Under Contract No. HY/2012/07, Gammon Construction Limited (GCL) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Southern Connection Viaduct Section of the Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link Project (TM-CLK Link Project) while AECOM Asia Company Limited was appointed by HyD as the Supervising Officer. For implementation of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme under the Contract, ERM-Hong Kong, Limited (ERM) has been appointed as the Environmental Team (ET). Ramboll Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by the HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A. Further applications for variation of environmental permit (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C and EP-354/2009/D, were granted on 28 January 2014, 10 December 2014 and 13 March 2015, respectively.

The southern landfall of TM-CLK Link lies alongside the Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) where a reclamation area is constructed by Contract No. HY/2010/02 under Environmental Permit No. EP-353/2009/K and EP-354/2009/D. Upon the agreement and confirmation between the Supervising Officer Representatives and Contractors of HY/2010/02 and HY/2012/07 in September 2015, part of the reclamation area for southern landfall under EP-353/2009/K and EP-354/2009/D was handed-over to Contract No. HY/2012/07. Another part of the southern landfall area under EP-354/2009/D was handed-over to Contract No. HY/2012/07 after completion of reclamation works by Contract No. HY/2010/02 in June 2016.

The construction phase of the Contract commenced on 31 October 2013. The impact monitoring of the EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and marine ecological monitoring as well as environmental site inspections, commenced on 31 October 2013.

This is the Sixth Annual EM&A Report presenting the EM&A works carried out during the period from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2019 for the Southern Connection Viaduct Section in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the TM-CLK Link Project. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period included:

Marine-based Works

· Uninstallation of marine piling platform; and

· Reinstatement of seawall at seafront.

Land-based Works

· Reinstatement works along Cheung Tung Road;

· Abutment construction;

· Drainage works;

· Road works along North Lantau Highway;

· Asphalt paving;

· Construction of sign gantries, light poles and street furniture;

· Parapets and barriers installation;

· Slope work of Viaducts A, B, C & D;

· Landscaping works at NLH/CTR; and

· Landscaping works at HKBCF.

A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting period is listed below:

24-hour TSP monitoring 55 sessions at ASR8A

49 sessions at ASR9

1-hour TSP monitoring 57 sessions at ASR8A

49 sessions at ASR9

Noise monitoring 57 sessions at NSR1A

Water quality monitoring 121 sessions

Dolphin monitoring 24 sessions

Joint Environmental site inspection 52 sessions

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality

One (1) Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP was recorded for air quality monitoring in the reporting period.

Notification of temporary suspension of air quality monitoring has been approved by EPD on 28 August 2019. No air quality monitoring was scheduled since 28 August 2019.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise

No exceedance of Action and Limit Levels was recorded for construction noise monitoring in the reporting period.

Notification of temporary suspension of noise monitoring has been approved by EPD on 28 August 2019. No construction noise monitoring was scheduled since 28 August 2019.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Thirty-one (31) Action Level exceedances and three (3) Limit Level exceedances of bottom-depth Dissolved Oxygen (DO), fifteen (15) Action Level exceedance of surface and middle-depth DO and two (2) Action Level of Suspended Solids (SS) exceedances were recorded for water quality impact monitoring in the reporting period.

Notification of temporary suspension of water quality monitoring has been approved by EPD on 30 August 2019. No water quality impact monitoring was scheduled since 30 August 2019.

Impact Dolphin Monitoring

Four (4) Limit Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2018 and October 2019. No unacceptable impact from the construction activities of the TM-CLKL Southern Connection Viaduct Section on Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) was noticeable from general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this reporting period.

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken between November 2018 and June 2019 during the period of marine works under this Contract. No marine works were undertaken since July 2019, therefore, daily 250 m marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was not undertaken since July 2019. No Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was implemented as the marine piling works were not carried out outside the daylight hours in this reporting period. No sighting of the Chinese White Dolphin was recorded in the monitoring period during the exclusion zone monitoring.

Environmental Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons

There was no environmental complaints, notification of summons or successful prosecution recorded in the reporting period.

Reporting Change

Future Key Issues

Potential environmental impacts arising from the upcoming construction activities in the coming annual period are mainly associated with waste management issue.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

According to the findings of the Northwest New Territories (NWNT) Traffic and Infrastructure Review conducted by the Transport Department, Tuen Mun Road, Ting Kau Bridge, Lantau Link and North Lantau Highway would be operating beyond capacity after 2016. This forecast has been based on the estimated increase in cross boundary traffic, developments in the Northwest New Territories (NWNT), and possible developments in North Lantau, including the Airport developments, the Lantau Logistics Park (LLP) and the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge (HZMB). In order to cope with the anticipated traffic demand, two new road sections between NWNT and North Lantau – Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) and Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB) are proposed.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of TM-CLKL (the Project) was prepared in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-175/2007) and the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). The EIA Report was submitted under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) in August 2009. Subsequent to the approval of the EIA Report (EIAO Register Number: AEIAR-146/2009), an Environmental Permit (EP-354/2009) for TM-CLKL was granted by the Director of Environmental Protection (DEP) on 4 November 2009, and EP variation (EP-354/2009/A) was issued on 8 December 2010.

Under Contract No. HY/2012/07, Gammon Construction Limited (GCL) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Southern Connection Viaduct Section of TM-CLKL (“the Contract”) while AECOM Asia Company Limited was appointed by HyD as the Supervising Officer. For implementation of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme under the Contract, ERM-Hong Kong, Limited (ERM) has been appointed as the Environmental Team (ET). Ramboll Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A. Further applications for variation of environmental permit (VEP), EP-354/2009/B, EP-354/2009/C and EP-354/2009/D, were granted on 28 January 2014, 10 December 2014 and 13 March 2015, respectively.

The construction phase of the Contract commenced on 31 October 2013. The impact monitoring phase of the EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and marine ecological monitoring as well environmental site inspections, commenced on 31 October 2013.

The general layout plan of the Contract components is presented in Figures 1.1 & 1.2a to l.

1.2 Scope of This Report

This is the Sixth Annual EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2012/07 Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link – Southern Connection Viaduct Section. This report presents a summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2019.

1.3 Organization Structure

The organization structure of the Contract is shown in Appendix A. The key personnel contact names and contact details are summarized in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel

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
		Ivan Yim	3691 2967	3691 2899

		Chan Wah Fu	2293 6434	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
	Environmental Officer	Roy Leung	3520 0387	3520 0486
	24-hour Complaint Hotline		9738 4332
ET (ERM-HK)	ET Leader	Dr. Jasmine Ng	2271 3311	2723 5660

1.4 Summary of Construction Works

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

Marine-based Works

· Uninstallation of marine piling platform; and

· Reinstatement of seawall at seafront.

Land-based Works

· Reinstatement works along Cheung Tung Road;

· Abutment construction;

· Drainage works;

· Road works along North Lantau Highway;

· Asphalt paving;

· Construction of sign gantries, light poles and street furniture;

· Parapets and barriers installation;

· Slope work of Viaducts A, B, C & D;

· Landscaping works at NLH/CTR; and

· Landscaping works at HKBCF.

The locations of the construction activities are shown in Figure 1.3. The Environmental Sensitive Receivers in the vicinity of the Project are shown in Figure 1.4.

The environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule is presented in Appendix B.

Figure 1.3 Locations of Construction Activities in the Reporting Period

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 (HZMB) 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 HZMB 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.

Notification of temporary suspension of air quality monitoring has been approved by EPD on 28 August 2019. No air quality monitoring was scheduled since 28 August 2019.

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 2018 to 28 August 2019	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 2018 to 28 August 2019	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) Air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR9 on 25 February 2019 failed due to power shortage and a make-up 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR9 was conducted 26 February 2019. Air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR8A failed due to power shortage on 28 February 2019. Air quality monitoring of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP at ASR9 was cancelled on 22, 25, 31 July and in August 2019 due to power shortage while air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP at ASR8A was cancelled on 31 July 2019 due to adverse weather. 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 Sixty-First to Seventieth Monthly EM&A Reports.

Air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR9 on 25 February 2019 failed due to power shortage and a make-up 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR9 was conducted 26 February 2019. Air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP monitoring at ASR8A failed due to power shortage on 28 February 2019. Air quality monitoring of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP at ASR9 was cancelled on 22, 25, 31 July and in August 2019 due to power shortage while air quality monitoring of 24-hour TSP at ASR8A was cancelled on 31 July 2019 due to adverse weather.

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 57 monitoring events for 1-TSP and 55 monitoring events for 24-hour TSP were undertaken at ASR8A; while a total of 49 monitoring events for 1-TSP and 49 monitoring events for 24-hour TSP were undertaken at ASR9 in the reporting period. One (1) Limit Level of 1-hour TSP was recorded for air quality monitoring in the reporting period. However, there was no Action nor Limit Level exceedance was recorded for 24-hour TSP monitoring. Actions were taken in accordance with the Event Action Plan as presented in Appendix H. Detailed investigation reports on exceedance was presented in Appendix N of Sixty-eighth Monthly EM&A Report.

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 Sixty-First to Seventieth 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 2018	ASR 8A	88	45-149	394	500
Nov 2018	ASR 9	96	57-159	393	500
Dec 2018	ASR 8A	97	46-300	394	500
Dec 2018	ASR 9	87	53-164	393	500
Jan 2019	ASR 8A	110	46-229	394	500
Jan 2019	ASR 9	110	43-271	393	500
Feb 2019	ASR 8A	95	29-242	394	500
Feb 2019	ASR 9	77	26-193	393	500
Mar 2019	ASR 8A	59	18-109	394	500
Mar 2019	ASR 9	65	29-139	393	500
Apr 2019	ASR 8A	48	27-107	394	500
	ASR 9	65	33-133	393	500
May 2019	ASR 8A	63	16-129	394	500
	ASR 9	83	42-220	393	500
Jun 2019	ASR 8A	35	14-95	394	500
Jun 2019	ASR 9	109	14-752	393	500
Jul 2019	ASR 8A	48	14-138	394	500
Jul 2019	ASR 9	63	15-96	393	500
Aug 2019	ASR 8A	53	14-144	394	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 2018	ASR 8A	64	36-104		178	260
Nov 2018	ASR 9	70	36-122		178	260
Dec 2018	ASR 8A	56	39-68		178	260
Dec 2018	ASR 9	62	48-87		178	260
Jan 2019	ASR 8A	73	45-101		178	260
Jan 2019	ASR 9	79	51-114		178	260
Feb 2019	ASR 8A	55	30-91		178	260
Feb 2019	ASR 9	58	42-82		178	260
Mar 2019	ASR 8A	41	23-55		178	260
Mar 2019	ASR 9	47	27-62		178	260
Apr 2019	ASR 8A	28	18-43		178	260
Apr 2019	ASR 9	58	23-107		178	260
May 2019	ASR 8A	40	16-55		178	260
May 2019	ASR 9	50	25-73		178	260
Jun 2019	ASR 8A	25		16-39	178	260
Jun 2019	ASR 9	62		22-152	178	260
Jul 2019	ASR 8A	29		19-42	178	260
Jul 2019	ASR 9	41		33-48	178	260
Aug 2019	ASR 8A	34		26-39	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 at ASR8A and ASR9 and 24-hour TSP at ASR8A, the TSP levels in the reporting period were significantly lower than the baseline levels. Difference of 24-hour TSP levels at ASR9 between baseline and impact monitoring period was significant (p > 0.05), however the annual-averaged 24-hour TSP levels in the impact monitoring period was lower than the average baseline level (statistically average results of baseline and impact monitoring periods were 74 µg/m3 and 60 µg/m3 respectively). All monitoring results in the impact monitoring period were lower than the average baseline level.

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	85
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	74	60
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	222	70
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	74	45
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 _1,187 = 98	<0.01
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	F _1,61 = 4	0.06
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	F _1,211 = 224	<0.01
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	F _1,67 = 18	<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	0.217	46.75	<0.001	552	-0.244
1-hour TSP	ASR9	0.002	0.31	0.577	172	-0.045
24-hour TSP	ASR8A	0.359	29.68	<0.001	349	-0.154
24-hour TSP	ASR9	0.055	2.72	0.106	225	-0.085
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 HZMB 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 HZMB 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.

Notification of temporary suspension of noise monitoring has been approved by EPD on 28 August 2019. No construction noise monitoring was scheduled since 28 August 2019.

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 2018 to 28 August 2019	Entrance of Pak Mong Village	Ÿ 30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). L_eq, L₁₀and L₉₀would 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 2018 to 28 August 2019

Entrance of Pak Mong Village

Ÿ 30-mins measurement at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to Saturday). L_eq, L₁₀and L₉₀would 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-52
Acoustic Calibrator	Rion NC-73

Equipment

Brand and Model

Integrated Sound Level Meter

Rion 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 Sixty-First to Seventieth 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 fifty-seven (57) 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 Sixty-First to Seventieth Monthly EM&A Reports.

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

Month	Average , dB(A), L_{eq (30mins)}	Range, dB(A), L_{eq (30mins)}	Limit Level, dB(A), L_{eq (30mins)}
Nov 2018	64	64-65	75
Dec 2018	64	63-65	75
Jan 2019	64	64-65	75
Feb 2019	63	62-65	75
Mar 2019	64	63-65	75
Apr 2019	63	62-64	75
May 2019	64	62-66	75
Jun 2019	63	62-63	75
Jul 2019	63	62-65	75
Aug 2019	63	62-63	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	63

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 _1,343 = 546	<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
L_{eq 30min}	NSR1A	0.298	23.4	<0.001	76	-0.006
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

R²

F-ratio

p-value

Intercept

Coefficient

L_{eq 30min}

NSR1A

0.298

23.4

<0.001

-0.006

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 HZMB 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 HZMB 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.

Notification of temporary suspension of water quality monitoring has been approved by EPD on 30 August 2019. No water quality impact monitoring was scheduled since 30 August 2019.

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 2.3 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
IS8(N)	Impact Station(Close to HKBCF construction site)	814413	818570
SR4(N)	Sensitive receiver (Tai Ho)	814705	817859
SR4(N2)	Sensitive receiver (Tai Ho)	815688	817996
SR4a	Sensitive receiver	815247	818067
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. Water Quality Monitoring Station SR4 was relocated to SR4(N) since 2 March 2018. Water Quality Monitoring Station SR4(N) was relocated to SR4(N2) since 12 June 2019. Water Quality Monitoring Station IS8 was relocated to IS8(N) since 12 June 2019.

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
Multi-parameters (Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, Turbidity, Temperature, pH)	YSI ProDSS / YSI 6920 V2
Positioning Equipment	Furuno GP-170
Water Depth Detector	Lowrance Mark 5x / Garmin Striker 4
Water Sampler	WildCo Vertical Alpha Bottles 1120-2.2L /1120-3.2L Aquatic Research Instrument Vertical/Horizontal Point Water Sampler 2.2L / 3.0L

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 Sixty-First to Seventieth Monthly EM&A Reports ([4]). Water quality monitoring on 26 December 2018, 4, 6 and 8 February 2019, 5 April and 1 May 2019 were cancelled due to suspension of marine works during site closure. Water quality monitoring on 7 June 2019 was cancelled due to suspension of marine works during holiday.

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 Sixty-First to Seventieth Monthly EM&A Reports.

Results of water quality monitoring in July and August 2019 were adopted from the published EM&A data of Contract No. HY/2012/08 Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link – Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section ([5]).

In this reporting period, a total of 121 monitoring events were undertaken. Thirty-one (31) Action Level exceedances and three (3) Limit Level exceedances of bottom-depth Dissolved Oxygen (DO), fifteen (15) Action Level exceedance of surface and middle-depth DO and two (2) Action Level of Suspended Solids (SS) exceedances 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 Sixty-Seventh, Sixty-Ninth and Seventieth 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, most 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, except the bottom DO levels at mid-flood at IS(Mf)16, IS(Mf)9, IS8/IS8(N) and SR4(N)/SR4(N2) were lower (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 lower than 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	6.9
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.6	7.2
	IS8/IS8(N)	Surface	6.4	7.1
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	Surface	6.1	6.8
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	6.9
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Surface	6.3	7.0
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.5	7.0
	IS8/IS8(N)	Surface	6.4	7.0
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	Surface	6.3	7.0
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	7.0
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Middle	6.3	6.7
	IS(Mf)9	Middle	-	7.1
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Middle	6.1	-
	IS(Mf)9	Middle	6.2	7.2
	IS8/IS8(N)	Middle	-	7.9
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	5.9	6.7
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.6	7.0
	IS8/IS8(N)	Bottom	6.2	6.8
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	Bottom	6.0	6.6
	SR4a	Bottom	5.3	6.6
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	6.0	5.6
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.7	6.1
	IS8/IS8(N)	Bottom	6.3	6.0
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	Bottom	6.2	5.7
	SR4a	Bottom	5.2	5.6

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	6.4
	IS(Mf)9	8.2	6.1
	IS8/IS8(N)	8.4	7.2
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	8.9	6.6
	SR4a	8.9	5.8
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	11.3	7.0
	IS(Mf)9	10.2	6.9
	IS8/IS8(N)	11.9	6.5
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	10.3	6.1
	SR4a	7.8	5.9

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	6.9
	IS(Mf)9	10.9	6.5
	IS8/IS8(N)	11.3	7.5
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	11.1	6.9
	SR4a	9.1	6.3
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	10.4	6.8
	IS(Mf)9	14.7	6.9
	IS8/IS8(N)	13.5	6.9
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)	12.2	6.8
	SR4a	9.8	6.2

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 _1,131 = 4.4	0.037
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F _1,102 = 2.9	0.094
Mid-ebb	IS8/IS8(N)	Surface	F _1,131 = 4.7	0.032
Mid-ebb	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	Surface	F _1,131 = 5.1	0.026
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Surface	F _1,131 = 21.8	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Surface	F _1,131 = 6.0	0.016
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F _1,92 = 1.8	0.183
Mid-flood	IS8/IS8(N)	Surface	F _1,130 = 5.0	0.027
Mid-flood	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	Surface	F _1,131 = 5.4	0.021
Mid-flood	SR4a	Surface	F _1,131 = 23.1	<0.001
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Middle	F _1,7 = 2.1	0.189
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Middle	F _1,36 = 2.9	0.098
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F _1,131 = 4.6	0.033
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F _1,102= 1.6	0.208
Mid-ebb	IS8/IS8(N)	Bottom	F _1,131 = 3.1	0.081
Mid-ebb	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	Bottom	F _1,128 = 3.0	0.087
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Bottom	F _1,131= 15.3	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F _1,131 = 6.8	0.010
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F _1,92 = 0.3	0.576
Mid-flood	IS8/IS8(N)	Bottom	F _1,130 = 5.0	0.027
Mid-flood	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	Bottom	F _1,129 = 3.8	0.056
Mid-flood	SR4a	Bottom	F _1,131 = 22.6	<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 _1,131 = 8.1	0.005
	IS(Mf)9	F _1,131 = 5.1	0.026
	IS8/IS8(N)	F _1,131 = 1.6	0.209
	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	F _1,131 = 6.3	0.013
	SR4a	F _1,131 = 13.0	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F _1,131 = 14.5	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F _1,131 = 7.3	0.007
Mid-flood	IS8/IS8(N)	F _1,131 = 24.9	<0.001
Mid-flood	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	F _1,131 = 19.2	<0.001
Mid-flood	SR4a	F _1,131 = 3.8	0.053

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 _1,131 = 12.6	<0.001
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	F _1,131 = 17.7	<0.001
Mid-ebb	IS8/IS8(N)	F _1,131 = 9.1	0.003
Mid-ebb	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	F _1,131 = 16.1	<0.001
Mid-ebb	SR4a	F _1,131 = 5.7	0.018
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F _1,131 = 9.7	0.002
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F _1,131 = 37.0	<0.001
Mid-flood	IS8/IS8(N)	F _1,131 = 23.3	<0.001
Mid-flood	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	F _1,131 = 18.2	<0.001
Mid-flood	SR4a	F _1,131 = 8.9	0.003
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 all 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 Sixty-Seventh, Sixty-Ninth and Seventieth 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		0.159	22.5	<0.001	15.37	-0.004
	IS(Mf)9		0.026	11.0	0.126	11.04	-0.002
	IS8/IS8(N)		0.141	19.5	<0.001	14.90	-0.004
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		0.236	36.7	<0.001	17.89	-0.006
	SR4a		0.181	26.3	<0.001	16.61	-0.005
Mid-flood surface DO	IS(Mf)16		0.181	26.2	<0.001	15.93	-0.005
	IS(Mf)9		0.133	12.6	<0.001	15.88	-0.004
	IS8/IS8(N)		0.168	23.9	<0.001	15.95	-0.005
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		0.228	35.2	<0.001	17.06	-0.005
	SR4a		0.124	16.9	<0.001	15.23	-0.004
Mid-ebb middle DO	IS(Mf)9		0.221	7.6	0.010	17.48	-0.005
Mid-flood middle DO	IS(Mf)9		0.123	4.8	0.036	14.06	-0.004
Mid-ebb bottom DO	IS(Mf)16		0.349	63.8	<0.001	21.49	-0.008
	IS(Mf)9		0.124	12.7	<0.001	15.10	-0.004
	IS8/IS8(N)		0.311	53.6	<0.001	20.44	-0.007
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		0.382	73.6	<0.001	22.52	-0.008
	SR4a		0.428	89.1	<0.001	23.48	-0.009
Mid-flood bottom DO	IS(Mf)16		0.289	48.3	<0.001	18.84	-0.006
	IS(Mf)9		0.239	25.7	<0.001	18.39	-0.006
	IS8/IS8(N)
	SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		0.247	38.8	<0.001	17.80	-0.005
	SR4a		0.256	41.0	<0.001	19.32	-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	0.049	6.1	0.015	20.81	-0.007
	IS(Mf)9	0.114	15.3	<0.001	29.15	-0.011
	IS8/ IS8(N)	<0.001	0.02	0.901	6.36	<0.001
	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	0.026	3.2	0.077	-3.99	0.005
	SR4a	0.007	0.8	0.363	10.23	-0.002
Mid-flood depth-averaged turbidity	IS(Mf)16	0.076	9.8	0.002	29.83	-0.012
	IS(Mf)9	0.121	16.3	<0.001	36.58	-0.015
	IS8/ IS8(N)	0.078	10.0	0.002	26.99	-0.010
	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	0.049	6.2	0.014	20.56	-0.007
	SR4a	0.088	11.5	<0.001	26.08	-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	<0.001	0.01	0.909	7.83	<0.001
	IS(Mf)9	0.041	5.1	0.026	21.46	-0.008
	IS8/ IS8(N)	<0.001	0.01	0.923	8.27	<0.001
	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	0.003	0.3	0.578	3.07	0.002
	SR4a	<0.001	<0.001	0.949	5.89	<0.001
Mid-flood depth-averaged SS	IS(Mf)16	0.016	2.0	0.163	17.71	-0.006
	IS(Mf)9	0.066	8.4	0.004	29.62	-0.011
	IS8/ IS8(N)	0.091	11.9	<0.001	35.11	-0.014
	SR4(N)/SR4(N2)	0.025	3.0	0.085	21.17	-0.007
	SR4a	0.056	7.0	0.009	24.56	-0.009

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 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 between November 2018 and September 2019.

Responsibility for the implementation of dolphin monitoring was changed from Contract No. HY/2011/03 HZMB HKLR Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF to Contract No. HY/2012/08 TMCLKL Northern Connection Sub-Sea Tunnel Section since October 2019. The on-going impact line transect dolphin monitoring data collected by HyD’s Contract No. HY/2012/08 TMCLKL Northern Connection Sub-Sea Tunnel Section on the monthly basis is adopted since October 2019.

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 2.4. The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 2.26 ([6])below.

Table 2.26 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates

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 Sixty-First to Seventy-Second Monthly EM&A Reports.

2.4.7 Results & Observations

A total of 3,181.16 km of survey effort was collected, with 94.9% 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, 1,177.95 km and 2,003.21 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas, respectively. The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 2,304.73 km while the effort on secondary lines was 876.43 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 2018 to October 2019, a total of 27 groups of 68 Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. In this 12-month period, all except three (3) dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Nineteen (19) out of 24 on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines, while five (5) 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 2.27.

Table 2.27 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 (2018-19, this reporting period)	0.00	1.42 ± 1.80	0.00	3.62 ± 4.93
Impact Phase (2017-18)	0.00	2.68 ± 3.04	0.00	9.02 ± 14.63
Impact Phase (2016-17)	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 2018 – October 2019), the first five years of impact phases (November 2013 – October 2018), 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 1-7 individuals per group in North Lantau region during November 2018 - October 2019. 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 five years of impact phases, as shown in Table 2.28.

Table 2.28 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Size

Average Dolphin Group Size

Overall

Northeast Lantau

Northwest Lantau

Impact Phase (2018-19, this reporting period)

2.52 ± 1.45

(n = 27)

0.00

2.52 ± 1.45

(n = 27)

Impact Phase (2017-18)

3.12 ± 2.86

(n = 42)

0.00

3.12 ± 2.86

(n = 42)

Impact Phase (2016-17)

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 2018– October 2019, the first five years of impact phases (November 2013 – October 2018), 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 2018 and October 2019. 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 Sixty-First to Seventy-Second Monthly EM&A Reports.

2.4.8 Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone Monitoring

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was undertaken between November 2018 and June 2019 during the period of marine works under this Contract. No marine works were undertaken since July 2019, therefore, daily 250 m marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring was not undertaken since July 2019. No sighting of the 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.

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-two (52) site inspections were carried out in the reporting period. Key observations were summarized in the section of EM&A Site Inspection in the Sixty-First to Seventy-Second 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 2.29.

Table 2.29 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) (kg)	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) (kg)	Recyclable Materials ^(c) (kg)	Chemical Wastes (kg)	Category L	Category M (M_p & M_f)	Category H
Nov 2018	5,090	0	0		406,980	0	2,600	0	0	0
Dec 2018	8,079	0	0		346,730	77	0	0	0	0
Jan 2019	3,687	0	0		251,110	0	800	0	0	0
Feb 2019	1,254	0	637		84,990	0	0	0	0	0
Mar 2019	4,491	0	3,627		71,750	0	0	0	0	0
Apr 2019	9,363	0	8,979		56,470	9,604	0	0	0	0
May 2019	5,334	0	5,258		76,380 ^(d)	0	0	0	0	0
Jun 2019	356	0	315		39,960	0	0	0	0	0
Jul 2019	0	0	0		17,100	0	0	0	0	0
Aug 2019	0	0	0		31,050	0	0	0	0	0
Sep 2019	0	0	0		17,720	0	0	0	0	0
Oct 2019	0	0	0		8,490	0	0	0	0	0
Total	37,654	0		18,816	1,408,730	9,681	3,400	0	0	0
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. (d) Updated figure is presented.

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 2.30 below.

Table 2.30 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 Waste Disposal Account	7017735	10-Jul-13	N/A	GCL	-
Construction Waste Disposal Account	7019470	03-Mar-14	Vessel CHIT Account	GCL	Vessel CHIT Account
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
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RW0235-18	21-Jun-18	18-Dec-18	GCL	General works at WA5
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0235-18	23-Jan-19	13-Jun-19	GCL	General works at WA5
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RW0012-19	23-Jan-19	13-Jun-19	GCL	General works at WA5
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RW0266-19	21-Jun-19	13-Dec-19	GCL	General works at WA5
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0740-18	20-Aug-18	16-Feb-19	GCL	Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RW012-19	23-Jan-19	13-Jun-19	GCL	Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0149-19	19-Feb-19	15-July-19	GCL	Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0507-19	13-Jun-19	11-Dec-19	GCL	Broad Permit for Whole Site Areas
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0909-18	16-Oct-18	30-Nov-18	GCL	Road milling and paving at Airport Road
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS1009-18	07-Nov-18	30-Nov-18	GCL	Chung Tung Road Street Light Removal
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS1085-18	28-Nov-18	31-Dec-18	GCL	Maintenance of Traffic Sign in Tung Chung
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS1118-18	6-Dec-18	31-Dec-18	GCL	Fencing Removal at Seafront
Construction Noise Permit for night works and works in general holidays	GW-RS0728-19	16-Aug-19	25-Oct-19	GCL	Defect repairing at under-bridge of Viaduct A, B, C and D

2.8 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures

A summary of the Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measure Implementation Schedules (EMIS) is presented in Appendix B. The necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly for this Contract.

2.9 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

One (1) Limit Level of 1-hour TSP was recorded for air quality monitoring in the reporting period and no exceedance in 24-hour TSP for air quality monitoring and construction noise in the reporting period.

Four (4) Limit Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for impact dolphin monitoring for both NEL and NWL regions. No unacceptable impact from the construction activities of the TM-CLKL Southern Connection Viaduct Section on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations during the dolphin monitoring in this reporting period. Detailed investigation reports were presented in Appendix L of Twentieth to Twenty-Third Quarterly EM&A Reports.

2.10 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is provided in Figure 2.5.

There was no environmental complaints, notification of summons or successful prosecution received in the reporting period.

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

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

The EM&A results in the reporting period are compared to the predictions from EIA Report and baseline monitoring result in order to review the validity of EIA predictions.

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring

Air quality monitoring for this Contract was undertaken during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. As identified in the TM-CLKL EIA Report, key construction activities of this Contract include excavation works, road works, slope works and foundation works. Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions is presented in Table 3.1. Maximum 1-hour TSP level in this yearly impact monitoring was comparable to the baseline range, in which most of the impact and baseline TSP levels were higher than the levels predicted in the EIA Report. The average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP levels measured in this yearly impact monitoring were lower than the corresponding TSP levels measured in the baseline monitoring at all stations and thus suggested that no noticeable deterioration of air quality was caused by the construction activities of this Contract during the impact monitoring period.

Table 3.1 Comparison of Impacts on Air Quality (in μg/m³) between EIA Prediction and Impact Monitoring Period

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	752	220	85
ASR9 (24-hour TSP)	83 ⁽¹⁾ / 108	113	152	74	60
ASR8A (1-hour TSP)	293 / 205 ⁽¹⁾	464	300	222	70
ASR8A (24-hour TSP)	105 /83 ⁽¹⁾	128	104	74	45
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.

3.2 Noise Impact Monitoring

Noise impact monitoring for this Contract was undertaken during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Major noise sources of this Contract during the reporting period included construction activities, nearby traffic noise and aircraft noise. Construction Noise Permits (CNP), as recommended in the EIA Report, were applied and complied with when Power Mechanical Equipment (PME) was deployed for construction works during restricted hours. The EIA assessment has predicted that marginal impacts would be expected at the Pak Mong Village during construction phase. Comparison of EM&A results with EIA predictions is presented in Table 3.2. In general, the average impact noise monitoring results recorded in the reporting period were within the range of the predicted noise levels in the EIA Report and thus suggested that no unacceptable level of construction noise generated from the Contract during the impact monitoring period.

Table 3.2 Comparison of Impacts on Noise (in dB (A)) between EIA Prediction and Impact Monitoring Period

Monitoring Station	EIA Predicted Maximum	Maximum Impact Monitoring	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
NSR1	74	66	57	63
Note: 1. EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL. Baseline and impact monitoring were measured in L_eq,30min.

Monitoring Station

EIA Predicted Maximum

Maximum Impact Monitoring

Average Baseline Monitoring

Average Impact Monitoring

NSR1

Note:

1. EIA maximum noise level was predicted in SPL. Baseline and impact monitoring were measured in L_eq,30min.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring for this Contract was undertaken during the baseline and impact monitoring periods. Major construction activities of this Contract in the reporting period included uninstallation of marine piling platform. According to EIA prediction, no SS exceedance is anticipated from this Project at the water sensitive receivers nearby the Contract works area (WSR 22a, WSR 22b and WSR 22c). The average baseline and impact monitoring results are presented in Table 3.3. It is noted that all annual-averaged SS levels recorded in the reporting period were lower than the baseline monitoring results. Although two (2) Action Level of exceedances on depth-averaged SS were recorded in the reporting period, the exceedances were considered not related to this Contract upon further investigation. Thus, the impact monitoring results are considered influenced by fluctuation of background regional water quality and no unacceptable impacts on marine water was observed caused by this Project.

Table 3.3 Comparison of Depth-averaged SS (in mg/L) between Baseline and Impact Monitoring Period

Monitoring Station	Tide	Baseline monitoring	Impact Monitoring of this Reporting Period
CS(Mf)3/ CS(Mf)3(N)	Mid-ebb	8.8	6.2
CS(Mf)5		9.2	5.3
IS(Mf)16		11.3	6.9
IS(Mf)9		10.9	6.5
IS8/IS8(N)		11.3	7.5
SR4/SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		11.1	6.9
SR4a		9.1	6.3
CS(Mf)3/ CS(Mf)3(N)	Mid-flood	12.4	7.4
CS(Mf)5		11.5	5.4
IS(Mf)16		10.4	6.8
IS(Mf)9		14.7	6.9
IS8/IS8(N)		13.5	6.9
SR4/SR4(N)/ SR4(N2)		12.2	6.8
SR4a		9.8	6.2

3.4 Marine Ecology

According to the baseline results in the Appendix F of the approved EIA Report, the dolphin groups were largely sighted near waters around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau. There was no dolphin sighted along the alignment of this Contract. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures were conducted to compare results of average encounter rate of sightings (STG) and average encounter rate of dolphins (ANI) between baseline, transitional and impact periods. Although the STG and ANI in impact monitoring period were lower than that before the commencement of this Contract (see Section 2.4.7) and the differences between the six periods are statistically significant (see Section 3.3.4 of Appendix G), the distribution pattern was still similar between the impact monitoring periods and before the commencement (i.e. transition period in 2012 – 2013) of this Contract. Dolphins were observed mainly around Lung Kwu Chau and less frequently in the North Lantau region where the works area of this Contract is situated. The monitoring results in this reporting period are considered to be in line with the EIA predictions, and the review of monitoring data suggested that no unacceptable impacts was noted from the marine works under this Contract. It is essential to monitor the dolphin usage in North Lantau region for the rest of impact monitoring period to keep track on the trend of dolphin ranging pattern.

3.5 Waste Management

In general, wastes generated from the construction activities including C&D materials (inert and non-inert), chemical wastes, marine sediment and recyclable materials. The summary of waste generation amount is presented in Table 2.30.

Waste monitoring and audit programme has been undertaken during this reporting period. Wastes arising from this Project have been managed in accordance with the recommendations in the EIA Report, the EM&A Manual, the Waste Management Plan and other relevant statutory requirements.

The requirements for construction waste management have been reviewed and were considered as adequate. No change to the requirements was considered to be necessary.

3.6 Summary of Monitoring Methodology and Effectiveness

The EM&A monitoring programme has been reviewed and was considered effective and adequate to cater for the nature of works in progress. No further change to the monitoring programme was considered to be necessary.

The EM&A programme will be evaluated as appropriate in the next reporting period and improvements in the EM&A programme will be recommended if deemed necessary.

3.7 Summary of Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual were undertaken by the Contractor in the reporting period. The mitigation measures were reviewed and considered effective. No addition or change on mitigation measures was considered to be necessary.

4 Future Key Issues

4.1 Key Issues for the coming period

Potential environmental impacts arising from the upcoming construction activities are mainly associated with waste management issues.

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

This Sixth Annual EM&A Report presents findings of the EM&A activities undertaken during the period from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2019, in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the requirements of the Environmental Permits (EP-354/2009/D and EP-353/2009/K).

One (1) Limit Level of 1-hour TSP was recorded for air quality monitoring in the reporting period. There were no Action nor Limit Level exceedances observed for 24-hour TSP air quality monitoring in the reporting period.

There were no Action Level nor Limit Level exceedances were observed for noise monitoring in this reporting period.

A total of 27 groups of 68 Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs) were sighted. Four (4) Limit Level exceedances for both NEL and NWL regions were recorded for four (4) sets of quarterly dolphin monitoring data between November 2018 and October 2019, whilst no unacceptable impact from the activities of this Contract on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from the general observations. It is essential to continue monitoring the dolphin usage in North Lantau region for the rest of the impact phase monitoring period.

Environmental site inspection was carried out fifty-two (52) times in the reporting period. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractor for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.

There was no environmental complaints, notification of summons or successful prosecution received during the reporting period.

The review of monitoring data suggested that the construction works under this Contract have proceeded in an environmentally acceptable manner in this reporting period. In general, the monitoring results were in line with EIA predictions.

The monitoring programme has been reviewed and was considered as adequate to cater for the nature of works in progress. Change to the monitoring programme was thus not recommended at this stage. The monitoring programme will be evaluated as appropriate in the next reporting period. The ET will keep track on the construction works to confirm compliance of environmental requirements and the proper implementation of all necessary mitigation measures.

([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 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/

([5]) Published EM&A data for impact water quality monitoring by Contract No. HY/2012/08 are available at: http://www.hzmbenpo.com/

([6]) 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).