Contract No. HY/2011/03

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road

Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monthly EM&A Report No.48 (September 2016)

                                                                                                     

 16 October 2016

 

Revision 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Contractor                                                                                                                     Designer

 

 

 


 

 

Contents

Executive Summary

1...... Introduction.. 1

1.1                    Basic Project Information. 1

1.2                    Project Organisation. 2

1.3                    Construction Programme. 2

1.4                    Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Month. 2

2....... Air Quality Monitoring.. 4

2.1                    Monitoring Requirements. 4

2.2                    Monitoring Equipment 4

2.3                    Monitoring Locations. 4

2.4                    Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration. 5

2.5                    Monitoring Methodology. 5

2.6                    Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month. 7

2.7                    Monitoring Results. 7

3....... Noise Monitoring.. 9

3.1                    Monitoring Requirements. 9

3.2                    Monitoring Equipment 9

3.3                    Monitoring Locations. 9

3.4                    Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration. 9

3.5                    Monitoring Methodology. 10

3.6                    Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month. 10

3.7                    Monitoring Results. 11

4....... Water Quality Monitoring.. 12

4.1                    Monitoring Requirements. 12

4.2                    Monitoring Equipment 13

4.3                    Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration. 13

4.4                    Monitoring Locations. 13

4.5                    Monitoring Methodology. 14

4.6                    Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month. 15

4.7                    Monitoring Results. 15

5....... Dolphin Monitoring.. 18

5.1                    Monitoring Requirements. 18

5.2                    Monitoring Methodology. 18

5.3                    Monitoring Results. 20

5.4                    Reference. 22

6....... Mudflat Monitoring.. 23

6.1                    Sedimentation Rate Monitoring. 23

6.2                    Water Quality Monitoring. 24

6.3                    Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Methodology. 25

6.4                    Event and Action Plan for Mudflat Monitoring. 26

6.5                    Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion. 27

6.6                    Reference. 35

7....... Environmental Site Inspection and Audit 37

7.1                    Site Inspection. 37

7.2                    Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status. 39

7.3                    Environmental Licenses and Permits. 39

7.4                    Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures. 40

7.5                    Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 40

7.6                    Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution. 40

8....... Future Key Issues. 41

8.1                    Construction Programme for the Coming Months. 41

8.2                    Environmental Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month. 41

9....... Conclusions. 42

9.1                    Conclusions. 42

 

 

Figures

 

Figure 1.1        Location of the Site

Figure 2.1         Environmental Monitoring Stations

Figure 6.1         Mudflat Survey Area

 

                           

Appendices

Appendix A       Environmental Management Structure

Appendix B       Construction Programme

Appendix C       Calibration Certificates

Appendix D       Monitoring Schedule

Appendix E       Monitoring Data and Graphical Plots

Appendix F       Event and Action Plan

Appendix G      Wind Data

Appendix H       Dolphin Monitoring Results

Appendix I         Mudflat Monitoring Results

Appendix J        Waste Flow Table

Appendix K       Cumulative Statistics on Complaints

Appendix L       Environmental Licenses and Permits  

Appendix M     Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures  

Appendix N       Record of ¡§Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances¡¨ and Record of ¡§Notification of Summons and Prosecutions¡¨

Appendix O      Location of Works Areas


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/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 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 forty-eighth Monthly 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 to 30 September 2016.

Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress

The monthly EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0).  A summary of the monitoring activities during this reporting month is listed below:

1-hr TSP Monitoring

1, 7, 13, 19, 23 and 29 September 2016

24-hr TSP Monitoring

6, 12, 17, 22 and 28 September 2016

Noise Monitoring

1, 7, 13, 19 and 29 September 2016

Water Quality Monitoring

2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28 and 30 September 2016

Mudflat Monitoring (Mudflat)

1, 3, 4, 17 and 18 September 2016

Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation Rate)

1 September 2016

Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

13, 14, 21 and 23 September 2016

Site Inspection

7, 14, 21 and 30 September 2016

As thunderstorm warning was hoisted by Hong Kong Observatory on 9 Sep 2016 (from 09:15 to 14:00), water quality monitoring at all stations for mid-flood tide on 9 Sep 2016 was cancelled for safety reason.

Due to boat availability, the dolphin monitoring schedule was rescheduled from 26 Sep 2016 to 23 Sep 2016. As a typhoon was approaching Hong Kong, the dolphin monitoring schedule was rescheduled from 15 Sep to 14 Sep 2016.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels                                                                               

A summary of environmental exceedances for this reporting month 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)

1

0

Turbidity level

0

0

Dissolved oxygen level (DO)

0

0

 

Complaint Log       

There were no complaints received in relation to the environmental impacts during the reporting period.

Notifications of Summons and Prosecutions

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

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- East:813273, North 818850) 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.

Future Key Issues

The future key issues include potential noise, air quality, water quality and ecological impacts and waste management arising from the following construction activities to be undertaken in the upcoming month:

  • Dismantling/trimming of Temporary 40mm Stone Platform for Construction of Seawall at Portion X;
  • Construction of Seawall at Portion X;
  • Loading and Unloading Filling Materials at Portion X;
  • Pipe Piling at Portion X;
  • Excavation and Lateral Support Works at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel) at Portion X;
  • Backfilling at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel) at Portion X;
  • Construction of Tunnel Box Structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel) at Portion X;
  • Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel at Portion X;
  • Excavation for Diversion of culvert PR9 and PR14 at Portion X;

¡P         Works for Diversion of Airport Road;

  • Utilities Detection at Airport Road / Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road;
  • Establishment of Site Access at Airport Road / Airport Express Line/East Coast Road;
  • Mined Tunnel Excavation / Box Jacking underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line;

¡P         Excavation and Lateral Support Works at shaft 3 extension north shaft (Package T1.12.1) at Kwo Lo Wan Road;

  • Excavation and Lateral Support Works &Construction of Tunnel Box Structure for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel) at Portion X;
  • Excavation and Lateral Support Works & Construction of Tunnel Box Structure for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel) at Airport Road;
  • Utility Culvert Excavation at Portion Y;
  • Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building at Portion Y;
  • Excavation for Scenic Hill Tunnel at West Portal; and

¡P         Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building at West Portal.

 


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/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.  Figure 1.1 shows the project site boundary. The works areas are shown in Appendix O.

1.1.4       The Contract includes the following key aspects:

¡P                     New reclamation along the east coast of the approximately 23 hectares.

¡P                     Tunnel of Scenic Hill (Tunnel SHT) from Scenic Hill to the new reclamation, of approximately 1km in length with three (3) lanes for the east bound carriageway heading to the HKBCF and four (4) lanes for the westbound carriageway heading to the HZMB Main Bridge.

¡P                     An abutment of the viaduct portion of the HKLR at the west portal of Tunnel SHT and associated road works at the west portal of Tunnel SHT.

¡P                     An at grade road on the new reclamation along the east coast of the HKIA to connect with the HKBCF, of approximately 1.6 km along dual 3-lane carriageway with hard shoulder for each bound.

¡P                     Road links between the HKBCF and the HKIA including new roads and the modification of existing roads at the HKIA, involving viaducts, at grade roads and a Tunnel HAT.

¡P                     A highway operation and maintenance area (HMA) located on the new reclamation, south of the Dragonair Headquarters Building, including the construction of buildings, connection roads and other associated facilities.

¡P                     Associated civil, structural, building, geotechnical, marine, environmental protection, landscaping, drainage and sewerage, tunnel and highway electrical and mechanical works, together with the installation of street lightings, traffic aids and sign gantries, water mains and fire hydrants, provision of facilities for installation of traffic control and surveillance system (TCSS), reprovisioning works of affected existing facilities, implementation of transplanting, compensatory planting and protection of existing trees, and implementation of an environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) program.

1.1.5       This is the forty-eighth Monthly 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 to 30 September 2016.

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

1.2.1       The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure is shown in Appendix A.  The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1          Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Fax

Supervising Officer¡¦s Representative
(Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Limited)

(Chief Resident Engineer, CRE)

Robert Antony Evans

3968 0801

2109 1882

Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker
(Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited)

Environmental Project Office Leader

Y. H. Hui

3465 2888

3465 2899

Independent Environmental Checker

Antony Wong

3465 2888

3465 2899

Contractor
(China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd)

Project Manager

S. Y. Tse

3968 7002

2109 2588

Environmental Officer

Federick Wong

3968 7117

2109 2588

Environmental Team
(BMT Asia Pacific)

Environmental Team Leader

Claudine Lee

2241 9847

2815 3377

24 hours complaint hotline

---

---

5699 5730

---

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 Month

1.4.1       A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting month is shown in Table 1.2.


 

Table 1.2          Construction Activities During Reporting Month

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

Pipe piling

Portion X

Excavation and lateral support works for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Construction of tunnel box structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Backfilling at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel

Portion X

Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel

Portion X

Excavation for diversion of culvert PR9 and PR14

Portion X

Works for diversion

Airport Road

Utilities detection

Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road

Establishment of site access

Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road

Mined tunnel excavation/ box jacking underneath  Airport Road and Airport Express Line

Airport Road and Airport Express Line

Excavation and lateral support works at shaft 3 extension north shaft (Package T1.12.1)

Kwo Lo Wan Road

Excavation and Lateral Support Works & Construction of Tunnel Box Structure for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Airport Road

Excavation and lateral support works & construction of tunnel box structure for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Utility culvert excavation

Portion Y

Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building

Portion Y

Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building

West Portal

Excavation for Scenic Hill Tunnel

West Portal

 


 

2        Air Quality Monitoring

2.1                Monitoring Requirements

2.1.1       In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour and 24-hour TSP levels at two air quality monitoring stations were established.  Impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days.  The Action and Limit Level for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP are provided in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, respectively.

Table 2.1          Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP

Monitoring Station

Action Level, µg/m3

Limit Level, µg/m3

AMS 5 ¡V Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)

352

500

AMS 6 ¡V Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

360

 

Table 2.2         Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP

Monitoring Station

Action Level, µg/m3

Limit Level, µg/m3

AMS 5 ¡V Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)

164

260

AMS 6 ¡V Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

173

260

 

2.2.1       24-hour TSP air quality monitoring was performed using High Volume Sampler (HVS) located at each designated monitoring station. The HVS meets all the requirements of the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.  Portable direct reading dust meters were used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring.  Brand and model of the equipment is given in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3          Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment

Brand and Model

Portable direct reading dust meter (1-hour TSP)

Sibata Digital Dust Monitor (Model No. LD-3B)

High Volume Sampler
(24-hour TSP)

Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler (Model No. TE-5170)

2.3.1       Monitoring locations AMS5 and AMS6 were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

2.3.2       Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 2.4 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.4          Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station

Location

AMS5

Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)

AMS6

Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

2.4.1       Table 2.5 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.

Table 2.5          Air Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Parameter

Frequency and Duration

1-hour TSP

Three times every 6 days while the highest dust impact was expected

24-hour TSP

Once every 6 days

2.5.1       24-hour TSP Monitoring

(a)           The HVS was installed in the vicinity of the air sensitive receivers. The following criteria were considered in the installation of the HVS.

(i)         A horizontal platform with appropriate support to secure the sampler against gusty wind was provided.

(ii)         The distance between the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.

(iii)        A minimum of 2 meters separation from walls, parapets and penthouse for rooftop sampler was provided.

(iv)        No furnace or incinerator flues are nearby.

(v)        Airflow around the sampler was unrestricted.

(vi)        Permission was obtained to set up the samplers and access to the monitoring stations.

(vii)       A secured supply of electricity was obtained to operate the samplers.

(viii)      The sampler was located more than 20 meters from any dripline.

(ix)       Any wire fence and gate, required to protect the sampler, did not obstruct the monitoring process.

(x)        Flow control accuracy was kept within ¡Ó2.5% deviation over 24-hour sampling period.

(b)          Preparation of Filter Papers

(i)         Glass fibre filters, G810 were labelled and sufficient filters that were clean and without pinholes were selected.

(ii)        All filters were equilibrated in the conditioning environment for 24 hours before weighing. The conditioning environment temperature was around 25 ¢XC and not variable by more than ¡Ó3 ¢XC; the relative humidity (RH) was < 50% and not variable by more than ¡Ó5%.  A convenient working RH was 40%.

(iii)       All filter papers were prepared and analysed by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd., which is a HOKLAS accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality control programmes.

(c)          Field Monitoring

(i)         The power supply was checked to ensure the HVS works properly.

(ii)         The filter holder and the area surrounding the filter were cleaned.

(iii)        The filter holder was removed by loosening the four bolts and a new filter, with stamped number upward, on a supporting screen was aligned carefully.

(iv)        The filter was properly aligned on the screen so that the gasket formed an airtight seal on the outer edges of the filter.

(v)        The swing bolts were fastened to hold the filter holder down to the frame.  The pressure applied was sufficient to avoid air leakage at the edges.

(vi)        Then the shelter lid was closed and was secured with the aluminium strip.

(vii)       The HVS was warmed-up for about 5 minutes to establish run-temperature conditions.

(viii)      A new flow rate record sheet was set into the flow recorder.

(ix)       On site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the flow rate of the HVS was checked and adjusted at around 1.1 m3/min, and complied with the range specified in the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) (i.e. 0.6-1.7 m3/min).

(x)        The programmable digital timer was set for a sampling period of 24 hours, and the starting time, weather condition and the filter number were recorded.

(xi)        The initial elapsed time was recorded.

(xii)       At the end of sampling, on site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the final flow rate of the HVS was checked and recorded.

(xiii)      The final elapsed time was recorded.

(xiv)     The sampled filter was removed carefully and folded in half length so that only surfaces with collected particulate matter were in contact.

(xv)      It was then placed in a clean plastic envelope and sealed.

(xvi)      All monitoring information was recorded on a standard data sheet.

(xvii)     Filters were then sent to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for analysis.

(d)          Maintenance and Calibration

(i)         The HVS and its accessories were maintained in good working condition, such as replacing motor brushes routinely and checking electrical wiring to ensure a continuous power supply.

(ii)         5-point calibration of the HVS was conducted using TE-5025A Calibration Kit prior to the commencement of baseline monitoring. Bi-monthly 5-point calibration of the HVS will be carried out during impact monitoring.

(iii)        Calibration certificate of the HVSs are provided in Appendix C.

2.5.2       1-hour TSP Monitoring

(a)        Measuring Procedures

The measuring procedures of the 1-hour dust meter were in accordance with the Manufacturer¡¦s Instruction Manual as follows:-

(i)                   Turn the power on.

(ii)        Close the air collecting opening cover.

(iii)       Push the ¡§TIME SETTING¡¨ switch to [BG].

(iv)       Push ¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to perform background measurement for 6 seconds.

(v)        Turn the knob at SENSI ADJ position to insert the light scattering plate.

(vi)       Leave the equipment for 1 minute upon ¡§SPAN CHECK¡¨ is indicated in the display.

(vii)      Push ¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to perform automatic sensitivity adjustment. This measurement takes 1 minute.

(viii)      Pull out the knob and return it to MEASURE position.

(ix)       Push the ¡§TIME SETTING¡¨ switch the time set in the display to 3 hours.

(x)        Lower down the air collection opening cover.

(xi)       Push ¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to start measurement.

(b)           Maintenance and Calibration

(i)         The 1-hour TSP meter was calibrated at 1-year intervals against a Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler. Calibration certificates of the Laser Dust Monitors are provided in Appendix C.

2.6.1       The schedule for air quality monitoring in September 2016 is provided in Appendix D.

2.7                Monitoring Results

2.7.1       The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix E.

Table 2.6         Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station

Average (mg/m3)

Range (mg/m3)

Action Level (mg/m3)

Limit Level (mg/m3)

AMS5

89

57-113

352

500

AMS6

103

59-181

360

500

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.7         Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station

Average (mg/m3)

Range (mg/m3)

Action Level  (mg/m3)

Limit Level (mg/m3)

AMS5

61

28-107

164

260

AMS6

56

26-92

173

260

 

2.7.2       No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting month.

2.7.3       The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

2.7.4       The wind data obtained from the on-site weather station during the reporting month is shown in Appendix G.


 

3.1.1       In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least once per week during the construction phase of the Project. The Action and Limit level of the noise monitoring is provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1          Action and Limit Levels for Noise during Construction Period

Monitoring Station

Time Period

Action Level

Limit Level

NMS5 ¡V Ma Wan Chung Village (Ma Wan Chung Resident Association) (Tung Chung)

0700-1900 hours on normal weekdays

When one documented complaint is received

75 dB(A)

3.2                Monitoring Equipment

3.2.1       Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meters at each designated monitoring station.  The sound level meters deployed comply with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications.  Acoustic calibrator was deployed to check the sound level meters at a known sound pressure level.  Brand and model of the equipment are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2         Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment

Brand and Model

Integrated Sound Level Meter

B&K 2238

Acoustic Calibrator

B&K 4231

3.3                Monitoring Locations

3.3.1       Monitoring location NMS5 was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

3.3.2       Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 3.3 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 3.3          Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station

Location

NMS5

Ma Wan Chung Village (Ma Wan Chung Resident Association) (Tung Chung)

3.4.1       Table 3.4 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.


 

Table 3.4         Noise Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Parameter

Frequency and Duration

30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90 would be recorded.

At least once per week

 

3.5.1       Monitoring Procedure

(a)        The sound level meter was set on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m above the podium for free-field measurements at NMS5. A correction of +3 dB(A) shall be made to the free field measurements.

(b)        The battery condition was checked to ensure the correct functioning of the meter.

(c)        Parameters such as frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were set as follows:-

(i)            frequency weighting: A

(ii)           time weighting: Fast

(iii)          time measurement: Leq(30-minutes) during non-restricted hours i.e. 07:00 ¡V 1900 on normal weekdays

(d)        Prior to and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic calibrator for 94.0 dB(A) at 1000 Hz.  If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1.0 dB(A), the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.

(e)        During the monitoring period, the Leq, L10 and L90 were recorded.  In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded on a standard record sheet.

(f)        Noise measurement was paused during periods of high intrusive noise (e.g. dog barking, helicopter noise) if possible. Observations were recorded when intrusive noise was unavoidable.

(g)        Noise monitoring was cancelled in the presence of fog, rain, wind with a steady speed exceeding 5m/s, or wind with gusts exceeding 10m/s. The wind speed shall be checked with a portable wind speed meter capable of measuring the wind speed in m/s.

3.5.2       Maintenance and Calibration

(a)          The microphone head of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular intervals.

(b)           The meter and calibrator were sent to the supplier or HOKLAS laboratory to check and calibrate at yearly intervals.

(c)        Calibration certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators are provided in Appendix C.

3.6.1       The schedule for construction noise monitoring in September 2016 is provided in Appendix D.


 

3.7                Monitoring Results

3.7.1       The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.5 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.  

Table 3.5          Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station

Average Leq (30 mins), dB(A)

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

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

NMS5

58

54 ¡V 63

75

*A correction factor of +3dB(A) from free field to facade measurement was included. 

3.7.2       There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting month.

3.7.3       Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract, nearby traffic and insect noise.

3.7.4       The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.


4        Water Quality Monitoring

4.1.1       Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality is detected, and that timely action is taken to rectify the situation.  For impact water quality monitoring, measurements were taken in accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual. Table 4.1 shows the established Action/Limit Levels for the environmental monitoring works.  The ET proposed to amend the Acton Level and Limit Level for turbidity and suspended solid and EPD approved ET¡¦s proposal on 25 March 2013.  Therefore, Action Level and Limit Level for the Contract have been changed since 25 March 2013.

4.1.2       The original and revised Action Level and Limit Level for turbidity and suspended solid are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1          Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameter (unit)

Water Depth

Action Level

Limit Level

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) (surface, middle and bottom)

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.

4.2.1       Table 4.2 summarizes the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 4.2          Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment      

Brand and Model

DO and Temperature Meter, Salinity Meter, Turbidimeter and pH Meter

YSI Model 6820 V2-M, 650

Positioning Equipment

DGPS ¡V KODEN : KGP913MkII, KBG3

Water Depth Detector

Layin Associates: SM-5 & SM5A

Water Sampler

Wildlife Supply Company : 5487-10

4.3.1       Table 4.3 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water quality monitoring as required in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

Table 4.3          Impact Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency

Monitoring Stations

Parameter, unit

Frequency

No. of depth

Impact Stations:
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS
7, IS8, IS(Mf)9 & IS10,

 

Control/Far Field Stations:
CS
2 & CS(Mf)5,

 

Sensitive Receiver Stations:
SR3, SR4, SR
5, SR10A & SR10B

¡P    Depth, m

¡P    Temperature, oC

¡P    Salinity, ppt

¡P    Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/L

¡P    DO Saturation, %

¡P    Turbidity, NTU

¡P    pH

¡P   Suspended Solids (SS), mg/L

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).

 

4.4.1       In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, thirteen stations (6 Impact Stations, 5 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 2 Control Stations) were designated for impact water quality monitoring.  The six Impact Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest potential for water quality impacts, the five Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive receives and the two Control Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate comparison of the water quality of the IS stations with less influence by the Project/ ambient water quality conditions.

4.4.2       The locations of these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.4 and shown in Figure 2.1.


 

Table 4.4         Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Stations

Description

Coordinates

Easting

Northing

IS5

Impact Station (Close to HKLR construction site)

811579

817106

IS(Mf)6

Impact Station (Close to HKLR construction site)

812101

817873

IS7

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812244

818777

IS8

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

814251

818412

IS(Mf)9

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

813273

818850

IS10

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812577

820670

SR3

Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)

810525

816456

SR4

Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho Inlet)

814760

817867

SR5

Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef In NE Airport)

811489

820455

SR10A

Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone)

823741

823495

SR10B

Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone)

823686

823213

CS2

Control Station (Mid-Ebb)

805849

818780

CS(Mf)5

Control Station (Mid-Flood)

817990

821129

4.5                Monitoring Methodology

4.5.1       Instrumentation

(a)        The in-situ water quality parameters including dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and turbidity, pH were measured by multi-parameter meters.

4.5.2       Operating/Analytical Procedures

(a)        Digital Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) were used to ensure that the correct location was selected prior to sample collection.

(b)        Portable, battery-operated echo sounders were used for the determination of water depth at each designated monitoring station.

(c)        All in-situ measurements were taken at 3 water depths, 1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth was less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station was omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station was monitored.

(d)        At each measurement/sampling depth, two consecutive in-situ monitoring (DO concentration and saturation, temperature, turbidity, pH, salinity) and water sample for SS. The probes were retrieved out of the water after the first measurement and then re-deployed for the second measurement. Where the difference in the value between the first and second readings of DO or turbidity parameters was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the reading was discarded and further readings were taken.

(e)        Duplicate samples from each independent sampling event were collected for SS measurement. Water samples were collected using the water samplers and the samples were stored in high-density polythene bottles. Water samples collected were well-mixed in the water sampler prior to pre-rinsing and transferring to sample bottles. Sample bottles were pre-rinsed with the same water samples. The sample bottles were then be packed in cool-boxes (cooled at 4oC without being frozen), and delivered to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for the analysis of suspended solids concentrations. The laboratory determination work would be started within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. is a HOKLAS accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality control programmes.

(f)        The analysis method and detection limit for SS is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5    Laboratory Analysis for Suspended Solids

Parameters

Instrumentation

Analytical Method

Detection Limit

Suspended Solid (SS)

Weighting

APHA 2540-D

0.5mg/L

 

(g)       Other relevant data were recorded, including monitoring location / position, time, water depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work underway at the construction site in the field log sheet for information.

4.5.3       Maintenance and Calibrations

(a)        All in situ monitoring instruments would be calibrated by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. before use and at 3-monthly intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring programme. The procedures of performance check of sonde and testing results are provided in Appendix C.

4.6.1       The schedule for impact water quality monitoring in September 2016 is provided in Appendix D.

4.7                Monitoring Results

4.7.1       Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting month. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.  

4.7.2       For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level, dissolved oxygen level and suspended solid level were recorded during the reporting month.

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

4.7.4       The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

4.7.5        

Table 4.6          Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

DO

(S&M)

DO

(Bottom)

Turbidity

SS

Total number of exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

IS7

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

IS8

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

IS10

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

19 Sep 2016

0

1

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

SR3

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

SR4

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

SR5

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

SR10A

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

SR10B

Action Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Limit Level

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Total

Action

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1**

Limit

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0**

 

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

**   The total number of exceedances

 

4.7.6       For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level, dissolved oxygen level and no Limit level exceedances suspended solid level were recorded during the reporting month.

4.7.1       For marine water quality monitoring, an Action Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station IS10 during mid-flood tide.  The construction activities including removal of surcharge, box culvert construction works at Zones 1 and 2, seawall construction works at Zones 2 and 3A, grouting for soldier pile at Zone 2 and transportation of fill material on the ground at Zone 3A were carried out within silt curtain as recommended in the EIA Report.  According to the Contractor, the wastewater effluent generated from the contract works was treated before discharging into water bodies (e.g. storm water drains, coast and sea etc.) on 19 September 2016 in accordance with the discharge license. There were no specific activities recorded during the monitoring period that would cause any significant impacts on the monitoring results. No marine works was conducted near monitoring station IS10 which are located outside the site boundary of HKLR03 Contract.  Also, there was no marine transportation of fill materials/sediment on 19 September 2016 and no muddy plume observed at station IS10 during sampling exercise.  No leakage of turbid water or any abnormity or malpractice for all contract works was observed during the sampling exercise.

4.7.2       The exceedances of suspended solids level were considered to be attributed to other external factors such as sea condition, rather than the contract works. Therefore, the exceedances were considered as non-contract related. Records of ¡§Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances¡¨ are provided in Appendix N.

4.7.3       The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

 

5.1.1       Impact dolphin monitoring is required to be conducted by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate whether there have been any effects on the dolphins.

5.1.2       The Action Level and Limit Level for dolphin monitoring are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1          Action and Limit Levels for Dolphin Monitoring

 

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 encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.

2.      ANI means quarterly 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.

5.1.3       The revised Event and Action Plan for dolphin Monitoring was approved by EPD in 6 May 2013. The revised Event and Action Plan is annexed in Appendix F.

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.2.1       According to the requirements of the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0), dolphin monitoring programme should cover all transect lines in NEL and NWL survey areas (see Figure 1 of Appendix H) twice per month. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 5.2.  The coordinates of several starting points 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, and the revised coordinates are in red and marked with an asterisk in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2          Co-ordinates of Transect Lines

Line No.

Easting

Northing

 

Line No.

Easting

Northing

1

Start Point

804671

815456*

 

13

Start Point

816506

819480

1

End Point

804671

831404

 

13

End Point

816506

824859

2

Start Point

805475

815913*

 

14

Start Point

817537

820220

2

End Point

805477

826654

 

14

End Point

817537

824613

3

Start Point

806464

819435

 

15

Start Point

818568

820735

3

End Point

806464

822911

 

15

End Point

818568

824433

4

Start Point

807518

819771

 

16

Start Point

819532

821420

4

End Point

807518

829230

 

16

End Point

819532

824209

5

Start Point

808504

820220

 

17

Start Point

820451

822125

5

End Point

808504

828602

 

17

End Point

820451

823671

6

Start Point

809490

820466

 

18

Start Point

821504

822371

6

End Point

809490

825352

 

18

End Point

821504

823761

7

Start Point

810499

820880*

 

19

Start Point

822513

823268

7

End Point

810499

824613

 

19

End Point

822513

824321

8

Start Point

811508

821123*

 

20

Start Point

823477

823402

8

End Point

811508

824254

 

20

End Point

823477

824613

9

Start Point

812516

821303*

 

21

Start Point

805476

827081

9

End Point

812516

824254

 

21

End Point

805476

830562

10

Start Point

813525

820872

 

22

Start Point

806464

824033

10

End Point

813525

824657

 

22

End Point

806464

829598

11

Start Point

814556

818853*

 

23

Start Point

814559

821739

11

End Point

814556

820992

 

23

End Point

814559

824768

12

Start Point

815542

818807

 

 

 

 

 

12

End Point

815542

824882

 

 

 

 

 

Note:
Co-ordinates in red and marked with asterisk are revised co-ordinates of transect line. 

 

5.2.2       The survey team used standard line-transect methods (Buckland et al. 2001) to conduct the systematic vessel surveys, and followed the same technique of data collection that has been adopted over the last 18 years of marine mammal monitoring surveys in Hong Kong developed by HKCRP (see Hung 2015).  For each monitoring vessel survey, a 15-m inboard vessel with an open upper deck (about 4.5 m above water surface) was used to make observations from the flying bridge area.

5.2.3       Two experienced observers (a data recorder and a primary observer) made up the on-effort survey team, and the survey vessel transited different transect lines at a constant speed of 13-15 km per hour.  The data recorder searched with unaided eyes and filled out the datasheets, while the primary observer searched for dolphins and porpoises continuously through 7 x 50 Fujinon marine binoculars.  Both observers searched the sea ahead of the vessel, between 270o and 90o (in relation to the bow, which is defined as 0o).  One to two additional experienced observers were available on the boat to work in shift (i.e. rotate every 30 minutes) in order to minimize fatigue of the survey team members.  All observers were experienced in small cetacean survey techniques and identifying local cetacean species.

5.2.4       During on-effort survey periods, the survey team recorded effort data including time, position (latitude and longitude), weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and visibility), and distance travelled in each series (a continuous period of search effort) with the assistance of a handheld GPS (Garmin eTrex Legend).

5.2.5       Data including time, position and vessel speed were also automatically and continuously logged by handheld GPS throughout the entire survey for subsequent review.

5.2.6       When dolphins were sighted, the survey team would end the survey effort, and immediately record the initial sighting distance and angle of the dolphin group from the survey vessel, as well as the sighting time and position.  Then the research vessel was diverted from its course to approach the animals for species identification, group size estimation, assessment of group composition, and behavioural observations.  The perpendicular distance (PSD) of the dolphin group to the transect line was later calculated from the initial sighting distance and angle.

5.2.7       Survey effort being conducted along the parallel transect lines that were perpendicular to the coastlines (as indicated in Figure 1 of Appendix H) was labeled as ¡§primary¡¨ survey effort, while the survey effort conducted along the connecting lines between parallel lines was labeled as ¡§secondary¡¨ survey effort.  According to HKCRP long-term dolphin monitoring data, encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins deduced from effort and sighting data collected along primary and secondary lines were similar in NEL and NWL survey areas.  Therefore, both primary and secondary survey effort were presented as on-effort survey effort in this report.

5.2.8       Encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort and number of dolphins from all on-effort sightings 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.  Only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis.  Dolphin encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone, as well as the combined survey effort from both primary and secondary lines.

Photo-identification Work

5.2.9       When a group of Chinese White Dolphins were sighted during the line-transect survey, the survey team would end effort and approach the group slowly from the side and behind to take photographs of them.  Every attempt was made to photograph every dolphin in the group, and even photograph both sides of the dolphins, since the colouration and markings on both sides may not be symmetrical.

5.2.10    A professional digital cameras (Canon EOS 7D and 60D models), equipped with long telephoto lenses (100-400 mm zoom), were available on board for researchers to take sharp, close-up photographs of dolphins as they surfaced.  The images were shot at the highest available resolution and stored on Compact Flash memory cards for downloading onto a computer.

5.2.11    All digital images taken in the field were first examined, and those containing potentially identifiable individuals were sorted out.  These photographs would then be examined in greater detail, and were carefully compared to the existing Chinese White Dolphin photo-identification catalogue maintained by HKCRP since 1995.

5.2.12    Chinese White Dolphins can be identified by their natural markings, such as nicks, cuts, scars and deformities on their dorsal fin and body, and their unique spotting patterns were also used as secondary identifying features (Jefferson 2000).

5.2.13    All photographs of each individual were then compiled and arranged in chronological order, with data including the date and location first identified (initial sighting), re-sightings, associated dolphins, distinctive features, and age classes entered into a computer database.  Detailed information on all identified individuals will be further presented as an appendix in quarterly EM&A reports.

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.3.1       During the month of  September 2016, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the 13th, 14th, 21st and 23rd to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2 to 5 of Appendix H. 

5.3.2       From these surveys, a total of 297.13 km of survey effort was collected, with 92.7% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility) (Annex I of Appendix H). Among the two areas, 113.60 km and 183.53 km of survey effort were collected from NEL and NWL survey areas respectively.  Moreover, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 212.25 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 84.88 km.

5.3.3       During the two sets of monitoring surveys in September 2016, only four groups of 21 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted, and all four sightings were made on the same survey date (i.e. September 21st; see Annex II of Appendix H). All four dolphin sightings were made in NWL, while none was sighted in NEL.

5.3.4       During the September¡¦s surveys, all four sightings were made on primary lines during on-effort search, while none of these dolphin groups was associated with any operating fishing vessel.

5.3.5       Distribution of these four dolphin sightings made in September 2016 is shown in Figure 6 of Appendix H. Three dolphin groups were sighted around Lung Kwu Chau, while the other sighting was made to the west of Castle Peak Power Station (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.6       None of the dolphin sightings was located in the proximity of the HKLR03/ HKBCF reclamation sites as well as the HKLR/TMCLKL alignments (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.7       During the September¡¦s surveys, encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) are shown in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4.

Table 5.3    Individual Survey Event Encounter Rates

 

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

NEL

Set 1: September 13th / 14th

0.0

0.0

Set 2: September 21st / 23rd

0.0

0.0

NWL

Set 1: September 13th / 14th

0.0

0.0

Set 2: September 21st / 23rd

5.8

30.2

Remarks:

1.     Dolphin Encounter Rates Deduced from the Two Sets of Surveys (Two Surveys in Each Set) in September 2016 in Northeast Lantau (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL).

Table 5.4          Monthly Average Encounter Rates

 

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

Both Primary and Secondary Lines

Primary   Lines Only

Both Primary and Secondary Lines

Northeast Lantau

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Northwest Lantau

3.2

2.5

16.8

12.9

Remarks:

1.     Monthly Average Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) from All Four Surveys Conducted in September 2016 on Primary Lines only as well as Both Primary Lines and Secondary Lines in Northeast Lantau (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL).

 

5.3.8       The average dolphin group size in September 2016 was 5.3 individuals per group, which was higher than the ones in previous months of monitoring surveys.  Two of the four groups were small in size with only 2-3 individuals per group, while one other group was medium in size with five individuals.  On the other hand, one large group of 11 dolphins was also sighted to the east of Lung Kwu Chau.

Photo-identification Work

5.3.9       Fourteen individual dolphins were sighted 14 times during September¡¦s surveys (Annexes III and IV of Appendix H).  All individuals were sighted only once during the monitoring month.

5.3.10    Notably, two of these individual dolphins, NL202 and NL264, were accompanied with their old calves (NL286 and NL288 respectively) during their re-sightings in September 2016.

 

Conclusion

5.3.11    During this month of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

5.3.12    Due to monthly variation in dolphin occurrence within the study area, it would be more appropriate to draw conclusion on whether any impacts on dolphins have been detected related to the construction activities of this project in the quarterly EM&A report, where comparison on distribution, group size and encounter rates of dolphins between the quarterly impact monitoring period (September to November 2016) and baseline monitoring period (3-month period) will be made.

5.4                Reference

5.4.1       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.

5.4.2       Hung, S. K.  2015.  Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong waters: final report (2014-15).  An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 198 pp.

5.4.3       Jefferson, T. A.  2000.  Population biology of the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters.  Wildlife Monographs 144:1-65.


6         Mudflat Monitoring

Methodology

6.1.1       To avoid disturbance to the mudflat and nuisance to navigation, no fixed marker/monitoring rod was installed at the monitoring stations. A high precision Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) real time location fixing system (or equivalent technology) was used to locate the station in the precision of 1mm, which is reasonable under flat mudflat topography with uneven mudflat surface only at micro level.  This method has been used on Agricultural Fisheries and Conservation Department¡¦s (AFCD) project, namely Baseline Ecological Monitoring Programme for the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site for measurement of seabed levels.

