Figure 1.1- 1.2	Locations of Key Construction Activities in this Reporting Period
Figure 2.1	Locations of Air and Noise Monitoring Stations and Chek Lap Kok Wind Station
Figure 2.2	Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.3	Vessel based Dolphin Monitoring Transects in Baseline Monitoring
Figure 2.4	Land based Dolphin Monitoring in Baseline and Construction Phases
Figure 2.5	Location for Autonomous Passive Acoustic Monitoring in Baseline and Construction Phases

Appendices

Appendix A	Construction Programme and Contract Description
Appendix B	Project Organization Chart
Appendix C	Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule (EMIS) for Construction Phase
Appendix D	Graphical Plots of Water Quality Monitoring Results
Appendix E	Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring Findings and Analysis

Executive Summary

The “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) serves to meet the future air traffic demands at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the Project was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.

This is the 1^st Construction Phase Annual EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 28 December 2015 to 31 December 2016, while the Section on Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring summarizes the results between 18 December 2015 to 31 December 2016.

Key Activities in the Reporting Period

Key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period were related to the following contracts:

Advanced Works:

Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works

· Site preparation and establishment works;

· Construction of temporary concrete footing;

· Setup of site office;

· Antenna farm structural protection works;

· Stockpiling of excavated materials from Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) operation at stockpiling area;

· Construction of containment pit at Sheung Sha Chau Island;

· HDD work at launching site and Sheung Sha Chau Island; and

Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Works:

Contracts 3201 to 3205 DCM Works

· Mobilization and off-site plant fabrication;

· Laying of geotextile and sand blanket; and

· DCM trial works.

Other Works:

Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works

· Installation of silt curtain;

· Excavation works and removal of armour rock at the western part of the airport;

· Construction of drawpit; and

· Installation of cable trough, backfilling, and reinstatement of armour rock.

EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period

The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Manual of the Project. A summary of the monitoring and audit activities during this reporting period is presented as follows:

Monitoring/ Audit Activities	Number of Sessions
1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Air Quality Monitoring	411
Noise Monitoring	265
Water Monitoring	64
Ecological Monitoring	6
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring	10
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring	25

Six month CWD baseline monitoring was conducted between 18 December 2015 and 17 June 2016 and continued in July 2016 prior to the commencement of construction for marine works. Impact monitoring was commenced on 1 August 2016, although there were no marine construction activities in August and September 2016. A total of 5,619.7 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line transect survey during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 208 groups of 785 CWD individuals were sighted, with 46 groups of 181 CWDs recorded in northwest Lantau, 4 groups of 16 CWDs in airport west, 96 groups of 347 CWDs in western Lantau and 62 groups of 241 CWDs in southwest Lantau. No CWDs were sighted in northeast Lantau during the 12-month reporting period. The combined encounter rate by number of dolphin sightings and by number of dolphins were 3.44 and 13.44 respectively. No exceedance of the encounter rates for Action and Limit Levels were recorded during the construction phase. Average annual abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 60 individuals in 2016 from line-transect analysis. CWD relative occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau peaked in spring, concurrent with the start of the wet season. Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain an important year-round habitat for CWD, especially for foraging. Passive acoustic monitoring showed dolphins used the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year, but with increased activity during winter and spring months. The acoustic data also showed consistently higher levels of dolphin clicking activity at night, which may indicate increased using of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness.

Ferry movements between Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period in accordance with the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (SkyPier Plan). In total, 10,043 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period. The daily movements of all SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSFs) in the reporting period ranged between 1 and 97, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. There are fewer ferry movements on 1^st, 2^nd August and 21^st October 2016 due to typhoon. The annual daily average of all the SkyPier HSFs in 2016 was 91 movements, within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements. Most of the diverted HSFs had travelled through the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) with average speeds within 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. Three cases of average speed deviation were due to public safety. All ferry movements that did not strictly follow the diverted route were investigated. Most of the deviation cases were related to strong tidal wave and current, or giving way to other vessels due to safety and emergency situations.

The audit of construction and associated vessels has started in August 2016 in accordance with the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessels (MTRMP-CAV). ET has conducted weekly audit to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. A total of 24 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET from August to December 2016 with captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 18 skipper training workshops were held by contractors’ Environmental Officers (EO) and competency tests had been conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET.

On the implementation of the Marine Mammal Watching Plan, silt curtains were deployed by the contractors for sand blanket laying works with dolphin observers used in accordance with the Plan. On the implementation of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan, dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of DEZs for DCM trial works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works. Testing of night vision devices used for DEZ monitoring was also conducted before the DCM trials. From contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no marine mammals were observed within or around the DEZ and silt curtains during the reporting period. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET.

Ecological monitoring was undertaken monthly at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau Island in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual. During the reporting period, no encroachment into the egretry area at Sheung Sha Chau by the HDD daylighting location or mooring of flat top barge was recorded.

Review of Environmental Quality Performance Limits (Action and Limit levels)

During the reporting period, five exceedance cases involving Action Level of 1-hour total suspended particulates (TSP) monitoring were recorded during the reporting period. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases. The investigation results indicated that the exceedances were not related to the Project. There were, however, no exceedance cases involving Limit Level of 1-hour TSP monitoring throughout the reporting period.

For water quality, the monitoring results for dissolved oxygen (DO), total alkalinity, and chromium obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and/or Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme if being exceeded. For turbidity, suspended solids (SS) and nickel, some of the testing results had exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that all the exceedances were not due to the Project.

No breach of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to noise, waste and CWD monitoring were recorded during the reporting period.

Implementation Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures

Weekly site audits were carried out during the reporting period to confirm the implementation measures undertaken by the contractors. Environmental issues related to the construction activities, including air quality, noise, waste, CWD and ecology were monitored and/or reviewed.

The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting period. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures.

Summary Findings of the EM&A Programme

The following table summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period:

	Yes	No	Details	Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions
Breaches of Limit Level^		ü	No exceedance of project-related limit level was recorded.	Nil
Breaches of Action Level^		ü	No exceedance of project-related action level was recorded.	Nil
Complaints Received	ü		A complaint on night time work at Sheung Sha Chau was received on 29 Dec 2016.	The complaint investigation was carried out in accordance with the Complaint Management Plan. The investigation detail is presented in S3.2.1.
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions		ü	No notifications of summons or prosecution were received.	Nil
Changes that affect the EM&A	ü		The Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report was updated on 12 December 2016.	Nil

Remarks: ^ only exceedance of Action/ Limit Level related to Project works will be highlighted.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

On 7 November 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014) for the “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (the Project) was approved and an Environmental Permit (EP) (Permit No.: EP-489/2014) was issued for the construction and operation of the Project.

Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the Manual submitted under EP Condition 3.1. The Manual is available on the Project’s dedicated website (accessible at: http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html). AECOM Asia Company Limited (AECOM) was employed by AAHK as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) for the Project.

The Project covers the expansion of the existing airport into a three-runway system (3RS) with key project components comprising land formation of about 650 hectares and all associated facilities and infrastructure including taxiways, aprons, aircraft stands, a passenger concourse, an expanded Terminal 2, all related airside and landside works and associated ancillary and supporting facilities. The existing submarine aviation fuel pipelines and submarine power cables also require diversion as part of the works.

Construction of the Project is to proceed in the general order of diversion of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines, diversion of the submarine power cables, land formation, and construction of infrastructure, followed by construction of superstructures.

The updated overall phasing programme of all construction works and contract description is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Scope of this Report

This is the 1^st Construction Phase Annual EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 28 December 2015 to 31 December 2016.

1.3 Project Organisation

The Project’s organisation structure and the contact details of the key personnel are provided in Appendix B and Table 1.1 respectively.

Table 1.1: Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Project Manager’s Representative (Airport Authority Hong Kong)	Principal Manager, Environment	Lawrence Tsui	2183 2734
Environmental Team (ET) (Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Team Leader	Terence Kong	2828 5919
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Heidi Yu	2828 5704
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Keith Chau	2972 1721
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Jackel Law	3922 9376
	Deputy Independent Environmental Checker	Joanne Tsoi	3922 9423
Advanced Works:
Contract P560(R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works (Langfang Huayuan Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Wei Shih	2117 0566
	Environmental Officer	Lyn Lau	5172 6543
DCM Works:
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture)	Project Director	Tsugunari Suzuki	9178 9689
	Environmental Officer	Kanny Cho	9019 1962
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Ilkwon Nam	9643 3117
	Environmental Officer	Dickson Mak	9525 8408
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Seong Jae Park	9683 8693
	Environmental Officer	Calvin Leung	9203 5820
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kyung-Sik Yoo	9683 8697
	Environmental Officer	David Man	6421 3238
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture)	Deputy Project Director	Min Park	9683 0765
	Environmental Officer	Margaret Chung	9130 3696
Reclamation Works:
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kim Chuan Lim	3693 2288
	Environmental Officer	Kwai Fung Wong	3693 2252
Other Works:
Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Company)	Project Manager	Michael Kan	9206 0550
	Environmental Officer	Ivy Tam	2151 2090

1.4 Contact information for the Project

The contact information for the Project is provided in Table 1.2. The public can contact us through the following channels if they have any queries and comments on the environmental monitoring data and project related information.

