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 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
No. HY/2010/02 under Environmental
Permit No. EP-353/2009/K and
EP-354/2009/D. 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/K and
EP-354/2009/D was handed-over to Contract
No. HY/2012/07. Another part of the southern landfall
area under EP-354/2009/D was handed-over
to Contract No. HY/2012/07 after
completion of reclamation works by Contract
No. HY/2010/02 in June 2016.
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 Third Annual EM&A Report presenting
the EM&A works carried out during the period from 1 November 2015 to 31
October 2016 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
·
Construction and installation of pile caps;
·
Uninstallation of marine piling platform;
·
Pier construction;
·
Launching gantry operation;
·
Installation of deck segment and pier head segment; and
·
Construction of marine section of berth at Southern
Landfall.
·
Land-based Works
·
Construction and installation of pile caps;
·
Pier construction;
·
Re-alignment of Cheung Tung Road;
·
Predrilling at Viaduct F;
·
Additional land ground investigation (GI), trial pits and
laboratory testing;
·
Installation of pier head and deck segments;
·
Slope work of Viaducts A, B & C;
·
Construction of land section of berth at Southern
Landfall;
·
Relocation of MTRC fence; and
·
Road works along North Lantau Highway
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour TSP monitoring 68
sessions at ASR8A
68
sessions at ASR9
1-hour TSP monitoring 68
sessions at ASR8A
68
sessions at ASR9
Noise monitoring 68
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
No
exceedance of Action and Limit Levels was recorded for water quality monitoring
in the reporting.
Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
Two (2) Action Level and three (3) Limit
Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for four
(4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2015 and October
2016. 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. No
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was implemented as the marine piling works
were not carried out outside the daylight hours in this reporting period. No sighting of the Chinese White Dolphin
was recorded in the monitoring period during the exclusion zone monitoring.
Environmental
Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons
There was one (1) complaint received from EPD on 22
September 2016 regarding effluent discharge from flat top barge in the
reporting period. Upon
investigation, there was no adequate evidence to conclude that the complaint
case was related to this Project.
There was
no notification of summons or successful prosecution recorded 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.
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). Ramboll
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. 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 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
No. HY/2010/02 under Environmental
Permit No. EP-353/2009/K and
EP-354/2009/D. 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/K and
EP-354/2009/D was handed-over to Contract
No. HY/2012/07. Another part of the southern landfall
area under EP-354/2009/D was
handed-over to Contract No. HY/2012/07
after completion of reclamation works by Contract
No. HY/2010/02 in June 2016.
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 Third 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 2015 to 31 October
2016.
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 |
|
HyD (Highways Department) |
Project Coordinator |
Stanley Chan |
2762 3406 |
3188 6614 |
|
|
Senior Engineer |
Steven Shum |
2762 4133 |
3188 6614 |
|
SOR (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
Chief Resident Engineer |
Daniel Ip |
3553 3800 |
2492 2057 |
|
|
Resident Engineer |
Kingman Chan |
3691 3950 |
3691 2899 |
|
ENPO / IEC (Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Ltd.) |
ENPO Leader |
Y.H. Hui |
3465 2850 |
3465 2899 |
|
IEC |
Dr. F.C. Tsang |
3465 2851 |
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
·
Construction and installation of pile caps;
·
Uninstallation of marine piling platform;
·
Pier construction;
·
Launching gantry operation;
·
Installation of deck segment and pier head segment; and
·
Construction of marine section of berth at Southern
Landfall.
Land-based Works
·
Construction and installation of pile caps;
·
Pier construction;
·
Re-alignment of Cheung Tung Road;
·
Predrilling at Viaduct F;
·
Additional land Ground Investigation (GI), trial pits and
laboratory testing;
·
Installation of pier head and deck segments;
·
Slope work of Viaducts A, B & C;
·
Construction of land section of berth at Southern Landfall;
·
Relocation of MTRC fence; and
·
Road works along North Lantau Highway
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.
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 in every six (6) days and impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out
once in every six (6) days when the highest dust impact was expected.
High
Volume Samplers (HVSs) were installed at two alternative air quality monitoring
stations for carrying out 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting
period. The wind sensor was installed
at ASR8A (Area
4) for logging wind speed and wind direction in the reporting period. Details of the equipment deployed in air
quality monitoring are provided in Table
2.2.
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 2015 to 31 October 2016 |
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
TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour every 6 days |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASR9 |
From 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016 |
Entrance of MTRC Depot |
On ground at the entrance |
Note:
(1) Air Quality Monitoring Stations ASR9A and ASR9C at Siu
Ho Wan MTRC Depot proposed in accordance with the Updated EM&A were relocated
to ASR9 and ASR8A 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 Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports. Air Quality Monitoring on 20 October
2016 was postponed to 26 October 2016 due to adverse weather conditions.
