Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as
¡§the Contract¡¨) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL). It is a designated Project and is governed by the current permits for
the Contract, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 17 July
2015 (EP-353/2009/I) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (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 Contract¡¦s
reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Contract).
China Harbour Engineering Company
Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor
to undertake the construction work of the Contract.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD
as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental
Project Office (ENPO) for the Contract.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Contract for carrying out the
environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The construction
phase of the Contract 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
1
March 2013 and
28 February 2014. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the
reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Laying stone blanket
-
Band drain installation trial
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
-
Installation of silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
-
Cone penetration test;
-
Silt curtain deployment and repairing
-
Sand blanket trial
-
Stone blankets laying.
-
Construction of 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;
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4
-
Erection of site office for CHEC(GD) at Works Area WA2
-
Green roof construction at Works Area WA2
-
Construction of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access
at Works Area WA2
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring
1-hour
TSP monitoring
|
62 sessions
62 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
48 sessions
|
Impact
water quality monitoring
|
155 sessions
|
Impact
dolphin monitoring
|
24 surveys
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
51 sessions
|
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
A
total of 15 Action level and 5 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, the
investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not
related to Contract.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
One
complains was received and therefore one (1) Action Level Exceedance of
construction noise was recorded in the reporting period. Investigation into the
possible causes of such 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 Contract.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Fifty-six
(56) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit Level exceedances were
recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), one (1) Action
Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), six (6) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) and one (1) Limit
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M) (mg/L) during the reporting
period. Investigation result shows that all the exceedances were not due to the
Contract works except the Action Level Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit
Level Exceedance recorded at IS10
on 18 Dec 13 were related to Contract.
Triggering
of Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
One
(1) Limit level exceedance and Six (6) Action Level Exceedances were recorded
in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. The investigation
results showed that although no unacceptable changes in environmental
parameters of this Contract have been measured, at this time it is not possible
to make a conclusive assessment of this Contract¡¦s specific impact on dolphins.
Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For
investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly
reports.
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 Contract. 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
Eleven (11) environmental
complaints were received in the reporting period.
One (1) summons and one (1) successful
prosecution was received in the reporting period.
1
introduction
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as
¡§the Contract¡¨) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2
The
environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong ¡V
Zhuhai ¡V Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen
Mun ¡V Chek Lap Kok Link ¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009)
(TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals
(original EM&A Manuals), for the Contract 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),
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G), January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H) and July 2015
(EP-353/2009/I). 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), January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B), December 2014
(EP-354/2009/C) and March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D).
1.1.4
The Contract is a designated Project and is governed by the
current permits for the Contract, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 17 July 2015
(EP-353/2009/I) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall
Reclamation only).
1.1.5
A Contract Specific EM&A Manual, which included all
Contract-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the Contract,
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 Contract¡¦s
reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Contract).
1.1.7
China Harbour Engineering Company
Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor
to undertake the construction work of the Contract.
1.1.8
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD
as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office
(ENPO) for the Contract.
1.1.9
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Contract for carrying out the
EM&A works.
1.1.10
The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was
commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year
2016.
1.1.11
According to the Contract 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 Contract
commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope of Report
1.2.1 This is
the second Annual
EM&A Review
Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V 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 Contract from 12
March 2012 and 28 February 2013.
1.3.1 The
Contract 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
|
Richard Ng
|
3693 2253
|
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 Contract 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
1.4.3
The construction programme of the
Contract is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4
The general layout plan of the Contract site showing the
detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5
The environmental mitigation measures implementation
schedule are presented in Appendix C.
2.1.1
The Contract 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 Contract 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 Contract 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. Due to hand
over of work site where the AMS3A and NMS3A was located, it was proposed to EPD
on 27 December 2014 to relocate both monitoring station to alternative location
AMS3B and NMS3B and approval of such relocation was given by the EPD on 2
January 2014. The monitoring stations AMS3A and NMS3A were renamed to
monitoring station AMS3B and NMS3B respectively after relocation on 29 January
2014.
2.1.3
For impact noise monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2
(Seaview Crescent Tower 1) was set up at the proposed locations in accordance
with Contract Specific EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3
(Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Contract 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 Contract 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 Contract/ 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 Contract 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.
2.2.2
The environmental quality performance limits of air
quality, noise, water and Chinese White Dolphin monitoring are given in
Appendix D.
2.3
Environmental Mitigation
Measures
2.3.1
Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated
in the Particular Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/I and EP-354/2009/D) (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 Contract 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/B, 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.
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 Contract, 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 13 ¡V Feb 14
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
186
|
AMS3A/B
|
186
|
AMS7
|
186
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
62
|
AMS3A/B
|
62
|
AMS7
|
62
|
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 13 ¡V Feb 14
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3A/B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3A/B
|
Action
|
11
|
Limit
|
5
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
20
|
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/B, AMS7
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 15 Action level and 5 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 The
24-hour TSP monitoring results were well below the Action and Limit levels,
despite the exceedance caused by non Contract
activities at AMS3A/B2 and few isolated events at AMS7. The trend of
TSP at AMS2, AMS3A/B2 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 Contract did not
cause any noticeable deterioration in air quality at Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities ¡V 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
|
80
|
72
|
*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 Contract 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 Contract. 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 Contract caused unacceptable air
quality impacts on the sensitive receiver. As the scope of the Contract 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 Contract.
3.1.6.3
All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the
Contract. As discussed above, the Contract did not cause unacceptable air
quality impacts. However, as the nature of the Contract 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 Contract. 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 Contract 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/B 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/B[4]) for at
least once per week during 07:00 ¡V 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 Contract and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.1.4
The number of impact noise monitoring events and
exceedances are summarized in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 respectively.
Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
Mar 13 - Feb 14
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
48
|
NMS3A/B4
|
48
|
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/B4
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
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 no exceedance recorded at both NMS2 and NMS3A/B.
3.2.3.1.2
One complains was received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting period. Investigation into
the possible causes of such 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 Contract.
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) action level exceedance recorded due to one noise
complaint was received. 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 period 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 Contract during the impact monitoring period.
3.2.4.2 Correlation between
exceedances with possible noise generating activities
3.2.4.2.1
No Exceedance was recorded for all monitoring stations. The
impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted
construction noise levels in the Project EIA.
3.2.4.2.2
For the complaint received during the monitoring period,
investigation results confirmed that such exceedance was not related to the
major construction activities of the Contract. Field observations indicated
that construction activities, like sheet piling, percussive piling and
excavation, were carrying out in nearby private developments (which are located
at eastern and southern side of the Works Area WA2) during the course of
monitoring, which contribute to the measured noise level. Therefore, noise
generating activities of the Contract did not cause any noticeable noise impact
at the sensitive receivers.
