Highway Logo2.jpg

Contract No. HY/2011/03

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road

Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarterly EM&A Report No.2 (December 2012 to February 2013)

 

30 May 2013

 

Revision 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Contractor                                                                                                                     Designer

Atkins new logo
 

 


 

 


Contents

Executive Summary

1...... Introduction.. 3

1.1                          Basic Project Information. 3

1.2                          Project Organisation. 3

1.3                          Construction Programme. 3

1.4                          Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period. 3

2....... EM&A Requirement 5

2.1                          Summary of EM&A Requirements. 5

2.2                          Action and Limit Levels. 6

2.3                          Event Action Plans. 6

2.4                          Mitigation Measures. 7

3....... Environmental Monitoring and Audit 8

3.1                          Implementation of Environmental Measures. 8

3.2                          Air Quality Monitoring Results. 8

3.3                          Noise Monitoring Results. 9

3.4                          Water Quality Monitoring Results. 9

3.5                          Dolphin Monitoring Results. 9

3.6                          Mudflat Monitoring Results. 15

3.7                          Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status. 20

3.8                          Environmental Licenses and Permits. 21

4....... Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance. 22

4.1                          Environmental Exceedances. 22

4.2                          Summary of Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution. 30

5....... COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.. 31

5.1                          Comments. 31

5.2                          Recommendations. 32

5.3                          Conclusions. 32

 


 

Figures

 

Figure 1.1         Location of the Site

Figure 2.1         Environmental Monitoring Stations     

Figure 2.2         Transect Line Layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas

                           

Appendices

 

Appendix A       Environmental Management Structure

Appendix B       Construction Programme

Appendix C       Location of Works Areas

Appendix D       Event and Action Plan  

Appendix E       Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures

Appendix F       Site Audit Findings and Corrective Actions

Appendix G      Air Quality Monitoring Data and Graphical Plots

Appendix H       Noise Monitoring Data and Graphical Plots

Appendix I         Water Quality Monitoring Data and Graphical Plots

Appendix J        Dolphin Monitoring Results

Appendix K       Waste Flow Table

Appendix L       Summary of Environmental Licenses and Permits

Appendix M      Record of Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances

Appendix N       Cumulative Statistics on Complaints

Appendix O      Mudflat Monitoring Results

 

 

 

 

 

 


Executive Summary

The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north eastern waters of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).

The HKLR project has been separated into two contracts.  They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract) and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.

China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department as the Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03.  The main works of the Contract include land tunnel at Scenic Hill, tunnel underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line, reclamation and tunnel to the east coast of the Airport Island, at-grade road connecting to the HKBCF and highway works of the HKBCF within the Airport Island and in the vicinity of the HKLR reclamation.  The Contract is part of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be ¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports (Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project.  The current Environmental Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/A for HKLR and EP-353/2009/F for HKBCF were issued on 31 October 2011 and 24 April 2013, respectively. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012.

BMT Asia Pacific Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract.

This is the second Quarterly EM&A report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2012 to 28 February 2013.

Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress

The EM&A programme were undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version1.0).  A summary of the monitoring activities during this reporting period is presented as below:

Monitoring Activity

Monitoring Date

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

Air Quality

1-hr TSP

7, 13, 19, 24 and 28

3, 9, 15, 21, 25 and 31

6, 14, 20, and 26

24-hr TSP

6, 12, 18, 21 and 27

2, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 30

6, 14, 19, and 25

Noise

3, 13, 19 and 24*

3, 9, 15, 21 and 31

6, 14, 20, and 26

Water Quality

1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28 and 31

2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28 and 30

1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 27

Chinese White Dolphin

6, 7, 11 and 13

2, 4, 8 and 10

1, 6, 18 and 20

Mudflat Monitoring

1, 2, 3, 8, 15 and 16

-

-

Site Inspection

4, 11, 18 and 28

2, 10, 15, 22 and 29

5, 14, 19, and 26

*There were problems about the extension cable for the noise monitoring undertaken on 24 Dec 2012 and the measured noise levels were considered invalid.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels

A summary of environmental exceedances for this reporting period is as follows:

Environmental Monitoring

Parameters

Action Level (AL)

Limit Level (LL)

Air Quality

1-hr TSP

0

0

24-hr TSP

0

0

Noise

Leq (30 min)

0

0

Water Quality

Suspended solids level (SS)

51

350

Turbidity level

59

305

Dissolved oxygen level (DO)

0

0

The Environmental Team investigated all exceedances and found that they were not project related. 

All investigation reports for exceedances of the Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Potential environmental impacts due to the construction activities were monitored and reviewed.

Complaint Log

A summary of environmental complaints for this reporting period is as follows:

Environmental Complaint No. (1)

Date of Complaint Received

Description of Environmental Complaints

COM-2013-015

17 January 2013

Air Quality

COM-2013-016

18 January 2013

Water Quality

Remarks:

(1) If a complainant makes complaint for the same environmental issue, only one complaint number will be assigned for the complaint. 

Notifications of Summons and Prosecutions

There were no notifications of summons or prosecutions received during this reporting period.

Reporting Changes

This report has been developed in compliance with the reporting requirements for the quarterly summary EM&A reports as required by the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0).  There are no reporting changes.


 

1        Introduction

1.1                 Basic Project Information

1.1.1       The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north eastern waters of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).

1.1.2       The HKLR project has been separated into two contracts.  They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract) and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.

1.1.3       China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03.  The Contract is part of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be ¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports (Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project.  The current Environmental Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/A for HKLR and EP-353/2009/F for HKBCF were issued on 31 October 2011 and 24 April 2013, respectively. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012.  Figure 1.1 shows the project site boundary.

1.1.4       BMT Asia Pacific Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the EM&A programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) for HKLR and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract.  ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.  The project organization with regard to the environmental works is provided in Appendix A.

1.1.5       This is the second Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2012 to 28 February 2013.

1.2                Project Organisation

1.2.1       The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure with the key personnel contact names and numbers are shown in Appendix A. 

1.3                Construction Programme

1.3.1       A copy of the Contractor¡¦s construction programme is provided in Appendix B. 

1.4                Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

1.4.1       A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown in Table 1.1.  The Works areas of the Contract are showed in Appendix C.

Table 1.1          Construction Activities During Reporting Period

Site Area

Description of Activities

WA 6

Construction of site office

Portion Y

Ground Investigation Work

Site clearing for road and drainage work

Erection of Hoardings and Fencings at Site Boundaries

Installation of Soil Nails

Access Shaft Construction for SHT & HAT

Portion B

Site formation work for tunnelling at West Portal

Portion X

Marine Site investigation

Installation of silt curtain and geotextile laying

Removal of armour rocks of existing seawall

Formation of temporary stone platform

Installation of stone column

Kwo Lo Wan Road

Reclamation

 


 

2        EM&A Requirement

2.1                Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1       The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as specified in the approved EM&A Manual.

2.1.2       A summary of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1. The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1.  The transect line layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is presented in Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1          Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring

Description

Monitoring Station

Frequencies

Remarks

Air Quality

1-hr TSP

AMS 5 & AMS 6

At least 3 times every 6 days

While the highest dust impact was expected.

24-hr TSP

At least once every 6 days

--

Noise

Leq (30mins),
L10
(30mins) and
L90
(30mins)

NMS5

At least once per week

Daytime on normal weekdays (0700-1900 hrs).

Water Quality

¡P    Depth

¡P    Temperature

¡P    Salinity

¡P    Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

¡P    Suspended Solids (SS)

¡P    DO Saturation

¡P    Turbidity

¡P    pH

¡P    Impact Stations:
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9 & IS10,

¡P    Control/Far Field Stations:
CS2 & CS(Mf)5,

¡P    Sensitive Receiver Stations:
SR3, SR4, SR5, SR10A & SR10B

Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides (within ¡Ó 1.75 hour of the predicted time)

3

(1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station may be omitted.  Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).

Dolphin

Line-transect Methods

Northeast Lantau survey area and Northwest Lantau survey area

Twice per month

--

Mudflat

Horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds, intertidal soft shore communities, sedimentation rates and water quality

San Tau and Tung Chung Bay

Once every 3 months

--

 

2.2                Action and Limit Levels

2.2.1       Table 2.2 presents the Action and Limit Levels for the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.

Table 2.2         Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and Noise

Environmental Monitoring

Parameters

Monitoring Station

Action Level

Limit Level

Air Quality

1-hr TSP

AMS 5

352 µg/m3

500 µg/m3

AMS 6

360 µg/m3

24-hr TSP

AMS 5

164 µg/m3

260 µg/m3

AMS 6

173 µg/m3

Noise

Leq (30 min)

NMS 5

When one documented complaint is received

75 dB(A)

 

2.2.2       The Action and Limit Levels for water quality monitoring are given as in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3         Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameter (unit)

Water Depth

Action Level

Limit Level

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Surface and Middle

5.0

4.2 except 5 for Fish Culture Zone

Bottom

4.7

3.6

Turbidity (NTU)

Depth average

27.5 or 120% of upstream control station¡¦s turbidity at the same tide of the same day

47.0 or 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day

Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)

Depth average

23.5 or 120% of upstream control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of the same day

34.4 or 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes

Notes:

               (1)    Depth-averaged is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.

               (2)    For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limit occurs when monitoring result is lower that the limit.

               (3)    For SS & turbidity non-compliance of the water quality limits occur when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

2.3                Event Action Plans

The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise and water quality are annexed in Appendix D.

2.4                Mitigation Measures

2.4.1       Environmental mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report.  Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status. 


 

3        Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1                Implementation of Environmental Measures

3.1.1       In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions.  Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented in Appendix F.

3.1.2       A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. 

3.1.3       Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records were kept properly.

3.1.4       Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting period.  No dolphins were observed.  The relevant records were kept properly. 

3.1.5       A dolphin exclusion zone of 250m was implemented during the installation of silt curtains on 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 December 2012.  No dolphins were observed. The relevant records were kept properly. 

3.2                Air Quality Monitoring Results

3.2.1       The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix G.

Table 3.1         Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

 

Reporting period

Monitoring

Station

Average (mg/m3)

Range (mg/m3)

Action Level (mg/m3)

Limit Level (mg/m3)

December 2012

AMS5

99

27 ¡V 267

352

500

AMS6

67

29 ¡V 177

360

January 2013

AMS5

71

26 ¡V 127

352

AMS6

88

38 ¡V 234

360

February 2013

AMS5

56

31 ¡V 98

352

AMS6

58

27 ¡V 98

360

 


 

Table 3.2         Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

 

Reporting period

Monitoring

Station

Average (mg/m3)

Range (mg/m3)

Action Level (mg/m3)

Limit Level (mg/m3)

December 2012

AMS5

81

36 ¡V 161

164

260

AMS6

78

42 ¡V 125

173

January 2013

AMS5

107

68 ¡V 128

164

AMS6

114

49 ¡V 170

173

February 2013

AMS5

48

30 ¡V 64

164

AMS6

48

17 ¡V 70

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3                Noise Monitoring Results

3.3.1       The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.3 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting period are provided in Appendix H.

Table 3.3          Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting period

 

Monitoring

Station

Average Leq (30 mins), dB(A)

Range of Leq (30 mins), dB(A)

Action Level

Limit Level Leq (30 mins), dB(A)

December 2012

NMS5

61

60 ¡V 63

When one documented complaint is received

75

January 2013

63

58 ¡V 75

February 2013

60

58 ¡V 63

*+3dB(A) Façade correction included

3.3.2       Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.

3.4                Water Quality Monitoring Results

3.4.1       Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting period. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix I.

3.4.2       Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.

3.5                Dolphin Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

3.5.1       Distribution Analysis ¡V The line-transect survey data was integrated with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin distribution using sighting positions.  Location data of dolphin groups were plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (ArcView© 3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in details.  The dataset was also stratified into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin groups with different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.

3.5.2       Encounter rate analysis ¡V Encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort, and total number of dolphins sighted on-effort per 100 km of survey effort) were calculated in NEL and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount of survey effort conducted during each month of monitoring survey.  Dolphin encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone, and only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis.  The average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) were deduced based on the encounter rates from six events during the quarter (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau), which was also compared with the one deduced from the six events during the baseline period (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau).

3.5.3       Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use ¡V To conduct quantitative grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort sightings of Chinese White Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase monitoring period were plotted onto 1-km2 grids among Northwest Lantau (NWL) and Northeast (NEL) survey areas on GIS.  Sighting densities (number of on-effort sightings per km2) and dolphin densities (total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings per km2) were then calculated for each 1 km by 1 km grid with the aid of GIS.  Sighting density grids and dolphin density grids were then further normalized with the amount of survey effort conducted within each grid.  The total amount of survey effort spent on each grid was calculated by examining the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how many times the grid was surveyed during the study period.  For example, when the survey boat traversed through a specific grid 50 times, 50 units of survey effort were counted for that grid.  With the amount of survey effort calculated for each grid, the sighting density and dolphin density of each grid were then normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey effort). 

3.5.4       The newly-derived unit for sighting density was termed SPSE, representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort.  In addition, the derived unit for actual dolphin density was termed DPSE, representing the number of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort.  Among the 1-km2 grids that were partially covered by land, the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE and DPSE values were adjusted accordingly.  The following formulae were used to estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2 grid within the study area:

SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) / SA%

DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) / SA%

 

where        S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

3.5.5       Behavioural analysis ¡V When dolphins were sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour was observed.  Different activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting, traveling, socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets.  This data was then input into a separate database with sighting information, which can be used to determine the distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS.  Distribution of sightings of dolphins engaged in different activities and behaviours would then be plotted on GIS and carefully examined to identify important areas for different activities of the dolphins. 

3.5.6       Ranging pattern analysis ¡V Location data of individual dolphins that occurred during the 3-month baseline monitoring period were obtained from the dolphin sighting database and photo-identification catalogue.  To deduce home ranges for individual dolphins using the fixed kernel methods, the program Animal Movement Analyst Extension, was loaded as an extension with ArcView© 3.1 along with another extension Spatial Analyst 2.0.  Using the fixed kernel method, the program calculated kernel density estimates based on all sighting positions, and provided an active interface to display kernel density plots.  The kernel estimator then calculated and displayed the overall ranging area at 95% UD level.

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.5.7       During the reporting period, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.5.8       From these surveys, a total of 900.45 km of survey effort was collected, with 95.0% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility).  Among the two areas, 345.69 km and 544.76 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively.  In addition, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 660.41, while the effort on secondary lines was 240.04 km.  Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both considered as on-effort survey data.

3.5.9       During the six sets of monitoring surveys in December 2012, and January and February 2013, a total of 48 groups of 187 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted.  All except two sightings were made during on-effort search. Forty on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while another six on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines.  Among the two survey areas, 8 groups of 21 dolphins were sighted in NEL, while the other 40 groups of 166 dolphins were sighted in NWL.

Distribution

3.5.10    Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in December 2012, and January and February 2013 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J.  The majority of the dolphin sightings were made around Lung Kwu Chau, while other sightings were scattered to the northeast of the airport platform as well as near the Brothers Islands during the three-month study period during the two-month study period.

3.5.11    No dolphin was sighted in the vicinity of the HKLR03 reclamation site, but a sighting was made near the adjacent HKBCF reclamation site during the three-month study period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). One dolphin sighting was also made along the alignment of the HKLR09 section to the west of the airport.

3.5.12    When compared with the sighting distribution of dolphins during baseline monitoring surveys in September to November 2011, it appears that more sightings were made around Lung Kwu Chau and near the western border adjacent to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau marine park in the present quarter (Figure 1 of Appendix J). In addition, more sightings were made near the northeast corner of the airport platform, while fewer sightings were made near Pillar Point, the HKBCF reclamation site and around the Brothers Islands during the present three-month period than the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

Encounter Rate

3.5.13    For the three-month study period in December 2012, and January and February 2013, the encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) from each of the survey areas are shown in Table 3.4.  The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period in September to November 2011 (See Table 3.5).


3.5.14     

Table 3.4          Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During there Reporting Period (Dec 2012 ¡V Feb 2013)  

Survey Area

Dolphin Monitoring

Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Primary Lines Only

Primary Lines Only

Northeast  Lantau

Set 1
(4 & 6 Dec 2012)

5.42

10.84

Set 2
(11 & 13 Dec 2012)

0.00

0.00

Set 3
(2 & 4 Jan 2013)

2.65

2.65

Set 4
(8 & 10 Jan 2013)

8.24

21.98

Set 5
(1 & 6 Feb 2013)

2.54

2.54

Set 6
(18 & 20 Feb 2013)

0.00

0.00

Northwest Lantau

Set 1
(4 & 6 Dec 2012)

5.60

21.01

Set 2
(11 & 13 Dec 2012)

13.73

60.78

Set 3
(2 & 4 Jan 2013)

5.57

43.14

Set 4
(8 & 10 Jan 2013)

3.08

12.33

Set 5
(1 & 6 Feb 2013)

15.54

63.56

Set 6
(18 & 20 Feb 2013)

6.62

14.57

 

Table 3.5          Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Dec 2012 ¡V Feb 2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011) (Note: the encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions)

Survey Area

Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Northeast Lantau

3.14 ¡Ó 3.21

6.00 ¡Ó 5.05

6.33 ¡Ó 8.64

22.19 ¡Ó 26.81

Northwest Lantau

8.36 ¡Ó 5.03

9.85 ¡Ó 5.85

35.90 ¡Ó 23.10

44.66 ¡Ó 29.85

 

3.5.15    The average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month study period were 48% and 71% lower than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period in NEL, indicating a much lower dolphin usage during this impact phase monitoring period in this survey area. On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rate (both STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period was only slightly lower (reductions of 15 and 20% respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period.

3.5.16    A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and unequal sample size was conducted to examine whether there were any significant differences in the average encounter rates between the baseline and impact monitoring periods.  The two variables that were examined included the two periods (baseline and impact phases) and two locations (NEL and NWL).  For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (second quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.2810 and 0.3011 respectively.  On the other hand, for the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first and second quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0529 and 0.1917 respectively. 

3.5.17    For this statistical comparison, the alpha value is set at 0.1 due to the small sample size for each quarter that would likely not be enough to give a higher statistical power in this analysis.  With the alpha value at 0.1, no significant difference is detected between the baseline period and the present quarter.  However, the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the impact phase indicates that a significant difference is detected in the average dolphin encounter rate of STG (i.e. between the two periods and the locations), but not in the average dolphin encounter rate of ANI (i.e. the difference occurred only between the two locations but not the two periods). 

3.5.18    Notably, the sample size of each quarter was fairly small that the statistical power is reduced for comparison between two quarters (i.e. baseline phase vs. present quarter in impact phase).  Even though a decline between the baseline phase and present quarter is obvious, more data would be needed to detect a statistical difference.  Therefore the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the impact phase should also be performed throughout the impact phase monitoring period

3.5.19    Significant difference was detected for the ER(STG) but not the ER(ANI).  Therefore, the monitoring results did not trigger the CWD Event and Action Plan.

Group Size

3.5.20    Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1-7 individuals per group in NEL and 1-17 individuals per group in NWL during December 2012 to February 2013.  The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared with the one deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6          Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Dec 2012 to Feb 2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011)

 

Average Dolphin Group Size

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Overall

3.90 ¡Ó 3.53 (n = 48)

3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)

Northeast Lantau

2.63 ¡Ó 2.13 (n = 8)

3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)

Northwest Lantau

4.15 ¡Ó 3.71 (n = 40)

3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5.21    The average dolphin group sizes in the entire North Lantau region during December 2012 ¡V February 2013 was slightly higher than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table 3.6).  Among the two areas, the average dolphin group size in NEL during the impact phase monitoring period was slightly lower than the baseline period, while the one in NWL was slightly higher (Table 3.6).

3.5.22    Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes during December 2012 to February 2013 is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix J.  These groups were mostly concentrated around the Lung Kwu Chau area, which included four large dolphin groups with more than 10 animals in each group.  However, only one group of seven animals was sighted in NEL during the impact phase monitoring period while the rest of the dolphin groups sighted composed of a few individual.

Habitat Use

3.5.23    From December 2012 to February 2013, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau in NWL, as well as near Siu Ho Wan in NEL (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J). 

3.5.24    It should be noted that the amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period was still fairly low (6-12 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with caution.  A more complete picture of dolphin habitat use pattern will be presented when more survey effort for each grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.

3.5.25    Notably, one grid near HKBCF (P17) recorded moderately high SPSE/DPSE values, but none of the grids along the alignment of HKLR recorded any dolphin densities.  This was different from the baseline period when several grids along the HKLR alignment of HKLR (Grids F21 and G20) recorded moderate to high dolphin densities.

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.26    During the three-month study period, a total of one unspotted calf (UC) and 10 unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NEL and NWL survey areas.  These young calves comprised 6.4% of all animals sighted, which was very similar to the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

3.5.27    These young calves mainly occurred within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, while some calves were also sighted near Black Point and Siu Ho Wan (Figure 4 of Appendix J).  Notably, no young calves were found in the vicinity of the HKLR or HKBCF work sites in December 2012 to February 2013.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.5.28    A total of 14 dolphin sightings were associated with feeding and socializing activities during the three-month study period, comprising of 16.7% and 12.5% of the total number of dolphin sightings.  Both percentages were higher than the percentages recorded during the baseline period (feeding activity: 11.6%; socializing activity: 5.4%).  Only a lone dolphin was engaged in traveling activity near the HKBCF site in NEL (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.29    Distribution of dolphins engaged in different activities during the three-month study period is shown in (Figure 5 of Appendix J).  Most of the feeding and socializing activities occurred between Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau, while some were also made near Siu Ho Wan (Figure 5 of Appendix J). Moreover, one group of four dolphins was engaged in traveling activity to the east of the HKBCF site. 

3.5.30    During the three-month period, only one dolphin group were found to be associated with an operating shrimp trawler, comprising of 2.1% of all dolphin groups, which was much lower than the percentage recorded in baseline period (5.4%).  The low percentage of fishing boat association was likely related to the recent trawl ban being implemented in 2013 in Hong Kong waters.

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

3.5.31    From December 2012 to February 2013, over 3,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.32    In total, 57 individuals sighted 103 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Appendix III of Appendix J).  The number of re-sightings made in NEL and NWL were 13.6% and 86.4% of the total respectively.  Notably, a very high percentage of dolphins sighted in NEL (14 out of 21 dolphins) were identified as known individuals, and these are all considered to be year-round residents (e.g. EL01, NL18, NL33, NL123) that regularly occur in North Lantau waters.

3.5.33    Most identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of 13 individuals being sighted thrice (e.g. NL93, NL139, NL165), and one individual being sighted four times (NL260).

3.5.34    Ranging patterns of the 57 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Appendix IV.  Notably, many of these individuals being sighted a few times ranged extensively across NEL and NWL.

3.5.35    A number of individuals were sighted in both NEL and NWL survey areas (e.g. EL01, NL123, NL136, NL179, NL285), indicating that the on-going HZMB construction works have not seriously affected their movement between the two areas.

3.5.36    However, a number of year-round residents (e.g. CH34, NL118, NL191, NL284) that used to utilize the Brothers Islands as their core areas have not been seen there during this quarter and the previous quarter.  Their range use should be continuously monitored in the upcoming quarters to determine whether their movement into NEL has been affected by the reclamation works of HKLR03 or HKBCF

3.5.37    It should be noted that only a very few individuals have their ranges overlapped with the HKLR03 construction works (Appendix IV of Appendix J), and their movement will likely not be affected by the reclamation works of the present project.  Nevertheless, the range use of individual dolphins will be continuously monitored throughout the construction period to examine whether any shift in ranging pattern has occurred as a result of the HZMB construction activities.

 

3.6                Mudflat Monitoring Results

Sedimentation Rate Monitoring

3.6.1       The baseline sedimentation rate monitoring was in September 2012 and impact sedimentation rate monitoring was undertaken on 2 December 2012.  The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7.

Table 3.6          Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

Baseline Monitoring
(September 2012)

Impact Monitoring
(December 2012)

Monitoring Station

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level

(mPD)

(mPD)

S1

810291.160

816678.727

0.950

810291.1

816678.9

1.039

S2

810958.272

815831.531

0.864

810958.4

815831.7

0.887

S3

810716.585

815953.308

1.341

810716.7

815953.4

1.390

S4

811221.433

816151.381

0.931

811221.4

816151.3

0.974

 

Table 3.7          Comparison of measurement  

 

Comparison of measurement

Remarks and Recommendation

Monitoring Station

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level
(mPD)

S1

-0.030

0.215

0.089

Larger than tolerance, need attention in the next survey

S2

0.166

0.164

0.023

Within tolerance, no significant change

S3

0.091

0.073

0.049

Within tolerance, no significant change

S4

-0.047

-0.042

0.043

Within tolerance, no significant change

 

3.6.2       This first measurement was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement. All positions were re-measured by real time setting out method so that they were very close to the last survey positions and within 0.3m.

3.6.3       S2, S3 and S4 all had higher value than the last survey but within the measurement tolerance, say 60mm.  Therefore, their sea bed depth would not be considered as significant change.

