Table
of Contents
Executive Summary
1.1 Background
1.2 Scope of Report
1.3 Organization Structure
1.4 Summary of Construction Works
1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme
Requirements
2.1 Air Quality
2.2 Noise Monitoring
2.3 Water Quality Monitoring
2.4 Dolphin Monitoring
2.5 Bored Piling Monitoring
2.6 Post-Translocation Coral
Monitoring
2.7 EM&A Site Inspection
2.8 Waste Management Status
2.9 Environmental Licenses and
Permits
2.10 Implementation Status of
Environmental Mitigation Measures
2.11 Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit
2.12 Summary of Complaints, Notification
of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
3 Comparison
of EM&A Results with EIA Predictions and Baseline Monitoring Results
3.1 Air Quality Monitoring
3.2 Noise Impact Monitoring
3.3 Water Quality Monitoring
3.4 Marine Ecology
3.5 Waste Management
3.6 Summary of Monitoring
Methodology and Effectiveness
3.7 Summary of Mitigation
Measures
4.1 Key Issues for the coming period
5 Conclusion
and Recommendations
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Project Organization for Environmental Works
Appendix
B Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation
Measures (EMIS)
Appendix
C Summary of Action and Limit Levels
Appendix
D Impact Air Quality Monitoring Result in Graphical
Presentation
Appendix
E Impact Noise Monitoring Results in Graphical
Presentation
Appendix F Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results in Graphical
Presentation
Appendix G Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Results
Appendix H Event Action Plan
Appendix I Summary of Waste Flow Table
Under Contract No. HY/2012/07,
Gammon Construction Limited (GCL) is commissioned by the Highways Department
(HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Southern Connection
Viaduct Section of the Tuen Mun
– Chek Lap Kok Link Project
(TM-CLK Link Project) while AECOM Asia Company Limited was appointed by HyD as the Supervising Officer. For implementation of the environmental monitoring
and audit (EM&A) programme under the Contract,
ERM-Hong Kong, Limited (ERM) has been appointed as the Environmental Team
(ET). ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was
employed by the HyD as the Independent Environmental
Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A. Another application
for variation of environmental permit (VEP) (EP-354/2009/B) was granted on 28 January 2014.
The construction phase of the Contract commenced on 31
October 2013 and will be tentatively completed by 2018. The impact monitoring of the EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and
marine ecological monitoring as well as environmental site inspections,
commenced on 31 October 2013.
This is the first annual EM&A report presenting
the EM&A works carried out during the period from 31 October 2013 to 31
October 2014 for the Southern Connection Viaduct
Section in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the
TM-CLK Link Project. As informed by the Contractor, major
activities in the reporting period included:
Marine-based
Works
·
Survey towers erection;
·
Filling platform at seawall;
·
Marine piling platform installation;
·
Construction of rockfill platform;
·
Marine piling;
·
Construction of Pile caps; and
·
Marine ground investigation (GI) and laboratory testing.
Land-based
Works
·
Tree felling and transplanting;
·
Channel re-construction at Area 1;
·
Site formation of workshop at Area 1;
·
Site offices erection at Area 5;
·
Construct temporary road at CEDD track for piling;
·
Temporary access bridge (TAB);
·
Fence installation and relocation at Area 2, Viaducts
A, B, C & D;
·
Satellite container offices erection along seawall;
·
Land piling at Viaducts B, C & D;
·
Construction of pile cap superstructure of Viaduct B;
·
Piling platform installation at Viaducts B, C, D
&E;
·
Additional land GI, trial pits & lab testing;
·
Utility surveys; and
·
Slope work of Slopes 9SE-B/C8, 9SE-B/C9 &
9SE-B/F9.
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour TSP monitoring 67
sessions
1-hour TSP monitoring 67
sessions
Noise monitoring 67
sessions
Water quality monitoring 154
sessions
Dolphin monitoring 24
sessions
Joint Environmental site inspection 52
sessions
Post-Translocation Coral
monitoring 4
sessions
Bored piling monitoring 1
session
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Two (2)
exceedances of Action Level in 24-hour TSP monitoring were recorded at ASR8A
and ASR8 in the reporting period.
No exceedance of Action and Limit Levels was recorded for 1-hour
monitoring in the reporting period.
The exceedances were considered not related to the construction works of
this Contract upon further investigation.
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Noise
No
exceedance of Action and Limit Levels was recorded for construction noise
monitoring in the reporting period.
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
One (1)
exceedance of Action Level in depth-averaged SS was recorded for impact water
quality monitoring in the reporting period. The exceedance was considered not
related to the construction works of this Contract upon further investigation.
Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
Five (5) Action Level exceedances were
recorded for 3 sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between October 2013
and August 2014, whilst no unacceptable impact from the construction activities
of the TM-CLKL Southern Connection Viaduct Section on Chinese White Dolphins
was noticeable from general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this
reporting period. The exceedances
are considered to be the natural variation of Chinese White Dolphin ranging
pattern upon further investigation and not related to this Contract.
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken during the period of
marine works under this Contract.
One (1) sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis
was recorded on 23 January 2014 during the exclusion zone monitoring. Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was also
implemented for the detection of marine mammal when marine works were carried
out outside the daylight hours under this Contract.
Post-Translocation
Coral Monitoring
Four (4) events of Quarterly
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring were conducted in the reporting
period. No exceedance of Action and
Limit Levels was recorded. The results were detailed in the First to Fourth Quarterly Post-
Translocation Coral Monitoring Report and were submitted under separate covers.
Environmental
Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons
Two (2)
complaints were referred by EPD and followed-up timely in the monitoring
period. No non-compliance was
observed upon further investigation.
No
notification of summons or successful prosecution was received in the reporting
period.
Reporting
Change
There was no reporting change required in the
reporting period.
Future Key
Issues
Potential environmental impacts arising from the above
upcoming construction activities in the coming annual period are mainly
associated with air quality, noise, marine water quality, marine ecology and
waste management issue.
According to the findings of the Northwest New Territories
(NWNT) Traffic and Infrastructure Review conducted by the Transport Department,
Tuen Mun Road, Ting Kau Bridge, Lantau Link and North Lantau Highway would be
operating beyond capacity after 2016.
This forecast has been based on the estimated increase in cross boundary
traffic, developments in the Northwest New Territories (NWNT), and possible
developments in North Lantau, including the Airport developments, the Lantau
Logistics Park (LLP) and the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge (HZMB). In order to cope with the anticipated
traffic demand, two new road sections between NWNT and North Lantau – Tuen Mun – Chek
Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) and Tuen
Mun Western Bypass (TMWB) are proposed.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of TM-CLKL
(the Project) was prepared in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-175/2007) and the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). The EIA Report was submitted under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) in August 2009. Subsequent to the approval of the EIA
Report (EIAO Register Number: AEIAR-146/2009),
an Environmental Permit (EP-354/2009) for TM-CLKL was granted by the Director
of Environmental Protection (DEP) on 4 November 2009, and EP variation (EP-354/2009A) was issued on 8 December
2010. Another application
for variation of environmental permit (VEP) (EP-354/2009/B) was granted on 28 January 2014.
Under Contract No. HY/2012/07,
Gammon Construction Limited (GCL) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the
Southern Connection Viaduct Section of TM-CLKL (“the Contract”) while AECOM
Asia Company Limited was appointed by HyD as the
Supervising Officer. For
implementation of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme under the Contract, ERM-Hong Kong, Limited (ERM)
has been appointed as the Environmental Team (ET). ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and
Environmental Project Office (ENPO) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A.
The construction phase of the Contract commenced on 31
October 2013 and will be tentatively be completed by 2018. The impact monitoring phase of the
EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water
quality and marine ecological monitoring as well environmental site
inspections, commenced on 31 October 2013.
The general layout plan of the Contract components is
presented in Figures 1.1 & 1.2a to l.
This is the First Annual EM&A Report under the
Contract No. HY/2012/07 Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link – Southern Connection Viaduct Section. This report presents a summary of the environmental
monitoring and audit works from 31 October 2013 to 31 October 2014.
The organization structure of the Contract is shown in
Appendix A.
The key personnel contact names and contact details are summarized in Table 1.1 below.
Table
1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel
|
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Fax |
|
SOR (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
Chief Resident Engineer |
Daniel Ip |
3553 3800 |
2492 2057 |
|
|
Resident Engineer |
Kingman Chan |
3691 2950 |
3691 2899 |
|
ENPO / IEC (ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd.) |
ENPO Leader |
Y.H. Hui |
3547 2133 |
3465 2899 |
|
IEC |
Dr. F.C. Tsang |
3547 2134 |
3465 2899 |
|
|
Contractor (Gammon Construction Limited) |
Environmental Manager |
Brian Kam |
3520 0387 |
3520 0486 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Roy Leung |
3520 0387 |
3520 0486 |
|
|
|
24-hour Complaint Hotline |
|
9738 4332 |
|
|
ET (ERM-HK) |
ET Leader |
Jovy Tam |
2271 3113 |
2723 5660 |
As informed by the Contractor, details of the major
works carried out in this reporting period are listed below:
Marine-based
Works
· Survey towers
erection;
· Filling platform
at seawall;
·
Marine piling platform installation;
· Construction of
rockfill platform;
· Marine piling;
· Construction of
Pile caps; and
· Marine ground
investigation (GI) and laboratory testing.
Land-based
Works
· Tree
felling and transplanting;
· Channel
re-construction at Area 1;
· Site
formation of workshop at Area 1;
· Site
offices erection at Area 5;
·
Construct temporary road at CEDD track for piling;
·
Temporary access bridge (TAB);
· Fence
installation and relocation at Area 2, Viaducts A, B, C & D;
· Satellite
container offices erection along seawall;
· Land
piling at Viaducts B, C & D;
· Construction
of pile cap superstructure of Viaduct B;
· Piling
platform installation at Viaducts B, C, D & E;
· Additional
land GI, trial pits & lab testing;
· Utility
surveys; and
· Slope
work of Slopes 9SE-B/C8, 9SE-B/C9 & 9SE-B/F9.
The locations of the construction activities are shown
in Figure 1.3. The Environmental Sensitive Receivers in
the vicinity of the Project are shown in Figure 1.4. The environmental mitigation measures
implementation schedule is presented in Appendix B.
Figure 1.3
Locations of Construction Activities in
the Reporting Period
|
|
The EM&A programme
required environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality and
marine ecology as well as environmental site inspections for air quality,
noise, water quality, waste management, marine ecology and landscape and visual
impacts. The EM&A requirements
and related findings for each component are described in the following
sections, which include:
· Monitoring
parameters;
· Action
and Limit levels for all environmental parameters;
· Event
Action Plan;
· Tested
environmental impact hypotheses;
·
Environmental mitigation measures, as recommended in
the approved EIA Report; and
· Environmental
requirement in contract documents.
The EM&A programme
required environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality and
marine ecology as well as environmental site inspections for air quality,
noise, water quality, waste management, marine ecology and landscape and visual
impacts. The EM&A requirements
and related findings for each component are summarized in the following
sections.
The baseline air quality monitoring undertaken by the
Hong Kong – Zhuhai –Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) during October 2011
has included the two monitoring stations ASR9A and ASR9C for this project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results
and Action/ Limit Level presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([1])
are adopted for this Project.
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted three (3)
times every six (6) days while the highest dust impact was expected. Impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was
carried out once every six (6) days.
The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring are provided
in Appendix C.
Air quality monitoring
stations ASR9A and ASR9C in Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot were the proposed locations
in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. However, authorization of getting access
into Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot was not granted for the impact monitoring of the EM&A
programme for the captioned Contract. Air quality
monitoring stations in Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot (ASR9A and ASR9C) were relocated
to Area 4 (ASR8A) and rooftop of Pak Mong Village (ASR8) respectively since
November 2013. A proposal for setting up alternative air quality
monitoring stations at ASR8A (Area 4) and ASR8 (Rooftop of Pak Mong Village
Watch Tower) was submitted on 13 November 2013 which was subsequently
approved. Same baseline
and Action/Limit Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring
data recorded at Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot, were adopted for these temporary air
quality monitoring locations (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1).
High Volume Samplers (HVSs)
were used for carrying out 1-hour and 24-hr TSP monitoring during the reporting
period. The HVS meets all
requirements of the Updated EM&A Manual. Brand and model of the equipment is
given in Table 2.2.
Wind data monitoring equipment was installed at
fencing close to ASR9A (Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot). Since the permission for access to MTRC
premises was not granted, the equipment was relocated to the rooftop of Pak
Mong Village Watch Tower on 15 November 2013 for logging wind speed and wind
direction. The wind sensor was
setup so that it was clear of obstructions or turbulence caused by
building. The wind data monitoring
equipment is recalibrated at least once every six months.
Table 2.1 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring
Stations and Monitoring Dates in this Reporting Period
Note:
(1)
Air
Quality Monitoring Stations ASR9A and ASR9C at Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot proposed
in accordance with the Updated EM&A were temporarily relocated to ASR 8A
and ASR8, respectively.
Table 2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand
and Model |
|
High Volume Sampler |
Tisch Environmental Mass Flow
Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume
Sampler (Model No. TE-5170) |
|
Wind Sensor |
Global Water (Wind Speed Sensor: WE550; Wind
Direction Sensor: WE570) |
|
Wind Anemometer for calibration |
Lutron (Model No. AM-4201) |
The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality
monitoring are provided in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.
The schedules for air quality monitoring in the
reporting period were presented in the approved First to Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
are summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. Monitoring results are presented
graphically in Appendix D. The detailed monitoring result and
meteorological information were reported in the First to Twelfth Monthly
EM&A Reports.
Table 2.3 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in this
Reporting Period
|
Month |
Station |
Average (µg/m3) |
Range (µg/m3) |
Action Level (µg/m3) |
Limit Level (µg/m3) |
|
Nov 2013 |
ASR9A/ASR8A |
102 |
60 - 182 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR9C/ASR8 |
102 |
63 - 156 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Dec 2013 |
ASR8A |
145 |
42 - 275 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
157 |
63 - 319 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jan 2014 |
ASR8A |
137 |
50 – 221 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
164 |
77 - 291 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Feb 2014 |
ASR8A |
105 |
47 – 306 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
110 |
42 - 361 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Mar 2014 |
ASR8A |
120 |
58 - 240 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
118 |
70 - 175 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Apr 2014 |
ASR8A |
101 |
61 – 165 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR8 |
106 |
66 - 173 |
393 |
500 |
|
May 2014 |
ASR8A |
63 |
45 – 83 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR8 |
82 |
54 - 144 |
393 |
500 |
|
Jun 2014 |
ASR8A |
73 |
47 - 131 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
70 |
49 - 115 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jul 2014 |
ASR8A |
60 |
40 - 74 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
67 |
52 - 102 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Aug 2014 |
ASR8A |
69 |
43 - 113 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
67 |
43 - 116 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Sept 2014 |
ASR8A |
89 |
60 - 148 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
80 |
59 - 130 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Oct 2014 |
ASR8A |
106 |
54 - 175 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR8 |
130 |
67 - 243 |
393 |
500 |
Table 2.4 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in
this Reporting Period
|
Month |
Station |
Average (µg/m3) |
Range (µg/m3) |
Action Level (µg/m3) |
Limit Level (µg/m3) |
|
|
Nov 2013 |
ASR9A/ASR8A |
69 |
52 – 91 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR9C/ASR8 |
83 |
65 - 121 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Dec 2013 |
ASR8A |
136 |
80 – 210 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
131 |
83 - 205 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jan 2014 |
ASR8A |
88 |
35 – 164 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
93 |
52 - 152 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Feb 2014 |
ASR8A |
52 |
29 - 74 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
61 |
29 - 82 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Mar 2014 |
ASR8A |
56 |
37 – 83 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
64 |
45 - 83 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Apr 2014 |
ASR8A |
67 |
40 – 109 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
63 |
43 - 89 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
May 2014 |
ASR8A |
43 |
35 – 48 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR8 |
47 |
36 - 60 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jun 2014 |
ASR 8A |
54 |
39 - 69 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR 8 |
53 |
40 - 68 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jul 2014 |
ASR 8A |
43 |
38 - 47 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR 8 |
42 |
36 - 47 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Aug 2014 |
ASR 8A |
41 |
40 - 43 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR 8 |
43 |
41 - 45 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Sep 2014 |
ASR 8A |
51 |
41 - 60 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR 8 |
49 |
39 - 65 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Oct 2014 |
ASR 8A |
60 |
46 - 79 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR 8 |
71 |
46 - 101 |
178 |
260 |
||
The major dust sources in the reporting period include
construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby traffic emissions.
In this reporting period, a total of sixty-seven (67) sections
of impact air quality monitoring were undertaken within the reporting period,
in which no Action or Limit Level exceedances for 1-hour TSP. Two (2) Action Level exceedances for
24-hour TSP for air quality were recorded on 13 December 2013. The exceedances were considered not
related to this Contract and thus no action is thus required to be undertaken
in accordance with the Event Action Plan.
As shown in the graphical plot of Appendix D,
the annual average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP levels in the reporting period
were lower than the corresponding average levels of baseline at all monitoring
stations.
In order to determine any significant air quality
impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA
(with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in
average TSP levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period and
the baseline monitoring before commencement of construction activities. For 1-hour TSP, the average results of
reporting period were significantly lower than the average results of baseline
monitoring at both monitoring stations (ASR9A/ASR8A: F 1, 241 = 147, p
< 0.01 and ASR9C/ASR8: F 1,
241 = 109, p < 0.01). However, the difference between baseline
and impact monitoring of 24-hour TSP was not detected due to high variation of
results at ASR9A/ASR8A (F 1, 79
= 1.01, p = 0.32) and ASR9C/ASR8 (F 1, 79 = 0.61, p = 0.44). In general, deterioration on 1-hour TSP
or 24-hour TSP was not detected during the reporting period, whilst the results
in the reporting period were comparable to the results obtained during the
baseline monitoring period (Table 2.5). In the reporting period, 1-hour and
24-hour TSP were varied across sampling months (see Appendix D)
and these variations were however not consistent throughout the reporting
period.
Table 2.5 Summary of Average Levels of TSP Level of
Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in µg/m3)
|
Monitoring Station |
Average Baseline Monitoring |
Average Impact Monitoring |
|
ASR8/ASR9C (1-hr TSP) |
220 |
106 |
|
ASR8/ASR9C (24-hr TSP) |
75 |
67 |
|
ASR9A/ASR8A (1-hr TSP) |
222 |
99 |
|
ASR9A/ASR8A (24-hr TSP) |
74 |
64 |
Furthermore, linear regression was conducted to
examine any relationship between TSP levels and time (i.e. number of days after
construction works commencement) during this yearly monitoring period at each
monitoring station. Linear
regression analysis makes assumptions of equal variance and normal distribution
of data. Therefore, the
significance level of the test was set at 1 % (i.e. p = 0.01) to reduce the
chance of committing a Type 1 error.
If a significant regression relationship was found between TSP level and
time (i.e. p < 0.01), r2 value from the analysis would be further
assessed. This value represents the
proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable (i.e. TSP level)
that is accounted for by the fitted regression line and is referred to as the
coefficient of determination. An r2
value of 1 indicates a perfect relationship (or fit) whereas a value of 0
indicates that there is no relationship (or no fit) between the dependent and
independent variables. As there are
no specific criteria to indicate how meaningful an r2 value is, for
the purposes of this EM&A programme a value of
0.60 was adopted to indicate a meaningful regression. If r2 < 0.60 then it was considered
that there was a weak relationship between TSP level and time or none at
all. If the regression analysis
indicated r2 > 0.60 then it had been interpreted that there was
in fact a strong relationship between the dependent and independent variables
(i.e. a strong temporal trend of increasing / decreasing TSP level with time).
As shown in Table
2.6, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no
significant (r2 < 0.60) relationship between TSP level and time
during this yearly monitoring period.
As such, it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing
/ decreasing TSP level since commencement of constructions works.
Table 2.6 Linear Regression Result of TSP Monitoring
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F-ratio |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient |
|
1-hour TSP |
ASR9A/ ASR8A |
0.102 |
F1,199 = 22.5 |
<0.001 |
125.6 |
-0.148 |
|
ASR9C/ ASR8 |
0.092 |
F1,198 = 20.1 |
<0.001 |
134.8 |
-0.160 |
|
|
24-hour TSP |
ASR9A/ ASR8A |
0.212 |
F1,65 = 17.5 |
<0.001 |
91.7 |
-0.15 |
|
ASR9C/ ASR8 |
0.255 |
F1,65 = 22.2 |
<0.001 |
95.7 |
-0.155 |
Note:
Dependent variable is set as TSP levels (in µg/m3)
and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.
The baseline noise monitoring undertaken by the Hong
Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) during the period of 18
October to 1 November 2011 has included the monitoring station NSR1 for this
project. Thus, the baseline
monitoring results and Action/ Limit Level presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([2])
are adopted for this Project.
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact
noise monitoring was conducted once per week during the construction phase of
the Contract at NSR1.
Monitoring location was setup at NSR1 in accordance
with the Updated EM&A Manual. Figure 2.2 shows the location of the monitoring
station. Table 2.7 describes the details of the monitoring station and
parameters.
Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meter
in compliance with the International Electrotechnical
Commission Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1)
specifications at each designated monitoring station. Noise monitoring equipment is summarized
in Table 2.8.
Table 2.7 Location of Impact Noise Monitoring Station and
Monitoring Dates in this Reporting Period
|
Monitoring
Station |
Monitoring
Period |
Location |
Parameters
& Frequency |
|
NSR1 |
From 31 October 2013 to 31 October 2014 |
Pak Mong Village Watch Tower |
Ÿ 30-mins measurement at each monitoring station
between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90 would
be recorded. Ÿ At least once a week |
Table 2.8 Noise Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand
and Model |
|
Integrated Sound Level Meter |
Rion NL-31 |
|
Acoustic Calibrator |
Rion NC-73 |
The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring
are provided in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.
The schedules for noise monitoring in the reporting
period are provided in the First to Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
The monitoring results for noise monitoring are
summarized in Table 2.9. Monitoring results are presented
graphically in Appendix E. Detailed
impact noise monitoring results are reported in the First to Twelfth Monthly
EM&A Reports.
Table
2.9 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results
at NSR1 in the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Average , dB(A), Leq
(30mins) |
Range, dB(A), Leq (30mins) |
Limit Level, dB(A), Leq
(30mins) |
|
Nov 2013 |
58 |
56 – 59 |
75 |
|
Dec 2013 |
58 |
56 – 59 |
75 |
|
Jan 2014 |
59 |
57 – 60 |
75 |
|
Feb 2014 |
58 |
56 – 59 |
75 |
|
Mar 2014 |
59 |
58 – 60 |
75 |
|
Apr 2014 |
58 |
56 – 59 |
75 |
|
May 2014 |
56 |
52 – 59 |
75 |
|
Jun 2014 |
58 |
55 – 59 |
75 |
|
Jul 2014 |
57 |
56 – 58 |
75 |
|
Aug 2014 |
56 |
54 – 57 |
75 |
|
Sep 2014 |
57 |
55 – 59 |
75 |
|
Oct 2014 |
57 |
56 – 59 |
75 |
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring
included construction activities, nearby traffic noise and aircraft noise.
A total of sixty-seven (67) monitoring events were
undertaken in the reporting period with no Action Level and Limit Level
exceedance recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
In order to determine any significant noise impacts
caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with α set
at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in average noise
levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period and the baseline
monitoring before commencement of construction activities. Difference of noise level between
reporting and baseline monitoring periods was statistically significant (F 1, 353 = 8.1, p < 0.01), in which the
annual-averaged noise level in the reporting period was slightly higher than average
baseline level (average results of baseline and reporting periods were 57dB(A) and 58dB(A) respectively), however all monitoring
results in the reporting period are complied with the Action/Limit Levels. In general, noise levels recorded during
the reporting period were mostly comparable to the results obtained during the
baseline monitoring period. Noise
level varied slightly across sampling months (see Appendix E)
and these variations were however not consistent throughout the reporting
period. The ET will keep track on
the future noise monitoring results during construction phase.
Furthermore, linear regression was conducted to
examine any relationship between noise levels and time (i.e. number of days
after construction works commencement) during this yearly monitoring
period. The method of data
interpretation followed the same method as indicated in Section 2.1.4 for TSP monitoring. As shown in Table 2.10, results of the regression analysis indicated that there
was no significant (r2 < 0.60) relationship between noise level
and time during this yearly monitoring period. As such, it is considered that there is
no apparent trend of increasing / decreasing noise level since commencement of
constructions works.
Table 2.10 Linear Regression Result of Noise Monitoring
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F-ratio |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient |
|
Leq 30min |
NSR1 |
0.126 |
F1,65 = 9.41 |
0.003 |
58.455 |
-0.005 |
Note:
Dependent variable is set as Leq
30min (in dB(A)) and independent variable is set
as number of day of construction works.
The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by
the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) between 6 and
31 October 2011 has included all monitoring stations except SR4a for the
Project. Thus, the baseline
monitoring results except for station SR4a and Action/Limit Level presented in HKZMB
Baseline Monitoring Report ([3])
are adopted for this Project.
Baseline water quality monitoring was conducted at station SR4a from 29
August to 24 September 2013.
Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to
ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that timely
action could be taken to rectify the situation. Impact water quality monitoring was
undertaken three days per week during the construction period at seven water
quality monitoring stations in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual (Figure 2.3; Table
2.11).
Table
2.11 Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations and the
Corresponding Monitoring Requirements
|
Station
ID |
Type |
Coordinates |
*Parameters, unit |
Depth |
Frequency |
|
|
|
|
Easting |
Northing |
|
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Impact Station
(Close to HKBCF construction site) |
813273 |
818850 |
Ÿ Temperature(°C) Ÿ pH(pH unit) Ÿ Turbidity (NTU) Ÿ Water depth (m) Ÿ Salinity (ppt) Ÿ DO (mg/L and % of saturation) ·
SS (mg/L) |
3 water depths: 1m below sea surface, mid-depth and 1m above sea bed. If the water
depth is less than 3m, mid-depth sampling only. If water depth less than 6m, mid-depth
may be omitted. |
Impact monitoring: 3 days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides
during the construction period of the Contract. |
|
IS(Mf)16 |
Impact Station
(Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814328 |
819497 |
|||
|
IS8 |
Impact
Station(Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814251 |
818412 |
|||
|
SR4 |
Sensitive
receiver (Tai Ho Inlet) |
814760 |
817867 |
|||
|
SR4a |
Sensitive
receiver |
815247 |
818067 |
|||
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Control Station |
809989 |
821117 |
|||
|
CS(Mf)5 |
Control Station |
817990 |
821129 |
|||
|
Notes: In addition to the
parameters presented monitoring location/position, time, water depth, sampling
depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or works
underway nearby were also recorded. |
||||||
Table 2.12 summarizes the equipment
used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table
2.12 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
|
DO, Temperature
meter and Salinity |
YSI Pro2030 |
|
Turbidimeter |
HACH Model 2100Q |
|
pH meter |
HANNA HI8314 |
|
Positioning Equipment |
Koden913MK2 with
KBG-3 DGPS antenna |
|
Water Depth
Detector |
Speedtech Instrument SM-5 |
|
Water Sampler |
Kemmerer 1520 (1520-C25) 2.2L with messenger |
The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality
monitoring are provided in Appendix C.
The schedules for water quality monitoring in the
reporting period are provided in the First
to Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all
designated monitoring stations in the reporting period. Monitoring results are presented
graphically in Appendix F. Detailed impact water quality monitoring
results were reported in the First to
Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
In this reporting period, a total of one hundred and
fifty-four (154) monitoring events were undertaken in which one (1)
depth-averaged SS Action Level exceedance was recorded on 26 November
2013. The corresponding Notification of Exceedance and
investigation report were presented in Appendix
K of the First Monthly EM&A
Report. The exceedance was
considered not related to this Contract and thus no action is required to be
undertaken in accordance with the Event Action Plan presented in Appendix H.
In order to determine any significant water quality
impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA
(with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in
average DO, turbidity and SS levels between the impact monitoring in this
reporting period and the baseline monitoring before commencement of
construction activities. The
average levels of DO, turbidity and SS are presented in Tables 2.13 to 2.15 and
the statistical results are presented in Tables
2.16 to 2.18. In the reporting period, a total of
eight (8) annual-averaged DO levels in three (3) monitoring stations (IS8 and IS(Mf)9 at surface level during mid-ebb tide, IS(Mf)9 at
surface during mid-flood tide, IS(Mf)16 at middle level during mid-ebb tide,
IS8 and IS(Mf)9 at bottom level during both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides) were
lower than the corresponding average baseline levels. However, there was no significant
difference between impact and baseline periods in the corresponding statistical
results due to high variation in monitoring results. The annual depth-averaged turbidity and
SS levels at all impact stations in the reporting period were lower than the
average levels in baseline monitoring.
Except depth-averaged turbidity at SR4a during mid-flood tide, turbidity
and SS levels between baseline and impact monitoring at all stations are
significantly different. In
general, deterioration on DO, turbidity and suspended solids levels was not
detected during the reporting period, whilst the results in the reporting
period were comparable to the results obtained during the baseline monitoring
period. Whilst DO, turbidity and
suspended solids levels were varied across sampling months (see Appendix F) and these variations were however not
consistent throughout the reporting period.
Table 2.13 Summary of Average Levels of DO Level of Baseline Monitoring
and Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Tide |
Station |
Depth |
Average
DO of baseline monitoring |
Average
DO of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.4 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.6 |
6.4 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.4 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.4 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.5 |
6.5 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.4 |
|
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.3 |
6.2 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
5.9 |
6.1 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.6 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.2 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.3 |
6.2 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.1 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.7 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.2 |
6.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.2 |
6.2 |
Table 2.14 Summary of Average Levels of Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of
Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in NTU)
|
Station |
Depth |
Average
depth-averaged turbidity of baseline monitoring |
Average
depth-averaged turbidity of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
8.9 |
5.8 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
8.2 |
5.9 |
|
|
IS8 |
8.4 |
5.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
8.9 |
5.9 |
|
|
SR4a |
8.9 |
5.8 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
5.8 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.2 |
5.8 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.9 |
5.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
10.3 |
5.9 |
|
|
SR4a |
7.8 |
5.8 |
Table 2.15 Summary of Average Levels of Depth-averaged SS Level of
Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Station |
Depth |
Average
depth-averaged SS of baseline monitoring |
Average
depth-averaged SS of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
6.3 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
6.2 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
6.1 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
6.1 |
Table 2.16 One-way ANOVA Results for DO Comparison between Impact
and Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
Depth |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.03 |
0.87 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.97 |
0.32 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.14 |
0.71 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 1.10 |
0.30 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Surface |
F1,162 = 21.7 |
0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.50 |
0.48 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F1,160 = 0.10 |
0.75 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.06 |
0.81 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Surface |
F1,162 = 0.23 |
0.63 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Surface |
F1,162 = 23.07 |
0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F1,157 = 0.18 |
0.67 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F1,158 = 0.94 |
0.34 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 0.34 |
0.56 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 2.06 |
0.15 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 0.16 |
0.69 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F1,159 = 0.74 |
0.39 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 16.20 |
0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 0.32 |
0.58 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 2.01 |
0.16 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 0.10 |
0.76 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F1,160 = 0.18 |
0.67 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F1,162 = 23.43 |
0.01 |
|
Note: By setting α at 0.05, insignificant differences (p-value < 0.05) are underlined. |
||||
Table 2.17 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged Turbidity Comparison
between Impact and Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
F1,162 = 9.81 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
F1,162 = 5.11 |
0.03 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
F1,162 = 6.19 |
0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
F1,162 = 8.35 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
F1,162 = 8.27 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F1,162 = 30.79 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F1,162 = 16.75 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F1,162 = 28.89 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F1,162 = 15.71 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F1,162 = 3.19 |
0.08 |
|
Note: By setting α at 0.05, insignificant differences (p-value < 0.05) are underlined. |
|||
Table 2.18 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged SS Comparison between
Impact and Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
F1,162 = 16.66 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
F1,162 = 15.96 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
F1,162 = 21.89 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
F1,162 = 17.78 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
F1,162 = 5.08 |
0.03 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F1,162 = 16.18 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F1,162 = 48.50 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F1,162 = 37.12 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F1,162 = 28.51 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F1,162 = 9.45 |
<0.01 |
|
Note: By setting α at 0.05, insignificant differences (p-value < 0.05)
are underlined. |
|||
Furthermore, linear regression was conducted to
examine any relationship between DO / Turbidity / SS levels and time (i.e.
number of days after construction works commencement) during this yearly
monitoring period at each monitoring station. The method of data interpretation
followed the same method as indicated in Section
2.1.4 for TSP monitoring. As
shown in Tables 2.19 to 2.21, results
of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant (r2
< 0.60) relationship between DO / Turbidity / SS level and time during this
yearly monitoring period. As such,
it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing or decreasing DO
/ Turbidity / SS level since commencement of constructions works.
Table 2.19 Linear Regression Result of DO
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,150 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient
of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb Surface DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.429 |
112.8 |
<0.001 |
7.126 |
-0.004 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.367 |
87.1 |
<0.001 |
7.083 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.389 |
95.4 |
<0.001 |
7.124 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.424 |
110.6 |
<0.001 |
7.106 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.386 |
94.3 |
<0.001 |
7.061 |
-0.004 |
|
|
Mid-flood surface DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.419 |
108.2 |
<0.001 |
7.179 |
-0.004 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.346 |
79.3 |
<0.001 |
7.114 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.408 |
103.4 |
<0.001 |
7.189 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.435 |
115.3 |
<0.001 |
7.150 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.372 |
88.7 |
<0.001 |
7.092 |
-0.004 |
|
|
Mid-ebb middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.455 |
125.2 |
<0.001 |
7.068 |
-0.005 |
|
Mid-flood middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.458 |
127.0 |
<0.001 |
7.115 |
-0.005 |
|
Mid-ebb bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.511 |
157.0 |
<0.001 |
7.045 |
-0.005 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.486 |
141.8 |
<0.001 |
7.145 |
-0.005 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.479 |
138.0 |
<0.001 |
7.064 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.494 |
146.4 |
<0.001 |
7.108 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.489 |
143.5 |
<0.001 |
7.060 |
-0.005 |
|
|
Mid-flood bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.526 |
166.6 |
<0.001 |
7.084 |
-0.005 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.478 |
137.6 |
<0.001 |
7.169 |
-0.005 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.474 |
135.4 |
<0.001 |
7.114 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.500 |
149.9 |
<0.001 |
7.156 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.458 |
126.9 |
<0.001 |
7.060 |
-0.004 |
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as DO (in mg/L) and
independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. By setting α at 0.05, insignificant intercepts and
coefficients are underlined.
Table 2.20 Linear Regression Result of Turbidity
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,150 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient
of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb depth -averaged turbidity |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.038 |
5.9 |
0.017 |
6.915 |
-0.006 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.075 |
12.1 |
<0.001 |
7.486 |
-0.009 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.068 |
10.9 |
0.001 |
7.415 |
-0.008 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.057 |
9.0 |
0.003 |
7.346 |
-0.008 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.060 |
9.6 |
0.002 |
7.208 |
-0.008 |
|
|
Mid-flood depth -averaged turbidity |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.055 |
8.8 |
0.004 |
7.092 |
-0.007 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.081 |
13.2 |
<0.001 |
7.523 |
-0.009 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.087 |
14.3 |
<0.001 |
7.702 |
-0.010 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.078 |
12.6 |
<0.001 |
7.611 |
-0.009 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.082 |
13.4 |
<0.001 |
7.577 |
-0.010 |
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as turbidity (in NTU) and
independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. By setting α at 0.05, insignificant intercepts and
coefficients are underlined.
Table 2.21 Linear Regression Result of SS
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,150 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient
of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb depth -averaged SS |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.006 |
1.0 |
0.32621 |
6.826 |
-0.003 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.009 |
1.3 |
0.25307 |
6.885 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.001 |
0.1 |
0.73798 |
6.238 |
-0.001 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.006 |
1.0 |
0.32888 |
6.793 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.009 |
1.4 |
0.23781 |
6.861 |
-0.004 |
|
|
Mid-flood depth -averaged SS |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.001 |
0.2 |
0.66297 |
6.305 |
-0.001 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.012 |
1.8 |
0.17598 |
6.960 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.008 |
1.2 |
0.26555 |
6.787 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.008 |
1.2 |
0.27576 |
6.728 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.006 |
0.9 |
0.33303 |
6.637 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set
as SS (in mg/L) and independent variable is set as number of day of
construction works. 2. By setting α at 0.05,
insignificant intercepts and coefficients are underlined. |
||||||
Impact dolphin monitoring is required to be conducted
by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate whether there have been any
effects on the dolphins. In order
to fulfil the EM&A requirements and make good use of available resources,
the on-going impact line transect dolphin monitoring data collected by HyD’s Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Hong Kong Link Road - Section between Scenic
Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities on the monthly basis is
adopted to avoid duplicates of survey effort.
Table 2.22
summarizes the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.
Table 2.22 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Model |
|
Global
Positioning System (GPS) Camera Laser
Binoculars Marine
Binocular Vessel
for Monitoring |
Garmin 18X-PC Geo One Phottix Nikon D90 300m 2.8D fixed focus Nikon D90 20-300m zoom lens Infinitor LRF 1000 Bushell 7 x 50 marine binocular with compass and reticules 65 foot single engine motor vessel with viewing
platform 4.5m above water level |
Dolphin monitoring should cover all transect lines in
Northeast Lantau (NEL) and the Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey areas twice per
month throughout the entire construction period. The monitoring data should be compatible
with, and should be made available for, long-term studies of small cetacean
ecology in Hong Kong. In order to
provide a suitable long-term dataset for comparison, identical methodology and
line transects employed in baseline dolphin monitoring was followed in the
impact dolphin monitoring.
The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the
NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.4. The co-ordinates of all transect lines
are shown in Table 2.23 below.
Table 2.23 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates
|
Line No. |
Easting |
Northing |
Line No. |
Easting |
Northing |
||
|
1 |
Start
Point |
804671 |
814577 |
13 |
Start
Point |
816506 |
819480 |
|
1 |
End
Point |
804671 |
831404 |
13 |
End
Point |
816506 |
824859 |
|
2 |
Start
Point |
805475 |
815457 |
14 |
Start
Point |
817537 |
820220 |
|
2 |
End
Point |
805477 |
826654 |
14 |
End
Point |
817537 |
824613 |
|
3 |
Start
Point |
806464 |
819435 |
15 |
Start
Point |
818568 |
820735 |
|
3 |
End
Point |
806464 |
822911 |
15 |
End
Point |
818568 |
824433 |
|
4 |
Start
Point |
807518 |
819771 |
16 |
Start
Point |
819532 |
821420 |
|
4 |
End
Point |
807518 |
829230 |
16 |
End
Point |
819532 |
824209 |
|
5 |
Start
Point |
808504 |
820220 |
17 |
Start
Point |
820451 |
822125 |
|
5 |
End
Point |
808504 |
828602 |
17 |
End
Point |
820451 |
823671 |
|
6 |
Start
Point |
809490 |
820466 |
18 |
Start
Point |
821504 |
822371 |
|
6 |
End
Point |
809490 |
825352 |
18 |
End
Point |
821504 |
823761 |
|
7 |
Start
Point |
810499 |
820690 |
19 |
Start
Point |
822513 |
823268 |
|
7 |
End
Point |
810499 |
824613 |
19 |
End
Point |
822513 |
824321 |
|
8 |
Start
Point |
811508 |
820847 |
20 |
Start
Point |
823477 |
823402 |
|
8 |
End
Point |
811508 |
824254 |
20 |
End
Point |
823477 |
824613 |
|
9 |
Start
Point |
812516 |
820892 |
21 |
Start
Point |
805476 |
827081 |
|
9 |
End
Point |
812516 |
824254 |
21 |
End
Point |
805476 |
830562 |
|
10 |
Start
Point |
813525 |
820872 |
22 |
Start
Point |
806464 |
824033 |
|
10 |
End
Point |
813525 |
824657 |
22 |
End
Point |
806464 |
829598 |
|
11 |
Start
Point |
814556 |
818449 |
23 |
Start
Point |
814559 |
821739 |
|
11 |
End
Point |
814556 |
820992 |
23 |
End
Point |
814559 |
824768 |
|
12 |
Start
Point |
815542 |
818807 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
End
Point |
815542 |
824882 |
|
|
|
|
The action and limit levels of dolphin impact
monitoring are shown in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.
The dolphin monitoring schedules for the reporting
period are provided in the First to Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
A
total of 3,520.41 km of survey effort was collected, with 93.2% 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, 1,353.42 km and
2,166.99 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas
respectively. The total survey
effort conducted on primary lines was 2,569.49 km, while the effort on
secondary lines was 950.92 km. Both
survey efforts conducted on primary and secondary lines were considered as
on-effort survey data. The survey
efforts are summarized in Appendix G.
During the twenty-four sets of monitoring surveys from
November 2013 to October 2014, a total of one hundred and thirty-six (136)
groups of five hundred and twelve (512) Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs) were
sighted. All except twenty-six (26)
dolphin sightings were made during primary on-effort search. In this 12-month period, ninety-seven
percent (97%) of the dolphin sightings were made in NWL, while only four (4)
groups of twenty (20) dolphins were sighted in NEL. No sighting was made in the proximity of
the Project’s alignment. Summary
table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Appendix II of Appendix G.
During the present 12-month impact phase monitoring
period, the average daily encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins were
deduced in NEL and NWL survey areas, and compared to the ones deduced from the
baseline and transitional phases as shown in Table 2.24.
Table 2.24 Average Dolphin Encounter Rates
|
|
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) |
||
|
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
|
|
Impact Phase (2013-14) |
0.22 ± 0.74 |
6.93 ± 4.08 |
0.76 ± 2.59 |
26.31 ± 17.56 |
|
Transitional Phase
(2012-13) |
1.70 ± 2.26 |
7.68 ± 4.36 |
4.75 ± 7.61 |
27.51 ± 18.06 |
|
Baseline Phase (2011-12) |
6.05 ± 5.04 |
7.75 ± 5.69 |
19.91 ± 21.30 |
29.57 ± 26.96 |
Comparison of average daily dolphin encounter rates from
impact phase (November 2013 –October 2014), transitional phase (November 2012 –
October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January
2012). (± denotes the standard
deviation of the value)
Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one
to thirteen (1-13) individuals per group in North Lantau region during November
2013 - October 2014. The average
dolphin group sizes from the 12-month impact phase monitoring period were
compared with the ones deduced from baseline and transitional phases, as shown
in Table 2.25.
Table 2.25 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Size
|
|
Average Dolphin Group Size |
||
|
Overall |
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
|
|
Impact Phase (2013-14) |
3.76 ± 2.57 (n = 136) |
5.00 ± 2.71 (n = 4) |
3.73 ± 2.57 (n = 132) |
|
Transitional Phase (2012-13) |
3.37 ± 2.98 (n = 186) |
2.64 ± 2.38 (n = 22) |
3.47 ± 3.05 (n = 164) |
|
Baseline Phase (2011-12) |
3.32 ± 2.86 (n = 288) |
2.80 ± 2.35 (n = 79) |
3.52 ± 3.01 (n = 209) |
Comparison of average dolphin group sizes from impact
phase (November 2013 –October 2014), transitional phase (November 2012 –
October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January
2012) (± denotes the standard
deviation of the average value)
Three (3) and two (2) Action Level
exceedances for Northeast Lantau and Northwest Lantau were recorded in the
reporting period respectively. No
Limit Level exceedance was observed for the quarterly dolphin monitoring data
between November 2013 and October 2014.
In this reporting period, no unacceptable impact from the activities of
this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from the general
observations. It is
essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in North Lantau region for
the rest of
the impact phase monitoring period.
Photos IDs of sighted dolphin are presented in Appendix K of the First to
Twelfth Monthly EM&A Report.
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken during the period of
marine works under this Contract.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was also implemented for the detection
of marine mammal when marine works were carried out outside the daylight hours
under this Contract. One
sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis within
the 250 m marine mammal exclusion zone of the landing platform workfront nearby Viaduct D was recorded on 23 January 2014
by the marine mammal observer during the daylight hours, and the marine
construction work was subsequently suspended. The Dolphin
Intrusion Report is presented in the Appendix
K of the Third Monthly EM&A
Report.
Baseline bored piling monitoring, including land-based
theodolite tracking, underwater noise monitoring and acoustic behavioural monitoring, were undertaken from September to
October 2013 by qualified dolphin specialist. Detailed baseline monitoring results and
Action/ Limit Level are presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report ([4])
under this Contract.
Impact monitoring of bored piling monitoring was
conducted from 3 March to 25 April 2014.
Schedule of bored piling monitoring are detailed in the Fifth and Sixth Monthly EM&A Reports. Due to rare occurrence of dolphin in the
study area, no impact associated from bored piling works could be
identified. Action and Limit Level
Exceedances were however recorded in the Underwater Noise and Acoustic Behavioural Monitoring. Actions were taken according to the
Event Action Plan. The detailed
results of impact bored piling monitoring are presented in the Impact Monitoring Report for Underwater
Noise and Dolphin Acoustic Behavioural Monitoring
and Impact Monitoring Report for
Land-based Dolphin Behavioural and Movement
Monitoring submitted under separate covers.
Four (4) events of Post-Translocation
Coral Monitoring were conducted on 17 January, 16 April, 24 July and 23 October
2014 and no exceedance of Action nor Limit Levels was
recorded. The results were detailed in the First to Fourth Quarterly Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring Reports. The findings indicated that no Action or
Limit Levels exceedances was recorded for coral monitoring as increase in
percentage of partial mortality was not detected for both the tagged
translocated and natural coral colonies when comparing to the pre-translocation
dataset.
Site inspections were carried out on weekly basis to
monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and
mitigation measures under the Contract.
Fifty-two (52) site inspections were carried out in the reporting
period. Key observations were
summarized in the section of EM&A Site
Inspection in the First to Twelfth
Monthly EM&A Reports.
The Contractor had submitted application form for
registration as chemical waste producer under the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were
available for general refuse collection and sorting.
Wastes generated during this reporting period include
mainly construction wastes (inert and non-inert), imported fill, recyclable
materials, chemical waste and marine sediments. Reference has been made to the waste
flow table prepared by the Contractor (Appendix I). The quantities of different types of
wastes are summarized in Table 2.26.
Table 2.26 Quantities of Different Waste Generated in the Reporting
Period
|
Month/Year |
Inert Construction Waste (a) (m3) |
Imported Fill (m3) |
Inert Construction Waste Re-used (m3) |
Non-inert Construction Waste (b) (tonnes) |
Recyclable Materials (c) (kg) |
Chemical Wastes (kg) |
Marine Sediment (m3) |
||
|
Category L |
Category M |
||||||||
|
Nov 2013 |
37 |
0 |
240 |
22.05 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Dec 2013 |
94 |
0 |
20 |
28.04 |
0.02 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jan 2014 |
30 |
0 |
3 |
22.38 |
10.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Feb 2014 |
10 |
4,674 |
31 |
10.67 |
0.78 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Mar 2014 |
221 |
2,098 |
240 |
12.39 |
46.05 |
0.28 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Apr 2014 |
118 |
914 |
20 |
87.65 |
15.76 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
May 2014 |
1,546 |
451 |
10 |
98.03 |
8.59 |
0 |
386 |
322 |
|
|
Jun 2014 |
357 |
2,457 |
2,503 |
77.29 |
25.48 |
0 |
338 |
0 |
|
|
Jul 2014 |
4,654 |
1,629 |
20 |
87.81 |
27.50 |
0 |
847 |
303 |
|
|
Aug 2014 |
2,441 |
288 |
2,094 |
98.22 |
22.28 |
0 |
391 |
164 |
|
|
Sep 2014 |
7,722 |
140 |
175 |
238.01 |
34.35 |
0 |
400 |
133 |
|
|
Oct 2014 |
13,860 |
109 |
943 |
268.18 |
0.11 |
0 |
441 |
222 |
|
|
Total |
31,090 |
12,760 |
6,299 |
1,050.72 |
191.15 |
0.28 |
2,803 |
1,144 |
|
|
Notes: |
|||||||||
|
(a)
Inert construction wastes
include hard rock and large broken concrete, and materials disposed as public
fill. (b)
Non-inert construction wastes
include general refuse disposed at landfill. (c) Recyclable materials include metals, paper,
cardboard, plastics, timber and others. |
|||||||||
The Contractor was advised to properly maintain on
site C&D materials and waste collection, sorting and recording system,
dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize
reuse/ recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor was also reminded to
properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on
site regularly and properly.
For chemical waste containers, the Contractor was
reminded to treat properly and store 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.
The status of environmental licensing and permit is
summarized in Table 2.27 below.
Table 2.27 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
|
License/ Permit |
License or Permit No. |
Date of Issue |
Date of Expiry |
License/ Permit Holder |
Remarks |
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-354/2009/A |
08-Dec-10 |
NA |
HyD |
Tuen Mun- Chek Lap Kok Link |
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-354/2009/B |
28-Jan-14 |
NA |
HyD |
Tuen Mun- Chek Lap Kok Link |
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
361571 |
05-Jul-13 |
NA |
GCL |
- |
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
362093 |
17-Jul-13 |
NA |
GCL |
for Area 23 |
|
Billing
Account for Disposal |
7017735 |
10-Jul-13 |
End of
Project |
GCL |
- |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-961-G2380-13 |
10-Oct-13 |
NA |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-961-G2380-14 |
10-Oct-13 |
NA |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-974-G2588-03 |
04-Nov-13 |
NA |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0660-13 |
27-Sep-13 |
02-Feb-14 |
GCL |
For night
works and works in general holidays |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS1129-13 |
31-Oct-13 |
30-Apr-14 |
GCL |
For night
works and works in general holidays |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS1186-13 |
23-Oct-13 |
24-Dec-13 |
GCL |
For night
works and works in general holidays |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS1187-13 |
24-Oct-13 |
28-Feb-14 |
GCL |
For night |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0925-13 |
19-Dec-13 |
17-Apr-14 |
GCL |
Renewal of
WA5 site office erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS1423-13 |
11-Dec-13 |
30-Apr-14 |
GCL |
Renewal for
marine portion |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS1413-13 |
17-Dec-13 |
26-Mar-14 |
GCL |
For loading
and unloading on NLH near viaduct A & B |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0034-14 |
14-Jan-14 |
29-Mar-14 |
GCL |
For night
works and works in general holiday |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0123-14 |
27-Feb-14 |
27-Aug-14 |
GCL |
For night
works and works in general holiday |
|
Waste Water
Discharge License |
WT00019017-2014 |
13-May-14 |
31-May-19 |
GCL |
Discharge
for marine portion |
|
Waste Water
Discharge License |
WT00019018-2014 |
13-May-14 |
31-May-19 |
GCL |
Discharge
for land portion |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0419-14 |
15-May-14 |
13-Nov-14 |
GCL |
For loading
& unloading on NLH near Viaducts A & B |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0226-14 |
30-Mar-14 |
29-Sep-14 |
GCL |
For loading
& unloading on NLH near Viaduct D |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0236-14 |
27-Mar-14 |
14-May-14 |
GCL |
For loading
& unloading on NLH near Viaducts A & B |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0280-14 |
31-Mar-14 |
31-May-14 |
GCL |
For
excavation at Pier B9 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0299-14 |
07-Apr-14 |
05-Jul-14 |
GCL |
Pier B8 at
CEDD Access Road |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0331-14 |
04-Apr-14 |
06-Jul-14 |
GCL |
Broad permit
for works at seafront & marine piers |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0338-14 |
04-Apr-14 |
03-Jun-14 |
GCL |
For bored
piling works between Pier E13 and HKBCF |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/14-155 |
01-Apr-14 |
30-Apr-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II Sediment |
|
Waste Water
Discharge License |
WT00019018-2014 |
13-May-14 |
31-May-19 |
GCL |
Discharge
for land portion |
|
Marine Dumping
Permit |
EP/MD/14-075 |
28-Jan-14 |
27-Jul-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I Sediment |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-951-G2380-17 |
12-Jun-14 |
NA |
GCL |
Viaducts A,
B, C, D & E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0646-14 |
27-Jun-14 |
26-Oct-14 |
GCL |
Broad Permit
for Works at Seafront & Marine Piers & Pier B9 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0647-14 |
28-Jun-14 |
26-Oct-14 |
GCL |
Pier C7
& D8 at CEDD Access Road |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-028 |
01-Jun-14 |
30-Jun-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0792-14 |
31-Jul-14 |
24-Dec-14 |
GCL |
Broad Permit
for Works at Seafront & Marine Piers & Pier B9 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0700-14 |
21-Jul-14 |
31-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For loading
& unloading on NLH near Viaduct A & B |
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0640-14 |
28-Aug-14 |
27-Feb-15 |
GCL |
General
works at WA5 |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-065 |
01-Aug-14 |
31-Aug-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0942-14 |
11-Sep-14 |
14-Mar-15 |
GCL |
For Plant
mobilization using tractor |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1032-14 |
25-Sep-14 |
28-Mar-15 |
GCL |
For Load
unload at NLH near Viaduct D |
|
Marine Dumping
Permit |
EP/MD/15-098 |
01-Sep-14 |
30-Sep-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1129-14 |
17-Oct-14 |
31-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For Safety Fences
at Pier D9 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1130-14 |
20-Oct-14 |
22-Apr-15 |
GCL |
For Plant
mobilization using tractor |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1135-14 |
17-Oct-14 |
15-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For TTA Case
60-2 Ch.1.3E-3.6E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1188-14 |
30-Oct-14 |
31-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For TTA
Cases 50 Airport Road-5.3 |
|
Marine Dumping
Permit |
EP/MD/15-120 |
01-Oct-14 |
31-Oct-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
In response to the EM&A site audit findings
mentioned in Section 2.7 of this
report, the Contractor has carried out the corrective actions.
A summary of the Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Measure Implementation Schedules (EMIS) is presented in Appendix B.
The necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly for this
Contract.
Two (2) Action Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded
at both ASR8 and ASR8a in the reporting period. The exceedances were considered unlikely
related to the construction works of the Contract. A detailed investigation report was
presented in Appendix N of the Second Monthly EM&A Report. Results for 1-hour TSP monitoring and
construction noise monitoring complied with the Action/ Limit levels in the
reporting period.
One (1) Action Level exceedance of averaged-depth SS
was recorded at SR4a in the reporting period. The exceedance was considered not
related to the construction works of this Contract. A detailed investigation report was
presented in Appendix N of the First Monthly EM&A Report.
For the dolphin impact monitoring, three
(3) and two (2) Action Level exceedances for Northeast Lantau and Northwest
Lantau were recorded in the reporting period respectively. No Limit Level exceedance was observed
for the quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2013 and October
2014. The exceedances were
considered as natural variation of dolphin ranging pattern and not related to
this Contract. The investigation
reports were presented in Appendix N
of First to Third Quarterly EM&A
Reports.
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is
provided in Figure 2.5.
Two (2) complaints were received in the reporting
period. The first complaint was
referred by EPD to various parties of the HZMB projects in November 2013 with regard
to the noise nuisance. Another
complaint was referred by EPD in June 2014 with regard to the discharge of
muddy water to storm drains. The
complaints were considered not related to this Contract upon further
investigation. The detailed
investigation reports were presented in the Appendix
N of the First and Ninth Monthly EM&A Reports.
No notification of summons or successful prosecution
was received in the reporting period.
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons,
successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
The EM&A results in the reporting period are
compared to the predictions from EIA Report and baseline monitoring result for
the sake of reviewing the validity of EIA predictions.
Land and marine based construction activities were
conducted during the reporting period.
At the same time, monitoring on air quality, noise, water quality,
marine ecology and waste were undertaken per plan.
The construction activities may have impact on air
quality as predicted in the EIA report, whilst excavation works, road works,
slope works and foundation works were undertaken in the reporting period. Maximum TSP levels as predicted in the
EIA and measured during the impact and baseline monitoring are presented in Table 3.1, with average TSP levels
measured during both the baseline and impact monitoring shown as well. As shown in Table 3.1, average TSP levels measured during the impact monitoring
are lower than those measured during the baseline monitoring at all
stations. Maximum TSP levels are
similar between baseline and impact monitoring, which are both higher than
those predicted in the EIA. It thus
appeared that the construction activities of the Contact did not cause
significant impact on air quality with similar maximum TSP levels between the
baseline and impact monitoring and lower average TPS levels during the impact
monitoring.
Table 3.1 Comparison of Impacts on Air Quality (in μg/m³)
between EIA Prediction and Impact Monitoring Period
|
Monitoring Station |
EIA Predicted Maximum |
Maximum Impact Monitoring |
Maximum Baseline Monitoring |
Average Baseline Monitoring |
Average Impact Monitoring |
|
ASR8/ASR9C (1-hr TSP) |
205/240 |
361 |
462 |
220 |
106 |
|
ASR8/ASR9C (24-hr TSP) |
83/108 |
205 |
113 |
75 |
67 |
|
ASR9A/ASR8A (1-hr TSP) |
292.9 |
306 |
437 |
222 |
99 |
|
ASR9A/ASR8A (24-hr TSP) |
105 |
210 |
128 |
74 |
64 |
|
Note: Baseline monitoring results of ASR9A and ASR9C are applied to ASR8A
and ASR8 respectively. |
|||||
In the reporting period, the Contractor undertook the construction
works and used the Power Mechanical Equipment (PME) as predicted in EIA. The EIA predicted sound pressure level,
average baseline and impact noise monitoring results are presented in Table 3.2. The EIA assessment has predicted that
marginal impacts would be expected at the Pak Mong Village during construction
phase. The monitoring
results in the reporting period suggested that the Project has managed the
construction noise, if any, to an acceptable level and thus monitoring results
are considered to comply with the EIA prediction.
Table 3.2 Comparison of Impacts on Noise (in dB (A)) between EIA Prediction
and Impact Monitoring Period
|
Monitoring
Station |
EIA Predicted Maximum |
Average Baseline Monitoring |
Average Impact Monitoring |
Maximum Impact Monitoring |
|
NSR1 |
74 |
56 |
58 |
60 |
|
Note: EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL. Baseline and impact
monitoring were measured in Leq(30min). |
||||
The marine platform erection and piling works were
undertaken in the monitoring period.
According to the EIA prediction, no SS exceedance is anticipated from
this Project at the water sensitive receivers nearby the vicinity of Contract
(WSR 22a, WSR 22b and WSR 22c).
Although one (1) Action Level exceedance on depth-averaged SS was
recorded in the reporting period, the exceedance was considered not related to
this Contract upon further investigation.
The averaged baseline and impact monitoring results are presented in Table 3.3, in which the annual averaged
SS monitoring results at all WQM monitoring stations in both tides are well
below the averaged results of baseline monitoring. Thus, the impact monitoring results are
considered to in line with the EIA prediction.
Table 3.3 Comparison of Depth-averaged SS (in mg/L) between Baseline and
Impact Monitoring Period
|
Monitoring
Station |
Tide |
Baseline monitoring |
Impact Monitoring |
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Ebb |
8.8 |
6.1 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
9.2 |
5.9 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
6.2 |
|
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Flood |
12.4 |
6.0 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
11.5 |
6.0 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
6.1 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
6.2 |
Impact monitoring on marine ecology was undertaken
during the monitoring period. No
exceedance on post-translocation coral monitoring was recorded in the reporting
period. The result is in a line
with the EIA prediction as the impact on coral was predicted minor.
According to the baseline results in the Appendix F of the approved EIA Report, the dolphin
groups were largely sighted near Lung Kwu Chau and
the waters between Lung Kwu Chau and Black Points and
infrequently along the alignment of this Contract. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures
were conducted to compare results of average encounter rate of sightings (STG)
and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) between baseline and impact
periods. Although the STG and ANI
in impact monitoring period were lower than that before the commencement of
this Contract (see Section 2.4.7) and
the differences between 2 periods are statistically significant (see Section 3.3.6 of Appendix G),
the distribution pattern was similar between the impact monitoring period and
before the commencement (i.e. transition period in 2012 – 2013) of this
Contract. In addition, the habitat
use pattern between impact monitoring in this reporting period and before the
commencement of this Contract is largely similar, in which dolphins are
observed heavily utilized area around Lung Kwu Chau and
less frequently in the North Lantau region where the works area of this
Contract is situated. The
monitoring results in this reporting period are considered to be in line with
the EIA predictions, and the review of monitoring data suggested that no unacceptable
impacts was noted from the marine works under this Contract. It is essential to monitor the dolphin
usage in North Lantau region for the rest of impact monitoring period to keep
track on the trend of dolphin ranging pattern.
For wastes generated from the construction activities
include C&D materials (inert and non-inert), chemical wastes, recyclable
materials and marine sediments (both categories L and M), the wastes generated
were in line with the EIA predictions.
For dredged sediment, the quantity of sediments generated was in line
with CEDD’s allocated disposal volumes as per the marine dumping permit (see Table 2.23). The wastes were also disposed of in
accordance with the recommendations of the EIA.
The EM&A monitoring programme has been reviewed
and was considered effective and adequate to cater for the nature of works in
progress. No change to the
monitoring programme was considered to be necessary.
The EM&A programme will
be evaluated as appropriate in the next reporting period
and improvements in the EM&A programme will be
recommended if deemed necessary.
The mitigation measures stipulated in the Updated
EM&A Manual were undertaken by the Contractor in the reporting period. The mitigation measures were reviewed
and considered effective. No
addition or change on mitigation measures was considered to be necessary.
Potential environmental impacts arising from the above
upcoming construction activities are mainly associated with air quality, noise,
marine water quality, marine ecology and waste management issues.
This First Annual EM&A Report
presents the findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period
from 31 October 2013 to 31 October 2014, in accordance with the Updated
EM&A Manual and the requirements of the Environmental Permit
(EP-354/2009/B).
Two (2) Action Level Exceedances in 24-hour TSP
monitoring and one (1) Action Level Exceedance in depth-averaged SS were
recorded in the reporting period.
Neither Action Level nor Limit Level exceedances were observed for
1-hour TSP, noise and post-translocation coral monitoring in this reporting
period.
A total of one hundred and thirty-six (136) groups of
five hundred and twelve (512) Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. Whilst five (5) Action Level exceedances
were recorded between November 2013 and October 2014, no unacceptable impact
from the activities of this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable
from the general observations. It
is essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in North Lantau region
for the rest of
the impact phase monitoring period.
Environmental site inspection was carried out
fifty-two (52) times in the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were
given to the Contractor for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
No environmental complaint, summons/ prosecution were
received during the reporting period.
The review of monitoring data suggested that the
construction works under this Contract have proceeded in an environmentally
acceptable manner in this reporting period.
The monitoring programme has been reviewed and was
considered as adequate to cater for the nature of works in progress. Change to the monitoring programme was
thus not recommended at this stage.
The monitoring programme will be evaluated as appropriate in the next
reporting period. The ET will keep
track on the construction works to confirm compliance of environmental
requirements and the proper implementation of all necessary mitigation
measures.
([1])
Agreement No. CE 35/2011
(EP) Baseline Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Projects - Investigation.
Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C). Submitted on 8 March 2012 and
subsequently approved by EPD.
([2])
Agreement No. CE 35/2011 (EP) Baseline
Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Projects - Investigation. Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C). Submitted on 8 March 2012 and
subsequently approved by EPD