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 Apr 2017

Table 3.16 Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values

Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (March 2012 – February 2013) to the Current Year (Mar 2017 – August 17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Project

Figures

Figure 1 General Contract Layout Plan

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

Figure 3A-3D Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 4A-4B 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 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 2018. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.

The EM&A programme of this Contract was completed by the end of April 2018, as such this report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 March 2017 to 30 April 2018. For further information on confirming termination of EM&A programme and slightly longer reporting year, please refer to section 2.1.13. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-

Marine-base

- Sloping Seawalls

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Maintenance of silt curtain

- Maintenance of localized silt curtain

- Outfall installation

- Additional GI installation

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- 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

- Reinstatement of seawall

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	34 sessions 34 sessions
Noise monitoring	27 sessions
Impact water quality monitoring	77 sessions
Impact dolphin monitoring	12 surveys
Joint Environmental site inspection	61 sessions

*monitoring works between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality

1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B on 28 November 2017; 2 action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations by this Contract or Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the reporting period. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018.

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

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

In March 2017, 1 action level exceedance of turbidity were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 respectively during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24 March 2017. The exceedances were considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities after investigation. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the March 2017.

In April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28 April 2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities after investigation; No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the April 2017.

In July 2017, for impact water quality monitoring, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR3 during ebb tide on 12 July 2017 and at IS7 during flood tide on 14 July 2017 respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the July 2017.

In September 2017, total of 82 action level exceedances for dissolved oxygen and 4 limit level exceedances were recorded on 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 27 & 29 September 2017. 3 action level exceedances for turbidity were recorded at IS(Mf)11 on 6 September and at IS10(N) & IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood tide. Total of 4 action level exceedances for suspended solids were recorded at IS8, SR4(N) & SR6 on 6 September 2017 and at IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood tide, 1 limit level exceedance was recorded on 8 September 2017 at IS10(N) during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations in September 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of September 2017.

In October 2017, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11 and SR7 during flood tide on 20 October 2017. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in October 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of October 2017.

In November 2017, 6 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16 and SR7 during flood tide on 3, 6, 8 and 20 November 2017. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in November 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017.

In December 2017, 3 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 4 December 2017, and IS(Mf)9 during flood tide on 6 December 2017 and ebb tide on 11 December 2017 respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the December 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of December 2017.

In February 2018, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 2 February 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the Contractor. It was concluded that the exceedance was unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the February 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of February 2018.

In March 2018, for impact water quality monitoring, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS7 during flood tide on 21 March 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedance not Contract-related. No other water quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in March 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of March 2018.

In April 2018, for impact water quality monitoring, 3 action level exceedances of suspended solids at SR7 during flood tide on 18 and 23 April 2018, and at IS10(N) during flood tide on 20 April 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring dates as confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedances were not Contract-related. No other water quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the April 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of April 2018.

Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring

Two (2) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the reporting period - March 2017 to May 2018 and June 2017 to August 2017. 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.

Impact dolphin monitoring results obtained between September 2017 and April 2018, at all transects are reported in the EM&A Report prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

Implementation Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures

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 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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.

Due to substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No. HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.

As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted effective from 22 December 2017.

As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.

As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April 2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018. The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.

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

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

Four (4) 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 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 year 2018.

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 sixth 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 2017 and 30 April 2018.

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	3698 5999
Engineer’s Representative (ER) (Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)	Senior Resident Engineer	Seven Yau	3698 5850	3698 5999
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll 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

- Maintenance of silt curtain

- Maintenance of localized silt curtain

- Outfall installation

- Additional GI installation

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

Land-base

- Surcharge removal & laying

- 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

- Reinstatement of seawall

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 premistes were not obtained. Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (AMS3B) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

2.1.3 For impact noise monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview Crescent Tower 1) was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with Contract Specific EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact noise monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area WA2 (NMS3B) respectively. Same baseline noise level, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College was adopted for this alternative noise monitoring location. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 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. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

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

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

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

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

2.1.8 Due to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a large portion of works site boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing airport Island. The recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of 3RS project will affect several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring transect lines which are being used for conducting monitoring under Contract No. HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will therefore be affected. As a result, a proposal was prepared by ET in September 2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect lines of impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.

2.1.9 Due to substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No. HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.

2.1.10 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted effective from 22 December 2017.

2.1.11 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.

2.1.12 As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April 2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018. The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.

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

2.1.14 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. As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.

3.1.1.6. 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.

3.1.1.7. 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.

3.1.1.8. 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 17 – Apr 18
1-hr TSP	AMS2	102
	AMS3B	102
	AMS7/7B	102
24-hr TSP	AMS2	34
	AMS3B	34
	AMS7/7B	34

*No. of monitoring events carried out under this Contract only. The rest of the monitoring events between September 2017 and April 2018 for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are reported in the EM&A Report prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

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

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Number of Exceedance
			Mar 17 – Apr 18
1-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0
		Limit	0
	AMS3B	Action	0
		Limit	0
	AMS7/7B	Action	0
		Limit	0
	*Total*		0
24-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	1
		Limit	0
	AMS3B	Action	3
		Limit	0
	AMS7/7B	Action	0
		Limit	0
	*Total*		4

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 Other than the mitigation measures implemented as mentioned in Appendix C, in the event of non-compliance, actions were taken in accordance with the Event-Action Plan in the EM&A Manual. The Contractor was notified immediately. Investigation was carried out within three working days of identification of non-compliance such as identifying the air pollution sources, checking the implementation status of the mitigation measures, etc., and measurement was repeated to confirm the investigation findings. Further investigation was carried out to identify the source of pollution when deemed necessary. In summary, no direct evidence between the exceedance at AMS2 and AMS3B and the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities - reclamation works could be established for all non-compliances and therefore no action was required to be taken.

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

3.1.4.1 A total of 4 Action Level exceedance were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigationinto the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports

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/AMS7B

Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

344

*Extracted from Table 5-8 of the EIA report

^# Both average Impact 1-hour TSP Levels and average Impact 24-hour TSP Levels were calculated using monitoring data obtained by this Contract between March 2017 to August 2017. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring station at AMS7/AMS7B, 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 sloping seawalls, rubble mound seawall, maintenance of silt curtain, outfall installation, additional GI installation, reinstatement of seawall, surcharge removal & laying, construction of permanent seawall, maintenance works of site office, works of public works regional laboratory at works area and maintenance of temporary marine access. 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 17- April 18
Noise	NMS2	27
	NMS3B	27

*Only no. of monitoring events carried out under this Contract is reported. The rest of the monitoring events between September 2017 and April 2018 for construction noise monitoring are reported in the EM&A Report prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

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 – 69*	75
NMS3B	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2	66	53 – 69*	70

* +3dB(A) Façade correction included

^# Both average and range of construction noise were calculated using monitoring data obtained by this Contract between March 2017 to August 2017. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

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 3A to Figure 3D.

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 17 – Apr 18
Water Quality	Mid-Ebb	77
	Mid-Flood	77

*monitoring works between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

Table 3.9 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 17 – Apr 18

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	(1) 1 Sep 2017	(1) 1 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	(1) 1 Sep 2017	(1) 1 Sep 2017
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	(1) 8 Sep 2017	0	(1) 8 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	(2) 14 Jul 2017, 21 Mar 2018	(2) 8 Sep 2017	(2) 14 Jul 2017, 21 Mar 2018
IS7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(1) 6 Sep 2017	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(2) 24 Mar, 6 Sep 2017
IS8	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 24 Mar 2017	0	(1) 24 Mar 2017
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	(3) 8, 11, 22 Sep 2017	0	(1) 13 Sep 2017	0	0	(1) 11 Dec 2017	(1) 6 Dec 2017	(1) 11 Dec 2017	(5) 8, 11, 13, 22 Sep, 6 Dec 2017
IS(Mf)9	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10/ IS10(N)	Action	(5) 8, 11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017	(3) 8, 11, 22 Sep 2017	(6) 1, 15, 18, 22, 27, 29 Sep 2017	(4) 1, 11, 15, 29 Sep 2017	0	(1) 8 Sep 2017	0	(1) 20 Apr 2018	(11) 1, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18 22, 27, 29 Sep 2017	(9) 8, 11, 22 Sep 2017, 20 Apr 2018
IS10/ IS10(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 8 Sep 2017	0	(1) 8 Sep 2017
IS(Mf)11	Action	(3) 11, 15, 22 Sep 2017	(5) 8, 11, 13, 15, 22 Sep 2017	(4) 1, 11, 18, 29 Sep 2017	(4) 1, 8, 11, 29 Sep 2017	0	(2) 6, 8 Sep 2017	0	(5) 28 Apr, 8 Sep, 20 Oct, 3, 8 Nov 2017	(7) 1, 11, 15, 18, 22, 29 Sep 2017	(16) 28 Apr, 1, 8, 11, 13, 15, 22, 29 Sep, 20 Oct, 3, 8 Nov 2017
IS(Mf)11	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Action	(1) 8 Sep 2017	(3) 8, 11, 22 Sep 2017	(5) 8, 11, 13, 18, 29 Sep 2017	(2) 11, 13 Sep 2017	0	0	0	(1) 6 Nov 2017	(6) 8, 11, 13, 18, 29 Sep 2017	(6) 8, 11, 13, 22 Sep, 6 Nov 2017
IS(Mf)16	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Action	(3) 8, 11, 15 Sep 2017	(5) 8, 11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017	(7) 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 27 Sep 2017	(3) 8, 11, 13 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	(10) 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 27 Sep 2017	(8) 8, 11, 13, 22, 29 Sep 2017
IS17	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR3/ SR3(N)	Action	(2) 8, 22 Sep 2017	(1) 8 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	(1) 12 Jul 2017	0	(3) 12 Jul, 8, 22 Sep 2017	(1) 8 Sep 2017
SR3/ SR3(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(2) 24 Mar, 6 Sep 2017	(1) 24 Mar 2017	(3) 24 Mar, 6 Sep 2017
SR4(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5/ SR5(N)	Action	0	0	(1) 1 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 1 Sep 2017	0
SR5/ SR5(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	(2) 6 Sep 2017
SR6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Action	(1) 11 Sep 2017	(3) 8, 11, 22 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	(8) 20 Oct, 3, 6, 20 Nov, 4 Dec 2017, 2 Feb, 18, 23 Apr 2018	(1) 11 Sep 2017	(11) 8, 11, 22 Sep, 20 Oct, 3, 6, 20 Nov, 4 Dec 2017, 2 Feb, 18, 23 Apr 2018
SR7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A/ SR10A(N)	Action	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017
SR10A/ SR10A(N)	Limit	(1) 6 Sep 2017	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	(1) 6 Sep 2017
SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)	Action	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017
SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)	Limit	(1) 6 Sep 2017	(1) 6 Sep 2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 6 Sep 2017	(1) 6 Sep 2017
Total	Action	16	24	25	17	0	5	4	22	113
	Limit	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	6

Note: S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2017 to April 2018) 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 118 exceedances were recorded during the reporting period with 112 Action level exceedances and 6 Limit level exceedances.

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

3.3.4.1 Twenty five (25) 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 17 to Apr 18), 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 a decrease 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. Although action and limit levels of DO levels were triggered in September 2017, they were concluded not related to this Contract’s construction activities after investigations were carried out according the Event and Action Plan of corresponding approved EM&A manual. Furthermore 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 of each impact monitoring station was shown similar with that of control stations of each tide. 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 of each tide. 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
03/17	20,601.3	0	2	4	6
04/17	39,960.7	0	0	1	1
05/17	22,430.7	0	0	0	0
06/17	0	0	0	0	0
07/17	0	0	0	2	2
08/17	0	0	0	0	0
09/17	0	86	3	5	94
10/17	0	0	0	2	2
11/17	0	0	0	6	6
12/17	0	0	0	3	3
01/18	0	0	0	0	0
02/18	0	0	0	1	1
03/18	0	0	0	1	1
04/18	0	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 dissolved 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 7.1 mg/L in Apr 2017 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 (Apr 2017)		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/SR3(N)*	Surface & mid	6.8	6.7	7.5	7.4	-0.7	-0.7
SR3	SR3/SR3(N)*	Bottom	-	6.2	-	-	-	-
SR4^{^}	SR4(N) **	Surface & mid	6.1	6.3	7.5	7.3	-1.4	-1.0
SR4^{^}	SR4(N) **	Bottom	6.0	6.2	7.4	7.3	-1.4	-1.1
SR5	SR5/SR5(N)	Surface & mid	6.4	6.3	7.3	7.1	-0.9	-0.8
SR5	SR5/SR5(N)	Bottom	6.1	6.1	7.2	7.0	-1.1	-0.9
SR6	SR6	Surface & mid	6.6	6.5	7.4	7.1	-0.8	-0.6
SR6	SR6	Bottom	6.2	6.1	7.3	7.0	-1.1	-0.9
SR7	SR7	Surface & mid	6.3	6.0	7.3	7.3	-1.0	-1.3
SR7	SR7	Bottom	6.1	5.9	7.1	7.2	-1.0	-1.3
SR10A	SR10A/SR10A(N)	Surface & mid	6.0	6.0	7.2	7.2	-1.2	-1.2
SR10A	SR10A/SR10A(N)	Bottom	5.7	5.8	7.1	7.1	-1.4	-1.3
SR10B^	SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)	Surface & mid	6.1	6.0	7.2	7.4	-1.1	-1.4
SR10B^	SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)	Bottom	6.2	5.8	7.1	7.3	-0.9	-1.5

^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/ SR5(N)	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 Apr 2017

Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Impact SS Mean (in Apr 2017)
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Mid-ebb	Elevation	Mid-flood	Elevation
SR3	SR3/SR3(N)	8.8	-5.2	8.0	-8.3
SR4	SR4(N)*	9.2	-2.1	8.8	-3.4
SR5	SR5/ SR5(N)	7.7	-2.9	8.7	-3.2
SR6	SR6	7.4	-4.5	7.4	-4.5
SR7	SR7	7.8	-3.6	7.8	-2.6
SR10A	SR10A/SR10A(N)	5.9	-4.3	5.8	-4.4
SR10B	SR10B(N)*/SR10B(N)2	6.0	-5.5	5.9	-5.2

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

#monitoring works between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.3.7.10 With the highest filling rate in Apr 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 28 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/ SR5(N) were in similar magnitude as predicted in the Project EIA. No comparison could be made from SR6 to SR10B(N)/SR10B(N2) 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 4A and Figure 4B.

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 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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.

3.4.1.5 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). The Dolphin Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017 therefore, this report includes survey data from March – August 2017, inclusive. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

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 Two (2) 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 2017- May 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2017- May 2017	NWL	0.5	2.9	Limit Level
June 2017- August 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
June 2017- August 2017	NWL	1.6	5.1	Limit Level

* STG represents groups of dolphins (recorded on effort)

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

^The Dolphin Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017 therefore, this report includes survey data from March – August 2017, inclusive. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.4.4 Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.4.4.1 Vessel- based surveys were conducted monthly from March 2017 to August 2017. Only six (6) months of surveys were completed due to contract phase cessation and change of responsibility of implementation of environmental monitoring after August 2017. A total of 24 survey days were completed between March 2017-August 2017 (Appendix H: Table 1). A total of 1215.3km were completed of which 1190.1 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 the fifth year of impact monitoring (2016-17), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2619.7km; 2520.9 km conducted under favourable conditions). In all years, >98% of the track length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between March-August 2017, a total of 20 dolphin sightings were recorded, 8 as on effort and 12 as opportunistic (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. In the fifth year, a total of 50 dolphin sightings were recorded, 32 on effort and 18 opportunistic. The total number of sightings has decreased between each year of impact monitoring, with a slight increase shown in this reporting period, i.e., 50 sightings this reporting period compared to 43 sightings in 2015-16. As this report only covers the first 6 months of the monitoring year, direct yearly comparisons cannot be made (Table 3.17).

Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (March 2012 – February 2013) to the Current Year (Mar 2017 – August 17) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Project

Year	Total Sightings
2012-13	203
2013-14	135
2014-15	72
2015-16	43
2016-17	50
March 17 – August 2017*	20

* Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.4.5 Distribution

3.4.5.1. Sightings of dolphins were divided into two quarterly periods. The highest number of sightings were made between June – August 2017, 15 sightings cf. to the five (5) sightings recorded during the first quarter of the monitoring period. One sightings was made in the NEL section of the survey area and the rest were in NWL or in waters to the south of NWL (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 the periods March-May and June-August, 2017, were calculated ^[1]. For NWL, March-May dolphin encounter rates were much lower than June—August (Appendix H: Figure 3). 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); one group (Year 4) and 1 to 2 groups (Year 5) per 100km on effort (figures rounded). The average encounter rate for 2017 in NWL is 2 groups (figure rounded) which is similar to year 5 results. Years 3 and 4 of construction works recorded 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 (70%). 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 six (6) groups sighted that comprised five (5) or more individuals, two were noted as exhibiting multiple behavior which incorporated feeding, two (2) groups were feeding and two (2) were travelling. Groups of five or more were sighted in both quarters (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 (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 – August 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; 2% as moderate use and 96% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 5).

3.4.8.2. For the period March – August 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, 6% as moderate use and 93% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 6).

3.4.8.3. DPSE and SPSE rates for March – August 2017 are not directly comparable to yearly density maps, however, the yearly density maps for March 2012 to February 2017 show a gradual decline in habitat use in NWL and NEL (Appendix H: Figure 7).

3.4.9. Mother and Calf Pairs

3.4.9.1. No mother and calf pairs were recorded during the monitoring period March – August 2017

3.4.10. Activities

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 8). Travelling was the most frequently observed activity in March-May 2017. Multiple activities, including both travelling and feeding behavior, and feeding behaviour accounted for more than 50% of the observed behaviour in June – August 2017 (Appendix H: Figure 9). 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, 2016-17 and this reporting period. 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 10). The behaviours recorded between March – August 2017 are consistent with those recorded previously in this monitoring (Appendix H: Figure 11).

3.4.11. Photo-Identification Catalogue

3.4.11.1. A total of 134 dolphins comprise the photo identification catalogue established specifically for this 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 As the monitoring period is only six(6) months, an annual abundance estimate cannot be calculated.

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. A single, opportunistic sighting was made in NEL during this monitoring period. 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. 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, 2015-16 and 2016-17 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 and August 2017 dolphins were only recorded once in NEL and many parts of NWL are no longer frequently used.

3.4.17.2 Marine mammal monitoring was conducted between March and August 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 Two (2) 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, 61 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 Dust was observed during excavation, the Contractor was reminded to spray water or dust suppression chemical before, during and immediately after the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet. (Reminder)

3.5.1.4 Dark smoke emission from plant/equipment and vessels and from an excavator were observed, the Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided. Emission of dark smoke was no longer observed in subsequent site inspection in the reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to ensure proper implementation of air quality mitigation measures and smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided. (Closed)

3.5.1.5 Dust was observed during the operation of excavator for road finishing works. The Contractor was reminded to provide effective dust suppression mechanism. No dust was observed near excavator at the concerned area from photo record provided by the Contractor. (Closed)

3.5.1.6 Dust was observed on 30 Mar 2017 during the transport of dusty materials. The Contractor was reminded to spray water or other dust suppression chemical prior to loading, unloading or transport of dusty materials. The Contractor subsequently sprayed water to the dusty materials. (Closed)

3.5.1.7 It was observed that a discolored NRMM labels was affixed on the side of a drilling rig machines, excavator, boring machines and on generator near Portion B and excavator at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to affix appropriate NRMM labels on the machines. The Contractor subsequently provided NRMM label to the machine. (Closed)

3.5.1.8 Inappropriate size of NRMM label affixed onto the drilling rig machine on the working platform in the vicinity of Portion E1 and onto the boring machine on the working platform in the vicinity of Portion C1a was observed were observed. The contractor was reminded to affix an appropriate NRMM label with size of at least 200mm in width and 130 mm in height. The Contractor subsequently affixed appropriate NRMM label on the concerned drilling rig machine and as informed by the contractor, the concerned boring machine has been removed. (Closed)

3.5.1.9 The Contractor was reminded to provide effective dust suppression mechanism by spraying water or dust suppression chemical during operation of excavate work. (Reminder)

3.5.1.10 Dark smoke emission was observed from derrick lighter barge (利航8) at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded that smoke emission from plant/equipment should be avoided. As informed by Contractor, the concerned barge has been removed from the site. (Closed)

3.5.1.11 Generator (Airman SDG25) without NRMM label was observed on jack- up barge, Fugro Kingstown and drilling machine without NRMM label was observed on jack-up barge, B40529VSNIPE. The Contractor was reminded to check and confirm if NRMM label is required or available for the concerned PME. As informed by the Contractor, the concerned generator was removed from barge and the Contractor subsequently affixed appropriate NRMM label on the concerned drilling machine. (Closed).

3.5.1.12 The Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly to exposed soil at outfall works area to reduce dust impact. (Reminder).

Noise

3.5.1.13 Acoustic mat was not provided to generator placed on ship deck of Mytilus, the Contractor was reminded to provide appropriate acoustic decoupling measures. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation by providing acoustic decoupling measures to the concerned generator. (Closed)

Water Quality

3.5.1.14 It was observed that silt curtain near Portion E2 was disconnected. The Contractor was reminded to reinstall silt curtain at the concerned area and provide maintenance regularly. (Reminder)

3.5.1.15 It was observed that silt curtain near Portion E1 was disconnected on 29 June 2017. The Contractor was reminded to reinstall silt curtain at the concerned area and provide maintenance regularly. As informed by Contractor silt curtain at the concerned area has been removed. (Closed)

3.5.1.16 It was observed that silt curtain around the outfall of Portion B was disconnected on 17 and 24 August 2017, the Contractor was reminded to reinstate the silt curtain at the concerned area and provide maintenance regularly. According to the Contractor, silt curtain around the outfall of Portion B was reinstated and properly maintained. (Closed)

3.5.1.17 Stagnant water and general refuse were observed at site entrance and Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to clean stagnant water regularly to keep the site clean and tidy. (Reminder)

3.5.1.18 Disconnected silt curtain was observed at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to reinstate concerned silt curtain and provide regular maintenance. The Contractor subsequently rectified the adverse observation (Closed)

Chemical and Waste Management

3.5.1.19 Chemical containers were placed on bare ground or on the edge of drip tray and on ship deck of Chun Ming 98, 83 and 18, 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)

3.5.1.20 The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to equipment that use petrol or other chemical as fuel to avoid leakage, if any. (Reminder)

3.5.1.21 The Contractor was reminded to clear leaked water on ground and replace the flawed drip tray to prevent leakage, if any. (Reminder)

3.5.1.22 Oil Spillage was observed from derrick lighter along the pathway on ship deck of Chun Ming 68, the Contractor was reminded to clear all leaked oil as chemical waste, provide adequate spill kits and repair derrick lighter at once before using. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)

3.5.1.23 Oil Spillage were observed on ship deck of Chun Ming 18 on 27 Apr 2017 and leaking from a generator at Portion E2 on 11 May 2017, the Contractor was reminded to clear all leaked oil as chemical waste and dispose of as chemical waste. The Contractor subsequently cleaned the leaked oil with spill kit provided on barge and removed the generator from concerned area respectively. (Closed)

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

3.5.1.25 The Contractor was reminded to clear water retained on drip tray after rainfall to prevent spillage, if any. (Reminder)

3.5.1.26 The Contractor was reminded to clear leaked oil on the lid of containers and water retained on drip tray of drilling rig (Lam D90) to prevent spillage or mixing with general site runoff. (Reminder)

3.5.1.27 The Contractor was reminded to clean up the site and dispose general refuse properly. (Reminder)

3.5.1.28 Spilled oil from generator was observed retaining on drip tray at Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil. The Contractor subsequently cleared the oil retained on drip tray. (Reminder)

3.5.1.29 General refuse were observed at outfall area of Portion B. The Contractor was reminded to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently cleared general refuse at outfall area of Portion B. (Reminder)

3.5.1.30 The Contractor was reminded to clear oil retained in drip tray on Chun Ming 98 and dispose as chemical waste. (Reminder)

3.5.1.31 Oil stain was observed. The Contractor should repair the concerned excavator at once before using and provide regular inspection and maintenance. (The Contractor subsequently carried out rectification, closed)

3.5.1.32 Oil stain was observed on 8 February 2018. The Contractor should repair the concerned excavator at once before using and provide regular inspection and maintenance. As informed by the Contractor, the concerned excavator was repaired. (Closed)

3.5.1.33 The Contractor was reminded to clear general refuse observed at the entrance of site office at WA2 and keep the site clean and tidy on 26 April 2018. (reminder)

Landscape and Visual Impact

3.5.1.34 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting period.

Others

3.5.1.35 Environmental Permit was not observed on Furgo Kingstown, the Contractor was reminded to affix valid Environmental Permit on barge for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The Contractor subsequently provided valid Environmental Permit on barge. (Closed)

3.5.1.36 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, 63,124.6m³ of inert C&D Materials generated and reused in other Projects; 231,560.5m³ of surplus surcharge exported to Macau; 82,992.7m³ of Imported fill; 5,852kg paper/cardboard packaging 292.5m³ 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. 231,560.5m³ 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 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.

5.1.3 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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.

5.1.4 Due to substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No. HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.

5.1.5 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted effective from 22 December 2017.

5.1.6 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.

5.1.7 As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April 2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018. The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.

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

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

5.1.10 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.

5.1.11 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.

5.1.12

6. Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1.1 For impact air quality monitoring

6.1.1.1 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B on 28 November 2017; 2 action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations by this Contract or Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the reporting period. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018.

6.1.1.2 For impact air quality monitoring, all 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.

6.1.2 For construction noise

6.1.2.1 No exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

6.1.3 For impact water quality monitoring,

6.1.3.1 In March 2017, 1 action level exceedance of turbidity were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 respectively during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24 March 2017. The exceedances were considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities after investigation. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the March 2017.

6.1.3.2 In April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28 April 2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to this Contract’s activities after investigation; No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the April 2017.

6.1.3.3 In July 2017, for impact water quality monitoring, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR3 during ebb tide on 12 July 2017 and at IS7 during flood tide on 14 July 2017 respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the July 2017.

6.1.3.4 In September 2017, total of 82 action level exceedances for dissolved oxygen and 4 limit level exceedances were recorded on 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 27 & 29 September 2017. 3 action level exceedances for turbidity were recorded at IS(Mf)11 on 6 September and at IS10(N) & IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood tide. Total of 4 action level exceedances for suspended solids were recorded at IS8, SR4(N) & SR6 on 6 September 2017 and at IS(Mf)11 on 8 September 2017 during flood tide, 1 limit level exceedance was recorded on 8 September 2017 at IS10(N) during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations in September 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of September 2017.

6.1.3.5 In October 2017, 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11 and SR7 during flood tide on 20 October 2017. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in October 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of October 2017.

6.1.3.6 In November 2017, 6 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16 and SR7 during flood tide on 3, 6, 8 and 20 November 2017. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in November 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017.

6.1.3.7 In December 2017, 3 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 4 December 2017, and IS(Mf)9 during flood tide on 6 December 2017 and ebb tide on 11 December 2017 respectively. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedance were unlikely related to this Contract. No other exceedance was recorded at monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in December 2017. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of December 2017.

6.1.3.8 In February 2018, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at SR7 during flood tide on 2 February 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the Contractor. It was concluded that the exceedance was unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the February 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of February 2018.

6.1.3.9 In March 2018, for impact water quality monitoring, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS7 during flood tide on 21 March 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring date as confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedance not Contract-related. No other water quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in March 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of March 2018.

6.1.3.10 In April 2018, for impact water quality monitoring, 3 action level exceedances of suspended solids at SR7 during flood tide on 18 and 23 April 2018, and at IS10(N) during flood tide on 20 April 2018. After investigation, no marine-based work was conducted on the monitoring dates as confirmed by the contractor. It was concluded that the recorded exceedances were not Contract-related. No other water quality exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations by Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in April 2018. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix D of monthly EM&A report of April 2018.

6.1.4 For dolphin monitoring

6.1.4.1 Two (2) 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 environmental complaint was received on 27 March 2017, and the complainant complained that a very loud sound was intermittently heard by the Complainant since 10pm on 26 March and such loud sound was heard by the complainant until midnight. It was suspected that the sound came from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) construction works near the artificial island. In addition, a large area of pollution was observed on sea in the morning of the day the complainant made the complaint. It was suspected that was caused by the HZMB construction works. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all noise and water quality mitigation measures.

7.1.2 One environmental complaint was received on 17 April 2017, the organization which made the complaint, Green Sense, complained that “muddy water was observed at area surrounding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) artificial island, it is suspected that there were overflow muddy water from the artificial island. Tam Hoi-pong of Green Sense stated that there should not be too much muddy water if reclamation was conducted according to the EIA report. He suspected that there are problems of reclamation works, silt curtain have not effectively screen out the mud and sand, the construction works is not ideal and unable to ensure water quality. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all water quality mitigation measures.

7.1.3 A complaint was forwarded to us by ENPO on 27 October 2017; the complainant complained that yellowish muddy water was discharged into the sea from construction site location C3 of the artificial island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and this has been persist for one week. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.4 A complaint was forwarded to us by ENPO on 23 November 2017; the complainant complained that, on Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Artificial Island, due to watering was not provided to all areas, large amount of fugitive dust was generated, especially at the toll kiosks. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.

7.1.5 Total of four (4) environmental complaints were received in the reporting period. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.

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

7.1.7 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 1 Action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to Appendix E of monthly EM&A report of November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018. All other 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, 40 action and 4 limit level exceedances of DO (S&M); 42 action level exceedances of DO (Bottom); 5 action level exceedances of Turbidity; 22 action level exceedances and 2 limit level exceedances of SS 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 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 impact dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017.

9.5 Due to substantial completion of marine works by the end of June 2017, it is anticipated that the remaining construction works under Contract No. HY/2010/02, which include ground investigation (GI) works, construction of temporary timber platform, removal of jetty and reinstatement of seawall at the western section, construction of outfall at the eastern seawall, would cause limited disturbance to water column and not to the seabed. In view of this, a proposal for change of EM&A programme/requirements was prepared by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to terminate water quality monitoring works at stations IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS8, SR4(N), SR5(N), SR6, SR10A, SR10B(N), CS4, CSA and CS6, and impact dolphin monitoring (line-transect vessel survey method) covering NEL and NWL when perimeter silt curtain under the Contract is completely removed and vessel traffic numbers average 10 per month for Contract No. HY/2010/02. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 15 August 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the revised proposal on 16 August 2017. The revised proposal has been sent to authority by project team for review and approval on 21 August 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 7 September 2017.

9.6 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 27 December 2017, three water quality monitoring stations of SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were relocated due to topographical condition. Alternative water quality monitoring stations SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) were justified and certified by the ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by IEC/ENPO on 13 November 2017. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 29 November 2017. The authority subsequently approved the proposal on 22 December 2017. Relocation of water quality monitoring stations from SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) to SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) are adopted effective from 22 December 2017.

9.7 As informed by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2018, air quality monitoring station AMS7 was relocated due to permission to carry out AQM at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel could not be granted after the end of January 2018. Alternative air quality monitoring station AMS7B was justified and certified by ET Leader of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018, verified by IEC/ENPO on 24 January 2018. The proposal was submitted to the authority for review and approval on 30 January 2018. Relocation of air quality monitoring stations from AMS7 to AMS7B is adopted effective from 6 February 2018 with the Authority’s consent.

9.8 As informed by the Contractor, major construction activities for Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been substantially completed and it is anticipated that potential environmental impact for remaining works which only include ad hoc minor maintenance/touch up works on seawall under the Contract would be insignificant. In view of this, a proposal for Termination of EM&A Programme was prepared and certified by ET in accordance with Condition 5.1 of EP-353/2009/K and Condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D to terminate the EM&A Programme for Contract no. HY/2010/02. The proposal has been sent to IEC/ENPO for their further review on 17 April 2018 and IEC/ENPO verified the proposal on 18 April 2018. The proposal has been sent to authority by project team on 19 April 2018. The proposal was subsequently approved by the authority.

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

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

12.2 1 Action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period. The impact air quality levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted levels in the Project EIA.

12.3 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.

12.4 For impact water quality monitoring, 40 action and 4 limit level exceedances of DO (S&M); 42 action level exceedances of DO (Bottom); 5 action level exceedances of Turbidity; 22 action level exceedances and 2 limit level exceedances of SS were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L). After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract.

12.5 Two (2) 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.

12.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out 61 times in the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

12.7 Four (4) environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.

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

12.9 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.

12.10 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.

12.11 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.

12.12 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