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

Description of Activities	Site Area
Dismantling/trimming of temporary 40mm stone platform for construction of seawall	Portion X
Filling works behind stone platform	Portion X
Construction of seawall	Portion X
Loading and unloading of filling materials	Portion X
Band drains installation	Portion X
Excavation and lateral support works for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Socket H-Piling work for Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Excavation for diversion of culvert PR10	Portion X
Construction of tunnel box structure at Scenic Hill Tunnel (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Pipe piling works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Excavation for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel	Portion X
Sheet Piling Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Socket H-Piling Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel East (Cut &Cover Tunnel)	Portion X
Superstructure works for Scenic Hill Tunnel West Portal Ventilation building	West Portal
Pipe piling works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Airport Road
Works for diversion	Kwo Lo Wan Road and Airport Road
Utilities detection	Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road
Establishment of Site Access	Airport Road/ Airport Express Line/ East Coast Road
Canopy pipe drilling / Box Jacking underneath Airport Express Line	Airport Express Line
Pipe roofing drilling / Mined Tunnel excavation underneath Airport Road	Airport Road
Excavation and lateral support works at shaft 3 extension north shaft	Kwo Lo Wan Road
Excavation and Lateral Support Works for HKBCF to Airport Tunnel West (Cut & Cover Tunnel)	Airport Road
Utility culvert excavation	Portion Y
Sub-structure & superstructure works for Highway Operation and Maintenance Area Building	Portion Y

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	�P Depth �P Temperature �P Salinity �P Dissolved Oxygen (DO) �P Suspended Solids (SS) �P DO Saturation �P Turbidity �P pH	�P Impact Stations: IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9 & IS10, �P Control/Far Field Stations: CS2 & CS(Mf)5, �P 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 triggered 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 triggered 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 have rectified all observations identified in environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period. 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 Obtained During the Reporting Period

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
December 2015	AMS5	188	103 - 390	352	500
December 2015	AMS6	191	83 - 385	360
January 2016	AMS5	174	81 - 445	352
January 2016	AMS6	158	76 - 291	360
February 2016	AMS5	138	88 - 213	352
February 2016	AMS6	134	82 - 181	360

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

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
December 2015	AMS5	54	25 - 79	164	260
December 2015	AMS6	88	65 - 114	173
January 2016	AMS5	43	19 - 65	164
January 2016	AMS6	59	28 - 94	173
February 2016	AMS5	51	18 - 102	164
February 2016	AMS6	73	27 - 134	173

Three Action Level exceedances 1-hr TSP level at AMS5 and two Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level at AMS6 were recorded during the reporting period. Record of ��Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances�� is provided in Appendix M.

3.2.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period.

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 Obtained 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)
December 2015	NMS5	61	58 �V 65	When one documented complaint is received	75
January 2016		61	58 �V 65
February 2016		61	59 �V 62

*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 and insect 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, Limit Level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded at stations IS8 and SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016 respectively. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solids level was recorded at station IS8 and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016. Record of ��Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances�� is provided in Appendix M. No exceedance of Action Level for turbidity level was recorded. No exceedances of Action and Limit Level for dissolved oxygen level 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 �V The line-transect survey data was integrated with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of dolphin distribution using sighting positions. Location data of dolphin groups were plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (ArcView� 3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in details. The dataset was also stratified into different subsets to examine distribution patterns of dolphin groups with different categories of group sizes, young calves and activities.

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

3.5.3 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 present quarterly period.

3.5.5 Quantitative grid analysis on habitat use �V To conduct quantitative grid analysis of habitat use, positions of on-effort sightings of Chinese White Dolphins collected during the quarterly impact phase monitoring period were plotted onto 1-km² grids among 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 �V When dolphins were sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour was observed. Different activities were categorized (i.e. feeding, milling/resting, traveling, socializing) and recorded on sighting datasheets. This data was then input into a separate database with sighting information, which can be used to determine the distribution of behavioural data with a desktop GIS. Distribution of sightings of dolphins engaged in different activities and behaviours would then be plotted on GIS and carefully examined to identify important areas for different activities of the dolphins.

3.5.8 Ranging pattern analysis �V 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 December 2015 to February 2016, 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 907.45 km of survey effort was collected, with 95.1% 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, 347.07 km and 560.38 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 655.90 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 251.55 km. Survey effort conducted on both primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix J.

3.5.12 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in December 2015 to February 2016, a total of 14 groups of 57 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. A summary table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Annex II of Appendix J.

3.5.13 For the present quarterly period, all except one dolphin sighting were made during on-effort search, and ten of the thirteen on-effort dolphin sightings were made on primary lines. Moreover, all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, but none was sighted at all in NEL. In fact, since August 2014, only one sighting of a lone dolphin was made in NEL during HKLR03 monitoring surveys.

Distribution

3.5.14 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in December 2015 to February 2016 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. Dolphin sightings made in the present quarter were mostly located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, while a few other sightings were also made near Pillar Point and Sha Chau (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.15 Notably, two dolphin groups were sighted near the northern landfall of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) as well as near Shum Wat near the Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) respectively (Figure 1 of Appendix J). On the other hand, all other dolphin sightings were made far away from the HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites as well as along the southern viaduct of TMCLKL during the present quarterly period (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.16 Sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (December 2015 to February 2016) was compared to the one during the baseline monitoring period (September to November 2011). In the present quarter, dolphins have disappeared from the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands, near Shum Shui Kok and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The nearly complete abandonment of NEL region by the dolphins has been consistently recorded in the past twelve quarters of HKLR03 monitoring, which has resulted in zero to extremely low dolphin encounter rate in this area.

3.5.17 In NWL survey area, dolphin occurrence was also drastically different between the baseline and impact phase periods. During the present impact monitoring period, much fewer dolphins occurred in this survey area than during the baseline period, when many dolphin groups were frequently sighted between Lung Kwu Chau and Black Point, around Sha Chau, near Pillar Point and to the west of the Chek Lap Kok Airport (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.18 Another comparison in dolphin distribution was made between the three quarterly periods of winter months in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (Figure 2 of Appendix J). Among the four winter periods, dolphins were regularly sighted in NEL in 2012-13, but their usage there was dramatically reduced in 2013-14, and the dolphins have completely avoided this area during the winter of 2014-15 and 2015-16 (Figure 2 of Appendix J).

3.5.19 On the other hand, dramatic changes in dolphin distribution in NWL waters were also observed in the winter months during the three quarterly periods (Figure 2 of Appendix J). In 2012-13 and 2013-14, dolphins still regularly occurred throughout the NWL survey area, with higher concentrations of sightings within Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, but they appeared to avoid the waters to the north of the airport in 2013-14 where they normally occurred in the previous winter. In 2014-15 and 2015-16, dolphin usage in NWL was then dramatically reduced, with most sightings clustered around and to the north of Lung Kwu Chau but rarely sighted elsewhere. Such temporal trend indicated that dolphin usage in the NWL region has progressively diminished in recent years.

Encounter Rate

3.5.20 During the present three-month study period, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) for each set of the surveys in NEL and NWL are shown in Table 3.4. The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period (September �V November 2011) (See Table 3.5).

