1 Introduction

1.3 Construction Programme

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

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

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

Table 1.1 Construction Activities during Reporting Period

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

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

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

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

Table 2.1 Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements

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

2.2 Action and Limit Levels

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

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

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

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

Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2.4 Action and Limit Level for Dolphin Impact Monitoring

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

2.3 Event Action Plans

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

2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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

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

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

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

3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results

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

Table .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)
June 2014	AMS5	18	5 – 41	352	500
June 2014	AMS6	20	8 – 38	360
July 2014	AMS5	16	4 - 52	352
July 2014	AMS6	26	6 - 98	360
August 2014	AMS5	16	3 - 47	352
August 2014	AMS6	17	8 - 40	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)
June 2014	AMS5	34	22 – 54	164	260
June 2014	AMS6	42	23 – 74	173
July 2014	AMS5	35	17 - 66	164
July 2014	AMS6	47	23 - 98	173
August 2014	AMS5	22	12 - 30	164
August 2014	AMS6	41	17 - 83	173

3.2.2 For 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at AMS 5 and AMS 6 during the reporting period.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

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

Table 3.3 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results 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)
June 2014	NMS5	69	67 –71	When one documented complaint is received	75
July 2014		60	56 –66
August 2014		57	55 – 59

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

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

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

3.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

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

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

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

3.5 Dolphin Monitoring Results

Data Analysis

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

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

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

3.5.4 Secondly, the encounter rates were calculated using both primary and secondary survey effort collected under Beaufort 3 or below condition as in AFCD long-term monitoring study. The encounter rate of sightings and dolphins were deduced by dividing the total number of on-effort sightings and total number of dolphins (ANI) by the amount of survey effort for the entire quarterly period (June – August 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 June to August 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 894.40 km of survey effort was collected with 93.6% of the total survey effort being conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility). Among the two areas, 343.21 km and 551.19 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 647.96 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 246.44 km. 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 June to August 2014, a total of 28 groups of 96 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All except two dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Twenty on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while another six on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. In this quarterly period, almost all dolphin groups were sighted in NWL, with the exception of one group of four dolphins being sighted in NEL. 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 June, July and August 2014 was shown in Figure 1 of Appendix J. In this quarter, the majority of dolphin sightings were made in the western end of the North Lantau region, with higher concentration within and adjacent to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Other dolphin sightings were scattered to the west and northeast of airport platform. The lone sighting made in NEL was located to the north of Yam O at the eastern end of the survey area.

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

3.5.15 Sighting distribution of the present impact phase monitoring period (June to August 2014) was compared to the one during the baseline monitoring period (September to November 2011). In the present quarter, dolphins have mostly avoided the NEL region, which was in stark contrast to their frequent occurrence around the Brothers Islands and in the vicinity of HKBCF reclamation site during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). The nearly abandonment of NEL region by the dolphins have been consistently recorded in the past six quarters.

3.5.16 On the other hand, dolphin occurrence in the northwestern portion of North Lantau region was somewhat different between the baseline and impact phase quarters. During the present impact monitoring period, there appeared to be much fewer dolphins occurred in the middle portion of North Lantau region than during the baseline period, where dolphins supposedly moved between their core areas around Lung Kwu Chau and the Brothers Islands (Figure 1 of Appendix J). Moreover, more dolphins were sighted between Black Point and Lung Kwu Chau during the baseline period than during the present impact monitoring period (Figure 1 of Appendix J). A number of dolphin sightings were made to the west of Chek Lap Kok airport (especially near the HKLR09 alignment) during the baseline period, but only two sightings were made there during the present impact phase period.

3.5.17 As the baseline monitoring period was in the autumn season while the present monitoring period was in the summer season, a direct comparison in dolphin distribution between the two quarterly periods of summer months in 2013 and 2014 was also made to avoid the potential bias contributed by seasonal variation in distribution (Figure 2 of Appendix J).

3.5.18 Among the two summer periods, only one dolphin sighting was made in NEL in the summer of 2014, while there were five sightings made there in the summer of 2013. Moreover, a lot more dolphin sightings were made in the middle and western portions of North Lantau waters (especially near Black Point, Pillar Point, to the north of airport platform and near the HKLR09 alignment) in the summer of 2013 than in the summer of 2014.

