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 Contract.
AECOM Asia
Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental
Team for the Contract for carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) works.
The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively
completed by early Year 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 2015 and 29 February 2016. As informed
by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-base works
-
Cellular structure installation and backfilling
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Earthwork fill
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Cellular structure ¡V Connecting Arcs
-
Cellular structure ¡V Capping Beams
-
Cellular structure ¡V Backfill
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
-
Rock fill
Land-base 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
-
Earthwork fill
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical Band Drains
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
- Geotechnical
Instrumentation Works
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
|
53 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
One (1) Limit Level Exceedance of 24hr-TSP
was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract. No 1hr-TSP was recorded in
the reporting year.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
For
construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the reporting year.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Two (2) Action Level
Exceedances of SS at IS10 and SR5 during Flood tide were recorded on 23 March
2015. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded
on other monitoring date in March 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information
to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
Two
(2) Action Level Exceedances of suspend solids were recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6
during flood tide on 17 July 2015, the exceedances were confirmed after
checking against relevant control station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA
and CS(Mf)5 following the Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
One (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR7
during flood tide was recorded on 30 September 2015. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to
this Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other
monitoring date in September 2015; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR6
during flood tide was recorded on 2 October 2015. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to this
Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other monitoring
date in October 2015; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 during
flood tide was recorded on 6 Nov 2015. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to this
Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other monitoring
date in November 2015.
One
(1) action level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at monitoring
station IS(Mf)11 has been recorded on 28 December 2015 during flood tide. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedance is related to this Contract; 2 limit level exceedances of turbidity
level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5
February 2016; 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at
monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016. No
exceedance at other monitoring stations in the between December 2015 and
February 2016. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
Triggering of Event
and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
Four (4) Limit
level exceedances were recorded in the reporting year 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 year. 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.
As informed by
the premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD
would not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring equipment
(High volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the
premises of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015.
In order to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as permission to
conduct impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air
quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment
received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from
EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu
Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The impact air quality
monitoring for December 2015 was conducted before the relocation of AQM Station
from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact air quality monitoring for January and February
2016 were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level
for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring
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
Eight (8) environmental complaints were received in the reporting
year.
No summons
or successful prosecution was received in the reporting year.
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 fourth 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 2015 and 29 February 2016.
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
(Effective
between 1 March 2015 ¡V 15 September 2015 during the reporting year)
|
2528 3031
|
2668 3970
|
Engineer¡¦s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Paul Appleton
(Effective 16
September 2015 onward)
|
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 (Left this project
on 15 June 2015)
|
36932253
|
2578 0413
|
Louie Chan (Effective on 15 June
2015)
|
36932254
|
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 year are
listed below:-
Marine-base
works
-
Cellular structure installation
and backfilling
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Earthwork fill
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation
works
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts
except sloping outfalls
-
Maintenance of silt curtain &
silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
-
Cellular structure ¡V Connecting
Arcs
-
Cellular structure ¡V Capping
Beams
-
Cellular structure ¡V Backfill
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
-
Rock fill
Land-base
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
-
Earthwork fill
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Surcharge removal &
laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical Band Drains
-
Installations of Precast Culverts
except sloping outfalls
- Geotechnical
Instrumentation Works
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 As informed by the
premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD would
not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring equipment (High
volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the premises
of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015. In order
to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as permission to conduct
impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott
Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air quality
monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment
received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from
EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu
Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The impact air quality
monitoring for December 2015 was conducted before the relocation of AQM Station
from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact air quality monitoring for January and February
2016 were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level
for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring
location.
2.1.5 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.
2.1.6 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.
2.1.7 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.
2.1.8 The monitoring
locations used during the reporting year are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and
4 respectively.
2.1.9 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, baseline water quality monitoring results at the respective monitoring
stations and baseline Chinese White Dolphin monitoring respectively, 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.
2.3.1
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. 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.
3.1.1.4. ET proposed
relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with
no further comment received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular
comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality
monitoring station AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company
Limited) has been relocated to AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30
December 2015. The impact air quality monitoring for December 2015 was
conducted before the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact
air quality monitoring for January and February 2016 were conducted at AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level for air quality, as derived
from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel
will be adopted for this air quality monitoring 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 15 ¡V Feb 16
|
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 15 ¡V Feb 16
|
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
|
0
|
Limit
|
1
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7/7A
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
1
|
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 and
the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities - reclamation works could be
established for all non-compliances and therefore no action was required to be
taken.
3.1.4
Review
of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.1.4.1
A total of 1 Limit Level exceedance was 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. 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 Project in
the EIA to ensure no exceedance of the TSP standard at the sensitive receiver.
3.1.6.2
The air quality monitoring methodology was effective in
monitoring the air quality impacts of the 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 15- Feb 16
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
53
|
NMS3B
|
53
|
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.
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
3.2.3.2.1
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 Correlation between exceedances with
possible noise generating activities
3.2.4.2.1
No Exceedance was recorded for all monitoring stations. The
impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted
construction noise levels in the Project EIA.
3.2.5.1
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
|
66.9
|
62.8 ¡V 70.7*
|
75
|
NMS3B
|
Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
65.9
|
55 ¡V 68.5*
|
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 Project
in the
EIA process to ensure compliance with the appropriate criterion at the
receivers.
3.2.6.2
The noise monitoring methodology was effective in monitoring
the noise impacts of the 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
15 - Feb 16
|
Water
Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
156
|
Mid-Flood
|
156
|
Table 3.9 Summary of Water Quality
Exceedances in Mar 15-Feb 16
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
17 July 2015
|
0
|
(1)
17 July 2015
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
17 July 2015
|
0
|
(1)
17 July 2015
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5
Feb 16
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6 Nov 15
|
0
|
(1)
6 Nov 15
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
23 Mar 15
|
0
|
(1)
23 Mar 15
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
28 Dec 15
|
0
|
(1)
28 Dec 15
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5
Feb 16
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
23 Mar 15
|
0
|
(1)
23 Mar 15
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1 )
2 Oct 2015
|
0
|
(1 )
2 Oct 2015
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1 )
30 Sept 2015
|
0
|
(1 )
30 Sept 2015
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.1.4 Please refer to the
monthly EM&A report (March 2015 to February 2016) 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 twelve exceedances
were recorded during the entire construction period with 10 Action level
exceedances and 2 Limit level exceedances.
3.3.4
Review
of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.3.4.1 Ten (10) Action Level
exceedances of measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2)
Limit Level exceedances of Turbidity (in NTU) were recorded during the
reporting period. After
investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related
to this Contract. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A
Report of this Contract.
3.3.4.2 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 15 to
Feb 16), ambient conditions were considered to have effects on the water
quality monitoring results. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station
where exceedance was recorded and after
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
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 IS5, IS17, IS7, IS8 and IS10 were more fluctuated and a
higher turbidity level were recorded March 2015 and but no apparent trend was
observed. The trend of turbidity levels of each monitoring station was shown in
Appendix G. 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 September 2015 to February
2016. The trend of suspended solid levels of each monitoring station was shown
in Appendix G. Despite few isolated events, suspended solids levels of all
monitoring stations were still lower than the Action Level during the
monitoring period.
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-15
|
376,294
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Apr-15
|
240,642
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
May-15
|
743,731
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Jun-15
|
368,595
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Jul-15
|
35,549
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Aug-15
|
23,625
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sep-15
|
34,520
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Oct-15
|
9,246
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Nov-15
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Dec-15
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Jan-16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Feb-16
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
*Only
marine filling is counted
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 6.2 mg/L in May 2015 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 3.11.
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 (May 2015)
|
Depletion during Impact Monitoring
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
SR3*
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
6.4
|
6.5
|
-0.4
|
-0.2
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N)**
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
6.6
|
6.4
|
0.5
|
0.1
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
6.4
|
6.4
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
SR5
|
SR5**
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
-0.1
|
-0.1
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
0.1
|
0
|
SR6
|
SR6**
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
-0.2
|
-0.2
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
SR7
|
SR7**
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
6.5
|
-0.1
|
0.5
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
6.2
|
6.4
|
0.1
|
0.5
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
5.9
|
0
|
-0.1
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
5.9
|
5.7
|
0.2
|
-0.1
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)**
|
Surface
& mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
0
|
0
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
6.0
|
5.8
|
-0.2
|
0
|
^Due
to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location of SR4 has been changed
to SR4(N) and water quality monitoring location of SR10B has been changed as
SR10B(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 May 2015 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 May 2015
Sensitive
Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact
Monitoring
|
Impact SS Mean
(in May 2015)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3
|
7.12
|
-6.88
|
7.51
|
-8.79
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
5.30
|
-6.00
|
7.67
|
-4.53
|
SR5
|
SR5
|
5.92
|
-4.68
|
6.02
|
-5.88
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
6.09
|
-5.81
|
4.98
|
-6.92
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
5.49
|
-5.91
|
4.55
|
-5.85
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
5.40
|
-4.80
|
4.25
|
-5.95
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*
|
4.49
|
-7.01
|
6.81
|
-4.29
|
*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 May 2015, 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. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the
vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
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 turbidity and suspended
solids levels, a total of 12 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 local
effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded
and after
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
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. Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries
of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown
in Figure 5 could not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10
is reduced from 6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF
construction site.
3.4.1.3 Coordinates for transect lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 have been updated inrespect to the
Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD on 19
August 2015.Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined
is reduced to approximately 108km.
3.4.1.4 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 2015- May 2015
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.6
|
5.2
|
June 2015- August 2015
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.7
|
4.7
|
September 2015- November 2015
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.9
|
3.8
|
December 2015- February 2016
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.2
|
4.5
|
* 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 were conducted monthly from March 2015 to February 2016, i.e., during
the fourth year of the construction phase. A total of 48 survey days were
completed between March 2015-February 2016 (Appendix H: Table 1). A total of 2615.7km were completed of
which 2572 km were conducted under favourable conditions (defined as Beaufort
Sea State 3 or better and with visibility of >1km) (Appendix H: Table
2). In the first year of impact
monitoring (2012-13), 49 survey days were completed (total travelled 2627.5km;
under favourable conditions 2601.4km).
In the second year of impact monitoring (2013-14), 50 survey days were
completed (total travelled 2667.1km; 2595.4km under favourable
conditions). In the third year of
impact monitoring (2014-15), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled
2641.7km; 2637.1km conducted under favourable conditions). In all four years, >98% of the track
length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between March 2015-February 2016, a
total of 43 dolphin sightings were recorded, 26 as on effort and 17 as
opportunistic[2]
(Appendix H: Figure 1). 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. In the third year,
a total of 72 dolphin sightings were recorded, 46 on effort and 26
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 highest number of
sightings were made between June 2015 ¡V November 2015. The lowest number of sightings were
recorded in December 2015¡VFebruary 2016. No sightings were made in the NEL
section of the survey area (Appendix H: Figure 2). In NWL and adjacent waters, dolphins
were consistently distributed in areas of rocky, reefy shoreline or where there
was a marked depth contour. These areas are the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau
Marine Protected Area (SCLKCMPA), the adjacent maritime border of Hong Kong SAR
and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Tai O area. Since long term
monitoring has been 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 2015 to February 2016 were calculated[3]. For NWL, quarterly dolphin encounter
rates were similar between March-November with a slight peak during the period
September¡VNovember (Appendix H: Figure 3).
Within NWL, quarterly encounter rates ranged from 3 to 6 groups (Year
1); 5 to 9 groups (Year 2); 2 to 4 groups (Year 3) and one group (Year 4) per
100km on effort (figures rounded). Years 3 and 4 of construction works showed the
lowest encounter rates.
3.4.7. Group Size
3.4.7.1.
The
majority of all sightings recorded were of less than 5 individuals (79%).
Larger groups were seen in southern NWL and in, or adjacent to, SCLKCMPA. There
was no seasonal pattern although with so few sightings patterns may be
difficult to discern. The two mother and calf groups sighted were both in
groups of five or more individuals. Two of the large groups sighted were noted
as exhibiting multiple behavior which incorporated feeding and two groups were
recorded as feeding. Four groups were recorded as travelling and one group was
milling near an anchored fishing vessel.
