This report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 December 2016 and 28 February 2017. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter were:-

Marine-base

- Sloping Seawalls

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Maintenance of silt curtain

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

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

24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour TSP monitoring	17 sessions 17 sessions
Noise monitoring	13 sessions
Impact water quality monitoring	38 sessions
Impact dolphin monitoring	6 surveys
Joint Environmental site inspection	13 sessions

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality

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

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise

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

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

In December 2016, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016 was recorded in the reporting month. This exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.

In February 2017, For impact water quality monitoring, there was a SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8 during flood tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting month.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin Monitoring

One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.

Implementation Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures

Most of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting quarter.

The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. 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.

Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.

Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government’s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, “the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of construction vehicles as they drive fast.” After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about hammering noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to this Contract.

A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers and lorries. The complainant complained that the road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages’s construction site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting period

1 introduction

1.1 Background

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

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

1.1.3 EPD subsequently issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009 (EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010 (EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012 (EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F), August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G), January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H), July 2015 (EP-353/2009/I), February 2016 (EP-353/2009/J) and April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K). Similarly, EPD issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in December 2010 (EP-354/2009/A), January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B), December 2014 (EP-354/2009/C) and March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D).

1.1.4 The Project is a designated Project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 11 April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).

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

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

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

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

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

1.1.10 The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012.

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

1.2 Scope of Report

1.2.1 This is the twentieth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Contract from 1 December 2016 to 28 February 2017.

1.3 Contract Organization

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

Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone	Fax
Engineer’s Representative (ER) (Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)	Chief Resident Engineer	Paul Appleton	3698 5889	2698 5999
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3456 2850	3465 2899
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	Environmental Officer	Louie Chan	36932254	2578 0413
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	24-hour Hotline	Alan C.C. Yeung	9448 0325	--
ET (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	ET Leader	Echo Leong	3922 9280	2317 7609

1.4 Summary of Construction Works

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

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

Marine-base

- Sloping Seawalls

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Maintenance of silt curtain

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

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

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

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

2 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

2.1 Monitoring Parameters

2.1.1 The Contract Specific EM&A Manual designated 4 air quality monitoring stations, 2 noise monitoring stations, 21 water monitoring stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations) to monitor environmental impacts on air quality, noise and water quality respectively. Pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based dolphin survey was required in two AFCD designated areas (Northeast and Northwest Lantau survey areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should be conducted twice per month.

2.1.2 For impact air quality monitoring, monitoring locations AMS2 (Tung Chung Development Pier) and AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) were set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual. The conditional omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19 November 2012. For monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (AMS3B) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

2.1.3 For impact noise monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview Crescent Tower 1) was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact noise monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (NMS3B) respectively. Same baseline noise level, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College was adopted for this alternative noise monitoring location. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2February 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

2.1.4 As informed by the premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD would not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring equipment (High volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the premises of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015. In order to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as permission to conduct impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The impact air quality monitoring for December 2015 was conducted before the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact air quality monitoring has been conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) since 1 January 2016, Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring location.

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

2.1.6 Due to safety concern and topographical condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative impact water quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4(N) and SR10B(N), were adopted, which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality monitoring stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable. Same baseline and Action Level for water quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were adopted for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.

2.1.7 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

2.1.8 Due to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a large portion of works site boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of 3RS project will affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring transect lines which are being used for conducting monitoring under Contract No. HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September 2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments were under ET’s review in the reporting quarter.

2.1.9 The Contract Specific EM&A Manual also required environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, chemical, waste management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impact.

2.2 Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)

2.2.1 The environmental quality performance limits (i.e. Action and/or Limit Levels) of air and water quality monitoring were derived from the baseline air and water quality monitoring results at the respective monitoring stations, while the environmental quality performance limits of noise monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.

2.2.2 The environmental quality performance limits of air quality, noise and water monitoring are given in Appendix D.

2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures

2.3.1 Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated in the Particular Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/K and EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only) for the Contractor to adopt. A list of environmental mitigation measures and their implementation statuses are given in Appendix C.

3 MONITORING Results

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring

3.1.1 In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (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 at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3B, AMS6 and AMS7).

3.1.2 The monitoring locations for impact air quality monitoring are depicted in Figure 2. However, for AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building), permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works was sought, however, access to the premise has not been granted yet on this report issuing date.

3.1.3 As informed by the premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD would not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring equipment (High volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the premises of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015. In order to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as permission to conduct impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The impact air quality monitoring for December 2015 was conducted before the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact air quality monitoring for this report quarter were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring location.

3.1.4 The weather was mostly fine and sunny, with occasional cloudy in the reporting quarter. The major dust source in the reporting quarter included construction activities from the Project, as well as nearby traffic emissions.

3.1.5 The number of monitoring events and exceedances recorded in each month of the reporting quarter are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.

Table 3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration

Monitoring Parameter	Location	No. of monitoring events
Monitoring Parameter	Location	Dec 16	Jan 17	Feb 17
1-hr TSP	AMS2	18	18	15
	AMS3B	18	18	15
	AMS7	18	18	15
24-hr TSP	AMS2	6	6	5
	AMS3B	6	6	5
	AMS7	6	6	5

Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Numbers of Exceedance
Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Dec 16	Jan 17	Feb 17
1-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0	0	0
	AMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Action	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS7	Action	0	0	0
	AMS7	Limit	0	0	0
		*Total*	0	0	0
24-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0	0	0
	AMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Action	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS7	Action	0	0	0
	AMS7	Limit	0	0	0
		*Total*	0	0	0

3.1.6 All 24-Hour TSP and 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.

3.1.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.

3.1.8 Meteorological information collected from the wind station during the monitoring periods on the monitoring dates, as shown in Figure 2, including wind speed and wind direction, is annexed in Appendix H of monthly EM&A report December 2016, January 2017 and February 2017 respectively.

3.2 Noise Monitoring

3.2.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations (NMS2 and NMS3B) for at least once per week during 07:00 – 19:00 in the reporting quarter.

3.2.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in Figure 2.

3.2.3 The measured noise level on 13 Jan 2017 at NMS3B exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period but it is higher than the baseline level. Therefore, baseline correction was carried out and the corrected noise level which solely represent the noise level of Construction works is 58dB(A) which is lower than the exceedance level of 65dB(A) . As such the EAP was not triggered. The measured noise level on 19 Jan 2017 exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period but it is below the baseline level. Therefore, it is not considered as an exceedance. As such the EAP was not triggered. Other major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract, construction activities by other contracts and nearby traffic noise. Nonetheless, the Contractor of Contract No.HY/2010/02 was reminded to continue to properly implement all noise mitigation measures.

3.2.4 No Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting quarter.

3.2.5 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.

3.2.6 The number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively.

Table 3.3 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	No. of monitoring events
	Location	Dec 16	Jan 17	Feb 17
	NMS2	5	4	4
	NMS3B	5	4	4

Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Level of Exceedance
	Location	Level of Exceedance	Dec 16	Jan 17	Feb 17
	NMS2	Action	0	0	0
	NMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	NMS3B	Action	0	0	0
	NMS3B	Limit	0	0	0
		*Total*	0	0	0

3.2.7 The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring results are provided in Appendix F. No specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.

3.2.8 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

3.3.1 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in Figure 3.

Table 3.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in December 2016 – February 2017

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Feb 17	0	1
IS8	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 14 Dec 2016	0	1
IS(Mf)9	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR3	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR3	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 10 Feb 17	0	1	1
SR6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 15 Feb 17	0	1
SR7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	4
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note: S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

3.3.2 Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 was recorded at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016.

3.3.2.1 Below layout map shows that no marine based construction works were carried out at HKBCF Reclamation Works:

3.3.2.2 Exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9 during mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract because:

3.3.2.3 Exceedance was recorded at 07:51 on 14 December 2016, with referred to the layout map attached, no marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide, between 03:51 to 07:51, on14 December 2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 on 14 December 2016. In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 14 December 2016, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.

3.3.2.4 With referred to monitoring record, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 14 December 2016.

3.3.2.5 With referred photo record taken near IS(Mf)9 on 14 December 2016, no adverse water quality impact was indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of IS(Mf)9, also see below photo record.

3.3.2.6 Photo record which shows the sea condition and surrounding of monitoring location (IS(Mf)9.

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

3.3.2.8 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

3.3.2.9 Action taken under the action plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.2.11 The Contractor was reminded that maintenance work of the silt curtain should be carried out on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, as necessary.

3.3.2.12 The Contractor was reminded to adhere to the environmental permit requirement and undertake the necessary mitigation measures after the realignment of the perimeter silt curtain of HKBCF Reclamation Works, as necessary

3.3.3 One SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 2017 at monitoring station IS8 during flood tide.

3.3.3.1 Below layout map shows active works conducted on 6 February 2017. Construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion C2a as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide.

3.3.3.2 Investigation Results:

· With referred to the layout map above, construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion C2a during flood tide when water quality monitoring was conducted at monitoring station IS8 on 6 February 2017, the active work was located relatively far away from IS8, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at 6 February 2017.

· In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 6 February 2017, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.

· With referred to the monitoring record, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 6 February 2017.

· Photo record taken near IS8 on 6 February 2017, no adverse water quality impact was indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of IS8, also see below photo record.

· There were no water quality exceedance at monitoring stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are located closer to active works than monitoring station IS8.

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

· As such, the exceedance recorded at IS8 recorded during flood tide on 6 February 2017 was unlikely to be contract related.

3.3.3.3 Action taken under the action plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.3.5 Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.

3.3.4 One SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 2017 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide.

3.3.4.1 Below layout map shows active works conducted on 10 February 2017. Construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion C2a as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during ebb tide.

3.3.4.2 Exceedance recorded at SR6 during ebb tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract because:

3.3.4.3 With referred to the layout map above, construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion C2a when water quality monitoring was conducted at monitoring station SR6 on 10 February 2017, the works is located relatively far away from SR6 during ebb tide, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at 6 February 2017.

3.3.4.4 In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 10 February 2017, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.

3.3.4.5 With referred to monitoring record, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during ebb tide on 10 February 2017. With referred photo record taken near SR6 on 10 February 2017, no adverse water quality impact was indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of SR6, also see below photo record.

3.3.4.6 There were no water quality exceedance at monitoring stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are located closer to active works than monitoring station SR6.

3.3.4.7 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR6

3.3.4.8 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR6 recorded during ebb tide on 10 February 2017 was unlikely to be contract related.

3.3.4.9 Action taken under the action plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.4.11 Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.

3.3.5 One SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 2017 at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide.

3.3.5.1 Below layout map shows no construction activities was conducted as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide on 15 February 2017.

3.3.5.2 Exceedance recorded at SR7 during flood tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract because:

3.3.5.3 With referred to the layout map attached, no construction activities was conducted as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works on 15 February 2017 during flood tide, as such, it is unlikely that the exceedance of SS recorded at monitoring station SR7 on 15 February 2017 during flood tide was due to construction activities. In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 15 February 2017, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.

3.3.5.4 With referred to monitoring record, no sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 15 February 2017.

3.3.5.5 With referred photo record taken near SR7 on 15 February 2017, no adverse water quality impact was indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of SR7, also see below photo record.

3.3.5.6 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR7.

3.3.5.7 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR7 recorded during flood tide on 15 February 2017 was unlikely to be contract related.

3.3.5.8 Action taken under the action plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.5.10 Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.

3.3.6 No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting quarter.

3.3.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.

3.4 Dolphin Monitoring

3.4.1 In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based dolphin survey was required in two AFCD designated areas (Northeast Lantau (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should be conducted twice per month.

3.4.2 The impact dolphin monitoring conducted is vessel-based and combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology, which have adopted similar survey methodologies as that adopted during baseline monitoring to facilitate comparisons between datasets.

3.4.3 The layout map of impact dolphin monitoring have been provided by AFCD and is shown in Figure 4.

3.4.4 The effort summary and sighting details during the reporting quarter are shown in the Appendix H. A summary of key findings of the dolphin surveys completed during the reporting quarter is shown below:

Table 3.6 Summary of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in December 2016 – February 2017

Number of Impact Surveys Completed^	6
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition	648.2km
Number of Sightings	12 sightings (7 sightings are ”on effort” (which are all under favourable condition), 5 sightings are “opportunistic”)
Number of dolphin individual sighted	60 individuals (the best estimated group size)
Dolphin Encounter Rate#	NEL: 0 NWL: 1.2
Dolphin Group Size	Average of NEL: 0 Average of NWL: 5.0 Varied from 2-8 individuals
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area	Northern Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, the western limit of NWL and Tai O area.

Remarks:
^ Completion of line transect survey of NEL and NWL survey area once was counted as one complete survey.

# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1^st2^nd, 3^rd month’s total sighting/ Sum of 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd month’s total effort)*100km (encounter rates are calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable conditions only.)

3.4.5 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.

Table 3.7 Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in December 2016 – February 2017
	NEL	NWL	Level Exceeded
STG*	0	1.9	Limit
ANI**	0	8.3	Limit

*Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG) presents averaged encounter rates of the three monitored months in terms of groups per 100km per survey event.

STG Encounter rate = (Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 2nd month + Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 3rd month)/3*100km

**Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Total Number of Dolphins (ANI) presents averaged encounter rates of the three monitored months in terms of individuals per 100km per survey event.

ANI Encounter rate = (Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 2nd month + Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 3rd month +)/3*100km

3.4.6 Details of the comparison and analysis methodology and their findings and discussions are annexed in Appendix H.

3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

3.5.1 Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. In the reporting quarter, 13 site inspections were carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

3.5.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below:

Air Quality

3.5.3 Dust was observed during handling of rock material, the contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure. This item was subsequently rectified by the Contractor (Closed)

3.5.4 Dark smoke emission from plant/equipment was observed, the Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided. This item was subsequently rectified by the Contractor (Closed)

Noise

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

Water Quality

3.5.6 The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil on ground to prevent mixing with general site runoff. (Reminder)

Chemical and Waste Management

3.5.7 Size of the drip tray was observed insufficient. The Contractor was reminded to properly provide drip tray with sufficient size to PME. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.8 Oil drum was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to oil drums. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.9 The Contractor was reminded to provide spill kit in the vicinity of drilling rig machine on scaffolding platform. (Reminder)

3.5.10 Chemical containers were placed on bare ground, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.11 Chemical containers were placed on bare ground or on the edge of drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray properly to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the chemical containers from the location. The Contractor was reminded chemical containers should be put inside drip trays as a preventive measure. (Closed)

3.5.12 General refuse was observed on access near Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently tidied up and cleaned the works area. (Closed)

3.5.13 The Contractor was reminded to dispose of the general refuse properly at Portion D and keep the site clean and tidy. The general refuse was subsequently cleaned up by the Contractor. (Reminder)

3.5.14 The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for chemical container at Portion D. As informed by the Contractor the chemical container was temporarily taken out and will be placed inside drip tray again. (Reminder)

3.5.15 The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil or chemical retained on drip tray to prevent chemical leakage. (Reminder)

3.5.16 Chemical containers were placed on bare ground after use, the Contractor was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray properly to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the chemical containers from the location and provide drip tray to those in use. (Closed)

3.5.17 The Contractor was reminded to provide chemical label to chemical containers. (Reminder)

Landscape and Visual Impact

3.5.18 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.

Others

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

4 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

4.1 Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management

4.1.1 The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for this project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

4.1.2 As advised by the Contractor, 84,705m³ of inert C&D Materials generated and reused in other Projects; 455,605 m³ of surplus surcharge exported to Macau; 48,171.4m³ of Imported fill; 1260kg paper/cardboard packaging, 156 m³ other C&D waste such as general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly summary of waste flow table [1] is detailed in Appendix I.

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

4.1.4 The Contractor is 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.

4.1.5 The treated marine sediment and/or treated excavated filling material specified by Contract no. HY/2013/01 has been received as public fill for Contract no. HY/2010/02’s reclamation filling works since January 2015. As informed by the Contractor in the last reporting quarter, such site arrangement has been discontinued since 24 February 2016.

4.1.6 After checking with the Contractor, surcharge material was removed off site to Macau from 27 April 2016 and it is continued in the reporting quarter. Surplus surcharge was exported to Macau during the reporting quarter. The Contractor was reminded to ensure consistency in quantities in case of any C&D material disposed off-site and/or no surcharge material removed off site.

5 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

5.1 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

5.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended mitigation measures are being upheld. Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.

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

5.1.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular checks were conducted by experienced MMOs within the works area to ensure that no dolphins were trapped by the silt curtain area. There were no dolphins spotted within the silt curtain during this quarter. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the submitted plan.

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

5.1.6 Frequency of watering per day on exposed soil was checked; with reference to the record provided by the Contract, watering was conducted at least 8 times per day on reclaimed land. The frequency of watering is the mainly refer to water truck. Sprinklers are only served to strengthen dust control measure for busy traffic at the entrance of Portion D. As informed by the Contractor, during the mal-function period of sprinkler, water truck will enhance watering at such area. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of watering of at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the reporting period.

5.1.7 As informed by the Contractor, the perimeter silt curtain near Portion B of HKBCF has been arranged on 3 February 2016. A notification on the concerned site arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain of Contract HY/2010/02 was sent to IEC/ENPO by the ET for their review on 8 March 2016, IEC/ENPO issued comments on 10 March 2016 and the notification of realignment of perimeter silt curtain is under ET’s further review in the reporting quarter. The concerned notification on the concerned site arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain of Contract HY/2010/02 will be sent to the Authority once the review is completed.

5.1.8 Further to our letter (ET’s letter’s ref.: 60249820/rmky16033001) dated 30/3/2016 regarding the notification of silt curtain removal programme and arrangement, as informed by RSS on 18 May 2016, the Contractor provided an updated programme on 31 October 2016 to indicate the current site situation. According to CHEC’s latest removal programme during the reporting month, stage 2 (east side of the perimeter silt curtain removal work has been completed and dates for the subsequent stages have also been updated in the reporting month, while the overall phasing arrangement has not changed. A notification email has been sent to IEC/ENPO to inform them that the completion of removal of perimeter silt curtain of Stages 2 and the tentative date for silt curtain removal work of stage 3, 4 and 5. With referred to previous IEC/ENPO comment received on 7 June 2016 if update of proposal was mainly on time schedule and they have no objection in principle. However prior to IEC/ENPO’s reply to confirm ET’s updated proposal, ET was requested to provide site photos to show ET’s checking of the current site condition with respect to the reminders given in their previous letter (Ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).

5.1.9 Due to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a large portion of works site boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of 3RS project will affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring transect lines which are being used for conducting monitoring under Contract No. HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September 2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently received from IEC/ENPO. The comments were under ET’s review in the reporting quarter.

5.1.10 After review, no floating grout production was in operation at any time in reporting period for Contract No.HY/2010/02. Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for Contract No.HY/2010/02 is complied with during the reporting month.

6 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1.1 All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.

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

6.1.3 For water quality monitoring, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016 was recorded in the reporting month. This exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation. For impact water quality monitoring, there was a SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8 during flood tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting month.

6.1.4 For dolphin monitoring, One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.

6.1.5 IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

6.1.6 RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government’s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, “the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of construction vehicles as they drive fast.” After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

6.1.7 A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about hammering noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to this Contract.

6.1.8 A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

6.1.9 With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers and lorries. The complainant complained that the road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

6.1.10 A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages’s construction site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

6.1.11 No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting period

6.1.12 Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.

7 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

7.1 Summary of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

7.1.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.

7.1.2 IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.3 RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government’s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, “the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of construction vehicles as they drive fast.” After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.4 A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about hammering noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to this Contract.

7.1.5 A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.6 With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers and lorries. The complainant complained that the road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.7 A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages’s construction site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.8 Notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.

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

8 Comments, recommendations and Conclusions

8.1 Comments on mitigation measures

8.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting quarter, the following recommendations were provided:

Air Quality Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction Noise Impact

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

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

· Proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check and replace the sound insulation materials regularly

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

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

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

Water Quality Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemical and Waste Management

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

· All chemical containers and oil drums should be properly stored and labelled.

· All plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent oil leakage.

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

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

· Oil stains on soil surface and empty chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.

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

Landscape and Visual Impact

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

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

8.2 Recommendations on EM&A Programme

8.2.1 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 Project. With implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the Project’s environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.

8.2.2 The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. 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.

8.3 Conclusions

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

8.3.2 All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.

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

8.3.4 For water quality monitoring:

8.3.4.1 In December 2016, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016 was recorded in the reporting month. This exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.

8.3.4.2 In February 2017, For impact water quality monitoring, there was a SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8 during flood tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting month.

8.3.5 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.

8.3.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out 13 times in the reporting quarter. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

8.3.7 IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

8.3.8 RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government’s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, “the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of construction vehicles as they drive fast.” After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

8.3.9 A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about hammering noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to this Contract

8.3.10 A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

8.3.11 With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers and lorries. The complainant complained that the road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

8.3.12 A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages’s construction site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

8.3.13 No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.

8.3.14 Apart from the above mentioned monitoring, most of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting quarter.

8.3.15 The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Contract. 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.

8.3.16 Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.

[1] The accumulative quantity of Surplus surcharge exported to Macao and Imported fill are difference from the accumulative quantity reported in monthly EM&A report of Dec 16, monthly EM&A report of Jan 2017 and monthly EM&A report Feb 2017) due to the amount is subjected to change due to actual surveyed quantities from the previously provided tentative quantity. The surplus surcharge exported to Macao and Imported fill reported in this reporting quarter are based on the latest information provided by the Contractor.