table of
Contents
Executive
Summary
1.1 Background
1.2 Scope of Report
1.3 Organization Structure
1.4 Summary of Construction Works
2.1 Air quality
2.2 Water Quality Monitoring
2.3 Dolphin Monitoring
2.4 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
3.1 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
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 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 Fourth Annual EM&A report presenting the EM&A works carried out
during the period from 1 November 2016to 31 October 2017 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 |
·
Box Culvert Extension at Works Area – Portion N-A; ·
Phase 2 Surcharge Removal – Portion N-A; ·
Preparation of Stage 2 Reclamation – Portion N-A ·
Shaft Structure and Backfilling – Portion N-C; ·
Construction of North Ventilation Building – Portion
N-C; ·
Construction of Cross Passage Tympanum – TBM tunnel; ·
Cross Passage Lining Installation – TBM Tunnel; ·
Corbel Construction – TBM Tunnel; ·
Excavation of Sub-sea Tunnel – TBM tunnel; ·
Sub-sea Tunnel Gallery Installation – TBM tunnel; ·
Ground Freezing Works – Portion S-A ·
Bulk Excavation – Portion S-A; ·
Deep Band Drain Installation – Portion S-A; and ·
Jet Grouting, CSM Ground Treatment and Diaphragm
Wall Construction – Portion S-A. Marine-based
Works ·
Installation of silt curtain – Portion N-A; ·
Dredging – Portion N-A; ·
Construction of Vertical Seawall at Portion N-A; ·
Band drain installation at Portion N-A; and ·
Filling works at Portion N-A. |
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 121
sessions
Water Quality Monitoring 66 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. 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. No sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese
White Dolphin) was recorded in the reporting period during the exclusion zone
monitoring.
Summary of Breaches of Action/Limit Levels
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Fourteen (14) Action Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP,
one (1) Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP and one (1) Action Level
exceedance of 24-hour TSP were recorded in the air quality monitoring of this
reporting period.
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 four (4) Limit Level exceedances were recorded
for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2016
and October 2017, 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.
Seven (7) environmental complaint cases
were received in this reporting period.
The investigation
reports[JT1] were submitted to ENPO and
reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
A notification
of summons regarding the complaint case received on 17 November 2016 has been
received in the 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.
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 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 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 22/HZMB |
Chow Man Lung,
Andrew |
2762 4110 |
2762 4110 |
SOR (AECOM Asia
Company Limited) |
Chief Resident
Engineer |
Roger Man Andrew
Westmoreland |
2293 6388 2293 6360 |
2293 6300 2293 6300 |
ENPO / IEC (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited) |
ENPO Leader |
Y.H. Hui |
3465
2850 |
3465 2899 |
IEC |
Dr. F.C. Tsang |
3465
2851 |
3465 2899 |
|
Contractor (Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture) |
Environmental
Officer |
Bryan Lee |
2293 7323 |
2293 7499 |
|
24-hour
complaint hotline |
Rachel Lam |
2293 7330 |
|
ET (ERM-HK) |
ET Leader |
Jovy Tam |
2271 3113 |
2723 5660 |
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.
Table 1.2 Summary of Construction Activities Undertaken during the
Reporting Period
|
Figure 1.2 Locations of Construction Activities – November 2016 to October 2017
|
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
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the
Enhanced
TSP Monitoring Plan ([1]), 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
1-hour Total Suspended
Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 6 days
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)
1-hour Total Suspended
Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 3 days
24-hour Total Suspended
Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour in every 3
days |
ASR5 |
Pillar
Point Fire Station |
Office |
|
AQMS1 |
Previous
River Trade Golf |
Bare
ground |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
Bare
ground at Ho Suen Street /Butterfly Beach Laundry |
Bare
ground/Office |
|
ASR10 |
Butterfly
Beach Park |
Recreational
uses |
*Notes:
AQMS2
was relocated and HVS was re-installed at ASR6 (Butterfly Beach Laundry) on 17
January 2014. AQMS2 was then superseded
by ASR6 for the impact air quality monitoring.
Impact air quality monitoring at ASR6 commenced on 21 January 2014.
Table 2.2 Air
Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
High Volume Sampler |
Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Sampler (Model No. TE-5170) |
Wind Meter |
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) |
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.[JT2]
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 Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth
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 2016
to October 2017 |
ASR 1 |
137 |
33
- 545 |
331 |
500 |
ASR 5 |
160 |
27
- 456 |
340 |
500 |
|
AQMS1 |
102 |
10
- 473 |
335 |
500 |
|
ASR6 |
131 |
30
- 401 |
338 |
500 |
|
ASR10 |
86 |
18
- 475 |
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 2016
to October 2017 |
ASR 1 |
83 |
35
- 220 |
213 |
260 |
ASR 5 |
81 |
30
- 163 |
238 |
260 |
|
AQMS1 |
60 |
24
- 160 |
213 |
260 |
|
ASR6 |
70 |
32
- 138 |
238 |
260 |
|
ASR10 |
57 |
21
- 205 |
214 |
260 |
In this reporting period, a total of 121 monitoring
events were undertaken. Fourteen (14)
Action Level exceedance and one (1) Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP was
recorded. One (1) Action Level
exceedance of 24-hour TSP was 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 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP level in the reporting
period were generally lower than the corresponding average levels of baseline
at most monitoring stations. The annual
average 1-hour TSP was higher than the corresponding average levels of baseline
at ASR1 and ASR5.
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 and ASR10 in the reporting period were
significantly lower than the average results of baseline monitoring while there
were no significant differences for ASR6.
The average results of monitoring stations ASR1and ASR5 in the reporting
period were slightly higher than the average results of baseline monitoring
(AQMS1: F 1, 404 = 11.51, p
< 0.01, ASR6: F 1, 404 = 0.20, p = 0.66, ASR1: F 1, 404 = 1.15, p = 0.28, ASR10: F 1, 404 = 46.6, p < 0.01 and ASR5: F 1, 404 = 4.36 p = 0.037). 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 = 109.54, p < 0.01, ASR6: F 1, 133 =
200.06, p < 0.01, ASR1: F 1,
133 = 20.47, p < 0.01,
ASR10: F 1, 133 = 120.05, p
< 0.01 and ASR5: F 1, 133 = 106.36, 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 |
137 |
ASR1(24-hour TSP) |
128 |
83 |
ASR5(1-hour TSP) |
138 |
160 |
ASR5(24-hour TSP) |
167 |
81 |
AQMS1(1-hour TSP) |
131 |
102 |
AQMS1(24-hour TSP) |
127 |
60 |
ASR6(1-hour TSP) |
135 |
131 |
ASR6(24-hour TSP) |
166 |
70 |
ASR10(1-hour TSP) |
134 |
86 |
ASR10(24-hour TSP) |
129 |
57 |
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 |
0.003 |
F1,361 = 1.13 |
<0.001 |
138.8 |
-0.028 |
AQMS2/ASR6 |
0.004 |
F1,361 = 1.43 |
<0.001 |
179.2 |
-0.037 |
|
ASR1 |
0.001 |
F1,361 = 0.49 |
0.03 |
104.0 |
0.026 |
|
ASR10 |
0.002 |
F1,361 = 0.88 |
<0.001 |
112.2 |
-0.021 |
|
ASR5 |
<0.001 |
F1,361 = 0.092 |
<0.001 |
173.6 |
-0.011 |
|
24-hour TSP |
AQMS1 |
0.105 |
F1,118 = 13.7 |
<0.001 |
143.4 |
-0.065 |
AQMS2/ASR6 |
0.046 |
F1,118 = 5.58 |
<0.001 |
129.1 |
-0.046 |
|
|
ASR1 |
0.051 |
F1,118 = 6.29 |
0.727 |
-13.46 |
0.075 |
|
ASR10 |
0.015 |
F1,118 = 1.81 |
<0.001 |
90.8 |
-0.026 |
|
ASR5 |
0.020 |
F1,118 = 2.38 |
<0.001 |
128.2 |
-0.037 |
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.
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 ([2])
are adopted for this Project.
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 |
Temperature(°C)
pH(pH unit)
Turbidity (NTU)
Water depth (m)
Salinity (ppt)
DO (mg/L and % of saturation) ·
SS (mg/L) |
3 water depths: 1m below sea surface, mid-depth and 1m above sea bed. If the water depth is less than 3m,
mid-depth sampling only. If water
depth less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted. |
Impact monitoring: 3 days per
week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides during the construction period of the
Contract. |
IS13 |
Impact
Station |
813667 |
824325 |
|||
IS14 |
Impact
Station |
812592 |
824172 |
|||
IS15 |
Impact
Station |
813356 |
825008 |
|||
CS4 |
Control / Far
Field Station |
810025 |
824004 |
|||
CS6 |
Control / Far
Field Station |
817028 |
823992 |
|||
SR8 |
Sensitive receiver (Gazettal beaches in Tuen Mun) |
816306 |
825715 |
|||
SR9 |
Sensitive receiver |
813601 |
825858 |
|||
SR10A |
Sensitive receiver |
823741 |
823495 |
|||
*Notes: In addition to the parameters presented
monitoring location/position, time, water depth, sampling depth, tidal
stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or works underway nearby
were also recorded. |
Table 2.8
summarizes the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table 2.8 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Model |
Qty. |
Water Sampler |
Kahlsico Water-Bottle Model 135DW 150 |
1 |
Dissolved Oxygen Meter |
YSI Pro 2030 |
1 |
pH Meter |
HANNA HI 9125 |
1 |
Turbidity Meter |
HACH 2100Q |
1 |
Monitoring Position Equipment |
“Magellan” Handheld GPS Model explorist GC |
4 |
DGPS Koden KGP913MK2 (1) |
1 |
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.
During this reporting period, major marine works
included dredging, reclamation filling and construction of vertical seawall. On 20 May 2017, dredging and marine filling
works for Phase-II reclamation of Northern Landfall has been completed. There will be no marine filling and dredging
works to be carried out until the resumption of seawall construction at
Northern Landfall in December 2017.
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 Thirty-eighth to Forty-third Monthly EM&A Report. Water Quality Monitoring was suspended from 1
June 2017 effectively and will resume when construction of seawall commences in
the fourth quarter of 2017 tentatively.
In this reporting period, a total of 66 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 |
7.2 |
IS13 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.2 |
|
IS14 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.2 |
|
IS15 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.2 |
|
SR10A |
Surface |
6.0 |
7.3 |
|
SR8 |
Surface |
6.2 |
7.2 |
|
SR9 |
Surface |
6.0 |
7.2 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.3 |
IS13 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.3 |
|
IS14 |
Surface |
6.1 |
7.3 |
|
IS15 |
Surface |
6.2 |
7.3 |
|
SR10A |
Surface |
6.0 |
7.4 |
|
SR8 |
Surface |
6.2 |
7.3 |
|
SR9 |
Surface |
6.0 |
7.3 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Middle |
5.9 |
7.3 |
IS13 |
Middle |
6.0 |
7.3 |
|
IS14 |
Middle |
6.0 |
7.2 |
|
IS15 |
Middle |
6.0 |
7.3 |
|
SR10A |
Middle |
5.9 |
7.3 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Middle |
5.9 |
7.4 |
IS13 |
Middle |
6.0 |
7.4 |
|
IS14 |
Middle |
5.9 |
7.3 |
|
IS15 |
Middle |
6.1 |
7.4 |
|
SR10A |
Middle |
5.9 |
7.4 |
|
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.3 |
IS13 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.3 |
|
IS14 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.3 |
|
IS15 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.3 |
|
SR10A |
Bottom |
5.7 |
7.3 |
|
SR8 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
7.3 |
|
SR9 |
Bottom |
5.8 |
7.3 |
|
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.4 |
IS13 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.4 |
|
IS14 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.4 |
|
IS15 |
Bottom |
6.0 |
7.4 |
|
SR10A |
Bottom |
5.8 |
7.4 |
|
SR8 |
Bottom |
5.8 |
7.4 |
|
SR9 |
Bottom |
5.9 |
7.4 |
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 |
6.7 |
IS13 |
9.2 |
6.7 |
|
IS14 |
9.3 |
6.7 |
|
IS15 |
9.8 |
6.7 |
|
SR10A |
7.1 |
6.6 |
|
|
SR8 |
11.0 |
6.5 |
|
SR9 |
7.2 |
6.6 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
9.8 |
6.6 |
IS13 |
9.5 |
6.5 |
|
IS14 |
9.4 |
6.6 |
|
IS15 |
9.8 |
6.5 |
|
SR10A |
7.0 |
6.5 |
|
|
SR8 |
10.1 |
6.4 |
|
SR9 |
8.5 |
6.4 |
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 |
9.1 |
IS13 |
10.0 |
9.3 |
|
IS14 |
10.4 |
8.4 |
|
IS15 |
9.6 |
9.1 |
|
SR10A |
10.3 |
8.5 |
|
|
SR8 |
10.1 |
8.4 |
|
SR9 |
8.8 |
8.4 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
9.5 |
8.8 |
IS13 |
10.5 |
9.0 |
|
IS14 |
9.7 |
8.1 |
|
IS15 |
11.0 |
9.0 |
|
SR10A |
10.2 |
8.3 |
|
|
SR8 |
11.3 |
8.3 |
|
SR9 |
9.9 |
8.2 |
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 |
F1,77
= 39.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 46.4 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 39.7 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 37.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Surface |
F1,77
= 46.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 32.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 48.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 48.3 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 47.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 45.1 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 32.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Surface |
F1,77
= 53.2 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 48.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
Surface |
F1,77
= 58.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 50.4 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 42.3 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 42.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 48.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Middle |
F1,77
= 64.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 60.3 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 51.1 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 55.1 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Middle |
F1,77
= 47.7 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Middle |
F1,77
= 73.9 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS12 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 57.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 50.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 44.9 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 67.9 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 75.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 48.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 74.9 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 66.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 56.7 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 57.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 56.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 71.0 |
0.30 |
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 94.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
Bottom |
F1,77
= 59.3 |
<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 |
F1,77
= 36.4 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
F1,77
= 20.1 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
F1,77
= 15.6 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
F1,77
= 26.9 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
F1,77
= 1.1 |
0.14 |
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
F1,77
= 44.4 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
F1,77
= 1.42 |
0.16 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
F1,77
= 20.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
F1,77
= 16.0 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
F1,77
= 19.5 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
F1,77
= 24.3 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
F1,77
= 0.88 |
0.19 |
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
F1,77
= 24.2 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
F1,77
= 12.2 |
<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 |
F1,77
= 0.03 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS13 |
F1,77
= 1.04 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS14 |
F1,77
= 8.31 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
IS15 |
F1,77
= 0.58 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR10A |
F1,77
= 6.10 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR8 |
F1,77
= 6.61 |
<0.01 |
Mid-ebb |
SR9 |
F1,77
= 0.24 |
0.03 |
Mid-flood |
IS12 |
F1,77
= 0.74 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS13 |
F1,77
= 4.23 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS14 |
F1,77
= 5.88 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
IS15 |
F1,77
= 6.60 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR10A |
F1,77
= 7.51 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR8 |
F1,77
= 23.1 |
<0.01 |
Mid-flood |
SR9 |
F1,77
= 5.84 |
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 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-ebb
Surface DO |
IS12 |
0.269 |
23.6 |
<0.001 |
14.73 |
-0.006 |
IS13 |
0.271 |
23.8 |
<0.001 |
14.37 |
-0.005 |
|
IS14 |
0.261 |
22.6 |
<0.001 |
14.32 |
-0.005 |
|
IS15 |
0.209 |
17.0 |
<0.001 |
13.97 |
-0.005 |
|
SR10A |
0.244 |
20.7 |
<0.001 |
14.24 |
-0.005 |
|
SR8 |
0.203 |
16.3 |
<0.001 |
13.33 |
-0.005 |
|
SR9 |
0.186 |
14.6 |
<0.001 |
12.59 |
-0.004 |
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-flood
surface DO |
IS12 |
0.232 |
19.4 |
<0.001 |
14.15 |
-0.006 |
IS13 |
0.248 |
21.2 |
<0.001 |
14.28 |
-0.006 |
|
IS14 |
0.263 |
22.8 |
<0.001 |
14.81 |
-0.006 |
|
IS15 |
0.215 |
17.5 |
<0.001 |
14.57 |
-0.006 |
|
SR10A |
0.235 |
19.7 |
<0.001 |
14.96 |
-0.006 |
|
SR8 |
0.208 |
16.8 |
<0.001 |
13.58 |
-0.005 |
|
SR9 |
0.157 |
11.9 |
<0.001 |
12.49 |
-0.004 |
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-ebb
middle DO |
IS12 |
0.232 |
19.4 |
<0.001 |
14.15 |
-0.006 |
IS13 |
0.251 |
21.4 |
<0.001 |
14.38 |
-0.006 |
|
IS14 |
0.280 |
24.9 |
<0.001 |
15.16 |
-0.006 |
|
IS15 |
0.252 |
21.5 |
<0.001 |
14.40 |
-0.006 |
|
SR10A |
0.256 |
22.0 |
<0.001 |
14.35 |
-0.006 |
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-flood
middle DO |
IS12 |
0.234 |
19.5 |
<0.001 |
14.2 |
-0.006 |
IS13 |
0.214 |
17.4 |
<0.001 |
14.0 |
-0.005 |
|
IS14 |
0.219 |
18.0 |
<0.001 |
14.4 |
-0.006 |
|
IS15 |
0.244 |
20.6 |
<0.001 |
14.4 |
-0.006 |
|
SR10A |
0.236 |
19.8 |
<0.001 |
14.6 |
-0.006 |
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-ebb
bottom DO |
IS12 |
0.197 |
15.7 |
<0.001 |
13.97 |
-0.005 |
IS13 |
0.252 |
21.5 |
<0.001 |
14.87 |
-0.006 |
|
IS14 |
0.286 |
25.6 |
<0.001 |
15.54 |
-0.007 |
|
IS15 |
0.260 |
22.5 |
<0.001 |
14.45 |
-0.006 |
|
SR10A |
0.184 |
14.4 |
<0.001 |
14.09 |
-0.005 |
|
SR8 |
0.187 |
14.7 |
<0.001 |
13.18 |
-0.005 |
|
SR9 |
0.210 |
17.0 |
<0.001 |
13.35 |
-0.005 |
|
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
Mid-flood
bottom DO |
IS12 |
0.162 |
12.4 |
<0.001 |
13.38 |
-0.004 |
IS13 |
0.184 |
14.4 |
<0.001 |
13.85 |
-0.005 |
|
IS14 |
0.165 |
12.6 |
<0.001 |
13.88 |
-0.005 |
|
IS15 |
0.223 |
18.3 |
<0.001 |
14.13 |
-0.005 |
|
SR10A |
0.170 |
13.1 |
<0.001 |
13.89 |
-0.005 |
|
SR8 |
0.179 |
14.0 |
<0.001 |
13.06 |
-0.005 |
|
SR9 |
0.132 |
9.77 |
<0.001 |
12.40 |
-0.004 |
Note:
1.
Dependent variable is set as DO (in mg/L) and independent variable is set as
number of day of construction works.
2.
R2 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the regression
insignificant) are underlined.
3.
By setting α at 0.01, insignificant coefficient is underlined.
Table 2.16 Linear Regression Result of Turbidity
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
Mid-ebb
depth -average
turbidity |
IS12 |
0.001 |
0.06 |
0.28 |
5.46 |
0.001 |
|||
IS13 |
<0.001 |
0.04 |
0.23 |
5.72 |
0.001 |
||||
IS14 |
0.002 |
0.11 |
0.26 |
5.20 |
0.001 |
||||
IS15 |
0.002 |
0.11 |
0.25 |
5.19 |
0.001 |
||||
SR10A |
0.001 |
0.94 |
0.70 |
1.89 |
0.004 |
||||
SR8 |
0.009 |
0.56 |
0.47 |
3.22 |
0.003 |
||||
SR9 |
0.002 |
0.10 |
0.31 |
5.03 |
0.001 |
||||
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
Mid-flood
depth -average
turbidity |
IS12 |
0.004 |
0.285 |
0.42 |
3.97 |
0.002 |
|||
IS13 |
0.004 |
0.261 |
0.38 |
4.14 |
0.002 |
||||
IS14 |
0.004 |
0.258 |
0.36 |
4.23 |
0.002 |
||||
IS15 |
0.002 |
0.142 |
0.30 |
4.81 |
0.001 |
||||
SR10A |
0.013 |
0.845 |
0.67 |
2.03 |
0.004 |
||||
SR8 |
0.006 |
0.387 |
0.40 |
3.70 |
0.002 |
||||
SR9 |
0.004 |
0.277 |
0.42 |
3.88 |
0.002 |
||||
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 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
Mid-ebb
depth -average
SS |
IS12 |
0.001 |
0.077 |
0.30 |
7.18 |
0.002 |
|||
IS13 |
0.001 |
0.065 |
0.25 |
7.60 |
0.001 |
||||
IS14 |
0.003 |
0.172 |
0.30 |
5.97 |
0.002 |
||||
IS15 |
0.002 |
0.120 |
0.27 |
6.92 |
0.002 |
||||
SR10A |
0.015 |
0.966 |
0.72 |
2.27 |
0.005 |
||||
SR8 |
0.006 |
0.377 |
0.39 |
4.93 |
0.003 |
||||
SR9 |
0.003 |
0.202 |
0.38 |
5.57 |
0.002 |
||||
Parameter |
Station |
R2 |
F1,65 |
p-value |
Intercept |
Coefficient of days of construction |
|||
Mid-flood
depth -average
SS |
IS12 |
0.005 |
0.299 |
0.42 |
5.27 |
0.003 |
|||
IS13 |
0.005 |
0.351 |
0.42 |
5.21 |
0.003 |
||||
IS14 |
0.005 |
0.345 |
0.40 |
4.82 |
0.003 |
||||
IS15 |
0.003 |
0.177 |
0.09 |
11.9 |
-0.002 |
||||
SR10A |
0.017 |
1.119 |
0.78 |
1.75 |
0.005 |
||||
SR8 |
0.009 |
0.596 |
0.49 |
3.93 |
0.004 |
||||
SR9 |
0.009 |
0.581 |
0.56 |
3.55 |
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.
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.
Table 2.18 summarize
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 |
Dolphin monitoring should cover all transect lines in
Northeast Lantau (NEL) and the Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey areas twice per
month throughout the entire construction period. The monitoring data should be compatible
with, and should be made available for, long-term studies of small cetacean
ecology in Hong Kong. In order to
provide a suitable long-term dataset for comparison, identical methodology and
line transects employed in baseline dolphin monitoring was followed in the
impact dolphin monitoring.
The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the
NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.3. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are
shown in Table 2.19 below.
Table 2.19a Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Up to July 2017)
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 |
|
|
|
|
Table 2.19b Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect
Co-ordinates (Since August 2017)
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 |
805476 |
820800* |
14 |
Start
Point |
817537 |
820220 |
2 |
End
Point |
805476 |
826654 |
14 |
End
Point |
817537 |
824613 |
3 |
Start
Point |
806464 |
821150* |
15 |
Start
Point |
818568 |
820735 |
3 |
End
Point |
806464 |
822911 |
15 |
End
Point |
818568 |
824433 |
4 |
Start
Point |
807518 |
821500* |
16 |
Start
Point |
819532 |
821420 |
4 |
End
Point |
807518 |
829230 |
16 |
End
Point |
819532 |
824209 |
5 |
Start
Point |
808504 |
821850* |
17 |
Start
Point |
820451 |
822125 |
5 |
End
Point |
808504 |
828602 |
17 |
End
Point |
820451 |
823671 |
6 |
Start
Point |
809490 |
822150* |
18 |
Start
Point |
821504 |
822371 |
6 |
End
Point |
809490 |
825352 |
18 |
End
Point |
821504 |
823761 |
7 |
Start
Point |
810499 |
822000* |
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 |
821176 |
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 |
24* |
Start Point |
805476* |
815900* |
12 |
End
Point |
815542 |
824882 |
24* |
End Point |
805476* |
819100* |
Remarks:
The coordinates of several starting and ending points have been revised since
August 2017 due to the presence of a work zone to the north of the airport platform
with intense construction activities in association with the construction of
the third runway expansion for the Hong Kong International Airport. Co-ordinates in red and marked with
asterisk are revised co-ordinates of transect line.
The Action and Limit levels of dolphin impact
monitoring are shown in Appendix C. The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.
A total of 3,338.24 km of survey effort was collected,
with 93.0% 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,
1,279.91 km and 2,058.33 km of survey effort were collected from NEL and NWL
survey areas, respectively. The total
survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were 2,397.70 km and 947.54 km, respectively. The survey efforts are summarized in Appendix F.
A total of 43 groups of 151 Chinese White Dolphin
sightings were recorded during the 24 sets of surveys in this reporting
year. All except three (3) sightings
were made during on-effort search.
Thirty-four (34)
on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while six (6) other on-effort
sightings were made on secondary lines.
During this reporting year, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, while none of them
were sighted in NEL.
Dolphin sighting distribution of the present impact
phase monitoring period (November 2016 to October 2017 was compared to the ones
during the baseline phase (February 2011 to January 2012), transitional phase
(November 2012 to October 2013) and 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). As TMCLKL
construction works commenced in November 2013, a 12-month period between
baseline phase and impact phase is defined as transitional phase.
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 (2016-2017) |
0.00 |
2.35 ± 2.62 |
0.00 |
8.57 ± 11.05 |
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, third and fourth years of impact phase (November
2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015, November 2015 to October
2016, and November 2016 to October 2017, respectively), transitional phase
(November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February
2011 – January 2012). ± denotes the standard deviation of the
value.
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from one to twelve (1-12) individuals per group in North Lantau
region during November 2016 - October 2017.
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 (2016-2017) |
3.51 ± 2.68 (n =
43) |
0.00 |
3.51 ± 2.68 (n =
43) |
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, third and fourth years of impact phase
(November 2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015, November 2015 to
October 2016, and November 2016 to October 2017, 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 four (4) Limit Level exceedances were observed
for the quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2016 and October
2017. 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.
Daily marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect
during the period of dredging, reclamation or
marine sheet piling works in open waters under this Contract. Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was also
implemented for the detection of marine mammal when dredging, reclamation
or marine sheet piling works were carried out outside the
daylight hours under this Contract. No
sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) was recorded in the
reporting period during the exclusion zone monitoring. [JT3]
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 Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth
Monthly EM&A Reports.
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 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) |
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 2016 |
13.293 |
0 |
305 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
December 2016 |
25,662 |
0 |
288 |
0 |
0 |
550 |
0 |
January 2017 |
60,781 |
0 |
257 |
0 |
3,400 |
2,750 |
8,200 |
February 2017 |
17,367 |
0 |
340 |
200 |
0 |
550 |
0 |
March 2017 |
7,508 |
0 |
286 |
0 |
6,100 |
0 |
0 |
April 2017 |
15,603 |
0 |
237 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
May 2017 |
12,358 |
0 |
300 |
0 |
10,400 |
0 |
0 |
June 2017 |
194 |
0 |
317 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
July 2017 |
652 |
0 |
272 |
200 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
August 2017 |
1,624 |
0 |
305 |
142,190 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
September 2017 |
886 |
0 |
300 |
200 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
October 2017 |
706 |
0 |
244 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2,312 |
Total |
143,339 |
0 |
3,867 |
132,670 |
9,500 |
3,850 |
10,512 |
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.
Table 2.23 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
License/ Permit |
License or Permit No. |
Date of Issue |
Date of Expiry |
License/ Permit Holder |
Remarks |
||||||
|
Environmental
Permit |
EP-354/2009/D |
13
March 2015 |
Throughout
the Contract |
HyD |
Application for VEP on 3 March 2015 to supersede
EP-354/2009/C |
|||||
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
363510 |
19
August 2013 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction
Dust Notification |
403620 |
10 June 2016 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-422-D2516-01 |
10
September 2013 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-951-D2591-01 |
25 May 2016 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7018108 |
28
August 2013 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Waste disposal in Contract No. HY/2012/08 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Construction
Waste Disposal Account |
7021715 |
12
January 2017 |
12
April 2017 |
DBJV |
Vessel disposal |
|||||
|
Waste
Water Discharge License |
WT00017707-2013 |
18
November 2013 |
30
November 2018 |
DBJV |
For site WA18 |
|||||
|
Chemical
Waste Registration |
5213-422-D2516-02 |
18
January 2017 |
Throughout
the Contract |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Waste
Water Discharge License |
WT00018433-2014 |
6 March 2014 |
31 March 2019 |
DBJV |
N6 Site |
|||||
|
Waste
Water Discharge License |
WT00019248-2014 |
5
June 2014 |
30
June 2019 |
DBJV |
For site Portion N6 and Reclamation Area E |
|||||
|
Waste
Water Discharge License |
WT00025944-2016 |
15
December 2016 |
31
December 2021 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-103 |
16
December 2016 |
13
June 2017 |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-121 |
16
December 2016 |
15
January 2017 |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Marine
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-164 |
16
January 2017 |
15
February 2017 |
DBJV |
Northern Landfall |
|||||
|
Marine Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/17-108 |
16 November 2016 |
15 December 2016 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Marine Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/18-006 |
7 May 2017 |
6 June 2017 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Marine Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/18-036 |
21 October 2017 |
20 November 2017 |
DBJV |
Type 1 (Dedicated site) and Type 2 (Confined Marine
Disposal) |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RW0538-17 |
16 October 2017 |
15 April 2018 |
DBJV |
For Urmston Road in front of Pillar Point |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0644-16 |
30
November 2016 |
29
May 2017 |
DBJV |
For
Urmston Road in front of Pillar Point |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0279-17 |
13
June 2017 |
12
December 2017 |
DBJV |
WA23
@ Tsing Yi |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
PP-RS0012-17 |
13
June 2017 |
30
August 2017 |
DBJV |
Southern
Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0247-17 |
19
May 2017 |
9
November 2017 |
DBJV |
For
Urmston Road in front of Pillar Point |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0666-16 |
13
December 2016 |
12
June 2017 |
DBJV |
For
site WA23A+B |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RW0143-17 |
29
March 2017 |
28
September 2017 |
DBJV |
For
Portion N6 |
|||||
|
Construction
Noise Permit |
GW-RS0121-17 |
25
February 2017 |
24
August 2017 |
DBJV |
For
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RW0533-16 |
29 September 2016 |
28 March 2017 |
DBJV |
For Portion N6 |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS0165-17 |
1 March 2017 |
2 September 2017 |
DBJV |
For Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
PP-RS0019-17 |
31 August 2017 |
30 November 2017 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall (Percussive Piling) |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS0713-17 |
1 September 2017 |
28 February 2018 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS0878-17 |
11 October 2017 |
2 April 2018 |
DBJV |
Southern Landfall |
|||||
|
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS0860-16 |
25 August 2016 |
24 February 2017 |
DBJV |
For Southern Landfall |
|||||
Notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
HyD
= Highways Department DBJV
= Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture VEP
= Variation of Environmental Permit |
|||||||||||
In response to the EM&A site audit findings
mentioned in Section 2.4 of this
report, the Contractor has carried out the corrective actions.
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of
Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix B. The necessary mitigation measures relevant to
this Contract were implemented properly.
In this reporting period, a total of 121 air quality
monitoring events were undertaken in which no Action Level or Limit Level
exceedances for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded. (Table 2.24).
Table 2.24 Summary of Exceedances for Air Quality Impact Monitoring in
this Reporting Year
Station |
Exceedance Level |
Number of Exceedances |
|
1-hr TSP |
24-hr TSP |
||
AQMS1 |
Action Level |
1 |
0 |
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
|
ASR1 |
Action Level |
5 |
1 |
Limit Level |
1 |
0 |
|
ASR5 |
Action Level |
5 |
0 |
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
|
AQMS2/ASR6 |
Action Level |
2 |
0 |
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
|
ASR10 |
Action Level |
1 |
0 |
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Total number of Action level Exceedances: 14 1 |
|||
Total number of Limit level Exceedances: 1 0 |
For marine water quality impact monitoring, a total of
66 monitoring events were undertaken in which no Action Level or Limit Level
exceedances were recorded (Table 2.25).
Table 2.25 Summary of Exceedances for Marine Water Quality Impact
Monitoring in this Reporting Period
Station |
Exceedance Level (a) |
DO (Surface and Middle) |
DO (Bottom) |
Turbidity (depth-averaged) |
SS (depth-averaged) |
||||
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
||
CS4 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
CS6 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
IS12 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
IS13 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
IS14 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
IS15 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
SR8 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
SR9 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
SR10 |
AL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
LL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Total AL
Exceedances: |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total LL
Exceedances: |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Notes: |
|||||||||
(a) AL = Action Level; LL = Limit Level |
There were a total
of four (4) Limit Levels exceedances for impact dolphin monitoring in the reporting
period. 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 Twelfth to Fifteenth 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.
Seven (7) environmental complaint cases were
received in this reporting period. The investigation
reports[JT4] were submitted to ENPO and
reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
A notification of summons regarding the complaint case
received on 17 November 2016 has been received in 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 2016 to 31 October 2017 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.
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 |
545 |
137 |
182 |
125 |
ASR1 (24-hour) |
148 |
220 |
83 |
173 |
128 |
ASR5 (1-hour) |
235 |
456 |
160 |
211 |
138 |
ASR5 (24-hour) |
133 |
163 |
81 |
249 |
167 |
AQMS1 (1-hour) |
N/A |
473 |
102 |
196 |
131 |
AQMS1 (24-hour) |
N/A |
160 |
60 |
211 |
127 |
AQMS2/ASR6 (1-hour) |
226 |
401 |
131 |
226 |
135 |
AQMS2/ASR6 (24-hour) |
153 |
138 |
70 |
221 |
166 |
ASR10 (1-hour) |
189 |
475 |
86 |
215 |
134 |
ASR10 (24-hour) |
112 |
205 |
57 |
181 |
129 |
As shown in Table
2.26, maximum 1-hour TSP at ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 and 24-hour TSP
impact monitoring levels at ASR1, ASR5 and ASR10 were higher than their
corresponding EIA predicted maximum levels.
Occasional exceedances were recorded at these stations during impact monitoring
period. However, they were not
project-related upon investigation. 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.
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[JT5]
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). This 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 lower during impact period than baseline period whilst DO levels were
higher during impact period than baseline period. [JT6] 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 2016 to October 2017) |
|||
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
|
CS4 |
10.2 |
9.0 |
13.3 |
11.7 |
9.67 |
9.52 |
CS6 |
10.9 |
11.7 |
14.1 |
15.2 |
9.72 |
9.54 |
IS12 |
9.2 |
9.5 |
12.0 |
12.3 |
9.09 |
8.82 |
IS13 |
10.0 |
10.5 |
13.0 |
13.7 |
9.27 |
9.00 |
IS14 |
10.4 |
9.7 |
13.5 |
12.6 |
8.35 |
8.13 |
IS15 |
9.6 |
11.0 |
12.5 |
14.2 |
9.06 |
8.96 |
SR10A |
10.3 |
10.2 |
13.3 |
13.3 |
8.54 |
8.33 |
SR8 |
10.1 |
11.3 |
13.1 |
14.7 |
8.43 |
8.27 |
SR9 |
8.8 |
9.9 |
11.4 |
12.8 |
8.44 |
8.16 |
Grand Total |
10.0 |
10.3 |
13.0 |
13.4 |
8.95 |
8.75 |
Notes: |
||||||
(a) Ambient mean value is defined as a 30%
increase of the baseline mean value |
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. The
STG and ANI in impact monitoring period were lower than that before the
commencement of this Contract (see Section
2.3.6) and the distribution pattern was also different 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 different.
During the present impact phase monitoring period in 2016-17,
the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins were only found on
both eastern and western sides of Lung Kwu Chau. Dolphin usage of NWL waters declined during
the present and previous phase monitoring periods. 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.
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.
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.
Construction
phase air quality monitoring was conducted during this reporting period when
land-based construction works were undertaken.
Fourteen (14) Action Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP,
one (1) Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP and One (1) Action Level
exceedance of 24-hour TSP were recorded in the air quality monitoring of this
reporting period. [JT7]
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 Action Level
or Limit Level exceedances were recorded from the water quality monitoring in
this reporting period. Marine water
quality monitoring was suspended from June 2017 until the resumption of seawall
construction at Northern Landfall in December 2017
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 was in effect during the period of dredging, reclamation or marine sheet
piling works in open waters under
this Contract. Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM) was also implemented for the detection of marine mammal when
dredging, reclamation
or marine sheet piling works were
carried out outside the daylight hours under this Contract. No sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese
White Dolphin) was recorded in the reporting period during the exclusion zone
monitoring.[JT8]
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.
This Fourth Annual EM&A Report presents the
findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period from 1
November 2016 to 31 October 2017, 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. Fourteen (14) Action Level
exceedance of 1-hour TSP, one (1) Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP and One
(1) Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP were recorded in the air quality
monitoring of this reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to ensure that all
dust mitigation measures are provided at the construction sites.
A total of 43 groups of 151 Chinese White Dolphin
sightings were recorded during the 24 sets of surveys in this reporting
year. Whilst four (4) Limit Level
exceedances were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring
data between November 2016 and October 2017, 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. 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.
Seven (7) environmental complaint cases
were received in this reporting period.
The investigation
reports[JT9] were submitted to ENPO and
reported in the subsequent EM&A reports.
A notification of summons regarding the complaint case
received on 17 November 2016 has been received in 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.
[JT1]Are there interim reports only or final reports
are sent too?
Amended.
EPD is changed to ENPO as not all reports were sent to EPD.
[JT4]Are there interim reports only or final reports
are sent too?
Amended.
EPD is changed to ENPO as not all reports were sent to EPD.
[JT9]Are there interim reports only or final reports
are sent too?
Amended.
EPD is changed to ENPO as not all reports were sent to EPD.