Groups of five or more were sighted throughout the year (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[4]). 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 2015-February 2016, DPSE was calculated in six
categories, ranging from low use to high use. Neither NEL nor NWL have any areas of
high use (> 60 DPSE); 0% (NEL) and 10% (NWL) as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE);
and 100% (NEL) and 90% (NWL) as low use (< 20 DPSE). (Appendix H: Figure 5).
3.4.8.2
For the
period March 2015-February 2016, SPSE 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 (> 15 SPSE); 0% of NEL and 10% NWL and; as moderate
use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 100% (NEL) and 88% (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,
March 2014-February 2015 and March 2015-February 2016 (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 were no on effort sightings in NEL during March
2015-February 2016.
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. No on effort sightings
were made in NEL during March 2015-February 2016 and only one sighting in the
previous year (2014-15).
Table 3.17 Comparison
of low, moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years 2011-12;
2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (in %)
*Advance = advance baseline
monitoring conducted between 2011 and 2012.
3.4.9
Mother and Calf Pairs
3.4.9.1
Two
mothers and the offspring of individuals identified from the first year of impact
monitoring (2012) were sighted during the year 2015-16. Two mother and calves
born in year 2015-16 were also sighted, both of which were previously
identified (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. Mother-offspring bonds are
known to last years, sometimes decades, in delphinid species. During 2015-18,
HZMB 023 and her offspring HZMB 022 were sighted on two occasions each, once
together and once each without the other. This juvenile is well marked and was
born prior to the impact monitoring period and estimated to be five to six years
old. HZMB 044 is a well-known individual and is recorded in AFCD records as
NL98. She was first sighted with a new born calf in 2012 and the calf was
individually identified in 2014-15 as HZMB 125. Both were seen together on a
single occasion in January 2016. A
female identified as HZMB 047 was initially recorded in September 2012 and was
sighted with a new born calf in March 2015. A female identified as HZMB 114 was
initially recorded in October 2013 and was sighted with a new calf in November
2015 (Appendix H: Figure 9). There were no sightings of the three known
females, HZMB 026, HZMB 098 and HZMB 116, who were identified with calves
previously during impact monitoring.
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 decreased and travelling
and multiple activities increased. Multiple activities included both travelling
and feeding behavior. When compared to the previous three years of impact
monitoring, feeding is an important activity although its frequency appears to
have decreased and travelling times have increased in 2015-16 (Appendix H:
Figure 11). Again, it is noted that
as sightings numbers become less, patterns can be difficult to interpret with
confidence.
3.4.10.2
In
2012-13, the area of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL was highlighted as an important
feeding area as it was again in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The area to the south of NWL is also
important for feeding/surface active behaviours. As the impact monitoring
progresses, a decreasing trend in the overall number of dolphin sightings in
NEL and mid NWL has become apparent (Appendix H: Figure 12).
3.4.11
Photo-Identification
Catalogue
3.4.12
Dolphin
Abundance
3.4.12.1
No sightings were recorded in NEL. For NWL, the
overall abundance estimate is 15 [95% CI 4.3, 32.0])
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, although
travelling frequency appears to be on the increase, and that at least two
calves identified in 2012-13 have survived to 2015-16. In 2013-14, an emerging
trend for decreased use of NEL was noted and no sightings were seen in NEL in
2015-16. 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 water quality objectives as described in the EM&A Manual
except where noted in Section 7.1.5 (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]).
There has been no updated toxin analyses of Chinese white dolphin in the
reporting year.
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 the third year (2014-2015)
and NEL recorded no sightings in year four (2015-16) although a single sighting
adjacent to HKBCF was made by MMO and site staff in November 2015. AFCD data indicate that higher than
usual dolphin mortality has continued from 2014-15 to 2015-16. 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 showed a significant decline in dolphins in NEL and
adjacent areas was ongoing 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[9].
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, 2013-14 and
2014-15 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 2015 and February 2016, 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 2015 and February 2016 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 Monitoring has 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 Dust was observed
when vehicle passes through access
roads at portion C2c and E2 and when vehicle passed through
road at Portion C1a and Portion D; fugitive dust was observed when vehicle was
drove pass portion C2c and road at Portion B, E2 and during rock filling;
fugitive dust was observed at northeastern part of the site and at northeastern
part of the site. the Contractor
was reminded to
provide sufficient dust control measures to
prevent generation of fugitive dust. The Contractor
provided watering or other preventative measures to prevent generation of
fugitive dust. (Closed)
4.1.1.4 Fugitive dust was
observed generated when spoil was excavated at east side of the reclamation
works, unloading of rocks and at Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded to
sprayed dusty materials with water or a dust suppression chemical immediately
prior to loading or unloading or transfer operation and the Contractor was
advised to provide dust control measures when material during excavated of the
spoil. The Contractor applied water on exposed soil during excavation of spoil.
(Closed)
4.1.1.5 Fugitive dust was
observed at Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded to provide effective dust
control measures such as sufficient watering on road. Photo record shows that
watering was provided on site to prevent generation of fugitive dust. The
Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient measures to prevent generation of
fugitive dust. (Reminder)
4.1.1.6 Exposed soil was
observed at Portion D,
the Contractor was reminded to
provide sufficient measures
to prevent site runoff of turbid water to the sea
or to area which is
outside the site boundary. (Reminder)
4.1.1.7 Dark smoke emission
from plant/equipment was observed at Portion D and C1a; from pelican barge was
observed at Portion C2b and emitted from excavator was observed at Portion D,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure dark smoke emission from plant/equipment
should be avoided. The Contractor prevented dark smoke emission of
plant/equipment. (Closed)
4.1.1.8 Dark smoke was
observed from an excavator at Portion C2c. The Contractor was reminded to
maintain to equipment in good condition.