Table 1.2: Contact Information of the Project

Channels	Contact Information
Hotline	3908 0354
Email	env@3rsproject.com
Fax	3747 6050
Postal Address	Airport Authority Hong Kong HKIA Tower 1 Sky Plaza Road Hong Kong International Airport Lantau Hong Kong Attn: Environmental Team Leader Mr Terence Kong c/o Mr Lawrence Tsui (TRD)

1.5 Summary of Construction Works

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period included five DCM contracts, an advanced works contract, and a CLP cable diversion enabling work contract. The DCM contracts involved DCM trials, laying of geotextile and sand blanket; the advanced works contract involved the HDD works and construction of containment pit; and the CLP cable diversion enabling work contract involved construction of concrete cable trough below the surface of the existing seawall.

The locations of the works areas are presented in Figure 1.1 to Figure 1.2. Some site investigation works were carried out during the reporting period.

1.6 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

The status for all environmental aspects is presented in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Summary of status for all environmental aspects under the Manual

Parameters		Status
Air Quality
Baseline Monitoring	At least 14 consecutive days before commencement of construction work	The baseline air quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	At least 3 times every 6 days	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Noise
Baseline Monitoring	Daily for a period of at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction works	The baseline noise monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Weekly	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Water Quality
General Baseline Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, for at least four weeks prior to the commencement of marine works.	The baseline water quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
General Impact Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides.	On-going since its commencement in August 2016.
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring	At least four weeks	To be commenced according to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing.
Early/ Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring	Three times per week until completion of DCM works.	On-going since its commencement in August 2016.
Waste Management
Waste Monitoring	At least weekly	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Land Contamination
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP)	At least 3 months before commencement of any soil remediation works.	To be submitted with the relevant construction works.
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) for Golf Course	CAR to be submitted for golf course first; programme for submission of supplementary CAR at the other areas to be agreed.	The CAR for Golf Course was submitted to EPD.
Terrestrial Ecology
Egretry Survey Plan	Once per month in the breeding season between April and July, prior to the commencement of HDD drilling works.	The revised Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14.
Ecological Monitoring	Monthly monitoring during the HDD construction works period from August to March.	On-going since its commencement in March 2016.
Marine Ecology
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey	Prior to marine construction works	The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12.
Coral Translocation	-	Carried out in accordance with the Coral Translocation Plan.
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD)
Baseline Monitoring	6 months of baseline surveys before the commencement of land formation related construction works. Vessel surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking: Two days per month at the Sha Chau station and two days per month at the Lung Kwu Chau Station; and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): For the whole duration of baseline period.	Baseline CWD results were reported in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD in accordance with EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Vessel surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking: One day per month at the Sha Chau station and one day per month at the Lung Kwu Chau Station; and PAM: For the whole duration for land formation related construction works.	On-going since its commencement in August 2016. Land-based theodolite tracking: In addition to the frequency as stipulated in the Manual, supplemental theodolite tracking is ongoing during the initial implementation period for the SkyPier Plan, i.e. in total twice per month at the Sha Chau station and three times per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station
Landscape and Visual
Baseline Monitoring	One-off survey within the Project site boundary prior to commencement of any construction works	The baseline landscape & visual monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Weekly	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Environmental Auditing
Regular site inspection	Weekly	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going since its commencement in November 2016.
Dolphin Exclusion Zone Plan (DEZP) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going since its commencement in December 2016.
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Construction and Associated Vessels Implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going since its commencement in August 2016.
Complaint Hotline and Email channel	Construction phase	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.
Environmental Log Book	Construction phase	On-going since its commencement in December 2015.

Taking into account the construction works in the reporting period, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, ecology and CWD were carried out in the reporting period.

The EM&A programme also involved weekly site inspections and related auditing conducted by the ET for checking the implementation of the required environmental mitigation measures as recommended in the approved EIA Report. In order to enhance environmental awareness and closely monitor the environmental performance of the contractors, environmental briefings and regular environmental management meetings were conducted.

The EM&A programme has been undertaken in accordance with the recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the Manual. A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.

2 Environmental Monitoring and Auditing

2.1 Air Quality Monitoring

Impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted three times every 6 days at two representative monitoring stations during the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are described in Table 2.1 and presented in Figure 2.1. The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Action Level (mg/m³)	Limit Level (mg/m³)
AR1A	Man Tung Road Park	306	500
AR2	Village House at Tin Sum	298	500

The graphical plots of impact air quality monitoring results during the reporting period are presented in Graph 1.

Graph 1: Graphical Plot of 1-hour TSP concentration at AR1A and AR2 during the Reporting Period

Two Action Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP monitoring started at 10:00 and 11:00 were recorded at AR1A on 21 January 2016. Actions were taken accordingly based on the established Event and Action Plan as presented in the Manual. IEC and AAHK were informed of the exceedances. It was confirmed that no major dusty construction activities were conducted by contract P560(R), the major land works, when the exceedances were measured. It is thus considered that the exceedances were not related to the Project.

Another three Action Level exceedances of 1-hour TSP monitoring started at 08:52, 09:52 and 10:52 were recorded at AR1A on 27 September 2016. Actions were taken accordingly based on the established Event and Action Plan as presented in the Manual. IEC and AAHK were informed of the exceedances. According to on-site observation by monitoring team, hazy weather was observed during monitoring. It was confirmed that no major dusty construction activities were conducted by P560(R) contractor when the exceedances were measured. The exceedances of 1-hr TSP might possibly be due to the changes in the background air quality level and not project-related.

No exceedance of the Action and Limit Level was recorded at AR2 in the reporting period.

The weather varied from fine to rainy in the reporting period. Wind direction was mainly northeast or northwest in the reporting period.

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period can be referred to Section 1.5 of this report. Those works were not likely to cause adverse dust pollution.

The active construction site is around 3 kilometres away from the nearest air sensitive receiver in Tung Chung. The major dust sources during the reporting period were observed to be local air pollution and nearby traffic emissions. It is considered that the monitoring work in the reporting period was effective and there was no adverse impact attributable to the works of the Project.

2.2 Noise Monitoring

Impact noise monitoring was conducted at five representative monitoring stations once per week during 0700 and 1900 during the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are described in Table 2.2 and presented in Figure 2.1. The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are provided in Table 2.2.

The graphical plot of impact noise quality monitoring results during the reporting period are presented in Graph 2.

Table 2.2: Impact Noise Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Action Level	Limit Level
NM1A	Man Tung Road Park	When one documented complaint is received from any one of the sensitive receivers	75 dB(A)
NM3A	Site Office		75 dB(A)
NM4⁽ⁱ⁾	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School		65dB(A) / 70 dB(A)
NM5	Village House in Tin Sum		75 dB(A)
NM6	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan		75 dB(A)
Note: ⁽ⁱ⁾ reduce to 70dB(A) for school and 65dB(A) during school examination periods.

Graph 2: Graphical Plot of L_eq(30 min) at NM1A, NM3A, NM4, NM5, and NM6 during the Reporting Period

No exceedance of the Action and Limit Level was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

The key activities undertaken in the reporting period were not likely to cause adverse noise impact. The active construction work is around 900 metres away from the nearest noise sensitive receivers in the villages in North Lantau. The major noise sources during the reporting period were observed to be aircraft noise at NM3A and NM5, aircraft noise and helicopter noise at NM6, road traffic noise at NM1A, and school activities at NM4 in the background. It is considered that the monitoring work in the reporting period was effective and there was no adverse impact attributable to the works of the Project.

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring commenced in August 2016, although there were no marine construction works in August and September 2016. Water quality monitoring was conducted at a total of 22 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact stations, seven sensitive receiver stations, and three control stations in the vicinity of the water quality sensitive receivers around the airport island in accordance with the Manual. Table 2.3 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.3: Monitoring Locations and Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring

Monitoring Stations		Coordinates
Monitoring Stations	Description	Easting	Northing	Parameters
C1	Control	804247	815620
C2	Control	806945	825682
C3⁽³⁾	Control	817803	822109
IM1	Impact	806458	818351	DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS, Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals⁽²⁾
IM2	Impact	806193	818852
IM3	Impact	806019	819411
IM4	Impact	805039	819570
IM5	Impact	804924	820564
IM6	Impact	805828	821060
IM7	Impact	806835	821349
IM8	Impact	807838	821695
IM9	Impact	808811	822094
IM10	Impact	809838	822240
IM11	Impact	810545	821501
IM12	Impact	811519	821162
SR1⁽¹⁾	Future Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling	812586	820069	DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR2⁽³⁾	Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To	814166	821463
SR3	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau	807571	822147
SR4A	Sha Lo Wan	807810	817189
SR5A	San Tau Beach SSSI	810696	816593
SR6	Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI	814663	817899
SR7	Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ)	823742	823636
SR8	Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East)	811593	820417

Notes:

⁽¹⁾ The seawater intakes of SR1 for the future HKBCF are not yet in operation, the future permanent location for SR1

during impact monitoring is subject to finalisation after the HKBCF seawater is commissioned.

⁽²⁾ Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html). DCM specific water quality monitoring parameters (total alkalinity and heavy metals) were only conducted at C1 to C3, SR2, and IM1 to IM12

⁽³⁾ According to the baseline water quality monitoring report, C3 station is not adequately representative as a control

station of impact/ SR stations during the flood tide. The control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 September 2016 onwards.

