table of Contents

                        lExecutive Summary                                                  

1                      Introduction                                                                 

1.1                   Background                                                                   

1.2                   Scope of Report                                                          

1.3                   Organization Structure                                         

1.4                   Summary of Construction Works                       

2                      EM&A Results                                                                

2.1                   Air quality                                                                      

2.2                   Water Quality Monitoring                                      

2.3                   Dolphin Monitoring                                                    

2.4                   EM&A Site Inspection                                                  

2.5                   Waste Management Status                                     

2.6                   Environmental Licenses and Permits                

2.7                   Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures                                                  

2.8                   Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit    

2.9                   Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions         

2.10                 Comparison of EM&A Data with EIA Predictions                                                                    

2.11                 Summary of Monitoring Methodology and Effectiveness                                                               

2.12                 Summary of Mitigation Measures                        

3                      Review of EM&A Programme                                   

3.1                   Site Inspections & Audits                                         

3.2                   Air Quality Monitoring                                             

3.3                   Marine Water Quality Monitoring                       

3.4                   Waste Management                                                    

3.5                   Marine Ecology Monitoring

3.6                   Summary of Recommendations                             

4                      Conclusions                                                                  

 

 

Appendix A                         Project Organization

Appendix B                         Environmental Mitigation And Enhancement Measure Implementation Schedules (EMIS)

Appendix C                         Action And Limit Levels

Appendix D                         Air Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix E                         Water Quality Monitoring Results

Appendix F                         Impact Dolphin Monitoring

Appendix G                        Event And Action Plan

Appendix H                         Cumulative Statistics On Exceedance And    Complaint

Appendix I                           Waste Flow Table

 

Executive Summary

Under Contract No. HY/2012/08, Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture (DBJV) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel 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) in accordance with Environmental Permit No. EP-354/2009/A.  Ramboll Hong Kong Limited was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO).  Subsequent applications for variation of environmental permits (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 1 November 2013 and will tentatively be completed in 2020.  The impact monitoring of the EM&A programme, including air quality, water quality, marine ecological monitoring and environmental site inspections, were commenced on 1 November 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 Contract No. HY/2012/08 Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section (the “Contract ”) in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual of the TM-CLK Link Contract .  As informed by the Contractor, the major activities in the reporting year included:

Construction Activities Undertaken
Land-based Works
·       Construction of Cross Passage Tympanum – TBM tunnel; ·       Cross Passage Lining Installation – TBM Tunnel; ·       Cross Passage Construction by Pipe Jacking – TBM Tunnel; ·       Corbel & OVHD Construction – TBM Tunnel; ·       Parapet Wall and Fireboard Installation – TBM Tunnel; ·       Bulk Excavation – Portion N-A; ·       D-wall Construction – Portion N-A, S-A & S-C; ·       RC Structure – Portion N-A & S-A; ·       Construction of Overhead Ventilation Ducts – TBM Tunnel; ·       Construction of Thermal Barrier – TBM Tunnel; ·       Construction of Walkway Corbel & Cover – TBM Tunnel; ·       Demolition of Amenities and Workshop – Portion N-A; ·       ELS Construction – Portion S-C; ·       ELS Removal – Portion N-A & S-A; ·       Seawall Inspection and Remedial Works – Portion N-B; ·       Road & Drainage Works – Portion N-A; ·       D-wall Removal – Portion S-A; ·       E&M Platform Installation – Portion S-A; ·       STP Demolition – Portion S-C; ·       Backfilling – Portion N-A, S-A & S-C; ·       E&M Platform Installation – Portion S-A; and ·       Cut & Cover Tunnel RC Structure – Portion S-C Marine-based Works ·       Seawall Modification Works – Portion S-B; and ·       Jetty Dismantling Works – Portion S-C.

                                   

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

24-hour TSP Monitoring                            119 sessions

1-hour TSP Monitoring                              119 sessions

Water Quality Monitoring                          93 sessions

Impact Dolphin Monitoring                        24 sessions

Joint Environmental Site Inspection         52 sessions

Implementation of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect during the period of silt curtain installation in open waters between December 2018 and October 2019.  No sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) was recorded in the reporting period during the exclusion zone monitoring.

No Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was implemented in the reporting period. 

Summary of Breaches of Action/Limit Levels

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality

Twenty-three (23) Action Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP, three (3) Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP and two (2) Action Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded in the air quality monitoring of this reporting period.   No Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP was recorded in the air quality monitoring of this reporting period.   

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

One hundred and forty-seven (147) Action Level exceedances and eighteen (18) Limit Level exceedances were recorded from the water quality monitoring in this reporting period.

Dolphin Monitoring

Whilst four (4) Limit Level exceedances 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 Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations during dolphin monitoring in this reporting period.

Environmental Complaints, Non-compliance & Summons

No non-compliance with EIA recommendations, EP conditions and other requirements associated with the construction of this Contract was recorded in this reporting period.

One (1) environmental complaint case was received in this reporting period.  The investigation report was submitted to ENPO and reported in the subsequent EM&A report.

No environmental summons was received in this reporting period.

Review of EM&A programme

The EM&A requirements have been reviewed and were considered as adequate and effective.  No change to the requirements was considered to be necessary.  The recommended environmental mitigation measures were also considered to be effective and efficient in reducing the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Contract.  No change was thus considered necessary.

Overall, the EM&A results indicated that the Contract has not caused unacceptable environmental impacts.  This is in agreement with the assessment presented in the EIA Report.

 

 

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 (VEP) (EP-354/2009A) was issued on 8 December 2010.  Subsequent applications for variation of environmental permits (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.  

Under Contract No. HY/2012/08, Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture (DBJV) is commissioned by the Highways Department (HyD) to undertake the design and construction of the Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel Section of TM-CLKL 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 Limited was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO).

Layout of the Contract components is presented in Figure 1.1.

The construction phase of the Contract commenced on 1 November 2013 and will tentatively be completed in 2020.  The impact monitoring phase of the EM&A programme, including air quality, water quality, marine ecological monitoring and environmental site inspections, were commenced on 1 November 2013.

 

1.2                            Scope of Report

This is the Sixth Annual EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2012/08 Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link – Northern Connection Sub-sea Tunnel 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
Highways Department	Engr 24/SD	Ken T.M. Cheng	2762 4062	3188 6614
SOR (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	Chief Resident Engineer	Roger Man	2293 6388	2293 6300
ENPO / IEC (Ramboll Hong Kong Ltd.)	ENPO Leader	Y.H. Hui	3465 2850	3465 2899
	IEC	Manson Yeung	9700 6767	3465 2899
Contractor (Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture)	Deputy Environmental Manager	Bryan Lee	2293 7323	2293 7499
	24-hour hotline		2293 7330
ET (ERM-HK)	ET Leader	Jasmine Ng	2271 3311	2723 5660

1.4                            Summary of Construction Works

With reference to DBJV’s information, details of major construction works carried out in this reporting period are summarized in Table 1.2.

The general layout plan of the site showing the detailed works areas is shown in Figure 1.2.  The Environmental Sensitive Receivers in the vicinity of the Project are shown in Figure 1.3.

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

Table 1.2        Summary of Construction Activities Undertaken during the Reporting Period

 

Construction Activities Undertaken
Land-based Works
·       Construction of Cross Passage Tympanum – TBM tunnel; ·       Cross Passage Lining Installation – TBM Tunnel; ·       Cross Passage Construction by Pipe Jacking – TBM Tunnel; ·       Corbel & OVHD Construction – TBM Tunnel; ·       Parapet Wall and Fireboard Installation – TBM Tunnel; ·       Bulk Excavation – Portion N-A; ·       D-wall Construction – Portion N-A, S-A & S-C; ·       RC Structure – Portion N-A & S-A; ·       Construction of Overhead Ventilation Ducts – TBM Tunnel; ·       Construction of Thermal Barrier – TBM Tunnel; ·       Construction of Walkway Corbel & Cover – TBM Tunnel; ·       Demolition of Amenities and Workshop – Portion N-A; ·       ELS Construction – Portion S-C; ·       ELS Removal – Portion N-A & S-A; ·       Seawall Inspection and Remedial Works – Portion N-B; ·       Road & Drainage Works – Portion N-A; ·       D-wall Removal – Portion S-A; ·       E&M Platform Installation – Portion S-A; ·       STP Demolition – Portion S-C; ·       Backfilling – Portion N-A, S-A & S-C; ·       E&M Platform Installation – Portion S-A; and ·       Cut & Cover Tunnel RC Structure – Portion S-C Marine-based Works ·       Seawall Modification Works – Portion S-B; and ·       Jetty Dismantling Works – Portion S-C.

 

Figure 1.2     Locations of Construction Activities – November 2018 to October 2019

2                                 EM&A Results

The EM&A programme required environmental monitoring for air quality, 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 summarized in the following sections

2.1                            Air quality

2.1.1                        Monitoring Requirements and Equipment

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the Enhanced TSP Monitoring Plan ([1]), 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-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring frequency was increased to three times per day every three days and daily every three days respectively as excavation works for launching shaft commenced on 24 October 2014.

High volume samplers (HVSs) were used to carry out the 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting period at the five (5) air quality monitoring stations in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the Updated EM&A Manual (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1).  Wind anemometer was installed at the rooftop of ASR5 for logging wind speed and wind direction.  Details of the equipment deployed 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	Location	Description	Parameters & Frequency
ASR1	Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	Office	TSP monitoring Ÿ  1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 6 days Ÿ  24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour in every 6 days Enhanced TSP monitoring (commenced on 24 October 2014) Ÿ  1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (1-hour TSP, µg/m3), 3 times in every 3 days Ÿ  24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (24-hour TSP, µg/m3), daily for 24-hour in every 3 days
ASR5	Pillar Point Fire Station	Office
AQMS1	Previous River Trade Golf	Bare ground
ASR6	Butterfly Beach Laundry	Office
ASR10	Butterfly Beach Park	Recreational uses

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 Meter	Davis (Model: Vantage Pro 2 (S/N: AS160104014)
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 and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.

