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 EM&A Site Inspection
2.6 Waste Management Status
2.7 Environmental Licenses and
Permits
2.8 Implementation Status of
Environmental Mitigation Measures
2.9 Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit
2.10 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). Ramboll 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. Further applications
for variation of environmental permit (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C
and EP-354/2009/D, were granted on 28
January 2014, 10 December 2014 and 13 March 2015, respectively.
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.
Part of the southern landfall of TM-CLK Link
lies alongside the Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) where a reclamation area is constructed by Contract HY/2010/02 under Environmental Permit No. EP-353/2009/I. Upon the agreement and confirmation
between the Supervising Officer Representatives and Contractors of HY/2010/02 and HY/2012/07 in September 2015, part of the reclamation area for
southern landfall under EP-353/2009/I
was handed-over to Contract No. HY/2012/07.
This is the second annual EM&A report presenting
the EM&A works carried out during the period from 1 November 2014 to 31
October 2015 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
·
Additional marine ground investigation (GI) and
laboratory testing;
·
Construction of pile caps;
·
Installation of pier head and deck segment;
·
Launching gantry assembly;
·
Marine piling;
·
Marine platform installation and uninstallation; and
·
Pier construction.
Land-based
Works
·
Additional land GI, trial pits & lab testing;
·
Channel re-construction at Area 1;
·
Construction of pile caps;
·
Drainage works;
·
Installation of pier head segment;
·
Land piling;
·
Pier construction;
·
Pre-drilling works;
·
Re-alignment of Cheung Tung Road;
·
Relocation of MTR fence;
·
Slope works;
·
Tree survey, felling and transplanting; and
·
Utility surveys.
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour TSP monitoring 4
sessions at ASR8
70
sessions at ASR8A
64
sessions at ASR9
1-hour TSP monitoring 4
sessions at ASR8
70
sessions at ASR8A
64
sessions at ASR9
Noise monitoring 4
sessions at NSR1
64
sessions at NSR1A
Water quality monitoring 153
sessions
Dolphin monitoring 24
sessions
Joint Environmental site inspection 52
sessions
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No exceedance
of Action and Limit Levels was recorded for 1-hour or 24-hour monitoring in the
reporting period.
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
Two (2) Action Level and three (3) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin
monitoring data between November 2014 and October 2015. No unacceptable impact from the
construction activities of the TM-CLKL Southern Connection Viaduct Section on
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) was
noticeable from general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this
reporting period.
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. No
sighting of the IChinese White Dolphin was recorded
during the exclusion zone monitoring in the reporting period.
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 in this reporting
period.
Future Key
Issues
Potential environmental impacts arising from the
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-354/2009/A) was issued on 8 December
2010. Further applications for variation of
environmental permit (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C and EP-354/2009/D, were granted on 28 January 2014, 10 December 2014
and 13 March 2015, respectively.
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.
Part of the southern landfall of TM-CLK Link
lies alongside the Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) where a reclamation area is constructed by Contract HY/2010/02 under Environmental Permit No. EP-353/2009/I. Upon the agreement and confirmation
between the Supervising Officer Representatives and Contractors of HY/2010/02 and HY/2012/07 in September 2015, part of the reclamation area for
southern landfall under EP-353/2009/I
was handed-over to Contract No. HY/2012/07.
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 Second 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 1 November 2014 to 31 October
2015.
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 Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Ltd.) |
ENPO Leader |
Y.H. Hui |
3547 2133 |
3465 2899 |
|
IEC |
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
·
Additional marine ground investigation (GI) and
laboratory testing;
·
Construction of pile caps;
·
Installation of pier head and deck segment;
·
Launching gantry assembly;
·
Marine piling;
·
Marine platform installation and uninstallation; and
·
Pier construction.
Land-based
Works
·
Additional land GI, trial pits & lab testing;
·
Channel re-construction at Area 1;
·
Construction of pile caps;
·
Drainage works;
·
Installation of pier head segment;
·
Land piling;
·
Pier construction;
·
Pre-drilling works;
·
Re-alignment of Cheung Tung Road;
·
Relocation of MTR fence;
·
Slope works;
·
Tree survey, felling and transplanting; and
·
Utility surveys.
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
included the two monitoring stations ASR9A and ASR9C for this Project([1])
. 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 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.
Since authorization of
getting access into Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot was not granted for the impact
monitoring of the EM&A programme, air quality monitoring stations
ASR9A and ASR9C in Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot proposed in Updated EM&A Manual were
relocated to air quality monitoring stations ASR8A (Area 4) and ASR8 (rooftop
of Pak Mong), respectively, in November 2013. The wind sensor at ASR9A was relocated
to ASR8 at the same time. Due to
the rejection of access to Pak Mong Village, monitoring
data of 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP at ASR 8 and meteorological data were not
collected on 26 November and 2 December 2014. The
Proposal of Alternative Dust and Noise Monitoring Stations ([3])
was submitted to EPD on 2 December 2014, in which the HVS at ASR 8 was proposed
to be relocated to entrance of MTR Depot (ASR9) and the wind sensor was
proposed to be relocated to ASR 8A in accordance with the requirements of the
Updated EM&A Manual.
