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
seawall construction and 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 06 August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and 28 January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B) (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 HyD
as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was
employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental
Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project
Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.
(AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team for
the Project for carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A)
works.
The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced
on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early 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 March 2012 and 28 February
2013. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter
were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cone penetration test;
-
Geotextile
laying and fabrication;
-
Stone column installation trial;
-
Silt curtain fabrication and
deployment; and
-
Stone column installation
-
Maintenance of Silt curtain
-
Silt curtain deployment and repairing
-
Sand blanket trial
-
Stone blankets laying.
-
Band drain installation trial
-
Construction of cellular structure
-
Backfill cellular structure
Land-based Works
-
Site office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
-
Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area
WA3;
-
Maintenance works of Public Works
Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Constructing site access at Works Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
-
Drainage works at Works Area WA2 and WA3;
-
Geotextile
fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4; and
-
Stone column installation barges setup
and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4.
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4;
-
Hoarding erection at Work Areas Portion
D and Works Area WA2
-
Sign board erection at Works Area
WA2
A summary of
monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting quarter is listed
below:
24-hour Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) monitoring
1-hour TSP monitoring
|
61 sessions
61 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
51 sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
149 sessions
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
24 surveys
|
Joint Environmental site inspection
|
51 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level was recorded for
1-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting quarter. However, one (1) Action Level exceedance and four (4) Limit Level exceedance was recorded for 24-hour TSP results in the reporting period. Investigation results show that the exceedances
were not due to the Project works. The Contractor was recommended to
continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
One (1)
Limit Level exceedance of impact noise monitoring was
recorded in the reporting period. Investigation into the possible causes of
each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the
respective monthly EM&A reports. Investigation results show that the exceedance was not due to the Project works. The Contractor was recommended to
continue implementing existing noise mitigation measures.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Thirty
(30) Action Level exceedances and (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS)
values (in mg/L), three (3) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU) and one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded
at measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) during the reporting period. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works. Investigation results show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains.
Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
No triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin monitoring
was noted in the
reporting period.
Implementation
Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Most of
the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting period. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of
the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012 and EPD’s letter dated
on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of the proposed omission
of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02.
The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19 November 2012.
The
recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No
particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
Moreover,
regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working
processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were
kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented
effectively.
Complaint, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecution
Four (4)
environmental complaints
were received in the
reporting period.
No
notification of summons and successful prosecution was received in the
reporting period.
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
seawall construction and 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 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.
1.1.3 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), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F) and
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G). 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) and January 2014
(EP-354/2009/B).
1.1.4 The Project is a designated project and is governed
by the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 24 April
2013 (EP-353/2009/F) and 8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only).
1.1.5 A Project Specific EM&A Manual, which included
all project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the
Project, was issued in May 2012.
1.1.6 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).
1.1.7 China Harbour Engineering
Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the
Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.
1.1.8 ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and
Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.9 AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the
EM&A works.
1.1.10 The construction phase of the Project under the EPs
was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year
2016.
1.1.11 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
1.3.1 This is the first Annual EM&A Review 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 from
12 March 2012 and 28 February 2013.
1.4.1 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
|
Roger Marechal
|
2528 3031
|
2668 3970
|
IEC
/ ENPO
(ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent
Environmental Checker
|
Raymond
Dai
|
3743 0788
|
3548 6988
|
Environmental
Project Office Leader
|
Y.H. Hui
|
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
|
24-hour
Hotline
|
Alan C.C. Yeung
|
9448 0325
|
--
|
ET
(AECOM Asia Company Limited)
|
ET Leader
|
Echo
Leong
|
3922 9280
|
2317 7609
|
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 the reporting period are
listed below:-
Marine-based
Works
-
Cone penetration test;
-
Geotextile laying and fabrication;
-
Stone column installation trial;
-
Silt curtain fabrication and
deployment; and
-
Stone column installation
-
Maintenance of Silt curtain
-
Silt curtain deployment and repairing
-
Sand blanket trial
-
Stone blankets laying.
-
Band drain installation trial
-
Stone column installation
-
Construction of cellular structure
-
Backfill cellular structure
Land-based
Works
-
Site office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
-
Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area
WA3;
-
Maintenance works of Public Works
Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Constructing site access at Works Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
-
Drainage works at Works Area WA2 and WA3;
-
Geotextile fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4; and
-
Stone column installation barges setup
and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4.
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4;
-
Hoarding erection at Work Areas Portion
D and Works Area WA2
-
Sign board erection at Works Area
WA2
The
construction programme of the Project is shown in
Appendix B.
The
general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed works areas is
shown in Figure 1.
The
environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule are presented in
Appendix C.
2.1.1
The Project Specific
EM&A Manual designated 4 air quality monitoring stations, 2 noise
monitoring stations, 21 water monitoring stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive
Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations) to monitor environmental
impacts on air quality, noise and water quality respectively. Pre-set and fixed
transect line vessel based dolphin survey was required in two AFCD designated
areas (Northeast and Northwest Lantau survey areas).
The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should be conducted twice per
month.
2.1.2
For impact air quality
monitoring, monitoring locations AMS2 (Tung Chung Development Pier) and AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) were set up at the proposed locations in
accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual. The conditional omission of
Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19 November 2012. 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.
2.1.3
For impact noise
monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview
Crescent Tower 1) 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
noise 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.
2.1.4
In accordance with the
Project Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one 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.
2.1.5
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. 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.
2.1.6
The monitoring locations
used during the reporting period are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
2.1.7
The Project Specific
EM&A Manual also required environmental site inspections for air quality,
noise, water quality, chemical, waste management, marine ecology and landscape
and visual impact.
2.2.1
The environmental quality
performance limits (i.e. Action and/or Limit Levels) of air and water quality
monitoring were derived from the baseline air and water quality monitoring
results at the respective monitoring stations, while the environmental quality
performance limits of noise monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.
2.2.2
The environmental quality
performance limits of air quality, noise and water monitoring are given in
Appendix D.
2.2.3
Relevant environmental
mitigation measures were stipulated in the Particular Specification and EPs
(EP-353/2009/G and EP-354/2009/B) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation
only) for the Contractor to adopt. A list of environmental mitigation measures
and their implementation statuses are given in Appendix C.
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.1.1.
In accordance with the
Project Specific EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates
(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 at the 4
monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3A, AMS6 and AMS7).
3.1.1.2.
The monitoring locations
for impact air quality monitoring are depicted in Figure 2. However, for AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building), permission on setting up
and carrying out impact monitoring works was sought, however, access to the
premise has not been granted yet on this report issuing date. Conditional
omission of the AMS6 was approved by EPD in November 13.
3.1.1.3.
The weather was mostly
sunny, with occasional cloudy and occasional rainy in the reporting period. The
major dust source in the reporting period included construction activities from
the Project, as well as nearby traffic emissions.
3.1.1.4.
The number of monitoring
events and exceedances recorded in each month of the
reporting period are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.
3.1.1.5.
The baseline and impact
air quality monitoring data are provided in the baseline monitoring report and monthly EM&A reports
respectively. The graphical plots of the
impact air quality monitoring results are provided in Appendix E. No specific
trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was
noted.
Table 3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events
for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
Mar 12 – Feb 13
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
183
|
AMS3A
|
183
|
AMS7
|
183
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
61
|
AMS3A
|
61
|
AMS7
|
61
|
Table
3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances
for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Mar 12 – Feb 13
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3A
|
Action
|
1
|
Limit
|
4
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
5
|
3.1.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures
3.1.2.1 Relevant Air mitigation measures, as recommended in the EIA
Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The
implementation status of air quality mitigation measures is depicted in
Appendix C.
3.1.3 Summary of Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance
3.1.3.1 Other than the mitigation measures implemented as
mentioned in Appendix C, in the event of non-compliance, actions were taken in
accordance with the Event-Action Plan in the EM&A Manual. The Contractor
was notified immediately. Investigation was carried out within three working
days of identification of non-compliance such as identifying the air pollution
sources, checking the implementation status of the mitigation measures, etc.,
and measurement was repeated to confirm the investigation findings. Further
investigation was carried out to identify the source of pollution when deemed
necessary. In summary, no direct evidence between the exceedance
at AMS3A and the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities - reclamation works
could be established for all non-compliances and therefore no action was
required to be taken.
3.1.4 Review of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.1.4.1 A total of 1 Action level and 4 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact
monitoring period. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station
during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigation into the possible
causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported
in the respective monthly EM&A reports.
3.1.5.1
Trend
of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP
3.1.5.1.1 Other than a few isolated events, the 24-hour TSP
monitoring results were well below the Action and Limit levels. The trend of
TSP at AMS2, AMS3A and AMS7 were comparable to the baseline range and showed no
noticeable deterioration of air quality during the impact monitoring period.
3.1.5.2 Correlation between exceedances
with possible dust generating activities
3.1.5.2.1 Possible dust generating activities of the Project
did not cause any noticeable deterioration in air quality at Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. With proper implementation of air
quality mitigation measures, the monitoring results showed no adverse air
quality impact.
3.1.5.3 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions
Table
3.3 Maximum Predicted TSP concentrations under
the “Mitigated” scenario
ASR
|
Location
|
Predicted
Daily Concentrations*
|
Average
Impact 1-hour TSP Levels, mg/m3
|
Average
Impact 24-hour TSP Levels, mg/m3
|
1-hour
|
24-hour
|
AMS7
|
Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel
|
344
|
92
|
78
|
67.9
|
*Extracted from Table 5-8 of the EIA report
|
3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring station at AMS7,
the average 24-hour TSP levels recorded in the EM&A programme
were in similar magnitude as the Daily dust level predicted in the EIA.
3.1.6.1 Monitoring and auditing of air quality was recommended
for the construction phase of the Project in the EIA to ensure no exceedance of the TSP standard at the sensitive receiver.
3.1.6.2 The air quality monitoring methodology was effective
in monitoring the air quality impacts of the Project. Baseline monitoring of
1-hour and 24-hour TSP helped to determine the ambient TSP levels at the
sensitive receiver prior to commencement of construction works. During periods
when there were possible dust generating construction activities, impact
monitoring of 24-hour TSP helped to determine whether the Project caused
unacceptable air quality impacts on the sensitive receiver. As the scope of the
Project mainly includes reclamation works during the reporting period and dust
generation from the construction activities such as wind erosion and sand
filling is the key concern during the construction phase. The monitoring of TSP
was therefore considered to be cost effective for the Project.
3.1.6.3 All recommended mitigation measures were applicable
to the Project. As discussed above, the Project did not cause unacceptable air
quality impacts. However, as the nature of the Project is reclamation works of
approximately 130 hectares of land in size, some mitigation measures in
practice were generally focused on dust generating activities only.
Nevertheless, the mitigation measures implemented were effective and efficient
in controlling air quality impacts.
3.1.6.4 Monitoring and audit of 24-hour TSP levels had
ensured that any deterioration in air quality was readily detected and timely
actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of 24-hour
TSP results collected throughout the baseline and impact monitoring periods
also demonstrated the environmental acceptability of the Project. Weekly site
inspections had ensured that the EIA recommended air quality mitigation
measures were effectively implemented. The EM&A program is
considered to be cost effective.
