1 Introduction

1.3 Construction Programme

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

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown in Table 1.1. The Works areas of the Contract are showed in Appendix C.

Table 1.1 Construction Activities during Reporting Period

Site Area	Description of Activities
Portion X	· Dismantling/trimming of temporary 40mm stone platform for construction of seawall · Stone column installation · Filling works behind stone platform · Temporary stone platform construction · Band drains installation · Sheet piling and jet grouting · Excavation and lateral support works for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel
Portion Y	· Access shaft construction for Scenic Hill Tunnel (SHT) & HKBCF to Airport Tunnel (HAT) · Utility culvert excavation · Pipe roofing installation for Tunnel HAT
West Portal	· Pipe roofing installation and excavation of tunnel SHT
Airport Express Line	· Pre-grouting and pipe piling works for Airport Express Line (AEL) access shafts
Airport Road	· Pipe piling Cofferdam Works for HAT West Cut & Cover tunnel
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road	· Works for diversion of Airport Road and Kwo Lo Wan Road
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road /Airport Express Line	· Utilities detection
Kwo Lo Wan Road	· Excavation and lateral support works at shaft 3 extension north shaft

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1 The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as specified in the approved EM&A Manual.

2.1.2 A summary of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1. The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1. The transect line layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is presented in Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

Environmental Monitoring	Description	Monitoring Station	Frequencies	Remarks
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	AMS 5 & AMS 6	At least 3 times every 6 days	While the highest dust impact was expected.
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	AMS 5 & AMS 6	At least once every 6 days	--
Noise	L_eq_(30mins)_, L₁₀_(30mins)and L₉₀_(30mins)	NMS5	At least once per week	Daytime on normal weekdays (0700-1900 hrs).
Water Quality	· Depth · Temperature · Salinity · Dissolved Oxygen (DO) · Suspended Solids (SS) · DO Saturation · Turbidity · pH	· Impact Stations: IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9 & IS10, · Control/Far Field Stations: CS2 & CS(Mf)5, · Sensitive Receiver Stations: SR3, SR4, SR5, SR10A & SR10B	Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides (within ± 1.75 hour of the predicted time)	3 (1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored).
Dolphin	Line-transect Methods	Northeast Lantau survey area and Northwest Lantau survey area	Twice per month	--
Mudflat	Horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds, intertidal soft shore communities, sedimentation rates and water quality	San Tau and Tung Chung Bay	Once every 3 months	--

2.2 Action and Limit Levels

2.2.1 Table 2.2 presents the Action and Limit Levels for the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.

Table 2.2 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and Noise

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Monitoring Station	Action Level	Limit Level
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	AMS 5	352 µg/m³	500 µg/m³
	1-hr TSP	AMS 6	360 µg/m³	500 µg/m³
	24-hr TSP	AMS 5	164 µg/m³	260 µg/m³
	24-hr TSP	AMS 6	173 µg/m³	260 µg/m³
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	NMS 5	When one documented complaint is received	75 dB(A)

2.2.2 The Action and Limit Levels for water quality monitoring are given as in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameter (unit)	Water Depth	Action Level	Limit Level
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Surface and Middle	5.0	4.2 except 5 for Fish Culture Zone
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Bottom	4.7	3.6
Turbidity (NTU)	Depth average	27.5 or 120% of upstream control station’s turbidity at the same tide of the same day; The action level has been amended to “27.5 *and* 120% of upstream control station’s turbidity at the same tide of the same day” since 25 March 2013.	47.0 or 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day; The limit level has been amended to “47.0 *and* 130% of turbidity at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day” since 25 March 2013.
Suspended Solid (SS) (mg/L)	Depth average	23.5 or 120% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of the same day; The action level has been amended to “23.5 *and* 120% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of the same day” since 25 March 2013.	34.4 or 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes; The limit level has been amended to “34.4 *and* 130% of SS at the upstream control station at the same tide of same day and 10mg/L for Water Services Department Seawater Intakes” since 25 March 2013

Notes:

(1) Depth-averaged is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.

(2) For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limit occurs when monitoring result is lower that the limit.

(3) For SS & turbidity non-compliance of the water quality limits occur when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

(4) The change to the Action and limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring for the EM&A works was approved by EPD on 25 March 2013. Therefore, the amended Action and Limit Levels are applied for the water monitoring results obtained on and after 25 March 2013.

2.2.3 The Action and Limit Levels for dolphin monitoring are shown in Tables 2.4 and 2.5.

Table 2.4 Action and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring

	North Lantau Social Cluster
	NEL	NWL
Action Level	STG < 70% of baseline & ANI < 70% of baseline	STG < 70% of baseline & ANI < 70% of baseline
Limit Level	STG < 40% of baseline & ANI < 40% of baseline

Remarks:

(1) STG means quarterly average encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.

(2) ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of total number of dolphins.

(3) For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be trigger if either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL fall below the criteria.

Table 2.5 Derived Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)

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

Remarks:

(1) STG means quarterly average encounter rate of number of dolphin sightings.

(2) ANI means quarterly average encounter rate of total number of dolphins.

(3) For North Lantau Social Cluster, AL will be trigger if either NEL or NWL fall below the criteria; LL will be triggered if both NEL and NWL fall below the criteria.

2.3 Event Action Plans

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

2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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

3.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E.

3.1.3 Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records were kept properly.

3.1.4 Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting period. No dolphins inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.

3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results

3.2.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix G.

Table 3.1 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
September 2014	AMS5	45	8-117	352	500
September 2014	AMS6	38	16-77	360
October 2014	AMS5	146	73-274	352
October 2014	AMS6	138	92-188	360
November 2014	AMS5	164	70-305	352
November 2014	AMS6	145	81-181	360

Table 3.2 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
September 2014	AMS5	44	15-93	164	260
September 2014	AMS6	92	40-132	173
October 2014	AMS5	75	36-116	164
October 2014	AMS6	146	72-233	173
November 2014	AMS5	80	35-123	164
November 2014	AMS6	104	69-151	173

3.2.2 For AMS5, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS 5 during the reporting period.

3.2.3 For AMS6, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level and no Limit Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting period. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP level was recorded on 15 and 27 October 2014, respectively.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

3.3.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.3 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting period are provided in Appendix H.

Table 3.3 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results During the Reporting Period

Reporting period	Monitoring Station	Average L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)*	Range of L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)*	Action Level	Limit Level L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)
September 2014	NMS5	56	53-57	When one documented complaint is received	75
October 2014		60	58-62
November 2014		58	56-60

*A correction factor of +3dB(A) from free field to facade measurement was included.

3.3.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.

3.3.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.

3.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

3.4.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting period. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix I.

3.4.2 During the reporting period, nine Action Level exceedances and three Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded.

3.4.3 Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.

3.5 Dolphin Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

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

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

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

3.5.4 Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the entire quarterly period (September– November 2014).

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

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

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

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

where S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

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

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

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.5.9 During the period of September to November 2014, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.5.10 From these surveys, a total of 892.88 km of survey effort was collected, with 97.1% 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, 343.71 km and 549.17 km of survey effort were conducted in NEL and NWL survey areas respectively.

