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	Monitoring Results
Appendix E	Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring Results
Appendix F	Summary of Post-translocation Monitoring and Ad-hoc Monitoring Results
Appendix G	Summary of Environmental Complaints and Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Notification of Summons, and Prosecution

Abbreviations

3RS	Three-Runway System
AAHK	Airport Authority Hong Kong
AECOM	AECOM Asia Company Limited
AFCD	Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
AIS	Automatic Information System
ANI	Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphins
APM	Automated People Mover
AW	Airport West
BHS	Baggage Handling System
CAP	Contamination Assessment Plan
CAR	Contamination Assessment Report
CTP	Coral Translocation Plan
CWD	Chinese White Dolphin
DCM	Deep Cement Mixing
DEZ	Dolphin Exclusion Zone
DO	Dissolved Oxygen
DPSE	Number of Dolphins per 100 Units of Survey Effort
EAR	Ecological Acoustic Recorder
EIA	Environmental Impact Assessment
EM&A	Environmental Monitoring & Audit
EP	Environmental Permit
EPD	Environmental Protection Department
ET	Environmental Team
FCZ	Fish Culture Zone
FEF	Fisheries Enhancement Fund
HDD	Horizontal Directional Drilling
HKBCF	Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
HKIA	Hong Kong International Airport
HSF	High Speed Ferry
IEC	Independent Environmental Checker
LKC	Lung Kwu Chau
MEEF	Marine Ecology Enhancement Fund
MMHK	Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited
MMWP	Marine Mammal Watching Plan
MSS	Marine Surveillance System
MTRMP-CAV	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel
NEL	Northeast Lantau
NWL	Northwest Lantau
PAM	Passive Acoustic Monitoring
PM	Partial Mortality
PVD	Prefabricated Vertical Drain
SC	Sha Chau
SCLKCMP	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park
SPSE	Number of On-effort Sightings per 100 Units of Survey Effort
SS	Suspended Solids
SSK	Sham Shui Kok
STG	Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings
SWL	Southwest Lantau
The Project	The Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System
The SkyPier Plan	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier
TMT	Tai Mo To
TSP	Total Suspended Particulates
WL	West Lantau
WMP	Waste Management Plan
YTW	Yam Tsai Wan

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.

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 Updated EM&A Manual (the Manual).

This is the 2^nd 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 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.

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

· Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) works;

· Stockpiling of materials from HDD operation; and

· Pipeline supporting works.

Contract 3212 11kV Submarine Cable Diversion

· Forming of marine approach trench;

· Articulated pipe installation;

· Cable laying; and

· Post laid burial work and concrete protection slabs installation.

Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Works:

Contracts 3201 to 3205 DCM Works

· Site office establishment;

· Laying of geotextile and sand blanket; and

· DCM trial and works.

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

· Site office establishment;

· Laying of geotextile and sand blanket;

· Prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) installation; and

· Seawall construction.

Airfield Works:

Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway

· CLP cable ducting works;

· Subgrade works; and

· Precast of duct bank and fabrication of steel works;

Terminal 2 Expansion Works:

Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station

· Excavation and piling works; and

· Erection of antenna farm.

Contract 3502 Terminal 2 (T2) Automated People Mover (APM) Depot Modification Works

· Removal of existing concrete; and

· Formwork erection and concreting works.

APM Works:

Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works

· Site office establishment.

Airport Support Infrastructure & Logistic Works:

Contract 3801 APM and Baggage Handling System (BHS) Tunnels on Existing Airport Island

· Site establishment works.

Other Works:

Contract 3213 CLP Cable Diversion Enabling Works

· Delivery of temporary power supply system.

EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period

The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Manual. Summary of monitoring activities during this reporting period is presented as below:

Monitoring/ Audit Activities	Number of Sessions
Air Quality Monitoring	402
Noise Monitoring	260
Water Quality Monitoring	154
Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring ⁽¹⁾	8
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring	24
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring	60
Coral post-translocation monitoring	5
Note ⁽¹⁾: Terrestrial ecological monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island was conducted monthly when construction works was carried out on Sheung Sha Chau Island outside of ardeid’s breeding season from April to July 2017.

Apart from the regular site inspections, audit of SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF), audit of construction and associated vessels, and audit of implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan (WWMP) and Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan were also conducted in the reporting period. Based on the information including ET’s observations, records of Marine Surveillance System (MSS), and contractors’ site records, the environmental mitigation measures were properly implemented and the construction operation of the Project in the reporting period did not introduce adverse impact to the sensitive receivers.

Summary Findings of the EM&A Programme

Monitoring results of construction noise, construction waste, CWD, and coral post-translocation did not trigger the corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.

For air quality, three monitoring results triggered the Limit Level of 1-hour total suspended particulates (TSP) in the reporting period. Corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly which concluded that the cases were not related to the Project.

For water quality, the monitoring results for total alkalinity obtained in the reporting period did not trigger the corresponding Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and follow-up actions will be conducted according to the EM&A programme if the corresponding Action and Limit Levels are triggered. For dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, suspended solids (SS), chromium, and nickel, some of the monitoring results triggered the relevant Action or Limit Level in the reporting period, and the corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that all cases were not related to the Project. To conclude, as all cases were considered non-Project related, the construction activities in the monitoring period did not introduce adverse impact to all water quality sensitive receivers.

The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were conducted at the daylighting location and there was no encroachment or disturbance to the egretry area.

The key findings of the EM&A programme in the reporting period is summarized as below:

	Yes	No	Details	Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions
Breach of Limit Level^		√	No exceedance of project-related Limit Level was recorded.	Nil
Breach of Action Level^		√	No exceedance of project-related Action Level was recorded.	Nil
Complaints Received	√		Seven complaints were received on 19 January, 24 April, 9 May, 22 May, 8 August, 5 September, and 24 November respectively.	The complaint investigations were carried out in accordance with the Complaint Management Plan. Details are presented in S3.2.1.
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions	√		Summons were received in June 2017 regarding the aviation fuel pipeline diversion works in December 2016.	Judicial process underway.
Changes that affect the EM&A		√	There was no change to the construction works that may affect the EM&A	Nil

Remarks: ^ Only triggering of Action or Limit Level related to Project works is counted as Breaches of Action or Limit Level.

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.

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 2^nd Construction Phase Annual EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.

1.3 Project Organization

The Project’s organization 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	Roy Man	3922 9348

Advanced Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
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 Liu	5172 6543
Contract 3212 11kV Submarine Cable Diversion	Project Director	Colman Chan	6193 4729
Contract 3212 11kV Submarine Cable Diversion	Environmental Officer	Samantha Kong	3995 8141

DCM Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3201 DCM (Package 1) (Penta-Ocean-China State-Dong-Ah Joint Venture)	Project Director	Tsugunari Suzuki	9178 9689
	Environmental Officer	Sandra Lo	6329 3513
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	Eric Kan	9014 6758
Contract 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co., Ltd.)	Environmental Officer	David Hung	9765 6151
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kyung-Sik Yoo	9683 8697
Contract 3204 DCM (Package 4) (CRBC-SAMBO Joint Venture)	Environmental Officer	Kanny Cho	6799 8226
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:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kim Chuan Lim	3763 1509
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Environmental Officer	Kwai Fung Wong	3763 1452

Airfield Works:

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway

(FJT-CHEC-ZHEC Joint Venture)

Project Manager

Kin Hang Chung

9412 1386

Terminal 2 Expansion Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station (Build King Construction Ltd.)	Project Manager	Raymond Au	6985 8860
	Environmental Officer	Edward Tam	9287 8270
Contract 3502 Terminal 2 APM Depot Modification Works (Build King Construction Ltd.)	Project Manager	Kivin Cheng	9380 3635
	Environmental Officer	Chun Pong Chan	9187 7118

APM Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works (Niigata Transys Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Kunihiro Tatecho	9755 0351
	Environmental Officer	Arthur Wong	9170 3394

Airport Support Infrastructure & Logistic Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.)	Project Manager	Tony Wong	9642 8672
	Environmental Officer	Fredrick Wong	9842 2703

Other Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
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 marine and land-side works. Marine works included laying of geotextile and sand blanket, DCM trial and works, seawall construction, PVD installation, and submarine cable diversion works. Land-side works included site establishment, HDD works, cable ducting works, erection of antenna farm, and piling and excavation works.

The locations of the works areas are presented in Figure 1.1 to Figure 1.2.

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	EM&A Requirements	Status
Air Quality
Baseline Monitoring	At least 14 consecutive days before commencement of construction work	The baseline air quality monitoring results were 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
Noise
Baseline Monitoring	Daily for a period of at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction works	The baseline noise monitoring results were reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Weekly	On-going
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 results were 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
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring	At least four weeks	The Initial Intensive DCM Monitoring Report was submitted and approved by EPD in accordance with the Detailed Plan on DCM.
Early/ Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring	Three times per week until completion of DCM works.	On-going
Waste Management
Waste Monitoring	At least weekly	On-going
Land Contamination
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP)	At least 3 months before commencement of any soil remediation works.	The Supplementary CAP was submitted and approved by EPD pursuant to EP condition 2.20.
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
Pre-construction 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
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	-	The coral translocation was completed on 5 January 2017.
Coral Post-translocation Monitoring	As per an enhanced monitoring programme based on the Coral Translocation Plan	On-going
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
Environmental Auditing
Regular site inspection	Weekly	On-going
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Construction and Associated Vessels Implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Complaint Hotline and Email channel	Construction phase	On-going
Environmental Log Book	Construction phase	On-going

Taking into account the construction works in the reporting period, impact monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, waste management, terrestrial ecology, landscape and visual, and CWD were carried out in the reporting period. Upon completion of coral translocation in January 2017, post-translocation monitoring was also 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. To promote the environmental awareness and enhance the environmental performance of the contractors, environmental briefings, environmental trainings, and regular environmental management meetings were conducted during the reporting period which are summarized as below:

● 33 dolphin observer trainings provided by ET;

● 44 skipper trainings provided by ET;

● 9 environmental briefings on EP and EM&A requirements of the 3RS provided by ET;

● 3 environmental briefings provided by EPD; and

● 87 occasions of environmental management meetings on EM&A matters.

