9 Ecological Impact (Terrestrial and Marine)

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1.1 This section presents the ecological baseline resources within the study area, and the results of assessment of the potential ecological impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project. The baseline conditions of the ecological components of the terrestrial and marine environment were evaluated based on the information available from literature and field surveys conducted for the purposes of this EIA. Measures required to mitigate any identified adverse impacts are recommended, where appropriate, and residual impacts are assessed.

9.2 Environmental Guidelines, Standards and Criteria

9.2.1.1 This assessment makes reference to the following ordinances, regulations, standards, guidelines, and documents when identifying ecological importance of habitats and species, evaluating and assessing potential impacts of the Project on the ecological resources:

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499) – aims to avoid, minimise and control the adverse effects on the environment by designated projects through the application of the environmental impact assessment process and the environment permit system.

· Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) Annex 8 – recommends the criteria that can be used for evaluating habitats and ecological impacts.

· EIAO-TM Annex 16 – 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.

· EIAO Guidance Note No. 3/2010 – provides guiding principles on the approach to assess the recommended environmental mitigation measures in EIA reports.

· EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2010 – clarifies the requirement of ecological assessments under the EIAO.

· EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010 – provides general guidelines for conducting ecological baseline surveys in order to fulfil requirements stipulated in the EIAO-TM.

· EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2010 – introduces some general methodologies for terrestrial and freshwater ecological baseline surveys.

· EIAO Guidance Note No. 11/2010 – introduces some general methodologies for marine ecological baseline surveys.

· Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208) – provides a legal framework for the designation, development and management of country parks and special areas. Country parks are designated for the purposes of nature conservation, countryside recreation and outdoor education. Special Areas are created mainly for the purpose of nature conservation.

· 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. The list of protected species in Hong Kong that comes under the Forestry Regulations was last amended on 11 June 1993 under the Forestry (Amendment) Regulation 1993 made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance.

· Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) – designated wild animals are protected from being hunted, and 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 Second Schedule of the Ordinance, which lists all the protected animals, was last revised in June 1997.

· Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) – provides for the designation of Coastal Protection Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Conservation Area (CA), Country Park, Green Belt (GB) or other specified uses that promote conservation or protection of the environment.

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

· Marine Parks Ordinance (Cap. 476) and Subsidiary Legislation – allows for designation, control and management of marine parks and marine reserves through regulation of activities therein to protect, conserve and enhance the marine environment for the purposes of nature conservation, education, scientific research and recreation. The Ordinance came into effect on 1 June 1995.

· Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358) – aims to control water pollution in waters of Hong Kong. WCZs are designated with individual water quality objective to promote the conservation and best use of those waters in the public interest.

· 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), Firecorals (family Milleporidae) and Lace corals (family Stylasteridae). Cetaceans including whales, dolphins, porpoises, and rorquals are also listed under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Ordinance. The import, export and possession of scheduled corals, no matter dead or living, are restricted.

· Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) Technical Circular (Works) (TCW) No. 29/2004 Registration of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation – sets out the procedures for registration of old and valuable trees on unleased Government land within built-up areas and tourist attraction spots in village areas. Guidelines are also given for preservation and maintenance of the registered trees.

· Development Bureau (DEVB) TC (W) No. 7/2015 Tree Preservation – sets out the policy on tree preservation, and procedures for the control of tree felling, transplanting and pruning in Government projects.

9.2.1.2 This section also makes reference to the following international conventions and national legislations:

· The International Union for Conservation of Nature (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. The system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction. The main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to classify and highlight taxa facing a higher risk of global extinction.

· The PRC National Protection Lists of Important Wild Animals and Plants provides detailed Category I and Category II key protected animals and plant species under the mainland China legislation. The list was last updated in November 2002.

· The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 with three main objectives: to conserve biodiversity, to ensure sustainable use of the components of biodiversity, and to share the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources in a fair and equitable manner. Currently, there are over 190 Parties with the CBD, including China. The CBD was formally extended to Hong Kong in May 2011. The Environment Bureau and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has formulated a city-level Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (the Convention).

9.3 Assessment Methodology

9.3.1 Study Area

9.3.1.1 The Project site was situated along the Lei Yue Mun (LYM) waterfront, and the Project involved both land-based and marine works.

9.3.1.2 In accordance with Clause 3.4.9.2 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-287/2015, the study area for the purpose of the terrestrial and marine ecological impact assessment included areas within 500 m distance from the Project area and any other areas likely to be impacted by the Project (refer to Figure 9.1).

9.3.2 Literature Review

9.3.2.1 Following the collation and review of existing ecological baseline information, relevant available literatures are listed in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Baseline Information of Ecological Resources in the Study Area

Relevant Literatures	Terrestrial Ecology	Corals	Benthos	Intertidal Community	Marine Mammals	Seahorses
(1) Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong Waters (2015-16) Final Report (1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 (Hung, 2016)					✓
(2) Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works – EIA Report (CEDD, 2013)			✓
(3) Dredging Works for Proposed Public Landing Facility at Lei Yue Mun – Project Profile (CEDD, 2010)	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
(4) Further Development of Tseung Kwan O Feasibility Study – EIA Report (CEDD, 2005)			✓
(5) Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong (AFCD, 2002)			✓

9.3.3 Identification of Information Gap

9.3.3.1 Based on the available information of marine and terrestrial ecological resources, information gap was identified. Ecological surveys including dive survey, intertidal survey, habitat survey and reconnaissance site visit were conducted from July to November 2016 to fill in the gap. The reconnaissance site visit covered daytime and night time. As previous studies have provided site specific information on the marine soft bottom benthos baseline within or near the present assessment area, no information gap on the soft bottom benthic community was identified. The assessment on benthic community was therefore based on literature review. The ecological surveys followed the requirements as stipulated under EIAO Guidance Note 7/2010 Ecological Baseline Survey for Ecological Assessment. All field surveys were carried out in such ways that no unnecessary stress or damage to the existing habitats and wildlife was resulted. The surveys are described in detail in the sections below.

Table 9.2 Ecological Survey Schedule

Survey	Jul 2016	Aug 2016	Sep 2016	Oct 2016	Nov 2016
Dive Survey					✓
Dive Survey			✓
Intertidal Survey		✓			✓
Habitat Survey and Reconnaissance Site Visit	✓		✓		✓

9.3.4 Ecological Survey Methodology

Dive Survey

9.3.4.1 Spot-check dive surveys were conducted, with regular zig-zag dive routes covering the dredging area and along the shoreline of LYM waterfront to record presence of any coral. Subtidal substrata (hard substratum seabed and seawall, etc.) at the spot-check dive locations (refer to Figure 9.1) was surveyed for any presence of coral communities, including hard corals (order Scleractinia), octocorals (sub-class Octocorallia) and black corals (order Antipatharia). Survey for the presence of other species of conservation importance including seahorses was also conducted. The survey transects (refer to Figure 9.1) also covered the locations where individuals of seahorse Hippocampus kuda were previously recorded (CEDD, 2010).

9.3.4.2 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) was carried out with reference to DeVantier et al. (1998) (See Appendix 9.1 for details). Locations of 100m REA transects were proposed based on the preliminary results from the spot-check dives (Figure 9.1 refers). For each transect, the locations of dive routes, distance surveyed, number of colonies, sizes and types of corals, their coverage, abundance, condition, translocation feasibility and their conservation status of coral species in Hong Kong waters were recorded. Representative photographs were taken for corals and other species of conservation importance.

Intertidal Survey

9.3.4.3 Surveys on intertidal communities were conducted at the two survey locations in both wet and dry seasons (refer to Figure 9.1) by line transect method, in order to establish an ecological profile of the intertidal habitats located within the study area.

9.3.4.4 A qualitative or walk-through survey was conducted at each survey location to identify the intertidal flora and fauna present and their occurrence at the survey location. This could help assess whether the sampling exercise in the later quantitative survey had collected representative data (e.g. the number and type of species encountered) and whether the sampling effort was deemed adequate. Effort spent in such qualitative or walk-through survey, such as number of surveyors involved and the time spent, was recorded and provided as appropriate.

9.3.4.5 Quantitative survey was conducted using line transect method after the walk-through survey. One line transect was deployed at each proposed survey location. The transects were laid perpendicular to shoreline from high water mark down to low water mark during the low tide period (tide level below 1 m). Along each transect, standard ecological sampling quadrat (dimensions 0.5 m x 0.5 m) was laid at 1 m intervals (or other suitable quadrat dimension and interval distance, depending on the field situation). Intertidal epifauna and flora within each quadrat were identified and enumerated. In general, mobile fauna was counted in terms of abundance per unit area. Sessile organisms such as barnacles, oysters and algae were estimated in terms of percentage cover per fixed area. Intertidal fauna was identified to species level as far as possible. Representative photographs of intertidal habitat and flora / fauna species identified were taken.

Habitat Survey and Reconnaissance Site Visit

9.3.4.6 The footprint of the land-based works of the Project only comprises developed area along LYM waterfront. Habitat mapping and reconnaissance site visit were conducted in wet and dry seasons to check terrestrial ecological resources within 500 m from the Project site. General site descriptions and ecological conditions of the study area were provided, and representative photographs (e.g. site condition and nearby habitats) were taken. Flora and fauna species (e.g. avifauna, butterflies, odonates, herpetofauna and mammals) observed during the visit were identified and recorded.

9.3.4.7 The criteria and guidelines as stated in Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM were followed for evaluating and assessing ecological impact arising from the construction and operation of the Project.

9.4 Description of the Environment

9.4.1 Recognized Site of Conservation Importance

9.4.1.1 According to the draft Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong, Lei Yue Mun Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) (Plan No. S/K15/25), a Coastal Protection Area (CPA) with total area of approximately 0.07 ha is located within the study area adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed dredging area (refer to Figure 9.1). The CPA covers rocky outcrop above water in the high tide, sandy shore comprised of oyster shell beach and a lighthouse which has been recognized as a landmark with scenic quality. This zone is intended to conserve, protect and retain the lighthouse, the natural coastlines and the sensitive coastal natural environment, including area of scenic value, with a minimum of built development.

9.4.2 Marine Ecological Resources

Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat

9.4.2.1 Generally, the hard subtidal habitat along the LYM waterfront supports sparse coverage of corals with low species diversity. Dive surveys on coral communities have previously been conducted within the study area. Low abundance of two species of hard corals (four colonies of Oulastrea crispata and two colonies of Tubastrea diaphana); and three species of soft corals (a total of 37 colonies of Echinomuricea sp., Euplexaura spp. and Dendronephthya spp.) were recorded in this area (CEDD, 2010).

9.4.2.2 Following the literature review on the coral communities, dive surveys were conducted to check and update the existing condition of the subtidal hard substrate habitat of LYM waterfront, particularly the area that would likely be impacted by the proposed marine works of the Project.

9.4.2.3 Spot-check dive surveys were conducted at three locations (SC01, SC02 and SC03) as shown in Figure 9.1. The GPS coordinates, maximum depth, bottom substrate and bottom visibility of each survey location are summarized in Table 9.3. Representative photographs of the survey locations and coral communities taken during the surveys are presented in Appendix 9.10.

Table 9.3 Physical Parameters of the Spot-Check Dive Locations

Location	GPS Coordinates (Starting Point)	Max. Depth (m)	Bottom Substrate	Visibility (m)
SC01	N 22°17’20.30” E 114°14’13.11”	2.5	Bedrock / Boulder	0.5
SC02	N 22°17’16.71” E 114°14’12.29”	8	Boulder / Rock	1
SC03	N 22°17’16.43” E 114°14’12.27”	15	Boulder / Sand / Mud	1

9.4.2.4 The substratum of SC01 and SC02 mainly consisted of natural bedrocks and boulders, while SC03 was composed of mainly sandy and muddy bottom with a few big boulders. Substrates deeper than the maximum depth were all sandy / muddy and with visibility less than 0.5 m. Rock oyster (Saccostrea cucullata), tunicates (Styela plicata), purple sea urchin (Anthocidaris crassispina) and sea urchin (Diadema setosum) were commonly recorded in SC01 and SC02. One colony of Cirripathes sp. was recorded in SC03 outside of the dredging boundary of the Project. All species recorded are commonly found in Hong Kong water. Table 9.4 summarizes the recorded coral species and their sizes.

9.4.2.5 As shown in Table 9.4, no coral colonies were recorded in SC01 and only sparse cover of coral colonies were recorded in SC02 and SC03. The overall percentage cover of the corals found in these locations is low (<1% - <5%) and all corals recorded are commonly found in Hong Kong water. All fauna recorded from spot-check dives were common species, occurred in low abundance and sparsely distributed.

Table 9.4 Corals Found at the Spot-Check Dive Locations

Location	Coral species	Approximate Coral Coverage (%)	Size (Maximum Diameter/Height)
SC01	No coral colonies were recorded
SC02	Hard Coral
	Oulastrea crispata	<1%	3 cm to 10 cm
	Tubastrea sp. A	<1%	2 cm to 10 cm
	Soft Coral
	Dendronephthya sp.	<1%	5 cm to 15 cm
	Gorgonia
	Echinomuricea sp.	<1%	10 cm to 25 cm
SC03	Hard Coral
	Tubastrea sp. A	<1%	2 cm to 10 cm
	Tubastrea sp. B	<1%	5 cm to 10 cm
	Tubastrea sp. C	<1%	5 cm to 15 cm
	Soft Coral
	Dendronephthya sp.	<1%	10 cm to 15 cm
	Carijoa sp.	<1%	5 cm to 10 cm
	Gorgonia
	Echinomuricea sp.	<5%	10 cm to 35 cm
	Euplexaura sp.	<1%	15 cm to 30 cm
	Menella sp.	<1%	10 cm to 15 cm
	Black Coral
	Cirripathes sp.	<1%	35 cm

9.4.2.6 Following the spot-check dive surveys, more detailed REA surveys were conducted to collect more detailed quantitative information on the coral communities recorded during the spot-check dive. A total of six 100 m REA transects (REA1-REA6) were laid to cover the 2 spot-check locations (SC02 and SC03) (refer to Figure 9.1). Amongst the 6 REA transects, REA1 was located within the proposed dredging area of the Project. The physical parameters of the REA transects are summarized in Table 9.5. Appendix 9.11 presents the coral colonies recorded during the REA surveys.

Table 9.5 Physical Parameters of the REA Transects

Transect	GPS Coordinates (Starting Point)	GPS Coordinates (End Point)	Max. Depth (m)	Bottom Substrate	Visibility (m)
REA1	N 22°17'16.22" E 114°14'12.26"	N 22°17'14.71" E 114°14'15.24"	8	Rock / Sand	1
REA2	N 22°17'15.95" E 114°14'12.02"	N 22°17'14.14" E 114°14'14.94"	13	Boulder / Sand / Mud	0.5
REA3	N 22°17'14.78" E 114°14'16.16"	N 22°17'12.74" E 114°14'18.84"	2.5	Boulder / Rock	0.5
REA4	N 22°17'14.42" E 114°14'15.90"	N 22°17'12.40" E 114°14'18.66"	7.5	Rock / Sand	1
REA5	N 22°17'11.95" E 114°14'19.09"	N 22°17'10.11" E 114°14'22.67"	2.5	Boulder / Rock	1
REA6	N 22°17'11.74" E 114°14'19.68"	N 22°17'10.06" E 114°14'22.78"	10	Rock / Sand	1

9.4.2.7 The ecological and substratum attributes of the REA transects are given in Table 9.6 below.

Table 9.6 Ranking of Percentage Cover of Ecological and Substratum Attributes of the REA Transects

Ecological Attributes	REA 1	REA 2	REA 3	REA 4	REA 5	REA 6
Hard Coral	0.5	0.5	0.5	0	0.5	0
Octocoral (Soft Corals and Gorgonians)	0.5	0.5	0	0.5	0	0.5
Black Corals	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dead Standing Corals	0	0	0	0	0	0

Substratum Attributes	REA 1	REA 2	REA 3	REA 4	REA 5	REA 6
Bedrock / Continuous Pavement	0	0	0	0	0	0
Boulder Blocks (diam.>50cm)	0	0.5	1	0	1	0
Boulder Blocks (diam.<50cm)	0.5	0.5	5	1	5	0.5
Rubble	0	0	0	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0	0	0	0
Soft Substrata	0	0	0	0	0	0
Sand	5	5	0	5	0	5
Mud / Silt	1	2	0	1	0	2

* Rank of percentage cover: 0 = None recorded; 0.5 = 1-5%; 1 = 6-10%; 2 = 11-30 %; 3 = 31-50%; 4= 51-75 %; 5 = 76-100%.

9.4.2.8 As shown in Table 9.6, the substratum along REA1, REA2, REA4 and REA6 was mainly made up of sand. While the substratum along REA3 and REA5 was mainly made up of boulders and rocks. Most of the coral colonies were recorded on rock surfaces (refer to Appendix 9.11 for details). The coral colonies were of small to medium size (about 5 to 25 cm in diameter / height) at REA1, REA2, REA4 and REA6; and small size (about 5 to 15 cm in diameter / height) at REA3 and REA5. The recorded coral colonies were either in fair or good condition. All the coral species recorded in the REA surveys are widespread and common across Hong Kong waters such as the dominant octocoral species, Echinomuricea sp. and Dendronephthya sp.; and a hard coral species Oulastrea crispata.

9.4.2.9 Sparse and patchy hard coral coverage was recorded at REA1, REA2, REA3 and REA5. The hard coral species were dominated by Oulastrea crispata. A small number of colonies from three Tubastrea species (Tubastrea sp. A, B and C) was recorded at REA2. One colony of Turbinaria peltata was recorded in REA3. All hard coral recorded along the REA transects are common in Hong Kong and they are protected under Cap. 586.

9.4.2.10 Based on the current design, only REA1 would be within the proposed dredging area of the Project (Figure 9.1). The REA surveys show that REA 1 supported a sparse and patchy cover (1-5%) of soft and hard corals. The coral colonies recorded along REA1 were dominated by octocoral species (Echinomuricea sp.) and only a small number of hard coral Tubastrea spp. which are locally common were recorded (refer to Appendix 9.11 for details).

9.4.2.11 In addition to coral communities, other species of conservation importance including seahorse was also surveyed during the spot-check dive and REA surveys. The survey transects covered the two locations where two individual seahorses Hippocampus kuda had been found in 2006 (CEDD, 2010). The results show that no seahorse was recorded during the recent surveys.

Intertidal Habitats

9.4.2.12 Intertidal habitats within the study area consists of natural rocky shore, sandy shore and artificial seawall. The sandy shore located near LYM Lighthouse falls within the site boundary of the proposed promenade and was subjected to constant human disturbance and covered with broken glass and discarded oyster shell. The rocky shore within the site boundary consists of mainly cobbles and some boulders. The section of artificial seawall within the site boundary were concrete vertical seawalls, with fences or buildings constructed above the seawalls and subjected to human disturbance. The intertidal communities in the rocky shores along LYM waterfront were previously surveyed (CEDD, 2010). A total of 11 species were recorded, including marine snails (periwinkles, whelks, topshells, littorina), barnacles, limpets, bivalves (oysters), sea slater and rock crab. No species of conservation importance were recorded.

9.4.2.13 Intertidal communities were surveyed at two sampling locations (T1 and T2) during both dry and wet seasons (refer to Figure 9.1) in order to update and verify the existing condition of intertidal habitats. The sampled intertidal habitats were made up of sandy shore and rocky shore. The walk-through and quantitative surveys had recorded a total of 36 and 41 intertidal species from dry and wet season respectively (refer to Appendix 9.7 and Appendix 9.8). The diversity of species was similar in dry and wet seasons (refer to Table 9.7). The coverage and abundance of intertidal fauna are low in both seasons. No intertidal species of conservation importance were recorded.

9.4.2.14 During the quantitative line transect survey conducted during the dry season, 22 and 21 species were recorded at transect T1 and T2 respectively; while quantitative line transect survey during wet season recorded 25 and 24 species at T1 and T2 respectively (refer to Appendix 9.7 and 9.8). All the species recorded during the survey were either very common or common in Hong Kong. No species of conservation importance were recorded.

Table 9.7 Intertidal Species Recorded during the Walk-through and Quantitative Survey

Intertidal Species	Dry Season	Wet Season
Cyanobacteria
Chroococcus sp.	ü	ü
Kyrtuthrix maculanus	ü	ü
Lyngbya sp.	ü	ü
Encrusting Algae
Hildenbrandia rubra	ü	ü
Hildenbrandia occidentalis	ü	ü
Pseudulvella applanata	ü	ü
Crustose coralline algae	ü	ü
Erect Algae
Gelidium pusilium		ü
Ulva spp.		ü
Sea Squirt
Ascidiacea		ü
Sea Anemone
Spheractis cheungae	ü	ü
Periwinkles
Echinolittorina radiata	ü	ü
Echinolittorina trochoides	ü	ü
Littoraria articulata	ü	ü
Planaxid Snails
Planaxis sulcatus	ü	ü
Turban Shells
Lunella coronata	ü	ü
Topshells
Chlorostoma argyrostoma	ü	ü
Monodonta labio	ü	ü
Whelks
Morula musiva		ü
Thais clavigera	ü	ü
Limpets / False Limpets
Cellana grata	ü
Cellana toreuma		ü
Nipponacmea concinna	ü	ü
Patelloida pygmaea	ü	ü
Siphonaria japonica		ü
Bivalves
Barbatia virescens	ü	ü
Perna viridis	ü	ü
Saccostrea cucullata	ü	ü
Septifer virgatus	ü	ü
Tapes variegatis	ü	ü
Chiton
Acanthopleura japonica	ü	ü
Barnacles
Balanus amphitrite	ü	ü
Capitulum mitella	ü
Tetraclita japonica	ü	ü
Hermit Crabs
Clibanarius sp.	ü	ü
Pagurus dubius	ü	ü
Crabs
Hemigrapsus sanguineus	ü	ü
Petrolisthes japonica		ü
Tube-worms
Hydroides sp.	ü	ü
Spirorbis sp.	ü	ü
Worm-snails
Serpulorbis imbricatus	ü	ü
Amphipod
Amphipod	ü	ü
Sea Slaters
Ligia exotica	ü	ü
Fish
Terapon jarbua		ü
Polychaete
Polychaete	ü

Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat

9.4.2.15 Grab samples were taken in the middle of Junk Bay in vicinity of the current Project site (Sampling Station 85) in a territory-wide study on marine benthic communities in Hong Kong (AFCD, 2002). Low species richness (23 species per 0.5 m²) and abundance (114 – 158 individuals per m²) were recorded. The community was characterized by moderately disturbed community dominated by polychaetes (Mediomastus sp. in terms of number and Aglaophamus dibranchis in terms of biomass). No species of conservation importance was recorded.

9.4.2.16 Benthic surveys were conducted near Chiu Keng Wan in the Further Development of Tseung Kwan O Feasibility Study (CEDD, 2005). The soft substrata seabed off Chiu Keng Wan supported a disturbed benthic community of moderate diversity and of low abundance. No species of conservation importance were recorded. The benthic surveys conducted near Chiu Keng Wan in the Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works also recorded disturbed benthic community of moderate diversity and of low abundance (CEDD, 2013). No species of conservation importance were recorded. The ecological value of the subtidal soft bottom habitat around the Project site is considered to be low (CEDD, 2010); and low to very low (CEDD, 2013).

Marine Mammals

9.4.2.17 The study area and the waters in Junk Bay have not been recorded as important habitats for Chinese White Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) and Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) (Hung, 2016). The nearest record of Finless Porpoise was at the southern waters of Tung Lung Chau at Tathong Channel, which is more than 7 km from the Project site (CEDD, 2010).

9.4.3 Terrestrial Ecological Resources

9.4.3.1 A total of eight terrestrial habitat types were recorded within the study area, including mixed woodland, plantation, shrubland, grassland, developed area, natural watercourse (including both permanent and seasonal natural watercourses), drainage channel and intertidal habitat. Except the natural watercourses, no seasonal patterns were identified on other habitat types. Habitat maps and representative photographs of habitats recorded within the study area are shown in Figures 9.2 and Appendix 9.2, respectively. Appendix 9.3 lists the flora recorded during the ecological surveys. No flora species of conservation importance were recorded.

Terrestrial Habitats and Vegetation

9.4.3.2 Within the site boundary, four habitats were recorded, including developed area, sandy shore, rocky shore and artificial seawall (Figure 9.2 refers). According to Chapter 2, land-based works would be proposed at developed area, rocky shore and artificial seawall.

9.4.3.3 The developed area within the site boundary was comprised of low rise village houses, roads and recreational parks. Some plantation or horticultural species such as Taiwan Acacia (Acacia confusa) and Chinese Banyan (Ficus microcarpa), and Chinese Ixora (Ixora chinensis) were commonly recorded in this habitat. Disturbance such as human activities, noise, glare are observed.

9.4.3.4 The sandy shore located near LYM Lighthouse falls within the site boundary of the proposed promenade. The sandy shore was subjected to constant human disturbance and covered with broken glass and discarded oyster shell. Herb species Clerodendrum inerme and Annual Bluegrass (Ipomoea cairica) were recorded at the backshore area.

9.4.3.5 The rocky shore within the site boundary consists of mainly cobbles and some boulders. Limited vegetation and low flora diversity were recorded. The dominant flora species are mainly herbs including Beach Morning-glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae) and Many-flowered Silvergrass (Miscanthus floridulus).

9.4.3.6 Sections of artificial seawall fall within the site boundary. These sections were concrete vertical seawalls, with fences or buildings constructed above the seawalls and subjected to human disturbance. Limited vegetation were recorded within this habitat.

Mixed Woodland

9.4.3.7 Mixed woodland habitat was mainly found in the east of the study area at Devil’s Peak. Another two small mixed woodlands were located at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan at the opposite coast of Lei Yue Mun Channel. The mixed woodland at Yau Tong was isolated by developed area including public housing estates and roads; while the one at Shau Kei Wan was surrounded by developed area such as museum and roads.

9.4.3.8 The structural complexity of this habitat was relatively higher than other habitats and two-thirds of recorded flora was native species. The canopy was closed and comprised trees of about 4 – 8 m in height, with shrub at the middle layer and fern / herb at the understorey. The dominant tree species were exotic Taiwan Acacia, Horsetail Tree (Casuarina equisetifolia), native Chinese Banyan, Ivy Tree (Schefflera heptaphylla) and Lance-leaved Sterculia (Sterculia lanceolata). Shrub such as Wild Coffee (Psychotria asiatica), Opposite-leaved Fig (Ficus hispida) and fern Oriental Blechnum (Blechnum orientale) were also commonly recorded at the middle layer and understorey. This habitat at Devil’s Peak was subjected to disturbance from the adjacent developed areas (e.g. residential areas, roads, and hiking trails).

Plantation

9.4.3.9 The plantation habitat was mostly located at roadside engineered slope areas. The canopy of this habitat was mainly composed of plantation species of 2 – 5 m in height. The dominant species are exotic Taiwan Acacia and Ear-leaved Acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Regenerated native shrub and fern species such as Round-leaved Litsea and Oriental Blechnum were commonly recorded at the understorey. The plantation habitat was subjected to disturbances from traffic and human activities.

Shrubland

9.4.3.10 Shrubland within the study area was composed of short shrubland and tall shrubland. Short shrubland was located at the upper hillside, mid-level and eastern slope toe of Devil’s Peak. The canopy of this habitat was mainly open and the structure was simple. The dominated species were fern / herb species such as Chinese Silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis) and Dichotomy Forked Fern (Dicranopteris pedata). Shrub species such as Dwarf Mountain Pine (Baeckea frutescens), Common Melastoma (Melastoma malabathricum L.) and Blood-red Melastoma (Melastoma sanguineum) also dominated this habitat.

9.4.3.11 Tall shrubland was mainly situated near the residential areas at the western slope toe of Devil’s Peak at within the study area. Shrubs recorded including Elephant's Ear (Macaranga tanarius), Round-leaved Litsea, and Opposite-leaved Fig of 2-3 m in height formed a semi-shaded understorey supporting herbaceous species, Dichotomy Forked Fern and Short-leaved Kyllinga (Kyllinga brevifolia). In general, the shrubland habitat was located near road, hiking trails or residential areas and subjected to anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. illegal dumping of construction waste and traffic noise).

Grassland

9.4.3.12 Two pieces of grassland were located near Wilson Trail and the former Lei Yue Mun Quarry Site. This habitat was dominated by grass or herb species, such as native Many-flowered Silvergrass, Hilo Grass (Paspalum conjugatum), and Chinese Silvergrass. The grassland habitats near roads or villages tended to experience higher disturbance (e.g. littering, human activities).

Developed Area

9.4.3.13 The developed area in the study area consists of seafood restaurants, residential villages, stilt houses along the coast, commercial areas, roads, public space and recreational parks. Vegetation recorded was mainly roadside trees and horticultural species in landscaped areas and recreational parks. Dominant species typically included Taiwan Acacia, Camel's Foot Tree (Bauhinia variegata) and Tree Cotton (Bombax ceiba), and native tree species Chinese Hackberry (Celtis sinensis). Weeds and herbs including Gairo Morning Glory (Ipomoea cairica), Bidens alba and Lantana (Lantana camara) were commonly recorded open storage areas and associated wasteland. The developed area habitat was highly disturbed due to anthropogenic activities (e.g. traffic, noise and construction activities at Ma Pui Tsuen).

Drainage Channel

9.4.3.14 Drainage channels identified within the study area included artificial structures for drainage and flood control. Watercourse 1 at Yau Tong is a concrete trapezoidal channel of approximate 5 m wide and 4 m deep. The water depth was found to be 0.2 – 0.5 m and the water flow rate was moderate to high. No vegetation recorded at the embankment during surveys.

9.4.3.15 The downstream sections of Watercourse 2 and Watercourse 3 were concrete drainage channels. The width and depth were about 1 – 2 m. Only limited vegetation such as Chinese Banyan, Japanese Superb Fig (Ficus subpisocarpa), herbs Bidens alba and Blunt Signal-grass (Brachiaria mutica) were recorded at the embankment. Human disturbance (i.e. dumping of domestic waste and furniture, and sewage discharge from nearby village housings) was observed.

Natural Watercourse

9.4.3.16 A number of small natural watercourses were identified near Che Ting Tsuen. These natural watercourses (i.e. upstream section of Watercourse 2 and Watercourse 3) were originated from Devil’s Peak. Their lower sections became modified ditches when they reach the village areas (Figure 9.2 refers). The width of the watercourses were approximately 1 – 1.5 m with shallow water depth and moderate water flow. The substratum varied from rocky to muddy and the water quality was apparently fair. Riparian vegetation included Asiatic Ardisia (Ardisia quinquegona), Lance-leaved Sterculia and Opposite-leaved Fig. Aquatic plant species including Diffuse Day-flower (Commelina diffusa) and Hydrocotyle verticillata were also commonly recorded. Human disturbance such as litter, construction waste and human activities from squatter areas were recorded.

Intertidal Habitat

9.4.3.17 The majority of the shoreline within the study area has been modified into artificial shoreline or concrete vertical seawall. Human activities such as angling were observed within this habitat. Scattered plants including Bidens alba, Peacock-plume Grass (Chloris barbata), Many-flowered Silvergrass and Guinea Grass were recorded.

9.4.3.18 Natural rocky shore was found near LYM Lighthouse, Ma Pui Tsuen and eastern sides of the LYM shoreline and Shau Kei Wan shoreline. This habitat mainly comprised of boulders with only limited vegetation. Steep rocky cliffs and platforms, rocky outcrop, and small rock pools were commonly observed within this habitat. Vegetation including Cuban Bast (Hibiscus tiliaceus), Clerodendrum inerme, Beach Morning-glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae) and Many-flowered Silvergrass were recorded in low abundance.

9.4.3.19 Three small sandy shores were identified near LYM Lighthouse and Ma Pui Tsuen. Scattered herb species Clerodendrum inerme, Beach Morning-glory, and Annual Bluegrass were recorded. This habitat is contiguous with residential areas and was subjected to moderate disturbance from angling, commercial activities, and sewage discharge from nearby village housings.

Terrestrial Fauna

Avifauna

9.4.3.20 A total of 21 avifauna species were recorded from recent survey within the study area (refer to Appendix 9.4). Most of the recorded avifauna species are locally common generalists such as Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus), Japanese White-eye (Zosterops japonica) and Spotted Dove (Spilopelia chinensis).

9.4.3.21 Three avifauna species of conservation importance were recorded including Pacific Reef Heron (Egretta sacra), Black Kite (Milvus migrans) and Collared Scops Owl (Ottus lettia) (refer to Figure 9.2 and Appendix 9.4 and 9.9). No evidence of breeding or nesting birds was recorded within the study area.

9.4.3.22 One individual of Pacific Reef Egret was recorded foraging in a sandy shore habitat within the proposed site boundary adjacent to LYM Lighthouse. Pacific Reef Heron is a locally uncommon residential ardeid species (AFCD, 2017). It typically occurs in rocky coastal areas (Carey et al., 2001). This species is a Class II protected species in China and is listed as “Rare” in the China Red Data Book.

9.4.3.23 Individuals of Black Kite were recorded soaring above various habitats including mixed woodland, shrubland, grassland and developed area. Most of the recorded Black Kites are solitary birds observed in flight. Due to the restrictedness in breeding and roosting sites of this species, Black Kite is listed as being of “Regional Concern” (Fellowes et al., 2002). However, no evidence of nesting / breeding was recorded during the surveys. Black Kite is a widely distributed common resident and winter visitor of Hong Kong (AFCD, 2015). It is protected under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586), Class II Protected Animals of PRC and listed in Appendix II of CITES (Zheng and Wang, 1998).

9.4.3.24 A call of Collared Scops Owl was recorded in mixed woodland habitat. It is a nocturnal resident species which inhabits a variety of wooded habitats including forests, Fung Shui woods, shrubland with scattered trees, gardens and city parks (Carey et al., 2001). Collared Scops Owl is listed under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) and is a Class II protected species in China.

Mammals

9.4.3.25 The only mammal species recorded within the study area was Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus abramus) (refer to Appendix 9.5). No mammal species was recorded within the site boundary. Individuals of Japanese Pipistrelle were recorded in mixed woodland, shrubland and plantation habitats around Devil’s Peak (refer to Figure 9.2). Japanese Pipistrelle is a very common bat species typically occurring in urban areas (AFCD, 2017). It is considered to be a species of conservation importance as all bat species are protected under Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) in Hong Kong.

Herpetofauna

9.4.3.26 Low abundance of three reptile and three amphibian species was recorded within the study area (refer to Appendix 9.5). The recorded herpetofauna species are all locally common or widely distributed in Hong Kong. No herpetofauna were recorded within the site boundary. No herpetofauna species of conservation importance were recorded.

9.4.3.27 All reptile species including Chinese Gecko (Gekko chinensis), Bowring’s Gecko (Hemidactylus bowringii) and White-spotted Slug Snake (Pareas margaritophorus) were recorded in developed area. Most of the amphibian records were made in developed area. Calls of Asiatic Painted Frog (Kaloula pulchra) and Brown Tree Frog (Polypedates megacephalus) were recorded in mixed woodland and plantation habitats.

Butterflies

9.4.3.28 A total of 16 species of butterfly were recorded within the study area (refer to Appendix 9.6). Most of the species recorded are very common or common in Hong Kong, except Yellow Rajah (Charaxes marmax) which is uncommon (AFCD, 2017). Yellow Rajah is considered to be of “Local Concern” (Fellowes et al., 2002). One individual was recorded in a woodland habitat near Ma Wan Tsuen (refer to Figure 9.2). The butterfly community was dominated by Common Mormon (Papilio polytes polytes) which is very common in Hong Kong. The butterfly abundance and diversity are very low within the site boundary.

Odonates

9.4.3.29 A total of four species of odonate were recorded within the study area (refer to Appendix 9.6). All of the species recorded are abundant in Hong Kong (AFCD, 2017). No odonate species of conservation importance were recorded. Wandering Glider (Pantala flavescens) was the most common species recorded and this species is abundant in Hong Kong.

9.4.4 Ecological value

9.4.4.1 The ecological importance of recorded habitats was evaluated in accordance with the EIAO-TM Annex 8 criteria and presented in Table 9.8 to Table 9.16 below. Species of conservation importance identified from recent surveys and previous studies are presented in Table 9.17.

Intertidal Habitats

9.4.4.2 Intertidal habitats within the study area are considered to be of low ecological value due to the low fauna diversity recorded. No intertidal species of conservation importance were recorded but only a few individuals of avifauna species of conservation importance (Little Egret, Black Kite and Pacific Reef Heron) from previous and current surveys.

Table 9.8 Evaluation of Intertidal Habitats within the Study Area

Criteria	Intertidal Habitats
Naturalness	The intertidal habitats were mainly made up of artificial seawalls, extending from Sam Ka Tsuen Typhoon Shelter to Che Ting Tsuen. Natural rocky shore and sandy shores were recorded at the seafront of Lei Yue Mun, Ma Wan Tsuen and Ma Pui Tsuen.
Size	Small
Diversity	Low
Rarity	Rocky Shore and Artificial Seawall – Common habitats in Hong Kong Sandy Shore – Less common habitat in Hong Kong but the sandy shores in the study area were highly disturbed by human activities of the residential /commercial areas No intertidal species of conservation importance were recorded Pacific Reef Heron was recorded at the sandy shore within the site boundary. Little Egret and Black Kite were previously recorded at rocky shore habitat.
Re-creatability	Low for rocky shore and sandy shore High for artificial seawall
Fragmentation	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any high ecological value resources
Potential value	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	N/A
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat

9.4.4.3 Common coral species were recorded, including six hard coral, one black coral, three gorgonian and two soft coral species. The coral communities were dominated by common and widespread species and they were only sparsely distributed within the habitat. Spotted Seahorse was recorded in previous study (CEDD, 2010), however, this species was not recorded during the current surveys. The subtidal hard substrate habitat is considered to be of low ecological value.

Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat

9.4.4.4 Moderate diversity and low abundance of benthic communities subject to disturbances were recorded within this habitat. No rare species or species of conservation importance were recorded. The soft bottom habitat is considered to be of low ecological value.

Table 9.9 Evaluation of the Subtidal Hard Substrate and Soft Bottom Habitats within the Study Area

Criteria	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat	Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat
Naturalness	High – this habitat is mainly composed of natural bedrocks and boulders	Moderate – reported in previous study: the substrate is natural but subject to disturbances
Size	Medium	Medium
Diversity	Low	Moderate
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong Sparse coverage of common coral species including six hard coral (Oulastrea crispata, Tubastrea sp. A, Tubastrea sp. B, Tubastrea sp. C, Tubastrea diaphana; and Turbinaria peltata) and one black coral (Cirripathes sp.) species of conservation importance were recorded. T. diaphana was recorded in previous survey.	Common habitat in Hong Kong No rare or species of conservation importance were recorded
Re-creatability	Low	Low
Fragmentation	N/A	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	N/A	N/A
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low	Low
Ecological Value	Low	Low

Mixed Woodland

9.4.4.5 Mixed woodland habitat was mainly found at Devil’s Peak, while other two small mixed woodlands were located at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan at the opposite coast. The mixed woodlands at Yau Tong was isolated and surrounded by developed areas such as residential / commercial areas and roads. The woodland near the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence remained relatively undisturbed. Two avifauna, one butterfly and one mammal species of conservation importance were recorded at mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak. Disturbance from the adjacent developed areas (e.g. residential areas, hiking trails) were observed during the recent surveys. Considering the size, naturalness and species diversity, mixed woodlands at Devil’s Peak and Shau Kei Wan is of low to moderate ecological value; while the remaining two mixed woodlands are of low ecological value.

Table 9.10 Evaluation of Mixed Woodland within the Study Area

Criteria	Mixed Woodland
Naturalness	High
Size	Medium (17.07 ha)
Diversity	Low to moderate – Mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak Low – Two mixed woodlands at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan 107 flora and 23 fauna species recorded in this habitat from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No flora species of conservation importance recorded Two avifauna (Black Kite and Collared Scops Owl), one butterfly (Yellow Rajah) and one mammal species (Japanese Pipistrelle) of conservation importance recorded at mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak
Re-creatability	Low to moderate – decades needed for the plant to become mature
Fragmentation	Low
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Moderate – given protection for natural succession
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	Semi-mature
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Moderate
Ecological Value	Low to Moderate – Mixed woodlands at Devil’s Peak and Shau Kei Wan Low – Mixed woodland at Yau Tong

Plantation

9.4.4.6 The plantation habitat on disturbed slopes had relatively low diversity and abundance of flora and fauna. This habitat is subject to traffic and human disturbance. Exotic species such as Acacia spp. and Brisbane Box were commonly recorded. Some native shrub and fern species were observed to regenerate in the understory of these plantation areas. One mammal species of conservation importance was recorded. This habitat is considered as of low ecological value.

Table 9.11 Evaluation of Plantation within the Study Area

Criteria	Plantation
Naturalness	Low to moderate – Artificially planted on disturbed slope areas with mostly fast growing exotic species such as Acacia spp. Some native species naturally colonised the understorey.
Size	Small (2.05 ha)
Diversity	Low – 85 flora and 17 fauna species recorded in this habitat in recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No flora species of conservation importance were recorded One mammal species of conservation importance (Japanese Pipistrelle) was recorded
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	Low
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low to moderate – when enough time is given for natural succession and the colonization of more native species
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	Young
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Shrubland

9.4.4.7 Shrubland patches were recorded at the upper hillside, mid-level and eastern slope toe of Devil’s Peak. The structural complexity of this habitat was simple and the flora and fauna diversity was low. The shrublands located near roadside, hiking trails or residential areas were subjected to anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. illegal dumping of construction waste, traffic noise). This habitat is considered to be of low ecological value.

Table 9.12 Evaluation of Shrubland within the Study Area

Criteria	Shrubland
Naturalness	High
Size	Small (9.12 ha)
Diversity	Low – 57 flora and 19 fauna species recorded from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No flora species of conservation importance were recorded One avifauna (Back Kite) and one mammal (Japanese Pipistrelle) species of conservation importance were recorded
Re-creatability	Re-creatable if time is allowed for maturation and natural succession
Fragmentation	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low to moderate – time is required for a shrubland to become mature
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	Young
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Grassland

9.4.4.8 Grassland is typically the first habitat established on bare soil after disturbance. The grassland identified within the study area were located in close proximity to roads or villages and tended to have higher disturbance (e.g. littering, human activities). Therefore, they were of low ecological value due to high disturbance level, small size, low flora and fauna diversity.

Table 9.13 Evaluation of Grassland within the Study Area

Criteria	Grassland
Naturalness	High. Subject to certain extent of disturbance from visitors to the Wilson Trail and former Lei Yue Mun Quarry site.
Size	Small (0.98 ha)
Diversity	Low – 41 flora and 16 fauna species recorded from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No flora species of conservation importance recorded One avifauna species of conservation importance (Black Kite) was recorded
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	Young
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Developed Area

9.4.4.9 Developed area within the study area comprised roads, residential areas, stilt houses, commercial areas, recreational park, amenity planting and public facilities, etc., which were subjected to high levels of human disturbance. Flora species recorded within this habitat were mostly exotic or horticultural species. Flora and fauna diversity recorded were also low. Therefore, this habitat was considered to be of low ecological value.

Table 9.14 Evaluation of Developed Area within the Study Area

Criteria	Developed Area
Naturalness	Low – man-made habitat
Size	Medium (24.35 ha)
Diversity	Low – 109 flora and 33 fauna species recorded from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No flora species of conservation importance were recorded Two avifauna species of conservation importance (Little Egret and Black Kite) were recorded. Little Egret was recorded in previous study. Black Kite was recorded in recent survey.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	N/A
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Drainage Channel

9.4.4.10 The drainage channels identified within the study area was man-made habitat and highly modified. They were small channels or ditches composed of semi- or fully modified banks. This habitat supported low flora and fauna diversity, with no species of conservation importance recorded during the previous and current surveys. Therefore, this habitat is of low ecological value.

Table 9.15 Evaluation of Drainage Channel within the Study Area

Criteria	Drainage Channel
Naturalness	Low – man-made habitat
Size	Small (0.15 ha, 0.31 km)
Diversity	Low – 18 flora and 2 fauna species recorded from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong No species of conservation importance were recorded
Re-creatability	Easily re-creatable
Fragmentation	None
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	N/A
Abundance / Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological Value	Low

Natural Watercourse

9.4.4.11 Two permanent natural watercourses (Watercourse 2 and Watercourse 3) were identified within the study area. These natural watercourses were natural, but disturbance such as littering and human activities were recorded at the lower section of Watercourse 2 within the shrubland habitat. Low flora and fauna diversity was recorded for both natural watercourses. Therefore, the ecological values of Watercourse 2 and Watercourse 3 are considered to be low.

9.4.4.12 Seasonal natural watercourses mainly occurred at Devil’s Peak are dry in nature but are likely to carry water under heavy rain. Low flora and fauna diversity were recorded and therefore they are considered to be of low ecological value.

Table 9.16 Evaluation of Natural Watercourse within the Study Area

Criteria	Watercourse 2	Watercourse 3	Seasonal Natural Watercourses
Naturalness	High	High	High
Size	0.2 km	0.1 km	1.38 km
Diversity	Low – 30 flora and 4 fauna species recorded from recent surveys
Rarity	Common habitat in hillside area of Hong Kong No species of conservation importance were recorded
Re-creatability	Low	Low	Low
Fragmentation	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not structurally or functionally linked to any highly valued habitats
Potential value	Low	Low	Low
Nursery ground	No record of nursery or breeding ground
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low	Low	Low
Ecological Value	Low	Low	Low

Table 9.17 Species of Conservation Importance Recorded within the Study Area during Previous and Recent Surveys

Species	Distribution in Hong Kong⁽¹⁾	Rarity and Protection Status⁽²⁾	Recorded Habitats
Species	Distribution in Hong Kong⁽¹⁾	Rarity and Protection Status⁽²⁾	Previous Survey⁽³⁾	Recent Survey
Fauna
Avifauna
Little Egret (Egretta garzetta)	Common	Cap. 170; PRC (RC)⁽⁴⁾	Developed Area; Rocky Shore	-
Pacific Reef Heron (Egretta sacra)	Uncommon	Cap. 170; “LC” by Fellowes et al. (2002); Class II Protection Status in China; China Red Data Book (Rare)	-	Sandy Shore
Black Kite (Milvus migrans)	Common	Cap. 170; Cap. 586; “(RC)” by Fellowes et al. (2002); Class II Protection Status in China	Mixed Woodland; Developed Area; Rocky Shore	Mixed Woodland; Shrubland; Grassland; Developed Area
Collared Scops Owl (Otus lettia)	Common	Cap. 170; Cap. 586; Class II Protection Status in China	-	Mixed Woodland
Mammal
Japanese Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus abramus)	Very Common	Cap. 170; “LC” by Fellowes et al. (2002)	-	Mixed Woodland; Plantation; Shrubland
Butterfly
Yellow Rajah (Charaxes marmax)	Uncommon	“LC” by Fellowes et al. (2002);	-	Mixed Woodland
Seahorse
Spotted Seahorse (Hippocampus kuda)	Moderately Abundant⁽⁵⁾	Cap. 586; Vulnerable (IUCN, 2016)	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat (outside of the project site)	-
Hard Coral
Oulastrea crispata	Common⁽⁶⁾	Cap. 586	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat
Tubastrea diaphana	^-	Cap. 586	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat	-
Tubastrea sp. A	-	Cap. 586	-	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat
Tubastrea sp. B	-	Cap. 586	-	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat
Tubastrea sp. C	-	Cap. 586	-	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat
Turbinaria peltata	Common⁽⁶⁾	Cap. 586; Vulnerable (IUCN, 2016)	-	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat
Black Coral
Cirripathes sp.	-	Cap. 586	-	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat

Note:

1. AFCD (2017).

2. Cap. 170: Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170).

Cap. 586: Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586).

Fellowes et al. (2002): LC=Local Concern; RC=Regional Concern. Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in nesting and / or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.

List of Wild Animals under State Protection (promulgated by State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January 1989).

Zheng & Wang (1998). China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals – Aves.

IUCN (2016). IUCN Red List Version 2016.3

3. CEDD (2010).

4. Fellowes et al. (2002). RC=Regional Concern; PRC=Potential Regional Concern. Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in nesting and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.

5. AFCD (2012).

6. Chan et al. (2005)

9.5 Identification of Potential Impacts

9.5.1 Construction Phase

9.5.1.1 As discussed in Section 2, the proposed works would include:

· Construction of a promenade with public landing facility (i.e. landing steps);

· Construction of a breakwater;

· Dredging of seabed;

· Improvement and beautification works for five existing lookout points and an existing viewing platform;

· Construction of a carp-shaped platform and a pavilion with children play area;

· Beautification works of promenade; and

· Streetscape improvement works.

9.5.1.2 The potential impacts arise from the construction and operation phases of the proposed development can be divided into the following categories:

§ Direct Impacts

- Loss of habitats

- Direct injury / mortality of wildlife

§ Indirect Impacts

- Indirect impacts to recognized sites of conservation importance

- Disturbance impacts to habitat and wildlife

Direct Impacts

Marine Habitat and Fauna Loss

9.5.1.3 A summary of permanent and temporary marine habitat loss is presented in Table 9.18.

Table 9.18 Summary of Marine Habitat Loss

Proposed Works	Intertidal Habitats			Subtidal Hard Substrate and Soft Bottom Habitats
Proposed Works	*Rocky Shore*	*Sandy Shore*	*Artificial Seawall*	Subtidal Hard Substrate and Soft Bottom Habitats
Dredging of seabed	-	-	-	Temporary loss of 0.32 ha of subtidal soft bottom habitat
Improvement of five lookout points and a viewing platform	-	-	Temporary loss of 85 m	-
Promenade extension, breakwater and public landing facility	Permanent loss of 0.03 ha (for public landing facility)	Permanent loss of 0.02 ha (for carp-shaped platform and part of the public landing facility)	Permanent loss of 40 m	Permanent loss of 0.05 ha of subtidal hard substrate habitat (for public landing facility and breakwater)

9.5.1.4 There would be permanent loss of approximately 0.03 ha rocky shore, 0.02 ha sandy shore, 40 m of artificial seawall and 0.05 ha subtidal hard substrate habitats due to the dredging works, construction of proposed promenade extension, breakwater and public landing facility. The intertidal and subtidal species recorded were mostly common in Hong Kong, with no rare species of conservation importance recorded. The species diversity is low. Given the affected marine habitats were subjected to high disturbance (e.g. fishing, disposal of broken glass and debris) and supported low abundance of flora and fauna species, the impact of habitat loss is expected to be minor.

9.5.1.5 The existing artificial seawall of approximately 85 m along LYM waterfront would be lost temporarily due to the improvement works of the existing lookout points and viewing platform. Temporary loss of about 0.32 ha subtidal soft bottom habitat is anticipated due to the dredging of seabed. It should be noted that the affected artificial seawall would be reinstated upon completion of the construction works and the benthic communities are expected to gradually recover upon the completion of the dredging works. Given these habitats are of low ecological value and the works would be temporary and small in scale, the impact is expected to be minor.

9.5.1.6 The subtidal hard substrata habitat within the study area supported sparse and patchy cover of locally common coral species. Based on the findings of literature review and recent surveys, the coastline of LYM is not a major habitat for corals. About 45 coral colonies were identified along REA1 which would be located within the dredging area and would be directly affected by the proposed dredging works. To minimise the impact to the coral colonies, the affected coral colonies would be translocated and/or mitigated by other best practicable mitigation measures before the commencement of the works.

9.5.1.7 The affected subtidal soft bottom habitat within the dredging area is of small sized and only supports a low abundance of benthic fauna dominated by locally common polychaetes. No rare species or species of conservation importance were recorded. Therefore, the ecological impact due to direct mortality of benthic fauna is considered to be minor.

Terrestrial Habitat and Fauna Loss

9.5.1.8 Based on the current design of the Project, it is estimated only about 0.32 ha developed area would be affected due to beautification works and construction of proposed promenade extension), carp-shaped platform and public landing facility and streetscape improvement works (Figure 2.1 refers). Given the nature of land use would be similar to current condition and only low abundance of flora and fauna species was recorded within the affected areas. Moreover, the affected habitats are small, man-made in nature, and highly disturbed by nearby human activities, the impact is considered as minor.

9.5.1.9 Most of the land-based works including streetscape improvement works, viewing platform improvement works, beautification works, promenade extension and pavilion construction would be located at existing developed area. No fragmentation of natural terrestrial habitats is anticipated.

9.5.1.10 The land-based construction activities could potentially cause direct injury/mortality to terrestrial wildlife. Fauna with high mobility (e.g. avifauna, mammals, butterflies and dragonflies) are not anticipated to be significantly impacted, while fauna with lower mobility and flora would be subject to higher risk of damage or mortality during the construction period. However, since the affected developed area only supported low abundance and species diversity, the impact is anticipated to be minor. One avifauna species of conservation importance, Pacific Reef Heron, was recorded at a sandy shore within the site boundary. As avifauna is highly mobile, the risk of injury or mortality due to construction activities would be relatively low. Thus, no significant impact to this species is anticipated

Indirect Impacts

Disturbance Impact to Recognized Sites of Conservation Importance

9.5.1.11 The CPA was located approximately 10 m from the nearest dredging works area. The site was zoned primarily for its scenic instead of ecological value. Therefore, the indirect ecological impacts to the habitat in the CPA are minor.

Disturbance Impact to Aquatic and Marine Habitats and Wildlife

9.5.1.12 Dredging of seabed, installation of breakwater structure and public landing facility could elevate sediment levels in site runoff, potentially increasing suspended solids (SS) level and hence increasing turbidity. It is expected that a 3-month dredging activity would be carried out with a maximum dredging rate of 100 m³ per hour during the construction phase. SS would be transported by current to form plumes which gradually resettle. Increased SS would also reduce the light penetrating through the water column, and affect hermatypic hard corals which possess photosynthetic algae. Reduced light intensity would slow down photosynthesis, reduce food production and result in starvation. Soft and gorgonian corals have flexible branches and erect growth forms, they are less prone to sedimentation impacts. Also, they feed independently without contributions from algal associates. Therefore, they are less sensitive to light reduction due to increased turbidity. Increased SS could also potentially affect other marine organisms or clog their respiratory and feeding systems, and may lead to lethal effects. However, as the abundance of species recorded was low within the works area and with proper implementation of mitigation measures (refer to Section 9.8.1.6), the impact is anticipated to be low. According to the Water Quality Objectives (WQO) for marine waters sub-zone within the study area, the waste discharge should not to raise the natural ambient level by 30% nor cause the accumulation of suspended solids which may adversely affect aquatic communities. According to the water quality modelling result (Appendix 5.3 and 5.4 refer), the plume created resulting from dredging and filling activities is highly localized, only area within 100 m of the Project site is expected to be affected. No exceedance of the WQO (Table 5.24 refers) was recorded beyond this area, therefore impacts due to SS to nearby marine environment is considered to be minor.

9.5.1.13 Dredging activities can cause the release of contaminants from marine sediments. Increase in level of contaminants could cause lethal or sub-lethal effects to marine fauna. Potential effects would depend on several factors, such as species tolerance, contaminant levels and water flow rate, etc. Some contaminants are able to accumulate in fauna e.g. fish tissue, resulting in potential sub-lethal impacts such as alteration of behaviour, reproduction failure and increase susceptibility to diseases. The water quality modelling result shows that area closest to the proposed dredging area would subject to exceedance of copper and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) level. The impact would be temporary and localized and is therefore considered to be acceptable. Besides, the amount of copper level exceedance is marginal given that it only exceeded 3.6% of the WQO. It is expected that any release of contaminants during dredging would be quickly diluted by the large volume of marine water within the dredging site. The release of contaminants would also be minimised using closed grab dredger. Thus, long-term off-site marine water quality impact is not anticipated.

9.5.1.14 Depletion of dissolved oxygen (DO) would increase the chance of suffocation of fauna. The WQO standard in the study area regarding DO levels for bottom-waters should remain above 2.0 mg/L and for the average depth it should remain above 4.0 mg/L. Both standard should be in compliance for 90% of the time. According to the Water Quality Impact Assessment (Section 5), the marine-based works including dredging activities would only result in a maximum depletion of less than 0.1 mg/L at the nearest coral communities (Table 5.17 refers). As the depletion of DO is not anticipated to be significant and given the Water Quality Objectives for depth-averaged DO would be fully complied, no adverse indirect impacts on marine fauna is anticipated.

9.5.1.15 Accidental spills of oils, other chemicals and contaminated water from construction site could affect coral and marine benthic communities, resulting in lethal / sublethal impacts (e.g. direct mortality, reproductive retardation) on marine organisms. With proper treatment on the discharge or recharge of chemicals contaminated water and waste water, the impacts due to water quality deterioration to coral and marine benthic communities would be minimised.

9.5.1.16 Construction site runoff would be generated from the proposed land-based works. Although no natural watercourses were identified near the proposed work sites, runoff and erosion of exposed bare soil and earth, leakage of fuel / chemical, earth working area and stockpiles may enter into other artificial watercourses. This could result in lethal / sublethal impacts (abnormal structures and reproductive retardation) on aquatic organisms. Larger particles could cause physical injury to aquatic organisms, while small particles could clog the respiratory and feeding systems of fish and invertebrates. However, with the implementation of appropriate measures to control surface runoff from the construction site, unacceptable impacts on water quality by land-based works are not expected.

Disturbance Impact to Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife

9.5.1.17 Noise would be emitted from operating machinery and traffic during the construction phase. Human activities would also increase during the construction phase. Fauna inhabiting areas closer to the works area would temporarily displace into less noisy and less disturbed areas, causing potential decrease in animal usage in habitats around the works areas, and subsequent decrease in wildlife density. Given the majority of recorded species within the study area were generalist species habituated to various levels of disturbance and that utilize a wide range of habitats, the level of noise and human disturbance impacts would be minor.

9.5.1.18 Dust generated during the construction phase (e.g. construction machinery, improper storage or dumping of construction materials) could degrade the habitats adjacent to works areas. Dust could cover plant leaves and may affect photosynthesis, respiration and transpiration. The predicted dust impact to nearby habitats and vegetation would be acceptable with proper implementation of mitigation measures (e.g. recommended dust suppression measures and good site practices).

9.5.1.19 Glare from construction activities may affect some wildlife and can lead to faunal population decrease through disorientation or attraction to artificial light. Glare may affect nocturnal or light sensitive animals. This can affect migration, foraging / predation and breeding success of species. However, the majority of habitat within the site boundary area is developed area. And the nearest recorded nocturnal species including Collared Scops Owl and Japanese Pipistrelle were at mixed woodland habitats which were 200 m and 400 m from the streetscape works area respectively. Therefore, the glare impact to wildlife is unlikely to be significant.

9.5.2 Operation Phase

Direct Impacts

9.5.2.1 Subject to the sedimentation and scouring conditions of the site, regular maintenance dredging would be required to maintain adequate water depth for safe navigation of vessels at the public landing facility. It is expected that the scale of maintenance dredging would be much smaller compared to the capital dredging and would be confined to the area of capital dredging (i.e. about 0.32 ha) with an estimated dredging depth of about 0.8 m for navigation of vessels. The estimated dredging volume would be about 3,820 m³ every 5 to 10 years which is far less than that of the capital dredging works. The maintenance dredging would cause minor temporary loss of subtidal habitat mainly in the berthing area. The affected area is expected to be small and only supports low abundance of benthic fauna including sparse coverage (<1%) of common coral species dominated by octocoral Echinomuricea sp. Comparing with the eastern water which in general has better water quality and supports richer coral communities, the affected area is near to the navigation fairway and is not of particular importance to corals. Therefore the impact is considered to be minor.

9.5.2.2 Upon the completion of the public landing facility, it is anticipated the number of marine vessels would increase. This may result in increasing risk of collision between marine vessels and fauna. However, since the area within / in the vicinity of the works area is not a recognized important habitat for marine mammal, the risk of collision is negligible.

Indirect Impacts

Disturbance to Habitats and Wildlife

9.5.2.3 Maintenance dredging would be required during the operation phase. Similar to the capital dredging, the dredging rate for maintenance dredging would be restricted to no more than100 m³ per hour within a much shorter construction period (not more than a week), and with a smaller total volume. In addition, closed grab dredger and silt curtains will be deployed. Therefore, the water quality impact due to maintenance dredging would be much smaller than the capital dredging. The estimated frequency for maintenance dredging would be once every 5 to 10 years. The maintenance dredging activities would result in water quality deterioration (e.g. increase in SS level, sedimentation, decrease in DO, leakage of chemicals / release of contaminants) (refer to Sections 9.5.1.12 – 9.5.1.15). There would be potential impacts on the intertidal fauna, coral and benthic communities (e.g. reproduction and survival rate). Given that the affected area only supported low abundance of marine fauna species and with the implementation of mitigation measures to control water quality impact as recommended in Section 5.8, unacceptable indirect impacts on the intertidal fauna, coral and benthic communities arising from the maintenance dredging works are not anticipated.

9.5.2.4 Upon the completion of the proposed works, the attractiveness of LYM waterfront area will be enhanced and the number of tourists is expected to increase. This will result in increased human activities and disturbance (e.g. deterioration in air quality, noise) to nearby habitat and associated fauna. Given the LYM waterfront area was already subjected to moderate disturbance under the current condition and more natural habitat (i.e. mixed woodland) was buffered by the shrubland habitat, the impact of disturbance was anticipated to be minor.

9.5.2.5 Marine vessels arriving the public landing facility would generate disturbances including underwater noise and water pollution. Considering that the subtidal and intertidal habitats are of low ecological value, the disturbance impact is considered to be minor.

9.6 Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

9.6.1 Prediction and Evaluation of Ecological Impact

9.6.1.1 Potential ecological impacts on the identified habitats within the study area associated with the construction and operation of the Project have been evaluated in accordance with the Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM, as presented in Table 9.19 to Table 9.27.

Table 9.19 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Intertidal Habitat within the Study Area

Criteria	Intertidal Habitat
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	Three avifauna species of conservation importance including Little Egret, Black Kite and Pacific Reef Heron were recorded in previous and recent surveys
Size / Abundance	Permanent loss of approximately 0.03 ha of rocky shore, 0.02 ha of sandy shore and 40 m of artificial seawall Temporary loss of approximately 85m of artificial seawall
Duration	Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of five lookout points and a viewing platform; promenade extension and public landing facility to 0.03 ha rocky shore, 0.02 ha sandy shore and 40m artificial seawall at LYM waterfront area would be permanent. Direct impact of habitat loss of 85m artificial seawall due to the construction of five lookout points and a viewing platform would be temporary during the construction phase. Indirect impact (impact on air quality, water quality; and noise, glare from construction activities) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (noise, increased human activities, marine traffic, glare) during the operation phase would be permanent
Reversibility	Permanent habitat loss of 0.03 ha rocky shore, 0.02 ha sandy shore and 40m artificial seawall is irreversible. Temporary habitat loss on 85m artificial seawall is reversible. Construction phase disturbance would be reversible Operation phase disturbance would be irreversible
Magnitude	Low
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Low

Table 9.20 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Subtidal Hard Substrate and Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitats within the Study Area

Criteria	Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat	Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat
Habitat Quality	Low	Low
Species	Sparse coverage of coral consisting of six hard coral species (Oulastrea crispata, Tubastrea diaphana, Tubastrea sp. A, Tubastrea sp. B, Tubastrea sp. C and Turbinaria peltata) and one black coral (Cirripathes sp.) species of conservation importance were recorded in recent surveys and previous study. Three hard coral species, Tubastrea sp. A, B and C were recorded within the site boundary of dredging area in the recent survey.	No rare or species of conservation importance recorded
Size / Abundance	0.05 ha permanent loss subtidal hard substrate habitat	0.32 ha temporary loss of subtidal soft bottom habitat
Duration	Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of proposed construction of promenade extension, breakwater, public landing facility would be permanent Indirect impact (e.g. water quality impacts) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (e.g. marine traffic) during the operation phase would be permanent	Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of proposed dredging for public landing facility would be temporary Direct impact due to maintenance dredging would be temporary Indirect impact (e.g. water quality impacts) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (e.g. increased marine traffic) during the operation phase would be permanent
Reversibility	Direct impact within footprint of proposed development would be irreversible Construction phase disturbance would be reversible Operation phase disturbance would be irreversible	Direct impact within footprint of proposed dredging would be reversible Direct impact due to regular maintenance dredging would be reversible Construction phase disturbance would be reversible Operation phase disturbance would be irreversible
Magnitude	Low	Low
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Low	Low

Table 9.21 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Mixed Woodland within the Study Area

Criteria	Mixed Woodland
Habitat Quality	Low to Moderate – Mixed woodlands at Devil’s Peak and Shau Kei Wan Low – Mixed woodland at Yau Tong
Species	Three avifauna species of conservation importance (Black Kite and Collared Scops Owl), one butterfly (Yellow Rajah) and one mammal species (Japanese Pipistrelle) of conservation importance were recorded at mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak during recent surveys and previous study No species of conservation importance recorded at mixed woodland habitats in Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be directly affected
Duration	Indirect impact (e.g. noise, human activities, dust and glare) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (e.g. artificial light and human disturbance) during the operation phase would be permanent Impact to the mixed woodlands at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan would be negligible
Reversibility	Construction phase disturbance to mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak would be temporary and reversible; Operation phase disturbance to mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak would be permanent and irreversible Impact to the mixed woodlands at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan would be negligible
Magnitude	Minor - for mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak Negligible - for the mixed woodlands at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Minor – for mixed woodland at Devil’s Peak Negligible – for the mixed woodlands at Yau Tong and Shau Kei Wan

Table 9.22 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Plantation within the Study Area

Criteria	Plantation
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	One mammal species of conservation importance (Japanese Pipistrelle) recorded
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be directly affected
Duration	Given the distance from the plantation habitat and the proposed works areas (>350 m), both construction phase and operation phase impacts would be negligible
Reversibility	Given the distance from the plantation habitat and the proposed works areas (>350 m), both construction phase and operation phase impacts would be negligible
Magnitude	Negligible
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Negligible

Table 9.23 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Shrubland within the Study Area

Criteria	Shrubland
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	One avifauna (Back Kite) and one mammal (Japanese Pipistrelle) species of conservation importance recorded
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be directly affected
Duration	Indirect impact (e.g. noise, human activities, dust and glare) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (e.g. artificial light and human disturbance) during the operation phase would be permanent
Reversibility	Construction phase disturbance to shrubland would be reversible Operation phase disturbance to shrubland would be irreversible
Magnitude	Low
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Low

Table 9.24 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Grassland within the Study Area

Criteria	Grassland
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	One avifauna species of conservation importance (Black Kite) recorded
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be directly affected
Duration	Given the distance from the grassland habitat and the proposed works areas (>230 m), both construction phase and operation phase impacts would be negligible
Reversibility	Given the distance from the grassland habitat and the proposed works areas (>230 m), both construction phase and operation phase impacts would be negligible
Magnitude	Negligible
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Negligible

Table 9.25 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Developed Area within the Study Area

Criteria	Developed Area
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	Two avifauna species of conservation importance (Little Egret and Black Kite) were recorded in recent surveys and previous study
Size / Abundance	Direct impact to approximately 0.09 ha and 0.23 ha of this habitat would be permanent and temporary respectively
Duration	Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of proposed beautification works at existing promenade, five lookout points and a viewing platform; and construction works of a carp-shaped platform, a pavilion, promenade extension and public landing facility would be permanent Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of proposed streetscape improvement works would be temporary Indirect impact (noise, human activities, dust and glare) during the construction phase would be temporary Indirect impact (artificial light and human disturbance) during the operation phase would be permanent
Reversibility	Direct impact within footprint of proposed beautification works at existing promenade, five lookout points and a viewing platform; and construction works of a carp-shaped platform, a pavilion, promenade extension and public landing facility would be irreversible Direct impact of habitat loss within footprint of proposed streetscape improvement works would be reversible Construction phase disturbance to the developed area in the vicinity of the site boundary would be reversible Operation phase disturbance to all developed area would be irreversible
Magnitude	Low
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Low

Table 9.26 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Drainage Channel within the Study Area

Criteria	Drainage Channel
Habitat Quality	Low
Species	Low flora and fauna diversity No species of conservation importance were recorded
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be impacted directly
Duration	Since the footprint of proposed works will be buffered by the developed area habitat and not encroached into any drainage channels, indirect impact (e.g. noise, human disturbance, dust and surface runoff) during the construction phase and operation phase would be negligible
Reversibility	Since the footprint of proposed works will be buffered by the developed area habitat and not encroached into any drainage channels, indirect impact (e.g. noise, human disturbance, dust and surface runoff) during the construction phase and operation phase would be negligible
Magnitude	Negligible
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Negligible

Table 9.27 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts to Natural Watercourse within the Study Area

Criteria	Watercourse 2	Watercourse 3	Seasonal Natural Watercourses
Habitat Quality	Low	Low	Low
Species	No species of conservation importance recorded
Size / Abundance	This habitat will not be directly impacted
Duration	Since the footprint of proposed works will be located away from the natural watercourses and buffered by the developed area habitat, indirect impact (e.g. noise, human disturbance, dust and surface runoff) during the construction phase and operation phase would be negligible
Reversibility	Since the footprint of proposed works will be located away from the natural watercourses and buffered by the developed area habitat, indirect impact (e.g. noise, human disturbance, dust and surface runoff) during the construction phase and operation phase would be negligible
Magnitude	Negligible
Overall Impact Evaluation before mitigation	Negligible

9.7 Cumulative Impacts

9.7.1.1 According to Section 2, one concurrent land-based project, namely “Lei Yue Mun Village Sewerage project”, is identified near the proposed works area of carp-shaped platform, streetscape improvement works and promenade construction. However, given the streetscape improvement works are located in developed area only and would be temporary and small in scale, with implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 9.8, unacceptable cumulative impacts are not anticipated.

9.8 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts

9.8.1.1 According to Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM and EIAO Guidance Note. 3/2010, ecological impacts on important habitats and the associated wildlife should be mitigated by, in order of priority, avoidance, minimisation, and compensation approaches to the maximum practical extent.

Avoidance

9.8.1.2 Different design options for the Project were considered to arrive at the optimal option taking into account various factors as described in Section 2.8. The optimal option has avoided the ecological impact as far as practicable, which are detailed as follows:

· Avoided encroaching on recognized sites of conservation importance (i.e. the CPA comprising the oyster shell beach, rocky outcrop with the lighthouse to the south of LYM Village).

· Avoided direct impact on area with relatively higher abundance of coral colonies (i.e. REA 2 where about 270 colonies were recorded). As refer to Figure 9.1, under the optimal design option, the proposed dredging extent would only affect area around REA 1 where low coral abundance (about 45 coral colonies) and low coral coverage (1-5%) were recorded. This number is comparable to REA transects at similar depth i.e. REA 4 and REA 6. Moreover, the coral species recorded at REA 1 could be commonly found in Hong Kong waters.

· Avoided direct impact on natural terrestrial habitats, (e.g. mixed woodland, natural watercourses) and associated fauna and flora. The land-based works of the Project would mainly affect the developed area with limited ecological value.

Minimisation

Minimisation of Direct Loss of Coral

9.8.1.3 Sparse and patchy cover of coral colonies dominated by octocoral species (i.e. Echinomuricea sp. and Dendronephthya sp.) were identified within the proposed dredging area. To minimise the direct loss/damage to the coral colonies, translocation and/or other best practicable mitigation measures will be implemented for affected coral colonies. A possible recipient location for coral would be the southwestern coast of Junk Bay near Lei Yue Mun where the area was the recipient site of three previous coral translocation exercises, Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel; Wan Chai Development Phase II and Central-Wan Chai Bypass; and Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Development Projects (CEDD, 2013; CEDD, 2014). A detailed coral mapping is recommended to identify the extent and number of coral colonies (both movable and non-movable) within the affected marine area. The coral mitigation is recommended to be undertaken during the winter season (November-March) in order to avoid disturbance to the spawning period (i.e. July to October) of the affected coral colonies. A detailed Coral Mitigation Plan, including description of methodology including translocation (e.g. pre-translocation survey, identification / proposal of coral recipient site(s)) and/or other best practicable mitigation measures, and post-mitigation monitoring programme should be prepared with reference to recently approved EIA and subject to comment by the AFCD before commencement of the coral mitigation. All the coral mitigation exercises should be conducted by experienced marine ecologist(s) with at least 5 years relevant experience prior to commencement of coral mitigation. During operation phase, coral survey will be carried out to review and update the conditions of corals in the dredging area and its vicinity prior to each maintenance dredging. Subject to the findings of the coral survey, the impact on corals due to maintenance dredging will be reviewed and mitigation measures will be proposed as necessary.

9.8.1.4 The recipient site of coral mitigation should have the following characteristics:

· In the vicinity of Lei Yue Mun / Junk Bay where the marine conditions e.g. water depth, flow rate and temperature etc. are similar to the donor site.

· Presence of healthy coral communities of the same species.

· Sufficient space available for the newly translocated coral

· Not to be impacted by construction works

Minimisation of Water Quality Impact

9.8.1.5 During capital and maintenance dredging operations, mitigation measures to control water quality impact are recommended in the water quality impact assessment (Section 5.8) to confine sediment plume within the proposed dredging area and to minimise indirect impact to the nearby intertidal and subtidal flora and fauna. The recommended mitigation measures include use of closed grab, restriction of dredging production rate (no more than 100m³ per hour) and deployment of silt curtains. With the adoption of the recommended mitigation measures, the impact on marine ecology due to the deterioration in water quality as a result of both capital and maintenance dredging works would be minimised.

9.8.1.6 To minimise the contamination of wastewater discharge, accidental chemical spillage and construction site run-off to the receiving water bodies, mitigation measures recommended in Section 5.8 would be adopted to control construction site runoff and drainage form the work areas, and to prevent runoff and drainage water with high levels of suspended solids from entering the nearby local stormwater drainage system and water bodies directly. The mitigation measures include:

Ÿ The good site practices outlined in ProPECC PN 1/94 “Construction Site Drainage” should be strictly followed to minimise surface runoff.

Ÿ Surface run-off from construction sites should be discharged into storm drains via adequately designed sand / silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sedimentation basins;

Ÿ Open stockpiles of construction materials (e.g. aggregates, sand and fill material) on sites should be covered with tarpaulin or similar fabric during rainstorms;

Ÿ Good construction and site management practices should be observed to ensure that litter, fuels and solvents do no enter the storm water drains.

Ÿ Chemical toilets should be provided within the construction site and properly maintained. All effluent discharged from the construction site should comply with the standards stipulated in the “Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters” (TM-DSS); and

Other Minimisation Measures

9.8.1.7 The proposed marine works (e.g. construction of public landing facility and pile deck breakwater structure) would cause a loss of subtidal hard substrate habitat and artificial seawall with low ecological value. To mitigate the impact of the loss, the proposed sloping seawall would be constructed with rock armours which would have spaces between rock armour units to allow intertidal organisms to grow (Appendix 9.12 refers). The new vertical seawall for the lookout points and viewing platform and the breakwater would also provide additional hard substrata for the recolonization of intertidal fauna and corals. Ecological features e.g. seawall enhanced with rough texture and irregular pattern would be incorporated into the design of vertical seawall as far as practicable (Appendix 9.12 refers). Such features could increase the surface complexity of the seawall to provide shades and refuge for organisms. Comparing with traditional smooth concrete seawall, rough texture e.g. holes and crevices can improve the water retention ability of the seawall surfaces. These features could reduce the chance of dehydration of the intertidal organisms during the low tide. A submission on the detailed design of the ecological features to be adopted will be prepared subject to comment by the AFCD prior to the installation of the ecological features.

9.9 Evaluation of Residual Impacts

9.9.1.1 As discussed in Section 9.8.1.2, different design options were considered to arrive at the optimal option to avoid the impact on the ecological resources. The Project has avoided the area with relatively higher abundance of coral colonies (i.e. REA 2). With the effective implementation of mitigation measures proposed in Section 9.8, residual impacts on marine ecology would be acceptable, including the permanent loss of marine habitats (about 0.03 ha rocky shore habitat, 0.02 ha sandy shore habitat, 0.05 ha subtidal hard substrate habitats, 40 m artificial seawall) and the associated wildlife within the footprint of the proposed landing facilities and breakwater. As evaluated in Section 9.6.1, these loss habitats are of low ecological value and only support common and widespread species of coral and intertidal fauna with low diversity and richness. In view of the limited ecological value of the loss habitats, the residual impact is considered acceptable.

9.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

9.10.1.1 Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures described in Section 9.8 would be audited monthly throughout the construction phase. In case of non-compliance, the contractor should be informed to strengthen the proposed mitigation measures accordingly. Details of environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) requirements are discussed in the separate EM&A Manual.

9.11 Conclusion

9.11.1.1 Marine habitats within the study area include subtidal hard substrate and soft bottom habitats, and intertidal habitats (i.e. rocky shore, sandy shore and artificial seawall). A total of eight terrestrial habitats identified within the study area including mixed woodland, plantation, shrubland, grassland, natural watercourse, drainage channel, intertidal habitat and developed area. The ecological values of the identified habitats are rated as low or low to moderate. The Coastal Protection Area is located outside the project area.

9.11.1.2 The proposed marine-based works would directly affect subtidal hard substrate habitats (0.05 ha), rocky shore (0.03 ha), sandy shore (0.02 ha) and artificial seawall (40 m); as well as temporary loss of subtidal soft bottom habitat (0.32 ha) and artificial seawall (85 m). The proposed land-based works would only affect developed area near the seafront. Given the small sizes and low ecological values of the affected habitats, the direct impacts are anticipated to be minor. All temporarily affected works area will be reinstated.

9.11.1.3 No plant species of conservation importance were recorded within the study area and no direct impact on terrestrial species of conservation importance is anticipated. Direct impact to coral colonies of low abundance which are dominated by locally common octocoral species is anticipated. The affected corals will be translocated and/or other best practicable mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise the impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to marine environment, mitigation measures (e.g. use of closed grabs for dredging, deployment of silt curtain, etc.) would be implemented during construction and operation phases. During the operation phase, coral survey will be carried out to review and update the conditions of corals in the dredging area and its vicinity prior to each maintenance dredging. Subject to the findings of the coral survey, the impact on corals due to maintenance dredging will be reviewed and mitigation measures will be proposed as necessary.

9.12 Reference

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (2002). Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong. Prepared by Centre for Coastal Pollution and Conservation, City U Professional Services Limited to Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (2004). Ecological Status and Revised Species Records of Hong Kong’s Scleractinian Corals. Marine Conservation Divisions, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (2005). Establishing threshold tolerance of local corals to sedimentation. Final Report. Prepared by CityU Professional Services Limited for Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (2012). Press Release - AFCD's response to media enquiries on spotted seahorse. Access on 3 January 2017. <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201210/26/P201210260701.htm>

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (2017). Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/hkbiodiversity/database/search.asp

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. and Young, L. (2001). The Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Hong Kong.

Chan, S.K.F., Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam, F.N., Tang, W.S., Lau, M.W.N. & Bogadek, A. (2005a.) A Field Guide to the Amphibians of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country Parks.

Chan, A.L.K., Choi, C.L.S, McCorry, D., Chan, K.K., Lee, M.W., Ang, P. Jr. (2005b). Field Guides to Hard Corals of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of HKSAR.

Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) (2005). Further Development of Tseung Kwan O Feasibility Study – EIA Report. Prepared by Maunsell Consultant Asia Ltd. for Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) (2010). Dredging Works for Proposed Public Landing Facility at Lei Yue Mun – Project Profile. Prepared by Meinhardt Environment Limited for Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) (2013). Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works – EIA Report. Prepared by AECOM Asia Company Limited for Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) (2014). Detailed Coral Survey Report and Coral Translocation Proposal (Final).

Corlett, R., Xing, F., Sai-Chit, N., Chau, L., Wong, L. (2000). Hong Kong Vascular Plants: Distribution and Status. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society. Hong Kong.

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. and Yu, Y.T. (2002). Wild animals to watch: Terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society No. 25, 123-160.

Fu, L. and Chin, C. (1992.) China Plant Red Data Book – Rare and Endangered Plants. Science Press, Beijing.

Hong Kong Herbarium (2012). Check List of Hong Kong Plants 2012. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hong Kong Herbarium and South China Botanical Garden (2007). Flora of Hong Kong. Volume 1. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hong Kong Herbarium and South China Botanical Garden (2008). Flora of Hong Kong. Volume 2. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hong Kong Herbarium and South China Botanical Garden (2009). Flora of Hong Kong. Volume 3. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hong Kong Herbarium and South China Botanical Garden (2011). Flora of Hong Kong. Volume 4. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hu, Q.M, Wu, T.L., Xia, N.H., Xing F.W., Lai, C.C.P., Yip, K.W. (2003). Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Hung, S.K.Y. (2016). Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong Waters (2015-16). Final Report (1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016). Prepared by Hong Kong Cetacean Research Project to Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

IUCN (2016). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016.4. Access on 3 January 2017. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>

Karsen, S., Lau, M. and Bogadek, A. (1998). Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. 2nd edition. The Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong.

Lands Department (2016). Base Map Data from Lands Department in 2016 (GeoInfo Map: http://www1.map.gov.hk/gih3/view/index.jsp).

Lo, P.Y.F. (2005). Hong Kong Butterflies, 2nd edition. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Rogers, C.S. (1990). Response of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecological Progress Series 62: 185-202.

Shek, C.T. (2006). A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Tam, T.W., Leung, K.K., Kwan, B.S.P., Wu, K.K.Y., Tang, S.S.H., So, I.W.Y., Cheng, J.C.Y., Yuen, E.F.M., Tsang, Y.M., and Hui, W.L. (2011). The Hong Kong Dragonflies. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Viney, C., Phillipps, K. Lam, C.Y. (2005). The Birds of Hong Kong and South China. 8th Edition. Information Services Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.