2.3.1 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring

The Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are presented in Table 2.4. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.4: Action and Limit Levels for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Parameters	Action Level (AL)		Limit Level (LL)
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring (excluding SR1& SR8)
DO in mg/L (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Surface and Middle 4.5 mg/L		Surface and Middle 4.1 mg/L 5 mg/L for Fish Culture Zone (SR7) only
DO in mg/L (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Bottom 3.4 mg/L		Bottom 2.7 mg/L
Suspended Solids (SS) in mg/L	23	or 120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher	37	or 130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher
Turbidity in NTU	22.6		36.1
Total Alkalinity in ppm	95		99
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Chromium)	0.2		0.2
Representative Heavy Metals for early regular DCM monitoring (Nickel)	3.2		3.6
Action and Limit Levels SR1
SS (mg/l)	To be determined prior to its commissioning		To be determined prior to its commissioning
Action and Limit Levels SR8
SS (mg/l)	52		60

Note:

1. For DO measurement, non-compliance occurs when monitoring result is lower than the Action or Limit Levels.

2. For parameters other than DO, non-compliance of water quality results when monitoring results is higher than the Action or Limit Levels.

3. Depth-averaged results are used unless specified otherwise.

4. Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular DCM monitoring refer to the Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing available on the dedicated 3RS website http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/ep-submissions.html)

5. The action and limit levels for the two representative heavy metals chosen will be the same as that for the intensive DCM monitoring.

Table 2.5: The Control and Impact Stations during Flood Tide and Ebb Tide for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Control Station	Impact Stations
Flood Tide
C1	IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, SR3
SR2^{^1}	IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A, SR6, SR8
Ebb Tide
C1	SR4A, SR5A, SR6
C2	IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7, SR8

^{^1}As per findings of Baseline Water Quality Report, the control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 Sep 2016 onwards.

2.3.1 Analysis and Interpretation of Monitoring Results

Summary of Monitoring Results

Water quality monitoring was conducted at 12 impact stations (IM), seven sensitive receiver (SR) stations and three control stations in the vicinity of water quality sensitive receivers around the airport island in accordance with the Manual. The purpose of water quality monitoring at the IM stations is to promptly capture any potential water quality impacts from the Project before the impacts could become apparent at sensitive receivers (represented by the SR stations).

Water quality monitoring commenced in August 2016. No marine construction works were conducted in August and September 2016, and hence no adverse water quality impact associated with the project was observed in August and September 2016.

During the monitoring period between October and December 2016, the monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity, and chromium obtained were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity, SS and nickel, some of the testing results had exceeded the relevant Action Levels or Limit Levels during the reporting period. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases, and the investigation findings concluded that all the exceedances were not due to the Project. Summaries of turbidity, SS, and nickel compliance status are presented in Table 2.6 to 2.10.

Findings for Turbidity Exceedance

Table 2.6 and Table 2.7 presents a summary of the turbidity compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb and mid-flood tide for the reporting period.

Table 2.6: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
19/11/2016
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Table 2.7: Summary of Turbidity Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
01/10/2016
01/11/2016
17/11/2016
No. of Turbidity Exceedances	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note: The monitoring dates that are not presented in the above tables were in full compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

Investigations were conducted for each of the exceedance cases and details of the investigation findings are presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report no. 10 and 11. All exceedances were found not due to the Project.

IM Stations

Overall, the turbidity exceedances that occurred during this reporting period appeared to be very sporadic and isolated cases with neither temporal nor spatial trend to indicate that the turbidity exceedances were linked to Project activities. Such isolated cases appear to be more characteristic of natural fluctuation, and this is supported by the baseline monitoring which also showed occasionally elevated turbidity levels that are of a magnitude similar to or greater than the turbidity exceedances that occurred during this reporting period.

SR Stations

There were no turbidity exceedances at any SR stations.

Findings for SS Exceedances

Table 2.8 and Table 2.9 presents a summary of the SS compliance status at IM and SR stations during mid-ebb and mid-flood tide for the reporting period.

Table 2.8: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
04/10/2016
15/10/2016
20/10/2016
25/10/2016
12/11/2016
15/11/2016
19/11/2016
26/11/2016
29/11/2016
01/12/2016
03/12/2016
No. of SS Exceedances	2	3	2	3	2	5	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	3	5	0	0	0	0

Table 2.9: Summary of SS Compliance Status at IM and SR Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
04/10/2016
15/10/2016
20/10/2016
22/10/2016
25/10/2016
01/11/2016
03/11/2016
05/11/2016
08/11/2016
12/11/2016
15/11/2016
17/11/2016
19/11/2016
24/11/2016
29/11/2016
17/12/2016
20/12/2016
27/12/2016
No. of SS Exceedances	2	3	3	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	2	3	0	0	6	1	9	0	0

Note: The monitoring dates that are not presented in the above tables were in full compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

Investigations were conducted for each of the exceedance case and details of the investigation findings are presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report no. 10, 11 and 12. All exceedances were found not due to the Project.

IM Stations

Overall, it was observed that the SS exceedances during this reporting period occurred frequently at those IM stations which are located upstream of the 3RS Project, particularly during mid-flood tide. Such exceedances at upstream stations would unlikely be affected by the Project.

Separately, during mid-ebb tide, it is observed that exceedances at IM stations occur at both upstream and downstream stations on the same monitoring day. Such concurrent (upstream and downstream) exceedances observed at these IM stations on the same monitoring day suggest that there might be other sources of SS that were not related to the Project.

SR Stations

At SR stations, except for SR4A during mid-ebb tide, exceedances occurred when the respective SR stations are located upstream of the Project during mid-ebb and mid-flood tide, hence exceedances at these upstream SR stations are unlikely to be due to the Project. In addition, it is noted that similarly high SS levels were observed at these SR stations during baseline monitoring, which suggested that such SS elevations are not uncommon under ambient conditions due to natural fluctuation.

Separately, a number of consecutive exceedances were observed affecting SR4A during mid-ebb tide. While this SR station is located downstream of the Project during mid-ebb tide, similar exceedances at the IM stations located between the Project and the SR station were not observed on most of the monitoring days, while the baseline monitoring results at SR4A showed similar high SS levels during baseline monitoring. It is thus considered that such SS elevations are not uncommon under ambient conditions due to natural fluctuation.

Findings for Nickel Exceedances

Table 2.10 presents a summary of the nickel compliance status at IM and SR stations for the reporting period. There were no nickel exceedances during mid-ebb tide for the reporting period.

Table 2.10: Summary of Nickel Compliance Status at IM Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	IM1	IM2	IM3	IM4	IM5	IM6	IM7	IM8	IM9	IM10	IM11	IM12	SR2	SR3	SR4A	SR5A	SR6	SR7	SR8
22/11/2016
No. of nickel Exceedances	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note: The monitoring dates that are not presented in the above table were in full compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D.

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream of the 3RS Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream station with respect to 3RS Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow

Investigations were conducted for each of the exceedance cases and details of the investigation findings are presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report no. 11. All exceedances were found not due to the Project.

IM Stations

Nickel is a representative heavy metal for DCM monitoring. It is worth noting that no DCM activities were conducted during the monitoring period. Hence it is considered that occasional elevations in nickel levels may arise due to other sources not associated with the Project.

SR Stations

There were no nickel exceedances at any SR stations.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the exceedance investigations presented in Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Report no. 10, 11 and 12, it was concluded that the exceedances during this reporting period were not due to the Project. Hence no SR stations were adversely affected by the Project. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan had been followed. Exceedances appeared to be due to natural fluctuation (such as naturally higher baseline SS levels at individual SR stations) or other sources not related to the Project.

Nevertheless, recognising that the IM stations represent a ‘first line of defense’, the non-project related exceedances identified at IM stations have been attended to as triggers of precautionary measures. As part of the EM&A programme, the construction methods and mitigation measures for water quality will continue to be monitored and opportunities for further enhancement will continue to be explored and implemented where possible, to strive for better protection of water quality and the marine environment.

In the meantime, the contractors were reminded to implement and maintain all mitigation measures during weekly site inspection. These include maintaining the silt curtain for sand blanket laying properly and maintaining the levels of materials on barges to avoid overflow as recommended in the Manual.

2.4 Waste Monitoring

In accordance with the Manual, the waste generated from construction activities was audited once per week to determine if wastes were being managed in accordance with the Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared for the Project, contract-specific WMP, and any statutory and contractual requirements. All aspects of waste management including waste generation, storage, transportation and disposal were assessed during the audits. The Action and Limit Levels of the construction waste are provided in Table 2.11.

Table 2.11: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Waste

Monitoring Stations	Action Level	Limit Level
Construction Area	When one valid documented complaint is received	Non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific WMPs, any statutory and contractual requirements

Weekly waste monitoring of the Project construction works to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices were conducted during the reporting period.

Recommendations were provided during monitoring including setup and implementation of the waste recording system, storage of stockpiled materials, spill control and management, provision and proper maintenance of drip trays for chemical containers, removal of oil stain on ground as chemical waste on sites, proper disposal of sewage effluent from construction workforce as well as proper collection, sorting and disposal of Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials and general refuse. In addition, relevant contractors were reminded to provide spill kit, personal protective equipment in the spill kits and chemical storage area, and to handle the chemical waste properly. The contractors had taken actions to implement the recommended measures.

