cable Route. The canopy species were 10 to 14 m in height and dominated by Acacia confusa, Albizia labbeck, Leucaena leucocephala and Melaleuca leucadendron. The understory was occupied by native trees and shrubs, which can be divided into a middle layer 4 to 8 m in height and a lower layer 1 to 3 m in height. The middle layer of understory was dominated by Cinnamomum camphora, Macaranga tanarius and Schefflera octophylla while the lower layer of understory was dominated by Ilex asprella, Litsea glutinosa and Sterculia lanceolata.

Secondary woodland found in the east of the Study Area near Lo Tik Wan was a large patch of woodland dominated by native tree species. Village houses were scarcely located within the woodland and some of them were abandoned. The woodland was dominated by climax species such as Cinnamomum camphora, Mallotus paniculatus, Sterculia lanceollata, Macaranga tanarius and Dimocarpus longan. Canopy species reached a height of 12-15 m. The understorey was densely vegetated and dominated by woody species including Litsea rotundifolia, Ligustrum sinensis, Eurya nitida and the climbers Gnetum montanum and Uvaria microcarpa. A locally protected species Pavetta hongkongensis were found within the secondary woodland (Figures 5.7 & 5.8). This woodland is remote from the turbine location.

Shrubland

Shrubland was the dominant habitat type within the Study Area and was 1 to 4 m in height. It was dominated by several native shrub species including Rhodomrytus tomentosa, Cratoxylum cochinchinensis, Dalbergia benthami, Eurya nitida, Embelia laeta, Embelia ribes and Gordonia axillaries. Shrubland patches in the valleys were usually taller with an average 2 to 4 m in height while those on the hill slope and ridge of the hills were 1 to 2.5 m in height. A total of 74 plant species were recorded within the shrublands.

Shrubby Grassland

Shrubby grasslands were mainly found in the middle of the Study Area and close to the Project Area, which was located at the north of Yung Shue Long Old Village and next to the WSD Service Reservoir. The area was expected originally to have been shrublands but has been disturbed due to hill fires leading the area to become dominated by grass species. The area had been burnt a short period of time before the surveys. A total of 25 plant species were recorded within the shrubland and dominated by Ischaemum aristatum and Eriachne pallescens.

Streams

Three partially modified and one less disturbed streams, S1 to S4, were found within the Study Area (Figure 5.2). Forty-two plant species were recorded along the streams and no rare/protected species were found during the surveys.

Stream S1 is a drainage channel running along with the 275 kV Cable Route (Figure 5.2). The lower course of stream S1 was cemented while the upper course was an underground channel. Only limited water flow was recorded in Stream S1 during the survey.

Stream S2 was partially channelized in the upper and middle courses (from the Service Reservoir to Tai Ling Tsuen). Stream S2 has natural bottom, particularly in the middle and lower courses, dominated by medium to small sized boulders and sand. The upper and middle courses were covered by the close canopy of the adjacent woodland while the lower course of the stream was more open with limited shading by the shrubs and grasses in the vicinity. Only limited water flow was recorded in lower course and no water flow recorded in the upper and middle courses during the survey.

Stream S3, located at the north-west of the Study Area, was relatively less disturbed. Water flow in stream S3 was low and the stream bank was natural with medium-sized boulders and sand bottom. The riparian vegetation of the stream was integrated with the surrounding shrubland with semi-open canopy.

Stream S4 was partially channelized in the lower course but the upper and middle courses remained natural, with relative steep slope. The bottom of Stream S4 remains natural, composed of sand and small to medium sized boulders. No water was found in the upper course. The middle course has several small pools filled with water but the water flow was limited. The close canopy of secondary woodland covered the whole section of the stream with limited open space in the middle and lower courses.

Village/Developed Areas

Village/developed areas, comprising village houses, 275 kV Cable Route and the Service Reservoir, were scattered within the Study Area. The Service Reservoir was located close to the Project Area. All of the vegetation recorded within this habitat type, such as Michelia alba and Ficus microcarpus, were planted for landscaping purposes. Fruit trees such as Musa paradisiacal, Dimocarpus longan, Citrus sinensis and Clausena lansium were also recorded in this habitat. This habitat was highly developed in nature with limited ecological significance. A total of 18 plant species were found in this habitat and no rare plant species were found.

5.7.2 Wildlife

Birds

Thirty-eight bird species were recorded during the surveys (Annex C Table 6). There were five bird species of conservation interest, including Black Kite Milvus migran, Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis, Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis, Emerald Dove Chalcophaps indica and White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster, encountered during the surveys. Black Kite, Greater Coucal and Lesser Coucal are recognized as Class II protected species in PRC. Emerald Dove is classified as vulnerable species in the China Red Data Book. White-bellied Sea Eagle, encountered during the vantage point survey, is listed as rare species in the China Red Data Book, Class II protected species in PRC and CITES Appendix II.

Point Count Surveys

A total of 35 species of birds were recorded during the point count surveys, with a total of 578 birds counted. Sixteen of the species encountered were resident to Hong Kong. Large Hawk Cuckoo (Cuculus sparverioides) and Plain Prinia (Prinia inornata) were recorded outside the point count and the vantage point locations. White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster was recorded only during the vantage point survey. Estimated bird abundance and recorded number of bird species in each type of habitat are summarised in Table 5.5. The highest bird abundance and total number of species was recorded in the woodland.

Table 5.5 Mean Abundance and Number of Species of Bird Community of Different Types of Habitat in the Study Area

Habitat	Secondary Woodland	Shrubland	Shrubby Grassland
Abundance (no. of individuals ha^-1)	53.5	42.3	17.5
No. of species	30	19	18

Among the recorded species, the most frequently counted birds were the Black Kites, a total number of 178 birds were counted, representing 30.8% of all birds. Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus, Chinese Bulbul P. sinensis and Sooty-headed Bulbul P. aurigaster were also frequently recorded. Rankings of the most common 10 species are summarized in Table 5.6. The details of bird species recorded at each point count location are summarised in Annex C Tables 7a-c.

Table 5.6 Most Common Birds Recorded in the Surveys and Their Relative Abundance

Ranking	Common Name	Scientific Name	Category	Total number of counts	Relative abundances (%) of total counts (578)
1	Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Primary Species	178	30.8
2	Red-whiskered Bulbul	Pycnonotus jococus	Primary Species	52	9.0
3	Chinese Bulbul	Pycnonotus sinensis	Primary Species	51	8.8
4	Sooty-headed Bulbul	Pycnonotus aurigaster	Primary Species	25	4.3
5	Magpie Robin	Copsychus saularis	Secondary Species	23	4.0
6	Crested Myna	Acridotheres cristatellus	Primary Species	21	3.6
7	Lesser Coucal	Centropus bengalensis	Primary Species	20	3.5
8	Spotted Dove	Streptopelia chinensis	Primary Species	19	3.3
9	Greater Coucal	Centropus sinensis	Primary Species	18	3.1
10	Common Tailorbird	Orthotomus sutorius	Secondary Species	17	2.9

Vantage Point Survey

A total of 17 species (all primary species) were observed during the vantage point surveys, with a total of 1,290 flight attempts observed within the Study Area. Apart from the two raptors (Black Kite (1,214 attempts) and White-bellied Sea Eagle (4 attempts)) observed, all the bird species recorded during the vantage point surveys were summarized in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 Results of Vantage Point Surveys (Excluding the Black Kite and White-bellied Sea Eagle)

Location Recorded	Height Level*	Flight paths (if any)	Species and Flight attempts (in bracket) observed
Within Zone 3	Not applicable	Not applicable	Crested Myna (3), Red-rumped Swallow (2), Barn Swallow (4)
Within Zone 4	Not applicable	Not applicable	Black Drongo (1), Large-billed Crow (3), Little Swift (2), Pacific Swift (2)
Within Zone 5	<10 m above ground level	East to west	Sooty-headed Bulbul (11), Chinese Bulbul (4), Black-collared Starling (2)
		West to East	Spotted Dove (1), Sooty-headed Bulbul (7), Black-collared Starling (2), Common Magpie (1), Crested Myna (1)
		South to North	White-throated Kingfisher (1), Greater Coucal (1), Spotted Dove (1), Common Magpie (1), Black-collared Starling (2), Crested Myna (7)
		North to South	Sooty–headed Bulbul (2), Spotted Dove (4), Crested Myna (2)
	>10 m and < 100 m above ground level	East to west	Barn Swallow (3), Little Swift (1)
		West to East	Little Swift (1)
	> 100 m above ground level	West to East	Barn Swallow (1)
Total			73

Note: * Due to the topography of the Study Area, the bird’s flying height can only be estimated within Zone 5.

Most of the recorded bird species were observed flying over the Study Area during the vantage point surveys. Only Barn Swallow, Red-rumped Swallow, Little Swift, Pacific Swift and Black Kite were observed foraging within the Study Area. The flight attempts of most of the recorded species (excluding Black Kite and White-bellied Sea Eagle) were generally < 10 m above the ground level within Zone 5 (Figures 5.9 & 5.10, Annex C Table 8). Only Barn Swallow and Little Swift were recorded flying over Zone 5 crossing the location of the proposed wind turbine at a height > 10 m and <100 m above the ground level during the surveys (Figure 5.11). The utilization rates of Barn Swallow and Little Swift recorded within Zone 5 during the vantage point surveys were low.

Black Kite

The Black Kite was the most frequently observed species during the Vantage Point Surveys, with a total of 1,214 flight attempt records (94% of the total records, but only 23 individuals were recorded within the Study Area during the vantage point surveys) (Table 5.8, Annex C Table 8). Most of the Black Kites flied at a height < 100 m above ground level (1,040 attempts, more than 85% of total records), and only approximately 14% of the flight attempts were recorded > 100m above ground level (174 attempts) (Figure 5.12). The most frequently observed flight attempts were found in Zone 4, the hill-side above Lo Tik Wan (633 attempts, 52% of total records). A total of 167 attempts (144 attempts recorded < 100 m and 23 attempts > 100 m above ground level) were recorded within Zone 5, the location of the proposed wind turbine.

Table 5.8 Results of Vantage Point Surveys for Black Kite

Height Level	Location Recorded	Flight paths	Number of Flight attempts recorded (% of total flight attempts of Black Kite observed)
< 100 m above ground level	Within Zone 1	Soaring	151 (12.4%)
	Within Zone 2	Soaring	63 (5.2%)
	Within Zone 3	Soaring	129 (10.6%)
	Within Zone 4	Soaring	553 (45.6%)
	Within Zone 5	Soaring	24 (2.0%)
		East to west	50 (4.1%)
		West to East	48 (4.0%)
		South to North	18 (1.5%)
		North to South	4 (0.3%)
Subtotal			1040 (85.7%)
> 100 m above ground level	Within Zone 1	Soaring	30 (2.5%)
	Within Zone 2	Soaring	0 (0%)
	Within Zone 3	Soaring	41 (3.4%)
	Within Zone 4	Soaring	80 (6.6%)
	Within Zone 5	Soaring	9 (0.7%)
		East to west	4 (0.3%)
		West to East	6 (0.5%)
		South to North	4 (0.3%)
		North to South	0 (0%)
Subtotal			174 (14.3%)
Total			1214

White-bellied Sea Eagle

The White-bellied Sea Eagle was recorded, on 26^th & 30^th May and 6^th June 2004, during the vantage point surveys. One individual was observed on 26^th May 2004 flying from Hung Shing Ye Wan to Tai Ping at a height > 100 m above ground level. The second record was reported on 30 May 2004 indicating one individual flying from Lo Tik Wan to Tai Ping crossing over Zone 5 at a height > 100 m above ground level. The third record was of two individuals of White-bellied Sea Eagle (considered to be 2 attempts) that were observed flying over Lo Tik Wan (at Zone 3) at a height > 100 m above sea level. The flight paths of the White-bellied Sea Eagle recorded within the Study Area are presented in Figure 5.13.

Nest Search Survey

Neither raptor nor waterbird nests were found during the survey. A Black Kite’s roosting site was recorded at the south of the Study Area (Zone 4) (Figure 5.8), at least 10 individual observed to roost on the trees (Acacia confusa) during the survey.

At least 11 recorded bird species had shown different degrees of potential breeding behaviours such as courtship display, collecting nesting materials and territorial behaviour (Table 5.9). However, neither eggs, chicks nor juveniles of any bird species were observed during the survey.

Table 5.9 Birds with ‘Suspected Breeding’ Status

Common Name	Scientific Name	Suspected Breeding Behaviour
Chinese Francolin	Francolinus pintadeanus	Courtship calls
Common Koel	Eudynamis scolopacea	Courtship calls
Large Hawk Cuckoo	Cuculus sparverioides	Courtship calls
Chestnut-winged Cuckoo	Clamator coromandus	Courtship calls
Indian Cuckoo	Cuculus micropterus	Courtship calls
Tree Sparrow	Passer montanus	Collecting nesting materials
Red-whiskered Bulbul	Pycnonotus jocosus	Collecting nesting materials
Chinese Bulbul	Pycnonotus sinensis	Collecting nesting materials
Oriental Magpie Robin	Copsychus saularis	Territorial defence, courtship calls
Hwamei	Garrulax canorus	Territorial calls
White-rumped Munia	Lonchura striata	Collecting nesting materials

The results of the recent surveys further prove that the Study Area, particularly the Project Area and areas in the vicinity, are not major bird habitats, with relative low bird species diversity (35 species) recorded during the survey. Only 14 out of 35 species were found to forage within the Study Area (mainly in the secondary woodland habitat). Most of the recorded bird species were found flying and passing over the shrubby grassland and shrubland (including the Project Area) during the surveys. The surveys concluded that only a few bird species utilise the Project Area and areas in the vicinity.

Invertebrates

Butterflies

A total of 63 species of butterflies were recorded in the surveys (Annex C Table 9). Woodland habitat has the highest number of butterfly species recorded (61 out of the 63 species). The two missing species in the secondary woodland were Common Five-ring Ypthima baldus and Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus. The number of butterfly species recorded in shrubland and grassy shrubland was similar, with 26 and 23 species respectively. Village/ developed areas had the lowest number butterfly species (only 3 species) recorded during the survey. The number of butterfly species recorded in each habitat of the Study Area is summarised in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10 Butterfly Species Recorded in Each Habitat of the Study Area

Habitat	Secondary Woodland	Shrubland	Shrubby Grassland	Village/ Developed Area	Stream
No. of species	61	26	23	3	-
No. of uncommon species	8	-	-	-	-

Among the 63 butterfly species, 8 species, all recorded in the secondary woodland (Figure 5.8), are found to be uncommon in Hong Kong and recognized as species of conservation interest, including Red Lacewing Cethosia bibles, Bush Hopper Ampittia dioscorides, Common Duffer Discophora sondaica, White-edged Blue Baron Euthalia phemius, Tree Flitter Hyarotis adrastus, Yellow Orange Tip Ixias pyrene, Swallowtail Papilio xuthus and Small Cabbage White Pieris rapae.

Dragonflies

Five dragonfly species, Orthetrum glaccum, Orthetrum pruinosum, Orthetrum chrysis, Pantala flavescens and Zyxomma petiolatum, were recorded in the Study Area during the survey (Annex C Table 10). All the species recorded are common in Hong Kong. Low abundance of the dragonfly species was recorded during the survey which is probably due to the lack of wetland habitats within the Study Area.

Herpetofauna

A total of eight species of herpetofauna were recorded in the Study Area including five species of amphibian, Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri, Asiatic Common Toad Bufo melanostictus, Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus, Asiatic Painted Frog Kaloula pulchra and Ornate Pigmy Frog Microhyla ornate, and three species of reptile, Bowring’s Gecko Hemidactylus bowringii, Four-clawed Gecko Gehyra mutilata and Longtailed Skink Mabuya longicaudata. Calling males and/or tadpoles of Brown Tree Frog, Asiatic Painted Frog and Ornate Pigmy Frog bred were recorded within the Study Area. Among the eight species of herpetofauna, only the protected and endemic frog Romer’s Tree Frog is considered to be the species of conservation interest.

The protected and endemic frog, Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri (Zhao & Adler, 1993; Lau & Dudgeon, 1999), was recorded in the Project Area and several habitats of the Study Area. Detailed records of Romer’s Tree Frog are presented in Table 5.11.

Table 5.11 Romer’s Tree Frog Recorded in the Study Area and Project Area

Habitat	Romer’s Tree Frog	Location of Record	Remarks
Project Area – Shrubby grassland	3 calling males	Abandoned container and PVC water pipe	The container and water pipe served as the breeding ground for male to attract female. No Romer’s Tree Frog tadpoles recorded during the survey. The site is not a sustainable habitat once the water within the containers dries up.
Shrubland – at the north of the Project Area	>25 calling males, 1 female	Catch pits (2 no.) located within the shrubland	The catch pits served as the breeding ground for male to attract female. The catch pits maintained sufficient clear water for the frog’s breeding site and expected to be important for the Romer’s Tree Frog.
Shrubland – at the south of the Project Area	5 calling male	Pot	The pot served as the breeding ground for male to attract female. The site is not a sustainable habitat once the water within the pot dries up.
Stream S4 – middle course	>10 calling males, many tadpoles	Stream pools	The stream has limited water flow and a number of pools provided ideal habitats for the Romer’s Tree Frog. No fish recorded in the pools. The stream pools served as sustainable breeding ground for Romer’s Tree Frog.
Stream S2 – middle course	>5 calling males	Stream pools	The stream pools served as sustainable breeding ground for Romer’s Tree Frog. Tadpoles are expected to be found in the stream pools. Mosquito Fishes were recorded in the lower course of the Stream S2.
Village/ developed area near Tai Wan Kau Tsuen	>5 calling males	Pool	The pool served as the breeding ground for male to attract female.
Secondary Woodland near Tai Ling Tsuen	>10 calling males	Pots	The pots served as the breeding grounds for male to attract female. The site is not sustainable habitat once the water within the pots dries up.

The survey indicated that the Study Area supported a rather high population of Romer’s Tree Frog. The important breeding sites recorded within the Study Area are the streams at Lo Tik Wan (middle course of S4) and Long Tsai Tsuen (middle course of S2), and the catch pits (located within the shrubland) near the 275kV cable route leading down to Luk Chau Wan. Among those sites, the middle course of S4 is considered to be the most critical breeding habitat for the Romer’s Tree Frog as the area is ideal for the frog and a large number of tadpoles were recorded. Since Romer’s Tree Frog inhabits moist litter when not breeding (Lau 1998), the secondary woodland and shrubland close to Lo Tik Wan are believed to be important foraging ground for this endemic tree frog.

Stream Fauna

Except Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis (exotic species) and shrimp Macrobrachium sp. recorded in the Stream S2, and Romer’s Tree Frog tadpoles recorded in Stream S4 (discussed in the Section 5.7.2 Herpetofauna), no other aquatic fauna were recorded in the stream habitats during the survey. The low species and abundance of aquatic fauna recorded within the Study Area are probably due to the limited water flow during the survey.

5.7.3 Existing Conditions of the Proposed Project Area

The habitats recorded in the Project Area were mainly shrubland with a small patch of shrubby grassland (Figures 5.14 & 5.15). The shrubland and shrubby grassland were under human disturbance such as littering, dumping and hill fire. The shrubland has a canopy of about 1.5 meters in height dominated by native species such as Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Embelia laeta and Cratoxylum cochinchinensis. The shrubby grassland was 1 m in height and dominated by Ischaemum aristatum. A total of 25 plant species were recorded within the Project Area. All of the recorded plant species are common or very common in Hong Kong.

A total of 3 calling males of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded within the Project Area during the night survey. All of the three individuals were found near a rain-filled plastic container and a discarded PVC U-shaped water pipe. No tadpoles were recorded during the survey. In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area, as well as the areas in the vicinity, do not provide optimal habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog.

The Project Area and the areas in the vicinity are unlikely to be important bird habitats. Most of the recorded bird species were found flying and passing over the Project Area during the surveys. Only a few bird species were found to utilise the Project Area.

5.8 Ecological Evaluation

In this section the ecological importance of the habitats and wildlife identified within the Study Area are evaluated in accordance with the EIAO TM Annex 8 criteria. The evaluation is based upon the information presented in the previous Section 5.7. The ecological importance of each habitat type within the Study Area and the habitats within the Project Area are presented in Tables 5.12-5.17.

Table 5.12 Ecological Evaluation of Secondary Woodland

Criteria	Secondary Woodland
Naturalness	Semi-natural with exotic plantation at the fringe.
Size	Two major patches of secondary woodland were recorded within the Study Area with the overall size of 20.5 ha. No woodlands located within the Project Area.
Diversity	Medium diversity of plant (64 species) and birds (30 species), moderate structural complexity. High butterfly diversity (61 species) but low other faunal diversity.
Rarity	A local protected plant species Pavetta honkongensis found. Protected faunal species included Romer’s Tree Frog, Greater Coucal, Common Duffer, Tree Filtter, Swallowtail, Dark Evening Brown, Bush Hopper, Small Cabbage White, White-edged Blue Baron and Red Lacewing.
Re-creatability	Habitat characteristics and species composition are difficult to recreate. It will take more than 20 years for the secondary woodlands to be re-created.
Fragmentation	Medium, the secondary woodlands were fragmented by the 275 kV Cable Route, footpaths and villages.
Ecological Linkage	Limited.
Potential Value	Moderate to high, becoming mature woodland if given time and protection from disturbance.
Nursery/ Breeding Ground	Breeding ground for Romer’s Tree Frog was recorded during the survey.
Age	Semi-mature (>20 years) based on tree size, woodland structure and species composition.
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife	High abundance for avifauna and butterfly.
Overall Ecological Value	Moderate to High

Table 5.13 Ecological Evaluation of Shrubland

Criteria	Shrubland
Naturalness	Natural habitat with limited human disturbance.
Size	Shrubland was the dominant habitat within the Study Area with overall size of approximately 49.4 ha.
Diversity	Moderate for vegetation (totally 74 species for the whole area, mostly native shrubs and climbers), low faunal diversity.
Rarity	Species of conservation interest included Romer’s Tree Frog and Greater Coucal.
Re-creatability	Readily creatable.
Fragmentation	Shrubland mainly exists as a continuous patch.
Ecological Linkage	Acting as wildlife corridor in particular for Romer’s Tree Frog linking with the secondary woodland, as well as the optimal Romer’s Tree Frog habitats, in close proximity.
Potential Value	Medium
Nursery /Breeding Ground	The catch pits located within the shrubland provided breeding habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog.
Age	Young.
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife	Moderate to high for avifauna and low for dragonfly butterfly.
Overall Ecological Value	Low to Moderate

Table 5.14 Ecological Evaluation of Shrubby Grassland

Criteria	Shrubby Grassland
Naturalness	Highly disturbed.
Size	Small size of approximately 5.7 ha. Only 0.4 ha of the shrubby grassland located within the Project Area.
Diversity	Low for vegetation (totally 25 species for the whole area) and fauna.
Rarity	Calling male of Romer’s Tree Frog was recorded within the proposed Project Area.
Re-creatability	Readily creatable.
Fragmentation	Not applicable.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential Value	Low.
Nursery/ Breeding Ground	No significant breeding ground recorded. Calling male of Romer’s Tree Frog was recorded, but the habitat is not suitable for their breeding.
Age	Young.
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife	Abundance of avifauna was low.
Overall Ecological Value	Low

Table 5.15 Ecological Evaluation of Natural and Modified Streams

Criteria	Middle Course of Stream S4	Lower and Middle Course of Stream S2, Upper Course of Stream S4 and Whole Section of Stream S3	Whole Section of Stream S1, Upper Course of Stream S2 and Lower Course of Stream S4
Naturalness	Natural.	Natural.	Man-made
Size	The length of the mentioned section was less than 100 m.	The total length of the mentioned sections was approximately 0.7 km.	The total length of the mentioned sections were approximately 0.3 km.
Diversity	Low for plants and aquatic fauna.	Low for plants and aquatic fauna.	Low for plants and aquatic fauna.
Rarity	Calling males and tadpoles of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded.	Calling males of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded in middle course of Stream S2.	None recorded.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable.	Re-creatable.	Readily re-creatable.
Fragmentation	Not applicable.	Not applicable.	Not applicable.
Ecological linkage	Functionally linked to shrubland and woodland in close proximity.	Functionally linked to shrubland and woodland in close proximity.	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential value	High ecological potential.	Moderate ecological potential.	Low ecological potential.
Nursery/ breeding ground	Critical breeding ground of Romer’s Tree Frogs.	Suspected breeding ground for Romer’s Tree Frogs.	No significant nursery or breeding ground recorded.
Age	Not applicable.	Not applicable.	Not applicable.
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low for avifauna and aquatic fauna.	Low for avifauna and aquatic fauna.	Low for avifauna and aquatic fauna.
Overall Ecological value	High	Low to Moderate	Low

Table 5.16 Ecological Evaluation of Village/Developed Areas

Criteria	Urbanized/Disturbed Area
Naturalness	Man-made habitat.
Size	The overall size was approximately 3.9 ha. This habitat type was not located within the Project Area.
Diversity	Low for flora (25 species recorded, mostly fruit trees) and fauna.
Rarity	Calling males of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded.
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable.
Fragmentation	Not applicable.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential Value	Low.
Nursery/Breeding Ground	None.
Age	Not applicable.
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low.
Overall Ecological Value	Low

Table 5.17 Ecological Evaluation of Project Area

Criteria	Project Area
Naturalness	Under certain degree of disturbance, ie littering and dumping.
Size	Approximately 0.40 ha of the shrubby grassland and 0.04 ha of shrubland recorded within the Project Area.
Diversity	Low for vegetation (totally 25 species for the whole area) and fauna.
Rarity	Calling males of Romer’s Tree Frog was recorded within the proposed Project Area.
Re-creatability	Readily creatable.
Fragmentation	Not applicable.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential Value	Low.
Nursery/Breeding Ground	No significant breeding ground recorded. Although calling male of Romer’s Tree Frog recorded, the habitat is not suitable for their breeding.
Age	Young.
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Abundance of avifauna was low.
Overall Ecological Value	Low

The list and evaluation of the floral and faunal species of ecological interest recorded within the Study Area, according to the EIAO TM, are given in Tables 5.18 and 5.19.

Table 5.18 Evaluation of Floral Species With Ecological Interest Within the Study Area

Species	Growth Form	Location	Protection Status	Distribution	Rarity
Pavetta Pavetta hongkongensis	Shrubs	Woodland close to Lo Tik Wan	Local protected species	Widely disturbed in Hong Kong woodlands	Common

Table 5.19 Evaluation of Faunal Species With Ecological Interest Within the Study Area

Species	Location	Protection Status	Distribution	Rarity
Bird
Emerald Dove Chalcophaps indica	Woodland	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170); Vulnerable species in RDB	Distribute widely in Hong Kong	Uncommon/rare in Hong Kong
Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis	Woodland, shrubland and shrubby grassland	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC	Occur in a wide range of habitats in Hong Kong	Common resident in Hong Kong
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster	Pass-over the Study Area	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170); Vulnerable species in RDB, Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC, CITES Appendix II	Hong Kong’s coastal areas, only recorded in Hong Kong and nowhere else in China	Uncommon/ rare resident
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis	Woodland and shrubland	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC	Occur in a wide range of habitats in Hong Kong	Common resident in Hong Kong
Black Kite Milvus lineatus	Roosting site located at the shrubland in the south of the Study Area. Soaring in the sky within the Study Area.	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animals of PRC	Widespread, found in many types of habitats	Common resident in Hong Kong
Butterfly
Bush Hopper Ampittia dioscorides	Woodland in the east of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Wu Kau Tang, Luk Keng, Uk Tau, Pak Sha O and Lung Kwu Tan	Uncommon
Yellow Orange Tip Ixias pyrene	Woodlands in the east and southwest of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Lung Kwu Tan, Shing Mun Reservoir, Yung Shue O, Sha Lo Wan and Po Tai Island.	Uncommon
White-edged Blue Baron Euthalia phemius	Woodlands in the east and southwest of the Study Area	Not protected	Widespread, found in most rural places.	Uncommon
Common Duffer Discophora sondaica	Woodlands in the east and southwest of the Study Area	Not protected	Widespread, can be seen in most places.	Uncommon
Red Lacewing Cethosia bibles	Woodland in the southwest of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Lung Kwu Tan, San Tau, Mount Nicholson, Tong Fuk and Pui O.	Uncommon
Tree Flitter Hyarotis adrastus	Woodland in the east of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Wong Chuk Yeung, Nam Chung, Shan Liu, Yung Shue O and Fung Yuen.	Uncommon
Swallowtail Papilio xuthus	Woodland in the east of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Kap Lung, Wu Kau Tang, Sha Lo Wan, Kat O and Lung Kwu Tan.	Uncommon
Small Cabbage White Pieris rapae	Woodland in the east of the Study Area	Not protected	Found in Ngong Ping, Fan Lau, Kam Tin, Ho Chung and Luk Keng.	Uncommon
Amphibian
Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri	Calling males and tadpoles were found in woodland, shrubland, stream and the Project Area.	Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170)	Found on Lamma, Lantau, Po Toi and Chek Lap Kok Islands	Restricted and endemic

5.9 Potential Impacts

The overall height of the wind turbine is approximately 71m with the hub height of approximately 45 m and the rotor blade diameter of approximately 52 m. The Project involves excavation and construction of the wind turbine foundation, construction of two stainless steel huts for installation of transformer, switchgear and power condition devices and laying of underground distribution cables for connecting to the nearby existing cable route. The potential ecological impact arising from the wind turbine, based on the results of the recent baseline surveys, layout drawings and construction methods discussed in Section 3, may arise from the construction and operational phase impacts detailed below.

5.9.1 Construction Phase

· Direct habitat loss and habitat fragmentation resulting from land take for the construction activities for the wind turbine;

· Direct loss of inactive/less mobile/habitat-specific wildlife nesting/inhabiting the affected area;

· Direct and indirect impacts to watercourses, including deterioration of water quality, silty run-off and sedimentation effect, as a result of construction activities and discharge;

· Associated impacts to wildlife, including restriction of wildlife utilisation (ie transit, feeding and roosting), degradation of habitat quality/ ecological function, as a result of temporary and permanent loss, isolation and fragmentation of ecological habitat; and

· Impacts to the surrounding habitat and associated wildlife due to physical disturbance of this habitat including noise, increased human activity, inappropriate storage or dumping of construction material, or hill fire.

5.9.2 Operational Phase

· Impacts to the surrounding habitat and associated wildlife due to increased human activities and disturbance (ie noise) associated with the operation of the proposed Project;

· Creation of a barrier effect to bird movement; and

· Bird injuries or death through collision with operating turbine or as a result of being attracted to the turbine at night time by lighting used for safety reasons to mark the turbine location.

5.10 Impact Assessment

The total size of the area to be affected will only be approximately 0.31 ha (Figure 5.15). The construction works will be completed within 12 months. The major impacts on the ecological resources will be direct habitat loss and potential bird collision.

5.10.1 Construction Phase

The construction of the proposed wind turbine including excavation, construction of wind turbine foundation and transformer, a short maintenance access and laying of underground distribution cables (all located within the Project Area), will lead to the loss of existing habitats, particularly shrubby grassland. All of the construction materials will be transported to the Project Area through the existing 275 kV Cable Route, no haul road or temporary access will be required.

The potential impacts during the construction phase will be:

Habitat Loss

· Permanent loss of shrubby grassland (approximately 0.17 ha) due to the construction of the wind turbine foundation and transformer, a short maintenance access and laying of underground distribution cables (details refer to Figures 5.15 and Table 5.20);

· Temporary loss of the existing habitats including shrubby grassland (approximately 0.14 ha) within the Project Area (the habitats will be resumed after the construction, details refer to Figures 5.15 and Table 5.20); and

· Loss of foraging and feeding ground of the associated wildlife, particularly birds.

Table 5.20 Overall Habitat Loss due to the Wind Turbine

	Impacted Habitats	Permanent loss (Land Take for the Structures)	Temporary loss (will be resumed after the construction)	Ecological Value of the Affected Habitat
Project Area	Shrubby grassland	0.17 ha	0.14 ha	Low

Impacts on Romer’s Tree Frog

· Direct impact on the Romer’s Tree Frog inhabiting the affected Project Area. In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area and areas in the vicinity do not provide optimal habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog. The calling males recorded in the Project Area were mainly due to the existence of the discarded and rain-filled plastic container and PVC U-shaped water pipe;

· Loss of breeding ground of Romer’s Tree Frog. A total of three calling males of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded within the Project Area during the night survey. All of the three individuals were found near a rain-filled plastic container and a discarded PVC U-shaped water pipe, but no tadpoles were recorded during the survey; and

· Deteriorating the quality of the breeding grounds of Romer’s Tree Frog. The two catch pits with >25 calling males and 1 female recorded during the survey were located within the shrubby grassland and beside the 275 kV Cable Route at the north of the Project Area, and in the stream pools in the middle course of Stream S2 at the south of the Project Area. Since the two catch pits and the stream pools in the middle course of Stream S2 are situated below the Project Area, deterioration of water quality, silty run-off and sedimentation effect, as a result of uncontrolled construction activities and discharge have the potential to affect the breeding grounds of Romer’s Tree Frog.

Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation

· The shrubland habitat is fragmented by the existing 275 kV Cable Route and the shrubby grassland is expected to be originated from the shrubland after hill fire. Minimal effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation due to the loss of the small size of shrubby grassland and shrubland will be expected.

Other Impacts

· Secondary impacts to the surrounding habitats (generally with low ecological value) and associated wildlife may arise from the potential for increased noise impact, human activities and disturbance such as hill fire, import, storage or dumping of construction material and construction site runoff. The impacts are expected to be low owing to the temporary nature and small scale of the construction works, and given that regular checks on good construction practice (ie prohibit open fire) will be conducted.

5.10.2 Operational Phase

Aside from the impacts on birds, no operational impacts are expected as the wind turbine is located in shrubby grassland and shrubland, which have been identified as low quality habitat, and the operation of the wind turbine (including the noise produced during operation) would not disturb the surrounding natural habitats, or the associated wildlife. The non-reflectiveness colour scheme of the wind turbine would not cause glare or any impacts to the wildlife during operation. The turbine will be unmanned and hence no on site waste or wastewater will be produced.

During operation, the wind turbine could result in the following impacts on birds and their movement:

· Habitat avoidance/ disturbance due to the noise produced by and the presence of the wind turbine;

· Creation of a barrier effect to bird movement; and

· Bird injuries or death through collision with operating turbine or as a result of being attracted to the turbine at night time by lighting used for safety reasons to mark the turbine location.

The results of the literature review and baseline surveys indicated that the Project Area, as well as the areas in the vicinity, are not important bird habitats. The impacts of habitat avoidance/ disturbance on birds due to the noise produced by and the presence of the wind turbine, and the creation of barrier effect to bird movement are expected to be low and not significant.

Bird collisions are the major concern of the operational impacts of the wind turbine. Barn Swallow, Little Swift and Black Kite, recorded to utilise the Project Area in this study (Section 5.7.2 Birds), are the confirmed potential species that may be affected by the wind turbine during operation.

5.10.3 Cumulative Impact

At present there are no planned projects in the vicinity of the wind turbine that could have cumulative impacts with the construction of the wind turbine. The cumulative permanent habitat loss is negligible as the areas affected are small and have low to moderate ecological value.

5.10.4 Impact Evaluation

Habitat Loss

Potential impacts to ecology have been evaluated according to Table 1 of Annex 8 of the EIAO TM. Table 5.21 present an evaluation of the habitat loss due to the Project.

Table 5.21 Overall Impact Evaluation for Shrubby Grassland within the Project Area

Evaluation Criteria	Shrubby Grassland
Habitat quality	Low.
Species	The potential exists for direct and indirect impacts to the wildlife, particularly Romer’s Tree Frog inhabiting the areas. In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area and areas in the vicinity do not provide optimal habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog. The calling males recorded in the Project Area were mainly from a discarded and rain-filled plastic container and a PVC U-shaped water pipe.
Size/Abundance	Area loss is small in size: approximately 0.17 ha permanent loss and 0.14 ha temporary loss.
Duration	The impact will persist during the construction and operational phases. But the temporarily affected areas will be reinstated after the completion of the works.
Reversibility	The shrubby grassland is expected to be originated from the shrubland after hill fire.
Magnitude	The scale of the habitat loss is small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats.
Overall Impact Conclusion	Low

In conclusion, with the exception of potential impact to the Romer’s Tree Frog and its breeding grounds (discussed in the following section), the direct ecological impact due to the construction of the wind turbine is expected to be low, and will not contribute to any potential cumulative impact.

Impacts on Romer’s Tree Frog

In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area and areas in the vicinity do not provide optimal habitats for the Romer’s Tree Frog. The calling male Romer’s Tree Frogs recorded in the Project Area were present in a discarded and rain-filled plastic container and a PVC U-shaped water pipe, but the site was not a sustainable habitat or breeding ground for the Romer’s Tree Frog. No Romer’s Tree Frog can be expected to be found within the Project Area once the water within the container/water pipe dries up or the containers have been removed. The impacts on Romer’s Tree Frog are expected to be low given that pre-construction translocation of Romer’s Tree Frog (adult and tadpoles, if any) will be conducted.

Since no construction waste water will be generated during the works (refer to Section 8) and no serious construction runoff will be anticipated given that regular checks on good construction practice will be conducted, deterioration of the water quality of the breeding grounds of Romer’s Tree Frog in the vicinity would not be expected. The overall impact evaluation for Romer’s Tree Frog is presented in Table 5.22.

Table 5.22 Overall Impact Evaluation for Romer’s Tree Frog

Evaluation Criteria	Romer’s Tree Frog
Habitat quality	In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area do not provide optimal habitats for the Romer’s Tree Frog. The calling male Romer’s Tree Frogs recorded in the Project Area were present in a discarded and rain-filled plastic container and a PVC U-shaped water pipe, but the site was not a sustainable habitat or breeding ground for the Romer’s Tree Frog.
Species	Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri.
Size/Abundance	A total of three calling male of Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded in the Project Area. No Romer’s Tree Frog can be expected to be found within the Project Area once the water within the container/water pipe dries up or the containers have been removed.
Duration	The impact will persist during the construction and operational phases.
Reversibility	Relatively easy to create breeding habitat for Romer’s Tree Frog. Due to the poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area and areas in the vicinity do not provide optimal habitats for the Romer’s Tree Frog.
Magnitude	The impacts on Romer’s Tree Frog are expected to be low given that pre-construction translocation of Romer’s Tree Frog (adult and tadpoles, if any) will be conducted. Since no construction waste water will be generated during the works and no serious construction runoff will be anticipated given that regular checks on good construction practice will be conducted, deterioration of the water quality of the breeding grounds of Romer’s Tree Frog in the vicinity would not be expected.
Overall Impact Conclusion	Low

Other Associated Impacts

Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation – Given that the wind turbine will be located beside the existing 275 kV Cable Route and the scale of the habitat loss is small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats, the impact of habitat fragmentation and isolation are considered to be minimal.

Water Quality – No construction waste water will be generated during the works (refer to Section 7). No serious construction runoff affecting the downhill habitats and associated aquatic fauna will be anticipated given that regular checks on good construction practice will be conducted.

Other Impacts – Increased human activities and disturbance due to the Project during construction may affect the surrounding natural habitats and the associated wildlife. The impacts are expected to be low owing to the temporary nature and small scale of the construction works, and given that regular checks on good construction practice (ie prohibit smoking and open fire) will be conducted.

Operational Impact

In upland wind farm sites in the UK, bird collision rates from surveys to date have been found to be very low (extracted from ERM-UK 2004). Work carried out to date on collision risk suggests that for a significant impact to occur, large numbers of turbines would need to be located within an area used by a major population concentration of a species which is known to be sensitive to collision and at risk from the additional mortality which would result. A very high number of birds would need to be passing regularly through a wind farm area at a suitable height for significant mortality to occur. Evidence does suggest that the risk of collision increases during periods of bad weather and poor visibility.

The air space of the wind turbine is approximately 0.2 ha (pr² = 3.14 ´ 26 m ´ 26 m = 2,123 m², the maximum diameter of the rotor is 52 m). Bird collisions may occur only when the flight path of the birds goes straight to the rotor (of total surface area approximately 0.2 ha) with the right angle/ direction and height (19 m – 71 m, assuming the largest rotor will be used). It should also be noted that the blade rotating speed is relatively slow (14 – 31 rpm). In view of the current condition of the Project Area, as well as the Study Area, the site is not an important bird habitat or flight path of migratory birds. The most sensitive areas, the SSSI near Mount Stenhouse (designated to protect the nesting habitats of White-bellied Sea Eagle and Bonelli’s Eagle) and potential Country Park in South Lamma Island, have also been avoided during the planning and site selection stage (details refer to Section 2).

Individuals of the Black Kite were frequently observed soaring or foraging within the Study Area during the recent surveys. The most frequently observed flight attempts of Black Kite were found at Zone 4, the hill-side above Lo Tik Wan and at the south-west of the Project Area (52% of the total attempts, Section 5.7.2 Birds). Only 12% of the total attempts were recorded within Zone 5, the location of the proposed wind turbine, at a height < 100 m above ground level. Other bird species including Barn Swallow, Red-rumped Swallow, Little Swift and Pacific Swift, as well as bird species of conservation (including Greater Coucal, Lesser Coucal, Emerald Dove and White-bellied Sea Eagle) were found to be infrequently utilising the Project Area during the surveys. Monitoring of operating wind farms to date has shown that birds do exhibit a degree of avoidance behaviour, although the extent of this behaviour by specific species at operating wind farms is not yet fully understood as only limited data are available (ERM-UK 2004). As a consequence, the risks of collision of the bird species are not considered to be significant, particularly considering that only one turbine will be operating.

There is extensive literature documenting the effects on birds of lights on tall structures, particularly on song birds that migrate at night (ERM-UK 2004; Kingsley and Whittam 2001). Many birds are attracted to the lights and can collide with them. Such effects can be influenced further during periods of bad weather and poor visibility. Aviation warning lights of red, steady and 24-hour in operation, are proposed to be installed on top of the nacelle of the turbine to alert aircraft in case of poor visibility. The impacts due to the light of the turbine are expected to be minimal as the Project Area and areas in the vicinity are not important bird habitats and have relatively low utilisation.

The noise produced by the operating wind turbine will be a low, constant and predictable sound level. Since the wind turbine site is not considered to be a highly important bird habitat, the significance of the noise impacts are expected to be low.

In view of the small scale (one wind turbine) and low magnitude of impacts as discussed above, the overall operational impacts on birds are therefore considered to be of low significance and summarized in Table 5.23.

Table 5.23 Overall Operational Impact Evaluation for Birds

Evaluation Criteria	Birds
Habitat quality	In view of the present condition of the Project Area, as well as the Study Area, the site is not an important bird habitat or flight path of migratory birds.
Species	Bird species of conservation interest recorded within the Study Area included Black Kite, Greater Coucal, Lesser Coucal, Emerald Dove and White-bellied Sea Eagle. Black Kite, Barn Swallow, Red-rumped Swallow, Little Swift and Pacific Swift showed flight attempts within Zone 5, the location of the proposed wind turbine, during the surveys.
Size/Abundance	Bird species were found to be infrequently utilising the Project Area during the surveys.
Duration	The impact will persist during the operational phases.
Reversibility	The impacts will persist with the existence of the wind turbine.
Magnitude	The risks of collision of the bird species and operational noise impacts to birds are not considered to be significant, particularly considering that only one turbine will be operating.
Overall Impact Conclusion	Low

5.11 Mitigation Measures

Annex 16 of the EIAO TM states that the general policy for mitigation of significant ecological impacts, in order of priority, is:

Avoidance: Potential impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by adopting suitable alternatives;

Minimisation: Unavoidable impacts should be minimised by taking appropriate and practicable measures such as constraints on intensity of works operations or timing of works operations; and

Compensation: The loss of important species and habitats may be provided for elsewhere as compensation. Enhancement and other conservation measures should always be considered whenever possible.

At each stage, residual impacts are to be re-assessed to determine whether there is a need to proceed to the next stage of mitigation. The following measures have been developed in accordance with this approach to mitigate the impacts.

5.11.1 Avoidance

As a demonstration project for renewable energy, the Islands within HEC’s supplying territory and of reliable wind energy (as well as available wind data), included Po Toi and Lamma. Tai Ling, Lamma Island was identified as the preferred wind turbine site based on the following consideration:

· Avoid environmental impacts due to the construction of a new access road for the construction and maintenance of the wind turbine;

· Avoid impacts due to the construction of a lengthy link to the existing transmission system;

· Avoid the SSSI at South Lamma Island;

· Avoid the potential Country Park at South Lamma Island; and

· Avoid impacts to natural habitats of high ecological value (ie woodland).

The proposed wind turbine site is located beside the existing 275 kV Cable Route near Tai Ling on Lamma Island. No new access road is required and only low quality habitats (woodlands have been avoided) will be affected.

Site selection is crucial to minimizing wind turbine bird collision (BirdLife International 2003). The precautionary principle is advocated where there are concentrations of species of conservation importance. The Project Area (mainly shrubby grassland and shrubland), as well as the whole of Study Area, were considered not to be either important bird habitat or major flying route of migratory birds. Further, due to the relatively low ecological value habitats of the proposed wind turbine site, impacts due to wind turbine bird collision are expected to be minimal.

5.11.2 Minimisation

The previous discussion in Section 5.10 has indicated that the significance of the impacts on ecological resources due to the construction and operation of the proposed Project are generally expected to be low. The following mitigation measures to minimise impacts and disturbance to the surrounding habitats, are recommended.

Measures for Romer’s Tree Frog

· Undertake Romer’s Tree Frog surveys within the Project Area just before the construction works commence. Due to the small size of the Project Area and given that there are no optimal habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog, one day-time and one night-time survey is considered sufficient. The surveyor(s) should actively search within the Project Area paying special attention to the water bodies (ie abandoned containers). All recorded Romer’s Tree Frog (adults and tadpoles) must be caught by hand and translocated to the stream pools of middle course of Stream S4 near Lo Tik Wan, the critical natural habitats for Romer’s Tree Frog within the Study Area, immediately after the survey. The Romer’s Tree Frog surveys and translocation works shall be undertaken by a qualified ecologist with at least five years of relevant experience in faunal translocation works.

Measures for Construction Runoff

· Surface run-off from the construction site should be directed into existing stream channel via adequately designed sand/silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sediment basins. Channels, earth bunds or sand bag barriers should be provided on site to properly direct stormwater to such silt removal facilities.

Good Construction Practice

· Erect fences along the boundary of the works area before the commencement of works to prevent tipping, vehicle movements, and encroachment of personnel onto adjacent areas.

· Avoid any damage and disturbance, particularly those caused by filling and illegal dumping, to the remaining and surrounding natural stream habitats.

· Regularly check the work site boundaries to ensure that they are not breached and that no damage occurs to surrounding areas.

· Prohibit and prevent open fires within the site boundary during construction and provide temporary fire fighting equipment in the Project Area.

· Treat any damage that may have occurred to individual major trees in the adjacent area and along the 275 kV Cable Route (used to transport the construction materials) with surgery.

· Reinstate temporary disturbed areas, particularly the shrubby grassland, immediately after completion of the construction works, ie through on-site tree/shrub planting. Tree/shrub species used should make reference from those in the surrounding area and/or Annex C.

5.11.3 Compensation

No compensation is required for this Project.

5.12 Residual Impacts

There will be the permanent loss of approximately 0.17 ha and temporary loss of 0.14 ha of shrubby grassland shrubby grassland. With the consideration of the small scale of the Project (one wind turbine and small size), loss of low quality habitats (shrubby grassland of low ecological value), and the Project Area avoiding ecologically sensitive areas (ie potential Country Park and SSSI) during the site selection process, the residual impacts are not considered to be significant. No adverse residual impact due to the construction of the wind turbine is expected after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Since the wind turbine site has avoided the known important bird sites (ie the SSSI in South Lamma) and is located on low ecological value habitats, the impacts due to wind turbine bird collision, as well as operational noise generation effects on birds, are considered to be minor and of low magnitude and significance.

5.13 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

5.13.1 Construction

The implementation of the ecological mitigation measures stated in Section 5.11 should be checked as part of the environmental monitoring and audit procedures during the construction period as presented in the separate Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual.

5.13.2 Operation

Monitoring for bird collision during operation is required. The purpose of the monitoring is to assess the impact (via collisions) of the wind farm on birds, with a particular focus on species of conservation interest (ie Black Kite). During the operation of the wind turbine, monitoring will be undertaken at monthly intervals for a period of 12 months. An area of 50 m radius will be searched around the base of the turbine. After this 12-month period, the monitoring results will be reviewed. Should any bird mortality or injury be confirmed as due to the wind turbine, relevant government departments (ie Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD)) would be notified. If the bird collision event persists more than 3 times, HEC will discuss remedial action with government and implement any agreed actions to solve the event such as adjustment of wind turbine lighting and the colour of the wind turbine. The effectiveness of the proposed remedial action will be verified and evaluated with discussion with EPD/AFCD.

A simple Event and Action Plan during the first 12 months of operation of the wind turbine is recommended in Table 5.24.

Table 5.24 Event and Action Plan during Operation of Wind Turbine

Monitoring	Event	Action
Criteria		Environmental Team Leader/ Environmental Manager (employed by HEC)	HEC
Bird Collision	Bird injury or mortality recorded in the vicinity of the wind turbine (50 m radius from the turbine) and confirmed due to the wind turbine.	1. Notify HEC and check the wind turbine site to find out the cause of the event(s).	1. Identify and report the cause(s) of the event if bird mortality or injury confirmed due to the wind turbine.
		2. Undertake weekly bird monitoring (observing the influence of the wind turbine on the behaviour of birds). The normal monitoring schedule will be resumed if the cause(s) of the event have been identified.	2. Submit proposals to relevant government departments (ie EPD and AFCD) for remedial action and implement the action to solve the event if the collision event persists more than 3 times.
		3. If the collision event persists more than 3 times, discuss and develop remedial actions with HEC such as adjustment of wind turbine lighting and the colour of the wind turbine.	3. Verify and evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial action with Environmental Team Leader/ Environmental Manager and EPD/AFCD.

If, after the 12-months monitoring period, insignificant number of bird collisions have been reported then monitoring will cease as it will have been demonstrated that the wind turbine is not having an adverse impact on bird species.

5.14 Conclusion

The ecological resources recorded within the Study Area included secondary woodland, shrubland, shrubby grassland, stream and village/ developed areas, as well as associated wildlife. Of these habitats, secondary woodland and the middle course of a stream near to Lo Tik Wan (Stream S4) have moderate to high and high ecological value respectively. The remaining habitats are of low or low to moderate ecological value. A total of 14 species of conservation interest were recorded within the Study Area, including five bird species (Black Kite, Greater Coucal, Lesser Coucal, Emerald Dove and White-bellied Sea Eagle), eight uncommon butterfly species (Red Lacewing, Bush Hopper, Common Duffer, White-edged Blue Baron, Tree Flitter, Yellow Orange Tip, Swallowtail and Small Cabbage White) and one amphibian (Romer’s Tree Frog). Three calling male Romer’s Tree Frog were recorded within and adjacent to the Project Area during the surveys. A total of 17 bird species were observed during the vantage point surveys, with a total of 1,290 flight attempts in the Study Area. The flight attempts of most of the recorded species were generally flying < 10 m above the ground level near the Project Area. Only Black Kite (144 attempts, the maximum number of individuals recorded was 23 during the surveys), Barn Swallow (3 attempts) and Little Swift (2 attempts) were recorded flying over and crossing the location of the proposed wind turbine at a height > 10 m and <100 m above the ground level during the surveys.

In conclusion, the direct ecological impact due to the construction of the wind turbine is expected to be low, and will not contribute to any potential cumulative impact. In view of the generally poor vegetation cover and the dryness of the upland areas, it is believed that the Project Area and areas in the vicinity do not provide optimal habitats for the Romer’s Tree Frog. The impacts on the Romer’s Tree Frog are expected to be low given that pre-construction translocation of Romer’s Tree Frogs (adult and tadpoles, if any) present at the site will be conducted.

Bird collisions are the main concern of the operational impacts of any wind turbine development. Barn Swallow, Little Swift and Black Kite, recorded as utilising the Project Area in this study, are the confirmed potential species that may be affected by the wind turbine during operation. Site selection is crucial to minimizing wind turbine bird collision. Since the wind turbine site is not considered to be either within important bird habitat or on the flight path of migratory birds, the impacts due to bird collision are of low magnitude and therefore not considered to be unacceptable.

No adverse residual impact is expected after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. One year bird monitoring will be undertaken to demonstrate that the wind turbine is having low magnitude of and not having an unacceptable impact on bird species.

REFERENCES

Ades, G.W.J. 1999. The species composition, distribution and population size of Hong Kong bats. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 22: 183-209.

Anon. 1996. Wildlife Windows. Three. p. 23. Porcupine! Number 15. Newsletter of the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity, Hong Kong University.

Anon. 1997. Wildlife Windows. Two. p. 25. Porcupine! Number 16. Newsletter of the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity, Hong Kong University.

Andrea Kingsley and Becky Whittam (2001) Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at North Cape, Prince Edward Island.

BirdLife International (2003) Windfarms and Birds : An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Paper presented in Convention On The Conservation Of European Wildlife And Natural Habitats.

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.

Department of Geography, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 1999) Service on Providing Information on the Suitability of South Lamma, Tung Lung Chau and Po Toi Islands to be Established as Country Park, Report to AFCD.

Erickson, W. P., Johnson, G. D., Strickland, M. D., Young Jr., D.P., Sernka, K.J. & Good, R.E. (2001) Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf.

ERM HK (1998) EIA for 1800MW Gas-Fired Power Station at Lamma Extension: Terrestrial Ecological Impact Assessment.

ERM HK (2001) Ecological Survey for Additional Transmission Route from Lamma Power Station to Pak Kok Tsui Landing Point: Pre-construction Ecological Survey.

ERM-UK. (2004) Lochelbank Wind Farm: Environmental Statement. Report for National Wind Power.

Friends of the Earth (2001-2002) Wind Monitoring Station on Lamma Isaland: Monthly Report of Bird Strike Incidents.

Gauthreaux, S. A. and Belser C. G. (1999) The behavioural responses of migrating birds to different lighting systems on tall towers. In Proceedings of Avian Mortality at Communications Towers Workshop (A. Manville, editor), 11 August 1999.

Hydro Tasmania (2003) Heemskirk Wind Farm: Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan. http://www.hydro.com.au/environment/www_heemskirk_dpemp/

Karsen, S.J., Lau, M.W.-N. & Bogadek, A. (1998) Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Second Edition. Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong.

Kingsley A. and Whittam B. (2001) Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. A report for the Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation.

Lau, M. W. N. and D. Dudgeon (1999) Composition and distribution of Hong Kong Amphibian fauna. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 22: 1-80.

Lau, M.W.N. (1998) Habitat Use by Hong Kong Amphibians, with Special Reference to the Ecology and Conservation of Philautus romeri. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Maunsell (1997) EIA for Outlying Islands Sewerage Stage 1 Phase 1.

Maunsell (2003) EIA for Outlying Islands Sewerage Stage 1, Phase II Package J - Sok Kwu Wan Sewage Collection, Treatment & Disposal Facilities.

Porcupine! Number 1-30 (Newsletter of Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, University of Hong Kong)

RSBP (2004) Information: Wind Farms and Birds.

Reels, G. (1996) Distribution of large mammals in Hong Kong. Porcupine! 15: 36-38.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2000. Service interim guidelines for recommendations on communications tower siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning. Unpublished memo to Regional Directors, available at: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/comtow.html.

Walthew, G. (1997.). “The status and flight periods of Hong Kong butterflies.” Porcupine! 16: 34-37.

Wilson D. E. and Reeder, D. M. (1992). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London.

Wilson, K.D.P. (2003). Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong.

Wong Y W. (1999) Ecology and Biodiversity of a Degraded Landscape: Lamma Island, Hong Kong, HKU PhD. Thesis.

Wu, S. H. and W. T. C. Lee. (2000). “Pteridophytes of Hong Kong.” Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 23: 5-20.

Xing, F.W., Ng, S.C., Chau, L.K.C. (2000) Gymnosperms and angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society. 23: 21-136.

Zhao, E. M. (1998) China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Amphibia & Reptiia. Science Press, Beijing.

Zhao, E.-M. & Adler, K. (1993). Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.