Encounter Rate

3.5.19 For the three-month study period in June, July and August 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 (June – August 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 (3 & 5 Jun 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 2 (10 & 16 Jun 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 3 (3, 9 & 10 Jul 2014)	2.54	10.16
	Set 4 (14 & 21 Jul 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 5 (5 & 6 Aug 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 6 (15 & 19 Aug 2014)	0.00	0.00
Northwest Lantau	Set 1 (3 & 5 Jun 2014)	1.67	5.00
	Set 2 (10 & 16 Jun 2014)	0.00	0.00
	Set 3 (3, 9 & 10 Jul 2014)	3.03	10.61
	Set 4 (14 & 21 Jul 2014)	8.40	26.60
	Set 5 (5 & 6 Aug 2014)	5.63	22.52
	Set 6 (15 & 19 Aug 2014)	9.70	40.40

Table 3.5 Comparison of Average Dolphin Encounter Rates between Reporting Period (June – August 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	0.42 ± 1.04	6.00 ± 5.05	1.69 ± 4.15	22.19 ± 26.81
Northwest Lantau	4.74 ± 3.84	9.85 ± 5.85	17.52 ± 15.12	44.66 ± 29.85

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

3.5.20 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 5.04 sightings and 17.54 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively, while the encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in NEL were 0.29 sightings and 1.17 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively.

3.5.21 In NEL, the average dolphin encounter rates (both STG and ANI) in the present three-month impact monitoring period was only a small fraction of the baseline value (i.e. less than 10%), and such low occurrence of dolphins in NEL have been consistently recorded in the past six quarters (Table 3.6).

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

3.5.23 Moreover, the average dolphin encounter rates (STG and ANI) in NWL during the present impact phase monitoring period were also much lower (reductions of 52% and 61% respectively) than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period, indicating a noticeable decline in dolphin usage of this survey area during the present construction period. In fact, both dolphin encounter rates in summer 2014 have dropped to the lowest since the commencement of the HKLR03 dolphin monitoring (Table 3.7).

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

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

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

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

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

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.

3.5.24 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).

3.5.25 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (seventh quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0199 and 0.0597 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in both dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.26 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first seven quarters of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0037 and 0.0013 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.01, significant differences were detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.27 As indicated in both dolphin distribution patterns and encounter rates, dolphin usage has been significantly reduced in 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.

3.5.28 During the present quarter, all dolphin protective measures are fully and properly implemented in accordance with the EM&A Manual. The Contractor will continue to provide training for skippers to ensure that their working vessels travel from source to destination to minimize impacts on Chinese White Dolphin and avoid anchoring at Marine Department's anchorage site at Sham Shui Kok as far as practicable. With these implemented measures in place, disturbance to the dolphins have been minimized by the Contractor as far as practicable. This would create the opportunity for dolphins' continuous usage of NEL waters, where a future marine park around the Brothers Islands will be established in this important dolphin habitat as a compensation measure for the habitat loss resulted from the HKBCF reclamation works. Unless such declining trend can be reverted after the establishment of the Brothers Islands Marine Park, there should be a presumption against further reclamation in North Lantau waters as suggested in Hung (2013, 2014).

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

Group Size

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

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

	Average Dolphin Group Size
	Reporting Period	Baseline Monitoring Period
Overall	3.43 ± 1.95 (n = 28)	3.72 ± 3.13 (n = 66)
Northeast Lantau	4.00 ± 0.00 (n = 1)	3.18 ± 2.16 (n = 17)
Northwest Lantau	3.41 ± 1.99 (n = 27)	3.92 ± 3.40 (n = 49)

3.5.31 The average dolphin group sizes in the entire North Lantau region as well as in NWL waters during June – August 2014 were lower than the ones recorded during the three-month baseline period (Table 3.8). In fact, 17 of the 28 groups were composed of 1-3 individuals only, while no dolphin group was composed of more than 10 individuals.

3.5.32 Distribution of dolphins with larger group sizes (five individuals or more per group) during the present quarter is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix J, with comparison to the one in baseline period. During the summer of 2014, distribution of all larger dolphin groups were concentrated within and around the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (Figure 3 of Appendix J). This distribution pattern was quite different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups were distributed more evenly in NWL waters with a few more sighted in NEL waters (Figure 3 of Appendix J). Notably none of the larger dolphin groups were sighted near the HKLR03 reclamation site in the present monitoring period (Figure 3 of Appendix J).

3.5.33 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

3.5.34 From June to August 2014, the most heavily utilized habitats by Chinese White Dolphins mainly concentrated within and around the marine park area (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix J). Only one grid in NEL recorded the presence of dolphins. Moreover, all grids near HKLR03/HKBCF reclamation sites, HKLR09 or TMCLKL alignment did not record any presence of dolphins during on-effort search in the present quarterly period.

3.5.35 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.

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

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

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

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.39 During the three-month study period, only three unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised of 3.1% of all animals sighted, which was much lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

3.5.40 The few young calves were found near Lung Kwu Chau, Sha Chau and Shum Wat (Figure 6 of Appendix J), which was very different from their distribution pattern during the baseline period when young calves were sighted throughout the NWL survey area as well as a few sighted in NEL waters. None of these 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

3.5.41 A total of four dolphin sightings were associated with socializing and traveling activities during the three-month study period. Notably, no feeding activity of dolphin was observed during the present quarter, which was in contrast to the relatively high percentage of feeding activities recorded during the baseline period (11.6%). On the contrary, the percentage of socializing activities during the present impact phase monitoring period (7.1%) was slightly higher than the one recorded during the baseline period (5.4%).

3.5.42 Distribution of dolphins engaged in socializing and traveling activities during the present three-month period is shown in Figure 7 of Appendix J. The two sightings associated with socializing activities occurred near Sha Chau, while the two sightings associated with traveling activities were found adjacent to Lung Kwu (Figure 7 of Appendix J). Distribution of dolphin sightings associated with these activities during the impact phase was drastically different from the distribution pattern of these activities during the baseline period (Figure 7 of Appendix J).

3.5.43 During the three-month period, none of the 28 dolphin groups was found to be associated with an operating fishing vessels in North Lantau waters. The rare events of fishing boat association in the present and previous quarters were consistently found, and were likely related to the recent trawl ban being implemented in December 2012 in Hong Kong waters.

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

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

3.5.45 In total, 32 individuals sighted 44 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Annex III of Appendix J and photographs of identified individuals in Annex IV of Appendix J). All except four of these re-sightings were made in NWL. Four individuals (NL123, NL139, NL261 and NL285) were sighted once during the lone sighting made in NEL in the present quarter.

3.5.46 Almost all identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of one individual (NL272) being sighted thrice.

3.5.47 Notably 11 of these 32 individuals 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. In particular, two individuals (NL139 and NL261) were sighted in both NEL and WL during the same quarter.

3.5.48 Six well-recognized females (NL93, NL104, NL123, NL145, NL202 and WL124) were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Most of these mothers were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period since October 2012.

Individual range use

3.5.49 Ranging patterns of the 32 individuals identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Annex V of Appendix J.

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

3.5.51 For many individuals that have previously utilized the Brothers Islands as their major core area of activities, they have apparently shifted their range use away from this important habitat (e.g. NL93, NL123, NL136, NL261; Annex V of Appendix J). Such shifts of range use and core area use were also documented by Hung (2014) as well as in the past monitoring quarters in 2013 and 2014 under the present study.

3.5.52 The 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 3.5.27. 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.

3.5.53 On the other hand, there were a number of individuals sighted in NWL and NEL waters consistently in the past, but have extended their range use to WL waters in the present quarter (e.g. CH34, NL46, NL136, NL139, NL261; Annex V of Appendix J). It should be further monitored to examine whether there has been any consistent shifts of home ranges of individuals from North Lantau to West Lantau, which could also possibly be related to the HZMB-related construction works.

Action Level / Limit Level Exceedance

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

3.5.55 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).

3.5.56 For the comparison between the baseline period and the present quarter (seventh quarter of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0199 and 0.0597 respectively. If the alpha value is set at 0.1, significant difference was detected between the baseline and present quarters in both encounter rates of STG and ANI.

3.5.57 For the comparison between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in impact phase (i.e. first seven quarters of the impact phase being assessed), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.0037 and 0.0013 respectively. Even if the alpha value is set at 0.01, significant difference was detected in both the average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI (i.e. between the two periods and the locations).

3.5.58 The AFCD monitoring data during June to August 2014 has been reviewed by the dolphin specialist, and no dolphin was sighted from 173.90 km of survey effort on primary lines in NEL during the same quarter (a lone dolphin was sighted in NEL off-effort though during AFCD monitoring survey in August 2014). This review has confirmed that the very low occurrence of dolphins reported by the HKLR03 monitoring survey in summer 2014 in NEL is accurate.

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

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

3.6 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 25 June 2014. The mudflat surface levels at the four established monitoring stations and the corresponding XYZ HK1980 GRID coordinates are presented in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9.

Table 3.8 Measured Mudflat Surface Level Results

	Baseline Monitoring (September 2012)			Impact Monitoring (June 2014)
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Surface Level
Monitoring Station	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	(mPD)
S1	810291.160	816678.727	0.950	810291.158	816678.724	1.003
S2	810958.272	815831.531	0.864	810958.292	815831.548	0.951
S3	810716.585	815953.308	1.341	810716.591	815953.335	1.449
S4	811221.433	816151.381	0.931	811221.436	816151.390	1.031

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	-0.002	-0.003	0.053	Within tolerance, no significant change
S2	0.020	0.017	0.087	Level continuously increased
S3	0.005	0.027	0.078	Level continuously increased
S4	0.003	0.009	0.100	Level continuously increased

3.6.2 This measurement result was generally and relatively higher than the baseline measurement at S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1 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 June 2014. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

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

Table 3.10 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results (Depth Average)

Date	Mid Ebb Tide			Mid Flood Tide
Date	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)	DO (mg/L)	Turbidity (NTU)	SS (mg/L)
02-Jun-14	9.26	3.5	3.95	8.67	1.9	3.15
04-Jun-14	7.74	3.25	3.30	7.70	1.30	3.45
06-Jun-14	8.63	3.15	4.10	8.46	2.05	4.25
09-Jun-14	6.29	1.90	4.00	5.89	4.40	6.50
11-Jun-14	5.92	1.55	6.05	5.74	4.60	6.55
13-Jun-14	8.09	4.25	5.15	8.18	9.90	6.75
16-Jun-14	5.72	5.80	3.35	5.55	4.15	5.75
18-Jun-14	6.85	4.75	3.00	6.41	2.85	3.50
20-Jun-14	8.04	6.90	5.90	7.11	5.60	4.35
23-Jun-14	5.71	8.45	4.90	6.22	8.20	5.80
25-Jun-14	5.72	4.60	3.80	6.16	6.05	3.15
27-Jun-14	5.64	7.05	3.80	5.91	18.65	3.95
30-Jun-14	5.78	5.80	3.90	5.51	5.15	4.55
Average	6.87	4.69	4.25	6.73	5.75	4.75

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

3.6.6 There are two survey areas specified under the updated EM&A Manual for the Contract, namely Tung Chung Bay and San Tau. Tung Chung Bay survey area is divided into three sampling zones (TC1, TC2 and TC3) and there is one sampling zone at San Tau (ST). Survey of horseshoe crabs, seagrass beds and intertidal communities were conducted in each sampling zone. The present survey was conducted in June 2014 (totally 6 sampling days between 1^st and 16^th June 2014). The locations of sampling zones are shown in Annex I of Appendix O.

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.7 Active search method was conducted for horseshoe crab monitoring by two experienced surveyors at every sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any horseshoe crab individuals within 2-3 hours in low tide period (tidal level below 1.2 m above Chart Datum (C.D.)). Once a horseshoe crab individual was found, the species was identified referencing to Li (2008). The prosomal width, inhabiting substratum and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. A photographic record was taken for future investigation. Any grouping behavior of individuals, if found, was recorded. The horseshoe crab surveys were conducted on 13^th (for TC3 and ST) and 16^th (for TC1 and TC2) June 2014. The weather was sunny and hot on both survey days.

Seagrass Beds

3.6.8 An active search method was conducted for seagrass bed monitoring by two experienced surveyors in every sampling zone. During the search period, any accessible and potential area would be investigated for any seagrass beds within 2-3 hours of low tide period. Once seagrass bed was found, the species, estimated area, estimated coverage percentage and respective GPS coordinate were recorded. A photographic record was taken for future investigation. The seagrass beds surveys were conducted on 13^th (for TC3 and ST) and 16^th (for TC1 and TC2) June 2014. The weather was sunny and hot on both survey days.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

3.6.9 The intertidal soft shore community surveys were conducted in low tide period on 1^st (for ST), 2^nd (for TC3), 14^th (for TC2) and 15^th June 2014 (for TC1). At each sampling zone, three 100 m horizontal transects were laid at high tidal level (H: 2.0 m above C.D.), mid tidal level (M: 1.5 m above C.D.) and low tidal level (L: 1.0 m above C.D.). Along every horizontal transect, ten random quadrats (0.5 m x 0.5m) were placed.

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

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

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

Data Analysis

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

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

J = H’ / ln S, (Pielou, 1966)

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

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs

3.6.14 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 of Appendix O shows the records of horseshoe crab survey at every sampling zone. In general, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was found in all sampling zones (TC1: 24 ind., TC2: 1 ind., TC3: 22 ind., ST: 30 ind.) while Tachypleus tridentatus was found in sampling zones TC3 (11 ind.) and ST (44 ind.) only. All individuals were found on either fine sand or soft mud substratum. Grouping was observed from both species while the group size ranged 2-8 individuals.

3.6.15 Table 3.2 of Appendix O summarizes the survey results of horseshoe crab at every sampling zone. For Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, the search records were 6.0 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (mean prosomal width: 46.96 mm), 0.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (36.19 mm), 5.5 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (28.46 mm), 5.0 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (52.47 mm) at TC1, TC2, TC3 and ST respectively. According to Li (2008), the prosomal width of recorded individuals ranged 10.67－84.84 mm that was about 1.6-9.8 years old. For Tachypleus tridentatus, the search record was 2.8 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (43.75 mm) and 7.3 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 (51.57 mm) at TC3 and ST respectively. The prosomal width of recorded individuals ranged 28.14－73.08 mm that was about 3.6–8.5 years old.

3.6.16 Besides, 18 and 3 marked individuals of Tachypleus tridentatus had been recorded in previous surveys conducted in Sep. 2013 and Mar. 2014 respectively. All of them were released through a conservation programme conducted by Prof. Paul Shin (Department of Biology and Chemistry, The City University of Hong Kong (CityU)). It was a re-introduction trial of artificial bred horseshoe crab juvenile at selected sites. So that the horseshoe crabs population might be restored in the natural habitat. Through a personal conversation with Prof. Shin, about 100 individuals were released in the sampling zone ST on 20 June 2013. All of them were marked with color tape and internal chip detected by specific chip sensor.

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

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

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

3.6.20 During the survey period from Sep. 2012 to Jun 2014, the search record of horseshoe crab declined obviously during dry season especially December (Figures 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix O). Furthermore no individual was found in Dec. 2013. As mentioned, the horseshoe crabs were inactive and burrowed in the sediments during cold weather (<15 ºC). Similar results of low search record in dry season were reported in a previous territory-wide survey of horseshoe crab. For example, the search records in Tung Chung Wan were 0.17 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 and 0 ind. hr^-1 person^-1 in wet season and dry season respectively (details see Li, 2008). After the dry season, the search record increased with the warmer climate.

3.6.21 Between the sampling months Sep. 2012 and Dec. 2013, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was a less common species relative to Tachypleus tridentatus. Only 4 individuals were ever recorded in ST in Dec. 2012. This species had been believed of very low density in ST hence the encounter rate was very low. Until Mar. 2014, it was found in all sampling zones with higher abundance in ST. Based on its average size (mean prosomal width 39.28-49.81 mm), it indicated that breeding and spawning of this species had occurred 3-4 years ago along the coastline of Tung Chun Wan. However, these individuals were still small while their walking trails were inconspicuous. Hence there was no search record in previous sampling months. In this survey (Jun. 2014), more individuals were recorded due to larger size (mean prosomal width 28.46-52.47 mm) and higher activity.

3.6.22 For Tachypleus tridentatus, sharp increase of number of individuals was recorded in ST with wet season (from Mar. 2013 (15 ind.), Jun. 2013 (59 ind.) to Sep. 2013 (94 ind.)). According to a personal conversation with Prof. Shin (CityU), his monitoring team had recorded similar increase of horseshoe crab population during wet season. It was believed that the suitable ambient temperature increased its conspicuousness. Similar pattern might be recorded in this year of survey.

3.6.23 Figure 3.4 of Appendix O shows the changes of prosomal width of horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus in ST where was regarded as an important nursery ground. As mentioned above, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda was rarely found between Sep. 2012 and Dec. 2013 hence the data were limiting. From Mar. to Jun. 2014, the size of major population (50% records between upper and lower quartile) increased clearly. The prosomal width increased from 30-40 mm to 45-60 mm. For Tachypleus tridentatus, a consistent growing trend was observed for the major population from Dec. 2012 to Jun. 2014. The prosomal width increased from 10-20 mm to 40-60 mm.

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

Seagrass Beds

3.6.24 Table 3.3 of Appendix O show the records of seagrass beds survey at every sampling zone. Two species of seagrass Halophila ovalis and Zostera japonica were recorded in ST only. In general the number of patches and area of Halophila ovalis were obviously higher (Table 3.4 of Appendix O). For Halophila ovalis, the area of highest density consisted of one large and one medium patches on sandy substratum beside the mangrove vegetation at tidal level 2 m above C.D. (Figure 3.5(A) of Appendix O). The estimated total seagrass area was about 469.7 m² with vegetation coverage 70-90% and smaller leaves. Dry season was its reproductive period while flowers could be observed in Dec. (Figure 3.6 of Appendix O).

3.6.25 Since Sep. 2013, seasonal recruitment and spreading of Halophila ovalis were occurring in ST. Numerous small patches were found on soft mud at tidal level between 0.5 m and 1.5 m above C.D.. In Mar. 2014, 31 small to medium patches were recorded (variable area 1-72 m² per patch, vegetation coverage 40-80% per patch). In Jun. 2014, these small and medium patches grew and extended to each others. These patches were no longer distinguishable and were covering a significant mudflat area of ST (Figure 3.5(B) of Appendix O). It was generally grouped into 4 large areas (1116.3 – 2442.6 m²) of seagrass beds characterized of patchy distribution, variable vegetable coverage (40-80%) and smaller leaves.

3.6.26 Four small patches of Zostera japonica were found within the long strand of Halophila ovalis. (Figure 3.5 of Appendix O).The estimated area ranged 0.5-25.7 m² while the estimated coverage was about 40-85%.

3.6.27 Figure 3.7 of Appendix O shows the changes of estimated total area of seagrass beds at ST along the sampling months. For Halophila ovalis, the total area and estimated coverage increased gradually from Sep. 2012 to Mar. 2014. It showed that the seagrass was in scattered patches on the shore during dry season of 2012. Then it grew larger and became numerous patches of varying sizes during 2013. Until Jun. 2014, the total seagrass bed area increased sharply due to merging of the patches. However the vegetation was in patchy distribution with highly variable coverage. It was still doubt that these patches would survive from the natural heat stress, grazing and storm in the coming hottest period (Jun to Sep 2014).

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

3.6.29 The present survey was the sevenh 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 considering the factor of natural, seasonal variation. In case, abnormal phenomenon (e.g. rapid reduction of seagrass patch size, abnormal change of leave colour) is observed, it would be reported as soon as possible.

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

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

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

3.6.32 There was neither consistent vertical nor horizontal zonation pattern of substratum type all sampling zones. In general, ‘Gravels and Boulders’ and ‘Sands’ were usually observed at high and mid tidal levels. However ‘Soft mud’ was mainly observed at low tidal level. Such heterogeneous variation should be caused by different hydrology (e.g. wave in different direction and intensity) received by the four sampling zones.

3.6.33 Table 3.6 of Appendix O lists the total abundance, density and number of taxon of every phylum in the present survey. A total of 17896 individuals were recorded. Mollusks were significantly the most abundant phylum (total individuals 17439, density 581 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 97.4%). The second abundant group was arthropods (210 ind., 7 ind. m^-2, 1.2%). The third abundant group was annelids (160 ind., 5 ind. m^-2, 0.9%). Relatively other phyla were very low in abundances (£1 ind. m^-2, relative abundance £0.2%). Moreover, the most diverse phylum was mollusks (45 taxa) followed by arthropods (15 taxa) and annelids (11 taxa). The taxa of other phyla were relatively less (1-2 taxa). The complete list of collected specimens is provided in Annex III of Appendix O.

3.6.34 Table 3.7 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: 3191-6625 ind., relative abundance 95.1-98.7%). For TC1, TC3 and ST, arthropods were the second abundant phylum (27-58 ind., 0.7-1.4%) although the number of individuals was significantly lower than that of mollusks. Annelids were the third abundant phylum (14-39 ind., 0.4-1.0%). For TC2, annelids (76 ind., 2.3%) and arthropods (74 ind., 2.2%) were similar in abundances. Relatively, other phyla were low in abundance among the four sampling zones (< 1%).

3.6.35 Table 3.8 of Appendix O lists the abundant species (relative abundance >10%) in every sampling zone. In TC1, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was clearly abundant (321-323 ind. m^-2, relative abundance 49-63%) at high and mid tidal levels (major substrata: ‘Gravels and Boulders’ & ‘Sands’) while other taxa were less in densities. Gastropod Cerithidea cingulata (79 ind. m^-2, 15%) was the second abundant taxon at high tidal level. Gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (110 ind. m^-2, 17%) and Monodonta labio (74 ind. m^-2, 11%) were the second and third abundant taxa respectively at mid tidal level. At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Soft mud’), gastropods Batillaria zonalis (75 ind. m^-2, 17%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (64 ind. m^-2, 15%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (68 ind. m^-2, 16%, attached on boulders) were even and moderately abundant at low tidal levels.

3.6.36 At TC2, gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (363 ind. m^-2, 52%) and Cerithidea cingulata (210 ind. m^-2, 30%) were highly abundant at high tidal level (major substratum: ‘Sands’). At mid and low tidal levels (major substrata: ‘Soft mud’ & ‘Sands’), gastropod Cerithidea djadjariensis was still the most abundant taxon but the mean densities were much lower (126-135 ind. m^-2, 32-53%). Rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata was the second abundant taxon (72 ind. m^-2, 18% attached on boulders) at mid tidal level. Gastropod Batillaria zonalis were relatively less in densities (41-44 ind. m^-2, 10-18%) at mid and low tidal levels.

3.6.37 At TC3, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly abundant (810 ind. m^-2, 62%) at high tidal level (major substratum: ‘Sands’) followed by less abundant gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (302 ind. m^-2, 23%) and Cerithidea cingulata (144 ind. m^-2, 11%). At mid tidal level (major substrata: ‘Sands’ & ‘Soft mud’), the density of gastropod Batillaria multiformis declined sharply (62 ind. m^-2, 10%) and became the third abundant taxon. The gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (284 ind. m^-2, 47%) and Cerithidea cingulata (172 ind. m^-2, 29%) became the first and second abundant taxa although their densities were similar. At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’), rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (212 ind. m^-2, 27%) and gastropod Batillaria multiformis (206 ind. m^-2, 27%) were more abundant followed by gastropod Monodonta labio (168 ind. m^-2, 22%).

3.6.38 At ST, gastropod Batillaria multiformis was highly abundant (332 ind. m^-2, 50%) at high tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’) followed by much less abundant gastropod Monodonta labio (83 ind. m^-2, 12%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (77 ind. m^-2, 12%). At mid tidal level (major substratum: ‘Gravels and Boulders’), gastropod Monodonta labio (134 ind. m^-2, 21%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (131 ind. m^-2, 21%) were higher in abundances. Other less abundant taxa were gastropods Batillaria multiformis (97 ind. m^-2, 15%) and Cellana toreuma (88 ind. m^-2, 14%). At low tidal level (major substratum: ‘Soft mud’), gastropods Cerithidea djadjariensis (55 ind. m^-2, 23%), Batillaria zonalis (51 ind. m^-2, 22%), Batillaria bornii (25 ind. m^-2, 11%) and rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (43 ind. m^-2, 18%, attached on boulders) were abundant taxa at lower densities relative to that at high and mid tidal levels.

3.6.39 There was no consistent zonation pattern of species distribution observed across all sampling zones and tidal levels. The species distribution should be affected by the type of substratum primarily. In general, gastropods Batillaria multiformis (total number of individuals: 5665 ind., relative abundance 31.7%), Cerithidea djadjariensis (4013 ind., 22.4%) and Cerithidea cingulata (1831 ind., 10.2%) were the most commonly occurring species on sandy substratum. Moreover rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata (1827 ind., 10.2%) and gastropod Monodonta labio (1374 ind., 7.7%) were commonly occurring species inhabiting gravel and boulders substratum.

3.6.40 Table 3.9 of Appendix O shows the mean values of number of species, density, biodiversity index H’ and species evenness J of soft shore communities at every tidal level and in every sampling zone. Among the sampling zones, the mean number of species was similar (9-14 spp. 0.25 m^-2). The mean densities in TC3 (600-1309 ind. m^-2) was higher than that in TC1 (431-655 ind. m^-2), ST (236-665 ind. m^-2) and TC2 (253-692 ind. m^-2). The mean H’ (1.60) and J (0.66) in ST were relatively higher than that in TC1, TC2 and TC3 (H’: 1.22-1.39, J: 0.55-0.62).

3.6.41 Across the tidal levels, there was no difference for the mean number of species. Higher mean densities were found at high and mid tidal levels. Higher H’ and J were observed at mid and low tidal levels in TC1, TC2 and TC3. But both values were higher at high and mid tidal levels in ST.

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

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

3.7 Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

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

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

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

3.8 Environmental Licenses and Permits

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

4 Environmental Complaint and Non-compliance

4.1 Environmental Exceedances

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

Air Quality

4.1.2 For air quality, there were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP during the reporting period.

Noise

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

Water Quality

4.1.4 During the reporting period, two Action Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. Ten Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was 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 were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (June – August 2014). According to the contractor’s information, the marine activities undertaken for HKLR03 during the quarter of June 2014 to August 2014 included stone platform construction, reclamation, stone column installation, band drain installation, excavation of stone platform, surcharge activities, construction of seawall and temporary drainage diversion.

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

4.1.7 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

Limit Level

IS(Mf)6

Action Level

9 July 2014

11 Aug 2014

Limit Level

IS7

Action Level

Limit Level

IS8

Action Level

27 June 2014

Limit Level

IS(Mf)9

Action Level

Limit Level

IS10

Action Level

15 Aug 2014

Limit Level

SR3

Action Level

Limit Level

SR4

Action Level

Limit Level

SR5

Action Level

15 Aug 2014

13 Aug 2014

Limit Level

SR10A

Action Level

Limit Level

SR10B

Action Level

Limit Level

Total

Action

12**

Limit

0**

Notes:

S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

** The total exceedances.

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

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

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

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

5 COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Comments

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

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide vehicle washing bay at site exits of S8/S9.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide an impervious cover when piling at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean the oily films at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide water spray regularly on the haul road/unpaved road at S15 and S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide water spray to breaking activity at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to connect with the waste water treatment facilities at S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper cover at the top and 3 sides for the cement mixing plant at S9 and S11.

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

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the construction equipment adjacent to the trees and fencing off the tree.

§ The Contract was reminded to remove the stagnant water inside the disused wheel washing bay and H-beam at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water at abutment at N1 and on the ground at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to fill up the recesses of the concrete block to avoid accumulation of water at N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to water the dry stockpile material at S13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance to the noise barriers at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to enhance the standard of wheel washing facility at S25.

§ The Contractor was reminded to ensure the overlapping length of two pieces of silt-curtain for the vessel access opening over 150m.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sandbags along the public road at N13.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sandbags along the seaside at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper noise enclosure at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the oil leakage from excavator at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the fill materials at the edge of the barge at vessel of Chung Sheng 308 and Kiu Tak at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide proper drainage system for flood protection at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the damaged impervious sheet of dump truck at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray and label to chemical containers at N4, N13, S25 and at vessel of Chun Ming 83.

§ The Contractor was reminded to remove rubbish frequently at S15, N1 and N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide the stopper to drip tray to avoid oil leakage at S15 and N4.

§ The Contractor was reminded to seal the water barrier at N1.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide sand bags to prevent leakage of muddy water onto the public road at S11-S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to enclose the gaps between silt curtain and seashore at S16.

§ The Contractor was reminded to straighten the curved silt curtain.

§ The Contractor was reminded to repair the damaged cover of the dump truck (number plate: HA196) at S15.

§ The Contractor was reminded to clean up the blocked drainage system at S23.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance for the emission for Chun Ming 18 at S7.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide proper wheel washing facility at the entrance/exit of N20 and S22.

§ The Contractor was reminded to provide maintenance to the damaged hoarding at S11.

§ The Contractor was reminded to replace the air filter of vessel Shun Tak 22.

§ The Contractor was reminded to stop muddy water discharge from vessel Shun Tak 22.

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 Eighth Quarterly EM&A Report which summarises the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 June to 31 August 2014.

Air Quality

5.3.2 For air quality, there were no Action and Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP recorded during the reporting period.

Noise

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

Water Quality

5.3.4 During the reporting period, two Action Level exceedances of suspended solid level were recorded. Ten Action Level exceedances of dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Limit Level exceedance of suspended solid level and dissolved oxygen level were recorded. No Action and Limit Level exceedance of turbidity was recorded.

Dolphin

5.3.5 There were two Action Level exceedances of dolphin monitoring for the quarterly monitoring data (June – August 2014).

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

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

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

Mudflat -Sedimentation Rate

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

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

Mudflat - Ecology

5.3.11 The June 2014 survey was the seventh 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

5.3.12 Environmental site inspection was carried out on 4, 11, 18 and 27 June 2014, 2, 9, 16, 25 and 30 July 2014 and 6, 13, 20 and 29 August 2014. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.

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

Environmental Monitoring	Parameters	Action Level (AL)	Limit Level (LL)
Air Quality	1-hr TSP	0	0
Air Quality	24-hr TSP	0	0
Noise	L_{eq (30 min)}	0	0
Water Quality	Suspended solids level (SS)	2	0
	Turbidity level	0	0
	Dissolved oxygen level (DO)	10	0
Dolphin Monitoring	Quarterly Analysis (June to August 2014)	2	0

1 Introduction

1.1.5 This is the Eighth 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 June to 31 August 2014.

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

1.3 Construction Programme

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

1.4 Construction Works Undertaken During the Reporting Period

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

2 EM&A Requirement

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 Event Action Plans

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

2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 For 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP, no Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded at AMS 5 and AMS 6 during the reporting period.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Results

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

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

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

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

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

Data Analysis

Summary of Survey Effort and Dolphin Sightings

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

3.5.11 The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 647.96 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 246.44 km. 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.

Distribution

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

Encounter Rate

Group Size

3.5.33 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

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

Mother-calf Pairs

3.5.39 During the three-month study period, only three unspotted juveniles (UJ) were sighted in NWL survey areas. These young calves comprised of 3.1% of all animals sighted, which was much lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.8%).

Activities and Associations with Fishing Boats

Photo-identification and Individual Range Use

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

3.5.46 Almost all identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of one individual (NL272) being sighted thrice.

3.5.48 Six well-recognized females (NL93, NL104, NL123, NL145, NL202 and WL124) were accompanied with their calves during their re-sightings. Most of these mothers were frequently sighted with their calves throughout the HKLR03 impact phase monitoring period since October 2012.

Individual range use

3.5.49 Ranging patterns of the 32 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

3.5.59 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 S2, S3 and S4. The mudflat level is continuously increased. For S1 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 June 2014. The monitoring parameters included dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and suspended solids (SS).

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

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring

Sampling Zone

Horseshoe Crabs

Seagrass Beds

Intertidal Soft Shore Communities

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

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

Data Analysis

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

Mudflat Ecology Monitoring Results and Conclusion

Horseshoe Crabs