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.3 (March 2013 to May 2013)
2 September 2013
Revision 4
Main Contractor Designer
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 third 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 March 2013 to 31 May 2013.
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Progress
The EM&A programme were undertaken in
accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0). A summary of the monitoring activities
during this reporting period is presented as below:
Monitoring Activity
|
Monitoring
Date
|
March 2013
|
April 2013
|
May 2013
|
Air
Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
4, 8, 14, 20 and 26
|
3, 9, 15, 19 and 25
|
AMS5: 2, 7, 13, 16, 22 and 28
AMS6: 2, 7, 13, 16, 24 and 28
|
24-hr TSP
|
1, 7, 13, 19 and 25
|
2, 8, 12, 18, 24 and 30
|
AMS5: 6, 10, 15, 28 and 31
AMS6: 6, 10, 15, 21, 27 and 31
|
Noise
|
4, 14, 20 and 26
|
3, 9, 19 and 25
|
2, 7, 13, 22 and 28
|
Water
Quality
|
1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27
and 29
|
1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26
and 29
|
1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27,
29 and 31
|
Chinese
White Dolphin
|
6, 11, 13 and 20
|
2, 3, 8 and 12
|
8, 13, 25 and 28
|
Mudflat Monitoring
|
2, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 16
|
-
|
-
|
Site Inspection
|
5, 12, 19 and 26
|
2, 9, 17, 26 and 30
|
7, 14, 21 and 31
|
Due to adverse weather condition, the water monitoring for mid-ebb tide
were cancelled on 5 and 19 April 2013 and 22 May 2013.
The high volume sampler (HVS) for AMS5 was out of order on 21 May 2013 and
the 24-hr dust monitoring at AMS5 was cancelled on 21 May 2013. The HVS was repaired on 27 May 2013 and
the 24-hr dust monitoring was postponed to 28 May 2013.
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)
|
4
|
0
|
Water
Quality
|
Suspended
solids level (SS)
|
16
|
87
|
Turbidity
level
|
8
|
78
|
Dissolved
oxygen level (DO)
|
0
|
0
|
Dolphin
|
Ecology
(Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring)
|
1
|
0
|
The Environmental Team investigated all
noise and water quality exceedances and found that they were not project
related.
There was one Action Level exceedance
of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (March ¡V May 2013).
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-2013-018
|
1 March
2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-022
|
8 April
2013
|
Water
|
COM-2013-018
(6), (7) & (9)
|
15 April
2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-018
(11)
|
30 April
2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-023
|
2 May
2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-024
|
23 May
2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-022(2)
|
23 May
2013
|
Water
|
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.
1.1.2 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.
1.1.5
This is the Third 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
March 2013 to 31 May 2013.
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
|
Description of Activities
|
Portion Y
|
Access
Shaft Construction for SHT & HAT
Utility
culvert excavation
|
Portion X
|
Removal
of existing rock for existing seawall
Stone
Column installation
Sand
filling behind stone platform in according to EP requirement
Temporary
stone platform construction
Band
Drains Installation
|
Kwo Lo Wan Road/ Airport Road
|
Works for
diversion of Airport Road and Kwo Lo Wan Road
|
Kwo Lo Wan/ Airport Road/ AEL
|
Pre-grouting
and pipe piling works for AEL access shafts
Utilities
detection
Establishment
of site access
Works for
East access shaft
|
West Portal
|
Site formation
Tree Felling
Slope protection/ stabilization (soil nailing works)
Boulder removal/ stabilization works
|
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
|
--
|
2.2.1
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;
The action level has been
amended to ¡§27.5 and 120% of upstream control station¡¦s turbidity at the same
tide of the same day¡¨ since 25 March 2013.
|
47.0 or 130% of turbidity
at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day;
The limit level has been
amended to ¡§47.0 and 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the
same tide of same day¡¨ since 25 March 2013.
|
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;
The action level has been
amended to ¡§23.5 and 120% of upstream control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of
the same day¡¨ since 25 March 2013.
|
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;
The limit level has been
amended to ¡§34.4 and 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same
tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes¡¨
since 25 March 2013
|
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.
(4) The change
to the Action and limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring for the EM&A
works was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013. Therefore, the amended Action and
Limit Levels are applied for the water monitoring results obtained on and after
25 March 2013.
2.2.3
The Action and Limit
Levels for dolphin monitoring are shown in Tables
2.4 and 2.5.
Table
2.4 Action
and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring
|
North
Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 70% of baseline
&
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
STG < 70% of baseline
&
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
Limit Level
|
STG < 40% of baseline
&
ANI < 40% of baseline
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG means quarterly average encounter rate of
number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of
total number of dolphins.
(3)
For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be
trigger if either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if
both NEL and NWL fall below the criteria.
Table
2.5 Derived
Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)
|
North
Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 4.2 & ANI < 15.5
|
STG < 6.9 & ANI
< 31.3
|
Limit Level
|
(STG < 2.4 & ANI
< 8.9) and (STG < 3.9 & ANI < 17.9)
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG means quarterly average encounter rate of
number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of
total number of dolphins.
(3)
For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be
trigger if either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if
both NEL and NWL fall below the criteria.
2.3.1 The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring are annexed in Appendix D.
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 2, 3, 6, 9,
13, 15 and 18 May 2013. No dolphins
were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.
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)
|
March 2013
|
AMS5
|
53
|
15 ¡V 98
|
352
|
500
|
AMS6
|
62
|
13 ¡V 133
|
360
|
April 2013
|
AMS5
|
93
|
35 ¡V 215
|
352
|
AMS6
|
3.2.2
84
|
3.2.3
17 ¡V 205
|
360
|
May 2013
|
AMS5
|
26
|
7 ¡V 65
|
352
|
AMS6
|
24
|
15 ¡V 43
|
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)
|
March 2013
|
AMS5
|
55
|
28 ¡V 90
|
164
|
260
|
AMS6
|
58
|
22 ¡V 105
|
173
|
April 2013
|
AMS5
|
57
|
22 ¡V 103
|
164
|
AMS6
|
60
|
25 ¡V 108
|
173
|
May 2013
|
AMS5
|
23
|
9 ¡V 58
|
164
|
AMS6
|
26
|
17 ¡V 51
|
173
|
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)
|
March 2013
|
NMS5
|
59
|
55 ¡V 61
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75
|
April 2013
|
60
|
59 ¡V 60
|
May 2013
|
62
|
58 ¡V 68
|
*+3dB(A) Facade correction included
3.3.2
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring
included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.
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.
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 in two ways for comparisons with the
HZMB baseline monitoring results as well as to AFCD long-term marine mammal
monitoring results.
3.5.3
Firstly, for the comparison
with the HZMB baseline monitoring results, the 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 present 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).
3.5.4
Secondly, the encounter rates
were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under
Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of sightings and
dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings (STG)
and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the
entire quarterly period (March-May 2013).
3.5.5
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).
3.5.6
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
3.5.7
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.
3.5.8
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
3.5.9
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.
3.5.10
From these surveys, a total of
887.74 km of survey effort was collected, with 89.5% 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, 340.62 km and 547.12 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL
and NWL survey areas respectively.
In addition, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was
660.79 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 226.95 km. Survey effort conducted on primary and
secondary lines were both considered as on-effort survey data.
3.5.11
During the six sets of
monitoring surveys in March to May 2013, a total of 39 groups of 127 Chinese
White Dolphins were sighted. All
except two sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-two on-effort sightings were made
on primary lines, while another five on-effort sightings were made on secondary
lines. Among the two survey areas,
only two groups of two dolphins were sighted in NEL, while the other 37 groups
of 125 dolphins were sighted in NWL.
Distribution
3.5.12
Distribution of dolphin
sightings made during monitoring surveys in March April and May 2013 was shown
in Figure 1 of Appendix J. Most dolphins
sightings were made in the northwest portion of North
Lantau region, concentrating along the Urmston Road section between Black Point
and Lung Kwu Chau. Other sightings
were made around Sha Chau, between Pillar Point and the airport platform, as
well as to the west of the airport platform. The two lone dolphins sighted in NEL
were found near Tai Mo To and Yam O.
3.5.13
No dolphin was sighted in the
vicinity of the HKLR03 reclamation site (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The lone
dolphin sighted near Tai Mo To was in the vicinity of the HKBCF reclamation
site, but dolphins generally were absent from the surrounding waters of the
reclamation area. On the other hand, a few dolphin sightings were made near the
HKLR09 alignment to the west of the airport platform (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
3.5.14
When compared with the sighting
distribution of dolphins during baseline monitoring surveys in September to
November 2011, dolphins very rarely occurred in NEL region during the present
impact monitoring period, in contrast with their frequent occurrence around the
Brothers Islands and HKBCF reclamation site
during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). However, dolphin occurrence in the northwest portion of North Lantau region was similar between the two periods (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
Encounter
Rate
3.5.15
For the three-month study
period in March, April and May 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).
Table 3.4 Dolphin
Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During three Reporting
Period (March 2013 ¡V May 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 (6 & 11 Mar
2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 2 (13 & 20 Mar
2013)
|
2.53
|
2.53
|
Set 3 (2 & 3 Apr 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 4 (8 & 12 Apr 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (8 & 13 May 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 6 (25 & 28 May 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Northwest Lantau
|
Set 1 (6 & 11 Mar
2013)
|
9.57
|
33.49
|
Set 2 (13 & 20 Mar
2013)
|
13.82
|
49.76
|
Set 3 (2 & 3 Apr 2013)
|
4.38
|
10.94
|
Set 4 (8 & 12 Apr 2013)
|
4.16
|
5.54
|
Set 5 (8 & 13 May 2013)
|
9.88
|
36.24
|
Set 6 (25 & 28 May 2013)
|
4.69
|
9.39
|
Table 3.5 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (March 2013 ¡V May
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
|
0.42 ¡Ó 1.03
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
0.42 ¡Ó 1.03
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
Northwest Lantau
|
7.75 ¡Ó 3.96
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
24.23 ¡Ó 18.05
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
3.5.16
In NEL, the average dolphin
encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month study period were
close to nil, which was much lower than the ones recorded in the 3-month
baseline period (Table 3.5). It should be noted that dolphin occurrence
in NEL was generally lower in spring months (March-May), and hence it is
noteworthy to determine whether the recorded occurrence of dolphins in the
habitat of NEL during this impact phase monitoring period was due to seasonal
fluctuation. For example, the encounter rates deduced
from the advance HZMB monitoring data in spring 2011 were 5.4 (STG) and 11.8
(ANI) respectively. By pooling both HZMB and AFCD monitoring data, the
encounter rates in spring 2011 were 3.8 (STG) and 13.3 (ANI) respectively.
3.5.17
In NWL, the average dolphin
encounter rates (STG and ANI) during the present impact phase monitoring period
were also noticeably lower (reductions of 21% and 46% respectively) than the
ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a reduced dolphin
usage of this survey area.
3.5.18
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).
3.5.19
For the comparison between the
baseline period and the present quarter (third quarter of the impact phase),
the p-value for the differences in average dolphin
encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0858 and 0.0931 respectively, and
therefore no significant difference is detected based on the alpha value of
0.05.
3.5.20
For the comparison between the
baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first three
quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.1336 and 0.0507 respectively, and
therefore no significant difference is detected based on the alpha value of
0.05.
3.5.21
To facilitate the comparison
with the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also
calculated for the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey
effort. The encounter rates of sightings
(STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 7.27 sightings and 26.00 dolphins per 100
km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG)
and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 0.59 sightings and 0.59 dolphins per 100 km of
survey effort respectively.
Group
Size
3.5.22
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from 1-20 individuals per group in North
Lantau region during March to May 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 (March 2013 to May
2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011)
|
Average Dolphin Group Size
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline Monitoring Period
|
Overall
|
3.26 ¡Ó 3.89 (n = 39)
|
3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)
|
Northeast Lantau
|
1.00 ¡Ó 0.00 (n = 2)
|
3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)
|
Northwest Lantau
|
3.38 ¡Ó 3.96 (n = 37)
|
3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)
|
3.5.23
The average dolphin group sizes
in the entire North Lantau region during March
to May 2013 was slightly lower than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline
period (Table
3.6). Notably,
the two sightings made in NEL during the present monitoring period were
comprised of two lone dolphins, hence the average dolphin group size was much
lower than the baseline period. On
the other hand, the average dolphin group size in NWL during the present
monitoring period was slightly lower than the baseline period (Table 3.6).
3.5.24
Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes during March ¡V May 2013
is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix J. There were much fewer large
dolphin groups recorded (four groups with more than 10 animals and one group
with more than 5 animals) during the present monitoring period when compared
with the baseline period (two groups with more than 10 animals and 16 groups
with more than 5 animals). These five large dolphin groups were scattered
within and around the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 2 of Appendix J).
Habitat
Use
3.5.25
From March-May 2013, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White
Dolphins mainly concentrated along the Urmston Road section between Lung Kwu
Chau and Black Point as well as around Sha Chau (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J). Only two grids in NEL recorded the presence of dolphins in very low
density based on two sightings of two lone dolphins. None of the grid around HKLR03 or HKBCF work
site recorded the presence of dolphins.
3.5.26
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.
3.5.27
When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period,
the usage of NEL was significantly less as well as overall number of grids with
presence of dolphins were much fewer during the present impact monitoring
period (Figure 4 of Appendix J). Moreover, dolphins were generally absent from the habitat around the
Brothers and near Shum Shui Kok in NEL that was identified during the baseline
period. From the same comparison
between the two quarterly periods, it appears that dolphins have been less
found in the construction sites of HKLR03 in the present monitoring period (Figure
4 of Appendix J) and it should be noted that the construction site of
HKLR03 situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past.
Hence there is no evidence showing that the sources of impact were directly
related to the construction works of HKLR03 that may have affected the dolphin
usage in the NEL region.
Mother-calf
Pairs
3.5.28
During the three-month study
period, a total of six unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NEL and NWL
survey areas, while no unspotted calves (UC) were sighted. These young calves comprised 4.7% of all
animals sighted, which was lower than the percentage recorded during the
baseline monitoring period (6.8%).
3.5.29
These young calves mainly
occurred within and around the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine
Park (Figure 5 of Appendix J). Notably,
no young calves were found in the vicinity of HZMB-related construction sites.
Activities
and Associations with Fishing Boats
3.5.30
A total of four dolphin
sightings were associated with feeding and socializing activities during the
three-month study period, comprising of 7.7% and 2.6% of the total number of
dolphin sightings. Both percentages
were lower than the percentages recorded during the baseline period (feeding
activity: 11.6%; socializing activity: 5.4%). Only one group of dolphins was engaged
in traveling activity.
3.5.31
Distribution of dolphins
engaged in different activities during the three-month study period is shown in (Figure 6 of Appendix J). Most of the
feeding and socializing activities occurred within and around the Sha Chau and
Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park.
Moreover, one group of ten dolphins was engaged in traveling activity to
the west of Sha Chau close to the Hong Kong-Guangdong border. All these
activities were far away from the HZMB-related construction works.
3.5.32
During the three-month period,
only one dolphin group were found to be associated with an operating
purse-seiner, comprising of 2.6% 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
3.5.33
From March to May 2013, over
2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the
impact phase monitoring surveys for the for the photo-identification work.
3.5.34
In total, 34 individuals
sighted 58 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III
and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). Only one of
these 58 re-sightings were made in NEL, which involved the individual NL18 that
was also the most frequently sighted individuals in NEL during previous months
of HKLR03 monitoring works. On the
contrary, a number of year-round residents that occurred in NEL regularly
before (e.g. EL01, NL123, NL285, NL179) have disappeared from this survey area
during the present monitoring period.
3.5.35
Most identified individuals
were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the
exception of two individuals being sighted thrice (NL93, NL244) and three
individuals being sighted four times (NL104, NL202 and NL286).
3.5.36
Five well-recognized females,
including NL33, NL46, NL93, NL104 and NL202, were accompanied with their calves
during their re-sightings. These
mother-calf pairs were frequently seen throughout the HKLR03 impact phase
monitoring period.
3.5.37
Ranging patterns of the 34
individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by
fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex
V of Appendix J.
3.5.38
Only one individual (NL18) was
sighted in the NEL survey area while other individuals were mostly found in the
NWL survey area during this quarterly period. In contrast to the extensive movements
between NEL and NWL survey areas in previous two impact monitoring periods and
the baseline period, most identified individuals have avoided NEL during
March-May 2013, even though they were frequently sighted there before and their
core areas were centered around the Brothers Islands (i.e. NL24, NL33, NL261) (Annex V of Appendix J).
3.5.39
Moreover, a number of
year-round residents that used to utilize the Brothers Islands
as their core areas have not been seen there during the past two quarters. This apparent shift in range use of many
individual dolphins should be continuously monitored in the upcoming quarterly
periods to determine whether this is related to the disturbance associated with
the HZMB-related construction activities.
3.5.40
It should be noted that a
number of individuals that focused their activities in West
Lantau waters in the past were also sighted in NWL (e.g. WL44,
WL46, WL50, WL98) (Annex V of Appendix J). The movement of these individuals
between North and West Lantau waters should be
continuously monitored to determine whether their range use will be affected by
the HKLR09 construction works.
Action
Level / Limit Level Exceedance
3.5.41
There
was one Action Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly
monitoring data (March ¡V May 2013). The possible reasons for Action Level
non-compliance could be due to the seasonal fluctuation of dolphin occurrence
in spring months in the Northeast Lantau region. According to AFCD long-term monitoring
data, dolphins were infrequently sighted in NEL during spring months as
compared to the other three seasons (Hung 2011, 2012), and the current AL
non-compliance also occurred in NEL during spring months. There is no evidence
showing the current AL non-compliance directly related to the construction
works of HKLR03. It should also be
noted that reclamation work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island)
situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the
working vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in
accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White
Dolphin. In addition, the
contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding
anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok
Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.
3.5.42 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 (third quarter of the
impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter
rates of STG and ANI were 0.0858 and 0.0931 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1 (due to
the small sample size with lower statistical power in the analysis),
significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters.
For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in
impact phase (i.e. first three quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the
differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.1336 and
0.0507 respectively. If the alpha
value is set at 0.1, significant difference is detected in the average dolphin
encounter rate of ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations), but not
in the average dolphin encounter rate of STG. The AFCD monitoring data during
March-May 2013 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist, and no dolphin
sighting was made with 66.04 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL during
the same quarter. This review has
confirmed that the very low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03
monitoring survey in spring 2013 in NEL is accurate.
3.5.43 All dolphin protective
measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A
Manual. In order to minimise
disturbance to the Brother¡¦s Island, the Contractor provide training to
skippers to ensure that their working vessels travel from source to destination
to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s
designated anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as
far as possible.
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 23
March 2013. 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
(March 2013)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
(mPD)
|
(mPD)
|
S1
|
810291.160
|
816678.727
|
0.950
|
810291.111
|
816678.640
|
0.995
|
S2
|
810958.272
|
815831.531
|
0.864
|
810958.296
|
815831.551
|
0.953
|
S3
|
810716.585
|
815953.308
|
1.341
|
810716.583
|
815953.344
|
1.422
|
S4
|
811221.433
|
816151.381
|
0.931
|
811221.485
|
816151.324
|
1.068
|
Table 3.7 Comparison
of measurement
|
Comparison of measurement
|
Remarks and
Recommendation
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
-0.049
|
-0.087
|
0.045
|
Within tolerance, no significant
change
|
S2
|
0.024
|
0.019
|
0.091
|
Level continuously increased
|
S3
|
-0.003
|
0.036
|
0.081
|
Level continuously increased
|
S4
|
0.052
|
-0.057
|
0.137
|
Level continuously increased
|
3.6.2
This measurement was generally and relatively higher than the baseline
measurement at S3, S2 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1, the level has increased within
tolerance and their sea
bed depth would not be considered as significant change.
Water
Quality Monitoring
3.6.3
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.
3.6.4
Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau
(monitoring station SR3) was conducted in March 2013. The monitoring parameters included
dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).
3.6.5
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-Mar-13
|
8.0
|
3.35
|
5.7
|
7.4
|
4.5
|
8.6
|
04-Mar-13
|
7.8
|
3.1
|
5.95
|
7.4
|
4.5
|
8.6
|
06-Mar-13
|
8.2
|
2.5
|
3.35
|
7.8
|
2.4
|
3.9
|
08-Mar-13
|
8.9
|
2.25
|
3.5
|
8.9
|
2.4
|
3.6
|
11-Mar-13
|
8.5
|
4.4
|
4.25
|
8.3
|
6.7
|
7.1
|
13-Mar-13
|
7.7
|
2.85
|
3.85
|
7.6
|
3.4
|
5.5
|
15-Mar-13
|
7.2
|
3.15
|
3.85
|
7.2
|
4.1
|
4.6
|
18-Mar-13
|
7.5
|
4.35
|
4.7
|
7.1
|
4.9
|
4.3
|
20-Mar-13
|
7.7
|
2.65
|
2.55
|
6.8
|
3.7
|
3.8
|
22-Mar-13
|
7.1
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
7.4
|
6.5
|
8.3
|
25-Mar-13
|
7.1
|
10.65
|
8.85
|
7.0
|
7.7
|
11.4
|
27-Mar-13
|
7.1
|
7.9
|
14.5
|
6.9
|
13.3
|
17.6
|
29-Mar-13
|
6.8
|
8.15
|
5.8
|
6.7
|
13.5
|
14.6
|
Average
|
7.7
|
4.5
|
5.4
|
7.4
|
6.0
|
7.8
|
Mudflat Ecology Monitoring
Sampling
Zone
3.6.6
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
3.6.7
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 with reference to Li (2008). The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 11th (for zones
TC1 and TC2) and 12th (for zones TC3 and ST) March 2013 with windy
and cloudy weather.
Seagrass
Beds
3.6.8
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 11th (for zones TC1 and TC2) and 12th
(for zones TC3 and ST) March 2013 with windy and cloudy weather.
Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities
3.6.9
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.
3.6.10
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.
All collected fauna were released after
recording except some tiny individuals that in-situ
identification was not feasible. These tiny individuals were collected and were
identified in the laboratory. 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 2nd (for TC2), 3rd (for TC1), 10th
(for ST) and 16th March 2013 (for TC3).
Data
Analysis
3.6.11 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
3.6.12 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 of Appendix
O show the records of horseshoe crab survey at every sampling zone. In
general, horseshoe crab Tachypleus
tridentatus was found at TC1 (5 individuals), TC3 (2 individuals) and ST
(15 individuals). All individuals
were found on either soft mud or sandy substratum. Grouping was observed while
each group consisted of 2 individuals only. One individual was just completed
moulting at TC3. Another individual was found with broken prosoma at ST that
might be caused by birds¡¦ pecking.
Another horseshoe crab species Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda, reported at ST in previous survey (December 2012) was not
encountered in the present survey.
3.6.13
According to Table 3.2 of Appendix I, the search records of Tachypleus tridentatus were
1.25 individuals hr-1 person-1 (mean prosomal widths: 40.68 mm) and 0.50 individuals hr-1 person-1 (34.71 mm) at TC1 and TC3,
respectively. Similar to previous surveys, the highest search record of 3.00 individuals hr-1 person-1 (32.46 mm) was reported at
ST. According to
Li (2008), the
prosomal
width of Tachypleus tridentatus recorded ranged 15.02¡Ð47.98 mm that corresponded to
an estimated
age of 2.1¡V5.8 years old. Summary of prosomal width of horseshoe crab is
shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Summary
of Prosomal Width of Horseshoe Crab Survey
|
Sampling Zone
|
TC1
|
TC2
|
TC3
|
ST
|
Search duration (hr)
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2.5
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of individuals
|
5
|
N.A.
|
2
|
15
|
Mean prosomal width (mm)
|
40.68
|
N.A.
|
34.71
|
32.46
|
Range of prosomal width
(mm)
|
34.31-47.98
|
N.A.
|
28.29-41.12
|
15.02-42.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search record
(individual hr-1 person-1)
|
1.25
|
N.A.
|
0.50
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.14 Figure 3.2 of Appendix
O
shows the changes of number of individuals, mean
prosomal width and search record of horseshoe crab Tachypleus
tridentatus at the four
sampling zones along the sampling months. From September to December 2012, the
search records declined generally at all sampling zones during dry season. The horseshoe crabs were
inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in
dry seasons were reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe
crab. For example, the search records at Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 individuals hr-1 person-1 and
0 individual hr-1 person-1 in wet season and dry
season respectively (details see Li, 2008). From December 2012 to March 2013
(present survey), the search records increased at the three sampling zones with
the increased ambient temperature. Therefore,
significant changes of population structure or cohort pattern were not
determined.
3.6.15 By comparing the search record
and mean prosomal width of Tachypleus tridentatus among the
sampling zones, ST was usually inhabited by more individuals of smaller size.
Larger individuals were usually found at TC1 and TC3 at lower abundance. ST was
believed a more important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly
hatched individuals. When reaching larger size of higher mobility, few
individuals might migrate to nearby sampling zones TC1 and TC3 for foraging.
3.6.16 The present survey was the second
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) is observed, it would be reported as soon as
possible.
Seagrass
Beds
3.6.17
Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 of Appendix O show the
records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone. Three patches of Halophila
ovalis were
recorded nearby the mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. at ST.
The estimated total area and mean area were 528.8 m2 and 176.3 m2
respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 70-100%. One of the patches
was a long seagrass strand with estimated total area 442.2 m2.
3.6.18
Three small patches of Zostera japonica were found within the long strand of Halophila
ovalis. The estimated total area and mean area were 10.4 m2 and
3.5 m2 respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 15-50% only.
Since Zostera japonica was not reported in the previous surveys, it
indicated the seasonal recruitment of this seagrass species between December
and March.
3.6.19 Figure 3.4 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds Halophila ovalis at ST along the sampling months. Relative to previous surveys, the total area and estimated coverage
increased gradually. Since the location of seagrass was the same, it was
believed that scattered patches of seagrass grew and merged into single, large
patch.
Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities
3.6.20 Table 3.4 and Figure 3.5 of Appendix O show the types of substratum
along the horizontal transect at every tidal level of every sampling zone. The relative
distribution of different substrata was estimated by investigating the
substratum types (Gravels & Boulders / Sands /
Soft mud) of the ten random quadrats along every horizontal transect.
3.6.21
The distribution of substratum
types varied strongly among tidal levels and sampling zones. At TC1, even distribution of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (50%) and ¡¥Sands¡¦ (40%) were recorded at high
tidal level. Higher percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (80-90%) was recorded at mid and low tidal levels. At TC2, high percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (70-90%) was recorded at high and mid tidal
levels while ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ was recorded only (100%) at low tidal level. At TC3,
high percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (70-90%) was recorded at
high and mid tidal levels followed by ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (10-30%).
¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was recorded only (100%) at low tidal level. At
ST, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (100%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (100%)
were recorded only at high and low tidal levels respectively. Even distribution
of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (60%) and ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (40%) was recorded at mid tidal level.
3.6.22
There was neither consistent vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of
substratum type in the study site. Such heterogeneous variation should be caused by different hydrology (e.g. wave in
different direction and intensity) received by the four sampling zones
3.6.23
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 20159 individuals
were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total
individuals 19714, density 657 individuals m-2, relative
abundance 97.8%).
The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 339, density 11
individuals m-2, 1.7%) respectively.
Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (£0.4%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (38 taxa) followed by annelids (14 taxa) and arthropods (12 taxa). The number of taxon of other phyla was relatively small (£ 2 taxa). The complete list of collected specimens is provided in Annex III of Appendix O.
3.6.24
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: 2708-6491 individuals, relative abundance 92.5-99.3%). Arthropods were the second abundant
phylum (no. of individuals: 30-201 individuals, 0.5-6.9%) 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 (< 1%).
3.6.25
Table 3.7 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) at every sampling
zone. At TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was a clearly dominant species (203-693 individuals m-2, relative
abundance 31-89%) regardless of tidal levels. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was the second abundant species (164-170
individuals m-2, 16-26%) at mid and low tidal levels. Gastropod
Monodonta labio was the third abundant species (151
individuals m-2, 23%) at low tidal level.
3.6.26
At TC2, gastropod Batillaria
multiformis was highly
abundant (308 individuals m-2, relative abundance 62%) at
high tidal level followed by gastropod Cerithidea
djadjariensis (86 individuals m-2, 17%). At mid tidal level, gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis was the most abundant (128 individuals
m-2, 34%) while rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (72 individuals m-2, 19%), gastropod Batillaria zonalis (50 individuals m-2, 13%) and Cerithidea cingulata (43 individuals m-2, 11%) were other abundant species at lower
density. At low tidal level, the abundant species were gastropod Batillaria
zonalis (76 individuals m-2, 26%), Cerithidea
djadjariensis (70 individuals m-2, 24%), rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (64 individuals m-2, 22%) and barnacle Balanus amphitrite (50 individuals m-2, 17%) at similar density.
3.6.27
At TC3, the high and mid tidal levels were mainly dominated by gastropods Batillaria multiformis (532-652 individuals m-2, relative abundance 65-67%) and Cerithidea
djadjariensis (166-214 individuals m-2, 20-22%). At low
tidal level, the
abundant species were rock
oyster Saccostrea cucullata (282
individuals m-2, 34%), gastropods Batillaria
multiformis (280 individuals m-2, 34%) and Monodonta labio (154 individuals m-2, 19%) at similar density.
3.6.28
At ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly
abundant (845 individuals m-2, relative abundance 75%) at
high tidal level followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (114 individuals m-2, 10%). At mid tidal level, rocky oyster Saccostrea cucullata (136 individuals m-2, 25%) and
gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (120 individuals m-2, 22%) were abundant species at mid tidal level
followed by gastropod Batillaria multiformis (62 individuals m-2, 11%) at
lower density. Relatively, the abundant species rocky oyster Saccostrea cucullata (39 individuals m-2, 26%),
gastropod Batillaria zonalis (32 individuals m-2, 21%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (31
individuals m-2, 20%) were lower in density at low tidal level.
3.6.29
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 = 10710 individuals), Cerithidea djadjariensis (2367 individuals), Monodonta labio
(1443 individuals) and
rocky oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2653 individuals) were the most common occurring species among the four sampling zones.
3.6.30
Table 3.8 shows the mean values
of number of species, density, H¡¦ and J
of soft shore communities at every tidal level and sampling zone. Among the sampling zones, the
mean number of species was similar and ranged 6-13 spp. 0.25 m-2. The mean densities of TC1
(647-1020 individuals m-2), TC3 (819-970 individuals m-2)
and ST (151-1126 individuals m-2) were generally higher than that of
TC2 (296-498 individuals m-2). For ST, the mean density was
obviously higher at high tidal level. The mean biodiversity index and species
evenness were similar that ranged 1.12-1.40 and 0.50-0.65 respectively.
3.6.31
Across the tidal levels, there was no consistent pattern of the mean
number of species and mean density. In general higher biodiversity index and
species evenness were observed at lower tidal levels (1.0-1.5 m above C.D.).
3.6.32
Figure 3.6 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 significant
temporal change was observed at all sampling zones. Although declined densities
were reported at sampling zones TC2 (mid and low tidal levels) and TC3 (high
and mid tidal levels) in dry season (Dec 2012), it was believed a natural,
seasonal variation due to higher mortality and lower activity rate of
intertidal fauna during cold, dry season. The densities of both sampling zones
had increased in the present survey with the warm weather.
3.6.33
The present survey was the second 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
4.1.1 The detailed air quality,
noise, water quality and dolphin exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the
environmental exceedances are presented as followed:
Air Quality
4.1.2
There were no Action and Limit Level exceedance
for 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP recorded air quality were recorded during the
reporting period.
Noise
4.1.3
There were 4 Action Level exceedances of noise were recorded during the
reporting period. All
noise exceedances were considered not related to project. No Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded at the monitoring
station during the reporting period.
Water Quality
4.1.4 During the reporting period, there are 16 Action Level
exceedances and 87 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. 8 Action Level exceedances and 78 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.
Dolphin
4.1.5
There was one Action
Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (March
¡V May 2013). The possible reasons for Action Level non-compliance could be due
to the seasonal fluctuation of dolphin occurrence in
spring months in the Northeast Lantau region. According to AFCD long-term monitoring
data, dolphins were infrequently sighted in NEL during spring months as
compared to the other three seasons (Hung 2011, 2012), and the current AL non-compliance
also occurred in NEL during spring months. There is no evidence showing the
current AL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of
HKLR03. It should also be noted
that reclamation work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in
waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working
vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in
accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White
Dolphin. In addition, the
contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding
anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok
Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable. All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in
accordance with the EM&A Manual.
In order to minimise disturbance to the
Brother¡¦s Island, the Contractor provide training to skippers to ensure that
their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize impacts on
Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated
anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as
possible.
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
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-08
|
---
|
---
|
2013-03-18
|
1
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-18
2013-03-20
|
2013-03-22
|
|
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-04
2013-03-22
|
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-06
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-13
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
|
4
|
13
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-15
|
--
|
2013-03-11
|
0
|
2
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-22
|
|
|
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-06
|
2013-03-08
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-13
|
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-08
|
|
2013-03-06
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
2013-03-22
2013-05-08
|
6
|
15
|
IS7
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-04
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-25
2013-05-08
|
1
|
2
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-06
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-06
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-11
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
2013-03-22
|
4
|
17
|
IS8
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-20
|
--
|
--
|
2013-04-10
2013 -05-08
|
1
|
2
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
2013-03-04
2013-03-08
2013-03-11
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-20
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-13
|
2013-03-15
|
2013-03-18
2013-03-22
|
5
|
12
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-18
|
2013-03-29
2013-05-08
|
--
|
2
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-22
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-04
2013-03-08
2013-03-13
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
3
|
15
|
IS10
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-04-26
|
1
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-08
2013-03-22
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-06
2013-03-08
2013-03-11
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-06
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
|
3
|
15
|
SR3
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-15
2013-03-18
|
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-01
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-06
|
2013-03-11
|
2013-03-13
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
2
|
16
|
SR4
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-20
|
--
|
2013-03-08
|
2013-03-08
|
2
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-08
2013-03-11
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
|
2013-03-04
2013-03-20
|
2013-03-04
2013-03-06
2013-03-11
2013-03-13
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
2
|
12
|
SR5
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-08
2013-03-18
|
--
|
2013-04-26
|
0
|
3
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-18
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-06
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-22
|
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
2013-03-08
2013-03-11
2013-03-15
2013-03-20
2013-03-29
|
|
4
|
12
|
SR10A
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-04
|
2013-03-01
2013-03-04
|
1
|
2
|
SR10B
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-08
2013-03-18
2013-03-20
|
0
|
3
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2013-03-01
|
0
|
1
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
12
|
24**
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
65
|
21
|
66
|
165**
|
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 seven 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-2013-018
|
1 March 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-022
|
8 April 2013
|
Water
|
COM-2013-018 (6), (7) & (9)
|
15 April 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-018 (11)
|
30 April 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-023
|
2 May 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-024
|
23 May 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-022(2)
|
23 May 2013
|
Water
|
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
5.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during
the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the chemical containers at vessel Shing Yip 101.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean waste in the
skip regularly.
¡± The Contractor was reminder to spray water on the
unpaved roads regularly at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant
water at Kwo Lo Wan Road.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the wastewater containers at vessel Chun Ming 83.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the chemical containers at vessel Sun Shun 2.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to spray water on the
unpaved area regularly at Chun Ming 83.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance
for the machine at S11.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clear up the
passageway of the vessel (Chung Ming 83) to avoid washing sand into sea.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to spray water on the
unpaved road at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the chemical containers at vessel Yiu Ming 1.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at Shing Yip 101.
¡± The Contractor was recommended to provide
label/signs and lock on the wasted battery storage at WA N4.
¡± The Contractor was recommended to clean up the
stagnant water and maintain the storage area in good condition at WA N4.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water inside the concrete blocks at WA N4.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at WA03.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide clear label
for the chemical containers at WA03.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance
for the machine at stone column platform.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water in vessel Yiu Ming 01.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide water spray
or covers to avoid dust generation at WA 03.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the chemical container in vessel Chung Ming 83.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for the oil container at Stone Columns Platforms.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray
for chemical containers at S5.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to display necessary
environmental permits and licenses at the site entrance of S16.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at S16, Kwo Lo Wan Road and West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide labels for
chemical waste containers at chemical waste store.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at S11.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide clear label for the chemical container at
S16.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water inside the chemical waste storage box at West portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at S9.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays
for the chemical container at S8.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water at S8.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays
for the chemical waste containers on vessel Sun Shun 02.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water inside the recesses for lifting eyes of concrete blocks at S16.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water which inside the drip tray at S16.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water on vessel Shing Yip 101.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to clean up the
stagnant water on vessel Chang Sheung 2002.
¡± The Contractor was reminded to cover the cement
mixing plant entirely in an impervious shelter with top and 3 sides.
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.
5.3.1
The construction phase and
EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012 and this is the
third Quarterly EM&A Report summarises the monitoring results and audit
findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 March
2013 to 31 May 2013.
5.3.2
For air quality, there were no
Action and Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP recorded during
this reporting period.
5.3.3
For construction noise, there
were 4 Action Level exceedances of noise were recorded during the reporting
period. All noise exceedances were considered not related to project. No Limit
Level exceedances for noise were recorded at the monitoring station during the
reporting period.
5.3.4
During the reporting
period, there are 16 Action Level exceedances and 87 Limit Level exceedances of
suspended solids level. 8 Action Level exceedances
and 78 Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded.
5.3.5
There was one Action Level exceedance of dolphin
monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (March ¡V May 2013).
5.3.6
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.
5.3.7
Although the occurrence of
Chinese White Dolphins in NEL were much lower in the present three-month study
period 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) and during the baseline
monitoring period.
5.3.8
Nevertheless, dolphin usage in North Lantau region should be continuously monitored, as
there are indications that their occurrence in NEL has been affected by the
various construction activities in relation to the HZMB works.
5.3.9
For sedimentation rate
monitoring of mudflat, the measurement was generally and
relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S3, S2 and S4. The mudflat
level is continuously increased.
For S1, the level has increased within tolerance and their sea bed depth would not be considered as
significant change.
5.3.10
Impact water quality monitoring
in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in March 2013. 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. In general, horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus was found at TC1 (5 individuals), TC3 (2
individuals) and ST (15 individuals).
All individuals were found on either soft mud or sandy substratum. The search records of Tachypleus tridentatus were 1.25 individuals hr-1 person-1 (mean prosomal widths: 40.68 mm) and 0.50 individuals hr-1 person-1 (34.71 mm) at TC1 and TC3,
respectively. Similar to previous surveys, the highest search record of 3.00 individuals hr-1 person-1 (32.46 mm) was reported at
ST. In
the March 2013 survey, the search records increased at the three sampling zones
with the increased ambient temperature. Therefore,
significant changes of population structure or cohort pattern were not
determined. Another
horseshoe crab species Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda, reported at ST in previous survey (December 2012) was not
encountered in the March 2013 survey.
5.3.12 An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each
sampling zone. Three patches
of Halophila ovalis were recorded nearby the
mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. at ST. The estimated total
area and mean area were 528.8 m2 and 176.3 m2
respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 70-100%. One of the patches
was a long seagrass strand with estimated total area 442.2 m2. Three small patches of Zostera japonica were found within the long strand of Halophila
ovalis. The estimated total area and mean area were 10.4 m2 and
3.5 m2 respectively while the estimated coverage ranged 15-50% only.
Since Zostera japonica was not reported in the previous surveys, it
indicated the seasonal recruitment of this seagrass species between December
and March. Relative to previous surveys, the total area and estimated coverage
increased gradually. Since the location of seagrass was the same, it was
believed that scattered patches of seagrass grew and merged into single, large
patch.
5.3.13
The intertidal soft shore
community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 2nd (for
TC2), 3rd (for TC1), 10th (for TC3) and 16th
March 2013 (for ST). A total of 20159 individuals
were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total
individuals 19714, density 657 individuals m-2, relative
abundance 97.8%).
The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 339, density 11
individuals m-2, 1.7%) respectively.
Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (£0.4%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (38 taxa) followed by annelids (14 taxa) and arthropods (12 taxa). The number of taxon of other phyla was relatively small (£ 2 taxa).
5.3.14 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 = 10710 individuals), Cerithidea djadjariensis (2367 individuals), Monodonta labio (1443 individuals) and rocky oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (2653
individuals) were
the most common occurring species among the four sampling zones.
5.3.15
The March 2013 survey results indicate that the impacts
of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs, seagrass and
intertidal soft shore community.
5.3.16
Environmental site inspection
was carried out on 5, 12, 19 and 26 March, 2, 9, 17, 26 and 30 April, and 7, 14, 21 and 31 May 2013. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors
for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.
5.3.17
There were seven environmental
complaints received during this reporting period.
5.3.18
No notification of summons and
prosecution was received during the reporting period.