Verification by IEC

 

Certification by ET

 


Contract No. HY/2013/01

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge

Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Passenger Clearance Building

 

Verification by IEC

 

Certification by ET

 

 

 

Quarterly EM&A Report No. 13

(Covering the Period from 1 September 2017 to 30 November 2017)

 

20 May 2019

 

Revision 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Contractor                                                                                                          Environmental Team 

 

 

 

 

Contents

Executive Summary

1....... Introduction. 4

1.1                          Basic Project Information. 4

1.2                          Project Organisation. 4

1.3                          Construction Programme. 4

1.4                          Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period. 5

2....... EM&A Requirement 6

2.1                          Summary of EM&A Requirements. 6

2.2                          Monitoring Requirements. 10

2.3                          Action and Limit Levels. 10

2.4                          Event Action Plans. 12

2.5                          Mitigation Measures. 12

3....... Environmental Monitoring and Audit 13

3.1                          Air Quality Monitoring Results. 13

3.2                          Noise Monitoring Results. 15

3.3                          Water Quality Monitoring Results. 16

3.4                          Dolphins Monitoring Results. 21

3.5                          Implementation of Environmental Measures. 28

3.6                          Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status. 28

3.7                          Environmental Licenses and Permits. 28

4....... Summary of Exceedance, Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution. 29

4.1                          Summary of Exceedance of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 29

4.2                          Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution. 29

5....... Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion. 31

5.1                          Comments. 31

5.2                          Recommendations. 31

5.3                          Conclusions. 32

 

 

Figures

Figure 2.1      Location of Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.2      Location of Noise Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.3     Location of Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.4    Impact Dolphins Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map

 

Appendices

Appendix A       Location of Works Areas

Appendix B       Project Organization for Environmental Works

Appendix C       Construction Programme

Appendix D       Event and Action Plan

Appendix E       Implementation Schedule for Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)

Appendix F       Graphical Plot (Air Quality, Noise and Water Quality)

Appendix G       Site Audit Findings and Corrective Actions 

Appendix H       Waste Flow Table

Appendix I         Environmental Licenses and Permits 

Appendix J        Statistics on Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions 

Appendix K       Investigation Report

Appendix L        Dolphin Monitoring Results

 

Executive Summary

This Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Passenger Clearance Building (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and Atkins China Limited was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor.

The Contract is part of Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge HKBCF which is a “Designated Project”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) No. EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF was issued on 11 April 2016. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. Site preparation works of the Contract started on 26 September 2014 and the construction works of the Contract commenced on 6 October 2014.

Atkins China Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version1.0) and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract.

This is the thirteenth Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summaries findings of the EM&A works during the reporting period from 1 September 2017 to 30 November 2017.

Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress

The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1.0). The air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017. It should be noted that the air quality monitoring station (AMS6) is covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF.

A summary of the monitoring activities during the reporting period are listed below:

Monitoring Items

Date

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

1-hour TSP Monitoring

1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14 ,15, 20, 21, 26, 27 and 29

3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26 and 30

1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 27 and 29

24-hour TSP Monitoring

1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 30

3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27 and 31

2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 30

Noise Monitoring

4, 6, 12, 14, 18, 20, 26 and 28

3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 18, 24, 26 and 30

1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 21, 23, 27 and 29

Water Quality Monitoring

1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29

2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30

1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29

Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

5, 14, 21 and 25

6, 12, 17 and 19

6, 14, 23 and 28

Environmental Site Inspection

6, 13, 20 and 27

4, 11, 18 and 25

1, 8, 15, 22 and 29

 

 

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels

A summary of environmental exceedances for the reporting period are listed below:

Environmental Monitoring

Parameters

Action Level (AL)

Limit Level (LL)

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Air Quality

1-hr TSP

-

-

-

-

-

-

24-hr TSP

-

-

1

-

-

-

Noise

Leq (30 min)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Water Quality

Suspended solids level (SS)

8

5

15

1

-

4

Turbidity level

5

-

-

1

-

-

Dissolved oxygen level (DO)

137

7

-

26

8

-

Dolphin Monitoring

Quarterly Analysis

-

1

Total

178

41

Based on the investigation results, all exceedances are found that not related to Contract No. HY/2013/01.

Implementation of Environmental Measures

Site inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Potential environmental impacts due to the construction activities were monitored and reviewed.

Complaint Log

There were two complaints received in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period.

A summary of environmental complaints for the previous reporting period is as follows:

Environmental Complaint No.

Date of Complaint Received

Description of Environmental Complaints

009

27 October 2017

Water Quality

010

23 November 2017

Dust

Complaint No.009

A complaint was received by EPD which regarding to the water quality at C3 area, the complaint was informed to the Environmental Team, Engineer’s Representative and Contractor by ENPO’s email on 27 October 2017.

Based on the investigation results, it is found that the complaint is not related to Contract No. HY/2013/01. No immediate mitigation measures are required as the complaint is not related to Contact No. HY/2013/01.

Complaint No.010

A compliant was received by EPD regarding dust emission from HZMB construction site. Environmental Team was informed by ENPO on 23 November 2017.

The Water Spraying Plan, which include the information of watering schedule, routing of trucks of watering and the location of water filling, was prepared and submitted to RE and ENPO.

Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

There was no notification of summon or prosecution received during this reporting period.

Reporting Change

The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 implemented the environmental monitoring (air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring works for the entire HKBCF) since 1 September 2017. It should be noted that the air quality monitoring station (AMS6) is covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF.

Air quality monitoring station-AMS3B, noise monitoring station-NMS3B and the meteorological station have been slightly re-located to AECOM PRE's Office since 1 September 2017.  

1          Introduction

1.1                Basic Project Information

1.1.1      This Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Passenger Clearance Building (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Contract was awarded to Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and Atkins China Limited was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor.

1.1.2      The Contract is part of Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) which is a “Designated Project”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) No. EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF was issued on 11 April 2016. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. Site preparation work of the Contract started on 26 September 2014 and the construction works of the Contract commenced on 6 October 2014. The works areas of the Contract are shown in Appendix A.

1.1.3      This is the thirteenth Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summarizes the audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 September 2017 to 30 November 2017.

1.2                Project Organisation

1.2.1      The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure is shown in Appendix B.  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 or Engineer’s Representative
(AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.)

Chief Resident Engineer

Michael Tovey

3958 7339

3468 2076

Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker
(Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited)

Environmental Project Office Leader

Y. H. Hui

3465 2888

3465 2899

Independent Environmental Checker

Raymond Dai

3465 2888

3465 2899

Contractor
(Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture)

Project Manager

Owen Leung

9232 5750

3621 0180

Environmental Officer

Michael Lee

6461 8635

3621 0180

Environmental Team
(Atkins China Limited)

Environmental Team Leader

Keith Chau

2972 1721

2890 6343

24 hours complaint hotline

---

---

3958 7300

---

1.3                Construction Programme

1.3.1      A copy of the Contractor’s construction programme is provided in Appendix C. 

 

1.4                Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

1.4.1      A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown below:

Land-Based Work

·            Waterproofing

·            Backfilling

·            Formwork and falsework stripping

·            Western vertical column

·            Blockwork walls

·            Pipework and ductwork installation

·            Hanger rods for cable container

·            Wet trade works

·            Dry trade works

·            Facade Bracket for Cabins

·            Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) High Level Containment

·            Removal of Temporary Works

·            Window wall glazing 

·            Heat exchanger installation 

·            Heavy MEP plant set up in basement

·            Double Bow Truss installation

·            Mullion Frame installation

·            Curtain wall glaring

·            Hanging scaffolding

·            Hanging scaffolding removal

·            Footbridge construction

·            Roof cladding

·            Refuse collection point

·            Southern toilet

·            Miscellaneous steelwork

·            Lift installation

·            Escalator installation

·            Glazed lift installation

·            Road and Kerbing

·            Testing and commissioning works

·            Water features and planters

 

 

Marine Based work

·            Seawater intake seawall reinstatement

·            Seawater outfall pipe laying

·            Localized silt curtain deployment at jetty

·            Localized silt curtain removal at seawater intake and box culvert

·            Temporary jetty dismantling

 

2          EM&A Requirement

2.1                Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1      The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1). The air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017. It should be noted that the air quality monitoring station (AMS 6) is covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF.

2.1.2      The permission to carry out impact air quality monitoring work at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) was not granted after 31 January 2015.  The impact air quality monitoring location (AMS7) was relocated to a nearby air sensitive receiver, Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. (AMS7A), from 5 February 2015 to 30 December 2015. The alternative location at Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. was approved by EPD on 5 February 2015. However, AMS7A was relocated back to its original location (AMS7-Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The relocation of air quality monitoring location, AMS7A, back to AMS7 was approved by EPD on 21 December 2015. The baseline and action/limit level for air quality as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (AMS7) was adopted for the air quality monitoring location.

2.1.3      A summary of air and noise monitoring locations are presented in Table 2.1. The location of air quality and noise monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, respectively.

Table 2.1         Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring

ID

Location Description 

Air Quality

AMS2(1)

Tung Chung Development Pier

AMS3B(1)

Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Work Area WA2

AMS6(1)

Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building

AMS7(1) (2)

Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

Noise

NMS2(3)

Seaview Crescent

NMS3B(3)(4)

Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2

Remarks:

(1)    The ET of this Contract should conduct impact air quality monitoring at the Air Monitoring Station listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to the latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project.

(2)    The original monitoring location was at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (AMS7). As the permission to carry out air quality monitoring at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel was not granted after 31 January 2015, the monitoring location was relocated to Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. (AMS7A) from 5 February 2015 to 30 December 2015. The alternative monitoring location at Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. was approved by EPD on 5 February 2015. However, AMS7A was relocated back to its original location (AMS7-Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The relocation of air quality monitoring location, AMS7A, back to AMS7 was approved by EPD on 21 December 2015.

(3)    The ET of this Contract should conduct impact noise monitoring at the NMS listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to the latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project. 

(4)    The Action and Limit Levels for schools will be applied for this alternative monitoring location.

 

2.1.4      The water quality works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017. A total of twenty-one stations (nine Impact Stations (IS), seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) and five Control/Far Field Stations (CS)) are covered by the current EM&A programme.

2.1.5      The water quality monitoring stations at CS(Mf)3 (Coordinate: 809989E, 821117N), IS10 (Coordinate: 812577E, 820670N) and SR5 (811489E, 820455N) have been occupied by the marine work of a designated project - Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). The alternative water quality monitoring station at CS(Mf)3(N) (Coordinate: 808814E, 822355N), IS10(N) (Coordinate: 812942E, 820881N) and SR5(N) (812569E, 8201475N) were justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

2.1.6      Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the locations of water quality monitoring stations.

Table 2.2         Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Station

Description

East

North

IS5

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

811579

817106

IS(Mf)6

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812101

817873

IS7

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812244

818777

IS8

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

814251

818412

IS(Mf)9

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

813273

818850

IS10

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812577

820670

IS10(N)*

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

812942

820881

IS(Mf)11

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

813562

820716

IS(Mf)16

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

814328

819497

IS17

Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)

814539

820391

SR3^

Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)

810525

816456

SR4(N)

Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho)

814705

817859

SR5

Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)

811489

820455

SR5(N)*

Sensitive receiver (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)

812569

821475

SR6

Sensitive receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park)

805837

821818

SR7

Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do)

814293

821431

SR10A^

Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 1

823741

823495

SR10B(N)^

Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2

823683

823187

CS(Mf)3

Control Station

809989

821117

CS(Mf)3(N)*

Control Station

808814

822355

CS(Mf)5

Control Station

817990

821129

CS4

Control Station

810025

824004

CS6

Control Station

817028

823992

CSA

Control Station

818103

823064

Remarks:

* Alternative water quality monitoring stations at CS(Mf)3(N), SR5(N) and IS10(N) were justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

^ Water sampling team reported that the monitoring stations at SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were not available for water sampling due to safety reason, thus, monitoring stations were changed to tentative coordination (i.e. SR3(N): E810689 N816591; SR10A(N): E823644 N823484 and SR10B(N2): E823689 N823159).

2.1.7      The dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required to conduct dolphin monitoring at the twenty-four transects.

2.1.8      The dolphin monitoring should adopt line-transect vessel survey method. The survey follows pre-set and fixed transect lines in the two areas defined by AFCD as: Northeast Lantau survey area; and Northwest Lantau survey area. The change of transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and new vessel-based transect line 24 for dolphin monitoring have been proposed due to the marine work of a designated project - Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). It was justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

2.1.9      The co-ordinates for the transect lines showing the transect lines have been obtained from AFCD and are shown in Table 2.3 and Figure 2.4 shows the layout map.

 

Table 2.3          Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates

Transect ID

                       HK Grid System

 

East

North

 

1*

804671

815456

 

804671

831404

 

2

805476

820800

 

805476

826654

 

3

806464

821150

 

806464

822911

 

4

807518

821500

 

807518

829230

 

5

808504

821850

 

808504

828602

 

6

809490

822150

 

809490

825352

 

7

810499

822000

 

810499

824613

 

8*

811508

821123

 

811508

824254

 

9*

812516

821303

 

812516

824254

 

10*

813525

820827

 

813525

824657

 

11#

814556

818853

 

814556

820992

 

12

815542

818807

 

815542

824882

 

13

816506

819480

 

816506

824859

 

14

817537

820220

 

817537

824613

 

15

818568

820735

 

818568

824433

 

16

819532

821420

 

819532

824209

 

17

820451

822125

 

820451

823671

 

18

821504

822371

 

821504

823761

 

19

822513

823268

 

822513

824321

 

20

823477

823402

 

823477

824613

 

21

805476

827081

 

805476

830562

 

22

806464

824033

 

806464

829598

 

23

814559

821739

 

814559

824768

 

24

805476

815900

 

805476

819100

 

Remarks:

(a)       * Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 5.1 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. Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 108km

(b)       # Coordinates for transect lines 1, 8, 9 and 11 have been updated in respect to the Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD on 19 August 2015.

(c)       The change of transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and new vessel-based transect line 24 for dolphin monitoring have been proposed due to the marine work of a designated project-Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). It was justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

(d)       Due to marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), original transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are enclosed by works boundary of 3RS Project. Alternative dolphin monitoring transect lines 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 24 are adopted starting from 17 May 2017 to replace the original transect lines.

 

 

2.2                Monitoring Requirements

2.2.1      The monitoring requirements, monitoring equipment, monitoring parameters, frequency and duration, monitoring methodology, monitoring schedule, meteorological information is detailed in the monthly EM&A Reports for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

2.3                Action and Limit Levels

2.3.1      The Action and Limit Level for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP are provided in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5, respectively.

Table 2.4         Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP

Monitoring Station

Action Level, µg/m3

Limit Level, µg/m3

AMS2 – Tung Chung Development Pier

374

500

AMS3B -
Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2

368

AMS6 – Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

360

AMS7 – Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

370


Table 2.5        Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP

Monitoring Station

Action Level, µg/m3

Limit Level, µg/m3

AMS2 – Tung Chung Development Pier

176

260

AMS3B -
Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2

167

AMS6 – Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

173

AMS7 – Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

183

 

2.3.2      The Action and Limit Levels for construction noise are defined in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6         Action and Limit Level for Construction Noise

Parameter

Action Level

Limit Level

07:00 – 19:00 hours on normal weekdays

When one documented complaint is received

75/70/65 dB(A)*

Notes :     

If works are to be carried out during restricted hours, the conditions stipulated in the construction noise permit issued by the Noise Control Authority have to be followed.

* Reduce to 70 dB(A) for schools and 65 dB(A) during school examination period. The Action and limit Levels for schools will be applied for NMS3B. Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period.

 

2.3.3      The Action and Limit Levels for water quality are provided in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameters

Action

Limit

DO in mg L-1

(Surface, Middle & Bottom)

Surface and Middle

5.0

Bottom

4.7

Surface and Middle

4 .2 (except 5 mg/L for FCZ)

Bottom

3.6

SS in mg L-1 (depth-averaged) at all monitoring stations and control stations

23.5 and 120% of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day*

34.4 and 130% of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day and 10mg/L for WSD Seawater intakes*

Turbidity in NTU

(depth-averaged)

27.5 and 120% of upstream control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day*

47.0 and 130% of upstream control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day*

* Remarks:  Reference is made to EPD approval of adjustment of water quality assessment criteria issued and became
            effective on 18 February 2013.
 Notes:     1. “depth-averaged” is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.

2.For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.

3.For turbidity, SS, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

4.All the figures given in the table are used for reference only and the EPD may amend the figures whenever it is considered as necessary.

5.The 1%-ile of baseline data for dissolved oxygen (surface and middle) and dissolved oxygen (bottom) are 4.2 mg/L and 3.6 mg/L respectively.

2.3.4      The Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring are provided in Table 2.8 and Table 2.9, respectively.

Table 2.8 Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)

 

North Lantau Social Cluster

 

NEL

NWL

Action Level

(STG  < 70% of baseline) &

(ANI  < 70% of baseline)

(STG  < 70% of baseline) &

(ANI  < 70% of baseline)

Limit Level

[(STG  < 40% of baseline) & (ANI  < 40% of baseline)] AND

[ (STG  < 40% of baseline) & (ANI  < 40% of baseline)]

 

 

Table 2.9 Derived Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

 

North Lantau Social Cluster

 

NEL

NWL

Action Level

(STG < 4.2) & (ANI < 15.5)

(STG < 6.9) & (ANI < 31.3)

Limit Level

[(STG < 2.4) & (ANI <8.9)] AND [ (STG < 3.9) & (ANI < 17.9)]

 

 

2.4                Event Action Plans

2.4.1      The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring are provided in Appendix D.

2.5                Mitigation Measures

2.5.1      Environmental mitigation measures for the Contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status.

3          Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1                Air Quality Monitoring Results

3.1.1      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).

3.1.2      The weather was sunny and hot, with occasional cloudy in the reporting period. Construction works during the quarterly period are shown in Section 1.4.1. The major dust source in the reporting period included construction activities from the Project, as well as traffic emission. No specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.

3.1.3      Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A Reports (for September to November 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

3.1.4      The graphical plots of the monitoring results are presented in Appendix F.

3.1.5      The number of exceedances recorded during the reporting period are presented in the Table 3.1. The monitoring results for 1-hour and 24-hour are summarized in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 respectively.

Table 3.1         Summary of number of exceedances for 1-hr and 24-hr TSP Monitoring

Monitoring Station

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

Action Level

Limit Level

Action Level

Limit Level

Action Level

Limit Level

AMS2

-

-

-

-

-

-

AMS3B

-

-

-

-

-

1 (24-hr TSP)

AMS7

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2     Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period

Reporting month

Monitoring Station

Average (μg/m3)

Range (μg/m3)

 

Action Level (μg/m3)

Limit Level (μg/m3)

September 2017

AMS2

28

15 - 52

374

500

AMS3B

15

3 - 31

368

AMS7

55

8 - 160

370

October 2017

AMS2

45

26 - 92

374

500

AMS3B

35

16 - 58

368

AMS7

46

29 - 102

370

November 2017

AMS2

122

14 - 312

374

500

AMS3B

34

12 - 87

368

AMS7

47

21 - 106

370

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.3     Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period 

Reporting month

Monitoring Station

Average (μg/m3)

Range (μg/m3)

 

Action Level (μg/m3)

Limit Level (μg/m3)

September 2017

AMS2

40

20 - 65

176

260

AMS3B

47

27 - 68

167

AMS7

50

26 - 90

183

October 2017

AMS2

75

27 - 107

176

260

AMS3B

79

36 - 119

167

AMS7

91

42 - 120

183

November 2017

AMS2

109

52 - 150

176

260

AMS3B

108

57- 168

167

AMS7

83

54 - 118

183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.1.6      No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7 during the reporting period.

3.1.7      No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 during the reporting period.

3.1.8      One Action Level and no Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B during the reporting period. For detail of investigation, please refer to Appendix K.

3.2                Noise Monitoring Results

3.2.1      In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least once per week during the construction phase of the Contract. The graphical plots of the monitoring results are presented in Appendix F. No specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.

3.2.2      The number of exceedances recorded during the reporting period are presented in the Table 3.4. The monitoring results for noise are summarized in Table 3.5.

Table 3.4         Summary of number of exceedances for Impact Noise Monitoring

Monitoring Station

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

Action Level

Limit Level

Action Level

Limit Level

Action Level

Limit Level

NMS2

-

-

-

-

-

-

NMS3B(*)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Remark (*): Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period. The examination period of Ho Yu College was 2 – 15 November 2017, the Limit Level of 65 dB(A) was applied.

 

 

Table 3.5    Summary of Noise Monitoring Result Obtained During Reporting Period

Reporting

month

Monitoring Station

Average, dB(A)
Leq (30 mins)

Range, dB(A)
Leq (30 mins)

Limit Level, dB(A)
Leq (30 mins)

September 2017

NMS2

66

63 - 67

75

NMS3B(*)

65

63 - 66

70/65

October 2017

NMS2

65

64 - 66

75

NMS3B(*)

66

65 - 67

70/65

November 2017

NMS2

65

65 - 66

75

NMS3B(*)

66

65 - 68

70/65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3      No Action and Limit Level exceedances of Noise monitoring were recorded at NMS2 and NMS3B during the reporting period.

3.2.4      The measured noise level was 67.5 dB(A) on 7 November 2017 at Station NMS3B, which exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period and it was higher than the baseline level of 66.3 dB(A). Therefore, baseline correction was carried out and the corrected noise level which solely represent the noise level of Construction works are 61.3 dB(A) and no exceedance after correction. As such the Event and Action Plan was not triggered.

3.2.5      The measured noise level was 66.4 dB(A) on 13 November 2017 at Station NMS3B, which exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period and it was higher than the baseline level of 66.3 dB(A). Therefore, baseline correction was carried out and the corrected noise level which solely represent the noise level of Construction works are 50.0 dB(A) and no exceedance after correction. As such the Event and Action Plan was not triggered.

3.3                Water Quality Monitoring Results

3.3.1      Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that timely action was taken to rectify the situation. For impact water quality monitoring, measurement was taken in accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

3.3.2      The graphical plots of the monitoring results are presented in Appendix F.

3.3.3      For impact water quality monitoring, number of exceedances recorded for reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6         Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

DO (S&M)

DO (Bottom)

Turbidity

SS

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

 

2017-09-08

2017-09-01;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-18

2017-09-01;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-29

2017-09-08

 

2017-09-08

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-11-06;

2017-11-15

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS7

Action Level

2017-09-08

 

2017-09-08;

2017-09-29

 

 

 

 

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS8

Action Level

 

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

2017-09-29

2017-09-11

 

 

 

2017-09-06;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-25;

2017-11-13;

2017-11-24

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

2017-09-15

 

 

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

 

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

 

2017-09-13

 

 

 

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS10(N)

Action Level

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-22;

2017-09-29

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

2017-09-01;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-22;

2017-09-27;

2017-09-29

2017-09-01;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-29

 

2017-09-08

 

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-09-08

IS(Mf)11

Action Level

2017-09-11;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-22

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-22

2017-09-01;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-29

2017-09-01;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-29

 

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08

 

2017-09-08;

2017-10-20;

2017-11-03;

2017-11-08

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS(Mf)16

Action Level

2017-09-08

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-29

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13

 

 

 

2017-11-06 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS17

Action Level

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-15

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-22

2017-09-01;

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-27

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-29

 

 

 

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SR3^

Action Level

2017-09-08;

2017-09-22

2017-09-08

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SR4(N)

Action Level

 

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

 

 

 

 

 

2017-09-06

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-11-08 

SR5(N)

Action Level

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-22

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

2017-09-01;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-27;

2017-09-29

2017-09-11;

2017-09-29

 

 

 

2017-10-18;

2017-10-20;

2017-10-23

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-11-03;

2017-11-08 

SR6

Action Level

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-22

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-20;

2017-09-22

2017-09-18

2017-09-11;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-20

 

2017-09-08

2017-11-03;

2017-11-08;

2017-11-22

2017-09-06;

2017-09-20

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-11-22 

SR7

Action Level

2017-09-11

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22

 

 

 

 

 

2017-10-20;

2017-11-03;

2017-11-06;

2017-11-20

Limit Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SR10A^

Action Level

 

 

2017-10-02;

2017-10-04

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-20;

2017-09-27;

2017-10-02;

2017-10-04

 

 

 

2017-11-06 

Limit Level

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-22;

2017-10-04

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-20;

2017-09-22;

2017-10-04

 

 

 

 

 

 

SR10B
(N)^

Action Level

 

 

2017-09-11;

2017-09-27;

2017-09-29

2017-09-06;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-22;

2017-09-25;

2017-09-27;

2017-10-02;

2017-10-04;

2017-10-06

 

 

 

2017-11-06

Limit Level

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-22;

2017-10-04;

2017-10-06

2017-09-06;

2017-09-08;

2017-09-11;

2017-09-13;

2017-09-15;

2017-09-18;

2017-09-20;

2017-09-22;

2017-09-25;

2017-09-27;

2017-10-02;

2017-10-04;

2017-10-06;

2017-10-09

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

Action Level

23

39

38

44

1

4

4

24

177

Limit Level

11

23

0

0

0

1

0

5

40

 Remark: ^ Water sampling team reported that the monitoring stations at SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were not available for water sampling due to safety reason, thus, monitoring stations were changed to tentative coordination (i.e. SR3(N): E810689 N816591; SR10A(N): E823644 N823484 and SR10B(N2): E823689 N823159).

 

3.3.4      There were 61 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 83 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide. 11 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 23 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide.

3.3.5      An Action Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at mid-ebb tide while 4 Action Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded at mid-flood tide. No Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at ebb tide while 1 Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at flood tide.

3.3.6      4 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 24 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-flood tide. No Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 5 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded mid-flood tide.

3.3.7      As confirmed by the Contractor, no marine transportation and marine-based work was conducted when water quality monitoring was conducted in September, October and November 2017. Therefore, it is concluded that the exceedances were not related the Contract. The detailed investigation results of these exceedances recorded are shown in Appendix K.

3.3.8      The weather was mostly fine and hot, with occasional showers, with abundant sunshine, temperatures stays high degrees during September 2017.

3.3.9      Temperature was one of essential factor to dissolved oxygen, based on past weather summary report from Hong Kong Observatory, there were more 22 days of daily mean temperature recorded for September 2017 as above normal and 10 of these days were defined as extremely high temperature, while the weather remained mostly fine and hot till mid-October when cooler temperatures to Hong Kong for the rest of the month. the weather in November in Hong Kong was generally fine and dry, while windy and rainy weather was recorded the rest of the month. In a conclusion, number of exceedances in dissolved oxygen of September 2017 was higher than October and November 2017. After detailed analysis and comparison between the impaction stations and control stations, such overall variations in all sampling stations are considered to have been driven by natural fluctuations.

3.4                Dolphins Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

3.4.1      Distribution Analysis – The line-transect survey data was integrated with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin distribution using sighting positions.  Location data of dolphin groups were plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (ArcView© 3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in details.  The dataset was also stratified into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin groups with different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.

3.4.2      Encounter rate analysis – Encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort, and total number of dolphins sighted on-effort per 100 km of survey effort) were calculated in NEL and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount of survey effort conducted during each month of monitoring survey.  Dolphin encounter rates were calculated in two ways for comparisons with the HZMB baseline monitoring results as well as to AFCD long-term marine mammal monitoring results. 

3.4.3      Firstly, for the comparison with the HZMB baseline monitoring results, the encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone, and only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis.  The average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) were deduced based on the encounter rates from six events during the present quarter (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau), which was also compared with the one deduced from the six events during the baseline period (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau). 

3.4.4      Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study.  The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings (STG) and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the present quarterly period.

3.4.5      Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use – To conduct quantitative grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort sightings of Chinese White Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase monitoring period were plotted onto 1-km2 grids among NWL and NEL survey areas on GIS.  Sighting densities (number of on-effort sightings per km2) and dolphin densities (total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings per km2) were then calculated for each 1 km by 1 km grid with the aid of GIS. Sighting density grids and dolphin density grids were then further normalized with the amount of survey effort conducted within each grid.  The total amount of survey effort spent on each grid was calculated by examining the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how many times the grid was surveyed during the study period.  For example, when the survey boat traversed through a specific grid 50 times, 50 units of survey effort were counted for that grid.  With the amount of survey effort calculated for each grid, the sighting density and dolphin density of each grid were then normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey effort). 

3.4.6      The newly-derived unit for sighting density was termed SPSE, representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort.  In addition, the derived unit for actual dolphin density was termed DPSE, representing the number of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort.  Among the 1-km2 grids that were partially covered by land, the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE and DPSE values were adjusted accordingly.  The following formulae were used to estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2 grid within the study area:

SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) / SA%

DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) / SA%

 

where       S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

3.4.7      Behavioural analysis – When dolphins were sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour was observed.  Different activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting, traveling, socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets.  This data was then input into a separate database with sighting information, which can be used to determine the distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS.  Distribution of sightings of dolphins engaged in different activities and behaviours would then be plotted on GIS and carefully examined to identify important areas for different activities of the dolphins. 

3.4.8      Ranging pattern analysis – Location data of individual dolphins that occurred during the 3-month impact phase monitoring period were obtained from the dolphin sighting database and photo-identification catalogue.  To deduce home ranges for individual dolphins using the fixed kernel methods, the program Animal Movement Analyst Extension, was loaded as an extension with ArcView© 3.1 along with another extension Spatial Analyst 2.0.  Using the fixed kernel method, the program calculated kernel density estimates based on all sighting positions, and provided an active interface to display kernel density plots.  The kernel estimator then calculated and displayed the overall ranging area at 95% UD level.

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.4.9      During the period of September to November 2017, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted for the HKBCF project to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.4.10    From these surveys, a total of 790.3 km of survey effort was collected, with 97.9% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility).  Among the two areas, 289.9 km and 500.4 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively. 

3.4.11    The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 574.2 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 216.1 km.  Survey effort conducted on both primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix L.

3.4.12    During the six sets of monitoring surveys in September to November 2017, six groups of 25 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted, with the summary table of the dolphin sightings shown in Annex II of Appendix L. All dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search, while five of the six on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines. In addition, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, and no dolphin was sighted at all in NEL.

Distribution

3.4.13    Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in September to November 2017 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix L. Five of the four sightings were made at the northwest portion of the North Lantau region, mainly within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 1 of Appendix L). One dolphin group was also sighted at the southwestern end of NWL survey area, or near the HKLR09 alignment. On the contrary, the dolphins were completely absent from the central and eastern portions of North Lantau waters, similar to the consistent findings of HKLR03 surveys in recent years (Figure 1 of Appendix L).

3.4.14    All dolphin sightings were located far away from the HKBCF and HKLR03 reclamation sites as well as along the alignment and Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) (Figure 1 of Appendix L).  However, one sighting was made near the alignment of HKLR09 as mentioned above.

3.4.15    Sighting distribution of dolphins during the present impact phase monitoring period (September to November 2017) was drastically different from the one during the baseline monitoring period (Figure 1 of Appendix L).  In the present quarter, dolphins have disappeared from the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands, near Shum Shui Kok and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix L).

3.4.16    On the other hand, dolphin occurrence in NWL waters was also noticeably different between the baseline and impact phase periods. During the present impact monitoring period, dolphins were seldom sighted here, and mainly at the northwestern end of the area, which was in stark contrast with their frequent occurrences throughout the entire survey area during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix L). Seasonal distributions of dolphins during baseline and impact periods can be referred to those presented in the corresponding quarterly EM&A summary report prepared under Contract No. HY/2011/03.

Encounter Rate

3.4.17    During the present three-month study period, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) for each set of the surveys in NEL and NWL are shown in Table 3.7. The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period (September – November 2011) (Table 3.8).

3.4.18    To facilitate the comparison with the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also calculated for the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 1.2 sightings and 5.2 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were both nil for this quarter.

 

Table 3.7         Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period (September to November 2017) 

Survey Area

Dolphin Monitoring

Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Primary Lines Only

Primary Lines Only

Northeast Lantau

Set 1 (5 & 14 Sep 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 2 (21 & 25 Sep 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 3 (6 & 12 Oct 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 4 (17 & 19 Oct 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 5 (6 & 14 Nov 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 6 (23 & 28 Nov 2017)

0.0

0.0

Northwest Lantau

Set 1 (5 & 14 Sep 2017)

3.4

11.9

Set 2 (21 & 25 Sep 2017)

3.3

8.3

Set 3 (6 & 12 Oct 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 4 (17 & 19 Oct 2017)

0.0

0.0

Set 5 (6 & 14 Nov 2017)

1.7

1.7

Set 6 (23 & 28 Nov 2017)

0.0

0.0

 

Table 3.8         Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates From Impact Monitoring Period (September to November 2017) and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Survey Area

Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)
(no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Northeast Lantau

0.0

6.0 ± 5.1

0.0

22.2± 26.8

Northwest Lantau

1.4 ± 1.7

9.9 ± 5.9

3.7 ± 5.2

44.7 ± 29.9

Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

 

3.4.19    In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were both zero with no on-effort sighting being made, and such extremely low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have also been consistently recorded in recent years of HZMB monitoring (Table 3.8).

3.4.20    Comparison of average dolphin encounter rates (Table 3.9) in Northeast Lantau survey area from the same autumn quarters of HKLR03 and HKBCF impact monitoring period and baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011) (Note: encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions; ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates)

Table 3.9     Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northeast Lantau Survey Area from All Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

 

Encounter rate (STG)          (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)             (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

September-November 2011 (Baseline)

6.0 ± 5.1

22.2 ± 26.8

September-November 2013 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

1.0 ± 1.6

3.8 ± 6.5

September-November 2014 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

0.0

0.0

September-November 2015 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

0.0

0.0

September-November 2016 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

0.0

0.0

September-November 2017 (HKBCF Impact)

0.0

0.0

Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

  (*) As explained in Section 1.5 of Appendix L, the previous monitoring data from Contract No. HY/2011/03 (i.e. HKLR03) were adopted for comparison with the baseline and present HKBCF impact monitoring period.

 

3.4.21    On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period (reductions of 85.7% and 91.8% respectively) were only very small fractions of the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period, indicating a dramatic decline in dolphin usage of this survey area as well during the present impact phase period (Table 3.10).

3.4.22    During the same autumn quarters, dolphin encounter rates in NWL during autumn 2017 was similar to the previous autumn period in and 2016 but was much lower than the ones in the summer periods of 2013, 2014 and 2015 (Table 3.10). Such temporal trend should be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters whether the dolphin occurrence would continue to increase as the construction activities of HZMB works have been mostly completed in coming months.

 

Table 3.10 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northwest Lantau Survey Area from All Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Monitoring Period

Encounter rate (STG)            (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

Encounter rate (ANI)              (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)

September-November 2011 (Baseline)

9.9 ± 5.9

44.7 ± 29.9

September-November 2013 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

8.0 ± 1.1

32.5 ± 26.5

September-November 2014 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

5.1 ± 4.4

20.5 ± 15.1

September-November 2015 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

3.9 ± 1.6

21.1 ± 17.2

September-November 2016 (HKLR03 Impact (*))

2.9 ± 2.0

10.9 ± 11.0

September-November 2017 (HKBCF Impact)

3.1 ± 1.9

10.4 ± 9.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

(*) As explained in Section 1.5 of Appendix L, the previous monitoring data from Contract No. HY/2011/03 (i.e. HKLR03) were adopted for comparison with the baseline and present HKBCF impact monitoring period.

 

3.4.23    A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and unequal sample size was conducted to examine whether there were any significant differences in the average encounter rates between the baseline and impact monitoring periods.  The two variables that were examined included the two periods (baseline and impact phases) and two locations (NEL and NWL).    

3.4.24    For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter, the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0025 and 0.0156 respectively.  If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.4.25    As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in both NEL and NWL survey areas during the present quarterly period, and such low occurrence of dolphins has also been consistently documented in past HZMB dolphin monitoring studies. 

3.4.26    The dramatic decline in dolphin usage of North Lantau region raises serious concern, as the timing of the decline in dolphin usage in North Lantau waters coincided well with the construction schedule of the HZMB-related projects (Hung 2017).  Apparently, there was no sign of recovery of dolphin usage even though most of the marine works associated with the HZMB construction have been completed.

Group Size

3.4.27    Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to 12 individuals per group in North Lantau region during September to November 2017.  The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared with the ones deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11      Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (September to November 2017) and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Survey Area

Average Dolphin Group Size

Reporting Period

Baseline Monitoring Period

Overall

4.2 ± 4.2 (n = 6)

3.7 ± 3.1 (n = 66)

Northeast Lantau

---

3.2 ± 2.2 (n = 17)

Northwest Lantau

4.2 ± 4.2 (n = 6)

3.9 ± 3.4 (n = 49)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note:

1)     ± denotes the standard deviation of the average group size.

 

3.4.28    The average dolphin group size in NWL waters during September to November 2017 was lower than the one recorded during the three-month baseline period, but this could be partly related to the small sample size of 6 dolphin groups when compared to the 66 groups sighted during the baseline period (Table 3.11).

3.4.29    Notably, four of the 6 dolphin groups were composed of 1-4 individuals only, while there was one medium-sized group with five dolphins, and another large group with 12 dolphins (Annex II of Appendix L).

3.4.30    Distribution of the larger dolphin groups (i.e. five individuals or more per group) during the present quarter is shown in Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L, with comparison to the one in baseline period. The medium-sized group with 5 dolphins was located to the west of the airport near the HKLR09 alignment, while the large group of 12 dolphins was sighted adjacent to the west of Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 2 of Appendix L). Such distribution pattern was very different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups were frequently sighted and evenly distributed in NWL waters, with a few also sighted in NEL waters (Figure 2 of Appendix L).

Habitat Use

3.4.31    From September to November 2017, the three of the six grids with high dolphin densities were located to the west of Lung Kwu Chau, north of Sha Chau and near the HKLR09 alignment (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L). All grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites as well as TMCLKL alignment did not record any presence of dolphins at all during on-effort search in the present quarterly period (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L).

3.4.32    However, it should be emphasized that the amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period was fairly low (6-12 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with caution.  A more complete picture of dolphin habitat use pattern should be examined when more survey effort for each grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.

3.4.33    When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period, dolphin usage in NEL and NWL has drastically diminished in both areas during the present impact monitoring period (Figure 4 of Appendix L). During the baseline period, many grids between Siu Mo To and Shum Shui Kok in NEL recorded moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was in stark contrast to the complete absence of dolphins there during the present impact phase period (Figure 4 of Appendix L).

3.4.34    The density patterns were also very different in NWL between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods, with high dolphin usage throughout the area during the baseline period. In contrast, only several grids with high dolphin densities were located near Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau during the present impact phase period (Figure 4 of Appendix L).

Mother-calf Pairs

3.4.35    During the present quarterly period, no young calf was sighted at all among the six groups of dolphins.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.4.36    During the three-month study period, one of the 6 dolphin groups (i.e. the large group located just to the west of Lung Kwu Chau; (Figure 5 of Appendix L) were engaged in socializing activity, while the rest of the groups were not engaged in feeding, traveling or milling/resting activity during the three-month study period.

3.4.37    When compared to the baseline period, distribution of various dolphin activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was drastically different with very rare occurrence of such activities in the present quarter (Figure 5 of Appendix L).

3.4.38    Moreover, none of the dolphin groups was found to be associated with any operating fishing boat during the present impact phase period.

Summary Photo-identification works

3.4.39    From September to November 2017, over 1,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.4.40    In total, 18 individuals sighted 19 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix L and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix L). All of these re-sightings were made in NWL. Among the 18 individuals, only one individual (i.e. CH34) was re-sighted twice, while the rest were only re-sighted once during the three-month period (Annex III of Appendix L).

3.4.41    Notably, ten of these 18 individuals (i.e. CH34, NL12, NL49, NL104, NL136, NL182, NL202, NL320, NL321 and WL05) were also sighted in Northwest Lantau during the HKLR03 monitoring surveys conducted concurrently in the same three-month period. Moreover, six individuals (i.e. CH34, NL12, NL49, NL182, NL317, and WL05) were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys from September to November 2017, showing their extensive individual movements across different survey areas.

Individual range use

3.4.42    Ranging patterns of the 18 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex V of Appendix L.

3.4.43    All identified dolphins sighted in the present quarter were utilizing NWL waters only but have completely avoided NEL waters where many of them have utilized as their core areas in the past (Annex V of Appendix L). This is in stark contrary to the extensive movements between NEL and NWL survey areas observed in the earlier impact monitoring quarters as well as the baseline period. 

3.4.44    On the other hand, three individuals (NL12, NL182 and WL05) consistently utilized North Lantau waters in the past have extended their range use to WL during the present quarter.

3.4.45    In the upcoming quarters, individual range use and movements should be continuously monitored to examine whether there has been any consistent shifts of individual home ranges from North Lantau to West or Southwest Lantau, as such shift could possibly be related to the HZMB-related construction works (see Hung 2017).

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.4.46    There was one Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between September 2017 – November 2017). For detail of investigation, please refer to Appendix K.

3.4.47    During the present quarter of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

3.4.48    Although dolphins seldom occurred in the area of HKBCF construction in the past and during the baseline monitoring period, it is apparent that dolphin usage has been dramatically reduced in North Lantau waters in recent years, and many individuals have shifted away from this once-important habitat for the dolphins.

3.4.49    It is critical to continuously monitor the dolphin usage in North Lantau region in the upcoming quarters, to determine whether the dolphins are continuously affected by the various construction activities in relation to the HZMB-related works, and whether there is any sign of recovery when the construction works have been completed.

 

3.5                Implementation of Environmental Measures

3.5.1      In response to the site audit findings, the Contractor carried out corrective actions. Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented in Appendix G.

3.5.2      The Contractor waters 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Contract site and associated works areas when construction activities are being undertaken.

3.5.3      The marine traffic records and geographical plots of all the vessels tracks for the reporting month will be submitted by the Contractor to Engineer’s Representative (ER), Environmental Team Leader (ETL) and Independent Environmental Checker / Environmental Project Office (IEC/ENPO) within 3 weeks after the reporting month. As informed by Contractor, there was no marine traffic since 2 June 2017.

3.5.4      Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented properly and training was provided for barge operators in accordance with the Regular Marine Travel Routes Plan and relevant records were kept properly.

3.5.5      A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

3.6               Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

3.6.1      The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

3.6.2      No marine sediment was generated/treated and no treated marine sediment was reused in the reporting period. As informed by the Contractor in March 2016, the transfer of treated marine sediment to Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been discontinued since July 2015.

3.6.3      The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix H.

3.6.4      The Contractor was 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.

3.7               Environmental Licenses and Permits

3.7.1      The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix I.

4          Summary of Exceedance, Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.1               Summary of Exceedance of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

4.1.1      For air quality monitoring, No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7 during the reporting period. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 during the reporting period. No Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B during the reporting period while on 28 November 2017, one AL exceedance of 24-hour TSP at ASM3B was recorded.

4.1.2      Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A Reports (for September to November 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

4.1.3      There were no Action and Limit Level exceedance for noise recorded at NMS2 and NMS3B during the reporting period.

4.1.4      For water quality monitoring during the reporting period, there were 61 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 83 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide. 11 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 23 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide.

4.1.5      An Action Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at mid-ebb tide while 4 Action Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded at mid-flood tide. No Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at ebb tide while 1 Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at flood tide.

4.1.6      4 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 24 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-flood tide. No Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 5 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded mid-flood tide. 

4.1.7      After investigation, the exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities. No follow-up action is required.

4.1.8      Impact dolphin monitoring results at all transects are reported in the EM&A Reports prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01. One Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter.

4.2               Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.2.1      There was two complaints were received in relation to the environmental impact during the  reporting period. A summary of environmental complaint is presented in Table 4.1. The details of cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix J.

Table 4.1 A Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Previous Reporting Month

Environmental Complaint No.

Date of Complaint Received

Description of Environmental Complaints

009

27 October 2017

Water Quality

010

23 November 2017

Dust

 

 

 

 

Environmental Compliant No. 009 – Water Quality

4.2.1      According to ENPO’s email to the Environmental Team, Engineer’s Representative and Contractor on 27 October 2017, it was noted that EPD received a complaint regarding the water quality at C3 area.

4.2.2      Based to the observation of weekly site inspections (4, 11, 18 and 25 October 2017 and 1 November 2017) and confirmed by the Contractor, the wastewater generated on site is treated by the wastewater treatment facilities (sedimentation tank and AquaSed) before discharge. No site runoff within the Contract site was observed.

4.2.3      Based on water quality monitoring results in October 2017, total 5 Action Level exceedances of Suspended Solid were recorded at SR5(N), IS(Mf)11 and SR7 on 18, 20 and 23 October 2017. After the investigation which concluded the exceedances were not related to the Contract.

4.2.4      Based on the investigation results, it is found that the complaint is not related to Contract No. HY/2013/01.

Environmental Compliant No. 010 – Dust

4.2.5      The complaint focuses on the dust generation from the haul road.  Based on the information from the Contractor, the construction works undertaken on 23 November 2017 is shown as below:

• Waterproofing

• Formwork and falsework stripping

• Pipework and ductwork installation

• Hanger rods for cable container

• Wet trade works

• Dry trade works

• Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) High Level Containment

• Removal of temporary works

• Window wall glazing

• Curtain wall glazing

• Hanging scaffolding removal

• Refuse collection point

• Southern toilet

• Minimal instruction set computer (MISC) steelwork

• Lift installation

• Testing and commissioning works

 

4.2.6      The Contractor has implemented measures to avoid dust emission according to Water Spraying Plan in November. The Contractor has provided the guideline to remind the site vehicles should travel within speed limit of 8 km/hr. According to site inspection which conducted on 1, 8, 15 and 22 November 2017, no dusty activities and dry condition in haul road were observed.  

4.2.7      The Contractor have arranged a staff to supervise the haul road condition near PCB building. In case of adverse dust emission, the Contractor should arrange the water truck or front-line staff to enhance the watering. The watering plan, which include the information of watering schedule, routing of trucks for watering and the location of water filling, was prepared and submitted to RE and ENPO. The Contractor was also reminded to implement all necessary mitigation as specified in EIA (Section 5.5.6.3), EM&A Manual (EM&A Log Ref: A3), EMP, Method Statements, General and Particular Specifications of this Project to minimize the potential dust impact during construction activities.

4.2.8      Statistics on notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.

 

5           Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion

5.1               Comments

5.1.1      According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:

·                The Contractor was reminded to provide watering for the road to avoid dust generation.

·                The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for chemical containers.

·                The Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuse.

·                The Contractor was reminded to cover the dusty material to prevent fugitive dust emission.

·                The Contractor was reminded to provide water spraying during concrete breaking in process.

·                The Contractor was reminded to carry out cement mixing work in an area sheltered on the top and 3 sides to avoid dust emission.

·                The Contractor was reminded to cover the bags of cement entirely by impervious sheeting or place them in an area sheltered on the top and 3 sides.

·        The Contractor was reminded to display environmental permit and a construction noise permit major site exits.

 

5.1.2      A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E.  Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

5.2               Recommendations

5.2.1      With implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the contract’s environmental impacts were considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.

5.2.2      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.

 

5.3               Conclusions

5.3.1      The site preparation work of the Contract started on 26 September 2014 and the construction works of the Contract commenced on 6 October 2014. This is the thirteen Quarterly EM&A Report summaries findings of the EM&A works during the reporting period from 1 September to 30 November 2017.

5.3.2      For air quality monitoring, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7 during the reporting period. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 during the reporting period. No Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B during the reporting period while one AL exceedance of 24-hour TSP at ASM3B was recorded on 28 November 2017.

5.3.3      Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A Reports (for September to November 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

5.3.4      There were no Action and Limit Level exceedance for noise recorded at NMS2 and NMS3B during the reporting period.

5.3.5      For water quality monitoring during the reporting period, there were 61 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 83 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide. 11 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 23 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide.

5.3.6      An Action Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at mid-ebb tide while 4 Action Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded at mid-flood tide. No Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at ebb tide while 1 Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at flood tide.

5.3.7      4 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 24 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-flood tide.  No Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide while 5 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded mid-flood tide.

5.3.8      After investigation, the exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities. No follow-up action is required.

5.3.9      Impact dolphin monitoring results at all transects are reported in the EM&A Reports prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01. One Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded during the monitoring period (between September 2017 – November 2017).

5.3.10    Environmental site inspections were carried out on 6, 13, 20 and 27 September 2017, 4, 11, 18 and 25 October 2017 and 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 November 2017. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

5.3.11    There were two complaints received in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period. The complaint investigations were closed and details were in Investigation No. 009 ver2 and 010 ver1 in Appendix K.

5.3.12    No notification of summons and successful prosecution was received during the reporting period.