8.1
The weather during monitoring sessions is shown in Appendix I.
8.2
The detail of weather conditions for each
individual monitoring session was presented in the Monthly EM&A Report.
8.3
During the reporting period, the major dust and noise
source identified at the designated monitoring stations were as follows:
Table 8.1 Major Dust Sources during the Monitoring in the Reporting Period
|
Monitoring Station |
Major Dust Source |
|
AMS1 |
Exhaust from marine traffic |
|
AMS4 |
N/A |
Table 8.2 Major Noise Sources during
the Monitoring in the Reporting Period
|
Monitoring Station |
Major Noise Source |
|
NMS1 |
Air traffic
& marine traffic noise |
|
NMS4 |
Air traffic
& marine traffic noise |
8.4
The
EM&A data was compared with the EIA predictions, baseline data and post-construction
monitoring data and summarized in the following table.
Table 8.3 Comparison of 1-hr
TSP Data with EIA predictions and Baseline
Monitoring Results
|
Station |
Predicted
1-hr TSP conc. in EIA |
Reporting
Period (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018), µg/m3 |
Baseline (October
2011), µg/m3 |
|
|
Unmitigated
Scenario , µg/m3 |
Mitigated
Scenario , µg/m3 |
|||
|
AMS1 – Sha Lo
Wan |
Not Predicted in EIA Report |
0 – 354.3 |
67.6 – 353.5 |
|
|
AMS4 – San Tau |
0 – 341.1 |
55.7 – 264.6 |
||
Remark:
The 1-hr TSP results which exceed the criteria are excluded in the comparison
as all exceedances were not due to the Contract works after investigation.
Table 8.4 Comparison of 24-hr
TSP Data with EIA predictions and Baseline Monitoring Results
|
Station |
Predicted 24-hr TSP conc. in EIA |
Reporting Period (Feb 2013 to Oct
2018), µg/m3 |
Baseline (October 2011), µg/m3 |
|
|
Unmitigated Scenario , µg/m3 |
Mitigated Scenario , µg/m3 |
|||
|
AMS1 – Sha Lo Wan |
Not Predicted in EIA Report |
5 – 164.3 |
39.0 – 87.8 |
|
|
AMS4 – San Tau |
0.2 – 167.9 |
33.5 – 124.0 |
||
Remark:
The 24-hr TSP results which exceed the criteria are excluded in the comparison
as all exceedances were not due to the Contract works after investigation.
Table 8.5 Comparison of Noise
Monitoring Data with EIA predictions and Baseline Monitoring Results
|
Station |
Predicted Construction Noise Levels during
Normal Working Hour in EIA |
Reporting Period (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018),
Leq
(30min) dB(A) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
|
|
Unmitigated Scenario, Leq
(30min) dB(A) |
Mitigated Scenario, Leq
(30min) dB(A) |
Daytime, Leq (30min) dB(A) |
||
|
NMS1 – Sha Lo Wan |
74 - 80 |
72 |
54 – 75 |
48.9 – 77.2 |
|
NMS4 – San Tau |
Not Predicted in EIA Report |
49 – 69 |
49.1 – 70.9 |
|
Table 8.6a Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results (Dissolved
