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.5 (Sep 2013 to Nov 2013)
7 February 2014
Revision 1
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/C for HKLR and EP-353/2009/G for HKBCF were issued on 5
September 2013 and 6 August 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 fifth 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 September 2013 to 30 November 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
|
September 2013
|
October 2013
|
November
2013
|
Air
Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
4, 10, 16, 19 and 25
|
2, 7, 11, 17, 23 and 29
|
4, 8, 14, 20 and 26
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS5: 3, 9, 13, 18, 24 and 30
AMS6: 13, 18, 24 and 30
|
4, 10, 16, 22 and 28
|
AMS5: 1, 7, 13, 21, 25 and 29
AMS6: 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 and 29
|
Noise
|
6, 11, 16 and 25
|
2, 7, 17, 23 and 29
|
4, 14, 20 and 26
|
Water
Quality
|
2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27
and 30
|
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, 27
and 29
|
Chinese White
Dolphin
|
3, 5, 10 and 18
|
8, 15, 17 and 22
|
1, 5, 8 and 13
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)
|
1, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 21
|
-
|
-
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation rate)
|
4
|
-
|
-
|
Site Inspection
|
3, 10, 18 and 27
|
2, 9, 16, 22 and 29
|
6, 13, 20 and 29
|
The 24 hours dust monitoring at station AMS6 was cancelled on 3
September 2013 due to interruption of electricity supply and 9 September 2013
due to malfunction of high volume sampler.
The noise monitoring at NMS5 was cancelled on 4 September 2013 due to
the inclement weather and was rescheduled for 6 September 2013.
Due to adverse weather condition, the water quality monitoring at all
stations were cancelled on 23 September 2013 during mid-ebb tide and mid-flood
tide.
Due to strong winds, the dolphin monitoring was rescheduled from 17
September 2013 to 18 September 2013
Due to the boat arrangement problem, the dolphin monitoring was
rescheduled from 10 October 2013 to 22 October 2013.
Due to strong winds, the dolphin monitoring was rescheduled from 12
November 2013 to 13 November 2013.
Due to the electricity supply problem, the 24 hrs dust monitoring at
AMS5 was rescheduled from 19 November 2013 to 21 November 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)
|
0
|
0
|
Water
Quality
|
Suspended
solids level (SS)
|
10
|
3
|
Turbidity
level
|
0
|
0
|
Dissolved
oxygen level (DO)
|
0
|
0
|
Dolphin
Monitoring
|
Quarterly
Analysis (September to November 2013)
|
1
|
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.
|
Date of Complaint Received
|
Description of Environmental Complaints
|
COM-2013-033
|
13
September 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-034
|
17
September 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-037
|
8, 9 and
16 October 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-041
|
31
October 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-043
|
11 November
2013
|
Noise
|
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).
The proposal for the change of Action Level and Limit Level for
suspended solid and turbidity was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013.
The revised Event and Action Plan for dolphin Monitoring was approved by
EPD on 6 May 2013.
It was found that the original monitoring
station at IS(Mf)9 (Coordinate- East 813273, North 818850) was inside the
perimeter silt curtain on 1 July 2013, as such the original impact water
quality monitoring location at IS(Mf)9 was temporarily shifted outside the silt
curtain. The new co-ordinates of station IS(Mf)9 are 813226E and 818708N since
1 July 2013.
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/C
for HKLR and EP-353/2009/G for HKBCF were issued on 5 September 2013 and 6
August 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 Fifth 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
September 2013 to 30 November 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
Site
Area
|
Description
of Activities
|
Portion X
|
¡P
Removal of
existing rock for existing seawall
¡P
Stone column
installation
¡P
Filling works
behind stone platform
¡P
Temporary stone
platform construction
¡P
Band drains
Installation
¡P
Dismantling/trimming of
temporary 40mm stone platform for construction of seawall
|
Portion Y
|
¡P
Access shaft
construction for SHT & HAT
¡P
Utility culvert
excavation
¡P
Excavation for
Temporary Diversion of outfall PR10
|
West Portal
|
¡P
Site formation
¡P
Tree felling
¡P
Slope protection/
stabilization (soil nailing works)
¡P
Boulder removal/
stabilization works
¡P
Pipe Roofing
Installation and Excavation for Tunnel SHT
|
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road
|
¡P
Works for
diversion of Airport Road and Kwo Lo Wan Road
|
Airport Express Line
|
¡P
Pre-grouting and
pipe piling works for AEL access shafts
|
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road /Airport Express Line
|
¡P
Utilities
detection
¡P
Establishment of
site access
¡P
Works for east
access shaft
|
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.
3.2.1
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)
|
September 2013
|
AMS5
|
25
|
16
¡V 44
|
352
|
500
|
AMS6
|
31
|
14
¡V 47
|
360
|
October 2013
|
AMS5
|
100
|
47
¡V 217
|
352
|
AMS6
|
105
|
66
¡V 229
|
360
|
November 2013
|
AMS5
|
65
|
35 ¡V 127
|
352
|
AMS6
|
77
|
35 ¡V 132
|
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)
|
September 2013
|
AMS5
|
37
|
15-64
|
164
|
260
|
AMS6
|
74
|
45-125
|
173
|
October 2013
|
AMS5
|
105
|
54-138
|
164
|
AMS6
|
141
|
83-170
|
173
|
November 2013
|
AMS5
|
70
|
12-97
|
164
|
AMS6
|
123
|
88-160
|
173
|
3.2.2
There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for air during daytime
on normal weekdays of the
reporting period.
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)
|
September 2013
|
NMS5
|
60
|
58 ¡V 62
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75
|
October 2013
|
61
|
57 ¡V 63
|
November 2013
|
60
|
58 ¡V 62
|
*+3dB(A) Facade correction included
3.3.2
There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during
daytime on normal weekdays of the
reporting period.
3.3.3
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
During the reporting period, there were 10
Action Level exceedances and 3 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids
level.
3.4.3
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 (September - November 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 period of September
to November 2013, 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
862.46 km of survey effort was collected, with 94.3% 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, 331.22 km and 531.24 km of survey effort were
conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively. In addition, the total survey effort conducted
on primary lines was 644.87 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 217.59 km. Survey effort conducted on primary and
secondary lines were both considered as on-effort survey data. Summary table of
the survey effort is shown in Annex
I of Appendix J.
3.5.11
During the six sets of
monitoring surveys in September to November 2013, a total of 45 groups of 187
Chinese White Dolphins were sighted.
All except two sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-four on-effort sightings were
made on primary lines, while another nine on-effort sightings were made on
secondary lines. In this quarterly
period, only two groups of eight dolphins were sighted in NEL, while the other
43 groups of 179 dolphins were sighted in NWL. Summary table of the dolphin
sightings is shown in Annex II of
Appendix J.
Distribution
3.5.12
Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in
September, October and November 2013 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. Almost all sightings were made in the
northwestern portion of the North Lantau
region, similar to the dolphin distribution pattern in the previous
quarter. In particular, dolphin
groups were mainly sighted around Lung Kwu Chau, Shau Chau, Black Point, and
along the Urmston Road section between Black Point and Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Moreover, a few sightings were also made
to the west and northeast of Chek Lap Kok airport platform, and two sightings
were made near Tai Mo To (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
3.5.13
A few dolphin groups were
sighted in the vicinity of the HKBCF reclamation site, but none was sighted
near HKLR03 reclamation site (Figure 1
of Appendix J). In contrary to
the previous quarter, no sighting was made along or near the HKLR09 alignment.
3.5.14
Sighting distribution between the impact phase
monitoring period (September to November 2013) was compared to the one in the
baseline monitoring period (September to November 2011). During the present monitoring period,
dolphins rarely occurred in NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their
frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands and HKBCF reclamation site
during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
3.5.15
The low occurrence of dolphins in NEL region
(particularly around the Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok) has been
documented repeatedly in previous quarters. This should be a serious concern for the
HZMB-related construction activities (including the upcoming TM-CLKL bored
piling works) in this area, especially when considered that the present period
(September to November) in 2013 was exactly the same three-month period as the
baseline monitoring period, and any speculation of seasonal fluctuation in
dolphin occurrence can be ruled out.
To ensure the continuous usage of NEL waters by the dolphins, every
possible measure should be implemented by the contractors and relevant authorities
to minimize all disturbances to the dolphins, as a future marine park around
the Brothers Islands will be established in this important dolphin habitat as a
compensation measure for the habitat loss resulted from the HKBCF and HKLR
reclamation works.
3.5.16
On the other hand, dolphin occurrence in the
western portion of North Lantau region was
largely similar between the two periods, except that fewer dolphins were
sighted to the west of the airport and near Pillar Point (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
Encounter
Rate
3.5.17
For the three-month study
period in September, October and November 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 (Sep 2013 ¡V Nov 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 (3 & 5 Sep 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 2 (10 & 18 Sep 2013)
|
3.44
|
6.87
|
Set 3 (8 & 15 Oct 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 4 (17 & 22 Oct 2013)
|
2.63
|
15.78
|
Set 5 (1 & 5 Nov 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 6 (8 & 13 Nov 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Northwest Lantau
|
Set 1 (3 & 5 Sep 2013)
|
1.48
|
8.88
|
Set 2 (10 & 18 Sep 2013)
|
4.19
|
12.57
|
Set 3 (8 & 15 Oct 2013)
|
3.91
|
13.69
|
Set 4 (17 & 22 Oct 2013)
|
12.24
|
33.67
|
Set 5 (1 & 5 Nov 2013)
|
10.30
|
50.02
|
Set 6 (8 & 13 Nov 2013)
|
16.09
|
76.06
|
Table 3.5 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Sep 2013 ¡V Nov
2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep ¡V Nov 2011)
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
|
1.01 ¡Ó 1.59
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
3.77 ¡Ó 6.49
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
Northwest Lantau
|
8.04 ¡Ó 5.70
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
32.48 ¡Ó 26.51
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
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)
Table 3.6 Comparison of
Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northeast Lantau Survey Area from All
Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep ¡V Nov
2011)
|
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)
|
September-November 2011 (Baseline)
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
December 2012-February 2013 (Impact)
|
3.14 ¡Ó 3.21
|
6.33 ¡Ó 8.64
|
March-May 2013 (Impact)
|
0.42 ¡Ó 1.03
|
0.42 ¡Ó 1.03
|
June-August 2013 (Impact)
|
0.88 ¡Ó 1.36
|
0.88 ¡Ó 1.36
|
September-November 2013 (Impact)
|
1.01 ¡Ó 1.59
|
3.77 ¡Ó 6.49
|
Note:
The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been
recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along
the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.
3.5.18
In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the
present three-month study period were much lower (reductions of 83.2% and 83.0%
respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table
3.5). In fact, dolphin occurrence in NEL in the past three quarters have been
exceptionally low when compared to the baseline period (Table 3.6), which has
prompted the triggering of the Event and Action Plan (in fact, the present
quarter was the fourth consecutive quarter being accessed that have triggered
the Action Level under the Event and Action Plan).
3.5.19
On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in
NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period were also lower
(reductions of 18.3% and 27.3% respectively) than the ones recorded in the
3-month baseline period, indicating a reduced dolphin usage of this survey
area.
3.5.20
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).
3.5.21
For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter
(fourth quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in
average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.1424 and 0.2339
respectively. If the alpha value is
set at 0.1, no significant difference was detected between the baseline and
present quarters in both the encounter rates of STG and ANI.
3.5.22
For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative
quarters in impact phase (i.e. first four quarters of the impact phase), the
p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.0366 and 0.0179 respectively.
If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant differences were detected
in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the
two periods and the locations).
3.5.23
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 8.33 sightings and 33.93 dolphins per 100
km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG)
and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 0.62 sightings and 2.50 dolphins per 100 km of
survey effort respectively.
Group
Size
3.5.24
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from 1- 11 individuals per group in North Lantau region during
September to November 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 3.7.
Table 3.7 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Sep 2013 ¡V Nov 2013)
and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011)
|
Average Dolphin Group Size
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline Monitoring Period
|
Overall
|
4.16 ¡Ó 2.46 (n = 45)
|
3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)
|
Northeast Lantau
|
4.00 ¡Ó 2.83 (n = 2)
|
3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)
|
Northwest Lantau
|
4.16 ¡Ó 2.48 (n = 43)
|
3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)
|
3.5.25
The average dolphin group sizes in the entire North Lantau region as
well as in NWL during September to November 2013 were slightly higher than the
ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table 3.7). Although the average group size in NEL
was quite high during the present monitoring period when compared to the
baseline period, the sample size of the two dolphin groups in 2013 was very
small for such comparison.
3.5.26
Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes during September to
November 2013 is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix J, and was
compared with the one in baseline period. In 2013, most larger dolphin groups
mainly clustered around Lung Kwu Chau and off Lung Kwu Tan, while these larger
groups were more scattered in the Northwest Lantau region without any apparent
concentration during the baseline monitoring period in 2011 (Figure 2). Notably, none of the larger dolphin
groups were sighted near the HKBCF or HKLR03 reclamation sites in 2011.
Habitat
Use
3.5.27
From September-November
2013, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly
concentrated around
Lung Kwu Chau, near Pak Chau, and the Urmston
Road section between Lung Kwu Chau and Lung Kwu
Tan (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J). Only two grids in NEL recorded the presence of
dolphins, with one of the grids overlap with the HKBCF work site. None of the grids near HKLR03
reclamation site or HKLR09 bridge alignment recorded the presence of dolphins.
3.5.28
It should be noted that the amount of survey effort collected in each
grid during the three-month period was 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.
3.5.29
When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period,
dolphins usage in
NEL was noticeably much lower in the present impact monitoring period (Figure 4 of Appendix J). During the
baseline period, dolphin densities were particularly higher along the coastline
between Shum Shui Kok and Siu Ho Wan, while this area was vacated by dolphins
during the present impact phase period.
On the other hand, the density patterns between the baseline and impact
phase monitoring periods were similar in the Northwest Lantau region.
3.5.30
The absence of dolphins in the identified
important habitats around the Brothers Islands
and Shum Shui Kok in consecutive quarters in 2013 is of serious concern. The future Brothers Islands
Marine Park
will be established in this area upon the completion of HKBCF reclamation
works, as an important compensation measure for the habitat loss in relation to
HZMB projects. It should be further
examined whether the very low usage of dolphins would continue in this
important dolphin habitat, and the potential measures should be implemented
soon that may enhance the dolphin usage of this area.
Mother-calf Pairs
3.5.31
During the three-month study period, a total of four unspotted calves (UC) and 14 unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in
NEL and NWL survey areas. These
young calves comprised 9.6% of all animals sighted, which was higher than the percentage recorded during the baseline
monitoring period (6.8%).
3.5.32
The occurrence of these young calves mainly concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau and off Lung
Kwu Tan, and most of them were involved in larger dolphin groups (Figure 5 of Appendix J). None
of these calves were sighted in the vicinity of the HKBCF or HKLR03 reclamation
site during the present quarter.
Activities
and Associations with Fishing Boats
3.5.33
A total
of five dolphin sightings were associated with
feeding and socializing activities during the three-month study period.
The percentage of feeding activities comprised of 4.4% of
the total number of dolphin sightings, which was much lower than the one recorded during the baseline period
(11.6%). On the contrary, the
percentage of socializing activities were 6.6% during the present impact phase
monitoring period, which was slightly higher than the one recorded during the
baseline period (5.4%). Only one group of dolphins
was engaged in traveling activity,
and the rarity of this observed activity was similar to the baseline monitoring
period and previous impact phase monitoring periods.
3.5.34
Distribution of dolphins engaged in
different activities during the three-month study period is shown in (Figure 6 of Appendix J). No apparent concentration of sightings was found for all three types of
observed activities.
3.5.35
During the three-month period, only one of the 45 dolphin groups was found to be associated with an operating gill-netter.
The extremely
low level
of fishing boat association in
the present and previous quarters was
consistently
found, and was likely
related to the recent trawl ban being implemented in 2013 in Hong Kong waters.
Photo-identification
and Individual Range Use
3.5.36
From September to November
2013, over 3,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken
during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
3.5.37
In total, 56 individuals
sighted 110 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III and
photographs of identified individuals in
Annex IV of Appendix J). Only eight of these 110 re-sightings were made in NEL, which
involved eight different individuals.
Notably, these were the same individuals that were repeatedly sighted
before in NEL throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring surveys as well as
in the baseline monitoring period.
3.5.38
Most identified individuals
were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the
exception of 11 individuals being sighted thrice, and four individuals being
sighted four times (CH34, NL33, NL98 and WL05). One individual, NL220 were sighted five
times, but three of those sightings were made on the same survey day.
3.5.39
Notably, nine of these 56
individuals were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring
surveys in the same 3-month period, showing their extensive movement between
North and West Lantau regions.
3.5.40
Twelve well-recognized females
were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Besides NL80, NL182 and WL 124, the
other mothers (NL33, NL93, NL98, NL123, NL145, NL188, NL220, NL221 and NL264)
were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase
monitoring surveys.
3.5.41
Ranging patterns of the 56
individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by
fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex
V of Appendix J.
3.5.42
Only a few individuals had
their range extended to NEL survey area, while other individuals mostly focused
their range use in NWL survey area during the present quarter. In contrast to the extensive movements
between NEL and NWL survey areas in the first two impact monitoring quarters
(October 2012 - February 2013) and the baseline period (September-November
2011), many of these identified individuals appeared to abandon their usage in NEL
waters during the present and previous quarters, even though they were
regularly sighted there before and their core areas were centered around the
Brothers Islands (e.g. NL24, NL33, NL139, NL261) (Annex V of Appendix J).
3.5.43
It is apparent that the majority
of individual dolphins that utilized NEL waters in the past has either
diminished or avoided this area for their recent range use. This coincided well with the dramatic
decline in dolphin occurrence in NEL as discussed in Sections 3.5.16 to 3.5.26. This is of serious concern, as the Brothers Islands in NEL was once identified an
important habitat for many year-round residents that focused their core area
use there (Hung 2008). Therefore,
the ranging pattern of individual dolphins should be continuously monitored
around Lantau waters, and measures should be taken to ensure that dolphins will
continue to move between NWL and NEL without any hindrance as a result of the
HZMB-related construction works.
Action
Level / Limit Level Exceedance
3.5.44
There was one Action Level
exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September
¡V November 2013). According to the contractor¡¦s information, the marine
activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the two quarterly periods (June to
August 2013 and September to November 2013) included stone platform
construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation
and excavation of stone platform.
During the quarterly period of September to November 2013, geotextile
laying activities were also carried out. 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 avoid anchoring
at Marine Department¡¦s designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage
(near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.
3.5.45
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).
3.5.46
For the comparison
between the baseline period and the present quarter (fourth quarter of the
impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter
rates of STG and ANI were 0.1424 and 0.2339 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, no
significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters
in the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.
3.5.47
For the comparison
between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first
four quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0366 and 0.0179
respectively. If the alpha value is
set at 0.1, significant difference was detected in both the average dolphin
encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the
locations).
3.5.48
The AFCD monitoring data
during September-November 2013 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist, and
only two groups of three dolphins were sighted from 77.81 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 summer
2013 in NEL is accurate.
3.5.49
There is no evidence
showing that the sources of impact directly related to the construction works
of HKLR03 that may have affected the dolphin usage in the NEL region.
3.5.50
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 practicable.
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 4
September 2013. The mudflat surface
levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ
HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table
3.8 and Table 3.9.
Table 3.8 Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results
|
Baseline Monitoring
(September 2012)
|
Impact Monitoring
(September 2013)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
(mPD)
|
(mPD)
|
S1
|
810291.160
|
816678.727
|
0.950
|
810291.152
|
816678.733
|
1.022
|
S2
|
810958.272
|
815831.531
|
0.864
|
810958.277
|
815831.548
|
0.916
|
S3
|
810716.585
|
815953.308
|
1.341
|
810716.599
|
815953.297
|
1.393
|
S4
|
811221.433
|
816151.381
|
0.931
|
811221.405
|
816151.371
|
1.019
|
Table 3.9 Comparison
of measurement
|
Comparison of measurement
|
Remarks and
Recommendation
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
-0.008
|
0.006
|
0.072
|
Level continuously increased
|
S2
|
0.005
|
0.0017
|
0.052
|
Within tolerance, no significant
change
|
S3
|
0.014
|
-0.011
|
0.052
|
Within tolerance, no significant
change
|
S4
|
-0.028
|
-0.010
|
0.088
|
Level continuously increased
|
3.6.2
This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the
baseline measurement at S1 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.
For S2 and S3 showed that 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 September 2013. The monitoring parameters included
dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).
3.6.5
Due to adverse weather condition, the water quality monitoring at
station SR3 was cancelled on 23 September 2013 during mid-ebb tide and
mid-flood tide. The
Impact monitoring results for SR3 were extracted and summarised below:
Table 3.10 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)
|
02-Sep-13
|
7.2
|
4.5
|
2.4
|
8.8
|
9.6
|
11.1
|
04-Sep-13
|
5.3
|
9.0
|
10.9
|
5.5
|
9.0
|
9.4
|
06-Sep-13
|
6.5
|
8.4
|
7.1
|
6.4
|
11.1
|
10.6
|
09-Sep-13
|
5.7
|
7.5
|
6.7
|
5.6
|
8.3
|
8.3
|
11-Sep-13
|
6.8
|
4.1
|
4.5
|
6.4
|
4.3
|
4.8
|
13-Sep-13
|
5.7
|
4.3
|
3.7
|
6.6
|
10.3
|
3.4
|
16-Sep-13
|
6.8
|
4.2
|
5.2
|
8.6
|
12.1
|
18.0
|
18-Sep-13
|
6.7
|
8.5
|
5.2
|
6.8
|
10.5
|
9.9
|
20-Sep-13
|
6.2
|
8.5
|
7.9
|
5.9
|
12.8
|
12.0
|
23-Sep-13
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
25-Sep-13
|
6.5
|
9.4
|
10.1
|
6.5
|
9.5
|
9.8
|
27-Sep-13
|
6.2
|
5.7
|
5.7
|
7.1
|
5.1
|
7.1
|
30-Sep-13
|
6.5
|
3.8
|
2.9
|
6.8
|
4.7
|
6.7
|
Average
|
6.3
|
6.5
|
6.0
|
6.7
|
8.9
|
9.2
|
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 Annex I of Appendix O.
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 15th (for zones
TC3 and ST) and 21st (for zones TC1 and TC2) September 2013 with hot
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 15th (for zones TC3 and ST) and 21st (for zones TC1
and TC2) September 2013 with hot
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 1st (for ST), 7th (for TC3), 8th
(for TC1) and 14th September 2013 (for TC2).
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 all sampling zone (TC1: 10 individuals;
TC2: 2 individuals; TC3: 7 individuals; ST: 94 individuals). All individuals
were found on soft mud, sandy substratum or sandy substratum surrounded by
small gravels. Grouping was observed while the group size ranged 2-11
individuals.
3.6.13
Since the commencement of the survey on
September 2012, no individual was found at TC2 until the present survey (2
individuals). It showed that TC2 was not a suitable nursery ground for
horseshoe crab
3.6.14
According to Table 3.2 of Appendix O, the search records
of Tachypleus tridentatus were 2.50 individuals hr-1 person-1
(mean prosomal widths: 31.22 mm), 0.50 individuals hr-1 person-1
(25.51 mm) and 1.75 individuals hr-1 person-1 (30.87 mm)
at TC1, TC2 and TC3 respectively. Similar to previous surveys, the highest
search record of 15.67 individuals hr-1 person-1 (40.39
mm) was reported at ST. According to Li (2008), the prosomal width of
Tachypleus tridentatus recorded ranged 19.33 - 68.01 mm that corresponded to an
estimated age of 2.6¡V8.0 years old. It was obvious
that ST was an important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly
hatched individuals due to larger area of suitable substratum (fine sand or
soft mud) and less human disturbance (far from urban district).
3.6.15
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 every sampling
zone along the sampling months. Both number of individuals and search records
declined generally during dry season (from September to December 201) at TC1,
TC2 and ST. 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 September 2013 (present survey), both values increased with the warmer
climate at the three sampling zones.
3.6.16
At
ST, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded from 15 individuals in
March 2013, 59 individuals in June 2013 to 94 individuals in September 2013). A personal conversation was conducted with Prof.
K.S. Shin (Department of Biology and Chemistry, The City University of Hong
Kong (CityU) who was running a conservation programme of horseshoe crab in Hong
Kong. His monitoring team had recorded similar increase of horseshoe crab
population during wet season this year. It was believed the suitable ambient
temperature increased its conspicuousness.
3.6.17
Figure 3.3 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of
horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus at ST. It was believed that most of
individuals (50% records between upper and lower quartile), recorded in the dry
season, had grown to a size of double in June 2013 (prosomal width increase
from 10-20 mm to 30-50 mm). The individuals remained similar in size in present
survey. It indicated the major moulting period occurring between March and
June. At the same time, tiny individuals (10-15 mm) were found (outliers of low
value) that seasonal spawning was believed occurring at ST.
3.6.18
Besides,
18 labeled individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus (prosomal width:
28.76-56.00 mm) were recorded in the present survey (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1).
All of them were released through a conservation programme conducted by Dr.
Shin (CityU). It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred and marked
horseshoe crab juvenile at selected sites. So that the horseshoe crabs
population might be restored in the natural habitat. Through a personal
conversation with Dr Shin, about 100 individuals were released to ST on 20 June
2013. All these labeled individuals were not included in the results of present
monitoring programme.
3.6.19
Another
less common species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was not found during
the whole survey period except the survey conducted in December 2012 at ST (4
individuals). This species was believed present in ST at very low number while
encounter was very rare
3.6.20
The
present survey was the fourth 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
Table 3.3 and Figure 3.4 of Appendix O show the records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone.
Seagrass was recorded in ST only while the largest patch was Halophila ovalis located nearby the
mangrove vegetation on sandy substratum at tidal level 2 m above C.D.. The
estimated total area was 758.9 m2 with estimated coverage ranged
85-90%. It was a long seagrass strand merged by the growth of 2 to 3 smaller
patches recorded in previous surveys from September 2012 to June 2013.
Moreover, six small patches of H. ovalis
were recorded on soft mud at tidal level between 1.0 m and 1.5 m above C.D..
The estimated total area of each patch ranged 1.2 - 8.0 m2 with
estimated coverage ranging 15-70%. These small patches were yet recorded in
previous surveys and were distant from the largest strand. Seasonal recruitment
of H. ovalis was believed occurred
between June and September. One small patch of Zostera japonica was
found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was
3.7 m2 while the estimated coverage was about 95%.
3.6.21 Figure 3.5 of Appendix O shows the changes of
estimated total area of seagrass beds at ST along the sampling months. For
seagrass Halophila ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased
gradually. It showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches during dry
season then grew and merged into single patch during wet season. Seasonal
recruitment during wet season further increased the total area of seagrass.
However it was doubt that the newly recruited patches of seagrass would survive
the natural heat stress, predation and wave action. For seagrass Zostera
japonica, it was not reported in the surveys of September and December
2012. Seasonal recruitment of few patches was reported between December and
March. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually with the warmer
climate. However the patch size decreased sharply in the present survey. The
patch might not overcome the high heat stress exerted on shore between June and
September 2013.
3.6.22 The present survey was the fourth 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. The seagrass area of Halophila ovalis was increasing steadily
due to natural growth and seasonal recruitment. Although that of Zostera japonica decreased in the
present survey, it would be the cause of natural heat stress. In case, abnormal
phenomenon (e.g. rapid reduction of seagrass patch size) was observed, it would
be reported as soon as possible.
Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities
3.6.23
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 the horizontal transect.
3.6.24
The distribution of substratum
types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones. At TC1, higher percentage
of ¡¥Sands¡¦ was recorded (60%) while the rest was ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (40%)
at high tidal level. High percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (80%) was
recorded at mid tidal level. Even distribution of ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (40%) and ¡¥Sands¡¦ (40%)
was recorded at low tidal level. At TC2, high percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (60%) was
recorded while the rest was ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (40%) at high tidal level. But higher
percentages of ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (50-70%) and lower percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (30%) were
recorded at mid and low tidal levels. At TC3, high percentages of ¡¥Sands¡¦
(80-100%) were recorded at high and mid tidal levels. ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦
was the major substratum (60%) at low tidal level followed by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (30%). At
ST, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (100%) was recorded only at high tidal level. Even
distribution of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (50%) and ¡¥Sands¡¦ (50%) was recorded at
mid tidal level. At low tidal level, high percentage of ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (80%) was
recorded at low tidal level followed by ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (20%).
3.6.25
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.
3.6.26
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 19329
individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum
(total individuals 18738, density 625 individuals m-2, relative
abundance 96.9%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals:
421, density 14 individuals m-2, 2.2%) respectively. Relatively
other phyla were very low in abundance (<0.6%). Similarly, the most
diverse phylum were mollusks (37 taxa) followed by arthropods (13 taxa) and
annelids (8 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were relatively less (<1
taxon). The complete list of collected specimens is provided in Annex III of Appendix O.
3.6.27
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: 3119-7510
individuals, relative abundance 93.7-98.8%). Arthropods were the second
abundant phylum (no. of individuals: 49-185 individuals, 0.6-4.6%) 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%) except the annelids at TC2 (no. of individuals: 57 individuals,
relative abundance 1.4%).
3.6.28 Table 3.7 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance
>10%) at every sampling zone. At TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was clearly the dominant species (403-406
individuals m-2, relative abundance 51-64%) at high and mid tidal
levels. It was also in moderate abundance at low tidal level (32 individuals m-2,
10%). Gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis
(98-111 individuals m-2, 18-29%) was also abundant at high and low
tidal levels. Gastropod Monodonta labio
(135 individuals. m-2, 17%) was the second abundant at mid tidal
level. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was at moderate abundance at mid
and low tidal levels (61-96 individuals m-2, 12-18%).
3.6.29
At
TC2, gastropod Cerithidea cingulata was the most abundant at high tidal
level (412 individuals m-2, relative abundance 50%) but was less in
abundance at mid tidal level (61 individuals m-2, 13%). All three
tidal levels were dominated by gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (167-271
individuals. m-2, 33-52%). At mid tidal level, rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (72 individuals m-2, 15%) was the second abundant
species. At low tidal level, gastropod Batillaria zonalis (42
individuals m-2, 13%) was common-occurring species.
3.6.30
At
TC3, the high and mid tidal levels were mainly dominated by gastropods Batillaria
multiformis (526-857 individuals m-2, relative abundance
49-63%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (244-310 individuals m-2,
18-29%) and Cerithidea cingulata (191-206 individuals m-2,
14-19%). At low tidal level, the abundant species were gastropod Monodonta
labio (196 individuals m-2, 33%), rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (158 individuals m-2, 27%) followed by gastropod Batillaria
multiformis (91 individuals m-2, 15%).
3.6.31
At
ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly abundant (329
individuals m-2, relative abundance 55%) at high tidal level
followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (108 individuals. m-2,
18%). Relatively the abundant species were similar but lower in abundances at
mid tidal level such as gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (88
individuals m-2, 18%), Batillaria multiformis (58 individuals
m-2, 12%), Cerithidea cingulata (58 individuals m-2,
12%), Lunella coronata (56 individuals m-2, 12%) and rock
oyster Saccostrea cucullata (88 individuals m-2, 18%). At low
tidal level, the abundant species gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (95
individuals m-2, 44%) and Batillaria zonalis (24 individuals
m-2, 11%) were also low in abundances.
3.6.32 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, gastropods Batillaria
multiformis (7058 individuals, 37%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (4207
individuals, 22%), Cerithidea cingulata (2701 individuals, 14%) were the
most common occurring species on sandy substratum mainly among the four
sampling zones. Moreover gastropod Monodonta labio (1360 individuals,
7%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (1520 individuals, 8%), were
common occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.
3.6.33 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. Among the sampling zones,
the mean number of species was generally similar among TC1, TC2 and TC3 (7-13
spp. 0.25 m-2) while ST had relatively higher value (8-15 spp. 0.25
m-2). The mean densities of TC3 (590-1371 individuals m-2)
was generally higher than that of TC1 (332-800 individuals m-2) and
TC2 (320-827 individuals m-2) followed by ST (218-602 individuals m-2).
The mean biodiversity index and species evenness were similar that ranged
1.22-1.56 and 0.58-0.66 respectively.
3.6.34
Across
the tidal levels, there was no difference of the mean number of species. Higher
mean densities were observed at high and mid tidal levels. Usually higher mean
biodiversity index and species evenness were observed at mid and low tidal
levels.
3.6.35
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
of any biological parameters 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 on December 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 along with the hot, wet season. At the same
time, steady increases of number of species and biodiversity index were
observed at ST (mid and low tidal levels).
3.6.36 The present survey was the fourth
time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period.
Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not 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 exceedances for 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP recorded
air quality were recorded
during the reporting period.
Noise
4.1.3
No Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded during
this reporting period.
Water Quality
4.1.4 During the reporting period, there were 10 Action
Level exceedances and 3 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. No exceedances of turbidity level were recorded. No
exceedances of dissolved oxygen level. There were no specific activities
recorded during the monitoring period that would cause any significant impacts
on monitoring results and no leakage of turbid water or any abnormity or
malpractice was observed during the sampling exercise. Therefore, all exceedances were considered as
non-contract 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
exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September
¡V November 2013). According to the contractor¡¦s information, the marine
activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the two quarterly periods (June to
August 2013 and September to November 2013) included stone platform
construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation
and excavation of stone platform.
During the quarterly period of September to November 2013, geotextile laying
activities were also carried out.
4.1.6
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.
4.1.7 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 practicable.
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
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
22-11-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
16-09-2013
11-11-2013
|
11-11-2013
|
2
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
18-10-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
06-09-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
16-10-2013
|
0
|
1
|
IS10
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
06-11-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
25-10-2013
|
0
|
1
|
SR3
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
22-11-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
SR4
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
--
|
--
|
18-09-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
06-11-2013
|
0
|
1
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
25-10-2013
|
0
|
1
|
SR10A
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
|
Action Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
8
|
10**
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3**
|
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 five 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.
|
Date of Complaint Received
|
Description of Environmental Complaints
|
COM-2013-033
|
13 September 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-034
|
17 September 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-037
|
8, 9 and 16 October 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-041
|
31 October 2013
|
Noise
|
COM-2013-043
|
11 November 2013
|
Noise
|
4.2.2
No notification of
summons and prosecution was received during the reporting period.
4.2.3
Statistics on
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 tense the slit curtain at Portion X.
¡± The Contractor
was reminded to clean up the plastic boxes at Portion X.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemical containers at
Sand Pump Barge.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the muddy water on public road at S11.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the drip tray at
West Portal.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the I-beams at
West Portal.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the passageway of Yao Chun 138.
¡± The Contractor
was reminded to provide a drip tray for the chemical container at Sand Pump
Barge.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the footprints (sand) on public road area
at S11.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to provide a drip tray for the compressor at West Portal.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the passageway of LT 30.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide sand bags around the sand stockpile to
prevent muddy water discharge onto the road at WA04.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide water spraying on the unpaved road regularly
at N13.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide water spraying on the unpaved area regularly
at S16.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil inside the drip tray at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to clean up the stagnant water inside the drip tray at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to provide sufficient dust mitigation measures at work area of West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to replace the Sand bags on Sand Pump Barge.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to place the sand bags beside the road at S7.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for oil container at West Portal.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to provide drip trays for chemical containers at N4.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for oil containers at S8.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for oil containers at N13.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly on the public road at S8.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up oil stain on the deck of YC138.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the excess fill materials at the barge edge
of CM83.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to place the sand bags along the road at S7 and clean
up the rocks and debris next to the sea front.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for chemical container at S9.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to display the Environmental Permit at the major site
exit of WA4.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean all the vehicles before leaving the
construction site at WA4.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the I-Beams at
West Portal.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide regular maintenance for silt curtains at
Portion X.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly for the unpaved area at WA03.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide enough drip trays for the chemical
containers at N4.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the sand inside the drip tray at S8.
¡± The Contractor
was reminded to clean up the sand on the passage way at Kin Yip.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to provide regular maintenance for the operating machine at S9.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to extend the length of the blue cover for the
percussive piling works at S9.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide water sprayed regularly on the unpaved area
at S11.
¡± The Contractor was reminded
to provide fence around the tree and remove the construction materials.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for the chemical containers at N13
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to clean up the sand on barge edge of Chung Tin.
¡± The
Contractor was reminded to provide water spray regularly to avoid the dust
emission at West Portal.
¡± The contractor was reminded to strengthen dust
control measures at West Portal.
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
fifth Quarterly EM&A Report summarises the monitoring results and audit
findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 September
2013 to 30 November 2013.
Air Quality
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.
Noise
5.3.3
For construction noise, there
was no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded at the
monitoring station during the reporting period.
Water Quality
5.3.4
During the reporting period,
there were 10 Action Level exceedances and 3 Limit Level exceedances of
suspended solids level.
Dolphin
5.3.5
There were one Action Level exceedances of
dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September ¡V November
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.
5.3.7
Although the dolphins rarely
occurred in the area of HKLR03 construction in the past, during the baseline
monitoring period and throughout the five quarters of impact monitoring period,
it is apparent that dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in NEL, and
many individuals have shifted away from the important habitat around the Brothers Islands.
5.3.8
It is critical to monitor the
dolphin usage in North Lantau region in the upcoming months, to determine
whether the dolphins are continuously affected by the various construction
activities in relation to the HZMB works, and whether suitable mitigation
measure can be applied to revert the situation.
Mudflat
-Sedimentation Rate
5.3.9
For sedimentation rate
monitoring of mudflat, was generally and relatively
higher than the baseline measurement at S1 and S4. The mudflat level is
continuously increased. For S2 and S3 showed that the level has increased
within tolerance and their sea
bed depth would not be considered as significant change. For S1 and S4, the mudflat level has been continuously increased. The
increased surface level for S1, S2, S3 and S4 is 0.072, 0.052, 0.052 and 0.088
mPD when compared to the baseline monitoring results.
5.3.10
Impact water quality monitoring
in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in September 2013. The
monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids.
Mudflat - Ecology
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 (10 individuals), TC2 (2
individuals), TC3 (7 individuals) and ST (94 individuals). All individuals were found on soft mud,
sandy substratum or sandy substratum surrounded by small gravels. Grouping was
observed while the group size ranged 2-11 individuals. Since the commencement
of the survey (Sep. 2012), no individual was found at TC2. It showed that TC2
was not a suitable nursery ground for horseshoes crab. In the September 2013
survey, the
search records of Tachypleus
tridentatus were 2.50 individuals hr-1 person-1
(mean prosomal widths: 31.22 mm), 0.50 individuals hr-1 person-1
(25.51 mm) and 1.75 individuals hr-1 person-1 (30.87 mm)
at TC, TC2 and TC3 respectively. Similar to previous surveys, the highest
search record of 15.67 individuals hr-1 person-1 (40.39
mm) was reported at ST. According to Li (2008), the prosomal width of
Tachypleus tridentatus recorded ranged 19.33 - 68.01 mm that corresponded to an
estimated age of 2.6¡V8.0 years old. It was
obvious that ST was an important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially
newly hatched individuals due to larger area of suitable substratum (fine sand
or soft mud) and less human disturbance (far from urban district).
5.3.12
Another
less common species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was not found during
the whole survey period except the survey conducted in December 2012 at ST (4
individuals). This species was believed present in ST at very low number while
encounter was very rare.
5.3.13 An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each
sampling zone. Seagrass was recorded in ST only
while the largest patch was Halophila
ovalis located nearby the mangrove vegetation on sandy substratum at tidal
level 2 m above C.D.. The estimated total area was 758.9 m2 with
estimated coverage ranged 85-90%. It was a long seagrass strand merged by the
growth of 2 to 3 smaller patches recorded in previous surveys from September
2012 to June 2013. Moreover, six small patches of H. ovalis were recorded on soft mud at tidal level between 1.0 m
and 1.5 m above C.D.. The estimated total area of each patch ranged 1.2 - 8.0 m2
with estimated coverage ranging 15-70%. These small patches were yet recorded
in previous surveys and were distant from the largest strand. Seasonal
recruitment of H. ovalis was believed
occurred between June and September. One small patch of Zostera japonica was
found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was
3.7 m2 while the estimated coverage was about 95%. For seagrass Halophila
ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased gradually. It
showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches during dry season then grew
and merged into single patch during wet season. Seasonal recruitment during wet season further increased the total area
of seagrass. However it was doubt that the newly recruited patches of seagrass
would survive the natural heat stress, predation and wave action. For seagrass Zostera
japonica, it was not reported in the surveys of September and December
2012. Seasonal recruitment of few patches was reported between December and
March. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually with the warmer
climate. However the patch size decreased sharply in the present survey. The
patch might not overcome the high heat stress exerted on shore between June and
September 2013.
5.3.14
The intertidal soft shore
community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 1st (for ST), 7th (for TC3), 8th (for
TC1) and 14th September 2013 (for TC2). A total of 19329 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly
the most abundant phylum (total individuals 18738, density 625 individuals m-2,
relative abundance 96.9%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total
individuals: 421, density 14 individuals m-2, 2.2%) respectively. Relatively other phyla were very low in
abundance (<0.6%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks
(37 taxa) followed by arthropods (13 taxa) and annelids (8 taxa). The taxa of
other phyla were relatively less (<1 taxon).
5.3.15 The present survey was the fourth time of sampling of the EM&A
programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the
HKLR project were not detected on intertidal soft shore community. In case, abnormal
phenomenon (e.g. rapid reduction of seagrass patch size) was observed, it would
be reported as soon as possible.
5.3.16 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, gastropods
Batillaria multiformis (6055 individuals, 35%), Cerithidea
djadjariensis (3721 individuals, 21%), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (1829
individuals, 11%), gastropods Monodonta labio (1489 individuals, 9%) and
Cerithidea cingulata (1031 individuals, 6%) were the most common
occurring species among the four sampling zones.
5.3.17
The September 2013 survey results indicate that the impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs, seagrass
and intertidal soft shore community.
Environmental Site
inspection and Audit
5.3.18
Environmental site inspection
was carried out on 3, 10, 18 and 27 September 2013, 2, 9, 16, 22 and 29 October 2013, and 6, 13, 20 and 29 November 2013. Recommendations on remedial actions were given
to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.
5.3.19
There were five environmental
complaints received during this reporting period.
5.3.20
No notification of summons and
prosecution was received during the reporting period.