TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.
introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope of Report 1
1.3 Contract Organization 2
1.4 Summary of Construction Works 2
2.
Summary of EM&A Programme
Requirements 4
2.1 Monitoring Parameters 4
2.2 Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit
Levels) 6
2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures 6
3.
MONITORING Results 6
3.1 Air Quality Monitoring 6
3.2 Noise Monitoring 11
3.3 Water Quality Monitoring
14
3.4 Dolphin Monitoring 14
3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit 31
3.5.1 Site Inspection 31
4.
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste
Management Status 34
4.1 Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management 34
5.
Implementation Status of Environmental
Mitigation Measures 34
5.1 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Measures 34
6.
Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit 37
6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit 37
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 40
9.
Review of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS 41
10.
Review of EM&A Programme 43
11.
Comments, recommendations and Conclusions 44
12.
Conclusions
46
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 17 – Apr 18
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 Apr 2017
Table 3.16
Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values
Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring
Sightings from Year 1 (March 2012 – February 2013) to the Current Year (Mar
2017 – August 17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Project
Figures
Figure
1 General Contract Layout Plan
Figure 2
Impact Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station
Figure 3A-3D Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 4A-4B 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 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 2018. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12
March 2012.
The
EM&A programme of this Contract was completed by the end of April 2018, as
such this report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the
period between 1 March 2017 to 30 April 2018. For
further information on confirming termination of EM&A programme and
slightly longer reporting year, please refer to section 2.1.13. As informed by
the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-base
-
Sloping Seawalls
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Maintenance of localized silt curtain
-
Outfall
installation
-
Additional GI installation
-
Construction of Permanent Seawall
Land-base
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
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
-
Reinstatement of seawall
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
|
34 sessions
34 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
27 sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
77 sessions
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
12 surveys
|
Joint Environmental site inspection
|
61 sessions
|
*monitoring works between September 2017 and April 2018 for
the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao
Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at
AMS3B on 28 November 2017; 2 action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded
at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level
exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action
level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour
action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations by
this Contract or Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the reporting
period. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded,
please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017,
December 2017 and January 2018.
All 1-Hour TSP
results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.
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
In March 2017, 1 action level
exceedance of turbidity were recorded at both SR4(N)
and IS8 during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1
limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8
respectively during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of
suspended solids were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24
March 2017. The exceedances were considered unrelated to this Contract’s
activities after investigation. No other exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the March 2017.
In
April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28 April 2017. The exceedance
was considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities after investigation; No
other
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the April 2017.
In July 2017, for impact water quality
monitoring, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR3
during ebb tide on 12 July 2017 and at IS7 during flood tide on 14 July 2017
respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were
unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the July 2017.
In September 2017, total of 82
action level exceedances for dissolved oxygen and 4 limit level exceedances
were recorded on 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 27 & 29 September 2017. 3
action level exceedances for turbidity were recorded at IS(Mf)11 on 6 September
and at IS10(N) & IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood tide. Total of 4
action level exceedances for suspended solids were recorded at IS8, SR4(N)
& SR6 on 6 September 2017 and at IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood
tide, 1 limit level exceedance was recorded on 8 September 2017 at IS10(N)
during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance
were unlikely related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at
monitoring stations in September 2017. For level of exceedance, location and
when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A
report of September 2017.
In October 2017, 2 action level
exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11
and SR7 during flood tide on 20 October 2017. After investigation, it was
concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in October 2017. For level
of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to
Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of October 2017.
In November 2017, 6 action level exceedances of suspended
solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16 and SR7
during flood tide on 3, 6, 8 and 20 November 2017. After investigation, it was
concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in November 2017. For level
of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to
Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017.
In December 2017, 3 action level
exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 4
December 2017, and IS(Mf)9 during flood tide on 6
December 2017 and ebb tide on 11 December 2017 respectively. After
investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to
this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations by
Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the December 2017. For level
of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to
Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of December 2017.
In February 2018, 1 action level exceedance of suspended
solids was recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 2 February 2018. After
investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as
confirmed by the Contractor. It was concluded that the exceedance was unlikely
to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the February 2018.
For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please
refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of February 2018.
In March 2018, for impact water
quality monitoring, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS7 during
flood tide on 21 March 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was
conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the contractor. It was
concluded that the recorded exceedance not Contract-related. No other water
quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental
Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in March 2018. For level of exceedance,
location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of
monthly EM&A report of March 2018.
In April 2018, for impact water quality monitoring, 3 action
level exceedances of suspended solids at SR7 during flood tide on 18 and 23
April 2018, and at IS10(N) during flood tide on 20
April 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the
monitoring dates as confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the
recorded exceedances were not Contract-related. No other water quality
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of
Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the April 2018. For level of exceedance, location
and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly
EM&A report of April 2018.
Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
Two (2) Limit Level
exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting period - March
2017 to May 2018 and June 2017 to August 2017. 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.