The proposal was subsequently approved on 4 December 2014. 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-hour TSP
monitoring during the reporting period.
The HVSs met all requirements of the Updated EM&A Manual. Brand and model of the equipment are
given in Table 2.2.
The
wind sensor was setup as 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
|
Monitoring Station (1) |
Monitoring Period |
Location |
Description |
Parameters & Frequency |
|
ASR8A |
From 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015 |
Area 4 |
On ground at the Area 4 |
Ÿ
1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3
times per day every 6 days Ÿ
24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3),
daily for 24-hour every 6 days |
|
ASR8 |
From 1 November 2014 to 2 December 2014 |
Pak Mong Village Watch Tower |
Rooftop of the premise |
|
|
ASR9 |
From 3 December 2014 to 31 October 2015 |
Entrance of MTRC Depot |
On ground at the entrance |
Note:
(1)
Air
Quality Monitoring Station ASR8 at Pak Mong Village
was relocated to ASR9 at the entrance of MTRC Depot since December 2014.
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 Thirteenth to Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A Reports. TSP monitoring at ASR8 was suspended on
26 November and 2 December 2014 due to rejection of access to the monitoring
station.
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 Thirteenth to Twenty-fourth 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 2014 |
ASR 8A |
88 |
56
- 152 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 8 |
106 |
54
- 235 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Dec 2014 |
ASR 8A |
122 |
63
- 298 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
137 |
96
- 232 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jan 2015 |
ASR 8A |
109 |
73
- 176 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
148 |
77
- 217 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Feb 2015 |
ASR 8A |
118 |
68 - 211 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
132 |
68 - 241 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Mar 2015 |
ASR 8A |
88 |
58
- 156 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
109 |
60
- 235 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Apr 2015 |
ASR 8A |
86 |
59
- 124 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR 9 |
112 |
59
- 217 |
393 |
500 |
|
May 2015 |
ASR 8A |
64 |
49
- 149 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR 9 |
77 |
53
- 119 |
393 |
500 |
|
Jun 2015 |
ASR 8A |
59 |
41
- 95 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
71 |
48
- 119 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jul 2015 |
ASR 8A |
63 |
41
- 139 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
73 |
41
- 116 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Aug 2015 |
ASR 8A |
88 |
58
- 148 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
104 |
60
- 165 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Sept 2015 |
ASR 8A |
86 |
43
- 188 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
86 |
58
- 173 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Oct 2015 |
ASR 8A |
74 |
43
- 145 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
84 |
45
- 172 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Note: Monitoring station ASR 8 was relocated to ASR9 since December 2014. |
|||||
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 2014 |
ASR 8A |
63 |
46
- 83 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 8 |
69 |
56
- 80 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Dec 2014 |
ASR 8A |
75 |
63
- 99 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
98 |
68
- 133 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Jan 2015 |
ASR 8A |
76 |
57
- 99 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
97 |
64
- 123 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Feb 2015 |
ASR 8A |
72 |
54
– 104 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
89 |
51
– 117 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Mar 2015 |
ASR 8A |
57 |
43
– 76 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
77 |
54
– 101 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Apr 2015 |
ASR 8A |
56 |
50
- 60 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
65 |
56
– 72 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
May 2015 |
ASR 8A |
48 |
43
– 52 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
56 |
46
– 71 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Jun 2015 |
ASR 8A |
45 |
42
– 47 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
47 |
45
– 49 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Jul 2015 |
ASR 8A |
51 |
44
– 75 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
56 |
47
– 89 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Aug 2015 |
ASR 8A |
61 |
48
– 85 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
68 |
51
– 101 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Sept 2015 |
ASR 8A |
59 |
46
– 91 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
60 |
50
– 73 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Oct 2015 |
ASR 8A |
59 |
43
- 82 |
178 |
260 |
|
ASR 9 |
71 |
41
- 112 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
Note: Monitoring station ASR 8 was relocated to ASR9 since December 2014. |
|||||
The major dust sources in the reporting period include
construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby traffic emissions.
For the impact air quality monitoring, a total of 70
events at ASR8A, 64 events at ASR9 and four (4) events at ASR8, were undertaken
in the reporting period. Neither
Action nor Limit Level exceedance was recorded for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
monitoring, thus no action was required to be taken in accordance with the
Event Action Plan.
As shown in Table
2.5, the annual average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP levels in the reporting period
were lower than the corresponding average baseline levels 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 at both stations and
24-hour TSP at ASR8A, the levels of the reporting period were significantly
lower than the baseline levels at both monitoring stations (1-hour TSP at
ASR8A: F 1, 250 = 229, p < 0.01 and 1-hour
TSP at ASR8 / ASR9: F 1, 244
= 153, p < 0.01; 24-hour TSP
at ASR8A: F 1, 82, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in
24-hour TSP levels at ASR8 /ASR9 between baseline and impact monitoring (F 1, 80 = 0.27, p =
0.60).
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/ASR9 (1-hour TSP) |
220 |
103 |
|
ASR8/ASR9 (24-hour TSP) |
74 |
71 |
|
ASR8A (1-hour TSP) |
222 |
87 |
|
ASR8A (24-hour TSP) |
74 |
60 |
In addition, 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 |
ASR8A |
0.101 |
23.5 |
<0.001 |
151 |
-0.116 |
|
ASR8 / ASR9C |
0.178 |
43.7 |
<0.001 |
200 |
-0.175 |
|
|
24-hour TSP |
ASR8A |
0.126 |
9.8 |
0.003 |
89 |
-0.052 |
|
ASR8 / ASR9C |
0.191 |
15.6 |
<0.001 |
124 |
-0.096 |
|
|
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set as TSP levels (in µg/m3) and independent
variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are
underlined. 3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant intercepts and coefficients are
underlined |
||||||
The baseline noise monitoring undertaken by the HKZMB
Projects during the period of 18 October to 1 November 2011 included the
monitoring station NSR1 for this Project.
Thus, the baseline monitoring results and Action/ Limit Level presented
in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([4])
are adopted for this Project.
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact
noise monitoring should be 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.
Due to rejection of access to Pak Mong
Village, the Proposal of Alternative Dust and Noise Monitoring Stations ([5])
was submitted to EPD on 2 December 2014, in which noise monitoring at NSR1 was
proposed to be relocated to Entrance of Pak Mong
Village (NSR1A) in accordance with the requirements of the Updated EM&A
Manual. The proposal was
subsequently approved on 4 December 2014. Same baseline
and Action/Limit Level for noise monitoring from NSR1 are applied. Figure 2.2 shows the
locations of the monitoring station.
Table 2.7 describes the
details of the monitoring station and parameters.
Noise monitoring was performed by 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 1 November to 3 December 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 |
|
NSR1A |
From 4 December 2014 to 31 October 2015 |
Entrance of Pak Mong Village |
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 Thirteenth
to Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A
Reports. Since access to NSR1
was rejected, monitoring on 26 November and 2 December 2014 were cancelled.
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 Thirteenth to Twenty-fourth
Monthly EM&A Reports.
Table
2.9 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results
at NSR1/NSR1A in the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Average
, dB(A), Leq (30mins) |
Range,
dB(A), Leq (30mins) |
Limit
Level, dB(A), Leq (30mins) |
|
Nov 2014 |
58 |
57
– 59 |
75 |
|
Dec 2014 |
62 |
61
– 62 |
75 |
|
Jan 2015 |
61 |
59
– 62 |
75 |
|
Feb 2015 |
60 |
56
– 61 |
75 |
|
Mar 2015 |
60 |
57
– 61 |
75 |
|
Apr 2015 |
60 |
57
– 61 |
75 |
|
May 2015 |
60 |
57
– 61 |
75 |
|
Jun 2015 |
59 |
58
- 60 |
75 |
|
Jul 2015 |
60 |
53 - 61 |
75 |
|
Aug 2015 |
58 |
57
- 60 |
75 |
|
Sep 2015 |
59 |
58
- 59 |
75 |
|
Oct 2015 |
58 |
57
- 60 |
75 |
|
Note: NSR1 was relocated to NSR1A since December 2014. |
|||
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included
construction activities, nearby traffic noise and aircraft noise.
A total of sixty-eight (68) 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 significant (F 1, 353 = 101,
p < 0.01), in which the annual-averaged noise level in the reporting
period was slightly higher than average baseline level (statistically average
results of baseline and reporting periods were 56dB(A)
and 59dB(A) respectively). However,
all monitoring results in the reporting period complied with the Action/Limit
Levels.
In addition, 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.
The ET will keep track on the future noise monitoring results during
construction phase.
Table 2.10 Linear Regression Result of Noise Monitoring
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F-ratio |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient |
|
Leq 30min |
NSR1 / NSR1A |
0.187 |
14.5 |
<0.001 |
63 |
-0.007 |
|
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set
as Leq 30min (in dB(A))
and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of
insignificant regression model are underlined. 3. By setting α at 0.01,
insignificant intercepts and coefficients are underlined |
||||||
The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by
the HKZMB Projects
between 6 and 31 October 2011 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 ([6])
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 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L and % of saturation) · Suspended Solid (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 Thirteenth
to Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A Reports. Water quality monitoring on 19 and 21
February 2015 were cancelled due to suspension of marine works. Water quality monitoring on 7 July and 3
October 2015 were cancelled due to adverse weather.
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 Thirteenth
to Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A Reports.
In this reporting period, a total of 153 monitoring
events were undertaken. One (1)
depth-averaged SS Action Level exceedance was recorded on 19 May 2015. The corresponding Notification of Exceedance and investigation report were presented
in Appendix N of the Nineteenth Monthly EM&A Report. Upon investigation, 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 annual
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, most of the annual average DO
levels during both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at all depth of the impact
monitoring stations were significantly higher than corresponding average
baseline levels (see Table 2.16). For turbidity, there was no significant
difference (i.e. p<0.05) between the results in the reporting period and
baseline monitoring. For SS,
significant differences were only detected at stations IS(Mf)16
during mid-flood tide and SR4a during both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides. In general, DO, turbidity and SS levels
varied across sampling months (see Appendix F) and
these variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting period.
Table 2.13 Summary of Annual Means of DO Level of Baseline Monitoring and
Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Tide |
Station |
Depth |
Annual mean of DO of baseline monitoring |
Annual mean of DO of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.8 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.6 |
6.8 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.8 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.8 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.8 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.9 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.5 |
6.9 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.9 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.9 |
|
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.3 |
6.7 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.1 |
6.8 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.5 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
6.6 |
6.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
Bottom |
6.2 |
6.7 |
|
|
SR4 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.7 |
|
|
SR4a |
Bottom |
5.3 |
6.7 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.6 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
6.7 |
6.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
Bottom |
6.3 |
6.8 |
|
|
SR4 |
Bottom |
6.2 |
6.7 |
|
|
SR4a |
Bottom |
5.2 |
6.8 |
Table 2.14 Summary of Annual Means of Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of
Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in NTU)
|
Station |
Station |
Annual mean of depth-averaged turbidity of
baseline monitoring |
Annual mean of depth-averaged turbidity of
reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
8.9 |
10.5 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
8.2 |
10.4 |
|
|
IS8 |
8.4 |
10.4 |
|
|
SR4 |
8.9 |
10.4 |
|
|
SR4a |
8.9 |
10.3 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
10.1 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.2 |
10.1 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.9 |
10.1 |
|
|
SR4 |
10.3 |
10.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
7.8 |
10.0 |
Table 2.15 Summary of Annual Means of Depth-averaged SS Level of Baseline
Monitoring and Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Station |
Station |
Annual mean of depth-averaged SS of baseline
monitoring |
Annual mean of depth-averaged SS of reporting
period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
14.3 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
14.1 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
14.2 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
14.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
14.1 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
13.8 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
13.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
13.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
13.9 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
13.7 |
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 |
F 1,163
= 8 |
0.005 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 1.1 |
0.303 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 4.7 |
0.032 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 14.4 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 53.2 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 14.2 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F 1,161
= 3 |
0.086 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 11.3 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 12.2 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 60.6 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F 1,158
= 2.4 |
0.125 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F 1,159
= 11.8 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 12 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 0.1 |
0.701 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 5 |
0.027 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F 1,160
= 11.1 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 61 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 12.9 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F 1,161
< 0.1 |
0.902 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 7.3 |
0.007 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F 1,161
= 9.2 |
0.003 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 76 |
<0.001 |
Note:
By setting α at 0.05, p-values <0.05 (significant
difference) are bold.
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 Mid-ebb Mid-ebb Mid-ebb Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
F 1,163
= 1.3 |
0.248 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 2.3 |
0.131 |
|
|
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 1.9 |
0.168 |
|
|
SR4 |
F 1,163
= 1.2 |
0.277 |
|
|
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 1.1 |
0.290 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F 1,163
= 0.8 |
0.376 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.914 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 1.6 |
0.209 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.923 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 2.9 |
0.089 |
Note:
By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant
difference) are bold.
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 |
F 1,163 = 2.6 |
0.107 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 3.2 |
0.077 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 2.5 |
0.116 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
F 1,163
= 3.1 |
0.078 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 8 |
0.005 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F 1,163
= 4 |
0.048 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 0.3 |
0.592 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.851 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F 1,163
= 0.8 |
0.372 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 5.3 |
0.022 |
|
Note: By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are
bold. |
|||
In
addition, linear regression was conducted to examine any significant
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 levels since commencement of constructions
works.
Table 2.19 Linear Regression Result of DO
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,151 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
||
|
Mid-ebb Surface DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.066 |
10.6 |
0.001 |
7.58 |
-0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.050 |
7.9 |
0.006 |
7.56 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.081 |
13.3 |
<0.001 |
7.64 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.068 |
11 |
0.001 |
7.57 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.072 |
11.7 |
<0.001 |
7.65 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
Mid-flood surface DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.069 |
11.3 |
<0.001 |
7.67 |
-0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.044 |
6.9 |
0.009 |
7.59 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.092 |
15.4 |
<0.001 |
7.76 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.084 |
13.9 |
<0.001 |
7.72 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.065 |
10.5 |
0.001 |
7.67 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
Mid-ebb middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.061 |
9.8 |
0.002 |
7.42 |
-0.001 |
|
|
|
Mid-flood middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.069 |
11.3 |
<0.001 |
7.54 |
-0.001 |
|
|
|
Mid-ebb bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.072 |
11.7 |
<0.001 |
7.33 |
-0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.055 |
8.8 |
0.003 |
7.36 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.092 |
15.3 |
<0.001 |
7.6 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.088 |
14.7 |
<0.001 |
7.58 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.104 |
17.5 |
<0.001 |
7.67 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
Mid-flood bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.084 |
13.8 |
<0.001 |
7.45 |
-0.002 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.058 |
9.2 |
0.003 |
7.44 |
-0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.125 |
21.5 |
<0.001 |
7.81 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.113 |
19.2 |
<0.001 |
7.76 |
-0.002 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.143 |
25.1 |
<0.001 |
7.93 |
-0.002 |
|
||
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as DO (in mg/L) and independent
variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. R2 values of insignificant regression
model are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant intercepts and
coefficients are underlined.
Table 2.20 Linear Regression Result of Turbidity
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,151 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb depth-averaged turbidity |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.014 |
2.1 |
0.145 |
7.57 |
0.005 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.010 |
1.5 |
0.223 |
7.97 |
0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.008 |
1.2 |
0.275 |
8.15 |
0.004 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.009 |
1.4 |
0.242 |
8.15 |
0.004 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.014 |
2.1 |
0.146 |
7.65 |
0.005 |
|
|
Mid-flood
depth-averaged turbidity |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.009 |
1.4 |
0.237 |
7.83 |
0.004 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.008 |
1.2 |
0.267 |
7.91 |
0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.007 |
1.1 |
0.295 |
7.95 |
0.004 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.008 |
1.2 |
0.278 |
7.97 |
0.004 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.012 |
1.8 |
0.186 |
7.58 |
0.004 |
|
|
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set as turbidity (in NTU) and independent
variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are
underlined. 3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant intercepts and coefficients are
underlined. |
||||||
Table 2.21 Linear Regression Result
of SS
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,151 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb depth-averaged SS |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.019 |
2.9 |
0.088 |
9.87 |
0.008 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.010 |
1.6 |
0.208 |
10.89 |
0.006 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.010 |
1.6 |
0.211 |
10.92 |
0.006 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.011 |
1.6 |
0.202 |
11.02 |
0.006 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.017 |
2.6 |
0.108 |
10.28 |
0.007 |
|
|
Mid-flood depth-averaged SS |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.011 |
1.7 |
0.191 |
10.58 |
0.006 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.010 |
1.6 |
0.21 |
10.6 |
0.006 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.009 |
1.4 |
0.238 |
10.71 |
0.006 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.008 |
1.1 |
0.286 |
11.08 |
0.005 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.011 |
1.7 |
0.194 |
10.69 |
0.005 |
Note:
1. Dependent
variable is set as turbidity (in NTU) and independent variable is set as number
of day of construction works.
2. R2 values of insignificant regression
model are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, 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 (815456) |
13 |
Start Point |
816506 |
819480 |
|
1 |
End Point |
804671 |
831404 |
13 |
End Point |
816506 |
824859 |
|
2 |
Start Point |
805475 |
815457 (815913) |
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 (820880) |
19 |
Start Point |
822513 |
823268 |
|
7 |
End Point |
810499 |
824613 |
19 |
End Point |
822513 |
824321 |
|
8 |
Start Point |
811508 |
820847 (821123) |
20 |
Start Point |
823477 |
823402 |
|
8 |
End Point |
811508 |
824254 |
20 |
End Point |
823477 |
824613 |
|
9 |
Start Point |
812516 |
820892 (821303) |
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 (818853) |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Northing co-ordinates in bracket are the adjusted
co-ordinates since August 2015 due to obstruction of permanent structures
associated with construction works.
Approval of the adjustments from EPD was received in July 2015. |
|||||||
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 Thirteenth to Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A Reports.
A
total of 3,589.91 km of survey effort was collected, with 97.0% 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,
1,381.43 km and 2,208.48 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL
survey areas, respectively. The
total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 2,612.04 km while the effort
on secondary lines was 977.87 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 2014 to October 2015, a total of 54 groups of 229 Chinese White
Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. In
this 12-month period, all except four (4) dolphin sightings were made during
primary on-effort search.
Forty-four (44) out of 50 dolphin sightings were made on primary lines,
while six (6) groups of dolphins were sighted on secondary lines. All sightings were made in NWL region
except one (1), in which the sighting in NEL was a lone animal. No sighting was made in the proximity of
the Project’s alignment. Summary
table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Appendix
I 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 (2014-15, this reporting
period) |
0.11 ± 0.54 |
2.54 ± 2.49 |
0.11 ± 0.54 |
11.64 ± 14.04 |
|
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 this impact phase (November 2014 – October 2015), the first 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
2014 - October 2015. 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 (2014-15, this reporting period) |
4.24 ± 3.15 (n = 54) |
1.00 (n = 1) |
4.30 ± 3.15 (n = 53) |
|
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 size from this
impact phase (November 2014 – October 2015), the first 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)
Two (2) Action Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL
regions, and three (3) Limit Level exceedances were recorded for four (4) sets
of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2014 and October
2015. 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. Photo IDs of sighted dolphin are
presented in Appendix K of the Thirteenth
to Twenty-fourth 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. In the reporting period, there was no marine mammal
detected in the marine mammal exclusion zone. Since night time marine piling works was
completed in September 2015, PAM was decommissioned in the same month.
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 Thirteen to
Twenty-fourth Monthly EM&A Reports. The Contractor has rectified all of the
observations identified during environmental site inspections in the reporting
period.
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
(Categories L and M). 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 2014 |
12,474 |
436 |
3,356 |
114,370 |
133 |
0 |
0 |
234 |
|
|
Dec 2014 |
15,987 |
0 |
3,020 |
130,970 |
147 |
0 |
337 |
275 |
|
|
Jan 2015 |
12,474 |
115 |
990 |
132,170 |
91 |
0 |
178 |
487 |
|
|
Feb 2015 |
5,759 |
14 |
461 |
141,020 |
112 |
400 |
801 |
333 |
|
|
Mar 2015 |
9,600 |
77 |
473 |
120,940 |
203 |
0 |
618 |
222 |
|
|
Apr 2015 |
7,694 |
32 |
2,261 |
133,630 |
105 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
May 2015 |
8,091 |
0 |
662 |
107,920 |
42 |
0 |
550 |
0 |
|
|
Jun 2015 |
7,166 |
0 |
1,351 |
89,930 |
119 |
17 |
324 |
287 |
|
|
Jul 2015 |
2,322 |
78 |
992 |
111,570 |
105 |
1,400 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Aug 2015 |
1,265 |
0 |
105 |
87,760 |
133 |
1,200 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Sept 2015 |
3,525 |
0 |
623 |
66,680 |
105 |
600 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Oct 2015 |
1,635 |
0 |
615 |
102,080 |
84 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total |
87,992 |
752 |
14,909 |
1,339,040 |
1,379 |
3,617 |
2,808 |
1,838 |
|
|
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/B |
28-Jan-14 |
N/A |
HyD |
Tuen Mun- Chek
Lap Kok Link (superseded by EP-354/2009/C
in December 2014) |
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-354/2009/C |
10-Dec-14 |
N/A |
HyD |
Tuen Mun- Chek Lap Kok Link (superseded by EP-354/2009/D in March 2015) |
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-354/2009/D |
13-Mar-15 |
N/A |
HyD |
Tuen Mun- Chek
Lap Kok Link |
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-353/2009/I |
17-Jul-15 |
N/A |
HyD |
Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities (effective from Septermber 2015) |
|
Chemical Waste
Registration |
5213-951-G2380-17 |
12-Jun-14 |
N/A |
GCL |
Viaducts A,
B, C, D & E |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-961-G2380-13 |
10-Oct-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 (Area 1 adjacent to Cheng Tung Road,
Siu Ho Wan) |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-961-G2380-14 |
10-Oct-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 (Area 2 adjacent to Cheung Tung Road,
Pak Mong Village) |
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-974-G2588-03 |
04-Nov-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
Chemical
waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07
(WA5 adjacent to Cheung Tung Road, Yam O) |
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
361571 |
05-Jul-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
|
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
362093 |
17-Jul-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
For Area 23 |
|
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-RS0700-14 |
21-Jul-14 |
31-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For loading
& unloading on NLH near Viaduct A & B |
|
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 |
Nil |
N/A |
N/A |
GCL |
For Piling
Works |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0078-15 |
28-Jan-15 |
29-Jul-15 |
GCL |
For Plant
mobilization using tractor with trailer |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0084-15 |
28-Jan-15 |
30-Apr-15 |
GCL |
Pier B8
formwork erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0137-15 |
12-Feb-15 |
15-Aug-15 |
GCL |
Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0212-15 |
02-Mar-15 |
04-Jun-15 |
GCL |
Pier A8A9
Safety Fence Erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0225-15 |
13-Mar-15 |
12-May-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 009
