Environmental Complaint No.	Date of Complaint Received	Description of Environmental Complaints
COM-2013-045	27 December 2013	Noise
COM-2014-046	16 January 2014	Air Quality
COM-2014-048	18 January 2014	Other - Blackish mud

1 Introduction

1.3 Construction Programme

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

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

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

Table 1.1 Construction Activities during Reporting Period

Site Area	Description of Activities
Portion X	· Stone column installation · Filling works behind stone platform · Temporary stone platform construction · Band drains installation · Dismantling/trimming of temporary 40mm stone platform for construction of seawall · Piling Works
Portion Y	· Access shaft construction for SHT & HAT · Utility culvert excavation · Pipe piling works for Depressed Roundabout
West Portal	· Site formation · Slope protection/ stabilization (soil nailing works) · Pipe Roofing Installation and Excavation of Tunnel SHT · Tree Felling · Boulder removal/ stabilization works
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road	· Works for diversion of Airport Road and Kwo Lo Wan Road
Airport Express Line	· Pre-grouting and pipe piling works for AEL access shafts
Kwo Lo Wan /Airport Road /Airport Express Line	· Utilities detection · Establishment of site access · Works for east access shaft

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

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

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

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

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

2.2 Action and Limit Levels

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

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

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

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

Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2.4 Action and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

2.3 Event Action Plans

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

2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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

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

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

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

3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results

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

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

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
December 2013	AMS5	83	22 – 172	352	500
December 2013	AMS6	80	13 – 122	360
January 2014	AMS5	73	18 – 154	352
January 2014	AMS6	93	53 – 284	360
February 2014	AMS5	52	5 – 143	352
February 2014	AMS6	63	36 – 167	360

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

Reporting Period	Monitoring Station	Average (mg/m³)	Range (mg/m³)	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)

December 2013	AMS5	158	139-195	164	260
December 2013	AMS6	169	31-262	173
January 2014	AMS5	93	42-161	164
January 2014	AMS6	142	86-213	173
February 2014	AMS5	64	51-88	164
February 2014	AMS6	90	73-112	173

3.2.2 For 1-hr TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded for air during daytime on normal weekdays of the reporting period.

3.2.3 For 24-hr TSP, an Action Level exceedance was recorded at station AMS5 on 27 December 2013. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP was recorded at station AMS6 on 11, 27 December 2013, 8 and 20 January 2014. A Limit Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP was recorded at station AMS6 on 23 December 2013.

3.2.4 The general weather conditions at Tung Chung were foggy and haze during the dust sampling period on 11, 23, 27 December 2013, 8 and 20 January 2014. Therefore, it was considered that the exceedances were not related to the construction activities of the Contract and was caused by poor weather.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

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

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

Reporting period	Monitoring Station	Average L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)*	Range of L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)*	Action Level	Limit Level L_{eq (30 mins)}, dB(A)
December 2013	NMS5	59	58 – 61	When one documented complaint is received	75
January 2014		59	59 – 61
February 2014		59	57 – 61

*A correction of +3dB(A) facade correction was included.

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

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

3.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

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

3.4.2 During the reporting period, there were eleven Action Level exceedances and one Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids level.

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

3.5 Dolphin Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

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

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

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

3.5.4 Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the entire quarterly period (December 2013 - February 2014).

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

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

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

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

where S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

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

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

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.5.9 During the period of December 2013 to February 2014, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

3.5.10 From these surveys, a total of 869.74 km of survey effort was collected, with 93.4% 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, 329.94 km and 539.80 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 640.77 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 228.97 km. The slightly reduced effort on primary line was mainly due to the second line in NEL survey area just to the east of HKBCF (i.e. line #11) being partially blocked by the silt curtain that surrounded the HKBCF reclamation site, and the research vessel were forced to travel around the edge of the expanded silt curtain for that section of the transect line rather than on a straight line. Both survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were considered as on-effort survey data. 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 2013 to February 2014, a total of 38 groups of 147 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All except two sightings were made during on-effort search. Thirty-two on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while four other on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. During this quarterly period, only three groups of 16 dolphins were sighted in NEL (with only one group of three dolphins sighted on primary lines), while the other 35 groups of 131 dolphins were sighted in NWL. Summary table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Annex II of Appendix J.

Distribution

3.5.13 Distribution of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in December 2013, January and February 2014 was shown in (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Similar to previous quarterly periods, the majority of dolphin sightings were made in the northwestern portion of the North Lantau region. Concentration of sightings was located within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, and to the west of Black Point (Figure 1 of Appendix J). On the other hand, a few dolphin groups were sighted near Pillar Point, and near the Brothers Islands.

3.5.14 None of the dolphin groups were sighted in the vicinity of the HKLR03 or HKBCF reclamation site (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Only one dolphin sighting was made near the HKLR09 alignment, while another sighting was made very close to the reclamation site of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) northern landfall (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.15 Sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (December 2013 – February 2014) was compared to the one in the baseline monitoring period (September to November 2011). During the present quarter, dolphins rarely occurred in NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). On the other hand, dolphin occurrence in the northwestern portion of North Lantau region was largely similar between the baseline and impact phase quarters, but there appeared to be fewer dolphins occurred in the middle portion of North Lantau region where dolphins supposedly moved between their core areas around Lung Kwu Chau and the Brothers Islands (Figure 1 of Appendix J).

3.5.16 As the baseline monitoring period was in autumn season while the present monitoring period was in winter season, a direct comparison in dolphin distribution between the two quarterly periods of winter months in 2012-13 and 2013-14 was also made to avoid the potential bias in seasonal variation. Between the two winter periods, there were still much fewer dolphins sighted in NEL waters as well as the middle portion of North Lantau waters during the winter months of 2013-14 than the winter months of 2012-13 (Figure 2 of Appendix J). In fact, both HKLR03 and HKBCF have already commenced their works since the third and first quarters of 2013 respectively, implying that dolphin usage has further declined in the central and eastern portion of North Lantau waters in winter months of 2013-14 from the previous year.

Encounter Rate

3.5.17 For the three-month study period in December 2013, January and February 2014, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) from each of the survey areas are shown in Table 3.4. The average encounter rates deduced from the six sets of surveys were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring period in September to November 2011 (See Table 3.5).

Table 3.4 Dolphin Encounter Rates (Sightings Per 100 km of Survey Effort) During three Reporting Period (Dec 2013 – Feb 2014)

Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Dolphin Monitoring	Primary Lines Only	Primary Lines Only
Northeast Lantau	Set 1 (5 & 9 Dec 2013)	2.68	8.05
	Set 2 (13 & 19 Dec 2013)	0.00	0.00
	Set 3 (7 & 9 Jan 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 4 (21 & 23 Jan 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 5 (6 & 12 Feb 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 6 (14 & 20 Feb 2014)	0.00	0.00
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (5 & 9 Dec 2013)	6.95	30.57
	Set 2 (13 & 19 Dec 2013)	6.82	27.27
	Set 3 (7 & 9 Jan 2014)	10.00	39.99
	Set 4 (21 & 23 Jan 2014)	11.84	50.33
	Set 5 (6 & 12 Feb 2014)	7.44	17.86
	Set 6 (14 & 20 Feb 2014)	6.20	29.47

Table 3.5 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (Dec 2013 – Feb 2014) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep – Nov 2011)

Survey Area	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)		Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
Survey Area	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Northeast Lantau	0.45 ± 1.10	6.00 ± 5.05	1.34 ± 3.29	22.19 ± 26.81
Northwest Lantau	8.21 ± 2.21	9.85 ± 5.85	32.58 ± 11.21	44.66 ± 29.85

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

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

	Encounter rate (STG) (no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort)	Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort)
September-November 2011 (Baseline)	6.00 ± 5.05	22.19 ± 26.81
December 2012-February 2013 (Impact)	3.14 ± 3.21	6.33 ± 8.64
March-May 2013 (Impact)	0.42 ± 1.03	0.42 ± 1.03
June-August 2013 (Impact)	0.88 ± 1.36	0.88 ± 1.36
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

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

3.5.18 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 7.00 sightings and 26.77 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 0.61 sightings and 3.67 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively.

3.5.19 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact phase were only small fractions of the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (reductions of 92.5% and 94.0% respectively between the two periods; Table 3.5). Notably, dolphin occurrence in NEL in the past five quarters have also been exceptionally low when compared to the baseline period (Table 3.6), which has prompted the triggering of the Event and Action Plan. In fact, the present quarter was the fifth consecutive quarter being accessed that have triggered the Action Level under the Event and Action Plan.

3.5.20 On the other hand, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period were slightly lower (reductions of 16.6% and 27.0% respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a reduced dolphin usage of this survey area during the present construction period.

3.5.21 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).

3.5.22 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (sixth quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0774 and 0.1671 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in the dolphin encounter rates of STG, but not in the encounter rates of ANI.

3.5.23 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first six quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0179 and 0.0092 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant differences were detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.24 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in the NEL waters (especially around the Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok) in the present quarterly period, and such low occurrence has been consistently documented in previous quarters. This raises serious concern as the decline in dolphin usage could possibly link to the HZMB-related construction activities in NEL waters, which include the 150 hectares of habitat loss due to HKBCF reclamation, 23 hectares of habitat loss due to HKLR03 reclamation, as well as the recently commenced TMCLKL construction that involves intensive bored piling activities for the southern viaduct and further reclamation of 16.5 hectares for the northern landfall.

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

Group Size

3.5.26 Group size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1-12 individuals per group in North Lantau region during December 2013 to February 2014. The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared with the ones deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as shown in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Comparison of Average Dolphin Group Sizes between Reporting Period (Dec 2013 – Feb 2014) and Baseline Monitoring Period (Sep– Nov 2011)

	Average Dolphin Group Size
	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	3.87 ± 2.84 (n = 38)	3.72 ± 3.13 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	5.33 ± 3.21 (n = 3)	3.18 ± 2.16 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	3.74 ± 2.82 (n = 35)	3.92 ± 3.40 (n = 49)

3.5.27 The average dolphin group sizes in the entire North Lantau region during December 2013 to February 2014 were slightly higher than the ones recorded in the three-month baseline period (Table 3.7). Although the average group size in NEL was quite high during the present monitoring period when compared to the baseline period, the sample size of the three dolphin groups in 2013 was actually very small for such comparison.

3.5.28 Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes during the present quarter is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix J, with comparison to the one in baseline period. In winter months of 2013-14, almost all larger dolphin groups were clustered at the northwestern portion of North Lantau near Sha Chau, Lung Kwu Chau and Black Point, with only one other larger dolphin group sighted near Siu Ho Wan in NEL (Figure 3 of Appendix J). This distribution pattern is similar to the baseline period, except that a few more larger dolphin groups were sighted in NEL as well as around the airport platform during the baseline period. Notably, none of the larger dolphin groups were sighted near the HKLR03 reclamation site in the present monitoring period (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

Habitat Use

3.5.29 From December 2013 to February 2014, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau, to the west of Sha Chau and Black Point (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix J). Only two grids in NEL recorded the presence of dolphins near Siu Ho Wan with moderately high dolphin densities. None of the grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites, HKLR09 or TMCLKL alignment recorded the presence of dolphins during on-effort search in the present quarterly period.

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

3.5.31 When compared with the habitat use patterns during the baseline period, dolphin usage in NEL was noticeably much lower in the present impact monitoring period (Figure 5 of Appendix J). During the baseline period, nine grids between Siu Mo To and Shum Shui Kok recorded moderately high to high dolphin densities, which was in stark contrast to the only two grids with dolphin presence during the present impact phase period (Figure 5 of Appendix J). On the other hand, the density patterns between the baseline and impact phase monitoring periods were similar in NWL, except that dolphins were rarely present in the eastern portion of this region (Figure 5 of Appendix J).

3.5.32 The absence of dolphins in the identified important habitats around the Brothers Islands and Shum Shui Kok in consecutive quarters in 2013-14 is of serious concern. The future Brothers Islands Marine Park will be established in this area upon the completion of HKBCF reclamation works, as an important compensation measure for the associated habitat loss. It should be further examined whether the very low usage of dolphins would be related to the on-going HZMB-related construction works, and such diminished use would continue in this important dolphin habitat in the upcoming quarters.

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.33 During the three-month study period, a total of one unspotted calf (UC) and nine unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NEL and NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised 6.8% of all animals sighted, which was the same percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%), but slightly lower than the previous quarter.

3.5.34 All except one of these young calves were present within and adjacent to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 6 of Appendix J), and all of them were sighted within larger dolphin groups with at least five individuals. Notably, only one UJ was sighted near Siu Ho Wan in NEL, and none of the young calves were sighted in the vicinity of the HKBCF/HKLR03 reclamation sites and HKLR09/TMCLKL alignments during the present quarter (Figure 6 of Appendix J).

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

3.5.35 A total of six dolphin sightings were associated with feeding and socializing activities during the three-month study period. The percentage of feeding activities comprised of 7.9% of the total number of dolphin sightings, which was lower than the one recorded during the baseline period (11.6%). On the contrary, the percentage of socializing activities during the present impact phase monitoring period (7.9%) was slightly higher than the one recorded during the baseline period (5.4%). Only one group of dolphins was engaged in traveling activity, and the rarity of this observed activity was similar to the baseline monitoring period and previous impact phase monitoring periods.

3.5.36 Distribution of dolphins engaged in different activities during the three-month study period is shown in Figure 7 of Appendix J. No apparent concentration of sightings was found for feeding activity, but all three sightings associated with socializing activities were located in the waters between Black Point and Lung Kwu Chau (Figure 7 of Appendix J).

3.5.37 During the three-month period, only one of the 38 dolphin groups was found to be associated with an operating hang trawler near the western border of Hong Kong. The extremely low level of fishing boat association in the present and previous quarters was consistently found, and was likely related to the recent trawl ban being implemented in 2013 in Hong Kong waters.

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

3.5.38 From December 2013 to February 2014, over 3,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.39 In total, 44 individuals sighted 86 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix J and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). Only 13 of these 86 re-sightings were made in NEL, which involved nine different individuals. Notably, these were the same individuals that were repeatedly sighted before in NEL throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring surveys as well as in the baseline monitoring period

3.5.40 Most identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of seven individuals being sighted thrice, and three individuals (EL01, NL136 and 139) being sighted four to five times. Two individuals, NL24 and NL48, were sighted six times on different survey days during the three-month period.

3.5.41 Notably, four of these 44 individuals (NL33, NL226, NL296 and WL179) were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys during the same three-month period, showing their extensive movement between North and West Lantau regions.

3.5.42 Six well-recognized females were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. All of these mothers (NL33, NL93, NL98, NL123, NL202 and NL221) were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period.

3.5.43 Ranging patterns of the 44 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex V of Appendix J.

3.5.44 The majority of individuals sighted in this quarter were utilizing their range use in NWL, and only a few individuals had their range extended to NEL survey area, especially around the Brothers Islands (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.

3.5.45 For many individuals that previously utilized the Brothers Islands as their major core area of activities, they have apparently shifted their range use away from this important habitat (e.g. CH34, NL48, NL123), while others have greatly diminished their range use in NEL in the past quarters in 2013-14 (e.g. NL98, NL120, NL261), and further expanded their range use elsewhere in WL waters (e.g. NL33, NL226).

3.5.46 Such diminished or abandoned usage of NEL waters by a large number of individual dolphins coincided well with the noticeable decline in dolphin occurrence in NEL as discussed in Sections 3.5.13 to 3.5.25. This is of serious concern, as the Brothers Islands in NEL was once identified an important habitat for many year-round residents that focused their core area use there (Hung 2008, 2013). Therefore, the ranging pattern of individual dolphins should be continuously monitored around Lantau waters, and measures should be taken to ensure that dolphins will continue to move between NWL and NEL without any hindrance as a result of the HZMB-related construction works.

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

3.5.47 There was one Action Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (December 2013 – February 2014). According to the contractor’s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the two quarterly periods (September to November 2013 and December 2013 to February 2014) included stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation and excavation of stone platform, surcharge activities, construction of seawall and geotextile tube installation works. There is no evidence showing the current AL non-compliance directly related to the construction works of HKLR03. It should also be noted that reclamation work under HKLR03 (adjoining the Airport Island) situates in waters which has rarely been used by dolphins in the past, and the working vessels under HKLR03 have been travelling from source to destination in accordance with the Marine Travel Route to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin. In addition, the contractor will implement proactive mitigation measures such as avoiding anchoring at Marine Department’s designated anchorage site – Sham Shui Kok Anchorage (near Brothers Island) as far as practicable.

3.5.48 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).

3.5.49 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (sixth quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0774 and 0.1671 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in the average dolphin encounter rates of STG, but not in the encounter rates of ANI.

3.5.50 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first six quarters of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0179 and 0.0092 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.51 The AFCD monitoring data during December 2013 to February 2014 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist, and only two groups of five dolphins were sighted from 163.31 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL during the same quarter. This review has confirmed that the very low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring survey in winter 2013 in NEL is accurate.

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

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

3.6 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 7 December 2013. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9.

Table 3.8 Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

	Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)			Impact Monitoring (December 2013)
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)
S1	810291.160	816678.727	0.950	810291.160	816678.729	1.027
S2	810958.272	815831.531	0.864	810958.247	815831.552	0.942
S3	810716.585	815953.308	1.341	810716.612	815953.327	1.432
S4	811221.433	816151.381	0.931	811221.424	816151.385	0.981

Table 3.9 Comparison of measurement

	Comparison of measurement			Remarks and Recommendation
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level (mPD)	Remarks and Recommendation
S1	0.001	0.002	0.077	Within tolerance, no significant change
S2	-0.025	0.021	0.078	Within tolerance, no significant change
S3	0.027	0.019	0.091	Level continuously increased
S4	-0.009	0.004	0.050	Within tolerance, no significant change

3.6.2 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S3. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1, S2 and S4 showed that the level has increased within tolerance and their sea bed depth would not be considered as significant change.

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 2013. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

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

Table 3.10 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results (Depth Average)

Date	Mid Ebb Tide			Mid Flood Tide
Date	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)
02-Dec-13	7.51	5.95	11.75	7.27	5.80	13.00
04-Dec-13	7.32	11.25	12.90	7.28	9.60	12.35
06-Dec-13	7.43	10.85	16.15	7.18	12.20	17.50
09-Dec-13	7.16	8.95	8.45	7.16	8.80	9.95
11-Dec-13	7.12	5.20	6.45	7.30	11.15	14.25
13-Dec-13	7.31	4.20	5.70	7.49	6.90	9.05
16-Dec-13	7.82	6.95	12.60	7.16	5.80	10.80
18-Dec-13	7.50	11.30	15.00	7.33	12.75	16.75
20-Dec-13	7.67	11.05	17.70	7.53	11.35	14.90
23-Dec-13	8.01	11.50	13.60	7.66	11.35	13.10
25-Dec-13	7.98	10.50	10.40	7.96	7.45	8.20
27-Dec-13	7.89	4.85	10.55	8.25	5.40	16.90
30-Dec-13	8.19	5.10	4.45	8.58	5.05	5.10
Average	7.61	8.28	11.21	7.55	8.74	12.45

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

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

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.7 An active search method was adopted for horseshoe crab survey at each sampling zone. The survey was undertaken by 2 specialists at each 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 was found, the species, size and inhabiting substrate, photographic record and respective GPS coordinate were recorded with reference to Li (2008). The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 4^th (for zones TC1 and TC2) and 18^th (for zones TC3 and ST) December, 2013. The weather was cloudy, windy and very cold on both survey days.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.8 An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each sampling zone. The survey was undertaken by 2 specialists each spending within 2-3 hours in low tide period. Once seagrass bed was observed, the species, the estimated area (m²), photographic record and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. The seagrass bed surveys were conducted on 4^th (for zones TC1 and TC2) and 18^th (for zones TC3 and ST) December, 2013. The weather was cloudy, windy and very cold on both survey days.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.9 The sandy shore of San Tau and Tung Chung Bay from the uppermost part of the shore and to the water edge was divided into three tidal zones – upper, middle and lower zones, at each sampling zone, TC1, TC2, TC3and ST. A 100m transect was laid in each of the three tidal zones for fauna sampling.

3.6.10 At each sampling zone, three100m horizontal transects were laid at 2.0m, 1.5m and 1.0m above C.D. Along each transect, ten random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed. In each quadrat, the epifauna and infauna (within the top 5cm sediment) in each quadrat were identified and their numbers/coverage percentages were recorded. One core of 10cm diameter x 20cm depth was also collected within each quadrat. The sediments of the cores were sieved with 2mm mesh-size sieve and the biota inside was identified and counted. All collected fauna were released after recording except some tiny individuals that in-situ identification was not feasible. These tiny individuals were collected and were identified in the laboratory. Species and abundance of biota in both cores and quadrats were reported. The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 7^th (for ST), 8^th (for TC3), 21^st (for TC2) and 22^nd December 2013 (for TC1).

Data Analysis

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

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

J = H’ / ln S, (Pielou, 1966)

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

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.12 Figure 3.1 of Appendix O show the changes of number of individuals, mean prosomal width and search record of horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus at every sampling zone along the sampling months. Across the sampling months, the highest search record of Tachypleus tridentatus was reported at ST while the estimated age ranged 2.6–8.0 years. It indicated that ST was an important nursery ground for horseshoe crab especially newly hatched individuals due to larger area of suitable substratum (fine sand or soft mud) and less human disturbance (far from urban district). In contrast, no individual was found at TC2 except that in September 2013 (2 individuals only). It showed that TC2 was not a nursery ground for horseshoe crab. Possible factors were larger salinity change (flushed by two rivers) and higher human disturbance (closest to urban district and easily accessible by people.

3.6.13 Another less common species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was not found during the whole survey period except the survey conducted in December 2012 at ST (4 individuals). This species was believed present in ST at very low number while encounter was very rare.

3.6.14 Both number of individuals and search records declined obviously during dry season (from September to December) at TC1, TC3 and ST (Figure. 3.1 of Appendix O). As mentioned, the horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in dry seasons were reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search records at Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 individuals hr^-1 person^-1 and 0 individual hr^-1 person^-1 in wet season and dry season respectively (details see Li, 2008). From December to September, the search record increased along with the warmer climate at the three sampling zones.

3.6.15 Figure 3.2 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus at the important nursery ground ST. It was believed that most of individuals (50% records between upper and lower quartile), recorded in the dry season, had grown to a size of double in June 2013 (prosomal width increase from 10-20 mm to 30-50 mm). The individuals remained similar in size in September 2013. It indicated the major moulting period occurring between March and June. At the same time, tiny individuals (10-15 mm) were found (outliers of low value) and seasonal spawning was believed occurring there.

3.6.16 At ST, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded from 15 individuals in March 2013 and 59 individuals in June 2013 to 94 individuals in September 2013). A personal conversation was conducted with Prof. K.S. Shin (Department of Biology and Chemistry, The City University of Hong Kong (CityU)) who was running a conservation programme of horseshoe crab in Hong Kong. His monitoring team recorded similar increase of horseshoe crab population during the wet season of this year. It was believed the suitable ambient temperature increased its conspicuousness.

3.6.17 Besides, 18 labeled individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus (prosomal width: 28.76-56.00 mm) were recorded in the survey of September 2013. All of them were released through a conservation programme conducted by Dr. Shin (CityU). It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred and marked horseshoe crab juvenile at selected sites. So that the horseshoe crabs population might be restored in the natural habitat. Through a personal conversation with Dr Shin, about 100 individuals were released to ST on 20 June 2013. All these labeled individuals were not included in the results of present monitoring programme.

3.6.18 The present survey was the fifth sampling event 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 considering the factor of natural, seasonal variation, If abnormal phenomenon (e.g. very few numbers of horseshoe individuals in warm weather) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.19 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.3 of Appendix O show the records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone. Seagrass was recorded in ST only while the most obvious patch was a long strand of Halophila ovalis nearby the mangrove vegetation on sandy substratum at tidal level 2m above C.D.. The estimated total area was 633.6 m² with vegetation coverage 90-100%. It was formed by three patches of dense seagrass close to each other. Based on previous surveys, these three patches had grown and merged as one from September 12 to June 13. In present survey, these three patches had slightly separated. Beside, flowers were observed that indicated the reproductive period of H. ovalis (Figure 3.4 of Appendix O).

3.6.20 Moreover, 15 small patches of H. ovalis were recorded on soft mud at tidal level between 1.0 m and 1.5 m above C.D.. The estimated area of each patch varied highly and ranged 1.0-33.9 m² with estimated coverage ranging 5-80%. Six of the small patches were recorded in Sep. survey while more patches were recorded in the present survey. Seasonal recruitment of H. ovalis was believed occurred between June and December.

3.6.21 One small patch of Zostera japonica was found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was 5.4 m² while the estimated coverage was about 20-30%.

3.6.22 Figure 3.5 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds at ST along the sampling months. For seagrass Halophila ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased gradually. It showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches during dry season then grew and merged into single patch during wet season. Seasonal recruitment during wet season further increased the total area of seagrass. However it was doubt that the newly recruited patches of seagrass would survive the natural heat stress, predation and wave action in the next wet season.

3.6.23 For seagrass Zostera japonica, it was not reported in the surveys of September and December 2012. Seasonal recruitment of few patches was reported between December and March. Then the patch size increased and merged gradually with the warmer climate. However the patch size decreased sharply in September survey. The patch might not overcome the high heat stress exerted on shore between June and September 2013. The patch size increased slightly in the present survey along with the cooler dry season.

3.6.24 The present survey was the fifth time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project could not be detected on seagrass. The seagrass area of Halophila ovalis was increasing steadily due to natural growth and seasonal recruitment. Although that of Zostera japonica decreased in the September survey, it would be the cause of natural heat stress. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. rapid reduction of seagrass patch size) was observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.25 Table 3.2 and Figure 3.6 of Appendix O show the types of substratum along the horizontal transect at every tidal level of every sampling zone. The relative distribution of different substrata was estimated by investigating the substratum types (Gravels & Boulders / Sands / Soft mud) of the ten random quadrats along the horizontal transect.

3.6.26 The distribution of substratum types varied among tidal levels and sampling zones. At TC1, higher percentage of ‘Sands’ (50%) and ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (40%) were recorded at high tidal level.High percentage of ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (90%) was recorded at mid tidal level. Higher percentages of ‘Sands’ (50%) and ‘Soft mud’ (30%) were recorded at low tidal level. At TC2, high percentage of ‘Sands’ (80%) was recorded while the rest was ‘Soft mud’ (20%) at high tidal level. Higher percentages of ‘Sands’ (60%) and ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (40%) were recorded at mid tidal level. High percentage of ‘Soft mud’ (90%) was recorded at low tidal level. At TC3, high percentages of ‘Sands’ (60-70%) and ‘Soft mud’ (30-40%) were recorded at high and mid tidal levels. ‘Gravels and Boulders’ was recorded only (100%) at low tidal level. At ST, ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (90-100%) was the major substratum at high and mid tidal levels. Even distribution of ‘Soft mud’ (50%), ‘Sands’ (30%) and ‘Gravels and Boulders’ (20%) were recorded at low tidal level.

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

3.6.28 Table 3.3 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in the present survey. A total of 13718 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 13369, density 446 individuals. m^-2, relative abundance 97.5%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 201, density 7 individuals m^-2, 1.5%). Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (£0.6%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (43 taxa) followed by arthropods (12 taxa) and annelids (9 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were relatively less (£ 2 taxon). The complete list of collected specimens is provided in Annex III of Appendix O.

3.6.29 Table 3.4 of Appendix O shows the number of individual, relative abundance and density of each phylum at every sampling zone. The results were similar among the four sampling zones. In general, mollusks were the most dominant phylum (no. of individuals: 2419-4759 individuals., relative abundance 96.1-98.3%). Arthropods were the second abundant phylum (no. of individuals: 23-64 individuals, 0.8-2.0%) although the number of individuals was significantly lower than that of mollusks. Relatively, other phyla were very low in abundance across the four sampling zones (< 1%) except the annelids at TC2 (no. of individuals: 40 individuals, relative abundance 1.6%).

3.6.30 Table 3.5 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) at every sampling zone. At TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was clearly the most abundant at high and mid tidal levels (327-382 individuals. m^-2, relative abundance 59-79%). Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was at moderate abundance at mid and low tidal levels (97-123 individuals. m^-2, 19-36%). Gastropod Monodonta labio (73 individuals. m^-2, 11%) was the third abundant at mid tidal level. At low tidal level, gastropods Batillaria zonalis (38 individuals m^-2, 14%), Lunella coronate (29 individuals m^-2, 11%) and bivalve Xenostrobus atrata (30 individuals m^-2, 11%) were commonly occurring species at low-moderate abundances.

3.6.31 At TC2, gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (192 individuals m^-2, relative abundance 39%) and Batillaria multiformis (147 individuals m^-2, 30%) were highly abundant at high tidal level followed by other less abundant gastropods Cerithidea cingulata (66 individuals m^-2, 13%) and Batillaria zonalis (50 individuals m^-2, 10%). At mid tidal level, rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was the most abundant (124 individuals m^-2, 32%) followed by less abundant gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (72 individuals m^-2, 19%) and Batillaria zonalis (58 individuals m^-2, 15%). At low tidal level, gastropods Batillaria zonalis (35 individuals m^-2, 28%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (30 individuals m^-2, 24%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (23 individuals m^-2, 18%) were three commonly occurring species at low abundances.

3.6.32 At ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly abundant (522 individuals m^-2, relative abundance 73%) at high tidal level followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (74 individuals m^-2, 10%). At mid tidal level, rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was the most abundant (143 individuals m^-2, 38%) while other less abundant taxa were gastropods Batillaria multiformis (54 individuals m^-2, 14%), Monodonta labio (46 individuals m^-2, 12%) and Lunella coronata (40 individuals m^-2, 10%). At low tidal level, the abundant taxa, gastropod Batillaria zonalis (32 individuals m^-2, 29%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (24 individuals m^-2, 22%) were much lower in abundances.

3.6.33 There was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across sampling zones and tidal levels in Tung Chung Wan and San Tau. The species distribution should be determined by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria multiformis (6247 individuals, 46%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (1646 individuals, 12%) were the most common occurring species on sandy substratum mainly among the four sampling zones. Moreover rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2035 individuals, 15%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (956 individuals, 7%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

3.6.34 Table 3.6 of Appendix O shows the mean values of number of species, density, H’ and J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and sampling zone. Among the sampling zones, the mean number of species was generally similar (5-13 spp. 0.25 m^-2). The mean densities of TC3 (439-852 individuals m^-2) was generally higher than that of TC1 (272-652 individuals m^-2) followed by TC2 (124-495 individuals m^-2) and ST (107-710 individuals m^-2). The mean biodiversity index was similar and ranged 1.17-1.49. The species evenness at TC2 (0.72) was generally higher than that at other sampling zones (0.55-0.66).

3.6.35 Across the tidal levels, there was no difference of the mean number of species. Higher mean densities were observed at high and mid tidal levels except the sampling zone TC3. Usually higher mean biodiversity index and species evenness were observed at mid and low tidal levels.

3.6.36 Figure 3.7 of Appendix O shows the temporal changes of number of species, density, H’ and J at every tidal level and sampling zone since the baseline monitoring survey (Sep 2012). No significant temporal change of any biological parameters was observed at all sampling zones. Although declined densities were observed during dry season (December), it was believed a natural, seasonal variation due to higher mortality and lower activity rate of intertidal fauna during cold, dry season. The densities of both sampling zones had increased along with the hot, wet season.

3.6.37 The present survey was the fifth time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on intertidal soft shore community.

3.7 Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

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

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

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

3.8 Environmental Licenses and Permits

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

4 Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance

4.1 Environmental Exceedances

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

Air Quality

4.1.2 For 1-hour TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at AMS5 and AMS6 during this reporting period. For 24-hour TSP, an Action Level exceedance was recorded at station AMS5 on 27 December 2013. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP were recorded at station AMS6 on 11, 27 December 2013 and 8, 20 January 2014. A Limit Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP was recorded at station AMS6 on 23 December 2013.

Noise

4.1.3 No Action and Limit Level exceedances for noise were recorded during this reporting period.

Water Quality

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

Dolphin

4.1.5 There was one Action Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (December 2013 – February 2014). According to the contractor’s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the two quarterly periods (September to November 2013 and December 2013 to February 2014) included stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation and excavation of stone platform, surcharge activities, construction of seawall and geotextile tube installation works.

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

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

Table 4.1 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances

Station

Exceedance Level

DO (S&M)

DO (Bottom)

Turbidity

Total Number of Exceedances

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

Ebb

Flood

IS5

Action Level

10 Jan 2014

Limit Level

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

27 Dec 2013

06 Dec 2013

Limit Level

IS7

Action Level

20 Dec 2013

Limit Level

IS8

Action Level

20 Dec 2013

Limit Level

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

18 Dec 2013

06 Jan 2014

Limit Level

IS10

Action Level

16 Dec 2013

Limit Level

SR3

Action Level

03 Jan 2014

Limit Level

SR4

Action Level

Limit Level

SR5

Action Level

03 Jan 2014

Limit Level

SR10A

Action Level

Limit Level

06 Dec 2013

SR10B

Action Level

06 Dec 2013

Limit Level

Total

Action

11**

Limit

1**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

* The total exceedances.

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

4.2.1 There were three environmental complaints received during this reporting period. All investigation reports for exceedances of the Contract have been submitted to ENPO/IEC for comments and/or follow up to identify whether the exceedances occurred related to other HZMB contracts. The summary of environmental complaints is presented in Table 4.2. The details of environmental complaints are presented in Appendix N.

Table 4.2 Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Reporting Period

Environmental Complaint No.	Date of Complaint Received	Description of Environmental Complaints
COM-2013-045	27 December 2013	Noise
COM-2014-046	16 January 2014	Air Quality
COM-2014-048	18 January 2014	Other - Blackish mud

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 clean up the oil on ground at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to reduce the load for the chemical containers at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil container at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide well maintenance for the silt curtains at Portion X.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil container at Chung Shang 1003.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil container at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the materials on the top of the oil containers at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil container at S17.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for chemical containers at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemical containers at YM01.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemical containers at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the I-beams at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the drip tray at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water inside the drip tray at WA03.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly on dry area at WA04.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water for the excavation activities at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the fill materials on the passage way of Barge Tak Ming.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the oil containers at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide the water spray for the pilling activity at S11 to prevent fugitive emissions.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient drip trays for the chemical containers at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to strengthen dust control measures at haul road.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide adequate dust control measures for stockpile of construction materials.

§ The Contractor was reminded to seal the drain hole at the drip tray and clear oil leakage.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the fill materials on storage platform to prevent washing away of fill materials into the sea.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover the cement bags entirely by impervious sheeting or placed them in an area sheltered on the top and three sides at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the fill materials on passage way of vessel and provide canvas as the gap between vessels when loading materials at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water at S8.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove all construction materials inside the drip tray at S8.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil leakage at S8.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the oil containers at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemical containers at WA03.

§ The Contractor was reminded to water the unpaved road regularly to avoid dust generation at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover the dusty materials entirely by impervious sheeting at WA4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water when drilling work was undertaking at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to cover the cement bags entirely by impervious sheeting at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the oil containers at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the chemical containers at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for the oil containers at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide proper cover for cement bags at S8/S9.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water or provide proper cover for the sand stockpiles at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to spray water or provide proper cover for the sand stockpiles at S8/S9.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance for the silt curtains at Portion X.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient drip trays for chemical containers at S19.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove stagnant water to avoid mosquito breeding.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the stagnant water which inside the drip tray at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the excess fill materials on the passage way of vessel at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a properly cover for dusty materials at WA04.

§ The Contractor was reminded provide the drip tray for chemical container at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a properly canvas between the vessel Tak Ming and sand pump platform.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the sand on plastic bucket and avoid dropping sand into the sea when sand is being transferred between barges.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a drip tray for chemical and oil containers at N18.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil leakage inside the wheel washing bay at S8.

§ The Contractor was reminded provide a drip tray for oil containers at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the excess fill materials on the passage way of Chun Ming 68 at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil leakage under the generator at S19.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the rubbish under the generator at S19.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays for the oil container and chemical containers at S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded clean up the oil leakage on the road surface at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded clean up the stagnant water on the concrete slab at S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide water spray more frequently at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oily film at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a plug to block the drain hole of drip tray to avoid oil spillage at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up stagnant water and provide a plug to the drip tray at S23.

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 Sixth Quarterly EM&A Report which summarises the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2013 to 28 February 2014.

Air Quality

5.3.2 For air quality, there were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP recorded during this reporting period

5.3.3 For 24-hour TSP, an Action Level exceedance was recorded at station AMS5 on 27 December 2013. An Action Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP was recorded at station AMS6 on 11, 27 December 2013 and 8, 20 January 2014. A Limit Level exceedance of 24-hr TSP was recorded at station AMS6 on 23 December 2013.

Noise

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

Water Quality

5.3.5 During the reporting period, there were eleven Action Level exceedances and one Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids level.

Dolphin

5.3.6 There was one Action Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (December 2013 – February 2014).

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

5.3.8 Although the 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, and many individuals have shifted away from the important habitat around the Brothers Islands.

5.3.9 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

5.3.10 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S3. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1, S2 and S4 showed that the level has increased within tolerance and their sea bed depth would not be considered as significant change.

5.3.11 Impact water quality monitoring in San Tau (monitoring station SR3) was conducted in December 2013. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids.

Mudflat - Ecology

5.3.12 An active search method was adopted for horseshoe crab survey at each sampling zone. In general, horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus was found at TC1, TC3 and ST. All individuals were found on soft mud, sandy substratum or sandy substratum surrounded by small gravels. Grouping was observed while the group size ranged 2-11 individuals. In contrast, no individual was found at TC2 except that in September 2013 (2 individuals only). It showed that TC2 was not a nursery ground for horseshoes crab. In the December 2013 survey, both number of individuals and search records declined obviously during dry season (from September to December) at TC1, TC3 and ST. As mentioned, the horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15^oC). Similar results of low search record in dry seasons were reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search records at Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 individuals hr^-1person^-1 and 0 individual hr^-1 in wet season and dry season respectively. From December to September, the search record increased along with the warmer climate at the three sampling zones.

5.3.13 Another less common species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was not found during the whole survey period except the survey conducted in December 2012 at ST (4 individuals). This species was believed present in ST at very low number while encounter was very rare.

5.3.14 An active search method was adopted for seagrass bed survey at each sampling zone. Seagrass was recorded in ST only while the most obvious patch was a long strand of Halophila ovalis nearby the mangrove vegetation on sandy substratum at tidal level 2m above C.D.. The estimated total area was 633.6 m² with vegetation coverage 90-100%. It was formed by three patches of dense seagrass close to each other. Based on previous surveys, these three patches had grown and merged as one from September 12 to June 13. In present survey, these three patches had slightly separated. Beside, flowers were observed that indicated the reproductive period of H. ovalis. Moreover, 15 small patches of H. ovalis were recorded on soft mud at tidal level between 1.0 m and 1.5 m above C.D.. The estimated area of each patch varied highly and ranged 1.0-33.9 m² with estimated coverage ranging 5-80%. Six of the small patches were recorded in September survey while more patches were recorded in the present survey. Seasonal recruitment of H. ovalis was believed occurred between June and December. One small patch of Zostera japonica was found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was 5.4 m² while the estimated coverage was about 20-30%.

5.3.15 The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 7^th (for ST), 8^th (for TC3), 21^st (for TC2) and 22nd December 2013 (for TC1). A total of 13718 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 13369, density 446 individuals m^-2, relative abundance 97.5%). The second abundant group was arthropod (total individuals: 201, density 7 individuals m^-2, 1.5 %). Relatively other phyla were very low in abundance (<0.6%). Similarly, the most diverse phylum were mollusks (43 taxa) followed by arthropods (12 taxa) and annelids (9 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were relatively less (<2 taxon).

5.3.16 There was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across sampling zones and tidal levels in Tung Chung Wan and San Tau. The species distribution should be determined by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria multiformis (6247 individuals, 46%) and Cerithidea djadjariensis (1646 individuals, 12%) were the most common occurring species on sandy substratum mainly among the four sampling zones. Moreover rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (2035 individuals, 15%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (956 individuals, 7%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

5.3.17 The December 2013 survey was the fifth time of sampling of the EM&A programme during the construction period. Based on the results, impacts of the HKLR project were not detected on horseshoe crabs, seagrass and intertidal soft shore community.

Environmental Site inspection and Audit

5.3.18 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 4, 11, 18 and 24 December 2013, 8, 15, 22 and 28 January 2014, and 5, 12, 19 and 28 February 2014. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

Monitoring Activity		Monitoring Date
Monitoring Activity		December 2013	January 2014	February 2014
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	2, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30	3, 9, 15, 21, 27 and 30	5, 7, 13, 17, 21 and 27
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	AMS5: 5, 20, 23 and 27 AMS6: 5, 11, 17, 23 and 27	AMS5: 2, 9, 14, 20 and 29 AMS6: 2, 8, 14, 20, 24 and 29	4, 10, 14, 20 and 26
Noise		2, 12, 18, 24 and 30	9, 15, 21 and 30	5, 14, 17 and 27
Water Quality		2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30	1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29	1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 28
Chinese White Dolphin		5, 9, 13 and 19	7, 9, 21 and 23	6, 12, 14 and 20
Mudflat Monitoring (Ecology)		4, 7, 8, 18, 21 and 22	-	-
Mudflat Monitoring (Sedimentation rate)		7	-	-
Site Inspection		4, 11, 18, 24 and 31	8, 15, 22 and 28	5, 12, 19 and 28

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	0	0
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	5	1
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	0	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	11	1
	Turbidity level	0	0
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	0	0
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis (December 2013 to February 2014)	1	0

1 Introduction

1.1 Basic Project Information

1.1.5 This is the Sixth Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Contract which summaries the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 December 2013 to 28 February 2014.

1.2 Project Organisation

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 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.

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 Contractors carried out corrective actions. Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented in Appendix F.

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

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

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

3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results

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

3.2.2 For 1-hr TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded for air during daytime on normal weekdays of 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.

*A correction of +3dB(A) facade correction was included.

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

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

3.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

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

3.4.2 During the reporting period, there were eleven Action Level exceedances and one Limit Level exceedance of suspended solids level.

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

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

3.5.9 During the period of December 2013 to February 2014, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in NWL and NEL survey areas twice per month.

Distribution

Encounter Rate

Group Size

Habitat Use

Mother-calf Pairs

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

3.5.38 From December 2013 to February 2014, over 3,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.

3.5.41 Notably, four of these 44 individuals (NL33, NL226, NL296 and WL179) were also sighted in West Lantau waters during the HKLR09 monitoring surveys during the same three-month period, showing their extensive movement between North and West Lantau regions.

3.5.42 Six well-recognized females were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. All of these mothers (NL33, NL93, NL98, NL123, NL202 and NL221) were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period.

3.5.43 Ranging patterns of the 44 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

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

3.6 Mudflat Monitoring Results

Sedimentation Rate Monitoring

3.6.2 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S3. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1, S2 and S4 showed that the level has increased within tolerance and their sea bed depth would not be considered as significant change.

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 2013. 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

Seagrass Beds

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

Data Analysis

3.6.11 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,

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.13 Another less common species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was not found during the whole survey period except the survey conducted in December 2012 at ST (4 individuals). This species was believed present in ST at very low number while encounter was very rare.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.21 One small patch of Zostera japonica was found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was 5.4 m2 while the estimated coverage was about 20-30%.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.21 One small patch of Zostera japonica was found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. The estimated area was 5.4 m² while the estimated coverage was about 20-30%.