3.1.7.1 Air quality monitoring for the Project was conducted
during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Key construction activities
including geotextile laying,
stone column installation, stone blanket laying, construction of cellular
structure and backfill cellular structure. The trend of 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP was comparable to
the baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during
the monitoring period. Although exceedances were
recorded, they were isolated and short-term events. There is no evidence of
long-term deteriorating trend.
3.1.7.2 The average 24-hour TSP levels recorded at AMS7 in EM&A
programme were in similar magnitude with the Daily
dust level predicted in the EIA. No TSP level was predicted by the Project EIA
at AMS2 and AMS3A and therefore, no comparison of EM&A data with EIA
predictions could be made. Air quality mitigation measures implemented were
effective in controlling air quality impacts.
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.1.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2
monitoring stations (NMS2 and NMS3A) for at least once per week during 07:00 –
19:00 in the reporting period.
3.2.1.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting
period are depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.1.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring
included construction activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.1.4 The number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4
respectively.
Table
3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring
Events for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
Mar 12
- Feb 13
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
51
|
NMS3A
|
51
|
Table 3.5 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
No. of Exceedance(s)
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
NMS3A
|
Action
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
1
|
3.2.1.5 The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring
results are provided in Appendix F. No specific trend of the monitoring results or
existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.2.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures
3.2.2.1. Relevant noise mitigation measures, as recommended in
the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to
adopt. The implementation status of noise mitigation measures is depicted in
Appendix C. Construction Noise Permits were applied and complied with when
construction works were carried out during restricted hours.
3.2.3 Non-compliance (exceedances) of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limits (Action and Limit Levels)
3.2.3.1
Summary of Non-compliance (Exceedances)
3.2.3.1.1 Table 3.5 summarised the
number exceedance recorded at each monitoring station
throughout the impact monitoring period. There was one
(1) limit level exceedance
recorded at NMS3A. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective
monthly EM&A reports, the investigations
results confirmed that the limit level exceedance
was not related to project.
3.2.3.2
Summary of Actions Taken in the event of
Non-Compliance
3.2.3.2.1 Investigation was carried out within three working
days of identification of non-compliance. Assessments showed that all exceedances were not due to the works and therefore no
action was required to be taken and these were verified by the IEC.
3.2.3.3
Review of Reasons for and the implications of
Non-Compliance
3.2.3.3.1 There was one
(1) limit level exceedance
recorded at NMS3A. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective
monthly EM&A reports.
3.2.3.3.2 In summary, the average impact noise levels recorded
in the reporting quarter were generally within the range of the predicted
construction noise levels in the Project EIA.
3.2.4.1
Trend of Measured Noise Level (Leq)
3.2.4.1.1 Other than an isolated event, the noise monitoring
results for all monitoring stations were below the Limit levels. The trend
showed no noticeable noise impact from the Project during the impact monitoring
period.
3.2.4.2
Correlation between exceedances
with possible noise generating activities
3.2.4.2.1 Exceedances were rarely recorded for all monitoring stations.
However, exceedance was recorded at monitoring station NMS3A.
3.2.4.2.2 For exceedance recorded at NMS3A, it exceeded the
limit level. trench excavation (near access road) and
general site clearance were the major land-based construction activity being
undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period. Stone blanket laying
at Portion B and Portion E1 was the major marine-based construction activities
being undertaken during the monitoring period. Field observations indicated
that construction activities, like sheet piling, percussive piling and
excavation, were carrying out in other private developments (which are located
at eastern and southern side of the Works Area WA2) during the course of
monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station NMS3A and contribute to
the measured noise level. Therefore, noise generating activities of the Project
did not cause any noticeable noise impact at the sensitive receivers. The
impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted
construction noise levels in the Project EIA.
3.2.5.1 The EIA predicted that noise emitted by the use of
Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) on site would be the major source of noise
impact during construction. The Construction Noise Impact at Noise Sensitive
Receivers are summarised in Table 3.6 (extracted from Table 6-9
of the EIA Report).
Table 3.6 Construction Noise Impact at
Noise Sensitive Receivers
NSR
|
Location
|
Predicted
Noise Levels, dB(A)
|
Total Noise Impacts, dB(A)
|
Criterion, dB(A)
|
NMS2
|
Seaview Crescent Tower 1
|
74
|
75
|
3.2.5.2 During the construction period of the Project, one (1) noise complaints were received
in the impact monitoring period. The
measured impact noise levels of the Project for each monitoring station are summarised in Table 3.7 for comparison with EIA.
Table 3.7 Summary of Construction Noise
Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
NSR
|
Location
|
Average, dB(A), Leq,30
mins
|
Range, dB(A), Leq,30
mins
|
Limit Level, dB(A), Leq,30
mins
|
NMS2
|
Seaview Crescent Tower
1
|
66
|
61 - 74^
|
75
|
NMS3A
|
Site Boundary of
Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
65
|
57 - 75*
|
70
|
^ 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) was
made to the free field measurements.
* Façade
measurements were made at NMS3A on or before 5 September 2012. Free field
measurements were made on all monitoring after 5 September 2012 due to removal of site office
located at NMS3A. A correction of +3 dB(A) was be made to all free field measurements.
3.2.5.3 The average impact noise levels recorded in EM&A
during impact monitoring were mostly within the range of the predicted
construction noise levels in the EIA Report. ET’s assessment had shown that exceedances recorded were not due to the works of
Reclamation Works and this had been verified by the IEC.
3.2.6.1 Monitoring and auditing of noise was recommended for
the construction phase of the Project in the EIA process to ensure compliance
with the appropriate criterion at the receivers.
3.2.6.2 The noise monitoring methodology was effective in
monitoring the noise impacts of the Project. Baseline noise monitoring
determined the ambient noise levels at the sensitive receivers prior to
commencement of construction works. During periods when possible noise
generating construction activities were on-going, impact noise monitoring would
determine whether the Project caused adverse noise impacts on the sensitive
receivers. The monitoring methodology which focus on Leq30
minute therefore considered to be cost effective for the Project.
3.2.6.3 Noise mitigation measures recommended in the EIA
Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to implement
during the construction phase of the Project. The list of noise mitigation
measures is depicted in Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were
applicable to the Project. As discussed above, the Project did not cause
adverse noise impacts to the receivers. Therefore, the mitigation measures
implemented were effective and efficient in controlling noise impacts.
3.2.6.4 Monitoring and audit of noise levels ensured that any
noise impact to the receivers would readily be detected and timely actions
could be taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of noise
results collected throughout the baseline and impact monitoring periods also
demonstrated the environmental acceptability of the Project. Weekly site
inspections ensured that the EIA recommended noise mitigation measures were
effectively implemented. The EM&A program is
considered to be cost effective.
3.2.6.5 The trend of Leq
was comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable noise impact
during the impact monitoring period. Although exceedance was recorded, there was no
evidence of long-term increasing trend. The average impact noise levels
recorded in EM&A programme were mostly lower than
the construction noise levels predicted in the EIA.
3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.1.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted 3 times
per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at 21 water monitoring stations (9
Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations).
3.3.1.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting
period are depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.1.3 Number of impact water quality monitoring events and exceedances recorded in the reporting period at each impact
station are summarized in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 respectively.
Table 3.8 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Water Quality
Monitoring Parameter
|
Tide
|
No. of monitoring events
|
Mar 12 - Feb 13
|
Water Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
147*
|
Mid-Flood
|
148*
|
*Due to
adverse weather condition during the impact water quality monitoring periods, three (3) water quality monitoring sessions scheduled on mid flood tide of 05, 20
Apr 12 and 23 Jul 12 and four (4) water quality monitoring sessions scheduled on mid ebb tide of 20 Apr 12,
18 May 12, and 23, 27 July 12 were cancelled.
Table 3.9 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 12-Feb 13
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
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
3
(28
Nov 12; 5 and 10
Dec 12)
|
4
(23 Apr 12; 26 Nov 12; 5 and 14
Dec, 12)
|
3
|
5
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
3
(26,
28 Nov 12; 10 Dec,
12)
|
3
(23
Apr 12; 18 Jun
12; 16 Nov
12)
|
3
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(16
Nov 12)
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(26 Nov 12)
|
|
1
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(9
Apr 12; 2 Jan13)
|
0
|
2
|
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
|
1
(30 Nov 12)
|
2
(3
Dec 12; 4 Jan13)
|
1
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1
(21 May 12)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(10
Dec 12)
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(16
Nov 12; 3 Dec 12)
|
0
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5[1]
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(29
Oct 12)
|
0
|
4
(5
and
10 Dec 12;
11 and
Jan 13)
|
1
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(29 Oct 12)
|
0
|
1
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(4
Jun 12)
|
2
(2
and 14 Jan 13)
|
1
|
2
|
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
(12
Mar 12)
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
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
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
9
|
21
|
34
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
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.
3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2012
to February 2013) accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.
3.3.1.5 The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring
results are provided in Appendix G. No specific trend of the monitoring results
or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.3.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures
3.1.2.1 Relevant water quality mitigation measures, as
recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the
Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of water quality mitigation
measure is depicted in Appendix C.
3.3.3 Non-compliance (exceedances) of the Environmental Quality Performance
Limits (Action and Limit Levels)
3.3.4.1
Summary
of Non-compliance (Exceedances)
3.3.4.1.1 Table 3.9 summarised the number of
dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids exceedances
recorded at each sensitive receiver station throughout the impact monitoring
period. A total of 36 exceedances were recorded
during the entire construction period with 34 Action level exceedances
and 2 Limit level exceedances.
3.3.4 Review of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.3.4.1 Thirty (30) Action Level exceedances
and (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at
measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), three (3) Action Level exceedances was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU) and
one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at
measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) during the reporting period.
Investigation result show that the exceedances
were not due to the Project works.
3.3.4.2 After review of the investigation results on the incidnetfor water quality exceedances
(for detail of investigations please refer to section 4 of monthly EM&A
report (Mar 12 to Feb 13), ambient conditions were
considered to have effects on the water quality monitoring results. Exceedances were considered to be due to a combination of the following potential causes:
1. Non-Project related vessel activities such as trawling of fishing vessels
near the monitoring station 2. Rough sea condition caused by adverse weather
and relatively strong current experienced during the monitoring period and 3.
During the time when exceedances of DO were recorded at monitoring stations,
relatively low DO values were also recorded at corresponding upstream Control
Stations during ebb tide or flood tides indicating these exceedances
of DO were unlikely to be contributed by Project works..
This indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely
to be contributed by Project works. 4. Local effects in the vicinity of the
monitoring station where exceedance was recorded.
3.3.5 Environmental Acceptability of the Project
3.3.5.1
Trend of water quality
Dissolved
Oxygen
3.3.5.1.1 The dissolved oxygen levels recorded in the impact
monitoring period showed a seasonal trend in which lower DO levels were
recorded during the wet season and higher DO levels were recorded during the
dry season. One reason for this seasonal
trend may have been the increase in water temperature during the wet season
leading to decreases in the solubility of oxygen in water and vice versa during
the dry season. The trend of dissolved oxygen levels was presented in Appendix
G. Other than an isolated action level exceedance,
the trend of dissolved oxygen levels at each monitoring stations in Appendix F
did not show any noticeable deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels.
