![](TOC_files/image002.jpg)
![](TOC_files/image004.jpg)
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY 1
1.
introduction 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 Scope
of Report 4
1.3 Contract
Organization 5
1.4 Summary
of Construction Works 5
2.
Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements 7
2.1 Monitoring
Parameters 7
2.2 Environmental
Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels) 8
2.3 Environmental
Mitigation Measures 8
3.
MONITORING Results 9
3.1 Air
Quality Monitoring 9
3.2 Noise
Monitoring 12
3.3 Water
Quality Monitoring 15
3.4 Dolphin
Monitoring 23
3.5 Environmental
Site Inspection and Audit 31
3.5.1 Site
Inspection 31
4.
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status 36
4.1 Summary
of Solid and Liquid Waste Management 36
5.
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures 36
5.1 Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures 36
6.
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 38
6.1 Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 38
7.
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions 39
7.1 Summary
of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions 39
8.
REVIEW of THE VALIDITY OF THE EIA Prediction 41
9.
Review of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 42
10.
Review of EM&A Programme 44
11.
Comments, recommendations and Conclusions 45
12.
Conclusions 47
List of
Tables
Table 1.1
Contact Information of Key Personnel
Table 3.1
Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP
Concentration
Table 3.2
Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Table 3.3
Maximum Predicted TSP concentrations under the “Mitigated” scenario
Table 3.4
Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Table 3.5
Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Table 3.6
Construction Noise Impact at Noise Sensitive Receivers
Table 3.7
Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
Table 3.8
Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Water Quality
Table 3.9
Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 16 - Feb 17
Table 3.10
Summary of number of water quality exceedances per monitoring month
Table 3.11
Comparison of depth averaged dissolved oxygen levels (Surface &
Mid-depth, Bottom depth) during baseline and impact monitoring period (mgL-1)
Table 3.12
Ambient and Tolerance Values for Suspended Sediment Concentrations (mgL-1)
in the Vicinity of Sensitive Receivers adopted in the EIA
Table 3.13
Calculated Elevations in Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Sensitive
Receivers (mgL-1) under the 2012 mitigated scenario from the EIA
Table 3.14
Baseline suspended solids levels and 30% of baseline mean (mgL-1)
Table 3.15
Average suspended solids levels at sensitive receivers (mgL-1)
in July 2016
Table 3.16
Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values
Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact
Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (2012-13) to the Current Year (2016-17) of the
HKBCF Reclamation Works Contract
Table 3.18 Comparison of low, moderate and high
habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years 2011-12; 2013-14, 2014-15,
2015-16 and 2016-17 (in %)
Figures
Figure
1 General Contract Layout Plan
Figure 2
Impact Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station
Figure 3
Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 4
Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map
Figure 5
Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Contract Organization for Environmental Works
Appendix
B Three Month Rolling Construction
Programmes
Appendix
C Implementation Schedule of Environmental
Mitigation Measures (EMIS)
Appendix
D Summary of Action and Limit Levels
Appendix
E Graphical Presentation of Impact Air
Quality Monitoring Results
Appendix
F Graphical Presentation of Impact Daytime
Construction Noise Monitoring Results
Appendix
G Graphical Presentation of Impact Water Quality
Monitoring Results
Appendix
H Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Findings
and Analysis
Appendix
I Quarterly Summary of Waste Flow
Table
Appendix J
Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Complaints, Notifications of Summons and
Successful Prosecutions
Appendix
K Event Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contract
No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – Reclamation Works (here below, known as “the Contract”) mainly
comprises reclamation at the northeast of the Hong
Kong International Airport of an area
of about 130-hectare for the construction of an
artificial island for the development of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the southern landfall of the Tuen
Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is a designated Project and is governed by
the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs)
issued on 11 April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for
TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).
Ove
Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways
Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction assignment
for the Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Contract).
China
Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor
to undertake the construction work of the Contract.
Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental
Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM
Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of
Environmental Team for the Contract for carrying out the environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The
construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012
and will be tentatively completed by 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 2016 and 28 February 2017. As informed
by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-base
-
Sloping Seawalls
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
-
Rock fill
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA (As
informed by the Contractor, the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling
Water Intake has been removed on 10 May 2016.)
Land-base
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Construction of Permanent Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Construction of Sloping Outfalls
-
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
A
summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting period
is listed below:
24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring
1-hour TSP monitoring
|
65 sessions
65 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
51 sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
153 sessions
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
24 surveys
|
Joint Environmental site inspection
|
52 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
All 1-Hour TSP
and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level 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
For water quality
monitoring, one (1) Limit level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at
monitoring station SR(4)N has been recorded on 20 May
2016 during flood tide. After investigation, there is no adequate information
to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
In September
2016, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during
ebb tide on 2 September 2016 and 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids
were recorded at SR5 and SR7 during flood tide on 19 September 2016.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
In October 2016,
5 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting
month. 3 action level exceedances of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide
on 3 October 2016 were recorded, 1 action level exceedance of SS at SR6 was
recorded during flood tide on 17 October 2016 and 1 action exceedance of SS at
SR6 was recorded during flood tide on 19 October 2016. These exceedances were
considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after
investigation.
In November 2016,
11 action level exceedances and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids
were recorded in the reporting month. Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS8 and
SR4(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 14 November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at
IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level Exceedance of SS at SR6 at Mid-Flood tide on 16
November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6, SR7
at Mid-Flood tide on 18 November 2016. Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR10A
and SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 30 November 2016.
These exceedances were considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s
activities after investigation.
In December 2016,
1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9
at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016 was recorded in the reporting
month. This exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this
Contract’s activities after investigation.
In February 2017,
there was a SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8
during flood tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring
station SR6 during ebb tide and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17
at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation, it was
concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract
related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the reporting month.
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. After investigation, it was
concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the
dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB
works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L
of the corresponding quarterly reports.