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 Contract, one (1) noise
complaint was received in the impact monitoring period. The measured impact noise levels of the
Contract 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
|
62 - 68*
|
75
|
NMS3A/B4
|
Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
65
|
57 - 69*
|
70
|
* +3dB(A) Façade correction included
3.2.5.3
The average impact noise levels recorded in EM&A during
impact monitoring were all 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 Contract 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 Contract. 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 Contract caused adverse noise impacts on the sensitive
receivers. The monitoring methodology which focus on Leq30 minute
therefore considered to be cost effective for the Contract.
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 Contract. The list of noise mitigation measures
is depicted in Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were applicable
to the Contract. As discussed above, the Contract 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 Contract. Weekly site
inspections ensured that the EIA recommended noise mitigation measures were
effectively implemented. The EM&A program is considered to be cost
effective.
3.2.7.1
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 all 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 13 - Feb 14
|
Water
Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
155
|
Mid-Flood
|
155
|
Table
3.9 Summary of Water
Quality Exceedances in Mar 13-Feb 14
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
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
(7 Aug 13, 22 Nov 13; 10 Jan14)
|
0
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(11 Nov
13 and 16 Sept 13)
|
4
(8
May 13, 7 Aug 13; 11 & 20 Nov
13)
|
2
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
(8
May 13; 7 Aug 13; 20 Nov 13 and18 Oct
13)
|
0
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
(10
Apr and 8 May, 13; 6 Jan14)
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(20 Dec13)
|
0
|
1
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(8 May 13)
|
7
(8
May 13, 15 Nov13, 4 Oct
13 and
6 Sept 13; 18 Dec
13; 6 &15 Jan14
|
1
|
7
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 17 Jan14
|
0
|
1
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4 (26 July 13; 6 Nov13,
7 Oct
13 and
30 Sept 13)
|
1
|
5
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
25 Oct
13; 18 Dec13
|
0
|
2
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
5
(29 Mar 13, 23 Aug 13; 4 & 22 Nov
13 and 04 Oct
13)
|
3
(22 Apr 13; 16
Oct
13; 21 Feb14)
|
5
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(29
Apr 13)
|
2
(4 &15 Nov
13)
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
(7 Aug 13; 22 Nov13; 10 Jan14)
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
(10 Apr 13; 13 Nov13 and 18 Sept 13)
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1 (24 June 13)
|
|
1
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
7
(26 Apr 13; 26 and 31 July 13; 6 Nov13, 7 Oct
13 and
30 Sept 13; 18 Dec 13)
|
0
|
7
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(29 Mar 13; 25 Oct
13)
|
0
|
2
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(6 Nov13; 3 Jan14)
|
0
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(6 Dec13)
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(6 Nov13;
21 Oct
13)
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
1 (10 June 13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
10
|
46
|
63
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
6
|
8
|
Note: S: Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
3.3.1.4
Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2013 to
February 2014) 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.
3.3.3.1 Summary of Non-compliance
(Exceedances)
3.3.3.1.1 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 71 exceedances were
recorded during the entire construction period with 63 Action level exceedances
and 8 Limit level exceedances.
3.3.4 Review of Reasons for and
the implications of Non-Compliance
3.3.4.1 Fifty-six
(56) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit Level exceedances were
recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), one (1) Action
Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), six (6) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) and one (1) Limit
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M) (mg/L) during the reporting
period. Investigation result shows that all the exceedances were not due to the
Contract works except the Action Level Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit
Level Exceedance recorded at IS10
on 18 Dec 13 were related to Contract.
3.3.4.2 The
exceedances note at IS10 and SR5 on 18 Dec 13 were considered as Contract
related. The silt curtain integrity checking record on 4 January 14 shows that
the disconnected silt curtain observed on 18 Dec 13 at northwest of HKBCF were
rectified and the Contractor was further reminded to ensure provision of
ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once
defects were found. For details of investigation please refer to monthly
EM&A Report December 2014.
3.3.5
Environmental
Acceptability of the Contract
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 G did not show
any noticeable deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels.
Turbidity
3.3.5.1.2
The turbidity levels were fairly distributed at most
monitoring station during the reporting period. While trend of turbidity levels
at impact station IS17, IS(Mf)16, IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)6 were more fluctuated and
a higher turbidity level were recorded from March 13 to May 13 and from October
13 to December 13. The trend of turbidity levels of each monitoring station was
shown in Appendix G. However, despite one isolated event, turbidity levels of
all monitoring stations were still lower than the Action Level during the
monitoring period.
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.
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 Contract 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-13
|
52568
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Apr-13
|
119967
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
May-13
|
448159
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
5
|
Jun-13
|
245188.5
|
7
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
Jul-13
|
252327.4
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
Aug-13
|
287182.6
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
Sep-13
|
368995
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
5
|
Oct-13
|
602966
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
8
|
Nov-13
|
593481
|
0
|
0
|
15
|
15
|
Dec-13
|
930460
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
5
|
Jan-14
|
952135
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
7
|
Feb-14
|
886830
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
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 suspended solids, the numbers of suspended solids
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, marine construction activities of the Contract 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:
¡P
WSR 27 - San Tau Beach SSSI with SR3
¡P
WSR 22c- Tai Ho Wan Inlet (outside) with SR4(N)
¡P
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 with average ranges between 5.7 ¡V 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 7.8 mg/L in January 2014 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 (January 2014)
|
Depletion during Impact
Monitoring
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
SR3*
|
Surface & mid
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
8.3
|
8.2
|
-1.5
|
-1.5
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
8.1
|
8.2
|
-2
|
-1.9
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
8.1
|
8.2
|
-2.1
|
-2
|
SR5
|
SR5**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
-1.4
|
-1.5
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
7.8
|
7.7
|
-1.7
|
-1.6
|
SR6
|
SR6**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
-1.2
|
-1.3
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
-1.6
|
-1.7
|
SR7
|
SR7**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
7.8
|
7.9
|
-1.5
|
-1.9
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
7.8
|
7.9
|
-1.7
|
-2
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
Surface & mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
-1.7
|
-1.7
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
-2
|
-1.9
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
7.7
|
7.8
|
-1.6
|
-1.8
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
7.7
|
7.8
|
-1.5
|
-2
|
^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 Contract as the depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations did not
breach the Water Quality Objectives nor did they exceed the AL levels adopted
for the Contract.
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 Contract 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 October 2011 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 Contract 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 January 2014 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 January 2014
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact
Monitoring
|
Impact SS Mean
(in January 2014)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3
|
9.1
|
-4.9
|
11.3
|
-5.0
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
7.2
|
-4.1
|
8.8
|
-3.4
|
SR5
|
SR5
|
7.7
|
-2.9
|
11.6
|
-0.3
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
7.4
|
-4.5
|
11.4
|
-0.5
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
8.8
|
-2.6
|
9.5
|
-0.9
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
5.1
|
-5.1
|
8.0
|
-2.2
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*
|
5.2
|
-6.3
|
7.7
|
-3.4
|
*Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location of SR4 &
SR10b have been changed to SR4(N) &
SR10B(N) respectively during impact monitoring.
