Executive Summary

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).

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.

China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd. was awarded by Highways Department as the Contractor to undertake the construction works of Contract No. HY/2011/03. The main works of the Contract include land tunnel at Scenic Hill, tunnel underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line, reclamation and tunnel to the east coast of the Airport Island, at-grade road connecting to the HKBCF and highway works of the HKBCF within the Airport Island and in the vicinity of the HKLR reclamation. 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.

BMT Asia Pacific Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0) and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract.

This is the first Quarterly 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 October to 30 November 2012. In order to compare the data analysis for dolphin monitoring results to the baseline monitoring results and the AFCD’s quarterly monitoring results, this first quarterly report will contain two months’ monitoring data instead of three. The Quarterly EM&A reports thereafter will contain three months’ monitoring data.

Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress

The EM&A programme were undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version1.0). A summary of the monitoring activities during this reporting period is presented as below:

Monitoring Activity		Monitoring Date
		October 2012	November 2012
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	18, 24 and 30	2, 5, 9, 15, 21 and 27
	24-hr TSP	18, 24 and 30	2, 8, 14, 20, 21, 26 and 30
Noise		18 and 24	1, 5, 15, 21 and 27
Water Quality		17, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 30	1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26 and 29
Chinese White Dolphin		17, 18, 25, 26 and 29	2, 3, 12 and 13
Site Inspection		17, 24 and 30	6, 13, 20 and 30

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels

A summary of environmental exceedances for this reporting period is as follows:

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	2	1
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	0	0
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	1	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	11	51
	Turbidity level	14	56
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0

The Environmental Team investigated all exceedances and found that they were not project related.

All investigation reports for exceedances of the Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Potential environmental impacts due to the construction activities were monitored and reviewed.

Complaint Log

A summary of environmental complaints for this reporting period is as follows:

Environmental Complaint No. ⁽¹⁾	Date of Complaint Received	Description of Environmental Complaints
COM-2012-008	22 October 2012	Water Quality
COM-2012-009	5 November 2012	Noise and Light
COM-2012-009(2)	11 November 2012	Noise, Water Quality and Air Quality
COM-2012-009(3)	14 November 2012	Noise
COM-2012-010(1)	6 November 2012	Noise
COM-2012-010(2)	15 November 2012	Noise and Air Quality
COM-2012-010(3)	15 November 2012	Noise Water Quality and Air Quality
COM-2012-010(4)	19 November 2012	Air Quality and Noise
COM-2012-010(5)	24 November 2012	Air Quality and Noise
COM-2012-012(1)	13 November 2012	Noise

Remarks:

(1) If a complainant makes complaint for the same environmental issue, only one complaint number will be assigned for the complaint.

Notifications of Summons and Prosecutions

There were no notifications of summons or prosecutions received during this reporting period.

Reporting Changes

This report has been developed in compliance with the reporting requirements for the quarterly summary EM&A reports as required by the Updated EM&A Manual for HKLR (Version 1.0). There are no reporting changes.

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.

1.1.4 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 provided in Appendix A.

1.1.5 This is the first Quarterly 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 October to 30 November 2012. In order to compare the data analysis for dolphin monitoring results to the baseline monitoring results and the AFCD’s quarterly monitoring results, this first quarterly report will contain two months’ monitoring data instead of three. The Quarterly EM&A reports thereafter will contain three months’ monitoring data.

1.2 Project Organisation

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

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 Period

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown in Table 1.1. The Works areas of the Contract are showed in Appendix C.

Table 1.1 Construction Activities During Reporting Period

Site Area	Description of Activities
WA 6	Construction of site office
Portion Y	Ground Investigation Work Site clearing for road and drainage work
Portion B	Site formation work for tunnelling at West Portal
Portion X	Marine Site investigation Installation of silt curt Removal of armour rocks of existing seawall Formation of temporary stone platform

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1 The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as specified in the approved EM&A Manual.

2.1.2 A summary of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1. The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1. The transect line layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is presented in Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring	Description	Monitoring Station	Frequencies	Remarks
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	AMS 5 & AMS 6	At least 3 times every 6 days	While the highest dust impact was expected.
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	AMS 5 & AMS 6	At least once every 6 days	--
Noise	L_eq_(30mins)_, L₁₀_(30mins)and L₉₀_(30mins)	NMS5	At least once per week	Daytime on normal weekdays (0700-1900 hrs).
Water Quality	· Depth · Temperature · Salinity · Dissolved Oxygen (DO) · Suspended Solids (SS) · DO Saturation · Turbidity · pH	· 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	Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides (within ± 1.75 hour of the predicted time)	3 (1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).
Dolphin	Line-transect Methods	Northeast Lantau survey area and Northwest Lantau survey area	Twice per month	--
Mudflat	Horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds, intertidal soft shore communities, sedimentation rates and water quality	San Tau and Tung Chung Bay	Once every 3 months	--

2.2 Action and Limit Levels

2.2.1 Table 2.2 presents the Action and Limit Levels for the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.

Table 2.2 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and Noise

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	AMS 5	352 µg/m³	500 µg/m³
	1-hr TSP	AMS 6	360 µg/m³	500 µg/m³
	24-hr TSP	AMS 5	164 µg/m³	260 µg/m³
	24-hr TSP	AMS 6	173 µg/m³	260 µg/m³
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	NMS 5	When one documented complaint is received	75 dB(A)

2.2.2 The Action and Limit Levels for water quality monitoring are given as in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameter (unit)	Water Depth	Action Level	Limit Level
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Surface and Middle	5.0	4.2 except 5 for Fish Culture Zone
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	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.

2.3 Event Action Plans

The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise and water quality are annexed in Appendix D.

2.4 Mitigation Measures

2.4.1 Environmental mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status.

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

3.1.1 In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions. Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period is presented in Appendix F.

3.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E.

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

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

3.1.5 A dolphin exclusion zone of 250m was implemented during the installation of silt curtains on 17, 18 and 19 October; 21 and 22 November 2012. No dolphins were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.

3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results

3.2.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix G.

Table 3.1 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
October 2012	AMS5	271	82 – 562	352	500
October 2012	AMS6	145	101 – 178	360
November 2012	AMS5	133	62 – 296	352
November 2012	AMS6	114	21 – 242	360

Table 3.2 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
October 2012	AMS5	73	46 – 94	164	260
October 2012	AMS6	N/A*	N/A*	173
November 2012	AMS5	77	51 – 100	164
November 2012	AMS6	70	21 – 119	173

Remarks:

* The permission of HVS installation was granted at the end of October 2012. The impact monitoring at AMS6 commenced on 1 November 2012.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

3.3.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.3 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting period are provided in Appendix H.

Table 3.3 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting period

Monitoring

Station

Average L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)

Range of L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)

Action Level

Limit Level L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)

October 2012

NMS5

52 – 59

When one documented complaint is received

November 2012

54 – 71

*+3dB(A) Façade correction included

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

3.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

3.4.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting period. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix I.

3.4.2 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.

3.5 Dolphin Monitoring Results

Summary of survey effort and dolphin sightings

3.5.1 During the reporting period, four sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in Northwest Lantau (NWL) and Northeast (NEL) survey areas twice per month.

3.5.2 From these surveys, a total of 602.9 km of survey effort was collected, with 91.7% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility). Among the two areas, 230.1 km and 372.8 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively. In addition, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 441.6 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 161.2 km. Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both considered as on-effort survey data.

3.5.3 During the four sets of monitoring surveys in October and November 2012, a total of 44 groups of 119 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All except five sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-four on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while another five on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. Among the two survey areas, 11 groups of 32 dolphins were sighted in NEL, while the other 33 groups of 87 dolphins were sighted in NWL.

Distribution

3.5.4 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in October and November 2012 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. Chinese white dolphins were mainly sighted to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, between Sha Chau and Pillar Point in NWL, and near Siu Mo To and Yam O in NEL during the two-month study period.

3.5.5 Notably, no dolphin was sighted in the vicinity of the HKLR03 reclamation site or HKBCF reclamation site during the two-month study period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). A few dolphin sightings were made along the alignment of the future HKLR09 work site.

3.5.6 When compared with the sighting distribution of dolphins during baseline monitoring surveys in September to November 2011, it appears that fewer dolphins were sighted near Shum Shui Kok, at the northeast corner of the airport platform (i.e. near the HKBCF reclamation site) and near Pillar Point in October and November 2012 (Figure 1 of Appendix J). In addition, more dolphins were sighted near Yam O during this two-month period than in the baseline monitoring period, and it appears that dolphin distribution has shifted eastward in NEL during the impact phase monitoring surveys (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

Encounter rate

3.5.7 For the two-month study period in October and November 2012, the average encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) are shown in Table 3.4. These encounter rates were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period in September to November 2011.

Table 3.4 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Oct–Nov 2012) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep– Nov 2011)

Survey Area	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)
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Northeast Lantau	5.40 ± 5.80	6.00 ± 5.05	16.90 ± 18.17	22.19 ± 26.81
Northwest Lantau	9.88 ± 4.20	9.85 ± 5.85	26.50 ± 10.34	44.66 ± 29.85

3.5.8 The average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present two-month study period were 10% and 24% lower than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period in NEL. On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rate (STG) in NWL was similar between the two study periods, while the average dolphin encounter rate (ANI) was 41% lower in October- November 2012 than the one recorded in the 3-month baseline period.

Group size

3.5.9 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1-11 individuals per group in NEL and 1-7 individuals per group in NWL for the two-month study period in October and November 2012. The average dolphin group size from these two months were compared with the one deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Oct–Nov 2012) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep– Nov 2011)

	Average Dolphin Group Size
	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	2.70 ± 2.10 (n = 44)	3.72 ± 3.13 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	2.91 ± 3.27 (n = 11)	3.18 ± 2.16 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	2.64 ± 1.60 (n = 33)	3.92 ± 3.40 (n = 49)

3.5.10 Notably, the average dolphin group sizes in NWL and the entire North Lantau region was lower during October-November 2012 than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table 3.5). On the contrary, the ones in NEL were similar between the two study periods (Table 3.5).

3.5.11 Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes during October-November 2012 is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix I. These groups were scattered throughout the NWL and NEL survey areas, with no apparent concentration. One large dolphin group of 11 individuals was sighted between the Brothers Islands in NEL (Figure 2 of Appendix J). It appears that there were a lot more dolphin sightings with larger group sizes found around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau during the 3-month baseline period in September-November 2011 than the two-month period in October-November 2012.

Habitat use

3.5.12 From October to November 2012, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins included the areas around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau, near Siu Mo To and Yam O (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J).

3.5.13 It should be noted that the amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the two-month period was fairly low (4-8 unit of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use pattern derived from the two-month dataset should be treated with caution. A more complete picture of dolphin habitat use pattern will be presented when more survey effort for each grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.

3.5.14 Notably, none of the grids along the alignment of HKLR or HKBCF recorded any dolphin densities (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix J), while during the baseline period several grids along the alignments of HKLR (Grids F21 and G20) and adjacent to the reclamation site of HKBCF (Grid P17) recorded moderate to high dolphin densities.

Mother-calf pairs

3.5.15 During the two-month study period, a total of 3 unspotted calves (UC) and 4 unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NEL and NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised 5.9% of all animals sighted, which was similar to the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

3.5.16 These young calves only occurred near Siu Mo To and near Sha Chau in October-November 2012 (Figure 4 of Appendix J). On the contrary, the young calves regularly occurred along the Urmston Road between Black Point and Lung Kwu Chau, as well as the waters between Sha Chau and the airport during the baseline period (Figure 4 of Appendix J). Notably no young calves were found in the vicinity of the HKLR03 or HKBCF construction site in October to November 2012.

Activities and associations with fishing boats

3.5.17 A total of five dolphin sightings were associated with feeding and socializing activities during the two-month study period, comprising of 9.1% and 2.3% of the total number of dolphin sightings. Both percentages were slightly lower than the percentages recorded during the baseline period (feeding activity: 11.6%; socializing activity: 5.4%). Only a lone dolphin was engaged in traveling activity near Yam O in NEL (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.18 Distribution of dolphins engaged in different activities during the two-month study period scattered throughout the two survey areas, and none of these activities occurred near the construction sites of HKLR and HKBCF (Figure 5 of Appendix J). Notably, most feeding and socializing activities concentrated within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park during the baseline period, but that was not the case during the two-month study period in October-November 2012 (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.19 Only two dolphin groups were found to be associated with operating fishing boats, comprising of 4.5% of all dolphin groups, which was similar to the percentage recorded in baseline period (5.4%).

Photo-identification and individual range use

3.5.20 From October to November 2012, over 2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.21 In total, 41 individuals sighted 71 times altogether were identified. The number of re-sightings made in NEL and NWL were 33.8% and 66.2% of the total respectively. Notably, a very high percentage of dolphins sighted in NEL (24 out of 32 dolphins) were identified as known individuals, and the rest were small calves that were not distinctive enough to be identified.

3.5.22 Most identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the two-month period, with the exception of eight individuals being sighted thrice (i.e. CH34, NL18, NL202, NL220, NL244, NL246, NL295 and NL296).

3.5.23 Ranging patterns of the 14 individuals identified during the two-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex I of Appendix J. Notably, many of these individuals being sighted twice or thrice ranged extensively across NEL and NWL.

3.5.24 A number of individuals were sighted in both NEL and NWL survey areas (e.g. NL33, NL98, NL246 and NL295), indicating that the on-going HZMB construction works have not affected their movement between the two areas. In fact, a number of year-round residents (e.g. NL18, NL24, NL123 and NL179) were still sighted consistently in Northeast Lantau, suggesting that the usage of this area have yet to be seriously affected by the reclamation works of HKLR03 or HKBCF.

3.5.25 It should be noted that only a very few individuals have their ranges overlapped with the HKLR03 construction works (Annex I of Appendix J), and their movement will likely not be affected by the reclamation works of the present project. Nevertheless, the range use of individual dolphins will be continuously monitored throughout the construction period to examine whether any shift in ranging pattern has occurred as a result of the HZMB construction activities.

3.6 Mudflat Monitoring Results

3.6.1 No mudflat monitoring was carried out during this reporting period.

3.7 Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

3.7.1 The Contractor registered with EPD as a Chemical Waste Producer on 12 July 2012 for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

3.7.2 The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix K.

3.7.3 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.

3.8 Environmental Licenses and Permits

3.8.1 The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix L.

4 Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance

4.1 Environmental Exceedances

4.1.1 The detailed air quality, noise and water quality exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the environmental exceedances are presented as followed:

Air Quality

4.1.2 During the reporting period there were two non-project related Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and one non-project related Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP recorded at Station AMS5 on 30 October 2012.

Noise

4.1.3 There was an Action Level exceedance of noise during this reporting period. A noise complaint regarding the noise generated from power generator, engines from barges used for marine operation, cranes from the barges, engine from boats used for transportation of site staff and strong noise of metallic parts being thrown on the ground was received on 24 November 2012. According to the information provided by the Contractor, the construction works conducted on 24 November 2012 included removal of armour rock at zone 3C and rock filling at Zone 3B. A noise barrier has been provided for the generator since 21 November 2012. Noise shield has been installed for the engine and breaking system of a derrick barge to minimize the noise nuisance since 25 November 2012. According to the information provided by the Contractor, construction activities undertaken on site on 24 November included breaking work for extending drainage using electric breaker (completed on 26 Nov), cleaning near site entrances and filling of cable manhole with sandbags. No metallic works were carried out during the date of complaint (24 November 2012). The Contractor has implemented mitigation measures to minimise the potential noise impacts. In addition, the Contractor has been reminded to enhance the maintenance of barges to avoid the generation of abnormal noise.

4.1.4 Additionally, there are no Limit Level exceedances at NMS5 during the reporting period.

Water Quality

4.1.5 During the reporting period, there are eleven Action Level exceedances and fifty-one Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. Fourteen Action Level exceedances and fifty-six Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded. No major marine works were undertaken near the monitoring stations. Geotextile installation, rock filling, silt curtain maintenance work and vessel maintenance work 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 not project related. The detailed numbers of exceedances recorded during the reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total Number of Exceedances
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	01/11/2012	17/10/2012	17/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012	1	4
IS5	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	24/11/2012 29/11/2012	20/10/2012 25/10/2012 27/10/2012 05/11/2012 08/11/2012 26/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 05/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 22/11/2012 29/11/2012	2	12
IS(Mf)6	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	27/10/2012 01/11/2012 29/11/2012	--	27/10/2012	0	4
IS(Mf)6	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	24/11/2012 29/11/2012	20/10/2012 05/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 26/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 22/10/2012 03/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 26/11/2012 29/11/2012	2	12
IS7	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS7	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	20/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 01/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 19/11/2012 26/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 16/11/2012 19/11/2012 26/11/2012	1	14
IS8	Action Level	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	17/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 08/11/2012	--	--	1	4
IS8	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	01/11/2012 16/11/2012 29/11/2012	--	17/10/2012 20/10/2012 30/10/2012 08/11/2012 01/11/2012 16/11/2012 29/11/2012	0	10
IS(Mf)9	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	01/11/2012	0	1
IS(Mf)9	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	20/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 01/11/2012 16/11/2012 26/11/2012 29/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 30/10/2012 16/11/2012 26/11/2012 29/11/2012	1	12
IS10*	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS10*	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	24/11/201229/11/2012	29/11/2012	--	29/11/2012	2	2
SR3	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	22/10/2012	--	27/10/2012 30/10/2012	0	3
SR3	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	20/10/2012 25/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 05/11/2012 08/11/2012 26/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 22/10/2012 08/11/2012 10/11/2012 16/11/2012 26/11/2012	1	13
SR4	Action Level	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	--	--	14/11/2012 29/11/2012	1	2
SR4	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	20/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 01/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 19/11/2012 26/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 27/10/2012 30/10/2012 01/11/2012 08/11/2012 16/11/2012 19/11/2012 26/11/2012	0	16
SR5*	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	--	--	0	1
SR5*	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	29/11/2012	0	1
SR10A	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10A	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	16/11/2012	--	20/10/2012 16/11/2012	0	3
SR10B	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	01/11/2012 16/11/2012	--	17/10/2012	0	3
SR10B	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	20/10/2012	--	20/10/2012 16/11/2012	0	3
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	2	12	1	10	25
Total	Limit	0	0	0	0	9	47	0	51	107

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

* Monitoring Stations SR5 and IS10 are located within the Airport Approach Restricted Area. Therefore, a permit is required for entering into the area. The Contractor applied the permit in October 2012 and expected to receive the permit soon. Monitoring work will commence once the permit is granted.

** The total exceedances.

4.2 Summary of Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.2.1 There were four environmental complaints received during this reporting period. All investigation reports for exceedances of the Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts. The summary of environmental complaints is presented in Table 4.2. The details of environmental complaints are presented in Appendix N.

Table 4.2 Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Reporting Period

Environmental Complaint No. ⁽¹⁾	Date of Complaint Received	Description of Environmental Complaints
COM-2012-008	22 October 2012	Water Quality
COM-2012-009	5 November 2012	Noise and Light
COM-2012-009(2)	11 November 2012	Noise, Water Quality and Air Quality
COM-2012-009(3)	14 November 2012	Noise
COM-2012-010(1)	6 November 2012	Noise
COM-2012-010(2)	15 November 2012	Noise and Air Quality
COM-2012-010(3)	15 November 2012	Noise Water Quality and Air Quality
COM-2012-010(4)	19 November 2012	Air Quality and Noise
COM-2012-010(5)	24 November 2012	Air Quality and Noise
COM-2012-012(1)	13 November 2012	Noise

Remarks:

(1) If a complainant makes complaint for the same environmental issue, only one complaint number will be assigned for the complaint.

4.2.2 No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the reporting period.

4.2.3 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.

5 COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Comments

5.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:

§ The Contractor is recommended to water the unpaved areas/designated roads/dry bare soils to suppress dust emissions.

§ The Contractor should clean up the mud tracks at the Emergency Vehicles Access and to implement the wheel washing facility as soon as practical.

§ The Contractor is reminded to spray water to the rock fill materials to suppress dust emissions.

§ The Contractor is suggested to provide label (e.g. Noise Emission Label) and drip tray for air compressors.

§ The Contractor should clear the rubbish and keep the tidiness of the Site.

§ The Contractor should clean up the mud trucks at Kwo Lo Wan Road and install the wheel washing facility.

§ The Contractor is recommended to water the bare soil roads to suppress dust emissions.

§ The Contractor is reminded to fully cover the stockpile of cement with a tarpaulin sheet.

§ The Contractor is recommended to remove the silt on the road.

§ The Contractor was reminded that any debris and broken sand bags should be removed from the deck to avoid falling off of debris into the sea when the barge moves outside the silt curtain surrounding area.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover or water the excavated materials at Airport Road in the dry season.

§ The Contractor should remove the silt to minimize dust impacts.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover the stock of cement bags properly.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a larger drip tray for storage of oil barrels as possible.

§ The Contractor was suggested to apply larvicide sand to prevent mosquito breeding.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clear the stagnant pools.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the compressor and oil drums.

§ The Contractor should provide covers for excavated materials to prevent fugitive dust impact.

§ The Contractor should provide proper noise reduction materials and tarpaulin sheets for the mounted excavated breaker.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide lids for the Barrels.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the lubricative container.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clear soil and water inside the drip tray.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clear excavated materials and leaves inside the U- drainage.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide fencing for the retained trees.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide Environmental Permits/ Licences at all site entrance for readily inspection.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 The impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the contract. With implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the contract’s environmental impacts were considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.

5.2.2 The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the contract. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.

5.3 Conclusions

5.3.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012.

5.3.2 For air quality, there are two non-project related Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and one non-project related Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP recorded at Station AMS5 during this reporting period.

5.3.3 For construction noise, there is one Action Limit exceedance. No Limit Level exceedances were recorded at the monitoring station during the reporting period.

5.3.4 During this reporting period, there are eleven non-project related Action Level exceedances and fifty-one non-project related Limit Level exceedances of suspended solids level. Fourteen non-project related Action Level exceedances and fifty-six non-project related Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded.

5.3.5 In total, 41 individuals sighted 71 times altogether were identified. The number of re-sightings made in NEL and NWL were 33.8% and 66.2% of the total respectively. Notably, a very high percentage of dolphins sighted in NEL (24 out of 32 dolphins) were identified as known individuals, and the rest were small calves that were not distinctive enough to be identified.

5.3.6 Most identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the two-month period, with the exception of eight individuals being sighted thrice (i.e. CH34, NL18, NL202, NL220, NL244, NL246, NL295 and NL296).

5.3.7 Only a very few individuals have their ranges overlapped with the HKLR03 construction works, and their movement will likely not be affected by the reclamation works of the present project.

5.3.8 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 17, 24 and 30 October, 6, 13, 20 and 30 November 2012. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.