Implementation
Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Most of the recommended mitigation measures, as
included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting
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 were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel) since January 2016, 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.
Due to the
commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport
into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project),
a large portion of works site
boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing
airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which
delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS
boundary, please refer to Figure 4). The works area of 3RS project will
affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin
monitoring transect lines which are being
used for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will
therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September
2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of
EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10,
CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments
were under ET’s review in the reporting year.
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.
introduction
1.1
Background
1.1.1 Contract No.
HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the 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
– Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun –
Chek Lap Kok Link – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and
their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A
Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3 EPD
subsequently issued the Environmental Permit (EP)
for HKBCF in November 2009 (EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental
Permit (VEP) in June 2010 (EP-353/2009/A), November 2010
(EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F),
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 fifth Annual EM&A Review Report under the
Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the
environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation
measures proposed by the ET for the Contract from 1 March 2016 and 28 February
2017.
1.3
Contract Organization
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
|
Paul Appleton
|
3698 5889
|
2698 5999
|
IEC / ENPO
(Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent
Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
3465 2888
|
3465 2899
|
Environmental
Project Office Leader
|
Y. H. Hui
|
3456 2850
|
3465 2899
|
Contractor
(China
Harbour Engineering Company Limited)
|
Environmental
Officer
|
Louie Chan
|
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
Summary of Construction Works
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
-
Sloping Seawalls
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
-
Rock fill
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA (As
informed by the Contractor, the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling
Water Intake has been removed on 10 May 2016.)
Land-base
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Construction of Permanent Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Construction of Sloping Outfalls
-
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
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.
Summary of EM&A Programme
Requirements
2.1
Monitoring Parameters
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 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.
2.1.4 For impact noise
monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview Crescent Tower 1) was set up at
the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.
However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the
Contract Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring
could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting
up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals
for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not
obtained. Impact noise monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site
office area in Works Area WA2 (NMS3A) respectively. Same baseline noise level,
as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College was
adopted for this alternative noise monitoring location.
2.1.5 In accordance
with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one stations were designated
for impact water quality monitoring. The nine Impact Stations (IS) were chosen
on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest
potential for water quality impacts, the seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR)
were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive receives and the five
Control/ Far Field Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate comparison of the
water quality of the IS stations with less influence by the Contract/ ambient
water quality conditions.
2.1.6 Due to safety
concern and topographical condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B,
alternative impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4(N) and
SR10B(N), were adopted, which are situated in vicinity of the original impact
water quality monitoring stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable. Same
baseline and Action Level for water quality, as derived from the baseline
monitoring data recorded, were adopted for these alternative impact water
quality monitoring stations.
2.1.7 Due to the
commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport
into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project),
a large portion of works site
boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing
airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which
delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS
boundary, please refer to Figure 4). The works area of 3RS project will
affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin
monitoring transect lines which are being
used for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will
therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September
2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of
EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10,
CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments
were under ET’s review in the reporting year.
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
Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)
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
Environmental Mitigation Measures
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.
MONITORING Results
3.1
Air Quality Monitoring
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).
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 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 16 – Feb 17
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
195
|
AMS3B
|
195
|
AMS7
|
195
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
65
|
AMS3B
|
65
|
AMS7
|
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 16 – Feb 17
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
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 No
non-compliance/exceedance was recorded in the reporting period.
3.1.4 Review of Reasons
for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.1.4.1 No exceedance of 24-hr TSP and1-hour TSP exceedance level
were recorded at all monitoring station in the reporting year.
3.1.5 Environmental Acceptability
of the Contract
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. The trend of TSP at AMS2, AMS3B and
AMS7 were comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable
deterioration of air quality during the impact monitoring period.
3.1.5.2 Correlation
between exceedances with possible dust generating activities
3.1.5.2.1 Possible dust generating activities of the Contract did not cause
any noticeable deterioration in air quality at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – 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
|
73
|
65
|
*Extracted from Table 5-8 of the EIA report
3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring
station at AMS7, the average 24-hour TSP levels recorded in the EM&A
programme were in similar magnitude as the Daily dust level predicted in the
EIA.
3.1.6 Practicality
and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme
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 Conclusion
3.1.7.1 Air quality monitoring for the Contract
was conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Key
construction activities including geotextile laying, stone column installation,
stone blanket laying, construction of cellular structure and backfill cellular
structure. The trend of 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP was comparable to the
baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during the
monitoring period. Although exceedances were recorded, they were isolated and
short-term events. There is no evidence of long-term deteriorating trend.
3.1.7.2 The average 24-hour TSP levels recorded
at AMS7 in EM&A programme were in similar magnitude with the Daily dust
level predicted in the EIA. No TSP level was predicted by the Project EIA at AMS2 and 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
Noise Monitoring
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 – 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 16- Feb 17
|
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 Environmental Acceptability of the
Contract
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 Comparison of EM&A results with
EIA predictions
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
|
67
|
63 – 72*
|
75
|
NMS3B
|
Site Boundary of Site
Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
67
|
62 – 69*
|
70
|
* +3dB(A) Façade correction
included
3.2.5.3 The average
impact noise levels recorded in EM&A during impact monitoring were all
within the range of the predicted construction noise levels in the EIA Report.
3.2.6 Practicality and Effectiveness of
the EIA process and the EM&A programme
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 Conclusion
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
Water Quality Monitoring
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
16 - Feb 17
|
Water
Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
153
|
Mid-Flood
|
153
|
Table 3.9
Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 16 - Feb 17
Station
|
Exceedance
Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(2 Sept 16)
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
14 Nov 2016, 6
Feb 17
|
0
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
14 Dec 2016
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
16
Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016,
|
0
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
3 Oct 16,
18 Nov 2016
|
0
|
2
|
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)
14
Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
20
May 16;
|
0
|
1
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(3)
16
Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016, 19 Sept 16
|
0
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
10
Feb 17
|
(4)
18
Nov 2016; 3, 17 and 19 Oct 16
|
1
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
16
Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(4)
18 Nov 16; 19
Sept 16, 3 Oct 16;
15
Feb 17
|
0
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
30
Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
30
Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
21
|
23
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2016 to
February 2017) 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 Non-compliance (exceedances) of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limits (Action and Limit Levels)
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 25 exceedances were recorded during the reporting
period with 23 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 Twenty three (23)
Action Level exceedances and two (2) Limit Level exceedances of measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) 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 16 to
Feb 17), 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 IS17, IS7, IS8 and
IS10 were more fluctuated but no apparent trend was observed. The trend of
turbidity levels of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. Turbidity
levels of all monitoring stations were 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
that of control stations between the period from
November 2016 to December 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
(mm/yy)
|
Imported Fill*
m3/month
|
Depth averaged
DO
|
Depth averaged
Turbidity
|
Depth averaged
SS
|
Total
|
03/16
|
38,318.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
04/16
|
18,738.0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
05/16
|
45,272.3
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
06/16
|
27,882.0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
07/16
|
54,308.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
08/16
|
18,958.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
09/16
|
30,298.7
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
10/16
|
24,499.3
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
5
|
11/16
|
28,0380
|
0
|
0
|
12
|
12
|
12/16
|
11,704.0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
01/17
|
18,892.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
02/17
|
17,574.7
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
*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 Comparison of EM&A results with
EIA predictions
3.3.7.1 Results from the
sensitive receiver stations were compared with the EIA predictions for the
sensitive receivers in the following manner:
· WSR 27 - San Tau Beach SSSI with SR3
· WSR 22c- Tai Ho Wan Inlet (outside) with SR4(N)
· WSR 25 - Cooling water intake at HK
International Airport with SR5
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
3.3.7.2 According to
Section 9.10.7.4 of the EIA Report, the dissolved oxygen depletion from the
loss of sediment to suspension during the construction of the reclamation for
HKBCF was calculated to be 0.4 mg/L at WSR25. Since, as stated in the Table 9.6a
of the EIA report the DO of the NW Western water is generally high with average
ranges between 5.7 – 6.8 mg/L and depletion will not be detrimental to the
ecological systems of the area. The average Depth averaged DO record at SR5 is
6.2 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
(July 2016)
|
Depletion during
Impact Monitoring
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
SR3*
|
Surface & mid
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
6.9
|
7.2
|
0.1
|
0.5
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
7.0
|
6.8
|
0.9
|
0.5
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
6.8
|
6.8
|
0.8
|
0.6
|
SR5
|
SR5**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
-0.1
|
-0.1
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
0
|
-0.1
|
SR6
|
SR6**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
6.1
|
-0.1
|
-0.4
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
0.1
|
-0.1
|
SR7
|
SR7**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
-0.2
|
0.2
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
Surface & mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
5.9
|
0.2
|
-0.1
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
6.0
|
5.8
|
0.3
|
0
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)**
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
6.3
|
6.1
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
6.2
|
5.9
|
0
|
0.1
|
^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 July 2016 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
July 2016
Sensitive
Receiver in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact Monitoring
|
Impact SS Mean
(in July 2016)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3
|
8.7
|
-5.3
|
8.1
|
-8.2
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
6.5
|
-4.8
|
8.1
|
-4.1
|
SR5
|
SR5
|
4.7
|
-5.9
|
5.1
|
-6.8
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
4.7
|
-7.2
|
4.9
|
-7
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
5.6
|
-5.8
|
5.6
|
-4.8
|
SR10A
|
SR10A
|
6.3
|
-3.9
|
5.2
|
-5
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*
|
5.9
|
-5.6
|
4.9
|
-6.2
|
*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 July 2017, 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 Conclusion
3.3.9.1 Water quality
monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the baseline and impact
monitoring periods. For suspended solids levels, a total of 25 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
Dolphin Monitoring
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 1 have been
updated in respect 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 year for impact
dolphin monitoring. And the Event Action Plan was triggered (Table 3.16)
Table 3.16 Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values
Quarterly period
|
|
STG*
|
ANI**
|
Level Exceeded
|
March 2016-
May 2016
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.4
|
4.6
|
June 2016- August 2016
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.4
|
4.6
|
September 2016-
November 2016
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
2.4
|
8.0
|
December 2016-
February 2017
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.9
|
8.3
|
* STG represents groups of
dolphins (recorded on effort)
** ANI represents number of individual dolphins (recorded on
effort)
3.4.4 Summary
of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings
3.4.4.1 Vessel-based
surveys were conducted monthly from March 2016 to February 2017, i.e., during
the fifth year of the construction phase. A total of 48 survey days were
completed between March 2016-February 2017 (Appendix H: Table 1). A total
of 2619.1km were completed of which 2520.9 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 the fourth year of impact
monitoring (2015-16), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2615.7km;
2572 km conducted under favourable conditions). In all five years, >98% of
the track length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between
March 2016-February 2017, a total of 50 dolphin sightings were recorded, 32 as
on effort and 18 as opportunistic1 (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. In the fourth year, a total of 43 dolphin sightings were
recorded, 26 on effort and 17 opportunistic. The total number of sightings has
decreased between each year of impact monitoring, with a slight increase shown
in this reporting year, i.e., 50 sightings this reporting year compared to 43
sightings in 2015-16 (Table 3.17).
Table 3.17
Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (2012-13) to the
Current Year (2016-17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Contract
Year
|
Total Sightings
|
2012-13
|
203
|
2013-14
|
135
|
2014-15
|
72
|
2015-16
|
43
|
2016-17
|
50
|
3.4.5 Distribution
3.4.5.1.
Sightings of dolphins were divided into quarterly periods. The
highest number of sightings were made between September–November 2016.
