TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 introduction 4

1.1 Background 4

1.2 Scope of Report 4

1.3 Project Organization 5

1.4 Summary of Construction Works 5

1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements 6

2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING 7

2.1 Monitoring Requirements 7

2.2 Monitoring Equipment 7

2.3 Monitoring Locations 7

2.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration 8

2.5 Monitoring Methodology 8

2.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month 10

2.7 Results and Observations 10

3 Noise MONITORING 12

3.1 Monitoring Requirements 12

3.2 Monitoring Equipment 12

3.3 Monitoring Locations 12

3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration 13

3.5 Monitoring Methodology 13

3.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month 13

3.7 Monitoring Results 14

4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 15

4.1 Monitoring Requirements 15

4.2 Monitoring Equipment 15

4.3 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration 15

4.4 Monitoring Locations 15

4.5 Monitoring Methodology 16

4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month 18

4.7 Results and Observations 18

5 Dolphin monitoring 28

5.1 Monitoring Requirements 28

5.2 Monitoring Equipment 28

5.3 Monitoring Frequency and Conditions 28

5.4 Monitoring Methodology and Location 28

5.5 Monitoring Procedures 30

5.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month 30

5.7 Results and Observations 30

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT 34

6.1 Site Inspection 34

6.2 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status 36

6.3 Environmental Licenses and Permits 37

6.4 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures 37

6.5 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 38

6.6 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions 38

7 FUTURE KEY ISSUES 43

7.1 Construction Programme for the Coming Months 43

7.2 Key Issues for the Coming Month 44

7.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month 44

8 ConclusionS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

8.1 Conclusions 45

8.2 Recommendations 46

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel

Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Table 2.2 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Table 2.4 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

Table 2.5 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Equipment

Table 3.2 Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Table 3.3 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Table 3.4 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Table 4.2 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency

Table 4.3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Table 4.4 Laboratory Analysis for Suspended Solids

Table 4.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Table 5.1 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment

Table 5.2 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD)

Table 5.3 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Effort Summary, Effort by Area and Beaufort Sea State

Table 5.4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Details in March 2014

Table 5.5 The Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings & Total Number of Dolphins per Area^

Table 6.1 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status

Figures

Figure 1 General Project Layout Plan

Figure 2 Impact Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station

Figure 3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map

Figure 5 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Efforts and Sightings in March 2014

Figure 6 Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure

List of Appendices

Appendix A Project Organization for Environmental Works

Appendix B Three Month Rolling Construction Programmes

Appendix C Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)

Appendix D Summary of Action and Limit Levels

Appendix E Calibration Certificates of Monitoring Equipments

Appendix F EM&A Monitoring Schedules

Appendix G Impact Air Quality Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation

Appendix H Meteorological Data for Monitoring Periods on Monitoring Dates in March 2014

Appendix I Impact Construction Noise Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation

Appendix J Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation

Appendix K Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Sighting Summary

Appendix L Event Action Plan

Appendix M Monthly Summary of Waste Flow Table

Appendix N Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of the Hong Kong International Airport of an area of about 130-hectare for the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is a designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 06 August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and 28 January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction assignment for the Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Project).

China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.

ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.

AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.

The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.

This report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 and 31 March 2014. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-

Marine-based Works

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Laying geo-textile

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand filling

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA

- Stone column installation

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Construction of temporary seawall

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Precast Yard setup

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of Conveyors for public fill

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

Land-based Works

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3

- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2

- Installed sand bag at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting period is listed below:

24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour TSP monitoring	5 sessions 5 sessions
Noise monitoring	4 sessions
Impact water quality monitoring	13 sessions
Impact dolphin monitoring	2 surveys
Joint Environmental site inspection	4 sessions

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality

All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month. One (1) Action Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. No Limit Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the action Level exceedance was not related to project.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise

For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

(8) Action Level Exceedance for Suspended Solids (SS), one (1) Action Level Exceedance of Turbidity Level and one (1) Limit level exceedance of SS were recorded in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the exceedances were not related to project.

Impact Dolphin Monitoring

A total of 10 sightings were made, all “on effort”. Six sightings were made on the 19th March; one on the 24th of March and three on the 25th of March. A total of twenty two individuals were sighted from the two impact dolphin surveys in the reporting period. Sighting details are summarised and plotted in Appendix K and Figure 5c, respectively.

Behaviour: Of the ten sightings made, four were recorded as feeding; two as travelling, two as multiple, one as unknown and one as “other”. One of the sightings recorded as multiple behavior consisted of feeding and travelling while the other consisted of both feeding and surface active behaviour. The “other” behavior was noted when the dolphins sighted were being actively photographed by another research vessel. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant who advised that there was sea water coloured in blue observed in vicinity of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone column installation was taking place. The complainant suspected that the filling material was stained and contaminated the sea water after being filled into the sea. With reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned sea water coloured in blue observed in vicinity of HKBCF is unlikely to be project related.

EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014. After investigation, it is considered that the complaint is unlikely to be project related.

As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. With reference to the available information; it is unable to conclude whether the complaint is project related. The Contractor was advised to ensure to continue the provision of fugitive dust mitigation measures to barges loaded with filling material such as watering to sand filling material on sand barges to keep the surface of stockpile of filling material wet.

One notification of summons was received in the reporting month due to works carried out contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400 on 6 October 13. No successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.

Reporting Change

There was no reporting change required in the reporting period.

Future Key Issues

Key issues to be considered in the coming month included:-

- Site runoff should be properly collected and treated prior to discharge;

- Minimize loss of sediment from filling works;

- Regular review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities;

- Exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty surface run-off during rainstorm;

- Regular review and maintenance of wheel washing facilities provided at all site entrances/exits;

- Conduct regular inspection of various working machineries and vessels within works areas to avoid any dark smoke emission;

- Suppress dust generated from work processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements, excavation activities, exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul road traffic;

- Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used;

- Provision of proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site, such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants;

- Closely check and replace the sound insulation materials regularly;

- Better scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance;

- Properly store and label oil drums and chemical containers placed on site;

- Proper chemicals, chemical wastes and wastes management;

- Maintenance works should be carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas;

- Collection and segregation of construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea should be carried out properly and regularly; and

- Proper protection and regular inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained trees.

1 introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of the Hong Kong International Airport of an area of about 130-hectare for the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL).

1.1.2 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.

1.1.3 EPD subsequently issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009 (EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010 (EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012 (EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F) and August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G). Similarly, EPD issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in December 2010 (EP-354/2009/A) and January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B).

1.1.4 The Project is a designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 6 August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and 28 January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).

1.1.5 A Project Specific EM&A Manual, which included all project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the Project, was issued in May 2012.

1.1.6 Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction assignment for the Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Project).

1.1.7 China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.

1.1.8 ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.

1.1.9 AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the EM&A works.

1.1.10 The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016.

1.1.11 According to the Project Specific EM&A Manual, there is a need of an EM&A programme including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections. The EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.

1.2 Scope of Report

1.2.1 This is the twenty-fifth monthly EM&A Report under the Contract No.HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Project in March 2014.

1.3 Project Organization

1.3.1 The project organization structure is shown in Appendix A. The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone	Fax
Engineer’s Representative (ER) (Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)	Chief Resident Engineer	Roger Marechal	3698 5700	2698 5999
IEC / ENPO (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2868	3465 2899
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	Environmental Officer	Richard Ng	36932253	2578 0413
	24-hour Hotline	Alan C.C. Yeung	9448 0325	--
ET (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	ET Leader	Echo Leong	3922 9280	2317 7609

1.4 Summary of Construction Works

1.4.1 The construction phase of the Project under the EP commenced on 12 March 2012.

1.4.2 As informed by the Contractor, details of the major works carried out in this reporting period are listed below:-

Marine-based Works

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Laying geo-textile

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand filling

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA

- Stone column installation

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Construction of temporary seawall

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Precast Yard setup

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of Conveyors for public fill

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3

- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2

- Installed sand bag at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction programme of the Project is shown in Appendix B.

1.4.4 The general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.

1.4.5 The environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule are presented in Appendix C.

1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

1.5.1 The EM&A programme required environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality, marine ecology and environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, marine ecology, and landscape and visual impact. The EM&A requirements for each parameter described in the following sections include:-

- All monitoring parameters;

- Monitoring schedules for the reporting month and forthcoming month;

- Action and Limit levels for all environmental parameters;

- Event / Action Plan;

- Environmental mitigation measures, as recommended in the Project EIA reports; and

- Environmental requirement in contract documents.

2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING

2.1 Monitoring Requirements

2.1.1 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour and 24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) levels at 4 air quality monitoring stations were established. Impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days. The Action and Limit level of the air quality monitoring is provided in Appendix D.

2.2 Monitoring Equipment

2.2.1 24-hour TSP air quality monitoring was performed using High Volume Sampler (HVS) located at each designated monitoring station. The HVS meets all the requirements of the Project Specific EM&A Manual. Portable direct reading dust meters were used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Brand and model of the equipment is given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Portable direct reading dust meter (1-hour TSP)	Sibata Digital Dust Monitor (Model No. LD-3 and LD-3B)
High Volume Sampler (24-hour TSP)	Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler (Model No. TE-5170)

2.3 Monitoring Locations

2.3.1 Monitoring locations AMS2 and AMS7 were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual. For AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building), permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works was sought, however, access to the premise has not been granted yet on this report issuing date. For monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (AMS3B) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

2.3.2 Reference is made to ET’s proposal of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012 and EPD’s letter dated on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of the proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 is effective since 19 November 2012.

2.3.3 Figure 2 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 2.2 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.2 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Description
AMS2	Tung Chung Development Pier	Rooftop of the premise
AMS3B	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2	On ground at the area boundary
AMS6*	Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building	On ground at boundary of the premise
AMS7	Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel	On ground at boundary of the premise

^#Remarks: Reference is made to EPD conditional approval of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for the project. The omission will be effective on 19 November 2012.

2.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

2.4.1 Table 2.3 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.

Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Parameter	Frequency and Duration
1-hour TSP	Three times every 6 days while the highest dust impact was expected
24-hour TSP	Once every 6 days

2.5 Monitoring Methodology

2.5.1 24-hour TSP Monitoring

(a) The HVS was installed in the vicinity of the air sensitive receivers. The following criteria were considered in the installation of the HVS.

(i) A horizontal platform with appropriate support to secure the sampler against gusty wind was provided.

(ii) No two samplers should be placed less than 2 meters apart.

(iii) The distance between the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.

(iv) A minimum of 2 meters separation from walls, parapets and penthouse for rooftop sampler.

(v) A minimum of 2 meters separation from any supporting structure, measured horizontally is required.

(vi) No furnace or incinerator flues nearby.

(vii) Airflow around the sampler was unrestricted.

(viii) Permission was obtained to set up the samplers and access to the monitoring stations.

(ix) A secured supply of electricity was obtained to operate the samplers.

(x) The sampler was located more than 20 meters from any dripline.

(xi) Any wire fence and gate, required to protect the sampler, did not obstruct the monitoring process.

(xii) Flow control accuracy was kept within ±2.5% deviation over 24-hour sampling period.

(b) Preparation of Filter Papers

(i) Glass fibre filters, G810 were labelled and sufficient filters that were clean and without pinholes were selected.

(ii) All filters were equilibrated in the conditioning environment for 24 hours before weighing. The conditioning environment temperature was around 25 °C and not variable by more than ±3 °C; the relative humidity (RH) was < 50% and not variable by more than ±5%. A convenient working RH was 40%.

(iii) All filter papers were prepared and analysed by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd., which is a HOKLAS accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality control programmes.

(c) Field Monitoring

(i) The power supply was checked to ensure the HVS works properly.

(ii) The filter holder and the area surrounding the filter were cleaned.

(iii) The filter holder was removed by loosening the four bolts and a new filter, with stamped number upward, on a supporting screen was aligned carefully.

(iv) The filter was properly aligned on the screen so that the gasket formed an airtight seal on the outer edges of the filter.

(v) The swing bolts were fastened to hold the filter holder down to the frame. The pressure applied was sufficient to avoid air leakage at the edges.

(vi) Then the shelter lid was closed and was secured with the aluminum strip.

(vii) The HVS was warmed-up for about 5 minutes to establish run-temperature conditions.

(viii) A new flow rate record sheet was set into the flow recorder.

(ix) On site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the flow rate of the HVS was checked and adjusted at around 1.1 m³/min, and complied with the range specified in the updated EM&A Manual (i.e. 0.6-1.7 m³/min).

(x) The programmable digital timer was set for a sampling period of 24 hrs, and the starting time, weather condition and the filter number were recorded.

(xi) The initial elapsed time was recorded.

(xii) At the end of sampling, on site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the final flow rate of the HVS was checked and recorded.

(xiii) The final elapsed time was recorded.

(xiv) The sampled filter was removed carefully and folded in half length so that only surfaces with collected particulate matter were in contact.

(xv) It was then placed in a clean plastic envelope and sealed.

(xvi) All monitoring information was recorded on a standard data sheet.

(xvii) Filters were then sent to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for analysis.

(d) Maintenance and Calibration

(i) The HVS and its accessories were maintained in good working condition, such as replacing motor brushes routinely and checking electrical wiring to ensure a continuous power supply.

(ii) 5-point calibration of the HVS was conducted using TE-5025A Calibration Kit prior to the commencement of baseline monitoring. Bi-monthly 5-point calibration of the HVS will be carried out during impact monitoring.

(iii) Calibration certificate of the HVSs are provided in Appendix E.

2.5.2 1-hour TSP Monitoring

(a) Measuring Procedures

The measuring procedures of the 1-hour dust meter were in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Instruction Manual as follows:-

(i) Turn the power on.

(ii) Close the air collecting opening cover.

(iii) Push the “TIME SETTING” switch to [BG].

(iv) Push “START/STOP” switch to perform background measurement for 6 seconds.

(v) Turn the knob at SENSI ADJ position to insert the light scattering plate.

(vi) Leave the equipment for 1 minute upon “SPAN CHECK” is indicated in the display.

(vii) Push “START/STOP” switch to perform automatic sensitivity adjustment. This measurement takes 1 minute.

(viii) Pull out the knob and return it to MEASURE position.

(ix) Push the “TIME SETTING” switch the time set in the display to 3 hours.

(x) Lower down the air collection opening cover.

(xi) Push “START/STOP” switch to start measurement.

(b) Maintenance and Calibration

(i) The 1-hour TSP meter was calibrated at 1-year intervals against a continuous particulate TEOM Monitor, Series 1400ab. Calibration certificates of the Laser Dust Monitors are provided in Appendix E.

(ii) 1-hour validation checking of the TSP meter against HVS is carried out on half-year basis at the air quality monitoring locations.

2.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

2.6.1 The schedule for air quality monitoring in March 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

2.7 Results and Observations

2.7.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Table 2.4 and 2.5 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results are presented in Appendix G.

Table 2.4 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

	Average (mg/m^3)	Range (mg/m^3)	Action Level (mg/m^3)	Limit Level (mg/m^3)
AMS2	83	78 – 89	374	500
AMS3B	83	79 – 87	368	500
AMS7	83	78 – 89	370	500

Table 2.5 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

	Average (mg/m^3)	Range (mg/m^3)	Action Level (mg/m^3)	Limit Level (mg/m^3)
AMS2	95	75 – 111	176	260
AMS3B	125	106 – 178	167	260
AMS7	81	46 – 111	183	260

2.7.2 All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month. One (1) Action Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month.

2.7.3 The major dust source in the reporting period included construction activities from the Project, construction activities by other contacts, as well as nearby traffic emissions.

2.7.4 For the 24Hr TSP Action Level exceedance recorded at AMS3B, a result of 178mg/m³ was recorded on 11 Mar 14 (24-hr TSP).

2.7.4.1 According to information provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such transloading stitched geotextile and transloading sand bags to barges was being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.

2.7.4.2 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3B was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3B. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.

2.7.4.3 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 10 and 11 Mar 14 (as attached) Southeast to South-southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. As such, the 24hr-TSP exceedance is unlikely to be contributed by active works at the HKBCF – reclamations works which is located North to the monitoring location.

2.7.4.4 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3B on 11 Mar 14, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 83μg/ m³, 80μg/ m³ and 81μg/ m³ respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.

2.7.4.5 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 111μg/m³ and 90μg/m³, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.

2.7.4.6 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3B on next monitoring date were 106μg/m³, which did not exceed the Action or Limit Level.

2.7.4.7 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:

1. Works Area WA2’s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded (Please refer to attached layout map and photo record (View B))

2. Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,

3. Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g. canvas/tarpaulin covers.

View B (Hard paved surface observed at Works Area WA2)

2.7.4.8 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.

2.7.5 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

2.7.6 Meteorological information collected from the wind station during the monitoring periods on the monitoring dates, as shown in Figure 2, including wind speed and wind direction, is annexed in Appendix H.

3 Noise MONITORING

3.1 Monitoring Requirements

3.1.1 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least once per week during the construction phase of the Project. The Action and Limit level of the noise monitoring is provided in Appendix D.

3.2 Monitoring Equipment

3.2.1 Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meter at each designated monitoring station. The sound level meters deployed comply with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications. Acoustic calibrator was deployed to check the sound level meters at a known sound pressure level. Brand and model of the equipment is given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Integrated Sound Level Meter	Rion NL-31 & B&K2238
Acoustic Calibrator	Rion NC-73

3.3 Monitoring Locations

3.3.1 Monitoring locations NMS2 was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact noise monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (NMS3B) respectively. Same baseline noise level (as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College) and Limit Level were adopted for this alternative noise monitoring location.

3.3.2 Figure 2 shows the locations of the monitoring stations. Table 3.2 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 3.2 Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Description
NMS2	Seaview Crescent Tower 1	Free-field on the rooftop of the premise
NMS3B	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2	Free-field on ground at the area boundary.

3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

3.4.1 Table 3.3 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.

Table 3.3 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Parameter	Frequency and Duration
30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90 would be recorded.	At least once per week

3.5 Monitoring Methodology

3.5.1 Monitoring Procedure

(a) The sound level meter was set on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m above the ground for free-field measurements at NMS2. A correction of +3 dB(A) shall be made to the free field measurements.

(b) All measurement at NMS3A were free field measurements in the reporting month at NMS3A. A correction of +3 dB(A) shall be made to the free field measurements.

(c) The battery condition was checked to ensure the correct functioning of the meter.

(d) Parameters such as frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were set as follows:-

(i) frequency weighting: A

(ii) time weighting: Fast

(iii) time measurement: L_{eq(30-minutes)} during non-restricted hours i.e. 07:00 – 1900 on normal weekdays.

(e) Prior to and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic calibrator for 94dB(A) at 1000 Hz. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1 dB(A), the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.

(f) During the monitoring period, the L_eq, L₁₀ and L₉₀ were recorded. In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded on a standard record sheet.

(g) Noise measurement was paused during periods of high intrusive noise (e.g. dog barking, helicopter noise) if possible. Observations were recorded when intrusive noise was unavoidable.

(h) Noise monitoring was cancelled in the presence of fog, rain, wind with a steady speed exceeding 5m/s, or wind with gusts exceeding 10m/s. The wind speed shall be checked with a portable wind speed meter capable of measuring the wind speed in m/s.

3.5.2 Maintenance and Calibration

(a) The microphone head of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular intervals.

(b) The meter and calibrator were sent to the supplier or HOKLAS laboratory to check and calibrate at yearly intervals.

(c) Calibration certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators are provided in Appendix E.

3.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

3.6.1 The schedule for construction noise monitoring in March 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

3.7 Monitoring Results

3.7.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.4 and the monitoring data is provided in Appendix I.

Table 3.4 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

	Average, dB(A), Leq (30 mins)	Range, dB(A), Leq (30 mins)	Limit Level, dB(A), Leq (30 mins)
NMS2	68	68 – 69*	75
NMS3B	67	66 – 68*	70^

*+3dB(A) Façade correction included

^ Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65dB(A) applies during school examination period.

3.7.2 No Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting month.

3.7.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Project, construction activities by other contracts and nearby traffic noise.

3.7.4 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING

4.1 Monitoring Requirements

4.1.1 Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that timely action was taken to rectify the situation. For impact water quality monitoring, measurements were taken in accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual. Appendix D shows the established Action/Limit Levels for the environmental monitoring works.

4.2 Monitoring Equipment

4.2.1 Table 4.1 summarises the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature Meter, Salinity Meter and Turbidimeter	YSI Model 6820
pH Meter	YSI Model 6820 or Thermo Orion 230A+
Positioning Equipment	JRC DGPS 224 Model JLR-4341 with J-NAV 500 Model NWZ4551
Water Depth Detector	Eagle Cuda-168
Water Sampler	Kahlsio Water Sampler (Vertical) 2.2 L with messenger

4.3 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

4.3.1 Table 4.2 summarises the monitoring parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water quality monitoring as required in the Project Specific EM&A Manual.

Table 4.2 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency

Monitoring Stations	Parameter, unit	Frequency	No. of depth
Impact Stations: IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9, IS10, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16, IS17 Control/Far Field Stations: CS(Mf)3, CS(Mf)5, CS4, CS6, CSA Sensitive Receiver Stations: SR3-SR7, SR10A&SR10B	· Depth, m · Temperature, ^oC · Salinity, ppt · Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/L · DO Saturation, % · Turbidity, NTU · pH · Suspended Solids (SS), mg/L	Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides (within ± 1.75 hour of the predicted time)	3 (1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station may be omitted.  Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).

4.4 Monitoring Locations

4.4.1 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations) were designated for impact water quality monitoring. The nine Impact Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest potential for water quality impacts, the seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive receives and the five Control/ Far Field Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate comparison of the water quality of the IS stations with less influence by the Project/ ambient water quality conditions.

4.4.2 Due to safety concern and topographical condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4 (N) and SR10B (N), were adopted, which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality monitoring stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable.

4.4.3 Same baseline and Action Level for water quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were adopted for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.

4.4.4 The locations of these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.3 and depicted in Figure 3.

Table 4.3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Station	Description	East	North
IS5	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	811579	817106
IS(Mf)6	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812101	817873
IS7	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812244	818777
IS8	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814251	818412
IS(Mf)9	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813273	818850
IS10	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812577	820670
IS(Mf)11	Impact Station  (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813562	820716
IS(Mf)16	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814328	819497
IS17	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814539	820391
SR3	Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)	810525	816456
SR4(N)	Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho)	814705	817859
SR5	Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)	811489	820455
SR6	Sensitive receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park)	805837	821818
SR7	Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do)	814293	821431
SR10A	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)1	823741	823495
SR10B(N)	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)2	823683	823187
CS(Mf)3	Control Station	809989	821117
CS(Mf)5	Control Station	817990	821129
CS4	Control Station	810025	824004
CS6	Control Station	817028	823992
CSA	Control Station	818103	823064

4.5 Monitoring Methodology

4.5.1 Instrumentation

(a) The in-situ water quality parameters, viz. dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, turbidity and pH, were measured by multi-parameter meters (i.e. Model YSI 6820 CE-C-M-Y) and pH meter (i.e. Thermo Orion 230A+) respectively.

4.5.2 Operating/Analytical Procedures

(a) Digital Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) were used to ensure that the correct location was selected prior to sample collection.

(b) Portable, battery-operated echo sounders were used for the determination of water depth at each designated monitoring station.

(c) All in-situ measurements were taken at 3 water depths, 1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth was less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station was omitted.  Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station was monitored.

(d) At each measurement/sampling depth, two consecutive in-situ monitoring (DO concentration and saturation, temperature, turbidity, pH, salinity) and water sample for SS. The probes were retrieved out of the water after the first measurement and then re-deployed for the second measurement. Where the difference in the value between the first and second readings of DO or turbidity parameters was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the reading was discarded and further readings were taken.

(e) Duplicate samples from each independent sampling event were collected for SS measurement. Water samples were collected using the water samplers and the samples were stored in high-density polythene bottles. Water samples collected were well-mixed in the water sampler prior to pre-rinsing and transferring to sample bottles. Sample bottles were pre-rinsed with the same water samples. The sample bottles were then be packed in cool-boxes (cooled at 4^oC without being frozen), and delivered to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for the analysis of suspended solids concentrations. The laboratory determination work would be started within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. is a HOKLAS accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality control programmes. For QA/QC procedures, one duplicate samples of every batch of 20 samples was analyzed.

(f) The analysis method and reporting and detection limit for SS is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Laboratory Analysis for Suspended Solids

Parameters	Instrumentation	Analytical Method	Reporting Limit	Detection Limit
Suspended Solid (SS)	Weighting	APHA 2540-D	0.5mg/L	0.5mg/L

(g) Other relevant data were recorded, including monitoring location / position, time, water depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work underway at the construction site in the field log sheet for information.

4.5.3 Maintenance and Calibration

(a) All in situ monitoring instruments would be calibrated and calibrated by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. before use and at 3-monthly intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring programme. Calibration details are provided in Appendix E.

(b) The dissolved oxygen probe of YSI 6820 was calibrated by wet bulb method. Before the calibration routine, the sensor for dissolved oxygen was thermally equilibrated in water-saturated air. Calibration cup is served as a calibration chamber and it was loosened from airtight condition before it is used for the calibration. Calibration at ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. was carried out once every three months in a water sample with a known concentration of dissolved oxygen. The sensor was immersed in the water and after thermal equilibration, the known mg/L value was keyed in and the calibration was carried out automatically.

(c) The turbidity probe of YSI 6820 is calibrated two times a month. A zero check in distilled water was performed with the turbidity probe of YSI 6820 once per monitoring day. The probe will be calibrated with a solution of known NTU at ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. once every three months.

4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

4.6.1 The schedule for impact water quality monitoring in March 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

4.7 Results and Observations

4.7.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the reporting month. Except Impact water quality monitoring at sampling location IS(Mf)9. Sampling location IS(Mf)9 was found enclosed by silt curtain during the reporting month. Samples were taken about 140 meters away from IS(Mf)9. The sampling location’s coordination (East 813226, North 818708) was recorded. The Contractor was advised to take corrective actions to the temporary arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain as soon as possible. In accordance with our observations on 24 March 2014, the original monitoring location of IS(Mf)9 was no longer enclosed by the perimeter silt curtain of this Contract. Thus, IWQM works at the original monitoring location of IS(Mf)9 has been resumed and the alternative location of IS(Mf)9(N) has no longer been used since 24 March 2014.

4.7.2 In accordance with our observations, IWQM stations IS17 had been enclosed by the perimeter silt curtain of this Contract in the reporting month. As the temporary arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain is now extended to the 3rd Quarter of 2014. Samples were taken outside the perimeter silt curtain and as close to the original impact water quality monitoring stations as possible. The sampling location’s coordination (East 814767, North 820391) was recorded.

4.7.3 The alternative locations has been proposed and verified by the ET and the IEC respectively.

4.7.4 Impact water quality monitoring results and graphical presentations are provided in Appendix J.

4.7.5 (8) Action Level Exceedance for Suspended Solids (SS), one (1) Action Level Exceedance of Turbidity Level and one (1) Limit level exceedance of SS were recorded in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the exceedances were not related to project.

Table 4.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
		Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (16 March 14)	0	1	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (31 March 14)	0	1
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1(24 March 14)	2 (24 and 31 March 14)	1	2
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (16 March 14)	0	1	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (16 March 14)	0	1	0
SR3	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (16 March 14)	0	1	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Action	0	0	0	0	1 (16 March 14)	0	0	0	1	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (31 March 14)	0	1
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	1	0	4	4	9
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1

Note: S: Surface; and

M: Mid-depth.

4.7.6 One (1) Limit level exceedance of SS was recorded at IS17; three (3) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS5, SR3 and IS10; one (1) Action Level Exceedance on Turbidity was recorded at SR5 on 19 March 14.

4.7.6.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 19 March 14.

4.7.6.2 Exceedance recorded at IS10 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.6.3 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS10.

4.7.6.4 With reference to monitoring record and photo record taken on 19 and 20 March 2014, no silt plume was observed on sea near the northwest part of the site which is close to IS10. (Please see attached photo record)

4.7.6.5 Photo of sea condition taken near the northwest part of the site (Near IS10) on 19 March 14.

4.7.6.6 Photo of sea condition taken near the northwest part of the site (Near IS10) on 20 March 14.

4.7.6.7 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, no disconnection was observed at the northwest part of site which is near IS10.

4.7.6.8 Turbidity level recorded at IS10, SR5 and IS(Mf)11 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS10 was not adversely affected.

4.7.6.9 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS10.

4.7.6.10 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS10 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.6.11 For the action Level Exceedance on Turbidity recorded at SR5 on 19 March 14.

4.7.6.12 in situ measurement was repeated to confirm findings;

4.7.6.13 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR5 was due to active construction activities of this project;

4.7.6.14 IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;

4.7.6.15 Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods were checked;

4.7.6.16 Since it is considered that the exceedance at SR5 is unlikely to be project related, as such, actions 5 - 7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.

4.7.6.17 Exceedance recorded at SR5 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.6.18 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR5.

4.7.6.19 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR5 was due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.6.20 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the SR5.

4.7.6.21 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5.

4.7.6.22 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR5 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.6.23 Exceedance recorded at SR3 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.6.24 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR3.

4.7.6.25 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR3 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR3 was due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.6.26 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the SR3.

4.7.6.27 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR3.

4.7.6.28 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR3 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.6.29 Exceedance recorded at IS5 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.6.30 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS5.

4.7.6.31 The monitoring location of monitoring station IS5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at IS5 were due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.6.32 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS5.

4.7.6.33 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS5.

4.7.6.34 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS5 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.6.35 Exceedance recorded at IS17 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.6.36 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR5, IS5, SR3 and IS17.

4.7.6.37 With reference to monitoring record and photo record taken on 19 and 20 March 2014, no silt plume was observed on sea near the northeast part of the site which is close to IS17. (Please see attached photo record)

4.7.6.38 Photo of sea condition taken near the northeast part of the site (Near IS17) on 19 March 14.

4.7.6.39 Photo of sea condition taken near the northeast part of the site (Near IS17) on 20 March 14.

4.7.6.40 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the locations where the exceedance was recorded during mid-ebb tide.

4.7.6.41 Turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS17 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS17 was not adversely affected.

4.7.6.42 The exceedance is likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17.

4.7.6.43 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS17 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.6.44 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.

4.7.6.45 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

4.7.7 Two (2) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS(Mf)9 were recorded during mid flood tide and mid ebb tide respectively on 24 March 14.

4.7.7.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 24 March 14.

4.7.7.2 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, deficiency such as missing segments at one end of the perimeter silt curtain at the southern marine access was noted. This part of the perimeter silt curtain is close to IS(Mf)9. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found and maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

4.7.7.3 However, exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9 recorded during mid-Ebb tide and mid-Flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

4.7.7.4 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 21, 24 and 26 March 2014, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 21 and 26 March 2014 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works as shown on the layout map attached is unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS(Mf)9.

4.7.7.5 Mitigation measures such as localised silt curtain was implemented for stone column installation. (Please refer to the photo record)

4.7.7.6 Also, in accordance with the monitoring record, no silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during impact water quality monitoring on 24 March 2014. (Please refer to the photo attached which shows the sea condition near IS(Mf)9 on 24 March 2014.)

4.7.7.7 Photo of silt curtain near south part of the site IS(Mf)9 on 24 March 2014.

4.7.7.8 With referred to the monitoring data, turbidity level recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS(Mf)9 was not adversely affected.

4.7.7.9 In addition, with referred to the monitoring data, the Suspended Solids recorded at IS7, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the Suspended Solids at areas next to IS(Mf)9 was not adversely affected.

4.7.7.10 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9.

4.7.7.11 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is unlikely to be project related.

4.7.7.12 Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.

4.7.7.13 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

4.7.8 Three (3) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6 during mid flood tide on 31 March 2014.

4.7.8.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 31 March 14.

4.7.8.2 IS10 and SR5 which are located downstream and closer to active works than SR6. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid flood tide on 31 March 2014 and this indicates that the water quality noted at downstream and closer to active works were not adversely affected, hence it is considered that the exceedance recorded at SR6 are not related to the Project.

4.7.8.3 Same type of works was carried out at almost the same locations on 28 and 31 March 2014 but Suspended Solids values recorded at 28 March 2014 are all below the Action and Limit Level during mid-flood tide, this indicates active works as shown on the layout map attached is unlikely to contribute to the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6.

4.7.8.4 With reference to layout map attached, construction activity close to IS(Mf)9 and IS7 such as band drain installation was conducted at southeast part of portion B, since band drain is considered unlikely to cause silt plume. Therefore, the exceedances are unlikely attributed to construction activity close to IS(Mf)9 and IS7.

4.7.8.5 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, defects such as missing segments at southern marine access at one end of the perimeter silt curtain was noted. This part of the perimeter silt curtain is close to IS(Mf)9. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found and maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

4.7.8.6 However, in accordance with the monitoring record, no silt plume was observed outside the perimeter silt curtain near IS(Mf)9 and IS7 on 31 March 2014. (Please refer to the photo below which shows the sea condition near IS(Mf)9 on 31 March 2014.)

4.7.8.7 With referred to the monitoring data, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS(Mf)9 and IS7 were not adversely affected.

4.7.8.8 The exceedances are likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6.

4.7.8.9 As such, the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6 were unlikely to be project related.

4.7.8.10 Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.

4.7.8.11 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

4.7.9 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

5 Dolphin monitoring

5.1 Monitoring Requirements

5.1.1 Vessel based surveys for the Chinese White Dolphin (CWD), Sousa chinensis, are to be conducted by a dedicated team comprising a qualified marine mammal ecologist and experienced marine mammal observers (MMOs). The purpose of the surveys are to evaluate the impact of the HKCBF reclamation and, if deemed detrimental, to take appropriate action as per the EM&A manual.

5.1.2 This ‘Impact Monitoring’ follows several months of ‘Baseline Monitoring’ so similar survey methodologies have been adopted to facilitate comparisons between datasets. Further, the data collected are compatible with, and are available for, incorporation into the data set managed by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) as part of Hong Kong’s long term Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme.

5.2 Monitoring Equipment

5.2.1 Table 5.1 summarises the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.

Table 5.1 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Model
Commercially licensed motor vessel	15m in length with a 4.5m viewing platform
Global Positioning System (GPS) x2	Integrated into T7000 Garmin GPS Map 78C
Computers (T7000 Tablet, Intel Atom)	Windows 7/MSO 13 Logger
Camera	Nikon D90 300m 2.8D fixed focus Nikon D90 20-400m zoom lens
Laser Rangefinder	Infinitor LRF1000/ Kings 950
Marine Binocular x3	Nexus 7 x 50 marine binocular with compass and reticules Fujinon 7 x 50 marine binocular with compass and reticules

5.3 Monitoring Frequency and Conditions

5.3.1 Dolphin monitoring is conducted twice per month in each survey area.

5.3.2 Dolphin monitoring is conducted only when visibility is good (e.g., over 1km) and the sea condition is at a Beaufort Sea State of 4 or better.

5.3.3 When thunder storm, black rain or typhoon warnings are in force, all survey effort is stopped.

5.4 Monitoring Methodology and Location

5.4.1 The impact dolphin monitoring is vessel-based and combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology. The survey follows pre-set and fixed transect lines in the two areas defined by AFCD as:

5.4.2 Northeast Lantau survey area; and

5.4.3 Northwest Lantau survey area.

5.4.4 The co-ordinates for the transect lines and layout map have been provided by AFCD and are shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 4.

Table 5.2 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD)

	HK Grid System		Long Lat in WGS84
ID	X	Y	Long	Lat
1	804671	814577	113.870308	22.269741
1	804671	831404	113.869975	22.421696
2	805475	815457	113.878087	22.277704
2	805477	826654	113.877896	22.378814
3	806464	819435	113.887615	22.313643
3	806464	822911	113.887550	22.345030
4	807518	819771	113.897833	22.316697
4	807518	829230	113.897663	22.402113
5	808504	820220	113.907397	22.320761
5	808504	828602	113.907252	22.396462
6	809490	820466	113.916965	22.323003
6	809490	825352	113.916884	22.367128
7	810499	820690	113.926752	22.325043
7	810499	824613	113.926688	22.360464
8	811508	820847	113.936539	22.326475
8	811508	824254	113.936486	22.357241
9	812516	820892	113.946329	22.326894
9	812516	824254	113.946279	22.357255
10*	813525	818270	113.956156	22.303225
10*	813525	824657	113.956065	22.360912
11	814556	818449	113.966160	22.304858
11	814556	820992	113.966125	22.327820
12	815542	818807	113.975726	22.308109
12	815542	824882	113.975647	22.362962
13	816506	819480	113.985072	22.314192
13	816506	824859	113.985005	22.362771
14	817537	820220	113.995070	22.320883
14	817537	824613	113.995018	22.360556
15	818568	820735	114.005071	22.325550
15	818568	824433	114.005030	22.358947
16	819532	821420	114.014420	22.331747
16	819532	824209	114.014390	22.356933
17	820451	822125	114.023333	22.338117
17	820451	823671	114.023317	22.352084
18	821504	822371	114.033556	22.340353
18	821504	823761	114.033544	22.352903
19	822513	823268	114.043340	22.348458
19	822513	824321	114.043331	22.357971
20	823477	823402	114.052695	22.349680
20	823477	824613	114.052686	22.360610
21	805476	827081	113.877878	22.382668
21	805476	830562	113.877811	22.414103
22	806464	824033	113.887520	22.355164
22	806464	829598	113.887416	22.405423
23	814559	821739	113.966142	22.334574
23	814559	824768	113.966101	22.361920

*Remark: Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Project, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 5 could not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10 is reduced from 6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF construction site. Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 111km.

5.5 Monitoring Procedures

5.5.1 The study area incorporates 23 transects which are to be surveyed twice per month. Each survey day lasts approximately 9 hours.

5.5.2 The survey vessel departs from Tung Chung Development Pier, Tsing Yi Public Pier or the nearest safe and convenient pier.

5.5.3 When the vessel reaches the start of a transect line, “on effort” survey begins. Areas between transect lines and traveling to and from the study area are defined as “off effort”.

5.5.4 The transect line is surveyed at a speed of 6-8 knots (11-14 km/hr). For the sake of safety, the speed was sometimes a bit slower to avoid collision with other vessels. During some periods, tide and current flow in the survey areas exceeds 7 knots which can affect survey speed. There are a minimum of four marine mammal observers (MMOs) present on each survey, rotating through four positions, observers (2), data recorder (1) and ‘rest’ (1). Rotations occur every 30 minutes or at the end of dolphin encounters. The data recorder records effort, weather and sightings data directly onto the programme Logger and is not part of the observer team. The observers search with naked eye and binoculars between 90° and 270° abeam (bow being 0°).

5.5.5 When a group of dolphins is sighted, position, bearing and distance data are recorded immediately onto the computer and, after a short observation, an estimate made of group size. These parameters are linked to the time-GPS-ships data which are automatically stored in the programme Logger throughout the survey period. In this manner, information on heading, position, speed, weather, effort and sightings are stored in a format suitable for use with DISTANCE software for subsequent line transect analyses.

5.5.6 Once the vessel leaves the transect line, it is deemed to be “off effort”. The dolphins are approached with the purpose of taking high resolution pictures for proper photo-identification of individual CWD. Attempts to photograph all dolphins in the group are made. Both the left and right hand sides of the dorsal fin area of each dolphin in the group are photographed, if possible. On finishing photographing, the vessel will return to the transect line at the point of departure and “on effort” survey is resumed.

5.5.7 Sightings which are made while on the transect line are referred to as "on effort sightings", while not on the actual transect line are referred to as an “opportunistic sightings” (e.g. another group of dolphins is sighted while travelling back to the transect line). Only “on effort sightings” can be used in analyses which require effort or rate quantification, e.g., encounter rate per 100km searched. This is also how “on effort sightings” are treated in the baseline report. “Opportunistic sightings” provide additional information on individual habitat use and population distribution and they are noted accordingly.

5.5.8 As time and GPS data are automatically logged throughout the survey and are linked to sightings data input, start and end times of encounters and deviation from the transect lines are recorded and can be subsequently reviewed.

5.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

5.6.1 The schedule for dolphin monitoring in March 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

5.6.2 Two surveys covering both study areas were completed. One survey day was rescheduled from 18 March 2014 to 19 March 2014 due to foggy weather.

5.7 Results and Observations

5.7.1 Dolphin surveys were conducted on 17, 19, 24 and 25 March 2014. In summary, a total of 221.6km of survey was conducted. 100% of “on effort” survey was conducted under favourable conditions (Beaufort Sea State 3 or better). The details are shown below:

5.7.2 The effort summary and sightings data are shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. The survey efforts conducted in March 2014 are plotted in Figure 5a-c. For Table 5.3, only on-effort information is included. Transects conducted in all Beaufort Sea State are included. Compared to previous monthly reports, the whole number Beaufort Sea State scale is used so as to ease comparison with other dolphin monitoring reports.

Table 5.3 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Effort Summary, Effort by Area and Beaufort Sea State

Survey	Date	Area	Beaufort	Effort (km)	Total Distance Travelled (km)
1	17/03/2014	NWL	0	4.6	60.8
	17/03/2014	NWL	1	19.0
	17/03/2014	NEL	0	8.0
	17/03/2014	NEL	1	29.2
	19/03/2014	NWL	0	0.1	50.1
	19/03/2014	NWL	1	35.4
	19/03/2014	NWL	2	14.6
2	24/03/2014	NWL	0	0.1	60.8
	24/03/2014	NWL	1	20.3
	24/03/2014	NWL	2	3.3
	24/03/2014	NEL	0	0.1
	24/03/2014	NEL	1	20.5
	24/03/2014	NEL	2	14.8
	24/03/2014	NEL	3	1.7
	25/03/2014	NWL	0	0.1	49.9
	25/03/2014	NWL	1	49.8
TOTAL in March 2014					221.6

*Remark: Surveys conduct under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below are considered as under favourable condition.

Table 5.4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Details in March 2014

Date	Location	No. Sightings “on effort”	No. Sightings “opportunistic”
17/03/2014	NW L	0	0
	NEL	0	0
19/03/2014	NW L	6	0
	NEL	0	0
24/03/2014	NW L	1	0
	NEL	0	0
25/03/2014	NW L	3	0
	NEL	0	0
TOTAL in March 2014		10	0

Table 5.5 The Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings & Total Number of Dolphins per Area^

Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG)^*
Date	NEL Track	NWL Track	NEL Sightings	NWL Sightings	NEL Encounter Rate	NWL Encounter Rate
17 & 19/03/2014	37.2 km	73.7 km	0	6	0.0	8.1
24 & 25/03/2014	37.1 km	73.6 km	0	4	0.0	5.4
Encounter Rate of Total Number of Dolphins (ANI)^**
Date	NEL Track	NWL Track	NEL Dolphins	NWL Dolphins	NEL Encounter Rate	NWL Encounter Rate
17 & 19/03/2014	37.2 km	73.7 km	0	12	0.0	16.3
24 & 25/03/2014	37.1 km	73.6 km	0	10	0.0	13.6

* Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG) presents encounter rates in terms of groups per 100km.

** Encounter Rate of Total Number of Dolphins (ANI) presents encounter rates in terms of individuals per 100km. And the encounter rate is not corrected for individuals, calculation may represent double counting.

^The table is made only for reference to the quarterly STG & ANI, which were adopted for the Event & Action Plan.

5.7.3 A total of 10 sightings were made, all “on effort”. Six sightings were made on the 19^th March; one on the 24^th of March and three on the 25^th of March. A total of twenty two individuals were sighted from the two impact dolphin surveys in the reporting period. Sighting details are summarised and plotted in Appendix K and Figure 5c, respectively.

5.7.4 Behaviour: Of the ten sightings made, four were recorded as feeding; two as travelling, two as multiple, one as unknown and one as “other”. One of the sightings recorded as multiple behavior consisted of feeding and travelling while the other consisted of both feeding and surface active behaviour. The “other” behavior was noted when the dolphins sighted were being actively photographed by another research vessel. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

5.7.5 Photo ID analyses for March 2014 is presented in Appendix K.

5.7.6 There were six resightings in February 2014. Re-sightings of the individuals HZMB 018, HZMB 040, HZMB 041, HZMB 044, HZMB 045 and HZMB 094 were noted all from the same encounter. Two older calves were also noted in this group, however, one was noted with an adult who was not individually identifiable and the other was not neither were closely associated with any particular adult. No new dolphins were identified (Appendix K).

5.7.7 Noteworthy Observation:

5.7.6.1 When impact monitoring was conducted at the southern parts of transect lines 1 and 2, the view of the area was partially blocked by dredging works and the working vessels and in water structures of HZMB which were outside the site boundary of HKBCF Reclamation Works.  The northern end of line 1 and the southern ends of lines 11 and 12 were also being affected by active dredging, the view of the area was partially blocked. 

5.7.6.2 In addition, two new projects (vessels/structures) which were outside the site boundary of HKBCF Reclamation Works were noted at the southern end of transect line 5  and 6 and at the northern sections of transect lines 10 which restricted the view of the observers.

5.7.6.3  All areas where visibility is limited is noted in the survey effort log so that it can be accounted for in any subsequent analyses. Some of these obstructions will become permanent and some will be temporary as the HZMB is built and other projects progress It is advised that the impact monitoring surveys should be completed as close to the predefined line as possible (as per Figure 4 of this report).

5.7.6.4 Transect lines 11 and 12 were affected by HZMB HKBCF project.

5.7.6.5 Route travelled shifted slightly to the east at the northern end of transect line 11 due works at HKBCF in March 2014. Survey will be taken as close to transect 11 as possible. According to the review provided by the dolphin specialist in the investigation in Jan 2014, the shift in the transect line will not affect the overall dolphin survey, analysis or dolphin behavior.  The dolphin monitoring surveys to be completed as close to the predefined transect line as possible and the abovementioned shifting to be noted in the survey effort log so that it can be accounted for in any subsequent analyses.

5.7.8 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT

6.1 Site Inspection

6.1.1 Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. In the reporting month, 4 site inspections were carried out on 6, 13, 20 and 27 March 2014.

6.1.2 Oil stain was discovered at portion A Contract at 15:22 on 21 March 2014. The source was identified as a discrete, non-continuous source with approximately 15m² of spread. As informed by the Contractor, the source of oil stain was from an oil drum toppled over by tidal water. Following the spill response plan, relevant parties was informed of the incident and the Contractor used absorption booms to contain and remove the floating oil from water and material used for such was collected by disposal bags as part of the spill kits item. Such spillage incident was considered as project related. The Contractor was reminded to properly implement all the precautionary actions listed in the spill response plan to prevent similar incident in the future. No similar incident was recorded in the rest of the reporting month.

6.1.3 No sign of project related spillage was observed on during the inspection jointly with RSS and the Contractor. Following the spill response plan, relevant parties was informed of the incident and the Contractor used absorption booms to contain and remove the floating oil from water and material used for such was collected by disposal bags as part of the spill kits item. After investigation, the spillage incident was considered as non-project related.

6.1.4 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below:

Air Quality

6.1.5 Exposed sand was observed at Works Area at Portion A. Dust control measures were noted during the reporting month. However insufficient dust control measures were observed. The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient dust control measures to the Works Area at Portion A. (Pending for Contractor’s rectifications)

6.1.6 Dark smoke was observed emitted by a vessel. The Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment should be avoided. (Reminder)

Noise

6.1.7 No adverse observation was identified in the reporting month.

Water Quality

6.1.8 Chemical retaining bunding on barge SHB401 was not properly plugged. The Contractor should seal the bunding entirely to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor have sealed the bunding. (Closed)

6.1.9 Oil drum was not properly stored on barge 宏陽宮106, Works Area of Portion A, barge 天駿3 and on temporary rock bund. The Contractor should store oil drum within the chemical retaining bunding. Drip tray was provided for the oil drum at barge 宏陽宮106 to retain potential leakage. However, some oil drums were still observed not properly stored. The Contractor should continue to store oil drum within the bunding (Pending for Contractor’s rectifications)

6.1.10 Generators at Portion A were placed on bare ground without the provision of drip tray. The Contractor should provide mitigation measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. Drip tray was provided for some of the generators to retain potential leakage. However, a generator was still observed place on bare ground without the provision of drip tray. The Contractor should continue to provide mitigation measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. (Pending for Contractor’s rectifications)

6.1.11 Water was observed accumulated inside car tyre on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear water accumulated inside car tire and kept the site clean and tidy. The Contractor removed the car tyre and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

6.1.12 Tools were observed stored inside drip tray with oil drums on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to properly store the equipments other than oil drums at area outside drip tray. The Contractor removed the equipments other than oil drums from area inside drip tray. (Closed)

Chemical and Waste Management

6.1.13 General refuse was observed not properly allocated on 宏陽宮106. The Contractor should keep the barge clean and tidy. The refuse was cleared. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. (Closed)

6.1.14 Big bag was observed improperly stored on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. The Contractor cleared the rubbish bag. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. (Closed)

6.1.15 Rubbish was observed at the edge of Works Area at Portion A, temporary Rock Bund and on sea next to the temporary rock bund. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the rubbish on site and keep the site clean and tidy. Collection and clearing of rubbish was observed conducted by the Contractor at certain areas of Works Area at Portion A. However, rubbish was still observed at various locations on Works Area of Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to continue provide rubbish bin, regularly collect the rubbish on site and keep the site clean and tidy. (Pending for Contractor’s rectification)

Landscape and Visual Impact

6.1.16 No relevant works was carried out in the reporting month.

Others

6.1.17 Rectifications of remaining identified items are undergoing by the Contractor. Follow-up inspections on the status on provision of mitigation measures will be conducted to ensure all identified items are mitigated properly.

6.2 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

6.2.1 The Contractor had registered as a chemical waste producer for this Project. Receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

6.2.2 As advised by the Contractor, 1,144,891.2 m³ of fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 1.4 tonnes of chemical waste and 16.9 m³ of general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix M.

6.2.3 The Contractor is advised to properly maintain on site C&D materials and wastes storage, collection, sorting and recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize reuse / recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on site regularly and properly.

6.2.4 The Contractor is reminded that chemical waste should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labeling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

6.3 Environmental Licenses and Permits

6.3.1 The environmental licenses and permits for the Project and valid in the reporting month is summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status

Statutory Reference	License/ Permit	License or Permit No.	Valid Period		License/ Permit Holder	Remarks
			From	To
EIAO	Environmental Permit	EP-353/2009/G	06/08/2012	N/A	HyD	Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
		EP-354/2009/B	28/01/2014	N/A		Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only)
APCO	NA notification	--	30/12/2011	--	CHEC	Works Area WA2 and WA3
APCO	NA notification	--	17/01/2012	--	CHEC	Works Area WA4
WDO	Chemical Waste Producer Registration	5213-951-C1186-21	30/3/2012	N/A	CHEC	Chemical waste produced in Contract HY/2010/02
WDO	Chemical Waste Producer Registration	5213-974-C3750-01	31/10/2012	--	CHEC	Registration as Chemical Waste Producer at To Kau Wan(WA4)
WDO	Chemical Waste Producer Registration	5213-839-C3750-02	13/09/2012	--	CHEC	Registration as Chemical Waste Producer at TKO 137(FB)
WDO	Billing Account for Disposal of Construction Waste	7014181	05/12/2011	N/A	CHEC	Waste disposal in Contract HY/2010/02
NCO	Construction Noise Permit	GW-RW0888-13	27/12/2013	26/06/2014	CHEC	Works Area WA4 in Contract HY/2010/02
NCO	Construction Noise Permit	GW-RS0211-14	11/03/2014	10/09/2014	CHEC	Reclamation Works in Contract HY/2010/02
NCO	Construction Noise Permit	GW-RE1345-13	31/12/2013	30/06/2014	CHEC	Section of TKO Fill Bank under Contract HY/2010/02

6.4 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

6.4.1 In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions.

6.4.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

6.4.3 Training of marine travel route for marine vessels operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly.

6.4.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular checking were conducted by the experienced MMOs within the works area to ensure no dolphin was trapped by the enclosed silt curtain systems. Any dolphin spotted within the enclosed silt curtain systems was reported and recorded. Relevant procedures were followed and measures were well implemented. Silt curtain systems were also inspected timely in accordance to the submitted plan. All inspection records were kept properly.

6.4.5 Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction vessels were checked regularly and the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to noisy plants and to carry out improvement work once insufficient acoustic decoupling measures were found.

6.4.6 Frequency of watering per day on exposed soil was checked; with reference to the record provided by the Contract, watering was conducted at least 8 times per day on reclaimed land. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of watering of at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Project site and associated works areas throughout the construction phase.

6.5 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.5.1 All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month. One (1) Action Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. No Limit Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the action Level exceedance was not related to project.

6.5.2 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

6.5.3 (8) Action Level Exceedance for Suspended Solids (SS), one (1) Action Level Exceedance of Turbidity Level and one (1) Limit level exceedance of SS were recorded in the reporting month. (8) Action Level Exceedance for Suspended Solids (SS), one (1) Action Level Exceedance of Turbidity Level and one (1) Limit level exceedance of SS were recorded in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the exceedances were not related to project.

6.5.4 Cumulative statistics on exceedance is provided in Appendix N.

6.6 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

6.6.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 6.

6.6.2 EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant who advised that there was sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone column installation was taking place. The complainant suspected that the filling material was stained and contaminated the sea water after being filled into the sea.

6.6.2.1 Staining material, stained filling material or blue colored sea water was not observed during a follow-up site inspection audit conducted with the representatives of the Contractor, Residential Engineer and IEC/ENPO on 20 Mar 14. The photo record taken during the joint site inspection audit was attached.

6.6.2.2 The locations of stone column installation (please refer to the attached layout map for the locations of stone column installation) and impact water quality monitoring data recorded between 12 – 17 Mar 14 were reviewed. In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the seawall was observed during the water quality monitoring between 12 – 17 Mar 14. Also, no Action/ Limit level exceedance of water quality was recorded in the vicinities where stone column installation were carried out.

6.6.2.3 In addition, mitigation measure for active stone column installation such as localised silt curtain was implemented in Mar 14. Please see below photo record for reference.

6.6.2.4 Therefore, with reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of HKBCF is unlikely to be project related.

6.6.3 EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014.

6.6.3.1 No silt plume or muddy water was observed being discharged from HKBCF – Reclamation Works during a follow-up site inspection audit conducted with the representatives of the Contractor and Residential Engineer 27 March 2014. Please see below photo record for reference.

6.6.3.2 The locations of stone column installation (please refer to the attached layout map for the locations of stone column installation) and impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 21 March 2014 were reviewed. In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the perimeter silt curtain was observed during the water quality monitoring conducted on 21 March 2014. Also, no Action/ Limit level exceedance of water quality was recorded in the vicinities where stone column installations were carried out.

6.6.3.3 In addition, with referred to the photo record attached, mitigation measure for active stone column installation such as localised silt curtain was implemented in March 2014. Please see below photo record for reference.

6.6.3.4 Therefore, with reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned complaint of muddy water which was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014 is unlikely to be project related.

6.6.3.5 Nevertheless, the Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing water quality mitigation measures.

6.6.4 As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

6.6.4.1 As informed by the Contractor 7-10 trips of sand barges per week would stay at the concerned area.

6.6.4.2 However, base on the available information; it is unable to conclude whether the complaint it is project related, because:

1. There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the concerned barges are related to this project.
2. The sand barges at the construction site of the reclamation works were regularly checked and so far, all sand barges were observed equipped with watering equipment.
3. Photo record below shows that watering equipment was used to keep the sand filling material wet.

6.6.4.3 Photo record shows that watering equipment was provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for watering of sand filling material to keep the sand material wet:

6.6.4.4 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to properly implement all dust mitigation measures.

6.6.4.5 The Contractor was advised to ensure to continue the provision of fugitive dust mitigation measures to barges loaded with filling material such as watering to sand filling material on sand barges to keep the surface of stockpile of filling material wet.

6.6.4.6 As informed by the Contractor, skipper of all working barges would be reminded to beware and to pay particular attention to the issue concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

6.6.5 One notification of summons was received in the reporting month due to works carried out contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400 on 6 October 2013. No successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.

6.6.6 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.

7 FUTURE KEY ISSUES

7.1 Construction Programme for the Coming Months

7.1.1 As informed by the Contractor, the major works for the Project in April 2014 and May 2014 will be:-

Marine-based Works

- Cellular structure installation

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Laying geo-textile

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand filling

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA

- Stone column installation

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Construction of temporary seawall

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Precast Yard setup

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of Conveyors for public fill

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

- Access Road for delivery of public fill material from existing road

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3

- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2

- Installed sand bag at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

7.2 Key Issues for the Coming Month

7.2.1 Key issues to be considered in the coming months:-

- Site runoff should be properly collected and treated prior to discharge;

- Minimize loss of sediment from filling works;

- Regular review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities;

- Exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty surface run-off during rainstorm;

- Regular review and maintenance of wheel washing facilities provided at all site entrances/exits;

- Conduct regular inspection of various working machineries and vessels within works areas to avoid any dark smoke emission;

- Suppress dust generated from work processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements, excavation activities, exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul road traffic;

- Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used;

- Provision of proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site, such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants;

- Closely check and replace the sound insulation materials regularly;

- Better scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance;

- Properly store and label oil drums and chemical containers placed on site;

- Proper chemicals, chemical wastes and wastes management;

- Maintenance works should be carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas;

- Collection and segregation of construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea should be carried out properly and regularly; and

- Proper protection and regular inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained trees.

7.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month

7.3.1 The tentative schedule for environmental monitoring in April 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

8 ConclusionS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusions

8.1.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.

8.1.2 All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month. One (1) Action Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. No Limit Level Exceedance was recorded at measured 24-hour TSP results in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the action Level exceedance was not related to project.

8.1.3 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

8.1.4 (8) Action Level Exceedance for Suspended Solids (SS), one (1) Action Level Exceedance of Turbidity Level and one (1) Limit level exceedance of SS were recorded in the reporting month. Investigation results showed that the exceedances were not related to project.

8.1.5 A total of 10 sightings were made, all “on effort”. Six sightings were made on the 19th March; one on the 24th of March and three on the 25th of March. A total of twenty two individuals were sighted from the two impact dolphin surveys in the reporting period. Sighting details are summarised and plotted in Appendix K and Figure 5c, respectively.

8.1.6 Behaviour: Of the ten sightings made, four were recorded as feeding; two as travelling, two as multiple, one as unknown and one as “other”. One of the sightings recorded as multiple behavior consisted of feeding and travelling while the other consisted of both feeding and surface active behaviour. The “other” behavior was noted when the dolphins sighted were being actively photographed by another research vessel. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

8.1.7 Environmental site inspection was carried out 4 times in March 2014. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

8.1.8 EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant who advised that there was sea water coloured in blue observed in vicinity of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone column installation was taking place. The complainant suspected that the filling material was stained and contaminated the sea water after being filled into the sea. With reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned sea water coloured in blue observed in vicinity of HKBCF is unlikely to be project related.

8.1.9 EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014. After investigation, it is considered that the complaint is unlikely to be project related.

8.1.10 As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. With refer to the available information; it is unable to conclude whether the complaint is project related.

8.1.11 One notification of summons was received in the reporting month due to works carried out contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400 on 6 October 13. No successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.

8.2 Recommendations

8.2.1 According to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting month, the following recommendations were provided:

Air Quality Impact

l All working plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.

l All vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the site.

l Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust generation.

l Wheel washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to ensure properly functioning.

l Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.

l Enclosure should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing operations.

l Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty construction activity.

Construction Noise Impact

l Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.

l Noisy operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive receivers as far as possible.

l Proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise barriers, enclosure for noisy plants or enhancement works to provide sufficient acoustic decoupling measure(s). Closely check and replace the sound insulation materials regularly

l Vessels and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly maintained.

l Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and hand-held breaker operating within works area.

l Acoustic decoupling measures should be properly implemented for all existing and incoming construction vessels with continuous and regularly checking to ensure effective implementation of acoustic decoupling measures.

Water Quality Impact

l Regular review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities in order to make sure they are functioning effectively.

l Construction of seawall should be completed as early as possible.

l Regular inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid splashing of material.

l Silt, debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays and perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up regularly.

l Silty effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated effluent should be prevented from entering public drain channel.

l Proper drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries to collect/intercept the surface run-off from works areas.

l Exposed slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during rainstorm.

Chemical and Waste Management

l All types of wastes, both on land and floating in the sea, should be collected and sorted properly and disposed of timely and properly. They should be properly stored in designated areas within works areas temporarily.

l All chemical containers, batteries and oil drums should be properly stored and labelled.

l All plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent oil leakage. Proper measures, like drip trays and/or bundings, should be provided for retaining leaked oil/chemical from plants.

l All kinds of maintenance works should be carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas.

l All drain holes of the drip trays utilized within works areas should be properly plugged to avoid any oil and chemical waste leakage.

l Oil stains on soil surface, accumulated oil mixture and empty chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.

l Regular review should be conducted for working barges and patrol boats to ensure sufficient measures and spill control kits were provided on working barges and patrol boats to avoid any spreading of leaked oil/chemicals.

Landscape and Visual Impact

l All existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be properly fenced off and regularly inspected.