The major dust sources in the reporting period
included construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby traffic
emissions.
A total of 68 events were undertaken at ASR8A and ASR9
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.
The impact monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and
24-hour TSP in the reporting period are summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4,
respectively. Baseline and impact
monitoring are presented graphically in Appendix D. The detailed impact monitoring data and
meteorological information were reported in the Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth 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 2015 |
ASR
8A |
91 |
54 - 157 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
105 |
53 - 181 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Dec 2015 |
ASR
8A |
92 |
62 - 131 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
94 |
57 – 145 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jan 2016 |
ASR
8A |
71 |
49 - 118 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
63 |
45 - 111 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Feb 2016 |
ASR
8A |
89 |
39 - 153 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
105 |
39 – 172 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Mar 2016 |
ASR
8A |
129 |
58 - 259 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
106 |
65 - 182 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Apr 2016 |
ASR
8A |
100 |
44 - 224 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
86 |
62 - 129 |
393 |
500 |
|
May 2016 |
ASR
8A |
82 |
44 - 187 |
394 |
500 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
95 |
62 – 146 |
393 |
500 |
|
Jun 2016 |
ASR
8A |
58 |
48 - 69 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
59 |
48 – 87 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Jul 2016 |
ASR
8A |
57 |
47 - 69 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
68 |
44 - 107 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Aug 2016 |
ASR
8A |
61 |
41 - 116 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
75 |
45 - 114 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Sept 2016 |
ASR
8A |
84 |
48 - 177 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
110 |
53 - 205 |
393 |
500 |
|
|
Oct 2016 |
ASR
8A |
77 |
43 - 107 |
394 |
500 |
|
ASR
9 |
82 |
54 - 122 |
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 2015 |
ASR
8A |
64 |
51 - 91 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
74 |
55 - 98 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Dec 2015 |
ASR
8A |
64 |
54 – 81 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
78 |
65 - 113 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jan 2016 |
ASR
8A |
54 |
47 - 64 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
56 |
49 - 64 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Feb 2016 |
ASR
8A |
64 |
51 – 100 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
73 |
55 – 114 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Mar 2016 |
ASR
8A |
76 |
59 – 112 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
73 |
56 – 111 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Apr 2016 |
ASR
8A |
57 |
43 – 81 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
59 |
51 – 73 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
May 2016 |
ASR
8A |
55 |
44 – 71 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
60 |
50 – 73 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jun 2016 |
ASR
8A |
45 |
40 – 50 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
46 |
40 – 56 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Jul 2016 |
ASR
8A |
46 |
43 – 50 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
55 |
42 – 102 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Aug 2016 |
ASR
8A |
48 |
44 – 53 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
59 |
45 – 101 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Sept 2016 |
ASR
8A |
60 |
44 – 83 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
71 |
50 – 106 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
Oct
2016 |
ASR
8A |
49 |
43 - 52 |
178 |
260 |
|
|
ASR
9 |
59 |
48 - 67 |
178 |
260 |
||
|
|
||||||
As shown in Table
2.5, the annual-averaged 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. The annual-averaged levels of TSP level
are presented in Table 2.5 and the
statistical results are presented in Table
2.6.
For 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP at ASR8A and 1-hour TSP
at ASR9, the TSP levels in the reporting period were significantly lower than
the baseline levels. There was no
significant difference in 24-hour TSP levels at ASR9 between baseline and
impact monitoring.
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 |
|
ASR9 (1-hour TSP) |
220 |
88 |
|
ASR9 (24-hour TSP) |
74 |
64 |
|
ASR8A (1-hour TSP) |
222 |
83 |
|
ASR8A (24-hour TSP) |
74 |
57 |
Table
2.6 One-way ANOVA Results for annual-averaged level of TSP level
Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods
|
Monitoring
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
ASR9 (1-hour TSP) |
F 1,244
= 244 |
<0.01 |
|
ASR9 (24-hour TSP) |
F 1,80
= 3.8 |
0.05 |
|
ASR8A (1-hour TSP) |
F 1,244
= 234 |
<0.01 |
|
ASR8A (24-hour TSP) |
F 1,80
= 11.9 |
<0.01 |
Note:
By setting α at
0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.
In addition,
linear regression was conducted to examine any relationship between TSP levels
and time[JT1]
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
2.7, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant
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
in this monitoring period.
Table 2.7 Linear Regression
Result of TSP Monitoring
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F-ratio |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient |
|
1-hour TSP |
ASR8A |
0.048 |
10.3 |
<0.001 |
159 |
-0.084 |
|
ASR9 |
0.015 |
3.1 |
<0.001 |
123 |
-0.039 |
|
|
24-hour TSP |
ASR8A |
0.123 |
9.3 |
<0.001 |
102 |
-0.049 |
|
ASR9 |
0.064 |
4.5 |
<0.001 |
104 |
-0.044 |
|
|
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. |
||||||
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 ([3])
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.
Noise monitoring was conducted at the alternative
noise monitoring station, NSR1A (Pak Mong Village
Pavilion) during the reporting period in accordance with the requirement stipulated in the Updated
EM&A Manual. Details of the monitoring stations are provided in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.8.
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 the designated monitoring station. Details of the equipment deployed in noise monitoring are provided in Table 2.9.
Table 2.8 Location
of Impact Noise Monitoring Station and Monitoring Dates in this Reporting
Period
|
Monitoring
Station |
Monitoring
Period |
Location |
Parameters
& Frequency |
|
NSR1A |
From 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016 |
Entrance of Pak Mong
Village |
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 |
|
Note: (1) Noise Monitoring Station NSR1 at Pak Mong Village proposed in accordance with the Updated
EM&A was relocated to NSR1A. |
|||
Table 2.9 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 Twenty-fifth
to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports. Noise Monitoring on 20 October 2016 was
postponed to 26 October 2016 due to adverse weather conditions.
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 the monitoring stations in the reporting period, thus no action was
required to be taken in accordance with the Event Action Plan.
The impact monitoring results for noise monitoring in
the reporting period are summarized in Table
2.10. Baseline and impact
monitoring are presented graphically in Appendix E. The detailed impact monitoring data was
reported in the Twenty-fifth to
Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports.
Table 2.10 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring
Results at NSR1A in the Reporting Period[JT2]
|
Month |
Average , dB(A), Leq
(30mins) |
Range, dB(A), Leq
(30mins) |
Limit Level, dB(A), Leq
(30mins) |
|
Nov 2015 |
59 |
57 – 60 |
75 |
|
Dec 2015 |
60 |
59 – 62 |
75 |
|
Jan 2016 |
61 |
59 – 62 |
75 |
|
Feb 2016 |
60 |
58 – 63 |
75 |
|
Mar 2016 |
59 |
58 – 61 |
75 |
|
Apr 2016 |
59 |
58 – 61 |
75 |
|
May 2016 |
60 |
59 – 61 |
75 |
|
Jun 2016 |
59 |
59 - 60 |
75 |
|
Jul 2016 |
59 |
56 - 60 |
75 |
|
Aug 2016 |
60 |
58 - 62 |
75 |
|
Sep 2016 |
60 |
58 - 62 |
75 |
|
Oct 2016 |
61 |
60 - 62 |
75 |
|
Note: Noise Monitoring Station NSR1 was relocated to NSR1A
since December 2014. |
|||
As shown in Table
2.11, the annual-averaged noise level in the reporting period was higher
than the average baseline levels at the monitoring station.
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. The statistical results are presented in
Tables 2.12. Difference in noise level between
reporting and baseline monitoring periods was significant, in which the
annual-averaged noise level in the reporting period was slightly higher than
average baseline level. However,
all monitoring results in the reporting period complied with the Action/Limit
Levels.
In general, noise levels recorded in the reporting period were mostly
comparable to the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period. No specific trend of the noise
monitoring results or existence of persistent noise impact from the Contract
during the impact monitoring period was noticeable. The ET will keep track on the future
noise monitoring results during construction phase.
Table 2.11 Summary of Average Levels
of Noise Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in dB(A))
|
Monitoring
Station |
Average Baseline Monitoring |
Average Impact Monitoring |
|
NSR1A |
56 |
60 |
Table 2.12 One-way ANOVA Results for
Annual-averaged Level of Noise Level Comparison between Impact and Baseline
Periods
|
Monitoring
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
NSR1A |
F 1,354
= 139 |
<0.01 |
Note:
By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant
difference) are bold.
In addition, linear regression was conducted to
examine any relationship between noise levels and time during this yearly
monitoring period at the designated noise monitoring station. The method of data interpretation
followed the same method as indicated in Section
2.1.4 for TSP monitoring. As
shown in Table 2.13, results of the
regression analysis indicated that there was no significant 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 during this yearly
monitoring period.
Table 2.13 Linear Regression Result
of Noise Monitoring
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F-ratio |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient |
|
Leq 30min |
NSR1A |
0.007 |
0.482 |
<0.001 |
59 |
0.001 |
|
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. |
||||||
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 ([4]) 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 mid-ebb and mid-flood tides in the construction period at seven water
quality monitoring stations in accordance with the Updated EM&A
Manual. Details of monitoring
stations are provided in Figure 2.3 and Table 2.14.
Table 2.14 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. |
||||||
Details
of the equipment deployed in water quality monitoring are provided in Table 2.15.
Table 2.15 Water
Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand
and Model |
|
DO, Temperature meter and Salinity |
YSI Pro2030 |
|
Turbidimeter |
HACH Model 2100Q |
|
pH meter |
Thermo Scientific Orion 2 Star / 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 Event
Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.
The schedules for water quality monitoring in the
reporting period are provided in the Twenty-fifth
to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports. Water quality monitoring on 09 February
2016 was cancelled due to suspension of marine works during holiday. Water Quality Monitoring scheduled on 2
August 2016 and 18 October 2016 were canceled due to adverse weather
conditions.
Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all
designated monitoring stations in the reporting period. The detailed impact water quality
monitoring data was reported in the Twenty-fifth
to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports.
In this reporting period, a total of 153 monitoring
events were undertaken.
Neither Action Level nor Limit Level exceedance was recorded at the
monitoring stations in the reporting period. No action is thus required to be
undertaken in accordance with the Event Action Plan.
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-averaged levels of DO, Turbidity and SS are presented in Tables 2.16 to 2.18 and the statistical results are presented in Tables 2.19 to 2.21. Baseline and
impact monitoring results are presented graphically in Appendix F.
In the reporting period, most of the annual-averaged
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 and 2.19). The annual depth-averaged
turbidity level recorded during the reporting period were mostly comparable to
the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period (see Table 2.17 and 2.20). In the reporting period, most of the
annual-averaged SS levels recorded were comparable to the baseline monitoring
results, except for IS(Mf)16 during mid-flood tide and SR4a during mid-ebb tide
and mid-flood tide in which annual-averaged SS levels were significantly higher
than the corresponding average baseline levels (see Table 2.18 and 2.21). In general, DO, turbidity and SS levels
were varied across sampling months (see Appendix F) and
these variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting
period. The graphical plots of the
trends of the monitoring results suggested that there was no specific trend in
the overall water quality monitoring.
Table 2.16 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 |
6.7 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.6 |
6.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.6 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.6 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.6 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.8 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
6.5 |
6.7 |
|
|
IS8 |
Surface |
6.4 |
6.7 |
|
|
SR4 |
Surface |
6.3 |
6.7 |
|
|
SR4a |
Surface |
5.5 |
6.7 |
|
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.3 |
6.6 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
6.1 |
6.6 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.4 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
6.6 |
6.5 |
|
|
IS8 |
Bottom |
6.2 |
6.5 |
|
|
SR4 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.5 |
|
|
SR4a |
Bottom |
5.3 |
6.5 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.5 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
6.7 |
6.6 |
|
|
IS8 |
Bottom |
6.3 |
6.6 |
|
|
SR4 |
Bottom |
6.2 |
6.5 |
|
|
SR4a |
Bottom |
5.2 |
6.6 |
Table 2.17 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 |
9.4 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
8.2 |
9.2 |
|
|
IS8 |
8.4 |
9.1 |
|
|
SR4 |
8.9 |
9.1 |
|
|
SR4a |
8.9 |
9.1 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
9.1 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.2 |
8.9 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.9 |
8.9 |
|
|
SR4 |
10.3 |
8.8 |
|
|
SR4a |
7.8 |
8.9 |
Table 2.18 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 |
13.0 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
12.8 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
12.7 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
12.6 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
12.7 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
12.6 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
12.4 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
12.3 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
12.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
12.3 |
Table 2.19 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
= 9.6 |
0.002 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 0.1 |
0.728 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 3.4 |
0.068 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 21.0 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 111.5 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 19.8 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Surface |
F 1,161
= 2.0 |
0.155 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 10.0 |
0.002 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 13.7 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Surface |
F 1,163
= 113.2 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F 1,158
= 2.5 |
0.116 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Middle |
F 1,159
= 20.7 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 19.8 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 0.2 |
0.628 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 10.0 |
0.002 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F 1,160
= 13.7 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 113.2 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 19.9 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
Bottom |
F 1,161
=0.4 |
0.546 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 6.0 |
0.015 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
Bottom |
F 1,161
=10.7 |
0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
Bottom |
F 1,163
= 163.1 |
<0.001 |
Note:
By setting α at 0.05, p-values <0.05 (significant
difference) are bold.
Table 2.20 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
= 0.5 |
0.460 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 1.8 |
0.181 |
|
|
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 1.3 |
0.252 |
|
|
SR4 |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.859 |
|
|
SR4a |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.786 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F 1,163
= 11.5 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 3.1 |
0.081 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 18.4 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F 1,163
= 4.8 |
0.030 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 3.2 |
0.076 |
Note:
By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant
difference) are bold.
Table 2.21 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 = 3.0 |
0.085 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 3.9 |
0.051 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 2.1 |
0.145 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4 |
F 1,163
= 2.7 |
0.105 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 12.2 |
<0.001 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)16 |
F 1,163
= 6.5 |
0.012 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS(Mf)9 |
F 1,163
= 5.4 |
0.021 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS8 |
F 1,163
= 1.7 |
0.192 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4 |
F 1,163
< 0.1 |
0.938 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR4a |
F 1,163
= 7.4 |
0.007 |
|
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 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 2.22 to 2.24, results of the regression analysis
indicated that there was no significant 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 in
this reporting period.
Table 2.22 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 |
0.036 |
5.6 |
0.019 |
6.19 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.049 |
7.8 |
0.006 |
6.10 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.034 |
5.3 |
0.023 |
6.15 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.035 |
6.6 |
0.011 |
6.09 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.033 |
5.2 |
0.024 |
6.14 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
Mid-flood surface DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.031 |
4.8 |
0.030 |
6.28 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.038 |
5.9 |
0.016 |
6.21 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.027 |
4.2 |
0.043 |
6.24 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.032 |
5.0 |
0.026 |
6.21 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.036 |
5.7 |
0.019 |
6.19 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
Mid-ebb middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.026 |
4.1 |
0.045 |
6.07 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
Mid-flood middle DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.026 |
4.0 |
0.047 |
6.16 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
Mid-ebb bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.043 |
6.7 |
0.010 |
5.84 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.032 |
4.9 |
0.028 |
6.03 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.042 |
6.7 |
0.011 |
5.92 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.050 |
7.9 |
0.006 |
5.85 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.041 |
6.5 |
0.012 |
5.90 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
Mid-flood bottom DO |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.039 |
6.1 |
0.015 |
5.93 |
<0.001 |
|
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.023 |
3.6 |
0.059 |
6.16 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
IS8 |
0.125 |
3.4 |
0.066 |
6.12 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4 |
0.113 |
4.3 |
0.040 |
6.06 |
<0.001 |
|
||
|
SR4a |
0.143 |
5.7 |
0.018 |
6.02 |
<0.001 |
|
||
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.
Table 2.23 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 |
0.030 |
4.6 |
0.033 |
12.59 |
-0.004 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.032 |
5.0 |
0.027 |
12.60 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.018 |
2.8 |
0.097 |
11.59 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.010 |
1.6 |
0.214 |
10.90 |
-0.002 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.022 |
3.4 |
0.068 |
11.61 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Mid-flood depth-averaged turbidity |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.024 |
3.6 |
0.059 |
11.7 |
-0.003 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.020 |
3.1 |
0.082 |
11.4 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.010 |
1.5 |
0.222 |
10.5 |
-0.002 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.006 |
1.0 |
0.328 |
10.1 |
-0.001 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.014 |
2.2 |
0.144 |
10.7 |
-0.002 |
|
|
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. |
||||||
Table 2.24 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 |
0.050 |
8.0 |
0.088 |
18.95 |
-0.007 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.043 |
6.8 |
0.208 |
18.43 |
-0.006 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.026 |
4.0 |
0.211 |
16.84 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.027 |
4.3 |
0.202 |
16.99 |
-0.005 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.037 |
5.8 |
0.108 |
17.22 |
-0.005 |
|
|
Mid-flood depth-averaged SS |
IS(Mf)16 |
0.039 |
6.2 |
0.014 |
17.59 |
-0.005 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
0.028 |
4.3 |
0.039 |
16.58 |
-0.005 |
|
|
IS8 |
0.014 |
2.1 |
0.148 |
14.98 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR4 |
0.021 |
3.3 |
0.072 |
15.82 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR4a |
0.021 |
3.2 |
0.074 |
15.50 |
-0.004 |
Note:
1. Dependent variable is
set as suspended solids (in mg/L) and independent variable is set as number of day
of construction works.
2. R2 values of insignificant regression
model 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 Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin
Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) from the Contract. 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 monthly basis is adopted
to avoid duplicates of survey effort.
Table 2.25
summarizes the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.
Table 2.25 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 |
The dolphin monitoring covered 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 were 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 2.26 below.
Table 2.26 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates
|
Line
No. |
Easting |
Northing |
Line
No. |
Easting |
Northing |
||
|
1 |
Start Point |
804671 |
815456 |
13 |
Start Point |
816506 |
819480 |
|
1 |
End Point |
804671 |
831404 |
13 |
End Point |
816506 |
824859 |
|
2 |
Start Point |
805475 |
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 |
820880 |
19 |
Start Point |
822513 |
823268 |
|
7 |
End Point |
810499 |
824613 |
19 |
End Point |
822513 |
824321 |
|
8 |
Start Point |
811508 |
821123 |
20 |
Start Point |
823477 |
823402 |
|
8 |
End Point |
811508 |
824254 |
20 |
End Point |
823477 |
824613 |
|
9 |
Start Point |
812516 |
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 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
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 Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Reports.
A
total of 3,598.07 km of survey effort was collected, with 92.7% 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,
1,373.63 km and 2,224.44 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL
survey areas, respectively. The
total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 2,609.11 km while the effort
on secondary lines was 988.96 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 2015 to October 2016, a total of 45 groups of 168 Chinese White
Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. In
this 12-month period, all except seven (7) dolphin sightings were made during
on-effort search. Thirty-three (33)
out of 38 on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines, while five
(5) 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
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, transitional and first year of impact phases as shown in Table 2.27.
Table 2.27 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 (2015-16, this reporting period) |
0.00 |
2.10 ± 1.83 |
0.00 |
8.54 ± 8.53 |
|
Impact
Phase (2014-15) |
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 2015 – October 2016), the first two years of
impact phases (November 2013 – October 2015),
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 1-12
individuals per group in North Lantau region during November 2015 - October
2016. The average dolphin group
sizes from the 12-month impact phase monitoring period were compared with the
ones deduced from baseline and transitional and first two years of impact
phases, as shown in Table 2.28.
Table 2.28 Comparison of
Average Dolphin Group Size
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
||
|
Overall |
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
|
|
Impact Phase (2015-16,
this reporting period) |
3.73 ± 3.14 (n = 45) |
1.00 (n = 1) |
3.80 ± 3.14 (n = 44) |
|
Impact Phase (2014-15) |
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 2015– October 2016, the first two years of impact phases
(November 2013 – October 2015), 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 and three (3) Limit
Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for four (4) sets
of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2015 and October 2016. In this
reporting period, no unacceptable impact from the activities of this Contract
on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from 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
Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth Monthly EM&A Report.
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken during the period of marine
works under this Contract. No
sighting of Chinese White Dolphin was recorded in the monitoring period during
the exclusion zone monitoring.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was
not undertaken in this reporting period as no marine piling works was carried
out outside the daylight hours since September 2015. Daytime marine mammal exclusion zone was
still in effect to cater for temporary staging installation and uninstallation
works.
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 Twenty-fifth to
Thirty-sixth 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), recyclable materials and
chemical waste. 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 2.29.
Table 2.29 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
2015 |
204 |
642 |
725 |
64,740 |
98 |
2,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Dec
2015 |
198 |
0 |
516 |
66,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jan
2016 |
1,334 |
0 |
606 |
69,400 |
105 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Feb
2016 |
692 |
0 |
92 |
85,890 |
112 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Mar
2016 |
965 |
0 |
537 |
88,360 |
0 |
2,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Apr
2016 |
565 |
0 |
789 |
79,580 |
8,724 |
3,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
May
2016 |
440 |
0 |
617 |
75,620 |
0 |
3,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jun 2016 |
383 |
0 |
116 |
103,270 |
105 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jul 2016 |
277 |
0 |
230 |
94,760 |
1,890 |
2,200 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Aug 2016 |
610 |
0 |
684 |
116,990 |
9,888 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Sept 2016 |
2,314 |
0 |
270 |
130,060 |
105 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Oct 2016 |
2,183 |
0 |
156 |
141,300 |
28 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total |
10,165 |
0 |
5,279 |
1,115,970 |
21,055 |
12,200 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
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 2.30 below.