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 six 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.

2.1.1 Action and Limit Levels

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

2.1.2 Monitoring Results

The graphical plots of impact air quality monitoring results during the reporting period are presented in Appendix D. Percentage of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Percentage of Air Quality Monitoring Results within Action and Limit Levels

	AR1A	AR2
Jan 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Feb 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Mar 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Apr 2017	100.0%	100.0%
May 2017	100.0%	83.3%
Jun 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Jul 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Aug 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Sep 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Oct 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Nov 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Dec 2017	100.0%	100.0%
Overall	100.0%	98.5%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of monitoring results.

All monitoring results at AR1A were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels.

Three monitoring results of 1-hour TSP at AR2 triggered the Limit Level on 10 May 2017, and corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. Details of the investigation findings are presented in the Contruction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 17, which concluded that the results were not related to the Project.

General meteorological conditions throughout the impact monitoring period were recorded and summarized in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: General Meteorological Condition During Impact Air Quality Monitoring

	Weather	Wind Direction
Jan – Mar 2017	Sunny to Rainy	North or East
Apr – Jun 2017	Sunny to Rainy	South or Southwest
Jul – Sep 2017	Sunny to Rainy	South or Southwest
Oct – Dec 2017	Sunny to Rainy	Northeast or Northwest

2.1.3 Conclusion

No dust emission source from Project activities was observed during impact air quality monitoring. Major sources of dust observed at the monitoring stations during the monitoring sessions were local air pollution and nearby traffic emissions. It was considered that the mitigation measures taken during the reporting period were 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 in the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are described in Table 2.4 and presented in Figure 2.1.

2.2.1 Action and Limit Levels

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 2.4.

Table 2.4: Impact Noise 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	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School		65dB(A) / 70 dB(A) ⁽ⁱ⁾
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 at NM4.

2.2.2 Monitoring Results

The graphical plots of impact noise quality monitoring results during the reporting period are presented in Appendix D. Percentage of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Percentage of Noise Monitoring Results within Action and Limit Levels

	NM1A	NM3A	NM4	NM5	NM6
Jan 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Feb 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Mar 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Apr 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
May 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Jun 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Jul 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Aug 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Sep 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Oct 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Nov 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Dec 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Overall	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of monitoring results.

All monitoring results at all monitoring stations were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.

2.2.3 Conclusion

As the construction activities were far away from the monitoring stations, major sources of noise dominating the monitoring stations observed during the construction noise impact monitoring were road traffic and helicopters at NM1A, aircrafts and helicopters at NM3A and NM5, school activities at NM4, and noise from aircrafts, helicopters and marine vessels at NM6 during the reporting period. It was considered that the mitigation measures taken during the reporting period were effective and there was no adverse impact attributable to the works of the Project.

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Impact water quality monitoring of the Project commenced on 4 Aug 2016. During the reporting period, water quality monitoring was conducted three days per week, at mid-ebb and mid-flood tides, at 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact (IM) stations, 1 mobile impact station, 7 sensitive receiver (SR) stations, and 3 control (C) stations in the vicinity of the 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). Table 2.6 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the monitoring stations.

Table 2.6: Monitoring Locations and Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring

Monitoring Stations	Description	Coordinates		Parameters
Monitoring Stations	Description	Easting	Northing	Parameters
C1	Control Station	804247	815620	General Parameters: DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals ⁽²⁾
C2	Control Station	806945	825682
C3⁽³⁾	Control Station	817803	822109
IM1	Impact Station	806458	818351
IM2	Impact Station	806193	818852
IM3	Impact Station	806019	819411
IM4	Impact Station	805039	819570
IM5	Impact Station	804924	820564
IM6	Impact Station	805828	821060
IM7	Impact Station	806835	821349
IM8	Impact Station	807838	821695
IM9	Impact Station	808811	822094
IM10	Impact Station	809838	822240
IM11	Impact Station	810545	821501
IM12	Impact Station	811519	821162
IM13	Impact Station (for submarine 11kV cable diversion)	Mobile station (500m envelope of water jetting works)		General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR1⁽¹⁾	Future Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling	812586	820069	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR2⁽³⁾	Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To	814166	821463	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals ⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾
SR3	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau	807571	822147	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
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⁽⁵⁾	Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East)	811593	820417
SR8⁽⁵⁾		811418 (from July 2017 onwards)	820246

Notes:

⁽¹⁾The seawater intakes of SR1 for the future HKBCF are not yet in operation, hence no water quality impact monitoring was conducted at this station. The future permanent location for SR1 during impact monitoring is subject to finalisation after the HKBCF seawater intake is commissioned.

⁽²⁾ Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular and 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 IM / SR stations during the flood tide. The control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 September 2016 onwards.

⁽⁴⁾Total alkalinity and heavy metals results are collected at SR2 as a control station for regular DCM monitoring.

⁽⁵⁾The monitoring station for SR8 is subject to future changes due to silt curtain arrangements and the progressive relocation of this seawater intake.

2.3.1 Action and Limit Levels

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 2.7. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 2.8.

Table 2.7: 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)
General Water Quality Monitoring	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
Regular DCM Monitoring	Total Alkalinity in ppm	95		99
	Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Chromium)	0.2		0.2
	Representative Heavy Metals for 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, Action or Limit Level is triggered when the monitoring result is lower than the limits.

2. For parameters other than DO, Action or Limit Level is triggered when monitoring result is higher than the limits.

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

4. Details of selection criteria for the two heavy metals for early regular and 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 2.8: 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, IM13, 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, IM13, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7, SR8

Note ⁽¹⁾: As per findings of Baseline Water Quality Report, the control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 Sep 2016 onwards.

2.3.2 Monitoring Results

Percentage of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.9. It should be noted that Hong Kong was under the effect of tropical cyclones from 11 to 13 June, 22 to 23 July, 22 to 23 August, 26 to 27 August, 2 to 4 September, and 14 to 15 October respectively, and the water quality monitoring results during the said periods might be affected by the inclement weather.

Table 2.9: Percentage of Water Quality Monitoring Results within Action and Limit Levels

	General Water Quality Monitoring				Regular DCM Monitoring
	DO (Surface and Middle)	DO (Bottom)	SS	Turbidity	Alkalinity	Chromium	Nickel
Jan 2017	100.0%	100.0%	96.5%	98.9%	100.0%	100.0%	99.4%
Feb 2017	100.0%	100.0%	97.1%	96.9%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Mar 2017	100.0%	100.0%	96.7%	99.3%	100.0%	100.0%	99.7%
Apr 2017	100.0%	100.0%	98.8%	100.0%	100.0%	99.7%	99.4%
May 2017	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	97.2%
Jun 2017	89.8%	97.1%	100.0%	99.8%	100.0%	99.7%	97.9%
Jul 2017	97.9%	98.9%	99.8%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	96.0%
Aug 2017	97.9%	98.7%	98.0%	98.5%	100.0%	100.0%	97.5%
Sep 2017	100.0%	100.0%	99.6%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	96.7%
Oct 2017	100.0%	100.0%	98.8%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Nov 2017	100.0%	100.0%	99.0%	100.0%	100.0%	99.4%	99.7%
Dec 2017	100.0%	100.0%	97.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Overall	98.8%	99.6%	98.4%	99.5%	100.0%	99.9%	98.6%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of depth-averaged results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of depth-averaged results.

The monitoring results for total alkalinity obtained in the reporting period were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels.

For DO, turbidity, SS, chromium and nickel, some of the testing results triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Levels in the reporting period. Investigations were conducted accordingly and the details were presented in the corresponding Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Reports. The status of each water quality parameter collected in the reporting period are presented graphically in Appendix D. Some of these cases were recorded at monitoring stations located upstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow and were considered not affected by the Project. Based on respective investigation findings, triggering of Action or Limit Level were found not related to the Project.

2.3.3 Conclusions

During the reporting period, it was noted that the vast majority of monitoring results (from 98.4% for SS to 100% for alkalinity as presented in Table 2.9) were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels, while only a minor number of results triggered their corresponding Action or Limit Level, and investigations were conducted accordingly when Action or Limit Level was triggered. Based on the findings of the investigations presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Reports, all results that triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Level were not related to the Project. Therefore, the Project did not cause adverse impact at the water quality sensitive receivers. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan were followed. These cases were considered to be due to natural fluctuation or other sources not related to the Project.

Nevertheless, the non-project related triggers have been attended to and have initiated corresponding actions and 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 proper deployment of silt curtain for sand blanket laying and control the level of sand material stockpile 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 waste was 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 reviewed during the audits.

2.4.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the construction waste are provided in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10: 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

2.4.2 Summary of Monitoring Results

The construction waste generated in the reporting period is summarized in Table 2.11.

There were no complaints, non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific WMPs, statutory and contractual requirements that triggered Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.