Oxygen (Surface & Middle), Mid Ebb Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Dissolved Oxygen (Surface & Middle), mg/L |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
5.5 |
9.6 |
3.7 |
10.6 |
6.4 |
7.3 |
|
CS2 |
5.0 |
9.3 |
3.9 |
9.3 |
6.6 |
7.3 |
|
IS1 |
5.4 |
9.4 |
3.9 |
11.1 |
6.6 |
7.4 |
|
IS2 |
5.4 |
9.2 |
4.4 |
11 |
6.4 |
7.6 |
|
IS3 |
5.9 |
9.2 |
3.4 |
11.9 |
6.5 |
7.4 |
|
IS4 |
4.6 |
8.2 |
3.9 |
10.6 |
6.3 |
7.2 |
|
SR1 |
5.4 |
10.5 |
4.9 |
11.1 |
6.2 |
7.2 |
|
SR2 |
6.1 |
9.1 |
4.6 |
11.6 |
6.0 |
7.9 |
|
SR3 |
6.0 |
8.1 |
5.1 |
11.8 |
6.5 |
7.7 |
|
SR6 |
3.9 |
8.3 |
3.8 |
11.4 |
6.2 |
7.1 |
|
SRA |
4.0 |
7.4 |
4 |
11.4 |
6.6 |
7.1 |
|
ST1 |
5.5 |
9.1 |
4.8 |
10.5 |
6.5 |
7.4 |
|
ST2 |
4.2 |
9.3 |
4.2 |
10.8 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
|
ST3 |
5.4 |
10.1 |
4.5 |
11.9 |
6.4 |
7.3 |
Table 8.6b Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Dissolved Oxygen (Bottom), Mid Ebb Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Dissolved Oxygen (Bottom), mg/L |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
5.4 |
9.3 |
1.3 |
10 |
6.2 |
6.7 |
|
CS2 |
3.9 |
7.2 |
1.7 |
8.8 |
6.3 |
7.0 |
|
IS1 |
5.4 |
9.0 |
1.6 |
9.9 |
6.4 |
7.0 |
|
IS2 |
5.4 |
8.9 |
2.0 |
10.3 |
6.1 |
7.1 |
|
IS3 |
5.8 |
8.7 |
2.8 |
10.1 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
|
IS4 |
3.7 |
7.2 |
2.1 |
10.1 |
-- |
-- |
|
SR1 |
6.7 |
6.7 |
5.0 |
6.7 |
-- |
-- |
|
SR2 |
- |
- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
SR3 |
- |
- |
7.3 |
7.3 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
|
SR6 |
3.1 |
7.4 |
2.6 |
10.1 |
5.9 |
6.9 |
|
SRA |
3.9 |
7.7 |
3.9 |
10.9 |
6.4 |
6.8 |
|
ST1 |
5.4 |
8.6 |
3.5 |
9.8 |
6.3 |
6.9 |
|
ST2 |
3.5 |
7.2 |
3.5 |
9.7 |
6.2 |
6.8 |
|
ST3 |
5.4 |
9.1 |
3.5 |
10.0 |
6.2 |
6.7 |
Remark: " - " means the water depth of station less than
3m and therefore only the mid-depth was monitored.
Table 8.6c Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Turbidity, Mid Ebb Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Turbidity, NTU (depth average) |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
4.7 |
78.1 |
0.9 |
78.1 |
2.2 |
24.4 |
|
CS2 |
5.6 |
26.8 |
1.4 |
28.6 |
2.9 |
9.5 |
|
IS1 |
5.1 |
41.7 |
1.2 |
59.4 |
3.0 |
11.4 |
|
IS2 |
6.7 |
24.0 |
1.4 |
72.1 |
3.0 |
10.8 |
|
IS3 |
9.6 |
29.1 |
1.0 |
29.1 |
2.0 |
15.4 |
|
IS4 |
7.1 |
26.7 |
1.2 |
27.1 |
2.5 |
10.8 |
|
SR1 |
4.6 |
38.6 |
0.5 |
38.6 |
1.1 |
8.2 |
|
SR2 |
3.9 |
23.5 |
0.8 |
26.3 |
3.4 |
9.6 |
|
SR3 |
4.6 |
65.7 |
0.6 |
65.7 |
1.7 |
9.3 |
|
SR6 |
6.1 |
37.0 |
0.9 |
85.6 |
1.8 |
17.7 |
|
SRA |
6.0 |
15.9 |
0.9 |
26.5 |
3.2 |
15.8 |
|
ST1 |
6.2 |
27.8 |
1.3 |
192.3 |
3.3 |
12.9 |
|
ST2 |
8.7 |
33.8 |
1.5 |
163.4 |
3.0 |
16.4 |
|
ST3 |
5.1 |
157.6 |
1.5 |
157.6 |
2.2 |
24.4 |
Table 8.6d Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Suspended Solids, Mid Ebb Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Suspended Solids (mg/L), depth average |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
7.4 |
24.2 |
1.4 |
54.2 |
5.5 |
16.3 |
|
CS2 |
7.0 |
18.3 |
1.5 |
65.5 |
6.0 |
13.1 |
|
IS1 |
6.3 |
19.5 |
0.8 |
89.5 |
6.5 |
11.8 |
|
IS2 |
5.3 |
20.1 |
1.1 |
66.9 |
5.8 |
11.1 |
|
IS3 |
10.0 |
28.3 |
1.4 |
51.5 |
6.1 |
13.2 |
|
IS4 |
9.3 |
24.3 |
1.2 |
58.7 |
6.0 |
21.5 |
|
SR1 |
6.5 |
39.5 |
1.1 |
45.6 |
3.0 |
17.1 |
|
SR2 |
7.0 |
53.0 |
0.6 |
85.4 |
5.7 |
16.1 |
|
SR3 |
6.7 |
31.0 |
1.4 |
48.8 |
5.6 |
14.3 |
|
SR6 |
7.4 |
18.3 |
1.5 |
83.5 |
4.1 |
14.4 |
|
SRA |
3.5 |
17.3 |
1.2 |
50.4 |
6.6 |
13.3 |
|
ST1 |
7.0 |
25.5 |
1.3 |
166.8 |
5.5 |
13.1 |
|
ST2 |
4.3 |
16.8 |
1.0 |
137.2 |
5.5 |
17.6 |
|
ST3 |
6.0 |
31.0 |
1.2 |
56 |
5.5 |
16.3 |
Table 8.6e Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Dissolved Oxygen (Surface & Middle), Mid Flood Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Dissolved Oxygen (Surface & Middle), mg/L |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
5.4 |
7.5 |
4 |
11.2 |
6.4 |
7.7 |
|
CS2 |
4.6 |
9.7 |
4.1 |
11.1 |
6.4 |
8.1 |
|
IS1 |
5.4 |
7.7 |
3.7 |
12.8 |
6.5 |
7.4 |
|
IS2 |
5.5 |
7.6 |
4.7 |
12.5 |
6.5 |
7.6 |
|
IS3 |
6.2 |
7.5 |
4.7 |
11.8 |
6.2 |
7.6 |
|
IS4 |
4.3 |
11.2 |
4.3 |
12.2 |
6.3 |
7.5 |
|
SR1 |
3.5 |
7.9 |
3.5 |
13.3 |
6.3 |
7.1 |
|
SR2 |
6.1 |
7.6 |
4.0 |
11.8 |
6.1 |
7.4 |
|
SR3 |
6.2 |
7.3 |
3.7 |
12 |
6.1 |
7.5 |
|
SR6 |
4.6 |
9.4 |
4.5 |
13.7 |
6.3 |
7.6 |
|
SRA |
4.0 |
7.7 |
4 |
11.8 |
6.1 |
7.8 |
|
ST1 |
5.6 |
7.5 |
5.1 |
11.6 |
6.4 |
7.3 |
|
ST2 |
4.4 |
9.2 |
4.4 |
12.8 |
6.4 |
7.7 |
|
ST3 |
4.9 |
7.6 |
3.8 |
11.8 |
6.4 |
7.9 |
Table 8.6f Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Dissolved Oxygen (Bottom), Mid Flood Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Dissolved Oxygen (Bottom), mg/L |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
5.4 |
7.3 |
1.5 |
10.1 |
6.1 |
7.0 |
|
CS2 |
4.2 |
8.2 |
2.5 |
9.6 |
6.2 |
7.6 |
|
IS1 |
5.4 |
7.5 |
1.3 |
10 |
6.3 |
6.9 |
|
IS2 |
5.6 |
7.8 |
1.9 |
10.6 |
6.3 |
7.2 |
|
IS3 |
6.0 |
8.0 |
4.3 |
11.1 |
6.1 |
7.6 |
|
IS4 |
4.3 |
9.5 |
4.3 |
10.6 |
6.2 |
7.3 |
|
SR1 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
-- |
-- |
|
SR2 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
SR3 |
6.2 |
6.2 |
6.2 |
6.2 |
-- |
-- |
|
SR6 |
3.9 |
7.2 |
3.7 |
12.6 |
6.1 |
7.4 |
|
SRA |
3.8 |
7.1 |
3.8 |
10.1 |
5.9 |
7.8 |
|
ST1 |
5.5 |
7.5 |
3.9 |
10 |
6.3 |
7.1 |
|
ST2 |
3.8 |
7.4 |
3.8 |
10.1 |
6.3 |
7.4 |
|
ST3 |
4.6 |
7.6 |
3.4 |
9.8 |
6.3 |
7.1 |
Remark: " - " means the water depth of station less than
3m and therefore only the mid-depth was monitored.
