Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.20 (For August 2017) |
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 (the Manual).
This is the 20th 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
to 31 August 2017.
Key Activities in the Reporting Period
The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period included deep
cement mixing (DCM) works, laying of sand blanket, site office establishment,
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) works, concrete removal works, piling and
excavation works.
EM&A
Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period
The monthly EM&A programme was
undertaken in accordance with the Manual of the Project. During the reporting
period, the ET
conducted 36 sets of construction dust measurements, 25 sets of construction
noise measurements, 14 events of water quality measurements, 1 round of
terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island, 2 complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys and 5
days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for Chinese White Dolphin
(CWD) monitoring 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 (MMWP), dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors
for laying of open sea silt curtain and laying of silt curtains for sand
blanket in accordance with the plan. On the implementation of Dolphin Exclusion
Zone (DEZ) Plan, dolphin observers at 12 to 16 dolphin observation stations
were deployed for continuous monitoring of the DEZ by all contractors for DCM
works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed dolphin
observers were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the
training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation
records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were
observed within or around the silt curtains, whilst there was one record of
dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in this reporting period. Audits
of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also 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 August
2017 were in the range of 11 to 91 daily movements, which are within the
maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 744 HSF movements under
the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All HSFs had travelled
through the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) with average speeds under 15 knots (9.7 to
14.0 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. One ferry movement
with minor deviation from the diverted route is 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),
the Marine Surveillance System (MSS) automatically recorded the deviation case
such as speeding, entering no entry zone, not traveling through the designated
gate. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases
accurately. Training has been provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate
them in familiarising with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Deviations including
speeding in the works area, entry from non-designated gates, and entering
no-entry zones were reviewed by ET. All the concerned captains were reminded by
the contractor’s Marine Traffic Control Centre (MTCC) representative to comply
with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. ET reminded contractors that all
vessels shall avoid entering the no-entry zone, in
particular the Brothers Marine Park. 3-month rolling
programmes for construction vessel activities, which ensures the proposed
vessels are necessary and minimal through good planning, were also received
from contractors.
Results of Impact Monitoring
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 Manual.
No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels in
relation to construction dust, construction noise, construction waste, and CWD
monitoring was recorded in the reporting period.
The water quality monitoring results for total
alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period did not trigger
their corresponding Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A
programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures
under the programme if being exceeded. For DO, turbidity, SS, and nickel, some
of the testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the
corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation
findings concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Project.
The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on
Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were conducted at the daylighting
location and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any
significant disturbance to the egrets foraging at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.
Summary of Upcoming Key Issues
Key activities anticipated in the next
reporting period of the Project include the following:
Advanced
Works:
Contract
P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works
● HDD works; and
● Stockpiling of excavated
materials from HDD operation.
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 to 3205 DCM Works
● Laying of sand blanket and geotextile; and
● DCM works.
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket.
Airfield
Works:
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway
● CLP cable ducting work.
Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Excavation and piling
works.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2 Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification
Works
● Removal of existing
concrete.
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.
|
|
|
DEZ Monitoring for DCM Works by Contractor |
Chemical Spill Drill conducted by the Contractor |
Dolphin Observer Training |
Summary
Table
The
following table summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during
the reporting period:
|
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 |
|
A complaint on sand filling materials was received on 8 Aug 2017. |
Investigation details of the complaint is presented in S7.8.1. |
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions |
|
ü |
No notifications of summons or 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 |
Remark: ^Only exceedance
of Action or Limit Level related to Project works is counted as Breaches of
Action or Limit Level.
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.
This is the 20th 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 31 August 2017.
The Project’s organization structure presented
in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.1 remained
unchanged during the reporting period. 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) |
Principal 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 |
Roy Man |
3922 9376 |
Advanced Works: |
|
|
|
Contract P560(R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works (Langfang Huayuan Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd.) |
Project Manager
|
Wei Shih
|
2117 0566
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Lyn Liu
|
5172 6543
|
DCM Works: |
|
|
|
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture) |
Project Director
|
Tsugunari Suzuki
|
9178 9689 |
|
Environmental Officer
|
Alan Tam
|
6119 3107 |
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Ilkwon Nam
|
9643 3117 |
|
Environmental Officer
|
Dickson Mak
|
9525 8408 |
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co., Ltd) |
Project Manager
|
Eric Kan
|
9014 6758 |
|
Environmental Officer
|
David Hung
|
9765 6151 |
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Kyung-Sik Yoo
|
9683 8697
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Kanny Cho |
6799 8226 |
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Min Park |
9683 0765 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Margaret Chung |
9130 3696 |
Reclamation Works: |
|
|
|
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Kim Chuan Lim
|
3693 2288 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Kwai Fung Wong |
3693 2252 |
Terminal 2 Expansion Works: |
|
|
|
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station (Build King Construction Ltd.) |
Project Manager
|
Osbert Sit
|
9079 7030
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Kelvin Cheung |
9305 6081 |
Contract 3502 Terminal 2 APM Depot Modification Works (Build King Construction Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Kivin Cheng |
9380 3635 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Chun Pong Chan |
9187 7118 |
The key activities of
the Project carried out in the reporting period included DCM works, laying of
sand blanket, site office establishment, HDD works, concrete removal works,
piling and excavation works.
