Expansion of Hong Kong |
Construction Phase Quarterly EM&A Report No.19 (1 July to 30 September 2020) |
Contents
3RS |
Three-Runway System |
AAHK |
Airport Authority Hong Kong |
AECOM |
AECOM Asia Company Limited |
AFCD |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department |
AIS |
Automatic Information System |
ANI |
Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphins |
APM |
Automated People Mover |
AW |
Airport West |
BHS |
Baggage Handling System |
CAP |
Contamination Assessment Plan |
CAR |
Contamination Assessment Report |
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 |
EMIS |
Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule |
EP |
Environmental Permit |
EPD |
Environmental Protection Department |
ET |
Environmental Team |
FCZ |
Fish Culture Zone |
HKBCF |
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities |
HKIA |
Hong Kong International Airport |
HSF |
High Speed Ferry |
IEC |
Independent Environmental Checker |
LKC |
Lung Kwu Chau |
MTCC |
Marine Traffic Control Centre |
MMHK |
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited |
MMWP |
Marine Mammal Watching Plan |
MSS |
Maritime Surveillance System |
MTRMP-CAV |
Updated Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel |
NEL |
Northeast Lantau |
NWL |
Northwest Lantau |
PAM |
Passive Acoustic Monitoring |
SC |
Sha Chau |
SCZ |
Speed Control Zone |
SCLKCMP |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park |
SS |
Suspended Solids |
STG |
Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings |
SWL |
Southwest Lantau |
The Manual |
The Updated EM&A Manual |
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 |
TSP |
Total Suspended Particulates |
WL |
West Lantau |
WMP |
Waste Management Plan |
Executive Summary
The “Expansion of Hong Kong International
Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) serves to meet the future air
traffic demands at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). On 7 November 2014,
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014)
for the Project was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.:
EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental
Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A)
works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the
Updated EM&A Manual (the Manual).
This is the 19th Construction Phase
Quarterly EM&A Report for the Project which summarises the monitoring
results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting
period from 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020.
Key Activities in the Reporting Period
The key
activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period included
reclamation works and land-based works. Works in the reclamation areas included
deep cement mixing (DCM) works, marine filling, seawall and facilities construction,
together with runway and associated works. Land-based works on existing airport
island involved mainly airfield works, foundation and substructure work for
Terminal 2 expansion, modification and tunnel work for Automated People Mover
(APM) and Baggage Handling System (BHS), and preparation work for utilities,
with activities include site establishment, site office construction, road and
drainage works, cable ducting, demolition, piling, and excavation works.
EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting
Period
The 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 |
96 |
Noise monitoring |
52 |
Water quality monitoring |
38 |
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring |
6 |
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring |
6 |
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
Maritime 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 Good Environmental
Practices in the Reporting Period
|
|
|
Wasted lead acid batteries recycling via local battery recycler |
Plastic waste recovery from the expired safety helmets |
Dust suppression control management plan |
Key examples of good site practices
implemented in the Project are highlighted as below:
1. Wasted lead acid batteries dismantled from APM
trains were collected for recycling by a battery recycler to save the landfill
space, eliminate the risk of pollution to the environment, and minimize the
wastage.
2. Expired safety helmets were collected and
delivered to a local recycler to facilitate the recovery of plastic.
3. Dust suppression control management plan for
the new reclaimed land area was devised which consisted of the travelling of
water browsers along the designated vehicle travelling routes, and
establishment of water mist canon for the dust suppression during the handling
of construction materials.
Summary Findings of the EM&A
Programme
The
monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality,
construction waste, landscape & visual, and CWD were conducted during the
reporting period in accordance with the Manual.
Monitoring
results of construction dust, construction noise, construction waste, and CWD
monitoring did not trigger the corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the
reporting period.
The water
quality monitoring results for all parameters, except dissolved oxygen (DO),
obtained during the reporting period were within the corresponding Action and
Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and
follow-up actions will be conducted according to the EM&A programme if the
corresponding Action and Limit Levels are triggered. For DO, some testing
results triggered the relevant Action or Limit Level, 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.
The key
findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period is summarised as
below:
|
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 |
Complaints Received |
√ |
|
A complaint regarding suspected improper chemical waste disposal at the pier near Marina Garden, Tuen Mun was received on 6 Jul 2020. |
ET requested the concerned Contractor for details on the complaint. Based on information provided by Contractor, no chemical waste was generated from the Contractor. The case was considered closed. |
A complaint regarding the discharge of muddy water from the construction site which was near Aviation Fuel Supply Company (AFSC) Operation Limited premise to the surrounding surface water channel was received on 13 Jul 2020. |
ET investigated the related work contracts that carried out construction activities at or near the alleged area. Based on information provided by contractors and ET’s inspection findings, no malpractices were observed. The case was considered closed. |
|||
A complaint regarding dust issue at Chek Lap Kok South Road was received on 28 Aug 2020. |
ET investigated the potential related work contracts whose barges moored at or near the alleged area. Based on information provided by contractors and ET’s inspection findings, no malpractices were observed. The case was considered closed. |
|||
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions |
|
√ |
No notification of summons or prosecution were received. |
Nil |
Changes that affect the EM&A |
|
√ |
There was no change to the construction works that may affect the EM&A. |
Nil |
Remarks:
^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 submarine aviation fuel
pipelines and submarine power cables also require diversion as part of the
works.
Construction of the Project is to proceed in
the general order of diversion of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines,
diversion of the submarine power cables, land formation, and construction of
infrastructure, followed by construction of superstructures.
The updated overall phasing programme of all
construction works was presented in Appendix A of the Construction Phase
Monthly EM&A Report No. 7 and the contract information was presented in
Appendix A of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 54.
This is the 19th Construction Phase Quarterly EM&A Report
for the Project which summarises the key findings of the EM&A programme
during the reporting period from 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020.
The Project’s organisation structure is
provided in Appendix A. Contact details of the key
personnel have been updated and provided 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, Environmental Compliance, Sustainability |
Lawrence Tsui |
2183 2734 |
Environmental Team (ET) (Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited) |
Environmental Team Leader |
Terence Kong |
2828 5919 |
Deputy Environmental Team Leader |
Heidi Yu |
2828 5704 |
|
Deputy Environmental Team Leader |
Daniel Sum |
2585 8495 |
|
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
Independent Environmental Checker |
Jackel Law |
3922 9376
|
Deputy Independent Environmental Checker |
Roy Man |
3922 9141
|
Reclamation Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Min Park |
9683 0765 |
Environmental Officer |
Steven Chan |
6288 0189 |
|
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Alan Mong |
3763 1352
|
Environmental Officer |
Kwai Fung Wong |
3763 1452 |
Airfield Works:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway (FJT-CHEC-ZHEC Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Kin Hang Chung |
9800 0048 |
Environmental Officer |
Joe Wong |
6182 0351 |
|
Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation) |
Project Manager |
Dickey Yau |
5699 4503 |
Environmental Officer |
Dennis Ho |
5645 0563 |
|
Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works (SAPR Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Andrew Keung |
6277 6628 |
Environmental Officer |
Max Chin |
6447 5707 |
|
Contract 3307 Fire Training Facility (Paul Y. Construction Company Limited) |
Project Manager |
Steven Meredith |
6109 1813 |
Environmental Officer |
Albert Chan |
9700 1083 |
Third Runway Concourse:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.) |
Contract Manager |
Michael Kan |
9206 0550 |
Environmental Officer |
Lisa He |
5374 3418 |
|
Contract 3403 New Integrated Airport Centres Building and Civil Works (Sun Fook Kong Construction Limited) |
Project Manager |
Alice Leung |
9220 3162 |
Environmental Officer |
Alpha Chia |
9626 1114 |
|
Contract 3405 Third Runway Concourse Foundation and Substructure Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation – Bachy Soletanche Group Limited – LT Sambo Co., Ltd. Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Francis Choi |
9423 3469 |
Environmental Officer |
Jacky Lai |
9028 8975 |
Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion:
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Eric Wu |
3973 1718 |
Environmental Officer |
Malcolm Leung |
3973 0850 |
Automated People Mover (APM) and
Baggage Handling System (BHS):
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3601 New Automated People Mover System (TRC Line) (CRRC Puzhen Bombardier Transportation Systems Limited and CRRC Nanjing Puzhen Co., Ltd. Joint Venture) |
Project Manager |
Hongdan Wei |
158 6180 9450 |
Environmental Officer |
Jasmine Tso |
5968 6926 |
|
Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works (Niigata Transys Co., Ltd.) |
Project Manager |
Kunihiro Tatecho |
9755 0351 |
Environmental Officer |
Yolanda Gao |
5399 3509 |
|
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium) |
Project Manager |
K C Ho |
9272 9626 |
Environmental Officer |
Eric Ha |
9215 3432 |
Construction Support (Facilities):
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3721 Construction Support Infrastructure Works (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.) |
Site Agent |
Thomas Lui |
9011 5340 |
Environmental Officer |
Xavier Lam |
9493 2944 |
|
Contract 3722 Western Support Area – Construction Support Facilities (Tapbo Construction Company Limited and Konwo Modular House Limited Joint Venture) |
Deputy Project Director |
Philip Kong |
9049 3161 |
Environmental Officer |
Sampson Lo |
9752 9118 |
Airport Support Infrastructure:
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 |
Federick Wong |
9842 2703 |
|
Contract 3802 APM and BHS Tunnels and Related Works (Gammon Construction Limited) |
Project Director |
John Adams |
6111 6989 |
Environmental Officer |
Andy Leung |
9489 0035 |
Construction Support (Services / Licences):
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Contract 3901A Concrete Batching Facility (K. Wah Concrete Company Limited) |
Project Manager |
Benedict Wong |
9553 2806 |
Environmental Officer |
C P Fung |
9874 2872 |
|
Contract 3901B Concrete Batching Facility (Gammon Construction Limited) |
Senior Project Manager |
Gabriel Chan |
2435 3260 |
Environmental Officer |
Rex Wong |
2695 6319 |
The contact information for
the Project is provided in Table 1.2. The public can contact us
through the following channels if they have any queries and comments on the
environmental monitoring data and project related information.
Table
1.2: Contact Information of the Project
Channels |
Contact Information |
Hotline |
3908 0354 |
|
|
Fax |
3747 6050 |
Postal Address |
Airport Authority Hong Kong HKIA Tower 1 Sky Plaza Road Hong Kong International Airport Lantau Hong Kong Attn: Environmental Team Leader Mr Terence Kong c/o Mr Lawrence Tsui (TRD) |
The key activities of the Project carried out
in the reporting period included reclamation works and land-based works. Works
in the reclamation areas included DCM works, marine filling, seawall
and facilities construction, together with runway and associated works.
Land-based works on existing airport island involved mainly airfield works,
foundation and substructure work for Terminal 2 expansion, modification and
tunnel work for APM and BHS systems, and preparation work for utilities, with
activities include site establishment, site office construction, road and
drainage works, cable ducting, demolition of existing facilities, piling, and
excavation works.
The locations of the key construction
activities are presented in Figure 1.1.
The status
for all environmental aspects is presented in Table 1.3. The EM&A requirements
remained unchanged during the reporting period.
Table
1.3: Summary of
Status for All Environmental Aspects under the Updated EM&A Manual
Parameters |
EM&A Requirements |
Status |
Air Quality |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
At least 14 consecutive days before commencement of construction work |
The baseline air quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
Impact Monitoring |
At least 3 times every 6 days |
On-going |
Noise |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
Daily for a period of at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction works |
The baseline noise monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
Impact Monitoring |
Weekly |
On-going |
Water Quality |
|
|
General Baseline Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works |
Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, for at least four weeks prior to the commencement of marine 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 |
Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides. |
On-going |
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring |
At least four weeks |
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 |
Three times per week until completion of DCM works. |
On-going |
Sewerage and Sewage Treatment |
||
Methodology for carrying out annual sewage flow monitoring for concerned gravity sewer |
Methodology to be prepared and submitted to EPD at least one year before commencement of the operation of 3RS |
To be prepared and submitted to EPD |
Details of the routine H2S monitoring system for the sewerage system of 3RS |
Details to be prepared and submitted to EPD at least one year before commencement of the operation of 3RS |
To be prepared and submitted to EPD |
Waste Management |
|
|
Waste Monitoring |
At least weekly |
On-going |
Land Contamination |
|
|
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) |
At least 3 months before commencement of any soil remediation works. |
The Supplementary CAP was submitted and approved by EPD pursuant to EP condition 2.20. |
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) |
CAR to be submitted for golf course |
The CAR for Golf Course was submitted to EPD. |
CAR to be submitted for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply Systems
|
The CARs for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply System Nos. 1 (Volumes 1 and 2), 2, 3, and 5 were submitted to EPD. |
|
Terrestrial Ecology |
|
|
Pre-construction Egretry Survey Plan |
Once per month in the breeding season between April and July, prior to the commencement of HDD drilling works. |
The Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14. |
Ecological Monitoring |
Monthly monitoring during the HDD construction works period from August to March. |
The terrestrial ecological monitoring at Sheung Sha Chau was completed in January 2019. |
Marine Ecology |
|
|
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey |
Prior to marine construction works |
The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12. |
Coral Translocation |
- |
The coral translocation was completed on 5 January 2017. |
Post-translocation Monitoring |
As per an enhanced monitoring programme based on the Coral Translocation Plan |
The post-translocation monitoring programme according to the Coral Translocation Plan was completed in April 2018. |
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD) |
|
|
Baseline Monitoring |
6 months of baseline surveys before the commencement of land formation related construction works. Vessel line transect surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking surveys: Two days per month at the Sha Chau station and two days per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station; and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): For the whole duration of baseline period. |
Baseline CWD results were reported in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD in accordance with EP Condition 3.4. |
Impact Monitoring |
Vessel line transect surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking surveys: One day per month at the Sha Chau station and one day per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station; and PAM: For the whole duration for land formation related construction works. |
On-going |
Landscape and Visual |
|
|
Landscape and Visual Plan |
At least 3 months before the commencement of construction works on the formed land of the Project. |
The Landscape & Visual Plan was submitted to EPD under EP Condition 2.18 |
Baseline Monitoring |
One-off survey within the Project site boundary prior to commencement of any construction works |
The baseline landscape & visual monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4. |
Impact Monitoring |
Weekly |
On-going |
Environmental Auditing |
|
|
Regular site inspection |
Weekly |
On-going |
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures |
Monitor and check |
On-going |
Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan implementation measures |
Monitor and check |
On-going |
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures |
Monitor and check |
On-going |
Construction and Associated Vessels implementation measures |
Monitor and check |
On-going |
Complaint Hotline and Email Channel |
Construction phase |
On-going |
Environmental Log Book |
Construction phase |
On-going |
Taking into account the construction works in the
reporting period, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste
management, landscape & visual, and CWD were carried out in the reporting
period.
The EM&A programme also involved weekly
site inspections and related auditing conducted by ET for the checking of implementation
of 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 summarised as below:
● Seven skipper trainings provided by ET;
● Two dolphin observer training sessions provided
by ET;
● One environmental briefing on EP and EM&A
requirements of the 3RS provided by ET; and
● Forty-five environmental management meetings
for EM&A review with works contracts.
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
.
Impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was
conducted three times every six days at two representative monitoring stations
during the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are
described in Table 2.1 and presented in Figure 2.1.
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 2.1 for
reference.
Table 2.1: Impact Air Quality Monitoring
Stations
Monitoring Station |
Location |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
AR1A |
Man Tung Road Park |
306 |
500 |
AR2 |
Village House at Tin Sum |
298 |
The air quality monitoring results
in the reporting period are summarised in Table 2.2 and the graphical
plot is presented in Appendix C.
Table 2.2: Percentage of Air Quality
Monitoring Results within Action and Limit Levels
|
AR1A |
AR2 |
Jul 2020 |
100% |
100% |
Aug 2020 |
100% |
100% |
Sep 2020 |
100% |
100% |
Overall |
100% |
100% |
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels by the total number of monitoring results. |
All monitoring results were
within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels at all monitoring stations
in the reporting period.
General meteorological
conditions in the last month of the previous quarter and this reporting period
were recorded and summarised in Table
2.3.
Table 2.3: General Meteorological Condition
during Impact Air Quality Monitoring
|
Weather |
Dominant Wind Direction |
Jun 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Southwest |
Jul 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Southwest |
Aug 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Southeast |
Sep 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Southeast |
No dust emission source was observed at the
monitoring stations during the monitoring sessions. As the sensitive receivers
were far away from the construction activities, with the implementation of dust
control measures, there was no adverse impact at the sensitive receivers
attributable to the works of the Project.
Impact noise monitoring was
conducted at four representative monitoring stations once per week during 0700
and 1900 in the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are
described in Table 2.4 and presented in Figure 2.1.
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
2.4 for reference.
Table 2.4: Impact Noise Monitoring Stations
Monitoring Station |
Location |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
NM1A |
Man Tung Road Park |
When one documented complaint is received from any one of the sensitive receivers |
75 dB(A) |
NM4 |
Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School |
65dB(A) / 70 dB(A) (i) |
|
NM5 |
Village House in Tin Sum |
75 dB(A) |
|
NM6 |
House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan |
75 dB(A) |
|
Note: (i) The Limit Level for NM4 is reduced to 70dB(A) for being an educational institution. During school examination period, the Limit Level is further reduced to 65dB(A). |
The noise monitoring results in the reporting
period are summarised in Table
2.5 and the graphical
plot is presented in Appendix C.
Table 2.5: Percentage of Noise Monitoring
Results within Action and Limit Levels
|
NM1A |
NM4 |
NM5 |
NM6 |
Jul 2020 |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Aug 2020 |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Sep 2020 |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Overall |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels by the total number of monitoring results. |
No complaints were received from any sensitive
receiver that triggered the Action Level. All monitoring results were also
within the corresponding Limit Levels at all monitoring stations in the
reporting period.
General meteorological conditions in the last
month of the previous quarter and this reporting period were recorded and
summarised in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: General Meteorological Condition during
Impact Noise Monitoring
|
Weather |
Jun 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Jul 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Aug 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Sep 2020 |
Sunny to Cloudy |
Major sources of noise dominating the
monitoring stations observed during the construction noise impact monitoring
were traffic noise near NM1A and aircraft noise near NM6. As the sensitive receivers
were far away from the construction activities, with the implementation of
noise control measures, there was no adverse impact at the sensitive receivers
attributable to the works of the Project.
During the reporting period, water quality
monitoring was conducted three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides,
at a total of 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact (IM)
stations, 8 sensitive receiver (SR) stations, and 3 control (C) stations in the
vicinity of the water quality sensitive receivers around the existing 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 impacts
from the Project before the impacts could become apparent at sensitive
receivers (represented by the SR stations). Table 2.7 describes the details of the
monitoring stations. Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the
monitoring stations.
Table 2.7: Monitoring Locations and
Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring
Description |
Coordinates Easting Northing |
Parameters |
||
|
|
|||
C1 |
Control Station |
804247 |
815620 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals(2) |
C2 |
Control Station |
806945 |
825682 |
|
C3(3) |
Control Station |
817803 |
822109 |
|
IM1 |
Impact Station |
807132 |
817949 |
|
IM2 |
Impact Station |
806166 |
818163 |
|
IM3 |
Impact Station |
805594 |
818784 |
|
IM4 |
Impact Station |
804607 |
819725 |
|
IM5 |
Impact Station |
804867 |
820735 |
|
IM6 |
Impact Station |
805828 |
821060 |
|
IM7 |
Impact Station |
806835 |
821349 |
|
IM8 |
Impact Station |
808140 |
821830 |
|
IM9 |
Impact Station |
808811 |
822094 |
|
IM10 |
Impact Station |
809794 |
822385 |
|
IM11 |
Impact Station |
811460 |
822057 |
|
IM12 |
Impact Station |
812046 |
821459 |
|
SR1A(1) |
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling |
812660
|
819977 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS |
SR2(3) |
Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To |
814166 |
821463 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals(2)(4) |
SR3 |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau |
807571 |
822147 |
General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
|
SR4A |
Sha Lo Wan |
807810 |
817189 |
|
SR5A |
San Tau Beach SSSI |
810696 |
816593 |
|
SR6A(5) |
Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI |
814739 |
817963 |
|
SR7 |
Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ) |
823742 |
823636 |
|
SR8(6) |
Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East) |
811623 |
820390 |
Notes:
(1)
With the operation of
HKBCF, water quality monitoring at SR1A station was commenced on 25 October
2018.
(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) As the
access to SR6 was obstructed by the construction activities and temporary
structures for Tung Chung New Town Extension, the monitoring location has been
relocated to SR6A starting from 8 August 2019.
(6) The
monitoring location for SR8 is subject to further changes due to silt curtain
arrangements and the progressive relocation of this seawater intake.
The Action and Limit Levels for general water
quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring stipulated in the EM&A
programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures
under the programme are presented in Table 2.8. The control and IM stations
during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular
DCM monitoring are presented in Table
2.9.
Table 2.8: Action and Limit Levels for
General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring
Parameters |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
||
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring (excluding SR1A & SR8) |
||||
DO in mg/l (Surface, Middle & Bottom) |
Surface and Middle 4.5 mg/l |
Surface and Middle 4.1 mg/l 5 mg/l for Fish Culture Zone (SR7) only |
||
Bottom 3.4 mg/l |
Bottom 2.7 mg/l |
|||
SS in mg/l |
23 |
or 120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher |
37 |
or 130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher |
Turbidity in NTU |
22.6 |
36.1 |
||
Total Alkalinity in ppm |
95 |
99 |
||
Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Chromium) |
0.2 |
0.2 |
||
Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Nickel) |
3.2 |
|
3.6 |
|
Action and Limit Levels SR1A |
|
|
|
|
SS (mg/l) |
33 |
42 |
||
Action and Limit Levels SR8 |
|
|
|
|
SS (mg/l) |
52 |
|
60 |
|
Notes:
1. For DO measurement, Action or Limit Level is triggered when monitoring
result is lower than the limits.
2. For parameters other than DO, Action or Limit Level of water quality
results is triggered 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
2.9: 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 |
SR21 |
IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A, SR6A, SR8 |
Ebb Tide |
|
C1 |
SR4A, SR5A, SR6A |
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.
The summary or results within their
corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.10. The
weather and sea conditions in the last month of the previous quarter and this
reporting period were recorded and summarised in Table 2.11.
Table 2.10: Percentage of Water Quality Monitoring
Results within Action and Limit Levels
|
General Water Quality Monitoring |
Regular DCM Monitoring |
|||||
DO (Surface and Middle) |
DO (Bottom) |
SS |
Turbidity |
Alkalinity |
Chromium |
Nickel |
|
Jul 2020 |
97.8% (445/455) |
97.1% (442/455) |
100% (507/507) |
100% (455/455) |
100% (312/312) |
100% (312/312) |
100% (312/312) |
Aug 2020 |
99.5% (418/420) |
98.8% (415/420) |
100% (468/468) |
100% (420/420) |
100% (288/288) |
100% (288/288) |
100% (288/288) |
Sep 2020 |
100% (438/438) |
100% (438/438) |
100% (488/488) |
100% (438/438) |
100% (300/300) |
100% (300/300) |
100% (300/300) |
Overall |
99.1% |
98.6% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of depth-averaged results complying with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels by the total number of depth-averaged results. |
Table 2.11: General Weather Condition and Sea
Condition during Impact Water Quality Monitoring
|
Weather |
Sea Condition |
Jun 2020 |
Sunny to Rainy |
Calm to Rough |
Jul 2020 |
Sunny to Rainy |
Calm to Rough |
Aug 2020 |
Sunny to Rainy |
Calm to Rough |
Sep 2020 |
Sunny to Rainy |
Calm to Rough |
The monitoring results for all parameters,
except DO, obtained during the reporting period were within their corresponding
Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant
investigation and follow-up actions will be conducted according to the EM&A
programme if the corresponding Action and Limit Levels are triggered.
For DO, some of the testing results triggered
the relevant Action or Limit Level in the reporting period, and investigations
were conducted accordingly. Summaries of results triggering Action or Limit
Level for DO are presented Table
2.12 to Table
2.15.
Details of the investigation findings were
presented in Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report Nos. 55 and 56, which
concluded that all results triggering the Action or Limit Level were not
related to the Project.
Table 2.12: Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Results
triggering Action or Limit Level (Mid-Ebb Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6A |
SR7 |
|
21/07/2020 |
|
D |
D |
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D |
|
|
|
15/08/2020 |
|
|
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of result triggering Action or Limit Level |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 2.13: Summary of DO (Bottom) Results
triggering Action or Limit Level (Mid-Ebb Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR2 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6A |
SR7 |
|
16/07/2020 |
|
D |
D |
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18/07/2020 |
D |
D |
D |
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D |
|
|
|
15/08/2020 |
D |
D |
D |
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D |
|
|
|
No. of result triggering Action or Limit Level |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 2.14: Summary of DO (Surface and Middle) Results
triggering Action or Limit Level (Mid-Flood Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6A |
SR7 |
|
21/07/2020 |
|
|
|
|
D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of result triggering Action or Limit Level |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Table 2.15: Summary of DO (Bottom) Results
triggering Action or Limit Level (Mid-Flood Tide)
IM1 |
IM2 |
IM3 |
IM4 |
IM5 |
IM6 |
IM7 |
IM8 |
IM9 |
IM10 |
IM11 |
IM12 |
SR3 |
SR4A |
SR5A |
SR6A |
SR7 |
|
16/07/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18/07/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21/07/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of result triggering Action or Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: The monitoring results
compiled with their corresponding Action or Limit Levels are presented in Appendix C.
Legend: |
|
|
Result within corresponding Action and Limit Levels |
|
Result triggered the Action Level at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
D |
Result triggered the Action Level at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
|
Result triggered the Limit Level at monitoring station located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow |
D |
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 |
|
Downstream station with respect to the Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow |
In the reporting period, it is noted that most
monitoring results were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels,
while only a minor number of results triggered their corresponding Action or
Limit Level, and investigations were conducted accordingly. Based on the
findings presented in Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report Nos. 55 and
56, all cases that triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Level were not
related to the Project. Hence, the Project did not introduce adverse impact to
all water quality sensitive receivers. All required actions under the Event and
Action Plan were followed.
Nevertheless, the non-project related triggers
were attended to and initiated corresponding action 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 inspections and regular environmental management meetings. These include
maintaining mitigation measures properly for reclamation works including DCM
works, marine filling, and seawall construction as recommended in the Manual.
In accordance with the Manual, waste generated
from construction activities was audited once per week to determine if wastes
were 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
2.16.
Table
2.16: 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 of the Project construction
works was carried out by the ET in the reporting period to check and monitor
the implementation of proper waste management practices.
Recommendations made by the ET 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. Waste management
audits were carried out by ET according to the requirement of the Waste
Management Plan, Updated EM&A Manual and the implementation schedule of the
waste management mitigation measures in Appendix B.
Based on updated contractors’ information,
summary of construction waste generated in the reporting period is presented in
Table 2.17.
Proactive measures have been undertaken during the re-configuration of T2
building. The contractor has established the recycling strategy for
C&D materials with proper planning and design to maximize recycling and
reuse. Dedicated recyclers were employed for different kinds of
recyclable materials by the contractor, and ET and IEC have carried out site
visit to recyclers’ facilities to review recycling process. Recycling
materials before leaving the site are weighted by a weight bridge and monitored
by CCTV system. Dedicated areas for sorting of materials are established on
site. Recyclable materials such as steel, reinforcement bar, structural steel,
aluminium, copper, other metals and glass are sorted
on-site and transported off-site for recycling. ET and IEC have carried out
site audits regularly and reviewed the trip ticket system.
Table 2.17: Construction Waste Statistics
|
C&D(1) Material Stockpiled for Reuse or Recycle (m3) |
C&D Material Reused in the Project (m3) |
C&D Material Reused in other Projects (m3) |
C&D Material Transferred to Public Fill(3) (m3) |
Chemical Waste (kg) |
Chemical Waste (l) |
General Refuse (tonne) |
Jul 2020(2) |
2,895 |
43,002 |
16 |
3,785 |
60 |
8,200 |
1,035 |
Aug 2020(2) |
6,005 |
70,022 |
0 |
2,735 |
0 |
1,400 |
1,224 |
Sep 2020(2) |
5,822 |
101,504 |
1,952 |
1,842 |
50 |
9,000 |
1,534 |
Total |
14,722 |
214,528 |
1,968 |
8,362 |
110 |
18,600 |
3,792 |
Notes: 1. C&D refers to Construction and Demolition. 2. Paper, metals and/or plastics were recycled in the reporting period. 3. C&D materials not suitable for reuse on-site, including asphalt waste and sediment slurry, were transferred to public fill during the reporting period. |
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.
Marine sediment is managed
according to the EIA Report, Updated EM&A Manual and Waste Management Plan
of the Project. The sampling process, storage conditions of the excavated
marine sediment, treatment process, final backfilling location as well as
associated records were inspected and checked by ET and verified by IEC to
ensure they were in compliance with the requirements as stipulated in the Waste
Management Plan.
Sampling works for marine sediment
generated from the reclaimed land area was on-going during the reporting
period.
CWD monitoring was conducted by
vessel line transect survey at a frequency of two full surveys per month,
supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking survey and PAM. The frequency of
the land-based theodolite tracking survey during the construction phase was one
day per month at both Sha Chau (SC) and Lung Kwu Chau
(LKC) stations, as stipulated in the Manual. The vessel survey transects
followed the transect lines proposed in the Manual and are consistent with those used
in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) long-term CWD
monitoring programme. The transect locations of CWD monitoring by vessel line
transect survey conducted from July to September 2020 are shown in Figure 2.3, whilst the land-based
theodolite tracking survey stations are described in Table 2.18 and depicted in Figure 2.4. The location of the PAM
device is shown in Figure 2.10.
Table 2.18:
Land-based Theodolite Tracking 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 |
The Action Level and Limit Level for CWD
monitoring were formulated by an action response approach using the running
quarterly dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) derived from baseline
monitoring data, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The
derived values of Action and Limit Levels for CWD monitoring are shown in Table 2.19.
Table 2.19: Derived Values of Action Level and
Limit Level for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring
|
NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole |
Action Level |
Running quarterly STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
Limit Level |
Two consecutive running quarterly (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35 |
Survey
Effort
During the July to September 2020
reporting period, a total of six sets of vessel line transect survey covering
all transects in Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West
Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) survey areas were conducted at a
frequency of twice per month, in each survey area.
A total of around 1,336 km of
survey effort was collected from these surveys, with around 92.8% 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 data are presented in Appendix C.
CWD
Sighting
From July to September 2020,
there were a total of 42 sightings of CWDs, with 176 dolphins sighted (Table 2.20). Amongst these sightings,
40 sightings with 164 dolphins were recorded during on-effort searches under favourable weather condition.
When breaking down the sightings
by survey areas, one sighting with 2 dolphins was recorded in NWL, 24 sightings
with 124 dolphins and 17 sightings with 50 dolphins were recorded in WL and SWL
survey areas respectively during the current reporting period. No CWD was
sighted in NEL survey area or on AW transects.
Compared with the last quarter
(i.e. April to June 2020), the total number of CWD sightings and the total
number of dolphins, as well as the breakdowns of these numbers by survey areas
remain similar in this quarter.
Compared with the same quarter of
last year in 2019 (i.e. July to September 2019), there is an obvious decline in
terms of both the total number of CWD sightings and the total number of
dolphins, by 39% and 38% respectively.
Table
2.20 below shows the
comparison of the numbers of sightings and dolphins amongst the current
reporting period, last quarter, and the same quarter of last year.
Table 2.20: Summary of Number of CWD Sightings and Number
of Dolphins for the Same Quarter Last Year, Previous Quarter, and Current
Reporting Period
|
Same Quarter of Last Year |
Previous Reporting Period |
Current Reporting Period |
|
July to September 2019 |
April to June 2020 |
July to September 2020 |
NEL |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
NWL |
3 (4) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
AW |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
WL |
41 (182) |
26 (121) |
24 (124) |
SWL |
25 (97) |
15 (57) |
17 (50) |
Total |
69 (283) |
41 (178) |
42 (176) |
Note: Values in ( ) represent number
of dolphins
The distribution of CWD sightings recorded from July to September 2020 is illustrated in Figure 2.5. In NWL, the CWD sighting was recorded north off the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park. In WL, most of the CWD sightings clustered at several locations including Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. In SWL, some dolphin sightings were scattered at waters west of the Soko Islands while others were clustered at Fan Lau. No CWD sightings were recorded in NEL or AW survey areas. Details of the sighting data are presented in Appendix C.
Figure 2.5: Sightings Distribution of Chinese White Dolphins from July to
September 2020
Remarks: (1)
Please note that there are 42 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 sighting
distribution map. (2) Marine park excludes land area and the landward boundary
generally follows the high water mark along the
coastline.
Encounter Rate
The dolphin encounter rates for
the number of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km survey effort (STG) and
for the total on-effort number of dolphins per 100 km survey effort (ANI) in
the whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) for July, August and
September 2020 are summarised in Table
2.21.
In this reporting period, both
the monthly and running quarterly STGs and ANIs declined drastically from July
to September. No Action
Level for CWD monitoring was triggered during the reporting period.
Compared with the previous
reporting period (i.e. April to June 2020), both the running quarterly STG and
ANI remain relatively steady. While comparing with the
same quarter of last year (i.e. July to September 2019), both the running
quarterly STG and ANI decrease significantly, from 5.36 to 3.23 and from 21.98
to 13.23 respectively. Encounter rates for these periods are summarised in Table 2.21 and graphical presentation is
provided in Appendix C.
Table 2.21: Summary of Monthly and Running
Quarterly STG and ANI of Chinese White Dolphin for the Same Quarter Last Year,
Previous Quarter, and Current Reporting Period
|
Same Quarter of Last Year |
Previous Reporting Period |
Current Reporting Period |
||||||
|
Jul 19 |
Aug 19 |
Sep 19 |
Apr 20 |
May 20 |
Jun 20 |
Jul 20 |
Aug 20 |
Sep 20 |
Monthly STG |
7.64 |
3.95 |
4.47 |
1.58 |
2.12 |
5.86 |
6.84 |
1.90 |
1.18 |
Monthly ANI |
31.72 |
16.50 |
17.63 |
6.77 |
13.91 |
21.47 |
28.62 |
7.59 |
4.48 |
Running Quarterly STG |
4.37 |
4.92 |
5.36 |
2.36 |
2.03 |
3.13 |
4.88 |
4.81 |
3.23 |
Running Quarterly ANI |
17.72 |
19.69 |
21.98 |
7.63 |
9.45 |
13.86 |
21.16 |
19.01 |
13.23 |
Note: For detailed calculations of
encounter rates STG and ANI for the current reporting period, please refer to
the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report Nos. 55, 56 and 57.
Group Size
Between July and September 2020,
the group size of CWD sightings ranged from 1 to 19 dolphins. The average group
size of CWDs was 4.2 dolphins per group, which is slightly smaller than that of
the last quarter (4.3 dolphins per group). The average group size of CWDs in
this reporting quarter is slightly larger than that of the same quarter of last
year (4.1 dolphins per group).
In this reporting quarter, the
number of CWD sightings with medium group size (i.e. 3-9 dolphins) was slightly
lower than that with small group size (i.e. 1-2 dolphins). There were four CWD
sightings with large group size (i.e. 10 or more dolphins) recorded in this
reporting period.
There were no distinct
distribution patterns of small-sized and medium-sized CWD groups observed in the
current reporting period. However, all large-sized CWD groups were recorded in
WL. Sighting locations of CWD groups with different group sizes are depicted in
Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6:
Sighting Locations of Chinese White Dolphins with Different Group Sizes
Remarks: (1) Please note that there are 42 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 sighting distribution map. (2)
Marine park excludes land area and the landward boundary generally follows the high water mark along the coastline.
Activities and Association with Fishing Boats
From July to September 2020, 10
sightings of CWDs were recorded with feeding activities. Amongst these
sightings, one was observed in association with operating purse seiner.
The number of sightings with
feeding recorded in the current reporting period is slightly lower than that in
the previous reporting period (i.e. 11 sightings involved feeding activities in
which four sightings associated with fishing boat between April and June 2020).
The number of CWD sightings with feeding activities is lower than that in the
same quarter of last year (i.e. 18 sightings between July and September 2019).
The sighting locations of CWDs
engaged in different behaviours during the current
reporting period are illustrated in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7: Sighting Locations of Chinese
White Dolphins Engaged in Different Behaviours
Remarks: Marine park excludes land area and the
landward boundary generally follows the high water
mark along the coastline.
Mother-calf Pairs
From July to September 2020, 11
sightings of CWDs were recorded with the presence of mother-and-unspotted calf
and/or mother-and-unspotted juvenile pair, which is more than that recorded in
the previous reporting quarter (i.e. seven sightings in April to June 2020).
The number is the same as that recorded in the same quarter of last year (i.e.
11 sightings in July to September 2019). All these sightings were recorded in
WL except one recorded in SWL.
The locations of CWD sightings
with the presence of mother-and-calf and/or mother-and-unspotted juvenile are
shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: Sighting Locations of Mother-calf
Pairs
Remarks: (1)
Please note that there are 11 circles on the map indicating the sighting
locations of Mother-Calf pair. (2) Marine park excludes land area and the
landward boundary generally follows the high water
mark along the coastline.
Photo Identification
During July to September 2020, a total number
of 77 different CWD individuals were identified altogether for 110 times.
Re-sighting information of CWD individuals provides an initial idea of their
range use and apparent connection between different areas of Lantau waters.
Amongst these 77 different CWD individuals, 25 animals (i.e. NLMM023, NLMM037,
NLMM052, NLMM060, SLMM003, SLMM007, SLMM010, SLMM012, SLMM014, SLMM025,
SLMM037, SLMM049, SLMM052, SLMM060, SLMM062, WLMM001, WLMM008, WLMM009,
WLMM030, WLMM079, WLMM085, WLMM091, WLMM092, WLMM131 and WLMM147) were sighted
for more than once.
Eleven individuals including NLMM052, SLMM003,
SLMM012, SLMM025, SLMM037, SLMM049, WLMM008, WLMM009, WLMM079, WLMM131 and
WLMM147 were re-sighted in different survey areas during this reporting period.
All cross-area movements were between WL and SWL survey areas. The most
frequently re-sighted individual in this reporting quarter was WLMM079 which
has been encountered altogether for five times. The number of CWD individuals
re-sighted more than once and the number of CWD individuals showing cross-area
movement in the current reporting period are both lower than those of the
previous reporting quarter from April to June 2020 (34 and 14 individuals
respectively).
A summary of photo identification
works is presented in Table 2.22.
Representative photos of the 77 identified individuals and figures depicting
the sighting locations of the aforementioned 25 re-sighted individuals recorded
in this reporting period are presented Appendix C.
Table 2.22: Summary of Photo Identification
Individual ID |
Date of sighting |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
|
Individual |
Date of sighting |
Sighting Group No. |
Area |
NLMM012 |
13-Jul-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM019 |
22-Jul-20 |
1 |
NWL |
NLMM013 |
13-Jul-20 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM028 |
20-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
NLMM015 |
15-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM029 |
20-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
NLMM019 |
20-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM030 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
NLMM020 |
06-Jul-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
13-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
NLMM023 |
09-Sep-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM038 |
13-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
15-Sep-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM043 |
13-Jul-20 |
5 |
WL |
|
NLMM027 |
20-Jul-20 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM047 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
NLMM034 |
13-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM056 |
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
NLMM037 |
20-Jul-20 |
8 |
SWL |
|
WLMM060 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
9 |
SWL |
|
WLMM062 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
||
NLMM039 |
07-Aug-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM063 |
21-Jul-20 |
3 |
SWL |
NLMM043 |
09-Sep-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM068 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
NLMM052 |
13-Jul-20 |
5 |
WL |
|
WLMM071 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
21-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
WLMM073 |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
NLMM060 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM079 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
|
20-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
NLMM063 |
22-Jul-20 |
1 |
NWL |
|
|
21-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
SLMM003 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
|
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
21-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
|
|
15-Sep-20 |
3 |
WL |
|
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM080 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
15-Sep-20 |
3 |
WL |
|
WLMM085 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
SLMM007 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
|
|
7 |
WL |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM086 |
13-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
||
SLMM010 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM089 |
13-Jul-20 |
5 |
WL |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM091 |
13-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
SLMM012 |
21-Jul-20 |
2 |
SWL |
|
|
|
3 |
WL |
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM092 |
13-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
SLMM014 |
06-Jul-20 |
3 |
WL |
|
|
|
3 |
WL |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM095 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
SLMM025 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM098 |
13-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
20-Jul-20 |
3 |
SWL |
|
WLMM102 |
06-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
SLMM027 |
21-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
WLMM103 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
SLMM037 |
20-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
WLMM107 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM109 |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
SLMM045 |
15-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM112 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
SLMM049 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM122 |
21-Jul-20 |
7 |
SWL |
20-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
WLMM131 |
07-Aug-20 |
3 |
WL |
|
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
10-Aug-20 |
2 |
SWL |
||
SLMM052 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
3 |
SWL |
||
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM133 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
SLMM060 |
20-Jul-20 |
1 |
SWL |
|
WLMM136 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
21-Jul-20 |
7 |
SWL |
|
WLMM147 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
SLMM062 |
20-Jul-20 |
3 |
SWL |
|
|
20-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
21-Jul-20 |
2 |
SWL |
|
|
21-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
|
SLMM070 |
21-Jul-20 |
2 |
SWL |
|
WLMM149 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
SLMM072 |
09-Sep-20 |
2 |
WL |
|
WLMM154 |
06-Jul-20 |
2 |
WL |
WLMM001 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM155 |
13-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM156 |
13-Jul-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM007 |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM157 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
WLMM008 |
21-Jul-20 |
5 |
SWL |
|
WLMM158 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
|
WLMM159 |
13-Jul-20 |
7 |
WL |
|
WLMM009 |
13-Jul-20 |
6 |
WL |
|
WLMM160 |
07-Aug-20 |
4 |
WL |
20-Jul-20 |
4 |
SWL |
|
WLMM161 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
|
WLMM013 |
15-Sep-20 |
1 |
WL |
WLMM162 |
17-Aug-20 |
1 |
WL |
Survey Effort
During July to September 2020, a
total of six days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort were
completed, including three days on Lung Kwu Chau and
three days on Sha Chau. In total, two CWD groups were tracked from the Lung Kwu Chau station while no CWD groups were tracked from the
Sha Chau station, with an overall 0.06 CWD groups sighted per survey hour.
Information on survey effort and
CWD groups sighted during land-based theodolite tracking surveys are presented
in Table 2.23. Details on the survey
effort and CWD groups tracked are presented in Appendix C. The first sighting locations
of CWD groups tracked between July and September 2020 are shown in Figure 2.9.
Table 2.23: Summary of Survey Effort and CWD Group of
Land-based Theodolite Tracking Survey
Land-based Station |
# of Survey Sessions |
Survey Effort (hh:mm) |
# CWD Groups Sighted |
CWD Group Sighting per Survey Hour |
July 2020 |
||||
Lung Kwu Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
0 |
0 |
Sha Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
2 |
12:00 |
0 |
0 |
August 2020 |
||||
Lung Kwu Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
2 |
0.33 |
Sha Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
2 |
12:00 |
2 |
0.17 |
September 2020 |
||||
Lung Kwu Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
0 |
0 |
Sha Chau |
1 |
06:00 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
2 |
12:00 |
0 |
0 |
OVERALL |
6 |
36:00 |
2 |
0.06 |
Figure 2.9: Plots
of First Sightings of All CWD Groups from Land-based Stations
Remark:
Marine park excludes land area and the landward boundary generally follows the high water mark along the coastline.
An Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) has been
deployed and positioned to the south of Sha Chau Island inside the SCLKCMP (Figure 2.10) with 20% duty cycle, while data
from the EAR intended primarily to supplement the data collected from the
land-based theodolite tracking survey station on Sha Chau. In this reporting
period, the EAR has been retrieved on 22 July and 3 September 2020 for data
collection and subsequently redeployed. The EAR deployment is generally for 6
weeks prior to data retrieval for analysis. As the period of data collection
and analysis takes more than four months, PAM results could not be reported in
quarterly intervals but report for supplementing the annual CWD monitoring
analysis.
During the reporting period, silt
curtains were in place by the contractors for marine filling works (similar to the previous reporting period), in which dolphin
observers were deployed by each contractor in accordance with the Marine Mammal
Watching Plan (MMWP). Teams of at least two dolphin observers were deployed at
2 to 6 dolphin observation stations by the contractors for continuous
monitoring of the DEZ by all contractors for DCM works and seawall construction
that were similar to the previous reporting period 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 698 individuals being trained and the
training records were kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation
records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were
observed within or around the silt curtains or the DEZ in this reporting
period. The contractors’ records were also audited by the ET during site
inspection.
Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction
vessels were carried out during weekly site inspection and summarised in Section 2.6.
Summary of audits of SkyPier HSFs route diversion and
speed control and construction vessel management are presented in Section 2.7
and Section 2.8
respectively.
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.
Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Besides, ad-hoc
site inspections were conducted by ET and IEC if environmental problems were
identified, or subsequent to receipt of an environmental complaint, or as part
of the investigation work. These site inspections provided a direct means to
reinforce the specified environmental protection requirements and pollution
control measures in construction sites.
During site inspections, environmental
situation, status of implementation of pollution control and mitigation
measures were observed. Environmental documents and site records, including
waste disposal record, maintenance record of environmental equipment, and
relevant environmental permit and licences, were also checked on-site. Observations
were recorded in the site inspection checklist and passed to the contractor
together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary in order to
advise contractors on environmental improvement, awareness and on-site
enhancement measures. The observations were made with reference to the following information
during the site inspections:
· The EIA and EM&A requirements;
· Relevant environmental protection
laws, guidelines, and practice notes;
· The EP conditions and other
submissions under the EP;
· Monitoring results of EM&A programme;
· Works progress and programme;
· Proposal of individual works;
· Contract specifications on
environmental protection; and
· Previous site inspection results.
Good site practices were implemented in the
project to enhance environmental performance. Key examples are highlighted as
below:
1. Wasted lead acid batteries dismantled from APM
trains were collected for recycling by a battery recycler to save the landfill
space, eliminate the risk of pollution to the environment, and minimize the
wastage.
2. Expired safety helmets were collected and
delivered to a local recycler to facilitate the recovery of plastic.
3. Dust suppression control management plan for
the new reclaimed land area was devised which consisted of the travelling of
water browsers along the designated vehicle travelling routes, and
establishment of water mist canon for the dust suppression during the handling
of construction materials.
|
|
|
Wasted lead acid batteries recycling via local battery recycler |
Plastic waste recovery from the expired safety helmets |
Dust suppression control management plan |
Besides, advices 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 organised for the construction workforce
by the contractors to ensure understanding and proper implementation of
environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures.
Implementation of applicable landscape and
visual mitigation measures (reference to the environmental protection measures
CM1 – CM10 in Appendix B) is monitored regularly in accordance with the Manual. The
implementation status of the environmental protection measures is summarised
below in Table 2.24. For trees which were managed by the Project
during the reporting period, relevant measures have been implemented by
Contracts 3302, 3503, 3602 and 3801. Contracts 3508 and 3802 would begin to
undertake tree management measures subject to the handover of site area
(Contract 3508: Q2 2021 (tentative); Contract 3802: to be confirmed).
Those trees which were within the Project boundary yet to be taken care by
existing 3RS Contractors during the reporting period were managed by AAHK. It should be noted that the Hong Kong Observatory issued the
No 3 and No 9 typhoon signals when Tropical Storm Sinlaku
and Typhoon Higos hit Hong Kong on 1 and 18 August
2020 respectively during the reporting period. The third wave of COVID – 19
epidemics has impacted Hong Kong during the reporting period. A land parcel
with trees were removed as the land was acquired by the government for
construction of temporary emergency hospital to handle COVID-19 pandemic, and is now no longer under the management of the
Project.
The total number of retained trees
of the Project as of September 2020 was 147. Compared to 228 retained trees
reported in the previous reporting quarter, the change in number was due to the
following reasons:
·
Trees near
Airport North Interchange were collapsed due to adverse weather from the two
typhoons mentioned above (-4 nos.);
·
A land
parcel with 14 retained trees was acquired by the government for construction
of emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AsiaWorld-Expo,
and is no longer managed by the Project (-14 nos);
·
Contractor’s
initial tree survey covered some areas which recently confirmed not to be works
areas and therefore excluded from the Project area. Trees located in those
areas were removed from the retained tree list under the Project (-72 nos.);
and
·
ET and
contractor’s recent on-site inspections confirmed that the status of 9 nos. of
trees near the ANI should be retained trees (+9 nos.).
The total number of transplanted
trees of the Project as of September 2020 was 5 which is 3 number less when
compared to previous reporting quarter. The reasons that the 3
transplanted trees were removed are listed below (also shown in Table 2.26):
·
A tree near
Chek Lap Kok South Road
Interchange (establishment period completed and was in maintenance period) was
collapsed due to adverse weather from Typhoon Higos
(-1 no.); and
·
A land
parcel with 2 transplanted trees (establishment period completed and was in
maintenance period) was acquired by the government for the construction of
emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AsiaWorld-Expo
(AWE), and is no longer managed by the Project (-2 nos).
The trees were later felled.
Details of the retained trees, transplanted
trees and to-be-transplanted trees under the Project are summarized in Table 2.25. Photos of retained, transplanted and
to-be-transplanted trees are presented in Appendix
C.
Table 2.24: Landscape and Visual –
Construction Phase Audit Summary
Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures during Construction Implementation Status |
Implementation Status |
Relevant Contract(s) in the Reporting Period |
CM1- The construction area and contractor’s temporary works areas shall be minimised to avoid impacts on adjacent landscape. |
The implementation of mitigation measures were checked by ET during weekly site inspection and clarified by the Contractors during the monthly Environmental Management Meetings. Implementation of the measures CM5, CM6 and CM7 by Contractors was observed. |
3RS Project contracts |
CM2 – Reduction of construction period to practical minimum. |
||
CM3 – Phasing of the construction stage to reduce visual impacts during the construction phase. |
||
CM4 – Construction traffic (land and sea) including construction plants, construction vessels and barges shall be kept to a practical minimum. |
||
CM5 – Erection of decorative mesh screens or construction hoardings around works areas in visually unobtrusive colours. |
||
CM6 – Avoidance of excessive height and bulk of site buildings and structures |
||
CM7 – Control of night-time lighting by hooding all lights and through minimisation of night working periods |
||
CM8 – All existing trees shall be carefully protected during construction. Detailed Tree Protection Specification shall be provided in the Contract Specification. Under this specification, the Contractor shall be required to submit, for approval, a detailed working method statement for the protection of trees prior to undertaking any works adjacent to all retained trees, including trees in contractor’s works areas |
Tree Protection Specifications have been provided in the relevant Contract Specifications respectively for implementation by the Contractors under the Project.
The Contractors’ performance on the implementation of the trees maintenance and protection measures were observed and checked by the ET weekly during construction period.
The cumulative total number of retained trees under the 3RS Project in the reporting period was updated to be 147. |
3302, 3503, 3602, 3801
3508 (To be implemented) |
CM9 – Trees unavoidably affected by the works shall be transplanted where practical. A detailed Tree Transplanting Specification shall be provided in the Contract Specification, if applicable. Sufficient time for necessary tree root and crown preparation periods shall be allowed in the project programme |
Tree Transplanting Specifications have been provided in the relevant Contract Specifications respectively for implementation by the Contractors under the Project where trees will unavoidably be affected by the construction works.
The Contractors were required to submit Method Statements for tree transplanting prior to the transplanting works. Tree inspections were conducted by ET to check the tree transplanting works implemented by the Contractors on site. The cumulative total number of transplanted trees under the Project was five. Details of the transplanted trees are presented in Table 2.26.
The Contractors’ performance on the implementation of trees maintenance and protection measures on transplanted trees were observed and checked by the ET bi-monthly during the 12-month establishment period respectively.
Long-term management of the transplanted trees were monitored by ET annually during the first 10 years after the establishment period. |
3503, 3801
3508 (To be implemented) |
CM 10 – Land formation works shall be followed with advanced hydroseeding around taxiways and runways as soon as practical |
To be implemented around taxiways and runways as soon as practicable. |
To be implemented |
Table 2.25: Summary of the Number of Retained,
Transplanted and To-be-transplanted Trees in the Reporting Period
Existing |
|
|
|
|
Contract |
Retained (nos.) |
Transplanted (nos.) |
To-be-transplanted (nos.) |
|
Establishment Period |
Maintenance Period |
|||
3302 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3503 |
19 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
3602 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3801 |
117 |
0 |
5(1) |
0 |
Sub-total |
147 |
3 |
5(1) |
6 |
Provisional |
|
|
|
|
Contract |
Retained (nos.) |
Transplanted (nos.) |
To-be-transplanted (nos.) |
|
3508(2) |
155 |
0 |
22 |
|
Sub-total |
155 |
0 |
22 |
|
Grand Total |
302 |
5 |
28 |
Notes:
(1) CT1253 and
CT276 were handed over to Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station (SLPS) in
Jun 2019. Another 3 transplanted trees (CT1194, CT1794 and CT1795) were
subsequently fell after transplantation. Please refer Table 2.26 for
details.
(2) Actual tree
number is subject to confirmation after initial tree survey is conducted by the
Contractor.
Table 2.26: Summary of the Transplanted Trees
Updated in the Reporting Period
Tree ID |
Transplant Date |
Management Stage |
Management Agency |
Remarks |
CT276
|
3 May 2018
|
Establisment period 4 May 2018 – May 2019 |
Contract 3801 |
NA
|
Maintenance period Jun 2019 – May
2028 |
Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station |
|||
CT1253
|
4 May 2018
|
Establisment period 5 May 2018 –
May 2019 |
Contract 3801 |
|
Maintenance period Jun 2019 –
May 2028 |
Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station |
|||
T835 |
22 Jan 2020 |
Establishment period 23 Jan 2020 –
Jan 2021 |
Contract 3503 |
NA |
T836 |
13 Dec 2019 |
Establishment period 14 Dec 2020 –
Jan 2021 |
Contract 3503 |
|
T838 |
22 Jan 2020 |
Establishment period 23 Jan 2020 –
Jan 2021 |
Contract 3503 |
|
CT1194 |
4 May 2018 |
Establishment period 5 May 2018 –
May 2019 |
Contract 3801 |
Uprooted and collapsed due to damage by Typhoon Higos on 18 Aug 2020. Tree removal was conducted as recommended by Contractor’s tree specialist. |
Maintenance period Jun 2019 –
May 2028 |
Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station |
|||
CT1794 |
3 May 2018 |
Establishment period 4 May 2018 –
May 2019 |
Contract 3801 |
The tree within the land parcel was acquired by the government for construction of emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AWE. The tree was fell. |
Maintenance period Jun 2019 –
May 2028 |
AWE |
|||
CT1795 |
3 May 2018 |
Establishment period 4 May 2018 –
May 2019 |
Contract 3801 |
The tree within the land parcel was acquired by the government for construction of emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AWE. The tree was fell. |
Maintenance period Jun 2019 –
May 2028 |
AWE |
The Supplementary CAP was submitted
to EPD pursuant to EP Condition 2.20. The CARs for Golf Course and T2 Emergency
Power Supply System Nos.1 (Volumes 1 and 2), 2, 3, and 5 were submitted to EPD
in accordance with EP Condition 1.9 and the Supplementary CAP in which no land
contamination issues were identified.
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.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all SkyPier HSF services have been suspended from 25 March 2020
until further notice. Special ferry service between Macau and Hong Kong
International Airport was arranged from 17 June 2020 to 16 July 2020. In total, 64
ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Macau were
audited in the reporting period. The daily movements of all SkyPier
HSFs in the reporting period ranged between 0 and 4, which fell within the
maximum daily cap number of 125.
The average speeds of
all HSFs travelling through the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) ranged from 10.6 to
13.4 knots. All HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speed within 15
knots in compliance with the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High
Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier
Plan). The summary of the SkyPier
Plan monitoring result is presented in Graph
1.
Insufficient AIS data
cases were received from some HSFs during the reporting period. After
investigation, it was found that AIS data for the concerned ferries were
missing due to signal interference as reported by the ferry operators after
checking the condition of the AIS transponders. Vessel captains were requested
to provide the radar track photos which indicated the vessels entered the SCZ
through the gate access points and there was no speeding in the SCZ. Ferry
operators’ explanations were accepted.
Graph 1: Summary of SkyPier
High Speed Ferries Monitoring Results
In addition, the dolphin habitat
index was reviewed based on AFCD latest marine mammals monitoring report
findings and historical dolphin density records, and the grids for dolphin
hotspot remain unchanged. AAHK will continue to implement the SkyPier HSF route diversion and speed restriction according
to the approved SkyPier Plan.
On the implementation of the updated Marine Travel Routes and Management
Plan for Construction and Associated Vessels (MTRMP-CAV), the Maritime Surveillance System (MSS) automatically recorded deviation
cases such as speeding, entering no entry zone, and not traveling through the
designated gates. ET conducted bi-weekly audit of
relevant information including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant
records to ensure sufficient information were provided by the system and the
contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The contactors
submitted 3-month rolling vessel plans for construction vessel activities to
AAHK in order to help maintain the number of construction vessels to a
practicable minimum. The IEC also performed audit on the compliance of the
requirements as part of the EM&A programme.
During the reporting
period, deviations including speeding within the works area, entry from
non-designated gates, and entering no-entry zones were identified. After
investigation by the contractor’s Marine Traffic Control Centre (MTCC)
representatives, all the concerned captains were reminded to comply with the
requirements of the MTRMP-CAV.
A total of 7 skipper training workshops were
held by ET during the reporting period and 35
concerned captains of construction vessels associated with the 3RS contracts
were trained to familiarise them with the
predefined routes, general education on local cetaceans, guidelines for
avoiding adverse water quality impact, the required environmental practices /
measures while operating construction and associated vessels under the Project,
and guidelines for operating vessels safely in the presence of CWDs. Another 22
skipper training workshops were held with 34 captains by contractors’
Environmental Officers and competency tests were conducted subsequently with
the trained captains by ET.
With reference to Appendix E of the Manual, it
is noted that the key assumptions adopted in approved EIA report for the
construction phase are still valid and no major changes are involved. The
environmental mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA Report remain
applicable and shall be implemented in undertaking construction works for the
Project.
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.
Three environmental complaints were received
in the reporting period. All environmental complaints were attended to and
investigation was conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the
Complaint Management Plan. The summary of the complaints and analysis is
presented
Table 3.1:
Summary of Environmental Complaints
Date of Complaint Received |
Details |
Analysis/ Remedial Actions |
Status |
6 Jul 2020 |
A complaint was received regarding suspected improper chemical waste disposal at the pier near Marina Garden. |
Investigation was conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan of the Project. According to the information provided by the Contactor, skipper of the concerned vessel carried a rubbish bin filled with trash from the vessel for disposal at the refuse collection point at the pier near Marina Garden, Tuen Mun. The chemical containers located at the pier near Marina Garden, Tuen Mun did not belong to the Contractor or the owner of the concerned vessel. Moreover, there was no chemical waste generated from the Contractor. Based on the ET’s regular site inspections, the Contractor was mainly conducting ground investigation works and no chemical waste had been generated from the construction site. ET also checked the Contractor’s chemical waste cabinet, which was found empty on 8 June, 3 and 6 July 2020. According to Contractor’s record, no chemical waste was generated from the Contractor. The chemical waste cabinet was also observed properly locked and labelled with the display of the Chemical Waste Producer Registration on the cabinet, following the guideline Code of Practice of chemical waste handling. In view of the information provided by the Contractor and the ET’s inspection findings, there were no evidences indicating improper disposal of chemical waste at the pier near Marine Garden, Tuen Mun by the Contractor. ET will continue to remind all work contracts to properly handle their chemical waste. |
Closed |
13 Jul 2020 |
A complaint was received regarding the discharge of muddy water from the construction site which was near Aviation Fuel Supply Company (AFSC) Operation Limited premise to the surrounding surface water channel. |
Investigation was conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan of the Project. ET investigated the related work contracts of 3RS Project at or near the alleged area. Based on information provided by the Contractors, the sites were used as material stockpile and site office, and no wastewater was generated. Each contractor implemented water pollution control measures such as provision of concrete bund at the site entrance to contain surface runoff within the site, establishing an internal water reuse circuit using trenches and water tanks, and reuse of wastewater generated from the wheel washing facility. Based on the ET’s weekly site inspections, no malpractices were observed on site. ET also found that surface runoff, if any, was contained within the Contractors respective site areas. In view of the above information provided from Contractors and ET inspection findings, there were no evidences that any one of the Contractors had discharged muddy water from their site areas to the surface water channel. However, the ET will continue to remind all work contracts to properly handle the wastewater, especially surface runoff during the rainy season. |
Closed |
28 Aug 2020 |
A complaint was received regarding dust issue at Chek Lap Kok South Road. |
The case was investigated by ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan of the Project. The anonymous complainant mentioned that there were two barges moored near Chek Lap Kok South Road and were causing dust nuisance to the surrounding area. The ET confirmed with EPD that the incident was occurred on 27 August 2020 morning and no further details of the barges / truck could be provided on this case. Southeast Quay is a public pier at Chek Lap Kok South Road which could be used by both 3RS and non-3RS contractors. The ET identified the potential related 3RS contractors based on AAHK’s Quay Allocation Schedule and then conducted investigation on them. Based on information provided by the Contractors, dust mitigation measures including wetting of materials before unloading, and properly covering of trucks during transportation were in place. A full-time supervisor was also assigned on site by one of the Contractors to ensure environmental mitigation measures are properly implemented. Furthermore, the ET conducted an on-site investigation on 1 September 2020 morning and no malpractice nor dust impact was observed in the operation. It was noted that 3RS air monitoring results for August 2020 were within the corresponding Action and Limit Levels at all monitoring stations. Nevertheless, the ET will continue to remind the potential related contractors to strengthen their environmental mitigation measures for dust suppression. |
Closed |
No
notification of summons nor prosecution was received during the reporting
period.
Cumulative statistics on valid exceedance,
non-compliance, complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions
are summarised in Table 3.2
and Table 3.3.
Table 3.2: Statistics for Valid Exceedances
for the Environmental Monitoring
|
|
Total No. Recorded in the Reporting Period |
Total No. Recorded since the Project Commenced |
1-hr TSP |
Action Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
Noise |
Action Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
Waste |
Action Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
Water |
Action Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
CWD |
Action Level |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit Level |
0 |
0 |
Remark: Non-project
related triggers of Action or Limit Level are not shown in this table.
Table 3.3: Statistics for Non-compliance,
Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Prosecution
Reporting Period |
Cumulative Statistics |
|||
|
Non-compliance |
Complaints |
Notifications of Summons |
Prosecutions |
This reporting period |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
From 28 December 2015 to end of the reporting period |
0 |
20 |
1 |
1 |
In this quarterly period from 1 July 2020 to 30
September 2020, the EM&A programme has been implemented as planned,
including 96 sets of air quality measurements, 52 sets of construction noise
measurements, 38 sets of water quality measurements, 6 complete sets of vessel
line transect surveys and 6 days of land-based theodolite tracking survey
effort for CWD monitoring, as well as environmental site inspections and waste
monitoring for the Project’s construction works.
The key activities
of the Project carried out in the reporting period included reclamation works
and land-based works. Works in the reclamation areas included DCM works, marine
filling, seawall and facilities construction, together
with runway and associated works. Land-based works on existing airport island
involved mainly airfield works, foundation and substructure work for Terminal 2
expansion, modification and tunnel work for APM and 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.
Monitoring
results of construction dust, construction noise, construction waste, and CWD
did not trigger the corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting
period. All site observations made by the ET were recorded in the site
inspection checklists and passed to the contractor together with the
recommended follow-up actions.
For water quality, the water quality monitoring
results for all parameters, except DO, obtained during the reporting period
were within the corresponding Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the
EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and follow-up actions will be
conducted according to the EM&A programme if the corresponding Action and
Limit Levels are triggered. For DO and SS, some 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. In summary, the construction activities in the
reporting period did not introduce adverse impact to all water quality
sensitive receivers.
In total, 64 ferry
movements between HKIA SkyPier and Macau audited in
the reporting period. All HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speed
within 15 knots in compliance with the SkyPier Plan.
During the reporting period, ET
conducted bi-weekly audit of the MSS to ensure the system recorded all deviation cases
accurately and the contractors fully complied with
the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. 7
skipper training workshops were held by ET and 22 skipper training workshops
were held by contractors’ Environmental Officers during the reporting period
and competency tests were conducted subsequently with the trained skippers by
ET.
On the implementation of MMWP,
dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for laying of silt curtains
for marine filling works in accordance with the plan. On the implementation of
DEZ Plan, dolphin observers were deployed for continuous monitoring of the DEZ
by the contractors for DCM works and seawall construction in accordance with
the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed dolphin observers were provided by the
ET prior to the aforementioned works. From the contractors’ MMWP
observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine
mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains or the DEZ in this
reporting period. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were
also carried out by the ET.
The recommended environmental mitigation measures,
as included in the EM&A programme, were effectively implemented during the
reporting period. Also, the EM&A programme implemented by the ET has
effectively monitored the construction activities and ensured the proper
implementation of mitigation measures.
[1] The Manual is available on the
Project’s dedicated website (accessible at:
http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html)