Table 3.4 Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During Reporting Period (December 2015 to February 2016)

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 & 7 Dec 2015)	0.00	0.00
	Set 2 (9 & 15 Dec 2015)	0.00	0.00
	Set 3 (8 & 11 Jan 2016)	0.00	0.00
	Set 4 (13 & 19 Jan 2016)	0.00	0.00
	Set 5 (2 & 3 Feb 2016)	0.00	0.00
	Set 6 (16 & 22 Feb 2016)	0.00	0.00
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (2 & 7 Dec 2015)	4.12	17.84
	Set 2 (9 & 15 Dec 2015)	4.78	11.94
	Set 3 (8 & 11 Jan 2016)	2.79	9.78
	Set 4 (13 & 19 Jan 2016)	1.36	10.90
	Set 5 (2 & 3 Feb 2016)	1.35	6.75
	Set 6 (16 & 22 Feb 2016)	1.44	8.66

Table 3.5 Comparison of average dolphin encounter rates from impact monitoring period (December 2015 to February 2016) and baseline monitoring period (September �V November 2011)

Survey Area	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)		Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Northeast Lantau	0.0	6.00 �� 5.05	0.0	22.19 �� 26.81
Northwest Lantau	2.64 �� 1.52	9.85 �� 5.85	10.98 �� 3.81	44.66 �� 29.85

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

2) �� denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

3.5.21 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 2.32 sightings and 9.11 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were both nil for this quarter.

3.5.22 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period were both zero with no sighting made, and such extremely low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in the past twelve quarters of HKLR03 monitoring (Table 3.6). This is a serious concern as the dolphin occurrence in NEL in the last eleven 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). Dolphins have almost vacated from NEL waters since January 2014, with only two groups of five dolphins sighted there since then despite consistent and intensive survey effort being conducted in this survey area.

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 �V Nov 2011)

Monitoring Period	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	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
December 2014-February 2015 (Impact)	0.00*	0.00*
March-May 2015 (Impact)	0.00	0.00
June-August 2015 (Impact)	0.44 �� 1.08	0.44 �� 1.08
September-November 2015 (Impact)	0.00	0.00
December 2015-February 2016 (Impact)	0.00*	0.00*

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

2) �� denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

3) The encounter rates in winter months were in blue and marked with asterisk.

3.5.23 Moreover, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period were also much lower (reductions of 73.2% and 75.4% respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a dramatic decline in dolphin usage of this survey area as well during the present impact phase period (Table 3.7).

3.5.24 Even for the same winter quarters, the dolphin encounter rates in NWL during the winters of 2014-2015 and 2015-16 were much lower than the ones recorded in winters of 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Table 3.7).

3.5.25 After a slight rebound in encounter rates in NWL in the previous quarter, dolphin occurrence has dropped noticeably once again in the present quarter back to a low level (especially for ER(ANI)) (Table 3.7). Such temporal trend should be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters.

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 �V Nov 2011)

Monitoring Period	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	9.85 �� 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
December 2014-February 2015 (Impact)	2.91 �� 2.69*	11.27 �� 15.19*
March-May 2015 (Impact)	0.47 �� 0.73	2.36 �� 4.07
June-August 2015 (Impact)	2.53 �� 3.20	9.21 �� 11.57
September-November 2015 (Impact)	3.94 �� 1.57	21.05 �� 17.19
December 2015-February 2016 (Impact)	2.64 �� 1.52*	10.98 �� 3.81*

Notes:

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

2) �� denotes the standard deviation of the average encounter rates.

3) The encounter rates in winter months were in blue and marked with asterisk.

3.5.26 As discussed recently in Hung (2015), the dramatic decline in dolphin usage of NEL waters in the past few years (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 since 2012. It appeared that such noticeable decline has already extended to NWL waters progressively in past few years.

3.5.27 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).

3.5.28 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (thirteenth quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0043 and 0.0275 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.29 For comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first thirteen quarters of the impact phase being assessed), the p-values for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.00004 and 0.00001 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.00005, significant differences were still detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.30 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in both NEL and NWL survey areas during the present quarterly period, and such low occurrence of dolphins has also been consistently documented in previous quarters. This raises serious concern, as the timing of the decline in dolphin usage in North Lantau waters coincided well with the construction schedule of the HZMB-related projects (Hung 2015).

3.5.31 To ensure the continuous usage of North Lantau waters by the dolphins, every possible measure should be implemented by the contractors and relevant authorities of HZMB-related works to minimize all disturbances to the dolphins.

Group Size

3.5.32 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from one to ten individuals per group in North Lantau region during December 2015 to February 2016. 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 (Dec 2015 �V Feb 2016) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep �V Nov 2011)

Survey Area	Average Dolphin Group Size
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	4.07 �� 3.22 (n = 14)	3.72 �� 3.13 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	N/A	3.18 �� 2.16 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	4.07 �� 3.22 (n = 14)	3.92 �� 3.40 (n = 49)

Note:

1) �� denotes the standard deviation of the average group size.

3.5.33 The average dolphin group size in NWL waters during December 2015 to February 2016 was slightly higher than the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period (Table 3.8). Eight of the 14 groups were composed of 1-3 individuals only, while three other groups were moderate in sizes with 5-6 individuals per group. Moreover, three large dolphin groups with 8-10 individuals each were sighted during the present quarterly period.

3.5.34 Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes (five individuals or more per group and ten individuals per group) during the present quarter is shown in (Figure 3 of Appendix J), with comparison to the one in baseline period. During the winter months of 2015-16, distribution of these moderately large groups of dolphins were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, near Pillar Point and near the northern landfall of TMCLKL (Figure 3 of Appendix J). This distribution pattern was very different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups were more evenly distributed in NWL waters with a few more sighted in NEL waters (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

Habitat Use

3.5.35 From December 2015 to February 2016, the areas being heavily utilized by Chinese White Dolphins was to the north of Lung Kwu Chau, near Pillar Point and near the northern landfall of TMCLKL in the North Lantau region (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix J). All grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites as well as HKLR09 alignment did not record any presence of dolphins during on-effort search in the present quarterly period, but one grid (N12) overlapped with the northern landfall of TMCLKL recorded moderately high dolphin densities (Figures 4b of Appendix J).

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

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

3.5.38 The density patterns were also very different in NWL between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods, with higher dolphin usage throughout the area, especially 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. In contrast, mainly the waters to the north of Lung Kwu Chau recorded high densities of dolphins during the present impact phase period (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.39 During the present quarterly period, neither unspotted calf nor unspotted juvenile was sighted with any female in the North Lantau region.

3.5.40 The absence of young calves in the present quarter was in stark contrast to their regular occurrence in North Lantau waters during the baseline period. This should be of a serious concern, and the occurrence of young calves in North Lantau waters should be closely monitored in the upcoming quarters.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.5.41 One of the 14 dolphin groups were engaged in feeding activity, while two other dolphin groups were engaged in socializing activities. None of the dolphin groups were engaged in traveling or milling/resting activity during the three-month study period.

3.5.42 The percentage of sightings associated with feeding activities (7.1%) was much lower than the one recorded during the baseline period (11.6%), while the one associated with socializing activities (14.2%) during the present impact phase period was much higher than the one from the baseline period (5.4%). However, it should be noted the sample sizes on total numbers of dolphin sightings during the present quarter (14 dolphin groups) was much lower than the baseline period (66 dolphin groups).

3.5.43 Distribution of dolphins engaged in various activities during the present three-month period is shown in Figure 6 of Appendix J. The only dolphin group engaged in feeding activity was sighted near Sha Chau, while the two groups engaged in socializing activities were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau and near the northern landfall of TMCLKL.

3.5.44 When compared to the baseline period, distribution of various dolphin activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was drastically different with a much more restricted area of occurrences of these activities (Figure 6 of Appendix J).

3.5.45 As consistently recorded in the past monitoring quarters, none of the 14 dolphin groups was found to be associated with any operating fishing vessel in North Lantau waters during the present impact phase period.

Summary Photo-identification works

3.5.46 From December 2015 to February 2016, over 1,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.47 In total, 21 individuals sighted 48 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 re-sightings were made in NWL.

3.5.48 The majority of identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of six individuals (NL182, NL210, NL220, NL284, NL286 and NL320) being 3-4 times and another two individuals (NL48 and NL285) being sighted 5 times in the present quarter.

3.5.49 For the first time since such comparison has been made, none of the 21 individuals sighted in HKLR03 monitoring surveys was sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys in the same quarter. The restricted movements of individuals between North and West Lantau waters should be continuously monitored to determine whether the presence of HKLR09 alignments has affected such movements.

Individual range use

3.5.50 Ranging patterns of the 21 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex V of Appendix J.

3.5.51 All identified dolphins sighted in the present quarter were utilizing NWL waters only, but have completely avoided 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 the baseline period.

3.5.52 Moreover, none of the 21 individuals have extended their range use to WL or SWL waters during the present quarter, which was very different from the previous quarters when frequent individual movements between the North and West Lantau waters were observed. In the upcoming quarters, individual range use and movements should be continuously monitored to examine whether there has been any significant change in individual range use, which could possibly be related to the HZMB-related construction works or the physical presence of the bridge structures (see Hung 2015).

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.5.53 There was one Limit Level (LL) exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2015 �V February 2016). According to the contractor��s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of December 2015 to February 2016 included reclamation, construction of surcharge, removal of surcharge materials, construction of seawall, temporary drainage diversion, ground investigation and maintenance of silt curtain.

3.5.54 There is no evidence showing the current LL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 (where the amounts of working vessels for HKLR03 have been decreasing), 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 (CWD). In addition, the contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department��s designated anchorage site �V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

3.5.55 According to Monitoring of Chinese White Dolphins in Southwest Lantau Waters �V Fourth Quarterly Report (December 2015 to February 2016) which is available on ENPO��s website, with their primary ranges centered in North and West Lantau waters, some individuals showed apparent range shifts or extensions to Southwest Lantau waters in 2015-16. For example, three individual dolphins (NL120, WL46 and WL221) indicated obvious shifts in their range use from NWL to West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) waters. Moreover, many individuals (e.g. NL212, NL260, WL200, SL55, WL232, WL237 and WL265) have extended their ranges from WL waters to SWL waters. It remains to be seen whether some of these individuals have permanently shifted their ranges away from their primary ranges in North Lantau, or begin to spend more times in SWL waters as part of their ranges.

3.5.56 ENPO updated that the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Authority (HZMBA) for the Mainland section of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) has commenced an interim survey on fisheries resources and CWD in the Mainland waters. ENPO presented the preliminary findings of the HZMBA interim survey on CWD sighting and photo-identification works which provide solid evidence that some CWD that were previously more often sighted in HK waters have expanded their ranges into the Mainland waters, and some with reduced usage in HK waters. These preliminary data were mentioned in Monitoring of Chinese White Dolphins in Southwest Lantau Waters �V Fourth Quarterly Report (December 2015 to February 2016) which is available on ENPO��s website.

3.5.57 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).

3.5.58 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (13^th quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0043 and 0.0275 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.05, significant differences were detected between the baseline and present quarters in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.59 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first thirteen quarters of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.00004 and 0.00001 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.00005, significant differences were detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.60 The AFCD monitoring data during December 2015 to February 2016 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist. During the same quarter, no dolphin was sighted from 144.19 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL, while three groups of eight dolphins were sighted from 121.56 km of survey effort on primary lines in NWL. This review has confirmed that the low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring surveys in winter 2015-16 in NEL and NWL survey area is accurate.

3.5.61 All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. According to the Marine Travel Route Plan, the travelling speed of vessels must not exceed 5 knots when crossing the edge of the proposed marine park. 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. Also, it is recommended to complete the marine works of the Contract as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.

3.5.62 A meeting was held on 20 April 2016 with attendance of representative of Highways Department (HyD), ENPO, Resident Site Staff (RSS), Environmental Team (ET) and dolphin specialist for Contract Nos. HY/2010/02, HY/2011/03, HY/2012/07, HY/2012/08. Also, main Contractor for Contract Nos. HY/2012/08 attended the meeting. The discussion/ recommendation as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which might be relevant to HKLR03 Contract are summarized below.

3.5.63 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.

3.5.64 The dolphin specialists of the projects confirmed that the CWD sighting around the North of Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP) has significantly decreased, and it was apparently related to the re-routing of high speed ferry (HSF) from Skypier.

3.5.65 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.

3.5.66 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.

3.5.67 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.

3.5.68 It was suggested that the protection measures (e.g., speed limit control) for the proposed Brothers 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. HyD updated that the draft map of the proposed BMP was gazetted in February 2016. The ETs were reminded to update the BMP boundary in the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan.

3.5.69 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 1 December 2015. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.9 and Table 3.10.

Table 3.9 Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

	Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)			Impact Monitoring (December 2015)
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level (mPD)	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level (mPD)
S1	810291.160	816678.727	0.950	810291.172	816678.729	1.052
S2	810958.272	815831.531	0.864	810958.261	815831.520	0.974
S3	810716.585	815953.308	1.341	810716.586	815953.312	1.475
S4	811221.433	816151.381	0.931	811221.460	816151.373	1.071

Table 3.10 Comparison of Measurement

	Comparison of measurement			Remarks and Recommendation
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level (mPD)	Remarks and Recommendation
S1	0.012	0.002	0.102	Level continuously increased
S2	-0.011	-0.011	0.110	Level continuously increased
S3	0.001	0.004	0.134	Level continuously increased
S4	0.027	-0.008	0.140	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 December 2015. 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 3.11 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)
2-Dec-15	6.56	7.35	7.20	6.51	9.50	10.40
4-Dec-15	6.29	5.95	6.40	6.71	4.85	8.40
7-Dec-15	6.31	6.40	6.40	6.38	4.75	4.75
9-Dec-15	6.30	9.55	10.50	6.47	6.60	8.30
11-Dec-15	6.34	8.35	10.35	6.22	6.55	7.80
14-Dec-15	6.62	9.95	10.25	6.61	8.60	10.70
16-Dec-15	7.22	9.55	10.70	6.75	12.05	13.70
18-Dec-15	7.16	5.80	8.70	7.38	8.20	6.55
21-Dec-15	6.78	5.20	7.30	6.98	4.10	9.25
23-Dec-15	6.86	7.75	9.55	6.81	6.40	8.50
25-Dec-15	7.03	4.00	4.30	6.97	4.55	4.65
28-Dec-15	6.90	7.60	9.10	7.14	10.30	11.65
30-Dec-15	7.12	10.05	10.45	6.94	6.80	7.85
Average	6.73	7.50	8.55	6.76	7.17	8.65

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

3.6.6 In order to collect baseline information of mudflats in the study site, the study site was divided into three sampling zones (labeled as TC1, TC2, TC3) in Tung Chung Bay and one zone in San Tau (labeled as ST) (Figure 2.1 of Appendix O). The horizontal length of sampling zones TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST were about 250 m, 300 m, 300 m and 250 m, respectively. Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in every sampling zone. The present survey was conducted in December 2015 (totally 6 sampling days between 5^th and 20^th December 2015).

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 16^th (for TC3 and ST) and 20^th (for TC1 and TC2) December 2015. The weather was cloudy and cold during the survey.

Seagrass Beds

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 16^th (for TC3 and ST) and 20^th (for TC1 and TC2) December 2015. The weather was cloudy and cold during the survey.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.8 The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period 5^th (for TC1), 12^th (for TC2), 13^th (for ST) and 19^th December 2015 (for TC3) 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.

3.6.9 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 were dug for visible infauna in the quadrat regardless of hand core sample was taken.

3.6.10 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.

3.6.11 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

3.6.12 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��= -�U ( 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

3.6.13 In general, two species of horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (total 2 ind.) and Tachypleus tridentatus (total 6 ind.) were recorded. The total number of sight record was very low due to cold, dry season. Individuals were found on either fine sand or soft mud. Every sight record consisted of one individual only hence no grouping was observed. Photo records were shown in Figure 3.1 of Appendix O while the complete records of horseshoe crab survey in every sampling zone were shown in Annex II of Appendix O.

3.6.14 One newly hatched individual (prosomal width 6.31 mm) was found in TC1 (Figure 3.1 of Appendix O) on ST shore (GPS coordinate: 22�X 17.385' N, 113�X 55.460' E). Since morphological identification could not be conducted in-situ due to too small size. This record was excluded from the data analysis of either horseshoe crab species.

3.6.15 Table 3.1 of Appendix O summarizes the survey results of horseshoe crab in present survey. For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, there was one individual in TC3 and ST only. The search record was 0.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 in both sampling zones. The size of individuals was quite big with prosomal width 117.37-178.17 mm.

3.6.16 For Tachypleus tridentatus, it could be found in TC1 (1 ind.), TC3 (3 ind.) and ST (2 ind.). The search records were 0.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1, 0.8 ind. hr^-1 person^-1and 0.5 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 in TC1, TC3 and ST respectively. The size of individuals in ST (mean prosomal width 94.08 mm) was larger than that of TC1 (prosomal width 39.30 mm) and TC3 (mean prosomal width 41.98 mm).

3.6.17 In the previous survey of March 2015, there was one important finding that a mating pair of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was found in ST (prosomal width: male 155.1 mm, female 138.2 mm) (Figure 3.2 of Appendix O). It indicated the importance of ST as a breeding ground of horseshoe crab. Moreover, two moults of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda were found in TC1 with similar prosomal width 130-140 mm (Figure 3.2 of Appendix O). It reflected that a certain numbers of moderately sized individuals inhabited the sub-tidal habitat of Tung Chung Wan after its nursery period on soft shore. These individuals might move onto soft shore during high tide for feeding, moulting and breeding. Then it would return to sub-tidal habitat during low tide. Because the mating pair should be inhabiting sub-tidal habitat in most of the time. The record was excluded from the data analysis to avoid mixing up with juvenile population living on soft shore. In present survey the records of the two big individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (prosomal width 117.37 mm and 178.17 mm) were excluded from data analysis according to the same principle.

3.6.18 No marked individual of horseshoe crab was recorded in present survey. Some marked individuals were found in previous surveys conducted in September 2013, March 2014 and September 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. There should be second round of release between June and September 2014 since new marked individuals were found in the survey of September 2014.

3.6.19 The artificial bred individuals, if found, would be 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 after a certain period of release. 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.

Population difference among the sampling zones

3.6.20 Figures 3.3 and 3.4 of Appendix O show the changes of number of individuals, mean prosomal width and search record of horseshoe crabs 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 followed by TC3 from September 2012 to June 2014. Then the search record in TC3 was even higher than that in ST from September 2014 to June 2015. In September 2015, the search records were similar in TC3 and ST. For TC1, the search record was at low to medium level and fluctuated slightly along the sampling months. In contrast, much lower search record was found in TC2 (2 ind. in September 2013, 1 ind. in March, June, September 2014, March and June 2015, 4 ind. in Sep. 2015). For spatial difference of horseshoe crab size, larger individuals were usually found in ST while smaller individuals were usually found in TC3.

3.6.21 Throughout the monitoring period conducted, it was obvious that TC3 and ST (western shore of Tung Chung Wan) 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 a suitable nursery ground especially TC2. Possible factors were less area of suitable substratum (especially TC1) and higher human disturbance (TC1 and TC2: 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 inhabiting TC1 and TC2 were confined in small moving range due to limited area of suitable substrata during the nursery period.

Seasonal variation of horseshoe crab population

3.6.22 Throughout the monitoring period conducted, the search record of horseshoe crab declined obviously during dry season especially December (Figures 3.3 and 3.4 of Appendix O). In December 2013, no individual of horseshoe crab was found. In December 2014, 2 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and 8 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus were found only. In present survey (December 2015), 2 individuals of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, 6 individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus and one newly hatched, unidentified individual were found only. 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 0.00 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.

3.6.23 Between the sampling months September 2012 and December 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was a less common species relative to Tachypleus tridentatus. Only 4 individuals were ever recorded in ST in December 2012. This species had ever been believed of very low density in ST hence the encounter rate was very low. Since March. 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 about 3 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 March 2014 to September 2015, more individuals were recorded due to larger size and higher activity.

3.6.24 For Tachypleus tridentatus, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded in ST with wet season (from March to September 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 wet season of 2014. The number of individuals increased in March and June 2014 followed by a rapid decline in September 2014. Then the number of individuals showed a general decreasing trend from March 2014 to June 2015. 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 since March 2014. Then it varied slightly between 50-65 mm from September 2014 to September 2015. Most of the individuals might have reached a suitable size strong enough to forage in sub-tidal habitat.

3.6.25 Since TC3 and ST were regarded as important nursery ground for horseshoe crab, box plots of prosomal width of two horseshoe crab species were constructed to investigate the changes of population in details.

Box plot of horseshoe crab populations in TC3

3.6.26 Figure 3.5 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in TC3. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was rarely found between September 2012 and December 2013 hence the data were lacking. In March 2014, the major size (50% of individual records between upper and lower quartile) ranged 40-60 mm while only few individuals were found. From March 2014 to September 2015, the size of major population decreased and more small individuals were recorded after March of every year. It indicated new rounds of successful breeding and spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in TC3. It matched with the previous mating record in ST in March 2015.

3.6.27 For Tachypleus tridentatus, the major size ranged 20-50 mm while the number of individuals found fluctuated from September 2012 to June 2014. Then a slight but consistent growing trend was observed. The prosomal width increased from 25-35 mm in September 2014 to 35-65 mm in June 2015. As mentioned, the large individuals might have reached a suitable size for migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat. It accounted for the declined population in TC3. In September and December 2015 (present survey), there was only one and three individuals recorded.

Box plot of horseshoe crab populations in ST

3.6.28 Figure 3.6 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in ST. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was rarely found between September 2012 and December 2013 hence the data were lacking. From Mar. 2014 to Sep. 2015, the size of major population decreased and more small individuals were recorded after June of every year. It indicated new rounds of successful breeding and spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in ST. It matched with the previous mating record in ST in March 2015. Because most of newly hatched individuals (prosomal width ~5mm) would take about half year to grow to a size with conspicuous walking trail.

3.6.29 For Tachypleus tridentatus, a consistent growing trend was observed for the major population from December 2012 to December 2014 regardless of change of search record. The prosomal width increased from 15-30 mm to 55-70 mm. As mentioned, the large individuals might have reached a suitable size for migrating from the nursery soft shore to subtidal habitat. From March to September 2015, the size of major population decreased slightly to a prosomal width 40-60 mm. At the same time, the number of individuals decreased gradually. It further indicated some of large individuals might have migrated to sub-tidal habitats. In December 2015 (present survey), two big individuals (prosomal width 89.27 mm and 98.89 mm) were recorded only while it could not represent the major population.

3.6.30 As a summary for horseshoe crab populations in TC3 and ST, there was successful spawning of Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda from 2014 to 2015. The spawning time should be in spring while the major spawning month might be different slightly between two zones. There were consistent, increasing trends of population size in these two sampling zones. For Tachypleus tridentatus, small individuals were rarely found TC3 and ST from 2014 to 2015. It was believed no occurrence of successful spawning. The existing individuals (that recorded since 2012) grew to a mature size and migrated to sub-tidal habitat. Hence the number of individuals decreased gradually. It was expected the population would remain at low level until new round of successful spawning.

Impact of the HKLR project

3.6.31 The present survey was the 13^th survey 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

3.6.32 In general, seagrass was found in TC3 and ST only. In TC3, seagrass Halophila ovalis was found on mud flat between 0.5 and 1.0 m above C.D.. In ST, two seagrass species Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were recorded. Both species were found on sandy substratum nearby the seaward side of mangrove vegetation at 2.0 m above C.D. Two species were found coexisting in a long strand of seagrass bed. Photo records were shown in Figure 3.7 of Appendix O while the complete records of seagrass beds survey were shown in Annex III of Appendix O.

3.6.33 Table 3.2 of Appendix O summarize the results of seagrass beds survey. In TC3, two small patches of Halophila ovalis were found while the total seagrass bed area was about 19.8 m² (average area 9.9 m²). The patches were in irregular shape with area 5.0-14.8 m²and low-medium vegetation coverage 30-60%

3.6.34 In ST, six patches of Halophila ovalis were found while the total seagrass bed area was about 206.2 m² (average area 34.4 m²). The largest patch was in irregular shape with seagrass bed area 76.2 m² and high vegetation coverage 80%. Two smaller patches were long strands (46.8 and 51.8 m²) with medium vegetation coverage 50-60%. One of them had co-existing seagrass Zostera japonica in less vegetation coverage. The rest were small patches with seagrass bed area 2.1-16.4 m² and low to medium vegetation coverage 30-50%. For Zostera japonica, it was coexisting with Halophila ovalis in a long strand (51.8 m²) of seagrass bed with lower vegetation coverage 30%.

3.6.35 Since majority of seagrass bed was confined in ST, the temporal change of both seagrass species were investigated in details.

Temporal variation of seagrass beds

3.6.36 Figure 3.8 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds in ST along the sampling months. For Zostera japonica, it was not recorded in the 1^st and 2^nd surveys of monitoring programme. Seasonal recruitment of few, small patches (total seagrass area: 10 m²) was found in March 2013 that grew within the large patch of seagrass Halophila ovalis. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually with the warmer climate from March to June 2013 (15 m²). However the patch size decreased sharply and remained similar from September 2013 (4 m²) to March 2014 (3 m²). In June 2014, the patch size increased obviously again (41 m²) with warmer climate. Similar to previous year, the patch size decreased again and remained similar September 2014 (2 m²) to December 2014 (5 m²). From March to June 2015, the patch size increased sharply again (90.0 m²). It might be due to the disappearance of the originally dominant seagrass Halophila ovalis resulting in less competition for substratum and nutrients. From September to December 2015, the patch size decreased and was found coexisting with seagrass Halophila ovalis. In general, the seagrass bed of Zostera japonica fluctuated in patch size along the sampling months.

3.6.37 For Halophila ovalis, it was recorded as 3-4 medium to large patches (area 18.9 - 251.7 m²; vegetation coverage 50-80%) beside the mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D in the September 2012 (first survey). The total seagrass bed area grew steadily from 332.3 m² in September 2012 to 727.4 m² in December 2013. Flowers could be observed in the largest patch during its flowering period in December 2013. In March 2014, 31 small to medium patches were newly recorded (variable area 1-72 m² per patch, vegetation coverage 40-80% per patch) in lower tidal zone between 1.0 and 1.5 m above C.D. The total seagrass area increased further to 1350 m². In June 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 �V 2443 m²) of seagrass beds characterized of patchy distribution, variable vegetable coverage (40-80%) and smaller leaves. The total seagrass bed area increased sharply to 7629 m². In September 2014, the total seagrass area declined sharply to 1111 m². There were only 3-4 small to large patches (6 - 253 m²) at high tidal level and 1 patch at low tidal level (786 m²). Typhoon or strong water current was a possible cause (Fong, 1998). In September 2014, there were two tropical cyclone records in Hong Kong (7^th-8^th September: no cyclone name, maximum signal number 1; 14^th-17^th September: Kalmaegi maximum signal number 8SE) before the seagrass survey dated 21^st September 2014. The strong water current caused by the cyclone, Kalmaegi especially, might have given damage to the seagrass beds. In addition, natural heat stress and grazing force were other possible causes reducing seagrass beds area. 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.

3.6.38 In December 2014, all the seagrass patches of Halophila ovalis disappeared in ST. Figure 3.9 of Appendix O shows the difference of the original seagrass beds area nearby the mangrove vegetation at high tidal level between June 2014 and December 2014. Such rapid loss would not be seasonal phenomenon because the seagrass beds at higher tidal level (2.0 m above C.D.) were present and normal in December 2012 and 2013. According to Fong (1998), similar incident had occurred in ST in the past. The original seagrass area had declined significantly during the commencement of the construction and reclamation works for the international airport at Chek Lap Kok in 1992. The seagrass almost disappeared in 1995 and recovered gradually after the completion of reclamation works. Moreover, incident of rapid loss of seagrass area was also recorded in another intertidal mudflat in Lai Chi Wo in 1998 with unknown reason. Hence Halophila ovalis was regarded as a short-lived and r-strategy seagrass that can colonize areas in short period but disappears quickly under unfavourable conditions (Fong, 1998).

Unfavourable conditions to seagrass Halophila ovalis

3.6.39 Typhoon or strong water current was suggested as one unfavourable condition to Halophila ovalis (Fong, 1998). As mentioned above, there were two tropical cyclone records in Hong Kong in September 2014. The strong water current caused by the cyclones might have given damage to the seagrass beds.

3.6.40 Prolonged light deprivation due to turbid water would be another unfavouable condition. Previous studies reported that Halophila ovalis had little tolerance to light deprivation. During experimental darkness, seagrass biomass declined rapidly after 3-6 days and seagrass died completely after 30 days. The rapid death might be due to shortage of available carbohydrate under limited photosynthesis or accumulation of phytotoxic end products of anaerobic respiration (details see Longstaff et al., 1999). Hence the seagrass bed of this species was susceptible to temporary light deprivation events such as flooding river runoff (Longstaff and Dennison, 1999).

3.6.41 In order to investigate any deterioration of water quality (e.g. more turbid) in ST, the water quality measurement results at two closest monitoring stations SR3 and IS5 of the EM&A programme were obtained from the water quality monitoring team. Based on the results from June to December 2014, the overall water quality was in normal fluctuation except there was one exceedance of suspended solids (SS) at both stations in September. On 10^th September, 2014, the SS concentrations measured at mid-ebb tide at stations SR3 (27.5 mg/L) and IS5 (34.5 mg/L) exceeded the Action Level (≤23.5 mg/L and 120% of upstream control station��s reading) and Limit Level (≤34.4 mg/L and 130% of upstream control station��s reading) respectively. The turbidity readings at SR3 and IS5 reached 24.8-25.3 NTU and 22.3-22.5 NTU respectively. The temporary turbid water should not be caused by the runoff from upstream rivers. Because there was no rain or slight rain from 1^st to 10^th September 2014 (daily total rainfall at the Hong Kong International Airport: 0-2.1 mm; extracted from the climatological data of Hong Kong Observatory). The effect of upstream runoff on water quality should be neglectable in that period. Moreover the exceedance of water quality was considered unlikely to be related to the contract works of HKLR according to the ��Notifications of Environmental Quality Limits Exceedances�� provided by the respective environmental team. The respective construction of seawall and stone column works, which possibly caused turbid water, were carried out within silt curtain as recommended in the EIA report. Moreover there was no leakage of turbid water, abnormity or malpractice recorded during water sampling. In general, the exceedance of suspended solids concentration was considered to be attributed to other external factors, rather than the contract works.

3.6.42 Based on the weather condition and water quality results in ST, the co-occurrence of cyclone hit and turbid waters in September 2014 might have combined the adverse effects on Halophila ovalis that leaded to disappearance of this short-lived and r-strategy seagrass species. Fortunately Halophila ovalis was a fast-growing species (Vermaat et al., 1995). Previous studies showed that the seagrass bed could be recovered to the original sizes in 2 months through vegetative propagation after experimental clearance (Supanwanid, 1996). Moreover it was reported to recover rapidly in less than 20 days after dugong herbivory (Nakaoka and Aioi, 1999). As mentioned, the disappeared seagrass in ST in 1995 could recover gradually after the completion of reclamation works for international airport (Fong, 1998). The seagrass beds of Halophila ovalis might recolonize the mudflat of ST through seed reproduction as long as there was no unfavourable condition in the coming months.

Recolonization of seagrass beds

3.6.43 Figure 3.9 of Appendix O shows the changes of seagrass bed area at ST. From March to June 2015, 2-3 small patches of Halophila ovalis were newly found coinhabiting with another seagrass species Zostera japonica. But its total patch area was still very low relative to the previous records. The recolonization rate was low while cold weather and insufficient sunlight were possible factors between December 2014 and March 2015. Moreover, it would need to compete with more abundant seagrass Zostera japonica for substratum and nutrient. Since Zostera japonica had extended and had covered the original seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis at certain degree. From June to December 2015, the total seagrass area of Halophila ovalis had increased rapidly from 6.8 m² to 206.21 m². It had recolonized its original patch locations and covered Zostera japonica. Hence it was expected that the seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis would increase continually in the following months.

Impact of the HKLR project

3.6.44 The present survey was the 13^th survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. According to the results of present survey, there was recolonization of both seagrass species Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica in ST. The seagrass patches were believed in recovery. Hence the negative impact of HKLR project on the seagrass was not significant. In case, adverse phenomenon (e.g. reduction of seagrass patch size, abnormal change of leave colour) is observed again, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.45 Table 3.3 and Figure 3.10 of Appendix O show the types of substratum along the horizontal transect at every tidal level in 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. The distribution of substratum types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones:

�P In TC1, high percentage of ��Gravels and Boulders�� (80-100%) was recorded at all tidal levels while the rest was ��Sands�� (20% at high and low tidal levels).

�P In TC2, high percentage of ��Sands�� (60-80%) was recorded at high and mid tidal levels followed by ��Soft mud�� (20-30%). At low tidal level, high percentage of ��Soft mud�� (80%) was recorded followed by ��Sands�� (20%).

�P In TC3, the substratum type was clearly different between high-mid tidal level and low tidal level. ��Sands�� (50-80%) and ��Soft mud�� (20-40%) were the main substratum types at high and mid tidal levels. ��Gravels and Boulders�� (100%) was the only substratum type at low tidal level.

�P In ST, the substratum type was clearly different between high-mid tidal level and low tidal level. ��Gravels and Boulders�� (100%) was the only substratum type at high and mid tidal levels. At low tidal level, higher percentage of ��Gravels and Boulders�� (50%) was recorded followed by ��Sands�� (30%) and ��Soft mud�� (20%).

3.6.46 There was neither consistent vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of substratum type in 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.

3.6.47 Table 3.4 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in this survey. A total of 10726 individuals were recorded. Mollusca was significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 10409, density 347 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 97.0%). The second abundant phylum was Arthropoda (201 ind., 7 ind. m^-2, 1.9%). The less abundant phyla were Annelida (37 ind., 1 ind. m^-2, 0.3%), Sipuncula (33 ind., 1 ind. m^-2, 0.3%) and Echiura (24 ind., 1 ind. m^-2, 0.2%). Relatively other phyla were very low in abundances (density £1 ind. m^-2, relative abundance £0.1%). Moreover, the most diverse phylum was Mollusca (37 taxa) followed by Arthropoda (11 taxa) and Annelida (7 taxa). There was 1-2 taxa recorded only for other phyla. The taxonomic resolution and complete list of collected specimens are shown in Annex IV and V of Appendix O.

3.6.48 Table 3.5 of Appendix O shows the number of individual, relative abundance and density of each phylum in every sampling zone. The total abundance (1443-3660 ind.) varied among the four sampling zones while the phyla distributions were similar. In general, Mollusca was the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 1367-3602 ind.; relative abundance 94.7-98.4%; density 182-480 ind. m^-2). Other phyla were significantly lower in number of individuals. Arthropoda was the second abundant phylum (26-73 ind.; 0.7-3.7%; 3-10 ind. m^-2). Echiura was the third abundant phylum (17 ind.; 0.5%; 2 ind. m^-2) in TC1. Annelida was the third and forth abundant phylum (13-16 ind.; 0.4-1.1%; 2 ind. m^-2) in TC2 and TC3 respectively. Sipuncula was the third abundant phylum (16 ind.; 0.5%; 2 ind. m^-2) in TC3. Cnidaria (sea anemone) was the third abundant phylum (13 ind.; 0.5%; 2 ind. m^-2) in ST. Relatively other phyla were low in abundance among the four sampling zones (≤ 0.4%).

Dominant species in every sampling zone

3.6.49 Table 3.6 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) in every sampling zone. In TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was the most abundant species of high density (265 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 56%) followed by gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (79 ind. m^-2, 17%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (68 ind. m^-2, 14%) at high tidal level (major substratum: ��Gravels and Boulders��). At mid and low tidal levels (major substratum: ��Gravels and Boulders��), the abundant species were gastropods Batillaria multiformis (121-170 ind. m^-2, 23-37%), Monodonta labio (136-156 ind. m^-2, 29-30%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (76-155 ind. m^-2, 16-29%, attached on boulders) at moderate densities.

3.6.50 At TC2, gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis (122 ind. m^-2, 53%) was the most abundant at moderate density followed by gastropod Cerithidea cingulata (70 ind. m^-2, 20%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (56 ind. m^-2, 16%) at high tidal level (major substratum: ��Sands��). Relative to high tidal level, the density of every species was much lower and similar at mid and low tidal levels. No species was clearly dominant. At mid tidal level (major substratum: ��Sands��), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (54 ind. m^-2, 35%), gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (30 ind. m^-2, 19%), Batillaria zonalis (26 ind. m^-2, 16%) and Cerithidea cingulata (18 ind. m^-2, 11%) were commonly occurring at low densities. At low tidal level (major substratum: ��Soft mud��), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (28 ind. m^-2, 44%), barnacle Balanus amphitrite (9 ind. m^-2, 14%) and gastropod Lunella coronata (7 ind. m^-2, 11%) were commonly occurring at low density.

3.6.51 At TC3, the abundant species were similar in density at high and mid tidal levels (major substratum: ��Sands��). No species was clearly dominant. There were gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (96-99 ind. m^-2, 35-37%), Cerithidea cingulata (72 ind. m^-2, 25-28%), Batillaria multiformis (92 ind. m^-2, 32% at high tidal level) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (32 ind. m^-2, 12% at mid tidal level) at low-medium densities. At low tidal level (major substratum: ��Gravels and Boulders��), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (304 ind. m^-2, 47%) was clearly abundant followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (180 ind. m^-2, 28%) at moderate density.

3.6.52 At ST, gastropod Monodonta labio (103-136 ind. m^-2, 23-32%), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (61-150 ind. m^-2, 14-34%) and gastropod Lunella coronata (49-69 ind. m^-2, 12-15%) were abundant at low-medium densities at high and mid tidal levels (major substratum: ��Gravels and Boulders��). Gastropod Batillaria multiformis (111 ind. m^-2, 26%) was also at medium density at high tidal level. At low tidal level (major substratum: ��Gravels and Boulders��), gastropod Lunella coronata (58 ind. m^-2, 30%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (54 ind. m^-2, 28%) were relatively abundant at low densities.

3.6.53 In general, there was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across all sampling zones and tidal levels. The species distribution should be determined by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria multiformis (total number of individuals: 2057 ind., relative abundance 19.2%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (1155 ind., 10.8%) and Cerithidea cingulata (834 ind., 7.8%) were the most commonly occurring species on sandy and soft mud substrata. Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2458 ind., 22.9%), gastropods Monodonta labio (1946 ind., 18.1%) and Lunella coronata (674 ind., 6.3%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

Biodiversity and abundance of soft shore communities

3.6.54 Table 3.7 of Appendix O shows the mean values of species number, 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, the mean species number (11 spp. 0.25 m^-2) and mean H�� (1.6) in ST were slightly higher than other sampling zones (mean species number: 7-9 spp. 0.25 m^-2, H�� 1.2-1.4). The mean densities were quite variable among sites. The mean density of TC1 was highest (488 ind. m^-2) followed by TC3 (395 ind. m^-2) and ST (355 ind. m^-2). TC2 was lowest in mean density (192 ind. m^-2). However mean J showed no clear difference among sampling zones (0.6-0.8).

3.6.55 Across the tidal levels, there was no consistent difference of the mean number of species, H�� and J in all sampling zones. For the mean density, a general decreasing trend was observed from high to low tidal level at TC2 and ST. But a general increasing trend was observed from low to high tidal level at TC1 and TC3. As mentioned, the variation of mean density should be determined by the type of substratum primarily.

3.6.56 Figures 3.11 to 3.14 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. Overall no consistent temporal change of any biological parameters was observed. All the parameters were under slight and natural fluctuation with the seasonal variation.

Impact of the HKLR project

3.6.57 The present survey was the 13^th 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 Practice 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 follows:

Air Quality

4.1.2 Three Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level at AMS5 and two Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level at AMS6 were recorded during the reporting period. There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period.

Noise

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

Water Quality

4.1.1 For marine water quality monitoring, a Limit Level exceedance of turbidity level was recorded at stations IS8 and SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016 respectively. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solids level was recorded at station IS8 and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016.

4.1.2 The construction activities were carried out within silt curtain as recommended in the EIA Report. There were no specific activities recorded during the monitoring period that would cause any significant impacts on the monitoring results. The exceedance of suspended solid level was considered to be attributed to other external factors, rather than the contract works. Therefore, the exceedance was 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.

Table 4.1 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total Number of Exceedances
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS5	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)6	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS7	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS7	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS8	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	0	1
IS8	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	--	--	0	1
IS(Mf)9	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS10	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
IS10	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR3	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR3	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR4	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR4	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	5 Feb 2016	--	5 Feb 2016	0	2
SR5	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR5	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10A	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10A	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10B	Action Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
SR10B	Limit Level	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1**
Total	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	3**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

** The total exceedances.

Dolphin

4.1.3 There was one Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2015 �V February 2016). According to the contractor��s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of December 2015 to February 2016 included reclamation, construction of surcharge, removal of surcharge materials, construction of seawall, temporary drainage diversion, ground investigation and maintenance of silt curtain.

4.1.4 There is no evidence showing the current LL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03 (where the amounts of working vessels for HKLR03 have been decreasing), 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 �V Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

4.1.5 All dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. According to the Marine Travel Route Plan, the travelling speed of vessels must not exceed 5 knots when crossing the edge of the proposed marine park. 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. Also, it is recommended to complete the marine works of the Contract as soon as possible so as to reduce the overall duration of impacts and allow the dolphins population to recover as early as possible.

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

4.2.1 There were no complaints received during the 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 water the haul road to prevent fugitive dust emissions at N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to close mechanical cover of the dump truck when transporting dusty materials S16.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide water spay to dusty stockpile to avoid fugitive dust emission at N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to cover the cement bags entirely at N1and S15.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper enclosure for the grouting station at HAT.

�� The Contractor was reminded to clean up the silt/dirt/dusty materials from the roadside near S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to clear the sand from roadside of S25.

�� The Contractor was reminded to place the noise barriers properly at S16.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide wheel washing for vehicles before leaving the site at N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures to avoid falling off of objects into the storm drain at N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide sand bags around the manhole to prevent discharge of silty surface runoff into the drain at HAT.

�� The Contractor was reminded to turn on the mixer of wastewater treatment plant to ensure the treatment efficiency at N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the construction materials near the entrance of wheel washing bay at S23.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the accumulated sediment inside the wastewater treatment facility regularly at S23.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the blockage inside the wheel washing facility at N4.

�� The Contractor was reminded to maintain a bund /provide proper protection along the seafront to avoid dropping silt or debris into the sea at S7 and S11.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide proper treatment for the wastewater generated from the construction site at S11.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide proper protection along the deck of the barging point at S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to align, inspect and maintain the silt curtains properly at Portion X and near S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper connection for the wastewater treatment facility at PR9 and N4.

�� The Contractor was reminded to treat the wastewater properly before discharging at discharge point PR10 at S9 and S23.

�� The Contractor was reminded to clean up the silt/dirt on the footpath near S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the abandoned tire at S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the rubbish near the seafront at S7.

�� The Contractor was reminded to dispose of waste regularly at S7, S11, S16, S19, S25, HMA, N4, PR9 and A2 bridge at N20 regularly.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide proper segregation and collection of waste at N1.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove the empty oil drum at HMA site.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemicals at HMA, N1, S8, S11, S15 and S23.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil drums at S7, S11 and N20.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide proper labelling of chemicals at N1 and N26.

�� The Contractor was reminded to clear stagnant water inside the steel beam at N4 and S11.

�� The Contractor was reminded to remove stagnant water inside the drip tray of A2 bridge at N20 and N4 to avoid mosquito breeding.

�� The Contractor was reminded to clear the stagnant water on the ground at S8, S15, S23 and N1.

�� The Contractor was reminded to place additional sand bags along the boundary of dusty material at N1.

�� The Contractor was reminded to replace the broken sand bags at N20.

�� The Contractor was reminded to dispose of concrete waste at N1.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide a wheel washing facility at the exit of S25.

�� The Contractor was reminded to provide clear indication of the pipe to show the source of effluent discharge at S11.

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 fourteenth Quarterly EM&A Report which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2015 to 29 February 2016.

Air Quality

5.3.2 Three Action Level exceedances 1-hr TSP level at AMS5 and two Action Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level at AMS6 were recorded during the reporting period.

Noise

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

Water Quality

5.3.4 For marine water quality monitoring, a Limit Level exceedance of turbidity level was recorded at stations IS8 and SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016 respectively. An Action Level exceedance of suspended solids level was recorded at station IS8 and a Limit Level exceedance of suspended solid was recorded at station SR4 during mid-flood tide on 5 February 2016. No exceedance of Action Level for turbidity level was recorded. No exceedances of Action and Limit Level for dissolved oxygen level were recorded.

Dolphin

5.3.5 There was a Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (between December 2015 �V February 2016).

5.3.6 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.

5.3.7 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 since 2012, and many individuals have shifted away from the important habitat around the Brothers Islands.

5.3.8 It is 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 the situation.

Mudflat -Sedimentation Rate

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

Mudflat - Ecology

5.3.10 The December 2015 survey was the thirteenth survey of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on horseshoe crabs, seagrass and intertidal soft shore community.

Environmental Site Inspection and Audit

5.3.11 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 2, 9, 17, 23, 29 December 2015; 6, 13, 20, 29 January 2016; and 3, 12, 15, 26 February 2016. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

Monitoring Activity		Monitoring Date
Monitoring Activity		December 2015	January 2016	February 2016
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	4, 10, 15, 21, 24 and 30	5, 11, 15, 21 and 27	2, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	AMS5: 3, 9, 14, 18, 23 and 29 AMS6: 3, 9, 14, 18 and 29	AMS5: 4, 8, 14, 20 and 26 AMS6: 5, 8, 14, 20 and 26	AMS5: 1, 5, 17, 18, 23 and 29 AMS6: 1, 5, 11, 17, 23 and 29
Noise		10, 15, 21 and 30	5, 11, 21 and 27	2, 12, 18 and 24
Water Quality		2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28 and 30	1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29	1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26 and 29
Chinese White Dolphin		2, 7, 9 and 15	8, 11, 13 and 19	2, 3, 16 and 22
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)		5, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20	--	--
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation rate)		1	--	--
Site Inspection		2, 9, 17, 23 and 29	6, 13, 20 and 29	3, 12, 15 and 26

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	5	0
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	0	0
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	0	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	1	1
	Turbidity level	0	2
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis (Dec 2015 to Feb 2016)	0	1

1 Introduction

1.1.5 This is the fourteenth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2015 to 29 February 2016.

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 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.

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 have rectified all observations identified in environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period. 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.

Three Action Level exceedances 1-hr TSP level at AMS5 and two Action Level exceedances of 1-hr TSP level at AMS6 were recorded during the reporting period. Record of ��Notification of Environmental Quality Limit Exceedances�� is provided in Appendix M.

3.2.2 There were no Action and Limit Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during the reporting period.

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 and insect 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.

3.4.3 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 December 2015 to February 2016, 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 655.90 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 251.55 km. Survey effort conducted on both primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. A summary table of the survey effort is shown in Annex I of Appendix J.

3.5.12 During the six sets of monitoring surveys in December 2015 to February 2016, a total of 14 groups of 57 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. A summary table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Annex II of Appendix J.

Distribution

Encounter Rate

3.5.24 Even for the same winter quarters, the dolphin encounter rates in NWL during the winters of 2014-2015 and 2015-16 were much lower than the ones recorded in winters of 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Table 3.7).

3.5.25 After a slight rebound in encounter rates in NWL in the previous quarter, dolphin occurrence has dropped noticeably once again in the present quarter back to a low level (especially for ER(ANI)) (Table 3.7). Such temporal trend should be closely monitored in the upcoming monitoring quarters.

3.5.31 To ensure the continuous usage of North Lantau waters by the dolphins, every possible measure should be implemented by the contractors and relevant authorities of HZMB-related works to minimize all disturbances to the dolphins.

Group Size

Habitat Use

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.39 During the present quarterly period, neither unspotted calf nor unspotted juvenile was sighted with any female in the North Lantau region.

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.5.41 One of the 14 dolphin groups were engaged in feeding activity, while two other dolphin groups were engaged in socializing activities. None of the dolphin groups were engaged in traveling or milling/resting activity during the three-month study period.

3.5.44 When compared to the baseline period, distribution of various dolphin activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was drastically different with a much more restricted area of occurrences of these activities (Figure 6 of Appendix J).

3.5.45 As consistently recorded in the past monitoring quarters, none of the 14 dolphin groups was found to be associated with any operating fishing vessel in North Lantau waters during the present impact phase period.

Summary Photo-identification works

3.5.46 From December 2015 to February 2016, over 1,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.47 In total, 21 individuals sighted 48 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 re-sightings were made in NWL.

3.5.48 The majority of identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of six individuals (NL182, NL210, NL220, NL284, NL286 and NL320) being 3-4 times and another two individuals (NL48 and NL285) being sighted 5 times in the present quarter.

Individual range use

3.5.50 Ranging patterns of the 21 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

3.5.63 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.

3.5.64 The dolphin specialists of the projects confirmed that the CWD sighting around the North of Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP) has significantly decreased, and it was apparently related to the re-routing of high speed ferry (HSF) from Skypier.

3.5.65 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.

3.5.66 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.

3.5.67 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.

3.5.69 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 December 2015. 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

Sampling Zone

Horseshoe Crabs