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/D for HKLR and EP-353/2009/J for HKBCF were issued on 22 December 2014 and 25 February 2016, 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 areas 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 41^st Monthly EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 29 February 2016.

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. Ramboll 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 (Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2888	3465 2899
	Independent Environmental Checker	Antony Wong	3465 2888	3465 2899
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
24 hours complaint hotline	---	---	5699 5730	---

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

Description of Activities	Site Area
Dismantling/trimming of temporary 40mm stone platform for construction of seawall	Portion X
Filling works behind stone platform	Portion X
Construction of seawall	Portion X
Loading and unloading of filling materials	Portion X
Excavation and lateral support works for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Construction of tunnel box structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Pipe piling works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel	Portion X
Sheet Piling Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Socket H-Piling Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut &Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building	West Portal
Excavation for diversion of culvert PR10	Portion X
Works for diversion	Airport Road
Utilities detection	Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road
Establishment of Site Access	Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road
Canopy pipe drilling / Box Jacking underneath Airport Express Line	Airport Express Line
Pipe roofing drilling / Mined Tunnel excavation underneath Airport Road	Airport Road
Excavation and lateral support works at shaft 3 extension north shaft	Kwo Lo Wan Road
Excavation and Lateral Support Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Airport Road
Utility culvert excavation	Portion Y
Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building	Portion Y

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 two 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 was provided.

(iv) No furnace or incinerator flues are 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 aluminium 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 hours, 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 February 2016 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	138	88 - 213	352	500
AMS6	134	82 - 181	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	51	18 - 102	164	260
AMS6	73	27 - 134	173	260

2.7.2 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the 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 hours 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 2016 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	61	59 – 62	75

*A correction factor of +3dB(A) from free field to facade measurement was included.

3.7.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting month.

3.7.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract, nearby traffic and insect 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 is detected, and that timely action is 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. The ET proposed to amend the Acton Level and Limit Level for turbidity and suspended solid and EPD approved ET’s proposal on 25 March 2013. Therefore, Action Level and Limit Level for the Contract have been changed since 25 March 2013.

4.1.2 The original and revised Action Level and Limit Level for turbidity and suspended solid are shown in Table 4.1.

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; The action level has been amended to “27.5 *and* 120% of upstream control station’s turbidity at the same tide of the same day” since 25 March 2013.	47.0 or 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day; The limit level has been amended to “47.0 *and* 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day” since 25 March 2013.
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; The action level has been amended to “23.5 *and* 120% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of the same day” since 25 March 2013.	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; The limit level has been amended to “34.4 *and* 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes” since 25 March 2013

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) The change to the Action and limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring for the EM&A works was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013.

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 6820 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 2016 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. Water quality impact sources during water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix E.

4.7.2 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	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	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS5	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS7	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS7	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS8	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	0	1
IS8	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	--	--	0	1
IS(Mf)9	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS10	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS10	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR3	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR3	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR4	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR4	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	--	5 Feb 2016	0	2
SR5	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR5	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10A	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10A	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10B	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10B	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1**
Total	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	3**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

** The total number of exceedances

4.7.3 For marine water quality monitoring, Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded at stations IS8 and SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solids level was recorded at station IS8 and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016.

4.7.4 The construction activities on 5 February 2016 including box culvert construction works at Zones 1 and 2 and seawall construction works at Zones 2 and 3A were carried out within silt curtain as recommended in the EIA Report. According to the Contractor, the wastewater effluent generated from the contract works was treated before discharging into water bodies (e.g. storm water drains, coast and sea etc.) on 5 February 2016 in accordance with the discharge license. There were no specific activities recorded during the monitoring period that would cause any significant impacts on the monitoring results. No marine works was conducted near monitoring stations IS8 and SR4 which are located outside the site boundary of HKLR03 Contract. Also, there was no marine transportation of fill materials/sediment on 5 February 2016 and no muddy plume observed at IS8 and SR4 during sampling exercise. No leakage of turbid water or any abnormity or malpractice for all contract works was observed during the sampling exercise.

4.7.5 The exceedances of turbidity level and suspended solids level were considered to be attributed to other external factors such as sea condition, rather than the contract works. Therefore, the exceedances were considered as non-contract related. Records of “Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances” are provided in Appendix M.

4.7.6 For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level exceedance of turbidity level and no Action Level/ Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen were recorded during the reporting month.

4.7.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

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.

5.1.2 The Action Level and Limit Level for dolphin monitoring are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Action and Limit Levels for Dolphin Monitoring

	North Lantau Social Cluster
	NEL	NWL
Action Level	STG < 4.2 & ANI < 15.5	STG < 6.9 & ANI < 31.3
Limit Level	(STG < 2.4 & ANI < 8.9) and (STG < 3.9 & ANI < 17.9)

Remarks:

1. STG means quarterly encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.

2. ANI means quarterly encounter rate of total number of dolphins.

3. For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be trigger if either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL fall below the criteria.

5.1.3 The revised Event and Action Plan for dolphin Monitoring was approved by EPD in 6 May 2013. The revised Event and Action Plan is annexed in Appendix F.

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 5.2. The coordinates of several starting points have been revised due to the obstruction of the permanent structures associated with the construction works of HKLR and the southern viaduct of TM-CLKL, as well as provision of adequate buffer distance from the Airport Restricted Areas. The EPD issued a memo and confirmed that they had no objection on the revised transect lines on 19 August 2015, and the revised coordinates are in red and marked with an asterisk in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Co-ordinates of Transect Lines

Line No.		Easting	Northing	Line No.		Easting	Northing
1	Start Point	804671	815456*	13	Start Point	816506	819480
1	End Point	804671	831404	13	End Point	816506	824859
2	Start Point	805475	815913*	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	820880*	19	Start Point	822513	823268
7	End Point	810499	824613	19	End Point	822513	824321
8	Start Point	811508	821123*	20	Start Point	823477	823402
8	End Point	811508	824254	20	End Point	823477	824613
9	Start Point	812516	821303*	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	818853*	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

Note:
Co-ordinates in red and marked with asterisk are revised co-ordinates of transect line.

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 18 years of marine mammal monitoring surveys in Hong Kong developed by HKCRP (see Hung 2015). For each monitoring vessel survey, a 15-m inboard vessel 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 Two experienced observers (a data recorder and a primary observer) made up the on-effort survey team, and the survey vessel transited different transect lines at a constant speed of 13-15 km per hour. The data recorder searched with unaided eyes and filled out the datasheets, while the primary observer searched for dolphins and porpoises continuously through 7 x 50 Fujinon marine binoculars. Both observers searched the sea ahead of the vessel, between 270^o and 90^o (in relation to the bow, which is defined as 0^o). One to two additional experienced observers were available on the boat to work in shift (i.e. rotate every 30 minutes) in order to minimize fatigue of the survey team members. All observers were experienced in small cetacean survey techniques and identifying local cetacean species.

5.2.4 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).

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

5.2.6 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.

5.2.7 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 lines 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.

5.2.8 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

5.2.9 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.

5.2.10 A professional digital cameras (Canon EOS 7D and 60D models), 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.

5.2.11 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.

5.2.12 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).

5.2.13 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 an appendix in quarterly EM&A reports.

5.3 Monitoring Results

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.3.1 During the month of February 2016, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the2^nd, 3^rd, 16^th and 22^nd to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2 to 5 of Appendix H.

5.3.2 From these surveys, a total of 303.87 km of survey effort was collected, 97.9% 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, 116.17 km and 187.70 km of survey effort were collected from NEL and NWL survey areas respectively. Moreover, the total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 219.76 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 84.11 km.

5.3.3 During the two sets of monitoring surveys in February 2016, only two groups of 11 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted (Annex II of Appendix H). Both dolphin sightings were made in NWL, while none was sighted in NEL.

5.3.4 During the February’s surveys, both dolphin sightings were made on primary lines during on-effort search, and neither group was associated with any operating fishing vessel.

5.3.5 Distribution of these dolphin sightings made in February 2016 is shown in Figure 6 of Appendix H. One group was sighted near Pillar Point near the Castle Peak Power Station, while the other was sighted just outside of the Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.6 As in previous months of HKLR03 monitoring surveys, none of the dolphin sightings were located in the proximity of the HKLR03 and HKBCF reclamation sites, as well as the HKLR09 alignments (Figure 6 of Appendix H). However, one sighting was made very close to the TMCLKL northern landfall (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.7 During the 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 5.3 and Table 5.4.

5.3.8 The average dolphin group size in February 2016 was 5.5 individuals per group, which was similar to the ones in previous months of monitoring surveys. Both dolphin groups were medium in size with five and six individuals respectively.

Table 5.3 Individual Survey Event Encounter Rates

		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	Primary Lines Only
NEL	Set 1: February 2^nd / 3^rd	0.0	0.0
NEL	Set 2: February 16^th / 22^nd	0.0	0.0
NWL	Set 1: February 2^nd / 3^rd	1.4	6.8
NWL	Set 2: February 16^th / 22^nd	1.4	8.7

Remarks:

1. Dolphin Encounter Rates Deduced from the Two Sets of Surveys (Two Surveys in Each Set) in February 2016 in Northeast (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL).

Table 5.4 Monthly Average Encounter Rates

	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
Northeast Lantau	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Northwest Lantau	1.4	1.1	7.7	6.1

Remarks:

1. Monthly Average Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) from All Four Surveys Conducted in February 2016 on Primary Lines only as well as Both Primary Lines and Secondary Lines in Northeast (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL).

Photo-identification Work

5.3.9 Nine individual dolphins were sighted 11 times during February’s surveys (Annex III and IV of Appendix H). The majority of individuals were sighted only once during the monitoring month, but two individuals (NL48 and NL285) were sighted twice.

5.3.10 Notably, none of these individual dolphins were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings.

Conclusion

5.3.11 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.

5.3.12 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 2015 – February 2016) 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. 2015. Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong waters: final report (2014-15). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 198 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.

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 3, 12, 15 and 26 February 2016.

6.1.2 A summary of observations found during the site inspections and the follow up actions taken by the Contractor are described in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Summary of Environmental Site Inspections

Date of Audit	Observations	Actions Taken by Contractor / Recommendation	Date of Observations Closed
2 Dec 2015	1. A slit curtain was not properly aligned near S7. 2. Some of barriers were placed with adsorptive side facing NSRs at S16.	1. The silt curtain was aligned properly near S7. 2. The noise barriers were removed at S16.	12 Feb 2016
17 Dec 2015	1. A slit curtain was not properly aligned at Portion X.	1. The silt curtain was aligned properly at Portion X.	12 Feb 2016
29 Jan 2016	1. Concrete waste was observed at N1. 2. Cement bags were not covered with impervious sheets at several locations at N1. 3. Rubbish scattered on ground was observed at several locations at N1. 4. Stagnant water was observed at N1. 5. No drip tray was provided for chemical drums at N1.	1. The concrete waste was cleared at N1. 2. The cement bags were covered entirely by the impervious sheets at N1. 3. The rubbish was cleared at N1. 4. The stagnant water was cleared at N1. 5. A drip tray was provided for chemical containers at N1.	3 Feb 2016
3 Feb 2016	1. Accumulated construction waste was observed at A2 bridge. 2. No proper protection was provided along the deck of the barging point at S7 to avoid dropping the filling material into the sea. 3. Dusty materials were scattered along roadside of S7. 4. The capacity of the sedimentation tank at S11 should be increased as the treated water is muddy. 5. Muddy water was discharged at S11. 6. Sand was scattered at roadside of S25. 7. No wheel washing facilities was provided at the exit of S25.	1. The accumulated construction waste was cleared at A2 bridge. 2. Sand bags were provided along the haul road of the barging point at S7. 3. The dusty materials were cleared at S7. 4. The wastewater inside the sedimentation tank was clear. 5. Wastewater generated from the construction sites was connect to wastewater treatment facility for treatment and no muddy water discharge was observed.at S11. 6. The sand scattered at roadside of S25 was cleared. 7. Wheel washing was provided for vehicles leaving the construction site at S25.	12 Feb 2016
12 Feb 2016	1. General refuse was scattered on the ground at S15. 2. Construction waste/general refuse was accumulated at S11. 3. A chemical drum was placed on bare ground at S11.	1. The general refuse was cleared at S15. 2. The construction waste/general refuse was cleared at S11. 3. The chemical drum was placed inside a drip tray at S11.	15 Feb 2016
15 Feb 2016	1.No drip tray was provided for an oil drum and chemical containers at HMA. 2.Milky wastewater was observed at discharge point PR10 at S9. 3. No proper protection was provided along the seafront at S11. 4. No drip tray was provided for chemical containers at S23. 5. Accumulated sediment was observed inside a wastewater treatment facility S23.	1. A drip tray was provided for the oil drum and the chemical containers were removed at HMA. 2. The wastewater was treated at S9. No milky wastewater discharge was observed. 3. Sand bags were provided along seafront at S11. 4. A drip tray was provided for the chemical containers at S23. 5. The accumulated sediment inside the wastewater treatment facility was cleared at S23.	26 Feb 2016
26 Feb 2016	1. Gap between two silt curtains were observed at Portion X. 2.Stagnant water was observed at S8. Prompt removal of stagnant water is needed to avoid mosquito breeding. 3.It was unclear about the source of effluent discharge at S11. 4.A gap was observed along the bund at S11. 5.Rubbish was accumulated at S11. 6.Black smoke emitting from a piling rig was observed at S15. 7.No drip tray was provided for chemical drums at S15. 8.Stagnant water was observed at S15. . 9.No drip tray was provided for a chemical container at S15.	The Contractor was recommended to: 1. Inspect and maintain the silt curtains properly at Portion X. 2. Remove the stagnant water promptly to avoid mosquito breeding at S8. 3. Provide clear indication of the pipe to show the source of effluent discharge at S11. 4. Provide rectification immediately to avoid surface runoff from discharging to the sea at S11. 5. Remove the rubbish at S11. 6. Provide proper maintenance to the piling rig at S15. 7. Provide drip trays for the chemical drums at S15. 8. Remove the stagnant water to avoid mosquito breeding at S15. 9. Provide a drip tray for the chemical container at S15.	Follow-up actions for the observations issued for the last weekly site inspection of the reporting month will be inspected during the next site inspections.

Notes:

* Outstanding observations.

6.1.3 The Contractor has rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspections within 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 registered 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 Practice 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 have 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.

6.4.2 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 inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.

6.5 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.5.1 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 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 For marine water quality monitoring, No Action Level exceedance of turbidity level and no Action Level/ Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen were recorded during the reporting month. An Action Level exceedance and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids level and two Limit level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded during the reporting month. Records of “Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances” are provided in Appendix M.

6.5.4 There was a Limit Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2015 – February 2016). The exceedances will be reported in the quarterly report for December 2015 to February 2016.

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 K.

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

6.6.3 Statistics on notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.

7 Future Key Issues

7.1 Construction Programme for the Coming Months

7.1.1 As informed by the Contractor, the major construction activities for March 2016 are summarized in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Construction Activities for March 2016

Site Area	Description of Activities
Portion X	Dismantling/Trimming of Temporary 40mm Stone Platform for Construction of Seawall
Portion X	Filling Works behind Stone Platform
Portion X	Construction of Seawall
Portion X	Loading and Unloading of Filling Material
Portion X	Pipe Piling
Portion X	Excavation and Lateral Support Works at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion X	Construction of Tunnel Box Structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion X and Y	Pipe piling works for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion X	Excavation Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel
Portion X	Sheet Piling Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion X	Socket H-Piling works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion X	Pipe Piling works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut &Cover Tunnel)
Portion X	Jet Grouting works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Airport Road	Works for Diversion of Airport Road
Airport Road / Airport Express Line/East Coast Road	Utilities Detection
Airport Road / Airport Express Line/East Coast Road	Establishment of Site Access
Airport Road/Airport Express Line	Canopy Pipe Drilling/ Mined Tunnel Excavation/ Box Jacking underneath Airport Road and Airport Express Line
Kwo Lo Wan Road	Excavation and Lateral Support Works at shaft 3 extension north shaft
Airport Road	Excavation and Lateral Support Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)
Portion Y	Utility Culvert Excavation
Portion Y	Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building
West Portal	Excavation for Scenic Hill Tunnel
West Portal	Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building

7.2 Environmental Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month

7.2.1 The tentative schedule for environmental monitoring in March 2016 is provided in Appendix D.

8 Conclusions

8.1 Conclusions

8.1.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012. This is the 41^st Monthly EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 29 February 2016.

Air Quality

8.1.2 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting month.

Noise

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

Water Quality

8.1.4 For marine water quality monitoring, No Action Level exceedance of turbidity level and no Action Level/ Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen were recorded during the reporting month. An Action Level exceedance and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids level and two Limit level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded during the reporting month. The exceedances were considered as non-contract related.

Dolphin

8.1.5 During the February’s surveys of the Chinese White Dolphin, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

8.1.6 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 2015 – February 2016) and baseline monitoring period (3-month period) will be made.

8.1.7 There was a Limit Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2015 – February 2016). The exceedances will be reported in the quarterly report for December 2015 to February 2016.

Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

8.1.8 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 3, 12, 15 and 26 February 2016. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

1-hr TSP Monitoring	2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 February 2016
24-hr TSP Monitoring at station AMS5	1, 5, 17, 18, 23 and 29 February 2016
24-hr TSP Monitoring at station AMS6	1, 5, 11, 17, 23 and 29 February 2016
Noise Monitoring	2, 12, 18 and 24 February 2016
Water Quality Monitoring	1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26 and 29 February 2016
Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring	2, 3, 16 and 22 February 2016
Site Inspection	3, 12, 15 and 26 February 2016

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)	1	1
	Turbidity level	0	2
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis (Dec 2015 to Feb 2016)	0	1

1.1.4 The Contract includes the following key aspects:

1.1.5 This is the 41st Monthly EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 29 February 2016.

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

2.3.1 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 February 2016 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.

2.7.2 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the 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 2016 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.

*A correction factor of +3dB(A) from free field to facade measurement was included.

3.7.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting month.

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

3.7.4 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

4 Water Quality Monitoring

4.1.2 The original and revised Action Level and Limit Level for turbidity and suspended solid are shown in Table 4.1.

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 Monitoring Methodology

4.5.1 Instrumentation

4.5.2 Operating/Analytical Procedures

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.

4.6.1 The schedule for impact water quality monitoring in February 2016 is provided in Appendix D.

4.7 Monitoring Results

4.7.2 Number of exceedances recorded during the reporting month at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.6.

4.7.6 For marine water quality monitoring, no Action Level exceedance of turbidity level and no Action Level/ Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen were recorded during the reporting month.

4.7.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix F.

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.

5.1.2 The Action Level and Limit Level for dolphin monitoring are shown in Table 5.1.

5.1.3 The revised Event and Action Plan for dolphin Monitoring was approved by EPD in 6 May 2013. The revised Event and Action Plan is annexed in Appendix F.

Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

5.2.5 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

5.2.12 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 2016, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the2nd, 3rd, 16th and 22nd to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2 to 5 of Appendix H.

5.3.3 During the two sets of monitoring surveys in February 2016, only two groups of 11 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted (Annex II of Appendix H). Both dolphin sightings were made in NWL, while none was sighted in NEL.

5.3.4 During the February’s surveys, both dolphin sightings were made on primary lines during on-effort search, and neither group was associated with any operating fishing vessel.

5.3.5 Distribution of these dolphin sightings made in February 2016 is shown in Figure 6 of Appendix H. One group was sighted near Pillar Point near the Castle Peak Power Station, while the other was sighted just outside of the Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal (Figure 6 of Appendix H).

5.3.7 During the 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 5.3 and Table 5.4.

5.3.8 The average dolphin group size in February 2016 was 5.5 individuals per group, which was similar to the ones in previous months of monitoring surveys. Both dolphin groups were medium in size with five and six individuals respectively.

Photo-identification Work

5.3.9 Nine individual dolphins were sighted 11 times during February’s surveys (Annex III and IV of Appendix H). The majority of individuals were sighted only once during the monitoring month, but two individuals (NL48 and NL285) were sighted twice.

5.3.10 Notably, none of these individual dolphins were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings.

Conclusion

5.3.11 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. 2015. Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong waters: final report (2014-15). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 198 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.

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 3, 12, 15 and 26 February 2016.

6.1.2 A summary of observations found during the site inspections and the follow up actions taken by the Contractor are described in Table 6.1.

6.1.3 The Contractor has rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspections within 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 registered as a chemical waste producer for the Project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

1.1.5 This is the 41^st Monthly EM&A report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 29 February 2016.

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 2016, two sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted on the2^nd, 3^rd, 16^th and 22^nd to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice. The survey routes of each survey day are presented in Figures 2 to 5 of Appendix H.