6.1.2       Measurements were taken directly on the mudflat surface.  The Real Time Kinematic GNSS (RTK GNSS) surveying technology was used to measure mudflat surface levels and 3D coordinates of a survey point.  The RTK GNSS survey was calibrated against a reference station in the field before and after each survey.  The reference station is a survey control point established by the Lands Department of the HKSAR Government or traditional land surveying methods using professional surveying instruments such as total station, level and/or geodetic GNSS.  The coordinates system was in HK1980 GRID system.  For this contract, the reference control station was surveyed and established by traditional land surveying methods using professional surveying instruments such as total station, level and RTK GNSS.  The accuracy was down to mm level so that the reference control station has relatively higher accuracy.  As the reference control station has higher accuracy, it was set as true evaluation relative to the RTK GNSS measurement.  All position and height correction were adjusted and corrected to the reference control station.  Reference station survey result and professional land surveying calibration is shown as Table 6.1:

Table 6.1       Reference Station Survey result and GNSS RTK calibration result of Round 1

Reference Station

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Baseline reference elevation (mPD) (A)

Round 1 Survey (mPD) (B)

Calibration Adjustment (B-A)

T1

811248.660mE

816393.173mN

3.840

3.817

-0.023

T2

810806.297mE

815691.822mN

4.625

4.653

+0.028

T3

810778.098mE

815689.918mN

4.651

4.660

+0.009

T4

810274.783mE

816689.068mN

2.637

2.709

+0.072

 

6.1.3       The precision of the measured mudflat surface level reading (vertical precision setting) was within 10 mm (standard deviation) after averaging the valid survey records of the XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates.  Each survey record at each station was computed by averaging at least three measurements that are within the above specified precision setting. Both digital data logging and written records were collected in the field.  Field data on station fixing and mudflat surface measurement were recorded.

Monitoring Locations

6.1.4       Four monitoring stations were established based on the site conditions for the sedimentation monitoring and are shown in Figure 6.1. 

Monitoring Results

6.1.5       The baseline sedimentation rate monitoring was in September 2012 and impact sedimentation rate monitoring was undertaken on 1 September 2016. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3.

Table 6.2       Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)

Impact Monitoring (June 2016)

Monitoring Station

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level

(mPD)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level

(mPD)

S1

810291.160

816678.727

0.950

810291.189

816678.707

1.044

S2

810958.272

815831.531

0.864

810958.257

815831.465

0.929

S3

810716.585

815953.308

1.341

810716.522

815953.252

1.372

S4

811221.433

816151.381

0.931

811221.407

816151.382

0.959

 

Table 6.3       Comparison of measurement 

Comparison of measurement

Remarks and Recommendation

Monitoring Station

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Surface Level

(mPD)

S1

0.029

-0.020

0.094

Level continuously increased

S2

-0.015

-0.066

0.065

Level continuously increased

S3

-0.063

-0.056

0.031

Level continuously increased

S4

-0.026

0.001

0.028

Level continuously increased

 

6.1.6       This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.

6.2.1       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. 

6.2.2       Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in September 2016.  The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

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


 

Table 6.4       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)

2-Sep-16

5.89

14.65

17.55

5.48

7.20

7.25

5-Sep-16

6.23

9.30

9.30

5.90

5.90

6.85

7-Sep-16

5.98

7.35

6.05

5.91

4.20

6.10

9-Sep-16

6.29

3.20

4.20

See Remark 1

See Remark 1

See Remark 1

12-Sep-16

5.90

4.75

4.15

6.59

2.85

3.35

14-Sep-16

6.86

5.75

6.80

6.91

7.05

8.65

16-Sep-16

6.89

4.85

5.20

7.13

5.00

6.45

19-Sep-16

5.66

9.30

10.60

5.31

7.65

9.90

21-Sep-16

5.43

6.35

10.70

5.53

6.60

11.95

23-Sep-16

6.15

5.10

4.25

5.73

5.75

6.55

26-Sep-16

5.86

3.20

5.30

6.23

4.30

6.00

28-Sep-16

5.78

10.45

14.10

6.10

7.75

9.95

30-Sep-16

5.99

11.20

13.65

5.75

10.50

13.15

Average

6.07

7.34

8.60

6.05

6.23

8.01

Remark:

1.     As thunderstorm warning was hoisted by Hong Kong Observatory on 9 Sep 2016 (from 09:15 to 14:00), water quality monitoring at all stations for mid-flood tide on 9 Sep 2016 was cancelled for safety reason.

6.3                Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Methodology

Sampling Zone

6.3.1       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 I). The horizontal length of sampling zones TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST were about 250m, 300m, 300m and 250m, respectively. Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in every sampling zone. The present survey was conducted in September 2016 (totally 6 sampling days between 1st and 18th September 2016).

Horseshoe Crabs

6.3.2       Active search method was conducted for horseshoe crab monitoring by two experienced surveyors at 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 and ST), 3rd (for TC1) and 18th (for TC2) September 2016. The weather was generally cloudy with intermittent rains on 1st and 3rd September. It was sunny and hot on 18th September 2016.

Seagrass Beds

6.3.3       Active search method was conducted for seagrass bed monitoring by two experienced surveyors at 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 1st (for TC3 and ST), 3rd (for TC1) and 18th (for TC2) September 2016. The weather was generally cloudy with intermittent rains on 1st and 3rd September. It was sunny and hot on 18th September 2016.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

6.3.4       The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted on 3rd (for TC1), 4th (for ST), 17th (for TC3) and 18th (for TC2) September 2016. 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 0.5m) were placed.

6.3.5       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 ´ 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 were dug for visible infauna in the quadrat regardless of hand core sample was taken.

6.3.6       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.

6.3.7       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).

Data Analysis

6.3.8       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.

6.4.1       In the event of the impact monitoring results indicating that the density or the distribution pattern of intertidal fauna and seagrass is found to be significant different to the baseline condition (taking into account natural fluctuation in the occurrence and distribution pattern such as due to seasonal change), appropriate actions should be taken and additional mitigation measures should be implemented as necessary.  Data should then be re-assessed and the need for any further monitoring should be established.  The action plan, as given in Table 6.5 should be undertaken within a period of 1 month after a significant difference has been determined. 

Table 6.5          Event and Action Plan for Mudflat Monitoring

Event

ET Leader

IEC

SO

Contractor

Density or the distribution pattern of horseshoe crab, seagrass or intertidal soft shore communities recorded in the impact or post-construction monitoring are  significantly lower than or different from those recorded in the baseline monitoring.

 

Review historical data to ensure differences are as a result of natural variation or previously observed seasonal differences;

Identify source(s) of impact;

Inform the IEC, SO and Contractor;

Check monitoring data;

Discuss additional monitoring and any other measures, with the IEC and Contractor.

Discuss monitoring with the ET and the Contractor;

Review proposals for additional monitoring and any other measures submitted by the Contractor and advise the SO accordingly.

 

Discuss with the IEC additional monitoring requirements and any other measures proposed by the ET;

Make agreement on the measures to be implemented.

 

Inform the SO and in writing;

Discuss with the ET and the IEC and propose measures to the IEC and the ER;

Implement the agreed measures.

 

 

Notes:

ET ¡V Environmental Team

IEC ¡V Independent Environmental Checker

SO ¡V Supervising Officer

 

Horseshoe Crabs

6.5.1       In the present survey, two species of horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (total 227 ind.) and Tachypleus tridentatus (total 37 ind.) were recorded. For one sight record, grouping of 2-28 individuals was observed at same locations with similar substratum (fine sand or soft mud). Photo records were shown in Figure 3.1 of Appendix I while the complete records of horseshoe crab were shown in Annex II of Appendix I.

6.5.2       Table 3.1 of Appendix I summarizes the survey results of horseshoe crab in present survey. For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, there were 36, 1, 64 and 126 individuals in TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST respectively. For ST, the search record was the highest (21.0 ind. hr-1 person-1) while the average body size was 33.96 mm (prosomal width ranged 14.58-72.34 mm). TC3 had the second high search record (10.7 ind. hr-1 person-1) with average body size 30.32 mm (prosomal width ranged 14.96-64.01 mm). For TC1, there was less number of individual but the search record (9.0 ind. hr-1 person-1) was comparable to TC3 with less average body size 26.84 mm (prosomal width ranged 10.93-64.75mm). For TC2, there was only one individual (prosomal width: 41.39 mm) hence the search record was very low (0.3 ind. hr-1 person-1).

6.5.3       For Tachypleus tridentatus, there were 17 and 20 individuals in TC3 and ST respectively. For ST, the search record was 3.3 ind. hr-1 person-1 while the average body size was 35.69 mm (prosomal width ranged 27.19-72.55 mm). For TC3, the search record was 2.8 ind. hr-1 person-1 while the average body size was 51.88 mm (prosomal width ranged 34.75-79.18 mm).

6.5.4       In the previous survey of March 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) (Figure 3.2 of Appendix I). It indicated the importance of ST as a breeding ground of horseshoe crab. Moreover, two moults of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were found in TC1 with similar prosomal width 130-140 mm (Figure 3.2 of Appendix I). It reflected that a certain numbers of moderately sized individuals inhabited the sub-tidal habitat of Tung Chung Wan after its nursery period on soft shore. These individuals might move onto soft shore during high tide for foraging, moulting and breeding. Then it would return to sub-tidal habitat during ebb tide. Because the mating pair should be inhabiting sub-tidal habitat in most of the time. The record was excluded from the data analysis to avoid mixing up with juvenile population living on soft shore. In another previous survey of Jun. 2016, the records of the two big individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (prosomal width 117.37 mm and 178.17 mm) in TC1 were excluded from data analysis according to the same principle.

6.5.5       No marked individual of horseshoe crab was recorded in present survey. Some marked individuals were found in previous surveys conducted in September 2013, March 2014 and September 2014. All of them were released through a conservation programme conducted 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 crabs 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 September 2014.

6.5.6       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

6.5.7       Figures 3.3 and 3.4 of Appendix I 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. In general, high to medium search records (i.e. number of individuals) of both species were always found in ST and TC3. 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 present survey, the search record of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in ST was much higher than TC3. For TC1, the search record was at low to medium 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 (2 ind. in Sep. 2013; 1 ind. in Mar., Jun., Sep. 2014, Mar. and Jun. 2015; 4 ind. in Sep. 2015; 6 ind. in Jun. 2016; 1 ind. in Sep. 2016). For the body size, larger individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were usually found in ST and TC1 relative to those in TC3. For Tachypleus tridentatus, larger individuals were usually found in ST followed by TC3 and TC1.

6.5.8       Throughout the monitoring period, it was obvious that 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 substrata.

 

Seasonal variation of horseshoe crab population

6.5.9       Throughout the monitoring period conducted, the search record of horseshoe crab declined obviously during dry season especially December (Figures 3.3 and 3.4 of Appendix I). In December 2013, no individual of horseshoe crab was found. In December 2014, 2 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and 8 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus were found only.  In December 2015, 2 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, 6 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus and one newly hatched, unidentified individual were found only. 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). After the dry season, the search record increased with the warmer climate.

6.5.10    From September 2012 to December 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was a less common species relative to Tachypleus tridentatus. Only 4 individuals were ever recorded in ST in December 2012. This species had ever been believed of very low density in ST hence the encounter rate was very low. Since March 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 March 2014, more individuals were recorded due to larger size and higher activity (i.e. more conspicuous walking trail).

6.5.11    For Tachypleus tridentatus, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded in ST during the wet season of 2013 (from March to September). 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 Sep. 2016 (present survey). 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 Jun. 2016 (present survey). Most of the individuals might have reached a suitable size strong enough to forage in sub-tidal habitat.

6.5.12    Since TC3 and ST were regarded as important nursery ground for horseshoe crab, 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

6.5.13    Figure 3.5 of Appendix I 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 and lower quartile) ranged 40-60 mm while only few individuals were found. From Mar. 2014 to Sep. 2016 (present survey), the size of major population decreased and more small individuals were recorded after Mar. of every year. It indicated new rounds of successful breeding and spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in TC3. It matched with the previous mating record in ST in Mar. 2015. Focused on much larger sized individuals (circle dots above the box in the box plots), the size range was quite variable (prosmal width 60-90 mm) along the sampling month. It was yet to determine their size of migrating to sub-tidal habitat in TC3.   

6.5.14    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 (present survey), slight increasing trend of major size was noticed again. Across the monitoring period, the maximum prosomal width of major population ranged 60-70 mm. It reflected individuals reaching this size would gradually migrate to sub-tidal habitats.

 

 

Box plot of horseshoe crab populations in ST

6.5.15    Figure 3.6 of Appendix I 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. 2016, the size of major population decreased and more small individuals (i.e. circle dots below the box in the box plots) were recorded after Jun. of every year. It indicated new round of successful spawning in ST. It matched with the previous mating record in ST in Mar. 2015. Across the whole monitoring period, the maximum prosomal width (i.e. circle dots above the box in the box plots) usually ranged 70-80 mm. It reflected individuals reaching this size would gradually migrate to sub-tidal habitats.

6.5.16    For Tachypleus tridentatus, 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 55-70 mm. As mentioned, the large individuals 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 individuals 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. From Dec. 2015 to 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 (present survey). Based on increasing number of small individuals recorded in Jun. and Sep. 2016, it indicated new round of successful spawning in ST. Aross the monitoring period, the maximum prosomal width of major population ranged 60-70 mm. It reflected individuals reaching this size would gradually migrate to sub-tidal habitats, similar to the finding in TC3.

6.5.17    As a summary for horseshoe crab populations in TC3 and ST, there was successful spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda from 2014 to 2016 while the spawning time should be in spring. There were consistent, increasing trends of population size in these two sampling zones. For Tachypleus tridentatus, small individuals were rarely found in TC3 and ST 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. In 2016, new round of successful spawning was recorded in ST while increased number of individuals was noticed.

Impact of the HKLR project

 

6.5.18    The present survey was the 16th survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impact of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs. The population change was mainly determined by seasonal variation. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of horseshoe crab individuals in wet season, large number of dead individuals on the shore) is found, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Seagrass Beds

6.5.19    In the present survey, seagrass species Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were recorded in ST only. Photo records were shown in Figure 3.7 of Appendix I while the complete records of seagrass beds survey were shown in Annex III of Appendix I.

6.5.20    Table 3.2 of Appendix I summarizes the results of seagrass beds survey in ST. Eight patches of Halophila ovalis were found while the total seagrass bed area was about 24245.1 m2. The seagrass bed area was highly variable among patches. In the soft mud area at 0.5-1.5 m above C.D., the largest patch was a horizontal strand with seagrass bed area ~21446.9 m2 and variable coverage 30-80%. It had covered significant portion of the mud flat area in ST. At vicinity, there were another large patch (total area ~2007 m2, coverage 10-80%) and two smaller, irregular patches (total area 14.8-341.0 m2, coverage 80%). These seagrass patches had been recorded in previous survey in Jun. 2016 but it had extended to larger area. It reflected a new round of colonization since Mar.2016.

6.5.21    At higher tidal level (2.0 m above C.D.), there were few seagrass patches in the sandy area nearby the seaward mangrove boundary. There was a medium, horizontal strand (total area ~401.3 m2, coverage ~70%) and two small patches (total area ~3.0-8.3 m2, coverage 80-85%). In addition, there was a medium, horizontal strand (total area ~22.8 m2) coexisting with another seagrass species Zostera japonica of highly variable coverage (30-100%).

6.5.22    For Zostera japonica, two patches were found while the total seagrass bed area was about 38.0 m2. There was one horizontal strand coexisting with Halophila ovalis (total area ~22.8 m2, coverage 30-50%) as mentioned. And there was a small, horizontal strand (total area ~15.2 m2, coverage 10-30%) at vicinity.

6.5.23    Since majority of seagrass bed was confined in ST, the temporal change of both seagrass species were investigated in details.

Temporal variation of seagrass beds

6.5.24    Figure 3.8 of Appendix I 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) which was possibly due to the strong competition with Halophila ovalis.   

6.5.25    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 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 September: Kalmaegi, maximum signal number 8SE) before the seagrass survey dated 21st September 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.

6.5.26    In December 2014, all the seagrass patches of Halophila ovalis disappeared in ST. Figure 3.9 of Appendix I shows the difference of the original seagrass beds area nearby the mangrove vegetation at high tidal level between June 2014 and December 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

6.5.27    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 September 2014. The strong water current caused by the cyclones might have given damage to the seagrass beds.

6.5.28    Prolonged light deprivation due to turbid water would be another unfavourable 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).

6.5.29    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 September, 2014, the SS concentrations measured at 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 September 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.

6.5.30    Based on the weather condition and water quality results in ST, the co-occurrence of cyclone hit and turbid waters in September 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

6.5.31    Figure 3.9 of Appendix I shows the recolonization of seagrass bed area in ST from December 2014 to September 2016 (present survey). From March to June 2015, 2-3 small patches of Halophila ovalis were newly found coinhabiting 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 December 2014 and March 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 June 2015 to March 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 March to June 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 September 2016 (present survey), 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-strategy seagrass. However it was not appropriate to predict a rapid decline of seagrass area in the coming sampling months based on the previous results in December 2014.

Impact of the HKLR project

6.5.32    The present survey was the 16th survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. According to the results of present survey, there was clear recolonization of both seagrass species Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica in ST. Hence the negative impact of HKLR project on the seagrass was not significant. In case, adverse phenomenon (e.g. reduction of seagrass patch size, abnormal change of leave colour) is observed again, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

6.5.33    Table 3.3 and Figure 3.10 of Appendix I show the types of substratum along the horizontal transect at every tidal level in every sampling zone. The relative distribution of different substrata 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, the major substratum type was ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (60%) followed by 'Sands' (40%) at high tidal level. High percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦(90%) was recorded at the mid and low tidal levels.

¡P                In TC2, the major substrata types were ¡¥Sands¡¦ (50-60%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (30-50%) at the high and mid tidal levels. 'Soft mud' was the major substratum type (90%) at the low tidal level.

¡P                In TC3, ¡¥Sands¡¦ was the substratum type at the high and mid tidal levels (100%). At low tidal level, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (70%) was mainly recorded followed by ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (20%).

¡P                In ST, high percentage of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (90-100%) was recorded at high and mid tidal levels. The major substrata types were ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (50%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (30%) at the low tidal level.

6.5.34    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.

6.5.35    Table 3.4 of Appendix I lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in this survey. A total of 17563 individuals were recorded. Mollusca was significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 16848, density 562 ind. m-2, relative abundance 95.9%). The second and third abundant phya were Arthropoda (523 ind., 17 ind. m-2, 3.0%) and Annelida (94 ind., 3 ind. m-2, 0.5%) respectively. Relatively other phyla were very low in abundances (density £1 ind. m-2, relative abundance £0.2%). Moreover, the most diverse phylum was Mollusca (37 taxa) followed by Arthropoda (15 taxa) and Annelida (11 taxa). There were 1-2 taxa recorded only for other phyla. The taxonomic resolution and complete list of collected specimens are shown in Annex IV and V of Appendix I respectively.

6.5.36    Table 3.5 of Appendix I shows the number of individual, relative abundance and density of each phylum in every sampling zone. The total abundance (3376-6509 ind.) varied among the four sampling zones while the phyla distributions were similar. In general, Mollusca was the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 3229-6283 ind.; relative abundance 93.4-97.3%; density 431-838 ind. m-2). Other phyla were significantly lower in number of individuals. Arthropoda was the second abundant phylum (84-174 ind.; 2.0-4.4%; 11-23 ind. m-2). Annelida was the third abundant phylum in TC2 and TC3 (38-52 ind.; 0.6-1.5%; 5-7 ind. m-2). Cnidaria (sea anemone) was the third abundant phylum (25 ind.; 0.7%; 3 ind. m-2) in ST. Relatively other phyla were low in abundance in all sampling zones (≤ 0.5%).

Dominant species in every sampling zone

6.5.37    Table 3.6 of Appendix I lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) in every sampling zone. In TC1, the abundant species were different between tidal levels. Gastropod Batillaria multiformis was the most abundant species of very high density (306 ind. m-2, relative abundance 50%) at the high tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦) followed by gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (123 ind. m-2, 20%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (91 ind. m-2, 15%). At the mid tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), gastropods Batillaria multiformis (144 ind. m-2, 26%), Monodonta labio (122 ind. m-2, 22%), Cerithidea cingulata (80 ind. m-2, 15%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (86 ind. m-2, 16%, attached on boulders) were abundant species of low-moderate densities. At the low tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), gastropod Monodonta labio (159 ind. m-2, 32%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (114 ind. m-2, 23%) were the abundant species of moderate densities.

6.5.38    At TC2, the abundant species were different between tidal levels. Gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (336 ind. m-2, 44%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (272 ind. m-2, 35%) were abundant at high density at the high tidal level (major substrata: 'Sands' and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦). At the mid tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Sands¡¦), gastropods Batillaria zonalis (124 ind. m-2, 29%) and Cerithidea cingulata (107 ind. m-2, 25%) were abundant at moderate density. The third abundant gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (58 ind. m-2, 14%) was at low-moderate density. At the low tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), no single species was clearly abundant. Gastropods Batillaria zonalis (74 ind. m-2, 36%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (23 ind. m-2, 11%), Cerithidea cingulata (22 ind. m-2, 11%), barnacle Balanus amphitrite (27 ind. m-2, 13%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (24 ind. m-2, 12%) were the common species at low densities.

6.5.39    At TC3, gastropod Batillaria multiformis (452 ind. m-2, 46%) was the most abundant clearly at the high tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Sands¡¦). Other abundant gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (279 ind. m-2, 29%) and Cerithidea cingulata (198 ind. m-2, 20%) were at moderate densities. At the mid tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Sands¡¦), gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (327 ind. m-2, 35%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (234 ind. m-2, 25%) and Batillaria multiformis (228 ind. m-2, 24%) were the abundant species at moderate-high densities. At the low tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), the abundant species were at moderate densities including rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (291 ind. m-2, 43%, attached on boulders) and gastropod Monodonta labio (163 ind. m-2, 24%).

6.5.40    At ST, no single species was clearly abundant at high tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦). The common species included gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (78 ind. m-2, 22%), Monodonta labio (40 ind. m-2, 11%), Lunella coronata (40 ind. m-2, 11%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (49 ind. m-2, 14%, attached on boulders) were at low densities. At the mid tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (136 ind. m-2, 24%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (111 ind. m-2, 20%) were abundant at moderate densities followed by gastropod Lunella coronata (60 ind. m-2, 11%). At the low tidal level (major substrata: ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), gastropod Monodonta labio (150 ind. m-2, 35%) was the most abundant at moderate density followed by gastropod Batillaria multiformis (86 ind. m-2, 20%).

6.5.41    In general, there was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution across all sampling zones and tidal levels. The species distribution should be determined by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria multiformis (total number of individuals: 3414 ind., relative abundance 19.4%), Cerithidea cingulata (3350 ind., 19.1%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (2681 ind., 15.3%) and Batillaria zonalis (905 ind., 5.2%) were the most commonly occurring species on sandy and soft mud substrata. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2129 ind., 12.1%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (2005 ind., 11.4%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

Biodiversity and abundance of soft shore communities

6.5.42    Table 3.7 of Appendix I 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. The differences among sampling zones and tidal levels were determined by the type of substratum primarily mentioned above.

6.5.43    Among the sampling zones, the mean species number of ST (12 spp. 0.25 m-2) were slightly higher than that of TC1, TC2 and TC3 (9-10 spp. 0.25 m-2). The mean density of TC3 (868 ind. m-2) was clearly higher than that of TC1 (556 ind. m-2), TC2 and ST (450-468 ind. m-2). Since the species distribution of ST was more even relatively, the mean H¡¦ (1.9) and J (0.8) were higher than that of TC1, TC2 and TC3 (H': 1.3-1.5, J: 0.6-0.7).

6.5.44    Across the tidal levels, there was no consistent difference of the mean species number, density and J in all sampling zones. For the mean H¡¦, there was a slightly increasing trend from high to low tidal level in TC1, TC2 and TC3.

6.5.45    Figures 3.11 to 3.14 of Appendix I 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. Overall no consistent trend of any biological parameters was observed throughout the monitoring period. All the parameters fluctuated naturally with the seasons.

Impact of the HKLR project

6.5.46    The present survey was the 16th 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. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. rapid or consistent decline of fauna densities and species number) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible. 

6.6.1       Chan, K.K., Caley, K.J., 2003. Sandy Shores, Hong Kong Field Guides 4. The Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, The University of Hong Kong. pp 117.

6.6.2       Dai, A.Y., Yang, S.L., 1991. Crabs of the China Seas. China Ocean Press. Beijing.

6.6.3       Dong, Y.M., 1991. Fauna of ZheJiang Crustacea. Zhejiang Science and Technology Publishing House. ZheJiang.

6.6.4       EPD, 1997. Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (1st edition). Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR Government.

6.6.5       Fauchald, K., 1977. The polychaete worms. Definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 28. Los Angeles, U.S.A.

6.6.6       Fong, C.W., 1998. Distribution of Hong Kong seagrasses. In: Porcupine! No. 18. The School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden Fauna Conservation Department, p10-12.

6.6.7       Li, H.Y., 2008. The Conservation of Horseshoe Crabs in Hong Kong. MPhil Thesis, City University of Hong Kong, pp 277.

6.6.8       Longstaff, B.J., Dennison, W.C., 1999. Seagrass survival during pulsed turbidity events: the effects of light deprivation on the seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis. Aquatic Botany 65 (1-4), 105-121.

6.6.9       Longstaff, B.J., Loneragan, N.R., O¡¦Donohue, M.J., Dennison, W.C., 1999. Effects of light deprivation on the survival and recovery of the seagrass Halophila ovalis (R. Br.) Hook. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 234 (1), 1-27.

6.6.10    Nakaoka, M., Aioi, K., 1999. Growth of seagrass Halophila ovalis at dugong trails compared to existing within-patch variation in a Thailand intertidal flat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 184, 97-103.

6.6.11    Pielou, E.C., 1966. Shannon¡¦s formula as a measure of species diversity: its use and misuse. American Naturalist 100, 463-465.

6.6.12    Qi, Z.Y., 2004. Seashells of China. China Ocean Press. Beijing, China.

6.6.13    Qin, H., Chiu, H., Morton, B., 1998. Nursery beaches for Horseshoe Crabs in Hong Kong. In: Porcupine! No. 18. The School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden Fauna Conservation Department, p 9-10.

6.6.14    Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, USA.

6.6.15    Shin, P.K.S., Li, H.Y., Cheung, S.G., 2009. Horseshoe Crabs in Hong Kong: Current Population Status and Human Exploitation. Biology and Conservation of Horseshoe Crabs (part 2), 347-360.

6.6.16    Supanwanid, C., 1996. Recovery of the seagrass Halophila ovalis after grazing by dugong. In: Kuo, J., Philips, R.C., Walker, D.I., Kirkman, H. (eds), Seagrass biology: Proc Int workshop, Rottenest Island, Western Australia. Faculty of Science, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 315-318.

6.6.17    Vermaat, J.E., Agawin, N.S.R., Duarte, C.M., Fortes, M.D., Marba. N., Uri, J.S., 1995. Meadow maintenance, growth and productivity of a mixed Philippine seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 124, 215-225.

6.6.18    Yang, D.J, Sun, R.P., 1988. Polychaetous annelids commonly seen from the Chinese waters

(Chinese version). China Agriculture Press, China.


7        Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

7.1.1       Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. During the reporting month, five site inspections were carried out on 7, 14, 21 and 30 September 2016. 

7.1.2       A summary of observations found during the site inspections and the follow up actions taken by the Contractor are described in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1          Summary of Environmental Site Inspections

Date of Audit

Observations

Actions Taken by Contractor / Recommendation

Date of Observations Closed

30 Aug 2016

1.     It was observed that wastewater treatment plant was overloaded at PR9.

2.     No drip tray was provided for chemical containers at Shaft 3.  

3.     Concrete waste was observed at Shaft 3.  

4.     No drip tray was provided for chemical containers at N1.

5.     Over 20 bags of cement were not entirely covered with impervious sheets at N1. .

6.     Stagnant water was observed at N1 adjacent to HY/2011/09 site. 

7.     Stagnant water was observed inside the building at N1. 

8.     Rubbish was accumulated at N1. 

 

1.     The wastewater treatment facility was functioned properly at PR9.

2.     The chemical containers were removed at Shaft 3.

3.     The concrete waste was removed by contractor at Shaft 3.

4.     The chemical container was removed at N1.

5.     The bags of cement were covered properly at N1. 

6.     The stagnant water was removed by a pump at N1.

7.     The stagnant water was removed by contractor at N1.

8.     The rubbish was removed at N1.

 

7 Sep 2016

7 Sep 2016

1.     Gaps were observed between silt curtains at Portion X.

2.     Abandon blue hoses were observed at PR9.

3.     A gap was found between the water barrier and construction materials at S7.

4.     A gap was found below the earth bund at S7.

5.     Oil leakages were observed at Shaft 2.

6.     No water spraying was provided for concrete breaking activities at Shaft 2.

7.     Stagnant water was found inside a H-beam at Shaft 2.

8.     No drip tray was provided for oil drums at Shaft 2.

9.     Stagnant water was observed at Shaft 2.

10.  Stagnant water was observed at West Portal.

11.  Rubbish and plastic containers were scattered inside the West Portal.

12.  Rubbish was scattered inside the West Portal.

13.  Empty chemical drums were found inside the West Portal.

14.  More than 20 bags of cement were not covered inside the West Portal.

15.  No drip tray was provided for oil drums inside the West Portal.

1.      The silt curtains were maintained by contractor at Portion X.

2.      Abandon blue hoses were removed by the Contractor at PR9.

3.      Sand bags were placed to seal the gap between the water barrier and construction materials at S7.

4.      The gap under earth bund was sealed by the Contractor at S7.

5.      The oil leakages was cleaned up by the Contractor at Shaft 2. 

6.      Water spraying was provided for the concrete breaking activities at Shaft 2.

7.      The stagnant water was removed from the H-beam at Shaft 2.

8.      The oil drums were removed from Shaft 2.

9.      The stagnant water was removed from Shaft 2.

10.   The stagnant water was removed from West Portal.

11.   The rubbish and plastic containers were removed from West Portal.

12.   The rubbish was removed from West Portal.

13.   The empty chemical drums were removed from West Portal.

14.   Properly cover was provided for cement bags at West Portal.

15.   The oil drums were removed from West Portal.

 

14 Sep 2016

14 Sep 2016

1.      Gaps were observed between silt curtains at Portion X.

2.     General waste was not stored in a container at S11.

3.     More than 20 bags of cement were not covered at HMA.

4.     Stagnant water was found at HMA.

5.     Stagnant water was found at HMA.

6.     Gaps of earth bund were found at S11.

7.     No drip tray was provided for oil drums and oil leakage was found at S15.

8.     No labels were not attached on the chemical containers at S15.

1.     The silt curtains were maintained by the Contractor at Portion X.

2.     The general waste was removed by the Contractor at S11.

3.     The cement bags were removed from HMA.

4.     The stagnant water was removed from HMA.

5.     The stagnant water was removed from HMA. 

6.     Earth bund was provided by contractor at S11.

7.     The stagnant water and chemical containers had been removed at 15.

8.     Label was provided by contactor on the chemical storage area at S15.

21 Sep 2016

21 Sep 2016

1.     Gaps were observed between silt curtains at Portion X.

2.     No water spraying was provided for the concrete breaking activities at S11.

3.     Temporary hoarding were not completed along the East Coast Road.

4.     Stagnant water was observed at HMA.

5.     Blue hoses for discharging treated wastewater were not placed on ground and not at the discharge point at PR9.

6.     No earth bund was provided next to seafront at S7.

7.     No drip tray was provided for a chemical container at S7.

8.     No drip tray was provided for oil drums at S15.

9.     No drip tray was provided for chemical containers at Ventilation Building.

 

1.      The silt curtains were maintained by the Contractor at Portion X.

2.      Water spraying was provided for the concrete breaking activities at s11.

3.      Temporary hoarding was installed completely along the East Coast Road.

4.      The stagnant water has been removed.

5.      The location of blue hoses were arranged and treated water was discharged at the discharge point at PR9.

6.      Earth bund was provided next to seafront at S7.

7.      The chemical container was removed at S7.

8.      Drip tray was provided for the oil drums at S15.

9.      The chemical containers were removed at Ventilation Building.

 

30 Sep 2016

30 Sep 2016

1.      Silt curtain with gap was observed at Portion X.

2.     Stagnant water was observed at Shaft 3. 

3.     No drip tray was provided for a chemical container at Shaft 3.

4.     Stagnant water was observed at S8. 

5.     Waste accumulation was observed at Shaft 3. 

6.     The drain hole of drip tray was opened at Shaft 3.

 

The Contractor was recommended to:

1.      Maintain the silt curtains at Portion X.

2.      Remove stagnant water at Shaft 3.

3.      Provide drip tray for the chemical container or place the chemical container tot proper storage area at Shaft 3.

4.      Remove the stagnant water at S8.

5.      Remove the waste at Shaft 3.

6.      Seal the drain hole to avoid land contamination at Shaft 3. 

 

Follow-up actions for the observations issued for the last weekly site inspection of the reporting month will be inspected during the next site inspections.

 

7.1.3       The Contractor has rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspections within the reporting month. Follow-up actions for outstanding observations will be inspected during the next site inspections. 

7.2               Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

7.2.1       The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for the Project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

7.2.2       Monthly summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix J.  

7.2.3       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.

7.3.1       The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting month are summarized in Appendix L.


 

7.4               Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

7.4.1       In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors have rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspections during the reporting month. Follow-up actions for outstanding observations will be inspected during the next site inspections.

7.4.2       A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix M. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

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

7.4.4       Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting month. No dolphins inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant records were kept properly. 

7.5.1       No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting month

7.5.2       For construction noise, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at the monitoring station during the reporting month.

7.5.3       For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level, dissolved oxygen level and no Limit level exceedances suspended solid level were recorded during the reporting month. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station IS10 during the reporting month. The exceedance was considered as non-contract related.

7.6               Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

7.6.1       There were no complaints received during the reporting month. The details of cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix K.

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

7.6.3       Statistics on notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.


 

8        Future Key Issues

8.1.1       As informed by the Contractor, the major construction activities for October 2016 are summarized in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1          Construction Activities for October 2016

Site Area

Description of Activities

Portion X

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

Pipe Piling

Portion X

Excavation and Lateral Support Works at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Backfilling at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Construction of Tunnel Box Structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion X

Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel

Portion X

Excavation for Diversion of culvert PR9 and PR14

Airport Road

Works for Diversion of Airport Road

Airport Road / Airport Express Line/East Coast Road

Utilities Detection

Airport Road / Airport Express Line/East Coast Road

Establishment of Site Access

Airport Road/Airport Express Line

Mined Tunnel Excavation/ Box Jacking underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line

Kwo Lo Wan Road

Excavation and Lateral Support Works at shaft 3 extension north shaft (Package T1.12.1)

Portion X

Excavation and Lateral Support Works & Construction of Tunnel Box Structure  or HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Airport Road

Excavation and Lateral Support Works & Construction of Tunnel Box Structure for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)

Portion Y

Utility Culvert Excavation

Portion Y

Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building

West Portal

Excavation for Scenic Hill Tunnel

West Portal

Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building


 

8.2.1       The tentative schedule for environmental monitoring in October 2016 is provided in Appendix D.

 

9.1.1       The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012. This is the forty-eighth Monthly 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 to 30 September 2016.

Air Quality

9.1.2       No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting month.

Noise

9.1.3       For construction noise, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at the monitoring station during the reporting month.

Water Quality

9.1.4       For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level, dissolved oxygen level and no Limit level exceedances suspended solid level were recorded during the reporting month. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station IS10 during the reporting month. The exceedance was considered as non-contract related.

Dolphin

9.1.5       During the September¡¦s surveys of the Chinese White Dolphin, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

9.1.6       Due to monthly variation in dolphin occurrence within the study area, it would be more appropriate to draw conclusion on whether any impacts on dolphins have been detected related to the construction activities of this project in the quarterly EM&A report, where comparison on distribution, group size and encounter rates of dolphins between the quarterly impact monitoring period (September ¡V November 2016) and baseline monitoring period (3-month period) will be made.

Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

9.1.7       Environmental site inspection was carried out on 7, 14, 21 and 30 September 2016. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

9.1.8       There were no complaints received in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period.

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