Under the P560(R) Contract, about 1,850 cubic metres of excavated materials were produced from the HDD launching site and Sheung Sha Chau during the reporting period. Such materials are temporarily stored at the stockpiling area and for reuse in the Project.

In addition, metals and paper were recycled. During the reporting period, around 46 tonnes of general refuse and 0.5 tonnes of chemical waste were disposed of to the West New Territories (WENT) Landfill and Tsing Yi Chemical Waste Treatment Centre respectively. No C&D material was disposed off-site during the reporting period.

No exceedance of the Action or Limit Levels was recorded in the reporting period.

2.5 CWD Monitoring

This section summarises the results of the CWD monitoring effort over a 12-month period between 18 December 2015 and 31 December 2016 (covering 6-month baseline monitoring of the pre-construction period and 6-month construction phase monitoring commencing on 1 August 2016), to gather information on the spatial and temporal distribution patterns, abundance, and density of the CWD in the western Hong Kong waters. Supplementary information collected focuses on northwestern Lantau waters including the habitat use and behaviours of CWD before and during the construction phase of the 3RS project has also been reviewed. Seasonal variation has been considered using a whole year of data collected to facilitate the review of the CWD encounter rate and Event and Action Plan.

2.5.1 Summary of Monitoring Requirements

CWD monitoring was conducted by undertaking vessel line-transect surveys at a frequency of two full surveys per month, supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM). The frequency of the theodolite tracking was two days per month at both the Sha Chau (SC) station and Lung Kwu Chau (LKC) station during the 6-month baseline monitoring. The monitoring frequency during the construction phase for marine works was one day per month at both stations as stipulated in the Manual requirement. Additional theodolite tracking at SC station and LKC station (in total 2 tracking days and 3 tracking days per month at respective stations in both baseline and 6-month construction phase for marine works) were also conducted on a voluntary basis to collect supplementary information for the project. PAM was also deployed from January to December 2016 with a duty cycle of 20% for the baseline and construction phases with data supplementing the results of both vessel and land-based surveys. For detail on CWD monitoring and data analysis methodologies refer to Section 10.2.4 of the Manual. The locations of the CWD vessel survey transects are shown in Figure 2.3, whilst the land-based survey stations are described in Table 2.12 and depicted in Figure 2.4. The location of the Passive Acoustic Monitoring devices are shown in Figure 2.5.

Table 2.12: Land-based Survey Station Details

Stations	Location	Geographical Coordinates	Station Height (m)	Approximate Tracking Distance (km)
D	Sha Chau (SC)	22° 20’ 43.5” N 113° 53’ 24.66” E	45.66	2
E	Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)	22° 22’ 44.83” N 113° 53’ 0.2” E	70.40	3

Stations

Location

Geographical Coordinates

Station Height (m)

Approximate Tracking Distance (km)

Sha Chau (SC)

22° 20’ 43.5” N

113° 53’ 24.66” E

45.66

Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)

22° 22’ 44.83” N

113° 53’ 0.2” E

70.40

Construction phase monitoring of CWDs commenced in August 2016, although there were no marine construction works in August and September 2016. The Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for CWD monitoring were formulated by an action response approach using the running quarterly dolphin encounter rates (Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphin Sightings ‘STG’ and Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphins ‘ANI’) derived from baseline monitoring data, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The derived values of AL and LL for CWD monitoring are shown in Table 2.13.

Table 2.13: Derived Values of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

	NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole
Action Level	Running quarterly STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35
Limit Level	Two consecutive running quarterly (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35

2.5.2 Summary of Vessel Line-transect Survey Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

During the reporting period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016, survey effort was completed in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas. Although the frequencies of visiting each survey area per survey month were identical, the survey efforts of different survey areas varied and were generally in proportion to the size of each survey area (i.e. larger survey area having longer transect distance travelled). A total of 5,619.7 km of survey effort was conducted in this reporting period (NEL: 1,139.0 km, NWL: 1,955.2 km, AW: 114.9 km, WL: 783.8 km, and SWL: 1,626.8 km). The percentages of the total survey effort conducted in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL were around 20.3%, 34.8%, 2.0%, 13.9% and 28.9% respectively.

Around 89.6% (i.e. 5,035.9 km) of the survey effort was conducted under favorable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1,200 m or beyond), that can be utilized for the analyses of encounter rates, density and abundance of CWDs in western Hong Kong waters. The survey effort data are provided in Appendix A of CWD Baseline Monitoring Report, Appendix E of Quarterly EM&A Report No 3 and No.4.

Sighting Distribution

During mid-December 2015 to December 2016, 208 groups consisting of 785 CWD individuals were sighted. Amongst these 208 groups of CWDs, 173 groups with 677 individuals were sighted during on-effort surveys under favourable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1,200 metres or beyond).

The number of sightings by survey area recorded that NWL comprised 46 groups of 181 CWDs, AW comprised 4 groups of 16 CWDs, WL comprised 96 groups of 347 CWDs, while there were 62 groups of 241 CWDs in SWL. No CWDs were sighted in NEL during the entire reporting period.

In NWL, most CWDs were sighted within or in close vicinity of the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP), particularly north off Lung Kwu Chau, with a few sightings (including AW sightings) recorded at the southwestern part of the survey area. No dolphins were sighted in the eastern part of the survey area or within the 3RS land-formation footprint.

In WL, CWDs were quite evenly sighted along the coast and off-shore waters from Sham Wat to Fan Lau, with relatively more sightings near Fan Lau.

In SWL, CWDs frequented along the coastal waters from Fan Lau to Shui Hau with more sightings recorded in the western part of the survey area, especially near Fan Lau. CWDs were also scattered around the western side of the Soko Islands.

The sighting locations of CWDs during this reporting period are depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix E.

Encounter Rate

Two types of dolphin encounter rates were calculated based on the data collected from mid-December 2015 to December 2016. They included the number of dolphin sightings per 100 kilometres survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins per 100 kilometres survey effort (ANI). The dolphin encounter rates were calculated by using survey data collected under favorable weather condition only (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favorable visibility).

From mid-December 2015 to December 2016, the combined STG and ANI of CWDs (from NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) were 3.44 and 13.44 respectively. Compared by area, WL had the highest STG and ANI amongst the survey areas, followed by SWL, AW and NWL. The encounter rate of NEL was zero as no dolphins were sighted in the reporting period. By season, summer had the highest STG and ANI while the lowest encounter rates occurred in winter. The highest STG and ANI both occurred in July 2016 while the lowest STG and the lowest ANI appeared in January and March respectively. Dolphin encounter rates by survey area and a summary of monthly encounter rates are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix E while the trends of both monthly STG and ANI are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E.

For comparison with the Action/Limit levels for CWD monitoring, running quarterly STGs and ANIs were calculated from the commencement of construction phase monitoring in August 2016. No Action Level was triggered in this reporting period. The running quarterly STGs and ANIs from August to December 2016 are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix E while the trends of both quarterly STG and ANI were presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E.

The CWD Baseline Monitoring Report recommended a review of the encounter rate levels adopted as Action and Limit Levels for construction phase monitoring, as well as a review of CWD encounter rates across different seasons after collection of 12 months CWD monitoring data. The trends for the running quarterly STG and ANI from March to December 2016 (shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, Appendix E) have been further reviewed, by comparing the seasonal variations of CWD quarterly encounter rates with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) long term marine mammals monitoring results over the past six years (2010 to early 2016) covering the NEL, NWL, WL and SWL waters (Figure 4, Appendix E). The findings show that for both the 3RS monitoring results and AFCD long term records, the first quarter (i.e. January to March) of the year is still the low season for CWD encounters, with the values of STG and ANI consistently being the lowest during Q1. Seasonal variation can be reflected in the AFCD long term records that the CWD running encounter rates generally increase in Q2 and show a crest in Q3 (with some exceptions in the timing of crest – peaks in April and November 2011, a crest in Q4 2013 and a ‘late’ crest between September and November in 2015). Compared to the seasonal variations reflected in the AFCD long term records, the running quarterly encounter rates of the 3RS monitoring results (March to December 2016) were generally lower and with a narrower range (STG: 1.86 – 4.93; ANI: 8.99 – 21.75) throughout the year. The 2016 3RS monitoring data did not show a significant high quarterly encounter rates for STG and ANI (peak at 4.9 and 21.8 respectively), while the lowest peak for AFCD from 2010 to 2015 was at around 8 and 30 for STG and ANI respectively (AFCD 2016 peak season data is yet to be available for comparison of the 2016 trend.) As the peak quarterly encounter rates for STG and ANI values for 3RS baseline were still low, the setting of another set of AL/LL with a narrow range of different values may not represent the status of the peak season, therefore it is proposed to maintain the existing AL/LL derived from the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and to further review when more data are available. Therefore, the encounter rates previously established during the baseline monitoring period will continue to be used and thus the Event and Action Plan remains unchanged.

Density and Abundance Estimation

Line transect analyses to estimate the density and abundance of CWDs in Hong Kong waters during the time period of this report were conducted (Table 3, Appendix E). Overall, estimates of density and abundance were similar to those conducted by AFCD long-term dataset. As in past analyses, the area with the highest abundance and highest density was West Lantau (this has been consistent over the 21-year AFCD monitoring period). Northeast Lantau still registered zero sightings and an abundance estimate of zero, although recently some sightings of dolphins have been made in NEL by the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) monitoring efforts (L. J. Porter, pers. comm. to T. A. Jefferson, Jan. 2017).

