EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below,
known as “the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong
International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is a
designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e.
the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 7 March 2012 (EP-353/2009/D)
and 8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation
only).
Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the
consultants for the design and construction assignment for the Project’s
reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Project).
China Harbour Engineering
Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the
Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project and ENVIRON Hong
Kong Ltd. was employed as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.
(AECOM) was appointed by China Harbour Engineering Company Limited to undertake
the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the EM&A
works.
The construction phase of the Project under the EPs
was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by the end of
Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality
and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12
March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works
conducted in the period between 12 and 31 March 2012. As informed by
the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cone penetration test;
-
Geotextile laying;
-
Stone column trial;
-
Installation of silt curtain; and
-
Stone blankets laying.
Land-based Works
-
Site
office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
-
Constructing
site access at area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung; and
-
Public
Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area WA3.
A summary of monitoring and
audit activities conducted in the reporting period is listed below:
|
24-hour TSP
monitoring
1-hour TSP
monitoring
|
3 sessions
3 sessions
|
|
Day, evening and
night time noise monitoring
|
3 sessions
|
|
Impact water
quality monitoring
|
9 sessions
|
|
Impact dolphin
monitoring
|
2 sessions
|
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
3 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air
Quality
No exceedance of
Action and Limit Level was recorded for 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring in
the reporting month.
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Noise
No Action/Limit Level exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting month.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water
Quality
One (1) Limit Level
exceedance was recorded in the reporting month. Investigation results show that
the exceedance was not due to the Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor
was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
A total of seven dolphin
sightings were recorded during the two surveys, five on 29th March 2012 and two
on 31st March 2012. Of the seven
sightings, four were “on effort” and three were “opportunistic”. The predominant behavior of the dolphin
observed was feeding, as defined by deep dives or association with a fishing
vessel at the time of the sighting. There is no indication that construction
activities from the Project have caused disturbance or direct damage to the
marine mammals which were observed.
No other active
construction sites were noted during the two survey periods within Hong Kong
waters. Marine construction work was
noted close to the Hong Kong–China maritime border in Chinese waters and
dolphins were observed in this area (near Tai O). Large numbers of
shipping vessels from other parties were noted close to the dolphins recorded
near CLP Power Station.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
No complaint was followed up by Environmental Team in
the reporting month.
No notification of summons and successful prosecution
was received in the reporting month.
Reporting Change
There was
no reporting change required in the reporting period.
Future Key Issues
Key
issues to be considered in the coming month included:-
-
Site runoff should be
properly collected and treated prior to discharge;
-
Minimize loss of sediment
from filling works;
-
Regular review and
maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities;
-
Exposed surfaces/soil
stockpiles should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty surface
run-off during rainstorm;
-
Regular review and
maintenance of wheel washing facilities provided at all site entrances/exits;
-
Conduct regular inspection
of various working machineries and vessels within works areas to avoid any dark
smoke emission;
-
Suppress dust generated
from work processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements, excavation
activities, exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul road traffic;
-
Quieter powered mechanical
equipment should be used;
-
Provision of proper and
effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site,
such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants;
-
Closely check and replace
the sound insulation materials regularly;
-
Better scheduling of
construction works to minimize noise nuisance;
-
Properly store and label
oil drums and chemical containers placed on site;
-
Proper chemicals, chemical
wastes and wastes management;
-
Maintenance works should be
carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas;
-
Collection and segregation
of construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea should be
carried out properly and regularly; and
-
Proper protection and
regular inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained trees.
1
introduction
1.1
Background
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation
Work (here below, known as “the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the
northeast of the
Hong Kong International
Airport of an
area of about
130-hectare for the construction of an artificial island for
the development of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and
about 19-hectare for the southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2
Subsequent to EIA Study Brief of
TMCLKL being prepared and based upon the proposed schemes for the Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and HKBCF, it was decided to integrate the
TMCLKL southern landfall reclamation with the HKBCF reclamation. It was considered that this arrangement would
also provide a cost-effective connection between the HKBCF and North
Lantau.
1.1.3
The
environmental impact assessment
(EIA) reports (Hong
Kong – Zhuhai
– Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
– EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok
Link – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their
environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A
Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.4
EPD
subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009 (EP-353/2009)
and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010
(EP-353/2009/B), November
2011 (EP-353/2009/C) and March
2012 (EP-353/2009/D). Similarly, EPD issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for
TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit
(VEP) in December 2010 (EP-354/2009/A).
1.1.5
The Project is a designated project
and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended 1.1.5 EPs issued on 7 March 2012 (EP-353/2009/D) and
8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation
only).
1.1.6
A Project Specific EM&A Manual,
which included all project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals
for the Project, was issued in March 2012.
1.1.7
The Project comprises of seawall
construction and reclamation works at the northeast waters off the Airport
Island to provide land platform (about 130ha of area) for the construction of
an artificial island for the development of the boundary crossing facilities,
and about 19-hectare for the southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok
Link.
1.1.8
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong
Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants
for the design and construction assignment for the Project’s reclamation works
(i.e. the Engineer for the Project).
1.1.9
China Harbour Engineering Company
Limited (CHEC) was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the Contractor to
undertake the construction work of the Project and ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was
employed as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental
Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.10
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was
appointed by China Harbour Engineering Company Limited to undertake the role of
Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the EM&A works.
1.1.11
The construction phase of the
Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively
completed by the end of Year 2016.
1.1.12
According to the Project Specific
EM&A Manual, there is a need of an EM&A programme including air
quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site
inspections. The EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope of
Report
1.2.1
This is the first monthly EM&A
Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the
environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation
measures proposed by the ET for the Project in March 2012.
1.3
Project Organization
1.3.1
The project organization structure
is shown in Appendix A. The key personnel contact names and numbers are
summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Contact
Information of Key Personnel
|
Party
|
Position
|
Name
|
Telephone
|
Fax
|
|
Engineer’s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Michael Lo
|
2528 3031
|
2668 3970
|
|
IEC / ENPO
(ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
3743 0788
|
3548 6988
|
|
Environmental Project Office
|
Marcus Ip
|
3743 0788
|
3548 6988
|
|
Contractor
(China Harbour Engineering Company
Limited)
|
General Manager (S&E)
|
Daniel Leung
|
3157 1086
|
2578 0413
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
C. M. Wong
|
3157 1086
|
2578 0413
|
|
ET
(AECOM Asia
Company Limited)
|
ET Leader
|
Echo Leong
|
3922 9280
|
2371 7609
|
1.4
Summary of Construction Works
1.4.1 The construction phase of the
Project under the EP commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.4.2 As informed by the Contractor,
details of the major works carried out in this reporting period are listed
below:-
Marine-based
Works
-
Cone penetration test;
-
Geotextile laying;
-
Stone column trial;
-
Installation of silt curtain; and
-
Stone blankets laying.