Photo record shows that dark smoke was no longer observed from the
excavator and barge near Portion C2c. The Contractor was reminded to check the
dark smoke of machineries and ensure proper implementation of air quality
mitigation measures. (Reminder)
4.1.1.9 Dark smoke emission was observed from plant/equipment
of derrick barge and pelican barge and on at Portion E1, the Contractor was
advised to provide measures to avoid emission of dark smoke. The Contractor
subsequently provided measures to avoid emission of dark smoke. (Closed)
4.1.1.10 Dark smoke was
observed at portion C2a when a vessel was in operation. The Contractor was
reminded to prevent. (Reminder)
4.1.1.11 Watering was observed
during site walk, the Contractor was reminded to continue to provide sufficient
dust control measures and ensure generation of fugitive dust is prevented. (Reminder)
4.1.1.12 Rock material was
observed dry; the Contractor was reminded to moisten to prevent generation of
fugitive dust during operation. The Contractor provided dust control measure on
barge. (Closed)
4.1.1.13 Cement was observed
on surface of grout production facility; the Contractor was reminded that to
ensure generation of fugitive dust is prevented and the
entire grouting process and materials unloading, loading and transfer
shall be performed within an enclosed system. (Reminder)
4.1.1.14 Road was observed
moistened. The Contractor was reminded to continue to provide control measures
to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
4.1.1.15 The Contractor was
reminded to continue to provide sufficient dust control to prevent generation
of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
4.1.1.16 Fugitive dust was
observed when vehicle was drove pass the road, during grout production process
and during rock filling process. The Contractor was reminded to provide
sufficient dust control to prevent generation of fugitive dust. The Contractor
subsequently provided dust control measures to the area. (Closed)
4.1.1.17 Two idling generators
were found at Portion B without proper NRMM labels.The Contractor was reminded
to label the generator properly. Subsequently, the Contractor properly labelled
one of the generator and the Contractor was reminded to label the another
generator properly. As informed by the Contractor, another idle generator was
provided with NRMM label and removed from site. (Closed)
Noise
4.1.1.18 The panel of the air
compressor at Portion C2c was observed open during operation. The Contractor
was reminded to keep all flaps and/or panels closed during operation. The
Contractor subsequently closed the panels. (Closed)
4.1.1.19 The Contractor was
reminded to provide the facilities with acoustic decoupling measures in
accordance with the proposed mitigation measures for noise stated in the
EP-353/2009/H. (Reminder)
Water Quality
4.1.1.20 Defect on part of the
pipe for transferring DCM material was observed on barge (¤ÑÂ@3). The Contractor
was reminded to ensure all pipes in a good condition and provide sandbags along
the edge of the barge in order to prevent such materials from entering nearby
water (Closed)
4.1.1.21 Tipping of rock
material to the sea was observed at Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to
keep the tipping point as low as possible. (Reminder)
4.1.1.22 Insufficient sand
bags was observed on idle grout production facilities, the Contractor was
reminded to provide enough sand bags before operation of the grout production
facilities to prevent potential runoff. (Reminder)
4.1.1.23 Insufficient sand
bund was observed at Portion C2b when DCM was conducted. The Contractor was
reminded to provide sufficient bunding to prevent potential runoff. The
Contractor subsequently enhanced sand bund at the works area. (Closed)
4.1.1.24 Defects were observed
on the secondary enclosure of grout delivery pipes. The Contractor was reminded
to provide effective measure to contain any potential leakage of
wastewater/grout and prevent them from releasing to the sea. The Contractor
enhanced the measures to contain any potential leakage of wastewater/grout and
prevent them from releasing to the sea. (Closed)
4.1.1.25 Grout mixture was
observed on land at the connection point of pipes. The Contractor was reminded
to ensure no grout material is released to the sea. (Reminder)
4.1.1.26 Pipes were observed
at Portion E1, the Contractor was reminded to provide preventive measures and
avoid potential release of turbid water. (Reminder)
4.1.1.27 Disconnection of
secondary protective pipe was observed, the Contractor was reminded provide
effective measures to avoid any wastewater discharged from the grouting
production process or domestic sewage to the sea. The Contractor
subsequently provided maintenance to the disconnected pipes. (Closed)
4.1.1.28 Delivery pipe of
floating grout production facilities was observed not fully enclosed. The
Contractor was reminded to ensure full enclosure and prevent any potential
runoff. The Contractor subsequently provided full enclosure to delivery pipes
of the grout production facilities. (Closed)
4.1.1.29 Soil was observed
accumulated one side of the vessel, the Contractor was reminded to clear them
regularly prevent runoff and keep the site clean and tidy. (Reminder)
4.1.1.30 Soil was observed at
area near water outlet. The Contractor was reminded to provide measures such as
sand bags to prevent silty water at water outlet. (Reminder)
4.1.1.31 Silt plume was
observed at the northern part of the Portion C2b inside area enclosed by
perimeter silt curtain. The Contractor was reminded to properly implement water
quality mitigation measures. The
Contractor provided measures such as rock bund the edge of Portion C2b. The
contractor was reminded to ensure silt plume is prevented (Reminder)
4.1.1.32 Oil was observed in
water adjacent to Portion C2c. The Contractor was reminded to clear the oil and
take actions in accordance with the Spill Response Plan. The oil was cleared by the Contractor
using oil spill kit and the used spill kit was disposed of by the Contractor as
chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.33 Turbid water was
observed to flow from land area to seawall. The Contractor was advised to
provide measures to prevent turbid water from going to the sea area. The
Contractor provided measure to prevent the turbid water from going into the sea
area from the land area. (Closed)
4.1.1.34 A deformed drip tray
was observed on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray which
can effectively contain potential leakage of oil. The Contractor subsequently
provided drip tray without defect. (Closed)
4.1.1.35 Gaps between vehicle accesses
were observed on the landing barge near Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded
to provide measure to prevent potential runoff on the landing barge. (Reminder)
4.1.1.36 Material was observed
stockpiled on cells at Portion E1 and near Portion C2a. The Contractor was
reminded to provide preventative measures to the works process to prevent
runoff. The Contractor subsequently removed the material from Portion E1.
(Closed)
4.1.1.37 The Contractor was
reminded to provide preventive measures, such as liner and bunding, for the
stockpile of excavated materials at Portion C2a and C2b. (Reminder)
4.1.1.38 Runoff was observed
onsite and silt plume was observed by at the sea area by the seawall near
Portion C2a. The Contractor was advised to provide control measures to prevent
runoff. The Contractor subsequently provided measures to prevent runoff.
(Closed)
4.1.1.39 Turbid water was
observed at Portion E1, the Contractor was reminded to prevent runoff of turbid
water. The Contractor subsequently provided measures to prevent runoff of
turbid water. (Closed)
4.1.1.40 Silt curtain was
observed temporarily disconnected during maintenance. The Contractor was
reminded the silt curtain should be reinstated after maintenance is completed.
The Contractor subsequently collected the silt curtain. (Reminder)
4.1.1.41 The Contractor was
reminded to continue to carry out maintenance as necessary and ensure integrity
of the perimeter silt curtain at all time. (Reminder)
Chemical and Waste Management
4.1.1.42 A generator was placed
on ground without provision of drip tray on barge (¤ÑÂ@ 3), chemical containers
were placed on bare ground without provision of drip tray at Portion C2C. The Contractor was reminded to provide
the generator with drip tray to retain oil leakage, if any. The Contractor
removed the generator on barge on barge (¤ÑÂ@3). (Closed)
4.1.1.43 Generator was
observed without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation
measures such as drip tray to all generators. Contractor removed the generator
from the area. (Closed)
4.1.1.44 Generator was
observed without drip tray on barge San Han Bo 210, the Contractor was reminded
to provide mitigation measure such as drip tray or bunding to generator. The
Contractor subsequently provided bunding to the generator. (Closed)
4.1.1.45 Oil drum was observed
outside drip tray at Portion C1 and on barge Wing Hop Lee, were observed
without drip tray at workshop area; oil drums were observed without drip tray
on barge. The Contractor was
reminded to provide mitigation measure such as drip tray to oil drum. The Contractor
provided drip tray to oil drums. (Closed)
4.1.1.46 Oil drums was observed
without drip tray at Portion C2b, on barge ®¶©ú93 and on barge´äÀs, the Contractor
was reminded to provided drip tray to oil drums. The Contractor subsequently
removed the oil drums from the concerned area. (Closed)
4.1.1.47 Oil drums without drip
trays were observed barge§Q¯è8, on deck surface of barge Evershine18 and barge®¶©ú
and material supplying vessel and on deck surface of barge DL4; generator was
observed without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation
measures such as drip tray to oil drums. The Contractor removed the oil drums
on deck surface of barge Evershine18 and barge®¶©ú. The contractor removed the
generator or provided drip tray to the oil drum on ground. The material
supplying vessel where the oil drums were observed left the site. (Closed)
4.1.1.48 Oil drums without
drip trays were observed on deck surface of barge DL4. The Contractor was
reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray to oil drums. The
Contractor removed the oil drum. (Closed)
4.1.1.49 Oil drums without
drip trays were observed at portion C2a. The Contractor was reminded to provide
mitigation measures such as drip tray to oil drums. The oil drums were removed
by the Contractor. (Closed)
4.1.1.50 Idle air compressors
were observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide trip
tray to air compressor before use of air compressor. (Reminder)
4.1.1.51 A moveable lighting
was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide
preventive measures such as trip tray to the machine. The Contractor
subsequently removed the machine from the area. (Closed)
4.1.1.52 Oil water mixture was
observed accumulated inside bunding. The Contractor was reminded to regularly
clear the oil water mixture accumulated inside drip tray. Subsequently, the
Contractor removed the oil water mixture accumulated inside drip tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.53 It was observed that
sand was loaded inside drip trays. The Contractor was reminded to clear the
sand inside drip tray. The Contractor subsequently cleared the sand inside drip
tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.54 It was observed that
water and oil mixture accumulated inside drip tray at Portion E2. The
Contractor was reminded to clear the sand inside drip tray. The Contractor
subsequently cleared the water and oil mixture accumulated inside drip tray.
(Closed)
4.1.1.55 Bags of inert waste
were observed on site, the Contractor was reminded to collect and dispose them
of properly and regularly. (Reminder)
4.1.1.56 General refuses were
observed at Portion D and Portion E. The Contractor was reminded to regular
collect and dispose of the general refuses on site to keep the site clean and
tidy. The Contractor subsequently collected and removed the general refuses at
Portion D. (Closed)
4.1.1.57 Oil drum were
observed without drip tray on barge GD852, the Contractor was reminded to
provide drip tray to oil drums. The oil drums were subsequently removed by the
Contractor. (Closed)
4.1.1.58 A generator was
observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to
generator. The Contractor subsequently provided drip tray to generator.
(Closed)
4.1.1.59 Chemical container
was observed placing on bare ground at Portion C2b.The Contractor should
provide drip trays as proper chemical container storage measure. Subsequently,
the Contractor provided drip tray to oil drums. (Closed)
4.1.1.60 The Contractor was
reminded to remove the water mixture which accumulated inside the drip trays at
Portion C2a and dispose of as chemical waste properly. The Contractor
subsequently removed the water mixture inside drip tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.61 Stagnant water was observed
accumulated inside a drip tray on Barge Luen Hing 368; Oil and water mixture
was observed on barge ®¶©ú18, s informed by the Contractor, the barge®¶©ú18 had
left construction site of HKBCF reclamation works. The Contractor was reminded
to clear the water/oil water mixture regularly to prevent potential runoff.
(Reminder)
4.1.1.62 It was observed that
liquid was accumulated inside drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to
regularly clear the water accumulated inside drip tray to prevent potential
runoff. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation and cleared the
water accumulated inside drip tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.63 It was observed that
sand was loaded inside drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to clear the sand
inside drip tray. (Pending for Contractor¡¦s rectification)
4.1.1.64 A deformed drip tray
was observed on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray which
can effectively contain potential leakage of oil. (Pending for Contractor¡¦s
rectification)
4.1.1.65 Defective drip tray
was observed on barge, the Contractor was advised to provide drip tray without
defects on barges. The Contractor rectified the defect of the drip tray.
