from the following URL addresses: ... · 6p Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP works 6 – 7 6q Yuen Long...

User Guide This report "River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001" is prepared using Traditional Chinese Version of *Adobe Acrobat 5.0. Though the entire report is written in English, some of the special characters used in this report cannot be properly displayed on English version of Adobe Acrobat Reader without the Traditional Chinese Font Pack. To view all the content of this report, you need Traditional Chinese version of Adobe Acrobat Reader; or English version of Adobe Acrobat Reader plus Traditional Chinese Font Pack installed on your computer. You can download the latest version of Acrobat Reader and Traditional Chinese Font Pack from the following URL addresses:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html -- (Reader) http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/cjkfontpack.html -- (Font Pack)

If you have any query, comment or suggestion regarding this report, please write to the following e-mail address : [email protected] Of course, you are most welcome to visit our departmental website :

http://www.epd.gov.hk Water Policy and Planning Group Environmental Protection Department Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government Dec 2002.

================== *NOTICE TO USER =================== Acrobat Reader copyright (1987-2002), Adobe System Incorporated. Adobe, Adobe logo, Acrobat and Acrobat logo are trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Before using the Acrobat Reader, you must read and agree to the 'End User License Agreement'. By installing and/or using such software you accept all the terms and conditions of the 'End User License Agreement'. =====================================================

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/cjkfontpack.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001

Results for 2001 from the River Water Quality Monitoring Programme of the Environmental Protection Department

Monitoring Section Water Policy and Planning Group

Environmental Protection Department The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

2002

Printed on recycled paper

River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001

River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 Report number : EPD/TR2/02 Date : November 2002 Report written by : Cecilia P.W. WONG Work done by : Cecilia P.W. WONG, S.W. LEE Y.W. LAU, W.H. WONG and C.K. TANG Work supervised by : Cathie S.W. KUEH Cover designed by : Y.W. LAU and W.H. WONG Security classification : Unrestricted

Note: The information contained in this publication can be used freely for

study, research and training purposes subject to acknowledgement of the source. Use of the information for purposes other than those stated above requires prior permission of the Director of Environmental Protection.

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 C - 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

K – 1

SUMMARY

S – 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1 – 1

2. TOLO HARBOUR AND CHANNEL WATER CONTROL ZONE 2.1 Shing Mun River 2.2 Lam Tsuen River 2.3 Tai Po River 2.4 Tai Po Kau Stream 2.5 Shan Liu and Tung Tze Streams 2.6 Tolo Harbour Sewerage Master Plan

2 – 1

2 – 1 2 – 2 2 – 3 2 – 3 2 – 4 2 – 4

3. SOUTHERN WATER CONTROL ZONE 3.1 Mui Wo River

3 – 1

3 – 1

4. PORT SHELTER WATER CONTROL ZONE 4.1 Ho Chung River 4.2 Sha Kok Mei Stream 4.3 Tai Chung Hau Stream 4.4 Port Shelter Sewerage Master Plan

4 – 1

4 – 1 4 – 1 4 – 2 4 – 2

5. JUNK BAY WATER CONTROL ZONE 5.1 Tseng Lan Shue Stream

5 – 1

5 – 1

6. DEEP BAY WATER CONTROL ZONE 6.1 River Indus 6.2 River Beas 6.3 River Ganges 6.4 Yuen Long Creek 6.5 Kam Tin River 6.6 Tin Shui Wai Nullah 6.7 Fairview Park Nullah 6.8 Ngau Hom Sha, Sheung Pak Nai, Pak Nai, Ha Pak Nai,

Tai Shui Hang and Tsang Kok Streams 6.9 Pollution control measures in the Deep Bay catchment

6 – 1

6 – 1 6 – 1 6 – 2 6 – 2 6 – 3 6 – 4 6 – 4 6 – 5

6 – 6

CONTENTS


7. NORTH WESTERN WATER CONTROL ZONE

7.1 Tuen Mun River 7.2 Tung Chung River

7 – 1

7 – 1 7 – 1

8. WESTERN BUFFER WATER CONTROL ZONE 8.1 Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream

8 – 1

8 – 1

9. VICTORIA HARBOUR WATER CONTROL ZONE 9.1 Sam Dip Tam Stream 9.2 Kau Wa Keng Stream 9.3 Kai Tak Nullah

9 – 1

9 – 1 9 – 1 9 – 2

APPENDICES

A – 1

CONTENTS


Figure Title Page

1 Water Control Zones (WCZs) in Hong Kong

S – 3

2 Improving trend in the Water Quality Index (WQI) of inland waters of

Hong Kong from 1986 to 2001

S – 4

3 Improving trend in the compliance of Water Quality Objectives

(WQOs) in the inland waters of Hong Kong from 1986 to 2001

S – 5

4 Compliance of Hong Kong’s rivers and streams with Water Quality

Objectives (WQOs) in 2001

S – 6

5 Percentages of river monitoring stations in Hong Kong showing

long-term water quality trends in different parameters

S – 7

6 Major inland waters in Hong Kong and the Water Quality Index (WQI)

gradings of 82 monitoring stations in 2001

S – 8

7 Livestock waste prohibition, control and restriction areas in Hong Kong

S – 9

8 Sewerage Master Plan (SMP) areas in Hong Kong

S – 10

LIST OF FIGURES


Graph Title Page

2.1 E. coli level in Tai Wai Nullah (TR19) 2 – 1

2.2 E. coli level in Siu Lek Yuen Nullah (TR23A) 2 – 1

2.3 Improving trend of Copper in Fo Tan Nullah 2 – 2

2.4 Improving trend of Chromium in Fo Tan Nullah 2 – 2

2.5 E. coli level in Fo Tan Nullah (TR17L) 2 – 2

2.6 E. coli level in Shing Mun Main Channel (TR19I) 2 – 2

3.1 E. coli level in Mui Wo River (MW1) 3 – 1

6.1 E. coli level in River Indus (IN1) 6 – 1

6.2 E. coli level in River Beas (RB3) 6 – 2

6.3 E. coli level in River Ganges (GR1) 6 – 2

6.4 E. coli level in Yuen Long Creek (YL3) 6 – 3

6.5 E. coli level in Tin Shui Wai Nullah (TSR2) 6 – 4

6.6 E. coli level in Fairview Park Nullah (FVR1) 6 – 4

7.1 E. coli level in Tuen Mun River (TN6) 7 – 1

8.1 E. coli level in Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream (AN1) 8 – 1

LIST OF GRAPHS


Table Title Page

1 Ten top water quality rivers in Hong Kong in 2001 S – 1

2a WQO compliance of Shing Mun River 2 – 1

2b WQO compliance of Lam Tsuen River 2 – 3

2c WQO compliance of Tai Po River 2 – 3

2d WQO compliance of Tai Po Kau Stream 2 – 4

2e WQO compliance of Shan Liu Stream 2 – 4

2f WQO compliance of Tung Tze Stream 2 – 4

2g Tolo Harbour SMP works 2 – 4

2.1A - C River water quality trends in the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water

Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

2 – 5

2.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Tolo Harbour

and Channel Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

2 – 8

3a WQO compliance of Mui Wo River 3 – 1

3.1 River water quality trends in the Southern Water Control Zone based

on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

3 – 2

3.2 Pollution load reduction in the Mui Wo River catchment of the

Southern Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

3 – 3

4a WQO compliance of Ho Chung River 4 – 1

4b WQO compliance of Sha Kok Mei Stream 4 – 1

LIST OF TABLES


Table Title Page

4c WQO compliance of Tai Chung Hau Stream 4 – 2

4d Port Shelter SMP works 4 – 2

4.1 River water quality trends in the Port Shelter Water Control Zone

based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

4 – 3

4.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Port Shelter

Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

4 – 4

5a WQO compliance of Tseng Lan Shue Stream 5 – 1

5.1 River water quality trends in the Junk Bay Water Control Zone based


5 – 2

5.2 Pollution load reduction in the Tseng Lan Shue Stream catchment of

the Junk Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

5 – 3

6a WQO compliance of River Indus 6 – 1

6b WQO compliance of River Beas 6 – 1

6c WQO compliance of River Ganges 6 – 2

6d WQO compliance of Yuen Long Creek 6 – 3

6e WQO compliance of Kam Tin River 6 – 3

6f WQO compliance of Tin Shui Wai Nullah 6 – 4

6g WQO compliance of Fairview Park Nullah 6 – 5

6h WQO compliance of Sheung Pak Nai Stream 6 – 5

LIST OF TABLES


Table Title Page

6i WQO compliance of Pak Nai Stream 6 – 5

6j WQO compliance of Ha Pak Nai Stream 6 – 5

6k WQO compliance of Tai Shui Hang Stream 6 – 5

6l WQO compliance of Tsang Kok Stream 6 – 5

6m WQO compliance of Ngau Hom Sha Stream 6 – 6

6n North District SMP works 6 – 6

6p Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP works 6 – 7

6q Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP Review 6 – 7

6.1A - C River water quality trends in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone based


6 – 8

6.2A - D Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Deep Bay

Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

6 – 11

7a WQO compliance of Tuen Mun River 7 – 1

7b WQO compliance of Tung Chung River 7 – 2

7.1A - B River water quality trends in the North Western Water Control Zone


7 – 3

7.2 Pollution load reduction in the Tuen Mun River catchment of the

North Western Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

7 – 5

8a WQO compliance of Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream 8 – 1

LIST OF TABLES


Table Title Page

8b Ting Kau & Sham Tseng Sewerage Scheme 8 – 1

8.1 River water quality trends in the Western Buffer Water Control Zone


8 – 2

8.2 Pollution load reduction in the Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream

catchment of the Western Buffer Water Control Zone as at the end of

2001

8 – 3

9a WQO compliance of Sam Dip Tam Stream 9 – 1

9b WQO compliance of Kau Wa Keng Stream 9 – 1

9.1A - B River water quality trends in the Victoria Harbour Water Control

Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

9 – 3

9.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Victoria

Harbour Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

9 – 5

LIST OF TABLES


Appendix Title Page

1 Summary of river water quality monitoring stations and sampling

frequencies in 2001

A1 – 1

2.1 - 2.3

Summary of the parameters and analytical methods in the river water

quality monitoring programme

A2 – 1

3.1 - 3.2 Summary of key Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for different

watercourses in the river monitoring programme

A3 – 1

4 Water Quality Index (WQI) for inland waters of Hong Kong

A4 – 1

5.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shing Mun River and its tributaries

A5 – 1

5.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shing Mun River and its tributaries

(continued)

A5 – 2

5.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Lam Tsuen River and its tributaries

A5 – 3

5.4 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Lam Tsuen River (continued) and Tai

Po River and their tributaries

A5 – 4

5.5 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Tolo Harbour and

Channel Water Control Zone

A5 – 5

6.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Mui Wo River and its tributaries

A6 – 1

7.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Ho Chung River and its tributaries

A7 – 1

7.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Sha Kok Mei Stream and its tributaries

A7 – 2

LIST OF APPENDICES


Appendix Title Page

7.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tai Chung Hau Stream and its

tributaries

A7 – 3

8.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tseng Lan Shue Stream and its

tributaries

A8 – 1

9.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Indus and its tributaries

A9 – 1

9.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Beas and its tributaries

A9 – 2

9.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Ganges and its tributaries

A9 – 3

9.4 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Yuen Long Creek and Kam Tin River

and their tributaries

A9 – 4

9.5 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tin Shui Wai Nullah and Fairview

Park Nullah and their tributaries

A9 – 5

9.6 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Deep Bay Water

Control Zone

A9 – 6

9.7 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Deep Bay Water

Control Zone (continued)

A9 – 7

10.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tuen Mun River and its tributaries

A10 – 1

10.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tung Chung River and its tributaries

A10 – 2

11.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream and its

tributaries

A11 – 1

LIST OF APPENDICES


Appendix Title Page

12.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Sam Dip Tam Stream and its

tributaries

A12 – 1

12.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Kau Wa Keng Stream

A12 – 2

12.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Kai Tak Nullah

A12 – 3

13.1 - 13.11

Summary of river water quality monitoring data for 2001

A13 – 1

LIST OF APPENDICES

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 K - 1

We acknowledge the following parties for their contributions to the river water quality report: n Government Laboratory and

Waste Policy and Services Group, Environmental Protection Department

for undertaking chemical and bacteriological analyses of river samples. n Local Control Offices, Environmental Protection Department

for providing pollution loading data and information on pollution control measures.

n Sewerage Infrastructure Planning Group, Environmental Protection Department for updating the progress of sewerage master plans and other sewerage projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Summary of River Water Quality in 2001

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 S - 1

Since its establishment in 1986, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has set up a programme to monitor the water quality of rivers and streams in Hong Kong. In 2001, the water quality at 82 stations in 35 inland watercourses was monitored monthly. l In order to restore the health of Hong Kong’s rivers and streams, EPD has worked toward achieving the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in each of the Water Control Zones (WCZs) (Figure 1). After 16 years of pollution control work, a total of 111,600 kilogram BOD/day of organic pollution load has been removed, resulting in a significant improvement in the water quality of the rivers and streams in the territory. l In 2001, 72% of the river monitoring stations attained a “good” or “excellent” Water Quality Index (WQI) grading. For the second consecutive year, no river was in the “very bad” category (Figure 2). It is also pleasing to note that Sam Dip Tam Stream in the Victoria Harbour WCZ has reached an “excellent” status for the first time in ten years.

l The overall WQO compliance with the pH, suspended solids (SS), dissolved oxygen (DO), 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) objectives was 83%, the highest on record (Figure 3). The compliance with the pH and DO objectives reached 98% and 94% respectively; whereas the compliance with the BOD5 objective was lower at 66% (Figure 4). l The water quality parameters showed long-term improvements at most of the river stations. Some 87% of the monitoring stations showed an increase in dissolved oxygen; and

more than 60% of the stations showed decreases in suspended solids, aggregate organics and nutrients. In addition, around 30% of the stations showed significant decreases in heavy metals and E. coli bacteria in the last 16 years (Figure 5). l The inland water quality in the Outer Deep Bay, Port Shelter, Southern, Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZs is the best in the territory (Figure 6). In 2001, the top 10 watercourses which achieved a “good” or “excellent” WQI and a 99% or above WQO compliance are shown in Table 1. Similar to 2000, Ha Pak Nai, Tai Shui Hang, Sheung Pak Nai, Tsang Kok, Shan Liu and Tai Chung Hau Streams achieved a 100% compliance with the WQOs. Three other watercourses, Pak Nai Stream, Tung Tze Stream and Ho Chung River also fully met the WQOs for the first time, making a total of 9 rivers and streams in the territory achieving full compliance with the WQOs. Table 1 Ten top water quality rivers in Hong Kong in

2001

Overall

WCZ Watercourses WQO Compliance

(%)

*WQI

Outer Deep Bay

Ha Pak Nai Stream Tai Shui Hang Stream Pak Nai Stream Sheung Pak Nai Stream Tsang Kok Stream

100 100

100 100

100

E E

E E

E

Port Shelter

Ho Chung River Tai Chung Hau Stream

100 100

E E

Tolo Harbour

and Channel

Shan Liu Stream Tung Tze Stream

100 100

E G

Southern Mui Wo River 99 E *G and E stand for “good” and “excellent” WQI grading respectively l In 2001, 10 out of 82 river stations (12%) in the territory have achieved the E. coli WQO. These include Tin Sum Nullah (TR20B), Mui Wo River (MW3), Ho Chung River (PR2), Ha



河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 S - 2

Pak Nai Stream (DB1), Tai Shui Hang Stream (DB2), Pak Nai Stream (DB3), Sheung Pak Nai Stream (DB5), Tsang Kok Stream (DB8), and Tung Chung River (TC1 and TC2). Due to pollution from livestock wastes and unsewered villages, the bacterial levels in most of the rivers are still quite high. l Seven major rivers in the Inner Deep Bay WCZ had the poorest water quality in the territory, with a WQI of “bad” or “fair” in 2001. These include: River Indus, River Beas, River Ganges, Kam Tin River, Yuen Long Creek, Tin Shui Wai Nullah and Fairview Park Nullah. The overall compliance of these rivers with the 5 key parameters was low averaging 54% with 0% compliance with the E. coli objective. l In order to further reduce pollution in the rivers and streams, continued efforts would be made in enforcing the WPCO and Waste Disposal Ordinance, and the revised Livestock Waste Control Scheme (Figure 7). In addition, through the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance, EPD would minimise the environmental impacts of major construction projects. To cater for future population increase and developments, many sewerage master plans (Figure 8) have been updated to provide additional sewer and sewage treatment capacities. A comprehensive programme is in place to connect village houses to the newly built public sewers. All these measures would further improve the quality of inland waters in the territory.

Water C

ontrol Zones (W

CZ

s) in Hong K

ong

N

2SI 2SI

7S

6

10.3

10.210.1

10.1

8

2

7

9

4

3

11S

2S

Water Control Zones (WCZs)First

Appointed Day1. Tolo Harbour & Channel 1.4.872. Southern 1.8.883. Port Shelter 1.8.894. Junk Bay 1.8.895. Deep Bay 1.12.906. Mirs Bay 1.12.907. North Western 1.4.928. Western Buffer 1.6.939. Eastern Buffer 1.6.931S. Tolo Harbour Supplementary 1.6.932S. Southern Supplementary 1.6.9310. Victoria Harbour

10.1 Phase I 1.11.9410.2 Phase II 1.9.9510.3 Phase III 1.4.96

2SI. Second Southern Supplementary 1.11.997S. North Western Supplementary 1.11.99

2S

1SNEW TERRITORIES

KOWLOON

LANTAU ISLANDHONG KONG

ISLAND

1S

5

SHENZHEN

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-3 Figure 1 Water Control Zones (WCZs) in Hong Kong

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-4

Improving trend of W

ater Quality Index (W

QI)Figure 2 Improving trend in the Water Quality Index (WQI) of inland waters of Hong Kong from 1986 to 2001

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex(B

y pe

rcen

tage

% o

f mon

itorin

g st

atio

ns)

Bad

Very Bad

Fair

Good

Excellent

19.2 22.2 25.417.1

23.718.9 18.9

14.3 14.8 13.0 13.0 12.8 9.0 11.7 10.3 11.5

25.5

31.4 27.0

25.0 13.1 21.616.2

10.8 10.4

21.3 20.6 21.1 21.1 20.3 18.9 20.8 23.018.2 16.9 16.7 17.9 18.2 15.4 16.7

25.5

16.7 14.318.4

29.7

43.3

18.223.0

22.1 22.130.8 28.2 31.2

26.9 21.8

8.5

9.3

37.7

37.2 38.5 33.8 47.450.0

11.714.3

5.12.5 6.4

20.4

22.4

19.718.4

9.5

2.7

32.428.4

35.0

12.7

Year(Total number of

monitoring stations) (75) (86)(76) (81)(75) (86) (86) (86) (82) (82)(68)(57) (82)(47) (54) (82)

1998 19991990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199719891988 20001986 1987 2001

4947

49

58

61 61 62

6668

7072

7678 77

82 83

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-5

WQ

O C

om

plia

nce

(B

y p

erce

nta

ge

% o

f m

on

ito

rin

g s

tati

on

s)

Figure 3 Improving trend in the compliance of Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in the inland waters of Hong Kong from 1986 to 2001

Improving trend in the com

pliance of Water Q

uality Objectives (W

QO

s)

pH0% 100%

98

ChemicalOxygen Demand

0% 100%

80

DissolvedOxygen

0% 100%

94

5-day BiochemicalOxygen Demand

0% 100%

66

SuspendedSolids

0% 100%

76

OverallCompliance

(%)

90959598

100100

99100

97100

805244644539

100100100100

88100

59766499999897

83

Notes : 1. Overall compliance is the mean compliance rate of the five WQOs.2. Overall compliance of Shing Mun River is the mean compliance rate of 6 watercourses in the river system.3. Absence of a bar indicates 0% compliance. 4. Total compliance is the mean compliance rate of all river monitoring stations.