Table 8.6g Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Turbidity, Mid Flood Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Turbidity, NTU (depth-average) |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
4.5 |
52.2 |
0.7 |
52.2 |
5.5 |
18.8 |
|
CS2 |
6.9 |
36.9 |
1.5 |
60.7 |
2.9 |
21.9 |
|
IS1 |
5.8 |
99.3 |
1.2 |
99.3 |
5.0 |
25.8 |
|
IS2 |
7.0 |
39.4 |
1.2 |
69.0 |
4.3 |
27.3 |
|
IS3 |
7.8 |
29.4 |
1.0 |
31.1 |
3.8 |
17.1 |
|
IS4 |
9.1 |
29.2 |
1.0 |
31.6 |
3.8 |
14.8 |
|
SR1 |
5.7 |
37.2 |
0.3 |
58.2 |
4.1 |
21.8 |
|
SR2 |
8.0 |
22.9 |
1.0 |
27.4 |
4.6 |
12.4 |
|
SR3 |
7.7 |
19.7 |
0.5 |
24.8 |
3.9 |
12.3 |
|
SR6 |
7.3 |
45.7 |
0.9 |
94.3 |
1.5 |
13.5 |
|
SRA |
7.9 |
14.4 |
1.1 |
26.8 |
2.2 |
12.9 |
|
ST1 |
6.4 |
34.7 |
1.9 |
197.8 |
6.3 |
26.4 |
|
ST2 |
7.7 |
33.6 |
1.3 |
156.0 |
4.8 |
22.6 |
|
ST3 |
4.4 |
146.3 |
0.6 |
146.3 |
2.9 |
24.5 |
Table 8.6h Comparison of Baseline, Impact and Post-construction Water Quality Monitoring Results
(Suspended Solids, Mid Flood Tide)
|
Station(s) |
Baseline (October to November 2011) |
Impact (Feb 2013 to Oct 2018) |
Post-construction (Oct to Nov 2018) |
|||
|
Suspended Solids (mg/L), depth-average |
||||||
|
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
Min |
Max |
|
|
CS1 |
7.6 |
40.5 |
1.0 |
58.5 |
6.4 |
14.9 |
|
CS2 |
9.4 |
23.3 |
1.0 |
85.8 |
6.2 |
14.9 |
|
IS1 |
8.9 |
25.7 |
1.6 |
82.5 |
5.4 |
12.7 |
|
IS2 |
9.3 |
21.3 |
4.7 |
12.5 |
6.3 |
32.4 |
|
IS3 |
7.8 |
28.5 |
1.6 |
115.4 |
7.1 |
18.2 |
|
IS4 |
8.6 |
20.3 |
1.1 |
70.8 |
6.1 |
14.1 |
|
SR1 |
8.4 |
31.5 |
3.5 |
13.3 |
6.7 |
18.5 |
|
SR2 |
8.5 |
32.5 |
1.4 |
64.8 |
6.9 |
14.1 |
|
SR3 |
7.6 |
28.0 |
3.7 |
12 |
7.9 |
22.4 |
|
SR6 |
5.5 |
24.0 |
0.6 |
62.2 |
6.3 |
22.4 |
|
SRA |
6.5 |
15.3 |
1.4 |
47.2 |
7.7 |
21.1 |
|
ST1 |
7.6 |
20.0 |
1.6 |
187 |
8.5 |
25.4 |
|
ST2 |
7.7 |
23.0 |
1.2 |
182.3 |
6.0 |
17.0 |
|
ST3 |
8.2 |
43.3 |
1.7 |
62 |
5.7 |
13.1 |
8.5
The environmental impacts caused by the Contract
during the Construction phase were generally in line with the predictions in
EIA report as no significant
environmental impacts arisen from the actual construction activities of the
Contract with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures based
on the following:
Air Quality
According
to the approved EIA Report, there are no prediction of 1-hr and 24-hr TSP
concentrations at AMS1 and AMS4 under mitigated scenario and unmitigated
scenario.
Therefore, the impact dust data
was compared with the baseline monitoring data only to justify the validity of
EIA predictions.
1-hour TSP
concentration recorded at AMS1 during the impact monitoring period (February
2013 to October 2018) were generally close to the baseline monitoring data recorded
in October 2011.
For 1-hour
TSP concentration recorded at AMS4, less than 1% of the data was higher than
the maximum 1-hour TSP concentration recorded during the baseline monitoring
period (i.e. 264.6µg/m3).
For 24-hour
TSP concentration at AMS1, less than 11% of the data was higher than the
maximum 24-hour TSP concentration recorded during the baseline monitoring
period (i.e. 87.8µg/m3).
For 24-hour
TSP concentration at AMS4, less than 3% of the data was higher than the maximum
24-hour TSP concentration recorded during the baseline monitoring period (i.e. 124.0µg/m3).
Therefore,
the majority of impact dust monitoring data throughout the construction period were
lower than or within the range of baseline 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
monitoring data.
In addition,
no Action/Limit Level exceedances was recorded for 1-hour and 24-hour TSP
monitoring due to the Contract throughout the whole Contract. All exceedances recorded were not due to
the Contract works after investigation. The details of each exceedance were
attached in the relevant Monthly EM&A Reports.
The
situation was in-line with EIA predictions which states that no residual dust
impacts are expected with the adoption of appropriate dust mitigation measures,
which will be implemented during the construction phase.
Construction Noise
One Action
Level exceedance in construction noise was recorded for the complaints received
at the early stage throughout the construction period. It was temporary and
short-term comparing to the whole construction period. No Limit Level
exceedances was recorded due to the Contract throughout the whole Contract. In
addition, no Action exceedances and complaint in construction noise was
recorded since April, 2013. The situation was in line with EIA predictions
which states that residual impacts are not anticipated with good site
practices, quiet plant and proper mitigation measures.
Water Quality
The
impact water quality monitoring data obtained was in-line with the EIA
prediction as no Action/Limit Level exceedance for dissolved oxygen, turbidity and
suspended solid was considered due to the Contract.
Dolphin
It is
stated in the EIA report that the cumulative impact to Chinese White Dolphin in
terms of disturbance, noise, marine traffic is considered to be minimal and the
impact is considered to be low, and no residual impact is expected. As no
Action/Limit Level exceedance for dolphin-related monitoring was recorded due
to the Contract throughout the Construction period, the situation was in-line
with EIA predictions.
8.6
In addition, no significant trend of deterioration of the environment was
observed from the graphical presentation of all environmental monitoring
results for air quality, construction noise and water quality.
8.7
With the environmental monitoring and site inspection
to directly ensure the timely implementation of mitigation measures during the
Contract, the environmental performance of the Contract was generally
acceptable based on the reasons stated in Section 8.5.