Land-based
Works
-
Site office erection and construction at Works
Area WA2;
-
Constructing site access at area WA2 to
Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung; and
-
Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and
construction at Works Area WA3.
1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction
programme of the Project is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The general layout plan of the
Project site showing the detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5 The environmental mitigation
measures implementation schedule are presented in Appendix C.
1.5
Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements
1.5.1 The EM&A programme required
environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality, marine ecology
and environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, waste
management, marine ecology, and landscape and visual impact. The EM&A
requirements for each parameter described in the following sections include:-
-
All
monitoring parameters;
-
Monitoring
schedules for the reporting month and forthcoming month;
-
Action
and Limit levels for all environmental parameters;
-
Event
/ Action Plan;
-
Environmental
mitigation measures, as recommended in the Project EIA reports; and
-
Environmental requirement in contract documents.
2
AIR
QUALITY MONITORING
2.1
Monitoring Requirements
2.1.1
In accordance with the Project
Specific EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour and 24-hour TSP levels at 3 air
quality monitoring stations were established. Impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was
conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP
monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days. The Action and Limit
level of the air quality monitoring is provided in Appendix D.
2.2
Monitoring Equipment
2.2.1
24-hour TSP air quality monitoring
was performed using High Volume Sampler (HVS) located at each designated
monitoring station. The HVS meets all the requirements of the Project Specific
EM&A Manual. Portable direct reading
dust meters were used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Brand and model of the equipment is given in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring
Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Brand and
Model
|
|
Portable direct reading dust meter (1-hour TSP)
|
Sibata Digital Dust Monitor (Model No. LD-3 and
LD-3B)
|
|
High Volume Sampler
(24-hour TSP)
|
Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler
(Model No. TE-5170)
|
2.3
Monitoring Locations
2.3.1
Monitoring locations AMS2 and AMS7
were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific
EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as
proposed in the Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out
impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school.
Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby
sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also
sought. However, approvals for carrying
out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air
quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in
Works Area WA2 (AMS3A) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu
College, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.
2.3.2
Figure 2 shows the locations of
monitoring stations. Table 2.2 describes the details of the monitoring
stations.
Table
2.2 Locations of Impact Air
Quality Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring Station
|
Location
|
Description
|
|
AMS2
|
Tung Chung
Development Pier
|
Rooftop of the premise
|
|
AMS3A
|
Site Boundary of Site Office
Area at Works Area WA2
|
On ground at the area boundary
|
|
AMS7
|
Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel
|
On ground at boundary of the premise
|
2.4
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
2.4.1
Table 2.3 summarizes the monitoring
parameters, frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.
Table
2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameters,
Frequency and Duration
|
Parameter
|
Frequency and
Duration
|
|
1-hour TSP
|
Three
times every 6 days while the highest dust impact was expected
|
|
24-hour TSP
|
Once
every 6 days
|
2.5
Monitoring Methodology
2.5.1
24-hour TSP Monitoring
(a)
The HVS was installed
in the vicinity of the air sensitive receivers.
The following criteria were considered in the installation of the HVS.
(i)
A horizontal platform
with appropriate support to secure the sampler against gusty wind was provided.
(ii)
The distance between
the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least twice the height
that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.
(iii)
A minimum of 2 meters
separation from walls, parapets and penthouse for rooftop sampler.
(iv)
No furnace or
incinerator flues nearby.
(v)
Airflow around the
sampler was unrestricted.
(vi)
Permission was
obtained to set up the samplers and access to the monitoring stations.
(vii)
A secured supply of
electricity was obtained to operate the samplers.
(viii)
The sampler was
located more than 20 meters from any dripline.
(ix)
Any wire fence and
gate, required to protect the sampler, did not obstruct the monitoring process.
(x)
Flow control accuracy
was kept within ±2.5% deviation over 24-hour sampling period.
(b)
Preparation of Filter
Papers
(i)
Glass fibre filters, G810
were labelled and sufficient filters that were clean and without pinholes were
selected.
(ii)
All filters were
equilibrated in the conditioning environment for 24 hours before weighing. The
conditioning environment temperature was around 25 °C and not variable by more than ±3 °C; the relative humidity (RH)
was < 50% and not variable by more than ±5%. A convenient working RH was
40%.
(iii)
All filter papers
were prepared and analysed by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd., which is a HOKLAS
accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality
control programmes.
(c)
Field Monitoring
(i)
The power supply was
checked to ensure the HVS works properly.
(ii)
The filter holder and
the area surrounding the filter were cleaned.
(iii)
The filter holder was
removed by loosening the four bolts and a new filter, with stamped number
upward, on a supporting screen was aligned carefully.
(iv)
The filter was
properly aligned on the screen so that the gasket formed an airtight seal on
the outer edges of the filter.
(v)
The swing bolts were
fastened to hold the filter holder down to the frame. The pressure applied was sufficient to avoid
air leakage at the edges.
(vi)
Then the shelter lid
was closed and was secured with the aluminum strip.
(vii)
The HVS was warmed-up
for about 5 minutes to establish run-temperature conditions.
(viii)
A new flow rate
record sheet was set into the flow recorder.
(ix)
On site temperature
and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the flow rate of the HVS was
checked and adjusted at around 1.1 m3/min, and complied with the
range specified in the updated EM&A Manual (i.e. 0.6-1.7 m3/min).
(x)
The programmable
digital timer was set for a sampling period of 24 hrs, and the starting time,
weather condition and the filter number were recorded.
(xi)
The initial elapsed
time was recorded.
(xii)
At the end of
sampling, on site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and
the final flow rate of the HVS was checked and recorded.
(xiii)
The final elapsed
time was recorded.
(xiv)
The sampled filter
was removed carefully and folded in half length so that only surfaces with
collected particulate matter were in contact.
(xv)
It was then placed in
a clean plastic envelope and sealed.
(xvi)
All monitoring
information was recorded on a standard data sheet.
(xvii) Filters were then sent to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty
Ltd. for analysis.
(d)
Maintenance and
Calibration
(i)
The HVS and its
accessories were maintained in good working condition, such as replacing motor
brushes routinely and checking electrical wiring to ensure a continuous power
supply.