In addition to estimating year-round abundance for each of the survey areas, a seasonal analysis was also conducted (the pooled dataset from all survey areas have been used, as stratifying by both survey area and season would reduce the sample sizes, and result in estimates with unacceptably-low levels of precision). The seasonal estimates (refer to Table 3 of Appendix E) were reasonably similar and generally in line with what was expected from past research, with the exception that the spring estimate was quite high, and this is higher than expected from past work, where spring estimates were generally the low season for dolphin numbers in Hong Kong.

Habitat Use

Habitat use of CWD amongst the survey areas was examined by using quantitative grid analysis, both SPSE and DPSE values were calculated in all grids amongst all survey areas for the time period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016, for the first time for 3RS CWD monitoring.

In this reporting period, the important habitat of CWDs in NWL waters with high dolphin densities was north of Lung Kwu Chau. In WL and SWL waters, the important habitats of CWDs were near Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. The number of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 units of survey effort (SPSE) and number of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort (DPSE) were calculated for the period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016 and depicted in Figure 5 of Appendix E.

Group Size

During the period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016, group size of CWDs ranged from one to 24 individuals, with an overall average of 3.77 ± 3.09. The average group sizes of NWL, AW, WL and SWL were 3.93, 4.0, 3.61 and 3.89 respectively. By four solar seasons, the average group size of CWDs was the highest in winter (4.21) but the lowest in autumn (2.91). The summaries of the average group size of CWDs by survey areas and by seasons were presented in Table 4 and Table 5 of Appendix E.

Small and medium sized CWD groups accounted for most of the sightings during mid-December 2015 to December 2016 (48.1% and 47.1% respectively). Only 10 sightings, that accounted 4.8% of the sightings, contained 10 or more animals per group.

Both small and medium sized CWD groups were sighted throughout the distribution range of dolphins in North, West and Southwest Lantau waters. Medium sized CWD groups were sighted more than small sized groups in the confluence of NWL, AW and WL survey areas where the HZMB Hong Kong Link Road aligned. There were relatively more large sized CWD groups sighted in WL and SWL than in NWL. In NWL, two large CWD groups were sighted in the area close to Deep Bay. In WL, the large CWD groups were sighted in waters between Yi O and Fan Lau. While in SWL, two large CWD groups were sighted in off-shore areas to the west of the survey area, with another large group sighted near Fan Lau and another was recorded in waters around Shek Pik. The sighting distribution of CWDs with different group sizes is illustrated in Figure 6 of Appendix E.

Activities and Association with Fishing Boats

Although vessel surveys do not provide the most unbiased information on the behaviour and activities of dolphins (due to the potentially disturbing presence of the vessel itself, and also the low vantage point of small vessels), nonetheless behaviour and activity data were collected from the vessel surveys.

During the reporting period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016, a total of 84 and 16 groups of CWDs were observed engaging in feeding and socializing activities, comprising of 40.4% and 7.7% of all CWD sightings respectively. Moreover, 34 and 17 groups of CWDs were sighted engaging in travelling and resting/milling activities respectively. The sighting locations of CWD groups engaged in different types of activities are depicted in Figure 7 of Appendix E.

Feeding activities mainly occurred north of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL and along the coast of WL and SWL, from Sham Wat to Shui Hau. Occasional feeding activities were also observed in southwestern corner of SCLKCMP and AW in NWL, and the central and western parts of Soko Islands. Considering the sample size of sighting data of different survey areas, AW has the highest percentage of feeding (although it should be kept in mind that the sample size in AW was very small), followed by SWL (Table 6, Appendix E).

A total number of 15 sightings of CWDs were observed associating with operating fishing boats, including gill netters (three groups), purse seiners (10 groups), single trawlers (one group) and pair trawlers (one group), accounted for 7.2% of all sightings. Although a trawling ban has been implemented in December 2012, illegal trawling activities were still often observed near the western and south-western borders of Hong Kong. Two groups of CWDs, one in NWL and another in SWL were observed feeding in association with trawling activities. Purse seiners were the most often observed fishing boat type that CWDs associated with. The operation of purse seiners with aggregated fisheries resources that the CWDs might have found beneficial to associate with. Operations of purse seiners were often observed in northern waters off Lung Kwu Chau and along the coastal waters of WL and SWL where CWDs also frequented. The sighting locations of CWD groups associated with operating fishing boats were depicted in Figure 8 of Appendix E.

Socializing activities were mainly sighted around Lung Kwu Chau and Fan Lau. Traveling activities in NWL were mainly sighted in areas close to Deep Bay. While in WL, traveling activities frequently occurred relatively off-shore from Yi O to Fan Lau. There were also several sightings with traveling activities scattered in SWL. In addition, resting/milling activities mainly occurred in WL and SWL. Three sightings of resting/milling activities were sighted in waters around the HZMB Hong Kong Link Road. The percentages of different activities for each of the survey areas were shown in Table 6 of Appendix E.

Mother-calf Pairs

During the reporting period from mid-December 2015 to December 2016, 15 out of all sightings were observed having mother-and-unspotted calf, or mother-and-unspotted juvenile pairs. The percentages of sightings with mother-calf pairs in NWL, WL and SWL were 8.7%, 6.3% and 8.0% respectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the no. of sightings with mother-calf pairs of a survey area by the total no. of sightings of that survey area. The sighting distribution of mother-calf pairs are depicted in Figure 9 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Summary

From mid-December 2015 to December 2016, a total number of 165 CWD individuals were identified altogether 365 times from all sightings. These 165 identified CWD individuals were divided into three photo catalogues namely NL, WL and SWL accordingly to their first sighting locations. NL, WL and SWL catalogues contain 49, 63 and 53 individuals respectively. Amongst these 165 identified individuals, 82 (49.7%) were sighted more than once.

The number of re-sightings of an identified animal range from two to 10 times. The re-sighting rates (i.e. number of identified individuals that were re-sighted more than once divided by the total number of the identified individuals in the catalogue) of NL, WL and SWL catalogues were 38.8%, 52.4% and 56.6% respectively. Twelve out of these 82 re-sighted individuals were sighted 5 times or more. The most frequently re-sighted animals were NLMM006, NLMM013 and SLMM010, all were re-sighted 10 times from mid-December 2015 to December 2016. Summary of the photo-identification of CWDs is presented in Table 7 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Range Use of Identified CWD individuals

Re-sighting locations of identified CWD provide a basic idea of the range use of the individual dolphin.

Amongst these 82 re-sighted individuals, 43 individuals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. This accounted for about 26.1% of all 165 identified animals. Fourteen (32.6%) out of these 43 animals were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and WL, while 32 (74.4%) animals were recorded in both WL and SWL. Five (11.6%) out of these 43 animals were re-sighted in three main survey areas (i.e. WL, SWL and NWL including AW). These five animals were NLMM019, NLMM021, SLMM011, WLMM027 and WLMM054.

Despite the fact that a number of identified CWD individuals were re-sighted in different survey areas, a significant proportion of animals were observed not crossing between different survey areas and were sighted in only one survey area repeatedly. For instance, 10 individuals occurred repeatedly in NWL only, 16 animals were re-sighted within WL only, while 12 animals occurred repeatedly in SWL only. The re-sighting locations of those re-sighted individuals that involved in NWL were depicted in the location maps in Figure 10 of Appendix E to provide indicative locations of their range used.

2.5.3 Summary of Land-based Theodolite Tracking Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

During mid-December 2015 to December 2016, a total of 59 days (including 60 survey sessions) and 361:49 (hh:mm) of land-based theodolite survey effort have been accomplished (Table 8 of Appendix E for summary, raw data refer to Appendix E of CWD Baseline Monitoring Report, Quarterly EM&A Report No. 3 and No.4). A total of 128 CWD groups were tracked from land, with 126 from the LKC station, and two from the SC station (Table 9 and Figure 11 of Appendix E). After the raw data were filtered, 51 CWD group focal follows from LKC and one from SC fit criteria for analyses. From these focal follow tracks, 78 and three 10-minute segments from LKC and SC respectively, were extracted for analyses. CWD group sighting per survey effort was 0.58 from LKC and 0.01 from SC.

Time of Day

The diurnal pattern of CWDs was calculated by dividing the total tracking time of CWD groups (prior to filtering data) by the total effort per hour block. Off LKC, the highest percentages of CWD groups (per hour of effort) were during the 1000 hour block (18.91%) and 1400 hour block (19.64%) (Figure 12 of Appendix E). The two groups recorded off SC were tracked during the 1000 and 1100 hour blocks only.

Time of Year

The highest percentage of CWD groups observed from LKC was during the 5^th study period, between 18 April and 17 May 2016 (18.25%), as the wet season began, and the lowest percentage observed was during the 4^th study period, between 18 March and 17 April 2016 (1.59%). CWDs were only observed from SC during the 6^th and 8^th survey months between 18 May and 17 June, and August 2016. For details, refer to Figure 13).