Table 2.30 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-353/2009/K
|
11-Apr-16 |
N/A |
HyD |
Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities |
|
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 for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0691-15 GW-RS1144-15 GW-RS0080-16 GW-RS0383-16 GW-RS1045-16 |
23-Jun-15 20-Oct-15 01-Feb-16 20-Apr-16 14-Oct-16 |
22-Dec-15 19-Feb-16 30-Apr-16 19-Oct-16 13-Apr-17 |
GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL |
For Broad
Permit For Broad
Permit For Broad
Permit For Broad
Permit For
Broad Permit |
|
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 Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0854-15 GW-RS0109-16 GW-RS0718-16 GW-RS1044-16 |
12-Aug-14 05-Feb-16 13-Jul-16 14-Oct-16 |
15-Feb-16 14-Aug-16 13-Jan-17 13-Apr-17 |
GCL GCL GCL GCL |
Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 Pre-casted
pile cap shell installation at E8-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 Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays |
GW-RS0911-15 GW-RS0056-16 GW-RS0279-16 GW-RW0504-16 GW-RW0707-16 GW-RS0958-16 |
27-Aug-15 1-Feb-16 29-Mar-16 25-May-16 11-Jul-16 15-Sep-16 |
26-Feb-16 31-Mar-16 30-May-16 31-Aug-16 30-Sep-16 30-Nov-16 |
GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL |
Broad Permit
for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit
for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit
for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit
for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit
for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad
Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion |
|
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-RS1046-15 |
04-Jan-16 |
31-Jan-16 |
GCL |
Erection of
GT324, GT326-GT328 sign gantry leg |
|
Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction
Noise Permit for night works and works in general holiday |
GW-RW0422-15 GW-RW0045-16 GW-RW0339-16 |
21-Aug-15 27-Jan-16 17-Jun-16 |
25-Jan-16 25-Jul-16 19-Dec-16 |
GCL GCL GCL |
General
works at WA5 General
works at WA5 General
works at WA5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7017735 |
10-Jul-13 |
N/A |
GCL |
- |
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7019470 |
03-Mar-14 |
N/A |
GCL |
Vessel CHIT
Account |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-102 |
13-Oct-15 |
16-Apr-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit Marine
Dumping Permit Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-138 EP/MD/17-037 EP/MD/17-115 |
10-Dec-15 14-Jun-16 20-Oct-16 |
13-Jun-16 13-Dec-16 31-Dec-16 |
GCL GCL GCL |
For dumping
Type I sediment For dumping
Type I sediment 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/16-134 |
27-Nov-15 |
29-Dec-15 |
GCL |
For dumping Type
I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-147 EP/MD/16-166 |
18-Dec-15 25-Jan-16 |
29-Jan-16 29-Feb-16 |
GCL GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment For dumping Type
I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-186 |
26-Feb-16 |
31-Mar-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/16-203 |
29-Mar-16 |
30-Apr-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-028 |
31-May-16 |
30-Jun-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-047 |
22-Jun-16 |
31-Jul-16 |
GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-066 EP/MD/17-084 |
19-Jul-16 22-Aug-16 |
31-Aug-16 30-Sep-16 |
GCL GCL |
For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment For dumping
Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment |
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-102 |
28-Sep-16 |
31-Oct-16 |
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 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP, construction noise and water quality in the reporting period
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. 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. Detailed investigation reports were
presented in Appendix L of Eighth to Eleventh Quarterly EM&A
Reports.
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is
provided in Figure 2.5.
One (1) complaint was received in the reporting
period. The complaint was received
from EPD in September 2016 regarding effluent discharge from flat top
barge. Upon investigation, there
was no adequate evidence to conclude that the complaint case was related to
this Project. The detailed
investigation report was presented in the Appendix
N of the Thirty-fifth Monthly
EM&A Report.
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.
Air quality monitoring for this Contract was
undertaken during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. As identified in
the TM-CLKL EIA Report, key construction activities of this Contract include
excavation works, road works, slope works and foundation works. Comparison of EM&A results with EIA
predictions is presented in Table 3.1. Maximum 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
levels in this yearly impact monitoring were comparable to the baseline range,
in which most of the impact and baseline TSP levels were higher than the levels
predicted in the EIA Report. The
average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP levels measured in this yearly impact
monitoring were lower than the corresponding TSP levels measured in the
baseline monitoring at all stations and thus suggested that no noticeable
deterioration of air quality was caused by the construction activities of this
Contract during the impact monitoring period.
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
Baseline Monitoring |
Maximum
Impact Monitoring |
Average
Baseline Monitoring |
Average
Impact Monitoring |
|
ASR8/ASR9 (1-hour TSP) |
205 (1)
/240 |
462 |
205 |
220 |
88 |
|
ASR8/ASR9 (24-hour TSP) |
83 (1)
/ 108 |
113 |
114 |
74 |
64 |
|
ASR8A (1-hour TSP) |
293 / 205 (1) |
464 |
259 |
222 |
83 |
|
ASR8A (24-hour TSP) |
105 /83 (1) |
128 |
112 |
74 |
57 |
|
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. |
|||||
Noise impact monitoring for this Contract was
undertaken during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Major noise sources of this Contract
during the reporting period included construction activities, nearby traffic
noise and aircraft noise.
Construction Noise Permits (CNP), as recommended in the EIA Report, were
applied and complied with when Power Mechanical Equipment (PME) was deployed
for construction works during restricted hours. The EIA assessment has predicted that
marginal impacts would be expected at the Pak Mong Village during construction
phase. Comparison of
EM&A results with EIA predictions is presented in Table 3.2. In general, the average impact noise monitoring
results recorded in the reporting period were within the range of the predicted
noise levels in the EIA Report and thus suggested that no unacceptable level of
construction noise generated from the Contract during the impact monitoring
period.
Table 3.2 Comparison of Impacts on Noise (in dB (A)) between EIA Prediction
and Impact Monitoring Period
|
Monitoring
Station |
EIA Predicted Maximum |
Maximum Impact Monitoring |
Average Baseline Monitoring |
Average Impact Monitoring |
|
NSR1 |
74 |
63.0 |
56.8 |
59.6 |
|
Note: 1. EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL.
Baseline and impact monitoring were measured in Leq,30min. |
||||
Water quality monitoring for this Contract was undertaken
during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Major construction activities of this
Contract in the reporting period included marine platform erection, piling and
pier construction works were undertaken in the monitoring period. According to EIA prediction, no SS
exceedance is anticipated from this Project at the water sensitive receivers
nearby the Contract works area (WSR 22a, WSR 22b and WSR 22c). The average baseline and impact
monitoring results are presented in Table
3.3. It is noted that most of
the annual-averaged SS levels recorded in the reporting period were comparable
to the baseline monitoring results, except for IS(Mf)16
during mid-flood tide and SR4a during mid-ebb tide and mid-flood tide in which
annual-averaged SS levels were significantly higher than the corresponding
average baseline levels, including upstream control stations (i.e. CS(Mf)3 and
CS(Mf)5 in both tides). However,
all recorded levels of depth-averaged SS were below Action and Limit
Levels. Thus, no exceedance of
Action and Limit Levels on depth-averaged SS was recorded in the reporting
period. The impact monitoring
results are considered influenced by fluctuation of background regional water
quality and no unacceptable impacts on marine water was observed caused by this
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 of this Reporting Period |
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Mid-ebb |
8.8 |
13.4 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
9.2 |
13.0 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
11.3 |
13.0 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
10.9 |
12.8 |
|
|
IS8 |
11.3 |
12.7 |
|
|
SR4 |
11.1 |
12.6 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.1 |
12.7 |
|
|
CS(Mf)3 |
Mid-flood |
12.4 |
12.8 |
|
CS(Mf)5 |
11.5 |
12.7 |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
10.4 |
12.6 |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
14.7 |
12.4 |
|
|
IS8 |
13.5 |
12.3 |
|
|
SR4 |
12.2 |
12.3 |
|
|
SR4a |
9.8 |
12.3 |
According to the baseline results in the Appendix F of
the approved EIA Report, the dolphin groups were largely sighted near 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 five periods are statistically significant (see Section 3.3.4 of Appendix G),
the distribution pattern was still similar between the impact monitoring
periods 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
and recyclable materials. The
summary of waste generation amount is presented in Table 2.29.
Waste monitoring and audit programme
has been undertaken during this reporting period. Wastes arising from this Project have
been managed in accordance with the recommendations in the EIA Report, the
EM&A Manual, the Waste Management Plan and other relevant statutory
requirements.
The requirements for construction waste management
have been reviewed and were considered as adequate. No change to the requirements was
considered to be necessary.
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 Third Annual EM&A Report
presents findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period from
1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016, in accordance with the Updated EM&A
Manual and the requirements of the Environmental Permits (EP-354/2009/D and
EP-353/2009/I).
Neither Action Level nor Limit Level exceedances were
observed for air quality, noise and water quality monitoring in this reporting
period.
A total of 45 groups of 168 Chinese White Dolphins
(CWDs) were sighted. Two
(2) Action Level exceedance and three (3) Limit Level exceedances for both NEL
and NWL regions were recorded for 4 sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data
between November 2015 and October 2016, 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.
There was one (1) complaint received from EPD on 22
September 2016 regarding effluent discharge from flat top barge in the
reporting period. Upon
investigation, there was no adequate evidence to conclude that the complaint
case was related to this Project.. 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