3.3.8
Practicality
and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme
3.3.8.1
Monitoring and audit of water quality was recommended for
the construction phase of the Contract 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.
3.3.8.2
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 Contract would cause
unacceptable water quality impacts on the sensitive receivers. Post-Contract
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.
3.3.8.3
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 Contract. The list of water quality mitigation measures is depicted in
Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the
Contract. 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 Contract 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.
3.3.8.4
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-Contract monitoring periods also demonstrated the environmental
acceptability of the Contract. Weekly site inspections ensured that the EIA
recommended water quality mitigation measures were effectively implemented.
3.3.9.1
Water quality monitoring for the Contract 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. Rough sea condition
caused by adverse weather and relatively strong current experienced during the
monitoring period and 2. 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 Contract
works. This indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely to be contributed
by Contract works. 3. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded.
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 water quality mitigation measures implemented during the
EM&A programme, marine construction activities of
the Contract 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 The total transect length for NEL
and NWL combined is approximately 111km although some Contract and other
works at times have caused temporary truncation of some lines, particularly
lines 1,2,9 and 10.
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 Contract 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
Summary
of Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance
3.4.3.1 Action Level and Limit Level
(AL/LL) values were implemented during this reporting period. This Contract reports on AL/LL relevant
to NEL and NWL monitoring areas (see Appendix D; Table 5).
3.4.3.2 One (1) Limit level exceedance
and Six (6) Action Level Exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for
impact dolphin monitoring. The investigation results showed that although no
unacceptable changes in environmental parameters of this Contract have been
measured, at this time it is not possible to make a conclusive assessment of
this Contract¡¦s specific impact on dolphins. Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For investigation results please refer to
Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.
Table 3.16 Summary of Dolphin Monitoring Limit level and Action level
Exceedances
Quarterly period
|
|
STG*
|
ANI**
|
Level Exceeded
|
March 2013- May 2013
|
NEL
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
3.0
|
8.6
|
June 2013- August 2013
|
NEL
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
Action
|
NWL
|
5.7
|
16.6
|
Action
|
September 2013- November
2013
|
NEL
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Action
|
NWL
|
6.7
|
24.7
|
Action
|
December 2013- February
2014
|
NEL
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
Action
|
NWL
|
4.5
|
20.7
|
Action
|
* STG represents groups of
dolphins (recorded on effort)
** ANI represents number of
individual dolphins (recorded on effort)
3.4.4
Summary
of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings
3.4.4.1 Vessel-based surveys have been
conducted monthly from March 2013 to February 2014, i.e., during the second
year of the construction phase. A total of 50 survey days were completed
between March 2013-February 2014 (Table 1 of Appendix H). A total of 2667.1km
were completed whereas 2595.4km were conducted under favourable
conditions (defined as Beaufort Sea State 3 or better and with visibility of
>1km) between March 2013-February 2014 (Table 2 of Appendix H). Between March
2013-February 2014, a total of 135 dolphin sightings were recorded, 91 as on
effort and 44 as opportunistic[6] (Figure 1 of Appendix H). In the
first year of impact monitoring (2012-13), 49 survey days were completed, with
a total of 2627.5km completed with 2601.4km were
conducted under favourable conditions. In both years,
>97% of the total track length covered was under favourable
conditions. In the first year of
impact monitoring, a total of 203 dolphin sightings were recorded, 145 as
on effort and 58 as opportunistic. The total number of sightings has decreased
between the first and second year and year two of impact monitoring.
3.4.5
Distribution
3.4.5.1
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 ¡V May 2013,
high use in June ¡V November 2013 and, again, lower use in December 2013-
February 2014. NEL is used during the summer and autumn periods when the number
of sightings in Hong Kong waters is highest (Figure 2 of Appendix H). This is a
similar pattern to the first year of impact monitoring, although the overall
number of sightings within NEL during the second year of monitoring is less.
3.4.6
Encounter
Rate
3.4.6.1
Encounter rates of ¡§on effort¡¨ sightings (i.e., groups) per area per
quarter for this reporting period. For NEL, so few sightings
occurred that trends are difficult to discern; the highest number of dolphins
were encountered in Summer months (June ¡V August) with an encounter rate of
< 1 (encounters per 100km surveyed) for the rest of the year. NWL encounter
rates show a distinct patterns of increasing rate from spring to summer with
the lowest rate recorded in winter. This pattern is also apparent in the long
term monitoring data collated by AFCD. Observation of encounter rates for both
areas combined indicates that winter and spring encounter rates are reduced
when compared to summer and autumn. This trend is apparent in the first year of
impact monitoring too. In both years one and two of impact monitoring, no on
effort encounters were noted in the quarter March ¡V May in NEL. NEL encounter
rates for other quarters are lower in year two, ranging from 2 to 6 dolphins
(Year 1) to <1 to 2 dolphins (Year 2) per 100km effort. Within NWL,
quarterly encounter rates range from 3 to 6 dolphins (Year 1) and 5 to 9
dolphins (Year 2) per 100km on effort.
3.4.7
Group
Size
3.4.7.1 The majority of all sightings
recorded were of less than five individual dolphins (75%). Mother and calves
were often associated with larger groups (5 or more individual dolphins) and it
has been hypothesised that these large groups provide
protection and support to calves and mothers. In Hong Kong waters in the past,
larger groups have been associated with active fishing trawlers, although
trawling was discontinued in Hong Kong prior to the period that this report
covers. There is no particular behavioural activity
associated with larger group size and the distribution of larger groups is not
focused in any particular area (Figure 4 of Appendix H). In the first year of
impact monitoring, larger group sizes were associated with fishing vessels. As
trawlers are now prohibited in Hong Kong waters, there were fewer larger groups
recorded between years, may be due to the absence of these trawlers.
3.4.8
Habitat
use
3.4.8.1
The EM&A Manuel stipulated that surveys be conducted in
such a way as to be comparable to the baseline survey for this Contract
(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[8]). 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). For
the period March 2013-February 2014, DPSE was calculated in six categories,
ranging from low use to high use.
NEL and NWL have 0% and 10% of each respective area classified as high
use (> 60 DPSE); 0% (NEL) and 14% (NWL) as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and
100% (NEL) and 76% (NWL) as low use (< 20 DPSE). (Figure 5 of Appendix
H).
3.4.8.2
For the period March 2013-February 2014, SPSE was
calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL
have 0% and 8% of each respective area classified as high use (> 15 SPSE);
9% (NEL) and 20% (NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 91% (NEL) and 72% (NWL)
as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Figure 6 of Appendix H).