2.1.3                        Results and Observations

Impact air quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the reporting period under acceptable weather conditions.  The major dust sources in the reporting period include construction activities under the Contract as well as nearby traffic emissions.

The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.  Baseline and impact monitoring results are presented graphically in Appendix D.  The detailed impact air quality monitoring data and meteorological information were reported in the Sixty-first to Seventy-second Monthly EM&A Reports. 

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

Month/Year	Station	Average (µg/m3)	Range (µg/m3)	Action Level  (µg/m3)	Limit Level  (µg/m3)
November 2018 to October 2019	ASR 1	126	13 - 646	331	500
	ASR 5	151	14 - 425	340	500
	AQMS1	94	14 - 311	335	500
	ASR6	110	14 - 478	338	500
	ASR10	69	14 – 242	337	500

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

Month/Year	Station	Average (µg/m3)	Range (µg/m3)	Action Level  (µg/m3)	Limit Level  (µg/m3)
November 2018 to October 2019	ASR 1	85	28 - 237	213	260
	ASR 5	91	32 - 196	238	260
	AQMS1	58	19 - 127	213	260
	ASR6	69	25 - 191	238	260
	ASR10	50	18 - 146	214	260

In this reporting period, a total of 119 monitoring events were undertaken.  Twenty-three (23) Action Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP, three (3) Limit Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP and two (2) Action Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded in the air quality monitoring of this reporting period.   No Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP was recorded.  Summary of exceedances for Air Quality Impact Monitoring in this reporting period is detailed in Table 2.24.

As shown in Table 2.5, the annual average 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP level in the reporting period were generally lower than the corresponding average levels of baseline at most monitoring stations.  The annual average 1-hour TSP was higher than the corresponding average levels of baseline at ASR1 and ASR5.

In order to determine any significant air quality impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, one-way ANOVA (with setting α at 0.05) was conducted to examine whether the observed differences are significant between reporting period and baseline monitoring.  For 1-hour TSP, the average results of monitoring stations AQMS1, ASR6 and ASR10 in the reporting period were significantly lower than the average results of baseline monitoring while the average result of ASR1 is slightly lower than the average results of baseline monitoring.  The average results of monitoring stations ASR5 in the reporting period were slightly higher than the average results of baseline monitoring (AQMS1: F _{1, 398} = 24.53, p < 0.01, ASR6: F _{1, 398} = 7.04, p < 0.01, ASR1: F _{1, 398} = 0.006, p = 0.938, ASR10: F _{1, 398} = 106.1, p < 0.01 and ASR5: F _{1, 398} = 1.30 p = 0.254).  For 24-hour TSP, the average results of all monitoring stations in the reporting period were significantly lower than the average results of baseline monitoring (AQMS1: F _{1, 132} = 114.78, p < 0.01, ASR6: F _{1, 132} = 128.65, p < 0.01, ASR1: F _{1, 132} = 14.56 p < 0.01, ASR10: F _{1, 132} = 114.15, p < 0.01 and ASR5: F _{1, 132} = 59.76, p < 0.01).  In the reporting period, 1-hour and 24-hour TSP were varied across sampling months (see Appendix D) and these variations were however not consistent throughout the reporting period.

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

Monitoring Station	Average Baseline Monitoring	Average Impact Monitoring
ASR1(1-hour TSP)	125	126
ASR1(24-hour TSP)	128	85
ASR5(1-hour TSP)	138	151
ASR5(24-hour TSP)	167	91
AQMS1(1-hour TSP)	131	94
AQMS1(24-hour TSP)	127	58
ASR6(1-hour TSP)	135	110
ASR6(24-hour TSP)	166	69
ASR10(1-hour TSP)	134	69
ASR10(24-hour TSP)	129	50

Further to the One-way ANOVA, Linear Regression was conducted to examine any relationship between TSP levels and time (i.e. number of days after construction works commencement) 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 2.6, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant (r² < 0.60) 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 during the reporting period.

Table 2.6      Linear Regression Result of TSP Monitoring

Parameter	Station	R2	F-ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient
1-hour TSP	AQMS1	0.075	F1,355 = 28.6	<0.001	340.0	-0.122
	ASR6	0.083	F1,365 = 32.1	<0.001	443.3	-0.166
	ASR1	0.036	F1,355 = 13.3	<0.001	443.8	-0.158
	ASR10	0.178	F1,355 = 77.0	<0.001	383.1	-0.156
	ASR5	0.078	F1,355 = 29.9	<0.001	551.6	-0.199
24-hour TSP	AQMS1	0.070	F1,117 = 8.8	<0.001	164.9	-0.053
	ASR6	0.125	F1,117 = 16.6	<0.001	269.4	-0.100
	ASR1	0.018	F1,117 = 2.2	<0.001	188.5	-0.052
	ASR10	0.163	F1,117 = 22.8	<0.001	246.9	-0.098
	ASR5	0.173	F1,117 = 24.5	<0.001	356.9	-0.133

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 <0.6 and p-value >0.01 (i.e. showing the regression insignificant) are underlined.

2.2                            Water Quality Monitoring

The baseline water quality monitoring undertaken by the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects (HZMB) between 6 and 31 October 2011 included all monitoring stations for the Project.  Thus, the baseline monitoring results and Action/Limit Levels presented in HZMB Baseline Monitoring Report ([2]) are adopted for this Project. 

2.2.1                        Monitoring Requirements & Equipment

Seawall Enhancement Works at Northern Landfall has been completed on 31 December 2017.  Notification of suspension of water quality monitoring has been approved by EPD on 2 March 2018.  

In accordance with the approved Environmental Review Report dated 21 March 2018 for the Change in Design of Vertical Seawall to Sloping Seawall on Southern Landfall, Updated Impact water quality monitoring programme and water quality monitoring stations IS17, SR7 and IS(Mf)11 specified under the EM&A Manual for HZMB HKBCF project were adopted.

Water Quality Monitoring was resumed between 2 and 30 January 2019, 14 April 2019 and 24 June 2019, and 3 July 2019 and 30 October 2019 during the seawall modification works at Portion S-B.

Results of water quality monitoring were adopted from the published EM&A data of Contract No. HY/2012/07 Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link – Southern Connection Viaduct Section between January and June 2019.

The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality monitoring were adopted from the EM&A Manual for HZMB HKBCF project. 

Impact water quality monitoring was carried out three (3) days per week during the construction period at the water quality monitoring stations in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.7. 

Table 2.7       Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations and the Corresponding
Monitoring Requirements

Station ID	Type	Coordinates		*Parameters, unit	Depth	Frequency
		Easting	Northing
IS(Mf)11	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) 8	813562	820716	Ÿ Temperature(°C) Ÿ pH(pH unit) Ÿ Turbidity (NTU) Ÿ Water depth (m) Ÿ Salinity (ppt) Ÿ DO (mg/L and % of saturation) ·   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.
IS17	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814539	820391
SR7	Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do)	814293	821431
IS(Mf)9	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	813273	818850
IS(Mf)16	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814328	819497
IS8(N)	Impact Station (Close to HKBCF construction site)	814413	818570
SR4(N2)	Sensitive receiver (Tai Ho Inlet)	814688	817859
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.

Table 2.8 summarizes the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.

Table 2.8     Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Equipment	Model	Qty.
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 18A104824	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 15M100005	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 0001C6A7	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 17H105557	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 17E100747	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 16H104234	1
Multi-Parameters	YSI ProDss 16H104233	1
Positioning Equipment	Furuno GP-170	1
Water Depth Detector	Lowrance Mark 5x / Garmin Striker 4	1

2.2.2                        Action & Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the water quality monitoring is provided in Appendix C.  The Event and Action plan is presented in Appendix G.

2.2.3                        Results and Observations

During this reporting period, major marine works included Seawall Modification Works at Portion S-B and Jetty Dismantling Works at Portion S-A. 

Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations in the reporting period under favourable weather conditions.  Baseline and impact monitoring results are presented graphically in Appendix E and detailed impact water quality monitoring data were reported in the sixty-third, sixty-sixth to seventy-second Monthly EM&A Reports. 

In this reporting period, a total of 93 monitoring events were undertaken in which one hundred and forty-seven (147) Action Level exceedances and eighteen (18) Limit Level exceedances were recorded from the water quality monitoring in this reporting period.  Summary of exceedances for Water Quality Impact Monitoring in this reporting period is detailed in Table 2.25.

In order to determine any significant water quality impacts caused by construction activities from this Contract, One-way ANOVA (with setting α at 0.05) was conducted to examine whether there was significant difference in DO, turbidity and SS between reporting period and baseline monitoring period.  The annual average levels and statistical analysis results are presented in Tables 2.9 to 2.11 and Tables 2.12 to 2.14, respectively.  In general, the DO levels recorded during the reporting period were significantly higher than the results obtained during the baseline monitoring period.  The annual depth-averaged turbidity and SS levels recorded in the reporting period were significantly lower than the average levels in baseline monitoring.  Whilst DO, turbidity and suspended solids levels were varied across sampling months (see Appendix E) these variations were, however, not consistent throughout the reporting period.

Table 2.9        Summary of Average DO Level of Baseline Monitoring and the Reporting Period (in mg/L)

Tide	Station	Depth	Average DO of baseline monitoring	Average DO of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Surface	6.5	6.6
	SR7	Surface	6.3	6.5
	IS17	Surface	6.4	6.5
	IS(Mf)16	Surface	6.3	6.6
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.6	6.9
	IS8(N)	Surface	6.4	6.7
	SR4(N2)	Surface	6.1	6.4
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	6.5
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Surface	6.1	6.6
	SR7	Surface	6.0	6.5
	IS17	Surface	6.1	6.7
	IS(Mf)16	Surface	6.3	6.7
	IS(Mf)9	Surface	6.5	6.7
	IS8(N)	Surface	6.4	6.7
	SR4(N2)	Surface	6.3	6.7
	SR4a	Surface	5.5	6.7
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Middle	6.1	6.1
	IS17	Middle	6.0	6.1
	IS(Mf)16	Middle	6.3	-
	IS(Mf)9	Middle	-	7.1
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Middle	5.9	6.1
	IS17	Middle	5.9	6.3
	IS(Mf)16	Middle	6.1	-
	IS(Mf)9	Middle	6.2	7.2
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Bottom	5.9	5.8
	SR7	Bottom	6.1	6.3
	IS17	Bottom	5.7	5.9
	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	5.9	6.1
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.6	6.6
	IS8(N)	Bottom	6.2	6.4
	SR4(N2)	Bottom	6.0	6.1
	SR4a	Bottom	5.3	6.0
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Bottom	5.8	5.9
	SR7	Bottom	5.9	6.3
	IS17	Bottom	5.8	6.1
	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	6.0	6.4
	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	6.7	6.5
	IS8(N)	Bottom	6.3	6.6
	SR4(N2)	Bottom	6.2	6.5
	SR4a	Bottom	5.2	6.3

Table 2.10    Summary of Average Depth-averaged Turbidity Level of Baseline Monitoring and the Reporting Period (in NTU)

Tide	Station	Average depth-averaged turbidity of baseline monitoring	Average depth-averaged turbidity of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	10.7	5.9
	SR7	8.7	5.5
	IS17	9.8	5.9
	IS(Mf)16	8.9	6.8
	IS(Mf)9	8.2	6.0
	IS8(N)	8.4	7.4
	SR4(N2)	8.9	7.0
	SR4a	8.9	5.8
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	12.9	7.9
	SR7	11.7	7.3
	IS17	12.1	5.8
	IS(Mf)16	11.3	7.2
	IS(Mf)9	10.2	7.2
	IS8(N)	11.9	6.4
	SR4(N2)	10.3	6.0
	SR4a	7.8	5.8

 

Table 2.11    Summary of Average Depth-averaged SS Level of Baseline Monitoring and the Reporting Period (in mg/L)

Tide	Station	Average depth-averaged SS of baseline monitoring	Average depth-averaged SS of reporting period
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	9.8	6.5
	SR7	11.4	6.2
	IS17	10.7	7.2
	IS(Mf)16	11.3	8.1
	IS(Mf)9	10.9	7.6
	IS8(N)	11.3	8.5
	SR4(N2)	11.1	7.4
	SR4a	9.1	6.9
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	10.3	8.1
	SR7	10.4	8.0
	IS17	11.7	7.0
	IS(Mf)16	10.4	8.2
	IS(Mf)9	14.7	8.3
	IS8(N)	13.5	7.7
	SR4(N2)	12.2	7.6
	SR4a	9.8	6.8

Table 2.12    One-way ANOVA Results for DO Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	Depth	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Surface	F1,103 = 0.17	0.68
Mid-ebb	SR7	Surface	F1,103 = 0.65	0.42
Mid-ebb	IS17	Surface	F1,103 = 0.06	0.80
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Surface	F1,103 = 0.44	0.51
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F1,87 = 0.36	0.36
Mid-ebb	IS8(N)	Surface	F1,103 = 0.58	0.45
Mid-ebb	SR4(N2)	Surface	F1,103 = 0.63	0.63
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Surface	F1,103 = 9.38	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Surface	F1,102 = 0.05	0.82
Mid-flood	SR7	Surface	F1,102 = 0.24	0.62
Mid-flood	IS17	Surface	F1,102 = 0.33	0.57
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Surface	F1,102 = 0.89	0.35
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Surface	F1,84 = 0.02	0.90
Mid-flood	IS8(N)	Surface	F1,102 = 0.66	0.42
Mid-flood	SR4(N2)	Surface	F1,102 = 1.75	0.19
Mid-flood	SR4a	Surface	F1,102 = 8.49	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Middle	F1,103 = <0.01	0.95
Mid-ebb	IS17	Middle	F1,103 = 0.17	0.68
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Middle	F1,102 = 0.33	0.57
Mid-flood	IS17	Middle	F1,102 = 1.13	0.29
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Middle	F1,19 = 1.24	0.28
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	Bottom	F1,103 = 0.22	0.64
Mid-ebb	SR7	Bottom	F1,103 = 0.93	0.34
Mid-ebb	IS17	Bottom	F1,103 = 0.20	0.65
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F1,103 = 0.32	0.57
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F1,87 = 0.02	0.88
Mid-ebb	IS8(N)	Bottom	F1,103 = 0.13	0.72
Mid-ebb	SR4(N2)	Bottom	F1,100 = 0.10	0.75
Mid-ebb	SR4a	Bottom	F1,103 = 4.30	0.04
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	Bottom	F1,100 = 0.02	0.88
Mid-flood	SR7	Bottom	F1,100 = 0.83	0.36
Mid-flood	IS17	Bottom	F1,100 = 0.82	0.37
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	Bottom	F1,100 = 1.31	0.26
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	Bottom	F1,81 = 0.12	0.73
Mid-flood	IS8(N)	Bottom	F1,100 = 0.78	0.38
Mid-flood	SR4(N2)	Bottom	F1,98 = 0.31	0.58
Mid-flood	SR4a	Bottom	F1,100 = 8.24	<0.01
Note: By setting α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value < 0.05) are bold.

Table 2.13    One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged Turbidity Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	F1,103 = 27.98	<0.01
Mid-ebb	SR7	F1,103 = 10.25	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS17	F1,103 = 18.92	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	F1,103 = 6.06	0.02
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	F1,103 = 6.67	0.01
Mid-ebb	IS8(N)	F1,103 = 1.20	0.28
Mid-ebb	SR4(N2)	F1,103 = 4.82	0.03
Mid-ebb	SR4a	F1,103 = 11.52	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	F1,102 = 21.46	<0.01
Mid-flood	SR7	F1,102 = 13.04	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS17	F1,102 = 38.72	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F1,102 = 15.11	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F1,102 = 6.13	0.01
Mid-flood	IS8(N)	F1,102 = 29.14	<0.01
Mid-flood	SR4(N2)	F1,102 = 23.14	<0.01
Mid-flood	SR4a	F1,102 = 4.69	0.03
Note: By setting α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value < 0.05) are bold.

Table 2.14    One-way ANOVA Results for Depth-averaged SS Comparison between Impact and Baseline Periods

Tide	Station	F ratio	p-value
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)11	F1,103 = 10.66	<0.01
Mid-ebb	SR7	F1,103 = 21.38	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS17	F1,103 = 9.05	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)16	F1,102 = 6.40	0.01
Mid-ebb	IS(Mf)9	F1,103 = 6.96	<0.01
Mid-ebb	IS8(N)	F1,103 = 4.47	0.04
Mid-ebb	SR4(N2)	F1,103 = 13.22	<0.01
Mid-ebb	SR4a	F1,103 = 3.32	0.07
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)11	F1,102 = 2.40	0.12
Mid-flood	SR7	F1,102 = 2.15	0.15
Mid-flood	IS17	F1,102 = 14.30	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)16	F1,102 = 2.42	0.12
Mid-flood	IS(Mf)9	F1,102 = 19.62	<0.01
Mid-flood	IS8(N)	F1,102 = 17.54	<0.01
Mid-flood	SR4(N2)	F1,102 = 11.15	<0.01
Mid-flood	SR4a	F1,102 = 6.13	0.01
Note: By setting α at 0.05, significant differences (p-value < 0.05) are bold.

In addition, linear regression was conducted to examine any relationship between DO / Turbidity / SS levels and time (i.e. number of days after construction works commencement) during this yearly monitoring period at each monitoring station.  The method of data interpretation followed the same method as indicated in Section 2.1.3 for TSP monitoring.  As shown in Tables 2.15 to 2.17, results of the regression analysis indicated that there was no significant (r² < 0.60) relationship between DO / 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 DO / Turbidity / SS level since commencement of constructions works.

Table 2.15    Linear Regression Result of DO

Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb Surface DO	IS(Mf)11	0.233	F1,91 = 27.3	<0.001	17.74	-0.005
	SR7	0.256	F1,91 = 31.0	<0.001	18.06	-0.006
	IS17	0.287	F1,91 = 36.3	<0.001	19.17	-0.006
	IS(Mf)16	0.230	F1,91 = 26.8	<0.001	20.09	-0.007
	IS(Mf)9	0.213	F1,75 = 20.0	<0.001	21.09	-0.007
	IS8(N)	0.236	F1,91 = 27.8	<0.001	19.77	-0.006
	SR4(N2)	0.298	F1,91 = 38.3	<0.001	20.90	-0.007
	SR4a	0.270	F1,91 = 33.3	<0.001	20.68	-0.007
Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-flood surface DO	IS(Mf)11	0.131	F1,90 = 13.4	<0.001	16.94	-0.005
	SR7	0.133	F1,90 = 13.6	<0.001	17.82	-0.005
	IS17	0.086	F1,90 = 8.4	<0.001	17.49	-0.005
	IS(Mf)16	0.099	F1,90 = 9.8	<0.001	17.14	-0.005
	IS(Mf)9	0.272	F1,72 = 26.5	<0.001	21.80	-0.007
	IS8(N)	0.108	F1,90 = 10.8	<0.001	16.99	-0.005
	SR4(N2)	0.114	F1,90 = 11.4	<0.001	17.96	-0.005
	SR4a	0.119	F1,90 = 12.0	<0.001	18.25	-0.006
Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb middle DO	IS(Mf)11	0.385	F1,91 = 56.4	<0.001	22.69	-0.008
	IS17	0.357	F1,91 = 49.9	<0.001	21.27	-0.007
	IS(Mf)9	0.112	F1,15 = 0.02	0.392	8.59	<0.001
Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-flood middle DO	IS(Mf)11	0.246	F1,90 = 29.1	<0.001	20.66	-0.007
	IS17	0.243	F1,90 = 28.6	<0.001	19.71	-0.007
	IS(Mf)9	0.009	F1,17 = 0.2	0.560	4.35	0.001
Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb bottom DO	IS(Mf)11	0.373	F1,91 = 53.5	<0.001	25.44	-0.009
	SR7	0.385	F1,91 = 56.4	<0.001	20.11	-0.007
	IS17	0.372	F1,91 = 53.4	<0.001	23.45	-0.009
	IS(Mf)16	0.399	F1,91 = 59.7	<0.001	23.76	-0.009
	IS(Mf)9	0.287	F1,75 = 29.8	<0.001	21.65	-0.007
	IS8(N)	0.258	F1,91 = 31.3	<0.001	21.19	-0.007
	SR4(N2)	0.382	F1,91 = 55.6	<0.001	23.34	-0.008
	SR4a	0.451	F1,91 = 73.9	<0.001	25.15	-0.009
Parameter	Station	R2	F ratio	p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-flood bottom DO	IS(Mf)11	0.241	F1,90 = 28.2	<0.001	22.76	-0.008
	SR7	0.254	F1,90 = 30.4	<0.001	20.34	-0.007
	IS17	0.354	F1,90 = 48.7	<0.001	22.01	-0.008
	IS(Mf)16	0.228	F1,90 = 26.3	<0.001	19.58	-0.006
	IS(Mf)9	0.318	F1,72 = 33.0	<0.001	21.66	-0.007
	IS8(N)	0.131	F1,90 = 13.4	<0.001	17.42	-0.005
	SR4(N2)	0.197	F1,90 = 21.9	<0.001	20.46	-0.007
	SR4a	0.290	F1,90 = 36.3	<0.001	22.57	-0.008

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 <0.6 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

Table 2.16    Linear Regression Result of Turbidity

Parameter	Station	R2		F ratio	p-value		Intercept			Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb depth -average turbidity	IS(Mf)11	0.028		F1,91 = 2.6		0.428		-5.85			0.006
	SR7	0.019		F1,91 = 1.7		0.541		-4.75			0.005
	IS17	0.107		F1,91 = 10.8		0.022		-14.14			0.009
	IS(Mf)16	0.108		F1,91 = 10.9		0.024		-15.50			0.011
	IS(Mf)9	0.019		F1,91 = 1.7		0.689		-2.66			0.004
	IS8(N)	0.095		F1,91 = 9.4		0.043		-14.92			0.011
	SR4(N2)	0.147		F1,91 = 15.5		0.005		-19.01			0.013
	SR4a	0.062		F1,91 = 6.0		0.146		-8.71			0.007
Parameter	Station		R2	F ratio	p-value				Intercept			Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-flood depth -average turbidity	IS(Mf)11	0.088		F1,90 = 8.6		0.048		-16.92			0.012
	SR7	0.039		F1,90 = 3.5		0.276		-10.22			0.008
	IS17	0.032		F1,90 = 2.9		0.343		-7.35			0.006
	IS(Mf)16	0.054		F1,90 = 5.1		0.176		-11.16			0.009
	IS(Mf)9	0.095		F1,90 = 9.4		0.029		-19.11			0.013
	IS8(N)	0.004		F1,90 = 0.4		0.799		1.86			0.002
	SR4(N2)	0.069		F1,90 = 6.6		0.112		-10.04			0.008
	SR4a	0.084		F1,90 = 8.2		0.052		-12.82			0.009

Note:

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

2. R² <0.6 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

Table 2.17    Linear Regression Result of SS

Parameter	Station	R2			F ratio		p-value	Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-ebb depth -average SS	IS(Mf)11	0.132			F1,91 = 13.6		0.006	-21.55	0.014
	SR7	0.102			F1,91 = 10.2		0.017	-19.96	0.013
	IS17	0.094			F1,90 = 9.4		0.027	-19.73	0.013
	IS(Mf)16	0.143			F1,90 = 14.8		0.004	-26.67	0.017
	IS(Mf)9	0.133			F1,91 = 13.8		0.004	-28.03	0.017
	IS8(N)	0.093			F1,91 = 9.2		0.032	-21.78	0.015
	SR4(N2)	0.134			F1,91 = 13.9		0.008	-19.58	0.013
	SR4a	0.051			F1,91 = 4.8		0.193	-10.33	0.008
Parameter	Station		R2	F ratio		p-value		Intercept	Coefficient of days of construction
Mid-flood depth -average SS	IS(Mf)11	0.090			F1,90 = 8.8		0.027	-25.51	0.016
	SR7	0.102			F1,90 = 10.1		0.011	-34.92	0.021
	IS17	0.166			F1,90 = 17.8		<0.001	-32.21	0.019
	IS(Mf)16	0.194			F1,90 = 21.4		<0.001	-40.99	0.024
	IS(Mf)9	0.115			F1,90 = 11.6		0.010	-28.30	0.018
	IS8(N)	0.074			F1,90 = 7.1		0.061	-19.11	0.013
	SR4(N2)	0.082			F1,90 = 7.9		0.039	-22.22	0.014
	SR4a	0.156			F1,90 = 16.5		0.002	-25.10	0.015

Note:

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

2. R² <0.6 values of insignificant regression model are underlined.

2.3                            Dolphin Monitoring

2.3.1                        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 dolphins.  In order to fulfil the EM&A requirements and make good use of available resources, 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 the monthly basis between November 2018 and September 2019 were adopted to avoid duplicates of survey effort.

Contract No. HY/2012/08 has taken over the responsibility for implementation of dolphin monitoring from HZMB HKLR Contract No. HY/2011/03 since October 2019.

2.3.2                        Monitoring Equipment

Table 2.18 summarize the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.

Table 2.18      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

 

2.3.3                        Monitoring Parameter, Frequencies & Duration

Dolphin monitoring should cover 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 should be 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.

2.3.4                        Monitoring Location

The impact dolphin monitoring was carried out in the NEL and NWL along the line transect as depicted in Figure 2.3.  The co-ordinates of all transect lines are shown in Table 2.19 below.

Table 2.19      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*

Remarks: The coordinates of several starting and ending points have been revised since August 2017 due to the presence of a work zone to the north of the airport platform with intense construction activities in association with the construction of the third runway expansion for the Hong Kong International Airport.  Co-ordinates in red and marked with asterisk are revised co-ordinates of transect line.

2.3.5                        Action & Limit Levels

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

2.3.6                        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 (ie Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility) in this reporting year.  Amongst the two areas, 1,177.95 km and 2,003.21 km of survey effort were collected from NEL and NWL survey areas, respectively.  The total survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were 2,304.73 km and 876.43 km, respectively.  The survey efforts are summarized in Appendix F.

A total of 27 groups of 68 Chinese White Dolphin sightings were recorded during the 24 sets of surveys in this reporting year.  All except three (3) sightings were made during on-effort search.  Nineteen (19) on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while five (5) other on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines.  During this reporting year, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, while none of them were sighted in NEL.

Dolphin sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (November 2018 to October 2019 was compared to the ones during the baseline phase (February 2011 to January 2012), transitional phase (November 2012 to October 2013) and the first, second, third, fourth and fifth years of impact phase (November 2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015, November 2015 to October 2016, November 2017 to October 2018 and November 2018 to October 2019 respectively).  As TMCLKL construction works commenced in November 2013, a 12-month period between baseline phase and impact phase is defined as transitional phase. 

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 and transitional phases as shown in Table 2.20.

Table 2.20      Average Daily 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)	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

Note:  Comparison of average daily dolphin encounter rates from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years of impact phase (November 2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015, November 2015 to October 2016, November 2016 to October 2017, November 2017 to October 2018 and November 2018 to October 2019 respectively), transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January 2012).  ± denotes the standard deviation of the value.

Table d 4.6

nd limit levels of dolphin impact monitoring are shown in Table  

Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to seven (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 phases, as shown in Table 2.21.

Table 2.21      Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes from Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period

	Average Dolphin Group Size
	Overall	Northeast Lantau	Northwest Lantau
Impact Phase (2018-19)	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)

Note: Comparison of average dolphin group sizes from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years of impact phase (November 2013 to October 2014, November 2014 to October 2015, November 2015 to October 2016, November 2016 to October 2017, November 2017 to October 2018 and November 2018 to October 2018 respectively), transitional phase (November 2012 – October 2013) and baseline phase monitoring periods (February 2011 – January 2012).  (± denotes the standard deviation of the average value)

Whilst four (4) Limit Level exceedances were observed for the 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 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.

2.3.7                        Implementation of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone

Daily marine mammal exclusion zone was in effect during the period of silt curtain installation in open waters between December 2018 and October 2019.  No sighting of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis (i.e. Chinese White Dolphin) was recorded in the reporting period during the exclusion zone monitoring.

No Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) was implemented in the reporting period. 

2.4                            EM&A Site Inspection

Site inspections were carried out on a 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 Sixty-First to Seventy-Second Monthly EM&A Reports.

2.5                            Waste Management Status

The Contractor was registered 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) and recyclable materials.  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 2.22. 

Table 2.22      Quantities of Different Waste Generated in the Reporting Period

Month/Year	Inert Construction Waste (a) (tonnes)	Inert Construction Waste Re-used (tonnes)	Non-inert Construction Waste (b) (tonnes)	Recyclable Materials (c)  (kg)	Chemical Wastes (kg)	Marine Sediment (m3)
						Category L	Category M
November 2018	155,310	141,730	448	394,690	1,400	0	5,836
December 2018	146,997	137,101	519	213,450	0	0	0
January 2019	299,831	268,846	538	394,550	0	0	1,095
February 2019	133,335	113,728	578	104,340	1,672	0	1,115
March 2019	120,224	71,419	692	88,660	0	15,512	34,501.5
April 2019	130,329	58,956	707	264,790	1,045	12,561	19,851
May 2019	67,355	51,297	798	2,120	0	0	0
June 2019	4,134	0	751	137,410	4,140	0	0
July 2019	3,821	0	730	445,570	0	0	0
August 2019	2,388	0	703	507,510	3,800	0	0
September 2019	4,191	0	737	399,320	8,000	0	0
October 2019	8,366	0	754	524,090	5,800	0	0
Total	1,076,281	843,077	7,955	3,476,500	25,857	28,073	62,399

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.

2.6                            Environmental Licenses and Permits

The status of environmental licensing and permit is summarized in Table 2.23 below.