This section addresses the potential ecological impacts that may arise from the construction, operation and decommissioning of proposed interim sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent reuse facility, and the associated works at Wo Shang Wai (WSW). The potential impacts on the ecological sensitive receivers, habitats and species potentially affected by the proposed works within the Study Area were assessed in accordance with the criteria and guidelines identified in Annexes 8 and 16 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) and Section 3.4.7 of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-289/2015). Suitable mitigation measures were proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to an environmentally acceptable level.

The proposed project is an integrated part of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long (WSW development), which is also a Designated Project, for which an EIA study has been conducted and approved under the EIAO (Registration no.: AEIAR-120/2008). By the time of this EIA Study is undertaken, the WSW development is under construction and ecological mitigation measures were implemented as per the Environmental Permit (EP) and Environmental Monitoring and Audit Report (EM&A) requirements. As the proposed STP is an integrated part of the WSW development, the Project site for this EIA is entirely situated within the project site of the WSW development.

Apart from the STP, there will be associated works including pumping facilities and piping network to connect the sewage and treated effluent for reuse as irrigation and toilet flushing for the WSW development From ecological perspective, the associated piping network that to be constructed as part of the WSW development site formation and substructures works, will not have additional ecological impact compared to those have been assessed with mitigation measures in place proposed under the previously approved WSW development EIA.

7.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

A number of international conventions, local legislation and guidelines provide the framework for protection of species and habitats of ecological importance. Those related to this Project are:

● Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96), which protects the rare plant species from selling, offering for sale or possession illegally;

● Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 sub. leg.) are subsidiary legislation of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96). Under these regulations, no person shall without lawful excuse sell, offer for sale or have in his possession or under his custody or control any portion of any of the plants scheduled under the Forestry Regulations.

● Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170), which protects wild animals listed under the second schedule from being hunted, possession, sale or export, disturbance of their nest or egg without permission by authorised officer;

● Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586), which regulates the import, introduction from the sea, export, re-export, and possession of specimens of a scheduled species, including live, dead, parts or derivatives. The Ordinance applies to all activities involving endangered species which include the parties of traders, tourists and individuals;

● Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499), which specifies designated projects under Schedule 2 of the Ordinance, unless exempted, must follow the statutory environmental impact assessment (EIA) process and require environmental permits for their construction and operation;

● EIAO Guidance Notes No. 6/2010, 7/2010, 10/2010 and 11/2010. These guidance notes provide the observations on Ecological Assessment from the EIAO perspective, providing the general guidelines for conducting an ecological baseline survey for ecological assessment and introducing some methodologies in conducting terrestrial and freshwater ecological baseline surveys;

● Annexes 8 and 16 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM): Annex 8 recommends the criteria for evaluating ecological impacts. Annex 16 sets out the general approach and methodology for assessment of ecological impacts arising from a project or proposal, to allow a complete and objective identification, prediction and evaluation of the potential ecological impacts;

● Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) which gives designation to country parks, conservation area, green belts, sites of special scientific interest, coastal protection area and other specified uses to promote conservation, protection and education of the valuable environment;

● Town Planning Board Guideline no. 12C. Town Planning Board Guidelines for application for developments within Deep Bay Area under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance provides the guidance in land use and development for conservation of the Deep Bay wetlands.

● Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines Chapter 10 (HKPSG) provides the guidelines on landscape and conservation to achieve a balance between the need for development and to minimise disruption of the landscape and natural resources.

● The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is widely recognised as the most comprehensive, objective global approach for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species. The goal of the IUCN Red List is to provide information and analyses on the status, trends and threats to species in order to inform and catalyse action for biodiversity conservation;

● The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between Governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival;

● The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention) is an intergovernmental treaty concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Its aim is to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range;

● United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) is an international legally binding treaty. Its aim is to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; and

● Wild Animal Protection Law of the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) is formulated for the purpose of protecting and saving the species of wildlife which are rare or near extinction, protecting, developing and rationally utilising wildlife resources and maintaining ecological balances.

7.3 Study Area and Methodology

7.3.1 Study Area

According to Section 3.4.7.2 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-289/2015, the defined Study Area for the purpose of ecological impact assessment includes area within 500 meters distance from the boundary of the Project and any other areas potentially affected by the Project, which is shown in Figure 7.1. The assessment area of aquatic ecology is the same as that for assessment of the water quality impact.

7.3.2 Assessment Methodology

The Project site is situated entirely within the WSW development, which is under construction by the time of this EIA is prepared. A comprehensive ecological monitoring at the fishpond area within the Conservation Area adjacent to the WSW development is ongoing on a monthly basis since the commencement of construction in April 2010. In addition, since the Wetland Restoration Area (WRA) as part of the mitigation measures of the WSW development being established, an ecological monitoring at the WRA are being carried out as part of the EM&A programme. This set of ecological monitoring data collected within the Study Area of this EIA, together with the monthly ecological monitoring at adjacent fishpond for Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), the ecological baseline survey for Environmental Impact Assessment Reports of the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL EIA) (AECOM, 2009) and the ecological baseline survey for the Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection Near Yau Mei San Tsuen (YMST EIA) (ENVIRON, 2015) form an up-to-dated and comprehensive set of ecological baseline data. Given the existing site condition of the Project site which currently under site formation as part of the WSW development and with the comprehensive ecological baseline information gathered from relevant literature, it is considered no additional ecological field survey is necessary for the purpose of conducting the ecological impact assessment for this EIA study.

7.3.3 Literature Review

Literature review by desktop study have been conducted to investigate the existing ecological conditions within the Study Area and to identify habitats or species having conservation interest. The available information relevant to this Project including approved EIA reports, Government and private sector reports, published literature, academic study reports and unpublished data requested were covered in the literature review. Some relevant information but not limited to the followings have been reviewed:

● Recent aerial photographs

● Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site Waterbird Monitoring Programme 2015-16. Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Summer 2016 report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (Anon, 2016)

● EIA, Environmental Review reports and other relevant reports for the projects within the Study Area, including:

– Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long (WSW EIA) (Register No.: AEIAR-120/2008) (MMHK, 2008);

– Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL EIA) (Register No.: AEIAR-143/2009) (MTRC, 2009); and

– Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection Near Yau Mei San Tsuen (Final Report) (YMST EIA) (Register No.: AEIAR-189/2015) (ENVIRON, 2015)

● Environmental Monitoring and Audit reports for projects within the Study Area, including:

– Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, January – November 2016 (XRL EM&A) (MTRC, 2016); and

– Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long - Biannual EM&A Report on Ecology (Nov 2012 - Oct 2016) (WSW Biannual EM&A) (MMHK, 2013- 2016)

7.4 Baseline Condition and Ecological Sensitive Receivers

7.4.1 General Description of the Project Site and Study Area

The Project site is located within the residential development portion of the WSW development, which is a Designated Project approved in 2009 under the EIAO. The Project site falls inside the Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) and in proximity to the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA). Owing to the construction activities for the WSW development, the existing habitat of the Project site is currently a developed area under construction, without natural habitat remains. The location of the Project site and the Study Area are shown in Figure 7.1.

7.4.2 Recognized Sites of Conservation Interest

7.4.2.1 Wetland Conservation Area (WCA)

The Town Planning Board has designated the wetland areas immediately adjacent to the Ramsar Site as WCA; the planning intention of this is to conserve the ecological value of the fish ponds in the Deep Bay wetland ecosystem (Town Planning Board Guideline No.12C). Development within the WCA will not normally be permitted unless it supports the conservation of the area or provides essential infrastructural development with overriding public interest. The Project site lies outside the WCA, but part of the fishponds in the north and west of the Study Area fall into the WCA, so impacts to these parts of the WCA are considered in this assessment.

7.4.2.2 Wetland Buffer Area (WBA)

The Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) lies on the landward side of the WCA, with the intention of protecting the ecological integrity of wetland habitats within the WCA (Town Planning Board Guideline No.12C). Developments within the WBA are required to demonstrate that ecological impacts to the WCA (including indirect disturbance impacts) will be minimised and any negative ecological impacts will be fully mitigated through positive measures. Residential developments are permitted in this area, especially for those replace existing open storage and/or incorporate a wetland restoration scheme. A wetland buffer should be included in sites immediately abutting the WCA. The current Project site lies within the WBA.

