Table 3.11 Comparison of depth averaged dissolved oxygen levels (Surface & Mid-depth, Bottom depth) during baseline and impact monitoring period (mgL^-1)

Table 3.12 Ambient and Tolerance Values for Suspended Sediment Concentrations (mgL^-1) in the Vicinity of Sensitive Receivers adopted in the EIA

Table 3.13 Calculated Elevations in Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Sensitive Receivers (mgL^-1) under the 2012 mitigated scenario from the EIA

Table 3.14 Baseline suspended solids levels and 30% of baseline mean (mgL^-1)

Table 3.15 Average suspended solids levels at sensitive receivers (mgL^-1) in July 2016

Table 3.16 Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values

Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (2012-13) to the Current Year (2016-17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Contract

Table 3.18 Comparison of low, moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years 2011-12; 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (in %)

Figures

Figure 1 General Contract Layout Plan

Figure 2 Impact Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station

Figure 3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map

Figure 5 Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure

List of Appendices

Appendix A Contract Organization for Environmental Works

Appendix B Three Month Rolling Construction Programmes

Appendix C Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)

Appendix D Summary of Action and Limit Levels

Appendix E Graphical Presentation of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix F Graphical Presentation of Impact Daytime Construction Noise Monitoring Results

Appendix G Graphical Presentation of Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix H Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Findings and Analysis

Appendix I Quarterly Summary of Waste Flow Table

Appendix J Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

Appendix K Event Action Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by Year 2017. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.

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

Marine-base

- Sloping Seawalls

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Rock fill

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA (As informed by the Contractor, the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling Water Intake has been removed on 10 May 2016.)

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- Deep Cement Mixing

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

- Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls

- Construction of Sloping Outfalls

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

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

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

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

24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour TSP monitoring	65 sessions 65 sessions
Noise monitoring	51 sessions
Impact water quality monitoring	153 sessions
Impact dolphin monitoring	24 surveys
Joint Environmental site inspection	52 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 year.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise

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

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

For water quality monitoring, one (1) Limit level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at monitoring station SR(4)N has been recorded on 20 May 2016 during flood tide. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

In September 2016, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during ebb tide on 2 September 2016 and 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR5 and SR7 during flood tide on 19 September 2016. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

In October 2016, 5 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. 3 action level exceedances of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide on 3 October 2016 were recorded, 1 action level exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded during flood tide on 17 October 2016 and 1 action exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded during flood tide on 19 October 2016. These exceedances were considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.

In November 2016, 11 action level exceedances and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS8 and SR4(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 14 November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level Exceedance of SS at SR6 at Mid-Flood tide on 16 November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6, SR7 at Mid-Flood tide on 18 November 2016. Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR10A and SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 30 November 2016. These exceedances were considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.

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, 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.

Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring

Four (4) Limit level exceedances were recorded in the reporting year for impact dolphin monitoring. 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 investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

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 year. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of the omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012 and EPD’s letter dated on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of the proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19 November 2012.

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 were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) since 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.

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 4). 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 year.

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.

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

Eight (8) environmental complaints were received in the reporting year.

No summons or successful prosecution was received in the reporting year.

1. introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the 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 Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.

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

1.1.10 The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2017.

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 Project commenced on 12 March 2012.

1.2 Scope of Report

1.2.1 This is the fifth Annual EM&A Review 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 March 2016 and 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 Contract 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 year are listed below:-

Marine-base

- Sloping Seawalls

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Rock fill

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA (As informed by the Contractor, the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling Water Intake has been removed on 10 May 2016.)

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- Deep Cement Mixing

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

- Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls

- Construction of Sloping Outfalls

- 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 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 (AMS3A) 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. Due to hand over of work site where the AMS3A and NMS3A was located, it was proposed to EPD on 27 December 2014 to relocate both monitoring station to alternative location AMS3B and NMS3B and approval of such relocation was given by the EPD on 2 January 2014. The monitoring stations AMS3A and NMS3A were renamed to monitoring station AMS3B and NMS3B respectively after relocation on 29 January 2014. The monitoring at AMS3B and NMS3B commenced at February 2014.

2.1.3 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 January and February 2016 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.

2.1.4 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 (NMS3A) 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.

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 Contract/ 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 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 4). 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 year.

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

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, water quality and Chinese White Dolphin monitoring were derived from the baseline air, baseline water quality monitoring results at the respective monitoring stations and baseline Chinese White Dolphin monitoring respectively, 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, water and Chinese White Dolphin 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 Introduction

3.1.1.1. 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).

3.1.1.2. 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.

3.1.1.3. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2 February 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 and monitoring work at AMS7A commenced on 5 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.

3.1.1.4. 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 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.

3.1.1.5. The weather was mostly sunny and fine, with occasional cloudy and occasional rainy in the reporting period. The major dust source in the reporting period included construction activities from the Contract, as well as nearby traffic emissions.

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

3.1.1.7. The baseline and impact air quality monitoring data are provided in the baseline monitoring report and monthly EM&A reports respectively. The graphical plots of the impact air quality monitoring results are provided in Appendix E. No specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.

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	Mar 16 – Feb 17
1-hr TSP	AMS2	195
	AMS3B	195
	AMS7	195
24-hr TSP	AMS2	65
	AMS3B	65
	AMS7	65

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

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

3.1.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

3.1.2.1 Relevant Air mitigation measures, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of air quality mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C.

3.1.3 Summary of Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance

3.1.3.1 No non-compliance/exceedance was recorded in the reporting period.

3.1.4 Review of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance

3.1.4.1 No exceedance of 24-hr TSP and1-hour TSP exceedance level were recorded at all monitoring station in the reporting year.

3.1.5 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.1.5.1 Trend of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP

3.1.5.1.1 The 24-hour TSP monitoring results were well below the Action and Limit levels. The trend of TSP at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7 were comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during the impact monitoring period.

3.1.5.2 Correlation between exceedances with possible dust generating activities

3.1.5.2.1 Possible dust generating activities of the Contract did not cause any noticeable deterioration in air quality at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. With proper implementation of air quality mitigation measures, the monitoring results showed no adverse air quality impact.

3.1.5.3 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

Table 3.3 Maximum Predicted TSP concentrations under the “Mitigated” scenario

ASR

Location

Predicted Daily Concentrations*

Average Impact 1-hour TSP Levels, mg/m³

Average Impact 24-hour TSP Levels, mg/m³

1-hour

24-hour

AMS7

Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

344

*Extracted from Table 5-8 of the EIA report

3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring station at AMS7, the average 24-hour TSP levels recorded in the EM&A programme were in similar magnitude as the Daily dust level predicted in the EIA.

3.1.6 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme

3.1.6.1 Monitoring and auditing of air quality was recommended for the construction phase of the Project in the EIA to ensure no exceedance of the TSP standard at the sensitive receiver.

3.1.6.2 The air quality monitoring methodology was effective in monitoring the air quality impacts of the Contract. Baseline monitoring of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP helped to determine the ambient TSP levels at the sensitive receiver prior to commencement of construction works. During periods when there were possible dust generating construction activities, impact monitoring of 24-hour TSP helped to determine whether the Contract caused unacceptable air quality impacts on the sensitive receiver. As the scope of the Contract mainly includes reclamation works during the reporting period and dust generation from the construction activities such as wind erosion and sand filling is the key concern during the construction phase. The monitoring of TSP was therefore considered to be cost effective for the Contract.

3.1.6.3 All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the Contract. As discussed above, the Contract did not cause unacceptable air quality impacts. However, as the nature of the Contract is reclamation works of approximately 130 hectares of land in size, some mitigation measures in practice were generally focused on dust generating activities only. Nevertheless, the mitigation measures implemented were effective and efficient in controlling air quality impacts.

3.1.6.4 Monitoring and audit of 24-hour TSP levels had ensured that any deterioration in air quality was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of 24-hour TSP results collected throughout the baseline and impact monitoring periods also demonstrated the environmental acceptability of the Contract. Weekly site inspections had ensured that the EIA recommended air quality mitigation measures were effectively implemented. The EM&A program is considered to be cost effective.

3.1.7 Conclusion

3.1.7.1 Air quality monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Key construction activities including geotextile laying, stone column installation, stone blanket laying, construction of cellular structure and backfill cellular structure. The trend of 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP was comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during the monitoring period. Although exceedances were recorded, they were isolated and short-term events. There is no evidence of long-term deteriorating trend.

3.1.7.2 The average 24-hour TSP levels recorded at AMS7 in EM&A programme were in similar magnitude with the Daily dust level predicted in the EIA. No TSP level was predicted by the Project EIA at AMS2 and AMS3B and therefore, no comparison of EM&A data with EIA predictions could be made. Air quality mitigation measures implemented were effective in controlling air quality impacts.

3.2 Noise Monitoring

3.2.1 Introduction

3.2.1.1 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 period.

3.2.1.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting period are depicted in Figure 2.

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

3.2.1.4 The number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are summarized in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 respectively.

Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	No. of monitoring events
		Mar 16- Feb 17
Noise	NMS2	53
	NMS3B	53

Table 3.5 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	No. of Exceedance(s)
Noise	NMS2	Action	0
	NMS2	Limit	0
	NMS3B	Action	0
	NMS3B	Limit	0
	Total		0

3.2.1.5 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.

3.2.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

3.2.2.1. Relevant noise mitigation measures, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of noise mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C. Construction Noise Permits were applied and complied with when construction works were carried out during restricted hours.

3.2.3 Non-compliance (exceedances) of the Environmental Quality Performance Limits (Action and Limit Levels)

3.2.3.1 Summary of Non-compliance (Exceedances)

3.2.3.1.1 Table 3.5 summarised the number exceedance recorded at each monitoring station throughout the impact monitoring period. There was no exceedance recorded at both NMS2 and NMS3B.

3.2.3.2 Summary of Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance

3.2.3.2.1 No event of non-compliance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting period.

3.2.3.3 Review of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance

3.2.3.3.1 No event of non-compliance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting period.

3.2.3.3.2 In summary, the average impact noise levels recorded in the reporting period were generally within the range of the predicted construction noise levels in the Project EIA.

3.2.4 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.2.4.1 Trend of Measured Noise Level (Leq)

3.2.4.1.1 All the noise monitoring results for all monitoring stations were below the Action and Limit levels. The trend showed no noticeable noise impact from the Contract during the impact monitoring period.

3.2.4.2 Correlation between exceedances with possible noise generating activities

3.2.4.2.1 No Exceedance was recorded for all monitoring stations. The impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted construction noise levels in the Project EIA.

3.2.5 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

3.2.5.1 The EIA predicted that noise emitted by the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) on site would be the major source of noise impact during construction. The Construction Noise Impact at Noise Sensitive Receivers are summarised in Table 3.6 (extracted from Table 6-9 of the EIA Report).

Table 3.6 Construction Noise Impact at Noise Sensitive Receivers

NSR	Location	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)
		Total Noise Impacts, dB(A)	Criterion, dB(A)
NMS2	Seaview Crescent Tower 1	74	75

3.2.5.2 During the construction period of the Contract, no exceedances were received in the impact monitoring period. The measured impact noise levels of the Contract for each monitoring station are summarised in Table 3.7 for comparison with EIA.

Table 3.7 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period

NSR	Location	Average, dB(A), _Leq,_{30 mins}	Range, dB(A), _Leq,_{30 mins}	Limit Level, dB(A), _Leq,_{30 mins}
NMS2	Seaview Crescent Tower 1	67	63 – 72*	75
NMS3B	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2	67	62 – 69*	70

* +3dB(A) Façade correction included

3.2.5.3 The average impact noise levels recorded in EM&A during impact monitoring were all within the range of the predicted construction noise levels in the EIA Report.

3.2.6 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme

3.2.6.1 Monitoring and auditing of noise was recommended for the construction phase of the Project in the EIA process to ensure compliance with the appropriate criterion at the receivers.

3.2.6.2 The noise monitoring methodology was effective in monitoring the noise impacts of the Contract. Baseline noise monitoring determined the ambient noise levels at the sensitive receivers prior to commencement of construction works. During periods when possible noise generating construction activities were on-going, impact noise monitoring would determine whether the Contract caused adverse noise impacts on the sensitive receivers. The monitoring methodology which focus on L_eq30
minute therefore considered to be cost effective for the Contract.

3.2.6.3 Noise mitigation measures recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to implement during the construction phase of the Project. The list of noise mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the Contract. As discussed above, the Contract did not cause adverse noise impacts to the receivers. Therefore, the mitigation measures implemented were effective and efficient in controlling noise impacts.

3.2.6.4 Monitoring and audit of noise levels ensured that any noise impact to the receivers would readily be detected and timely actions could be taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of noise results collected throughout the baseline and impact monitoring periods also demonstrated the environmental acceptability of the Contract. Weekly site inspections ensured that the EIA recommended noise mitigation measures were effectively implemented. The EM&A program is considered to be cost effective.

3.2.7 Conclusion

3.2.7.1 The trend of L_eq was comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable noise impact during the impact monitoring period. Although exceedance was recorded, there was no evidence of long-term increasing trend. The average impact noise levels recorded in EM&A programme were all lower than the construction noise levels predicted in the EIA.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

3.3.1 Introduction

3.3.1.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted 3 times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at 21 water monitoring stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations ).

3.3.1.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting period are depicted in Figure 3.

3.3.1.3 Number of impact water quality monitoring events and exceedances recorded in the reporting period at each impact station are summarized in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 respectively.

Table 3.8 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Water Quality

Monitoring Parameter	Tide	No. of monitoring events
		Mar 16 - Feb 17
Water Quality	Mid-Ebb	153
	Mid-Flood	153

Table 3.9 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 16 - Feb 17

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (2 Sept 16)	0	1	0
IS5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(2) 14 Nov 2016, 6 Feb 17	0	2
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	(2) 16 Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016,	0	2
IS10	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(2) 3 Oct 16, 18 Nov 2016	0	2
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	(1) 14 Nov 2016	0	1
SR4(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 20 May 16;	0	1
SR5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(3) 16 Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016, 19 Sept 16	0	3
SR5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 10 Feb 17	(4) 18 Nov 2016; 3, 17 and 19 Oct 16	1	4
SR6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 16 Nov 2016	0	1
SR7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(4) 18 Nov 16; 19 Sept 16, 3 Oct 16; 15 Feb 17	0	4
SR7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 30 Nov 2016	0	1
SR10A	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 30 Nov 2016	0	1
SR10B (N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	21	23
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2

Note: S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2016 to February 2017) accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.

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

3.3.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

3.3.2.1 Relevant water quality mitigation measures, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of water quality mitigation measure is depicted in Appendix C.

3.3.3 Non-compliance (exceedances) of the Environmental Quality Performance Limits (Action and Limit Levels)

3.3.3.1 Summary of Non-compliance (Exceedances)

3.3.3.1.1 Table 3.9 summarised the number of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids exceedances recorded at each sensitive receiver station throughout the impact monitoring period. A total of 25 exceedances were recorded during the reporting period with 23 Action level exceedances and 2 Limit level exceedances.

3.3.4 Review of Reasons for and the implications of Non-Compliance

3.3.4.1 Twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances and two (2) Limit Level exceedances of measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) were recorded during the reporting period. After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report of this Contract.

3.3.4.2 After review of the investigation results of the water quality exceedances (for detail of investigations please refer to section 4 of monthly EM&A report (Mar 16 to Feb 17), ambient conditions were considered to have effects on the water quality monitoring results. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

3.3.5 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.3.5.1 Trend of water quality

Dissolved Oxygen

3.3.5.1.1 The dissolved oxygen levels recorded in the impact monitoring period showed a seasonal trend in which lower DO levels were recorded during the wet season and higher DO levels were recorded during the dry season. One reason for this seasonal trend may have been the increase in water temperature during the wet season leading to decreases in the solubility of oxygen in water and vice versa during the dry season. The trend of dissolved oxygen levels was presented in Appendix G. Other than an isolated action level exceedance, the trend of dissolved oxygen levels at each monitoring stations in Appendix G did not show any noticeable deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels.

Turbidity

3.3.5.1.2 The turbidity levels were fairly distributed at most monitoring station during the reporting period. While trend of turbidity levels at impact station IS17, IS7, IS8 and IS10 were more fluctuated but no apparent trend was observed. The trend of turbidity levels of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. Turbidity levels of all monitoring stations were lower than the Action Level during the monitoring period.

Suspended Solids

3.3.5.1.3 The trend of suspended solid levels of each impact monitoring station was shown similar with that of control stations between the period from November 2016 to December 2016. The trend of suspended solid levels of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. Despite few isolated events, suspended solids levels of all monitoring stations were still lower than the Action Level during the monitoring period.

3.3.6 Correlation between exceedances with possible marine construction activities

3.3.6.1 With proper implementation of water quality mitigation measures, marine construction activities of the Contract were not observed to cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the sensitive receiver stations.

Table 3.10 Summary of number of water quality exceedances per monitoring month

Month (mm/yy)	*Imported Fill m³/month**	Depth averaged DO	Depth averaged Turbidity	Depth averaged SS	Total
03/16	38,318.7	0	0	0	0
04/16	18,738.0	0	0	0	0
05/16	45,272.3	0	0	1	1
06/16	27,882.0	0	0	0	0
07/16	54,308.7	0	0	0	0
08/16	18,958.7	0	0	0	0
09/16	30,298.7	0	0	3	3
10/16	24,499.3	0	0	5	5
11/16	28,0380	0	0	12	12
12/16	11,704.0	0	0	1	1
01/17	18,892.7	0	0	0	0
02/17	17,574.7	0	0	3	3

*Only marine filling is counted

3.3.6.2 As shown in Table 3.10, there was no apparent correlation between the filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances recorded per monitoring day.

3.3.6.3 For dissolved oxygen, the numbers of dissolved oxygen exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of dissolved oxygen or correlation between filling rate and dissolve oxygen exceedance.

3.3.6.4 For turbidity, the numbers of turbidity exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of turbidity or correlation between filling rate and turbidity exceedance.

3.3.6.5 For suspended solids, the numbers of suspended solids exceedances show no noticeable deterioration of suspended solid or correlation between filling rate and suspended exceedance.

3.3.6.6 The trend did not show any correlation between water quality impact and the filling rates during the impact monitoring period.

3.3.6.7 With proper implementation of water quality mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures, marine construction activities of the Contract were not observed to cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the sensitive receiver stations.

3.3.7 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

3.3.7.1 Results from the sensitive receiver stations were compared with the EIA predictions for the sensitive receivers in the following manner:

· WSR 27 - San Tau Beach SSSI with SR3

· WSR 22c- Tai Ho Wan Inlet (outside) with SR4(N)

· WSR 25 - Cooling water intake at HK International Airport with SR5

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

3.3.7.2 According to Section 9.10.7.4 of the EIA Report, the dissolved oxygen depletion from the loss of sediment to suspension during the construction of the reclamation for HKBCF was calculated to be 0.4 mg/L at WSR25. Since, as stated in the Table 9.6a of the EIA report the DO of the NW Western water is generally high with average ranges between 5.7 – 6.8 mg/L and depletion will not be detrimental to the ecological systems of the area. The average Depth averaged DO record at SR5 is 6.2 mg/L in May 2015 when the filling rate/month is the highest during the reporting period and therefore no significant dissolved oxygen depletion from was noted during impact monitoring.

3.3.7.3 The baseline dissolved oxygen levels and the level of depletion during impact monitoring at each sensitive receiver are summarised in Tables 3.11.

Table 3.11 Comparison of depth averaged dissolved oxygen levels (Surface & Mid-depth, Bottom depth) during baseline and impact monitoring period (mgL^-1)

Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Monitoring Depth	Baseline mean		Impact mean (July 2016)		Depletion during Impact Monitoring
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Monitoring Depth	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood
SR3	SR3*	Surface & mid	6.8	6.7	6.9	7.2	0.1	0.5
SR3	SR3*	Bottom	-	6.2	-	-	-	-
SR4^{^}	SR4(N)**	Surface & mid	6.1	6.3	7.0	6.8	0.9	0.5
SR4^{^}	SR4(N)**	Bottom	6.0	6.2	6.8	6.8	0.8	0.6
SR5	SR5**	Surface & mid	6.4	6.3	6.3	6.2	-0.1	-0.1
SR5	SR5**	Bottom	6.1	6.1	6.1	6.0	0	-0.1
SR6	SR6**	Surface & mid	6.6	6.5	6.5	6.1	-0.1	-0.4
SR6	SR6**	Bottom	6.2	6.1	6.3	6.0	0.1	-0.1
SR7	SR7**	Surface & mid	6.3	6.0	6.1	6.2	-0.2	0.2
SR7	SR7**	Bottom	6.1	5.9	6.2	6.1	0.1	0.2
SR10A	SR10A	Surface & mid	6.0	6.0	6.2	5.9	0.2	-0.1
SR10A	SR10A	Bottom	5.7	5.8	6.0	5.8	0.3	0
SR10B^	SR10B(N)**	Surface & mid	6.1	6.0	6.3	6.1	0.2	0.1
SR10B^	SR10B(N)**	Bottom	6.2	5.8	6.2	5.9	0	0.1

^Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location of SR4 has been changed to SR4(N) and water quality monitoring location of SR10B has been changed as SR10B(N) during impact monitoring.

*Only mid-depth station of DO were monitored at SR3 in mid-ebb during baseline monitoring, in both mid-ebb and mid-flood during impact monitoring as the water depth less than 3m.
** The mid-depth station of DO was omitted at SR4(N) during impact monitoring as the water depth is less than 6m.

3.3.7.4 Comparing baseline averaged dissolved oxygen levels with EM&A results; no significant depletion was found at all sensitive receiver locations. There was no adverse effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations as a result of the filling works of the Contract as the depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations did not breach the Water Quality Objectives nor did they exceed the AL levels adopted for the Contract.

Suspended solids (SS)

3.3.7.5 The EIA determined the acceptability of elevations in suspended sediment concentrations based on the Water Quality Objectives. The Water Quality Objectives for suspended sediments for the North Western Water Control Zones were defined as being an allowable elevation of 30% above the background. The ambient and tolerance values for suspended sediment concentrations in the vicinity of sensitive receivers adopted in Table 9.11 of the EIA Report are presented in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12 Ambient and Tolerance Values for Suspended Sediment Concentrations (mgL^-1) in the Vicinity of Sensitive Receivers adopted in the EIA

Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report	Associated EPD Station	Ambient value (90th Percentile)		Tolerance value (30% Tolerance)
Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report	Associated EPD Station	Dry Season	Wet Season	Dry Season	Wet Season
WSR 27	NM5,6,8	8.3	5.6	2.5	1.7
WSR 22c	NM1,2,3	5.5	3.7	1.7	1.1
WSR 25	NM1,2,3	5.5	3.7	1.7	1.1

3.3.7.6 The use of single layer silt curtain system has been modelled in the 2012 mitigated scenario. The predicted suspended sediment concentrations under the 2012 mitigated scenario of the Contract as shown in Table 9.21 in the EIA Report are summarised in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Calculated Elevations in Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Sensitive Receivers (mgL^-1) under the 2012 mitigated scenario from the EIA

Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Calculated Elevations
Sensitive Receiver in EIA Report	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Dry Season	Wet Season
WSR 27	SR3	0.0	0.0
WSR 22c	SR4(N)	0.1	0.0
WSR 25	SR5	3.0	2.7

3.3.7.7 For suspended solids, as the baseline monitoring was conducted in October 2011 which is the transitional season or just the start of dry season while no data were recorded in the wet season, direct comparison with the EIA predictions could not be made. The comparison of EM&A results with baseline results in the following paragraphs was based on the criteria of acceptability of 30 percent elevations above the background as defined in the Water Quality Objectives which was also used in scenario predictions in the EIA.

3.3.7.8 Baseline water quality monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the transitional season. The mean baseline suspended solids level at each sensitive receiver and 30 percent of the baseline mean are presented in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Baseline suspended solids levels and 30% of baseline mean (mgL^-1)

Associated Location in Baseline Report	Baseline mean		30% of baseline mean
Associated Location in Baseline Report	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood
SR3	14.0	16.3	4.2	4.9
SR4	11.3	12.2	3.4	3.7
SR5	10.6	11.9	3.2	3.6
SR6	11.9	11.9	3.6	3.6
SR7	11.4	10.4	3.4	3.1
SR10A	10.2	10.2	3.1	3.1
SR10B	11.5	11.1	3.5	3.3

3.3.7.9 The average elevations in suspended solids concentrations of July 2016 were compared with the baseline levels are provided in Table 3.15.

Table 3.15 Average suspended solids levels at sensitive receivers (mgL^-1) in July 2016

Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Impact SS Mean (in July 2016)
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Mid-ebb	Elevation	Mid-flood	Elevation
SR3	SR3	8.7	-5.3	8.1	-8.2
SR4	SR4(N)*	6.5	-4.8	8.1	-4.1
SR5	SR5	4.7	-5.9	5.1	-6.8
SR6	SR6	4.7	-7.2	4.9	-7
SR7	SR7	5.6	-5.8	5.6	-4.8
SR10A	SR10A	6.3	-3.9	5.2	-5
SR10B	SR10B(N)*	5.9	-5.6	4.9	-6.2

*Due to safety issue, the water quality monitoring location of SR4 & SR10B have been changed to SR4(N) & SR10B(N) respectively during impact monitoring.

3.3.7.10 With the highest filling rate in July 2017, the elevations in suspended solids levels were below 30 percent of the baseline suspended solids levels at all stations. Regional influences would have effects on the deterioration in water quality than activities at the work site. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

3.3.8 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EIA process and the EM&A programme

3.3.8.1 Monitoring and audit of water quality was recommended for the construction phase of the Contract in the EIA process to ensure any deterioration in water quality would be readily detected and timely action could be taken to rectify the situation.

3.3.8.2 Baseline water quality monitoring determined the ambient water quality in the region prior to commencement of construction works. Impact water quality monitoring helped to determine whether the Contract would cause unacceptable water quality impacts on the sensitive receivers.

3.3.8.3 Water quality mitigation measures were recommended in the EIA and a list of water quality mitigation measures were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to implement during the construction phase of the Project. The list of water quality mitigation measures is depicted in Appendix C. All recommended mitigation measures were applicable to the Contract. Precautionary measures including installation of silt curtains were also implemented to prevent migration of suspended solids towards the sensitive receivers. Monitoring results showed that water quality at sensitive receivers was affected by regional water quality influenced by tidal and climatic conditions, local impacts from the vicinity of the receivers. As discussed above, the Contract was not observed to cause unacceptable water quality impacts to the sensitive receivers. Therefore, the mitigation measures implemented were effective and efficient in controlling water quality impacts.

3.3.8.4 Monitoring and audit of water quality ensured that any water quality impacts to the receivers would be readily detected and timely actions could be taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of water quality results collected throughout the baseline, impact and post-Contract monitoring periods also demonstrated the environmental acceptability of the Contract. Weekly site inspections ensured that the EIA recommended and additional water quality mitigation measures were effectively implemented.

3.3.9 Conclusion

3.3.9.1 Water quality monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. For suspended solids levels, a total of 25 exceedances were recorded. Assessment indicated that there was no correlation between the filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances recorded. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

3.3.9.2 The DO and SS levels recorded at SR3, SR4 (N) and SR5 were in similar magnitude as predicted in the Project EIA. No comparison could be made from SR6 to SR10B(N) as predictions were not made in the Project EIA. For turbidity, as no prediction was made in the Project EIA, no comparison could be made. With the implementation of water quality mitigation measures recommended in the EIA and additional water quality mitigation measures implemented during the EM&A programme, marine construction activities of the Contract did not cause any unacceptable water quality impacts to the sensitive receivers.

3.4 Dolphin Monitoring

3.4.1 Introduction

3.4.1.1 In accordance with the requirements specified in Section 9.3 of the EM&A Manuel, monthly vessel- based surveys were conducted to monitor impacts on the Indo-Pacific humpback or Chinese white dolphin (Sousa chinensis). The surveys were conducted in the areas known as NEL and NWL and travelled the transect lines depicted in Figure 4.

3.4.1.2 The total transect length for NEL and NWL combined is approximately 111km although some Contract and other works at times have caused temporary truncation of some lines, particularly lines 1,2,9 and 10. Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 5 could not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10 is reduced from 6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF construction site.

3.4.1.3 Coordinates for transect lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 1 have been updated in respect to the Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD on 19 August 2015. Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 108km.

3.4.1.4 Surveys were conducted twice per month, using combined line transect and photo-identification techniques. The research team comprised qualified and experienced researchers and Marine Mammal Observers (MMO).

3.4.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

3.4.2.1 Relevant mitigation measures for dolphins, as recommended in the EIA Report were stipulated in the EM&A Manual for the Contractor to adopt. The implementation status of mitigation measures for dolphins is depicted in Appendix C.

3.4.3 Summary of Actions Taken in the event of Non-Compliance

3.4.3.1 The enhanced EAP for CWD monitoring with numerical AL/LL were implemented in the reporting period.

3.4.3.2 Four (4) Limit level exceedances were recorded in the reporting year for impact dolphin monitoring. And the Event Action Plan was triggered (Table 3.16)

Table 3.16 Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values

Quarterly period		STG*	ANI**	Level Exceeded
March 2016- May 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2016- May 2016	NWL	1.4	4.6	Limit Level
June 2016- August 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
June 2016- August 2016	NWL	1.4	4.6	Limit Level
September 2016- November 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
September 2016- November 2016	NWL	2.4	8.0	Limit Level
December 2016- February 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
December 2016- February 2017	NWL	1.9	8.3	Limit Level

* STG represents groups of dolphins (recorded on effort)

** ANI represents number of individual dolphins (recorded on effort)

3.4.4 Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.4.4.1 Vessel-based surveys were conducted monthly from March 2016 to February 2017, i.e., during the fifth year of the construction phase. A total of 48 survey days were completed between March 2016-February 2017 (Appendix H: Table 1). A total of 2619.1km were completed of which 2520.9 km were conducted under favourable conditions (defined as Beaufort Sea State 3 or better and with visibility of >1km) (Appendix H: Table 2). In the first year of impact monitoring (2012-13), 49 survey days were completed (total travelled 2627.5km; under favourable conditions 2601.4km). In the second year of impact monitoring (2013-14), 50 survey days were completed (total travelled 2667.1km; 2595.4km under favourable conditions). In the third year of impact monitoring (2014-15), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2641.7km; 2637.1km conducted under favourable conditions). In the fourth year of impact monitoring (2015-16), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2615.7km; 2572 km conducted under favourable conditions). In all five years, >98% of the track length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between March 2016-February 2017, a total of 50 dolphin sightings were recorded, 32 as on effort and 18 as opportunistic¹ (Appendix H: Figure 1). In the first year of impact monitoring, a total of 203 dolphin sightings were recorded, 145 as on effort and 58 as opportunistic. In the second year, a total of 135 dolphin sightings were recorded, 91 on effort and 44 opportunistic. In the third year, a total of 72 dolphin sightings were recorded, 46 on effort and 26 opportunistic. In the fourth year, a total of 43 dolphin sightings were recorded, 26 on effort and 17 opportunistic. The total number of sightings has decreased between each year of impact monitoring, with a slight increase shown in this reporting year, i.e., 50 sightings this reporting year compared to 43 sightings in 2015-16 (Table 3.17).

Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (2012-13) to the Current Year (2016-17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Contract

Year	Total Sightings
2012-13	203
2013-14	135
2014-15	72
2015-16	43
2016-17	50

3.4.5 Distribution

3.4.5.1. Sightings of dolphins were divided into quarterly periods. The highest number of sightings were made between September–November 2016. The lowest number of sightings were recorded in March-May-2016. No sightings were made in the NEL section of the survey area (Appendix H: Figure 2). In NWL and adjacent waters, dolphins were consistently distributed in areas of rocky, reefy shoreline or where there was a marked depth contour. These areas are the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Protected Area (SCLKCMPA), the adjacent maritime border of Hong Kong SAR and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Tai O area. Since long term monitoring has been initiated by AFCD, there has been a regular and year-round occurrence of dolphins in these areas of northern Lantau.

3.4.6 Encounter Rate

3.4.6.1. Encounter rates of “on effort” sightings (i.e. groups) per area per quarter for the year March 2016 to February 2017 were calculated ^[1]^. For NWL, quarterly dolphin encounter rates were similar between March-November with a slight peak during the period September–November (Appendix H: Figure 3). The encounter rate for December 2016 to February 2017 was lower. Within NWL, quarterly encounter rates ranged from 3 to 6 groups (Year 1); 5 to 9 groups (Year 2); 2 to 4 groups (Year 3) and one group (Year 4) per 100km on effort (figures rounded). The average encounter rate for Year 5 in NWL is 1 to 2 groups (figure rounded) which is slight increase on year 4 results. Years 3 and 4 of construction works showed the lowest encounter rates.

3.4.7. Group Size

3.4.7.1. The majority of all sightings recorded were of less than 5 individuals (72%). Larger groups were seen in southern NWL and in, or adjacent to, SCLKCMP. There was no seasonal pattern although with so few sightings patterns may be difficult to discern. Of the four mother and calf groups sighted, two were in groups of five or more individuals. Nine of the large groups sighted were noted as exhibiting multiple behavior which incorporated feeding and three groups were recorded as feeding. One group was recorded as travelling and one group which contained a mother and neonate pair was recorded as “other”; boat avoidance. Groups of five or more were sighted throughout the year (Appendix H: Figure 4).

3.4.8. Habitat Use

3.4.8.1. The EM&A Manuel stipulated that surveys be conducted in such a way as to be comparable to the baseline survey for this Contract (September -November 2011) and to the long term annual monitoring conducted by AFCD. As such, analyses of density per survey effort (DPSE) and sightings per survey effort (SPSE) were calculated in accordance with the methodology detailed in AFCD reports (e.g., AFCD 2012 [2]). The survey areas are divided into 1km x 1km squares and the relative number of sightings and densities are calculated for each block. NEL has 55 blocks and NWL has 90 blocks (only blocks of more than 0.75km2 are included). For the period March 2016-February 2017, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use (< 20 DPSE), moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE) and high use (> 60 DPSE). NEL had no dolphin encounters within its boundaries. Within NWL, 2% of its area was categorized as high use; 12% as moderate use and 86% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 5).

3.4.8.2. For the period March 2016-February 2017, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use (< 5 SPSE), moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE) and high use (> 15 SPSE). NEL had no dolphin encounters within its boundaries. Within NWL, 1% of its area was calculated as high use, 13% as moderate use and 86% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 6).

3.4.8.3. For the period February 2011 – January 2012, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 4% and 17% of each respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 20% (NEL) and 16% (NWL) as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 76% (NEL) and 68% (NWL) as low use (< 20 DPSE) (Appendix H: Figure 7). These figures were compared to impact monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014, March 2014-February 2015, March 2015-February 2016 and March 2016-February 2017 (Table 3.17). For DPSE in NWL, there was a slight decrease in low use grid cells, a slight increase in moderate use cells and an increase in high use cells. Noting the geographical location of the cells between advanced and impact monitoring, there are less high use cells in the centre of the NWL area indicating that habitat utilisation of this area has decreased. In NEL, all cell use was low during impact monitoring and there were no on effort sightings in NEL during March 2016-February 2017.

3.4.8.4. For the period February 2011 – January 2012, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 9% and 22% of each respective area classified as high use (> 15 SPSE); 31% (NEL) and 27% (NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 60% (NEL) and 51% (NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Appendix H: Figure 7). These figures were compared to impact monitoring data for March 2013-February 2014 and March 2014-February 2015 (Table 3.17). For SPSE in NWL, there has been a slight decrease in low use grid cells, an increase in moderate use grid cells and a decrease in high use grid cells. This correlates with that observed for DPSE, unsurprisingly as they are derived from interrelated data. For SPSE in NEL, this is also true, with an observed increase in low use areas and a concomitant decrease in high and moderate use cells, when compared to impact monitoring. No on effort sightings were made in NEL during March 2016-February 2017, the same observation as the previous year (2015-16).

Table 3.18 Comparison of low, moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between years 2011-12; 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (in %)

*Advance = advance baseline monitoring conducted between 2011 and 2012.

3.4.9. Mother and Calf Pairs

3.4.9.1. There were four sightings of mothers with calves during the year 2016-17, three of these calves could not be assigned to an identified female (Appendix H: Figure 8). Although it is often difficult to identify calves, using high resolution images and the identity of mothers, it is sometimes possible to track poorly marked individual calves, while they still stay in close proximity to their mother. Mother-offspring bonds are known to last years, sometimes decades, in delphinid species. During 2016-17, HZMB 023 was sighted with her offspring HZMB 022 on one occasion and HZMB 022 was sighted one additional time without the mother. This juvenile is well marked and was born prior to the impact monitoring period and estimated to be six to seven years old. HZMB 044 is a well-known individual and is recorded in AFCD records as NL98. She was first sighted with a new born calf in 2012 and the calf was individually identified in 2014-15 as HZMB 125. Both were seen together in May 2016. A female identified as HZMB 114 was initially recorded in October 2013 and was sighted with a new calf in November 2015. This female was sighted again in 2016-17 with a calf/juvenile (Appendix H: Figure 9). There were no sightings of the three known females, HZMB 026, HZMB 047, HZMB 098 and HZMB 116, who were identified with calves previously during impact monitoring.

3.4.10. Activities Associated with Fishing Boats

3.4.10.1. Five distinctive behavioural categories were defined; “feeding”, “travelling” and “multiple” (more than one behaviour was observed at one time), “other” and “unknown” (Appendix H: Figure 10). The frequency of feeding activities initially decreased, peaked in the period Sept-Nov 2016 then decreased again in Dec 16 - Jan 17. The frequency of traveling decreased a little in Sept-Nov 2016 as feeding activities increased. Mshowed no particular pattern during the year. Multiple activities included both travelling and feeding behavior. When compared to the previous three years of impact monitoring, feeding is an important activity although its frequency appears to have decreased and travelling times have increased both this year and in 2015-16 (Appendix H: Figure 11). Again, it is noted that as sightings numbers become less, patterns can be difficult to interpret with confidence.

3.4.10.2. In 2012-13, the area of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL was highlighted as an important feeding area as it was again in 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and this reporting year. The area to the south of NWL is also important for feeding/surface active behaviours. As the impact monitoring progresses, a decreasing trend in the overall number of dolphin sightings in NEL and mid NWL has become apparent with sightings localized to areas known to be important for feeding, i.e., SCLKCMP and Tai O (Appendix H: Figure 12).

3.4.11. Photo-Identification Catalogue

3.4.11.1. A total of 119 dolphins comprise the photo identification catalogue established specifically for the HZMB Contract (Appendix H: Table 3). Not all dolphins photographed are identifiable as only individuals with unambiguous marks, cuts, wounds, injuries and/or pigmentation or with uniquely shaped fins can be included in the photo-identification catalogue.

3.4.12 Dolphin Abundance

3.4.12.1 No sightings were recorded in NEL. For NWL, the overall abundance estimate is 34 [95% CI 10.2, 62.7])

3.4.13 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.4.13.1 It was recognised in the EIA that the HZMB is adjacent to several areas of importance to the dolphin population of Hong Kong. As such, it was stipulated in the EM&A Manuel for the HKBCF that a suitable analytical technique be proposed and implemented so that significant changes could be detected. A multi-parameter spatial (sometimes known as predictive) model was proposed and reviewed by management authorities and analyses developed as and when data has been made available. The purpose of the model was to make predictions of future habitat use, derived from baseline information, and compare these predictions to actual observations. Environmental covariates, such as salinity, temperature, depth, etc., which may also be drivers of dolphin habitat use, were also tested within spatial models so as to either eliminate or incorporate any influence these may have. The model thus incorporated environmental variables salinity, temperature, turbidity, depth, tidal state, time of day, as well as information associated with the sighting, e.g., group size, behavior, boat association. Following a meeting in October 2015, ENPO suggested that the information regarding density surface modelling presented in Quarterly EM&A Reports and Annual EM&A Review Reports be provided as a separate report with details for review before incorporating it into the EM&A reports. This ET agreed all such data and results be removed and provided separately.

3.4.14 Summary

3.4.14.1. The variable nature of habitat use, group size, behavior, mother and calf occurrence and encounter rates by small delphinids and the ability to detect significant change in small populations is a challenge faced by many research studies. Historical data from AFCD also shows such variability (in AFCD annual monitoring reports). A view of individual distribution and behavioural activities for the reporting year do show that areas of importance, such as Lung Kwu Chau, are still being frequented, behavioural activities appear similar to that known from pre construction information, although travelling frequency appears to be on the increase, and that at least one calf identified in 2012-13 has survived to 2016-17. In 2013-14, an emerging trend for decreased use of NEL was noted and no sightings were seen in NEL in 2016-17. In addition, a decrease in sightings in the mid-section of NWL is also noted.

3.4.15 Verification of Impact Statements Stated in EIA and Supporting Documentation

3.4.15.1 The statements made in the EIA and supporting documents are descriptive and do not provide a quantitative framework against which to compare data gathered during impact monitoring for the purposes of verifying impact on CWD. Further, some statements made pertain only to the operational phase of HZMB (that is, when all in water construction works are completed) and not the explicit impacts of the many different construction activities which are required to construct HZMB. In the interests of thoroughness, any impact statements made in key documents relevant to HKBCF are extracted here and commented on with regards to the data gathered from this the reporting year of construction activities at HKBCF.

3.4.15.2 The EIA report for HZMB ^[3]makes several statements with regards to impact on cetaceans during the construction phase in sections pertaining to water quality and bioaccumulation:

3.4.15.3 Construction Phase: In section 10.6.4.25 of the EIA report, it is stated that, “Project has low potential to cause increased sewage discharge, therefore this potential impact is insignificant. The potential water quality impacts due to site runoff, sewage from workforce and wastewater from various construction activities, and accidental spillage would be controlled through the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, including temporary drainage system, chemical toilets, etc”

3.4.15.4 Contract has largely maintained water quality objectives as described in the EM&A Manual except where noted in Section 7.1.5 (see here for full details). The exceedances noted were short in duration and localised to the Project site. These incidents were short in duration and when the Contractor was notified, actions were promptly taken and no further exceedances were noted.

3.4.15.5 In Section 10.6.4.37 of the EIA report, it is stated that, “Thus insignificant bioaccumulation impacts from the construction of HKBCF and HKLR are predicted for CWD (except perhaps with the exception of silver – as per 10.6.4.32)”

3.4.15.6 It is noted that for both of the above impact predictions to be investigated more thoroughly, long term trends in pathogens and toxin loads in CWD should be analysed. This has recently been completed for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) population of CWD and it is noted that both bioaccumulation and biomagnification are significantly higher than populations elsewhere (Gui et al 2014 ^[4]). There has been no updated toxin analyses of Chinese white dolphin in the reporting year.

3.4.15.7 In Section 10.7.2.8 of the EIA report, it is stated that, “164 ha of sea area (138 ha reclamation and 26 ha works area) will be lost during construction due to HKBCF reclamation near the northeast Airport Island. Although the sea area is only utilised by limited number of individual CWD, it is of moderate ecological value due to the close proximity of the dolphin hotspot at the Brothers Islands. Moderate impact is anticipated and mitigation measures are required. As the habitat loss due to construction would largely be carried forward to the operational phase and become permanent habitat loss, mitigation measures for operational phase (see Section 10.7.4) will mitigate this impact as well.”

3.4.15.8 At HKBCF, moderate impact is anticipated but the degree or type of impact is not quantified in any numerical, spatial or temporal scale. In the second year of construction activities at HKBCF there was an emerging pattern of decreased habitat use as indicated by encounter rate and number and type of “high” density cells in NEL. As anticipated in the second year (2013-14) report, this became more apparent in the third year (2014-2015) and NEL recorded no sightings in year four (2015-16) although a single sighting adjacent to HKBCF was made by MMO and site staff in November 2015 and again, in January 2017, audio recordings of dolphins were made adjacent to the newly designated marine protected area at the Brothers Islands. AFCD data indicate that higher than usual dolphin mortality has been recorded from 2014-15. Again, it is suggested that appropriate review of these data should be conducted to investigate any possible relationship with both anthropogenic activities and natural processes in the dolphins habitat. The impact of “permanent habitat loss” as a result of the HKBCF reclamation (Section 10.7.4. of the EIA), is stated to be fully mitigated by the establishment of a Marine Protected Area after the construction phase of the Project is completed. This predication cannot be assessed until the HZMB operational phase starts and the Marine Park Area is fully established. The Brothers Marine Protected Area was designated in December 2016.

3.4.15.9 The Ecological Baseline Survey ^[5]defines an Impact Index which is used to predict impact for each area through which the HZMB structure passes. HKBCF is located in the area defined as the “Northeast Lantau Section (NELS) – from the eastern edge of the airport platform to its connection to the North Lantau Highway”.

3.4.15.10 It is noted that this report states (Section 5.7.10) that “it is imperative that cumulative impacts along the whole alignment [of HZMB] are thoroughly assessed”.

3.4.15.11 A reference to cumulative impacts is made in Section 10.7.6 of the EIA. Section 10.7.6.3 is relevant to HKBCF. This refers only to the cumulative impact of the permanent loss of CWD habitat and no other impacts of either the construction or operational phase of the HZMB Contract. Nonetheless, the conclusion of this section states that the setting up of a marine park “effectively mitigates” CWD habitat loss. As such, this prediction cannot be verified until such a time as a marine park is established.

3.4.15.12 A cumulative assessment has been published using data gathered prior to the initiation of HKBCF construction activities (Marcotte et al, 2015 ^[6]). This assessment notes that the increase in high speed ferry traffic has been concomitant to a significant decrease in dolphins sighted in NEL and adjacent NWL waters. Several other threats were considered in this study, however, high speed ferries were the most significant impact. Therefore, this study showed a significant decline in dolphins in NEL and adjacent areas was ongoing for a decade prior to commencement of HKBCF activities. The high speed ferry traffic has continued to increase in the area as HKBCF and other Projects have commenced ^[7].

3.4.16 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EM&A Programme

3.4.16.1 Monitoring and auditing of marine mammals was recommended for the construction phase of HKBCF to evaluate impact on marine mammals.

3.4.16.2 Combined line transect and photo-identification methodologies have been used as part of the AFCD long term monitoring programme for over 15 years. As such, a long term data set can be used to establish trends in population distribution and abundance over the long term.

3.4.16.3 The AFCD annual monitoring reports for the period 2011-2012, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have all stated that a significant decline had been detected in population abundance in the NEL area over the last decade. Only long term inter annual abundance estimates can be used to detect such changes. This decline was noted prior to construction had begun at HKBCF and has now been attributed to high speed ferries by an independent study (see Section 3.4.6.4.2).

3.4.17 Conclusion

3.4.17.1 Between March 2016 and February 20167 dolphins have been almost entirely absent from NEL and parts of NWL are no longer frequently used.

3.4.17.2 Marine mammal monitoring was conducted between March 2016 and February 2017 in accordance with EM&A Manuel methodologies. These methodologies have been invaluable in the past in determining both broad scale and long term patterns of distribution, abundance, association, habitat use and behavioral activities. There is historically much variation in these parameters and most observations to date have concurred with observations documented previously with the now emerging trend of decreased habitat use within NEL. As AFCD Monitoring has reported a significant decline in this area prior to HKBCF construction activities, it is difficult to distinguish how much HKBCF activities may have influenced this existing decline.

3.4.17.3 Four (4) Limit level exceedances were recorded in the reporting year for impact dolphin monitoring. 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. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

3.5.1 Site Inspection

3.5.1.1 Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Contract. In the reporting period, 52 site inspections were carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

3.5.1.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described below:

Air Quality

3.5.1.3 Breaker was observed without dust suppression measures at TKO sorting facility, the Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure such as watering during the operation of breaker. The Contractor subsequently provided watering during operation of breaker. (Closed)

3.5.1.4 The Contractor was reminded to affix a proper exception/approval label to the power pack at Portion E2 under NRMM regulation. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.1.5 The Contractor was reminded to affix a proper exception/approval label to the power pack at Portion E2 under NRMM regulation last reporting quarter. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation in the reporting quarter. (Closed)

3.5.1.6 An excavator was observed without NNRM label. The Contractor was reminded to properly affix NNRM label to the excavator. The Contractor subsequently affix NRMM label onto the excavator. (Closed)

3.5.1.7 Idle ground breaking works area was observed, the Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures when there are active ground breaking activities last reporting quarter. The Contractor subsequently watering to the concerned area when there were active ground breaking activities. (Closed)

3.5.1.8 Fugitive dust was observed when vehicle passed through roads on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as dust suppression measures to effectively prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)

3.5.1.9 An excavator was observed without NNRM label at TKO fill bank area 137 sorting facility. The Contractor was reminded to properly affix NNRM label to the excavator. The Contractor subsequently affix NNRM label to the excavator. (Closed)

3.5.1.10 Fugitive dust generated during loading and unloading of rock materials was observed at Portion B on 14 July 2016 and near seawall on 21 July 2016. The Contractor should provide watering during the loading and unloading works properly. The Contractor subsequently provided watering during loading and unloading works. (Closed)

3.5.1.11 Fugitive dust was observed during handling of rock. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures such as watering to during the handling of rock. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.1.12 An excavator was observed without NRMM label. The Contractor was advised to affix NRMM label properly onto the excavator. The Contractor subsequently affix NRMM label to the excavator. (Closed)

3.5.1.13 Road was observed dry, the Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure such as watering to the area. As informed by the Contactor the area has been backfilled and compacted. (Closed)

3.5.1.14 Fugitive dust was generated from rock works at Portion C2b, the Contractor was reminded to provide watering on the works in order to suppress fugitive dust emission. The Contractor subsequently provided watering to the rock works at Potion C2b. (Closed)

3.5.1.15 Fugitive dust was observed during handling of rock. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures such as watering to during the handling of rock. The Contractor subsequently provided dust suppression measures to handling of rock material. (Closed)

3.5.1.16 Fugitive dust was observed while dump trucks were passing by on the dry road at Portion E2. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measure, such as watering on road. The Contractor subsequently provided watering on dry road. (Closed)

3.5.1.17 Dust was observed when rock was handled by derrick barge. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures during such operation. The Contractor subsequently provided watering on rock. (Closed)

3.5.1.18 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)

3.5.1.19 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

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

Water Quality

3.5.1.21 Turbid water was observed at Portion D, it is noted that the source of turbid water was originated from the wheel washing facility at Portion D managed by another Contract. The Contractor of Contract HY/2010/02 was advised to liaise with another Contract so that recurrence of the situation could be prevented. (Reminder)

3.5.1.22 It was observed that the overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain maybe insufficient at the northeast access. The Contractor was advised to provide sufficient length of overlapping at the northeast marine access. The Contractor subsequently extended to overlapping at the northeast marine access. (Closed)

3.5.1.23 Silt curtain was observed temporarily disconnected near Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to ensure mitigation measures such as the silt curtain is properly maintained and implemented. The Contractor subsequently rectified the disconnected part of the silt curtain. (Closed)

3.5.1.24 Damaged drip tray was observed at Portion D. The Contractor should repair and replace the drip tray to avoid potential leakage. The contractor subsequently repaired the drip tray. (Closed)

3.5.1.25 Insufficient bunding was observed at entrance area of an idle landing barge 德大 1, the Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent runoff of turbid water to the sea when there are operations on this barge. (Reminder)

3.5.1.26 Insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt curtain was observed. The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient overlapping of perimeter silt curtain at marine access. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation and provided sufficient overlapping. (Closed)

3.5.1.27 Silt curtain at northern part of HKBCF Reclamation Works was observed disconnected. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the situation. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

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

Chemical and Waste Management

3.5.1.29 Water and oil mixture was observed accumulated inside drip tray at TKO sorting facility, the Contractor was reminded to properly clear the water accumulated inside drip tray. The Contract subsequently cleared the water accumulated inside drip tray. (Closed)

3.5.1.30 Water was observed accumulated inside a bunded area on barge FTB19. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the water inside bunding to prevent potential oil spillage/runoff. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation by clearing the water accumulated inside bunding. (Closed)

3.5.1.31 Oil was observed stored without measure to prevent oil leakage or spillage on barge Tung Fu 18, the Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent oil leakage or spillage. The Contractor subsequently provided measure barge Tung Fu 18 to prevent oil leakage or spillage. (Closed)

3.5.1.32 The Contractor was reminded to keep the site tidy at Portion D. Sorting was subsequently observed onsite, the Contractor was reminded to continue to keep the site tidy at Portion D. (Closed)

3.5.1.33 General refuse was observed, near box culvert area at Portion D, at the edge of the land area when inspection was conducted on barge FTP24, at other area of Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to regularly remove the general refuse on site to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently removed the general refuse and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

3.5.1.34 Chemical waste container was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to place the chemical waste container onto the drip tray. The Contractor subsequently place the chemical waste container onto drip tray. (Closed)

3.5.1.35 The Contractor was reminded to dispose of general refuse regularly at Portion E2 properly. The Contractor subsequently cleared the generation refuse at Portion E2. (Closed)

3.5.1.36 The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for the moveable light generator at Portion E2. The Contractor subsequently provided drip tray to the moveable light generator. (Closed)

3.5.1.37 Oil drum was observed without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to oil drum. The Contractor subsequently removed from oil drum. (Closed)

3.5.1.38 The Contractor was reminded to dispose of general refuse regularly at Portion E2 properly. The Contractor subsequently cleared the generation refuse at Portion E2 in the reporting quarter. (Closed)

3.5.1.39 Oil drums were observed without drip tray at workshop area of HKBCF Reclamation Works, the Contractor was advised to provide drip tray to all oil drums. The Contractor subsequently provided drip tray to oil drums. (Closed)

3.5.1.40 Chemical container placed on ground was observed at portion D. The Contractor should store the chemical containers with drip tray properly. The chemical container was subsequently removed by the Contractor from Portion D. (Closed)

3.5.1.41 General refuse was observed on southern edge of lands area near Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently collected the general refuse on southern edge of lands area near Portion B. (Closed)

3.5.1.42 Floating refuse was observed at Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to collect them and dispose them and dispose them of properly. The Contractor subsequently collected the general refuse on sea. (Closed)

3.5.1.43 Oil drums and battery were placed on bare ground at workshop area, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to the oi drums and properly store waste battery. The Contractor subsequently provided drip trays to oil drums and removed the waste battery from the location. (Closed)

3.5.1.44 Oil stains were observed on deck of barge, the Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stain using spill kit and disposed the spent spill kit of as chemical waste. The Contractor subsequently cleared the oil stain on deck of barge. (Closed)

3.5.1.45 Defect on drip tray was observed at Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect of the drip tray. (Follow up)

3.5.1.46 Soil and water was observed inside drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the soil and water inside drip tray. The Contractor subsequently removed the water and soil inside drip tray. (Closed)

3.5.1.47 Drip tray was observed deformed, the Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect. The Contractor subsequently rectified the condition. (Closed)

3.5.1.48 Defect was observed within the frame of a drip tray. The Contactor was reminded to rectify the defect. The Contractor subsequently rectified the condition. (Closed)

3.5.1.49 Defect of drip tray was observed at Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect of the drip tray. The Contractor rectified the defect of the drip tray in the reporting month. (Closed)

3.5.1.50 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)

3.5.1.51 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)

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

3.5.1.53 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)

3.5.1.54 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)

3.5.1.55 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)

3.5.1.56 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)

3.5.1.57 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)

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

3.5.1.59 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)

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

Landscape and Visual Impact

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

Others

3.5.1.62 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 Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

4.1.2 As advised by the Contractor, 4257.5m³ hard rock and large broken concrete, 401363.8m³ of inert C&D Materials generated and reused in other Projects; 1,496,958.2m³ of surplus surcharge exported to Macau; 334485.8m³ of Imported fill; 2856kg paper/cardboard packaging 1073.7m3 other C&D waste such as general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Summary of waste flow table 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 After checking with the Contractor, surcharge material was removed off site to Macau from 27 April 2016 and it is continued in the reporting period. 1,496,958.2m³ of surplus surcharge was exported to Macau during the reporting period. 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 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. 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.

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

5.1.3 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 reporting period. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the submitted plan.

5.1.4 Dolphins were spotted within North West entrance of silt curtain on 10 July 2016. 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 on 16 February 2016, a MMWG meeting was held among the representatives of Airport Authority (AA), Arup (RSS of Contract HY/2010/02) and CHEC (the Contractor of Contract HY/2010/02) on 15 February 2016. In the meeting, it was mentioned that in order to facilitate the site investigation (SI) works of the AA’s contractor in the vicinity of the concerned location, removal of the concerned silt curtain at the NE Cooling Water Intake of Hong Kong International Airport was discussed. The environmental aspect of the proposed removal of the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling Water Intake (WSR25) was reviewed by the ET and no adverse comment was received from IEC/ENPO on 21 March 2016. As informed by the Contractor, the silt curtain at NE Airport Cooling Water Intake has been removed on 10 May 2016.

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 period, 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 period, 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 (Our Ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).

5.1.9 IEC/ENPO observed that one Floating Concrete Batching Plant and two Floating Grout Production Facilities anchored at Portion C2b and Portion E2 respectively at around 9:13 am on 25 April 2016. IEC/ENPO opined that a review should be conducted by ET to assess if Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for HZMB HKBCF Project is complied, after investigation, two number of FGP barges DL-4 and DL-5 were under BCF contract. The FGP barges were servicing Contract No.HY/2010/02, but the observed FGP barges were berthing at the concerned location for upcoming works but were not operated on 25 April 2016. In addition, after further review, no floating grout production was in operation at any time in March and April 2016 for Contract No.HY/2010/02; 1 floating grout production was in operation at any time in May 2016 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 period.

5.1.10 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 period.

5.1.11 After review, only 1 floating grout production at the most 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 period.

6. Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1.1 No 1hr-TSP or 24hr-TSP exceedance were recorded in the reporting period at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP or 24hr-TSP impact monitoring period. All air quality monitoring results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline air quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that dust generation would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended dust mitigation measures.

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

6.1.3 Twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L). After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract.

6.1.4 Four (4) Limit level exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. The investigation results showed that although no unacceptable changes in environmental parameters of this Contract have been measured. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. After investigation, there was no evidence that indicated that the reduced number of dolphins in NWL and NEL was related solely to Contract works. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Please also refer to the attachment for full investigation result. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

6.1.5 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 One complaint about marine litter near Tuen Mun Ferry Pier was received on 16 Jul 2016, 9:19am. The complainant complained that pollution was observed at Tuen Mun Ferry Pier and queried whether the pollutant came from the construction sites of the Lantau area or bridge construction. After investigation, it is considered the marine litter floating near the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier is unlikely to be related to this Contract.

7.1.2 A water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22 September 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 whitish effluent discharged from two flattop barges which departs from Tuen Mun on a daily basis. The complainant stated that the whitish effluent was discharged from these barges at sea area outside cellular structure cell no. C054 – C055 between 18:00 to 04:00, causing pollution, after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.3 An environmental complaint was referred to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016. With referred to the information provided. With referred to description provided by the complainant, with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7 November 2016 on a footbridge near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when a construction vessel『長盛 308』travelled from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic Hill section to Tung Chung Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.4 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.

7.1.5 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.

7.1.6 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.

7.1.7 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.

7.1.8 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.

7.1.9 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.

7.1.10 Total of nine (9) environmental complaints were received in the reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.

7.1.11 No notification of summons and successful prosecutions is noted during the reporting period.

7.1.12 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.

8. REVIEW of THE VALIDITY OF THE EIA Prediction

8.1 No 1hr-TSP or 24hr-TSP exceedance were recorded in the reporting period at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP or 24hr-TSP impact monitoring period. All air quality monitoring results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline air quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that dust generation would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended dust mitigation measures.

8.2 No noise monitoring exceedance was recorded in the reporting period. This is generally in line with the EIA and ERR prediction that with the implementation of noise mitigation measures, the construction noise from the Contract works will meet the stipulated criterion at the residential NSRs and at a majority of the education institutions as predicted by the EIA.

8.3 For impact water quality monitoring, twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L) and they were considered not related to the Contract works, considering all the rest of water quality monitoring results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline water quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that water quality impact would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended water quality mitigation measures.

9. Review of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

9.1 The impact air quality, noise and water quality monitoring programme ensured that any environmental impact to the receivers would be readily detected and timely actions could be taken to rectify any non-compliance. The environmental monitoring results indicated that the construction activities in general were in compliance with the relevant environmental requirements and were environmentally acceptable. The weekly site inspection ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended in the EIA were effectively implemented. Despite the minor deficiencies found during site audits, the Contractor had taken appropriate actions to rectify deficiencies within reasonable timeframe. Therefore, the effectiveness and efficiency of the mitigation measures were considered high in most of the time.

9.2 For all the parameters under monitoring as mentioned in Section 3, the measured levels were in line with the EIA predictions generally. This indicates that the mitigation measures were effectively implemented.

9.3 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

9.4 IEC/ENPO observed that one Floating Concrete Batching Plant and two Floating Grout Production Facilities anchored at Portion C2b and Portion E2 respectively at around 9:13 am on 25 April 2016. IEC/ENPO opined that a review should be conducted by ET to assess if Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for HZMB HKBCF Project is complied, after investigation, two number of FGP barges DL-4 and DL-5 were under BCF contract. The FGP barges were servicing Contract No.HY/2010/02, but the observed FGP barges were berthing at the concerned location for upcoming works but were not operated on 25 April 2016. In addition, after further review, no floating grout production was in operation at any time in March and April 2016 for Contract No.HY/2010/02; 1 floating grout production was in operation at any time in May 2016 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 period.

9.5 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 period, 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 period, 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 (Our Ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).

9.6 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 period.

10. Review of EM&A Programme

10.1 The environmental monitoring methodology was considered well established as the monitoring results were found in line with the EIA predictions.

10.2 As effective follow up actions were promptly taken once exceedances were recorded, no further exceedance occurred for each case. The EM&A programme was considered successfully and adequately conducted during the course of the reporting period.

11. Comments, recommendations and Conclusions

11.1 Comments on mitigation measures

11.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:

11.2 Air Quality Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.3 Construction Noise Impact

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

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

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

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

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

l Better scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance.

11.4 Water Quality Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.5 Chemical and Waste Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.6 Landscape and Visual Impact

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

11.7 Recommendations on EM&A Programme

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

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

12. Conclusions

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

12.3.2 For impact air quality monitoring, no 1hr-TSP or 24hr-TSP exceedance were recorded in the reporting period at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP or 24hr-TSP impact monitoring period. The impact air quality levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted levels in the Project EIA.

12.3.3 For construction noise monitoring, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period. Noise generating activities of the Contract did not cause any noticeable noise impact at the sensitive receivers. The impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted construction noise levels in the Project EIA.

12.3.4 For impact water quality monitoring, twenty three (23) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) and two (2) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L). After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract.

12.3.5 Four (4) Limit level exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. The investigation results showed that although no unacceptable changes in environmental parameters of this Contract have been measured. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. After investigation, there was no evidence that indicated that the reduced number of dolphins in NWL and NEL was related solely to Contract works. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Please also refer to the attachment for full investigation result. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

12.3.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out 52 times in the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

12.3.7 Eight (8) environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.

12.3.8 No summons or successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.

12.3.9 As discussed in the above sections, the Contract did not cause unacceptable environmental impacts or disturbance to air quality, noise, water quality in the vicinity near the reclamation works.

12.3.10 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 period.

12.3.11 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.

12.3.12 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 same calculation as implemented in the AFCD Annual Monitoring Reports was used; [(total ‘on effort” sightings/total track conducted in Beaufort Sea State 3 or better)*100] for both NEL and NWL separately and for the two areas combined.

[2] Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2012. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2011-March 2012. ) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

[3] Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd 2009 HZMB – HKBCF & HKLR EIA Report. 24037-REP-125-01 Pages 83-5, 97, 115

[4] Gui, D., Yu, R., He, X., Tu, Q., Chen, L. and Wu, Y. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants in Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) from the Pearl River Estuary, China. Chemosphere 114:106-113

[5] Agreement No. MW 01/2003. Hong Kong- Zhuhai- Macao Bridge: Hong Kong Section and the North Lantau

Highway Connection: Ecological Baseline Survey. Final 9 Month Ecological Baseline Survey Report the (p 42 – 43)

[6] Marcotte, D., Hung, S. K., & Caquard, S. 2015. Mapping cumulative impacts on Hong Kong's pink dolphin population. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, 51-63

[7] http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/portstat_1_y_d2.pdf