5.                         ECOLOGY MONITORING

5.1                        Ardeid Night Roost Monitoring

5.1.1                   Monitoring Requirement

With reference to the Pre-construction Ardeid Night Roost survey (January 2021) findings that identified two active ardeid night roosts within 100 m from the Project boundary (one approximately 40 m east of the Project boundary and the other one approximately 45 m northeast of the Project boundary), consequent monthly monitoring of these active ardeid night roosts was done in accordance to the EM&A Manual Sections 7.3.10 and 7.3.11; and EIA Report Section 8.12.1.3.

The Ardeid Night Roost Monitoring survey was conducted with the following objectives:

·        Check the status and location of any active ardeid night roosts within 100 m from the Project boundary (Survey Area) with reference to EM&A Manual Section 7.3.10;

·        Monitor the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and detect any unpredicted indirect ecological impacts arising from the proposed Project as specified in EIA Report Section 8.12.1.3; and

·        Recommend remedial actions, where appropriate, based on the impact monitoring results (EIA Report Section 8.12.1.3) for the implementation of the contractor as only necessary.

5.1.2                   Monitoring Methodology

5.1.2.1             Monitoring Area

With reference from Section 7.3.10 of the approved EM&A Manual, the monitoring was conducted in areas within 100 m from the Project boundary. The monitoring area and vantage points for direct observation of any active night roosts are shown in Appendix O.

5.1.2.2             Monitoring Activity

5.1.2.2.1       Active Ardeid Night Roost

Current Ardeid Night Roost Monitoring Survey focused on the two active night roosts within the Survey Area (100 m from the Project boundary) that were previously confirmed during the pre-construction Survey. These roosts include one that was approximately 40 m east of the Project boundary and another around 45 m northeast of the mentioned boundary (Section 3 of the approved Pre-construction Survey Report of Ardeid Night Roost). Primary data collection with the use of 7x and 10x binoculars; and field guides including the Avifauna of Hong Kong (Carey et al., 2001) and The Birds of Hong Kong and South China (Viney et al., 2005), was from about one hour before sunset time until one hour after sunset with reference to Section 7.3.10 of the approved EM&A Manual. Sunset time was according to Hong Kong Observatory (HKO). The survey was conducted on 12 August 2022.

Species composition, abundance and locations of night roosts were recorded. Species composition, abundance and location of pre-roosting aggregations (PRA) were also noted. PRAs are gatherings of avian individuals prior to flying into a night roost (Moore and Switzer, 1998). The time of return of the ardeids to the pre-roost and the final night roost were also recorded. Direct observations were made from vantage points adjacent the Project site with clear and unobstructed view of any active roosting location (s) within the Survey Area. However, aside from the established vantage points for the focused mangrove strips along Shan Pui River, observations were also conducted throughout the whole 100 m study site to cover other areas aside from the mangrove strips.

Observations such as any changes in site condition or disturbances detected or observed at the monitoring locations, including both construction and non-construction related activities, during the monitoring activity was recorded with reference to Section 7.3.10 of the approved EM&A Manual. Additionally, other observations such as bird droppings on the ground which may possibly indicate presence of night roosts were noted in addition to noting of the roosting substrate (i.e. substrate species and approximate height). Any breeding activity usage of the roosting locations within the Survey Area was also noted.

5.1.2.2.2       Noise Monitoring

Monitoring Locations, Frequency, Time and Parameters

The noise monitoring locations were established at 22°28’4.25”N, 114°1’41.32”E; and 22°28’10.43”N, 114°1’42.17”E for NMS1 and NMS2 stations, respectively. Monitoring frequency was only once a month in concurrence with the construction phase monthly monitoring of the active night roosts for correlation. Monitoring time for both stations started around 19:02, the earliest final night roost period recorded during the survey and lasted for 30 minutes. Table 5.1 presents the monitoring parameters.

The Action and Limit Levels for Active Ardeid Night Roost Survey have been set and are presented in Appendix C.

However, exceedances to the limit level were endeavoured to be prevented by the full implementation of mitigation measures (Section 4.2 of the approved Pre-construction Survey Report of Ardeid Night Roost and Sections 5.2.1-5.2.2 of this Report) during the construction phase.

Event and Action Plan

In instances of exceedance/s in the action and/or limit levels, the different measures as specified in Table 3.3 Event and Action Plan for Construction Noise of the approved EM&A Manual and likewise presented in Appendix H of this report shall be implemented as responses.

5.1.3                   Monitoring Results

5.1.3.1             Active Ardeid Night Roost

The monitoring activity was conducted on 12 August 2022 and started around 17:57 (one hour before sunset) on a low tide condition. During the pre-roost period (PRP), the period when avian individuals gather first before flying into a night roost, two Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus, two Great Egret Ardea alba, and four Little Egret Egretta garzetta individuals were observed in pre-roost aggregate (PRA) around 18:40 at the mudflat east side (ANR1) of the Project boundary while no PRA of any ardeid species was noted at the mudflat northeast side (ANR2) of the Project boundary during the period (Table 5.2).

For the final night roost at around 19:02, four individuals of Chinese Pond Heron were observed at the roosting area ANR1 utilizing the understory to canopy layer of the roosting substrate Sonneratia apetala and S. caseolaris; concurrently, five individuals of Chinese Pond Heron, and five individuals of Little Egret were also noted at ANR2 that utilized the understory layer of the aforementioned roosting substrate.

No disturbance (construction related and/or otherwise) to the active night roost areas was observed during the period. Bird droppings were observed within the vicinity of the roosting area located east of the Project boundary.


5.1.3.2             Noise Monitoring

Noise monitoring activities were conducted on 12 August 2022 in concurrence with the construction phase monthly monitoring of the pre-identified active night roosts. Noise monitoring started at 19:02 and lasted for 30 minutes, until 19:32.

Current survey results showed noise levels (LAeq (30 min.)) at both monitoring stations to be well below the action and limit levels as presented in Table 5.3.

5.1.4                   Detection of Any Unpredicted Indirect Ecological Impacts Arising from the Project

No unpredicted indirect ecological impacts that arose from the project were noted during the current monitoring period.

5.1.5                   Summary

5.1.5.1             Status and Location of Any Active Ardeid Night Roost

Two active ardeid night roost areas (ANR1 and ANR2) were observed within the Survey Area during the August 2022 monitoring period. These roosts were located at the mangrove strips in the east and northeast portions of the Project boundary. These were used by individuals of Chinese Pond Heron, and Little Egret.

5.1.5.2             Noise Monitoring Results

Both noise levels at each of the monitoring stations were below the action and limit levels.

5.2                      Ecological Monitoring of Birds

5.2.1                   Monitoring Requirement

With reference to Section 7.3.6 of the EM&A Manual, monthly ecological monitoring of birds, focusing on avifauna species of conservation interest, 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 the monitoring area (500 m from the Project Boundary) was conducted in addition to monitoring on the utilization of wetland habitats by birds also within the same monitoring area as required by Section 7.3.1 of the EM&A Manual.

5.2.2                   Monitoring Methodology

5.2.2.1             Monitoring Area

The monitoring area included 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 with reference to Section 7.3.6 of the EM&A Manual. The location of point count sites and transect routes is shown in Appendix P.

5.2.2.2             Monitoring Activity

Avifauna surveys on the different wetland habitats using the transect count and point count methods were conducted last 15 August 2022 (daytime) which started around 07:45. For the survey overlooking the mudflats and mangroves in the Shan Pui River that was concurrently conducted on the same date with the daytime survey during the low tide (generally 1.5m or below) period, it started at around 07:45. The methodology for the monitoring activity followed Sections 8.3.3.6 and 8.3.3.7 of the EIA Report (AEIAR-220/2019) and as detailed below.

For the transect count and point count methods, the presence and relative abundance of avifauna species at various wetland habitats were recorded visually and aurally.

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. 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).

Noise levels were recorded with the methodology and equipment as mentioned in Section 3.4 and Section 3.2, respectively, of this EM&A report. The parameter as shown in was recorded at each of the point count locations.

In addition to recording of noise levels, any changes in site condition or disturbances detected or observed at the monitoring locations, including both construction and non-construction related activities with reference to Section 7.3.7 of the EM&A Manual were also noted.

5.2.2.3             Data Analysis

For the bird communities, the monitoring results were compared to pre-construction baseline condition during the dry and wet seasons as summarized in the Baseline Bird Survey Report with reference to Section 7.3.8 of the EM&A Manual. However, to further account the seasonality, monitoring results of the current month were compared to the results of the corresponding month of the baseline data.

The 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 and species composition of the avifauna communities during the monitoring month were summarized.

To check the presence of variation in bird abundance between baseline and impact monitoring, t-test was applied (α = 0.05). Moreover, to check the presence of variation in bird species diversity, the two-sided Hutcheson t-test was also used. The two-sided Hutcheson t-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; Pi = 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 Action and Limit Levels for ecological monitoring of birds have been set and are presented in Appendix C.

Wetland habitat utilization during the construction phase monitoring shall only be compared seasonally, hence the comparison shall only be done after all the data (dry season and wet season) were collected with reference to Appendix 8.5 of the approved EIA Report.

5.2.3                   Monitoring Results

Results of the avifauna survey on the different habitats within the monitoring area using the transect count and point count methods as conducted last 15 August 2022 (daytime) which started around 07:45 are presented in Sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2. Meanwhile, results for the surveys overlooking the mudflats and mangroves in the Shan Pui River, with monitoring activities conducted on similar date with the daytime survey during the low tide (generally 1.5m or below) period around 07:45 had results presented in Section 5.2.3.3.

5.2.3.1             Abundance

5.2.3.1.1  All Avifauna Species

An overall total of 216 avifauna individuals was recorded in the monitoring area during the August 2022 monitoring period, of which 141 individuals were recorded from the point count method and 75 individuals from the transect walk method. Relative to the August 2016 baseline data (point count method = 160; and transect walk = 140), current decreases  in total abundance for the point count method (t-value = 0.22; p-value = 0.83; α = 0.05); and transect walk method (t-value = 0.21; p-value = 0.83; α = 0.05) were observed. These decreases are consistent with the trend observed in the nearby Deep Bay Area, where it was reported that from 2000 to 2018 there has been a consistent decline in coverage of intertidal mudflat, consistent increase in coverage of mangrove and other vegetation (Sung Y-H et. al., 2021).  Additionally, within the monitoring area, the mudflat at the confluence area of Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River, adjacent to Project site was progressively invaded most probably by the fast-growing exotic mangrove species Sonneratia spp. as also initially reported in the EIA report. The decrease in mudflat coverage may imply a decrease in foraging area for waterbirds, hence, could have led the current decreases in abundances.

Details of these findings are summarized in Table 5.5; and Appendices F.6.1 and F.6.2.

5.2.3.1.2  Avifauna Species of Conservation Importance

Of the 216 avifauna individuals recorded in the monitoring area during the August 2022 monitoring period, 90 individuals (point count method = 64 individuals; transect walk method = 26 individuals) were of conservation importance. With reference to August 2016 data, current results showed decreases in total abundance for the point count method (t-value = -0.20; p-value = 0.84; α = 0.05); and in transect walk method (t-value = 1.78; p-value = 0.09; α = 0.05) results were noted. Details of these findings are summarized in Table 5.6; and Appendices F.6.3 and F.6.4.  

5.2.3.2             Diversity (Species Richness[1] and Shannon Diversity Index[2])

5.2.3.2.1       All Avifauna Species

A total of 30 avifauna species (species richness) were recorded during the August 2022 monitoring period, of which, 24 species were recorded by the point count method while 23 species were noted by the transect walk method. Relative to the baseline data (point count method = 26 species; transect walk method = 30 species), decreases in total species richness for both the point count and transect walk methods were noted. In terms of Shannon diversity index (H’) values, current result in point count method showed no change from baseline reference value while an increase in transect walk method was noted. Details of these findings are summarized in Table 5.7.

5.2.3.2.2       Avifauna Species of Conservation Importance

Of the 30 avifauna species identified during the August 2022 monitoring period, eight species were of conservation importance (point count method = 6 species; transect walk method = 7 species). Relative to the baseline values in August 2016, the number of species with conservation importance recorded from the point count method decreased while the number of species with conservation importance from the transect walk method increased. In terms of Shannon diversity index (H’), an insignificant decrease in point count method (t-value = 1.49; t-crit = 1.98; p-value =0.14; α = 0.05) relative to the baseline reference value was observed while an increase in the transect walk method was noted. Details of these findings are summarized in Table 5.8 and Appendix F.7.1.

5.2.3.3             Wetland Habitat Utilization

Avifauna communities were observed during the current monitoring period in the different wetland habitats, i.e. modified watercourse, ponds, and mangrove.

With reference to Section 7.3.1 of the EM&A Manual, the utilization of the wetland habitats by birds within the monitoring area was recorded and monitored.

5.2.3.3.1       All Avifauna Species

During the current monitoring period, majority of the different wetland habitats were observed with very low (VL) abundance. In terms of species richness, majority of these wetland habitats were also observed with very low (VL) number of species (Table 5.9).

5.2.3.3.2       Avifauna Species of Conservation Importance

All of the different wetland habitats had very low (VL) abundance of avifauna species of conservation importance; and were also utilized by very low (VL) number of these species (Table 5.10).

5.2.3.4             Noise Levels

Noise levels LAeq (30 min) recorded on 15 August 2022 (daytime) from each of the point count locations during the ecological bird monitoring are shown in Table 5.11.

 



[1] actual number of species

[2] use to account the proportion (in terms of relative abundance) of each species