(Closed)
4.1.1.66 Water was observed
inside drip tray at workshop area, the Contractor was reminded to clear the
water accumulated inside drip tray to prevent runoff. The Contractor
subsequently cleared the water accumulated in the drip tray. (Closed)
4.1.1.67 General refuse and
bags of general refuse were observed on land area of Portion D and C1a; was
observed at entrance area of workshop at portion C1a and C2c.. The
Contractor was reminded to
regularly clear the general refuse and
provide rubbish bin
with cover/lid. The Contractor cleared the general refuse on land area
of Portion D and C1a. (Closed)
4.1.1.68 Oil stain was
observed on ground at workshop area; the Contractor was reminded to clean the
oil stain and disposed them of as chemical waste, subsequently, the Contractor
cleared the oil stain and disposed them of as chemical waste. (Closed)
4.1.1.69 Floating debris on
water surface at Portion D was observed. The Contractor was reminded to remove
the debris on sea regularly. The Contractor removed the debris on sea. (Closed)
4.1.1.70 Temporary waste
storage or rubbish bin was not provided on land area of Portion B beside
Portion E2. To keep the site clean and tidy, the Contractor was reminded to
provide rubbish bin with cover/lid to works area. (Reminder)
4.1.1.71 Waste water generated
from the grout mixing process was stored within soil bund; the Contractor was
advised to provide sufficient enclosure and ensure the wastewater from
the work process is not released to the sea. The Contractor provided
sufficient enclosure to the waste water observed. (Closed)
4.1.1.72 General refuse was
observed stored on site without proper covers and at portion at portion C2c and
on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide rubbish bin with over to
general refuse. General refuse was cleared by the Contractor. (Closed)
4.1.1.73 General refuse was
observed on site and at area near the pier of southern part and south eastern
part of the site; the Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient rubbish bin
on site and regular properly collect and dispose of general refuse. General
refuse was removed by the Contractor. (Closed)
4.1.1.74 It was observed that the
pipes used for transferring grout between barge DL4 and ¤ÑÂ@3 were not fully
enclosed, the Contractor was advised to provide measures to ensure potential
leakage of grout from the grouting production process to the sea can
be effective prevented. The Contractor provided measures to prevent potential
leakage of grout from the grouting production process to the sea.
(Closed)
4.1.1.75 Solidified grout was
observed on deck of barge DL4. The Contractor was reminded to keep the deck
surface clean and tidy. The solidified grouts were cleared by the Contractor.
(Closed)
4.1.1.76 Hole was observed
within bunding placed on Barge SHB 209, the Contractor was advised to provide
effective mitigation measures by sealing the hole to prevent leakage and
potential runoff. The Contractor rectified the deficiency by sealing the hole
within the bunding on barge SHB 209. (Closed)
4.1.1.77 It was observed that
waste water was generated from the jet grout process; the Contractor was
advised to provide sufficient enclosure and ensure the wastewater from
the work process is not released to the sea. Contractor enhanced the soil
bund and ensures the wastewater from the work process is not released to the
sea. (Closed)
4.1.1.78 Solidified grout was observed
stored on deck of barge¤ÑÂ@3. The Contractor was reminded to sort and dispose
them of properly (Reminder).
4.1.1.79 General refuse was
observed on site, on ground at Portion D and on ground at portion C2a, the
Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuse and keep the site clean and
tidy. Subsequently, the Contractor collected and cleared the general refuse and
kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)
4.1.1.80 Bags of waste was
observed, the Contractor was reminded to regularly clear bags of waste to keep
the site clean and tidy.(Reminder)
4.1.1.81 Chemical container
was observed without bunding. The Contractor was reminded to store chemical in
bunded area. The Contractor subsequently removed the chemical container from
the area. (Closed)
4.1.1.82 Wood materials were
observed scattered at Portion C2a. The Contractor was reminded to regualrly
clear the materials and keep the site tidy. The Contractor subsequently
assigned area for temporary storage of wood materials. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
4.1.1.83 No adverse
observation was identified in the reporting period.
Others
4.1.1.84 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, 2167739.6 m3 of
imported fill were imported for the Contract use in the reporting period. 19kg
of metals, 2,573kg of paper/cardboard packaging, 11,000.2kg of plastics, 800kg
of chemical waste and 682.5m3 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.
5.1.5
The treated marine sediment and/or treated excavated
filling material specified by Contract no. HY/2013/01 has
been received as public fill for Contract no.
HY/2010/02¡¦s reclamation filling works since January 2015. As
informed by the Contractor in the reporting year, such site arrangement has
been discontinued since 24 February 2016.
6.1.1 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.
6.1.2 Training of marine
travel route for marine vessels operator was given to relevant staff and
relevant records were kept properly.
6.1.3 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 checks were conducted by experienced MMOs
within the works area to ensure that no dolphins were trapped by the silt
curtain area. There were no dolphins spotted within the silt curtain during
this reporting year. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures
were well implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to
the submitted plan. As informed by the Contractor, a precast box culvert
segment was delivered to Portion D on 10 Aug 2015, 22 Aug 2015 and 25 Aug 2015,
the northwestern part of the perimeter silt curtain was temporarily opened for
the delivery. Dolphin Exclusion Zone was implemented accordingly.
6.1.4 Acoustic decoupling
measures on noisy plants on construction vessels were checked regularly and
these measures were implemented.
6.1.5 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.
6.1.6 The Contractor was
reminded to strictly comply with the condition of the CNP.
6.1.7 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.
6.1.8 As informed by the
Contractor, an area of Portion B has been handed over to other Contract and the
perimeter silt curtain near this area of Portion B has been rearranged on 31
July 2015 for berthing another Contractor¡¦s vessels (which do not belong to
this Contract). IEC/ENPO was informed on 5 Aug 2015 immediately after ET¡¦s
review. IEC/ENPO provided
further comments on 1 September 2015, ET responded 2 September 2015 with
notification letter ref.:60249820/rmky15090201.IEC/ENPO expressed no further
comment via letter ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_03351L.15 on 8 September 2015 for the
removal of section of perimeter silt curtain near Portion B of HKBCF. EPD
replied on 24 September 2015 via memo (39) in Ax(1) to EP2/G/A/146 pt.8 and
reminded HyD that if grouting
trial is undertaken, to adhere to the VEP requirement and undertake the
necessary mitigation measures after the phase removal of the perimeter silt
curtain.