(ii)
5-point calibration
of the HVS was conducted using TE-5025A
Calibration Kit prior to the commencement of baseline monitoring. Bi-monthly
5-point calibration of the HVS will be carried out during impact monitoring.
(iii)
Calibration
certificate of the HVSs are provided in Appendix E.
2.5.2
1-hour TSP Monitoring
(a)
Measuring Procedures
The measuring
procedures of the 1-hour dust meter were in accordance with the Manufacturer’s
Instruction Manual as follows:-
(i)
Turn the power on.
(ii)
Close the air
collecting opening cover.
(iii)
Push the “TIME
SETTING” switch to [BG].
(iv)
Push “START/STOP”
switch to perform background measurement for 6 seconds.
(v)
Turn the knob at
SENSI ADJ position to insert the light scattering plate.
(vi)
Leave the equipment
for 1 minute upon “SPAN CHECK” is indicated in the display.
(vii)
Push “START/STOP”
switch to perform automatic sensitivity adjustment. This measurement takes 1
minute.
(viii)
Pull out the knob and
return it to MEASURE position.
(ix)
Push the “TIME
SETTING” switch the time set in the display to 3 hours.
(x)
Lower down the air
collection opening cover.
(xi)
Push “START/STOP”
switch to start measurement.
(b)
Maintenance and
Calibration
(i)
The 1-hour TSP meter
was calibrated at 1-year intervals against a continuous particulate TEOM
Monitor, Series 1400ab. Calibration certificates of the Laser Dust Monitors are
provided in Appendix E.
(ii)
1-hour validation
checking of the TSP meter against HVS is carried out on half-year
basis at the air quality monitoring locations.
2.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
2.6.1
The schedule for air quality
monitoring in March 2012 is provided in Appendix F.
2.7
Results and Observations
2.7.1
The monitoring results for 1-hour
TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Table 2.4 and 2.5 respectively. Detailed
impact air quality monitoring results are presented in Appendix G.
Table
2.4 Summary of 1-hour TSP
Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
|
AMS2
|
84.9
|
80.1 – 88.8
|
374
|
500
|
|
AMS3A
|
88.5
|
83.2 – 92.6
|
368
|
500
|
|
AMS7
|
82.8
|
78.1 – 85.5
|
370
|
500
|
Table
2.5 Summary of 24-hour TSP
Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
|
Average (mg/m3)
|
Range (mg/m3)
|
Action Level (mg/m3)
|
Limit Level (mg/m3)
|
|
AMS2
|
63.3
|
28.6 – 85.1
|
176
|
260
|
|
AMS3A
*
|
54.0
|
38.6 – 69.5
|
167
|
260
|
|
AMS7
|
71.0
|
46.1 – 83.7
|
183
|
260
|
Remarks: *Due to power supply to HVS at AMS3A
during the scheduled 24-hour impact monitorings, the measured TSP levels were
less/more than 24-hour sampling period and they are presented herewith as for
reference. Data was missing on 26 March 2012.
2.7.2
The major dust source in the
reporting period included construction activities from the Project, as well as
nearby traffic emissions.
2.7.3
All 1-hour and 24-hour TSP results
were below the Action and Limit Level at all monitoring locations in the
reporting month.
2.7.4
The event action plan is annexed in
Appendix L.
2.7.5
Meteorological information
collected from the wind station, as shown in Figure 2, including wind speed and
wind direction, is annexed in Appendix H.
3
Noise
MONITORING
3.1
Monitoring Requirements
3.1.1
In accordance with the Project
Specific EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least
once per week during the construction phase of the Project. The Action and
Limit level of the noise monitoring is provided in Appendix D.
3.2
Monitoring Equipment
3.2.1
Noise monitoring was performed
using sound level meter at each designated monitoring station. The sound level meters deployed comply with
the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type
1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications.
Acoustic calibrator was deployed to check the sound level meters at a
known sound pressure level. Brand and
model of the equipment is given in Table 3.1.
Table
3.1 Noise Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Brand and Model
|
|
Integrated Sound Level
Meter
|
B&K 2238 &
2250L
Rion NL-31
|
|
Acoustic Calibrator
|
Rion NC-73
|
3.3
Monitoring Locations
3.3.1
Monitoring locations NMS2 was set
up at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A
Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in
the Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring
could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting
up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact
monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air quality
monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area
WA2 (NMS3A) respectively. Same baseline noise level, as derived from the
baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College, was adopted for this
alternative noise monitoring location.
3.3.2
Figure 2 shows the locations of the
monitoring stations. Table 3.2 describes the details of the monitoring
stations.
Table
3.2 Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring
Stations
|
Monitoring Station
|
Location
|
Description
|
|
NMS2
|
Seaview Crescent
Tower 1
|
Free-field on
the rooftop of the premise
|
|
NMS3A
|
Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
1m from the exterior
façade of the container office on ground at the area boundary
|
3.4
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
3.4.1
Table 3.3 summarizes the monitoring
parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.
Table
3.3 Noise Monitoring Parameters,
Frequency and Duration
|
Parameter
|
Frequency and
Duration
|
|
30-mins
measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal
weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90
would be recorded.
|
At least once per week
|
3.5
Monitoring Methodology
3.5.1
Monitoring Procedure
(a)
The sound level meter
was set on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m
above the ground for free-field measurements at NMS2. A correction of +3 dB(A)
shall be made to the free field measurements.
(b)
Façade measurements
were made at NMS3A.
(c)
The battery condition
was checked to ensure the correct functioning of the meter.
(d)
Parameters such as
frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were set as
follows:-
(i)
frequency weighting:
A
(ii)
time weighting: Fast
(iii)
time measurement: Leq(30-minutes)
during non-restricted hours i.e. 07:00 – 1900 on normal weekdays; Leq(5-minutes)
during restricted hours i.e. 19:00 – 23:00 and 23:00 – 07:00 of normal
weekdays, whole day of Sundays and Public Holidays.
(e)
Prior to and after
each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic calibrator
for 94dB(A) at 1000 Hz. If the
difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than
1 dB(A), the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise
measurement would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.
(f)
During the monitoring
period, the Leq, L10 and L90 were
recorded. In addition, site conditions
and noise sources were recorded on a standard record sheet.
(g)
Noise measurement was
paused during periods of high intrusive noise (e.g. dog barking, helicopter
noise) if possible. Observations were recorded when intrusive noise was
unavoidable.
