

Appendix A	Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule (EMIS) for Construction Phase
Appendix B	Monitoring Schedule
Appendix C	Monitoring Results
Appendix D	Status of Environmental Permits and Licences
Appendix E	Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Status of Prosecutions
Appendix F	Data of SkyPier HSF Movements to/from Zhuhai and Macau (between 1 and 28 February 2017)

Executive Summary

The “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) serves to meet the future air traffic demands at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the Project was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.

This is the 14^th Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 28 February 2017.

Key Activities in the Reporting Period

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period included five deep cement mixing (DCM) contracts, an advanced works contract and a reclamation contract. The DCM contracts involved DCM works and trials, site office establishment, laying of geotextile and sand blanket; the advanced works contract involved horizontal directional drilling (HDD) works and pipeline supporting works; and the reclamation contract involved site office establishment and laying of geotextile.

EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period

The monthly EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the Project. During the reporting period, the ET conducted 30 sets of construction dust measurements, 21 sets of construction noise measurements, 12 events of water quality measurements, one round of terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island, two complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys and five days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring and waste monitoring.

Weekly site inspections of the construction works were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC). Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists and provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.

On the implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP), silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works and dolphin observers were deployed in accordance with the Plan. On the implementation of Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan, dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the DEZ for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains, whilst there was one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in this reporting month. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET.

On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan), the daily movements of all SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSFs) in February 2017 were in the range of 89 to 93 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 783 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All HSFs had travelled through the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) with average speeds under 15 knots (6.4 to 14.1 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. One ferry movements with minor deviation from the diverted route is under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report. In summary, the ET and IEC have audited the HSF movements against the SkyPier Plan and conducted follow up investigation or actions accordingly.

On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV), ET conducted weekly audit of relevant information, including Automatic Identification System (AIS) data, vessel tracks and other relevant records to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Training has been provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate them in familiarising with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. 3-month rolling programmes for construction vessel activities were also received from contractors. ET reminded contractors that all vessels shall avoid entering the Brothers Marine Park, which has been designated since 30 December 2016.

Results of Impact Monitoring

The monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, terrestrial ecology, CWD and were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.

No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to the construction dust, construction noise, construction waste and CWD monitoring was recorded in the reporting month.

The water quality monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity, chromium, and nickel obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and/or Limit Levels. For turbidity and SS, some of the testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases. The investigation findings concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Project.

The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were conducted at the daylighting location and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets foraging at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.

Summary of Upcoming Key Issues

Key activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will include the following:

Advanced Works:

Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works

● HDD works;

● Pipeline supporting works; and

● Stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation.

DCM Works:

Contract 3201 to 3205 DCM Works

● Laying of geotextile and sand blanket;

● Site office establishment; and

● DCM works and trials.

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

● Site office establishment; and

● Laying of geotextile and sand blanket.

The key environmental issues will be associated with construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste management, CWD and terrestrial ecology on Sheung Sha Chau. The implementation of required mitigation measures by the contractor will be monitored by the ET.


Ecological Monitoring	Toolbox Talk Training to Site Staff by Contractor	DEZ Monitoring for DCM Works by Contractor

Summary Table

The following table summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 28 February 2017:

	Yes	No	Details	Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions
Exceedance of Limit Level^		ü	No exceedance of project-related limit level was recorded.	Nil
Exceedance of Action Level^		ü	No exceedance of project-related action level was recorded.	Nil
Complaints Received		ü	No construction activities related complaints were received.	Nil
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions		ü	No notifications of summons or prosecution were received.	Nil
Changes that affect the EM&A		ü	There were no changes to the construction works that may affect the EM&A	Nil

Remarks: ^ only exceedance of action/ limit level related to Project works will be highlighted.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.

Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual (the Manual) submitted under EP Condition 3.1. The Manual is available on the Project’s dedicated website (accessible at: http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html). AECOM Asia Company Limited (AECOM) was employed by AAHK as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) for the Project.

The Project covers the expansion of the existing airport into a three-runway system (3RS) with key project components comprising land formation of about 650 ha and all associated facilities and infrastructure including taxiways, aprons, aircraft stands, a passenger concourse, an expanded Terminal 2, all related airside and landside works and associated ancillary and supporting facilities. The existing submarine aviation fuel pipelines and submarine power cables also require diversion as part of the works.

Construction of the Project is to proceed in the general order of diversion of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines, diversion of the submarine power cables, land formation, and construction of infrastructure, followed by construction of superstructures.

The updated overall phasing programme of all construction works was presented in Appendix A of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 7 and the contract information was presented in Appendix A of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.10.

1.2 Scope of this Report

This is the 14^th Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 to 28 February 2017.

1.3 Project Organisation

The Project’s organization structure presented in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.1 remained unchanged during the reporting month. Contact details of the key personnel have been updated and is presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Project Manager’s Representative (Airport Authority Hong Kong)	Principal Manager, Environment	Lawrence Tsui	2183 2734
Environmental Team (ET) (Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Team Leader	Terence Kong	2828 5919
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Heidi Yu	2828 5704
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Keith Chau	2972 1721
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Jackel Law	3922 9376
	Deputy Independent Environmental Checker	Joanne Tsoi	3922 9423
Advanced Works:
Contract P560(R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works (Langfang Huayuan Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Wei Shih	2117 0566
	Environmental Officer	Lyn Lau	5172 6543
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture)	Project Director	Tsugunari Suzuki	9178 9689
	Environmental Officer	Kanny Cho	9019 1962
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Ilkwon Nam	9643 3117
	Environmental Officer	Dickson Mak	9525 8408
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co.,Ltd)	Project Manager	Seong Jae Park	9683 8693
	Environmental Officer	Calvin Leung	9203 5820
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kyung-Sik Yoo	9683 8697
	Environmental Officer	David Man	6421 3238
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture)	Deputy Project Director	Min Park	9683 0765
	Environmental Officer	Margaret Chung	9130 3696
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kim Chuan Lim	3693 2288
	Environmental Officer	Kwai Fung Wong	3693 2252

1.4 Summary of Construction Works

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reported period included five DCM contracts, an advanced works contract and a reclamation contract. The DCM contracts involved DCM works and trials, site office establishment, laying of geotextile and sand blanket; the advanced works contract involved HDD works and pipeline supporting works; and the reclamation contract involved site office establishment and laying of geotextile.

The active construction site is around 3 km and 900m away from the nearest air and noise sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and the villages in North Lantau. The locations of the works areas are presented in Figure 1.1 to Figure 1.2.

1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

The status for all environmental aspects is presented Table 1.2. The EM&A requirements remained unchanged during the reporting period and details can be referred to Table 1.2 of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 1.

Table 1.2: Summary of status for all environmental aspects under the Updated EM&A Manual

Parameters	Status
Air Quality
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline air quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Noise
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline noise monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Water Quality
General Baseline Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	The baseline water quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
General Impact Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	On-going
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring	To be commenced according to the detailed plan on DCM.
Early/ Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring	On-going
Waste Management
Waste Monitoring	On-going
Land Contamination
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP)	To be submitted with the relevant construction works.
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) for Golf Course	The CAR for Golf Course was submitted to EPD.
Terrestrial Ecology
Pre-construction Egretry Survey Plan	The revised Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14.
Ecological Monitoring	On-going
Marine Ecology
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey	The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12.
Coral Translocation	The coral translocation was completed.
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring	On-going
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD)
Vessel Survey, Land-based Theodolite Track and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
Baseline Monitoring	Baseline CWD results were reported in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD in accordance with EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Landscape & Visual
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline landscape & visual monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Environmental Auditing
Regular site inspection	On-going
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures	On-going
Dolphin Exclusion Zone Plan (DEZP) implementation measures	On-going
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures	On-going
Construction and Associated Vessels Implementation measures	On-going
Complaint Hotline and Email channel	On-going
Environmental Log Book	On-going

Taking into account the construction works in this reporting month, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, ecologyand CWD were carried out in the reporting month.

The EM&A programme also involved weekly site inspections and related auditings conducted by the ET for checking the implementation of the required environmental mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA Report. In order to enhance environmental awareness and closely monitor the environmental performance of the contractors, environmental briefings and regular environmental management meetings were conducted.

The EM&A programme has been following the recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the Updated EM&A Manual. A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix A.

2 Air Quality Monitoring

2.1 Monitoring Stations

Air quality monitoring was conducted at two representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of air sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Table 2.1 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.1: Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location
AR1A	Man Tung Road Park
AR2	Village House at Tin Sum

2.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour total suspended particulate (TSP) levels at the two air quality monitoring stations were established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. Impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted for three times every 6 days. The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring are provided in Table 2.2.

The air quality monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is provided in Appendix B.

Table 2.2: Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP

Monitoring Station	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AR1A	306	500
AR2	298	500

2.3 Monitoring Equipment

Portable direct reading dust meter was used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Details of equipment are given in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment

Brand and Model

Last Calibration Date

Portable direct reading dust meter (Laser dust monitor)

SIBATA LD-3B-002

(Serial No. 974350)

26 Oct 2016

2.4 Monitoring Methodology

2.4.1 Measuring Procedure

The measurement procedures involved in the impact 1-hr TSP monitoring can be summarised as follows:

a. The portable direct reading dust meter was mounted on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m above the ground.

b. Prior to the measurement, the equipment was set up for 1 minute span check and 6 second background check.

c. The one hour dust measurement was started. Site conditions and dust sources at the nearby area were recorded on a record sheet.

d. When the measurement completed, the “Count” reading per hour was recorded for result calculation.

2.4.2 Maintenance and Calibration

The portable direct reading dust meter is calibrated every year against high volume sampler (HVS) to check the validity and accuracy of the results measured by direct reading method. The

calibration certificates of the portable direct reading dust meter and calibration record of the HVS provided in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.11 are still valid. Any updates of calibration certificates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if necessary.

2.5 Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results

The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP are summarized in Table 2.4. Detailed impact monitoring results are presented in Appendix C.

Table 2.4: Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results

Monitoring Station	1-hr TSP Concentration Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AR1A	40 - 181	306	500
AR2	25 - 171	298	500

No exceedance of the Action / Limit Level was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

General meteorological conditions throughout the impact monitoring period were recorded. Wind data for each monitoring day including wind speed and wind direction was collected from the Chek Lap Kok Wind Station.

3 Noise Monitoring

3.1 Monitoring Stations

Noise monitoring was conducted at five representative monitoring stations in the vicinity of noise sensitive receivers in Tung Chung and villages in North Lantau in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations and these are described in Table 3.1 below. As described in Section 4.3.3 of the Updated EM&A Manual, monitoring at NM2 will commence when the future residential buildings in Tung Chung West Development become occupied.

Table 3.1: Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Type of measurement
NM1A	Man Tung Road Park	Free field
NM2⁽¹⁾	Tung Chung West Development	To be determined
NM3A	Site Office	Facade
NM4	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	Free field
NM5	Village House in Tin Sum	Free field
NM6	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan	Free field

Note: (1) As described in Section 4.3.3 of the Updated EM&A Manual, noise monitoring at NM2 will only commence after occupation of the future Tung Chung West Development.

3.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline noise levels at the noise monitoring stations were established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. Impact noise monitoring was conducted once per week in the form of 30-minute measurements of L_eq, L₁₀ and L₉₀ levels recorded at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays. The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring are provided in Table 3.2. The construction noise monitoring schedule involved in the reporting period is provided in Appendix B.

Table 3.2: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Noise

Monitoring Stations

Time Period

Action Level

Limit Level, L_eq(30mins) dB(A)

NM1A, NM2, NM3A, NM4, NM5 and NM6

0700-1900 hours on normal weekdays

When one documented

complaint is received from

any one of the sensitive

receivers

75 dB(A)⁽ⁱ⁾

Note: ⁽ⁱ⁾ reduce to 70dB(A) for school and 65dB(A) during school examination periods.

3.3 Monitoring Equipment

Noise monitoring was performed using sound level meter at each designated monitoring station. The sound level meters deployed comply with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications. Acoustic calibrator was used to check the sound level meters by a known sound pressure level for field measurement. Details of equipment are given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model	Last Calibration Date
Integrated Sound Level Meter	B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2800932)	19 Jul 2016
	B&K 2238 (Serial No. 2381580)	8 Sep 2016

Acoustic Calibrator	B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3003246)	16 May 2016
Acoustic Calibrator	B&K 4231 (Serial No. 3004068)	19 Jul 2016

3.4 Monitoring Methodology

3.4.1 Monitoring Procedure

The monitoring procedures involved in the noise impact monitoring can be summarised as follows:

a. The sound level meter was set on a tripod at least a height of 1.2 m above the ground for free-field measurements at monitoring stations NM1A, NM4, NM5 and NM6. A correction of +3 dB(A) was applied to the free field measurements.

b. Façade measurements were made at the monitoring station NM3A.

c. Parameters such as frequency weighting, time weighting and measurement time were set.

d. Prior to and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic calibrator. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1 dB(A), the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.

e. During the monitoring period, L_eq, L₁₀ and L₉₀ were recorded. In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded on a record sheet.

f. Noise measurement results were corrected with reference to the baseline monitoring levels.

g. Observations were recorded when high intrusive noise (e.g. dog barking, helicopter noise) was observed during the monitoring.

3.4.2 Maintenance and Calibration

The maintenance and calibration procedures are summarised below:

a. The microphone head of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular intervals.

b. The meter and calibrator were sent to the supplier or laboratory accredited under Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (HOKLAS) to check and calibrate at yearly intervals.

Calibration certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators used in the noise monitoring provided in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.8 & 9 are still valid. Any updates of calibration certificates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if necessary.

3.5 Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results

The construction noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 3.4 and the detailed monitoring data are provided in Appendix C.

Table 3.4: Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results

Monitoring Station	Noise Level Range, dB(A) L_{eq (30 mins)}	Limit Level, dB(A) L_{eq (30 mins)}
NM1A⁽ⁱ⁾	71 - 72	75
NM3A	57 - 62	75
NM4⁽ⁱ⁾	60 - 64	70⁽ⁱⁱ⁾
NM5⁽ⁱ⁾	56 - 58	75
NM6⁽ⁱ⁾	62 - 71	75

Note: (i) +3 dB(A) Façade correction included;

(ii) Reduced to 65 dB(A) during school examination periods.

As the construction activities were far away from the monitoring stations, major sources of noise dominating the monitoring stations observed during the construction noise impact monitoring were aircraft noise at NM3A and NM5, aircraft noise and helicopter noise at NM6, road traffic noise at NM1A and school activities at NM4 in this reporting month.

No exceedance of the Action/ Limit Level was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

4 Water Quality Monitoring

4.1 Monitoring Stations

Water quality monitoring was conducted at a total of 22 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact stations, seven sensitive receiver stations and three control stations in the vicinity of water quality sensitive receivers around the airport island in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Table 4.1 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 3.1 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.

Table 4.1: Monitoring Locations and Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring

Monitoring Stations	Description	Coordinates		Parameters
Monitoring Stations	Description	Easting	Northing	Parameters
C1	Control	804247	815620	DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS, Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals⁽²⁾
C2	Control	806945	825682
C3⁽³⁾	Control	817803	822109
IM1	Impact	806458	818351
IM2	Impact	806193	818852
IM3	Impact	806019	819411
IM4	Impact	805039	819570
IM5	Impact	804924	820564
IM6	Impact	805828	821060
IM7	Impact	806835	821349
IM8	Impact	807838	821695
IM9	Impact	808811	822094
IM10	Impact	809838	822240
IM11	Impact	810545	821501
IM12	Impact	811519	821162
SR1⁽¹⁾	Future Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling	812586	820069	DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR2⁽³⁾	Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To	814166	821463
SR3	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau	807571	822147
SR4A	Sha Lo Wan	807810	817189
SR5A	San Tau Beach SSSI	810696	816593
SR6	Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI	814663	817899
SR7	Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ)	823742	823636
SR8	Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East)	811593	820417

Notes:

⁽¹⁾ The seawater intakes of SR1 for the future HKBCF is not yet in operation, hence no water quality impact monitoring was conducted at this station. The future permanent location for SR1 during impact monitoring is subject to finalisation after the HKBCF seawater is commissioned.

⁽²⁾ Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html). DCM specific water quality monitoring parameters (total alkalinity and heavy metals) were only conducted at C1 to C3, SR2, and IM1 to IM12 .

⁽³⁾According to the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report, C3 station is not adequately representative as a control station of impact/ SR stations during the flood tide. The control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 September 2016 onwards.

4.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline water quality levels at the abovementioned representative water quality monitoring stations were established as presented in the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report.

General water quality monitoring and early regular DCM water quality monitoring were conducted three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, at the 22 water quality monitoring stations during the reporting period. The sea conditions varied from calm to rough, and the weather conditions varied from sunny to rainy during the monitoring period.

The water quality monitoring schedule for the reporting period is provided in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring

The Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 4.2. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.2: Action and Limit Levels for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Parameters	Action Level (AL)		Limit Level (LL)
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring (excluding SR1& SR8)
DO in mg/L (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Surface and Middle 4.5 mg/L		Surface and Middle 4.1 mg/L 5 mg/L for Fish Culture Zone (SR7) only
DO in mg/L (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Bottom 3.4 mg/L		Bottom 2.7 mg/L
Suspended Solids (SS) in mg/L	23	or 120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher	37	or 130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher
Turbidity in NTU	22.6		36.1
Total Alkalinity in ppm	95		99
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Chromium)	0.2		0.2
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Nickel)	3.2		3.6
Action and Limit Levels SR1
SS (mg/l)	To be determined prior to its commissioning		To be determined prior to its commissioning
Action and Limit Levels SR8
SS (mg/l)	52		60

Notes:

⁽¹⁾ For DO measurement, non-compliance occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.

⁽²⁾For parameters other than DO, non-compliance of water quality results when monitoring results is higher than the limits.

⁽³⁾Depth-averaged results are used unless specified otherwise.

⁽⁴⁾Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html)

⁽⁵⁾The action and limit levels for the two representative heavy metals chosen will be the same as that for the intensive DCM monitoring.

Table 4.3: The Control and Impact Stations during Flood Tide and Ebb Tide for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Control Station	Impact Stations
Flood Tide
C1	IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, SR3
SR2^{^1}	IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A, SR6, SR8
Ebb Tide
C1	SR4A, SR5A, SR6
C2	IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7, SR8

^{^1}As per findings of Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report, the control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 Sep 2016 onwards.

4.3 Monitoring Equipment

Table 4.4 summarises the equipment used for monitoring of specific water quality parameters under the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 4.4: Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model	Last Calibration Date
Multifunctional Meter (measurement of DO, pH, temperature, salinity and turbidity)	YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 11F100014)	4 Jan 2017
	YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 16G104518)	4 Jan 2017
	YSI 6920 V2 (serial no. 0001C6A7)	4 Jan 2017
	YSI 6920 (serial no. 000109DF)	4 Jan 2017
Digital Titrator (measurement of total alkalinity)	Titrette Digital Burette 50ml Class A (serial no.10N65665)	5 Jan 2017

Other equipment used as part of the impact water quality monitoring programme are listed in Table 4.5

Table 4.5: Other Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Water Sampler	Van Dorn Water Sampler
Positioning Device (measurement of GPS)	Garmin eTrex Vista HCx
Current Meter (measurement of current speed and direction, and water depth)	Sontek HydroSurveyor

4.4 Monitoring Methodology

4.4.1 Measuring Procedure

Water quality monitoring samples were taken at three depths (at 1m below surface, at mid-depth, and at 1m above bottom) for locations with water depth >6m. For locations with water depth between 3m and 6m, water samples were taken at two depths (surface and bottom). For locations with water depth <3m, only the mid-depth was taken. Duplicate water samples were taken and analysed.

The water samples for all monitoring parameters were collected, stored, preserved and analysed according to the Standard Methods, APHA 22^nd ed. and/or other methods as agreed by the EPD. In-situ measurements at monitoring locations including temperature, pH, DO, turbidity, salinity and water depth were collected by equipment listed in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. Water samples for heavy metals and SS analysis were stored in high density polythene bottles with no preservative added, packed in ice (cooled to 4 ºC without being frozen), delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of collection.

4.4.2 Maintenance and Calibration

Calibration of In-situ Instruments

All in-situ monitoring instrument were checked, calibrated and certified by a laboratory accredited under HOKLAS before use. Responses of sensors and electrodes were checked with certified standard solutions before each use.

Wet bulb calibration for a DO meter was carried out before commencement of monitoring and after completion of all measurements each day. Calibration was not conducted at each monitoring location as daily calibration is adequate for the type of DO meter employed. A zero check in distilled water was performed with the turbidity probe at least once per monitoring day. The probe was then calibrated with a solution of known NTU. In addition, the turbidity probe was calibrated at least twice per month to establish the relationship between turbidity readings (in NTU) and levels of suspended solids (in mg/L). Accuracy check of the digital titrator was performed at least once per monitoring day.

Calibration certificates of the monitoring equipment used in the monitoring provided in Appendix B of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.13 are still valid. Any updates of calibration certificates will be reported in the Monthly EM&A report if necessary.

4.4.3 Laboratory Measurement / Analysis

Analysis of SS and heavy metals have been carried out by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory, ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd (Reg. No. HOKLAS 066). Sufficient water samples were collected at all the monitoring stations for carrying out the laboratory SS and heavy metals determination. The SS and heavy metals determination works were started within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. The analysis of SS and heavy metals have followed the standard methods summarised in Table 4.6. The QA/QC procedures for laboratory measurement/ analysis of SS and heavy metals were presented in Appendix F of the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No.8.

Table 4.6: Laboratory Measurement/ Analysis of SS and Heavy Metals

Parameters	Instrumentation	Analytical Method	Reporting Limit
Suspended Solid (SS)	Analytical Balance	APHA 2540D	2 mg/L
Heavy Metals
Chromium (Cr)	ICP-MS	USEPA 6020A	0.2 µg/L
Nickel (Ni)	ICP-MS	USEPA 6020A	0.2 µg/L

4.5 Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results

4.5.1 Summary of Monitoring Results

The water quality monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity, chromium, and nickel obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity and SS, some of the testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels. Details of the exceedances are presented in Section 4.5.2.

All the water quality monitoring results and graphical presentations are provided in Appendix C.

4.5.2 Summary of Findings for Investigation of Exceedances

During the reporting month, water quality monitoring was conducted at 12 impact stations (IM), seven sensitive receiver (SR) stations and three control stations in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. The purpose of water quality monitoring at the IM stations is to promptly capture any potential water quality impacts from the Project before the impacts could become apparent at sensitive receivers (represented by the SR stations).

During the monitoring period in February 2017, testing results exceeding the corresponding Action or Limit Levels were recorded on five monitoring days. Details of the exceedance cases are presented below.

Findings for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Table 4.7 presents a summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month.

Table 4.7: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
02/02/2017
04/02/2017
07/02/2017
09/02/2017
11/02/2017
14/02/2017
16/02/2017
18/02/2017
21/02/2017
24/02/2017
26/02/2017
28/02/2017
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0

Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix C.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

IM Stations

As shown in Table 4.7, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were recorded on 14 February 2017. All of the exceedances occurred at monitoring stations which were located upstream of the 3RS Project during ebb tide, hence would unlikely be affected by the Project. Nevertheless as a prudent measure, the Project’s activities on this monitoring day were investigated and it was confirmed that silt curtains were deployed and maintained properly and no silt plumes were observed.

SR Stations

For SR stations, exceedance was recorded at SR3 on 2 February 2017. However, SR3 was located upstream of the project during ebb tide, and there were no turbidity exceedances at any IM stations on that day, hence the exceedance at SR3 was unlikely to be due to the Project. The single exceedance at SR3 might be due to natural fluctuation.

Findings for Turbidity Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)

Table 4.8 presents a summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting month.

Table 4.8: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
02/02/2017
04/02/2017
07/02/2017
09/02/2017
11/02/2017
14/02/2017
16/02/2017
18/02/2017
21/02/2017
24/02/2017
26/02/2017
28/02/2017
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	0	1	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0

Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix C.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

IM Stations

As shown in Table 4.8, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were recorded on 2, 11 and 14 February 2017. Repeat turbidity measurement was conducted at IM4 and IM5 on 3 February 2017; IM5 and IM7 on 12 February 2017 as well as IM10 on 15 February 2017 during flood tide in accordance with the Event and Action Plan of the Updated EM&A Manual. The exceedance recorded at IM4 on 2 February 2017 was located upstream of the 3RS Project during flood tide. As such upstream station would unlikely be affected by the Project, the investigation focused on the exceedances at IM stations located downstream of the Project and hence might be affected by the Project’s construction activities.

Table 4.9: Summary of Findings from Investigations of Turbidity Exceedances during Mid-Flood Tide

Date	Marine construction works nearby	Approximate distance from marine construction works*	Status of water quality measures (if applicable)	Construction vessels in the vicinity	Turbidity / Silt plume observed near the monitoring station	Exceedance due to Project
02/02/2017	DCM works	Around 2km	Silt curtain deployed	No	No	No
11/02/2017	DCM works	Around 1km	Silt curtain deployed	No	No	No
14/02/2017	DCM works	Around 1.5km	Silt curtain deployed	No	Yes	No

Note:

*This refers to the approximate distance between the DCM works and the nearest monitoring stations with exceedance

According to the investigation findings summarized in Table 4.9, it was confirmed that silt curtains were deployed for DCM works as additional measures and the silt curtains were maintained properly. Separately, the marine waters covering a wide area including C1, IM1 to IM7, IM10, and IM11 on 14 February 2017 was observed to be generally turbid during flood tide monitoring. As this was observed at both upstream and downstream stations, this suggests that the turbidity at IM10 might be the effect of natural fluctuation. No exceedance was recorded during the repeat turbidity measurements.

For the exceedance at IM5 on 2 February 2017, high level of turbidity was also recorded at nearby upstream station (IM4) on the same monitoring period. Given that IM4 is located upstream of the Project during flood tide, and high turbidity levels was recorded at IM4 (which would unlikely be affected by the Project), the exceedance at IM5 was possibly due to natural fluctuation in this area. Furthermore, no exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM6 and IM7, which were closer to the active DCM works during the same monitoring period. Based on these findings, this exceedance was considered not due to the Project.

For the exceedances at IM5 and IM7 on 11 February 2017, it is noted from Table 4.8 that the exceedances appeared to be isolated cases with no temporal trend and no clear spatial trend to indicate turbidity rising due to Project activities. The investigation results shown in Table 4.9 also found that no construction vessel, DCM work, nor silt plume was observed in the vicinity of IM5 and IM7 on 11 February 2017. It is also noted that no exceedance was recorded at monitoring station IM6, which is located between IM5 and IM7 and is similarly downstream of the active DCM works on 11 February 2017 during flood tide, while no exceedances were identified in the repeat turbidity measurements. Based on the above, the exceedances were considered not due to the Project, and were possibly due to natural fluctuation in vicinity of IM5 and IM7.

For the exceedance at IM10 on 14 February 2017, in addition to the investigation summary presented in Table 4.9, it is noted from Table 4.8 that the exceedance at IM10 on 14 February 2017 appeared to be a single isolated case that day with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate any effect caused by Project activities. Furthermore, no exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM7 to IM9, which were located closer to the active DCM works during flood tide. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not due to the Project.

SR Stations

At SR stations, an exceedance was observed at SR6 on 16 February 2017. However, SR6 was located upstream of the project during flood tide, and there were no turbidity exceedances at any IM stations on that day, hence the exceedance at SR6 was unlikely to be due to the Project. The single exceedance at SR6 might be due to natural fluctuation.

Findings for SS Exceedances (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Table 4.10 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb tide for the reporting month.

Table 4.10: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
02/02/2017
04/02/2017
07/02/2017
09/02/2017
11/02/2017
14/02/2017
16/02/2017
18/02/2017
21/02/2017
24/02/2017
26/02/2017
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0

Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix C.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

IM Stations

As shown in Table 4.10, exceedances of Action Levels at IM stations were recorded on three monitoring days. However, all of the exceedances occurred at monitoring stations which were located upstream of the 3RS Project during ebb tide and would unlikely be affected by the Project. Nevertheless as a prudent measure, the Project’s activities on these monitoring days were investigated and it was confirmed that silt curtains were deployed and maintained properly.

SR Stations

At SR stations, an exceedance was observed at SR4A. It is noted from Table 4.10 that the exceedance at SR4A on 14 February 2017 appeared to be isolated case with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate SS release due to Project activities. The investigation also found that no construction vessel, DCM work, nor silt plume was observed in the vicinity of SR4A. Considering no exceedance was recorded at downstream monitoring stations IM1 to IM3, which were closer to the active DCM works on 14 February 2017 during ebb tide, the exceedance was possibly due to natural fluctuation in vicinity of SR4A. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not due to the Project.

Findings for SS Exceedances (Mid-Flood Tide)

Table 4.11 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-flood tide for the reporting month.

Table 4.11: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
02/02/2017
04/02/2017
07/02/2017
09/02/2017
11/02/2017
14/02/2017
16/02/2017
18/02/2017
21/02/2017
24/02/2017
26/02/2017
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0

Note: Detailed results are presented in Appendix C.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

IM Stations

As shown in Table 4.11, exceedances of Action or Limit Level at IM stations were recorded on two monitoring days. Some exceedances occurred at monitoring stations which were located upstream of the 3RS Project during flood tide. As such upstream stations would unlikely be affected by the Project, the investigation focused on the exceedances at IM stations located downstream of the Project and hence might be affected by the Project’s construction activities.

As part of the investigation on the downstream exceedance events, details of the Project’s marine construction activities on these monitoring days were collected, as well as any observations during the monitoring. According to the investigation findings summarized in Table 4.9, it was confirmed that silt curtains were deployed for DCM works as additional measures and the silt curtains were maintained properly. Separately, the marine waters covering a wide area including C1, IM1 to IM7, IM10 and IM11 on 14 February 2017 was observed to be generally turbid during flood tide monitoring. As this was observed at both upstream and downstream stations, this suggests that the elevated SS at IM10 might be the effect of natural fluctuation.

For the exceedance at IM5 on 2 February 2017, it was found that IM3 and IM4 were located upstream of the Project during flood tide, and high SS levels were apparent at these locations (which would unlikely be affected by the Project), the exceedance at IM5 was possibly due to natural fluctuation in this area. Furthermore, no exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM6 and IM7, which were closer to active DCM works during the same monitoring period. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not due to the Project.

For the exceedance at IM10 on 14 February 2017, it is noted from Table 4.11 that the exceedance appeared to be a single isolated case with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate any effect due to Project activities. Furthermore, no exceedance was recorded at other downstream monitoring stations, including IM7 to IM9, which were located closer to the active DCM works during flood tide. Based on these findings, the exceedance was considered not due to the Project.

SR Stations

At SR stations, exceedances were observed at SR5A and SR6. However, these stations are located upstream of the Project during flood tide, and there were no SS exceedances at any IM stations on those monitoring days, hence the exceedances at these stations were unlikely to be due to the Project. The exceedances at SR5A and SR6 might be due to natural fluctuation.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the exceedance investigations, it is concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Project. Hence no SR stations were adversely affected by the Project. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan were followed. Exceedances appeared to be due to natural fluctuation (such as naturally high baseline SS levels at individual SR stations) or other sources not related to the Project.

Nevertheless, recognising that the IM stations represent a ‘first line of defense’, the non-project related exceedances identified at IM stations were attended to as a precautionary measure. As part of the EM&A programme, the construction methods and mitigation measures for water quality will continue to be monitored and opportunities for further enhancement will continue to be explored and implemented where possible, to strive for better protection of water quality and the marine environment.

In the meantime, the contractors were reminded to implement and maintain all mitigation measures during weekly site inspection and regular environmental management meetings. These include maintaining mitigation measures for DCM works and sand blanket laying works properly as recommended in the EM&A manual.

5 Waste Management

5.1 Monitoring Requirements

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, the waste generated from construction activities was audited once per week to determine if wastes are being managed in accordance with the Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared for the Project, contract-specific WMP, and any statutory and contractual requirements. All aspects of waste management including waste generation, storage, transportation and disposal were assessed during the audits. The Action and Limit levels of the construction waste are provided in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Waste

Monitoring Stations	Action Level	Limit Level
Construction Area	When one valid documented complaint is received	Non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific WMPs, any statutory and contractual requirements

Monitoring Stations

Action Level

Limit Level

Construction Area

When one valid documented complaint is

received

Non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific

WMPs, any statutory and contractual

requirements

5.2 Waste Management Status

Weekly monitoring on all works contracts were carried out by the ET to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices during the construction phase.

Recommendations including provision and maintenance of spill kits and provision of chemical waste storage area for chemical waste. In addition, the relevant contractors were reminded to provide recycling bins for the segregation of recyclables from general refuse. The contractors had taken actions to implement the recommended measures.

Based on the Contractor’s information, about 594m³ of excavated materials were produced from the HDD launching site and Sheung Sha Chau under P560(R) in February 2017. The generated excavated materials were temporarily stored at storage and stockpiling area. The excavated material will be reused in the Project.

Around 45 tonnes of general refuse was disposed of to the WENT Landfill by advanced works contract and DCM contract in February 2017. Around 112m³ of Construction and Demolition (C&D) material generated from the DCM contracts for site office establishment was disposed of as public fill in the reporting month. No chemical waste was disposed off-site during the reporting month.

No exceedances of the Action or Limit Levels were recorded in the reporting period.

6 Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

6.1 CWD Monitoring Requirements

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring by small vessel line-transect survey supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking should be conducted during construction phase.

The small vessel line-transect survey as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual should be conducted at a frequency of two full survey per month while land-based theodolite tracking should be conducted at a frequency of one day per month per station during the construction phase. In addition to the land-based theodolite tracking required for impact monitoring as stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual, supplemental theodolite tracking have also been conducted during the implementation for the SkyPier HSF diversion and speed control in order to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, i.e. in total twice per month at the Sha Chau station and three times per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station.

The Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for CWD monitoring were formulated by the action response approach using the running quarterly dolphin encounter rates STG and ANI derived from the baseline monitoring data, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The derived values of AL and LL for CWD monitoring were summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Derived Values of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

	NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole
Action Level	Running quarterly* STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35
Limit Level	Two consecutive running quarterly^ (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35

[Notes for Table 6.1 (referring to the baseline monitoring report):

*Action Level – running quarterly STG & ANI will be calculated from the three preceding survey months. For CWD monitoring for February 2017, data from 1 December 2016 to 28 February 2017 will be used to calculate the running quarterly encounter rates STG & ANI;

^Limit Level – two consecutive running quarters mean both the running quarterly encounter rates of the preceding month January 2017 (calculated by data from November 2016 to January 2017) and the running quarterly encounter rates of this month (calculated by data from December 2016 to February 2017).

AL and/or LL will be exceeded if both STG and ANI fall below the criteria.]

6.2 CWD Monitoring Transects and Stations

6.2.1 Small Vessel Line-transect Survey

Small vessel line-transect surveys were conduct along the transects covering Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) areas as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual, which are consistent with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) long-term monitoring programme (except AW). The AW transect has not been previously surveyed in the AFCD programme due to the restrictions of HKIA Exclusion Zone, nevertheless, this transect was established during the EIA of the 3RS Project and refined in the Updated EM&A Manual with the aim to collect project specific baseline information within the HKIA Approach Area to fill the data gap that was not covered by the AFCD programme. This provided a larger sample size for estimating the densities and patterns of movements in the broader study area of the project.

For the NWL area, in the previous reporting months the transect lines within the works area could largely followed the waypoints conducted for baseline monitoring. However, there was safety concern on the CWD survey vessel travelling within the 3RS works area. Therefore, the transect lines for the NWL area were revised to follow the waypoints set for construction phase monitoring as proposed in the approved updated EM&A Manual to avoid entering 3RS works area, with the total length being shorter than previous months. The planned vessel survey transect lines are depicted in Figure 6.1 with the waypoint coordinates of all transect lines given in Table 6.2, which are subject to on-site refinement based on the actual survey conditions and constraints.

Table 6.2: Coordinates of Transect Lines in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL Survey Areas

Waypoint	Easting	Northing	Waypoint	Easting	Northing
NEL
1S	813525	820900	6N	818568	824433
1N	813525	824657	7S	819532	821420
2S	814556	818449	7N	819532	824209
2N	814559	824768	8S	820451	822125
3S	815542	818807	8N	820451	823671
3N	815542	824882	9S	821504	822371
4S	816506	819480	9N	821504	823761
4N	816506	824859	10S	822513	823268
5S	817537	820220	10N	822513	824321
5N	817537	824613	11S	823477	823402
6S	818568	820735	11N	823477	824613
NWL
1S	804671	814577	5S	808504	821735
1N	804671	831404	5N	808504	828602
2Sb	805475	815457	6S	809490	822075
2Nb	805476	818571	6N	809490	825352
2Sa	805476	820770	7S	810499	822323
2Na	805476	830562	7N	810499	824613
3S	806464	821033	8S	811508	821839
3N	806464	829598	8N	811508	824254
4S	807518	821395	9S	812516	821356
4N	807518	829230	9N	812516	824254
AW
1W	804733	818205	2W	805045	816912
1E	806708	818017	2E	805960	816633
WL
1W	800600	805450	7W	800400	811450
1E	801760	805450	7E	802400	811450
2W	800300	806450	8W	800800	812450
2E	801750	806450	8E	802900	812450
3W	799600	807450	9W	801500	813550
3E	801500	807450	9E	803120	813550
4W	799400	808450	10W	801880	814500
4E	801430	808450	10E	803700	814500
5W	799500	809450	11W	802860	815500
5E	801300	809450	12S/11E	803750	815500
6W	799800	810450	12N	803750	818500
6E	801400	810450
SWL
1S	802494	803961	6S	807467	801137
1N	802494	806174	6N	807467	808458
2S	803489	803280	7S	808553	800329
2N	803489	806720	7N	808553	807377
3S	804484	802509	8S	809547	800338
3N	804484	807048	8N	809547	807396
4S	805478	802105	9S	810542	800423
4N	805478	807556	9N	810542	807462
5S	806473	801250	10S	811446	801335
5N	806473	808458	10N	811446	809436

6.2.2 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

Land-based theodolite tracking stations were set up at two locations, one facing east/south/west on the southern slopes of Sha Chau (SC), and the other facing north/northeast/northwest at Lung Kwu Chau (LKC). The stations (D and E) are depicted in Figure 6.2 and shown in Table 6.3 with position coordinates, height of station and approximate distance of consistent theodolite tracking capabilities for CWD.

Table 6.3: Land-based Survey Station Details

Stations	Location	Geographical Coordinates	Station Height (m)	Approximate Tracking Distance (km)
D	Sha Chau (SC)	22° 20’ 43.5” N 113° 53’ 24.66” E	45.66	2
E	Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)	22° 22’ 44.83” N 113° 53’ 0.2” E	70.40	3

Stations

Location

Geographical Coordinates

Station Height (m)

Approximate Tracking Distance (km)

Sha Chau (SC)

22° 20’ 43.5” N

113° 53’ 24.66” E

45.66

Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)

22° 22’ 44.83” N

113° 53’ 0.2” E

70.40

6.3 CWD Monitoring Methodology

6.3.1 Small Vessel Line-transect Survey

Small vessel line-transect surveys provided data for density and abundance estimation and other assessments using distance-sampling methodologies, specifically, line-transect methods.

The surveys involved small vessel line-transect data collection and have been designed to be similar to, and consistent with, previous surveys for the AFCD for their long-term monitoring of small cetaceans in Hong Kong. The survey was designed to provide systematic, quantitative measurements of density, abundance and habitat use.

As mentioned in Section 6.2.1, the transects covered NEL, NWL covering the AW, WL and SWL areas as proposed in the Updated EM&A Manual and are consistent with the AFCD long-term monitoring programme (except AW). There are two types of transect lines:

● Primary transect lines: the parallel and zigzag transect lines as shown in Figure 6.1; and

● Secondary transect lines: transect lines connecting between the primary transect lines and crossing islands.

All data collected on both primary and secondary transect lines were used for analysis of sighting distribution, group size, activities including association with fishing boat, and mother-calf pair. Only on-effort data collected under conditions of Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond were used for analysis of the CWD encounter rates.

A 15-20 m vessel with a flying bridge observation platform about 4 to 5 m above water level and unobstructed forward view, and a team of three to four observers were deployed to undertake the surveys. Two observers were on search effort at all times when following the transect lines with a constant speed of 7 to 8 knots (i.e. 13 to 15 km per hour), one using 7X handheld binoculars and the other using unaided eyes and recording data.

During on-effort survey periods, the survey team recorded effort data including time, position (waypoints), weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and visibility) and distance travelled in each series with assistance of a handheld GPS device. The GPS device also continuously and automatically logged data including time, position (Latitude and longitude) and vessel speed throughout the entire survey.

When CWDs were seen, the survey team was taken off-effort, the dolphins were approached and photographed for photo-ID information (using a Canon 7D [or similar] camera and long 300 mm+ telephoto lens), then followed until they left the study area or were lost. At that point, the boat returned (off effort) to the next survey line and began to survey on effort again.

Focal follows of dolphins were conducted where practicable (i.e. when individual dolphins or small stable groups of dolphins with at least one member that could be readily identifiable with unaided eyes during observations and weather conditions are favourable). These involved the boat following (at an appropriate distance to minimize disturbance) an identifiable individual dolphin for an extended period of time, and collecting detailed data on its location, behaviour, response to vessels, and associates.

6.3.2 Photo Identification

CWDs can be identified by their unique features like presence of scratches, nick marks, cuts, wounds, deformities of their dorsal fin and distinguished colouration and spotting patterns.

When CWDs were observed, the survey team was taken off-effort, the dolphins were approached and photographed for photo-ID information (using a Canon 7D [or similar] camera and long 300 mm+ telephoto lens). The survey team attempted to photo both sides of every single dolphin in the group as the colouration and spotting pattern on both sides may not be identical. The photos were taken at the highest available resolution and stored on Compact Flash memory cards for transferring into a computer.

All photos taken were initially examined to sort out those containing potentially identifiable individuals. These sorted-out images would then be examined in detail and compared to the CWD photo-identification catalogue established for 3RS during the baseline monitoring stage.

6.3.3 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

Land-based monitoring obtains fine-scale information on the time of day and movement patterns of the CWDs. A digital theodolite (Sokkia/Sokkisha Model DT5 or similar equipment) with 30-power magnification and 5-s precision was used to obtain the vertical and horizontal angle of each dolphin and vessel position. Angles were converted to geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) and data were recorded using Pythagoras software, Version 1.2. This method delivers precise positions of multiple spatially distant targets in a short period of time. The technique is fully non-invasive, and allows for time and cost-effective descriptions of dolphin habitat use patterns at all times of daylight.

Three surveyors (one theodolite operator, one computer operator, and one observer) were involved in each survey. Observers searched for dolphins using unaided eyes and handheld binoculars (7X50). Theodolite tracking sessions were initiated whenever an individual CWD or group of CWDs was located. Where possible, a distinguishable individual was selected, based on colouration, within the group. The focal individual was then continuously tracked via the theodolite, with a position recorded each time the dolphin surfaced. In case an individual could not be positively distinguished from other members, the group was tracked by recording positions based on a central point within the group whenever the CWD surfaced. Tracking continued until animals were lost from view; moved beyond the range of reliable visibility (>1-3 km, depending on station height); or environmental conditions obstructed visibility (e.g., intense haze, Beaufort sea state >4, or sunset), at which time the research effort was terminated. In addition to the tracking of CWD, all vessels that moved within 2-3 km of the station were tracked, with effort made to obtain at least two positions for each vessel.

Theodolite tracking included focal follows of CWD groups and vessels. Priority was given to tracking individual or groups of CWD. The survey team also attempted to track all vessels moving within 1 km of the focal CWD.

6.4 Monitoring Results and Observations

6.4.1 Small Vessel Line-transect Survey

Survey Effort

Within this reporting month, two complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys were conducted on the 6^th, 7^th, 9^th, 10^th, 16^th, 17^th, 20^th and 21^st February 2017, covering all transects in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas for twice.

A total of 448.80 km of survey effort was collected from these surveys, with around 69.63% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility). Details of the survey effort are given in Appendix C.

Sighting Distribution

In February 2017, 21 groups of CWDs with 68 individuals were sighted. Amongst the sightings of CWD, 19 groups with 66 individuals were recorded during on-effort search under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility). Details of cetacean sightings are presented in Appendix C.

Distribution of all CWD sightings recorded in February 2017 is illustrated in Figure 6.3. In February 2017, CWDs were more frequently sighted in WL than in NWL and SWL. There were three sightings in NWL in this reporting month, two located at the northwestern corner of Lung Kwu Chau while another recorded at the western waters of the existing Hong Kong International Airport on AW transect. In WL survey area, CWD sightings scattered from waters north to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road to Fan Lau Sai Wan. While in SWL, CWDs were sighted in waters between Shek Pik, Lo Kei Wan and Soko Islands. No sightings of CWDs were recorded in the vicinity of or within the 3RS land-formation footprint.

Figure 6.3: Sightings Distribution of Chinese White Dolphins

[Pink circle: Sighting locations of CWD, White line: Vessel survey transects, Blue polygon: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP), Green polygon: Brothers Marine Park (BMP) Red polygon: 3RS land-formation footprint, Yellow line: 3RS temporary works area boundary]

Encounter Rate

Two types of dolphin encounter rates were calculated based on the data from February 2017. They included the number of dolphin sightings per 100km survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins per 100km survey effort (ANI) in the whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL). In the calculation of dolphin encounter rates, only survey data collected under favourable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility) were used. The formulae used for calculation of the encounter rates are shown below:

Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG)

Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphins (ANI)

(Notes: Only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition was used)

In February 2017, a total of 312.48 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 19 on-effort sightings with a total number of 66 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the encounter rates in February 2017 are shown in Appendix C.

For the running quarter of the reporting month (i.e., from December 2016 to February 2017), a total of 1131.97 km of survey effort were conducted under Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favourable visibility, whilst a total number of 57 on-effort sightings and a total number of 196 dolphins from on-effort sightings were obtained under such condition. Calculation of the running quarterly encounter rates are shown in Appendix C.

The STG and ANI of CWD in the whole survey area (i.e. NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) during the month of February 2017 and during the running quarter are presented in Table 6.4 below and compared with the Action Level. The running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI did not trigger the Action Level (i.e., remained above the Action Level).

Table 6.4: Comparison of CWD Encounter Rates of the Whole Survey Area with Action Levels

	Encounter Rate (STG)	Encounter Rate (ANI)
February 2017	6.08	21.12
Running Quarter from December 2016 to February 2017*	5.04	17.31
Action Level	1.86	9.35

*Running quarterly encounter rates STG & ANI were calculated from data collected in the reporting month and the two preceding survey months, i.e. the data from December 2016 to February 2017, containing six sets of transect surveys for all monitoring areas.

Group Size

In February 2017, 21 groups of CWDs with 68 individuals were sighted, and the average group size of CWDs was 3.24 individuals per group. The numbers of small-sized (i.e. 1-2 individuals). and medium-sized (i.e. 3-9 individuals) were similar. A large CWD group with 14 individuals was sighted in this reporting month in WL.

Activities and Association with Fishing Boats

Four out of 21 sightings of CWDs were recorded engaging in feeding activities in February 2017. Three out of these four sightings were recorded in association with operating fishing boats. One of these sightings was associated with operating gill-netter in AW survey area. The remaining two sightings were associated with operating purse seiners in WL and SWL respectively. The CWD group sighted in WL has a large group size of 14 individuals associated with two operating purse seiners.

Mother-calf Pair

In February 2017, three sightings of CWDs were recorded with the presence of mother-and-unspotted juvenile pairs. Two of these sightings occurred in WL while another was sighted in AW survey area.

6.4.2 Photo Identification

In February 2017, a total number of 21 different CWD individuals were identified for totally 25 times. A summary of photo identification works is presented in Table 6.5. Representative photos of these individuals are given in Appendix C.

Table 6.5: Summary of Photo Identification

Individual ID	Date of sighting (dd/mm/yyyy)	Sighting Group No.	Area		Individual ID		Date of sighting (dd/mm/yyyy)		Sighting Group No.		Area
SLMM007	06/02/2017	3	WL	SLMM049		16/02/2017		3		WL
SLMM010	16/02/2017	10	WL					10		WL
SLMM011	17/02/2017	2	SWL	SLMM052		16/02/2017		10		WL
SLMM014	16/02/2017	10	WL	WLMM003		16/02/2017		10		WL
SLMM018	17/02/2017	2	SWL	WLMM007		16/02/2017		10		WL
		3	SWL	WLMM017		16/02/2017		10		WL
SLMM022	16/02/2017	10	WL	WLMM025		16/02/2017		10		WL
SLMM025	16/02/2017	11	WL	WLMM043		16/02/2017		4		WL
SLMM031	17/02/2017	2	SWL	WLMM056		16/02/2017		10		WL
		3	SWL	WLMM060		16/02/2017		1		AW
SLMM036	16/02/2017	10	WL	WLMM071		06/02/2017		1		WL
SLMM047	16/02/2017	10	WL			16/02/2017		1		AW
				WLMM073		16/02/2017		10		WL

6.4.3 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

Survey Effort

Land-based theodolite tracking surveys were conducted at LKC on 15^th, 20^th and 28^th February 2017 and at SC on 14^th and 27^th February 2017, with a total of 5 days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort accomplished in this reporting month. In total, 24 CWD groups were tracked at LKC station during the surveys. Information of survey effort and CWD groups sighted during these land-based theodolite tracking surveys are presented in Table 6.6. Details of the survey effort and CWD groups tracked are presented in Appendix C. The first sighting locations of CWD groups tracked at LKC station during land-based theodolite tracking surveys in February 2017 were depicted in Figure 6.4. No CWD group was sighted from SC station in this reporting month.

Table 6.6: Summary of Survey Effort and CWD Group of Land-based Theodolite Tracking

Land-based Station	No. of Survey Sessions	Survey Effort (hh:mm)	No. of CWD Groups Sighted	CWD Group Sighting per Survey Hour
Lung Kwu Chau	3	18:15	24	1.32
Sha Chau	2	12:00	0	0
TOTAL	5	30:15	24	0.79

Figure 6.4: Plots of First Sightings of All CWD Groups obtained from Land-based Stations

[Green triangle: LKC station; Green square: CWD group off LKC; Blue line: SCLKCMP boundary]

Notes: A CWD group was sighted at a location to the northwest of LKC outside the HKSAR boundary and two CWD groups were sighted at the far north off LKC on 15 February 2017. These three groups of sighting were beyond the usual tracking distance due to the good visibility and sea state condition (Beaufort ranged 2-3) on that day whilst these CWD groups were spotted with surfacing for several times. Although these sightings were beyond the usual tracking distance and even outside the HKSAR boundary, they were recorded with the purpose of gathering more CWD information.

6.5 Progress Update on Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Underwater acoustic monitoring using Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) should be undertaken during land formation related construction works. In this reporting month, the Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) has been retrieved on 4 February 2017, re-deployed on 10 February 2017 and positioned at south of Sha Chau Island with 20% duty cycle (Figure 6.5). The EAR deployment is generally for 4-6 weeks prior to data retrieval for analysis. Acoustic data is reviewed to give an indication of CWDs occurrence patterns and to obtain anthropogenic noise information simultaneously. Analysis (by a specialized team of acousticians) involved manually browsing through every acoustic recording and logging the occurrence of dolphin signals. All data will be re-played by computer as well as listened to by human ears for accurate assessment of dolphin group presence. As the period of data collection and analysis takes more than two months, PAM results could not be reported in monthly intervals.

6.6 Site Audit for CWD-related Mitigation Measures

During the reporting period, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works, in which at least two dolphin observers were deployed by each contractor in accordance with the Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP). Teams of at least two dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with a cumulative total of 199 individuals being trained and the training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains, whilst there was one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in this reporting month. According to contractors’ site records, DCM works were suspended in this dolphin sighting event until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous period of 30 minutes. These contractors’ records were also audited by the ET during site inspection. Details for the implementation of DEZ during the incident of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works are mentioned in Section 7.4

Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were carried out during weekly site inspection and the observations are summarised in Section 7.1. Audits of SkyPier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management are presented in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 respectively.

6.7 Timing of Reporting CWD Monitoring Results

Detailed analysis of CWD monitoring results collected by small vessel line-transect survey will be provided in future quarterly reports. Detailed analysis of CWD monitoring results collected by land-based theodolite tracking and PAM will be provided in future yearly reports after a larger sample size of data has been collected.

6.8 Summary of CWD Monitoring

Monitoring of CWD was conducted with two complete sets of small vessel line-transect surveys and five days of land-based theodolite tracking survey effort as scheduled. The running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI in the reporting month did not trigger the Action Level for CWD monitoring.

7 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

7.1 Environmental Site Inspection

Weekly site inspections of the construction works for the advanced works contract and DCM contracts were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. The weekly site inspection schedule of the construction works is provided in Appendix B. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists and provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.

The key observations from site inspection and associated recommendations were related to improvement of spill preventive and dust suppression measures, separation of recyclables from general refuse, and removal of oil stains at construction sites. In addition, recommendations were also provided during site inspection on barges. These included provision and maintenance of spill preventive measures and chemical waste storage area; provision of proper acoustic decoupling for noisy equipment; improvement of dust suppression measures; proper implementation of DEZ monitoring; installation and maintenance of silt curtains; provision of recycling bins for separating recyclables from general refuse as well as provision of suitable enclosed containers for general refuse collection.

A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix A.

7.2 Audit of Route Diversion and Speed Control of the SkyPier High Speed Ferries

The Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan) was submitted to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) for comment and subsequently submitted to and approved by EPD in November 2015 under EP Condition 2.10. The approved SkyPier Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project. In the SkyPier Plan, AAHK has committed to implementing the mitigation measure of requiring high speed ferries (HSFs) of SkyPier travelling between HKIA and Zhuhai / Macau to start diverting the route with associated speed control across the area, i.e. Speed Control Zone (SCZ), with high CWD abundance. The route diversion and speed restriction at the SCZ have been implemented since 28 December 2015.

Key audit findings for the SkyPier HSFs travelling to/from Zhuhai and Macau against the requirements of the SkyPier Plan during the reporting period are summarized in Table 7.1. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in February 2017 (i.e., 89 to 93 daily movements) were within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. Status of compliance with the annual daily average of 99 movements will be further reviewed in the annual EM&A Report.

In total, 783 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were recorded in February 2017 and the data are presented in Appendix F. The time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ in February 2017 were presented in Figure 7‑1. It will take 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ when the SkyPier HSFs adopt the maximum allowable speed of 15 knots within the SCZ. Figure 7‑1 shows that all the SkyPier HSFs spent more than 9.6 minutes to travel through the SCZ.

Figure 7‑1 Duration of the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ for February 2017

Note: Data above the red line indicated that the time spent by the SkyPier HSFs travelling through the SCZ is more than 9.6 minutes, which is in compliance with the SkyPier Plan.

One ferry was recorded with minor deviation from the diverted route on 25 February 2017. A notice was sent to the ferry operator (FO) and the case is under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report.

The two cases in January 2017 was followed up after receiving further information from the FOs. For the cases with minor route deviation on 1 and 12 January 2017, ET’s investigation found that the vessel captain had to give way to a vessel to ensure safety. After that, the HSF had returned to the normal route following the SkyPier Plan.

Table 7.1: Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan

Requirements in the SkyPier Plan	1 February to 28 February 2017
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited	783
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	1 deviation, which is under investigation
Speed control in speed control zone	The average speeds taken within the SCZ of all HSFs were within 15 knots (6.4 knots to 14.1 knots), which complied with the SkyPier Plan. The time used by HSFs to travel through SCZ is presented in Figure 7‑1.
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)	89 to 93 daily movements (within the maximum daily cap - 125 daily movements).

7.3 Audit of Construction and Associated Vessels

The updated Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV) was submitted and approved in November 2016 by EPD under EP Condition 2.9. The approved Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project.

ET carried out the following actions during the reporting period:

· Four skipper training sessions were held for contractors’ concerned skippers of relevant construction vessels to familiarize them with the predefined routes; general education on local cetaceans; guidelines for avoiding adverse water quality impact; the required environmental practices / measures while operating construction and associated vessels under the Project; and guidelines for operating vessels safely in the presence of CWDs. The list of all trained skippers was properly recorded and maintained by ET.

· One skipper training session was held by contractor’s Environmental Officer. Competency test was subsequently conducted with the trained skippers by ET.

· 51 skippers were trained by ET / contractor’s Environmental Officer in February 2017. In total, 485 skippers were trained from August 2016 to February 2017.

· ET conducted weekly audit of construction and associated vessel records as provided by the contractors. AIS data, vessel tracks, vessel speed and other relevant records were also audited by ET to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV and submitted sufficient records to the Marine Traffic Control Centre (MTCC) for records.

· From the weekly audit, deviations such as speeding in the works area, entry from non-designated gates and entering no-entry zones were identified. All the concerned contractors were reminded to comply with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV during the weekly MTCC audit and such deviations were also reviewed during the Environmental Management Meeting in order to help the contractors prevent such deviations from happening again in future.

· 3-month rolling programmes (one month record and two months forecast) for construction vessel activities were received from the contractors in order to help maintain the number of construction and associated vessels on site to a practicable minimal level.

· As the Brothers Marine Park was designated on 30 December 2016, ET reminded contractors that all vessels shall avoid entering the Brothers Marine Park according to the MTRMP-CAV.

The IEC of the Project had performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme.

7.4 Implementation of Dolphin Exclusion Zone

The Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan was submitted in accordance with EP Condition 3.1 (v) requirement and Section 10.3 of the Updated EM&A Manual, and approved in April 2016 by EPD. The 24-hour DEZs with a 250m radius for marine works were established and implemented by the contractors for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan.

During the reporting period, ET has been notified on one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ by the contractor. ET has checked the dolphin sighting record and the contractor’s site record to audit the implementation of DEZ. The dolphin sighting was recorded on 17 February 2017 from a DCM barge working at Area A3 (geographical coordinates: 22°19'29.36"N, 113°53'44.78"E; refer to Figure 1.2 for the location of works area). The dolphin was first sighted at 08:51 and last sighted at 08:53 within the DEZ. DCM installation works on the DCM barge was ceased in one minute (at 08:52) in accordance with the DEZ Plan, and not resumed until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes.

7.5 Ecological Monitoring

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, ecological monitoring shall be undertaken monthly at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau Island to identify and evaluate any impacts with appropriate actions taken as required to address and minimise any adverse impact found. During the reporting month, the monthly ecological monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were conducted under the Contract P560(R) at the daylighting location and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets foraging at Sheung Sha Chau by the works. Sign of early breeding activities by Black-crowned Night Heron was observed on trees located at the previously identified egretry area. The site photos and location map regarding the monthly ecological monitoring for the egretry area on Sheung Sha Chau and the HDD works are provided in Appendix C for reference.

7.6 Status of Submissions under Environmental Permits

The current status of submissions under the EP up to the reporting period is presented in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Status of Submissions under Environmental Permit

EP Condition	Submission	Status
2.1	Complaint Management Plan	Accepted / approved by EPD
2.4	Management Organizations
2.5	Construction Works Schedule and Location Plans
2.7	Marine Park Proposal
2.8	Marine Ecology Conservation Plan
2.9	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessels
2.10	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier
2.11	Marine Mammal Watching Plan
2.12	Coral Translocation Plan
2.13	Fisheries Management Plan
2.14	Egretry Survey Plan
2.15	Silt Curtain Deployment Plan
2.17	Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing
2.16	Spill Response Plan
2.19	Waste Management Plan
3.1	Updated EM&A Manual
3.4	Baseline Monitoring Reports

7.7 Compliance with Other Statutory Environmental Requirements

During the reporting period, environmental related licenses and permits required for the construction activities were checked. No non-compliance with environmental statutory requirements was recorded. The environmental licenses and permits which are valid in the reporting month are presented in Appendix D.

7.8 Analysis and Interpretation of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Status of Prosecutions

7.8.1 Complaints

During the reporting period, no construction activities related complaints were received.

7.8.2 Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution

During the reporting period, neither notifications of summons nor prosecution were received.

7.8.3 Cumulative Statistics

Cumulative statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions are summarized in Appendix E.

8 Future Key Issues and Other EIA & EM&A Issues

8.1 Construction Programme for the Coming Reporting Period

Key activities anticipated in the next reporting period for the Project will include the following:

Advanced Works:

Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works

● HDD works;

● Pipeline supporting works; and

● Stockpiling of excavated materials from HDD operation.

DCM Works:

Contract 3201 to 3205 Deep Cement Mixing Works

● Laying of geotextile and sand blanket;

● Site office establishment; and

● DCM works and trials.

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

● Site office establishment; and

Laying of geotextile and sand blanket;

8.2 Key Environmental Issues for the Coming Reporting Period

The key environmental issues for the Project in the coming reporting period expected to be associated with the construction activities include:

● Generation of dust from construction works and stockpiles;

● Noise from operating equipment and machinery on-site;

● Generation of site surface runoffs and wastewater from activities on-site;

● Water quality from laying of sand blankets and DCM trial works;

● Sorting, recycling, storage and disposal of general refuse and construction waste;

● Management of chemicals and avoidance of oil spillage on-site; and

● Acoustic decoupling measures for equipment on marine vessels.

The implementation of required mitigation measures by the contractors will be monitored by the ET.

8.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Reporting Period

A tentative schedule of the planned environmental monitoring work in the next reporting period is provided in Appendix C.

9 Conclusion and Recommendation

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period included five DCM contracts, an advanced works contract and a reclamation contract. The DCM contracts involved DCM works and trials, site office establishment, laying of geotextile and sand blanket; the advanced works contract involved HDD works and pipeline supporting works; and the reclamation contract involved site office establishment and laying of geotextile.

All the monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, terrestrial ecology and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.

No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to the construction dust, construction noise, construction waste and CWD monitoring was recorded in the reporting month.

The water quality monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity, chromium, and nickel obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity and SS, some of the testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels during the reporting period. The investigation findings concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Project.

The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island observed that HDD works were conducted at the daylighting location and there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the egrets at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.

Weekly site inspections of the construction works were carried out by the ET to audit the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklists, including the observations on the conditions of silt curtains, which have been provided to the contractors together with the appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.

On the implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works and dolphin observers were deployed in accordance with the Plan. On the implementation of Dolphin Exclusion Zone Plan, dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the DEZ for DCM works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the proposed dolphin observers were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains, whilst there was one record of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works in this reporting month. According to contractors’ site records, DCM works were suspended in the dolphin sighting event until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous period of 30 minutes. These contractors’ records were checked by the ET during site inspection. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET.

On the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan), the daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in February 2017 were in the range of 89 to 93 daily movements, which are within the maximum daily cap of 125 daily movements. A total of 783 HSF movements under the SkyPier Plan were recorded in the reporting period. All HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds under 15 knots (6.4 to 14.1 knots), which were in compliance with the SkyPier Plan. One ferry movements with minor deviation from the diverted route is under investigation by ET. The investigation result will be presented in the next monthly EM&A report. In summary, the ET and IEC have audited the HSF movements against the SkyPier Plan and conducted follow up investigation or actions accordingly.

On the implementation of the MTRMP-CAV, ET conducted weekly audit of relevant information, including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records to ensure the contractors complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. Training has been provided for the concerned skippers to facilitate them in familiarising with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. 3-month rolling programmes for construction vessel activities were also received from contractors. ET reminded contractors that all vessels shall avoid entering the Brothers Marine Park, which has been designated since 30 December 2016.