Table 9.1 Avifauna species of conservation concern previously recorded within the current Study Area

Common names	Commonness in Hong Kong¹	Level of concern²	Protection status in PRC³	China Red Data Book³	IUCN	WEF EIA	Add WEF EIA	ACTF EIA	STF ES	STF EIA	WLES EIA	IWMF EIA
Little Grebe	Common	LC	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Great Cormorant	Common	PRC	-	-	-	+	+	+	+
Grey Heron	Common	PRC	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Purple Heron	Uncommon	RC	-	-	-			+
Great Egret	Common	PRC (RC)	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Intermediate Egret	Common	RC	-	-	-	+	+
Little Egret	Common	PRC (RC)	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Pacific Reef Egret	Uncommon	(LC)	Class II	Rare	-					+		+
Cattle Egret	Common	(LC)	-	-	-	+		+	+	+
Chinese Pond Heron	Common	PRC (RC)	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Striated Heron	Uncommon in summer, Scarce in winter	(LC)	-	-	-				+
Blacked Crowned Night Heron	Common	(LC)	-	-	-					+
Yellow Bittern	Uncommon	(LC)	-	-	-			+
Common Teal	Common	RC	-	-	-	+	+
Spot-billed Duck	Resident	RC	-	-	-		+
Northern Pintail	Abundant	RC	-	-	-				+
Eurasian Wigeon	Common	RC	-	-	-							+
Red-breasted Merganser	Scarce	LC	-	-	-			+
Osprey*	Common	RC	Class II	Rare	-			+		+		+
Black Kite*	Common	(RC)	Class II	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
White-bellied Sea Eagle*	Uncommon	(RC)	Class II	-	-						+
Crested Serpent Eagle*	Uncommon	(LC)	Class II	-	-				+
Eastern Marsh Harrier*	Common	LC	Class II	-	-			+
Crested Goshawk*	Uncommon	-	Class II	Rare	-				+			+
Common Buzzard*	Common	-	Class II	-	-					+		+
Greater Spotted Eagle*	Scarce	GC	Class II	-	Vulnerable				+
Imperial Eagle*	Common	GC	Class II	-	Vulnerable		+
Common Kestrel*	Common	-	Class II	-	-			+	+			+
Peregrine Falcon*	Scarce	(LC)	Class II	-	-	+						+
Eurasian Woodcock	Scarce	-	-	-	-						+
Eurasian Coot	Common	RC	-	-	-	+	+				+
Black-winged Stilt	Common	RC	-	-	-	+	+		+
Grey-headed Lapwing	Scarce	LC	-	-	-				+
Little Ringed Plover	Common	(LC)	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+		+
Kentish Plover	Abundant	RC	-	-	-		+					+
Common Redshank	Common	RC	-	-	-						+
Marsh Sandpiper	Common	RC	-	-	-				+
Common Greenshank	Abundant	RC	-	-	-		+
Wood Sandpiper	Common	LC	-	-	-	+	+	+		+
Pintail/Swinhoe's Snipe	Common/ Uncommon	LC	-	-	-			+
Common Snipe	Common	-	-	-	-		+	+
Caspian Tern	Passage migrant	RC	-	-	-		+
Greater Coucal	Common	-	Class II	Vulnerable	-	+		+		+	+	+
Lesser Coucal	Common	-	Class II	Vulnerable	-	+		+				+
Pacific Swift	Common	(LC)	-	-	-					+		+
Pied Kingfisher	Uncommon	(LC)	-	-	-				+	+	+	+
White-throated Kingfisher	Common	(LC)	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Black-capped Kingfisher	Common	(LC)	-	-	-			+	+	+
Blue-tailed Bee-eater	Scarce	-	-	-	-					+
Red-throated Pipit	Common	LC	-	-	-	+	+
Black-winged Cuckoo-shrike	Scarce	-	-	-	-					+
Bluethroat	Common	LC	-	-	-			+
Hwamei	Common	-	-	-	-	+
Zitting Cisticola	Common	LC	-	-	-		+	+	+			+
Chinese Penduline Tit	Common	RC	-	-	-			+
Yellow-breasted Bunting	Common	RC	-	-	Vulnerable			+
Red-billed Starling	Common	GC	-	-	-			+	+
White-cheeked Starling	PRC	-	-	-	-	+
White-shouldered Starling	Common	(LC)	-	-	-	+		+		+
Black-naped Oriole	Scarce	LC	-	-	-			+
		Number of Species of Conservation Concern				22	22	29	23	21	12	21

* Protected under Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586)

WEF EIA = Feasibility Study of Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA; Add WEF EIA = Additional Waste-to-Energy Facilities EIA; ACTF EIA = Animal Carcass Treatment Facilities EIA; STF ES =Sludge Treatment Facilities Environmental Study; STF EIA = Sludge Treatment Facilities Feasibility Study EIA; WLES EIA = West New Territories Landfill Extensions Feasibility Study EIA, IWMF EIA= Integrated Waste and Management Facilities EIA.

1: Carey et al. (2001)^(ix), 2: Fellowes et al. (2002)^(xxii), 3: Wang (1998) ^(xvi)

Table 9.2 Summary of breeding activities and abundance of Little Grebe recorded in the ash lagoons during previous studies

Literature

(study period)

Abundance of Little Grebe

Breeding Activities

EIA Report of Additional Waste to-Energy

Facilities

(CE 23/2002).

(Aug – Sep 2000, Jan and Jun 2001)

Maximum counts in the lagoons was:

Aug/Sep 2000: 18

Jan 2001: 14

Jun 2001: 19

In Aug/Sep 2000: 4 fully grown immature

Birds, 3 recently hatched, young birds and 1 nest in East Ash Lagoon;

In June 2001: East Ash Lagoon: 5 breeding pairs

Middle Ash Lagoon: 3 breeding pairs

West Ash Lagoon: at least 1 pair breeding pairs

EIA Report of Animal Carcass Treatment Facilities (ACTF) (CE 68/2002)

(Aug 2001 – Jan 2002)

Aug – Dec 2001: 2 to 11 birds

Nil

Sludge Treatment

Facilities Environmental

Study

(Sep 2004 – Feb 2005)

Sep – Oct 2004: 3 to 9 birds in the East Ash Lagoon and Middle Ash Lagoon

September - October 2004: 3 juvenile birds in Middle Ash Lagoon

EIA Report of Sludge Treatment Facilities (EIA-155/2008)

(Mar, May, Jul and Aug 2007, monthly Mar – Aug 2008)

Aug 2008: Peak count of 8 and 23 birds in East and Middle Ash Lagoons respectively

East Ash Lagoon: 2 juvenile birds from 2 broods

Middle Ash Lagoon: 1

breeding pair, 4

recently hatched

chicks

EIA Report for the WENT Landfill Extensions (EIA-171/2009)

(Mar – Aug 2007)

Mar – Aug 2007: 18 - 22 birds in Middle and West Ash Lagoons

Mar – Aug 2007: 3 nests in Middle Ash Lagoons

Juvenile birds seen in West Ash Lagoon

EIA Report for the proposed development of the Integrated Waste Management Facilities (EIA-201/2011)

(Jan – Jun, Aug 2009)

Aug 2009: peak counts in East, Middle and West Ash Lagoons were 5, 8 and 20 birds respectively.

Aug 2009:

1 breeding pair with 1 recently hatched chicks in East Ash Lagoon

1 bird incubating egg in Middle Ash Lagoon

Recently hatched chicks

7 recently hatched chicks from 2 broods in West Ash Lagoon

9.4.9. Breeding activities of Little Grebe in the Middle Ash Lagoon were observed since December 2010 as part of the EM&A requirement for the STF during construction phase. Site conditions including coverage of water and PFA filling activities were also recorded. Number of Little Grebes in the Middle Ash Lagoon declined to minimal during the monitoring period with PFA filling activity and low coverage of open water. The level of abundance was similar to previous studies, except the duration of October 2012 and September 2013. A number of 42 and 72 Little Grebes were recorded in October 2012 And October 2013 respectively. Abundance of Little Grebes in the Middle Ash Lagoon declined when the open water coverage dropped.

9.4.10. The survey results of STF also provided information on seasonality of breeding activities of Little Grebes in Middle Ash Lagoon (Table 9.3). Breeding occurred between May and August in 2011, between April and October in 2012, and between April and September in 2013. The breeding season of this opportunist breeder varies with the amount of rainfall during the year. In this connection, the non-breeding season of the Little Grebe is assumed to be dry season, which is November to March in the following year, in accordance with the definition as stated in EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010. Four breeding pairs/nests were recorded in the Middle Ash Lagoon in June 2011, July 2012 and July 2013, and were slightly higher than that recorded in the WLES EIA. Water coverage and number of breeding habitats were generally higher in 2011 and 2012 (Table 9.3). According to the observations of these three years, no breeding of Little Grebe was observed in the Middle Ash Lagoon between November and March. There was no breeding activity in the Middle Ash Lagoon due to very low or no water coverage. It should also be noted that water coverage in 2013 was not strictly comparable to 2011 and 2012 due to the extensive filling of PFA.

Table 9.3 Summary of observations of Little Grebe in the Middle Ash Lagoon (STF EM&A)

Month	Number of Little Grebes	Breeding observations	Coverage of Water	PFA Filling Activity
Dec-10	0	nil	10%	Y
Jan-11	0	nil	N/A	N/A
Feb-11	7	nil	<5%	N
Mar-11	3	nil	<5%	N
Apr-11	0	nil	<5%	N
May-11	5	One pair nesting in shallow pool in SW corner of Middle Ash Lagoon	<5%	N
Jun-11	14	4 nests in the SW corner of Middle Ash Lagoon. Other pairs holding territory	50%	Y
Jul-11	12	12 birds including chicks	two thirds	Y
Aug-11	32	12 chicks of Little Grebe	30%	N
Sep-11	0	Nil	25%	N
Oct-11	4	Nil	10%	N
Nov-11	0	Nil	<10%	N
Dec-11	0	Nil	5%	Y
Jan-12	0	Nil	5%	Y
Feb-12	0	Nil	0%	N
Mar-12	0	Nil	10%	N
Apr-12	2	Pairing up observed	10%	N
May-12	8	4 pairs displaying breeding behaviour	40%	N
Jun-12	6	At least 3 pairs holding territory	35%	N
Jul-12	10	Four pairs seen. Two Juveniles and two nests also observed	60%	N
Aug-12	19	Three nests seen. Total numbers includes at least 2 juvenile birds	90%	N
Sep-12	34	Two active nests. Several juvenile / immature birds recorded	75%	N
Oct-12	42	Breeding activity. One active nest. Several juvenile / immature birds recorded	60%	N
Nov-12	2	nil	15%	Y
Dec-12	1	nil	15%	Y
Jan-13	1	nil	20%	Y
Feb-13	0	nil	15%	Y
Mar-13*	0	nil	10%	Y
Apr-13	24	Pairing-up, holding territory	100%	Y
May-13	22	Pairing-up, holding territory, 4 nests seen	100%	N
Jun-13	24	2 juveniles	100%	N
Jul-13	34	34 adults and large immatures + additional 8 juveniles	80%	N
Aug-13	61	Adults and large immatures	70%	N
Sep-13	72	Adults and large immatures	N/A	N/A
Oct-13	0	nil	>5%	N
Dec-13	0	nil	5%	N
Jan-14	10	nil	80%	N
Feb-14	0	nil	0%	N

* Filling of approximately 2/3 of Middle Ash Lagoon observed since March 2013 to date; therefore, coverage of water most likely referred to the unfilled portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon

9.4.11. Little Grebe might nest in wetlands of small area. Previous observations showed that Little Grebe nested in wetland as small as 0.24 ha in size (Ecosystems Ltd. unpubli data). The observations in Nam Chung showed that 8 pairs of Little Grebes nested in enhanced fishponds of 1 ha in size (Wong 2007) ^(xxvi).

9.4.12. The food items of Little Grebe included are small fishes, prawns and aquatic insects (Cheng 1993) ^(xvii). The breeding density of this species might be related to abundance of Corixidae water beetles and chironomids. The breeding ecology of Little Grebe was described in details by Zhang (1995) ^(xviii). The nest of Little Grebe is a floating platform built on emergent grasses in areas of slow water flow. According to the description in Zhang (1995) ^(xviii), the emergent grass is usually between 40cm and 50cm in height, and the water depth between 0.8m and 2.3m at localities where nests of Little Grebe are found. Nests are usually 5cm to 6cm above water surface.

Other Terrestrial Fauna

9.4.13. Leschenault’s Rousette Rousettus leschenaultia was recorded in WLES EIA. Leschenault’s Rousette is protected under WAPO. Breeding population of this species is considered of local concern (Fellowes et al. 2002)^(xxii).

9.4.14. Short-nosed Fruit Bat Cynopterus sphinx and Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrelle abramus were recorded in STF EIA. Japanese Pipistrelle was recorded in access road between the East and Middle Ash Lagoons during the IWMF EIA study. Both Short-nosed Fruit Bat and Japanese Pipistrelle are protected under WAPO, and inhabits a wide variety of habitats.

9.4.15. Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus was recorded in urbanized/disturbed near the Middle Ash Lagoon in STF EIA and WLES EIA. This species inhabits a wide variety of habitats (Shek 2006)^(xii). Small Asian Mongoose is protected under WAPO.

9.4.16. A dead Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica was on the access road north of Middle Ash Lagoon during the IWMF EIA study. Scats of this species were found on seawall of Middle Ash Lagoon during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. This species usually inhabits open woodlands (Shek 2006)^(xii) and small Indian Civet is protected under WAPO.

9.4.17. Leopard Cat Prionailurus benghalensis was recorded during the STF EIA and IWMF EIA study. This species mainly inhabits shrubland and woodland. Leopard Cat is protected under WAPO, and listed in Appendix 2 of CITES. This species is considered of “vulnerable” by China Red Data Book (Wang 1998)^(xvi).

9.4.18. Footprints and scats of Masked Palm Civet Paguma larvata were recorded in the Middle Ash Lagoon during the STF EIA. This species mainly Masked Palm Civet is protected under WAPO and is considered of “potential regional concern” by Fellowes et al. (2002)^(xxii).

9.4.19. Copperhead Racer Elaphe radiate was recorded in urbanized/disturbed near the East Lagoon during WLES EIA. This species is common in open, dry, hilly, rocky habitats of mixed grassland and shrubland (Karsen et al. 1998^(xi).) Copperhead Racer is considered of “potential regional concern” by Fellowes et al. (2002)^(xxii) and “endangered” (by China Red Data Book (Zhao and Wang 1998)^(xxiii).

9.4.20. Two butterfly species of conservation concern were recorded during the IWMF EIA study, Danaid Eggfly Hypolimnas misippus and Glassy Bluebottle Graphium cloanthus. Danaid Eggfly was also recorded during the STF EIA and both are considered of local concern by Fellowes et al. (2002)^(xxii). Danaid Eggfly occurs in abandoned agricultural lands and fishponds, while Glassy Bluebottle is mainly found in woodland (Lo and Hui 2005)^(xxiv).

9.4.21. Two butterfly species – Red Lacewing Cethosia bibles and Chestnut Bob Iambrix salsala – recorded in previous EIA studies (WLES EIA, IWMF EIA) were considered of conservation concern as both species were locally rare when the EIA studies of WLES and IWMF were conducted. Both species are now ranked as “uncommon” (Chan et. al. 2011) ^(xxv) and hence not considered of conservation concern.

9.4.22. A dragonfly species of conservation concern, the Coastal Glider Macrodiplax cora, were recorded during the IWMF EIA study. Coastal Glider is common in Hong Kong (Tam et al. 2011) ^(xii) and is considered of local concern (Fellowes et al. 2002)^(xxii). The larva of this species can tolerate the brackish water in lagoons and estuaries.

Flora

9.4.23. Three flora of conservation interest, Pitcher Plant (Nepenthes mirabilis), Ixonanthes (Ixonanthes reticulata), and Incense Tree (Aquilaria sinensis) were previously recorded by WLES, STF and IWMF EIAs outside the Subject Site within the Study Area. Other plant species of conservation concern, including Bamboo Orchid (Arundina graminifolia) previously recorded in other studies were located outside the Study Area, and Indian Orchid (Zeuxine strateumatica) which was once recorded in ash lagoons in 1998 but was not recorded in the subsequent EIAs conducted at the ash lagoons.

Aquatic Fauna

9.4.24. There are over 2500km of natural streams and rivers in Hong Kong, and 33 streams/rivers are considered as of ecological importance (ETWB 2005) ^(xxvii). None of these Ecologically Important Streams/Rivers (EIS) is located in the west/northwest New Territories. It is also noted that the western New Territories was not included in the Hong Kong-wide stream fish survey conducted by Chong & Dudgeon (1992)⁽ⁱⁱ⁾. Stream courses in western New Territories are usually of lower conservation concern when compared with natural streams in other areas in Hong Kong. Many streams in western New Territories are either heavily polluted (like most large-sized stream/river in Yuen Long Plain), or affected by sedimentation due to erosion in the catchments (Binnie Consultants Ltd. 1992) ⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾.

9.4.25. Tsang Kok Stream, located in the Study Area has natural banks only at its middle section. Its headwater and part of the catchment area were lost to the existing WENT landfill, while the estuary section has been converted to vertical concrete drainage channel. Only common aquatic species, with the exception of Flagtail Kuhlia marginata at Watercourse S1, were recorded in previous study.

Intertidal and Marine Fauna

Intertidal fauna

9.4.26. The man-made seawall bordering the ash lagoons supports a low diversity of intertidal and subtidal fauna. The subtidal benthic community adjacent to the ash lagoon is subjected to periodic maintenance dredging to ease vessel moving to/from the existing WENT landfill (WLES EIA). No natural shoreline will be directly affected by the Project.

9.4.27. The intertidal habitat within the Study Area is composed of artificial seawall with sloping boulders. A total of 26 and 30 floral and faunal species were recorded in the walk-through and transect surveys by IWMF and STF EIAs, respectively. Both EIA reports found the shore was dominated by sessile encrusting fauna such as Rock Oyster Saccostrea cucullata, Nerites Snail Nerita albicilla and encrusting algae Ulva sp. Abundance and species diversity of intertidal communities were similar in dry and wet seasons, no seasonal variation of intertidal communities was found. All species recorded in the previous studies are common and widespread in Hong Kong, and no intertidal fauna of conservation interests (e.g. horseshoe crabs) was recorded within the Study Area during previous surveys.

9.4.28. Adult horseshoe crabs occur in shallow to deep local waters. Occasionally they were fished up by trawlers finishing in waters off Sai Kung, Lamma Island, Lantau Island and elsewhere⁽^xxviii). Juvenile horseshoe crabs are found on some sandy beaches or mudflats in Deep Bay and Lantau Island (ibid). The nearest breeding ground for horseshoe crab is Ha Pak Nai ^(xxix), about 3.5 km from the Subject Site.

9.4.29. Very low coverage (<1%) of a single Octocoral Gorgonian species Echinomuricea sp. was recorded on artificial seawalls along the middle lagoon and the west lagoon during the ecological survey under IWMF study. The sizes of these gorgonians ranged from 3 to 11 cm in height, much smaller than Echinomuricea sp. reported from another site in Hong Kong (i.e. Chiu Ken Wan, ranging from 15 to 40 cm, see IWMF EIA), and their conditions were reported as unhealthy. This species is common in Hong Kong waters and known to be tolerant to turbid and harsh environment.

Subtidal fauna

9.4.30. Most Chinese White Dolphin Sousa chinensis groups were sighted in West Lantau, Southwest Lantau, and Northwest Lantau, but they were infrequently sighted near the construction areas in association with the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge construction (AFCD 2014). A few sightings were made in Deep Bay, Southeast Lantau and Northeast Lantau (AFCD 2014) ^(v) Chinese White Dolphin occurs in the area throughout the year. The waters of Inner Deep Bay near the Study Area, however, appear to be marginal dolphin habitats, especially during summer and autumn when they move to more eastern waters. According to AFCD’s monitoring data for Chinese White Dolphin and Finless Porpoise from 2004-2013 (AFCD 2007, 2013 & 2014) ^(iv)^(v), only a few sightings of dolphins in the Deep Bay waters were made near but outside the 500m Study Area, with only sightings at 2012 and 2013 made at the fringe of the Study Area to the west of the Subject Site.

9.4.31. Coral communities of high conservation values are located on the eastern waters of Hong Kong. Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park is about 5km from the Subject Site. With reference to the AVRF EIA conducted in the northwest waters, only a few hermatypic hard corals (Family Faviidae) were recorded within the subtidal of the survey area. Although these surveys were conducted at some distance from the Subject Site, the results of these surveys are applicable due to similar environmental conditions. Similarly, the IWMF EIA recorded very low coverage (<1%) of single gorgonian species Echinomuricea sp. at the seabed of the artificial seawall within the Study Area. The size of gorgonians ranged from 3cm to 11cm in height compared to those recorded in Chiu Keng Wan (size ranged from 15cm to 40 cm). The face that part of the gorgonian was dead indicates an unhealthy condition. Echinomuricea sp.is common across Hong Kong waters and tolerant to turbid and harsh environment. Coral communities of ecological value are therefore not predicted to occur within the Study Area.

9.4.32. The Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong commissioned by AFCD was reviewed. Stratified sampling at 120 stations including the western waters was conducted. Stations 6 and 8 were located in outer Deep Bay offshore to the Subject Site. The benthos habitat off the study area was composed of very fine sand and/or silt/clay. Results showed that in general the benthic assemblages in Deep Bay had relative low species diversity and evenness. Dominant species found in summer included bivalve Potamocorbula larvis, and the polychaetes Mediomastus californiensis and Mediomastus sp., while polychaetes Nephtys polybranchia, Spionidae sp., Heteromastus filiformis, Otopsis sp., Mediomastus sp. and Neanthes sp. were the dominant species in winter. Seasonal variations in benthic fauna in Deep Bay are probably due to freshwater from Shenzhen River and freshwater outflow from Pearl River Delta. No benthic species of conservation concern was recorded.

9.4.33. The LNG EIA has conducted studies on benthic communities at Black Point during both the wet and dry seasons by the LNG EIA. The survey results showed that benthic assemblages were dominated by polychaete worms except for the Urmston Road during the wet season where bivalves had higher numbers. No benthic species of conservation concern was recorded, and the diversity of benthic communities at the sites was similar to other locations reported in Hong Kong. The biomass of benthos off Black Point was relatively high compared to the Hong Kong average reported in the literature due to higher proportion of bivalves.

9.5. Scope and Methodology

Field Survey 2012

9.5.1. Based on the results of literature review, most of the previous studies have covered the Subject Site (Middle Ash Lagoon), and bird monitoring under STP EM&A programme at the Middle Ash Lagoon is on-going. Other than the bird recorded at Middle Ash Lagoon, data covering the area within 500m boundary from the Subject Site is also available up to 2009.

9.5.2. In order to fill this data gap, six-month field surveys were undertaken from April to September 2012 (Table 9.4a) to record and update the ecological baseline condition and establish the ecological profile for the Study Area. In addition to day-time surveys, night-time surveys were also conducted to record nocturnal fauna including birds, herpetofauna and mammals. Surveys focused on the Subject Site and area within 500m from the Subject Site boundary (Figure 9.3a). Due to the policy of CLP and the safety concerns, only day-time surveys are allowed in the lagoon area. Night-time survey will however be conducted in the vicinity along Tsang Tsui Road and Nim Wan Road to record nocturnal fauna to supplement the data as much as possible. Data analysis and discussion described habitats and species found in the Study Area, highlighting those that are rare, of conservation concern, or protected by law.

Table 9.4a Ecological Survey Programme (2012)

Ecological Survey	2012
Ecological Survey	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep
Habitat Mapping and Vegetation	P					P
Avifauna (Day)	P	P	P	P		P
Avifauna (Night)		P		P
Terrestrial Mammal (Day)		P				P
Terrestrial Mammal (Night)		P		P
Bat survey (Dusk)		P		P
Herpetofauna (Day)	P		P
Herpetofauna (Night)		P		P
Dragonflies & Butterflies		P	P			P
Aquatic fauna		P				P
Intertidal Fauna		P				P

9.5.3. Since 1995, the Hong Kong Cetacean Research Project has been conducting a longitudinal study on Chinese White Dolphins in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta region, hence, annual information of Chinese White Dolphin are adequate for the assessment of present Study. The geographical distribution of reef-building scleractinian corals in Hong Kong is influenced by water salinity. The western waters near to the Pearl River tend to support low coverage and diversity of hard corals and it is mainly due to its estuarine environment. Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong (CPPC 2002)^(xix) provided territory-wide information on the subtidal benthic communities including spatial distribution and species composition. No benthic species of conservation concern was recorded from the stations neat the Subject Site. Considering that 1) the existing information obtained by literature review is considered valid, 2) there is no information gap identified for ecological baseline information on dolphins, coral, and benthic communities, and 3) the Project is land based with no need for marine dredging and loss of marine or benthic habitat is not anticipated, surveys for marine habitats (including coral, benthic and dolphin surveys) are not required. Intertidal surveys were still carried out due to the proximity of the intertidal habitats to the Subject Site. The Study Area for aquatic ecology was the same as the water quality impact assessment.

9.5.4. Species groups surveyed and survey methods are described as below.

Habitat and Vegetation

9.5.5. Habitats were mapped based on the latest government aerial photos and field ground truthing. Representative areas of each habitat type were surveyed on foot. Plant species of each habitat type encountered and their relative abundance, with special attention to rare or protected species, were recorded. Nomenclature and conservation status of plants followed AFCD’s on line plant database (2003) ^(vi), Chau and Siu (1998) ^(vii) and Xing et al. (2000) ^(viii). Colour photographs of all habitats encountered on site and of ecological features of special importance were provided. Habitat maps of the site were produced at the required scale using GIS software.

Avifauna

9.5.6. Birds within the Study Area were surveyed quantitatively using transect count method. All birds seen or heard were identified and their abundance recorded. Signs of breeding (e.g. nests, recently fledged juveniles) were also recorded. As some birds (e.g., owls, nightjars) are nocturnal, night surveys were conducted. Nocturnal birds in the vicinity of the West and Middle Ash Lagoons were actively searched using spot-light and identified by their calls. Ornithological nomenclature in this report follows Carey et al. (2001) ^(ix).

Herpetofauna

9.5.7. Herpetofauna within the Study Area were surveyed qualitatively. All reptiles and amphibians sighted were recorded. Nomenclature of amphibian follows Chan et al. (2005) ^(x) and reptile follows Karsen et al. (1998) ^(xi). As herpetofauna are mostly nocturnal and more active during wet season, night surveys were carried out in the vicinity of the West and Middle Ash Lagoons in wet season. Potential microhabitats of herpetofauna such as wall, fallen logs, litter, channel/nullah, pond margins, underneath of stones or other materials, artificial container (e.g., pots) were searched during surveys to locate cryptic or secretive herpetofauna species. Amphibians were also identified by their calls during night surveys.

Mammals

9.5.8. Mammals within the Study Area were surveyed qualitatively. All sightings, tracks, and signs of mammals found were recorded. Nomenclature of mammal follows Shek (2006) ^(xii). As some mammal species (e.g., bats) are nocturnal, night surveys in the vicinity of the West and Middle Ash Lagoons were conducted during the survey period. Nocturnal Mammals were actively searched using spot-light. AnaBat II Bat Detector was used to find bats during the night surveys.

Dragonflies and Butterflies

9.5.9. Dragonflies and butterflies within the Study Area were surveyed quantitatively using the transect count method. Dragonflies and butterflies observed were identified and recorded. Individuals needed to be identified in close distance were netted. Dragonflies and butterflies encountered outside survey transects but within the Study Area were also recorded in order to produce a complete species list. Nomenclature of dragonfly follows Tam et al. (2011) ^(xiii) and nomenclature of butterfly follows Chan et. al. (2011) ^(xiv).

Aquatic Fauna

9.5.10. Aquatic fauna were studied by active searching and direct observation using binoculars at watercourses and the ash lagoons. A total of 4 sampling points were surveyed for aquatic fauna (Figure 9.3a). Boulders in the watercourse were overturned to locate aquatic animals beneath. A hand net was used to collect organisms along the watercourse. All encountered organisms were identified to the lowest possible taxon and recorded.

Intertidal Fauna

9.5.11. Intertidal communities along artificial seawalls were surveyed. Two locations of the artificial seawalls at ash lagoon were surveyed by transects between high water mark to low water mark. 0.5m x 0.5m quadrats were deployed at 1m intervals. Intertidal species were identified to the lowest identifiable taxon, and their abundance was reported, with special attention to rare or protected species. Photos of selected locations were taken.

Subtidal Fauna.

9.5.12. The “Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong” commissioned by AFCD has comprehensive information on subtidal fauna of Hong Kong waters including the Study Area for the study. This study together with findings of the relevant EIAs was reviewed. No subtidal surveys were conducted.

Dolphin Surveys

9.5.13. Since the Project is land based and is away from key coral or dolphin sites, no marine surveys were conducted. Baseline conditions of dolphins were covered by literature review.

Additional Field Surveys 2013

9.5.14. After completion of the field surveys in September 2012, the site conditions of the Middle and West Ash Lagoons have changed drastically. A site visit on 14 March 2013 found that around 2/3 of Middle Ash Lagoon (including most of the footprint of the Subject Site) was filled up with PFA from the West Ash Lagoon due to CAPCO's continuous operation in winter 2012-2013. The West Lagoon was lowered in level after excavation. Water channels on the west and north side of the Subject Site were left for discharging the surface water to the existing outlet tower. CAPCO expressed their intention to further fill up the western part of the Subject Site with PFA to level about +10mPD in the dry season of 2013. Other areas within the 500m assessment boundary appeared to have little changes.

9.5.15. Due to the drastic changes in habitat condition, observations of West and Middle Ash lagoons in 2012 needed to be updated. In view of the above changes, additional ecological field surveys from May to October 2013 (Table 9.4b, Figure 9.3b) were commenced to update the habitat conditions and records of species of conservation importance, with special attention to the breeding population of Little Grebes in both the West and Middle Ash lagoons. Other areas within the 500m boundary had little change since the completion of field surveys in 2012 and therefore were not included. Survey methodology for each taxa followed the 2012 surveys.

Table 9.4b Ecological Survey Programme (2013)

Ecological Survey	2013
Ecological Survey	May	Jun	Jul	Sep
Habitat Mapping and Vegetation	P
Avifauna	P	P	P	P
Terrestrial Mammal	P		P
Herpetofauna*	P		P
Dragonflies and Butterflies	P		P

Verification Survey 2014

9.5.16. Before the submission of the EIA, a verification survey was conducted in June 2014 to verify the condition of the Subject Site and the 500m Study Area to ensure the validity of the 2013 survey data for the Middle and West Ash Lagoons as well as the 2012 field data for the remaining Study Area for establishment of the ecological baseline for current assessment.

9.6. Survey Results

9.6.1. The ecological baseline below presented the combined survey results of both 2012 and 2013 (see Section 9.5), which reflected the latest site conditions of the Subject Site and the Study Area. The verification survey conducted in 2014 showed that the condition of the Middle and West Ash Lagoons remained largely similar as those observed during the 2013 surveys, while the conditions of the remaining Study Area had little change. Therefore, the usage of the 2013 survey data for the Middle and West Ash Lagoons and the 2012 field data for the remaining Study Area for establishment of the ecological baseline is valid for current assessment. Details of the results are described below.

Habitat and Vegetation

9.6.2. Major habitat types recorded within the Study Area included ash lagoon, grassland/shrubland, orchard, plantation, woodland, urbanised/disturbed, watercourse, artificial seawall, and coastal waters (Table 9.5, Figures 9.4-5). Vegetation recorded within the Study Area is listed in Appendix 9.1. Photographs of plant species of conservation concern are presented in Figure 9.6.

Table 9.5 Habitats Recorded within the Study Area

Habitat	Size (ha)
Ash Lagoon	36.13
Grassland/Shrubland	49.15
Orchard	1.06
Plantation	8.39
Woodland	3.53
Seawall	2.04
Urbanised/Disturbed Area	32.43
Watercourse	4.53 S1 = 1,877m; S2 = 834 m
Coastal Waters	48.09

Ash Lagoon

9.6.3. During the field survey the entire East Ash Lagoon became the construction site for the Sewage Treatment Facilities (STF) Project and was classified as Urbanised/Disturbed Area. The Middle Ash Lagoon and West Ash Lagoon formed a total area of 36.13 ha. The Subject Site would be located to the west portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon. Similar to the findings from literature review, habitat conditions of the Ash Lagoons varied throughout the year and were governed by the CLP’s PFA filling activities and rainfall. During the 2012 survey, there was no filling activity of PFA at West Ash Lagoon. Up to 40% of the West Ash Lagoon was covered with relatively clear water during the field survey period. Emergent vegetation established along the fringe of the water body. PFA and water was however actively pumped into the Middle Ash Lagoon during the survey period. About 30% in April 2012 to about 50% in September 2012 of the Middle Ash Lagoon, mainly the western half portion due to topography, was covered with slurry open water, and the remaining area covered with PFA. Open water surface increased from June to September due to increasing rainfall. The Subject Site was covered with water throughout the survey period.

9.6.4. As described in Section 9.5.14, it was observed during the 2013 surveys that, around 2/3 of Middle Ash Lagoon was filled up with PFA from the West Ash Lagoon. Water channels on the west and north side of the Subject Site were left for discharging the surface water to the existing outlet tower. During a site visit by the Project Team on 4 April 2014 and verification survey in June 2014, it was observed that the majority of the Subject Site including the western channel was filled up to about +10.5 mPD with PFA by CAPCO (Figure 1.1) which would be expected to remain until site handover currently planned in the first quarter of 2015. The northern channel of approximately 30m wide remained, part of which within the footprint of the Subject Site. The channel was filled with open water in 2013 but was dry during the 2014 verification survey. As advised by CAPCO, the 30m water channel will be maintained to the north for discharging the surface water to the existing outlet tower. Figure 9.7 summarises the change of site conditions of the Middle Ash Lagoon from 2012 to 2014.

9.6.5. Plant species recorded on the ash lagoons including the Subject Site were pioneer, exotic and ruderal species established along access road (e.g. Mikania micrantha, Bidens alba, Panicum maximum), and alkaline-tolerant on the fly ash fill (e.g. Tamarix chinensis). Aquatic species including Phragmites australis established in the channel and remaining part of ash lagoons where freshwater was more abundant. Plant species of conservation concern recorded previously in the ash lagoon including the Indian Orchid Zeuxine strateumatica was not observed since 2000 in other EIAs and during the surveys. No plant species of conservation concern was recorded at this habitat.

Grassland/Shrubland

9.6.6. Grassland/shrubland, probably maintained by hill fires from scattered grave sites, occupied about half of the land-based Study Area dominating the natural hillsides and hydroseeded slope. Major species recorded included Dicranopteris pedata, Neyraudia reynaudiana, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Rhaphiolepis indica, and Schefflera heptaphylla.

9.6.7. Two plant species of conservation concern, Pitcher Plant Nepenthes mirabilis and Ixonanthes reticulata, were recorded in this habitat (Figure 9.4a). An individual of Pitcher Plant Nepenthes mirabilis was recorded at ravine near Watercourse S1. This species is protected under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96), Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) and listed under Category Least Concern (LR/lc) of the IUCN Red Plant Data List (i.e. taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened) and CITES Appendix II, is commonly found in Hong Kong. An individual of a tree species Ixonanthes reticulata was recorded at Tsang Kok Valley. This species is listed as “vulnerable” by China Plant Red Data Book, but is a common and unprotected local species in Hong Kong.

Orchard

9.6.8. A few orchards were scattered on hillsides within the Study Area. It appeared that most of these orchards were still actively maintained as understorey was cleared and water pipes for irrigation were still in place. Fruit trees planted included Litchi (Litchi sinensis) and Longan (Dimocarpus longan), while some pioneer species colonised the fringe and the understorey. No plant species of conservation concern was recorded in the Study Area.

Plantation

9.6.9. Plantation was mainly found on the engineering slopes within the existing WENT landfill, along Nim Wan roads and to the west side of Watercourse S2. The canopy was dominated by exotic species including Acacia confusa, Eucalyptus citriodora, Leucaena leucocephala and Pinus elliottii. The understorey was moderately colonised with native shrubs and trees including Macaranga tanarius, Schefflera heptaphylla and Microcos paniculatus. The plant diversity was low with no plant species of conservation concern recorded in the Study Area.

Woodland

9.6.10. Woodland in the Study Area is mainly confined by the area between the tidal creek of Watercourse S1 and Nim Wan Road. It is young and simple in structure and composed of a mixture of common native pioneer trees including Macaranga tanarius, Celtis sinensis, Sterculia lanceolata, and backshore species including Hibiscus tiliaceus and Pandanus tectorius. All species recorded in woodland habitat are commonly found in Hong Kong. Species diversity was low with no plant species of conservation concern observed.

Seawall

9.6.11. The seaward boundaries of the ash lagoons and the bank of tidal creek of S2 (Figure 9.4a) are fringed by artificial seawalls. The seawall formed of sloping boulder, colonised by a few wind-tolerant pioneer species including Celtis sinensis and Ficus microcarpa. No plant species of conservation concern was recorded.

Urbanised/Disturbed

9.6.12. The existing landfill site, the East Lagoon, vehicular roads and sprayed engineering slopes constituted this habitat. Most of the surface was concrete or void of vegetation. Exceptions are planter box or roadside trees for landscaping purposes. This area has little ecological value with no plant species of conservation concern recorded.

Watercourse

9.6.13. Two watercourses, namely S1 and S2 (Tsang Kok Stream) were recorded in the Study Area. These two watercourses discharge into a tidal channel (Tsang Kok Stream outfall) located east of the ash lagoons.

9.6.14. Watercourse S1 originated on the hill slope immediately to the southeast of Nim Wan Road. It had box culvert modification at its middle section during the construction of Nim Wan Road and was thus more or less fragmented. After passing Nim Wan Road, the flow of SI headed towards the north-eastern direction after passing through an orchard, and eventually joined the outfall of Tsang Kok Stream. Flow volume of the perennial section of Watercourse S1 was fair in wet season and low in dry season. A few seasonal tributaries of Watercourse S1 joined the main course at different locations. They were either fragmented by Nim Wan Road or of narrow channel width and all without surface flow during dry season.

9.6.15. Watercourse S2 is the lower section of Tsang Kok Stream, which flows from Castle Peak Range into the southern part of Deep Bay. This watercourse was located immediately adjacent to the existing WENT landfill. The upper and the middle sections of this watercourse were basically in natural conditions, while its lower section had been modified into a concrete drainage channel. The connecting point of the lower section drainage channel and the natural middle section was a steep and smooth concrete slope with structures for dispersing the energy during flushing flow. This slope prevents the upstream movement of aquatic life, and thus the watercourse was fragmented. The concrete drainage channel ran northward along the western boundary of the existing WENT landfill, passed Nim Wan Road through box culverts, and finally joined the tidal channel which separated WENT and the CLP ash lagoon site. Plant species recorded at watercourse are common, and no plant species of conservation concern were recorded.

Coastal Waters

9.6.16. Coastal waters comprised the northern part of the Study Area. It falls within the Deep Bay Water Control Zone and belongs to the Outer Deep Bay area.

Avifauna

9.6.17. A total of 53 species of birds were recorded in the Study Area (Appendix 9.2). Most are common and widespread in Hong Kong, and typical of disturbed area.

9.6.18. Bird species with breeding records within the Study Area included Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis, Chinese Bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis, Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus, Blue Whistling Thrush Myiophoneus caeruleus, Great Tit Parus major, Crested Myna Acridotheres cristatellus, Magpie Pica pica and Tree Sparrow Passer montanus. Juveniles of Little Grebe, Chinese Bulbul, Red-whiskered Bulbul, Blue Whistling Thrush, Great Tit, Crested Myna, Magpie and Tree Sparrow were recorded within the Study Area. Nests of Little Grebe and Blue Whistling Thrush were located within the Study Area. Among the species with observations of breeding, only Little Grebe is considered of conservation concern.

9.6.19. Abundance of birds was low to moderate in the Middle Ash Lagoon, low in the West Ash Lagoon and very low in other types of habitats within the Study Area. Species richness of birds was very low in urbanised/disturbed and seawall and low in other types of habitats within the Study Area.

9.6.20. Fifteen bird species of conversation concern recorded within the Study Area were considered of conservation concern (Table 9.17, Figure 9.4a). Eleven of those were waterbirds, and only Little Grebe was recorded and bred in the water channel within the Subject Site.

9.6.21. Number of Little Grebe ranged between 13 and 34 birds in the Middle Ash Lagoon and between 10 and 20 in West Ash Lagoon during the surveys of 2013 (Table 9.6). Number of Little Grebes in 2013 was similar to 2012, and more number of nests was recorded in 2013. Due to the filling of PFA, most area of the Subject Site was no longer suitable as foraging or breeding habitat of Little Grebe. However, active nests were found within the remaining water channels to the west and north of the Subject Site in June and July 2013 (Figure 9.4b). More nests were found in open water area in the unfilled part of Middle Ash Lagoon to the east of the Subject Site between May and July 2013. Four nests were found in the West Ash Lagoon during the surveys. No active nest was found in both Middle and West Ash Lagoons in September 2013.

Table 9.6 Summary of observations of Little Grebe in the Middle and West Ash Lagoons during additional surveys (2013)

Month	Abundance of Little Grebe	Breeding Activities
May 2013	Middle Ash Lagoon: 13 birds (All adults) West Ash Lagoon: 10 birds (All adults)	Middle Ash Lagoon: 4 nests found (All outside the Subject Site) West Ash Lagoon: 3 nests found
June 2013	Middle Ash Lagoon: 16 birds (13 adults + 3 juveniles) West Ash Lagoon: 20 birds (14 adults + 6 juveniles)	Middle Ash Lagoon: 5 nests found (2 within the Subject Site: one in each of the water channel to the north and west of the Subject Site) West Ash Lagoon: 4 nests found
July 2013	Middle Ash Lagoon: 20 birds (14 adults + 6 juveniles) West Ash Lagoon: 10 birds (All adults)	Middle Ash Lagoon: 7 nests found (2 within the Project Site: one in each of the water channel to the north and west* of the Subject Site) West Ash Lagoon: 1 nest found
Sep 2013	Middle Ash Lagoon: 34 birds (10 adults + 24 juveniles West Ash Lagoon: 14 birds (All adults)	Middle Ash Lagoon: No active nest West Ash Lagoon: No active nest

Month

Abundance of Little Grebe

Breeding Activities

May 2013

Middle Ash Lagoon: 13 birds (All adults)

West Ash Lagoon: 10 birds (All adults)

Middle Ash Lagoon: 4 nests found (All outside the Subject Site)

West Ash Lagoon: 3 nests found

June 2013

Middle Ash Lagoon: 16 birds (13 adults + 3 juveniles)

West Ash Lagoon: 20 birds (14 adults + 6 juveniles)

Middle Ash Lagoon: 5 nests found (2 within the Subject Site: one in each of the water channel to the north and west of the Subject Site)

West Ash Lagoon: 4 nests found

July 2013

Middle Ash Lagoon: 20 birds (14 adults + 6 juveniles)

West Ash Lagoon: 10 birds (All adults)

Middle Ash Lagoon: 7 nests found (2 within the Project Site: one in each of the water channel to the north and west* of the Subject Site)

West Ash Lagoon: 1 nest found

Sep 2013

Middle Ash Lagoon: 34 birds (10 adults + 24 juveniles

West Ash Lagoon: 14 birds (All adults)

Middle Ash Lagoon: No active nest

West Ash Lagoon: No active nest

* the water channel to the west of the Subject Site was filled in 2014 while the northern channel remained

9.6.22. Little Grebe is considered an opportunist breeder. Previous studies summarised in Tables 9.2 showed that Little Grebes breed in the ash lagoons regularly, but the number of breeding pairs fluctuated widely. Abundance of Little Grebe in the ash lagoons was affected by water coverage. The breeding population was affected by the coverage of open water (Table 9.3), which is in turn related to rainfall and input of cooling water from power plant. In addition, availability of nesting site is affected by growth of emergent plants.

9.6.23. Apart from Little Grebe, other bird species of conservation concern were recorded outside the Subject Site and observations are discussed in the following sections.

9.6.24. Five species of ardeids of conservation importance were recorded in the Study Area. These included Little Egret Egretta garzetta, Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus, Great Heron Ardea cinerea, Great Egret and Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax. Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, Grey Heron and Great Egret were recorded in open water areas in un-filled part of the Middle Ash Lagoon. Black-crowned Night Heron was observed in woodland in the vicinity of the ash lagoons during night surveys.

9.6.25. Flocks of Black-winged Stilts were foraging in shallow areas of unfilled part of the Middle Ash Lagoon.

9.6.26. Black Kites were soaring above the Middle and West Ash Lagoon, grassland/shrubland, plantation and seawall within the Study Area. This species is common and occurs in many types of habitats in Hong Kong (Carey et al. 2001) ^(ix).

9.6.27. Little Ringed Plovers were observed were foraging in shallow water areas in the unfilled part of the Middle Ash Lagoon, and urbanised/wasteland within the Study Area. This species is mainly found in newly cleared and reclaimed land with shallow pools (Viney et al. 2005) ⁽ⁱ⁾

9.6.28. White-throated Kingfishers were recorded in watercourse channel and West Ash Lagoon within the Study Area. This species can be found in a number of habitats including coastal mudflat and mangroves, fishponds, wet agricultural lands, golf courses and urban parks (Viney et al. 2005) ⁽ⁱ⁾.

9.6.29. One Pied Kingfishers was roosting in the West Ash Lagoon within the Study Area. This species occurs in fishponds, gei wais, reservoirs and sheltered bays (Carey et al. 2001) ^(ix). The records of Pied Kingfisher mostly came from the Deep Bay area.

9.6.30. A Greater Coucal was observed in urbanised/wasteland within the Study Area. This species is found in a variety of habitats including grasslands, mangroves, marshes, agricultural land with scattered trees and bushes, open-canopy shrubland, fungshui woods and gardens (Viney et al. 2005) ⁽ⁱ⁾.

9.6.31. An Emerald Dove was recorded in woodland within the Study Area. This species is mainly found in large wooded area (Carey et al. 2001) ^(ix).

9.6.32. Five White-shouldered Starlings were observed flying over the Middle Ash Lagoon. This species is mainly found in open areas in rural country with agricultural lands (Carey et al. 2001) ^(ix).

9.6.33. A Collared Scops Owl was recorded in woodland within the Study Area. This species is found in a variety of wooded habitats including forests, fungshui woods, shrubland with scattered large trees, gardens and urban parks (Carey et al. 2001) ^(ix).

9.6.34. During the verification survey in June 2014, it was observed that the extent of fill and open water in both the Middle and West Ash Lagoon remained similar to that in 2013, with the exception that the western channel at the Middle Ash Lagoon was filled and a wire fence of about 2m in height erected along the western boundary of the Middle Ash Lagoon. As the fence was not very tall, it is not considered a barrier to the movements of birds between the middle lagoon and west lagoon. The filled western channel will no longer provide breeding and foraging habitats for Little Grebes, as well as other waterbirds. The 30m northern channel within the footprint of the Subject Site was filled with open water in 2013 but was dry during the 2014 verification survey. However, this channel can still provide breeding and foraging habitats for Little Grebes when flooded.

9.6.35. Because of little change in the extent of fills and open water, and based on the observation made in the 2014 verification survey, the 2013 survey data for the Middle and West Lagoon was considered valid for establishment of the baseline for assessment. The site conditions of the remaining Study Area are also similar to the survey period during 2012. No additional bird species of conservation concern was observed. Therefore the bird data collected for the remaining Study Area remained valid as well.

9.6.36. The ash lagoon is an artificial habitat which is regularly subjected to ash dumping. Apart from Little Grebe, which recorded breeding in the Middle and West Ash Lagoons, the ash lagoons are not considered important habitats of bird species of conservation concern listed in Table 9.17.

Herpetofauna

9.6.37. No herpetofauna species was recorded in the Subject Site during the surveys. None of the herpetofauna species recorded within the Study Area is considered of conservation concern.

9.6.38. Three species of reptiles were recorded within the Study Area (Appendix 9.3). These were Chinese Skink Eumeces chinensis, Long-tailed Skink Mabuya longicaudata, and Checkered Keelback Xenochrophis piscator. All species are common in Hong Kong, and occur in many types of habitats (Karsen et al. 1998) ^(xi).

9.6.39. Six species of amphibians were recorded within the Study Area (Appendix 9.3). These were Gunther’s Frog Rana guentheri, Asiatic Painted Frog Kaloula pulchra and Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus, Paddy Frog Fejervarya limnocharis, Ornate Pigmy Frog Microhyla ornata and Marbled Pigmy Frog Microhyla pulchra. All the species above are commonly found in Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2005) ^(x).

Mammals

9.6.40. Scats of Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica were found on the seawall of the ash lagoon (Appendix 9.4). The scats were very dry and did not suggest recent activity in the ash lagoons. The low diversity of non-volant mammal within the Study Area was due to the high level of disturbance and presence of feral dogs.

9.6.41. Japanese Pipistrelles Pipistrellus abramus and Short-nosed Fruit Bats Cynopterus sphinx were sighted in woodland within the Study Area. Short-nosed Fruit Bats lives in a wide variety of woodlands, ranging from lowland to hills, and even urban areas (Shek 2006) ^(xii). Japanese Pipistrelle occurs in many types of habitats in Hong Kong (Shek 2006) ^(xii). All bats are protected under WAPO in Hong Kong.

Dragonflies and Butterflies

9.6.42. A total of 16 species of dragonflies were recorded within the Study Area (Appendix 9.5). All are categorized as common or very common species in Hong Kong (Tam et al. 2001)^(xiii). Apart from the upper section of Watercourse S2, abundance and species richness of dragonflies were very low in all types of habitats within the Study Area. Abundance of dragonfly was low to moderate while species richness was low in the upper section of Watercourse S2.

9.6.43. Coastal Glider Macrodiplax cora is ranked as “local concern” in Fellowes et al. (2002) ^(xiv). This species was present in low abundance in the West Ash Lagoon and unfilled part of Middle Ash Lagoon. No egg-laying was observed in the ash lagoons during the surveys. No Coastal Glider was seen within the Subject Site.

9.6.44. Coastal Glider is common in Hong Kong (Tam et al. 2011)^(x). The larva of this species can tolerate the brackish water in lagoons and estuaries (ibid.). However, no egg laying was observed in the ash lagoons during the surveys. Due to the high turbidity of water, the unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon is not considered important breeding habitat for Coastal Glider.

9.6.45. A total of 32 butterflies were recorded within the Study Area (Appendix 9.6). The recorded species are very common in Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2011) ^(xiv). Two uncommon species – Dark Grass Blue Zizeeria karsandra and Red Lacewing Cethosia biblis – were recorded from Watercourse S2 (Tsang Kok Stream). Abundance and species richness of butterflies were low in all types of habitats within the Study Area. No butterfly species of conservation concern was recorded during the surveys.

Aquatic Fauna

9.6.46. Tilapias Oreochromis mossambicus were found within the water body of the Study Area. This species is an omnivorous fish commonly occurs in brackish waters and estuaries along the coast (Lee et al. 2004) ^(xv).

9.6.47. A total of 15 freshwater fauna taxa were recorded in the 4 sampling points within the Study Area. They include water insects, tadpoles, fishes, shrimps and crabs (Appendix 9.7).

9.6.48. The two watercourses shared some of the aquatic fauna in terms of species composition, such as Water skater Limnogonus fossarum and Long-armed Shrimp Macrobrachium hainanense, while estuarine species such as Thiarid snail Sermyla tornatella, Atyid shrimp Caridina sp., Grey mullet Mugil cephalus and Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus were recorded at the tidal sections. All the aquatic species are common and not considered as species of conservation concern.

Intertidal Fauna

9.6.49. A total of twelve species of epifauna were recorded at the artificial seawall (Appendix 9.8). Zonation was observed, with the dominant epifauna on the higher intertidal zone was Periwinkles Echinolittorina radiata, which is the most common tiny snails found in the high intertidal zone and splash zone in Hong Kong, while mid and low intertidal zones were dominated by Rock Oyster Saccostrea cucullata, which are common species at rocky shores in Hong Kong (Lai et al. 2006) ^(xx). All the intertidal fauna recorded during the survey are not of conservation concern.

9.6.50. Quadrats from each transect were pooled together to give a representative result. Abundance, number of species, Shannon diversity index (H’) and evenness (J) of epifauna were calculated and shown in Table 9.7.

Table 9.7 Abundance, number of species, Shannon diversity index (H’) and evenness (J) of epifauna in the rocky shore (mean of two-day survey)

Parameters	Transect 1	Transect 2
Abundance / m²	740	440
No. of species	12	12
H'	1.73	2.09
J	0.72	0.87

9.7. Evaluation of Habitats and Species

9.7.1. The ecological importance of the habitats within the Study Area was evaluated in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Annex 8 of EIAO(TM) (Tables 9.8 – Table 9.15).

9.7.2. In accordance with Table 3, Annex 8 of the EIAO(TM), the ecological value of species was assessed in terms of protection status (e.g. fauna protected under WAPO (except birds), and flora and fauna protected under regional/global legislation/conventions), species distribution (e.g. endemic), and rarity (e.g. rare or restricted). Flora and fauna of conservation importance recorded within the Study Area are evaluated according to the EIAO(TM) in Table 9.16 and Table 9.17 respectively.

Table 9.8 Evaluation of Ash Lagoon

Criterion	Description*
	Middle Ash Lagoon		West Ash Lagoon
	Ash Platform	Water Channel/ Remaining Unfilled Area	West Ash Lagoon
Naturalness	Man-made habitat formed by dumping of PFA. The amount of water coverage varied with the amount of rainfall, dumping activities by CAPCO and water pumped into the lagoon. This majority of Subject Site was formed by filled up PFA about +10.5mPD.	Man-made habitat for dumping of PFA. The amount of water coverage varied with the amount of rainfall, dumping activities by CAPCO and water pumped into the lagoon. The unfilled area included the man-made water channel of about 30m wide at the northern bound of site boundary, which was retained for discharging the surface water to the existing outlet tower.	Man-made habitat for dumping of PFA. No active dumping/dredging during surveys and surface covered with ash deposits or colonised with weedy vegetation.
Size	10 ha	10.75 ha	15.38 ha
Diversity	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly
Rarity	No fauna species of conservation concern. Active nests of Little Grebe were found in a narrow channel west of the Subject Site in 2013. The channel was filled in 2014 and hence no longer breeding or foraging habitat for Little Grebe or other waterbird species.	Fauna species of conservation concern included Little Grebe, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, Great Egret, Grey Heron, Black Kite, Black-winged Stilt, Little Ringed Plover, White-shouldered Starling and Coastal Glider. These species were not continuously to be seen during every survey site visit, but some may use the transient water body in form of small pools or trenches in unfilled part of the lagoon.	Fauna species of conservation concern included Little Grebe, White-throated Kingfisher, Pied Kingfisher and Coastal Glider. These species were not continuously to be seen during every survey site visit, but some still use the transient water body in form of small pools or trenches in unfilled part of the lagoon.
Re-creatability	Easy to recreate	Easy to recreate	Easy to recreate
Fragmentation	Isolated feature created formed by PFA deposition at Outer Deep Bay	Isolated feature created for PFA deposition at outer deep bay	Isolated feature created for PFA deposition at outer deep bay
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance, although there may be movement of avifauna between the Middle and West Ash Lagoons, and between the lagoons and Deep Bay depending on the site conditions	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance; although there may be movement of avifauna between the middle and west lagoons, and between the lagoons and Deep Bay depending on the site conditions depending on the site conditions
Potential value	Minimal due to high disturbance and variation of site conditions	Low due to high disturbance and variation of site conditions	Low due to high disturbance and variation of site conditions
Nursery/breeding ground	Minimal. Active nests of Little Grebe were recorded in 2012 and 2013 before it was filled up and became an ash platform. These areas were filled in 2014 and hence no longer breeding or foraging habitat for Little Grebe or other waterbird species.	Breeding of Little Grebes were observed during survey in 2012 and 2013 at the unfilled area with water. Nestling activities were observed in open water area to the east of the Subject Site and in water channels to the west and north of the Subject Site in 2013. No breeding activity was observed during the verification survey in 2014. Potential breeding habitat may continue to exist in the northern channel and the remaining unfilled area, as long as transient small pools with open water and emergent vegetation are available in subsequent breeding seasons.	Breeding / sign of breeding of Little Grebes were observed in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Potential breeding habitat may continue to exist, as long as transient small pools with open water and emergent vegetation are available in subsequent breeding seasons.
Age	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Very low abundance of fauna	Low abundance of dragonfly, butterfly, low to moderate abundance of bird	Low abundance of dragonfly, butterfly and bird
Overall ecological value	Minimal	Low to moderate	Low to moderate

* East Ash Lagoon decommissioned to be construction site for STF.

Table 9.9 Evaluation of Grassland/Shrubland

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Mostly natural but frequently disturbed by fire
Size	49.15 ha
Diversity	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly
Rarity	One protected but common plant species Nepenthes mirabilis. One tree species Ixonanthes reticulata locally common but recorded in China Red Data Book. One tree species Aquilaria sinensis common in Hong Kong but protected in China recorded by IWMF EIA Study. Fauna species of conservation concern included Black Kite
Re-creatability	Maintained by hill fire
Fragmentation	Isolated stands on grassy hillsides
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance
Potential value	Low due to presence of grave sites
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant observation. Limited due to disturbance by hill fires and simple habitat complexity
Age	N/A
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly
Overall ecological value	Low

Table 9.10 Evaluation of Orchard

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Man-made habitat
Size	10.6 ha
Diversity	Low for flora and fauna
Rarity	None
Re-creatability	Easy to recreate
Fragmentation	Small stands near villages and on hillsides
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance
Potential value	Low
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant observation. Could provide breeding habitats for birds, reptiles and butterflies
Age	Not applicable
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly
Overall ecological value	Low

Table 9.11 Evaluation of Plantation

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Man-made (planted) with some natural colonisation
Size	8.39 ha
Diversity	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly
Rarity	Fauna species of conservation concern included Black Kite
Re-creatability	Readily to be recreated
Fragmentation	Fairly fragmented, formed thin belts on engineering slopes
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance
Potential value	Moderate with active management including thinning and interplant with native species
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant observation
Age	Young
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly
Overall ecological value	Low

Table 9.12 Evaluation of Woodland

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Semi-natural; consisted of a mixture of pioneer native tree species and orchard species.
Size	3.53 ha
Diversity	Low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly
Rarity	Fauna species of conservation concern included Japanese Pipistrelle, Short-nosed Fruit Bat, Black-crowned Night Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Emerald Dove and Collared Scops Owl
Re-creatability	Quite easy to recreate as it was formed of common species, but take times to mature
Fragmentation	Fairly fragmented within the Study Area.
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance
Potential value	High with protection to allow natural succession
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant observation. Could provide breeding habitats for birds, reptiles and butterflies
Age	Young, about 10-20 years
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly
Overall ecological value	Low to moderate

Table 9.13 Evaluation of Watercourse

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Upper section of both S1 and S2: Natural; Lower section: man-made channel
Size	4.53 ha (S1 = 1877 m; S2 (Tsang Kok Stream) = 834 m)
Diversity	Low for flora and fauna
Rarity	Fauna species of conservation concern included Chinese Pond Heron and White-throated Kingfisher
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable except for man-made channel
Fragmentation	Fragmented by roads and channel work
Ecological linkage	Not observed. Fragmented to different levels, except at estuaries where some estuarine species might invade the low land modified sections.
Potential value	Low
Nursery/breeding ground	The un-channelised section of Tsang Kok Stream could provide breeding habitats for dragonfly and amphibian
Age	N/A
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low to moderate in upper section of watercourse S2 and very low in other watercourses for dragonfly, low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird
Overall ecological value	Low for channelled section; low to moderate for natural section.

Table 9.14 Evaluation of Urbanised/Disturbed

Criterion	Description
Naturalness	Man-made habitat
Size	32.43 ha
Diversity	Low for flora and fauna
Rarity	Fauna species of conservation concern included Little Ringed Plover and Greater Coucal
Re-creatability	Easy to recreate
Fragmentation	None
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance
Potential value	Low
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant observation. Limited due to high level of disturbance and low vegetation cover
Age	N/A
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly
Overall ecological value	Low

Table 9.15 Evaluation of Seawall and Coastal Waters

Criterion	Description
Criterion	Seawall	Coastal Waters
Naturalness	Artificial habitats, sloping boulder seawalls	Natural habitat
Size	2.04 ha	48.09ha
Diversity	Very low floral diversity; low diversity of butterfly and intertidal fauna, very low for bird and dragonfly	Low for benthos, coral and gorgonians.
Rarity	Fauna species of conservation concern include Little Egret, Black Kite	No rare species recorded. Scanty sightings of Chinese White Dolphins over past 10 years
Re-creatability	Readily recreate	Difficult to recreate
Fragmentation	N/A	N/A
Ecological linkage	Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance	Linkage with the open sea further southwest.
Potential value	Low due to the nature of the substrate	Low
Nursery/breeding ground	No records	Not known as important nursery grounds for marine fauna.
Age	N/A	N/A
Abundance/richness of wildlife	Low abundance of butterfly, very low for bird and dragonfly. Low for intertidal fauna.	Moderate for benthic infauna and low for corals or gorgonians.
Overall ecological value	Low	Low

Table 9.16 Evaluation of floral species of conservation concern within the Study Area

Common Name	Scientific Name	Locations	Protection Status	Distribution	Rarity
Pitcher Plant	Nepenthes mirabilis	Grassland/ shrubland at ravine near watercourse S1	Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96A), IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Category LR/lc), CITES Appendix II	Wet, open places on granite and sedimentary rocks (western New Territories)	common
Ixonanthes	Ixonanthes reticulata	Grassland/ shrubland near watercourse S2	Listed as vulnerable in China Plant Red Data Book	In thickets or thin forests	common
Incense Tree⁽ⁱ⁾	Aquilaria sinensis	Grassland/shrubland near the mouth of Watercourse S1	Cap 586, Category III nationally protected species in China and is listed as vulnerable in the China Plant Red Data Book and by IUCN (2002).	Lowland forests and fungshui woods	Locally common

(i). Only recorded in previous study

Table 9.17 Evaluation of faunal species of conservation concern within the Study Area

Common name	Locations	Protection status	Level of concern	Distribution	Rarity
Japanese Pipistrelle	Seen in woodland	WAPO (Cap 170)	Nil	Widespread	Very common in Hong Kong
Short-nosed Fruit Bat	Seen in woodland	WAPO (Cap 170)	Nil	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Little Grebe	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon and West Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170);	LC	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Little Egret	Seen in seawall, unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon and West Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170);	PRC(RC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Chinese Pond Heron	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon, West Ash Lagoon, watercourse and woodland	WAPO (Cap 170);	PRC(RC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Great Egret	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170);	PRC(RC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Grey Heron	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170);	PRC	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Black-crowned Night Heron	Found in woodland		(LC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Black Kite	Soaring above plantation, Middle Ash Lagoon (outside Subject Site), grassland/shrubland and seawall	WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC;	(RC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Little Ringed Plover	Seen in urbanised / disturbed and unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170)	(LC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Black-winged Stilt	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170)	RC	Mainly found in Deep Bay area	Common in Hong Kong
White-throated Kingfisher	Seen in Tsang Kok Stream and West Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170)	(LC)	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Pied Kingfisher	Seen in West Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170)	(LC)	Mainly found in Deep Bay area	Uncommon in Hong Kong
Emerald Dove	Seen in woodland	WAPO (Cap 170); China Red Data Book: Vulnerable	nil	Mainly found in large wooded area	Rare in Hong Kong
Greater Coucal	Seen in urbanised / disturbed	WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC; China Red Data Book: Vulnerable	nil	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Collared Scops Owl	Found in woodland	WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC	nil	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
White-shouldered Starling	Flew across Middle Ash Lagoon	WAPO (Cap 170)	(LC)	Mainly found in open country in rural areas with agricultures	Uncommon in Hong Kong
Coastal Glider	Seen in unfilled area of Middle Ash Lagoon and West Ash Lagoon	nil	LC	Widespread	Common in Hong Kong
Chinese White Dolphin ⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾	Scanty sightings of Chinese White Dolphins over past 10 years. Not recorded during current study	nil	nil	Mainly in west Lantau, Southwest Lantau, and Northwest Lantau,	Uncommon
Horseshoe Crab⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾	Nearest recorded location at Ha Pak Nai outside the current Study Area during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. Not recorded during current study.	nil	nil	Declining in range due to water pollution/ loss of nursery grounds (Morton & Lee 2003); locally found in Tsim Bei Tsui, Pak Nai, Sham Wat, Yi O, Shui Hau Wan	Uncommon

Note:

(i). The western portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon (including the Subject Site) was converted from a transient water body to dry ash platform of about +10.5mPD at the end of 2013 which would be expected to remain until site handover currently planned in the first quarter of 2015. Species recorded previously in this filled portion of Middle Ash Lagoon (The Subject Site in particular) baseline surveys is unlikely to utilise the site due to the drastic change of site condition after the surveys of 2012. The ecological value of filled portion of Middle Ash Lagoon has been severely degraded. Species of conservation concern including Little Grebe were not observed in the filled portion during the surveys of 2013 and 2014, but it is anticipated that some water birds may still visit the transient water body in the unfilled portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon during the wet season.

(ii). Level of concern: LC = local concern; RC = regional concern; PRC = potential regional concern; GC = global concern. Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is based on restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence (Fellows et. al. 2002) ^(xxii)

9.8. Impact Identification and Evaluation

9.8.1. This assessment identifies and quantifies the potential ecological impacts arising from decommissioning and construction of the Project and in combination with those cumulative impacts from associated works of the Project, both directly by physical disturbance and indirectly by loss of habitats, removal of vegetation, disturbance to animals, in accordance with Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO(TM).

9.8.2. The Project is to provide buildable land for future developments at the Subject Site. The major project components is described in Chapter 2 and extracted below.

9.8.3. The decommissioning works in the Project shall mainly involve the following:

· Covering of 1m thick general fill above the final PFA surface with minor levelling works

· Formation of Construction Access Road (North) by filling and levelling followed by layering of a 1m thick general fill above the final PFA surface to proposed levels

· Formation of part of the Construction Access Road (South) layering of a 1m thick general fill above the final PFA surface to proposed levels, followed by leveling and slope works along the road section approaching to the Site

9.8.4. In addition, associate works in the Project, which will not involve decommissioning, include the following:

· Minor reinstating works on part of the existing access road to form the Construction Access Road (South)

· Construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization along the edge of existing water channel near the north site boundary

· Installation of surface drainage outfall system pipes for discharging the surface water out of the site complete buildable land at the north-west corner of the Subject Site

· Installation of site hoarding and temporary surface drainage system

9.8.5. The construction access road (North) and (South) shall remain intact upon construction completion to provide vehicular access for future developments. The associated habitat loss due to the proposed development is detailed in Section 9.8.8.

9.8.6. Construction activities would include minor excavation work and on-site backfilling. The estimated volume of C&D materials to be generated is minimal to insignificant. No marine works or reclamation work will take place and no percussive piling is proposed. Potential direct ecological impact during decommissioning of the western portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon includes the followings:

Recognised Sites of Conservation Importance

9.8.7. Since there are no site of conservation importance defined within the Study Area, no direct impacts is anticipated.

Habitats and Vegetation

9.8.8. The direct ecological impact of decommissioning of the western portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon would be permanent loss of habitats and associated vegetation, including about 2.7 ha of the ash platform in the Middle Ash Lagoon (Table 9.18), which is considered as an artificial habitat with regularly disturbance from ash dumping and pumping of water from CLP plant. Decommissioning, repair and upgrading of construction access road would cause a permanent loss of 0.7 ha of urbanised/disturbed habitat and 0.6 ha of grassland/shrubland. Installation of drainage pipes would encroach about 0.03 ha of the water channel at the north-west corner of the Subject Site, while construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization along the edge of existing water channel near the north site boundary will lead to an increase of about 0.03 ha of water channel area. Therefore there is no net loss of water channel surface. Construction of the surface drainage outfall system will also involve installation of a sand trap with very small footprint (about 20.3 m²) sitting on top of the existing seawall. Only clearance of weedy vegetation will be required at its footprint on the seawall before the placement of the sand trap structure. No demolition of seawall is required and therefore no intertidal habitat will be affected.�

�

Table 9.18 Estimated Habitat Loss

	Estimated Habitat Loss (ha)
Project Item	Middle Ash Lagoon*	Urbanised/ Disturbed	Grassland/ Shrubland	Water Channel
Decommissioning of PFA Platform	2.7
Construction Access Road (North)		0.3
Construction Access Road (South)		0.4	0.6
Surface Drainage Outfall**				0.03
Retaining Structure to Existing Slope				0.03***
Total	2.7	0.7	0.6	-

*Of the 3 ha of Subject Site, about 2.7 ha is PFA filled platform while about 0.3 ha of the northern water channel will be retained.

**Construction of the surface drainage outfall system will involve installation of a sand trap with very small footprint (about 20.3 m²) sitting on top of the existing seawall. Only clearance of weedy vegetation will be required at its footprint on the seawall before the placement of the sand trap structure. No demolition of seawall is required and therefore no intertidal habitat will be affected.

***0.03ha of water channel gain by slope stabilization works

9.8.9. The Middle Ash Lagoon is an artificial habitat which is regularly subjected to disturbance from ash dumping and pumping of water from CLP plant. During the ecological surveys in 2012, the area of Middle Ash Lagoon to be affected by the proposed Project was mostly covered by very shallow slurry water with few patches of emergent vegetation.

9.8.10. The site condition of the Middle Ash Lagoon has drastically changed after completion of the field surveys 2012. The ecological value of the Subject Site has been severely modified. Around two thirds of Middle Ash Lagoon (western part including the footprint of the Subject Site) was filled up with PFA from the West Ash Lagoon due to CLP's operation in winter 2012-2013.

9.8.11. With reference to the site visit on 4 April 2014 by the Project Team and the verification survey in June 2014, the majority of Subject Site was filled to approximately +10.5mPD, whereas a man-made water channel of approximately 30m wide is located to the north of the Subject Site, with part of water channel fall into the Subject Site (as depicted in Figure 1.1). As advised by CAPCO, the 30m water channel will be maintained to the north for discharging the surface water to the existing outlet tower. The Subject Site is relatively flat and filled with PFA, it is anticipated that species of conversation concern including Little Grebe would not make use or nest in the +10.5mPD ash platform within the Subject Site. However, the man-made water channel may be still used as breeding area for Little Grebe subject to the level of water and availability of emergent grass.

9.8.12. Construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization works shall be carried out along the embankment located to the north of the Subject Site (depicted in Figure 1.1). Since the existing slope is formed by unstable PFA and could be further eroded under heavy rain and wind, slope stabilization work is deemed to be required which would mainly involve straightening of water channel and strengthening works at the embankment slope. The works can also prevent future erosion and provide a stable habitat. Construction works for the retaining structure will be mainly within the footprint of the existing ash platform. No encroachment of the existing 30m water channel will be involved. About 0.03ha of open water area will be created by excavation during straightening of water channel, which will be balance out the water channel loss to the construction of supporting structure for drainage pipe .

9.8.13. With reference to the additional ecological survey conducted in 2013, it was observed that Little Grebes can nest in water channels as narrow as 5m. Some nests were built along the edge of the straight inner embankment at the north of the Middle Ash Lagoon. This showed that Little Grebe does not avoid straight water edge when building nests. Nests were also observed at the narrow water channel at the west edge of the Middle Ash Lagoon in 2013. This showed that Little Grebe also does not avoid the areas next to tall platform (off dumped PFA) when building nests. In fact, the surveys in 2012 and 2013 showed that the availability of open water area and emergent plants are the important factors for selection of sites for building nests. Slope stabilisation works along the edge of water channel, however, will not affect these parameters during wet season and therefore would not affect the water channel’s use as a potential breeding habitat during the wet season. Nevertheless, slope stabilization works shall only be conducted within the dry season (which is November to March in the following year, in accordance with the definition as stated in EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010) to minimize the disturbance to nesting activities of Little Grebes. Mitigation measures including erection of silt fences and permanent fencing will be implemented to further reduce the potential disturbance to Little Grebe in the water channel.

9.8.14. Silt fences shall be erected to prevent contaminated surface runoff entering the water channel affecting its ecological value. Permanent fencing shall be erected along the top of the embankment as a physical barrier to minimize the human disturbance to the Little Grebes. To increase the ecological value of the embankment, vegetation shall be used as slope stabilization strategy. Vegetation such as trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be planted along the embankment to reduce the slope’s susceptibility to surface erosion and slump falls. Plants can also act as sight and sound barriers and avoid human contact to the ecological activities at the water channel.

9.8.15. In addition, a site surface water drainage outlet pipe would be constructed at the north-west of the site for future site storm water drainage purpose. Its construction shall involve the construction of a 1.05m in diameter pipe which crosses the existing water channel and connected to a sand trap located on the existing sea wall. Anchors and pipe rack shall be erected on strip of newly filled aggregate cross the 30m wide water channel as supporting structure to the said drainage pipe.

9.8.16. The installation of surface drainage channel, the storm water runoff from the Subject Site would be diverted to prevent future flooding of the water channel especially during the wet season. To minimize the adverse water quality impact caused by the construction of surface drainage outfall, works shall be scheduled to commence at the dry season to prevent possible disturbance to breeding activities and increased turbidity due to the combined effects of construction activities and rainfall. Moreover, silt fences shall be erected to prevent contaminated surfaces runoff entering the water channel.

9.8.17. Formation of Construction Access Road (north) and upgrading of repairing works for Construction Access Road (South) will constitute loss of Grassland/Shrubland and Urbanised/Disturbed habitats which are of low ecological values. Both diversity and abundance of fauna in these habitats are low or very low. No fauna species of conservation concern was recorded in Grassland/Shrubland and Urbanised/Disturbed habitats to be permanently affected by the construction works. With the limited magnitude of loss associated with the habitats, potential impacts due to loss of these habitats are ranked as minor. No mitigation is required.

9.8.18. Two recorded plant species of conservation concern, Nepenthes mirabilis and Ixonanthes reticulata and the one recorded by previous study, Aquilaria sinensis, were all recorded outside the Subject Site and therefore would not be affected.

Impacts on terrestrial fauna due to loss of habitats

9.8.19. Losses of breeding habitat of Little Grebe will constitute the major impact to fauna. Both the past and current studies indicated that the Middle Ash Lagoon provided transient habitat which is regularly subject to disturbance from ash dumping.

9.8.20. The supplementary survey conducted in March 2013 showed that two thirds of the Middle Ash Lagoon including majority of the Subject Site was found to be filled up to about +10.5mPD with PFA by CLP which will remain until site handover in the first quarter of 2015. Due to this drastic change of site condition, it is anticipated species of conservation concern including Little Grebe previously recorded in the Subject Site would no longer breed at or use the Subject Site in the fill-up area (PFA platform), but 30m man-made water channel and the remaining open water area could still be potential breeding area, which is subjected to the water level and availability of emergent grass. The decommissioning area is reduced to avoid the encroachment of the water channel. The construction of site surface water drainage outlet pipe at the north-west of the site for future site storm water drainage purpose would cause minor loss of 0.03ha of water channel. The loss will, however, be off-set by the open water area created by excavation during slope stabilisation at the edge of the water surface. However, due to the proximity of this water channel to the works area of the retaining structure and site surface water drainage outlet, the potential impact to Little Grebe based on both existing and anticipated condition is therefore ranked as low to moderate. The construction nearby the water channel will be carried out in non-breeding season (the non-breeding season of the Little Grebe is assumed to be dry season, which is November to March in the following year, in accordance with the definition as stated in EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010.) so as to minimise the potential impact to Little Grebe. Good site practice and precautionary measures will be implemented to reduce the potential impact to Little Grebe.

9.8.21. Since Little Grebe is an opportunistic breeder, it is anticipated that Little Grebe will continue to make use of the West Ash Lagoon and unfilled area of the Middle Ash Lagoon until these areas are handed over to WELS Project. Site measures such as hoarding to minimise the impact of disturbance and ecological monitoring is proposed to monitor the breeding activities of Little Grebe at the West Ash Lagoon, the remaining part of Middle Ash Lagoon, and the water channel at the north of the Subject Site during construction phase (see Mitigation Measures section).

9.8.22. Except Little Grebe, all other bird species were recorded outside the boundary of the Subject Site in the Middle Ash Lagoon. Abundance of other fauna recorded within the Subject Site during the field surveys was low. The impact to other terrestrial fauna due to loss of habitats are ranked as minor due to the small area affected, low ecological value and the presence of common species.

9.8.23. Apart from Little Grebe, none of the recorded fauna species of conservation concern bred within the Subject Site. Abundance of these species within the Subject Site was also very low and alternative habitats are available nearby. The potential impact to fauna species of conservation concern was ranked as minor.

Impacts on aquatic fauna due to loss of habitats

9.8.24. No marine or freshwater aquatic habitat will be under direct impact. Thus, potential impacts to aquatic habitats and associated fauna are not anticipated.

9.8.25. Indirect Impacts during decommissioning of the western portion of the Middle Ash Lagoon include the followings:

Disturbance to wildlife

9.8.26. During the decommissioning phase, the indirect impact include disturbance to surrounding wildlife, in particular, Little Grebe and other wetland birds which may still make use of West Ash Lagoon and the remaining part of the Middle Ash Lagoon. Potential disturbance include construction noise, dust, human disturbance and site runoff. Waterbird species of conservation concern, including Little Grebe, will use open water areas further away from the Subject Site in the Middle and West Ash Lagoons and therefore might not be affected by the disturbance. For other fauna of conservation importance recorded in the field surveys or from previous surveys (e.g., Short-nosed Fruit Bat, Danaid Eggfly), their occurrence in the Study Area was low. The potential impact to fauna due to disturbance during the decommissioning phase is anticipated to be minor. The impact can be further mitigated by good site practice (refer to Chapter 3, 5 and 6). Mitigation measures include provision of hoarding for the West Ash Lagoon and the remaining part of the Middle Ash Lagoon, inspection of hoarded area, and implementation of site practice to minimise disturbance to the West Ash Lagoon and remaining part of the Middle Ash Lagoon.

9.8.27. With implementation of such measures, no significant indirect impacts are anticipated.

Changes in Water Qualities

9.8.28. According to Section 6, potential water quality impacts were identified and include the followings:

· Drainage and construction site runoff during decommissioning;

· Construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization, construction of surface drainage outfall, and general construction site activities;

· Sewage effluent by on-site workforce;

· Accidental Spillage; and

· Release of PFA Leachate from Ash Lagoon

9.8.29. The construction site drainage would be collected by the temporary drainage system installed by the Contractor and then treated on-site before discharging into the channelised section of S1 via silt removal facilities. The Contractor would be required to obtain a license from EPD for construction site runoff discharge. Site runoff will be collected via site drainage for treatment. Wastewater treatment facilities such as sedimentation tank will be provided on site in order to treat the effluent to meet the required water quality standards before discharge. As such, adverse water quality impacts on the aquatic ecosystems and the nearby WSRs within the Deep Bay WCZ would not be anticipated.

9.8.30. According to Chapter 6, the site drainage system and facilities will be well maintained and good construction practices shall ensure that oil, fuels and solvents are managed, stored and handled properly and do not enter the water channel to the north and the nearby watercourses . With good site practices and proper implementation of mitigation measures, no adverse water quality impacts are expected.

9.8.31. Construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization at the embankment may cause possible surface runoff to the man-made water channel located at the north of the Subject Site. Associated effects which may arise include increased suspended solids concentrations and contaminants in the water receiving bodies. As the construction will be carried out during dry season, the adverse impact is considered as limited.

9.8.32. Installation of surface drainage outfall located at the north-west corner of the Subject Site involves the construction of pipe racks in the 30m wide water channel as support to the 1.05m in diameter drainage pipe, which crosses the existing water channel and connected to a sand trap located on the existing sea wall. Anchors and pipe rack shall be erected on strip of newly filled aggregate cross the man-made water channel. No dredging activities will be required, no increase of turbidity and introduce contaminants into the man-made water channel and marine area is anticipated.

9.8.33. All sewage discharge is subject to control and illegal discharge of untreated sewage is prohibited. Providing portable toilets on site will avoid the potential sewage pollution, and, if so provided, it is unlikely that sewage generated from the site would have a significant impact on water quality.

9.8.34. Potential impacts to watercourse due to the construction and traffic of the proposed access road due to sedimentation of surface runoff. Filling works will be involved in modifying and expanding the existing access road, which is next to the tidal section of Watercourse S1. Elevated suspended solids levels caused by site runoff could increase the suspended solids load in the water bodies, and could decrease dissolved oxygen levels which affect aquatic ecology. Good site practice and precautionary measures will be implemented to avoid the potential impact due to runoff. For example, the access road should be protected by crushed stone or gravel, as excavation proceeds. Earthwork final surfaces should be well compacted and subsequent permanent work or surface protection should be immediately performed. Sandbags would also be placed along the existing fence to prevent runoff, if any, from the access road to the watercourse.

9.8.35. Of the above, release of PFA leachate from ash lagoon into the aquatic environment would be unlikely to occur. As no below ground construction works is anticipated during the decommissioning of site, site formation works and construction of drainage and road works. As such, leakage of PFA through the base of Middle Ash Lagoon would not be aggravated. The ash would remain in the Middle Ash Lagoon and would not be disposed of, and leakage through the base of the Middle Ash Lagoon was not and would not be significant. The site conditions of Middle Ash Lagoon during decommissioning and construction phases would not be much different from the existing conditions.

9.8.36. The PFA leachate in the Middle Ash Lagoon is unlikely to cause unacceptable impact on the aquatic environment from an ecotoxicological point of view. Reference is also made to the on-going EM&A data of STF, which showed non-compliance events regarding aluminium content from May to August 2012 to marine water quality so far, but the non-compliance events should not be related to the Project, as no potential source of impact was identified, indicating that construction activities did not aggravate the leakage of PFA from the lagoon. There are several events of non-compliance to stream water quality throughout the monitoring period. Thirteen events of exceedance of pH, one event of exceedance of turbidity and one event of exceedance of SS were recorded during June and August 2008. However, according to the report it is similar to the baseline condition and is not related to construction activities.

9.8.37. According to the water quality impact assessment, during construction phase of the Project, import fill will be transported by trucks only and there will be no marine transport. As such, potential marine ecological impacts associated with change in marine traffic due to this project are not anticipated.

9.8.38. Given that avoidance of the construction works alon the man-mde channel duing wet season and implementation of mitigation measures, potential impact to the water quality of the 30m channel, which is potential breeding ground of Little Grebe, is not anticipated.

9.8.39. The construction phase impacts are summarised in Tables 9.19. The overall impacts to habitats are summarised in Table 9.20 while the overall impacts to species of conservation concern from the proposed project are summarised in Table 9.21.

Table 9.19 Construction Phase Impacts

Activity	Source	Receiver	Nature of Impacts						Severity	Mitigation Required
			Habitat quality	Species affected	Size-abundance	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Severity	Mitigation Required
Decommission-ing and Site formation (filling and levelling works)	Site preparation	Terrestrial habitat and associated flora and fauna	Ash platform (PFA fill), of minimal value.	Fauna and flora species recorded in the project area	A total of about 2.7ha of ash platform in the Subject Site to be affected	Long term and permanent	Irreversible	Low	Minor	Retention of the 30m water channel to the north of the site; good site practice; provision of hoarding for the West and remaining part of Middle Ash Lagoons to minimize disturbance.
compaction, repairing and improvement works at the existing access road, storage of stockpiles and materials	Formation of construction access road	Terrestrial and aquatic habitat and associated flora and fauna	Grassland/Shrubland, urbanized/disturbed.	Fauna and flora species recorded in the assessment area	0.7 ha of urbanised/ disturbed and 0.6 ha of shrubland/ grassland	Permanent	Irreversible	Low	Minor	No other than good site practice (placement of sand bags along fencing near watercourse, coverage of filled slopes with tarpaulin sheet
Construction of retaining structure for slope stabilization along the edge of existing water channel near the north site boundary, Installation of drainage pipes and sand trap for discharging the surface water out of the site at the north-west corner of the Subject Site	Works equipment and human activities	Terrestrial and aquatic habitat and associated flora and fauna	Ash platform of minimal value and water channel of low to moderate value in the Middle Ash Lagoon. Seawall of low ecological value	Aquatic fauna and Little Grebe	Loss of 0.03 ha of water channel to drainage pipe installation off-set by gain of 0.03 ha of water channel by slope stabilization work, minor loss of 20.3m² surface area and associated vegetation on top of seawall to installation of sand trap (no demolition of seawall is required).	Permanent	Irreversible	Low	Minor	Yes, Slope stabilization works shall only be conducted within the dry season November to March in the following year). Erection of silt fences and permanent fencing. Plant trees, shrubs and groundcovers on slope embankment.
Noise, dust and visual disturbance	Works equipment and human activities	Faunal species on adjacent habitats	Shrubland/grassland and plantation are of low ecological importance; woodland and ash lagoon (except the PFA platform) are of low to moderate importance	Disturbance sensitive fauna	Terrestrial habitats affected confined to areas adjacent to work areas.	Temporary	Reversible	Low	Minor	Yes, good site practice; provision of hoarding for the West Ash Lagoon and the remaining part of the Middle Ash Lagoon
Changes in Water quality	Site runoff and leachate	Aquatic fauna	Low or low to moderate for stream/channel; low for seawall and coastal waters.	Common species	N/A	Temporary	Reversible	Low	Minor	Yes, good site practice

Table 9.20 Overall Impacts to Habitats

Evaluation Criteria	Habitat Quality	Species	Size/abundance	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Overall Impact Conclusion	Mitigation Required
Woodland	Low to moderate	The habitats support low floral and faunal diversity. No species of conservation concern affected	The habitat would not be directly affected.	Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Disturbance during site formation and reversible	N/A	Negligible	No
Plantation	Low	The habitats support low floral and faunal diversity. No species of conservation concern affected	The habitat would not be directly affected.	Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Disturbance during site formation and reversible	N/A	Negligible	No
Orchard	Low	The habitats support low floral and faunal diversity. No species of conservation concern affected	The habitat would not be directly affected.	Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Disturbance during site formation and reversible	N/A	Negligible	No
Evaluation Criteria	Habitat Quality	Species	Size/abundance	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Overall Impact Conclusion	Mitigation Required
Grassland/ Shrubland	Low	The habitats support low biodiversity. No species of conservation concern affected.	Small. About 0.6 ha will be affected by formation and upgrading of construction access road .	Habitat loss would be permanent. Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Habitat loss irreversible , Disturbance during site formation and landfill operation reversible	Small	Low	No

Evaluation Criteria	Habitat Quality	Species	Size/abundance	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Overall Impact Conclusion	Mitigation Required
Ash Lagoon	Middle Lagoon (Ash Platform): low	The filled portion support low biodiversity,	Small. About 2.7 ha will be affected.	Habitat loss would be permanent. Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Habitat loss irreversible, Disturbance during site formation and landfill operation reversible	Low	Low	No
Middle Lagoon (Water channel/ Unfilled Area) : low to moderate	The unfilled portion support low biodiversity, with moderate abundance of Little Grebe population and breeding records of Little Grebe at the water-filled portion	Minor (0.03ha) encroachment by drainage pipe works off-set by creation of 0.03 ha of water channel area by slope stabilization work	Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.	Disturbance during site formation reversible	Low	Low	Retention of the 30m water channel to the north of the site; hoarding to be installed as a precautionary measure to minimize disturbance.

Evaluation Criteria

Habitat Quality

Species

Size/abundance

Duration

Reversibility

Magnitude

Overall Impact Conclusion

Mitigation Required

Ash Lagoon

Middle Lagoon (Ash Platform): low

The filled portion support low biodiversity,

Small. About 2.7 ha will be affected.

Habitat loss would be permanent.

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.

Habitat loss irreversible, Disturbance during site formation and landfill operation reversible

Low

Middle Lagoon (Water channel/ Unfilled Area) : low to moderate

The unfilled portion support low biodiversity, with moderate abundance of Little Grebe population and breeding records of Little Grebe at the water-filled portion

Minor (0.03ha) encroachment by drainage pipe works off-set by creation of 0.03 ha of water channel area by slope stabilization work

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from works equipment and human activities would be temporary.

Disturbance during site formation reversible

Low

Retention of the 30m water channel to the north of the site; hoarding to be installed as a precautionary measure to minimize disturbance.

Evaluation Criteria

Habitat Quality

Species

Size/abundance

Duration

Reversibility

Magnitude

Overall Impact Conclusion

Mitigation Required

Ash Lagoon

West Lagoon: low to moderate

The habitats support low biodiversity. Juveniles of Little grebe observed.

The habitat would not be directly affected.

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road traffic would be temporary.

Disturbance during site formation reversible

Low

No, except hoarding to be installed to minimize disturbance.

Seawall

Low

The habitats support low biodiversity with no species of conservation concern recorded. No species of conservation concern affected.

Minor loss of 20.3m² surface area and associated vegetation on top of seawall to installation of sand trap (no demolition of seawall is required)

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road traffic would be temporary.

Loss of 20.3m² top surface area irreversible.

Disturbance during site formation reversible

Small

Negligible

Evaluation Criteria	Habitat Quality		Species	Size/abundance	Duration	Reversibility		Magnitude	Overall Impact Conclusion	Mitigation Required
Urbanized/ Disturbed Areas		Low	The habitats support low biodiversity. No species of conservation concern affected.	Small, about 0.7ha would be affected by formation and upgrading of construction access roads.	Habitat loss would be permanent. Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from human disturbance, construction activities and increased road traffic would be temporary.		Habitat loss irreversible, Disturbance during site formation reversible	Small.	Low	No
Coastal Waters		Low	The habitats support low biodiversity. No rare species recorded. Scanty sightings of Chinese White Dolphins over past 10 years.	The habitat would not be directly affected.	Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from changes in water qualities would be temporary		Changes in water qualities are reversible	Small	Negligible	No

Evaluation Criteria

Habitat Quality

Species

Size/abundance

Duration

Reversibility

Magnitude

Overall Impact Conclusion

Mitigation Required

Watercourse

Natural section: low to moderate

The habitats support low biodiversity.