Shing Mun RiverLam Tsuen River

Tai Po RiverTai Po Kau Stream

Shan Liu StreamTung Tze Stream

Mui Wo RiverHo Chung River

Sha Kok Mei StreamTai Chung Hau Stream

Tseng Lan Shue StreamRiver IndusRiver Beas

River GangesYuen Long Creek

Kam Tin RiverHa Pak Nai Stream

Tai Shui Hang StreamPak Nai Stream

Sheung Pak Nai StreamNgau Hom Sha Stream

Tsang Kok StreamFairview Park NullahTin Shui Wai Nullah

Tuen Mun RiverTung Chung River

Pai Min Kok (Anglers') StreamSam Dip Tam StreamKau Wa Keng Stream

Total

WatercoursesWater Control Zones

Tolo Harbourand Channel

Southern

Port Shelter

Junk Bay

Deep Bay

North Western

Western Buffer

Victoria Harbour

4

3

2

Com

pliance with W

ater Quality O

bjectives (WQ

Os)

1

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-6 Figure 4 Compliance of Hong Kong's rivers and streams with Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in 2001

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-7

Long-term

water quality trends

Figure 5 Percentages of river monitoring stations in Hong Kong showing long-term water quality trends in different parameters

86.6

-29.3

1.2

-63.4

1.2

-20.7

4.9

-64.6

40.2

-17.11.2

-87.8 -84.1 -92.7

-100

-50

0

50

100

DissolvedOxygen

Total phosphorus(SP)3

E.coli SuspendedSolids

Sulphide(SP)3

Ammonianitrogen

Nitrate-nitrogen

Total Kjeldahlnitrogen (SP)

Ortho-phosphate

Nutrients

% of

stati

ons

BOD5 ZincCOD Oil & grease Aluminium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead

Aggregate organics Metals

% of

stati

ons

1. The results are based on Seasonal Kendall Test, significant at p < 0.05. 2. Positive values indicate increasing trends, negative values indicate decreasing trends.3. (SP) : Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total amount). 4. Blue indicates improvement, red indicates deterioration.

Notes :

-79.3 -82.9

-24.4

23.2-15.9

1.2-11.0 -28.0

1.2

-52.4

1.2

-50.0

3.7

-28.0

-100

-50

0

50

100

Figure 6 Major inland waters in Hong Kong and the Water Quality Index (WQI) gradings of 82 monitoringstations in 2001

Major inland w

aters and WQ

I of monitoring stations

22o10’N

N

31

32

2223

33

24

30

1

35

16

17

18

21

9

192

6

13

7

5

12

15

10 8

14

11

4

320

34

0 5 10km

114º00’114º10’ 114º20’

22º20’

22º30’

2526

27

28

29

ExcellentGoodFairBad

Water Quality Index

Inland watercourses1. Tseng Lan Shue Stream2. Ho Chung River3. Tai Chung Hau Stream4. Sha Kok Mei Stream5. Shing Mun Main Channel (Shing Mun River)6. Fo Tan Nullah (Shing Mun River)7. Siu Lek Yuen Nullah (Shing Mun River)8. Kwun Yam Shan Stream (Shing Mun River)9. Tai Wai Nullah (Shing Mun River)10. Tin Sum Nullah (Shing Mun River)11. Shan Liu Stream12. Tung Tze Stream13. Tai Po Kau Stream14. Tai Po River15. Lam Tsuen River16. River Ganges17. River Indus18. River Beas19. Kau Wa Keng Stream20. Sam Dip Tam Stream21. Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream22. Kam Tin River23. Yuen Long Creek24. Ngau Hom Sha Stream25. Sheung Pak Nai Stream26. Pak Nai Stream27. Ha Pak Nai Stream28. Tai Shui Hang Stream 29. Tsang Kok Stream30. Tuen Mun River31. Mui Wo River32. Fairview Park Nullah33. Tin Shui Wai Nullah34. Tung Chung River35. Kai Tak Nullah

SHENZHEN

NEW TERRITORIES

KOWLOON

LANTAUISLAND

HONG KONGISLAND

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-8

Figure 7 Livestock waste prohibition, control and restriction areas in Hong Kong

Livestock w

aste prohibition, control and restriction areas

N

Prohibition Areas

Restriction Areas

Control Areas

NEW TERRITORIES

KOWLOON

LANTAU ISLAND

HONG KONGISLAND

SHENZHEN

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001S

-9

S-10

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Figure 8 Sewerage Master Plan (SMP) areas in Hong Kong

N

0 5 10km

3

4

4

8

11

14

15 9

16

6

15 2

7

1012

1315

15

15

Sewerage M

aster Plan (SM

P) areas in H

ong Kong

1. East Kowloon 1992 20012. Hong Kong Island South 1990 19993. Tolo Harbour 1993 20094. Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung & Tsing Yi 1994 1998

Ting Kau & Sham Tseng 1996 20055. North West Kowloon 1986 20036. Port Shelter 1993 20077. Central, Western & Wan Chai West 1996 20078. Yuen Long & Kam Tin 1999 20089. North & South Kowloon 1995 200710. Chai Wan & Shau Kei Wan 1995 199711. Tuen Mun 1995 200712. Wan Chai East & North Point 1998 200613. Aberdeen, Ap Lei Chau & Pok Fu Lam 1998 200614. North District 1999 200915. Outlying Islands 1999 201016. Tseung Kwan O (Stages I & II) 2005 2006

Sewerage Master Plans Commencement Completion

Shenzhen

Chapter 1 Introduction

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 1 - 1

1.1.1 In 2001, the EPD conducted monthly water quality monitoring of 35 inland watercourses at 82 stations (Appendix 1). Most of the watercourses are in the Deep Bay WCZ (13), Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ (6) and Port Shelter WCZ (3). 1.2.1 The water quality data from the monitoring programme reflect the general health of the rivers, enable us to assess the effectiveness of the pollution abatement measures implemented, and provide a basis for formulating future water quality management strategies. The river water quality in Hong Kong is assessed in terms of:

Compliance with the WQOs calculated based on 5 key parameters: pH, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen (DO), 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).

Water Quality Index (WQI) indicating the extent of organic pollution in a river.

Long-term water quality trends analysed statistically to determine sustained improvement or deterioration.

1.2.2 The monitoring results are published in the printed and CD-ROM copies of the annual river water quality report which are available in the public libraries (http://www.hkpl.gov.hk) and Environmental Resource Centres. The public can also obtain the information from the EPD’s Internet website (http://www.epd.gov.hk).

1.3.1 A comprehensive range of hydrological, physico-chemical and biological parameters is analysed in river monitoring. Six physico-chemical parameters are measured in the field; while over 40 chemical and microbiological analyses are conducted in the Government Laboratory (http://www.info.gov.hk/govlab) and EPD’s laboratory. The parameters include flow rate, DO, aggregate organics (BOD5, COD, oil and grease), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), metals and faecal bacteria. Methods of determination and reporting limits of each of the parameters are summarised in Appendix 2 of this report. 1.4.1 Hong Kong is divided into ten Water Control Zones (WCZs) and three supplementary WCZs. Each WCZ has a specific set of WQOs which we aim to achieve and maintain (Appendix 3). 1.4.2 The annual compliance with the WQOs is expressed in percentage terms and is calculated based on the data of the water samples collected during the year. The WQO compliance of a river is the average compliance rate of all monitoring stations in the river; whereas the overall compliance rate is the average compliance rate of all river stations in the territory monitored during the year. 1.5.1 The Water Quality Index (WQI) is calculated based on DO, BOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen levels (Appendix 4). It is used to indicate the general health of the river,

Introduction 1.

1.1 River Monitoring Programme

1.2 Assessment of River Quality

1.3 Water quality parameters

1.4 Compliance with Water Quality

Objectives (WQOs)

1.5 Water Quality Index (WQI)

Chapter 1 Introduction


including level of organic pollution and its ability to support aquatic life. Using the WQI system, a river can be classified as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, “bad” or “very bad”. 1.6.1 In order to determine whether there is a sustained improvement or deterioration in the river, long-term water quality trends are calculated based on not less than 10 years of monitoring data. The water quality trends in this report are calculated statistically using the non-parametric Seasonal Kendall Test. The test shows whether there is a significant increase, decrease or absence of a trend for each of the water quality parameters. 1.7.1 The water quality of a river is directly affected by the amount of pollutants entering the river. In order to understand the changes in water quality and assess the effectiveness of the pollution abatement measures taken, information on organic pollution load reduction (in terms of kg BOD/day) in the major river systems is also given in the report.

1.6 Long-term water quality trends

1.7 Pollution loading

Chapter 2 Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone


2.1.1 The Shing Mun River has 3 main tributaries: Tai Wai, Siu Lek Yuen and Fo Tan Nullahs with a catchment area of 37 km2. Downstream of the river is a 7 km long, 200 m wide channel which is a popular site for boating. 2.1.2 Since the declaration of the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone (WCZ) in 1987, some 7,700 kg BOD/day (93%) of pollutant has been removed from the Shing Mun River catchment. The overall percentage compliance with the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) has more than doubled from 40% in 1987 to 90% in 2001 (Table 2a). The Water Quality Index (WQI) of the river has also improved from “fair” or “bad” to “good” or “excellent” in 2001 (Appendices 5.1 and 5.2). Table 2a WQO compliance of Shing Mun River

Shing Mun River

WQO % Compliance pH Suspended solids Dissolved oxygen COD BOD5

1987 87 11 72 12 17

2000 85 100 100 78 63

2001 90 100 98 94 69

Overall 40 85 90

2.1.3 In 2001, the Tin Sum Nullah maintained its “excellent” water quality and the upstream station (TR19A) in Tai Wai Nullah has also attained an “excellent” WQI. Continued improving trends in dissolved oxygen, organic pollutants, and toxic metals have been observed (Table 2.1A). A gradual

reduction in E. coli bacteria was also noted in the last decade (Graph 2.1). 2.1.4 Kwun Yam Shan Stream and Siu Lek Yuen Nullah are the two eastern tributaries of Shing Mun River. They have been ranked “good” to “excellent” since the early 90s. A long-term increase in dissolved oxygen and decreases in E. coli bacteria (Graph 2.2), suspended solids, aggregate organics, nutrients, and metals were detected in these watercourses (Table 2.1A). 2.1.5 The control of industrial discharges in late 80s has reduced the toxic metals in Fo Tan Nullah dramatically. The copper level in the nullah, dropped from 3590 µg/L to 6 µg/L and chromium from 590 µg/L to 3 µg/L between 1987 and 2001 (Graphs 2.3 and 2.4). 2.1.6 In 2001, the WQI of the Fo Tan Nullah was “good” with long-term improvements in E. coli (Graph 2.5), and many other water quality parameters (Table 2.1B). 2.1.7 The WQI of the Shing Mun Main Channel (station TR19I) has been “good”

Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone

2.

2.1 Shing Mun River

Graph 2.1 E. coli level in Tai Wai Nullah(TR19)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)

Graph 2.2 E. coli level in Siu Lek YuenNullah (TR23A)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



since 1993 with significant decreases in many pollutants (Table 2.1B). The mean E. coli level in 2001 was 4,200 cfu/100mL (Graph 2.6 and Appendix 13.2), most likely related to unsewered villages in the catchment.

Reducing pollution in the Shing Mun River 2.1.8 To further reduce the remaining pollution load in Shing Mun River, sewerage construction and riverbed improvement works are currently being implemented: n New public sewers were built for 26

villages in Shatin and over 78% of the village houses were connected to the sewer by end of 2001. Works for another 7 villages in the river catchment have commenced and will be completed in 2004.

n Bioremediation and dredging of

contaminated river sediments are currently being carried out under the Environmental Improvement of Shing Mun River. The lining works at the upstream section of the river to prevent sediment accumulation has been completed. Stage 1 of the improvement works started in May 2001 and will be completed by the end of 2002. This will be followed by Stage 2 works which will last until the end of 2005.

2.2.1 The Lam Tsuen River catchment covers an area of 18.6 km2, 85% of which are within the water-gathering ground. Since the start of legislative control of pollution in 1987, there has been a substantial increase of dissolved oxygen and decrease of many pollutants in the river (Table 2.1C). 2.2.2 The upstream section of Lam Tsuen River (i.e. stations TR12B-D, F-H in Appendix 5.3) has maintained its “excellent” water quality since the mid 90s, reflecting low organic pollution in this part of the river. In 2001, over 75% of the village houses in Kam Shan and Shui Wai were connected to public sewers and the drainage improvement works in Tai Po Temporary Market was completed;

2.2 Lam Tsuen River

Graph 2.5 E. coli level in Fo Tan Nullah(TR17L)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)

Graph 2.3 Improving trend of Copper in Fo Tan Nullah

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Cu

(µg/

L)

Graph 2.4 Improving trend of Chromium inFo Tan Nullah

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Cr (

µg/L

)

Graph 2.6 E. coli level in Shing MunMain Channel (TR19I)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



hence the water quality at the downstream stations (TR12, 12E&I) was “good” or “excellent” (Appendix 5.4). The WQO compliance of the Lam Tsuen River was 95%, showing an increase of 11% in the past 14 years (Table 2b). Table 2b WQO compliance of Lam Tsuen Rive r

Lam Tsuen River


1987 95 71 97 80 77

2000 95

100 99 86 84

2001 99

100 98 94 85

Overall 84 93 95

2.2.3 The E. coli concentrations at the upper stretches (stations TR12D, H and G) of the river were low and in the order of a few hundred cfu/100mL, typical of unpolluted stream in the territory. However, the levels increased 10 to 100 folds downstream (stations 12B,C,E,F,I in Appendix 13.3) and reached 78,000 cfu/100mL in the tidal channel at the lower stream (TR12). This indicates that unsewered villages and contaminated runoff are the major pollution sources in the catchment. 2.3.1 Similar to Lam Tsuen River, Tai Po River also showed long-term improvements in water quality in the past 2 decades (Table 2.1B). The WQI was upgraded from “fair” in the late 80s to “excellent” in 2001 (station TR13 in Appendix 5.4). Its overall WQO compliance rate has increased from 63% to 95% in the past 13 years and fully achieved its WQOs of pH, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and COD in 2001 (Table 2c). However, discharges from unsewered villages in the catchment still resulted in a fairly high E. coli level (67,000 cfu/100mL shown in Appendix 13.2) in 2001.

Table 2c WQO compliance of Tai Po River

Tai Po River


1988 100

0 100 86 29

2000 100 100 100 100 83

2001 100 100 100 100 75

Overall 63 97 95

Reducing pollution in Lam Tsuen and Tai Po Rivers 2.3.2 Since the implementation of water pollution legislation in 1987, all livestock wastes and industrial discharges in the Lam Tsuen and Tai Po River catchments have been eliminated. A total of 5,000 kg of BOD/day (78% ) of organic pollutant has been removed at the end of 2001 (Table 2.2). 2.3.3 Unsewered villages remain to be the major pollution source in the Lam Tsuen and Tai Po Rivers. Up to 2001, 19 villages in the Tai Po area were provided with public sewer to which some 70% of the village houses were connected. Sewerage for another 20 villages are scheduled to be built by 2004. Under the North District and Tolo Harbour SMP review, there is a plan to provide sewerage to 28 villages in Lam Tsuen Valley by 2008. 2.4.1 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme, the water quality of the Tai Po Kau Stream has improved very substantially from “very bad” in 1987 to “excellent” in 2001 (Appendix 5.5). During the period, the overall WQO compliance has increased from 24% to 98% with full compliance for the pH, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and COD objectives in 2001 (Table 2d).

2.3 Tai Po River

2.4 Tai Po Kau Stream



2.4.2 In the past 20 years, improving trends in dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, aggregate organics and nutrients in Tai Po Kau Stream were observed (Table 2.1B). Table 2d WQO compliance of Tai Po Kau Stream

Tai Po Kau Stream


1987 91 0

18 9 0

2000 83

100 100 92

100

2001 100 100 100 100 92

Overall 24 95 98

2.5.1 In 2001, both Shan Liu and Tung Tze Streams have achieved a full WQO compliance (100%) for the key parameters (Tables 2e & 2f) and an “excellent” and “good” WQI gradings respectively (Appendix 5.5). Table 2e WQO compliance of Shan Liu Stream

Shan Liu Stream


1987 100 100 100 91

100

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 98 100 100

2.5.2 There were significant improvements in dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, aggregated organics and nutrients in the streams. The E. coli levels remained fairly high (Appendix 13.2) which could be attributed to pollution from unsewered villages in the catchment.

Table 2f WQO compliance of Tung Tze Stream

Tung Tze Stream


1987 100

0 64 36 55

2000 100 100 100 58

100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 51 92 100

2.6.1 To tackle pollution problem from unsewered villages, sewerage for some 160 villages and other areas will be constructed in two stages under the Tolo Harbour Sewerage Master Plan (SMP) Study (Table 2g) in the next few years. 2.6.2 Upon completion of the Tolo Harbour SMP, about 97,100 inhabitants will be provided with public sewer, resulting in the removal of 5,400 kg BOD/day of pollution load. This should further improve the river water quality in the Tolo Harbour catchment. Table 2g Tolo Harbour SMP works

Tolo Harbour SMP works Stage I *Stage II

Tentative Implementation Date (year)

1993–2004a

1998–2006b 2006 - 2009

Estimated population provided with sewer (no.)

32,600a 42,900b 21,600

Estimated pollution load collected by sewer (kg BOD /day)

1,800a 2,400b 1,200

a – Phase I b – Phase II * Tentative programme subject to revision under the on-going Review of North District and Tolo Harbour SMPs to be completed by the end of 2002.

