Contract No. HY/2011/03
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Link Road
Section between Scenic
Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
Quarterly EM&A
Report No. 49 (September to November 2024)
03 February 2025
Revision 0
Executive Summary
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge
at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north eastern
waters of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).
The HKLR project has been
separated into two contracts. They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract)
and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link
Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.
China State Construction
Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department as the
Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The
main works of the Contract include land tunnel at Scenic Hill, tunnel underneath
Airport Road and Airport Express Line, reclamation and tunnel to the east coast
of the Airport Island, at-grade road connecting to the HKBCF and highway works
of the HKBCF within the Airport Island and in the vicinity of the HKLR
reclamation. The Contract is part of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project,
these projects are considered to be ¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and EIA Reports
(Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the
Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/D for HKLR and
EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF were issued on 22 December 2014 and 11 April 2016,
respectively. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register.
The construction phase of Contract was
commenced on 17 October 2012.
BMT Hong Kong Limited was
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 provided environmental team services
to the Contract until 31 July 2020.
Meinhardt Infrastructure and
Environment 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 provide
environmental team services to the Contract with effective from 1 August 2020.
Ramboll Hong Kong Limited was
employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and
Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project until 30 September 2022.
ANewR Consulting Limited has been
employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental
Project Office (ENPO) for the Project with effective from 1 October 2022.
This is the forty-ninth Quarterly
EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and
audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1
September 2024 to 30 November 2024.
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Progress
The EM&A programme were
undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0).
A summary of the monitoring activities during this reporting period is
presented as below:
Monitoring Activity
|
Monitoring Date
|
September 2024
|
October 2024
|
November 2024
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP at AMS5
|
4, 10, 16, 20 and 26
|
2, 8, 14, 17, 23 and 29
|
4, 8, 14, 20 and 26
|
1-hr TSP at AMS6
|
4, 10, 16, 20 and 26
|
2, 8, 14, 17, 23 and 29
|
4, 8, 14, 20 and 26
|
24-hr TSP at
AMS5
|
3, 9, 13, 19 and 25
|
2, 7, 10, 16, 23 and 28
|
1, 7, 13, 19, 25 and 29
|
24-hr TSP at
AMS6
|
3, 9, 13, 19 and 27
|
2, 7, 14, 16 and 22
|
13, 19, 25 and 29
|
Noise
|
4, 10, 16 and 25
|
2, 8, 14, 23 and 29
|
4, 14, 20 and 26
|
Water Quality
|
2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30
|
2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28 and 30
|
1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29
|
Chinese White Dolphin
|
4, 10, 12 and 16
|
3, 8, 10 and 14
|
4, 8, 15 and 18
|
Mudflat
Monitoring (Ecology)
|
1, 2 and 3
|
-
|
-
|
Mudflat Monitoring
(Sedimentation rate)
|
16
|
-
|
-
|
Site Inspection
|
5, 11, 19 and 27
|
2, 9, 16, 25 and 30
|
6, 13, 20 and 29
|
Remarks:
1) The
existing air quality monitoring location AMS6 ¡V Dragonair / CNAC
(Group)Building (HKIA) was handed over to Airport Authority Hong Kong on 31
March 2021. 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS6 was temporarily suspended
starting from 1 April 2021 and resumed on 7 August 2024.
2) 24-hr TSP
monitoring results on 3 September, 9 September and 13 September at AMS6 were
voided due to unstable electricity supply on site. The 24-hr TSP monitoring on
25 September 2024 was interrupted due to unstable electricity supply on site.
Remeasurement was reconducted on 27 September 2024.
3) Due to
unstable electricity supply, 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS5 and AMS6 on 1 October
2024 have been rescheduled to 2 October 2024.
4) Due to
unstable electricity supply, 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS6 on 10 October 2024
has been rescheduled to 14 October 2024.
5) Due to
equipment malfunction, 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS5 on 22 October 2024 has been
rescheduled to 23 October 2024.
6) Due to
equipment malfunction, 24-hr TSP monitoring results at AMS6 on 28 October 2024
has been voided.
7)
Due
to equipment malfunction, 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS6 on 1 and 7 November 2024
has been cancelled. 24-hr TSP at AMS6 has been resumed on 13 November 2024.
8) Due to
Strong Wind Signal No.3, the water quality monitoring for mid-flood tide on 13
November 2024 will be cancelled and no substitute monitoring will be conducted.
The access to the WQM station SR4(N2) (Coordinate: E814688, N817996)
is being blocked by the silt curtains of the Tung Chung New Town Extension
(TCNTE) project. Water quality monitoring has been temporarily
conducted at alternative stations, namely SR4(N3) (Coordinate: E814779,
N818032) until 1 March 2023. Proposal for permanently relocating the
SR4(N2) was approved by EPD on 3 March 2023. The water quality monitoring has
been conducted at stations SR4(N3) since 3 March 2023.
Breaches of Action and Limit
Levels
A summary of environmental
exceedances for this reporting period is as follows:
Environmental Monitoring
|
Parameters
|
Action Level (AL)
|
Limit Level (LL)
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
0
|
0
|
24-hr TSP
|
0
|
0
|
Noise
|
Leq (30 min)
|
0
|
0
|
Water Quality
|
Suspended solids level (SS)
|
0
|
0
|
Turbidity level
|
0
|
0
|
Dissolved oxygen level (DO)
|
0
|
0
|
Dolphin Monitoring
|
Quarterly Analysis (September 2024 to
November 2024)
|
0
|
1
|
The Environmental Team
investigated all exceedance and found that they were not project related.
All investigation report for
exceedance of the Contract has been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or
follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB
contracts.
Implementation of
Mitigation Measures
Site inspections were carried
out to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and
mitigation measures for the Project. Potential environmental impacts due to the
construction activities were monitored and reviewed.
Complaint Log
There
was no complaints received in relation to the environmental impacts during this
reporting period.
Notifications of
Summons and Prosecutions
There
were no notifications of summons or prosecutions received during this reporting
period.
Reporting Changes
This
report has been developed in compliance with the reporting requirements for the
subsequent EM&A reports as required by the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR
(Version 1.0).
The proposal for the change of
Action Level and Limit Level for suspended solid and turbidity was approved by
EPD on 25 March 2013.
The revised Event and Action
Plan for dolphin monitoring was approved by EPD on 6 May 2013.
The original monitoring station
at IS(Mf)9 (Coordinate: 813273E, 818850N) was observed inside the perimeter
silt curtain of Contract HY/2010/02 on 1 July 2013, as such the original impact
water quality monitoring location at IS(Mf)9 was temporarily shifted outside
the silt curtain. As advised by the Contractor of HY/2010/02 in August
2013, the perimeter silt curtain was shifted to facilitate safe anchorage zone
of construction barges/vessels until end of 2013 subject to construction
progress. Therefore, water quality monitoring station IS(Mf)9 was shifted
to 813226E and 818708N since 1 July 2013. According to the water quality
monitoring team¡¦s observation on 24 March 2014, the original monitoring
location of IS(Mf)9 was no longer enclosed by the perimeter silt curtain of
Contract HY/2010/02. Thus, the impact water quality monitoring works at the
original monitoring location of IS(Mf)9 has been resumed since 24 March 2014.
Transect lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9
and 11 for dolphin monitoring have been revised due to the obstruction of the
permanent structures associated with the construction works of HKLR and the
southern viaduct of TM-CLKL, as well as provision of adequate buffer distance
from the Airport Restricted Areas. The EPD issued a memo and confirmed
that they had no objection on the revised transect lines on 19 August 2015.
The water quality monitoring
stations at IS10 (Coordinate: 812577E, 820670N) and SR5 (811489E, 820455N) are
located inside Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) Approach Restricted
Areas. The previously granted Vessel's Entry Permit for accessing stations IS10
and SR5 were expired on 31 December 2016. During the permit renewing process,
the water quality monitoring location was shifted to IS10(N) (Coordinate:
813060E, 820540N) and SR5(N) (Coordinate: 811430E, 820978N) on 2, 4 and 6
January 2017 temporarily. The permit has been granted by Marine Department on 6
January 2017. Thus, the impact water quality monitoring works at original
monitoring location of IS10 and SR5 has been resumed since 9 January 2017.
Transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 for dolphin monitoring have been revised and transect line 24 has been
added due to the presence of a work zone to the north of the airport platform
with intense construction activities in association with the construction of
the third runway expansion for the Hong Kong International Airport. The EPD
issued a memo and confirmed that they had no objection on the revised transect
lines on 28 July 2017. The alternative dolphin transect lines are adopted
starting from August¡¦s dolphin monitoring.
A new water quality monitoring
team has been employed for carrying out water quality monitoring work for the
Contract starting from 23 August 2017. Due to marine work of the Expansion of
Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project),
original locations of water quality monitoring stations CS2, SR5 and IS10 are
enclosed by works boundary of 3RS Project. Alternative impact water quality
monitoring stations, naming as CS2(A), SR5(N) and IS10(N) was approved on 28
July 2017 and were adopted starting from 23 August 2017 to replace the original
locations of water quality monitoring for the Contract.
The role and responsibilities
as the ET Leader of the Contract was temporarily taken up by Mr Willie Wong
instead of Ms Claudine Lee from 25 September 2017 to 31 December 2017.
The topographical condition of
the water monitoring stations SR3 (Coordinate: 810525E, 816456N), SR4
(Coordinate: 814760E, 817867N), SR10A (Coordinate: 823741E, 823495N) and SR10B
(Coordinate: 823686E, 823213N) cannot be accessed safely for undertaking water
quality monitoring. The water quality monitoring has been temporarily conducted
at alternative stations, namely SR3(N) (Coordinate
810689E, 816591N), SR4(N) (Coordinate: 814705E, 817859N) and SR10A(N)
(Coordinate: 823644E, 823484N) since 1 September 2017. The water quality
monitoring at station SR10B was temporarily conducted at Coordinate: 823683E,
823187N on 1, 4, 6, 8 September 2017 and has been temporarily fine-tuned to
alternative station SR10B(N2) (Coordinate: 823689E, 823159N) since 11 September
2017. Proposal for permanently relocating the aforementioned stations was
approved by EPD on 8 January 2018.
The works area WA5 was handed
over to other party on 22 June 2013.
According to latest information
received in July 2018, the works area WA7 was handed over to other party on 28
February 2018 instead of 31 January 2018.
Original WQM stations IS8 and
SR4(N) are located within the active work area of TCNTE project and the access
to the WQM stations IS8 (Coordinate: E814251, N818412) and SR4(N) (Coordinate:
E814705, N817859) are blocked by the silt curtains of the Tung Chung New Town
Extension (TCNTE) project. Alternative monitoring stations IS8(N) (Coordinate:
E814413, N818570) and SR4(N2) (Coordinate: E814688, N817996) are proposed to
replace the original monitoring stations IS8 and SR4(N). Proposal for
permanently relocating the aforementioned stations was approved by EPD on 20
August 2019. The water quality monitoring
has been conducted at stations IS8(N) and SR4(N2) on 21 August 2019.
There were no marine works
conducted by Contract No. HY/2011/03 since July 2019. A proposal for temporary
suspension of marine related environmental monitoring (water quality monitoring
and dolphin monitoring for the Contract No. HY/2011/03) was justified by the ET
leader and verified by IEC in mid of September 2019 and it was approved by EPD
on 24 September 2019. Water quality monitoring and dolphin monitoring for the
Contract will not be conducted starting from 1 October 2019 until marine works
(i.e. toe loading removal works) be resumed. As discussed with Contract No.
HY/2012/08, they will take up the responsibility from Contract No. HY/2011/03
for the dolphin monitoring works starting from 1 October 2019.
According to information
received in January 2020, the works area WA3 and WA4 were handed over to Highways
Department on 23 December 2019 and 14 March 2019 respectively.
The role
and responsibilities as the IEC of the Contract has been taken up by Mr. Manson
Yeung instead of Mr. Ray Yan since 18 May 2020.
Mr. Leslie Leung was
Environmental Team Leader of the Contract for July 2020. The role and
responsibilities as the Environmental Team Leader of the Contract has been
taken up by Ms. Claudine Lee with effective from 1 August 2020.
The existing air quality
monitoring location AMS6 ¡V Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA) was handed
over to Airport Authority Hong Kong on 31 March 2021. 1-hr and 24-hr air
quality monitoring at AMS6 was temporarily suspended starting from 1 April 2021
and resumed on 7 August 2024.
Average flow rate is used for calculation of 24-hr air quality results of AMS6
in August 2024 due to unstable electricity supply on site.
The role and responsibilities
as the IEC of the Contract has been taken up by Mr Brian Tam instead of Mr
Manson Yeung since 12 April 2021.
The role and responsibilities
as the IEC of the Contract has been taken up by Mr Adi Lee instead of Mr Brian
Tam since 3 May 2022.
The role and responsibilities
as the IEC of the Contract has been taken up by Mr Brian Tam instead of Mr Adi
Lee since 25 July 2022.
The role and responsibilities
as the ENPO Leader of the Contract has been taken up by Mr Louis Kwan from
ANewR Consulting Limited instead of Mr H.Y. Hui from Ramboll Hong Kong Limited
Since 1 October 2022.
The role and responsibilities
as the IEC of the Contract has been taken up by Mr James Choi from ANewR
Consulting Limited instead of Mr Brian Tam from Ramboll Hong Kong Limited since
1 October 2022.
1.1.2
The HKLR project has been separated into two
contracts. They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract)
and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link
Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.
1.1.3
China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong)
Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the Contractor to undertake
the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The Contract is part of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project, these
projects are considered to be ¡§Designated Projects¡¨, under Schedule 2 of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and EIA Reports
(Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the
Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/D for HKLR and
EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF were issued on 22 December 2014 and 11 April 2016,
respectively. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register.
The construction phase of
Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012. The works
area WA5 and WA7 were handed over to other party on 22 June 2013 and 28
February 2018 respectively. The works area WA3 and WA4 were handed over to Highways
Department on 23 December 2019 and 14 March 2019 respectively. Figure 1.1 shows the project site boundary. The works
areas are shown in Appendix C.
1.1.5
Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environment 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 provide environmental team
services to the Contract with effective from 1 August 2020. Ramboll Hong Kong Limited was employed by HyD as the Independent
Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the
Project until 30 September 2022. ANewR Consulting Limited has been appointed by
HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project
Office (ENPO) for the Project since 1 October 2022. The
project organization with regard to the environmental works is provided in Appendix A.
1.1.6
This is the forty-ninth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit
(EM&A) report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and
audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 September
2024 to 30 November 2024.
1.2.1
The project organization structure and lines of
communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure
with the key personnel contact names and numbers are shown in Appendix A.
1.3
Construction Programme
1.3.1
A copy of the Contractor¡¦s construction
programme is provided in Appendix B.
1.4
Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period
1.4.1
A summary of the construction activities
undertaken during this reporting period is shown in
Table 1.1. The works
areas of the Contract are showed in Appendix C.
Table 1.1 Construction
Activities during Reporting Period
Description of Activities
|
Site Area
|
Removal of
Temporary Toe Loading Platform
|
Portion X
|
2.1
Summary of EM&A Requirements
2.1.1
The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air
quality, noise, water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as
specified in the approved EM&A Manual.
2.1.2
A summary of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1.
The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring stations
are shown as in Figure 2.1.
The transect line layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is
presented in Figure 2.2.
Table 2.1 Summary
of Impact EM&A Requirements
Environmental Monitoring
|
Description
|
Monitoring Station
|
Frequencies
|
Remarks
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS 5 & AMS 6
|
At least 3 times every 6 days
|
While the
highest dust impact was expected.
|
24-hr TSP
|
At least once every 6 days
|
--
|
Noise
|
Leq (30mins),
L10 (30mins) and
L90 (30mins)
|
NMS 5
|
At least once per week
|
Daytime on normal weekdays (0700-1900 hrs).
|
Water Quality
|
¡P Depth
¡P Temperature
¡P Salinity
¡P Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
¡P Suspended
Solids (SS)
¡P DO
Saturation
¡P Turbidity
¡P pH
|
¡P Impact
Stations:
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8/IS8(N),
IS(Mf)9
& IS10(N),
¡P Control/Far
Field Stations:
CS2(A) & CS(Mf)5,
¡P Sensitive
Receiver Stations:
SR3(N), SR4(N)/ SR4(N2),
SR5(N), SR10A(N) & SR10B(N2)
|
Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood
tides (within ¡Ó 1.75 hour of the predicted time)
|
3
(1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea
bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the
mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3
m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).
|
Dolphin
|
Line-transect Methods
|
Northeast Lantau survey area and Northwest Lantau
survey area
|
Twice per month
|
--
|
Mudflat
|
Horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds, intertidal soft shore
communities, sedimentation rates and water quality
|
San Tau and Tung Chung Bay
|
Once every 3 months
|
--
|
Remarks:
1) Original WQM stations IS8 and SR4(N)
are located within the active work area of TCNTE project and the access to the
WQM stations IS8 (Coordinate: E814251, N818412) and SR4(N) (Coordinate:
E814705, N817859) are blocked by the silt curtains of the Tung Chung New Town
Extension (TCNTE) project. Alternative monitoring stations IS8(N) (Coordinate:
E814413, N818570) and SR4(N2) (Coordinate: E814688, N817996) are proposed to
replace the original monitoring stations IS8 and SR4(N). Proposal for
permanently relocating the aforementioned stations was approved by EPD on 20
August 2019. The water quality monitoring has been conducted at stations IS8(N)
and SR4(N2) on 21 August 2019.
2) The access to the WQM station SR4(N2)
(Coordinate: E814688, N817996) is being blocked by the silt curtains of the
Tung Chung New Town Extension (TCNTE) project. Water quality monitoring has
been temporarily conducted at alternative stations, namely SR4(N3) (Coordinate:
E814779, N818032) until 1 March 2023. Proposal for permanently relocating the
SR4(N2) was approved by EPD on 3 March 2023. The water quality monitoring has
been conducted at stations SR4(N3) since 3 March 2023.
2.2
Action and Limit Levels
2.2.1
Table 2.2 presents the Action and Limit Levels for the
1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.
Table 2.2 Action and Limit
Levels for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and Noise
Environmental
Monitoring
|
Parameters
|
Monitoring Station
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
Air Quality
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS 5
|
352
µg/m3
|
500 µg/m3
|
AMS 6
|
360
µg/m3
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS 5
|
164
µg/m3
|
260
µg/m3
|
AMS 6
|
173
µg/m3
|
Noise
|
Leq (30 min)
|
NMS 5
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75 dB(A)
|
2.2.2
The Action and Limit Levels for water quality monitoring are given as in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels
for Water Quality
Parameter (unit)
|
Water Depth
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
|
Surface and Middle
|
5.0
|
4.2 except 5 for Fish Culture Zone
|
Bottom
|
4.7
|
3.6
|
Turbidity (NTU)
|
Depth average
|
27.5 or 120% of upstream control station¡¦s turbidity
at the same tide of the same day;
The action level has been amended to ¡§27.5 and
120% of upstream control station¡¦s turbidity at the same tide of the same
day¡¨ since 25 March 2013.
|
47.0 or 130% of turbidity at the upstream control
station at the same tide of same day;
The limit level has been amended to ¡§47.0 and
130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same
day¡¨ since 25 March 2013.
|
Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)
|
Depth average
|
23.5 or 120% of upstream control station¡¦s SS at the
same tide of the same day;
The action level has been amended to ¡§23.5 and
120% of upstream control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of the same day¡¨ since
25 March 2013.
|
34.4 or 130% of SS at the upstream control station at
the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater
Intakes;
The limit level has been amended to ¡§34.4 and
130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and
10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes¡¨ since 25 March 2013
|
Notes:
(1) Depth-averaged
is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.
(2) For DO,
non-compliance of the water quality limit occurs when monitoring result is
lower that the limit.
(3) For SS &
turbidity non-compliance of the water quality limits occur when monitoring
result is higher than the limits.
(4) The change to
the Action and limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring for the EM&A works
was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013. Therefore, the amended Action and Limit
Levels are applied for the water monitoring results obtained on and after 25
March 2013.
2.2.3
The Action and Limit Levels for dolphin monitoring are shown in Tables
2.4 and 2.5.
Table 2.4 Action
and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring
|
North Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 70% of baseline &
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
STG < 70% of baseline &
ANI < 70% of baseline
|
Limit Level
|
STG < 40% of baseline &
ANI < 40% of baseline
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG
means quarterly average encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI
means quarterly average encounter rate of total number of dolphins.
(3)
For
North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be triggered if either NEL or NWL fall
below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL fall below the
criteria.
Table 2.5 Derived
Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)
|
North Lantau Social Cluster
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Action Level
|
STG < 4.2 & ANI < 15.5
|
STG < 6.9 & ANI < 31.3
|
Limit Level
|
(STG < 2.4 & ANI < 8.9) and (STG < 3.9
& ANI < 17.9)
|
Remarks:
(1)
STG
means quarterly average encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.
(2)
ANI
means quarterly average encounter rate of total number of dolphins.
(3)
For
North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be triggered if either NEL or NWL fall
below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL fall below the
criteria.
2.3.1
The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise,
water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring and Action Plan for
Landscape Works are annexed in Appendix
D.
2.4.1
Environmental mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in
the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the
implementation status.
3
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
3.1
Implementation of Environmental Measures
3.1.1
Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the
reporting period are presented in Appendix F.
3.1.2
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation
Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. Most of
the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.
3.1.3
Regular marine travel route for marine vessels
were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant
records were kept properly.
3.1.4
Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the
reporting period. No dolphins
inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant records were kept
properly.
3.2.1
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are
summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2
respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant
graphical plots are presented in Appendix G.
The existing air quality monitoring location AMS6 ¡V Dragonair / CNAC (Group)
Building (HKIA) was handed over to Airport Authority Hong Kong on 31 March
2021. 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS6 was temporarily suspended starting
from 1 April 2021 and resumed on 7 August 2024. Average
flow rate is used for calculation of 24-hr air quality results of AMS6 during
August 2024 due to unstable electricity supply on site.
Table 3.1 Summary of 1-hour
TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period
Reporting Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
Sep 2024
|
AMS5
|
49
|
30-67
|
352
|
500
|
AMS6
|
66
|
39-93
|
360
|
Oct 2024
|
AMS5
|
111
|
70-160
|
352
|
AMS6
|
100
|
44-163
|
360
|
Nov 2024
|
AMS5
|
104
|
71-128
|
352
|
AMS6
|
106
|
80-135
|
360
|
Table 3.2 Summary of
24-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period
Reporting Period
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
Sep 2024
|
AMS5
|
30
|
18-50
|
164
|
260
|
AMS6
|
47
|
45-48
|
173
|
Oct 2024
|
AMS5
|
43
|
31-54
|
164
|
AMS6
|
54
|
23-77
|
173
|
Nov 2024
|
AMS5
|
40
|
25-68
|
164
|
AMS6
|
23
|
9-58
|
173
|
3.2.2
No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr
TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period.
3.3
Noise Monitoring Results
3.3.1
The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table
3.3 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this
reporting period are provided in Appendix H.
Table 3.3 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results Obtained During
the Reporting Period
Reporting period
|
Monitoring Station
|
Average Leq (30 mins), dB(A)*
|
Range of Leq (30 mins), dB(A)*
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level Leq (30 mins), dB(A)
|
Sep 2024
|
NMS5
|
61
|
56-67
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75
|
Oct 2024
|
62
|
58-68
|
Nov 2024
|
64
|
59-71
|
3.3.2
No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were
recorded during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.
3.3.3
Other noise sources during the noise monitoring included aircraft/helicopter
noise, construction activities by other parties and human activities nearby.
3.4.1
Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at
all designated monitoring stations during the reporting period. Impact water
quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix O.
3.4.2
Water quality impact sources during water
quality monitoring were nearby construction activities by other parties and
nearby operating vessels by other parties.
3.4.3
For
marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of
dissolved oxygen level, turbidity level and suspended solid level were recorded
during the reporting month.
3.5
Dolphin Monitoring Results
Data Analysis
3.5.1
Distribution Analysis ¡V The line-transect survey
data was integrated with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to
visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin
distribution using sighting positions. Location data of dolphin groups were
plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (ArcViewı 3.1) to
examine their distribution patterns in details. The dataset was also stratified
into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin groups with
different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.
3.5.2
Encounter rate analysis ¡V Encounter rates of
Chinese White Dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey
effort, and total number of dolphins sighted on-effort per 100 km of survey
effort) were calculated in NEL and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount
of survey effort conducted during each month of monitoring survey. Dolphin
encounter rates were calculated in two ways for comparisons with the HZMB
baseline monitoring results as well as to AFCD long-term marine mammal
monitoring results.
3.5.3
Firstly, for the comparison with the HZMB
baseline monitoring results, the encounter rates were calculated using primary
survey effort alone, and only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below
condition would be used for encounter rate analysis. The average
encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI)
were deduced based on the encounter rates from six events during the present
quarter (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau), which was
also compared with the one deduced from the six events during the baseline
period (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau).
3.5.4
Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated
using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or
below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of
sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort
sightings (STG) and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey
effort for the present quarterly period.
3.5.5
Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use ¡V To
conduct quantitative grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort
sightings of Chinese White Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase
monitoring period were plotted onto 1-km2 grids among Northwest
Lantau (NWL) and Northeast (NEL) survey areas on GIS. Sighting densities
(number of on-effort sightings per km2) and dolphin densities (total
number of dolphins from on-effort sightings per km2) were then
calculated for each 1 km by 1 km grid with the aid of GIS.
3.5.6
Sighting density grids and dolphin density grids
were then further normalized with the amount of survey effort conducted within
each grid. The total amount of survey effort spent on each grid was calculated
by examining the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how
many times the grid was surveyed during the study period. For example,
when the survey boat traversed through a specific grid 50 times, 50 units of
survey effort were counted for that grid. With the amount of survey effort
calculated for each grid, the sighting density and dolphin density of each grid
were then normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey effort).
3.5.7
The newly-derived unit for sighting density was
termed SPSE, representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of
survey effort. In addition, the derived unit for actual dolphin density was
termed DPSE, representing the number of dolphins per 100 units of survey
effort. Among the 1-km2 grids that were partially covered by
land, the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE
and DPSE values were adjusted accordingly. The following formulae were used to
estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2 grid within the study area:
SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) / SA%
DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) / SA%
where S
= total number of on-effort sightings
D = total number of dolphins from on-effort
sightings
E = total number of units of survey
effort
SA% = percentage of sea area
3.5.8
Behavioural analysis ¡V When dolphins were
sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour was observed. Different
activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting, traveling,
socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets. This data was then input into
a separate database with sighting information, which can be used to determine
the distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS. Distribution of
sightings of dolphins engaged in different activities and behaviours would then
be plotted on GIS and carefully examined to identify important areas for
different activities of the dolphins.
3.5.9
Ranging pattern analysis ¡V Location data of
individual dolphins that occurred during the 3-month baseline monitoring period
were obtained from the dolphin sighting database and photo-identification
catalogue. To deduce home ranges for individual dolphins using the fixed kernel
methods, the program Animal Movement Analyst Extension, was loaded as an
extension with ArcViewı 3.1 along with another extension Spatial Analyst 2.0.
Using the fixed kernel method, the program calculated kernel density estimates based
on all sighting positions, and provided an active interface to display kernel
density plots. The kernel estimator then calculated and displayed the overall
ranging area at 95% UD level.
Summary of Survey Effort and
Dolphin Sightings
3.5.10
During the period of September to November 2024,
six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all
transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.
3.5.11
From these surveys, a total of 813.60 km of survey effort was collected,
with 99.7% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather
conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility). Among the
two areas, 295.30 km and 518.30 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and
NWL survey areas respectively.
3.5.12
The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 575.36 km, while
the effort on secondary lines was 238.24 km. Survey effort conducted on both
primary and secondary lines were considered to be on-effort survey data. A
summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix J.
3.5.13
During the six sets of monitoring surveys conducted between September
and November 2024, only a single group of one Chinese White Dolphin was
sighted, with the summary table of dolphin sighting shown in Annex II of Appendix J. This lone
dolphin was sighted on primary line during on-effort search.
3.5.14
Notably, the only dolphin sighted during the quarter was made in NWL,
and no dolphin was sighted at all in NEL.
Encounter
Rate
1.
2.
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.5.15
During the present three-month study period, the
encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and
on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable
conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) for each set of the surveys in NEL and NWL are
shown in Table 3.4. The average encounter rates deduced from the six
sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline
monitoring period (September ¡V November 2011) (Table 3.5).
Table 3.4 Dolphin
Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period
(September 2024 to November 2024)
SURVEY AREA
|
DOLPHIN MONITORING DATES
|
Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey
effort)
|
Primary
Lines Only
|
Primary
Lines Only
|
Northeast Lantau
|
Set 1 (4 &
10 Sep 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 2 (12 &
16 Sep 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 3 (3 &
8 Oct 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 4 (10 &
14 Oct 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (4 &
8 Nov 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 6 (15 &
18 Nov 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Northwest Lantau
|
Set 1 (4 &
10 Sep 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 2 (12 &
16 Sep 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 3 (3 & 8 Oct 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 4 (10 &
14 Oct 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Set 5 (4 &
8 Nov 2024)
|
1.66
|
1.66
|
Set 6 (15 &
18 Nov 2024)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Table 3.5 Comparison of average dolphin encounter rates from impact
monitoring period (September 2024 to November 2024) and baseline monitoring
period (September ¡V November 2011)
|
Encounter rate
(STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin
sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from
all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
September ¡V November 2024
|
September ¡V November 2011
|
September ¡V November 2024
|
September ¡V November 2011
|
Northeast Lantau
|
0.0
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
0.0
|
22.19 ¡Ó 26.81
|
Northwest Lantau
|
0.28 ¡Ó
0.68
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
0.28 ¡Ó
0.68
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been
recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along
the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.
2) ¡Ó denotes the standard deviation of the average
encounter rates.
3.5.16
To facilitate the comparison with the AFCD
long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also calculated for the
present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter
rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 0.19 sightings and 0.19
dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of
sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were both nil for this quarter.
3.5.17
In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates
(both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were
both zero with no on-effort sighting being made, and such extremely low
occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in past autumn
quarters of HKLR03/ TMCLKL monitoring since HKLR03 construction began in late
2012 (Table 3.6). This is a serious concern as the dolphin occurrence in
NEL in the past few years (0.0-1.0 for ER(STG) and 0.0-3.9 for ER(ANI)) have
remained exceptionally low when compared to the baseline period (Table 3.6). Dolphins
have been virtually absent from NEL waters since August 2014 despite consistent
and intensive survey effort being conducted in this survey area.
Table 3.6 Comparison
of average dolphin encounter rates in Northeast Lantau survey area from all
summer quarters of impact monitoring period and baseline monitoring period
(September- November 2011)
|
Encounter rate
(STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings
per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all
on-effort sightings per 100
km of survey effort)
|
September-November 2011 (Baseline)
|
6.00 ¡Ó 5.05
|
22.19
¡Ó 26.81
|
September-November 2013
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
1.01 ¡Ó 1.59
|
3.77 ¡Ó 6.49
|
September-November 2014
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2015
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2016
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2017
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2018
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2019
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2020 (TMCLKL Post-Construction)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2021 (TMCLKL Post-Construction)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2022
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2023
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
September-November 2024
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been
recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along
the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.
2) ¡Ó denotes the standard deviation of the average
encounter rates.
3.5.18
On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter
rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period
were only tiny fractions of the ones recorded during the three-month baseline
period, indicating a dramatic decline in dolphin usage of this survey area as
well during the present impact phase period (Table 3.7).
3.5.19
Notably, when comparing among the 12 quarterly
periods in autumn months since 2013, the quarterly encounter rates in NWL in
the past six autumn periods of 2019-24 plummeted to the lowest level (Table
3.7). In fact, the present quarterly period has also recorded the third
lowest ER(STG) ever during the HKLR03 construction period (the lowest was
recorded during the autumn of 2022 for the post-construction monitoring of
TMCLKL with zero occurrence). Such dramatic drop in dolphin occurrence in NWL
in recent years should raise serious concerns, and such temporal trend should
be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters as the construction
activities of HKLR03 works will soon be completed in coming months.
Table 3.7 Comparison
of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northwest Lantau Survey Area from All Summer
Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep ¡V Nov
2011)
|
Encounter rate
(STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings
per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all
on-effort sightings per 100
km of survey effort)
|
September-November 2011 (Baseline)
|
9.85 ¡Ó 5.85
|
44.66 ¡Ó 29.85
|
September-November 2013
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
8.04 ¡Ó 1.10
|
32.48 ¡Ó 26.51
|
September-November 2014
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
5.10 ¡Ó 4.40
|
20.52 ¡Ó 15.10
|
September-November 2015
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
3.94 ¡Ó 1.57
|
21.05 ¡Ó 17.19
|
September-November 2016
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
2.86 ¡Ó 1.98
|
10.89 ¡Ó 10.98
|
September-November 2017
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
3.12 ¡Ó 1.91
|
10.35 ¡Ó 9.66
|
September-November 2018
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
1.51 ¡Ó 2.25
|
2.70 ¡Ó 3.78
|
September-November 2019
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.83 ¡Ó 0.91
|
1.10 ¡Ó 1.34
|
September-November 2020 (TMCLKL Post-Construction)
|
0.54 ¡Ó 0.84
|
1.09 ¡Ó 1.69
|
September-November 2021 (TMCLKL Post-Construction)
|
0.81 ¡Ó
1.36
|
1.35 ¡Ó
2.61
|
September-November 2022
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
September-November 2023
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.27 ¡Ó 0.66
|
1.62 ¡Ó 3.98
|
September-November 2024
(HKLR03 Impact)
|
0.28 ¡Ó 0.68
|
0.28 ¡Ó 0.68
|
3.5.21
For the comparison between the baseline period
and the present quarter (38th quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the
p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.0003 and 0.0024 respectively. If the alpha
value is set at 0.01, significant differences were still detected between the
baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter rates of
STG and ANI.
3.5.22
For the comparison between the baseline period
and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. the first 49 quarters of the
HKLR03/TMCLKL monitoring programme being assessed), the p-values for the
differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.000000 and
0.000000 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.00001, significant
differences were still detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of
STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).
3.5.23
As indicated in both dolphin distribution
patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been dramatically and
significantly reduced in both NEL and NWL survey areas during the present
quarterly period when compared to the baseline period, and such low occurrence
of dolphins has also been consistently documented in previous quarters of the
past eight years throughout the HZMB construction.
3.5.24
The significant decline in dolphin usage of
North Lantau region raises serious concern, as the timing of the decline in
dolphin usage in North Lantau waters coincided well with the construction
schedule of the HZMB-related projects (Hung 2018). Not only there has been no
sign of recovery of dolphin usage, such usage has continued to fall to
near-absence level for the entire region, even though almost all marine works
associated with the HZMB construction have been completed, and the Brothers Marine
Park has been established in late 2016 as a compensation measure for the
permanent habitat loss in association with the HKBCF reclamation works.
Group Size
3.5.25
Only a single group of a lone dolphin was
sighted during September to November 2024, and the average group size of one
from this quarter was compared with the ones deduced from the baseline period
in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Comparison
of average dolphin group sizes from impact monitoring period (September ¡V November
2024) and baseline monitoring period (September ¡V November 2011) (Note: ¡Ó
denotes the standard deviation of the average group size)
|
Average
Dolphin Group Size
|
September ¡V November 2024
|
September ¡V November 2011
|
Overall
|
1.00 (n = 1)
|
3.72 ¡Ó 3.13 (n = 66)
|
Northeast Lantau
|
---
|
3.18 ¡Ó 2.16 (n = 17)
|
Northwest Lantau
|
1.00 (n = 1)
|
3.92 ¡Ó 3.40 (n = 49)
|
3.5.26
The average dolphin group size in NWL waters during
September to November 2024 was much lower than the one recorded during the
three-month baseline period, but it should be noted with cautions that the
sample size of only one dolphin group in the present quarter was a tiny
fraction of the sample size of 66 dolphin groups sighted during the baseline
period (Table 3.8).
