Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation
Works (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 Project,
i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 11 April 2016
(EP-353/2009/K) 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 Project¡¦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.
Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD
as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the 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 2017. 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 2014 and 28 February 2015. As informed by the Contractor, major
activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Construction of conveyors for public fill
-
Temporary bridge at Portion D
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls*
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Rock filling
-
Sand filling
-
Public filling
-
Band drain installation
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Precast Yard for seawall blocks & culverts
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Optimizing rubble mound seawalls
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A
-
Surcharge laying
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Precast Yard setup
-
Seawall blocks for temporary construction
-
Vibro-compaction on surcharge
-
Construction of conveyors for public fill
-
Temporary bridge at Portion D
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying
-
Temporary Watermain construction along access
at Portion D
-
Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying
* The
term of ¡§Conforming Sloping Seawall¡¨ differs from Rubble Mount Seawall in that
it is constructed on and in front of cellular structures.
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4
-
Installed sand bag 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
|
65 sessions
65 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
51 sessions
|
Impact
water quality monitoring
|
156 sessions
|
Impact
dolphin monitoring
|
24 surveys
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
52 sessions
|
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
A
total of Five (5) Action level excedances were
recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period. No Limit level excedance was recorded during reporting 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
For construction noise, no
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Forty one (41) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit Level
exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L),
one (1) Action Level exceedance was
recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), six (6) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) and eight (8)
Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M) (mg/L) during the
reporting period.
After
investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related
to this Contract except the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity, Limit Level
Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October
2014 and Action Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during
flood tide on 20 October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract.
Recommendation has been given and rectification has been carried on by the
Contractor on 28 October 2014.
Triggering
of Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
Four (4) Limit 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. Event
and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. After
investigation, there was no evidence that indicated that the reduced number of
dolphins in NWL and NEL was related solely to Contract works. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual
contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the
other stress factors. 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.
Reference is made to ET¡¦s
proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2
February 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and
no objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality
monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated
to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February
2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring
data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this
alternative air quality location.
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
Thirteen (13) environmental
complaints were received in the reporting period.
No
summons was received in the reporting period and one (1) successful prosecution
was received in the reporting period.
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 Project were approved by Environmental
Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3
EPD
subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F),
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G), January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H), July 2015
(EP-353/2009/I), February 2016 (EP-353/2009/J) and April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K).
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 Project is a designated Project and is governed by the
current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 11 April 2016
(EP-353/2009/K) 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 Project¡¦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
Ramboll Environ
Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent
Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.9
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the 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 2017.
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 Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope of Report
1.2.1 This is
the Third 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 1 March 2014 and 28 February 2015.
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
(Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
5181 8401
|
3548 6988
|
Environmental Project Office Leader
|
Y.H. Hui
|
3547 2133
|
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
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Construction of conveyors for public fill
-
Temporary bridge at Portion D
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls*
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Rock filling
-
Sand filling
-
Public filling
-
Band drain installation
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Precast Yard for seawall blocks & culverts
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Optimizing rubble mound seawalls
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A
-
Surcharge laying
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Precast Yard setup
-
Seawall blocks for temporary construction
-
Vibro-compaction on surcharge
-
Construction of conveyors for public fill
-
Temporary bridge at Portion D
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying
-
Temporary Watermain construction along access
at Portion D
-
Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying
* The term of ¡§Conforming Sloping Seawall¡¨
differs from Rubble Mount Seawall in that it is constructed on and in front of
cellular structures.
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4
-
Installed sand bag 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. The monitoring at AMS3B and NMS3B commenced at February 2014.
2.1.3
Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal of relocation of air
quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2 February 2015, with no further
comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no objection received from EPD
on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union
Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.
2.1.4
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.
2.1.5
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.
2.1.6
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.
2.1.7
The monitoring locations used during the reporting period
are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
2.1.8
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.
2.2.1
The environmental quality performance limits (i.e. Action
and/or Limit Levels) of air, water quality and Chinese White Dolphin monitoring
were derived from the baseline air and water quality monitoring results at the
respective monitoring stations, while the environmental quality performance
limits of noise monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.
2.2.2
The environmental quality performance limits of air
quality, noise, water and Chinese White Dolphin monitoring are given in
Appendix D.
2.2.3
Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated
in the Particular Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/K 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, AMS3B, AMS6 and AMS7/7A).
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. Reference
is made to ET¡¦s proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7)
dated on 2 February 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2
February 2015 and no objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact
air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been
relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3
February 2015 and monitoring work at AMS7A commenced on 5 February 2015.
3.1.1.4. Action
Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at
Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality
location.
3.1.1.5. The
weather was mostly sunny and fine, 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.
3.1.1.6. 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.
3.1.1.7. 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 14 ¡V Feb 15
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
195
|
AMS3B
|
195
|
AMS7/7A
|
195
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
65
|
AMS3B
|
65
|
AMS7/7A
|
65
|
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 14 ¡V Feb 15
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7/7A
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7/7A
|
Action
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
5
|
3.1.2
Environmental
Mitigation Measures
3.1.2.1
Relevant Air
mitigation measures, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the
EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of air
quality mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C.
3.1.3 Summary of Actions Taken in
the event of Non-Compliance
3.1.3.1
Other than the mitigation measures implemented as mentioned
in Appendix C, in the event of non-compliance, actions were taken in accordance
with the Event-Action Plan in the EM&A Manual. The Contractor was notified
immediately. Investigation was carried out within three working days of
identification of non-compliance such as identifying the air pollution sources,
checking the implementation status of the mitigation measures, etc., and
measurement was repeated to confirm the investigation findings. Further
investigation was carried out to identify the source of pollution when deemed
necessary. In summary, no direct evidence between the exceedance at AMS2,
AMS3B, AMS7/7A 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 5 Action level and no 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 AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7/7A. The trend of TSP at AMS2, AMS3B and
AMS7/7A 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 AMS7/7A,
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 AMS7/7A 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 AMS3B 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 NMS3B) 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 14 - Feb 15
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
51
|
NMS3B
|
51
|
Table 3.5 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
No. of Exceedance(s)
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
NMS3B
|
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 except at one occasion where in
relation to the notification of summons received March 2014 due to works
carried out on 6 October 13 contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400. The Contractor
pledged guilty to the charge during the court appearance on 28 April 2014. Rectification actions were
conducted by the Contractor and no other summons was received during the
reporting period.
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 NMS3B.
3.2.3.2 Summary of Actions Taken in
the event of Non-Compliance
3.2.3.1.2
No event of non-compliance of construction noise was
recorded in the reporting period.
3.2.3.3 Review of Reasons for and
the implications of Non-Compliance
3.2.3.3.1
No event of non-compliance of construction noise was
recorded in the reporting period.
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
All the noise monitoring results for all monitoring
stations were below the Action and Limit levels. The trend showed no noticeable
noise impact from the Contract during the impact monitoring period.