3.4.8.3
For the period February 2011 ¡V 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); 20% (NEL) and 16% (NWL)
as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 76% (NEL) and 68% (NWL) as low use (< 20
DPSE) (Figure 7 of Appendix H). These figures were compared to impact
monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014 (Table 3 of Appendix H). For DPSE in NWL, there was an increase
in low use grid cells, a decrease in moderate use cells and a decrease in high
use cells. Noting the geographical
location of the cells between advanced and impact monitoring, (Figures 8 of
Appendix H) there are less high use cells in the centre
of the NWL area indicating that habitat utilisation
of this area has decreased. In NEL,
no more high use areas are noted, only low use. The previously most frequented
areas adjacent to the Brothers islands are still frequented by dolphins,
however, the area along the coast of northern Lantau which was previously
frequented by dolphins, has no sightings.
This indicates that fewer dolphins occur in NEL and the area they use
has reduced. Looking at the pattern
observed in year one of impact monitoring, a higher density of dolphins
occurred close to HKBCF compared to advanced monitoring, however, by year two,
the number and area in which the dolphins occur has reduced.
3.4.8.4
For the period February 2011 ¡V 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 60% (NEL) and 51%
(NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Figure 7 of Appendix H). These figures were compared to impact
monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014 (Table 3 of Appendix H). For SPSE in NWL, there has been an
increase in low use grid cells and a reduction in both moderate and high use
area. This correlates with that
observed for DPSE, unsurprisingly as they are derived from interrelated data
(see Figures 3 and 4 of Appendix H).
For SPSE in NEL, this is also true, with an observed increase in low use
areas and a concomitant decrease in high and moderate use cells, when compared
to impact monitoring.
3.4.8.5
For March 2012 ¡V February 2013, construction activities at
HKBCF steadily increased and both DSPE and SPSE, showed a consistent high use
of those areas directly adjacent to HKBCF.
In March 2013 ¡V February 2014, HKBCF peaked in activity and several
other Contracts were initiated in the NEL area. Data from the year end of the reporting
year indicate that the NEL habitat is being used less than the previous year.
3.4.9
Mother
and Calf Pairs
3.4.9.1
Sightings of mothers and calves were made throughout the
year mainly in the north of NWL and once, in NEL adjacent to the HKBCF
site. (Figure 8 of Appendix
H). Although it is often difficult
to identify calves, using high resolution images and the identity of mothers,
it is sometimes possible to track poorly marked individual calves, while they
still stay in close proximity to their mother. Calves were sighted on 25 occasions and
comprise a minimum of six individuals using the identity of the mothers to assign
identity to the calves. Six known
females, HZMB 026, HZMB 044, HZMB 050. HZMB 073, HZMB 098 and HZMB 116 were all
photographed with calves. The calf
of HZMB 026 was first photographed in January 2013 (outside this reporting
year) and again in June 2013. HZMB
026 has not been sighted within this reporting year again. HZMB 044 is a well-known individual and
is recorded in AFCD records as NL98.
She was first sighted with a calf in September 2012 (outside this
reporting year) which was still with her in April 2013. She was sighted again February 2014, and
although no calf was closely associated with her, there were two large calves/juvenilles in the group either of which are the correct age
class to be a calf born in 2012.
HZMB 050 was sighted with a large calf in February 2013 (outside this
reporting year) and again in January 2014. Sightings of this individual with a
calf have been seen throughout the reporting year. HZMB 073 was first sighted with a calf
in October 2012 (outside this reporting year) and again in April 2013. HZNB 073 was also sighted in May 2013,
however, there was no calf associated with her during this encounter. Given the
behavior of calves to stay closely associated with their mothers for a year
plus, it is likely that the calf of HZMB 073 is deceased. No further sightings
of HZMB 073 have been recorded since May 2013. HZMB 098 is a well
known individual which also features in the AFCD photo identification
catalogue (NL104). She was sighted
with a calf in May 2013 and most recently in August 2014 (outside the reporting
year) still with her calf. HZMB 116 was identified initially in December 2013
when she had a calf. She was subsequently sighted in August 2014 (outside the
reporting year) with also with the calf (Figure 9 of Appendix H). In the first
year of monitoring, a minimum of 14 individual calves were recorded.
3.4.10
Activities
and Associations with Fishing Boats
3.4.10.1
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 behaviour was observed at one time), ¡§other¡¨ and
¡§unknown¡¨. During the spring (March
¡V May 2013) and winter (December 2013 ¡V February 2014), dolphins were most
often engaged in travelling activities (Figure 10 of Appendix H). An increase
in travelling activities is noted in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 when compared to Dec
2012-Feb 2013. During the summer
and autumn months (June ¡V November 2013) foraging activities (both feeding and
associated with fishing vessels) was the predominant activity (Figure 11 of
Appendix H). This was also the case in June to November 2012 (Figure 12 of
Appendix H). Although a ban is in
place on commercial trawling, a style of purse seine fishing has become more
common in Hong Kong waters and dolphins are often associated with this type of
fishing when it occurs in the habitat (Figure 13 of Appendix H).
3.4.10.2
During surveys conducted in 2011-12, specific behavioural information was only recorded for approximately
20% of all sightings made. In
2012-13, the area of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL is
highlighted as an important feeding area as it is again in 2013-14. The area to the south of NWL is also
important for feeding/surface active behaviours
(Figure 14 of Appendix H) which highlights the continued importance of this
area for multiple activities for all age classes of dolphins, including mother
and calf groups.
3.4.11
Photo
Identification Catalogue
3.4.11.1 A total of 107 dolphins comprise
the photo identification catalogue established specifically for the HZMB
Project (Table 4 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 (HZMB 002, HZMB 041; HZMB 044 and HZMB 054)
were seen on eleven, nine, nine and fourteen separate days, respectively. Of the 107 dolphins identified during
impact monitoring, 53 individuals (just under half) were seen only once between
March 2012 and February 2014 (Table 4 of Appendix H).The photo-identification
catalogue numbered 94 individuals in year one of impact monitoring. As many of
the dolphins that use the waters of NEL and NWL are noted as residents (by
other studies, e.g., AFCD annual monitoring) they might therefore, be more
likely to be added to the catalogue during the initial effort of the study and
thereafter, a lower number of newly identified individuals would be added to
the catalogue yearly. This has also been the case in studies elsewhere of
resident delphinid populations. In addition, fewer
numbers of dolphins were seen in year one compared to year two of the impact
study.
3.4.12
Dolphin
Abundance
3.4.3.1
3.4.13
Environmental
Acceptability of the Contract
3.4.13.1
It was recognized in the EIA that the HZMB is adjacent to upon several
areas of importance to the dolphin population of Hong Kong. As such, it was
stipulated in the EM&A Manuel for the HKBCF that a suitable analytical
technique be proposed and implemented so that significant changes could be
detected. A multi-parameter spatial (sometimes known as predictive) model was
proposed and reviewed by management authorities and analyses developed as and
when data has been made available. The purpose of the model was to make
predictions of future habitat use, derived from baseline information, and
compare these predictions to actual observations. Environmental covariates,
such as salinity, temperature, depth, etc., which may also be drivers of
dolphin habitat use, are also tested within spatial models so as to either
eliminate or incorporate any influence these may have. The model thus
incorporated environmental variables salinity, temperature, turbidity, depth,
tidal state, time of day, as well as information associated with the sighting,
e.g., groups size, behavior, boat association. Following the
October 2015 CWD
trend meeting, ENPO suggested that the
brief information
regarding density surface modelling presented in
Quarterly EM&A Reports and
Annual EM&A Review
Reports be provided as a separate report with details for review before
incorporating it into the EM&A reports. This ET agreed all such data and
results be provided separately for review before incorporating into this and
subsequent reports. It is anticipated that the detailed density surface
modelling report will be ready for review in early 2016. Following the
October 2015 CWD
trend meeting, ENPO suggested that the
brief information
regarding density surface modelling presented in
Quarterly EM&A Reports and
Annual EM&A Review
Reports be provided as a separate report with details for review before
incorporating it into the EM&A reports. This ET agreed all such data and
results be provided separately for review before incorporating into this and
subsequent reports. It is anticipated that the detailed density surface
modelling report will be ready for review in early 2016.
3.4.14
Summary
3.4.14.1 The variable nature of habitat use, group size, behavior, mother and
calf occurrence and encounter rates by small delphinids
and the ability to detect significant change in small populations is a
challenge faced by many research studies.
Historical data from AFCD also shows such variability (in AFCD annual
monitoring reports). A view of
individual distribution and behavioural activities
for the reporting year do show that areas of importance, such as Lung Kwu Chau, are still being frequented, behavioural
activities appear similar to that known from pre
construction information and that several calves have survived
throughout the reporting year and beyond.
There is an emerging trend for NEL where it seems that fewer sightings
are being made and it is likely that data from the third year of activities
will confirm this. This is to be
expected given that marine construction has been increasing in NEL both with
Contract related activities and other marine civil works.
3.4.14.2 The modelling approach shows that there has been a significant change
in habitat use from baseline to construction phase and areas of previous high
density, although still frequented, are still being used by dolphins for many
activities. The more spatially explicit model derived from point transect data
shows that during the first year of construction, dolphins were shifted,
understandably, from the cordoned off HKBCF site itself and, instead, occurred
in higher density around the northeast section of the HKBCF site. The modeling
approach can be used to test changes in distribution as the works progress
whereas the line transect data provides information from the NEL and NWL
habitat and the point transect data provides finer scale information on habitat
shifts immediately adjacent to the HKBCF site and the Brothers Islands.
3.4.15
Verification
of Impact Statements Stated in EIA and Supporting Documentation
3.4.15.1 The Statements made in the EIA
and supporting documents are descriptive and do not provide a quantitative
framework against which to compare data gathered 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 this the reporting year of construction activities at HKBCF.
3.4.15.2 The EIA report for HZMB[9] makes several statements with
regards to impact on cetaceans during the construction phase in sections
pertaining to water quality and bioaccumulation:
3.4.15.3 Construction Phase: In section 10.6.4.25 of the EIA report,
it is stated that, ¡§Contract 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¡¨
3.4.15.4 This Contract 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 Contract works.
3.4.15.5 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 ¡V as per 10.6.4.32)¡¨
3.4.15.6 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[10]). 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.
3.4.15.7 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)¡¨
3.4.15.8 At HKBCF, moderate impact is
anticipated but the degree or type of impact is not quantified in any
numerical, spatial or temporal scale.
In the second year of construction activities at HKBCF there is an
emerging pattern of decreased habitat use as indicated by encounter rate and
number and type of ¡§high¡¨ density cells in NEL. It is anticipated that this
trend will become more apparent in 2014-2015 reporting year. Anecdotal information from press reports
indicate that a higher than usual mortality has been reported in recent
months. Appropriate review of these
data should be made by the responsible authority to investigate any possible
relationship with both anthropogenic activities and natural processes in the
dolphins habitat. 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 Contract is completed. This predication cannot be assessed
until the HZMB operational phase starts and the Marine Park Area is
established.
3.4.15.9 The Ecological Baseline Survey[11] 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) ¡V from the eastern edge of
the airport platform to its connection to the North Lantau Highway¡¨.
3.4.15.10 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¡¨.
3.4.15.11 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.
3.4.15.12 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. At this time, a
cumulative impact assessment has not yet been conducted
3.4.16
Practicality
and Effectiveness of the EM&A Programme
3.4.16.1 Monitoring and auditing of marine
mammals was recommended for the construction phase of HKBCF to evaluate impact
on marine mammals.
3.4.16.2 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.
3.4.16.3 The AFCD annual monitoring
reports for the period 2011-2012, 2012-13 and 2013-14 have all 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.
3.4.17
Conclusion
3.4.17.1 Between March 2013 and February 2014,
dolphins have not been deterred from the area immediately adjacent to HKBCF
although both habitat use and the number of sightings have decreased.
3.4.17.2 Marine mammal monitoring was
conducted between March 2013 and February 2014 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 most observations to date have concurred with observations
documented previously with the now emerging trend of decreased habitat use
within NEL. As AFCD reports have
reported a significant decline in this area prior to HKBCF construction activities,
it is difficult to distinguish how much HKBCF activities may have influenced
this existing decline.
4
Environmental
Site Inspection and Audit
4.1.1
Site
Inspection
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 Contract. In the reporting period, 52 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:
Air Quality
4.1.1.3 Stockpile
of sand was observed entire surface wet at WA2 and at works area at Portion A.
The Contractor was reminded that stockpile of aggregate or dusty materials shall
be sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire surface wet; or covered
entirely by impervious sheeting or placed in sheltered areas to mitigate
potential fugitive dust emission. (Reminder)
4.1.1.4 Side
curtain attached to the tipping point of a conveyor belt on a filling barge was
provided to filling barge but was observed not fully enclosed. The Contractor
was reminded to provide a fully enclosed side curtain for filling activities.
(Reminder)
4.1.1.5 Dark
smoke was observed emitted on barges when sand material was being transferred
to another barge. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the situation such as
to maintain their equipment in good condition to prevent emission of dark
smoke. The Contractor maintained their equipment in good condition to prevent
emission of dark smoke. (Closed)
4.1.1.6 Bags of
cement was observed not entirely covered by impervious sheeting, the Contractor
was reminded to keep the bags of cement covered entirely by impervious
sheeting. The Contractor rectified the situation and kept the bags of cement
covered entirely by impervious sheeting. (Closed)
Noise
4.1.1.7 An idle
air compressor was found without a valid noise emission label on FTB19 and
barge Sun Moon Kee. The Contractor was reminded to
stick a valid noise emission label onto the compressor prior to operation of
the compressor. (Reminder)
4.1.1.8 Plants
mounted on construction vessels were observed acoustically-decoupled, but a
generator was still observed not totally acoustically-decoupled on barge Shang
Ho Bo 601 and on barge Fai Yu 3228. The Contractor was advised to continue to
provision of enhancement works i.e. to provide sufficient acoustic decoupling
measure(s) such as acoustic mat to noisy equipment. The Contractor was reminded
that insufficient/inadequate mitigation measures must be swiftly rectified. The
Contractor provided sufficient acoustic decoupling measures to generator on Fai
Yu 3228. (Reminder)
4.1.1.9 Noise
Emission Label (NEL) of an air compressor was observed missing. The Contractor
was reminded to properly display the NEL on all compressors. The Contractor
properly display the NEL the Compressors observed on Kiu
Chi. (Closed)
Water Quality
4.1.1.10 Disconnected
silt curtain was observed at the western side of the silt curtain. The Contractor
was advised to provide sufficient mitigation measures and swiftly carry out
maintenance once defects of the perimeter silt curtain are found during the
daily checking and/or monthly diver inspection. (Closed)
4.1.1.11 Defects
were observed at portion B (southwest part of the perimeter silt curtain), E2
(northeast part of the perimeter silt curtain) and around portion C2a
(northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain) and at portions E1, C2a and C2c.
The Contractor rectified the defects of the silt curtain at portion B
(southwest part of the perimeter silt curtain), E2 (northeast part of the
perimeter silt curtain) and around portion C2a (northwest part of the perimeter
silt curtain) so the silt can be effectively prevented from dispersing from the
inside to the outside of the site boundary. Contractor rectified the defects of
the localized silt curtain. (Closed)
4.1.1.12 Defect
was observed within the side of the enclosing silt curtain on barge AP4 and
when stone column was installed. The contractor was rectified the defected silt
curtain in order to prevent silt plumes from dispersing out from the vicinity
of active stone column works. The contractor rectified the defected silt
curtain in order to prevent silt plumes from dispersing out from the vicinity
of active stone column works.
4.1.1.13 A fuel
tank which is not in use was observed without drip tray or bunding.
The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray or
bunding to fuel tank before use. (Reminder)
4.1.1.14 Oil
drums, chemical containers and generator were observed without the provision of
drip trays at Portion, on barge¤ÑÂ@3, on barge SHB205,
on temporary rock bund and on Portion A. Generator was observed without bunding or drip tray on Sanhang
Floating Crane 7, on barge Evershine No.1, barge 401
and FTB17. Machine and generator
were observed without drip tray/tarpaulin sheet underneath at rock bund and
works area at Portion A and on steel cell. The Contractor provided drip trays
to oil drums, chemical container and generator to retain leakage, if any.
(Closed)
4.1.1.15 Containers
of chemical to be used and chemical waste were placed together in Hong Fai. The
Contractor should store the chemical and chemical waste separately.
Subsequently, the Contractor stored the chemical and chemical waste separately.
(Closed)
4.1.1.16 Movable
lighting machineries were observed to be placed on bare ground of Portion D, on
SHB205 and at works area at Portion A without the provision of drip trays. It
was observed that drip trays were provided to movable lighting machineries at
temporary rock bund and at works area at portion A and on SHB205. The
Contractor was advised to continue to provide drip tray or equivalent measures
to retain potential oil leakage to movable lighting machineries. (Closed)
4.1.1.17 Trays of
oil drums were found to be placed near to the shore. The Contractor should
secure the oil drums with drip tray away from the shore to ensure no washing
off of oil occurs. (Closed)
4.1.1.18 One of
the existing bunding was found too low on Shang Ho Bo
601, barge FTB 17 and FTB19. The Contractor was reminded to enhance the height
of the existing bunding to effectively contain
potential oil leakage. The Contractor enhanced the height of the existing bunding to effectively contain potential oil leakage.
(Closed)
4.1.1.19 The
screw at the outlet of a drip tray on barge AP4, FTB20, SHB 208 barge Evershine
No.1, FTB17, SHB402, on barge
SHB401, on Barge Fai Yu 3228, on barge AP4, on barge Evershine
668, on barge Yat Fai, at works area of portion A and
on temporary rock bund was observed missing. The Contractor provided effective
mitigation measures to effectively seal the outlet of the drip tray to prevent
potential oil seepage in April 2013. The Contractor was advised to provide
effective mitigation measures to effectively seal the outlet of the all drip
tray to prevent potential oil seepage. (Closed)
4.1.1.20 The silt
curtain enclosing the stone column installation works was observed removed and
as informed by the Contractor, this is due to maintenance of the stone column
installation facility. The Contractor was reminded to install a layer of silt
curtain near the active stone column installation points. (Reminder)
4.1.1.21 Litter
and silty plumes were observed when filling material was being used for filling
cellular structure number C057. The Contractor stopped the activity to prevent
litter and silty plumes from dispersing. The Contractor was advised to provide
mitigation measures such as silt curtain to enclose active filling activities
at cellular structures to prevent litter and silty plumes from dispersing.