7.4.2.3 Ramsar Site

The Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, located 90m from the Project site, forms the core part of the Deep Bay wetland ecosystem. The Ramsar Site was designated as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on 4^th September 1995 which covers an area of 1,500 ha of gei wai, fishponds and intertidal mudflats. The site includes the Mai Po Marshes and Inner Deep Bay Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). It is particularly important to migratory waterbirds supporting internationally important numbers of several species, including several globally-threatened species. Conservation Area (CA)

Under the approved Mai Po & Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) (Statutory Plan No. S/YL-MP/6), the fishponds located immediately adjacent to the existing WRA for the WSW development are within the CA. The planning intention is for conserving the ecologically valuable wetlands and fishponds, which form an integral part of the wetland ecosystem in the Deep Bay Area. Except as otherwise specified by the Town Planning Board, the area is restricted from development and limited to the use as fishponds, plantings, public utilities and maintenance in existed developed structures, with and without further conditions.

7.4.2.4 Egretry

Two egretries are located near the Project site, which are Mai Po Village and Mai Po Lung village egretry (Figure 7.1). The Mai Po Village egretry was formerly located in the Mai Po Village SSSI, but has subsequently moved outside of the SSSI to roadside trees to the northwest of the SSSI boundary. The egretry lies presently at approximately 570m from the Project site. In 2016, this was the largest egretry in Hong Kong, with a maximum of 202 nests recorded (Anon 2016). Mai Po Lung Village egretry is approximately 1,135m from the Project site. The egretry held a maximum of 84 nests in 2016 (Anon 2016).

7.4.2.5 Mai Po Village SSSI

The Mai Po Village SSSI contains 5.3ha of secondary woodland derived from fung shui woodland and plantation located to the east of Mai Po Village (Figure 7.1). The SSSI lies approximately 420m from the Project site. This site was designated as an SSSI in 1979 on the basis of an egretry containing breeding population of Little Egret, Cattle Egret and Chinese Pond Heron. Egrets no longer breed within the boundaries of the SSSI, although Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron breed on the roadside trees northwest of the SSSI.

7.4.3 Habitat and Vegetation

There are seven major habitats identified in the Study Area, namely:

● Wetland Restoration Area

● Fishpond

● Abandoned Fishpond

● Water Channel / Ditch

● Marsh / Reedbed

● Secondary Woodland

● Plantation

● Developed / Disturbed Area

The distribution of each habitat type is shown in the habitat map in Figure 7.1. The areas of each habitat type within the Project site and Study Area are listed in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 respectively.

Table 7.1: Habitats Present in the Project Site

Habitat	Proposed Development Area
Habitat	Area (ha)	%
Developed / Disturbed Area	16.00	100%
Total	16.00	100

Table 7.2: Habitats Present in the Study Area (excluding the Project Site)

Habitat	Study Area
Habitat	Area (ha)	%
Wetland Restoration Area	4.74	2.4%
Fishpond	49.85	25.5%
Abandoned Fishpond	12.14	6.2%
Water Channel / Ditch	4.44	2.3%
Marsh / Reedbed	4.22	2.2%
Secondary Woodland	0.55	0.3%
Plantation	8.11	4.1%
Developed / Disturbed Area	111.39	57.0%
Total	195.44	100.0%

Representative photographs of each type of habitats are illustrated in Plates 1 to 7 in Appendix 7.1.

7.4.3.1 Habitats within the Project Site

Developed / Disturbed Area

The Project site is currently a construction site with daily construction activities with no natural habitat remains. Other developed / disturbed area found within the Study Area includes village area (Mai Po Village), residential development (Palm Springs, Royal Palms, Scenic Heights and Maple Garden), roads (Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway), garages and open storage areas. Vegetation is limited within the Project site because it is currently a construction site.

7.4.3.2 Habitat within the Study Area

Wetland Restoration Area (WRA)

The WRA was constructed at the northern portion of the WSW development and immediate south of the existing offsite fishpond habitats, which was proposed under the WSW development EIA as mitigation measure compensate for the loss of seasonal wetland and enhance the ecological connectivity to the adjacent conservation area. The WRA construction was completed on 15^th November 2010. The WRA consists of marsh, reeds, ponds, grass, shrubs and tall trees which provide fauna species a diverse habitat. Dominant plant species within the WRA include Phragmites australis, Ficus hispida, Macaranga tanarius and Rhaphiolepis indica.

Fishpond

Fishponds form the dominant habitat type to the north and west of the Study Area. These form part of the extensive Deep Bay wetland area. The majority of ponds in the north and north-west of the Study Area are currently used for cultivation of a variety of fish species such as Grey Mullet Mugil cephalus, Tilapia Oreochromus sp., Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idellus and Bighead Carp Aristichthys nobilis. These ponds are regularly drained during the dry season to harvest fish and to permit management of pond substrate.

Active fishponds have very little emergent vegetation, while bund vegetation is managed to allow access to ponds and is dominated by a small number of widespread species, including Brachiaria mutica, Panicum maximum, Panicum repens, Paspalum paspaloides, Eleusine indica, Cynodon dactylon, Digitaria sanguinalis and Bidens alba.

Abandoned Fishpond

Fishponds in the south-west of the Study Area have not been used for fish cultivation for a number of years. Many of these inactive ponds contain extensive emergent vegetation, especially Phragmites australis. Bund vegetation in this area is less disturbed than those grow around commercial fishponds and is dominated by tall grasses and exotic herbs (mostly Bidens alba, Euphorbia hirta, Conyza bonariensis and Ipomoea cairica).

Water Channel / Ditch

Several water channels are located between the fishponds within the Study Area. These are moderately large and bounded by fairly high, steep bunds; the water is generally shallow but the channels do not dry out during the dry season. These channels drain into Deep Bay, and some are tidal in the lower reaches. A few channel sections, especially in the north of the Study Area, are overgrown with vegetation, especially Brachiaria mutica and Eichhornia crassipes. Riparian vegetation is dominated by Brachiaria mutica, Panicum maximum and Bidens alba but there are also a number of riparian trees, especially Melia azedarach and Macaranga tanarius, which are used by roosting waterbirds.

Marsh / Reedbed

Patches of marsh lie within the northeastern portion of the Study Area. These are derived from overgrown abandoned fishponds or vegetated areas alongside drainage channels. Vegetation in each site varies slightly according to local conditions and origin of the marsh habitat; dominant species include Brachiaria mutica, Panicum maximum, Eichhornia crassipes, Typha angustifolia, Ipomoea aquatica, Cyclosorus interruptus and Ludwigia octovalvis.

Plantation

The roadside verges of San Tin Highway and Castle Peak Road are planted with a variety of tree species, especially non-native species, used primarily for landscaping purposes. Non-native tree species used locally in plantations include Eucalyptus citriodora, Bombax ceiba, Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia confusa and Albizia lebbeck, while native species include Ficus microcarpa, Hibiscus tiliaceus and Celtis sinensis. Plantation areas have also been identified surrounding the site of WSW development. Species found in the site include Acacia auriculiformis, Cinnamomum camphora, Hibiscus tiliaceus and Melaleuca quinquenervia.

Secondary Woodland

Woodland on the small hill to the east of Mai Po Village is derived from fung shui woodland. Most of the woodland area is a designated SSSI, largely due to the former presence of a significant egretry. Dominant tree species in this area include Macaranga tanarius, Melia azedarach, Microcos paniculata, Schefflera heptaphylla, Sterculia lanceolata, Sapium sebiferum and Schima superba. The understorey is moderately well-developed and diverse.

Developed / Disturbed Area

Developed / Disturbed Area in the Study Area includes village land, residential developments and major roads and highways. All areas are heavily disturbed by human activities. There is little natural vegetation present.

7.4.3.3 Floral Species of Conservation Interest

A total of 165 species of plants were recorded in the WSW EIA, all of which are common or very common species in Hong Kong, e.g. Hibiscus tiliaceus, and a number of non-native species, e.g. Melia azedarach. No protected plant species or plant species of conservation interest was recorded within the Project site based on the survey findings of the WSW EIA (MMHK, 2008). The Project site is currently a construction site with no remains of natural vegetation.

7.4.4 Bird

The Study Area covers mainly developed / disturbed area and wetland, which comprises of WRA and fishpond habitats. The WRA and fishponds located at the north of the Project site and the abandoned fishponds at the southwest of the Project site provide habitats for waterbirds within the Study Area.

7.4.4.1 Literature Review

Relevant ecological monitoring and survey report listed in Section 7.3.3 comprising avifauna records in the Study Area have been reviewed.

The EIA report of WSW recorded 27 bird species of conservation interest within its study area (MMHK, 2008). The bird species recorded within the Study Area are typical for fishpond habitats around Deep Bay.

The XRL EIA report recorded 19 bird species of conservation interest within its study area, which include the Project site of this EIA (AECOM, 2009). Of the 19 species of conservation interest, five of them are located within the Project site of this EIA. The natural habitat of these five bird species is compensated by the WRA and no longer exist in the Project site.

The XRL EM&A programme also include an ongoing ecological monitoring. One of the monitoring locations is located at WSW (MTRC, 2016). In year 2016, the XRL EM&A Reports for ecology reported 21 bird species of conservation interest in fishponds within the Study Area.

The established WRA is regularly monitored under the EM&A programme of WSW development EIA, the WSW Biannual EM&A Reports recorded a total of 60 bird species of conservation interest in the WRA from November 2012 to October 2016 (MMHK, 2013-2016).

A list of bird species of conservation interest recorded in previous studies is provided in Table 7.3. Birds recorded in major habitats within the Study Area is provided in Appendix 7.2.

Table 7.3: Summary Table for Avifauna Species of Conservation Interest Recorded in the Study Area

Common Name	Scientific Name	Level of Concern¹	Protection Status²	IUCN status³	WSW EIA	XRL EIA	XRL EM&A	WSW Biannual EM&A
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	LC			ü	ü	ü	ü
Great Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	PRC			ü	ü	ü	ü
Black-crowned Night Heron	Nycticorax nycticorax	(LC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	PRC (RC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Grey Heron	Ardea cinerea	PRC			ü	ü	ü	ü
Purple Heron	Ardea purpurea	RC						ü
Great Egret	Ardea alba	PRC (RC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Intermediate Egret	Egretta intermedia	RC			ü		ü	ü
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	PRC (RC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	(LC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Striated Heron	Butorides striata	(LC)			ü
Whiskered Tern	Chlidonias hybrida	LC						ü
White-winged Tern	Chlidonias leucopterus	LC						ü
Little Ringed Plover	Charadrius dubius	(LC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Black-faced Spoonbill	Platalea minor	PGC	CRDB (En)	EN	ü	ü	ü	ü
Northern Pintail	Anas acuta	RC			ü			ü
Common Teal	Anas crecca	RC			ü			ü
Eurasian Wigeon	Anas penelope	RC			ü	ü		ü
Osprey	Pandion haliaetus	RC			ü	ü		ü
Yellow Bittern	Ixobrychus sinensis	(LC)					ü	ü
Cinnamon Bittern	Ixobrychus cinnamomeus	LC						ü
Tufted Duck	Aythya fuligula	LC						ü
Northern Shoveler	Anas clypeata	RC						ü
White-bellied Sea Eagle	Haliaeetus leucogaster	(RC)	Cap. 586		ü
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	(RC)	Cap. 586, Class (II)		ü	ü	ü	ü
Black-winged Kite	Elanus caeruleus	LC	Cap. 586					ü
Eastern Imperial Eagle	Aquila heliaca	GC	Cap.586	VU				ü
Crested Serpent Eagle	Spilornis cheela	(LC)	Cap. 586					ü
Eurasian Hobby	Falco subbuteo	(LC)	Cap. 586					ü
Greater Spotted Eagle	Clanga clanga	GC	Cap. 586	VU				ü
Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus	LC	Cap. 586					ü
Black-headed Gull	Chroicocephalus ridibundus	PRC			ü
Japanese Quail	Coturnix japonica	LC						ü
Baillon’s Crake	Porzana pusilla	LC						ü
Watercock	Gallicrex cinerea	RC						ü
Pheasant-tailed Jacana	Hydrophasianus chirurgus	LC						ü
Greater Painted-snipe	Rostratula benghalensis	LC						ü
Black-winged Stilt	Himantopus himantopus	RC					ü	ü
Pied Avocet	Recurvirostra avosetta	RC						ü
Oriental Pratincole	Glareola maldivarum	LC			ü			ü
Pacific Golden Plover	Pluvialis fulva	LC						ü
Kentish Plover	Charadrius alexandrinus	RC						ü
Spotted Redshank	Tringa erythropus	RC						ü
Common Redshank	Tringa totanus	RC						ü
Common Greenshank	Tringa nebularia	RC						ü
Wood Sandpiper	Tringa glareola	LC						ü
Marsh Sandpiper	Tringa stagnatilis	RC					ü
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper	Calidris acuminata	LC						ü
Pintail/Swinhoe's Snipe*	Gallinago stenura/G. megala	LC*						ü
Temminck's Stint	Calidris temminckii	LC						ü
Greater Coucal	Centropus sinensis	RC	CRDB (Vu)				ü
Eurasian Eagle Owl	Bubo bubo	RC						ü
Pacific Swift	Apus pacificus	(LC)			ü			ü
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	(LC)			ü			ü
White-throated Kingfisher	Halcyon smyrnensis	(LC)			ü	ü		ü
Red-throated Pipit	Anthus cervinus	LC					ü
Buff-bellied Pipit	Anthus rubescens	LC						ü
Pallas's Grasshopper Warbler	Locustella certhiola	LC						ü
Thick-billed Warbler	Acrocephalus aedon	LC						ü
Zitting Cisticola	Cisticola juncidis	LC			ü	ü	ü	ü
Chinese Penduline-Tit	Remiz consobrinus	RC						ü
White-cheeked Starling	Spodiopsar cineraceus	PRC				ü		ü
Red-billed Starling	Spodiopsar sericeus	GC			ü	ü	ü	ü
White-shouldered Starling	Sturnia sinensis	(LC)			ü	ü	ü	ü
Black-napped Oriole	Oriolus chinensis	LC						ü
Grey Bush Chat	Saxicola ferreus	LC				ü
Collared Crow	Corvus torquatus	LC		NT	ü		ü	ü

Notes for Table 7.3:
(1) Level of Concern refers to Fellowes et al., 2002 – LC = Local Concern, RC = Regional Concern, PRC =

Potential Regional Concern, PGC = Potential Global Concern, GC = Global Concern, Letter in parentheses

indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.
* Species generally inseparable in field. Conservation status assessment refers to Swinhoe’s Snipe G. megala

(2) Protection Status refers to Zheng & Weng, 1998 & State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture, 1988
Cap.586 – Listed in the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance;

Class (II) – Listed as Class II Protected under the Wild Animals Under State Protection;

CRDB – China Red Data Book: E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare, I = Intermediate

(3) IUCN Status refers to IUCN, 2017: NT= Near Threatened; VU=Vulnerable; EN = Endangered

7.4.5 Mammal

In Hong Kong, large mammals inhabit in areas with low anthropogenic activities with good vegetation coverage. The Project site is within the construction site of existing WSW development. The Study Area is dominated by developed / disturbed area with low vegetation coverage and with high level of human activities. The residential villages, major roads and highways are not natural habitat for large mammals. Therefore, the Project site and Study Area are deemed not a favorable environment for large mammals.

7.4.5.1 Literature Review

Non-flying terrestrial mammals

The records of non-flying terrestrial mammals of Hong Kong included in Shek (2006) and Shek et al. (2007) have been reviewed. However, no specific record within the Study Area was found.

Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus is recorded in the Study Area during field surveys for WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008) and WSW development EM&A (MMHK, 2014). This species is likely an introduced species to Hong Kong and found abundant in the Deep Bay Area (Shek 2006). Four small mammal species were recorded by trapping in the Project site during WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008), including Musk Shrew Suncus murinus, House Mouse Mus musculus, Ryukyu Mouse Mus caroli and Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus. All species are common and widespread in Hong Kong in anthropogenic habitats, except for Ryukyu Mouse.

In the ecological field survey for WSW development EM&A, a Ryukyu Mouse Mus caroli was found during the field survey in November 2012 (MMHK, 2014). Ryukyu Mouse has a restricted distribution in Hong Kong but has previously been recorded from nearby Mai Po Nature Reserve (Shek 2006).

A Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis was recorded by the WSW development EM&A (MMHK, 2014) in fishpond habitat outside the Project site but within the Study Area. Though listed as vulnerable in the China Red Databook, this species is found widely distributed in countryside areas throughout Hong Kong.

Bats

In the course of field surveys for WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008) and WSW development EM&A (MMHK, 2013-2016), one bat species, Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus was observed within its study area and within the WRA respectively. This species is very common in wetland areas throughout Hong Kong. The Project site is currently an open construction site which is not suitable roosting habitat for bats, although Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus and Short-nosed Fruit Bat Cynopterus sphinx are known to roost at Mai Po village and Palm Springs in the Study Area. These two species were also recorded in baseline surveys conducted for the XRL EIA Study (AECOM, 2009). Shek (2006) recorded a Lesser Yellow Bat Scotophilus kuhlii nearby and this species may also forage over wetlands in the Study Area.

In the ecological monitoring for WSW development EM&A from November 2012 to April 2013 (MMHK, 2014), and May 2014 to October 2014 (MMHK, 2015), Japanese Pipistrelle and an indetermined bat species were recorded in WRA within the Study Area.

