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 Third Annual EM&A
report presenting the EM&A works carried out during the period from 1
November 2015 to 31 October 2016 for the 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
|
|
Land-based Works
|
|
· Construction
of Cross Passage Tympanum - Portion N-A;
· TBM
Tunnel Works at Portion N-C;
· Excavation
of sub-sea tunnel – TBM Tunnel;
· Construction
of Cross Passage Tympanum – TBM Tunnel;
· Thrust
frame removal – TBM Tunnel;
· Sub-sea
tunnel gallery installation – TBM Tunnel;
· Slab
construction of tunnel protection enhancement – TBM Tunnel;
· Corbel
construction – TBM Tunnel;
· Cross
passage lining installation – TBM Tunnel;
· Deep
band drain installation – Portion S-A;
· Dewatering
deep well installation – Portion S-A;
·
Jet grouting, CSM ground
treatment and diaphragm wall construction - Portion S-A.
No
works were conducted at Portion N-B.
|
A
summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting period is
listed below:
24-hour
TSP Monitoring 120
sessions
1-hour
TSP Monitoring 120
sessions
Impact
Dolphin Monitoring 24
sessions
Joint
Environmental Site Inspection 52
sessions
Implementation of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone
There was no dredging, reclamation or
marine sheet piling works in open waters during this reporting period.
Thus, Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) during night-time and day-time
monitoring of Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) by dolphin observers were not
required to be undertaken during the reporting period.
Summary
of Breaches of Action/Limit Levels
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No
Action Level or Limit Level of air quality exceedances were recorded in the air
quality monitoring of 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 2015 and August 2016, 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 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.
Four (4) environmental
complaint cases were received in this reporting period. The investigation reports were submitted to
ENPO and reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
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). Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Limited 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 Third 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 2015 to 31 October 2016.
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
|
|
Land-based Works
|
|
|
·
Construction of Cross
Passage Tympanum - Portion N-A;
·
TBM Tunnel Works at
Portion N-C;
·
Excavation of sub-sea
tunnel – TBM Tunnel;
·
Construction of Cross
Passage Tympanum – TBM Tunnel;
·
Thrust frame removal –
TBM Tunnel;
·
Sub-sea tunnel gallery
installation – TBM Tunnel;
·
Slab construction of
tunnel protection enhancement – TBM Tunnel;
·
Corbel construction – TBM
Tunnel;
·
Cross passage lining
installation – TBM Tunnel;
·
Deep band drain
installation – Portion S-A;
·
Dewatering deep well
installation – Portion S-A;
·
Jet grouting, CSM ground
treatment and diaphragm wall construction - Portion S-A.
No
works were conducted at Portion N-B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1.2 Locations of Construction Activities – November 2015 to October 2016
|
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
|
Davis
(Model: Weather Wizard III (S/N:
WE90911A30)
Davis
(Model: Vantage Pro 2 (S/N:
AS160104014
|
|
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 F.
2.1.3
Results and Observations
Impact
air quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the
reporting period under acceptable 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 Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth
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 2015
to October 2016
|
ASR 1
|
112
|
39
- 283
|
331
|
500
|
|
ASR 5
|
135
|
45
- 293
|
340
|
500
|
|
AQMS1
|
88
|
36
- 231
|
335
|
500
|
|
ASR6
|
109
|
44
- 279
|
338
|
500
|
|
ASR10
|
78
|
33
- 202
|
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 2015
to October 2016
|
ASR 1
|
73
|
42
- 125
|
213
|
260
|
|
ASR 5
|
78
|
41
- 138
|
238
|
260
|
|
AQMS1
|
60
|
38
- 112
|
213
|
260
|
|
ASR6
|
67
|
39
- 141
|
238
|
260
|
|
ASR10
|
58
|
43
- 116
|
214
|
260
|
In
this reporting period, a total of 120 monitoring events were undertaken. No Action or Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr
TSP or 24-hr TSP were recorded. Summary
of exceedances for Air Quality Impact Monitoring in this reporting period is
detailed in Table 2.13.
As
shown in Table 2.5, the annual
average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP level in the reporting period were generally
lower than the corresponding average levels of baseline at all monitoring
stations.