(h)
Noise monitoring was
cancelled in the presence of fog, rain, wind with a steady speed exceeding 5m/s, or wind with gusts exceeding 10m/s. The wind speed shall be checked with a
portable wind speed meter capable of measuring the wind speed in m/s.
3.5.2
Maintenance and Calibration
(a)
The microphone head
of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular intervals.
(b)
The meter and
calibrator were sent to the supplier or HOKLAS laboratory to check and
calibrate at yearly intervals.
(c)
Calibration
certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators are provided in
Appendix E.
3.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
3.6.1
The schedule for construction noise
monitoring in March 2012 is provided in Appendix F.
3.7
Monitoring Results
3.7.1
The monitoring results for
construction noise are summarized in Table 3.4 and the monitoring data is
provided in Appendix I.
Table
3.4 Summary of
Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
|
Average, dB(A),
Leq
(30 mins)
|
Range, dB(A),
Leq
(30 mins)
|
Limit Level, dB(A),
Leq
(30 mins)
|
|
NMS2
|
68.6*
|
67.6 – 69.1*
|
75
|
|
NMS3A
|
63.5
|
60.8 – 64.7
|
75
|
*+3dB(A)
Façade correction included
3.7.2
No noise Action Level and Limit
Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting
month.
3.7.3
Major noise sources during the
noise monitoring included construction activities of the Project and nearby
traffic noise.
3.7.4
The event action plan is annexed in
Appendix L.
4
WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
4.1
Monitoring Requirements
4.1.1
Impact water quality monitoring was
carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and
that timely action was taken to rectify the situation. For impact water quality monitoring,
measurements were taken in accordance with the Project Specific EM&A
Manual. Appendix D shows the established Action/Limit Levels for the
environmental monitoring works.
4.2
Monitoring Equipment
4.2.1
Table 4.1 summarises the equipment
used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table
4.1 Water Quality Monitoring
Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Brand and Model
|
|
DO and Temperature Meter, Salinity Meter, Turbidimeter and
pH Meter
|
YSI Model 6820 V2
|
|
Positioning Equipment
|
JRC DGPS 224 Model JLR-4341 with J-NAV 500 Model NWZ4551
|
|
Water Depth Detector
|
Eagle Cuda-168
|
|
Water Sampler
|
Kahlsio Water Sampler (Vertical) 2.2 L with messenger
|
4.3
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
4.3.1
Table 4.2 summarises the monitoring
parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water quality monitoring
as required in the Project Specific EM&A Manual.
Table 4.2 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Parameters
and Frequency
|
Monitoring Stations
|
Parameter, unit
|
Frequency
|
No. of depth
|
|
Impact Stations:
IS5, IS(Mf)6,
IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9, IS10, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16, IS17
Control/Far Field Stations:
CS(Mf)3, CS(Mf)5,
CS4, CS6, CSA
Sensitive Receiver Stations:
SR3-SR7,
SR10A&SR10B
|
·
Depth, m
·
Temperature, oC
·
Salinity,
ppt
·
DO, mg/L
·
DO Saturation, %
·
Turbidity, NTU
·
pH
·
Suspended Solids (SS), mg/L
|
Three times per week during mid-ebb and
mid-flood tides (within ± 1.75 hour of the predicted time)
|
3
(1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1
m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case
the mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less
than 3 m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).
|
4.4
Monitoring
Locations
4.4.1
In accordance with the Project
Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive
Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations) were designated for impact
water quality monitoring. The nine Impact Stations (IS) were chosen on the
basis of their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest potential for
water quality impacts, the seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen
as they are close to the key sensitive receives and the five Control/ Far Field
Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate comparison of the water quality of the
IS stations with less influence by the Project/ ambient water quality conditions.
4.4.2
Due to safety concern and
topographical condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative
impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4(N) and SR10B(N), were
adopted, which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality
monitoring stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable.
4.4.3
Due to safety concern and
permitting requirement of Airport Approach Restricted Areas, alternative impact
water quality monitoring station SR5(N) was adopted, which is in vicinity of
SR5 and could be reachable, for the period from 12 to 28 March 2012.
4.4.4
Same baseline and Action Level for
water quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were
adopted for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.
4.4.5
The locations of these monitoring
stations are summarized in Table 4.3 and depicted in Figure 3.
Table 4.3 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
|
Station
|
Description
|
East
|
North
|
|
IS5
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
811579
|
817106
|
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
812101
|
817873
|
|
IS7
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
812244
|
818777
|
|
IS8
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
814251
|
818412
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
813273
|
818850
|
|
IS10
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
812577
|
820670
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
813562
|
820716
|
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
814328
|
819497
|
|
IS17
|
Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)
|
814539
|
820391
|
|
SR3
|
Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)
|
810525
|
816456
|
|
SR4(N)
|
Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho)
|
814705
|
817859
|
|
SR5[1]
|
Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)
|
811489
|
820455
|
|
SR5(N) [1]
|
Alternative Location for SR5
|
821258
|
811555
|
|
SR6
|
Sensitive receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park)
|
805837
|
821818
|
|
SR7
|
Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do)
|
814293
|
821431
|
|
SR10A
|
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)1
|
823741
|
823495
|
|
SR10B(N)
|
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)2
|
823683
|
823187
|
|
CS(Mf)3
|
Control Station
|
809989
|
821117
|
|
CS(Mf)5
|
Control Station
|
817990
|
821129
|
|
CS4
|
Control Station
|
810025
|
824004
|
|
CS6
|
Control Station
|
817028
|
823992
|
|
CSA
|
Control Station
|
818103
|
823064
|
Note [1]: Due to safety concern and
permitting requirement of Airport Approach Restricted Areas, alternative impact
water quality monitoring station SR5(N) was adopted, which is in vicinity of
SR5 and could be reachable, for the period from 12 to 28 March 2012.
4.5
Monitoring
Methodology
4.5.1 Instrumentation
(a)
The in-situ water
quality parameters, viz. dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and turbidity,
pH were measured by multi-parameter meters (i.e. Model YSI 6820 CE-C-M-Y).
4.5.2 Operating/Analytical Procedures
(a)
Digital Differential Global Positioning Systems
(DGPS) were used to ensure that the correct location
was selected prior to sample collection.
(b)
Portable,
battery-operated echo sounders were used for the determination of water depth
at each designated monitoring station.
(c)
All in-situ
measurements were taken at 3 water depths, 1 m below water
surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth was less
than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station was omitted. Should the
water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station was monitored.