3.5.11 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 644.60 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 248.28 km. Both survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix J.

3.5.12 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in September to November 2014, a total of 24 groups of 93 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All except two dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Twenty on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while another two on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. In this quarterly period, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, while none of them were sighted in NEL. A summary table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Annex II of Appendix J.

Distribution

3.5.13 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in September to November 2014 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. Similar to recent quarters, the majority of dolphin sightings made in the present quarter were concentrated in the northwestern end of the North Lantau region, with higher concentration around Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 1 of Appendix J). A few other sightings were scattered around Sha Chau and to the north of the airport platform. No dolphin sighting was made in NEL in the present quarter.

3.5.14 Notably, none of the dolphin groups was sighted in the vicinity of the HKLR03/ HKBCF reclamation sites or along the entire alignment of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) during this quarterly period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.15 Sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (September to November 2014) was compared to the one during the baseline monitoring period (September to November 2011). In the present quarter, dolphins have completely avoided the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The nearly complete abandonment of NEL region by the dolphins has been consistently recorded in the past seven quarters, which have resulted in extremely low dolphin encounter rates in this area.

3.5.16 In NWL survey area, dolphin occurrence was also very different between the baseline and impact phase quarters. During the present impact monitoring period, there appeared to be much fewer dolphins occurred in the middle portion of North Lantau region than during the baseline period, where dolphins supposedly moved between their core areas around Lung Kwu Chau and the Brothers Islands(Figure 1 of Appendix J). Moreover, more dolphins were sighted near Sha Chau and Black Point during the baseline period than during the present impact monitoring period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Notably, a number of dolphin sightings were made to the west of Chek Lap Kok airport (especially near the HKLR09 alignment) during the baseline period, but the dolphins were not sighted there at all during the present impact phase period.

3.5.17 Another comparison in dolphin distribution was made between the two quarterly periods of autumn months in 2013 and 2014 was also made (Figure 2 of Appendix J). Among the two autumn periods, no dolphin sighting was made in NEL in the autumn of 2014, while there were two sightings made there in the autumn of 2013. Moreover, a lot more dolphin sightings were made in the middle and western portions of North Lantau waters (especially between Black Point and Lung Kwu Chau, as well as around Sha Chau) in the autumn of 2013 than in the autumn of 2014. The comparison indicated that dolphin usage in North Lantau waters was further diminished in autumn of 2014 from the same period in the previous year.

Encounter Rate

3.5.18 For the three-month study period in September, October and November 2014, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) from each of the survey areas are shown in Table 3.4. The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period in September to November 2011 (See Table 3.5).

Table 3.4 Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During three Reporting Period (Sep –Nov 2014)

Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Primary Lines Only	Primary Lines Only
Northeast Lantau	Set 1 (2 & 11 Sep 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 2 (19 & 22 Sep 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 3 (7 & 13 Oct 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 4 (16 & 23 Oct 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 5 (4 & 10 Nov 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 6 (12 & 18 Nov 2014)	0.00	0.00
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (2 & 11 Sep 2014)	5.72	28.58
	Set 2 (19 & 22 Sep 2014)	4.34	18.80
	Set 3 (7 & 13 Oct 2014)	13.13	42.67
	Set 4 (16 & 23 Oct 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 5 (4 & 10 Nov 2014)	4.60	24.54
	Set 6 (12 & 18 Nov 2014)	2.84	8.53

Table 3.5 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Sep – Nov 2014) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep – Nov 2011)

Survey Area	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)		Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Northeast Lantau	0.00	6.00 ± 5.05	0.00	22.19 ± 26.81
Northwest Lantau	5.10 ± 4.40	9.85 ± 5.85	20.52 ± 15.10	44.66 ± 29.85

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

3.5.19 To facilitate the comparison with the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter rates were also calculated for the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NWL were 4.18 sightings and 16.17 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were both nil.

3.5.20 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were zero, and such low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in the past seven quarters (Table 3.6).

3.5.21 It is a serious concern that dolphin occurrence in NEL in the seven quarters (0.0-1.0 for ER(STG) and 0.0-3.9 for ER(ANI)) have been exceptionally low when compared to the baseline period (Table 3.6). In fact, the present quarter was the eighth consecutive quarters being assessed that have triggered the Action Levels under the Event and Action Plan. As discussed recently in Hung (2014), the dramatic decline in dolphin usage of NEL waters in 2012 and 2013 (including the declines in abundance, encounter rate and habitat use in NEL, as well as shifts of individual core areas and ranges away from NEL waters) was possibly related to the HZMB construction works that were commenced in 2012.

3.5.22 Moreover, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period were also much lower (reductions of 48.2% and 54.1% respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a noticeable decline in dolphin usage of this survey area during the present construction period (Table 3.7).

Table 3.6 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northeast Lantau Survey Area from All Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep – Nov 2011)

	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	6.00 ± 5.05	22.19 ± 26.81
December 2012-February 2013 (Impact)	3.14 ± 3.21	6.33 ± 8.64
March-May 2013 (Impact)	0.42 ± 1.03	0.42 ± 1.03
June-August 2013 (Impact)	0.88 ± 1.36	3.91 ± 8.36
September-November 2013 (Impact)	1.01 ± 1.59	3.77 ± 6.49
December 2013-February 2014 (Impact)	0.45 ± 1.10	1.34 ± 3.29
March-May 2014 (Impact)	0.00	0.00
June-August 2014 (Impact)	0.42 ± 1.04	1.69 ± 4.15
September-November 2014 (Impact)	0.00	0.00

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

Table 3.7 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates in Northwest Lantau Survey Area from All Quarters of Impact Monitoring Period and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep – Nov 2011)

	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	9.85 ± 5.85	44.66 ± 29.85
December 2012-February 2013 (Impact)	8.36 ± 5.03	35.90 ± 23.10
March-May 2013 (Impact)	7.75 ± 3.96	24.23 ± 18.05
June-August 2013 (Impact)	6.56 ± 3.68	27.00 ± 18.71
September-November 2013 (Impact)	8.04 ± 1.10	32.48 ± 26.51
December 2013-February 2014 (Impact)	8.21 ± 2.21	32.58 ± 11.21
March-May 2014 (Impact)	6.51 ± 3.34	19.14 ± 7.19
June-August 2014 (Impact)	4.74 ± 3.84	17.52 ± 15.12
September-November 2014 (Impact)	5.10 ± 4.40	20.52 ± 15.10

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

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

3.5.24 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (eighth quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0222 and 0.0662 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in both dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.25 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first eight quarters of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0019 and 0.0006 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.01, significant differences were detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.26 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in NEL waters in the present quarterly period, and such low occurrence has been consistently documented in previous quarters. This raises serious concern, as the decline in dolphin usage could possibly link to the HZMB-related construction activities in NEL waters.

3.5.27 To ensure the continuous usage of NEL waters by the dolphins, every possible measure should be implemented by the contractors and relevant authorities to minimize all disturbances to the dolphins, as a future marine park around the Brothers Islands will be established in this important dolphin habitat as a compensation measure for the habitat loss resulted from the HKBCF reclamation works. Unless such declining trend can be reverted after the establishment of the Brothers Islands Marine Park, there should be a presumption against further reclamation in North Lantau waters as suggested in Hung (2013, 2014).