Impact dolphin monitoring results obtained between
September 2017 and April 2018, at all transects are reported in the EM&A
Report prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Implementation
Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures
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 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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A
revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review
on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date.
The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval
on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May
2017.
Due to substantial completion of marine works by the
end of June 2017, it is anticipated that the remaining construction works under
Contract No. HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works,
construction of temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement
of seawall at the western section, construction of outfall at the eastern
seawall, would cause limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed.
In view of this, a proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements was
prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition
4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and
impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and
NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and
vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A
revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review
on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017.
The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and
approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on
7 September 2017.
As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three
water quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N)
were relocated due to topographical condition. Alternative water quality
monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2)
were justified and certified by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8
November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was
submitted to the authority for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The
authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of
water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N)
to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted
effective from 22 December 2017.
As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air
quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out
AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be
granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring
station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No.
HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The
proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January
2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is
adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.
As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities
for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is
anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only
include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract
would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A
Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of
EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A
Programme for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO
for their further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on
18 April 2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19
April 2018. The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.
Most of the recommended mitigation measures, as
included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting
period.
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
Four (4) 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 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 year 2018.
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 sixth 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 2017 and 30 April 2018.
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
|
3698 5999
|
Engineer’s Representative
(ER)
(Ove Arup &
Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Senior Resident
Engineer
|
Seven Yau
|
3698 5850
|
3698 5999
|
IEC / ENPO
(Ramboll 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
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Maintenance of localized silt curtain
-
Outfall
installation
-
Additional GI installation
-
Construction of Permanent Seawall
Land-base
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
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
-
Reinstatement of seawall
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 premistes
were not obtained. Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary
of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (AMS3B) respectively. Same baseline
and Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data
recorded at Ho Yu College, was adopted for this alternative air quality
location.
2.1.3 For impact noise monitoring,
monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview Crescent Tower 1) was set up at the proposed
locations in accordance with 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 (NMS3B) 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. Reference is made to ET’s
proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2
February 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and
no objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality
monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott
Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation
Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived
from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.
2.1.4 As informed by the
premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD would
not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring equipment (High
volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the premises
of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015. In order
to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as permission to conduct
impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air
quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment
received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from
EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu
Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December
2015. The impact air quality monitoring for December 2015 was conducted before
the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact air quality
monitoring has been conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel) since 1 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.
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 Project/ ambient
water quality conditions.
2.1.6 Due to safety
concern and topographical condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B,
alternative impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4(N) and
SR10B(N), were adopted, which are situated in vicinity of the original impact
water quality monitoring stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable. Same
baseline and Action Level for water quality, as derived from the baseline
monitoring data recorded, were adopted for these alternative impact water
quality monitoring stations.
2.1.7 The monitoring
locations used during the reporting period are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
2.1.8 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 impact
dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been
updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and
IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal
has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017.
The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.
2.1.9 Due to
substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is
anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No.
HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of
temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the
western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause
limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a
proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements
was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and
Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at
stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and
CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method)
covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is
completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract
No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for
their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised
proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by
project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority
subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.
2.1.10 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water
quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to
topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified
by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by
IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority
for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently
approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality
monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A
and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are
adopted effective from 22 December 2017.
2.1.11 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality
monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at
Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted
after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B
was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22
January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was
submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018.
Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted
effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.
2.1.12 As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities
for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is
anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only
include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract
would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A
Programme was prepared and certified by ET in
accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of
EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme for
Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their
further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April
2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018.
The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.
2.1.13 The monitoring locations used during the reporting year are
depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
2.1.14 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. As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality
monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at
Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted
after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B
was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22
January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was
submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018.
Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted
effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.
3.1.1.6. 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.
3.1.1.7. 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.
3.1.1.8. 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 17 – Apr 18
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
102
|
AMS3B
|
102
|
AMS7/7B
|
102
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
34
|
AMS3B
|
34
|
AMS7/7B
|
34
|
*No. of monitoring events carried out under this Contract
only. The rest of the monitoring events between September 2017 and April 2018
for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are reported in the EM&A Report prepared for
Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Table
3.2 Summary of Number of
Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Number of Exceedance
|
Mar 17 – Apr 18
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7/7B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
3
|
Limit
|
0
|
AMS7/7B
|
Action
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
Total
|
4
|
3.1.2 Environmental
Mitigation Measures
3.1.2.1 Relevant Air mitigation
measures, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A
Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of air quality
mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C.
3.1.3 Summary of
Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance
3.1.3.1 Other than the
mitigation measures implemented as mentioned in Appendix C, in the event of
non-compliance, actions were taken in accordance with the Event-Action Plan in
the EM&A Manual. The Contractor was notified immediately. Investigation was
carried out within three working days of identification of non-compliance such
as identifying the air pollution sources, checking the implementation status of
the mitigation measures, etc., and measurement was repeated to confirm the investigation
findings. Further investigation was carried out to identify the source of
pollution when deemed necessary. In summary, no direct evidence between the
exceedance at AMS2 and AMS3B and the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities -
reclamation works could be established for all non-compliances and therefore no
action was required to be taken.
3.1.4 Review of Reasons
for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.1.4.1 A total of 4 Action Level exceedance were recorded during the
24-hr TSP impact monitoring period. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance
level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact
monitoring period. Investigationinto the possible
causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly
EM&A reports
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/AMS7B
|
Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott
Hotel
|
344
|
92
|
71
|
46
|
*Extracted from Table 5-8 of
the EIA report
#
Both average Impact 1-hour TSP Levels and
average Impact 24-hour TSP Levels were calculated using monitoring data
obtained by this Contract between March 2017 to August 2017. Monitoring works
and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are
covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF
–Passenger Clearance Building.
3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring
station at AMS7/AMS7B, 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 sloping seawalls,
rubble mound seawall, maintenance of silt curtain, outfall installation,
additional GI installation, reinstatement of seawall, surcharge removal &
laying, construction of permanent seawall, maintenance works of site office,
works of public works regional laboratory at works area and maintenance of
temporary marine access. 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 17- April 18
|
Noise
|
NMS2
|
27
|
NMS3B
|
27
|
*Only
no. of monitoring events carried out under this Contract is reported. The rest
of the monitoring events between September 2017 and April 2018 for construction
noise monitoring are reported in the EM&A Report prepared for Contract No.
HY/2013/01.
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 – 69*
|
75
|
NMS3B
|
Site Boundary of
Site Office Area at Works Area WA2
|
66
|
53 – 69*
|
70
|
* +3dB(A) Façade correction
included
#
Both average and range of construction noise were calculated
using monitoring data obtained by this Contract between March 2017 to August
2017. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April
2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai
Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.
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 3A to Figure
3D.
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
17 – Apr 18
|
Water
Quality
|
Mid-Ebb
|
77
|
Mid-Flood
|
77
|
*monitoring works
between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract
No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance
Building.
Table 3.9
Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 17 – Apr 18
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
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
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
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
0
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
14
Jul 2017,
21
Mar 2018
|
(2)
8
Sep 2017
|
(2)
14
Jul 2017,
21
Mar 2018
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(1)
6 Sep 2017
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(2)
24
Mar, 6 Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
0
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
(3)
8,
11, 22 Sep 2017
|
0
|
(1)
13
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
11
Dec 2017
|
(1)
6
Dec 2017
|
(1)
11
Dec 2017
|
(5)
8,
11, 13, 22 Sep, 6 Dec 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10/
IS10(N)
|
Action
|
(5)
8,
11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017
|
(3)
8,
11, 22 Sep 2017
|
(6)
1,
15, 18, 22, 27, 29 Sep 2017
|
(4)
1,
11, 15, 29 Sep 2017
|
0
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
0
|
(1)
20
Apr
2018
|
(11)
1,
8, 11, 13, 15, 18 22, 27, 29 Sep 2017
|
(9)
8, 11,
22 Sep 2017, 20
Apr
2018
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
0
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
(3)
11,
15, 22 Sep 2017
|
(5)
8,
11, 13, 15, 22 Sep 2017
|
(4)
1,
11, 18, 29 Sep 2017
|
(4)
1,
8, 11, 29 Sep 2017
|
0
|
(2)
6,
8 Sep 2017
|
0
|
(5)
28 Apr,
8 Sep, 20 Oct, 3, 8 Nov 2017
|
(7)
1,
11, 15, 18, 22, 29 Sep 2017
|
(16)
28
Apr,
1,
8, 11, 13, 15, 22, 29 Sep,
20
Oct,
3,
8 Nov 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
(3)
8,
11, 22 Sep 2017
|
(5)
8,
11, 13, 18, 29 Sep 2017
|
(2)
11,
13 Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Nov 2017
|
(6)
8,
11, 13, 18, 29 Sep 2017
|
(6)
8,
11, 13, 22 Sep,
6
Nov 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
(3)
8,
11, 15 Sep 2017
|
(5)
8,
11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017
|
(7)
1,
6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 27 Sep 2017
|
(3)
8,
11, 13 Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(10)
1,
6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 27 Sep 2017
|
(8)
8,
11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3/
SR3(N)
|
Action
|
(2)
8,
22 Sep 2017
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
12
Jul 2017
|
0
|
(3)
12
Jul,
8,
22 Sep 2017
|
(1)
8
Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(2)
24 Mar, 6 Sep
2017
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(3)
24
Mar, 6 Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5/
SR5(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
1
Sep 2017
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
(2)
6
Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
(1)
11
Sep 2017
|
(3)
8,
11, 22 Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(8)
20
Oct, 3, 6, 20 Nov, 4 Dec 2017,
2
Feb, 18, 23 Apr 2018
|
(1)
11
Sep 2017
|
(11)
8,
11, 22 Sep,
20 Oct,
3, 6, 20 Nov, 4 Dec 2017,
2
Feb, 18, 23 Apr 2018
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A/
SR10A(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
SR10B(N)/
SR10B(N2)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
Limit
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
(1)
6
Sep 2017
|
Total
|
Action
|
16
|
24
|
25
|
17
|
0
|
5
|
4
|
22
|
113
|
|
Limit
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
6
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2017 to
April 2018) 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 118 exceedances were
recorded during the reporting period with 112 Action level exceedances and 6
Limit level exceedances.