Ch.2.1E-4.2E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0266-15 |
20-Mar-15 |
30-Apr-15 |
GCL |
B8 Pier Head
Segment Erection and Formwork Installation |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0307-15 |
27-Mar-15 |
27-Sep-15 |
GCL |
For Load
unload at NLH near Viaduct D |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0326-15 |
30-Mar-15 |
31-May-15 |
GCL |
B9-B16 Pier
Head Segments Erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0470-14 |
29-Apr-15 |
28-Oct-15 |
GCL |
For Broad
Permit |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0489-15 |
08-May-15 |
07-Aug-15 |
GCL |
B8 Pier Head
Temp Works Lifting |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0491-15 |
08-May-15 |
30-Jun-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 009
Ch.2.1E-4.2E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0539-15 |
14-May-15 |
31-Jul-15 |
GCL |
B9-B16 Pier
Head Segments Erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0691-15 |
23-Jun-15 |
22-Dec-15 |
GCL |
For Broad
Permit |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0769-15 |
15-Jul-15 |
30-Sep-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 009
Ch.2.1E-4.2E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0809-15 |
29-Jul-15 |
29-Jan-16 |
GCL |
For Plant
mobilization using tractor with trailer |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0854-15 |
12-Aug-14 |
15-Feb-16 |
GCL |
Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0855-15 |
12-Aug-15 |
11-Feb-16 |
GCL |
Pier
construction at C7, D8, D9 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0911-15 |
27-Aug-15 |
26-Feb-16 |
GCL |
Broad Permit
for Seg. Launching at Land Portion |
|
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-RS1054-15 |
30-Sep-15 |
29-Mar-16 |
GCL |
For Load
unload at NLH near Viaduct D |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1086-15 |
07-Oct-15 |
15-Dec-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 009
Ch.2.1E-4.2E |
|
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-RS1144-15 |
20-Oct-15 |
19-Feb-16 |
GCL |
For Broad
Permit |
|
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 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1225-14 |
31-Oct-14 |
02-May-15 |
GCL |
For Broad
Permit |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1383-14 |
15-Dec-14 |
28-Feb-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case
060-12 Ch.1.0-4.2 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1386-14 |
15-Dec-14 |
15-Mar-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 009
Ch.2.3E-4.2E |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1403-14 |
15-Dec-14 |
28-Feb-15 |
GCL |
TTA Case 050
Series Airport Rd to NLH Ch.5.3 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1406-15 |
30 Mar-15 |
31-May-15 |
GCL |
B9-B16 Pier
Head Segments Erection |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RW0093-15 |
26-Feb-15 |
26-Aug-15 |
GCL |
General
works at WA5 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RW0695-15 |
30-Jun-15 |
30-Nov-15 |
GCL |
Segment
Erection between B6-B11 by LG1 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RW0861-15 |
13-Aug-15 |
30-Sep-15 |
GCL |
Portal beam
installation at Pier D14 |
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RW0640-14 |
28 Aug 2014 |
27 Feb 2015 |
GCL |
General works at WA5 |
|
Construction Noise Permit for
night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS1032-14 |
25 Sep 2014 |
28 Mar 2015 |
GCL |
For Load unload at NLH near
Viaduct D |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RW0422-15 |
21 Aug 2015 |
25 Jan 2016 |
GCL |
General works
at WA5 |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0206-15 |
24-Feb-15 |
30-Apr-15 |
GCL |
B9-B16 Pier
Head Segments Erection |
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7017735 |
10-Jul-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
Waste
disposal in Contract HY/2012/07 |
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7019470 |
03-Mar-14 |
N/A |
GCL |
Vessel CHIT
Account |
|
Dumping
Permit/ Loading Permit (Type 1 – Open Sea Disposal) |
(4) in
EP/MD/14-075 |
25-Sep-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
- |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-066 |
28-Jul-14 |
27-Jan-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-186 |
01-Jan-15 |
31-Jan-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-203 |
28-Jan-15 |
27-Jul-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-234 |
27-Feb-15 |
31-Mar-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-248 |
27-Mar-15 |
26-Apr-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-257 |
02-Apr-15 |
07-Oct-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-002 |
17-Apr-15 |
26-May-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-020 |
22-May-15 |
26-Jun-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-049 |
22-Jul-15 |
26-Aug-15 |
GCL |
For dumping Type
I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-071 |
19-Aug-15 |
26-Sep-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-089 |
22-Sep-15 |
26-Oct-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-102 |
13-Oct-15 |
16-Apr-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-112 |
22-Oct-15 |
29-Nov-15 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/15-161 |
25-Nov-14 |
31-Dec-14 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
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 |
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.
There was no exceedance in noise, 1-hour and 24-hour
TSP 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 Nineteenth Monthly EM&A Report.
There were a
total of five (5) Action and Limit Levels exceedances for impact dolphin
monitoring in the reporting period, whereas both NEL and NWL regions each
recorded one (1) Action Level exceedance, and three (3) Limit Level exceedances
for the whole monitoring region were recorded. 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 investigation reports
were presented in Appendix N of Fourth to Seventh 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 June 2015 regarding to the dust emission from dump
trucks. Another complaint was
referred by EPD in October 2015 regarding to potential noise from nighttime
works. The complaints were followed
up in accordance with the complaint handling procedure. Proper mitigation measures were
recommended to the Contractor to minimize the corresponding impacts. The detailed investigation reports were
presented in the Appendix N of the Twentieth and Twenty-fourth 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 in
order to review the validity of EIA predictions.
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, although the monitoring stations were relocated closer
to the Project area, average TSP
levels measured during the impact monitoring were lower than those TSP levels
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 Contract 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/ASR9 (1-hour TSP) |
205 (1)
/240 |
241 |
462 |
220 |
103 |
|
ASR8/ASR9 (24-hour TSP) |
83 (1)
/ 108 |
133 |
113 |
74 |
71 |
|
ASR8A (1-hour TSP) |
293 / 205 (1) |
298 |
464 |
222 |
87 |
|
ASR8A (24-hour TSP) |
105 /83 (1) |
104 |
128 |
74 |
60 |
|
Note: 1. EIA prediction of maximum of ASR8 is presented for reference. 2. Scenario 1 of EIA prediction is adopted, in which north and south
reclamations of TMCLKL were included in the modelling. 3. EIA predictions and baseline monitoring results of ASR9A and ASR9C
are applied to ASR8A and ASR8/ASR9 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 |
56.8 |
59.5 |
62.3 |
|
Note: 1. EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL. Baseline and impact
monitoring were measured in Leq,30min. |
||||
The marine platform erection, piling and pier construction
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 average 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 were higher than the averaged results of baseline
monitoring, including upstream control stations (i.e. CS(Mf)3
for mid-ebb tide and CS(Mf)5 for mid-flood tide). Thus, the impact monitoring results are
considered influenced by fluctuation of background regional water quality
instead of indicating any unacceptable impacts from the Project.
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 |
Mid-ebb |
8.8 |
14.8 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
9.2 |
14.4 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
14.3 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
14.1 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
14.2 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
14.2 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
14.1 |
|
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Mid-flood |
12.4 |
14.2 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
11.5 |
14.1 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
13.8 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
13.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
13.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
13.9 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
13.7 |
According to the baseline results in the Appendix F of the approved EIA Report, the dolphin groups were
largely sighted near the waters around Lung Kwu Chau
and Sha Chau. There was no dolphin
sighted 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, transitional 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 the four periods are statistically
significant (see Section 3.3.4 of Appendix G), the distribution pattern was still similar
between the impact monitoring period and before the commencement (i.e.
transition period in 2012 – 2013) of this Contract. 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.
In general, wastes generated from the construction
activities including C&D materials (inert and non-inert), chemical wastes,
recyclable materials and marine sediments, the waste generation was in line
with the EIA predictions. The
summary of waste generation amount is presented in Table 2.26.
From the Project commencement to the end of this
reporting period, category L of marine sediment was generated within the
predicted amount in EIA (0.1 Mm3). Although the relatively small amount of
category M marine sediment from marine bridge foundation was not anticipated in
EIA, all sediment disposals could still be undertaken in accordance with
agreement from Marine Fill Committee and the corresponding marine dumping permits
(Table 2.27).
Until the end of the reporting period, cumulative
inert construction material was generated within the predicted amounts in EIA
(0.56 Mm3 for cut slopes and 0.03 Mm3 for excavation
material in EIA). The Contractor also
reused the inert construction waste in this Contract where possible, which is
also a fulfillment of EIA recommendation.
The EM&A monitoring programme has been reviewed
and was considered effective and adequate to cater for the nature of works in
progress. No further 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
upcoming construction activities are mainly associated with air quality, noise,
marine water quality, marine ecology and waste management issues.
This Second Annual EM&A
Report presents the findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the
period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015, in accordance with the Updated
EM&A Manual and the requirements of the Environmental Permits (EP-354/2009/D and EP-353/2009/I).
One (1) Action Level Exceedance for depth-averaged SS
was recorded in the reporting period which is considered not related to the
Contract upon future investigation.
Neither Action Level nor Limit Level exceedances were observed for DO,
turbidity, 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise monitoring in this reporting
period.
A total of 54 groups of 229 Chinese White Dolphins
(CWDs) were sighted. Two
(2) Action Level exceedance for both NEL and NWL regions, and three (3) Limit
Level exceedances were recorded for 4 sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data
between November 2014 and October 2015, whilst 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.
Two (2) environmental complaints regarding dust
emission and potential noise from night time works were received during this
reporting period. No 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. In general, the monitoring results were
in line with EIA predictions.
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
([3])
The Proposal of Alternative Dust and Noise Monitoring Stations with the
agreement letter from IEC and SOR was submitted to EPD on 2 December 2014, and
subsequently replied with no objection on 4 December 2014.
([4])
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