(d)
At each
measurement/sampling depth, two consecutive in-situ monitoring (DO
concentration and saturation, temperature, turbidity, pH, salinity) and water
sample for SS. The probes were retrieved out of the water after the first
measurement and then re-deployed for the second measurement. Where the
difference in the value between the first and second readings of DO or
turbidity parameters was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the
reading was discarded and further readings were taken.
(e)
Duplicate samples
from each independent sampling event were collected for SS measurement. Water
samples were collected using the water samplers and the samples were stored in
high-density polythene bottles. Water samples collected were well-mixed in the
water sampler prior to pre-rinsing and transferring to sample bottles. Sample
bottles were pre-rinsed with the same water samples. The sample bottles were
then be packed in cool-boxes (cooled at 4oC without being frozen),
and delivered to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for the analysis of suspended
solids concentrations. The laboratory determination work would be started
within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. ALS Technichem (HK)
Pty Ltd. is a HOKLAS accrediated laboratory and has comprehensive quality
assurance and quality control programmes. For QA/QC procedures, one duplicate
samples of every batch of 20 samples was analyzed.
(f)
The analysis method
and reporting and detection limit for SS is shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Laboratory Analysis for Suspended
Solids
|
Parameters
|
Instrumentation
|
Analytical Method
|
Reporting Limit
|
Detection Limit
|
|
Suspended
Solid (SS)
|
Weighting
|
APHA 2540-D
|
0.5mg/L
|
0.5mg/L
|
(g)
Other relevant data
were recorded, including monitoring location / position, time, water depth,
tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work underway at
the construction site in the field log sheet for information.
4.5.3 Maintenance and Calibration
(a)
All in situ
monitoring instruments would be calibrated and calibrated by ALS Technichem
(HK) Pty Ltd. before use and at 3-monthly intervals throughout all stages of
the water quality monitoring programme. Calibration
details are provided in Appendix E.
(b)
The dissolved oxygen
probe of YSI 6820 was calibrated once per monitoring day by wet bulb method.
Before the calibration routine, the sensor for dissolved oxygen was thermally
equilibrated in water-saturated air. Calibration cup is served as a calibration
chamber and it was loosened from airtight condition before it is used for the
calibration. Calibration at ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. was carried out once
every three months in a water sample with a known concentration of dissolved
oxygen. The sensor was immersed in the water and after thermal equilibration,
the known mg/L value was keyed in and the calibration was carried out
automatically.
(c)
The turbidity probe
of YSI 6820 is calibrated two times a month. A zero check in distilled water
was performed with the turbidity probe of YSI 6820 once per monitoring day. The
probe will be calibrated with a solution of known NTU at ALS Technichem (HK)
Pty Ltd. once every three months.
4.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
4.6.1
The schedule for impact water
quality monitoring in March 2012 is provided in Appendix F.
4.7
Results and Observations
4.7.1
Impact water quality monitoring was
conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the reporting month. Impact
water quality monitoring results and graphical presentations are provided in
Appendix J.
4.7.2 Exceedances were recorded for suspended solids in the
reporting month. Number of exceedances recorded in the reporting month at each
impact station are summarised in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances
|
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR5[1]
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10B(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
[1]: Due to safety concern and presence of Airport Approach Restricted Areas,
alternative impact water quality monitoring station SR5(N) was adopted, which
is in vicinity of SR5 and could be reachable, for the period from 12 to 28
March 2012.
4.7.3
One (1) Limit Level exceedance was
recorded in the reporting month. Investigation works show that only preparation
works, like geotextile laying and stone blanket laying, which are not likely to
cause water quality impact, were carried out on the monitoring date. Turbidity
levels recorded at SR7 and all other impact stations (stations closer to the
Project site) were below the Action and Limit Levels. SS levels recorded at all
other impact stations (stations closer to the Project site) were lower than
those recorded at SR7, which suggested that exceedance at SR7 was not due to
the Project works. The exceedance was
considered as non-Project related.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
4.7.4
Generally, water quality impact
sources during the water quality monitoring were potentially activities of the
Project and nearby operating vessels by other parties.
4.7.5
The event action plan is annexed in
Appendix L.
5
dolphin
MONITORING
5.1
Monitoring Requirements
5.1.1
Impact dolphin monitoring is
required to be conducted by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate
whether there have been any effects on the dolphins.
5.2
Monitoring Equipment
5.2.1
Table 5.1 summarises the equipment
used for the impact dolphin monitoring.
Table
5.1 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Model
|
|
Global Positioning System (GPS)
|
Garmin 18X-PC
Geo One Phottix
|
|
Camera
|
Nikon D90 300m 2.8D fixed focus
Nikon D90
20-300m zoom lens
|
|
Laser Binoculars
|
Infinitor LRF1000
|
|
Marine Binocular
|
Bushnell 7 ´ 50
marine binocular with compass and reticules
|
|
Vessel for
Monitoring
|
65 foot single engine motor vessel with
viewing platform 4.5m above water level
|
|
Acoustic
Monitoring
|
Hydrophone array (2 element, 50m)
incorporating automated whistle
detection
functionality and
AIS logging
|
5.3
Monitoring
Parameter, Frequencies and Duration
5.3.1
Dolphin monitoring is required
twice per month. The monitoring data should be compatible with, and should be
made available for, long-term studies of small cetacean ecology in Hong Kong.
In order to provide a suitable long-term dataset for comparison, identical
methodology and line transects employed in baseline dolphin monitoring was
followed in the impact dolphin monitoring.
5.4
Monitoring
Location
5.4.1
The impact dolphin monitoring
adopted line-transect vessel survey method, and cover the following
line-transect survey areas as in AFCD annual marine mammal monitoring
programme:
·
Northeast Lantau survey area;
·
Northwest Lantau survey area; and
5.4.2
The co-ordinates for the transect
lines and layout map were provided by AFCD and are shown in Table 5.2 and
Figure 4.