3.3.4 Review of Reasons
for and the implications of Non-Compliance
3.3.4.1 Twenty five (25)
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 17 to
Apr 18), 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 a decrease 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. Although action and limit levels of DO levels were triggered in
September 2017, they were concluded not related to this Contract’s construction
activities after investigations were carried out according the Event and Action
Plan of corresponding approved EM&A manual. Furthermore 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 of each impact monitoring station was shown similar with that of control
stations of each tide. 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 of each tide. 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
|
03/17
|
20,601.3
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
04/17
|
39,960.7
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
05/17
|
22,430.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
06/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
07/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
08/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
09/17
|
0
|
86
|
3
|
5
|
94
|
10/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
11/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
6
|
12/17
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
01/18
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
02/18
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
03/18
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
04/18
|
0
|
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 dissolved 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 7.1 mg/L in Apr 2017 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 (Apr
2017)
|
Depletion during
Impact Monitoring
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
SR3
|
SR3/SR3(N)*
|
Surface & mid
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
7.5
|
7.4
|
-0.7
|
-0.7
|
Bottom
|
-
|
6.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SR4^
|
SR4(N) **
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.3
|
7.5
|
7.3
|
-1.4
|
-1.0
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.2
|
7.4
|
7.3
|
-1.4
|
-1.1
|
SR5
|
SR5/SR5(N)
|
Surface & mid
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
7.3
|
7.1
|
-0.9
|
-0.8
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
6.1
|
7.2
|
7.0
|
-1.1
|
-0.9
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
Surface & mid
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
7.4
|
7.1
|
-0.8
|
-0.6
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
6.1
|
7.3
|
7.0
|
-1.1
|
-0.9
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
Surface & mid
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
7.3
|
7.3
|
-1.0
|
-1.3
|
Bottom
|
6.1
|
5.9
|
7.1
|
7.2
|
-1.0
|
-1.3
|
SR10A
|
SR10A/SR10A(N)
|
Surface & mid
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
7.2
|
7.2
|
-1.2
|
-1.2
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
7.1
|
7.1
|
-1.4
|
-1.3
|
SR10B^
|
SR10B(N)/
SR10B(N2)
|
Surface & mid
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
7.2
|
7.4
|
-1.1
|
-1.4
|
Bottom
|
6.2
|
5.8
|
7.1
|
7.3
|
-0.9
|
-1.5
|
^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/ SR5(N)
|
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
Apr 2017
Sensitive Receiver
in Baseline
|
Associated Location during Impact Monitoring
|
Impact SS Mean
(in Apr 2017)
|
Mid-ebb
|
Elevation
|
Mid-flood
|
Elevation
|
SR3
|
SR3/SR3(N)
|
8.8
|
-5.2
|
8.0
|
-8.3
|
SR4
|
SR4(N)*
|
9.2
|
-2.1
|
8.8
|
-3.4
|
SR5
|
SR5/ SR5(N)
|
7.7
|
-2.9
|
8.7
|
-3.2
|
SR6
|
SR6
|
7.4
|
-4.5
|
7.4
|
-4.5
|
SR7
|
SR7
|
7.8
|
-3.6
|
7.8
|
-2.6
|
SR10A
|
SR10A/SR10A(N)
|
5.9
|
-4.3
|
5.8
|
-4.4
|
SR10B
|
SR10B(N)*/SR10B(N)2
|
6.0
|
-5.5
|
5.9
|
-5.2
|
*Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location
of SR4 & SR10B have been changed to SR4(N) & SR10B(N) respectively during impact monitoring.
#monitoring works between September 2017
and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong
Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.
3.3.7.10 With the highest filling rate in Apr 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 28 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/ SR5(N) were in
similar magnitude as predicted in the Project EIA. No
comparison could be made from SR6 to SR10B(N)/SR10B(N2)
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 4A and
Figure 4B.
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
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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised
proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24
March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The
revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and
approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on
12 May 2017.
3.4.1.5
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). The Dolphin
Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017 therefore, this report
includes survey data from March – August 2017, inclusive. Monitoring works and
monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are
covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF
–Passenger Clearance Building.
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 Two
(2) 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 2017-
May 2017
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
0.5
|
2.9
|
June 2017- August
2017
|
NEL
|
0
|
0
|
Limit Level
|
NWL
|
1.6
|
5.1
|
* STG represents groups of
dolphins (recorded on effort)
** ANI represents number of individual dolphins (recorded on
effort)
^The Dolphin Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017
therefore, this report includes survey data from March – August 2017,
inclusive. Monitoring works and monitoring data between
September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No.
HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.
3.4.4 Summary
of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings
3.4.4.1 Vessel-
based surveys were conducted monthly from March 2017 to August 2017. Only six
(6) months of surveys were completed due to contract phase cessation and change of responsibility
of implementation of environmental monitoring after August 2017. A
total of 24 survey days were completed between March 2017-August 2017 (Appendix
H: Table 1). A total of 1215.3km were completed of which 1190.1 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 the fifth year of impact
monitoring (2016-17), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2619.7km;
2520.9 km conducted under favourable conditions). In
all years, >98% of the track length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between March-August 2017, a
total of 20 dolphin sightings were recorded, 8 as on effort and 12 as
opportunistic (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. In the fifth year, a total of 50 dolphin sightings were
recorded, 32 on effort and 18 opportunistic. The total number of sightings has
decreased between each year of impact monitoring, with a slight increase shown
in this reporting period, i.e., 50 sightings this reporting period compared to
43 sightings in 2015-16. As this report only covers the first 6 months of the
monitoring year, direct yearly comparisons cannot be made (Table 3.17).
Table 3.17 Summary
of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (March 2012 – February
2013) to the Current Year (Mar 2017 – August 17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works
Project
Year
|
Total Sightings
|
2012-13
|
203
|
2013-14
|
135
|
2014-15
|
72
|
2015-16
|
43
|
2016-17
|
50
|
March 17 – August 2017*
|
20
|
* Monitoring
works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the
Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge
HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.
3.4.5 Distribution
3.4.5.1.
Sightings of dolphins were divided into two quarterly periods.
The highest number of sightings were made between June
– August 2017, 15 sightings cf. to the five (5) sightings recorded during the
first quarter of the monitoring period. One sightings was made in the NEL
section of the survey area and the rest were in NWL or in waters to the south
of NWL (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 the periods
March-May and June-August, 2017, were calculated[1].
For NWL, March-May dolphin encounter rates were much lower than June—August
(Appendix H: Figure 3). Within NWL, quarterly encounter rates ranged from
3 to 6 groups (Year 1); 5 to 9 groups (Year 2); 2 to 4 groups (Year 3); one
group (Year 4) and 1 to 2 groups (Year 5) per 100km on effort (figures
rounded). The average encounter rate for 2017 in NWL is 2 groups (figure
rounded) which is similar to year 5 results. Years 3 and 4 of construction
works recorded 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 (70%). 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 six (6) groups sighted that
comprised five (5) or more individuals, two were noted as exhibiting multiple
behavior which incorporated feeding, two (2) groups were feeding and two (2)
were travelling. Groups of five or more were sighted in both quarters
(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 (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 – August 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; 2% as moderate use and 96% as low use
(Appendix H: Figure 5).
3.4.8.2.
For the period March – August 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, 6% as moderate use and
93% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 6).
3.4.8.3.
DPSE and SPSE rates for March – August 2017 are not directly comparable
to yearly density maps, however, the yearly density maps for March 2012 to
February 2017 show a gradual decline in habitat use in NWL and NEL (Appendix H:
Figure 7).
3.4.9. Mother
and Calf Pairs
3.4.9.1.
No mother and calf pairs were recorded during the monitoring
period March – August 2017
3.4.10. Activities
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 8). Travelling was the most frequently observed
activity in March-May 2017. Multiple activities, including both
travelling and feeding behavior, and feeding behaviour
accounted for more than 50% of the observed behaviour
in June – August 2017 (Appendix H: Figure 9). 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, 2016-17 and this reporting
period. 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 10). The behaviours
recorded between March – August 2017 are consistent with those recorded
previously in this monitoring (Appendix H: Figure 11).
3.4.11. Photo-Identification
Catalogue
3.4.12 Dolphin Abundance
3.4.12.1
As the monitoring period is only six(6) months,
an annual abundance estimate cannot be calculated.
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. A single, opportunistic
sighting was made in NEL during this monitoring period. 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. 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, 2015-16 and 2016-17 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 and August 2017 dolphins were only recorded once in NEL
and many parts of NWL are no longer frequently used.