7.
Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7.1.1 One (1) Limit Level
Exceedance of 24hr-TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract. No 1hr-TSP was recorded in the reporting
period.
7.1.2 For construction
noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting
period.
7.1.3 Ten (10) Action Level
exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L)
and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured turbidity (in
NTU). After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered
not related to this Contract.
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 eight (8) environmental complaints were received
in the reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is
annexed in Figure 5.
8.1.2
As informed by the Contractor on 09 March 2015, there is an
air quality complaint received on 06 March 2015. The complainant Mr. Fung
requested for follow-up actions to be taken by relevant departments in response
to his Complaint about sand and dust emission from 4-5 uncovered sand barges
parking near the coastline of Tuen Mun, the complainant concerns about the
health problems to residents as the sand is blown to their apartments. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact
is related to this Contract.
8.1.3
Environmental Protection Department (EPD) referred a noise
complaint to this project on 10 April 2015 and ENPO forwarded the noise
complaint to Environmental Team on 15 April 2015. The complaint involves a
complainant, who is resident of Caribbean Coast, Tung Chung and he was
disturbed by noise from construction activities of the HZMB Project during
weekends and holidays. After investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the observed noise nuisance is related to this Contract.
8.1.4
A complainant contacted EPD through EPD¡¦s hotline on 21 May
2015 and complained that noise was generated from construction works when
construction of artificial island at Lantau Island area was carried out
overnight and dark smoke was emitted by construction plant. EPD¡¦s staff has
contacted complainant and came to know that the dark smoke referring to could
also be construction dust emitting from the filling work at the HKBCF.
This complaint was subsequently referred by EPD to HZMB project team on
22 May 2015 to follow-up. Investigation was conducted and with referred to the
available information; it is unable to determine whether the night time noise
and dark smoke complaint is related to this Contract.
8.1.5
As informed by the Contractor, 3 July 2015, an air quality
complaint has been received on 11 June 2015 by HyD via complaint hotline 1823.
The complainant complained that sand and dust pollution near Richland
Garden, 138 Wu Chui Road, Tuen Mun, caused by sand delivery
barges. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
observed impact is related to this Contract
8.1.6
As informed by Engineer Representative of this Contract on
13 July 2015, EPD referred a noise related complaint to this Contract on 13
July 2015. The complainant complained noise came from BCF site near HK Skycity
Marriott Hotel during nighttime period of the past 10 days which involves
excavation with a grab dredger, transfer of excavated material using a derrick
barge and a tug boat, and backfilling with a pelican barge. Based on EPD¡¦s
record, the above activities are covered by CNP no. GW-RS0503-15. After
investigation, the construction activities carried out during restricted hour
between 1- 13 July 2015 were considered complied with CNP conditions (no.
GW-RS0503-15).
8.1.7
As informed by the Contractor on 30 July, Home Affairs
Department referred a complaint to project team of this Contract on 29 July
2015. The complaint involved Mr. Chan and Mr. Tang, Resident Representatives
of Tong Fuk Village who complained significant sand loss of Tong Fuk Beach,
particularly after typhoon when the beach was hit by strong waves; this exposed
the rocks at the beach. The complainant enquired whether the sand loss is
related to sand extraction for construction of airport and reclamation works of
HZMB artificial island. After investigation, the complaint is considered as
non-project related.
8.1.8
A complainant who lives at 1 Sky City Road East, Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, Hong Kong International
Airport, Lantau, Hong Kong complained to EPD¡¦s hotline on 23 October
2015 that loud noise were generated by HZMB artificial island construction site
of China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd adjacent to the premises approximately
between 10pm to 12am, during recent weekdays and Saturday. In addition, loud
noise and dark smoke were noted on the construction site of HZMB artificial
island during Sunday and public holiday. The complainant questioned whether the
Contractor was allowed to conduct construction work during Sunday and public
holiday. The complaint was referred by EPD to the project team of Contract No.
HY/2010/02 to follow up on 23 October 2015. After investigation, with referred
to the available information, it is unable to determine whether the night time
noise complaint and the concerned dark smoke are related to this Contract.
8.1.9
A water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:22
am on the 4 December 2015 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract
on the same day. With referred to the information provided by ENPO, EPD has
contacted the complainant, and obtained the additional information from
the complainant and it is suspected that the incident happened in the
afternoon on 28 November 2015. A video was provided by the complainant who
shows that turbid water behind a barge, the incident is suspected to be
happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015. After investigation, it is
considered not related to this Contract.
8.1.10
No notification of summons and
successful prosecutions is noted during the reporting period.
9.1 One (1) Limit Level Exceedance
of 24hr-TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to
this Contract. No 1hr-TSP was recorded in the reporting period. 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 Twelve (12) water
quality monitoring exceedances were recorded in the reporting period and it was
considered not related to the Contract works, 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
Four
(4) oil spillages were observed on 14 May 2015 on sea area near Northeastern of
Portion C2c, near Cell No. 78 on 23 June 2015, near Cell No. 28 on 23 December
2015 and 17 February 2016 at Sea surface near cell no.109. These oil spillage
incidents including size, location, time of the spillage and Contractor¡¦s
actions taken in response to the spill incident have been reviewed during the
reporting period and closed out during the reporting period. The Contractor was
reminded to continue to follow the spill response plan when oil is observed on
sea.
10.4
As
informed by the Contractor, an area of Portion B has been handed over to other
Contract and the perimeter silt curtain near this area of Portion B has been
rearranged on 31 July 2015 for berthing another Contractor¡¦s vessels (which do
not belong to this Contract). IEC/ENPO was informed on 5 Aug 2015 immediately
after ET¡¦s review. IEC/ENPO provided further comments on 1 September 2015, ET
responded 2 September 2015 with notification letter ref.:60249820/rmky15090201.
IEC/ENPO expressed no further comment via letter ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_03351L.15
on 8 September 2015 for the removal of section of perimeter silt curtain near
Portion B of HKBCF. EPD replied on 24 September 2015 via memo (39) in Ax(1) to
EP2/G/A/146 pt.8 and reminded HyD that if grouting trial is undertaken, to
adhere to the VEP requirement and undertake the necessary.
10.5
There
is a report of silt plume observed near the silt curtain for HZMB HKBCF Project
maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02 during a site visit conducted by HyD on
15 April 2015. The location was near the eastern part of HKBCF reclamation
works (portion B and E), near the silt curtain for HZMB HKBCF Project
maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02. After investigation, there was no
adequate information to indicate that the observed silt plume was caused by
active works.
10.6
IEC/ENPO
notified ET via email on 22 June 2015 that silt plume was observed being
dispersed from Portion E1 to the open waters outside the silt curtain for
the HZMB HKBCF Contract maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02 at about
3:00 pm on 20 June 2015. After
investigation, there was no adequate information to indicate that the observed
silt plume was generated by active works or due to inadequate clearance
maintained between vessels of this Contract and the sea bed during navigation.
However, the Contractor was reminded to regularly check the performance of the
silt curtain and ensure swift provision of maintenance to the perimeter silt
curtains once defects of the perimeter silt curtain were observed.
10.7
Frequency
of watering per day on exposed soil was checked; with reference to the record
provided by the Contract, watering was conducted at least 8 times per day on
reclaimed land. The frequency of watering is the mainly refer to water truck.
Sprinklers are only served to strengthen dust control measure for busy traffic
at the entrance of Portion D. As informed by the Contractor, during the
mal-function period of sprinkler, water truck will enhance watering at such
area. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of watering of at least 8
times per day on all exposed soil
11.
Review of EM&A
Programme
11.1
The
environmental monitoring methodology was considered well established as the
monitoring results were found in line with the EIA predictions.
11.2
As
effective follow up actions were promptly taken once exceedances were recorded,
no further exceedance occurred for each case. The EM&A programme was
considered successfully and adequately conducted during the course of the
reporting period.
12.1
Comments on mitigation measures
12.1.1
According
to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting period, the
following recommendations were provided:
l All working
plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and properly maintained
to avoid dark smoke emission.
l All vehicles should be washed to remove any
dusty materials before leaving the site.
l Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened
to minimize fugitive dust generation.
l Wheel washing facilities should be properly
maintained and reviewed to ensure properly functioning.
l Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles
should be properly covered.
l Enclosure should be erected for cement
debagging, batching and mixing operations.
l Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive
dust for any dusty construction activity.
l Quieter powered mechanical equipment should
be used as far as possible.
l Noisy operations should be oriented to a
direction away from sensitive receivers as far as possible.
l Proper and effective noise control measures
for operating equipment and machinery on-site should be provided, such as
erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check
and replace the sound insulation materials regularly
l Vessels and equipment operating should be
checked regularly and properly maintained.
l Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed
to the air compressor and hand-held breaker operating within works area.
l Better scheduling of construction works to
minimize noise nuisance.
l Regular review and maintenance of silt
curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities in order to make
sure they are functioning effectively.
l Construction of seawall should be completed
as early as possible.
l Regular inspect and review the loading
process from barges to avoid splashing of material.
l Silt, debris and leaves accumulated at
public drains, wheel washing bays and perimeter u-channels and desilting
facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
l Silty effluent should be treated/ desilted
before discharged. Untreated effluent should be prevented from entering public
drain channel.
l Proper drainage channels/bunds should be
provided at the site boundaries to collect/intercept the surface run-off from works
areas.
l Exposed slopes and stockpiles should be
covered up properly during rainstorm.
l All types of wastes, both on land and
floating in the sea, should be collected and sorted properly and disposed of
timely and properly. They should be properly stored in designated areas within
works areas temporarily.
l All chemical containers and oil drums should
be properly stored and labelled.
l All plants and vehicles on site should be
properly maintained to prevent oil leakage.
l All kinds of maintenance works should be
carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas.
l All drain holes of the drip trays utilized
within works areas should be properly plugged to avoid any oil and chemical
waste leakage.
l Oil stains on soil surface and empty
chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.
l Regular review should be conducted for
working barges and patrol boats to ensure sufficient measures and spill control
kits were provided on working barges and patrol boats to avoid any spreading of
leaked oil/chemicals.
l All existing, retained/transplanted trees at
the works areas should be properly fenced off and regularly inspected.
12.7
Recommendations
on EM&A Programme
12.7.1.
The impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise,
water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental
condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any
non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected
demonstrated the environmental impacts of the Contract. With implementation of
recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the Contract¡¦s
environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable. The weekly
environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation
measures recommended were effectively implemented.
12.7.2.
The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as
included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential
environmental impacts from the Contract. Also, the EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No
particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
12.8
Conclusions
12.8.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme of the
Contract commenced on 12 March 2012.
12.8.3 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
10 action level exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L), two (2) Limit Level exceedance was
recorded at measured turbidity (in NTU). Exceedances were considered to be due
to local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was
recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
12.8.5
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.
12.8.6
Environmental site inspection was carried out 52 times in
the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the
Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
12.8.7
Eight
(8)
environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.
12.8.8
No summons or successful prosecution was received in the
reporting period.
12.8.9
As discussed in the above sections, the Contract did not
cause unacceptable environmental impacts or disturbance to air quality, noise,
water quality in the vicinity near the reclamation works.
12.8.10
Apart from the above mentioned monitoring, most of the
recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were
implemented properly in the reporting period.
12.8.11
The recommended environmental mitigation measures
effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Contract. The
EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the
construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation
measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the
programme.
12.8.12
Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction
methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the
environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental
mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
The monitoring stations AMS7 was renamed to monitoring
station AMS7A after relocation on 3 February 2014. Monitoring work was resumed from AMS7A
to AMS7 since January 2016.
¡§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)