2.5 Shan Liu and Tung Tze Streams

2.6 Tolo Harbour Sewerage Master Plan



Table 2.1A River water quality trends in the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Shing Mun River Watercourse Tin Sum

Nullah Tai Wai Nullah Kwun Yam Shan Stream

Siu Lek Yuen Nullah

Monitoring station TR20B TR19A TR19C TR19 KY1 TR23L TR23A

Monitoring period* 85-01 85-01 85-01 84-01 88-01 84-01 85-01

Parameter Unit Results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Dissolved oxygen mg/L − ä ä ä ä ä ä

pH ä − − − ä ä −

Suspended solids mg/L î î î î − î î

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î − î î

Oil & grease mg/L − î î î − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − − î − − î

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − î − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î î − î î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L ä − − ä î î − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L − î î î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L î − − î ä − −

Cadmium µg/L − − − − − − −

Chromium µg/L î − − î − − −

Copper µg/L î î − − − î î

Lead µg/L î î î î − î −

Zinc µg/L î î − î − î −

Flow L/s − − − î − − × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 2.1B River water quality trends in the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Shing Mun River Watercourse

Fo Tan Nullah Main Channel

Tai Po River

Tai Po Kau

Stream

Shan Liu

Stream

Tung Tze

Stream

Monitoring station TR17 TR17L TR19I TR13 TR14 TR4 TR6



Dissolved oxygen mg/L − ä ä ä ä ä −

pH − ä ä − ä ä ä

Suspended solids mg/L − î î − î î î

BOD5 mg/L − î î − î − î

COD mg/L − î î î î î −

Oil & grease mg/L − − − − − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − î − − − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − − − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − î î î î ä −

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − ä ä − − î ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L − î î î î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î − Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L ä − − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L − î − − ä − −

Cadmium µg/L − î î − − − −

Chromium µg/L î î − − − − −

Copper µg/L î î î î î − −

Lead µg/L î î − î − − −

Zinc µg/L − î − − − − −

Flow L/s î × × − − ä × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 2.1C River water quality trends in the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Lam Tsuen River

Monitoring station TR12H TR12D TR12G TR12F TR12C TR12B TR12E TR12 TR12I

Monitoring period* 88-01 84-01 86-01 86-01 83-01 83-01 86-01 81-01 89-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä ä ä ä

pH − ä ä ä ä − ä − −

Suspended solids mg/L î î î î − î − î −

BOD5 mg/L î − − î î î − î −

COD mg/L î î î î î î − î î

Oil & grease mg/L − − − − − − − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − − − − − − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − − − − − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − − − î î î î î î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − î î î − − î ä ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î î − î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î − î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − − − − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L − − − − î − ä − −

Cadmium µg/L − − − − − − − − −

Chromium µg/L − − − − − − − − −

Copper µg/L − î − − î î − − −

Lead µg/L − − − − î − − î −

Zinc µg/L − − − − − − − − ä

Flow L/s − î − ä − − ä − × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 2.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001

Pollution from point source discharges

BOD load reduction (1987 – 2001)

Watercourse Pollution Control

Ordinance

Pollution source No. of

discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after

control(3) (kg/day) (kg/day) (%)

Domestic Industrial Commercial Institutional

N.A.(5) 24 14 29

3,600 390

3,700 N.A.

537 5

12 N.A.

3,063 385

3,688 N.A.

85 99

100 N.A. WPCO(1)

Sub-total 67 7,690 554 7,136 93

Livestock 0 610 0 610 100 WDO(2)

Sub-total 0 610 0 610 100

Shing Mun River

Total 67 8,300 554 7, 746 93


N.A. 9 7

14

1,770 1,200 1,200 N.A.

1,172 1

259 N.A.

598 1,199

941 N.A.

34 100

78 N.A. WPCO

Sub-total 30 4,170 1,432 2,738 66

Livestock 0 2,246 0 2,246 100 WDO

Sub-total 0 2,246 0 2,246 100

Lam Tsuen River & Tai Po River

Total 30 6,416 1,432 4,984 78

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the river catchments of the Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ has been progressively

brought under legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 April 1987. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 3 Southern Water Control Zone


3.1.1 The 15 km long Mui Wo River covers a catchment area of 3.5 km2 and flows onto Silvermine Bay Beach in the eastern shore of Lantau Island. 3.1.2 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme, the Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance of Mui Wo River has improved significantly from 58% in 1988 to 99% in 2001 with full compliance with the objectives of dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, COD and BOD5 (Table 3a). Long-term increases in dissolved oxygen, as well as a reduction in organic and inorganic pollutants were observed (Table 3.1), and all five stations of Mui Wo River have attained an “excellent” Water Quality Index (WQI) in 2001 (Appendix 6.1). Table 3a WQO compliance of Mui Wo River

Mui Wo River


1988 47 80 77 36 51

2000 95

100 100 87 98

2001 98

100 100 100 100

Overall 58 96 99

3.1.3 Although organic pollution of Mui Wo River has been greatly reduced over the years, the bacteria levels in the river were still fairly high (Graph 3.1 and Appendix 13.4) and the grading for the downstream Silvermine Bay Beach was only “fair” in 2001. The unsatisfactory bacteriological water quality was mainly attributed to the sullage and surface runoff from nearby villages, as well as occasional overflows from septic tanks and

soakaway pits, particularly during heavy rainfall events. 3.1.4 In order to further improve the water quality of Mui Wo River and Silvermine Bay Beach, a new sewerage master plan (SMP) for Mui Wo was developed in 2001 under the Outlying Islands SMP Stage 2 Review Study. Under this SMP, the Mui Wo Sewage Treatment Works and sewer network will be upgraded and expanded to serve the remaining unsewered villages in the river catchment starting in 2005. Upon its completion in 2010, some 2,500 nearby inhabitants will be provided with sewerage and resulted in a pollution load reduction of 150 kg BOD/day in the receiving waters.

Southern Water Control Zone

3.

3.1 Mui Wo River

Graph 3.1 E. coli level in Mui Wo River(MW1)

1,000

10,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



Table 3.1 River water quality trends in the Southern Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Mui Wo River

Monitoring station MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5

Monitoring period* 84-01 84-01 84-01 88-01 88-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä

pH ä ä ä − ä

Suspended solids mg/L î î î − −

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î î

Oil & grease mg/L − − − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − î − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − ä − − ä

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î − î − ä

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − î î − − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î − î î ä

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î − Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î −

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L ä ä ä − ä

Cadmium µg/L − − − − −

Chromium µg/L − − − − −

Copper µg/L î − î − −

Lead µg/L − î − − −

Zinc µg/L − − − − −

Flow L/s î × − ä − Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 3.2 Pollution load reduction in the Mui Wo River catchment of the Southern Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



0 0 0 0

8 0 5 2

0 0 0 0

8 N.A.(5)

5 2

100 N.A. 100 100 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 0 15 0 15 100

Chemical Livestock

0 0

N.A. 178

0 0

N.A. 178

N.A. 100

WDO(2)

Sub-total 0 178 0 178 100

Mui Wo River

Total 0 193 0 193 100

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the Mui Wo River catchment has been progressively brought under legislative

control since the declaration of the Southern WCZ on 1 August 1988. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 4 Port Shelter Water Control Zone


4.1.1 The 20 km long Ho Chung River runs through the Ho Chung Valley in Sai Kung and flows into Hebe Haven. The river has a catchment area of 7.2 km2. 4.1.2 Since the implementation of water pollution control legislation in the late 1980s, 73% of the organic pollution load in Ho Chung River has been removed (Table 4.2), resulting in significant improvements in many water quality parameters (Table 4.1). The overall Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance rate has increased substantially from 52% in 1989 to 100% in 2001 (Table 4a). In 2001, the Water Quality Index (WQI) of Ho Chung River was “excellent” as in the previous year (Appendix 7.1). Table 4a WQO compliance of Ho Chung River

Ho Chung River


1989 65 50 45 50 50

2000 100 100 100 88

100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 52 98 100

4.1.3 Despite low level of organic pollution, the bacterial concentration at the downstream station PR1 remained high (Appendix 13.5). This was likely to be attributed to unsewered villages in the river catchment (e.g. Ho Chung, Tin Liu and Kai Ham). The situation should improve when the public sewer network is extended to these areas around 2007.

4.2.1 The Sha Kok Mei Stream is around 10 km in length and runs through Fu Tei Hau, Sha Kok Mei and Sai Kung Town before entering Sai Kung Hoi. 4.2.2 Since the declaration of the Port Shelter Water Control Zone (WCZ) in August 1989, some 190 kg BOD/day of pollutant has been eliminated (Table 4.2), resulting in a significant improvement in the water quality of Sha Kok Mei Stream particularly at its downstream station PR5 (Table 4.1). In the last decade, there has been a 15% increase in the overall WQO compliance rate of the stream (Table 4b). In 2001, a full compliance with the objectives of pH, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and COD was achieved as in the previous year. The WQIs of the upper and lower monitoring stations were “good” and “excellent” respectively (Appendix 7.2). Table 4b WQO compliance of Sha Kok Mei Stream

Sha Kok Mei Stream


1989 100 100 80 80 50

2000 100 100 100 100 88

2001 100 100 100 100 83

Overall 82 98 97

4.2.3 The bacterial level in the river catchment remained fairly high (Appendix 13.5) mostly due to pollution from unsewered villages in the catchment. With the progressive connection of village houses in Po Lo Che and Tan Cheung to public sewers, further improvements of the Sha Kok Mei Stream water quality is anticipated.

Port Shelter Water Control Zone

4.

4.1 Ho Chung River

4.2 Sha Kok Mei Stream



4.3.1 The Tai Chung Hau Stream find its origin in the Ma On Shan Country Park and flows into the inner part of Hebe Haven. 4.3.2 Since the enforcement of water pollution control legislation, the overall WQO compliance of the Tai Chung Hau Stream has improved significantly from 36% in 1989 to a full compliance in 2000 and again in 2001 (Table 4c). The WQI of the stream has also been upgraded from “bad” or “fair’ in 1989 to “excellent” in 2001 (Appendix 7.3). Table 4c WQO compliance of Tai Chung Hau Stream

Tai Chung Hau Stream


1989 80 0

70 30 0

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 36 100 100

4.3.3 In the last decade, livestock and industrial wastes near the Tai Chung Hau Stream had been eliminated (Table 4.2) resulting in sustained improvements in many water quality parameters including dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, aggregate organics, nutrients and toxic metals (Table 4.1). However, the E. coli content in the stream was still high (Appendix 13.5). This might be attributed to faecal contamination from unsewered villages such as Pak Kong in the catchment. The situation should improve with the progressive provision of rural sewerage under the Port Shelter Sewerage Master Plan (SMP) which is to be completed around 2007.

4.4.1 The Port Shelter SMP Study recommends that sewerage in the Port Shelter catchment is to be constructed in 3 stages (Table 4d). Stage I of the works was completed in 2001. Table 4d Port Shelter SMP works

Port Shelter SMP works Stage I Stage II Stage III


1993–2001 1995–2007 2004–2007


11,500 23,600 27,300

Estimated pollution load collected by sewer per day (kg BOD /day)

630 1,300 1,500

4.4.2 Under Stage II of the Port Shelter SMP, sewer network in the Sha Kok Mei and Tai Chung Hau areas will be completed by 2003 and 2006 respectively. Stage III of the SMP includes the construction of sewer for Ho Chung by the year 2007. When all the SMP works are completed, a total of 3,400 kg BOD/day of organic pollution load from the Port Shelter catchment will be collected for proper treatment and disposal.

4.3 Tai Chung Hau Stream 4.4 Port Shelter Sewerage Master Plan



Table 4.1 River water quality trends in the Port Shelter Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Ho Chung River Sha Kok Mei Stream Tai Chung Hau Stream

Monitoring station PR1 PR2 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8

Monitoring period* 83-01 83-01 89-01 89-01 89-01 89-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä

pH î ä ä ä ä −

Suspended solids mg/L î î î − î î

BOD5 mg/L î î î − î î

COD mg/L î î î − î î

Oil & grease mg/L î − − − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − − − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î − î î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − î − − ä ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î − î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î − î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L î − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L ä ä − ä î î

Cadmium µg/L î − − − − −

Chromium µg/L î − − − − −

Copper µg/L î − − − î î

Lead µg/L î − − − − î

Zinc µg/L î − − − î −

Flow L/s × ä ä × − × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 4.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Port Shelter Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



1,450 4 0 1

185 67 40 2

101 1 0 0

84 66 40 2

45 99

100 100 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 1,455 294 102 192 65

Chemical Livestock

N.A.(5) 0

N.A. 88

N.A. 0

N.A. 88

N.A. 100

WDO(2)

Sub-total 0 88 0 88 100

Ho Chung River

Total 1,455 382 102 280 73


2,406 1 0 0

398 2

N.A. N.A.

226 0

N.A. N.A.

172 2

N.A. N.A.

43 100

N.A. N.A. WPCO

Sub-total 2,407 400 226 174 44

Chemical Livestock

N.A. 0

N.A. 16

N.A. 0

N.A. 16

N.A. 100

WDO Sub-total 0 16 0 16 100

Sha Kok Mei Stream

Total 2,407 416 226 190 46


3,788 1 0 0

324 5

N.A. N.A.

222 0

N.A. N.A.

102 5

N.A. N.A.

31 100

N.A. N.A. WPCO

Sub-total 3,789 329 222 107 33

Chemical Livestock

N.A. 0

N.A. 54

N.A. 0

N.A. 54

N.A. 100

WDO Sub-total 0 54 0 54 100


Total 3,789 383 222 161 42

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the river catchments of the Port Shelter WCZ has been progressively brought under

legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 August 1989. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 5 Junk Bay Water Control Zone


5.1.1 With a catchment of 2.5 km2, the 3 km long Tseng Lan Shue Stream flows into the inner part of Junk Bay. 5.1.2 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme and Water Pollution Control Ordinance in the late 1980s, 230 kg BOD/day of pollution load from Tseng Lan Shue Stream has been removed (Table 5.2) resulting in substantial improvements in the dissolved oxygen, aggregate organic, suspended solids, nutrient and toxic metal parameters (Table 5.1). A marked increase in the overall Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance, from 44% in 1987 to 80% in 2001, has also been observed (Table 5a). Table 5a WQO compliance of Tseng Lan Shue Stream

Tseng Lan Shue Stream


1987 91 33 58 27 9

2000 100 100 100 75 42

2001 100 100 97 64 39

Overall 44 83 80

5.1.3 The water quality at the lower Tseng Lan Shue Stream near Tseung Kwan O Village is generally better than the upstream area which was affected by unsewered premises in the catchment. In 2001, the Water Quality Index (WQI) at JR11 was “excellent”; whereas those at JR3 and JR6 were “bad” and “fair” respectively (Appendix 8.1). Very high E. coli levels also prevailed at these stations (Appendix 13.5). With continued pollution control efforts and progressive provision of sewerage under the Port Shelter Sewerage

Master Plan (Stage III) up to 2007, there should be further improvements in the water quality of Tseng Lan Shue Stream in the next few years.

Junk Bay Water Control Zone

5.

5.1 Tseng Lan Shue Stream



Table 5.1 River water quality trends in the Junk Bay Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Tseng Lan Shue Stream

Monitoring station JR3 JR6 JR11

Monitoring period* 82-01 82-01 82-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä

pH ä ä ä

Suspended solids mg/L î î î

BOD5 mg/L î î î

COD mg/L î î î

Oil & grease mg/L î − î

E. coli cfu/100mL − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L ä ä ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − −

Aluminium µg/L ä ä ä

Cadmium µg/L − − −

Chromium µg/L − − −

Copper µg/L î î î

Lead µg/L î î î

Zinc µg/L î − −

Flow L/s × × î Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 5.2 Pollution load reduction in the Tseng Lan Shue Stream catchment of the Junk Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



3,064 3 0 4

340 78

N.A.(5)

64

226 0

N.A. 46

114 78

N.A. 18

34 100

N.A. 28 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 3,071 482 272 210 44

Chemical Livestock

0 0

N.A. 19

N.A. 0

N.A. 19

N.A. 100

WDO(2)

Sub-total 0 19 0 19 100


Total 3,071 501 272 229 46

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the Tseng Lan Shue Stream catchment has been progressively brought under

legislative control since the declaration of the Junk Bay WCZ on 1 August 1989. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 6 Deep Bay Water Control Zone


` 6.1.1 The River Indus is one of the largest rivers in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ). The river and its tributaries are about 49 km in length, covering a catchment area of 43.4 km2. 6.1.2 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme in the late 1980s, the Water Quality Index (WQI) of River Indus has improved from “bad” or “very bad” in 1987 to “fair” or “good” in 2001 (Appendix 9.1). There was also a 31% increase in the overall Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance rate in the past 14 years (Table 6a). Some reduction in E. coli (Graph 6.1) and many other pollutants in the river (Table 6.1A) were observed, but the overall improvement was slow and the water quality remained unsatisfactory. 6.1.3 In 2001, another 36 kg BOD/day of pollutant has been removed from the river catchment, amounting to a total of 88% reduction in pollution load in the last decade (Table 6.2A). However, due to pollution from livestock waste and unsewered villages, the level of E. coli bacteria in the river was very high particularly at the downstream stations (IN1 and IN2 in Appendix 13.6). The situation should improve with continued pollution

control efforts and implementation of the North District Sewerage Master Plan toward the end of the decade. Table 6a WQO compliance of River Indus

River Indus


1987 90 0

11 0 5

2000 97 33 86 47 31

2001 97 33 81 33 17

Overall 21 59 52

6.2.1 The River Beas is a main tributary of the River Indus within North District. Since the late 80s, the WQI of the river has been upgraded from “very bad” to “fair” in 2001 (Appendix 9.2). Some 96% of the organic pollution load in the river has also been eliminated from the river catchment (Table 6.2A). 6.2.2 Although most of the pollutants in the River Beas have shown decreases (Table 6.1A) and the WQO compliance rate has increased (20% in 1987 vs 44% in 2001) since the mid 80s, the current WQO compliance rate was still very low (Table 6b) and the E. coli level was very high (Graph 6.2 and Appendix 13.6). This indicates that organic and faecal pollution still poses a serious threat to the health of the river. Table 6b WQO compliance of River Beas

River Beas


1987 94 0 6 0 0

2000 100

0 92 36 17

2001 97 0

97 22 6

Overall 20 49 44

6.1 River Indus

Deep Bay Water Control Zone

6.

6.2 River Beas

Graph 6.1 E. coli level in River Indus(IN1)

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



6.3.1 Measuring 31 km in length and covering an area of 18 km2, the River Ganges joins Shenzhen River before flowing into inner Deep Bay. 6.3.2 Since the implementation of pollution control legislation in the late 1980s, pollutants in the River Ganges, such as organics, nutrients, E. coli bacteria (Graph 6.3) and metals have shown a significant decrease (Table 6.1A). 6.3.3 In 2001, another 43 kg BOD/day of organic pollutant was removed from the River Ganges (Table 6.2A) due to enforcement of environmental legislation. The midstream station (GR2) was upgraded from “bad” to “fair” WQI with a significant decrease in E. coli bacteria (Appendix 13.6); while the upstream station GR3 and downstream station GR1 remained “excellent” and “bad” respectively as in the previous year (Appendix 9.3). 6.3.4 Overall, there has been a 21% increase of WQO compliance rate between 1987 and 2001, in particular with suspended solids and dissolved oxygen (Table 6c). Further improvement is anticipated with increased provision of public sewer and continued efforts in controlling the livestock waste pollution in the North District area.