The habitat would not be directly affected.

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from traffic would be temporary.

N/A

Negligible

No other than good site practice

Man-made channel: low

The habitats support low biodiversity.

The habitat would not be directly affected.

Indirect impact to wildlife resulting from traffic and runoff would be temporary.

Disturbance during site formation and landfill operation reversible

N/A

Negligible

No other than good site practice

�

Table 9.21 Overall Impacts to Flora and Fauna Species of Conservation Concern during Construction Phases (species recorded by others only indicated by “*”)

Species of conservation concern
Common Name	Scientific Name	Description	Evaluation of impacts	Mitigation Required
Flora
Pitcher Plant	Nepenthes mirabilis	Individuals of this species recorded at Tsang Kok Valley outside Subject Site. No direct loss anticipated.	None	No
Incense Tree*	Aquilaria sinensis	One tree recorded outside Subject Site. No direct loss anticipated.	None	No
Ixonanthes	Ixonanthes reticulata	A few individuals at Tsang Kok Valley outside Subject Site. No direct loss anticipated.	None	No
Avifauna
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	Little Grebe is the only fauna species of conservation concern with confirmed breeding records within the Study Area. During the survey of 2013, number of Little Grebe ranged between 13 and 34 birds in the Middle Ash Lagoon and between 10 and 20 in West Ash Lagoon. Due to the filling of PFA, most area of the Subject Site was no longer suitable as foraging or breeding habitat of Little Grebe. Cumulative number of nests was 4 in the water channels to the west and north of the Subject Site and 12 in remaining open water area of Middle Ash Lagoon outside Subject Site. Four nests were found in the West Ash Lagoon. The channel to the west of the Subject Site was found to be filled in 2014 and could no longer provide breeding habitat to Little Grebe. The 30m channel to the north of the Subject Site was dry during the verification survey in 2014, but could potentially provide breeding habitat to Little Grebe when flooded. Construction of site surface water drainage outlet will cause loss of 0.03 ha water channel, which is of-set by creation of 0.03 ha of water channel due to slope stabilization work . Hence, no net loss of potential breeding ground of Little Grebe is anticipated. . Little Grebe is anticipated that may still visit and breed in the transient water body in forms of pools or in trenches on the man-made water channel and the West Ash Lagoon during the wet season. Since the decommissioning area is reduced to avoid the interface with the water channel, whereas construction nearby the water channel will be carried out in non-breeding period (i.e. November to March, with reference to the recent STF EM&A records), the potential impact to Little Grebe based on both existing and anticipated condition is therefore ranked as minor.	Low to moderate	Yes, setting up of hoarding of not less than 2.4m high along the construction site boundary including the boundary of the works areas between the Middle and West Ash Lagoons, and between the northern edge of the ash platform and the 30m water channel; scheduling of slope stabilization work and construction of surface drainage system within the dry season (which is November to March in the following year, in accordance with the definition as stated in EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010)”, on-site treatment of site runoff before discharge, erection of silt fence, placement of sand bags at fencing near the water channel and coverage of the filled slopes and materials with tarpaulin sheet will be implemented accordingly
Waterbirds of concern within the Subject Site but with no breeding (including Little Egret, Great Egret and Pied Kingfisher)	Egretta garzetta, Casmerodius alba and Ceryle rudis	A few individuals of Little Egret, Great Egret and Pied Kingfisher were recorded roosting within the Subject Site. These three species were also recorded in areas near the Subject Site. Pied Kingfishers were also recorded in the West Ash Lagoon. Little Egret and Great Egret were found in Middle and West Ash Lagoons. The proposed project in the Middle Ash Lagoon might cause direct loss of their roosting habitats. Little Egret and Great Egret are common in Hong Kong, and occurs in many types of wetland habitats. Pied Kingfisher is mainly found in fishponds, geiwais, reservoirs and sheltered bay of the Deep Bay area. No foraging behavior of Pied Kingfisher was observed in the Subject Site. Based on the latest site conditions (see description above in Little Grebe section), the Subject Site has largely been filled recently. It is anticipated that waterbirds of concern within the Subject Site may still visit and the 30m wide water channel remained on the periphery of the Subject Site and water bodies outside the Subject Site during wet seasons. There will be no loss of important habitats of these species due to the proposed project. Suitable habitats are available in nearby areas for these species, e.g., a Pak Nai, Pak Nai. Potential impact to these species due to loss of habitats is considered minimal. Increased disturbance from construction works might potentially affect the uses of habitats adjacent to the Subject Site. Ardeids (including Little Egret and Great Egret) are to certain extent disturbance tolerant. In addition, there are similarly suitable habitats available nearby for these species in Ha Pak Nai and Pak Nai. Birds potentially disturbed by construction activities would therefore move to similar suitable habitats away from the source of disturbance. Also, the number of affected individuals only accounts for a small proportion of the local population. The impact is considered minimal.	Minimal	Setting up of hoarding of not less than 2.4m high along the construction site boundary including the boundary of the works areas between the Middle and West Ash Lagoons, and between the northern edge of the ash platform and the 30m water channel;
Waterbird species of concern outside the Subject Site from the present and previous studies (including Grey Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Cattle Egret, Pacific Reef Egret, Eurasian Wigeon, Eurasian Coot, Eurasian Woodcock, Little Ringed Plover, Kentish Plover, Common Redshank, Wood Sandpiper, White-throated Kingfisher and Black-capped Kingfisher)	Ardea cinerea, Ardeola bacchus, Nycticorax nycticorax, Bubulcus ibis, Egretta sacra, Anas penelope, Fulica atra, Scolopax rusticola, Charadrius dubius, Charadrius alexandrines, Tringato tanus, Tringa glareola, Halcyon smyrnensis, Halcyon pileata	A number of waterbird species were recorded outside the Subject Area in the Study Area during the present study and/or previous surveys. These bird species were present in low numbers, suggesting that their uses of habitats within the Study Area were low. Due to the low numbers of individuals affected and availability of habitats in nearby areas, e.g., Ha Pak Nai, the potential impact to these species due to habitat loss is considered minimal. Increased disturbance from construction works might potentially affect the uses of habitats by these species adjacent to the Subject Site. Based on the latest site conditions (see description above in Little Grebe section), waterbirds of concern outside the Subject Site may still visit the transient water bodies in the Middle and West Ash Lagoon and the water channels on the periphery of the middle ash lagoons during the wet season. Waterbirds may still utilize the west ash lagoon, while the 30 m water channel in the northern edge of the Middle Ash Lagoon may still be of limited visit and use by some ardeids. Birds potentially disturbed by construction activities would move to similar suitable habitats away from the source of disturbance. The impact is considered minimal.	Minimal	Setting up of hoarding of not less than 2.4m high along the construction site boundary including the boundary of the works areas between the Middle and West Ash Lagoons, and between the northern edge of the ash platform and the 30m water channel
Raptors (including Osprey, Black Kite, White-bellied Seas Eagle, Crested Goshawk, Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel* and Peregrine Falcon*)	Pandion haliaetus, Milvus lineatus, Haliaeetus leucogaster, Accipiter trivirgatus, Buteo buteo, Falco tinnunculus, Falco peregrinus	A number of raptor species were recorded outside the Subject Site or flying over the Study Area during the present study and previous surveys. White-bellied Sea Eagle and Osprey are mainly maritime and forage in coastal waters. Osprey is mostly found in Inner Deep Bay area. Crested Goshawk is mostly found near woodland. The proposed project will not cause loss of important habitats of these species. The potential impact of habitat loss to these raptor species is considered minimal. Since these species normally forage in areas and habitats away from the Subject Site. Potential impact from construction disturbance is also anticipated to be minimal. Black Kite, Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel and Peregrine Falcon forage in many types of habitats, including urban areas. The Subject Site probably only accounts for a small proportion of the daily home-ranges of these species. In addition, suitable habitats are available in nearby areas for these species. The potential impact of habitat loss to these raptor species is considered minor. The occurrence of these species in urban areas suggested that these species are disturbance tolerate to certain degree. Therefore, potential impact from construction disturbance to these species is also anticipated to be minimal.	Minor	No
Mammal
Japanese Pipistrelle	Pipistrellus abramus	Around three individuals were recorded (at flight) in secondary woodland and wasteland. Japanese Pipistrelle occurs in many types of habitats in Hong Kong. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as Japanese Pipistrelle can use a wide range of habitats and alternative habitats are available in nearby localities (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No

Short-nosed Fruit Bat	Cynopterus sphinx	Around One individual was recorded (at flight) in secondary woodland within the Study Area. This species is common and widespread in Hong Kong. Short-nosed Fruit Bats lives in a wide variety of woodlands, ranging from lowland to hills, and even urban areas. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available nearby (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No
Leschenault’s Rousette*	Rousettus leschenaulti	This species was recorded during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. Leschenault’s Rousette is fairly widespread and found in a variety of habitats in Hong Kong. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available in nearby localities (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No
Small Asian Mongoose*	Herpestes javanicus	This species was recorded during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. Small Asian Mongoose occurs in a wide variety of habitats, ranging from wetlands to open plains, but this species prefers open areas. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available nearby (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No
Small Indian Civet*	Viverricula indica	This species was recorded during the WLES EIA Study and IWMF EIA study.Scats of this species was found on seawall of Middle Lagoon during the WLES EIA Study. A dead animal was on the access road north of Middle Lagoon during the IWMF EIA study. Small Indian Civet is widely distributed in Hong Kong and occurs in woodlands. This species. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available nearby (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No
Masked Palm Civet*	Paguma larvata	This species was recorded during the STF EIA study. Footprints and scats were found in the Middle Ash Lagoon. Masked Palm Civetoccurs in a wide variety of habitats in Hong Kong. There is no loss of optimal habitat of Masked Palm Civet. It is therefore anticipated that the impact from the proposed project would be minimal.	Minimal	No
Leopard Cat*	Prionailurus bengalensis	This species was recorded during the IWMF EIA study. Leopard Cat occurs in a wide variety of habitats, including Shrubland, plantation and woodland. There is no loss of optimal habitat of Leopard Cat. It is therefore anticipated that the impact from the proposed project would be minimal.	Minimal	No
Chinese White Dolphin*	Sousa chinensis	The Project is a land-based project. No marine works or reclamation work will take place. No marine traffic for transportation is required during construction phase. It is therefore anticipated that the impact from the proposed project would be minimal.	Minimal	No
Butterfly
Danaid Eggfly *	Hypolimnas misippus	This species was recorded during the STF EIA study. Five individuals were found in shrubland around the East Lagoon and one individual was recorded from secondary woodland habitat. The Glassy Bluebottle is locally rare and mainly occurs only in abandoned agricultural land and fishponds. There is no loss of optimal habitat of Danaid Eggfly. It is therefore anticipated that the impact from the proposed project would be minimal.	Minimal	No
Glassy Bluebottle *	Graphium cloanthus	This species was recorded during the STF EIA study. Seven individuals were found in grassland/shrubland and secondary woodland. Danaid Eggfly usually inhabit woodland. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available nearby (e.g., Lung Kwu Tan, Ha Pak Nai).	Minor	No
Dragonfly
Coastal Glider	Macrodiplax cora	This species was recorded in the Middle Ash Lagoon (both inside and outside Subject Site) and West Lagoon, but the abundance was not high. No egg-laying was observed in the ash lagoons during the surveys. Coastal Glider is common in Hong Kong, and mainly found in lagoons and estuaries. The larva of this species can tolerate the brackish water in lagoons and estuaries. The proposed project might affect the potential habitats of this species. However, the impact is to be minor as alternative habitats of this species are available nearby (e.g., West Ash Lagoon, unaffected area of Middle Ash Lagoon.	Minor	No
Fish
-	Acrossocheilus parallens*	This species was recorded at Tai Shui Hang outside the current Study Area during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. Tai Shui Hang would not be affected by the Project as their habitats are outside the Subject Site and located in a different catchment area separated by hill ridge.	Insignificant	No
Invertebrate
Horseshoe crab*	Tachypleus tridentatus	This species was recorded at Ha Pak Nai outside the current Study Area during the WENT Landfill Extension EIA Study. Horseshoe crab is uncommon in Hong Kong, and is mostly found in Northwest Hong Kong and Lantau. Ha Pak Nai is one of the sites considered important for horseshoe crab. However Ha Pak Nai is outside the project footprint and is not likely to be indirectly affected by the present project as there would be no major marine works.	Insignificant	No

*species recorded in literature review but not in current surveys

Field Survey 2012

Habitat and Vegetation

Avifauna

Herpetofauna

Mammals

Dragonflies and Butterflies

Aquatic Fauna

Intertidal Fauna

Subtidal Fauna.

Dolphin Surveys

Habitat and Vegetation

Ash Lagoon

Grassland/Shrubland

Orchard

Plantation

Woodland

Seawall

Urbanised/Disturbed

Watercourse

Coastal Waters

Avifauna

Herpetofauna

Mammals

Dragonflies and Butterflies

Aquatic Fauna

Intertidal Fauna

Recognised Sites of Conservation Importance

Habitats and Vegetation

Impact Avoidance

Impact Minimisation

9.12. Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement