Party	Position	Name	Telephone	Fax
HyD (Highways Department)	Project Coordinator	Stanley Chan	2762 3406	3188 6614
	Senior Engineer	Steven Shum	2762 4133	3188 6614
SOR (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	Chief Resident Engineer	Daniel Ip	3553 3800	2492 2057
	Resident Engineer	Kingman Chan	3691 3950	3691 2899
ENPO / IEC (Ramboll Hong Kong Ltd.)	ENPO Leader	Y.H. Hui	3465 2850	3465 2899
IEC	Dr. F.C. Tsang	3465 2851	3465 2899
Contractor (Gammon Construction Limited)	Environmental Manager	Brian Kam	3520 0387	3520 0486
Environmental Officer	Roy Leung	3520 0387	3520 0486
	24-hour Complaint Hotline		9738 4332
ET (ERM-HK)	ET Leader	Jovy Tam	2271 3113	2723 5660

1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

The EM&A programme required environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality and marine ecology as well as environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impacts. The EM&A requirements and related findings for each component are described in the following sections, which include:

· Monitoring parameters;

· Action and Limit levels for all environmental parameters;

· Event Action Plan;

· Tested environmental impact hypotheses;

· Environmental mitigation measures, as recommended in the approved EIA Report; and

· Environmental requirement in contract documents.

2 EM&A RESULTS

2.1 Air Quality

The baseline air quality monitoring undertaken by the Hong Kong – Zhuhai –Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HKZMB) during October 2011 included the two monitoring stations ASR9A and ASR9C for this Project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results and Action/ Limit Level presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([1]) are adopted for this Project.

2.1.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour TSP monitoring was conducted three (3) times in every six (6) days and impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out once in every six (6) days when the highest dust impact was expected.

1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP monitoring were conducted at two alternative air quality monitoring stations, ASR8A (Area 4) and ASR9 (Entrance of MTR Depot) during the reporting period in accordance with the requirement stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual. Details of the monitoring stations are provided in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1.

High Volume Samplers (HVSs) were installed at two alternative air quality monitoring stations for carrying out 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting period. The wind sensor was installed at ASR8A (Area 4) for logging wind speed and wind direction in the reporting period. Details of the equipment deployed in air quality monitoring are provided in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations and Monitoring Dates in this Reporting Period

Monitoring Station (1)	Monitoring Period (2)	Location	Description	Parameters & Frequency
ASR8A	From 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017	Area 4	On ground at the Area 4	Ÿ 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times per day every 6 days Ÿ 24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour every 6 days

ASR9	From 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017	Entrance of MTRC Depot	On ground at the entrance

Note:

(1) Air Quality Monitoring Stations ASR9A and ASR9C at Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot proposed in accordance with the Updated EM&A were relocated to ASR9 and ASR8A respectively.

(2) Changes in monitoring schedule are provided in Section 2.1.3.

Table 2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
High Volume Sampler (1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP)	Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Sampler (Model No. TE-5170)
Wind Sensor	Global Water (Wind Speed Sensor: WE550; Wind Direction Sensor: WE570)
Wind Anemometer for calibration	Lutron (Model No. AM-4201)

2.1.2 Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring are provided in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.

2.1.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

The schedules for air quality monitoring in the reporting period were presented in the approved Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports. Air Quality Monitoring for 24-hour TSP at ASR8A and ASR9 on 22 August 2017 was canceled due to adverse weather conditions.

2.1.4 Results and Observations

The major dust sources in the reporting period included construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby traffic emissions.

A total of 70 monitoring events for 1-TSP and 69 monitoring events for 24-hour TSP were undertaken at ASR8A and ASR9 in the reporting period. Neither Action nor Limit Level exceedance was recorded for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP monitoring, thus no action was required to be taken in accordance with the Event Action Plan.

The impact monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP in the reporting period are summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. Baseline and impact monitoring are presented graphically in Appendix D. The detailed impact monitoring data and meteorological information were reported in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

Table 2.3 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in this Reporting Period

Month	Station	Average (µg/m3)	Range (µg/m3)	Action Level (µg/m3)	Limit Level (µg/m3)
Nov 2016	ASR 8A	64	43 – 91	394	500
Nov 2016	ASR 9	101	56 - 172	393	500
Dec 2016	ASR 8A	87	47 - 125	394	500
Dec 2016	ASR 9	125	62 - 180	393	500
Jan 2017	ASR 8A	107	58 - 160	394	500
Jan 2017	ASR 9	165	77 - 245	393	500
Feb 2017	ASR 8A	73	45 - 147	394	500
Feb 2017	ASR 9	86	46 - 147	393	500
Mar 2017	ASR 8A	86	35 – 176	394	500
Mar 2017	ASR 9	123	41 – 225	393	500
Apr 2017	ASR 8A	90	59 – 115	394	500
	ASR 9	141	50 - 231	393	500
May 2017	ASR 8A	91	50 – 200	394	500
	ASR 9	131	66 – 263	393	500
Jun 2017	ASR 8A	60	38 – 97	394	500
Jun 2017	ASR 9	89	41 - 147	393	500
Jul 2017	ASR 8A	49	41 – 61	394	500
Jul 2017	ASR 9	63	38 - 93	393	500
Aug 2017	ASR 8A	55	13 – 163	394	500
Aug 2017	ASR 9	74	15 – 212	393	500
Sept 2017	ASR 8A	85	22 – 169	394	500
Sept 2017	ASR 9	99	21 - 206	393	500
Oct 2017	ASR 8A	69	22 - 156	394	500
Oct 2017	ASR 9	77	28 - 140	393	500

Table 2.4 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in this Reporting Period

Month	Station	Average (µg/m3)	Range (µg/m3)		Action Level (µg/m3)	Limit Level (µg/m3)
Nov 2016	ASR 8A	51	45 - 60		178	260
Nov 2016	ASR 9	62	54 - 66		178	260
Dec 2016	ASR 8A	65	46 – 78		178	260
Dec 2016	ASR 9	80	71 – 94		178	260
Jan 2017	ASR 8A	62	50 – 81		178	260
Jan 2017	ASR 9	85	72 - 96		178	260
Feb 2017	ASR 8A	56	47 – 62		178	260
Feb 2017	ASR 9	60	54 - 68		178	260
Mar 2017	ASR 8A	58	45 - 75		178	260
Mar 2017	ASR 9	67	51 - 83		178	260
Apr 2017	ASR 8A	51	42 - 62		178	260
Apr 2017	ASR 9	65	50 - 74		178	260
May 2017	ASR 8A	47	39 - 65		178	260
May 2017	ASR 9	59	48 - 67		178	260
Jun 2017	ASR 8A	42		38 - 45	178	260
Jun 2017	ASR 9	46		41 - 51	178	260
Jul 2017	ASR 8A	37		20 - 43	178	260
Jul 2017	ASR 9	41		30 - 54	178	260
Aug 2017	ASR 8A	30		15 - 71	178	260
Aug 2017	ASR 9	39		20 - 61	178	260
Sept 2017	ASR 8A	33	17 - 50		178	260
Sept 2017	ASR 9	37	22 - 61		178	260
Oct 2017	ASR 8A	60	21 - 102		178	260
Oct 2017	ASR 9	59	28 - 93		178	260

As shown in Table 2.5, the annual-averaged 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP levels in the reporting period were lower than the corresponding average baseline levels at all monitoring stations.

In order to determine any significant air quality impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in average TSP levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period and the baseline monitoring before commencement of construction activities. The annual-averaged levels of TSP level are presented in Table 2.5 and the statistical results are presented in Table 2.6. For 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP at ASR8A and ASR9, the TSP levels in the reporting period were significantly lower than the baseline levels.

Table 2.5 Summary of Average Levels of TSP Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in µg/m3)

Monitoring Station (1)	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
ASR9 (1-hour TSP)	220	107
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	74	59
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	222	76
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	74	50
Note: (1) Baseline monitoring results of ASR9A and ASR9C are applied to ASR8A and ASR9 respectively.

Table 2.6 One-way ANOVA Results for annual-averaged level of TSP level Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Monitoring Station	F ratio	p-value
ASR9 (1-hour TSP)	F 1,250 = 114	<0.01
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	F 1,81 = 8	<0.01
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	F 1,250 = 284	<0.01
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	F 1,81 = 20	<0.01

Note:

By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.

In addition, linear regression was conducted to examine any relationship between TSP levels and time during this yearly monitoring period at each monitoring station. Linear regression analysis makes assumptions of equal variance and normal distribution of data. Therefore, the significance level of the test was set at 1 % (i.e. p = 0.01) to reduce the chance of committing a Type 1 error. If a significant regression relationship was found between TSP level and time (i.e. p < 0.01), r2 value from the analysis would be further assessed. This value represents the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable (i.e. TSP level) that is accounted for by the fitted regression line and is referred to as the coefficient of determination. An r2 value of 1 indicates a perfect relationship (or fit) whereas a value of 0 indicates that there is no relationship (or no fit) between the dependent and independent variables. As there are no specific criteria to indicate how meaningful an r2 value is, for the purposes of this EM&A programme a value of 0.60 was adopted to indicate a meaningful regression. If r2 < 0.60 then it was considered that there was a weak relationship between TSP level and time or none at all. If the regression analysis indicated r2 > 0.60 then it had been interpreted that there was in fact a strong relationship between the dependent and independent variables (i.e. a strong temporal trend of increasing / decreasing TSP level with time).

As shown in Table 2.7, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between TSP level and time during this yearly monitoring period. As such, it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing / decreasing TSP level in this monitoring period.

Table 2.7 Linear Regression Result of TSP Monitoring

Parameter	Station	R2	F-ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient
1-hour TSP	ASR8A	0.031	6.7	<0.001	95	-0.104
1-hour TSP	ASR9	0.107	24.8	<0.001	157	-0.287
24-hour TSP	ASR8A	0.141	11.0	<0.001	68	-0.318
24-hour TSP	ASR9	0.349	35.9	<0.001	91	-0.541
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set as TSP levels (in µg/m3) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

2.2 Noise Monitoring

The baseline noise monitoring undertaken by the HKZMB Projects during the period of 18 October to 1 November 2011 included the monitoring station NSR1 for this Project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results and Action/ Limit Level presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([2]) are adopted for this Project.

2.2.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted once per week during the construction phase of the Contract.

Noise monitoring was conducted at the alternative noise monitoring station, NSR1A (Pak Mong Village Pavilion) during the reporting period in accordance with the requirement stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual. Details of the monitoring stations are provided in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.8.

Noise monitoring was performed by sound level meter in compliance with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications at the designated monitoring station. Details of the equipment deployed in noise monitoring are provided in Table 2.9.

Table 2.8 Location of Impact Noise Monitoring Station and Monitoring Dates in this Reporting Period

Monitoring Station (1)	Monitoring Period	Location	Parameters & Frequency
NSR1A	From 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017	Entrance of Pak Mong Village	Ÿ 30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90 would be recorded. Ÿ At least once a week
Note: (1) Noise Monitoring Station NSR1 at Pak Mong Village proposed in accordance with the Updated EM&A was relocated to NSR1A.

Monitoring Station (1)

Monitoring Period

Location

Parameters & Frequency

NSR1A

From 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017

Entrance of Pak Mong Village

Ÿ 30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90 would be recorded.

Ÿ At least once a week

Note:

(1) Noise Monitoring Station NSR1 at Pak Mong Village proposed in accordance with the Updated EM&A was relocated to NSR1A.

Table 2.9 Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
Integrated Sound Level Meter	Rion NL-31 / NL-52
Acoustic Calibrator	Rion NC-73

Equipment

Brand and Model

Integrated Sound Level Meter

Rion NL-31 / NL-52

Acoustic Calibrator

Rion NC-73

2.2.2 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring are provided in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.

2.2.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

The schedules for noise monitoring in the reporting period are provided in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

2.2.4 Results and Observations

Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities, adjacent maintenance works, and nearby traffic noise and aircraft noise.

A total of seventy (70) monitoring events were undertaken in the reporting period with no Action Level and Limit Level exceedance recorded at the monitoring stations in the reporting period, thus no action was required to be taken in accordance with the Event Action Plan.

The impact monitoring results for noise monitoring in the reporting period are summarized in Table 2.10. Baseline and impact monitoring are presented graphically in Appendix E. The detailed impact monitoring data was reported in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

Table 2.10 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results at NSR1A in the Reporting Period

Month	Average , dB(A), Leq (30mins)	Range, dB(A), Leq (30mins)	Limit Level, dB(A), Leq (30mins)
Nov 2016	61	60 - 62	75
Dec 2016	60	59 - 61	75
Jan 2017	60	59 - 61	75
Feb 2017	62	61 - 63	75
Mar 2017	61	61 - 62	75
Apr 2017	61	60 - 62	75
May 2017	61	60 - 63	75
Jun 2017	62	61 - 62	75
Jul 2017	63	62 - 63	75
Aug 2017	63	61 - 64	75
Sep 2017	64	62 - 67	75
Oct 2017	63	62 - 64	75
Note: Noise Monitoring Station NSR1 was relocated to NSR1A since December 2014.

As shown in Table 2.11, the annual-averaged noise level in the reporting period was higher than the average baseline levels at the monitoring station.

In order to determine any significant noise impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in average noise levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period and the baseline monitoring before commencement of construction activities. The statistical results are presented in Tables 2.12. Difference in noise level between reporting and baseline monitoring periods was significant, in which the annual-averaged noise level in the reporting period was higher than average baseline level. However, all monitoring results in the reporting period complied with the Action/Limit Levels. In general, noise levels recorded in the reporting period were mostly comparable to the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period. No specific trend of the noise monitoring results or existence of persistent noise impact from the Contract during the impact monitoring period was noticeable. The ET will keep track on the future noise monitoring results during construction phase.

Table 2.11 Summary of Average Levels of Noise Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in dB(A))

Monitoring Station	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
NSR1A	56	62

Table 2.12 One-way ANOVA Results for Annual-averaged Level of Noise Level Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Monitoring Station	F ratio	p-value
NSR1A	F 1,356 = 365	<0.01

Note:

By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.

In addition, linear regression was conducted to examine any relationship between noise levels and time during this yearly monitoring period at the designated noise monitoring station. The method of data interpretation followed the same method as indicated in Section 2.1.4 for TSP monitoring. As shown in Table 2.13, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between noise level and time during this yearly monitoring period. As such, it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing / decreasing noise level during this yearly monitoring period.

Table 2.13 Linear Regression Result of Noise Monitoring

Parameter	Station	R2	F-ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient
Leq 30min	NSR1A	0.430	51.3	<0.001	51	0.008
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set as Leq 30min (in dB(A)) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

Parameter

Station

F-ratio

p-value

Intercept

Coefficient

Leq 30min

NSR1A

0.430

51.3

<0.001

0.008

Note:

1. Dependent variable is set as Leq 30min (in dB(A)) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.

2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring

The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by the HKZMB Projects between 6 and 31 October 2011 included all monitoring stations except SR4a for the Project. Thus, the baseline monitoring results except for station SR4a and Action/Limit Level presented in HKZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([3]) are adopted for this Project. Baseline water quality monitoring was conducted at station SR4a from 29 August to 24 September 2013.

2.3.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

Impact water quality monitoring was carried out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that timely action could be taken to rectify the situation. Impact water quality monitoring was undertaken three days per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides in the construction period at seven water quality monitoring stations in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. Details of monitoring stations are provided in Figure 2.3a and 2.3b and Table 2.14.

Due to Three-Runway System (3RS) marine construction works, an alternative water quality control station CS(Mf)3(N) was proposed to replace control station CS(Mf)3. The Proposal of Alternative Water Quality Monitoring Station ([4]) was submitted to EPD on 31 March 2017 and granted on 6 April 2017. Water quality monitoring at CS(Mf)3(N) is undertaken since 2 May 2017.

Results of water quality monitoring for the period between June and July 2017 were adopted from the published EM&A data of Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works ([5])([6]).

The locations of the monitoring stations under the Contract and those covered by Contract No. HY/2010/02 are shown in Figures 2.3a and 2.3b and Table 2.14.

Table 2.14 Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations and the Corresponding Monitoring Requirements

Station ID	Type	Coordinates		*Parameters, unit	Depth	Frequency
		Easting	Northing
IS(Mf)9	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813273	818850	Ÿ Temperature(°C) Ÿ pH(pH unit) Ÿ Turbidity (NTU) Ÿ Water depth (m) Ÿ Salinity (ppt) Ÿ Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L and % of saturation) · Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)	3 water depths: 1m below sea surface, mid-depth and 1m above sea bed. If the water depth is less than 3m, mid-depth sampling only. If water depth less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted.	Impact monitoring: 3 days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides during the construction period of the Contract.
IS(Mf)16	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814328	819497
IS8	Impact Station(Close to HKBCF construction site)	814251	818412
SR4	Sensitive receiver (Tai Ho Inlet)	814760	817867
SR4a	Sensitive receiver	815247	818067
SR4(N)	Sensitive receiver (Tai Ho)	814705	817859
CS(Mf)3	Control Station	809989	821117
CS(Mf)3(N)	Control Station	808814	822355
CS(Mf)5	Control Station	817990	821129
Notes: In addition to the parameters presented monitoring location/position, time, water depth, sampling depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or works underway nearby were also recorded. Water Quality Monitoring Station CS(Mf)3 was relocated to CS(Mf)3(N) since 2 May 2017. Station SR4a is not covered by HY/2010/02. Data from Station SR4(N) is considered representative of those from SR4a since they are located 50m from each other and coral colonies, which is the sensitive receiver concerned at SR4a, are also presented along the seawall nearby SR4(N).

Details of the equipment deployed in water quality monitoring are provided in Table 2.15.

Table 2.15 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Brand and Model
DO, Temperature meter and Salinity	YSI Pro2030
Turbidimeter	HACH Model 2100Q
pH meter	Thermo Scientific Orion 2 Star / HANNA HI8314
Positioning Equipment	Koden913MK2 with KBG-3 DGPS antenna / Furuno GP-170
Water Depth Detector	Speedtech Instrument SM-5 / Lowrance Mark 5x / Garmin Striker 4
Water Sampler	Kemmerer 1520 (1520-C25) 2.2L with messenger / WildCo Vertical Alpha Bottles 1120-2.2L /1120-3.2L Aquatic Research Instrument Vertical/Horizontal Point Water Sampler 2.2L / 3.0L
Multi-parameters (Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, Turbidity, Temperature, pH)	YSI ProDSS / YSI 6920 V2 Sonde
Notes: Water quality monitoring equipment used for water quality monitoring for the period between June and July 2017 could be referred to the published Monthly EM&A Reports of Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. Available at http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

Equipment

Brand and Model

DO, Temperature meter and Salinity

YSI Pro2030

Turbidimeter

HACH Model 2100Q

pH meter

Thermo Scientific Orion 2 Star / HANNA HI8314

Positioning Equipment

Koden913MK2 with KBG-3 DGPS antenna /

Furuno GP-170

Water Depth Detector

Speedtech Instrument SM-5 / Lowrance Mark 5x / Garmin Striker 4

Water Sampler

Kemmerer 1520 (1520-C25) 2.2L with messenger / WildCo Vertical Alpha Bottles 1120-2.2L /1120-3.2L

Aquatic Research Instrument Vertical/Horizontal Point Water Sampler 2.2L / 3.0L

Multi-parameters

(Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, Turbidity, Temperature, pH)

YSI ProDSS / YSI 6920 V2 Sonde

Notes:

Water quality monitoring equipment used for water quality monitoring for the period between June and July 2017 could be referred to the published Monthly EM&A Reports of Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. Available at http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

2.3.2 Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality monitoring are provided in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.

2.3.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

The schedules for water quality monitoring in the reporting period are provided in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports ([7]). Water quality monitoring on 28 January 2017, 31 January 2017 and 4 April 2017 were cancelled due to suspension of marine works during holiday. Water Quality Monitoring scheduled on 23 August 2017 and 4 September 2017 were canceled due to adverse weather conditions.

2.3.4 Results and Observations

Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the reporting period. The detailed impact water quality monitoring data was reported in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

Results of water quality monitoring between 1 June 2017 and 31 July 2017 were adopted from the published EM&A data of Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works ([8]) ([9]).

In this reporting period, a total of 152 monitoring events were undertaken. One hundred and twenty-one (121) Action Level and fourteen (14) Limit Level of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) exceedances, five (5) Action Level of Suspended Solids (SS) exceedances and one (1) Limit Level of Turbidity exceedance were recorded for water quality impact monitoring in the reporting period. Actions were taken in accordance with the Event Action Plan as presented in Appendix H. Detailed investigation reports on exceedances were presented in Appendix N of Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

In order to determine any significant water quality impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with α set at 0.05) was conducted to examine any significant difference in average DO, Turbidity and SS levels between the impact monitoring in this reporting period and the baseline monitoring before commencement of construction activities. The annual-averaged levels of DO, Turbidity and SS are presented in Tables 2.16 to 2.18 and the statistical results are presented in Tables 2.19 to 2.21. Baseline and impact monitoring results are presented graphically in Appendix F.

In the reporting period, all annual-averaged DO levels during both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at all depth of the impact monitoring stations were higher than corresponding average baseline levels (see Table 2.16 and 2.19). The annual depth-averaged turbidity level (see Table 2.17 and 2.20) and annual-averaged SS levels (see Table 2.18 and 2.21) recorded during the reporting period were comparable to the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period. In general, DO, turbidity and SS levels were varied across sampling months (see Appendix F) and these variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting period. The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring results suggested that there was no specific trend in the overall water quality monitoring.

Table 2.16 Summary of Annual Means of DO Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in mg/L)

Tide	Station	Depth	Annual mean of DO of baseline monitoring	Annual mean of DO of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Surface	6.3	6.7
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.6	6.9
	IS8	Surface	6.4	6.8
	SR4/ SR4(N)	Surface	6.1	6.6
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	6.8
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Surface	6.3	6.8
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.5	7.0
	IS8	Surface	6.4	6.8
	SR4/ SR4(N)	Surface	6.3	6.8
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	6.8
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Middle	6.3	6.6
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16 IS(Mf)9	Middle Middle	6.1 6.2	6.8 7.3
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	5.9	6.5
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.6	6.8
	IS8	Bottom	6.2	6.7
	SR4/ SR4(N)	Bottom	6.0	6.6
	SR4a	Bottom	5.3	6.6
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	6.0	6.6
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.7	6.9
	IS8	Bottom	6.3	6.8
	SR4/ SR4(N)	Bottom	6.2	6.7
	SR4a	Bottom	5.2	6.8

Table 2.17 Summary of Annual Means of Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in NTU)

Station	Station	Annual mean of depth-averaged turbidity of baseline monitoring	Annual mean of depth-averaged turbidity of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	8.9	7.3
	IS(Mf)9	8.2	7.3
	IS8	8.4	8.1
	SR4/ SR4(N)	8.9	8.0
	SR4a	8.9	8.3
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	11.3	7.5
	IS(Mf)9	10.2	7.8
	IS8	11.9	9.1
	SR4/ SR4(N)	10.3	8.2
	SR4a	7.8	8.5

Table 2.18 Summary of Annual Means of Depth-averaged SS Level of Baseline Monitoring and Reporting Period (in mg/L)

Station	Station	Annual mean of depth-averaged SS of baseline monitoring	Annual mean of depth-averaged SS of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	11.3	9.2
	IS(Mf)9	10.9	9.1
	IS8	11.3	9.2
	SR4/ SR4(N)	11.1	9.5
	SR4a	9.1	10.2
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	10.4	9.0
	IS(Mf)9	14.7	9.5
	IS8	13.5	10.2
	SR4/ SR4(N)	12.2	10.3
	SR4a	9.8	10.7

Table 2.19 One-way ANOVA Results for DO Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	Depth	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Surface	F 1,160 = 2.3	0.133
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F 1,159 = 1.1	0.306
Mid-ebb	IS8	Surface	F 1,158 = 2.5	0.114
Mid-ebb	SR4	Surface	F 1,158 = 4.2	0.041
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Surface	F 1,138 = 25.1	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Surface	F 1,161 = 2.7	0.100
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F 1,149 = 1.4	0.243
Mid-flood	IS8	Surface	F 1,158 = 2.8	0.097
Mid-flood	SR4	Surface	F 1,161 = 2.7	0.105
Mid-flood	SR4a	Surface	F 1,135 = 26.6	<0.001
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Middle	F 1,146 = 0.8	0.373
Mid-flood Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16 IS(Mf)9	Middle Middle	F 1,135 = 4.5 F 1,10 = 0.8	0.035 0.400
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F 1,160 = 3.1	0.081
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F 1,159 = 0.5	0.476
Mid-ebb	IS8	Bottom	F 1,158 = 3.0	0.084
Mid-ebb	SR4	Bottom	F 1,156 = 3.8	0.054
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Bottom	F 1,135 = 17.1	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F 1,161 = 3.5	0.065
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F 1,149 =0.4	0.505
Mid-flood	IS8	Bottom	F 1,158 = 3.1	0.078
Mid-flood	SR4	Bottom	F 1,159 =3.3	0.071
Mid-flood	SR4a	Bottom	F 1,135 = 34.2	<0.001

Note:

By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.

Table 2.20 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged Turbidity Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb Mid-ebb Mid-ebb Mid-ebb Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	F 1,160 = 7.5	0.007
	IS(Mf)9	F 1,160 = 2.5	0.115
	IS8	F 1,159 = 0.2	0.664
	SR4	F 1,159 = 2.5	0.117
	SR4a	F 1,135 = 0.4	0.531
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F 1,161 = 30.3	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F 1,161 = 8.4	0.004
Mid-flood	IS8	F 1,161 = 2.0	0.164
Mid-flood	SR4	F 1,161 = 5.3	0.023
Mid-flood	SR4a	F 1,135 = 0.8	0.381

Note:

By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.

Table 2.21 One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged SS Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	F 1,160 = 4.7	0.031
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	F 1,160 = 3.9	0.060
Mid-ebb	IS8	F 1,159 = 4.3	0.040
Mid-ebb	SR4	F 1,159 = 2.6	0.109
Mid-ebb	SR4a	F 1,135 = 0.9	0.353
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F 1,161 = 1.7	0.190
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F 1,161 = 29.0	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS8	F 1,161 = 7.3	0.008
Mid-flood	SR4	F 1,161 = 3.1	0.083
Mid-flood	SR4a	F 1,135 = 0.66	0.419
Note: By setting α at 0.05, p-values < 0.05 (significant difference) are bold.

In addition, linear regression was conducted to examine any significant relationship between DO / Turbidity / SS levels and time during this yearly monitoring period at each monitoring station. The method of data interpretation followed the same method as indicated in Section 2.1.4 for TSP monitoring. As shown in Tables 2.22 to 2.24, results of the regression analysis indicated that majority of the DO levels did not have significant relationship with the time during this yearly monitoring period. Detailed investigation reports on exceedances were presented in Appendix N of Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports. The ET will keep track on the future water quality monitoring results during construction phase. Apart from DO level, there was no significant relationship between Turbidity / SS level and time during this yearly monitoring period. As such, it is considered that there is no apparent trend of increasing or decreasing Turbidity / SS levels in this reporting period.

Table 2.22 Linear Regression Result of DO

Parameter		Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb Surface DO	IS(Mf)16		0.399	98.1	<0.001	12.98	-0.005
	IS(Mf)9		0.156	27.2	<0.001	10.61	-0.003
	IS8		0.185	33.1	<0.001	11.17	-0.003
	SR4		0.430	110.2	<0.001	13.16	-0.005
	SR4a		0.429	94.7	<0.001	13.16	-0.005
Mid-flood surface DO	IS(Mf)16		0.244	48.1	<0.001	12.87	-0.005
	IS(Mf)9		0.060	8.9	<0.001	10.60	-0.003
	IS8		0.301	63.0	<0.001	12.82	-0.005
	SR4		0.320	70.3	<0.001	12.86	-0.005
	SR4a		0.479	113.0	<0.001	13.48	-0.005
Mid-ebb middle DO	IS(Mf)16		0.525	153.7	<0.001	15.08	-0.007
Mid-flood middle DO	IS(Mf)16 IS(Mf)9		0.609 0.115	198.5 1.0	<0.001 0.250	16.60 40.97	-0.008 -0.024
Mid-ebb bottom DO	IS(Mf)16		0.571	196.6	<0.001	16.18	-0.008
	IS(Mf)9		0.337	74.8	<0.001	12.40	-0.004
	IS8		0.441	115.0	<0.001	13.61	-0.005
	SR4		0.530	165.9	<0.001	14.51	-0.006
	SR4a		0.576	166.8	<0.001	15.67	-0.007
Mid-flood bottom DO	IS(Mf)16		0.566	194.1	<0.001	16.13	-0.007
	IS(Mf)9		0.165	27.5	<0.001	12.02	-0.004
	IS8		0.367	84.5	<0.001	13.76	-0.005
	SR4		0.382	92.1	<0.001	13.45	-0.005
	SR4a		0.551	151.1	<0.001	14.36	-0.006

Note:

1. Dependent variable is set as DO (in mg/L) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.

2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

Table 2.23 Linear Regression Result of Turbidity

Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb depth-averaged turbidity	IS(Mf)16	0.075	12.1	<0.001	13.38	-0.005
	IS(Mf)9	0.100	16.5	<0.001	14.12	-0.005
	IS8	0.055	8.5	0.324	2.06	0.005
	SR4	0.013	1.9	0.004	5.41	0.002
	SR4a	0.046	5.9	0.538	1.69	0.005
Mid-flood depth-averaged turbidity	IS(Mf)16	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	7.48	<0.001
	IS(Mf)9	0.021	3.3	0.100	3.75	0.003
	IS8	0.092	15.2	0.016	-15.17	0.019
	SR4	0.083	13.5	0.590	-1.43	0.008
	SR4a	0.205	31.8	0.068	-4.14	-0.010
Note: 1. Dependent variable is set as turbidity (in NTU) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works. 2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

Table 2.24 Linear Regression Result of SS

Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb depth-averaged SS	IS(Mf)16	0.260	52.1	<0.001	26.97	-0.014
	IS(Mf)9	0.314	67.8	<0.001	30.03	-0.016
	IS8	0.181	32.4	<0.001	24.62	-0.012
	SR4	0.131	22.1	<0.001	23.54	-0.011
	SR4a	0.046	5.9	<0.001	17.21	-0.006
Mid-flood depth-averaged SS	IS(Mf)16	0.133	22.9	<0.001	24.05	-0.012
	IS(Mf)9	0.080	12.9	<0.001	19.25	-0.008
	IS8	<0.001	0.1	0.003	11.19	-0.001
	SR4	0.003	0.4	0.001	12.51	-0.002
	SR4a	0.001	0.2	0.003	9.39	0.001

Note:

1. Dependent variable is set as suspended solids (in mg/L) and independent variable is set as number of day of construction works.

2. R2 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

2.4 Dolphin Monitoring

2.4.1 Monitoring Requirements

Impact dolphin monitoring is required to be conducted by a qualified dolphin specialist team to evaluate whether there have been any effects on the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) from the Contract. In order to fulfil the EM&A requirements and make good use of available resources, the on-going impact line transect dolphin monitoring data collected by HyD’s Contract No. HY/2011/03 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Hong Kong Link Road - Section between Scenic Hill and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities on monthly basis is adopted to avoid duplicates of survey effort.

2.4.2 Monitoring Equipment

Table 2.25 summarizes the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.

Table 2.25 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Model
Global Positioning System (GPS) Camera Laser Binoculars Marine Binocular Vessel for Monitoring	Garmin 18X-PC Geo One Phottix Nikon D90 300m 2.8D fixed focus Nikon D90 20-300m zoom lens Infinitor LRF 1000 Bushell 7 x 50 marine binocular with compass and reticules 65 foot single engine motor vessel with viewing platform 4.5m above water level

Equipment

Model

Global Positioning System (GPS)

Camera

Laser Binoculars

Marine Binocular

Vessel for Monitoring

Garmin 18X-PC

Geo One Phottix

Nikon D90 300m 2.8D fixed focus

Nikon D90 20-300m zoom lens

Infinitor LRF 1000

Bushell 7 x 50 marine binocular with compass and reticules

65 foot single engine motor vessel with viewing platform 4.5m above water level

2.4.3 Monitoring Parameter, Frequencies & Duration

The dolphin monitoring covered all transect lines in Northeast Lantau (NEL) and the Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey areas twice per month throughout the entire construction period. The monitoring data were compatible with, and should be made available for, long-term studies of small cetacean ecology in Hong Kong. In order to provide a suitable long-term dataset for comparison, identical methodology and line transects employed in baseline dolphin monitoring was followed in the impact dolphin monitoring.

2.4.4 Monitoring Location

The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.4a and 2.4b. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 2.26 and Table 2.27 ([10]) below.

Table 2.26 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (November 2016 – July 2017)

Line No.		Easting	Northing	Line No.		Easting	Northing
1	Start Point	804671	815456	13	Start Point	816506	819480
1	End Point	804671	831404	13	End Point	816506	824859
2	Start Point	805475	815913	14	Start Point	817537	820220
2	End Point	805477	826654	14	End Point	817537	824613
3	Start Point	806464	819435	15	Start Point	818568	820735
3	End Point	806464	822911	15	End Point	818568	824433
4	Start Point	807518	819771	16	Start Point	819532	821420
4	End Point	807518	829230	16	End Point	819532	824209
5	Start Point	808504	820220	17	Start Point	820451	822125
5	End Point	808504	828602	17	End Point	820451	823671
6	Start Point	809490	820466	18	Start Point	821504	822371
6	End Point	809490	825352	18	End Point	821504	823761
7	Start Point	810499	820880	19	Start Point	822513	823268
7	End Point	810499	824613	19	End Point	822513	824321
8	Start Point	811508	821123	20	Start Point	823477	823402
8	End Point	811508	824254	20	End Point	823477	824613
9	Start Point	812516	821303	21	Start Point	805476	827081
9	End Point	812516	824254	21	End Point	805476	830562
10	Start Point	813525	820872	22	Start Point	806464	824033
10	End Point	813525	824657	22	End Point	806464	829598
11	Start Point	814556	818853	23	Start Point	814559	821739
11	End Point	814556	820992	23	End Point	814559	824768
12	Start Point	815542	818807
12	End Point	815542	824882

Table 2.27 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (August 2017 – October 2017)

Line No.		Easting	Northing	Line No.		Easting	Northing
1	Start Point	804671	815456	13	Start Point	816506	819480
1	End Point	804671	831404	13	End Point	816506	824859
2	Start Point	805476	820800	14	Start Point	817537	820220
2	End Point	805476	826654	14	End Point	817537	824613
3	Start Point	806464	821150	15	Start Point	818568	820735
3	End Point	806464	822911	15	End Point	818568	824433
4	Start Point	807518	821500	16	Start Point	819532	821420
4	End Point	807518	829230	16	End Point	819532	824209
5	Start Point	808504	821850	17	Start Point	820451	822125
5	End Point	808504	828602	17	End Point	820451	823671
6	Start Point	809490	822150	18	Start Point	821504	822371
6	End Point	809490	825352	18	End Point	821504	823761
7	Start Point	810499	822000*	19	Start Point	822513	823268
7	End Point	810499	824613	19	End Point	822513	824321
8	Start Point	811508	821123	20	Start Point	823477	823402
8	End Point	811508	824254	20	End Point	823477	824613
9	Start Point	812516	821303	21	Start Point	805476	827081
9	End Point	812516	824254	21	End Point	805476	830562
10	Start Point	813525	821176	22	Start Point	806464	824033
10	End Point	813525	824657	22	End Point	806464	829598
11	Start Point	814556	818853	23	Start Point	814559	821739
11	End Point	814556	820992	23	End Point	814559	824768
12	Start Point	815542	818807	24	Start Point	805476	815900
12	End Point	815542	824882	24	End Point	805476	819100

2.4.5 Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit levels of dolphin impact monitoring are shown in Appendix C. The Event Action Plan is presented in Appendix H.

2.4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

The dolphin monitoring schedules for the reporting period are provided in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports.

2.4.7 Results & Observations

A total of 3,338.24 km of survey effort was collected, with 93.0% 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, 1,279.91 km and 2,058.33 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas, respectively. The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 2,390.70 km while the effort on secondary lines was 947.54 km. Both survey efforts conducted on primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. The survey efforts are summarized in Appendix G.

During the twenty-four sets of monitoring surveys from November 2016 to October 2017, a total of 43 groups of 151 Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. In this 12-month period, all except three (3) dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-four (34) out of 40 on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines, while six (6) groups of dolphins were sighted on secondary lines. All sightings were made in NWL region. No sighting was made in the proximity of the Project’s alignment. Summary table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Appendix II of Appendix G.

During the present 12-month impact phase monitoring period, the average daily encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins were deduced in NEL and NWL survey areas, and compared to the ones deduced from the baseline, transitional and first three year of impact phases as shown in Table 2.28.

Table 2.28 Average Dolphin Encounter Rates

	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)
	Northeast Lantau	Northwest Lantau	Northeast Lantau	Northwest Lantau
Impact Phase (2016-17, this reporting period)	0.00	2.35 ± 2.62	0.00	8.57 ± 11.05
Impact Phase (2015-16)	0.00	2.10 ± 1.83	0.00	8.54 ± 8.53
Impact Phase (2014-15)	0.11 ± 0.54	2.54 ± 2.49	0.11 ± 0.54	11.64 ± 14.04
Impact Phase (2013-14)	0.22 ± 0.74	6.93 ± 4.08	0.76 ± 2.59	26.31 ± 17.56
Transitional Phase (2012-13)	1.70 ± 2.26	7.68 ± 4.36	4.75 ± 7.61	27.51 ± 18.06
Baseline Phase (2011-12)	6.05 ± 5.04	7.75 ± 5.69	19.91 ± 21.30	29.57 ± 26.96

Comparison of average daily dolphin encounter rates from this impact phase (November 2016 – October 2017), the first three years of impact phases (November 2013 – October 2016), transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January 2012). (± denotes the standard deviation of the value)

Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1-12 individuals per group in North Lantau region during November 2016 - October 2017. The average dolphin group sizes from the 12-month impact phase monitoring period were compared with the ones deduced from baseline and transitional and first three years of impact phases, as shown in Table 2.29.

Table 2.29 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Size

Average Dolphin Group Size

Overall

Northeast Lantau

Northwest Lantau

Impact Phase (2016-17, this reporting period)

3.51 ± 2.68

(n = 43)

0.00

3.51 ± 2.68

(n = 43)

Impact Phase (2015-16)

3.73 ± 3.14

(n = 45)

1.00 (n = 1)

3.80 ± 3.14

(n = 44)

Impact Phase (2014-15)

4.24 ± 3.15

(n = 54)

1.00 (n = 1)

4.30 ± 3.15

(n = 53)

Impact Phase (2013-14)

3.76 ± 2.57

(n = 136)

5.00 ± 2.71

(n = 4)

3.73 ± 2.57

(n = 132)

Transitional Phase (2012-13)

3.37 ± 2.98

(n = 186)

2.64 ± 2.38

(n = 22)

3.47 ± 3.05

(n = 164)

Baseline Phase (2011-12)

3.32 ± 2.86

(n = 288)

2.80 ± 2.35

(n = 79)

3.52 ± 3.01

(n = 209)

Comparison of average dolphin group size from this impact phase (November 2016– October 2017, the first three years of impact phases (November 2013 – October 2016), transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January 2012). (± denotes the standard deviation of the value)

Four (4) Limit Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2016 and October 2017. In this reporting period, no unacceptable impact from the activities of this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations. It is essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in North Lantau region for the rest of the impact phase monitoring period. Photo IDs of sighted dolphin are presented in Appendix K of the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Report.

2.4.8 Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone Monitoring

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken during the period of marine works under this Contract. No sighting of Chinese White Dolphin was recorded in the monitoring period during the exclusion zone monitoring.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was not undertaken in this reporting period as no marine piling works was carried out outside the daylight hours since September 2015. Daytime marine mammal exclusion zone was still in effect to cater for temporary staging installation and uninstallation works.

2.5 EM&A Site Inspection

Site inspections were carried out on weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures under the Contract. Fifty-three (53) site inspections were carried out in the reporting period. Key observations were summarized in the section of EM&A Site Inspection in the Thirty-seventh to Forty-eighth Monthly EM&A Reports. The Contractor has rectified all of the observations identified during environmental site inspections in the reporting period.

2.6 Waste Management Status

The Contractor had submitted application form for registration as chemical waste producer under the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

Wastes generated during this reporting period include mainly construction wastes (inert and non-inert), recyclable materials and chemical waste. Reference has been made to the waste flow table prepared by the Contractor (Appendix I). The quantities of different types of wastes are summarized in Table 2.30.

Table 2.30 Quantities of Different Waste Generated in the Reporting Period

Month/ Year	Inert Construction Waste (a) (m3)	Imported Fill (m3)	Inert Construction Waste Re-used (m3)		Non-inert Construction Waste (b) (tonnes)	Recyclable Materials (c) (kg)	Chemical Wastes (kg)	Marine Sediment (m3)
Month/ Year	Inert Construction Waste (a) (m3)	Imported Fill (m3)	Inert Construction Waste Re-used (m3)		Non-inert Construction Waste (b) (tonnes)	Recyclable Materials (c) (kg)	Chemical Wastes (kg)	Category L	Category M (Mp & Mf)	Category H
Nov 2016	3,337	0	536		138,270	63	1,567	473	0	0
Dec 2016	3,397	0	732		130,900	63	0	990	0	0
Jan 2017	4,118	0	474		99,840	140	3,521	0	0	0
Feb 2017	4,869	0	166		127,720	91	0	857	0	0
Mar 2017	6,077	0	498		87,910	77	6,000	771	0	0
Apr 2017	4,409	0	1,058		130,680	5,233	0	0	0	0
May 2017	4,134	0	826		171,870	56	0	672	0	0
Jun 2017	4,394	0	98		148,600	63	0	0	0	0
Jul 2017	4,921	0	696		159,980	91	800	1,056	0	0
Aug 2017	3,897	0	0		159,230	56	0	0	0	0
Sept 2017	3,142	0	0		185,420	18,100	0	1,517	1,047	127
Oct 2017	2,680	0	325		172,690	63	0	0	0	0
Total	49,375	0		5,409	1,713,110	24,096	11,888	6,336	1,047	127
Notes:
(a) Inert construction wastes include hard rock and large broken concrete, and materials disposed as public fill. (b) Non-inert construction wastes include general refuse disposed at landfill. (c) Recyclable materials include metals, paper, cardboard, plastics, timber and others.

The Contractor was advised to properly maintain on site C&D materials and waste collection, sorting and recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize reuse/ recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor was also reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on site regularly and properly.

For chemical waste containers, the Contractor was reminded to treat properly and store 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.

2.7 Environmental Licenses and Permits

The status of environmental licensing and permit is summarized in Table 2.31 below.

Table 2.31 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status

License/ Permit	License or Permit No.	Date of Issue	Date of Expiry	License/ Permit Holder	Remarks
Environmental Permit	EP-353/2009/K	11-Apr-16	N/A	HyD	Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
Environmental Permit	EP-354/2009/D	13-Mar-15	N/A	HyD	Tuen Mun- Chek Lap Kok Link
Chemical Waste Registration	5213-951-G2380-17	12-Jun-14	N/A	GCL	Viaducts A, B, C, D & E
Chemical Waste Registration	5213-961-G2380-13	10-Oct-13	N/A	GCL	Chemical waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 (Area 1 adjacent to Cheng Tung Road, Siu Ho Wan)
Chemical Waste Registration	5213-961-G2380-14	10-Oct-13	N/A	GCL	Chemical waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 (Area 2 adjacent to Cheung Tung Road, Pak Mong Village)
Chemical Waste Registration	5213-974-G2588-03	04-Nov-13	N/A	GCL	Chemical waste produced in Contract HY/2012/07 (WA5 adjacent to Cheung Tung Road, Yam O)
Construction Dust Notification	361571	05-Jul-13	N/A	GCL
Construction Dust Notification	362093	17-Jul-13	N/A	GCL	For Area 23
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RW0339-16 GW-RW0708-16 GW-RW0294-17 GW-RS1045-16 GW-RS1309-16 GW-RS0540-17 GW-RS0958-16 GW-RS1159-16 GW-RS0157-17 GW-RS0456-17 GW-RS0639-17 GW-RS0829-17 GW-RS0718-16 GW-RS1044-16	17-Jun-16 20-Dec-16 19-Jun-17 14-Oct-16 20-Dec-16 20-Jun-17 15-Sep-16 24-Nov-16 28-Feb-17 31-May-17 31-Jul-17 29-Sep-17 13-Jul-16 14-Oct-16	19-Dec-16 18-Jun-17 18-Dec-17 13-Apr-17 19-Jun-17 15-Dec-17 30-Nov-16 28-Feb-17 31-May-17 31-Jul-17 29-Sep-17 30-Nov-17 13-Jan-17 13-Apr-17	GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL	General works at WA5 General works at WA5 General works at WA5 For Broad Permit Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Broad Permit for Segment Launching at Land Portion Pre-casted pile cap shell installation at E10-E13 Pre-casted pile cap shell installation at E8-E13
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0295-17 GW-RS0408-17 GW-RS0668-17	13-Apr-17 11-May-17 7-Aug-17	12-Oct-17 30-Sep-17 6-Feb-18	GCL GCL GCL	Pre-casted pile cap shell installation at E8-E13 Pre-casted pile cap shell installation at E8-E13 Pre-casted pile cap shell installation at E8-E13
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0082-17	15-Feb-17	31-Mar-17	GCL	Water Pipe Works at Tung Chung
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS1158-16	24-Nov-16	31-Dec-16	GCL	Contingency plan for DN1000 works at Tung Chung Seafront Road
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0688-17	17-Aug-17	31-Aug-17	GCL	Contingency plan for DN800T works at Tung Chung Seafront Road
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holiday	PP-RS0010-17	12-Jun-17	15-Sep-17	GCL	Percussive piling at Portion A
Construction Waste Disposal Account	7017735	10-Jul-13	N/A	GCL	-
Construction Waste Disposal Account	7019470	03-Mar-14	N/A	GCL	Vessel CHIT Account
Marine Dumping Permit Marine Dumping Permit Marine Dumping Permit Marine Dumping Permit Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/17-115 EP/MD/17-153 EP/MD/18-031 EP/MD/17-120 EP/MD/17-141	20-Oct-16 01-Jan-17 01-Jul-17 1-Nov-16 24-Nov-16	31-Dec-16 30-Jun-17 31-Dec-17 30-Nov-16 31-Dec-16	GCL GCL GCL GCL GCL	For dumping Type I sediment For dumping Type I sediment For dumping Type I sediment For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/17-154	01-Jan-17	31-Jan-17	GCL	For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/17-168	01-Feb-17	28-Feb-17	GCL	For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/17-185	01-Mar-17	31-Mar-17	GCL	For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/17-196	01-Jul-17	31-Jul-17	GCL	For dumping Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/18-047	1-Aug-17	31-Aug-17	GCL	For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Marine Dumping Permit	EP/MD/18-061	16-Sep-17	15-Oct-17	GCL	For dumping Type I (Dedicated Site) and Type II sediment
Waste Water Discharge License	WT00019017-2014	13-May-14	31-May-19	GCL	Discharge for marine portion
Waste Water Discharge License	WT00019018-2014	13-May-14	31-May-19	GCL	Discharge for land portion

Monitoring Station	EIA Predicted Maximum	Maximum Baseline Monitoring	Maximum Impact Monitoring	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
ASR9 (1-hour TSP)	205 (1) /240	462	263	220	107
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	83 (1) / 108	113	96	74	59
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	293 / 205 (1)	464	200	222	76
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	105 /83 (1)	128	102	74	50
Note: 1. EIA prediction of maximum of ASR8 is presented for reference. 2. Scenario 1 of EIA prediction is adopted, in which north and south reclamations of TMCLKL were included in the modelling. 3. EIA predictions and baseline monitoring results of ASR9A and ASR9C are applied to ASR8A and ASR9 respectively.

Monitoring Station	EIA Predicted Maximum	Maximum Impact Monitoring	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
NSR1	74	67	57	62
Note: 1. EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL. Baseline and impact monitoring were measured in Leq,30min.

Monitoring Station	Tide	Baseline monitoring	Impact Monitoring of this Reporting Period
CS(Mf)3/ CS(Mf)3(N)	Mid-ebb	8.8	9.3
CS(Mf)5	9.2	8.9
IS(Mf)16	11.3	9.2
IS(Mf)9	10.9	9.1
IS8	11.3	9.2
SR4/SR(N)	11.1	9.5
SR4a	9.1	10.2
CS(Mf)3/ CS(Mf)3(N)	Mid-flood	12.4	9.7
CS(Mf)5	11.5	8.9
IS(Mf)16	10.4	9.0
IS(Mf)9	14.7	9.5
IS8	13.5	10.2
SR4/SR4(N)	12.2	10.3
SR4a	9.8	10.7

([1]) Agreement No. CE 35/2011 (EP) Baseline Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects - Investigation. Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C). Submitted on 8 March 2012 and subsequently approved by EPD

([2]) Agreement No. CE 35/2011 (EP) Baseline Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects - Investigation. Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C). Submitted on 8 March 2012 and subsequently approved by EPD

([3]) Agreement No. CE 35/2011 (EP) Baseline Environmental Monitoring for Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects - Investigation. Baseline Environmental Monitoring Report (Version C). Submitted on 8 March 2012 and subsequently approved by EPD.

([4]) The Proposal of Alternative Water Quality Monitoring Station with the verification letter from IEC was submitted to EPD on 31 March 2017, and subsequently replied with no objection on.6 April 2017.

([5]) Published EM&A data for impact water quality monitoring by Contract No. HY/2010/02 are available at: http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

([6]) Technical issues have been observed from impact monitoring of the Contract and thus published information is adopted from Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works.

([7]) The schedules for water quality monitoring for the period between June and July 2017 could be referred to the published Monthly EM&A Reports of Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. Available at http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

([8]) Published EM&A data for impact water quality monitoring by Contract No. HY/2010/02 are available at: http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

([9]) Technical issues have been observed from impact monitoring of the Contract and thus published information is adopted from Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works.

([10]) Proposal on the changes of transect lines for dolphin monitoring was approved by EPD on

28 July 2017 (Reference number: (19) in EP2/G/A/129 Pt. 8).

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

1.2 Scope of This Report

1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

2 EM&A RESULTS

2.1.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

2.1.2 Action & Limit Levels

2.1.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

2.1.4 Results and Observations

2.2.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

2.2.2 Action and Limit Levels

2.2.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

2.2.4 Results and Observations

2.3.1 Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

2.3.2 Action & Limit Levels

2.3.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

2.3.4 Results and Observations

2.4 Dolphin Monitoring

2.4.1 Monitoring Requirements

2.4.2 Monitoring Equipment

2.4.3 Monitoring Parameter, Frequencies & Duration

2.4.4 Monitoring Location

2.4.5 Action & Limit Levels

2.4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Period

2.4.7 Results & Observations

2.4.8 Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone Monitoring

2.5 EM&A Site Inspection

2.8 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

3 Comparison of EM&A Results with EIA Predictions and Baseline Monitoring Results

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring

4 Future Key Issues

5 Conclusion and Recommendations