Table
5.2 Impact Dolphin Monitoring
Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD)
|
|
HK Grid System
|
Long Lat in WGS84
|
|
ID
|
X
|
Y
|
Long
|
Lat
|
|
1
|
804671
|
814577
|
113.870308
|
22.269741
|
|
1
|
804671
|
831404
|
113.869975
|
22.421696
|
|
2
|
805475
|
815457
|
113.878087
|
22.277704
|
|
2
|
805477
|
826654
|
113.877896
|
22.378814
|
|
3
|
806464
|
819435
|
113.887615
|
22.313643
|
|
3
|
806464
|
822911
|
113.887550
|
22.345030
|
|
4
|
807518
|
819771
|
113.897833
|
22.316697
|
|
4
|
807518
|
829230
|
113.897663
|
22.402113
|
|
5
|
808504
|
820220
|
113.907397
|
22.320761
|
|
5
|
808504
|
828602
|
113.907252
|
22.396462
|
|
6
|
809490
|
820466
|
113.916965
|
22.323003
|
|
6
|
809490
|
825352
|
113.916884
|
22.367128
|
|
7
|
810499
|
820690
|
113.926752
|
22.325043
|
|
7
|
810499
|
824613
|
113.926688
|
22.360464
|
|
8
|
811508
|
820847
|
113.936539
|
22.326475
|
|
8
|
811508
|
824254
|
113.936486
|
22.357241
|
|
9
|
812516
|
820892
|
113.946329
|
22.326894
|
|
9
|
812516
|
824254
|
113.946279
|
22.357255
|
|
10
|
813525
|
818270
|
113.956156
|
22.303225
|
|
10
|
813525
|
824657
|
113.956065
|
22.360912
|
|
11
|
814556
|
818449
|
113.966160
|
22.304858
|
|
11
|
814556
|
820992
|
113.966125
|
22.327820
|
|
12
|
815542
|
818807
|
113.975726
|
22.308109
|
|
12
|
815542
|
824882
|
113.975647
|
22.362962
|
|
13
|
816506
|
819480
|
113.985072
|
22.314192
|
|
13
|
816506
|
824859
|
113.985005
|
22.362771
|
|
14
|
817537
|
820220
|
113.995070
|
22.320883
|
|
14
|
817537
|
824613
|
113.995018
|
22.360556
|
|
15
|
818568
|
820735
|
114.005071
|
22.325550
|
|
15
|
818568
|
824433
|
114.005030
|
22.358947
|
|
16
|
819532
|
821420
|
114.014420
|
22.331747
|
|
16
|
819532
|
824209
|
114.014390
|
22.356933
|
|
17
|
820451
|
822125
|
114.023333
|
22.338117
|
|
17
|
820451
|
823671
|
114.023317
|
22.352084
|
|
18
|
821504
|
822371
|
114.033556
|
22.340353
|
|
18
|
821504
|
823761
|
114.033544
|
22.352903
|
|
19
|
822513
|
823268
|
114.043340
|
22.348458
|
|
19
|
822513
|
824321
|
114.043331
|
22.357971
|
|
20
|
823477
|
823402
|
114.052695
|
22.349680
|
|
20
|
823477
|
824613
|
114.052686
|
22.360610
|
|
21
|
805476
|
827081
|
113.877878
|
22.382668
|
|
21
|
805476
|
830562
|
113.877811
|
22.414103
|
|
22
|
806464
|
824033
|
113.887520
|
22.355164
|
|
22
|
806464
|
829598
|
113.887416
|
22.405423
|
|
23
|
814559
|
821739
|
113.966142
|
22.334574
|
|
23
|
814559
|
824768
|
113.966101
|
22.361920
|
5.5
Monitoring
Procedures
5.5.1
Line transect surveying techniques
have now been standardised in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Waters,
in order to ensure that data from all surveys are directly comparable.
5.5.2
The study area incorporated the
areas defined by the AFCD annual marine mammal monitoring programme as;
“Northeast Lantau” and “Northwest Lantau” which were surveyed twice per month
for a minimum of 9 hours per day.
5.5.3
On each survey day, the survey
vessel departed from Tung Chung Development Pier/ Tsing Yi Public Pier or
nearest safe and convenient boarding locations. On arrival at the survey areas,
the survey vessel, containing four vessel-based survey personnel proceeded
along transects in the vicinity of the works area and on effort sighting began
immediately at the beginning of the transect lines as defined by AFCD
monitoring programme.
5.5.4
The vessel had an elevated viewing
platform (4.5m above waterline) and should be 15m in length. The vessel was
licensed in accordance with new rulings by the Hong Kong Marine
Department. The transect line was
surveyed at a speed of 13-15 kmph. There were a total of four observers,
working shifts in two teams of two (data recorder and primary observer) who
rotated every 30 minutes. The data recorder searched with naked eye and the
primary observer continuously with binoculars (7x35) between 90° and 270° abeam
(bow being 0°). During on-effort survey
periods, records were kept of time, position (using HK1980 Grid System),
weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and viz.) and distance travelled (using
a GPS). When a group of Chinese white dolphin (CWD) was sighted, position,
bearing and distance data were recorded immediately and, after a short
observation, an estimate made of group size.
These data were subsequently data-based in a format suitable for use
with DISTANCE software. The vessel was
then be deemed to be off-effort and left the transect line to approach the
dolphins with the purpose of taking high resolution photo-ID pictures. A digital SLR camera with 100mm – 400mm lens
(or superior) was used to photograph both left and right hand sides of the
dorsal fin area of each dolphin. Attempts to photograph all dolphins in the
group were made. On finishing
photographing, the vessel returned to the transect line at the point of
departure and “effort” was resumed. If
another group of dolphins was sighted while travelling back to the transect
line, this shall either be treated as a secondary sighting or as an off effort
sighting and noted accordingly. Time and
location data of ‘on’ and ‘off effort’ were carefully noted.
5.5.5
While with groups of CWD, acoustic
data were gathered using calibrated broadband/high frequency hydrophones.
Simultaneous recordings of underwater noise and voice over of visual
observations could be streamed directly onto a computer hard drive. Various software programmes are available to
characterise recorded sounds. Further,
at the end of each transect, the vessel would stop and short acoustic recordings
could be made. For the purposes of this project, a minimum of 10 minutes
acoustic data were recorded every month.
5.5.6
During periods of poor weather,
e.g. when visibility is hindered (e.g., below 1km), when a Beaufort Sea State
in excess of 4, dense haze or fog or thunder storm/typhoon warnings in force,
all survey effort should normally be stopped.
5.5.7
A global positioning system was
used during the surveys.
5.5.8
All surveys were accurately
recorded the sighting effort. Sighting
records were filled out at the initial sighting with time, position, distance
and angle data filled in immediately and verified between primary observer and
recorder. To do this, details of km
travelled, sea state, weather and visibility must be noted and time/GPS
linked. A purpose built software system
called LOGGER was used to collect these parameters. LOGGER automatically collected and stored GPS
data and contained a user configurable interface for the manual entry of the
data required for line transect and other cetacean research studies. Logger displays real-time maps of the ships
track and any other collected data, e.g. range and bearing to cetacean
sightings. All data were stored in a
Microsoft Access database. All other
information on sea state, weather conditions (Beaufort Scale), as well as notes
on dolphin group size, appearance, age classes, behaviour, association with
fishing boat, direction of movement, response to boat and any other information
were completed at the end of the sighting.