Table 6c WQO compliance of River Ganges

River Ganges


1987 95 33 38 17 33

2000 100 33 47 31 22

2001 100 67 89 36 28

Overall 43 47 64

6.4.1 Yuen Long Creek is around 60 km long and covers an area of 27 km2. It passes through Yuen Long Town before flowing into inner Deep Bay. Lower part of the creek is intertidal, with substantial sedimentation and slow removal of pollutants. An inflatable dam near Tung Tau Wai was erected to reduce the back flow of seawater into the creek. 6.4.2 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme in 1987, noticeable improvements have been observed with parameters such as dissolved oxygen, E. coli (Graph 6.4), metals, organics and nutrients (Table 6.1B). The WQO compliance rate of the creek has more than doubled from 20% in 1987 to 45% in 2001 (Table 6d).

6.3 River Ganges

6.4 Yuen Long Creek

Graph 6.2 E. coli level in River Beas(RB3)

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,00019

91

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)

Graph 6.3 E. coli level in River Ganges(GR1)

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



6.4.3 Although another 38 kg BOD/day of organic matter was removed from Yuen Long Creek in 2001 due to legislation enforcement effort, the remaining load was still substantial amounting to 1,230 kg BOD/day (Table 6.2B). This mainly came from pollution from unsewered villages and livestock farms. The WQI of the four river stations was rated “fair” or “bad” (Appendix 9.4); and the mean E. coli levels were very high, ranging from 61,000 cfu/100mL to 1,300,000 cfu/100mL (Appendix 13.7). Table 6d WQO compliance of Yuen Long Creek

Yuen Long Creek


1987 98 0 0 0 0

2000 100 50 79 6 3

2001 94 25 71 27 9

Overall 20 48 45

6.4.4 To improve the unsatisfactory situation, pollution control efforts will continue and village sewerage will be constructed under the Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage Master Plan. This programme is scheduled to commence in 2003 and complete in 2008.

6.5.1 With a catchment area of 44.3 km2, the 50 km Kam Tin River passes through the urban areas of Kam Tin and Yuen Long before entering Deep Bay. 6.5.2 Since the late 1980s, the severely polluted Kam Tin River has started to show signs of improvements in many water quality parameters (Table 6.1B). The WQO compliance rate of the river was also doubled in the past 14 years (Table 6e). 6.5.3 Despite the improvement made in the last decade, the WQO compliance rate of Kam Tin River in 2001 remained very low at 39% (Table 6e). The WQI was “bad” (Appendix 9.4) and the E. coli levels were very high (Appendix 13.7). This was mainly caused by the illegal discharges from livestock farms and unsewered village houses in the river catchment. Table 6e WQO compliance of Kam Tin River

Kam Tin River


1987 96 0 0 0 0

2000 100

0 58 4 5

2001 100

0 75 4

15

Overall 19 33 39

6.5.4 To reduce the remaining 1,400 kg/day of BOD loading from the Kam Tin River (Table 6.2B), vigorous enforcement action against the polluters will continue. New sewerage network under the Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage Master Plan will be provided for the catchment by the year 2008.

6.5 Kam Tin River Graph 6.4 E. coli level in Yuen Long Creek

(YL3)

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



6.6.1 Tin Shui Wai Nullah is a concrete channel draining into inner Deep Bay. Since the early 1990s, some 94% of the organic load in the nullah has been removed (Table 6.2B), resulting in a 38% increase of WQO compliance (Table 6f) and a significant reduction in organic, E. coli (Graph 6.5), metal and nutrient pollutants in the nullah (Table 6.1B). 6.6.2 In 2001, the WQIs of the upstream station (TSR2) remained “good” as in the previous year; whereas the downstream (TSR1) station deteriorated to “bad” (Appendix 9.5). The WQO compliance rate with the 5 key parameters was 76%. Table 6f WQO compliance of Tin Shui Wai Nullah

Tin Shui Wai Nullah


1994 88 0

54 42 4

2000 96

100 96 96 50

2001 92 50 92 96 50

Overall 38 88 76

6.6.3 The remaining pollution load of 640 kg BOD/day in Tin Shui Wai Nullah mostly came from unsewered villages, and livestock farms. Continuous enforcement efforts coupled with provision of sewerage

infrastructure will further reduce the pollution load. Under the Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage Master Plan, a new sewer for the Tin Shui Wai Reserve Zone was completed in 2001 which catered for 130,000 inhabitants, with an equivalent pollution loading of 7,200 kg BOD/day. The rest of the sewerage works will be completed by 2008. 6.7.1 The Fairview Park Nullah is also a concrete channel, receiving flows from the Ngau Tam Mei Stream, passing through Fairview Park before entering inner Deep Bay. Since the implementation of pollution control legislation in the late 1980s, notable improvements in WQO compliance rate (Table 6g), decreases in E. coli (Graph 6.6) and other pollutants (Table 6.1C) have been detected. 6.7.2 Although the WQO compliance rates of DO and COD have improved in the year 2001, the overall WQO compliance rate was still far from satisfactory in particular with respect to suspended solids and BOD5 (Table 6g). Due to pollution from unsewered villages, livestock farms and construction sites, the water quality of Fairview Park Nullah (FVR1) remained “fair” (Appendix 9.5) with very high E. coli level (48,000 cfu/100mL) in 2001 (Appendix 13.8). 6.7.3 With continued enforcement of environmental legislation and implementation of sewerage projects under the Yuen Long and

6.6 Tin Shui Wai Nullah

6.7 Fairview Park Nullah

Graph 6.5 E. coli level in Tin Shui Wai Nullah(TSR2)

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)

Graph 6.6 E. coli level in Fairview Park Nullah(FVR1)

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



Kam Tin Sewerage Master Plan, the water quality of the river should gradually improve in the next few years. Table 6g WQO compliance of Fairview Park Nullah

Fairview Park Nullah


1994 100

0 0 8 8

2000 100

0 75 50 42

2001 100

0 92 83 18

Overall 23 53 59

6.8.1 The minor streams in the outer Deep Bay: Sheung Pak Nai (DB5), Pak Nai (DB3), Ha Pak Nai (DB1), Tai Shui Hang (DB2) and Tsang Kok (DB8) Streams are largely pristine and free from organic pollution (Tables 6.2C & D). In 2001 they have all achieved an “excellent” WQI (Appendices 9.6 & 9.7) and 100% compliance with the WQOs (Tables 6h- l). There were also notable long-term improvements in many water quality parameters in the streams (Table 6.1C). Table 6h WQO compliance of Sheung Pak Nai Stream

Sheung Pak Nai Stream


1990 92

100 50 67 33

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 68 100 100

Table 6i WQO compliance of Pak Nai Stream

Pak Nai Stream


1990 92 0

42 58 8

2000 92

100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 40 98 100

Table 6j WQO compliance of Ha Pak Nai Stream

Ha Pak Nai Stream


1990 92

100 100 92 75

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 92 100 100

Table 6k WQO compliance of Tai Shui Hang Stream

Tai Shui Hang Stream


1990 100 100 100 100 75

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 95 100 100

Table 6l WQO compliance of Tsang Kok Stream

Tsang Kok Stream


1990 83 0

83 58 42

2000 100 100 100 100 100

2001 100 100 100 100 100

Overall 53 100 100

6.8 Ngau Hom Sha, Sheung Pak Nai, Pak Nai, Ha Pak Nai, Tai Shui

Hang and Tsang Kok Streams



6.8.2 Ngau Hom Sha Stream is a minor stream flowing from the Castle Peak Range into outer Deep Bay. In 2001, its water quality deteriorated from “good” to “fair” with a slight decrease of WQO compliance rate (Table 6m). The deterioration was mainly attributed to the illegal discharges from pig farms in the upstream area. Vigorous enforcement action has been taken to curb pollution from the catchment. Table 6m WQO compliance of Ngau Hom Sha Stream

Ngau Hom Sha Stream


1990 92

0 0 0 0

2000 100 100 100 100

70

2001100100

928367

Overall 18 94 88

6.9.1 To reduce the remaining pollution in the Deep Bay catchment, the following improvement measures have been taken:

Enforcement of the Waste Disposal Ordinance including implementing the Chemical Waste Control Scheme, revised Livestock Waste Control Scheme and Flytipping Control.

Enforcement of the Water Pollution

Control Ordinance.

Implementation of the North District Sewerage Master Plans (SMPs), and the Yuen Long / Kam Tin District SMP.

6.9.2 New public sewerage will be built under the North East New Territories (NENT) Landfill Village Sewerage Programme between 2002 and 2005. This will serve 16 villages in the Ta Kwu Ling area.

6.9.3 There are two major projects under the North District SMP: Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works (STW) Upgrade and North District Sewerage Works. The Shek Wu Hui STW was upgraded in August 2001 to treat wastewater from Shek Wu Hui new residential zones, Sheung Shui Slaughterhouse and leachates from the NENT Landfill. 6.9.4 The North District Sewerage Works are constructed in two stages (Table 6n). In Stage I (scheduled for completion in 2006), 38 villages with approximately 41,000 people (2,200 kg BOD/day) will be provided with public sewers. Stage II will extend the sewer network towards Sha Tau Kok, serving a total of 36 villages with approximately 20,000 people (1,100 kg BOD/day). On-site treatment and disposal facilities will also be constructed for some of the more remote villages. These work will be completed around 2009. Table 6n North District SMP Works

North District SMP Stage I Stage II


1999–2004a

2002–2006b 2006–2009


9,400a 31,500b 20,000


500a 1,700b 1,100

a – Phase I b – Phase II 6.9.5 To cope with further population growth and district development, additional works under the North District and Tolo Harbour SMPs Review will be implemented between 2006 and 2010, and new sewerage will be provided to another 16,600 inhabitants (equivalent to 910 kg BOD/day of pollution load) in the North District. 6.9.6 New sewerage will also be constructed for Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Hung Shui Kiu, Tin Shui Wai, San Tin and Ngau Tam Mei under the Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP (Table 6p). Stage I and part of Stage II

6.9 Pollution control measures in the

Deep Bay catchment



works have already been completed. Stage III works for providing sewerage to Au Tau and Yuen Long South will begin in 2003. Table 6p Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP Works

Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP Stage II Stage III

Tentative Implementation Date (year) 1999–2005 2003–2008

Estimated population to be provided with sewer (no.) 61,000 31,000

Estimated pollution load to be collected by sewer (kg BOD /day)

3,400 1,700

6.9.7 Finally, to cope with the population growth in the Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Hung Shui Kiu and Tin Shui Wai areas, a review of the Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP (Table 6q) was carried out and the relevant construction works will commence in the late 2003. Upon its completion in 2007, new sewerage will be provided for 621,000 inhabitants (34,100 kg BOD/day of pollution) in the Yuen Long and Kam Tin areas. Table 6q Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP Review

Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP Review Stage I Stage II


Estimated population provided with sewer (no.) 216,000 405,000


11,800 22,300



Table 6.1A River water quality trends in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse River Indus River Beas River Ganges

Monitoring station IN1 IN2 IN3 RB1 RB2 RB3 GR1 GR2 GR3

Monitoring period* 87-01 87-01 87-01 84-01 84-01 84-01 87-01 87-01 87-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä ä − −

pH ä − − ä ä ä ä ä −

Suspended solids mg/L − − î î î î − î −

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î î î î −

COD mg/L î î î î î î î î −

Oil & grease mg/L − − − î î î − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL î î î î î î î î −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − î î î î î î ä

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î î î î î î ä

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä − − − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L î î − î î î − î −

Aluminium µg/L − − − î î î − − −

Cadmium µg/L − − − î − î − − −

Chromium µg/L î î − − − − − î −

Copper µg/L î î − î − î − î −

Lead µg/L − − − î − î î î î

Zinc µg/L − − − î î î − î −

Flow L/s − × − − − − − − ä Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 6.1B River water quality trends in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Yuen Long Creek Kam Tin River Tin Shui Wai Nullah

Monitoring station YL1 YL2 YL3 YL4 KT1 KT2 TSR1 TSR2

Monitoring period* 84-01 84-01 84-01 84-01 84-01 84-01 93-01 93-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä − −

pH ä ä ä ä ä ä − −

Suspended solids mg/L î î − − − − − −

BOD5 mg/L î î − − î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î î î − î

Oil & grease mg/L î î − − î î − −

E. coli cfu/100mL î − î − − − î î

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL î − î − − − − î

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î î î î − î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L ä ä − − − − − − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î − î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L î î î î î − î −

Aluminium µg/L − − − − − − − −

Cadmium µg/L − î − − − − − −

Chromium µg/L î − î î î − î −

Copper µg/L − − ä − − î î î

Lead µg/L î − − − − − − −

Zinc µg/L î î ä − − î − î

Flow L/s − ä î − − î × − Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 6.1C River water quality trends in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Fairview

Park Nullah

Ha Pak Nai

Stream

Tai Shui Hang

Stream

Pak Nai Stream


Ngau Hom Sha

Stream

Tsang Kok

Stream

Monitoring station FVR1 DB1 DB2 DB3 DB5 DB6 DB8



Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä ä

pH − ä − − ä ä −

Suspended solids mg/L ä î − î î î î

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î î î −

Oil & grease mg/L − − − − − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL î − − − − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL î − − − − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − − − î î î −

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − − ä − î ä − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î −

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î − − î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L î − − − − î −

Aluminium µg/L − − − − − î −

Cadmium µg/L − − − − − î −

Chromium µg/L − − − − − − −

Copper µg/L î − − − − î −

Lead µg/L ä î − î î î î

Zinc µg/L − − − − − î −

Flow L/s × − − − − − − Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 6.2A Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after


Domestic Industrial Commercial Institutional.

8,000 67

450 117

835 1,012

289 701

735 25

134 330

100 987 155 371

12 98 54 53 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 8,634 2,837 1,224 1,613 57

Chemical Livestock

260 18

N.A.(5) 7,540

N.A. 61

N.A. 7,479

N.A. 99

WDO(2)

Sub-total 278 7,540 61 7,479 99

River Indus

Total 8, 912 10,377 1,285 9,092 88


2,366 47 32 55

235 3,470

130 444

235 68 25 42

0 3,402

105 402

0 98 81 91 WPCO

Sub-total 2,500 4,279 370 3,909 91

Chemical Livestock

44 33

N.A. 9,294

N.A. 175

N.A. 9,119

N.A. 98

WDO Sub-total 77 9,294 175 9,119 98

River Beas

Total 2,577 13,573 545 13,028 96


2,000 9 9

67

200 283 110

79

200 8

43 25

0 275

67 54

0 97 61 68 WPCO

Sub-total 2,085 672 276 396 59

Chemical Livestock

27 53

N.A. 7,165

N.A. 150

N.A. 7,015

N.A. 98

WDO Sub-total 80 7,165 150 7,015 98

River Ganges

Total 2,165 7,837 426 7,411 95

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the river catchments of the Deep Bay WCZ has been progressively brought under

legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 December 1990. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.



Table 6.2B Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



N.A.(5) 54 37 30

1,562 3,545

540 267

514 14 15

372(6)

1,048 3,531

525 0(7)

67 100

97 N.A. WPCO(1)

Sub-total 121 5,914 915 4,999(8) 85(8)

Livestock 77 13,437 317 13,120 98 WDO(2)

Sub-total 77 13,437 317 13,120 98

Yuen Long Creek

Total 198 19,351 1,232 18,119(8) 94(8)


N.A. 42 86 39

620 1,156

61 384

620 23

88(9) 14

N.A. 1,133 N.A. 370

N.A. 98

N.A. 96 WPCO

Sub-total 167 2,221 745 1,476 66

Chemical Livestock

N.A. 134

N.A. 17,718

N.A. 658

N.A. 17,060

N.A. 96

WDO Sub-total 134 17,718 658 17,060 96

Kam Tin River

Total 301 19,939 1,403 18,536 93


N.A. 79 90 21

579

2,752

466 17 47 3

113

2,685

20

98

WPCO

Sub-total 190 3,331 533 2,798 84

Livestock 90 8,202 109 8,093 99 WDO

Sub-total 90 8,202 109 8,093 99

Tin Shui Wai Nullah

Total 280 11,533 642 10,891 94


legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 December 1990. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available. (6) The increase in BOD load was due to the population growth and the corresponding increase in the quantity of treated

effluent discharged from Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works into Yuen Long Creek. (7) The figure shown was the BOD load reduction from 1990 to 2001 taking into account the increase of BOD in the

catchment as compared to 2000. (8) The calculation of reduction in BOD load has taken into account the increase of BOD load in the catchment during the

period from 1990 to 2001. (9) The increase in pollution load is due to increase in the number of commercial premises in the catchment.



Table 6.2C Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after

control (3) (kg/day) (kg/day) (%)


N.A.(5) 5

12 11

251 385

19 76

42 2

34(6) 1

209 383

N.A. 75

83 99

N.A. 98 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 28 731 79 652 89

Chemical Livestock

N.A. 14

N.A. 2,857

N.A. 23

N.A. 2,834

N.A. 99

WDO(2)

Sub-total 14 2,857 23 2,834 99

Fairview Park Nullah

Total 42 3,588 102 3,486 97


0 0 0 1

1 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 WPCO

Sub-total 1 1 1 0 0

Livestock 2 356 2 354 99 WDO

Sub-total 2 356 2 354 99

Ngau Hom Sha Stream

Total 3 357 3 354 99


0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 WPCO

Sub-total 0 2 2 0 0


Sub-total 4 55 32 23 42


Total 4 57 34 23 40


legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 December 1990. (5) N.A. :Not applicable or data not available. (6) There was an increase in BOD load from this pollution source during the period from 1990 to 2001.



Table 6.2D Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



0 0 0 0

1 105

0 0

1 0 0 0

0 105

0 0

0 100

0 0 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 0 106 1 105 99

Livestock 1 46 1 45 98 WDO(2)

Sub-total 1 46 1 45 98

Ha Pak Nai Stream

Total 1 152 2 150 99


0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 WPCO

Sub-total 0 1 1 0 0


Sub-total 2 517 0 517 100

Pak Nai Stream

Total 2 518 1 517 100


legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 December 1990.