3.2.4.2.1
Correlation
between exceedances with possible noise generating activities
3.2.4.2.2
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.
3.2.5.1
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, no exceedances were
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
|
66.8
|
63.7 ¡V 69.1*
|
75
|
NMS3B
|
Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
66.2
|
61.4 - 70*
|
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.
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 Project. 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 14 - Feb 15
|
Water
Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
156
|
Mid-Flood
|
156
|
Table
3.9 Summary of Water
Quality Exceedances in Mar 14-Feb 15
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 19 Mar 14; (1) 10 Sep
14
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 31 Mar 14
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 31 Oct 14
|
(2) 5 Sep 14 and 3 Oct 14
|
1
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 20 Oct 14
|
0
|
1
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 24 Mar 14; (1) 5 Dec
14
|
(2) 24 and 31 Mar 14
|
2
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 19 Mar 14; (2) 13 and 24 Oct 14; (2) 12 & 21
Jan 15
|
2
|
7
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 6 Oct 14
|
(1) 6 Oct 14; (2)¡@23 & 26 Jan
15
|
3
|
5
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Feb 15
|
0
|
1
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 20 Oct and 28 Nov 14 ;
(1) 16 Jan 15
|
(1) 21 Jan 15
|
3
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 10 Oct 14
|
0
|
(1) 19 Mar 14; 0; (1) 10
Oct; (1) 5 Dec 14
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 19 Mar 14; (1) 10 Sep
14
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(3) 13, 20 and 24 Oct 14
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
(1) 19 Mar 14
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 6 and 13 Oct 14; (2)
12 & 21 Jan 15
|
2
|
6
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 31 Mar 14; (1) 21 Jan
15
|
0
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
(1) 15 Aug14
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 23 Jan 15 & 23 Feb
15
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 22 Oct 14
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 12 Sep 14
|
(2) 10 and 22 Oct 14; (1)
23 Jan 15
|
1
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
Action
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
12
|
29
|
56
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.1.4
Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2014 to
February 2015) 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
3.3.2.1
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 64 exceedances were recorded during the entire construction
period with 56 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 Forty
one (41) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit Level exceedances were
recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), one (1) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), one (1) Limit
Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU), six (6) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom) (mg/L) and eight (8)
Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (S&M) (mg/L) during the
reporting period. After
investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related
to this Contract except the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity, Limit Level
Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October
2014 and Action Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during
flood tide on 20 October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract.
Recommendation has been given and rectification has been carried on by the
Contractor on 28 October 2014.
3.3.4.2 Exceedances
recorded at IS17 on 10 and 20 October 2014 are likely to be related to vessel
movement at shallow water during ebb tide. The Contractor was further reminded
to control the vessel traffic at this area and ensure swift provision of
maintenance to the silt curtains once defect was found. As informed by the
Contractor, traffic control such as vessel speed limit was implemented and
operation of sand filling vessel at shallow water during ebb tide was avoided.
Monitoring results show no recurrence of exceedance at IS17 on 13 Oct 2014 and
22-Oct-14 respectively. For details of investigation please refer to monthly
EM&A Report October 2014.
3.3.4.3 After
review of the investigation results of the water quality exceedances (for
detail of investigations please refer to section 4 of monthly EM&A report
(Mar 14 to Feb 15), 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. 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. 2. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded. 3. There are 2 occasions when exceedances were considered due to vessel
movement at shallow water and defective silt curtain.
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, IS7, IS8 and IS10 were more fluctuated and a higher turbidity
level were recorded from June 14 to October 14. The trend of turbidity levels
of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. However, despite two
isolated events, 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 August 2014 to February 2015. 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
|
Imported Fill m3/month
|
Depth averaged
DO
|
Depth averaged Turbidity
|
Depth averaged
SS
|
Total
|
Mar-14
|
1,111,998
|
0
|
1
|
9
|
10
|
Apr-14
|
1,291,808
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
May-14
|
1,181,417
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Jun-14
|
752,771
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Jul-14
|
1,252,437
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Aug-14
|
1,427,973
|
14
|
0
|
0
|
14
|
Sep-14
|
1,370,511
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
Oct-14
|
1,750,755
|
0
|
1
|
17
|
18
|
Nov-14
|
1,788,611
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Dec-14
|
1,608,665
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Jan-15
|
1,774,785
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
13
|
Feb-15
|
1,120,668
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
3.3.6.2
As shown in Table 3.10, there was no apparent correlation between the 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 and additional 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 7.9 mg/L in November 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 (November 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
|
8.0
|
7.9
|
-1.2
|
-1.2
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
8.4
|
8.4
|
-2.3
|
-2.1
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
8.3
|
8.3
|
-2.3
|
-2.1
|
SR5
|
SR5**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
8.0
|
7.8
|
-1.6
|
-1.5
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
8.0
|
7.7
|
-1.9
|
-1.6
|
SR6
|
SR6**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
8.1
|
8.2
|
-1.5
|
-1.7
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
8.1
|
8.2
|
-1.9
|
-2.1
|
SR7
|
SR7**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
-1.6
|
-1.9
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
-1.7
|
-1.9
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
Surface & mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
7.6
|
7.6
|
-1.6
|
-1.6
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
7.6
|
7.6
|
-1.9
|
-1.8
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
7.6
|
7.6
|
-1.5
|
-1.6
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
7.6
|
7.6
|
-1.4
|
-1.8
|
^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 November 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 November 2014
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact
Monitoring
|
Impact SS Mean
(in November 2014)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3
|
4.7
|
-9.3
|
6.1
|
-10.2
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
6.4
|
-4.9
|
9.4
|
-2.8
|
SR5
|
SR5
|
4.9
|
-5.7
|
8.6
|
-3.3
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
5.3
|
-6.6
|
5.9
|
-6.0
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
6.3
|
-5.1
|
7.2
|
-3.2
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
4.2
|
-6.0
|
5.3
|
-4.9
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*
|
4.4
|
-7.1
|
6.0
|
-5.1
|
*Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location of SR4 &
SR10b have been changed to SR4(N) &
SR10B(N) respectively during impact monitoring.
3.3.7.10
With the highest filling rate in November 2014, the
elevations in suspended solids levels were below 30 percent of the baseline
suspended solids levels at all stations. Regional influences would have effects
on the deterioration in water quality than activities at the work site. A combination of the following potential causes:1. 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. 2. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded. 3. There were two occasions when exceedances were considered due to
vessel movement at shallow water and defective silt curtain.
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.
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 Project. 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 and additional 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 63 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. 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. 2. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded. 3. There were two occasions when exceedances
were considered due to vessel movement at shallow water and defective silt
curtain.
3.3.9.2
The DO and SS levels recorded at SR3, SR4 (N) and SR5 were
in similar magnitude as predicted in the Project EIA. No comparison could be made from
SR6 to SR10B(N) as predictions were not made in the
Project EIA. For
turbidity, as no prediction was made in the Project EIA, no comparison could be made. With
the implementation of water quality mitigation measures recommended in the EIA
and additional water quality mitigation measures implemented during the
EM&A programme, marine construction activities of
the 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).