Group Size

The mean group size of CWD filtered tracks off LKC was 3.08±1.81, ranging from singletons to a maximum group size of 9. The sighting distribution of CWDs relative to group sizes is represented in Figure 14 of Appendix E. Singletons were most often observed near shore and group sizes of CWDs were largest around the SCLKCMP boundary where ferry traffic is routed around the perimeter of the marine park. The mean group size of CWDs was 2.59±1.64 (n=37) within the park, 3.19±1.44 (n=25) outside of the park, and 3.85±2.39 (n=16) crossing the marine park boundary. A basic one-way ANOVA and sequential Bonferonni post hoc test showed a significantly larger mean group size, at alpha level 0.05, of CWDs around the marine park boundary than those within the marine park (p=0.016). As will be mentioned in discussion, this trend may reflect sighting bias wherein single individuals may be more difficult to locate farther from the survey platform and easier to find and track larger group sizes at greater distances. However, CWD group sizes were not significantly larger beyond the park boundary relative to those around the boundary perimeter.

Group size of CWDs within 500 m of diverted SkyPier HSFs (<15 knots) was 3.50±2.07 (n=8), and for non-SkyPier HSFs (≥15 knots) was 4.29±2.69 (n=7). Group size with no vessels within 500 m was 2.91±1.64 (n=58). A basic one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences in group size based on vessel type present (p=0.122). While not significantly different, possibly due to small sample sizes in the presence of ferries, the possibility exists that dolphins more often aggregate together in the presence of vessels, especially those moving at high speed.

Only two groups, both with 4 individuals, were observed off SC (shown in Figure 15 of Appendix E). Detailed information on group size is shown in Table 10 of Appendix E.

Behavioural State

Excluding the unknown behavioural category from the filtered segments, foraging and travelling were observed most frequently (40.91% and 28.57%, respectively), and milling, resting, and socialising were observed least frequently (2.60%, 3.68%, and 5.84%, respectively) off LKC (Figure 16 of Appendix E). Travelling was the only behaviour recorded off SC.

Vessel Activity

Off LKC, vessels were recorded within 500 meters of focal CWD groups on 20 occasions (based on filtered 10-min segments), including diverted SkyPier HSFs under speed restriction on 8 occasions, non-SkyPier HSFs on 7 occasions, and other vessels (e.g., fishing and government vessels) on 5 occasions. A basic one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference at the 0.05 alpha level in CWD speed relative to vessel type present (p=0.015), and no significant differences in CWD reorientation rate (p=0.518) or linearity (p=0.128) relative to vessel type present. A sequential Bonferonni post hoc test showed a significant difference in CWD speed at alpha level 0.05 when diverted SkyPier HSFs under speed restriction were present (p=0.003) compared to no vessels present. There was also a significant difference in CWD speed at alpha level 0.1 when non-SkyPier HSFs were present (p=0.066) compared to no vessels present. There was no difference in CWD speed when other vessels were present (p=0.516).

There was no significant difference in CWD swimming speed, reorientation rate, or linearity based on high speed ferry presence when compared to slower speed ferry presence. However, sample sizes for the vessel categories are very small (e.g., all <15 samples), and therefore not robust, and should be interpreted with caution. The small sample sizes may reflect CWD potential avoidance of vessels off LKC.

CWD fine-scale movement patterns off LKC varied based on natural and artificial factors. CWDs swam slower and changed bearing more often when foraging than when travelling, as expected. CWDs generally swam in a less linear fashion when in larger social groupings. CWDs also swam significantly faster when moving across and outside of the marine park boundary. Although the SCLKCMP is an artificial construct lacking physical barriers, there are tangible differences based on vessel restrictions and operating routes within and beyond the designated area. Movement patterns did not change significantly relative to vessel presence, including high speed ferries and high speed ferries under speed restrictions. However, sample size in this category was low. CWDs may actively avoid vessels; for example, swimming quickly away from vessels when approaching the marine park boundary, making detection of groups within 500 m of a vessel less likely. The high-speed ferry speed restrictions in the area may allow dolphins to change course and swim away from oncoming vessels moving at slower speeds.

2.5.4 Summary of Passive Acoustic Monitoring Results

Dolphin Detection Rates Per Day

During the period of 8 Jan to 28 Dec 2016 (Deployments 1 through 7), dolphins were detected at site A5 (location refers to Figure 2.5) in a total of 210 of 74,234 files (0.28% of files) (Table 11 of Appendix E). Dolphins were detected on 104 of 261 (40%) days with recording effort (Table 11 and Figure 17 of Appendix E). On days with dolphins detected, the mean percentage of files with detections per day was 0.7%, and the maximum percentage of files with dolphin detections was 4.17%, on 7 Feb 2016 (Figure 17 of Appendix E). Clicks (including burst pulses) were the predominant type of dolphin signal detected (n = 209 detections). Of these, 18 were noted to be burst pulses and they were detected in the months of October through December 2016. Only one whistle was detected in data from this monitoring period, recorded on 27 November 2016.

Dolphin detection rates were greatest during winter and spring months (January through May) and lowest in summer, and showed a slight increase again in autumn (Figure 17 of Appendix E). During Deployments 1, 2, 3 and 6 (8 Jan – 13 May and 6 Oct – 7 Nov 2016), dolphins were detected on 40% - 65% of recording days, and in 0.2% - 0.6% of files on average. Detection rates were lower during Deployments 4, 5 and 7 (20 May – 12 Sep and 17 Nov – 28 Dec 2016), in which dolphins were detected on 29%, 18% and 24% of recording days respectively, and in 0.1% of files (Figure 17 of Appendix E).

These values represent reductions in the same metrics compared to previous monitoring at site A5 in 2013. During the comparable time period of 8 Jan to 7 Dec 2013 (the last day of recording effort for the previous EIA study), dolphins were present on 206 of 284 recording days (73%) (Figure 18 of Appendix E). In 2013, dolphins were detected in 763 of approximately 81,790 files (0.93% of files), and on days with dolphins the mean percentage of files with detections was 1.3%, nearly double the mean percentage of files on days with dolphins in 2016 (0.7%). The percentage of files per day with dolphin detections exceeded 4% on 11 days during the 2013 time period, whereas in 2016 the percentage of files with dolphin detections exceeded 4% on only one day.

Dolphin Diel Pattern

Dolphin detection rates at A5 from 8 Jan to 28 Dec 2016 were greater at night than during daytime and exhibited a clear diel pattern, with peak detection hours between 2100-2200 and 0200-0300 (Figure 19 of Appendix E). This pattern of detection was similar compared to the 2013 monitoring period, with higher numbers of detections during night-time and fewest detections at midday (as seen throughout Hong Kong waters, in general). No seasonal differences in the diel pattern were evident, although the overall numbers of detections in summer and autumn were lower than in winter and spring (Figure 20 of Appendix E).

Sound Pressure Levels Per Day

Ambient received noise levels (referred to as sound pressure levels or SPL) at the EAR were calculated for each recording within the full effective frequency bandwidth (~0 to 32 kHz) as well as octave bands of 0-2 kHz, 2-4 kHz, 4-8 kHz, 8-16 kHz, and 16-32 kHz. Mean sound pressure levels over the full bandwidth ranged from approximately 104 to 117 dB rms re 1 µPa over the recording period (Figure 21 of Appendix E). Mean sound pressure levels were approximately 5 dB lower in winter through early spring (Jan-Mar) compared to late spring and summer (Apr-early Sep) in all frequency bands. During the period of 5-10 Feb 2016, sound pressure levels in the 0-2 kHz band declined sharply by approximately 7 dB (affecting the full band level as well), this was likely due to less marine traffic during the period of Lunar Chinese New Year contributing to this "dip", and "normal" levels resumed after the public holiday.

Sound pressure levels in the 16-32 kHz band, in which energy from CWD clicks occurs, ranged from approximately 95 to 103 dB, and were 3-5 dB lower in winter and spring compared to summer and autumn (Figure 21 of Appendix E). Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin click and whistle frequencies are above 16 kHz and below 10 kHz, respectively (Sims et al. 2011); however, these sounds were very rare in the data compared to other sound sources and would not be distinguishable in ambient noise plots.

Influence of Ambient Sound Level on Dolphin Detections

The extent to which ambient received sound levels influenced detectability of dolphin signals is not quantified for this data set. However, the daily mean SPL for A5 in 2016 (Figure 21 of Appendix E) was similar to values reported for the same site over the same period in corresponding octave bands in 2013, to within approximately ± 2 dB (Figure 22 of Appendix E). Therefore, the potential masking effect of background noise on dolphin signals in 2016 was comparable to any masking effect in 2013. This suggests that the lower dolphin detection rate in 2016 compared to 2013 reflects a true reduction in dolphin signals, rather than an increase in background noise resulting in increased masking of signals.

Diel Sound Pressure Level

Mean sound pressure levels plotted by hour revealed a daily peak during the hours of 1700-1900, which was most pronounced in the 0-2 kHz frequency band (Figure 23 and Figure 24 of Appendix E). This daily peak was most pronounced in spring and summer months (March-August), subsided in autumn, and was not distinctive in winter. This seasonally shifting peak is similar to the diel pattern of sound pressure levels reported during previous Hong Kong PAM efforts (Munger et al. 2016), and is hypothesized to be related to a local fish chorus, probably dominated by croakers (family Sciaenidae). Sound pressure levels in the 16-32 kHz band remained relatively flat and constant (within 2 dB) throughout all hours of the day (Figure 23 and Figure 24 of Appendix E).

The contribution of daily vessel traffic and anthropogenic noise can best be seen in the winter plot, where the fish chorus peak is weak or absent. Full-bandwidth sound pressure levels begin to increase at 0700 throughout the day and reach a maximum of >110 dB in the afternoon; SPL then decreases after 1900 throughout the night to minimum values of ~107 dB between 0300 and 0500 (Figure 23 of Appendix E).

2.5.5 Discussions on CWD Monitoring Results

This report summarises the findings of the 12-month CWD monitoring results from mid-December 2015 to December 2016 for the 3RS Project. Overall, while the general patterns emerging from the vessel-based survey work are along the lines of what would be expected from our previous experience, they have also provided important information on the shifting patterns of dolphin use of the area of western Hong Kong, as both environmental and anthropogenic changes affect the habitat of the animals in complex and sometimes-unpredictable ways. However, for the most part, our observations fit into the expected behavior of dolphins shifting away from the parts of their habitat that are most affected by potentially-disturbing marine construction activities (such as some aspects of land reclamation) and high-speed vessel traffic. Both previous observations of CWDs in Hong Kong and information from the literature on responses of closely-related species of marine mammals predict such behavior, and this is indeed what is being observed (note the much-decreased use of NEL and NWL, and increased use of SWL in the recent decade or so). Our previous experience would also lead us to believe that dolphins will indeed shift back into at least some of those habitat areas once the disturbing factors are lessened (3RS approved EIA (Mott MacDonald, 2014) and Hoyt 2011), and assuming that the overall population is still reasonably robust and the habitat receives effective protection from the main threats. The monitoring work that we will conduct over the next several years will be focused on determining whether in fact this has been the case with CWDs in Hong Kong. Certainly, the protection of important habitat areas where the dolphins have historically done much of their feeding and calf-rearing activities will help to ensure that this will be the case.

Vessel survey data from this monitoring period found no CWDs in the NEL area. There is initial indication that SWL and WL areas are being more heavily used by CWDs, and this may have resulted from CWDs shifting their activities to parts of their home range in SWL and WL waters to avoid the NEL area. Similar findings on shifting of habitat use of some dolphins from northern Lantau to west and southwest Lantau waters were recorded in 2015 by the AFCD study (Hung, 2016). However, despite these changes, some regions within North Lantau waters are still being used as important dolphin habitat (especially the area around Lung Kwu Chau and the Urmston Road area near Castle Peak).

Based on theodolite data, the waters off Lung Kwu Chau remain an important foraging area for CWDs throughout the year. Relative occurrence peaked in April 2016, concurrent with the beginning of the wet season. No clear pattern of occurrence emerged off LKC relative to 3RS construction activities. Group sizes of CWDs were generally smaller closer to shore, with the largest groups occurring in closer proximity to the SCLKCMP boundary, at times beyond the marine park. It is possible that this perception of group size difference close to shore vs. further from shore is an artefact due to the fact that dolphins are more easily seen and tracked from shore when at greater distance when they are in larger group sizes. Further work will hopefully clarify this present uncertainty.

There were very few CWDs observed off Sha Chau, only 2 groups observed throughout the entire year. The only behaviour observed from this location was travelling, suggesting that CWDs are simply moving through this area to more suitable habitat. This is a sharply-reduced use of the area north of the airport and south of the Sha Chau/Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park from earlier studies, as expected relative to increasing marine works in this area. However, night-time recordings of CWDs indicated that use is not as low as detected by vessel and shore-based work alone.

The passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) data continue to provide useful information, especially on patterns of dolphin vocalization at night, which has previously been unavailable to us. The diurnal detection of clicks showed a consistent pattern of higher levels at night compared with the day, which may be indicative of increased use of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness.

The PAM data provide evidence that dolphins are using the area around A5 throughout the year. Dolphins were present on more than half the recording days (59-65%) in winter and early spring (Jan-Mar), and on 18-42% of days in the late spring through autumn. The per-file detection rates were also highest in winter and spring; taken together, these metrics suggest that dolphins use the A5 area more frequently and intensively in winter and spring than in the summer. Dolphins were detected more frequently during nighttime hours than during the day, and this may be related to increased nocturnal foraging behaviour and/or avoidance of the A5 area during the day when anthropogenic activity is greater.

Dolphin detection rates were considerably lower in 2016 than in 2013 at the same monitoring site. This probably represents a true decrease in dolphin detections rather than increased masking of signals, as the ambient noise levels were comparable between years.

2.5.6 Conclusions of CWD Monitoring Results

Although the analyses presented in this report will be updated with larger datasets in the future, as the construction phase for the 3RS continues, it is a good beginning on the process of building up data to examine the potential effects of the 3RS construction, and also to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation measures. Several findings can be made at this point, although some of these should be considered preliminary.

Key Findings:

1. In general, findings from this study are consistent with findings from the long-term monitoring commissioned by AFCD,

2. Dolphins have remained extremely uncommon around the Brothers Islands of NE Lantau,

3. Both SW Lantau and W Lantau were being used more heavily in 2016 than in the past, likely due to dolphins moving away from the more disturbed habitats in NW and NE Lantau (e.g. potential disturbance from HZMB projects including the HKBCF, the Hong Kong Link Road and other associated projects),

4. There have been no exceedances of the encounter rate Action and Limit Levels derived from the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report during the first six month of impact monitoring,

5. Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain an important year-round habitat, especially for foraging,

6. Average annual abundance in Hong Kong’s western waters covering NWL, AW, NEL, SWL and WL was estimated at 60 individuals in 2016 from line-transect analysis,

7. Relative occurrence from land-based surveys around LKC peaked in spring, concurrent with the start of the wet season,

8. Group sizes of CWDs were generally smaller closer to shore, with larger groups in closer proximity to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park boundary,

9. CWDs had slower swimming speeds and changed direction more frequently when foraging than when traveling,

10.Shore-based work found very few dolphin groups off Sha Chau (much reduced from past levels),

11.Acoustic monitoring showed consistently higher levels of clicking activity at night, which may indicate increased using of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness,

12.Dolphins used the area around PAM A5 throughout the year, but with increased activity during winter and spring months, and

13.Dolphin acoustic detection rates were lower in 2016 than in 2013 at the same site, which is consistent with the decreased use of the NW Lantau area, as seen from the visual survey work.

Each main survey type (i.e. vessel-based line transect and photo-identification surveys, land-based surveys with theodolite-tracking, and passive acoustic monitoring) provides important data that are complementary, and when analysed together, they provide a robust dataset to examine the kinds of issues that need to be considered for proper management and conservation of the dolphins.

2.5.7 Site Audit for CWD-related Mitigation Measures

During the reporting period, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works and at least two dolphin observers were deployed by each contractor in accordance with the Marine Mammal Watching Plan. Teams of at least two dolphin observers were deployed by contractors for continuous monitoring of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) for DCM trial works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. Testing on night vision devices for Dolphin Exclusion Zone monitoring was also conducted before the DCM trials. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphins or other marine mammals were observed within or around the DEZ and silt curtains during the reporting period. These contractors’ records were also audited by the ET during site inspection.

Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were carried out during weekly site inspection and summarised in Section 2.6. Summary of audits of SkyPier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management are presented in Section 2.8 and Section 2.9 respectively.

2.6 Weekly Environmental Site Inspection

Site inspections of the construction works were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Observations have been recorded in the site inspection checklist and passed to the contractor together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary.

The key observations from site inspection and associated recommendations were related to:

● display of Non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) labels for generators;

● improvement of dust control and spill prevention measures;

● provision of wheel washing facilities for vehicles before leaving the construction site;

● display of noise emission labels for air compressors;

● improvement of efficiency and capacity of wastewater treatment facilities;

● provision of sandbags around the gully to prevent surface runoff;

● better maintenance of drainage channel;

● sewage effluent from construction workforce;

● provision and proper maintenance of drip trays for chemical containers;

● removal of oil stains on ground as chemical waste;

● review of the capacity of chemical waste storage area;

● proper collection, sorting and disposal of inert and non-inert C&D materials;

● display of Environmental Permit at site entrance; and

● erection of site hoarding.

In addition, recommendations were provided during site inspection on construction vessels, which include:

● provision of spill kit and chemical waste storage area for the chemical waste;

● display of Environmental Permit;

● provision of spare silt curtain on required construction vessels; and

● provision of acoustic decoupling for noisy equipment.

In addition, CNP compliance check of the use of powered mechanical equipment for Contract P560(R) during restricted hour at the launching site was carried out by the ET on 11 July 2016. The use of powered mechanical equipment was complied with the requirements of CNP.

The daily visual inspection checklists for silt curtains and bi-weekly diver inspection records which were implemented by the contractors in accordance with the Silt Curtain Deployment Plan had been checked during site inspection, summarizing that the silt curtains were maintained in the correct positions and intact without obvious defects or damage.

A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.

2.7 Ecological Monitoring

In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, ecological monitoring shall be undertaken monthly at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau Island to identify and evaluate any impacts with appropriate actions taken as required to address and minimise any adverse impact found.

Monthly ecological monitoring was carried out in March, August, September, October, November and December 2016 on Sheung Sha Chau Island. No encroachment into the egretry area at Sheung Sha Chau by the HDD daylighting location or mooring of flat top barge was recorded during ecological monitoring.