(Reminder)
4.1.1.22 It was
observed that the frame of bunding on barge SHB 401
and on barge Fai Yu 3228 were deformed. The Contractor was reminded to fix the
deformed part of frame so that the bunding may have
appropriate height to confine potential oil leakage. (Reminder)
4.1.1.23 Oil stain
was observed on barge FTB19 and SHB205, on barge Fai Yu 3228, Evershine
No.1, barge Yat Fat, barge Kiu
Chiu and on temporary rock bund. The Contractor was reminded to provide
mitigation measures such adsorbents to clean the oil stain. The Contractor
immediately provided mitigation measures such as adsorbents to clean the oil
stain and treated the used absorbents as chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.24 Oil
stain was discovered over the sea on 25 July 2013 at 11:20 near the cell K038
at Portion B. The Contractor was advised to follow the actions stated on the
Spill Response Plan and clear the oil waste on sea. The Contractor rectified
the situation and clear the oil waste on sea using absorption boom according to
the Spill Response Plan. The used absorption boom was disposed of as chemical
waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.25 Turbid
water was observed at the southwestern silt curtain entrance area. Refer to the
photo taken and site observations, sources of impact likely due to the turbine
activities and/or movement of vessel at shallow water (at near the entrance at
southwestern of the Construction site and/or when vessel¡¦s propeller was turn
on at shallow water). The dispersion of turbid water from the inside of the
perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain is potentially
due to defects of perimeter silt curtain at certain sections and/or
insufficient overlapping at entrance/exit of the perimeter silt curtain. The
Contractor was advised to regularly evaluate the integrity of the perimeter
silt curtain by reviewing the results obtained from daily checking or/and
monthly diver inspections specified by the Silt Curtain Deployment Plan. The
Contractor was advised to provide sufficient mitigation measures and swiftly
carry out maintenance once defects of the perimeter silt curtain are found
during the above mentioned daily checking and/or monthly diver inspection. The
Contractor was provided mitigation measures and carried out maintenance above
mentioned defects of the perimeter silt curtain are found. (Closed)
4.1.1.26 The Contractor
was advised to regularly evaluate the integrity of the perimeter silt curtain
by reviewing the results obtained from daily checking or/and monthly diver
inspections specified by the Silt Curtain Deployment Plan. The Contractor was
advised to provide sufficient mitigation measures and swiftly carry out
maintenance once defects of the perimeter silt curtain are found during the
above mentioned daily checking and/or monthly diver inspection. (Closed)
4.1.1.27 During
site inspection audit, sandfilling seem to be
conducted at one end of the temporary rock bund. The Contractor was reminded to
conduct sandfilling behind at least 200m leading
temporary rock bund/seawall. (Reminder)
Chemical and Waste Management
4.1.1.28 Oil
drums were found improperly stored on barge Chi Full, Kiu
Chi (AP1), FTB20, FTB17, SHB 209, Fai Yui 3228,
FTB19, SHB 205, Sun Moon Kee, on barge SHB401, on
rock bund, works area at Portion A, on an area outside Contractor¡¦s site
office. The Contractor immediately provided mitigation measures and put the oil
drum inside bunding or remove the oil drum. The
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray or bunding to all oil drums. (Reminder)
4.1.1.29 Vibratory
clamps were found improperly stored on barge SHB305. The Contractor should
provide proper measures, like drip trays and tarpaulin sheet coverage, to
retain any leaked oil from the plants.
Vibratory clamps found improperly stored on barge SHB305 were removed in
the reporting month. (Closed)
4.1.1.30 Oil
drums were found without proper labels on barge FTB 18, FTB 19, FTB17, SHB 209
and Evershine No.1. The Contractor provided
mitigation measures and labeled the oil drums. The Contractor was reminded to
provide mitigation measures such as labeling to all oil drums. The Contractor
provided mitigation measures such as labeling to all oil drums. (Closed)
4.1.1.31 General
waste was observed uncovered on barge Fai Yui 3228
and SHB305. The Contractor rectified the condition upon notification by
providing bin bags to waste and relocated them to a waste collection point. The
Contractor was reminded to keep the barge surface clean and tidy. (Reminder)
4.1.1.32 Oil
stains were observed on the barge surface of barge SHB 208 and FTB 20. The
Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stain using absorbent material and
dispose of as chemical waste. The Contractor was cleared the oil stain using
absorbent material and dispose of as chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.33 Oil was
observed within the mechanical parts of a machine on FTB18. The Contractor was
reminded to prevent oil being transferred from inside the drip tray to the
barge surface. (Reminder)
4.1.1.34 General
waste was observed improperly covered. The Contractor immediately provided
mitigation measures such as to remove the general waste via a waste collector.
The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such bin bag(s) or
container to properly cover all general waste. (Reminder)
4.1.1.35 Waste
water was observed accumulated inside bunding on
FTB21. The Contractor was reminded to clear the waste oil with water and
disposed of as chemical waste. The Contractor cleared the waste oil with water
and disposed of as chemical waste.
(Closed)
4.1.1.36 A
battery and chemical container was observed placed on barge FTB20 without drip
tray. The Contractor was relocated that battery and chemical container inside
the drip tray immediately. (Closed)
4.1.1.37 Bags of
waste were observed accumulated on barge Four Sea 8, barge Hing Fai, barge AP4
and various locations on a works area at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded
to clear the waste regularly to prevent accumulation. (Reminder)
4.1.1.38 Litter
and general refuse was observed accumulated on sea. The Contractor was reminded
to avoid/clear any foam, oil, grease, chemicals, litter, food or other
objectionable matter due to the Contract works presented in the water within
and adjacent to the works site. The Contractor avoided any foam, oil, grease,
chemicals, litter, food or other objectionable matter due to the Contract works
presented in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The Contractor
was reminded to collect and clear the waste on sea regularly. (Closed)
4.1.1.39 General
refuse were found on various location of the works area at Portion A. The
Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuse regularly. The Contractor
was reminded to maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition i.e. to
properly store the general refuse at designated waste storage area(s). The
Contractor cleared the general maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition.
(Closed)
4.1.1.40 Rubbish
bin was observed without being covered; the Contractor was reminded to properly
store general waste and covers all rubbish bins. The Contractor properly store
general waste and covers all rubbish bins. (Closed).
4.1.1.41 Construction
waste such as band drain was observed along the northern edge of works area at
Portion A and on edge of temporary rock bund. The Contractor was advice to
properly store and dispose construction waste such as band drain. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
4.1.1.42 No
adverse observation was identified in the reporting period.
Others
4.1.1.43 The
Contractor was reminded to properly display relevant Environmental Permit at an
appropriate location i.e. near entrance on barge Kam Shun 368, so that it may
be easily noticed. (Reminder)
4.1.1.44 Water
was observed accumulate inside car tyre on barge Yat Fat. The Contractor was reminded to keep the site clean
and tidy and clear the water accumulated inside car to prevent mosquito
breeding. The Contractor rectified the situation by clearing the car tyre on barge Yat Fat. (Closed)
4.1.1.45 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
Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse
collection and sorting.
5.1.2
As advised by the Contractor, 7,540,721.9 m3
of imported fill were imported for the Contract use in the reporting period.
24.3kg of metals, 956kg of paper/cardboard packaging, 550.1kg of plastics,
14,000kg of chemical waste and 312m3 of others, e.g. 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
As informed
by the Contractor on 9 May 13, one summons was received on 29 April 13
regarding the suspected violation case of Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at
Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct 2012. The details of the non-compliance, investigation
actions taken including follow-up site inspection conducted out by the ET and
rectification actions and preventive actions provided by the Contractor was
summarized at section 7 of the Quarterly EM&A summary report for September
2012 ¡V November 2012. As informed
by the Contractor in August 13, the Contractor was subsequently prosecuted on
21 May 2013 for breaching Cap.400 Noise Control Ordinance.
6.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule
of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C.
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.
.
6.1.3 Training of marine travel route for
marine vessels operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were
kept properly.
6.1.4 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.
6.1.5 Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy
plants on construction vessels were checked regularly and these measures were
well implemented.
6.1.6 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.
6.1.7 The Contractor was reminded to strictly
comply with the condition of the CNP.
7
Summary of
Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7.1.1.
A total of 15 Action level and 5 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.
7.1.2.
One complains was received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting period. Investigation into
the possible causes of such 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 Contract.
7.1.3.
The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing
existing noise mitigation measures.
7.1.4.
Fifty-six (56) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in
mg/L), one (1) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), six (6) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom)
(mg/L) and one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M)
(mg/L) during the reporting period. Investigation result shows that all the
exceedances were not due to the Contract works except the Action Level
Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to
Contract.
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
Total of eleven (11) environmental complaints were received
in the reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is
annexed in Figure 5.
8.1.3
One (1) complaint was referred by EPD regarding oil dumping
observed from various vessels operating for HZMB HK Contracts near Tung Chung
Development Pier over the past few months. The investigation results showed
that the complaint was non-Contract related.
8.1.4
One (1) complaint referred to the Contractor by EPD on 10 May
2013 regarding the scattered debris of silt curtain noted at Sha Lou Wan and
Tung Chung Bay. Immediate inspection and clean up action was taken by the
Contractor.
8.1.5
One (1) follow-up complaint referred by EPD was received on
23 May 2013 regarding the oil stain noted near Tung Chung Development Pier for
past few months.
8.1.6
One (1) complaint was logged by the Contractor regarding
the leakage from work barges causing water pollution near Tuen
Mun Richland Garden received on 26 Sept 13. With
refer to the available information such as photo record of the incident cannot
indicate that the leakage from work barges was caused by the vessel of this
Contract and the complaint could not be concluded as Contract related.
8.1.7
As informed by the Contractor on 5 Nov 13, one (1) noise
complaint received on 14 Sept 13 was referred to the Contractor of HKBCF on 1
Nov 13. The captioned complaint involves noise generated by a tug boat
operating near a pier at Tung Chung around 05:55am-06:45am on 14 Sept 13. After
investigation, the complaint is considered not likely to be related to the
construction works
8.1.8
As informed by the Contractor, complaint received from
Penta-Ocean ¡V Gitanes Joint Venture (CV/2012/03)
mentioned that the formation works of the Contaminated Mud Pit CMP1 to the South
of the Brothers (CMP1 of SB) which has been completed in mid-August 2013 and
the pit has been commissioned for receiving contaminated marine mud from other
Contracts starting from 16 August 2013. However, it was recently observed that
some of the Contract vessels of HY/2010/02 had berthed within the said pit and
those anchorages would likely cause disruption to the underlying contaminated
mud and thus induce unfavourable contamination impact
to the surrounding marine environment. In this regard, they reminded the
contractor to avoid berthing of their vessels within the boundary of CMP1 of SB
thereafter for the sake of environmental concern. After investigation, the
complaint is considered not likely to be related to the construction works.
8.1.9
As informed by the Contractor on 5 Dec 13, one complaint
was noted on 12 Nov regarding a barge moving through the southern channel.
After investigation, the noise complaint was considered as non-Contract
related.
8.1.10
As informed by the Contractor on 12 Dec 13. A complaint involves
the leakage of sand from barges causing water discoloration at sea near Tuen Mun Pierhead
Garden and sand material without properly covered was blown to the inside of
the residential area which caused disturbance to residence. With refer to
available information provided and monitoring data recorded on 09 Dec 13, it
cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air quality impact were
caused by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the complaint could not be
concluded as related to this Contract
8.1.11
As informed by the Contractor on 6 Jan 14, A complaint
involves barges loaded with sand material without properly covered was blown to
the inside of the residential area of Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden which caused
disturbance to residence was received on 27 Dec 13. With refer to available
information provided, it cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air
quality impact were caused by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the
complaint could not be concluded as related to this Contract.
8.1.12
EPD referred a complaint from complainant who advised that
blackish mud was found along the edge of the construction site of Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project near the airport in the morning of
18 January 2014. After receipt of the complaint, site daily was reviewed and
follow-up investigation has been conducted and excavation and dredging
activities were not observed within the site boundary of HKBCF during the joint
site inspection audit. Therefore in accordance with the investigation results,
the complaint is considered as not related to contract HY/2010/02
8.1.13
1 summons and 1 prosecution were recorded in this reporting
period. As informed by the Contractor on 9 May 13, one summons was received on
29 April 13 regarding the suspected violation case of Noise Control Ordinance
(Cap.400) at Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct 2012. The details of the non-compliance,
investigation actions taken including follow-up site inspection conducted out
by the ET and rectification actions and preventive actions provided by the
Contractor was summarized at section 7 of the Quarterly EM&A summary report
for September 2012 ¡V November 2012.
As informed by the Contractor in August 13, the Contractor was
subsequently prosecuted on 21 May 2013 for breaching Cap.400 Noise Control Ordinance.
8.1.14
Statistics on complaints,
notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix
J.
9.1
A total of 15 Action level and 5 Limit Level exceedances were
recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring in the reporting period and it
was considered not related to the Contract 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
Contract 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
71 water quality monitoring exceedances were recorded in
the reporting period and it was considered not related to the Contract works
except 1 Action Level exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance
recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were
considered as related to Contract. As rectification was provided by the
Contractor and recurrence of Contract related exceedance was not observed in
the subsequent monitoring events. Considering 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
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
Contract. With implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation
measures, the Contract¡¦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 Contract. Also, the
EM&A programme effectively monitored the
environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper
implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised
for the improvement of the programme.
12.8
Conclusions
12.8.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Contract commenced on 12 March 2012.
12.8.3
There was (1) one action level exceedance recorded due to one noise
complaint was received. Noise generating activities of the Contract 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
Fifty-six (56) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in
mg/L), one (1) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), six (6) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom)
(mg/L) and one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M)
(mg/L) during the reporting period. Investigation result shows that all the
exceedances were not due to the Contract works except the Action Level
Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to
Contract. 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. Rough sea condition
caused by adverse weather and relatively strong current experienced during the
monitoring period and 2. 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 Contract
works. This indicated these exceedances of DO were unlikely to be contributed
by Contract works. 3. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded. With proper implementation of water quality
mitigation measures, marine construction activities of the Contract did not
cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the receivers.
12.8.5
One (1) Limit level exceedance and six (6) Action Level
Exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin
monitoring. The investigation results showed that although no unacceptable
changes in environmental parameters of this Contract have been measured, at
this time it is not possible to make a conclusive assessment of this Contract¡¦s
specific impact on dolphins. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L
of the corresponding quarterly reports.
12.8.6
Environmental site inspection was carried out 52 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
Eleven (11) environmental
complaints were received in the reporting period.
12.8.8
One (1) summons and one (1) successful prosecution was
received in the reporting period.
12.8.9
As discussed in the above sections, the Contract 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.
12.8.11
The recommended environmental mitigation measures
effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Contract. 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.