|
Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
|
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.11 |
Contents
The “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) serves to meet the future air traffic demands at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the Project was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.
This is the 11th Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 November 2016 to 30 November 2016.
Key Activities in the Reporting Period
The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting month were related to advanced works contract, which involved pilot hole drilling using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method at launching site, stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation at stockpiling area and casing installation on Sheung Sha Chau Island. CLP cable diversion enabling work contract was also carried out, which involved construction of drawpit, installation and backfilling for cable trough at the western part of the airport. The four in-progress deep cement mixing (DCM) contracts involved site investigation works, laying of geotextile and sand blanket.
EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period
The monthly EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the Project. During the reporting period, the ET conducted 33 sets of construction dust measurements, 21 sets of construction noise measurements, 13 events of water quality measurements, one round of terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island, two complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys and five days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring as well as landscape & visual and waste monitoring.
Weekly site inspections of the construction works were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC). Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists and provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.
On the implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan, trainings for the dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the deployment of silt curtain, with the training records kept by the ET. Visual inspection and integrity check for silt curtain were carried out by the contractor and their daily records were audited by ET and IEC during site inspection. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels and Skypier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management were carried out by the ET.
On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan), the daily movements of all SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSFs) in November 2016 were in the range of 88 to 93 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 837 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots (8.5 to 14.2 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan, except that one HSF travelled with an average speed of 16.4 knots. Notice regarding the exceedance of average speed within SCZ was sent to the ferry operator and the case is under investigation by ET. One ferry movement not following the diverted route and four ferry movements with minor deviation from the diverted route are under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report. In summary, the ET and IEC have audited the HSF movements against the SkyPier Plan and conducted follow up investigation or actions accordingly.
On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV), ET had conducted weekly audit of relevant information, including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Training has been provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate them in familiarising with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. 3-month rolling programmes for construction vessel activities were also received from contractors.
Results of Impact Monitoring
All the monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, terrestrial ecology and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.
No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to the construction dust, construction noise, construction waste and CWD monitoring was recorded in the reporting month.
The water quality monitoring results for dissolved oxygen (DO), total alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity, suspended solids (SS) and nickel, some of the testing results had exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels during the reporting period. The summary of exceedances are presented in Section 4.5.2. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases, and the investigation findings concluded that all the exceedances were not due to the Project.
The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island observed that installation of casing was conducted on the Island and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.
Summary of Upcoming Key Issues
Key activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will include the following contract works:
Advanced Works Contract:
Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works
● HDD pilot hole drilling;
● Stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation;
● Casing installation.
Reclamation Contracts:
Contract 3201 to 3205 DCM Works
● Laying of geotextile and sand blanket; and
● DCM trial works.
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket.
Other Contracts:
Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works
● Installaltion of cable trough; and
● Reinstatement of seawall.
Other site investigation works will continue. The key environmental issues will be associated with construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste management, CWD and terrestrial ecology on Sheung Sha Chau. The implementation of required mitigation measures by the contractor will be monitored by the ET.
|
|
|
|
|
Ecological Monitoring |
Dolphin Observers Training |
Construction Vessel Skipper Training |
Summary Table
The following table summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 30 November 2016:
|
|
Yes |
No |
Details |
Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions |
|
Exceedance of Limit Level^ |
|
ü |
No exceedance of project-related limit level was recorded. |
Nil |
|
Exceedance of Action Level^ |
|
ü |
No exceedance of project-related action level was recorded. |
Nil |
|
Complaints Received |
|
ü |
No construction activities related complaints were received. |
Nil |
|
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions |
|
ü |
Neither notifications of summons nor prosecution were received. |
Nil |
|
Changes that affect the EM&A |
|
ü |
There were no changes to the construction works that may affect the EM&A |
Nil |
Remarks: ^ only exceedance of action/ limit level related to Project works will be highlighted.
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual (the Manual) submitted under EP Condition 3.1. The Manual is available on the Project’s dedicated website (accessible at: http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html). AECOM Asia Company Limited (AECOM) was employed by AAHK as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) for the Project.
The Project covers the expansion of the existing airport into a three-runway system (3RS) with key project components comprising land formation of about 650 ha and all associated facilities and infrastructure including taxiways, aprons, aircraft stands, a passenger concourse, an expanded Terminal 2, all related airside and landside works and associated ancillary and supporting facilities. The existing submarine aviation fuel pipelines and submarine power cables also require diversion as part of the works.
Construction of the Project is to proceed in the general order of diversion of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines, diversion of the submarine power cables, land formation, and construction of infrastructure, followed by construction of superstructures.
The updated overall phasing programme of all construction works was presented in Appendix A of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 7 and the contract information was presented in Appendix A of the Contruction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.10.
1.2
Scope of this
Report
This is the 11th Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 30 November 2016.
1.3
Project Organisation
The Project’s organization structure remained unchanged during the reporting month. The Project’s organization structure can be referred to Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.1. Contact details of the key personnel have been updated and is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Contact Information of Key Personnel
|
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
|
Project Manager’s Representative (Airport Authority Hong Kong) |
Senior Manager, Environment |
Lawrence Tsui |
2183 2734 |
|
Environmental Team (ET) (Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited) |
Environmental Team Leader |
Terence Kong |
2828 5919 |
|
|
Deputy Environmental Team Leader |
Heidi Yu |
2828 5704 |
|
|
Deputy Environmental Team Leader |
Keith Chau |
2972 1721 |
|
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
Independent Environmental Checker |
Jackel Law |
3922 9376
|
|
|
Deputy Independent Environmental Checker |
Joanne Tsoi |
3922 9423 |
|
Advanced Works Contract: |
|
|
|
|
Contract P560(R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works (Langfang Huayuan Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd.) |
Project Manager
|
Shih Wei
|
2117 0566
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Lyn Lau
|
5172 6543
|
|
|
DCM Works Contracts: |
|
|
|
|
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture) |
Project Director
|
Mr. Tsugunari SUZUKI
|
9178 9689 |
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
Mr. Kanny CHO
|
9019 1962 |
|
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture) |
Project Manager
|
Mr. Ilkwon Nam
|
9643 3117 |
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
Mr. Dickson Mak
|
9525 8408 |
|
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co.,Ltd) |
Project Manager
|
Mr. Park Seong Jae
|
9683 8693 |
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
Mr. Leung Min Pong
|
9203 5820 |
|
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture) |
Project Manager
|
Mr. Yoo Kyung-Sik
|
9683 8697
|
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
Mr. David Man |
6421 3238 |
|
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche- Sambo Joint Venture) |
Project Manager
|
Mr. Park, Jong Heon
|
9139 6377 |
|
|
Environmental Office |
Margaret Chung |
9130 3696 |
|
Reclamation Contract: |
|
|
|
|
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture) |
Project Manager
|
Lim Kim Chuan |
3693 2288 |
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Louie Chan |
9270 1390 |
|
Other Works Contract: |
|
|
|
|
Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Compan |
Project Manager |
Mr. Kan Yun Tai, Michael |
9206 0550 |
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Ms Ivy Tam |
2151 2090 |
1.4
Summary of
Construction Works
Key activities of the Project were related to the advanced works contract which involved pilot hole drilling at the HDD launching site located at the west part of the airport and casing installation at Sheung Sha Chau. CLP cable diversion enabling work contract involved construction of drawpit, installation and backfilling for cable trough at the western part of the airport. The four DCM contracts involved site investigation works, laying of geotextile and sand blanket.
The active construction site is around 3 km and 900m away from the nearest air and noise sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and the villages in North Lantau. The locations of the works areas are presented in Figure 1.1 to Figure 1.2. Some site investigation works were carried out during the reporting period.
1.5
Summary of
EM&A Programme Requirements
The status for all environmental aspects is presented Table 1.2. The EM&A requirements remained unchanged during the reporting period and details can be referred to Table 1.2 of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 1.
Table 1.2: Summary of status for all environmental aspects under the Updated EM&A Manual
|
Parameters |
Status |
|
Air Quality |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
The baseline air quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report (Version 1) and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
|
Impact Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Noise |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
The baseline noise monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report (Version 1) and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
|
Impact Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Water Quality |
|
|
General Baseline Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works |
The baseline water quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
|
General Impact Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works |
On-going |
|
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring |
To be commenced according to the detailed plan on DCM |
|
Early/ Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Waste Management |
|
|
Waste Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Land Contamination |
|
|
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) |
To be submitted with the relevant construction works |
|
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) for Golf Course |
The CAR for Golf Course was submitted to EPD. |
|
Terrestrial Ecology |
|
|
Pre-construction Egretry Survey Egretry Survey Plan |
The revised Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14. |
|
Ecological Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Marine Ecology |
|
|
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey |
The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12. |
|
Coral Translocation |
On-going |
|
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD) |
|
|
Vessel Survey, Land-based Theodolite Track and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
Baseline CWD results were reported in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD in accordance with EP Condition 3.4. |
|
Impact Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Landscape & Visual |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
The baseline landscape & visual monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report (Version 1) and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
|
Impact Monitoring |
On-going |
|
Environmental Auditing |
|
|
Regular site inspection |
On-going |
|
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures |
On-going |
|
Construction and Associated Vessels Implementation measures |
On-going |
|
Complaint Hotline and Email channel |
On-going |
|
Environmental Log Book |
On-going |
Taking into account the construction works in this reporting month, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, ecology, CWD and landscape & visual were carried out in the reporting month.
The EM&A programme also involved weekly site inspections and related auditings conducted by the ET for checking the implementation of the required environmental mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA Report. In order to enhance environmental awareness and closely monitor the envronemental performance of the contractors, environmental briefings and regular environemntal management meetings were conducted.
The EM&A programme has been following the recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the Updated EM&A Manual. A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix A.
2
Air Quality Monitoring
2.1
Monitoring Stations
Air quality monitoring was conducted at two representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of air sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Table 2.1 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.
Table 2.1: Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring Station |
Location |
|
AR1A |
Man Tung Road Park |
|
AR2 |
Village House at Tin Sum |
2.2
Monitoring
Requirements and Schedule
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour total suspended particulate (TSP) levels at the two air quality monitoring stations were established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. Impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted for three times every 6 days. The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring are provided in Table 2.2.
The air quality monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.
Table 2.2: Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP
|
Monitoring Station |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
|
AR1A |
306 |
500 |
|
AR2 |
298 |
2.3
Monitoring Equipment
Portable direct reading dust meter was used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Details of equipment are given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Last Calibration Date |
|
Portable direct reading dust meter (Laser dust monitor) |
SIBATA LD-3B-002 (Serial No. 974350) |
26 Oct 2016 |
2.4
Monitoring
Methodology
2.4.1
Measuring Procedure
The measurement procedures involved in the impact 1-hr TSP monitoring can be summarised as follows:
a. The portable direct reading dust meter was mounted on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m above the ground.
b. Prior to the measurement, the equipment was set up for 1 minute span check and 6 second background check.
c. The one hour dust measurement was started. Site conditions and dust sources at the nearby area were recorded on a record sheet.
d. When the measurement completed, the “Count” reading per hour was recorded for result calculation.
2.4.2
Maintenance and Calibration
The portable direct reading dust meter is calibrated every year against high volume sampler (HVS) to check the validity and accuracy of the results measured by direct reading method. The calibration certificates of the portable direct reading dust meter and calibration record of the HVS provided is provided in Appendix B.
2.5
Analysis and
Interpretation of Monitoring Results
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP are summarized in Table 2.4. Detailed impact monitoring results are presented in Appendix D.
Table 2.4: Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results
|
Monitoring Station |
1-hr TSP Concentration Range (mg/m3) |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
|
AR1A |
27 - 237 |
306 |
500 |
|
AR2 |
16 - 197 |
298 |
No exceedance of the Action / Limit Level was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
General meteorological conditions throughout the impact monitoring period were recorded. Wind data for each monitoring day including wind speed and wind direction was collected from the Chek Lap Kok Wind Station.
3 Noise
Monitoring
3.1
Monitoring Stations
Noise monitoring was conducted at five representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of noise sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations and these are described in Table 3.1 below. As described in Section 4.3.3 of the Updated EM&A Manual, monitoring at NM2 will commence when the future residential buildings in Tung Chung West Development become occupied.
Table 3.1: Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring Station |
Location |
Type of measurement |
|
NM1A |
Man Tung Road Park |
Free field |
|
NM2(1) |
Tung Chung West Development |
To be determined |
|
NM3A |
Site Office |
Facade |
|
NM4 |
Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School |
Free field |
|
NM5 |
Village House in Tin Sum |
Free field |
|
NM6 |
House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan |
Free field |
Note: (1) As described in Section 4.3.3 of the Updated EM&A Manual, noise monitoring at NM2 will only commence after occupation of the future Tung Chung West Development.
3.2
Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline noise levels at the noise monitoring stations were established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report (Version 1 dated December 2015). Impact noise monitoring was conducted once per week in the form of 30-minute measurements of Leq, L10 and L90 levels recorded at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays. The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring are provided in Table 3.2. The construction noise monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.
Table 3.2: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Noise
|
Monitoring Stations |
Time Period |
Action Level |
Limit Level, Leq(30mins) dB(A) |
|
NM1A, NM2, NM3A, NM4, NM5 and NM6 |
0700-1900 hours on normal weekdays |
When one documented complaint is received from any one of the sensitive receivers |
75 dB(A)(i) |
Note: (i) reduce to 70dB(A) for school and 65dB(A) during school examination periods.
3.3
Monitoring
Equipment
Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meter at each designated monitoring station. The sound level meters deployed comply with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications. Acoustic calibrator was used to check the sound level meters by a known sound pressure level for field measurement. Details of equipment are given in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Noise Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Last Calibration Date |
|
|
Integrated Sound Level Meter |
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2800932) |
19 Jul 2016 |
|
|
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2381580) |
8 Sep 2016 |
||
|
|
|||
|
Acoustic Calibrator |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3003246) |
16 May 2016 |
|
|
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3004068) |
19 Jul 2016 |
||
3.4
Monitoring
Methodology
3.4.1
Monitoring Procedure
The monitoring procedures involved in the noise impact monitoring can be summarised as follows:
a. The sound level meter was set on a tripod at least a height of 1.2 m above the ground for free-field measurements at monitoring stations NM1A, NM4, NM5 and NM6. A correction of +3 dB(A) was applied to the free field measurements.
b. Façade measurements were made at the monitoring station NM3A.
c. Parameters such as frequency weighting, time weighting and measurement time were set.
d. Prior to and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic calibrator. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1 dB(A), the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.
e. During the monitoring period, Leq, L10 and L90 were recorded. In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded on a record sheet.
f. Noise measurement results were corrected with reference to the baseline monitoring levels.
g. Observations were recorded when high intrusive noise (e.g. dog barking, helicopter noise) was observed during the monitoring.
3.4.2
Maintenance and Calibration
The maintenance and calibration procedures are summarised below:
a. The microphone head of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular intervals.
b. The meter and calibrator were sent to the supplier or laboratory accredited under Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (HOKLAS) to check and calibrate at yearly intervals.
Calibration certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators used in the noise monitoring provided in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.8& 9 are still valid. Any updates of calibration certificates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if necessary.
3.5
Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results
The construction noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 3.4 and the detailed monitoring data are provided in Appendix D.
Table 3.4: Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results
|
Monitoring Station |
Noise Level Range, dB(A) Leq (30 mins) |
Limit Level, dB(A) Leq (30 mins) |
|
NM1A(i) |
71 - 72 |
75 |
|
NM3A |
57 - 63 |
75 |
|
NM4(i) |
64 - 66 |
70(ii) |
|
NM5(i) |
53 - 61 |
75 |
|
NM6(i) |
68 - 73 |
75 |
Note: (i) +3 dB(A) Façade correction included;
(ii) Reduced to 65 dB(A) during school examination periods.
As the construction activities were far away from the monitoring stations, major sources of noise dominating the monitoring stations observed during the construction noise impact monitoring were aircraft noise at NM3A and NM5, aircraft noise and helicopter noise at NM6, road traffic noise at NM1A and school activities at NM4 in this reporting month.
No exceedance of the Action/ Limit Level was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
4
Water Quality Monitoring
4.1
Monitoring Stations
Water quality monitoring was conducted at a total of 22 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact stations, seven sensitive receiver stations and three control stations in the vicinity of water quality sensitive receivers around the airport island in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Table 4.1 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 3.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.
Table 4.1: Monitoring Locations and Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring
|
Monitoring Stations |
Description |
Coordinates |
Parameters |
|
|
Easting |
Northing |
|||
|
C1 |
Control |
804247 |
815620 |
DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS, Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals(2) |
|
C2 |
Control |
806945 |
825682 |
|
|
C3(3) |
Control |
817803 |
822109 |
|
|
IM1 |
Impact |
806458 |
818351 |
|
|
IM2 |
Impact |
806193 |
818852 |
|
|
IM3 |
Impact |
806019 |
819411 |
|
|
IM4 |
Impact |
805039 |
819570 |
|
|
IM5 |
Impact |
804924 |
820564 |
|
|
IM6 |
Impact |
805828 |
821060 |
|
|
IM7 |
Impact |
806835 |
821349 |
|
|
IM8 |
Impact |
807838 |
821695 |
|
|
IM9 |
Impact |
808811 |
822094 |
|
|
IM10 |
Impact |
809838 |
822240 |
|
|
IM11 |
Impact |
810545 |
821501 |
|
|
IM12 |
Impact |
811519 |
821162 |
|
|
SR1(1) |
Future Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling |
812586 |
820069 |
DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
|
|
SR2(3) |
Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To |
814166 |
821463 |
|
|
SR3 |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau |
807571 |
822147 |
|
|
SR4A |
Sha Lo Wan |
807810 |
817189 |
|
|
SR5A |
San Tau Beach SSSI |
810696 |
816593 |
|
|
SR6 |
Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI |
814663 |
817899 |
|
|
SR7 |
Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ) |
823742 |
823636 |
|
|
SR8 |
Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East) |
811593 |
820417 |
|
Notes:
(1) The seawater intakes of SR1 for the future HKBCF is not yet in operation. The future permanent location for SR1
during impact monitoring is subject to finalisation after the HKBCF seawater is commissioned.
(2) Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html). DCM specific water quality monitoring parameters (total alkalinity and heavy metals) were only conducted at C1 to C3, SR2, and IM1 to IM12 .
(3) According to the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report, C3 station is not adequately representative as a control station of impact/ SR stations during the flood tide. The control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 September 2016 onwards.
4.2
Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
General water quality monitoring and early regular DCM water quality monitoring were conducted three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, at the 22 water quality monitoring stations during the reporting period. The sea conditions varied from clam to rough, and the weather conditions varied from fine to rainy during the monitoring period.
The water quality monitoring schedule for the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.
4.2.1
Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring
The Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 4.2. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Action and Limit Levels for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring
|
Parameters |
Action Level (AL) |
Limit Level (LL) |
||
|
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring (excluding SR1& SR8) |
||||
|
DO in mg/L (Surface, Middle & Bottom) |
Surface and Middle 4.5 mg/L |
Surface and Middle 4.1 mg/L 5 mg/L for Fish Culture Zone (SR7) only |
||
|
Bottom 3.4 mg/L |
Bottom 2.7 mg/L |
|||
|
Suspended Solids (SS) in mg/L |
23 |
or 120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher |
37 |
or 130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher |
|
Turbidity in NTU |
22.6 |
36.1 |
||
|
Total Alkalinity in ppm |
95 |
99 |
||
|
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Chromium) |
0.2 |
0.2 |
||
|
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Nickel) |
3.2 |
|
3.6 |
|
|
Action and Limit Levels SR1 |
|
|
|
|
|
SS (mg/l) |
To be determined prior to its commissioning |
To be determined prior to its commissioning |
||
|
Action and Limit Levels SR8 |
|
|
|
|
|
SS (mg/l) |
52 |
|
60 |
|
Notes:
(1) For DO measurement, non-compliance occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.
(2)For parameters other than DO, non-compliance of water quality results when monitoring results is higher than the limits.
(3)Depth-averaged results are used unless specified otherwise.
(4)Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html)
(5)The action and limit levels for the two representative heavy metals chosen will be the same as that for the intensive DCM monitoring.
Table 4.3: The Control and Impact Stations during Flood Tide and Ebb Tide for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring
|
Control Station |
Impact Stations |
|
Flood Tide |
|
|
C1 |
IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, SR3 |
|
SR2^1 |
IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A, SR6, SR8 |
|
Ebb Tide |
|
|
C1 |
SR4A, SR5A, SR6 |
|
C2 |
IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7, SR8 |
^1 As per findings of Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report, the control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 Sep 2016 onwards.
4.3
Monitoring
Equipment
Table 4.4 summarises the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table 4.4: Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
|
|
Water Sampler |
Van Dorn Water Sampler |
|
|
Positioning Device (measurement of GPS) |
Garmin eTrex Vista HCx |
|
|
Current Meter (measurement of current speed and direction, and water depth) |
Sontek HydroSurveyor |
|
|
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Last Calibration Date |
|
Multifunctional Meter (measurement of DO, pH, temperature, salinity and turbidity) |
YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 11F100014) |
5 Oct 2016 |
|
|
YSI ProDSS (serial no. 15M100005) |
5 Oct 2016 |
|
|
YSI 6920 (serial no. 000109DF) |
5 Oct 2016 |
|
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity) |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (serial no.10N64701) |
11 Oct 2016 |
|
|
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (serial no. 10N65665) |
23 Sep 2016 |
4.4
Monitoring
Methodology
4.4.1
Measuring Procedure
Water quality monitoring samples were taken at three depths (at 1m below surface, at mid-depth, and at 1m above bottom) for locations with water depth >6m. For locations with water depth between 3m and 6m, water samples were taken at two depths (surface and bottom). For locations with water depth <3m, only the mid-depth was taken. Duplicate water samples were taken and analysed.
The water samples for all monitoring parameters were collected, stored, preserved and analysed according to the Standard Methods, APHA 22nd ed. and/or other methods as agreed by the EPD. In-situ measurements at monitoring locations including temperature, pH, DO, turbidity, salinity and water depth were collected by equipment listed in Table 4.4. Water samples for heavy metals and SS analysis were stored in high density polythene bottles with no preservative added, packed in ice (cooled to 4 şC without being frozen), delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of collection.
4.4.2
Maintenance and Calibration
Calibration of In-situ Instruments
Wet bulb calibration for a DO meter was carried out before commencement of monitoring and after completion of all measurements each day. Calibration was not conducted at each monitoring location as daily calibration is adequate for the type of DO meter employed. A zero check in distilled water was performed with the turbidity probe at least once per monitoring day. The probe should then be calibrated with a solution of known NTU. In addition, the turbidity probe was calibrated at least twice per month to establish the relationship between turbidity readings (in NTU) and levels of suspended solids (in mg/L). Accuracy check of the digital titrator was performed at least once per monitoring day.
Calibration certificates of the monitoring equipment used in the monitoring provided in Appendix C of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.10 are still valid. Any updates of calibration certifcates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if necessary.
4.4.3
Laboratory Measurement / Analysis
Analysis of SS and heavy metals have been carried out by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory, ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd (Reg. No. HOKLAS 066). Sufficient water samples were collected at all the monitoring stations for carrying out the laboratory SS and heavy metals determination. The SS and heavy metals determination works were started within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. The analysis of SS and heavy metals have followed the standard methods summarised in Table 4.5. The QA/QC procedures for laboratory measurement/ analysis of SS and heavy metals was presented in Appendix F of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.8.
Table 4.5: Laboratory Measurement/ Analysis of SS and Heavy Metals
|
Parameters |
Instrumentation |
Analytical Method |
Reporting Limit |
|
Suspended Solid (SS) |
Analytical Balance |
APHA 2540D |
2 mg/L |
|
Heavy Metals |
|
|
|
|
Chromium (Cr) |
ICP-MS |
USEPA 6020A |
0.2 µg/L |
|
Nickel (Ni) |
ICP-MS |
USEPA 6020A |
0.2 µg/L |
4.5
Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results
4.5.1
Summary of
Monitoring Results
The water quality monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity, SS and nickel, some of the testing results had exceeded the relevant Action Levels or Limit Levels during the reporting period. Details of the exceedances are presented in Section 4.5.2.
All the water quality monitoring results and graphical presentations are provided in Appendix D.
4.5.2 Summary of Findings for
Investigation of Exceedances
SS, turbidity and nickel testing results exceeding the corresponding Action or Limit Levels were recorded at 12 monitoring days during the monitoring period. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan has been followed. Details of the exceedance cases are presented below.
Findings for SS Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Impact Monitoring (IM) Stations
Table 4.6 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month.
Table 4.6: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)
|
Date |
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
03/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
05/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
08/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
10/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
12/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
15/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
17/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
19/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
22/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
24/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
26/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
29/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
No. of SS Exceedances |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.
Legend:
|
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As shown in Table 4.6, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were observed on four monitoring days. However, some of the exceedances occurred at monitoring stations which are located upstream of the 3RS Project during ebb tide. As such upstream stations would unlikely be affected by the Project, the investigation focused on those exceedances at IM stations located downstream of the Project and hence might be affected by the Project’s construction activities.
As part of the investigation on the downstream exceedance events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on these monitoring days were collected, as well as any observations during the monitoring. The findings are summarised in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Summary of Findings from Investigations of SS Exceedance during Mid-Ebb Tide
|
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Status of silt curtains (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
|
Silt plume observed |
Exceedance due to Project |
|
12/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
|
No |
No |
|
15/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
|
No |
No |
|
19/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
|
No |
No |
|
29/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
|
No |
No |
In addition to the investigation summary presented in Table 4.7, it is also noted from Table 4.6 that all exceedances at downstream IM stations do not show any temporal trend and on all monitoring days with exceedances at downstream IM stations, exceedances were also observed at some of the upstream IM stations on the same day, which suggested that there might be other sources of SS that were not related to the Project. On 29 November 2016, it is also noted that the sea conditions were rough at the western side of the project area, which could cause natural elevations in ambient SS levels. Based on the findings of the exceedance investigation, these exceedances were considered not due to the Project.
Sensitive Receiver (SR) Stations
At SR stations, some exceedances were also observed at SR3 and SR4A during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month. SR3 is located upstream of the project during ebb tide, hence the exceedance at SR3 is unlikely to be due to the Project. SR4A is located remotely from the Project. For remote sensitive receivers like SR4A to be affected by SS released from the Project’s activities, there would be similar exceedances at the IM stations located between the Project and the SR station. However, this was generally not observed, while the exceedances investigation had also concluded that exceedances at IM stations were not due to the Project. In addition, it is noted that similarly high SS levels were observed at these SR stations during baseline monitoring, which suggested that such SS elevations are not uncommon under ambient conditions due to natural fluctuation. Given these findings, the exceedances at SR stations were considered not due to the Project.
Findings for SS Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Impact Monitoring (IM) Stations
Table 4.8 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting month.
Table 4.8: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)
|
Date |
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
03/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
05/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
08/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
10/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
12/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
15/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
17/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
19/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
22/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
24/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
26/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
29/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
No. of SS Exceedances |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.
Legend:
|
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As shown in Table 4.8, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were observed on five monitoring days. However, some of the exceedances occur at monitoring stations which are located upstream of the 3RS Project during flood tide. As such upstream stations are unlikely to be affected by the Project, the investigation focused on those exceedances at IM stations located downstream of the Project and hence might be affected by the Project’s construction activities.
As part of the investigation on the downstream exceedance events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on these monitoring days were collected, as well as any observations during the monitoring. The findings are summarised in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Summary of Findings from Investigations of SS Exceedance during Mid-Flood Tide
|
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Status of silt curtains (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Silt plume observed |
Exceedance due to Project |
|
1/11/2016 |
No marine construction works nearby during monitoring |
Not applicable |
No |
No |
No |
|
12/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
No |
No |
|
15/11/2016 |
No marine construction works nearby during monitoring |
Not applicable |
No |
No |
No |
|
17/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
No |
No |
|
29/11/2016 |
Sand blanket laying Geotextile laying |
Deployed and maintained properly |
No |
No |
No |
In addition to the investigation summary presented in Table 4.9, it is also noted from Table 4.8 that all exceedances at downstream IM stations appear to be isolated cases with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate SS release due to Project activities. Based on the findings of the exceedance investigation, these exceedances were considered not due to the Project.
Sensitive Receiver (SR) Stations
At SR stations, exceedances were observed at SR4A and SR6. However, such SR stations are located upstream of the Project during flood tide, hence exceedances at these upstream SR stations are unlikely to be due to the Project. Separately, it is noted that similarly high SS levels were observed at these SR stations during baseline monitoring, which suggested that such SS elevations are not uncommon under ambient conditions.
Findings for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Impact Monitoring (IM) Stations
Table 4.10 presents a summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month.
Table 4.10: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)
|
Date |
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
03/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
05/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
08/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
10/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
12/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
15/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
17/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
19/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
22/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
24/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
26/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
29/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
No. of SS Exceedances |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.
Legend:
|
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As shown in Table 4.10, an exceedance of Action Level was recorded at IM4 on 19 November 2016. According to the investigation findings summarized in Table 4.7, there were no construction vessels in the vicinity of IM4 and silt curtains were deployed and maintained properly for sand blanket laying during the monitoring period.
In addition, no exceedance of turbidity was recorded at other monitoring stations close to IM4. The exceedance was also within the range of baseline monitoring at IM4. Therefore, it was considered that the exceedance was caused by natural fluctuation and unlikely to be due to the Project.
Sensitive Receiver (SR) Stations
There were no turbidity exceedances at any SR stations.
Findings for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Impact Monitoring (IM) Stations
Table 4.11 presents a summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting month.
Table 4.11: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)
|
Date |
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
03/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
05/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
08/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
10/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
12/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
15/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
17/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
19/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
22/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
24/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
26/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
29/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
No. of SS Exceedances |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.
Legend:
|
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As shown in Table 4.11, exceedances of Action Level at IM stations were observed on two monitoring days. Referring to the details of the Project’s marine construction activities and other observations presented in Table 4.9, there were no marine construction activities during the monitoring on 1 November 2016, and the findings presented in Table 4.9 (which are also applicable to turbidity) concluded the exceedance was considered not due to the Project.
Separately, it is noted that the Action Level was only marginally exceeded (by 0.2 NTU) on 17 November 2016, and the exceedances occurred as very isolated cases with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate that the turbidity exceedances were due to Project activities.
Sensitive Receiver (SR) Stations
There were no turbidity exceedances at any SR stations.
Findings for Nickel Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Impact Monitoring (IM) Stations
Table 4.12 presents a summary of nickel compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting month. There were no nickel exceedances at any IM stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month.
Table 4.12: Summary of Nickel Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)
|
Date |
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
03/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
05/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
08/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
10/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
12/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
15/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
17/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
19/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
22/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
24/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
26/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
29/11/2016 |
||||||||||||
|
No. of SS Exceedances |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.
Legend:
|
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Exceedance of Action or Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
|
Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As shown in Table 4.12, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were observed on one monitoring day. Nickel is a representative heavy metal for DCM monitoring, however, no DCM activities were conducted during the entire reporting month. The exceedances of nickel were thus considered not due to the Project. Occasional elevations in nickel levels may arise due to other sources not associated with the Project.
Sensitive Receiver (SR) Stations
There were no nickel exceedances at any SR stations during mid-flood tide or mid-ebb tide.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the exceedance investigations, it is concluded that none of the exceedances were considered due to the Project. Hence, no SR stations are adversely affected by the Project. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan has been followed. Exceedances appear to be due to natural fluctuation (such as naturally higher baseline SS levels at individual SR stations or rough sea conditions causing natural elevations in SS at both upstream and downstream IM stations) or other sources not related to the Project.
Nevertheless, the non-project related exceedances recorded at IM stations have been attended to as a precautionary measure. This is because the IM stations represent a ‘first line of defense’, which aims to promptly capture any potential water quality impacts from the Project before the impacts could become apparent at sensitive receivers (represented by the SR stations). During the reporting month, there were site trials for sand blanket laying and geotextile laying activities, whereby custom-designed methods and silt curtain systems were being further refined taking into account their environmental performance under actual marine conditions within the Project area. The ET and the contractors will keep exploring the opportunities for further enhancement on silt curtain systems. As part of the EM&A programme, the construction methods and mitigation measures for water quality will continue to be monitored and opportunities for further enhancement will continue to be explored and implemented where possible, to strive for better protection of water quality and the marine environment.
In the meantime, the contractors were reminded to implement and maintain all mitigation measures during weekly site inspection. These include maintaining the silt curtain for sand blanket laying properly and maintaining the levels of materials on barges to avoid overflow as recommended in the EM&A manual.
5 Waste
Management
5.1
Monitoring Requirements
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, the waste generated from construction activities was audited once per week to determine if wastes are being managed in accordance with the Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared for the Project, contract-specific WMP, and any statutory and contractual requirements. All aspects of waste management including waste generation, storage, transportation and disposal were assessed during the audits. The Action and Limit levels of the construction waste are provided in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Waste
|
Monitoring Stations |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
|
Construction Area |
When one valid documented complaint is received |
Non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific WMPs, any statutory and contractual requirements |
5.2
Waste Management Status
Weekly monitoring on all works contracts were carried out by the ET to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices during the construction phase.
Recommendations were provided during monitoring including provision of drip trays for chemical containers, as well as proper collection, sorting and disposal of C&D materials and sewage effluent from construction workforce. In addition, the relevant contractors were reminded to provide spill kit and chemical storage area, and to handle the chemical waste properly. The contractors had taken actions to implement the recommended measures.
Based on the updated information, metals and paper were recycled and about 70m3 of excavated materials were produced from the HDD launching site under P560(R) in November 2016. The generated excavated materials were temporarily stored at storage and stockpiling area. The excavated material will be reused in the Project.
19.8 tonnes of general refuse was disposed of to the West New Territories (WENT) Landfill by advanced works contract and DCM contracts in November 2016. No Construction and Demolition (C&D) material and chemical waste were disposed off-site during the reporting month.
No exceedances of the Action or Limit Levels were recorded in the reporting period.
6
Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring
6.1
CWD
Monitoring Requirements
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring by small vessel line-transect survey supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking should be conducted during construction phase.
The small vessel line-transect survey as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual should be conducted at a frequency of two full survey per month while land-based theodolite tracking should be conducted at a frequency of one day per month per station during the construction phase. In addition to the land-based theodolite tracking required for impact monitoring as stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual, supplemental theodolite tracking have also been conducted during the initial implementation period for the SkyPier HSF diversion and speed control in order to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, i.e. in total twice per month at the Sha Chau station and three times per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station.
The Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for CWD monitoring were formulated by the action response approach using the running quarterly dolphin encounter rates STG and ANI derived from the baseline monitoring data, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The derived values of AL and LL for CWD monitoring were summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Derived Values of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring
|
|
NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole |
|
Action Level |
Running quarterly* STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
|
Limit Level |
Two consecutive running quarterly^ (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
[Notes for Table 6.1 (referring to the baseline monitoring report):
*Action Level – running quarterly STG & ANI will be calculated from the three preceding survey months. For CWD monitoring for November 2016, data from 1 September to 30 November 2016 will be used to calculate the running quarterly encounter rates STG & ANI;
^Limit Level – two consecutive running quarters mean both the running quarterly encounter rates of the preceding month October 2016 (calculated by data from August to October 2016) and the running quarterly encounter rates of this month (calculated by data from September to November 2016).
AL and/or LL will be exceeded if both STG and ANI fall below the criteria.]
6.2
CWD
Monitoring Transects and Stations
6.2.1
Small Vessel Line-transect Survey
Small vessel line-transect surveys were conduct along the transects covering Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) areas as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual, which are consistent with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) long-term monitoring programme (except AW). The AW transect has not been previously surveyed in the AFCD programme due to the restrictions of HKIA Exclusion Zone, nevertheless, this transect was established during the EIA of the 3RS Project and refined in the Updated EM&A Manual with the aim to collect project specific baseline information within the HKIA Approach Area to fill the data gap that was not covered by the AFCD programme. This provided a larger sample size for estimating the densities and patterns of movements in the broader study area of the project.
For the NWL area, there was no significant physical demarcation of the 3RS works area during CWD monitoring survey in the reporting period, therefore most of the works area of the 3RS project was still accessible and the transect lines followed the waypoints and lengths conducted for baseline monitoring. The planned vessel survey transect lines are depicted in Figure 6.1 with the waypoint coordinates of all transect lines given in Table 6.2, which are subject to on-site refinement based on the actual survey conditions and constraints.
Table 6.2: Coordinates of Transect Lines in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL Survey Areas
|
Waypoint |
Easting |
Northing |
Waypoint |
Easting |
Northing |
|
NEL |
|||||
|
1S |
813525 |
820900 |
6N |
818568 |
824433 |
|
1N |
813525 |
824657 |
7S |
819532 |
821420 |
|
2S |
814556 |
818449 |
7N |
819532 |
824209 |
|
2N |
814559 |
824768 |
8S |
820451 |
822125 |
|
3S |
815542 |
818807 |
8N |
820451 |
823671 |
|
3N |
815542 |
824882 |
9S |
821504 |
822371 |
|
4S |
816506 |
819480 |
9N |
821504 |
823761 |
|
4N |
816506 |
824859 |
10S |
822513 |
823268 |
|
5S |
817537 |
820220 |
10N |
822513 |
824321 |
|
5N |
817537 |
824613 |
11S |
823477 |
823402 |
|
6S |
818568 |
820735 |
11N |
823477 |
824613 |
|
NWL |
|||||
|
1S |
804671 |
814577 |
5N |
808504 |
828602 |
|
1N |
804671 |
831404 |
6S |
809490 |
820590 |
|
2S |
805475 |
815457 |
6N |
809490 |
825352 |
|
2N |
805476 |
830562 |
7S |
810499 |
820950 |
|
3S |
806464 |
819550 |
7N |
810499 |
824613 |
|
3N |
806464 |
829598 |
8S |
811508 |
821250 |
|
4S |
807518 |
819900 |
8N |
811508 |
824254 |
|
4N |
807518 |
829230 |
9S |
812516 |
821250 |
|
5S |
808504 |
820250 |
9N |
812516 |
824254 |
|
AW |
|||||
|
1W |
804733 |
818205 |
2W |
805045 |
816912 |
|
1E |
806708 |
818017 |
2E |
805960 |
816633 |
|
WL |
|||||
|
1W |
800600 |
805450 |
7W |
800400 |
811450 |
|
1E |
801760 |
805450 |
7E |
802400 |
811450 |
|
2W |
800300 |
806450 |
8W |
800800 |
812450 |
|
2E |
801750 |
806450 |
8E |
802900 |
812450 |
|
3W |
799600 |
807450 |
9W |
801500 |
813550 |
|
3E |
801500 |
807450 |
9E |
803120 |
813550 |
|
4W |
799400 |
808450 |
10W |
801880 |
814500 |
|
4E |
801430 |
808450 |
10E |
803700 |
814500 |
|
5W |
799500 |
809450 |
11W |
802860 |
815500 |
|
5E |
801300 |
809450 |
12S/11E |
803750 |
815500 |
|
6W |
799800 |
810450 |
12N |
803750 |
818500 |
|
6E |
801400 |
810450 |
|
|
|
|
SWL |
|||||
|
1S |
802494 |
803961 |
6S |
807467 |
801137 |
|
1N |
802494 |
806174 |
6N |
807467 |
808458 |
|
2S |
803489 |
803280 |
7S |
808553 |
800329 |
|
2N |
803489 |
806720 |
7N |
808553 |
807377 |
|
3S |
804484 |
802509 |
8S |
809547 |
800338 |
|
3N |
804484 |
807048 |
8N |
809547 |
807396 |
|
4S |
805478 |
802105 |
9S |
810542 |
800423 |
|
4N |
805478 |
807556 |
9N |
810542 |
807462 |
|
5S |
806473 |
801250 |
10S |
811446 |
801335 |
|
5N |
806473 |
808458 |
10N |
811446 |
809436 |
6.2.2
Land-based Theodolite Tracking
Land-based theodolite tracking stations were set up at two locations, one facing east/south/west on the southern slopes of Sha Chau (SC), and the other facing north/northeast/northwest at Lung Kwu Chau (LKC). The stations (D and E) are depicted in Figure 6.2 and shown in Table 6.3 with position coordinates, height of station and approximate distance of consistent theodolite tracking capabilities for CWD.
Table 6.3: Land-based Survey Station Details
|
Stations |
Location |
Geographical Coordinates |
Station Height (m) |
Approximate Tracking Distance (km) |
|
D |
Sha Chau (SC) |
22° 20’ 43.5” N 113° 53’ 24.66” E |
45.66 |
2 |
|
E |
Lung Kwu Chau (LKC) |
22° 22’ 44.83” N 113° 53’ 0.2” E |
70.40 |
3 |
6.3
CWD
Monitoring Methodology
6.3.1
Small Vessel Line-transect Survey
Small vessel line-transect surveys provided data for density and abundance estimation and other assessments using distance-sampling methodologies, specifically, line-transect methods.
The surveys involved small vessel line-transect data collection and have been designed to be similar to, and consistent with, previous surveys for the AFCD for their long-term monitoring of small cetaceans in Hong Kong. The survey was designed to provide systematic, quantitative measurements of density, abundance and habitat use.
As mentioned in Section 6.2.1, the transects covered Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL) covering the Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) areas as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual and are consistent with the AFCD long-term monitoring programme (except AW). There are two types of transect lines:
● Primary transect lines: the parallel and zigzag transect lines as shown in Figure 6.1; and
● Secondary transect lines: transect lines connecting between the primary transect lines and crossing islands.
All on-effort data collected under conditions of Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond, on both primary and secondary transect lines, were used for analysis.
A 15-20 m vessel with a flying bridge observation platform about 4 to 5 m above water level and unobstructed forward view, and a team of three to four observers were deployed to undertake the surveys. Two observers were on search effort at all times when following the transect lines with a constant speed of 7 to 8 knots (i.e. 13 to 15 km per hour), one using 7X handheld binoculars and the other using unaided eyes and recording data.
During on-effort survey periods, the survey team recorded effort data including time, position (waypoints), weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and visibility) and distance travelled in each series with assistance of a handheld GPS device. The GPS device also continuously and automatically logged data including time, position (Latitude and longitude) and vessel speed throughout the entire survey.
When CWDs were seen, the survey team was taken off-effort, the dolphins were approached and photographed for photo-ID information (using a Canon 7D [or similar] camera and long 300 mm+ telephoto lens), then followed until they left the study area or were lost. At that point, the boat returned (off effort) to the next survey line and began to survey on effort again.
Focal follows of dolphins were conducted where practicable (i.e. when individual dolphins or small stable groups of dolphins with at least one member that could be readily identifiable with unaided eyes during observations and weather conditions are favourable). These involved the boat following (at an appropriate distance to minimize disturbance) an identifiable individual dolphin for an extended period of time, and collecting detailed data on its location, behaviour, response to vessels, and associates.
6.3.2
Photo Identification
CWDs can be identified by their unique features like presence of scratches, nick marks, cuts, wounds, deformities of their dorsal fin and distinguished colouration and spotting patterns.
When CWDs were observed, the survey team was taken off-effort, the dolphins were approached and photographed for photo-ID information (using a Canon 7D [or similar] camera and long 300 mm+ telephoto lens). The survey team attempted to photo both sides of every single dolphin in the group as the colouration and spotting pattern on both sides may not be identical. The photos were taken at the highest available resolution and stored on Compact Flash memory cards for transferring into a computer.
All photos taken were initially examined to sort out those containing potentially identifiable individuals. These sorted-out images would then be examined in detail and compared to the CWD photo-identification catalogue established for 3RS during the baseline monitoring stage.
6.3.3
Land-based Theodolite Tracking
Land-based monitoring obtains fine-scale information on the
time of day and movement patterns of the CWDs. A digital theodolite
(Sokkia/Sokkisha Model DT5 or similar equipment) with 30-power magnification and 5-s precision was
used to obtain the vertical
and horizontal angle of each dolphin and vessel
position. Angles were converted to geographic coordinates (latitude
and longitude) and data were recorded using Pythagoras software, Version 1.2. This
method delivers precise positions of multiple
spatially distant targets in a short period of time. The
technique is fully non-invasive, and allows for time and cost-effective
descriptions of dolphin habitat use patterns at all times of daylight.
Three surveyors (one theodolite operator, one computer operator, and one observer) were involved in each survey. Observers searched for dolphins using unaided eyes and handheld binoculars (7X50). Theodolite tracking sessions were initiated whenever an individual CWD or group of CWDs was located. Where possible, a distinguishable individual was selected, based on colouration, within the group. The focal individual was then continuously tracked via the theodolite, with a position recorded each time the dolphin surfaced. In case an individual could not be positively distinguished from other members, the group was tracked by recording positions based on a central point within the group whenever the CWD surfaced. Tracking continued until animals were lost from view; moved beyond the range of reliable visibility (>1-3 km, depending on station height); or environmental conditions obstructed visibility (e.g., intense haze, Beaufort sea state >4, or sunset), at which time the research effort was terminated. In addition to the tracking of CWD, all vessels that moved within 2-3 km of the station were tracked, with effort made to obtain at least two positions for each vessel.
Theodolite tracking included focal follows of CWD groups and vessels. Priority was given to tracking individual or groups of CWD. The survey team also attempted to track all vessels moving within 1 km of the focal CWD.
6.4
Monitoring
Results and Observations
6.4.1
Small Vessel Line-transect Survey
Survey Effort
Within this reporting month, two complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys were conducted on the 4th, 11th, 14th, 16th,17th, 18th, 21st and 28th November 2016, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas for twice.
A total of 469.12 km of survey effort was collected from these surveys, with around 83.9% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility). Details of the survey effort are given in Appendix D.
Sighting Distribution
In November 2016, 11 groups of CWDs with 33 individuals were sighted. Amongst the sightings of CWD, 10 groups with 28 individuals were made during on-effort search under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility). Details of cetacean sightings are presented in Appendix D.
Distribution of CWD sightings recorded in November 2016 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. In NWL, one sigthing was recorded northeast off the Lung Kwu Chau while other two sightings were recorded at the southwest corner of the survey area near Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road alignment. CWD sightings in WL located mainly around Tai O, whilst no sightings of CWD were recorded near Fan Lau in this reporting month. In SWL, CWD sigthings scattered from Tai Long Wan to Lo Kei Wan. No sightings of CWDs were recorded in the vicinity of or within the 3RS land-formation footprint.
Figure 6.3: Sightings Distribution of Chinese White Dolphins
[Pink circle: Sighting locations of CWD, White line: Vessel survey transects, Blue polygon: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP), Red polygon: 3RS land-formation footprint]
Note: Only on-effort sightings under Beaufort 3 or below were presented in the figure.
Encounter Rate
Two types of dolphin encounter rates were calculated based on the data from November 2016. They included the number of dolphin sightings per 100km survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins per 100km survey effort (ANI) in the whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL). In the calculation of dolphin encounter rates, only survey data collected under favourable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility) were used. The formulae used for calculation of the encounter rates are shown below:
Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG)
Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphins (ANI)
(Notes: Only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition was used)
In November 2016, a total of 393.70 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 10 on-effort sightings and a total number of 28 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the encounter rates in November 2016 are shown as follows:
Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG) in November 2016
Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphins (ANI) in November 2016
For the running quarter of the reporting month (i.e., from September to November 2016), a total of 1238.24 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 44 on-effort sightings and a total number of 133 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the running quarterly encounter rates are shown as follows:
Running Quarterly Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG)
Running Quarterly Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphins (ANI)
The STG and ANI of CWD in the whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) during the month of November 2016 and during the the running quarter are presented in Table 6.4 below and compared with the Action Level. The running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI did not trigger the Action Level (i.e., remained above the Action Level).
Table 6.4: Comparison of CWD Encounter Rates of the Whole Survey Area with Action Levels
|
|
Encounter Rate (STG) |
Encounter Rate (ANI) |
|
November 2016 |
2.54 |
7.11 |
|
Running Quarter from September to November 2016* |
3.55 |
10.74 |
|
Action Level |
1.86 |
9.35 |
*Running quarterly encounter rates STG & ANI were calculated from data collected in the reporting month and the two preceding survey months, i.e. the data from September to November 2016, containing six sets of transect surveys for all monitoring areas.
Group Size
In November 2016, the average group size of CWDs was 2.8 individuals per group. The majority of the sightings were of medium group size (i.e. 3-9 individuals). No large CWD groups with 10+ individuals were sighted in November 2016.
Activities and Association with Fishing Boats
No sightings of CWDs were recorded in association with operating fishing boats in November 2016.
Mother-calf Pair
One mother-and-unspotted juvenile pair and one mother-and-spotted juvenile pair were sighted in SWL and NWL respectively within this reporting month.
6.4.2
Photo Identification
In November 2016, a total number of 17 different CWD individuals were identified for totally 17 times. A summary of photo identification works is presented in Table 6.5. Representative photos of these individuals are given in Appendix D.
Table 6.5: Summary of Photo Identification
|
Individual ID |
Date of sighting (dd/mm/yyyy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
|
Individual ID |
Date of sighting (dd/mm/yyyy) |
Sigthing Group No. |
Area |
||||
|
NLMM002 |
04/11/2016 |
2 |
NWL |
|
SLMM028 |
04/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
||||
|
NLMM006 |
04/11/2016 |
2 |
NWL |
|
SLMM033 |
14/11/2016 |
1 |
SWL |
|
||||
|
NLMM013 |
04/11/2016 |
2 |
NWL |
|
WLMM001 |
17/11/2016 |
1 |
WL |
|
||||
|
NLMM043 |
21/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM026 |
04/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
||||
|
NLMM044 |
21/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM027 |
04/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
||||
|
SLMM010 |
18/11/2016 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM028 |
28/11/2016 |
6 |
SWL |
|
||||
|
SLMM011 |
21/11/2016 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM029 |
28/11/2016 |
6 |
SWL |
|
||||
|
SLMM012 |
28/11/2016 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM062 |
17/11/2016 |
1 |
WL |
|
||||
|
SLMM017 |
28/11/2016 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
6.4.3
Land-based Theodolite Tracking
Survey Effort
Land-based theodolite tracking surveys at LKC were conducted on 7th, 15th and 25th November 2016 and at SC on 8th and 17th November 2016, with a total of 5 days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort accomplished in this reporting month. In total, 10 CWD groups were tracked during the surveys. Information of survey effort and CWD groups sighted during these land-based theodolite tracking surveys are presented in Table 6.6. Details of the survey effort and CWD groups tracked are presented in Appendix D. The first sighting locations of CWD groups tracked at LKC station during land-based theodolite tracking surveys in November 2016 were depicted in Figure 6.4. No CWD group was sighted from SC station in this reporting month.
Table 6.6: Summary of Survey Effort and CWD Group of Land-based Theodolite Tracking
|
Land-based Station |
No. of Survey Sessions |
Survey Effort (hh:mm) |
No. of CWD Groups Sighted |
CWD Group Sighting per Survey Hour |
|
Lung Kwu Chau |
3 |
18:10 |
10 |
0.55 |
|
Sha Chau |
2 |
12:00 |
0 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
5 |
30:10 |
10 |
0.33 |
Figure 6.4: Plots of First Sightings of All CWD Groups obtained from Land-based Stations
[Green triangle: LKC station; Green square: CWD group off LKC; Blue line: SCLKCMP boundary]
6.5
Progress Update
on Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Underwater acoustic monitoring using Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) should be undertaken during land formation related construction works. In this reporting month, the Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) has been retrieved on 7 November 2016, re-deployed on 16 November 2016 and positioned at south of Sha Chau Island with 20% duty cycle (Figure 6.5). The EAR deployment is generally for 4-6 weeks prior to data retrieval for analysis. Acoustic data is reviewed to give an indication of CWDs occurrence patterns and to obtain anthropogenic noise information simultaneously. Analysis (by a specialized team of acousticians) involved manually browsing through every acoustic recording and logging the occurrence of dolphin signals. All data will be re-played by computer as well as listened to by human ears for accurate assessment of dolphin group presence. As the period of data collection and analysis takes more than two months, PAM results could not be reported in monthly intervals.
6.6
Site Audit for CWD-related Mitigation Measures
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Watching Plan, visual inspection by dolphin observer shall be implemented for works involving deployment and relocation of silt curtains and at enclosed areas once silt curtains are installed during construction phase. Briefings shall be provided by the trained dolphin observers for frontline site staff and other relevant personnel employed by the contractor to aid opportunistic observations of CWDs within waters surrounded by silt curtains.
During the reporting period, silt curtain was deployed by the contractor of CLP cable diversion enabling works as well as the DCM contractors for sand blanket laying works. Trainings for the dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. Prior to the complete enclosure of any open water area within a silt curtain or deployment in form of linear floating silt curtain, observations around waters enclosed by the silt curtain deployment and vicinity area from the installation works were taken place for 30 minutes by the trained dolphin observer to ensure no dolphins were trapped within the silt curtain. Visual inspection and integrity check for silt curtain were carried out by the contractor and their daily records were audited by ET and IEC during site inspection.
Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were carried out during weekly site inspection and the observations are summarised in Section 7.1. Audits of SkyPier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management are presented in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 respectively.
6.7
Timing of
Reporting CWD Monitoring Results
Detailed analysis of CWD monitoring results collected by small vessel line-transect survey will be provided in future quarterly reports. Detailed analysis of CWD monitoring results collected by land-based theodolite tracking and PAM will be provided in future yearly reports after a larger sample size of data has been collected.
6.8
Summary of CWD Monitoring
CWD monitoring was conducted as scheduled. The running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI in the reporting month did not trigger the Action Level (i.e., remained above the Action Level). No adverse impact from the Project was observed.
7
Environmental Site Inspection and
Audit
7.1
Environmental Site Inspection
Weekly site inspections of the construction works for the advanced works contract, CLP cable diversion enabling works and DCM contracts were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. The weekly site inspection schedule of the construction works is provided in Appendix C. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists and provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.
The key observations from site inspection and associated recommendations were related to the provision of drip trays for chemical containers; improvement of dust control measures; display of noise emission labels for air compressors and Non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) labels for generators; sewage effluent from construction workforce as well as proper collection, sorting and disposal of C&D materials. In addition, recommendations were provided during site inspection on barges, including provision of spill kit and chemical waste storage area for the chemical waste, display of Environmental Permit, and provision of acoustic decoupling for noisy equipment. The contractors had taken actions to implement the recommended measures.
A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix A.
7.2
Audit of Route
Diversion and Speed Control of the SkyPier High Speed Ferries
The Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan) has been submitted to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) for comment and subsequently submitted to and approved by EPD in November 2015 under EP Condition 2.10. The approved SkyPier Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project. In the SkyPier Plan, AAHK has committed to implementing the mitigation measure of requiring high speed ferries (HSFs) of SkyPier travelling between HKIA and Zhuhai / Macau to start diverting the route with associated speed control across the area, i.e. Speed Control Zone (SCZ), with high Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) abundance. The route diversion and speed restriction at the SCZ have been implemented since 28 December 2015.
Key audit findings for the SkyPier HSFs travelling to/from Zhuhai and Macau against the requirements of the SkyPier Plan during the reporting period are summarized in Table 7.1. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in November 2016 (i.e., 88 to 93 daily movements) were within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. Status of compliance with the annual daily average of 99 movements will be further reviewed in the annual EM&A Report.
In total, 837 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in November 2016 and the data are presented in Appendix G. The time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ in November 2016 were presented in Figure 7‑1. It will take 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ when the SkyPier HSFs adopt the maximum allowable speed of 15 knots within the SCZ. Figure 7‑1 shows that all the SkyPier HSFs spent more than 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ, except that one HSF travelled at an average speed of 16.4. knots. Notice was therefore sent to the ferry operator and the case is currently under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report.
Figure 7‑1 Duration of the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ for 1 – 30 November 2016
Note: Data above the red line indicated that the time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ is more than 9.6 minutes, which is in compliance with the SkyPier Plan.
Four ferries were recorded with minor deviation from the diverted route on 12, 14, 17 and 22 November 2016. Another ferry was not travelled through the diverted route and it entered the Marine Prohibited Zone on 22 November 2016. Notices were accordingly sent to the ferry operator and the cases are under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report.
The four cases of minor route deviations on 8, 10, 11 and 15 October 2016 as recorded in the previous Monthly EM&A Report have been investigated by ET. It was found from the investigation that the four minor deviation cases were all due to public safety considerations, i.e., strong tidal wave and current or giving way to other vessels, and the HSFs had returned to the normal route following the SkyPier Plan as soon as practicable.
Table 7.1: Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan
|
Requirements in the SkyPier Plan |
1 November to 30 November 2016 |
|
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited |
837 |
|
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points |
5 deviations, which are under investigation |
|
Speed control in speed control zone |
The average speeds taken within the SCZ of all HSFs were within 15 knots (8.5 knots to 14.2 knots), which complied with the SkyPier Plan, except that one HSF travelled at an average speed of 16.4 knots. The time used by HSFs to travel through SCZ is presented in Figure 7‑1. |
|
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)
|
88 to 93 daily movements (within the maximum daily cap - 125 daily movements). |
7.3
Audit of
Construction and Associated Vessels
The updated Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV) has been submitted and approved in November 2016 by EPD under EP Condition 2.9. The approved Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project.
ET had carried out the following actions during the reporting period:
· 6 skipper trainings had been held for contractors’ concerned skippers of relevant construction vessels to familiarize them with the predefined routes; general education on local cetaceans; guidelines for avoiding adverse water quality impact; the required environmental practices / measures while operating construction and associated vessels under the Project; and guidelines for operating vessels safely in the presence of CWDs. The list of all trained skippers was properly recorded and maintained by ET.
· 2 skipper trainings had been held by contractor’s Environmental Officer. Competency test had subsequently been conducted with the trained skippers by ET.
· ET had conducted weekly audit of construction and associated vessel records as provided by the contractors. AIS data, vessel tracks, vessel speed and other relevant records had also been audited by ET to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV and submitted sufficient records to the Marine Traffic Control Centre (MTCC) for records.
· From the weekly audit, deviations such as speeding in the works area, entry from non-designated gates and entering no-entry zones were identified. All the concerned contractors were reminded to comply with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV during the weekly MTCC audit and such deviations were also reviewed during the Environmental Management Meeting in order to help the contractors prevent such deviations from happening again in future.
· A Marine Management Liaison Group (MMLG) has been set up and provided a forum to assist and resolve any marine issues which may be encountered under the 3RS Project. ET had participated in the 4th MMLG meeting held on 28 November 2016. The action plan for marine traffic management and the contingency route for tropical cyclone or emergency event had been discussed during the MMLG meeting.
· 3-month rolling programmes (one month record and two months forecast) for construction vessel activities were received from the contractors in order to help maintain the number of construction and associated vessels on site to a practicable minimal level.
The IEC of the Project had also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme.
7.4
Ecological Monitoring
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, ecological monitoring shall be undertaken monthly at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau Island to identify and evaluate any impacts with appropriate actions taken as required to address and minimise any adverse impact found. During the reporting month, the monthly ecological monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island observed that installation of casing was conducted under the Contract P560(R) on the Island and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.
7.5
Status of Submissions under Environmental Permits
The current status of submissions under the EP up to the reporting period is presented in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Status of Submissions under Environmental Permit
|
EP Condition |
Submission |
Status |
|
2.1 |
Complaint Management Plan |
Accepted / approved by EPD |
|
2.4 |
Management Organizations |
|
|
2.5 |
Construction Works Schedule and Location Plans |
|
|
2.7 |
Marine Park Proposal |
|
|
2.8 |
Marine Ecology Conservation Plan |
|
|
2.9 |
Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessels |
|
|
2.10 |
Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier |
|
|
2.11 |
Marine Mammal Watching Plan |
|
|
2.12 |
Coral Translocation Plan |
|
|
2.13 |
Fisheries Management Plan |
|
|
2.14 |
Egretry Survey Plan |
|
|
2.15 |
Silt Curtain Deployment Plan |
|
|
2.17 |
Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing |
|
|
2.16 |
Spill Response Plan |
|
|
2.19 |
Waste Management Plan |
|
|
3.1 |
Updated EM&A Manual |
|
|
3.4 |
Baseline Monitoring Reports |
7.6
Compliance with
Other Statutory Environmental Requirements
During the reporting period, environmental related licenses and permits required for the construction activities were checked. No non-compliance with environmental statutory requirements was recorded. The environmental licenses and permits which are valid in the reporting month are presented in Appendix E.
7.7
Analysis and
Interpretation of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Status of
Prosecutions
7.7.1
Complaints
During the reporting period, no construction activities related complaints were received.
7.7.2
Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution
During the reporting period, neither notifications of summons nor prosecution were received.
7.7.3
Cumulative Statistics
Cumulative statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions are summarized in Appendix F.
8
Future Key Issues and Other EIA
& EM&A Issues
8.1
Construction Programme for the Coming Reporting Period
Key activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will include the following contract works:
Advanced Works Contract:
Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works
● HDD pilot hole drilling;
● Stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation; and
● Casing installation.
Reclamation Contracts:
Contract 3201 to 3205 Deep Cement Mixing Works
● Laying of geotextile and sand blanket; and
● DCM trial works.
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket.
Other Contracts:
Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works
● Installaltion of cable trough; and
● Reinstatement of seawall.
8.2
Key
Environmental Issues for the Coming Reporting Period
The key environmental issues for the Project in the coming reporting period expected to be associated with the construction activities include:
● Generation of dust from construction works and stockpiles;
● Noise from operating equipment and machinery on-site;
● Generation of site surface runoffs and wastewater from activities on-site;
● Water quality from laying of sand blankets and DCM trial works;
● Sorting, recycling, storage and disposal of general refuse and construction waste;
● Management of chemicals and avoidance of oil spillage on-site; and
● Acoustic decoupling measures for equipment on marine vessels.
The implementation of required mitigation measures by the contractors will be monitored by the ET.
8.3 Monitoring Schedule for the
Coming Reporting Period
A tentative schedule of the planned environmental monitoring work in the next reporting period is provided in Appendix C.
9
Conclusion and Recommendation
Key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting month were related to advanced works contract which involved drilling of HDD pilot hole at launching site, stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation at stockpiling area, and casing installation at Sheung Sha Chau. CLP cable diversion enabling work contract was also carried out, which involved construction of drawpit, installation and backfilling for cable trough at the western part of the airport. The four in-progress deep cement mixing (DCM) contracts involved site investigation works, laying of geotextile and sand blanket.
All the monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, terrestrial ecology and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.
No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to the construction dust, construction noise, construction waste and CWD monitoring was recorded in the reporting month.
The water quality monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity, SS and nickel, some of the testing results had exceeded the relevant Action Levels or Limit Levels during the reporting period. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases, and the investigation findings concluded that all the exceedances were not due to the Project.
The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island observed that installation of casing was conducted on the Island and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.
Weekly site inspections of the construction works were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists and recommendations were provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.
On the implementation of Marine Mammal Watching plan, trainings for the dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the deployment of silt curtain, with the training records kept by the ET. Visual inspection and integrity check for silt curtain were carried out by the contractor and their daily records were audited by ET and IEC during site inspection. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels and Skypier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management were carried out by the ET.
On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan), the daily movements of all SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSFs) in November 2016 were in the range of 88 to 93 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 837 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots (8.5 to 14.2 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan, except that one HSF travelled with an average speed of 16.4 knots. Notice regarding the exceedance of average speed within SCZ was sent to the ferry operator and the case is under investigation by ET. One ferry movement not following the diverted route and four ferry movements with minor deviation from the diverted route are under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report. In summary, the ET and IEC have audited the HSF movements against the SkyPier Plan and conducted follow up investigation or actions accordingly.
On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV), ET had conducted weekly audit of relevant information, including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Training has been provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate them in familiarising with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV 3-month rolling programmes for construction vessel activities were also received from contractors.