The status for all environmental
aspects is presented in 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 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 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 |
Completed in May 2017 and data analysis in-progress. |
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 Plan |
The Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14. |
Ecological Monitoring |
The ecological monitoring was resumed since August 2017. |
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 |
The coral translocation was completed. |
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring |
On-going |
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD) |
|
Vessel Survey, Land-based Theodolite Tracking 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 and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
Impact Monitoring |
On-going |
Environmental Auditing |
|
Regular site inspection |
On-going |
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures |
On-going |
Dolphin Exclusion Zone Plan (DEZP) implementation measures |
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 period, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste
management, ecology, landscape & visual and CWD were carried out in the
reporting period.
The EM&A programme also involved weekly
site inspections and related auditing 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 environmental performance of the contractors, environmental
briefings and regular environmental management meetings were conducted.
The EM&A programme has been following the
recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the 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 B.
Air quality monitoring was conducted at 2
representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of air sensitive receivers
in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the 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 |
In accordance with the 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 stipulated in the
EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up
procedures under the programme 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 |
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-001 (Serial No. 934393) |
26 Oct 2016 |
|
SIBATA LD-3B-002 (Serial No. 974350) |
26 Oct 2016 |
|
SIBATA LD-3B-003 (Serial No. 276018) |
26 Oct 2016 |
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.
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 in Appendix B of the Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report No.11 are still valid. The calibration certificates for
portable direct reading dust meter are updated and provided in Appendix E.
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 |
8 – 28 |
306 |
500 |
AR2 |
22 – 46 |
298 |
No exceedance of the Action or Limit Level was recorded
at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
General meteorological conditions throughout
the impact monitoring period were recorded. Wind data including wind speed and
wind direction for each monitoring day were collected from the Chek Lap Kok
Wind Station.
Noise monitoring was conducted at 5
representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of noise sensitive receivers
in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the 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 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 Manual, noise monitoring at NM2 will only
commence after occupation of the future Tung Chung West Development.
In accordance
with the Manual, baseline noise levels at the noise monitoring stations were
established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. 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 stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the
relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme 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) Reduced to 70dB(A) for
school and 65dB(A) during school examination periods.
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) |
17 Jul 2017 |
|
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2381580) |
8 Sep 2016 |
||
|
|||
Acoustic Calibrator |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3003246) |
16 May 2017 |
|
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3004068) |
17 Jul 2017 |
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.
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. 9, Appendix D
of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 17, and Appendix E of the
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 19 are still valid.
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) |
70 – 72 |
75 |
NM3A |
61 – 63 |
75 |
NM4(i) |
60 – 65 |
70(ii) |
NM5(i) |
53 – 61 |
75 |
NM6(i) |
68 – 73 |
75 |
Notes: (i) +3 dB(A) Façade correction included;
(ii) Reduced to 65 dB(A) during school examination periods at NM4. No school
examination took place in the reporting period.
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 road
traffic noise at NM1A, helicopter and aircraft noise at NM3A, helicopter noise
and construction noise from nearby school at NM4, aircraft, helicopter, and dog
barking noise at NM5, and insect, aircraft, helicopter, and marine vessel noise
at NM6 in this reporting period.
No exceedance of the Action or Limit Level was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
Water quality monitoring was
conducted at a total of 22 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12
impact (IM) stations, 7 sensitive receiver (SR) stations and 3 control stations
in the vicinity of water quality sensitive receivers around the airport island
in accordance with the 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 |
Description |
Coordinates |
Parameters |
|
Station |
|
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(4) |
Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East) |
811418 (from July 2017 onwards) |
820246 |
Notes:
(1) The seawater intakes of SR1 for the future
HKBCF is not yet in operation, hence no water quality impact monitoring was
conducted at this station. 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) The monitoring location for SR8 is subject to further
changes due to silt curtain arrangements and the progressive relocation of this
seawater intake.
In accordance with the Manual, baseline water
quality levels at the abovementioned representative water quality monitoring
stations were established as presented in the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring
Report.
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 calm to rough, and the
weather conditions varied from sunny to rainy during the monitoring period.
The water quality monitoring schedule for the
reporting period is updated and provided in Appendix C. The flood tide monitoring session on 22
August 2017 was cancelled due to hoisting Strong Wind Signal No. 3 and adverse
sea condition.
The
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM
monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant
investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme 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.
Table 4.4 summarises the equipment used for monitoring of
specific water quality parameters under the impact water quality monitoring
programme.
Table 4.4: Water Quality Monitoring
Equipment
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Last Calibration Date |
Multifunctional Meter (measurement of DO, pH, temperature, salinity and turbidity) |
YSI ProDSS (serial no. 15M101244) |
16 Jun 2017 |
YSI ProDSS (serial no. 16J101716) |
16 Jun 2017 |
|
YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 00019CB2) |
16 Jun 2017 |
|
YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 000109DF) |
16 Jun 2017 |
|
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity) |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (serial no.10N65665) |
19 Jun 2017 |
Other equipment used as part of the
impact water quality monitoring programme are listed in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Other 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 |
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 and
Table 4.5.
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 ºC
without being frozen), delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of
collection.
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 was then 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 period provided in Appendix D of the
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.18 are still valid. Any updates
of calibration certificates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if
necessary.
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 4.6. The QA/QC procedures for
laboratory measurement/ analysis of SS and heavy metals were presented in
Appendix F of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.8.
Table 4.6: 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 |
The
water quality monitoring results for total alkalinity and chromium obtained
during the reporting period did not trigger their corresponding Action and
Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant
investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme if being exceeded.
For DO, turbidity, SS, and nickel, some of the testing results exceeded the
relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the corresponding investigations were
conducted accordingly. It should be noted that two typhoons, namely Typhoon
Hato and Typhoon Pakhar hit Hong Kong during August 2017. The water quality
monitoring results might be affected by these typhoons. Detailed analysis of
the exceedances are presented in Section
4.5.2.
During the reporting period, water
quality monitoring was conducted at 12 IM stations, 7 SR stations, and 3
control stations in accordance with the Manual. The purpose of water quality
monitoring at the IM stations is to promptly capture any potential water
quality impact from the Project before it could become apparent at sensitive
receivers (represented by the SR stations).
During the monitoring period,
testing results exceeding the corresponding Action or Limit Levels were
recorded on five monitoring days. Details of the exceedance cases are presented
below.
Findings for DO Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.7 and
Table 4.8 presents
a summary
of the DO compliance status at IM and SR stations during
mid-ebb tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.7: Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb
Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Table 4.8: Summary of DO (Bottom) Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
||||||||||||||||||
Legend: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Exceedances of Action or Limit Levels were recorded
on 5 and 22 August 2017. Repeat in-situ measurement was conducted on 6 August
2017 as stipulated in the Manual and no exceedance was recorded during the
repeat measurement. However, as Hurricane Signal No. 10 was hoisted on 23
August 2017, the repeat in-situ measurement on 23 August 2017 was cancelled.
Regular monitoring at all stations resumed on 24 August 2017. No exceedance was
recorded during the repeat measurement. As some of the exceedances occurred at
stations located downstream of the Project, which might be affected by
Project’s construction activities, exceedance investigation was carried out.
As part of the investigation on downstream
exceedance events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on
the concerned monitoring day was collected, as well as any observations during
the monitoring. The findings are summarized in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9:
Summary of Findings from Investigations of DO Exceedances
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Approximate distance from marine construction works*
|
Status of water quality measures (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station |
Exceedance due to Project |
05/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
22/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 800m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
* This refers to the approximate distance between the marine construction works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance. |
According to the investigation findings, it was
confirmed that both DCM and sand blanket laying activities were operating
normally with silt curtains deployed as additional measures. The silt curtains
were maintained properly.
For the exceedance events at downstream
monitoring stations, namely IM1, SR4A and SR7 on 5 August 2017, it is noted
that DO concentration at surface and middle level at the corresponding control
station C2 was also lower than the Limit Level during the same tide.
Exceedances also occurred at upstream stations on the same day. Besides, lower
DO concentrations were recorded during baseline monitoring at these monitoring
stations. Based on these findings, the exceedances were possibly due to natural
fluctuation in the vicinity of these monitoring stations, and considered not
due to the Project.
Stand By
Signal No. 1 was hoisted when exceedances were recorded at IM1 and SR4A on 22
August 2017. Lower DO concentrations were recorded during baseline monitoring
at these monitoring stations. Besides, no exceedance was recorded at other
downstream monitoring stations, including IM2, which was located closer to
active construction works than IM1 and SR4A. Based on these findings, the
exceedances were possibly due to natural fluctuation in the vicinity of these
monitoring stations, and considered not due to the Project.
Findings
for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.10 presents a
summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb
tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.10: Summary of Turbidity
Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
||||||||||||||||||
Legend: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Exceedances of Action Level were recorded on one
monitoring day. Stand By Signal No. 1 was hoisted when the exceedances were
recorded. Due to hoisting Gale or Storm Signal No.8 SE, the repeat measurement
on 27 August 2017 was rescheduled to 28 August 2017. No exceedance was recorded
during the repeat measurement. As one of the exceedances occurred at a station
located upstream of the Project, which would unlikely be affected by Project’s
construction activities, exceedance investigation focusing on downstream
exceedance events was carried out.
As part of the investigation on downstream exceedance events, details
of the Project’s marine construction activities on concerned monitoring day
were collected, as well as any observations during the monitoring. The findings
are summarized in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Summary of Findings from
Investigations of Turbidity Exceedances
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Approximate distance from marine construction works*
|
Status of water quality measures (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station |
Exceedance due to Project |
26/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
* This refers to the approximate distance between the marine construction works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance. |
According to the investigation findings, it was
confirmed that both DCM and sand blanket laying activities were operating
normally with silt curtains deployed as additional measures. The silt curtains
were maintained properly.
For the exceedance events at downstream
monitoring stations, namely IM4 and SR4A, it is noted from Table 4.10 that the
exceedances appeared to be isolated cases with no temporal trend and no clear
spatial trend to indicate turbidity rising due to Project activities. The
investigation results shown in Table 4.11 also showed that no
construction vessel, nor silt plume was observed in the vicinity of IM4 and
SR4A on 26 August 2017. It is also noted that no exceedance was recorded at
monitoring station IM3, which is located similarly downstream and close to
active construction works on 26 August 2017 during ebb tide, while no
exceedances were identified in the repeat turbidity measurements. Based on the
above, the exceedances were considered not due to the Project, and were
possibly due to natural fluctuation in vicinity of IM4 and SR4A.
Findings
for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.12 presents a summary of the turbidity
compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting
period.
Table 4.12: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status
(Mid-Flood Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
|||||||||||||||||
Legend: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As part of the investigation on downstream exceedance
events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on concerned
monitoring day were collected, as well as any observations during the
monitoring. The findings are summarized in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13:
Summary of Findings from Investigations of Turbidity Exceedances
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Approximate distance from marine construction works*
|
Status of water quality measures (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station |
Exceedance due to Project |
26/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
Yes^ |
No |
No |
* This refers to the approximate distance between the marine construction works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance. ^ A construction vessel was observed travelling in the vicinity when monitoring was conducted at IM6. No construction works and no leakage of construction material from the vessel was observed. No construction vessel was observed in the vicinity of IM10 during monitoring. |
According to the investigation findings, it was
confirmed that both DCM and sand blanket laying activities were operating
normally with silt curtains deployed as additional measures. The silt curtains
were maintained properly.
For the exceedance events at downstream
monitoring stations, namely IM6 and IM10, it is noted the turbidity level at
bottom levels of IM6 and IM10 were significantly higher than that at surface
and middle levels. Similar observations were found at nearby upstream impact
stations IM4, IM11, IM12 and nearby downstream station IM5. Besides, the
investigation results shown in Table 4.13 also found that no silt plume
was observed in the vicinity of IM6 and IM10 on 26 August 2017. A construction
vessel was observed travelling in the vicinity when monitoring was conducted at
IM6. However, no construction works and no leakage of construction material
from the vessel was observed.
The observations above suggests that the
exceedances were due to high turbidity level at bottom sea level, which
occurred at a broad area regardless of the location relative to active works
(both at upstream and downstream stations). It is also noted that the
phenomenon coincided with adverse weather conditions in the period of 22 to 27
August 2017, which included Severe Typhoon Hato (Hurricane Signal No. 10 on 23
August 2017) occurring between 22 and 23 August 2017, and Severe Tropical Storm
Pakhar (Gale or Storm Signal No. 8 SE on 27 August 2017) occurring between 26
and 27 August 2017. These
meteorological conditions could potentially affect the hydrodynamic and
sediment transport conditions at bottom sea levels over a wide region. Based on the above, the exceedances
were considered not due to the Project, and were possibly due to natural
fluctuation in vicinity of IM6 and IM10.
Findings
for SS Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.14 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM and SR stations
during mid-ebb tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.14: Summary of SS Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb
Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
SR8 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend: |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Exceedances of Action or Limit Levels were recorded
on two monitoring days. As one of the exceedances occurred at stations located
downstream of the Project, which might be affected by Project’s construction
activities, exceedance investigation was carried out.
According to the investigation findings, it was
confirmed that both DCM and sand blanket laying activities were operating
normally with silt curtains deployed as additional measures. The silt curtains
were maintained properly.
For the exceedance at SR4A on 26 August 2017,
it is noted that the exceedance appeared to be an isolated case with no
observable temporal and spatial trend to indicate any effect due to Project
activities. Furthermore, no exceedance was recorded at other downstream
monitoring stations, which were located closer to active DCM works and sand
blanket laying during the same monitoring period. Based on these findings, the
exceedance was considered not due to the Project.
Findings
for SS Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.15 presents a summary of the SS
compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting
period.
Table 4.15:
Summary of SS Compliance Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6 |
SR7 |
SR8 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
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 Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
As part of the investigation on downstream exceedance
events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on the
concerned monitoring days were collected, as well as any observations during
the monitoring. The findings are summarized in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16: Summary of Findings from Investigations
of SS Exceedances
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Approximate distance from marine construction works*
|
Status of water quality measures (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station |
Exceedance due to Project |
24/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
* This refers to the approximate distance between the marine construction works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance. |
Exceedances of Action or Limit Levels were recorded
on two monitoring days. As some of the exceedances occurred at stations located
downstream of the Project, which might be affected by Project’s construction
activities, exceedance investigation was carried out.
According to the investigation
findings summarized in Table 4.13 and Table 4.16, it was confirmed that silt curtains were deployed for DCM
works as additional measures and the silt curtains were maintained properly.
For the exceedances at IM9 and IM10
on 24 August 2017, it was found that similarly high SS levels were apparent at
IM11 and IM12 which are located upstream of the Project during flood tide (and
would unlikely be affected by the Project), hence the exceedances at IM9 and
IM10 were possibly due to natural fluctuation in this area. Furthermore, no
exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM8,
which was located similarly close to active construction works during the same
monitoring period. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not
due to the Project.
For the exceedance at IM10 on 26 August 2017,
the SS concentration at bottom level of IM10 was significantly higher than that
at surface and middle levels. Similar observation was found at upstream impact
stations of IM11 and IM12. Considering the above observations, the exceedances
were due to high SS level at bottom sea level, which occurred at a broad area
regardless of the location relative to active works (both at upstream and
downstream stations).
As stated above, it is noted that the
phenomenon coincided with adverse weather conditions in the period of 22 to 27
August 2017, which included Severe Typhoon Hato and Severe Tropical Storm
Pakhar, which could
potentially affect the hydrodynamic and sediment transport conditions at bottom
sea levels over a wide region. Based on the above, the exceedance was considered not due to the
Project, and was possibly due to natural fluctuation in vicinity of IM10.
Findings
for Nickel Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.17 presents a summary of the nickel compliance
status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.17: Summary of Nickel Compliance Status
(Mid-Ebb Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
||||||||||||
Legend: |
||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Exceedances of Action Level were recorded on
two monitoring days. However, the exceedances occurred at the monitoring
stations which were located upstream of the Project during ebb tide, which
would unlikely be affected by the Project. Therefore, the exceedances were
considered not due to the Project.
Findings
for Nickel Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.18 presents a summary of the nickel compliance
status at IM stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.18: Summary of Nickel Compliance
Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
|
01/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31/08/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Exceedance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
||||||||||||
Legend: |
||||||||||||
|
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level |
|||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||
|
Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|||||||||||
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Exceedances of Action or Limit Levels were recorded
on three monitoring days. As some of the exceedances occurred at stations
located downstream of the Project, which might be affected by Project’s
construction activities, exceedance investigation was carried out.
As part of the investigation on downstream
exceedance events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on
concerned monitoring days were collected, as well as any observations during
the monitoring. The findings are summarized in Table 4.19.
Table 4.19: Summary of Findings from
Investigations of Nickel Exceedances
Date |
Marine construction works nearby |
Approximate distance from marine construction works*
|
Status of water quality measures (if applicable) |
Construction vessels in the vicinity |
Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station |
Exceedance due to Project |
17/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
19/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
31/08/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
* This refers to the approximate distance between the marine construction works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance. |
According to the investigation findings, it was
confirmed that all construction activities were operating normally with silt
curtains deployed as additional measures for DCM and sand blanket laying. The
silt curtains were maintained properly.
Nickel is a representative heavy metal that
indicates the potential for release of contaminants from contaminated mud pits
due to the disturbance of marine sediment within it by DCM activities.
Therefore, elevated nickel concentrations due to these activities should be
associated with similar elevated SS levels. For the exceedances at IM9 and
IM10 on 17 August 2017, it is noted that no SS exceedance was recorded in
the same tide and the concentration (4 – 6 mg/L) was well below the Action and
Limit Levels. The low SS levels at impact stations indicates that the active
DCM works had limited or insignificant effect on downstream water quality.
Besides, higher nickel concentrations were recorded during baseline monitoring
at IM9 and IM10. Based on these findings, the exceedances were possibly due to
natural fluctuation in the vicinity of these monitoring stations, and
considered not due to the Project.
For the downstream exceedance events on 19 and
31 August 2017, it is noted that no SS exceedance was recorded in this period
and the concentration (12 mg/L) was well below the Action and Limit Levels. The
low SS levels at impact stations indicates that the active DCM works had
limited or insignificant effect on downstream water quality. Besides, higher
nickel concentrations were recorded during baseline monitoring at IM8 and IM9.
Based on these findings, the exceedances were possibly due to natural fluctuation
in the vicinity of these monitoring stations, and considered not due to the
Project.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the exceedance
investigations, it is concluded that the exceedances were not due to the
Project. Hence no SR was adversely affected by the Project. All required
actions under the Event and Action Plan were followed. Exceedances appeared to
be due to natural fluctuation or other sources not related to the Project.
Nevertheless, recognising that the IM stations
represent a ‘first line of defence’, the non-project related exceedances
identified at IM stations were attended to as a precautionary measure. 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
and regular environmental management meetings. These include maintaining
mitigation measures for DCM works and sand blanket laying works properly as
recommended in the Manual.
In accordance with the 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 |
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 including provision of drip
trays and proper chemical waste storage, as well as segregation of recyclables
from general refuse. The contractors had taken actions to implement the
recommended measures.
Based on the Contractor’s information, about
496m3 of excavated materials were produced from the HDD launching
site under P560(R) in the reporting period. The generated excavated materials
were temporarily stored at the stockpiling area. The excavated material will be
reused in the Project.
Around 120 tonnes of general refuse was
disposed of to the designated landfill, 30 kg and 3600L of chemical waste were
collected by licensed chemical waste collector in August 2017. Besides, around
555 m3 of Construction and Demolition (C&D) was reused in other
contract and about 62m3 of C&D material generated from Terminal
2 (T2) expansion works contract was sent to public fill.
No exceedances of the Action or Limit Levels
were recorded in the reporting period.
In accordance with the Manual, Chinese White Dolphin
(CWD) monitoring by small vessel line-transect survey supplemented by
land-based theodolite tracking and passive acoustic monitoring should be
conducted during construction phase.
The small vessel line-transect survey as
proposed in the Manual should be conducted at a frequency of two full surveys
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 Manual, supplemental theodolite tracking surveys have also
been conducted during the implementation 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):
^Limit Level –
two consecutive running quarters mean both the running quarterly encounter
rates of the preceding month July 2017 (calculated by data from May 2017 to
July 2017) and the running quarterly encounter rates of this month (calculated
by data from June 2017 to August 2017).
AL and/or LL will be exceeded if both
STG and ANI fall below the criteria.]
Small vessel line-transect surveys were
conducted 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 Manual, which are consistent with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (AFCD) long-term monitoring programme (except the addition of AW).
The AW transect has not been previously surveyed in the AFCD programme due to
the restrictions of HKIA Approach Area, nevertheless, this transect was
established during the EIA of the 3RS Project and refined in the 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 density, abundance and
patterns of movements in the broader study area of the project.
The planned vessel survey transect lines follow
the waypoints set for construction phase monitoring as proposed in the Manual
and 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 |
5S |
808504 |
821735 |
1N |
804671 |
831404 |
5N |
808504 |
828602 |
2Sb |
805475 |
815457 |
6S |
809490 |
822075 |
2Nb |
805476 |
818571 |
6N |
809490 |
825352 |
2Sa |
805476 |
820770 |
7S |
810499 |
822323 |
2Na |
805476 |
830562 |
7N |
810499 |
824613 |
3S |
806464 |
821033 |
8S |
811508 |
821839 |
3N |
806464 |
829598 |
8N |
811508 |
824254 |
4S |
807518 |
821395 |
9S |
812516 |
821356 |
4N |
807518 |
829230 |
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 |
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 |
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 NEL, NWL covering the AW, WL and SWL areas as proposed in the
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 data collected on both primary and
secondary transect lines were used for analysis of sighting distribution, group
size, activities including association with fishing boat, and mother-calf pair.
Only on-effort data collected under conditions of Beaufort 0-3 and visibility
of approximately 1200 m or beyond were used for analysis of the CWD encounter
rates.
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.
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.
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.
Survey
Effort
Within this reporting period, two complete sets
of small vessel line-transect surveys were conducted on the 4th, 8th,
9th, 14th, 15th, 21st, 22nd
and 25th August 2017, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and
SWL survey areas for twice.
A total of around 448.86 km of survey effort
was collected from these surveys, with around 79.63% 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 August 2017, 33 groups of CWDs with 95
individuals were sighted. Amongst these sightings, 29 groups of CWDs with 86
animals were recorded 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 all CWD sightings recorded in
August 2017 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. There were five sightings of CWDs recorded in NWL, with three located
at the waters between Lung Kwu Chau and Lung Kwu Tan, one sighted at the
northern boundary of NWL survey area while the remaining one recorded at the
west of the existing airport on AW transect. In WL,
CWDs were sighted at the waters around Tai O and also Fan Lau. In SWL, CWD
sightings were mainly recorded at the western waters of Soko Islands, while
there were two sightings at the coastal waters recorded near Fan Lau and Lo Kei
Wan. No sightings of CWDs were recorded in NEL and also 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, Black line: Vessel survey
transects, Blue polygon: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP),
Green polygon: Brothers Marine Park (BMP) Red polygon: 3RS land-formation
footprint, Yellow line: 3RS temporary works area boundary]
Remarks: Please note that there are 33 pink circles on the map
indicating the sighting locations of CWD. Some of them were very close to each
other and therefore appear overlapped on this distribution map.
Encounter Rate
Two types of dolphin encounter rates were
calculated based on the data from August 2017. They included the number of
dolphin sightings per 100 km survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins
per 100 km 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 August 2017, a total of around 357.43 km of
survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with
favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 29 on-effort sightings with a
total number of 86 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such
condition. Calculation of the encounter rates in August 2017 are shown in Appendix D.
For the running quarter of the reporting period
(i.e., from June 2017 to August 2017), a total of around 1123.03 km of survey
effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable
visibility, whilst a total number of 79 on-effort sightings and a total number
of 228 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such condition.
Calculation of the running quarterly encounter rates are shown in Appendix D.
The STG and ANI of CWD in the whole survey area
(i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) during the month of August 2017 and during 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) |
August 2017 |
8.11 |
24.06 |
Running Quarter from June 2017 to August 2017* |
7.03 |
20.30 |
Action Level |
Running quarterly* < 1.86 |
Running quarterly* < 9.35 |
*Running quarterly encounter rates STG &
ANI were calculated from data collected in the reporting period and the two
preceding survey months, i.e. the data from June 2017 to August 2017,
containing six sets of transect surveys for all monitoring areas.
Group Size
In August 2017, 33 groups of CWDs with 95
individuals were sighted, and the average group size of CWDs was 2.88
individuals per group. The number of sightings with small group size (i.e. 1-2
individuals) was 18 while that of medium group size (i.e. 3-9) was 15. No large
CWD groups (i.e. 10 or more individuals) were recorded in this reporting
period.
Activities
and Association with Fishing Boats
Three out of 33 sightings of CWDs were recorded
engaging in feeding activities in August 2017, whilst one of these sightings
was associated with operating gillnetter in SWL.
Mother-calf Pair
In August 2017, three sightings of CWDs were
recorded with the presence of mother-and-calf, mother-and-unspotted juvenile or
mother-and-spotted juvenile pairs. These three sightings were recorded in NWL,
WL and SWL respectively.
In August 2017, a total number of 28 different
CWD individuals were identified for totally 35 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
Date of Sighting (dd/mm/yyyy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
Individual ID |
Date of Sighting (dd/mm/yyyy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
NLMM020 |
21/08/2017 |
4 |
SWL |
|
SLMM060 |
15/08/2017 |
2 |
SWL |
NLMM027 |
22/08/2017 |
7 |
WL |
|
SLMM061 |
15/08/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
NLMM028 |
22/08/2017 |
7 |
WL |
|
SLMM062 |
15/08/2017 |
5 |
SWL |
NLMM033 |
22/08/2017 |
3 |
WL |
|
SLMM063 |
15/08/2017 |
7 |
SWL |
|
|
6 |
WL |
|
SLMM064 |
21/08/2017 |
5 |
SWL |
NLMM040 |
22/08/2017 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM003 |
22/08/2017 |
7 |
WL |
NLMM041 |
22/08/2017 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM008 |
22/08/2017 |
11 |
SWL |
NLMM051 |
22/08/2017 |
3 |
WL |
|
WLMM011 |
22/08/2017 |
8 |
WL |
|
|
6 |
WL |
|
|
|
10 |
SWL |
SLMM014 |
22/08/2017 |
9 |
WL |
|
WLMM020 |
15/08/2017 |
5 |
SWL |
SLMM015 |
21/08/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
|
|
7 |
SWL |
SLMM023 |
21/08/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM027 |
21/08/2017 |
2 |
SWL |
|
22/08/2017 |
9 |
WL |
|
|
22/08/2017 |
1 |
AW |
SLMM034 |
15/08/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM046 |
21/08/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
|
21/08/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM051 |
14/08/2017 |
3 |
WL |
SLMM045 |
22/08/2017 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM089 |
22/08/2017 |
7 |
WL |
SLMM054 |
15/08/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM101 |
22/08/2017 |
4 |
WL |
SLMM057 |
15/08/2017 |
5 |
SWL |
|
|
|
|
|
Survey
Effort
Land-based theodolite tracking
surveys were conducted at LKC on 17th, 21st and 22nd August 2017
and at SC on 18th and 25th August 2017, with a total of
five days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort accomplished in this
reporting period. A total number of 13 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 and SC station during land-based theodolite
tracking surveys in August 2017 were depicted in Figure 6.4.
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 |
18:00 |
11 |
0.61 |
Sha Chau |
2 |
12:00 |
2 |
0.17 |
TOTAL |
5 |
30:00 |
13 |
0.43 |
Figure 6.4:
Plots of First Sightings of All CWD Groups obtained from Land-based Stations
[Green
triangle: LKC station; Green circle: CWD group off LKC; Yellow triangle: SC
station; Yellow circle: CWD groups off SC; Blue line: SCLKCMP boundary; Red
line: 3RS land-formation footprint, Yellow line: 3RS temporary works area
boundary]
Underwater acoustic monitoring using Passive
Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) should be undertaken during land formation related
construction works. In this reporting period, the Ecological Acoustic Recorder
(EAR) has been re-deployed on 2 August 2017 and positioned at south of Sha Chau
Island inside the SCLKCMP 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.
During the reporting period, silt curtains
were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works, in which
dolphin observers were deployed by each contractor in accordance with the
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP). Teams of at least two dolphin observers
were deployed at 12 to 16 dolphin observation stations by the contractors for
continuous monitoring of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) by all contractors
for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed
dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring were
provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with a cumulative total
of 459 individuals being trained and the training records kept by the ET.
Observations were recorded on DEZ monitoring in this reporting period during
site inspection by the ET and IEC. The contractors had taken actions to
implement the recommended measures. From the
contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or
other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains, whilst
there was one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in this
reporting period. According to the contractor’s site record, relevant DCM works
were suspended in the dolphin sighting event until the DEZ was clear of dolphin
for a continuous period of 30 minutes. The contractor’s record was also audited
by the ET during site inspection. Details for the implementation of DEZ during
the incident of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works are mentioned in Section
7.4.
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.
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 annual
reports after a larger sample size of data has been collected.
Monitoring of CWD was conducted with two
complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys and five days of land-based
theodolite tracking survey effort as scheduled. The running quarterly
encounter rates STG and ANI in the reporting period did not trigger the Action
Level for CWD monitoring.
Weekly site inspections of construction works
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 display of licenses and permits at
works area, provision and maintenance of drip trays, proper implementation of
noise mitigation and surface runoff prevention measures, as well as segregation
of waste for recycling. In addition, recommendations were also provided during
site inspection on barges, which included provision of drip trays and chemical
waste storage, implementation of dust suppression and runoff prevention measures,
implementation of silt plume mitigation and prevention measures, ensuring the
effectiveness of silt curtains, and proper general waste disposal as well as
segregation of recyclables from general refuse.
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 B.
The Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan
for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan) was 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 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 August 2017 (i.e., 11 to 91 daily movements) were within the
maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. There were no/ fewer ferry movements
on 23 August 2017 (0 movement), 24 August 2017 (9 movements) and 27 August 2017
(7 movements) due to typhoon. Status of compliance with the annual daily
average of 99 movements will be further reviewed in the annual EM&A Report.
In total, 744 ferry movements between HKIA
SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in August 2017 and the data are
presented in Appendix H. The time
spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ in August 2017 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 of the SkyPier HSFs spent more than 9.6 minutes to travel through the
SCZ.
Figure
7.1 Duration of the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ for August 2017
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.
One ferry was recorded with minor deviation
from the diverted route on 27 August 2017. Notice was sent to the ferry
operator (FO) and the case is under investigation by ET. The investigation
result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report.
One case of minor deviation from the diverted
route recorded on 12 July 2017 was followed up after receiving information from
the FO. ET’s investigation found that the minor route deviation was due to
giving way to other vessels to ensure safety. After that, the HSF had returned
to the normal route following the SkyPier Plan.
Table 7.1:
Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan
Requirements in the SkyPier Plan |
1 August to 31 August 2017 |
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited |
744
|
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points |
1 deviation, which is under investigation
|
Speed control in speed control zone |
The average speeds taken within the SCZ of all HSFs were within 15 knots (9.7 knots to 14.0 knots), which complied with the SkyPier Plan. The time used by HSFs to travel through SCZ is presented in Figure 7.1. |
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)
|
11 to 91 daily movements (within the maximum daily cap - 125 daily movements). |
The updated Marine Travel Routes and Management
Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV) was 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 carried out the following actions during the
reporting period:
The IEC of the Project had performed audit on
the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme.
The DEZ Plan was submitted in accordance with
EP Condition 3.1 (v) requirement and Section 10.3 of the Updated EM&A
Manual, and approved in April 2016 by EPD. The 24-hour DEZs with a 250m radius
for marine works were established and implemented by the contractors for DCM
works according to their Method Statement for DEZ Monitoring that followed the
specifications and requirements of the DEZ Plan.
During
the reporting period, ET has been notified on one record of dolphin sighting
within the DEZ of DCM works by the contractor. ET has checked the dolphin
sighting record and the contractor’s site record to audit the implementation of
DEZ. Dolphin sighting within the DEZ was recorded on 28 August 2017. The
sighting was recorded from a DCM barge working at Area D6 (geographical
coordinates: 22°18.837N, 113°53.770E; refer to Figure 1.2 for the location of works area),
with the dolphin group being first sighted at 14:12 within the DEZ and last
sighted at 14:17 from the DEZ monitoring station on the barge. DCM installation
works on DCM barges within the DEZ were ceased by the contractor, and not
resumed until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous period of at least
30 minutes in accordance with the DEZ Plan.
In accordance with the Manual, ecological
monitoring shall be undertaken monthly at the Horizontal Directional Drilling
(HDD) daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau Island during the HDD
construction works period from August to March to identify and evaluate any
impacts with appropriate actions taken as required to address and minimise any
adverse impact found. During the reporting
period, the monthly ecological monitoring at the HDD daylighting
location on Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were ongoing under the
Contract P560(R) at the daylighting location, and there was no encroachment of
any works upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets
on the island by the works. Sign of nursery activities by Little Egret were
observed on trees located at the previously identified egretry area where it is
at the southern side of Sheung Sha Chau Island. At the HDD daylighting
location, neither nest nor breeding activity of bird were found during the
monthly ecological monitoring and weekly site inspections in the reporting
period. The site photos and location map regarding the monthly ecological
monitoring for the HDD works and egretry area are provided in Appendix D for
reference.
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 |
|
2.16 |
Spill Response Plan |
|
2.17 |
Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing |
|
2.19 |
Waste Management Plan |
|
3.1 |
Updated EM&A Manual |
|
3.4 |
Baseline Monitoring Reports |
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 period are presented in Appendix F.
During the reporting period, a
complaint related to sand filling materials of Contract 3206 was received on 8
August 2017. Apart from the investigation conducted by AA under the contractual
aspect, investigation on environmental aspect was also conducted by the ET in
accordance with the Complaint Management Plan of the Project. According to the
EP condition 2.26, a maximum of 10% fines content should be adopted for sand
blanket. The ET has been conducting checking of test reports on particle size
distribution of sand materials and witnessing sand sampling of the Project on a
regular basis. To date, no non-compliance against the EP condition of a maximum
of 10% fines content was identified. The ET also reviewed water quality
monitoring results of the 3RS EM&A programme obtained 3 months preceding
the complaint (i.e. May, June and July 2017) to check for any exceedance cases
of suspended solids close to the location of sand blanket laying activities of
Contract 3206. It was found that there were no exceedances of Action or Limit
levels for suspended solids at all impact monitoring stations from May to July
2017.
Neither notification of summons nor prosecution
was received during the reporting period.
Cumulative statistics
on complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions are
summarized in Appendix G.
Key
activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will
include the following:
Advanced
Works:
Contract
P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works
● HDD works; and
● Stockpiling of excavated
materials from HDD operation.
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 to 3205 DCM Works
● Laying of sand blanket and geotextile; and
● DCM works.
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket.
Terminal 2
Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Excavation and piling
works.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2 APM Depot Modification Works
● Removal of existing
concrete.
Airfield
Works Contract:
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway
● CLP cable ducting work.
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 works;
● DEZ monitoring for DCM works and
implementation of MMWP for silt curtain deployment by the contractors’ dolphin observers;
● 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.
A tentative schedule of the planned
environmental monitoring work in the next reporting period is provided in Appendix C.
The key activities of the Project
carried out in the reporting period included DCM works, laying of sand blanket,
site office establishment, HDD works, concrete removal works, piling and
excavation works.
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 Manual.
No exceedance of the Action or Limit
Levels in relation to construction dust, construction noise, construction waste and CWD
monitoring was recorded in the reporting period.
The water quality monitoring results for total
alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period did not trigger
their corresponding Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A
programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures
under the programme if being exceeded. For DO, SS, and nickel, some of the
testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the
corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation
findings concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Project.
The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on
Sheung Sha Chau Island observed that HDD works were conducted at the
daylighting location 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 which have been provided
to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where
necessary.
On the implementation of MMWP, dolphin
observers were deployed by the contractors for laying of open sea silt curtain
and laying of silt curtains for sand blanket in accordance with the plan. On the implementation of DEZ Plan, dolphin
observers at 12 to
16 dolphin observation stations were deployed for
continuous monitoring of the DEZ by all contractors for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for
the proposed dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the
aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. From the
contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or
other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains,
whilst there was one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in
this reporting period. DCM works were suspended in
the dolphin sighting events until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous
period of 30 minutes. The contractor’s record was checked by the ET during site
inspection. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also
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 HSFs in August 2017 were in the range
of 11 to 91 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125
daily movements. A total of 744 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 (9.7 to 14.0 knots), which were in compliance
with the SkyPier Plan. One ferry movement with minor deviation from the
diverted route is 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 MTRMP-CAV, the MSS
automatically recorded the deviation case such as speeding, entering no entry
zone, not traveling through the designated gate. ET conducted checking to
ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. Training has been
provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate them in familiarising with
the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Deviations including speeding in the works
area, entry from non-designated gates, and entering no-entry zones were
reviewed by ET. All the concerned captains were reminded by the contractor’s
MTCC representative to comply with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. ET
reminded contractors that all vessels shall avoid entering the no-entry zone,
in particular the Brothers Marine Park. 3-month
rolling programmes for construction vessel activities, which ensures the
proposed vessels are necessary and minimal through good planning, were also
received from contractors.