2.8 Audit of the SkyPier Plan

During the initial implementation period, the SkyPier HSFs encountered occasional difficulties as reported by Ferry Operator (FO) in strictly observing the 15-knot speed limit throughout the SCZ. Further training workshops for the SkyPier operators who operate the diverted route to Zhuhai and Macau were held in January 2016 and March 2016 to ensure their full understanding of and adherence to the routing and speed control requirements. The situation has considerably improved in February and March 2016 by undertaking training workshops, and ferry movement monitoring and audit. The IEC has also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme. The latest summary of compliance of SkyPier Plan between 1 April 2016 and 31 December 2016 is presented in Table 2.14.

Four skipper workshops were held from May to December 2016 with ferry operators and relevant ferry captains to refresh their understanding about the requirements of the SkyPier Plan such as the routing and speed control requirements with discussion on the deviation cases, experience sharing and recommendations to strengthen the implementation of SkyPier Plan.

In total, 10,043 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in the reporting period ranged between 1 and 97, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. There were fewer ferry movements on 1^st, 2^nd August and 21^st October due to typhoon. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in 2016 was 91, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

Most of the HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speeds below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. Three cases of average speed deviation were due to public safety. All ferry movements that were not strictly following the diverted route have been investigated. Insufficient Automatic Identification System (AIS) data were received from some HSFs due to interference effect of AIS signal as reported by the FO after checking the condition of the AIS transponders. In such cases, vessel captains were requested to provide the radar track photos which indicated that the vessel entered the SCZ though the gate access point and no speeding in the SCZ.

Table 2.14 Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan

Requirements in the SkyPier Plan	Apr-16	May-16	Jun-16	Jul-16	Aug-16	Sep-16	Oct-16	Nov-16	Dec-16
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited	805	837	816	836	809	814	839	837	867
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	800	836	811	829	802	813	835	832	866
No. of SkyPier HSFs in compliance with Average Speed within 15 knots in SCZ	805	837	815	836	809	814	839	836	867
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)	86-95	88-95	88-96	88-94	10-94	87-95	1-96	88-93	87-93

Source: excerpt from Monthly and Quarterly EM&A Reports

Note: There were fewer ferry movements on 1^st and 2^nd August 2016 (52 and 10 movements respectively) due to typhoon.

There was only one HSF movement on 21^st October 2016 due to typhoon Signal No. 8 on that day.

2.9 Audit of Construction and Associated Vessels

The audit of construction and associated vessels in accordance with the MTRMP-CAV has started since August 2016. ET has conducted weekly audit of relevant information including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records provided to MTCC by the contractors to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The 3-month rolling programme for construction vessel activities were also checked every month to ensure the logistic of construction vessels were well planned to achieve a practicable minimum. The IEC has also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme.

Deviations including speeding in the works area, entry from non-designated gates, not following the designated route and entering no-entry zones were identified. All the concerned contractors were reminded to comply with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV during the weekly MTCC audit and such deviations were also reviewed and highlighted during the monthly Environmental Management Meeting.

A total of 24 skipper training workshops have been held by ET between August and December 2016 with 299 concerned captains of construction vessels associated with the 3RS contracts to familiarise them with the predefined routes, general education on local cetaceans, guidelines for avoiding adverse water quality impact, the required environmental practices / measures while operating construction and associated vessels under the Project, and guidelines for operating vessels safely in the presence of CWDs. Another 18 skipper training workshops have been held with 83 captains by contractor’s Environmental Officers (EO) and competency tests had been conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET. In addition, ET had participated Marine Management Liaison Group meetings to assist and resolve any marine issues which might be encountered under 3RS Project.

2.10 Review of the Key Assumptions Adopted in the EIA Report

With reference to Appendix E of the Manual, it is noted that the key assumptions adopted in approved EIA report for the construction phase are still valid and no major changes are involved. The environmental mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA Report remain applicable and shall be implemented in undertaking construction works for the Project.

3 Report on Non-compliance, Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Prosecutions

3.1 Compliance with Other Statutory Environmental Requirements

During the reporting period, environmental related licenses and permits required for the construction activities were checked. No non-compliance with environmental statutory requirements was recorded.

3.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Status of Prosecutions

3.2.1 Complaints

An environmental complaint was received on 29 December 2016 regarding night time work at Sheung Sha Chau. Investigation was conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan (CMP) of the Project. The contractor of Contract P560(R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works reported that emergency rescue works had to be carried out in view of the unexpected ground condition at Sheung Sha Chau. Such emergency rescue works were considered as crucial and vital in order to avoid building up of excessive drilling fluid pressure, which might lead to an uncontrollable spillage outside the contaminant pit, causing significant environmental impact at Sheung Sha Chau. Subsequent to the emergency rescues, the contractor has already taken immediate actions to improve the drilling fluid system as well as strengthen the control and communication measures with all relevant parties. ET will continue to closely monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the remedial measures in preventing re-occurrence of similar events.

3.2.2 Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution

During the reporting period, no notifications of summons or prosecution were received.

3.3 Cumulative Statistics

Cumulative statistics on exceedance, non-compliance, complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions are summarized in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.

Table 3.1: Statistics for Valid Exceedances for the Environmental Monitoring

		Total no. recorded in the reporting month	Total no. recorded since the project commenced
1-hr TSP	Action	0	0
	Limit	0	0
Noise	Action	0	0
	Limit	0	0
Waste	Action	0	0
	Limit	0	0
Water	Action	0	0
	Limit	0	0
CWD	Action	0	0
	Limit	0	0

Remark: Exceedances, which are not project related, are not shown in this table.

Table 3.2: Statistics for Non-compliance, Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Prosecution

Reporting Period	Cumulative Statistics
	Non-compliance	Complaints	Notifications of Summons	Prosecutions
This reporting period	0	1	0	0
From 28 December 2015 to end of the reporting period	0	1	0	0

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

In the reporting period from 28 December 2015 to 31 December 2016, the EM&A programme has been implemented in accordance with the Manual of the Project. The EM&A works carried out during the reporting period include construction dust and noise measurements, water quality monitoring, ecological monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island, vessel line-transect surveys, land-based theodolite tracking surveys supplemented with passive acoustic monitoring for CWD monitoring as well as environmental site inspections and waste monitoring for the Project’s construction works.

During the reporting period, five exceedance cases involving Action Level of 1-hour TSP monitoring were recorded during the reporting period. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases. The investigation results indicated that the exceedances were not related to the Project. There were, however, no exceedance cases involving Limit Level of 1-hour TSP monitoring throughout the reporting period.

For water quality, the monitoring results for DO, total alkalinity, and chromium obtained during the reporting period were in compliance with their corresponding Action and Limit Levels. For turbidity, SS and nickel, some of the testing results exceeded the relevant Action or Limit Levels during the reporting period. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases, and the investigation findings concluded that all the exceedances were not due to the Project.

No breach of the Action or Limit Levels in relation to the construction noise, waste and CWD monitoring were recorded during the reporting period.

All site observations made by the ET were recorded in the site inspection checklists and passed to the contractor together with the recommended follow-up actions. No encroachment or disturbance to the egretry area on Sheung Sha Chau was recorded during monthly ecological monitoring.

A total of 5,619.7 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line transect monitoring for CWD during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 208 groups of 785 CWD individuals were sighted, with 46 groups of 181 CWDs recorded in NWL, 4 groups of 16 CWDs in AW, 96 groups of 347 CWDs in WL and 62 groups of 241 CWDs in SWL. No CWDs were sighted in NEL during the 12-month reporting period. The combined encounter rate by number of dolphin sightings and by number of dolphins were 3.44 and 13.44 respectively. No exceedance of the encounter rates for action and limit levels were recorded during the construction phase. Average annual abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 60 individuals in 2016 from line-transect analysis. CWD relative occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau peaked in spring, concurrent with the start of the wet season. Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain an important year-round habitat for CWDs, especially for foraging. Passive acoustic monitoring showed dolphins used the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year, but with increased activity during winter and spring months. The acoustic data also showed consistently higher levels of dolphin clicking activity at night, which may indicate increased using of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness.

Ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period. In total, 10,043 ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in the reporting period ranged between 1 and 97, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. There are fewer ferry movements on 1^st, 2^nd August and 21^st October due to typhoon. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSFs in 2016 was 90.86 movements, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements. Most of the HSFs had travelled through the SCZ with average speeds below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. A few cases of average speed deviation were due to public safety. All ferry movements that did not strictly follow the diverted route have been investigated.

The audit of construction and associate vessels has started since August 2016. ET has conducted weekly audit to ensure the contractors have provided sufficient information to the MTCC and the contractors fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. A total of 24 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET from August to December 2016 with concerned captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 18 skipper training workshops were conducted by contractors’ EO and competency tests had been conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET.

On the implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works and dolphin observers were deployed in accordance with the Plan. On the implementation of Dolphin Exclusion Zone Plan, dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the DEZ for DCM trial works in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring have been provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works. Testing on night vision devices for Dolphin Exclusion Zone monitoring was also conducted before the DCM trials. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the DEZ and silt curtains during the reporting period. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET.

Overall, the recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, have been effectively implemented during the reporting period. Also, the EM&A programme implemented by the ET has effectively monitored the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures.