
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.4 (June 2013 to August 2013)
5 June 2014
Revision 2
Main Contractor Designer
Executive Summary
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong
Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north eastern waters of the Hong Kong
International Airport (HKIA).
The HKLR project has been separated into two
contracts. They are Contract No.
HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between
Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to
as the Contract) and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong
Kong Link Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.
China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department as the
Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The main works of the Contract include
land tunnel at Scenic Hill, tunnel underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line,
reclamation and tunnel to the east coast of the Airport Island,
at-grade road connecting to the HKBCF and highway works of the HKBCF within the
Airport Island and in the vicinity of the HKLR
reclamation. The Contract is part
of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be
¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports
(Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the
Project. The current Environmental
Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/C for HKLR and EP-353/2009/G for HKBCF were issued on 5 September 2013 and 6 August 2013, respectively.
These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. The
construction phase of Contract was commenced
on 17 October 2012.
BMT Asia Pacific Limited has been appointed by
the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A)
programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for
HKLR (Version 1.0) and will be providing environmental team services to the
Contract.
This is the fourth Quarterly EM&A report for
the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the
EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 June 2013 to 31 August 2013.
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Progress
The EM&A programme were undertaken in
accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0). A summary of the monitoring activities
during this reporting period is presented as below:
Monitoring Activity
|
Monitoring Date
|
June 2013
|
July 2013
|
August 2013
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
3, 7, 13, 18, 24 and 28
|
4, 10, 16, 22 and 26
|
1, 7, 13, 19, 23 and 29
|
24-hr TSP
|
6, 11, 17, 21 and 27
|
AMS5: 3, 11, 15, 19, 25 and 31
AMS6: 3, 10, 15, 19, 25 and 31
|
6, 12, 16, 22 and 28
|
Noise
|
3, 13, 18 and 28
|
4, 10, 16 and 22
|
1, 7, 13, 19 and 29
|
Water Quality
|
3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 28
|
1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 31
|
5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28 and 30
|
Chinese White Dolphin
|
7, 13, 18 and 27
|
4, 11, 15 and 16
|
1, 7, 12 and 22
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)
|
8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 22
|
-
|
-
|
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation
rate)
|
7 and 8
|
-
|
-
|
Site Inspection
|
4, 11, 18 and 28
|
2, 9, 16, 23 and 30
|
6, 13, 20 and 30
|
Due to adverse weather condition, the water
monitoring at stations CS2, IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9, IS10, SR3, SR4 and
SR5 was cancelled for mid-flood tide on 24 June 2013.
Due to adverse weather condition, the water
monitoring at stations SR10A, SR10B and CS(Mf)5 were cancelled for mid-flood
tide on 1 July 2013.
Due to adverse weather condition, the water
quality monitoring at all stations were cancelled on 2 and 14 August 2013
during mid-ebb tide and mid-flood tide and at stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8,
IS(Mf)9, IS10, SR3, SR4 and SR5 on 30 August 2013 during mid-ebb tide.
The 24-hr TSP monitoring results obtained at
stations AMS5 and AMS6 on 9
July 2013 were considered invalid as sampling duration was greater
than 24 hours. The 24-hr TSP monitoring at station AMS6 was rescheduled on 10 July 2013 for station
AMS6 and 11 July 2013
for AMS5.Due to adverse weather condition, the dolphins monitoring on 23 August 2013 was
cancelled and rescheduled to 22
August 2013.
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels
A summary of environmental exceedances for this
reporting period is as follows:
Environmental Monitoring
|
Parameters
|
Action Level (AL)
|
Limit Level (LL)
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
0
|
0
|
24-hr TSP
|
0
|
0
|
Noise
|
Leq (30 min)
|
1
|
0
|
Water Quality
|
Suspended solids level (SS)
|
4
|
1
|
Turbidity level
|
0
|
0
|
Dissolved oxygen level (DO)
|
3
|
3
|
Dolphin Monitoring
|
Quarterly Analysis (June to August
2013)
|
2
|
0
|
The Environmental Team investigated all
exceedances and found that they were not project related.
There were two Action Level exceedances of
dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (June ¡V August 2013).
All investigation reports for exceedances of the
Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to
identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly
basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control
and mitigation measures for the Project.
Potential environmental impacts due to the construction activities were
monitored and reviewed.
Complaint Log
A summary of environmental complaints for this
reporting month is as follows:
Environmental Complaint No.
|
Date of Complaint Received
|
Description of Environmental Complaints
|
COM-2013-027
|
29 June 2013
|
Noise
|
Notifications
of Summons and Prosecutions
There were no notifications of summons or
prosecutions received during this reporting period.
Reporting
Changes
This report has been developed in compliance
with the reporting requirements for the quarterly summary EM&A reports as
required by the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0).
The proposal for the change of Action Level and
Limit Level for suspended solid and turbidity was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013.
The revised Event and Action Plan for dolphin
Monitoring approved by EPD on 6
May 2013.
The
original monitoring station at IS(Mf)9 (Coordinate- East 813273, North 818850)
was observed inside the perimeter silt curtain on 1 July 2013, as such the
original impact water quality monitoring location at IS(Mf)9 was temporarily
shifted outside the silt curtain. The new co-ordinates of station IS(Mf)9 are
813226E and 818708N since 1
July 2013.
1.1.1
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and
the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north
eastern waters of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).
1.1.2 The HKLR project has been separated into two contracts. They are Contract
No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section
between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter
referred to as the Contract) and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.
1.1.3 China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong)
Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the Contractor to undertake
the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The Contract is part of the HKLR
Project and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be ¡§Designated
Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Ordinance (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports (Register
No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP)
EP-352/2009/C for HKLR and EP-353/2009/G for HKBCF were issued on 5 September 2013 and 6 August 2013, respectively.
These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of
Contract was commenced on 17
October 2012. Figure 1.1 shows the project site
boundary.
1.1.5 This is the Fourth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and
Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results
and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 June 2013 to
31 August 2013.
1.2.1
The project
organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site
environmental management structure with the key personnel contact names and
numbers are shown in Appendix A.
1.3
Construction
Programme
1.3.1 A copy
of the Contractor¡¦s construction programme is provided in Appendix B.
1.4
Construction Works Undertaken During
the Reporting Period
1.4.1 A
summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period
is shown in Table
1.1. The Works areas of the Contract are
showed in Appendix C.
Table 1.1 Construction
Activities during Reporting Period
Site
Area
|
Description
of Activities
|
Portion X
|
¡P
Removal of
existing rock for existing seawall
¡P
Stone column
installation
¡P
Sand filling
behind stone platform in according to EP requirement
¡P
Temporary stone
platform construction
¡P
Band drains
Installation
|
Portion Y
|
¡P
Access shaft
construction for SHT & HAT
¡P
Utility culvert
excavation
|
West Portal
|
¡P
Site formation
¡P
Tree felling
¡P
Slope protection/
stabilization (soil nailing works)
¡P
Boulder removal/ stabilization works
|
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road
|
¡P
Works for
diversion of Airport Road
and Kwo Lo Wan Road
|
Airport Express Line
|
¡P
Pre-grouting and
pipe piling works for AEL access shafts
|
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road /Airport Express Line
|
¡P
Utilities
detection
¡P
Establishment of site
access
¡P
Works for east
access shaft
|
2.1
Summary of
EM&A Requirements
2.1.1 The
EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise,
water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as specified in the
approved EM&A Manual.
2.1.2 A summary
of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1. The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring
stations are shown as in Figure 2.1. The transect line layout in Northwest
and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is presented in Figure 2.2.
Table 2.1 Summary
of Impact EM&A Requirements
Environmental Monitoring
|
Description
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Frequencies
|
Remarks
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS 5 & AMS 6
|
At least 3 times every 6
days
|
While the highest dust
impact was expected.
|
24-hr TSP
|
At least once every 6 days
|
--
|
Noise
|
Leq (30mins),
L10 (30mins) and
L90 (30mins)
|
NMS5
|
At least once per week
|
Daytime on normal weekdays
(0700-1900 hrs).
|
Water Quality
|
¡P Depth
¡P Temperature
¡P Salinity
¡P Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
¡P Suspended
Solids (SS)
¡P DO
Saturation
¡P Turbidity
¡P pH
|
¡P Impact
Stations:
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9 & IS10,
¡P Control/Far
Field Stations:
CS2 & CS(Mf)5,
¡P Sensitive
Receiver Stations:
SR3, SR4, SR5, SR10A & SR10B
|
Three times per week
during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides (within ¡Ó 1.75 hour of the predicted time)
|
3
(1 m below water surface,
mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m,
in which case the mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3
m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).
|
Dolphin
|
Line-transect Methods
|
Northeast
Lantau survey area and Northwest Lantau
survey area
|
Twice per month
|
--
|
Mudflat
|
Horseshoe crabs, seagrass
beds, intertidal soft shore communities, sedimentation rates and water
quality
|
San Tau and Tung Chung
Bay
|
Once every 3 months
|
--
|
2.2.1 Table 2.2 presents the Action
and Limit Levels for the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.
Table 2.2 Action
and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and Noise
Environmental
Monitoring
|
Parameters
|
Monitoring Station
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS 5
|
352 µg/m3
|
500 µg/m3
|
AMS 6
|
360 µg/m3
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS 5
|
164 µg/m3
|
260 µg/m3
|
AMS 6
|
173 µg/m3
|
Noise
|
Leq (30 min)
|
NMS 5
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75 dB(A)
|
2.2.2 The Action and Limit Levels for water quality
monitoring are given as in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Action
and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Parameter
(unit)
|
Water
Depth
|
Action
Level
|
Limit
Level
|
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
|
Surface and Middle
|
5.0
|
4.2 except 5 for Fish
Culture Zone
|
Bottom
|
4.7
|
3.6
|
Turbidity (NTU)
|
Depth average
|
27.5 or 120% of upstream
control station¡¦s turbidity at the same tide of the same day;
The action level has been
amended to ¡§27.5 and 120% of upstream control station¡¦s turbidity at the same
tide of the same day¡¨ since 25
March 2013.
|
47.0 or 130% of turbidity
at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day;
The limit level has been
amended to ¡§47.0 and 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the
same tide of same day¡¨ since 25
March 2013.
|
Suspended Solid (SS)
(mg/L)
|
Depth average
|
23.5 or 120% of upstream
control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of the same day;
The action level has been
amended to ¡§23.5 and 120% of upstream control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of
the same day¡¨ since 25
March 2013.
|
34.4 or 130% of SS at the
upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water
Services Department Seawater Intakes;
The limit level has been
amended to ¡§34.4 and 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same
tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes¡¨
since 25 March 2013
|
Notes:
(1) Depth-averaged
is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.
(2) For DO,
non-compliance of the water quality limit occurs when monitoring result is
lower that the limit.
(3)For SS & turbidity non-compliance of the
water quality limits occur when monitoring result is higher than the limits.
(4)The change to the Action and limit Levels for
Water Quality Monitoring for the EM&A works was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013. Therefore,
the amended Action and Limit Levels are applied for the water monitoring
results obtained on and after 25
March 2013.
2.2.3 The Action and Limit Levels for dolphin monitoring are
shown in Tables 2.4 and 2.5.
Table 2.4 Action
and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring
|
North Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 70% of baseline
&
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
STG < 70% of baseline
&
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
Limit Level
|
STG < 40% of baseline
&
ANI < 40% of baseline
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG means quarterly average encounter rate of
number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of
total number of dolphins.
(3)
For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be trigger if
either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and
NWL fall below the criteria.
Table 2.5 Derived
Value of Action Level (AL)
and Limit Level (LL)
|
North Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 4.2 & ANI < 15.5
|
STG < 6.9 & ANI
< 31.3
|
Limit Level
|
(STG < 2.4 & ANI
< 8.9) and (STG < 3.9 & ANI < 17.9)
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG means quarterly average encounter rate of
number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of
total number of dolphins.
(3)
For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be trigger if either
NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL
fall below the criteria.
2.3.1 The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring are annexed in Appendix D.
2.4.1
Environmental
mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in the approved EIA
Report. Appendix E lists the recommended
mitigation measures and the implementation status.
3
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
3.1
Implementation of
Environmental Measures
3.1.1 In
response to the site audit findings, the Contractors carried out corrective
actions. Details of site audit
findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented
in Appendix F.
3.1.2 A summary
of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is
presented in Appendix E.
3.1.3 Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented
properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records were kept
properly.
3.1.4 Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting period. No dolphins were observed. The relevant records were kept
properly.
3.1.5 A dolphin exclusion zone of 250m was implemented during the
maintenance of silt curtains on 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 June 2013 and 16 and 17 August 2013. No dolphins were observed. The relevant
records were kept properly.
3.2.1 The
monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2
respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical
plots are presented in Appendix G.
Table 3.1 Summary
of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period
Reporting
Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
June 2013
|
AMS5
|
22
|
4 ¡V 51
|
352
|
500
|
AMS6
|
19
|
6 ¡V 42
|
360
|
July 2013
|
AMS5
|
11
|
5 ¡V 21
|
352
|
AMS6
|
11
|
7 ¡V 15
|
360
|
August 2013
|
AMS5
|
17
|
6 ¡V 40
|
352
|
AMS6
|
18
|
9 ¡V 29
|
360
|
Table 3.2 Summary
of 24-hour TSP Monitoring
Results During the Reporting Period
Reporting
Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
June 2013
|
AMS5
|
20
|
7 ¡V 31
|
164
|
260
|
AMS6
|
22
|
14 ¡V 31
|
173
|
July 2013
|
AMS5
|
12
|
5 ¡V 26
|
164
|
AMS6
|
17
|
10 ¡V 35
|
173
|
August 2013
|
AMS5
|
34
|
10 ¡V 47
|
164
|
AMS6
|
35
|
10 ¡V 62
|
173
|
3.3.1 The
monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.3 and the
monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting
period are provided in Appendix H.
Table 3.3 Summary
of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period
Reporting period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average Leq (30 mins), dB(A)*
|
Range of Leq (30 mins), dB(A)*
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level Leq
(30 mins), dB(A)
|
June 2013
|
NMS5
|
66
|
68 ¡V 72
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75
|
July 2013
|
58
|
57 ¡V 60
|
August 2013
|
59
|
58 ¡V 61
|
*+3dB(A) Facade correction included
3.3.2 There was one Action Level
exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays.
3.3.3 A complaint was received on 29 June 2013 regarding
noise generated from the works area near the site office (WA6) around 10:00 hrs on 29 June 2013. According to the site dairy provided by
the Contractor, electric circular saw was used to cut plastic tubes for
maintenance work at the works area near the site office (Work area WA6) from 09:45 to 10:15 hrs of 29 June 2013. A site inspection was undertaken on 2 July 2013, no construction
works was undertaken at work area near the site office (Work area WA6). No
significant noise was generated from the site. As the electric circular saw was
used for maintenance work and there was no significant noise generated from the
site, the complaint was considered invalid.
3.3.4 No Limit
Level exceedances were recorded during the reporting period.
3.3.5 Major
noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of
the Contract and nearby traffic noise.
3.4.1 Impact
water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations
during the reporting period. Impact
water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix I.
3.4.2 Water
quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the
construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by
other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.
Data
Analysis
3.5.1 Distribution Analysis ¡V The line-transect survey data was integrated
with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to visualize and
interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin distribution using
sighting positions. Location data
of dolphin groups were plotted on map layers of Hong Kong
using a desktop GIS (ArcView© 3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in
details. The dataset was also
stratified into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin
groups with different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.
3.5.2 Encounter rate analysis ¡V Encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins
(number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort, and total number of
dolphins sighted on-effort per 100 km of survey effort) were calculated in NEL
and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount of survey effort conducted
during each month of monitoring survey. Dolphin encounter rates were calculated
in two ways for comparisons with the HZMB baseline monitoring results as well
as to AFCD long-term marine mammal monitoring results.
3.5.3 Firstly, for the comparison with the HZMB baseline monitoring
results, the encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone,
and only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for
encounter rate analysis. The
average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of
dolphins (ANI) were deduced based on the encounter rates from six events during
the present quarter (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau),
which was also compared with the one deduced from the six events during the
baseline period (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau).
3.5.4 Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and
secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in
AFCD long-term monitoring study.
The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing
the total number of on-effort sightings (STG) and total number of dolphins
(ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the entire quarterly period (June -
August 2013).
3.5.5 Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use ¡V To conduct quantitative
grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort sightings of Chinese White
Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase monitoring period were
plotted onto 1-km2 grids among Northwest Lantau (NWL) and Northeast
(NEL) survey areas on GIS. Sighting
densities (number of on-effort sightings per km2) and dolphin
densities (total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings per km2)
were then calculated for each 1 km by 1 km grid with the aid of GIS. Sighting density grids and dolphin
density grids were then further normalized with the amount of survey effort
conducted within each grid. The
total amount of survey effort spent on each grid was calculated by examining
the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how many times
the grid was surveyed during the study period. For example, when the survey boat
traversed through a specific grid 50 times, 50 units of survey effort were
counted for that grid. With the
amount of survey effort calculated for each grid, the sighting density and dolphin
density of each grid were then normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey
effort).
3.5.6 The newly-derived unit for sighting density was termed SPSE,
representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey
effort. In addition, the derived
unit for actual dolphin density was termed DPSE, representing the number of
dolphins per 100 units of survey effort.
Among the 1-km2 grids that were partially covered by land,
the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE and
DPSE values were adjusted accordingly.
The following formulae were used to estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2
grid within the study area:
SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) /
SA%
DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) /
SA%
where S =
total number of on-effort sightings
D = total number of
dolphins from on-effort sightings
E = total number of units
of survey effort
SA% = percentage of sea
area
3.5.7 Behavioural analysis ¡V When dolphins were sighted during vessel
surveys, their behaviour was observed.
Different activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting,
traveling, socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets. This data was then input into a separate
database with sighting information, which can be used to determine the
distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS. Distribution of sightings of dolphins
engaged in different activities and behaviours would then be plotted on GIS and
carefully examined to identify important areas for different activities of the
dolphins.
3.5.8 Ranging pattern analysis ¡V Location data of individual dolphins that
occurred during the 3-month baseline monitoring period were obtained from the
dolphin sighting database and photo-identification catalogue. To deduce home ranges for individual
dolphins using the fixed kernel methods, the program Animal Movement Analyst
Extension, was loaded as an extension with ArcView© 3.1 along with another
extension Spatial Analyst 2.0.
Using the fixed kernel method, the program calculated kernel density estimates
based on all sighting positions, and provided an active interface to display
kernel density plots. The kernel
estimator then calculated and displayed the overall ranging area at 95% UD
level.
Summary
of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings
3.5.9 During the reporting period, six sets of systematic line-transect
vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey
areas twice per month.
3.5.10 From these surveys, a total of 886.72 km of survey effort was
collected, with 92.1% of the total survey effort being conducted under
favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good
visibility). Among the two areas,
345.76 km and 540.96 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey
areas respectively. In addition,
the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 651.95 km, while the
effort on secondary lines was 234.77 km.
Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both
considered as on-effort survey data. Summary table of the survey effort is
shown in Annex I of Appendix J.
3.5.11 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in June to August 2013, a
total of 45 groups of 154 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All except three sightings were made
during on-effort search.
Twenty-nine on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while
another thirteen on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. 5 groups of 13 dolphins were sighted in
NEL, while the other 40 groups of 141 dolphins were sighted in NWL. Summary table of the dolphin sightings
is shown in Annex II of Appendix J.
Distribution
3.5.12 Distribution of dolphin sightings
made during monitoring surveys in June July and August 2013 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. The majority of sightings were
concentrated in the northwestern portion of North Lantau
region, especially around Lung Kwu Chau, Sha Chau and Black Point. Several
sightings were made near Shum Wat, to the north of the airport and near Pillar
Point. The sightings made in NEL were scattered along the north shore of Lantau, particularly near Yam O. Only
one sighting was made in the vicinity of the Brothers Islands.
3.5.13 No dolphin was sighted in the
vicinity of the HKLR03 reclamation site (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Two sightings were made within a few kilometres of the HKBCF
reclamation site (one near Siu Ho Wan and another to the north of Tai Mo To),
adjacent to the future Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) alignment. On the
other hand, five sightings were made along and near the HKLR09 alignment to the
west of the airport platform.
3.5.14 When compared with the sighting
distribution of dolphins during baseline monitoring surveys in September to
November 2011, dolphins rarely occurred in NEL region during the present impact
monitoring period, in contrast with their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands and HKBCF reclamation site
during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The low occurrence of dolphins around the
Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok in the present quarter was similar to the previous
quarter, and should be a concern as the future marine park will be established
in this region as a compensation measure for the habitat loss resulted from the
HKBCF and HKLR reclamation works.
3.5.15 On
the other hand, dolphin occurrence in the western portion of North
Lantau region was similar between the two periods (Figure 1 of Appendix J).
Encounter
Rate
3.5.16
For the three-month study
period in June, July and August 2013,
the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey
effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under
favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) from each of the survey areas are
shown in Table 3.4. The average encounter
rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones
deduced from the baseline monitoring period in September to November 2011 (See Table 3.5).
Table 3.4 Dolphin
Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During three Reporting
Period (June 2013 ¡V August 2013)
Survey Area
|
Dolphin Monitoring
|
Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Primary Lines Only
|
Primary Lines Only
|
Northeast Lantau
|
Set 1 (7 & 13 Jun 2013)
|
2.60
|
20.83
|
Set 2 (18 & 27 Jun 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 3 (4 & 11 Jul 2013)
|
2.65
|
2.65
|
Set 4 (15 & 16 Jul 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (1 & 17 Aug 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 6 (12 & 22 Aug 2013)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Northwest
Lantau
|
Set 1 (7 & 13 Jun 2013)
|
5.87
|
29.33
|
Set 2 (18 & 27 Jun 2013)
|
5.67
|
17.01
|
Set 3 (4 & 11 Jul 2013)
|
11.58
|
57.92
|
Set 4 (15 & 16 Jul 2013)
|
4.55
|
12.12
|
Set 5 (1 & 7 Aug 2013)
|
1.62
|
8.08
|
Set 6 (12 & 22 Aug 2013)
|
10.10
|
37.52
|
Table 3.5 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Jun 2013 ¡V Aug
2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011) (Note: the encounter rates
deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only
on the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary
transect lines under favourable conditions)
Survey Area
|
Encounter
rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter
rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline
Monitoring Period
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline
Monitoring Period
|
Northeast Lantau
|
0.88 ¡Ó 1.36
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
3.91 ¡Ó 8.36
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
Northwest Lantau
|
6.56 ¡Ó 3.68
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
27.00 ¡Ó 18.71
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
3.5.17 In NEL, the average dolphin
encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month study period were
much lower (reductions of 85% and 82% respectively) than the ones recorded in
the 3-month baseline period (Table 3.5). In fact, dolphin occurrence in NEL in
the present and previous quarters have been exceptionally low, and therefore
the historical data in the past few years were also examined to elucidate the
cause of such dramatic decline in dolphin encounter rates in this area.
3.5.18 Using only the survey effort and
on-effort sighting data collected on primary lines, the encounter rates deduced
from the advanced HZMB monitoring data in summer 2011 (June-August) were 8.6
(STG) and 29.0 (ANI) respectively.
By pooling the
survey effort and on-effort dolphin sightings from both HZMB and AFCD monitoring data for the same period, the encounter
rates in summer 2011 were 5.8 (STG) and 17.5 (ANI). On the other hand, the encounter rates
deduced from AFCD monitoring data in summer 2012 (June-August) were 2.4 (STG) and
6.5 (ANI), which were less than 50% of the encounter rates in summer 2011. As a comparison, the
encounter rates deduced in the present quarter in summer 2013 further
dropped to the 0.9 (STG) and 3.9 (ANI).
3.5.19 For the summer months (i.e. June
through August), it appeared the decline in dolphin encounter rates in NEL began in 2012, and further worsened in 2013. The sharp decline in dolphin usage in
NEL is of serious concern, and should be continuously monitored in the upcoming
quarter to determine whether similar decline also occurred in autumn months.
3.5.20 In NWL, the average dolphin
encounter rates (STG and ANI) during the present impact phase monitoring period
were also noticeably lower ((reductions of 33% and 39% respectively) than the
ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a reduced dolphin encounter rates of this survey area. The
percentages of reduction in dolphin encounter rates were also similar to the
previous quarter (i.e. spring 2013).
3.5.21 In examining the historical data
in summer months of 2011 and 2012, dolphin encounter rates in NWL deduced from
the advanced HZMB monitoring data in 2011 were 11.9 (STG) and 44.5 (ANI)
respectively. By pooling the survey effort and on-effort dolphin
sightings from both HZMB and AFCD monitoring
data for the same period, the encounter rates in summer 2011 were
10.2 (STG) and 37.6 (ANI). On the
other hand, the encounter rates in NWL deduced from AFCD monitoring data in summer 2012 were
8.5 (STG) and 26.1 (ANI). In
comparison, the encounter rates deduced in summer 2013 was 6.6
(STG) and 27.0 (ANI).
3.5.22 Although the decline in dolphin encounter rates in NWL for the summer months of 2011-13 was not as dramatic as the one
in NEL, dolphins appeared to diminish their usage of this area in recent years
as well. Such decline should be
continuously monitored in the upcoming quarters.
3.5.23 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).
3.5.24 For the comparison between the
baseline period and the present quarter (fourth quarter of the impact phase),
the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and
ANI were 0.0611 and 0.1508 respectively.
If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected
between the baseline and present quarters in the encounter rate of STG, but not
the encounter rate of ANI.
3.5.25 For the comparison between the
baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first four
quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0559 and 0.0244
respectively. If the alpha value is
set at 0.1, significant differences were detected in both the average dolphin
encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the
locations).
3.5.26 To facilitate the comparison with
the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also calculated
for the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 7.14 sightings and 25.82
dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of
sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 1.47 sightings and 3.82 dolphins
per 100 km of survey effort respectively.
Group
Size
3.5.27 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1- 11 individuals
per group in North Lantau region during June
to August 2013. The average dolphin
group sizes from these three months were compared with the one deduced from the
baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (June 2013 to August
2013) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep¡V Nov 2011)
|
Average Dolphin Group Size
|
Reporting Period
|
Baseline Monitoring Period
|
Overall
|
3.42 ¡Ó 2.43 (n = 45)
|
3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)
|
Northeast
Lantau
|
2.60 ¡Ó 3.05 (n = 5)
|
3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)
|
Northwest
Lantau
|
3.53 ¡Ó 2.36 (n = 40)
|
3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)
|
3.5.28 The average dolphin group size in the entire North
Lantau region as well as in NEL and NWL during June to August 2013
was slightly lower than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table 3.6).
3.5.29 Distribution of dolphins with
larger group sizes during June to August 2013 is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix J, and was compared with the one in baseline period (Figure 2 of Appendix J). Overall, most of the larger dolphin groups were concentrated within the
Sha Chau and Lung
Kwu Chau
Marine Park
area during the present quarter, which is similar to the distribution in
baseline period (Figure 2 of Appendix J). Only one of the five groups in
sighted in NEL was classified as a larger dolphin group, which was located to
the eastern end of the survey area near Yam O. In the vicinity of the HKLR03
reclamation sites, no larger dolphin group was found there.
Habitat
Use
3.5.30 From June - August 2013, the most
heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly concentrated within and adjacent to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu
Chau Marine
Park, as well as the Urmston Road
section between Pillar Point and Lung Kwu Chau (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J). Only few grids in NEL recorded the presence of
dolphins, and except Grid W14, most of these grids only recorded low
density. None of the grids around
HKLR03 work site recorded the presence of dolphins.
3.5.31 It should be noted that the
amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period
was fairly low (6-12 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the
habitat use pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with
caution. A more complete picture of
dolphin habitat use pattern will be presented when more survey effort for each
grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.
3.5.32 When compared with the habitat
use patterns during the baseline period, dolphins usage in NEL was noticeably much lower in the
present impact monitoring period (Figure
4 of Appendix J). In fact, during this quarter of summer 2013, dolphins
were mostly absent from the important dolphin habitats around the Brothers and
near Shum Shui Kok that were identified during the baseline period and in
previous studies (e.g. Hung 2008).
From the same comparison between the two quarterly periods, it appears
that dolphins have avoided the construction sites of HKLR03 in the present
monitoring period, similar to what was recorded during the baseline monitoring.
(Figure 4 of Appendix J).
3.5.33 The
absence of dolphins in the identified important habitats around the Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok in the present and previous
quarter is of serious concern. The
future Brothers Islands Marine
Park will be established
in this area upon the completion of HKBCF reclamation works, as an important
compensation measure for the habitat loss in relation to HZMB projects. It should be further examined whether
the very low usage of dolphins would continue in this important dolphin
habitat, and the potential measures should be implemented soon that may enhance
the dolphin usage of this area.
Mother-calf
Pairs
3.5.34 During the three-month study
period, a total of three
unspotted calves (UC) and ten
unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NEL and NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised 8.4% of all animals sighted, which was slightly higher than the percentage recorded during the
baseline monitoring period (6.8%).
3.5.35 These
young calves mainly occurred around
Lung Kwu Chau and Black Point, which was somewhat similar to the distribution
of young calves during the baseline period (Figure 5 of Appendix J). Notably, young calves appeared to avoid the HKLR03 reclamation sites
during the present quarter, similar to what was recorded during the baseline
monitoring.
Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats
3.5.36 A total of four dolphin sightings
were associated with feeding and socializing activities during the three-month
study period. The
percentages of feeding and socializing activities comprised of 6.7% and 2.2% of the total number of dolphin sightings respectively, which were much lower than the percentages recorded during the
baseline period (feeding activity: 11.6%; socializing activity: 5.4%). Only one group of dolphins
was engaged in traveling activity.
3.5.37 Distribution of dolphins engaged
in different activities during the three-month study period is shown in (Figure 6 of Appendix J). The
feeding activities occurred near Lung Kwu Chau and Shum Wat (along the
HKLR alignment), while the lone sighting with socializing activity was located
near Sha Chau. On the other hand,
one group of six dolphins was engaged in traveling activity near the Castle
Peak Power Station.
3.5.38 During the three-month period, none of the 45 dolphin groups was
found to be associated with an operating fishing vessel. The extremely low level of fishing boat association in the present and previous quarters was likely related to the recent trawl ban
being implemented in 2013 in Hong Kong waters.
Photo-identification
and Individual Range Use
3.5.39 From June to August 2013, over 2,500 digital photographs of Chinese
White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the
for the photo-identification work.
3.5.40 In total, 44 individuals sighted 71 times altogether were identified
(see summary table in Annex III and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). Only nine of
these 71 re-sightings were made in NEL, which involved six individuals. These were the same individuals that
were repeatedly sighted before in NEL during the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring
surveys.
3.5.41 Most identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during
the three-month period, with the exception of five individuals being sighted
thrice (CH98, NL24, NL33, NL202, NL286) and one individual being sighted four
times (NL284).
3.5.42 Five well-recognized females, including NL33, NL104, NL123, NL202
and WL98, were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Except
WL98, the other four mothers were frequently seen with their calves during
HKLR03 impact phase monitoring surveys.
3.5.43 Ranging patterns of the 44 individuals identified during the
three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown
in Annex V of Appendix J.
3.5.44 Only six individuals were sighted in the NEL survey area while other
individuals were mostly found in the NWL survey area during this quarterly
period. In contrast to the
extensive movements between NEL and NWL survey areas in the first two impact
monitoring quarters (October 2012 - February 2013) and the baseline period
(September-November 2011), many of these identified individuals have avoided
NEL during June-August 2013, even though they were frequently sighted there in the past decade, and their core areas were
centered around the Brothers Islands (e.g. NL98, NL120, NL261) (Hung 2013) (Annex V of Appendix J).
3.5.45 To examine whether any range use of individual dolphins has shifted
away from NEL since the commencement of the HKLR03 construction works, the
re-sighting locations of 21 individuals that centered their core area use
around the Brothers Islands were examined from the past four quarters, and were
compared to the locations of their previous re-sightings since 2002 extracted
from the HKCRP long-term photo-identification catalogue (see Hung 2013).
3.5.46 Among these 21 individuals, seven individuals were re-sighted
repeatedly in NWL, but were not sighted in NEL at all in the past 12 months,
even though they have centered their core area use around the Brothers Islands
in the past (see examples in Figure 7
of Appendix J). Moreover, seven other individuals were
sighted once or twice in NEL in the past 12 months (see examples in Figure 8 of
Appendix J), but the majority of them were sighted
there in autumn 2012 and winter 2012/13 and were absent in spring and summer
2013. Notably, a few of these
individuals also expanded their range use to West Lantau
(e.g. CH34, NL104, NL188).
3.5.47 On the contrary, five individuals were sighted repeatedly (7-10
times) in NEL throughout the four quarters, and two of them (NL33 and NL123)
occurred there with their calves (see examples in Figure 9 of Appendix J). However, these individuals also ranged
frequently to NWL and WL during the same period, even though they rarely
occurred in West Lantau in the past
decade. For example, EL01 was
sighted near Fan Lau, while NL120 was sighted near Peaked Hill in recent
months. Although they have not
avoided the Brothers
Islands for their range
use, there is also indication that they have recently expanded their range use.
3.5.48 It is apparent that the majority of individual dolphins that
utilized NEL waters in the past decade has
either diminished or avoided this area for their recent range use. This coincided well with the dramatic
decline in dolphin occurrence in NEL as discussed in Sections 3.5.16 to 3.5.26. Although these individuals appeared to
utilize NWL and even WL more frequently during the same period, the dolphin
encounter rates in NWL also continued to fall in recent months, indicating that
some dolphins may have diminished their overall usage in the North
Lantau region, possibly linked to the HZMB-related construction works. This is of serious concern,
as the Brothers Islands in NEL was once identified an
important habitat for many year-round residents that focused their core area
use there (Hung 2008). Therefore, the ranging pattern of individual dolphins
should be continuously monitored around Lantau waters, and measures should be
taken to ensure that dolphins can
continue to move between NWL and NEL without any hindrance as a result of the
HZMB-related construction works.
Action
Level / Limit Level Exceedance
3.5.49 There were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for
the quarterly monitoring data (June ¡V August 2013). According to the
contractor¡¦s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during
the two quarterly periods (March to May 2013 and June to August 2013) included
stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain
installation and excavation of stone platform. During the quarterly period of June to
August 2013, geotextile laying activities were also carried out. There is no
evidence showing the current AL
non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03. It should also be noted that reclamation
work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in waters which has
rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working vessels under HKLR03
have been travelling from source to destination in accordance with the Marine
Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin. In addition, the contractor will
implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s
designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as
far as practicable.
3.5.50 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).
3.5.51 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present
quarter (fourth quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences
in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0611 and 0.1508
respectively. If the alpha value is
set at 0.1 (due to the small sample size with lower statistical power in the
analysis), significant difference was detected between the baseline and present
quarters in the average dolphin encounter rate of STG, but not in the average
dolphin encounter rate of ANI.
3.5.52 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative
quarters in impact phase (i.e. first four quarters of the impact phase), the
p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.0559 and 0.0244 respectively.
If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected in
both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two
periods and the locations).
3.5.53 The AFCD monitoring data during June-August 2013 has been reviewed
by the dolphin specialist, and only one group of six dolphins were sighted from
126.03 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL during the same
quarter. This review has confirmed
that the very low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring
survey in summer 2013 in NEL is accurate.
3.5.54 All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented
in accordance with the EM&A Manual.
In order to minimise disturbance to the Brother¡¦s Island, the Contractor
provide training to skippers to ensure that their working vessels travel from
source to destination to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid
anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok
Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.
3.6
Mudflat Monitoring Results
Sedimentation
Rate Monitoring
3.6.1 The
baseline sedimentation rate monitoring was in September 2012 and impact
sedimentation rate monitoring was undertaken on 7 and 8 June 2013. The mudflat surface levels at the four
established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID
coordinates are presented in Table 3.7 and Table 3.8.
Table 3.7 Measured
Mudflat Surface Level Results
|
Baseline Monitoring
(September 2012)
|
Impact Monitoring
(June 2013)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
|
(mPD)
|
(mPD)
|
S1
|
810291.160
|
816678.727
|
0.950
|
810291.159
|
816678.728
|
1.029
|
S2
|
810958.272
|
815831.531
|
0.864
|
810958.244
|
815831.531
|
0.970
|
S3
|
810716.585
|
815953.308
|
1.341
|
810716.579
|
815953.323
|
1.423
|
S4
|
811221.433
|
816151.381
|
0.931
|
811221.447
|
816151.404
|
0.989
|
Table 3.8 Comparison
of measurement
|
Comparison of measurement
|
Remarks and Recommendation
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
0.000
|
0.001
|
0.079
|
Level continuously increased
|
S2
|
-0.028
|
-0.001
|
0.106
|
Within tolerance, no significant change
|
S3
|
-0.007
|
0.015
|
0.082
|
Within tolerance, no significant change
|
S4
|
0.014
|
0.022
|
0.058
|
Within tolerance, no significant change
|
3.6.2 The measurement results for S2,
S3 and S4 showed that the level has increased within tolerance and their sea
bed depth would not be considered as significant change. For S1, the mudflat
level has been continuously increased. The increased surface level for S1, S2,
S3 and S4 is 0.079, 0.106, 0.082 and 0.058 mPD when compared to the baseline
monitoring results.
Water Quality Monitoring
3.6.3 The
mudflat monitoring covered water quality monitoring data. Reference was made to the water quality
monitoring data of the representative water quality monitoring station (i.e.
SR3) as in the EM&A Manual. The
water quality monitoring location (SR3) is shown in Figure 2.1.
3.6.4 Impact
water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in
June 2013. The monitoring
parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).
3.6.5 Due to
adverse weather condition, the water monitoring for mid-flood tide at station
SR3 was cancelled on 24 June
2013. The Impact monitoring results for SR3 were extracted and
summarised below:
Table 3.9 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-Jun-13
|
10.3
|
4.7
|
8.5
|
10.3
|
2.1
|
4.5
|
05-Jun-13
|
7.8
|
3.5
|
2.1
|
7.3
|
4.6
|
4.5
|
07-Jun-13
|
6.4
|
2.1
|
2.9
|
5.9
|
4.0
|
4.1
|
10-Jun-13
|
6.9
|
2.8
|
2.2
|
7.0
|
2.1
|
1.2
|
12-Jun-13
|
5.6
|
3.6
|
1.6
|
5.5
|
2.5
|
1.2
|
14-Jun-13
|
5.1
|
6.3
|
3.1
|
5.1
|
2.2
|
1.7
|
17-Jun-13
|
6.9
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
6.7
|
4.2
|
7.5
|
19-Jun-13
|
7.2
|
2.1
|
2.3
|
9.4
|
2.2
|
5.3
|
21-Jun-13
|
9.9
|
5.8
|
9.4
|
10.4
|
7.9
|
11.2
|
24-Jun-13
|
6.7
|
18.7
|
16.8
|
N.A
|
N.A
|
N.A
|
26-Jun-13
|
6.1
|
6.4
|
8.1
|
6.0
|
5.2
|
4.7
|
28-Jun-13
|
6.7
|
4.4
|
6.5
|
6.0
|
5.2
|
4.7
|
Average
|
7.1
|
5.3
|
5.6
|
7.2
|
3.8
|
4.6
|
Mudflat Ecology Monitoring
Sampling
Zone
3.6.6 There are
two survey areas specified under the updated EM&A Manual for the Contract,
namely Tung Chung Bay and San Tau. Tung Chung
Bay survey area is
divided into three sampling zones (TC1, TC2 and TC3) and there is one sampling
zone at San Tau (ST). Survey of
horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in
each sampling zone. The locations
of sampling zones are shown in Annex I
of Appendix O.
Horseshoe Crabs
3.6.7 An active
search method was adopted for horseshoe crab survey at each sampling zone. The
survey was undertaken by 2 specialists at each sampling
zone.
During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be
investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hours in low tide period (tidal level below 1.2 m above Chart Datum (C.D.)). Once a horseshoe crab was found, the
species, size and inhabiting substrate, photographic record and respective GPS
coordinate were recorded with reference to Li (2008). The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 11th (for zones
TC1 and TC2) and 10th (for zones TC3 and ST) June 2013 with hot and
cloudy weather with intermittent raining.
Seagrass Beds
3.6.8
An active search method was adopted for seagrass
bed survey at each sampling zone.
The survey was undertaken by 2 specialists each spending within 2-3 hours in low tide period.
Once seagrass bed was observed, the species, the estimated area (m2),
photographic record and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. The seagrass
bed surveys were conducted on 11th (for zones TC1 and TC2) and 10th
(for zones TC3 and ST) June 2013 with hot and cloudy weather with intermittent
raining.
Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities
3.6.9 The sandy
shore of San Tau and Tung Chung Bay from the uppermost part of the shore
and to the water edge was divided into three tidal zones ¡V upper, middle and
lower zones, at each sampling zone, TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST. A 100m transect was laid in each of the
three tidal zones for fauna sampling.
3.6.10 At each
sampling zone, three 100m horizontal transects were laid at 2.0m, 1.5m and 1.0m
above C.D. Along each transect, ten
random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed. In each quadrat, the epifauna and
infauna (within the top 5cm sediment) in each quadrat were identified and their
numbers/coverage percentages were recorded. One core of 10cm diameter x 20cm depth
was also collected within each quadrat.
The sediments of the cores were sieved with 2mm mesh-size sieve and the
biota inside was identified and counted.
All collected fauna were released after
recording except some tiny individuals that in-situ
identification was not feasible. These tiny individuals were collected and were
identified in the laboratory. Species and abundance of biota in both
cores and quadrats were reported. The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide
period on 8th (for TC3), 9th (for TC1), 12th
(for TC3) and 22nd
June 2013 (for ST).
Data
Analysis
3.6.11 Data
collected from direct search and core sampling was pooled in every quadrat for
data analysis. Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H¡¦) and Pielou¡¦s Species
Evenness (J) were calculated for every quadrat using the formulae below,
H¡¦= -£U ( Ni / N ) ln ( Ni / N ) (Shannon and Weaver,
1963)
J = H¡¦ / ln
S, (Pielou, 1966)
where S is the total number of species in the sample,
N is the total number of individuals, and Ni is the number of individuals of
the ith species.
Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion
Horseshoe
Crabs
3.6.12 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 of Appendix
O show the records of horseshoe crab survey at every sampling zone. In
general, horseshoe crab Tachypleus
tridentatus was found at TC1 (7 individuals), TC3 (16 individuals) and ST
(59 individuals). All individuals
were found on either soft mud or sandy substratum or sandy substratum
surrounded by small gravels. Grouping was observed while each group consisted
of 2-7 individuals only. One individual was found with lost tail at ST that
might be caused by human trampling. Since the commencement of the survey (Sep.
2012), no individual was found at TC2. It showed that TC2 was not a suitable
nursery ground for horseshoes crab.
3.6.13 According to Table 3.2 of Appendix O, the search records of Tachypleus tridentatus were
1.75 individuals hr-1 person-1 (mean prosomal widths: 42.94 mm) and 4.00 individuals hr-1 person-1 (34.54 mm) at TC1 and TC3,
respectively. Similar to previous surveys, the highest search record of 9.83 individuals hr-1 person-1 (40.25 mm) was reported at
ST. According to
Li (2008), the
prosomal
width of Tachypleus tridentatus recorded ranged 11.02¡Ð57.62 mm that corresponded to
an estimated
age of 1.7¡V6.8 years old. Summary of prosomal width of horseshoe crab is
shown in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 Summary of
Prosomal Width of Horseshoe Crab Survey
|
Sampling Zone
|
TC1
|
TC2
|
TC3
|
ST
|
Search duration (hr)
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of individuals
|
7
|
N.A.
|
16
|
59
|
Mean prosomal width (mm)
|
42.94
|
N.A.
|
34.54
|
40.25
|
Range of prosomal width
(mm)
|
21.44-57.62
|
N.A.
|
11.07-54.56
|
12.54-55.51
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search record
(individual hr-1 person-1)
|
1.75
|
N.A.
|
4.00
|
9.83
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.14 The mean prosomal widths of Tachypleus
tridentatus were similar among TC1, TC3 and
ST. However, ST was usually inhabited by more individuals of smaller size.
Larger individuals were usually found at TC1 and TC3 at lower abundance. ST was
believed a more important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly
hatched individuals. When reaching larger size of higher mobility, few
individuals might migrate to nearby sampling zones TC1 and TC3 for foraging.
Figure 3.2 of Appendix
O
shows the changes of number of individuals, mean
prosomal width and search record of horseshoe crab Tachypleus
tridentatus at the every
sampling zones along the sampling months. Both number of individuals and search records declined generally at the
three sampling zones during dry season (Sep. to Dec. 2012). The horseshoe crabs
were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15 ºC). Similar
results of low search record in dry seasons were reported in a previous
territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search records at
Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 individual hr-1 person-1 and 0
individual. hr-1 person-1 in wet season and dry season
respectively (details see Li, 2008). From December 2012 to June 2013 (present
survey), both values increased with the warmer climate at the sampling zones.
3.6.15 Figure 3.3 of Appendix O shows the changes of
prosomal width of horseshoe crab population at ST. It was believed that most of
individuals (50% records between upper and lower quartile), recorded in the dry
season, had grown to a size of double in the present survey (prosomal width
increase from 10-20 mm to 30-50 mm). At the same time, tiny individuals (10-15
mm) were found (outliers of low value) that seasonal spawning was believed
occurring at ST.
3.6.16 Another less common species Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was not found during the whole survey period except the survey
conducted in December 2012 at ST (4 individuals). This species was believed
present in ST at very low number while encounter was very rare.
3.6.17 The present survey was the third
time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be
detected on horseshoe crabs considering the factor of natural, seasonal
variation, In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of horseshoe
individuals in warm weather) is observed, it would be reported as soon as
possible.
Seagrass
Beds
Table 3.3 and Figure 3.4 of Appendix O show the
records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone. Two patches of Halophila ovalis were recorded nearby the mangrove
vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. at ST. The estimated total area and
mean area were 299.9 m2 and 463.7 m2 respectively while
the estimated coverage ranged 90-100%. Both patches were so close and formed a
long seagrass strand with estimated total area 763.6 m2. One patch
of Zostera japonica was found within the long strand of Halophila
ovalis. The estimated area was 14.6 m2 while the estimated
coverage ranged 70-90%.
3.6.18
Figure 3.5 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated
total area of seagrass beds at ST along the sampling months. For seagrass Halophila
ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased gradually. It
showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches during dry season then grew
and merged into single patch during wet season. For seagrass Zostera
japonica, it was not reported in the surveys of September and December
2012. Seasonal recruitment of few patches was reported between December and
March. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually during wet season.
3.6.19 The present
survey was the third time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the
construction period. Based on the results, impacts of
the HKLR project could not be detected on seagrass. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. rapid
reduction of seagrass patch size) was observed, it would be reported as soon as
possible.
Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities
3.6.20 Table 3.4 and Figure 3.5 of Appendix O show the types of substratum
along the horizontal transect at every tidal level of every sampling zone. The relative distribution
of different substrata was estimated by investigating the substratum types (Gravels & Boulders / Sands / Soft mud) of
the ten random quadrats
along every horizontal transect.
3.6.21 The distribution of substratum
types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones. At TC1, high percentage of
¡¥Sands¡¦ was recorded (70%) while the rest was ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (30%) at
high tidal level. High percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (80%) was recorded
at mid tidal level. Even distribution of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (50%) and
¡¥Sands¡¦ (40%) was recorded at low tidal level. At TC2, high percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦
(60-80%) was recorded at high and mid tidal levels while ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ was the
major substratum (80%) at low tidal level. At TC3, high percentage of ¡¥Sands¡¦
(60-90%) was recorded at high and mid tidal levels followed by ¡¥Soft mud¡¦
(10-30%). ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was the major substratum (70%) at low tidal
level. At ST, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (100%) was recorded only at high tidal
level. High percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (70%) was recorded while the
rest was ¡¥Sands¡¦ (30%) at mid tidal level. Even distribution of ¡¥Sands¡¦ (40%)
and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (40%) was recorded at low tidal level.
3.6.22 There was neither consistent
vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of substratum type in the study site. Such heterogeneous variation should be caused by different hydrology (e.g. wave in
different direction and intensity) received by the four sampling zones.
3.6.23 Table 3.5 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum
in the present survey. A total of 17329 individuals were recorded. Mollusks
were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 16751, density
558 individuals m-2, relative abundance 96.7%). The second abundant
group was arthropod (total individuals: 416, density 14 individuals m-2,
2.4%) respectively. Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (0.5%).
Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (43 taxa) followed by
arthropods (17 taxa) and annelids (14 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were
relatively less (2 taxa). The complete list of collected specimens is provided
in Annex III of Appendix O.
3.6.24 Table 3.6 of Appendix O shows the number of individual,
relative abundance and density of each phylum at every sampling zone. The
results were similar among the four sampling zones. In general, mollusks were
the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 2608-5464 individual, relative
abundance 95.9-97.9%). Arthropods were the second abundant phylum (no. of individuals:
51-164 individual, 1.4-3.2%) although the number of individuals was
significantly lower than that of mollusks. Relatively, other phyla were very
low in abundance across the four sampling zones (< 1%).
3.6.25 Table 3.7 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) at every
sampling zone. At TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was clearly the
dominant species (379-450 individuals m-2, relative abundance
41-56%) at high and mid tidal levels. Gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (105-208
individuals m-2, relative abundance 11-26%) was also abundant at
high and mid tidal levels. Moreover, gastropod Monodonta labio (164
individuals m-2, relative abundance 18%) and rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (143 individuals m-2, relative abundance 16%) were
abundant at mid tidal level. At low tidal level, total abundance was lower and
the species distribution was more even relatively. Rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (66 individuals m-2, 19%), gastropods Cerithidea
djadjariensis (45 individuals m-2, 13%) and Lunella coronata (44
individuals m-2, 12%) were common occurring species at low tidal
level.
3.6.26
At
TC2, all three tidal levels were dominated by gastropod Cerithidea
djadjariensis (92-164 individuals m-2, relative abundance
31-55%). At high tidal level, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was the
second abundant species (84 individuals m-2, relative abundance 21%)
followed by rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (56 individuals m-2,
relative abundance 14%). At mid tidal level, rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata was the second abundant species (84 individuals m-2,
16%) followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (76 individuals m-2,
relative abundance 14%). At low tidal level, the common occurring species were
gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (20 individuals m-2, 12%), Batillaria
multiformis (19 individuals m-2, 11%) and Batillaria zonalis (19
individuals m-2, 11%) while its abundances were much less than the
most dominant gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis.
3.6.27 At TC3, the high
and mid tidal levels were mainly dominated by gastropods Batillaria
multiformis (391-438 individuals m-2, relative abundance 47-52%)
and Cerithidea djadjariensis (212-294 individuals m-2,
25-35%). Gastropod Cerithidea cingulata was the third abundant species
(96 individuals m-2, 11%). At low tidal level, the abundant species
were rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (164 individuals m-2,
28%) followed by gastropods Monodonta labio (92 individuals m-2,
16%) and Lunella coronata (64 individuals m-2, 11%).
3.6.28 At ST, gastropod Batillaria
multiformis was highly abundant (392 individuals m-2, relative
abundance 63%) at high tidal level followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (127
individuals m-2, 20%). At mid tidal level, gastropod Batillaria
multiformis (136 individuals m-2, relative abundance 21%) and
rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (120 individuals m-2, 19%)
were most abundant of similar densities. Other less abundant species are
gastropods Monodonta labio (66 individuals m-2, 10%) and Cerithidea
djadjariensis (65 individuals m-2, 10%). Relatively, the
abundant species gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (89 individuals m-2,
38%), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (30 individuals m-2,
13%) and gastropod Batillaria zonalis (26 individuals m-2,
11%) were lower in density at low tidal level.
3.6.29 There was no consistent zonation
pattern of species distribution observed across sampling zones and tidal levels
in Tung Chung Wan and San Tau. The species distribution should be determined by
the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria
multiformis (6055 individuals, 35%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (3721
individuals, 21%), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (1829 individuals,
11%), gastropods Monodonta labio (1489 individuals, 9%) and Cerithidea
cingulata (1031 individuals, 6%) were the most common occurring species
among the four sampling zones.
3.6.30 Table 3.8 of Appendix O shows the
mean values of number of species, density, H¡¦ and J of soft shore
communities at every tidal level and sampling zone. Among the sampling zones,
the mean number of species was generally similar and ranged 6-15 spp. 0.25 m-2.
The mean densities of TC1 (349-810 individuals m-2) and TC3 (580-838
individuals m-2) were generally higher than that of ST (236-648
individuals m-2) followed by TC2 (166-525 individuals m-2). The mean
biodiversity index and species evenness were similar that ranged 1.39-1.54 and
0.60-0.65 respectively.
3.6.31 Across the tidal levels, there was
no difference of the mean number of species. Higher mean densities were
observed at high and mid tidal levels. Usually higher mean biodiversity index
and species evenness were observed at mid and low tidal levels except that at
TC2.
3.6.32 Figure 3.6 of Appendix O shows the temporal changes of number of species, density, H¡¦ and
J at every tidal level and sampling zone since the baseline monitoring
survey (Sep 2012). No significant temporal change of any biological parameters
was observed at all sampling zones. Although declined densities were reported
at sampling zones TC2 (mid and low tidal levels) and TC3 (high and mid tidal
levels) in dry season (Dec 2012), it was believed a natural, seasonal variation
due to higher mortality and lower activity rate of intertidal fauna during
cold, dry season. The densities of both sampling zones had increased along with
the hot, wet season. At the same time, steady increases of number of species
and biodiversity index were observed at ST (mid and low tidal levels).
3.6.33 The
present survey was the third time of sampling of the EM&A programme during
the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of
the HKLR project could not be detected on intertidal soft shore community.
3.7
Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
3.7.1 The
Contractor registered with EPD as a Chemical Waste Producer on 12 July 2012 for the
Contract. Sufficient numbers of
receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.
3.7.2 The summary
of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix
K.
3.7.3 The Contractor
was reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and
stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in
accordance with the Code of Practise on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of
Chemical Wastes.
3.8
Environmental Licenses and Permits
3.8.1 The valid
environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period are summarized
in Appendix L.
3.9.1 Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R.,
Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling:
estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, London.
3.9.2 Hung, S. K. 2008. Habitat use of Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins (Sousa chinensis) in Hong Kong. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 266
p.
3.9.3 Hung, S. K. 2012. Monitoring of marine mammals in Hong
Kong waters ¡V data collection: final report (2011-12). An unpublished report submitted to the
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of Hong Kong SAR Government,
120 pp.
3.9.4 Hung, S. K. 2013. Monitoring
of marine mammals in Hong Kong waters ¡V data collection: final report
(2012-13). An unpublished report
submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of Hong
Kong SAR Government, 168 pp
3.9.5 Jefferson, T. A. 2000. Population biology of the Indo-Pacific
hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters.
Wildlife Monographs 144:1-65.
4
Environmental Complaint and
Non-compliance
4.1.1 The detailed air quality,
noise, water quality and dolphin exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the
environmental exceedances are presented as followed:
Air Quality
4.1.2
There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances
for 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP recorded air quality were recorded during the reporting period.
Noise
4.1.3 There was one Action Level
exceedance for noise during the daytime on normal weekdays. A complaint was received on 29 June 2013
regarding noise generated from the works area near the site office (WA6) around
10:00 hrs on 29 June 2013.According to the site dairy provided by the
Contractor, electric circular saw was used to cut plastic tubes for maintenance
work at the works area near the site office (Work area WA6) from 09:45 to 10:15
hrs of 29 June 2013. A site
inspection was undertaken on 2
July 2013, no construction works was undertaken at work area near
the site office (Work area WA6). No significant noise was generated from the
site. As the electric circular saw was used for maintenance work and there was
no significant noise generated from the site, the complaint was considered
invalid.
4.1.4 No Limit Level exceedances for
noise were recorded during this reporting period.
Water Quality
4.1.5
During the reporting
period, there are 4 Action Level exceedances and 1 Limit Level exceedances of
suspended solids level. No exceedances of turbidity level were recorded. 3 Action Level
exceedances and 3 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen level. There were
no specific activities recorded during the monitoring period that would cause
any significant impacts on monitoring results and no leakage of turbid water or
any abnormity or malpractice was observed during the sampling exercise. Therefore, all exceedances were considered as
non-contract related. The detailed numbers of
exceedances recorded during the reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.1.
Dolphin
4.1.6 There
were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring
data (June ¡V August 2013). According to the contractor¡¦s information, the
marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the two quarterly periods (March
to May 2013 and June to August 2013) included stone platform construction,
reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation and excavation
of stone platform. During the
quarterly period of June to August 2013, geotextile laying activities were also
carried out.
4.1.7 There
is no evidence showing the current AL
non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03. It should also be noted that reclamation
work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in waters which has
rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working vessels under HKLR03
have been travelling from source to destination in accordance with the Marine
Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin. In addition, the contractor will
implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine
Department¡¦s designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers
Island) as far as practicable.
4.1.8
All dolphin protective measures are fully and
properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. In order to minimise disturbance to the
Brother¡¦s Island, the Contractor provide training to skippers to ensure that
their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize impacts on
Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated
anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as
practicable.
Table 4.1 Summary of Water
Quality Exceedances
Station
|
Exceedance
Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total Number
of Exceedances
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
|