1 Introduction

1.1 Basic Project Information

1.1.1 The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) serves to connect the HZMB Main Bridge at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Boundary and the HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) located at the north eastern waters of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).

1.1.2 The HKLR project has been separated into two contracts. They are Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (hereafter referred to as the Contract) and Contract No. HY/2011/09 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road-Section between HKSAR Boundary and Scenic Hill.

1.1.3 China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department (HyD) as the Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The Contract is part of the HKLR Project and HKBCF Project, these projects are considered to be “Designated Projects”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports (Register No. AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009) were prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) EP-352/2009/A for HKLR and EP-353/2009/E for HKBCF were issued on 31 October 2011 and 16 October 2012, respectively. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. The construction phase of Contract was commenced on 17 October 2012. Figure 1.1 shows the project site boundary. The works area are shown in Appendix N,

1.1.4 The Contract includes the following key aspects:

· New reclamation along the east coast of the approximately 23 hectares.

· Tunnel of Scenic Hill (Tunnel SHT) from Scenic Hill to the new reclamation, of approximately 1km in length with three (3) lanes for the east bound carriageway heading to the HKBCF and four (4) lanes for the westbound carriageway heading to the HZMB Main Bridge.

· An abutment of the viaduct portion of the HKLR at the west portal of Tunnel SHT and associated road works at the west portal of Tunnel SHT.

· An at grade road on the new reclamation along the east coast of the HKIA to connect with the HKBCF, of approximately 1.6 km along dual 3-lane carriageway with hard shoulder for each bound.

· Road links between the HKBCF and the HKIA including new roads and the modification of existing roads at the HKIA, involving viaducts, at grade roads and a Tunnel HAT.

· A highway operation and maintenance area (HMA) located on the new reclamation, south of the Dragonair Headquarters Building, including the construction of buildings, connection roads and other associated facilities.

· Associated civil, structural, building, geotechnical, marine, environmental protection, landscaping, drainage and sewerage, tunnel and highway electrical and mechanical works, together with the installation of street lightings, traffic aids and sign gantries, water mains and fire hydrants, provision of facilities for installation of traffic control and surveillance system (TCSS), reprovisioning works of affected existing facilities, implementation of transplanting, compensatory planting and protection of existing trees, and implementation of an environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) program.

1.1.5 This is the fifth Monthly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 February to 28 February 2013.

1.1.6 BMT Asia Pacific Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the EM&A programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) for HKLR and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract. ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project. The project organization with regard to the environmental works is as follows.

1.2 Project Organisation

1.2.1 The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management 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
Supervising Officer’s Representative (Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)	(Chief Resident Engineer, CRE)	Robert Antony Evans	3968 0801	2109 1882
Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker (Environ Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H Hui	3743 0788	3548 6988
	Independent Environmental Checker	Antony Wong	3743 0788	3548 6988
Contractor (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd)	Project Manager	S. Y. Tse	3968 7002	2109 2588
	Environmental Officer	Federick Wong	3968 7117	2109 2588
Environmental Team (BMT Asia Pacific)	Environmental Team Leader	Claudine Lee	2241 9847	2815 3377

1.3 Construction Programme

1.3.1 A copy of the Contractor’s construction programme is provided in Appendix B.

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Month

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting month is shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Construction Activities During Reporting Month

Site Area	Description of Activities
Portion Y	Erection of Hoardings and Fencings at Site Boundaries
Portion X	Site clearing for road and drainage work
Portion X	Removal of armour rocks of existing seawall
Portion X	Installation of silt curtain and geotextile laying
Portion X	Formation of temporary stone platform
Portion X	Installation of stone column
Kwo Lo Wan Road	Reclamation
West Portal	Site formation work for tunnelling
Portion Y	Installation of Soil Nails
Portion Y	Access Shaft Construction for SHT & HAT

2 Air Quality Monitoring

2.1 Monitoring Requirements

2.1.1 In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour and 24-hour TSP levels at 2 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 for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP are provided in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, respectively.

Table 2.1 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP

Monitoring Station	Action Level, µg/m³	Limit Level, µg/m³
AMS 5 – Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)	352	500
AMS 6 – Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	360	500

Table 2.2 Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP

Monitoring Station	Action Level, µg/m³	Limit Level, µg/m³
AMS 5 – Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)	164	260
AMS 6 – Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	173	260

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 Contract 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 2.3.

Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Portable direct reading dust meter (1-hour TSP)	Sibata Digital Dust Monitor (Model No. 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 AMS5 and AMS6 were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

2.3.2 Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 2.4 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.4 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location
AMS5	Ma Wan Chung Village (Tung Chung)
AMS6	Dragonair / CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)

2.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

2.4.1 Table 2.5 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.

Table 2.5 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) The distance between the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.

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

(iv) No furnace or incinerator flues nearby.

(v) Airflow around the sampler was unrestricted.

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

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

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

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

(x) 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 for HKLR (Version 1.0) (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 C.

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 Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler. Calibration certificates of the Laser Dust Monitors are provided in Appendix C.

2.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

2.6.1 The schedule for air quality monitoring in February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

2.7 Monitoring Results

2.7.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix E.

Table 2.6 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results during the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AMS5	56	31 – 98	352	500
AMS6	58	27 – 98	360	500

Table 2.7 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AMS5	48	30 – 64	164	260
AMS6	48	17 – 70	173	260

2.7.2 No Action and Limit Levels exceedances were recorded at all monitoring stations during this reporting month.

2.7.3 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

2.7.4 The wind data obtained from the on-site weather station during the reporting month is shown in Appendix G.

3 Noise Monitoring

3.1 Monitoring Requirements

3.1.1 In accordance with the Contract 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 Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Action and Limit Levels for Noise during Construction Period

Monitoring Station	Time Period	Action Level	Limit Level
NMS5 - Ma Wan Chung Village (Ma Wan Chung Resident Association) (Tung Chung)	0700-1900 hrs on normal weekdays	When one documented complaint is received	75 dB(A)

3.2 Monitoring Equipment

3.2.1 Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meters 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 are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Integrated Sound Level Meter	B&K 2238
Acoustic Calibrator	B&K 4231

3.3 Monitoring Locations

3.3.1 Monitoring location NMS5 was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

3.3.2 Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 3.3 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

Table 3.3 Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location
NMS5	Ma Wan Chung Village (Ma Wan Chung Resident Association) (Tung Chung)

3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

3.4.1 Table 3.4 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.

Table 3.4 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 podium for free-field measurements at NMS5. A correction of +3 dB(A) shall be made to the free field measurements.

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

(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 94.0 dB(A) at 1000 Hz. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1.0 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 February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

3.7 Monitoring Results

3.7.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.5 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.

Table 3.5 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Month

Monitoring Station	Average L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)	Range of L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)	Limit Level L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)
NMS5	60	58 – 63	75

*+3dB(A) Façade correction included

3.7.2 No Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at NMS5 during the reporting month.

3.7.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.

3.7.4 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

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 Contract Specific EM&A Manual. Table 4.1 shows the established Action/Limit Levels for the environmental monitoring works.

Table 4.1 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameter (unit)	Water Depth	Action Level	Limit Level
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) (surface, middle and bottom)	Surface and Middle	5.0	4.2 except 5 for Fish Culture Zone
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) (surface, middle and bottom)	Bottom	4.7	3.6
Turbidity (NTU)	Depth average	27.5 or 120% of upstream control station’s turbidity at the same tide of the same day	47.0 or 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day
Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)	Depth average	23.5 or 120% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of the same day	34.4 or 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes

Notes:

(1) Depth-averaged is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.

(2) For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limit occurs when monitoring result is lower that the limit.

(3) For SS & turbidity non-compliance of the water quality limits occur when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

4.2 Monitoring Equipment

4.2.1 Table 4.2 summarises the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 4.2 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
DO and Temperature Meter, Salinity Meter, Turbidimeter and pH Meter	YSI Model 6920 V2-M, 650
Positioning Equipment	DGPS – KODEN : KGP913MkII, KBG3
Water Depth Detector	Layin Associates: SM-5 & SM5A
Water Sampler	Wildlife Supply Company : 5487-10

4.3 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

4.3.1 Table 4.3 summarises the monitoring parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water quality monitoring as required in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

Table 4.3 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,

Control/Far Field Stations:
CS2 & CS(Mf)5,

Sensitive Receiver Stations:
SR3, SR4, SR5, 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 Contract Specific EM&A Manual, thirteen stations (6 Impact Stations, 5 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 2 Control Stations) were designated for impact water quality monitoring. The six Impact Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest potential for water quality impacts, the five Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive receives and the two Control 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 The locations of these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.4 and shown in
Figure 2.1.

Table 4.4 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Stations	Description	Coordinates
Monitoring Stations	Description	Easting	Northing
IS5	Impact Station (Close to HKLR construction site)	811579	817106
IS(Mf)6	Impact Station (Close to HKLR 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
SR3	Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)	810525	816456
SR4	Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho Inlet)	814760	817867
SR5	Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef In NE Airport)	811489	820455
SR10A	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone)	823741	823495
SR10B	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone)	823686	823213
CS2	Control Station (Mid-Ebb)	805849	818780
CS(Mf)5	Control Station (Mid-Flood)	817990	821129

4.5 Monitoring Methodology

4.5.1 Instrumentation

(a) The in-situ water quality parameters including dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and turbidity, pH were measured by multi-parameter meters.

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.

(f) The analysis method and detection limit for SS is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Laboratory Analysis for Suspended Solids

Parameters	Instrumentation	Analytical Method	Detection Limit
Suspended Solid (SS)	Weighting	APHA 2540-D	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 Calibrations

(a) All in situ monitoring instruments would be calibrated by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. before use and at 3-monthly intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring programme. The procedures of performance check of sonde and testing results are provided in Appendix C.

4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month

4.6.1 The schedule for impact water quality monitoring in February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

4.7 Monitoring Results

4.7.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting month. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.

4.7.2 Exceedances were recorded for turbidity and suspended solids during the reporting month. Number of exceedances recorded during the reporting month at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

(S&M)

(Bottom)

Turbidity

Total number of exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

2013-02-15

---

2013-02-22

2013-02-13

Limit Level

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

2013-02-13

2013-02-20

2013-02-06

2013-02-18

Limit Level

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

IS7

Action Level

2013-02-22

2013-02-11

Limit Level

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

IS8

Action Level

2013-02-04

2013-02-18

Limit Level

2013-02-01

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

Station

Exceedance Level

(S&M)

(Bottom)

Turbidity

Total number of exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

2013-02-11

2013-02-25

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

Limit Level

2013-02-01

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

IS10

Action Level

2013-02-22

2013-02-01

2013-02-08

2013-02-20

2013-02-01

2013-02-15

Limit Level

2013-02-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-18

2013-02-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

SR3

Action Level

2013-02-22

2013-02-20

2013-02-27

Limit Level

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-18

2013-02-04

2013-02-18

2013-02-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

SR4

Action Level

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-13

2013-02-20

Limit Level

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-04

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-15

2013-02-25

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-27

SR5

Action Level

2013-02-06

2013-02-15

2013-02-25

Limit Level

2013-02-06

2013-02-08

2013-02-22

2013-02-25

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-15

2013-02-18

2013-02-20

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-11

2013-02-25

2013-02-01

2013-02-04

2013-02-08

2013-02-13

2013-02-15

2013-02-20

2013-02-22

2013-02-27

SR10A

Action Level

2013-02-08

Limit Level

2013-02-06

2013-02-11

2013-02-13

2013-02-27

SR10B

Action Level

2013-02-08

2013-02-18

2013-02-25

2013-02-11

Limit Level

2013-02-11

2013-02-01

2013-02-13

2013-02-27

Total

Action

38**

Limit

222**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

** The total exceedances.

4.7.3 During the reporting month, there are 20 Action Level exceedances and 100 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. 18 Action Level exceedances and 122 Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded. The completed “Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances” forms for all water quality exceedances are provided in Appendix M. No major marine works were carried out near the monitoring stations. Geotextile installation work, rock and sand fillings were being carried out within silt curtains near the restricted area during the sampling period. These activities were unlikely to cause adverse water quality impact. No leakage of turbid water or any abnormity or malpractice was observed during the sampling exercise. Therefore, all exceedances were considered as non-contract related.

4.7.4 Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.

4.7.5 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

4.7.6

5 Dolphin Monitoring

5.1 Monitoring Requirements

5.1.1 Impact dolphin monitoring is required to be conducted by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate whether there have been any effects on the dolphins.

5.2 Monitoring Methodology

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.2.1 According to the requirements of the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0), dolphin monitoring programme should cover all transect lines in NEL and NWL survey areas (see Figure 1 of Appendix H) twice per month. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Co-ordinates of transect lines

Line No.		Easting	Northing	Line No.		Easting	Northing
1	Start Point	804671	814577	13	Start Point	816506	819480
1	End Point	804671	831404	13	End Point	816506	824859
2	Start Point	805475	815457	14	Start Point	817537	820220
2	End Point	805477	826654	14	End Point	817537	824613
3	Start Point	806464	819435	15	Start Point	818568	820735
3	End Point	806464	822911	15	End Point	818568	824433
4	Start Point	807518	819771	16	Start Point	819532	821420
4	End Point	807518	829230	16	End Point	819532	824209
5	Start Point	808504	820220	17	Start Point	820451	822125
5	End Point	808504	828602	17	End Point	820451	823671
6	Start Point	809490	820466	18	Start Point	821504	822371
6	End Point	809490	825352	18	End Point	821504	823761
7	Start Point	810499	820690	19	Start Point	822513	823268
7	End Point	810499	824613	19	End Point	822513	824321
8	Start Point	811508	820847	20	Start Point	823477	823402
8	End Point	811508	824254	20	End Point	823477	824613
9	Start Point	812516	820892	21	Start Point	805476	827081
9	End Point	812516	824254	21	End Point	805476	830562
10	Start Point	813525	820872	22	Start Point	806464	824033
10	End Point	813525	824657	22	End Point	806464	829598
11	Start Point	814556	818449	23	Start Point	814559	821739
11	End Point	814556	820992	23	End Point	814559	824768
12	Start Point	815542	818807
12	End Point	815542	824882

5.2.2 The survey team used standard line-transect methods (Buckland et al. 2001) to conduct the systematic vessel surveys, and followed the same technique of data collection that has been adopted over the last 16 years of marine mammal monitoring surveys in Hong Kong developed by HKCRP (see Hung 2012). For each monitoring vessel survey, a 15-m inboard vessel (Standard 31516) with an open upper deck (about 4.5 m above water surface) was used to make observations from the flying bridge area.

5.2.3 During on-effort survey periods, the survey team recorded effort data including time, position (latitude and longitude), weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and visibility), and distance travelled in each series (a continuous period of search effort) with the assistance of a handheld GPS (Garmin eTrex Legend).

5.2.4 Data including time, position and vessel speed were also automatically and continuously logged by handheld GPS throughout the entire survey for subsequent review.

5.2.5 When dolphins were sighted, the survey team would end the survey effort, and immediately record the initial sighting distance and angle of the dolphin group from the survey vessel, as well as the sighting time and position. Then the research vessel was diverted from its course to approach the animals for species identification, group size estimation, assessment of group composition, and behavioural observations. The perpendicular distance (PSD) of the dolphin group to the transect line was later calculated from the initial sighting distance and angle.

5.2.6 Survey effort being conducted along the parallel transect lines that were perpendicular to the coastlines (as indicated in Figure 1 of Appendix H) was labeled as “primary survey effort, while the survey effort conducted along the connecting lines between parallel lines was labeled as “secondary” survey effort. According to HKCRP long-term dolphin monitoring data, encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from effort and sighting data collected along primary and secondary liens were similar in NEL and NWL survey areas. Therefore, both primary and secondary survey effort were presented as on-effort survey effort in this report.

5.2.7 Encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort and number of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort) were calculated in NEL and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount of survey effort conducted during each month of monitoring survey. Only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis. Dolphin encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone, as well as the combined survey effort from both primary and secondary lines.

Photo-identification Work

5.2.8 When a group of Chinese White Dolphins were sighted during the line-transect survey, the survey team would end effort and approach the group slowly from the side and behind to take photographs of them. Every attempt was made to photograph every dolphin in the group, and even photograph both sides of the dolphins, since the colouration and markings on both sides may not be symmetrical.

5.2.9 Two professional digital cameras (Canon EOS 7D and 60D models), each equipped with long telephoto lenses (100-400 mm zoom), were available on board for researchers to take sharp, close-up photographs of dolphins as they surfaced. The images were shot at the highest available resolution and stored on Compact Flash memory cards for downloading onto a computer.

5.2.10 All digital images taken in the field were first examined, and those containing potentially identifiable individuals were sorted out. These photographs would then be examined in greater detail, and were carefully compared to the existing Chinese White Dolphin photo-identification catalogue maintained by HKCRP since 1995.

5.2.11 Chinese White Dolphins can be identified by their natural markings, such as nicks, cuts, scars and deformities on their dorsal fin and body, and their unique spotting patterns were also used as secondary identifying features (Jefferson 2000).

5.2.12 All photographs of each individual were then compiled and arranged in chronological order, with data including the date and location first identified (initial sighting), re-sightings, associated dolphins, distinctive features, and age classes entered into a computer database. Detailed information on all identified individuals will be further presented as appendix in the quarterly EM&A report.

5.3 Monitoring Results

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.3.1 During the month of February 2013, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the 1^st, 6^th, 18^th and 20^th, to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2-5 of Appendix H.

5.3.2 From these surveys, a total of 302.7 km of survey effort was collected, with 100% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility) (Annex I of Appendix H). Among the two areas, 117.7 km and 185.0 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively. In addition, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 224.6 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 78.1 km. Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both treated as on-effort survey data.

5.3.3 During the two sets of monitoring surveys in February 2013, a total of 20 groups of 70 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted (Annex II of Appendix H). Notably, only a single sighting of a lone animal was sighted in NEL during the two sets of surveys. All sightings except one were made during on-effort search. Seventeen on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while another two on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. None of the dolphin group was associated with an operating fishing vessel during the February’s surveys.

5.3.4 Distribution of these dolphin sightings made during February’s surveys was shown in Figure 6. These sightings were mainly concentrated within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.5 None of the dolphin groups was sighted adjacent to the HKBCF construction site, HKLR03 construction site, or near the proposed viaduct of the TMCLKL (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.6 During February’s surveys, encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Dolphin encounter rates (sightings per 100 km of survey effort) in February’s surveys

	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)		Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
	Primary Lines Only	Both Primary and Secondary Lines	Primary Lines Only	Both Primary and Secondary Lines
Northwest Lantau	10.9	9.7	38.3	34.1
Northeast Lantau	1.3	0.8	1.3	0.8

5.3.7 The average group size of Chinese White Dolphins was 3.5 individuals per group during February’s surveys. Moreover, the average group sizes of dolphins in NWL and NEL were 3.6 and 1.0 individuals per group respectively. None of the dolphin sighting exceeded the group size of 10, and most groups were composed of only 1-3 animals.

Photo-identification Work

5.3.8 A total of 33 re-sightings of known individual Chinese White Dolphins were made during the February’s surveys (Annexes III and IV of Appendix H). Among these 33 re-sightings, 30 individuals were identified. Notably, three individuals (i.e. NL165, NL278 and NL286) were re-sighted twice during the month.

5.3.9 During the February’s surveys, three well-recognized females, NL123, NL104 and NL202, were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings.

Conclusion

5.3.10 During this month of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

5.3.11 Due to monthly variation in dolphin occurrence within the study area, it would be more appropriate to draw conclusion on whether any impacts on dolphins have been detected related to the construction activities of this project in the quarterly EM&A report, where comparison on distribution, group size and encounter rates of dolphins between the quarterly impact monitoring period (December 2012 – February 2013) and baseline monitoring period (3-month period) will be made.

5.4 Reference

5.4.1 Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, London.

5.4.2 Hung, S. K. 2012. Monitoring of marine mammals in Hong Kong waters – data collection: final report (2011-12). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of Hong Kong SAR Government, 120 pp.

5.4.3 Jefferson, T. A. 2000. Population biology of the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters. Wildlife Monographs 144:1-65.

5.4.4

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. During the reporting month, five site inspections were carried out on 5, 14, 19, and 26 February 2013.

6.1.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below.

5 February 2013

(a) The drain hole of the drip tray at Portion Y was not blocked. The contractor plugged the generator drip tray drain hole at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(b) Waste was accumulated in the waste skip at Portion Y. The contractor cleared the waste in the skip at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(c) The wheels of vehicles at Kwo Lo Wan Road were not cleaned properly before leaving the site. The contractor washes vehicles’ wheels before they leave the site. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(d) The drip tray provided for the container at Portion Y was too small. The contractor removed the small drip tray and replaced with a bigger the drip tray at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(e) No Noise Emission Label was provided for an air compressor at West Portal. The contractor provided the noise emission label for air compressors for display at West Portal. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(f) The construction area at West Portal was dry. The contractor implemented the dust control measures at West Portal. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(g) Stagnant water was found inside drainage at WA04. The contractor removed stagnant water inside the drainage. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

(h) A chemical container was found to be without drip tray at Stone Column. The contractor provided a drip tray for the chemical container. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

(i) A chemical container was found to be without a drip tray at Kwo Lo Wan Road. The contractor provided a drip tray for the chemical container. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

(j) Chemical containers near the site offices were found to be without drip tray at Kwo Lo Wan Road. The contractor provided drip trays for the chemical containers. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

14 February 2013

(a) Chemical containers were found without drip tray at WA03. The contractor provided drip trays for the chemical containers. (This observation was closed on 19 February 2013.)

19 February 2013

(a) The chemical container was found to be without drip tray at Stone Column. The contractor provided a drip tray for the chemical container. (This observation was closed on 26 February 2013.)

(b) The stockpiles were found to be without a cover at Kwo Lo Wan Road. The contractor provided impervious sheeting for the stockpiles. (This observation was closed on 26 February 2013.)

(c) The unpaved roads were found to be dry at West Portal. The contractor sprayed water on the unpaved roads regularly. (This observation was closed on 26 February 2013.)

26 February 2013

(a) High pressure water jet and sedimentation tank which form part of the wheel washing facilities were not provided at the site exit of WA4. The contractor was recommended to provide high pressure water jet and sedimentation tank at WA4.

The Contractor has rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspections during the reporting month. Follow-up actions for outstanding observations will be inspected during the next site inspections.

6.2 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

6.2.1 The Contractor had submitted application form for registration as a chemical waste producer for the Project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

6.2.2 Monthly summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix I.

6.2.3 The Contractor was reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practise on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

6.3 Environmental Licenses and Permits

6.3.1 The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting month are summarized in Appendix K

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 L. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

6.4.3 Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records were kept properly.

6.4.4 Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting month. No dolphins were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.

6.5 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.5.1 For 1-hour TSP and 24- hour TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at AMS 5 and AMS 6 during the reporting month.

6.5.2 For construction noise, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at the monitoring station during the reporting month.

6.5.3 During the reporting month, there are 20 Action Level exceedances and 100 Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. 18 Action Level exceedances and 122 Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded. No major marine works were carried out near the monitoring stations. Geotextile installation work, rock and sand fillings were being carried out within silt curtains near the restricted area during the sampling period. These activities were unlikely to cause adverse water quality impact. Therefore, all exceedances were considered as non-contract related.

6.6 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

6.6.1 There were no complaints received during the reporting month. The details of cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix J.

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	0	0
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	0	0
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	0	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	20	100
	Turbidity level	18	122
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0

Site Area	Description of Activities
Portion Y	Erection of hoardings and fencings at site boundaries
Portion Y	Site clearing for road and drainage work
Portion X	Removal of armour rocks of existing seawall
Portion X	Sand filling behind stone platform
Portion X	Formation of temporary stone platform
Portion X	Installation of stone column
Portion X	Reclamation
Portion X	Amour rock bund installation for temporary barging point
Portion X	Geotextile installation on sea bed
Airport Road and Kwo Lo Wan Road	Works for diversion
AEL	Pre-grouting and pip pilling works for AEL access shafts
West portal	Site formation work for tunneling
West portal	Installation of soil nails
West portal	Tree felling/tree transplanting
West portal	Boulder removal/stabilization works
West portal	Access Shaft Construction for SHT & HAT

1.1.4 The Contract includes the following key aspects:

1.2.1 The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure is shown in Appendix A. The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.

1.3 Construction Programme

1.3.1 A copy of the Contractor’s construction programme is provided in Appendix B.

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Month

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting month is shown in Table 1.2.

2 Air Quality Monitoring

2.1 Monitoring Requirements

2.2 Monitoring Equipment

2.3 Monitoring Locations

2.3.1 Monitoring locations AMS5 and AMS6 were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

2.3.2 Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 2.4 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

2.4.1 Table 2.5 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.

2.5.1 24-hour TSP Monitoring

2.5.2 1-hour TSP Monitoring

2.6.1 The schedule for air quality monitoring in February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

2.7.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix E.

2.7.2 No Action and Limit Levels exceedances were recorded at all monitoring stations during this reporting month.

2.7.3 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

2.7.4 The wind data obtained from the on-site weather station during the reporting month is shown in Appendix G.

3.1.1 In accordance with the Contract 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 Table 3.1.

3.2 Monitoring Equipment

3.3 Monitoring Locations

3.3.1 Monitoring location NMS5 was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

3.3.2 Figure 2.1 shows the locations of monitoring stations. Table 3.3 describes the details of the monitoring stations.

3.4.1 Table 3.4 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.

3.5.1 Monitoring Procedure

3.5.2 Maintenance and Calibration

3.6.1 The schedule for construction noise monitoring in February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

3.7 Monitoring Results

3.7.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.5 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.

3.7.2 No Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at NMS5 during the reporting month.

3.7.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.

3.7.4 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

4 Water Quality Monitoring

4.2.1 Table 4.2 summarises the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

4.3.1 Table 4.3 summarises the monitoring parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water quality monitoring as required in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

4.4.2 The locations of these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.4 and shown in Figure 2.1.

4.5.1 Instrumentation

4.5.2 Operating/Analytical Procedures

4.5.3 Maintenance and Calibrations

4.6.1 The schedule for impact water quality monitoring in February 2013 is provided in Appendix D.

4.7 Monitoring Results

4.7.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting month. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.

4.7.2 Exceedances were recorded for turbidity and suspended solids during the reporting month. Number of exceedances recorded during the reporting month at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.6.

4.7.4 Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.

4.7.5 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

4.7.6

5.1.1 Impact dolphin monitoring is required to be conducted by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate whether there have been any effects on the dolphins.

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.2.1 According to the requirements of the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0), dolphin monitoring programme should cover all transect lines in NEL and NWL survey areas (see Figure 1 of Appendix H) twice per month. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 5.1.

5.2.4 Data including time, position and vessel speed were also automatically and continuously logged by handheld GPS throughout the entire survey for subsequent review.

Photo-identification Work

5.2.11 Chinese White Dolphins can be identified by their natural markings, such as nicks, cuts, scars and deformities on their dorsal fin and body, and their unique spotting patterns were also used as secondary identifying features (Jefferson 2000).

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.3.1 During the month of February 2013, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the 1st, 6th, 18th and 20th, to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2-5 of Appendix H.

5.3.4 Distribution of these dolphin sightings made during February’s surveys was shown in Figure 6. These sightings were mainly concentrated within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.5 None of the dolphin groups was sighted adjacent to the HKBCF construction site, HKLR03 construction site, or near the proposed viaduct of the TMCLKL (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.6 During February’s surveys, encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) are shown in Table 5.2.

Photo-identification Work

5.3.9 During the February’s surveys, three well-recognized females, NL123, NL104 and NL202, were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings.

Conclusion

5.3.10 During this month of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

5.4 Reference

5.4.1 Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, London.

5.4.2 Hung, S. K. 2012. Monitoring of marine mammals in Hong Kong waters – data collection: final report (2011-12). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of Hong Kong SAR Government, 120 pp.

5.4.3 Jefferson, T. A. 2000. Population biology of the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters. Wildlife Monographs 144:1-65.

5.4.4

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT

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. During the reporting month, five site inspections were carried out on 5, 14, 19, and 26 February 2013.

6.1.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below.

5 February 2013

(a) The drain hole of the drip tray at Portion Y was not blocked. The contractor plugged the generator drip tray drain hole at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(b) Waste was accumulated in the waste skip at Portion Y. The contractor cleared the waste in the skip at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(c) The wheels of vehicles at Kwo Lo Wan Road were not cleaned properly before leaving the site. The contractor washes vehicles’ wheels before they leave the site. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(d) The drip tray provided for the container at Portion Y was too small. The contractor removed the small drip tray and replaced with a bigger the drip tray at Portion Y. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(e) No Noise Emission Label was provided for an air compressor at West Portal. The contractor provided the noise emission label for air compressors for display at West Portal. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(f) The construction area at West Portal was dry. The contractor implemented the dust control measures at West Portal. (This observation was found on 29 January 2013 and closed on 5 February 2013.)

(g) Stagnant water was found inside drainage at WA04. The contractor removed stagnant water inside the drainage. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

(h) A chemical container was found to be without drip tray at Stone Column. The contractor provided a drip tray for the chemical container. (This observation was closed on 14 February 2013.)

4.4.2 The locations of these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.4 and shown in
Figure 2.1.

5.3.1 During the month of February 2013, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the 1^st, 6^th, 18^th and 20^th, to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2-5 of Appendix H.