5.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
5.6.1
The schedule for dolphin monitoring
in March 2012 is provided in Appendix F.
5.7
Results and Observations
5.7.1
Dolphin surveys were conducted on
29th and 31st March 2012.
All weather recorded was Beaufort Sea State 3.5 or less. No rain or haze was present. On 29th March 2012, a total of
106.9km of transect line was travelled, of which 74.68km was “on effort”. On 31st March 2012, a total of
100.70km of transect line was travelled, of which 54.7km was “on effort”. The
effort summary is shown Table 5.3.
Table
5.3 Impact Dolphin Monitoring
Survey Effort Summary
|
Date
|
Status
|
Sea State
(on effort)
|
Distance on effort
(km)
|
Time on effort (hh:mm:ss)
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
1
|
6.8
|
0:29:17
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
1.5
|
-
|
-
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
2
|
2.7
|
0:11:58
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
2.5
|
29.8
|
2:09:57
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
3
|
25.3
|
1:50:34
|
|
29-Mar-12
|
ON
|
3.5
|
10.3
|
0:45:17
|
|
31-Mar-12
|
ON
|
1
|
28.8
|
2:11:05
|
|
31-Mar-12
|
ON
|
1.5
|
15
|
1:06:33
|
|
31-Mar-12
|
ON
|
2
|
3.1
|
0:13:38
|
|
31-Mar-12
|
ON
|
2.5
|
7.8
|
0:34:34
|
5.7.2
A total of seven dolphin sightings
were recorded during the two surveys, five on 29th March 2012 and two on 31st
March 2012. Of the seven sightings, four
were “on effort” and three were “opportunistic”. Details on the sightings are summarised in
Appendix K and Figure 5.
5.7.3
Behaviour: the predominant
behaviour observed was feeding, as defined by deep dives or association with a
fishing vessel.
5.7.4
Noteworthy Observations: one new
born calf was observed at CLP Power Station in Northwest Lantau survey
block. A dolphin displaying extensive
rake mark scarring and associated fungal infection was observed in the
Northeast Lantau survey block. Relevant photo records are shown in Figure 6.
5.7.5
Acoustic monitoring occurred
throughout line transect surveys and both shipping noise and dolphin
vocalizations were recorded. These data
will be analysed when the dataset is larger.
5.7.6
Of the observation made and images
examined, there is no indication that construction activities from the Project
have caused disturbance or direct damage to the marine mammals which were
observed.
5.7.7
No other active construction sites
were noted during the two survey periods within Hong Kong waters. Marine construction work was noted close to
the Hong Kong–China maritime border in Chinese waters and dolphins were
observed in this area (near Tai O). Large numbers of shipping vessels
from other parties were noted close to the dolphins recorded near CLP Power
Station.
5.7.8
Potential impact sources observed
during March 2012 dolphin monitoring included construction activities of the
Project, observed construction activities in adjacent aquatic habitat and
shipping.
5.7.9
Taking into account of natural
seasonal change in distribution patterns, which is also observed in baseline
monitoring, it is suggested that a longer period of impact monitoring data
should be obtained for comparison.
5.7.10
The event action plan is annexed in
Appendix L.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT
6.1
Site Inspection
6.1.1
Site Inspections were carried out
on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental
pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. In the reporting
month, 3 site inspections were carried out on 15, 23 and 29 March 2012 .
6.1.2
Particular observations during the
site inspections are described below:
Air
Quality
6.1.3 The Contractor was reminded to
provide vehicle washing facility at Works Area WA3.
6.1.4
The Contractor was reminded to
implement dust suppression measures, especially on water spraying on haul road,
at Works Area WA3.
Noise
6.1.5
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
Water
Quality
6.1.6
The Contractor was recommended to
review the drainage system and provide wastewater treatment facilities,
especially for silty surface run-off during rainfall, if necessary, at Works
Area WA3.
Chemical
and Waste Management
6.1.7
Floating wastes were observed
within the silt curtain confined areas of the stone blanket installation works
area in Portion A of the Site. The Contractor was reminded to clear the
floating wastes within works areas regularly.
Landscape
and Visual Impact
6.1.8
No adverse observation was
identified in the reporting month.
Miscellaneous
6.1.9
No adverse observation was
identified in the reporting month.
6.1.10
The Contractor has rectified most
of the observations as identified during environmental site inspection in the
reporting month. Rectifications of remaining identified items are undergoing by
the Contractor. Follow-up inspections on the status on provision of mitigation
measures will be conducted to ensure all identified items are mitigated
properly.
6.2
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management
Status
6.2.1
The Contractor had submitted
application form for registration as a chemical waste producer for the Project.
Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection
and sorting.
6.2.2
As advised by the Contract, 380
tonnes of general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting
period. Monthly summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix M.
6.2.3
The Contractor is advised to
properly maintain on site C&D materials and wastes collection, sorting and
recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground
and maximize reuse / recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is
reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes
accumulated on site regularly and properly.
6.2.4
The Contractor is reminded that
chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in
designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of
Practise on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.
6.3
Environmental Licenses and Permits
6.3.1
The environmental licenses and
permits for Stage 1 of the Project and valid in the reporting month is
summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Summary
of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
|
Statutory Reference
|
License/ Permit
|
License or Permit No.
|
Valid Period
|
License/ Permit Holder
|
Remarks
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
EIAO
|
Environmental Permit
|
EP-353/2009/D
|
07/03/2012
|
N/A
|
HyD
|
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
|
|
EP-354/2009/A
|
08/12/2010
|
N/A
|
Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation
only)
|
|
APCO
|
NA notification
|
--
|
30/12/2011
|
--
|
CHEC
|
Works Area WA2 and WA3
|
|
APCO
|
NA notification
|
--
|
17/01/2012
|
--
|
CHEC
|
Works Area WA4
|
|
WPCO
|
Discharge License
|
N/A
|
Application in process
|
N/A
|
CHEC
|
Discharge of Construction
Runoff
|
|
WDO
|
Chemical Waste Producer
Registration
|
N/A
|
Application in process
|
N/A
|
CHEC
|
Chemical waste produced in
Contract HY/2010/02
|
|
WDO
|
Billing
Account for Disposal of
Construction Waste
|
7014181
|
05/12/2011
|
N/A
|
CHEC
|
Waste disposal in Contract
HY/2010/02
|
|
NCO
|
Construction Noise Permit
|
GW-RS0125-12
|
28/2/2012
|
27/08/2012
|
CHEC
|
Marine-based areas in Contract
HY/2010/02
|
6.4
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Measures
6.4.1
In response to the site audit
findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions.
6.4.2
A summary of the Implementation
Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix
C. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.
6.5
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental
Quality Performance Limit
6.5.1
All 1-hour and 24-hour TSP
monitoring results complied with the Action / Limit Levels in the reporting
period.
6.5.2
For construction noise, no Action
and Limit Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the
reporting period.
6.5.3
One (1) Limit Level exceedance was
recorded in the reporting month. Investigation works show that only preparation
works, like geotextile laying and stone blanket laying, which are not likely to
cause water quality impact, were carried out on the monitoring date. Turbidity
levels recorded at SR7 and all other impact stations (stations closer to the
Project site) were below the Action and Limit Levels. SS levels recorded at all
other impact stations (stations closer to the Project site) were lower than
those recorded at SR7, which suggested that exceedance at SR7 was not due to
the Project works. The exceedance was
considered as non-Project related.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
6.5.4
Cumulative statistics on
exceedances is provided in Appendix M.
6.6
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons
and Successful Prosecutions
6.6.1
The Environmental Complaint
Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 7.
6.6.2
There was no environmental
complaint followed up by Environmental Team in the reporting period.
6.6.3
No notification of summons and
prosecution was received in the reporting period.
6.6.4
Statistics on complaints,
notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix
M.
7
FUTURE
KEY ISSUES
7.1
Construction Programme for the Coming Months
7.1.1
As informed by the Contractor, the
major works for the Project in April and May 2012 will be:-
Marine-based Works
- Cone
penetration test;
- Geotextile
laying;
- Installation
of silt curtain;
- Stone
blankets laying; and
- Stone
column installation.
Land-based Works
- Site
office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
- Constructing
site access at area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung; and
- Public Works
Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area WA3.
7.2
Key Issues for the Coming Month
7.2.1
Key issues to be considered in the
coming months:-
-
Site runoff should be
properly collected and treated prior to discharge;
-
Minimize loss of sediment
from filling works;
-
Regular review and
maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities;
-
Exposed surfaces/soil
stockpiles should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty surface
run-off during rainstorm;
-
Regular review and
maintenance of wheel washing facilities provided at all site entrances/exits;
-
Conduct regular inspection
of various working machineries and vessels within works areas to avoid any dark
smoke emission;
-
Suppress dust generated
from work processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements, excavation
activities, exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul road traffic;
-
Quieter powered mechanical
equipment should be used;
-
Provision of proper and
effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site,
such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants;
-
Closely check and replace
the sound insulation materials regularly;
-
Better scheduling of
construction works to minimize noise nuisance;
-
Properly store and label
oil drums and chemical containers placed on site;
-
Proper chemicals, chemical
wastes and wastes management;
-
Maintenance works should be
carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas;
-
Collection and segregation of
construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea should be carried
out properly and regularly; and
-
Proper protection and
regular inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained trees.
7.3
Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month
7.3.1
The tentative schedule for
environmental monitoring in April 2012 is provided in Appendix F.
8
ConclusionS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
Conclusions
8.1.1
The construction phase and EM&A
programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.1.2
1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP, noise,
water quality and dolphin monitoring were carried out in the reporting period.
8.1.3
All 1-hour and 24-hour TSP
monitoring results complied with the Action / Limit Levels in the reporting
period.
8.1.4
For construction noise, no Action
and Limit Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the
reporting period.
8.1.5
One (1) Limit Level exceedance was
recorded in the reporting month. Investigation works show that the exceedance
was not due to the Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
8.1.6
A total of seven dolphin sightings
were recorded during the two surveys, five on 29th March 2012 and two on 31st
March 2012. Of the seven sightings, four
were “on effort” and three were “opportunistic”. The predominant behavior of the dolphin
observed was feeding, as defined by deep dives or association with a fishing
vessel at the time of the sighting. There is no indication that construction
activities from the Project have caused disturbance or direct damage to the
marine mammals which were observed.
8.1.7
No other active construction sites
were noted during the two survey periods within Hong Kong waters. Marine construction work was noted close to
the Hong Kong–China maritime border in Chinese waters and dolphins were
observed in this area (near Tai O). Large numbers of shipping vessels from
other parties were noted close to the dolphins recorded near CLP Power
Station.
8.1.8
Environmental site inspection was
carried out 3 times in March 2012. Recommendations on remedial actions
were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site
audits.
8.1.9
No environmental complaint was
followed up by Environmental Team in the reporting period.
8.1.10
No notification of summons and
prosecution was received in the reporting period.
8.2
Recommendations
8.2.1
According to the environmental site
inspections performed in the reporting month, the following recommendations
were provided:-
Air Quality Impact
l All working plants and vessels on site should be
regularly inspected and properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.
l All
vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the
site.
l Haul
roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust generation.
l Wheel
washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to ensure
properly functioning.
l Temporary
exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
l Enclosure
should be erected for cement mixing operations.
l
Provide water
spraying to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty construction activity.
Construction Noise Impact
l Quieter
powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.
l Noisy
operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive receivers as
far as possible.
l Proper
and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery
on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise barriers or
enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check and replace the sound insulation
materials regularly
l Vessels
and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly maintained.
l Noise
Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and hand-held
breaker operating within works area.
l Better
scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance.
Water Quality Impact
l Regular
review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting
facilities in order to make sure they are functioning effectively.
l Construction
of seawall should be completed as early as possible.
l Regular
inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid splashing of
material.
l Silt,
debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays and
perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
l Silty
effluent should be treated/desilted before discharged. Untreated effluent
should be prevented from entering public drain channel.
l Proper
drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries to collect/intercept
the surface run-off from works areas.
l Exposed
slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during rainstorm.
Chemical and Waste Management
l All types
of wastes, both on land and floating in the sea, should be collected and sorted
properly and removed timely. They should be properly stored in designated areas
within works areas temporarily.
l All
chemical containers and oil drums should be properly stored and labelled.
l All
plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent oil
leakage.
l All kinds
of maintenance works should be carried out within roofed, paved and confined
areas.
l All drain
holes of the drip trays utilized within works areas should be properly plugged
to avoid any oil and chemical waste leakage.
l Oil stains
on soil surface and empty chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of
as chemical waste.
Landscape and Visual Impact
l All
existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be properly
fenced off and regularly inspected.