Chapter 7 North Western Water Control Zone


7.1.1 The 38 km long Tuen Mun River has a catchment area of 16.5 km2. It passes through Lam Tei, San Hing Tsuen, and Fu Tei before reaching Tuen Mun as an open nullah. 7.1.2 Since the implementation of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance and the revised Livestock Waste Control Scheme in early 1990s, 97% of the pollution load from Tuen Mun River has been removed (Table 7.2) resulting in an increase in dissolved oxygen, and decrease in aggregate organics, E. coli (Graph 7.1), nutrients and metals (Table 7.1). In addition, the Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance of the river has increased from 32% in 1988 to 64% in 2001 (Table 7a). 7.1.3 In 2001, the Water Quality Indices (WQIs) of the Tuen Mun River stations remained “good” (TN2, 4-6) to “bad” (TN1 in Appendix 10.1) as in the previous year, except for the midstream station TN3 which dropped from “good” to “fair”. The compliance for the suspended solids objective also had a substantial decrease in 2001 (Table 7a), which might be related to the construction works nearby. Enforcement control against the polluters has been taken to curb pollution from the problematic sites. Table 7a WQO compliance of Tuen Mun River

Tuen Mun River


1988 100 50 7 2 3

2000 100 67 90 54 50

2001 100 17 83 77 46

Overall 32 72 64

7.1.4 Due to pollution from unsewered villages in Tuen Mun River’s upstream areas, the mean E. coli bacterial levels in 2001 remained very high, ranging from 4,200 cfu/100mL to 410,000 cfu/100mL (Appendix 13.9) at various stations. 7.1.5 To tackle pollution problem in unsewered areas, the government plans to construct public sewer for 25 villages in the Tuen Mun catchment between 2002 and 2006 under the Tuen Mun Sewerage Master Plan. However, the sewerage programme might have to be reviewed because of the strong opposition from the villagers. Close liaison with the villagers is underway to resolve the issue. 7.2.1 Tung Chung River has 3 main branches: the eastern branch runs through Wong Lung Hang while the two western branches pass through Shek Lau Po before entering Tung Chung Wan. 7.2.2 The upper catchment of Tung Chung River is in the unsewered rural area where most village houses are equipped with septic tanks and soakaways; whereas wastewater from the new town downstream is connected directly to the sewerage network. Due to the rapid development of the Tung Chung New Town, construction activities in the downstream stretches have increased. EPD has taken vigorous enforcement action to

7.1 Tuen Mun River

7.2 Tung Chung River

7. North Western Water Control Zone

Graph 7.1 E. coli level in Tuen MunRiver (TN6)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



prevent polluted water from entering Tung Chung River. 7.2.3 In 2001, the Tung Chung River maintained an “excellent” WQI (Appendix 10.2) with 99% compliance with the WQOs (Table 7b) and the E. coli levels were generally low. Long-term decreasing trends in some of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients have also been detected in the river (Table 7.1). Table 7b WQO compliance of Tung Chung River

Tung Chung River


1994 94 67

100 94

100

2000 100 100 100 97 91

2001 97

100 100 100 97

Overall 91 98 99



Table 7.1A River water quality trends in the North Western Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Tuen Mun River

Monitoring station TN1 TN2 TN3 TN4 TN5 TN6



Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä

pH ä ä ä ä ä −

Suspended solids mg/L î î î î − î

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î î î

Oil & grease mg/L − î î î î −

E. coli cfu/100mL î î î î î î

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL î î − î î −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î î î î î î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − ä ä ä ä ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L î − − − î −

Aluminium µg/L î − − ä ä ä

Cadmium µg/L î − − − − −

Chromium µg/L î î î î î î

Copper µg/L î î î î î î

Lead µg/L î − î î − î

Zinc µg/L î − − − − −

Flow L/s î î × × × × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 7.1B River water quality trends in the North Western Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Tung Chung River

Monitoring station TC1 TC2 TC3

Monitoring period* 93-01 93-01 93-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L − − −

pH − − −

Suspended solids mg/L − − −

BOD5 mg/L − − −

COD mg/L − − −

Oil & grease mg/L − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL ä ä ä

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − − ä

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − − − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î −

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î − Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î −

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − −

Aluminium µg/L − − −

Cadmium µg/L − − −

Chromium µg/L − − −

Copper µg/L − − −

Lead µg/L − − −

Zinc µg/L − − −

Flow L/s − − × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 7.2 Pollution load reduction in the Tuen Mun River catchment of the North Western Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD l oad before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



3,000 8

15 3

756 3,970 2,371

21

487 1 9 3

269 3,969 2,362

18

36 99 99 86 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 3,026 7,118 500 6,618 93

Chemical Livestock

N.A.(5) 0

N.A. 9,520

N.A. 0

N.A. 9,520

N.A. 100

WDO(2)

Sub-total 0 9,520 0 9,520 100

Tuen Mun River

Total 3,026 16,638 500 16,138 97

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the Tuen Mun River catchment has been progressively brought under legislative

control since the declaration of the North Western WCZ on 1 April 1992. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 8 Western Buffer Water Control Zone


8.1.1 The Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream runs through Pai Min Kok Village before flowing onto Anglers’ Beach near Sham Tseng. 8.1.2 Since the implementation of the Livestock Waste Control Scheme, the water quality of the stream has been upgraded from “bad” in 1988 to “excellent” in 2001 (Appendix 11.1). A substantial increase of Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance rate from 46% to 99% was also achieved during this period (Table 8a). Table 8a WQO compliance of Pai Min Kok (Anglers’)

Stream

Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream


1988 100 50 30 50 0

2000 100 100 100 100 88

2001 100 100 100 100 96

Overall 46 98 99

8.1.3 In the past decade, 96% of the organic pollution load from Pai Min Kok Stream has been eliminated (Table 8.2) and upward trends were shown in many of the water quality parameters (Table 8.1). However, the mean E. coli level (Graph 8.1) remained high at 8,700 cfu/100mL in 2001 (Appendix 13.10) due to the unsewered villages nearby. This has seriously impacted on the water quality of the downstream Anglers’ Beach which was ranked “very poor” in 2001.

8.1.4 In order to solve the bacterial pollution problem in Pai Min Kok Stream and Anglers’ Beach, public sewer will be provided to some 48,000 inhabitants in 10 villages under the Ting Kau and Sham Tseng Sewerage Scheme (Table 8b). A total of 2,700 kg/day of BOD load will be collected and treated at the proposed Sham Tseng Sewage Treatment Works (including disinfection) in 2005, by which time a much improved water quality is anticipated. Table 8b Ting Kau & Sham Tseng Sewerage Scheme

Ting Kau & Sham Tseng Sewerage Scheme Stage II Stage III


Estimated population provided with sewer (no.) 32,400 15,900

Estimated pollution load collected by sewer per day (kg BOD /day)

1,800 880

Western Buffer Water Control Zone

8.

8.1 Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream

Graph 8.1 E. coli level in Pai Min Kok(Anglers') Stream (AN1)

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

E. c

oli (

cfu/

100m

L)



Table 8.1 River water quality trends in the Western Buffer Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream

Monitoring station AN1 AN2

Monitoring period* 88-01 88-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä

pH − ä

Suspended solids mg/L − î

BOD5 mg/L î î

COD mg/L − î

Oil & grease mg/L − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L î î Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − −

Aluminium µg/L − −

Cadmium µg/L − −

Chromium µg/L − −

Copper µg/L − −

Lead µg/L î î

Zinc µg/L − î

Flow L/s × − Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 8.2 Pollution load reduction in the Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream catchment of the Western Buffer Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



32 N.A.(5)

N.A. N.A.

4.6 N.A. N.A. N.A.

0.2 N.A. N.A. N.A.

4.4 N.A. N.A. N.A.

96 N.A. N.A. N.A. WPCO(1)

Sub-total 32 4.6 0.2 4.4 96

Chemical Livestock

WDO(2)

Sub-total N.A.


Total 32 4.6 0.2 4.4 96

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream catchment has been progressively brought under

legislative control since the declaration of the Western Buffer WCZ on 1 June 1993. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available.

Chapter 9 Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone


9.1.1 With a catchment area of 4.5 km2, the 12 km Sam Dip Tam Stream runs through Tsuen Wan and drains into Rambler Channel through an underground box culvert. 9.1.2 Since the declaration of the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone (Phase I), the Water Quality Objective (WQO) compliance of Sam Dip Tam Stream improved from 72% in 1994 to 98% in 2001 (Table 9a). In addition, there was a significant improvement with dissolved oxygen and nutrient parameters in the stream (Table 9.1A). Table 9a WQO compliance of Sam Dip Tam Stream

Sam Dip Tam Stream


1994 100 67 92 72 31

2000 100 100 100 81 77

2001 100 100 100 94 94

Overall 72 92 98

9.1.3 For the first time, the Water Quality Index (WQI) of Sam Dip Tam was upgraded to “excellent” in 2001 (Appendix 12.1). This could be attributed to the better maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities in the catchment under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO). To further reduce the pollution load in the stream (Table 9.2), continued pollution control and connection of village houses to public sewers are essential.

9.2.1 The Kau Wa Keng Stream runs through Kau Wa Keng San Tsuen as an open culvert and drains into the inshore water near Lai Chi Kok. 9.2.2 Since the implementation of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) in 1994, a significant increase in dissolved oxygen and decrease in nutrients (Table 9.1A) have been observed. This resulted in a marked increase of WQOs compliance from 75% in 1994 to 97% in 2001, with improvements in the compliance with the COD and BOD5 objectives (Table 9b). Some 81% of the total pollution load from the stream has been removed (Table 9.2) resulting in an upgrade of the water quality to “good” in 2001 (Appendix 12.2). Table 9b WQO compliance of Kau Wa Keng Stream

Kau Wa Keng Stream


1994 100 100 75 58 42

2000 100 100 100 100 83

2001 100 100 100 100 83

Overall 75 97 97

9.2.3 The remaining pollution load from 120 unsewered village houses in the catchment still poses a threat to the bacteriological water quality of Kau Wa Keng Stream. The mean concentrations of faecal coliforms and E. coli were high at 120,000 cfu/100mL and 58,000 cfu/100mL respectively in 2001 (Appendix 13.10). Enforcement of pollution control measures will be continued to improve the water quality of the stream.

Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone

9.

9.1 Sam Dip Tam Stream

9.2 Kau Wa Keng Stream



9.3.1 Kai Tak Nullah is a major storm water channel in South-East Kowloon. Its catchment includes San Po Kong, Diamond Hill, Tsz Wan Shan, Wong Tai Sin, Wang Tau Hom, Lok Fu and Kowloon City. The nullah also receives about 286,000 m3/day of treated secondary effluent from Sha Tin and Tai Po Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) under the Tolo Harbour Effluent Export Scheme (THEES). The effluent has increased the flushing capacity of the nullah substantially. 9.3.2 The water quality of Kai Tak Nullah has shown steady improvement in terms of dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, organic aggregates and some toxic metals in the past 16 years (Table 9.1B). Moreover, the WQI has improved from “bad” or “very bad” in 1984 to mostly “fair” in 2001 (Appendix 12.3). The mean E. coli counts in the nullah were very high, ranging from 48,000 cfu/100mL to 360,000 cfu/100mL in 2001 (Appendix 13.11). 9.3.3 The quality of the effluent from THEES should be substantially improved with the implementation of the Sha Tin STW Stage III extension works which include the installation of disinfection facilities. Phases I and II of the works will be completed by 2004 and 2007 respectively. Upgrading of the facilities, coupled with the continued enforcement of the WPCO, should further improve the water quality of Kai Tak Nullah in the next few years.

9.3 Kai Tak Nullah



Table 9.1A River water quality trends in the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Sam Dip Tam Stream Kau Wa Keng Stream

Monitoring station TW1 TW2 TW3 KW3

Monitoring period* 84-01 84-01 85-01 87-01


Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä

pH ä ä ä ä

Suspended solids mg/L − − − −

BOD5 mg/L − − − î

COD mg/L î − − î

Oil & grease mg/L î − − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L î − − î

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L − − î − Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î − − î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L î î î î Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î î î î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − − −

Aluminium µg/L ä ä ä −

Cadmium µg/L − − − ä

Chromium µg/L − − − −

Copper µg/L î − − −

Lead µg/L î − − î

Zinc µg/L − − − ä

Flow L/s î − × î Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 9.1B River water quality trends in the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone based on the results of the Seasonal Kendall Test

Watercourse Kai Tak Nullah

Monitoring station KN1 KN2 KN3 KN4 KN5 KN7



Dissolved oxygen mg/L ä ä ä ä − ä

pH − − − − − −

Suspended solids mg/L î î î î î î

BOD5 mg/L î î î î î î

COD mg/L î î î î î î

Oil & grease mg/L î − − î − −

E. coli cfu/100mL − − − î − −

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL − − − î − −

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L − − − − − −

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L ä ä ä ä ä ä Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (SP) mg/L î î î î − î

Ortho-phosphate mg/L − − − − − − Total phosphorus (SP) mg/L î − î î − î

Sulphide (SP) mg/L − − − − − −

Aluminium µg/L î − − î − −

Cadmium µg/L − − − î − −

Chromium µg/L î î î î − −

Copper µg/L î î î î î î

Lead µg/L î î î î î î

Zinc µg/L î − î î − î

Flow L/s × × × × × × Notes: 1. (SP) Soluble and particulate fractions (i.e. total) of the water quality parameter. 2. − indicates no significant trend is detected at p < 0.05. 3. ä represents an increasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 4. î represents a decreasing trend significant at p < 0.05. 5. × indicates no measurement was taken. 6. * indicates the monitoring period for most of the parameters, a few commenced in different years

during the period.



Table 9.2 Pollution load reductions in the river catchments of the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone as at the end of 2001




Ordinance


discharges (3)

BOD load before

control(4) (kg/day)

BOD load after



138 2 1 3

10 12 9 2

10 0 9 1

0 12 0 1

0 100

0 50 WPCO(1)

Sub-total 144 33 20 13 39

Chemical Livestock

WDO(2)

Sub-total N.A.(5)

Sam Dip Tam Stream

Total 144 33 20 13 39


120 N.A. N.A.

1

9 N.A. N.A.

39

9 N.A. N.A.

0

0 N.A. N.A.

39

0 N.A. N.A. 100 WPCO

Sub-total *121 *48 9 39 81

Chemical Livestock

WDO Sub-total

N.A.

Kau Wa Keng Stream

Total *121 *48 9 39 81

Notes: (1) WPCO : Water Pollution Control Ordinance. (2) WDO : Waste Disposal Ordinance. (3) Data shown in these two columns reflect the situation as at the end of 2001. (4) Pollution from effluent discharges in the river catchments of the Victoria Harbour WCZ has been progressively brought

under legislative control since the declaration of the WCZ on 1 November 1994. (5) N.A. : Not applicable or data not available. (*) The pollution load due to expedient connections in Wah Yuen Chuen is not included as data is not available.

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 A - 1

Appendices

Appendix 1 Monitoring stations & sampling frequencies

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 A1 - 1

Appendix 1 Summary of river water quality monitoring stations and sampling frequencies in 2001

Water Control

Zone Watercourse Monitoring station

No. of monitoring

stations

Sampling frequency

Tolo Harbour

and Channel

Shing Mun River Shing Mun Main Channel Fo Tan Nullah Siu Lek Yuen Nullah Kwun Yam Shan Stream Tai Wai Nullah Tin Sum Nullah Lam Tsuen River Tai Po River Tai Po Kau Stream Shan Liu Stream Tung Tze Stream

TR19I TR17, TR17L TR23A, TR23L KY1 TR19, TR19A, TR19C TR20B TR12, TR12B, TR12C, TR12D, TR12E, TR12F, TR12G, TR12H, TR12I TR13 TR14 TR4 TR6

1 2 2 1 3 1 9 1 1 1 1

Monthly

Southern Mui Wo River MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5 5 Monthly

Port Shelter

Ho Chung River Sha Kok Mei Stream Tai Chung Hau Stream

PR1, PR2 PR5, PR6 PR7, PR8

2 2 2

Monthly

Junk Bay Tseng Lan Shue Stream JR3, JR6, JR11 3 Monthly

Deep Bay

River Indus River Beas River Ganges Yuen Long Creek Kam Tin River Tin Shui Wai Nullah Fairview Park Nullah Deep Bay streams

Ha Pak Nai Stream Tai Shui Hang Stream Pak Nai Stream Sheung Pak Nai Stream Ngau Hom Sha Stream Tsang Kok Stream

IN1, IN2, IN3 RB1, RB2, RB3 GR1, GR2, GR3 YL1, YL2, YL3, YL4 KT1, KT2 TSR1, TSR2 FVR1 DB1 DB2 DB3 DB5 DB6 DB8

3 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Monthly

North Western

Tuen Mun River Tung Chung River

TN1, TN2, TN3, TN4, TN5, TN6 TC1, TC2, TC3

6 3 Monthly

Western Buffer


AN1, AN2 2 Monthly

Victoria Harbour

Sam Dip Tam Stream Kau Wa Keng Stream Kai Tak Nullah

TW1, TW2, TW3 KW3 KN1, KN4, KN5, KN7 KN2, KN3

3 1 4 2

Monthly Monthly Monthly

3-monthly

Total 35 - 82 -

Appendix 2 Water quality parameters and analytical methods


Appendix 2.1 Summary of the parameters and analytical methods in the river water quality monitoring programme

Parameter Reporting Limit Unit Analytical Method Analysed by Purpose

1. Physical and aggregate properties

Conductivity 1 µS/cm

Dissolved oxygen 0.1 mg/L

pH 0.1 pH unit

Water temperature 0.1 °C

Multi-parameter water quality data logger, model YSI-6820 (on-site measurement)

EPD Show general conditions of the river.

Flow 1 L/s Electromagnetic flow meter, model Flo-mate 2000 (on-site measurement)

EPD

Measure rate of river flow which relates to dilution and dispersion of pollutants.

Total suspended solids 0.5 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-19, based on APHA

20ed 2540 D

Total solids 0.5 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-9, based on APHA 20ed 2540 B

Total volatile solids 0.5 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-9, based on APHA 20ed 2540 E

Government Laboratory

Turbidity 0.1 NTU Multi-parameter water quality data logger, model YSI-6820 (on-site measurement)

EPD

Indicate the amount of solids in the water, opacity of the river.

2. Aggregate organics 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

0.1 mg/L In-house method based on APHA 18ed 5210 B EPD

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 2 mg/L In-house method WH-OA-3 (A) & (B), based

on ASTM D1252-88 A & B (CODCr )

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 1 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-22, based on APHA

20ed 5310 B

Oil and grease 0.5 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-7, based on APHA 20ed 5520 C (IR)


Measure organic pollutants and oxygen demanding materials as well as oil and grease.

3. Faecal bacteria

E. coli 1

cfu/100mL (cfu:

colony forming

unit)

Faecal coliforms 1 cfu/100mL

Ho, B.S.W. and Tam, T.Y. (1997). Enumeration of E. coli in environmental waters and wastewater using a chromogenic medium. Wat. Sci. Tech., 35, 409-413. DoE and DHSS (1983). “The bacteriological examination of drinking water supplies 1982. Report on Public Health and Medical Subjects No. 71. Methods for the Examination of Waters and Associated Materials”. Department of Environment, Department of Health and Social Security, Public Health Laboratory Service, H.M.S.O. London.

EPD

Indicate faecal contamination of river by animal wastes and domestic sewage.

Reference notes: 1. APHA - American Public Health Association: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 2. ASTM - Annual Book of American Society for the Testing and Materials Standards, Vol. 11.01 & 11.02.



Appendix 2.2 Summary of the parameters and analytical methods in the river water quality monitoring programme (continued)


4. Nutrients and inorganic constituents

Nitrogen

Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) 0.005 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-2, based on ASTM

D3590-89 B (FIA)

Nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) 0.002 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-4, based on APHA

20ed 4500-NO2- B (FIA)

Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) 0.002 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-4, based on APHA

20ed 4500-NO3- F & I (FIA)

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (soluble; soluble & particulate)

0.05 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-1 & 2, based on ASTM D3590-89 B (FIA) & APHA 20ed 4500-N A&D (FIA)

Phosphorus

Ortho-phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P)

0.002 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-3, based on ASTM D515-88 B (FIA)

Total phosphorus (soluble ; soluble & particulate)

0.02 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-1 & 3, based on ASTM D515-88 B (FIA) & APHA 20ed 4500-P G (FIA)

Silicon

Molybdate-reactive silica 0.05 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-5, based on APHA

20ed 4500-SiO2 C&E (FIA)


Measure the amount of plant nutrients and the extent of eutrophication in the water.

Cyanide 0.01 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-8(A), based on ASTM D4374-93 (FIA, amperometric)

Anionic surfactants (as Manoxol OT) 0.05 mg/L

In-house method WH-OA-6, based on BS 6068, Section 2.23 (1986) (Colorimetric) & In-house method WC-IN-24, based on Abbott, D.C. “Analyst”, Vol.87, p.286(1962) & S. Motomizu et al., “Analyst” Vol.113, p.747(1988) (FIA)

Fluoride 0.2 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-18(A), based on APHA 20ed 4500-F- C & G (Ion Selective Electrode) and ASTM D1179-93 (FIA)

Free hydrogen sulphide 0.01 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-17, based on APHA

20ed 4500S2- D (Colorimetric)

Sulphide (soluble ; soluble & particulate)

0.02 mg/L In-house method WC-IN-17, based on APHA 20ed 4500S2- D (Colorimetric)


Reflect anoxic state of the rivers, as well as pollution caused by detergents and other inorganic chemicals.




Appendix 2.3 Summary of the parameters and analytical methods in the river water quality monitoring programme (continued)


5. Biological examination

Chlorophyll-a 0.2 mg/m3 In house method WC-IN-6, based on APHA 20ed 10200H 2 (spectrophotometric)

Pheo-pigment 0.2 mg/m3 In house method WC-IN-6, based on APHA 20ed 10200H 2 (spectrophotometric)


Indicate the amount of algal biomass in river water.

6. Metals

Aluminium 50 µg/L

Antimony 1 µg/L

Arsenic 1 µg/L

Barium 1 µg/L

Beryllium 1 µg/L

Boron 50 µg/L

Cadmium 0.1 µg/L

Chromium 1 µg/L

Copper 1 µg/L

Iron 50 µg/L

Lead 1 µg/L

Manganese 10 µg/L

Mercury 1 µg/L

Molybdenum 2 µg/L

Nickel 1 µg/L

Silver 1 µg/L

Thallium 1 µg/L

Vanadium 2 µg/L

Zinc 10 µg/L

In-house method WC-ME-7, based on USEPA Method 6020A (ICP-MS)


Determine toxic metal pollution of the river caused by industrial discharges.


Appendix 3 Key Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for inland waters

BOD5 COD SS* DO E. coli(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (cfu/100mL)

<= <= <= >= <=Shing Mun (A)Shing Mun (C)Shing Mun (F) 3 15 0a

Shing Mun (H)Shing Mun (I) 6.0 9.0 25Lam Tsuen (D) 3 15 0a

Tai Po (C)Other inland watersexcept Shing Mun (B),(D), (E), (G), LamTsuen (C) and Tai Po(A), (B)

6.0 9.0 25

Whole zone 3 15 1b

Mui Wo (C)Mui Wo (E)Other inland watersexcept Mui Wo (A),(B), (D), (F)

6.0 9.0 25

* : SS is calculated based on annual median.a : E. coli level is calculated as the running median of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days (or 14 and 42 days).b : E. coli level is calculated as the geometric mean of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days.c : E. coli level is calculated as the geometric mean of all samples collected in one calendar year.d : E. coli level is calculated as the running median of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days.

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 A3-1

Subzone (pH unit)>= and <=

30

pH

6.5 8.55

5

1000a

6.5 8.5 20

6.5 8.5

5

305

20

WCZ

Tolo Harbour andChannel

Tolo HarbourSupplementary

201000a

1000a30

30

4

Appendix 3.1 Summary of key Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for different watercourses in the river monitoring programme

Southern 610c

Appendix 3 Key Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for inland waters

BOD5 COD SS* DO E. coli(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (cfu/100mL)

<= <= <= >= <=Ho Chung (A) 6.5 8.5Other inland watersInland waters 1000d

IndusBeasGangesYuen Long & Kam Tin(Upper)Yuen Long & Kam Tin(Lower)Other inland waters 6.0 9.0Tuen Mun (C) 6.5 8.5 3 15Other inland watersexcept Tuen Mun (A),(B)Other inland waters

Inland waters

* : SS is calculated based on annual median.a : E. coli level is calculated as the running median of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days (or 14 and 42 days).b : E. coli level is calculated as the geometric mean of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days.c : E. coli level is calculated as the geometric mean of all samples collected in one calendar year.d : E. coli level is calculated as the running median of the 5 most recent consecutive samples taken at intervals between 7 and 21 days.

河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 A3-2

25

4

5

0d

1000d

30

6.0

1000b

20

9.0 5 30 25

305

6.5 8.53 15

Appendix 3.2 Summary of key Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for different watercourses in the river monitoring programme

North Western

Western BufferVictoria Harbour(Phase One)

Deep Bay

Junk Bay

Port Shelter 610c

>= and <=WCZ Subzone

pH(pH unit)

6.0 9.0

Main Channel

Tolo Harbour

Shing Mun River

Siu Lek YuenNullah

Tai WaiNullah

Tin Sum

N

Fo Tan Nullah

Sha TinWo Che Estate

Lek Yuen Estate

Hin Keng Estate

Heung Fan Liu

Kuk Liu

HK SportsInstitute

Racecourse

City OneSha Tin

Hang SengSchool of Commerce

Kwong YuenEstate

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR19A3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR193

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR20B3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR19I3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tin Sum Nullah

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR19C3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Appendix 5.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shing Mun River and its tributaries

A5 -1

Appendix 5

Tolo

Harbour

and Channel W

ater Control Z

one

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

A5 -2

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

Fo Tan Nullah

Tolo Harbour

Main Channel

Shing Mun River

Siu LekYuen Nullah

Kwun Yam ShanNullah

Sha Tin

Tai WaiNullah

Tin Sum Nullah

Wo Che Estate

Lek Yuen Estate

Hin Keng Estate

Tai Wai Station

Heung Fan LiuKuk Liu

HK SportsInstitute

Fo Tan Station

Racecourse

City OneSha Tin

Hang SengSchool of Commerce

Kwong YuenEstate

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR23L3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR23A3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KY13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR17L3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR173

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Appendix 5

Tolo

Harbour

and Channel W

ater Control Z

one

Appendix 5.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shing Mun River and its tributaries (continued)

A5 -3

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

Lam Tsuen River

Kau Liu Ha

Lam Tsuen Kuk

Tai Po HuiTinLiuHa

ToloHarbour

Tai Po

Lam Tsuen

Tai WoSheShan

Ping LongTai Mong Che

Pak Ngau Shek

Kam Shan

Shan TongTo YuenTung

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12C3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12D3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12B3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12H3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12F3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12G3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Appendix 5

Tolo

Harbour

and Channel W

ater Control Z

one

Appendix 5.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Lam Tsuen River and its tributaries

A5 -4

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

NShui Wai

Tai Po Hui

Tai Po RiverTolo Harbour

Lam Tsuen River

Kam Shan

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12E3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR123

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR12I3

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR133

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Lam Tsuen

Tai Po

Tai Wo

Shan TongTo Yuen

Tung

Ping LongTai Mong Che

Pak Ngau Shek

Tin LiuHa

SheShan

Kau Liu Ha

Lam Tsuen Kuk

Appendix 5

Tolo

Harbour

and Channel W

ater Control Z

one

Appendix 5.4 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Lam Tsuen River (continued) and Tai Po River and their tributaries

A5 -5

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

Tung Tze Stream

Tai Po Kau Stream

Shan Liu StreamPlover Cove

Reservoir

Tolo Harbour

PloverCove

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR63

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR143

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TR43

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tai Po

Ting Kok

CheungShue Tan

Ma Liu Shui

Lai Chi Hang

Ha Tei Ha

Appendix 5

Tolo

Harbour

and Channel W

ater Control Z

one

Appendix 5.5 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

MW43

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

MW33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

N

Mui Wo River

Pak NganHeung

Tai TeiTong

Luk TeiTong

Wang Tong

Silver MineBay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

MW13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

ChungHau

ButterflyHill

Ngan WanEstate

Mui WoSchool San

LungWai

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

MW53

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

MW23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Appendix 6

Southern Water C

ontrol Zone

A6 Appendix 6.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Mui Wo River and its tributaries -1

Appendix 7.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Ho Chung River and its tributaries

Ho Chung RiverTin Liu Hebe Haven

Wo Mei

N

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

PR13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

PR23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Ho ChungMarina Cove

Nam Pin Wai

Luk Mei Tsuen

Nam Wai

Sai Kung

KaiHam

Appendix 7

Port Shelter Water C

ontrol Zone

A7 -1

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

N

Sha KokMei

Sha Kok Mei Stream

Sai Kung

Sai Kung Hoi

Fu Tei Hau

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

PR53

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

PR63

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

PoliceStation

SportsGround

Sha Kok MeiTemporary

Housing AreaKap Pin Long

Tan CheungPo Lo Che

Appendix 7


ontrol Zone

A7 Appendix 7.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Sha Kok Mei Stream and its tributaries -2

Appendix 7.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tai Chung Hau Stream and its tributaries

Tai ChungHau


Hebe Haven

N

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

PR73

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

PR83

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Lion’s NatureEducation Centre

Wu Lei Tau

Ta Ho Tun

Pak KongVillage

Pak Sha Wan

Kau Sai San Tsuen

Ma On Shan Country Park

Appendix 7


ontrol Zone

A7 -3

Appendix 8.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tseng Lan Shue Stream and its tributaries

N

Junk Bay

Tseng LanShue

Tseung Kwan O

Pak Shek Wo

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

JR113

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

JR33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

JR63

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tseng Kwan OUpper VillageTai Ngau Wu

Pak Uk

Hebe Hill

Sam LongTsuen


Appendix 8

Junk Bay W

ater Control Z

one

A8 -1

Appendix 9.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Indus and its tributaries

N

Tin PingShan

Lo Wu

Shenzhen

Sheung Shui

River Ganges

Loi Tung

River Indus

River Beas

Deep Bay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

IN13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

IN23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

IN33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

ManKam To

Ho SheungHeung

Kwu Tung

ShekWu Hui

Fanling

TsungPak Long

Kwan Tei

Lau ShuiHeung

Ping CheMa

Mei Ha

HokTau WaiTong Kung

Leng

Kan Tau Wai

Ta Kwu Ling

Wo Keng Shan

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 -1

Appendix 9.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Beas and its tributaries

N

Deep Bay

Shenzhen

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

RB23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

RB13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

RB33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tin PingShan

Lo WuSheung Shui

Loi Tung

ManKam To

Ho SheungHeung

Kwu Tung

ShekWu Hui

Fanling

TsungPak Long

Kwan Tei

Lau ShuiHeung

Ping CheMa

Mei Ha

HokTau WaiTong Kung

Leng

Kan Tau Wai

Ta Kwu Ling

Wo Keng Shan

River Ganges

River Indus

River Beas

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 -2

Appendix 9.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of the River Ganges and its tributaries

Shenzhen

Deep Bay

N

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

GR13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

GR23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

GR33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tin PingShan

Lo WuSheung Shui

Loi Tung

ManKam To

Ho SheungHeung

Kwu Tung

ShekWu Hui

Fanling

TsungPak Long

Kwan Tei

Lau ShuiHeung

Ping Che MaMei Ha

HokTau WaiTong Kung

Leng

Kan Tau Wai

Ta Kwu Ling

Wo Keng Shan

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

River Ganges

River Indus

River Beas

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 -3

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

Kam Tin River

Kam TinYuen Long

Yuen Long Creek

Shap PatHeung

Tai KeiLeng

N

Pat Heung

Deep Bay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

YL13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

YL43

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

YL23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

KT13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

YL33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KT23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Long PingEstate

Ma TinTsuen

Yuen LongKau Hui

Nam Sang Wai

Shui Tau

Ho HokShan Shek Kong

CampNg KaTsuen

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 Appendix 9.4 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Yuen Long Creek and Kam Tin River and their tributaries -4

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

N Deep Bay

Fairview ParkNullahTin Shui Wai

Nullah

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TSR13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

FVR13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

TSR23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

FairviewPark

Nam Sang Wai

Tai Sang Wai

LutChau

Mai Po NatureReserve

Wo Shing Wai

Palm Springs

Royal Palms

Yuen Long

Shek PoTsuen

Hung ShuiKiu

Tan KwaiTsuen

Wo Ping SanTsuen

Yuen Long Creek

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 Appendix 9.5 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tin Shui Wai Nullah and Fairview Park Nullah and their tributaries -5

Appendix 9.6 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone

Pak NaiStream

Ngau HomSha Stream

SheungPak NaiStream

Ha Pak NaiStream

Deep Bay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

Tai ShuiHang

Stream

Tsang KokStream

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

DB13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

DB23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

DB83

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Yuen Tau Shan

Castle Peak

Po Lor Shan

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 -6

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

Deep Bay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

DB53

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

DB33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

DB63

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Yuen Tau Shan

Po Lor Shan

Castle Peak

Pak NaiStream

Ngau HomSha Stream

SheungPak NaiStream

Ha Pak NaiStream

Tai ShuiHang

Stream

Tsang KokStream

Appendix 9

Deep B

ay Water C

ontrol Zone

A9 Appendix 9.7 Water Quality Index (WQI) of minor streams in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (continued) -7

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good N

San Fat Estate

Lam Tei

Tuen Mun River

Fu Tei

Tuen Mun

Castle Peak Bay

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

TN13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TN43

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

TN23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TN53

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

TN33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TN63

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Yau Oi Estate

Chelsea Heights

Tuen MunSan Hui

Siu Hong Court

To Yuen Wai

LingnanUniversity

Ho Tin LRT

Tuen Mun Hospital

A

Appendix 10

North W

estern Water C

ontrol Zone

10 - Appendix 10.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tuen Mun River and its tributaries

1

Appendix 10.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Tung Chung River and its tributaries

Tung Chung

Tung Chung Wan

Tung Chung River

N

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TC13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TC23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TC33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Ngau Au

Nim Yuen ShekLauPo

ShekMunKap

San Tung Chung Hung

Wong Lung Hang

Shek Sze Shan

Shan Ha

Ling Pe

Ma WanChung

A

Appendix 10

North W

estern Water C

ontrol Zone

10 -2

Appendix 11.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Pai Min Kok (Anglers’) Stream and its tributaries

N

Anglers’Beach

Pai Min Kok Stream(Anglers’Stream)

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

AN13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

AN23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Tsing Lung Tau

Sea Crest Villa

Pai MinKok

Village

A

Appendix 11

Western B

uffer Water C

ontrol Zone

11 -1

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TW33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

N Sam Dip Tam Stream

Lo Wai

Yi Pei ChunSai Lau Kok Tsuen

Western Monastery

Cheung Pei Shan Road

San Tsuen

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TW13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

TW23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Shek Wai Kok Estate

A

Appendix 12

Victoria H

arbourW

ater Control Z

one

12 - Appendix 12.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Sam Dip Tam Stream and its tributaries

1

Appendix 12.2 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Kau Wa Keng Stream

Kau WaKeng

Mei Foo

Kau Wa Keng Stream

Ha Kwai Chung

Lai King Hill Road

N

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KW33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

PrincessMargaretHospital

Kau Wa KengSan Tsuen Chung Shan

Terreace

A

Appendix 12

Victoria H

arbourW

ater Control Z

one

12 -2

Appendix 12.3 Water Quality Index (WQI) of Kai Tak Nullah

河R

iver Water Q

uality in Hong K

ong in 2001

N

San Po Kong

KowloonCity

Kowloon Bay

old Kai Tak Airport RunwayExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN13

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN43

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN23

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN33

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

ex

Excellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN73

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exExcellent

Bad

Fair

Very Bad

Good

KN53

6

9

12

15

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Ind

exWongTaiSin

WangTauHom

Ex-Hong KongInternational Airport

(Kai Tak)

Kai Tak Nullah

Tsz Wan Shan Diamond Hill

Lok Fu

A

Appendix 12

Victoria H

arbourW

ater Control Z

one

12 -3

Appendix 13Appendix 13.1 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Shing Mun River in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Tin Sum Nullah Tai Wai Nullah Kwun Yam Shan Stream Siu Lek Yuen Nullah

TR20B TR19A TR19C TR19 KY1 TR23L TR23ADissolved oxygen mg/L 8.5 8.8 9.0 9.3 8.6 9.9 6.5

(7.6 - 10.0) (7.7 - 10.4) (8.0 - 10.4) (8.2 - 11.3) (5.1 - 10.5) (7.3 - 11.3) (3.2 - 9.1)pH 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.9 7.8

(7.2 - 8.0) (7.1 - 8.9) (7.1 - 7.6) (7.1 - 7.8) (7.2 - 8.8) (8.0 - 9.6) (7.3 - 8.1)Suspended solids mg/L 2 4 3 5 2 3 5

(1 - 13) (2 - 15) (2 - 17) (2 - 35) (1 - 7) (1 - 19) (3 - 13)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1 1 2 4 1 1 5

(1 - 4) (1 - 12) (1 - 14) (1 - 21) (1 - 3) (1 - 7) (3 - 7)Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 8 7 8 11 4 8 14

(3 - 17) (3 - 29) (2 - 15) (4 - 24) (2 - 8) (3 - 18) (9 - 19)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 1.4) (0.5 - 0.7) (0.5 - 8.4) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 1 1,200 38,000 79,000 1,700 51,000 240,000

(1 - 6) (1 - 840,000) (1,900 - 1,100,000) (20,000 - 910,000) (120 - 14,000) (14,000 - 370,000) (80,000 - 510,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 1 480 6,300 12,000 730 2,200 23,000

(1 - 1) (1 - 440,000) (680 - 770,000) (1,100 - 470,000) (70 - 11,000) (580 - 15,000) (3,000 - 100,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.19 0.02 0.03 0.50

(0.02 - 0.12) (0.02 - 2.30) (0.03 - 1.10) (0.02 - 1.40) (0.01 - 0.03) (0.01 - 0.11) (0.08 - 1.00)Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 2.65 1.85 1.30 1.50 0.40 0.14 0.33

(0.43 - 4.20) (0.45 - 3.50) (0.96 - 2.00) (0.95 - 2.10) (0.21 - 0.65) (0.06 - 0.42) (0.05 - 0.89)Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 0.42 0.19 0.27 0.49 0.11 0.19 0.97

(0.05 - 0.64) (0.06 - 4.00) (0.05 - 1.90) (0.09 - 2.40) (0.05 - 0.18) (0.08 - 0.71) (0.49 - 1.80)Ortho-phosphate mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.04

(0.01 - 0.09) (0.01 - 0.44) (0.01 - 0.17) (0.01 - 0.29) (0.02 - 0.12) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.11)Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.15

(0.02- 0.30) (0.02 - 0.64) (0.05 - 0.33) (0.07 - 0.50) (0.07 - 0.18) (0.02 - 0.10) (0.06 - 0.25)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 250 125 120 145 70 95 90

(70 - 1,600) (60 - 210) (60 - 210) (80 - 390) (50 - 100) (50 - 140) (50 - 160)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 4.30) (0.10 - 0.70) (0.10 - 0.60) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.20)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

(1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 6.0)Copper µg/L 3.0 2.5 20.0 19.0 1.0 2.0 4.5

(1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 6.0) (8.0 - 61.0) (9.0 - 43.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 15.0) (3.0 - 12.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 7.0)Zinc µg/L 20 20 40 40 10 20 20

(10 - 60) (20 - 230) (20 - 120) (20 - 100) (10 - 60) (10 - 150) (10 - 90)Flow L/s 73 31 75 72 3 15 NM

(27 - 132) (17 - 281) (30 - 402) (41 - 360) (1 - 55) (5 - 61)

Notes: 1. Data presented are in annual medians of monthly samples; except those for faecal coliforms and E. coli which are in annual geometric means. 2. Figures in brackets are annual ranges. 3. NM indicates no measurement taken. 4. cfu - colony forming unit. 5. SP - soluble and particulate fractions i.e. total value. 6. Values at or below laboratory reporting limits are presented as laboratory reporting limits (see Appendix 2). 7. Equal values for annual medians (or geometric means) and ranges indicate that all data are the same as or below laboratory reporting limits.河 River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2001 A13-1

Water quality results for the Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ

Appendix 13Appendix 13.2 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Shing Mun River, Tai Po River and minor streams in the Tolo Harbour & Channel Water Control Zone in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Fo Tan Nullah Shing Mun Main Channel Tai Po River Tai Po Kau Stream Shan Liu Stream Tung Tze Stream

TR17 TR17L TR19I TR13 TR14 TR4 TR6Dissolved oxygen mg/L 8.4 6.8 7.3 8.1 8.6 8.0 6.4

(6.6 - 10.0) (4.6 - 9.5) (3.4 - 11.9) (7.4 - 9.6) (7.2 - 10.7) (6.8 - 10.5) (5.0 - 10.2)pH 7.8 7.6 7.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.5




(3 - 56) (10 - 23) (9 - 22) (2 - 13) (2 - 13) (2 - 8) (6 - 22)Oil & grease mg/L 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 8.8) (0.5 - 0.6) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.6) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 280,000 39,000 17,000 110,000 7,100 11,000 5,300

(38,000 - 950,000) (810 - 160,000) (380 - 280,000) (32,000 - 750,000) (540 - 53,000) (2,300 - 48,000) (56 - 130,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 48,000 6,800 4,200 67,000 860 1,400 1,700

(5,600 - 470,000) (200 - 49,000) (110 - 140,000) (14,000 - 720,000) (72 - 26,000) (350 - 5,900) (44 - 80,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.13 0.30 0.21 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.24





(0.02 - 0.55) (0.03 - 0.13) (0.03 - 0.27) (0.03 - 0.45) (0.03 - 0.07) (0.04 - 0.17) (0.03 - 0.22)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.08) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 180 90 100 70 75 70 85

(70 - 490) (50 - 150) (50 - 140) (50 - 90) (50 - 110) (50 - 100) (50 - 240)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.20)Chromium µg/L 1.0 4.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5

(1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 6.0)Copper µg/L 4.0 6.0 6.5 2.0 1.0 1.5 5.0

(1.0 - 11.0) (4.0 - 9.0) (5.0 - 11.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 13.0) (1.0 - 11.0)Lead µg/L 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5

(2.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 6.0)Zinc µg/L 45 25 20 20 15 10 20

(10 - 90) (10 - 40) (10 - 50) (10 - 50) (10 - 20) (10 - 50) (10 - 70)Flow L/s 32 NM NM 179 51 71 NM

(10 - 214) (103 - 945) (5 - 442) (22 - 284)



Appendix 13Appendix 13.3 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Lam Tsuen River in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Lam Tsuen River

TR12H TR12D TR12G TR12F TR12C TR12B TR12E TR12 TR12IDissolved oxygen mg/L 8.9 8.7 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 8.8 5.8

(7.4 - 10.1) (7.6 - 10.5) (7.4 - 9.4) (8.0 - 10.2) (6.5 - 9.9) (7.7 - 10.2) (8.0 - 9.5) (7.8 - 11.8) (3.9 - 7.9)pH 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.7 7.3 7.2

(6.7 - 7.6) (6.8 - 7.6) (6.6 - 7.3) (6.7 - 7.6) (6.6 - 7.8) (6.7 - 7.8) (7.4 - 8.0) (6.8 - 8.8) (6.7 - 7.6)Suspended solids mg/L 1 1 1 2 4 2 13 10 6

(1 - 5) (1 - 740) (1 - 5) (1 - 6) (2 - 49) (1 - 7) (1 - 52) (2 - 380) (4 - 10)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 6

(1 - 2) (1 - 3) (1 - 2) (1 - 1) (1 - 5) (1 - 2) (1 - 2) (1 - 13) (1 - 9)Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 4 3 4 5 9 6 5 15 19

(2 - 9) (2 - 23) (2 - 9) (3 - 9) (4 - 15) (2 - 11) (2 - 10) (5 - 37) (5 - 26)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 1.0) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.7) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.9) (0.5 - 0.6)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 2,500 1,900 1,200 8,200 45,000 15,000 11,000 8,600 270,000

(96 - 19,000) (400 - 15,000) (69 - 4,000) (1,100 - 52,000) (13,000 - 130,000) (4,800 - 91,000) (2,400 - 120,000) (2,400 - 50,000) (19,000 - 5,100,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 630 220 96 1,700 11,000 7,000 4,500 1,300 78,000

(93 - 8,000) (26 - 5,100) (19 - 230) (490 - 26,000) (600 - 28,000) (1,800 - 39,000) (560 - 80,000) (250 - 5,000) (5,300 - 1,300,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.40 0.12 0.05 0.29 0.62

(0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.05) (0.01 - 0.05) (0.02 - 0.13) (0.11 - 0.91) (0.03 - 0.49) (0.01 - 0.25) (0.03 - 1.40) (0.05 - 1.20)Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 0.85 0.23 0.03 0.38 1.10 0.90 0.30 2.80 0.98

(0.65 - 1.30) (0.09 - 0.37) (0.01 - 0.09) (0.16 - 0.53) (0.50 - 2.00) (0.44 - 1.30) (0.20 - 0.59) (0.94 - 15.00) (0.23 - 2.10)Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.63 0.31 0.16 1.19 1.10

(0.05 - 0.10) (0.05 - 0.22) (0.05 - 0.19) (0.07 - 0.38) (0.31 - 1.20) (0.07 - 0.68) (0.05 - 0.30) (0.13 - 4.10) (0.16 - 2.40)Ortho-phosphate mg/L 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.22 0.12

(0.01 - 0.05) (0.01 - 0.02) (0.01 - 0.03) (0.01 - 0.07) (0.02 - 0.36) (0.01 - 0.16) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.04 - 2.40) (0.05 - 0.22)Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.16 0.05 0.72 0.24

(0.02 - 0.05) (0.02 - 0.06) (0.02 - 0.15) (0.05 - 0.13) (0.13 - 0.58) (0.04 - 0.24) (0.02 - 0.08) (0.10 - 2.60) (0.08 - 0.44)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.04)Aluminium µg/L 50 50 50 50 95 50 175 145 90

(50 - 60) (50 - 1,800) (50 - 110) (50 - 50) (60 - 3,200) (50 - 90) (90 - 560) (60 - 3,300) (50 - 270)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 2.70) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 0.20)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

(1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 9.0)Copper µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 4.0

(1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 27.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 15.0) (2.0 - 8.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0

(1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 240.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 90.0) (1.0 - 3.0)Zinc µg/L 15 10 10 10 10 20 20 25 25

(10 - 40) (10 - 210) (10 - 40) (10 - 30) (10 - 40) (10 - 30) (10 - 30) (10 - 90) (10 - 120)Flow L/s 72 51 27 44 53 341 56 131 NM

(11 - 1,920) (12 - 294) (5 - 223) (8 - 308) (11 - 288) (111 - 5,760) (17 - 203) (14 - 1,265)



Appendix 13Appendix 13.4 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Mui Wo River in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Mui Wo River

MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5Dissolved oxygen mg/L 8.4 8.5 8.8 8.0 8.0

(6.8 - 10.8) (7.4 - 11.2) (7.4 - 11.2) (6.6 - 10.2) (6.0 - 12.4)pH 7.1 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.3

(6.5 - 8.1) (6.7 - 8.1) (6.5 - 7.9) (6.5 - 8.1) (6.5 - 8.1)Suspended solids mg/L 2 4 2 8 5

(1 - 11) (1 - 14) (1 - 33) (4 - 37) (2 - 16)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1 1 1 1 1

(1 - 3) (1 - 4) (1 - 3) (1 - 4) (1 - 2)Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 6 8 4 10 10

(3 - 12) (3 - 17) (2 - 7) (5 - 15) (5 - 16)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 10,000 18,000 2,100 5,300 16,000

(2,200 - 82,000) (5,200 - 58,000) (250 - 6,400) (260 - 190,000) (1,300 - 120,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 3,700 2,700 140 1,100 2,800

(510 - 65,000) (400 - 11,000) (7 - 1,200) (80 - 120,000) (420 - 36,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.04 0.31 0.02 0.16 0.46

(0.02 - 0.22) (0.05 - 0.88) (0.01 - 0.06) (0.06 - 0.20) (0.11 - 1.10)Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.11

(0.11 - 0.60) (0.09 - 0.26) (0.10 - 0.65) (0.08 - 0.33) (0.06 - 0.15)Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 0.15 0.52 0.10 0.35 0.74

(0.05 - 0.40) (0.11 - 1.20) (0.05 - 0.16) (0.18 - 0.48) (0.22 - 1.40)Ortho-phosphate mg/L 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05

(0.03 - 0.24) (0.01 - 0.18) (0.02 - 0.10) (0.01 - 0.12) (0.02 - 0.08)Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 0.15 0.14 0.07 0.12 0.14

(0.06 - 0.27) (0.05 - 0.28) (0.04 - 0.20) (0.05 - 0.15) (0.06 - 0.25)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 100 90 75 110 80

(60 - 160) (50 - 170) (50 - 160) (70 - 220) (50 - 160)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.30)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 1.0

(1.0 - 8.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 4.0)Copper µg/L 1.0 2.5 1.0 4.5 2.0

(1.0 - 8.0) (1.0 - 8.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 3.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0

(1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 4.0)Zinc µg/L 30 20 40 20 20

(10 - 60) (10 - 30) (20 - 150) (10 - 60) (10 - 90)Flow L/s 60 NM 18 308 30

(5 - 150) (1 - 115) (108 - 743) (4 - 420)


Water quality results for the Southern WCZ

Appendix 13Appendix 13.5 Summary of water quality monitoring data for rivers in the Port Shelter and Junk Bay Water Control Zones in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Ho Chung River Sha Kok Mei Stream Tai Chung Hau Stream Tseng Lan Shue Stream

PR1 PR2 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 JR3 JR6 JR11Dissolved oxygen mg/L 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.8 8.7 5.9 6.8 8.5

(5.3 - 8.9) (7.7 - 9.7) (6.5 - 9.5) (7.4 - 10.3) (8.0 - 10.2) (7.1 - 10.0) (3.9 - 7.5) (4.8 - 7.8) (8.0 - 10.6)pH 7.1 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.4


(2 - 11) (1 - 2) (2 - 5) (1 - 13) (1 - 1,600) (1 - 9) (2 - 46) (4 - 34) (2 - 7)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1 1 1 4 1 1 12 13 2


(5 - 14) (2 - 7) (3 - 12) (3 - 19) (2 - 21) (3 - 10) (10 - 70) (12 - 51) (3 - 16)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.5 0.5


(3,900 - 280,000) (510 - 8,200) (5,500 - 67,000) (49,000 - 360,000) (12,000 - 80,000) (10,000 - 250,000) (21,000 - 1,200,000) (370,000-1,100,000) (1,200 - 84,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 9,100 420 6,400 20,000 8,400 9,800 75,000 320,000 2,300

(1,200 - 110,000) (100 - 2,900) (950 - 47,000) (6,700 - 66,000) (3,700 - 29,000) (6,100 - 18,000) (14,000 - 560,000) (100,000-870,000) (320 - 54,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.46 0.03 0.13 0.67 0.07 0.07 5.60 4.50 0.06


(0.12 - 0.40) (0.10 - 0.49) (0.48 - 1.40) (1.20 - 2.80) (0.42 - 1.60) (0.66 - 2.40) (0.42 - 1.60) (1.10 - 3.40) (1.30 - 6.90).Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 0.68 0.13 0.29 1.01 0.21 0.28 7.90 5.95 0.33



(0.03 - 0.36) (0.02 - 0.05) (0.06 - 0.21) (0.09 - 0.56) (0.04 - 0.21) (0.04 - 0.18) (0.30 - 1.80) (0.53 - 2.20) (0.17 - 1.60)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

(0.02 - 0.24) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.05) (0.02 - 0.07) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 95 70 80 85 95 65 120 145 80

(50 - 170) (50 - 110) (50 - 140) (60 - 330) (50 - 5,500) (50 - 120) (100 - 1,300) (80 - 320) (50 - 150)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.10)Chromium µg/L 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 2.0)Copper µg/L 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 4.5 8.5 3.0

(2.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 53.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (2.0 - 18.0) (4.0 - 17.0) (2.0 - 4.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0

(1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 140.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 11.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 4.0)Zinc µg/L 25 10 10 30 15 15 40 60 20

(10 - 190) (10 - 60) (10 - 60) (20 - 50) (10 - 230) (10 - 40) (20 - 120) (40 - 200) (10 - 50)Flow L/s NM 105 90 NM 105 NM NM NM 80

(28 - 720) (36 - 415) (11 - 1,140) (14 - 304)


Water quality results for the Port Shelter and Junk Bay WCZs

Appendix 13Appendix 13.6 Summary of water quality monitoring data for the River Indus, the River Beas and the River Ganges in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit River Indus River Beas River Ganges

IN1 IN2 IN3 RB1 RB2 RB3 GR1 GR2 GR3Dissolved oxygen mg/L 4.8 5.6 7.8 7.6 8.8 6.9 5.6 6.6 7.8

(1.8 - 7.3) (2.4 - 7.6) (5.2 - 9.4) (5.3 - 8.9) (7.1 - 10.3) (3.8 - 8.9) (2.7 - 8.9) (3.1 - 8.4) (5.9 - 9.0)pH 7.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.9


(21 - 90) (9 - 72) (2 - 23) (12 - 160) (13 - 1,100) (11 - 1,200) (17 - 190) (5 - 73) (2 - 54)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 9 6 4 7 6 8 19 9 1


(12 - 49) (8 - 35) (8 - 21) (10 - 33) (8 - 63) (12 - 120) (13 - 170) (20 - 91) (4 - 11)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.5


(180,000 - 6,600,000) (5,800-38,000,000) (3,600 - 390,000) (27,000 - 220,000) (13,000 - 520,000) (51,000 - 1,100,000) (230,000 - 1,200,000) (130,000 - 2,500,000) (3,100 - 780,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 150,000 44,000 4,700 17,000 18,000 42,000 120,000 95,000 6,000

(20,000 - 3,800,000) (230-350,000) (580 - 72,000) (5,000 - 52,000) (6,300 - 100,000) (12,000 - 240,000) (20,000 - 530,000) (31,000 - 220,000) (70 - 410,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 2.70 1.95 0.57 3.10 3.80 3.20 20.00 4.40 0.11





(0.50 - 2.10) (0.16 - 0.43) (0.32 - 1.90) (0.33 - 1.40) (0.42 - 1.60) (0.41 - 3.20) (1.20 - 21.00) (1.60 - 4.60) (0.02 - 0.07)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02

(0.02 - 0.44) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.09) (0.02 - 0.26) (0.02 - 0.12) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 260 150 65 285 365 220 235 150 50

(180 - 610) (50 - 260) (50 - 130) (140 - 430) (170 - 1,300) (140 - 2,600) (160 - 660) (100 - 320) (50 - 240)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.70) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 0.80) (0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 1.80) (0.10 - 0.10)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0)Copper µg/L 6.0 4.5 7.5 5.5 8.0 5.0 19.0 7.0 1.0

(4.0 - 14.0) (2.0 - 8.0) (5.0 - 31.0) (2.0 - 8.0) (3.0 - 22.0) (3.0 - 78.0) (7.0 - 110.0) (4.0 - 39.0) (1.0 - 3.0)Lead µg/L 4.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

(2.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 13.0) (2.0 - 45.0) (1.0 - 99.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 5.0)Zinc µg/L 105 450 35 30 40 75 70 55 20

(30 - 240) (90 - 24,000) (20 - 60) (20 - 50) (20 - 170) (20 - 1,300) (30 - 200) (30 - 140) (10 - 70)Flow L/s NM NM 35 200 870 624 83 49 23

(19 - 484) (114 - 1,224) (204 - 12,116) (300 - 5,680) (15 - 1,734) (8 - 712) (12 - 228)


Water quality results for the Deep Bay WCZ

Appendix 13Appendix 13.7 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Yuen Long Creek, Kam Tin River and Tin Shui Wai Nullah in 2001

Parameter Unit Yuen Long Creek Tin Shui Wai Nullah YL1 YL2 YL3 YL4 KT1 KT2 TSR1 TSR2