The lowest number of sightings were recorded in March-May-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.
3.4.6 Encounter
Rate
3.4.6.1.
Encounter rates of “on effort” sightings (i.e. groups) per area per quarter for
the year March 2016 to February 2017 were calculated[1].
For NWL, quarterly dolphin encounter rates were similar between March-November
with a slight peak during the period September–November (Appendix H: Figure
3). The encounter rate for December 2016 to February 2017 was lower. 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). The average encounter rate for Year 5 in NWL is 1 to
2 groups (figure rounded) which is slight increase on year 4 results. 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 (72%). Larger groups were seen in southern NWL and in, or adjacent
to, SCLKCMP. There was no seasonal pattern although with so few sightings
patterns may be difficult to discern. Of the four mother and calf groups
sighted, two were in groups of five or more individuals. Nine of the large
groups sighted were noted as exhibiting multiple behavior which incorporated
feeding and three groups were recorded as feeding. One group was recorded as
travelling and one group which contained a mother and neonate pair was recorded
as “other”; boat avoidance. 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[2]). 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 2016-February
2017, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use (< 20
DPSE), moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE) and high use (> 60 DPSE). NEL had no
dolphin encounters within its boundaries. Within NWL, 2% of its area was
categorized as high use; 12% as moderate use and 86% as low use (Appendix H:
Figure 5).
3.4.8.2.
For the period March 2016-February 2017, SPSE was calculated in six
categories, ranging from low use (< 5 SPSE), moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE) and
high use (> 15 SPSE). NEL had no dolphin encounters within its boundaries.
Within NWL, 1% of its area was calculated as high use, 13% as moderate use and
86% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 6).
3.4.8.3.
For the period February 2011 – January 2012, DPSE was calculated in six
categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 4% and 17%
of each respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 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,
March 2015-February 2016 and March 2016-February 2017 (Table 3.17). For DPSE in
NWL, there was a slight decrease in low use grid cells, a slight increase in
moderate use cells and an increase 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 2016-February 2017.
3.4.8.4.
For the period February 2011 – January 2012, SPSE was calculated in six
categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 9% and 22% of
each respective area classified as high use (> 15 SPSE); 31% (NEL) and 27%
(NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 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 a slight decrease in
low use grid cells, an increase in moderate use grid cells and a decrease in
high use grid cells. 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 2016-February 2017, the same
observation as the previous year (2015-16).
Table 3.18 Comparison of low,
moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years 2011-12;
2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (in %)
*Advance =
advance baseline monitoring conducted between 2011 and 2012.
3.4.9. Mother
and Calf Pairs
3.4.9.1. There
were four sightings of mothers with calves during the year 2016-17, three of
these calves could not be assigned to an identified female (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 2016-17, HZMB 023 was sighted with her
offspring HZMB 022 on one occasion and HZMB 022 was sighted one additional time
without the mother. This juvenile is well marked and was born prior to the
impact monitoring period and estimated to be six to seven 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 in May 2016. A
female identified as HZMB 114 was initially recorded in October 2013 and was
sighted with a new calf in November 2015. This female was sighted again in
2016-17 with a calf/juvenile (Appendix H: Figure 9). There were no sightings of
the three known females, HZMB 026, HZMB 047, 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.
Five distinctive behavioural categories were defined; “feeding”,
“travelling” and “multiple” (more than one behaviour was observed at one time),
“other” and “unknown” (Appendix H: Figure 10). The frequency of feeding
activities initially decreased, peaked in the period Sept-Nov 2016 then
decreased again in Dec 16 - Jan 17. The frequency of traveling decreased a
little in Sept-Nov 2016 as feeding activities increased. Mshowed no particular
pattern during the year. 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 both this year and 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, 2015-16 and this reporting year. 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 with sightings localized to
areas known to be important for feeding, i.e., SCLKCMP and Tai O (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 34 [95% CI 10.2, 62.7])
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
one calf identified in 2012-13 has survived to 2016-17. In 2013-14, an emerging
trend for decreased use of NEL was noted and no sightings were seen in NEL in
2016-17. 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[3] 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
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 – 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[4]).
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 and again, in January 2017, audio recordings of dolphins were made
adjacent to the newly designated marine protected area at the Brothers
Islands. AFCD data indicate that higher than usual dolphin mortality has
been recorded from 2014-15. Again, it is suggested that appropriate review of
these data should be conducted to investigate any possible relationship with
both anthropogenic activities and natural processes in the dolphins
habitat. The impact of “permanent habitat loss” as a result of the HKBCF
reclamation (Section 10.7.4. of the EIA), is stated to be fully mitigated by
the establishment of a Marine Protected Area after the construction phase of
the Project is completed. This predication cannot be assessed until the
HZMB operational phase starts and the Marine Park Area is fully established.
The Brothers Marine Protected Area was designated in December 2016.
3.4.15.9
The Ecological Baseline Survey[5]
defines an Impact Index which is used to predict impact for each area
through which the HZMB structure passes. HKBCF is located in the area
defined as the “Northeast Lantau Section (NELS) – from the eastern edge of the
airport platform to its connection to the North Lantau Highway”.
3.4.15.10
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[6]).
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[7].
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, 2014-15 and 2015-16 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 2016 and February 20167 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 2016 and February
2017 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 year for
impact dolphin monitoring. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB
works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or
individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other
stress factors. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the
corresponding quarterly reports.
3.5
Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
3.5.1
Site Inspection
3.5.1.1 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.
3.5.1.2 Particular
observations during the site inspections are described below:
Air
Quality
3.5.1.3 Breaker was
observed without dust suppression measures at TKO sorting facility, the
Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure such as watering
during the operation of breaker. The Contractor subsequently provided watering
during operation of breaker. (Closed)
3.5.1.4 The Contractor
was reminded to affix a proper exception/approval label to the power pack at
Portion E2 under NRMM regulation. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.5 The Contractor
was reminded to affix a proper exception/approval label to the power pack at
Portion E2 under NRMM regulation last reporting quarter. The
Contractor subsequently rectified the situation in the reporting quarter.
