table of
Contents
Executive
Summary
1.1 Background
1.2 Scope of Report
1.3 Organization Structure
1.4 Summary of Construction Works
2.1 Air quality
2.2 Water Quality Monitoring
2.3 Dolphin Monitoring
2.4 Post-Translocation Coral
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
2.11 Comparison of EM&A Data
with EIA Predictions
2.12 Summary of Monitoring
Methodology and Effectiveness
2.13 Summary of Mitigation
Measures
3.1 Site Inspections & Audits
3.2 Air Quality Monitoring
3.3 Marine Water Quality Monitoring
3.4 Waste Management
3.5 Marine Ecology Monitoring
3.6 Summary of Recommendations
Appendix A Project Organization
Appendix B Environmental
Mitigation And Enhancement Measure Implementation Schedules (EMIS)
Appendix C Action And Limit
Levels
Appendix D Air Quality Monitoring
Results
Appendix E Water Quality
Monitoring Results
Appendix F Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
Appendix G Event And Action Plan
Appendix
H Cumulative Statistics
On Exceedance And Complaint
Appendix I Waste Flow Table
Executive Summary
Under Contract No. HY/2012/08,
Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture (DBJV) is
commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to
undertake the design and construction of the Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel
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) in accordance with Environmental
Permit No. EP-354/2009/A. ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and
Environmental Project Office (ENPO). Another
application for VEP (EP-354/2009/B) was granted on 28 January 2014.
The construction phase of the Project commenced on 1
November 2013 and will tentatively be completed by the end of 2018. The impact monitoring of the EM&A programme, including air quality, water quality, marine
ecological monitoring and environmental site inspections, commenced on 1
November 2013.
This
is the First Annual EM&A report presenting the EM&A works carried out
during the period from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014 for the Contract No. HY/2012/08 Northern Connection
Sub-sea Tunnel Section (the “Project”) in
accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the TM-CLK
Link Project. As informed by the
Contractor, the major activities in the reporting year included:
|
Construction
Activities Undertaken |
|
Marine-based
Works |
|
Marine Works Area – Portions N-A, N-B, N-C ·
Dredging ·
Vertical
and Sloping Seawall construction ·
Reclamation
filling Marine Works Area – Portion N-A ·
Marine
Sheet Piling for box culvert extension ·
Box
Culvert extension ·
Removal
of existing seawall and temporary pontoon installation at River Trade
Terminal (RTT) |
|
Construction
Activities Undertaken |
|
Land-based
Works |
|
Works Area - WA 23 ·
Sorting
of rock material Works Area – WA 18 ·
Site
formation works ·
Site
office construction ·
Completion
of chain-link fence ·
Site
hoarding works Works Area – N6 ·
CLP
substation construction ·
Pile
Cap Construction ·
Land
Bored Piling Reclamation Works Area – Portion N-A ·
Construction
of temporary access ·
Diaphragm
Wall Construction ·
Excavation
for North Launching Shaft ·
Land
Bored Piling Works Reclamation Works Area – Portions N-B and N-C ·
Vibro-Compaction ·
Surcharge
set up |
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour TSP Monitoring 68
sessions
1-hour TSP Monitoring 68
sessions
Impact Water Quality Monitoring 155 sessions
Impact Dolphin Monitoring 24 sessions
Joint Environmental Site Inspection 52 sessions
Post Translocation Coral Monitoring 4 sessions
Implementation
of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect during the period of dredging, reclamation or marine sheet
piling works in open waters under
this Contract. Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM) was also implemented for the detection of marine mammal when
dredging, reclamation
or marine sheet piling works were
carried out outside the daylight hours under this Contract. One sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphin Sousa chinensis
was recorded on 20 February 2014 during the exclusion zone monitoring. The marine dredging work was subsequently
suspended until the
observer has confirmed that the area is continuously clear of dolphins for a
period of 30 minutes.
Summary of Breaches of Action/Limit Levels
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Twenty-six Action Level and two Limit Level
exceedances for 1-hour TSP; five Action Level and one Limit Level exceedances
for 24-hour TSP were recorded from the air quality monitoring in this reporting
period. The exceedances were considered
to be due to the sporadic events from cumulative anthropogenic activities in
this area of Hong Kong.
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Six Action Level and one Limit
Level for depth-averaged suspended solids (SS) exceedances were recorded from
the water quality monitoring in this reporting period. The exceedances were well within the natural
range and were unlikely to be due to the construction works of this Contract
upon further investigation.
Dolphin Monitoring
Whilst five (5) Action Level exceedances were recorded
for 3 sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between October 2013 and August
2014, no unacceptable impact from the construction activities of the TM-CLKL
Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section on Chinese White Dolphins was
noticeable from general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this
reporting period. The exceedances are
considered to be the natural variation of Chinese White Dolphin ranging
pattern.
Post Translocation Coral Monitoring
Four
(4) Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring Surveys were conducted on 17 January 2014,
16 April 2014, 24 July 2014 and 23 October 2014 and the results were provided
in the First to Fourth Quarterly Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring
Reports. No exceedances
were recorded from the four post-translocation coral monitoring surveys in this
reporting period.
Environmental
Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons
No
non-compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) recommendations, EP conditions and other
requirements associated with the construction of this Contract was recorded in
this reporting period.
Two (2) environmental complaint cases
were received in this reporting period.
The interim reports were submitted to EPD and reported in the subsequent
EM&A reports. The investigation
findings showed that the cases were considered not related to the works under
this Contract and is thus invalid.
No
environmental summons was received in this reporting period.
Review of EM&A programme
The EM&A requirements have been reviewed and were
considered as adequate and effective. No
change to the requirements was considered to be necessary. The recommended environmental mitigation
measures are also considered to be effective and efficient in reducing the
potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the
Project. No change was thus considered
necessary.
Overall, the EM&A results indicated that the
Project has not caused unacceptable environmental impacts. This is in agreement with the assessment
presented in the EIA Report
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
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 (VEP) (EP-354/2009A) was issued on 8 December
2010. Another application for VEP
(EP-354/2009/B) was granted on 28 January 2014.
Under Contract No. HY/2012/08,
Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture (DBJV) is
commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to
undertake the design and construction of the Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel
Section of TM-CLKL 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).
Layout of the Contract components is
presented in Figure 1.1.
The
construction phase of the Contract commenced on 1 November 2013 and will
tentatively be completed by 2018. The
impact monitoring phase of the EM&A programme,
including air quality, water quality, marine ecological monitoring and
environmental site inspections, commenced on 1 November 2013.
1.2
Scope of Report
This is the First Annual EM&A
Report under the Contract No. HY/2012/08 Tuen Mun
– Chek Lap Kok Link –
Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section. This report presents a summary of the
environmental monitoring and audit works from 1 November 2013 to 31 October
2014.
1.3
Organization
Structure
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 |
|
Highways
Department |
Engr
16/HZMB |
Kenneth Lee |
2762 4996 |
3188 6614 |
|
SOR (AECOM Asia
Company Limited) |
Chief
Resident Engineer |
Edwin Ching Andrew
Westmoreland |
2450 3111 2450 3511 |
2450 3099 2450 3099 |
|
ENPO / IEC (ENVIRON
Hong Kong Ltd.) |
ENPO Leader |
Y.H. Hui |
3547 2133 |
3465 2899 |
|
IEC |
F. C. Tsang |
3547 2134 |
3465 2899 |
|
|
Contractor (Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture) |
Environmental
Manager |
C.F. Kwong |
2293 7322 |
2670 2798 |
|
Environmental
Officer 24-hour
complaint hotline |
Bryan Lee Rachel Lam |
2293 7323 2293 7330 |
2670 2798 |
|
|
ET (ERM-HK) |
ET Leader |
Jovy Tam |
2271 3113 |
2723 5660 |
1.4
Summary of
Construction Works
With reference to DBJV’s information,
details of major construction works carried out in this reporting period are
summarized in Table 1.2.
The general layout plan of the site showing the
detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.2. The
Environmental Sensitive Receivers in the vicinity of the Project are shown in Figure 1.3.
The
implementation schedule of environmental mitigation measures is presented in Appendix B.
Table 1.2 Summary of Construction Activities Undertaken during the Reporting
Period
|
||||||||||||||||||
Figure 1.2 Locations of Construction Activities –
November 2013 to October 2014
|
Contract no. HY/2013/12, Toll Plaza at Tuen Mun Area 46 |
||
|
||
|
Land-based
Works at Site WA-23 |
||
|
2
EM&A Results
The EM&A programme
required environmental monitoring for air quality, 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
2.1
Air quality
As per Condition 2.4 of EP-354/2009/B,
the Enhanced TSP Monitoring Plan ([1]) has been prepared under Contract No. HY/2012/08
which describes the air quality monitoring programme
for the Project.
2.1.1
Monitoring Requirements and Equipment
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the
Enhanced
TSP Monitoring Plan, 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. 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring frequency
were increased to three times per day in every three days and continuously for
24 hours for one day in every three days, respectively, as excavation works for
launching shaft commenced on 24 October 2014.
High volume samplers (HVSs) were used to carry out the
1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting period at the five (5) air
quality monitoring stations in accordance with the requirements stipulated in
the Updated EM&A Manual (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1). Wind anemometer was installed at the rooftop
of ASR5 for logging wind speed and wind direction. Details of the equipment deployed 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 |
Location |
Description |
Parameters
& Frequency |
|
ASR1 |
Tuen Mun Fireboat Station |
Office |
TSP monitoring Ÿ
1-hour Total
Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 6
days Ÿ
24-hour Total
Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour in
every 6 days Enhanced TSP monitoring (commenced on 24 October 2014) Ÿ
1-hour Total
Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 3
days Ÿ
24-hour Total
Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour in
every 3 days |
|
ASR5 |
Pillar
Point Fire Station |
Office |
|
|
AQMS1 |
Previous
River Trade Golf |
Bare
ground |
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
Bare
ground at Ho Suen Street /Butterfly Beach Laundry |
Bare
ground/Office |
|
|
ASR10 |
Butterfly
Beach Park |
Recreational
uses |
*Notes:
AQMS2
was relocated and HVS was re-installed at ASR6 (Butterfly Beach Laundry) on 17
January 2014. AQMS2 was then superseded
by ASR6 for the impact air quality monitoring.
Impact air quality monitoring at ASR6 commenced on 21 January 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 Meter |
MetPak (Model: MetPak II (S/N:
13130002) |
|
Wind Anemometer for calibration |
Lutron (Model No. AM-4201) |
2.1.2
Action & Limit Levels
The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality
monitoring are provided in Appendix C. The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.
2.1.3
Results and Observations
Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at all
designated monitoring stations in the reporting period under favourable weather conditions. The major dust sources in the reporting
period include construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby
traffic emissions.
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
are summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. Baseline and impact monitoring results are
presented graphically in Appendix D. The detailed impact air quality monitoring
data and meteorological information were reported in the First to Twelve Monthly
EM&A Report.