Dissolved oxygen mg/L 4.2 7.8 5.1 5.6 5.9 6.3 5.7 9.2(1.9 - 8.1) (6.1 - 10.0) (1.6 - 7.6) (1.4 - 7.6) (1.9 - 7.3) (3.2 - 11.7) (2.9 - 10.9) (7.7 - 13.0)

pH 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.7 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.8(6.4 - 7.9) (6.9 - 8.2) (7.1 - 8.0) (7.1 - 9.4) (6.9 - 7.6) (6.6 - 8.2) (7.0 - 8.2) (7.2 - 9.3)

Suspended solids mg/L 28 14 87 150 60 76 41 19(13 - 140) (10 - 45) (15 - 270) (22 - 1,300) (37 - 530) (41 - 130) (10 - 590) (6 - 250)

5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 20 7 71 69 17 15 14 1(1 - 180) (1 - 11) (3 - 130) (8 - 170) (1 - 42) (1 - 30) (5 - 220) (1 - 15)

Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 48 24 69 72 43 44 24 7(9 - 250) (6 - 38) (10 - 170) (20 - 170) (14 - 150) (17 - 120) (8 - 54) (3 - 18)

Oil & grease mg/L 1.5 0.6 3.5 7.1 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5(0.5 - 37.0) (0.5 - 1.1) (0.5 - 23.0) (0.5 - 19.0) (0.5 - 4.9) (0.5 - 1.2) (0.5 - 9.1) (0.5 - 0.5)

Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 460,000 200,000 2,700,000 2,400,000 500,000 57,000 1,500,000 44,000(61,000 - 2,100,000) (87,000 - 640,000) (460,000 - 9,600,000) (580,000 - 7,100,000) (98,000 - 2,500,000) (2,000 - 190,000) (280,000 - 23,000,000) (7,500 - 210,000)

E. coli cfu/100mL 320,000 61,000 1,300,000 860,000 250,000 6,500 880,000 16,000(25,000 - 1,800,000) (23,000 - 170,000) (310,000 - 5,100,000) (270,000 - 2,100,000) (51,000 - 1,900,000) (1,300 - 29,000) (120,000 - 18,000,000) (2,000 - 200,000)

Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 5.85 6.70 15.50 7.40 15.00 4.85 3.75 0.24(0.02 - 90.00) (0.72 - 24.00) (1.30 - 39.00) (1.10 - 14.00) (1.30 - 30.00) (0.38 - 16.00) (1.00 - 8.80) (0.03 - 0.48)

Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 0.40 1.25 0.75 0.01 0.65 0.39 0.84 0.94(0.01 - 1.50) (0.61 - 2.50) (0.01 - 1.30) (0.01 - 1.40) (0.01 - 1.30) (0.03 - 2.30) (0.39 - 1.50) (0.49 - 1.60)

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 6.80 7.65 20.50 12.00 19.00 9.00 5.40 0.62(0.86 - 99.00) (1.10 - 26.00) (1.80 - 46.00) (2.30 - 19.00) (2.20 - 42.00) (1.30 - 20.00) (1.40 - 17.00) (0.05 - 1.70)

Ortho-phosphate mg/L 1.30 1.45 2.25 0.63 3.05 0.42 0.48 0.05(0.24 - 9.20) (0.20 - 3.70) (0.41 - 6.40) (0.01 - 1.60) (0.57 - 4.50) (0.09 - 1.80) (0.11 - 1.10) (0.01 - 0.10)

Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 1.65 1.80 3.90 1.75 4.50 1.45 0.90 0.11(0.36 - 10.00) (0.38 - 4.10) (0.67 - 8.50) (0.75 - 2.40) (0.99 - 9.30) (0.73 - 2.80) (0.28 - 4.70) (0.04 - 0.24)

Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02(0.02 - 0.29) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.26) (0.02 - 0.09) (0.02 - 0.06) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.21) (0.02 - 0.02)

Aluminium µg/L 230 240 295 555 450 350 335 270(150 - 410) (140 - 460) (120 - 1,300) (230 - 6,300) (260 - 1,700) (150 - 720) (190 - 1,200) (110 - 1,300)

Cadmium µg/L 0.15 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10(0.10 - 1.70) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 1.30) (0.10 - 1.10) (0.10 - 0.60) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.70) (0.10 - 0.10)

Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0(1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 12.0) (1.0 - 10.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 11.0) (1.0 - 1.0)

Copper µg/L 10.5 5.0 38.0 10.5 15.0 9.5 10.0 2.0(4.0 - 69.0) (3.0 - 10.0) (3.0 - 110.0) (4.0 - 26.0) (8.0 - 58.0) (6.0 - 15.0) (3.0 - 29.0) (1.0 - 5.0)

Lead µg/L 4.0 3.5 6.0 13.0 11.5 7.5 6.5 5.0(2.0 - 9.0) (2.0 - 10.0) (1.0 - 21.0) (4.0 - 100.0) (4.0 - 38.0) (4.0 - 18.0) (2.0 - 30.0) (2.0 - 40.0)

Zinc µg/L 65 30 195 75 70 40 115 25(30 - 750) (20 - 40) (20 - 420) (30 - 200) (30 - 260) (20 - 80) (30 - 1,900) (10 - 70)

Flow L/s 144 252 800 293 594 102 NM 46(43 - 6,960) (153 - 2,864) (138 - 8,400) (84 - 1,170) (60 - 6,860) (27 - 704) (3 - 972)


Kam Tin RiverSampling Station


Appendix 13Appendix 13.8 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Fairview Park Nullah and minor streams in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Fairview Park Nullah Ha Pak Nai Stream Tai Shui Hang Stream Pak Nai Stream Sheung Pak Nai Stream Ngau Hom Sha Stream Tsang Kok Stream

FVR1 DB1 DB2 DB3 DB5 DB6 DB8Dissolved oxygen mg/L 5.5 8.4 8.0 8.0 8.1 7.7 8.9

(4.0 - 6.5) (7.9 - 10.9) (7.4 - 10.6) (7.4 - 10.7) (7.2 - 10.4) (3.1 - 10.3) (8.0 - 10.8)pH 7.1 7.1 7.2 6.7 7.0 7.0 7.6




(14 - 47) (2 - 8) (2 - 5) (2 - 7) (2 - 10) (3 - 36) (2 - 8)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 0.7) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 460,000 250 350 2,100 820 11,000 700

(72,000 - 1,800,000) (29 - 910) (17 - 11,000) (410 - 63,000) (95 - 13,000) (2,300 - 250,000) (41 - 3,500)E. coli cfu/100mL 48,000 33 54 910 160 4,900 40

(8,000 - 580,000) (4 - 130) (10 - 800) (140 - 57,000) (32 - 5,900) (660 - 190,000) (9 - 140)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 5.80 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 4.05 0.03





(0.56 - 2.00) (0.02 - 0.04) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.14) (0.02 - 0.04) (0.27 - 2.50) (0.02 - 0.02)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 210 85 75 60 60 100 85

(170 - 450) (50 - 220) (50 - 190) (50 - 170) (50 - 390) (50 - 240) (50 - 240)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.60) (0.10 - 0.10)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 6.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 12.0) (1.0 - 1.0)Copper µg/L 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

(4.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 12.0) (1.0 - 55.0) (1.0 - 2.0)Lead µg/L 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.0

(2.0 - 20.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 23.0) (1.0 - 19.0) (1.0 - 2.0)Zinc µg/L 30 10 20 20 10 30 20

(20 - 70) (10 - 40) (10 - 30) (10 - 30) (10 - 40) (10 - 130) (10 - 70)Flow L/s NM 18 28 47 27 16 NM

(3 - 350) (3 - 1,544) (7 - 212) (4 - 207) (1 - 363)



Appendix 13Appendix 13.9 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Tuen Mun River and Tung Chung River in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Tuen Mun River Tung Chung River

TN1 TN2 TN3 TN4 TN5 TN6 TC1 TC2 TC3Dissolved oxygen mg/L 4.1 8.7 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.8 7.7 7.9 8.3

(2.6 - 8.4) (7.7 - 11.8) (2.7 - 9.3) (2.2 - 9.4) (3.7 - 8.7) (2.8 - 8.9) (5.4 - 8.5) (7.0 - 10.3) (8.0 - 10.9)pH 7.7 7.0 8.1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.5


(10 - 280) (4 - 400) (6 - 540) (3 - 880) (3 - 250) (3 - 20) (1 - 2) (1 - 25) (1 - 28)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 41 3 7 3 5 3 1 1 1


(23 - 93) (2 - 130) (12 - 42) (7 - 290) (10 - 79) (7 - 18) (3 - 10) (2 - 12) (2 - 8)Oil & grease mg/L 3.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(1.7 - 14.0) (0.5 - 38.0) (0.5 - 3.8) (0.5 - 1.2) (0.5 - 7.9) (0.5 - 0.6) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.5)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 1,900,000 17,000 470,000 230,000 340,000 200,000 1,200 3,200 6,300

(550,000 - 9,100,000) (1 - 120,000) (95,000 - 1,300,000) (41,000 - 900,000) (67,000 - 860,000) (18,000 - 2,600,000) (130 - 20,000) (920 - 11,000) (160 - 290,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 410,000 4,200 85,000 44,000 77,000 31,000 79 110 850

(140,000 - 780,000) (1 - 41,000) (10,000 - 260,000) (7,000 - 430,000) (12,000 - 250,000) (800 - 250,000) (18 - 380) (26 - 390) (36 - 160,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 7.60 0.36 1.00 0.65 0.71 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.07





(1.00 - 2.50) (0.06 - 0.66) (0.12 - 1.40) (0.10 - 61.00) (0.12 - 3.80) (0.10 - 0.28) (0.02 - 0.04) (0.02 - 0.05) (0.02 - 0.25)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.11) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.08) (0.02 - 0.04) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 350 355 890 530 695 200 50 55 50

(230 - 1,000) (90 - 2,400) (120 - 3,100) (80 - 10,000) (80 - 22,000) (60 - 420) (50 - 70) (50 - 70) (50 - 100)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.80) (0.10 - 0.60) (0.10 - 0.40) (0.10 - 0.60) (0.10 - 0.70) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.30) (0.10 - 0.30)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 5.5 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 9.0) (1.0 - 11.0) (1.0 - 12.0) (1.0 - 19.0) (2.0 - 8.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0)Copper µg/L 7.0 2.5 9.0 6.5 9.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(4.0 - 14.0) (1.0 - 19.0) (3.0 - 13.0) (2.0 - 16.0) (2.0 - 26.0) (3.0 - 12.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 5.0)Lead µg/L 6.0 9.0 7.0 6.0 7.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(2.0 - 35.0) (2.0 - 82.0) (1.0 - 36.0) (1.0 - 67.0) (1.0 - 92.0) (1.0 - 8.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 2.0)Zinc µg/L 60 60 40 35 40 20 10 10 20

(30 - 160) (30 - 200) (20 - 80) (10 - 110) (20 - 90) (10 - 40) (10 - 60) (10 - 50) (10 - 130)Flow L/s 87 102 NM NM NM NM 30 41 NM

(52 - 331) (17 - 495) (1 - 204) (2 - 150)


Water quality results for the North Western WCZ

Appendix 13Appendix 13.10 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Pai Min Kok Stream, Sam Dip Tam Stream and Kau Wa Keng Stream in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Pai Min Kok Stream Sam Dip Tam Stream Kau Wa Keng Stream

AN1 AN2 TW1 TW2 TW3 KW3Dissolved oxygen mg/L 7.5 9.0 7.1 8.6 8.6 9.0

(5.9 - 8.1) (8.0 - 11.5) (6.3 - 7.7) (8.1 - 10.2) (8.0 - 10.4) (7.8 - 11.9)pH 7.5 8.0 7.3 7.9 7.3 7.4

(7.0 - 8.3) (7.7 - 8.7) (6.7 - 7.7) (7.3 - 8.1) (6.9 - 8.0) (7.1 - 7.9)Suspended solids mg/L 2 3 2 2 2 3

(1 - 16) (1 - 58) (1 - 11) (1 - 4) (1 - 22) (2 - 84)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 2 1 2 3 1 3

(1 - 4) (1 - 7) (1 - 28) (1 - 4) (1 - 3) (1 - 23)Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 11 7 7 7 6 12

(6 - 23) (5 - 17) (3 - 90) (2 - 12) (4 - 51) (4 - 25)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 1.0) (0.5 - 2.8) (0.5 - 0.6) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 0.7)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 27,000 19,000 220,000 130,000 36,000 120,000

(5,000 - 110,000) (3,000 - 120,000) (45,000 - 780,000) (20,000 - 670,000) (10,000 - 94,000) (44,000 - 830,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 8,700 8,800 19,000 58,000 20,000 58,000

(1,700 - 39,000) (1,100 - 56,000) (3,200 - 150,000) (1,400 - 330,000) (5,300 - 59,000) (22,000 - 190,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 0.18 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.82

(0.08 - 1.40) (0.07 - 2.80) (0.02 - 0.63) (0.04 - 1.50) (0.02 - 0.34) (0.12 - 1.70)Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 2.45 1.50 0.66 1.35 1.85 2.30

(0.90 - 3.70) (0.50 - 4.40) (0.12 - 1.60) (1.00 - 1.80) (1.00 - 2.60) (1.50 - 3.60)Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 0.41 0.40 0.33 0.42 0.22 1.20

(0.22 - 1.90) (0.20 - 3.20) (0.19 - 0.88) (0.16 - 1.80) (0.05 - 0.89) (0.02 - 4.10)Ortho-phosphate mg/L 0.24 0.17 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.06

(0.07 - 0.63) (0.06 - 1.10) (0.01 - 0.06) (0.07 - 0.20) (0.06 - 0.21) (0.01 - 0.21)Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 0.29 0.21 0.13 0.23 0.18 0.21

(0.10 - 0.75) (0.08 - 1.40) (0.08 - 0.20) (0.11 - 0.29) (0.10 - 0.26) (0.09 - 1.30)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 135 105 65 55 70 120

(50 - 350) (60 - 1,200) (50 - 160) (50 - 110) (50 - 260) (80 - 600)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.85

(0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.70 - 6.10)Chromium µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

(1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 1.0) (1.0 - 3.0)Copper µg/L 5.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

(3.0 - 8.0) (2.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (2.0 - 4.0) (2.0 - 6.0) (2.0 - 9.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

(1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 16.0) (2.0 - 29.0)Zinc µg/L 30 20 20 20 30 160

(20 - 60) (20 - 50) (10 - 40) (10 - 40) (10 - 50) (70 - 390)Flow L/s NM 5 18 34 NM 11

(2 - 27) (3 - 53) (6 - 270) (3 - 78)


Water quality results for the Western Buffer and Victoria Harbour WCZs

Appendix 13Appendix 13.11 Summary of water quality monitoring data for Kai Tak Nullah in 2001

Sampling StationParameter Unit Kai Tak Nullah

KN1 KN2 KN3 KN4 KN5 KN7Dissolved oxygen mg/L 5.9 7.6 8.3 7.6 8.0 7.4

(1.2 - 8.0) (5.4 - 8.4) (6.5 - 8.7) (4.2 - 8.6) (6.6 - 9.1) (6.7 - 8.1)pH 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.3 7.3

(6.7 - 7.7) (6.9 - 7.9) (6.9 - 7.9) (6.8 - 8.0) (6.8 - 7.9) (6.8 - 7.9)Suspended solids mg/L 6 7 11 22 16 16

(3 - 13) (3 - 10) (5 - 26) (8 - 71) (5 - 73) (6 - 75)5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 10 10 15 17 14 14

(4 - 42) (5 - 17) (8 - 24) (8 - 95) (8 - 28) (8 - 30)Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 32 33 30 34 31 32

(22 - 48) (24 - 37) (23 - 37) (21 - 81) (19 - 45) (11 - 42)Oil & grease mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5

(0.5 - 2.3) (0.5 - 0.7) (0.5 - 0.5) (0.5 - 14.0) (0.5 - 0.8) (0.5 - 2.0)Faecal coliforms cfu/100mL 1,000,000 550,000 420,000 500,000 180,000 130,000

(120,000 - 12,000,000) (130,000 - 1,400,000) (140,000 - 1,500,000) (100,000 - 9,500,000) (60,000 - 1,200,000) (58,000 - 530,000)E. coli cfu/100mL 360,000 120,000 94,000 120,000 60,000 48,000

(84,000 - 4,100,000) (64,000 - 270,000) (58,000 - 140,000) (18,000 - 2,400,000) (17,000 - 350,000) (20,000 - 420,000)Ammonia-nitrogen mg/L 7.25 6.65 6.40 5.15 5.00 5.70

(1.20 - 14.00) (0.80 - 14.00) (0.64 - 14.00) (0.56 - 13.00) (0.62 - 14.00) (0.34 - 14.00)Nitrate-nitrogen mg/L 1.75 2.60 2.90 2.15 2.20 2.45

(0.01 - 4.40) (1.40 - 4.00) (1.60 - 4.40) (0.01 - 4.00) (1.40 - 4.40) (1.40 - 4.40)Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SP mg/L 8.70 8.00 7.85 7.75 6.80 7.15

(2.00 - 15.00) (1.60 - 15.00) (1.60 - 15.00) (1.70 - 16.00) (1.60 - 16.00) (1.40 - 16.00)Ortho-phosphate mg/L 0.99 1.30 1.30 0.84 0.74 0.78

(0.56 - 2.00) (1.00 - 1.90) (0.61 - 1.80) (0.37 - 1.80) (0.12 - 1.70) (0.06 - 1.90)Total phosphorus, SP mg/L 1.25 1.70 1.55 1.40 1.30 1.35

(0.82 - 2.10) (1.30 - 2.00) (1.10 - 2.10) (0.88 - 2.40) (0.31 - 2.30) (0.22 - 2.90)Sulphide, SP mg/L 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

(0.02 - 2.00) (0.02 - 0.13) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.02 - 0.09) (0.02 - 0.02) (0.02 - 0.02)Aluminium µg/L 70 60 60 100 80 95

(50 - 170) (50 - 110) (50 - 110) (50 - 200) (50 - 460) (50 - 690)Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

(0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.10) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.20) (0.10 - 0.30)Chromium µg/L 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

(1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 5.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 7.0) (1.0 - 7.0)Copper µg/L 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0

(3.0 - 6.0) (4.0 - 6.0) (5.0 - 6.0) (5.0 - 14.0) (5.0 - 17.0) (5.0 - 18.0)Lead µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

(1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 7.0)Zinc µg/L 30 30 25 30 30 35

(20 - 40) (20 - 30) (20 - 60) (20 - 40) (20 - 50) (20 - 80)Flow L/s NM NM NM NM NM NM


Water quality results for the Victoria Harbour WCZ

Date post:	13-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

from the following URL addresses: ... · 6p Yuen Long and Kam Tin SMP works 6 – 7 6q Yuen Long...

Documents