In
order to determine any significant air quality impacts caused by construction
activities from this Contract, one-way ANOVA (with 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 AQMS1, ASR10
and ASR6 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, 401 = 60.37, p < 0.01, ASR6: F 1, 401 = 14.21, p < 0.01, ASR1: F 1, 401 =
2.56, p = 0.11, ASR10: F 1, 401
= < 0.01, p < 0.01 and ASR5: F
1, 401 = 0.11 p = 0.75). 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 = 180.24, p < 0.01, ASR6: F 1, 133 =
339.71, p < 0.01, ASR1: F 1,
133 = 71.97, p < 0.01,
ASR10: F 1, 133 = 308.57, p
< 0.01 and ASR5: F 1, 133 = 149.33, 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
|
112
|
|
ASR1(24-hour TSP)
|
128
|
73
|
|
ASR5(1-hour TSP)
|
138
|
135
|
|
ASR5(24-hour TSP)
|
167
|
79
|
|
AQMS1(1-hour TSP)
|
131
|
88
|
|
AQMS1(24-hour TSP)
|
127
|
60
|
|
ASR6(1-hour TSP)
|
135
|
109
|
|
ASR6(24-hour TSP)
|
166
|
67
|
|
ASR10(1-hour TSP)
|
134
|
78
|
|
ASR10(24-hour TSP)
|
129
|
58
|
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 during the
reporting period.
Table 2.6 Linear Regression Result of TSP Monitoring
|
Parameter
|
Station
|
R2
|
F-ratio
|
p-value
|
Intercept
|
Coefficient
|
|
1-hour TSP
|
AQMS1
|
0.192
|
F1,358 = 85.0
|
<0.001
|
217.9
|
-0.142
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
|
0.097
|
F1,358 = 38.2
|
<0.001
|
225.2
|
-0.127
|
|
ASR1
|
0.101
|
F1,358 = 40.3
|
<0.001
|
249.6
|
-0.151
|
|
ASR10
|
0.095
|
F1,358 = 37.3
|
<0.001
|
143.6
|
-0.072
|
|
ASR5
|
0.268
|
F1,358 = 131
|
<0.001
|
380.3
|
-0.269
|
|
24-hour TSP
|
AQMS1
|
0.322
|
F1,118 = 55.7
|
<0.001
|
133.1
|
-0.08
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
|
0.227
|
F1,118 = 34.4
|
<0.001
|
135.5
|
-0.08
|
|
|
ASR1
|
0.138
|
F1,118 = 18.8
|
<0.001
|
138.0
|
-0.07
|
|
|
ASR10
|
0.091
|
F1,118 = 11.7
|
<0.001
|
87.1
|
-0.032
|
|
|
ASR5
|
0.405
|
F1,118 = 79.6
|
<0.001
|
201.6
|
-0.136
|
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.
2.2
Water
Quality Monitoring
Phase
I Reclamation works for the Northern Landfall was substantially completed in
December 2014. A proposal letter was
sent to EPD on 21 May 2015 to seek approval for the temporary suspension of
Water Quality Monitoring. Subsequently,
a letter from EPD on 5 June 2015 stated that they have no strong objection to
the temporary suspension of the water quality monitoring. 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.
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 are adopted to avoid duplicates of survey effort.
2.3.2
Monitoring Equipment
Table 2.7 summarize the
equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.
Table 2.7 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 2.2. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are
shown in Table 2.8 below.
Table 2.8 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates
|
Line
No.
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
Line
No.
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
|
1
|
Start Point
|
804671
|
815456
|
13
|
Start Point
|
816506
|
819480
|
|
1
|
End Point
|
804671
|
831404
|
13
|
End Point
|
816506
|
824859
|
|
2
|
Start Point
|
805475
|
815913
|
14
|
Start Point
|
817537
|
820220
|
|
2
|
End Point
|
805477
|
826654
|
14
|
End Point
|
817537
|
824613
|
|
3
|
Start Point
|
806464
|
819435
|
15
|
Start Point
|
818568
|
820735
|
|
3
|
End Point
|
806464
|
822911
|
15
|
End Point
|
818568
|
824433
|
|
4
|
Start Point
|
807518
|
819771
|
16
|
Start Point
|
819532
|
821420
|
|
4
|
End Point
|
807518
|
829230
|
16
|
End Point
|
819532
|
824209
|
|
5
|
Start Point
|
808504
|
820220
|
17
|
Start Point
|
820451
|
822125
|
|
5
|
End Point
|
808504
|
828602
|
17
|
End Point
|
820451
|
823671
|
|
6
|
Start Point
|
809490
|
820466
|
18
|
Start Point
|
821504
|
822371
|
|
6
|
End Point
|
809490
|
825352
|
18
|
End Point
|
821504
|
823761
|
|
7
|
Start Point
|
810499
|
820880
|
19
|
Start Point
|
822513
|
823268
|
|
7
|
End Point
|
810499
|
824613
|
19
|
End Point
|
822513
|
824321
|
|
8
|
Start Point
|
811508
|
821123
|
20
|
Start Point
|
823477
|
823402
|
|
8
|
End Point
|
811508
|
824254
|
20
|
End Point
|
823477
|
824613
|
|
9
|
Start Point
|
812516
|
821303
|
21
|
Start Point
|
805476
|
827081
|
|
9
|
End Point
|
812516
|
824254
|
21
|
End Point
|
805476
|
830562
|
|
10
|
Start Point
|
813525
|
820872
|
22
|
Start Point
|
806464
|
824033
|
|
10
|
End Point
|
813525
|
824657
|
22
|
End Point
|
806464
|
829598
|
|
11
|
Start Point
|
814556
|
818853
|
23
|
Start Point
|
814559
|
821739
|
|
11
|
End Point
|
814556
|
820992
|
23
|
End Point
|
814559
|
824768
|
|
12
|
Start Point
|
815542
|
818807
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
End Point
|
815542
|
824882
|
|
|
|
|
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 F.
2.3.6
Results & Observations
A
total of 3,598.07 km of survey
effort was collected, with 92.7% of the total survey effort being
conducted under favourable weather conditions (ie Beaufort Sea State 3 or below
with good visibility) in this reporting year.
Amongst the two areas, 1,373.63 km and
2,224.44 km of survey effort were collected
from NEL and NWL survey areas, respectively.
The total survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were 2,609.11
km and 988.96 km,
respectively. The survey efforts are
summarized in Appendix E.
A
total of 45 groups of 168 Chinese White Dolphin sightings were recorded during
the 24 sets of surveys in this reporting year.
All except seven (7) sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-three (33)
on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while five (5) other on-effort
sightings were made on secondary lines.
During this reporting year, almost all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, with only
one (1) dolphin being sighted in NEL.
Dolphin
sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (November
2015 to October 2016) was compared to the ones during the baseline phase
(February 2011 to January 2012), transitional phase (November 2012 to October
2013) and the first
and second years of impact phase (November 2013 to October 2014 & November
2014 to October 2015 respectively). 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, 99.4% 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 2.9.
Table 2.9 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 (2015-2016)
|
0.00
|
2.10
± 1.83
|
0.00
|
8.54
± 8.53
|
|
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 the first, second and third years of impact phase (November 2013 to
October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015 and November 2015 to October 2016
respectively), 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 twelve (1-12) individuals per group in North Lantau region during
November 2015 - October 2016. The
average dolphin group sizes from the 12-month impact phase monitoring period
were compared with the ones deduced from baseline and transitional phases, as
shown in Table 2.10.
Table 2.10 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 (2015-2016)
|
3.73 ± 3.14 (n = 45)
|
1.00 (n = 1)
|
3.80 ± 3.14 (n = 44)
|
|
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 the first, second and third years of impact phase (November
2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015 and November 2015 to
October 2016 respectively ), 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
2015 and October 2016. 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
There was no dredging, reclamation or marine sheet piling works in
open waters during this reporting period. Thus, Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM) during night-time and day-time monitoring of Dolphin Exclusion
Zone (DEZ) by dolphin observers were not required to be undertaken during the
reporting period.
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 Twenty-fifth to Thirty-sixth Monthly
EM&A Reports.
2.5
Waste
Management Status
The
Contractor was registered 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) and recyclable materials.
Reference has been made to the waste flow table prepared by the
Contractor (Appendix H). The quantities of different types of wastes
are summarized in Table 2.11.
Table 2.11 Quantities of Different Waste Generated in the Reporting Period
|
Month/Year
|
Inert Construction Waste (a)
(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 2015
|
11,578
|
0
|
93
|
6150
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
December 2015
|
38,600
|
0
|
141
|
700
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
January 2016
|
24,068
|
0
|
113
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
February 2016
|
9,229
|
0
|
102
|
1,850
|
4,740
|
0
|
0
|
|
March 2016
|
3,501
|
0
|
111
|
200
|
3,000
|
0
|
0
|
|
April 2016
|
9,175
|
0
|
198
|
200
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
May 2016
|
2,392
|
0
|
202
|
200
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
June 2016
|
5,597
|
0
|
214
|
200
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
July 2016
|
10,063
|
0
|
292
|
200
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
August 2016
|
31,621
|
0
|
323
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
September 2016
|
9,450
|
0
|
335
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
October 2016
|
23,118
|
0
|
235
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
178,392
|
0
|
2,359
|
9,700
|
7,740
|
0
|
0
|
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 2.12 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 Eighth to Eleventh Quarterly EM&A Report.
Cumulative
statistics are provided in Appendix G.
The
Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is provided in Figure 2.3.
No
non-compliance event was recorded during the reporting period.
Four (4) environmental
complaint cases were received in this reporting period. The investigation reports were submitted to
ENPO and reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
No summons/
prosecution were received during the reporting period.
Statistics
on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are
summarized in Appendix G.
Findings
of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period from 1 November 2015 to
31 October 2016 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 2.14.
Table 2.14 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
|
283
|
112
|
182
|
125
|
|
ASR1
(24-hour)
|
148
|
125
|
73
|
173
|
128
|
|
ASR5
(1-hour)
|
235
|
293
|
135
|
211
|
138
|
|
ASR5
(24-hour)
|
133
|
138
|
79
|
249
|
167
|
|
AQMS1
(1-hour)
|
N/A
|
231
|
88
|
196
|
131
|
|
AQMS1
(24-hour)
|
N/A
|
112
|
60
|
211
|
127
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
(1-hour)
|
226
|
279
|
109
|
226
|
135
|
|
AQMS2/ASR6
(24-hour)
|
153
|
141
|
67
|
221
|
166
|
|
ASR10
(1-hour)
|
189
|
202
|
78
|
215
|
134
|
|
ASR10
(24-hour)
|
112
|
116
|
58
|
181
|
129
|
As
shown in Table 2.14, maximum 1-hour
TSP at ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 and 24-hour TSP impact monitoring levels at
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 background fluctuation of regional air quality. It also 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
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. Please refer to Section 2.2 above for details.
2.10.3
Marine Ecology
Impact
monitoring on marine ecology was undertaken during the monitoring period. According to the baseline results in the Appendix E 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. The wastes
were 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. No
Action Level or Limit Level of air quality exceedances were recorded in the air
quality monitoring of 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.
No
marine water quality monitoring was conducted during this reporting
period. 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
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.
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 was not required to be undertaken during the reporting
period. Impact monitoring on marine ecology
was undertaken during the monitoring 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.
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
Third Annual EM&A Report presents the findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during
the period from 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016, in accordance with the
Updated EM&A Manual and the requirements of EP-354/2009/D.
Air quality (including 1-hour
TSP and 24-hour TSP) and dolphin monitoring were carried out in the reporting
period. No Action Level of Limit Level
exceedances for 1-hr TSP or 24-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting
period. Nevertheless, the Contractor
was reminded to ensure that all dust mitigation measures are provided at the construction
sites.
A total of 45 groups of 168
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 2015 and August 2016, 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 (52) 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.
Four (4) environmental
complaint cases were received in this reporting period. The investigation reports were submitted to
ENPO and reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
No summons/ prosecution were
received during the reporting period.
The review of monitoring data
suggested that the construction works under this Contract have proceeded in an
environmentally acceptable manner in this reporting period.
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.