(Closed)
3.5.1.6 An excavator was
observed without NNRM label. The Contractor was reminded to properly affix NNRM
label to the excavator. The Contractor subsequently affix NRMM label onto the
excavator. (Closed)
3.5.1.7 Idle ground
breaking works area was observed, the Contractor was reminded to provide
mitigation measures when there are active ground breaking activities last
reporting quarter. The Contractor subsequently watering to the concerned area
when there were active ground breaking activities. (Closed)
3.5.1.8 Fugitive dust was
observed when vehicle passed through roads on site. The Contractor was reminded
to provide mitigation measures such as dust suppression measures to effectively
prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
3.5.1.9 An excavator was
observed without NNRM label at TKO fill bank area 137 sorting facility. The
Contractor was reminded to properly affix NNRM label to the excavator. The
Contractor subsequently affix NNRM label to the excavator. (Closed)
3.5.1.10 Fugitive dust generated during loading and unloading of
rock materials was observed at Portion B on 14 July 2016 and near seawall on 21
July 2016. The Contractor should provide watering during the loading and
unloading works properly. The Contractor subsequently provided watering during
loading and unloading works. (Closed)
3.5.1.11 Fugitive dust was observed during handling of rock. The
Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures such as watering
to during the handling of rock. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation.
(Closed)
3.5.1.12 An excavator was
observed without NRMM label. The Contractor was advised to affix NRMM label
properly onto the excavator. The Contractor subsequently affix NRMM label to
the excavator. (Closed)
3.5.1.13 Road was observed dry, the Contractor was reminded to
provide dust suppression measure such as watering to the area. As informed by
the Contactor the area has been backfilled and compacted. (Closed)
3.5.1.14 Fugitive dust was generated from rock works at Portion C2b,
the Contractor was reminded to provide watering on the works in order to
suppress fugitive dust emission. The Contractor subsequently provided watering
to the rock works at Potion C2b. (Closed)
3.5.1.15 Fugitive dust was observed during handling of rock. The
Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures such as watering
to during the handling of rock. The Contractor subsequently provided dust
suppression measures to handling of rock material. (Closed)
3.5.1.16 Fugitive dust was
observed while dump trucks were passing by on the dry road at Portion E2. The
Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure, such as watering
on road. The Contractor subsequently provided watering on dry road. (Closed)
3.5.1.17 Dust was observed
when rock was handled by derrick barge. The Contractor was reminded to provide
dust suppression measures during such operation. The Contractor subsequently
provided watering on rock. (Closed)
3.5.1.18 Dust was observed
during handling of rock material, the contractor was reminded to provide dust
suppression measure. This item was subsequently rectified by the Contractor
(Closed)
3.5.1.19 Dark smoke
emission from plant/equipment was observed, the Contractor was reminded that
dark smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided. This item was
subsequently rectified by the Contractor (Closed)
Noise
3.5.1.20 No relevant
adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.
Water
Quality
3.5.1.21 Turbid water was observed at Portion D, it is noted that the
source of turbid water was originated from the wheel washing facility at
Portion D managed by another Contract. The Contractor of Contract
HY/2010/02 was advised to liaise with another Contract so that recurrence of
the situation could be prevented. (Reminder)
3.5.1.22 It was observed
that the overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain maybe insufficient at the
northeast access. The Contractor was advised to provide sufficient length of
overlapping at the northeast marine access. The Contractor subsequently
extended to overlapping at the northeast marine access. (Closed)
3.5.1.23 Silt curtain was
observed temporarily disconnected near Portion D. The Contractor was reminded
to ensure mitigation measures such as the silt curtain is properly maintained
and implemented. The Contractor subsequently rectified the disconnected part of
the silt curtain. (Closed)
3.5.1.24 Damaged drip tray
was observed at Portion D. The Contractor should repair and replace the drip
tray to avoid potential leakage. The contractor subsequently repaired the drip
tray. (Closed)
3.5.1.25 Insufficient bunding was observed at entrance area of an idle landing
barge 德大 1, the
Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent runoff of turbid water
to the sea when there are operations on this barge. (Reminder)
3.5.1.26 Insufficient
overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain was observed. The Contractor was
reminded to provide sufficient overlapping of perimeter silt curtain at marine
access. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation and provided
sufficient overlapping. (Closed)
3.5.1.27 Silt curtain at
northern part of HKBCF Reclamation Works was observed disconnected. The
Contractor was reminded to rectify the situation. The Contractor subsequently
rectified the situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.28 The Contractor
was reminded to clear spilled oil on ground to prevent mixing with general
site runoff. (Reminder)
Chemical
and Waste Management
3.5.1.29 Water and oil
mixture was observed accumulated inside drip tray at TKO sorting facility, the
Contractor was reminded to properly clear the water accumulated inside drip
tray. The Contract subsequently cleared the water accumulated inside drip tray.
(Closed)
3.5.1.30 Water was
observed accumulated inside a bunded area on barge FTB19. The Contractor was
reminded to regularly clear the water inside bunding to prevent potential oil
spillage/runoff. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation by
clearing the water accumulated inside bunding. (Closed)
3.5.1.31 Oil was observed
stored without measure to prevent oil leakage or spillage on barge Tung Fu 18,
the Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent oil leakage or
spillage. The Contractor subsequently provided measure
barge Tung Fu 18 to prevent oil leakage or spillage. (Closed)
3.5.1.32 The Contractor
was reminded to keep the site tidy at Portion D. Sorting was subsequently
observed onsite, the Contractor was reminded to continue to keep the site tidy
at Portion D. (Closed)
3.5.1.33 General refuse
was observed, near box culvert area at Portion D, at the edge of the land area
when inspection was conducted on barge FTP24, at other area of Portion D, the
Contractor was reminded to regularly remove the general refuse on site to keep
the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently removed the general refuse
and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)
3.5.1.34 Chemical waste
container was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to place
the chemical waste container onto the drip tray. The Contractor subsequently
place the chemical waste container onto drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.1.35 The Contractor
was reminded to dispose of general refuse regularly at Portion E2 properly. The
Contractor subsequently cleared the generation refuse at Portion
E2. (Closed)
3.5.1.36 The Contractor
was reminded to provide drip tray for the moveable light generator at Portion
E2. The Contractor subsequently provided drip tray to the moveable light generator. (Closed)
3.5.1.37 Oil drum was
observed without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to
oil drum. The Contractor subsequently removed from oil drum. (Closed)
3.5.1.38 The Contractor
was reminded to dispose of general refuse regularly at Portion E2
properly. The Contractor subsequently cleared the generation refuse
at Portion E2 in the reporting quarter. (Closed)
3.5.1.39 Oil drums were
observed without drip tray at workshop area of HKBCF Reclamation Works, the
Contractor was advised to provide drip tray to all oil drums. The Contractor
subsequently provided drip tray to oil drums. (Closed)
3.5.1.40 Chemical
container placed on ground was observed at portion D. The Contractor should
store the chemical containers with drip tray properly. The chemical container
was subsequently removed by the Contractor from Portion D. (Closed)
3.5.1.41 General refuse
was observed on southern edge of lands area near Portion B. The Contractor was
reminded to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently collected
the general refuse on southern edge of lands area near Portion B. (Closed)
3.5.1.42 Floating refuse
was observed at Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to collect
them and dispose them and dispose them of properly. The Contractor
subsequently collected the general refuse on sea. (Closed)
3.5.1.43 Oil drums and
battery were placed on bare ground at workshop area, the Contractor was
reminded to provide drip tray to the oi drums and properly store waste battery.
The Contractor subsequently provided drip trays to oil drums and removed the
waste battery from the location. (Closed)
3.5.1.44 Oil stains were
observed on deck of barge, the Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stain
using spill kit and disposed the spent spill kit of as chemical waste. The
Contractor subsequently cleared the oil stain on deck of barge. (Closed)
3.5.1.45 Defect on drip
tray was observed at Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the
defect of the drip tray. (Follow up)
3.5.1.46 Soil and water
was observed inside drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to regularly clear
the soil and water inside drip tray. The Contractor subsequently removed the
water and soil inside drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.1.47 Drip tray was
observed deformed, the Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect. The
Contractor subsequently rectified the condition. (Closed)
3.5.1.48 Defect was
observed within the frame of a drip tray. The Contactor was reminded to rectify
the defect. The Contractor subsequently rectified the condition. (Closed)
3.5.1.49 Defect of drip
tray was observed at Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the
defect of the drip tray. The Contractor rectified the defect of the drip
tray in the reporting month. (Closed)
3.5.1.50 Size of the drip
tray was observed insufficient. The Contractor was reminded to properly provide
drip tray with sufficient size to PME. The Contractor subsequently rectified
the situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.51 Oil drum was
observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to
oil drums. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.52 The Contractor
was reminded to provide spill kit in the vicinity of drilling rig machine on
scaffolding platform. (Reminder)
3.5.1.53 Chemical
containers were placed on bare ground, the Contractor was reminded to provide
drip tray to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.54 Chemical
containers were placed on bare ground or on the edge of drip tray, the
Contractor was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray properly
to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the chemical
containers from the location. The Contractor was reminded chemical containers
should be put inside drip trays as a preventive measure. (Closed)
3.5.1.55 General refuse
was observed on access near Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to keep the
site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently tidied up and cleaned the
works area. (Closed)
3.5.1.56 The Contractor
was reminded to dispose of the general refuse properly at Portion D and
keep the site clean and tidy. The general refuse was subsequently cleaned up by
the Contractor. (Reminder)
3.5.1.57 The Contractor
was reminded to provide drip tray for chemical container at Portion D. As
informed by the Contractor the chemical container was temporarily taken out and
will be placed inside drip tray again. (Reminder)
3.5.1.58 The Contractor
was reminded to clear spilled oil or chemical retained on drip tray to prevent
chemical leakage. (Reminder)
3.5.1.59 Chemical
containers were placed on bare ground after use, the Contractor was reminded to
place all chemical containers on drip tray properly to retain leakage, if any.
The Contractor subsequently remove the chemical containers from the location
and provide drip tray to those in use. (Closed)
3.5.1.60 The Contractor
was reminded to provide chemical label to chemical containers. (Reminder)
Landscape
and Visual Impact
3.5.1.61 No relevant
adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.1.62 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.
4.
Advice on the
Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
4.1
Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management
4.1.1 The Contractor
registered as a chemical waste producer for this Contract. Sufficient numbers
of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.
4.1.2 As advised by the
Contractor, 4257.5m3 hard rock and large broken concrete,
401363.8m3 of inert C&D Materials generated and reused in other
Projects; 1,496,958.2m3 of surplus surcharge exported to Macau;
334485.8m3 of Imported fill; 2856kg paper/cardboard packaging
1073.7m3 other C&D waste such as general refuse were generated and disposed
of in the reporting period. Summary of waste flow table is detailed in
Appendix I.
4.1.3 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.
4.1.4 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.
4.1.5 After checking with the Contractor, surcharge material was
removed off site to Macau from 27 April 2016 and it is continued in the
reporting period. 1,496,958.2m3 of surplus surcharge was exported to
Macau during the reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to ensure
consistency in quantities in case of any
C&D material disposed off-site and/or no
surcharge material removed off site
5.
Implementation Status of Environmental
Mitigation Measures
5.1
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
5.1.1 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.
5.1.2 Training of
marine travel route for marine vessels operator was given to relevant staff and
relevant records were kept properly.
5.1.3 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 period. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures
were well implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to
the submitted plan.
5.1.4 Dolphins were
spotted within North West entrance of silt curtain on 10 July 2016. The
relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well implemented. The
silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the submitted plan.
5.1.5 Acoustic
decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction vessels were checked
regularly and the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to noisy plants and to carry out improvement work once insufficient
acoustic decoupling measures were found.
5.1.6 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 within the reporting period.
5.1.7 As informed by
the Contractor on 16 February 2016, a MMWG meeting was held among the
representatives of Airport Authority (AA),
Arup (RSS of Contract HY/2010/02) and
CHEC (the Contractor of Contract HY/2010/02) on 15 February 2016.
In the meeting, it was mentioned that in order to facilitate
the site investigation (SI) works of
the AA’s contractor in the vicinity
of the concerned location, removal of the concerned silt curtain at the
NE Cooling Water Intake of Hong Kong International Airport was discussed. The
environmental aspect of the proposed removal of the silt curtain at NE Airport
Cooling Water Intake (WSR25) was reviewed by the ET and no adverse comment was
received from IEC/ENPO on 21 March 2016. As informed by the Contractor, the
silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling Water Intake has been removed on 10 May
2016.
5.1.8 Further to our
letter (ET’s letter’s ref.: 60249820/rmky16033001) dated 30/3/2016 regarding
the notification of silt curtain removal programme and arrangement, as informed
by RSS on 18 May 2016, the Contractor provided an updated programme on 31
October 2016 to indicate the current site situation. According to CHEC’s latest
removal programme during the period, stage 2 (east side of the perimeter silt
curtain removal work has been completed and dates for the subsequent stages
have also been updated in the reporting period, while the overall phasing
arrangement has not changed. A notification email has been sent to IEC/ENPO to
inform them that the completion of removal of perimeter silt curtain of Stages
2 and the tentative date for silt curtain removal work of stage 3, 4 and 5. With
referred to previous IEC/ENPO comment received on 7 June 2016 if update of
proposal was mainly on time schedule and they have no objection in
principle. However prior to IEC/ENPO’s reply to confirm ET’s updated
proposal, ET was requested to provide site photos to show ET’s checking of the
current site condition with respect to the reminders given in their previous
letter (Our Ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).
5.1.9 IEC/ENPO observed
that one Floating Concrete Batching Plant and two Floating Grout Production
Facilities anchored at Portion C2b and Portion E2 respectively at around 9:13
am on 25 April 2016. IEC/ENPO opined that a review should be conducted by ET to
assess if Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for HZMB HKBCF Project is complied,
after investigation, two number of FGP barges DL-4 and DL-5 were under BCF
contract. The FGP barges were servicing Contract No.HY/2010/02, but the
observed FGP barges were berthing at the concerned location for upcoming works
but were not operated on 25 April 2016. In addition, after further review, no
floating grout production was in operation at any time in March and April
2016 for Contract No.HY/2010/02; 1 floating grout production was in
operation at any time in May 2016 for Contract No.HY/2010/02.
Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for Contract No.HY/2010/02 is complied
with during the reporting period.
5.1.10 Due to the
commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport
into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project),
a large portion of works site
boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing
airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which
delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS
boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of 3RS project will
affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin
monitoring transect lines which are being
used for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will
therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September
2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of
EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10,
CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments
were under ET’s review in the reporting period.
5.1.11 After review, only
1 floating grout production at the most was in operation at any time in
reporting period for Contract No.HY/2010/02. Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K
for Contract No.HY/2010/02 is complied with during the reporting period.
6.
Summary of
Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit
6.1.1 No 1hr-TSP or
24hr-TSP exceedance were recorded in the reporting period at all monitoring
station during the 1-hr TSP or 24hr-TSP impact monitoring period. All 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.
6.1.2 For construction
noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting
period.
6.1.3 Twenty three (23)
Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values
(in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids values (in mg/L). After investigation, all impact water
quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract.
6.1.4 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.
6.1.5 Cumulative
statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.
7.
Summary of
Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
7.1
Summary of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons
and Successful Prosecutions
7.1.1 One complaint about marine litter near Tuen Mun Ferry Pier
was received on 16 Jul 2016, 9:19am. The complainant complained that pollution
was observed at Tuen Mun Ferry Pier and queried whether the pollutant came from
the construction sites of the Lantau area or bridge construction. After
investigation, it is considered the marine litter floating near the Tuen Mun
Ferry Pier is unlikely to be related to this Contract.
7.1.2 A water quality
complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22 September 2016 by EPD;
ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to
a complaint lodged by a member of the public about whitish effluent discharged
from two flattop barges which departs from Tuen Mun on a daily basis. The
complainant stated that the whitish effluent was discharged from these barges
at sea area outside cellular structure cell no. C054 – C055 between 18:00 to
04:00, causing pollution, after investigation, there is no adequate information
to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.3 An environmental
complaint was referred to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November 2016 by EPD; ENPO
referred this complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016. With referred to
the information provided. With referred to description provided by the
complainant, with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7 November 2016 on
a footbridge near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when a construction
vessel『長盛 308』travelled from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic
Hill section to Tung Chung Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.4 IEC/ENPO received
an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016. The
complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant
complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and
suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to
a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.5 RSS received a
complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government’s hotline
(1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, “the whole stretch of
East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone debris big
and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every day. When
dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing trucks
are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in dust or
mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction vehicles
is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads. Oversight of
road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An alternative
route should be created for the large number of construction vehicles as they
drive fast.” After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.6 A noise complaint
was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 2016 by EPD; ENPO
referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a
complaint lodged by a member of the public about hammering noise was generated
from manual construction activities at unidentified source near the HZMB
construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the noise
nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by the
complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction activity
conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of filling
material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor manual
construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in the
past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to this
Contract.
