Executive Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Project
Description
1.3 Purpose
of the Baseline Monitoring Report for Tung Chung East
1.4 Structure
of the Baseline Monitoring Report for Tung Chung East
2 Air
Quality
2.1 Monitoring
Requirement
2.2 Monitoring
Equipment
2.3 Monitoring
Locations
2.4 Monitoring
Parameters, Frequency and Duration
2.5 Monitoring
Methodology
2.6 Weather
Data
2.7 Baseline
Monitoring Results
2.8 Action
and Limit Level
2.9 Event
and Action Plan
3 Noise
3.1 Monitoring
Requirement
3.2 Monitoring
Equipment
3.3 Monitoring
Locations
3.4 Monitoring
Parameters, Frequency and Duration
3.5 Monitoring
Methodology
3.6 Maintenance
and Calibration
3.7 Baseline
Monitoring Results
3.8 Action
and Limit Levels
3.9 Event
and Action Plan
4 Water
Quality
4.1 Monitoring
Requirement
4.2 Monitoring
Locations
4.3 Monitoring
Parameters and Frequency
4.4 Monitoring
Methodology
4.5 QA/QC
Requirements
4.6 Baseline
Monitoring Results
4.7 Action
and Limit Levels
4.8 Event
and Action Plan
5 Landscape
and Visual
5.1 Monitoring
Requirement
5.2 Monitoring
Methodology
5.3 Monitoring
Results
5.4 Summary
6 Soft
Shore EcologY
6.1 Monitoring
Requirement
6.2 Monitoring
Locations
6.3 Monitoring
Methodology
6.4 Baseline
Monitoring Results
6.5 Event
and Action Plan
7 Conclusion
ANNEXES
Annex A Air
Quality
Annex A1 Calibration Certificates for the Air Quality Monitoring
Equipment
Annex A2 Wind Data at Chek Lap Kok Collected by the Hong Kong
Observatory
Annex A3 1-Hour TSP Monitoring Results
Annex A4 Graphical Presentation of 1-Hour TSP Monitoring Results
Annex B Noise
Annex B1 Calibration Certificates for the Noise Monitoring Equipment
Annex B2 Noise Monitoring Results
Annex B3 Graphical Presentation of Noise Monitoring Results
Annex C Water
Quality
Annex C1 Calibration Certificates for the Water Quality Monitoring
Equipment
Annex C2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Schedule
Annex C3 Water Quality Monitoring Results
Annex C4 Graphical Presentation of Water Quality Monitoring Results
Annex D Soft
Shore Ecology
Annex D1 Raw Data for Qualitative Walk-through Survey
Annex D2 Raw Data for Quantitative Transect Survey
Executive
Summary
The
development of the Tung Chung New Town Extension (TCNTE), comprising Tung Chung
East (TCE) and Tung Chung West (TCW), is a mega-scale and complex project
aiming to provide land to meet the future housing, economic and social
development needs of Hong Kong. Due to the fact that the
proposed works are geographically separated, the implementation of the
mega-scale project is divided into two packages, namely TCE and TCW
respectively. ERM-Hong
Kong, Limited (ERM) is commissioned to undertake the role of Environmental Team
(ET) for the construction and operation of TCE Project (¡§the Project¡¨) in
accordance with the requirements specified in the EP, Updated Environmental Monitoring and Audit
(EM&A) Manual, EIA Report of the TCNTE project
and other relevant
statutory requirements.
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the TCNTE project, baseline
monitoring was undertaken for the Project
prior to commencement of the construction works for the following baseline
monitoring components:
Ÿ
Air Quality;
Ÿ
Noise;
Ÿ
Water Quality;
Ÿ
Landscape and Visual; and
Ÿ
Soft Shore Ecology.
The baseline air quality monitoring was conducted at four (4) monitoring
stations (DM-1, DM-2A, DM-3A and DM-4A) between 4 and 17 May 2018. Overall, the baseline air quality monitoring
results are considered representative to the ambient air quality conditions of
the sensitive receivers in the vicinity
of the Project. The Action and Limit
Levels for air quality (1-hour TSP levels) were established based on the baseline monitoring results.
Baseline noise monitoring was conducted at four (4)
monitoring stations (NMS-CA-1A, NMS-CA-2A, NMS-CA-3 and NMS-CA-4) between 4 and
18 May 2018. The major noise sources
identified at the monitoring station are the noise from road traffic, aircraft,
MTR, renovation at Ying Tung Estate and insect. The baseline monitoring results are
considered representative of the ambient noise level.
Baseline water quality monitoring was conducted at seven (7) monitoring stations (TCE-C1, TCE-C2,
TCE-WQM1, TCE-WQM2a, TCE-WQM2b, TCE-WQM3A and TCE-WQM4) between 25 April and 21 May 2018. No observable pollution
source was recorded at the monitoring stations and the baseline monitoring
results are thus considered representative of the ambient water quality
levels. Action and Limit Levels
were established for DO, SS and Turbidity based on the
baseline monitoring
results.
Site conditions verification
surveys for landscape and visual baseline were conducted on 15, 16, 17 and 19
May 2018 to revisit the identified Landscape Resources (LRs), Landscape
Character Areas (LCAs) and Visual Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) in the approved
EIA Report. The survey results
concluded that the landscape and visual baseline conditions within the Project
site boundary is similar to those presented in the approved EIA Report. There is no major change in the
landscape and visual baseline conditions comparing to those during the EIA
stage. Additional landscape and
visual mitigation measures other than those recommended in the approved EIA
Report are thus not required.
Baseline soft shore ecological
monitoring was conducted at four (4)
monitoring stations situated in Tung Chung Bay and Tai Ho Wan on 30 April, 2-4
May, 15-16 May and 27 June 2018. A total of 8,043 intertidal individuals and 37
individuals of horseshoe crabs were recorded during the surveys. The baseline mudflat surface levels at
the four (4) monitoring stations were also measured for the determination of
sedimentation rate during the impact/post-construction monitoring. Event and Action Plan is established for
implementing appropriate actions and additional mitigation measures as
necessary when comparing the data between baseline and impact/post-construction
monitoring.
Upon agreement with EPD on this Baseline Monitoring Report for Tung
Chung East, the Action and Limit Levels and the Event and Action Plan as
proposed in this Report will be included in the next version of the Updated
EM&A Manual.
1
Introduction
The development of the Tung Chung New Town
Extension (TCNTE), comprising Tung Chung East (TCE) and Tung Chung West (TCW),
is a mega-scale and complex project aiming to provide land to meet the future
housing, economic and social development needs of Hong Kong. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Report for TCNTE (Register No. AEIAR-196/2016) ()
was approved on 8 April 2016 and the Environmental Permit (EP) EP-519/2016, covering
the construction and operation of TCNTE, was granted on 9 August 2016. The EIA Report and EP cover both TCE and
TCW.
Due
to the fact that the proposed works are geographically separated, the
implementation of the mega-scale project is divided into two packages, namely
TCE and TCW, respectively. ERM-Hong
Kong, Limited (ERM) is commissioned to undertake the role of Environmental Team
(ET) for the construction and operation of TCE Project (¡§the Project¡¨) in
accordance with the requirements specified in the EP, Updated Environmental Monitoring and Audit
(EM&A) Manual (),
EIA Report of the TCNTE project () and other relevant statutory requirements.
The
TCE Project (¡§the Project¡¨) comprises the following elements:
1.
Reclamation
of the seabed by a non-dredged method at TCE to form a total of about 130
hectares of land;
2.
Construction
of about 4.9 kilometres of seawalls, with an eco-shoreline, three drainage box
culvert outfalls, three circulation drains and a seawater intake at TCE;
3.
Construction
of a 470-metre (m) long multi-cell drainage box culvert at TCE;
4.
Provision
of infrastructure for Tung Chung Area 58, including construction of a single
two-lane road with a footpath of about 270 m in length and the associated
utility works;
5.
Construction
of roads, footbridges, drainage, sewerage, waterworks, sewage and salt water
pumping stations, fresh water and salt water service reservoirs, and flood
protection measures;
6.
Provision
of new cycle tracks connecting to the existing cycle track network;
7.
Landscaping,
reprovisioning and ancillary works; and
8.
Implementation
of environmental mitigation measures and environmental monitoring and audit
works.
The location of the Project, including the
associated infrastructure works, is shown in Figure 1.1.
The purpose of this Baseline Monitoring Report for Tung Chung East is to
present the baseline levels of air quality, noise, water quality and marine
ecology (particularly intertidal habitats in Tung Chung Bay and Tai Ho Wan) at
the designated monitoring locations around the Project
area prior to the commencement of construction works of the Project. In addition, landscape and visual
baseline monitoring were undertaken to verify the site conditions with
reference to the approved EIA Report.
Such baseline conditions will be used as the basis for assessing
environmental impacts, if any, and compliance monitoring during the
construction works of the Project.
Under the requirement of Condition 3.4 of the EP, the Baseline
Monitoring Report shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of the
Environmental Protection (DEP) at least two weeks before the commencement of
any construction works of the Project.
Following this introductory section, the
remainder of the Baseline
Monitoring Report for Tung Chung
East is structured as follows:
Section 2 Air Quality ¡V presents the methodology
and findings of the baseline air quality monitoring.
Section 3 Noise ¡V presents the methodology
and findings of the baseline noise monitoring.
Section 4 Water Quality ¡V presents the methodology
and findings of the baseline water quality monitoring.
Section 5 Landscape
and Visual ¡V presents the methodology and findings of the baseline landscape and visual monitoring.
Section 6 Soft
Shore Ecology ¡V presents the methodology and findings of the
baseline soft shore ecological monitoring.
Section 7 Conclusion
2
Air
Quality
According to the Updated
EM&A
Manual ()
of the Project, baseline air quality monitoring shall be carried out at the designated
monitoring locations for at least 14 consecutive days prior to the commissioning
of major construction works of the Project to obtain 1-hour Total Suspended
Particulate (TSP) samples. The
selected baseline monitoring stations should reflect baseline conditions at the
impact stations. One-hour sampling
should be done at least 3 times per day while the highest dust impact is
expected. Further details of the baseline air quality monitoring are presented in the
following sections.
Portable
direct reading dust meters were used to measure 1-hour TSP levels in
undertaking the air quality monitoring for the Project. The proposed use of portable direct
reading dust meters was submitted to the Independent Environmental Checker
(IEC) and obtained agreement from the IEC as stated in Section 5.5 of the
Updated EM&A Manual. With the
use of direct reading dust meter, it can allow prompt and direct results for
the EM&A reporting and the implementation of the event and action
plan. The portable direct reading
dust meter would be calibrated every year against HVS to check the validity and
accuracy of the results measured by direct reading method.
Table 2.1 summarizes the equipment
used in the baseline air quality monitoring programme. Copies of the calibration certificates
for the equipment are presented in Annex A1,
which showed that the portable direct reading dust meter is capable of
providing comparable results with that provided by a High Volume Sampler (HVS).
Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring
Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Monitoring Station
|
Model
|
|
1-hour TSP Dust Meter
|
DM-1
|
SIBATA LD-5R (S/N:
620402)
|
|
DM-2A
|
SIDEPAK AM510 (S/N:
10406054)
|
|
DM-3A
|
SIDEPAK AM510 (S/N:
11009015)
|
|
DM-4A
|
SIBATA LD-5R (S/N:
781282)
|
Baseline air quality monitoring for the Project was conducted at four (4) monitoring stations around the Project area (ie DM-1,
DM-2A, DM-3A and DM-4A). Locations of the four monitoring stations are shown in Figure 2.1.
Table
2.2 summarizes the monitoring parameters,
monitoring period and frequency of baseline air quality monitoring.
Table 2.2 Frequency and Parameters
of Baseline Air Quality Monitoring
|
Monitoring Station
|
Location
|
Parameter
|
Period
|
Frequency
|
|
DM-1
|
Tung Chung Area 56 ¡V Planned Public
Rental Housing Development
|
1-hour TSP
|
0700-1900 for 14
consecutive days
|
3 times/ day
|
|
DM-2A (1)
|
Planned
School in Tung Chung East
|
|
DM-3A (1)
|
Residential
premise near Tung Chung East
|
|
DM-4A (1)
|
Pak
Mong Pier
|
|
Remark: (1) Alternative
Monitoring Station proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual
|
The 1-hour TSP levels were
measured by the dust meter in accordance with procedures specified in the
Manufacturer¡¦s Instruction Manual. The
general procedures are described as follows:
Ÿ
Pull up the air sampling inlet cover; and
Ÿ
Set the timer and make a measurement.
Wind
data at Chek Lap Kok collected from the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) were used for
the air quality monitoring and they are shown in Annex A2.
It is considered that wind data obtained at the existing Chek Lap Kok
Wind Station are representative of the Project area and could be used for
undertaking the baseline and construction phase air quality monitoring
programme for the Project.
The proposed use of the existing wind data
from Chek Lap Kok Wind Station collected from HKO for wind data collection
instead of setting up wind monitoring equipment near the monitoring stations
was submitted and agreed by IEC, and Engineer¡¦s Representative (ER)¡¦s approval
was also obtained in accordance with the requirements as stated in Section 5.5
of the Updated EM&A Manual.
The baseline air quality monitoring was conducted at
four (4) monitoring locations (DM-1, DM-2A, DM-3A and DM-4A) between 4 and 17
May 2018 and the results are summarized in Table 2.3. The detailed 1-hour TSP monitoring
results are presented in Annex A3. Graphical
presentations of the 1-hour TSP results
at each monitoring location are shown in Annex A4. The weather was generally sunny and cloudy during the baseline monitoring period.
Road traffic dust is identified as the influencing factors which may
affect the results of
baseline monitoring.
Table 2.3 Summary of Baseline 1-hour
TSP Monitoring Results
|
Monitoring Station
|
Average 1-hr TSP Concentration (µg/m3)
(Range)
|
|
DM-1 ¡V Tung Chung Area 56 ¡V
Planned Public Rental Housing Development
|
49.7
(25.0-76.0)
|
|
DM-2A ¡V Planned School in Tung
Chung East
|
42.4
(24.0-75.0)
|
|
DM-3A ¡V Residential premise near
Tung Chung East
|
40.9
(24.0-63.0)
|
|
DM-4A ¡V Pak Mong Pier
|
45.9
(25.0-74.0)
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Average
|
44.7
|
Guidelines for establishing the Action and Limit Levels
for air quality monitoring during the construction of the Project are presented
in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Guidelines
for Establishing Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
|
Parameters
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
|
1-hour TSP Level in £gg/m3
|
For
baseline level £
384 £gg/m3,
Action
level = (baseline level * 1.3 + Limit level)/2;
For
baseline level > 384 £gg/m3,
Action
level = Limit level
|
500 £gg/m3
|
Given the 1-hour TSP levels recorded at the four monitoring stations
(DM-1, DM-2A, DM-3A and DM-4A) are similar (ranged from 40.9 - 49.7 µg/m3) during the baseline monitoring, it is considered appropriate to set up one Action Level for the Project
instead of Action Levels for each monitoring station. The Action and Limit Levels
of 1-hr TSP levels for air quality impact monitoring are determined and
presented in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Action
and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP
|
Location
|
Action Level, µg/m3
|
Limit Level, µg/m3
|
|
Monitoring stations for Tung Chung East (i.e. DM-1,
DM-2, DM-3, DM-4, or other alternative monitoring stations proposed by the
ET)
|
279
|
500
|
Should
non-compliance of the air quality criteria occur, actions in accordance with
the Action Plan in Table 2.6 shall be
carried out.
Table 2.6 Event and Action Plan for
Air Quality
|
Event
|
Action
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
Contractor
|
|
Action
level exceedance for one sample
|
1.
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose remedial
measures;
2.
Inform IEC and ER;
3.
Repeat measurement to confirm finding;
4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily.
|
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
2.
Check Contractor¡¦s working method.
|
1.
Notify Contractor.
|
1.
Rectify any unacceptable practice;
2.
Amend working methods if appropriate.
|
|
Action
level exceedance for two or more consecutive samples
|
1.
Identify source;
2.
Inform IEC and ER;
3.
Advise the ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
4.
Repeat measurements to confirm findings;
5.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
6.
Discuss with IEC and Contractor on remedial actions required;
7.
If exceedance continues, arrange meeting with IEC and ER;
8.
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
2.
Check Contractor¡¦s working method;
3.
Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures;
4.
Advise the ET on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
5.
Supervise Implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in writing;
2.
Notify Contractor;
3.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented.
|
1.
Submit proposals for remedial to ER within 3 working days of notification;
2.
Implement the agreed proposals;
3.
Amend proposal if appropriate.
|
|
Limit
level exceedance for one sample
|
1.
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose remedial
measures;
2.
Inform ER, Contractor and EPD;
3.
Repeat measurement to confirm finding;
4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
5.
Assess effectiveness of Contractor¡¦s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and
ER informed of the results.
|
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
2.
Check Contractor¡¦s working method;
3.
Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures;
4.
Advise the ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
5.
Supervise implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in writing;
2.
Notify Contractor;
3.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented.
|
1.
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance;
2.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of
notification;
3.
Implement the agreed proposals;
4.
Amend proposal if appropriate.
|
|
Limit
level exceedance for two or more consecutive samples
|
1.
Notify IEC, ER, Contractor and EPD;
2.
Identify source;
3.
Repeat measurement to confirm findings;
4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
5.
Carry out analysis of Contractor¡¦s working procedures to determine possible
mitigation to be implemented;
6.
Arrange meeting with IEC and ER to discuss the remedial actions to be taken;
7.
Assess effectiveness of Contractor¡¦s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and
ER informed of the results;
8.
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
1.
Discuss amongst ER, ET, and Contractor on the potential remedial actions;
2.
Review Contractor¡¦s remedial actions whenever necessary to assure their effectiveness
and advise the ER accordingly;
3.
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in writing;
2.
Notify Contractor;
3.
In consultation with the IEC, agree with the Contractor on the remedial measures
to be implemented;
4.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented;
5.
If exceedance continues, consider what portion of the work is responsible and
instruct the Contractor to stop that portion of work until the exceedance is
abated.
|
1.
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance;
2.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of
notification;
3.
Implement the agreed proposals;
4.
Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control;
5.
Stop the relevant portion of works as determined by the ER until the
exceedance is abated.
|
|
|
3
Noise
According to the Updated EM&A Manual ()
of the Project, baseline noise monitoring shall be carried
out at the monitoring locations for a period of at least two weeks in a sample period
interval of 5 minutes or 30 minutes between 0700 and 1900, and 5 minutes
between 1900 and 0700. The noise levels shall be measured in
terms of A-weighted
levels Leq, L10 and L90. Details of the baseline
noise monitoring are presented in the following sections.
3.2
Monitoring Equipment
Integrating Sound Level Meter was used for
noise monitoring. The meter is a
Type 1 sound level meter capable of giving a continuous readout of the noise
level readings including equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq)
and percentile sound pressure level (Lx). The meter used also complied with
International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and
804:1985 (Type 1) specifications.
The noise monitoring equipment used is presented in Table 3.1 and copies of the calibration certificates for the sound
level meter and calibrator are presented in Annex B1.
Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Monitoring Station
|
Model
|
|
Sound Level Meter
|
NMS-CA-1A
|
Rion NL-31 (S/N:
00603867)
|
|
NMS-CA-2A
|
Rion NL-52 (S/N:
00331805)
|
|
NMS-CA-3
|
Rion NL-52 (S/N:
00131627)
|
|
NMS-CA-4
|
Rion NL-52 (S/N:
01010406)
|
|
Calibrator
|
All Station
|
LARSON DAVIS CAL200 (S/N:
11334)
|
Baseline noise monitoring for the Project was conducted at four (4) monitoring stations
around the Project area (ie NMS-CA-1A, NMS-CA-2A,
NMS-CA-3 and NMS-CA-4). Locations of the four monitoring stations are shown in Figure 3.1.
In accordance with the Updated
EM&A Manual, baseline noise for the A-weighted levels Leq, L10
and L90 was recorded. The frequency and parameters of noise measurement
are presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Frequency
and Parameters of Noise Monitoring
|
Monitoring Station
|
Location for Measurement
|
Time Period
|
Duration, min
|
Parameter
|
|
NMS-CA-1A
|
Residential
premise near Tung Chung East
|
Daytime on normal
weekdays (0700-1900 hrs) for 2 weeks
Evening and Night time on all days (1900-0700 hrs) and daytime during public
holidays (including Sundays) (0700-1900 hrs) for 2 weeks
|
30 min
5min
|
Leq, L10
& L90
|
|
NMS-CA-2A
|
Pak
Mong Pier
|
|
NMS-CA-3
|
School
in the reclamation area next to Tung Chung East
|
|
NMS-CA-4
|
Residential
premise in the reclamation area next to Tung Chung East
|
|
Remark: (1) Alternative
Monitoring Station proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual
|
The monitoring procedures are as follows:
Ÿ
The sound level meter was
set at least 1.2 m above the ground for free-field measurements at monitoring
stations NMS-CA-1A, NMS-CA-2A, NMS-CA-3 and NMS-CA-4. A correction of +3 dB(A) has been made
for the free field measurements.
Ÿ
The battery condition was
checked to ensure good functioning of the meter.
Ÿ Parameters such as
frequency weighting, time weighting and measurement time were set as follows:
- frequency
weighting: A
- time
weighting: Fast
- measurement
time: 5
minutes (Leq (30-min) would be determined for daytime
noise by calculating the logarithmic average of six Leq (5min) data)
Ÿ Prior to and after noise
measurement, the meter was calibrated using the calibrator for 94.0 dB at 1,000
Hz. If the difference in the
calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1.0 dB, the
measurement was considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement was required
after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.
Ÿ Noise monitoring was
carried out continuously for 24 hours during the 14 days baseline monitoring
period. Monitoring data were
recorded and stored automatically within the sound level meter system. At the end of the monitoring period, noise levels in term of Leq, L90 and L10 were recorded.
In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded when the
equipment were checked and inspected every 2-3 days.
Ÿ All the monitoring data stored
in the sound level meter system were downloaded through the computer software,
and all these data were checked and reviewed on computer.
Maintenance and calibration procedures were as follows:
Ÿ The microphone head of the
sound level meter and calibrator were cleaned with a soft cloth at quarterly
intervals;
Ÿ The sound level meter and calibrator were checked and calibrated at yearly intervals; and
Ÿ Immediately prior to and
following each noise measurement, the accuracy of the sound level meter should
be checked using an acoustic calibrator generating known sound pressure level
at known frequency. Measurements
may be accepted as valid only if the calibration levels from before and after
the noise measurement agree to within 1.0 dB.
Baseline noise
monitoring was conducted at four (4) monitoring stations (NMS-CA-1A, NMS-CA-2A,
NMS-CA-3 and NMS-CA-4) between 4 and 18 May 2018.
The
baseline noise monitoring results are summarized in Tables 3.3 to 3.5. All
baseline noise monitoring results are presented in Annex B2. Graphical presentations of the data are
provided in Annex B3. The weather was generally sunny and cloudy during the
baseline monitoring period. Road
traffic, aircraft, train, renovation at Ying Tung Estate and insect noises were
noted as the possible influencing factors which may affect the baseline
monitoring results.
Table 3.3 Summary of Noise
Monitoring Results during Normal Working Hours (0700-1900 hours; Normal
Weekdays)
|
Normal
Working Hours (0700-1900 hours; Normal Weekdays)
|
Measured Noise Level Leq (30 min),
dB(A)
|
|
Average
|
Min
|
Max
|
|
NMS-CA-1A
|
63.2
|
56.4
|
68.4
|
|
NMS-CA-2A
|
64.6
|
59.9
|
70.9
|
|
NMS-CA-3
|
67.4
|
60.2
|
83.7
|
|
NMS-CA-4
|
67.9
|
53.2
|
83.7
|
Table 3.4 Summary of Noise
Monitoring Results during Evening on Normal Weekdays (1900-2300 hours) and
Holidays (0700-2300 hours)
|
Evening
on Normal Weekdays (1900-2300 hours) and Holidays (0700-2300 hours)
|
Measured Noise Level Leq (5 min),
dB(A)
|
|
Average
|
Min
|
Max
|
|
NMS-CA-1A
|
62.3
|
50.4
|
72.4
|
|
NMS-CA-2A
|
63.8
|
54.1
|
71.6
|
|
NMS-CA-3
|
65.0
|
52.3
|
76.8
|
|
NMS-CA-4
|
61.3
|
50.9
|
76.2
|
Table 3.5 Summary of Noise
Monitoring Results during Night-time (2300-0700 hours)
|
Night-time
(2300-0700 hours)
|
Measured Noise Level Leq (5 min),
dB(A)
|
|
Average
|
Min
|
Max
|
|
NMS-CA-1A
|
62.1
|
44.1
|
83.2
|
|
NMS-CA-2A
|
62.4
|
48.5
|
79.7
|
|
NMS-CA-3
|
63.6
|
45.8
|
82.1
|
|
NMS-CA-4
|
63.2
|
45.1
|
84.3
|
3.8
Action and Limit Levels
The Action and Limit Levels were established in accordance with the
Updated EM&A Manual. The
baseline noise level should be referenced during the compliance check during
the impact noise monitoring period.
Table 3.6 presents the Action
and Limit Levels for construction noise of the Project.
Table 3.6 Action and Limit Levels
for Construction Noise
|
Time Period
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
|
0700 - 1900 hours on normal weekdays
|
When one documented complaint is received
|
75 dB(A) *
|
Notes:
If works are to be carried out during
restricted hours, the conditions stipulated in the construction noise permit
issued by the Noise Control Authority have to be followed.
*
Reduce to 70 dB(A) for schools and 65 dB(A) during school examination
periods.
Should
non-compliance of the noise criteria occur, actions in accordance with the
Action Plan in Table 3.7 shall be
carried out.
Table 3.7 Event and Action Plan for
Construction Noise
|
Event
|
Action
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
Contractor
|
|
Action
Level Exceedance
|
1.
Notify IEC, ER
and Contractor;
2.
Carry out investigation;
3.
Report the results of investigation to the IEC, ER and Contractor;
4.
Discuss with the Contractor and formulate remedial measures;
5.
Increase monitoring frequency to check mitigation effectiveness.
|
1.
Review the analysed results submitted by the ET;
2.
Review the proposed remedial measures by the Contractor and advise the ER
accordingly;
3.
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in writing;
2.
Notify Contractor;
3.
Require Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed noise
problem;
4.
Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented
|
1.
Submit noise mitigation proposals to IEC and ER;
2.
Implement noise mitigation proposals.
|
|
Limit
Level Exceedance
|
1.
Identify source;
2.
Inform IEC, ER, EPD and Contractor;
3.
Repeat measurements to confirm findings;
4.
Increase monitoring frequency;
5.
Carry out analysis of Contractor¡¦s working procedures to determine possible
mitigation to be implemented;
6.
Inform IEC, ER and EPD the causes and actions taken for the exceedances;
7.
Assess effectiveness of Contractor¡¦s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and
ER informed of the results;
8.
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
1.
Discuss amongst ER, ET, and Contractor on the potential remedial actions;
2.
Review Contractors remedial actions whenever necessary to assure their
effectiveness and advise the ER accordingly;
3.
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in writing;
2.
Notify Contractor;
3.
Require Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed noise
problem;
4.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented;
5.
If exceedance continues, consider what portion of the work is responsible and
instruct the Contractor to stop that portion of work until the exceedance is
abated.
|
1.
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance;
2.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of notification;
3.
Implement the agreed proposals;
4.
Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control;
5.
Stop the relevant portion of works as determined by the ER until the
exceedance is abated.
|
|
|
4
Water
Quality
According to the Updated EM&A Manual ()
of the Project, baseline
water quality monitoring shall be carried out three (3) times per week for at least 4 weeks prior to the
commencement of construction works of the Project. The
measurement should be taken at all designated monitoring stations for the
Project, including control stations, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides. Further
details of the baseline water quality monitoring under this Project are
presented in the following sections.
Baseline water quality monitoring was conducted at seven (7) monitoring
stations under the Project.
Coordinates of the monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.1. Locations of the monitoring stations are
shown in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.1 Marine Water Quality
Monitoring Locations
|
Monitoring Stations
|
Description
|
Coordinates
|
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
|
TCE-WQM1
|
Near Airport Channel
|
811838
|
817341
|
|
TCE-WQM2a
|
Marine Park 1
|
814439
|
819879
|
|
TCE-WQM2b
|
Marine Park 2
|
814439
|
821905
|
|
TCE-WQM3A
|
Outlet of Tai Ho Wan
|
814705
|
817859
|
|
TCE-WQM4
|
HKBCF
|
813344
|
818849
|
|
TCE-C1
|
Control Station - Outside
Airport Channel
|
804247
|
815620
|
|
TCE-C2
|
Control Station - Sunny Bay
|
819460
|
821473
|
4.3
Monitoring Parameters and Frequency
Table 4.2 summarizes the monitoring parameters, monitoring
period and frequencies of the water quality monitoring.
Table 4.2 Water
Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency
|
Monitoring
Stations
|
Parameters (Unit)
|
Depth
|
Frequency
and Replication
|
|
TCE-WQM1
TCE-WQM2a
TCE-WQM2b
TCE-WQM3A
(1)
TCE-WQM4
TCE-C1
TCE-C2
|
Ÿ Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L and % saturation)
Ÿ Temperature (¢XC)
Ÿ Turbidity (NTU)
Ÿ Salinity (ppt)
Ÿ pH
Ÿ Water depth (m)
Ÿ
Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)
|
3 water depths: 1 m
below sea surface,
mid-depth and 1 m
above seabed.
|
Baseline monitoring:
3 days per week, at mid-flood and
mid-ebb tides, for 4 weeks prior
to the commencement of construction work.
Two
(2) replicate in-situ measurements
and water samples.
|
|
|
|
If the water depth is
less than 3 m, mid-depth
sampling only.
|
|
|
|
If water depth less
than 6 m, mid-depth
may be omitted.
|
|
Remark:
(1) Alternative Monitoring Station proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual
|
In addition to the parameters presented in Table 4.2, other relevant data shall also
be recorded, including monitoring location / position, time, water depth, tidal
stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work underway at the
construction site.
4.4.1
Instrumentation
Table 4.3 summarizes the equipment used
in the baseline water quality monitoring works. All the monitoring equipment complied
with the requirements set out in the Updated
EM&A
Manual. Copies of the calibration
certificates are attached in Annex C1.
Table 4.3 Water
Quality Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment
|
Model
|
|
Water Sampler
|
Kahlsico Water Samplers
|
|
Multi-parameter Water
Quality System (measurement of DO,
Temperature, Turbidity, Salinity and pH) (Note 1)
|
YSI ProDSS (S/N:
15M100005; S/N: 16H104233; S/N: 16H104234; S/N: 17E100747; S/N: 17H105557)
YSI 6920 v2 (S/N: 0001C6A7; S/N: 000109DF)
|
|
Note 1: Two of the
multi-parameter water quality systems were used at each monitoring station
during each survey day.
|
4.4.2
Operating/Analytical
Procedures
At each sampling depth, two
consecutive measurements of DO level, DO Saturation, Temperature, Turbidity, Salinity and pH were taken using two independent multi-parameter water quality systems. Where
the difference in the value between the first and second readings of each set
was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the reading was discarded
and further readings were taken.
Two samples were collected for laboratory analysis of SS content. Following
collection, water samples for laboratory analysis were stored in high density
polythene bottles (1L) with no preservatives added, packed in ice (cooled to
4¢XC
without being frozen) and kept in dark during both on-site temporary storage
and shipment to the testing laboratory.
The samples were delivered to the laboratory as soon as possible and the
laboratory determination works started within 24 hours after collection of the
water samples. Sufficient volume of
samples was collected to achieve the reporting limit.
4.4.3
Laboratory Analytical
Methods
The testing of SS for all stations was conducted by ALS Technichem
(HK) Pty Ltd. (HOKLAS Registration No. 066). Comprehensive quality assurance and
control procedures were in place in order to ensure quality and consistency in
results. The testing method and
reporting limit are provided in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Methods
for Laboratory Analysis for Water Samples
|
Parameter
|
Analytical Method
|
Reporting Limit
|
|
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
APHA 17e 2540D
|
0.5 mg/L
|
4.5.1
Calibration
of In-situ Instruments
All in situ
monitoring instruments were checked, calibrated and
certified by a laboratory accredited under HOKLAS or other international
accreditation scheme before use, and subsequently re-calibrated at 3 monthly
intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring programme. Responses of sensors and electrodes were
checked with certified standard solutions before each use. Wet bulb calibration for a DO meter was
carried out before measurement at each monitoring event.
For
the on-site calibration of field equipment (Multi-parameter Water Quality
System), the BS 1427:2009, "Guide to on-site test methods for the analysis
of waters" was observed.
Sufficient
stocks of spare parts were maintained for replacements when necessary. Backup monitoring equipment was also
being made available so that monitoring can proceed uninterrupted even when
some equipment was under maintenance, calibration, etc.
4.5.2
Decontamination Procedures
Water sampling equipment
used during the course of the monitoring programme was decontaminated by manual
washing and rinsed clean seawater/distilled water after each sampling
event. All disposable equipment was
discarded after sampling.
4.5.3
Sampling Management and Supervision
All sampling bottles were
labeled with the sample ID (including the indication of sampling station and
tidal stage e.g. TCE-C1_ME_S_R1), laboratory number and
sampling date. Water samples were
dispatched to the testing laboratory for analysis as soon as possible after the
sampling. All samples were stored in a cool box and kept at
less than 4¢XC but without frozen.
All water samples were handled under chain of custody protocols and
relinquished to the laboratory representatives at locations specified by the
laboratory. The laboratory
determination works started within 24 hours after collection of water samples.
4.5.4
Quality Control Measures for Sample Testing
The samples testing were
performed by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd.
The following quality control programme was performed by the laboratory for every batch of 20 samples:
Ÿ One method blank; and
Ÿ
One set of quality control (QC) samples (including
method QC and sample duplicate).
Baseline water quality
monitoring was conducted at
seven (7) monitoring stations (TCE-C1, TCE-C2, TCE-WQM1, TCE-WQM2a, TCE-WQM2b,
TCE-WQM3A and TCE-WQM4) between 25
April and 21 May
2018. The detailed monitoring schedule is
shown in Annex C2. The monitoring results at each monitoring station are shown in Annex C3. Graphical presentation of water quality (DO, Turbidity and SS) at the monitoring stations is given in Annex C4.
During the baseline
monitoring period, no marine construction works were observed in the vicinity
of all monitoring stations. The
baseline monitoring results are thus considered representative of the ambient
water quality of the Project area
during the season.
The Action and Limit Levels for DO, Turbidity and SS are determined in accordance with
requirements set out in the Updated EM&A Manual which are
summarized in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Action and Limit Levels
for Water Quality
|
Parameters
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
|
DO in mg/L
(Surface, Middle & Bottom)
|
Surface and Middle
5 percentile of baseline data [1]
Bottom
5 percentile of baseline data
|
Surface and Middle
4 mg/L or 1 percentile of baseline data [1]
Bottom
2 mg/L or 1 percentile of baseline data
|
|
SS in mg/L (Depth-averaged)
|
95 percentile of baseline data or 120% of
upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
99 percentile of baseline data or 130% of upstream
control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
|
Turbidity in NTU (Depth-averaged)
|
95 percentile of baseline data or 120% of
upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
99 percentile of baseline data or 130% of
upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
Notes:
(1) For
DO, non-compliance occurs when monitoring results is lower than the limits.
(2) For SS and Turbidity,
non-compliance occurs when monitoring results is larger than the limits
The calculated Action and Limit levels are
shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Calculated Action and
Limit Levels for Water Quality
|
Parameters
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
|
DO in mg/L
(Surface, Middle & Bottom)
|
Surface and Middle
5.9 mg/L [1]
Bottom
5.6 mg/L
|
Surface and Middle
4 mg/L [1]
Bottom
2 mg/L
|
|
SS in mg/L (Depth-averaged)
|
13.5 mg/L
or
120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
23.5 mg/L
or
130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
|
Turbidity in NTU (Depth-averaged)
|
17.1 NTU
or
120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
23.5 NTU
or
130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher. [2]
|
Notes:
(1) For
DO, non-compliance occurs when monitoring results is lower than the limits.
(2) For SS and Turbidity,
non-compliance occurs when monitoring results is larger than the limits
Should
non-compliance of the criteria occur, action in accordance with the Event and
Action Plan in the Table 4.7 below
shall be carried out.
Table 4.7 Event and Action Plan for
Water Quality
|
Event
|
Action
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
Contractor
|
|
Action level exceedance for
one sampling day
|
1.
Inform IEC, Contractor
and ER;
2.
Check monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor¡¦s working methods;
and
3.
Discuss remedial measures with IEC and Contractor and ER.
|
1. Discuss with ET, ER and
Contractor on the implemented mitigation measures;
2. Review proposals on
remedial measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER accordingly; and
3. Review and advise the ET
and ER on the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
1. Discuss with IEC, ET and
Contractor on the implemented mitigation measures;
2. Make agreement on the
remedial measures to be implemented;
3. Supervise the
implementation of agreed remedial measures.
|
1. Identify source(s) of
impact;
2. Inform the ER and confirm
notification of the non-compliance in writing;
3. Rectify unacceptable
practice;
4.Check all plant and
equipment;
5. Consider changes of
working methods;
6. Discuss with ER, ET and
IEC and purpose remedial measures to IEC and ER; and
7. Implement the agreed
mitigation measures.
|
|
Action level exceedance for
more than one consecutive sampling days
|
1. Repeat in-situ
measurement on next day of exceedance to confirm findings;
2. Inform IEC, contractor
and ER;
3. Check monitoring data,
all plant, equipment and Contractor¡¦s working methods;
4. Discuss remedial measures
with IEC, contractor and ER
5. Ensure remedial measures
are implemented
|
1. Discuss with ET,
Contractor and ER on the implemented mitigation measures;
2. Review the proposed
remedial measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER accordingly; and
3. Review and advise the ET
and ER on the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
1. Discuss with ET, IEC and
Contractor on the proposed mitigation measures;
2. Make agreement on the
remedial measures to be implemented ; and
3. Discuss with ET, IEC and
Contractor on the effectiveness of the implemented remedial measures.
|
1. Identify source(s) of impact;
2. Inform the ER and confirm
notification of the non-compliance in writing;
3. Rectify unacceptable practice;
4. Check all plant and equipment and
consider changes of working methods;
5. Discuss with ET, IEC and ER and
submit proposal of remedial measures to ER and IEC within 3 working days of
notification; and
6. Implement the agreed mitigation
measures.
|
|
Limit level exceedance for
one sampling day
|
1. Repeat measurement on
next day of exceedance to confirm findings;
2. Inform IEC, contractor
and ER;
3. Rectify unacceptable
practice;
4. Check monitoring data,
all plant, equipment and Contractor¡¦s working methods;
5. Consider changes of
working methods;
6. Discuss mitigation
measures with IEC, ER and Contractor; and
7. Ensure the agreed
remedial measures are implemented
|
1. Discuss with ET,
Contractor and ER on the implemented mitigation measures;
2. Review the proposed
remedial measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER accordingly; and
3. Review and advise the ET
and ER on the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
1. Discuss with ET, IEC and
Contractor on the implemented remedial measures;
2. Request Contractor to
critically review the working methods;
3. Make agreement on the
remedial measures to be implemented; and
4. Discuss with ET, IEC and
Contractor on the effectiveness of the implemented remedial measures.
|
1. Identify source(s) of impact;
2. Inform the ER and confirm
notification of the non-compliance in writing;
3. Rectify unacceptable practice;
4. Check all plant and equipment and
consider changes of working methods;
5. Discuss with ET, IEC and ER and
submit proposal of additional mitigation measures to ER and IEC within 3
working days of notification; and
6. Implement the agreed remedial measures.
|
|
Limit level exceedance for
more than one consecutive sampling days
|
1. Inform IEC, contractor
and ER;
2. Check monitoring data,
all plant, equipment and Contractor¡¦s working methods;
3. Discuss mitigation
measures with IEC, ER and Contractor; and
4. Ensure mitigation
measures are implemented; and
5. Increase the monitoring
frequency to daily until no exceedance of Limit Level for two consecutive
days
|
1. Discuss with ET,
Contractor and ER on the implemented mitigation measures;
2. Review the proposed remedial
measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER accordingly; and
3. Review and advise the ET
and ER on the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
1. Discuss with ET, IEC and
Contractor on the implemented remedial measures;
2. Request Contractor to
critically review the working methods;
3. Make agreement on the
remedial measures to be implemented;
4. Discuss with ET and IEC
on the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures; and
5. Consider and instruct, if
necessary, the Contractor to slow down or to stop all or part of the dredging
activities until no exceedance of Limit level.
|
1. Identify source(s) of impact;
2. Inform the ER and confirm
notification of the non-compliance in writing;
3. Rectify unacceptable practice;
4. Check all plant and equipment and
consider changes of working methods;
5. Discuss with ET, IEC and ER and
submit proposal of additional mitigation measures to ER and IEC within 3
working days of notification; and
6. Implement the agreed remedial
measures.
7. As directed by the ER, to slow down
or stop all or part of the dredging activities until no exceedance of Limit
level.
|
|
|
5
Landscape
and Visual
According to the Updated
EM&A
Manual ()
of the Project, the
landscape and visual baseline will be determined with reference to the habitat
maps included in the EIA Report and detailed tree survey to be completed before
the works can commence as well as preliminary site conditions verification
surveys. Given the
majority of the Project area at TCE is marine water which will be reclaimed
during the Project construction, limited number of trees will be affected by
the Project and thus detailed tree survey was not undertaken as part of the
landscape and visual baseline. It
is considered that site conditions verification surveys would be sufficient to
represent the updated landscape and visual baseline for the Project. The surveys were conducted in May 2018
to verify if there is any major change to the landscape and visual conditions
with reference to the approved EIA Report.
Further details are presented in the following
sections.
Site conditions
verification surveys were conducted in May 2018 around the Project area. In particular, the Landscape Resources
(LRs) and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) for the Project identified in the
approved EIA Report (Figure 11.2a-al and Figure 11.3a-ac of the approved EIA
Report) were revisited as far as practicable to verify if there is any major
change of landscape baseline with reference to the approved EIA Report.
In
addition, the visual sensitive receivers (VSRs) of the Project identified in
the approved EIA Report (Figure 11.4a-aa of the approved EIA Report) were
revisited as far as practicable to verify if there is any major change of
visual baseline with reference to the approved EIA Report.
5.3.1
Landscape
Resources (LRs)
The
identified LRs during the EIA stage include the followings and the detailed
descriptions of the LRs were presented in the approved EIA Report:
Ÿ
LR1 ¡V Secondary Woodland
Ÿ
LR2 ¡V Shrubland and
Grassland
Ÿ
LR3 ¡V Transitional Waters
Ÿ
LR4 ¡V Coastal Waters
Ÿ
LR5 ¡V Watercourses
Ÿ
LR6 ¡V Natural Shoreline
Ÿ
LR7 ¡V Roads, Urban
Infrastructure and Major Transport Corridor
Ÿ
LR8 ¡V Village Type
Development
Ÿ
LR9 ¡V Urbanised Area
Ÿ
LR10 ¡V Agricultural Land
Ÿ
LR11 ¡V Plantation
Ÿ
LR12 ¡V Mangroves
Ÿ
LR13 ¡V Fung Shui Woodland
Ÿ
LR14 ¡V Reedbed
Ÿ
LR15 ¡V Artificial Seawall
The site conditions verification surveys were conducted in May 2018 and
these LRs were revisited as far as practicable (). The updated baseline conditions of the
LRs are presented in Figure 5.1a-d. During the site conditions verification
surveys, no major change of landscape resource / element was identified.
5.3.2
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
The
identified LCAs during the EIA stage include the followings and the detailed
descriptions of the LCAs were presented in the approved EIA Report:
LCA1 ¡V Inshore Water Landscape
LCA2 ¡V Strait Landscape
LCA3 ¡V Inter-tidal Coast Landscape
LCA4 ¡V Coastal Upland and Hillside Landscape
LCA5 ¡V Settled Valley Landscape
LCA6 ¡V Upland Hillside Landscape
LCA7 ¡V Reclamation / Ongoing Major Development Landscape
LCA8 ¡V Transportation Corridor Landscape
LCA9 ¡V Mixed Modern Comprehensive Urban Development Landscape
LCA10 - Urban Peripheral Village and Rural Fringe Landscape
LCA11 ¡V Airport Landscape
LCA12 ¡V Institutional Landscape
LCA13¡VResidential Urban Landscape
The site conditions verification surveys were conducted in May 2018 and
these LCAs were revisited as far as practicable (). The updated baseline conditions of the
LCAs are presented in Figure 5.2a-b. During the site conditions verification
surveys, no major change of landscape character area / element was identified.
5.3.3
Visual Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
The updated views of the VSRs for the Project were taken from the same
viewpoints, or nearby locations with similar views, as presented in the
approved EIA Report on 15, 16, 17 and 19 May 2018. Locations of these viewpoints are shown
in Figure 5.3 (). The photographs showing the baseline
condition as of August 2015 presented in the approved EIA Report and the
updated baseline condition are presented in
Figures 5.4a to 5.4u
for comparison.
In general, the observed change of the baseline conditions when compared
with those presented in the approved EIA Report are considered minor and do not
significantly alter the overall landscape and visual baseline condition as
illustrated in Figures 5.4a to 5.4u. Therefore, the assessment results of the
landscape and visual impact assessment as presented in the approved EIA Report
is considered valid. Additional landscape
and visual mitigation measures other than those recommended in the approved EIA
Report are thus not required.
The major differences between the baseline during the EIA stage and the
updated baseline as observed in May 2018 are described below:
Southern Connection of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link
During the EIA stage, it was assumed that the key construction elements
(e.g. marine works) for the southern and northern connection of the Tuen
Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) would be substantially completed by end of Year
2016. The updated baseline in May
2018 showed that the majority of the viaduct section has been built, which is
in line with the prediction as presented in the approved EIA Report. As such, it does not affect the
cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment results in the approved EIA
Report.
Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities
During the EIA stage, it was assumed that the key construction elements
for Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) would be substantially
completed by end of Year 2016. The
updated baseline in May 2018 showed that the majority of the construction works
for the HKBCF including the associated road transport network have been completed,
which is in line with the prediction as presented in the approved EIA
Report. As such, it does not affect
the cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment results in the approved
EIA Report.
Planned Residential Developments in the Existing Tung
Chung New Town
During the EIA stage, it was assumed that the residential developments
at Tung Chung Area 55 and Area 56 near the Project would be completed in
2015-2016. The updated baseline in
May 2018 showed that these areas have been developed into private (Century Link
and The Visionary) and public (Ying Tung Estate) housings respectively, which
is in line with the prediction as presented in the approved EIA Report. As such, it does not affect the
cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment results in the approved EIA
Report.
Base
on the results of the site conditions verification surveys conducted in May
2018 with reference to the LRs and LCAs identified in the approved EIA Report,
it is concluded that the landscape and visual baseline conditions within the
Project site boundary is similar to those presented in the approved EIA
Report. The landscape and visual
impact assessment in the approved EIA Report is thus considered valid. There is no major change in the
landscape and visual baseline conditions comparing to those during the EIA
stage. Additional landscape and
visual mitigation measures other than those recommended in the approved EIA
Report are thus not required.
6
Soft
Shore Ecology
According to the Updated EM&A Manual ()
of the Project, baseline
soft shore ecological monitoring shall be conducted once at each survey
location of Tung Chung Bay (TCB) and Tai Ho Wan (THW) before reclamation.
Further details of the
baseline soft shore ecological monitoring conducted at TCB and THW under this
Project are presented in the following sections.
Baseline soft shore ecological
monitoring was conducted at three (3) monitoring locations at TCB, situated in the
eastern side (TCB1), southern side (TCB2) and western side (TCB3) as well as one
(1) monitoring location at THW as shown in Figure 6.1.
The soft shore ecological monitoring consisted of qualitative
walk-through surveys, quantitative transect surveys and sedimentation rate
monitoring at the accessible survey locations of TCB and THW.
For qualitative walk-through surveys, the accessible shoreline of TCB
and THW at each of the three shore heights: 2 m, 1.5 m and 1 m above Chart
Datum was surveyed, and
organisms encountered were recorded and their relative abundance noted. In particular, active search of
horseshoe crabs and seagrasses were conducted to confirm whether these species
are present along the sites.
For quantitative transect survey, one 50 ¡V 100 m horizontal (belt)
transect (actual length subject to the site conditions) was surveyed at each of
the three shore heights: 2 m, 1.5 m and 1 m above Chart Datum of each survey
location. On each transect, five
quadrats (50 cm x 50 cm) were placed randomly in each transect to assess the
abundance and distribution of flora and fauna. For each quadrat, surface layer to 5 cm
depth was sieved and microbenthic organisms (e.g. crustaceans) were recorded
and identified. Density of
organisms was expressed as individuals / m2. Areas with seagrass were also recorded
and identified and other information, such as the percentage cover, were also
recorded. Sessile animals such as
barnacles and oysters in each quadrat were not counted but estimated as
percentage cover on the rock surface.
All species of algae (encrusting, foliose and filamentous) were also
identified and recorded by estimating the percentage cover on the rock
surface. All organisms were
identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level (at least Genus level). Species encountered outside the quadrat
but in the vicinity of survey transect were also recorded.
For sedimentation rate monitoring, to avoid disturbance to the mudflat
and nuisance to navigation, no fixed marker/monitoring rod was installed at the
monitoring stations. A high
precision Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) real time location fixing
system (or equivalent technology) was used to locate the station in the
precision of 1 mm, which is reasonable under flat mudflat topography with uneven
mudflat surface only at micro level.
Measurements were taken directly on the mudflat surface. The Real Time Kinematic GNSS (RTK GNSS)
surveying technology was used to measure mudflat surface levels and 3D
coordinates of a survey point. The
RTK GNSS survey was calibrated against a reference station in the field before
and after each survey. The
reference station is a survey control point established by the Lands Department
of the HKSAR Government or traditional land surveying methods using professional
surveying instruments such as total station, level and/or geodetic global
navigation satellite system. The
coordinates system is in HK1980 GRID system. The reference control station was
surveyed and established by traditional land surveying methods using
professional surveying instruments such as total station, level and/or geodetic
GNSS. The accuracy was down to mm
level and higher than the proposed RTK GNSS cm level so that the reference
control station has relatively higher accuracy. As the reference control station has
higher accuracy, it was set as true evaluation relative to the RTK GNSS
measurement. All position and
height correction were adjusted and corrected to the reference control station.
The precision of the measured mudflat surface level reading (vertical
precision setting) was within 10 mm (standard deviation) after averaging the
valid survey records of the XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates. Each survey record at each station was
computed by averaging at least three measurements that are within the above
specified precision setting. Both
digital data logging and written records were collected in the field. Field data on station fixing and mudflat
surface measurement were recorded.
6.4.1
General
The soft shore ecological monitoring was conducted in
April to June 2018 as presented in Table
6.1 below. Representative
photographs taken during the baseline monitoring are presented in Figure 6.2.
Table 6.1 Date and Activities of
Baseline Soft Shore Ecological Monitoring
|
Date
|
Time
|
Activity
|
|
30 April 2018
|
12:00
- 17:30
|
Quantitative transect survey at TCB3
|
|
2 May 2018
|
12:30
¡V 18:00
|
Quantitative transect survey at TCB1
|
|
3 May 2018
|
13:30
¡V 18:00
|
Qualitative walk-through survey and
quantitative transect survey at TCB2
|
|
4 May 2018
|
15:30
¡V 18:00
|
Quantitative transect survey at TCB3
|
|
16 May 2018
|
14:00
¡V 17:00
|
Qualitative walk-through survey at TCB3
and sedimentation rate monitoring at TCB1, TCB2 and TCB3
|
|
17 May 2018
|
14:30
¡V 17:00
|
Qualitative walk-through survey and
quantitative transect survey at TCB1
|
|
27 June 2018
|
11:30
¡V 16:30
|
Qualitative walk-through survey,
quantitative transect survey and sedimentation rate monitoring at THW
|
6.4.2
Qualitative Walk-through
Surveys
Horseshoe Crabs
The results for horseshoe crabs during qualitative
walk-through surveys are presented in Table
6.2 below. A total of 13, 11
and 9 individuals of Tachypleus
tridentatus were recorded at TCB1, TCB3 and THW, respectively. A total of 4 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were recorded at THW. The mean prosomal widths of the observed
horseshoe crab individuals were 4.8 cm, 6.0 cm and 3.4 cm at TCB1, TCB3 and
THW, respectively. Horseshoe crab
was not observed at TCB2.
Table 6.2 Results for Horseshoe
Crabs during Qualitative Walk-through Surveys
|
Sighting #
|
Species
|
Prosomal Width (cm)
|
Total Length (cm)
|
|
Monitoring
Date: 17 May 2018 15:00-17:00
Monitoring
Station: TCB1
|
|
1
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.2
|
7.3
|
|
2
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.9
|
7.6
|
|
3
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
1.4
|
1.8
|
|
4
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.9
|
9.1
|
|
5
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.9
|
8.7
|
|
6
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
5.0
|
9.5
|
|
7
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.6
|
9.7
|
|
8
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.8
|
8.0
|
|
9
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.4
|
6.8
|
|
10
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.1
|
5.2
|
|
11
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.8
|
9.9
|
|
12
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.7
|
9.0
|
|
13
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
14.1
|
30.0
|
|
|
Mean
(Range)
|
4.8
(1.4-14.1)
|
9.4
(1.8-30.0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring
Date: 16 May 2018 14:30-16:30
Monitoring
Station: TCB3
|
|
1
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
13.5
|
28.0
|
|
2
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
5.0
|
9.9
|
|
3
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.1
|
8.9
|
|
4
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
5.6
|
11.7
|
|
5
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
6.5
|
12.1
|
|
6
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.2
|
8.4
|
|
7
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
6.4
|
13.4
|
|
8
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.7
|
9.9
|
|
9
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.3
|
8.4
|
|
10
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
6.4
|
14.3
|
|
11
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
5.4
|
10.6
|
|
|
Mean
(Range)
|
6.0
(4.1-13.5)
|
12.3
(8.4-28.0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring
Date: 27 June 2018 12:30-16:30
Monitoring
Station: THW
|
|
1
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
2.2
|
3.8
|
|
2
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
2.1
|
3.3
|
|
3
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
2.8
|
5.5
|
|
4
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
2.7
|
4.1
|
|
5
|
Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda
|
3.6
|
7.6
|
|
6
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.3
|
5.6
|
|
7
|
Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda
|
2.5
|
5.0
|
|
8
|
Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda
|
3.8
|
7.8
|
|
9
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
|
10
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
3.6
|
6.0
|
|
11
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
4.2
|
6.8
|
|
12
|
Carcinoscorpius
rotundicauda
|
4.5
|
8.0
|
|
13
|
Tachypleus
tridentatus
|
5.2
|
7.5
|
|
|
Mean
(Range)
|
3.4
(2.1-5.2)
|
5.7
(3.0-8.0)
|
Seagrass Beds
Seagrass beds were not observed during the qualitative
walk-through surveys at TCB1, TCB2, TCB3 and THW.
Other Intertidal Soft Shore Communities
The survey results on other intertidal soft shore
communities are summarised in Table 6.3
below. A total of 35, 29, 38 and 40
species were recorded during the qualitative walk-through surveys at TCB1,
TCB2, TCB3 and THW, respectively.
Detailed species list and their relative abundance at each monitoring
station are presented in Annex D1.
Table 6.3 Results for Other
Intertidal Soft Shore Communities during Qualitative Walk-through Surveys
|
Monitoring Station
|
Shore Height *
|
No. of Species
|
|
TCB1
|
H
|
21
|
|
|
M
|
27
|
|
|
L
|
25
|
|
|
Overall
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCB2
|
H
|
21
|
|
|
M
|
22
|
|
|
L
|
25
|
|
|
Overall
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCB3
|
H
|
15
|
|
|
M
|
26
|
|
|
L
|
26
|
|
|
Overall
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
THW
|
H
|
25
|
|
|
M
|
28
|
|
|
L
|
30
|
|
|
Overall
|
40
|
|
* H:
+2mCD; M: +1.5mCD; L: +1mCD
|
6.4.3
Quantitative Transect
Surveys
A total of 8,043
individuals were recorded from all transects at monitoring stations TCB1-3 and
THW. The most abundant group of
intertidal soft shore communities recorded was gastropods, with a total of
7,768 individuals (relative abundance of 96.6% and density of 518 individual m-2). The summary of the top three dominant
species at each shore height of each monitoring station is presented in Table 6.4. The complete list of species and density
recorded is shown in Annex E2.
Table 6.4 Results for Other Intertidal
Soft Shore Communities during Quantitative Transect Surveys
|
Monitoring Station
|
Shore Height *
|
Top Three Dominant Species
|
Density
(ind. / m2)
|
|
TCB1
|
H
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
1216.0
|
|
|
|
2
|
Monodonta
labio
|
24.8
|
|
|
|
3
|
Clithon spp.
|
12.0
|
|
|
M
|
1
|
Cerithidea
cingulata
|
197.6
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
181.6
|
|
|
|
3
|
Monodonta
labio
|
58.4
|
|
|
L
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
95.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
3
|
Nipponacmea
concinna
|
39.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCB2
|
H
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
2
|
Laternula
anatina
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
3
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
3.2
|
|
|
M
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
131.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
Cerithidea
cingulata
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
3
|
Cellana grata
|
33.6
|
|
|
L
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
300.0
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
39.2
|
|
|
|
3
|
Cerithidea
cingulata
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCB3
|
H
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
1,780.0
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
60.0
|
|
|
|
3
|
Littoraria
articulata
|
19.2
|
|
|
M
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
741.6
|
|
|
|
2
|
Cellana grata
|
40.0
|
|
|
|
3
|
Monodonta
labio
|
40.0
|
|
|
L
|
1
|
Batillaria
multiformis
|
112.8
|
|
|
|
2
|
Monodonta
labio
|
22.4
|
|
|
|
3
|
Lunella
coronata
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THW
|
H
|
1
|
Cerithidea
diadjariensis
|
108.8
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
3
|
Geloina erosa
|
42.4
|
|
|
M
|
1
|
Cerithidea
diadjariensis
|
127.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
73.6
|
|
|
|
3
|
Cerithidea
cingulata
|
47.2
|
|
|
L
|
1
|
Batillaria
zonalis
|
91.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
Cerithidea
diadjariensis
|
72.8
|
|
|
|
3
|
Cerithidea
cingulata
|
40.0
|
|
* H:
+2mCD; M: +1.5mCD; L: +1mCD
|
6.4.4
Sedimentation Rate Monitoring
The mudflat surface levels
at the four selected monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ
HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table
6.5.
Table 6.5 Results of Sedimentation
Rate Monitoring
|
Monitoring Station
|
Northing (m)
|
Easting (m)
|
Z level (Initial Sedimentation Rate) (mPD)
|
Remarks
|
|
TCB1
|
816068.626
|
811129.309
|
1.252
|
Soft mudflat
|
|
TCB2
|
815812.382
|
810917.245
|
1.120
|
Soft mudflat
|
|
TCB3
|
816027.632
|
810696.839
|
1.041
|
Soft mudflat
|
|
THW
|
817472.067
|
815850.407
|
1.016
|
Soft mudflat
|
In
the event of the impact monitoring results indicating that the density or the
distribution pattern of horseshoe crab, seagrass and intertidal soft shore communities
is found to be significant different to the baseline condition (taking into
account natural fluctuation in the occurrence and distribution pattern such as
due to seasonal change), appropriate actions should be taken and additional
mitigation measures should be implemented as necessary after agreement with IEC
and ER. Data should also be
re-assessed to determine the need for any further monitoring. The event and action plan, as proposed
in Table 6.6, should be undertaken within
a period of 1 month after a significant difference has been determined.
Table 6.6 Event and Action Plan for
Soft Shore Ecological Monitoring
|
Event
|
Action
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
Contractor
|
|
Density
or the distribution pattern of horseshoe crab, seagrass and intertidal soft
shore communities recorded in the impact or post-construction monitoring
are significantly lower than or
different from those recorded in the baseline monitoring.
|
1. Review
historical data to ensure differences are as a result of natural variation or
previously observed seasonal differences;
2.
Identify source(s) of impact;
3.
Inform the IEC, ER and Contractor;
4.
Check monitoring data;
5.
Discuss additional monitoring and any other measures, with the IEC, ER and
Contractor.
|
1.
Discuss amongst ER, ET, and Contractor on the potential remedial actions;
2.
Review proposals for additional monitoring and any other measures submitted
by the Contractor and advise the ER accordingly;
3.
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
|
1.
Discuss with the IEC additional monitoring requirements and any other
measures proposed by the ET;
2.
Make agreement on the measures to be implemented.
|
1.
Inform the ER and in writing;
2.
Discuss with the ET and the IEC and propose measures to the IEC and the ER;
3.
Implement the agreed measures;
4.
Resubmit proposals of remedial actions if problem still not under control;
5.
Stop the relevant portion of works as determined by the ER until the
exceedance is abated.
|
|
|
7
Conclusion
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the Project, baseline
monitoring was undertaken prior to
commencement of the construction works for the following baseline monitoring
components:
Ÿ
Air Quality;
Ÿ
Noise;
Ÿ
Water Quality;
Ÿ
Landscape and Visual; and
Ÿ
Soft Shore Ecology.
The baseline air quality monitoring was conducted at four (4) monitoring
stations (DM-1, DM-2A, DM-3A and DM-4A) between 4 and 17 May 2018. Overall, the baseline air quality monitoring
results are considered representative to the ambient air quality conditions of the
sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the Project. The Action and Limit Levels for air
quality (1-hour TSP levels) were established based on the baseline monitoring
results.
Baseline noise monitoring was conducted at four (4)
monitoring stations (NMS-CA-1A, NMS-CA-2A, NMS-CA-3 and NMS-CA-4) between 4 and
18 May 2018. The major noise sources
identified at the monitoring station are the noise from road traffic, aircraft,
train, renovation at Ying Tung Estate and insect. The baseline monitoring results are
considered representative of the ambient noise level.
Baseline water quality monitoring was conducted at seven (7) monitoring stations (TCE-C1, TCE-C2, TCE-WQM1,
TCE-WQM2a, TCE-WQM2b, TCE-WQM3A and TCE-WQM4) between 25
April and 21 May
2018. No observable pollution
source was recorded at the monitoring stations and the baseline monitoring
results are thus considered representative of the ambient water quality
levels. Action and Limit Levels
were established for DO, SS and Turbidity based on the
baseline monitoring results.
Site conditions verification
surveys for landscape and visual baseline were conducted on 15, 16, 17 and 19
May 2018 to revisit the identified LRs, LCAs and VSRs in the approved EIA
Report. The survey results
concluded that the landscape and visual baseline conditions within the Project
site boundary is similar to those presented in the approved EIA Report. There is no major change in the
landscape and visual baseline conditions comparing to those during the EIA
stage. Additional landscape and
visual mitigation measures other than those recommended in the approved EIA
Report are thus not required.
Baseline soft shore ecological monitoring was conducted at four (4) monitoring stations situated in TCB and
THW on 30 April, 2-4 May, 15-16 May and 27 June 2018. A
total of 8,043 intertidal individuals and 37 individuals of horseshoe crabs
were recorded during the surveys.
The baseline mudflat surface levels at the four (4) monitoring stations
were also measured for the determination of sedimentation rate during the
impact/post-construction monitoring.
Event and Action Plan is established for
implementing appropriate actions and additional mitigation measures as
necessary when comparing the data between baseline and impact/post-construction
monitoring.
