Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.43 (For July 2019) |
Contents
3RS |
Three-Runway System |
AAHK |
Airport Authority Hong Kong |
AECOM |
AECOM Asia Company Limited |
AFCD |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department |
AIS |
Automatic Information System |
ANI |
Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphins |
APM |
Automated People Mover |
AW |
Airport West |
BHS |
Baggage Handling System |
C&D |
Construction and Demolition |
CAP |
Contamination Assessment Plan |
CAR |
Contamination Assessment Report |
CNP |
Construction Noise Permit |
CWD |
Chinese White Dolphin |
DCM |
Deep Cement Mixing |
DEZ |
Dolphin Exclusion Zone |
DO |
Dissolved Oxygen |
EAR |
Ecological Acoustic Recorder |
EIA |
Environmental Impact Assessment |
EM&A |
Environmental Monitoring & Audit |
EP |
Environmental Permit |
EPD |
Environmental Protection Department |
ET |
Environmental Team |
FCZ |
Fish Culture Zone |
HDD |
Horizontal Directional Drilling |
HKBCF |
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities |
HKIA |
Hong Kong International Airport |
HOKLAS |
Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme |
HSF |
High Speed Ferry |
HVS |
High Volume Sampler |
IEC |
Independent Environmental Checker |
LKC |
Lung Kwu Chau |
MMHK |
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited |
MMWP |
Marine Mammal Watching Plan |
MSS |
Marine Surveillance System |
MTRMP-CAV |
Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel |
NEL |
Northeast Lantau |
NWL |
Northwest Lantau |
PAM |
Passive Acoustic Monitoring |
PVD |
Prefabricated Vertical Drain |
SC |
Sha Chau |
SCLKCMP |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park |
SS |
Suspended Solids |
SSSI |
Site of Special Scientific Interest |
STG |
Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings |
SWL |
Southwest Lantau |
T2 |
Terminal 2 |
The Project |
The Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
The SkyPier Plan |
Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier |
The Manual |
The Updated EM&A Manual |
TSP |
Total Suspended Particulates |
WL |
West Lantau |
WMP |
Waste Management Plan |
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 43rd 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 July 2019.
Key Activities in the Reporting Period
The key activities of the Project
carried out in the reporting period included reclamation works and land-side
works. Reclamation works included deep cement mixing (DCM) works, marine
filling, and seawall construction. Land-side works involved mainly airfield
works, foundation and substructure work for Terminal 2 expansion, modification
and tunnel work for Automated People Mover (APM) and Baggage Handling System
(BHS), and preparation work for utilities, with activities include site
establishment, site office construction, road and drainage works,
cable ducting, demolition, 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. Summary of the
monitoring activities during this reporting period is presented as below:
Monitoring Activities |
Number of Sessions |
1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) air quality monitoring |
30 |
Noise monitoring |
16 |
Water quality monitoring |
13 |
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring |
2 |
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring |
3 |
Environmental auditing works, including weekly
site inspections of construction works conducted by the ET and bi-weekly site
inspections conducted by the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC), audit of SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF), audit of construction and
associated vessels, and audit of implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan
(MMWP) and Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan, were conducted in the reporting
period. Based on information including ET’s observations, records of Marine
Surveillance System (MSS), and contractors’ site records, it is noted that
environmental pollution control and mitigation measures were properly
implemented and construction activities of the Project in the reporting period
did not introduce adverse impacts to the sensitive receivers.
Snapshots of EM&A Activities in the
Reporting Period
|
|
|
Noise Monitoring Conducted by ET at Tin Sum |
Land-Based CWD Theodolite Tracking Survey Conducted by ET on Lung Kwu Chau |
Water Spraying by Contractor for Dust Control |
Results of Impact Monitoring
The monitoring works for construction dust,
construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape
& visual, and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in
accordance with the Manual.
Monitoring results of construction dust,
construction noise, construction waste, and CWD did not trigger the
corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.
The water quality monitoring results for
turbidity, total alkalinity, SS, chromium and nickel obtained during the
reporting period were within the corresponding Action and Limit Levels
stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and follow-up
actions will be conducted according to the EM&A programme if the
corresponding Action and Limit Levels are triggered. For dissolved oxygen (DO),
some testing results triggered the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the
corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation
findings concluded that the case was not related to the Project. To conclude,
the construction activities in the reporting period did not introduce adverse
impact to all water quality sensitive receivers.
Summary of Upcoming Key Issues
Advanced Works:
Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel
Pipeline Diversion Works
● Stockpiling of
compressed materials
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 and 3205 DCM works
● DCM works
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Land base ground improvement works;
● Seawall construction; and
● Marine filling.
Airfield Works:
Contract 3301 North
Runway Crossover Taxiway
● Cable ducting works;
● Subgrade compaction and
paving works;
● Drainage construction
works;
● Operation of aggregate
mixing facility; and
● Precast of duct bank and
fabrication of steel works.
Contract 3302 Eastern
Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works
● Site survey and cable
laying;
● Excavation works;
● Backfilling and
reinstatement works; and
● Site establishment.
Contract 3303 Third Runway and
Associated Works
● Site establishment.
Third Runway Concourse and Integrated Airport Centres Works:
Contract 3402 New
Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works
● Sub-structure and
superstructure works;
● Structural steel
fabrication;
● Paving works; and
● Manhole and pipe
construction works.
Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna
Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Drainage works;
● Boring works; and
● Pipe installation.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2
Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification Works
● Site clearance; and
● Fitting out works.
Contract 3503 Terminal 2
Foundation and Substructure Works
● Site establishment;
● Demolition works;
● Utilities, drainage, and road work;
and
● Piling and structure works.
Automated
People Mover (APM) Works:
Contract
3602 Existing APM System Modification Works
● Site establishment; and
● Modification works at
APM depot.
Airport Support
Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and
BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island
● Site establishment;
● Cofferdam installation
and construction of box culvert;
● Rising main
installation;
● Drilling and grouting works;
● Piling and foundation
works
● Demolition works; and
● Site clearance.
The
following table summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during
the reporting period:
Yes |
No |
Details |
Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions |
|
Breach of Limit Level^ |
|
√ |
No breach of Limit Level was recorded. |
Nil |
Breach of Action Level^ |
|
√ |
No breach of Action Level was recorded. |
Nil |
|
√ |
No construction activities-related complaint was received |
Nil |
|
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions |
|
√ |
No notification of summons or prosecution was received.
|
Nil |
Change that affect the EM&A |
|
√ |
There was no change to the construction works that may affect the EM&A |
Nil |
Note:
^ Only
triggering of Action or Limit Level found related to Project works is counted
as Breach 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. 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 submarine aviation fuel
pipelines and submarine power cables also require diversion as part of the
works.
Construction of the Project is to proceed in
the general order of diversion of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines,
diversion of the submarine power cables, land formation, and construction of
infrastructure, followed by construction of superstructures.
The updated overall phasing programme of all
construction works was presented in Appendix A of the Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report No. 7 and the contract information was presented in
Appendix A of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 42.
This is the 43rd 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 July 2019.
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 are
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 |
Daniel Sum |
2585 8495 |
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
Independent Environmental Checker |
Jackel Law |
3922 9376
|
|
Deputy Independent Environmental Checker |
Roy Man |
3922 9141 |
Advanced Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
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 (DCM) Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture) |
Project Director
|
Tsugunari Suzuki
|
9178 9689 |
|
Environmental Officer
|
Hiu Yeung Tang
|
6329 3513 |
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Ilkwon Nam
|
9643 3117 |
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co., Ltd) |
Project Manager
|
Eric Kan
|
9014 6758 |
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Kyung-Sik Yoo
|
9683 8697
|
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Min Park |
9683 0765 |
Environmental Officer |
Lawrence Chan |
5107 5961 |
Reclamation Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)
|
Project Manager |
Kim Chuan Lim
|
3763 1509 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Kwai Fung Wong |
3763 1452 |
Airfield Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway (FJT-CHEC-ZHEC Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Kin Hang Chung |
9800 0048 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Nelson Tam |
9721 3942 |
Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation) |
Project Manager
|
Wan Cheung Lee
|
6100 6075
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Wilmer Ng |
3919 9421 |
Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works (SAPR Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Steven Meredith |
6109 1813 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Pan Fong |
9436 9435 |
Third Runway Concourse and Integrated Airport Centres Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.) |
Contract Manager |
Michael Kan |
9206 0550 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Lisa He |
5374 3418 |
Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station (Build King Construction Ltd.) |
Project Manager
|
Vincent Kwan
|
9833 1313
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Edward Tam |
9287 8270 |
Contract 3502 Terminal 2 APM Depot Modification Works (Build King Construction Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
David Ng |
9010 7871 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Chun Pong Chan |
9187 7118 |
Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Eric Wu |
3973 1718 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Stephen Tsang |
5508 6361 |
Automated People Mover (APM) Works: |
|||
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works (Niigata Transys Co., Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Kunihiro Tatecho |
9755 0351 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Arthur Wong |
9170 3394 |
Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works: |
||||
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
|
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium) |
Project Manager |
Andy Ng |
9102 2739 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Eric Ha |
9215 3432 |
|
Airport Support Infrastructure and Logistic Works: |
|||
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
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 reclamation works and
land-side works. Reclamation works included deep cement mixing (DCM) works,
marine filling, and seawall construction. Land-side works involved mainly airfield
works, foundation and substructure work for Terminal 2 expansion, modification
and tunnel work for Automated People Mover (APM) and Baggage Handling System
(BHS) systems, and preparation work for utilities, with activities include site
establishment, site office construction, road and drainage works, cable
ducting, demolition of existing facilities, piling, and excavation works.
The locations of key construction
activities are presented in Figure 1.1.
Latest layout of the enhanced silt curtain deployed is presented in Figure 1.2.
The status for all environmental
aspects are 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 |
The Initial Intensive DCM Monitoring Report was submitted and approved by EPD in accordance with the Detailed Plan on DCM. |
Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring |
On-going |
Waste Management |
|
Waste Monitoring |
On-going |
Land Contamination |
|
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) |
The Supplementary CAP was submitted to EPD pursuant to EP Condition 2.20. |
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 terrestrial ecological monitoring at Sheung Sha Chau was completed in January 2019. |
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 |
The post-translocation monitoring programme according to the Coral Translocation Plan was completed in April 2018. |
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 |
|
Landscape & Visual Plan |
The Landscape & Visual Plan was submitted to EPD under EP Condition 2.18 |
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 (DEZ) Plan 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, 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. To promote the environmental awareness and enhance
the environmental performance of the contractors, environmental trainings and
regular environmental management meetings were conducted during the
reporting period, which are summarized as below:
● Eight environmental management meetings
for EM&A review with works contracts: 17, 23, 24, 26, 29, and 30 July 2019
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 A.
Air quality monitoring of 1-hour Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP) was conducted three times every six days at two
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 air
quality monitoring of 1-hour TSP levels at the two air quality monitoring
stations were established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. 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.
Table 2.2: Action and Limit Levels
of Air Quality Monitoring
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 air quality monitoring. Details of equipment used in the
reporting period are given in Table
2.3.
Table 2.3: Air Quality Monitoring
Equipment
Brand and Model |
Last Calibration Date |
Calibration Certificate Provided in |
|
Portable direct reading dust meter (Laser dust monitor) |
SIBATA LD-3B-1 |
2 Oct 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 35, Appendix D |
SIBATA LD-3B-2 (Serial No. 296098) |
16 Oct 2018 |
The
measurement procedures involved in the impact air quality 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 D of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 35, and the
calibration certificates of portable direct reading dust meters listed in Table 2.3 are still valid.
The air quality monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is
provided in Appendix B. Due to malfunction of
monitoring equipment, the air quality session on 2 July 2019 was rescheduled to
3 July 2019. Besides, the air quality monitoring session on 31 July 2019 was
rescheduled to 2 August 2019 due to Strong Wind Signal No. 3 in force.
The air
quality monitoring results in the reporting period are summarized in Table 2.4.
Detailed impact monitoring results are presented in Appendix C.
Table 2.4: Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Results
Monitoring Station |
1-hr TSP Concentration Range (mg/m3) |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
AR1A |
11 – 65 |
306 |
500 |
AR2 |
9 – 45 |
298 |
The monitoring results were within the
corresponding Action and Limit Levels 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.
No dust emission source from Project activities
was observed during impact air quality monitoring. No major sources of dust was observed at the monitoring stations during the monitoring
sessions. It is considered that the monitoring work in the reporting period is
effective and there was no adverse impact attributable to the Project
activities.
Noise monitoring in the form of 30-minute
measurements of Leq, L10, and L90
levels was conducted once per week between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays at
four representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of noise sensitive
receivers in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the
Manual. Table 3.1 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the
monitoring stations.
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(2) |
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.
(2) According to
Section 4.3.3 of the Manual, the noise monitoring at NM3A was temporarily suspended starting from 1 Sep 2018 and would be
resumed with the completion of the Tung Chung East Development.
In accordance
with the Manual, baseline noise levels at the noise monitoring stations were
established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. 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.
Table 3.2: Action and Limit Levels for Noise Monitoring
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)(1) |
Note:
(1) Reduced to 70dB(A) for school and 65dB(A) during school
examination periods for NM4.
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 used in the reporting period 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 |
Rion NL-52 (Serial No. 01287679) |
6 Feb 2019 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 39, Appendix D |
NTi XL2 (Serial No. A2A-14829-E0) |
14 July 2019 |
||
Acoustic Calibrator |
Casella CEL-120/1 (Serial No. 2383737) |
17 Oct 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 35, Appendix D |
Castle GA607 (Serial No. 040162) |
14 July 2019 |
The
monitoring procedures involved in the noise 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 noise monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is
provided in Appendix B.
The noise monitoring results in the reporting
period are summarized in Table
3.4.
Detailed impact monitoring results are presented in Appendix C.
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(1) |
72 – 73 |
75 |
NM4(1) |
60 – 63 |
70(2) |
NM5(1) |
59 – 62 |
75 |
NM6(1) |
67 – 70 |
75 |
Notes:
(1)
+3 dB(A) Façade
correction included;
(2)
Reduced to 65 dB(A)
during school examination periods at NM4. No school examination took place
during this reporting period.
No complaints were received from any sensitive
receiver that triggered the Action Level. All monitoring results were also
within the corresponding Limit Levels at all monitoring stations 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 traffic
noise near NM1A, aircraft and helicopter noise near NM5 and NM6 during this
reporting period. It is considered that the monitoring work during the
reporting period was effective and there was no adverse impact attributable to
the Project activities.
Water quality monitoring of DO, pH,
temperature, salinity, turbidity, suspended solids (SS), total alkalinity,
chromium, and nickel was conducted three days per week, at mid-ebb and
mid-flood tides, at a total of 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising
12 impact (IM) stations, 8 sensitive receiver (SR) stations and 3 control (C)
stations in the vicinity of water quality sensitive receivers around the
airport island 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). Table 4.1 describes the details of the
monitoring stations. Figure 4.1 shows the locations of the
monitoring stations.
Table 4.1: Monitoring Locations and Parameters of Impact Water Quality
Monitoring
Monitoring Station |
Description |
Coordinates |
Parameters |
|
|
|
Easting |
Northing |
|
C1 |
Control Station |
804247 |
815620 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals(2) |
C2 |
Control Station |
806945 |
825682 |
|
C3(3) |
Control Station |
817803 |
822109 |
|
IM1 |
Impact Station |
807132 |
817949 |
|
IM2 |
Impact Station |
806166 |
818163 |
|
IM3 |
Impact Station |
805594 |
818784 |
|
IM4 |
Impact Station |
804607 |
819725 |
|
IM5 |
Impact Station |
804867 |
820735 |
|
IM6 |
Impact Station |
805828 |
821060 |
|
IM7 |
Impact Station |
806835 |
821349 |
|
IM8 |
Impact Station |
808140 |
821830 |
|
IM9 |
Impact Station |
808811 |
822094 |
|
IM10 |
Impact Station |
809794 |
822385 |
|
IM11 |
Impact Station |
811460 |
822057 |
|
IM12 |
Impact Station |
812046 |
821459 |
|
SR1A(1) |
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling |
812660 |
819977 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS |
SR2(3) |
Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To |
814166 |
821463 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals(2)(4) |
SR3 |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau |
807571 |
822147 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
|
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(5) |
Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East) |
811623 |
820390 |
Notes:
(1) With the operation of HKBCF, water quality monitoring at SR1A station
was commenced on 25 October 2018. To better reflect the water quality in the
immediate vicinity of the intake, the monitoring location of SR1A has been
shifted closer to the intake starting from 5 January 2019.
(2) Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals
for 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)
Total alkalinity and heavy metals results are collected at SR2 as a
control station for regular DCM monitoring.
(5)
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. The
Action and Limit Levels of 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 provided in Table 4.2. The control
and impact stations during ebb tide and flood 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 SR1A & SR8) |
|||||
General Water Quality Monitoring |
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 |
|||
Regular DCM Monitoring |
Total Alkalinity in ppm |
95 |
99 |
||
Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Chromium) in µg/L |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|||
Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Nickel) in µg/L |
3.2 |
|
3.6 |
|
|
Action and Limit Levels SR1A |
|
|
|
||
SS (mg/l) |
33 |
|
42 |
|
|
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 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 |
Note:
(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 in the reporting period for monitoring of specific water quality
parameters under the water quality monitoring programme.
Table 4.4: Water Quality Monitoring 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. 17H105557)(1) |
30 Apr 2019 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 41, Appendix D |
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 16H104233)(1) |
30 Apr 2019 |
||
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 16H104234)(1) |
30 Apr 2019 |
||
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 17E100747) |
25 Jun 2019 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 42, Appendix E |
|
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 15M100005) |
25 Jun 2019 |
||
YSI 6920V2 (Serial No. 0001C6A7) |
24 July 2019 |
||
YSI 6920V2 (Serial No. 00019CB2) |
24 July 2019 |
||
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity) |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (Serial No. 10N65665) |
20 May 2019 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 41, Appendix D |
Note: (1) The monitoring equipment was not used in the reporting period after the expiry date of the calibration certificate. |
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, alkalinity 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 SS
(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.
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 |
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 schedule for the reporting period is updated and provided in
Appendix B.
The water quality monitoring results for
turbidity, SS, total alkalinity, chromium, and nickel obtained during the
reporting period were within their corresponding Action and Limit Level. The detailed monitoring results
are presented in Appendix C.
For DO, some of the testing results
triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Levels, and investigations were
conducted accordingly.
Table 4.7 to Table 4.10
present summaries of the DO compliance status at IM and SR stations during
mid-ebb and mid-flood tide for the reporting period.
Table 4.7: Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.8:
Summary of DO (Bottom) Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Table 4.9:
Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Compliance Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
Table 4.10: Summary of DO (Bottom)
Compliance Status (Mid-Flood Tide)
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix C. |
|
Legend: |
|
|
The monitoring results were within the corresponding Action and Limit Levels |
|
Monitoring result triggered the Action Level at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
D |
Monitoring result triggered the Action Level at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
Monitoring result triggered the Limit Level at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
D |
Monitoring result triggered the Limit Level 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 |
Monitoring results
triggered the corresponding Action and Limit Levels on three monitoring days.
Repeat measurement were conducted on 12, 14 and 28 July 2019 respectively
according to the Manual. Some cases occurred at monitoring stations upstream of
the Project during respective tide and would unlikely be affected by the
Project. Investigation was therefore focused on cases that occurred at
monitoring station located downstream of the Project. Details of the Project’s
marine construction activities and site observations on the concerned
monitoring days were collected. The findings are summarized in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Summary of Findings from Investigation of DO
Monitoring Results
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 |
Action or Limit Level triggered due to Project |
11/07/2019 |
Marine filling and DCM works |
Around 1 km |
Localised and enhanced silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
13/07/2019 |
Marine filling and DCM works |
Around 1 km |
Localised and enhanced silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
27/07/2019 |
Marine filling and DCM works |
Around 1 km |
Localised and enhanced silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
The
investigation confirmed that DCM works and marine filling
were operating normally with localised and enhanced silt curtain deployed. The
localised and enhanced silt curtains were maintained properly and checked by ET
regularly.
On 11 and
13 July 2019, it was noted that the DO concentrations recorded at most of the
impact and sensitive stations were within their baseline ranges and were also similar to, if not higher than their respective control
station. During the same tide, DO Action and Limit Levels were also triggered
at adjacent upstream monitoring stations. These suggested the presence of
external sources in the upstream areas that might affect the water quality
around the Project Area. With no silt plume observed at the monitoring stations and mitigation measures implemented properly,
the cases recorded at these impact and sensitive receiver stations were
considered not due to the Project.
On 27 July
2019, it was found that the DO concentrations at IM2, IM3, IM4 and SR4A were
within their corresponding baseline ranges during baseline monitoring of the
Project. For SR7, no Action or Limit Level was triggered at downstream impact
stations located closer to the Project Area, namely IM11 and IM12. These
suggested the stations were potentially affected by external sources. With no
silt plume observed at the monitoring stations and mitigation measures
implemented properly, the cases recorded at these impact and sensitive receiver
stations were considered not caused by the Project.
During the reporting period, it is noted that the vast majority of monitoring results were within their
corresponding Action and Limit Levels, while only a minor number of results
triggered the corresponding Action and Limit Levels, and investigations were
conducted accordingly.
Based on the investigation findings, all
results that triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Levels were not due to
the Project. Therefore, the Project did not cause adverse impact at the water
quality sensitive receivers. All required actions under the Event and Action
Plan were followed. These cases appeared to be due to natural fluctuation or
other sources not related to the Project.
Nevertheless, 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 properly for reclamation works including DCM works, marine
filling, and seawall construction 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 made included provision and
maintenance of proper chemical waste storage area, as well as handling,
segregation, and regular disposal of general refuse. The contractors had taken
actions to implement the recommended measures.
Based on updated information provided by
contractors, construction waste generated in the reporting period is summarized
in Table 5.2.
There were no complaints, non-compliance of the
WMP, contract-specific WMPs, statutory and contractual requirements that
triggered Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.
Table 5.2: Construction Waste Statistics
|
C&D(1) Material Stockpiled for Reuse or Recycle (m3) |
C&D Material Reused in the Project (m3) |
C&D Material Reused in other Projects (m3) |
C&D Material Transferred to Public Fill (m3) |
Chemical Waste (kg) |
Chemical Waste (L) |
General Refuse (tonne) |
June 2019(2)(3) |
*9,982 |
*4,684 |
*339 |
5,570 |
150 |
15,400 |
354 |
July 2019(3) |
4,641 |
4,500 |
665 |
4,629 |
200 |
9,040 |
399 |
Notes: (1) C&D refers to Construction and Demolition. (2) Updated figures in the past month are reported and marked with an asterisk (*). Updated figures for earlier months will be reported in the forthcoming Annual EM&A Report. (3) Metals, paper and/or plastics were recycled in the reporting period. |
In accordance with the Manual, CWD monitoring by small vessel
line-transect survey supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking survey and
passive acoustic monitoring should be conducted during construction phase.
The small vessel line-transect survey should be
conducted at a frequency of two full surveys per month, while land-based theodolite
tracking survey should be conducted at a frequency of one day per month per
station at Sha Chau (SC) and Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)
during the construction phase as stipulated in the Manual. Supplemental
theodolite tracking survey of one additional day has also been conducted at
LKC, i.e. in total twice per month at the LKC station.
The Action and Limit Levels 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
Action and Limit Levels for CWD monitoring were summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Derived Values of Action and Limit Levels
for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring
|
NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole |
Action Level(3) |
Running quarterly(1) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
Limit Level(3) |
Two consecutive running quarterly(2) (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
Notes: (referring to the baseline monitoring report) (1) Action Level – running quarterly STG & ANI will be calculated from the three preceding survey months. (2) Limit Level – two consecutive running quarters mean both the running quarterly encounter rates of the preceding month and the running quarterly encounter rates of this month. (3) Action Level and/or Limit Level will be triggered 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 also 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
survey 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 Theodolite 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 going around 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
pairs. 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 at the closest point after
obtaining photo records of the dolphin group and began to survey on effort
again.
Focal follows of dolphins would be used for
providing supplementary information only 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 would involve 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.
Land-based theodolite tracking survey obtains fine-scale
information on the time of day and movement patterns of the CWDs. A
digital theodolite (Sokkia/Sokkisha Model DT5 or
similar equipment) with 30-power
magnification and 5-s precision was used to obtain the vertical and horizontal angle of each
dolphin and vessel position. Angles
were converted to geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) and
data were recorded using Pythagoras software, Version 1.2. This
method delivers precise positions of multiple
spatially distant targets in a short period of time. The
technique is fully non-invasive, and allows for time
and cost-effective descriptions of dolphin habitat use patterns at all times of
daylight.
Three surveyors (one theodolite operator, one
computer operator, and one observer) were involved in each survey. Observers
searched for dolphins using unaided eyes and handheld binoculars (7X50).
Theodolite tracking sessions were initiated whenever an individual CWD or group
of CWDs was located. Where possible, a distinguishable individual was
selected, based on colouration, within the group. The focal individual
was then continuously tracked via the theodolite, with a position recorded each
time the dolphin surfaced. In case an individual could not be positively
distinguished from other members, the group was tracked by recording positions
based on a central point within the group whenever the CWD surfaced. Tracking
continued until animals were lost from view; moved beyond the range of reliable
visibility (>1-3 km, depending on station height); or environmental
conditions obstructed visibility (e.g., intense haze, Beaufort
sea state >4, or sunset), at which time the research effort was
terminated. In addition to the tracking of CWD, all vessels that moved within
2-3 km of the station were tracked, with effort made to obtain at least two
positions for each vessel.
Theodolite tracking included focal follows of
CWD groups and vessels. Priority was given to tracking individual or groups of
CWD. The survey team also attempted to track all vessels moving within 1 km of
the focal CWD.
Within this reporting period, two
complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys were conducted on the 8, 9,
16, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 24 July 2019, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW, WL
and SWL survey areas for twice.
A total of around 444.28 km of
survey effort was collected from these surveys, with around 97.2% 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 July 2019, 33 sightings with
137 dolphins were sighted. Details of cetacean sightings are presented in Appendix C.
Distribution of all CWD sightings
recorded in July 2019 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. In NWL, there
were two CWD sightings recorded at the northwestern waters of Lung Kwu Chau and southwestern corner of the survey area
respectively. In WL, CWD sightings were recorded from Tai O to Fan Lau with
more sightings recorded between Tai O and Peaked Hil.
In SWL, there were remarkable increase in CWD sightings compared to previous
months. Based on field observation, there were plenty of schools of fish
appeared in SWL waters during the surveys in that area. This might be a
possible reason for the emerging of a large number of
CWDs in SWL in this month. CWD sightings in SWL were scattered among the entire
survey area from Fan Lau to the Soko Islands and Lo
Kei Wan. No sightings of CWD were recorded in NEL or in close vicinity to 3RS
Works Area.
Figure 6.3: Sightings Distribution of Chinese White Dolphins
Remarks: Please note that there are 33 pink circles on the
map indicating the sighting locations of CWDs. Some of them were very close to
each other and therefore may appear overlapped on this distribution map.
Encounter Rate
Two types of dolphin encounter
rates were calculated based on the data from July 2019. 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 were used)
In July 2019, a total of around
431.92 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below
with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of
33 on-effort sightings with 137 dolphins were sighted under such condition.
Calculation of the encounter rates in July 2019 are shown in Appendix C.
For the running quarter of the
reporting period (i.e., from May 2019 to July 2019), a total of around 1258.50
km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 55
on-effort sightings and a total number of 223 dolphins from on-effort sightings
were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the running quarterly
encounter rates are shown in Appendix C.
The STG and ANI of CWD in the
whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) during the month of July 2019
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 Action
Level.
Table 6.4:
Comparison of CWD Encounter Rates of the Whole Survey Area with Action Levels
|
Encounter Rate (STG) |
Encounter Rate (ANI) |
July 2019 |
7.64 |
31.72 |
Running Quarter from May 2019 to July 2019(1) |
4.37 |
17.72 |
Action Level |
Running quarterly(1) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
|
Note: (1) 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 May 2019 to July 2019, containing six sets of transect surveys for all monitoring areas. Action Level will be triggered if both STG and ANI fall below the criteria. |
Group
Size
In July 2019, 33 groups with 137
dolphins were sighted, and the average group size of CWDs was 4.2 dolphins per
group. The number of sightings with medium group size (i.e. 3-9 dolphins) is
dominant. There were three CWD sightings with large group size (i.e. 10 or more
dolphins) in July 2019. Amongst these three sightings, two were recorded in SWL
and the remaining one was recorded in WL.
Activities and Association with Fishing Boats
Eleven sightings of CWDs were
recorded engaging in feeding activities in July 2019 in NWL, WL and
particularly SWL survey areas. It should be noted that there were plenty of
schools of fish appeared in SWL survey area during the survey time based on
field observation. No CWD sightings were observed in association with operating
fishing boat in the reporting month.
Mother-calf
Pair
In July 2019, there were four
sightings of CWD with the presence of mother-and-unspotted juvenile pair.
In July 2019, a total
number of 63 different CWD individuals were identified for totally 86
times. A summary of photo identification works is presented in Table 6.5.
Representative photos of these individuals are given in Appendix C.
Table 6.5: Summary of Photo Identification
Individual ID |
Date of Sighting (dd-mmm-yy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
Individual ID |
Date of Sighting (dd-mmm-yy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
NLMM001 |
16-Jul-19 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM040 |
17-Jul-19 |
6 |
SWL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM043 |
16-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
|
|
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM046 |
18-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
NLMM037 |
24-Jul-19 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM049 |
16-Jul-19 |
3 |
WL |
NLMM049 |
23-Jul-19 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM052 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
NLMM061 |
17-Jul-19 |
9 |
SWL |
|
WLMM056 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
NLMM063 |
24-Jul-19 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM063 |
17-Jul-19 |
10 |
SWL |
SLMM003 |
16-Jul-19 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM065 |
17-Jul-19 |
9 |
SWL |
SLMM007 |
16-Jul-19 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM067 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
SLMM012 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM069 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
|
18-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
SLMM014 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM078 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
SLMM022 |
23-Jul-19 |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM079 |
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
SLMM028 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
|
3 |
SWL |
SLMM029 |
17-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
|
|
23-Jul-19 |
7 |
WL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM081 |
16-Jul-19 |
4 |
WL |
SLMM031 |
17-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM082 |
16-Jul-19 |
4 |
WL |
SLMM037 |
17-Jul-19 |
5 |
SWL |
|
|
23-Jul-19 |
3 |
WL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM083 |
16-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
|
|
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM085 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
SLMM049 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM086 |
17-Jul-19 |
11 |
SWL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM094 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
|
|
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM095 |
23-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM050 |
23-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM102 |
23-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM052 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM104 |
18-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
|
|
5 |
SWL |
|
|
23-Jul-19 |
6 |
WL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM109 |
23-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
|
|
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM115 |
22-Jul-19 |
1 |
NWL |
SLMM053 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
23-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM062 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
|
3 |
WL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM120 |
17-Jul-19 |
10 |
SWL |
SLMM064 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM122 |
16-Jul-19 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM068 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM131 |
17-Jul-19 |
2 |
SWL |
SLMM069 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
|
7 |
SWL |
SLMM070 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
|
10 |
SWL |
|
18-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM132 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
SLMM071 |
18-Jul-19 |
1 |
SWL |
|
|
18-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
WLMM004 |
17-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM136 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
WLMM006 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM137 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
WLMM008 |
17-Jul-19 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM139 |
16-Jul-19 |
4 |
WL |
WLMM027 |
17-Jul-19 |
6 |
SWL |
|
WLMM140 |
16-Jul-19 |
4 |
WL |
WLMM029 |
18-Jul-19 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM141 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
WLMM039 |
16-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM142 |
23-Jul-19 |
5 |
WL |
Survey Effort
Land-based
theodolite tracking surveys were conducted at LKC on 16 and 25 July 2019
and at SC on 26 July 2019, with a total of three days of land-based theodolite
tracking survey effort accomplished in this reporting period. Three 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 C.
The first sighting locations of CWD groups tracked at LKC station during
land-based theodolite tracking surveys in July 2019 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 |
|
2 |
12:00 |
3 |
0.25 |
Sha Chau |
|
1 |
6:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
|
3 |
18:00 |
3 |
0.17 |
Figure
6.4: Plots of First Sightings of All CWD Groups obtained from Land-based
Stations
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) was retrieved on 16 July 2019
and subsequently redeployed and positioned at south of Sha Chau Island inside
the SCLKCMP with 20% duty cycle (Figure 6.5). The EAR deployment is
generally for 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 four months, PAM results could not be reported in monthly intervals
but report for supplementing the annual CWD monitoring analysis.
During the reporting period, silt curtains were
in place by the contractor for marine filling , in
which dolphin observers were deployed by contractor in accordance with the
MMWP. Overall, 7 to 12 dolphin observation stations and teams of at least two
dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of
the DEZ 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 677 individuals being trained and the
training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation
records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the
silt curtains. As for DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine
mammals were observed within or around the DEZs in this reporting month. These
contractors’ records were also audited by the ET during site inspection. On 8
July 2019, a dolphin carcass was found within the works area and subsequent
inspection and collection of the dolphin carcass was carried out by AFCD.
Audits of acoustic decoupling measures 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 survey 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 three 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.
Site inspections of the construction
works were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor 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 B. Bi-weekly site inspections
were also conducted by the IEC. Besides, ad-hoc site inspections were
conducted by ET and IEC if environmental problems were identified, or
subsequent to receipt of an environmental complaint, or as part of the
investigation work. These site inspections provided a direct means to reinforce
the specified environmental protection requirements and pollution control
measures in construction sites.
During site inspections, environmental
situation, status of implementation of pollution control and mitigation
measures were observed. Environmental documents and site records, including
waste disposal record, maintenance record of environmental equipment, and
relevant environmental permit and licences, were also checked on site. Observations
were recorded in the site inspection checklist and passed to the contractor
together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary in order to advise contractors on
environmental improvement, awareness and on-site enhancement measures.
The observations were
made with reference to the following information during the site inspections:
· The EIA and EM&A requirements;
· Relevant environmental protection
laws, guidelines, and practice notes;
· The EP conditions and other
submissions under the EP;
· Monitoring results of EM&A
programme;
· Works progress and programme;
· Proposal of individual works;
· Contract specifications on
environmental protection; and
· Previous site inspection results.
Good site practices were observed in site
inspections during the reporting period. Advice were given when necessary to
ensure the construction workforce were familiar with relevant procedures, and
to maintain good environmental performance on site. Regular toolbox talks on
environmental issues were organized for the construction workforce by the
contractors to ensure understanding and proper implementation of environmental
protection and pollution control mitigation measures.
During the reporting period, implementation of
recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures (CM1 – CM10) where
applicable was monitored weekly in accordance with the Manual and no
non-conformity was recorded. In case of non-conformity, specific
recommendations will be made, and actions will be proposed according to the
Event and Action Plan. The monitoring status is summarized in Appendix A.
A summary of implementation status
of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the
Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix A.
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 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
implement the mitigation measure of requiring 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 this
reporting period (i.e., 33 to 83 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, 640 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in July 2019 and
the data are presented in Appendix G. The time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ in July 2019 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 July 2019
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.
A total of one ferry was recorded with minor
route deviation on 26 July 2019. Notice was sent to the ferry operator and the
case is under investigation by ET.
As reported in the Construction Phase Monthly
EM&A Report No. 42, two ferries were recorded with minor route deviation
cases on 10 and 17 June 2019. ET’s investigation found that all the deviations
were due to giving way to vessels in order to avoid collision.
Table 7.1: Summary of Key Audit Findings
against the SkyPier Plan
Requirements in the SkyPier Plan |
1 to 31 July 2019 |
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited |
640
|
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points |
1 deviation |
Speed control in speed control zone |
The average speeds of all HSFs travelling through the SCZ ranged from 10.3 to 13.8 knots. All HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots in compliance 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)
|
33-83 daily movements (within the maximum daily cap - 125 daily movements). |
ET carried out the following actions during the
reporting period:
The DEZ Plan was submitted in
accordance with EP Condition 3.1 (v) requirement and Section 10.3 of the 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
and seawall construction according to their Method Statement for DEZ Monitoring
that followed the specifications and requirements of the DEZ Plan.
During the reporting period, ET was notified
that no dolphin sightings were recorded within the DEZ by the contractors. The ET checked the relevant records by the contractors and
conducted competence checking to audit the implementation of DEZ.
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 |
|
2.18 |
Landscape & Visual Plan |
Submitted to EPD |
2.19 |
Waste Management Plan |
Accepted / approved by EPD |
2.20 |
Supplementary Contamination Assessment 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 E.
No
construction activities-related complaint was received during the reporting
period.
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 F.
Key
activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will
include the following:
Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel
Pipeline Diversion Works
● Stockpiling of
compressed materials
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 and 3205 DCM Works
● DCM works
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Land base ground improvement works;
● Seawall construction; and
● Marine filling.
Airfield Works:
Contract 3301 North
Runway Crossover Taxiway
● Cable ducting works;
● Subgrade compaction and
paving works;
● Drainage construction
works;
● Operation of aggregate
mixing facility; and
● Precast of duct bank and
fabrication of steel works.
Contract 3302 Eastern
Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works
● Site survey and cable
laying;
● Excavation works;
● Backfilling and
reinstatement works; and
● Site establishment.
Contract 3303 Third Runway and
Associated Works
● Site establishment.
Third Runway Concourse and Integrated Airport Centres Works:
Contract 3402 New
Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works
● Sub-structure and
superstructure works;
● Structural steel
fabrication;
● Paving works; and
● Manhole and pipe
construction works.
Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna
Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Drainage works;
● Boring works; and
● Pipe installation.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2
Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification Works
● Site clearance; and
● Fitting out works.
Contract 3503 Terminal 2
Foundation and Substructure Works
● Site establishment;
● Demolition works;
● Utilities, drainage, and road work;
and
● Piling and structure works.
Automated
People Mover (APM) Works:
Contract
3602 Existing APM System Modification Works
● Site establishment; and
● Modification works at
APM depot.
Airport Support
Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and
BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island
● Site establishment;
● Cofferdam installation
and construction of box culvert;
● Rising main
installation;
● Drilling and grouting
works;
● Piling and foundation
works
● Demolition works; and
● Site clearance.
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 DCM works and
marine filling;
● DEZ monitoring for ground
improvement works (DCM works) and seawall construction;
● Implementation of MMWP for silt
curtain deployment;
● 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 B.
With reference to Appendix E of the Manual, it
is noted that the key assumptions adopted in approved EIA report for the
construction phase are still valid and no major changes are involved. The
environmental mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA Report remain
applicable and shall be implemented in undertaking construction works for the
Project.
The key activities of the Project
carried out in the reporting period included reclamation works and land-side
works. Reclamation works included DCM works, marine filling and seawall
construction. Land-side works involved mainly airfield works, foundation and
substructure work for Terminal 2 expansion, modification and tunnel work for
APM and BHS systems, and preparation work for utilities, with activities
include site establishment, site office construction, road and drainage works, cable ducting, demolition of existing facilities,
piling, and excavation works.
All the monitoring works for construction dust,
construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape & visual,
and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the
Manual.
Monitoring results of construction
dust, construction noise, construction waste, and CWD did not trigger the corresponding Action and
Limit Levels during the reporting period.
The water quality monitoring results for
turbidity, total alkalinity, SS, chromium, and nickel obtained during the
reporting period were within the corresponding Action and Limit Levels
stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and follow-up
actions will be conducted according to the EM&A programme if the corresponding
Action and Limit Levels are triggered. For DO, some testing results triggered
the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the corresponding investigations were
conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that the case was
not related to the Project. To conclude, the construction activities in the
reporting period did not introduce adverse impact to all water quality
sensitive receivers.
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. Site inspection
findings were recorded in the site inspection checklists and provided to the
contractors to follow up.
On the implementation of the SkyPier Plan, the daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in July 2019 were in the range of 33 to 83
daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements.
A total of 640 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan
were recorded in the reporting period. The average speeds of all HSFs
travelling through the SCZ ranged from 10.3 to 13.8 knots. All HSFs had
travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots in compliance with
the SkyPier Plan. One deviation from the diverted
route in July 2019 was recorded in the HSF monitoring and is under
investigation by the ET. In summary, the ET and IEC have audited the HSF
movements against the SkyPier Plan and conducted
follow up investigations or actions accordingly.
On the implementation of MTRMP-CAV, the MSS
automatically recorded the deviation case such as speeding, entering no entry
zone and not travelling through the designated gates. 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, entered no entry zone, and entry from non-designated gates 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. The ET
reminded contractors that all vessels shall avoid entering the no-entry zone, in particular the
Brothers Marine Park and the
Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park. Three-month
rolling programmes for construction vessel activities, which ensures the
proposed vessels are necessary and minimal through good planning, were also
received from contractors.