5
Ecology
This Section
presents the baseline conditions of ecological resources within the Study Area and
the results of
an assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the construction and
operation of the wind turbine.
Baseline conditions for each ecological
component of the terrestrial environment were evaluated based on information
from the literature and focussed field surveys conducted for the purposes of
this EIA. Measures required to mitigate any 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 as follows:
·
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);
·
·
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
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 SAR has stated that it will be “committed to
meeting the environmental objectives” of the Convention (PELB 1996).
In 1988 the PRC ratified the Wild Animal Protection Law, 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 Hei Ling Chau
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 might be affected by the Project. The review of the existing conditions covered
the entire Hei Ling Chau. The local literature reviewed included:
·
Porcupine! (Newsletter of Department of Ecology &
Biodiversity,
·
AFCD
Biodiversity Newsletters ([2]);
·
Annual
Report of
·
·
A
Field Guide to the Amphibians of
·
Field
Guide to the Dragonflies of
·
Field
Guide to Butterfly Watching in
·
The
Avifauna of
·
Gymnosperms
and Angiosperms of
·
Orchidaceae of
·
Feasibility Study for Land
Formation and Infrastructure Works for Prison Development at Hei Ling Chau - Public Consultation.
5.3.2
Results
General Setting
Hei Ling Chau has been a restricted access area since the
development of the additional treatment centre managed by the Correctional
Services Department (CSD) in 1974. No
systematic study of the
island’s ecological condition has been undertaken at Hei Ling Chau and therefore there
is limited information on the flora and fauna.
According to the aerial photograph ([11]),
Hei Ling Chau has an area
of approximately 190 ha and is covered mostly by shrubland,
with plantation along the fringe of the buildings and concrete roads.
Birds
There is limited information on avifauna
on Hei Ling Chau. Hei Ling Chau is not expected to be an important area for birds due
to the habitat characteristics of hilly areas, dominated by shrubland,
very limited extent of wetlands, and under certain extent of human disturbance
due to the current use of CSD. However,
the utilisation of birds at Hei Ling Chau should be assessed by detailed surveys.
Herpetofauna
Apparently only the herpetofauna
of Hei Ling Chau has been
studied in the past. Three species of
common amphibians: Three-striped Grass Frog Rana macrodactyla, Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus, and Ornate Pygmy Frog Microhyla ornata have
been reported ([12]).
Reptiles recorded in terrestrial habitats
of Hei Ling Chau included Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizard Dibamus bogadeki ([13]), which is a very rare species, endemic to
Butterflies and Dragonflies
There is limited information on
butterflies and dragonflies on Hei Ling Chau.
Mammals
There is limited information on mammals on Hei Ling Chau.
Stream Fauna
There is limited information on aquatic fauna on Hei
Ling Chau.
5.4
Effects of Wind
Farms on Ecological Resources (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 the reported effects on migratory
birds. Poor site selection has lead to
the siting of wind farms on bird migration routes
leading to subsequent bird strikes. An
overseas and local literature review was undertaken to ascertain the effects of
wind power projects on ecological resources and, in particular, birds. The major local and overseas literature review included:
·
Environmental Impact Assessment for
Renewable Energy by a Wind Turbine System on
·
Lochelbank Wind Farm: Environmental Statement ([15]);
·
Heemskirk Wind Farm: Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan ([16]);
·
Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects
of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental
assessment criteria and site selection issues ([17]);
·
Avian
Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to
other sources of avian collision mortality in the
·
Potential
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at
·
Wind Farms and Birds ([20]).
It should be noted that most of the above aspects
are concerned with wind farms and are thus much larger in scale than the
proposed single wind turbine on Hei Ling Chau.
Habitat loss, habitat fragmentation/isolation and disturbance to
wildlife are the typical ecological impacts due to the development
projects. In addition to such typical
ecological impacts, wind farms could result in the following impacts on birds
and their movement ([21])
([22])
([23])
([24])
([25]):
·
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.
BirdLife International recently reviewed and analysed the
effects of wind farms on birds with the following recommendations:
·
The effects attributable to wind farms are variable and are species-,
season- and site-specific.
·
There are some indications 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, e.g.,
·
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 (e.g., in
On the basis of the literature review, 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 5.4a.
The bird
species recorded in
Table 5.4a Local
Bird Species Identified to be Sensitive to Wind Turbine (Collisions) (ERM 2004 ([26]))
In addition to the above recommendations of BirdLife
International (2003), the definitions below have been used in this assessment
to classify all the previously recorded bird species in Hei
Ling Chau 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 (ie the rotating blades of the wind turbine, approximately
30 to 90m 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 Hei
Ling Chau, but the areas within and in the vicinity
of the Project Site do not provide suitable habitat for the species; and
·
The species usually does not fly over the Study Area
at a similar height to the wind turbine (ie
approximately 30 to 90 m above ground level).
The full list of primary and secondary species identified in
5.5
Identification of
Information Gaps
5.5.1
Introduction
The majority of the habitat
types within the Study Area, based on the recent aerial photographs (CW54879
9.2.2004 8000 feet) and the reconnaissance
survey undertaken on 19 August 2005, are hilly areas covered by shrubland (the dominant habitat), developed areas and
plantation. The Project Site is located
within a developed area with very limited vegetation.
As discussed in Section 3 (Project Description), no
marine works are required for the Project.
Consequently, the coral, inter-tidal and sub-tidal benthic communities
will not be impacted and hence are not assessed in this EIA.
5.5.2
Scope of Field Surveys
The literature review discussed in Section 5.3 indicates that there is limited
ecological information available within the Project Site and the Study
Area. To supplement the limited
available information and to evaluate the ecological significance of the site,
in particular the utilisation of birds and Bogadek’s
Burrowing Lizard, more than 6 months of ecological baseline surveys were
conducted to collect ecological baseline information for the
ecological impact assessment. The
surveys were conducted during August to October 2005, April to May 2006 (wet
season) and November 2005 to March 2006 (dry season). The surveys included habitat/vegetation,
mammal, bird, herpetofauna and invertebrates
(butterfly and dragonfly) surveys.
5.6.1
Ecological Baseline Surveys
The Study Area was defined as the area within 500m of either side and
along the Project boundary, including the Project Site and enabling works along
the access routes, which virtually covered the whole
The following baseline ecological surveys were undertaken:
·
Habitat
and vegetation surveys;
·
Bird
surveys (including night survey);
·
Mammal
surveys (including night survey);
·
Invertebrates
(butterflies and dragonflies) surveys;
·
Herpetofauna surveys (including night surveys); and
·
Aquatic
fauna surveys.
Habitats and Vegetation
Field surveys were focused on the habitats within the areas that will be
directly impacted by the Project. The
surveys were performed on 19 August 2005, 19 December 2005, 25 March 2006 and
29 April 2006. The aim of the surveys
was to establish the ecological profile of the Study Area. A habitat map of the Study Area is shown in Figure 5.6a.
Habitats were mapped based on Government aerial photographs (year 2004)([27]) and field ground truthing. Representative areas of each habitat type
were surveyed on foot. Plant species
within each habitat type 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 ([28]) and Siu 2000 ([29]).
Mammal Survey
Surveys of mammals within the Study Area were carried out along the
survey transects (see Figure
5.6b) on 19 August, 26 November, 19 December 2005, 25
March, 19, 24, 29 April and 4 May 2006.
Night surveys for mammals were carried out on 24 April and 4 May 2006.
As most mammals occur at low densities, all sightings, tracks, and signs
of mammals were actively searched. A
night time survey was also undertaken.
Nomenclature for mammals followed Reels and Lau 1998([30])
and Wilson and Reeder ([31]).
No quantification of abundance of mammals in the Study Area was made,
due to the difficulties in translating sights and tracks (e.g., burrows) to
actual abundance.
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 (ie the point count and vantage point methods). Bird surveys were carried out on 19
December 2005, 12 January, 8 February, 22 February, 21 March, 20 April, 24
April, and 4 May 2006. Night-time bird surveys were undertaken on 24
April and 4 May 2006 qualitatively.
·
Point Count Method:
Bird communities in each major habitat type recorded within the Study
Area, including mainly shrubland, developed area,
plantation and reservoir, were surveyed using the point count method. A total of 15 sampling points were selected
and their locations are shown in Figure 5.6c.
Ten minutes were spent counting birds at each sampling point. All birds seen or heard within 30m of the
sampling points were counted. Activities
of the birds were categorised into 4 classes:
-
perching/preening
(P);
-
foraging
(Fr);
-
flying
above (Fl); and
-
engaging
in breeding activities (Br).
Signs of breeding (eg 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 major habitat type 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 (eg
nests, recently fledged juveniles) were also recorded. Ornithological nomenclature followed Carey et al ([32]).
·
Vantage Point Method:
The aim of the vantage point method was to determine flight activity
patterns over the proposed wind turbine in order to:
-
identify
areas of critical importance to birds; and
-
estimate
collision likelihood with reference to the recorded flight path of the
potentially affected bird species (ERM 2004) ([33]).
A vantage point (VP) was identified to
observe the entire Study Area for the vantage point survey. It is noted that the wide coverage of the VP
meant that ~ 90% of the Study Area was visible.
Watches were undertaken by a single observer (bird specialist) in all
weather conditions except poor visibility (<300m). Weather conditions (wind direction,
precipitation and visibility) were recorded during the survey. The Study Area for the vantage point survey
was divided into five zones, Zones 1 to 5, to facilitate the data recording
(see Figure 5.6c). 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 that the bird was 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 route 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 > 10m, < 100m or > 100m 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, ie the minimum number of individuals that
could account for the activity observed, details of notable movements, eg number, height and direction of secondary species
flights.
·
Nest Searches: Searches
for evidence of avian breeding activity within the Study Area were
undertaken. Species targeted for nest
searches were raptors and waterbirds. Searches for raptor nests involved roaming
around areas of high raptor activity (eg coastal
cliffs) and other areas with suitable nesting habitat (eg
woodlands). Searches for waterbird breeding activity involved roaming along the
coastal areas. In addition to searching
for nests, any observations of bird behaviour that
might indicate a nest in the vicinity were noted.
Herpetofauna Survey
Surveys of herpetofauna within the Study Area
were carried out on 19 August, 26 November, 19 December 2005, 25 March, 19, 24,
29 April and 4 May 2006. Night surveys
of the amphibians, were carried out on 24 April and 4 May 2006. Herpetofauna
surveys were conducted through direct observation and active searching in all
major habitat types along the survey transects (see Figure 5.6b) and in potential
hiding places such as among leaf litter, inside holes and under stones and logs
within the Study Area. Dip-netting was
used to survey tadpoles in aquatic habitats.
Auditory detection of species-specific calls was also used to survey
frogs and toads. During the surveys, all
reptiles and amphibians sighted and heard were recorded. Night time surveys for amphibians were also
undertaken. Nomenclature and status used
for reptiles follows Karsen et al (1998) while that of amphibians follows Chan et al (2005).
·
Wooden Cover Board Survey: In view of the difficulties of searching for Bogadek’s
Burrowing Lizard Dibamus bogadeki
using the standard herpetofauna survey methods,
specific designed wooden cover boards were used to investigate the distribution
of Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizard, as well as other herpetofauna species.
Wooden cover board surveys have been used to survey fossorial
lizards with success ([34]), and this is the first time they have
been used in
·
Due
to the lack of the secondary woodland and tall shrublands
habitats, and the low variety of microhabitats in the understorey
of shrublands and plantation within the Study Area
and the proposed turbine site, wooden cover boards were deployed in the Study
Area to create favourable microhabitat to attract herpetofauna,
in particular Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizard. A total of 30 wooden cover boards were
deployed in representative habitats within the Study Area (10 in developed
area, 10 in shrubland and 10 in plantation) (Figure 5.6b)
on 19th December 2005 till 4th May 2006.
These boards were checked in every subsequent survey to record the
species present.
Invertebrate Survey
Surveys of butterfly and dragonfly species within the Study Area were
carried out on 19 August, 26 November, 19 December 2005, 25 March, 19, 24, 29 April
and 4 May 2006, along the survey transects (see Figure 5.6b). Nomenclature for butterflies follows Yiu 2004 ([35]) and dragonfly nomenclature followed
Wilson 2004 ([36]).
Aquatic Fauna Survey
Aquatic fauna surveys were undertaken on 19 August, 26 November, 19
December 2005, 25 March, 19, 24, 29 April and 4 May 2006 to identify the water
bodies and aquatic resources in the Study Area.
The water bodies, including streams and a reservoir were actively
searched. Direct observation was
undertaken for sensitive species or individuals, and active searching using
hand nets and casting nets was carried out for most areas of the
reservoir. All fish species recorded
were identified in the field and the number of individuals seen was also
recorded. Streams identified within the
Study Area were visited and stream fauna were studied by direct observation and
active searching.
The information presented in the following sections has been based on
the findings of baseline surveys performed.
The importance of potentially impacted ecological resources identified
within the Study Area was assessed using the EIAO-TM methodology. The
potential impacts due to the construction and operation of the wind turbine and
associated enabling works along the access routes were then assessed (following
the guideline of Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM)
and the impacts evaluated (based on the criteria stipulated in Annex 8 in the EIAO-TM).
5.7
Ecological
Baseline Conditions
5.7.1
Existing Habitat and Vegetation
Some of the Study Area is in a natural condition and is dominated by shrubland, some areas are partly disturbed by the prison
and staff quarters developments.
Habitats found within the Study Area include plantation, shrubland, abandoned wet agricultural land, reservoir, stream and developed area (see Figure
5.6a). Colour
photographs of all recorded habitat types, as well as other features and
species of conservation interest, are presented in Figures 5.7a to 5.7e.
A total of 107 plant species were recorded (see Table 1 of Annex B). Two locally
protected plant species Artocarpus hypargyrea and Eulophia flava were recorded within the Study
Area (see Figure 5.7f). The number of plant species and the size of
each identified habitat type are presented in Table 5.7a.
Table 5.7a Habitat
Types Recorded Within the Study Area
Two small patches of plantation were found mainly at the east and south
of the Study Area, which comprised a total of 1.1 ha. A total of 33 plant species were recorded in
the plantations.
The plantation located at the north of the Project Site is cultivated long time ago, at the fringe of a few
abandoned village houses. The canopy
species reached the height of 8 to 12m and the understorey
was scarcely occupied by native trees and shrubs. It can be divided into a
middle layer 4 to 8m in height and a lower layer 1 to 2m in height. The canopy species are dominated by Delonix regia, Casuarina equisetifolia and Artocarpus hypargyrea. The middle layer of understorey was dominated
by Dimocarpus
longan, Melia
azedarach and Sterculia lanceolata while the lower layer is dominated by Macaranga tanarius, Schefflera octophylla and Celtis sinensis. Three individuals of a
locally protected tree species Artocarpus Artocarpus hypargyrea were recorded at the plantation, and are mature in
size. This plantation is remote from the Project
Site. The locations of Artocarpus are shown in Figure 5.7f.
The plantation located at the south of the Study Area is an exotic
plantation, dominated by the tree species Acacia
confusa with a canopy height of 3 to 5m. They are young in age and the understorey was sparcely occupied
by native shrubs and weeds, including Bridelia
tomentosa, Lantana camara and Miscanthus
sinensis. The photographic records of
plantations are shown in Figure 5.7a.
Shrubland
Shrubland is the dominant habitat type
within the Study Area. It was dominated
by several native shrub species, including: Rhodomrytus
tomentosa, Cratoxylum
cochinchinensis, Eurya
nitida, Embelia
laeta, Embelia
ribes and Gardenia jasminoides. Shrubland patches in the valleys are usually taller, with
an average 2 to 4m in height, while those on the hill slope and ridge of the
hills are 1 to 2.5m in height. A total
of 62 plant species, with one of them, the Golden Eulophia
Eulophia flava, a rare
and protected plant species in
Abandoned Wet Agricultural Land
A small patch of abandoned wet agricultural land was found in the middle
of the island next to a few village houses.
It was dominated by the cultivated plant Zingiber
officinale. The abandoned wet agricultural land was moist most of the time during the surveys with
sedges found within the habitat. A total
of 31 plant species were recorded but none of them are rare or protected plant species. The photographic records of abandoned wet
agricultural land are shown in Figure 5.7c.
Streams
Three partially modified streams, S1 to S3, were found within the Study
Area. Twenty plant species were recorded
along the streams and no rare/protected species were found during the surveys. The photographic records of streams are shown
in Figure
5.7d.
Stream S1 is a drain running through the abandoned wet agricultural land
(see Figure 5.6a). The lower course of stream S1 was cemented
while the upper course was an underground channel. The riparian vegetation of stream S1 was open
and shaded by limited grasses and shrubs in the vicinity. Only limited water flow was recorded in
Stream S1 during the surveys.
Stream S2 was partially channelised in the
lower courses and running under the existing
Stream S3 is partially channelised in the
upper and lower courses, and was connected to the reservoir located in the
middle of the
Reservoir
A reservoir was found in the middle of the island. A partially channelised
stream was found at the west of the reservoir to discharge the overflow water
towards the Hei Ling Chau
Addiction Treatment Centre (Annex). No
plants were found in the habitat. The
photographic records of the reservoir are shown in Figure 5.7d.
Developed Areas
Developed areas, comprised the buildings of Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution, Hei
Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre, Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment
Centre (annex) and Lai Sun Correctional Institution, as well as other
associated facilities including administration buildings, staff quarters, two
helipads, a guard dog kennel and a few old village houses. A
typhoon shelter is located at the western side of the island. The photographic records developed areas are
shown in Figure 5.7e.
All of the vegetation recorded within this habitat type, such as Acacia confusa, Delonix regia,
Bauhinia blackeana and Ficus microcarpus, were planted for landscaping purposes. This habitat is highly developed in nature
and of limited ecological significance.
A total of 33 plant species were found in this habitat, no rare plant
species were found.
5.7.2
Wildlife
Mammals
Only one mammal species, the House Shrew Suncus murinus, was recorded in the shrubland within the Study Area.
Birds
Seventy-four bird species were recorded during the quantitative and
qualitative surveys. Only the Great Egret and Narcissus Flycatcher, were recorded outside
the survey points but within the Study Area.
Seventy species were recorded during point count surveys and 24 species
were recorded in vantage point surveys.
No bird species was recorded during the night surveys. There were seven bird species of conservation
interest, including Black Kite Milvus migran, Greater Coucal
Centropus sinensis, Crested
Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus, Commom
Buzzard Buteo buteo,
Pacific Reef Egret Egretta
sacra, Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus
and
·
Black Kite is a Class II
Protected Animal in PRC. It is common in
·
Greater Coucal is a Class II Protected Animal in PRC.
However, it occupies many types of habitats in
·
Crested Goshawk is a Class II Protected Animal in PRC.
It is a rare but widespread resident bird in
·
Common Buzzard is a Class II
Protected Animal in PRC. It is a common
winter visitor to
·
Pacific Reef Egret is a Class II
Protected Animal in PRC. It is
widespread along the coastline in
·
·
Common Kestrel is a Class II
Protected Animal in PRC. It is a common
and widespread winter visitor and passage migrant in
The locations of bird species of
conservation value recorded during the surveys (except vantage point survey
which presented separately) are shown in Figure 5.7f.
·
Point Count Survey: A total of 70 bird species with a total of 1,479
birds were recorded during the point count surveys (see Table 2 of Annex
B). Sixty-four of which were recorded in the dry season and 44 in the wet
season.
Sixteen of
the species encountered were resident to
Table 5.7b Mean
Abundance and Number of Bird Species in Different Types of Habitat in the Study
Area
Among the recorded species, the most
frequently counted birds were the Black Kites, a total number of 292 birds were
counted, representing 19.7% of all birds.
Chinese Bulbul Pycnonotus
sinensis, Crested Myna Acridotheres cristatellus, Japanese
White-eye Zosterops japonicus, Masked Laughing Thrush Garrulax perspicillatus and
Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia
flaviventria were also frequently recorded. Rankings of the most common 10 species are
summarised in Table 5.7c. The
details of bird species recorded at each habitat during the dry and wet season
surveys are summarised in Table 3 of Annex B.
Table 5.7c Most
Common Birds Recorded in the Surveys and Their Relative Abundance
·
Vantage Point Survey: There were 24 bird species recorded during the
vantage point surveys, in which 23 (7 primary species) were recorded in the dry
season and 20 species (3 primary species) in the wet season. The details of seasonal differences are
presented below:
Dry Season
Twenty-three
species (7 primary species) were observed during the dry season with a total of
182 flight attempts observed within the Study Area. Black Kite contributed the most flight attempts (163, 89.5% of
total), followed by Common Kestrel (5, 2.7%), Pacific Swift (5, 2.7%), House
Swift (5, 2.7%), Crested Goshawk (2, 1%), Barn Swallow (1, 0.5%), and Common
Buzzard (1, 0.5%) observed.
All of the bird species recorded, exclude Black Kite, discussed in the
following section during the vantage point surveys were summarised in Table
5.7d. The details of flight attempts
of the Black Kite in the dry season are summarised in Table 5.7e.
Table 5.7d
Results of Vantage Point Surveys (Excluding the Black Kite) During the
Dry Season
The flight attempts of all the
recorded species (excluding the Black Kite), ie
Common Kestrel and Pacific Swift, were generally 10 to 100m above the ground level within Zone
5 (see Table 4 of Annex B). The utilisation rates of Common Kestrel and
Pacific Swift recorded within Zone 5 during the vantage point surveys were low
(see Table 4 of Annex B). The flight paths
of all the primary species except bird of prey (Black Kite, Common Buzzard,
Crested Goshawk, Common kestrel), ie House Swift,
Pacific Swift and Barn Swallow are shown in Figure 5.7g.
Black Kite
The Black Kite was the most frequently
observed species during the Vantage Point Surveys, with a total of 163 flight
attempt records (88.6% of the total records).
Most of the Black Kites flew at a height > 10m and < 100m above
ground level (157 attempts, more than 96% of total records), and only
approximately 4% of the flight attempts were recorded > 100m above ground
level (6 attempts) (see Figure 5.7h). The most frequently observed flight attempts
were found in Zone 1, the area most remote from the Project Site and close to
the Hei Ling Chau Addiction
Treatment Centre (Annex) (49 attempts, 30% of total records). A total of 25 attempts (all attempts recorded
< 100m above ground level) were recorded within Zone 5, the location of the
Project Site. The details of flight
attempts of the Black Kite in the dry season are summarised in Table 5.7e.
Table 5.7e Results of Vantage Point Surveys for Black Kite during the
Dry Season Survey
Common Buzzard
The Common Buzzard was recorded, on 12 January 2006,
during the vantage point surveys. One
individual was recorded flying from the Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre (Annex) to the typhoon
shelter, crossing over Zone 2 at a height of > 100m. The flight path of the Common
Buzzard recorded within the Study Area is presented in Figure
5.7i.
Crested Goshawk
The Crested Goshawk was recorded, on 12 January 2006,
during the vantage point surveys. One
individual was observed flying from the Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre (Annex) towards the typhoon
shelter, crossing over Zone 2 at a height > 10m and < 100m. Another individual was observed flying from
the guard dog kennel towards Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institute, crossing over Zone 1 at a
height of > 10m and < 100m. The
flight paths of the Crested Goshawk recorded within the Study Area are
presented in Figure 5.7i.
Common Kestrel
The Common Kestrel was recorded, on 19 December, 12 January and 8
February 2006, during the vantage point surveys. One individual was recorded on 19 December
flying from helipad towards the Project Site, crossing over Zone 5 at a height
> 10m and < 100m. Two individuals
were recorded on 12 January flying from dog kennel to the Project Site,
crossing over Zone 5 at a height of >10m and < 100m. One individual was recorded on 12 January
flying from the Project Site to eastern shore, crossing over Zone 3 at a height
of > 10m and < 100m. Two
individuals were recorded on 8 February flying between dog kennel and eastern
shore, crossing Zone 4 at a height of > 10m and < 100m. The flight paths of the Common
Kestrel recorded within the Study Area are presented in Figure
5.7i.
Wet Season
A total of 20 bird species (3 primary species) were observed during the
vantage point surveys, with a total of 98 flight attempts observed within the
Study Area. Black Kite contributed the
most flight attempts (87, 88.8 % of total), followed by Barn Swallow (8, 8.2%)
and Pacific Swift (3, 3.1%). The flight
paths of Barn Swallow and Pacific Swift are shown in Figure 5.7g and the details
are shown in Table 5 of Annex B.
The primary species, Black Kite, Barn Swallow and Pacific Swift were
observed foraging within the Study Area.
Only Black Kite was recorded flying over Zone 5,
crossing the location of the proposed wind turbine at a height > 10m and
<100m above the ground level. All the
bird species recorded (excluding Black Kite) during the vantage point surveys
are summarized in Table 5.7f.
Table 5.7f Results
of Vantage Point Surveys (Excluding the Black Kite) During the Wet Season
Black Kite
The Black Kite was the most
frequently observed species during the Vantage Point Surveys, with a total of
87 flight attempt records (88.8% of the total)(see Table 5.7g). Similar to the
results recorded in the dry season, the most frequently observed flight
attempts were found in Zone 1 (21 attempts, 24.1% of total records). A total of 7 attempts (including soaring and
flying pass) (8% of total) were recorded within Zone 5, the location of the
Project Site (see Figure
5.7h).
Table 5.7g Results
of Vantage Point Surveys for Black Kite During the Wet Season
·
Nest Search Survey: Neither raptor nor waterbird
nests were found during the surveys. At
least 9 recorded species had shown different degrees of possible breeding
behaviours, such as courtship display, collecting nesting materials and
territorial behaviour (see Table 5.7h). A
Table 5.7h Birds
with ‘Suspected Breeding’ Status During the Surveys
Invertebrates
·
Butterflies: A total of 50 species of butterflies were recorded during the surveys (see
Tables 6 to 8 of Annex B). Thirty-six of which were recorded in the dry
season and 43 in wet season. Shrubland and plantation habitat have the highest number of
butterfly species recorded (27 out of the 50 species) in the wet season while shrubland has the highest number of butterfly species in
the dry season (24 species). Shrubland was also recorded to have the highest number of
individual butterflies. The number of
butterfly species and total number of individuals recorded in each habitat of
the Study Area are summarised in Table
5.7i.
Table 5.7i Butterfly
Species Recorded in Each Habitat of the Study Area
Among the 50 butterfly species, 7 are uncommon, 2 are
rare species and the rest are either common or abundant in
·
Dragonflies: Thirteen dragonfly species were recorded in the Study Area during the
survey (see Tables 9 to 11 of Annex B). Thirteen of which
were recorded in the wet season and two recorded in the dry season. Among the 13 species, two of them are
uncommon in
Shrubland has the highest number of individuals of
dragonflies and the highest number of species during the survey. The number of dragonfly species and total
number of individuals recorded in each habitat are summarised in Table 5.7j.
Table 5.7j Dragonfly
Species Recorded in Each Habitat of the Study Area
Herpetofauna
A total of three species of amphibian, two species of turtle, five
species of lizard and seven species of snake were recorded in the Study Area
(see Tables 12 and 13 of
Annex B). These include one locally
rare turtle, Three-banded Box Turtle Cuora trifasciata, which is also a protected species and is
listed in CITES Appendix II; and two uncommon reptile species: Burmese Python Python molurus (a
locally protected species and listed in CITES Appendix II) and the uncommon Garnot’s Gecko Hemidactylus garnotii. Two
common and widespread reptiles, but listed in CITES Appendix II, the Common Rat Snake Ptyas mucosus and Chinese Cobra Naja atra, were
also recorded. The Common Rat Snake was
found under the wooden board placed within the Project Site. The remaining species are
common locally and one is an introduced exotic (Red-eared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans).
Among the 30 wooden cover boards set within the Study Area, the wildlife
recorded included Common Blind Snake and Common Rat Snake. No Bogadek’s
Burrowing Lizard was recorded during the surveys. It is expected that the habitats within the
Study Area is not Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizards
preferred habitats.
Stream Fauna
No aquatic fauna was recorded within the natural streams and reservoir,
which may be due to the limited water flow during the surveys.
5.7.3
Existing Conditions of the Project Site
and Areas for the Enabling Works
Based on the literature review and the field surveys, it is concluded
that the habitats recorded in the Project Site are mainly developed areas with small patches of
shrubland (see Figure 5.7j).
The developed area within the Project Site is
currently used by a CSD contractor as a storage area for construction
material. The area is highly disturbed
by human activities and is dominated by climbers such as Wedelia chinensis and Mikania micrantha.
A small patch of shrubland was found
within the Project Site which is dominated by a few native shrubs, including Schefflera octophylla, Ilex asprella and Rhodomrytus
tomentosa.
A total of 29 plant species were recorded within the Project Site.
Small patches of shrubland
and developed areas along the long access route (ie
The habitats along the short access route include a
small patch of shrubland which was dominated by
native species, such as Ilex asprella
and Schefflera octophylla.
All of the recorded plant species are common or very
common in
The results of the field surveys confirmed that the Study Area,
particularly the Project Site and areas in the vicinity, are not major bird
habitats, with relatively low bird species diversity (24 species) recorded
during the surveys. Only 7 out of the 24
species were found to forage within the Study Area (mainly in the plantation
next to the Project Site). Most of the
recorded bird species were found flying and passing over the shrubland and developed area within the Project Site and
areas of the enabling works. The surveys
concluded that only a few bird species utilise the Project Site and the areas
in the vicinity.
In this section the ecological importance of the habitats and wildlife identified
within the Study Area are evaluated in accordance with the criteria stipulated
in Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM. The
evaluation is based upon the information presented in Section 5.7. The ecological importance of each habitat
type within the Study Area and the habitats within the Project Site are
presented in Tables 5.8a to
5.8f.
Table 5.8a Ecological
Evaluation of
Table 5.8b Ecological
Evaluation of Shrubland
Table 5.8c Ecological Evaluation of Abandoned Wet
Agricultural Land
Table 5.8d Ecological Evaluation of Streams
Table 5.8e Ecological Evaluation of Reservoir
Table 5.8f Ecological Evaluation of Developed Areas
Table 5.8g Ecological Evaluation of Project Site and
the Areas of the Enabling Works
The lists and evaluations of the floral
and faunal species of ecological interest recorded within the Study Area,
according to the EIAO-TM, are given in Tables 5.8h and 5.8i.
Table 5.8h Evaluation of Floral Species with
Ecological Interest within the Study Area
Table 5.8i Evaluation
of Faunal Species with Ecological Interest within the Study Area
|
Species |
Location |
Protection Status |
Distribution |
Rarity |
|
Bird |
|
|
|
|
|
Black Kite Milvus
lineatus |
In various habitats of the Study Area; soaring and roosting |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in many types of habitats; |
Common and widespread in |
|
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis |
In various habitats of the Study Area; Roosting |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in many types of habitats in Oriental |
Common and widespread in Very rare in |
|
Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus |
Fly over shrubland, displaying |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in woodland area; Oriental |
Rare but widespread resident in |
|
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo |
Fly over shrubland, soaring |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in many types of habitats; |
Common winter visitor in |
|
Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra |
Along the coastline of rocky shore; Roosting |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC; |
Found in coastal habitats in |
Common and widespread in |
|
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster |
Fly over shrubland, soaring and collecting
nesting material |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC, CITES appendix 2 |
Found in coastal area of |
Uncommon resident in |
|
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus |
Fly over shrubland, perch on pole, foraging |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in open area in Hong Kong, Eurasia and |
Common and widespread in |
|
Butterfly |
|
|
|
|
|
Grass Demon Udaspes folus |
Abandoned wet agricultural land |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Rare |
|
Greenish Palm Bob Telicota ancilla |
Shrubland |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Rare |
|
Bush Hopper Ampittia
dioscorides |
Abandoned wet agricultural land near the Old Leper Centre |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Small Banded Swift Pelopidas mathias |
Abandoned wet agricultural land |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Indian Palm Bob Suastus gremius |
|
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Club Silverline Spindasis syama |
Developed area near the reservoir |
Not protected |
Mui Tsz Lam, Shan Liu, Pak Tam Chung, Fung Yuen, Wong Lung
Hang, Plover Cove, Shing Mun,
Tai Lam |
Uncommon |
|
Chocolate Royal Remelana jangala |
Shrubland near the
reservoir |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Indian Fritillary Argyreus hyperbius |
Shrubland |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
White-edged Blue Baron Euthalia phemius |
Developed Area at the western side of the island |
Not protected |
Found in most country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Dragonflies |
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Sprite Pseudagrion microcephalum |
Reservoir |
Not protected |
Kau Sai Chau, Lai Chi Wo, Mui Wo |
Uncommon |
|
Common Evening Hawker Anaciaeschna jaspidea |
Shrubland at the
northwest of the project site |
Not protected |
Long Valley, Mai Po, Sha Lo Tung, Tai Po Kau, Kam Tin, |
Uncommon |
|
Reptiles |
|
|
|
|
|
Three-banded Box Turtle Cuora trifasciata |
One juvenile found at the fringe of shrubland on the western side of the island |
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap
170); Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species Cap 187); CITES Appendix II |
Scattered in New Territories, |
Rare |
|
Burmese Python Python molurus |
One juvenile found in shrubland
near the Old Leper Centre |
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap
170); Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species Cap 187); CITES Appendix II |
Widespread in |
Uncommon |
|
Garnot’s Gecko Hemidactylus garnotii |
One juvenile found in shrubland
near the reservoir |
Not protected |
Localized in a few areas in |
Uncommon |
|
Common Rat Snake Ptyas mucosus |
One juvenile found hiding under a cover board set within
the project site |
Not protected in CITES Appendix II |
Widespread in |
Common |
|
Chinese Cobra Naja atra |
One sub-adult found in plantation forest near Old
Leper Centre |
Not protected in CITES Appendix II |
Widespread in |
Common |
5.9
Potential Impacts and Impact Assessment
The Project involves upgrading the existing roads and/or creation of
temporary access for the delivery of construction materials and equipment,
excavation and construction of the wind turbine foundation, construction of a
transformer and substation, and the laying of underground distribution cables
and overhead cables for connection to the nearby overhead power cable network. The construction works will expect to be
completed within 12 months.
The overall height of the wind turbine is approximately 90m with a hub
height of approximately 60m and a rotor blade radius of approximately 30m. The potential ecological impacts arising from
the construction and operation of the Project are discussed below.
5.9.1
Construction Phase
The potential ecological impacts due to the construction of the wind
turbine and the enabling works along the access routes are described
below.
Habitat Loss
·
Permanent
loss of shrubland (approximately 0.01 ha) and
developed area (approximately 0.55 ha) due to the construction of the wind
turbine at the Project Site.
·
Permanent
loss of shrubland (approximately 0.14 ha) and
temporary loss of developed area (approximately 0.12 ha) due to the enabling
works along the long access route (ie the
·
Temporary
loss of shrubland (approximately 0.01ha) due to
construction of the temporary steel platform and bridge for the short access
route; and
·
Loss
of foraging and feeding ground of the associated wildlife, particularly birds,
within the total impacted area (approximately 0.83 ha, of which 0.13 ha will be
temporary lost and 0.7 ha will be permanently lost, see Table 5.9a for details).
Details are shown
in Figures 5.9a to 5.9f and Table
5.9a.
Table 5.9a Overall
Habitat Loss due to the Construction of the Project
Impacts to Wildlife
·
Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizard has not been recorded within the
Study Area during the intensive ecological surveys. Although it has been recorded at Hei Ling Chau in 1987, given the
limited vegetation cover and current habitat types within the Project Sites as
well as the areas along the access road, the Bogadek’s
Burrowing Lizard will not be affected due to the Project.
·
Reduction
of wildlife species abundance/diversity and ecological carrying capacity is
expected to be minimal due to the loss of a very small area of natural habitat,
and the temporary nature and small scale of the construction works. Although a Common Rat Snake (a reptile
species of conservation interest) was found within the Project Site, the
Project Site and habitats in the vicinity are not the favourite habitat of this
species and hence, the potential impact to the Common Rat Snake due to the
Project is not expected.
Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation
·
All
of the potentially affected habitats (including 0.7 ha of developed area and
0.2 ha of shrubland) are either disturbed or located
next to the developed areas. Minimal
effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation due to the loss of the small
size of shrubland is expected.
Other Impacts
·
Secondary
impacts to the surrounding habitats (generally with moderate to 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 materials and construction site runoff. The impacts are expected to be low owing to
the temporary nature and relatively small scale of the construction works, and
given that regular site audits on good construction practice will be employed
during the construction phase.
5.9.2
Operational Phase
Other than the possibility of impacts to birds, no operational impacts
are expected as the wind turbine is located in the developed area, which had
been identified as a low quality habitat.
It is not anticipated that the operation of the wind turbine (including
the associated noise) will have adverse impacts on the surrounding natural
habitats, or the associated wildlife. The wind turbine will be unmanned and hence no
on site waste or wastewater will be produced.
The non-reflective colour scheme of the wind turbine would not cause
glare during operation.
The operation of the wind
turbine has the potential to cause the following impacts to birds and their
movements:
·
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 the operating wind turbine or as a
result of being attracted to the turbine at night time by the aviation warning
light(s).
The results of the literature review and baseline
surveys indicate that the Project Site, as well as the areas in the vicinity
are not important bird habitats as there is no wetland habitat within or in the
vicinity of the Project Site to attract water birds and the Project Site is not
within the travelling path of the migratory birds. 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 perceived as a concern due to the operation of a wind
turbine. Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel,
Crested Goshawk, Pacific Swift, House Swift, Barn Swallow and Black Kite were recorded as
utilising the Project Site during the ecological baseline surveys (Section
5.7.2 Birds), and are the species with potential to be
affected by the wind turbine during operation.
5.9.3
Cumulative Impact
At present there are no planned projects in the vicinity of the wind turbine that will cause cumulative impacts. The cumulative permanent habitat loss is
negligible as the areas affected are small and have low to moderate ecological
value.
5.9.4
Impact Evaluation
Habitat Loss
Potential impacts to ecology have been evaluated according to Table 1 of Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM. Tables 5.9b and 5.9c present an evaluation of the habitat loss due to the Project.
Table
5.9b Overall Impact Evaluation for Shrubland within the Project Site and the Area of the
Enabling Works
Table 5.9c Overall
Impact Evaluation for Developed Area within the Project Site and the Area of
the Enabling Works
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.
Impacts to Species of Conservation Interest (Non-avifauna)
In view of the generally poor vegetation
cover of the developed area, it is believed that the Project Site does not
provide optimal habitats for the recorded Common Rat Snake (recorded in the vicinity of the Project Site) and
other species of conservation interest, ie Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizards. It is anticipated that the construction of
the wind turbine will not cause any adverse impacts to these species.
Other Associated Impacts
Reduction of species abundance/diversity and ecological carrying
capacity is expected to be minimal due to the small area of natural habitat
lost.
Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation – Given that the small scale of the
construction works, the impacts of habitat fragmentation and isolation are
considered to be minimal.
Water Quality – Storm water run-off and sewage from the site will
be properly managed by adopting good practices in order to avoid contamination
during the construction phase (see Section
7.6). No adverse water quality is
anticipated during the construction of the Project and hence no adverse
ecological impact is envisaged.
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
practices will be conducted.
Operational Impact
A literature
review of various bird collision surveys indicates that bird collision rates
due to operation of wind turbines or wind farms are very low. To date, no bird
collisions have been recorded during the operation of the wind turbine on
The air space of the wind
turbine is approximately 0. 3ha (pr2 = 3.14 ´ 30m ´ 30m = 2,826 m2, the maximum diameter of the rotor is
60m). Bird collisions may occur only
when the flight path of the birds goes straight to the rotor nd at a height of 30 to 90m above ground level. It should also be noted that the blade rotating speed is relatively slow (in the order of 14 to 31
rpm). Based on the findings of the
ecological baseline surveys, the Project Site is not an important bird habitat
or flight path of migratory birds.
Individual
Black Kites were frequently observed soaring or foraging within the Study
Area. The most frequently observed flight attempts of the Black
Kite were found at Zone 1,
the Hei Ling Chau Addiction
Treatment Centre (Annex) (about 28% of the total attempts for both wet and dry
season at a height < 100m above ground level ([39]), see Section 5.7.2 – Birds) and western shore. Only 13.9% of the total attempts for both dry
and wet seasons were recorded within Zone 5 ([40]), the location of the Project Site, at a
height < 100m above ground level.
Other bird species including Barn Swallow, Pacific Swift and House
Swift, as well as bird species of conservation interest (including Common
Buzzard, Common Kestrel and Crested Goshawk) were found to be infrequently
utilising the Project Site.
Monitoring
of operating wind farms 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 ([41])). With reference to the ecological baseline
data obtained from the EIA study of the wind turbine on Lamma
Island ([42]), the total flight attempts
by Black Kite recorded within the Study Area of the wind turbine on Lamma Island (ie 1,214 attempts)
is much higher than that (250 attempts) recorded within the Study Area at
proposed wind turbine at Hei Ling Chau. In addition, Lamma
wind turbine EM&A data ([43])
also indicated that no bird collision onto the wind turbine was recorded since
the operation of the wind turbine on
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 ([44]);
and Kingsley and Whittam 2001 ([45])). 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 operation, will be installed on top of
the nacelle of the wind turbine to alert aircraft/helicopter during periods of
poor visibility. The impacts due to the
light of the wind turbine are expected to be minimal
as the Project Site and areas
in the vicinity are not an important bird habitat and have relatively low
utilisation. For the recently installed
wind turbine at
The noise produced by the operating wind turbine will
be at a low, constant and predictable sound level. Since the wind turbine site is not considered
to be an important bird habitat, the noise impacts to birds are expected to be
low.
In view of the small scale (one wind turbine) and low
magnitude of impacts on general wildlife, reduction of species
abundance/diversity and ecological carrying capacity due to land consumed for
the development of wind turbine are not expected and the
overall operational impacts on birds are therefore considered to be low.
Table
5.10e Overall Operational Impact
Evaluation for Birds
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.
5.10.1
Avoidance
The Hei Ling Chau site was proposed based on the following
considerations:
·
Avoid habitat and area with significant ecological interests, such as
·
Avoid direct loss of ecological habitat or direct impact to area of
significant ecological interests by locating the wind turbine at the developed
area;
·
Avoid adverse impacts to birds by siting the
wind turbine away from important bird habitat or major routes of migratory
birds; and
·
Avoid impacts due to the construction of a lengthy link to the existing
transmission system.
5.10.2
Minimisation
The previous discussion in Section 5.10 has indicated that the
potential ecological impacts due to the construction and operation of a wind
turbine at the Project Site are considered to be low. The following measures are recommended to
further reduce the potential impacts and disturbance to the surrounding
habitats.
Measures for Common Rat Snake and Bodagek’s
Burrowing Lizard
·
To
undertake a search of the Common Rat Snake and Bodagek’s
Burrowing Lizard within the Project Site and along the impacted sections of
Long and Short Access Routes just before the commencement of the construction
works. Due to the small size of the
Project Site and given that there are no optimal habitats for Common Rat Snake
and Bodagek’s Burrowing Lizard, one day-time search
is considered sufficient. The
surveyor(s) will actively search the areas within the Project Site and along
the impacted sections of access routes and pay special attention to the leave
litters and rocks. All recorded Common
Rat Snake and Bodagek’s Burrowing Lizard will be
caught by hand and translocated to the shrubland at the north of the Hei
Ling Chau Correctional Centre (Annex), which is the
less disturbed shrubland habitat within the Study
Area, immediately after the search. The
Common Rat Snake and Bodagak’s Burrowing Lizard
search and translocation works will be undertaken by a qualified ecologist with
relevant experience in faunal translocation works.
Measures for Controlling Construction Runoff
·
Storm
water run-off from the construction site will be directed into existing
drainage channel via adequately designed sand/silt removal facilities such as
sand/silt traps and oil interceptors.
Channels, earth bunds or sand bag barriers will be provided on site to
properly direct storm water to such silt removal facilities.
Good Construction Practices
·
Erect
fences along the boundary of the Project Site before the commencement of works
to prevent vehicle movements, and encroachment of personnel, onto adjacent
areas;
·
Regularly
check the work site boundaries to ensure that they are not breached and that
damage does not occur to surrounding areas; and,
·
Reinstate
temporary impacted area, after completion of construction works. The temporary platform and bridge will be
removed and the areas will be properly reinstated to original ground levels and
conditions.
5.10.3
Compensation
A total of about 0.83 ha (0.7 ha permanent loss and 0.13 ha temporary
loss) of habitats will be impacted by the construction and operation of the
wind turbine and the associated access road and facilities, of which about of
about 0.16 ha (0.15 ha permanent loss and 0.01 ha temporary loss) of shrubland will be lost and 0.67 ha (0.55 ha permanent loss
and 0.12 ha temporary loss) of developed area will be impacted (see Table 5.9a). The ecological values of the impacted shurbland and developed area are considered to be low to
moderate (see Section 5.8). It is therefore considered not necessary to
compensate for these impacted habitats.
Some trees within the work areas of the proposed road upgrading works
may be removed during construction. The
actual number of trees affected will be determined in the Tree Survey during
the detailed design. The impacted trees
would either be transplanted or compensated by tree planting along the access
routes or within the Project Site.
There will be the permanent loss of approximately 0.15 ha of shrubland and 0.55 ha of developed area. Due to the relatively small scale of the
Project and the associated loss of low quality habitats during the construction
phases, the residual impacts are considered to be low. 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 would not be located at important bird habitat or on travelling routes of migratory birds, the potential residual impacts due to bird collision
with the operating wind turbine and noise impacts to birds, are considered to
be minor and of low magnitude and significance.
5.12
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
5.12.1
Construction Phase
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.
5.12.2
Operation Phase
Monitoring for bird collision during operation is recommended. The purpose of the
monitoring is to confirm the impact (via collisions) of the wind turbine on
birds, with a particular focus on species of conservation interest (especially
the 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 50m radius
will be searched around the base of the wind turbine. After this 12-month period, the monitoring
results will be reviewed. Should any
bird mortality or injury be confirmed as being due to the operation of the wind
turbine, relevant government departments (ie EPD and
the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD)) will be
notified.
A simple Event and Action Plan during the first 12 months of operation
of the wind turbine is recommended in Table
5.12a.
Table 5.12a Event and Action Plan during Operation of Wind Turbine
If, after the 12-month
monitoring period, insignificant number of bird collisions have been reported
then the monitoring will be ceased, as it will have been confirmed that the
wind turbine is not having an adverse impact on bird species.
The ecological resources recorded within the Study Area include
plantation shrubland, abandoned wet agricultural
land, stream, reservoir and developed area, as well as associated
wildlife. Of these habitats, shrubland (the major habitat within the Study Area) has
moderate ecological value. The remaining
habitats are of low or low to moderate ecological value.
A total of 18 species of conservation interest were recorded within the
Study Area, including 2 plant species (Golden Eulophia
and Artocarpus), 7 bird species (Black
Kite, Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel, Grerater Coucal, White-bellied Sea Eagle, Crested Goshawk, Pacific
Reef Egret), 2 rare and 7 uncommon butterfly species (Bush Hopper, White-edged
Blue Baron, Small Banded Swift, Indian Palm Bob, Grass Demon, Greenish
Palm Bob, Club Silverline, Chocolate Royal and Indian
Frilitary), 2 uncommon dragonflies (Blue Sprite and
Common Evening Hawker) and 5 reptiles (Chinese
Cobra, Common Rat Snake, Garnot’s Gecko, Burmese Python
and Three-banded Box Turtle).
A total of 24 bird species were
observed during the vantage point surveys, with a total of 280 flight attempts
in the Study Area. The flight attempts
of most of the recorded species were generally flying >10m and < 100m
above the ground level near the Project Site.
Three bird species (including Black Kite (250 attempts), Pacific Swift
(2 attempts) and Common Kestrel (3 attempts)) were recorded flying over and
crossing the location of the Project Site at a height > 10m and <100m
above the ground level.
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, it is anticipated that the Project Site does not provide an optimal
habitat for the Common Rat Snake and Bogadek’s Burrowing Lizard and the impacts on these
species are expected to be low. It is
recommended to undertake a pre-construction search of the reptiles and translocate any Common Rat Snake and Bodagek’s
Burrowing Lizard found to the adjacent shrubland.
Bird collisions are
perceived as an ecological concern during the operation of the wind
turbine. Common Kestrel, Pacific Swift and Black Kite have
utilised the Project Site and therefore are the species that may be
affected by the operation of the wind turbine.
Since the wind turbine
is not located within important bird habitat or on the flight path of migratory
birds, the potential risk of bird collision will be low. No adverse impacts are envisaged.
Limited residual impacts due to the net loss of a very small area of shrubland are expected.
A one-year bird monitoring programme will be undertaken to confirm that the operation of the wind turbine will not cause adverse impacts to birds.