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 30 September 2014. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-

Marine-based Works

- Cellular structure installation

- Optimizing rubble mound seawalls

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Laying geo-textile

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand filling

- Rock filling

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

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Surcharge laying

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying

- Temporary Watermain construction

- Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying

- Precast Yard Setup

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- 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	6 sessions 6 sessions
Noise monitoring	5 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 and 24-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month.

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

Total of (4) four Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in this reporting month. (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS8 at mid-flood tide on 5 September 2014, (2) Two Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS5 and SR3 respectively at Mid-Ebb tide were recorded on 10 September 2014 and (1) one Action level exceedance of SS were recorded at SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 12 September 2014. After investigation, the exceedances was considered to be non-project related.

Impact Dolphin Monitoring

A total of six sightings were made, three “on effort” and three “opportunistic”. Two sightings were made on the 22 September 2014 in NWL and four sightings were made on 29 September 2014 also in NWL. 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 six sightings , three groups were feeding, one in association with a purse seine trawler, two groups were travelling, one group was engaged in multiple activities, which comprised feeding and surface active behaviours. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

Two calves were recorded in September 2014, however, only one calf came close enough to photograph and it’s mother has not been identified. The location of sighting with calf is mapped in Figure 5e.

Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

Three environmental complaints have been received in September 2014.

As informed by the Contractor on 15 Sept 14, there is an environmental complaint received on 29 August 14 by HyD. The complainant who lives at Tower 4, Melody Garden, Tuen Mun called reflecting environmental issues arisen from many sand barges in the waters facing her apartment. According to the complainant, sand was blown into her apartment because the barges were not covered and it was worse when sand was transferred from one vessel to another on conveyor belts. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

As informed by the Contractor, a public complaint has been received by ICC on 9 September 2014 and it was referred to this Contract, the complainant raised concern about a large amount of general refuse such as food container and plastic bottles were observed on sea area off the Gold Coast, Tuen Mun. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

An air quality complaint has been received by the Contractor on 29 September 2014 via email. The complaint was first received by EPD via email on 5 September 2014 and it was referred by EPD to the HZMB HK Project Management Office (Management Office) to handle the complaint directly on 10 September 2014 following the request of the complainant. The Management Office responded to the complainant directly on 17 September 2014. Subsequently, the complainant followed up with the response given by the Management Office and complained again on 26 September 2014. This follow up complaint was referred to the project team to investigate. The complainant complained that many of the sand barges did not stay at area of reclamation works near Chek Lap Kok or at the sea area near Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal but moored in the sea area close to Melody Garden. Sand were easily blown to the inside house during days with moderate wind. The complainant suggested that, sand barges should be requested to move away from residential areas and sand barges should be provided with cover fabric and sprinkling to minimise environmental pollution caused by sand. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

No notification of summons or 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.

- Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all lights.

- Regular review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as sprinkler system.

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 thirty-first 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 September 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
IEC / ENPO (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2868	3465 2899
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	Environmental Officer	Richard Ng	36932253	2578 0413
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	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

- Cellular structure installation

- Optimizing rubble mound seawalls

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Laying geo-textile

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand filling

- Rock filling

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

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Surcharge laying

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying

- Temporary Watermain construction

- Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying

- Precast Yard Setup

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- 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)

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 It was observed that a tree near AMS3B may affect the wind flow around the HVS located at AMS3B. With no further comment received from IEC, the HVS at AMS3B has been relocated on 8 September 2014 to slightly more than 2 meters separation from it, measured horizontally. 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.

2.3.3 Reference is made to ET’s proposal of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1November 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 19November 2012.

2.3.4 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.

(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 September 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/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AMS2	78	75 - 82	374	500
AMS3B	78	74 - 81	368	500
AMS7	78	73 - 83	370	500

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

	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AMS2	43	20 – 96	176	260
AMS3B	45	26 – 81	167	260
AMS7	46	13 – 68	183	260

2.7.2 All 1-Hour TSP and 24Hr TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month.

2.7.3 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

2.7.4 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 & B&K 4231

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). L_eq, 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 NMS3B were free field measurements in the reporting month at NMS3B. A correction of +3 dB(A) shall be made to the free field measurements.

(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.

3.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

3.6.1 The schedule for construction noise monitoring in September 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),

L_{eq (30 mins)}

Range, dB(A),

L_{eq (30 mins)}

Limit Level, dB(A),

L_{eq (30 mins)}

NMS2

66 – 67*

NMS3B

65 – 69*

70/65^

*+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 and Lowrance x-4
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)

(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 monit oring 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 September 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

4.6.2 The scheduled water quality monitoring at mid ebb on 15 September 2014 has been cancelled due to adverse weather condition.

4.7 Results and Observations

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

4.7.2 Total of (4) four Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in this reporting month. (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS8 at mid-flood tide on 5 September 2014, (2) Two Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS5 and SR3 respectively at mid-ebb tide were recorded on 10 September 2014 and (1) one Action level exceedance of SS were recorded at SR10B(N) at mid-flood tide on 12 September 2014. After investigation, the exceedances was considered to be non-project related.

Table 4.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 10 Sept 14	0	1	0
IS5	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
IS(Mf)6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 5 Sept 14	0	1
IS8	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	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
IS(Mf)11	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
IS(Mf)16	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR3	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 10 Sept 14	0	1	0
SR3	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
SR7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 12 Sept 14	0	1
SR10B (N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	4
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note: S: Surface; and

M: Mid-depth.

4.7.3 (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS (27.4mg/L) was recorded at IS8 during flood tide on 5 September 2014.

4.7.3.1 For marine works, marine filling was conducted at portion E2 during flood at area behind cellular structures on 5 September 2014. Also refer to layout map above.

4.7.3.2 Exceedance was not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:

4.7.3.3 As informed by the Contractor, filling was conducted on 3, 5 and 8 September 2014 at Portion E2, but with referred to monitoring record and photo record attached, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain and no discoloration of sea water has been observed.

4.7.3.4 Photo record of sea condition taken during flood tide at north of HKBCF Reclamation Works near IS8 on 5 September 2014.

4.7.3.5 Construction activities were reviewed, almost the same marine works were conducted at almost the same location on 3, 5 and 8 September 2014, but no SS exceedance was recorded on 3 and 8 September 2014. This indicates that the SS exceedance was unlikely to attribute to marine works of this Contract.

4.7.3.6 IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 are located closer to the active works than monitoring station IS8. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during the flood tide on the same day at IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 were below the Action and Limit Level which shows that the water quality closer to active works was not adversely affected.

4.7.3.7 The monitoring location of monitoring station IS8 are considered located upstream to the active works of this project during flood tide. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at IS8 was due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.3.8 Turbidity level (NTU) result recorded on 5 September 2014 at IS8 during flood tide is 24.5 NTU which is below the Action and Limit Level, this indicates turbidity level was not adversely affected.

4.7.3.9 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS8.

4.7.3.10 For action required under the action plan, refer to EM&A manual of this Contract for Event and Action Plan for Water Quality.

4.7.3.11 Action taken under the action plan:

1. Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;

2. After considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of this project;

3. IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;

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

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

4.7.3.12 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.

4.7.3.13 As informed by the Contractor, maintenance work of the silt curtain is on-going and carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis.

4.7.4 (2) Two Action Level Exceedances of SS (26mg/L and 32.3mg/L) were recorded at IS5 and SR3 during ebb tide on 5 September 2014.

4.7.4.1 For marine works, marine filling was conducted at portion E2 during ebb tide at area behind cellular structures on 10 September 2014.

4.7.4.2 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:

4.7.4.3 As informed by the Contractor, filling was conducted on 8, 10 and 12 September 2014 at Portion E2, but with referred to monitoring record and photo record attached, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain and no discoloration of sea water has been observed.

4.7.4.4 Photo record of sea condition taken at South of HKBCF Reclamation Works near IS5 and SR3 on 10 September 2014.

4.7.4.5 Construction activities were reviewed, almost the same marine works were conducted at almost the same location on 8, 10 and 12 September 2014, but no SS exceedance was recorded at IS5 or SR3 on 8 and 12 September 2014. This indicates that the SS exceedances were unlikely to attribute to marine works of this Contract.

4.7.4.6 IS7 and IS(Mf)6 are located closer to the active works than monitoring station IS5 and SR3. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during the ebb tide on the same day at IS7 and IS(Mf)6 were below the Action and Limit Level which shows that the water quality closer to active works was not adversely affected. Therefore it was unlikely that the SS exceedances recorded at IS5 and SR3 were due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.4.7 Turbidity level (NTU) result recorded on 10 September 2014 at IS5 and SR3 during ebb tide are 22.3 NTU and 23.9 NTU respectively which are below the Action and Limit Level, this indicates turbidity level was not adversely affected.

4.7.4.8 The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS5 and SR3.

4.7.4.9 Action taken under the action plan:

1. Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;

2. After considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this project;

3. IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;

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

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

4.7.4.10 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.

4.7.4.11 As informed by the Contractor, maintenance work of the silt curtain is on-going and carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis.

4.7.5 (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS (24.5mg/L) was recorded at IS10B(N) during ebb tide on 12 September 2014.

4.7.5.1 For marine works, marine filling was conducted at portion E2 during flood at area behind cellular structures on 12 September 2014. Also refer to layout map attached.

4.7.5.2 Exceedance was not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:

4.7.5.3 IS(Mf)11 and IS10 are located downstream and closer to the active works than monitoring station SR10B(N) during flood tide. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during flood tide on the same day at IS(Mf)11 and IS10 were below the Action and Limit Level which indicates project work is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at SR10B(N).

4.7.5.4 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR10B(N) are considered upstream and remote to the active works of this project during flood tide. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR10B(N) during flood tide was due to active construction activities of this project.

4.7.5.5 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR10B(N).

4.7.5.6 Action taken under the action plan:

1. Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;

2. After considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of this project;

3. IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;

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

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

4.7.5.7 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.

4.7.5.8 As informed by the Contractor, maintenance work of the silt curtain is on-going and carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis.

4.7.6 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 76C
Computers (T7000 Tablet, Intel Atom)	Windows 7/MSO 13 Logger
Camera	Nikon D7100 300m 2.8D fixed focus Nikon D90 80-400mm zoom lens
Laser Rangefinder	Range Finder Bushnell 1000m
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 September 2014 is provided in Appendix F.

5.6.2 Two surveys covering both study areas were completed.

5.7 Results and Observations

5.7.1 Dolphin surveys were conducted on 21st, 22th, 29th and 30th September 2014. A total of 220.3 km of transect line was conducted under favourable conditions. The total length travelled was also 220.3 km, please note that that some lines were shortened due to works and/or shipping traffic.
The effort summary and sightings data are shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. The survey efforts conducted in September 2014 are plotted in Figure 5a-b. 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)
Survey	Date	Area	Beaufort	Effort (km)	Total Distance Travelled (km)
1	09/21/2014	NWL	1	3.1	52.3
	09/21/2014	NWL	2	11.7
	09/21/2014	NEL	1	29.9
	09/21/2014	NEL	2	7.6
	09/22/2014	NWL	1	21.2	58.1
	09/22/2014	NWL	2	36.9	58.1
2	09/29/2014	NWL	1	26.2	63.2
	09/29/2014	NWL	2	37	63.2
	09/30/2014	NWL	1	7.5	46.7
	09/30/2014	NWL	2	2.5
	09/30/2014	NEL	1	5.9
	09/30/2014	NEL	2	30.8
TOTAL in September 2014					220.3

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

Table 5.4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Details September 2014

Date	Location	No. Sightings “on effort”	No. Sightings “opportunistic”
09/21/2014	NW L	0	0
09/21/2014	NEL	0	0
09/22/2014	NW L	0	2
09/22/2014	NEL	0	0
09/29/2014	NW L	3	1
09/29/2014	NEL	0	0
09/30/2014	NW L	0	0
09/30/2014	NEL	0	0
TOTAL in September 2014		3	3

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 (km)	NWL Track (km)	NEL Sightings	NWL Sightings	NEL Encounter Rate	NWL Encounter Rate
21 & 22/09/2014	37.5	72.9	0	0	0.0	0.0
29 & 30/09/2014	36.7	73.2	0	3	0.0	4.1
Encounter Rate of Total Number of Dolphins (ANI)^**
Date	NEL Track (km)	NWL Track (km)	NEL Dolphins	NWL Dolphins	NEL Encounter Rate	NWL Encounter Rate
21 & 22/09/2014	37.5	72.9	0	0	0.0	0.0
29 & 30/09/2014	36.7	73.2	0	11	0.0	15.0

* 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.

5.7.2 A total of six sightings were made, three “on effort” and three “opportunistic”. Two sightings were made on the 22 September 2014 in NWL and four sightings were made on 29 September 2014 also in NWL. 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.

5.7.3 Behaviour: Of the six sightings , three groups were feeding, one in association with a purse seine trawler, two groups were travelling, one group was engaged in multiple activities, which comprised feeding and surface active behaviours. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

5.7.4 Two calves were recorded in September 2014, however, only one calf came close enough to photograph and it’s mother has not been identified. The location of sighting with calf is mapped in Figure 5e.

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

5.7.6 There were five re-sightings in August 2014 HZMB 001; 022; 051; 098 and 116. Two new individuals were added to the catalogue HZMB 122 and 123. . HZMB 001 was last sighted in August 2013. This is the sixth time this individual has been sighted since March 2012 and always in NWL. HZMB 022 has been sighted nine times since July 2012, again always in NWL, and this individual was last seen in January 2014. HZMB 051 has been seen eight times since September 2012 and was last seen in May 2013, all times in NWL. HZMB 098 has been seen seven times during impact monitoring, initially in May 2013 and last seen in January 2014 and, again, always in NWL. HZMB 116 is a female and has a calf. She has been seen four times, initially in December 2013 and twice over the last few months, always in NWL

5.7.7 Noteworthy Observation[1]:

5.7.7.1 When impact monitoring was conducted at the southern parts of transect lines 1 & 2, the view of the area was partially blocked by the working vessels and fixed structures which do not belong to HKBCF Reclamation Works. The number of fixed structures has increased and the working vessels have moved when compared to last month’s observations. As the working vessels will move during the on-going works, it is considered that they will temporarily affect survey protocol, survey data collection, dolphin movement, dolphin habitat use and dolphin behaviour, whereas the fixed structures will continuously affect survey protocol, survey data collection, dolphin movement, dolphin habitat use and dolphin behaviour.

5.7.7.2 The HKBCF Project effected line 11. The view of the area was partially blocked by the working vessels and in water structures. The number of fixed structures increased and working vessels had moved position when compared to observations made during last month’s survey. As the working vessels will move as construction progresses, they will cause temporary effects to survey protocol, survey data collection, dolphin movement, dolphin habitat use and dolphin behaviour, whereas the fixed structures will affect all survey protocols and dolphin ecology in the long term.

5.7.7.3 The northern end of line 9 and 10 was affected by works which do not belongs to the HKBCF Reclamation Works; in particular, the view of the area was partially blocked by the working vessels. The in water structures has increased in size and the working vessels have moved position when compared to observations made during last month’s survey. As the working vessels will move during the on-going works, they will temporarily affect survey data collection, dolphin movement, dolphin habitat use and dolphin behaviour. The works here are creating a reclamation/sea wall site which is permanent and will thus continuously affect all survey protocols and dolphin ecology.

5.7.7.4 Anchored vessels affected northern end of line 10 and line 23 on 21 Sept 2014 and 21 Sept 2014 respectively. Anchored vessels affected Southern end of line 11 on 21 Sept 2014, anchored vessels affected northern end of line 10 on 30 Sept 2014. As the vessels will move during throughout the duration of HKBCF impact monitoring, they will temporarily affect survey data collection, dolphin movement, dolphin habitat use and dolphin behaviour.

5.7.7.5 It was observed that lines 11 had been affected by the others construction activities in the vicinity, which are not related to the HKBCF Reclamation Works.

5.7.7.6 Several new projects are ongoing at the southern ends of lines 3, 4, 5 and 7. These works partially blocked some of the survey view. As reported last month, there are no fixed structures, however, the platforms and related vessels move between survey periods. As it is not known what activities these barges and platforms are conducting, the effect that these works may specifically have on dolphins is not known at this time.

5.7.7.7 A severely injured dolphin was observed on 22 September 2014 at the southern end of line 1 and a call was made immediately to the designated AFCD hotline. The injured dolphin was lost from sight and the survey was then continued.

5.7.7.8 The survey effort log notes the areas in which the visibility is limited or the survey is affected so that these 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 lines as possible (as per Figure 4 of this report).

5.7.7.9 The above noteworthy observations are largely a result of multiple and on-going infrastructure projects within the Lantau area. No amendment to EM&A protocols can negate the effects of these projects, e.g., it is a highly dynamic environment and viewing conditions may alter every survey (sometimes within surveys) and most of the survey area is affected, to some degree, by marine construction works. Instead, survey data analyses should incorporate any noteworthy observations which may affect either data collection or dolphin distribution and behavioural changes. The above mentioned activities recorded during boat survey will not affect implementation of the EM&A Programme provided appropriate data analyses are conducted. Given that viewing conditions will change frequently during the construction phase of HZMB, it is inappropriate at this time to implement any changes in EM&A procedures, however, a review of survey conditions will be made from time to time to assess if changes to procedures are required.

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 4, 12, 18 and 25 September 2014.

6.1.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below:

Air Quality

6.1.3 Filling was observed conducted by barge, the Contractor was reminded to keep the filling material wet or lower the conveyor belt to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)

6.1.4 Dust was observed when truck passed a slope; the Contractor was reminded to enhance the dust control measures to prevent generation of fugitive dust. The Contractor enhanced the dust control measures to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Closed)

Noise

6.1.5 No adverse observation was identified in the reporting month.

Water Quality

6.1.6 Muddy water was observed at land area where ground investigation works was conducted, the Contractor was reminded to prevent muddy water to be released out of the site boundary. (Reminder)

6.1.7 Defects (hole and deformed frame) were observed within frame of a drip trays. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper mitigation measure such as drip tray without defect to PMEs. The Contractor provided proper mitigation measure such as drip tray without defect to PMEs. (Closed)

6.1.8 Oil drum was observed without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray or bunding to oil drum. The Contractor was provided mitigation measures such as drip tray or bunding to oil drum. (Closed)

6.1.9 Defects such as disconnection and insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain have been observed. The Contractor was advised to rectify the defects such as disconnection and insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain as soon as possible. The Contractor rectified the defects such as disconnection and insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain as soon as possible. (Closed)

Chemical and Waste Management

6.1.10 General refuses observed at cell 56 and on water of arc cell between cell 55 and 56 and near a container office. The Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuses and keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor cleared the general refuses and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

6.1.11 General refuses was observed near a container office. The Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuses and keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor cleared the general refuses and keeps the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

6.1.12 Battery and oil drum were placed on bare ground without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray such that spillage/leakage can be easily collected. The Contractor provided mitigation measures such as drip tray so that spillage/leakage can be easily collected. (Closed)

6.1.13 Water was observed accumulated inside drip tray on barge SHB209. The Contractor was reminded to clear the water accumulated inside drip tray regularly. The Contractor cleared the water accumulated inside drip tray. (Closed)

Landscape and Visual Impact

6.1.14 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting month.

Others

6.1.15 The text on the EP was blurred and cannot be seen clearly on barge SHB209. The Contractor was reminded to replace the copy of the EP so that the text of the EP can be shown clearly. The Contractor replaced the copy of the EP so that the text of the EP can be shown clearly. (Closed)

6.1.16 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, 1,370,510.8m³ of fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 224kg of paper/cardboard packaging and 136.5m³ 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
Statutory Reference	License/ Permit	License or Permit No.	From	To	License/ Permit Holder	Remarks
EIAO	Environmental Permit	EP-353/2009/G	06/08/2012	N/A	HyD	Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
EIAO	Environmental Permit	EP-354/2009/B	28/01/2014	N/A	HyD	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-RS0990-14	18/09/2014	24/12/2014	CHEC	Reclamation Works in Contract HY/2010/02
NCO	Construction Noise Permit	GW-RE0656-14	30/06/2014	22/12/2014	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 frequency of watering is the mainly refer to water truck. Sprinklers are only served to strengthen dust control measure for busy traffic at the entrance of Portion D. As informed by the Contractor, during the mal-function period of sprinkler, water truck will enhance watering at such area. 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 and 24-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month.

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

6.5.3 Total of (4) four Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in this reporting month. (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS8 at mid-flood tide on 5 September 2014, (2) Two Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS5 and SR3 respectively at Mid-Ebb tide were recorded on 10 September 2014 and (1) one Action level exceedance of SS were recorded at SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 12 September 2014. After investigation, the exceedances was considered to be non-project related.

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 Three environmental complaints have been received in September 2014.

6.6.3 As informed by the Contractor on 15 Sept 14, there is an environmental complaint received on 29 August 14 by HyD. The complainant who lives at Tower 4, Melody Garden, Tuen Mun called reflecting environmental issues arisen from many sand barges in the waters facing her apartment. According to the complainant, sand was blown into her apartment because the barges were not covered and it was worse when sand was transferred from one vessel to another on conveyor belts.

6.6.3.1 Investigation Actions:

· 1hr TSP and 24hrs TSP monitoring data of 4 August to 1 September 2014 have been reviewed.

· Site inspections were conducted jointly on 28 August and 4 September 2014 with RSS and the Contractor.

6.6.3.2 Investigation findings:

· There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the concerned barges are related to this project.

· Date of the observed impact was not specified by the complainant so the impact air quality monitoring (IAQM) results available for August 2014 and early September 2014 for monitoring stations close to the concerned area – AQMS1, ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 have been reviewed and there was no impact air quality monitoring result that shows 1-hour TSP or 24-hour TSP exceeded the action (AL)/limit level (LL).

· Photo record below shows that sand barges were not covered but they are equipped with watering equipment and in order to prevent generation of fugitive dust, watering equipment was used to keep the sand filling material wet.

Watering barges

· In addition, site inspection has been jointly conducted with the Contractor and RSS on 28 August and 4 September 2014, but no generation of fugitive dust was observed to be caused by barges loaded with filling material. Transfer of sand between vessels was not observed.

6.6.3.3 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

6.6.3.4 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 As informed by the Contractor, a public complaint has been received by ICC on 9 September 2014 and it was referred to this Contract, the complainant raised concern about a large amount of general refuse such as food container and plastic bottles were observed on sea area off the Gold Coast, Tuen Mun.

6.6.4.1 Investigation actions:

· Site inspections were conducted jointly on 25 September 2014 with RSS and the Contractor and 18 jointly with RSS, IEC and the Contractor

· Site visit to the sea area between HKBCF Reclamation Works and Tune Mun was conducted on 22 September 2014.

· Checking sample of training record

6.6.4.2 Investigation findings :

· There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the general refuse such as food container and plastic bottles are related to this project.

· Photo of site condition was reviewed, temporary refuse collection facility/ appropriate containers such as rubbish bins were provided by the Contractor on reclamation and vessel to collect general refuses, please refer to the photo below:

Rubbish Bin Rubbish bin 2 Rubbish Bin on Vessel Waste collection on vessel

· Photo records shows collection of general refuse by workers on a regular basis:

daily waste collection daily waste collection2

· Site inspections were conducted on 18 September 2014 jointly with RSS, IEC and the Contractor and jointly on 25 September 2014 with RSS and the Contractor, but no general refuse was observed on sea area.

· In addition, site visit to the sea area between HKBCF Reclamation Works and Tune Mun was conducted on 22 September 2014. No general refuse was observed to flow from HKBCF Reclamation Works to Tune Mun area. Also refer to photo record below:

6.6.4.3 Below photo shows condition of the sea area facing Tuen Mun on 22 September 14.

IMG-20140922-WA0036

6.6.4.4 Below photo shows condition of the sea area facing HKBCF Reclamation Works on 22 September 14.

IMG-20140922-WA0039

6.6.4.5 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

6.6.4.6 The Contractor was advised to ensure to continue the provision of waste mitigation measures to barges on reclamation land and vessels.

6.6.4.7 The Contractor was recommended that the site and surroundings shall be kept tidy and litter free. General refuse generated on-site should be stored in enclosed bins or compaction units separately from construction and chemical wastes.

6.6.5 An air quality complaint has been received by the Contractor on 29 September 2014 via email. The complaint was first received by EPD via email on 5 September 2014 and it was referred by EPD to the HZMB HK Project Management Office (Management Office) to handle the complaint directly on 10 September 2014 following the request of the complainant. The Management Office responded to the complainant directly on 17 September 2014.

6.6.5.1 Subsequently, the complainant followed up with the response given by the Management Office and complained again on 26 September 2014. This follow up complaint was referred to the project team to investigate. The complainant complained that many of the sand barges did not stay at area of reclamation works near Chek Lap Kok or at the sea area near Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal but moored in the sea area close to Melody Garden. Sand were easily blown to the inside house during days with moderate wind.

6.6.5.2 The complainant suggested that, sand barges should be requested to move away from residential areas and sand barges should be provided with cover fabric and sprinkling to minimise environmental pollution caused by sand.

6.6.5.3 Investigation Actions:

· 1hr TSP and 24hrs TSP monitoring data of September 2014 have been reviewed.

· Site inspections were conducted jointly with RSS, IEC and the Contractor on 18 September 2014 and jointly with RSS and the Contractor on 25 September 2014.

6.6.5.4 Investigation findings:

· There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the concerned barges are related to this project.

· Date of the observed impact was not specified by the complainant so the impact air quality monitoring (IAQM) results available for September 2014 for monitoring stations close to the concerned area – AQMS1, ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 have been reviewed and there was no impact air quality monitoring result that shows 1-hour TSP or 24-hour TSP exceeded the action (AL)/limit level (LL).

Watering barges

· In addition, site inspections were conducted jointly with RSS, IEC and the Contractor on 18 September 2014 and jointly with RSS and the Contractor on 25 September 2014, but no generation of fugitive dust was observed to be caused by barges loaded with filling material.

· After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.

6.6.5.5 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.

6.6.6 No notification of summons and successful prosecutions was received in the reporting period.

6.6.7 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 September 2014 and October 2014 will be*:-

Marine-based Works

- Cellular structure installation

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Sand filling

- Rock filling

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

- Band drain installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Surcharge laying

- Capping Beams structures

- Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying

- Temporary Watermain construction

- Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying

- Precast Yard Setup

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

*Construction activities in September & October 2014 will be changed subject to works progress.

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.

- Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all lights.

- Regular review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as sprinkler system.

7.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month

7.3.1 The tentative schedule for environmental monitoring in October 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 For impact air quality monitoring, all 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month.

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

8.1.4 Total of (4) four Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in this reporting month. (1) One Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS8 at mid-flood tide on 5 September 2014, (2) Two Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS5 and SR3 respectively at Mid-Ebb tide were recorded on 10 September 2014 and (1) one Action level exceedance of SS were recorded at SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 12 September 2014. After investigation, the exceedances was considered to be non-project related.

8.1.5 A total of six sightings were made, three “on effort” and three “opportunistic”. Two sightings were made on the 22 September 2014 in NWL and four sightings were made on 29 September 2014 also in NWL. 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 six sightings , three groups were feeding, one in association with a purse seine trawler, two groups were travelling, one group was engaged in multiple activities, which comprised feeding and surface active behaviours. The locations of sighting with different behaviour are mapped in Figure 5d.

8.1.7 Two calves were recorded in September 2014, however, only one calf came close enough to photograph and it’s mother has not been identified. The location of sighting with calf is mapped in Figure 5e.

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

8.1.9 Three environmental complaints have been received in September 2014.

8.1.10 No notification summons and 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.

l Regular review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as sprinkler system.

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.

l Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all lights.

[1] A noteworthy observation is to show that either the conduct of the surveys themselves is affected, i.e., the noted vessel or works impedes the progress or view of the survey platform. In addition, the vessel or construction works may be different or additional to that observed previously and further, are of such a nature that they are a likely to create an impact on the movement or behaviour of the subject of the impact survey, in this case, the dolphins.