Table 2.11: Statistics of Construction Waste Generated in the Reporting Period

	Excavated Material (m³)¹	C&D² Material Reused in the Project (m³)	C&D Material Reused in other projects (m³)	C&D Material Disposed of as Public Fill (m³)	Chemical Waste (kg)	Chemical Waste (L)	General Refuse (tonne)³
Jan 2017	195	0	0	24	0	0	16
Feb 2017	594	0	0	185	0	0	45
Mar 2017	789	0	0	718	0	0	27
Apr 2017	556	0	0	534	0	0	82
May 2017	1,071	0	0	615	80	0	83
Jun 2017	576	0	0	132	0	1,600	127
Jul 2017	435	0	0	26	120	0	157
Aug 2017	802	0	555	62	75	7,800	120
Sep 2017	619	17	20	0	200	1,200	138
Oct 2017	371	84	0	53	30	11,400	149
Nov 2017	380	530	0	101	105	3,100	193
Dec 2017	1,381	1,320	0	269	240	7,600	246
Total	7,769	1,951	575	2,719	850	32,700	1385
Notes: 1. The excavated materials were temporarily stored at stockpiling area and will be reused in the Project. 2. C&D refers to Construction and Demolition. 3. Figures are rounded off to the nearest tonne. 4. Paper, plastics, and metals were recycled in the reporting period.

Weekly waste monitoring of the Project construction works was conducted in the reporting period to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices. Measures which included the provision and maintenance of spill kits and drip trays, provision of proper storage area for general refuse and chemical waste, proper storage of construction material, as well as proper waste segregation and regular waste disposal were recommended to the contractors.

2.5 Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

According to Sections 10.2.1.2 and 10.2.1.3 of the EM&A Manual, CWD monitoring is required during the baseline, construction, post-construction and operation phases of the project. The aims of CWDs monitoring during construction period are:

● to monitor the effects on the potential shift in the CWD travelling areas and habitat use;

● to monitor the effectiveness of the HSF speed and routing restrictions to the CWDs;

● to provide a dataset that can be compatible with the AFCD long-term monitoring, be stratified in such a way as to allow the calculation of density and abundance for the various different phases; and

to calculate the trends from these estimates; and

● to provide assessment of how the project and cumulative effects may be impacting the CWDs.

This section summarises the results of the CWD construction phase monitoring effort over a 12-month period between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017, to gather information on the spatial and temporal distribution patterns as well as calculate density and abundance of the CWD in the western Hong Kong waters. Supplementary information collected focusing on northwestern Lantau waters including the habitat use and behaviours of CWD before and during the construction phase of the Project has also been reviewed.

This reporting period is effectively the first full year of construction phase monitoring of CWDs. The overall monitoring programme commenced in August 2016, although there were no marine construction works in August and September 2016, and only localised sand blanket laying and DCM trial works from October to December 2016. This annual report reviewed the construction phase monitoring data for 2017 and compare with the 6 months baseline survey with supplement of initial 6 months construction phase monitoring data in 2016 (there were limited marine works in this initial stage) to increase the analytical precision.

CWD monitoring was conducted by undertaking vessel line-transect surveys, supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking survey and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM). The vessel line transects covered Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) areas at a frequency of two full surveys per month as proposed in Section 10.2.3.2 of the Updated EM&A Manual and are consistent with the AFCD long-term monitoring programme (except AW). Additional survey effort was collected on a voluntary basis at the same frequency of two surveys per month from Deep Bay (DB) (refer to Appendix E for the location of this additional survey), which is an area that historically had CWD in the outer bay, to establish a full understanding of CWD abundance. All DB data were considered supplemental and only be used for density and abundance estimation.

Regarding focal follows, CWDs were followed during sightings from vessel surveys and focal follow was attempted as far as practicable, however, information collected during sightings was insufficient for focal follow analysis of any identified dolphin. The travelling pattern in different areas were therefore reviewed by using photo-identification of individuals dolphin where practicable. These data were supplemented with information from land-based theodolite tracking survey findings.

For the land-based theodolite tracking survey, the monitoring frequency during the construction phase for marine works was one day per month at both the Lung Kwu Chau (LKC) station and Sha Chau (SC) station as stipulated in Section 10.2.3.4 of the EM&A Manual. Additional theodolite tracking surveys for one day at SC station and two days at LKC station were conducted on a voluntary basis to collect supplementary information for the Project during the implementation for the SkyPier HSF diversion and speed control in this reporting period, such that a total of two tracking days at SC station and three tracking days at LKC station were conducted per month. PAM was also deployed with a duty cycle of 20% for the construction phase 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 EM&A 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 device is 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

2.5.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action Level and Limit Level 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 covering six months from mid-December 2015 to June 2016, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The derived values of Action and Limit Levels for CWD monitoring are shown in Table 2.13. Running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI have been determined for each month since August 2016 to compare with the derived Action/Limit levels for construction phase monitoring of CWD. The results were used as a management tool, so that if the decline in overall CWD encounter rate is determined to be from the 3RS construction process, appropriate measures may then be triggered / considered to minimise possible impacts with short term response to events after reviewing the monitoring data for each month.

Table 2.13: Derived Values of Action Level and Limit Level 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 Monitoring Results

2.5.2.1 Summary of Vessel Line-transect Survey Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

During the reporting period from January to December 2017, 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 effort of different survey areas varied and was generally in proportion to the size of each survey area (larger survey area having longer distance of survey effort). A total of 5,427.7 km survey effort was collected in this reporting period (NEL: 1,120.9 km, NWL: 1,799.2 km, AW: 114.4 km, WL: 753.6 km, and SWL: 1,639.6 km). The percentage of the total survey effort collected in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL was around 20.7%, 33.1%, 2.1%, 13.9% and 30.2% respectively.

Around 84.5% (4,583.7 km) of the survey effort was collected under favorable weather condition (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond), that can be utilized in analyses of encounter rates, density and abundance. A detailed record of the survey effort data is provided in Appendix E.

Sighting Distribution

During the reporting period, a total of 252 groups consisting of 845 CWDs were sighted. Amongst these 252 groups of CWDs, 220 groups with 771 CWDs were sighted during on-effort surveys under favorable weather condition (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond).

The number of sightings by survey area recorded that NWL comprised 39 groups of 128 CWDs, AW comprised 5 groups of 16 CWDs, WL comprised 129 groups of 473 CWDs, while there were 79 groups of 228 CWDs seen 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 in the northwestern part off Lung Kwu Chau. Around one-fourth of the sightings (including AW sightings) were recorded at the southwestern part of the survey area, with a few of them recorded close to the 3RS works area. No dolphins were sighted from central to eastern part of the NWL survey area.

In WL, CWDs were sighted along the coast and off-shore waters from Sham Wat to Fan Lau, with relatively more sightings between Tai O and Peaked Hill.

In SWL, sightings of CWDs were scattered amongst the survey area particularly around Fan Lau, western side of the Soko Islands and the coastal waters around Lo Kei Wan and Shui Hau.

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

Encounter Rates

Two types of dolphin encounter rates were calculated based on the data collected during the reporting period. 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 (Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with favorable visibility). Encounter rate provides a short to medium term frequency method for monitoring and responding appropriately to changes in CWD abundance as project works progress (referring to Section 10.5.2.3 of the EM&A Manual). The two types of encounter rates provide indications to determine areas of importance to CWD and the change in population of the CWDs in the western Hong Kong waters.

During the reporting period, the combined STG and ANI of CWDs (from NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) were 4.80 and 16.8 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. Compared by area, WL had the highest STG and ANI amongst the survey areas, followed by SWL, AW and NWL. The encounter rates of NEL were zero as no dolphins were sighted in the reporting period. The monthly encounter rates reviewed that summer months had generally higher STG and ANI although the ANI peaked in May 2017. The lowest STG occurred in March 2017 whilst the lowest ANI occurred in November 2017.

The trends of both monthly STG and ANI are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E. The temporal trends in 2017 were generally similar to 2016. From January to July, gradual increase of monthly STG from March to June was recorded in both 2016 and 2017, with an exceptionally higher STG recorded in January and February 2017; the value of monthly STG during 3RS construction phase monitoring period in April to July 2017 were also higher than the same months during baseline monitoring in 2016, which indicates no adverse effect on CWD abundance as 3RS works progress.

Running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI data were determined for each month for comparison with the Action/Limit levels for construction phase monitoring of CWD. No Action Level was triggered in this reporting period. The running quarterly STG and ANI from January to December 2017 are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix Ewhile the trends of both running quarterly STG and ANI of the current reporting year and the last reporting year are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E.

It was recommended in Section 4.2 of the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report that a review of the annual encounter rates is to be made upon the collection of 12 months of CWD monitoring data, including the review of any potential peak season. The trends of running quarterly STG and ANI from January to December 2017 (shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, Appendix E) are further reviewed with the seasonal variations of CWD quarterly encounter rates based on the AFCD long-term marine mammal monitoring in the past six years (2010 to early 2016) covering the NEL, NWL, WL and SWL waters (Figure 4, Appendix E). Compared to the running quarterly encounter rates under the AFCD monitoring programme during the period without 3RS marine works, and the 3RS monitoring results in 2016 in the period with some localised marine works, the running quarterly encounter rates of the 3RS monitoring results in 2017 did not show any substantial difference with the range throughout the past years. In view of no obvious variation observed in the seasonal pattern and the small difference in encounter rates between peak and low seasons in this reporting year 2017, it is suggested to remain using the encounter rates previously established during the baseline monitoring period and thus the Action and Limit Levels for CWD monitoring remain unchanged.