7.1.7 A complaint was
received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that construction
site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer
mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the poor
hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested
follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.8 With referred to
the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has received and
referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong
International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their
concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area
resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the
construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers and lorries. The complainant complained that the road
cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road Interchange
and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning of this
year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously stained
by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto the
public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been
increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company
image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction
contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after
pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed
onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The
Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this
matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering
Company Ltd. not to affect the pedestrians and road users as soon as possible.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint
is related to this Contract.
7.1.9 A complaint
forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained that
sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to
8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages’s construction
site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.10 Total of nine (9) environmental complaints were received in the
reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in
Figure 5.
7.1.11 No notification of summons and successful prosecutions is
noted during the reporting period.
7.1.12 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
8.
REVIEW of THE VALIDITY OF THE
EIA Prediction
8.1
No 1hr-TSP or 24hr-TSP exceedance were
recorded in the reporting period at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP
or 24hr-TSP impact monitoring period. All 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.
8.2
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.
8.3
For impact water quality monitoring,
twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended
solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded
at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L) and they were 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.
9.
Review of ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
9.1
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.
9.2 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.
9.3
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
9.4
IEC/ENPO observed that one Floating
Concrete Batching Plant and two Floating Grout Production Facilities anchored
at Portion C2b and Portion E2 respectively at around 9:13 am on 25 April 2016.
IEC/ENPO opined that a review should be conducted by ET to assess if Condition
3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for HZMB HKBCF Project is complied, after investigation,
two number of FGP barges DL-4 and DL-5 were under BCF contract. The FGP barges
were servicing Contract No.HY/2010/02, but the observed FGP barges were
berthing at the concerned location for upcoming works but were not operated on
25 April 2016. In addition, after further review, no floating grout production
was in operation at any time in March and April 2016 for Contract
No.HY/2010/02; 1 floating grout production was in operation at any time in May
2016 for Contract No.HY/2010/02. Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for Contract
No.HY/2010/02 is complied with during the reporting period.
9.5
Further to our letter (ET’s letter’s
ref.: 60249820/rmky16033001) dated 30/3/2016 regarding the notification of silt
curtain removal programme and arrangement, as informed by RSS on 18 May 2016,
the Contractor provided an updated programme on 31 October 2016 to indicate the
current site situation. According to CHEC’s latest removal programme during the
reporting period, stage 2 (east side of the perimeter silt curtain removal work
has been completed and dates for the subsequent stages have also been updated
in the reporting period, while the overall phasing arrangement has not changed.
A notification email has been sent to IEC/ENPO to inform them that the
completion of removal of perimeter silt curtain of Stages 2 and the tentative
date for silt curtain removal work of stage 3, 4 and 5. With referred to
previous IEC/ENPO comment received on 7 June 2016 if update of proposal was
mainly on time schedule and they have no objection in principle. However
prior to IEC/ENPO’s reply to confirm ET’s updated proposal, ET was requested to
provide site photos to show ET’s checking of the current site condition with
respect to the reminders given in their previous letter (Our Ref.:
HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).
9.6
Due to the commencement of marine work of
the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a
Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a large
portion of works site boundary will be
established at the northern part of the existing airport Island. The recent
arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of
the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to
Figure 5). The works area of 3RS project will affect several water
quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring
transect lines which are being used
for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will
therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September
2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of
EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10,
CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments
were under ET’s review in the reporting period.
10.
Review of
EM&A Programme
10.1
The environmental monitoring methodology
was considered well established as the monitoring results were found in line
with the EIA predictions.
10.2
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.
11.
Comments, recommendations and
Conclusions
11.1
Comments on
mitigation measures
11.1.1
According to the environmental site
inspections performed in the reporting period, the following recommendations
were provided:
11.2
Air Quality Impact
l All working plants and vessels on
site should be regularly inspected and properly maintained to avoid dark smoke
emission.
l All
vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the
site.
l Haul
roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust generation.
l Wheel
washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to ensure
properly functioning.
l Temporary
exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
l Enclosure
should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing operations.
l Water
spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty
construction activity.
11.3
Construction Noise Impact
l Quieter
powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.
l Noisy
operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive receivers as
far as possible.
l Proper
and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery
on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise barriers or
enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check and replace the sound insulation
materials regularly
l Vessels
and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly maintained.
l Noise
Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and hand-held
breaker operating within works area.
l Better
scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance.
11.4
Water Quality Impact
l Regular
review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting
facilities in order to make sure they are functioning effectively.
l Construction
of seawall should be completed as early as possible.
l Regular
inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid splashing of
material.
l Silt,
debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays and
perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
l Silty
effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated effluent
should be prevented from entering public drain channel.
l Proper
drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries to
collect/intercept the surface run-off from works areas.
l Exposed
slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during rainstorm.
11.5
Chemical and Waste Management
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.
11.6
Landscape and Visual Impact
l All
existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be properly
fenced off and regularly inspected.
11.7
Recommendations
on EM&A Programme
11.7.1 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.
11.7.2 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. Conclusions
12.3.1 The construction
phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 12 March 2012.
12.3.3 For construction
noise monitoring, 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.
12.3.4 For impact water
quality monitoring, twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances were recorded at
measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level
exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L). After
investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related
to this Contract.
12.3.5 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.
12.3.6 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.
12.3.7 Eight (8)
environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.
12.3.8 No summons or
successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.
12.3.9 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.
12.3.10 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.
12.3.11 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.
12.3.12 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.
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 –
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 – 43)