Turbidity
3.3.5.1.2 The turbidity levels trend showed fairly distributed
at all monitoring station during the reporting period. No obvious trend of
turbidity levels of each monitoring station was shown. The trend of turbidity
levels of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. Moreover, the trend
did not show any noticeable deterioration of turbidity.
Suspended Solids
3.3.5.1.3 The trend of suspended solid levels of each impact
monitoring station was shown similar with the control stations of each tide, i.e ,
slightly fluctuated between the period from September to December 2012. The
trend of suspended solid levels of each monitoring station was shown in
Appendix G. Moreover, the trend did not show any noticeable deterioration of
Suspended Solids.
3.3.6 Correlation between exceedances with possible
marine construction activities
3.3.6.1 With proper implementation of water quality
mitigation measures, marine construction activities of the Project were not
observed to cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the sensitive
receiver stations.
Table 3.10 Summary of number of water
quality exceedances per monitoring month
Month
|
Sand Filling Rate m3/month
|
Depth averaged DO
|
Depth averaged Turbidity
|
Depth averaged SS
|
Total
|
Mar-12
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
Apr-12
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
May-12
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Jun-12
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Jul-12
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Aug-12
|
28,053
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sep-12
|
12,769
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Oct-12
|
28,882
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
Nov-12
|
2,276
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
9
|
Dec-12
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
Jan-13
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
6
|
Feb-13
|
2,608
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.3.6.2 As shown in Table
3.10, there was no apparent correlation
between the dredging and filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances recorded per monitoring day.
3.3.6.3 For dissolved oxygen, the numbers of dissolved oxygen
exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of
dissolved oxygen or correlation between filling rate
and dissolve oxygen exceedance.
3.3.6.4 For turbidity, the numbers of turbidity exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of turbidity
or correlation between filling rate and turbidity exceedance.
3.3.6.5 For turbidity, the numbers of turbidity exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of suspended
solid or correlation between filling rate and suspended exceedance.
3.3.6.6 The trend did not show any correlation between water
quality impact and the filling rates during the impact monitoring period.
3.3.6.7 With proper implementation of water quality
mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures, marine construction
activities of the Project were not observed to cause any unacceptable water
quality impacts to the sensitive receiver stations.
3.3.7.1 Results from the sensitive receiver stations were
compared with the EIA predictions for the sensitive receivers in the following
manner:
·
WSR 27 - San Tau
Beach SSSI with SR3
·
WSR 22c- Tai Ho Wan
Inlet (outside) with SR4(N)
·
WSR 25 - Cooling
water intake at HK International Airport with SR5
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
3.3.7.2 According to Section 9.10.7.4 of the EIA Report, the
dissolved oxygen depletion from the loss of sediment to suspension during the
construction of the reclamation for HKBCF was calculated to be 0.4 mg/L at
WSR25. Since, as stated in the Table 9.6a of the EIA report the DO of the NW Western
water is generally high and overage ranges between 5.7 – 6.8 mg/L and depletion
will not be detrimental to the ecological systems of the area. The average
Depth averaged DO record at SR5 is 6.5 mg/L in October 2012 when the filling
rate/month is the highest during the reporting period and therefore no
significant dissolved oxygen depletion from was noted during impact monitoring.
3.3.7.3 The baseline dissolved oxygen levels and the level of
depletion during impact monitoring at each sensitive receiver are summarised in Tables 5.7.
Table
3.11 Comparison of depth averaged
dissolved oxygen levels (Surface & Mid-depth, Bottom depth) during baseline
and impact monitoring period (mgL-1)
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact
Monitoring
|
Monitoring Depth
|
Baseline mean
|
Impact
mean (October 2012)
|
Depletion
during Impact Monitoring
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
SR3*
|
Surface & mid
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
7.0
|
7.3
|
-0.2
|
-0.6
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
6.9
|
7.0
|
-0.8
|
-0.7
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
6.9
|
6.9
|
-0.9
|
-0.7
|
SR5
|
SR5**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
6.6
|
0.2
|
-0.3
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
6.4
|
0.1
|
-0.3
|
SR6
|
SR6**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
6.0
|
0
|
0.1
|
SR7
|
SR7**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
6.4
|
0.1
|
-0.4
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
0
|
-0.3
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
Surface & mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
6.1
|
0
|
-0.1
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
-0.3
|
-0.2
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
5.9
|
6.0
|
0.2
|
0
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
6.0
|
5.9
|
0.2
|
-0.1
|
^Due to safety issue, the water
quality monitoring location of SR4 has been changed to SR4(N)
during impact monitoring.
*Only mid-depth station of DO were monitored at SR3 in mid-ebb during
baseline monitoring, in both mid-ebb and mid-flood during impact monitoring as
the water depth less than 3m.
** The mid-depth station of DO was omitted at SR4(N)
during impact monitoring as the water depth is less than 6m.
3.3.7.4 Comparing baseline averaged dissolved oxygen levels
with EM&A results; no significant depletion
was found at all sensitive receiver locations. There was no adverse effect on
dissolved oxygen concentrations as a result of the filling works of the Project
as the depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations did not breach the Water
Quality Objectives nor did they exceed the AL levels adopted for the Project.
Suspended solids (SS)
3.3.7.5 The EIA determined the acceptability of elevations in
suspended sediment concentrations based on the Water Quality Objectives. The Water
Quality Objectives for suspended sediments for the North Western Water Control
Zones were defined as being an allowable elevation of 30% above the background.
The ambient and tolerance values for suspended sediment concentrations in the
vicinity of sensitive receivers adopted in Table 9.11 of the EIA Report are
presented in Table 3.12.
Table
3.12 Ambient and
Tolerance Values for Suspended Sediment Concentrations (mgL-1) in
the Vicinity of Sensitive Receivers adopted in the EIA
Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report
|
Associated
EPD Station
|
Ambient
value
(90th
Percentile)
|
Tolerance value
(30% Tolerance)
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
WSR 27
|
NM5,6,8
|
8.3
|
5.6
|
2.5
|
1.7
|
WSR 22c
|
NM1,2,3
|
5.5
|
3.7
|
1.7
|
1.1
|
WSR 25
|
NM1,2,3
|
5.5
|
3.7
|
1.7
|
1.1
|
3.3.7.6 The use of single layer silt curtain system has been modelled in the 2012 mitigated scenario. The predicted
suspended sediment concentrations under the 2012 mitigated scenario of the
Project as shown in Table 9.21 in the EIA Report are summarised
in Table 3.13.
Table
3.13 Calculated Elevations in
Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Sensitive Receivers (mgL-1)
under the 2012 mitigated scenario from the EIA
Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report
|
Associated
Location during Impact Monitoring
|
Calculated Elevations
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
WSR 27
|
SR3
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
WSR 22c
|
SR4(N)
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
WSR 25
|
SR5
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
3.3.7.7 For suspended solids, as the baseline monitoring was
conducted in a November 2012 which is the transitional season or just the start
of dry season while no data were recorded in the wet season, direct comparison
with the EIA predictions could not be made. The comparison of EM&A results
with baseline results in the following paragraphs was based on the criteria of
acceptability of 30 percent elevations above the background as defined in the
Water Quality Objectives which was also used in scenario predictions in the
EIA.
3.3.7.8 Baseline water quality monitoring for the Project was
conducted during the transitional season. The mean baseline suspended solids
level at each sensitive receiver and 30 percent of the baseline mean are
presented in Table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Baseline suspended solids levels
and 30% of baseline mean (mgL-1)
Associated
Location in Baseline Report
|
Baseline
mean
|
30% of baseline mean
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
14.0
|
16.3
|
4.2
|
4.9
|
SR4
|
11.3
|
12.2
|
3.4
|
3.7
|
SR5
|
10.6
|
11.9
|
3.2
|
3.6
|
SR6
|
11.9
|
11.9
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
SR7
|
11.4
|
10.4
|
3.4
|
3.1
|
SR10A
|
10.2
|
10.2
|
3.1
|
3.1
|
SR10B
|
11.5
|
11.1
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
3.3.7.9 The average elevations in suspended solids concentrations
of the same month which baseline monitoring was conducted (October 2012) were
compared with the baseline levels are provided in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15 Average suspended solids levels at sensitive receivers (mgL-1)
in October 2012
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated
Location during Impact Monitoring
|
Impact SS
Mean
(in October 2012)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3
|
8.8
|
-5.1
|
12.0
|
-4.3
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
8.8
|
-2.4
|
12.0
|
-0.2
|
SR5
|
SR5
|
12.0
|
1.5
|
13.4
|
1.4
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
7.2
|
-4.7
|
8.6
|
-3.3
|
SR7
|
SR5
|
9.3
|
-2.1
|
10.8
|
0.4
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
7.4
|
-2.8
|
9.4
|
-0.8
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*
|
8.5
|
-3.0
|
13.6
|
2.5
|
*Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location
of SR4 & SR10b
have been
changed to SR4(N) & SR10B(N)
respectively during impact monitoring.
3.3.7.10 With the highest filling rate in October 2012, the
elevations in suspended solids levels were below 30 percent of the baseline suspended
solids levels at all stations. Regional influences would have effects on the
deterioration in water quality than activities at the work site. A combination of the following potential causes: 1.
Non-Project related vessel activities such as trawling of fishing vessels near
the monitoring station 2. Rough sea condition caused by adverse weather and
relatively strong current experienced during the monitoring period and 3.
During the time when exceedances of DO were recorded at monitoring stations,
relatively low DO values were also recorded at corresponding upstream Control
Stations during ebb tide or flood tides indicating these exceedances
of DO were unlikely to be contributed by Project works..
This indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely
to be contributed by Project works. 4. Local effects in the vicinity of the
monitoring station where exceedance was recorded.
3.3.8 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme
3.3.9.1. Monitoring and audit of water quality was recommended
for the construction phase of the Project in the EIA process to ensure any
deterioration in water quality would be readily detected and timely action
could be taken to rectify the situation.
3.3.9.2. Baseline water quality monitoring determined the
ambient water quality in the region prior to commencement of construction
works. Impact water quality monitoring helped to determine whether the Project
would cause unacceptable water quality impacts on the sensitive receivers.
Post-project water quality monitoring upon completion of all marine
construction activities helped to demonstrate the return of ambient conditions
that existed prior to commencement of the construction works.
3.3.9.3. Water quality mitigation measures were recommended in
the EIA and a list of water quality mitigation measures were stipulated in the
EM&A Manual for the Contractor to implement during the construction phase
of the Project. The list of water quality mitigation measures is depicted in
Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the Project.
Precautionary measures including installation of silt curtains were also
implemented to prevent migration of suspended solids towards the sensitive
receivers. Monitoring results showed that water quality at sensitive receivers
was affected by regional water quality influenced by tidal and climatic
conditions, local impacts from the vicinity of the receivers. As discussed
above, the Project was not observed to cause unacceptable water quality impacts
to the sensitive receivers. Therefore, the mitigation measures implemented were
effective and efficient in controlling water quality impacts.
3.3.9.4. Monitoring and audit of water quality ensured that
any water quality impacts to the receivers would be readily detected and timely
actions could be taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis
of water quality results collected throughout the baseline, impact and
post-project monitoring periods also demonstrated the environmental
acceptability of the Project. Weekly site inspections ensured that the EIA
recommended and additional water quality mitigation measures were effectively
implemented.
3.3.9.1 Water quality monitoring for the Project was
conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. For dissolved
oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids levels, a total of 36 exceedances were recorded. Assessment indicated that there
was no correlation between the filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances recorded. Exceedances
were considered to be due to a combination of factors including 1. Non-Project related vessel activities such as trawling
of fishing vessels near the monitoring station 2. Rough sea condition caused by
adverse weather and relatively strong current experienced during the monitoring
period and 3. During the time when exceedances of DO
were recorded at monitoring stations, relatively low DO values were also
recorded at corresponding upstream Control Stations during ebb tide or flood
tides indicating these exceedances of DO were
unlikely to be contributed by Project works.. This
indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely to be
contributed by Project works. 4. Local effects in the vicinity of the
monitoring station where exceedance was recorded which might have been contributed to the local
impacts in the vicinity of the receivers.
3.3.9.2 The DO and SS levels recorded at SR3, SR4 (N) and SR5
were in similar magnitude as predicted in the Project EIA. No comparison could
be made from SR6 to SR10B(N) as predictions were not
made in the Project EIA. For turbidity, as no prediction was made in the
Project EIA, no comparison could be made. With the implementation of water
quality mitigation measures recommended in the EIA and additional water quality
mitigation measures implemented during the EM&A programme,
marine construction activities of the Project did not cause any unacceptable
water quality impacts to the sensitive receivers.
3.4.1
Introduction
3.4.1.1
In accordance with the requirements
specified in Section 9.3 of the EM&A Manuel, monthly vessel- based surveys
were conducted to monitor impacts on the Indo-Pacific humpback or Chinese white
dolphin (Sousa chinensis).
The surveys were conducted in the areas known as NEL and NWL and travelled the
transect lines depicted in Figure 4.
3.4.1.2
Due to the presence of deployed silt
curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Project, line 10 was shortened
from 6.4km to 3.6km in length. Therefore, the total transect
length for NEL and NWL combined
is reduced to approximately 111km as of June
2012.
3.4.1.3
Surveys were conducted twice per month,
using combined line transect and photo-identification techniques. The research
team comprised qualified and experienced researchers and Marine Mammal
Observers (MMO).
3.4.1.4
The mitigation measures for dolphins
are included in the Environmental Permit for this project are
included in Appendix C.
3.4.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures
3.4.2.1
Relevant mitigation measures for
dolphins, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A
Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of mitigation measures for dolphins
is depicted in Appendix C.
3.4.3 Monitoring Summary
3.4.3.1 Vessel-based
surveys have been conducted monthly from March 2012 to February 2013, i.e.,
during the first year of the construction phase. A total of 49 survey days were
completed between March 2012-February 2013.
3.4.3.2 During
any one month, it is a requirement to survey both NEL and NWL twice. During March, April and May 2012, inclement weather
conditions resulted in a short fall survey track being completed under favourable conditions, as such supplementary surveys were
conducted between June and August 2012.
A total of 2627.5km
were completed whereas 2601.4km were conducted under
favourable conditions (defined as Beaufort Sea State
3 or better and with visibility of >1km) between March 2012-February 2013.
3.4.3.3 Between
March 2012-February 2013, a total of 203 dolphin sightings were recorded, 145[1]
as on effort and 58 as opportunistic[2],
The detailed
effort and
sighting breakdown is shown in Table 1
and Table 2 of Appendix H. The location
of all sightings is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix H.
3.4.3.4 \
3.4.3.5 tailed added in Appendix H. separately
to ENPO for reference.A total of 94 dolphins (one deceased
adult was included in the photo-ID catalogue) were added
to the photo-identification catalogue established specifically for the HZMB
Project (Table 3 of
Appendix H). Not all dolphins photographed are
identifiable as only individuals with unambiguous marks, cuts and/or
pigmentation or with uniquely shaped fins can be included in the
photo-identification catalogue. Of the
identifiable dolphins recorded, the most often sighted dolphins (HZMB052 and
HZMB011) were seen on eight separate days, however, just over half the
individuals recorded, 47 in total, were seen only once between March 2012 and
February 2013 (Table 3 of Appendix H).
3.4.3.6
3.4.3.7 Two deceased
dolphins have been recovered during impact surveys; a neonate in July 2012 and
an adult in September 2012. The adult
was included in the photo-ID catalogue.
Both carcasses were necropsied by AFCD/Ocean
Park Corporation who hold detailed information on
causes of death. Site reports concluded that neither incident was related to
the Project.
3.4.4 Environmental Acceptability of the Project
Table 3.16 Comparison of
low, moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and
NWL between years 2011-12 and 2012-13
|
Advanced
|
2012-13
|
Advanced
|
2012-13
|
Frequency of Use
|
NWL
|
NEL
|
DPSE
|
<20
|
69
|
58
|
71
|
72
|
20-60
|
16
|
30
|
22
|
11
|
> 60
|
17
|
11
|
4
|
16
|
|
SPSE
|
<5
|
52
|
40
|
65
|
65
|
5-15
|
27
|
46
|
31
|
13
|
>15
|
22
|
14
|
9
|
22
|
Distribution, Habitat Use and Behaviour of Marine Mammals
3.4.4.1
The EM&A Manuel stipulated that
surveys be conducted in such a way as to be comparable to the baseline survey
for this project (September -November 2011) and to the long term annual
monitoring conducted by AFCD. As such, analyses of density per survey effort
(DPSE) and sightings per survey effort (SPSE) were calculated in accordance
with the methodology detailed in AFCD reports (e.g., AFCD 2012). The survey areas are divided into 1km x 1km
squares and the relative number of sightings and densities are calculated for
each block. NEL has 55 blocks and NWL
has 90 blocks (only blocks of more than 0.75km2 are included)
3.4.4.2
For the period March 2012-February
2013, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high
use. NEL and NWL have 16% and 11% of
each respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 11% (NEL) and 30%
(NWL) as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 72% (NEL) and 58% (NWL) as low use
(< 20 DPSE) (Figure 2 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.3
For the period March 2012-February
2013, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use.
NEL and NWL have 22% and 14% of each respective area classified as high use
(> 15 SPSE); 13% (NEL) and 46% (NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 65%
(NEL) and 40% (NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Figure 3 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.4
For the period February 2011 – January
2012, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high
use. NEL and NWL have 4% and 17% of each
respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 22% (NEL) and 16% (NWL)
as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 71% (NEL) and 69% (NWL) as low use (< 20
DPSE) (provided by ENPO, Figure 4 of Appendix H). These figures were compared
to impact monitoring data for March 2012-February 2013 (Table 3.16 of Appendix
H). For DPSE in NWL, there was a
decrease in low use grid cells, an increase in moderate use cells and a
decrease in high use cells. As the geographical
location of the cells remained similar between years, however, (see Figures 2
and 4 of Appendix H) this is an indication that preferred habitat has not
changed over the NWL area rather that the habitat utilisation
is more dispersed. In NEL, where low use
cells have stayed at the same proportion and geographical location, the number
of moderate use cells has halved and high use cells has increased
dramatically. This indicates that
dolphin groups occurred at a higher density in their preferred geographical
area. Thus, when comparing the year
prior to Project commencement and the first year of HKBCF construction, a
higher density of dolphins occurred in the area immediately adjacent to the
Project site. This would indicate that the HKBCF did not cause any negative
impacts, e.g., disturbance from habitat, during the first year of operation.
3.4.4.5
For the period February 2011 – January
2012, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use.
NEL and NWL have 9% and 22% of each respective area classified as high use
(> 15 SPSE); 31% (NEL) and 27% (NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 65%
(NEL) and 52% (NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) during the year February
2011-January 2013 (Figure 5 of Appendix H).
These figures were compared to impact monitoring data for March
2012-February 2013 (Table 3.16 of Appendix H).
For SPSE in NWL, there has been an increase in moderate use gird cells
but a reduction in low use and a slight reduction in high use cells. This correlates with that observed for DPSE,
unsurprisingly as they are derived from interrelated data (see Figures 3 and 4
of Appendix H). This is also true for
SPSE and DSPE in NEL, indicating that use has remained consistent across the
NEL habitat use during the first year of impact monitoring year when compared
to the year preceding construction activities at HKBCF.
3.4.4.6
Encounter rates per area per quarter
for the year March 2012 to February 2013 were calculated. Variability in
encounter rate is indicated by the SE which, with the exception of the first
quarter of the year (March – May 2012) that had no encounters, shows that there
is an overlap of variation in both areas for each quarter thus making it
difficult to discern any differences in encounter rate that may be present
(Figure 5 of Appendix
H).
3.4.4.7
Sightings of dolphins were divided into
quarterly periods and an increase then decrease in the number of sightings is
depicted as the year progresses through each quarter, i.e., lowest use in March
– May 2012, high use in June – November 2012 and, again, lower use in December
2012- February 2013 (Figure 6 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.8
Sightings of mothers and calves were
made throughout the year (Figure 7 of Appendix H). Although it is often difficult to
identify calves, using high resolution images and the identity of mothers, it
has been possible to identify a minimum 14 individual calves
(Figure 8 of Appendix
H). One dead calf was recovered during
impact surveys in July (see 3.4.3.5).
3.4.4.9
Mother and calves were often associated
with large groups (5 or more individual dolphins) except during the quarter
December 2012 and February 2013 (Figure 9 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.10
Four distinctive behavioural
categories were defined; “associated with fishing trawler”, “feeding”,
“travelling” and “surface active”. Three
other categories were also defined; “multiple” (more than one behavior was
observed at one time), “other” and “unknown”.
Dolphins were most often engaged in foraging activities (both feeding
and associated with fishing trawlers) in both NEL and NWL (Figure 10 and Figure 11 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.11
During surveys conducted in 2011-12, behavioural information was only recorded for approximately
20% of all sightings made. Although it
is difficult to compare these limited data quantitatively with the data from
2012-13, plotting of behaviours by year (Figure 12 of
Appendix H) highlights the consistency of the Lung Kwu
Chau area of NWL as an important feeding area.