Density and Abundance Estimation

Line transect analyses to estimate the density and abundance of CWDs in Hong Kong waters during the reporting period were conducted using the same basic methods as in previous analyses (Table 3, Appendix E). The detection function of 3RS CWD monitoring data of this reporting period is shown in Figure 5 of Appendix E. The overall abundance estimate for this reporting period (incorporating an entire year of data from all four seasons) was 71 CWDs, which shows a stable trend from last year, with a CV of 19.9% (which indicates a reasonable level of precision). As in analyses of the last reporting year in 2016, the area with the highest abundance and highest density was WL (N=36, this has been consistent over the AFCD long-term records), although SWL also had reasonably high numbers of dolphins (N=22), and registered higher numbers than NWL (N=14). NEL still registered zero sightings and an abundance estimate of zero. Due to the recently completion of marine works for the Hong-Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project and the planned development at the Northern Lantau area has yet to be commenced, the cumulative impacts due to 3RS project with other concurrent projects will be reviewed upon collection of more data from the on-going impact monitoring with other concurrent projects in place.

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 was used, as stratifying by both survey area and season would reduce the sample sizes that result in estimates with unacceptably-low levels of precision) (refer to Table 3 of Appendix E). The spring estimate was the lowest (N=40 dolphins), in which spring was generally the low season for dolphin numbers in Hong Kong. The summer estimate was the highest (N=112 dolphins).

Quantitative Grid Analysis on Habitat Use

Habitat use amongst the survey areas were examined by using quantitative grid analysis, both SPSE (no. of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort) and DPSE (no. of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort) values were calculated in all grids amongst all survey areas for the time period from January 2017 to December 2017. SPSE and DPSE of the last reporting year and the current reporting year are depicted in Figure 6 of Appendix E.

Compared with last reporting period, the important habitat of CWDs in NWL waters with high dolphin densities recorded in 2017 slightly shifted from north to northwest off Lung Kwu Chau. Increased usage by CWDs in the southwestern part of the survey area (waters between Sham Wat and the 3RS works area) in 2017 was indicated. Both SPSE and DPSE showed a general increasing trend of dolphin usage in the WL waters as a whole in 2017 compared with last reporting period. Grids with high SPSE and/or DPSE value(s) in WL were near Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau, which are similar to last reporting period. While in SWL, the coastal waters around Fan Lau Tung Wan remain as an important habitat of CWDs. There was a decreasing trend of dolphin usage in the coastal waters of Shek Pik in 2017 but more CWDs used the waters around the western part of the Soko Islands and also the coastal waters around Lo Kei Wan and Shui Hau.

Cumulative SPSE and DPSE values were also calculated by using data since mid-Dec 2015 and depicted in Figure 7 of Appendix E. Grids in western waters of Hong Kong with high dolphin density are waters of northwest off Lung Kwu Chau, Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau.

Group Size

During the reporting period from January 2017 to December 2017, group size of CWDs ranged from one to 15 dolphins, with an average of 3.77. The average group sizes of NWL, AW, WL and SWL were 3.28, 3.20, 3.67 and 2.89 respectively. By four solar seasons, the average group size of CWDs was the highest in spring (4.69) but the lowest in summer (2.83). The summaries of the average group size of CWDs by survey areas and by seasons are presented in Table 4 and Table 5 of Appendix E.

Small and medium sized CWD groups accounted for most of the sightings during the reporting period (48.0% and 48.4% respectively). Only nine sightings, which accounted for 3.8% 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 NWL, WL and SWL waters. There were relatively more large-sized CWD groups sighted in WL than in SWL or NWL. In NWL, two large CWD groups were sighted on the westernmost transect. In WL, the large CWD groups were sighted in waters between Yi O and Fan Lau. While in SWL, the only large CWD group was sighted in at the eastern side of Fan Lau Tung Wan. The sighting distribution of CWDs with different group sizes is illustrated in Figure 8 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 are still useful and are being collected from the vessel surveys.

During the reporting period, a total of 62, 28, 24 and 4 groups of CWDs were observed engaging in feeding, socialising, travelling and resting/milling activities, comprising of 24.6%, 11.1%, 9.5% and 1.6% of all CWD sightings respectively. The sightings locations of CWD groups engaged in different types of activities are depicted in Figure 9 of Appendix E.

Feeding activities mainly occurred from west of existing airport island down to Sham Wat and along the coastal water of SWL to Shui Hau. Occasional feeding activities were also observed in the western part of the Soko Islands. Considering the sample size of sighting data of different survey areas, AW has the highest percentage of feeding again in 2017 (although it should be kept in mind that the sample size in AW was very small), followed by SWL. A significant decline in feeding activities was observed in NWL (from 41% in 2016 to 15% in 2017) and the feeding activities in NWL shifted to the southwestern part of the survey area, whereas feeding activities mainly occurred in waters off northern Lung Kwu Chau in 2016 (refer to in Table 6 of Appendix E).

Socialising activities were mainly sighted around SCLKCMP, Tai O, Fan Lau and western side of the Soko Islands. Travelling activities in NWL were mainly sighted near Lung Kwu Chau, particularly the area north off. While in WL, travelling activities frequently occurred in the northernmost part of the survey area, and from Tai O to Peaked Hill. There were also several sightings with travelling activities scattered in SWL. In addition, resting/milling activities mainly occurred in WL and SWL. Only three sightings of resting/milling activities in total were sighted in NWL and SWL. The percentages of different activities for each of the survey areas are shown in Table 6 of Appendix E.

A total of 16 sightings of CWDs were observed associating with operating fishing boats, including gill netters (seven groups), purse seiners (six groups), shrimp trawler (one group) and pair trawlers (two groups), accounted for 6.3% of all sightings. Although a trawling ban was implemented in December 2012, illegal trawling activities were still often observed near the western and southwestern borders of Hong Kong. Three groups of CWDs, one in SWL and two in WL, were observed feeding in association with trawling activities. CWDs were observed most often associated with gill netters and purse seiners. CWD association with operating fishing boats were mainly observed in WL and SWL and absent from most part of NWL. This may be due to the shift of fishing operation (a general observation was made from the CWD monitoring that fewer fishing operation took place in NWL, but an increase of fishing operation in WL). The sighting locations of CWD groups associated with operating fishing boats are depicted in Figure 10 of Appendix E.

Mother-calf Pairs

During the reporting period, 37 sightings were observed having mother-and-unspotted calf, or mother-and-unspotted juvenile pairs. The percentages of sightings with mother-calf pairs in NWL (including AW), WL and SWL were 11.4%, 20.2% and 7.6% respectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of sightings with mother-calf pairs of a survey area by the total number of sightings of that survey area. These mother-calf pairs were mainly recorded from the western waters of the existing airport to Peaked Hill and around Fan Lau. The sighting distribution of mother-calf pairs are depicted in Figure 11 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Summary

During the reporting period, a total of 62 newly identified CWD individuals were added to the photo-identification catalogues, including 10 added to NL catalogue, another 10 added to SL catalogue and 42 added to WL catalogue. Three animals identified in this reporting period (WLMM084, WLMM088 and SLMM054) were confirmed to be replicates of three earlier identified individuals named WLMM001, NLMM019 and WLMM054 respectively. Therefore, all records under these three replicates were transferred to the records under WLMM001, NLMM019 and WLMM054, respectively.

A total of 155 CWD individuals were identified altogether 386 times from all sightings in 2017. Amongst these 155 CWD individuals, 36, 80 and 39 belonged to NL, WL and SWL catalogues respectively. Amongst these 155 identified individuals, 88 individuals (56.8%) were sighted more than once. The number of re-sightings of an identified animal ranged from two to 11 times. The re-sighting rates (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 27.0%, 39.7% and 42.2% respectively. Twenty-five of these 88 re-sighted individuals were sighted five times or above.

The most frequently re-sighted animal in 2017 was SLMM014 which has been re-sighted 11 times and it is also the most frequently re-sighted animals since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue, with a total number of 19 re-sightings. In the previous reporting period, SLMM014 only occurred throughout the entire SWL survey area while it still occurred extensively in SWL in 2017, but with an extension of home range to the waters near Yi O in WL. The sighting locations of SLMM014 are depicted in a location map under Figure 12 of Appendix E. Summary of the photo-identification of CWDs is presented in Table 7 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Range Use of Identified CWD individuals

Amongst these 88 re-sighted individuals, 50 individuals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. This accounted for about 32.3% of all 155 identified animals. Seventeen (34.0%) out of these 50 animals were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and WL, while 35 (70.0%) animals were recorded in both WL and SWL. Five (10%) out of these 50 animals were re-sighted in three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL including AW). These five animals were NLMM020, NLMM023, SLMM030, WLMM027 and WLMM064. 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 in 2017. For instance, six individuals occurred repeatedly in NWL only, 25 animals were re-sighted within WL only, while seven animals occurred repeatedly in SWL only.

Some of the frequently seen individuals in last reporting period (NLMM002, NLMM010, SLMM002, SLMM010, SLMM013 and SLMM022) have apparently diminished their use of Hong Kong waters in 2017, and the mother-and-spotted juvenile pair NLMM006 and NLMM013 have significantly reduced their time spent in NWL. Although some individuals showed declining use of Hong Kong waters in 2017 compared with the previous year, some were still seen frequented around Lantau waters. For example, NLMM004, NLMM019, SLMM011, SLMM014, SLMM015, SLMM028, SLMM030, SLMM031, WLMM007 and WLMM027 were quite frequently seen in both 2016 and 2017. A few animals, such as NLMM016, NLMM020, NLMM037, SLMM023, SLMM036, SLMM052, WLMM001, WLMM008, WLMM011 and WLMM060, even apparently greatly increased their use of Hong Kong waters in 2017 compared with 2016.

The re-sighting locations of those re-sighted individuals that involved NWL are depicted in the location maps in Figure 12 of Appendix E to provide a preliminary picture of their range use.

2.5.2.2 Summary of Land-based Theodolite Tracking Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

In this reporting period, the land-based surveys commenced on 9 January 2017, and concluded on 29 December 2017. A total of 60 days and 360:25 (hh:mm) of land-based theodolite survey effort have been accomplished (Table 8 of Appendix E for summary). A total of 196 CWD groups were tracked from land, all from the LKC station with the exception of 2 CWD groups tracked from the SC station (Table 8, Figure 13 and Figure 14 of Appendix E). After the raw data were filtered, 91 CWD group focal follows fit criteria for analyses. From these focal follow tracks, 157 10-minute segments were extracted for analyses. CWD group sighting per survey hour was 0.90 from LKC and 0.01 from SC.

In the last reporting period (2016), a total of 126 CWDs were sighted off LKC during essentially the same survey effort as in 2017, for a total of 0.58 CWD group sighting per survey hour in 2016, substantially less than in 2017. Sightings off SC were the same in both years, at 2 CWD groups.

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 (20.47%), 1100 (20.23%), and 1300 (17.51%) hour blocks (Figure 15 of Appendix E). The two groups recorded off SC were tracked during the 0900 hour block only.

Compared with the last reporting period (2016), sightings off LKC by hour in 2017 were more uni-modal than in 2016, with the major peak in the 1000 to 1300 hour blocks. In 2016, the 1000 hour and 1300 to 1400 hour blocks were highest, with fewer sightings during the mid-day 1100 to 1200 hour blocks.

Time of Year

The highest percentage of CWD groups observed from LKC was during February (18.04%) and the lowest percentage observed was during May (2.58%) while CWDs were only observed from SC during August (Table 9 and Figure 16 of Appendix E). Off LKC, there were fewer sightings between the months of March and August in 2017. This increased in the late months of the year, September to December, unlike the fewer sightings in that time period in 2016.

Group Size

The mean group size of CWD filtered tracks off LKC was 3.03±1.58, ranging from singletons to a maximum group size of 7 (Table 10 of Appendix E), and this was very similar to the last reporting year (3.08±1.81 in 2016). The sighting distribution of CWDs relative to group sizes within SCLKCMP, crossing SCLKCMP boundary and outside SCLKCMP are represented in Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19 of Appendix E respectively. Group sizes of CWDs were largest outside of the SCLKCMP boundary (4.05±1.54), where ferry traffic is routed, compared to inside the boundary (2.73±1.51) and groups crossing the boundary (2.93±1.45). Singletons were most often observed inside the boundary near shore. However, this trend may reflect a sighting bias wherein single dolphin may be more difficult to locate farther from the survey platform. The group size of the CWD filtered track off SC was 2 dolphins (Table 10 of Appendix E).

Behavioural State

Excluding the unknown behavioural category from the filtered segments, foraging and travelling were observed most frequently (52.73% and 38.39%, respectively) off LKC, and milling, resting, and socialising were observed least frequently (1.37%, 1.91%, and 5.60%, respectively) off LKC (Figure 20 of Appendix E). Travelling was the only behaviour recorded off SC from the filtered segments. However, raw data include foraging by one group observed for approximately 1 minute.

Vessel Activity and Dolphin Movement Analysis

Plots of vessels, including high speed ferries under speed restriction (lower than or equal to 15 knots) and high speed ferries (higher than 15 knots), and CWDs show overlap in habitat off LKC throughout the year (Figure 21 of Appendix E). Plots of vessels and CWD groups also show overlap in habitat off SC (Figure 22 of Appendix E).

Off LKC in 2017, vessels were recorded within 500 meters of focal CWD groups on 27 occasions (based on filtered 10-minute segments), including high speed ferries under speed restriction on 8 occasions, high speed ferries on 3 occasions, and other vessels (e.g., fishing and government vessels) on 16 occasions. Mean speed, reorientation rate and linearity for CWDs in the absence of vessels and in the presence of each vessel category are detailed in Table 11 of Appendix E. A basic one-way ANOVA showed no significant difference at the 0.05 alpha level in CWD speed relative to vessel type present (p=0.321). A significant difference was detected in CWD reorientation rate (p=0.001) and linearity (p<0.001) relative to vessel type present. A sequential Bonferonni post hoc test showed significantly higher reorientation rate at alpha level 0.05 when other non-ferry boats were present compared to when no boats were present (p=0.02), and high speed ferries were present (p<0.001). Reorientation rate was also significantly higher when high speed ferries under speed restrictions were present compared to when high speed ferries were present (p=0.01). A sequential Bonferonni post hoc test also showed significantly higher linearity when no boats were present compared to when other non-ferry boats were present (p=0.01). Linearity was also higher when high speed ferries were present when compared to when high speed ferries under speed restrictions (p=0.003) and other non-ferry boats (p<0.001) were present.

Statistically significant key findings for fine-scale movement patterns of CWDs are:

● Swimming speed: Group size had a significant effect on swimming speed, with speed generally increasing as group size increased from 1 to 5 dolphins, and then declining with larger group sizes. Socialising behaviour was associated with significantly slower swimming speed than travelling, and swimming speed was significantly faster among CWDs crossing the marine park boundary.

● Reorientation rate: significantly reduced among CWDs crossing the marine park boundary, and increased in the presence of non-ferry boats.

● Linearity: decreased significantly in the presence of non-ferry boats.

Summary of findings from the data of 2016 and 2017 are:

● Lung Kwu Chau remains an important foraging habitat, where foraging is observed more than expected by chance.

● Foraging was associated with increased reorientation rate and reduced linearity when compared to travelling behaviour.

● Socialising was associated with decreased swimming speed compared to speed while travelling.

● Group size was significantly larger outside the SCLKCMP compared to inside the marine park, and in the presence of each individual boat type compared to no vessels present. An increase in group size was also associated with increased swimming speed and increased reorientation rate.

● CWDs crossing the SCLKCMP boundary showed increased swimming speed, decreased reorientation rate, and increased linearity compared to CWDs inside the marine park.

● Although ANOVA tests did not detect a response in CWD movement patterns in the presence of vessels, the sophisticated multivariate GAM analysis detected significantly reduced swimming speed and increased reorientation rate in the presence of “other” non-ferry vessels.

2.5.2.3 Summary of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Results

Dolphin Detection Rates Per Day

In 2017, there were six deployment periods of Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) for PAM (summarized in Table 12 of Appendix E). Dolphins were detected at the EAR location (A5) at the south of Sha Chau (Figure 2.5 refers) on 109 of 280 days with recording effort (39% of days), and dolphin signals were detected in a total of 236 of 79,931 files (0.3% of files) (Table 12 and Figure 23 of Appendix E). The overall metrics for dolphin occurrence during this period are comparable to previously reported values from monitoring in 2016 (dolphins were present in 40% of recording days and in 0.3% of files). On days with dolphins detected, the mean percentage of files with detections per day was 0.8%, and the maximum percentage of files with dolphin detections was 4.2%, on 27 Feb 2017 (Figure 23 of Appendix E). On 52% of the days with dolphin detections (57 of 109 days), only one file containing dolphin signals was detected. Clicks were the predominant type of dolphin signal detected (n = 222 of 238 detections, or 93%). Whistles (n = 16) were occasionally detected throughout the monitoring period.

Dolphin detection rates in 2017 were lowest in Deployment 4, which recorded data in late spring/early summer (late May to early July); in this deployment dolphins were detected on 19% of recording days and in 0.10% of files (Table 12 of Appendix E). The percentage of days with dolphins was greatest in Deployment 2 (late winter, February to March) at 71%, but only a small percentage of files contained dolphin detections (0.9%). Overall, both measures of dolphin detection rates were relatively high during Deployments 3, 5, and 6. During the spring (Deployment 3), dolphins were detected on 46% of recording days and in 0.3% of files, and during late summer/autumn (Deployments 5-6), dolphins were recorded on 37-39% of recording days and in 0.21-0.25% of files (Table 12 and Figure 23 of Appendix E).

Dolphin Diel Pattern

Dolphin detection rates at A5 in 2017 were greater at night than during daytime, with peak detection hours from 1900-2300 (Figure 24 of Appendix E). During the previous year of data collection, hourly detection rates were also highest at night, with a similar peak hour of 2100 and another early-morning peak at 0300 (Figure 25 of Appendix E). This pattern of detection was similar compared to the diel pattern in dolphin detections observed throughout Hong Kong waters, with higher numbers of detections during night-time and fewest detections at midday (Munger et al. 2016). The diel pattern in 2017 was evident in winter, spring and autumn but not in the summer, in which detections were low overall (Figure 26 of Appendix E). The seasonal pattern in hourly detection rates was similar in 2016 and 2017, with low detection rates in summer in both years (Figure 27 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 daily sound pressure levels over the full bandwidth ranged from approximately 109 to 119 dB, with a mean of 115 dB rms re 1 µPa (Figure 28 of Appendix E). Mean daily sound pressure levels in all frequency bands gradually increased to a maximum in August 2017 and gradually decreased over the remainder of the recording period.

Daily mean sound pressure levels in the 16-32 kHz band, in which energy from CWD clicks occurs, ranged from approximately 96 to 102 dB, with the maximum in summer and minimum in late autumn/early winter (Figure 28 of Appendix E). CWD click and whistle frequencies are above 16 kHz and below 10 kHz, respectively (Sims et al. 2012); however, these sounds were very rare in the data compared to other sound sources and would not be distinguishable in ambient noise plots.

Diel Sound Pressure Level

Mean sound pressure levels plotted by hour indicated a daily peak during the hour 1900, which was mainly due to the contribution from the 0-2 kHz frequency band that is not the high-sensitivity region of CWD hearing (Figures 29 and 30 of Appendix E). This daily peak was most pronounced in spring, summer, and autumn months (Figure 30 of Appendix E). 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 (Figures 29 and 30 of Appendix E).

In the absence of the evening fish chorus (see Winter subplot in Figure 30 of Appendix E), daily noise levels were approximately 2 dB lower during the nighttime hours of 0000 to 0600, and increased throughout the day beginning at approximately 0700, due to the contribution of anthropogenic traffic/activity.

2.5.3 Discussions on CWD Monitoring Results

Each main survey type used in this project (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 to each other, and when analysed together and in parallel, they provide a robust dataset to examine the kinds of issues that need to be considered for proper management and conservation of CWD in Hong Kong.

2.5.3.1 Vessel Line-transect Survey and Photo-identification

From the CWD monitoring data, the estimate of overall abundance for 2017 was 71 dolphins, which is somewhat higher than the year before, with a CV of 19.9% (which indicates a reasonable level of precision). It is encouraging to see that the estimate of total dolphin numbers in Hong Kong was somewhat higher than the previous year’s estimate when Hong Kong waters have shown in general a declining trend in dolphin numbers over the last decade. This is despite the extensive construction work being conducted in 2017 in North Lantau waters for the Project. Within NWL waters, dolphins are mostly found around the Castle Peak and LKC areas. The seasonal analysis showed that within summer, dolphin numbers are still quite high in Hong Kong waters. The 2017 seasonal range is 40-112 dolphins. The spring estimate was the lowest (40 dolphins), while the summer estimate was the highest (112 dolphins), and this indicates that, despite the overall reduction in the average number of dolphins using Hong Kong waters in recent years, there are quite a number of dolphins still present in the summer months.

Earlier, concerns had been expressed by some interested stakeholders that dolphin numbers in NWL may have decreased, specifically due to potential negative impacts from the re-routing of high speed ferries (HSFs) to the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) north of Lung Kwu Chau. The analysis covering the entire first year post-SCZ (2016) provided an estimated abundance of 15 dolphins for NWL (refer to the 2016 annual report). The estimate for 2017 for the same area was 14 dolphins; this is considered a non-significant difference. Therefore, these early analyses have not supported the hypothesis of a decline, and in fact suggested that dolphin numbers in NWL may have actually remained quite stable since the SCZ has been implemented.

Regarding the effectiveness of the implementation of SkyPier HSF route diversion in alleviating the impacts on travelling areas of CWD using the waters between the project and SCLKCMP, and the areas between the CWD hotspots to the Northwest, Northeast and West Lantau, in view of no sighting of CWD at NEL area from vessel surveys and only two groups of CWD recorded off Sha Chau from theodolite tracking in both 2016 and 2017, the usability for CWDs to travel between western and eastern waters through the north of the airport island is yet to be determined. However, as the dolphin numbers estimated in NWL and WL were stable in 2017 compared to 2016, no obvious change in the functionality of the travelling areas was observed.

Regarding the results of photo-identification work, a total number of 155 CWD individuals were identified altogether 386 times from all sightings in 2017, with 88 (56.8%) sighted more than once. Fifty (32.3%) of the 155 identified animals showed cross area movement between different survey areas. Five animals (NLMM020, NLMM023, SLMM030, WLMM027 and WLMM064) were re-sighted in three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL including AW). Several frequently seen individuals in 2016 have greatly diminished their use of Hong Kong waters in 2017. Amongst them, the mother-and-spotted juvenile pair NLMM006 and NLMM013, which were the most frequently identified individuals of the last reporting period, have significantly reduced their time spent in NWL, being sighted only one and two times respectively in 2017. Another animal, SLMM013, which has been sighted six times in the last reporting period, has not been seen in Hong Kong waters in 2017. On the other hand, there were quite a number of individuals that continued to frequent Lantau waters or even greatly increased their use of Hong Kong waters in 2017 compared with 2016. The most frequently re-sighted animal in 2017 was SLMM014, which has been re-sighted 11 times and it is also the most frequently re-sighted animal since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue. In 2016, SLMM014 only occurred in the SWL survey area, while it still occurred extensively in SWL in 2017, but with an extension of home range up to the waters near Yi O in WL. With more re-sighting data to be collected in the future, more analyses on the change of individuals’ home ranges and nature of residency will be conducted.

2.5.3.2 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

Based on theodolite data, the waters off Lung Kwu Chau remain an important foraging area for CWDs throughout the year. Relative occurrence peaked in February 2017, and again during autumn months (September through November). Group sizes of CWDs were generally smaller closer to shore, with the largest groups occurring outside of the SCLKCMP boundary.

CWD fine-scale movement patterns off LKC varied based on natural (group size and behavioural state) and anthropogenic (boat presence and marine park) factors. CWD swimming speed varied based on group size and decreased during socialising behaviour. CWDs also swam significantly faster, with reduced reorientation rate, when moving across the marine park boundary. Increased speed and reduced reorientation rate are consistent with directed travel through an area, perhaps due to heavier vessel traffic around the SCLKCMP 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. In the presence of “other” non-ferry boats, reorientation rate increased and linearity decreased, indicating potential avoidance of vessels. Sample size in this category was unequal and low (n=20), which is a further indication of general vessel avoidance.

Group size was also largest near high speed ferries traveling greater than 15 knots speed, slightly less so near high speed ferries traveling equal to or less than 15 knots speed, less near other boats, and least with no boats present within 500 m. This indicates a behavioural "clumping" or aggregation effect near low to high speed vessels, perhaps as social aggregation in times of perceived danger. It is also possible that lone dolphins or those in small groups react more easily to (especially) faster boat travel and move out of the way more often, while those in larger groups – although the above speeds and orientations indicate that they do react – may be slightly more inclined to stay in the area, again as a perception of safety in numbers. Since more animals have more capabilities of sensory awareness, such increased tolerance in larger groups makes behavioural sense (and has been witnessed by the authors elsewhere).

Dolphins crossing the SCLKCMP boundary exhibited increased swimming speed, decreased reorientation rates, and increased linearity compared to dolphins inside the park. While there was no statistically significant overall difference in movement patterns in the presence of vessels (very possibly due to generally small sample sizes, especially for high speed ferries going at high speed), this difference related to the park boundary may be in response to increased boat traffic and more higher speeds in general outside of the park than in it. The dolphins may be more aware of this general boat shift (and perhaps associated noise) from inside the park to outside and react accordingly.

There were very few CWDs observed off Sha Chau, with only two groups observed throughout the entire year, which is the same number as recorded in 2016. The primary behaviour observed from this location was travelling, suggesting that CWDs are simply moving through this area to more suitable habitat. However, one minute of foraging behaviour was observed. This is a sharply-reduced use of the area north of the airport and south of the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park from studies prior to 2016, as expected relative to increasing marine works in this area.

2.5.3.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring

The 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 in late evening and 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 south of Sha Chau throughout the year. In 2017, dolphins were present with especially high incidence in winter, and less so in other seasons. The per-file detection rates were also highest in winter; taken together, these metrics suggest that dolphins use the area more frequently and intensively in winter than in other seasons. Dolphins were detected more frequently during nighttime hours than during the day, and this may be related to increased nocturnal foraging behaviour.

2.5.4 Conclusions of CWD Monitoring Results

With reference to the aims of construction phase CWD monitoring described in the EM&A Manual, the key findings of CWD monitoring in 2017 are summarised as follows:

Effects on the Potential Shift in CWD Travelling Areas and Habitat Use

Both SWL and WL waters were being used more heavily in 2017 than in the past, likely due to shifting of dolphins away from highly-disturbed habitats in NWL and NEL waters; whilst dolphin sightings by vessel surveys have remained nonexistent around the Brothers Islands of NEL.

While shore-based observations and theodolite tracking do not present overall estimates of numbers of dolphins, the 2017 data from LKC showed about 1.5 times as many groups sighted and tracked than in 2016 (an increase of about 0.3 sightings per survey hour), with overall very similar observation effort between the two years. This indicates a higher use of this area in 2017 than 2016, perhaps indicative of more dolphins using the habitat due to construction works of the Project to the south.

Shore-based work found very few dolphin groups off Sha Chau (much reduced from past levels); Nevertheless, acoustic monitoring showed consistently higher levels of clicking activity at night which may indicate increased use of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness, and also dolphins using the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year with increased activity during winter and spring months.

Effectiveness of the HSF Speed and Routing Restrictions to the CWDs

Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain an important year-round habitat, especially for foraging; and there continues to be no evidence of a decline in dolphin use of the HSF SCZ around Lung Kwu Chau since ferries were re-routed to that area with slower speeds at the end of 2015.

Trends in Long Term Monitoring Data

From vessel surveys conducted in 2017, CWD use of Hong Kong waters was similar to in 2016, though with an apparent increase in use of the western waters, especially WL and SWL. It is estimated that 71 dolphins (on average) were found within Hong Kong waters in 2017, which is up slightly from last year (2016). There continues to be no evidence that the implementation of the SCZ is having any negative impacts on dolphin use of the NWL area. Diverted SkyPier HSFs with speed control measures in place appear to be reducing risks to CWDs using the narrowing waters between south of SCLKCMP and the airport north and at the same time do not appear to be resulting in apparent negative impacts on CWDs along the diverted route.

From land-based surveys with theodolite-tracking in 2017, use of LKC by CWD was highest during mid-day, 10-13 hours; with the overall lowest season of use from March to May; the highest month was February and the lowest was May. Mean group size off LKC was about 3, with singles up to a maximum of 7 CWD per group. Group size was largest outside of the SCLKCMP, at about 4, compared to inside of the park at about 2.7. Singletons most often occurred inside of the SCLKCMP boundary, closer to shore. It is unknown how much a bias of vision (sighting bias) resulted in this latter low number closer to the observation session, as it is easier to find and track dolphins when they are closer. Group size was largest within 500 m of HSF's at speeds >15 knots, indicative that either dolphins are aggregating in response to rapidly-approaching vessels, remain more often near such vessels when in larger groups, or both. The group size off SC was 2.

Overall, the behavioural states of foraging and travelling were by far the most frequent off LKC (and the two observations off SC were primarily of travelling groups). Swim speed increased with group size up to 5 dolphins per group, and since group size increased outside the marine park, these two parameters may be related to some degree. As expected, swim speed decreased with increase in socialising. Swim speed increased while dolphins crossed the marine park boundary, but boat presence showed no significant effect. In concordance with swim speed increasing at the SCLKCMP boundary, reorientation rate decreased there. Reorientation rate increased in the presence of non-ferry vessels, and there was a potential, but non-significant, trend for reorientation rate in the presence of ferries travelling lower than or equal to 15 knots. Linearity decreased in the presence of non-ferries, and there was a potential, but non-significant, variation in linearity in the presence of ferries travelling lower than or equal to 15 knots.

The CWD construction phase monitoring data so far does not contradict findings of the ecological assessments completed during the EIA; recommended mitigations have been implemented accordingly and we will keep reviewing the effectiveness of the mitigation measures upon obtaining more monitoring data in future.

2.5.5 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 works, water jetting works for submarine cable diversion, PVD installation and seawall construction 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. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records and DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains. During the reporting period, ET was notified on six records of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works by the contractors. The ET checked the dolphin sighting records and the contractors’ site records to audit the implementation of DEZ. Details of the sightings are summarized in Table 13 of Appendix E. DCM works within the DEZ were ceased by the contractors, and not resumed until the DEZ was clear of dolphin for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes in accordance with the DEZ Plan.

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 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. Besides, ad-hoc site inspections were conducted by ET and IEC if environmental problems were identified, or subsequent to receipt of an environmental complaint, or as part of the investigation work. These site inspections provided a direct means to reinforce the specified environmental protection requirements and pollution control measures in construction sites.

During site inspections, environmental situation, status of implementation of pollution control and mitigation measures were observed both within the site area as well as outside the project sites which was likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the site activities. Environmental documents and site records, including waste disposal record, maintenance record of environmental equipment, and relevant environmental permit and licences, were also checked on site. Observations were recorded in the site inspection checklist and passed to the contractor together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary in order to advise contractors on environmental improvement, awareness and on-site enhancement measures. The observations were made with reference to the following information during the site inspections:

· The EIA and EM&A requirements;

· Relevant environmental protection laws, guidelines, and practice notes;

· The EP conditions and other submissions under the EP;

· Monitoring results of EM&A programme;

· Works progress and programme;

· Proposal of individual works;

· Contract specifications on environmental protection; and

· Previous site inspection results.

Good site practices were observed in site inspections during the reporting period. The ET participated in environmental drills organized by the contractor as observer, including chemical spill drills and silt curtain deployment drills. Advices were given when necessary to ensure the construction workforce were familiar with relevant procedures, and to maintain good environmental performance on site. Environmental briefings were provided to the contractors by EPD on various topics including CNP and waste management. Environmental briefings on EP and EM&A requirements were also provided to the new contracts by ET. Regular toolbox talks on environmental issues were organized for the construction workforce by the contractors to ensure understanding and proper implementation of environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures.

Based on the site inspections, the key construction activities and contractors’ site management practice or actions, are presented in Table 2.14 below.

Table 2.14 Summary of Key Findings during Environmental Site Inspection

Construction Activities	Mitigation Measures	Contractors’ Site Management Practices or Actions
General construction activities	Chemical spill and leakage prevention measures	Contractor provided and regularly maintained drip trays and storage area for chemicals; Spill kits were provided on site according to Spill Response Plan.
	Runoff prevention measures	Contractor properly maintained bunding or toeboard around vessels or drainage system to avoid runoff impact.
	Dust suppression measures	Contractor applied water spraying regularly and covered idling stockpile of construction material.
	Dark smoke preventive measures	Cleaning, maintenance and repair of plants were carried out by contractor to avoid dark smoke emission.
	Waste recycling and disposal management	Recycling bins were provided on site. Different types of waste were also segregated to enhance reuse or recycling, or proper disposal. Contractor set up designated collection points for general waste and chemical waste.
Marine construction activities	Acoustic decoupling measures	Acoustic decoupling material was placed under noisy equipment.
Sand blanket laying	Deployment of silt curtain	Contractor checked regularly the silt curtains in place and maintain them when necessary.
DCM works	Wastewater treatment	Contractors deployed water pumps to collect and treat wastewater in accordance with the effluent discharge license. No direct discharge of wastewater is permitted.
DCM works	DEZ monitoring	Contractors established the DEZ according to the DEZ Plan.
Land based construction activities	Tree protection measures	Contractors set up tree protection zones with appropriate barriers for trees that were identified as to be retained.
Land based construction activities	Noise mitigation measures	Contractor provided noise barriers or noise insulation material around site area or the equipment. Acoustic panels on equipment were closed during operation if available.

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 Manual, during the HDD construction works period from August to March, 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 January, February, March, August, September, October, November and December 2017 on Sheung Sha Chau Island. During these reporting months, the monthly ecological monitoring at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau observed that HDD works were ongoing at the daylighting location, and there was no encroachment of any works upon the egretry area nor any disturbance to the ardeids on the island by the works. Signs of early breeding activity of ardeids were observed in February and March, and signs of late nursery activity were observed in August and September on trees located at the previously identified egretry area where it is at the southern side of Sheung Sha Chau Island. At the HDD daylighting location, neither nest nor breeding activity of ardeids were found during the ecological monitoring and site inspections in the reporting period.

2.8 Audit of the SkyPier High Speed Ferries

The Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan) was submitted to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) for comment and subsequently submitted to and approved by EPD in November 2015 under EP Condition 2.10. The approved SkyPier Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project. In the SkyPier Plan, AAHK has committed to implementing the mitigation measure of requiring HSFs of SkyPier travelling between HKIA and Zhuhai / Macau to start diverting the route with associated speed control across the area, i.e. SCZ, with high CWD abundance. The route diversion and speed restriction at the SCZ have been implemented since 28 December 2015. The IEC has also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme. The latest summary of key audit findings in the reporting period is presented in Table 2.15.

A total of five skipper workshops were held in 2017 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 deviation cases, experience sharing and recommendations to strengthen the implementation of the SkyPier Plan.

In total, 9,560 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 no /fewer ferry movements on 23 July, 23, 24, 27 August, and 15 October due to typhoon. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in 2017 was 88, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

Most of the HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speeds at or below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. One case of average speed deviation in April was due to giving way to vessels to ensure public safety. All ferry movements that were not strictly following the diverted route have been investigated. All of the route deviation cases were related to strong tidal wave and current, or giving way to other vessels due to safety and emergency situations, except two cases which the captain found difficulty to follow the normal route due to Automatic Identification System (AIS) failure. The ferry operator was advised to check the AIS system to ensure sufficient data points can be received.

Insufficient AIS data were received from some HSFs due to interference effect of AIS signal as reported by the ferry operators after checking the condition of the AIS transponders. In such cases, vessel captains were requested to provide radar track photos to indicate that the vessel entered the SCZ though the gate access points and without speeding in the SCZ.

Table 2.15 Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan

Requirements in the SkyPier Plan	Jan-17	Feb-17	Mar-17	Apr-17	May-17	Jun-17	Jul-17	Aug-17	Sep-17	Oct-17	Nov-17	Dec-17
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited	868	783	860	845	864	834	846	744	580	693	786	857
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	866	782	859	841	860	833	845	743	580	691	785	856
No. of SkyPier HSFs in compliance with Average Speed within 15 knots in SCZ	868	783	860	844	864	834	846	744	580	693	786	857
Daily Cap (including all SkyPier HSFs)	83-91	89-93	85-94	90-97	91-97	56-95	20-93	11-91	70-87	1-87	84-93	87-90

Source: excerpt from Monthly and Quarterly EM&A Reports

Note: There were fewer ferry movements on 23 July, 24, 27 August and 15 October (20, 60, 11 and 1 movements respectively) due to typhoon.

There were no HSF movement on 23 August due to typhoon Signal No. 10 on that day.

2.9 Audit of Construction and Associated Vessels

The audit of construction and associated vessels in accordance with the Marine Travel Route and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV) has started since August 2016. ET has audited relevant information including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records provided by the contractors to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The Marine Surveillance System (MSS) was launched in March 2017. The MSS automatically recorded deviation cases such as speeding, entering no entry zone, and not traveling through designated gates. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. The 3-month rolling programme submitted by contractors 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 44 skipper training workshops were held by ET in 2017 with 369 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 43 skipper training workshops were held with 76 captains by contractor’s Environmental Officers and competency tests were conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET. In addition, ET participated Marine Management Liaison Group meetings to assist and resolve any marine issues which might be encountered under the Project.

2.10 Coral Post-Translocation Monitoring

Further to the requirements of the Coral Translocation Plan (CTP) which was submitted in May 2016, pre-translocation surveys were conducted along the airport island to identify gorgonian corals suitable for translocation in August 2016 and the translocation to recipient site RT2 in Yam Tsai Wan (YTW) was conducted. To gauge the success of the translocation, the post-translocation monitoring of 85 translocated corals and 20 control corals commenced following the completion of translocation in January 2017.

This section summarizes the results of post-translocation monitoring and ad-hoc monitoring conducted during the reporting period.

