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. 26 (December 2018 to February 2019)
4 June 2019
Revision 1
Main Contractor Designer
Contents
Executive
Summary
1...... Introduction. 1
1.1 Basic
Project Information. 1
1.2 Project
Organisation. 1
1.3 Construction
Programme. 1
1.4 Construction
Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period. 1
2....... EM&A Requirement 3
2.1 Summary
of EM&A Requirements. 3
2.2 Action and Limit Levels. 4
2.3 Event Action Plans. 5
2.4 Mitigation Measures. 5
3....... Environmental Monitoring
and Audit 0
3.1 Implementation
of Environmental Measures. 0
3.2 Air
Quality Monitoring Results. 0
3.3 Noise
Monitoring Results. 1
3.4 Water
Quality Monitoring Results. 1
3.5 Dolphin
Monitoring Results. 2
3.6 Mudflat
Monitoring Results. 13
3.7 Solid
and Liquid Waste Management Status. 26
3.8 Environmental
Licenses and Permits. 26
4....... Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance. 27
4.1 Environmental Exceedances. 27
4.2 Summary of Environmental Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution. 28
5....... Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion. 29
5.1 Comments. 29
5.2 Recommendations. 29
5.3 Conclusions. 29
Figures
Figure 1.1 Location
of the Site
Figure 2.1 Environmental
Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.2 Transect
Line Layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Management
Structure
Appendix B Construction
Programme
Appendix C Location
of Works Areas
Appendix D Event
and Action Plan
Appendix E Implementation
Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Appendix F Site
Audit Findings and Corrective Actions
Appendix G Air Quality Monitoring Data and
Graphical Plots
Appendix H Noise Monitoring Data and
Graphical Plots
Appendix I Water
Quality Monitoring Data and Graphical Plots
Appendix J Dolphin
Monitoring Results
Appendix K Waste
Flow Table
Appendix L Summary
of Environmental Licenses and Permits
Appendix M Record of
¡§Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances¡¨ and Record of
¡§Notification of Summons and Prosecutions¡¨
Appendix N Cumulative
Statistics on Complaints
Appendix O
Mudflat Monitoring Results
Executive Summary
The
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to
connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
(HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF)
located at the north eastern waters of the Hong Kong International Airport
(HKIA).
The
HKLR project has been separated into two contracts. They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract)
and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link
Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.
China
State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways
Department as the Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract
No. HY/2011/03. The main works of the Contract include land tunnel at Scenic
Hill, tunnel underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line, reclamation and
tunnel to the east coast of the Airport Island, at-grade road connecting to the
HKBCF and highway works of the HKBCF within the Airport Island and in the vicinity of the HKLR reclamation. The Contract is part of the HKLR Project
and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be
¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and EIA Reports (Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and
AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP)
EP-352/2009/D for HKLR and EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF were issued on 22 December
2014 and 11 April 2016, respectively. These documents are available through the
EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of
Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012.
BMT
Hong Kong 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 twenty-sixth Quarterly EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes
the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the
reporting period from 1 December 2018 to 28 February 2019.
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
|
Dec 2018
|
Jan 2019
|
Feb 2019
|
Air
Quality
|
1-hr
TSP
|
5, 11, 17, 21, 27 and 31
|
4, 10, 16, 22 and 28
|
1, 4, 8, 14, 20 and 26
|
24-hr
TSP
|
4, 10, 14, 20, 24 and 28
|
3, 9, 15, 21, 25 and 31
|
2, 8, 13, 19 and 25
|
Noise
|
5, 11, 19, 27 and 31
|
10, 16, 22 and 28
|
4, 14, 20 and 26
|
Water Quality
|
3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28 and
31
|
2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28 and 30
|
1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 27
|
Chinese
White Dolphin
|
3, 5, 10 and 12
|
2, 3, 7 and 14
|
1, 14, 20, 25 and 26
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)
|
1, 2, 11, 15 and 16
|
-
|
-
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation rate)
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
Site Inspection
|
5, 12, 19 and 28
|
2, 9, 16 and 25
|
1, 4, 11 and 22
|
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)
|
2
|
0
|
Turbidity
level
|
0
|
0
|
Dissolved
oxygen level (DO)
|
0
|
0
|
Dolphin Monitoring
|
Quarterly
Analysis (Dec 2018 to Feb 2019)
|
0
|
1
|
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
There
was one complaint received in relation to the environmental impacts during this
reporting period.
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
subsequent 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.
The
original monitoring station at IS(Mf)9 (Coordinate:
813273E, 818850N) was observed inside the perimeter silt curtain of Contract
HY/2010/02 on 1 July 2013, as such the original impact water quality monitoring
location at IS(Mf)9 was temporarily shifted outside
the silt curtain. As advised by the
Contractor of HY/2010/02 in August 2013, the perimeter silt curtain was shifted
to facilitate safe anchorage zone of construction barges/vessels until end of
2013 subject to construction progress.
Therefore, water quality monitoring station IS(Mf)9
was shifted to 813226E and 818708N since 1 July 2013. According to the water quality monitoring
team¡¦s observation on 24 March 2014, the original monitoring location of IS(Mf)9 was no longer enclosed by the perimeter silt curtain
of Contract HY/2010/02. Thus, the impact water quality monitoring works at the
original monitoring location of IS(Mf)9 has been
resumed since 24 March 2014.
Transect
lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 for dolphin monitoring have been revised due to the
obstruction of the permanent structures associated with the construction works
of HKLR and the southern viaduct of TM-CLKL, as well as provision of adequate
buffer distance from the Airport Restricted Areas. The EPD issued a memo and confirmed that
they had no objection on the revised transect lines on 19 August 2015.
The
water quality monitoring stations at IS10 (Coordinate: 812577E, 820670N) and
SR5 (811489E, 820455N) are located inside Hong Kong International Airport
(HKIA) Approach Restricted Areas. The previously granted Vessel's Entry Permit
for accessing stations IS10 and SR5 were expired on 31 December 2016. During
the permit renewing process, the water quality monitoring location was shifted
to IS10(N) (Coordinate: 813060E, 820540N) and SR5(N) (Coordinate: 811430E,
820978N) on 2, 4 and 6 January 2017 temporarily. The permit has been granted by
Marine Department on 6 January 2017. Thus, the impact water quality monitoring
works at original monitoring location of IS10 and SR5 has been resumed since 9
January 2017.
Transect
lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for dolphin monitoring have been revised and transect
line 24 has been added due to the presence of a work zone to the north of the
airport platform with intense construction activities in association with the
construction of the third runway expansion for the Hong Kong International
Airport. The EPD issued a memo and confirmed that they had no objection on the
revised transect lines on 28 July 2017. The alternative dolphin transect lines
are adopted starting from August¡¦s dolphin monitoring.
A
new water quality monitoring team has been employed for carrying out water quality
monitoring work for the Contract starting from 23 August 2017. Due to marine
work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway
System (3RS Project), original locations of water quality monitoring stations
CS2, SR5 and IS10 are enclosed by works boundary of 3RS Project. Alternative
impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as CS2(A), SR5(N) and IS10(N)
was approved on 28 July 2017 and were adopted starting from 23 August 2017 to
replace the original locations of water quality monitoring for the Contract.
The
role and responsibilities as the ET Leader of the Contract was temporarily
taken up by Mr Willie Wong instead of Ms Claudine Lee from 25 September 2017 to
31 December 2017.
The
topographical condition of the water monitoring stations SR3 (Coordinate:
810525E, 816456N), SR4 (Coordinate: 814760E, 817867N), SR10A (Coordinate:
823741E, 823495N) and SR10B (Coordinate: 823686E, 823213N) cannot be accessed
safely for undertaking water quality monitoring. The water quality monitoring
has been temporarily conducted at alternative stations, namely SR3(N)
(Coordinate 810689E, 816591N), SR4(N) (Coordinate: 814705E, 817859N) and
SR10A(N) (Coordinate: 823644E, 823484N) since 1 September 2017. The water
quality monitoring at station SR10B was temporarily conducted at Coordinate:
823683E, 823187N on 1, 4, 6, 8 September 2017 and has been temporarily
fine-tuned to alternative station SR10B(N2) (Coordinate: 823689E, 823159N)
since 11 September 2017. Proposal for permanently relocating the aforementioned stations was approved by EPD on 8 January
2018.
The works area WA5
was handed over to other party on 22 June 2013.
According to latest
information received in July 2018, the works area WA7 was handed over to other
party on 28 February 2018 instead of 31 January 2018.
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 EIA Reports (Register No.
AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP)
EP-352/2009/D for HKLR and EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF were issued on 22 December
2014 and 11 April 2016, respectively. These documents are available through the
EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012. The works area WA7 was handed
over to other party on 31 January 2018. Figure 1.1 shows
the project site boundary.
1.1.4
BMT Hong Kong Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement
the EM&A programme for the Contract in accordance
with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) for HKLR and will be
providing environmental team services to the Contract. Ramboll Hong Kong Limited was employed
by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC)
and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project. The
project organization with regard to the environmental
works is provided in Appendix A.
1.1.5
This is the twenty-sixth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the
Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the
EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1
December 2018 to 28 February 2019.
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
|
Site Area
|
Dismantling/trimming of temporary 40mm
stone platform for construction of seawall
|
Portion X
|
Construction of seawall
|
Portion X
|
Loading and unloading of filling materials
|
Portion X
|
Backfilling at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut
& Cover Tunnel)
|
Portion X
|
Works
for diversion
|
Airport Road
|
Establishment
of site access
|
Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road
|
Finishing works for Highway Operation and
Maintenance Area Building
|
Portion X
|
Finishing works for Scenic Hill Tunnel
West Portal Ventilation building
|
West Portal
|
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)
|
NMS 5
|
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(N),
¡P Control/Far
Field Stations:
CS2(A) & CS(Mf)5,
¡P Sensitive
Receiver Stations:
SR3(N), SR4(N), SR5(N), SR10A(N) & SR10B(N2)
|
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
triggered 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
triggered 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 Contractor
have rectified all observations identified in environmental site inspections
undertaken during the reporting period. 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 inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant
records were kept properly.
3.1.5
IEC informed ET and SOR through email on 25 February 2019 that two excavators working in the vicinity of shoreline interfacing with open waters at
the southern end of Portion X of which one's with its bucket being immersed in
the open waters without silt curtain being enclosed were observed at around
2:00 p.m. on 25 February 2019.
3.1.6
According to Contractor¡¦s information, pure rock materials
which were deposited on
the existing seawall were retrieved using an excavator on 25 February
2019. As bucket of the excavator was immersed into
the water, the work may relate to marine work.
Silty water was not observed, according to the photos provided by IEC through
email on 25 February 2019. It is noted that there are no exceedances for
in-situ water data (dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solid level) at
stations IS5 and IS(Mf)6 which are the nearest
monitoring stations for the concerned work area. During ET¡¦s site
inspection on 1 March 2019, silt curtains was placed around the concerned area.
The Contractor was reminded to maintain silt curtains properly and enclose the
concerned work area using silt curtains to
avoid potential water quality impact.
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 Obtained During the Reporting Period
Reporting Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
Dec 2018
|
AMS5
|
71
|
42 ¡V 109
|
352
|
500
|
AMS6
|
66
|
37 ¡V 93
|
360
|
Jan 2019
|
AMS5
|
73
|
49 ¡V 141
|
352
|
AMS6
|
122
|
47 ¡V 300
|
360
|
Feb 2019
|
AMS5
|
67
|
40 ¡V 104
|
352
|
AMS6
|
59
|
39 ¡V 95
|
360
|
Table 3.2 Summary
of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period
Reporting Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
Dec 2018
|
AMS5
|
53
|
36 ¡V 83
|
164
|
260
|
AMS6
|
62
|
41 ¡V 83
|
173
|
Jan 2019
|
AMS5
|
69
|
49 ¡V 94
|
164
|
AMS6
|
81
|
56 ¡V 110
|
173
|
Feb 2019
|
AMS5
|
53
|
31 ¡V 77
|
164
|
AMS6
|
56
|
29 ¡V 84
|
173
|
3.2.2
No Action and Limit Level
exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the
reporting period.
3.2.3
Record of
notification of environmental quality limit exceedances are provided in Appendix M.
3.3
Noise
Monitoring Results
3.3.1
The monitoring results for construction noise are
summarized in Table 3.3 and the monitoring
results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting period are provided in Appendix H.
Table 3.3 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring
Results Obtained 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)
|
Dec 2018
|
NMS5
|
62
|
59 ¡V 65
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75
|
Jan 2019
|
58
|
57 ¡V 59
|
Feb 2019
|
59
|
57 ¡V 64
|
3.3.2 No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded 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 and
insect 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 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level and
dissolved oxygen were recorded during reporting period. No Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded during the
reporting period.
3.4.3 2 Action Level exceedances of suspended solids level were recorded
during the reporting period. The exceedances of suspended solids level recorded
during reporting period was considered to be
attributed to other external factors such as sea condition, rather than the
contract works. The exceedances were considered as non-contract related. Record
of ¡§Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances¡¨ is provided in Appendix M.
3.4.4
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 present quarterly period.
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 NWL and 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(updated)
3.5.9 During the period of December 2018 to February
2019, 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 801.74 km of survey effort was collected, with 94.7% 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, 302.10 km and
499.64 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas
respectively.
3.5.11 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 579.99 km,
while the effort on secondary lines was 221.75 km. Survey effort conducted on both primary
and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is
shown in Appendix J.
3.5.12 During the six sets of
monitoring surveys conducted between December 2018 and February 2019, 12 groups
of 38 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted, with the summary table of dolphin
sightings shown in Annex II of Appendix J. Ten of the
12 dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search, with eight of the ten
on-effort dolphin sightings being made on primary lines.
3.5.13 In addition, all dolphin groups were sighted in
NWL, and no dolphin was sighted at all in NEL. In fact, since August 2014, only two
sightings of two lone dolphins were made in NEL during HKLR03 monitoring surveys.
Distribution
3.5.14 Distribution of dolphin sightings
made during HKLR03 monitoring surveys conducted from December 2018 to February
2019 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. These sightings were
all scattered at the western portion of the North Lantau region, with no particular concentration (Figure 1 of Appendix
J).
3.5.15 As consistently recorded in previous monitoring quarters, the
dolphins were completely absent from the central and eastern portions of North
Lantau waters (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
Moreover, all dolphin sightings were located far away from the HKLR03
and HKBCF reclamation sites as well as along the alignment of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) (Figure
1 of Appendix J). However, two dolphin groups were sighted near the HKLR09
alignment to the west of Shum Wat.
3.5.16 Sighting distribution of dolphins during the present impact phase
monitoring period (December 2018-February 2019) was drastically different from
the one during the baseline monitoring period (Figure
1 of Appendix J). In the present quarter, dolphins have
disappeared from the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent
occurrences around the Brothers Islands, near Shum Shui Kok
and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the
baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The nearly complete
abandonment of NEL region by the dolphins has been consistently recorded in the
past 23 quarters of HKLR03 monitoring, which has resulted in zero to extremely
low dolphin encounter rates in this area.
3.5.17 In NWL survey area, dolphin occurrence was also drastically
different between the baseline and impact phase periods. During the present impact monitoring
period, dolphins were seldom sighted here, and their distribution was
restricted to the western portion of the North Lantau region, which was in
stark contrast to their frequent occurrences throughout the area during the
baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
3.5.18 Another comparison in dolphin distribution was made between the six
quarterly periods of winter months in 2013-19. Among the six winter periods, dolphins
were regularly sighted in NWL waters in 2013-14, but such usage was
dramatically reduced in the five subsequent winter periods (Figure 2 of Appendix J).
Encounter Rate
3.5.19 During the present three-month
study period, 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) for each
set of the surveys in NEL and NWL 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 (September ¡V November 2011) (Table 3.5).
3.5.20 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
2.15 sightings and 7.11 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively,
while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were
both nil for this quarter .
Table 3.4 Dolphin
Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period
(December 2018 ¡V
February 2019)
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 Dec 2018)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 2 (10 & 12 Dec 2018)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 3 (2 & 3 Jan 2019)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 4 (7 & 14 Jan 2019)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (1
& 14 Feb
2019)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 6 (20, 25 & 26 Feb
2019)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Northwest Lantau
|
Set 1 (3 & 5 Dec 2018)
|
3.95
|
11.86
|
Set 2 (10 & 12 Dec 2018)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 3 (2 & 3 Jan 2019)
|
3.32
|
14.94
|
Set 4 (7 & 14 Jan 2019)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (1
& 14 Feb
2019)
|
3.86
|
7.72
|
Set 6 (20, 25 & 26 Feb
2019)
|
3.29
|
13.16
|
Table 3.5 Comparison of average dolphin encounter rates from impact
monitoring period (December 2018 ¡V February 2019) and baseline monitoring
period (September ¡V November 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
|
0.0
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
0.0
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
Northwest Lantau
|
2.40 ¡Ó
1.88
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
7.95 ¡Ó 6.60
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
Notes:
1) 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.
2) ¡Ó denotes the
standard deviation of the average encounter rates.
3.5.21 In NEL, the average dolphin
encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring
period were both zero with no on-effort sighting being made, and such extremely
low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in the past
23 quarters of HKLR03 monitoring (Table
3.6). This is a serious concern as the dolphin occurrence in NEL in the
past few years (0.0-1.0 for ER(STG) and 0.0-3.9 for ER(ANI)) have remained
exceptionally low when compared to the baseline period (Table 3.6). Dolphins have been virtually absent from NEL waters
since August 2014, with only two lone dolphins sighted there on two separate
occasions despite consistent and intensive survey effort being conducted in
this survey area.
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)
Monitoring Period
|
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
|
3.91 ¡Ó 8.36
|
September-November 2013 (Impact)
|
1.01 ¡Ó 1.59
|
3.77 ¡Ó 6.49
|
December 2013-February 2014 (Impact)
|
0.45 ¡Ó
1.10*
|
1.34 ¡Ó
3.29*
|
March-May
2014 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
June-August
2014 (Impact)
|
0.42 ¡Ó 1.04
|
1.69 ¡Ó 4.15
|
September-November 2014 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
December 2014-February 2015 (Impact)
|
0.00*
|
0.00*
|
March-May
2015 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
June-August
2015 (Impact)
|
0.44 ¡Ó 1.08
|
0.44 ¡Ó 1.08
|
September-November 2015 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
December 2015-February 2016 (Impact)
|
0.00*
|
0.00*
|
March-May
2016 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
June-August
2016 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2016 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
December 2016-February 2017
(Impact)
|
0.00*
|
0.00*
|
March-May
2017 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
June-August
2017 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2017 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
December
2017-February 2018 (Impact)
|
0.00*
|
0.00*
|
March-May
2018 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
June-August
2018 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November
2018 (Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
December 2018-February 2019
(Impact)
|
0.00*
|
0.00*
|
Notes:
1) 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.
2) ¡Ó denotes the standard deviation of the average
encounter rates.
3) The encounter rates in winter months were in blue and marked with
asterisk.
3.5.22 On the other hand, the average
dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase
monitoring period (reductions of 75.6% and 82.2% respectively) were only small
fractions of the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period,
indicating a dramatic decline in dolphin usage of this survey area as well
during the present impact phase period (Table
3.7).
Table 3.7 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northwest Lantau Survey Area from All
Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep ¡V Nov
2011)
Monitoring Period
|
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)
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
December 2012-February 2013 (Impact)
|
8.36 ¡Ó 5.03*
|
35.90 ¡Ó 23.10*
|
March-May
2013 (Impact)
|
7.75 ¡Ó 3.96
|
24.23 ¡Ó 18.05
|
June-August
2013 (Impact)
|
6.56 ¡Ó 3.68
|
27.00 ¡Ó 18.71
|
September-November 2013 (Impact)
|
8.04 ¡Ó 1.10
|
32.48 ¡Ó 26.51
|
December 2013-February 2014
(Impact)
|
8.21 ¡Ó 2.21*
|
32.58 ¡Ó 11.21*
|
March-May
2014 (Impact)
|
6.51 ¡Ó 3.34
|
19.14 ¡Ó 7.19
|
June-August 2014 (Impact)
|
4.74 ¡Ó 3.84
|
17.52 ¡Ó 15.12
|
September-November 2014 (Impact)
|
5.10 ¡Ó 4.40
|
20.52 ¡Ó 15.10
|
December 2014-February 2015 (Impact)
|
2.91 ¡Ó 2.69*
|
11.27 ¡Ó 15.19*
|
March-May 2015 (Impact)
|
0.47 ¡Ó 0.73
|
2.36 ¡Ó 4.07
|
June-August 2015 (Impact)
|
2.53 ¡Ó 3.20
|
9.21 ¡Ó 11.57
|
September-November 2015 (Impact)
|
3.94 ¡Ó 1.57
|
21.05 ¡Ó 17.19
|
December 2015-February 2016 (Impact)
|
2.64 ¡Ó 1.52*
|
10.98 ¡Ó 3.81*
|
March-May 2016 (Impact)
|
0.98 ¡Ó 1.10
|
4.78 ¡Ó 6.85
|
June-August 2016 (Impact)
|
1.72 ¡Ó 2.17
|
7.48 ¡Ó 10.98
|
September-November 2016 (Impact)
|
2.86 ¡Ó 1.98
|
10.89 ¡Ó 10.98
|
December 2016-February 2017 (Impact)
|
3.80 ¡Ó 3.79*
|
14.52 ¡Ó 17.21*
|
March-May 2017 (Impact)
|
0.93 ¡Ó 1.03
|
5.25 ¡Ó 9.53
|
June-August 2017 (Impact)
|
2.20 ¡Ó 2.88
|
6.58 ¡Ó 8.12
|
September-November 2017 (Impact)
|
3.12 ¡Ó 1.91
|
10.35 ¡Ó 9.66
|
December 2017-February 2018 (Impact)
|
4.75 ¡Ó 2.26*
|
15.73 ¡Ó 15.94*
|
March-May 2018 (Impact)
|
2.88 ¡Ó 4.81
|
11.12 ¡Ó 22.46
|
|
June-August 2018 (Impact)
|
1.16 ¡Ó 1.39
|
2.87 ¡Ó 3.32
|
|
September-November 2018 (Impact)
|
1.51 ¡Ó 2.25
|
2.70 ¡Ó 3.78
|
|
December 2018-February 2019 (Impact)
|
2.40 ¡Ó 1.88*
|
7.95 ¡Ó 6.60*
|
|
Notes:
1) 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.
2) ¡Ó denotes the standard
deviation of the average encounter rates.
3) The
encounter rates in winter months were in blue and marked with asterisk.
3.5.23 Notably, when comparing the seven quarterly periods in winter months
since 2013-14, the quarterly encounter rates in the winter of 2018-19 dropped
to the lowest among all winter periods during the HKLR03 construction phase. The dramatic drop in dolphin occurrence
should raise serious concerns, and such temporal trend should be closely
monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters as the construction activities of
HZMB works will soon be completed in coming months.
3.5.24 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).
3.5.25 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present
quarter (25th quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the
p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.0041 and 0.0221 respectively.
If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected
between the baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter
rates of STG and ANI.
3.5.26 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative
quarters in impact phase (i.e. the first 25 quarters of the impact phase being
assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates
of STG and ANI were 0.000000 and 0.000000 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at
0.00001, significant differences were still detected in both the average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the
locations).
3.5.27 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter
rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in both NEL and NWL survey
areas during the present quarterly period when compared to the baseline period,
and such low occurrence of dolphins has also been consistently documented in previous
quarters of the past five years throughout the HZMB construction.
3.5.28 The significant decline in dolphin usage of North Lantau region
raises serious concern, as the timing of the decline in dolphin usage in North
Lantau waters coincided well with the construction schedule of the HZMB-related
projects (Hung 2018). Apparently
there has been no sign of recovery of dolphin usage, even though almost all
marine works associated with the HZMB construction have been completed, and the
Brothers Marine Park has been established in late 2016 as a compensation
measure for the permanent habitat loss in association with the HKBCF
reclamation works.
Group Size
3.5.29 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to seven
individuals per group in North Lantau region during December 2018 to February
2019. The average dolphin group
sizes from these three months were compared with the ones deduced from the
baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.8.
Table
3.8 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Dec
2018 ¡V Feb 2019) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep ¡V
Nov 2011)
Survey Area
|
Average Dolphin Group Size
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline Monitoring Period
|
Overall
|
3.17 ¡Ó 1.80 (n = 12)
|
3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)
|
Northeast Lantau
|
---
|
3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)
|
Northwest Lantau
|
3.17 ¡Ó 1.80 (n = 12)
|
3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)
|
Note:
1) ¡Ó denotes the standard deviation of the
average group size.
3.5.30 The average dolphin group size in NWL waters during December 2018 to
February 2019 was lower than the one recorded during the three-month baseline
period, but it should be noted that the sample size of 12 dolphin groups in the
present quarter was only a small fraction of the sample size of 66 dolphin
groups sighted during the baseline period (Table
3.8).
3.5.31 Notably, with the exception of three medium-sized groups with 5-7
animals, the other nine dolphin groups were small with 1-4 individuals per
group only (Annex II of Appendix J).
3.5.32 Distribution of the larger dolphin groups with five animals or more
per group during the present monitoring quarter is shown in (Figure 3 of Appendix J), with comparison to
the one recorded during baseline period.
The three medium-sized groups were located at the mouth of Deep
Bay, near Lung Kwu Tan and between Sha Chau and Lung Kwu
Chau respectively. This was
drastically different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups
were frequently and evenly distributed in NWL waters, with a few also being
sighted in NEL waters (Figure 3 of Appendix J).
Habitat
Use
3.5.33 From December 2018 to
February 2019, only nine grids in North Lantau waters recorded dolphin
occurrences. The grids with moderately high dolphin densities were located near
Lung Kwu Tan, between Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau, as well as to the north of the airport adjacent
to the third runway expansion reclamation work site (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix J). In contrast, the rest of the grids only
recorded low to moderate DPSE values.
3.5.34 Notably, all grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites as well as
HKLR09/TMCLKL alignments did not record any presence of dolphins at all during
on-effort search in the present quarterly period (Figures
4a and 4b of Appendix
J).
3.5.35
It should be emphasized 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 should be examined when more
survey effort for each grid is collected throughout the impact phase monitoring
programme.
3.5.36 When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline
period, dolphin usage in NEL and NWL has drastically diminished in both areas
during the present impact monitoring period (Figure 5 of Appendix J). During the baseline period, many grids
between Siu Mo To and Shum Shui Kok in NEL recorded
moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was in stark contrast to the
complete absence of dolphins there during the present impact phase period (Figure 5 of Appendix J).
3.5.37 The
density patterns were also drastically different in NWL between the baseline
and impact phase monitoring periods, with high dolphin usage recorded
throughout the area during the baseline period, especially around Sha Chau,
near Black Point, to the west of the airport, as well as between Pillar Point
and airport platform. In contrast,
only several grids with moderate to high dolphin densities were scattered in
the western portion of North Lantau waters during the present impact phase
period (Figure 5 of Appendix J).
Mother-calf Pairs
3.5.38 During the present
quarterly period, only one unspotted juvenile was sighted with its mother in
the North Lantau region, and that was also the only young calf being sighted in
the past two years of HKLR03 monitoring.
The unspotted juvenile was spotted with its mother (WL145, a known
individual from the photo-identification catalogue) at the southwest corner of
NWL survey area, or adjacent to the HKLR09 alignment (Figure 6 of Appendix J).
3.5.39 The
rare occurrence of young calves in the present quarter as well as in recent
years was very different from their regular occurrence in North Lantau waters
during the baseline period (Figure 6 of Appendix J).
This should be of a serious concern, and the occurrence of young calves
in North Lantau waters should be closely monitored in the upcoming quarters.
Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats
3.5.40 Two of the 12 dolphin groups were engaged in feeding activities,
while none of them was engaged in socializing, traveling or milling/resting
activity during the three-month study period.
3.5.41 The
percentage of sightings associated with feeding activities (16.7%) was higher
than the one recorded during the baseline period (11.6%). However, it should be noted the sample
size on the total number of dolphin sightings during the present quarter (12
dolphin groups) was only a small fraction of the one during the baseline period
(66 dolphin groups).
3.5.42 Distribution of dolphins
engaged in various activities during the present impact phase period and the
baseline period is shown in Figure 7 of
Appendix J. The two dolphin groups engaged in feeding activities were
sighted to the north of the airport platform and adjacent to the HKLR09
alignment respectively during the present quarterly period, which was very
different from the baseline period when various dolphin activities occurred
throughout the North Lantau region (Figure
7 of Appendix J).
3.5.43 Notably, none of the 12 dolphin groups was found to be associated with
any operating fishing vessel during the present impact phase period.
Summary Photo-identification works
3.5.44 From December 2018 to February 2019, about 1,200 digital photographs
of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys
for the photo-identification work.
3.5.45 In total, 16 individuals sighted 31 times altogether were identified
(see summary table in Appendix III and photographs of identified individuals in
Appendix III of Appendix J and
photographs of identified individuals in Appendix
IV of Appendix J). All of these
re-sightings were made in NWL. Five
of the 16 individuals (i.e. CH34, NL123, NL136, NL182 and NL202) were
re-sighted 3-4 times, while the other individuals were re-sighted only once or
twice during the three-month monitoring period (Annex III of Appendix J).
3.5.46 Notably, only one of these individuals (NL259) was also sighted in
WL waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys under the same three-month
period.
Individual range use
3.5.47 Ranging patterns of the 16 individuals identified during the
three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown
in Annex V of Appendix
J.
3.5.48 All identified dolphins sighted in the present quarter were
utilizing NWL waters only, but have completely avoided
NEL waters where many of them have utilized as their core areas in the past (Annex
V of Appendix J). This is in contrary to the extensive movements between
NEL and NWL survey areas observed in the earlier impact monitoring quarters as
well as the baseline period.
3.5.49 On the other hand, in contrary to previous monitoring quarters, only
one of the 16 individuals (NL259) have extended their range use to WL waters
during the same winter quarter of 2018-19, while four individuals (i.e. WL98,
WL243, WL273 and WL281) that consistently utilized WL waters in the past have
extended their range use to NWL waters during the present quarter.
3.5.50 In the upcoming quarters, individual range use and movements should
be continuously monitored to examine whether there has
been any consistent shifts of individual home ranges from North Lantau to West
or Southwest Lantau (and vice versa), as such shift could possibly be related
to the HZMB-related construction works.
Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance
3.5.51
There was one Limit
Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data
(between December 2018 ¡V February 2019). According to
the contractor¡¦s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03
during the quarter of December 2018 ¡V February 2019 included seawall
construction.
3.5.52 There is no evidence showing the current LL
non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 (where the
amounts of working vessels for HKLR03 have been decreasing), although the
generally increased amount of vessel traffic in NEL during the impact phase has
been partly contributed by HKLR03 works since October 2012. It should also be
noted that work area 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 (CWD). 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.
3.5.53 According to Monitoring of Chinese White Dolphins in
Southwest Lantau Waters ¡V Fourth Quarterly Report (December 2015 to February
2016) which is available on ENPO¡¦s website, with their primary ranges centered
in North and West Lantau waters, some individuals showed apparent range shifts
or extensions to Southwest Lantau waters in 2015-16. For example, three individual dolphins
(NL120, WL46 and WL221) indicated obvious shifts in their range use from NWL to
West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) waters. Moreover, many individuals
(e.g. NL212, NL260, WL200, SL55, WL232, WL237 and WL265) have extended their
ranges from WL waters to SWL waters.
It remains to be seen whether some of these individuals have permanently
shifted their ranges away from their primary ranges in North Lantau or begin to
spend more times in SWL waters as part of their ranges.
3.5.54 ENPO updated that the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Authority (HZMBA) for the Mainland section of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
(HZMB) has commenced an interim survey on fisheries resources and CWD in the
Mainland waters. ENPO presented the preliminary findings of the HZMBA interim
survey on CWD sighting and photo-identification works which provide solid
evidence that some CWD that were previously more often sighted in HK waters
have expanded their ranges into the Mainland waters, and some with reduced
usage in HK waters. These preliminary data were mentioned in Monitoring of
Chinese White Dolphins in Southwest Lantau Waters ¡V Fourth Quarterly Report
(December 2015 to February 2016) which is available on ENPO¡¦s website.
3.5.55 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).
3.5.56 For the comparison between the baseline period and
the present quarter (25th quarter of the impact phase being
assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates
of STG and ANI were 0.0041 and 0.0221 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05,
significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarters
in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.
3.5.57 For comparison between the baseline period and the
cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first 25 quarters of the impact phase
being assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter
rates of STG and ANI were 0.000000 and 0.000000 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at
0.00001, significant differences were still detected in both the average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the
locations).
3.5.58 The AFCD monitoring data during December 2018 to
February 2019 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist. During the same
quarter, no dolphin was sighted from 83.03 km of survey effort on primary lines
in NEL, while only four groups of 14 dolphins were sighted from 127.29 km of
survey effort on primary lines in NWL. This review has confirmed that the low
occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring surveys in winter
2018-19 in NEL and NWL survey area is accurate.
3.5.59
All dolphin protective
measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A
Manual. According to the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan, the travelling speed
of vessels must not exceed 5 knots when crossing the edge of the Brothers
Marine Park. The Contractor will continue to provide training for 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. Also, it is recommended to complete the marine
works of the Contract as soon as
possible so as to reduce the overall duration of
impacts and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.
3.5.60 It was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the
contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the
contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole
(or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the
other stress factors.
3.5.61 The dolphin specialists of the projects confirmed
that the CWD sighting around the North of Sha Chau and Lung Kwu
Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP) has significantly decreased, and it was likely
related to the re-routing of high speed ferry (HSF)
from Skypier.
3.5.62 ET will keep reviewing the implementation status of
the dolphin related mitigation measures and remind the contractor to implement
the relevant measures.
3.5.63 It was recommended that the marine works of HZMB
projects should be completed as soon as possible so as to
reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow the dolphins population to
recover as early as possible.
3.5.64 It was also recommended that the marine works
footprint (e.g., reduce the size of peripheral silt curtain) and vessels for
the marine works should be reduced as much as possible, and vessels idling /
mooring in other part of the North Lantau shall be avoided whenever possible.
3.5.65 HyD updated that the
draft map of the proposed Brothers Marine Park (BMP)
was gazetted in February 2016. ENPO updated that the
BMP was approved by the Chief Executive in the Executive
Council in August 2016. The ETs were reminded to update the BMP boundary in
the Regular Marine Travel Route (RMTR) Plan. The BMP was designated on 30 December 2016. It was
suggested that the protection measures (e.g. speed limit control) for the
approved BMP shall be brought forward so as to provide
a better habitat for dolphin recovery. It was noted that under the latest RMTR
Plan, the contractors have committed to reduce the vessel speed in BMP.
3.5.66 The marine travel route will shift along the edge of
the Brothers Marine Park as much as practical under the RMTR Plan. It was noted
that even though marine vessels may moor within the mooring site of BMP,
commercial activities including loading / unloading / transshipment are not
allowed except a permit is obtained. The HZMB works vessels were recommended to
avoid the BMP.
3.5.67 It was noted that starting from January 2016, HSF
from the SkyPier will be re-routed north to the
northern edged of the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau
Marine Park which currently has the highest density of CWD in the NWL. While
the HSF will reduce speed to 15 knots, the associated disturbance may still
affect CWD in the area. It was implied that the CWDs in the area shall be
closely followed.
3.5.68 There was a discussion on exploring possible further
mitigation measures, for example, controlling the underwater noise. It was
noted that the EIA reports for the projects suggested several mitigation
measures, all of which have been implemented.
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 1
December 2018. The mudflat surface levels at the four
established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID
coordinates are presented in Table 3.9 and Table 3.10.
Table 3.9 Measured
Mudflat Surface Level Results
|
Baseline Monitoring
(September 2012)
|
Impact Monitoring
(December 2018)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting
(m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
Easting
(m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
810291.160
|
816678.727
|
0.950
|
810291.177
|
816678.732
|
1.120
|
S2
|
810958.272
|
815831.531
|
0.864
|
810958.261
|
815831.516
|
0.974
|
S3
|
810716.585
|
815953.308
|
1.341
|
810716.572
|
815953.312
|
1.476
|
S4
|
811221.433
|
816151.381
|
0.931
|
811221.425
|
816151.415
|
1.121
|
Table 3.10 Comparison
of Measurement
|
Comparison of measurement
|
Remarks and
Recommendation
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting
(m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
0.017
|
0.005
|
0.170
|
Level
continuously increased
|
S2
|
-0.011
|
-0.015
|
0.110
|
Level continuously increased
|
S3
|
-0.013
|
0.004
|
0.135
|
Level continuously increased
|
S4
|
-0.008
|
0.034
|
0.190
|
Level continuously increased
|
3.6.2
This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the
baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously
increased.
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(N)) as in the
EM&A Manual. The water quality
monitoring location (SR3(N)) is shown in Figure 2.1.
3.6.4 Impact water quality
monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3(N)) was conducted in December
2018. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and
suspended solids (SS).
3.6.5 The
Impact monitoring result for SR3(N) were extracted and summarised in Table 3.11:
Table
3.11 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)
|
03-Dec-2018
|
6.8
|
4.4
|
7.1
|
6.7
|
11.8
|
13.2
|
05-Dec-2018
|
6.8
|
4.0
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
11.4
|
15.3
|
07-Dec-2018
|
6.7
|
3.4
|
6.4
|
6.9
|
2.3
|
6.4
|
10-Dec-2018
|
7.2
|
3.6
|
5.7
|
6.6
|
5.2
|
11.0
|
12-Dec-2018
|
7.1
|
5.5
|
9.1
|
7.5
|
7.3
|
12.3
|
14-Dec-2018
|
6.7
|
2.6
|
5.0
|
7.4
|
5.7
|
10.4
|
17-Dec-2018
|
7.6
|
2.1
|
3.0
|
7.2
|
2.4
|
4.2
|
19-Dec-2018
|
7.4
|
3.4
|
4.4
|
7.2
|
3.9
|
7.0
|
21-Dec-2018
|
7.1
|
2.6
|
5.8
|
6.7
|
4.2
|
7.4
|
24-Dec-2018
|
7.2
|
4.8
|
8.6
|
7.3
|
3.6
|
6.4
|
26-Dec-2018
|
6.7
|
5.7
|
7.5
|
6.9
|
3.7
|
7.5
|
28-Dec-2018
|
6.8
|
5.4
|
7.5
|
7.1
|
7.5
|
8.6
|
31-Dec-2018
|
7.7
|
2.7
|
5.2
|
7.6
|
6.1
|
8.8
|
Average
|
7.1
|
3.8
|
6.2
|
7.1
|
5.8
|
9.1
|
Mudflat Ecology
Monitoring
Sampling Zone
3.6.6 In order to collect baseline information of mudflats in the study
site, the study site was divided into three sampling zones (labeled as TC1,
TC2, TC3) in Tung Chung Bay and one zone in San Tau (labeled as ST) (Figure 2.1 of Appendix O). The horizontal shoreline of sampling zones TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST were
about 250 m, 300 m, 300 m and 250 m respectively (Figure 2.2 of Appendix O). Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds
and intertidal communities were conducted in every sampling zone. The present
survey was conducted in December 2018 (totally 5 sampling days between 1st
and 16th December 2018).
3.6.7 Since the field survey of Jun.
2016, increasing number of trashes and even big trashes trashes
(Figure 2.3 of Appendix O) were found in every sampling zone. It raised a concern about the solid
waste dumping and current-driven waste issues in Tung Chung Wan. Respective
measures (e.g. manual clean-up) should be implemented by responsible government
agency units.
Horseshoe Crabs
3.6.8 Active search method was
conducted for horseshoe crab monitoring by two experienced surveyors in every
sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would
be investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hours of low tide
period (tidal level below 1.2 m above Chart Datum (C.D.)). Once a horseshoe
crab individual was found, the species was identified referencing to Li (2008).
The prosomal width, inhabiting substratum and respective GPS coordinate were
recorded. A photographic record was taken for future investigation. Any
grouping behavior of individuals, if found, was recorded. The horseshoe crab
surveys were conducted on 1st (for TC3), 2nd (for TC1),
11th (for ST) and 15th (for TC2) December 2018. The
weather was warm and sunny on first two survey days (1st and 2nd
Dec.) while it was cold and cloudy on the following days (11th and
15th Dec).
3.6.9 In Jun. 2017, a big horseshoe
crab was tangled by a trash gill net in ST mudflat (Figure 2.3 of Appendix O). It was released to sea once
after photo recording. The horseshoe crab of such size should be inhabiting sub-tidal
environment while it forages on intertidal shore occasionally during high tide
period. If it is tangled by the trash net for few days, it may die due to
starvation or overheat during low tide period. These trash gill nets are
definitely ¡¥fatal trap¡¦ for the horseshoe crabs and other marine life. Manual
clean-up should be implemented as soon as possible by responsible government
agency units.
Seagrass Beds
3.6.10 Active
search method was conducted for seagrass bed monitoring by two experienced
surveyors in every sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and
potential area would be investigated for any seagrass beds within 2-3 hours of
low tide period. Once seagrass bed was found, the species, estimated area,
estimated coverage percentage and respective GPS coordinates were recorded. The
seagrass beds surveys were conducted on 1st (for TC3), 2nd
(for TC1), 11th (for ST) and 15th (for TC2) December
2018. The weather was warm and sunny on first two survey days (1st
and 2nd Dec.) while it was cold and cloudy on the following days (11th
and 15th Dec.).
Intertidal Soft Shore Communities
3.6.11
The intertidal soft shore community surveys
were conducted in low tide period on 1st (for TC3), 2nd
(for TC1), 15th (for TC2) and 16th (for ST) December
2018. In every sampling zone, three 100 m horizontal transect lines were laid
at high tidal level (H: 2.0 m above C.D.), mid tidal level (M: 1.5 m above
C.D.) and low tidal level (L: 1.0 m above C.D.). Along every horizontal
transect line, ten random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5 m) were placed.
3.6.12 Inside a quadrat, any visible epifauna were collected and were
in-situ identified to the lowest practical taxonomical resolution. Whenever
possible a hand core sample (10 cm internal diameter x 20 cm depth) of
sediments was collected in the quadrat. The core sample was gently washed
through a sieve of mesh size 2.0 mm in-situ. Any visible infauna were collected and identified. Finally the top 5 cm surface
sediments was dug for visible infauna in the quadrat regardless of hand core sample
was taken .
3.6.13 All collected fauna were released
after recording except some tiny individuals that are too small to be
identified on site. These tiny individuals were taken to laboratory for
identification under dissecting microscope .
3.6.14 The
taxonomic classification was conducted in accordance to the following
references: Polychaetes: Fauchald
(1977), Yang and Sun (1988); Arthropods: Dai and Yang (1991), Dong (1991);
Mollusks: Chan and Caley (2003), Qi (2004), AFCD (2018) .
Data Analysis
3.6.15
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
3.6.16 In the present survey, two species of
horseshoe crab (total 15 ind.) and Tachypleus tridentatus (total 13 ind.) were recorded. The recorded
individuals were mainly distributed along the shoreline from TC3 to ST.
Grouping of 2-3 individuals was usually observed on similar substratum (fine
sand or soft mud, slightly submerged).Photo records were shown in Figure 3.1 of Appendix
O while
the complete survey records were listed in Annex
II of Appendix O.
3.6.17 Table 3.1 of Appendix O summarizes the survey results of
horseshoe crab in the present survey. In general, very low search record was
found for both species in TC1, TC3 and ST. No individual of either species was
found in TC2.
3.6.18 For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda,
more individuals (10 ind.) were found in TC3 with average body size 36.34 mm
(19.25-71.23 mm). In TC1, there were 4 individuals with average body size 38.39
mm (prosomal width ranged 23.24-58.44 mm). In ST, there was only 1 individual
with body size 61.20 mm. The three zones were very low in search record
(0.2-1.7 ind. hr-1 person-1).
3.6.19 There was similar pattern of
survey results for Tachypleus tridentatus.
Relatively more individuals were found in TC3 (7 ind.) with average body size
34.90 mm (26.30-38.73 mm). In TC1 and ST, there were only 3 individuals with
average body size 47.06-49.13 mm (prosomal width ranged 37.37-66.72 mm). The
search record was very low (0.5-1.2 ind. hr-1 person-1) for the three zones.
3.6.20 Based on previous monitoring results, there were
similar search records of horseshoe crab in TC3 and ST. But it was relatively
higher in TC3 in present survey because the survey was conducted under warmer
weather in early December. The survey for ST was conducted in mid-December
while the ambient temperature dropped significantly. It could decrease the
activity rate of horseshoe crab.
3.6.21 In the survey of Mar. 2015, there
was one important finding that a mating pair of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was found in ST (prosomal width: male 155.1 mm, female 138.2 mm). It indicated
the importance of ST as a breeding ground of horseshoe crab. In Jun. 2017,
mating pairs of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
were also found in TC2 (male 175.27 mm, female 143.51 mm) and TC3 (male 182.08
mm, female 145.63 mm) (Figure 3.2 of Appendix O). In Dec. 2017 and Jun. 2018,
one mating pair was of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was found in TC3 (Dec. 2017: male 127.80 mm, female 144.61 mm; Jun. 2018: male
139 mm, female 149 mm). Figure 3.2 of Appendix O shows the photographic records of all mating pairs found. The recorded
mating pairs were found nearly burrowing in soft mud at low tidal level
(0.5-1.0 m above C.D.). The smaller male was holding the opisthosoma (abdomen
carapace) of larger female from behind. These mating pairs indicated that
breeding of horseshoe crab could be possible along the coast of Tung Chung Wan
rather than ST only, as long as suitable substratum
was available. Based on the frequency of encounter, the shoreline between TC3
and ST should be more suitable mating ground. Moreover
suitable breeding period was believed in wet season (Mar - Sep.) because tiny
individuals (i.e. newly hatched) were usually recorded in Jun. and Sep. every
year.
3.6.22 Despite of mating pair, there were occasional records of large
individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
(prosomal width ranged 114.45 - 178.67 mm, either single or in pair) and Tachypleus tridentatus
(prosomal width 103 mm) (Figure 3.3 of Appendix O). In the present survey (Dec. 2018), one large individual of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was found in TC3 (prosomal width 148.94 mm). Based on their sizes, it indicated
that individuals of prosomal width larger than 100 mm would progress its
nursery stage from intertidal habitat to sub-tidal habitat of Tung Chung Wan.
These large individuals might move onto intertidal shore occasionally during
high tide for foraging and breeding. Because they should be inhabiting
sub-tidal habitat most of the time. Their records were excluded from the data
analysis to avoid mixing up with juvenile population living on intertidal
habitat.
3.6.23
No
marked individual of horseshoe crab was recorded in the present survey. Some
marked individuals were found in the previous surveys of Sep. 2013, Mar. 2014
and Sep. 2014. All of them were released through a conservation programme in charged by Prof. Paul Shin (Department of
Biology and Chemistry, The City University of Hong Kong (CityU)).
It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred horseshoe crab juvenile at
selected sites. So that the horseshoe crab population might be restored in the
natural habitat. Through a personal conversation with Prof. Shin, about 100
individuals were released in the sampling zone ST on 20 June 2013. All of them
were marked with color tape and internal chip detected by specific chip sensor.
There should be second round of release between June and September 2014 since
new marked individuals were found in the survey of Sep. 2014.
3.6.24
The
artificial bred individuals, if found, would be excluded from the results of
present monitoring programme in
order to reflect the changes of natural population. However, the mark on
their prosoma might have been detached during moulting
after a certain period of release. The artificially released individuals were
no longer distinguishable from the natural population without the specific chip
sensor. The survey data collected would possibly cover both natural population
and artificially bred individuals.
Population
difference among the sampling zones
3.6.25 Figures 3.5 and 3.6 of Appendix O show
the changes of number of individuals, mean prosomal width and search record of
horseshoe crabs Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
and Tachypleus tridentatus
respectively in every sampling zone throughout the monitoring period.
3.6.26 For TC3 and ST, medium to high
search records (i.e. number of individuals) of both species were always found
in wet season (Jun. and Sep.). The search record of ST was higher from Sep.
2012 to Jun. 2014 while it was replaced by TC3 from Sep. 2014 to Jun. 2015. The
search records were similar between two sampling zones from Sep. 2015 to Jun.
2016. In Sep. 2016, the search record of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
in ST was much higher than TC3. From Mar. to Jun. 2017, the search records of
both species were similar again between two sampling zones. It showed a natural
variation of horseshoe crab population in these two zones due to weather
condition and tidal effect. No obvious difference of horseshoe crab population
was noted between TC3 and ST. In Sep. 2017, the search records of both
horseshoe crab species decreased except the Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in
TC3. The survey results were different from previous findings that there were
usually higher search records in September. One possible reason was that the
serial cyclone hit decreased horseshoe crab activity (totally 4 cyclone records
between Jun. and Sep. 2017, to be discussed in 'Seagrass survey' section). From
Dec. 2017 to Sep. 2018, the search records of both species increased again to
low-moderate level in ST. Relatively higher population fluctuation of Tachypleus tridentatus
was observed in TC3.
3.6.27 For TC1, the search record was at
low to moderate level throughout the monitoring period. The change of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was relatively more variable than that of Tachypleus tridentatus. Relatively, the search
record was very low in TC2. There were occasional records of 1 to 4 individuals
between March and September throughout the monitoring period. The maximum
record was 6 individuals only in Jun. 2016.
3.6.28 About
the body size, larger individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were usually found in ST and TC1 relative
to those in TC3 from Sep. 2012 to Jun. 2017. But the body size was higher in
TC3 and ST followed by TC1 from Sep. 2017 to Jun. 2018. In Sep. 2018, larger
individuals were found in ST and TC1 again. For Tachypleus tridentatus, larger individuals were
usually found in ST and TC3 followed by TC1 throughout the monitoring period.
3.6.29 In general, it was obvious that
the shoreline along TC3 and ST (western shore of Tung Chung Wan) 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). Relatively, other
sampling zones were not a suitable nursery ground especially TC2. Possible
factors were less area of suitable substratum (especially TC1) and higher human
disturbance (TC1 and TC2: close to urban district and easily accessible). In
TC2, large daily salinity fluctuation was a possible factor either since it was
flushed by two rivers under tidal inundation. The individuals inhabiting TC1
and TC2 were confined in small foraging area due to limited area of suitable
substratum. Although a mating pair of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was once found in TC2, the hatching rate
and survival rate of newly hatched individuals were believed very low.
Seasonal variation of horseshoe crab population
3.6.30
Throughout the monitoring period, the search
record of horseshoe crab declined obviously during dry season especially
December (Figures 3.4 and 3.5 of Appendix O). Very low ¡V
low search record was found in December from 2012 to 2015 (0-4 ind. of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
and 0-12 ind. of Tachypleus tridentatus).
The horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold
weather (<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in dry season were
reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example,
the search records in Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 ind. hr-1 person-1 and 0.00 ind.
hr-1 person-1 in wet season and dry season respectively (details see Li, 2008).
Relatively the search records were much higher in Dec. 2016. There were totally
70 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
and 24 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus
in TC3 and ST. Because the survey was arranged in early December while the
weather was warm with sunlight (~22 „aC during dawn according to Hong Kong Observatory
database, Chek Lap Kok
station on 5 Dec.). In contrast, there was no search record in TC1 and TC2 because
the survey was conducted in mid-December with colder and cloudy weather (~20 ¢XC during dawn on 19 Dec.). The horseshoe crab activity
would decrease gradually with the colder climate. In December of 2017 and 2018
(present survey), very low search records were found again as mentioned above.
3.6.31 From
Sep. 2012 to Dec. 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was a less common species relative to Tachypleus tridentatus.
Only 4 individuals were ever recorded in ST in Dec. 2012. This species had ever
been believed of very low density in ST hence the encounter rate was very low.
In Mar. 2014, it was found in all sampling zones with higher abundance in ST.
Based on its average size (mean prosomal width 39.28-49.81 mm), it indicated
that breeding and spawning of this species had occurred about 3 years ago along
the coastline of Tung Chun Wan. However, these individuals were still small
while their walking trails were inconspicuous. Hence there was no search record
in previous sampling months. Since Mar. 2014, more individuals were recorded
due to larger size and higher activity (i.e. more conspicuous walking trail)).
3.6.32 For Tachypleus
tridentatus, sharp increase of number of
individuals was recorded in ST during the wet season of 2013 (from Mar. to
Sep.). According to a personal conversation with Prof. Shin (CityU), his monitoring team had recorded similar increase
of horseshoe crab population during wet season. It was believed that the
suitable ambient temperature increased its conspicuousness. However similar
pattern was not recorded in the following wet seasons. The number of
individuals increased in Mar. and Jun. 2014 followed by a rapid decline in Sep.
2014. Then the number of individuals fluctuated slightly in TC3 and ST until
Mar. 2017. Apart from natural mortality, migration from nursery soft shore to
subtidal habitat was another possible cause. Since the mean prosomal width of Tachypleus tridentatus continued
to grow and reached about 50 mm since Mar. 2014. Then it varied slightly
between 35-65 mm from Sep. 2014 to Mar. 2017. Most of the individuals might
have reached a suitable size (e.g. prosomal width 50-60 mm) strong enough to
forage in sub-tidal habitat. In Jun. 2017, the number of individuals increased
sharply again in TC3 and ST. Although mating pair of Tachypleus
tridentatus was not found in previous surveys,
there should be new round of spawning in the wet season of 2016. The
individuals might have grown to a more conspicuous size in 2017 accounting for
higher search record. In Sep. 2017, moderate numbers of individual were found
in TC3 and ST indicating a stable population size. In Sep. 2018, the population
size was lower while natural mortality was the possible cause.
3.6.33
Recently, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was a more common horseshoe crab species in Tung Chung Wan. It was recorded in
the four sampling zones while the majority of
population located in TC3 and ST. Due to potential breeding last year, Tachypleus tridentatus
became common again and distributed in TC3 and ST mainly. Since TC3 and ST were
regarded as important nursery ground for both horseshoe crab species, box plots
of prosomal width of two horseshoe crab species were constructed to investigate
the changes of population in details.
Box plot of horseshoe crab populations in TC3
3.6.34 Figure
3.7 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
and Tachypleus tridentatus
in TC3. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was rarely found between Sep. 2012 and
Dec. 2013 hence the data were lacking. In Mar 2014, the major size (50% of
individual records between upper (top of red box) and lower quartile (bottom of
blue box)) ranged 40-60 mm while only few individuals were found. From Mar.
2014 to Sep. 2018, the median prosomal width (middle line of whole box) and
major size (whole box) decreased after Mar. of every year. It was due to more
small individuals found in June indicating new rounds of spawning. Also, there
were slight increasing trends of body size from Jun. to Mar. of next year since
2015. It indicated a stable growth of individuals. Focused on larger juveniles
(upper whisker), the size range was quite variable (prosomal width 60-90 mm)
along the sampling months. Juveniles reaching this size might gradually migrate
to sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.35 For Tachypleus tridentatus,
the major size ranged 20-50 mm while the number of individuals fluctuated from
Sep. 2012 to Jun. 2014. Then a slight but consistent growing trend was observed
from Sep. 2014 to Jun. 2015. The prosomal width increased from 25-35 mm to
35-65 mm. As mentioned, the large individuals might have reached a suitable
size for migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat. It
accounted for the declined population in TC3. From Mar. to Sep. 2016, slight
increasing trend of major size was noticed again. From Dec. 2016 to Jun. 2017,
similar increasing trend of major size was noted with much higher number of
individuals. It reflected new round of spawning. In Sep. 2017, the major size
decreased while the trend was different from previous two years. Such decline
might be the cause of serial cyclone hit between Jun. and Sep. 2017 (to be
discussed in the 'Seagrass survey' section). From Dec. 2017 to Sep. 2018,
increasing trend was noted again. Across the whole monitoring period, the
larger juveniles (upper whisker) usually reached 60-80 mm in prosomal width,
even 90 mm occasionally. Juveniles reaching this size might gradually migrate
to sub-tidal habitats.
Box
plot of horseshoe crab populations in ST
3.6.36 Figure
3.8 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
and Tachypleus tridentatus
in ST. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was rarely found between Sep. 2012
and Dec. 2013 hence the data were lacking. From Mar. 2014 to Sep. 2018, the
size of major population decreased and more small individuals (i.e. lower
whisker) were recorded after Jun. of every year. It indicated new round of
spawning. Also, there were similar
increasing trends of body size from Sep. to Jun. of next year between 2014 and
2017. It indicated a stable growth of individuals. Across the whole monitoring
period, the larger juveniles (i.e. upper whisker) usually ranged 60-80 mm in
prosomal width except one individual (prosomal width 107.04 mm) found in Mar.
2017. It reflected juveniles reaching this size would gradually migrate to
sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.37 For Tachypleus tridentatusa, a consistent growing trend
was observed for the major population from Dec. 2012 to Dec. 2014 regardless of
change of search record. The prosomal width increased from 15-30 mm to 60-70
mm. As mentioned, the large juveniles might have reached a suitable size for
migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat. From Mar. to Sep.
2015, the size of major population decreased slightly to a prosomal width 40-60
mm. At the same time, the number of individuals decreased gradually. It further
indicated some of large juveniles might have migrated to sub-tidal habitat,
leaving the smaller individuals on shore. There was an overall growth trend. In
Dec. 2015, two big individuals (prosomal width 89.27 mm and 98.89 mm) were
recorded only while it could not represent the major population. In Mar. 2016,
the number of individual was very few in ST that no
boxplot could be produced. In Jun. 2016, the prosomal width of major population
ranged 50-70 mm. But it dropped clearly to 30-40 mm in Sep. 2016 followed by an
increase to 40-50 mm in Dec. 2016, 40-70 mm in Mar. 2017 and 50-60mm in Jun.
2017. Based on overall higher number of small individuals from Jun. 2016 to
Sep. 2017, it indicated another round of spawning. From Sep. 2017 to Jun. 2018,
the major size range increased slightly from 40-50 mm to 45-60 mm indicating a
continuous growth. In Sep. 2018, decrease of major size was noted again that
might reflect new round of spawning. Throughout the monitoring period, the
larger juveniles ranged 60-80 mm in prosomal width. Juveniles reaching this
size would gradually migrate to sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.38 As a summary for horseshoe crab
populations in TC3 and ST, there were spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
from 2014 to 2018 while the spawning time should be in spring. The population
size was consistent in these two sampling zones. For Tachypleus tridentatus, small individuals were
rarely found in both zones from 2014 to 2015. It was believed no occurrence of
successful spawning. The existing individuals (that recorded since 2012) grew
to a mature size and migrated to sub-tidal habitat. Hence the number of
individuals decreased gradually. From 2016 to 2018, new rounds of spawning were
recorded in ST while the population size increased to a moderate level.
Impact of the HKLR
project
3.6.39 It was
the 25th survey of the EM&A programme
during the construction period. Based on the monitoring results, impact of the
HKLR project was not detected on horseshoe crabs. The population change was
mainly determined by seasonal variation while new rounds of spawning were
observed for both species. Abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of
horseshoe crab individuals in wet season, large number of dead individuals on
the shore) had not been reported.
Seagrass Beds
3.6.40 Since the commencement of the
EM&A monitoring programme, two species of
seagrass Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were recorded in TC3 and ST (Figure 3.9
of Appendix O). In general, Halophila ovalis was occasionally found in TC3
in few, small to medium patches. But it was commonly found in ST in medium to
large seagrass bed. Moreover, it had sometimes grown extensively and had
covered significant mudflat area at 0.5-2.0 m above C.D. between TC3 and ST. Another seagrass species
Zostera japonica was found in ST only. It was relatively lower
in vegetation area and was co-existing with Halophila ovalis nearby the mangrove strand at
2.0 m above C.D..
3.6.41 Table 3.2 of Appendix O summarizes the results of present seagrass beds survey. Seagrass beds
were found in ST only. There were two low-medium sized, horizontal strands of
Halophila ovalis with total seagrass bed area ~ 404 m2 (Figure 3.10 of Appendix O). The larger
strand had area ~264 m2 in medium-high vegetation coverage 50-85%, located
at tidal zone 1.5-2.0 m above C.D nearby mangrove plantation. At close
vicinity, there was a smaller horizontal strand (~140 m2, low
coverage 5-20%). Another seagrass species Zostera japonica was not found in present survey. Annex III of Appendix O shows the complete record of
seagrass survey.
3.6.42 According to the previous results, majority
of seagrass bed was confined in ST, the temporal change of both seagrass
species were investigated in details:
Temporal variation of seagrass beds
3.6.43 Figure
3.11 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of
seagrass beds in ST along the sampling months. For Zostera
japonica, it was not recorded in the 1st and 2nd surveys of monitoring programme. Seasonal recruitment of few, small patches
(total seagrass area: 10 m2) was found in Mar. 2013 that grew within
the large patch of seagrass Halophila ovalis. Then the patch size increased and
merged gradually with the warmer climate from Mar. to Jun. 2013 (15 m2).
However, the patch size decreased and remained similar from Sep. 2013 (4 m2)
to Mar. 2014 (3 m2). In Jun. 2014, the patch size increased
obviously again (41 m2) with warmer climate followed by a decrease
between Sep. 2014 (2 m2) and Dec. 2014 (5 m2). From Mar.
to Jun. 2015, the patch size increased sharply again (90 m2). It
might be due to the disappearance of the originally dominant seagrass Halophila
ovalis resulting in less competition for substratum and nutrients. From Sep.
2015 to Jun. 2016, it was found coexisting with seagrass Halophila ovalis with
steady increasing patch size (from 44 m2 to 115 m2) and
variable coverage. In Sep. 2016, the patch size decreased again to (38 m2)
followed by an increase to a horizontal strand (105.4 m2) in Jun.
2017. And it was no longer co-existing with Halophila ovalis. Between Sep. 2014
and Jun. 2017, an increasing trend was noticed from Sep. to Jun. of next year followed
by a rapid decline in Sep. of next year. It was possibly the causes of heat
stress, typhoon and stronger grazing pressure during wet season. However such increasing trend was not found from Sep. 2017
to Dec. 2018 (present survey) while no patch of Zostera
japonica was found.
3.6.44
For Halophila ovalis, it was recorded as 3-4
medium to large patches (area 18.9-251.7 m2; vegetation coverage
50-80%) beside the mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. in Sep.
2012 (first survey). The total seagrass bed area grew steadily from 332.3 m2
in Sep. 2012 to 727.4 m2 in Dec. 2013. Flowers were observed in the largest
patch during its flowering period. In Mar. 2014, 31 small
to medium patches were newly recorded (variable area 1-72 m2 per
patch, vegetation coverage 40-80% per patch) in lower tidal zone between 1.0
and 1.5 m above C.D. The total seagrass area increased further to 1350 m2.
In Jun. 2014, these small and medium patches grew and extended to each other.
These patches were no longer distinguishable and were covering a significant
mudflat area of ST. It was generally grouped into 4 large patches (1116 ¡V 2443
m2) of seagrass beds characterized of patchy distribution, variable
vegetable coverage (40-80%) and smaller leaves. The total seagrass bed area increased
sharply to 7629 m2. In Sep. 2014, the total seagrass area declined
sharply to 1111 m2. There were only 3-4 small to large patches
(6-253 m2) at high tidal level and 1 large patch at low tidal level
(786 m2). Typhoon or strong water current was a possible cause
(Fong, 1998). In Sep. 2014, there were two tropical cyclone records in Hong
Kong (7th-8th Sep.: no cyclone name, maximum signal number 1; 14th-17th
Sep.: Kalmaegi, maximum signal number 8SE) before the
seagrass survey dated 21st Sep. 2014. The strong water current
caused by the cyclone, Kalmaegi especially, might
have given damage to the seagrass beds. In addition, natural heat stress and
grazing force were other possible causes reducing seagrass beds area. Besides,
very small patches of Halophila ovalis could be found in other mud flat area in
addition to the recorded patches. But it was hardly distinguished due to very
low coverage (10-20%) and small leaves.
3.6.45 In
Dec. 2014, all the seagrass patches of Halophila ovalis disappeared in ST. Figure 3.12 of Appendix O shows
the difference of the original seagrass beds area nearby the mangrove
vegetation at high tidal level between Jun. 2014 and Dec. 2014. Such rapid loss
would not be seasonal phenomenon because the seagrass beds at higher tidal
level (2.0 m above C.D.) were present and normal in December 2012 and 2013.
According to Fong (1998), similar incident had occurred in ST in the past. The
original seagrass area had declined significantly during the commencement of
the construction and reclamation works for the international airport at Chek Lap Kok in 1992. The
seagrass almost disappeared in 1995 and recovered gradually after the
completion of reclamation works. Moreover, incident of rapid loss of seagrass
area was also recorded in another intertidal mudflat in Lai Chi Wo in 1998 with
unknown reason. Hence Halophila
ovalis was regarded as a short-lived and r-strategy seagrass that could
colonize areas in short period but disappears quickly under unfavourable
conditions (Fong, 1998).
Unfavourable conditions
to seagrass Halophila
ovalis
3.6.46 Typhoon or strong water current was suggested as one unfavourable
condition to Halophila ovalis (Fong, 1998). As mentioned above, there were two
tropical cyclone records in Hong Kong in Sep. 2014. The strong water current
caused by the cyclones might have given damage to the seagrass beds.
3.6.47 Prolonged light deprivation due to turbid
water would be another unfavouable condition.
Previous studies reported that Halophila ovalis had little tolerance to
light deprivation. During experimental darkness, seagrass biomass declined
rapidly after 3-6 days and seagrass died completely after 30 days. The rapid
death might be due to shortage of available carbohydrate under limited
photosynthesis or accumulation of phytotoxic end products of anaerobic
respiration (details see Longstaff et al., 1999). Hence the seagrass bed of
this species was susceptible to temporary light deprivation events such as
flooding river runoff (Longstaff and Dennison, 1999).
3.6.48
In order to investigate any deterioration of water
quality (e.g. more turbid) in ST, the water quality measurement results at two
closest monitoring stations SR3 and IS5 of the EM&A programme
were obtained from the water quality monitoring team. Based on the results from
June to December 2014, the overall water quality was in normal fluctuation
except there was one exceedance of suspended solids (SS) at both stations in
September. On 10th Sep., 2014, the SS concentrations
measured during mid-ebb tide at stations SR3 (27.5 mg/L) and IS5 (34.5 mg/L)
exceeded the Action Level (≤23.5 mg/L and 120% of upstream control station¡¦s
reading) and Limit Level (≤34.4 mg/L and 130% of upstream control station¡¦s
reading) respectively. The turbidity readings at SR3 and IS5 reached 24.8-25.3
NTU and 22.3-22.5 NTU respectively. The temporary turbid water should not be
caused by the runoff from upstream rivers. Because there was no rain or slight
rain from 1st to 10th Sep. 2014 (daily total rainfall at the Hong Kong
International Airport: 0-2.1 mm; extracted from the climatological data of Hong
Kong Observatory). The effect of upstream runoff on water quality should be
neglectable in that period. Moreover, the exceedance of water quality was
considered unlikely to be related to the contract works of HKLR according to
the ¡¥Notifications of Environmental Quality Limits Exceedances¡¦ provided by the
respective environmental team. The respective construction of seawall and stone
column works, which possibly caused turbid water, were carried out within silt
curtain as recommended in the EIA report. Moreover, there was no leakage of
turbid water, abnormity or malpractice recorded during water sampling. In
general, the exceedance of suspended solids concentration was
considered to be attributed to other external factors, rather than the
contract works.
3.6.49
Based on the weather condition and water
quality results in ST, the co-occurrence of cyclone hit and turbid waters in
Sep. 2014 might have combined the adverse effects on Halophila ovalis that
leaded to disappearance of this short-lived and r-strategy seagrass species.
Fortunately, Halophila ovalis was a fast-growing species (Vermaat
et al., 1995). Previous studies showed that the seagrass bed could be recovered
to the original sizes in 2 months through vegetative propagation after
experimental clearance (Supanwanid, 1996). Moreover,
it was reported to recover rapidly in less than 20 days after dugong herbivory
(Nakaoka and Aioi, 1999).
As mentioned, the disappeared seagrass in ST in 1995 could recover gradually
after the completion of reclamation works for international airport (Fong,
1998). The seagrass beds of Halophila ovalis might recolonize the mudflat of ST
through seed reproduction as long as there was no unfavourable condition in the coming months.
Recolonization of
seagrass beds
3.6.50 Figure 3.12 of Appendix O shows the recolonization of seagrass bed area in ST from Dec. 2014
to Jun. 2017. From Mar. to Jun. 2015, 2-3 small patches of Halophila ovalis
were newly found co-inhabiting with another seagrass species Zostera japonica. But its total patch area was
still very low relative to the previous records. The recolonization rate was
low while cold weather and insufficient sunlight were possible factors between
Dec. 2014 and Mar. 2015. Moreover, it would need to compete with seagrass Zostera japonica for substratum and nutrient.
Since Zostera japonica had extended and had covered
the original seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis at certain degree. From Jun. 2015
to Mar. 2016, the total seagrass area of Halophila ovalis had increased rapidly
from 6.8 m2 to 230.63 m2. It had recolonized its original
patch locations and covered Zostera japonica.
In Jun. 2016, the total seagrass area increased sharply to 4707.3 m2.
Similar to the previous records of Mar to Jun. 2014,
the original patch area increased further to a horizontally long strand.
Another large seagrass beds colonized the lower tidal
zone (1.0-1.5 m above C.D.). In Sep. 2016, this patch extended much and covered
significant soft mud area of ST, resulting in sharp increase of total area
(24245 m2). It indicated the second extensive colonization of this
r-selected seagrass. In Dec. 2016, this extensive seagrass patch decreased in
size and had separated into few, undistinguishable patches. Moreover, the
horizontal strand nearby the mangrove vegetation decreased in size. The total
seagrass bed decreased to 12550 m2. From Mar. to Jun. 2017, the
seagrass bed area remained generally stable (12438-17046.5 m2) but
the vegetation coverage fluctuated (20-50% in Mar. 2017 to 80-100% in Jun.
2017). The whole recolonization process took about 2.5 years.
Re-disappearance of
seagrass bed
3.6.51 In Sep 2017, the whole seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis disappeared
again along the shore of TC3 and ST (Figure
3.12 of Appendix O). It was similar to
the case between Sep. and Dec. 2014. As mentioned, strong water current (e.g.
cyclone) or deteriorated water quality (e.g. high turbidity) were the possible
causes.
3.6.52 Between the survey periods of Jun. and Sep. 2017, there were four
tropical cyclone records in Hong Kong (Merbok in
12-13th, Jun.; Roke in 23rd,
Jul.; Hato in 22-23rd, Aug.; Pakhar in 26-27th, Aug.) (online database of
Hong Kong Observatory). All of them reaches signal 8 or above especially Hato (highest signal 10).
3.6.53 According to the water quality monitoring results (Jul. to Aug.
2017) of the two closest monitoring stations SR3 and I5 of the respective
EM&A programme, the overall water quality was in
normal fluctuation. There was one exceedance of suspended solids (SS) at SR3 on
12 Jul. 2017. The SS concentration reached 24.7 mg/L during mid-ebb tide. It
exceeded the Action Level (≤23.5 mg/L) but was far below the Limit Level (≤34.4
mg/L). Since such exceedance was slight and temporary, its effect to seagrass
bed should be minimal.
3.6.54 Overall, the disappearance of seagrass beds in ST was believed the
cause of serial cyclone hit in Jul and Aug. 2017. Based on previous findings,
the seagrass beds of both species were expected to recolonize the mudflat as long as the vicinal water quality was normal. The whole
recolonization process (from few, small patches to extensive strand) would be
gradual lasting minimum 2 years. From Dec. 2017 to Mar. 2018, there was still
no recolonization of few, small patches of seagrass at the usual location (Fig.
3.12). It was different from previous round (Mar. 2015 - Jun. 2017). Until Jun.
2018, new, small-medium seagrass patches were found at the usual location
(seaward side of mangrove plantation at 2.0 m C.D.) again, indicating the
recolonization. However, the seagrass bed area decreased sharply to 22.5 m2
in Sep. 2018. Again, it was believed the hit of super cyclone in Sep. 2018 (Mangkhut on 16th Sep., highest signal 10). In
Dec. 2018 (present survey), the seagrass bed area increased again. Relatively,
it would occour later and slower than previous round
(more than 2 years).
Impact of the HKLR project
3.6.55 It was
the 25th survey of the EM&A programme
during the construction period. Throughout the monitoring period, the
disappearance of seagrass beds was believed the cause of cyclone hits rather
than impact of HKLR project. There was slow and gradual recolonization in the
following dry season.
Intertidal Soft
Shore Communities
3.6.56 Table 3.3 and Figure 3.13 of Appendix O show the substratum types along the horizontal transact at every tidal level
in all sampling zones. The relative distribution of substratum types was
estimated by categorizing the substratum types (Gravels & Boulders / Sands
/ Soft mud) of the ten random quadrats along the horizontal transect. The
distribution of substratum types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones:
¡P
In TC1, high percentages of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (80-90%) were
recorded at high and mid tidal levels. Relatively higher percentages of
¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (40%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (40%) were recorded at low tidal
level.
¡P
In TC2, high percentages of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (60%) was recorded at high tidal
level. At mid tidal level, there was higher percentage of ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (60%)
followed by ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (40%). At low tidal level, the major
substratum type was 'Soft mud' (80%).
¡P
In TC3, higher percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (70%) was recorded followed by
¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (30%) at high tidal level. At mid tidal level, higher percentages of
¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (60%) and ¡¥Sands¡¦ (40%) were recorded. At low tidal level, the main
substratum type was ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (90%).
¡P
In ST, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was the main substratum type (100%) at
high tidal level. At mid tidal level, there were even distribution of ¡¥Gravels
and Boulders¡¦ (50%) and ¡¥Sands¡¦ (50%). At low tidal level, ¡¥Sands¡¦ was the main
substratum type (80%).
3.6.57 There was neither consistent
vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of substratum type in all sampling
zones. Such heterogeneous variation should be caused by different hydrology
(e.g. wave in different direction and intensity) received by the four sampling
zones.
3.6.58 Table 3.4 of Appendix O lists the total abundance,
density and number of taxon of every phylum in this survey. A total of 14429
individuals were recorded. Mollusca was clearly the most abundant phylum (total
abundance 14217 ind., density 474 ind. m-2, relative abundance 98.5 %). The
second and third abundant phyla were Arthropoda (114 ind., 4 ind. m-2, 0.8 %)
and Annelida (70 ind., 2 ind. m-2, 0.5 %) respectively. Relatively other phyla
were very low in abundances (density £1 ind. m-2, relative abundance £0.1 %). Moreover, the most
diverse phylum was Mollusca (33 taxa) followed by Arthropoda (10 taxa) and
Annelida (9 taxa). There was 1-2 taxa recorded only
for other phyla.
3.6.59 The taxonomic resolution and complete list of recorded fauna are
shown in Annexes IV and V of Appendix O respectively. As reported in Jun. 2018,
taxonomic revision of three potamidid snail species was conducted according to
the latest identification key published by Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department (details see AFCD, 2018), the species names of
following gastropod species were revised:
¡P
Cerithidea cingulata was revised as Pirenella asiatica
¡P
Cerithidea djadjariensis was revised as Pirenella incisa
¡P
Cerithidea rhizophorarum was revised as Cerithidea moerchii
Moreover, taxonomic revision was conducted on another snail species
while the specie name was revised.:
¡P
Batillaria bornii was
revised as Clypeomorus bifasciata
3.6.60 Table 3.5 of Appendix O shows the number of individual,
relative abundance and density of each phylum in every sampling zone. The total
abundance (2195-4738 ind.) varied among the four sampling zones while the phyla
distributions were similar. In general, Mollusca was the most dominant phylum
(no. of individuals: 2152-4690 ind.; relative abundance 97.9-99.1 %; density
287-625 ind. m-2). Other phyla were much lower in number of
individuals. Arthropoda (16-49 ind.; 0.6-1.1 %; 2-7 ind. m-2) and
Annelida (2-36 ind.; 0.1-0.9 %; 0-5 ind. m-2) were common phyla
relatively. Other phyla were very low in abundance in all sampling zones.
Dominant species in
every sampling zone
3.6.61
Table 3.6 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10 %) in every
sampling zone. In the present survey, most of the listed abundant species were
of low to moderate densities (50-250 ind. m-2). Few listed species
of high or very high density (> 250 ind. m-2) were regarded as
dominant species. Other listed species of lower density (< 50 ind. m-2)
were regarded as common species.
3.6.62 In TC1, the substratum was mainly
¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ at high and mid tidal levels. The high tidal level was
clearly dominated by gastropod Batillaria multiformis (514 ind. m-2, relative
abundance 68 %) at very high density followed by gastropod Pirenella incisa (98 ind. m-2, 13 %).
At mid tidal level, gastropod Batillaria multiformis (184 ind. m-2, 33 %) and Monodonta labio (156
ind. m-2, 28 %) were abundant at moderate densities. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata
(86 ind. m-2, 16 %, attached on boulders) was also abundant at
low-moderate density. At low tidal level (main substratum types ¡¥Gravels and
Boulders¡¦ or ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (207 ind. m-2, 35 %) was
more abundant at moderate density. Other gastropods Pirenella incisa (103 ind. m-2, 17 %), Batillaria zonalis (75
ind. m-2, 13 %) and Lunella coronata (61 ind. m-2, 10 %) were found at
low-moderate densities.
3.6.63 In TC2, the substratum types were
mainly 'Sands' at high tidal level. Gastropods Pirenella incisa (100 ind. m-2, 28 %), Pirenella asiatica (63
ind. m-2, 17 %) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata
(68 ind., 19 %, attached on boulders) were abundant at low-moderate densities.
Other gastropods Batillaria zonalis (45
ind. m-2, 13 %) and Batillaria multiformis (40 ind. m-2, 11 %) were also
common. At mid tidal level (main substratum type ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata
(124 ind. m-2, 36 %) was abundant at moderate density followed by
gastropods Pirenella incisa (63
ind. m-2, 18 %) and Batillaria zonalis (49 ind. m-2, 14 %). At low tidal
level (main substratum type ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), gastropod Batillaria zonalis (70 ind. m-2, 41 %)
was abundant at low-moderate desnity followed by
common rocky oyster Saccostrea cucullata (31 ind. m-2, 18 %) and gastropod Pirenella asiatica (19
ind. m-2, 11 %).
3.6.64 In TC3, the substratum types were either ¡¥Sands¡¦ or
¡¥Soft mud¡¦ at high and mid tidal levels. Gastropod Pirenella
incisa (233-365 ind. m-2, 47-64 %) was
dominant followed by gastropods Pirenella asiatica (67-126 ind. m-2, 12-25 %) and Batillaria multiformis
(80-82 ind. m-2, 14-16 %) at low-moderate densities. At low tidal
level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (266 ind. m-2, 38 %, attached on
boulders) and gastropod Monodonta labio (220 ind. m-2, 31 %) were abundant at
moderate densities, followed by gastropod Lunella
coronata (77 ind. m-2, 11 %).
3.6.65 In ST, the major substratum type
was ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ at high tidal level. There were few abundant
gastropod species at low-moderate densities including Batillaria multiformis (123 ind. m-2, 26
%), Monodonta labio (97
ind. m-2, 20 %), Lunella coronata (52 ind. m-2, 11 %) and Clypeomorus bifasciata
(50 ind. m-2, 10 %). At mid and low tidal levels (main substratum
types ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ and 'Sands'), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (52-143 ind. m-2,
22-28 %, attached on boulders) was more abundant at low-moderate densities.
Other abundant gastropods Pirenella incisa (44-82 ind. m-2, 16-19 %), Monodonta labio (36-77
ind. m-2, 15-16 %) and Lunella coronata (25-76 ind. m-2, 11-15 %) were at
low-moderate densities. Besides, gastropod Pirenella asiatica (74 ind. m-2, 14 %)
was also abundant at mid tidal level.
3.6.66 In general, there was no
consistent zonation pattern of species distribution across all sampling zones
and tidal levels. The species distribution was determined by the type of
substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Pirenella incisa (total number of individuals:
2921 ind., relative abundance 20.2 %), Batillaria multiformis (2628 ind., 18.2 %), Pirenella asiatica (1421 ind., 9.8 %) and Batillaria zonalis (769
ind., 5.3 %) were the most commonly occurring species on sandy and soft mud
substrata. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2635 ind., 18.3 %), gastropods Monodonta labio (1806
ind., 12.5 %) and Lunella coronata (881
ind., 6.1 %) were the commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders
substratum.
Biodiversity
and abundance of soft shore communities
3.6.67 Table 3.7 of Appendix O shows the
mean values of species number, density, biodiversity index H¡¦ and species
evenness J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and in every sampling
zone. As mentioned above, the differences among sampling zones and tidal levels
were determined by the major type of substratum primarily.
3.6.68 Among the sampling zones, the mean species number was similar (6-9 spp.
0.25 m-2) among the four sampling zones. The mean densities of TC1
and TC3 (591-632 ind. m-2) were higher than ST (409 ind. m-2)
followed by TC2 (293 ind. m-2). Overall, ST was relatively higher in
H' (1.6) and J (0.8) due to higher species number and even taxa distribution.
In TC1 and TC3, higher densities were mainly accounted by 1-2 abundant
gastropods. It resulted in lower H¡¦ (1.2-1.3) and J (0.6-0.7). In TC2, lower
species number and density also resulted in lower H' (1.3) and J (0.7).
3.6.69 Among the tidal levels, there were slightly increasing trends of mean
species number, H' and J from high to low tidal level in TC1 and TC3 but vice
versa in TC2 and ST. A general decreasing trend of mean density was observed
from high to low tidal level in TC1, TC2 and ST. As mentioned, the spatial
differences of these biological parameters were highly related to substratum
types.
3.6.70 Figures 3.14 to 3.17 of Appendix O show the temporal changes of mean species number, mean density, H¡¦ and
J at every tidal level and in every sampling zone along the sampling months. In
general, all the biological parameters fluctuated seasonally throughout the
monitoring period. Lower mean species number and density were recorded in dry
season (Dec.) but the mean H' and J fluctuated within a limited range.
3.6.71 From Jun. to Dec. 2017, there were steady decreasing
trends of mean species number and density in TC2, TC3 and ST regardless of
tidal levels. It might be an unfavourable change reflecting environmental
stresses. The heat stress and serial cyclone hit were believed the causes
during the wet season of 2017. From Mar. to Oct. 2018, increases of mean
species number and density were observed in all sampling zones. It indicated
the recovery of intertidal community.
Impact of the HKLR project
3.6.72 It was
the 25th survey 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. Abnormal
phenomena (e.g. rapid, consistent or non-seasonal decline of fauna densities
and species number) were not recorded.
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 Practice 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 follows:
Air Quality
4.1.2
No Action Level and Limit level
exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the
reporting month.
Noise
4.1.3 No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded during
daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.
Water Quality
4.1.4 No Action and Limit Level
exceedances of turbidity level and dissolved oxygen were recorded during the
reporting period. No Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded
during the reporting period. 2 Action Level exceedances of suspended solids
level were recorded during the reporting period. The
exceedances were considered as non-contract related.
Dolphin
4.1.5 There was one Limit Level exceedances of
dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2018 ¡V
February 2019). According to the contractor¡¦s information, the marine
activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of December 2018 ¡V February
2019 included seawall construction.
4.1.6 There is no evidence showing the current LL
non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 (where the
amounts of working vessels for HKLR03 have been decreasing), although the
generally increased amount of vessel traffic in NEL during the impact phase has
been partly contributed by HKLR03 works since October 2012. It should also be
noted that work area 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 (CWD). 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. According to the Marine Travel Route Plan, the travelling
speed of vessels must not exceed 5 knots when crossing the edge of the proposed
marine park. The Contractor will continue to provide training for 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. Also, it is recommended to
complete the marine works of the Contract as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow
the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.
4.2
Summary of
Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
4.2.1 During
the reporting period, a complaint (Complaint No. COM-2018-158) in relation to
the environmental impacts (Construction work on Sunday Morning) was received on
24 December 2018. A summary of environmental complaint is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 A
Summary of Environmental Complaint for the Reporting Period
Environmental Complaint No.
|
Date of Complaint Received
|
Description of Environmental Complaint
|
Complaint No COM-2018-158
|
SOR
referred the email from HyD to Contractor, ET and IEC/ENPO
on 24 December 2018
|
Other:
Construction work on Sunday Morning
|
4.2.2 According to the Contractor¡¦s
information, gathering obsolete items by an excavator pending for offsite
removal and routine maintenance of the same excavator via lubrication were undertaken
respectively at work area Zones C on 23 December 2018 morning. Significant
noise impact was not expected for the above activities. The description of
work/site diary at work area Zone C and the location plan of the work area are
attached for information. As confirmed by the Contractor, only one excavator
was operated and there was no crane or other powered mechanical equipment
operated on 23 December 2018 morning.
4.2.3
ET conducted a site inspection at work area Zone C on 24 December 2018
around 13:40 hrs. A number of excavators were in operation,
but crane was not observed at the concerned work area Zone C (See Photo 1). No
significant noisy activity was observed during the inspection on 24 December
2018. The Contractor has been reminded to comply with the conditions stipulated
in the Construction Noise Permit (CNP) for construction works undertaken during
restricted hours.
4.2.4 Due to tight construction programme, some works (i.e. gathering obsolete item and
maintenance work of equipment) may be conducted on Sunday. Based on the
information provided by Contractor and our investigation, the Contractor
complied with the conditions laid down in CNP no. GW-RS1055-18, no
non-compliance was found.
4.2.5 Based on our
investigation result, the concerned work activity complied with the valid CNP.
In this case, no follow up action is required. However, the Contractor has been
reminded to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Construction Noise
Permit for construction works undertaken during restricted hours.
4.2.6 The
details of cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix N.
4.2.7 No notification of summons and
prosecution was received during the reporting period. Statistics on
notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.
4.2.8
5
Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion
5.1.1
According to the environmental
site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations
were provided:
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to provide adequate wheel
washing facilities at N26.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for
the chemical containers at N13 and LCSD Depot.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray /
remove the chemical containers immediately from N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to provide proper size of
NRMM label on the generator and the excavator at LCSD Depot.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the waste from
LCSD Depot and N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the construction
waste from LCSD Depot.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant
water at N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the general
refuse at N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the general refuse
outside the fence of a plantroom which is next to LCSD Depot.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the waste in the
skip at N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to cover the stockpiles of
dusty material at N4.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded remove the oil stain
promptly as chemical waste at S9.
¡P
The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant
water/oil inside the drip tray to avoid potential leakage from the drip tray
and dispose of them as chemical waste at LCSD Depot.
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. This is the twenty-sixth Quarterly EM&A
Report which summarizes the
monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme
during the reporting period from 1 December 2018 to 28 February
2019.
Air Quality
5.3.2
No Action Level and Limit Level
exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hrTSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the
reporting period.
Noise
5.3.3
No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded during daytime
on normal weekdays of the reporting period.
Water Quality
Dolphin
5.3.5
There was one Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly
monitoring data between December 2018 ¡V February 2019.
5.3.6
During the present 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 dolphins rarely occurred in the area of HKLR03 construction in the past and during
the baseline monitoring period, it is apparent that dolphin usage has been
dramatically reduced in NEL since 2012, and many individuals have shifted away
completely from the important habitat around the Brothers Islands.
5.3.8
It is critical to continuously monitor the
dolphin usage in North Lantau region in the upcoming quarters, to determine
whether the dolphins are continuously affected by construction activities in
relation to the HZMB-related works, and whether suitable mitigation measure can
be applied to revert the situation.
Mudflat - Sedimentation Rate
5.3.9 This measurement result was
generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and
S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.
Mudflat - Ecology
Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
5.3.11 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 5, 12, 19, and 28 December 2018; 2, 9, 16 and 25 January 2019.; and 1, 4, 11 and 22 February 2019. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors
for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.
5.3.12 A complaint (Complaint No. COM-2018-158) in relation to
the environmental impacts (Construction work on Sunday Morning) was received on
24 December 2018. Based on our investigation result, the concerned work
activity complied with the valid CNP. In this case, no follow up action is
required.
5.3.13 No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the
reporting period.