Executive
Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Scope
of Report
1.3 Organization
Structure
1.4 Summary
of Construction Works
2 EM&A Results
2.1 Air
quality
2.2 Water
Quality Monitoring
2.3 Dolphin
Monitoring
2.4 EM&A
Site Inspection
2.5 Waste
Management Status
2.6 Environmental
Licenses and Permits
2.7 Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
2.8 Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
2.9 Summary
of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
2.10 Comparison
of EM&A Data with EIA Predictions
2.11 Summary
of Monitoring Methodology and Effectiveness
2.12 Summary
of Mitigation Measures
3 Review of EM&A Programme
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
4 Conclusions
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. Ramboll Environ
Hong Kong Limited was employed by HyD as the
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office
(ENPO). Subsequent
applications for variation of environmental permits (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C and
EP-354/2009/D, were granted on 28
January 2014, 10 December 2014 and 13 March 2015, respectively.
The construction phase of the 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, were commenced on 1
November 2013.
This
is the Second Annual EM&A report presenting the EM&A works carried out
during the period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015 for the 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 – Portion N-A
·
Marine
Sheet Piling for Box Culvert extension; and
·
Rock
Bund Deposition for Marine Sheet Pile Remedial Works.
Marine Works Area – Portion N-C
·
Reclamation
filling;
·
Construction
of Vertical Seawall and Sloping Seawall; and
·
TBM Tunnel Works.
|
|
Construction Activities Undertaken
|
|
Land-based Works
|
|
Works Area – Portion N-A
·
Excavation
for North Launching Shaft;
·
Land
Bored Piling Works;
·
Construction
of temporary access;
·
Diaphragm
Wall Construction;
·
TBM
Platform Construction;
·
Formwork
and Metal Scaffolding works;
·
Delivery
& Assembly of TBM;
·
Land-based
Sheet Piling Works;
·
Box
Culvert Extension; and
·
Startup of TBM.
Works Area – Portion N-B
·
TBM
Tunnel Works.
Works Area – Portion N-C
·
Surcharge
set up;
·
Set
up of Slurry Treatment Plant;
·
Surcharge
Removal;
·
Diaphragm
Wall Construction for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Excavation
for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Construction
of capping beam and base slab for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Installation
of Tower Crane; and
·
Modification
and Maintenance Works for Slurry Treatment Plant.
|
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted
in the reporting period is listed below:
24-hour TSP Monitoring 121
sessions
1-hour TSP Monitoring 121
sessions
Impact Water Quality Monitoring 91 sessions
Impact Dolphin Monitoring 24 sessions
Joint Environmental Site Inspection 52 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. During daylight hours,
monitoring was undertaken by dolphin
observers using visual observation. 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. On 10 November 2014, night time marine works
for first phase reclamation was completed.
Thus,
PAM was discontinued from 10 November 2014.
As inform by the Contractor, dredging and filling works for Phase-I
reclamation of Northern Landfall has been completed on 8 December 2014 and the
rock bund deposition for marine sheet pile remedial works was completed on 28
February 2015. Thus, the day-time
monitoring of Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) by dolphin observers was suspended
from 28 February 2015.
Summary of Breaches of Action/Limit Levels
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Four (4) Action Level exceedances for 1-hr 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
No Action Level or Limit Level exceedances were
recorded from the water quality monitoring in this reporting period.
Dolphin Monitoring
Whilst two (2) Action Level exceedances and three (3)
Limit Level exceedances were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin
monitoring data between September 2014 and August 2015, 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.
Environmental
Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons
No
non-compliance with 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 were 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 were 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
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.
Subsequent applications for variation of environmental permits (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C and EP-354/2009/D,
were granted on 28 January 2014, 10 December 2014 and 13 March 2015,
respectively.
Under Contract No. HY/2012/08,
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, were commenced on 1 November 2013.
This is the Second 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
2014 to 31 October 2015.
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
|
2293 6388
2293 6360
|
2293 6300
2293 6300
|
|
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
(Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture)
|
Environmental
Manager
|
C.F. Kwong
|
2293 7322
|
2293 7499
|
|
Environmental
Officer
24-hour
complaint hotline
|
Bryan Lee
Rachel Lam
|
2293 7323
2293 7330
|
2293 7499
|
|
ET (ERM-HK)
|
ET Leader
|
Jovy Tam
|
2271 3113
|
2723 5660
|
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
|
Construction Activities Undertaken
|
|
Marine-based Works
|
|
Marine
Works Area – Portion N-A
·
Marine
Sheet Piling for Box Culvert extension; and
·
Rock
Bund Deposition for Marine Sheet Pile Remedial Works.
Marine
Works Area – Portion N-C
·
Reclamation
filling; and
·
Construction
of Vertical Seawall and Sloping Seawall.
|
|
Land-based Works
|
|
|
Works Area
– Portion N-A
·
Excavation
for North Launching Shaft;
·
Land
Bored Piling Works;
·
Construction
of temporary access;
·
Diaphragm
Wall Construction;
·
TBM
Platform Construction;
·
Formwork
and Metal Scaffolding works;
·
Delivery
& Assembly of TBM;
·
Land-based
Sheet Piling Works;
·
Box
Culvert Extension; and
·
Startup of TBM.
Works Area
– Portion N-B
·
TBM
Tunnel Works.
Works Area
– Portion N-C
·
Surcharge
set up;
·
Set
up of Slurry Treatment Plant;
·
Surcharge
Removal;
·
Diaphragm
Wall Construction for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Excavation
for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Construction
of capping beam and base slab for Ventilation Shaft;
·
Installation
of Tower Crane; and
·
Modification
and Maintenance Works for Slurry Treatment Plant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1.2 Locations of Construction Activities – November 2014
to October 2015
|
Contract no. HY/2013/12, Toll Plaza at Tuen Mun
Area 46
|
|
|
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
2.1.1
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-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring frequency was
increased to three times per day every three days and daily 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
(1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP)
|
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 and Contract No. HY/2013/12 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 Thirteen to Twenty-four
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 2014
to October 2015
|
ASR 1
|
140
|
48
– 404
|
331
|
500
|
|
ASR 5
|
162
|
52
- 346
|
340
|
500
|
|
AQMS1
|
124
|
49
– 348
|
335
|
500
|
|
ASR6
|
130
|
44
– 309
|
338
|
500
|
|
ASR10
|
88
|
42
– 251
|
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 2014 to October 2015
|
ASR 1
|
84
|
42
– 162
|
213
|
260
|
|
ASR 5
|
91
|
45
– 151
|
238
|
260
|
|
AQMS1
|
78
|
45
– 155
|
213
|
260
|
|
ASR6
|
77
|
43
- 133
|
238
|
260
|
|
ASR10
|
64
|
41
– 130
|
214
|
260
|
In this reporting period, a total of 121 monitoring
events were undertaken in which four (4) Action Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP;
no Action or Limit Level exceedances for 24-hr 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 level in the reporting period were generally
lower than the corresponding average levels of baseline at most monitoring
stations, whilst the annual average 1-hour TSP level in the reporting period
was generally lower than the corresponding average level of baseline at most
monitoring station, except for ASR 1 and ASR 5.
In order to determine any significant air quality
impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, one-way ANOVA
(with setting α at 0.05) was conducted to examine whether the observed
differences are significant between reporting period and baseline
monitoring. For 1-hour TSP, the average
results of monitoring stations ASR10 and ASR5 in the reporting period were
significantly lower than the average results of baseline monitoring while there
were no significant differences for other stations (AQMS1: F 1, 403
= 0.66, p = 0.42, ASR6: F 1, 403
= 0.41, p = 0.52, ASR1: F 1, 403
= 1.90, p = 0.17, ASR10: F
1, 403 = 63.8, p < 0.01 and
ASR5: F 1, 403 = 7.43, p
< 0.01). For 24-hour TSP, the average
results of all monitoring stations in the reporting period were significantly
lower than the average results of baseline monitoring (AQMS1: F 1, 133
= 50.41, p < 0.01, ASR6: F 1,
133 = 221.99, p < 0.01,
ASR1: F 1, 133 = 28.49, p
< 0.01, ASR10: F 1, 133 = 133.92, p < 0.01 and ASR5: F 1, 133 = 106.02, p < 0.01). In the reporting period, 1-hour and 24-hour
TSP were varied across sampling months (see Appendix D) and
these variations were however not consistent throughout the reporting period.
Table 2.5 Summary of Average Levels of TSP Level of Baseline Monitoring
and Reporting Period (in µg/m3)
|
Monitoring Station
|
Average
Baseline Monitoring
|
Average
Impact Monitoring
|
|
ASR1(1-hour TSP)
|
125
|
140
|
|
ASR1(24-hour TSP)
|
128
|
84
|
|
ASR5(1-hour TSP)
|
138
|
162
|
|
ASR5(24-hour TSP)
|
167
|
91
|
|
AQMS1(1-hour TSP)
|
131
|
124
|
|
AQMS1(24-hour TSP)
|
127
|
78
|
|
ASR6(1-hour TSP)
|
135
|
130
|
|
ASR6(24-hour TSP)
|
166
|
77
|
|
ASR10(1-hour TSP)
|
134
|
88
|
|
ASR10(24-hour TSP)
|
129
|
64
|
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
|
0.267
|
F1,361 = 131.2
|
<0.001
|
263.7
|
-0.255
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
|
0.053
|
F1,361 = 20.2
|
<0.001
|
190.4
|
-0.110
|
|
ASR1
|
0.232
|
F1,361 = 109.1
|
<0.001
|
315.5
|
-0.321
|
|
ASR10
|
0.155
|
F1,361 = 66.3
|
<0.001
|
160.2
|
-0.132
|
|
ASR5
|
0.179
|
F1,361 = 78.7
|
<0.001
|
289.1
|
-0.232
|
|
24-hour TSP
|
AQMS1
|
0.355
|
F1,119 = 65.4
|
<0.001
|
149.9
|
-0.132
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
|
0.128
|
F1,119 = 17.4
|
<0.001
|
112.8
|
-0.065
|
|
|
ASR1
|
0.241
|
F1,119 = 37.7
|
<0.001
|
155.6
|
-0.132
|
|
|
ASR10
|
0.201
|
F1,119 = 30.0
|
<0.001
|
106.6
|
-0.077
|
|
|
ASR5
|
0.195
|
F1,119 = 28.8
|
<0.001
|
144.0
|
-0.096
|
Note:
1. Dependent variable is set as TSP levels (in µg/m3) and
independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.
2. R2 <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 included all monitoring stations for the Project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results and
Action/Limit Levels presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ()
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 (3) 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
(Butterfly Beach)
|
813601
|
825858
|
|
SR10A
|
Sensitive receiver
(Ma Wan FCZ)
|
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 reclamation filling and rock bund deposition for marine sheet pile remedial
works. 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 20 November 2014, seawall (+2.5mPD) at
Northern Landfall has been fully enclosed and marine sheet pile has also been
completed. There will be no dredging, reclamation or marine sheet piling works
in open waters at this stage. On 28
February 2015, rock bund deposition for marine sheet pile remedial works 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 Thirteen to Twenty-four Monthly EM&A Report. Water Quality Monitoring was suspended from 6
June 2015 effectively and will resume when Phase II Reclamation commences in
the fourth quarter of 2016 tentatively.
In this reporting period, a total of 91 monitoring
events were undertaken in which no Action Level or Limit Level exceedances were
recorded from the water quality monitoring in this reporting period. Summary of exceedances for Water Quality Impact Monitoring
in this reporting period is detailed in Table
2.25.
In order to determine any significant water quality
impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with
setting α at 0.05) was conducted to examine whether there was significant
difference in DO, turbidity and SS between reporting period and 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 significantly higher
than the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period. The annual depth-averaged turbidity recorded in
the reporting period were significantly lower than the average levels in
baseline monitoring, except for SR10A and SR9 in mid-ebb tide and SR10A in
mid-flood tide in which turbidity levels during this reporting period were
comparable to the corresponding average baseline levels. The SS levels recorded during the reporting
period were significantly lower than the results obtained during the baseline
monitoring period, except for SR9 in both mid-ebb and mid-flood tide in which
the SS levels recorded during the baseline monitoring period were comparable to
the corresponding average baseline levels.
Whilst DO, turbidity and suspended solids levels were 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
Reporting Period (in mg/L)
|
Tide
|
Station
|
Depth
|
Average DO of baseline monitoring
|
Average DO of reporting period
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS12
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
7.0
|
|
IS13
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
7.0
|
|
IS14
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
6.9
|
|
IS15
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
6.9
|
|
SR10A
|
Surface
|
6.0
|
6.9
|
|
SR8
|
Surface
|
6.2
|
6.9
|
|
SR9
|
Surface
|
6.0
|
6.9
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
7.1
|
|
IS13
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
7.0
|
|
IS14
|
Surface
|
6.1
|
7.0
|
|
IS15
|
Surface
|
6.2
|
7.0
|
|
SR10A
|
Surface
|
6.0
|
7.0
|
|
SR8
|
Surface
|
6.2
|
7.0
|
|
SR9
|
Surface
|
6.0
|
7.0
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS12
|
Middle
|
5.9
|
6.9
|
|
IS13
|
Middle
|
6.0
|
6.9
|
|
IS14
|
Middle
|
6.0
|
6.9
|
|
IS15
|
Middle
|
6.0
|
6.9
|
|
SR10A
|
Middle
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Middle
|
5.9
|
7.0
|
|
IS13
|
Middle
|
6.0
|
7.0
|
|
IS14
|
Middle
|
5.9
|
6.9
|
|
IS15
|
Middle
|
6.1
|
6.9
|
|
SR10A
|
Middle
|
5.9
|
6.9
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS12
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
|
IS13
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.7
|
|
IS14
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.7
|
|
IS15
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.7
|
|
SR10A
|
Bottom
|
5.7
|
6.7
|
|
SR8
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.8
|
|
SR9
|
Bottom
|
5.8
|
6.8
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
|
IS13
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
|
IS14
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
|
IS15
|
Bottom
|
6.0
|
6.8
|
|
SR10A
|
Bottom
|
5.8
|
6.8
|
|
SR8
|
Bottom
|
5.8
|
6.8
|
|
SR9
|
Bottom
|
5.9
|
6.9
|
Table 2.10 Summary of Average Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of Baseline
Monitoring and the 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
|
6.6
|
|
IS13
|
9.2
|
6.6
|
|
IS14
|
9.3
|
6.7
|
|
IS15
|
9.8
|
6.7
|
|
SR10A
|
7.1
|
6.5
|
|
|
SR8
|
11.0
|
6.5
|
|
|
SR9
|
7.2
|
6.6
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
9.8
|
6.5
|
|
IS13
|
9.5
|
6.6
|
|
IS14
|
9.4
|
6.6
|
|
IS15
|
9.8
|
6.5
|
|
SR10A
|
7.0
|
6.4
|
|
|
SR8
|
10.1
|
6.4
|
|
|
SR9
|
8.5
|
6.5
|
Table 2.11 Summary of Average Depth-averaged SS Level of Baseline
Monitoring and the 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
|
7.7
|
|
IS13
|
10.0
|
7.7
|
|
IS14
|
10.4
|
7.8
|
|
IS15
|
9.6
|
7.7
|
|
SR10A
|
10.3
|
7.6
|
|
|
SR8
|
10.1
|
7.6
|
|
|
SR9
|
8.8
|
7.6
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
9.5
|
7.7
|
|
IS13
|
10.5
|
7.7
|
|
IS14
|
9.7
|
7.7
|
|
IS15
|
11.0
|
7.6
|
|
SR10A
|
10.2
|
7.5
|
|
|
SR8
|
11.3
|
7.5
|
|
|
SR9
|
9.9
|
7.5
|
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
|
F1,101
= 22.4
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS13
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 24.2
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS14
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 18.9
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS15
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 26.9
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR10A
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 26.4
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR8
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 11.2
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR9
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 22.7
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 33.9
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS13
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 30.7
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS14
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 28.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS15
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 27.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR10A
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 46.4
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR8
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 23.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR9
|
Surface
|
F1,101
= 40.7
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS12
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 26.1
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS13
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 21.3
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS14
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 22.3
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS15
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 26.8
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR10A
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 25.4
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 36.5
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS13
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 29.8
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS14
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 32.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS15
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 27.1
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR10A
|
Middle
|
F1,101
= 50.3
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS12
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 23.8
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS13
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 24.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS14
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 16.7
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS15
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 30.4
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR10A
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 34.2
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR8
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 13.5
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR9
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 31.3
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 31.8
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS13
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 31.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS14
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 29.1
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS15
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 25.9
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR10A
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 40.0
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR8
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 39.7
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR9
|
Bottom
|
F1,101
= 31.0
|
<0.01
|
|
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
|
F1,101
= 54.01
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS13
|
F1,101
= 28.25
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS14
|
F1,101
= 20.09
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS15
|
F1,101
= 34.69
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR10A
|
F1,101
= 2.22
|
0.14
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR8
|
F1,101
= 59.64
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR9
|
F1,101
= 2.05
|
0.16
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
F1,101
= 30.33
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS13
|
F1,101
= 22.12
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS14
|
F1,101
= 27.73
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS15
|
F1,101
= 34.38
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR10A
|
F1,101
= 1.71
|
0.19
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR8
|
F1,101
= 33.21
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR9
|
F1,101
= 17.13
|
<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
|
F1,101
= 8.92
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS13
|
F1,101
= 23.15
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS14
|
F1,101
= 20.27
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
IS15
|
F1,101
= 11.83
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR10A
|
F1,101
= 27.55
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR8
|
F1,101
= 28.43
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
SR9
|
F1,101
= 5.13
|
0.03
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS12
|
F1,101
= 8.92
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS13
|
F1,101
= 23.15
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS14
|
F1,101
= 20.27
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
IS15
|
F1,101
= 11.83
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR10A
|
F1,101
= 27.55
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR8
|
F1,101
= 28.43
|
<0.01
|
|
Mid-flood
|
SR9
|
F1,101
= 5.13
|
0.03
|
|
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
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-ebb
Surface DO
|
IS12
|
0.202
|
22.6
|
<0.001
|
4.881
|
0.004
|
|
IS13
|
0.223
|
25.6
|
<0.001
|
4.906
|
0.004
|
|
IS14
|
0.287
|
35.8
|
<0.001
|
4.537
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.206
|
23.9
|
<0.001
|
5.300
|
0.004
|
|
SR10A
|
0.220
|
25.2
|
<0.001
|
5.025
|
0.004
|
|
SR8
|
0.183
|
19.9
|
<0.001
|
4.834
|
0.004
|
|
SR9
|
0.179
|
19.5
|
<0.001
|
5.112
|
0.004
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-flood
surface DO
|
IS12
|
0.173
|
18.6
|
<0.001
|
5.433
|
0.003
|
|
IS13
|
0.226
|
26.0
|
<0.001
|
5.260
|
0.003
|
|
IS14
|
0.310
|
40.0
|
<0.001
|
4.756
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.158
|
16.7
|
<0.001
|
5.667
|
0.003
|
|
SR10A
|
0.227
|
26.2
|
<0.001
|
5.361
|
0.004
|
|
SR8
|
0.199
|
22.0
|
<0.001
|
5.162
|
0.004
|
|
SR9
|
0.205
|
22.9
|
<0.001
|
5.470
|
0.003
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-ebb
middle DO
|
IS12
|
0.181
|
19.7
|
<0.001
|
5.067
|
0.004
|
|
IS13
|
0.179
|
19.4
|
<0.001
|
5.074
|
0.004
|
|
IS14
|
0.253
|
30.1
|
<0.001
|
4.760
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.145
|
15.1
|
<0.001
|
5.479
|
0.003
|
|
SR10A
|
0.176
|
19.1
|
<0.001
|
5.027
|
0.004
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-flood
middle DO
|
IS12
|
0.135
|
13.9
|
<0.001
|
5.558
|
0.003
|
|
IS13
|
0.135
|
13.9
|
<0.001
|
5.551
|
0.003
|
|
IS14
|
0.254
|
30.2
|
<0.001
|
4.948
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.081
|
7.88
|
<0.001
|
5.945
|
0.002
|
|
SR10A
|
0.205
|
22.9
|
<0.001
|
5.312
|
0.003
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-ebb
bottom DO
|
IS12
|
0.153
|
16.1
|
<0.001
|
5.142
|
0.003
|
|
IS13
|
0.179
|
19.4
|
<0.001
|
5.131
|
0.003
|
|
IS14
|
0.187
|
20.5
|
<0.001
|
4.895
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.096
|
9.42
|
<0.001
|
5.636
|
0.002
|
|
SR10A
|
0.167
|
17.9
|
<0.001
|
5.061
|
0.003
|
|
SR8
|
0.171
|
18.4
|
<0.001
|
4.766
|
0.004
|
|
SR9
|
0.208
|
23.4
|
<0.001
|
4.989
|
0.004
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-flood
bottom DO
|
IS12
|
0.113
|
11.4
|
<0.001
|
5.536
|
0.003
|
|
IS13
|
0.131
|
13.4
|
<0.001
|
5.536
|
0.003
|
|
IS14
|
0.170
|
18.3
|
<0.001
|
5.221
|
0.003
|
|
IS15
|
0.059
|
5.59
|
<0.001
|
5.990
|
0.002
|
|
SR10A
|
0.183
|
19.9
|
<0.001
|
5.316
|
0.003
|
|
SR8
|
0.195
|
21.5
|
<0.001
|
5.030
|
0.004
|
|
SR9
|
0.219
|
25.0
|
<0.001
|
5.195
|
0.003
|
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
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-ebb
depth
-average
turbidity
|
IS12
|
0.005
|
0.49
|
<0.001
|
5.958
|
0.001
|
|
IS13
|
0.007
|
0.63
|
<0.001
|
5.868
|
0.002
|
|
IS14
|
0.019
|
1.68
|
<0.001
|
5.420
|
0.003
|
|
IS15
|
0.002
|
0.17
|
<0.001
|
6.264
|
0.001
|
|
SR10A
|
0.031
|
2.87
|
<0.001
|
6.047
|
0.003
|
|
SR8
|
0.008
|
0.71
|
<0.001
|
5.751
|
0.002
|
|
SR9
|
0.028
|
2.60
|
<0.001
|
5.015
|
0.003
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-flood
depth
-average
turbidity
|
IS12
|
0.014
|
1.30
|
<0.001
|
5.563
|
0.002
|
|
IS13
|
0.007
|
0.63
|
<0.001
|
5.873
|
0.001
|
|
IS14
|
0.029
|
2.66
|
<0.001
|
5.190
|
0.003
|
|
IS15
|
0.002
|
0.14
|
<0.001
|
6.213
|
0.001
|
|
SR10A
|
0.018
|
1.64
|
<0.001
|
5.222
|
0.002
|
|
SR8
|
0.014
|
1.30
|
<0.001
|
5.469
|
0.002
|
|
SR9
|
0.041
|
3.82
|
<0.001
|
4.695
|
0.004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-ebb
depth
-average
SS
|
IS12
|
0.01
|
0.80
|
<0.001
|
6.913
|
0.002
|
|
IS13
|
0.01
|
1.22
|
<0.001
|
6.750
|
0.002
|
|
IS14
|
0.03
|
2.91
|
<0.001
|
6.158
|
0.004
|
|
IS15
|
0.002
|
0.19
|
<0.001
|
7.326
|
0.001
|
|
SR10A
|
0.02
|
2.14
|
<0.001
|
6.244
|
0.003
|
|
SR8
|
0.01
|
0.91
|
<0.001
|
6.734
|
0.002
|
|
SR9
|
0.03
|
2.43
|
<0.001
|
6.125
|
0.003
|
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F1,89
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient of days of construction
|
|
Mid-flood
depth
-average
SS
|
IS12
|
0.01
|
0.90
|
<0.001
|
6.876
|
0.002
|
|
IS13
|
0.01
|
0.52
|
<0.001
|
7.066
|
0.001
|
|
IS14
|
0.03
|
2.72
|
<0.001
|
6.305
|
0.003
|
|
IS15
|
0.01
|
0.608
|
<0.001
|
6.969
|
0.001
|
|
SR10A
|
0.03
|
2.87
|
<0.001
|
6.047
|
0.003
|
|
SR8
|
0.02
|
1.95
|
<0.001
|
6.293
|
0.002
|
|
SR9
|
0.05
|
5.02
|
<0.001
|
5.560
|
0.004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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[JT3]
|
Line
No.
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
Line
No.
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
|
1
|
Start Point
|
804671
|
814577
(815456)
|
13
|
Start Point
|
816506
|
819480
|
|
1
|
End Point
|
804671
|
831404
|
13
|
End Point
|
816506
|
824859
|
|
2
|
Start Point
|
805475
|
815457
(815913)
|
14
|
Start Point
|
817537
|
820220
|
|
2
|
End Point
|
805477
|
826654
|
14
|
End Point
|
817537
|
824613
|
|
3
|
Start Point
|
806464
|
819435
|
15
|
Start Point
|
818568
|
820735
|
|
3
|
End Point
|
806464
|
822911
|
15
|
End Point
|
818568
|
824433
|
|
4
|
Start Point
|
807518
|
819771
|
16
|
Start Point
|
819532
|
821420
|
|
4
|
End Point
|
807518
|
829230
|
16
|
End Point
|
819532
|
824209
|
|
5
|
Start Point
|
808504
|
820220
|
17
|
Start Point
|
820451
|
822125
|
|
5
|
End Point
|
808504
|
828602
|
17
|
End Point
|
820451
|
823671
|
|
6
|
Start Point
|
809490
|
820466
|
18
|
Start Point
|
821504
|
822371
|
|
6
|
End Point
|
809490
|
825352
|
18
|
End Point
|
821504
|
823761
|
|
7
|
Start Point
|
810499
|
820690
(820880)
|
19
|
Start Point
|
822513
|
823268
|
|
7
|
End Point
|
810499
|
824613
|
19
|
End Point
|
822513
|
824321
|
|
8
|
Start Point
|
811508
|
820847
(821123)
|
20
|
Start Point
|
823477
|
823402
|
|
8
|
End Point
|
811508
|
824254
|
20
|
End Point
|
823477
|
824613
|
|
9
|
Start Point
|
812516
|
820892
(821303)
|
21
|
Start Point
|
805476
|
827081
|
|
9
|
End Point
|
812516
|
824254
|
21
|
End Point
|
805476
|
830562
|
|
10
|
Start Point
|
813525
|
820872
|
22
|
Start Point
|
806464
|
824033
|
|
10
|
End Point
|
813525
|
824657
|
22
|
End Point
|
806464
|
829598
|
|
11
|
Start Point
|
814556
|
818449
(818853)
|
23
|
Start Point
|
814559
|
821739
|
|
11
|
End Point
|
814556
|
820992
|
23
|
End Point
|
814559
|
824768
|
|
12
|
Start Point
|
815542
|
818807
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
End Point
|
815542
|
824882
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Northing co-ordinates in bracket
are the adjusted co-ordinates since August 2015 due to obstruction of permanent
structures associated with construction works.
Approval of the adjustments from EPD was received in July 2015.
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 3,589.91 km
of survey effort was collected, with 97.0%
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, 1,381.43 km and 2,208.48 km of survey effort were collected from NEL and NWL
survey areas, respectively. The total
survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were 2,612.04 km and 977.87 km,
respectively. The survey efforts are
summarized in Appendix F.
A total of 54 groups of 229 Chinese White Dolphin
sightings were recorded during the 24 sets of surveys
in this reporting year. All except four (4) sighting were made during on-effort search. Forty-four (44) on-effort sightings were made
on primary lines, while six (6) other on-effort sightings were made on
secondary lines. During this reporting year, almost all dolphin groups were
sighted in NWL, only one (1) dolphin being sighted in NEL.
Dolphin sighting distribution of the present impact
phase monitoring period (November 2014 to October 2015) 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, 99.5% of the dolphin sightings
were made in NWL, while only one (1) dolphin was 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
Daily Dolphin Encounter Rates
|
|
Encounter rate (STG)
(no. of
on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all
on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
|
|
Northeast Lantau
|
Northwest Lantau
|
Northeast Lantau
|
Northwest Lantau
|
|
Impact Phase (2014-2015)
|
0.11 ± 0.54
|
2.54 ± 2.49
|
0.11 ± 0.54
|
11.64 ± 14.04
|
|
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 2014 –October 2015),
transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring
periods (February 2011 – January 2012). ± denotes the
standard deviation of the value.
Table d 4.6
nd limit levels of dolphin impact monitoring are
shown in Table
Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from
one to thirteen (1-13) individuals per group in North Lantau region during
November 2014 - October 2015. The
average dolphin group sizes from the 12-month impact phase monitoring period
were compared with the ones deduced from baseline and transitional phases, as
shown in Table 2.21.
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 (2014-2015)
|
4.24 ± 3.15 (n = 54)
|
1.00 (n = 1)
|
4.30 ± 3.15 (n = 53)
|
|
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 2014 –October 2015),
transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring
periods (February 2011 – January 2012).
(± denotes the standard deviation of the average value)
Whilst two (2) Action Level exceedances for Northeast
Lantau and Northwest Lantau was both recorded in the reporting period
respectively, three (3) Limit Level exceedances were observed for the quarterly
dolphin monitoring data between November 2014 and October 2015. In this reporting period, no unacceptable
impact from the activities of this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was
noticeable from the general observations.
It is essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in North Lantau
region for the rest of the impact phase monitoring period.
2.3.7
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. During daylight hours,
monitoring was undertaken by dolphin
observers using visual observation. 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.
2.4
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 Thirteen to Twenty-four Monthly EM&A
Reports.
2.5
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 2014
|
595
|
240,167
|
0
|
50
|
0
|
0
|
2,320
|
0
|
|
December 2014
|
10,151
|
108,279
|
0
|
49
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
January 2015
|
30,877
|
0
|
0
|
80
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
February 2015
|
4152
|
0
|
0
|
74
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
March 2015
|
36,718
|
0
|
0
|
115
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
April 2015
|
62,847
|
0
|
0
|
91
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
May 2015
|
121,436
|
0
|
0
|
108
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
June 2015
|
247,282
|
0
|
0
|
120
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
July 2015
|
233,422
|
0
|
0
|
172
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
August 2015
|
62,367
|
0
|
0
|
246
|
300
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
September 2015
|
9,555
|
0
|
0
|
195
|
520
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
October 2015
|
1,979
|
0
|
0
|
177
|
300
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
821,381
|
348,446
|
0
|
1477
|
1,120
|
0
|
2,320
|
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 2.23 below.
There were a
total of five (5) Action and Limit Levels exceedances for impact dolphin
monitoring in the reporting period, whereas both NEL and NWL regions each
recorded one (1) Action Level exceedance, and three (3) Limit Level exceedances
for the whole monitoring region were recorded.
No
unacceptable impact from the construction activities of the TM-CLKL Northern
Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from
general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this reporting period. Detailed
investigation findings are presented in the
Fourth to Seventh Quarterly EM&A Report.
Cumulative statistics are provided in Appendix H.
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is provided
in Figure 2.4.
No non-compliance event was recorded during the
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 were thus invalid.
No summons/ prosecution was
received during the reporting period.
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and
successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix H.
Findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during
the period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015 were compared with the
relevant EIA predictions where appropriate to provide a review of the validity
of the EIA predictions and identify potential shortcomings in the EIA
recommendations.
2.10.1
Air Quality
Based
on the findings presented in TM-CLKL EIA study, the major sources of dust
nuisance arising from the Northern Connection are related to excavation, wind
erosion from reclaimed areas, open sites and stockpiling areas. Therefore, during these construction
activities, the TSP monitoring frequency will be increased at all air quality
monitoring stations such that any deteriorating air quality can be readily
detected and timely action taken to rectify the situation. Comparison of EIA prediction,
average baseline monitoring and average impact monitoring results of TSP is
presented in Table 2.26.
Table 2.26 Comparison of EIA prediction and EM&A Results on Air
Quality
|
Station
|
EIA Predicted Maximum
|
Maximum
Impact Monitoring
|
Average
Impact Monitoring
|
Maximum
Baseline Monitoring
|
Average
Baseline Monitoring
|
|
ASR1
(1-hour)
|
195
|
404
|
140
|
182
|
125
|
|
ASR1
(24-hour)
|
148
|
162
|
84
|
173
|
128
|
|
ASR5
(1-hour)
|
235
|
346
|
162
|
211
|
138
|
|
ASR5
(24-hour)
|
133
|
151
|
91
|
249
|
167
|
|
AQMS1
(1-hour)
|
N/A
|
348
|
124
|
196
|
131
|
|
AQMS1
(24-hour)
|
N/A
|
155
|
78
|
211
|
127
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
(1-hour)
|
226
|
309
|
130
|
226
|
135
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
(24-hour)
|
153
|
133
|
77
|
221
|
166
|
|
ASR10
(1-hour)
|
189
|
251
|
88
|
215
|
134
|
|
ASR10
(24-hour)
|
112
|
130
|
64
|
181
|
129
|
As shown in Table
2.26, maximum 1-hour and 24-hour TSP impact monitoring levels at ASR1, ASR5
and ASR10 were higher than their corresponding EIA predicted maximum
levels. In baseline monitoring, maximum
baseline levels of 1-hour TSP at ASR10 and 24-hour TSP at ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and
ASR10 were also higher than EIA maximum prediction. These recorded maximum monitoring values
during both impact and baseline monitoring periods are thus considered as
sporadic events and fluctuation of regional air quality. Overall, most of the monitoring results were
within EIA predicted levels during impact monitoring period. It thus appeared that the construction
activities of the Contract did not cause significant impact on air quality with
similar average TSP levels between the baseline and impact monitoring. The EIA has concluded that no adverse
residual construction dust impacts will occur after implementation of mitigation
measures. Thus, the monitoring results
are considered to be in line with the EIA prediction.
2.10.2
Water Quality
As identified in the EIA Report, key
water quality issues during construction phase may be caused by dredging and
filling works for the reclamation of the Project. Thus, marine water quality monitoring
should be carried out during the construction phase to ensure that any
unacceptable increase in suspended solids / turbidity or unacceptable decrease
in dissolved oxygen due to dredging and filling activities could be readily
detected and timely action could be taken to rectify the situation.
According to the EIA prediction, no SS
exceedance is anticipated from this Project at the water sensitive receivers in
the vicinity of the Contract works area (WSR 12, WSR 13 and WSR 47a). There is in-line with the monitoring results
that no Action Level or Limit Level exceedances were
recorded from the water quality monitoring in this reporting period. In addition, the annual mean
values of depth-averaged SS recorded in this reporting period were compared with
the relevant concerned mean values, which were defined as 30% above baseline
levels. Results showed that the annual
mean values of depth-averaged SS at all monitoring stations were well below the
concerned mean values (Table 2.27),
thus the impact monitoring results are considered to in line with the EIA
prediction.
DO levels from surface, mid-depth and bottom waters
were generally similar amongst Control, Impact stations and Sensitive
Receivers, and DO levels were variable throughout the reporting period which
represented natural background fluctuation in water quality. Similar to DO levels, turbidity and SS levels
were generally comparable amongst Control, Impact stations and Sensitive
Receivers and variable throughout the monitoring period. High levels of turbidity and SS were
occasionally recorded during both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides. Such fluctuations were also observed during
baseline monitoring and are considered to be sporadic events and characteristic
of water quality in this area of Hong Kong.
The annual means of DO levels during impact period
were higher than the means of DO levels measured during baseline period. The annual means of depth-averaged SS and
Turbidity during impact period were lower than the means of depth-averaged SS
and Turbidity measured during baseline period.
One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test for the
differences between the baseline and impact monitoring data of Dissolved
Oxygen, Turbidity and SS at the designated water quality monitoring
locations. The detailed graphical and statistical results,
as presented in Section 2.2.3 and Appendix E respectively,
show that depth-averaged SS and Turbidity levels were significantly lower during
impact period than baseline period whilst DO levels were higher during impact
period than baseline period. No
deterioration trend on water quality was detected in the reporting period when
comparing to baseline data. Thus, the
impact monitoring results are considered to in line with the EIA prediction.
Table 2.27 Comparison between Annual Mean and Ambient Mean Values of
Depth-averaged Suspended Solids (mg/L)
|
Station
|
Baseline Mean
|
Ambient Mean (a)
|
Annual
Mean (November 2014 to October 2015)
|
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
Mid-ebb
|
Mid-flood
|
|
CS4
|
10.2
|
9.0
|
13.3
|
11.7
|
7.8
|
7.7
|
|
CS6
|
10.9
|
11.7
|
14.1
|
15.2
|
7.6
|
7.5
|
|
IS12
|
9.2
|
9.5
|
12.0
|
12.3
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
|
IS13
|
10.0
|
10.5
|
13.0
|
13.7
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
|
IS14
|
10.4
|
9.7
|
13.5
|
12.6
|
7.8
|
7.7
|
|
IS15
|
9.6
|
11.0
|
12.5
|
14.2
|
7.7
|
7.6
|
|
SR10A
|
10.3
|
10.2
|
13.3
|
13.3
|
7.6
|
7.5
|
|
SR8
|
10.1
|
11.3
|
13.1
|
14.7
|
7.6
|
7.5
|
|
SR9
|
8.8
|
9.9
|
11.4
|
12.8
|
7.6
|
7.5
|
|
Grand
Total
|
10.0
|
10.3
|
13.0
|
13.4
|
7.7
|
7.6
|
|
Notes:
|
|
(a) Ambient mean value is defined as a 30%
increase of the baseline mean value
|
2.10.3
Marine Ecology
Impact monitoring on marine ecology was undertaken
during the monitoring period. According
to the baseline results in the Appendix F of the
approved EIA Report, the dolphin groups were largely sighted near Lung Kwu Chau and the waters between Lung Kwu
Chau and Black Points and infrequently along the alignment of this
Contract. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated
measures were conducted to compare results of average encounter rate of
sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) between baseline
and impact periods. Although the STG and
ANI in impact monitoring period were lower than that before the commencement of
this Contract (see Section 2.3.6),
the distribution pattern was similar between the impact monitoring period and
before the commencement (i.e. transition period in 2012 – 2013) of this
Contract. In addition, the habitat use
pattern between impact monitoring in this reporting period and before the
commencement of this contract is largely similar, in which dolphins are
observed heavily utilized area around Lung Kwu Chau
and less frequently in the North Lantau region where the works area of this
Contract is situated. The monitoring
results in this reporting period are considered to be in line with the EIA
predictions, and the review of monitoring data suggested that no unacceptable
impacts was noted from the marine dredging and reclamation activities 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.
2.10.4
Waste Management
For wastes generated from the construction activities
including C&D materials (inert and non-inert), chemical wastes, recyclable
materials and marine sediments (both categories L and M), the types of wastes
generated were in line with the EIA predictions. For dredged sediment, the quantity of
sediments generated was in line with CEDD’s allocated disposal volumes as per
the marine dumping permit (see Table 2.22).
The wastes were also disposed of in accordance with the recommendations of the
EIA
The EM&A monitoring programme has been reviewed
and was considered effective and adequate to cater for the nature of works in
progress. No change to the monitoring
programme was considered 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 necessary.
3
Review
of EM&A Programme
3.1
Site Inspections & Audits
Weekly joint environmental site
inspections have been conducted in the reporting period to assess the effectiveness
of the environmental controls established by the Contractor and the
implementation of the environmental mitigation measures recommended in the EIA
Report.
Findings of the site inspections confirmed that the environmental
mitigation measures recommended in the EIA Report were properly implemented by
the Contractor, and the recommended mitigation measures have been working
effectively. There was no non-compliance recorded
during the site inspections and environmental performance complied with
environmental requirements.
The
requirements for site inspections and audits have been reviewed and were considered
as adequate. 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 phase of the Project. No change was thus considered necessary.
3.2
Air Quality Monitoring
Construction
phase air quality monitoring was conducted during this reporting period when
land-based construction works were undertaken.
Whilst occasional exceedances of Action and Limit Levels for air quality
were recorded, following the review of monitoring data and construction works
details in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Event and Action
Plan of Updated EM&A Manual, all exceedances were unlikely to be due to the
Project’s construction works.
The
monitoring programme has been reviewed and was considered to be adequate to
cater for the nature of works. No change
to the requirements was considered to be necessary.
Construction phase water quality
monitoring was conducted during this reporting period when dredging and
reclamation works were undertaken. No Action Level or Limit Level exceedances
for water quality were recorded from
the water quality monitoring in this reporting period.
The monitoring programme has been
reviewed and was considered to be adequate to cater for the nature of
works. No change to the requirements was
considered to be necessary. Water
Quality Monitoring was suspended from 6 June 2015 effectively and will resume
when Phase II Reclamation commences in the fourth quarter of 2016 tentatively.
The
waste inspection and audit programme has been implemented during this reporting
period. Wastes generated from
construction activities have been managed in accordance with the
recommendations in the EIA Report, the EM&A Manual, the WMP and other
relevant legislative 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.
Daily
marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring and dolphin monitoring during the reporting
period were conducted. The monitoring
programme has been reviewed and was considered to be adequate to cater for the
nature of works. No change to the requirements
was considered to be necessary.
3.6
Summary
of Recommendations
Findings
of the EM&A programme indicate that the recommended mitigation measures
have been properly implemented and working effectively. The EM&A programme has
been reviewed and was considered as adequate and effective. No change to the EM&A 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.
4
Conclusions
This Second Annual EM&A Report presents the
findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period from 1 November
2014 to 31 October 2015, in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the
requirements of EP-354/2009/D.
Air quality (including 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP), marine
water quality and dolphin monitoring were carried out in the reporting period. Four Action Level exceedances for
1-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting period. No Action Level or Limit Level
exceedances were recorded in marine water quality impact
monitoring during the reporting period. Investigation
findings suggested that the observed exceedances for air
quality monitoring were considered to be sporadic event from the cumulative
anthropogenic activities (eg traffic emissions from
River Trade Terminal) in this area of Hong Kong. The review of water quality monitoring data
suggested that no unacceptable impact was resulting from the construction
activities under this Contract in the reporting period. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure that all dust mitigation measures are provided at the construction sites.
A total of 54 groups of 229 Chinese White Dolphin (CWDs) were sighted. Whilst two (2) Action Level exceedances and
three (3) Limit Level exceedances were recorded for 4 sets of quarterly dolphin
monitoring data between September 2014 and August 2015, no unacceptable impact
from the activities of this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable
from the general observations. 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.
Fifty-two weekly environmental site inspections were carried
out in the reporting period.
Recommendations on remedial actions provided for the deficiencies
identified during the site audits were properly implemented by the Contractor. No non-compliance event was
recorded during the 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 summons/ prosecution was
received during the reporting period.
The review of monitoring data suggested that the
construction works under this Contract have proceeded in an environmentally
acceptable manner in this reporting period.
The monitoring programme has
been reviewed and was considered as adequate to cater for the nature of works
in progress. Change to the
monitoring programme was thus not recommended at this stage. The ET will keep track on the construction
works to confirm compliance of environmental requirements and the proper
implementation of all necessary mitigation measures.