Table 2.3 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in this Reporting
Period
|
Month/Year |
Station |
Average (µg/m3) |
Range (µg/m3) |
Action Level (µg/m3) |
Limit Level (µg/m3) |
|
November
2013 to October 2014 |
ASR 1 |
178 |
56
– 474 |
331 |
500 |
|
ASR 5 |
194 |
43
– 559 |
340 |
500 |
|
|
AQMS1 |
142 |
38
– 431 |
335 |
500 |
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
163 |
52
– 425 |
338 |
500 |
|
|
ASR10 |
121 |
43
– 645 |
337 |
500 |
Table 2.4 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in this Reporting
Period
|
Month/Year |
Station |
Average (µg/m3) |
Range (µg/m3) |
Action Level (µg/m3) |
Limit Level (µg/m3) |
|
November
2013 to October 2014 |
ASR 1 |
101 |
32
– 249 |
213 |
260 |
|
ASR 5 |
106 |
39
– 258 |
238 |
260 |
|
|
AQMS1 |
86 |
38
– 228 |
213 |
260 |
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
94 |
38
– 269 |
238 |
260 |
|
|
ASR10 |
72 |
33
– 166 |
214 |
260 |
In this reporting period, a total of 68 monitoring
events were undertaken in which 26 Action Level exceedances and two (2) Limit
Level exceedances for 1-hour TSP as well as five (5) Action Level exceedances
and one (1) Limit Level exceedances for 24-hour TSP were recorded. Summary of Exceedances for Air Quality Impact
Monitoring in this reporting period is detailed in Table 2.24.
As shown in Table
2.5, the annual average 24-hour TSP levels in the reporting period were
generally lower than the corresponding average levels baseline at most
monitoring stations, whilst the annual average 1-hour TSP levels in the
reporting period were generally higher than the corresponding average baseline
levels at most monitoring stations, except for ASR 10.
In order to determine any significant air quality
impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA
(with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference
in average TSP levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period
and the baseline monitoring before commencement of construction
activities. For 1-hour TSP, the average
levels at monitoring stations AQMS2/ASR6, ASR1 and ASR5 in the reporting period
were significantly higher than the average levels recorded in the baseline
monitoring while there were no significant differences for other stations
(AQMS1: F 1, 244 = 0.93, p = 0.34, AQMS2/ASR6: F 1, 244 = 5.08, p < 0.05, ASR1: F 1, 244 = 18.83, p
< 0.01, ASR10: F 1,244
= 1.34, p = 0.25 and ASR5: F 1, 244 = 18.4, p < 0.01). For 24-hour TSP, the average levels at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period were significantly lower than the
average levels of baseline monitoring (AQMS1: F 1, 80 = 9.93, p
< 0.01, AQMS2/ASR6: F 1, 80
= 26.69, p < 0.01, ASR1: F 1, 80 = 5.15, p < 0.05, ASR10: F 1, 80 = 37.72, p
< 0.01 and ASR5: F 1, 80
= 19.41, p < 0.01). In the reporting period, levels of 1-hour and
24-hour TSP varied across sampling months (see Appendix D)
and these variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting
period.
Table 2.5 Summary of Average Levels of TSP Level of Baseline Monitoring
and Reporting Period (in µg/m3)
|
Monitoring Station |
Average
Baseline Monitoring |
Average
Impact Monitoring |
|
ASR1 (1-hour TSP) |
125 |
178 |
|
ASR1 (24-hour
TSP) |
128 |
101 |
|
ASR5 (1-hour TSP) |
138 |
194 |
|
ASR5 (24-hour
TSP) |
167 |
106 |
|
AQMS1 (1-hour TSP) |
131 |
141 |
|
AQMS1 (24-hour
TSP) |
127 |
86 |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 (1-hour TSP) |
135 |
163 |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 (24-hour
TSP) |
166 |
94 |
|
ASR10 (1-hour TSP) |
134 |
121 |
|
ASR10 (24-hour
TSP) |
129 |
72 |
Further to the One-way ANOVA, 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 |
AQMS1 |
0.079 |
F1,202 = 17.4 |
<0.001 |
175.0 |
-0.182 |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
0.061 |
F1,202 = 13.2 |
<0.001 |
195.3 |
-0.177 |
|
|
ASR1 |
0.017 |
F1,202 = 3.39 |
0.07 |
195.7 |
-0.094 |
|
|
ASR10 |
0.129 |
F1,202 = 30.0 |
<0.001 |
163.3 |
-0.229 |
|
|
ASR5 |
0.060 |
F1,202 = 12.8 |
<0.001 |
229.1 |
-0.190 |
|
|
24-hour TSP |
AQMS1 |
0.262 |
F1,66 = 23.4 |
<0.001 |
126.1 |
-0.217 |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
0.236 |
F1,66 = 20.4 |
<0.001 |
135.2 |
-0.222 |
|
|
|
ASR1 |
0.108 |
F1,66 = 8.02 |
<0.001 |
123.8 |
-0.125 |
|
|
ASR10 |
0.120 |
F1,66 = 9.03 |
<0.001 |
90.6 |
-0.102 |
|
|
ASR5 |
0.242 |
F1,66 = 21.1 |
<0.001 |
145.7 |
-0.217 |
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 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the
regression insignificant) are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant coefficient is underlined.
2.2
Water
Quality Monitoring
The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by
the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) between 6 and
31 October 2011 has included all monitoring stations for the Project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results and
Action/Limit Levels presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([2])
are adopted for this Project.
2.2.1
Monitoring Requirements & Equipment
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact
water quality monitoring was carried out three days per week during the
construction period at nine (9) water quality monitoring stations (Figure 2.2; Table
2.7).
Table 2.7 Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations and the Corresponding
Monitoring Requirements
|
Station ID |
Type |
Coordinates |
*Parameters,
unit |
Depth |
Frequency |
|
|
|
|
Easting |
Northing |
|
|
|
|
IS12 |
Impact Station |
813218 |
823681 |
Ÿ Temperature(°C) Ÿ pH(pH unit) Ÿ Turbidity (NTU) Ÿ Water depth (m) Ÿ Salinity (ppt) Ÿ DO (mg/L and % of saturation) · SS (mg/L) |
3 water depths:
1m below sea
surface, mid-depth and 1m above sea bed. If the water depth is less than 3m,
mid-depth sampling only. If water
depth less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted. |
Impact monitoring: 3 days
per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides during the construction period of
the Contract. |
|
IS13 |
Impact
Station |
813667 |
824325 |
|||
|
IS14 |
Impact
Station |
812592 |
824172 |
|||
|
IS15 |
Impact
Station |
813356 |
825008 |
|||
|
CS4 |
Control /
Far Field Station |
810025 |
824004 |
|||
|
CS6 |
Control /
Far Field Station |
817028 |
823992 |
|||
|
SR8 |
Sensitive receiver (Gazettal beaches in Tuen Mun) |
816306 |
825715 |
|||
|
SR9 |
Sensitive receiver |
813601 |
825858 |
|||
|
SR10A |
Sensitive receiver |
823741 |
823495 |
|||
|
*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 2.8
summarizes the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table 2.8 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Model |
Qty. |
|
Water Sampler |
Kahlsico Water-Bottle Model 135DW 150 |
1 |
|
Dissolved Oxygen Meter |
YSI Pro 2030 |
1 |
|
pH Meter |
HANNA HI 8314 |
1 |
|
Turbidity Meter |
HACH 2100Q |
1 |
|
Monitoring Position Equipment |
“Magellan” Handheld GPS Model explorist GC |
4 |
|
DGPS Koden KGP913MK2 (1) |
1 |
2.2.2
Action & Limit Levels
The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality
monitoring is provided in Appendix C. The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.
2.2.3
Results and Observations
During this reporting period, major marine works
included dredging, seawall construction and reclamation filling. A closed grab dredger was used and silt
curtains (cage-type and single floating type) were deployed during dredging
works in accordance with the EP. The
level of dredging activities was within the working rate described in the EP
and the approved EIA Report. In
addition, reclamation filling was undertaken between the 200 m of leading
seawalls using filling materials specified in the EP and the approved EIA
Report with a single layer silt curtain being deployed as a precautionary
measure to reduce dispersion of suspended solids. It is useful to note that heavy marine
traffic (not associated with the Project) was commonly observed nearby the
Project site and its vicinity. On 6
August 2014, dredging at Northern Landfall was fully completed.
Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all
designated monitoring stations in the reporting period under favourable weather conditions. Baseline and impact monitoring results are
presented graphically in Appendix E and
detailed impact water quality monitoring data were reported in the First to Twelve Monthly EM&A Report.
In this reporting period, a total of 155 monitoring
events were undertaken in which six (6) Action Level and one (1) Limit Level
exceedances were recorded for depth-averaged suspended solids (SS). Summary of Exceedances for Water Quality Impact
Monitoring in this Reporting Period is detailed in Table 2.25.
One-way ANOVA (with α setting at 0.05) was
conducted to examine any significant difference in DO, turbidity and SS levels
between this reporting period and the baseline monitoring period. The annual average levels and statistical
analysis results are presented in Tables
2.9 to 2.11 and Tables 2.12 to 2.14,
respectively. In general, the DO levels
recorded during the reporting period were mostly comparable to the results
obtained during the baseline monitoring period, except for SR 8, SR 9, SR10A
and SR15 in which DO levels during this reporting period in mid-flood tide were
significantly higher than the corresponding average baseline levels. The annual depth-averaged turbidity and SS
levels at all impact stations in the reporting period were significantly lower
than the average levels in baseline monitoring.
Whilst DO, turbidity and suspended solids levels varied across sampling
months (see Appendix E), these
variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting period.
Table 2.9 Summary of Average DO Level of Baseline Monitoring and the
current Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Tide |
Station |
Depth |
Average DO of baseline monitoring |
Average DO of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
IS13 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS14 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS15 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.3 |
|
|
SR10A |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR8 |
Surface |
6.2 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR9 |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.3 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.4 |
|
IS13 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.4 |
|
|
IS14 |
Surface |
6.1 |
6.4 |
|
|
IS15 |
Surface |
6.2 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR10A |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR8 |
Surface |
6.2 |
6.4 |
|
|
SR9 |
Surface |
6.0 |
6.4 |
|
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Middle |
5.9 |
6.2 |
|
IS13 |
Middle |
6.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS14 |
Middle |
6.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS15 |
Middle |
6.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR10A |
Middle |
5.9 |
6.2 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Middle |
5.9 |
6.3 |
|
IS13 |
Middle |
6.0 |
6.3 |
|
|
IS14 |
Middle |
5.9 |
6.2 |
|
|
IS15 |
Middle |
6.1 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR10A |
Middle |
5.9 |
6.3 |
|
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.1 |
|
IS13 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.1 |
|
|
IS14 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.0 |
|
|
IS15 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.0 |
|
|
SR10A |
Bottom |
5.7 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR8 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR9 |
Bottom |
5.8 |
6.1 |
|
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.2 |
|
IS13 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.1 |
|
|
IS14 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.1 |
|
|
IS15 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR10A |
Bottom |
5.8 |
6.1 |
|
|
SR8 |
Bottom |
5.8 |
6.2 |
|
|
SR9 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
6.2 |
Table 2.10 Summary of
Average Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of Baseline Monitoring and the current
Reporting Period (in NTU)
|
Tide |
Station |
Average depth-averaged turbidity of baseline monitoring |
Average depth-averaged turbidity of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
10.7 |
5.1 |
|
IS13 |
9.2 |
5.1 |
|
|
IS14 |
9.3 |
5.0 |
|
|
IS15 |
9.8 |
5.1 |
|
|
SR10A |
7.1 |
4.9 |
|
|
|
SR8 |
11.0 |
5.0 |
|
|
SR9 |
7.2 |
4.9 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
9.8 |
5.1 |
|
IS13 |
9.5 |
5.0 |
|
|
IS14 |
9.4 |
5.0 |
|
|
IS15 |
9.8 |
5.1 |
|
|
SR10A |
7.0 |
4.8 |
|
|
|
SR8 |
10.1 |
5.0 |
|
|
SR9 |
8.5 |
4.9 |
Table 2.11 Summary of Average Depth-averaged SS Level of Baseline
Monitoring and the current Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Tide |
Station |
Average depth-averaged SS of baseline monitoring |
Average depth-averaged SS of reporting period |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
9.2 |
5.3 |
|
IS13 |
10.0 |
5.2 |
|
|
IS14 |
10.4 |
5.3 |
|
|
IS15 |
9.6 |
5.3 |
|
|
SR10A |
10.3 |
5.3 |
|
|
|
SR8 |
10.1 |
5.2 |
|
|
SR9 |
8.8 |
5.2 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
9.5 |
5.4 |
|
IS13 |
10.5 |
5.2 |
|
|
IS14 |
9.7 |
5.3 |
|
|
IS15 |
11.0 |
5.4 |
|
|
SR10A |
10.2 |
5.2 |
|
|
|
SR8 |
11.3 |
5.3 |
|
|
SR9 |
9.9 |
5.3 |
Table 2.12 One-way ANOVA Results for DO Comparison between Impact and
Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
Depth |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 2.51 |
0.12 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 2.72 |
0.10 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 1.27 |
0.26 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 1.46 |
0.23 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Surface |
F1,164
= 4.02 |
0.05 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 0.45 |
0.50 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 3.40 |
0.07 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 3.47 |
0.06 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 2.43 |
0.12 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 2.90 |
0.09 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 1.12 |
0.29 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Surface |
F1,164
= 6.01 |
0.02 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 1.86 |
0.17 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
Surface |
F1,164
= 5.54 |
0.02 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 3.20 |
0.08 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 1.53 |
0.22 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 1.18 |
0.28 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 0.76 |
0.38 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Middle |
F1,164
= 2.99 |
0.09 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 3.79 |
0.05 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 2.10 |
0.15 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 2.52 |
0.11 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Middle |
F1,164
= 0.60 |
0.44 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Middle |
F1,164
= 4.97 |
0.03 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 1.82 |
0.18 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 1.12 |
0.29 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 0.18 |
0.67 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 1.07 |
0.30 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 3.13 |
0.08 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 0.42 |
0.52 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 2.97 |
0.09 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 2.78 |
0.10 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 1.88 |
0.17 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 0.95 |
0.33 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 0.43 |
0.51 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 2.04 |
0.15 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 4.67 |
0.03 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
Bottom |
F1,164
= 2.12 |
0.15 |
|
Note: By setting
α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value
< 0.05) are bold. |
||||
Table 2.13 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged Turbidity Comparison
between Impact and Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
F1,164
= 51.79 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
F1,164
= 28.76 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
F1,164
= 31.68 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
F1,164
= 31.09 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
F1,164
= 11.34 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
F1,164
= 49.82 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
F1,164
= 9.10 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
F1,164
= 31.15 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
F1,164
= 31.63 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
F1,164
= 33.05 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
F1,164
= 30.16 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
F1,164
= 9.80 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
F1,164
= 31.40 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
F1,164
= 20.43 |
<0.01 |
|
Note: By setting
α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value
< 0.05) are bold. |
|||
Table 2.14 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged SS Comparison between
Impact and Baseline Periods
|
Tide |
Station |
F ratio |
p-value |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
F1,164
= 16.90 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
F1,164
= 30.28 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
F1,164
= 28.55 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
F1,164
= 17.37 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
F1,164
= 27.43 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
F1,164
= 25.82 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
F1,164
= 14.14 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
F1,164
= 12.75 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
F1,164
= 34.13 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
F1,164
= 19.18 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
F1,164
= 29.62 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
F1,164
= 31.47 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
F1,164
= 39.65 |
<0.01 |
|
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
F1,164
= 21.20 |
<0.01 |
|
Note: By setting
α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value < 0.05) are bold. In addition,
linear regression was conducted to examine any relationship between DO /
Turbidity / SS levels and time (i.e. number of days after construction works
commencement) during this yearly monitoring period at each monitoring
station. The method of data
interpretation followed the same method as indicated in Section 2.1.3 for TSP monitoring.
As shown in Tables 2.15 to 2.17,
results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant (r2
< 0.60) relationship between DO / Turbidity / SS level and time during
this yearly monitoring period. As
such, it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing or
decreasing DO / Turbidity / SS level since commencement of constructions
works. |
|||
Table
2.15 Linear Regression Result of DO
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,152 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb
Surface DO |
IS12 |
0.325 |
73.1 |
<0.001 |
6.898 |
-0.003 |
|
IS13 |
0.291 |
62.6 |
<0.001 |
6.866 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.315 |
69.9 |
<0.001 |
6.858 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.330 |
75.0 |
<0.001 |
6.920 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.293 |
63.0 |
<0.001 |
6.945 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR8 |
0.322 |
72.3 |
<0.001 |
6.955 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR9 |
0.368 |
88.7 |
<0.001 |
6.953 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,153 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-flood
surface DO |
IS12 |
0.331 |
75.7 |
<0.001 |
6.969 |
-0.003 |
|
IS13 |
0.311 |
69.0 |
<0.001 |
6.957 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.333 |
76.5 |
<0.001 |
6.929 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.359 |
85.8 |
<0.001 |
6.999 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.302 |
66.1 |
<0.001 |
7.010 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR8 |
0325 |
73.8 |
<0.001 |
7.015 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR9 |
0.384 |
95.3 |
<0.001 |
7.043 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,152 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb
middle DO |
IS12 |
0.351 |
82.3 |
<0.001 |
6.826 |
-0.003 |
|
IS13 |
0.307 |
67.5 |
<0.001 |
6.791 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.407 |
104.5 |
<0.001 |
6.821 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.357 |
84.5 |
<0.001 |
6.800 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.317 |
70.6 |
<0.001 |
6.815 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,153 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-flood
middle DO |
IS12 |
0.341 |
79.3 |
<0.001 |
6.913 |
-0.003 |
|
IS13 |
0.320 |
71.9 |
<0.001 |
6.875 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.402 |
102.9 |
<0.001 |
6.880 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.355 |
84.2 |
<0.001 |
6.881 |
-0.003 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.329 |
75.1 |
<0.001 |
6.871 |
-0.003 |
|
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,152 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-ebb
bottom DO |
IS12 |
0.353 |
83.0 |
<0.001 |
6.786 |
-0.004 |
|
IS13 |
0.306 |
67.1 |
<0.001 |
6.703 |
-0.003 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.425 |
112.3 |
<0.001 |
6.758 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.380 |
93.2 |
<0.001 |
6.739 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.372 |
90.1 |
<0.001 |
6.771 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR8 |
0.368 |
88.4 |
<0.001 |
6.876 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR9 |
0.368 |
88.7 |
<0.001 |
6.798 |
-0.004 |
|
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,153 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|
Mid-flood
bottom DO |
IS12 |
0.362 |
86.7 |
<0.001 |
6.883 |
-0.004 |
|
IS13 |
0.309 |
68.6 |
<0.001 |
6.779 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS14 |
0.422 |
111.8 |
<0.001 |
6.842 |
-0.004 |
|
|
IS15 |
0.379 |
93.4 |
<0.001 |
6.811 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR10A |
0.391 |
98.1 |
<0.001 |
6.863 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR8 |
0.387 |
96.5 |
<0.001 |
6.945 |
-0.004 |
|
|
SR9 |
0.371 |
90.4 |
<0.001 |
6.903 |
-0.004 |
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as DO (in mg/L) and independent variable is
set as number of day of construction works.
2. R2 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the
regression insignificant) are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant coefficient is underlined.
Table 2.16 Linear Regression
Result of Turbidity
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,152 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
|
Mid-ebb
depth -average
turbidity |
IS12 |
0.011 |
1.67 |
0.199 |
4.644 |
0.002 |
|||
|
IS13 |
0.001 |
0.23 |
0.636 |
4.895 |
0.001 |
||||
|
IS14 |
0.008 |
1.16 |
0.283 |
4.634 |
0.002 |
||||
|
IS15 |
<0.001 |
0.03 |
0.856 |
5.010 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
SR10A |
0.014 |
2.17 |
0.143 |
4.442 |
0.002 |
||||
|
SR8 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
0.996 |
5.048 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
SR9 |
<0.001 |
0.06 |
0.808 |
4.859 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,153 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
|
Mid-flood
depth -average
turbidity |
IS12 |
0.002 |
0.4 |
0.529 |
4.858 |
0.001 |
|||
|
IS13 |
0.003 |
0.42 |
0.518 |
4.792 |
0.001 |
||||
|
IS14 |
0.004 |
0.654 |
0.420 |
4.706 |
0.001 |
||||
|
IS15 |
<0.001 |
0.002 |
0.965 |
5.117 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
SR10A |
0.009 |
1.42 |
0.235 |
4.479 |
0.002 |
||||
|
SR8 |
<0.001 |
0.019 |
0.890 |
5.069 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
SR9 |
<0.001 |
0.008 |
0.927 |
4.901 |
<0.001 |
||||
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as Turbidity (in mg/L) and independent
variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. R2 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the
regression insignificant) are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant coefficient is underlined.
Table 2.17 Linear Regression
Result of SS
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,152 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
|
Mid-ebb
depth -average
SS |
IS12 |
0.019 |
2.94 |
0.088 |
4.563 |
0.004 |
|||
|
IS13 |
0.013 |
2.00 |
0.160 |
4.651 |
0.003 |
||||
|
IS14 |
0.013 |
2.06 |
0.153 |
4.633 |
0.003 |
||||
|
IS15 |
<0.001 |
0.14 |
0.704 |
5.142 |
0.001 |
||||
|
SR10A |
0.009 |
1.39 |
0.240 |
4.762 |
0.003 |
||||
|
SR8 |
0.002 |
0.29 |
0.593 |
4.965 |
0.001 |
||||
|
SR9 |
0.004 |
0.55 |
0.461 |
4.888 |
0.002 |
||||
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,153 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
|
Mid-flood
depth -average
SS |
IS12 |
0.006 |
0.87 |
0.354 |
4.876 |
0.003 |
|||
|
IS13 |
0.008 |
1.17 |
0.281 |
4.754 |
0.002 |
||||
|
IS14 |
0.004 |
0.63 |
0.430 |
4.984 |
0.002 |
||||
|
IS15 |
<0.001 |
0.13 |
0.717 |
5.200 |
<0.001 |
||||
|
SR10A |
0.01 |
1.48 |
0.226 |
4.666 |
0.003 |
||||
|
SR8 |
0.006 |
0.85 |
0.359 |
4.886 |
0.002 |
||||
|
SR9 |
0.002 |
0.35 |
0.555 |
5.049 |
0.001 |
||||
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as Turbidity (in mg/L) and independent
variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. R2 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the
regression insignificant) are underlined.
3. By setting α at 0.01, insignificant coefficient is underlined.
2.3
Dolphin Monitoring
2.3.1
Monitoring Requirements
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.
2.3.2
Monitoring Equipment
Table 2.18 summarises the equipment used for the impact dolphin
monitoring.
Table 2.18 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 |
|
|
|
2.3.3
Monitoring Parameter, Frequencies &
Duration
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.
2.3.4
Monitoring Location
The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the
NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.3. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are
shown in Table 2.19 below.
Table 2.19 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates
|
Line No. |
Easting |
Northing |
Line No. |
Easting |
Northing |
||
|
1 |
Start
Point |
804671 |
814577 |
13 |
Start
Point |
816506 |
819480 |
|
1 |
End
Point |
804671 |
831404 |
13 |
End
Point |
816506 |
824859 |
|
2 |
Start
Point |
805475 |
815457 |
14 |
Start
Point |
817537 |
820220 |
|
2 |
End
Point |
805477 |
826654 |
14 |
End
Point |
817537 |
824613 |
|
3 |
Start
Point |
806464 |
819435 |
15 |
Start
Point |
818568 |
820735 |
|
3 |
End
Point |
806464 |
822911 |
15 |
End
Point |
818568 |
824433 |
|
4 |
Start
Point |
807518 |
819771 |
16 |
Start
Point |
819532 |
821420 |
|
4 |
End
Point |
807518 |
829230 |
16 |
End
Point |
819532 |
824209 |
|
5 |
Start
Point |
808504 |
820220 |
17 |
Start
Point |
820451 |
822125 |
|
5 |
End
Point |
808504 |
828602 |
17 |
End
Point |
820451 |
823671 |
|
6 |
Start
Point |
809490 |
820466 |
18 |
Start
Point |
821504 |
822371 |
|
6 |
End
Point |
809490 |
825352 |
18 |
End
Point |
821504 |
823761 |
|
7 |
Start
Point |
810499 |
820690 |
19 |
Start
Point |
822513 |
823268 |
|
7 |
End
Point |
810499 |
824613 |
19 |
End
Point |
822513 |
824321 |
|
8 |
Start
Point |
811508 |
820847 |
20 |
Start
Point |
823477 |
823402 |
|
8 |
End
Point |
811508 |
824254 |
20 |
End
Point |
823477 |
824613 |
|
9 |
Start
Point |
812516 |
820892 |
21 |
Start
Point |
805476 |
827081 |
|
9 |
End
Point |
812516 |
824254 |
21 |
End
Point |
805476 |
830562 |
|
10 |
Start
Point |
813525 |
820872 |
22 |
Start
Point |
806464 |
824033 |
|
10 |
End
Point |
813525 |
824657 |
22 |
End
Point |
806464 |
829598 |
|
11 |
Start
Point |
814556 |
818449 |
23 |
Start
Point |
814559 |
821739 |
|
11 |
End
Point |
814556 |
820992 |
23 |
End
Point |
814559 |
824768 |
|
12 |
Start
Point |
815542 |
818807 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
End
Point |
815542 |
824882 |
|
|
|
|
2.3.5
Action & Limit Levels
The Action and Limit levels of dolphin impact
monitoring are shown in Appendix C. The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.
2.3.6
Results & Observations
A total of 3,520.41 km of survey effort was collected,
with 93.2% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable
weather conditions (ie Beaufort Sea State 3 or below
with good visibility) in this reporting year.
Amongst the two areas, 1,353.42 km and 2,166.99 km of survey effort were
collected from NEL and NWL survey areas, respectively. The total survey effort conducted on primary
and secondary lines were 2,569.49 km and 950.92 km, respectively. The survey efforts are summarized in Appendix F.
A total of 136 groups of 512 Chinese White
Dolphin sightings were recorded during the 24 sets of surveys
in this reporting year. All except eight sighting were made during on-effort search. A hundred and ten on-effort sightings were
made on primary lines, while eighteen other on-effort sightings were made on
secondary lines.
Dolphin sighting distribution of the present impact
phase monitoring period (November 2013 to October 2014) was compared to the
ones during the baseline phase (February 2011 to January 2012) and transitional
phase (November 2012 to October 2013).
As TMCLKL construction works commenced in November 2013, a 12-month
period between baseline phase and impact phase is defined as transitional
phase.
In this 12-month period, 97% of the dolphin sightings
were made in NWL, while only 4 groups of 20 dolphins were sighted in NEL. The majority of dolphin sightings made in the
12-month period were concentrated in the northwestern end of the North Lantau
region.
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
2.20.
Table 2.20 Average Dolphin Encounter Rates
|
|
Encounter rate (STG) (no. of
on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort) |
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all
on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort) |
||
|
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
|
|
Impact Phase (2013-2014) |
0.22 ± 0.74 |
6.93 ± 4.08 |
0.76 ± 2.59 |
26.31 ± 17.56 |
|
Transitional Phase (2012-2013) |
1.70 ± 2.26 |
7.68 ± 4.36 |
4.75 ± 7.61 |
27.51 ± 18.06 |
|
Baseline Phase (2011-2012) |
6.05 ± 5.04 |
7.75 ± 5.69 |
19.91 ± 21.30 |
29.57 ± 26.96 |
Note:
Comparison of average daily
dolphin encounter rates from impact phase (November 2013 – October 2014),
transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring
periods (February 2011 – January 2012). ± denotes the
standard deviation of the value.
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from one to thirteen (1-13) individuals per group in North
Lantau region during November 2013 - October 2014. The average dolphin group sizes from the
12-month impact phase monitoring period were compared with the ones deduced
from baseline and transitional phases, as shown in Table 2.21.
Table 2.21 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes from Impact
Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period
|
|
Average Dolphin Group Size |
||
|
Overall |
Northeast Lantau |
Northwest Lantau |
|
|
Impact Phase (2013-2014) |
3.76 ± 2.57 (n = 136) |
5.00 ± 2.71 (n = 4) |
3.73 ± 2.57 (n = 132) |
|
Transitional Phase (2012-2013) |
3.37 ± 2.98 (n = 186) |
2.64 ± 2.38 (n = 22) |
3.47 ± 3.05 (n = 164) |
|
Baseline Phase (2011-2012) |
3.32 ± 2.86 (n = 288) |
2.80 ± 2.35 (n = 79) |
3.52 ± 3.01 (n = 209) |
Note: Comparison of average
dolphin group sizes from impact phase (November 2013 –October 2014),
transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring
periods (February 2011 – January 2012).
(± denotes the standard deviation of the average value)
Whilst three and two Action Level exceedances for
Northeast Lantau and Northwest Lantau were recorded in the reporting period
respectively. No Limit Level exceedance
was observed for the quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2013
and October 2014. In this reporting
period, no unacceptable impact from the activities of this Contract on Chinese
White Dolphins was noticeable from the general observations.
It is essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in
the North Lantau region for the rest of the impact phase monitoring period to
keep track on the trend of dolphin ranging pattern.
Photos
IDs of sighted dolphin are presented in Appendix
J of the First to Twelfth Monthly
EM&A Report.
Implementation
of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect during the period of dredging, reclamation or marine sheet
piling works in open waters under
this Contract. Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM) was also implemented for the detection of marine mammal when
dredging, reclamation
or marine sheet piling works were
carried out outside the daylight hours under this Contract. One sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphin Sousa chinensis
was recorded on 20 February 2014 during the exclusion zone monitoring. The marine dredging work was subsequently
suspended until the
observer has confirmed that the area is continuously clear of dolphins for a
period of 30 minutes.
2.4
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring
Four
(4) Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring Surveys were conducted on 17 January
2014, 16 April 2014, 24 July 2014 and 23 October 2014 and the results were
provided in the First to Fourth Quarterly
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring Report.
The findings indicated that no Action or Limit Levels
exceedances was recorded for coral monitoring as increase in percentage of
partial mortality was not detected for both the tagged translocated and natural
coral colonies when comparing to the pre-translocation dataset.
2.5
EM&A Site Inspection
Site inspections were carried out on a 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 First to Twelfth Monthly EM&A Reports.
2.6
Waste
Management Status
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 wastes and marine sediments. Reference has been made to the waste flow
table prepared by the Contractor (Appendix I). The quantities of different types of wastes
are summarized in Table 2.22.
Table 2.22 Quantities of Different Waste Generated in the Reporting Period
|
Month/Year |
Inert Construction Waste (a)
(tonnes) |
Imported Fill (tonnes) |
Inert
Construction Waste Re-used (tonnes) |
Non-inert Construction Waste (b)
(tonnes) |
Recyclable Materials (c) (kg) |
Chemical Wastes (kg) |
Marine Sediment (m3) |
|
|
Category L |
Category M |
|||||||
|
November
2013 |
2,835 |
47,449 |
0 |
152 |
130 |
0 |
21,100 |
13,200 |
|
December
2013 |
883 |
204,421 |
0 |
12 |
130 |
0 |
40,500 |
5,000 |
|
January 2014 |
9,012 |
314,306 |
0 |
45 |
130 |
0 |
34,000 |
12,500 |
|
February
2014 |
0 |
258,383 |
0 |
28 |
0 |
20 |
18,500 |
24,500 |
|
March 2014 |
105 |
516,400 |
0 |
36 |
0 |
0 |
37,300 |
40,450 |
|
April 2014 |
22 |
467,867 |
0 |
26 |
160 |
0 |
28,600 |
15,400 |
|
May 2014 |
1,016 |
516,368 |
0 |
42 |
0 |
0 |
18,700 |
29,150 |
|
June 2014 |
4,393 |
407,489 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
30 |
40,700 |
7,700 |
|
July 2014 |
14,405 |
428,392 |
0 |
33 |
300 |
0 |
37,950 |
7,150 |
|
August 2014 |
12,728 |
623,029 |
0 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
12,100 |
0 |
|
September
2014 |
6,843 |
676,219 |
0 |
39 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October 2014 |
1,228 |
527,237 |
0 |
33 |
80 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
53,470 |
4,987,560 |
0 |
498 |
930 |
110 |
289,450 |
155,050 |
|
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.
2.7
Environmental Licenses and Permits
The status of environmental licensing and permit is
summarized in Table 2.23 below.