1.1
Section 6.2.5
of the approved EM&A Manual for the Project requires that potential work
disturbance to inter-tidal bird communities is monitored during the
construction phase. Appendix 1 shows the requirements and Event and Action Plan
for monitoring works.
2.1
Equipment used for monitoring
included a 20-60x spotting scope, 10x42 binoculars, and Hand-held GPS.
3.1
Monitoring was conducted at two
locations, Ngau Hom Shek (NHS) and Sheung Pak Nai (SPN). Monitoring at NHS was
adjacent to the works area, and provides a record of potential construction
phase disturbance. The SPN site is relatively distant from the works area, and
was used as a control site.
4.1
Bird species and abundance
within a 100m quadrat
of exposed mudflat were recorded at low tide (>100m of mudflat exposed) on 13 December 2006. Records
were made at both NHS and SPN.
4.2
Bird abundance and species
composition were compared with baseline data recorded from September/October
2001 to May 2002, as presented in the Shenzhen Western Corridor EIA
Report.
4.3
Bird species and abundance
within a 100m quadrat
of exposed mudflat were recorded at low tide (>100m of mudflat exposed) on 13 December 2006. Records
were made at both NHS and SPN.
4.4
Surveys were also conducted at
a 500m belt transect established
at SPN, on the same date using the same methodology adopted at NHS.
4.5
Bird density within the
tideline transects at NHS and SPN was compared using the non-parametric
Mann-Whitney test, where:
HO = There
are no differences in bird densities along the tidelines at NHS and SPN.
4.6
Additionally, bird abundance
and species composition were compared with baseline data recorded from
September 2001 to May 2002, as presented in the Shenzhen Western Corridor EIA
Report.
5.
Monitoring Results
5.1
Three species, Chinese Pond
Heron (Ardeola bacchus), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Eurasian
Curlew (Numenius arquata)
were recorded from exposed mudflats during recent surveys,
with two Chinese Pond Heron, two Little Egret and four Eurasian Curlew recorded
from SPN, while two Little Egret recorded
from NHS (Figure 5.1).
5.2
Compared
to the results of December 2006 surveys,
the EIA Report recorded a mean of 1.5 birds/ha and 0.9 species and 3.9 birds/ha
and 1.5 species on exposed mudflats at NHS and SPN respectively.
Figure 5.1 Comparison of Bird Abundance and Species
Composition on Exposed Mudflats: Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak Nai, December, 2006
5.3
Bird
densities recorded along tidelines were 41 birds/ha at NHS and 151 birds/ha at
SPN, with three species recorded at
NHS (Great Egret, Casmerodius
albus; Little Egret, Egretta
garzetta and Chinese Pond Heron, Ardeola bacchus) and seven species (Great Egret, Casmerodius albus; Little Egret, Egretta garzetta; Chinese Pond Heron, Ardeola bacchus; Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea; Common Sandpiper, Actitis
hypoleucos; Eurasian Curlew, Numenius arquata and Black-faced
Spoonbill, Platalea minor) recorded from SPN (Figure 5.2).
5.4
A Mann-Whitney
test found no statistically significant difference between bird densities
recorded at NHS and SPN (P = 0.545).
5.5
Bird
densities recorded during recent survey at NHS (41 birds/ha) and SPN (151
birds/ha) were both higher than mean values presented in the EIA Report (23.2
birds/ha and 58.2 birds/ha recorded at NHS and SPN respectively). At both sites, species richness recorded during recent survey (3
species at NHS and 7 species at SPN) were also higher than the mean values
presented in the EIA Report (1.8 species and 2 species recorded at NHS and SPN
respectively).
Figure
5.2 Comparison of Bird Abundance and
Species Composition along Tidelines: Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak Nai, December 2006
6.1
During recent survey, both species
richness and bird density on mudflats at NHS (the potential impact site) and SPN
(the control site) were higher than the mean values given in the EIA report. There
was no evidence of construction phase disturbance at NHS,
the potential impact site.
6.2
In this survey, species richness and bird density along tidelines
at NHS (the potential impact site) and SPN (the control site) were higher than
the mean values presented in the EIA report. There is no statistically
significant difference in tideline densities at NHS and SPN, and no evidence of construction phase disturbance
at NHS, the potential impact site
were concluded.
Reference
Carey, G.J., Chalmers, M.L., Diskin, D.A., Kennerley,
P.R., Leader, P.J., Leven, M.R., Lewthwaite, R.W., Melville, D.S., Turnbull,
M., and Young, L. (2001): The Avifauna of
Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society, Hong Kong.
Appendix 1 – Requirements
and Event and Action Plan for that potential work disturbance to inter-tidal
bird communities monitoring works.
Work disturbance on inter-tidal bird
communities:
Distribution of feeding shorebirds on inter-tidal mudflats near construction
sites of the alignment will be studied. Distances of feeding birds on mudflat
within 500m of both sides of
the construction site will be recorded. Birds feeding on exposed mudflats and
tidelines will be recorded separately. Survey will be carried out when more
than 100m mudflat is
exposed, as in the EIA study. A graph showing the distribution pattern of
feeding birds around the construction site will be plotted. A control site will
be set up on mudflats at Sheung Pak Nai. Distribution pattern of feeding birds
on both sides of a strip of mudflat of equal width as the construction sites
will be studied in the same way as in the construction site. Distribution
patterns of birds at the construction site and control site will be compared
using statistical test. Bird abundance and species richness in the construction
site and the control site will also be compared with the baseline data of these
two locations collected during the field surveys for the EIA study (Table 3.10
& 3.11 in Appendix 9A of the EIA report). The data from the
control site will provide information on the bird density and composition in
the outer Deep Bay area, while the data from the
construction site can reflect the potential effect of construction works on
birds. Any changes of bird density recorded in the construction site will be
adjusted by the changes of bird density in the control site. Discussion on any
changes of species composition recorded in the construction site will also make
reference to the results from the control site. Sampling frequency will be once
per month throughout the construction phase. If a 30% net reduction (after
adjustment) of bird density was recorded in the construction site, the ET and
the on-site engineer will be alerted to any non-compliance of mitigation
measures or site practices. The monitoring frequency will also be increased to
once per week (Table 6.2) until the recorded bird density stores and complies
with the 30% allowance of Trigger level. If the net reduction continues and
exceeds 50% (allowance of Action level, see Table 6.2), disturbance mitigation
measures such as erection of disturbance barrier will be applied. The weekly
monitoring frequency will be maintained until the recorded bird density stores and
complies with the 30% allowance of Trigger level.
Table 6.2 Trigger
and Action levels for Bird density
|
Parameters
|
Trigger level
|
Action
|
Action level
|
Action
|
|
Bird density
(No./ha)
|
30% net
reduction of bird density in construction site in comparison with baseline
data in construction site from EIA filed surveys (Table 3.10 & 3.11 in Appendix 9A of the EIA report) and the change of bird
density in control site.
|
Alert the ET
and on-site engineer. Increase the monitoring frequency to weekly.
|
50% net
reduction of bird density in construction site in comparison with baseline data in construction site
from EIA filed surveys (Table 3.10
& 3.11 in Appendix
9A of the EIA report)
and the change of bird density in control site.
|
Disturbance mitigation measures such as erection of
disturbance barrier.
|