Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.21 (For September 2017) |
Executive Summary
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 21st 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 30 September 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 and geotextile, seawall
construction, 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, 20 sets of construction
noise measurements, 13 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 13 to 16 dolphin observation stations
were deployed for continuous monitoring of the DEZ by all contractors for DCM
works and seawall construction 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
September 2017 were in the range of 70 to 87 daily movements, which are within
the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 580 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 (9.6 to 14.1 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. 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 DO,
turbidity, 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 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;
● DCM works; and
● Seawall construction.
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket;
and
● Prefabricated Vertical
Drain (PVD) installation.
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.
APM works:
Contract 3602 Existing APM System
Modification Works
● Site office
establishment.
Airport Support
Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels
on Existing Airport Island
● Erection of hoarding.
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.
|
|
|
Photo Shooting for CWD Photo Identification |
DEZ Monitoring by Dolphin Observer |
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^ |
|
√ |
No exceedance of project-related limit level was recorded. |
Nil |
Exceedance of Action Level^ |
|
√ |
No exceedance of project-related action level was recorded. |
Nil |
Complaints Received |
√ |
|
A complaint on sand filling materials was received on 5 Sep 2017. |
Investigation details of the complaint is presented in S7.8.1. |
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions |
|
√ |
No notifications of summons or prosecution were received. |
Nil |
Changes that affect the EM&A |
|
√ |
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 21st Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of
the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 30 September 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
|
Deep Cement Mixing 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 |
Automated People Mover Works: |
|||
Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works (Niigata Transys Co., Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Kunihiro Tatecho |
9755 0351 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Arthur Wong |
9170 3394 |
Airport Support Infrastructure and Logistic Works: |
|||
Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Tony Wong |
9642 8672 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Fredrick Wong |
9842 2703 |
The key activities of
the Project carried out in the reporting period included DCM works, laying of
sand blanket and geotextile, seawall construction, 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 |
On-going |
Marine Ecology |
|
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey |
The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12. |
Coral Translocation |
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 |
Calibration Certificate Provided in |
Portable direct reading dust meter (Laser dust monitor) |
SIBATA LD-3B-001 (Serial No. 934393) |
26 Oct 2016 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 20, Appendix E |
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 record of the HVS provided in Appendix B of the Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report No. 11, and the calibration certificates for portable
direct reading dust meter listed in Table
2.3 are still valid.
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 |
9 – 48 |
306 |
500 |
AR2 |
12 – 52 |
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 |
Calibration Certificate Provided in |
Integrated Sound Level Meter |
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2800932) |
17 Jul 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 19, Appendix E |
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2381580) |
8 Sep 2016 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 9, Appendix B |
|
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2808432) |
30 Aug 2017 |
||
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2684503) |
30 Aug 2017 |
||
Acoustic Calibrator |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3003246) |
16 May 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 17, Appendix D |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3004068) |
17 Jul 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 19, Appendix E |
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 listed in Table 3.3 are still valid.
The calibration certificates of the integrated sound level meters used in this
reporting period are provided in Appendix E.
The construction noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 3.4 and
the detailed monitoring data are provided in Appendix D.
Table 3.4: Summary of Construction
Noise Monitoring Results
Monitoring Station |
Noise Level Range, dB(A) Leq (30 mins) |
Limit Level, dB(A) Leq (30 mins) |
NM1A(i) |
71 – 72 |
75 |
NM3A |
57 – 62 |
75 |
NM4(i) |
66 – 66 |
70(ii) |
NM5(i) |
58 – 59 |
75 |
NM6(i) |
66 – 71 |
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, aircraft noise
and student activities at NM4, aircraft and helicopter noise at NM5, and noise
from aircraft, helicopter, marine vessel, and construction activities from
other projects 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 ebb tide monitoring session on 30
September 2017 was cancelled due to hoisting Thunderstorm Signal 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 |
Calibration Certificate Provided in |
Multifunctional Meter (measurement of DO, pH, temperature, salinity and turbidity) |
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 15M101244) |
16 Jun 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 18, Appendix D |
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 16J101716) |
12 Sep 2017 |
||
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 17E102521) |
12 Sep 2017 |
|
|
YSI 6920 V2 (Serial No. 00019CB2) |
12 Sep 2017 |
|
|
YSI 6920 V2 (Serial No. 000109DF) |
12 Sep 2017 |
|
|
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity) |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (Serial No.10N65665) |
19 Jun 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 18, Appendix D |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (Serial No.10N64701) |
18 Sep 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 reporting period listed in Table 4.4 are still valid. Calibration
certificates updated in the reporting period are provided in Appendix E.
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 DO, turbidity, 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 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 Severe Tropical
Storm Mawar hit Hong Kong during the reporting period. The water quality
monitoring results might be affected by this weather event. 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 5 monitoring days. Details of the exceedance cases are presented
below.
Findings for SS Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.7 presents
a summary of the SS compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb tide
for the reporting period.
Table 4.7: Summary of SS Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
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 |
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
An exceedance
of Action Level was recorded on one monitoring day. As the exceedance occurred
at a station 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 event, 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 4.8.
Table 4.8:
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 |
09/09/2017 |
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 at IM11 on 9 September 2017,
the exceedance appeared to be an isolated case with no observable temporal and
spatial trend to indicate any effect due to Project activities. As there is no
evidence of SS release due to project activities from site observations and all
mitigation measures were carried out properly, the exceedance was possibly due
to natural fluctuation in the vicinity of the monitoring station, and
considered not due to the Project.
Findings
for SS Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.9 presents a summary of the SS
compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting
period.
Table 4.9:
Summary of SS Compliance Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
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 |
An exceedance of Action Level was recorded on
one monitoring day. However, the exceedance occurred at a monitoring station which
was located upstream of the Project during flood tide, that would unlikely be
affected by the Project. Therefore, the exceedance was possibly due to natural
fluctuation in the vicinity of the monitoring station, and considered not due
to the Project.
Findings
for Nickel Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.10 presents a
summary of the nickel compliance status at IM stations during mid-flood tide
for the reporting period.
Table 4.10: Summary of Nickel
Compliance Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
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 |
|
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 five monitoring days. Standby Signal No. 1 was in force when exceedances
were recorded on 2 September 2017. As the exceedances occurred at stations
located downstream of the Project, exceedance investigation on the 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 days 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 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 |
02/09/2017 |
DCM works
|
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
05/09/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
09/09/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
12/09/2017 |
DCM works Sand blanket laying |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
14/09/2017 |
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 exceedances at IM8 on 9 and 14
September 2017, the exceedances appeared to be an isolated case with no
observable spatial trend to indicate any effect due to Project activities. No
exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM7
and IM9, which were also located around 500 m from active DCM works during the
same tide. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not due to
the Project.
For the exceedances at IM8 to IM10 on 2, 5 and
12 September 2017, it is noted that no SS exceedance was recorded in the same
tide and the concentration (5 – 13 mg/L) was well below the Action and Limit
Levels. Nickel is a representative heavy metal that indicates the potential for
release of contaminants from Contaminated Mud Pits (CMPs) due to the
disturbance of marine sediment within CMP by DCM activities. Elevated nickel
concentrations due to these activities should be associated with similar
elevated SS levels. However, the low SS levels at impact stations indicates
that the active DCM works had limited or insignificant effect on downstream
water quality. Based on these findings the exceedances were considered not due
to the Project and may be due to natural fluctuation or other sources not
related 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 regular segregation and
removal of waste. The contractors had taken actions to implement the
recommended measures.
Based on the updated information,
75kg and 7800L of
chemical waste were collected by licensed chemical waste collector in August
2017.
According to the Contractor’s information,
about 614m3 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.
In addition, metal and paper were recycled in
the reporting month. Around 137 tonnes of general refuse was disposed of to the
designated landfill, 2kg and 1200L of chemical waste were collected by licensed
chemical waste collector in September 2017. Besides, around 25 m3 of
Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials was reused in another contract.
No exceedances of the Action or Limit Levels
were recorded in the reporting period.
In accordance with the Manual, 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 August 2017
(calculated by data from June 2017 to August 2017) and the running quarterly
encounter rates of this month (calculated by data from July 2017 to September
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 were lost from view. At that point, the
boat returned (off effort) to the 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 11th, 12th,
13th, 14th, 18th, 19th, 20th
and 21st September 2017, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW, WL
and SWL survey areas for twice.
A total of around 443.95 km of survey effort
was collected from these surveys, with around 88.93% 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 September 2017, 26 groups of CWDs with 79
individuals were sighted. Amongst these sightings, 21 groups of CWDs with 70
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
September 2017 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. There were seven sightings of CWDs recorded in NWL, with the majority
of these sightings recorded around Lung Kwu Chau, while one sighting located
near Black Point and another located at the southwestern corner of Sha Chau and
Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park. In WL, CWDs were recorded from Tai O to the waters
around Tsin Yue Wan Camp Site. In SWL, CWD sightings were recorded along the
coastal waters Fan Lau to Lo Kei Wan with a few sightings located around Soko
Islands. 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 26 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 September 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 September 2017, a total of around 394.79 km
of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with
favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 21 on-effort sightings with a
total number of 70 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such
condition. Calculation of the encounter rates in September 2017 are shown in Appendix D.
For the running quarter of the reporting period
(i.e., from July 2017 to September 2017), a total of around 1136.95 km of
survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with
favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 76 on-effort sightings and a
total number of 227 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 September 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) |
September 2017 |
5.32 |
17.73 |
Running Quarter from July 2017 to September 2017* |
6.68 |
19.97 |
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 July 2017 to September 2017,
containing six sets of transect surveys for all monitoring areas.
Group Size
In September 2017, 26 groups of CWDs with 79
individuals were sighted, and the average group size of CWDs was 3.04
individuals per group. The number of sightings with small group size (i.e. 1-2
individuals) was 13 while that of medium group size (i.e. 3-9) was 12. One
large CWD group (i.e. 10 or more individuals) was recorded in this reporting
period.
Activities
and Association with Fishing Boats
Five out of 26 sightings of CWDs were recorded
engaging in feeding activities in September 2017, whilst none of these
sightings were associated with operating fishing boat.
Mother-calf Pair
In September 2017, three sightings of CWDs were
recorded with the presence of mother-and-unspotted juvenile or
mother-and-spotted juvenile pairs. These three sightings were recorded in NWL
and WL.
In September 2017, a total number of
33 different CWD individuals were identified for totally 43 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 |
|
NLMM005 |
18/09/2017 |
2 |
NWL |
|
SLMM036 |
20/09/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
NLMM019 |
12/09/2017 |
4 |
WL |
|
SLMM037 |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
5 |
WL |
|
SLMM050 |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
||
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
2 |
SWL |
|||
NLMM020 |
12/09/2017 |
4 |
WL |
|
SLMM054 |
19/09/2017 |
8 |
SWL |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM011 |
20/09/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
||
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM019 |
19/09/2017 |
2 |
WL |
|
NLMM022 |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM027 |
20/09/2017 |
3 |
SWL |
NLMM023 |
12/09/2017 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM028 |
19/09/2017 |
6 |
WL |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM029 |
19/09/2017 |
6 |
WL |
|
NLMM037 |
18/09/2017 |
3 |
NWL |
|
WLMM032 |
19/09/2017 |
6 |
WL |
NLMM042 |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM046 |
19/09/2017 |
1 |
WL |
NLMM051 |
19/09/2017 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM049 |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
NLMM052 |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM053 |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM056 |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
NLMM053 |
18/09/2017 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM079 |
12/09/2017 |
3 |
WL |
SLMM012 |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM096 |
19/09/2017 |
1 |
WL |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM100 |
12/09/2017 |
3 |
WL |
||
SLMM015 |
11/09/2017 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM101 |
19/09/2017 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM017 |
11/09/2017 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM102 |
19/09/2017 |
1 |
WL |
20/09/2017 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM103 |
19/09/2017 |
2 |
WL |
|
2 |
SWL |
|
|
|
|
|
Survey
Effort
Land-based theodolite tracking
surveys were conducted at LKC on 6th, 18th and 27th September
2017 and at SC on 22nd and 28th September 2017, with a
total of five days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort accomplished
in this reporting period. A total number of 23 CWD groups were tracked at LKC
station during the surveys. Information of survey effort and CWD groups sighted
during these land-based theodolite tracking surveys are presented in Table 6.6. Details of the survey effort and
CWD groups tracked are presented in Appendix D.
The first sighting locations of CWD groups tracked at LKC station during
land-based theodolite tracking surveys in September 2017 were depicted in Figure 6.4. No CWD group was sighted from SC
station in this reporting month.
Table 6.6:
Summary of Survey Effort and CWD Group of Land-based Theodolite Tracking
Land-based Station |
No. of Survey Sessions |
Survey Effort (hh:mm) |
No. of CWD Groups Sighted |
CWD Group Sighting per Survey Hour |
Lung Kwu Chau |
3 |
18:00 |
23 |
1.28 |
Sha Chau |
2 |
12:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
5 |
30:00 |
23 |
0.77 |
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; Blue line: SCLKCMP
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 remained underwater 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 13 to 16 dolphin observation stations by the contractors for
continuous monitoring of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) by all contractors
for DCM works and seawall construction 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 470 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 measures and dust suppression measures, as well as regular
segregation of waste. 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 implementation of wastewater collection and
treatment.
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 September 2017 (i.e., 70 to 87 daily movements) were within the
maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. Status of compliance with the annual
daily average of 99 movements will be further reviewed in the annual EM&A
Report.
In total, 580 ferry movements between HKIA
SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in September 2017 and the data are
presented in Appendix H.
No vessel
was operated to/from Zhuhai in September 2017 as the pier facility in Zhuhai
was damaged due to typhoon in late August 2017. The time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling
through the SCZ in September 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 September 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 case of minor deviation from the diverted
route recorded on 27 August 2017 was followed up after receiving information
from the FO. ET’s investigation found that the minor route deviation was due to
avoiding floating objects 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 September to 30 September 2017 |
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited |
580
|
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points |
No deviation |
Speed control in speed control zone |
The average speeds taken within the SCZ of all HSFs were within 15 knots (9.6 knots to 14.1 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)
|
70 to 87 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.
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 20 September 2017. The sighting was recorded from a DEZ
monitoring station on DCM barge working at Area F1 (geographical coordinates:
22°19.498N, 113°56.135E; refer to Figure 1.2 for the location of works area), with
the dolphin group being sighted at 15:04 within the DEZ for once only. 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 late nursery activities by two Little
Egrets 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 5 September
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. Regarding
environmental aspect, a maximum of 10% fines content should be adopted for sand
blanket in accordance with the EP condition 2.26. The ET had checked and would
continue to check the test reports on particle size distribution of sand
materials and to witness 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.
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;
● DCM works; and
● Seawall construction
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation
Works
● Laying of sand blanket;
and
● PVD installation.
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.
APM Works:
Contract 3602 Existing APM System
Modification Works
● Site office
establishment.
Airport Support Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels
on Existing Airport Island
● Erection of hoarding.
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 ground
improvement works (DCM works and PVD installation) 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
and geotextile, seawall construction, 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 DO,
turbidity, 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 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 13 to
16 dolphin observation stations were deployed for
continuous monitoring of the DEZ by all contractors for DCM works and seawall construction 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 high speed ferries (HSFs) in
September 2017 were in the range of 70 to 87 daily movements, which are within
the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 580 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 (9.6 to 14.1 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. 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.