This Baseline Bird Survey Report is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 of the EM&A Manual in order to evaluate the utilization of the wetland habitats by birds nearby the Project site and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures during the ecological monitoring.

Further to Section 7.3.3 of the EM&A Manual, the results of the ecological field surveys conducted for the EIA study, which were conducted monthly over a 12-month period between August 2016 and July 2017 was adopted as the baseline data. The applicability of this baseline data has been reviewed and no verification surveys were deemed necessary.

Total count of avifauna was 6,663 ind., of which 4,694 ind. were identified using point count method and 1,862 ind. during transect walks. Point count method recorded a total of 3,277 ind. during dry season and 1,417 ind. during wet season. Transect walks, on the other hand, recorded a total of 936 ind. during dry season and 899 ind. during wet season.

Avifauna communities were composed of 110 species (about 70% of the species recorded in the Inner Deep Bay area and the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site), of which 44 species were wetland-dependent and 39 species were species of conservation importance. During transect walks, 82 species (21 species of conservation importance) were identified and during point count method 91 species (35 species of conservation importance). The species assemblage was generally dominated by wetland-species.

In general, avifauna communities have higher usage wetland habitats such as modified watercourse (i.e. Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River) and ponds (Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai) primarily as foraging grounds. During dry season, however, modified watercourses were more highly utilized compared to ponds (i.e. Fung Lok Wai) such that species of conservation importance have very high utilization of the modified watercourse at the confluence of Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River. This might be attributed to the extensive islands of mudflats at the confluence, which were also partially exposed during high-tide period. Other habitat types in the area including reedbeds, shrubland, grassland, plantation, orchard and the urban/residential area also supported bird species albeit in lesser proportions.

Seasonal variation in abundance, species assemblage, and habitat utilization of the avifauna communities in the assessment area were observed. Higher avifauna abundance and diversity were recorded during dry season survey. Wetland habitats such as ponds and modified watercourses are more actively utilized by birds mainly as foraging grounds during the whole survey period but during dry season, the modified watercourse, particularly at the confluence of Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River, is utilized by more individual and species of birds.

Further to the requirements of Section 7.3.8 of the EM&A Manual, the baseline conditions during the dry and wet seasons as summarized in this report will be compared to the monitoring results of the construction phase monthly ecological monitoring.

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1. INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Document 3

2. METHODOLOGY 4

2.1 Methodology 4

2.2 Assessment Area 4

2.3 Survey Schedule 4

2.4 Data Analysis 5

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6

3.1 Applicability of the baseline data 6

3.2 Abundance 6

3.2.1 Transect Walks 6

3.2.2 Point Counts 7

3.3 Species Composition 8

3.3.1 Transect Walks 9

3.3.2 Point Count 10

3.3.3 Species of Conservation Importance 11

3.4 Habitat Utilization 19

3.4.1 Transect Walks 19

3.4.2 Point Count 21

3.4.3 Habitat utilization of Species of Conservation Importance 24

4. WAY FORWARD 25

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 27

6. REFERENCES 28

Tables in the Main Text

Table 2.1: Ecological baseline bird survey schedule 5

Table 3.1: List of avifauna species of conservation importance recorded in the 500 m assessment area using transect walk method, August 2016 to July 2017 13

Table 3.2: List of avifauna species of conservation importance recorded in the 500 m assessment area using point count method, August 2016 to July 2017 17

Table 3.3: Usage of wetland habitats within assessment area by avifauna species of conservation importance 24

Table 4.1: Alert and Action Level for Avifauna Communities 25

Table 4.2 Responses to Alert and Action Level for Avifauna Communities 26

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The existing Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works (YLSTW) is a secondary sewage treatment works located at Yuen Long Industrial Estate which serves Yuen Long Town, Yuen Long Industrial Estate, and Kam Tin areas with a design capacity of 70,000 m³ per day. Based on the latest planning data, the volume of sewage generation from the YLSTW catchment is estimated to increase to 150,000 m³ per day after 20 years. In addition, since YLSTW has been operating for over 30 years and most of its facilities are of out-dated design and reaching the end of their design life, the environmental facilities of the plant will also be upgraded and hence improving the adjacent environment through upgrading the YLSTW to Yuen Long Effluent Polishing Plant (YLEPP).

YLSTW will be reconstructed in two stages to increase its capacity to 150,000 m³ per day. The proposed works, as Stage 1 of the project, will firstly increase the treatment capacity to 100,000 m³ per day. In the course of Stage 1 construction, about half of the existing facilities of YLSTW would be demolished, while the other half would be kept in operation to maintain the sewage treatment service for Yuen Long area.

The Project is a designated project under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499) for which Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report and Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Manual was approved by EPD (Register No.: AEIAR-220/2019) on 25 April 2019. The Environmental Permit (EP) (EP No. EP-565/2019) was issued by EPD on 26 April 2019.

Fugro Technical Services Limited (FTS) has been appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by Drainage Services Department (DSD) to undertake the Environmental Team services for the Project and implement the EM&A works under the Contract No. DC/2019/10 Yuen Long Effluent Polishing Plant -Main Works for Stage 1.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Document

This Baseline Bird Survey Report (hereinafter referred as “the Report”) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 of the EM&A Manual in order to evaluate the utilization of the wetland habitats by birds nearby the Project site and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures during the ecological monitoring.

This report summarizes and reviews the baseline monitoring requirements, methodology, and results of the 12-month baseline ecological field surveys in accordance with the requirements of the approved EM&A Manual and as stipulated in the Environmental Permit (EP) (EP No. EP-565/2019).

2. METHODOLOGY

As stipulated in Section 7.3.3. of the EM&A Manual, the results of the ecological field surveys for the EIA study which were conducted monthly over a 12-month period between August 2016 and July 2017 were adopted as the baseline data. Further also to the requirements of Section 7.3.3. of the EM&A Manual, the applicability of the said baseline data and the necessity of verification surveys were reviewed. To supplement such review, satellite images of the Project site and the 500 m assessment area were checked to determine if significant habitat changes have occurred from the conduct of the ecological baseline field surveys.

2.1 Methodology

The methodology for the ecological field surveys followed Sections 8.3.3.6 and 8.3.3.7 of the EIA Report (AEIAR-220/2019) and as detailed below.

Avifauna surveys were conducted monthly at suitable time (usually in early morning) when birds are most active using the transect count and point count methods. The presence and relative abundance of avifauna species at various habitats were recorded visually and aurally. Night-time surveys were also conducted to detect presence of nocturnal species. Survey transects covered all identified habitat type within the Assessment Area.

Avifauna species were detected either by direct sighting or by their call and identified to species level. Any notable behaviours such as feeding, roosting and breeding were also recorded. For the surveys overlooking the mudflats and mangroves in the Shan Pui River, the tidal level at the time of the survey were taken into consideration and was generally 1.5m or below. Bird species encountered outside the point count locations and walk transects were also recorded. A comprehensive list of species recorded from the Assessment Area was prepared, with wetland-dependence, conservation and/or protection status indicated. Ornithological nomenclature in this report follows Carey et al. (2001), Viney et al. (2005) and the most recent updated list from Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS).

2.2 Assessment Area

The assessment area for avifauna survey includes areas within a 500 m distance from the boundary of the Project site. The location of the transect routes and point count locations for the survey is shown in Appendix A.

2.3 Survey Schedule

The ecological field surveys were conducted between August 2016 and July 2017, covering both dry and wet seasons for a period of 12 months. The schedule for the ecological surveys conducted is presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Ecological baseline bird survey schedule

Survey	2016					2017
	Wet Season			Dry Season					Wet Season
	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul
Avifauna (Day)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Avifauna (Night)		✓			✓		✓		✓		✓	✓

2.4 Data Analysis

Data for point count method and transect walk method were presented separately to account for the difference in the survey effort of the two methods. For each method, abundance, species, composition, and habitat utilization of the avifauna communities during wet and dry seasons were summarized to account for seasonality.

To check the presence of variation in bird abundance between baseline and impact monitoring, t-test will be applied (α = 0.05). Moreover, to check the presence of variation in bird species diversity, the two-sided Hutcheson t-test will be used. This test was developed as a method to compare the diversity of two community samples using the Shannon diversity index (Hutcheson 1970). Shannon diversity index will be computed using the formula,

where, H’ = Shannon Diversity Index; P_i = proportion of the population of species; i; number of species in sample; ln = natural logarithm.

Shannon diversity index is used as it accounts the proportion (relative abundance) of each species; thus, it gives a better description of diversity than a plain number of species (species richness).

The details on how to compare the baseline and impact monitoring data is detailed in Section 4.0 of this Report.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Applicability of the baseline data

It was noted that the EIA ecological baseline bird surveys were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the technical guidelines of ecological assessment in Annexes 8 and 16 of EIAO-TM and relevant EIAO Guidance Note 6/2010, 7/2010 and 10/2010, among other Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government ordinances, regulations, standards, guidelines, and documents.

The information presented in the baseline data were consistent and compliant with the requirements of the monthly ecological monitoring of birds for the construction phase as detailed in Sections 7.3.6, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 of the EM&A Manual as the baseline data contained at least the following information:

n Species of bird and their respective quantitative count;

n Survey period covering dry and wet season for a period of 12 months;

n Tidal level during the survey was 1.5 m or below based on Tsim Bei Tsui tidal station; and

n Habitat type where the bird species was recorded.

It is crucial that the information in the baseline data is consistent with the required information for construction phase monitoring. This is because findings of the construction phase monitoring will be compared to pre-construction baseline condition in order to determine the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

Satellite images taken from the years 2016 to 2020 (Appendix B) showed that no major developments have been implemented in 500 m assessment area (including the Project site) which could have led to significant changes in the habitats utilized by avifauna communities. It can be noted, however, that the mudflat in Shan Pui River adjacent to Project site was progressively invaded most probably by the fast-growing exotic Sonneratia spp. as initially reported in the EIA report.

3.2 Abundance

Total count of avifauna for the whole survey period was 6,663 ind., of which 4,694 ind. were identified using point count method and 1,862 ind. during transect walks. Supplementary data which were not specified as either under point count method or transect walks have a total of 107 ind. identified. The succeeding sections presents the detailed findings of avifauna abundance per method used and the detailed findings are attached in Appendix C.

3.2.1 Transect Walks

The monthly total counts of avifauna communities ranged from 9 to 433 individuals (ind.) with annual mean of 155 (s.d. 110 ind.) The total count for the whole survey period was 1,862 ind.. Peak count was recorded during dry season in winter January 2017 and the lowest count was also during dry season in winter February 2017. Albeit this wide distribution of values, mean higher mean count was still recorded in dry season. The monthly distribution of the total counts of avifauna communities is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Total transect counts of avifauna communities in the 500 m assessment area using transect walk method, August 2016 to July 2017 (*night survey conducted)

3.2.1.1 Wet Season

Wet season included survey periods from August 2016 to October 2016 (late summer to autumn season) and April 2017 to July 2017 (mid-spring to mid-summer season). Monthly counts during these months ranged from 66 ind. to 253 ind. with mean count of 128 (s.d. 62 ind.). Total count during wet season was 899 ind. Wet season total avifauna count was lower compared to dry season.

3.2.1.2 Dry Season

Dry season included the survey periods form November 2016 to March 2017, late autumn to early spring seasons. Monthly counts during this period ranged from 9 ind. to 433 ind. with mean count of 193 (s.d. 156 ind.). Total count for dry season was 963 ind. The relatively higher counts during dry season might be attributed to the overall increase in numbers of winter visitors as the assessment area lies adjacent to the East-Asian Australasian Flyway of migratory birds and could have served as a major stopover point for refuelling during the migration process (HKWP, 2008).

3.2.2 Point Counts

The monthly total counts of avifauna communities ranged from 145 to 741 ind. with annual mean of 391 (s.d. 240 ind.). The total count for the whole survey period was 4,694 ind. Peak count was recorded during dry season in winter January 2017 and the lowest count was during wet season in summer June 2017. Higher avifauna counts were recorded during dry season months compared to wet season months. The monthly distribution of the total counts of avifauna communities is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Total counts of avifauna communities in the 500 m assessment area using point count method, August 2016 to July 2017 (*night survey conducted)

3.2.2.1 Wet Season

During wet season, the monthly counts ranged from 145 ind. to 301 ind. with mean count of 202 (s.d. 52 ind.) Total count during wet season was 1,417 ind. Lowest count was recorded in summer June 2017 and highest count was in mid-spring April 2017. Generally, wet season avifauna counts were relatively lower compared to dry season.

3.2.2.2 Dry Season

During dry season, the monthly counts ranged from 575 ind. to 741 ind. with mean count of 655 (s.d. 68 ind.) Total count during dry season was 3,277 ind. Lowest count was recorded in early winter December 2016 and highest count was in peak of winter January 2017. Dry season avifauna counts were relatively higher compared to wet season which may be attributed to the presence of winter visitors.

3.3 Species Composition

Avifauna communities during the survey period was composed of 110 species (about 70% of the species recorded in the Inner Deep Bay area and the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site[1]), of which 44 species were wetland-dependent and 39 species were species of conservation importance. During transect walks, 82 species (21 species of conservation importance) were identified with Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus, Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, and Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus as the top three dominant species. Point count method, on the other hand, recorded 91 species (35 species of conservation importance) with Great Cormorant, Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, and Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus as the top three species in terms of number. Results of both methods showed seasonal variation in species number and composition. Supplementary data which were not specified as either under point count method or transect walks recorded a total of 29 species (6 species of conservation importance), including Besra Accipiter virgatus identified. The succeeding sections presents the detailed findings of avifauna assemblages based on the method used.

3.3.1 Transect Walks

The number of species identified per month ranged from 6 to 52 species, with a total number of 82 species. Of these 82 species, 25 were wetland-dependent species. Fewest number of species identified was in dry season winter February 2017 and the most number in dry season winter January 2017. The monthly distribution of the number of avifauna species identified is shown in Figure 3.3.

The species with the highest number of individual counts was the Eurasian Tree Sparrow (200 ind), followed by Great Cormorant (136 ind.) and by Red-whiskered Bulbul (131 ind.). Eurasian Tree Sparrow and Red-whiskered Bulbul are abundant residents while Great Cormorants are common visitors. As common winter visitors, Great Cormorants are usually present from the first week of October until the second week of April with peak numbers occurring in January and February. The majority of birds depart in the second half of March. Great Cormorants were recorded in high numbers during dry season in ponds and modified watercourse habitats. The relatively higher counts of Great Cormorants contributed to the generally higher avifauna counts during dry season survey.

Figure 3.3: Number of avifauna species identified in the 500 m assessment area using transect walk method, August 2016 to July 2017 (*night survey Conducted)

Species diversity computed for transect walk method ranged from no species recorded to 3.20. Highest diversity was recorded in Fung Lok Wai transect during dry season in winter January 2017. The monthly species diversity computed for transect is detailed in Appendix D.3.

3.3.1.1 Wet Season

During wet season, the number of species recorded ranged from 20 to 30 species, with a total of 50 species recorded. The most number of species recorded was in late summer August 2016 and the least number in early autumn October 2016. The species with counts of >50 ind. were Eurasian Tree Sparrow (99 ind.), Crested Myna (71 ind.), Great Egret Ardea alba (64 ind.), Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica (53 ind.), Chinese Dove Spilopelia chinensis (53 ind.), and Red-whiskered Bulbul (52 ind.). Eurasian Tree Sparrow and Barn Swallow were generally observed in urban/residential area while Great Egrets were in mangroves and ponds in Fung Lok Wai.

3.3.1.2 Dry Season

During dry season, the number of species recorded ranged from 6 to 52 species, with a total of 70 species recorded. The most number species recorded was in winter January 2017, which could also be attributed to the increasing number of winter visitors. The species with most number counts during dry season were Eurasian Tree Sparrow (101 ind.) and Great Cormorant (100 ind.). Great cormorants were mostly observed in ponds in Fung Lok Wai and Eurasian Tree Sparrow were associated with urban/residential areas, grasslands, and reedbed.

3.3.2 Point Count

The number of species identified per month ranged from 27 to 61 species, with a total number of 91 species. Of these 91 species, 43 were wetland-dependent species. Fewest number of species identified was in wet season mid-summer July 2017 and the most number in dry season winter February 2017. The monthly distribution of the number of avifauna species identified is shown in Figure 3.4.

The species with the highest number of individual counts was the Great Cormorant (787 ind.), Pied Avocet (334 ind.) and Chinese Pond Heron (311 ind.). Great Cormorant and Pied Avocet are winter visitors while Chinese Pond Heron is present all year.

Figure 3.4: Number of avifauna species identified in the 500 m assessment area using point count method, August 2016 to July 2017 (*night survey conducted)

Species diversity computed for point count method ranged from no species recorded to 2.76. Highest species diversity was recorded in point location P9 during dry season in winter February 2017. The monthly species diversity computed for point count is detailed in Appendix D.3.

3.3.2.1 Wet Season

During wet season, the number of species recorded ranged from 27 to 41 species, with a total of 63 species recorded. The most number of species recorded was in mid-spring April 2017 and the least number in mid-summer July 2017. The species with counts of >100 ind. were Little Egret Egretta garzetta (143 ind.) and Chinese Pond Heron (114 ind.), which were mainly observed in the channelized watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River.

3.3.2.2 Dry Season

During dry season, the number of species recorded ranged from 39 to 61 species, with a total of 84 species recorded. The most number species recorded was in winter February 2017, which could also be attributed to the increasing number of winter visitors. The species with most number counts during dry season were Great Cormorant (762 ind.), Pied Avocet (326 ind.), Crested Myna (176 ind.), and Chinese Pond Heron (197 ind.). These species generally observed in ponds in Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai and channelized watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River.

3.3.3 Species of Conservation Importance

Albeit avifauna community was dominated by species that are commonly distributed in Hong Kong, 39 species were classified as species of conservation importance. A total of 21 species of conservation importance were identified during transect walks and 35 species during point count method. Supplementary data which were not specified as either under point count method or transect walks have identified a total of 6 species. The succeeding sections presents the detailed findings of species conservation importance based on the method used.

3.3.3.1 Transect Walks

A total of 417 ind. of species of conservation importance composed of 21 species were recorded using the transect walks method as shown in Table 3.1. The avifauna species of conservation importance were dominated by wetland-dependent species (16 species) composed of both residents and overwintering/migratory species. These species were observed to be primarily associated with ponds in Fung Lok Wai.

Figure 3.5. shows the monthly distribution of the number of species of avifauna of species of conservation importance. Generally, more species of conservation importance was recorded during dry season, which might be attributed to the influx of overwintering/migratory species.

Figure 3.5: Number of species of avifauna species of conservation importance identified in the 500 m assessment area using transect walk method, August 2016 To July 2017 (*night survey conducted)

Species diversity of avifauna species of conservation importance computed for transect walk method ranged from no observed species to 1.74. Highest diversity was recorded in Fung Lok Wai during winter January 2017. The monthly species diversity for avifauna species of conservation importance is detailed in Appendix D.4.

3.3.3.1.1 Wet Season

During wet season, a total of 204 ind. of avifauna species of conservation importance composed of 12 species were recorded. While a number of wetland-dependent species of conservation importance were recorded, ardeids, which are all common and present all year round in Hong Kong (including Egretta garzetta Little Egret, Great Egret, and Ardeola bacchus Chinese Pond Heron) composed over half of the total bird count and were the most abundant avifauna species of conservation importance recorded during wet season. These ardeids were mainly associated with mangrove areas and ponds in Fung Lok Wai. Ponds in Fung Lok Wai were also utilised by relatively high numbers of Great Cormorant and Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe.

3.3.3.1.2 Dry Season

During dry season, a total of 213 ind. of avifauna species of conservation importance composed of 18 species were recorded. Great Cormorant was the most abundant species recorded (with a total bird count of 100 ind.), which utilised active ponds in Fung Lok Wai. Little Grebe and Spodiopsar sericeus Red-billed Starling were also observed to be relatively abundant in ponds in Fung Lok Wai.

Species Name¹	Common Name	Distribution in Hong Kong²	Principal Status³	Level of Concern⁴	Protection Status in China⁵	China Red Data Book ⁶	Red List of China's Vertebrates ¹⁰	IUCN Red List⁷ (v.2020-3)
Anas clypeata	Northern Shoveler ⁹	Abundant	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Ardea alba	Great Egret ⁹	Common	R,WV	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Ardea cinereal	Grey Heron ⁹	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Ardeola bacchus	Chinese Pond Heron ⁹	Common	R	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Aythya fuligula	Tufted Duck⁹	Uncommon	WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Buteo japonicus	Eastern Buzzard ^8,9	Common	WV	-	Class II	-	LC	LC
Centropus sinensis	Greater Coucal	Common	R	-	Class II	VU	LC	LC
Corvus torquatus	Collared Crow ⁹	Uncommon	R	LC	-	-	NT	VU
Circus spilonotus	Eastern Marsh Harrier ^8,9	Common	WV,PM	LC	Class II	-	NT	LC
Egretta garzetta	Little Egret ⁹	Common	R	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Himantopus himantopus	Black-winged Stilt ⁹	Common	PM	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Milvus migrans	Black Kite ^8,9	Common	R,WV	(RC)	Class II	-	LC	LC
Otus lettia	Collared Scops Owl ⁸	Common	R	-	Class II	-	LC	LC
Pandion haliaetus	Western Osprey ^8,9	Common	WV	RC	-	Rare	NT	LC
Phalacrocorax carbo	Great Cormorant ⁹	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Remiz consobrinus	Chinese Penduline Tit	Common	PM,WV	-	-	-	LC	LC
Spilornis cheela	Crested Serpent Eagle ⁸	Uncommon	R	-	Class II	VU	NT	LC
Spodiopsar cineraceus	White-cheeked Starling	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Spodiopsar sericeus	Red-billed Starling ⁹	Common	WV	GC	-	-	LC	LC
Tachybaptus ruficollis	Little Grebe ⁹	Common	R	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa nebularia	Common Greenshank ⁹	Abundant	PM,WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Notes: (1) All wild birds are Protected under Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170). (2) AFCD (2021). Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. (3) Carey et al. (2001): R=resident; WV=winter visitor; SV=summer visitor; PM=passage migrant; Sp=spring; A=autumn; (4) Fellowes et al. (2002): GC=Global Concern; LC=Local Concern; RC=Regional Concern; PRC=Potential Regional Concern; PGC: Potential Global 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) List of Wild Animals Under State Protection (promulgated by State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January 1989). (6) Zheng, G. M. and Wang, Q. S. (1998). China Red Data Book (7) IUCN 2021. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. LC = Least Concern (8) Protected under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586). (9) Wetland-dependent species (including wetland-dependent species and waterbirds). (10) Jiang et al. (2016). Red List of China's Vertebrates. LC=Least Concern

Table 3.2: List of avifauna species of conservation importance recorded in the 500 m assessment area using point count method, August 2016 to July 2017

Species Name¹	Common Name	Distribution in Hong Kong²	Principal Status³	Level of Concern⁴	Protection Status in China⁵	China Red Data Book ⁶	Red List of China's Vertebrates ¹⁰	IUCN Red List 7 (v.2020-3)
Anas acuta	Northern Pintail ⁹	Abundant	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Anas clypeata	Northern Shoveler ⁹	Abundant	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Anas crecca	Eurasian Teal ⁹	Common	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Anas penelope	Eurasian Wigeon⁹	Common	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Ardea alba	Great Egret ⁹	Common	R,WV	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Ardea cinerea	Grey Heron ⁹	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Ardeola bacchus	Chinese Pond Heron ⁹	Common	R	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Aythya fuligula	Tufted Duck⁹	Uncommon	WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Buteo japonicus	Eastern Buzzard ^8,9	Common	WV	-	Class II	-	LC	LC
Calidris temminckii	Temminck's Stint ⁹	Uncommon	WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Centropus sinensis	Greater Coucal	Common	R	-	Class II	VU	LC	LC
Chalcophaps indica	Common Emerald Dove	Scarce	R	-	-	VU	LC	LC
Chroicocephalus ridibundus	Black-headed Gull ⁹	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Circus spilonotus	Eastern Marsh Harrier ^8,9	Common	WV,PM	LC	Class II	-	NT	LC
Cisticola juncidis	Zitting Cisticola	Common	PM.WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Corvus torquatus	Collared Crow ⁹	Uncommon	R	LC	-	-	NT	VU
Egretta garzetta	Little Egret ⁹	Common	R	PRC (RC)	-	-	LC	LC
Egretta intermedia	Intermediate Egret ⁹	Common	PM	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Falco amurensis	Amur Falcon ⁸	Rare	PM	-	Class II	-	NT	LC
Himantopus himantopus	Black-winged Stilt ⁹	Common	PM	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Larus fuscus	Heuglin's Gull ⁹	Common	PM,WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Milvus migrans	Black Kite ^8,9	Common	R,WV	(RC)	Class II	-	LC	LC
Numenius arquata	Eurasian Curlew ⁹	Abundant	WV,Sp	RC	-	-	NT	NT
Pandion haliaetus	Western Osprey ^8,9	Common	WV	RC	-	Rare	NT	LC
Phalacrocorax carbo	Great Cormorant ⁹	Common	WV	PRC	-	-	LC	LC
Platalea minor	Black-faced Spoonbill ⁹	Common	WV	PGC	Class II	EN	EN	EN
Recurvirostra avosetta	Pied Avocet ⁹	Abundant	WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Spilornis cheela	Crested Serpent Eagle ⁸	Uncommon	R	-	Class II	VU	NT	LC
Spodiopsar sericeus	Red-billed Starling ⁹	Common	WV	GC	-	-	LC	LC
Tachybaptus ruficollis	Little Grebe ⁹	Common	R	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa erythropus	Spotted Redshank ⁹	Abundant	WV,Sp	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa glareola	Wood Sandpiper ⁹	Common	PM,WV	LC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa nebularia	Common Greenshank ⁹	Abundant	PM,WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa stagnatilis	Marsh Sandpiper ⁹	Common	PM,WV	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Tringa totanus	Common Redshank ⁹	Common	PM	RC	-	-	LC	LC
Notes: (1) All wild birds are Protected under Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170). (2) AFCD (2021). Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. (3) Carey et al. (2001): R=resident; WV=winter visitor; SV=summer visitor; PM=passage migrant; Sp=spring; A=autumn; (4) Fellowes et al. (2002): GC=Global Concern; LC=Local Concern; RC=Regional Concern; PRC=Potential Regional Concern; PGC: Potential Global 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) List of Wild Animals Under State Protection (promulgated by State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture on 14 January 1989). (6) Zheng, G. M. and Wang, Q. S. (1998). China Red Data Book (7) IUCN 2021. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. LC = Least Concern (8) Protected under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586). (9) Wetland-dependent species (including wetland-dependent species and waterbirds). (10) Jiang et al. (2016). Red List of China's Vertebrates. LC = Least Concern

3.4 Habitat Utilization

A total of nine habitat types (i.e. modified watercourse, grassland, mangrove, orchard, plantation, ponds (Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai), reedbed, shrubland, and urban/residential area) were identified in the assessment area. Among these habitats, wetlands such as ponds (over 30% of the assessment area) and modified watercourse (~18.5% of the assessment area) have extensive coverages.

Birds that were identified under supplementary data and were not specified as either under point count method or transect walks were generally associated with urban/residential areas.

3.4.1 Transect Walks

Avifauna communities that were identified during transect walks were generally associated with ponds in Fung Lok Wai (19.82 %), urban/residential areas (29.81 %), grassland (17.56 %), and plantation (9.51 %). The percentage avifauna communities associated with various habitat in the assessment area is shown in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7: Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, transect walks method, August 2016 to July 2017

Ponds in Fung Lok Wai supported relatively high abundances and diversity of passage and wintering wetland-dependent birds as it provided a refuelling station particularly to migratory birds on their migratory path. Additionally, these ponds when drained during the harvest time or periodic draining, may provide the water birds with trash fish that are of no commercial value and which are by-product of traditional aquaculture management practices (MLI Ltd, 2008). The draining practice for commercial fishponds that usually take place from October to May (Pang et al., 2020) each year, opens up opportunities for waterbirds to easier capture of concentrated prey as water depth is reduced (Navedo et al., 2015).

3.4.1.1 Wet Season

During wet season, avifauna communities identified during transect walks were primarily associated with urban/residential areas (35.71 %) and ponds in Fung Lok Wai (16.24 %) (Figure 3.8). Eurasian Tree Sparrow, Red-whiskered Bulbul, and Barn Swallow were the dominant species generally utilizing urban/residential areas while Great Cormorants and Great Egrets, wetland-dependent species, the ponds in Fung Lok Wai.

Figure 3.8: Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, transect walk method, wet season

3.4.1.2 Dry Season

During dry season, urban/residential areas (24.30 %), ponds in Fung Lok Wai (23.16 %), and grasslands (22.43 %) were primarily utilized by avifauna communities observed during transect walks (Figure 3.9). Great Cormorants and Little Grebe were the dominant species foraging in ponds in Fung Lok Wai and Cyanopica cyanus Azure-winged Magpie, Gracupica nigricollis Black-collared Starling, Eurasian Tree Sparrow, and Red-whiskered Bulbul in grasslands.

Figure 3.9 Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, transect walk method, dry season

3.4.2 Point Count

Avifauna communities that were identified using point count were generally associated with modified watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River (41.71 %) and ponds in Fung Lok Wai (29.30%) and Nam Sang Wai (9.37%). Modified watercourses are mainly utilized by Pied Avocet, Chinese Pond Heron, Black-winged Stilt, and Great Cormorant for foraging while Ponds in Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai were utilized mainly by Great Cormorants. Great Cormorants were also recorded roosting on the Eucalyptus trees surrounding the inactive ponds in Nam Sang Wai. The percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitat in the assessment area is shown in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10: Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, point count method, August 2016 to July 2017

3.4.2.1 Wet Season

During wet season, avifauna communities identified using point count method were primarily associated with ponds in Fung Lok Wai (35.35 %), modified watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River (29.86 %), urban/residential area (11.97 %), and ponds in Nam Sang Wai (10.79 %) as shown in Figure 3.11. Ponds and modified watercourses were mainly utilized by wetland-dependent species such as Little Grebe, ardeids, and Great Cormorants. Other species such as Spilopelia chinensis Spotted Dove, Black-collared Starling, Acridotheres cristatellus Crested Myna, and Barn Swallow were also observed in abundance. The most dominant species utilizing urban/residential areas was Crested Myna.

Figure 3.11: Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, point count method, wet season

3.4.2.2 Dry Season

During dry season, modified watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River (47.25 %) and ponds in Fung Lok Wai (26.48 %) and Nam Sang Wai (8.71 %) were mainly utilized by avifauna communities observed using point count method. These habitats were dominated by Great Cormorants using these wetlands are foraging areas. Pied Avocet, Chinese Pond Heron, and Black-winged Stilt were primarily foraging in channelized watercourses in Kam Tin River and Shan Pui River. Crested Myna and Black-collared Starling were also abundant in ponds in Fung Lok Wai.

Figure 3.12 Percentage avifauna communities utilizing various habitats in the 500 m assessment area, point count method, dry season

3.4.3 Habitat utilization of Species of Conservation Importance

The usage of wetland habitats within assessment area by avifauna species of conservation importance is detailed below.

Table 3.3: Usage of wetland habitats within assessment area by avifauna species of conservation importance

Wetland Habitats	Area Description	Abundance ⁽¹⁾		Diversity ⁽²⁾
		Dry	Wet	Dry	Wet
Modified Watercourse	Confluence of Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River	VH	L - M	VH	L - M
	Shan Pui River adjacent to Project site	L - M	VL - L	H	L
	Upper course of Shan Pui River along YLIE	L - M	VL - L	H	L
Ponds	Active Ponds adjacent to Project site in Fung Lok Wai	L	VL	L	VL - L
	Active Ponds North to Nullah 2 in Fung Lok Wai	M - H	L - M	M-H	M
	Inactive Ponds in Fung Lok Wai	L	VL	VL-L	VL - L
	Active and Inactive Ponds in Nam Sang Wai	L - M	VL	L	VL - L
Mangrove	Mangrove within Assessment Area	VL	VL - L	VL	VL
Reedbed	Reedbed in Nam Sang Wai	VL	VL	VL	VL
Note: (1) Relative abundance of avifauna species of conservation importance amongst wetland habitats within the assessment area: VL = Very Low (~<50 individuals); L = Low (~100 individuals); M = Moderate (~300 individuals); H = High (~500 individuals), VH = Very High (>700 individuals) (2) Relative diversity of avifauna species of conservation importance amongst wetland habitats within the assessment area: VL = Very Low (≤5 species); L = Low (~10 species); M = Moderate (~15 species); H = High (~20 species), VH = Very High (>25 species) Source: approved EIA Report (AEIAR-220/2019)

4. WAY FORWARD

Further to the requirements of Section 7.3.8 of the EM&A Manual, the monitoring results of the construction phase monthly ecological monitoring of birds will be compared to the pre-construction baseline condition during the dry and wet seasons as shown in Table 4.1. Furthermore, as per Section 7.3.6 of the EM&A Manual, monthly ecological monitoring will focus on avifauna species of conservation importance and overwintering waterbirds utilising wetland habitats in Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai as well as along Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River within 500m from the Project boundary (Appendix A.2). Appendix D shows that tabulated baseline data and the relevant data for comparison with the construction phase monthly ecological monitoring.

Table 4.1: Alert and Action Level for Avifauna Communities

Method	Parameters	Action Level³	Limit Level³
Transect	Abundance of all avifauna species (including but not only limited to overwintering waterbirds) in the community	Significant decline^1,2 in any of these parameters during the current monitoring month relative to the corresponding month during the baseline survey.	Significant decline in any of these parameters for three consecutive months.
	Species diversity of all avifauna species (including but not only limited to overwintering waterbirds) in the community
	Abundance of species with conservation importance only
	Species diversity of species with conservation importance only
Point Count	Abundance of all avifauna species (including but not only limited to overwintering waterbirds) in the community
	Species diversity of all avifauna species (including but not only limited to overwintering waterbirds) in the community
	Abundance of species with conservation importance only
	Species diversity of species with conservation importance only
Notes: 1. Significant decline in abundance will be determined using two-tailed t-test, α = 0.05. 2. Significant decline in species diversity will be determined using the Hutcheson t-test, two tailed. 3. Response will be triggered if any of the above level is reached for each parameter.

After commencement of construction activities, should any significant decline between the relevant baseline data and the construction phase data, corresponding response will be carried out as detailed in Table 4.2. Furthermore, any potential unpredicted indirect ecological impacts arising from the proposed Project as per Section 7.3.9 of the EM&A Manual shall be noted. Changes in site condition or disturbances will be considered unpredicted if these are not summarised in Table 8.34 of the approved EIA report.

Table 4.2 Responses to Alert and Action Level for Avifauna Communities

Event	Response
Event	ET	IEC	ER	Contractor
Alert	1. Inform IEC, ER, and Contractor. 2. Review monitoring data. 3. Investigate possible causes of decline and identify possible source(s) of impact and record in notification. 4. Check Contractor’s working methods.	1. Review and check monitoring data submitted by ET and Contractor(s)’s working methods.	1. Confirm receipt of notification in writing.	1. Confirm receipt of notification in writing. 2. Review construction working methods and practices. 3. Check plant and equipment and rectify unacceptable practice, if detected.
Action	1. Inform IEC, ER, and Contractor. 2. Review monitoring data. 3. Investigate possible causes of decline and identify source(s) of impact and record in notification. 4. Check plant, equipment, and Contractor’s working methods. 5. If cause of decline is related to the project, discuss with IEC and Contractor the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures and ensure that they are strictly implemented. 6. If cause of decline is related to the project, recommend possible additional mitigation measures, if necessary.	1. Check monitoring data submitted by ET and Contractor(s)’s working methods. 2. If cause of decline is related to the project, assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. 3. If cause of decline is related to the project, discuss with ET and Contractor(s) on possible additional mitigation measures and advise ER accordingly.	1. Confirm receipt of notification in writing. 2. Request Contractor(s) to critically review the working methods. 3. If cause of decline is related to the project, discuss with IEC on the proposed additional mitigation measures and agree on the mitigation measures to be implemented. 4. If cause of decline is related to the project, ensure additional mitigation measures are properly implemented.	1. Confirm receipt of notification in writing. 2. Check plant and equipment and rectify unacceptable practice, if detected. 3. Critically review the possible need to change working methods. 4. If cause of decline is related to the project, discuss with ET and IEC on additional mitigation measures. 5. If cause of decline is related to the project, implement the agreed mitigation measures.

Moreover, the utilization of wetland habitats by avifauna species of conservation importance within 500m of the Project site (Appendix D.5) will be monitored monthly during the construction phase. For the monthly monitoring results, relative abundance and relative diversity in the different wetland habitats will be presented in ranges similar with the presented data ranges in Appendix 8.5 of the approved EIA Report and Table 3.3 of this report. Furthermore, a seasonal comparison on wetland habitat utilization data will also be conducted for the current monitoring results as presented in Appendix 8.5 of the approved EIA Report.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Baseline ecological field surveys for avifauna communities were conducted between August 2016 and July 2017, covering both dry and wet seasons for a period of 12 months. Abundance, composition, and habitat utilization of avifauna communities were determined using transect walk and point count methods at tidal levels 1.5 m or below.

Total count of avifauna for the whole survey period was 6,663 ind., of which 4,694 ind. were identified using point count method and 1,862 ind. during transect walks. Point count method recorded a total of 3,277 ind. during dry season and 1,417 ind. during wet season. Transect walks, on the other hand, recorded a total of 963 ind. during dry season and 899 ind. during wet season. Avifauna communities during the survey period was composed of 110 species (about 70% of the species recorded in the Inner Deep Bay area and the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site[2]), of which 44 species were wetland-dependent and 39 species were species of conservation importance. During transect walks, 82 species (21 species of conservation importance) were identified and during point count method 91 species (35 species of conservation importance). The species assemblage was generally dominated by wetland-species Great Cormorant, Pied Avocet, and Chinese Pond Heron. Abundance and diversity of avifauna communities were relatively higher in dry season compared to wet season mainly due to the presence of overwintering/migratory species. The assessment area lies adjacent to the East-Asian Australasian Flyway of migratory birds and could have served as a major stopover point for refuelling during the migration process (HKWP, 2008).

In general, avifauna communities have higher usage wetland habitats such as modified watercourse (i.e. Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River) and ponds (Fung Lok Wai and Nam Sang Wai) primarily as foraging grounds. More than 50 % of the bird population utilized these habitats for the whole survey period. Other habitat types in the area including reedbeds, shrubland, grassland, plantation, orchard and the urban/residential area also supported bird species albeit in lesser proportions. During dry season, however, modified watercourses were more highly utilized compared to ponds (i.e. Fung Lok Wai) such that species of conservation importance have very high utilization of the modified watercourse at the confluence of Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River. This might be attributed to the extensive islands of mudflats at the confluence, which were also partially exposed during high-tide period.

6. REFERENCES

Anon. 2014a. Monthly Waterbird Monitoring Biannual Report 2 (October 2013 to March 2014), Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2013-14. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Anon. 2015a. Monthly Waterbird Monitoring Biannual Report 2 (October 2014 to March 2015), Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2014-15. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Anon. 2016a. Monthly Waterbird Monitoring Biannual Report 2 (October 2015 to March 2016), Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2015-16. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Anon. 2017b. Monthly Waterbird Monitoring Biannual Report 2 (October 2016 to March 2017), Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2016-17. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Anon. 2018. Monthly Waterbird Monitoring Biannual Report 2 (October 2017 to March 2018), Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2017-18. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Carey, G.J., Chalmers, M.L., Diskin, D.A., Kennerley, P.R., Leader, P.J., Leven, M.R., Lewthwaite, R.W., Melville, D.S., Turnbull, M. and Yung, L. 2001. The Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society

Drainage Services Department (DSD). 2019. Yuen Long Effluent Polishing Plant – Investigation, Design and Construction – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Prepared by AECOM for Drainage Services Department.

Drainage Services Department (DSD). 2002. Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Package 1A-1T and 1B-1T – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Prepared by ERM Hong Kong for Drainage Services Department.

Hong Kong Wetland Park, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (HKWP). 2008. https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_fau/con_fau_bird/con_fau_bird_bhk/files/booklet_4.pdf. Accessed in 17 November 2020.

Hutcheson K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. J Theor Biol. 29(1):151-4. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(70)90124-4. PMID: 5493290.

Mutual Luck Investment Limited (MLI Ltd). 2008. Proposed Development at Fung Lok Wai, Yuen Long at Lot 1457 R.P. in D.D.123 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Navedo, J. G, G. Fernandez, J. Fonseca and M.C. Drever. 2015. A potential role of shrimp farms for the conservation of Nearctic shorebird populations. Estuaries and Coasts 38:836–845 DOI 10.1007/s12237-014-9851-0.

Pang C., Y. Sung, Y. Chung, H. Ying, H. Fong and Y. Yu. 2020. Spatial ecology of little egret (Egretta garzetta) in Hong Kong uncovers preference for commercial fishponds. Peer J 8:e9893 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9893

Viney, C., Philipps, K. and Lam, C.K. 2005. Birds of Hong Kong and South China. Hong Kong: Bird Watching Society.

Location ID	Location ID EM&A Manual	2016					2017							Total
		Wet			Dry					Wet
		Aug-2016	Sept-2016*	Oct-2016	Nov-2016	Dec-2016*	Jan-2017	Feb-2017*	Mar-2017	Apr-2017*	May-2017	Jun-2017*	Jul-2017*
Point Count Method
P1	FLW1	10	0	8	8	12	9	0	10	2	3	4	0	66
P2	FLW2	11	3	5	13	22	27	1	4	4	4	3	4	101
P3	FLW3	14	12	6	9	16	37	7	12	3	6	7	0	129
P4	FLW4	8	18	13	66	19	0	39	19	20	18	17	10	247
P5	FLW5	23	29	13	21	75	0	93	38	47	13	25	21	398
P6	FLW6	5	16	12	64	8	105	36	13	8	44	6	6	323
P7	FLW7	6	14	18	48	8	45	62	11	8	22	9	10	261
P8	--	30	8	12	23	45	33	66	15	3	20	24	7	286
P9	SP/NSW3	16	71	51	214	206	148	224	267	110	26	14	42	1389
P10	SP/NSW2	9	50	12	52	86	142	86	49	27	9	11	23	556
P11	NSW1	47	0	10	48	20	117	9	123	30	36	17	43	500
P12	SP/NSW1	11	9	9	65	58	78	85	61	39	9	8	6	438
sub-total		190	230	169	631	575	741	708	622	301	210	145	172	4694
mean		16	19	14	53	48	62	59	52	25	18	12	14	391
Transect Walk Method
Fung Lok Wai	-	135	109	51	107	41	292	2	170	44	1	67	35	1054
Nam Sang Wai	-	0	2	0	18	44	52	0	0	3	1	2	1	123
YLIE-CW	-	5	8	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	16
Hillside	--	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	38	26	19	25	108
Project Site	--	36	12	40	9	0	86	7	25	21	36	17	25	314
Tai Sang Wai	--	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6
YLIE-U/R	--	77	0	10	75	32	0	0	0	45	2	0	0	241
sub-total		253	137	101	209	117	433	9	195	151	66	105	86	1862
mean		36	20	14	30	17	62	1	28	22	9	15	12	266
Not Specified in the Raw Data
NS	--	0	0	0	0	0	0	29	0	3	57	17	1	107
sub-total		0	0	0	0	0	0	29	0	3	57	17	1	107
TOTAL		443	367	270	840	692	1174	746	817	455	333	267	259	6663
Notes: 1. “-“: will be included in the monthly impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 2. “--": will not be included in the impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual

Location ID	Location ID EM&A Manual	2016					2017							Total
		Wet			Dry					Wet
		Aug-2016	Sept-2016*	Oct-2016	Nov-2016	Dec-2016*	Jan-2017	Feb-2017*	Mar-2017	Apr-2017*	May-2017	Jun-2017*	Jul-2017*
Point Count Method
P1	FLW1	5	0	2	4	6	8	0	5	0	2	2	0	34
P2	FLW2	1	1	3	3	21	12	0	0	0	0	0	2	43
P3	FLW3	5	5	3	2	0	34	2	0	0	0	0	0	51
P4	FLW4	5	7	10	65	11	0	9	15	10	9	3	2	146
P5	FLW5	11	3	9	6	69	0	36	23	34	5	5	3	204
P6	FLW6	5	10	9	50	3	66	30	10	2	21	5	3	214
P7	FLW7	1	4	13	30	7	33	17	6	3	0	1	4	119
P8	--	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	1	0	1	5	1	12
P9	SP/NSW3	13	64	40	163	196	146	201	262	103	22	12	35	1257
P10	SP/NSW2	3	22	11	11	84	76	83	36	13	3	10	15	367
P11	NSW1	7	0	2	31	11	86	4	97	3	4	1	10	256
P12	SP/NSW1	10	3	5	29	54	67	65	56	32	5	6	6	338
sub-total		66	119	107	394	463	528	450	511	200	72	50	81	3041
mean		6	10	9	33	39	44	38	43	17	6	4	7	253
Transect Walk Method
Fung Lok Wai	-	49	36	35	58	13	82	2	44	1	1	40	8	369
Nam Sang Wai	-	0	1	0	1	3	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	7
YLIE-CW	-	5	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	13
Hillside	--	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	2	5	10
Project Site	--	0	0	2	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	2	11
Tai Sang Wai	--	0	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5
YLIE-U/R	--	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
sub-total		54	50	37	59	18	90	2	44	1	5	42	15	417
mean		8	7	5	8	3	13	0	6	0	1	6	2	60
Not Specified in the Raw Data
NS	--	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	2	1	0	0	7
sub-total		0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	2	1	0	0	7
TOTAL		120	169	144	453	481	618	456	555	203	78	92	96	3465
Notes: 1. “-“: will be included in the monthly impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 2. “--": will not be included in the impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual

Location ID	Location ID EM&A Manual	2016					2017
		Wet			Dry					Wet
		Aug-2016	Sept-2016*	Oct-2016	Nov-2016	Dec-2016*	Jan-2017	Feb-2017*	Mar-2017	Apr-2017*	May-2017	Jun-2017*	Jul-2017*
Point Count Method
P1	FLW1	1.75	**	1.56	1.32	0.92	1.15	**	1.89	0.69	1.10	1.04	**
P2	FLW2	1.24	1.10	1.33	1.59	0.37	1.48	0	-1.04	1.39	0.69	0.64	0.35
P3	FLW3	1.97	1.14	1.01	1.68	1.63	0.58	1.75	1.14	0.64	1.56	1.28	**
P4	FLW4	1.91	2.11	1.29	0.78	1.64	**	1.72	1.54	2.08	1.90	2.20	1.56
P5	FLW5	1.13	1.48	1.63	1.34	0.72	**	1.28	1.62	2.27	2.10	2.39	1.82
P6	FLW6	1.05	1.91	1.10	1.49	1.07	1.13	1.52	2.25	1.73	2.23	0.87	1.79
P7	FLW7	1.24	1.83	2.29	1.95	0.74	1.92	2.21	1.85	1.67	1.91	1.89	1.70
P8	--	1.04	1.73	1.63	2.17	1.79	1.54	1.84	0.99	0.64	1.86	2.02	1.55
P9	SP/NSW3	1.66	2.23	2.24	2.43	2.07	2.35	2.76	2.08	2.06	1.56	1.09	1.50
P10	SP/NSW2	1.89	1.98	1.47	2.22	2.06	2.68	2.14	2.42	2.47	1.68	1.17	1.90
P11	NSW1	1.57	**	1.66	1.91	1.64	1.31	1.89	0.99	2.63	2.75	1.85	1.98
P12	SP/NSW1	0.30	1.68	1.52	2.62	2.33	2.36	2.71	1.99	2.03	1.21	1.49	0.87

Transect Walk Method
Fung Lok Wai	-	2.84	2.62	1.83	2.12	2.48	3.20	0	2.81	2.03	0	1.99	2.54
Nam Sang Wai	-	**	0.69	**	1.77	1.83	2.12	**	**	0.64	0	0.69	0
YLIE-CW	-	0.67	1.49	**	**	**	0.64	**	**	**	**	**	**
Hillside	--	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	2.05	2.42	1.56	2.25
Project Site	--	1.10	1.03	1.90	1.58	**	2.25	1.48	1.89	1.79	2.15	1.62	2.27
Tai Sang Wai	--	**	1.01	**	**	0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
YLIE-U/R	--	1.24	**	1.09	0.98	1.26	**	**	**	1.88	**	**	**

Not Specified in the Raw Data
NS	--	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0.79	2.39	1.01	0
Notes: 1. “-“: will be included in the monthly impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 2. “--": will not be included in the impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 3. ** no species recorded, 0 abundance 4. * night sampling conducted

Location ID	Location ID EM&A Manual	2016					2017
		Wet			Dry					Wet
		Aug-2016	Sept-2016*	Oct-2016	Nov-2016	Dec-2016*	Jan-2017	Feb-2017*	Mar-2017	Apr-2017*	May-2017	Jun-2017*	Jul-2017*
Point Count Method
P1	FLW1	1.05	**	0	0.69	0	0.90	**	1.33	**	0.69	0.69	**
P2	FLW2	0	0	0.64	0	0.19	0.98	**	**	**	**	**	0
P3	FLW3	0.95	0	0	0.35	**	0.22	0.69	**	**	**	**	**
P4	FLW4	1.33	1.28	0.64	0.72	0.99	**	1.21	1.02	0.80	0.68	0.64	0
P5	FLW5	0.30	0.64	0.85	1.01	0.44	**	0.66	0.53	1.51	1.33	0.95	0.64
P6	FLW6	1.05	1.61	1.00	0.92	1.10	0.35	1.09	1.89	0	1.13	0.50	1.10
P7	FLW7	0	0.56	1.99	1.33	0.41	1.56	1.76	1.01	1.10	**	0	1.04
P8	--	**	**	**	**	0	**	0	0	**	0	1.05	0
P9	SP/NSW3	1.20	1.92	1.79	1.97	1.91	2.30	2.42	2.00	1.87	1.08	0.68	1.00
P10	SP/NSW2	0.64	1.21	0.94	1.26	1.99	2.24	2.04	1.80	1.56	1.10	0.95	0.99
P11	NSW1	0.80	**	0	1.19	0.30	0.35	1.04	0.11	1.10	1.39	0	1.37
P12	SP/NSW1	0	1.10	1.05	2.35	2.16	2.07	2.16	1.74	1.56	0.50	1.01	0.87

Transect Walk Method
Fung Lok Wai	-	1.10	1.37	0.75	1.10	1.12	1.74	0	1.16	0	0	1.04	0.90
Nam Sang Wai	-	**	0	**	0	0.64	0	**	**	**	0	**	**
YLIE-CW	-	0.67	1.49	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Hillside	--	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	1.10	0	0.67
Project Site	--	**	**	0	**	**	0.41	**	**	**	**	**	0
Tai Sang Wai	--	**	0.67	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
YLIE-U/R	--	**	**	**	**	0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**

Not Specified in the Raw Data
NS	--	**	**	**	**	**	**	1.39	**	0.69	0	**	**
Notes: 1. “-“: will be included in the monthly impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 2. “--": will not be included in the impact monitoring as per Figure 7.1 of the approved EM&A Manual 3. ** no species recorded, 0 abundance 4. * night sampling conducted

[1] https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_fau/con_fau_bird/con_fau_bird_bhk/files/booklet_1.pdf

[2] https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_fau/con_fau_bird/con_fau_bird_bhk/files/booklet_1.pdf


Appendix B.1: Assessment Area in 2016	Appendix B..2: Assessment Area in 2017


Appendix B.3: Assessment Area in 2018	Appendix B.4: Assessment Area in 2019

1. [This is the bookmark for the end of the front matter.INTRODUCTION