3.4.2
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 The enhanced EAP
for CWD monitoring with numerical AL/LL were implemented in
the reporting period.
3.4.3.2
Four (4) Limit level exceedances
were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. (Table
3.16). The investigation results showed that although
no unacceptable changes in environmental parameters of this Contract have been
measured. The Event and Action Plan
for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For investigation results please
refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports. For information on
environmental acceptability of the Contract see Section 3.4.13
Table 3.16
Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values
Quarterly period
|
|
STG*
|
ANI**
|
Level Exceeded
|
March 2014- May 2014
|
NEL
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Limit
Level
|
NWL
|
0.7
|
3.0
|
June 2014- August 2014
|
NEL
|
0.5
|
2.7
|
Limit
Level
|
NWL
|
3.6
|
9.8
|
September 2014- November 2014
|
NEL
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Limit
Level
|
NWL
|
2.1
|
7.1
|
December 2014- February 2015
|
NEL
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Limit
Level
|
NWL
|
2.1
|
4.3
|
* STG represents groups of dolphins (recorded on
effort)
**
ANI represents number of individual dolphins (recorded on effort)
3.4.1
Summary
of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings
3.4.4.1 Vessel-based surveys have been
conducted monthly from March 2014 to February 2015, i.e., during the third year
of the construction phase. A total of 48 survey days were completed between
March 2014-February 2015 (Appendix H: Table 1). A total of 2641.7km were completed
whereas 2637.1km were conducted under favourable
conditions (defined as Beaufort Sea State 3 or better and with visibility of
>1km) between March 2014-February 2015 (Appendix H: Table 2). Between March 2014-February 2015, a
total of 72 dolphin sightings were recorded, 46 as on effort and 26 as
opportunistic[2] (Appendix H: Figure 1). 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 the second year of impact monitoring (2013-14), 50 survey days were
completed, with a total of 2667.1 km completed with 2595.4km conducted under favourable conditions
In all three 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. In the
second year, a total of 135 dolphin sightings were recorded, 91 on effort and
44 opportunistic. The total number of sightings has decreased between each year
of impact monitoring.
3.4.1
Distribution
3.4.5.1. Sightings of dolphins were
divided into quarterly periods. The area was most frequently used between June
¡V August 2014 and the only sighting in NEL was recorded during this time. The lowest use was observed between December
2014 ¡V February 2015 (Appendix H: Figure 2). (see this
Projects reports, Annual Report 2012-13, Appendix H: Figure 6 and Annual Report
2013-14, Appendix H: Figure 2). In NEL, NWL and adjacent waters, dolphins are
consistently distributed in areas of rocky, reefy
shoreline or where there is a marked depth contour. These areas are the Sha
Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Protected Area
(SCLKCMPA), adjacent to the maritime border of Hong Kong SAR and the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) and the Tai O area. Since long term monitoring was
initiated by AFCD, there has been a regular and year round occurrence of
dolphins in these areas of northern Lantau.
3.4.1
Encounter
Rate
3.4.6.1. Encounter
rates of ¡§on effort¡¨ sightings (i.e. groups) per area per quarter for the year March 2014 to February 2015 were calculated. For NEL, only one sighting
was noted, in June 2014. For NWL,
dolphin encounter rate was highest between March ¡V August, with a peak during
the summer months (Appendix H: Figure 3).
There is an increase in encounter rate from spring to summer with the
lowest rates observed during the autumn and winter months. Within NWL, quarterly encounter rates
range from 3 to 6 dolphin groups (Year 1) and 5 to 9 dolphin groups (Year 2)
and 2 to 4 dolphin groups (Year 3) per 100km on effort (figures rounded).
3.4.7. Group Size
3.4.7.1. The majority of all sightings
recorded were of less than 5 individuals (79%). Larger groups concentrated
throughout most of the year in southern NWL with a few larger groups sighted in
the northern section of Sha Chau Lung Kwu Chau Marine
Park between December 2014-February 2015. Mother and
calves groups did not show a preference for any particular group size. Eight of
the large groups sighted were noted as exhibiting multiple behavior
which incorporated feeding behavior and two groups were recorded as feeding
thus, the most prevalent behavior noted in larger group sizes incorporated
feeding activities. The majority (66.6%) of large groups were
recorded between summer and autumn (June ¡V November 2014) (Appendix H: Figure
4).
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). 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 2014-February 2015, DPSE was
calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 0% and 2% of each
respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 0% (NEL) and 13% (NWL)
as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 100% (NEL) and 85% (NWL) as low use (<
20 DPSE). (Appendix H: Figure 5).
3.4.8.2. For the period March
2014-February 2015, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use
to high use. NEL and NWL have 0% and 3% of each respective area classified as
high use (> 15 SPSE); 2% of NEL and 11% NWL and; as moderate use (5.1-15
SPSE); and 98% (NEL) and 86% (NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Appendix H: Figure
6).
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) (Appendix H: Figure 7). These figures were compared to
impact monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014 and March 2014-February
2015 (Table 3.17). 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, there are less high use cells in
the centre of the NWL area indicating that habitat utilisation of this area has decreased. In NEL, all cell use was low during
impact monitoring and there was only one sighting in NEL during March
2014-February 2015.
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) (Appendix H: Figure
7). These figures were compared to
impact monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014 and March 2014-February
2015 (Table 3.17). 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. 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.
Table 3.17 Comparison of low, moderate and
high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years
2011-12; 2013-14 and 2014-15 (in %)
|
Advanced*
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
Advanced*
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
Frequency
of Use
|
NWL
|
NEL
|
DPSE
|
<20
|
68
|
76
|
85
|
76
|
100
|
100
|
20-60
|
16
|
14
|
13
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
> 60
|
17
|
10
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
|
SPSE
|
<5
|
51
|
72
|
86
|
60
|
91
|
98
|
5-15
|
27
|
20
|
11
|
31
|
9
|
2
|
>15
|
22
|
8
|
3
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
*Advance = advance baseline
monitoring conducted between 2011 and 2012.
3.4.9.
Mother and Calf Pairs
3.4.9.1. Sightings of mothers and calves
and the offspring of females identified from the first year of impact monitoring
(2012) were made throughout the year in the north of NWL and near Tai O
(Appendix H: Figure 8). 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 and/or juvenilles
were sighted on 11 occasions and comprise a minimum of five individuals using
the identity of the mothers to assign identity to the calves. Five known females, HZMB 023, HZMB 026,
HZMB 044, HZMB 098 and HZMB 116 were all photographed with young dolphins. Only one very small calf was noted that
was born in the year March 2014-February 2015, sighted in July 2014. The mother
was not identifiable. HZMB 023 and
her offspring, known as HZMB 022, have been sighted throughout impact
monitoring. HZMB 023 must now be over three years old. The offspring of HZMB
026 was first photographed in January 2013 (outside this reporting year) and
again in October 2014. 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
October 2014. Her offspring is now
sufficiently marked to be included in the catalogue and is known as HZMB
125. HZMB 098 is a well known individual which also features in the AFCD photo
identification catalogue (NL104).
She was first sighted with a calf in March 2013 and has been seen with a
young dolphin in August and December 2014 and February 2015. HZMB 116 was
identified initially in December 2013 with a small calf and was seen in July
and August 2014 still associated with a juvenile dolphin (Appendix H: Figure
9). HZMB 050, which was sighted with a large calf in February 2013 and again in
January 2014 (outside this reporting year), was sighted in July 2014 but was no
longer associated with an appropriately sized dolphin.
It is not known if the offspring is deceased or has simply grown old enough to
survive away from its mother.
3.4.10.
Activities Associated with Fishing Boats
3.4.10.1. Four distinctive behavioural categories were defined; ¡§boat association¡¨,
¡§feeding¡¨, ¡§travelling¡¨ and ¡§surface active¡¨. Three other categories were also
defined; ¡§multiple¡¨ (more than one behaviour
was observed at one time), ¡§other¡¨ and ¡§unknown¡¨ (Appendix H: Figure 10). From spring (March ¡V May 2014) onwards
throughout the year, the frequency of feeding increased and travelling
activities slightly decreased. When compared to the years Dec 2012-Feb 2013 and
Dec 2013-Feb 2014, this third year of impact monitoring indicates that the
overall frequency of foraging behaviours is
decreasing and travelling times have increased (Appendix H: Figure 11).
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 and 2014-15.
The area to the south of NWL is also important for feeding/surface
active behaviours. As the years
progress during impact monitoring, decreases in dolphin sightings in NEL and
mid NWL are becoming apparent (Appendix H: Figure 12).
3.4.11.
Photo-Identification Catalogue
3.4.11.1. A total of 117 dolphins comprise the photo identification catalogue
established specifically for the HZMB Contract (Appendix H: Table 3). 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. There are 14 dolphins
which have been sighted six or more times, nine of which are known from the
AFCD catalogue (HZMB 001 [WL46]; HZMB 002 [WL111]; HZMB 003 [NL179]; HZMB 011
[EL01]; HZMB 041 [NL24]; HZMB 044 [NL98]; HZMB 051 [NL213]; HZMB 054 [CH34];
HZMB 098 [NL104]). Of the 117
dolphins identified during impact monitoring, 57 individuals (just under half)
were seen only once between March 2012 and February 2015.
3.4.12
Dolphin
Abundance
3.4.13
Environmental
Acceptability of the Contract
3.4.13.1 It was recognised
in the EIA that the HZMB is adjacent to 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, were 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., group size, behavior, boat
association. Following a meeting in October 2015, ENPO suggested that the
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 removed and provided separately.
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. In 2013-14, an emerging trend for
decreased use of NEL was noted and this is further confirmed in 2014-15. In addition, a decrease in sightings in
the mid-section of NWL is also noted.
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 during 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[5] 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, ¡§Project has
low potential to cause increased sewage discharge,
therefore this potential impact is insignificant. The potential water quality
impacts due to site runoff, sewage from workforce and wastewater from various
construction activities, and accidental spillage would be controlled through
the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, including temporary
drainage system, chemical toilets, etc¡¨
3.4.15.4
This Contract has largely maintained objectives for water
quality as described in the EIA report except where noted in Section 7.1.3 (see
here for full details). The
exceedances noted were short in duration and localised
to the Project site. These incidents were short in duration and when the
Contractor was notified, actions were promptly taken and no further exceedances
were noted.
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[6]). In light of this new information, the statements made in
the EIA may need to be re-assessed and the allowable limits for water quality
parameters revised.
3.4.15.7
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 of the dolphin hotspot at the Brothers Islands. 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 was an emerging pattern of decreased
habitat use as indicated by encounter rate and number and type of ¡§high¡¨
density cells in NEL. As anticipated in the second
year (2013-14) report, this became more apparent in this reporting year
(2014-2015). AFCD data indicate
that higher than usual dolphin mortality has continued in 2014-15. Again it is
suggested that appropriate review of these data should be conducted 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 Project 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[7] defines an Impact Index which is used to predict impact
for each area through which the HZMB structure passes. HKBCF is located in the area defined as
the ¡§Northeast Lantau Section (NELS) ¡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
Contract. 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
A cumulative assessment has been published using data
gathered prior to the initiation of HKBCF construction activities (Marcotte et al, 2015[8]). This
assessment notes that the increase in high speed ferry traffic has been concomitant
to a significant decrease in dolphins sighted in NEL and adjacent NWL
waters. Several other threats were
considered in this study, however, high speed ferries were the most significant
impact. Therefore, this study shows a significant decline in dolphins in NEL
and adjacent areas occurred for a decade prior to commencement of HKBCF
activities. The high speed ferry traffic has continued to increase in the area
as HKBCF and other Projects have commenced as stated in the Marine Department
statistics for Skypier for the period January ¡V
December 2014 which show an increase from the same period in the previous year
in both departures and arrivals to/from River Trade Ports as +6.4% and +11.4%,
respectively, and an overall increase for all ports arrival and departures as
+1.8% and +6.8%, respectively. The route from SkyPier to River
Trade Ports passes directly through both NEL and NWL habitat
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 and has now been
attributed to high speed ferries by an independent study (see Section
3.4.6.4.2).
3.4.17
Conclusion
3.4.17.1 Between March 2014 and February
2015, dolphins have been almost entirely absent from NEL and parts of NWL are
no longer frequently used.
3.4.17.2 Marine mammal monitoring was
conducted between March 2014 and February 2015 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.
3.4.17.3 Four (4) Limit 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. Event and Action
Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. After investigation, there
was no evidence that indicated that the reduced number of dolphins in NWL and
NEL was related solely to Contract works. It was also concluded the
contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual
contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the
other stress factors. Please also refer to the attachment for full
investigation result. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of
the corresponding quarterly reports.
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
Exposed soil observed fully loaded on barge at near Portion
D and C2a. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust control measures and
keep the surface of all exposed soil wet and the Contractor was reminded to use
suitable barge to store public fill to prevent potential runoff to the
surrounding. (Reminder)
4.1.1.4
Exposed earth/sand was observed at Works Area of Portion A.
The Contractor was reminded to provide dust control measures such as to treat
the exposed earth by compaction. The Contractor was also reminded to continue
to provide dust control measures to exposed soil. The Contractor provided dust
control measures such as to treat the exposed earth by compaction.
(Closed)
4.1.1.5
It was observed that the water supply of the sprinkler
system at Portion D was disconnected. The Contractor was reminded to provide
effective dust control measures to the road at Portion D. The Contractor
provided effective dust control measures to the road at Portion D. (Closed)
4.1.1.6
Dust control measure was not observed at the ramp of
Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust control measure such to
ramp with exposed soil which the water car has no access. (Reminder)
4.1.1.7
Dust control measures such as water car was observed.
However the Contractor was reminded to review the need to enhance current dust
control measures. (Reminder)
4.1.1.8
Vehicle equipped with watering system was observed
implemented on exposed sand. The Contractor was reminded to continue to
implement such dust control measures 8 times per day. (Reminder)
4.1.1.9
Dark smoke was observed emitted by a vessel, excavator and
TSHD. The Contractor was reminded to regularly maintain the plants to avoid
generation of dark smoke and dark smoke emission from plant/equipment should be
avoided. The Contractor prevented generation of dark smoke by plant. (Closed)
4.1.1.10
Fugitive dust was observed generated on site at Portion D,
when excavator was drove through road and when truck passed a slope. The
Contractor provided dust suppression measures such a compaction and watering to
exposed soil. The Contractor was reminded to review the effectiveness of the
abovementioned mitigation measures and to review the need to provide
enhancement on current measures. In addition, high pressure water jet was
observed at site entrance at Portion D, Nonetheless, the Contractor was
reminded to review the need to enhance the wheel washing facility to
effectively prevent potential trail of mud outside site boundary cause by site
vehicles. The Contractor was also reminded to provide dust control measures for
preventing fugitive dust on road. Dust control measures such as watering was provided
on the road. (Closed)
4.1.1.11
Filling was observed. The Contractor was reminded to ensure
proper implementation of relevant mitigation measures for sand blanket filling
or reclamation filling. (Reminder)
4.1.1.12
A material storage tank of an idle grout production facility
was observed not fully enclosed. Please be advised that the material storage
tanks of a grout production facility should be fully covered / enclosed. The
Contractor enclosed the grout production facility (Closed).
4.1.1.13
Recycle glass cullet for earthwork was observed stored on
Portion C2a with and it is fully covered with tarpaulin
or impervious sheets. The Contractor was reminded to continue to
provide effective dust suppression measures. (Reminder)
Noise
4.1.1.14
Generator was observed without acoustic decoupling measures
on barge¤ÑÂ@ 3. The Contractor was reminded to install acoustic
decoupling measure prior to leaving Portion A. (Reminder)
4.1.1.15
In general, please provide acoustic decoupling measures to
air compressors and other noisy equipment when they are mounted on construction
vessels. (Reminder)
Water Quality
4.1.1.16
Oil drum was observed not closed, the Contractor was
reminded that every chemical waste containers should
be securely closed, correctly placed and kept clean. The Contractor properly
closed chemical waste containers. (Closed)
4.1.1.17
Oil drum was observed without label on barge SHB 209, the Contractor was reminded to provide proper labeling
to oil drum. The Contractor provided labeling to oil drum on barge SHB 209.
4.1.1.18
Waste at waste collection point, generator and oil drums
were observed partially submerged into sea water. The Contractor was advised to
put the collected waste, generator and oil drums to higher ground to prevent
the situation at near barge ¤ÑÂ@3 and at near at
Portion B. Waste at waste collection point, generator and oil drums were moved
to higher ground. (Closed)
4.1.1.19
Bunding on
barge SHB401 was not properly plugged. The Contractor should seal the bunding entirely to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor
has sealed the bunding. (Closed)
4.1.1.20
It was observed that the drainage located next to the road
of WA2 was blocked by material fallen off from the lid of the drainage, the
Contractor was reminded to unblock the drainage. The Contractor unblocked the
drainage. (Closed)
4.1.1.21
Oil stain has been observed inside the water of one steel
cell when inspection conducted between steel cell 53 ¡V
58. Oil stain was cleared by the Contractor using oil absorbent materials and
used oil absorbent materials were disposed of as chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.22
Oil stain was observed on sea area and the Contractor was
reminded to take actions following the spill response plan and rectify the
situation. The Contractor used absorption booms and pads as SOC to remove all
the observed oil stain on 13 Nov 14 and the used booms and pads were treated
and disposed of as chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.23
4.1.1.24
Idle stone column installation was observed without localised silt curtain at barge AP2. The Contractor was
reminded that active stone column installation shall be fullly
enclosed by localised silt curtain prior to operation.
(Reminder)
4.1.1.25
Active stone column installation was observed not properly
enclosed. The Contractor is reminded that sufficient silt curtain shall be
installed to fully enclose the active stone column installation points. The
Contractor is provided silt curtain to fully enclose the active stone column
installation points. (Closed)
4.1.1.26
The Contractor was reminded that the chemical waste
containers should be kept in good condition and free from damage or any other
defects which may impair the performance of the containers (Closed)
4.1.1.27
Stockpile of soil was observed on barge AP3 at Portion D,
the Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent potential runoff
during rainstorm. (Reminder)
4.1.1.28
Defects such as disconnection and insufficient overlapping
of the perimeter silt curtain have been observed. The Contractor was advised to rectify
the defects such as disconnection and insufficient overlapping of the perimeter
silt curtain as soon as possible. The Contractor rectified the defects such as
disconnection and insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain as
soon as possible. (Closed)
4.1.1.29
Muddy water was observed at land area where ground
investigation works was conducted, the Contractor was reminded to prevent muddy
water to be released out of the site boundary. (Reminder)
4.1.1.30
Public fill were observed on the edge of barge at Portion
D. The Contractor was reminded to clear it to prevent potential runoff to the
surrounding (Reminder)
4.1.1.31
Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) was observed located
close to sea. The Contractor was reminded to put the PME away from sea to
prevent potential runoff. (Reminder)
4.1.1.32
Silty water was observed at both side of the northern part
of the perimeter silt curtain. The Contractor was reminded to conduct necessary
checking of the integrity of the silt curtain and swiftly carry out maintenance
and repair once any defect is found. Photo record shows that the situation was
not observed on 10 Oct 2014.
(Closed)
Chemical and Waste Management
4.1.1.33
General refuse was observed not properly allocated on §»¶§®c106 and
general refuse was observed at Portion A¡¦s waste collection point, access road
of from Portion D to C2a; Portion B, Portion C, Portion E1 and works area WA2;
at sea area at south part of the HKBCF reclamation works; unwanted band drain
material were also observed at various locations of the reclamation work;
general refuse was observed on cell cellular structures; area near barging
point and on some part of the sea area near the reclamation site etc. The
Contractor should keep the barge clean and tidy and collect the refuse on land
and in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The refuse was cleared
within the reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper
storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. (The items were closed
and reminder was given to the Contractor)
4.1.1.34
Rubbish bin was not observed or observed without cover/lid.
The Contractor was reminded to regularly collect and store general refuse
within a temporary refuse collection facility, in appropriate containers prior
to collection and disposal. The Contractor provided regularly collect and store
general refuse within a temporary refuse collection facility and general refuse
was stored in containers prior to collection and disposal. (Closed)
4.1.1.35
Maintenance work of machine was observed. The Contactor was
reminded to provide effective measures to contain potential oil spillage of
leakage before handling oil on site and waste oil should be collected and
dispose of as chemical waste. (Reminder)
4.1.1.36
Large rubbish bag was observed improperly stored on barge
AP3. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse
such as rubbish bin with lid. The Contractor cleared the rubbish bag. The
Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as
rubbish bin with lid. (Closed)
4.1.1.37
Bags of dry cement were observed on barge SHB 402, the
Contractor was reminded to properly handle them or dispose of properly. The
Contractor removed and cleared the bags of dry cement. (Closed)
4.1.1.38
Stone and gravel were observed inside drip tray containing
oil drums. The Contractor was reminded to relocate the drip tray with the oil
drums to avoid the situation. The situation has been rectified. (Closed)
4.1.1.39
Used band drains were observed stored on site at Portion A.
The Contractor was reminded to regularly collect and dispose the used band
drain materials. The Contractor cleared unwanted band drains regularly. Band
drain material and general refuse were observed at the road side at Portion A.
The Contractor cleared general refuse stored on site. Nonetheless, the
Contractor was reminded to clear unwanted band drain and other general refuse
stored on site regularly. (Reminder)
4.1.1.40
Disconnected silt curtain were observed next to cellular
structure, at Portion A¡¦s waste collection point and on the way from Portion D
to C2a. The Contractor was reminded to collect the refuse and the disconnected
silt curtain presented in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The
Contractor collected the refuse presented in the water within and adjacent to
the works site. The Contractor was reminded to review the need to increase
frequency to clear and dispose of the waste at waste collection point to avoid
accumulation. (Reminder)
4.1.1.41
Generators at Portion A and other area were placed on bare
ground without the provision of drip tray. The Contractor should provide
mitigation measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. Drip
tray was provided for some of the generators to retain potential leakage.
However, a generator was still observed place on bare ground without the
provision of drip tray. The Contractor should continue to provide mitigation
measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. (Closed)
4.1.1.42
Oil drum was not properly stored on barge §»¶§®c106,
Works Area of Portion A, barge ¤ÑÂ@3 and on temporary
rock bund. The Contractor should store oil drum within the chemical retaining bunding. Drip tray was provided within the reporting period
for the oil drum to retain potential leakage. (Closed)
4.1.1.43
Battery and oil drum were placed on bare ground without
drip tray; oil drum was observed without label and drip tray at Portion D. The
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray such
that spillage/leakage can be easily collected. The Contractor provided
mitigation measures such as drip tray so that spillage/leakage can be easily
collected. (Closed)
4.1.1.44
Oil drum or PMEs were observed without drip tray on various
portions of reclamation work, on barges and floating grout production facility.
The Contractor was reminded to provide enough drip trays for oil drum at all
works area. The Contractor provided enough drip trays for oil drum or PMEs or
relocated them. (Closed)
4.1.1.45
Stack of cardboard paper and wave barriers were observed
when inspection was conducted at area on cellular structure. The Contractor was
reminded to stored general refuse within a temporary refuse collection
facility, in appropriate containers prior to collection and disposal.
(Reminder)
4.1.1.46
Oil water mixture was observed stored inside oil drums
without cover/lid and drip tray ; accumulated in the
drip tray on barge SHE7. The Contractor was reminded to provide cover/lid to
tightly cover oil drums and provide drip tray to prevent spillage and runoff.
The oil drum was removed by the Contractor. (Closed)
4.1.1.47
Water was observed accumulated inside the wheel washing
facility; the Contractor was reminded to review and prevent potential overflow
of silty water. (Reminder)
4.1.1.48
Water was observed accumulated inside car tyre on barge AP3 and inside drip tray at C2a near the blue
conveyor belts and other areas. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear
water accumulated inside car tire drip tray at C2a near the blue conveyor belts
and kept the site clean and tidy. The Contractor removed the car tyre and cleared the water inside drip tray at C2a and kept
the site clean and tidy. (Closed)
4.1.1.49
Sand and equipment materials deposited inside the drip tray
was observed at Portion C2A. The Contractor was reminded to clear the deposited
sand and store the equipment materials properly. Contractor cleared the
deposited materials and provided drip tray to the mechanical equipment.
(Closed)
4.1.1.50
Tools were observed stored inside drip tray with oil drums
on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to properly store the equipment at
area outside drip tray. The Contractor removed the equipment from area inside
drip tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.51
Defect (holes and deformed frame of drip tray) was observed
within drip tray at area between Portion C1b and Potion A; a gap was observed
within the frame of the drip tray on barge SHE7; drip tray with insufficient size or
deformed frame on floating grout facility. The Contractor was reminded to
provide proper mitigation measure such as drip tray without defect to oil drum
and PMEs. The Contractor rectified large majority of the defects (holes and
deformed frame of drip tray) observed within drip tray at area between Portion
C1b and Potion A. The Contractor provided proper mitigation measure such as
drip tray without defect to PME in September 2014. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
4.1.1.52
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting
period.
Others
4.1.1.53
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, 1,643,539,8.4 m3
of imported fill were imported for the Contract use in the reporting period.
342,669.5kg of metals, 1,649kg of paper/cardboard packaging, 6,403kg of
plastics, 15,000kg of chemical waste and 1336.5m3 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, further to the notification
of summons received March 2014 due to works carried out on 6 October 13
contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400. The Contractor pledged guilty to
the charge during the court appearance on 28 April 2014. The Contractor has
established noise control management system on restricted hour works, to
prevent future violation of conditions of NCOs, Cap. 400.
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
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.
6.1.8
EPD conducted inspection at HKBCF Reclamation Works at
11:36am on 23 October 2014, silt plume was observed spreading out from the
Portion E1 of the construction site through the silt curtain when filling
activities by derrick barge (®¶©ú28) was
undergoing.
6.1.8.1
EPD subsequently issued a yellow form and requested
Contractor to report them via ET Leader and IEC within 7 days after issuing the
yellow form for the remedial actions and preventive actions taken to improve
the situation.
6.1.8.2
Insufficient Mitigation Measures: Silt plume was found
spreading out from Portion E1 of the construction site through the silt curtain
on 23 October 2014.
6.1.8.3
Review of Contractor¡¦s investigation report and
rectifications.
6.1.8.4
Investigation actions:
¡P
Review of monitoring data obtained
20, 22, 24 and 27 October 2014.
¡P
Investigation report provided
by the Contractor on 29 October 2014 was reviewed:
¡P
Diver checking and
rectification record for integrity of silt curtain has been checked.
¡P
Inspection condition of sea
area near Portion E1 on 31 October 2014 around 1pm.
6.1.8.5
Investigation results:
¡P
Suspended Solids (SS) level and turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS17 and IS(Mf)16 and IS8 on 20, 22, 24 and 27
October 2014 were reviewed. (for IWQM data, refer to Appendix J)
¡P
Review of Suspended Solids (SS) level and turbidity level recorded at
IS(Mf)11, IS17 and IS(Mf)16 and IS8 on 20 October 2014:
¡P
Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS8 during flood tide and Action Level
Exceedance of IS17 during ebb tide was noted on 20 October 2014. After investigation,
the exceedance recorded at IS8 are unlikely to be
project related. However, exceedance recorded at IS17 is likely due to marine
based construction activities of the Project. For details of investigation,
please refer to investigation details section 4.7.3 to 4.7.4.
