Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	-	-	-	-	-	-
24-hr TSP	1	2	-	-	-	-
Noise	L_eq_{(30 min)}	-	-	-	-	-	-
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	16	1	2	-	-	-
Turbidity level	-	-	-	-	-	-
Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis	-	1
Total	22	1

1 Introduction

1.1 Basic Project Information

1.1.1 This Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract HY/2013/01 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Passenger Clearance Building (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) (includes the construction works of Contract No. HY/2013/06 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Automatic Vehicle Clearance Support System within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Contract was awarded to Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture (construction works of Contract No. HY/2013/06 was awarded to ATAL Technologies Limited within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area) (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and Atkins China Limited was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor.

1.1.2 The Contract is part of Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) which is a “Designated Project”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) No. EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF was issued on 11 April 2016. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. Site preparation work of the Contract started on 26 September 2014 and the construction works of the Contract commenced on 6 October 2014. The construction works of the Contract No. HY/2013/06 within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area commenced on 20 February 2018. The works areas of the Contract are shown in Appendix A.

1.1.3 This is the fourteenth Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summarizes the audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2017 to 28 February 2018.

1.2 Project Organisation

1.2.1 The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure is shown in Appendix B. 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
For Contract No. HY/2013/01
Engineer or Engineer’s Representative (AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.)	Chief Resident Engineer	Michael Tovey/ Malcolm Sage⁽ⁱ⁾	3958 7339 / 3958 7330	3468 2076
Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2888	3465 2899
	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
Contractor (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Owen Leung	9232 5750	3621 0180
Contractor (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture)	Environmental Officer	Michael Lee Stephen Tsang⁽ⁱⁱ⁾	6461 8635 9686 0787	3621 0180
Environmental Team (Atkins China Limited)	Environmental Team Leader	Keith Chau	2972 1721	2890 6343
24 hours complaint hotline	---	---	3958 7300	---
For Contract No. HY/2013/06 within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area
Engineer or Engineer’s Representative (AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.)	Chief Registered Architect	Malcolm Sage	3958 7330	3468 2076
Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2888	3465 2899
	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
Contractor (ATAL Technologies Limited)	Site Agent	Mr. Eric Yim	2565 3355	3162 5217
Contractor (ATAL Technologies Limited)	Environmental Officer	Mr. W. Li	2565 3137	3162 5217
Environmental Team (Atkins China Limited)	Environmental Team Leader	Keith Chau	2972 1721	2890 6343
24 hours complaint hotline	---	---	6509 0375
Remark (i): CRE has been changed to Malcolm Sage since February 2018. (ii): Environmental Officer has been changed to Stephen Tsang in the reporting quarter. (iii): The company name for Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited has been re-branded as Ramboll Hong Kong Limited since 3 January 2018.

1.3 Construction Programme

1.3.1 A copy of the Contractor’s construction programme is provided in Appendix C.

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown below:

For Contract No. HY/2013/01

Land-Based Work

· Wet trade works of Toilets

· Dry trade works of Toilets

· Kiosk/Booth installation

· TPIDC Inspections

· Paving

· Planting Tree

· Glazing Works

· Testing and commissioning works

· Lift/Escalator EMSD Inspection

· Fit-out lift cars

· General cleaning

· Defect rectification

· Landscape works

Marine-based work

No marine based construction work was undertaken in the reporting month.

For Contract No. HY/2013/06 within Contractor No. HY/2013/01 works area

· Conduit installation and Cabling at ELV & Sever Room and Zone E PCB

· System Testing & Commissioning at ELV & Server Room, Zone E PCB

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1 The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1). The air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017. It should be noted that the air quality monitoring station (AMS 6) is covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF.

2.1.2 The permission to carry out impact air quality monitoring work at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) was not granted after 31 January 2015. The impact air quality monitoring location (AMS7) was relocated to a nearby air sensitive receiver, Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. (AMS7A), from 5 February 2015 to 30 December 2015. The alternative location at Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. was approved by EPD on 5 February 2015. However, AMS7A was relocated back to its original location (AMS7-Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The relocation of air quality monitoring location, AMS7A, back to AMS7 was approved by EPD on 21 December 2015. The baseline and action/limit level for air quality as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (AMS7) was adopted for the air quality monitoring location. As the permission to carry out air quality monitoring at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel was not granted after the end of January 2018, as such, a proposal for the monitoring location relocated to 3RS Site Office(AMS7B) was justified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018; verified by the IEC on 24 January 2018; and submitted to EPD on 30 January 2018, and the AQM has been carrying out at AMS7B with EPD’s consent since 6 February 2018.

2.1.3 A summary of air and noise monitoring locations are presented in Table 2.1. The location of air quality and noise monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, respectively.

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring	ID	Location Description
Air Quality	AMS2⁽¹⁾	Tung Chung Development Pier
	AMS3B⁽¹⁾	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Work Area WA2
	AMS6⁽¹⁾	Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building
	AMS7/AMS7B^{(1) (2)}	Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel / 3RS Site Office
Noise	NMS2⁽³⁾	Seaview Crescent
Noise	NMS3B⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2

Remarks:

(1) The ET of this Contract should conduct impact air quality monitoring at the Air Monitoring Station listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to the latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project.

(2) The original monitoring location was at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (AMS7). As the permission to carry out air quality monitoring at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel was not granted after 31 January 2015, the monitoring location was relocated to Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. (AMS7A) from 5 February 2015 to 30 December 2015. The alternative monitoring location at Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. Ltd. was approved by EPD on 5 February 2015. However, AMS7A was relocated back to its original location (AMS7-Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The relocation of air quality monitoring location, AMS7A, back to AMS7 was approved by EPD on 21 December 2015. As the permission to carry out air quality monitoring at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel was not granted after the end of January 2018, as such, a proposal for the monitoring location relocated to 3RS Site Office(AMS7B) was justified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 22 January 2018; verified by the IEC on 24 January 2018; and submitted to EPD on 30 January 2018, and the AQM has been carrying out at AMS7B with EPD’s consent since 6 February 2018.

(3) The ET of this Contract should conduct impact noise monitoring at the NMS listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to the latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project.

(4) The Action and Limit Levels for schools will be applied for this alternative monitoring location.

2.1.4 The water quality works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017. A total of twenty-one stations (nine Impact Stations (IS), seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) and five Control/Far Field Stations (CS)) are covered by the current EM&A programme.

2.1.5 The water quality monitoring stations at CS(Mf)3 (Coordinate: 809989E, 821117N), IS10 (Coordinate: 812577E, 820670N) and SR5 (811489E, 820455N) have been occupied by the marine work of a designated project - Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). The alternative water quality monitoring station at CS(Mf)3(N) (Coordinate: 808814E, 822355N), IS10(N) (Coordinate: 812942E, 820881N) and SR5(N) (812569E, 8201475N) were justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

2.1.6 Table 2.2 and Figures 2.3a and 2.3b show the locations of water quality monitoring stations.

Table 2.2 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Station	Description	East	North
IS5	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	811579	817106
IS(Mf)6	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812101	817873
IS7	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812244	818777
IS8	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814251	818412
IS(Mf)9	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813273	818850
IS10	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812577	820670
IS10(N)*	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	812942	820881
IS(Mf)11	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813562	820716
IS(Mf)16	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814328	819497
IS17	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814539	820391
SR3(N) ^	Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI)	810689	816591
SR4(N)	Sensitive receivers (Tai Ho)	814705	817859
SR5	Sensitive receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)	811489	820455
SR5(N)*	Sensitive receiver (Artificial Reef in NE Airport)	812569	821475
SR6	Sensitive receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park)	805837	821818
SR7	Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do)	814293	821431
SR10A(N) ^	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 1	823644	823484
SR10B(N2) ^	Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2	823689	823159
CS(Mf)3	Control Station	809989	821117
CS(Mf)3(N)*	Control Station	808814	822355
CS(Mf)5	Control Station	817990	821129
CS4	Control Station	810025	824004
CS6	Control Station	817028	823992
CSA	Control Station	818103	823064

Remarks:

* Alternative water quality monitoring stations at CS(Mf)3(N), SR5(N) and IS10(N) were justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

^ Alternative water quality monitoring stations at SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were justified by the ET Leader on 8 November 2017 and verified by IEC on 13 November 2017; and submitted to EPD on 29 November 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 22 December 2017.

2.1.7 The dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required and continues the same implementation of environmental monitoring commencing on 1 September 2017.

2.1.8 The dolphin monitoring should adopt line-transect vessel survey method. The survey follows pre-set and fixed transect lines in the two areas defined by AFCD as: Northeast Lantau survey area; and Northwest Lantau survey area. The change of transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and new vessel-based transect line 24 for dolphin monitoring have been proposed due to the marine work of a designated project - Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). It was justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.

2.1.9 The co-ordinates for the transect lines showing the transect lines have been obtained from AFCD and are shown in Table 2.3 and Figure 2.4 shows the layout map.

Table 2.3 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates

Transect ID	HK Grid System
Transect ID	East	North
1*	804671	815456
1*	804671	831404
2	805476	820800
2	805476	826654
3	806464	821150
3	806464	822911
4	807518	821500
4	807518	829230
5	808504	821850
5	808504	828602
6	809490	822150
6	809490	825352
7	810499	822000
7	810499	824613
8*	811508	821123
8*	811508	824254
9*	812516	821303
9*	812516	824254
10*	813525	820827
10*	813525	824657
11#	814556	818853
11#	814556	820992
12	815542	818807
12	815542	824882
13	816506	819480
13	816506	824859
14	817537	820220
14	817537	824613
15	818568	820735
15	818568	824433
16	819532	821420
16	819532	824209
17	820451	822125
17	820451	823671
18	821504	822371
18	821504	823761
19	822513	823268
19	822513	824321
20	823477	823402
20	823477	824613
21	805476	827081
21	805476	830562
22	806464	824033
22	806464	829598
23	814559	821739
23	814559	824768
24	805476	815900
24	805476	819100
Remarks: (a) * Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 5.1 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. Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 108km (b) # Coordinates for transect lines 1, 8, 9 and 11 have been updated in respect to the Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD on 19 August 2015. (c) The change of transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and new vessel-based transect line 24 for dolphin monitoring have been proposed due to the marine work of a designated project-Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project). It was justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12May 2017. (d) Due to marine work ofthe Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), original transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are enclosed by works boundary of 3RS Project. Alternative dolphin monitoring transect lines 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 24 are adopted starting from 17 May 2017 to replace the original transect lines.

2.2 Monitoring Requirements

2.2.1 The monitoring requirements, monitoring equipment, monitoring parameters, frequency and duration, monitoring methodology, monitoring schedule, meteorological information is detailed in the monthly EM&A Reports for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

2.3 Action and Limit Levels

2.3.1 The Action and Limit Level for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP are provided in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5, respectively.

Table 2.4 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP

Monitoring Station	Action Level, µg/m³	Limit Level, µg/m³
AMS2 – Tung Chung Development Pier	374	500
AMS3B - Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2	368
AMS6 – Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	360
AMS7/ AMS7B – Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel/ 3RS Site Office	370

Table 2.5 Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP

Monitoring Station	Action Level, µg/m³	Limit Level, µg/m³
AMS2 – Tung Chung Development Pier	176	260
AMS3B - Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2	167
AMS6 – Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	173
AMS7/ AMS7B – Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel / 3RS Site Office	183

2.3.2 The Action and Limit Levels for construction noise are defined in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Action and Limit Level for Construction Noise

Parameter	Action Level	Limit Level
07:00 – 19:00 hours on normal weekdays	When one documented complaint is received	75/70/65 dB(A)*

Notes :

If works are to be carried out during restricted hours, the conditions stipulated in the construction noise permit issued by the Noise Control Authority have to be followed.

* Reduce to 70 dB(A) for schools and 65 dB(A) during school examination period. The Action and limit Levels for schools will be applied for NMS3B. Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period.

2.3.3 The Action and Limit Levels for water quality are provided in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameters	Action	Limit
DO in mg L^-1 (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Surface and Middle 5.0 Bottom 4.7	Surface and Middle 4 .2 (except 5 mg/L for FCZ) Bottom 3.6
SS in mg L^-1 (depth-averaged) at all monitoring stations and control stations	23.5 and 120% of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day*	34.4 and 130% of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day and 10mg/L for WSD Seawater intakes*
Turbidity in NTU (depth-averaged)	27.5 and 120% of upstream control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day*	47.0 and 130% of upstream control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day*

* Remarks: Reference is made to EPD approval of adjustment of water quality assessment criteria issued and became
effective on 18 February 2013.
Notes: 1. “depth-averaged” is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.

2.For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.

3.For turbidity, SS, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

4.All the figures given in the table are used for reference only and the EPD may amend the figures whenever it is considered as necessary.

5.The 1%-ile of baseline data for dissolved oxygen (surface and middle) and dissolved oxygen (bottom) are 4.2 mg/L and 3.6 mg/L respectively.

2.3.4 The Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring are provided in Table 2.8 and Table 2.9, respectively.

Table 2.8 Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)

	North Lantau Social Cluster
	NEL	NWL
Action Level	(STG < 70% of baseline) & (ANI < 70% of baseline)	(STG < 70% of baseline) & (ANI < 70% of baseline)
Limit Level	[(STG < 40% of baseline) & (ANI < 40% of baseline)] AND [ (STG < 40% of baseline) & (ANI < 40% of baseline)]

Table 2.9 Derived Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

	North Lantau Social Cluster
	NEL	NWL
Action Level	(STG < 4.2) & (ANI < 15.5)	(STG < 6.9) & (ANI < 31.3)
Limit Level	[(STG < 2.4) & (ANI <8.9)] AND [ (STG < 3.9) & (ANI < 17.9)]

2.4 Event Action Plans

2.4.1 The Event Actions Plans for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring are provided in Appendix D.

2.5 Mitigation Measures

2.5.1 Environmental mitigation measures for the Contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status.

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring Results

3.1.1 In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3B, AMS6 and AMS7 / AMS7B).

3.1.2 The weather was sunny and bright, only traces of rainfall were recorded in December, and became cold, windy and dry from middle of December till to end of February 2018. Construction works during the quarterly period are shown in Section 1.4.1. The major dust source in the reporting period included construction activities from the Project, as well as traffic emission.

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

3.1.4 Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A Reports (for December 2017 to February 2018) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

3.1.5 The number of exceedances recorded during the reporting period are presented in the Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of number of exceedances for 1-hr and 24-hr TSP Monitoring

Monitoring Station	December 2017		January 2018		February 2018
Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level
AMS2	-	-	1 (24-hr TSP)	-	-	-
AMS3B	1 (24-hr TSP)	-	1 (24-hr TSP)	-	-	-
AMS7 / AMS7B	-	-	-	-	-	-

Table 3.2 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period

Reporting month	Monitoring Station	Average (μg/m3)	Range (μg/m3)	Action Level (μg/m3)	Limit Level (μg/m3)
December 2017	AMS2	49	15 - 90	374	500
	AMS3B	39	21 - 59	368
	AMS7	114	18 - 335	370
January 2018	AMS2	57	13 - 113	374	500
	AMS3B	58	14 - 105	368
	AMS7	46	12 - 132	370
February 2018	AMS2	48	32 - 71	374	500
	AMS3B	47	24 - 80	368
	AMS7	74	21 - 255	370

Table 3.3 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results Obtained During the Reporting Period

Reporting month	Monitoring Station	Average (μg/m3)	Range (μg/m3)	Action Level (μg/m3)	Limit Level (μg/m3)
December 2017	AMS2	120	73 - 164	176	260
	AMS3B	125	77- 182	167
	AMS7	124	110 - 141	183
January 2018	AMS2	85	16 - 184	176	260
	AMS3B	89	13- 183	167
	AMS7	88	36 - 136	183
February 2018	AMS2	80	65 - 99	176	260
	AMS3B	78	56- 90	167
	AMS7	120	81 - 172	183

3.1.6 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7/ AMS7B during the reporting period.

3.1.7 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS7/ AMS7B during the reporting period.

3.1.8 No Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2 and AMS3B during the reporting period. Two Action Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS3B on 23 December 2017 and 17 January 2018. And one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 17 January 2018. For detail of investigation, please refer to Appendix K.

3.1.9 Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A report prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

3.2 Noise Monitoring Results

3.2.1 In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least once per week during the construction phase of the Contract.

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

3.2.3 The number of exceedances recorded during the reporting period are presented in the Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Summary of number of exceedances for Impact Noise Monitoring

Monitoring Station	December 2017		January 2018		February 2018
Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level
NMS2	-	-	-	-	-	-
NMS3B^(*)	-	-	-	-	-	-

Remark: (*) The Limit Level for schools will be applied for NMS3B. Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period.

Table 3.5 Summary of Noise Monitoring Result Obtained During Reporting Period

Reporting month	Monitoring Station	Average, dB(A) L_eq_{(30 mins)}	Range, dB(A) L_eq_{(30 mins)}	Limit Level, dB(A) L_eq_{(30 mins)}
December 2017	NMS2	66	65 - 67	75
December 2017	NMS3B^(*)	68	67 - 70	70/65
January 2018	NMS2	66	64 - 68	75
January 2018	NMS3B^(*)	67	66 - 67	70/65
February 2018	NMS2	66	64 - 67	75
February 2018	NMS3B^(*)	66	62 - 68	70/65

3.2.4 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of Noise monitoring were recorded at NMS2 and NMS3B during the reporting period.

3.2.5 The event and action plan is provided in Appendix D.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring Results

3.3.1 Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that timely action was taken to rectify the situation. For impact water quality monitoring, measurement were taken in accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual.

3.3.2 The graphical plots of the monitoring results are presented in Appendix F.

3.3.3 For impact water quality monitoring, number of exceedances recorded for reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action Level
IS5	Limit Level
IS(Mf)6	Action Level
IS(Mf)6	Limit Level
IS7	Action Level
IS7	Limit Level
IS8	Action Level							2017-12-13	2017-12-06; 2017-12-08
IS8	Limit Level
IS(Mf)9	Action Level							2017-12-11	2017-12-06
IS(Mf)9	Limit Level
IS10(N)	Action Level
IS10(N)	Limit Level
IS(Mf)11	Action Level
IS(Mf)11	Limit Level
IS(Mf)16	Action Level
IS(Mf)16	Limit Level
IS17	Action Level
IS17	Limit Level
SR3/ SR3(N)^{(^)}	Action Level
SR3/ SR3(N)^{(^)}	Limit Level
SR4(N)	Action Level								2017-12-08
SR4(N)	Limit Level
SR5(N)	Action Level								2017-12-06
SR5(N)	Limit Level
SR6	Action Level							2017-12-04; 2017-12-08; 2017-12-22; 2018-01-31	2017-12-06; 2017-12-20; 2017-12-22; 2018-02-02
SR6	Limit Level
SR7	Action Level								2017-12-04; 2018-02-02
SR7	Limit Level
SR10A/ SR10A(N)^{(^)}	Action Level								2017-12-08
SR10A/ SR10A(N)^{(^)}	Limit Level
SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)^{(^)}	Action Level								2017-12-04
SR10B(N)/ SR10B(N2)^{(^)}	Limit Level
Total	Action Level	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	13
	Action Level	19
	Limit Level	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Limit Level	0

Remark: (^) Alternative water quality monitoring stations at SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) were justified and justified by the ET Leader on 8 November 2017 and the IEC verified on 13 December 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 22 December 2017.

3.3.4 For water quality monitoring during the reporting period, no Action Level and Limit Level exceedance was recorded for dissolved oxygen and turbidity during mid-ebb tide and mid-flood tide.

3.3.5 For water quality monitoring during the reporting period, 6 Action Level and no Limit Level exceedances were recorded for suspended solid during mid-ebb tide. 13 Action Level and no Limit Level exceedances were recorded for suspended solid during mid-flood tide.

3.3.6 As confirmed by the Contractor, no marine transportation and marine-based work was conducted when water quality monitoring was conducted in December 2017, January and February 2018. Therefore, it is concluded that the exceedances were not related the Contract. The detailed investigation results of these exceedances recorded are shown in Appendix K.

3.4 Dolphins Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

3.4.1 Distribution Analysis – The line-transect survey data was integrated with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin distribution using sighting positions. Location data of dolphin groups were plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (ArcView^©3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in details. The dataset was also stratified into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin groups with different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.

3.4.2 Encounter rate analysis – Encounter rates of Chinese white dolphins (number of on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort, and total number of dolphins sighted on-effort per 100 km of survey effort) were calculated in NEL and NWL survey areas in relation to the amount of survey effort conducted during each month of monitoring survey. Dolphin encounter rates were calculated in two ways for comparisons with the HZMB baseline monitoring results as well as to AFCD long-term marine mammal monitoring results.

3.4.3 Firstly, for the comparison with the HZMB baseline monitoring results, the encounter rates were calculated using primary survey effort alone, and only data collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis. The average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) were deduced based on the encounter rates from six events during the present quarter (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau), which was also compared with the one deduced from the six events during the baseline period (i.e. six sets of line-transect surveys in North Lantau).

3.4.4 Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings (STG) and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the present quarterly period.

3.4.5 Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use – To conduct quantitative grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort sightings of Chinese White Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase monitoring period were plotted onto 1-km² grids among NWL and NEL survey areas on GIS. Sighting densities (number of on-effort sightings per km²) and dolphin densities (total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings per km²) were then calculated for each 1 km by 1 km grid with the aid of GIS. Sighting density grids and dolphin density grids were then further normalized with the amount of survey effort conducted within each grid. The total amount of survey effort spent on each grid was calculated by examining the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how many times the grid was surveyed during the study period. For example, when the survey boat traversed through a specific grid 50 times, 50 units of survey effort were counted for that grid. With the amount of survey effort calculated for each grid, the sighting density and dolphin density of each grid were then normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey effort).

3.4.6 The newly-derived unit for sighting density was termed SPSE, representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort. In addition, the derived unit for actual dolphin density was termed DPSE, representing the number of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort. Among the 1-km² grids that were partially covered by land, the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE and DPSE values were adjusted accordingly. The following formulae were used to estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2 grid within the study area:

SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) / SA%

DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) / SA%

where S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

3.4.7 Behavioural analysis – When dolphins were sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour was observed. Different activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting, traveling, socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets. This data was then input into a separate database with sighting information, which can be used to determine the distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS. Distribution of sightings of dolphins engaged in different activities and behaviours would then be plotted on GIS and carefully examined to identify important areas for different activities of the dolphins.

3.4.8 Ranging pattern analysis – Location data of individual dolphins that occurred during the 3-month impact phase monitoring period were obtained from the dolphin sighting database and photo-identification catalogue. To deduce home ranges for individual dolphins using the fixed kernel methods, the program Animal Movement Analyst Extension, was loaded as an extension with ArcView© 3.1 along with another extension Spatial Analyst 2.0. Using the fixed kernel method, the program calculated kernel density estimates based on all sighting positions, and provided an active interface to display kernel density plots. The kernel estimator then calculated and displayed the overall ranging area at 95% UD level.

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.4.9 During the period of December 2017 to February 2018, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted for the HKBCF project to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.4.10 From these surveys, a total of 790.6 km of survey effort was collected, with 93.5% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility). Among the two areas, 299.5 km and 491.1 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively.

3.4.11 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 578.6 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 212.0 km. Survey effort conducted on both primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix L.

3.4.12 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in December 2017 to February 2018, 20 groups of 73 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted, with the summary table of the dolphin sightings shown in Annex II of Appendix L. All except one dolphin sighting were made during on-effort search, while 16 of the 19 on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines. In addition, almost all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, while an exceptionally rare sighting was also made in NEL.

Distribution

3.4.13 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in December 2017 to February 2018 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix L. The majority of the sightings were concentrated at the northwestern end (mainly to the north of Lung Kwu Chau) and southwestern end (near HKLR09 alignment and to the west of the airport platform) of the North Lantau region (Figure 1 of Appendix L). Other sightings were sparsely distributed near Pillar Point, Black Point, Sha Chau and to the northeast of the airport. The lone sighting made in NEL was located near Siu Ho Wan.

3.4.14 In general, the dolphins were mostly absent from the central and eastern portions of North Lantau waters, similar to the consistent findings of HKLR03 surveys in recent years (Figure 1 of Appendix L).

3.4.15 One dolphin sighting was made in the proximity of the HKBCF reclamation site, while several groups were also sighted near the HKLR09 alignment. On the contrary, other dolphin sightings were located far away from the HKLR03 reclamation site as well as the alignment and Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). (Figure 1 of Appendix L)

3.4.16 Sighting distribution of dolphins during the present impact phase monitoring period (December 2017 to February 2018) was very different from the one during the baseline monitoring period (Figure 1 of Appendix L). In the present quarter, dolphins have mostly disappeared from the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands, near Shum Shui Kok and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix L). Seasonal distributions of dolphins during baseline and impact periods can be referred to those presented in the corresponding quarterly EM&A summary report prepared under Contract No. HY/2011/03.

3.4.17 On the other hand, dolphin occurrence in NWL waters was also noticeably different between the baseline and impact phase periods. During the present impact monitoring period, dolphins were infrequently sighted here, and mainly at the northwestern and southwestern ends of the area, which was in stark contrast with their frequent occurrences throughout the entire survey area during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix L).

Encounter Rate

3.4.18 During the present three-month study period, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) for each set of the surveys in NEL and NWL are shown in Table 3.7. The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period (September – November 2011) (Table 3.8).

3.4.19 To facilitate the comparison with the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also calculated for the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 3.6 sightings and 13.9 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 0.3 and 1.7 respectively for this quarter.

Table 3.7 Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period (December 2017 to February 2018)

Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Primary Lines Only	Primary Lines Only
Northeast Lantau	Set 1 (1 & 7 Dec 2017)	0.0	0.0
	Set 2 (14 & 19 Dec 2017)	0.0	0.0
	Set 3 (9 & 11 Jan 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 4 (19 & 26 Jan 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 5 (1 & 6 Feb 2018)	3.1	15.7
	Set 6 (13 & 26 Feb 2018)	0.0	0.0
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (1 & 7 Dec 2017)	1.6	14.6
	Set 2 (14 & 19 Dec 2017)	0.0	0.0
	Set 3 (9 & 11 Jan 2018)	2.0	9.8
	Set 4 (19 & 26 Jan 2018)	5.1	20.3
	Set 5 (1 & 6 Feb 2018)	4.3	6.5
	Set 6 (13 & 26 Feb 2018)	9.8	34.3

Remark: Due to boat availability issue, the dolphin monitoring on 4 January 2018 was rescheduled to 9 January 2018. Due to the boat drivers are not available due to CNY holiday issue, the dolphin monitoring on 21 February 2018 was rescheduled to 26 February 2018.

Table 3.8 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates From Impact Monitoring Period (December 2017 to February 2018) and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Survey Area	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)		Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Northeast Lantau	0.5 ± 1.3	6.0 ± 5.1	2.6 ± 6.4	22.2 ± 26.9
Northwest Lantau	3.8 ± 3.5	9.9 ± 5.9	14.3 ± 12.0	44.7 ± 29.9

Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on the survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

3.4.20 Comparison of average dolphin encounter rates (Table 3.9) in Northeast Lantau survey area from the same winter quarters of HKLR03 and HKBCF impact monitoring period (December 2017-February 2018) and baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011) (Note: encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions; ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates)

Table 3.9 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northeast Lantau Survey Area from All Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	6.0 ± 5.1	22.2 ± 26.8
December 2012-February 2013 (HKLR03 Impact^(*))	3.1 ± 3.2	6.3 ± 8.6
December 2013-February 2014 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	0.5 ± 1.1	1.3 ± 3.3
December 2014-February 2015 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	0.0	0.0
December 2015-February 2016 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	0.0	0.0
December 2016-February 2017 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	0.0	0.0
December 2017-February 2018 (HKBCF Impact)	0.5 ± 1.3	2.6 ± 6.4

Notes:
1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.3)

(*) As explained in Section 1.5 of Appendix L, the previous monitoring data from Contract No. HY/2011/03 (i.e. HKLR03) were adopted for comparison with the baseline and present HKBCF impact monitoring period.

3.4.21 On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period (reductions of 61.4% and 68.1% respectively) were only small fractions of the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period, indicating a noticeable decline in dolphin usage of this survey area during the present impact phase period (Table 3.10).

3.4.22 During the same winter quarters, dolphin encounter rates in NWL during winter 2017-2018 was almost identical to the previous winter period in 2016 - 2017, higher than the ones in 2014-15 and 2015-16, but much lower than the ones in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 (Table 3.10). Such temporal trend should be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters whether the dolphin occurrence would continue to increase as almost all marine construction activities of HKBCF works have been completed in coming months.

Table 3.10 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northwest Lantau Survey Area from all winter quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Monitoring Period	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	9.9 ± 5.9	44.7 ± 29.9
December 2012-February 2013 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	8.4 ± 5.0	35.9 ± 23.1
December 2013-February 2014 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	8.2 ± 2.2	32.6 ± 11.2
December 2014-February 2015 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	2.9 ± 2.7	11.3 ± 15.2
December 2015-February 2016 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	2.6 ± 1.5	11.0 ± 3.8
December 2016-February 2017 (HKLR03 Impact ^(*))	3.8 ± 3.8	14.5 ± 17.2
December 2017- February 2018 (HKBCF Impact)	3.8 ± 3.5	14.3 ± 12.0

Notes:

1) The encounter rates deduced from the baseline monitoring period have been recalculated based only on survey effort and on-effort sighting data made along the primary transect lines under favourable conditions.

2) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

3.4.23 A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and unequal sample size was conducted to examine whether there were any significant differences in the average encounter rates between the baseline and impact monitoring periods. The two variables that were examined included the two periods (baseline and impact phases) and two locations (NEL and NWL).

3.4.24 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (1^st quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0138 and 0.0475 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.4.25 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in both NEL and NWL survey areas during the present quarterly period, and such low occurrence of dolphins has also been consistently documented in past HZMB dolphin monitoring studies.

3.4.26 The decline in dolphin usage of North Lantau region raises serious concern, as the timing of the decline in dolphin usage in North Lantau waters coincided well with the construction schedule of the HZMB-related projects (Hung 2017). Apparently, there was very little sign of recovery of dolphin usage even though most of the marine works associated with the HZMB construction have been completed, and therefore continuous dolphin monitoring would remain critical in coming months.

Group Size

3.4.27 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to nine individuals per group in North Lantau region during December 2017 to February 2018. The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared with the ones deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (December 2017 to February 2018) and Baseline Monitoring Period (September to November 2011)

Survey Area	Average Dolphin Group Size
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	3.7 ± 2.4 (n = 20)	3.7 ± 3.1 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	5.0 (n=1)	3.2 ± 2.2 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	3.6 ± 2.5 (n = 19)	3.9 ± 3.4 (n = 49)

Note:

1) ± denotes the standard deviation of the average group size.

3.4.28 The average dolphin group size in NWL waters during December 2017 to February 2018 was slightly lower than the one recorded during the three-month baseline period, but it should also be noted that the sample size of six dolphin groups in the present quarter was small when compared to the 66 groups sighted during the baseline period (Table 3.9).

3.4.29 On the other hand, even the group size of the lone dolphin sighting recorded in NEL (five animals) was higher than the average recorded during the three-month period, but it was only based on the sample size of one (Table 3.9).

3.4.30 Overall, it should be noted that 12 of the 20 dolphin groups sighted during the present quarter were composed of 1-3 individuals only. On the other hand, the other eight groups were medium-sized, with four groups dolphins with five animals per group, three groups with seven animals per group, and one group with nine animals (Annex II of Appendix L).

3.4.31 Distribution of the large dolphin groups (i.e. five individuals or more per group) during the present quarter is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix L, with comparison to the one in baseline period. Four of the medium-sized groups were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, while the other four were distributed near Sha Chau, Pillar Point, to the northeast of airport, and near Siu Ho Wan (Figure 2 of Appendix L). Such distribution pattern was very different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups were frequently sighted and evenly distributed in NWL waters, with a few also sighted in NEL waters (Figure 2 of Appendix L).

Habitat Use

3.4.32 From December 2017 to February 2018, the grids that recorded high dolphin densities were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, near Sha Chau and Pillar Point, to the northeast of airport platform, and near Siu Ho Wan (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L). Notably, the two grids overlapped with the HKLR09 alignment as well as the few grids to the west of the airport platform only recorded low to very low densities of dolphins in the present quarterly period (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L).

3.4.33 However, it should be emphasized that the amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period was fairly low (6-12 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with caution. A more complete picture of dolphin habitat use pattern should be examined when more survey effort for each grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.

3.4.34 When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period, dolphin usage in NEL and NWL has drastically diminished in both areas during the present impact monitoring period (Figure 4 of Appendix L). During the baseline period, many grids between Siu Mo To and Shum Shui Kok in NEL recorded moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was in stark contrast to the near-complete absence of dolphins there during the present impact phase period (Figure 4 of Appendix L).

3.4.35 The density patterns were also very different in NWL between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods, with high dolphin usage throughout the area during the baseline period. In contrast, only several grids with high dolphin densities were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, near Sha Chau and Pillar Point during the present impact phase period (Figure 4 of Appendix L).

Mother-calf Pairs

3.4.36 During the present quarterly period, only one unspotted juvenile was sighted with its mother in the North Lantau region. This rare sighting of young calf was located near Sha Chau (Figure 5 of Appendix L).

3.4.37 The rare occurrence of young calves in the present quarter was very different from their regular occurrence in North Lantau waters during the baseline period (Figure 5 of Appendix L). This should be of a serious concern, and the occurrence of young calves in North Lantau waters should be of closely monitored in the upcoming quarters.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.4.38 During the three-month study period, two of the 20 dolphin groups (i.e. the large group located just to the west of Lung Kwu Chau; (Figure 5 of Appendix L) were engaged in feeding activity, which were located near Sha Chau and to the northeast of the airport platform. However, the rest of the groups were not engaged in socializing, traveling or milling/resting activity during the three-month study period.

3.4.39 When compared to the baseline period, distribution of various dolphin activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was drastically different with very rare occurrence of such activities in the present quarter (Figure 6 of Appendix L).

3.4.40 Notably, none of the 20 groups was associated with any operating fishing vessel during the present impact phase period.

Summary Photo-identification works

3.4.41 From December 2017 to February 2018, over 2,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.4.42 In total, 26 individuals sighted 52 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix L and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix L. The majority of the re-sightings were made in NWL, while there were five re-sighted of five individual dolphins (NL37, N1120, NL123, NL136 and NL226) made in NEL from the rare sighting made in February 2018.

3.4.43 Among the 26 individuals, 15 of them were re-sighted only once, while six individuals were re-sighted 2-3 times and five individuals were re-sighted 4-7 times during the three-month period (Annex III of Appendix L).

3.4.44 Notably, eight of these 26 individuals (i.e. CH34, NL123, NL136, NL182, NL226, NL261, NL272 and NL296) were also sighted in NWL during the HKLR03 monitoring surveys conducted concurrently in the same three-month period. However, none of the individuals was sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys from December 2017 to February 2018.

Individual range use

3.4.45 Ranging patterns of the 26 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex V of Appendix L.

3.4.46 The major identified dolphins sighted in the present quarter were utilizing NWL waters only, but five individuals have also spanned their range across to NEL waters, where many of them have utilized as their core areas in the past (Annex V of Appendix L). This is still stark contrary to the extensive movements between NEL and NWL survey areas observed in the earlier impact monitoring quarters as well as the baseline period.

3.4.47 On the other hand, none of the individuals have extended their range use to WL during the present quarter.

3.4.48 In the upcoming quarters, individual range use and movements should be continuously monitored to examine whether there has been any consistent shifts of individual home ranges from North Lantau to West or Southwest Lantau.

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.4.49 There was one Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2017 – February 2018). For detail of investigation, please refer to Appendix K.

3.4.50 During the present quarter of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of this construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.

3.4.51 Although dolphins seldom occurred in the area of HKBCF construction in the past and during the baseline monitoring period, it is apparent that dolphin usage has been dramatically reduced in North Lantau waters in recent years, and many individuals have shifted away from this once-important habitat for the dolphins.

3.4.52 It is critical to continuously monitor the dolphin usage in North Lantau region in the upcoming quarters, to determine whether the dolphins are continuously affected by the various construction activities in relation to the HZMB-related works, and whether there is any sign of recovery when the construction works have been completed.

3.5 Implementation of Environmental Measures

3.5.1 In response to the site audit findings, the Contractor carried out corrective actions. Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented in Appendix G.

3.5.2 The Contractor waters 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Contract site and associated works areas when construction activities are being undertaken.

3.5.3 The marine traffic records and geographical plots of all the vessels tracks for the reporting month will be submitted by the Contractor to Engineer’s Representative (ER), Environmental Team Leader (ETL) and Independent Environmental Checker / Environmental Project Office (IEC/ENPO) within 3 weeks after the reporting month. As informed by Contractor, there was no marine traffic since 2 June 2017.

3.5.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone and Silt Curtain integrity check), regular checking were conducted by the dolphin watcher(s) / dolphin observer(s) within the works area to ensure no dolphin was trapped by the enclosed silt curtain systems. No dolphin spotted within the enclosed silt curtain systems was reported and recorded during the reporting period. Silt curtain systems were also inspected timely in accordance to the submitted plan. All inspection records were kept properly.

3.5.5 Training was provided for barge operators in accordance with the Regular Marine Travel Routes Plan and relevant records were kept properly.

3.5.6 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.

3.6 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

3.6.1 The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

3.6.2 No marine sediment was generated/ treated and no treated marine sediment was reused in the reporting period. As informed by the Contractor in March 2016, the transfer of treated marine sediment to Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been discontinued since July 2015.

3.6.3 According to the contractor’s information, all recyclable materials from the jetty removal in January 2018 were collected by registered collector for recycling. The recycled steel was shipped out based on the marine travel route plan. The destination is a privately own terminal.

3.6.4 The amount of the metals in waste flow table was updated according to Contractor’s information which received on 21 February 2018. The amount of the metals was updated in Appendix H.

3.6.5 The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix H.

3.6.6 The Contractor was 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.

Monitoring Items	Date
Monitoring Items	December 2017	January 2018	February 2018
1-hour TSP Monitoring	1, 5, 7, 11, 13 ,15, 19, 21, 22, 27 and 28	2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25, 30 and 31	5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23 and 27
24-hour TSP Monitoring	4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28 and 29	2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29 and 30	2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 26 and 27
Noise Monitoring	5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 21, 27 and 28	2, 3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22, 26 and 30	1, 5, 7, 13, 15, 20, 21, 26 and 27
Water Quality Monitoring	4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29	1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 31	2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 28
Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring	1, 7, 14 and 19	9, 11, 19 and 26	1, 6, 13 and 26
Environmental Site Inspection	6, 13, 20 and 27	3, 10, 17, 24 and 31	7, 14, 21 and 28
Environmental Site Inspection	6, 13, 20 and 27	3, 10, 17, 24 and 31	21 and 28 February 2018 for Contract No. HY/2013/06 within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area

Monitoring Stations	Original Co-ordinates	Approved alternative stations	Proposed Co-ordinates
SR3	N816456 E810525	SR3(N)	N816591 E810689
SR10A	N823495 E823741	SR10A(N)	N823484 E823644
SR10B(N)	N823187 E823683	SR10B(N2)	N823159 E823689