3.4.17.2
Marine mammal monitoring was conducted between March and August 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
Two (2) 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, 61 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 Dust was observed
during excavation, the Contractor was reminded to spray water or dust
suppression chemical before, during and immediately after the operation so as
to maintain the entire surface wet. (Reminder)
3.5.1.4 Dark smoke
emission from plant/equipment and vessels and from an excavator were observed, the
Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be
avoided. Emission of dark smoke was no longer observed in subsequent site
inspection in the reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to ensure
proper implementation of air quality mitigation measures and smoke emission
from plant/equipment shall be avoided. (Closed)
3.5.1.5 Dust was observed
during the operation of excavator for road finishing works. The Contractor was
reminded to provide effective dust suppression mechanism. No dust was observed
near excavator at the concerned area from photo record provided by the
Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.1.6 Dust was observed
on 30 Mar 2017 during the transport of dusty materials. The Contractor was reminded
to spray water or other dust suppression chemical prior to loading, unloading
or transport of dusty materials. The Contractor subsequently sprayed water to
the dusty materials. (Closed)
3.5.1.7 It was observed
that a discolored NRMM labels was affixed on the side of a drilling rig
machines, excavator, boring machines and on
generator near Portion B and excavator at Portion A. The Contractor was
reminded to affix appropriate NRMM labels on the machines. The Contractor
subsequently provided NRMM label to the machine. (Closed)
3.5.1.8 Inappropriate
size of NRMM label affixed onto the drilling rig machine on the working
platform in the vicinity of Portion E1 and onto the boring machine on the
working platform in the vicinity of Portion C1a was observed were observed. The
contractor was reminded to affix an appropriate NRMM label with size of at
least 200mm in width and 130 mm in height. The Contractor subsequently affixed
appropriate NRMM label on the concerned drilling rig machine and as informed by
the contractor, the concerned boring machine has been removed. (Closed)
3.5.1.9 The Contractor
was reminded to provide effective dust suppression mechanism by spraying water
or dust suppression chemical during operation of excavate work. (Reminder)
3.5.1.10 Dark smoke
emission was observed from derrick lighter barge (利航8) at Portion A.
The Contractor was reminded that smoke emission from plant/equipment should be
avoided. As informed by Contractor, the concerned barge has been removed from
the site. (Closed)
3.5.1.11 Generator (Airman
SDG25) without NRMM label was observed on jack- up barge, Fugro
Kingstown and drilling machine without NRMM label was observed on jack-up
barge, B40529VSNIPE. The Contractor was reminded to check and confirm if NRMM
label is required or available for the concerned PME. As informed by the
Contractor, the concerned generator was removed from barge and the Contractor
subsequently affixed appropriate NRMM label on the concerned drilling machine.
(Closed).
3.5.1.12 The Contractor
was reminded to spray water regularly to exposed soil at outfall works area to
reduce dust impact. (Reminder).
Noise
3.5.1.13 Acoustic mat was
not provided to generator placed on ship deck of Mytilus,
the Contractor was reminded to provide appropriate acoustic decoupling
measures. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation by providing
acoustic decoupling measures to the concerned generator. (Closed)
Water
Quality
3.5.1.14 It was observed that silt curtain near Portion E2 was disconnected.
The Contractor was reminded to reinstall silt curtain at the concerned area and
provide maintenance regularly. (Reminder)
3.5.1.15 It was observed that silt curtain near Portion E1 was
disconnected on 29 June 2017. The Contractor was reminded to reinstall silt
curtain at the concerned area and provide maintenance regularly. As informed by
Contractor silt curtain at the concerned area has been removed. (Closed)
3.5.1.16 It was observed that silt curtain around the outfall of
Portion B was disconnected on 17 and 24 August 2017, the Contractor was
reminded to reinstate the silt curtain at the concerned area and provide
maintenance regularly. According to the Contractor, silt curtain around the
outfall of Portion B was reinstated and properly maintained. (Closed)
3.5.1.17 Stagnant water and general refuse were observed at site entrance
and Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to clean stagnant water regularly to
keep the site clean and tidy. (Reminder)
3.5.1.18 Disconnected silt
curtain was observed at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to reinstate
concerned silt curtain and provide regular maintenance. The Contractor
subsequently rectified the adverse observation (Closed)
Chemical
and Waste Management
3.5.1.19 Chemical
containers were placed on bare ground or on the edge of drip tray and on ship
deck of Chun Ming 98, 83 and 18, 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)
3.5.1.20 The Contractor
was reminded to provide drip tray to equipment that use petrol or other
chemical as fuel to avoid leakage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.1.21 The Contractor
was reminded to clear leaked water on ground and replace the flawed drip tray
to prevent leakage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.1.22 Oil Spillage was observed
from derrick lighter along the pathway on ship deck of Chun Ming 68, the
Contractor was reminded to clear all leaked oil as chemical waste, provide
adequate spill kits and repair derrick lighter at once before using. The
Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)
3.5.1.23 Oil Spillage were
observed on ship deck of Chun Ming 18 on 27 Apr 2017 and leaking from a
generator at Portion E2 on 11 May 2017, the Contractor was reminded to clear
all leaked oil as chemical waste and dispose of as chemical waste. The
Contractor subsequently cleaned the leaked oil with spill kit provided on barge
and removed the generator from concerned area respectively. (Closed)
3.5.1.24 The Contractor
was reminded to clear spilled oil or chemical retained on drip tray to prevent
chemical leakage. (Reminder)
3.5.1.25 The Contractor
was reminded to clear water retained on drip tray after rainfall to prevent
spillage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.1.26 The Contractor was
reminded to clear leaked oil on the lid of containers and water retained on
drip tray of drilling rig (Lam D90) to prevent spillage or mixing with general
site runoff. (Reminder)
3.5.1.27 The Contractor
was reminded to clean up the site and dispose general refuse properly.
(Reminder)
3.5.1.28 Spilled oil from
generator was observed retaining on drip tray at Portion B. The Contractor was
reminded to clear spilled oil. The Contractor subsequently cleared the oil
retained on drip tray. (Reminder)
3.5.1.29 General refuse
were observed at outfall area of Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to keep
the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently cleared general refuse at
outfall area of Portion B. (Reminder)
3.5.1.30 The Contractor
was reminded to clear oil retained in drip tray on Chun Ming 98 and dispose as
chemical waste. (Reminder)
3.5.1.31 Oil stain was
observed. The Contractor should repair the concerned excavator at once before
using and provide regular inspection and maintenance. (The Contractor
subsequently carried out rectification, closed)
3.5.1.32 Oil stain was
observed on 8 February 2018. The Contractor should repair the concerned
excavator at once before using and provide regular inspection and maintenance.
As informed by the Contractor, the concerned excavator was repaired. (Closed)
3.5.1.33 The Contractor
was reminded to clear general refuse observed at the entrance of site office at
WA2 and keep the site clean and tidy on 26 April 2018. (reminder)
Landscape
and Visual Impact
3.5.1.34 No relevant
adverse impact was observed in the reporting period.
Others
3.5.1.35 Environmental
Permit was not observed on Furgo Kingstown, the
Contractor was reminded to affix valid Environmental Permit on barge for
Contract No. HY/2010/02. The Contractor subsequently provided valid
Environmental Permit on barge. (Closed)
3.5.1.36 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, 63,124.6m3 of inert C&D Materials
generated and reused in other Projects; 231,560.5m3 of surplus
surcharge exported to Macau; 82,992.7m3 of Imported fill; 5,852kg
paper/cardboard packaging 292.5m3 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. 231,560.5m3 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 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.
5.1.3 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 impact dolphin
monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and
sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO
verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been
sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The
authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.
5.1.4 Due to
substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is
anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No.
HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of temporary
timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the western
section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause limited
disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a proposal
for change of EM&A programme/requirements was
prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition
4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations
IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and
impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and
NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and
vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A
revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review
on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017.
The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and
approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on
7 September 2017.
5.1.5 As informed by
IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring stations of SR3,
SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to topographical
condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N),
SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified by the ET Leader of
Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November
2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval
on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22
December 2017. Relocation of water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A
and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are
adopted effective from 22 December 2017.
5.1.6 As informed by
IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated
due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative
air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader
of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24
January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and
approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from
AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s
consent.
5.1.7 As informed by
the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has
been substantially completed and it is anticipated that potential environmental
impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up
works on seawall under the Contract would be insignificant. In view of this, a
proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared
and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and
Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme
for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their
further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April
2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018.
The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.
5.1.8 After review, no
floating grout production 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.
5.1.9 Most of the
recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting
period.
5.1.10 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.
5.1.11 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.
5.1.12
6.
Summary of
Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit
6.1.1 For
impact air quality monitoring
6.1.1.1 1 action level
exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B on 28 November 2017; 2 action level
exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17
January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was
recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to
this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances
was recorded at all monitoring stations by this Contract or Environmental Team
of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the reporting period. For level of exceedance,
location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of
monthly EM&A report of November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018.
6.1.1.2 For impact air quality
monitoring, all 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the
reporting period.
6.1.2 For
construction noise
6.1.2.1 No exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
6.1.3 For
impact water quality monitoring,
6.1.3.1 In March 2017, 1
action level exceedance of turbidity were recorded at both SR4(N)
and IS8 during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1
limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8
respectively during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of
suspended solids were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24
March 2017. The exceedances were considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities
after investigation. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the March 2017.
6.1.3.2 In April 2017, 1
action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS(Mf)11
during flood tide on 28 April 2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to
this Contract’s activities after investigation; No other exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the April 2017.
6.1.3.3 In July 2017, for
impact water quality monitoring, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids
were recorded at SR3 during ebb tide on 12 July 2017 and at IS7 during flood
tide on 14 July 2017 respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that
those exceedance were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the July 2017.
6.1.3.4 In September
2017, total of 82 action level exceedances for dissolved oxygen and 4 limit
level exceedances were recorded on 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 27 & 29
September 2017. 3 action level exceedances for turbidity were recorded at
IS(Mf)11 on 6 September and at IS10(N) & IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017
during flood tide. Total of 4 action level exceedances for suspended solids
were recorded at IS8, SR4(N) & SR6 on 6 September 2017 and at IS(Mf)11 on 8
September 2017 during flood tide, 1 limit level exceedance was recorded on 8
September 2017 at IS10(N) during flood tide. After investigation, it was
concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to this Contract. No
other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations in September 2017. For
level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer
to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of September 2017.
6.1.3.5 In October 2017,
2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11 and SR7 during flood tide on 20 October 2017. After
investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be
contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations
in October 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were
recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of October
2017.
6.1.3.6 In November 2017,
6 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16 and SR7 during flood tide on 3, 6, 8 and
20 November 2017. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances
were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in November 2017. For level of exceedance, location and
when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A
report of November 2017.
6.1.3.7 In December 2017,
3 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR7 during
flood tide on 4 December 2017, and IS(Mf)9 during
flood tide on 6 December 2017 and ebb tide on 11 December 2017 respectively.
After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely
related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring
stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in December 2017. For
level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer
to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of December 2017.
6.1.3.8 In February 2018,
1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at SR7 during flood
tide on 2 February 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was
conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the Contractor. It was
concluded that the exceedance was unlikely to be contract related. No other
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of
Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the February 2018. For level of exceedance, location
and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly
EM&A report of February 2018.
6.1.3.9 In March 2018,
for impact water quality monitoring, 1 action level exceedance of suspended
solids at IS7 during flood tide on 21 March 2018. After investigation, no
marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the
contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedance not Contract-related.
No other water quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by
Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in March 2018. For level of
exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to
Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of March 2018.
6.1.3.10 In April 2018,
for impact water quality monitoring, 3 action level exceedances of suspended
solids at SR7 during flood tide on 18 and 23 April 2018, and at IS10(N) during flood tide on 20 April 2018. After
investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring dates as
confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedances
were not Contract-related. No other water quality exceedance was recorded at
all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in
April 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were
recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of April 2018.
6.1.4 For
dolphin monitoring
6.1.4.1 Two (2) 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 environmental complaint was received on 27 March 2017,
and the complainant complained that a very loud sound was intermittently heard
by the Complainant since 10pm on 26 March and such loud sound was heard by the
complainant until midnight. It was suspected that the sound came from the Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) construction works near the artificial island.
In addition, a large area of pollution was observed on sea in the morning of
the day the complainant made the complaint. It was suspected that was caused by
the HZMB construction works. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all
noise and water quality mitigation measures.
7.1.2 One environmental
complaint was received on 17 April 2017, the organization which made the
complaint, Green Sense, complained that “muddy water was observed at area
surrounding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) artificial island, it is
suspected that there were overflow muddy water from the artificial island. Tam
Hoi-pong of Green Sense stated that there should not be too much muddy water if
reclamation was conducted according to the EIA report. He suspected that there
are problems of reclamation works, silt curtain have not effectively screen out
the mud and sand, the construction works is not ideal and unable to ensure
water quality. After investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless, the
Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all water quality
mitigation measures.
7.1.3 A complaint was
forwarded to us by ENPO on 27 October 2017; the complainant complained that
yellowish muddy water was discharged into the sea from construction site
location C3 of the artificial island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and
this has been persist for one week. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.4 A complaint was
forwarded to us by ENPO on 23 November 2017; the complainant complained that,
on Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities –
Artificial Island, due to watering was not provided to all areas, large amount
of fugitive dust was generated, especially at the toll kiosks. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is
related to this Contract.
7.1.5 Total of four (4)
environmental complaints were received in the reporting period. The
Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.
7.1.6 No notification of
summons and successful prosecutions is noted during the reporting period.
7.1.7 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 1 Action level
exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17
January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was
recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to
this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances
was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period. For level of
exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to
Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017, December 2017 and
January 2018. All other 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, 40
action and 4 limit level exceedances of DO (S&M); 42 action level
exceedances of DO (Bottom); 5 action level exceedances of Turbidity; 22 action
level exceedances and 2 limit level exceedances of SS 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
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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal
has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017
and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised
proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on
3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.
9.5
Due
to substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is
anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No.
HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of
temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the
western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause
limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a
proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements
was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and
Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at
stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and
CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method)
covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is
completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract
No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for
their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised
proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by
project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority
subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.
9.6
As
informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring
stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due
to topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified
by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by
IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority
for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently
approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality
monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) to
SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted effective from 22 December 2017.
9.7
As
informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7
was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end
of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified
and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018,
verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the
authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality
monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February
2018 with the Authority’s consent.
9.8
As
informed by the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no.
HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is anticipated that
potential environmental impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc
minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract would be
insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance
with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to
terminate the EM&A Programme for Contract no.
HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on
17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April 2018. The proposal
has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018. The proposal was
subsequently approved by the authority.
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
12.1
The
construction phase and EM&A programme of the
Contract commenced on 12 March 2012.
12.2
1 Action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP
were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1
action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and
24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period. The impact air quality levels recorded were
generally similar to the predicted levels in the Project EIA.
12.3
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.
12.4
For
impact water quality monitoring, 40 action and 4 limit level exceedances of DO
(S&M); 42 action level exceedances of DO (Bottom); 5 action level
exceedances of Turbidity; 22 action level exceedances and 2 limit level
exceedances of SS were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L).
After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not
related to this Contract.
12.5
Two
(2) 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.
12.6
Environmental
site inspection was carried out 61 times in the reporting period.
Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the
deficiencies identified during the site audits.
12.7
Four
(4) environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.
12.8
No
summons or successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.
12.9
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.
12.10 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.
12.11 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.
12.12 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)