¡P
Review of Suspended Solids (SS) level and turbidity level recorded at
IS(Mf)11, IS17, IS(Mf)16 and IS8 on 22, 24 and 27 October 2014:
¡P
Turbidity level and Suspended Solids recorded on 22, 24 and 27 October
2014 at IS(Mf)11, IS17, IS(Mf)16 and IS8 were below
the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level and suspended
solid at sea area close to portion E1 was not adversely affected on 22, 24 and
27 October 2014.
¡P
Figure 3.2 of the investigation report showed that the silt plume was no
longer observed at 02:09pm on 23 October 2014 after derrick barge (®¶©ú28) ceased the work at 11:40am.
¡P
The Contractor arranged diver to check the integrity of the concerned
silt curtain. Minor damaged found on the concerned silt curtain and rectification
works had been carried out by the Contractor.
¡P
Diver checking and rectification record for integrity of silt curtain
has been checked and it shows that the part of the silt curtain which was
suspected to be malfunction (showed by red arrow in the diagram below) has been
rectified by the Contractor.
¡P
Subsequently, a rock placement
trial was conducted by the Contractor on 28 October 2014. Silt plume was
observed during the process but Figure 3.8 of the investigation report shows
that spreading to the outside of the silt curtain was prevented by the silt
curtain.
¡P
Photo records taken on 31
October 2014 shows the sea condition at sea area near the northeast side of the
HKBCF Reclamation Works and no silt plume was observed spreading out from
Portion E1 of the construction site through the silt curtain:
6.1.8.6
As informed by the Contractor, rockfill
materials would be placed more slowly by the derrick as well as the lowest
dropping point to minimize the generation of silt plume. Daily site inspection
in the area would be conducted so that any damaged parts of silt curtain can be
observed and repaired promptly.
6.1.8.7
The Contractor was further reminded to ensure swift
provision of maintenance to the perimeter silt curtains once defects of the
perimeter silt curtain were observed and continue the preventive measures
during rock filling and keep the site inspected at least daily to ensure
compliance with respect to the recommendations in the EIA Report and EM&A
Manual in particular on EIA Ref. Section 9.11.1.1
6.1.8.8
IWQM results on 29 and 31 October 2014 were review, no
exceedance was recorded at IS17, IS(Mf)11 and IS(Mf)16
which indicates that no adverse water quality impact after the implementation
of the preventive measures.
6.1.8.9
To prevent recurrence of the observed incident, inspection
has been conducted by the Contractor on a daily basis to review if there is an
impact to the water quality caused by rock filling activities using derrick
barge and to promptly provide maintenance once any damaged parts of silt curtain
is observed. The Contractor was further reminded to carry out swift
rectification works to the situation once any adverse impact to the water
quality is observed.
6.1.8.10
The Contractor was reminded that all water quality
mitigation measures with respect to the recommendations in the EIA Report and
EM&A Manual in particular on EIA Ref. Section 9.11.1.1 should be fully and
properly implemented.
7.
Summary of
Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7.1.1
A total of Five (5) Action level excedances
were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period. No Limit level excedance was recorded during reporting 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.
7.1.2
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period.
7.1.3
Forty one (41) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in
mg/L), one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), six (6) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom)
(mg/L) and eight (8) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO
(S&M) (mg/L) during the reporting period. After investigation, all impact
water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract except
the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity, Limit Level Exceedance of Suspended
Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October 2014 and Action Level
Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during flood tide on 20 October
2014, which were considered related to this Contract. Recommendation has been
given and rectification has been carried on by the Contractor on 28 October
2014.
7.1.4
Four (4) Limit 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. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. After investigation, there was no evidence that indicated
that the reduced number of dolphins in NWL and NEL was related solely to
Contract works. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the
HZMB works as a whole (or individual contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Please also
refer to the attachment for full investigation result. For investigation
results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.
7.1.5
Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in
Appendix J.
8.
Summary of Complaints,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
8.1.1
Total of thirteen (13) environmental complaints were
received in the reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling
Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.
8.1.2
EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant
who advised that there was sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone
column installation was taking place. The locations of stone column and impact
water quality monitoring data recorded between 12 ¡V 17 March14 were reviewed.
In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or
silty plume appearance outside the seawall was observed during the water
quality monitoring between 12 ¡V 17 March14. Therefore the complaint is
considered to be non-Contract related.
8.1.3
EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised
that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) ¡V
Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014. With refer to the monitoring records on 21
March 2014 and the follow-up site inspection audit conducted with the
representatives of the Contractor and Residential Engineer on 27 March 2014,
since no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the
perimeter silt curtain was observed, the complaint is considered to be
non-Contract related.
8.1.4
As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by
the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered
barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. However, base on the available information,
it cannot indicate that the air quality impact was caused by the vessel of this
Contract and therefore the complaint could not be concluded as related to this
Contract.
8.1.5
As informed by the Contractor on 7 May 14, a complaint was
received by the Contractor on 17 April 14 concerning sand and dust emission
from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen
Mun Ferry Pier. However, because no extra information
was received for this complaint after the release of the latest investigation
report, it is unable to conclude whether the complaint is related to this
Contract.
8.1.6
As informed by the Contractor on 30 May 2014, an
environmental complaint had been received on 28 May 2014. The complainant
mentioned that waste such as earth and concrete were being felled into the sea everyday at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge at location
where construction works are being conducted, causing pollution to the marine
environment. The construction programme and waste
flow record provided by the Contractor has been reviewed. With refer to the
available information provided, it is concluded that the complaint is unlikely
to be related to this Contract.
8.1.7
As informed by the Contractor on 3 July 2014, there was an
environmental complaint received on 13 June 14. The complainant who lived at Caribbean Coast
complained that there were night time noise and visual impact (strong lighting)
from the overnight construction works/plants of HKBCF Island. After
investigation, the part of the complaint which is related to visual impact is
likely to be related to the construction works of this contract. However, with
referred to the available information, it is concluded that the part of the
complaint which is related to night time noise is unlikely to be related to
this Contract.
8.1.8
As informed by the Contractor on 23 July 14, a complaint
has been received from Oriental Daily Newspaper on 22 July 14. In the
complaint, Oriental Daily Newspaper stated that Miss Cheung, who is a resident
of Miami Beach Towers (Tuen Mun),
pointed out that construction was being conducted at the sea area in front of
the estate, a lot of sand delivery barges were moored at sea area between
Castle Peak Beach (Tuen Mun Typhoon
Shelter) and Tuen Mun Ferry
Pier. She discovered on several occasions that there were leakage of soil from sand
delivery barges causing discoloration of sea water and sometimes, leaking of
sand from more than two sand delivery barges at a time was observed. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact
is related to this Contract.
8.1.9
As informed by the Contractor on 22 Aug 2014, EPD referred
a complainant to this Contract on 21 August 2014, the complainant raised
concern about uncovered sand barges at the sea area outside Melody Garden, Tuen Mun, sand were brought to
inside of houses by wind and also causing the vicinity to be covered with sand
and dust. After investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to
this Contract.
8.1.10
As informed by the Contractor on 15 Sept 14, there is an environmental
complaint received on 29 August 14 by HyD. The
complainant who lives at Tower 4, Melody Garden, Tuen Mun called reflecting
environmental issues arisen from many sand barges in the waters facing her
apartment. According to the complainant, sand was blown into her apartment
because the barges were not covered and it was worse when sand was transferred
from one vessel to another on conveyor belts. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this
Contract.
8.1.11
As informed by the Contractor, a public complaint has been
received by ICC on 9 September 2014 and it was referred to this Contract, the
complainant raised concern about a large amount of general refuse such as food
container and plastic bottles were observed on sea area off the Gold Coast, Tuen Mun. After investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to
this Contract.
8.1.12
An air quality complaint has been received by the
Contractor on 29 September 2014 via email. The complaint was first received by
EPD via email on 5 September 2014 and it was referred by EPD to the HZMB HK
Project Management Office (Management Office) to handle the complaint directly
on 10 September 2014 following the request of the complainant. The Management
Office responded to the complainant directly on 17 September 2014. Subsequently, the complainant followed
up with the response given by the Management Office and complained again on 26 September
2014. This follow up complaint was referred to the Project team to
investigate. The complainant complained that many of the sand barges did not
stay at area of reclamation works near Chek Lap Kok or at the sea area near Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal but moored in the sea area close
to Melody Garden. Sand were easily blown to the inside house during days with
moderate wind. The complainant
suggested that, sand barges should be requested to move away from residential
areas and sand barges should be provided with cover fabric and sprinkling to minimise environmental pollution caused by sand. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact
is related to this Contract.
8.1.13
As informed by the Contractor on 14 October 2014, a follow
up air quality complaint has been received by this Contract (same case to
environmental complaint reported in the last reporting month). The complainant
complained that about 20-30 sand barges always moor at the sea area opposite to
tower 4 of Melody Garden and Richland Garden. This problem has affected the air
quality. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this
Contract.
8.1.14
With reference to RSS¡¦s letter ref.: 211036/(HY2010/02)/M05/432/B07605 dated on 30 September 2014 pertaining
the performance on barges operations at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. A complaint
concerning leakage of sand filling material from vessels at sea area off Tuen Mun Ferry Pier was first
received by EPD from Tuen Mun
District Council (TM DC) on 19 September 2014 and it was subsequently referred
by EPD to the Highways Department to handle on 23 September 2014 through EPD¡¦s
memo ref.: EP/RW/0000362128.Referring to EPD's Memo, it is also noted that some
local residents at Tuen Mun
expressed their concern that the stockpile of dusty sand material on the barges
should be covered with impervious sheeting to avoid causing fugitive dust
emissions of sand and dust.
Subsequently, TM DC followed up their complaint with Highways Department
on 17 October 2014. The follow up complaint concerning water quality impact at
sea area off Tuen Mun area
was referred to the Project team to response on 17 October 2014. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact
is related to this Contract.
8.1.15
As informed by the Contractor, further to the notification
of summons received March 2014 due to works carried out on 6 October 13
contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400. The Contractor pledged guilty to
the charge during the court appearance on 28 April 2014. The Contractor has
established noise control management system on restricted hour works, to
prevent future violation of conditions of NCOs, Cap. 400.
9.1
A total of Five (5) Action 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
No 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
64 water quality monitoring exceedances were recorded in
the reporting period and it was considered not related to the Contract works
except the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity, Limit Level Exceedance of
Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October 2014 and Action
Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during flood tide on 20
October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract. Recommendation
has been given and rectification has been carried on by the Contractor on 28
October 2014. 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.
10.3
EPD
conducted inspection at HKBCF Reclamation Works at 11:36am on 23 October 2014,
silt plume was observed spreading out from the Portion E1 of the construction
site through the silt curtain when filling activities by derrick barge (®¶©ú28) was undergoing.
10.4
EPD
subsequently issued a yellow form and requested Contractor to report them via
ET Leader and IEC within 7 days after issuing the yellow form for the remedial
actions and preventive actions taken to improve the situation.
10.5
The
Contractor subsequently rectified the situation and the Contractor was reminded
that all water quality mitigation measures with respect to the recommendations
in the EIA Report and EM&A Manual in particular on EIA Ref. Section
9.11.1.1 should be fully and properly 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.
12.8.2
A total of five (5) Action level excedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring
period. No Limit level excedance was recorded during
reporting 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.
12.8.3
Construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period.. 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
Forty one (41) Action Level exceedances and seven (7) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in
mg/L), one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU), six (6) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO (Bottom)
(mg/L) and eight (8) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured DO
(S&M) (mg/L) during the reporting period.
12.8.5
Exceedances were considered to be due to a combination of
the following potential causes A combination of the following potential causes:
1. 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. 2. Local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded. 3. There were two occasions when exceedances were considered due to
vessel movement at shallow water and defective silt curtain.
12.8.6
Four (4) Limit 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. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. After investigation, there was no evidence that
indicated that the reduced number of dolphins in NWL and NEL was related solely
to Contract works. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the
HZMB works as a whole (or individual contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Please also
refer to the attachment for full investigation result. For investigation
results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.
12.8.7
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.
12.8.8
Thirteen (13) environmental
complaints were received in the reporting period.
12.8.9
No summons was received in the reporting period and one (1)
successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.
12.8.10
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.
12.8.11
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.
12.8.12
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.
12.8.13
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.
The monitoring stations
AMS7 was renamed to monitoring station AMS7A after relocation on 3 February 2014.
¡§On effort¡¨
sightings are classified as those sightings which are made when the vessel is
on the designated trackline and observers are
actively searching. ¡§Opportunistic
sightings¡¨ are those sightings which occur while travelling between tracklines, additional sightings made when travelling back
to a transect line after photographing a dolphin group and/or any dolphins
noted when transiting between areas or on passage to transect lines.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2012.
Annual Marine Mammal
Monitoring Programme April 2011-March 2012. ) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of
the Hong Kong SAR.
Ove Arup &
Partners Hong Kong Ltd 2009 HZMB ¡V HKBCF & HKLR EIA Report.
24037-REP-125-01 Pages 83-5, 97, 115
Agreement No. MW 01/2003. Hong Kong- Zhuhai- Macao Bridge: Hong
Kong Section and the North Lantau
Highway
Connection: Ecological Baseline Survey. Final 9 Month Ecological Baseline
Survey Report the (p 42 ¡V 43)