3.4.4.12
Abundance estimates were calculated for
every month in 2012-13 using the programme
Distance. Due to the variable spatial
and temporal survey conduct during the year proceeding the first year of impact
monitoring (advanced plus baseline surveys), only the baseline period was used
in abundance calculations as the survey coverage was relatively
consistent. Surface abundance estimates
(abundance is not corrected for availability) show that there is monthly
variation in habitat use during 2012-13 with no definitive trend. The month of lowest abundance is April at
12.9 dolphins (95% CI = 6-29) and the highest is November 202.6 dolphins (95% CI
= 147-286). The baseline period
(Sept-Nov 2011) had an abundance of 113 dolphins (95% CI = 53-193). Apart from the months of lowest abundance
(March and April 2012: it is noted that these months had less survey effort
than following months) there is considerable overlap between nearly all
abundance estimates and associated confidence intervals. These type of data alone rarely allow any
clear perspective of significant differences between any baseline and impact period
due to the inherent monthly and seasonal variation in habitat use as well as
the small, sparsely dispersed nature of the population. Further, NEL and NWL incorporate only a small
proportion of the dolphins known distribution and abundance estimates are only
relevant to the surveyed areas. What
these data do show is that the abundances estimated for the impact monitoring
period fall within the bounds of the baseline abundance estimate, with the
exception of March and April 2012 when fewer dolphins occurred in both NEL and
NWL (Figure 13 of Appendix H)
3.4.4.13
Feeding activities comprise
approximately 50% of all observed behavior. This has remained consistent
throughout the year. Between March 2012 – February
2013, dolphins were often recorded following fishing trawlers, often for hours. It is noted
that the Hong Kong trawl ban commenced
on 31 December
2012 and that
dolphins have been
sighted across the western maritime border following active
fishing trawlers. This is not part of the impact monitoring designated area,
however, it is known that dolphins freely travel across this area and dolphins
which “normally” reside in Hong Kong may be spending more than usual amounts of
time in adjacent waters feeding behind trawlers. “Surface active“ behavior
was seen throughout the year but decreased between September 2012 and February
2013 (Figure 10 of Appendix H).
3.4.4.14
As stated in the reports compiled for
each quarter, the variation in distribution, habitat use, groups size,
behavior, mother and calf occurrence and encounter rates varied throughout the
year but no particular difference was noted from data recorded historically (in
AFCD annual monitoring reports) or the baseline data with perhaps the exception
of limited on effort sightings during March-May 2012. Nonetheless, very few and no sightings have
also been recorded in AFCD data sets for this period. The breakdown in
individual distribution, use and behavioural
categories therefore do not show any changes which can be defined as
significant. This is largely due to the
variation in these traits as demonstrated in AFCD reports and typical of small
cetacean populations in general.
Correlation between Marine Mammal
Presence and Construction Activities
3.4.4.15
Construction activities at HKBCF have
steadily increased since March
2012. Based on the pattern of habitat
use, using both DSPE and SPSE, there has been consistent high use of those
areas directly adjacent to HKBCF. This
would indicate that the level of disturbance caused by HKBCF is either
insufficient to cause disturbance or that the area serves as either critical
habitat or supports a vital activity therefore, a
degree of disturbance is tolerated.
3.4.4.16
It was recognised
that HKBCF is located in an area of importance to the dolphin population of
Hong Kong. As such, it was required
in the EM&A Manuel that a suitable analytical technique be proposed and
implemented so that significant changes attributable to construction activities
could be detected with a degree of certainty and in a timely manner. Single
parameter analyses are unable to detect impact as the influence of additional
and co-correlated factors are not accounted for. As such, a multi-parameter
model was proposed and reviewed by management authorities. This analysis is
currently underway and shall be reported in full in a separate report
immediately on its completion.
3.4.4.17
Successful foraging is a vital activity
for marine mammals and in Hong Kong, feeding often occurs in association with
active fishing trawlers. As such, the distribution and activity of fishing
trawlers is directly correlated to dolphin habitat use and behavioural
activities. In January 2013, all
commercial trawling ceased in Hong Kong waters.
As such, patterns of association which were significant in the first
year of impact monitoring (March 2012-February 2013) will no longer exist in
subsequent quarters and years of monitoring and dolphin distribution and
behavior may be fundamentally changed. This has occurred in other areas where
fishing activities have changed (Ansmann et al. 2012[4]) There are no predictions in the EIA as to
what these changes may be and subsequent reporting should consider any effect
the trawler ban may have on dolphins and separate it from potential impacts
from construction activities.
3.4.4.18
The silt curtain and Project related working
vessels within the NEL area do not take up a significant proportion of the
dolphins habitat nor does the footprint of HKBCF itself incorporate any high
density habitat for dolphins (according to the EIA). As such, although the reclamation will result
in habitat loss, it is a small proportion of habitat that was historically not
often used by dolphins.
3.4.5 Verification of Impact Statements Stated in EIA and Supporting
Documentation
3.4.5.1
The Statements made in the EIA and
supporting documents are descriptive and do not provide a quantitative
framework against which to compare data gathered through the first year of the
impact monitoring for the purposes of verifying impact on CWD. Further, some statements made pertain only to
the operational phase of HZMB (that is, when all in water construction works
are completed) and not the explicit impacts of the many different construction
activities which are required to construct HZMB. In the interests of thoroughness, any impact
statements made in key documents relevant to HKBCF are extracted here and
commented on with regards to the data gathered from the first year of
construction activities at HKBCF.
3.4.5.2
The EIA report for HZMB[5]
makes several statements with regards to impact on cetaceans during the construction phase in sections
pertaining to water quality and bioaccumulation:
3.4.5.2.1
Construction Phase: In section
10.6.4.25 of the EIA report, it is stated that, “Project has low potential to cause increased sewage discharge,
therefore this potential impact is insignificant. The potential water
quality impacts due to site runoff, sewage from workforce and wastewater from
various construction activities, and accidental spillage would be controlled
through the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, including temporary
drainage system, chemical toilets, etc”
3.4.5.2.2
This Project has consistently maintained water
quality objectives as described in the EM&A Manual except where noted in
Section 7.1.5. These exceptions,
however, were subsequently found to be unrelated to Project works.
3.4.5.3
In Section 10.6.4.37 of the EIA report,
it is stated that, “Thus insignificant bioaccumulation impacts from the
construction of HKBCF and HKLR are predicted for CWD (except perhaps with the
exception of silver – as per 10.6.4.32)”
3.4.5.3.1
It is noted that for both of the above impact
predictions to be investigated more thoroughly, long term trends in pathogens
and toxin loads in CWD should be analysed. This has recently been completed for the
Pearl River Delta (PRD) population of CWD and it is noted that both bioaccumulation
and biomagnification are significantly higher than
populations elsewhere (Gui et al 2014[6]). In
light of this new information, the statements made in the EIA may need to be
re-assessed and the allowable limits for water quality parameters revised.
3.4.5.4
In Section 10.7.2.8 of the EIA report,
it is stated that, “164 ha of sea area (138 ha reclamation and 26 ha works
area) will be lost during construction due to HKBCF reclamation near the
northeast Airport Island. Although the sea area is only utilised
by limited number of individual CWD, it is of moderate ecological value due to
the close proximity with dolphin hotspot. Moderate impact is anticipated and
mitigation measures are required. As the habitat loss due to construction would
largely be carried forward to the operational phase and become permanent
habitat loss, mitigation measures for operational phase (see Section 10.7.4)
will mitigate this impact as well)”
3.4.5.4.1
At HKBCF, moderate impact is anticipated but
the degree or type of impact is not quantified in any numerical, spatial or
temporal scale. After only one year of
construction activities at HKBCF there is no clear pattern of any sudden or
trending change in density, mortality, behaviour
or school size associated with construction activities (see monthly surface
abundance estimates and comparison with baseline study). Indeed, in NEL there
is an increase in the percentage of high density usage cells. The impact of “permanent habitat loss” as a
result of the HKBCF reclamation Section 10.7.4. of the
EIA), is stated to be fully mitigated by the establishment of a Marine
Protected Area after the construction phase of the Project is completed. This predication cannot be assessed until the
HZMB operational phase starts and the Marine Park Area is established.
3.4.5.4.2
The Ecological Baseline Survey[7]
defines an Impact Index which is used to predict impact for each area through
which the HZMB structure passes. HKBCF
is located in the area defined as the “Northeast Lantau
Section (NELS) – from the eastern edge of the airport platform to its
connection to the North Lantau Highway”.
3.4.5.5 It is noted that this report
states (Section 5.7.10) that, ”it is imperative that cumulative impacts along the whole alignment [of
HZMB] are thoroughly assessed”.
3.4.5.5.1
A reference to cumulative impacts is made in
Section 10.7.6 of the EIA. Section
10.7.6.3 is relevant to HKBCF. This
refers only to the cumulative impact of the permanent loss of CWD habitat and
no other impacts of either the construction or operational phase of the HZMB
project. Nonetheless, the conclusion of
this section states that the setting up of a marine park “effectively
mitigates” CWD habitat loss. As such, this prediction cannot be verified until
such a time as a marine park is established.
3.4.5.5.2
As a rigorous cumulative assessment has not
yet been conducted, there is little quantitative information against which
impact survey observations can be made.
Further, there are no predictions which deal specifically with the
activities at HKBCF and no predictions of direct, temporary or residual impacts
on CWD. As such, it is anticipated that
impacts to the CWD population which have not been defined in the original EIA.
will occur as construction activities progress at HKBCF
3.4.6 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EM&A Programme
3.4.6.1
Monitoring and auditing of marine
mammals was recommended for the construction phase of HKBCF to evaluate impact
on marine mammals.
3.4.6.2
Combined line
transect and photo-identification methodologies have been used as part
of the AFCD long term monitoring programme for over
15 years. As such, a long term data set can be used to establish trends in
population distribution and abundance over the long term.
3.4.6.3
The AFCD annual monitoring report for
the period 2011-2012 stated that a significant decline had been detected in
population abundance in the NEL area over the last decade. Only long term inter annual abundance
estimates can be used to detect such changes. This decline was noted prior to
construction had begun at HKBCF.
3.4.6.4
Significant declines in abundance
cannot be detected in the short term, i.e., month by month, by using the
combined line transect and photo-identification
methodologies described in the EM&A Manuel. For a project of this scale in
an area of importance to the Hong Kong dolphin population, the EM&A Manuel
required
that new analyses be proposed to detect any potential impacts in a timely
manner. The proposed method which correlates a suite of biological, physical
and environmental variables is able to detect short term significant change and
is used by management authorities elsewhere for marine mammal monitoring during
construction activities.
3.4.7 Conclusion
3.4.6.1
Between March 2012 and February 2013,
dolphins have not been deterred from the area immediately adjacent to HKBCF
although variation in seasonal and annual differences make
it problematic to quantify statistical significance. Nonetheless, dolphins have
occurred in this area consistently throughout the first year of impact
monitoring.
3.4.6.2
Marine mammal monitoring was conducted
between March 2012 and February 2013 in accordance with EM&A Manuel
methodologies. These methodologies have been invaluable in the past in
determining both broad scale and long term patterns of distribution, abundance,
association, habitat use and behavioral activities. There is historically much variation in these
parameters and all observations to date have fallen within patterns and trends
documented previously.
3.4.6.3
The surface abundance estimates calculated to date indicate that the
density of dolphins using Hong Kong waters coincides with that estimated for
baseline estimates and confidence intervals. A more qualitative approach to detecting fine
scale and short term changes associated with HKBCF should use a multi-parameter
analyses approach. Currently, survey and
environmental data from other sources have been requested to complete these
analyses so that any impacts can be discerned with a degree of certainty and in
a timely manner so that current mitigation measures can be evaluated and strengthened if required.
4
Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
4.1.1 Site Inpsection
4.1.1.1 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 period, 51 site inspections were
carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors
for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
4.1.1.2 Particular observations during the site inspections
are described below:
4.1.2 Air Quality
4.1.2.1 The Contractor was reminded to provide vehicle
washing facility at Works Area WA3.
4.1.2.2 The Contractor was reminded to implement dust
suppression measures, especially on water spraying on haul road, at Works Area
WA3.
4.1.2.3 Bags of cement were found debagged at open area. The
Contractor was reminded that de-bagging, batching and mixing process of cement
should be carried out in an area sheltered on top and the 3 sides.
4.1.2.4 Soil stockpiles placed at Work Area WA4 were covered
with tarpaulin sheet incompletely. The Contractor was reminded to cover up the
soil stockpiles completely with tarpaulin sheet if no works was carrying out
temporarily.
4.1.2.5 The Contractor was reminded to check the operating
plants on barge regularly and carry out maintenance /repair (if necessary), to
avoid any dark smoke emission.
4.1.3 Noise
4.1.3.1. Noise Emission Labels (NELs) were found missing from
the air compressors employed on barge FTP19 at Portion A. The Contractor was
reminded to affix the NELs to the air compressor employed.
4.1.3.2. Air compressors on barge Sun Moon Kee
were observed without valid noise emission label. The contractor was reminded
to fit air compressors with valid noise emission label prior to operation.
(Reminder
4.1.4 Water Quality
4.1.4.1 The Contractor was recommended to review the drainage
system regularly and provide wastewater treatment facilities, especially for silty surface run-off during rainfall, if necessary, at
Works Area WA3. Although concrete u-channels and sand bag bundings
were provided at part of the site boundaries and provision of temporary
drainage system was undergoing, The Contractor was recommended to provide sand
bag bundings at the site boundaries temporarily prior
to completion of u-channels.
4.1.4.2 Rubbish and accumulated rainwater was found inside
the u-channel at Works Area WA4. The Contractor should clear up the rubbish and
accumulated rainwater, especially after rainstorm.
4.1.4.3 Broken sand bags were observed at site boundary at
Works Area WA4. The Contractor should remove and replace the broken sand bags.
4.1.4.4 Although it was rainy during the inspection, the
Contractor was reminded to enhance the pumping system provided at U-channels at
Work Area WA4 in order to avoid accumulation of run-off inside the channels.
4.1.4.5 Parts of the curtains were found distorted. Distorted
silt curtains were noted at boundaries of the works areas, at Portion C2a and
Portion A and parts of the silt curtain system at Portion B, D and E2. The
Contractor was informed to rectify the situation swiftly.
4.1.4.6 Debris and wastes were found inside the drainage
channel at Works Area WA4. The Contractor was reminded to clear the debris and
wastes regularly and maintain the drainage channels properly.
4.1.4.7 Silt curtain installed for stone column installation
works on barge FTB18 was found damaged. The Contractor was reminded to keep
monitor and well maintain of the silt curtain more frequently to ensure the
silt curtain are fully functional. The damaged silt curtain found on barge
FTB18 was fixed in the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.4.8 Defects noticed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain
at portions E1, C2a. C2c were observed and under maintenance. The Contractor
was reminded to swiftly rectify the perimeter silt curtain in particular the
portions where defects were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by
construction activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside
the site boundary. The adverse situation was rectified by the Contactor in
March 2013. (Closed)
4.1.4.9 It was noticed that a localised
silt curtain was readily adjacent to Barge AP4 but was not deployed to enclose
the active stone column installation at Portion A. The Contractor rectified the
situation by enclosing the active stone column installation with localised silt curtain in the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.4.10 Silty plume was noted around the stone column installation
areas of FTP19 at Portion C2c. The Contractor was advised to check the
condition of the silt curtain systems installed regularly and review the
arrangement of localized primary silt curtains to minimize any leakage from
works. (Under follow-up status)
4.1.4.11 Distortion of part of silt curtain system at site
boundaries at Portion D, B, C2a and silt curtain system installed around the
stone column installation area of FTB19 at Portion C2c were rectified. (Closure
of item from previous reporting month)
4.1.4.12 Silty plume was noted around the stone column installation
areas of FTB16 at Portion D and around the silt curtain system when the stone
column installation was carried out by FTB23 when site inspection was conducted
on FTB 19. The Contractor was advised to check the silt curtain systems
installed regularly and review the arrangement of localized primary silt
curtains to minimize any leakage from works. Also the Contractor was reminded
to fix the primary silt curtain prior to stone column installation works. Such
conditions were rectified within the reporting period and the contractor was
reminded to keep checking the silt curtains systems regularly. (Closure of item
in reporting period)
4.1.5 Chemical and Waste Management
4.1.5.1 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.
4.1.5.2 Oil drums were found stored improperly at FTP19 in
Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays to oil drum
stored on site to retain any leaked oil if there is such case.
4.1.5.3 Accumulation of oily water and materials were
observed inside the drip trays employed on barge FTP19 at Portion A. The
Contractor was reminded to clear the materials and oily water. The oily mixture
should be treated and disposed of as chemical waste.
4.1.5.4 It is noted that few trucks of construction wastes
were not transferred to designated disposal ground. The Contractor was reminded
to provide measures to ensure construction wastes were sorted, transferred and
disposed of properly. Toolbox talks and trainings should be provided to workers
and dump truck drivers on waste management issues.
4.1.5.5 Battery packs were found improperly placed on the barge
Ever Shine 18 at Portion C2c, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays
to the battery packs used on site to retain any leaked chemical, if there is
such case.
4.1.5.6 Chemical container was found improperly stored on the
barge FTP23 at Portion A and on barge FTB 16 at Portion D. The Contractor was
reminded to properly store chemical container in works area with provision of
drip tray.
4.1.5.7 Oil drums were found improperly stored on barge San
Hang Bo 601 at Portion C2a, San Hang Bo 208 (at Portion E2), San Hang Bo 402
(at Portion B) and FTB 17 (at Portion C2a) and Works Area WA4., and used oil
drums on barge San Hang Bo 208 at Portion C2a were found improperly treated.
Oil drums were also found improperly stored on barge Ever Shine 668 at Portion
C2a and FTB 20 at Portion A. Drip trays should be provided to oil drums stored
within works areas to retain any leaked oil if there is such case. On the other
hand, used oil drums should be properly cleaned and labeled.
4.1.5.8 Oil drums, chemical containers and batteries were
found improperly stored on barge San Hang Bo 401 at Portion C2a. Drip trays
should be provided to oil drums, chemical containers and batteries stored
within works areas to retain any leaked chemicals/oil if there is such case.
4.1.5.9 Moreover, oil stains were noted on the barge San Hang
Bo 208 (where power pack where vibratory clamp placed), on the barge Ever Shine
668 at Portion C2a (where power pack and vibratory clamp placed) and on the
barge deck of barge FTB 17 at Portion C2a. Also, similar case was noted near
the wire bundle at the barge FTB19.
Proper measures like drip trays/tarpaulin sheets should be provided to
retain any leaked oil and oil stains should be cleared and disposed of as
chemical wastes.
4.1.5.10 Power packs, generators and vibratory clamp were found
improperly stored on barge San Hang Bo 208 (at Portion E2) and 402 (at Portion
B). The Contractor should provide proper measures, like drip trays and
tarpaulin sheet coverage, to retain any leaked oil from the plants. Oil stains
on barge decks should be cleared and the absorbents should be treated as
chemical wastes.
4.1.5.11 Waste skip placed at Works Area WA4 was full and
stockpile of C&D wastes was also noted. The Contractor was reminded to sort
the C&D wastes properly and dispose of the C&D wastes timely.
4.1.5.12 General refuse was stockpiled on barge San Hang Bo
208, 601 at Portion C2a and on barge FTB 16 at Portion D. The Contractor was
reminded to remove the general refuse in a timely manner, designate areas and
provide proper containers to store general refuse generated in works areas. The
Contractor was reminded to clear and sort the general refuse within works areas
regularly and properly.
4.1.5.13 Oily mixtures accumulated in the bunding
area and drip tray were observed at barge Ever Shine 668 at Portion A, barge San
Hang Bo 401 at Portion C2a, barge FTB20 at Portion D, inside the drip trays
provided at ring-type sheetpile installation frame
(type B) at Portion B and the bunded areas and bin on
barge FTP19 at Portion C2c. The Contractor was reminded to clear the oily
mixture within works area regularly and disposal of as chemical waste. Regular
review should be conducted for working barges to ensure sufficient measures and
spill control kits were provided on working barges to avoid any spreading of
leaked oil/chemicals. Tarpaulin sheet coverage was recommended to minimize the
chance of water accumulation inside drip trays during rainstorm. Regular
checking of the drip tray conditions should be carried out.
4.1.5.14 As a reminder, the Contractor should maintain patrol
boats with Spill Kits, for control of any spills and collection of any floating
waste, within marine works area.
4.1.5.15 It was noted that provision of drip tray to the power
pack at barge San Hang Bo 209 at Portion E2 was undergoing, the Contractor was
reminded to complete the drip tray construction work swiftly in order to retain
any leaked oil if there is such case.
4.1.5.16 Open holes was found in the bunding
for storage oil drums and power pack at Barge San Hang Bo 208 and between barge
surface and the bunding on barge Sang Hang Qi 7. The Contractor was reminded to seal the open holes to
retain any oil leakage. Open holes found in the bunding
for storage oil drums and power pack at Barge Sang Hang Bo 208 and barge Sang
Hang Qi 7 were sealed to prevent any leakage of oil.
Also, an opening at the bottom of a drip tray was observed on FTB 19. The
Contractor was reminded to seal the opening at the bottom of the drip tray. The
opening at the bottom of a drip tray was sealed in the reporting period.
(Closure of item in the reporting period)
4.1.5.17 Oily water accumulated in drip trays were cleared on
Barge FTB 20 and Barge Kiu Chi and disposed of as
chemical waste in the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.5.18 General refuses accumulated on Barge Kiu Chi were disposed of properly in the reporting period.
(Closed)
4.1.5.19 Oil leakage was noted from a plant on FTB16 at
Portion D. Oily mixture was accumulated inside the bunded
area, at FTB19 at Portion C2a and accumulated inside the power pack on Barge
San Hang Bo 305, too. The Contractor was recommend to repair
the plant and clear the mixture and treat them as chemical wastes. Such
conditions were rectified within the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.5.20 Oil stains were found on barge and near power pack at
barge San Hang Qi 7, near two roll of wire on barge
Sang Hang Qi 7, near oil drum on barge Sun Moon Kee, on barge near powerpack on
barge Sang Hang Bo 210 and on Barge San Hang Bo 401. The contractor was
reminded to clean the oil stain and the absorbents should be treated as
chemical wastes. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measure such
as drip tray or tarpaulin sheet to retain any oil leakage. The Contractor
provided mitigation measure such as tarpaulin sheet to retain any oil leakage
and bunding was provided to retain leaked oil from
the power pack on Barge San Hang Qi 7. (Closed)
4.1.5.21 Empty oil drums were found improperly stored on barge
Sun Moon Kee. The contractor was reminded to provide
mitigation measures such as providing drip trays to waste oil drums or to place
the waste oil drum to a proper storage area for temporary storage. Empty oil
drums on barge Sun Moon Kee were removed. Also, oil
drums were stored inside the drip trays to retain any oil leakage at Works Area
WA4. (Closed)
4.1.5.22 Oil drums were found improperly stored on barge San
Hang Qi 7, barge Sun Moon Kee,
FTB19 at Portion C2a and Sang Hang Bo 205. Drip trays should be provided to oil
drums stored within works areas to retain any leaked oil. Oil drums were stored
inside the bunding on barge within the reporting period.
(Closure of item in the reporting period) A drum of waste oil was found
improperly stored on barge Sun Moon Kee. The
Contractor was reminded to place the waste oil drum to designated chemical
waste storage area for temporarily storage. The chemical waste container should
also be labelled. A proper lid should be provided to
the opened drum. Such condition was rectified within the reporting period.
(Closed)
4.1.5.23 Drip tray was provided to the power pack on barge San
Hang Bo 402 at Portion B. Measure was provided to vibratory clamp on barge San
Hang Bo 208 and oil stains on barge deck were cleared. The Contractor was
reminded that measures like drip trays and tarpaulin sheet coverage should be
provided to plants to retain any leakage. Oil stains on barge deck should be
cleared and absorbents should be treated as chemical wastes. (Closed)
4.1.5.24 Power pack without drip trap was observed. The
contractor was reminded to provide proper measure such as drip tray to power
pack to retain leaked oil. Power pack was found improperly stored on Barge San
Hang Bo 401. The Contractor was reminded that proper measures like drip
trays/tarpaulin sheets should be provided to retain any leaked oil from power
pack on the barge. Power pack improperly stored on Barge San Hang Bo 401 was removed
within the reporting period. (Closed).
4.1.5.25 Drip tray was provided to the power pack on barge San
Hang Bo 402 at Portion B. Measure was provided to vibratory clamp on barge San
Hang Bo 208 and oil stains on barge deck were cleared. The Contractor was reminded
that measures like drip trays and tarpaulin sheet coverage should be provided
to plants to retain any leakage. Oil stains on barge deck should be cleared and
absorbents should be treated as chemical wastes. (Closed).
4.1.5.26 The contractor was reminded to disposal the oil
absorbent materials of as chemical wastes and provide a proper chemical waste
storage area on Barge San Hang Bo 208. (Reminder)
4.1.5.27 General refuse collection bin on FTB16 at Portion D
was found placed inside the bunded area for oil drums
storage. The Contractor was recommended to relocate the general refuse
collection area. Such condition was rectified within the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.5.28 The containers placed for containing the dripping
water from air-conditioner were found full of water and debris at Barge SHA
HANG QI 6. Immediate actions of clearing
up the containers were taken by the Contractor. The Contractor was reminded to
keep the barge clean and tidy. (Closed)
4.1.5.29 Oil drum was found improperly stored at FTB24, FTB18,
FTB16, FTB19, SHB208, Sun Moon Kee.
The Contractor rectified the situation by removing the oil drums from the area
without bunding and/or relocating the oil drum inside
the bunded area to prevent oil leakage (Closed).
4.1.5.30 Oil drums were provided with bundnig
n barge Sang Hang Qi 7and the Contractor properly labelled the oil drum on barge Sang Hang Qi 7 and barge Sang Hang Bo 205 to enclose the oil drums
stored within works areas to retain any leaked oil within the reporting period
(Closed).
4.1.5.31 Oil drums were found without proper labelling at barge Ever Shine. The Contractor was advised
to label all oil drums properly and oil drums were provided with proper labelling at barge Ever Shine within the reporting period
(Closed).
4.1.5.32 Bucket of waste water was found near at a location
without bunding/drip tray on Sang Han Bo 209. The
Contractor immediately rectified the situation by relocated the bucket of waste
water inside the bunded area to prevent potential
waste water runoff into nearby water system. The Contractor was reminded to
place buckets of waste water inside bunded area on
barge (reminder).
4.1.5.33 The oil stain found near the power pack on barge Sang
Hang Qi 7 and Sang Hang Bo 210, underneath a pack of
cable and on the floor of barge Fai Yue 3228 and near
a vibration clamp on barge Fai Yue 3228 were cleared
and the absorbents were treated as chemical wastes. Mitigation measure such as
tarpaulin sheet was placed underneath a pack of cable and on the floor of barge
Fai Yue 3228 to retain any potential oil leakage. (Closed).
4.1.5.34 The Contractor provided mitigation measure such as
tarpaulin sheet and bunding to retain potential
leaked oil near the machine on barge Sun Moon Kee to
power pack on Sang Hang Bo 205 to retain leaked oil respectively within the
reporting period (Closed).
4.1.5.35 Gap was observed between barge surface and the bunding on barge Sun Moon Kee.
The Contractor was reminded to seal the gap to prevent oil leakage. Gaps
between barge surface and the bunding on barge Sun
Moon Kee were sealed within the reporting period
(Closed).
4.1.5.36 Uncovered open holes in the bundings
and drip trays were found on barge FTB18 and on barge Sun Moon Kee. Oil leakage was found on barge Sun Moon Kee leaked through a bunding. The
leaked oil was immediately cleared by the Contractor using absorbents and the
Contractor was reminded to dispose the absorbents as chemical waste. The
Contractor was reminded to seal/cover the open holes properly to prevent oil
leakage. Open holes in the bundings and drip trays
found on barge FTB18 were covered in the reporting period (Closed)
4.1.5.37 Incident of oil spillage was observed on barge FTB
20. The spilled oil was immediately cleared by the Contractor using spill kit
and the Contractor was reminded to dispose the absorbents as chemical waste.
The Contractor was reminded to maintain proper oil spill cleanup procedure for
oil spillage (Reminder).
4.1.5.38 Oil was found accumulated inside the drip tray on
barge FTB20. The Contractor rectified the situation by clearing the waste oil
inside the drip tray, the Contractor is reminded to
dispose the waste oil as chemical waste. (Reminder)
4.1.5.39 Water was observed dripping from the pipe connected
to the air conditioner. The Contractor provided mitigation measures by placing
a bucket to collect water that dripped from the air conditioner. (Closed)
4.1.5.40 Stagnant water accumulated inside the car tire on
barge Sang Han Bo 205 and inside the drip tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 were
observed. The Contractor was reminded to clear the water or open a hole on the
tire on Sang Han Bo 205 to prevent mosquito breeding and to clear the water accumulated
inside the drip tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 respectively. Stagnant water
accumulated inside the wheel tire on barge Sang Han Bo 205 and inside the drip
tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 were removed in the reporting period. (Closed)
4.1.5.41 Garbages accumulated on barge Kiu
Chi was observed and food waste was observed left
outside of the bin on barge SHB 402. The Contractor was remineded
to clear up the garbages/food waste frequently to
keep site clean and tidy. Garbages accumulated on
barge Kiu Chi was cleared in the reporting period.
(Closed)
4.1.5.42 Although the content of the stockpile on barge Fu Tat
was dampened, however, the Contractor was reminded to dampen the stockpile
frequently to suppress fugitive dust generated. (Reminder)
4.1.6 Landscape and Visual Impact
4.1.6.1 No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting period.
4.1.7 Others
4.1.7.1 No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting period.
4.1.7.2 The Contractor has rectified most of the observations
as identified during environmental site inspection in the reporting period.
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.
5
Advice on the
Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
5.1.1 The Contractor registered as a chemical waste
producer for this project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for
general refuse collection and sorting.
5.1.2 As advised by the Contractor, 779,097.5 m3 of imported
fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 7,618kg of chemical waste were generated and disposed of
in the reporting period. 825.5 m3 of
general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Summary
of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix I.
5.1.3 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.
5.1.4 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 Practice on
the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical
Wastes.
6.1.1 Insufficient dolphin survey efforts due to inclement
weather conditions in March and April 2012 and inability of setting up and
carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC
(Group) Building) were noted in the reporting period. Supplementary dolphin surveys have been
conducted during June and July 2012 to ensure that adequate survey efforts will
be maintained. (March – May 12)
6.1.2 Two (2) Non-Compliance dated on 31 Oct 2012 and 6 Nov 2012 was noted during
the reporting period.
6.1.3 For the Non-Compliance dated on 31 Oct 2012, as
informed by the Contractor on 30 November 2012, a noise complaint was received
by EPD on the 18 Oct 2012 and on one of the two complaint follow up inspection
conducted by EPD on 19 and 31 October 2012, operation of a powered mechanical
equipment after 19:00 without valid CNP was observed on 31 Oct 12 at WA4. One
worker was carrying out emergency maintenance for machinery with generator
after 19:00, while no construction noise permit was in force, which is
suspected that the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) was violated. A “Pink
Form” (inspection record) was subsequently issued by EPD on the 14 November
2012 regarding the suspected violation of Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400).
6.1.3.1 The Contractor was recommended to implement the
following noise mitigation measures in case any construction activities involving
the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) is conducted in the concerned
area:
a)
Work involves Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME)
should be stopped before 7 pm
b)
Review the need to increase the frequency of
Construction Noise and Suppression training, provide extra training if deemed
necessary.
c)
Install notice sign on site to notice workers that
Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) and Prescribed Construction Work (PCW) (e.g.
1. Erection or dismantling of formwork or scaffolding. 2. Loading, unloading or
handling of rubble, wooden boards, steel bars, wood or scaffolding material and
3. Hammering) are not allowed from 7pm to 7am on the next day or anytime on
public holidays, including Sundays.
d)
The noise mitigation measures should be maintained
and the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures deployed within works area
should be enforced and reviewed onsite regularly in order to provide sufficient
noise screening effect properly.
6.1.3.2 A follow-up site inspection was conducted on 3
January 2013 by ET and with representative from the Contractor. During the
inspection, follow up actions taken by the Contractor to improve the situation
was observed. No Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) was in operation and it was
observed that notice signs were installed on site by the Contractor to notice
workers that work involves Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) is prohibited
from 19:00 to 07:00 on all days and whole day on public holiday.
6.1.3.3 Prior to any confirmation of any possible summon and
prosecution. ET will continue to monitor the mitigation actions carried out by
the Contractor and provide appropriate assistance and advice whenever
necessary.
6.1.4
For the Non-Compliance
dated 6 Nov 2012 there was an incident of trial filling of sand blanket by
conveyor without full enclosure observed and reported. The condition was
rectified and the wind board was installed on 8 Nov 2012.
6.1.4.1 Defects were noticed at parts of the perimeter silt
curtain at portions E1, C2a. C2c and those defective parts are yet to be
rectified. Although maintenance works were noted during site inspections and on
the records provided by the Contractor. However, there is still parts of the
silt curtain were found defective in the reporting period therefore the
Contractor was reminded again to swiftly complete the rectification works of
the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions where defects were
observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by construction activities
could be prevented from discharging to areas outside the site boundary.
Meanwhile, ET followed up the situation and closely monitored the progress of
the maintenance work and reported the progress accordingly during the reporting
period.
6.1.4.2 In response to the site audit findings, the
Contractors carried out corrective actions.
6.1.4.1 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of
Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of
the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting
period, except inability of setting up and carrying out impact air quality
monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building)
were noted. Liaison with relevant parties for permission on access to the
premise for setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring works at
AMS6 was continued until 19 November 2012. Reference is made to ET’s proposal
of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1st November 2012
and EPD’s letter dated on 19th November 2012 regarding the conditional approval
of the proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station
AMS6 will be effective since 19th November 2012. Moreover, regular review and checking on the
construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to
ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended
environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively. .
6.1.4.3 Training of marine travel route for marine vessels
operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly.
6.1.4.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring
and protection measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin
Exclusion Zone and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular checking were
conducted by the experienced MMOs within the works area to ensure no dolphin
was trapped by the enclosed silt curtain systems. Any dolphin spotted within
the enclosed silt curtain systems was reported and recorded. Relevant
procedures were followed and measures were well implemented. Silt curtain
systems were also inspected timely in accordance to the submitted plan. All
inspection records were kept properly.
6.1.4.5 Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction
vessels were checked regularly and these measures were well implemented.
6.1.4.6 As informed by the Contractor, insufficient
mitigation measures were noted during a joint site inspection with the
representative of the Contractor and the Resident Engineer in the after from
14:30 to 16:00 of 28 Jan 2013.
6.1.4.7 It was noticed that part of the demarcation for Zone
F was missing; being contrary to the other condition 3.d.16 of the above CNP.
In addition , Some generators and air compressors on barge FTB-16 in Zone S4
were not completely screened by the acoustic baffles and parts of those powered
mechanical equipment (PME) were visible from Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel
(noise sensitive receiver); being contrary to other condition of the CNP. It is
understood that the set up of acoustic baffles for FTB-20 in Zone S5 was
identical to FTB-16 in Zone S4. Therefore the Contractor was advised to inspect
and rectify (if necessary) the acoustic baffles so as to comply with other
condition 3.d.13 of the CNP.
6.1.4.8 The Contractor was reminded to carry out necessary
actions to rectify the above deficiencies and the Contractor was reminded not
to operate those PME during restricted hours without compliance with the CNP
conditions.
6.1.4.9 As informed by the Contractor on 9 February 2013, the
deficiencies were rectified. 7 nos. of demarcation (were no more visible) for
Zone F have been re-deployed.
6.1.4.10 Extra noise
barriers were installed onto barge FTB-16 in Zone S4 and FTB-20 in S5.
generators and air compressors on barge FTB-16 in Zone S4 and FTB-20 in S5 were
completely screened by the acoustic baffles and parts of those powered
mechanical equipment (PME) were no more visible from Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott
Hotel (noise sensitive receiver).
6.1.4.11 The Contractor was reminded to strictly comply with the
condition of the CNP.
7
Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7.1.1. No exceedance of Action and
Limit Level was recorded for 1-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting quarter.
However, one Action Level exceedance and four (4)
Limit Level exceedance was recorded for 24-hour TSP
results in the reporting period. Investigation results show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works. The
Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation
measures
7.1.2. One (1) Limit Level exceedance
of impact noise monitoring was recorded in the reporting period. Investigation
into the possible causes of each exceedance was
undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports.
Investigation results show that the exceedance was not due to the Project
works. The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing noise
mitigation measures.
7.1.3. The Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing noise mitigation measures.
7.1.4. Thirty (30) Action Level exceedances
and (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at
measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), three (3) Action Level exceedances was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU) and
one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at
measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) during the reporting period. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains.
7.1.5. Cumulative statistics on exceedances
is provided in Appendix J.
8
Summary
of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
8.1
Summary of Environmental Compliants,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
8.1.1
The Environmental
Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.
8.1.2 As informed by the Contractor on the 28 Dec 2012, a
night time noise at Works Area WA4 related complain (after 7 pm) was received by
EPD on 18 Oct 2012. After investigation, the Contractor was reminded to
implement necessary mitigation measures.
8.1.3 A complaint was referred by EPD on 24 Oct 12
regarding the blackish water (suspected oil spillage) observed outside the
construction site near the Hong Kong International Airport and the new
development pier in Tung Chung. Photos were taken by the complainant on 19, 22
and 24 October 2012. The investigation
results show that the complaint was non-project related. However the Contractor
was reminded to continue to
implement necessary mitigation measures.
8.1.4
EPD referred a complaint
from a complainant on 18 Jan 2013 who advised that turbid water and
concrete/cement was arising from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Projects to marine water. The source of turbid water and
concrete/cement was not specified by the complainant. After investigation, it
could not be concluded whether the complaint was considered as project related
or not. However the Contractor was reminded to
continue to implement necessary
mitigation measures.
8.1.5
One (1) complaint was
referred to the HyD by the Islands District Council
(IDC) on the 6 February 2013 regarding a resident from Phase 1 Caribbean Coast
who complained the nuisance brought by construction along Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung. Complaint investigation was conducted
by the HyD and written reply were subsequently given
to IDC by HyD on 4 March 13. The investigation results show that the
complaint was non-project related. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded by
HyD to
continue to keep the site and its nearby area clean and tidy.
8.1.6
No
notification of summons and prosecution was received in the reporting period.
8.1.7
Statistics on complaints, notifications of
summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
9.1 Only five (5) 24-hour TSP monitoring exceedances
were recorded in the reporting period and it was considered not
related to the Project works. All the rest of air quality monitoring results in
the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline
air quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line
with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that dust generation
would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper
implementation of the recommended dust mitigation measures.
9.2 Only one (1) construction noise monitoring exceedance
was recorded in the reporting period. This is generally in line with the EIA
and ERR prediction that with the implementation of noise mitigation measures,
the construction noise from the Project works will meet the stipulated
criterion at the residential NSRs and at a majority of the education
institutions as predicted by the EIA.
9.3 36 water quality monitoring exceedances
were recorded in the reporting period and it was considered not
related to the Project works. All the rest of water quality monitoring
results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the
baseline water quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The
result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction
that water quality impact would be controlled and would not exceed the
acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended water quality mitigation measures.
10.1
The impact air quality, noise and water quality
monitoring programme ensured that any environmental
impact to the receivers would be readily detected and timely actions could be
taken to rectify any non-compliance. The
environmental monitoring results indicated that the construction activities in
general were in compliance with the relevant environmental requirements and
were environmentally acceptable. The weekly site
inspection ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended
in the EIA were effectively implemented. Despite the minor deficiencies found
during site audits, the Contractor had taken appropriate actions to rectify
deficiencies within reasonable timeframe. Therefore, the effectiveness and
efficiency of the mitigation measures were considered high in most of the time.
10.2 For all the parameters under monitoring as mentioned in
Section 3, the measured levels were in line with the EIA predictions generally.
This indicates that the mitigation measures were effectively implemented.
11
Review of EM&A Programme
11.1
The environmental monitoring methodology was
considered well established as the monitoring results were found in line with
the EIA predictions.
11.2
As effective follow up actions were promptly taken
once exceedances were recorded, no further exceedance occurred for each case. The EM&A programme was considered successfully and adequately
conducted during the course of the reporting period.
12.1
Comments on mitigation measures
12.1.1
According to the environmental site inspections
performed in the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:
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 debagging, batching and mixing operations.
l Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty
construction activity.
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.
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.
l All
types of wastes, both on land and floating in the sea, should be collected and
sorted properly and disposed of timely and properly. 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.
l Regular
review should be conducted for working barges and patrol boats to ensure
sufficient measures and spill control kits were provided on working barges and
patrol boats to avoid any spreading of leaked oil/chemicals.
l All
existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be properly
fenced off and regularly inspected.
12.7
Recommendations on EM&A
Programme
12.7.1. The impact monitoring programme
for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any
deterioration in environmental condition was readily detected and timely
actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of
monitoring results collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the
Project. With implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation
measures, the Project’s environmental impacts were considered as
environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured
that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively
implemented.
12.7.2. The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as
included in the EM&A programme, effectively
minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. Also, the
EM&A programme effectively monitored the
environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper
implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised
for the improvement of the programme.
12.8
Conclusions
12.8.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
12.8.2 For air quality monitoring, no Action/Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP results was recorded in
the reporting period. However, one (1) Action Level and Four (4) Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP results were recorded at
monitoring location AMS3A in the reporting period. Investigation results show
that both the Action and Limit Level exceedance of
24-hour TSP results were not project-related. Possible dust generating
activities of the Project did not cause any noticeable deterioration in air
quality at the
area. The average 24-hour TSP level recorded at AMS7 in
EM&A programme was lower than the daily dust
level predicted in the EIA.
12.8.3
There was (1) one limit level exceedance
recorded at NMS3A. Noise generating activities of the Project did not cause any
noticeable noise impact at the sensitive receivers. The impact noise levels
recorded were generally similar to the predicted construction noise levels in
the Project EIA.
12.8.4 Thirty (30) Action Level exceedances
and (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at
measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), three (3) Action Level exceedances was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU) and
one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at
measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) during the reporting period. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works. After review of investigation results of water quality exceedances (for detail of investigations please refer to
section 4 of monthly EM&A report (Mar 12 to Feb 13), ambient conditions were considered to have effects on
the water quality monitoring results. Exceedances were considered to be due to a combination of the
following potential
causes: 1. Non-Project related vessel activities such as
trawling of fishing vessels near the monitoring station 2. Rough sea condition
caused by adverse weather and relatively strong current experienced during the
monitoring period and 3. During the time when exceedances
of DO were recorded at monitoring stations, relatively low DO values were also
recorded at corresponding upstream Control Stations during ebb tide or flood
tides indicating these exceedances of DO were
unlikely to be contributed by Project works.. This
indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely to be
contributed by Project works. 4. Local effects in the vicinity of the
monitoring station where exceedance was recorded.
Furthermore, no correlation between the
filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances
recorded per monitoring day was found. With proper implementation of water
quality mitigation measures, marine construction activities of the Project did
not cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the receivers.
12.8.5 No triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact
dolphin monitoring was noted in the reporting period.
12.8.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out forty
eight times in the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were
given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site
audits.
12.8.7 Four (4) environmental complaints were received in the
reporting period.
12.8.8 No notification of summons and successful prosecution
was received in the reporting period.
12.8.9 As discussed in the above sections, the Project did
not cause unacceptable environmental impacts or disturbance to air quality,
noise, water quality in the vicinity near the reclamation works.
12.8.10 Apart from the above mentioned monitoring, most of
the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting
period, except inability of setting up and carrying out impact air quality
monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building)
were noted. Liaison with relevant parties for permission on access to the
premise for setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring works at
AMS6 was continued until 19 November 2012. Reference is made to ET’s proposal
of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012 and
EPD’s letter dated on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of
the proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station
AMS6 will be effective since 19 November 2012.
12.8.11 The recommended environmental mitigation measures
effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. The
EM&A programme effectively monitored the
environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper
implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised
for the improvement of the programme.
12.8.12 Moreover, regular review and checking on the
construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to
ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended
environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.