3.5.28 It should be noted that dolphin usage in NWL have also been diminished progressively in the past few quarters (Table 3.7), and such downward trend should be closely monitored, as the potential impacts of HZMB-related works on the dolphins may have been extended to the entire North Lantau region.

Group Size

3.5.29 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to 13 individuals per group in North Lantau region during September – November 2014. The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared with the ones deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Sep – Nov 2014) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep– Nov 2011)

	Average Dolphin Group Size
	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	3.88 ± 2.69 (n = 24)	3.72 ± 3.13 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	0.00	3.18 ± 2.16 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	3.88 ± 2.69 (n = 24)	3.92 ± 3.40 (n = 49)

3.5.30 The average dolphin group sizes in the entire North Lantau region as well as in NWL waters during September – November 2014 were similar to the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period (Table 3.8). Sixteen of the 24 groups were composed of 1-4 individuals only, while there was only one dolphin group with more than 10 individuals.

3.5.31 Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes (five individuals or more per group) during the present quarter is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix J, with comparison to the one in baseline period. During the autumn of 2014, distribution of the majority of larger dolphin groups were concentrated near Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 3 of Appendix J). This distribution pattern was quite different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups were distributed more evenly in NWL waters with a few more sighted in NEL waters (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

3.5.32 Notably, none of the larger dolphin groups were sighted near the HKLR03 reclamation site in the present monitoring period (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

Habitat Use

3.5.33 From September to November 2014, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix J). None of the grids in NEL recorded the presence of dolphins in the present quarter. Moreover, all grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites, HKLR09 or TMCLKL alignment did not record any presence of dolphins during on-effort search in the present quarterly period.

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

3.5.35 When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period, dolphin usage in NEL was dramatically different from the present impact monitoring period (Figure 5 of Appendix J). During the baseline period, nine grids between Siu Mo To and Shum Shui Kok recorded moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was in stark contrast to complete absence of dolphins during the present impact phase period (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.36 The density patterns between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods were also different in NWL, with higher dolphin usage around Sha Chau, near Black Point, to the west of the airport, as well as between Pillar Point and airport platform during the baseline period (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.37 The absence of dolphins in the identified important habitats around the Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok in consecutive quarters in 2013-14 is of serious concern. The future Brothers Islands Marine Park will be established in this area upon the completion of HKBCF reclamation works, as an important compensation measure for the associated habitat loss. As suggested recently in Hung (2014), such low usage of dolphins in this important habitat in the past two years was likely related to the on-going HZMB-related construction works. Continuous monitoring of such diminished use should be continued in this important dolphin habitat in the upcoming quarters.

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.38 During the three-month study period, only four unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised of 4.3% of all animals sighted, which was lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

3.5.39 All four young calves were sighted around Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 6 of Appendix J), which was very different from their distribution pattern during the baseline period when young calves were sighted throughout the NWL survey area as well as a few sighted in NEL waters. None of the four young calves were sighted in the vicinity of the HKBCF/HKLR03 reclamation sites and HKLR09/TMCLKL alignments during the present quarter (Figure 6 of Appendix J).

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.5.40 A total of three dolphin sightings were associated with feeding and socializing activities respectively during the three-month study period. The percentage of sightings associated with feeding activities during the present quarter (8.3%) was lower than the one recorded during the baseline period (11.6%). On the contrary, the percentage of socializing activities during the present impact phase monitoring period (4.2%) was slightly lower than the one recorded during the baseline period (5.4%). One group of five dolphins was also engaged in traveling activity during the present quarter.

3.5.41 Distribution of dolphins engaged in feeding, socializing and traveling activities during the present three-month period is shown in Figure 7 of Appendix J. The three sightings associated with feeding and traveling activities all occurred to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, while the lone sighting associated with socializing activity was located to the north of the airport (Figure 7 of Appendix J). Distribution of dolphin sightings associated with these activities during the impact phase was very different from the distribution pattern of these activities during the baseline period (Figure 7 of Appendix J).

3.5.42 During the three-month period, none of the 24 dolphin groups was found to be associated with an operating fishing vessels in North Lantau waters. The extremely rare events of fishing boat association in the present and previous quarters were consistently found, and were likely related to the recent trawl ban being implemented in December 2012 in Hong Kong waters.

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

3.5.43 From September to November 2014, over 2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.44 In total, 26 individuals sighted 49 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix J and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). All of these 49 re-sightings were made in NWL.

3.5.45 The majority of identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of five individuals (NL202, NL214, NL233, NL286 and WL05) being sighted thrice and two individuals (NL48 and NL182) being sighted four times.

3.5.46 Five of these 26 individuals were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys for the same three-month period, showing their movement between North and West Lantau regions.

3.5.47 Five recognized females (NL104, NL182, NL202, NL233 and NL256) were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Some of these mothers were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period since October 2012.

Individual range use

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

3.5.49 All identified dolphins sighted in this quarter were utilizing their range use in NWL (and some also in WL), but have avoided the NEL waters where many of them have utilized as their core areas in the past (Annex V of Appendix J). This is in contrary to the extensive movements between NEL and NWL survey areas observed in the earlier impact monitoring quarters as well as during the baseline period.

3.5.50 For many individuals that have previously utilized the Brothers Islands as their major core area of activities, they have apparently shifted their range use away from this important habitat (e.g. NL136, NL182, NL259; Annex V of Appendix J). Such shifts of range use and core area use were also documented by Hung (2014), as well as in the past monitoring quarters in 2013 and 2014 under the present study.

3.5.51 On the other hand, there were a few individuals sighted in NWL and NEL waters consistently in the past, but have extended their range use to WL waters in the present quarter (e.g. NL259). It should be further monitored to examine whether there has been any consistent shifts of home ranges of individuals from North Lantau to West Lantau, which could also possibly be related to the HZMB-related construction works.

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.5.52 There were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September – November 2014). According to the Contractor’s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of September 2014 to November 2014 included stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation, excavation of stone platform, surcharge activities, construction of seawall and temporary drainage diversion There is no evidence showing the current AL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03, although the generally increased amount of vessel traffic in NEL during the impact phase has been partly contributed by HKLR03 works since October 2012. It should also be noted that reclamation work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin. In addition, the contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department’s designated anchorage site – Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

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

3.5.54 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (eighth quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0222 and 0.0662 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in both encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.55 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first eight quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0019 and 0.0006 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.01, significant difference was detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.56 The AFCD monitoring data during September to November 2014 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist, and no dolphin was sighted from 108.93 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL during the same quarter. This review has confirmed that the extremely low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring survey in autumn 2014 in NEL is accurate.

3.5.57 There is no evidence showing that the sources of impact directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 that may have affected the dolphin usage in the NEL region.

3.5.58 All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. The Contractor will continue to provide training for skippers to ensure that their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department’s designated anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

3.5.59 A meeting was held on 9 December 2014 with attendance of ENPO, Resident Site Staff (RSS), Environmental Team (ET) and dolphin specialist for Contract No. HY/2010/02, RSS, ET, dolphin specialist and main Contractor for Contract No. HY/2011/03. The discussion/recommendation as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which might be relevant to HKLR03 Contract are summarized below.

3.5.60 It was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors.

3.5.61 It was reminded that the ETs shall keep reviewing the implementation status of the dolphin related mitigation measures and remind the contractor to ensure the relevant measures were fully implemented.

3.5.62 It was recommended that the marine works of HZMB projects should be completed as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.

3.5.63 It was also recommended that the marine works footprint (e.g., reduce the size of peripheral silt curtain) and vessels for the marine works should be reduced as much as possible, and vessels idling / mooring in other part of the North Lantau shall be avoided whenever possible. The team for HY/2010/02 advised that the contractor was already using large capacity sand barge so as to reduce the number of vessel traffics, and had already submitted a proposal to resize the peripheral silt curtain.

3.5.64 It was suggested that the protection measures (e.g., speed limit control) for the proposed Brothers Island Marine Park (BMP) shall be brought forward as soon as possible before its establishment so as to provide a better habitat for dolphin recovery. It was noted that under the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan, the contractors have committed to reduce the vessel speed in BMP.

3.5.65 There was a discussion on exploring possible further mitigation measures, for example, controlling the underwater noise. It was noted that the EIA reports for the projects suggested several mitigation measures, all of which have been implemented.

3.6 Mudflat Monitoring Results

Sedimentation Rate Monitoring

3.6.1 The baseline sedimentation rate monitoring was in September 2012 and impact sedimentation rate monitoring was undertaken on 6 September 2014. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9.

Table 3.8 Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

	Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)			Impact Monitoring (September 2014)
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)
S1	810291.160	816678.727	0.950	810291.165	816678.754	1.030
S2	810958.272	815831.531	0.864	810958.261	815831.522	0.940
S3	810716.585	815953.308	1.341	810716.593	815953.320	1.450
S4	811221.433	816151.381	0.931	811221.424	816151.402	1.146

Table 3.9 Comparison of measurement

	Comparison of measurement			Remarks and Recommendation
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level (mPD)	Remarks and Recommendation
S1	0.005	0.027	0.080	Level continuously increased
S2	-0.011	-0.009	0.076	Level continuously increased
S3	0.008	0.011	0.109	Level continuously increased
S4	-0.009	0.054	0.215	Level continuously increased

3.6.2 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.

Water Quality Monitoring

3.6.3 The mudflat monitoring covered water quality monitoring data. Reference was made to the water quality monitoring data of the representative water quality monitoring station (i.e. SR3) as in the EM&A Manual. The water quality monitoring location (SR3) is shown in Figure 2.1.

3.6.4 Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in September 2014. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

3.6.5 The Impact monitoring result for SR3 were extracted and summarised below:

Table 3.10 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results (Depth Average)

Date	Mid Ebb Tide			Mid Flood Tide
Date	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)
01-Sep-14	6.48	6.50	5.20	6.01	7.35	6.50
03-Sep-14	6.17	3.45	1.95	7.36	3.15	3.70
05-Sep-14	5.96	5.35	4.50	8.40	5.80	6.80
08-Sep-14	6.19	7.50	10.95	6.48	7.30	6.45
10-Sep-14	5.49	25.05	27.50	5.44	9.10	8.55
12-Sep-14	5.76	17.05	17.10	5.71	12.20	12.50
15-Sep-14*	-	-	-	5.65	5.25	5.65
17-Sep-14	6.00	5.85	6.20	6.50	6.45	6.30
19-Sep-14	6.28	4.30	2.60	7.18	3.05	5.20
22-Sep-14	6.98	8.55	5.50	6.82	8.30	8.90
24-Sep-14	6.34	9.30	8.70	6.60	8.90	9.25
26-Sep-14	5.78	12.35	17.50	5.88	13.40	22.05
29-Sep-14	5.98	12.30	12.35	6.02	5.80	6.60
Average	6.12	9.80	10.00	6.46	7.39	8.34

Remark:

* As Strong Wind Signal No. 3 was hoisted by HKO on 15 September 2014, the water quality monitoring for mid-ebb tide of 15 September 2014 was cancelled for safety reason.

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

3.6.6 There are two survey areas specified under the updated EM&A Manual for the Contract, namely Tung Chung Bay and San Tau. Tung Chung Bay survey area is divided into three sampling zones (TC1, TC2 and TC3) and there is one sampling zone at San Tau (ST). Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in each sampling zone. The present survey was conducted in September 2014 (totally 6 sampling days between 6^th and 21^st September 2014). The locations of sampling zones are shown in Annex I of Appendix O.

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.7 Active search method was conducted for horseshoe crab monitoring by two experienced surveyors at every sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hours in low tide period (tidal level below 1.2 m above Chart Datum (C.D.)). Once a horseshoe crab individual was found, the species was identified referencing to Li (2008). The prosomal width, inhabiting substratum and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. A photographic record was taken for future investigation. Any grouping behavior of individuals, if found, was recorded. The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 8^th (for TC1 and TC2) and 21^st (for TC3 and ST) September 2014. The weather was cloudy and windy on both survey days.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.8 Active search method was conducted for seagrass bed monitoring by two experienced surveyors at every sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any seagrass beds within 2-3 hours in low tide period. Once seagrass bed was found, the species, estimated area, estimated coverage percentage and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. A photographic record was taken for future investigation. The seagrass beds surveys were conducted on 8^th (for TC1 and TC2) and 21^st (for TC3 and ST) September 2014. The weather was cloudy and windy on both survey days.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.9 The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 6^th (for TC3), 7^th (for ST), 9^th (for TC2) and 20 September 2014 (for TC1). At each sampling zone, three 100 m horizontal transects were laid at high tidal level (H: 2.0 m above C.D.), mid tidal level (M: 1.5 m above C.D.) and low tidal level (L: 1.0 m above C.D.). Along every horizontal transect, ten random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed.

3.6.10 Inside a quadrat, any visible epifauna were collected and were in-situ identified to the lowest practical taxonomical resolution. Whenever possible a hand core sample (10 cm internal diameter ´ 20 cm depth) of sediments was collected in the quadrat. The core sample was gently washed through a sieve of mesh size 2.0 mm in-situ. Any visible infauna were collected and identified. Finally the top 5 cm surface sediments was dug for visible infauna in the quadrat regardless of hand core sample was taken.

3.6.11 All collected fauna were released after recording except some tiny individuals that are too small to be identified on site. These tiny individuals were taken to laboratory for identification under dissecting microscope.

3.6.12 The taxonomic classification was conducted in accordance to the following references: Polychaetes: Fauchald (1977), Yang and Sun (1988); Arthropods: Dai and Yang (1991), Dong (1991); Mollusks: Chan and Caley (2003), Qi (2004).

Data Analysis

3.6.13 Data collected from direct search and core sampling was pooled in every quadrat for data analysis. Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H’) and Pielou’s Species Evenness (J) were calculated for every quadrat using the formulae below,

H’= -Σ ( Ni / N ) ln ( Ni / N ) (Shannon and Weaver, 1963)

J = H’ / ln S, (Pielou, 1966)

where S is the total number of species in the sample, N is the total number of individuals, and Ni is the number of individuals of the i^th species.

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.14 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 of Appendix O shows the records of horseshoe crab survey at every sampling zone. In general, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was found in all sampling zones (TC1: 21 ind., TC2: 1 ind., TC3: 58 ind., ST: 43 ind.) while Tachypleus tridentatus was found in sampling zones TC1 (1 ind.), TC3 (11 ind.) and ST (4 ind.). Most of individuals were found on fine sand substratum followed by soft mud. Grouping was observed from both species while the group size ranged 2-14 individuals.

3.6.15 Table 3.2 of Appendix O summarizes the survey results of horseshoe crab at every sampling zone. For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, the search records were 5.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (mean prosomal width: 40.73 mm), 0.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (45.82 mm), 14.5 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (27.81 mm), 10.8 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (38.39 mm) at TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST respectively. According to Li (2008), the prosomal width of recorded individuals ranged 15.39－70.93 mm that was about 2.7-11.3 years old. For Tachypleus tridentatus, the search record was 0.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (30.48 mm), 2.8 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (32.48 mm) and 0.7 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (49.93 mm) at TC1, TC3 and ST respectively. The prosomal width of recorded individuals ranged 27.33－66.74 mm that was about 3.5–7.8 years old.

3.6.16 Besides, marked individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (2 ind.) and Tachypleus tridentatus (1 ind.) were recorded in ST in present survey. Similar findings had been recorded in previous surveys conducted in Sep. 2013 and Mar. 2014. All of them were released through a conservation programme conducted by Prof. Paul Shin (Department of Biology and Chemistry, The City University of Hong Kong (CityU)). It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred horseshoe crab juvenile at selected sites. So that the horseshoe crabs population might be restored in the natural habitat. Through a personal conversation with Prof. Shin, about 100 individuals were released in the sampling zone ST on 20 June 2013. All of them were marked with color tape and internal chip detected by specific chip sensor.

3.6.17 The artificial bred individuals were excluded from the results of present monitoring programme in order to reflect the changes of natural population. However, the mark on their prosoma might have been detached during moulting in the past one year. The artificially released individuals were no longer distinguishable from the natural population without the specific chip sensor. The survey data collected would possibly cover both natural population and artificially bred individuals. Besides, the three marked individuals in present survey were possibly released in the new round of the programme.

3.6.18 Figure 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix O shows the changes of number of individuals, mean prosomal width and search record of horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus respectively in every sampling zone along the sampling months. In general, higher search records (i.e. number of individuals) of both species were always found in ST in active season. But the highest search record was found in TC3 in the present survey. In contrast, much lower search record was found in other sampling zones especially TC2 (2 ind. in Sep. 2013, 1 ind. in Mar., Jun. and Sep. 2014). There was no spatial difference of horseshoe crab size (prosomal width) among the sampling zones.

3.6.19 It was obvious that ST was an important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly hatched individuals due to larger area of suitable substratum (fine sand or soft mud) and less human disturbance (far from urban district). Relatively, other sampling zones were not suitable for nursery of horseshoe crab especially TC2. Possible factors were less area of suitable substratum (especially TC1) and higher human disturbance (TC1, TC2 and TC3: close to urban district and easily accessible). In TC2, large daily salinity fluctuation was a possible factor either since it was flushed by two rivers under tidal inundation. The individuals found in TC1, TC2 and TC3 were believed foraging from the ST during high tide while it might return to ST over a certain period of time. It accounted for the variable search records in the three sampling zones along the sampling months. For example, few individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus were found in TC1 only between Sep. 2012 and Sep. 2013. However it no longer appeared while individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were found after Mar. 2014.

3.6.20 During the survey period, the search record of horseshoe crab declined obviously during dry season especially December (Figures 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix O). Furthermore no individual was found in Dec. 2013. As mentioned, the horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in dry season were reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search records in Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 and 0 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 in wet season and dry season respectively (details see Li, 2008). After the dry season, the search record increased with the warmer climate.

3.6.21 Between the sampling months Sep. 2012 and Dec. 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was a less common species relative to Tachypleus tridentatus. Only 4 individuals were ever recorded in ST in Dec. 2012. This species had been believed of very low density in ST hence the encounter rate was very low. Until Mar. 2014, it was found in all sampling zones with higher abundance in ST. Based on its average size (mean prosomal width 39.28-49.81 mm), it indicated that breeding and spawning of this species had occurred 3-4 years ago along the coastline of Tung Chun Wan. However, these individuals were still small while their walking trails were inconspicuous. Hence there was no search record in previous sampling months. From Mar. to Sep. 2014, more individuals were recorded due to larger size and higher activity.

3.6.22 For Tachypleus tridentatus, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded in ST with wet season (from Mar. to Sep. 2013). According to a personal conversation with Prof. Shin (CityU), his monitoring team had recorded similar increase of horseshoe crab population during wet season. It was believed that the suitable ambient temperature increased its conspicuousness. However similar pattern was not recorded during the period of this year. The number of individuals increased in Mar. and Jun. 2014 followed by a rapid decline in Sep. 2014. Apart from natural mortality, migration from nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat was another possible cause. Since the mean prosomal width of Tachypleus tridentatus continued to grow and reached about 50 mm in this year. Most of the individuals might have reached a suitable size strong enough to forage in subtidal habitat.

3.6.23 Figure 3.4 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in ST where was regarded as an important nursery ground. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was rarely found between Sep. 2012 and Dec. 2013 hence the data were limiting. From Mar. to Sep. 2014, the size of major population (50% records between upper and lower quartile) fluctuated between 30-40 mm and 45-60 mm. Such fluctuation should be due to variable encounter rate influenced by weather. For Tachypleus tridentatus, a consistent growing trend was observed for the major population from Dec. 2012 to Sep. 2014. The prosomal width increased from 10-20 mm to 40-60 mm. As mentioned, the large individuals might have reached a suitable size for migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat.

3.6.24 The present survey was the eighth time of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impact of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs considering the factor of natural, seasonal variation. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of horseshoe crab individuals in warm weather, large number of dead individuals on the shore) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.25 Table 3.3 of Appendix O show the records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone. Two species of seagrass Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were recorded in ST only. In general the number of patches and area of Halophila ovalis were significantly higher (Table 3.4 of Appendix O). For Halophila ovalis, the area of highest coverage consisted of one large and one medium patch on sandy substratum beside the mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. (Figure 3.5(A) of Appendix O). The estimated total seagrass area was about 305.9 m² with vegetation coverage 85%. (Figure 3.6 of Appendix O).

