7.3 Legislation,
Standards & Guidelines
7.5 Baseline Conditions
and Sensitive Receivers – Desktop Study
7.6 Baseline Conditions and Sensitive
Receivers – Field Surveys
7.7 Construction Phase
Impact Assessment
7.8 Operation Phase
Impact Assessment
7.9 Mitigation &
Best Practices Measures
7.10 Environmental Monitoring &
Audit
7.11 Conclusions & Recommendations
7 Avifauna
7.1.1.1 This section presents the approach to and the findings of the ecological impact assessment of avifauna. The aim of the ecological impact assessment is to examine the avifauna and other components of the ecological habitats within the assessment area in order to protect, maintain or rehabilitate the natural environment. Special attention shall be paid to avoid impacts on wildlife groups or habitats / species with conservation interests including but not limited to migratory birds, breeding visitors and uncommon resident species.
7.1.1.2
There is extensive literature on the potential and actual effects that wind
farms have on birds (e.g. Percival, 2003
·
Loss of habitats or particular
foraging areas
·
Presenting a barrier to bird
movement
·
Displacing birds from the area
·
Adversely affecting birds’
feeding grounds or food sources
· Presenting a collision risk to birds.
7.1.1.3 The assessment shall identify and quantify the potential ecological impacts to the natural environment and the associated wildlife groups and habitats / species arising from the proposed Project including its construction and operation phases as well as the subsequent management and maintenance of the proposed development. The assessment has been conducted for installation of 67 nos. of 3MW turbines (Scenario A) and also for 40 nos. of 5MW turbines (Scenario B).
7.1.1.4 For the purpose of the avifauna impact assessment, the Study Area includes the wind farm area and its surroundings to a varying extent, depending on the specific elements being considered. These areas are defined as follows:
·
Desktop Study Area: the circled
area as displayed in Figure 7.1 to cover the sea area within approximately
·
Field Survey Area: covering the
wind farm area and an adjacent area of approximately
·
Assessment Area(s): the wind
farm area plus additional
7.1.1.1 The aim of the avifauna impact assessment is to consider all potential impacts upon resident and migratory bird species and their habitats from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. In this regard the duration and focus of the baseline surveys was expanded beyond the scope of the EIA Study Brief.
7.1.1.2 Specific objectives of the assessment include:
·
Collect information from
desktop study and field surveys to establish an ecological baseline for the assessment
area. The field surveys include both resident and migratory birds and covered a
20-month period
·
Identify and predict potential
ecological impacts during construction and operation of the proposed
development
·
Evaluate the significance and
acceptability of the identified impacts
·
Recommend effective and
practicable alternatives and mitigation measures
· Recommend the need for and the scope of an appropriate monitoring and audit programme.
7.2
Legislation, Standards
& Guidelines
7.2.1.1
Reference shall be made to local legislation governing flora, fauna and
habitat conservation. Directly relevant legislation includes:
7.2.1.2
Wild Animals Protection
Ordinance (Cap. 170) provides for the
protection of species listed in ' Schedule 2 ' of the Ordinance by prohibiting
the disturbance, taking or removal of such animals, their nests and eggs. This
Ordinance excludes fish and marine invertebrates, but does allow for the
protection of all marine mammals found in
7.2.1.3
Protection of Endangered
Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) gives effect in Hong Kong to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
signed in Washington D.C. on 3 March 1973
7.2.1.4 Regionally / internationally protected species: such as those species listed in the following:
·
International
·
Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
·
List of National Key Protected
Species in the Mainland PRC
· Species considered sensitive and / or of local / regional / international conservation concerns by published literature.
7.2.1.5
EIA -TM (Annexes 8 and 16)
7.3.1 Desk-top Study Information Sources
7.3.1.1 A desktop study has been conducted to review records of migratory and resident avifauna that currently or may potentially utilise the Study Area. The information and data sources under review include:
·
Pilot Project to Increase
Awareness of the Ecological Importance of the Breeding Colonies of Terns in
·
Seabird Migration Survey in
Southern and South-eastern Hong Kong Waters, spring (HKBWS, 2006) (ECF Project
2005-10)
·
The Population and Breeding
Ecology of White-bellied Sea-eagles in
·
2002 – 2007 Monitoring Data of
White-bellied Sea Eagles in Hong Kong (Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (AFCD), unpublished data)
·
The Avifauna of Hong Kong
(Carey et. al., 2001)
·
Tern Surveys
conducted by HKBWS (unpublished data)
·
The Birds of Hong Kong and
7.3.2 Approach for Conducting Field Surveys
7.3.2.1
Additional / novel field
surveys are necessary to supplement or to fill the information gap of the baseline
conditions generated from desktop study. Several types of field surveys have
been widely documented (e.g. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, 2005
· Boat-based Survey
· Aerial Survey
· Radar Survey
7.3.2.2 Table 7.1 presents a summary of different types of bird surveys with regard to their documented advantages and limitations.
Table 7.1 Summary of Boat-based Survey, Aerial Surveys and Radar Surveys with Regard to Advantages and Limitations
Types of Surveys |
Advantages |
Limitations |
Boat-based Surveys |
· Most sensitive methods to detect obtrusive and low-flying birds · Good in identifying birds to species level · Allow collection of behavioural information on birds such as (feeding, movements between roosts, flight heights), and more detailed information on bird characters, e.g. age and sex. |
· Poor in estimating total numbers for large population of birds · Poor in terms of obtaining a snapshot of distribution at any one
time |
Aerial Surveys |
· Good in terms of obtaining a snapshot of distribution at any one
time · Allow surveys of large area at any one time · Allow good estimate of relative abundance and densities for large
population of birds across a seascape |
· Poor in terms of identifying obtrusive or low-flying birds · Poor in terms of identifying birds to species level · Unable to provide detailed information such as behaviour, flight height or direction. |
Radar Surveys |
· Allow surveys during night time · Allow quantification of marked passage movements by significantly large flocks of migrating or moving birds |
· Poor to provide information for bird identification · Sensitive to human disturbance · Only allow collection of information at fixed points. |
7.3.2.3
Based on the results of desk-top study as conducted under Sub-section 7.5, the most appropriate type of survey
methodology has been selected to conduct the field survey as described under Sub-section 7.6.
7.3.3 Collision
Risk Impact Assessment
& Evaluation
Collision
Risk Calculation
7.3.3.1
Several
collision risk models for wind farm birds have been developed in recent years.
Among these models the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
bird collision risk model (Band et al,
2007) is regarded as generally robust and has been most frequently used for
several years in Scotland and more recently in the rest of the UK (Madders and
Whitfield, 2006). This model has
been adopted for this EIA Study as presented under Sub-section
7.8.
7.3.3.2
Collision
calculation is based on the worst-case wind farm configuration, being that with
the largest blade pitch angle (relative to the rotor plane of the turbine), the
smallest rotation period of turbines (the fastest speed of the blade), the
maximum bird sizes, and the slowest flight speed of the bird obtained from
available documentation or literature.
Table 7.2 displays the worst-case
configuration for the two proposed turbine options.
Table 7.2 Configuration
of the Proposed Turbine Options
Variables |
Scenario A |
Scenario B |
Risk Area of the wind farm (WF + |
|
|
Rotor diameter |
|
|
Number of turbines |
67 |
40 |
Rotation period |
3.33 seconds |
4.96 seconds |
7.3.3.3
Collision
risk calculations have been prepared for two behaviour scenarios: one extreme worst-case
scenario that assumes birds take no action to avoid collision, and one
recognizing that most birds do take avoiding action (Band et al, 2007). For the
latter behavioural scenario a “conservative” 95% ‘avoidance factor’ has been
applied as suggested by the SNH guidelines (http://www.snh.org.uk).
7.3.3.4
Stage 1 of
the model predicts the number of bird flying through rotors based on field
observations. In Stage 2, the model predicts the
probability (collision probability) of a bird to be hit by a wind farm turbine
when it makes a transit through a rotor. Unlike Stage 1, the collision
probability is independent of the abundance of birds (i.e. independent of field
data) but depends only on the size of a bird (wingspan / bird length) and its
flight speed.
Number of Birds Flying Through Rotors (Stage 1)
7.3.3.5
Under
Stage 1 of the model, the amount of flight activity within the proposed wind
farm site was quantified and expressed by the number of “bird transits” per
season (as defined in sub-sections
1.
Identify a
‘flight risk volume’ (Vw):
This value was taken as the risk area of the
wind farm multiplied by the rotor diameter. The risk area was taken as
2.
Calculate
the combined volume swept out by the wind farm rotors (Vr):
Vr = N x πR2 x (d + l) where N is the number
of wind turbines, d is the depth of the rotor back to front, and l is the
length of the bird.
3.
Estimate
the proportion (Pw) of the time that the species spent flying within
the flight risk volume (Vw) in each bird season (this will be
defined in the “Field Survey Methodology” under sub-section
To allow the use of the model, the point count
data obtained from the field survey were converted into time budget data for
bird activity in the wind farm area under observation. The time budget (in
“bird seconds”) for flight activity was predicted from the survey data
collected at the five fixed-point count locations (P3 to P7) at the proposed
wind farm. At each location, a circular “visible envelope” of
Except for raptors and birds in near-shore
area, the majority of birds sighted in the offshore environment (the proposed
wind farm site) were observed in straight flight. For a bird in straight flight
within the visible envelope, the longest time for it to become lost from the
observer would therefore be the time for it to travel
The flight activity (Pw : proportion
of time that a species spent flying within the “flight risk volume (Vw)”)
was then taken as the bird seconds spent by the species within the risk area
(taken as the wind farm area plus
4.
Estimate
the bird occupancy (nw) within the flight risk volume in each
season/ survey period:
nw = Pw x daily usage x site usage
Daily
usage by the bird was assumed as 7 hours per day
(i.e. the average survey duration of the whole Study Area per trip, of which
birds were assumed most active in the Study Area)
Site
usage by the bird species was estimated from the
duration of species that persisted in each bird season plus a 3-day buffer
period from the starting and ending dates of the survey period. This was taken
as the number of days between the first and the last calendar dates for which
the species persisted in the study area plus 6 days (as a buffer period).
5.
Calculate
the bird occupancy of the volume swept by the rotors (nr):
nr = nw x (Vr / Vw)
(in bird seconds)
6.
Calculate
the time (t) taken for a bird to make a transit through the rotor and
completely clear the rotors:
t = (d + l) / v where v m/s is the speed of the
bird through the rotor
7.
Calculate
the number of bird transits through the rotors:
Number of birds transits through rotors = nr
/ t
Collision Likelihood (Stage 2)
7.3.3.6
The
probability of a bird flying through a rotor being hit depends on the size of
the bird (both length and wingspan), the breadth
and pitch of the turbine blades, the rotation speed of the turbine, and the
speed of the bird. Appendix
7B
displays a sample of the spreadsheet containing calculations of the collision
probabilities.
Impact Evaluation
7.3.3.7
A recognized assessment
methodology developed by Scottish Cultural Heritage (SNH) and British Wind
Energy Association (BWEA) (Percival et al,
1999
· Where no important bird populations are identified in the vicinity of the proposed development, or
· Where important bird populations have been identified but where there is substantive evidence that a significant impact will not occur.
7.3.3.8 Given the recent development of offshore wind farms and a limited research base on how bird populations are affected by these developments the second position is difficult to achieve at this time. Therefore, a precautionary approach should be considered to avoid important protected areas or populations of birds for any new offshore developments. The assessment methodology developed by SNH and BWEA provides a framework (in a form of cross-tabulation matrix as presented in Table 7.5) to indicate significance of impact of offshore wind farm development on birds by giving priority to species / populations of high sensitivity in rating impact significance.
7.3.3.9 The assessment approach consists of three stages:
1. Determination of the sensitivity of the feature potentially affected (Table 7.3)
2. Determination of magnitude of effects on birds (Table 7.4)
3. Assessing the significance of the potential impacts by using cross-tabulation of “Sensitivity” and “Magnitude” (Table 7.5)
Table 7.3 Determination of Ornithological Significance
Sensitivity |
Determination Factor |
Very High |
Cited interest of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (strictly
protected sites classified under the Bird Directive in In Hong Kong, since there is no designated areas particularly for protection of birds, areas designated as the Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSIs) in regard of their ornithological importance are considered of “Very High” sensitivity to potential wind farm impacts in this study. |
High |
Other species that contribute to the integrity of a designated area for conservation. Local population of more than 1% of the national population of a species. Ecologically sensitive species, e.g. Accipitridae raptors and Sternidae terns (Langston & Pullan, 2006) |
Medium |
Regionally important population of a species, either because of population size or distributional context. |
Low |
Any other species of conservation interest not covered above. |
Table 7.4 Determination of Magnitude of Effects on Birds
Magnitude |
Definition |
Very High |
Total loss or very major alternation to key elements/ features of baseline conditions such that post development character/ composition/ attributes will be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether. Guide: >80% of population / habitat loss |
High |
Major alternation to key elements/ features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that post development character/ composition/ attributes will be fundamentally changed. Guide: 20 – 80% of population/ habitat loss |
Medium |
Loss or alternation to one or more key elements/ features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/ composition/ attributes of baseline will be partially changed. Guide: 5 – 20% of population/ habitat loss |
Low |
Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/ alternation will be discernible but underlying character/ composition/ attributes of baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances/ patterns. Guide: 1 – 5% of population/ habitat loss |
Negligible |
Very slight change from baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the “no change” situation. Guide: <1% of population/ habitat loss |
Table 7.5 Matrix of Magnitude and Sensitivity for Determination of Impact Significance
Magnitude |
Sensitivity |
||||
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
|
Very High |
Very High |
Very High |
High |
Medium |
|
High |
Very High |
Very High |
Medium |
Low |
|
Medium |
Very High |
High |
Low |
Very Low |
|
Low |
Medium |
Low |
Low |
Very Low |
|
Negligible |
Low |
Very Low |
Very Low |
Very Low |
7.4
Baseline Conditions and
Sensitive Receivers – Desktop Study
7.4.1
Migratory and Visitor
Seabird Populations
7.4.1.1
The most updated published
checklist of Hong Kong avifauna, “The Avifauna of Hong Kong” (Carey et al, 2001) documents a total of 41
seabird species recorded in
7.4.1.2
There are also three seabird
species recently recorded in Hong Kong Waters: Vega Gull Larus vegae in
7.4.1.3
Table 7.6 summarises all these 45 migratory / visitor seabird species that
have been recorded in
Table 7.6 Migratory
and Visitor Seabird Species in
Seabirds |
Principal Status* |
Recorded in E / SE Waters? |
Family Alcidae (Auks) |
|
|
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramplus antiquus |
W |
Yes |
Family Fregatidae (Frigatebirds) |
|
|
Christmas Island Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi |
- |
No |
Lesser Frigatebird Fregata ariel |
OV |
Yes |
Great Frigatebird Fregata minor |
- |
Yes |
Family Laridae (Gulls) |
|
|
Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus |
W, M |
No |
Mew Gull Larus canus |
M |
No |
Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans |
W, M |
Yes |
Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris |
W, M |
Yes |
Slender-billed Gull Larus genei |
- |
No |
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens |
M |
No |
Heuglin’s Gull Larus heuglini |
W, M |
Yes |
Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus |
- |
No |
Pallas’s Gull Larus ichthyaetus |
W, M |
Yes |
Little Gull Larus minutus |
- |
No |
Relict Gull Larus relictus |
- |
No |
Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus |
W, M |
No |
Saunders’s Gull Larus saundersi |
W, M |
No |
Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus |
W, M |
Yes |
Vega Gull Larus
vegae |
- |
No |
Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla |
- |
No |
Family Pelecanidae
(Pelicans) |
|
|
Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus |
W |
No |
Family
Phaethontidae (Tropicbirds) |
|
|
White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus |
- |
Yes |
Family Phalacrocoracidae
(Cormorants) |
|
|
Japanese Cormorant Phalacrocorax capillatus |
- |
Yes |
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo |
W |
No |
Family Procellariidae
(Shearwaters) |
|
|
Streaked Shearwater Calonectris leucomelas |
- |
Yes |
Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris |
- |
Yes |
Family Scolopacidae
(Sandpipers) |
|
|
Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius |
- |
No |
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus |
M |
Yes |
Family Sternidae (Terns) |
|
|
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus |
M |
Yes |
White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus |
M |
Yes |
Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica |
AM |
Yes |
Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus |
Su, M |
Yes |
Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica |
M |
Yes |
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia |
M |
Yes |
Common Tern Sterna hirundo |
M |
Yes |
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii |
Su |
Yes |
Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana |
Su |
Yes |
Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata |
- |
Yes |
Little Tern Sterna albifrons |
M |
Yes |
Greater Crested Tern Strena bergii |
- |
Yes |
Family Stercorariidae
(Jaegers and Jaegers) |
|
|
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus |
SpM |
Yes |
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus |
- |
Yes |
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus |
- |
Yes |
Family Sulidae (Boobies) |
|
|
Brown Booby Sula leucogaster |
- |
No |
Red-footed Booby Sula sula |
- |
Yes |
*Notes: M:
passage migrant
7.4.1.4
Of these 45 migratory and/or visitor
seabird species, 29 species have been recorded from the eastern or the
south-eastern waters of
7.4.1.5
The seabird survey conducted by
HKBWS in spring 2006 covered the main migration path of seabirds in
Table 7.7 Summary of Numbers of Seabirds Recorded in HKBWS Seabird Survey in Spring 2006 (HKWBS, 2006)
Seabirds |
Number |
% of Total |
Family
Alcidae (Auks) |
|
|
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramplus antiquus |
3 |
0.03 |
Sub-total |
0.03 |
|
Family
Laridae (Gulls) |
|
|
Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans |
2 |
0.02 |
Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris |
2 |
0.02 |
Heuglin’s Gull Larus heuglini |
158 |
1.81 |
Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus |
1 |
0.01 |
Unidentified Gull Larus sp. |
8 |
0.09 |
Sub-total |
171 |
1.95 |
Family
Procellariidae (Shearwaters) |
|
|
Streaked Shearwater Calonectris leucomelas |
52 |
0.59 |
Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris |
15 |
0.17 |
Unidentified Shearwater Puffinus sp. |
3 |
0.03 |
Sub-total |
70 |
0.80 |
Family
Scolopacidae (Sandpipers) |
|
|
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus |
6618 |
75.63 |
Sub-total |
6618 |
75.63 |
Family
Sternidae (Terns) |
|
|
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus |
6 |
0.07 |
White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus |
754 |
8.61 |
Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica |
200 |
2.28 |
Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus |
55 |
0.63 |
Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica |
5 |
0.06 |
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia |
4 |
0.05 |
Common Tern Sterna hirundo |
212 |
2.42 |
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii |
2 |
0.02 |
Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana |
258 |
2.95 |
Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata |
1 |
0.01 |
Little Tern Sterna albifrons |
1 |
0.01 |
Greater Crested Tern Strena bergii |
10 |
0.11 |
Unidentified Tern Chlidonias sp. / Sterna sp. |
219 |
2.50 |
Sub-total |
1727 |
19.73 |
Family
Stercorariidae (Jaegers and Jaegers) |
|
|
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus |
113 |
1.29 |
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus |
13 |
0.15 |
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus |
17 |
0.19 |
Unidentified Jaeger Sterocrarius sp. |
18 |
0.21 |
Sub-total |
161 |
1.84 |
7.4.2
Breeding
Seabird Populations
7.4.2.1
Of the documented 45 migratory
and / or visiting seabird species in
7.4.2.2
Since these earliest records
summer breeding colonies of all the three tern species have been recorded at
offshore islands
7.4.2.3 Table 7.8 summarises the data collected by HKBWS between 1993 – 1997 on the minimum number of adults and fledged juveniles of the three breeding tern species at the East Ninepin.
Year |
Black-naped Tern |
Bridled Tern |
Roseate Tern |
|||
Adult |
Juvenile |
Adult |
Juvenile |
Adult |
Juvenile |
|
1993 |
80 |
10 |
8 |
0 |
40 |
4 |
1994 |
85 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
46 |
0 |
1995 |
35 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1996 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1997 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7.4.2.4
In 2003, a government-funded
project was conducted by HKBWS, namely “Pilot Project to Increase Awareness of
the Ecological Importance of the Breeding Colonies of Terns in
7.4.2.5
The study also first identified
breeding tern colonies on
7.4.2.6
Although there has been no
formally published data on breeding terns in
Table 7.9 Available
Results of On-going Breeding Tern Surveys in SE Waters of
Date |
Black-naped Tern |
Bridled Tern |
Roseate Tern |
|||
Adult |
Juvenile |
Adult |
Juvenile |
Adult |
Juvenile |
|
22 Jul 05 |
130 |
uncertain |
13 |
uncertain |
8 |
uncertain |
11 Jul 06 |
174 |
uncertain |
67 |
uncertain |
10 |
uncertain |
21 Jul 06 |
174 |
10 |
39 |
1 |
53 |
uncertain |
7.4.3.1 White-bellied Sea Eagle (WBSE), Haliaeetus leucogaster, belongs to the Family Accipitridae, is one of the ten fish eagle species in the world (ECA, 2007). WBSEs are monotypic species that inhabit coastal areas and offshore islands. Juveniles of WBSEs are dispersive, while breeding pairs tend to be more sedentary within their own territories. Nests of WBSEs are usually found on tall trees or on remote coastal cliffs (Tsim et al., 2003).
7.4.3.2
WBSE has a world distribution
from western
7.4.3.3
Although the conservation
status of WBSE is determined as “Least Concern (LC)” in accordance with the
“The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (
7.4.3.4
An on-going monitoring
programme of local WBSEs was first started in 2001 by AFCD to record local
distribution and provides long-term monitoring of the species. A total 154
sighting records from 55 sighting locations were obtained from November 2001 to
July 2007 (AFCD unpublished data). Figure 7.8 indicates the
sighting locations of WBSE in
7.4.3.5 The most recent estimates from confirmed sighting records up to 2003 suggest that there are possibly 39 WBSEs in Hong Kong, including 23 adults and 16 immature / juveniles (Tsim et al., 2003), and a total of 8 confirmed nests / breeding pairs. The most updated information (up to July 2007) from AFCD unpublished monitoring data show that the number of recorded breeding pairs increases from 8 pairs in 2002/03 to 12 pairs in 2006/07.
7.4.3.6
The locations of sighting
records suggest that the eastern and southern waters of
7.4.3.7
A total of 7 breeding nests
have been reported in SE waters that fall within the Study Area of the proposed wind farm, as displayed in Figures 7.9
and 7.10. Of these locations, Ninepin Islands,
Wang Chau and Steep Island are the closest breeding locations to the proposed
wind farm (approximately
7.4.3.8
A study on foraging behaviour
of two breeding pairs of WBSE at Yeung Chau (Sai Kung) (during incubation
period) and Tai Ngam Hau (during chick-rearing period) was conducted by AFCD
between 2001 and 2003. Observations of the foraging pairs at Yeung Chau and Tai
Ngam Hau suggest that the breeding WBSEs foraged most frequently between
Table 7.10 Summary of the Results of WBSE Breeding Site Survey in SE Waters Between 2002/03 and 2006/07 (AFCD unpublished data)
Surveyed Site |
Year |
||||
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
2004/05 |
2005/06 |
2006/07 |
|
|
U |
U |
S(P) |
U |
X |
|
U |
U |
U |
X |
X |
Tai Ngam Hau |
S(2) |
S(2) |
S(1) |
S(2) |
S(2) |
Tsim Chau |
S(1) |
U |
F(P) |
F |
S(1) |
Tsang Pang Kok |
U |
U |
U |
S(1) |
F |
Yeung Chau (Sai Kung) |
F |
F |
F |
F |
F |
Wang Chau |
U |
U |
U |
U |
S(1) |
Notes:
S(1): Success
– Bred successfully
S(P): Probably
success – No fledgling seen
F: Fail
– Adults abandoned the nest during breeding period
F(P): Probably
fail – None of fledgling nor feeding behaviour were observed. But the breeding
pair stayed at the nesting site for the whole breeding period
X: No
nest – either because the pair didn’t attempt breeding or no WBSE inhabit the site
during breeding season
U: Uncertain
– Insufficient data.
7.4.3.9
A study on post-release
monitoring of two immature White-bellied Sea Eagles after rehabilitation
jointly conducted by Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) and Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) in 2002 (Griffiths and Tsim, 2004)
by use of radio transmitters showed that both immature birds were able to fly
well and establish their territory ranges within very short period of time
after release (< 1 month). The
radio-tracking results suggested that all recorded positions of the two
immature WBSEs were all confined to near-shore coastal areas, within
approximately
7.4.4
Conclusion
of Desktop Study
7.4.4.1
A desktop study has been
conducted to cover the sea area (as displayed in Figure 7.1) within
7.4.4.2
Results of the desktop study
suggest that approximately 2/3 (or 29 out of the total 45) of migratory seabird
species in
7.4.4.3
7.5
Baseline Conditions and Sensitive Receivers –
Field Surveys
7.5.1 Field Survey Methodologies
7.5.1.1 Based on the results of desktop study, boat-based field survey was proposed for use in this study based on the following considerations:
·
Abundance of existing birds
within the Study Area are predicted
to be low: Daily bird counts covering the majority of seabird population in S
and SE HK waters ranged from 61 – 969 (HKBWS, 2006). The numbers are far too
low compared to those obtained in other wind farm studies (e.g. NERI, 2000
· Most seabirds are of low flight altitude: the results of the HKBWS 2006 seabird study showed that more than 96% of the observed birds belong to terns (~20%), the sandpiper, Red-necked Phalarope (~76%), and shearwaters, (~1%), which usually fly at low altitudes or near water surface.
·
Absence of marked passage movements of migrating /
moving birds: No moving flocks of birds of significant
size or marked passage of moving / migration birds have been identified in the
Study Area from previous surveys / studies. Instead,
all migratory / moving birds in
7.5.1.2
A fixed transect route for day
7.5.1.3 In order to avoid missing birds in key areas and to allow estimation of population sizes of breeding colonies, fixed-point counts were conducted at a total of 9 fixed survey points, including P1 to P8, and Kong Tau Pai. Point count locations have been selected to cover the project area of concern (i.e., all four corners and the centre of the wind farm site area) and four coastal locations from which bird flights would originate / breeding activity would be centred.
7.5.1.4 For P1 to P8, fixed-point counts were conducted for 30 minutes at each of the points. For Kong Tau Pai, the known current breeding location in the SE waters for terns, point-counts were performed until all terns (including adults and juveniles) on the islet were counted and recorded.
7.5.1.5 All boat-based surveys were conducted by a professional ornithologist, with the best experience in coastal and seabird survey in the HKSAR and with specific survey experience in the Study Area. Additional staff support, including support for breeding bird point counts, was provided as appropriate, depending on sighting frequency.
7.5.1.6 The boat-based survey involved scanning on both sides of the boat by the observer to ensure no under-counting. For each bird sighting, the position of the observer was recorded using a GPS navigator. An estimate of the distance of bird from observer was made and aided by the use of a range finder to allow the analysis of bird distribution across environmental gradients (e.g. distance gradients away from the proposed wind farm).
7.5.1.7 For all bird sightings along the transect route, information including species identity, number of individuals, behaviour (e.g. at flight or foraging), height and direction of flight, maturity of the birds (adult / juvenile), and whether or not the birds fly through the Wind farm area was recorded.
7.5.1.8 All the bird surveys were conducted at daytime with good weather conditions (e.g. at Beaufort scale <5), to enable the best visibility and observer efficiency, and hence data reliability.
7.5.1.9 Survey duration / periods were defined and represented by four “bird seasons” according to the general understanding of occurrence of various types of seabirds or bird population across the SE waters of Hong Kong: Spring Migratory Period (March – mid June), Summer Breeding Period for terns (mid June – August), Autumn Migratory Period (September – November), and the Winter Period (December – February) for some winter breeders such as the WBSE.
7.5.1.10 Boat-based surveys were conducted more frequently during migratory periods when observation opportunities of birds offshore were expected to be greatest. The following frequency was basically followed as far as practicable:
· Spring Migratory Period 2006 (May – mid June 2006) [Frequency: 2x /week]
· Summer Breeding Period 2006 (mid June – August 2006) [Frequency: 2x /month]
· Winter Period 2006 - 2007 (December 2006 – February 2007) [Frequency: 2x /month]
· Spring Migratory Period 2007 (March – May 2007) [Frequency: 2x /week]
· Summer Breeding Period 2007 (August 2007) [Frequency: 1x /week]
· Autumn Migratory Period 2007 (September – November 2007) [Frequency: 1x / week]
· Winter Period 2007 (December 2007) [Frequency: 1x /week]
7.5.1.11
The survey during the Spring
Migratory Period in 2006 and 2007 was designed to cover spring migration of
seabirds during the months March through May (HKBWS, 2006). The Summer Breeding
Period covered the breeding season of the three breeding terns in
Table 7.11 Dates of Boat-based Surveys Undertaken in the Study Area Between May 2006 and December 2007.
Dates |
|
Spring Migratory Period 2006 |
2006 May: 23, 26, 30 2006 June: 2, 5, 9, 12, 15 |
Summer Breeding Period 2006 |
2006 July: 4, 18 2006 August: 5, 19, 30 |
Winter Period 2006 - 2007 |
2006 December: 23, 30 2007 January: 12, 24 2007 February: 8, 22 |
Spring Migratory Period 2007 |
2007 March: 7, 10, 15, 16, 20, 26, 29 2007 April: 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 2007 May: 11, 12, 17, 22 |
Summer Breeding Period 2007 |
2007 August: 16,
24, 30 |
Autumn Migratory Period 2007 |
2007 September: 6,
13, 19, 27 2007 October: 5,
11, 18, 25 2007 November: 2,
10, 17, 24 |
Winter Period 2007 |
2007 December: 1, 7,
15, 23, 29 |
7.5.1.12 Except for the Autumn Migratory Period 2007 which generally covers a full “Autumn” period from September through November, other survey periods in 2006 and 2007 cover different selective periods of a particular season. As such, for the collision risk presented in Sub-section 7.8 survey data from 2006 and 2007 has been pooled for the risk analysis on a ‘species per season’ basis.
7.5.2.1 Total counts for the whole survey period (between May 2006 and December 2007) are summarised in Table 7.12 and Table 7.13 for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively.
7.5.2.2
Peak daily counts for the whole
survey period are summarised in Table 7.14 and Table 7.15 for Scenario A and Scenario B,
respectively. Appendix
Table 7.12 Total
Counts of Bird Species Recorded during Boat-based Surveys within the Study Area
(the proposed wind farm area (WF) with
Species |
WF |
WF + |
WF + |
WF + |
Whole Area |
|
Passerines |
Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Chinese Bulbul Pycnontus sinensis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
Collared Crow Corvus torquatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Crested Myna Acridotheres cristatellus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Large-billed Crow Corvus marcorhynchos |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Oriental
Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava |
0 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
|
Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Raptors |
Black Kite Milvus migrans |
0 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
615 |
Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Chinese Goshawk Accipiter soloensis |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
Raptors |
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Eurasian Hobby Falco subbuteo |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Grey-faced Buzzard Butastur indicus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Osprey Pandion haliaetus |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
Unidentified Raptor |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
138 |
|
Seabirds |
Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica |
33 |
65 |
71 |
103 |
154 |
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana |
6 |
12 |
12 |
14 |
1048 |
|
Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris |
28 |
37 |
38 |
40 |
48 |
|
Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus |
89 |
191 |
222 |
246 |
883 |
|
Common Tern Sterna hirundo |
46 |
85 |
89 |
99 |
167 |
|
Greater Crested Tern Sterna bergii |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
Heuglin’s Gull Larus heuglini |
9 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
14 |
|
Litter Tern Sterna albisfrons |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus |
1 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus |
6 |
9 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii |
0 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
181 |
|
Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Streaked Shearwater Calonectris leucomelas |
4 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
|
Unidentified Gull Larus sp. |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Unidentified Jaeger Stercorarius sp. |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
|
Unidentified Tern Sterna sp. |
20 |
25 |
33 |
48 |
87 |
|
Seabirds |
White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus |
43 |
72 |
74 |
80 |
126 |
Swallows / Swifts |
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica |
44 |
53 |
53 |
55 |
88 |
Little Swift Apus affinis |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
48 |
|
Pacific Swift Apus pacificus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
230 |
|
Black-crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Waders & Waterbirds |
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (coromandus) |
20 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Curlew Numenius arquata (orientalis) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Great Egret Egretta alba |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea |
11 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
|
Little Egret Egretta garzetta |
26 |
45 |
45 |
65 |
141 |
|
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
|
Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
|
Red Knot Calidris canutus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
|
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus |
128 |
243 |
247 |
283 |
722 |
|
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
|
Unidentified egret Egretta sp. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
|
Unidentified shore bird |
0 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
|
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
|
White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnnsis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola |
0 |
31 |
31 |
31 |
37 |
|
Total |
563 |
1030 |
1099 |
1272 |
5124 |
Table 7.13 Total Counts of Bird Species
Recorded during Boat-based Surveys within the Study Area (the proposed wind
farm area (WF) with
Bird Type |
Species |
WF |
WF + |
WF + |
WF + |
Whole Area |
Passerines |
Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Chinese Bulbul Pycnontus sinensis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
Collared Crow Corvus torquatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Crested Myna Acridotheres cristatellus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Large-billed Crow Corvus marcorhynchos |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Oriental
Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava |
5 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
|
Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Raptors |
Black Kite Milvus migrans |
0 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
615 |
Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Chinese Goshawk Accipiter soloensis |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Eurasian Hobby Falco subbuteo |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Grey-faced Buzzard Butastur indicus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Osprey Pandion haliaetus |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
Unidentified Raptor |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
138 |
|
Seabirds |
Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica |
36 |
69 |
71 |
103 |
154 |
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Seabirds |
Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana |
10 |
12 |
12 |
14 |
1048 |
Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris |
22 |
37 |
38 |
40 |
48 |
|
Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus |
119 |
197 |
224 |
246 |
883 |
|
Common Tern Sterna hirundo |
44 |
86 |
90 |
99 |
167 |
|
Greater Crested Tern Sterna bergii |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
Heuglin’s Gull Larus heuglini |
9 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
14 |
|
Litter Tern Sterna albisfrons |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus |
2 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus |
7 |
13 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii |
0 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
181 |
|
Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Streaked Shearwater Calonectris leucomelas |
4 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
|
Unidentified Gull Larus sp. |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Unidentified Jaeger Stercorarius sp. |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
|
Unidentified Tern Sterna sp. |
21 |
28 |
30 |
48 |
87 |
|
White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus |
49 |
72 |
74 |
80 |
126 |
|
Swallows / Swifts |
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica |
46 |
53 |
53 |
55 |
88 |
Little Swift Apus affinis |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
48 |
|
Pacific Swift Apus pacificus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
230 |
|
Black-crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Waders & Waterbirds |
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (coromandus) |
29 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Curlew Numenius arquata (orientalis) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Great Egret Egretta alba |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Waders & Waterbirds |
Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea |
11 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
|
Little Egret Egretta garzetta |
30 |
45 |
45 |
65 |
141 |
|
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
|
Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
|
Red Knot Calidris canutus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
|
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus |
159 |
242 |
246 |
283 |
722 |
|
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres |
7 |
7 |
7 |