Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System |
Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.32 (For August 2018) |
|
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 32nd Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the monitoring results
and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1
to 31 August 2018.
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, seawall construction, laying of sand blanket, and prefabricated
vertical drain (PVD) installation. Land-side works involved mainly 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 |
36 |
Noise monitoring |
21 |
Water quality monitoring |
12 |
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring |
2 |
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring |
5 |
Terrestrial ecology monitoring |
1 |
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
|
|
|
Environmental Management Meeting for EM&A Review with Works Contracts |
C&D Waste Delivery Record Checking |
Water Quality Monitoring Conducted by ET |
Results of Impact Monitoring
The monitoring works for construction dust,
construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape
& visual, terrestrial ecology, 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, nickel and chromium 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) and suspended solids (SS), some of the testing results triggered the
relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the corresponding investigations were
conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that the cases were
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
● Trench backfilling;
● Shoreline reinstatement
next to the new pipe; and
● Stockpiling of excavated
materials from previous HDD operation.
DCM Works:
Contract
3201 to 3203, and 3205 DCM Works
● DCM works
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket;
● PVD installation;
● Seawall construction;
● Marine filling; and
● DCM works.
Airfield Works:
Contract 3301 North
Runway Crossover Taxiway
● Cable ducting works;
● Subgrade works;
● Operation of aggregate
mixing facility; and
● Precast of duct bank and
fabrication of steel works.
Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna
Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Excavation works;
● Pipe installation; and
● Electrical and mechanical (E&M) works and
builders works of antenna farm.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2
Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification Works
● Site clearance;
● Brick laying;
● Fitting out of E&M
works; and
● Cable tray installation.
Contract 3503 Terminal 2
Foundation and Substructure Works
● Site establishment;
● Drainage, utility, and road work;
● Piling works; and
● Demolition of footbridge.
Contract
3505 Terminal 2 Spectrum Lighting Mock-ups
● Assembly of structural frame;
● Floor drilling; and
● Installation of lighting fittings
and panels.
Automated
People Mover (APM) works:
Contract
3602 Existing APM System Modification Works
● Site establishment; and
● Construction of concrete
plinth.
Baggage Handling System (BHS) works:
Contract 3603 3RS
Baggage Handling System
● Site establishment.
Airport Support
Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and
BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island
● Site establishment;
● Diversion of underground
utilities;
● Piling and foundation
works; and
● Demolition of
footbridge.
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 |
Complaint Received |
√ |
|
A complaint relating to the DEZ monitoring schedule for DCM works was received on 27 Aug 2018. |
ET recommended the contractor to maintain good communication with dolphin observers and conduct regular review/training on contingency arrangement for different operational scenarios. |
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[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 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 32nd Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of
the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 31 August 2018.
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 9348 |
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
|
Sandra Lo
|
6329 3513 |
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: |
|
|
|
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) |
Project Manager |
Kin Hang Chung |
9412 1386 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Nelson Tam |
9721 3942 |
Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion Works: |
|||
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station (Build King Construction Ltd.) |
Project Manager
|
Raymond Au
|
6985 8860
|
|
Environmental Officer |
Edward Tam |
9287 8270 |
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 |
Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture) |
Construction Manager |
Stephen O’Donoghue |
9732 6787 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Stephen Tsang |
5508 6361 |
Contract 3505 Terminal 2 Spectrum Lighting Mock-Ups (Union Contractors Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Wylar Chan |
9107 5920 |
|
Environmental Officer |
Kelvin Lam |
9379 2446 |
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, seawall construction, laying of sand blanket, and prefabricated
vertical drain (PVD) installation. Land-side works involved mainly 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 the works area are
presented in Figure 1.1 to 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 |
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 (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, terrestrial ecology, 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:
● Two dolphin observer trainings
provided by ET: 9 and 21 August 2018
● Two skipper trainings provided by
ET: 8 and 22 August 2018
● Nine environmental management
meetings for EM&A review with works contracts: 16, 17, 22, 28, 29, 30 and
31 August 2018
● EPD sharing on key issues of
environmental and waste management: 17 and 22 August 2018
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 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-002 (Serial No. 974350) |
11 Sep 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 22, Appendix E |
SIBATA LD-3B-003 (Serial No. 276018) |
11 Sep 2017 |
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 E of the Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report No. 22, 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 C.
The air
quality monitoring results in the reporting period are summarized in Table 2.4.
Detailed impact monitoring results are presented in Appendix D.
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 |
10 – 93 |
306 |
500 |
AR2 |
4 – 173 |
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. Major sources of dust
observed at the monitoring stations during the monitoring sessions were local
air pollution and nearby traffic emissions. 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 five
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. 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(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) With the
commencement of construction works of Tung Chung East Development near NM3A,
the monitoring results obtained at NM3A would be affected by other construction
project. According to Section 4.3.3 of the Manual, the noise monitoring at NM3A
would be temporarily suspended starting from 1 Sep 2018 and resumed when Tung
Chung East Development is completed.
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 |
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2381580) |
10 May 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 30, Appendix D |
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2808432) |
30 Aug 2017 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 21, Appendix E |
|
B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2800932) |
26 Jul 2018 |
||
Acoustic Calibrator |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3003246) |
23 Jun 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 31, Appendix E |
B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3018753) |
10 May 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 29, Appendix D |
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 C.
The noise monitoring results in the reporting
period are summarized in Table
3.4.
Detailed impact monitoring results are presented 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(1) |
71 – 73 |
75 |
NM3A |
57 – 65 |
75 |
NM4(1) |
63 – 66 |
70(2) |
NM5(1) |
55 – 57 |
75 |
NM6(1) |
66 – 70 |
75 |
Notes:
(1)
+3 dB(A) Façade
correction included;
(2)
Reduced to 65 dB(A)
during school examination periods at NM4. No examination was held in this
reporting period.
The monitoring results were within the
corresponding Action and 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 road
traffic noise at NM1A, aircraft noise and noise from construction vessel near
NM3A, and aircraft and helicopter noise near NM4, NM5, and NM6 during this
reporting period. It is considered that the monitoring work during the
reporting period is 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 22 water quality monitoring stations, comprising
12 impact (IM) stations, 7 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 3.1 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 |
|
SR1(1) |
Future Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling |
812586 |
820069 |
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) |
811418
|
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 intake is commissioned.
(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 SR1& 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 SR1 |
|
|
|
||
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
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. 16H104233) |
27 Jun 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 31, Appendix E |
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 16H104234) |
25 Jul 2018 |
||
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 17E100747) |
27 Jun 2018 |
||
YSI ProDSS (Serial No. 17H105557) |
25 Jul 2018 |
||
YSI 6920 V2 (Serial No. 0001C6A7) |
20 Aug 2018 |
||
YSI 6920 V2 (Serial No. 00019CB2) |
20 Aug 2018 |
||
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity) |
Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (Serial No. 10N65665) |
19 Jun 2018 |
Monthly EM&A Report No. 31, Appendix E |
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 C. Monitoring session on 14
August 2018 was cancelled due to adverse weather. It should be noted that
Severe Tropical Storm Bebinca affected Hong Kong from 9 to 15 August 2018 and water quality monitoring results might be affected by this
weather event.
The
water quality monitoring results for turbidity, total alkalinity, nickel and
chromium obtained during the reporting period were within their corresponding
Action and Limit Levels.
For DO and SS, some of the testing results
triggered the corresponding Action and Limit Level, and investigations were
conducted accordingly.
Table 4.7 presents a summary of the DO compliance status at
IM and SR stations at surface and middle waters during mid-ebb tide for the
reporting period.
Table 4.7: Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Compliance
Status (Mid-Ebb Tide)
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
|
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 |
Table 4.8 presents a summary of the DO
compliance status at IM and SR stations at bottom water during mid-ebb tide for
the reporting period.
Table
4.8: Summary of DO (Bottom) Compliance Status
(Mid-Ebb Tide)
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
|
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 |
|
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 7 Aug 2018. Some cases
occurred at monitoring stations upstream of the Project during ebb tide and
would unlikely be affected by the Project. Remaining cases triggered
corresponding Action and Limit Levels at monitoring stations located downstream
of the Project. Details of the Project’s marine construction activities and
site observations on the concerned monitoring day were collected. The findings
are summarized in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Summary of DO Compliance Status (Mid-Ebb
Tide)
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 |
07/08/2018 |
Marine filling, sand blanket laying and DCM works |
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
According
to the investigation findings, it was confirmed that marine filling, sand
blanket laying and DCM works were operating normally with silt curtains
deployed. Silt curtains were maintained properly except for a section of open
sea silt curtain which was found to be disconnected and repair work was
completed on the same day.
As
monitoring results at upstream monitoring stations triggered the corresponding
Action and Limit Levels, downstream cases at IM1, IM2, IM3, IM11, IM12, SR4A
and SR7 on 7 August 2018 were considered due to external factors. In particular, DO depletion in the south western area
of the Project was likely related to reduced flushing potential arising from
slow water current speeds rather than the activities of the Project. No silt
plume was observed during marine works and mitigation measures were implemented
properly. The case was therefore considered not due to Project.
Table 4.10 presents a summary of the SS
compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting
period.
Table 4.10: Summary of SS Compliance Status
(Mid-Flood Tide)
Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. |
|
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 |
|
Upstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
Monitoring results
triggered the corresponding Action Levels on 9 and 28 August 2018. The case at
SR4A on 28 August 2018 was recorded at monitoring station located upstream of
the Project during flood tide and would unlikely be affected by the Project.
Investigation focusing on cases that occurred at monitoring stations
located downstream of the Project were carried out. Details of the Project’s
marine construction activities on concerned monitoring days was collected and
findings are summarized in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Summary of Findings from
Investigation of SS Monitoring Results (Mid-Flood Tide)
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 |
09/08/2018 |
Marine filling, sand blanket laying and DCM works
|
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
28/08/2018 |
Marine filling and DCM works
|
Around 500m |
Silt curtain deployed |
No |
No |
No |
Investigations confirmed
that marine filling, sand blanket laying and DCM works were operating normally
with silt curtains deployed. The silt curtains were maintained properly.
For
monitoring result at IM5 on 9 August 2018, result at impact monitoring station IM6, which is closer to the active works area than
IM5, was within the corresponding Action and Limit Level in the same tide. The
SS result at IM5 was also within the baseline range. Combining above observations, this case was believed to be an isolated
incident with no spatial nor temporal trend to indicate any connection to the
Project. With no observable silt plume during marine works and properly
implemented mitigation measures, the incident was considered not due to
Project.
Regarding
SS monitoring results at IM5 and IM6 on 28 August 2018, both recorded
concentrations were within baseline range. As no silt plume was observed and
mitigation measures were properly implemented during construction works, these
cases were considered not related to 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 their
corresponding Action and Limit Levels, and investigations were conducted
accordingly.
Based on
the investigation findings, all results that triggered the corresponding Action
and Limit Level 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, the non-project related triggers
have been attended to and have initiated corresponding actions and measures. 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 reclamation works including DCM works, marine filling,
seawall construction, 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 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
|
Excavated Material (m3)(1) |
C&D(2) 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) |
Jan 2018(3) |
- |
4,310 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Mar 2018(3) |
- |
5,563 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Apr 2018(3) |
- |
3,514 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
May 2018(3) |
- |
4,350 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Jun 2018(3) |
- |
1,440 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
228 |
Aug 2018(4) |
1,192 |
3,030 |
0 |
10,347 |
588 |
25,400 |
239 |
Notes: (1) The excavated materials were temporarily stored at stockpiling area and will be reused in the Project. (2) C&D refers to Construction and Demolition. (3) Only updated figures are presented. (4) Metals and paper 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 as
proposed in the Manual 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 during the construction phase. In
addition to the land-based theodolite tracking survey 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 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. For CWD monitoring for August 2018, data from 1 June 2018 to 31 August 2018 was used to calculate the running quarterly encounter rates STG & ANI; (2) Limit Level – two consecutive running quarters mean both the running quarterly encounter rates of the preceding month July 2018 (calculated by data from May 2018 to July 2018) and the running quarterly encounter rates of this month (calculated by data from June 2018 to August 2018). (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.
Survey Effort
Within this reporting period, two
complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys were conducted on the 2, 7,
16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23 August 2018, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW,
WL and SWL survey areas for twice.
A total of around 457.79 km of
survey effort was collected from these surveys, with around 97.56% of the total
survey effort being conducted under favourable
weather condition (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable
visibility). Details of the survey effort are given in Appendix D.
Sighting Distribution
In August 2018, 20 sightings with
70 dolphins were sighted. Details of cetacean sightings are presented in Appendix D.
Distribution of all CWD sightings
recorded in August 2018 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. In NWL, three
CWD sightings were recorded at the southwestern part of the survey area. In WL,
CWD sightings were scattered from the northern part of the survey area down to
Fan Lau with more sightings located between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. In SWL,
three CWD sightings were recorded at relatively offshore waters in the western
part of the survey area. It is worth noting that a sighting of a single dolphin
was recorded on westernmost transect of NEL, near the northwestern corner of
the Brothers Marine Park. This is the first CWD sighting in NEL since the
commencement of CWD monitoring for the Project back in December 2015. This
single dolphin was briefly seen with a few surfacing only and thus the survey
team was unable to photograph it for photo-identification.
Figure 6.3: Sightings Distribution
of Chinese White Dolphins
Remarks: Please note that there are 20
pink circles on the map indicating the sighting locations of CWD. Some of them
were very close to each other and therefore appear overlapped on this
distribution map.
Encounter Rate
Two types of dolphin encounter
rates were calculated based on the data from August 2018. 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 August 2018, a total of around
446.60 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below
with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of
20 on-effort sightings with 70 dolphins were sighted under such condition. Calculation
of the encounter rates in August 2018 are shown in Appendix D.
For the running quarter of the
reporting period (i.e., from June to August 2018), a total of around 1200.60 km
of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 56
on-effort sightings and a total number of 187 dolphins from on-effort sightings
were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the running quarterly
encounter rates are shown in Appendix D.
The STG and ANI of CWD in the
whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) during the month of August
2018 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) |
August 2018 |
4.48 |
15.67 |
Running Quarter from June 2018 to August 2018(1) |
4.66 |
15.58 |
Action Level |
Running quarterly(1) < 1.86 |
Running quarterly(1) < 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 June to August 2018, 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 August 2018, 20 groups with 70
dolphins were sighted, and the average group size of CWDs was 3.50 dolphins per
group. Sightings with small group size (i.e. 1-2 dolphins) were dominant. One
sighting with large group size (i.e. 10 or more dolphins) were recorded in NWL.
Activities and Association with Fishing Boats
Three out of 20 sightings of CWDs
were recorded engaging in feeding activities in August 2018. No association
with operating fishing boats was observed in this reporting month.
Mother-calf
Pair
In August 2018, three sightings
were recorded with the presence of mother-and-unspotted calf or
mother-and-unspotted juvenile pairs. Two of these sightings were sighted in WL
while the remaining one was encountered in SWL.
In August 2018, a
total number of 41 different CWD individuals were identified for totally
48 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-mmm-yy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
Individual ID |
Date of Sighting (dd-mmm-yy) |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
NLMM015 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM028 |
21-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
|
|
3 |
NWL |
|
WLMM029 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
NLMM019 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
|
21-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
NLMM033 |
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM043 |
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
NLMM043 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM053 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
NLMM056 |
21-Aug-18 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM060 |
23-Aug-18 |
2 |
SWL |
NLMM063 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM063 |
21-Aug-18 |
4 |
WL |
NLMM066 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM065 |
21-Aug-18 |
6 |
WL |
NLMM067 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
|
|
7 |
WL |
|
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM067 |
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
SLMM002 |
21-Aug-18 |
8 |
WL |
|
WLMM071 |
23-Aug-18 |
2 |
SWL |
SLMM003 |
21-Aug-18 |
8 |
WL |
|
WLMM078 |
7-Aug-18 |
4 |
WL |
SLMM010 |
21-Aug-18 |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM079 |
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
|
|
8 |
WL |
|
WLMM081 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
SLMM012 |
21-Aug-18 |
8 |
WL |
|
WLMM083 |
7-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
SLMM019 |
23-Aug-18 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM087 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
|
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM089 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
SLMM045 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM096 |
21-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
SLMM053 |
21-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM114 |
21-Aug-18 |
9 |
WL |
SLMM057 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
WLMM115 |
2-Aug-18 |
2 |
NWL |
WLMM006 |
2-Aug-18 |
1 |
NWL |
|
|
7-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
WLMM008 |
7-Aug-18 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM119 |
7-Aug-18 |
4 |
WL |
WLMM009 |
21-Aug-18 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM120 |
7-Aug-18 |
4 |
WL |
WLMM027 |
22-Aug-18 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM121 |
21-Aug-18 |
5 |
WL |
Survey Effort
Land-based
theodolite tracking surveys were conducted at LKC on 1, 6 and 21 August
2018 and at SC on 2 and 9 August 2018, with a total of five days of land-based
theodolite tracking survey effort accomplished in this reporting period. A
total number of 3 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 August 2018 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 |
3 |
0.17 |
Sha Chau |
|
2 |
12:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
|
5 |
30:00 |
3 |
0.1 |
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 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 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.
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
MMWP. Teams of at least two dolphin observers were deployed at 13 to 21 dolphin
observation stations by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the DEZ by
all contractors for ground improvement works (DCM works and PVD installation)
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 647 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.
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 five days of
land-based theodolite tracking survey effort as scheduled. The
first CWD sighting in NEL since the commencement of CWD monitoring for the
Project back in December 2015 was recorded in this reporting month. 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 C. 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 both within the site area as well as outside the project
sites which was likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the site
activities. 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.
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 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., 74 to 90 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, 882 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in August 2018 and
the data are presented in Appendix H. The time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ in August 2018 were
presented in Figure 7.1.
It will take 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ when the SkyPier
HSFs adopt the maximum allowable speed of 15 knots within the SCZ. Figure 7.1 shows that all of the SkyPier
HSFs spent more than 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ.
Figure
7.1: Duration of the SkyPier HSFs travelling through
the SCZ for August 2018
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.
Two ferries were recorded with minor deviation
from the diverted route on 2 August 2018, and 22 August 2018. Notices were sent
to the ferry operators and the cases are under investigation by ET. The
investigation results will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report.
As reported in the Construction Phase Monthly
EM&A Report No. 31, three ferries were recorded with minor deviation from
the diverted route on 12 July 2018, 14 July 2018, and 19 July 2018. ET’s
investigation found that the vessel captains had to give way to a fishing boat
for case on 12 July 2018 for safety reason, and give way to vessels for cases
on both 14 July 2018, and 19 July 2018 for safety reason.
Table 7.1: Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan
Requirements in the SkyPier Plan |
1 August to 31 August 2018 |
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited |
882
|
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points |
2 deviations. |
Speed control in speed control zone |
The average speeds taken within the SCZ by all HSFs were within 15 knots (10.2 knots to 14.0 knots), which complied with the SkyPier Plan. The time used by HSFs to travel through SCZ is presented in Figure 7.1. |
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)
|
74 to 90 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:
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.
In accordance with the Manual, ecological
monitoring shall be undertaken monthly at the 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, it was observed from the monthly ecological monitoring at the
HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau that preparation works for
shoreline landscape reinstatement were carried out under the Contract P560(R),
and there was no encroachment of any works upon the egretry
area nor any significant disturbance to the ardeids on the island by the works.
Sign of a few nursery activities by Little Egret were observed on trees located
at the previously identified egretry area where it is
at the southern side of Sheung Sha Chau Island. At the HDD daylighting
location, neither nest nor breeding activity of ardeids 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 |
|
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 F.
A complaint relating to the
DEZ monitoring schedule for DCM works was received on 27 Aug 2018.
Investigation was conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the
Complaint Management Plan of the Project. Based on on-site inspection on the
concerned barge Sambo 2HO in the Project area by ET and AAHK next day after receiving
the complaint and the records provided by the contractor, the contractor had
implemented DEZ monitoring for DCM works. Nevertheless, ET reminded the
contractor to maintain good communication with dolphin observers and conduct
regular review/training on contingency arrangement for different operational
scenarios. Therefore, the complaint case was considered closed.
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
● Trench backfilling;
● Shoreline reinstatement
next to the new pipe; and
● Stockpiling of excavated
materials from previous HDD operation.
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 to 3203,
and 3205 DCM Works
● DCM works
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works
● Laying of sand blanket;
● PVD installation;
● Seawall construction;
● Marine filling; and
● DCM works.
Airfield Works:
Contract 3301 North
Runway Crossover Taxiway
● Cable ducting works;
● Subgrade works;
● Operation of aggregate
mixing facility; and
● Precast of duct bank and
fabrication of steel works.
Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Contract 3501 Antenna
Farm and Sewage Pumping Station
● Excavation works;
● Pipe installation; and
● Electrical and mechanical (E&M) works and
builders works of antenna farm.
Contract 3502 Terminal 2
Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification Works
● Site clearance;
● Brick laying;
● Fitting out of E&M
works; and
● Cable tray installation.
Contract 3503 Terminal 2
Foundation and Substructure Works
● Site establishment;
● Drainage, utility, and road work;
● Piling works; and
● Demolition of footbridge.
Contract
3505 Terminal 2 Spectrum Lighting Mock-ups
● Assembly of structural frame;
● Floor drilling; and
● Installation of lighting fittings
and panels.
Automated
People Mover (APM) works:
Contract
3602 Existing APM System Modification Works
● Site establishment; and
● Construction of concrete
plinth.
Baggage Handling System (BHS) works:
Contract 3603 3RS
Baggage Handling System
● Site establishment.
Airport Support
Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Contract 3801 APM and
BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island
● Site establishment;
● Diversion of underground
utilities;
● Piling and foundation
works; and
● Demolition of
footbridge.
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
blanket, DCM works, and marine filling;
● DEZ monitoring for ground
improvement works (DCM works and PVD installation) and seawall construction;
● Implementation of MMWP for silt
curtain deployment by the contractors’ dolphin
observers;
● Terrestrial ecological monitoring on
Sheung Sha Chau;
● 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 reclamation works and land-side
works. Reclamation works included deep cement mixing (DCM) works, marine
filling, seawall construction, laying of sand blanket, and prefabricated vertical
drain (PVD) installation. Land-side works involved mainly 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.
All the monitoring works for construction dust,
construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape & visual,
terrestrial ecology, 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, nickel and chromium obtained during
the reporting period complied with 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 and SS, some of the testing results
triggered the relevant Action and Limit Levels, and the corresponding
investigations were conducted accordingly. The
investigation findings concluded that the cases were not related to the
Project. To conclude, the construction activities during 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 high speed ferries (HSFs) in August 2018 were in
the range of 74 to 90 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap
of 125 daily movements. A total of 882 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All
HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots (10.2 to
14.0 knots ),
which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. Two
deviations from the diverted route in August 2018 was recorded in the HSF monitoring.
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, 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. 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.
[1] The Manual is available on the
Project’s dedicated website (accessible at: http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html).