1. introduction

1.3 Scope of Report

1.3.1 This is the Final EM&A Review Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Contract from 12 March 2012 and 30 April 2018.

1.4 Contract Organization

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

Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone	Fax
Engineer’s Representative (ER) (Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)	Senior Resident Engineer	Seven Yau	3698 5850	2698 5999
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Ray Yan	3465 2836	3465 2899
IEC / ENPO (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3456 2850	3465 2899
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	Environmental Officer	Louie Chan	36932254	2578 0413
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)	24-hour Hotline	Alan C.C. Yeung	9448 0325	--
ET (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	ET Leader	Echo Leong	3922 9280	2317 7609

1.5 Summary of Construction Works

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

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

Marine-base

- Additional GI installation

- Backfill cellular structure

- Band drain installation

- Capping Beams structures

- Cellular structure – (capping beams, connecting arcs, installation & backfilling)

- Cone penetration test;

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Construction of cellular structure

- Construction of conveyors for public fill

- Construction of temporary jetties for surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Construction of temporary seawall

- Deep Cement Mixing

- Earthwork fill

- Flat barge of unloading public fill for surcharge laying

- Geotechnical Instrumentation works

- Geotextile laying and fabrication;

- Ground investigation

- Installation of silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA

- Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls

- Instrumentation works

- Jet grout columns works

- Laying geo-textile

- Laying stone blanket

- Maintenance of Silt curtain

- Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA

- Optimizing rubble mound seawalls

- Outfall installation

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Precast Yard for seawall blocks & culverts

- Precast Yard setup

- Public filling

- Reinstatement of seawall

- Removal of Temporary Seawall

- Rock filling

- Rubble Mound Seawall

- Sand blanket laying

- Sand blanket trial

- Sand filling

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Silt curtain deployment and repairing

- Silt curtain fabrication and deployment; and

- Sloping Seawalls

- Stone blankets laying.

- Stone column installation

- Stone column installation trial;

- Surcharge laying and removal

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

- Temporary Watermain construction along access at Portion D

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

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

Land-base

- Constructing site access at Works Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;

- Construction of Permanent Seawall

- Construction of Sloping Outfalls

- Construction of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

- Deep Cement Mixing

- Drainage works at Works Area WA2 and WA3;

- Earthwork fill

- Erection of site office for CHEC(GD) at Works Area WA2

- Geotechnical Instrumentation Works

- Geotextile fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4; and

- Green roof construction at Works Area WA2

- Hoarding erection at Work Areas Portion D and Works Area WA2

- Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls

- Installed sandbag at Works Area WA2

- Jet grout columns works

- Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2

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

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area WA3;

- Removal of Temporary Seawall

- Sign board erection at Works Area WA2

- Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA2 and WA4;

- Site office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;

- Stone column installation barges setup and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4.

- Surcharge removal & laying

- Vertical Band Drains

1.4.3 The construction programme of the Contract is shown in Appendix B.

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

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

2. Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

2.2 Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)

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

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

2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

3. MONITORING Results

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring

3.1.1 Introduction

3.1.1.1. In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3B, AMS6 and AMS7).

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

3.1.1.3. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2 February 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February 2015 and monitoring work at AMS7A commenced on 5 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.

3.1.1.4. ET proposed relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015.The impact air quality monitoring were conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level for air quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring location.

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Parameter	Location	No. of monitoring events*
Monitoring Parameter	Location	Mar 12 – Apr 18
1-hr TSP	AMS2	1056
	AMS3A/3B	1056
	AMS7/7A/7B	1056
24-hr TSP	AMS2	352
	AMS3A/3B	352
	AMS7/7A/7B	352

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

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

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Number of Exceedance
			Mar 12 – Apr 18
1-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0
		Limit	0
	AMS3A/3B	Action	0
		Limit	0
	AMS7/7A/7B	Action	0
		Limit	0
	*Total*		0
24-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	2
		Limit	1
	AMS3A/3B	Action	18
		Limit	9
	AMS7/7A/7B	Action	5
		Limit	0
	*Total*		35

3.1.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

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

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

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

3.1.4.1 A total of 25 Action Level exceedances and 10 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring in the reporting period. 4 Action Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded Contract No. HY/2013/01 and the rest of the exceedances were recorded by this Contract. No action level or limit level exceedance of 1-hour TSP monitoring at all impact air quality monitoring station the reporting period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to relevant monthly EM&A report. Investigation results confirm that the exceedances were not related to the activities of this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

3.1.5 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.1.5.1 Trend of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP

3.1.5.1.1 The trend of TSP at AMS2, AMS3A/3B and AMS7/7A/7B were comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during the impact monitoring period.

3.1.5.2 Correlation between exceedances with possible dust generating activities

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

3.1.5.3 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

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

ASR

Location ID in the approved EIA report

Predicted Daily Concentrations*

Average Impact 1-hour TSP Levels^#, mg/m³

Average Impact 24-hour TSP Levels^#, mg/m³

1-hour

24-hour

AMS7/AMS7A/ AMS7B

Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel

344

*Extracted from Table 5-8 of the EIA report

^# Both average Impact 1-hour TSP Levels and average Impact 24-hour TSP Levels were calculated using monitoring data obtained by this Contract between March 2012 to August 2017. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.1.5.3.1 At 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring station at AMS7/AMS7A/AMS7B, the average 24-hour TSP levels recorded in the EM&A programme were in similar magnitude as the Daily dust level predicted in the EIA.

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.7 Conclusion

3.1.7.1 Air quality monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Key construction activities including reclamation works, seawall construction, maintenance of silt curtain, outfall installation, additional GI installation, reinstatement of seawall, surcharge removal & laying, construction of permanent seawall, maintenance works of site office, works of public works regional laboratory at works area and maintenance of temporary marine access. The trend of 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP was comparable to the baseline range and showed no noticeable deterioration of air quality during the monitoring period. Although exceedances were recorded, they were isolated and short-term events. There is no evidence of long-term deteriorating trend.

3.1.7.2 The average 24-hour TSP levels recorded at AMS7/7A/7B in EM&A programme were in similar magnitude with the Daily dust level predicted in the EIA. No TSP level was predicted by the Project EIA at AMS2 and AMS3A/3B and therefore, no comparison of EM&A data with EIA predictions could be made. Air quality mitigation measures implemented were effective in controlling air quality impacts.

3.2 Noise Monitoring

3.2.1 Introduction

3.2.1.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations (NMS2 and NMS3A/3B) for at least once per week during 07:00 – 19:00 in the reporting period.

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

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

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

Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	No. of monitoring events
		Mar 12- April 18
Noise	NMS2	283
	NMS3A/NMS3B	283

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

Table 3.5 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	No. of Exceedance(s)
Noise	NMS2	Action	1
	NMS2	Limit	0
	NMS3A/NMS3B	Action	0
	NMS3A/NMS3B	Limit	1
	Total		2

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

3.2.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

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

3.2.3.1 Summary of Non-compliance (Exceedances)

3.2.3.1.1 Table 3.5 summarised the number exceedance recorded at each monitoring station throughout the impact monitoring period. 1 Limit Level exceedance of impact noise monitoring was recorded in June 2012. No exceedance of impact noise monitoring was recorded by Contract No. HY/2013/01 and all exceedances were recorded by this Contract. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports. Investigation results show that the exceedance was not due to the Project works. The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing noise mitigation measures. 1 noise complaint was received in October 2012 and therefore 1 Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in October 2012. Investigation into the possible causes of such exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the action and limit level exceedance were not related to Contract.

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

3.2.3.2.1 Investigation was carried out within three working days of identification of non-compliance. Assessments showed that all exceedances were not due to the works and therefore no action was required to be taken and these were verified by the IEC.

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

3.2.3.3.1 There was 1 limit level exceedance recorded at NMS3A. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports. The investigations results confirmed that the limit level exceedance was not related to Contract.

3.2.3.3.2 1 noise complaint was received in October 2012 and therefore 1 Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in October 2012. Investigation into the possible causes of such exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the action level exceedance was not related to Contract.

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

3.2.4 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.2.4.1 Trend of Measured Noise Level (Leq)

3.2.4.1.1 Other than an isolated event, the noise monitoring results for all monitoring stations were below the Limit levels. The trend showed no noticeable noise impact from the Project during the impact monitoring period.

3.2.4.2 Correlation between exceedances with possible noise generating activities

3.2.4.2.1 Exceedances were rarely recorded for all monitoring stations. However, exceedance was recorded at monitoring station NMS3A/3B.

3.2.4.2.2 For exceedance recorded at NMS3A, it exceeded the limit level, trench excavation (near access road) and general site clearance were the major land-based construction activity being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period. Stone blanket laying at Portion B and Portion E1 was the major marine-based construction activities being undertaken during the monitoring period. Field observations indicated that construction activities, like sheet piling, percussive piling and excavation, were carrying out in other private developments (which are located at eastern and southern side of the Works Area WA2) during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station NMS3A and contribute to the measured noise level. Therefore, noise generating activities of the Project did not cause any noticeable noise impact at the sensitive receivers. The impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted construction noise levels in the Project EIA.

3.2.5 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

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

Table 3.6 Construction Noise Impact at Noise Sensitive Receivers

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

3.2.5.2 During the construction period of the Contract, 1 limit level and 1 action level exceedances were recorded in the impact monitoring period. The measured impact noise levels of the Contract for each monitoring station are summarised in Table 3.7 for comparison with EIA.

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

NSR	Location	Average^#, dB(A), _L_eq,_{30 min}_s	Range^#, dB(A), _L_eq,_{30 min}_s	Limit Level, dB(A), _L_eq,_{30 min}_s
NMS2	Seaview Crescent Tower 1	67	61 - 74^	75
NMS3A/NMS3B	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2	66	53 - 75*	70

* Façade measurements were made at NMS3A on or before 5 September 2012. Free field measurements were made on all monitoring after 5 September 2012 due to removal of site office located at NMS3A. A correction of +3 dB(A) was be made to all free field measurements.

^# Both average and range of construction noise were calculated using monitoring data obtained by this Contract between March 2012 to August 2017. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.2.5.3 The average impact noise levels recorded in EM&A during impact monitoring were all within the range of the predicted construction noise levels in the EIA Report. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports.

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

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

3.2.6.2 The noise monitoring methodology was effective in monitoring the noise impacts of the Contract. Baseline noise monitoring determined the ambient noise levels at the sensitive receivers prior to commencement of construction works. During periods when possible noise generating construction activities were on-going, impact noise monitoring would determine whether the Contract caused adverse noise impacts on the sensitive receivers. The monitoring methodology which focus on L_{eq30 minute} therefore considered to be cost effective for the Contract.

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

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

3.2.7 Conclusion

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

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

3.3.1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Parameter	Tide	No. of monitoring events^#
		Mar 17 – Apr 18
Water Quality	Mid-Ebb	844*
	Mid-Flood	845*

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

Table 3.9 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 12 – Apr 18

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
		Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	1	2	0	0	3	4	4	6
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	1	5	9	5	10

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	10	5	11

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	10	2	11

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	0	4
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	3	0	1	0	0	5	12	5	16

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
IS10/IS10(N)	Action	6	4	8	6	0	1	1	13	14	25

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3
IS(Mf)11	Action	3	5	7	7	0	2	1	11	11	25
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
IS(Mf)16	Action	1	2	5	2	0	0	5	6	12	11

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17/IS17(N)	Action	3	4	8	3	0	1	5	1	15	10

	Limit	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	0	4	0
SR3/SR3(N)	Action	2	1	0	0	0	0	3	4	5	5

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Action	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	12	1	13
SR4(N)
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	2
SR5/SR5(N)	Action	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	19	4	21

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	3

SR6	Action	0	2	0	1	0	0	2	12	2	15

	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
SR7	Action	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	15	1	19
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1

SR10A	Action	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	3	0	5
	Limit	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
SR10B(N)	Action	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	7	1	8
	Limit	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Total	Action	18	26	33	26	1	9	36	148	297
	Limit	2	3	0	0	1	2	5	14	27

Note: S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

3.3.1.4 Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (March 2012 to April 2018) accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.

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

3.3.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

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

3.3.3.1 Summary of Non-compliance (Exceedances)

3.3.3.1.1 Table 3.9 summarised the number of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids exceedances recorded at each impact monitoring station and sensitive receiver station throughout the impact monitoring period. A total of 297 Action Level exceedances and 27 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the reporting period.

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

3.3.4.1 297 Action Level exceedances and 27 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the reporting period. After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract except the Action Level Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to Contract. The silt curtain integrity checking record on 4 January 14 shows that the disconnected silt curtain observed on 18 Dec 13 at northwest of HKBCF were rectified and the Contractor was further reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report December 2013.

3.3.4.2 The Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity, Limit Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October 2014 and Action Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during flood tide on 20 October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract. Recommendation has been given and rectification has been carried on by the Contractor on 28 October 2014. As rectification was provided by the Contractor and recurrence of Contract related exceedance was not observed in the subsequent monitoring events. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report October 2014.

3.3.4.3 After review of the investigation results of the other water quality exceedances (for detail of investigations please refer to section 4 of monthly EM&A report (March 12 to April 18), ambient conditions were considered to have effects on the water quality monitoring results. Exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

3.3.5 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

3.3.5.1 Trend of water quality

Dissolved Oxygen

3.3.5.1.1 The dissolved oxygen levels recorded in the impact monitoring period showed a seasonal trend in which lower DO levels were recorded during the wet season and higher DO levels were recorded during the dry season. One reason for this seasonal trend may have been the increase in water temperature during the wet season leading to a decrease in the solubility of oxygen in water and vice versa during the dry season. The trend of dissolved oxygen levels was presented in Appendix G. Although action and limit levels of DO levels were triggered during the reporting period, they were concluded not related to this Contract’s construction activities after investigations. Furthermore the trend of dissolved oxygen levels at each monitoring stations in Appendix G did not show any noticeable deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels.

Turbidity

3.3.5.1.2 The turbidity levels were fairly distributed at most monitoring station during the reporting period and no apparent trend was observed. The trend of turbidity levels of each monitoring station was shown in Appendix G. Despite few isolated events, turbidity levels of all monitoring stations were still lower than the Action Level during the monitoring period.

Suspended Solids

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

3.3.6 Correlation between exceedances with possible marine construction activities

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

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

Month	*Imported Fill m³/month**	DO (Surface & Middle); and DO (Bottom)	Depth averaged Turbidity	Depth averaged SS	Total
(mm/yy)	*Imported Fill m³/month**	DO (Surface & Middle); and DO (Bottom)	Depth averaged Turbidity	Depth averaged SS	Total
Mar-12	0	0	1	0	1
Apr-12	0	0	2	3	5
May-12	0	1	0	0	1
Jun-12	0	0	0	2	2
Jul-12	0	0	0	0	0
Aug-12	28,053	0	0	0	0
Sep-12	12,769	0	0	0	0
Oct-12	28,882	0	1	1	2
Nov-12	2,276	0	0	9	9
Dec-12	0	0	0	10	10
Jan-13	0	0	0	6	6
Feb-13	2,608	0	0	0	0
Mar-13	52568	0	0	2	2
Apr-13	119967	0	1	4	5
May-13	448159	0	0	5	5
Jun-13	245188.5	7	1	1	9
Jul-13	252327.4	0	0	3	3
Aug-13	287182.6	0	1	5	6
Sep-13	368995	0	0	5	5
Oct-13	602966	0	0	8	8
Nov-13	593481	0	0	15	15
Dec-13	930460	0	0	5	5
Jan-14	952135	0	0	7	7
Feb-14	886830	0	0	1	1
Mar-14	1,111,998	0	1	9	10
Apr-14	1,291,808	0	0	0	0
May-14	1,181,417	0	0	0	0
Jun-14	752,771	0	0	0	0
Jul-14	1,252,437	0	0	0	0
Aug-14	1,427,973	14	0	0	14
Sep-14	1,370,511	0	0	4	4
Oct-14	1,750,755	0	1	17	18
Nov-14	1,788,611	0	0	1	1
Dec-14	1,608,665	0	0	2	2
Jan-15	1,774,785	0	0	13	13
Feb-15	1,120,668	0	0	2	2
Mar-15	376,294	0	0	2	2
Apr-15	240,642	0	0	0	0
May-15	743,731	0	0	0	0
Jun-15	368,595	0	0	0	0
Jul-15	35,549	0	0	2	2
Aug-15	23,625	0	0	0	0
Sep-15	34,520	0	0	1	1
Oct-15	9,246	0	0	1	1
Nov-15	0	0	0	1	1
Dec-15	0	0	0	1	1
Jan-16	0	0	0	0	0
Feb-16	0	0	2	2	4
Mar-16	38,318.70	0	0	0	0
Apr-16	18,738.00	0	0	0	0
May-16	45,272.30	0	0	1	1
Jun-16	27,882.00	0	0	0	0
Jul-16	54,308.70	0	0	0	0
Aug-16	18,958.70	0	0	0	0
Sep-16	30,298.70	0	0	3	3
Oct-16	24,499.30	0	0	5	5
Nov-16	280,380	0	0	12	12
Dec-16	11,704.00	0	0	1	1
Jan-17	18,892.70	0	0	0	0
Feb-17	17,574.70	0	0	3	3
Mar-17	20,601.30	0	2	4	6
Apr-17	39,960.70	0	0	1	1
May-17	22,430.70	0	0	0	0
Jun-17	0	0	0	0	0
Jul-17	0	0	0	2	2
Aug-17	0	0	0	0	0
Sep-17	0	86	3	5	94
Oct-17	0	0	0	2	2
Nov-17	0	0	0	6	6
Dec-17	0	0	0	3	3
Jan-18	0	0	0	0	0
Feb-18	0	0	0	1	1
Mar-18	0	0	0	1	1
Apr-18	0	0	0	3	3

*Only marine filling is counted

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.7 Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions

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

· WSR 27 - San Tau Beach SSSI with SR3/SR3(N)

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

· WSR 25 - Cooling water intake at HK International Airport with SR5/SR5(N)

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

3.3.7.2 According to Section 9.10.7.4 of the EIA Report, the dissolved oxygen depletion from the loss of sediment to suspension during the construction of the reclamation for HKBCF was calculated to be 0.4 mg/L at WSR25. Since, as stated in the Table 9.6a of the EIA report the DO of the North-western Water Control Zone is generally high with average ranges between 5.7 – 6.8 mg/L and depletion will not be detrimental to the ecological systems of the area. The average Depth averaged DO record at SR5/ SR5(N) is 7.9 mg/L in November 2014 when the filling rate/month is the highest during the reporting period and therefore no significant dissolved oxygen depletion from was noted during impact monitoring.

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

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

Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Monitoring Depth	Baseline mean		Impact mean (November 2014)		Depletion during Impact Monitoring
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Monitoring Depth	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood	Mid-ebb	Mid-flood
SR3	SR3/SR3(N)*	Surface & mid	6.8	6.7	8.0	7.9	-1.2	-1.2
SR3	SR3/SR3(N)*	Bottom	-	6.2	-	-	-	-
SR4^{^}	SR4(N)**	Surface & mid	6.1	6.3	8.4	8.4	-2.3	-2.1
SR4^{^}	SR4(N)**	Bottom	6.0	6.2	8.3	8.3	-2.3	-2.1
SR5	SR5/SR5(N)**	Surface & mid	6.4	6.3	8.0	7.8	-1.6	-1.5
SR5	SR5/SR5(N)**	Bottom	6.1	6.1	8.0	7.7	-1.9	-1.6
SR6	SR6**	Surface & mid	6.6	6.5	8.1	8.2	-1.5	-1.7
SR6	SR6**	Bottom	6.2	6.1	8.1	8.2	-1.9	-2.1
SR7	SR7**	Surface & mid	6.3	6.0	7.9	7.9	-1.6	-1.9
SR7	SR7**	Bottom	6.1	5.9	7.8	7.8	-1.7	-1.9
SR10A	SR10A	Surface & mid	6.0	6.0	7.6	7.6	-1.6	-1.6
SR10A	SR10A	Bottom	5.7	5.8	7.6	7.6	-1.9	-1.8
SR10B^	SR10B(N)**	Surface & mid	6.1	6.0	7.6	7.6	-1.5	-1.6
SR10B^	SR10B(N)**	Bottom	6.2	5.8	7.6	7.6	-1.4	-1.8

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

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

3.3.7.4 Comparing baseline averaged dissolved oxygen levels with EM&A results; no significant depletion was found at all sensitive receiver locations. There was no adverse effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations as a result of the filling works of the Contract as the depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations did not breach the Water Quality Objectives.

Suspended solids (SS)

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

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

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

3.3.7.6 The use of single layer silt curtain system has been modelled in the 2012 mitigated scenario. The predicted suspended sediment concentrations under the 2012 mitigated scenario of the Contract as shown in Table 9.22 in the EIA Report are summarised in Table 3.13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.7.9 The average elevations in suspended solids concentrations of November 2014 were compared with the baseline levels are provided in Table 3.15.

Table 3.15 Average suspended solids levels at sensitive receivers (mgL^-1) in November 2014

Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Impact SS Mean (in November 2014)
Sensitive Receiver in Baseline	Associated Location during Impact Monitoring	Mid-ebb	Elevation	Mid-flood	Elevation
SR3	SR3/SR3(N)	4.7	-9.3	6.1	-10.2
SR4	SR4(N)*	6.4	-4.9	9.4	-2.8
SR5	SR5/SR5(N)	4.9	-5.7	8.6	-3.3
SR6	SR6	5.3	-6.6	5.9	-6.0
SR7	SR7	6.3	-5.1	7.2	-3.2
SR10A	SR10A	4.2	-6.0	5.3	-4.9
SR10B	SR10B(N)	4.4	-7.1	6.0	-5.1

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

3.3.7.10 With the highest filling rate in Nov 2014, the elevations in suspended solids levels were below 30 percent of the baseline suspended solids levels at all stations. Regional influences would have effects on the deterioration in water quality than activities at the work site. Despite few isolated events described in section 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2, all other exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude that those recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

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

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

3.3.8.2 Baseline water quality monitoring determined the ambient water quality in the region prior to commencement of construction works. Impact water quality monitoring hel

3.3.8.3 ped to determine whether the Contract would cause unacceptable water quality impacts on the sensitive receivers.

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

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

3.3.9 Conclusion

3.3.9.1 Water quality monitoring for the Contract was conducted during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. For suspended solids levels, a total of 203 exceedances were recorded. Assessment indicated that there was no correlation between the filling rates and the number of water quality exceedances recorded. Despite few isolated events described in section 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2, all other exceedances were considered to be due local effects in the vicinity of the monitoring station where exceedance was recorded and after investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude that those recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.

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

3.4 Dolphin Monitoring

3.4.1 Introduction

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

3.4.1.2 The total transect length for NEL and NWL combined is approximately 111km although some Contract and other works at times have caused temporary truncation of some lines, particularly lines 1,2,9 and 10. Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 4a-4d could not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10 is reduced from 6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF construction site.

3.4.1.3 Coordinates for transect lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 have been updated in respect to the Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD in August 2015 and May 2017. Therefore, the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 108km.

3.4.1.4 Surveys were conducted twice per month, using combined line transect and photo-identification techniques. The research team comprised qualified and experienced researchers and Marine Mammal Observers (MMO). The Dolphin Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017 therefore, this report includes survey data from March – August 2017, inclusive. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.4.2 Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

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

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

3.4.3.2 15 Limit level exceedances and 6 Action level exceedances were recorded in the reporting year for impact dolphin monitoring. And the Event Action Plan was triggered (Table 3.16)

Table 3.16 Summary of the STG/ANI Quarterly Values

Quarterly period ^		STG*	ANI**	Level Exceeded
March 2013- May 2013	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2013- May 2013	NWL	3	8.6	Limit Level
June 2013- August 2013	NEL	1.8	1.8	Action
June 2013- August 2013	NWL	5.7	16.6	Action
September 2013- November 2013	NEL	0	0	Action
September 2013- November 2013	NWL	6.7	24.7	Action
December 2013- February 2014	NEL	0.5	0.5	Action
December 2013- February 2014	NWL	4.5	20.7	Action
March 2014- May 2014	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2014- May 2014	NWL	0.7	3	Limit Level
June 2014- August 2014	NEL	0.5	2.7	Limit Level
June 2014- August 2014	NWL	3.6	9.8	Limit Level
September 2014- November 2014	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
September 2014- November 2014	NWL	2.1	7.1	Limit Level
December 2014- February 2015	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
December 2014- February 2015	NWL	2.1	4.3	Limit Level
March 2015- May 2015	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2015- May 2015	NWL	1.6	5.2	Limit Level
June 2015- August 2015	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
June 2015- August 2015	NWL	1.7	4.7	Limit Level
September 2015- November 2015	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
September 2015- November 2015	NWL	1.9	3.8	Limit Level
December 2015- February 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
December 2015- February 2016	NWL	1.2	4.5	Limit Level
March 2016- May 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2016- May 2016	NWL	1.4	4.6	Limit Level
June 2016- August 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
June 2016- August 2016	NWL	1.4	4.6	Limit Level
September 2016- November 2016	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
September 2016- November 2016	NWL	2.4	8	Limit Level
December 2016- February 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
December 2016- February 2017	NWL	1.9	8.3	Limit Level
March 2017- May 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
March 2017- May 2017	NWL	0.5	2.9	Limit Level
June 2017- August 2017	NEL	0	0	Limit Level
June 2017- August 2017	NWL	1.6	5.1	Limit Level

* STG represents groups of dolphins (recorded on effort)

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

^The Dolphin Monitoring for this Contract ceased in August 2017 therefore, this report includes survey data from March 2012 – August 2017, inclusive. Monitoring works and monitoring data between September 2017 and April 2018 for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge HKBCF –Passenger Clearance Building.

3.4.4 Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.4.4.1 Vessel-based surveys were conducted monthly from March 2012 to August 2017. A total of 267 survey days were completed between March 2012-August 2017. A total of 14,387km were completed of which 14,116.9 km were conducted under favourable conditions (defined as Beaufort Sea State 3 or better and with visibility of >1km). In the first year of impact monitoring (2012-13), 49 survey days were completed (total travelled 2627.5km; under favourable conditions 2601.4km). In the second year of impact monitoring (2013-14), 50 survey days were completed (total travelled 2667.1km; 2595.4km under favourable conditions). In the third year of impact monitoring (2014-15), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2641.7km; 2637.1km conducted under favourable conditions). In the fourth year of impact monitoring (2015-16), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2615.7km; 2572 km conducted under favourable conditions). In the fifth year of impact monitoring (2016-17), 48 survey days were completed (total travelled 2619.7km; 2520.9 km conducted under favourable conditions). In the final reporting period of impact monitoring for this contract (March 2017– August 2017), 24 survey days were completed (total travelled 1215.3km; 1190.1km conducted under favourable conditions). For the entire contract, >98% of the track length covered was completed under favourable conditions. Between March 2017 and August 2017, a total of 20 dolphin sightings were recorded, 8 “on effort[1]” and 12 as “opportunistic”. In the first year of impact monitoring, a total of 203 dolphin sightings were recorded, 145 as on effort and 58 as opportunistic. In the second year, a total of 135 dolphin sightings were recorded, 91 on effort and 44 opportunistic. In the third year, a total of 72 dolphin sightings were recorded, 46 on effort and 26 opportunistic. In the fourth year, a total of 43 dolphin sightings were recorded, 26 on effort and 17 opportunistic. In the fifth year, a total of 50 dolphin sightings were recorded, 32 on effort and 18 opportunistic. Throughout the monitoring period a total of 523 sightings were recorded, 348 “on effort” and 175 opportunistic (Appendix H: Table 1; Figure 1).

Table 3.17 Summary of All Dolphin Impact Monitoring Sightings from Year 1 (March 2012 – February 2013) to the Year 6 (March 2017 – August 2017) of the HKBCF Reclamation Works Project

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

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

3.4.5 Distribution

3.4.5.1. Sightings of dolphins were divided into yearly periods. The number of sightings steadily decreased from March 2012 to February 2016, from 145 to 26 on effort sightings. In 2016-17, there was a slight increase to 32 on effort sightings (Appendix H: Table 1). A marked shift in sightings from throughout NEL and NWL to the northwest of NWL and waters adjacent to south NWL occurs from 2012 to 2017 (Appendix H: Figure 2). Dolphins were consistently distributed in areas of rocky, reefy shoreline or where there was a marked depth contour. These areas are the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Protected Area (SCLKCMPA), the adjacent maritime border of Hong Kong SAR and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Tai O area. Since long term monitoring has been initiated by AFCD, there has been a regular and year-round occurrence of dolphins in these areas of northern Lantau.

3.4.6 Encounter Rate

3.4.6.1 Encounter rates of “on effort” sightings (i.e. groups) for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17 were calculated^{^[2]}. The yearly encounter rate (using on effort sightings recorded during Beaufort Sea State 3 or better) has decreased from 5.57 sightings per 100km effort to 1.01 sightings per 100km effort, between year 1 and year 4 of the impact monitoring period. In year 5 (2016-17) a slight increase in encounter rate was recorded; 1.27 sightings per 100km^{^[3]} number of sightings (Appendix H: Table 1).

3.4.6.2 After considering the various statistical processes that best fit the data collected by this Contract, ANOVA is powerful enough to discern whether there is significant difference between baseline and monitored period. We therefore selected the statistical process for the data specific to this Contract. A repeated measures two-way ANOVA with unequal sample size was conducted. Impact monitoring from all quarters (impact phase) comparison is made to a single time within the baseline monitoring period, September to November 2011[4], this baseline data set has been used consistently throughout this projects EM&A reporting. The requirement of this test was to explore differences between pre and impact monitoring phase. This comparison evaluates whether there is significant difference between encounter rates obtained during baseline and encounter rates obtained right before this Contract ceased construction activities. For details of Monthly STG and ANI encounter rates used in ANOVA, please refer to Appendix H: Table 2a and Appendix H: Table 2b.

3.4.6.3 The two variables that were examined included the two locations (NEL and NWL) and two periods (baseline and impact phase). For the comparison between the baseline period and the impact phase, the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.00 and 0.00 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the present quarter and baseline quarter in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI. The results show that a significant decline of both individuals and groups of dolphins between baseline and impact monitoring. HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. As AFCD Monitoring has reported a significant decline in this area prior to HKBCF construction activities, it is difficult to distinguish how much HKBCF activities may have influenced this existing decline.

3.4.7. Group Size

3.4.7.1 The majority of all sightings recorded were of less than 5 individuals (~70%), and sightings of groups containing 10 or more individuals were rare (2.7%). Larger groups were seen in southern NWL and in, or adjacent to, SCLKCMP. Groups of five individual dolphins or more were sighted throughout the year. Groups of 5-9 individuals and more than 10 individuals were also noted during opportunistic sightings recorded from WL (Appendix H: Figure 3; 4).

3.4.8. Habitat Use

3.4.8.1. The EM&A Manuel stipulated that surveys be conducted in such a way as to be comparable to the baseline survey for this Contract (September -November 2011) and to the long term annual monitoring conducted by AFCD. As such, analyses of density per survey effort (DPSE) and sightings per survey effort (SPSE) were calculated in accordance with the methodology detailed in AFCD reports (e.g., AFCD 2012^{^[5]}). The survey areas are divided into 1km x 1km squares and the relative number of sightings and densities are calculated for each block. NEL has 55 blocks and NWL has 90 blocks (only blocks of more than 0.75km² are included). For the period March 2012-August 2017, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use (< 20 DPSE), moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE) and high use (> 60 DPSE). Within NEL, 1.8% of its area was categorized as high use; 3.6% as moderate use and 94.6% as low use. Within NWL, 3.3% of its area was categorized as high use; 15.6% as moderate use and 81.1% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 5).

3.4.8.2. For the period March 2012-August 2017, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use (< 5 SPSE), moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE) and high use (> 15 SPSE). Within NEL, 1.8% of its area was calculated as high use, 36.4% as moderate use and 61.8% as low use. Within NWL, 4.4% of its area was calculated as high use, 68.9% as moderate use and 26.7% as low use (Appendix H: Figure 6).

3.4.8.3. For the period February 2011 – January 2012, DPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 4% and 17% of each respective area classified as high use (> 60 DPSE); 20% (NEL) and 16% (NWL) as moderate use (20.1-60 DPSE); and 76% (NEL) and 68% (NWL) as low use (< 20 DPSE) (Appendix H: Figure 7). These figures were compared to impact monitoring data for March 2012-August 2017 (Table 3.18). For DPSE in NWL, there is a 13% increase in low use grid cells, no change in moderate use cells and a decrease of 14% in high use cells. Noting the geographical location of the cells between advanced and impact monitoring, there are less high use cells in the centre of the NWL area indicating that habitat utilisation of this area has decreased. In NEL, there is a 19% increase in low use grid cells, a 17% decrease in moderate use cells and a 2% decrease in high use cells.

3.4.8.4. For the period February 2011 – January 2012, SPSE was calculated in six categories, ranging from low use to high use. NEL and NWL have 9% and 22% of each respective area classified as high use (> 15 SPSE); 31% (NEL) and 27% (NWL) as moderate use (5.1-15 SPSE); and 60% (NEL) and 51% (NWL) as low use (< 5 SPSE) (Appendix H: Figure 7). These figures were compared to impact monitoring data for March 2012-August 2017 (Table 3.18). For SPSE in NWL, there is a 24% decrease in low use grid cells, a 42% increase in moderate use grid cells and a 18% decrease in high use grid cells. For SPSE in NEL, there is a 2% increase in low use grid cells, a 5% increase in moderate use cells and a 7% decrease in high use cells.

Table 3.18 Comparison of low, moderate and high habitat utilisation in NEL and NWL between advanced and impact monitoring (in %)

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

3.4.8.5.

3.4.9. Mother and Calf Pairs

3.4.9.1. During impact monitoring, twelve females were sighted with calves and/or juveniles; HZMB 014, HZMB 021, HZMB 023, HZMB 026, HZMB 043, HZMB 044, HZMB 047, HZMB 050, HZMB 073, HZMB 098, HZMB 114 and HZMB 116. Some calves could not be assigned to known or identifiable females (Appendix H: Figure 8). Mother-offspring bonds are known to last years, sometimes decades therefore, following calves throughout the impact monitoring period provides some insight to calf survivorship.

HZMB 014: This female was sighted with a calf in 2012. In 2015, when last sighted during impact monitoring, there was a juvenile that, although not closely associated with her, corresponded with the size and colouration of a 3 year old dolphin.

HZMB 021 (NL37): This female was sighted with a calf in 2012 and was not sighted again until early 2016. During this resighting, there was no juvenile of the appropriate age/colouration class recorded within the group

HZMB 023: This female was noted in close association with a juvenile in 2012 (ID: HZMB 022) and the pair have been recorded consistently throughout the impact monitoring period.

HZMB 026: This female was sighted with a calf in January 2013. When last resighted during impact monitoring in October 2014, a juvenille was recorded in close association.

HZMB 044 (NL98): This female was first sighted with a new born calf in 2012 (ID: HZMB 125). Although there was a gap in resightings of approximately 15 months, this female was sighted with HZMB 125 in May 2016. When HZMB 044 was last sighted during impact monitoring in January 2017, HZMB 125 was not sighted. HZMB 125 would then have been 4.5 years old and the mother/offspring pair may no longer have had a close association

HZMB 043: This female was seen once only with a calf in 2012. No more sightings of this individual have been recorded during impact monitoring.

HZMB 047: This female was first identified in 2012. She was recorded with a calf in April 2015 and was not sighted again during the impact monitoring period.

HZMB 050: This female was first sighted with a calf in 2012 and resighted with a closely associated juvenile in January 2014. During her last sighting, in July 2014, no juvenile was recorded within the group.

HZMB 073: This female was first sighted with a calf in December 2012. In April 2013, the calf was recorded in close association with this female. When this female was sighted again, and for the final time during impact monitoring in May 2013, there were several young animals within this group but none were closely associated with her.

HZMB 098 (NL104): This female was sighted with a calf in May 2013 and again in February 2015, with a juvenile in close association. This female was not sighted again until January 2017, at which time, no dolphin sighted within the group corresponded to the age/colouration profile of 3-4 year old dolphin. This female was last seen during impact monitoring in May 2017, again without an appropriately sized/coloured dolphin within the group.

HZMB 114: This female was sighted with a new calf in November 2015 and was last sighted, still in close proximity to a juvenile in January 2017.

HZMB 116: This female was sighted with a calf in December 2013 and when last sighted during impact monitoring in August 2014, a calf was still in close association with her.

3.4.10. Activities

3.4.10.1. Five distinctive behavioural categories were defined; “feeding”, “travelling” and “multiple” (more than one behaviour was observed at one time), “other” and “unknown”. Feeding activity frequency dominated most years, except 2015-16 where travelling was the most frequently observed activity. In 2016-17, the last full year of impact monitoring data, feeding and multiple activities, which included feeding, were the most frequent activities. Although the frequency of focused surface active behaviour was relatively small in the first three years of impact monitoring, after March 2015, such behaviour was rarely seen and only in short bouts between other behavious (so classified within the multiple behaviour group) (Appendix H: Figure 9). Although feeding behaviour occurred throughout the habitat, there is a preference for rocky reefy habitat along the shorelines of SCLKCMP and Tai O, which is the usual habitat of the dolphins prey. These areas have been consistently highlighted as critical habitat for dolphins (Appendix H: Figure 10).

3.4.11. Photo-Identification Catalogue

3.4.11.1. A total of 122 dolphins comprise the photo identification catalogue established specifically for the HZMB Contract (Appendix H: Table 3). Not all dolphins photographed are identifiable as only individuals with unambiguous marks, cuts, wounds, injuries and/or pigmentation or with uniquely shaped fins can be included in the photo-identification catalogue. Several dolphins were resighted frequently (Table 3.19), although the majority of identified individuals were sighted only 1-2 times during the impact monitoring period. This implies that some individuals rely more on NWL and NEL habitat than others, as also indicated in the long term AFCD monitoring programme, and also reflects the declining use NEL and NWL habitat as the Project progressed. In 2016-17, there was some indication of a return of individuals sighted at the beginning of the impact monitoring period.

Table 3.19 Dolphins Frequently Recorded During Impact Monitoring Surveys.

* cannot be determined

3.4.12 Dolphin Abundance

3.4.12.1 For dolphin abundance, please refer to corresponding annual report.

3.4.13 Environmental Acceptability of the Contract

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

3.4.14 Summary

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

3.4.15 Verification of Impact Statements Stated in EIA and Supporting Documentation

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

3.4.15.2 The EIA report for HZMB^{^[6]}makes several statements with regards to impact on cetaceans during the construction phase in sections pertaining to water quality and bioaccumulation:

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

3.4.15.4 Contract has largely maintained water quality objectives as described in the EM&A Manual. The exceedances noted were short in duration and localised to the Project site. These incidents were short in duration and when the Contractor was notified, actions were promptly taken and no further exceedances were noted.

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

3.4.15.6 It is noted that for both of the above impact predictions to be investigated more thoroughly, long term trends in pathogens and toxin loads in CWD should be analysed. This has recently been completed for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) population of CWD and it is noted that both bioaccumulation and biomagnification are significantly higher than populations elsewhere (Gui et al 2014^{^[7]}). There has been no updated toxin analyses of Chinese white dolphin in the reporting year.

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

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

3.4.15.9 The Ecological Baseline Survey^{^[8]}defines an Impact Index which is used to predict impact for each area through which the HZMB structure passes. HKBCF is located in the area defined as the “Northeast Lantau Section (NELS) – from the eastern edge of the airport platform to its connection to the North Lantau Highway”.

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

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

3.4.15.12 A cumulative assessment has been published using data gathered prior to the initiation of HKBCF construction activities (Marcotte et al, 2015^{^[9]}). This assessment notes that the increase in high speed ferry traffic has been concomitant to a significant decrease in dolphins sighted in NEL and adjacent NWL waters. Several other threats were considered in this study, however, high speed ferries were the most significant impact. Therefore, this study showed a significant decline in dolphins in NEL and adjacent areas was ongoing for a decade prior to commencement of HKBCF activities. The high speed ferry traffic has continued to increase in the area as HKBCF and other Projects have commenced^{^[10]}.

3.4.16 Practicality and Effectiveness of the EM&A Programme

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

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

3.4.16.3 The AFCD annual monitoring reports for the period 2011-2012, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 have all stated that a significant decline had been detected in population abundance in the NEL area over the last decade. Only long term inter annual abundance estimates can be used to detect such changes. This decline was noted prior to construction had begun at HKBCF and has now been attributed to high speed ferries by an independent study (see Section 3.4.15.12).

3.4.17 Conclusion

3.4.17.1 Marine mammal monitoring was conducted between March 2012 and August 2017 in accordance with EM&A Manuel methodologies. These methodologies have been invaluable in the past in determining both broad scale and long term patterns of distribution, abundance, association, habitat use and behavioral activities. There is historically much variation in these parameters and most observations to date have concurred with observations documented previously with the now emerging trend of decreased habitat use within NEL. As AFCD Monitoring has reported a significant decline in this area prior to HKBCF construction activities, it is difficult to distinguish how much HKBCF activities may have influenced this existing decline.

3.4.17.2 15 Limit level exceedances and 6 Action level exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

3.5.1 Site Inspection

3.5.1.1 Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Contract. In the reporting period, 319 site inspections were carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

3.5.1.2 No substantial adverse environmental impacts were registered, indicating that mitigation measures implemented were effective and sufficient for the construction activities undertaken. For the minor deficiencies observed during regular site inspections and audit were rectified by the Contractor during the reporting period. For particular observations for air quality, noise, water quality, chemical and waste management, landscape and visual impact and other particular observations during the site inspections, please refer to relevant monthly EM&A reports, quarterly summary EM&A reports and annual EM&A review reports.

4. Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

4.1 Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management

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

4.1.2 As advised by the Contractor, 4,257.5m³ hard rock and large broken concrete; 401,363.8m3 of inert C&D Materials generated and reused in other Projects; 10,822,044.8m³ of imported fill; 1,984,123.7m³ of surplus surcharge exported to Macau; 342,712.8kg of metals; 8,034kg of paper/cardboard packaging; 17,953.3kg of plastics; 4,230.2m³ other C&D waste such as general refuse were generated and disposed of and 37,418kg of chemical waste were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. The Contractor is advised to properly maintain on site C&D materials and wastes collection, sorting and recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize reuse / recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on site regularly and properly.

4.1.3 The Contractor is reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

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

4.1.5 After checking with the Contractor, surcharge material was removed off site to Macau from 27 April 2016 and it was discontinued in April 2017. 1,984,123.7m³ of surplus surcharge was exported to Macau during the reporting period. The Contractor was reminded to ensure consistency in quantities in case of any C&D material disposed off-site and/or no surcharge material removed off site

5. Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

5.1 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

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

5.1.2 Changes of EM&A programme such as conditional omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for this Contract; relocation of air quality monitoring station, relocation of construction noise monitoring station, impact water quality monitoring stations, alternation of the transect lines of dolphin monitoring were carried out during the reporting period. For background proposal date and approval date of each changes of the EM&A programme, please refer to the corresponding annual EM&A review report of this contract.

5.1.3 Overall, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme. .

5.1.4 The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Contract. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme during the reporting period.

5.1.5

6. Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

6.1.1 For impact air quality monitoring

6.1.1.1 A total of 25 Action Level exceedances and 10 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring in the reporting period. 4 Action Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded Contract No. HY/2013/01 and the rest of the exceedances were recorded by this Contract. No action level or limit level exceedance of 1-hour TSP monitoring at all impact air quality monitoring station the reporting period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to relevant monthly EM&A report. Investigation results confirm that the exceedances were not related to the activities of this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

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

6.1.2 For construction noise

6.1.2.1 There was one (1) limit level exceedance recorded at NMS3A in June 2012. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A report. For exceedance recorded at NMS3A, it exceeded the limit level, trench excavation (near access road) and general site clearance were the major land-based construction activity being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period. Stone blanket laying at Portion B and Portion E1 was the major marine-based construction activities being undertaken during the monitoring period. Field observations indicated that construction activities, like sheet piling, percussive piling and excavation, were carrying out in other private developments (which are located at eastern and southern side of the Works Area WA2) during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station NMS3A and contribute to the measured noise level. Therefore, noise generating activities of the Project did not cause any noticeable noise impact at the sensitive receivers. The impact noise levels recorded were generally similar to the predicted construction noise levels in the Project EIA. 1 noise complaint was received in October 2012 and therefore 1 Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in October 2012. Investigation into the possible causes of such exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the action level exceedance was not related to Contract.

6.1.3 For impact water quality monitoring

6.1.3.1 297 Action Level exceedances and 27 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the reporting period. After investigation, all impact water quality exceedances were considered not related to this Contract except the Action Level Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to Contract. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report of this Contract. The exceedances note at IS10 and SR5 on 18 Dec 13 were considered as Contract related. The silt curtain integrity checking record on 4 January 14 shows that the disconnected silt curtain observed on 18 Dec 13 at northwest of HKBCF were rectified and the Contractor was further reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report December 2013; the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity and Limit Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October 2014 and Action Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during flood tide on 20 October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract. Recommendation has been given and rectification has been carried on by the Contractor on 28 October 2014. As rectification was provided by the Contractor and recurrence of Contract related exceedance was not observed in the subsequent monitoring events. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report October 2014.

6.1.3.2 The water quality recorded were generally similar to the predicted water quality during construction phase in the Project EIA.

6.1.4 For dolphin monitoring

6.1.4.1 15 Limit level exceedances and 6 Action level exceedances were recorded in the reporting period for impact dolphin monitoring. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For investigation results please refer to Appendix L of the corresponding quarterly reports.

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

6.1.6 Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.

7. Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

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

7.1.1 Total of 48 environmental complaints were received in the reporting period. Investigations were conducted for each of the environmental complaints according to the requirement of the EM&A manual if this Contract, the investigations results confirms that there were no evidence that the environmental impacts stated in the complaints were related to the Contract. The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.

7.1.2 2 summonses and 2 successful prosecution were received in the reporting period.

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

8. REVIEW of THE VALIDITY OF THE EIA Prediction

8.1 For Impact Air Quality Monitoring

8.1.1 A total of 1 Action level and 4 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period between March 2012 to February 2013. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not related to Contract.

8.1.2 A total of 15 Action level and 5 Limit Level exceedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period between March 2013 to February 2014. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not related to Contract.

8.1.3 A total of Five (5) Action level excedances were recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period between March 2014 to February 2015. No Limit level excedance was recorded during reporting period. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not related to Contract.

8.1.4 A total of 1 Limit Level exceedance was recorded during the 24-hr TSP impact monitoring period between March 2015 to February 2016. No exceedance of 1-hour TSP exceedance level was recorded at all monitoring station during the 1-hr TSP impact monitoring period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not related to Contract.

8.1.5 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS3B on 28 November 2017; 2 action level exceedances of 24-Hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018 respectively. 1 action level exceedance of 24-Hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations by this Contract or Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 in the reporting period. Investigation into the possible causes of each exceedance was undertaken and reported in the respective monthly EM&A reports, the investigations results confirmed that the air quality exceedances were not related to Contract.

8.1.6 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract. No other 1-hour and 24-hour action and limit level exceedances was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period. For level of exceedance, location and when exceedances were recorded, please refer to corresponding monthly EM&A report. All other air quality monitoring results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline air quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that dust generation would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended dust mitigation measures.

8.1.7 There was no AL/LL exceedances recorded in 24-hr TSP monitoring during periods March 2012 to February 2013; March 2014 to February 2015; March 2016 to February 2017; and March 2017 to October 2017.

8.2 For construction noise monitoring

8.2.1 2 exceedances were recorded in the reporting period. This is generally in line with the EIA and ERR prediction that with the implementation of noise mitigation measures, the construction noise from the Contract works will meet the stipulated criterion at the residential NSRs and at a majority of the education institutions as predicted by the EIA.

8.3 For impact water quality monitoring,

8.3.1 44 action and 5 limit level exceedances of DO (S&M); 59 action level exceedances of DO (Bottom); 10 action level exceedances and 3 limit level exceedance of Turbidity; 184 action level exceedances and 19 limit level exceedances of SS were recorded at measured suspended solids values (in mg/L) and they were considered not related to the Contract works except the Action Level Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to Contract. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report of this Contract. The exceedances note at IS10 and SR5 on 18 Dec 13 were considered as Contract related. The silt curtain integrity checking record on 4 January 14 shows that the disconnected silt curtain observed on 18 Dec 13 at northwest of HKBCF were rectified and the Contractor was further reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report December 2013; the Limit Level Exceedance of Turbidity and Limit Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during ebb tide on 10 October 2014 and Action Level Exceedance of Suspended Solids recorded at IS17 during flood tide on 20 October 2014, which were considered related to this Contract. Recommendation has been given and rectification has been carried on by the Contractor on 28 October 2014. As rectification was provided by the Contractor and recurrence of Contract related exceedance was not observed in the subsequent monitoring events. For details of investigation please refer to monthly EM&A Report October 2014.

8.3.2 Considering all the rest of water quality monitoring results in the reporting period were below the Action Levels established in the baseline water quality monitoring carried out in November 2011. The result was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prediction that water quality impact would be controlled and would not exceed the acceptable criteria, with proper implementation of the recommended water quality mitigation measures.

[1] On effort” sightings are classified as those sightings which are made when the vessel is on the designated trackline and observers are actively searching. “Opportunistic sightings” are those sightings which occur while travelling between tracklines, additional sightings made when travelling back to a transect line after photographing a dolphin group and/or any dolphins noted when transiting between areas or on passage to transect lines.

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

[3] The encounter rate of March-August 2017 is not compared as a full year data set is not available

^{^[4]}Baseline period between September to November 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour TSP monitoring	352 sessions 352 sessions
Noise monitoring	281 sessions
Impact water quality monitoring	846 sessions
Impact dolphin monitoring	132 surveys
Joint Environmental site inspection	319 sessions

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

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

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

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

The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2018. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.

48 environmental complaints were received in the reporting period.

2 summonses and 2 successful prosecutions were received in the reporting period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1.10 The construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2018.

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