Habitat Use
3.5.27
From September to November 2024, only one grid
in North Lantau waters recorded dolphin occurrence during on-effort search,
which was located to the southwest of the airport platform in very low density
as only one dolphin was sighted in that grid (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J).
3.5.28
Notably, all grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation
sites as well as TMCLKL bridge alignments did not record any presence of
dolphins at all during on-effort search in the present quarterly period (Figures
3a and 3b of Appendix J).
3.5.29
It should be emphasized that the amount of
survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period was fairly
low (6-12 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use
pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with caution. A
more complete picture of dolphin habitat use pattern should be examined when
more survey effort for each grid is collected throughout the impact phase
monitoring programme.
3.5.30
When compared with the habitat use patterns
during the baseline period, dolphin usage in NEL and NWL has drastically
diminished in both areas during the present impact monitoring period (Figure
4 of Appendix J). During the baseline period, many grids between Siu Mo To and Shum
Shui Kok in NEL recorded moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was
in stark contrast to the complete absence of dolphins there during the present
impact phase period.
3.5.31
The density patterns were also drastically
different in NWL between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods, with
high dolphin usage recorded throughout the area during the baseline period,
especially around Sha Chau, near Black Point, to the west of the airport, as
well as between Pillar Point and airport platform. In contrast, only one grid
with a single dolphin recorded its density was located at the southwest corner
of the survey area during the present impact phase period (Figure 4 of Appendix J).
Mother-calf
Pairs
3.5.32
During the present quarterly period, no young
calf was sighted with the lone dolphin.
Activities
and associations with fishing boats
3.5.33
During the present quarterly period, the single
dolphin sighted was not engaged in any activities. Furthermore, it was not
found to be associated with any operating fishing vessel during the present
impact phase period.
Summary of
Photo-identification Works
3.5.34
From September to November 2024, only 85 digital
photographs were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the
photo-identification work.
3.5.35
During the lone sighting, one individual dolphin
(WL243) was identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix J and photograph of the identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J).
Individual
Range Use
3.5.36
Ranging patterns of the lone individual
identified during the three-month study period was determined by fixed kernel
method, and is shown in Annex V of Appendix J. Notably, WL243 mainly utilized West Lantau waters in the past, and
seldom ventured into North Lantau waters. In fact, when it was previously
re-sighted in North Lantau waters, such re-sightings always occurred near the
southwestern end of the NWL survey area adjacent to the WL survey area.
Conclusion
3.5.37
During the present quarter of dolphin
monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project
on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.
3.5.38
Although dolphins rarely occurred in the area of
HKLR03 construction in the past and during the baseline monitoring period, it
is apparent that dolphin usage has been dramatically reduced in NEL since 2012,
and many individuals have shifted away completely from the important habitat
around the Brothers Islands.
3.5.39
It is critical to continuously monitor the
dolphin usage in North Lantau region to determine whether the dolphins are
continuously affected by the construction activities in relation to the
HZMB-related works, and whether suitable mitigation measure can be applied to
revert the situation.
3.6
Mudflat Monitoring Results
Sedimentation Rate
Monitoring
3.6.1
The baseline sedimentation rate monitoring was
in September 2012 and impact sedimentation rate monitoring was undertaken on 16
September 2024. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring
stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.9 and Table 3.10.
Table 3.9 Measured
Mudflat Surface Level Results
|
Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)
|
Impact Monitoring (September 2024)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
810291.160
|
816678.727
|
0.950
|
810291.147
|
816678.717
|
1.115
|
S2
|
810958.272
|
815831.531
|
0.864
|
810958.300
|
815831.517
|
1.025
|
S3
|
810716.585
|
815953.308
|
1.341
|
810716.579
|
815953.314
|
1.469
|
S4
|
811221.433
|
816151.381
|
0.931
|
811221.430
|
816151.404
|
1.118
|
Table 3.10 Comparison
of Measurement
|
Comparison of Measurement
|
Remarks and Recommendation
|
Monitoring Station
|
Easting (m)
|
Northing (m)
|
Surface Level
(mPD)
|
S1
|
-0.013
|
-0.010
|
0.165
|
Level continuously increased, need
attention
|
S2
|
0.028
|
-0.014
|
0.161
|
Level continuously increased, need
attention
|
S3
|
-0.006
|
0.006
|
0.128
|
Level continuously increased, need
attention
|
S4
|
-0.003
|
0.023
|
0.187
|
Level continuously increased, need
attention
|
3.6.2
This measurement result was generally and
relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The
mudflat level is continuously increased.
Water Quality Monitoring
3.6.3
The mudflat monitoring covered water quality monitoring data. Reference
was made to the water quality monitoring data of the representative water
quality monitoring station (i.e. SR3(N)) as in the EM&A Manual. The water
quality monitoring location (SR3(N)) is shown in Figure 2.1 of Appendix O.
3.6.4
Water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3(N)) was
conducted in September 2024 as part of mudflat monitoring. The monitoring
parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).
3.6.5
The water monitoring result for SR3(N) were extracted and summarised in Table
3.11:
Table 3.11 Impact Water Quality
Monitoring Results (Depth Average) at Station SR3(N)
|
Mid Ebb Tide
|
Mid Flood Tide
|
DO (mg/L)
|
Turbidity
(NTU)
|
SS (mg/L)
|
DO (mg/L)
|
Turbidity
(NTU)
|
SS (mg/L)
|
2-Sep-2024
|
5.3
|
3.3
|
5.8
|
5.4
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
4-Sep-2024
|
5.2
|
3.2
|
6.2
|
5.3
|
3.2
|
5.9
|
9-Sep-2024
|
5.9
|
3.3
|
4.6
|
5.8
|
3.3
|
4.2
|
11-Sep-2024
|
6.6
|
3.2
|
2.0
|
6.8
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
13-Sep-2024
|
6.4
|
2.6
|
3.1
|
6.6
|
2.6
|
3.8
|
16-Sep-2024
|
6.4
|
2.6
|
5.3
|
6.7
|
3.2
|
6.0
|
18-Sep-2024
|
6.2
|
3.4
|
3.7
|
6.1
|
3.3
|
4.4
|
20-Sep-2024
|
6.0
|
3.4
|
7.6
|
6.1
|
3.6
|
5.6
|
23-Sep-2024
|
6.7
|
2.6
|
4.3
|
7.0
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
25-Sep-2024
|
6.6
|
2.9
|
2.0
|
7.1
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
27-Sep-2024
|
6.4
|
2.9
|
2.5
|
6.8
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
Average
|
6.1
|
3.1
|
4.4
|
6.3
|
3.2
|
4.0
|
|
Mudflat Ecology Monitoring
Sampling Zone
3.6.6
To collect baseline
information of mudflats in the study site, the study site was divided into
three sampling zones (labeled as TC1, TC2, TC3) in Tung Chung Bay and one zone
in San Tau (labeled as ST) (Figure 2.1 of Appendix O). The horizontal shoreline of sampling zones
TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST were about 250 m, 300 m, 300 m and 250 m, respectively (Figure
2.2 of Appendix O).
Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were
conducted in every sampling zone. The present survey was conducted in September
2024 (totally 3 sampling days 1st (for ST), 2nd (for
TC3), 3rd (for TC2 and TC1).
3.6.7
Since the field survey of
June 2016, increasing number of trashes and even big trashes (Figure 2.3 of Appendix O) were found in every sampling zone. It raised a
concern about the solid waste dumping and current-driven waste issues in Tung
Chung Wan. Respective measures (e.g., manual clean-up) should be implemented by
responsible governmental agency units.
Horseshoe Crabs
3.6.8
Active search method was adopted for horseshoe crab monitoring by two experienced surveyors in every sampling
zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be
investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hour 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.
3.6.9
In June 2017, a big
horseshoe crab was tangled by a trash gill net in ST mudflat (Figure 2.3 of Appendix O). It was released to sea once after photo
recording. The horseshoe crab of such size should be inhabiting sub-tidal
environment while it forages on intertidal shore occasionally during high tide
period. If it is tangled by the trash net for few days, it may die due to
starvation or overheat during low tide period. These trash gill nets are
definitely ¡¥fatal trap¡¦ for the horseshoe crabs and other marine life. Manual
clean-up should be implemented as soon as possible by responsible governmental
agency units.
Seagrass Beds
3.6.10
Active search method was
adopted for seagrass bed
monitoring by two experienced surveyors in every sampling zone. During the
search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any
seagrass beds within 2-3 hours of low tide period. Once seagrass bed
was found, the species, estimated
area, estimated coverage percentage and respective GPS
coordinates were recorded.
Intertidal Soft Shore
Communities
3.6.11
The intertidal soft shore community
surveys were conducted
in low tide period. In every
sampling zone, three 100m horizontal transect lines were laid at high tidal
level (H: 2.0m above C.D.), mid tidal level (M: 1.5m above C.D.) and low tidal
level (L: 1.0m above C.D.). Along every horizontal transect line, ten random quadrats
(0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed.
3.6.12
Inside a quadrat, any visible epifauna was
collected and was 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 was collected
and identified. Finally, the top 5 cm surface sediment was dug for visible
infauna in the quadrat regardless of hand core sample was taken.
3.6.13
All collected fauna were released after
recording except some tiny individuals that were too small to be identified on
site. These tiny individuals were taken to laboratory for identification under
dissecting microscope.
3.6.14
The taxonomic classification was conducted in
accordance to the following references: Polychaetes: Fauchald (1977), Yang and
Sun (1988); Arthropods: Dai and Yang (1991), Dong (1991); Mollusks: Chan and
Caley (2003), Qi (2004), AFCD (2018).
Data Analysis
3.6.15
Data collected from direct counting and core
sampling was pooled in every quadrat for data analysis. Shannon-Weaver
Diversity Index (H¡¦) and Pielou¡¦s Species Evenness (J) were calculated for
every quadrat using the formulae below,
H¡¦= -£U ( Ni / N ) ln ( Ni / N )(Shannon and Weaver,
1963)
J = H¡¦ / ln S (Pielou, 1966)
where S is the total number of
species in the sample, N is the total number of individuals, and Ni is the
number of individuals of the ith species.
Mudflat Ecology Monitoring
Results and Conclusion
Horseshoe Crabs
3.6.16
Two juvenile horseshoe crabs
were recorded in present surveys. Photo records of previously and currently
observed horseshoe crab is shown in Figure 3.1 of Appendix O and
the present survey result regarding horseshoe crab are presented in Table 3.1 of Appendix O. The
complete survey records are presented in Annex II of Appendix O.
3.6.17
In the survey of March 2015,
there was one important finding that a mating pair of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was found in ST (prosomal width: male 155.1mm, female
138.2mm). It indicated the importance of ST as a breeding ground of horseshoe
crab. In June 2017, mating pairs of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were
found in TC2 (male 175.27 mm, female 143.51 mm) and TC3 (male 182.08 mm, female
145.63 mm) (Figure 3.2 of
Appendix O).
In December 2017 and June 2018, one mating pair was of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was found in TC3 (December 2017: male 127.80 mm, female 144.61
mm; June 2018: male 139 mm, female 149 mm). In June 2019, two mating pairs of Tachypleus tridentatus with
large body sizes (male 150mm and
Female 200mm; Male 180mm and Female 220mm) were found in TC3. Another mating pair of Tachypleus tridentatus was found
in ST (male 140mm and Female
180mm). In March 2020, a pair of Tachypleus tridentatus with
large body sizes (male 123mm and
Female 137mm was recorded in TC1. Figure
3.2 of Appendix O shows the photographic records of the mating
pair found. The recorded mating pairs were found nearly burrowing in soft mud
at low tidal level (0.5-1.0 m above C.D.). The smaller male was holding the
opisthosoma (abdomen carapace) of larger female from behind. A mating pair was
found in TC1 in March 2020, it indicated that breeding of horseshoe crab could
be possible along the coast of Tung Chung Wan rather than ST only, as long as
suitable substratum was available. Based on the frequency of encounter, the shoreline
between TC3 and ST should be more suitable mating ground. Moreover, suitable
breeding period was believed in wet season (March ¡V September)
because tiny individuals (i.e. newly hatched) were usually recorded in June and
September every year (Figure 3.3 of Appendix O).
One mating pair was found in June 2022. 3 adult individuals (prosomal width
>100mm) of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were recorded in September
2022 survey, with one alive, one dead in TC3 and one dead in TC2. June
2022, 7 large individuals (prosomal width >100mm) of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was recorded (prosomal width ranged 131.4mm - 140.3mm) in TC3.
In December 2018, one large individual of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
was found in TC3 (prosomal width 148.9 mm). In March 2019, 3 large individuals
(prosomal width ranged 220 ¡V 310mm) of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were
observed in TC2. In June 2019, there were 3 and 7 large individuals of Tachypleus
tridentatus recorded in ST (prosomal width ranged 140 ¡V
180mm) and TC3 (prosomal width ranged 150 ¡V 220mm),
respectively. In March 2020, a mating pair of Tachypleus tridentatus was
recorded in TC1 with prosomal width 123 mm and 137mm. Base on their sizes, it
indicated that individuals of prosomal width larger than 100 mm would progress
its nursery stage from intertidal habitat to sub-tidal habitat of Tung Chung
Wan. The photo records of the large horseshoe crab are shown in Figure 3.4 of Appendix O. These
large individuals might move onto intertidal shore occasionally during high
tide for foraging and breeding. Because they should be inhabiting sub-tidal
habitat most of the time. Their records were excluded from the data analysis to
avoid mixing up with juvenile population living on intertidal habitat.
3.6.18
Some marked individuals were
found in the previous surveys of September 2013, March 2014, and September
2014. All of them were released through a conservation programme in charged by
Prof. Paul Shin (Department of Biology and Chemistry, The City University of
Hong Kong (CityU)). It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred horseshoe
crab juvenile at selected sites. So that the horseshoe crab¡¦s 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.
3.6.19
The artificial bred
individuals, if found, would be excluded from the results of present monitoring
programme in order to reflect the changes of natural population. However, the
mark on their prosoma might have been detached during moulting after a certain
period of release. The artificially released individuals were no longer
distinguishable from the natural population without the specific chip sensor.
The survey data collected would possibly cover both natural population and
artificially bred individuals.
Population
difference among the sampling zones
3.6.20
Figure 3.5 and 3.6 of Appendix O show the changes of number of individuals, meaning prosomal width
and search record of horseshoe crabs Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus
tridentatus in respectively in each sampling zone throughout the
monitoring period.
3.6.21
To consider the entire
monitoring period for TC3 and ST, medium to high search records (i.e. number of
individuals) of both species (Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus) were usually found in wet season (June and
September). The search record of ST was higher from September 2012 to June 2014
while it was replaced by TC3 from September 2014 to June 2015. The search
records were similar between two sampling zones from September 2015 to June
2016. In September 2016, the search record of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in ST was much higher than TC3. From March
to June 2017, the
search records of both species were similar again between two sampling zones.
It showed a natural variation of horseshoe crab population in these two zones
due to weather condition and tidal effect. No obvious difference of horseshoe
crab population was noted between TC3 and ST. In September 2017, the search
records of both horseshoe crab species decreased except the Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in TC3. The survey results were different from
previous findings that there were usually higher search records in September.
One possible reason was that the serial cyclone hit decreased horseshoe crab
activity (totally 4 cyclone records between June and September 2017, to be discussed in 'Seagrass survey' section). From December 2017 to September 2018, the
search records of both species increased again to low-moderate
level in ST and TC3. From December 2018 to September 2019,
the search records of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda change from very
low to low while the change of Tachypleus tridentatus was similar during this period. Relatively
higher population fluctuation of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was
observed in TC3. From March 2020 to September 2020, the search records of
both species, Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus, were
increased to moderate level in ST. However, the search records of both species,
Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and
Tachypleus tridentatus, were decreased from very low to
none in TC3 in this
period. From March 2021 to September 2021, the search records of both species, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and
Tachypleus tridentatus, were kept at low-moderate level
in both ST and TC3. It is similar to the previous findings of
June. It shows another growing
phenomenon of horseshoe crabs and it may due to the weather variation of starting of wet
season. The survey results were
different from previous findings that there were usually higher search records
in September. One possible reason was that September of 2021 was one of the hottest month in Hong Kong
in record. As such, hot and shiny weather decreased horseshoe crab activity. In December 2021, no juvenile was
recorded similar to the some previous in December due to the season. In March
2022, only juvenils recorded in
both ST and TC3, no adult specimen was observed. In June 2022, total of 13
individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus
tridentatus were found, with 6 juveniles, 6 adults and 1 died recorded. In
September 2022, total of 7 individuals of were found, with 4 juveniles, 3
adults (1 alive and 2 died) recorded. In March 2024, total of 12 individuals of
juveniles Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus
were found and recorded. In September 2023, a total of 2 individuals of
juveniles Tachypleus tridentatus were found and recorded. In December
2023, no horseshoe crab was found. In March and September 2024, 2 individuals
of juveniles Tachypleus tridentatus were found for each month.
3.6.22
For TC1, the search record
was at low to moderate level throughout the monitoring period. The change of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was relatively more variable than that of Tachypleus tridentatus. Relatively, the search record was very low in
TC2. There were occasional records of 1 to 4 individuals between March and
September throughout the monitoring period. The maximum record was 6
individuals only in June 2016.
3.6.23
About the body size, larger
individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were
usually found in ST and TC1 relative to that in TC3 from September 2012 to June
2017. But the body size was higher in TC3 and ST followed by TC1 from September
2017 to March 2020. From June 2020 to December 2020, there was no individuals
of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda recorded in TC3 but in ST. The body size
of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in ST was recorded gradually increased (from
mean prosomal width 23.6mm to 49.6mm) since March 2020 to September 2020.
From December 2020 to
March 2021, the body size of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda in ST was recorded
decreased (from mean prosomal width
49.6mm to 43.3mm).
In March 2021, the body size of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda in TC3 (mean prosomal width 46.2mm) was recorded larger than that in ST (mean prosomal width 43.3mm). From
September 2021 to
June 2022, the body size of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda in ST was recorded
increased (from mean prosomal width
39.8mm to 54.42mm).
For Tachypleus tridentatus, larger
individuals were usually found in ST and TC3 followed by TC1 throughout the
monitoring period. In June 2019, all found horseshoe crabs were
large individuals and mating pairs. It is believed that the sizes of the
horseshoe crabs would be decrease and gradually rise afterward due to the
stable growth of juveniles after the spawning season. From March
2019 to September 2021, Tachypleus
tridentatus were only recorded in TC3 and ST. The body size in TC3 was
increased from September 2019 to December 2019 then decreased in March 2020 and
no recorded species in TC3 for three consecutive quarters from
June 2020 to December 2020. From
March 2020 to Sep 2021, the body size of Tachypleus tridentatus in TC3 increased (from mean prosomal width 34.00mm to
38.8mm). It showed a natural
variation of horseshoe crab population in TC3. Apart from natural mortality,
migration from nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat was another possible
cause. The body size in ST was gradually growth since December 2019 to
September 2020 then slightly dropped in December 2020. In June 2022, Tachypleus
tridentatus were only recorded in ST, the body size in ST decreased from mean prosomal width 77.59mm to 54.02mm in March 2022.
In September 2022 Tachypleus tridentatus were only recorded in TC3. The
mean prosomal was 61.09mm. In March 2023, 7 Tachypleus tridentatus were
recorded in ST and TC3. The mean prosomal was 62.68mm. In March 2024, 2 Tachypleus tridentatus were
recorded in ST with a mean prosomal width 70.55mm. No horseshoe crab was
recorded in all sites in June 2024, and 2 Tachypleus tridentatus were
recorded in ST with a mean prosomal width 40.00mm.
3.6.24
In general, it was obvious
that the shoreline along TC3 and ST (western shore of Tung Chung Wan) was
an important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly hatched
individuals due to larger area of suitable substratum (fine sand or soft mud)
and less human disturbance (far from urban district). Relatively,
other sampling zones were not a suitable nursery ground especially TC2.
Possible factors were less area of suitable substratum (especially TC1) and
higher human disturbance (TC1 and TC2: close to urban district and easily
accessible). In TC2, large daily salinity fluctuation was a possible factor
since it was flushed by two rivers under tidal inundation. The individuals
inhabiting TC1 and TC2 were confined in small foraging area due to
limited area of suitable substratum. Although there were mating pairs seldomly
found in TC1 and TC2, the hatching rate and survival rate of newly hatched
individuals were believed very low.
Seasonal
variation of horseshoe crab population
3.6.25
Throughout the monitoring
period, the search records of horseshoe crabs were fluctuated and at moderate ¡V
very low level in June (Figure 3.5 and 3.6 of Appendix O). Low ¡V Very low search record was found in
June 2013, totally 82 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus and 0 ind. of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were found
in TC1, TC3 and ST. Compare with the search record of June 2013, the numbers of
Tachypleus tridentatus were gradually decreased in June 2014 and 2015
(55 ind. in 2014 and 18 ind. in 2015); the number of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda raise to 88 and 66 ind. in June 2014 and 2015
respectively. In June 2016, the search record increased about 3 times compare
with June 2015. In total, 182 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and 47 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus were
noted, respectively. Then, the search record was similar to June 2016. The
number of recorded Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda (133 ind.) slightly dropped in June 2017.
However, that of Tachypleus tridentatus rapidly increased (125 ind.). In
June 2018, the search record was low to moderate while the numbers of Tachypleus
tridentatus dropped sharply (39 ind.). In June 2019, 10 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus were observed in TC3 and ST. All of them, however, were large
individuals (prosomal width >100mm), their records are excluded from the
data analysis to avoid mixing up with the juvenile population living on
intertidal habitat. Until September
2020, the number of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and Tachypleus
tridentatus gradually increased to 39 ind. and 28 ind., respectively. In December 2020, the number of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus greatly
decreased to 3 ind. and 7 ind., respectively. In March 2022, the number of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus gradually decreased to 7
ind. and 2 ind., respectively in comparing with the March of previous record.
The drop of abundance may be related to the unusual cold weather in the
beginning of March 2022. Throughout the monitoring period, similar distribution
of horseshoe crab population was found.
3.6.26
The search record of
horseshoe crab declined obviously in all sampling zones during dry season
especially December (Figure 3.5 and 3.6 of Appendix O) throughout the monitoring period. Very low ¡V low search record was found in December from
2012 to 2015 (0-4 ind. of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and 0 ¡V 12 ind. of Tachypleus tridentatus). The
horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather
(<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in dry season were reported
in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search
records in Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 ind.
hr-1 person-1
and 0.00 ind. hr-1
person-1 in wet season
and dry season respectively (details see Li, 2008). Compare with the search
record of December from 2012 to 2015, which of December 2016 were much higher
relatively. There were totally 70
individuals of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and 24 individuals
of Tachypleus tridentatus in TC3 and ST. Since the survey was carried in
earlier December with warm and sunny weather (~22 ºC during dawn
according to Hong Kong Observatory database, Chek Lap Kok station on 5 December
2016), the horseshoe crab was more active (i.e. move onto intertidal shore
during high tide for foraging and breeding) and easier to be found. In contrast, there was no search record in TC1
and TC2 because the survey was conducted in mid December with colder and cloudy
weather (~20¢XC during dawn on 19 December).
The horseshoe crab activity would decrease gradually with the colder climate.
In December of 2017, 2018 and 2019, very low search records were found again as
mentioned above. No record of houseshoe crab was recorded in December 2022 and
2023.
3.6.27
From September 2012 to
December 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was 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. In March 2014,
it was found in all sampling zones with higher abundance in ST. Based on its
average size (mean prosomal width 39.28 ¡V 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).
3.6.28
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 March and June 2014 and followed by a rapid decline in September 2014. Then
the number of individuals fluctuated slightly in TC3 and ST until March 2017.
Apart from natural mortality, migration from nursery soft shore to subtidal
habitat was another possible cause. Since the mean prosomal width of Tachypleus tridentatus continued to grow and reached about 50 mm since
March 2014. Then it varied slightly between 35-65 mm from September 2014 to March
2017.Most of the individuals might have reached a suitable size (e.g. prosomal
width 50 ¡V 60 mm) strong
enough to forage in sub-tidal habitat. In June 2017, the number of individuals
increased sharply again in TC3 and ST. Although mating pair of Tachypleus tridentatus was not found in previous surveys, there should
be new round of spawning in the wet season of 2016. The individuals might have
grown to a more conspicuous size in 2017 accounting for higher search record.
In September 2017, moderate numbers of individual were found in TC3 and ST
indicating a stable population size. From September 2018 to March 2020, the
population size was low while natural mortality was the possible cause. From
June 2020 to September 2020, the population size of Tachypleus tridentatus increased to moderate level in ST while the mean proposal
width of them conitued to grow and reach about 55mm. The population size of Tachypleus tridentatus slightly decreased in ST from March 2021 to March 2022 and
the mean proposal width of them increased to about 77.59mm.
3.6.29
In recent year, the Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was a more common horseshoe crab species in Tung Chung Wan. It
was recorded in the four sampling zones while the majority of population
located in TC3 and ST. Due to potential breeding last year, the number of Tachypleus tridentatus increased in ST. Since TC3 and ST were regarded as important nursery ground
for both horseshoe crab species, box plots of prosomal width of two horseshoe
crab species were constructed to investigate the changes of population in
details.
Box plot of
horseshoe crab populations in TC3
3.6.30
Figure 3.7 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in ST. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was rarely found between September 2012 and December 2013
hence the data were lacking. From March 2014 to September 2018, the size of
major population decreased, and more small individuals (i.e. lower whisker)
were recorded after June of every year. It indicated a new round of spawning.
Also, there were similar increasing trends of body size from September to June
of next year between 2014 and 2017. It indicated a stable growth of
individuals. The larger juveniles (i.e. upper whisker usually ranged 60 ¡V 80 mm
in prosomal width except one individual (prosomal width 107.04 mm) found in
March 2017. It reflected that juveniles reaching this size would gradually
migrate to sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.31
For Tachypleus tridentatus, the
major size ranged 20-50 mm while the number of individuals fluctuated from September
2012 to June 2014. Then a slight but consistent growing trend was observed from
September 2014 to June 2015. The prosomal width increased from 25 ¡V
35 mm to 35 ¡V 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 March to September 2016, slight increasing
trend of major size was noticed again. From December 2016 to June 2017, similar
increasing trend of major size was noted with much higher number of
individuals. It reflected new round of spawning. In September 2017, the major
size decreased while the trend was different from previous two years. Such
decline might be the cause of serial cyclone hit between June and September
2017 (to be discussed in the 'Seagrass survey' section). From December 2017 to
September 2018, increasing trend was noted again. It indicated a stable growth
of individuals. From September 2018 to that of next year, the average prosomal widths
were decreased from 60mm to 36mm. It indicated new rounds of spawning occurred
during September to November 2018. In December 2019, an individual with larger
body size (prosomal width 65mm) was found in TC3 which reflected the stable
growth of individuals. In March 2020, the average prosomal width (middle line
of the whole box) of Tachypleus
tridentatus in TC3 was 33.97mm
which is smaller than that in December 2019. It was in
normal fluctuation. From June 2020 to December 2020, no horseshoe
crab was recorded in TC3. In Sep 2021, only one Tachypleus
tridentatus with body size (prosomal width 38.78mm) was found in TC3. The
decrease in the species population was considered to be related to hot weather
in September, which may affect their activity. Across the
whole monitoring period, the larger juveniles (upper whisker) usually reached
60 ¡V 80 mm in
prosomal width, even 90 mm occasionally. The juveniles reaching this size might
gradually migrate to sub-tidal habitats.
Box plot of horseshoe crab populations in ST
3.6.32
Figure 3.8 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in
ST. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda was rarely found
between September 2012 and December 2013 hence the data were lacking. From
March 2014 to September 2018, the size of major population decreased and more
small individuals (i.e. lower whisker) were recorded after June of every year.
It indicated new round of spawning. Also there were similar increasing trends
of body size from September to June of next year between 2014 and 2017. It
indicated a stable growth of individuals. The larger juveniles (i.e. upper
whisker usually ranged 60 ¡V 80
mm in prosomal width except one individual (prosomal width 107.04 mm) found in
March 2017. It reflected juveniles reaching this size would gradually migrate
to sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.33
For Tachypleus tridentatus, a
consistent growing trend was observed for the major population from December 2012 to December 2014 regardless of
change of search record. The prosomal width increased from 15 ¡V
30 mm to 60 ¡V 70 mm. As mentioned, the large juveniles might have reached a suitable size for
migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat. From March to
September 2015, the size of major population decreased slightly to a prosomal
width 40 ¡V 60 mm. At the
same time, the number of individuals decreased gradually. It further indicated
some of large juveniles might have migrated to sub-tidal habitat, leaving the
smaller individuals on shore. There was an overall growth trend. In December
2015, two big individuals (prosomal width 89.27 mm and 98.89 mm) were recorded
only while it could not represent the major population. In March 2016, the
number of individual was very few in ST that no box plot could be produced. In
June 2016, the prosomal width of major population ranged 50 ¡V 70 mm. But it dropped clearly to 30 ¡V 40 mm in September 2016 followed by an increase
to 40 ¡V 50 mm in
December 2016, 40 ¡V 70
mm in March 2017 and 50 ¡V 60mm
in June 2017. Based on overall higher number of small individuals from June
2016 to September 2017, it indicated another round of spawning. From September
2017 to June 2018, the major size range increased slightly from 40 ¡V 50 mm to 45 ¡V 60 mm indicating a continuous growth. In
September 2018, decrease of major size was noted again that might reflect new
round of spawning. Throughout the monitoring period, the larger juveniles
ranged 60-80 mm in prosomal width. Juveniles reaching this size would gradually
migrate to sub-tidal habitats.
3.6.34
As a summary for horseshoe
crab populations in TC3 and ST, there were spawning ground of Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda from 2014 to 2018 while the spawning time should be in spring.
The population size was consistent in these two sampling zones. For Tachypleus tridentatus, small individuals were rarely found in both zones from 2014 to 2015. It was believed no occurrence of
successful spawning. The existing individuals (that recorded since 2012) grew
to a mature size and migrated to sub-tidal habitat. Hence the number of
individuals decreased gradually.
From 2016 to 2018, new rounds of spawning were recorded in ST while the
population size increased to a moderate level.
3.6.35
In March 2019 to June 2019
and Dec 2021, no horseshoe crab juveniles (prosomal width <100mm) were
recorded in TC3 and ST. All recorded horseshoe crabs were large individuals
(prosomal width >100mm) or mating pairs which were all excluded from the
data analysis. From September 2019 to September 2020, the population size of
both horseshoe crab species in ST gradually increased to moderate level while
their body sizes were mostly in small to medium range (~23 ¡V 55mm). It indicated the natural stable growth of
the horseshoe crab juveniles. In December 2020, the population size of both
horseshoe crab species in ST dropped to low level while their body sizes were
mostly in small to medium range (~28
¡V 56mm). It showed the natural mortality and seasonal
variation of horseshoe crab. In June
2022, the population size of both
horseshoe crab species in ST was kept as low-moderate level while their body
sizes were mostly in small to medium range (~51¡V78mm). In September 2022, the
population size of both horseshoe crab species in TC3 and ST was kept as low-moderate
level while their body sizes were mostly in small to medium range (~56¡V62mm).
In September 2023, the population size of both horseshoe crab species in TC3
and ST was kept as low-moderate level while their body sizes were mostly in
small to medium range (~44-79mm).
Impact of the HKLR project
3.6.36
It was the 49th survey of
the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the monitoring
results, no detectable impact on horseshoe crab was revealed due to HKLR
project. The population change was mainly determined by seasonal variation, no
abnormal phenomenon of horseshoe crab individual, such as large number of dead
individuals on the shore had been reported.
Discussion
3.6.37
There are two horseshoe
crabs recorded in September 2024. The population of horseshoe crabs recorded in
recent years has been in a decreasing trend since 2021, referring to Figure
3.5. It is noted that the inter-tidal habitat for the juvenile horseshoe crabs
within the monitoring sites is become smaller in area due to increased seagrass
colonization as indicated by seagrass monitoring results, i.e. seagrasses cover
area increased in recent years (refer to Figure 3.11 of Appendix O). The juvenile horseshoe crabs prefer open soft
mud/sand habitat as they can easily burrow in the mud/sand to hide themselves
when the habitat exposed during low tide. When the mud/sand habitat was
colonized by seagrasses, the roots of seagrasses made it difficult for
horseshoe crab to burrow and hide. In this situation, horseshoe crabs may avoid
habitat or being easily predated by predators such as birds.
Seagrass Beds
3.6.38
Two seagrass species
Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were found in September 24. Halophila
ovalis was found in TC3 and ST and Zostera japonica was found only in ST. In
ST, there were six large sized of Halophila ovalis found at tidal zone 1.5m
above C.D up to mangroves margin. Similar to last monitoring, the larger strand
had an area of ~10000m2 in moderate vegetation coverage (60-80%), ~9000m2 in
moderate vegetation coverage (50-60%),~1000m2 in moderate vegetation coverage
(30-50%) and three ~600-900m2 in low to moderate vegetation coverage (10 -
30%). In TC3, 3 large patches of Halophila ovalis were found in
tidal zone 1.5m above C.D. The larger strand had area ~10000m2 in moderate
vegetation coverage (50-60%), ~4000m2 in moderate vegetation coverage (40-50%)
and ~2000m2 in low to moderate vegetation coverage (15-30%). At close vicinity
to mangrove, one small sized (25m2) of Zostera japonica beds were observed at
tidal zone 2.0m above C.D in ST along part of mangrove margin. Table
3.2 summarizes
the results of the present seagrass beds survey, and the photograph records of
the seagrass are shown in Figure
3.9 of Appendix O. The
complete record throughout the monitoring period is presented in Annex III of Appendix O.
3.6.39
Since the commencement of
the EM&A monitoring programme, two species of seagrass Halophila ovalis and Zostera
japonica were recorded in TC3
and ST (Figure 3.10 of Appendix O). In general, Halophila ovalis was occasionally found in TC3 in few small to medium
patches. But it was commonly found in ST in medium to large seagrass bed.
Moreover, it had sometimes grown extensively and had covered significant
mudflat area at 0.5 ¡V 2.0 m above
C.D. between TC3 and ST. Another seagrass species Zostera japonica was found in ST only. It was relatively lower in vegetation area and co-existed
with Halophila ovalis nearby the mangrove strand at 2.0 m above C.D.
3.6.40
According to the previous
results, majority of seagrass bed was confined in ST, the temporal change of
both seagrass species was investigated in details:
Temporal variation of seagrass
beds in ST
3.6.41
Figure 3.11 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds in ST along
the sampling months. For Zostera
japonica, it was not recorded
in the 1st and 2nd surveys of monitoring programme.
Seasonal recruitment of few, small patches (total seagrass area: 10 m2)
was found in March 2013 that grew within the large patch of seagrass Halophila ovalis. Then, the patch size increased and merged gradually with
the warmer climate from March to June 2013 (15 m2). However, the
patch size decreased and remained similar from September 2013 (4 m2)
to March 2014 (3 m2). In June 2014, the patch size increased
obviously again (41 m2) with warmer climate followed by a decrease
between September 2014 (2 m2) and December 2014 (5 m2).
From March to June 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 September 2015 to June 2016, it was found coexisting with seagrass Halophila ovalis with steady increasing patch size (from 44 m2
to 115 m2) and variable coverage. In September 2016, the patch size decreased again to (38 m2) followed by
an increase to a horizontal strand (105.4 m2) in June 2017.
And it did no longer co-exist with Halophila ovalis.
Between September 2014 and June 2017, an increasing trend was noticed from September
to June of next year followed by a rapid decline in September of next year. It
was possibly the causes of heat stress, typhoon and stronger grazing pressure
during wet season. However, such increasing trend was not found from September
2017 to March 2021, while no patch of Zostera japonica was found.
From June 2021, the species was recorded again in area of 45m2. The
recorded area of the seagrass bed in September 2021 survey was slightly
decreased to 15m2.
3.6.42
For Halophila ovalis, it was recorded as 3 ¡V 4 medium to large patches (area
18.9- 251.7 m2; vegetation coverage 50 ¡V 80%) beside the mangrove
vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. in September 2012. The total seagrass
bed area grew steadily from 332.3 m2 in September 2012 to 727.4 m2
in December 2013. Flowers were observed in the largest patch during its
flowering period. In March 2014, 31 small to medium patches were newly recorded
(variable area 1 ¡V 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 June 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 September 2014, the total seagrass area declined sharply to 1111m2.
There were only 3-4 small to large patches (6 ¡V 253 m2) at high
tidal level and 1 large patch at low tidal level (786 m2).
Typhoon or strong water current was
a possible cause (Fong, 1998). In September 2014, there were two tropical
cyclone records in Hong Kong (7th ¡V 8thSeptember: no
cyclone name, maximum signal number 1; 14th ¡V 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
¡V 20%) and small leaves.
3.6.43
In December 2014, all the
seagrass patches of Halophila
ovalis disappeared in ST. Figure
3.12 of Appendix O shows the difference of the original seagrass
beds area nearby the mangrove vegetation at high tidal level between 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
3.6.44
Typhoon or strong water
current was suggested as one unfavorable 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.
3.6.45
Prolonged light deprivation
due to turbid water would be another unfavorable condition. Previous studies
reported that Halophila ovalis had little tolerance to light deprivation. During experimental darkness, seagrass biomass
declined rapidly after 3-6 days and seagrass died completely after 30 days. The
rapid death might be due to shortage of available carbohydrate under limited
photosynthesis or accumulation of phytotoxic end products of anaerobic
respiration (details see Longstaff et al., 1999). Hence the seagrass bed
of this species was susceptible to temporary light deprivation events such as
flooding river runoff (Longstaff and Dennison, 1999).
3.6.46
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 during mid-ebb tide at stations SR3 (27.5 mg/L) and IS5
(34.5 mg/L) exceeded the Action Level (≤ 23.5 mg/L and 120% of upstream control
station¡¦s reading) and Limit Level (≤ 34.4 mg/L and 130% of upstream control
station¡¦s reading) respectively. The turbidity readings at SR3 and IS5 reached
24.8 ¡V 25.3 NTU and 22.3 ¡V 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 ¡V 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, was carried out within silt curtain as recommended in the
EIA report. Moreover there was no leakage of turbid water, abnormity or
malpractice recorded during water sampling. In general, the exceedance of
suspended solids concentration was considered to be attributed to other
external factors, rather than the contract works.
3.6.47
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 in the mudflat of ST through seed
reproduction as long as there was no unfavourable condition in the coming
months.
Recolonization of seagrass beds
3.6.48
Figure 3.12 of Appendix O shows the recolonization of seagrass bed in ST
from December 2014 to September 2024. From March to June 2015, 2 ¡V 3 small patches of Halophila ovalis were newly found co-inhabiting with another seagrass
species Zostera japonica. But the total patch area of Halophila
ovalis was still very low compared with 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, because
Zostera japonica had extended and 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 its competitor Zostera japonica. In June 2016, the total seagrass area increased
sharply to 4707.3m2. Like the previous records of March to June
2014, the original patch area of Halophila
ovalis increased further to a
horizontally long strand. Another large seagrass beds colonized the lower tidal
zone (1.0 ¡V 1.5 m above C.D.). In September 2016, this patch extended much and
covered significant soft mud area of ST, resulting in sharp increase of total
area (24245 m2). It indicated the second extensive colonization of
this r-selected seagrass. In December 2016, this extensive seagrass patch
decreased in size and had been separated into few, undistinguishable patches.
Moreover, the horizontal strand nearby the mangrove vegetation decreased in
size. The total seagrass bed decreased to 12550 m2. From March to
June 2017, the seagrass bed area remained generally stable (12438- 17046.5 m2)
but the vegetation coverage fluctuated (20 ¡V 50% in March 2017 to 80 ¡V 100% in
June 2017). The whole recolonization process took about 2.5 years.
Second disappearance of seagrass bed
3.6.49
In September 2017, the whole
seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis
disappeared again along the
shore of TC3 and ST (Figure 3.12 of Appendix O). Like the first disappearance of seagrass bed
occurred between September and December 2014, strong water current (e.g. cyclone) or deteriorated water qualities
(e.g. high turbidity) was the possible cause.
3.6.50
Between the survey periods
of June and September 2017, there were four tropical cyclone records in Hong
Kong (Merbok in 12- 13th, June; Roke in 23rd,
Jul.; Hato in22 ¡V 23rd, Aug.; Pakhar
in 26 ¡V 27th, Aug.) (Online database
of Hong Kong Observatory) All of
them reached signal 8 or above, especially Hato with highest signal 10.
3.6.51
According to the water
quality monitoring results (July to August 2017) of the two closest monitoring
stations SR3 and IS5 of the respective EM&A programme, the overall water
quality was in normal fluctuation. There was an exceedance of suspended solids
(SS) at SR3 on 12 July 2017. The SS concentration reached 24.7 mg/L during mid-ebb
tide, which exceeded the Action Level (≤ 23.5 mg/L). But it was far below the
Limit Level (≤ 34.4 mg/L). Since
such exceedance was slight and temporary, its effect to seagrass bed should be
minimal.
3.6.52
Overall, the disappearance
of seagrass beds in ST has believed the cause of serial cyclone hit in July and
August 2017. Based on previous findings, the seagrass beds of both species were
expected to recolonize in the mudflat if the vicinal water quality was normal.
The whole recolonization process (from few, small patches to extensive strand)
would gradually lasting at least 2 years. From December 2017 to March 2018,
there was still no recolonization of few, small patches of seagrass at the
usual location (Figure 3.12 of Appendix O). It was different from the previous round
(March 2015 ¡V June 2017). Until June 2018, the new seagrass patches with
small-medium size were found at the usual location (seaward side of mangrove
plantation at 2.0 m C.D.) again, indicating the recolonization. However, the
seagrass bed area decreased sharply to 22.5 m2 in September 2018.
Again it was believed that the decrease was due to the hit of the super cyclone
in September 2018 (Mangkhuton 16th September, highest signal 10).
From December 2018 to June 2019, the seagrass bed area increased from 404 m2
to 1229 m2 while the vegetation coverage is also increased (December
2018: 5¡V 85%; March 2019: 50 ¡V 100% and June 2019: 60 ¡V 100%). Relatively, the
whole recolonization process would occur slower than the previous round (more
than 2 years). From September 2019 to March 2021, the seagrass bed area in ST
slightly decreased from 1200 m2 to 942.05 m2, which
were in normal fluctuation. From March 2021 to December 2021, the seagrass bed
area in ST decreased from 942.05 m2 to 680m2, which
were in normal fluctuation. In March 2022, the seagrass bed area in ST
increased significantly to approximately 2040 m2, which believed to
be related to more rain in current dry season. It was observed that the brown
filamental algae bloom occurred at ST site in March 2022. Distribution of the
algae was overlapped with seagrass beds, mainly the species Halophila ovalis
and the algae was grown over the top of the seagrass. In some areas, the
brown filamental algae fully covered the seagrass bed, referring to Figure 3.9.
The seagrass was still alive when checked during the field survey. Whether the
algae bloom will kill seagrass in longer period time is unknown. The seagrass
distribution and health condition should be checked in the coming June
monitoring. The algae bloom of the brown filamental algae at the seagrass bed
disappeared as observed in June 2022, referring to Figure 3.9. Seagrass in
December 2022 and September 2022 have decreased compared to June 2022 due to
normal seasonal change. Seagrass in March 2023 have increased compare to previous
quarter due to normal seasonal change. Seagrass in June 2023 have further
increased around 20% compared to the previous period. Seagrass in September and
December 2023 have decreased compared to previous quarter due to normal
seasonal change. In March 2024, seagrass increased compared to the previous
quarter. In September 2024, seagrass coverage increased compare to the previous
quarter.
Impact of the HKLR project
3.6.53
It was the 49th survey
of the EM&A Programme during construction period. Throughout the monitoring
period, the disappearance of seagrass beds was believed to be the cause of
cyclone hits rather than impact of HKLR project. The seagrass bed was
recolonized since there had been a gradual increase in size and number from
December 2018 to June 2019 after the hit of the super cyclone in September
2018. The seagrass bed area decreased from March 2021 to December 2021, which
was in normal fluctuation. It is observed that the seagrass Halophila ovalis
covered a larger area than before. Total seagrass bed area significantly
increased from March 2022 to June 2022 and slightly reduced in September 2022.
Seagrass in September and December 2023 have decreased compared to previous
quarter and increased in March, June, and September 2024.
Intertidal Soft Shore
Communities
Substratum
3.6.54
Table 3.3 and Figure 3.13 of Appendix O show the substratum types along the horizontal
transect at every tidal level in all sampling zones. The relative distribution
of substratum types was estimated by categorizing the substratum types (Gravels
& Boulders / Sands / Soft mud) of the ten random quadrats along the
horizontal transect. The distribution of substratum types varied among tidal
levels and sampling zones:
¡P
In TC1, high percentages of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (85%) were
recorded at a high tidal level. At mid tidal level, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was
the main substratum type (80%), following by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (10%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦
(10%). At low tidal level, ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ was the main substratum type (90%),
followed by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (10%).
¡P
In TC2, high
percentages of ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ (90%)
was recorded at high tidal level, following by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (5%)
and soft mud (5%). At mid tidal levels, Gravels and
Boulders¡¦ was the main substratum type (70%),
following by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (15%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (15%).
At low tidal level, ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ covered 90%, ¡¥Gravels
and Boulders¡¦ and ¡¥Sands ¡¦ covered the remaining 10% of the transect
¡P
In TC3, the higher percentage of ¡¥Gravels
and Boulders¡¦ was recorded at high tidal level (80%), following by ¡¥Sands¡¦ and
Soft mud covered remaining 20%. At mid
tidal level, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was the main substratum type
(60%), following by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (20%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ 20%).
At low tidal level, ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ covered 95%
of the transect, and ¡¥Sands ¡¦ covered 5% of the
transect
¡P
In ST, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was the main substratum type (90%)
at high tidal level, followed by ¡¥Sands¡¦ (5%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (5%). At mid tidal
levels, ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ was the main substratum type (70%), following by
¡¥Sands¡¦ (20%) and ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ (10%). At low tidal level, ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ was the main
substratum type (95%), ¡¥Sands¡¦ covered 5% of the transect.
3.6.55
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.
Soft shore communities
3.6.56
Table 3.4 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number
of taxon of every phylum in this survey. A total of 7,580 individuals were
recorded. Mollusca was the most abundant phylum (total abundance 6,633 ind.,
density 221 ind. m-2, relative abundance 87.5%). The second and
third were Arthropoda 559 ind., 19 ind. m-2, 7.4%) which followed by
Sipuncula (172 ind., 6 ind. m-2, 2.3%) and Annelida (102 ind., 3
ind. m-2, 1.3%), respectively. The fifth was Cnidania with total
abundance 60 ind., density 2 ind.m-2 and relative abundance 0.8%.
The sixth was Nemertea with total abundance 39 ind., density 1 ind.m-2 and
relative abundance 0.5%. Platyhelminthes was very low in abundances (density 1
ind. m-2, relative abundance 0.2%). Moreover, the most diverse
phylum was Mollusca (32 taxa) followed by Arthropoda (6 taxa). Annelida (3
taxa) and Sipuncula (2 taxa). There was 1 taxon for Nemertea, Cnidaria and
Platyhelminthes.
3.6.57
The taxonomic resolution and complete
list of recorded fauna are shown in Appendix OV and V respectively. As reported in June 2018, taxonomic
revision of three potamidid snail species was conducted according to the latest
identification key published by Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (details see AFCD, 2018), the species names of following gastropod
species were revised:
¡P
Cerithidea cingulata was revised as Pirenella asiatica
¡P
Cerithidea
djadjariensis was revised
as Pirenella incisa
¡P
Cerithidea
rhizophorarum was revised
as Cerithidea moerchii
Moreover, taxonomic revision
was conducted on another snail species while the specie name was revised:
¡P
Batillaria
bornii
was revised as Clypeomorus bifasciata
3.6.58
In March 2021, an increased number of sea slugs
and their eggs were observed in all sampling zones. It may due to the breeding
season of sea slug and the increased of algae on the intertidal.
3.6.59
Table 3.5 of Appendix O shows
the number of individuals, relative abundance and density of each phylum in
every sampling zone. The total abundance (1,787 ¡V 2,009 ind.) varied among the
four sampling zones while the phyla distributions were similar. In general,
Mollusca was the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 1,548 ¡V 1,793 ind.;
relative abundance 83.6% - 89.2%; density 206 - 239 ind. m-2). Other
phyla were much lower in number of individuals. Arthropoda (109 - 225 ind.;
5.4% ¡V 12.1%; 15 - 30 ind. m-2) was common phyla relatively. Other
phyla were very low in abundance in all sampling zones.
Dominant
species in every sampling zone
3.6.60
Table 3.6 lists the abundant species in
every sampling zone. In the present
survey, most of the listed abundant species were of low to moderate densities
(42 ¡V 95 ind. m-2). Few of the listed species were of
high or very high density (>100 ind. m-2), which were regarded as
dominant species. Other listed species of lower density (<42 ind. m-2)
were regarded as common species.
3.6.61
In TC1, the substratum was mainly ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ at high and mid tidal levels. At
high tidal level, the rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (mean density 109 ind. m-2; relative abundance 39%)
was the dominant species found at high density and the gastropod Monodonta labio (65 ind. m-2;
relative abundance 23%) was of low to moderate density.
At mid tidal level, the rock
oyster Saccostrea cucullata (80 ind. m-2, 33%) was at
dominant species with low to
moderate density. The gastropod Monodonta
labio (51 ind. m-2, 21%) was at low to moderate densities, followed by Batillaria zonalis (36ind.
M-2, 15%) at low
to moderate densities. At low tidal
level (main substratum type ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), the Batillaria
multiformis (44
ind. m-2, 22%), the Nodilittorina radiata (39 ind. m-2, 20%) and Barbatia virescens (32 ind. m-2,
16%) were of lower density, regarded as common species.
3.6.62
In TC2, the substratum types
were mainly ' Gravels and Boulders' at a
high tidal level. The rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (113
ind. m-2, 38%) was
the dominant species found at high
density. The
gastropod Monodonta labio (60 ind. m-2, 20%) was dominant at low to moderate density and the Batillaria multiformis (38 ind. m-2, 13%) was
at lower density. At mid tidal level (main
substratum types ¡¥Soft mud¡¦ and ¡¥Gravels
and Boulders¡¦), rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (79 ind. m-2, 34%), gastropods
Monodonta zonalis (32 ind. m-2, 14%) and Batillaria
labio (38 ind. m-2, 16%) were
dominant at low density. Substratum types ¡¥Soft Mud¡¦ were mainly
distributed at low tidal level, the Barbatia virescens (54 ind. m-2, 26%) was
dominant at low densities, the Batillaria multiformis (40
ind. m-2, 19%)
were of lower densities, regarded as common species.
3.6.63
In TC3, the substratum type
was mainly ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ at high tidal level. The rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (117 ind. m-2, 40%) was of dominant
species at high density and the gastropod Monodonta labio (66 ind. m-2,
22%) was of low to moderate density.
At mid tidal level (main substratum types ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), the rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (86 ind. m-2, 35%) was of the dominant
species at low to moderate density.
The gastropod Monodonta labio
(40 ind. m-2, 17%) was at low density level. At low
tidal level, the major substratum type was ¡¥Soft mud¡¦. The Barbatia virescens (51 ind. m-2, 22%) at low to moderate
density. The Lunella
granulate (37 ind. m-2, 16%), Batillaria
multiformis (35
ind. m-2, 15%) were
dominant at low densities.
3.6.64
In ST, the major substratum type was
¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦ at high tidal level. At high tidal level, the rock
oyster Saccostrea cucullata (110 ind. m-2, 38%) was abundant
at high density. The gastropods Monodonta labio(48 ind. m-2,
16%) were at low to moderate densities. At mid tidal level (main
substratum types ¡¥Gravels and Boulders¡¦), the gastropod Monodonta labio (100
ind. m-2, 33%) was abundant at high density. The rock oyster Saccostrea
cucullata (82 ind. m-2, 27%) was the dominant species at low to
moderate densities. At low tidal level (major substratum: ¡¥Soft mud¡¦), the Batillaria
zonalis (61 ind. m-2, 29%) was at low to moderate densities and Lunella
granulata (39 ind. m-2, 18%) was at low density.
3.6.65
In general, there was no
consistent zonation pattern of species distribution across all sampling zones
and tidal levels. The species distribution was determined by the type of
substratum primarily. In general, rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (776 ind.), gastropods Monodonta labio (468 ind.) and
Batillaria multiformis (188 ind.) were the most common species on gravel
and boulders substratum. Batillaria
zonalis (130 ind.) was the most common species on sands and soft
mud substrata.
Biodiversity and abundance of soft shore
communities
3.6.66
Table 3.7 of Appendix O shows the mean values of species number, density, and biodiversity
index H¡¦ and
species evenness J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and in every sampling zone. As
mentioned above, the differences among sampling zones and tidal levels were
determined by the major type of
substratum primarily.
3.6.67
Among the sampling zones,
the mean species number was varied from 15 - 18 spp. 0.25 m-2 among
the four sampling zones. The mean densities of ST (269 ind.
m-2) and TC3 (257
ind. m-2) is higher than TC2 (247 ind. m-2
TC1 (238 ind. m-2). The
higher densities of ST and TC3 are due to the relatively high number of
individuals in each quadrat. The mean H¡¦ for TC3 was 2.23, ST was 2.2, TC2 was 2.13 and TC1 was 2.07, followed by while the mean J of ST and TC3 was 0.8, slightly higher than TC1
and TC2 (0.77). This can be due to the
relatively non-even taxa distribution.
3.6.68
In the present survey, no
clear trend of mean species number, mean density, H¡¦ and J observed
among the tidal level.
3.6.69
Figures 3.14-3.17 of Appendix O show
the temporal changes of mean species number, mean density, H¡¦ and J at every tidal
level and in every sampling zone along the
sampling months. In general, all the biological parameters fluctuated
seasonally throughout the monitoring period. Lower mean species number and
density were recorded in dry season (December) but the mean H' and J fluctuated
within a limited range.
3.6.70
From June to December 2017,
there were steady decreasing trends of mean species number and density in TC2,
TC3 and ST regardless of tidal levels. It might be an unfavorable change
reflecting environmental stress. The heat stress and serial cyclone hit were
believed to be the causes during the wet season of 2017. From March 2018
to September 2024 (present survey), generally
increases of mean species number
and density were observed in all sampling zones. It indicated the recovery of
intertidal community.
Impact of the HKLR project
3.6.71
It was the 49th survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR
project were not detected on intertidal soft shore community.
Abnormal phenomena (e.g. rapid,
consistent or non-seasonal decline of fauna densities and
species number) were not recorded.
3.7 Solid and
Liquid Waste Management Status
3.7.1
The Contractor registered with EPD as a Chemical Waste Producer on 12
July 2012 for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available
for general refuse collection and sorting.
3.7.2
The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix K.
3.7.3
The Contractor was reminded that chemical waste containers should be
properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage
area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging,
Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.
3.8
Environmental Licenses and Permits
3.8.1
The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period
are summarized in Appendix L.
4
Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance
4.1.1
The detailed air quality, noise, water quality
and dolphin exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the environmental exceedances are presented
as follows:
Air Quality
4.1.2
No Action Level and Limit level exceedances of
1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period.
Noise
4.1.3
No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were
recorded during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.
Water
Quality
4.1.4
For marine water quality
monitoring, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen
level, turbidity level and suspended solid level were recorded.
Dolphin
4.1.5
There was a Limit Level exceedance of dolphin
monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between September 2024 and November
2024). According to the contractor¡¦s information, toe loading removal works
were undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of September 2024 and November 2024.
4.1.6
There is no evidence showing
the current LL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of
HKLR03 (where the amounts of working vessels for HKLR03 have been decreasing),
although the generally increased amount of vessel traffic in NEL during the
impact phase has been partly contributed by HKLR03 works since October 2012. It
should also be noted that work area under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island)
situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the
working vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in
accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White
Dolphin (CWD). In addition, the contractor will implement proactive
mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s
designated anchorage site ¡V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as
far as practicable.
4.1.7
All dolphin protective measures are fully and
properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual, EIA report and EP.
According to the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan, the travelling speed of
vessels must not exceed 5 knots when crossing the edge of the Brothers Marine
Park. The Contractor will continue to provide training for skippers to ensure
that their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize
impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department¡¦s designated
anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as
practicable. Also, it
is recommended to complete the marine works of the Contract as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts
and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.
4.2
Summary of Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecution
4.2.1
There was no complaint received in relation to
the environmental impacts during this reporting period. The details of
cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix N.
4.2.2
No notification of summons and prosecution was
received during the reporting period. Statistics on notifications of summons
and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.
5
Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion
5.1.1
According to the environmental site inspections
undertaken during the reporting period, no comments were issued.
5.2.1
The impact monitoring programme ensured that any deterioration in environmental condition was
readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any non-compliance.
Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected demonstrated the
environmental impacts of the contract. With implementation of the recommended
environmental mitigation measures, the contract¡¦s environmental impacts were
considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site
inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended
were effectively implemented.
5.2.2
The recommended environmental mitigation
measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the contract. Also, the EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No
particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
5.3.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme of
the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012. This is the forty-ninth Quarterly EM&A Report which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A
programme during the reporting period from 1 September
2024 to 30 November 2024.
Air Quality
5.3.2
No Action Level and Limit Level exceedances of
1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period. The existing air quality monitoring location AMS6 - Dragonair /
CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA) was handed over to Airport Authority Hong Kong on
31 March 2021. 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring at AMS6 was temporarily suspended
starting from 1 April 2021 and resumed on 7 August 2024.
Noise
5.3.3
No Action/Limit Level exceedances for noise were
recorded during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.
Water Quality
Dolphin
5.3.6
Although dolphins rarely occurred in the area of
HKLR03 construction in the past and during the baseline monitoring period, it
is apparent that dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in NEL since
2012, and many individuals have shifted away from the important habitat around
the Brothers Islands.
5.3.7
It is critical to continuously monitor the
dolphin usage in North Lantau region to determine whether the dolphins are
continuously affected by the construction activities in relation to the
HZMB-related works, and whether suitable mitigation measure can be applied to
revert the situation.
Mudflat
- Sedimentation Rate
5.3.8
This measurement result was generally and
relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The
mudflat level is continuously increased.
Mudflat
- Ecology
5.3.9
The September 2024 survey results indicate that
impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on intertidal soft shore
community. Based on the monitoring results, no detectable impact on horseshoe
crab was revealed due to HKLR project. The population change was mainly
determined by seasonal variation, no abnormal phenomenon of horseshoe crab
individual, such as large number of dead individuals on the shore had been
reported. Throughout the monitoring period, the disappearance of seagrass beds
was believed to be the cause of cyclone hits rather than impact of HKLR
project. The seagrass bed was recolonized since there had been a gradual
increase in size and number from December 2018 to June 2019 after the hit of
the super cyclone in September 2018. The seagrass bed area decreased from March
2021 to December 2021, which was in normal fluctuation. It is observed that the
seagrass Halophila ovalis covered a larger area than before. Total seagrass bed
area significantly increased from March 2022 to June 2022 and slightly reduced
in September 2022. Seagrass in September and December 2023 have decreased
compared to previous quarter and increased in March, June, and September 2024. Based
on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on intertidal
soft shore community. Abnormal phenomena (e.g. rapid, consistent or
non-seasonal decline of fauna densities and species number) were not recorded.
Environmental
Site Inspection and Audit
5.3.10
Environmental site
inspection was carried out on 5, 11, 19 and 27 September 2024; 2, 9, 16, 25 and 30 October 2024; 6, 13, 20 and 29 November 2024.
5.3.11
There was no complaint received in relation to
the environmental impact during the reporting period.
5.3.12 No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the
reporting period.