table of Contents

                        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                                                                            

 

 

Appendix A Project Organization

Appendix B Environmental Mitigation And Enhancement Measure Implementation Schedules (EMIS)

Appendix C Action And Limit Levels

Appendix D Air Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix E Water Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix F  Impact Dolphin Monitoring

Appendix G Event And Action Plan

Appendix H Cumulative Statistics On Exceedance And Complaint

Appendix I   Waste Flow Table

 

 

Executive Summary

Under Contract No. HY/2012/08, Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture (DBJV) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section of the Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link Project (TM-CLK Link Project) while AECOM Asia Company Limited was appointed by HyD as the Supervising Officer.  For implementation of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme under the Contract, ERM-Hong Kong, Limited (ERM) has been appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A.  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.


1                                                    Introduction

1.1                                           Background

According to the findings of the Northwest New Territories (NWNT) Traffic and Infrastructure Review conducted by the Transport Department, Tuen Mun Road, Ting Kau Bridge, Lantau Link and North Lantau Highway would be operating beyond capacity after 2016.  This forecast has been based on the estimated increase in cross boundary traffic, developments in the Northwest New Territories (NWNT), and possible developments in North Lantau, including the Airport developments, the Lantau Logistics Park (LLP) and the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge (HZMB).  In order to cope with the anticipated traffic demand, two new road sections between NWNT and North Lantau – Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) and Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB) are proposed.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of TM-CLKL (the Project) was prepared in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-175/2007) and the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM).  The EIA Report was submitted under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) in August 2009.  Subsequent to the approval of the EIA Report (EIAO Register Number AEIAR-146/2009), an Environmental Permit (EP-354/2009) for TM-CLKL was granted by the Director of Environmental Protection (DEP) on 4 November 2009, and EP variation (VEP) (EP-354/2009A) was issued on 8 December 2010.  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 construction phase of the Contract commenced on 1 November 2013 and will tentatively be completed by 2020.  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.

 

1.2                                           Scope of Report

This is the Fourth 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 2016 to 31 October 2017.

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 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

1.4                                           Summary of Construction Works

With reference to DBJV’s information, details of major construction works carried out in this reporting period are summarized in Table 1.2.

The general layout plan of the site showing the detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.2.  The Environmental Sensitive Receivers in the vicinity of the Project are shown in Figure 1.3.

The implementation schedule of environmental mitigation measures is presented in Appendix B.

Table 1.2        Summary of Construction Activities Undertaken during the Reporting Period

 

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

 

 

 


Figure 1.2      Locations of Construction Activities – November 2016 to October 2017

fig 1

2                                                    EM&A Results

The EM&A programme required environmental monitoring for air quality, water quality and marine ecology as well as environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impacts.  The EM&A requirements and related findings for each component are summarized in the following sections

2.1                                           Air quality

2.1.1                                  Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

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

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 G.[JT2] 

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 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.

2.2                                           Water Quality Monitoring

The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) between 6 and 31 October 2011 included all monitoring stations for the Project.   Thus, the baseline monitoring results and Action/Limit Levels presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([2]) are adopted for this Project. 

2.2.1                                  Monitoring Requirements & Equipment

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact water quality monitoring was carried out three (3) days per week during the construction period at nine (9) water quality monitoring stations (Figure 2.2; Table 2.7). 

Table 2.7        Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations and the Corresponding
Monitoring Requirements

Station ID

Type

Coordinates

*Parameters, unit

Depth

Frequency

 

 

Easting

Northing

 

 

 

IS12

Impact Station

813218

823681

Ÿ Temperature(°C)

Ÿ pH(pH unit)

Ÿ Turbidity (NTU)

Ÿ Water depth (m)

Ÿ Salinity (ppt)

Ÿ DO (mg/L and % of

saturation)

·    SS (mg/L)

3 water depths: 1m

below sea surface,

mid-depth and 1m

above sea bed.  If the water depth is less than 3m, mid-depth sampling only.  If water depth less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted.

 

 

Impact monitoring: 3 days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides during the construction period of the Contract.

IS13

Impact Station

813667

824325

IS14

Impact Station

812592

824172

IS15

Impact Station

813356

825008

CS4

Control / Far Field Station

810025

824004

CS6

Control / Far Field Station

817028

823992

SR8

Sensitive receiver (Gazettal beaches in Tuen Mun)

816306

825715

SR9

Sensitive receiver
(Butterfly Beach)

813601

825858

SR10A

Sensitive receiver
(Ma Wan FCZ)

823741

823495

*Notes:

In addition to the parameters presented monitoring location/position, time, water depth, sampling depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or works underway nearby were also recorded.

Table 2.8 summarizes the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 2.8        Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment

Model

Qty.

Water Sampler

Kahlsico Water-Bottle Model 135DW 150

1

Dissolved Oxygen Meter

YSI Pro 2030

1

pH Meter

HANNA HI 9125

1

Turbidity Meter

HACH 2100Q

1

Monitoring Position Equipment

“Magellan” Handheld GPS Model explorist GC

4

DGPS Koden KGP913MK2 (1)

1

2.2.2                                  Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality monitoring is provided in Appendix C.  The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.

2.2.3                                  Results and Observations

During this reporting period, major marine works included dredging, 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.

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 2.18 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

 

2.3.3                                  Monitoring Parameter, Frequencies & Duration

Dolphin monitoring should cover all transect lines in Northeast Lantau (NEL) and the Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey areas twice per month throughout the entire construction period.  The monitoring data should be compatible with, and should be made available for, long-term studies of small cetacean ecology in Hong Kong.  In order to provide a suitable long-term dataset for comparison, identical methodology and line transects employed in baseline dolphin monitoring was followed in the impact dolphin monitoring.

2.3.4                                  Monitoring Location

The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.3.  The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 2.19 below.

Table 2.19a    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.

2.3.5                                  Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit levels of dolphin impact monitoring are shown in Appendix C.  The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.

2.3.6                                  Results & Observations

A total of 3,338.24 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.

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 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.

2.3.7                                  Implementation of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect during the period of dredging, reclamation or marine sheet piling works in open waters under this Contract.  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] 

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 Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth 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 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.

2.6                                           Environmental Licenses and Permits

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


2.7                                           Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

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.

2.8                                           Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

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.

2.9                                           Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

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.

2.10                                        Comparison of EM&A Data with EIA Predictions

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.

2.10.1                               Air Quality

Based on the findings presented in TM-CLKL EIA study, the major sources of dust nuisance arising from the Northern Connection are related to excavation, wind erosion from reclaimed areas, open sites and stockpiling areas.  Therefore, during these construction activities, the TSP monitoring frequency will be increased at all air quality monitoring stations such that any deteriorating air quality can be readily detected and timely action taken to rectify the situation.  Comparison of EIA prediction, average baseline monitoring and average impact monitoring results of TSP is presented in Table 2.26.

Table 2.26      Comparison of EIA prediction and EM&A Results on Air Quality

Station

EIA Predicted Maximum 

Maximum Impact Monitoring

Average Impact Monitoring

Maximum Baseline Monitoring

Average Baseline Monitoring

ASR1

(1-hour)

195

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.

2.10.2                               Water Quality

As identified in the EIA Report, key water quality issues during construction phase may be caused by dredging and filling works for the reclamation of the Project.  Thus, marine water quality monitoring[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

2.10.3                               Marine Ecology

Impact monitoring on marine ecology was undertaken during the monitoring period.  According to the baseline results in the Appendix F of the approved EIA Report, the dolphin groups were largely sighted near Lung Kwu Chau and the waters between Lung Kwu Chau and Black Points and infrequently along the alignment of this Contract.  Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures were conducted to compare results of average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) between baseline and impact periods.  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.  

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.

2.11                                        Summary of Monitoring Methodology and Effectiveness

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.

2.12                                        Summary of Mitigation Measures

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.  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.

3.3                                           Marine Water Quality Monitoring

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. 

3.4                                           Waste Management

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.

3.5                                           Marine Ecology Monitoring

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] 

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 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. 



 

 



([1])        ERM (2013) Enhanced TSP Monitoring Plan.  Submitted on 28 October 2013 and subsequently approved by EPD on 1 November 2013.

([2])       Agreement No. CE 35/2011 (EP) Baseline Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects - Investigation.  Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C).  Submitted on 8 March 2012 and subsequently approved by EPD.


 [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.

 [JT2]Please check and amend all Appendix Number, Table Number and Figure Number.

Amended.

 [JT3]Did we do this? ES said no.

Amended

 [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.

 [JT5]Check consistency of use of capital

 

Checked.

 [JT6]How about DO?

 

Revised.

 [JT7]Did we record exceedance???

Amended.

 [JT8]Did we do this?

Amended.

 [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.