3.6.26 However, the largest seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis located on soft mud in patchy distribution between 1.0 m and 1.5 m above C.D. (Figure 3.5(B) of Appendix O). Such large area of seagrass bed was merged by numerous smaller patches recruited seasonally in the past. In Dec. 2013, flowers could be observed during its reproductive period (Figure 3.6 of Appendix O). In Mar. 2014, 31 small to medium patches were recorded (variable area 1-72 m² per patch, vegetation coverage 40-80% per patch). In Jun. 2014, these small and medium patches grew and extended to each others. These patches were no longer distinguishable and were covering a significant mudflat area of ST. It was generally grouped into 4 large areas (1116.3 – 2442.6 m²) of seagrass beds characterized of patchy distribution, variable vegetable coverage (40-80%) and smaller leaves. In present survey (Sep. 2014), the seagrass area declined sharply while there was only one single patch (785.9 m²) recorded in that mudflat area. But this patch was of higher coverage (70%) and larger leaves. Besides, Halophila ovalis could be found in other mud flat area surrounding the single patch. But it was hardly distinguished into patches due to very low coverage (10-20%) and small leaves.

3.6.27 Two small patches of Zostera japonica were found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis (Figure 3.5 of Appendix O). The estimated area ranged 0.5-1.6 m² while the estimated coverage was about 50-55%.

3.6.28 Figure 3.7 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds at ST along the sampling months. For Halophila ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased gradually from Sep. 2012 to Mar. 2014. It showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches on the shore during dry season of 2012. Then it grew larger and became numerous patches of varying sizes during 2013. In Jun. 2014, the total seagrass bed area increased sharply due to merging of the patches. However the vegetation was in patchy distribution with highly variable coverage. In the present survey (Sep. 2014), the total seagrass area declined rapidly. The natural heat stress and grazing force were the possible causes during the hot, wet season (Jun to Sep 2014).

3.6.29 For Zostera japonica, it was not recorded in the 1^st and 2^nd surveys of monitoring programme. Seasonal recruitment of few patches was found in Mar. 2013. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually with the warmer climate from Mar. to Jun. 2013. However the patch size decreased sharply and remained similar from Sep. 2013 to Mar. 2014. In Jun. 2014, the patch size increased obviously again with warmer climate. Similar to previous year, the patch size decreased again in Sep. 2014.

3.6.30 The present survey was the eighth survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on seagrass considering the factor of natural, seasonal variation. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. rapid reduction of seagrass patch size, abnormal change of leave colour) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.31 Table 3.5 and Figure 3.8 of Appendix O show the types of substratum along the horizontal transect at every tidal level of every sampling zone. The relative distribution of different substrata was estimated by categorizing the substratum types (Gravels & Boulders / Sands / Soft mud) of the ten random quadrats along the horizontal transect.

3.6.32 The distribution of substratum types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones. At TC1, high percentages of ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (70-90%) were recorded at all tidal levels while the remaining substratum type was ‘Sands’(10-30%). At TC2, high percentages of ‘Sands’ (70-90%) were recorded at high and mid tidal levels followed by ‘Soft mud’ (10-30%). Conversely, high percentage of ‘Soft mud’ (70%) was recorded at low tidal level followed by ‘Sands’ (30%). At TC3, high percentages of ‘Sands’ (70-80%) were recorded at high and mid tidal levels followed by ‘Soft mud’ (20-30%). ‘Gravels and Boulders’ was the major substratum type (80%) at low tidal level. At ST, ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (100%) was the major substratum at high and mid tidal levels. ‘Sands’ (70%) was mainly recorded at low tidal level followed by ‘Soft mud’ (20%) and ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (10%).

3.6.33 There was neither consistent vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of substratum type all sampling zones Such heterogeneous variation should be caused by different hydrology (e.g. wave in different direction and intensity) received by the four sampling zones.

3.6.34 Table 3.6 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in the present survey. A total of 14402 individuals were recorded. Mollusca was significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 13923, density 464 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 96.7%). The second abundant phylum was Arthropoda (312 ind., 10 ind. m^-2, 2.2%). The third and forth abundant phyla were Annelida (77 ind., 3 ind. m^-2, 0.5%) and Sipuncula (63 ind., 2 ind. m^-2, 0.4%). Relatively other phyla were very low in abundances (density £1 ind. m^-2, relative abundance £0.1%). Moreover, the most diverse phylum was Mollusca (40 taxa) followed by Arthropoda (16 taxa) and Annelida (8 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were relatively less (1-2 taxa). The complete list of collected specimens is shown in Annex III of Appendix O.

3.6.35 Table 3.7 of Appendix O shows the number of individual, relative abundance and density of each phylum in every sampling zone. The results were similar among the four sampling zones. In general, Mollusca was the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 3234-3717 ind., relative abundance 95.3-97.9%). Arthropoda was the second abundant phylum (61-117 ind., 1.6-3.0%) although the number of individuals was significantly lower than that of mollusks. For TC2, Annelida was the third abundant phylum (32 ind., 1.0%). Relatively, other phyla were low in abundance among the four sampling zones (< 1%).

3.6.36 Table 3.8 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) in every sampling zone. In TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was the most abundant (173-175 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 36-40%) at high and mid tidal levels (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’). Gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (106 ind. m^-2, 25%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (74 ind. m^-2, 17%) were the second and third abundant taxa at high tidal level. At mid tidal level, the less dominant species were rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (102 ind. m^-2, 21%, attached on boulders), gastropods Monodonta labio (80 ind. m^-2, 16%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (62 ind. m^-2, 13%). At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’), the dominant gastropods Monodonta labio (160 ind. m^-2, 28%), Batillaria multiformis (102 ind. m^-2, 18%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (144 ind. m^-2, 25%) were even in density at low tidal levels.

3.6.37 At TC2, gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (331 ind. m^-2, 52%) and Cerithidea cingulata (179 ind. m^-2, 28%) were highly abundant at high tidal level (major substratum: ‘Sands’). At mid and low tidal levels (major substrata: ‘Soft mud’ & ‘Sands’), gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis was still the most abundant taxon but the mean densities were much lower (53-160 ind. m^-2, 29-31%). Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (45-119 ind. m^-2, 23-25%) and gastropod Batillaria zonalis (37-60 ind. m^-2, 12-20%) were the second and third abundant taxa at mid and low tidal levels. Gastropod Cerithidea cingulata (56 ind. m^-2, 11%) was the forth abundant at mid tidal levels.

3.6.38 At TC3, gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (199-227 ind. m^-2, 36-42%) and Cerithidea cingulata (153-181 ind. m^-2, 28-33%) were highly abundant at high and mid tidal levels (major substratum: ‘Sands’) followed by less abundant gastropod Batillaria multiformis (74-91 ind. m^-2, 14-17%). At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (212 ind. m^-2, 45%) was the most abundant followed by gastropod Monodonta labio at much lower density (92 ind. m^-2, 19%).

3.6.39 At ST gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly abundant (206 ind. m^-2, 38%) at high tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’) followed by much less abundant gastropod Monodonta labio (127 ind. m^-2, 23%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (66 ind. m^-2, 12%). At mid tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’), gastropod Monodonta labio (146 ind. m^-2, 25%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (102 ind. m^-2, 17%) were higher in abundances. Other less abundant taxa were gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (71 ind. m^-2, 12%) and Batillaria multiformis (56 ind. m^-2, 10%). At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Sands’), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (50 ind. m^-2, 22%), gastropods Lunella coronata (42 ind. m^-2, 18%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (37 ind. m^-2, 16%) and Batillaria zonalis (25 ind. m^-2, 11%) were abundant taxa at lower densities relative to that at high and mid tidal levels.

3.6.40 There was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across all sampling zones and tidal levels. The species distribution should be affected by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (total number of individuals: 3189 ind., relative abundance 22.1%), Batillaria multiformis (2398 ind., 16.7%), and Cerithidea cingulata (1958 ind., 13.6%) were the most commonly occurring species on sandy substratum. In previous surveys, the most dominant taxon was usually gastropod Batillaria multiformis. Its abundance declined and was replaced by gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis in the present survey. Moreover rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2278 ind., 15.8%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (1653 ind., 11.5%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

3.6.41 Table 3.9 of Appendix O shows the mean values of number of species, density, biodiversity index H’ and species evenness J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and in every sampling zone. Among the sampling zones, there was no clear difference in the mean number of species (7-16 spp. 0.25 m^-2) and densities (182-640 ind. m^-2). The mean H’ (1.76) and J (0.74) in ST were relatively higher than that in TC1, TC2 and TC3 (H’: 1.33-1.44, J: 0.64-0.69).

3.6.42 Across the tidal levels, there was no consistent difference for the mean number of species and H’ in all sampling zones. In TC1 and TC3, the mean densities ranged 433-575 ind. m^-2 and were similar among the three tidal levels. In TC2 and ST, the mean densities at high and mid tidal levels (518-640 ind. m^-2) were much higher than that at low tidal level (182-230 ind. m^-2). Higher J was usually observed at mid and low tidal tidal levels.

3.6.43 Figure 3.9 to 3.12 of Appendix O show the temporal changes of mean number of species, mean density, H’ and J at every tidal level and in every sampling zone along the sampling months. No significant temporal change of any biological parameters was observed. All the parameters were under slight and natural fluctuation with the seasonal variation.

3.6.44 The present survey was the eighth survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on intertidal soft shore community. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. large reduction of fauna densities and species number) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

3.7 Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

3.7.1 The Contractor registered with EPD as a Chemical Waste Producer on 12 July 2012 for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.

3.7.2 The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix K.

3.7.3 The Contractor was reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practise on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

3.8 Environmental Licenses and Permits

3.8.1 The valid environmental licenses and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix L.

4 Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance

4.1 Environmental Exceedances

4.1.1 The detailed air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin exceedances are provided in Appendix M. Also, the summaries of the environmental exceedances are presented as followed:

Air Quality

4.1.2 For AMS5, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP levels were recorded during the reporting period.

4.1.3 For AMS6, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and no Limit Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting period. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP level was recorded on 15 and 27 October 2014, respectively

Noise

4.1.4 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.

Water Quality

4.1.5 During the reporting period, nine Action Level and three Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. No Action and Limit level exceedances of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded. There were no specific activities recorded during the monitoring period that would cause any significant impacts on monitoring results and no leakage of turbid water or any abnormity or malpractice was observed during the sampling exercise. Therefore, all exceedances were considered as non-contract related. The detailed numbers of exceedances recorded during the reporting period at each impact station are summarised in Table 4.1.

Dolphin

4.1.6 There were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September – November 2014). According to the contractor’s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of September 2014 to November 2014 included stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation, excavation of stone platform, surcharge activities, construction of seawall and temporary drainage diversion.

4.1.7 There is no evidence showing the current AL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03, although the generally increased amount of vessel traffic in NEL during the impact phase has been partly contributed by HKLR03 works since October 2012. It should also be noted that reclamation work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin. In addition, the contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department’s designated anchorage site – Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

4.1.8 All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. The Contractor will continue to provide training for skippers to ensure that their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department’s designated anchorage site - Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

Table 4.1 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

DO (S&M)

DO (Bottom)

Turbidity

Total Number of Exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

Limit Level

10 September 2014

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

Limit Level

IS7

Action Level

Limit Level

IS8

Action Level

Limit Level

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

Limit Level

IS10

Action Level

13 October 2014

Limit Level

5 November 2014

SR3

Action Level

10 September 2014

Limit Level

SR4

Action Level

20 October 2014; 5 November 2014

Limit Level

SR5

Action Level

10, 13 October 2014

Limit Level

6 October 2014

SR10A

Action Level

22 October 2014

Limit Level

SR10B

Action Level

10, 22 October 2014

Limit Level

Total

Action

9**

Limit

3**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

** The total exceedances.

4.2 Summary of Environmental Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.2.1 There were no environmental complaints received during this reporting period. The details of cumulative statistics of environmental complaints are provided in Appendix N.

4.2.2 No notification of summons and prosecution was received during the reporting period.

4.2.3 Statistics on notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix M.

5 Comments, Recommendations and Conclusion

5.1 Comments

5.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays and chemical labels for the chemical containers at vessel Shun Tak 82, chemical containers at N1, N4, N20, S7, S11 and S15-S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for the water pump at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a stopper for the drain hole of the drip tray at S19 and S28.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the kerb of the drip tray on the vessel Hai Bo 8.

§ The Contractor was reminded to place the drip tray properly.

§ The Contractor was reminded to replace the broken drip tray at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil leakage and provide a drain plug for the drip tray at S25.

§ The Contactor was reminded to put the oil drum into drip tray at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the chemical container at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water in the H-beam at N4, N13, S7 and S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the wheel washing facility at N4 and S22.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clear the stagnant water at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water near the backfill material at S11 and S15 storage area.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water from the drip tray at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover the cement bags at N20 and S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper cover for the cement mixing plant at N20.

§ The Contractor was reminded to enclose the gap between silt curtain and sea shore at Portion X and S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper cover for the rubbish bin at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to to clean the walkway of vessels Hai Bo 8 and Harbor Sky 68; dusty material and surround the gullies with sand bags at N20; dusty materials from the barge edge at vessel Hai Bo 8 and Chang Sheng 306.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide impervious sheet to cover the gap between vessel Hai Bo 8 and Chang Sheng 306 during dusty materials transfer at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sand bags along the deck edge and remove the broken sand bags at the deck edge to prevent washing away of sand into the sea.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the rubbish from vessel Sun Tat 82 and N13 and skip at S19 and N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the mechanical cover of dump truck (licence plate: CF 1078) at S15-S16 and dump truck (licence plate: CN920) at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide an enhanced water sprinkler system for the drilling works at N4 and S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water on the stockpiles of dusty materials at N13, during dust material loading of dump truck at S15 and during excavation at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly on the dry fill materials.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide instruction sign for the wheel washing facility at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide high pressure water jet for N20 wheel washing facility.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sleeve tubing for the piling works at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the construction equipment near the retained trees at S11-S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to fill up the recesses of concrete blocks at S7, S11, S19 and S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the excavator to prevent oil leakage at Shun Tat 82.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the noise barriers at S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil stain on the road surface at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to check and ensure the functioning of wastewater treatment system and provide proper treatment for all wastewater generated on-site before discharge.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 The impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the contract. With implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the contract’s environmental impacts were considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.

5.2.2 The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the contract. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.

5.3 Conclusions

5.3.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 17 October 2012. This is the ninth Quarterly EM&A Report which summarises the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 September 2014 to 30 November 2014.

Air Quality

5.3.2 For AMS5, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS 5 during the reporting period.

5.3.3 For AMS6, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level and no Limit Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting period. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP level was recorded on 15 and 27 October 2014, respectively.

Noise

5.3.4 For construction noise, there were no Action Level and Limit Level exceedances during the reporting period.

Water Quality

5.3.5 During the reporting period, nine Action Level exceedances and three Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded.

Dolphin

5.3.6 There were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (September – November 2014).

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

5.3.8 Although dolphins rarely occurred in the area of HKLR03 construction in the past and during the baseline monitoring period, it is apparent that dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in NEL in 2012 - 2014, and many individuals have shifted away from the important habitat around the Brothers Islands.

5.3.9 It critical to monitor the dolphin usage in North Lantau region in the upcoming quarters, to determine whether the dolphins are continuously affected by the various construction activities in relation to the HZMB-related works, and whether suitable mitigation measure can be applied to revert situation.

Mudflat -Sedimentation Rate

5.3.10 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.

5.3.11 Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in September 2014. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

Mudflat - Ecology

5.3.12 The September 2014 survey was the eighth time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on horseshoe crabs, seagrass and intertidal soft shore community.

Environmental Site inspection and Audit

5.3.13 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 3, 10, 17 and 26 September 2014, 3, 8, 15, 22 and 31 October 2014 and 5, 12, 19 and 28 November 2014. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

Monitoring Activity		Monitoring Date
Monitoring Activity		September 2014	October 2014	November 2014
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	AMS5: 4, 10, 18, 22, 26 and 30 AMS6: 4, 10, 16, 22, 26 and 30	6, 10, 16, 22 and 28	3, 7, 13, 19 and 25
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	AMS5: 2, 10, 12, 18, 24 and30 AMS6: 2, 8, 17, 18, 24 and 30	3, 9, 15, 21, 27 and 31	AMS5: 6, 12, 18, 24 AMS6: 6, 12, 18, 24 and 28
Noise		4, 10, 18, 22 and 30	6, 16, 22 and 28	3, 13, 19 and 25
Water Quality		1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26 and 29	1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 31	3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 28
Chinese White Dolphin		2,11,19 and 22	7, 13, 16 and 23	4, 10, 12 and 18
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)		6, 7, 8, 9, 20 and 21	-	-
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation rate)		6	-	-
Site Inspection		3, 10, 17 and 26	3, 8, 15, 22 and 31	5, 12, 19 and 28

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	0	0
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	2	0
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	0	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	9	3
	Turbidity level	0	0
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis (Sep to Nov 2014)	2	0

1 Introduction

1.1.5 This is the ninth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 September 2014 to 30 November 2014.

1.2.1 The project organization structure and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure with the key personnel contact names and numbers are shown in Appendix A.

1.3 Construction Programme

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

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

1.4.1 A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown in Table 1.1. The Works areas of the Contract are showed in Appendix C.

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

2.1.1 The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, dolphin monitoring and mudflat monitoring as specified in the approved EM&A Manual.

2.1.2 A summary of Impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 2.1. The locations of air quality, noise and water quality monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1. The transect line layout in Northwest and Northeast Lantau Survey Areas is presented in Figure 2.2.

2.2.1 Table 2.2 presents the Action and Limit Levels for the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour TSP and noise level.

2.2.2 The Action and Limit Levels for water quality monitoring are given as in Table 2.3.

2.2.3 The Action and Limit Levels for dolphin monitoring are shown in Tables 2.4 and 2.5.

2.3 Event Action Plans

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

2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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

3.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E.

3.1.3 Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records were kept properly.

3.1.4 Dolphin Watching Plan was implemented during the reporting period. No dolphins inside the silt curtain were observed. The relevant records were kept properly.

3.2.1 The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Detailed impact air quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are presented in Appendix G.

3.2.2 For AMS5, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP were recorded at AMS 5 during the reporting period.

3.2.3 For AMS6, no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level and no Limit Level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded during the reporting period. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP level was recorded on 15 and 27 October 2014, respectively.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

3.3.1 The monitoring results for construction noise are summarized in Table 3.3 and the monitoring results and relevant graphical plots for this reporting period are provided in Appendix H.

3.3.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.

3.3.3 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of the Contract and nearby traffic noise.

3.4.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at all designated monitoring stations during the reporting period. Impact water quality monitoring results and relevant graphical plots are provided in Appendix I.

3.4.2 During the reporting period, nine Action Level exceedances and three Limit Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedance of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedances of turbidity were recorded.

3.4.3 Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by other parties and nearby operating vessels by other parties.

Data Analysis

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.5.9 During the period of September to November 2014, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.5.11 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 644.60 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 248.28 km. Both survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix J.

Distribution

3.5.14 Notably, none of the dolphin groups was sighted in the vicinity of the HKLR03/ HKBCF reclamation sites or along the entire alignment of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) during this quarterly period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

Encounter Rate

3.5.20 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were zero, and such low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in the past seven quarters (Table 3.6).

Group Size

3.5.32 Notably, none of the larger dolphin groups were sighted near the HKLR03 reclamation site in the present monitoring period (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

Habitat Use

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.38 During the three-month study period, only four unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised of 4.3% of all animals sighted, which was lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

3.5.43 From September to November 2014, over 2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.44 In total, 26 individuals sighted 49 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix J and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). All of these 49 re-sightings were made in NWL.

3.5.45 The majority of identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of five individuals (NL202, NL214, NL233, NL286 and WL05) being sighted thrice and two individuals (NL48 and NL182) being sighted four times.

3.5.46 Five of these 26 individuals were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys for the same three-month period, showing their movement between North and West Lantau regions.

3.5.47 Five recognized females (NL104, NL182, NL202, NL233 and NL256) were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Some of these mothers were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period since October 2012.

Individual range use

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

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.5.57 There is no evidence showing that the sources of impact directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 that may have affected the dolphin usage in the NEL region.

3.5.60 It was concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors.

3.5.61 It was reminded that the ETs shall keep reviewing the implementation status of the dolphin related mitigation measures and remind the contractor to ensure the relevant measures were fully implemented.

3.5.62 It was recommended that the marine works of HZMB projects should be completed as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.

3.5.65 There was a discussion on exploring possible further mitigation measures, for example, controlling the underwater noise. It was noted that the EIA reports for the projects suggested several mitigation measures, all of which have been implemented.

3.6 Mudflat Monitoring Results

Sedimentation Rate Monitoring

3.6.2 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S1, S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased.

Water Quality Monitoring

3.6.3 The mudflat monitoring covered water quality monitoring data. Reference was made to the water quality monitoring data of the representative water quality monitoring station (i.e. SR3) as in the EM&A Manual. The water quality monitoring location (SR3) is shown in Figure 2.1.

3.6.4 Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in September 2014. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

3.6.5 The Impact monitoring result for SR3 were extracted and summarised below:

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring