Executive Summary

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 (HKBCF) �V 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 �V Automatic Vehicle Clearance Support System within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to Leighton �V 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

The Contract is part of Hong Kong �V Zhuhai �V Macao Bridge HKBCF which is a ��Designated Project��, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499) and 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 works 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.

Atkins China Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version1.0) and will be providing environmental team services to the Contract.

This is the sixteenth Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summaries findings of the EM&A works during the reporting period from 1 June 2018 to 31 August 2018. (includes the construction works of Contract No. HY/2013/06 within Contract No. HY/2013/01 works area)

Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress

The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1.0). The air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF �V 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 (AMS6) is covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road �V Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF.

A summary of the monitoring activities during the reporting period are listed below:

Monitoring Items	Date
Monitoring Items	June 2018	July 2018	August 2018
1-hour TSP Monitoring	1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27 and 29	3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 30 and 31	3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30 and 31
24-hour TSP Monitoring	5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 and 30	3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27 and 30	2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30 and 31
Noise Monitoring	4, 8, 11, 14, 20, 21, 25 and 27	3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 24, 27 and 30	1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 20, 23 and 30
Water Quality Monitoring	1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29	2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30	1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 31
Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring	12, 14, 21 and 25	5, 16, 23 and 24	7, 16, 20 and 27
Environmental Site Inspection	6, 13, 20, and 27	4, 11, 18, and 25	1, 8, 15, 22 and 29

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels :

A summary of environmental exceedances for the reporting period are listed below:

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)			Limit Level (LL)
Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Jun 2018	Jul 2018	Aug 2018	Jun 2018	Jul 2018	Aug 2018
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	-	-	-	-	-	-
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	-	-	-	-	-	-
Noise	L_eq_{(30 min)}	-	-	-	-	-	-
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	-	6	7	-	-	-
	Turbidity level	1	1	1	-	-	-
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	18	39	93	2	18	22
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis	-			1
Total		166			43

Based on the investigation results, all exceedances are found that not related to Contract No. HY/2013/01.

Implementation of Environmental Measures

Site inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Potential environmental impacts due to the construction activities were monitored and reviewed.

Complaint Log

There was one complaint received on 25 June 2018 during previous reporting period in relation to the water quality.

Environmental Complaint No.	Date of Complaint Received	Description of Environmental Complaints
011	25 June 2018	Water quality

The complaint is focusing on the discharge of muddy water from HKBCF via as constructed box culvert/outfall structures at various parts of seawall on 13 June 2018.

According to the observation of weekly site inspections (6, 13 and 20 June 2018) and confirmed by the Contractor, no exposed stockpiles of excavated soils or construction materials were found within C1 site area. All C1 site area have been paved expect planting area which are being hydroseeded. No muddy wastewater was observed during the site inspection (Please refer to Photo 1 and Photo 2 in the IR no.011 in Appendix K). The WQM data at stations, IS10(N) and IS(Mf)11 which near Culvert A on 13 June 2018 have been reviewed. No exceedance was found.

The site investigation was conducted on 26 and 27 June 2018. No muddy water was found near Box Culvert A (Please refer to Photo 3 to Photo 7 in the IR no.011 in Appendix K). Domestic sewage arising from domestic cleaning was being discharged to domestic sewer which connect to government sewer. Based on the investigation results, it is found that the complaint is not related to Contract No. HY/2013/01.

Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

There was no notification of summon or prosecution received during this reporting period.

Reporting Change

The air quality and meteorological monitoring station at AMS3B and noise monitoring station at NMS3B have been relocated and renamed as AMS3C and NMS3C respectively. The change is summarized as below:

Air Quality Monitoring:

Station	Location
AMS3B	AECOM PRE's Office
AMS3C	Ying Tung Estate Market Rooftop

Noise Monitoring:

Station	Location
NMS3B	AECOM PRE's Office
NMS3C	Ying Tung Estate Refuse Collection Point

Meteorological Data Monitoring:

Station	Location
AMS3B	AECOM PRE's Office
AMS3C	Ying Tung Estate Market Rooftop

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 �V 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 �V 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 �V 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 �V Zhuhai �V 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 sixteenth Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summarizes the audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 June 2018 to 31 August 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	Malcolm Sage	3958 7330	3468 2076
Environmental Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Project Office Leader	Y. H. Hui	3465 2888	3465 2899
	Independent Environmental Checker	Raymond Dai	3465 2888	3465 2899
Contractor (Leighton �V Chun Wo Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Owen Leung	9232 5750	3621 0180
Contractor (Leighton �V Chun Wo Joint Venture)	Environmental Officer	Stephen Tsang	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)	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	---

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

^�PDefect rectification⁽^*)

�P Landscape works

�P General cleaning⁽^*)

�P Test and commissioning⁽^*)

�P According to information from the Contractor, the construction works of Contract No. HY/2013/01 have been completed. The related completion certificate (Ref.: BWLM: TTHK: mlmp:60313494/C1/M15/905/M1422-2018009635T) dated 9 August 2018 was issued by RE

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

Remark(*): Construction works were conducted during June and July 2018.

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

�P According to information from Contractor, no construction works will be conducted by Contract No. HY/2013/06 except System Testing and Commissioning at ELV & Sever Room, and 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 �V 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 �V 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 The air quality and meteorological monitoring station at AMS3B and noise monitoring station at NMS3B have been relocated and renamed as AMS3C and NMS3C respectively. The monitoring stations AMS3C and NMS3C are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/04 �V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF - Infrastructure Works Stage II (Southern Portion) since 20 August 2018.

2.1.4 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.

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring	ID	Location Description
Air Quality	AMS2	Tung Chung Development Pier
	AMS3B /AMS3C⁽¹⁾	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Work Area WA2 / Ying Tung Estate Market Rooftop
	AMS6⁽²⁾	Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building
	AMS7B⁽³⁾	3RS Site Office
Noise	NMS2⁽⁴⁾	Seaview Crescent
Noise	NMS3B/NMS3C⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾⁽⁶⁾	Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Work Area WA2 / Ying Tung Estate Refuse Collection Point

Remarks:

(1) Air quality monitoring at AMS3C has been undertaking by the ET for Contract No. HY/2013/04 since 20 August 2018.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) The ET of this Contract should conduct impact noise monitoring at the Noise 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.

(5) Limit Level for schools will be applied for NMS3B/NMS3C. Day time noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period.

(6) Noise Monitoring at NMS3C has been undertaking by the ET for Contract No. HY/2013/04 since 20 August 2018.

2.1.5 The water quality monitoring works for the Contract before 1 September 2017 are covered by Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF �V Reclamation Works. The water quality works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF �V 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.

2.1.6 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.

2.1.7 There are construction activities of work bridge near SR4(N), the water quality monitoring team were unable to access station SR4(N) on 23, 25, 27 and 30 July 2018 and during August 2018 due to safety reason. The water quality monitoring for SR4(N) were conducted at the nearest location of SR4(N) as much as practical.

2.1.8 Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 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.

@ There are construction activities of work bridge near SR4(N). the water quality monitoring team were unable to access station SR4(N) on 23, 25, 27 and 30 July 2018 and during August 2018 due to safety reason. The water quality monitoring for SR4(N) were conducted at the nearest location of SR4(N) as much as practical.

2.1.9 The dolphin monitoring works for the Contract before 1 September 2017 are covered by Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF �V Reclamation Works. The dolphin monitoring works under Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF �V Reclamation Works were suspended from 1 September 2017. The ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 is required to conduct dolphin monitoring at the twenty-four transects.

2.1.10 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.

2.1.11 The co-ordinates for the transect lines showing the transect lines and are shown in Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 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 12 May 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 are detailed in the monthly EM&A.

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 �V Tung Chung Development Pier	374	500
AMS3B - Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2/ AMS3C - Ying Tung Estate Market Rooftop	368
AMS6 �V Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	360
AMS7/ AMS7B �V 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 �V Tung Chung Development Pier	176	260
AMS3B - Site Boundary of Site Office at Work Area WA2/ AMS3C - Ying Tung Estate Market Rooftop	167
AMS6 �V Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building (HKIA)	173
AMS7/ AMS7B �V 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 �V 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/NMS3C. 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/AMS3C, AMS6 and AMS7B).

3.1.2 Confirmed by ENPO, the air quality monitoring (both 1-hr and 24-hr TSP) have been undertaking by the ET for Contract No. HY/2013/04 at AMS3C respectively since 20 August 2018.

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 With plenty of sunshine and the intense heat was slightly relieved by the windy conditions tropical cyclone warning signal was issued and brought heavy squally showers and thunderstorms to Hong Kong in June 2018. The weather returned fine and hot with isolated showers till the end of June. The weather was a mixture of sunshine and showers were recorded in early July 2018, meanwhile, the weather became very hot with occasional squally showers and thunderstorms in mid of July 2018, the local weather remained generally fine and very hot until end of July 2018. The weather in Hong Kong was marked by a mixture of sunshine and showers in early August 2018. Also, the weather in Hong Kong was mainly cloudy with occasional showers and thunderstorms in mid of August 2018. It was hot with sunny periods till the end of July 2018, except, rain was particularly heavy on 29 August2018, Red Rainstorm Warning was recorded on 29 August 2018.

3.1.5 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 June 2018 to August 2018) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.

3.1.6 The number of exceedances recorded during the reporting period are presented in the Table 3.1. The monitoring results for 1-hour and 24-hour are summarized in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 respectively.

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

Monitoring Station	June 2018		July 2018		August 2018
Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level
AMS2	-	-	-	-	-	-
AMS3B/AMS3C	-	-	-	-	-	-
AMS6	-	-	-	-	-	-
AMS7B	-	-	-	-	-	-

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

Reporting month	Monitoring Station	Average (�gg/m³)	Range (�gg/m³)	Action Level (�gg/m³)	Limit Level (�gg/m³)
June 2018	AMS2	22	6 - 39	374	500
	AMS3B	17	8 - 41	368
	AMS7B	22	9 - 89	370
July 2018	AMS2	11	4 - 20	374	500
	AMS3B	10	1 - 29	368
	AMS7B	15	1 - 36	370
August 2018	AMS2	35	9 - 108	374	500
	AMS3B/ AMS3C	38	9 - 121	368
	AMS7B	47	7 - 110	370

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

Reporting month	Monitoring Station	Average (�gg/m³)	Range (�gg/m³)	Action Level (�gg/m³)	Limit Level (�gg/m³)
June 2018	AMS2	54	26 - 95	176	260
	AMS3B	38	23 - 56	167
	AMS7B	61	36 - 95	183
July 2018	AMS2	31	19 - 42	176	260
	AMS3B	38	28 - 45	167
	AMS7B	51	42 - 63	183
August 2018	AMS2	59	25 - 102	176	260
	AMS3B/ AMS3C	54	29 - 117	167
	AMS7B	64	36 - 89	183

3.1.7 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B/AMS3C and AMS7B during the reporting period.

3.1.8 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS2, AMS3B/AMS3C and AMS7B during the reporting period.

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. The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.5.

Table 3.4 Summary of number of exceedances for Impact Noise Monitoring

Monitoring Station	June 2018		July 2018		August 2018
Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level	Action Level	Limit Level
NMS2	-	-	-	-	-	-
NMS3B/NMS3C	-	-	-	-	-	-

Table 3.5 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the 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)}
June 2018	NMS2	65	64 - 66	75
June 2018	NMS3B⁽^*)	65	64- 66	70/65
July 2018	NMS2	65	64 - 65	75
July 2018	NMS3B⁽^*)	66	65- 67	70/65
August 2018	NMS2	65	63 - 69	75
August 2018	NMS3B^()/NMS3C⁽^)	68	65- 69	70/65

Remark: (*) The Limit Level for schools will be applied for NMS3B/NMS3C. Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education institutions, while 65 dB(A) applies during the school examination period.
The examination period of Ho Yu College was 6 �V 13 June 2018 and Ho Yu Primary School was 6 - 11 June 2018, the Limit Level of 65 dB(A) was applied.

3.2.4 No Action and Limit Level exceedances of noise monitoring were recorded at NMS2 and NMS3B/NMS3C during the reporting period.

3.2.5 The measured noise level was 65 dB(A) on 8 June 2017 at Station NMS3B, which not exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period. As such the Event and Action Plan was not triggered.

3.2.6 The measured noise level was 66.4 dB(A) on 11 June 2017 at Station NMS3B, which exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during examination period and it was higher than the baseline level of 66.3 dB(A). Therefore, baseline correction was carried out and the corrected noise level which solely represent the noise level of Construction works are 62 dB(A) and no exceedance after correction. As such the Event and Action Plan was not triggered.

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

3.3.3 2 Action Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded at mid-ebb tide on 25 June 2018 and 15 August 2018 while 1 Action Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded at mid-flood tide on 11 July 2018. No Limit Level exceedances of turbidity during the reporting period.

3.3.4 76 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide on 1, 25, 27 and 29 June 2018; 2, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 13 July 2018 and 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29 August 2018 while 73 Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide on 11, 13, 15, 27 and 29 June 2018; 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 16 July 2018 and 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29 August 2018. 17 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-ebb tide on 6 and 9 July 2018 and 6, 8, 13 and 17 August 2018 while 25 Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen were recorded at mid-flood tide on 29 June 2018; 6, 9, 13 and 16 July 2018 and 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 27, 29 and 31 August 2018 during the reporting period.

3.3.5 10 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-flood tide on 13, 16 and 27 July 2018 and 10 and 24 August 2018 while 3 Action Level exceedances of suspended solid were recorded at mid-ebb tide on 10, 13 and 31 August 2018. No Limit Level exceedances of turbidity during the reporting period.

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	2018-08-13; 2018-08-20	2018-08-20; 2018-08-29	2018-06-29; 2018-07-04; 2018-07-06; 2018-07-11; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22	2018-07-04; 2018-07-06; 2018-07-09; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22
IS5	Limit Level	2018-08-08		2018-07-09; 2018-08-08
IS(Mf)6	Action Level	2018-08-13		2018-08-10		2018-06-25			2018-08-10
IS(Mf)6	Limit Level
IS7	Action Level	2018-08-08	2018-08-29					2018-08-10
IS7	Limit Level
IS8	Action Level			2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22					2018-08-24
IS8	Limit Level
IS(Mf)9	Action Level							2018-08-31
IS(Mf)9	Limit Level
IS10(N)	Action Level	2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20	2018-07-09; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-13	2018-06-25; 2018-06-27; 2018-07-02; 2018-07-04; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-24	2018-06-27; 2018-07-02; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-15�� 2018-08-20		2018-07-11
IS10(N)	Limit Level			2018-07-06; 2018-07-09; 2018-08-06	2018-07-06; 2018-07-09; 2018-08-06;
IS(Mf)11	Action Level		2018-06-15; 2018-07-09; 2018-08-08	2018-06-27; 2018-07-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20	2018-06-27; 2018-07-02; 2018-07-04; 2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20				2018-07-13
IS(Mf)11	Limit Level			2018-07-09; 2018-08-06	2018-07-06
IS(Mf)16	Action Level	2018-08-08	2018-08-13	2018-07-09; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22;	2018-08-13
IS(Mf)16	Limit Level
IS17	Action Level	2018-08-06; 2018-08-17	2018-08-13; 2018-08-17	2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-22; 2018-08-27	2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-22
IS17	Limit Level			2018-07-06
SR3(N)	Action Level	2018-08-13; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-29		2018-07-09; 2018-08-20
SR3(N)	Limit Level
SR4(N)	Action Level	2018-08-06; 2018-08-17; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22		2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22; 2018-08-24	2018-08-20
SR4(N)	Limit Level
SR5(N)	Action Level	2018-07-09; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08		2018-07-02; 2018-07-06; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20	2018-07-02; 2018-07-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20
SR5(N)	Limit Level			2018-07-09	2018-07-09; 2018-08-06
SR6	Action Level	2018-06-01; 2018-07-13; 2018-08-08	2018-06-11; 2018-06-13; 2018-06-15; 2018-06-27; 2018-07-13; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-10; 2018-08-24	2018-06-01; 2018-07-13; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20	2018-06-13; 2018-06-15; 2018-08-08				2018-07-13; 2018-07-16
SR6	Limit Level			2018-07-09
SR7	Action Level		2018-06-15			2018-08-15		2018-08-13	2018-07-16
SR7	Limit Level
SR10A(N)	Action Level		2018-07-13	2018-07-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-20	2018-06-29; 2018-07-02; 2018-07-04; 2018-07-16; 2018-08-06; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-10; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22				2018-08-10
SR10A(N)	Limit Level	2018-08-08; 2018-08-13; 2018-08-17	2018-06-29; 2018-07-13; 2018-08-08; 2018-08-10; 2018-08-20		2018-07-06; 2018-07-09; 2018-07-16
SR10B(N2)	Action Level		2018-08-15	2018-07-06; 2018-08-08	2018-06-29; 2018-07-06; 2018-07-09; 2018-07-11; 2018-07-16; 2018-08-13; 2018-08-17; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-22; 2018-08-27; 2018-08-29				2018-07-13; 2018-07-27; 2018-08-10
SR10B(N2)	Limit Level	2018-07-09; 2018-08-13; 2018-08-17	2018-06-29; 2018-07-13; 2018-08-10; 2018-08-13; 2018-08-15; 2018-08-17; 2018-08-20; 2018-08-27; 2018-08-29; 2018-08-31		2018-07-16
Total	Action Level	24	23	52	50	2	1	3	10
	Action Level	165
	Limit Level	7	15	10	10	0	0	0	0
	Limit Level	42

3.3.6 As confirmed by the Contractor, no marine transportation and marine-based work was conducted when water quality monitoring was conducted in June, July and August 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 �V 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 �V 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 Notably, throughout the present quarterly progress report, the previous monitoring data obtained under Contract No. HY/2011/03 (i.e. HKLR03) are referenced and compared to the present quarterly monitoring data collected for the HKBCF-PCB project, as both HKBCF-PCB and HKLR03 project data was collected by the same HKCRP survey team, to ensure 100% consistency in monitoring methodology including vessel survey method as well as various analyses. On the contrary, the previous monitoring data collected under HZMB HKBCF-Reclamation Works contract (Contract No. HY/2010/02) was from a different survey team that have adopted different survey methodology (e.g. two observers and one data recorder under HKBCF-Reclamation Works contract, as compared to one primary observer and one data recorder under HKLR03 and HKBCF-PCB contract). Therefore, the previous HKLR03 monitoring data was adopted for comparison with the present quarterly findings. This approach was also adopted in previous three verified quarterly reports (i.e. EM&A quarterly reports no. 13^th, 14^th and 15^th).

3.4.4 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).

3.4.5 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.

3.4.6 Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use �V 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).

3.4.7 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

3.4.8 Behavioural analysis �V 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.

3.4.9 Ranging pattern analysis �V 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

3.4.10 During the period of June 2018 to August 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.

3.4.11 From these surveys, a total of 790.7 km of survey effort was collected, with 97.6% 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, 293.4 km and 497.3 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively.

3.4.12 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 572 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 218.6 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.

3.4.13 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in June to August 2018, seven groups of 16 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 all six on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines. In addition, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, while none was sighted in NEL.

Distribution

3.4.14 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in June to August 2018 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix L. Four sightings were made to the northeast and northwest of Lung Kwu Chau, while another two sightings were made adjacent to theHKLR09 alignment (Figure 1 of Appendix L). One sighting was also made between Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau. On the contrary, they were completely absent from the central and eastern portions of North Lantau waters (Figure 1), which was consistent with the findings of HKLR03 monitoring surveys in recent years. (Figure 1 of Appendix L).

3.4.15 Notably, all dolphin sighting were made far away from the HKBCF and HKLR03 reclamation sites, as well as the alignments of HKLR09 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 (June to August 2018) was very different from the one during the baseline monitoring period (Figure 1 of Appendix L). In the present quarter, dolphins have 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).

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 there, and mainly at the western end of the survey area, which was also in stark contrast with their frequent occurrences throughout the entire survey area 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.

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 �V 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 1.04 sightings and 2.50 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were both nil for this quarter.

Table 3.7 Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period (June to August 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 (12 & 14 Jun 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 2 (21 & 25 Jun 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 3 (5 & 16 Jul 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 4 (23 & 24 Jul 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 5 (7 & 16 Aug 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 6 (20 & 27 Aug 2018)	0.0	0.0
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (12 & 14 Jun 2018)	1.6	1.6
	Set 2 (21 & 25 Jun 2018)	0.0	0.0
	Set 3 (5 & 16 Jul 2018)	1.8	1.8
	Set 4 (23 & 24 Jul 2018)	2.0	10.1
	Set 5 (7 & 16 Aug 2018)	3.5	8.7
	Set 6 (20 & 27 Aug 2018)	0.0	0.0

Table 3.8 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates From Impact Monitoring Period (June to August 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	0.0	6.0 �� 5.1	0.0	22.2 �� 26.8
Northwest Lantau	1.5 �� 1.3	9.5 �� 5.9	3.7 �� 4.5	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 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were both zero with no on-effort sighting being made, and such extremely low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have also been consistently recorded in recent years of HZMB monitoring (Table 3.9)

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
June-August 2013 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	0.4 �� 1.0	0.4 �� 1.0
June-August 2014 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	0.0	0.0
June-August 2015 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	0.0	0.0
June-August 2016 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	0.0	0.0
June-August 2017 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	0.0	0.0
June-August 2018 (HKBCF Impact)	0.0	0.0

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)

(*) As explained in Section 3.4.3, the previous monitoring data from Contract No. HY/2011/13 (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 85.0% and 91.7% respectively) were tiny 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 spring quarters (with comparison to past HKLR03 monitoring data), dolphin encounter rates in NWL during summer 2018 was lower than all summer periods in 2013-17, and the decline was becoming more apparent in the past four summer periods (Table 3.10). Such temporal trend should be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters whether the dolphin occurrence would slowly recover as marine construction activities of HKBCF works will be mostly 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
June-August 2013 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	5.6 �� 3.7	27.0 �� 18.7
June-August 2014 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	4.7 �� 3.8	17.5 �� 15.1
June-August 2015 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	2.5 �� 3.2	9.2 �� 11.6
June-August 2016 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	1.7 �� 2.2	7.5 �� 11.0
June-August 2017 (HKLR03 Impact⁽^*))	2.2 �� 2.9	6.6 �� 8.1
June-August 2018 (HKBCF Impact)	1.5 �� 1.3	3.7 �� 4.5

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.

(*) As explained in Section 3.4.3, the previous monitoring data from Contract No. HY/2011/13 (i.e. HKLR03) were adopted for comparison with the baseline and present HKBCF impact monitoring period.

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, the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0025 and 0.0155 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarter 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 no 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 quarters to detect any sign of recovery.

Group Size

3.4.27 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to five individuals per group in North Lantau region during June to August 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 from impact monitoring period (March-May 2018) and baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011)

Survey Area	Average Dolphin Group Size
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	2.3 �� 1.4 (n = 7)	3.7 �� 3.1 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	---	3.2 �� 2.2 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	2.3 �� 1.4 (n = 7)	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 June to August 2018 was lower than the one recorded during the three-month baseline period, but it should also be noted that the sample size of eight dolphin groups in the present quarter was much smaller when compared to the 66 groups sighted during the baseline period (Table 3.11).

3.4.29 Notably, all except one dolphin groups were composed of 1-3 individuals only, while only one group was medium in size with five animals (Annex II of Appendix L).

3.4.30 This larger group with five animals was sighted near the HKLR09 alignment at the southwest corner of NWL survey area (Figure 2 of Appendix L). This is in contrary to the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups (5 animals or more per group) were frequently sighted and evenly distributed in NWL waters, with a few also sighted in NEL waters.

Habitat Use

3.4.31 From June to August 2018, only six grids recorded dolphin presence during on-effort search in North Lantau waters. Moreover, just two of the six grids recorded moderate to moderately high dolphin densities, and both grids overlapped with the HKLR09alignment at the southwest cornerof NWL waters (Figures 3a and 3b of Appendix L).

3.4.32 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.

3.4.33 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 3 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 complete absence of dolphins there during the present impact phase period (Figure 3 of Appendix L).

3.4.34 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 two grids with moderate to moderately high dolphin densities were located at the southwest corner of NWL waters near Shum Wat during the present impact phase period (Figure 3 of Appendix L).

Mother-calf Pairs

3.4.35 During the present quarterly period, no mother-calf was spotted among the eight groups of dolphins.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.4.36 During the present quarterly period, none of the seven dolphin groups were engaged in feeding, socializing, traveling or milling/resting activity. Moreover, none of the groups was associated with any operating fishing boat.

Summary Photo-identification works

3.4.37 From June to August 2018, nearly 500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.4.38 In total, nine individuals sighted 10 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix L and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV in Appendix L). All re-sightings of individual dolphins were made in NWL, while none was re-sighted in NEL during the quarterly period. .

3.4.39 Among the nine individuals, eight of them were re-sighted only once, while there was only one individuals (NL182) were re-sighted twice during the three-month period (Annex III of Appendix L).

3.4.40 Notably, three of these nine individuals (i.e. CH34, NL202 and NL317) were also sighted in NWL survey area during the HKLR03 monitoring surveys conducted concurrently in the same three-month period. Moreover, four individual (CH113, NL317, WL2017 and WL251) was also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys from the same quarterly period.

Individual range use

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

3.4.42 All identified dolphins sighted in the present quarter were utilizing NWL waters only, while none of them occurred in NEL waters (Annex V of Appendix L). This is in contrary to the extensive movements of many individual dolphins between NEL and NWL survey areas as observed in the earlier impact monitoring quarters as well as the baseline period.

3.4.43 Moreover, all identified individuals that primarily centered their range use in North

3.4.44 Lantau waters were still sighted within their normal ranges during the present quarterly period. On the other hand, in contrary to previous monitoring quarters, none of the individuals that consistently utilized WL waters in the past have extended their range use to NWL waters during the present quarter.

3.4.45 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, or versa.

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.4.46 There was one Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between June 2018 �V August 2018).

3.4.47 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.

3.4.48 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.

3.4.49 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 All exposed site area has been paved expect planting area, thus, watering of exposed spoil was not required during reporting month.

3.5.3 The marine traffic records and geographical plots of all the vessels tracks will be submitted by the Contractor to ER, ETL and IEC/ENPO within 3 weeks after the reporting month. As informed by Contractor, there was no marine transportation since 30 January 2018.

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 May 2016, the transfer of treated marine sediment to Contract no. HY/2010/02 has been discontinued since July 2015.

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

3.6.4 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.