3.6.4       S1 had relative higher value of 89mm than the above three positions. This was about 29mm more than the expected tolerance or half tolerance more.  Therefore, it was recommended to pay attention on this point in the next round survey to reconfirm the change of elevation at this position.  It was noted that this location has sea shells deposit and the terrain was relatively rough.

Water Quality Monitoring

3.6.5       The mudflat monitoring covered water quality monitoring data.  Reference was made to the water quality monitoring data of the representative water quality monitoring station (i.e. SR3) as in the EM&A Manual.  The water quality monitoring location (SR3) is shown in Figure 2.1. 

3.6.6       Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in December 2012.  The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

3.6.7       The Impact monitoring results for SR3 were extracted and summarised below:

Table 3.8          Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results (Depth Average)

Date

Mid Ebb Tide

Mid Flood Tide

DO (mg/L)

Turbidity (NTU)

SS (mg/L)

DO (mg/L)

Turbidity (NTU)

SS (mg/L)

01-Dec-12

6.7

14.3

14.3

6.6

12.5

12.5

03-Dec-12

6.7

12.7

9.1

6.7

13.4

11.9

05-Dec-12

6.9

11.4

9.6

6.8

11.0

7.9

08-Dec-12

6.7

10.1

5.5

7.0

11.7

11.0

10-Dec-12

7.0

11.8

7.9

7.1

10.6

9.8

12-Dec-12

7.2

14.5

10.7

7.1

9.3

10.0

14-Dec-12

7.3

13.9

14.9

7.1

10.2

10.3

17-Dec-12

7.1

7.7

10.7

7.0

10.3

12.5

19-Dec-12

7.3

6.7

9.5

7.3

9.7

15.2

21-Dec-12

7.5

5.0

10.3

7.4

9.8

18.8

24-Dec-12

7.7

3.0

4.1

7.9

2.4

5.9

26-Dec-12

7.5

3.9

8.1

7.5

5.5

8.8

28-Dec-12

7.5

5.8

5.7

7.5

4.6

6.0

31-Dec-12

8.2

5.0

15.1

7.9

4.4

8.2

Average

7.2

9.0

9.7

7.2

9.0

10.6

 


 

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

3.6.8       There are two survey areas specified under the updated EM&A Manual for the Contract, namely Tung Chung Bay and San Tau.  Tung Chung Bay survey area is divided into three sampling zones (TC1, TC2 and TC3) and there is one sampling zone at San Tau (ST).  Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in each sampling zone.  The locations of sampling zones are shown in Figure 2.1. 

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.9       An active search method was adopted for horseshoe crab survey at each sampling zone. The survey was undertaken by 2 specialists at each sampling zone.  During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hours in low tide period (tidal level below 1.2 m above Chart Datum (C.D.)).  Once a horseshoe crab was found, the species, size and inhabiting substrate, photographic record and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 3rd (for zones TC3 and ST) and 8th (for zones TC1 and TC2) December, 2012 with windy and cloudy weather.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.10    An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each sampling zone.  The survey was undertaken by 2 specialists each spending within 2-3 hours in low tide period.  Once seagrass bed was observed, the species, the estimated area (m2), photographic record and respective GPS coordinate were recorded.  The seagrass bed surveys were conducted on 3rd (for zones TC3 and ST) and 8th (for zones TC1 and TC2) December, 2012 with windy and cloudy weather.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.11    The sandy shore of San Tau and Tung Chung Bay from the uppermost part of the shore and to the water edge was divided into three tidal zones ¡V upper, middle and lower zones, at each sampling zone, TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST.  A 100m transect was laid in each of the three tidal zones for fauna sampling.

3.6.12    At each sampling zone, three 100m horizontal transects were laid at 2.0m, 1.5m and 1.0m above C.D.  Along each transect, ten random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed.  In each quadrat, the epifauna and infauna (within the top 5cm sediment) in each quadrat were identified and their numbers/coverage percentages were recorded.  One core of 10cm diameter x 20cm depth was also collected within each quadrat.  The sediments of the cores were sieved with 2mm mesh-size sieve and the biota inside was identified and counted.  Species and abundance of biota in both cores and quadrats were reported.  The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 1st (for TC3), 2nd (for ST), 15th (for TC1) and 16th December 2012 (for TC2).

Data Analysis

3.6.13    Data collected from direct search and core sampling was pooled in every quadrat for data analysis. Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H¡¦) and Pielou¡¦s Species Evenness (J) were calculated for every quadrat using the formulae below,

H¡¦= -£U ( Ni / N ) ln ( Ni / N ) (Shannon and Weaver, 1963)

J = H¡¦ / ln S, (Pielou, 1966)

 

where S is the total number of species in the sample, N is the total number of individuals, and Ni is the number of individuals of the ith species.

 


 

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.14    Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 of Appendix O show the record of horseshoe crab survey at every sampling zone.  There were 12 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus and 4 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda observed at ST respectively.  In addition, all individuals were found in soft mud substratum.  The horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was found whereas this species was not recorded in the baseline survey conducted in September 2012. Grouping was observed on both species while each group consisted of 2 to 3 individuals.  Survey results are presented in Table 3.1 of Appendix O.

3.6.15    According to Table 3.2 of Appendix O, search records of Tachypleus tridentatus and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were 2.40 ind. hr-1 person-1 (mean prosomal widths were 17.31 mm) and 0.80 ind. hr-1 person-1 (mean prosomal widths were 18.79 mm) respectively at ST. According to Li (2008), the prosomal width of Tachypleus tridentatus recorded ranged 12.20 ¡V 22.69 mm that corresponded to an age of 1.8 ¡V 3.0 years old.  For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, the prosomal width recorded ranged 11.42¡Ğ26.79 mm, that corresponded to an age of 2.1 ¡V 4.5 years old (Li, 2008).  Summary of prosomal width of horseshoe crab is shown in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9          Summary of Prosomal Width of Horseshoe Crab Survey

TC1

TC2

TC3

ST

Search duration (hr)

2.5

Tachypleus tridentatus

No. of individuals

12

Mean prosomal width (mm)

17.31

Range of prosomal width (mm)

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

12.20 - 22.69

Search record
(individual hr-1 person-1)

2.40

Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda

No. of individuals

4

Mean prosomal width (mm)

18.79

Range of prosomal width (mm)

11.42 - 26.79

Search record
(individual hr-1 person-1)

0.80

 

3.6.16    At the sampling zone ST, the search record of horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus decreased slightly from 2.67 ind. hr-1 person-1 in the baseline survey (conducted in September 2012) to 2.40 ind. hr-1 person-1 in the present survey. For the size of horseshoe crab, smaller individuals were collected in the present survey that the mean prosomal width (17.31mm) was less than that (24.41mm) of baseline survey. It might be a seasonal variation of data collection. Since horseshoe crabs tends to be inactive and burrow themselves deep in sediments in cold, dry season. Smaller individuals have relatively less energy reserve. Smaller ones would have longer foraging time on sediment surface to survive. It would lead to higher encounter rate of smaller individuals during dry season survey. Therefore significant changes of population structure or cohort pattern were not determined.

3.6.17    The present survey was the first time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs considering the factor of natural, seasonal variation, In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of horseshoe individuals in warm weather) was observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.18    Table 3.3 and Figure 3.2 of Appendix O show the record of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone.  Two patches of Halophila ovalis were recorded at sampling zone ST only. The estimated total area and mean area of this seagrass bed were 481.0 m2 and 240.5 m2 respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 50 to 85%.  Survey results for seagrass beds are presented in Table 3.3 of Appendix O.

3.6.19    Relative to the baseline monitoring conducted in September 2012, the location of Halophila ovalis were the same but the total area (from 332.3 to 481 m2) was higher in present survey. It was believed that the three smaller patches of seagrass (18.9-34.7 m2), recorded in previous baseline survey, grew and merged into single, large patch.

3.6.20    The present survey was the first time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on seagrass, In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very reduction of seagrass patch size) was observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.21    Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3 of Appendix O show the types of substratum along the horizontal transect at every tidal level of every sampling zone.

3.6.22    Table 3.5 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in the present survey.  A total of 11823 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 11277, density 376 ind. m-2, relative abundance 95.4%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 447, density 15 ind. m-2, relative abundance 3.8%) respectively. Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (£0.4%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (39 taxa) followed by arthropods (14 taxa) and annelids (11 taxa).  The number of taxon of other phyla was relatively less (£ 2 taxa).  The summary of the total abundance and total biomass of every phylum is presented in Table 3.5 of Appendix O. The complete list of species recorded is shown in Annex III of Appendix O.

3.6.23    Table 3.6 of Appendix O shows the number of individual, relative abundance and density of each phylum at every sampling zone. The results were similar among the four sampling zones. In general, mollusks were the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 1292-3835 ind., relative abundance 91.3-97.4%). Arthropods were the second abundant phylum (no. of individuals: 69-177 ind., relative abundance 9-24%) although the number of individuals was significantly lower than that of mollusks. Relatively, other phyla were very low in abundance across the four sampling zones (relative abundance < 2%).  The number of individuals and relative abundance (%) of each phylum at every sampling zone were presented in Table 3.6 of Appendix O.

3.6.24    Table 3.7 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) at every sampling zone. At TC1, gastropods Batillaria multiformis and Monodonta labio were the most abundant species (350-386 ind. m-2, relative abundance 52-61%) and second abundant species (76-140 ind. m-2, relative abundance 13-21%) respectively at both high and mid tidal levels. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was the most abundant species at low tidal level (119 ind. m-2, 35%) as well as the third abundant species at mid tidal level (114 ind. m-2, 17%). Gastropod Lunella coronate (42 ind. m-2, 12%) and barnacle Balanus amphitrite (40 ind. m-2, 12%) were at moderate densities at low tidal level.

3.6.25    At TC2, gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis was the most dominant species at all tidal levels (22-272 ind. m-2, 34-79%). Gastropod Cerithidea cingulata was the second abundant species at low tidal level (16 ind. m-2, 25%). Relatively barnacle Balanus amphitrite and gastropod Batillaria zonalis were at low to moderate densities at mid and low tidal levels.

3.6.26    At TC3, the high and mid tidal levels were dominated by gastropods Batillaria multiformis (80-102 ind. m-2, 34-35%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (37-59 ind. m-2, 16-20%) and Cerithidea cingulata (34-52 ind. m-2, 14-18%). At low tidal level, the dominant species rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (294 ind. m-2, 39%), gastropods Batillaria multiformis (194 ind. m-2, 26%) and Monodonta labio (117 ind. m-2, 16%) were much higher in density relative to high and mid tidal levels.

3.6.27    At ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis (474 ind. m-2, 63%) was the most abundant at high tidal level while rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (54-154 ind. m-2, 40-42%) was the most abundant at mid and low tidal levels. Gastropod Monodonta labio (75-137 ind. m-2, 18-19%) was the second abundant species at high and mid tidal levels. Barnacle Balanus amphitrite (17 ind. m-2, 13%) was the second abundant species of low density at low tidal level.

3.6.28    There was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across sampling zones and tidal levels in Tung Chung Wan and San Tau. The species distribution should be determined by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropod Batillaria multiformis (in present survey = 4074 ind.), Cerithidea djadjariensis (1431 ind.), Monodonta labio (1411 ind.), Cerithidea cingulata (448 ind.) and rocky oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2265 ind.) were the most common occurring species among the four sampling zones.  The abundant species (relative abundance >10%) at every sampling zone is presented in Table 3.7 of Appendix O.

3.6.29    Table 3.8 of Appendix O shows the mean values of number of species, density, H¡¦,and J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and sampling zone. There was no obvious difference of number of species (4-13 spp. 0.25 m-2) and species evenness (J 0.64-0.71) across the four sampling zones. However, the mean densities (65-346 ind. m-2) and mean biodiversity index (H¡¦ 0.97) of TC2 were generally lower than that of other sampling zones (density: 130-751 ind. m-2, H¡¦: 1.45-1.61). Regardless of sampling zones, the diversity index and species evenness were relatively lower at high tidal level.

3.6.30    Figure 3.4 of Appendix O shows the temporal changes of number of species, density, H¡¦ and J at every tidal level and sampling zone since the baseline monitoring survey (Sep 2012). No obvious temporal change was observed except the declined densities of intertidal fauna at sampling zones TC2 (mid and low tidal levels) and TC3 (high and mid tidal levels). It was mainly contributed by the decreased abundances of mollusks and arthropods in present study. Natural mortality of intertidal fauna during cold, dry season was believed the main reason. Moreover lower activity rate was possible that some infauna (e.g. bivalve) or temporary infauna (e.g. crab) burrowed themselves deep in the sediments, thus the chance of being sampled reduced sharply.

3.6.31    The present survey was the first time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on intertidal soft shore community.

3.7                Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

3.7.1       The Contractor registered with EPD as a Chemical Waste Producer on 12 July 2012 for the Contract.  Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

3.7.2       The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix K.

3.7.3       The Contractor was reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practise on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.


 

3.8                Environmental Licenses and Permits

3.8.1       The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix L.

 

 


4        Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance

4.1               Environmental Exceedances

4.1.1       The detailed air quality, noise and water quality exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the environmental exceedances are presented as followed:

Air Quality

4.1.2       There is no exceedance of air quality recorded during the reporting period.

Noise

4.1.3       There is no exceedance of noise level recorded during the reporting period.

Water Quality

4.1.4     During the reporting period, there are fifty-one Action Level exceedances and three hundred and fifty Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level.  Fifty-nine Action Level exceedances and three hundred and five Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded.  No major marine works were undertaken near the monitoring stations. Geotextile installation, rock filling, silt curtain maintenance work and vessel maintenance work were being carried out within silt curtains near the restricted area during the sampling period. These activities were unlikely to cause adverse water quality impact.  Therefore, all exceedances were considered not project related.  The detailed numbers of exceedances recorded during the reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.1.


 

Table 4.1          Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

DO (S&M)

DO (Bottom)

Turbidity

SS

Total Number of Exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2013-01-04

2013-02-15

2013-01-04

2013-02-22

2013-02-13

6

2

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-03

2012-12-12

2012-12-24

2013-01-07

2013-01-11

2013-01-16

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-02

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

28

40

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-08

2013-01-09

2013-02-13

2013-01-04

2013-02-13

2013-02-20

--

2012-12-28

2013-01-25

2013-02-06

2013-02-18

3

7

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-28

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-11

2013-01-14

2013-01-16

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

2012-12-01

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-14

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

2012-12-01

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

52

51

IS7

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2012-12-08

2012-12-14

2012-12-21

2012-12-01

2012-12-14

2012-12-26

2012-12-01

2013-02-22

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2013-01-02

2013-02-11

6

7

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-05

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-24

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-14

2013-01-16

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

40

52

IS8

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2013-01-11

2013-01-21

2013-02-04

2012-12-03

2012-12-24

2012-12-26

2013-01-11

2013-02-18

4

4

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-24

2013-01-16

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2012-12-05

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-26

2012-12-31

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-30

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-18

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

21

39

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2013-01-07

2013-01-11

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2013-02-11

2013-02-25

--

2012-12-12

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

3

9

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-10

2012-12-24

2013-01-16

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2012-12-03

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-30

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2012-12-03

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-26

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

21

41

IS10

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2012-12-08

2013-01-23

2013-02-22

2012-12-31

2013-01-02

2013-02-01

2013-02-08

2013-02-20

2012-12-10

2013-01-21

2012-12-05

2012-12-24

2013-02-01

2013-02-15

6

9

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-14

2012-12-24

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-18

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2012-12-24

2013-01-23

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-31

2013-01-02

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-14

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

11

35

SR3

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2013-01-11

2012-12-05

2013-01-09

2013-02-22

2013-01-23

2013-02-20

2012-12-08

2013-01-23

2013-02-27

3

6

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-01

2012-12-14

2012-12-24

2013-01-07

2013-01-16

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-28

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2013-01-04

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2012-12-01

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2013-01-21

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-04

2013-02-18

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-10

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-07

2013-01-09

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

30

41

SR4

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-03

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2012-12-12

2012-12-21

2013-01-21

2013-02-13

2012-12-21

2013-02-20

2013-01-23

2013-01-28

5

6

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-24

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-24

2012-12-26

2012-12-31

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-08

2013-01-21

2013-01-23

2013-01-25

2013-01-30

2013-02-15

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-21

2012-12-26

2012-12-31

2013-01-04

2013-01-18

2013-01-21

2013-01-30

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

16

40

SR5

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-03

2013-01-23

--

2012-12-12

2013-02-06

2013-02-15

2012-12-12

2012-12-26

2013-01-21

2013-02-25

5

4

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-05

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2012-12-24

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-19

2012-12-31

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-18

2013-01-23

2013-01-30

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2012-12-24

2013-01-21

2013-01-25

2013-01-30

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-25

2012-12-03

2012-12-05

2012-12-08

2012-12-10

2012-12-17

2012-12-19

2012-12-31

2013-01-02

2013-01-09

2013-01-11

2013-01-14

2013-01-16

2013-01-18

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

22

39

SR10A

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2013-01-16

2013-02-08

2013-01-23

2012-12-21

2013-01-04

2

3

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

2012-12-10

2013-01-11

2013-02-06

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2012-12-03

2012-12-12

2012-12-14

2012-12-19

2012-12-17

2012-12-31

2013-01-09

2013-01-14

2013-01-16

2013-01-18

2013-02-13

2013-02-27

4

13

SR10B

Action Level

--

--

--

--

2012-12-24

2013-01-16

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2012-12-19

2012-12-24

2013-01-23

2013-02-25

2013-01-11

2013-02-11

6

4

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

2012-12-10

2013-01-11

2013-02-11

2012-12-03

2012-12-14

2012-12-14

2012-12-17

2012-12-24

2012-12-31

2013-01-02

2013-01-04

2013-01-09

2013-01-14

2013-01-18

2013-01-28

2013-01-30

2013-02-01

2013-02-13

2013-02-27

2

17

Total

Action

0

0

0

0

31

28

18

33

110

Limit

0

0

0

0

130

175

117

233

655

 

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

*     The total exceedances. 


 

4.2               Summary of Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.2.1       There were two environmental complaints received during this reporting period. All investigation reports for exceedances of the Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts. The summary of environmental complaints is presented in Table 4.2. The details of environmental complaints are presented in Appendix N.

Table 4.2          Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Reporting Period

Environmental Complaint No. (1)

Date of Complaint Received

Description of Environmental Complaints

COM-2013-015

17 January 2013

Air Quality

COM-2013-016

18 January 2013

Water Quality

Remarks:

(1) If a complainant makes complaint for the same environmental issue, only one complaint number will be assigned for the complaint. 

4.2.2       No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the reporting period.

4.2.3       Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.

5        COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1               Comments

5.1.1       According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:

¡±  The Contractor is recommended to water the unpaved areas/designated roads/dry bare soils to suppress dust emissions. 

¡±  The Contractor should provide covers for excavated materials to prevent fugitive dust impact.

¡±  The Contractor is reminded to remove the stagnant water.

¡±  The Contractor should regularly spray water on the unpaved areas to prevent fugitive dust impact.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the chemical container.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stains.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove the oil stains on the soil near the compressors.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the metal beams.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the chemical drum.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the drainages.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to prevent construction wastewater from leaking into the storm drains.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove rubbish along the beach area at Portion X.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove rubbish along the beach area at Portion Y.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to display the Environmental Permit and Construction Noise Permit at the site entrance.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the drip tray and cap the drain valve.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance for the generator.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded not to stockpile around trees.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to dispose of rubbish regularly.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the drip tray and cap the drain valve.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide a impervious sheeting for the rock piles.

¡±  The Contractor should regularly spray water on the unpaved area.

¡±  The Contractor should remove the oil stains on the soil.

¡±  The Contractor should remove the stagnant water inside the cement gaps.

¡±  The Contractor should water the sand piles.

¡±  The Contractor should ensure regular maintenance to the Yue Guang Chouhuo vessel.

¡±  The Contractor should remove the stagnant water inside the drip tray.

¡±  The Contractor should spray the sand piles with water regularly.

¡±  The Contactor should cover the drainage next to the unpaved road.

¡±  The Contractor should provide a cap for the drain hole.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to dispose of waste regularly.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to clean the wheels of vehicles before leaving the site.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide a noise emission label for air compressors.

¡±  The Contractor was suggested to plugged the generator drip tray drain hole at Portion Y.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to wash vehicles¡¦ wheels before they leave the site.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to provide noise emission label for air compressors.

¡±  The Contractor was suggested to provide impervious sheeting for the stockpiles at Kwo Lo Wan Road.

¡±  The Contractor was reminded to spray water on the unpaved roads regularly.

¡±  The Contractor was recommended to provide high pressure water jet and sedimentation tank at WA4.

5.2               Recommendations

5.2.1       The impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the contract. With implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the contract¡¦s environmental impacts were considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.

5.2.2       The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the contract. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.

5.3               Conclusions

5.3.1       The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012 and this is the second Quarterly EM&A Report summarises the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2012 to 28 February 2013.

5.3.2       For air quality, there were no exceedances of 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP recorded during this reporting period.

5.3.3       For construction noise, there were no exceedances recorded during the reporting period.

5.3.4       During this reporting period, there are fifty-one non-project related Action Level exceedances and three hundred and fifty non-project related Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level.  Fifty-nine non-project related Action Level exceedances and three hundred and five non-project related Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded.

5.3.5       During this quarter of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations, as the dolphin occurrence in the HKLR03 work sites remained rare as in the baseline period.

5.3.6       Although the average dolphin encounter rates and group sizes in the present three-month study period were lower than the ones in the three-month baseline monitoring period, the dolphins do not appear to be affected by the HKLR03 reclamation works, as they rarely occurred in this area in the past (see Hung 2012), during the baseline monitoring period and the impact phase monitoring period.

5.3.7       Nevertheless, dolphin usage in NEL and NWL will be continuously monitored, to examine whether it will be affected by the on-going construction activities in relation to the HZMB works.

5.3.8       Significant difference was detected for the ER(STG) but not the ER(ANI).  Therefore, the monitoring results did not trigger the CWD Event and Action Plan.

5.3.9       For sedimentation rate monitoring of mudflat, S1 had relative higher value of 89mm which was about 29mm more than the expected tolerance or half tolerance more.  For S2, S3 and S4 all had higher value than the last survey but within the measurement tolerance. 

5.3.10    Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in December 2012.  The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids.

5.3.11    An active search method was adopted for horseshoe crab survey at each sampling zone. There were 12 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus and 4 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda observed at ST respectively.  In addition, all individuals were found in soft mud substratum.  The horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was found whereas this species was not recorded in the baseline survey conducted in September 2012. At the sampling zone ST, the search record of horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus decreased slightly from 2.67 ind. hr-1 person-1 in the baseline survey (conducted in September 2012) to 2.40 ind. hr-1 person-1 in the present survey. For the size of horseshoe crab, smaller individuals were collected in the present survey that the mean prosomal width (17.31mm) was less than that (24.41mm) of baseline survey. It might be a seasonal variation of data collection. Since horseshoe crabs tends to be inactive and burrow themselves deep in sediments in cold, dry season.

5.3.12    An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each sampling zone.  Two patches of Halophila ovalis were recorded at sampling zone ST only. The estimated total area and mean area of this seagrass bed were 481.0 m2 and 240.5 m2 respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 50 to 85%.  Relative to the baseline monitoring conducted in September 2012, the location of Halophila ovalis were the same but the total area (from 332.3 to 481 m2) was higher in present survey. It was believed that the three smaller patches of seagrass (18.9-34.7 m2), recorded in previous baseline survey, grew and merged into single, large patch.

5.3.13    The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 1st (for TC3), 2nd (for ST), 15th (for TC1) and 16th December 2012 (for TC2). A total of 11823 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 11277, density 376 ind. m-2, relative abundance 95.4%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 447, density 15 ind. m-2, relative abundance 3.8%) respectively. Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (£0.4%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (39 taxa) followed by arthropods (14 taxa) and annelids (11 taxa).  The number of taxon of other phyla was relatively less (£ 2 taxa). 

5.3.14    At TC2, gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis was the most dominant species at all tidal levels (22-272 ind. m-2, 34-79%). Gastropod Cerithidea cingulata was the second abundant species at low tidal level (16 ind. m-2, 25%). At TC3, the high and mid tidal levels were dominated by gastropods Batillaria multiformis (80-102 ind. m-2, 34-35%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (37-59 ind. m-2, 16-20%) and Cerithidea cingulata (34-52 ind. m-2, 14-18%). At ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis (474 ind. m-2, 63%) was the most abundant at high tidal level while rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (54-154 ind. m-2, 40-42%) was the most abundant at mid and low tidal levels. Gastropod Monodonta labio (75-137 ind. m-2, 18-19%) was the second abundant species at high and mid tidal levels.

5.3.15    Environmental site inspection was carried out on 4, 11, 18 and 28 December 2012, 2, 10, 15, 22 and 29 January, and 5, 14, 19 and 26 February 2013.  Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

5.3.16    There were two environmental complaints received during this reporting period.

5.3.17    No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the reporting period.