The list of mammal species recorded in different habitats is provided in Appendix 7.3.

7.4.6 Amphibian and Reptile

The Project site is currently a construction site with no vegetation and heavily disturbed by human activities. Therefore, the Project site is deemed not a favorable environment for amphibian and reptile.

7.4.6.1 Literature Review

During the course of field surveys of WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008), five amphibians and three reptiles were recorded within its study area. All these eight herpetofauna species are common and widespread in Hong Kong which are not species of conservation interest. These species included Asian Common Toad Bufo melanostictus, Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus, Günther’s Frog Rana guentheri, Paddy Frog Fejervarya limnocharis, Ornate Pigmy Frog Microhyla ornate, Chinese Striped Terrapin Ocadia sinensis, Checkered Keelback Xenochrophis piscator and Long-tailed Skink Mabuya longicaudata.

Seven common species were recorded in the XRL EIA (AECOM, 2009). All are common and widespread in Hong Kong.

In the WSW Biannual EM&A from November 2013 to April 2014 (MMHK, 2015), Chinese Bullfrog Hoplobatrachus chinensis, a species considered as of local concern by Fellowes et al. (2002), was recorded in WRA. A single record of Chinese Soft-shelled Turtle Pelodiscus sinensis was also recorded in the WRA in 2013 (MMHK, 2013-2016). This species is considered as of global concern (Fellowes et al., 2002) and found rare and localized in reservoirs and fishpond habitats in Deep Bay Area.

The list of amphibians and reptile species recorded in different habitats is provided in Appendix 7.4.

7.4.7 Butterfly

The habitat within the Project site is a developed / disturbed area with no vegetation and heavily disturbed by human activities. This habitat generally supports low diversity of butterfly community in Hong Kong. In addition, no over-wintering hotspot has been identified in the Northeast New Territories (Wong et al., 2004).

7.4.7.1 Literature Review

During the field survey for the WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008), a total of 21 butterfly species was recorded within its study area. An uncommon species Danaid Egg-fly Hypolimnas misippus was recorded in the wetland habitat previously exist in the Project site and in agricultural land within the Study Area. This species is listed as of local concern (Fellowes et al. 2002). The wetland habitat no longer exists in the current Project site as it has been converted into developed / disturbed area.

In the WSW Biannual EM&A from November 2012 to October 2015 (MMHK, 2013-2016), all recorded species are common in Hong Kong.

A list of butterfly species recorded in different habitat within the Study Area is provided in Appendix 7.5.

7.4.8 Dragonfly

7.4.8.1 Literature Review

WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008) reported a total of 19 dragonfly species in its study area. All are common and widespread species in Hong Kong. Scarlet Basker Urothemis signata is considered as of Local Concern by Fellowes et al. (2002), but has increased considerably in recent years and is now widespread in overgrown fishponds in the Deep Bay area (Wilson, 2004). The same species has also been recorded in the XRL EIA study in the grassland habitat in the Project Site, which is now converted into the Developed / Disturbed area.

In the WSW Biannual EM&A (MMHK, 2013-2016), Scarlet Basker Urothemis signata has been recorded in the WRA. Other than records of the above species of conservation interest, all recorded species were common in Hong Kong. No dragonfly species of conservation interest was recorded.

A list of dragonfly species recorded in different habitat within the Study Area the is provided in Appendix 7.6.

7.4.9 Freshwater fish and aquatic fauna

7.4.9.1 Literature Review

Referring to the WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008) and XRL EIA (AECOM, 2009), the water channels surrounding the Project site were found to be polluted due to runoff from adjacent residential areas, garages and open storages. However, the garages and open storages were no longer existed after the commencement of construction of the WSW development.

WSW development EIA (MMHK, 2008) reported a low diversity of five species of freshwater fish in the Project site and in the drainage channel by Palm Springs. The species community recorded is dominated by introduced species tolerant of highly disturbed habitats.

Four freshwater fish species were recorded in the water channel / ditch habitat near Mai Po Village in the XRL EIA (AECOM, 2009). All are common and introduced species.

WRA in WSW has been artificially stocked with a low diversity of freshwater fish to establish and maintain self-sustaining fish and shrimp communities within the restored wetland (MMHK, 2013-2016 & AEC, 2009). No species of conservation interest was recorded. Table 7.4 summarised the fish species recorded in major habitats within the Study Area.

Table 7.4: Summary Table for Fish Species Recorded in Major Habitats within Study Area

Common Name	Scientific Name	Distribution in Hong Kong¹	Level of Concern²	Wetlands existed in the Project Site³⁴⁵	Water channel / Ditch⁶	Wetland Restoration Area⁶
Tilapia sp.	Oreochromis sp.	Common	-	ü	ü
Redbelly Tilapia	Tilapia zillii	Common	-		ü
Snakehead Murrel	Channa striata	Uncommon but introduced	-	ü	ü
Swampy Eel	Monopterus albus	Common	-	ü
Catfish sp.	Clarius sp.	Common	-	ü	ü
Common Carp	Cyprinus carpio	Not common but cultivated	-		ü
Grass Carp	Ctenopharyn-godon idellus	-	-			ü
Edible Goldfish	Carassius auratus	Not common but cultivated	-		ü	ü
Mosquito Fish	Gambusia affinis	Common	-	ü	ü	ü

Notes for Table 7.4:
(1) Distribution in Hong Kong refers to AFCD. 2017.

(2) Level of Concern refers to Fellowes et al. 2002 - LC = Local Concern, RC = Regional Concern, PRC = Potential Regional Concern, PGC = Potential Global Concern, GC = Global Concern, Letter in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.

(3) Habitat no longer exists as these habitats are converted into developed / disturbed area within the construction site.

(4) Data based on WSW EIA report (MMHK, 2008).

(5) Data based on XRL EIA report (AECOM 2009).

(6) Data based on WSW Biannual EM&A (MMHK, 2013-2016).

7.5 Evaluation of Ecological Importance of Habitats and Species

Habitats identified within the Study Area were evaluated in accordance with the guidelines stipulated in Table (2) in Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM. Overall ecological values for each habitat type were ranked. Rankings start with the highest ecological value range from:

● High

● Moderate-high

● Moderate

● Moderate-low

● Low

● Very Low

7.5.1 Evaluation of Habitats

Ecological evaluation of each habitat within the Study Area (including Project site) is presented in Table 7.5 to Table 7.12.

Table 7.5: Ecological Evaluation of Wetland Restoration Area

Criteria	Wetland Restoration Area
Naturalness	Artificial habitat created for wetland restoration
Size	Approx. 4.74ha in total
Diversity	Moderate plant species diversity but they are artificially planted; Moderate diversity for wetland fauna species
Rarity	Artificial wetland is common
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological linkage	Ecologically linked to surrounding fishponds
Potential value	Potential for further enhancement under active management
Nursery/ breeding ground	Breeding ground for wetland dependent birds, e.g. Little Ringed Plover, but not a significant breeding ground in general
Age	Around 5 years
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Moderate in bird abundance; Low in other terrestrial fauna
Ecological value	Moderate-high to Moderate

Table 7.6: Ecological Evaluation of Fishpond

Criteria	Fishpond
Naturalness	Artificial habitat created for cultivation of fish species, moderately disturbed by regular human activities related to fish farming
Size	Approx. 49.85ha in total
Diversity	Low plant species diversity due to regular disturbance Moderate to high faunal diversity
Rarity	Fishpond habitats are common in the northwest New Territories
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological linkage	Ecologically linked to adjacent wetlands throughout the Deep Bay area
Potential value	High potential for enhancement with a suitable management regime
Nursery/ breeding ground	Not a significant breeding ground
Age	Over 35 years
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Abundant and diverse wetland community, especially for birds
Ecological value	Moderate-high

Table 7.7: Ecological Evaluation of Abandoned Fishpond

Criteria	Abandoned Fishpond
Naturalness	Originally created for aquaculture, but have been abandoned for a number of years and have undergone succession.
Size	Approx. 12.14ha in total
Diversity	Low in flora diversity and moderate in fauna species diversity
Rarity	A common habitat in Hong Kong.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological linkage	The abandoned fishponds within WCA have significant linkage with adjacent reedbed habitat and fish pond system in the Deep Bay Area and provide an important foraging and resting areas for the waterbirds. Other ponds showed some ecological linkage with adjacent fishponds and agricultural lands
Potential value	Fishponds within the WCA has high ecological potential if properly managed
Nursery/ breeding ground	No significant nursery or breeding ground known
Age	Over 35 years, abandoned probably fairly recently (15-20 years)
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	High in bird diversity and abundance; low abundance in other faunal groups in general
Ecological value	Moderate-high

Table 7.8: Ecological Evaluation of Drainage Channel/Ditch

Criteria	Drainage Channel/Ditch
Naturalness	Man-made drainage ditches and water channels, including concrete-lined channels.
Size	Approx. 4.44ha in total
Diversity	Moderate-low flora and fauna diversity
Rarity	A common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Generally not fragmented
Ecological linkage	Connected with abutting wetland habitats with interflow of wetland species
Potential value	The habitat value could be enhanced through implementation of green channel enhancement measures
Nursery/ breeding ground	Breeding ground for common amphibian and dragonfly species.
Age	Over 35 years, more recent at the sections modified for residential developments.
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Moderate abundance of common dragonfly species; wider channel section can be used by wetland birds
Ecological value	Moderate-low

Table 7.9: Ecological Evaluation of Marsh/Reedbed

Criteria	Marsh/Reedbed
Naturalness	Derived from natural succession in wetland habitats (fishponds and drainage channels)
Size	Approx. 4.22ha in Study Area
Diversity	Low plant species diversity and moderate-low faunal species diversity
Rarity	Similar areas of marsh are fairly common in the Deep Bay area
Re-creatability	Easily re-creatable where hydrological conditions are suitable
Fragmentation	Isolated patches with different conditions
Ecological linkage	Ecologically linked to nearby fishponds
Potential value	Could be improved by appropriate management, although the small size of the habitat patches limits the potential value
Nursery/ breeding ground	Not a significant breeding ground within the Study Area
Age	Fairly recently developed from other wetland habitats
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Moderate-low abundance of wildlife
Ecological value	Moderate-low

Table 7.10: Ecological Evaluation of Secondary Woodland

Criteria	Secondary Woodland
Naturalness	Natural habitat
Size	Approx. 0.55ha in Study Area
Diversity	Low plant and fauna species diversity
Rarity	Common habitat
Re-creatability	Moderate-low; 30-50 years to re-create
Fragmentation	Moderate; this habitat is fragmented by highways and other village development
Ecological linkage	Ecologically linked with adjacent wetland habitat through the ardeid’s breeding activities, if presence
Potential value	Moderate-high value could be enhanced by suitable management
Nursery/ breeding ground	An active egretry was recorded from this habitat
Age	Most secondary woodland was established since 1945.
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low in general, but high when it was used as egretry.
Ecological value	Moderate; high if in presence of active egretry

Table 7.11: Ecological Evaluation of Plantation

Criteria	Plantation
Naturalness	Man-made habitat
Size	Approx. 8.11ha in Study Area
Diversity	Low species diversity
Rarity	Common habitat
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	These habitats are patchily created and fragmented by urban land uses
Ecological linkage	Low ecological linkage
Potential value	Low potential value at lowland areas in the vicinity of developed/disturbed area as the habitat is being maintained for landscape purpose
Nursery/ breeding ground	Not significant nursery/breeding ground
Age	10 to 20 years
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low
Ecological value	Low

Table 7.12: Ecological Evaluation of Developed / Disturbed Area

Criteria	Developed/Disturbed Area within Project Site	Other Developed/Disturbed Area
Naturalness	Wholly man-made habitat	Wholly man-made habitat
Size	Approx. 16.00ha	Approx. 95.40ha in total
Diversity	Low in both fauna and flora species diversity	Low in both fauna and flora species diversity
Rarity	Common habitat	Common habitat
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	N/A	N/A
Ecological linkage	Habitat is not functionally linked to any high ecological value resources; no ecological linkage with the WRA	Habitat is not structurally or functionally linked to any high ecological value resources
Potential value	Currently a construction site, very low potential value due to high disturbance	Very low potential value due to high disturbance by human activities
Nursery/ breeding ground	Not nursery/breeding ground	Not nursery/breeding ground
Age	7 years	20-30 years
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Very Low	Low
Ecological value	Very Low	Low

7.5.2 Evaluation of Species of Conservation Interest

The species of conservation interest recorded were listed and tabulated in accordance with the criteria stated in Table (3) in Annex 8 in EIAO-TM. Evaluations of fauna species of conservation interest recorded within Study Area (including Project site) from literature review are presented in Table 7.13.

Table 7.13: Ecological Evaluation of Fauna Species of Conservation Interest recorded within the Study Area from Literature Review

Common Name	Scientific Name	Location	Source of information ⁽¹⁾	Conservation & Protection Status ⁽²⁾	Distribution⁽³⁾	Rarity⁽⁴⁾
Avifauna
Little Grebe	Tachybaptus ruficollis	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A,B,C,D	● LC	Widespread in ponds and pools	Present all year
Black-crowned Night Heron	Nycticorax nycticorax	Fishpond area, WRA, drainage channels/ ditches	A, B, C, D	● (LC)	Widespread	Common resident and migrant
Chinese Pond Heron	Ardeola bacchus	Grassland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA, drainage channels/ ditches	A, B, C, D	● PRC(RC)	Widespread	Common resident, winter visitor and migrant
Grey Heron	Ardea cinerea	Grassland and wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA, drainage channel/ ditches	A, B, C, D	● PRC	Widespread	Abundant winter visitor and scarce in summer
Striated Heron	Butorides striata	Fishpond area	A, D	● (LC)	Widespread	Uncommon resident
Purple Heron	Ardea purpurea	WRA	D	● RC	Deep Bay Area	Uncommon passage migrant
Great Egret	Ardea alba	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA, drainage channel /ditches	A, B, C, D	● PRC (RC)	Mainly in wetland, Deep Bay area	Abundant and present all year, migrants and winter visitors
Intermediate Egret	Egretta intermedia	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, C, D	● RC	Mainly in freshwater wetlands in the Deep Bay area	Uncommon, present all year, rather few in summer
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	Wetland and grassland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, drainage channel, WRA	A, B, C, D	● PRC (RC)	Widespread	Abundant and present all year
Eastern Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	Wetland and grassland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, B, C, D	● (LC)	Widespread	Common resident and migrant
Great Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, B, C, D	● PRC	Ponds and inshore waters, mainly in the Deep Bay area	Abundant winter visitor
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Fishpond area, WRA	A, B, C, D	● Cap. 586 ● (RC) ● Class (II)	Widespread	Abundant and present all year
Whiskered Tern	Chlidonias hybrida	Fishpond area, WRA	D	● LC	Deep Bay Area and coastal waters	Uncommon passage migrants
White-winged Tern	Chlidonias leucopterus	Fishpond area	D	● LC	Deep Bay Area and coastal waters	Uncommon passage migrants
White-throated Kingfisher	Halcyon smyrnensis	Wetland existed with the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA, drainage channel/ ditches	A, B, D	● (LC)	Widely distributed in coastal areas	Common and present all year
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	Wetland existed with the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, D	● (LC)	Fishpond and other wetland areas, especially Deep Bay	Common resident
Collared Crow	Corvus torquatus	Wetland existed with the Project site^, fishpond area	A, C, D	● LC ● IUCN (NT)	Mainly in coastal areas	Locally common resident
Black-faced Spoonbill	Platalea minor	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA, drainage channels/ ditches	A, B, C, D	● PGC	Deep Bay wetland areas	Common winter visitor and regular summer records
Northern Pintail	Anas acuta	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area	A	● RC	Deep Bay area	Abundant winter visitor
Common Teal	Anas crecca	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, drainage channels / ditches	A	● RC	Primarily in the Deep Bay area	Abundant but declining winter visitor and occasional summer records
Eurasian Wigeon	Anas penelope	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, B, D	● RC	Deep Bay wetland areas	Abundant winter visitor
Osprey	Pandion haliaetus	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fish pond area	A, B, D	● RC	Wetland areas, mostly Deep Bay	Common winter visitor, with a few individuals over-summering
Tufted Duck	Aythya fuligula	WRA	D	● LC	Deep Bay area	Uncommon winter visitor
Northern Shoveler	Anas clypeata	WRA	D	● RC	Deep Bay area	Abundant winter visitor
Black-headed Gull	Larus ridibundus	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area	A	● PRC	Deep Bay and coastal waters	Abundant winter visitor
Yellow Bittern	Ixobrychus sinensis	Fishpond area, WRA	C, D	● (LC)	Mainly in Deep Bay reed marsh and mangrove	Common passage migrant in spring to summer with scarce winter record
Cinnamon Bittern	Ixobrychus cinnamomeus	WRA	D	● LC	Freshwater wetland areas	Uncommon passage migrant and scarce summer visitor with occasional winter records
White-bellied Sea Eagle	Haliaeetus leucogaster	Fishpond area	A	● (RC) ● Cap. 586	Coastal areas	Uncommon resident
Black-winged Kite	Elanus caeruleus	WRA	D	● LC	Open country	Uncommon visitor throughout the year
Crested Serpent Eagle	Spilornis cheela	WRA	D	● Cap. 586 ● (LC) ● CRDB (V) ● Class (II)	Widespread	Locally common, present all year and probably largely resident in woodland
Eurasian Hobby	Falco subbuteo	WRA	D	● (LC)	Open country areas	Uncommon autumn passage migrant, scarce in spring and summer
Greater Spotted Eagle	Clanga clanga	WRA	D	● GC	Largely confined to the Deep Bay area	Locally common winter visitor
Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus	Fishpond area, WRA	D	● LC	Widespread	Scarce resident and winter visitor
Eastern Imperial Eagle	Aquila heliaca	WRA	D	● GC ● Cap. 586 ● IUCN: Vu ● CRDB: Vu	Deep Bay, Ma Tso Lung	Common winter visitor
Japanese Quail	Coturnix japonica	WRA	D	● LC	Open country, often agricultural areas	Uncommon autumn passage migrant and rare winter visitor
Baillon’s Crake	Porzana pusilla	WRA	D	● LC	Marshland	Scarce passage migrant
Watercock	Gallicrex cinerea	WRA	D	● RC	Freshwater wetlands	Scarce passage migrant
Pheasant-tailed Jacana	Hydrophasianus chirurgus	WRA	D	● LC	Freshwater marsh	Uncommon migrant and rare winter visitor
Greater Painted-snipe	Rostratula benghalensis	WRA	D	● LC	Freshwater marsh and wet agricultural areas	Locally common resident breeding species
Black-winged Stilt	Himantopus himantopus	Fishpond area, WRA	C, D	● RC	Wetland areas and often freshwater	Common winter visitor and migrant
Pied Avocet	Recurvirostra avosetta	Fishpond Area, WRA	D	● RC	Deep Bay area, primarily intertidal areas	Abundant winter visitor
Oriental Pratincole	Glareola maldivarum	Grassland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area	A, D	● LC	Lowland areas of NT	Passage migrant, common in spring and uncommon in autumn
Pacific Golden Plover	Pluvialis fulva	WRA	D	● LC	Deep Bay, coastal and agricultural areas	Winter visitor
Kentish Plover	Charadrius alexandrinus	WRA	D	● RC	Deep Bay intertidal areas	Abundant winter visitor and scarce migrant with some summer records
Little Ringed Plover	Charadrius dubius	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, B, D	● (LC)	Lowland areas near water	Common and present all year
Spotted Redshank	Tringa erythropus	WRA	D	● RC	Mainly the Deep Bay area	Common spring passage migrant, less common in autumn and winter
Common Redshank	Tringa totanus	WRA	D	● RC	Deep Bay intertidal areas	Abundant passage migrant and winter visitor
Common Greenshank	Tringa nebularia	WRA	D	● RC	Mainly the Deep Bay area	Abundant winter visitor and migrant mainly in spring
Wood Sandpiper	Tringa glareola	Fishpond area, WRA	D	● LC	Freshwater marshy areas	Common migrant and winter visitor
Marsh Sandpiper	Tringa stagnatilis	Fishpond area	C	● RC	Freshwater marshy areas	Common winter visitor and passage migrant
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper	Calidris acuminata	Fishpond area	D	● LC	Freshwater marshy areas	Common passage migrant
Pintail/ Swinhoe's Snipe*	Gallinago stenura / G. megala	WRA	D	● LC*	Freshwater marsh, wet agricultural areas and fish ponds	Common/scarce passage migrant, with highest numbers in autumn, scarce in winter
Temminck's Stint	Calidris temminckii	WRA	D	● LC	Mainly the Deep Bay area	Common winter visitor and migrant
Greater Coucal	Centropus sinensis	Wetland existed within the Project site^, fishpond area	C	● CRDB: Vu	Widely distributed	Common resident
Eurasian Eagle Owl	Bubo bubo	WRA	D	● RC	Remote areas of hill slope grassland	Scarce and locally-distributed resident
Pacific Swift	Apus pacificus	Grassland and wetland existed with the Project site^, WRA, drainage channel, developed / disturbed area	A, D	● (LC)	Mainly the Deep Bay area and islands	Common spring passage migrant and summer visitor, some autumn, and a few winter records.
Red-throated Pipit	Anthus cervinus	Fishpond area	C	● LC	Lowlands, usually in wet areas	Common passage migrant and winter visitor
Buff-bellied Pipit	Anthus rubescens	WRA	D	● LC	Lowland wetland areas	Uncommon passage migrant and winter visitor
Pallas's Grasshopper Warbler	Locustella certhiola	WRA	D	● LC	Damp grassland and reed marsh areas, though occasionally found in urban parks and other open areas on migration	Common autumn passage migrant, scarce in spring and winter
Thick-billed Warbler	Acrocephalus aedon	WRA	D	● LC	Shrubland and reed marsh edge	Scarce autumn migrant
Zitting Cisticola	Cisticola juncidis	Grassland exited within the Project site^, WRA, fishpond area, drainage channel	A, B, C, D	● LC	Grassy and reed marsh areas	Common passage migrant and winter visitor
Chinese Penduline-Tit	Remiz consobrinus	WRA	D	● RC	Reed marshes, mostly in the Deep Bay area	Common autumn migrant and winter visitor
White-cheeked Starling	Spodiopsar cineraceus	WRA	B, D	● PRC	Open-country areas, particularly Deep Bay	Locally common winter visitor
White-shouldered Starling	Sturnia sinensis	Wetland and grassland existed with the Project site^, fishpond area, WRA	A, B, C, D	● (LC)	Open-country and village edge habitats mainly in the northwest New Territories	Locally common passage migrant and breeding species, and uncommon winter visitor
Red-billed Starling	Spodiopsar sericeus	WRA	A, B, C, D	● GC	Widely distributed	Common winter visitor
Grey Bush Chat	Saxicola ferreus	Grassland existed within the Project site^	B	● LC	Open cultivated fields	Scarce passage migrant and winter visitor
Black-naped Oriole	Oriolus chinensis	WRA	D	● LC	Open woodland areas	Passage migrant, common in autumn and scarce in spring
Mammals
Small Asian Mongoose	Herpestes javanicus	WRA	D	● Cap.170	Fairly widespread	Uncommon
Japanese Pipistrelle	Pipistrellus abramus	Wetland existed within the Project site^, WRA	A, D	● (LC) ● Cap. 170	Widely distributed	Very common
Short-nosed Fruit Bat	Cynopterus sphinx	Wetland existed within the Project site^	A, B	● Cap. 170	Widely distributed	Very common
Indetermined Species of Bat	-	WRA	D	● Cap. 170	-	-
Leopard Cat	Prionailurus bengalensis	Fishpond area	D	● Cap. 170 ● CDRB (Vu)	Widely distributed	Uncommon
Herpetofauna
Chinese Bullfrog	Hoplobatrachus chinensis	WRA	D	● PRC ● Class (II)	Widespread in New Territories and Lantau Island	Fairly common
Chinese Soft-shelled Turtle	Pelodiscus sinensis	WRA	D	● GC ● Cap. 170 ● IUCN: Vu ● CRDB: Vu	Reservoirs and Fishpond in Deep Bay Area	-
Butterfly
Danaid Egg-fly	Hypolimnas misippus	Wetland existed within the Project site^	A	● LC	Common in areas with abandoned fish ponds	Common
Dragonfly
Scarlet Basker	Urothemis signata	Water channel/ ditches, WRA	A, B, D	● LC	Common in areas with abandoned fish ponds	Common

Notes:

(1) Source of information refers to A = WSW EIA; B = XRL EIA; C = XRL EM&A; D = WSW Biannual EM&A

(2) Abbreviations for Protection and Conservation Status:

Cap. 170 – Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance;

Cap. 586 – Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance;

Level of Concern refers to Fellowes et al., 2002: LC = Local Concern, RC = Regional Concern, PRC = Potential Regional Concern, PGC = Potential Global Concern, GC = Global Concern. Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence;

IUCN – IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2016.3); EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened;

CRDB refers to Zheng & Wang 1998, Zhao 1998; E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare, I = Indeterminate;

CSMPS refers to State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture, 1988; CSMPS (II) = Class II Protected Species

(3) & (4) Distribution and Rarity refers to: Avifauna: AFCD, 2017; Allcock et al., 2013; Mammal: Bats – Shek and Chan, 2006; Non-flying mammals – Shek et al., 2007; Amphibian: Chan et al., 2005; Butterfly: AFCD, 2017

* Species generally inseparable in field. Conservation status assessment refers to Swinhoe’s Snipe G. megala

^ Habitat no longer exists as these habitats are converted into Developed / Disturbed Habitat within the construction site.

7.6 Identification and Evaluation of Ecological Impacts

This section identifies and evaluates the potential ecological impacts on habitats and species, caused by the proposed works during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. It is worth noting that the works for the STP will be undertaken within the existing WSW development works site, which is no longer a natural habitat.

The major construction elements will include site formation, basement excavation, foundation works, superstructure construction and laying of associated piping network inside the existing construction site for WSW development within the Project site. Construction of the Project is targeted to commence in Q3 2018 and complete by 2021 in time for occupation of the WSW development. Construction method and programme of the Project is described in Chapter 2. The Project will be decommissioned once the planned public sewer on Castle Peak Road is available while the structure of the STP and its associated infrastructure will only cease operation but not be demolished.

The water quality impact due to operation of the onsite STP including onsite reuse of reclaimed water, discharge of reclaimed water and emergency discharge of sewage from the onsite STP has been assessed in Chapter 5 which identified no adverse impact on water quality.

The potential impacts described below were evaluated in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM and technical requirements given in Appendix F of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-289/2015.

7.6.1 Construction and Decommissioning Phases

The Project site is confined to the existing construction site boundary of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai. Construction for the residential part and STP will be conducted simultaneously, thus the project site is currently a works area with daily construction activities. The mitigation measures provided for the residential portion of the development such as noise and visual mitigation could also help mitigate impact due to this Project.

7.6.1.1 Direct Ecological Impacts on Habitat due to the Project

Since the Project site is confined to the existing construction site boundary with daily construction activities and no natural habitat remains, no primary direct impact, in terms of additional habitat loss is anticipated due to the Project.

In decommissioning phase, the infrastructure installed for STP will be ceased but not demolished, thus the associated ecological impact is negligible.

7.6.1.2 Direct Ecological Impact on Species of Conservation Interest due to the Project

Twenty-five bird species, one mammal species, one butterfly species and one dragonfly species of conservation interest were recorded within the Project site in the WSW development EIA, XRL EIA, XRL EM&A programme and biannual EM&A report for WSW. Due to the current residential development in WSW, the grassland and wetland habitats previously exist in the Project site have already been converted into developed / disturbed area, and thus no primary direct impact to the species of conservation interest associated with the above habitats is anticipated due to this Project.

7.6.1.3 Indirect Ecological Impacts to Offsite Habitat

Given the limited ecological resources in the developed / disturbed area habitat, the potential direct and indirect ecological impacts due to disturbance from human activities, traffic noise and operating machinery during the construction and decommissioning phases of the Project are considered to be minor. It is noted that the construction activities for the STP is minor, thus the potential impact on noise and air quality is controllable, especially with various noise barrier and site hoarding currently in place for the WSW development which have minimized the impact to adjacent environment. The predicted indirect ecological impacts due to aboveground works proposed under the Project to the adjacent wetland habitats during the construction and decommissioning phases are elaborated below.

Wetland Habitats in Inner Deep Bay area

Wetland habitats in Inner Deep Bay area are considered as of conservation interest. The wetland habitat outside the Project site comprises of a number of fish ponds and water channel/ditch. With adequate separations from the Project boundary to the nearby offsite wetland habitats and Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site as well as implementation of good site practices outlined in ProPECC Note PN1/94 to minimise site surface runoff from construction works areas, and to control the dispersion of sediments and contaminants to inland waters (as mentioned in Section 5.6), disturbance to offsite wetland habitats is considered as negligible. Furthermore, the concern on ground water drain down is also negligible as the excavation works for the basement is relatively minor.

Wetland Restoration Area (WRA) within the Study Area

WRA within the WSW development outside the Project site is considered as habitats with conservation interest referring to Section 2(v)(b) of Appendix F of the EIA Study Brief. The WRA is linked to the surrounding wetland habitat. As the construction work is relatively small in scale, with implementation of good site practices outlined in ProPECC Note PN1/94 to minimise site surface runoff from construction works areas and to control the dispersion of sediments and contaminants to inland waters (as mentioned in Section 5.6), disturbance to offsite wetland habitats is considered as negligible (as summarised in Table 7.14). It is noted that mitigation measures have been implemented for the current construction activities for the WSW development with no adverse impact shown to the WRA, which suggested that the mitigation measures implementing are effective with no adverse indirect impact to the WRA.

Potential changes in water quality as a result of surface runoff are taken into account for identification of any potential indirect ecological impacts, as specified in Section 2(vi)(a) of Appendix F of the EIA Study Brief. As no adverse water quality impacts are anticipated with the adoption of good site practices, the potential indirect ecological impacts as a result of construction activities from the construction works area is also considered negligible (as summarised in Table 7.14).

Table 7.14: Evaluation of Indirect Ecological Impact on Habitats

Criteria	Indirect Impact on Wetland Habitats in Deep Bay Area	Indirect Impact on WRA
Habitat quality	Moderate low to moderate high	WRA is well managed for ecological enhancement. It supported moderate wetland associated fauna and plant species diversity.
Species	These habitats supported considerable amount of migratory birds population as well as several internationally protected bird species. Mainly riparian vegetation, flora and fauna species, wetland-dependent birds, dragonfly and amphibian species.	Constant record of protected target species of conservation interest. Mainly riparian vegetation, flora and fauna species, wetland-dependent bird, dragonfly and amphibian species
Size / Abundance	This area accounts for 62.83 ha within the Study Area. The general species diversity in this habitat is moderate to high.	This area is of 4.74 ha. It supported a high diversity of wetland associated bird with 127 species recorded since completion of site formation, of which 85 of them are species of conservation interest (MMHK, 2013-2016), but the quantity is relatively low compared to the Deep Bay population.
Duration	Disturbance to these wetlands is expected only during construction phase if without mitigation in place.	Disturbance to the WRA is expected only during construction phase if without mitigation in place.
Reversibility	Construction phase disturbance would be reversible.	Construction phase disturbance would be reversible.
Magnitude	Scale of disturbance impacts is potentially small due to the existing mitigation measures at the construction site to contain water and sediment within the site for removal. And various noise barrier and site hoarding currently in place also help minimize the noise impact to adjacent habitat.	Scale of disturbance impacts is potentially small due to the existing mitigation measures at the construction site to contain water and sediment within the site for removal. And various noise barrier and site hoarding currently in place also help minimize the noise impact to adjacent habitat.
Overall Impact Evaluation	Minor No adverse ecological impact is predicted.	Minor No adverse ecological impact is predicted.

Egretries

Two Egretries are located near the Project site. It is noted that construction activities are being undertaken for the WSW development. There was no sign of disturbance to the breeding activities of the ardeids during the WSW development and the XRL construction activities. Thus, the minor construction works for the STP which is taken place in the Project site as part of the WSW development will unlikely cause additional disturbance impact to the egretries. The impact evaluation is presented in Table 7.15.

Table 7.15: Evaluation of Indirect Ecological Impact on Egretries

Criteria	Disturbance Impact on Egretries
Habitat quality	Two active egretries located at Mai Po Village and Mai Po Lung Village provided breeding ground for ardeids during the breeding season.
Species	Two ardeid species of conservation interest Little Egret Egretta garzetta and Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus nest and breed in the egretries.
Size / Abundance	Breeding colonies in the two egretries are representative during the breeding season.
Duration	Limited to the breeding season (April to July) or the active egretries.
Reversibility	Construction phase disturbance would be short term and reversible.
Magnitude	Minimal
Overall Impact Evaluation	Minor given the far distance from the egretries and the Project site is currently a construction site not suitable for ardeids use.

7.6.1.4 Indirect Ecological Impacts to Fauna Species of Conservation Interest

Species of Conservation Interest in Study Area

Within the Study Area, a total of 67 bird species, five mammal species, two herpetofauna species, one butterfly species and one dragonfly species of conservation interest were previously recorded (as summarised in Table 7.13). A number of the fauna species of conservation interest was recorded in the WRA and fishpond habitats. These fauna species are potentially impacted by disturbance during the construction phase without mitigation measures. In addition to good site practices and implementation of mitigation measures, precautionary measures for various environmental aspects in general, such as dust control, selection of quieter plant, use of movable noise barrier, in combination of the waste management and water quality monitoring programme, have been proposed in relevant chapters. Given the relative minor scale of the construction works in developed / disturbed area, the associated disturbance impact to fauna species of conservation interest is minor. The impact evaluation is presented in Table 7.16.

Table 7.16: Evaluation of Indirect Ecological Impact on Fauna Species of Conservation Interest

Criteria	Disturbance Impact on Fauna Species of Conservation Interest
Habitat quality	Qualities of habitats where fauna species of conservation interest recorded ranged from low to moderate-high
Species	67 bird species, five mammal species, one amphibian species, one reptile species, one butterfly species, one dragonfly species of conservation interest recorded within the Study Area.
Abundance	Numbers of most species present in the Project site are relatively low in comparison to Deep Bay populations.
Duration	Construction phase
Reversibility	Potential disturbance impact is short term and reversible.
Magnitude	Minor for the species of conservation interest within the Project site and minor magnitude of off-site disturbance impact on fauna species within the Study Area.
Overall Impact Severity	Minor impact on the fauna species of conservation interest.

7.6.2 Operation Phase

The operation of the Project may impose potential indirect impact of air quality or noise due to the STP and sludge generated, and fixed plant noise from the operation of the STP. However, the interim on-site STP and associated treated effluent reuse facility are designed to be enclosed, small scaled and primarily located underground. Odour will be removed before emitting into open air by the high efficiency deodorizer with a forced ventilation system. There would be insignificant odour impacts anticipated and no other emissions during the operation phase of the Project would be anticipated. For fixed plant noise impact during the operation phase, with the proper design of the STP and implementation of the recommended noise mitigation measures including the control of maximum allowable sound power levels at source by installation of silencer, the potential noise impacts will be insignificant. Since the Project site is relatively low in ecological value and the above ground STP building would be well separated from the WRA and other wetland habitats to the north by the future residential houses under the WSW Development, the disturbance impact due to noise and odour emission is anticipated to be negligible in operation phase. The impact evaluation is presented in Table 7.17.

Table 7.17: Evaluation of Disturbance Impact during Operation Phase

Criteria	Disturbance Impact during Operation Phase
Habitat quality	Qualities of habitats ranged from very low to moderate-high
Species	Flora and fauna species utilizing the habitats near the Project site
Abundance	Relatively low compared to Deep Bay Area
Duration	Throughout operation phase
Reversibility	Reversible
Magnitude	Minor, owing to relatively low abundance of fauna and adequate separation from the WRA and other wetland habitat; no unacceptable emission of air or noise.
Overall Impact Severity	Negligible

7.6.2.1 Indirect Impact due to treatment of sewage effluent to aquatic habitat

As described in Chapter 5 of this report, sewage generated by the WSW development is proposed to be handled by an STP until the government trunk sewer is available. reclaimed water from the onsite STP would be fully reused onsite. Contingency and emergency measures have been proposed to minimize the likelihood and frequency of excess reclaimed water and sewage from discharging into the Deep Bay Area (as mentioned in Section 5.6.2). With a comprehensive contingency program and careful implementation of the specifications stipulated by statutory standards (as mentioned in Section 5.5.2.5), no offsite discharge of effluent would be anticipated during the normal operation, the disturbance impact to identified offsite aquatic habitats within the Study Area is thus considered to be negligible. The impact evaluation is presented in Table 7.18.

Table 7.18: Evaluation of Indirect Ecological Impact to Aquatic Habitats during Operation Phase

Criteria	Indirect Ecological Impact to Aquatic Habitats during Operation Phase
Habitat quality	Qualities of aquatic habitats ranged from moderate-low to moderate-high
Species	The fauna species utilizing the adjacent aquatic habitat, including water channels and ditches.
Abundance	Low and dominated by common species tolerant of polluted conditions.
Duration	Throughout operation phase.
Reversibility	Reversible
Magnitude	Minor, owing to a comprehensive list of contingency programs to be imposed to avoid offsite discharge of effluent; no unacceptable discharge of effluent into the Deep Bay Water Control Zone is anticipated.
Overall Impact Severity	Negligible

7.6.3 Cumulative Impact

A total of two projects located within the Study Area of this Project is identified as concurrent projects. These projects include:

● Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long (WSW Development); and

● Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL).

It is noted that the extent of the construction works for the proposed Project represent a part of the WSW development, which is currently a construction site with very low ecological value. Given the small scale and localized nature of works, the cumulative impact on top of the concurrent projects is insignificant. The cumulative impact due to the XRL is insignificant as the whole project is targeted to complete in third quarter in 2018, whilst the relevant part of the work in Wo Sang Wai have been completed by the time this EIA report is prepared.

7.7 Precautionary and Mitigation Measures

7.7.1 Precautionary Measures for Minimization of Indirect Disturbance on Ecology

Mitigation measures for air quality, noise, water quality, waste and landscape aspects proposed in respective sections of this EIA Report could serve as precautionary measures to prevent and minimize any indirect disturbance impact on pollution arisen from the construction and decommissioning activities as well as operation of the STP and associated effluent reuse facility on the local ecology and offsite habitats. These measures include dust control measures, selection of quieter plants, use of movable noise barriers, good site practices for waste and wastewater handling, surface runoff control measures and landscape buffer planting etc., according to relevant sections of this EIA Report. No ecological specific mitigation measure is considered necessary.

The Project site is currently situated in the construction site for the WSW development. Some of the mitigation measures suggested above have been in place already and will continue to function for this EIA project also.

7.8 Evaluation of Residual Ecological Impact

The project would result in minor / negligible indirect impacts on nearby wetland habitats and associated fauna. As no significant ecological impact is identified for construction, operation and decommissioning phases, while no specific mitigation measure for ecology is required, significant residual impact is not anticipated.

7.9 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirements

No ecological specific mitigation measure is proposed but the mitigation measures for air, noise, water, waste and landscape aspects proposed in respective sections which are indirectly beneficial to the local ecology shall be checked as part of the environmental monitoring and audit procedures during construction period as presented in the standalone EM&A Manual. No specific ecological monitoring and audit programme is considered necessary.

7.10 Summary

The Project site is currently a construction site dominated by developed/disturbed area forming part of the WSW development. No flora and fauna species of conservation interest present in the Project site and the area is generally not ecologically significant owing to the developed/disturbed area nature in the Project site. Ecological impact to adjacent habitat due to air quality, noise and groundwater impact is minor owing to the minor scale of works involved. Although the fishponds within the Inner Deep Bay and WRA are important for wildlife, with the implementation of good site practices to minimise site surface runoff from construction works areas and to control the dispersion of sediments, and contaminants to inland waters, disturbance to offsite wetland habitats is considered negligible.

No significant ecological impact will be resulted from the operation of the Project as all potential air quality, noise and water quality impacts will be controlled to environmentally acceptable levels. Two concurrent projects are identified but owing to the limited extent of the construction activities, no cumulative impact is identified. No ecological specific mitigation is considered necessary for the proposed Project.

7.11 References

1. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. 2017. Hong Kong Biodiversity Database.

2. Anon. 2016. Summer 2016 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department. HKSAR.

3. Allcock, J., Chow, G., Welch, G., 2015. Hong Kong Bird Report 2013. The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society.

4. AEC. 2009. Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long: Detailed Design and Implementation. Habitat Restoration and Creation Scheme. Third Revision.

5. Chan, S.K.F., Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam, F.N., Tang, W.S., 2005. A field guide to the amphibians of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country Parks and Cosmos Book Ltd.

6. Fellowes, J.R., Lau, M.W.N., Dudgeon, D., Reels, G.T., Ades, G.W.J., Carey, G.J., Chan, B.P.L., Kendrick R.C., Lee, K.S., Leven, M.R., Wilson, K.D.P., Yu, Y.T. 2002. Wild Animal to Watch: terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong. Memoirs of Hong Kong Natural History Society.

7. IUCN. 2017. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016-3.

8. Shek, C. T. 2006. A field guide to the terrestrial mammals of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country Parks and Cosmos Book Ltd.

9. Shek, C.T., Chan, C.S.M., Wan, Y.F. 2007. Camera Trap Survey of Hong Kong Terrestrial Mammals in 2002-2006. Hong Kong Biodiversity: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department Newsletter.

10. Wilson, K.D.P., Tam, T.W., Kwan, B.S.P., Wu, K.K.Y., Wong, B.S.F., Wong, J.K. 2004. Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Hong Kong. 2nd Eds. AFCD, Friends of Country Park and Cosmos Books Ltd. Hong Kong.

11. Wong, E., Leung, P.C., Sze, P., Wong, A. 2004. Migration and overwintering aggregation of Danaid butterflies in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiversity. Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department Newsletter.

12. Zheng, G., Wang, Q. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Aves. Science Press, Beijing.

13. Zhao E.M. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Amphibia & Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing

14. State Forestry Administration and Ministry of Agriculture, 1988. Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife.