7a.1.1.1
This section presents the baseline ecological resource conditions within
the study area, and the results of assessment of the potential ecological
impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Project
at the TTAL site. Baseline conditions
for ecological components of the terrestrial and associated aquatic environment
were evaluated based on information from available literatures and field surveys conducted for
the purposes of this EIA. Measures
required to mitigate any identified adverse impacts are recommended, where
appropriate.
7a.2 Environmental Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria
7a.2.1.1
Guidelines, standards, documents and ordinances / regulations listed in
the following sections were referred to during the course of the ecological
impact assessment.
· The Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) prohibits felling, cutting, burning or destroying of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on government land. Related subsidiary regulations prohibit the selling or possession of listed restricted and protected plant species.
· Under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170), designated wild animals are protected from being hunted, whilst their nests and eggs are protected from injury, destruction and removal. All birds and most mammals, including marine cetaceans, are protected under this Ordinance.
· The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) provides protection for certain plant and animal species through controlling or prohibiting trade in the species. Certain types of corals are listed in Schedule 1 of the Ordinance, including Blue coral (Heliopora coerulea), Organ pipe corals (family Tubiporidae), Black corals (order Antipatharia), Stony corals (order Scleractinia), Fire corals (family Milleporidae) and Lace corals (family Stylasteridae). Cetacean including whales, dolphins, porpoises, and rorquals are also listed under Schedules 1 & 2 of the Ordinance. The import, export and possession of scheduled corals, no matter dead or living, is restricted.
·
The Town Planning Ordinance
(Cap. 131) provides for the designation of coastal protection areas, Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Conservation Area,
·
Chapter 10 of the Hong Kong
Planning Standard and Guidelines (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 describes
enforcement issues. The appendices list
the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other
conservation related measures in
· Annex 16 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance – Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (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 habitat and ecological impact.
· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) Guidance Note No. 3/2010 provides general guidelines for assessing the recommended environmental mitigation measures in Environmental Impact Assessment reports.
· EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2010 clarifies the requirements of ecological assessments under the EIAO.
· EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010 provides general guidelines for conducting ecological baseline surveys in order to fulfill requirements stipulated in the EIAO-TM.
· EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2010 introduces general methodologies for conducting terrestrial and freshwater ecological baseline surveys.
· EIAO Guidance Note No. 11/2010 introduces general methodologies for conducting marine ecological baseline surveys.
· The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction. The IUCN Red List also includes information on taxa that are either close to meeting the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific conservation programme.
·
The Key Protected Wildlife
Species List details Category I and Category II protected animal species under
the PRC’s Wild Animal Protection Law.
7a.3.1.1 In accordance with Clause 3.4.5.2 of the EIAO Study Brief, the study area for the purpose of terrestrial ecological assessment includes all areas within 500 metres from the Project site boundary of the land based works areas or the area likely to be impacted by the Project. For aquatic ecology, the study area would be the same as the water quality impact assessment, which cover an area within 300 metres of the Project site boundary.
7a.3.2.1 In accordance with Clause 3.4.5.4(i) of the EIAO Study Brief, relevant studies and information regarding the ecological character of the study area were collated and reviewed. The information collected was evaluated to identify any information gaps relating to the assessment of potential ecological impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environment.
7a.3.3.1 Based on the findings of literature review, field surveys were carried out to fill information gaps identified and verify the information collected, to fulfill the objectives of this EIA according to Clause 3.4.5.4 (iii) of the EIAO Study Brief. The methodologies for ecological surveys and impact assessment presented below were prepared in accordance with the criteria and guidelines in Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM, EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010, 10/2010 and 11/2010.
Ecological Survey Programme
7a.3.3.2 A six-month ecological survey was conducted from January to June 2009 covering both dry and wet seasons. An additional survey for avifauna and terrestrial mammals was conducted in August 2009. The details of the survey programme are summarized in Table 7a.1.
Table 7a.1 Ecological Survey Programme
Ecological
Survey |
Dry Season |
Wet Season |
||||||
Jan 2009 |
Feb 2009 |
Mar 2009 |
Apr 2009 |
May 2009 |
Jun 2009 |
Jul 2009 |
Aug 2009 |
|
Habitat Mapping and Vegetation |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
Avifauna (Day) |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
Avifauna (Night) |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Terrestrial Mammal (Day) |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
Terrestrial Mammal (Night) |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Herpetofauna (Day) |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
Herpetofauna (Night) |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Butterfly, Dragonfly and Damselfly |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
Freshwater Communities |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Intertidal Fauna |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Coral |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Habitat Mapping and Vegetation Survey
7a.3.3.3 Habitats within the study area for terrestrial ecological impact assessment were identified, sized and mapped. Ecological characteristics of each habitat type including size, vegetation type, and species present, dominant species found, species diversity and abundance, community structure, seasonal patterns and inter-dependence of the habitats and species, and presence of any features of ecological importance were defined and characterized. Representative photographs of the habitat types and of important ecological features identified were taken. A desktop review of aerial photographs developed habitat maps of a suitable scale (1:1000 to 1:5000) showing the types and locations of habitats in the study area. The habitat maps were then verified during ground truthing.
7a.3.3.4
Vegetation surveys were conducted throughout dry
and wet seasons, by
direct observation to record diversity and dominance of plant
species present in different habitat types.
The location of any plant species of conservation interest was
recorded. Identification of flora
species and status in
7a.3.3.5 Avifauna species present and relative abundance of species in different habitats were surveyed visually and aurally by transects counts (Figure 7a.2). The location of any avifauna species of conservation interest encountered was recorded, along with notable behaviour (e.g. breeding behaviour such as nesting and presence of recently fledged juveniles, roosting, and feeding activities). Night surveys were also conducted to record nocturnal avifauna. Ornithological nomenclature in this report follows Carey et al. (2001).
Dragonfly, Damselfly and Butterfly Survey
7a.3.3.6
Dragonflies, damselflies and
butterflies within the study area were surveyed along the transect adopted in avifauna survey (Figure 7a.2). Relative abundance of
dragonfly, damselfly and butterfly encountered was recorded. Nomenclature of dragonfly and damselfly
follows
7a.3.3.7 Herpetofauna (amphibian and reptile) within the study area were surveyed qualitatively during both daytime and night-time. Potential microhabitats (e.g., leaf litter, underneath of rotten logs) were actively searched. All reptiles and amphibians sighted or heard were recorded, supplemented by observation of eggs and tadpoles of frogs and toads. Nomenclature of amphibian follows Chan et al. (2005), and reptile follows Karsen et al. (1998).
7a.3.3.8
Mammal surveys were conducted in areas which may
potentially be utilized by terrestrial mammals during day and night time. The surveys focused on searching for field
signs such as droppings, footprints, diggings or burrows left by larger
terrestrial mammals. Mammal
identification was made to the lowest possible taxon from the field signs. In addition, any mammal directly observed was
also identified. Locations of mammal
species of conservation interest were recorded.
Nomenclature of mammal follows Shek (2006).
7a.3.3.9 Freshwater fish and invertebrate communities were surveyed via active searching and direct observation at watercourse sections within the study area during dry and wet seasons. The sampling locations of freshwater community survey are shown in Figure 7a.2. Boulders within the watercourse were turned over to locate any aquatic animals beneath. Hand net was used to collect organisms along the streams. Organisms encountered were recorded and identified to the lowest possible taxon level.
7a.3.3.10
Survey on intertidal
communities were conducted at the two survey locations shown in Figure 7a.2 in order to establish an ecological profile on the intertidal
habitats located in the vicinity of the Project site. At each survey location, a walk-through
survey was conducted to actively search for any intertidal flora and epifauna
along the shore, with the survey time of approximately an hour by
3 surveyors. It
helped assess whether the sampling exercise in the
later quantitative survey has collected representative data (e.g. the number
and type of species encountered) and whether the sampling effort is deemed
adequate. A general database on species
composition and their relative occurrence in the survey location was
established.
7a.3.3.11
After the walk-through survey, quantitative surveys were conducted using line
transect method. One line transect was deployed at each of the two survey locations. The transect was deployed perpendicular to
shoreline from high water mark down to low water mark during the low tide
period when tide level was
below 1 m. Along
each transect, standard ecological sampling quadrats (0.5m x
7a.3.3.12 Six spot-check dive routes (Figure 7a.2) covering the coastal areas along the seawall of the Tsang Tsui site and its nearby areas were conducted to locate the presence of corals. Subtidal substrata (hard substratum seabed and seawall etc.) along the proposed spot-check dive routes were surveyed for any presence of coral communities, including hard corals (order Scleractinia), octocorals (sub-class Octocorallia) and black corals (order Antipatharia).
7a.3.3.13
The coastline was further surveyed by a more detailed Rapid Ecological Assessment
(REA). Five
7a.4 Description of the Environment
7a.4.1 Areas of Conservation Interest
7a.4.1.1
There are no areas of
recognized conservation interest (such as
Literature Review
7a.4.2.1 There are numbers of surveys conducted within the study area between 2000 and 2008 (EPD, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Six to nine habitat types were previously identified in the study area of the Project and its vicinity, including grassland/ shrubland, secondary woodland, plantation woodland, orchard, urbanized/disturbed area, wasteland, ash lagoons, watercourse, mangrove, marsh, and seawall.
7a.4.2.2
Two floral species of conservation
interest, Pitcher Plant (Nepenthes mirabilis) and Bamboo Orchid (Arundina chinensis), were previously recorded within the study area of
the Project. Pitcher
Plant was recorded from the East Lagoon and
along the stream, while small patch of Bamboo Orchid
was recorded on a cut-slope above
7a.4.2.3
Another plant species of
conservation interest, Indian Orchid (Zeuxine
strateumatica) was recorded at the ash lagoons in 1998 during a vegetation
study (reviewed by Chau and Siu 1998).
The species is restricted in
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.2.4 Nine terrestrial habitat types were identified, namely ash lagoon, secondary woodland, grassland/shrubland, plantation, developed area/disturbed area, orchard, watercourse, seawall and coastal waters during the ecological surveys conducted under the Project.
7a.4.2.5 Habitat maps of the study area are illustrated in Figure 7a.3. Representative photographs of habitats are given in Appendix 7a.2. Photographs of plant species of conservation interest are presented in Appendix 7a.6. Vegetation recorded within the study area is listed in Appendix 7a.5. Table 7a.2 summarises the size of each habitat type within the study area.
Table 7a.2 Habitats Recorded within the Study Area
Habitat
Type |
Area
(ha) |
Ash Lagoon |
44.20 |
Grassland/Shrubland |
33.05 |
Secondary |
3.31 |
|
4.90 |
Developed Area/Disturbed Area |
9.49 |
Orchard |
0.79 |
Watercourse |
3.70 Length of W1: 1450 m; W2:206 m |
Seawall |
1.51 |
Coastal Waters |
56.50 |
Ash Lagoon
7a.4.2.6 Three ash lagoons, namely East Lagoon, Middle Lagoon and West Lagoon, of area of 9.39 ha, 21.28 ha and 13.53 ha respectively were recorded within the study area. The IWMF would be located at the northern part of Middle Lagoon.
7a.4.2.7 Habitat conditions of the East and Middle Lagoons varied throughout the year and were governed by two major factors: the CLP’s pulverised fuel ash (PFA) filling activities and rainfall. The habitat in the Middle Lagoon was less volatile than that in the East Lagoon.
7a.4.2.8 The water level in the Middle Lagoon varied considerably with rainfall. During the course of survey period, the water level in the Lagoon fluctuated from approximately 20% to 50% flooded mainly covering the southern portion. Phragmites sp. was the dominant plant found on small islands formed among the open water. About 80% area of the northern part was a bare ground with scare vegetation. No noticeable PFA filling activities were observed during the survey.
7a.4.2.9 In the East Lagoon, vegetation including grasses and shrubs covered the northern portion. Shrubs at the edge of the Lagoon were dominated by pioneer species of Macaranga tanarius and salt-tolerant ruderal species, including Sesbania javanica and Spergularia marina. Several small shallow pools were formed in the northern portion, covering less than 10% of the total lagoon area during dry season, to approximately 20% flooded during the wet season (Appendix 7a.4 refers). The southern part of the Lagoon was occupied by dunes of PFA during the course of survey. Photographs showing the water level at the East and Middle Lagoons during survey period are presented in Appendix 7a.3 and 7a.4. After the survey period, the construction works for the Sludge Treatment Facilities commenced in the northern portion of the East Lagoon in December 2010.
7a.4.2.10 In the West Lagoon, three permanent water ponds occupying approximately 50% of the total lagoon area were found. The lagoon was disturbed by fairly active PFA dredging activities. Trucks transporting PFA were observed entering and leaving the West Lagoon through the southern and western access roads next to the Middle Lagoon. The vegetation was dense at the lagoon edge and around the water ponds. Vegetation commonly recorded included herb species such as Bidens alba, Conyza bonariensis and Spergularia marina, and a pioneer species, Macaranga tanarius.
7a.4.2.11
Species diversity in this
habitat was low, and no plant species of conservation interest
was recorded within the ash lagoons during the surveys.
Grassland/Shrubland
7a.4.2.12 Grassland/shrubland habitat in the study area was identified on the hillsides south of Nim Wan Road and the West Lagoon, the periphery of the ash lagoons, the hillside behind the plantation of WENT Landfill site, as well as small patch of land located at the mouth of the tidal channel and adjacent to the entrance of the WENT Landfill site. These areas were typical uplands, highly erode with numerous patches of bare earth and rocky outcrops, and subject to frequent hill-fires. Vegetation was generally sparse and dominated by grasses (e.g. Cyclosorus acuminatus), shrubs (e.g. Hibiscus tiliaceus, Litsea rotundifolia, Lantana camara, Vitex rotundifolia, Celtis sinensis, Macaranga tanarius and Rhus spp.) and species capable of tolerating the relatively harsh conditions. Species diversity in this habitat was low.
7a.4.2.13
An individual of plant species
of conservation interest, Incense Tree (Aquilaria
sinensis), was found at the edge of grassland/shrubland habitat near the
mouth of watercourse W1. Incense Tree is
common in
Secondary
7a.4.2.14
Secondary woodland habitats
were largely confined to a thin strip of land between
7a.4.2.15 Plantation habitat within the study area was found on engineering slopes south to Nim Wan Road and the West Lagoon, as well as the roadside plantation along Nim Wan Road and access roads in the WENT Landfill site. These areas were dominated by commonly planted exotic tree species (e.g. Acacia confusa and Eucalyptus sp.), with some native pioneer species, such as Celtis sinensis, Ficus virens and Sterculia lanceolata.
7a.4.2.16
The roadside plantation was
limited to trees and other amenity planting, with occasionally patches of weedy herbaceous and woody plant
species such as Bidens pilosa, Lantana
camera, Ageratum conyzoides, Cyclosorus acuminatus, Leucaena leucocephala,
Macraranga tanarius and Mikania
micrantha.
7a.4.2.17 Species diversity in this habitat was low and no plant species of conservation interest was recorded from this habitat.
Developed Area/Disturbed Area
7a.4.2.18
Developed/disturbed habitat
refers to highly disturbed wasteland formed as a result of intensive human
activities and either wholly or partly covered by weedy or ephemeral
vegetation. Developed/disturbed habitat
in the study area included WENT Landfill site, paved/unpaved road around the
ash lagoons and the access road along
Orchard
7a.4.2.19 Small patches of orchard were identified at the south-western part of the study area. Vegetative species recorded from this habitat included common fruit trees such as Musa x paradisiaca, Dimocarpus longan and Syzgium jambos. Species diversity in this habitat was low and no plant species of conservation interest was recorded.
Watercourse
7a.4.2.20 There were two watercourses recorded in the study area. These two moderate-sized watercourses discharged into a tidal channel east of the ash lagoons. Shrubby riparian vegetation such as Clerodendrum inerme, Lantana camara and Manihot esculenta with occasional trees (e.g. Hibiscus tiliaceus, Casuarina equisetifolia, Celtis sinensis and Macaranga tanarius) was established along the stream banks.
7a.4.2.21 Watercourse W1 was formed from several small tributaries that run through grassland/shrubland and woodland habitat at the west of the study area. The tributaries in these upper reaches were out of the study area, and basically more natural with a bank comprised of fine sand deposits. The lower reaches were channelized with geo-textile matting at the bank and directed to the south of the ash lagoons. Linking to the tidal channel, the watercourse portion south of the ash lagoons was subjected to influence from seawater (i.e. flooded with seawater during high tide).
7a.4.2.22 Watercourse W2 drained into the tidal channel from the southeast. While the upper reach of watercourse W2 was natural, the lower reach flowed through the WENT Landfill site and was channelized with concrete.
7a.4.2.23 Species diversity in this habitat was low and no plant species of conservation interest was recorded from this habitat.
Seawall
7a.4.2.24
Artificial seawall was found
surrounding the ash lagoons and WENT Landfill site. It is in forms of sloping boulder and of
typical of other man-made exposed seawalls in
Coastal Waters
7a.4.2.25
Marine environment of coastal
waters was identified at the north of the study area. It falls within the Deep Bay Water Control
Zone and belongs to the
Literature Review
7a.4.3.1 A number of the previous studies were conducted within and in the vicinity of the study area of the Project. A total of 31 to 85 avifaunal species were recorded in the previous surveys (EPD, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2008, 2009). Among these, 58 avifaunal species recorded were considered of conservation interest. Bird species of conservation interest recorded in previous studies are summarized in Table 7a.3.
Table 7a.3 Avifauna of Conservation Interest Previously Recorded from the Ash Lagoons and its Vicinity.
Common Name1 |
Distribution in |
Level of Concern2 |
Protection Status in China3 |
|
IUCN
Red List |
WEF EIA5 |
Add WEF EIA5 |
ACTF5 |
STF ES5 |
STF EIA5 |
WENT
Ex EIA5 |
Little Grebe |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Great Cormorant |
Common |
PRC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
Grey Heron |
Common |
PRC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Purple Heron |
Uncommon |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Great Egret |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Intermediate Egret |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
Little Egret |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Pacific Reef Egret |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Cattle Egret |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Striated Heron |
Uncommon in summer, Scarce in winter |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Blacked Crowned Night Heron |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Yellow Bittern |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Common Teal |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
Spot-billed Duck |
Resident |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Northern Pintail |
Abundant |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Red-breasted Merganser |
Scarce |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Osprey6 |
Common |
RC |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
Black Kite6 |
Common |
(RC) |
Class II |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
White-bellied Sea Eagle6 |
Uncommon |
(RC) |
Class II |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
Crested Serpent Eagle6 |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
Class II |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Eastern Marsh Harrier6 |
Common |
LC |
Class II |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Crested Goshawk6 |
Uncommon |
- |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Common Buzzard6 |
Common |
- |
Class II |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Greater Spotted Eagle6 |
Scarce |
GC |
Class II |
- |
Vulnerable |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Imperial Eagle6 |
Common |
GC |
Class II |
- |
Vulnerable |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Common Kestrel6 |
Common |
- |
Class II |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
Peregrine Falcon6 |
Scarce |
(LC) |
Class II |
- |
- |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
Eurasian Coot |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
Black-winged Stilt |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
Grey-headed Lapwing |
Scarce |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Kentish Plover |
Abundant |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Common Redshank |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
Marsh Sandpiper |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Common Greenshank |
Abundant |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Wood Sandpiper |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
Pintail/Swinhoe's Snipe |
Common/ Uncommon |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Common Snipe |
Common |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
Caspian Tern |
Passage migrant |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Greater Coucal |
Common |
- |
Class II |
Vulnerable |
- |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
Lesser Coucal |
Common |
- |
Class II |
Vulnerable |
- |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
Pacific Swift |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Pied Kingfisher |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
White-throated Kingfisher |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Black-capped Kingfisher |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Blue-tailed Bee-eater |
Scarce |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Red-throated Pipit |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
Black-winged Cuckoo-shrike |
Scarce |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
Bluethroat |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Hwamei |
Common |
- |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
Chinese Penduline Tit |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Yellow-breasted Bunting |
Common |
RC |
- |
- |
Vulnerable |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Red-billed Starling |
Common |
GC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
White-cheeked Starling |
PRC |
- |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
Black-naped Oriole |
Scarce |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
Number
of Species of Conservation Interest |
22 |
22 |
29 |
23 |
21 |
12 |
Notes:
1.
All wild
birds are Protected under Wild Animal Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170)
2.
Fellowes et al. (2002); GC=Global concern;
RC=Regional Concern; LC=Local Concern; PGC=Potential Global Concern;
PRC=Potential Regional Concern. Letter in parentheses indicate that the
assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites
rather than in general occurrence.
3.
List of
Wild Animals under State Protection (promulgated by State
Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January, 1989).
4.
Zheng and
Wang (1998).
5.
WEF EIA =
Feasibility Study of Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA; Add WEF EIA = Additional Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA;
ACTF = Animal Carcass Treatment Facilities EIA; STF ES = Sludge Treatment
Facilities Environmental Study; STF EIA = Sludge Treatment Facilities
Feasibility Study EIA; WENT Ex EIA = West New Territories Landfill Extensions
Feasibility Study EIA.
6.
Protected
under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.
586)
7a.4.3.2 Breeding activities of Little Grebe were noted from the study area in previous studies (Table 7a.4). Figure 7a.4 shows the locations where breeding activities of Little Grebe previously recorded from the ash lagoons. It should be noted that the ash lagoon population contributed to about 6% and 10% of the total breeding population in Hong Kong in 2000 and 2001 respectively (EPD, 2003a).
Table 7a.4 Breeding Activities of Little Grebes Previously Recorded from Ash Lagoons
Literature |
Date |
Location |
Breeding
Activities |
Abundance |
Additional
Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA (EPD, 2003a). |
August – September 2000 June 2001 |
East Lagoon East Lagoon Middle Lagoon West Lagoon |
Full grown immature birds Recently hatched young birds Nest Breeding pairs Breeding pairs Breeding pairs |
4 3 1 5 pairs 3 pairs At least 1 pairs |
Animal
Carcass Treatment Facilities EIA (EPD, 2003b) |
August- December 2001 |
Open water of lagoon |
Birds foraging and loafing |
Up to 11 |
Sludge
Treatment Facilities Environmental Study (EPD, 2006) |
September- October 2004 |
Middle Lagoon |
Juvenile birds |
3 |
Sludge
Treatment Facilities Feasibility Study EIA (EPD, 2008) |
September 2008 |
East Lagoon Middle Lagoon |
Juvenile birds Breeding pair Recently hatched chicks |
2 1 4 |
West
New Territories Landfill Extensions Feasibility Study EIA (EPD, 2009) |
Wet season 2007 |
Middle Lagoon West Lagoon |
Nests Juvenile birds |
3 Not available |
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.3.3 A total of 66 avifaunal species were found from the study area in the current study. Relatively high diversity and abundance were recorded at the ash lagoon and grassland/shrubland habitats. Chinese Bulbul (Pycnonotus sinensis) and Crested Myna (Aridotheres cristalleus) were the most common species. Wetland species, such as Little Grebe, Little Egret, Little Ringed Plover and Kentish Plover were also dominated at the ash lagoon. In which, the northern part of the Middle Lagoon, where was often dry and supported scarce vegetation, was scarce in avifaunal richness and diversity. A full list of avifaunal species recorded is given in Appendix 7a.7. Of which, 21 species are considered of conservation interest and listed in Table 7a.5. Photographic records of avifauna species of conservation interest are provided in Appendix 7a.8.
Table 7a.5 Avifaunal Species of Conservation Interest Recorded within the Study Area
Common Name1 |
Scientific Name |
Distribution in HK |
Level of Concern2 |
Protection Status in China3 |
|
IUCN Red List |
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
Common |
PRC |
- |
- |
- |
Great Egret |
Egretta alba |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
Pacific Reef Egret |
Egretta sacra |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
Common |
PRC (RC) |
- |
- |
- |
Eurasian Wigeon |
Anas penelope |
Winter Visitor |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
Osprey5 |
Pandion haliaetus |
Common |
RC |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
Black Kite5 |
Milvus migrans |
Common |
(RC) |
Class II |
- |
- |
Crested Goshawk5 |
Accipiter trivirgatus |
Uncommon |
- |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
Common Buzzard5 |
Buteo buteo |
Common |
- |
Class II |
- |
- |
Common Kestrel5 |
Falco tinnunculus |
Common |
- |
Class II |
- |
- |
Peregrine Falcon5 |
Falco peregrinus |
Scarce |
(LC) |
Class II |
Rare |
- |
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
Kentish Plover |
Charadrius alexandrinus |
Abundant |
RC |
- |
- |
- |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis |
Common |
- |
Class II |
Vulnerable |
- |
Lesser Coucal |
Centropus bengalensis |
Common |
- |
Class II |
Vulnerable |
- |
Pacific Swift |
Apus pacificus |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
Uncommon |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon Smyrnensis |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
- |
- |
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
Common |
LC |
- |
- |
- |
Notes:
1.
All wild
birds are Protected under Wild Animal Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170)
2.
Fellowes et al. (2002); GC=Global concern;
RC=Regional Concern; LC=Local Concern; PGC=Potential Global Concern;
PRC=Potential Regional Concern. Letter
in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness
in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.
3.
List of
Wild Animals under State Protection (promulgated by State
Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January, 1989).
4.
Zheng and
Wang (1998).
5.
Protected
under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.
586)
Little Grebe
7a.4.3.4
A peak count of 5, 8 and 20 individuals
of Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis)
was recorded from the open water of the East, Middle and West Lagoons
respectively during an additional survey conducted in August 2009. The species is locally common in
7a.4.3.5 Little Grebe favours habitats with open water and emergent vegetation which support a relatively high abundance of aquatic invertebrates (EPD, 2003a). They utilize a wide range of wetland areas including gei wais in Mai Po, and also elsewhere in fishponds and reservoirs.
7a.4.3.6 The lagoon habitat was used by the species for breeding. One individual was recorded incubating the eggs in the Middle Lagoon in August 2009. Seven recently hatched chicks from two broods were found in the West Lagoon, and one breeding pairs with one recently hatched chicks were observed in the East Lagoon.
7a.4.3.7 Though the West Lagoon is subjected to active dredging of fly ash, Little Grebe seems to adapt to the disturbed environment and prefer breeding there. It is probably because of relatively stable water level of the ponds compared to the condition in the East and Middle Lagoons. The breeding season of this opportunist breeder can be long and varies with the amount of rainfall during the year. Heavy rainfall in the summer floods out some nests and birds may re-build and lay again during the early autumn (Carey et al, 2001). The nesting density of Little Grebes has a broad variation, depending mainly on the emergent vegetation cover. The nest distance could be ranged from 13 m to 465 m (EPD, 2003a).
Ardeids
7a.4.3.8
Five species of ardeids were
recorded from the study area during recent surveys, including Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea),
Great Egret (Egretta alba), Little
Egret (Egretta garzetta), Pacific
Reef Egret (Egretta sacra) and
Chinese Pond Heron (Ardeola bacchus). The large, secure populations of Great Egret,
Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron and Grey Heron in
7a.4.3.9 Most of Little Egrets were recorded from the watercourse habitat and the Middle Lagoon. A peak count of 11 and 6 individuals was recorded in June 2009 respectively. Other records from one to five individuals were made in the West Lagoon, grassland/shrubland, seawall and coastal waters. However, the number of Little Egret recorded only constituted a very small portion of the species’ peak count of 2076 in Deep Bay Area (Anon, 2009) and hence Little Egret was not considered of conservation importance in the study area.
7a.4.3.10
The numbers of Grey Heron,
Great Egret and Chinese Pond Heron within the study area were relatively low in
compared to the total population of the species in
7a.4.3.11
Only a single individual of
Pacific Reef Egret was recorded in the coastal waters off the Middle Lagoon in
January 2009. The local population of
the species are considered of conservation interest in view of the restricted
breeding range in
Raptors
7a.4.3.12 Six species of raptors were recorded from the study area during the surveys: Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Black Kite (Milvus migrans), Crested Goshawk (Accipiter trivirgatus), Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo), Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). However, not all of them were recorded utilizing the study area. Crested Goshawk and Common Kestrel were recorded on passage over the study area. All these raptors are listed as Class II under PRC’s Wild Animal Protection Law.
7a.4.3.13
A single individual of Osprey
was recorded bathing in the open water of the Middle Lagoon in January
2009. Fellowes et al. (2002) considered the
species as of regional conservation concern due to its restricted population in
both regional and local context. The
species is locally common winter visitor with occasional summer records (Carey et al, 2001). Most records are from
7a.4.3.14 A single individual of Peregrine Falcon was also recorded in the open water of the Middle Lagoon in January 2009. The species is a scarce resident, but was recorded at widespread localities (Carey et al., 2001). It is regarded as of local conservation interest due to its restricted number of breeding and/or roosting localities. The study area is therefore not considered of conservation importance to the species.
7a.4.3.15
Black Kites are abundant winter
visitors and occur in the urban areas and over
7a.4.3.16
Common Buzzard is common winter
visitor and scarce passage migrant in
Waders
7a.4.3.17 Two species of waders recorded in the study area were of conservation interest, including Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius) and Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus).
7a.4.3.18
A peak count of 21 and 31
individuals of Little Ringed Plover and Kentish Plover were recorded from the
Middle Lagoon in March 2009. Little
Ringed Plover is considered of local concern by Fellowes et al. (2002) due to the
restricted breeding range in
7a.4.3.19
Kentish Plover is primarily a
winter visitor but small numbers are also spring and autumn migrants (Carey et al., 2001). It is regarded as of regional concern due to
its restricted locality in both regional and local context and its highly
concentrated regional population (Fellowes et
al., 2002). The number recorded is
small (about 1%) compared to the peak count of 2094 within
Kingfishers
7a.4.3.20
Two species of kingfishers
recorded in the study area were of local conservation interest: Pied Kingfisher
(Ceryle rudis) and White-breasted
Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis). All of them are considered of conservation
concern due to the restricted breeding population in
7a.4.3.21
A peak count of two individuals
of Pied Kingfisher was reported from the East Lagoon in January 2009 and the
seawall in June 2009. The species is
uncommon, localized resident in
7a.4.3.22
A peak count of four
White-breasted Kingfishers was recorded from the East, Middle and West Lagoons
in June 2009. White-breasted Kingfishers
are locally common residents in autumn and winter (Carey et al., 2001). Nest holes on
the eroded slopes above
Other birds
7a.4.3.23
Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope) is an abundant winter
visitor to
7a.4.3.24
A peak count of 4 Greater
Coucals (Centropus sinensis) was
recorded from the watercourse W1 and secondary woodland habitat in June 2009.
Whilst, a Lesser Coucal (Centropus
bengalensis) was found flying over the study area in March 2009. Although they are listed as Class II protected
animal species under PRC’s Wild Animal Protection Law, both are common and
widespread in
7a.4.3.25
A peak count of 8 Pacific
Swifts (Apus pacificus) was recorded
flying over the East Lagoon in March 2009. Pacific Swift is
considered of local concern due to the restricted breeding site in
7a.4.3.26
Record of one Zitting Cisticola
(Cisticola juncidis) was made from
Middle and East Lagoons in January and March 2009 respectively. The species is a common winter visitor and
passage migrant (Carey et al., 2001).
It is widespread
in open areas of long grass, but is most abundant at places such as
Literature Review
7a.4.4.1
Terrestrial mammals
including Chiroptera, Rodentia, Carnivora and Artiodactyla were previously recorded
within or in the vicinity of the study area of the Project (EPD, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2008,
2009). In which, three bat species consisting
of Leschenault’s Rousette (Rousette leschenaultia), Short-nosed Fruit Bat (Cynopterus sphinx) and Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrelle abramus) were recorded by direct observation
in the lagoons and the adjacent WENT Landfill site (EPD, 2006, 2008,
2009). All three bat species are abundant and widespread in
7a.4.4.2
Several rodent species were previously
recorded within and adjacent to the lagoons by direction observation and
indirect evidence such as burrows. Surveys for the Additional Waste-to-Energy
Facilities EIA (EPD, 2003a) recorded Ryukyu Mouse (Mus caroli)
trapped in the ash lagoons. Burrow entrances of
rats (Rattus spp. or Niviventer fulvescens) were also found
beside the lagoons, and rodent burrows were seen in the East and Middle
Lagoons. Ryukyu Mouse has a restricted distribution in
7a.4.4.3
Direct observation of Small
Asian Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus)
was also sighted on the access road of the ash
lagoons (EPD, 2009). Moreover, indirect
evidence such as footprints or scats of Small Asian Mongoose, Masked Palm Civet (Paguma
larvata), Leopard Cat (Prionailurus
bengalensis) and Small Indian Civet (Viverricula
indica) was previously recorded. Footprints or scats of the former three
species were found in areas of wet, exposed fly ash in
the Middle Lagoon (EPD, 2006), while scats of
Small Indian Civet were found on a grassy hillside above Nim Wan Road, on a concrete path around the East Lagoon and
seawall of the lagoon (EPD, 2003b, 2009). Masked Palm Civet, Leopard Cat and Small
Asian Mongoose are locally uncommon,
while Small Indian Civet is abundant in
7a.4.4.4
In addition, footprints of Chinese Muntjac (Muntiacus reevesii) or Red Muntjac (M. muntjak) were recorded on the hillside near watercourse W2, outside the study area of the Project (EPD, 2003b). Red Muntjac is abundant and widespread in
7a.4.4.5 In the adjacent WENT Landfill site and its vicinity, five species of mammals were also recorded by Shea et al. (1995), which included Asian House Rat (Rattus tanezumi), Chestnut Spiny Rat (Niviventer fulvescens), Lesser Rice-field Rat (Rattus losea), Musk Shrew (Suncus murinus) and Small Asian Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus). Rodent and insectivore populations were expected to be supported by the woodland and shrubland habitats at Nim Wan (EPD, 2003a). Mongoose is large and mobile, and would be expected to move throughout the area. They probably forage in areas abundant of rodent and reptile, but not in the ash lagoons (ibid).
7a.4.4.6 The mammal species of conservation interest recorded in previous literatures are summarized in Table 7a.6. Photographic records of mammal species of conservation interest are provided in Appendix 7a.8.
Table 7a.6 Mammal Species of Conservation Interest Previously Recorded from the Ash Lagoons and its Vicinity.
Common Name1 |
Distribution in HK |
Level of Concern3 |
Protection Status in China4 |
References
|
Musk
Shrew |
Common |
- |
- |
Landfill EcoIA & Monitoring5 |
Leschenault's
Rousette1 |
Common |
(LC) |
- |
WENT Ex EIA5 |
Short-nosed
Fruit Bat1 |
Common |
- |
- |
STF ES5;
WENT Ex EIA5 |
Japanese
Pipistrelle1 |
Abundant |
- |
- |
STF ES5;
STF EIA5; WENT Ex
EIA5 |
Chestnut
Spiny Rat |
Abundant |
- |
- |
Add WEF EIA5; Landfill EcoIA & Monitoring5 |
Lesser
Rice-field Rat |
Uncommon |
- |
- |
Landfill EcoIA & Monitoring5 |
Asian
House Rat |
Uncommon |
- |
- |
Landfill EcoIA & Monitoring5 |
Ryukyu
Mouse |
Restricted |
- |
- |
Add WEF EIA5 |
Masked
Palm Civet1 |
Uncommon |
PRC |
- |
STF ES5 |
Small
Indian Civet1 |
Uncommon |
- |
Class II |
ACTF5;
WENT Ex EIA5 |
Small
Asian Mongoose1 |
Abundant |
- |
- |
STF ES5;
WENT Ex EIA5;
Landfill EcoIA & Monitoring5 |
Leopard
Cat1,2 |
Uncommon |
- |
- |
STF ES5 |
Red
Muntjac/ Chinese Muntjac1,2 |
Uncommon/ Data deficient |
PRC |
- |
ACTF5
|
Notes:
1.
Protected
under Wild Animal Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170)
2.
Protected
under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.
586)
3.
Fellowes et al. (2002); LC=Local Concern;
PRC=Potential Regional Concern. Letter in parentheses indicate that the
assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites
rather than in general occurrence.
4.
List of
Wild Animals Under State Protection (promulgated by State Forestry
Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January, 1989).
5.
WEF EIA =
Feasibility Study of Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA; Add WEF EIA = Additional Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA;
ACTF = Animal Carcass Treatment Facilities EIA; STF ES = Sludge Treatment
Facilities Environmental Study; STF EIA = Sludge Treatment Facilities
Feasibility Study EIA; WENT Ex EIA = West New Territories Landfill Extensions
Feasibility Study EIA.
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.4.7
A dead body of Small Indian
Civet (Viverricula indica) was found
on the access road north of the Middle Lagoon.
The species forages on the woodland floor and prefers to excrete on road
or exposed area (Shek, 2005). The Middle
Lagoon is therefore not used as a foraging ground by the species. Two individuals of Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus abramus) were sighted
lingering above the access road between the East and Middle Lagoons in February
2009. Small Indian Civet and Japanese
Pipistrelle are abundant and widespread in
7a.4.4.8 Indirect observation of scats of mammal species were also recorded during recent surveys. Scats of Small Indian Civet were found on the seawall in June 2009.
Literature Review
7a.4.5.1
A total of 2 to 6
amphibian species and 4 to 10 reptile species were previously recorded within
or in the vicinity of the study area of the Project (EPD,
2003b, 2006, 2008, 2009). The majority
are common and widespread in
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.5.2
Direct observation or evidence
of six amphibian and three reptile species were recorded from the study area in
recent surveys (Appendix
7a.7). All the species are common and widely
distributed in
7a.4.6 Dragonflies and Butterflies
Literature Review
7a.4.6.1
A total of 6 to 22 dragonfly
and 5 to 39 butterfly species were previously observed within or in the vicinity
of the study area of the Project (EPD, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2009).
Majority of the
species are common and widespread except Coastal Glider (Macrodiplax cora), which is uncommon in Hong Kong (
7a.4.6.2 Surveys for the Sludge Treatment Facilities Feasibility Study EIA (EPD, 2008) also recorded 7 dragonfly, 2 damselfly and 30 butterfly species within or in the vicinity of the study area of the Project. Majority of the species are common and widespread in Hong Kong except uncommon species of Common Jay (Graphium doson axion), Danaid Eggfly (Hypolimnas misippus) and Little Branded Swift (Pelopidas agna), and rare Glassy Bluebottle (Graphium cloanthus). Amongst these, Danaid Eggfly and Glassy Bluebottle are of local concern (Fellowes et al., 2002). Males of Danaid Eggfly usually inhabit highland area and females are rather rare, occurring near agricultural land and fish ponds in the Territories (Lo et al., 2004). Glassy bluebottle occurs only in dense forests and has been recorded from Shing Mun, Tai Mo Shan, Tai Po Kau, Lam Tseun, Ma On Shan and Pat Sin Leng (Lo et al., 2004).
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.6.3
One damselfly and 11 dragonfly
species were recorded within the study area in recent survey (Appendix 7a.7). Most of the species are
common and widespread in
7a.4.6.4
Twenty-seven species of
butterfly were recorded within the study area (Appendix 7a.7). Except two, other species
found are common and widespread in
7a.4.6.5
Chestnut Bob prefers dry grassy areas associated with shady secondary
growth (Bascombe et al., 1999). Small colonies of the
species are found throughout
7a.4.6.6
A female Red Lacewing was
encountered once in the grassland/shrubland habitat of the East Lagoon in June
2009. Females of this species appear to
wander infrequently near the larval foodplant (Passiflora cochinchinensis). Whilst, males are often found far from the larval foodplant
(Bascombe et al., 1999). However, no Passiflora cochinchinensis was recorded during vegetation survey. One
individual was also reported from West New Territories Landfill Extensions
Feasibility Study EIA (EPD, 2009), but far away
from the study area in Lung Kwu Tan. The
species has been recorded from Plover Cove, Lantau North,
Literature Review
7a.4.7.1
Six to twelve fish species were
previously recorded within the ash lagoons and the two streams within the study
area (EPD, 2003a, 2003b). Fish
communities in the tidal channel and lower reaches of stream west of the study
area were dominated by common estuarine species such as Grey Mullet (Mugil cephalus) and Jarbua terapon (Terapon jarbua) (EPD, 2006). Tilapia (Oreochromis
sp.) and Mullet (Mug/Lisa sp.), were observed at the Middle Lagoon and in the tidal channel (EPD,
2003a). Most of the fish observed are
common except Squaliobarbus curriculus, an
unconfirmed cyprinid species Osteochilus
vittatus and Dark-margined Flagtail (Kuhlia
marginata) (EPD, 2003a, 2003b, 2006).
Squaliobarbus curriculus had
not been recorded previously in Hong Kong whereas Osteochilus vittatus is rare in
7a.4.7.2 Invertebrate communities in the ash lagoons and streams were of poor species diversity and richness (EPD, 2003b, 2006). Freshwater communities in the East and Middle Lagoons were dominated by abundant fauna of libellulid dragonfly nymphs, small crustaceans such as ostracods and copepods, and notonectid/corixid water-beetles (EPD, 2003a, 2006). Vast numbers of the water snail Melanoides tuberculata were present in the shallow pools in the East Lagoon (EPD, 2006).
7a.4.7.3 Invertebrate communities in the streams were dominated by taxa tolerant of brackish waters (e.g. amphipods, chironomids and polychaetes) (EPD, 2003b, 2006). Amphipods and chironomids were abundant in the two streams. Dragonfly and stonefly larvae were found in watercourse W2 while oligochaetes and polychaetes were recorded in watercourse W1 (EPD, 2003b). Higher diversity and abundance were found in watercourse W1 than watercourse W2, with records of Atyid shrimp Caridina cantonensis, small pond skaters and crabs Varuna litterata (EPD, 2009). Two shrimp species and damselfly nymph were also recorded in watercourse W1 (EPD, 2008). The lower reach of this stream were dominated by Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and Atyid shrimp Cardina cantonensis (ibid), while freshwater Long-armed Shrimp (Macrobrachium sp.) was observed in the upstream reach outside the current study boundary (EPD, 2003a).
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.7.4 A total of 27 freshwater species were recorded in recent surveys. A full list of freshwater species recorded is given in Appendix 7a.7.
7a.4.7.5 The upper reach of the watercourse W1 was abundant in water mite Metrocrois sp. Shrimps such as Macrobrachium hainanense and Caridina cantonensis, caddisfly Anisocentropus maculatus, mayfly Leptohlebiidae and whirligig beetle Gyrinidae were also commonly found. The midstream had a much lower diversity, dominated by Chamelon Goby Tridentiger trigonocephalus and leech. Water skater Ptilomera tigrina and oligochaete were also recorded. Five fish species were found in the tidal channel, including T. trigonocephalus, Terapon jarbuam, Mugil cephalus, Oreochromis niloticus and Periophthalmus modestus. No rare species or species of conservation concern were found.
7a.4.7.6 The watercourse W2 was abundant in insect larvae, including dragonflies Tramea and Trithemis, mayflies Baetidae, Leptohlebiidae and Heptageniidae, trueflies Simulium sp. and Chironomidae and water skater Ptilomera tigrina. Snail Physella acuta and water mites Hydrachinida were also dominant.
Literature Review
7a.4.8.1 Intertidal habitats within the study area supported low species diversity. Five to thirteen intertidal species were recorded on the seawall of the ash lagoons with rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata dominated the area (EPD, 2003a, 2008). The low shore was dominated by Saccostrea cucullata and the middle shore was dominated by Nerita yoldii (EPD, 2006, 2009). Other common species included nerite Nerita albicilla and encrusting algae Hildenbrandia rubra (EPD, 2008). Only occasional records of periwinkles, barnacles and black mussels were found in the upper shore (ibid). High abundance of a common crab species in western waters Metapograpsus quatridentatus was recorded (EPD, 2006, 2009).
7a.4.8.2
Nineteen faunal taxa were
recorded in tidal channel (EPD, 2003b). The
substratum at the mouth of tidal channel was dominated by oysters Crassostrea gigas and a couple of
mudskipper Periophthalmus (EPD, 2006,
2009). Other fauna found included
gastropods, bivalves and crustacean (EPD, 2003b). All species recorded are common and
widespread in
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.8.3 The intertidal habitat within the study area is composed of artificial seawall with sloping boulders. A total of 26 floral and faunal species were recorded in the walk-through and transect surveys. None of the recorded species was rare or considered as species of conservation interest. Detailed results of the intertidal surveys are presented in Appendix 7a.7.
7a.4.8.4
Similar abundance and species
diversity were shown in dry and wet seasons. But species composition varied slightly. Similar to the previous findings, the low
shore was dominated by rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata and erect/encrusting algae. Ulva sp. was found in dry season, whereas Hapalospongidion
gelatinosum was present in wet season. The middle
shore was abundant in rock oyster S. cucullata and nerite Nerita albicilla. The high shore
was dominated by N. albicilla, periwinkles Echinolittorina
radiata and Littoraria
articulata.
Mobile species such as crab Hemigrapsus
sanguineus and sea slater Ligia exotica were mainly
found at the low shore. Other species
found included tubeworm, sea anemone, gastropods, bivalves and crustacean. All species recorded are common and
widespread in
7a.4.8.5
The water level was extremely
low during wet season survey. Gorgonian Echinomuricea sp. was
also recorded exposed in low tide. This
species is common across
Literature Review
7a.4.9.1
Consultancy Study on Marine
Benthic Communities in
7a.4.9.2
The geographical distribution
of reef-building scleractinian corals in
Recent Survey Results
7a.4.9.3
Results similar to EIA study at
Pillar Point were obtained. The seabed
of the artificial seawall was composed of artificial boulders with scattered
rock. Very low coverage (<1%) of single gorgonian
species Echinomuricea sp. was
found. The locations of the gorgonian
found are given
in Figure
7a.3. The
size of gorgonians ranged from 3 to 11 cm in height compared to those recorded
in Chiu Keng Wan (size ranged from 15 cm to 40 cm). The condition was unhealthy. Part of the gorgonian was
dead. Echinomuricea sp. is common across
Literature Review
7a.4.10.1
Chinese White Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) and Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) are the two most commonly found marine mammals in
7a.4.10.2
Finless Porpoise only occurs in the eastern and southern waters of
7a.5.1.1 With reference to EIAO-TM Annex 8 criteria, the ecological importance of recorded habitats is evaluated in Table 7a.7 to Table 7a.15
Table 7a.7 Ecological Value of Ash Lagoon
in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Ash Lagoon |
Naturalness |
East Lagoon The PFA dumping ground is man-made and subject to
frequent disturbance/modification from CLP’s PFA filling activities. Pools formed after rainstorms were
ephemeral in nature and covered less than 10% of the total lagoon area during dry season, to
approximately 20% flooded during the wet season. The
southern part of the lagoon was stockpiled with PFA. Middle Lagoon The PFA
dumping ground is man-made in nature and subject to relatively lower
disturbance. No PFA filling activities
were observed during the surveys. The
amount of water level was found to be varied with the
amount of rainfall. The southern part
of the lagoon was flooded through the survey period
(i.e. January to June 2009). West
Lagoon The PFA
dumping ground is man-made in nature and subject to frequent
disturbance/modification from CLP’s dredging activities. Permanent pools formed at the rim of the
lagoon are constantly flooded with water. |
Size |
East Lagoon: small (9.39 ha) Middle Lagoon: medium (21.28 ha; ~5 ha at the southern part was with open water, ~3 ha of which was core area for Little Grebe) West Lagoon: small (13.53 ha) |
Diversity |
East
Lagoon Floral
diversity: Low (26 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (18 avifaunal species, 1 amphibian species, 4
butterfly species and 3 dragonfly species) Middle
Lagoon Floral
diversity: Low (29 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (25 avifaunal species, 1 mammal species, 3
amphibian species, 1 reptile species, 4 butterfly species and 6 dragonfly
species) West
Lagoon Floral
diversity: Low (28 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (16 avifaunal species, 3 amphibian species, 2 butterfly
species and 2 dragonfly species) |
Rarity |
East
Lagoon Seven
avifaunal species of conservation interest were recorded in the recent surveys (Little Grebe, Grey Heron, Chinese Pond
Heron, Eurasian Wigeon, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher and
Zitting Cisticola). Middle
Lagoon Eight
avifaunal species, one mammal and one dragonfly species of conservation
interest were recorded in the recent surveys (Little Grebe, Little Egret, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Little Ringed
Plover, Kentish Plover, White-throated Kingfisher, Zitting Cisticola, Small
Indian Civet and Coastal Glider). West
Lagoon Three
avifaunal species of conservation interest were recorded in the recent surveys (Little Grebe, Little Egret and
White-throated Kingfisher). |
Re-creatability |
High |
Fragmentation |
Moderate. The three lagoons are separated by traffic
roads. |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
East
Lagoon Low, with frequent disturbance from PFA filling activities. Middle
Lagoon Low, with
frequent disturbance and variation of site conditions. West
Lagoon Low, with frequent disturbance from PFA
dredging activities. |
Nursery
ground |
Potential
breeding ground for a bird species of conservation interest (Little Grebe). |
Age |
The
lagoons were constructed 15-20 years ago. |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
East
Lagoon Low to moderate Middle
Lagoon Moderate
for avifauna, low for butterfly and dragonfly West
Lagoon Low to
moderate |
Ecological value |
Low
to moderate |
Table 7a.8 Ecological Value of Secondary
Criteria |
Secondary |
Naturalness |
Habitat is dominated by native species, but
is secondary in nature. |
Size |
Small (3.31 ha) |
Diversity |
Floral
diversity: Low to moderate (59 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (13 avifaunal species, 1 amphibian species, 21
butterfly species and 2 dragonfly species) |
Rarity |
One
avifaunal species of conservation interest was recorded in the recent surveys (Greater Coucal). |
Re-creatability |
Recreatability
is moderate but the habitat requires several decades to re-create. |
Fragmentation |
Moderate |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Moderate |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Young in
view of the structural complexity and community composition |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low to
moderate |
Ecological value |
Low
to moderate |
Table 7a.9 Ecological Value of Grassland/Shrubland in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Grassland/Shrubland |
Naturalness |
Habitat
is largely natural but likely to be frequently disturbed by hill fires. |
Size |
Large (33.05
ha) |
Diversity |
Floral
diversity: Low to moderate (103 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (33 avifaunal species, 2 mammal species, 4
amphibian species, 1 reptile species, 22 butterfly species and 7 dragonfly species)
|
Rarity |
Two
avifaunal species of conservation interest, one uncommon and one rare
butterfly species and dragonfly species of conservation interest were recorded in the recent surveys (Little Egret, Greater Coucal,
Chestnut Bob, Red Lacewing and Coastal Glider). |
Re-creatability |
Moderate
to high |
Fragmentation |
Low |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat. |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Relatively
young in terms of succession pathway. |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low to
moderate |
Ecological value |
Low to moderate |
Table 7a.10 Ecological Value of
Criteria |
|
Naturalness |
Planted
man-made habitat dominated by exotic species. |
Size |
Small (4.90
ha) |
Diversity |
Floral
diversity: Low to moderate (57 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (17 avifaunal species, 2 mammal species, 6
butterfly species and 3 dragonfly species) |
Rarity |
No rare
species or species of conservation interest recorded |
Re-creatability |
High |
Fragmentation |
High |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant record |
Age |
Relatively
young |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low |
Ecological value |
Low |
Table 7a.11 Ecological Value of Watercourse in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Watercourse |
Naturalness |
Habitat
was largely natural in upstream sections, but downstream sections have been
subject to extensive channel modification. |
Size |
Small (3.70 ha) Watercourse
W1: 1490 m Watercourse
W2: 206 m |
Diversity |
Floral diversity:
Low (27 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (12 avifaunal species and 27 freshwater species) |
Rarity |
W1: Five
avifaunal species of conservation interest were recorded in the recent surveys (Great Egret, Little Egret, Chinese Pond
Heron, Greater Coucal and White-throated Kingfisher). W2: No
rare species or species of conservation interest was recorded in the recent surveys. |
Re-creatability |
Low to moderate |
Fragmentation |
W1: Low W2:
Moderate to high. A steep concrete lined cascade constructed between
midstream and estuarine section. |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Not
applicable |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low |
Ecological value |
W1:
Low to moderate W2:
Low |
Table 7a.12 Ecological Value of Developed Area/Disturbed Area in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Developed area/Disturbed area |
Naturalness |
Man-made
habitat |
Size |
Small (9.49 ha) |
Diversity |
Floral
diversity: Low to moderate (125 species) Faunal
diversity: Low to moderate (11 avifaunal species, 1 mammal species, 1 amphibian
species, 2 reptile species, 9 butterfly species and 3 dragonfly species) |
Rarity |
No rare
species or species of conservation interest was recorded in the recent surveys. |
Re-creatability |
High |
Fragmentation |
Not
applicable |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Not
applicable |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low |
Ecological value |
Low |
Table 7a.13 Ecological Value of Orchard in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Orchard |
Naturalness |
Planted
man-made habitat |
Size |
Small (0.79
ha) |
Diversity |
Floral
diversity: Low (4 species) Faunal
diversity: Low (4 avifaunal species, 1 reptile species, 9 butterfly species
and 3 dragonfly species) |
Rarity |
No rare
species or species of conservation interest recorded |
Re-creatability |
High |
Fragmentation |
Low |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby highly valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Relatively
young |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low |
Ecological value |
Low |
Table 7a.14 Ecological Value of Seawall in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Seawall |
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat, but subsequently subject to
low human disturbance/modification. |
Size |
Small (1.51 ha) |
Diversity |
Floral diversity: Low (26 species) Faunal diversity: Low (20 intertidal species)
|
Rarity |
Six
avifaunal species and one mammal species of conservation interest as well as
one gorgonian species were recorded in the recent surveys (Grey Heron, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron,
Black Kite, Common Buzzard, Pied Kingfisher, Small Indian Civet (scat) and Echinomuricea sp.). |
Re-creatability |
High |
Fragmentation |
Low |
Ecological
linkage |
Not
functionally or structurally linked to any nearby valuable habitat |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
About 15
years since construction |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low |
Ecological value |
Low |
Table 7a.15 Ecological Value of Coastal Waters in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site
Criteria |
Coastal waters |
Naturalness |
Natural
but in close proximity to one of the busiest shipping lanes in |
Size |
Large (56.50
ha) |
Diversity |
Faunal
diversity: low |
Rarity |
Two avifaunal
species of conservation interest and one gorgonian species recorded (Little
Egret, Pacific Reef Egret and Echinomuricea sp.) |
Re-creatability |
Low |
Fragmentation |
Not
applicable |
Ecological
linkage |
Structurally
linked with the preferred habitats of marine mammal located to the south-west
of the habitat (e.g. Sha Chau and |
Potential
value |
Low |
Nursery
ground |
No
significant records |
Age |
Not
applicable |
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Moderate
for benthic infauna. Low for coral
community. No sighting of marine
mammal within the study area. |
Ecological value |
Low |
7a.5.1.2 Most identified habitats (grassland/shrubland, plantation, watercourse W2, developed area/disturbed area, orchard, seawall and coastal waters) in the study area are considered to have low ecological value. Ash lagoon, secondary woodland and watercourse W1 are of low to moderate value.
7a.5.1.3 The Middle Lagoon supported moderate diversity and abundance of avifauna of conservation interest including Little Grebe, Little Egret, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Little Ringed Plover, Kentish Plover, White-throated Kingfisher and Zitting Cisticola. Protected Small Indian Civet and locally concerned Coastal Glider were also found. It was the main foraging and breeding ground for the wetland dependent avifauna and mammal recorded from the study area. However, the lagoon was subject to disturbance from PFA filling activities though such activities were not observed during the surveys. Moreover, only a small part of the southern portion of the lagoon was found to be flooded with water and utilized by wetland dependent birds throughout the survey period. Therefore, the ash lagoon habitat in the Middle Lagoon is ranked of low to moderate ecological value.
7a.5.1.4 Comparatively, the East and West Lagoons supported a low to moderate diversity of faunal species. The past and current management practices accounts for the relatively low value of the habitat. The utmost fluctuation of water levels in the East Lagoon and the regular PFA dumping and removal from the area limit the development of the lagoons to a high-valued wetland habitat. Moreover, about half of the East Lagoon was covered by PFA and shrubland, hence, the effective wet area was at most 25% during wettest months. It appeared to be completely dry during dryer season. Nevertheless, several species of conservation interest (e.g. Little Grebe, Little Egret, Grey Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Eurasian Wigeon, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher and Zitting Cisticola) were also recorded. The East and West Lagoons are therefore considered of low to moderate ecological value due to their volatile and/or fairly disturbed nature.
7a.5.1.5
Secondary woodland habitat is
considered to have low to moderate ecological value. The habitat within the
study area was relatively young and supported only low floral and faunal
diversity compared with other mature secondary woodland in
7a.5.1.6 Watercourse W1 is considered to have low to moderate ecological value. Although the downstream section of watercourse W1 has been channelized, it provided foraging habitat for a number of wetland dependent bird species of conservation interest.
7a.5.1.7 Despite a few species of conservation interest (i.e. avifauna, mammal and gorgonian) were recorded, the seawall and coastal waters habitat within the study area are not unique or major habitats for supporting the recorded species of conservation interest. The recorded avifauna and mammals of conservation interest inhabit a wide range of habitats. In view of artificial nature of the seawall habitat and high traffic disturbance of the coastal waters as well as low species diversity supported, the two habitats are ranked as low.
7a.5.1.8
In accordance with EIAO-TM
Annex 8 criteria, species of conservation interest recorded in the study area
are listed in Table 7a.16. In
reviewing the previous studies, flora and fauna recorded in surveys conducted
in 2008 (i.e. Sludge Treatment Facilities
– Feasibility Study Environmental Impact Assessment and
Table 7a.16 Species of Conservation Interest Recorded in the Study Area of the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon Site in 2008 and 2009
Common name |
Scientific name |
Locations |
Protection status |
Distribution |
Rarity |
Flora |
|||||
Incense Tree |
Aquilaria sinensis |
Grassland/shrubland habitat near the mouth of watercourse W1 |
Cap. 586, Category III nationally protected species in |
Lowland forests and fung shui woods |
Locally common |
Pitcher’s Plant |
Nepenthes mirabilis |
Grassland/shrubland near watercourses |
Cap. 96, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Category LR/LC), CITES
Appendix III |
Wet, open places on granite and sedimentary rocks (western |
Common |
Bamboo Orchid1 |
Arundina graminifolia |
Grassland/shrubland near watercourse W2 |
Cap. 96 and Cap. 586 |
Grassland and streamside |
Locally very common |
Indian Orchid1 |
Zeuxine strateumatica |
Ash Lagoons |
Cap. 96 and Cap. 586 |
Open grassland and fly ash lagoon |
Restricted |
Avifauna |
|||||
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus
ruficollis |
East, Middle and West Lagoons |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from northern |
Locally common |
Grey Heron |
Ardea
cinerea |
East Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from northern |
Locally common |
Great Egret |
Egretta alba |
Tidal channel |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Little Egret |
Egretta
garzetta |
Middle and West Lagoons, seawall, watercourse W1, tidal channel |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Pacific Reef
Egret |
Egretta
sacra |
Coastal waters |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC |
Mainly found in rocky shores in southern areas of |
Locally uncommon |
Cattle Egret1 |
Bubulcus
ibis |
Watercourses and developed/disturbed area |
Cap. 170 |
Widely distributed in |
Locally common |
Chinese Pond
Heron |
Ardeola
bacchus |
East Lagoon and seawall |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Blacked-crowned
Night Heron1 |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
Grassland/shrubland |
Cap. 170 |
Widely distributed in |
Locally common |
Eurasian Wigeon |
Anas
penelope |
East Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from northeast |
Winter Visitor |
Osprey |
Pandion
haliaetus |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170; Cap. 586; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix
II |
Mainly reported
from |
Locally common |
Black Kite |
Milvus
migrans |
Seawall |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix II |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
White-bellied
Sea Eagle1 |
Haliaeetus leucogaster |
Middle Lagoon, grassland/shrubland near the WENT Landfill site |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix II |
Mainly found in
eastern waters of |
Locally
uncommon, about 8 pairs breed in |
Crested Goshawk |
Accipiter
trivirgatus |
On passage over the study area |
Cap. 170; Cap. 586; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix
II |
Widely
distributed in |
Uncommon |
Common Buzzard |
Buteo buteo |
Seawall |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix II |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Common Kestrel |
Falco
tinnunculus |
On passage over the study area |
Cap. 170; Cap. 586; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix
II |
Widely
distributed in |
Common |
Peregrine
Falcon |
Falco
peregrinus |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170; Cap. 586; Class II Protected Animal of PRC; CITES Appendix
II |
Widely
distributed in |
Scarce |
Eurasian Coot 1 |
Fulica atra |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from |
Locally common |
Little Ringed
Plover |
Charadrius
dubius |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Kentish Plover |
Charadrius
alexandrinus |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Abundant |
Common Redshank1 |
Tringa totanus |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from |
Locally common |
Wood Sandpiper1 |
Tringa
glareola |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Eurasian
Woodcock1 |
Scolopax rusticola |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally rare |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus
sinensis |
Watercourse W1
and secondary woodland habitats |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Lesser Coucal |
Centropus
bengalensis |
Flying over the study area |
Cap. 170; Class II Protected Animal of PRC |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Pacific Swift |
Apus
pacificus |
East Lagoon |
Cap, 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
East Lagoon and seawall around the Ash Lagoons |
Cap, 170 |
Mainly reported
from northern |
Locally
uncommon |
White-throated
Kingfisher |
Halcyon
smyrnensis |
East, Middle
and West Lagoons |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Black-capped
Kingfisher1 |
Halcyon
pileata |
Watercourse and
grassland/shrub |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Zitting
Cisticola |
Cisticola
juncidis |
Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from northern |
Locally common |
Blue-tailed Bee-eater1 |
Merops
philippinus |
Grassland/shrubland north of the Middle Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally scarce |
Black-winged
Cuckoo-shrike1 |
Coracina
melaschistos |
Grassland/shrubland |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally scarce |
White-shouldered
Starling1 |
Sturnus
sinensis |
East Lagoon |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Mammal |
|||||
Japanese
Pipistrelle |
Pipistrellus
abramus |
Developed area/disturbed area in the Ash Lagoons |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally very common |
Leschenault’s
Rousette1 |
Rousettus
leschenaulti |
WENT Landfill site |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Short-nosed
Fruit Bat1 |
Cynopterus
sphinx |
WENT Landfill site |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally common |
Small Asian
mongoose1 |
Herpestes
javanicus |
Ash lagoons |
Cap. 170 |
Mainly reported
from |
Locally
uncommon |
Small Indian
Civet |
Viverricula
indica |
Middle Lagoon, seawall around the Ash Lagoons |
Cap. 170 |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally very
common |
Leopard Cat |
Prionailurus
bengalensis |
|
Cap. 170; |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally
uncommon |
Herpetofauna |
|||||
Copperhead
Racer1 |
Elaphe
radiata |
Seawall near East Lagoon |
|
Widely
distributed in |
Locally
uncommon |
Butterfly |
|||||
Red Lacewing |
Cethosia
biblis biblis |
Grassland/shrubland
habitat west of the East Lagoon. |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally rare |
Glassy
Bluebottle1 |
Graphium cloanthus clymenus |
|
Not applicable |
Found in Shing
Mun, Tai Mo Shan, Tai |
Locally rare |
Chestnut Bob |
Iambrix salsala salsala |
Grassland/shrubland
habitat around West Lagoon |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally uncommon |
Common Jay1 |
Graphium
doson axion |
Shrubland
around East Lagoon |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally uncommon |
Danaid Eggfly1 |
Hypolimnus
misippus |
Shrubland
around East Lagoon, secondary woodland along |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally uncommon |
Little Branded
Swift1 |
Pelopidas
agna |
Shrubland
around East Lagoon |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Locally uncommon |
Dragonfly |
|||||
Coastal Glider |
Macrodiplax
cora |
Middle Lagoon, East
Lagoon and the grassland/shrubland habitat south of the Middle Lagoon. |
Not applicable |
Found in Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon, KCRC’s constructed wetland in Kam Tin,
the |
Locally uncommon |
Gorgonian |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Echinomuricea sp. |
Seawall |
Not applicable |
Widely
distributed in |
Common |
Note:
1. Flora/fauna
recorded in previous studies only.
7a.6
Identification and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
7a.6.1.1 The construction of the proposed Project is scheduled to commence in 2013 and complete in 2016. Whilst, the Project is estimated to be in operation in 2016. The facilities of the IWMF Phase 1 mainly include an Incineration Plant, a Mechanical Treatment plant and some ancillary and supporting facilities.
7a.6.1.2 Potential ecological impacts arising from construction and operation phase activities are identified and described in the following sections.
Direct Impact
(i) Habitat and vegetation loss
7a.6.2.1 The direct impact resulted from construction of the proposed Project would be loss of habitats and vegetation within the site boundary.
Loss to ash lagoon habitat and vegetation
7a.6.2.3
However, the condition of
Middle Lagoon is volatile. Wildlife was
found concentrated in the portion containing water.
7a.6.2.4
Similar habitat with more
stable condition could be found in the West Lagoon and Ha Pak Nai. Feasibility
Study of Sludge Treatment Facilities Environmental Study (EPD, 2006)
recorded the whole West Lagoon was filled with PFA on a regular basis and was
unsuitable for Little Grebe. Recently
water pools were formed in the West Lagoon.
Records of juvenile Little Grebes and Little Egret in the West Lagoon under
West New Territories (WENT) Landfill
Extensions Environmental Impact Assessment (EPD, 2008) and the current study indicated
that, Little Grebe and Little Egret from other places (i.e. East and Middle
Lagoons) would occupy the West Lagoon as an alternative habitat. Other landbird species and Small Indian Civet
are mostly habitat generalists. Coastal
Glider, though it is uncommon in Hong Kong, it is widely distributed in Hong
Kong with population occurring in lagoons and estuaries (
7a.6.2.5 Considering the size of the potential foraging habitat is small and alternative habitat is available nearby, the impact due to the loss of foraging ground for the wildlife is anticipated to be low. However, in view of the restricted breeding ground for Little Grebe, the impact due to the loss of habitat is thus considered to be low to moderate. Mitigation to the breeding ground loss would be required.
7a.6.2.6 Vegetation loss is limited to pioneer species (e.g. Pennisetum alopecurodies, Phragmites spp.). The vegetation within the Project site was limited by the volatile condition of the Middle Lagoon and was relatively young in terms of vegetation composition. No plant species of conservation interest would be affected. The impact is therefore anticipated to be minor.
7a.6.2.7 The water level of the Middle Lagoon fluctuated throughout the year. The water level would be high during the wet season, and low during the dry season. Water draining work would be required to facilitate the site formation work only if the site formation work commences during wet season. This would result in an additional loss of 10.28 ha of low to moderate valued ash lagoon habitat at the Middle Lagoon outside the footprint of the IWMF. The loss would be short term, temporary and reversible as the unoccupied Middle Lagoon area would be filled by rainwater in wet season. Apart from the water draining work, it is anticipated that site formation work and other construction works itself would cause negligible change in water level in the unoccupied Middle Lagoon. Thus, physical condition of the unoccupied Middle Lagoon would not be significantly altered if site formation work commences in dry season (i.e. site draining work not required). In view of the abundance and diversity of species of conservation interest affected, the temporary impact due to a further loss of 10 ha of habitat if the site formation work is to be commenced during wet season is considered to be low to moderate and mitigation to this temporary habitat loss would be required.
Loss to seawall habitat
7a.6.2.8 The construction of seawater intake /saline water discharge would result in the loss of approximately 20 m long seawall. No loss of seabed and coastal waters habitats would be expected. The seawall supported low floral and faunal species diversity. Common gorgonian Echinomuricea sp. was recorded along the seawall. The gorgonian would be removed if the seawater intake or saline water discharge is constructed at the section of artificial seawall where the gorgonians are located. However, poor health condition of the gorgonians suggested that the marine environmental condition within the study area was not suitable for the growth of the species of conservation interest. Therefore, in view of the poor habitat quality and the small size of seawall habitat affected, the impact due to the loss of seawall habitat is considered to be low.
(ii) Fauna loss
7a.6.2.9 Fauna with lower mobility such as amphibian and the juveniles of avifauna would subject to higher level of risk, and could be killed or injured by the construction activities. No direct impact to wildlife with higher mobility such as adult avifauna and mammals is expected.
7a.6.2.10 The proposed site is located mainly at the area where faunal diversity is scarce and condition is unfavourable for breeding activities. Therefore, direct loss of fauna is unlikely and the impact is anticipated to be minor.
Indirect Impact
(i) Habitat fragmentation
7a.6.2.11
Water pool at the southern
portion of the Middle Lagoon usually extends to northwest end. The proposed Project would divide the pool
into 2 halves and cause habitat fragmentation.
Habitat fragmentation could inhibit species dispersal and increase edge
effect through changing the vegetation composition and structure at habitat
edges, and increasing susceptibility to disturbance, predation and invasive
species at habitat edges. Core or characteristic species dependent on large habitat patches (e.g.
avifauna) could be lost, and more facultative ‘edge’ species could
concomitantly increase. It, in turns, could result in decline
in species number and population.
7a.6.2.12 Unoccupied portion of the Middle Lagoon with a size of 10 ha and the associated wildlife would be affected. Species recorded inhabiting the pool area which may be dependent on large habitat patches included Little Grebe, Little Egret and the raptors. It was observed during field survey that Little Grebe and Little Egret would use smaller water pools (about 1 ha) in West Lagoon. Seemingly, these two species are less affected by habitat fragmentation and edge effect. Provided that human and noise disturbance is shielded, the species would continue to inhabit the unoccupied Middle Lagoon. However, the construction of the IWMF in the middle of the lagoon might create a barrier effect that discourages the birds to explore other suitable habitats at the other side of the lagoon. Taking consideration of the original moderately fragmented nature of the ash lagoon habitat the impact due to habitat fragmentation is considered to be low to moderate. Mitigation to enhance integrity of the wetland habitat is therefore recommended.
(ii) Disturbance impact
7a.6.2.13 Construction activities would increase human activities and noise disturbance from traffic and construction machinery, and would in turn bring about indirect impacts to nearby habitats and their associated fauna. Potential consequences to wildlife include avoidance of areas in the vicinity of the works areas, and decline in density in areas close to the source of disturbance.
7a.6.2.14 Currently, wildlife inhabiting the habitats near to Nim Wan Road (i.e. plantation, developed area, grassland/shrubland, and secondary woodland) are subject to noise due to traffic entering/leaving the WENT Landfill. Therefore, increase in construction work noise would not significantly intensify the noise impact to wildlife in these areas.
7a.6.2.15
The ash lagoons are about 100 m
away from
7a.6.2.16 From field observation, Little Grebe also bred in the West Lagoon, where was subjected to PFA filling and dredging activities. Therefore, Little Grebe is expected to be tolerant to minor construction disturbance (i.e. site excavation work and backfilling work) provided that mitigation measures, for example in form of shielding, are in place.
7a.6.2.17 However, occasional sudden noise such as piling could be more perturbing than more regular, even louder noise (EPD, 2003) and cause considerable disturbance. In view of its short duration and reversible nature as well as the low to moderate number of species affected, the disturbance impact is considered to be low to moderate. Mitigation measures would be recommended.
(iii) Release of PFA leachate
7a.6.2.18 Piling would be adopted for foundation construction of the proposed Project. The piles could penetrate the base of the Middle Lagoon to the hard granite bedrock. As discussed in Sections 5a.7.1.5 to 5a.7.1.15 of the Water Quality Impact Assessment of this EIA Report, it is unlikely that piling activities would cause significant changes in geological structure of the lagoon site, and the leakage through the base of the Middle Lagoon would not be significant. It is also anticipated that the PFA leachate in the Middle Lagoon is unlikely to cause unacceptable impact on the aquatic environment from an ecotoxicological point of view.
(iv) Construction dust and site runoff
7a.6.2.19 Dust generated during the construction phase and improper storage or dumping of construction materials could degrade the habitats adjacent to works areas. Construction dust could cover leaves and result in lethal/sublethal effects by reduction in photosynthetic rate, abrasion and blockage of stomata. Accidental spills of oils and other chemicals could also affect aquatic/marine communities. It could result in lethal/sublethal impacts (abnormal structures and reproductive retardation) on aquatic/marine organisms.
7a.6.2.20 The Project site is in immediate vicinity of the water body of the Middle Lagoon. Removal of vegetation within works areas during site formation could elevate sediment levels in site run-off. It could impede aquatic, epifaunal and infaunal communities in the lagoons, watercourse, seawall and coastal waters. Apart from the physical injury caused by larger particles, small particles could clog the respiratory and feeding systems of fish and invertebrates. Increased turbidity could reduce photosynthetic rate of aquatic plants, and affect feeding and other activities of species which are largely sight-dependent.
7a.6.2.21 Previous studies (EPD, 2006) showed that the freshwater communities in the Middle Lagoon were species poor, being dominated by libellulid dragonfly nymphs, small crustaceans such as ostracods and copepods and notonectid/corixid water-bugs. These species are tolerant to turbid water. Moreover, no fish were recorded, and the plant species of conservation interest are far from the proposed construction site. No unacceptable adverse impact would be expected due to construction dust and site runoff.
Direct Impact
7a.6.3.1 The operation phase activities would be confined to the proposed site boundary. No additional land would be occupied during operation. Hence, no direct impacts are anticipated during the operation phase.
Indirect Impact
(i) Disturbance impact
7a.6.3.2 The operation of the IWMF and increased traffic entering and leaving the site would increase disturbance impact. As a consequence, the wildlife would avoid the adjacent areas of the site and associated access road, and the wildlife density close to the source of disturbance would reduce.
7a.6.3.3 All machinery will be enclosed in building structure, and noise generated will be isolated from the nearby wildlife. Noise generated from worker activities at open space and the trucks would be the key sources of disturbance. It is anticipated that the amount of time the workers staying outdoor is short. The duration of noise disturbance on wildlife caused by human activities would be intermittent.
7a.6.3.4 As the access entrance and exit will be placed at the western side of the proposed site, increased traffic along the western side of the Middle Lagoon would be expected. Little Grebe and ardreids inhabit in the unoccupied Middle Lagoon would be potentially affected. But it is known that these species are less susceptible to traffic noise than to human disturbance.
7a.6.3.5 In view of the intermittent nature of increase in human disturbance, and the presence of alternative habitat nearby, the disturbance impact to fauna inhabit in the Middle Lagoon is expected to be low to moderate. Mitigation measures to minimize the disturbance impact and traffic noise such as boundary walls would be required.
(ii) Intake of seawater/discharge of saline water
7a.6.3.6 The amount of seawater taken from the nearby marine waters for the proposed Project daily operation would be small comparing with the waterbody and intake of seawater is not expected to affect the hydrology within the study area.
7a.6.3.7
The proposed Project would
adopt a “zero-discharge” scheme and no processed or unprocessed effluent
would be discharged into
7a.6.3.8 Salinity of saline water discharged would be 45,000 to 57,000 mg/L. Concentration of the discharged saline water is about 1.7-1.8 times of the feedwater. With a low discharge volume (1,520 m3/day), the concentrated saline water would be immediately diluted by marine waters to the level as the feedwater. Besides, the discharged saline water would comply with the standards for effluents discharged into the coastal waters of Deep Bay Water Control Zone. Moreover, marine organisms recorded during field surveys including Echinomuricea sp., are widely distributed in local waters and could be recorded in the more saline eastern waters. It is expected that these species are able to tolerate considerable increased salinity. Therefore, ecological impact on the identified marine habitats and their associated fauna due to the intake of seawater/discharge of saline water would be insignificant.
7a.6.3.9 Potential ecological impacts to habitats arising from the proposed Project are evaluated according to Table 1 of Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM, and are summarized in below.
Table 7a.17 Overall Impact Evaluation: Ash Lagoons
Evaluation criteria |
Ash lagoon |
Habitat quality |
East Lagoon Low to moderate. A man-made PFA dumping
ground subject to frequent disturbance/modification from PFA filling activities. Habitat quality and its
availability to wildlife fluctuated with the water coverage (i.e. rainfall)
in the lagoon and level of human disturbance governed by the intensity of
CLP’s PFA filling activities. The
habitat condition is highly volatile and the whole lagoon was found to be
completely dry before rainy seasons.
The lagoon was completely dry in most part of the year and did not
provide suitable habitat for the water dependent species of conservation in
the area. Lagoon habitat is therefore
not considered to provide a stable habitat for wildlife use. Middle Lagoon Low to moderate. A man-made
PFA dumping ground subject to some degrees of disturbance. Habitat quality fluctuated with the water
coverage (i.e. rainfall) in the lagoon and the level of human disturbance
governed by the intensity of CLP’s PFA filling and dredging activities in the
East and West Lagoons. The lagoon
habitat was relatively stable for wildlife use as the southern part of the
lagoon was found to be flooded with water throughout the period of wet and
dry season surveys. In contrast, the
northern portion was bare ground with scarce vegetation and faunal
diversity. No PFA filling activities
were observed during the survey period.
West Lagoon Low to moderate. The PFA
dumping ground is man-made in nature and subject to frequent
disturbance/modification from CLP’s dredging activities. But pools formed at the rim of the lagoon
contain constant level of water, and provide a stable environment for the water
dependent species of conservation in the area. |
Species |
East Lagoon Seven avifaunal species of conservation
interest recorded (Little Grebe, Grey Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Eurasian
Wigeon, Pied Kingfisher, White-throated Kingfisher and Zitting Cisticola). Middle Lagoon Eight avifaunal species, one mammal and one
dragonfly species of conservation interest recorded (Little Grebe, Little
Egret, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Little Ringed Plover, Kentish Plover,
White-throated Kingfish, Zitting Cisticola, Small Indian Civet and Coastal
Glider) recorded from the lagoon. West Lagoon Three avifaunal species of conservation
interest recorded (Little Grebe, Little Egret and White-throated Kingfisher). A bird species of
conservation interest (Little Grebe) probably breed in pool(s) formed within
the ash lagoon during wet season. |
Size/abundance |
Moderate. Approximately 11 ha of Middle Lagoon would
be lost. Only 1.98 ha (18%) of the
affected area is considered as important habitat for most of species of
conservation interest. The remaining
affected area would be mainly located at the northern portion where the
vegetation is scarce and species diversity is relatively low. Approximately 33.20 ha of ash lagoon
habitat and associated wildlife would be affected due to habitat
fragmentation, construction noise, traffic and human disturbance. But the number of bird found within the
site is relatively small compared with the |
Duration |
Construction
phase Habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation would be permanent in nature. Impact due to construction
noise, traffic and human disturbance would last for 3 years. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation would be irreversible in nature. Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction Phase Low to moderate. The
proposed Project will take up small portion of the Middle Lagoon where
considered as important habitat for most of species of conservation
interest. Construction noise in
particular piling would be detrimental to avifauna. Increase in road traffic and human
disturbance would be low to moderate. Operation Phase Low to moderate. Increase in road traffic
and human disturbance would be low to moderate. |
Overall impact conclusion |
East Lagoon: Low Middle Lagoon: Low to
moderate West Lagoon: Low |
Table 7a.18 Overall Impact Evaluation: Secondary
Evaluation criteria |
Secondary woodland |
Habitat quality |
Low to moderate. Woodland
habitats are immature, but dominated by native species. |
Species |
One avifaunal species of
conservation interest (Greater Coucal) recorded in this habitat. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would not be
directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.19 Overall Impact Evaluation: Grassland/Shrubland
Evaluation criteria |
Grassland/Shrubland |
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
Two avifaunal
species of conservation interest, one uncommon and one rare butterfly species
and dragonfly species of conservation interest (Little Egret, Greater Coucal,
Chestnut Bob, Red Lacewing and Coastal Glider) recorded in this habitat. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would
not be directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.20 Overall Impact Evaluation:
Evaluation criteria |
|
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
No rare species or species
of conservation interest recorded in this habitat. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would not be
directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact
conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.21 Overall Impact Evaluation: Watercourse
Evaluation criteria |
Watercourse |
Habitat quality |
W1: Low to moderate W2: Low |
Species |
Streams provide foraging habitat for five avifaunal
species of conservation interest recorded (Great Egret, Little Egret, Chinese
Pond Heron, Greater Coucal and White-throated Kingfisher). |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would not be
directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
such as avifauna resulting from human disturbance, construction activities
and increased road traffic would be temporary. But impact on aquatic fauna is
expected to be minor. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities, increased road
traffic and sedimentation would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. Indirect impact can be controlled through
good site practices. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.22 Overall Impact Evaluation: Developed Area/Disturbed Area
Evaluation criteria |
Developed area/disturbed area |
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
No rare species
or species of conservation interest recorded in this habitat. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would
not be directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and
increased road traffic would be temporary. Operation Phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would
be permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased
road traffic would be reversible. Operation Phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would
be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.23 Overall Impact Evaluation: Orchard
Evaluation criteria |
Orchard |
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
No rare species or species
of conservation interest recorded in this habitat. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would not be
directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be
permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road
traffic would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance and increased road traffic would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. Operation
Phase Low. The magnitude of the impact is
insignificant as no direct impact is anticipated. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.24 Overall Impact Evaluation: Seawall
Evaluation criteria |
Seawall |
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
Six avifaunal
species and one mammal species of conservation interest and one gorgonian
species (grey Heron, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, Black Kite, Common
Buzzard, Pied Kingfisher and Small Indian Civet (scat)) recorded in this
habitat. |
Size/abundance |
Small. About 20m long
seawall would be disturbed. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Habitat loss due to
construction of water outfall would be permanent. Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from
human disturbance, construction activities, increased road traffic and water
quality change would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, increased road traffic and increased
salinity would be permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction
phase Habitat loss due to
construction of water outfall would be irreversible. Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from
human disturbance, construction activities, increased road traffic and water
quality change would be reversible. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, increased road traffic and increased
salinity would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase Low. The potential direct impact to seawall and
water quality change is localized. Operation
Phase Low. The potential direct impact to seawall and
salinity change is localized. Change
in salinity is insignificant and could be tolerated by marine species. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
Table 7a.25 Overall Impact Evaluation: Coastal Waters
Evaluation criteria |
Coastal waters |
Habitat quality |
Low. |
Species |
The habitats support low biodiversity and two avifaunal species of
conservation interest and one gorgonian species (Little Egret, Pacific Reef
Egret and Echinomuricea sp.)
recorded in this habitat. No sighting
of marine mammals and benthic species of conservation interest were recorded
within the study area. |
Size/abundance |
The habitat would not be
directly affected. |
Duration |
Construction
phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, construction activities, increased road
traffic and water quality change would be temporary. Operation
Phase Indirect impact to wildlife
resulting from human disturbance, increased road traffic and saline water
discharge would be permanent. |
Reversibility |
Construction phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities,
increased road traffic and water quality change would be reversible. Operation Phase Indirect impact
to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, increased road traffic and
saline water discharge would be reversible. |
Magnitude |
Construction
Phase No direct impact is expected
and the area is currently subject to disturbance from heavy traffic in the
nearby areas. Level of water quality
change is localized and insignificant. Operation
Phase No direct impact is expected.
The area is currently subject to disturbance from heavy traffic in the nearby
areas. Increase in salinity due to
saline water discharge would be insignificant and could be tolerated by
marine species.. |
Overall impact conclusion |
Low |
7a.6.3.10 Major impacts to species of conservation importance recorded within the study area have been described. A summary of potential construction and operation phase impacts to all species of conservation importance recorded within the study area is presented in Table 7a.26.
Table 7a.26 Overall Impacts to Species of Conservation Interest
Species of
Conservation Interest |
Construction
phase impacts |
Operation phase
impacts |
||
Description |
Evaluation |
Description |
Evaluation |
|
Indian
Orchid Zeuxine
strateumatica |
The species was
previously recorded from the ash lagoons, but not found in subsequent studies
since 2000. It was small and opportunistic, and could have been displaced as
if the vegetation in the ash lagoon has passed through a natural process of
succession (Chau and Siu, 1998). The
plant is considered to be absent from the ash
lagoons, and no direct or indirect impacts are
anticipated. |
No impact |
No impact |
No impact |
Flora species of conservation interest outside the
Project site (Incense Tree Aquilaria
sinensis, Bamboo Orchid Arundina
graminifolia and Pitcher Plant Nepenthes
mirabilis) |
Individual of
these species falls outside works areas, no direct loss predicted. Construction dust may cover the plant and disturb
photosynthesis. Since the plants are
located far away from the construction site, impact due to construction dust
is anticipated to be negligible. |
No impact |
No impact |
No impact |
Little Grebe Tachybaptus
ruficollis |
One individual
was recorded incubating eggs in the Middle Lagoon suggested that the lagoon
was a potential breeding site of the species.
However, the fluctuated water level reduced the suitability of the
northern portion where the proposed Project located as a breeding site. The proposed
works at the Middle Lagoon might cause direct loss of Little Grebe habitat. Increased edge effect, construction noise,
road traffic, human activities and site runoff to Middle Lagoon might affect
the quality of its habitat. The West
Lagoon, where most Little Grebe juvenile were found, has been subjected to
frequent disturbance from PFA dredging and filling activities. It indicated that Little Grebe can tolerate
construction noise and road traffic.
Increased human activities would have little impact on the species provided
shielding is available. Occasional
sudden noise such as piling could be detrimental. But the impact is temporary and similar
habitat is also available in the adjacent West Lagoon and area near Pak Nai. |
Low to moderate |
General disturbance
levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed Project. The most substantial source of disturbance
would be human activities and road traffic.
The amount of time which the staff staying outdoor is short. Increase in human activities would be
insignificant compared to the present condition. The breeding population of the Little Grebe could be
susceptible to noise disturbance. In view of size of breeding population found in the Middle Lagoon and
the presence of alternative habitat nearby (i.e. West Lagoon), impact due to
increased disturbance on the species is considered to low to moderate. |
Low to moderate |
Other
avifauna species of conservation interested within
the Project site (Great
Egret, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, Osprey, White-bellied
Sea Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Eurasian Coot, Little Ringed Plover, Kentish
Plover, Common Redshank, Eurasian Woodcock, White-throated Kingfisher and
Zitting Cisticola) |
Individuals were recorded from the Middle Lagoon, suggested that the
Project site were used as roosting and foraging sites by the species. The proposed works at the Middle Lagoon might cause direct loss of
their roosting ground. Increased edge
effect, construction noise, road traffic, human activities and site runoff to
Middle Lagoon might affect the quality of their roosting and foraging
habitats. Most species are common and widely distributed in A single bird of |
Low |
General disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of
the proposed Project. The most
substantial source of disturbance would be human activities and road
traffic. The amount of time which the
staff staying outdoor is short.
Increase in human activities would be insignificant compared to the
present condition. Moreover, ardeids
are known to be tolerant to noise and disturbance. Potential disturbance impacts are therefore
considered low. |
Low |
Avifauna
species of conservation interested outside the Project site (Great
Egret, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, White-bellied Sea
Eagle, White-throated Kingfisher, Zitting Cisticola, Grey Heron, Pacific
Reef Egret, Cattle Egret, Black-crowned Night Heron, Eurasian Wigeon,
Black Kite, Crested
Goshawk, Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel, Greater Coucal, Lesser Coucal,
Pacific Swift, Pied Kingfisher, Black-capped Kingfisher, Blue-tailed
Bee-eater, Black-winged Cuckoo-shrike, White-shouldered Starling) |
Individuals
were recorded outside the Project site (i.e.East Lagoon, grassland/shrubland,
woodland, developed area, watercourse, seawall and coastal waters) or flying
over the study area. It indicated the study
area was used as roosting and foraging sites by the species. There will be
no direct loss of their habitats due to the proposed works. Construction noise, road traffic, human
activities and site runoff to the aquatic system might affect the quality of
their roosting and foraging habitats. Most species
are common in |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. Moreover, ardeids are known to be tolerant
to noise and disturbance. Potential
disturbance impacts are therefore considered minor. |
Low or very low depending on their degrees of dependence
on the study area and the distance away
from the Project site |
Mammal species of conservation interest
within the Project site (Small Asian Mongoose and Small Indian Civet) |
Individual or
dead body were recorded from the Middle Lagoon suggested the lagoon was
utilized by the species as foraging habitat or for other purposes. The proposed
works would directly affect their foraging habitat. Construction noise, road traffic, human
activities and site runoff to the Middle Lagoon might affect the quality of
their foraging ground. The species is
fairly widespread in |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. However, there are similar suitable
habitats available nearby for the species.
Potential disturbance impacts are therefore considered low. |
Low |
Mammal
species of conservation interest outside the Project site (Japanese
Pipistrelle, Leschenault’s
Rousette, Short-nosed
Fruit Bat, Small Indian Civet and Leopard Cat) |
Individual or
scats were recorded outside the Project site (i.e. developed area/disturbed
area, seawall and plantation). Construction
noise, road traffic, human activities and site runoff to the seawall might
affect the quality of their foraging habitats. Most species
occurs in a number of localities in Hong Kong and is fairly widespread in |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. However, there are similar suitable
habitats available nearby for the species.
Potential disturbance impacts are therefore considered minor. |
Very low |
Copperhead Racer |
A single
individual was previously recorded from the Middle Lagoon and seawall. The species is widespread throughout The proposed
works would directly affect their potential habitat. Construction noise, road traffic, human
activities and site runoff to the Middle Lagoon might affect the quality of
their roosting and feeding ground. As
there are alternative suitable habitats nearby, individuals potentially
disturbed by construction phase activities would therefore be likely to use
similar suitable habitats available further from the source of disturbance
(e.g. Black Point). The impacts are
therefore considered minor. |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. However, there are similar suitable
habitats available nearby for the species.
Potential disturbance impacts are therefore considered minor. |
Low |
Coastal
Glider within the Project site |
Twenty one
individuals were recorded from the Middle Lagoon. However, the fluctuated
water level reduced the suitability of the northern portion where the
proposed Project located as a suitable habitat. Construction
noise, road traffic and human activities might affect the quality of their
habitats. Site runoff, if
uncontrolled, would spread to the Middle Lagoon. Although the species is uncommon and
occurs in several localities in |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. However, there are similar suitable habitats
available nearby for the species.
Potential disturbance impacts are therefore considered low. |
Low |
Butterfly
and dragonfly species of conservation interest outside the Project site (Red
Lacewing, Glassy Bluebottle,
Chestnut Bob, Common Jay, Danaid Eggfly, Little Branded Swift and Coastal
Glider) |
Low numbers of
individuals were recorded outside the Project site. There will be no direct loss of their
habitats due to the proposed works.
Although construction noise, road traffic and human activities might
affect the quality of their habitats, it is anticipated that the proposed
works would not cause significant impact on the species as similar suitable
habitats are available nearby for the species (e.g. hillsides near |
Low |
General
disturbance levels would be increased due to the operation of the proposed
Project. The most substantial source
of disturbance would be human activities and road traffic. The amount of time which the staff staying
outdoor is short. Increase in human
activities would be insignificant compared to the present condition. It is also anticipated increased road
traffic is confined to northern traffic road and far from their habitat. Potential disturbance impacts are therefore
considered minor. |
Very low |
Echinomuricea
sp. |
Very low
coverage (<1%) of the species was recorded at artificial seawall and the
condition was unhealthy. The
ecological value of the species recorded is considered to be low. Construction of
seawater intake /saline water discharge would remove the gorgonian species
and cause the loss of its habitat.
With the mitigation measure to avoid the construction of
intake/discharge at places where the gorgonians are located, and considering
the small size of habitat loss and availability of suitable habitat nearby
(e.g. Black Point), the impact is therefore considered minor. The species is
known to be tolerant to turbid and harsh environment. Indirect impact due to surface runoff would
be insignificant. |
Low |
Records of the
species in more saline water zone in |
Very low |
7a.6.3.11 The potential impacts to the ecological resources within the study area arising from the proposed Project during construction and operation phases are summarized in Table 7a.27 and Table 7a.28, respectively.
Table 7a.27 Overall Construction Stage Impact and Mitigation/Enhancement
Potential
Impact |
Source |
Receiver |
Nature
of Impact |
Severity |
Further
mitigation / enhancement required |
|||||
Habitat Quality |
Species affected |
Size / abundance |
Duration |
Reversibility |
Magnitude |
|||||
Loss
of ash lagoon habitat and vegetation |
Footprint
of the IWMF |
Ash
lagoon habitat and vegetation |
Low
to moderate |
Direct impact: breeding ground of Little Grebe and some pioneer floral species. Indirect impact: 8 avifaunal, 1 mammal and 1 dragonfly species of conservation interest. |
Moderate
to large (11 ha), but only 1.98 ha of
the affected area is considered as important habitat for most of species of
conservation interest, scarce vegetation coverage |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low to moderate.
The proposed Project will take up a small portion of
the Middle Lagoon which provided breeding habitat for Little Grebe. |
Low
to moderate |
Enhancement/compensatory
habitat for Little Grebe; and scheduling of site formation work in dry season
to minimize temporary habitat loss |
Loss
of seawall habitat and associated gorgonian |
Footprint
of seawater intake /saline water
discharge |
Seawall
habitat and gorgonian |
Low |
Direct impact: 1 gorgonian species. Indirect impact: 6 avifaunal species and 1 mammal species of
conservation interest. |
Small
size and very low coverage of gorgonian |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Low |
Adjustment
of the location of seawater intake /saline water discharge |
Fauna
loss |
Site
formation work |
Fauna
with lower mobility inhabited in Middle Lagoon |
Low
to moderate |
Amphibian
and the juveniles of avifauna (i.e. Little Grebe) |
Low. The proposed site avoided areas of high faunal
diversity and Little Grebe breeding
grounds. |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Low |
Avoidance
of site formation work during major breeding season of Little Grebe, site
inspection for the presence of breeding activities and Little Grebe |
Habitat
fragmentation |
Construction
of the IWMF |
Fauna
in Middle Lagoon |
Low
to moderate |
8 avifaunal
species, 1 mammal and 1 dragonfly species of conservation interest, pioneer
floral species |
Low
to moderate |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Low
to moderate |
Provision
of compensatory pond habitat to enhance integrity of the
wetland habitat |
Disturbance
impact |
Construction
site activities (e.g. site workers,
construction traffic) |
Mainly
fauna in Middle Lagoon |
Low
to moderate |
8 avifaunal species
and 1 mammal species of conservation interest |
Low
to moderate |
Temporary |
Reversible |
Low
to moderate |
Low
to moderate |
Hoarding,
use of quieter piling machinery and construction plants,
and full enclosure for static plant |
Release
of PFA leachate |
Piling
work |
Watercourse
and marine habitats |
Low
to moderate |
Freshwater
fauna in watercourse W1 and marine fauna in nearby waters |
Localized
area |
Temporary
|
Irreversible |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Not required. |
Construction
dust and site runoff |
Construction
works area |
Vegetation
in the vicinity of the Project site and freshwater community within Middle Lagoon |
Low
to moderate |
Pioneer floral species and low diversity of
freshwater species |
Low |
Temporary
|
Reversible |
Low |
Low |
Standard
good site practices,
measures to control potential water and air quality impacts |
Table 7a.28 Overall Operation Stage Impact and Mitigation/Enhancement
Potential Impact |
Source |
Receiver |
Nature of Impact |
Severity |
Further mitigation / enhancement required |
|||||
Habitat Quality |
Species affected |
Size / abundance |
Duration |
Reversibility |
Magnitude |
|||||
Disturbance
impact |
Operation
of the IWMF, human activities and traffic |
Mainly
fauna in Middle Lagoon |
Low
to moderate |
8 avifaunal species
and 1 mammal species of conservation interest |
Moderate |
Intermittent
|
Reversible |
Low
to moderate |
Low
to moderate |
Mitigation
measures to minimize the disturbance impact and traffic noise such as
boundary walls and restricted access to the unoccupied Middle Lagoon |
Change
in hydrology and increased salinity |
Intake
of seawater /discharge of saline water |
Seawall
and coastal water habitat |
Low |
Intertidal
fauna at nearby seawall and marine fauna in nearby waters such as gorgonian |
Low |
Permanent |
Reversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
Not required |
7a.7.1.1
The construction of the
proposed Project is scheduled to commence in 2013 and complete in 2016. The construction of the proposed Project
would coincide with the construction/implementation programmes of the Black
Point Gas Supply (BPGS) (2011-2013). The
construction works of BPGS will be confined to marine area. Therefore cumulative
loss of artificial seawall habitat and degradation in water quality (i.e.
increased suspended solid, decreased dissolved oxygen) are expected. Given the small extent of the marine works of
the IWMF and the low ecological value of artificial seawall and coastal waters
habitats, the IWMF is not anticipated to contribute to unacceptable cumulative
impacts within the study area and the nearby waters.
7a.7.1.2
Two other
projects are planned to be constructed in the vicinity of the Project area:
Sludge Treatment Facilities (STF) and
7a.7.1.3 However, the operation of STF, WENT Landfill Extensions, Nim Wan Road diversion and the proposed Project would result in a cumulative loss of about 46 ha ash lagoon (i.e. sum of the sizes of the three ash lagoons). Of which, about 7 ha of the affected ash lagoon habitats are the major breeding habitat of Little Grebes. To provide suitable alternative habitats to Little Grebe and other fauna, at least 8 ha of pond habitat would be created before the first year of the commencement of the WENT Landfill Extensions project (details refer to Section 7a.8.3.1). Since the IWMF would be constructed in advance of the provision of the aforementioned alternative habitats, about 11 ha of the ash lagoon at the part of the Middle Lagoon would be lost between 2012 and 2016/2017. Given the size of ecological important habitat loss is small (1.98 ha, details refer to Section 7a.6.2.2 to 7a.6.2.3) and the duration is short, the impact due to the loss of habitats is considered to be low to moderate. Mitigation measures would be required for the loss of the Middle Lagoon between the commencements of the proposed Project and WENT Landfill Extensions.
7a.7.2.1
Saline water discharge from
both STF and the proposed Project would increase salinity around the discharge
point. Nevertheless, the volume of
saline water discharge would be small and readily diluted by marine water. Increase in salinity is anticipated to be
insignificant. The
associated impacts to intertidal and marine habitats are
thus expected to be acceptable.
7a.7.2.2
No temperature elevation is
expected in the brine water discharge as compared to the ambient water
temperature. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
contribute to the cumulative impact with BPGS and STF to the nearby
waters.
7a.8 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts
7a.8.1.1 According to EIAO-TM Annex 16 guidelines, mitigation measures are discussed in this section to avoid, minimize and compensate for identified ecological impacts.
7a.8.2 Avoidance and Minimization
7a.8.2.1 The construction design, methods and sequences, and operation of the proposed Project have been considered to avoid impact to the natural habitats and species of conservation interest as far as possible. The site boundary would be mainly located at the northern portion of the Middle Lagoon, where vegetation is scarce and species diversity is relatively low. Development is constrained by limited alternatives of extensive area. Any construction would unavoidably affect the lagoon habitat. To minimize the habitat loss, the site footprint has been reduced by shifting the southern boundary northward, away from the open water. Mitigation measures have been adopted to avoid impacts to the surrounding habitats where possible.
Measures to Avoid Mortality of Little Grebe
7a.8.2.2 Site formation work of the proposed Project would be scheduled to commence in dry season to avoid the major breeding season of Little Grebe where practicable. It is expected that the water coverage of the Middle Lagoon would be minimal and largely confined to its southern portion during the dry season. Hoarding and waterproof membrane could be set up between the works boundary and the unoccupied Middle Lagoon before backfilling. Thus, water draining is not required for site formation work. As such, the impact to the wetland-dependent wildlife in the Middle Lagoon could be minimized.
7a.8.2.3 The proposed Project would affect about 11 ha of Middle Lagoon area. Breeding activities of Little Grebe were recorded within the Middle Lagoon. Juvenile and chicks of Little Grebe which have lower mobility could be killed by construction activities if unmitigated. As a precautionary measure, the whole Project site would be thoroughly inspected twice at the earliest two weeks prior to the proposed commencement date of construction activities to confirm no breeding activities of Little Grebe (including their eggs, chicks and juveniles) would be affected by the construction activities. The inspection should be performed by experienced ecologist(s) with over seven year of experience in the relevant aspect. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) should be informed in writing about the suitability of commencing construction work at the Project site before the commencement of any site activities.
7a.8.2.4 If breeding activities of Little Grebe are found during site inspection, the construction programme and method should be reviewed to identify practicable measures to minimize impact to the breeding birds through:
· Careful phasing of construction work: postpone the works that are located within and near the breeding area(s).
· Minimization of disturbance to the breeding birds due to construction activities: since Little Grebe is very sensitive to human disturbance, hoarding should be set up around the breeding ground to screen off construction works and human activities. Sufficient buffer zone should be given between the breeding birds and the hoarding without hindering their feeding, foraging and roosting activities. The fenced-off area would be inspected once a week until the breeding season ends to review the effectiveness of the mitigation measure and make adaptive actions promptly.
· Restriction of access to the breeding site (fenced-off area): no personnel are allowed to encroach on the breeding area without any written permission from the Resident Engineer of this Project.
7a.8.2.5 The mitigation measures mentioned above should be stipulated in contract documents to ensure the Contractors are well aware of the requirements.
7a.8.2.6 With the implementation of the above measure, no direct loss of Little Grebe is anticipated to be aroused from the proposed Project.
Measures to Avoid Loss of Gorgonians
7a.8.2.7 The saline water outfall would cause loss of gorgonians if it is constructed at the section of artificial seawall where the gorgonians are located. Field surveys indicated that the distribution of gorgonians along the seawall is patchy. The location of the saline water outfalls has been refined to avoid any direct impact to the gorgonians. It is expected that no rare species or species of conservation interest would be lost due to the construction of the saline water outfall.
Measures to Minimize Disturbance Impact to Wildlife
7a.8.2.8 The construction work of the proposed Project would increase human activities in the works area. Wildlife is sensitive to human activities and would avoid or reduce the use of the nearby area. To reduce the disturbance to wildlife in the Middle Lagoon, alternative locations for the access entrance and exit of the Project site has been explored. If the access entrance and exit is relocated to the eastern side of the Project site, there would be insufficient space to accommodate the trucks from both Sludge Treatment Facilities and the proposed Project. If the access entrance is relocated to the northern side of the Project site, there would be inadequate space for trucks to safely turn inside the Project site.
7a.8.2.9 In order to minimize the potential impact to the wildlife in the Middle Lagoon outside works area, the following mitigation measures would be adopted during the construction and operation phases:-
Construction Phase
7a.8.2.10 To shield the fauna in the Middle Lagoon and other natural habitats from visual disturbance by human activities during construction phase, hoarding of at least 3 m high would be set up along the southern and western boundary of the works areas during the formation of the additional compensatory habitat and associated site access (Figure 7a.5 refers). After the establishment of the additional compensatory habitat, the hoarding at the western boundary would be disassembled. New hoarding would be set up between the additional compensatory habitat and the site (Figure 7a.6 refers). Moreover, the access to the unoccupied Middle Lagoon area and the additional compensatory habitat would be restricted by the hoardings. No personnel are allowed to encroach on the unoccupied Middle Lagoon area.
7a.8.2.11 Piling would be the major source of construction noise. Previous studies suggested birds are sensitive to occasional noise (EPD, 2003). Since many avifaunal species of conservation interest were observed utilizing the nearby habitats, piling could lead to avoidance and reduction in density of avifauna in areas in the vicinity of the works area. To reduce noise disturbance on habitats and wildlife adjacent to the works area, mitigation measures including adoption of quieter piling machinery and construction plants, and full enclosure for static plant would be implemented to lower the noise level due to construction works.
Operation Phase
7a.8.2.12 Boundary walls of at least 3.5 m high with climbing plants are proposed to be erected along the southern side of the Project site, and between the access road and the additional compensatory habitat for Little Grebe (Figure 7a.7 refers). The walls would provide screening effect so that the access entry and exit could not be seen directly from the Middle Lagoon, and vice versa. The walls could also prevent human access to the Middle Lagoon. Potential disturbance to the wildlife due to intrusion of the staff to Middle Lagoon, and accidental injury of wildlife by trucks travelling along the access road would be minimized. In addition, the walls are also effective in noise reduction.
7a.8.2.13 The works boundaries would be confined within the proposed Project site. All work crews and equipment would be restricted within the designated works area only. Any personnel would be prohibited to encroach or wilfully disturb any wildife and their habitats. Traffic and human access from the western side of the Project site would be avoided as far as possible.
Measures to Minimize Impacts to Habitats
7a.8.2.14 The Middle Lagoon portion with open water supports a higher faunal diversity and abundance. To minimize the habitat loss, the proposed Project site has purposefully chosen the drier northern Middle Lagoon with scarce vegetation, and the site footprint has been reduced by shifting the southern boundary northward.
7a.8.2.15 All construction works would be confined within the proposed site boundary. To minimize the impacts to habitat, the commencement of site formation work would be scheduled to the dry season when the water level in the Middle Lagoon is minimal. Therefore, no water draining would be required for the site formation work. Water would be retained in the unoccupied Middle Lagoon.
7a.8.2.16 Measures to control potential water quality impacts to the nearby aquatic and marine environment during construction phase would be implemented as mentioned in Section 5a.8 of this EIA report.
7a.8.2.17 Standard good site practices would be enforced during the construction phase as follows:-
· Placement of equipment or stockpile in designated works areas, and selection of access routes on existing disturbed land to minimize disturbance to the unoccupied ash lagoons or natural habitat;
· Construction activities should be restricted to works areas that would be clearly demarcated;
· The works areas would be reinstated immediately after completion of works;
· Waste skips should be provided to collect general refuse and construction wastes. The wastes should be disposed of timely and properly;
· Drainage arrangements should include sediment traps to collect and control construction run-off;
· Open burning on works sites is illegal, and should be strictly prohibited;
· Temporary fire fighting equipment in the works areas before the commencement of works to prevent tipping, vehicle movements and encroachment of personnel into adjacent areas;
· Only well-maintained plant should be operated on site and plant should be serviced regularly during the construction programme;
· Machines and plant which may be in intermittent use should be shut down between work periods or should be throttled down to a minimum;
· Plant known to emit noise strongly in one direction, should, where possible, be orientated so that the noise is directed away from the southern and western end of site boundary;
· Silencer or mufflers on construction equipment should be utilized and should be properly maintained during the construction period;
· Mobile plant (such as generator) should be sited as far away from the southern and western end of site boundary as possible; and
· Material stockpiles and other structures should be effectively utilized, where practicable, to screen noise from on-site construction activities.
7a.8.2.18 It is expected that with the proper implementation of the measures proposed in Sections 7a.8.2.10 to 7a.8.2.17, together with those suggested in Air Quality Impact Assessment and Water Quality Impact Assessment, disturbance to wildlife and surrounding habitats due to traffic and human activities, construction noise, construction dust and site runoff could be minimized. No unacceptable impact is anticipated.
Compensatory Habitat for Little Grebe
7a.8.3.1 The EIA of the WENT Landfill Extensions project (EPD, 2009), whose siting would occupy all three ash lagoons in Tsang Tsui area (i.e. southern East Lagoon, Middle Lagoon and West Lagoon), was approved in 2009. Under this project, at least 8 ha of compensatory freshwater ponds would be created in the WENT Landfill site no later than the first year of the commencement of construction of the WENT Landfill Extensions project (i.e. 2016/2017 tentatively) (ibid). These compensatory freshwater ponds are provided to compensate for the loss of the Little Grebe habitats resulting from the occupation of all 3 ash lagoons. Hence, the loss of Little Grebe habitat in Middle Lagoon due to IWMF Project would be fully compensated by the provision of these 8 ha wetland areas.
7a.8.3.2 Under IWMF Project, an additional permanent water pond would be created as Little Grebe habitat at the western side of the IWMF Project site at the early stage of construction phase (Figure 7a.1). This additional water pond in the IWMF site with a size of about 1.2 ha would incorporate habitat characteristics suitable for Little Grebe. The water depth in the pond would be maintained between 0.8 m to 1.5 m. Consistent water source would be secured. The appropriate type and species of aquatic plants would be planted to provide sustainable supply of food for Little Grebes. The water quality of the pond would be maintained for the growth of the aquatic plants and associated wildlife including Little Grebe’s food sources. Floating raft with special design for the breeding requirement of Little Grebe could be installed to enhance its breeding habitat. The slope of pond bund would be profiled to provide gentle gradient of about 1:4 to 1:6 to facilitate the growth of emergent plants. Gentle sloping would also encourage the use of the pond by other wading birds and emergent vegetations would provide habitats for amphibian and dragonflies. The Project Proponent would be responsible for the management and monitoring of this 1.2 ha compensatory habitat.
7a.8.3.3 The location of this 1.2 ha compensatory pond habitat is specifically chosen to minimize the impact of habitat fragmentation by linking up the unoccupied Middle Lagoon, and maintain a reasonable distance from human disturbance (e.g. administrative building). It also serves as a buffer area to screen out the unoccupied Middle Lagoon area to reduce the disturbance due to traffic and human activities. In addition, boundary walls planted with climbers would be set up between the compensatory habitat and the access road to effectively minimize the noise generated from the traffic.
Enhanced Wetland Habitat for Little Grebe
7a.8.3.4 Apart from providing the 1.2 ha permanent compensatory habitat within IWMF Project site, the habitat condition of the southern unoccupied Middle Lagoon portion would be also enhanced.
7a.8.3.5 The Project Proponent of IWMF is committed to maintain the southern unoccupied Middle Lagoon portion with a size of 4.5 ha as an enhanced wetland habitat until the area is occupied by WENT Landfill Extension Project (Figure 7a.1). The enhanced wetland habitat would be formed at the early stage of construction phase of the IWMF Project. No PFA filling activities would be allowed. Freshwater source to the enhanced wetland habitat would be secured and the water level of the enhanced wetland habitat would be regulated to provide a more stable wetland area. This measure could also enhance the integrity of the water pools in the unoccupied Middle Lagoon, minimizing the impact of habitat fragmentation. To further enhance the breeding environment for Little Grebe, floating raft with special design suiting with the species’ breeding requirement would be installed.
7a.8.3.6 A Habitat Creation and Management Plan (HCMP) for the proposed 1.2 ha of permanent compensatory habitat in IWMF site and the 4.5 ha of temporary enhanced wetland habitat in the unoccupied Middle Lagoon would be prepared by experienced ecologist possesses at least a Bachelor’s degree in relevant discipline and at least 7 years relevant professional experience. The HCMP would be circulated to relevant departments including AFCD, and for approval prior to the construction and enhancement works.
7a.9 Evaluation of Residual Impacts
7a.9.1.1 A total loss of 11 ha of Middle Lagoon area (including 9.02 ha of dry area and 1.98 ha of wet area) and 20 m long of seawall habitat would be resulted due to the Project. With the provision of compensatory habitats proposed under the IWMF and WENT Landfill Extension Projects to fully compensate for the loss of the wet lagoon area, a residual loss of 9.02 ha of dry ash lagoon area would be resulted. The dry ash lagoon area is considered to be of limited ecological value due to its low species diversity. In addition, by refining the location of the saline water outfalls, the loss of gorgonians would be avoided. Only a small size of seawall habitat with poor habitat quality would be lost. Therefore, the residual impact is considered as acceptable.
7a.9.1.2 With the proper implementation of mitigation measures suggested in Section 7a.8, potential impact to the wildlife in the nearby habitats (i.e. habitat and breeding ground loss, edge effect, barrier effect, construction and traffic noise and human disturbances) would be minimized and the residual impact is considered to be acceptable.
7a.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
7a.10.1.1 Mitigation measures described in Section 7a.8 would be regularly audited. Details of environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) requirement are discussed in the separate EM&A Manual.
7a.11.1.1 The major ecological impact of the proposed Project would be the loss of about 11 ha of ash lagoon in Tsang Tsui. About 82% of the Project area is arid area with low biodiversity and ecological value. As the remaining ash lagoon to be lost is identified as 1.98 ha breeding ground of Little Grebe, the potential loss of breeding ground would be mitigated by the provision of permanent compensatory habitats within the IWMF site and the existing WENT Landfill area. Additionally, the southern unoccupied Middle Lagoon would be enhanced to provide more stable wetland habitat.
7a.11.1.2 Disturbance impact to the breeding activities of Little Grebe would be minimized by scheduling the commencement of site formation work in dry season. As a precautionary measure, the works area would be thoroughly inspected by experience ecologist(s) to confirm no breeding activities of Little Grebe would be affected by the construction work before commencement of any site works.
7a.11.1.3 Other indirect impacts during construction phase would include noise and human disturbance, release of PFA leachate and construction site runoff and wastewater. With proper implementation of good site practices, use of quiet machinery and mitigation measures suggested in water quality impact assessment, no adverse ecological impact is anticipated.
7a.11.1.4 Disturbance impacts during operation phase would be resulted from increased human activities and noise due to vehicles entering and exiting the site. Mitigation measures such as landscape planting have been recommended to screen the visual interface and limit public access to the natural habitat and the associated wildlife nearby.
7a.11.1.5 With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, no unacceptable ecological impact due to the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be expected. The implementation of mitigation measures would be subject to regular audit as part of the EM&A programme.
Anon
(1995). Focus on fish ponds. Porcupine! 13:20.
Anon
(2006). Winter 2005-06 Report on Waterbird Monitoring at the
Anon
(2009). Monthly Waterbird Counts Data April 2008 – March 2009: Waterbird
Monitoring at the
Ades,
G. and Reels, G. (1998). Mammals. In Anon. 1998. Special Feature: Focus on
Farmlands. Porcupine! 18:19.
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department. (2009). Monitoring of Marine Mammals in
Hong Kong Waters – Data Collection (2008-09): Final Report (10 April 2008 to 31
March 2009).
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department. (2010). Monitoring of Marine Mammals in
Hong Kong Waters – Data Collection (2009-10): Final Report (1 April 2009 to 31
March 2010).
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department. (2010). Monitoring of Marine Mammals in
Hong Kong Waters – Data Collection (2010-11): Final Report (1 April 2010 to 31
March 2011).
Bascombe,
M.J.,
Carey,
G.J., Chalmers, M.L., Diskin, D.A., Kennerley, P.R., Leader, P.J., Leven, M.R.,
Lewthwaite, R.W., Melville, D.S., Turnbill, M. & Young, L. (2001). The
Avifauna of
Chan,
S.K.F., Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam, F.N., Tang, W.S., Lau, M.W.N. &
Bogadek, A. (2005). A Field Guide to the Amphibians of
Chandraesekar-Rao,
A. (1994). Distribution and ecology of
Chau,
L. & Siu, G. (1998). Orchid on ash. Porcupine! No. 17, page 8.
Corlett, R., Xing, F.,
Sai-Chit, N., Chau, L. & Wong, L. (2000).
Ecosystem.
(2000) Appendix 9. Route 3 Highway Operational Ecological Monitoring and Audit
and Sham Tseng Stream Restoration, Final Monitoring Report and Summary:
September – December 2000.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2003a).
Additional Study of Waste-to-Energy Facilities (WEF) Environmental Impact
Assessment Report.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2003b). Animal
Carcass Facilities Treatment. Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2006).
Feasibility Study of Sludge Treatment Facilities Environmental Study Report.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2008a). West New
Territories (WENT) Landfill Extensions – Feasibility Study: Baseline Ecological
Survey Report for Sludge Treatment Facilities.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2008b). Sludge
Treatment Facilities – Feasibility Study. Environmental Impact Assessment
Report.
Environmental
Protection Department. (2009). West New Territories (WENT) Landfill Extensions
Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
Fellowes,
J.R., Lau, M.W.N., Dudgeon, D., Reels, G.T., Ades, G.W.J., Carey, G.J., Chan,
B.P.L., Kendrick, R.C., Lee, K.S., Leven, M.R., Wilson, K.D.P. & Yu, Y.T.
(2002). Wild animals to watch:
Terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in
Goodyer,
N.J. (1992). Notes on the land mammals of
Green
Valley Landfill Ltd. (1996). Southeast New Territories Landfill Environmental
Monitoring, Ecological Monitoring Programme, Report on Sampling Period Number
6, August 1996.
Highway
Department. (2002).
Hu,
Q.M. (ed.). (2003). Rare and Precious Plants of
Karsen, S., Lau, M. &
Bogadek, A. (1998).
Lo,
P.Y.F. & Hui, W.L. (2004). Hong Kong Butterflies.,
Melville,
D. (1980) Birds at
Shek,
C.T. (2006). A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of
Shea,
S.S., Smith, L. and Sander, P. (1995). Ecological impact assessment and
ecological monitoring of a strategic landfill: a case study in Hong Kong in
Proceedings of The First Symposium of Chinese Zoologists in Southeast Asia,
Siu,
G.L. P. (2002). Orchidaceae of
Tam, T.W., Kwan, B.S.P.,
Wu, K.K.Y., Wong, B.S.F., Tang, S.S.H., Fung, C.H.L., Wong, W.S.Y., Wong, J.K.,
Fong, S.W.L. and Lei, A.H.C. (2008). Current Status of Dragonflies (Odonata)
and Their Representation in Protected Areas of
Wong, L.C. (2007) An
enhanced fishpond at Nam Chung, Starling Inlet, North
Xing,
F.W., Ng, S.C. & Chau, L.K.C. (2000). Gymnosperms and Angiosperms of
Young,
J.J. & Yiu, V. (2002) Butterfly Watching in
Zheng,
G. and Wang, Q. (1998).