Summary of Post-translocation Monitoring Survey Results

The translocation of 384 gorgonian corals from the airport island to recipient site (RT2) at Yam Tsai Wan (YTW) was completed by January 2017. The post-translocation monitoring began in January 2017 and up to five rounds were completed by the end of 2017.

Table 2.16: Post-translocation Monitoring Programme and Monitoring Dates

Timing after Completion of Translocation	Programme	Monitoring Survey Date
15 days	1st round	20, 21 January 2017
30 days	2nd round	4, 5 February 2017
2 Months	3rd round	3, 4 March 2017
3 Months	4th round	5 April 2017
9 Months	5th round	25, 26 October 2017
15 Months	6th round	To be provided
21 Months	7th round	To be provided
27 Months	8th round	To be provided

Note: Six rounds of monitoring up to 15 months after completion of translocation were proposed in the CTP. Two extra rounds of monitoring, i.e. 21 and 27 months after completion of translocation, were proposed in the Detailed Coral Translocation Report.

Action and Limit Levels as stipulated in the CTP were not triggered. Low partial mortality (PM) levels and good general health conditions were recorded on both tagged control and translocated corals from January to March 2017. Notable change in PM and health were recorded in both tagged translocated and control corals in the April 2017 monitoring. A meeting was also held between ET, AAHK and AFCD to discuss follow-up actions and an investigation on the possible cause(s) of the notable change in PM, including ad-hoc coral monitoring on top of the CTP’s requirements was conducted. The investigation revealed that the relatively high PM levels identified in control and translocated corals at YTW in April 2017 were unlikely to be related to 3RS marine works activities and that the relatively high PM levels were mostly likely to have been caused by an interplay of environmental factors, rather than a single factor. For more information on the findings of the investigation and actions, please refer to Section 2.10 of Construction Phase Quarterly EM&A Reports No.7 and No.8.

The key results of the post-translocation monitoring surveys conducted from January to April and October 2017 as well as the ad-hoc surveys conducted in June, July and September 2017 are summarized in Appendix F.

The next post-translocation monitoring will be conducted in April 2018. In accordance with the CTP, a Post-translocation Coral Monitoring Report which reviews the post-translocation survey results between January 2017 and April 2018 with reference to the baseline conditions (as represented by the tagged coral survey results), will be submitted to EPD and AFCD upon completion of the April 2018 survey. The results of the two extra rounds of monitoring in October 2018 and April 2019 will be reported in the respective Quarterly EM&A Reports.

2.11 External Stakeholder Engagement

In accordance with the EP’s requirements of setting up Community and Professional Liaison Groups, the AAHK has been continuing to proactively reach out to a wide spectrum of external stakeholders to update them on the environmental aspects of the Project and to seek their insights and views. These incessant exchanges with the local communities, relevant professionals, experts, and other stakeholders. Below are highlights of the engagement activities held in 2017.

2.11.1 Community Liaison Groups

In order to enhance communication with the community in a proactive way, five Community Liaison Groups (CLGs) were set up in 2012 in the neighbouring districts of HKIA, namely Islands, Kwai Tsing, Shatin, Tsuen Wan and Tuen Mun. The CLGs are comprehensive platforms for the AA to update the community leaders about the detailed design, progress of construction and operation, and environmental monitoring and audit results of the Project, and listen to their views on various topics related to HKIA and the Project, including environmental matters. The AA also leverages on the CLGs to exchange views with the community on the latest airport developments, hence enhancing airport services and helping to contribute to the betterment of these districts. The CLGs have a total of about 130 members involving district councillors and community leaders.

Three rounds of five meetings were held in January, July and December 2017. The members also undertook a visit to the marine work site in December 2017 to observe environmental and construction aspects of the Project at the marine work site.

2.11.2 Professional Liaison Group and green Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

The Professional Liaison Group, comprising 19 members of relevant professionals and experts, was set up to enhance transparency and communication, as well as enquiries and complaints-handling on all environmental issues related to the Project; and to promote community cooperation and participation and implementation of suitable local environmental enhancement works that are included in the Environmental Permit. Information of the Project including detailed design, progress of construction and operation, and environmental monitoring and audit results are shared with the members. In the reporting period, two PLG meetings were held in May and November 2017. Members also visited the Marine Traffic Control Centre and attended a visit to the marine work site in May 2017 to learn more about the real-time marine surveillance arrangements and to observe environmental and construction aspects of the Project at the marine work site.

Roundtable meetings with NGOs were proactively arranged to facilitate exchanges on environmental issues related to the Project. Updates of the Project, including environmental monitoring and audit results are shared with the participants. Two roundtable meetings were held in May and November 2017.

2.11.3 Fishermen liaison

In an effort to deepen outreach to the fishermen community, a dedicated Fishermen Liaison Group was set up in November 2016 to share updates on environmental matters and progress of construction and operation with the chairmen and leaders of fishermen groups and associations. A meeting was held in July 2017.

2.11.4 Other Stakeholders

The AAHK attended three Legislative Council 3RS Subcommittee meetings in April, September and October 2017 to share with members updates regarding environmental, construction and funding aspects. A visit to the marine work site was arranged for the subcommittee members in May 2017. The AAHK also attended two Advisory Council on the Environment meetings in May and October 2017 to share with the council members environmental monitoring and audit results of the Project and updates on the effectiveness of various implemented mitigation measures.

A visit to the marine work site was arranged for the media in May 2017 for the participants to observe the vastness and robustness of the Project, including environmental and construction aspects. In addition, two interviews were arranged regarding funded projects for the Marine Ecology Enhancement Fund (MEEF) and the Fisheries Enhancement Fund (FEF), with the two feature stories published and broadcasted in December 2017.

To keep the general public abreast on the environmental aspects of the Project, including environmental monitoring and audit results, MEEF and FEF plus an array of topics and materials, a dedicated project website was set up since November 2015. Number of visits to the website in 2017 totalled 103,042, 63% higher than the number of visits in 2016.

To encourage two-way communications with stakeholders and the community, a dedicated telephone hotline and email was set up since December 2015. 7 enquiries were received via the hotline, and 2 enquiries were received via the dedicated email in 2017.

2.12 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.

2.13 Key Environmental Issues for the Coming Reporting Period

The key environmental issues for the Project in the coming reporting period are expected to be associated with construction activities including marine works such as laying of sand blanket, DCM works, seawall construction, and marine filling, as well as land-based works such as excavation, piling, T2 expansion works, and APM works. Relevant environmental impact mitigation measures will be implemented, including the deployment of enhanced silt curtains, reuse of excavated material and public fill for marine filling, and stockpiling of excavated materials for future reuse.

The implementation of required mitigation measures by the contractors will be monitored by the ET.

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

Seven environmental complaints were received in the reporting period. All environmental complaints were attended to and investigations were conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan. The summary of the complaints and analysis is presented in Appendix G.

3.2.2 Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution

Summons were received in June 2017 alleging use of powered mechanical equipment outside the permitted hours for the aviation fuel pipeline diversion works in December 2016.

3.3 Cumulative Statistics

Cumulative statistics on exceedance, non-compliance, complaints, notifications of summons and status of prosecutions are summarized in Appendix G.

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

In the reporting period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, 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, waste monitoring, coral post-translocation monitoring, as well as environmental site inspections and landscape and visual monitoring for the Project’s construction works.

For air quality, three monitoring results triggered the Limit Level of 1-hour TSP in the reporting period, and the corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly which concluded that the cases were not related to the Project.

For water quality, the monitoring results for total alkalinity obtained in the reporting period complied with the corresponding Action and Limit Levels stipulated in the EM&A programme. Relevant investigation and follow-up procedures were conducted according to the EM&A programme if the corresponding Action and Limit Levels were triggered. For DO, turbidity, SS, chromium, and nickel, some of the monitoring results triggered the relevant Action or Limit Level in the reporting period, and the corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that the cases were not related to the Project. To conclude, the construction operation in the reporting period did not introduce adverse impact to all water quality sensitive receivers.

The monitoring results in relation to the construction noise, waste, CWD, and coral post-translocation monitoring did not trigger their corresponding Action or Limit Levels 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 conducted when construction works was carried out on Sheung Sha Chau Island outside of ardeid’s breeding season from April to July 2017.

A total of 5,427.7 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line transect monitoring for CWD during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 252 groups of 845 CWDs were sighted, with 39 groups of 128 CWDs recorded in NWL, 5 groups of 16 CWDs in AW, 129 groups of 473 CWDs in WL and 79 groups of 228 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 4.80 and 16.8 respectively. No triggering of Action and Limit Level on the encounter rates were recorded during the construction phase. Average annual abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 71 dolphins in 2017 from line-transect analysis. CWD relative occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau peaked in February, with fewer sightings between March and August and then increased in the late months of the year, September to December. 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 spring and late summer/autumn. The acoustic data also showed consistently higher levels of dolphin clicking activity at night than during daytime, which might 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, 9,560 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 23 July, 23, 24, 27 August, and 15 October 2017 due to typhoon. The annual daily average of all the SkyPier HSFs in 2017 was 86 movements, within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements. Most of the diverted HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speeds within 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. One case of average speed deviation was due to public safety. All ferry movements that did not strictly follow the diverted route were investigated.

The audit of construction and associate vessels has started since August 2016. ET has conducted audit to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The MSS was launched in March 2017. The MSS automatically recorded the deviation case such as speeding, entering no entry zone, not traveling through the designated gate. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. A total of 44 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET from January to December 2017 with captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 43 skipper training workshops were held by contractors’ Environmental Officers and competency tests were conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET.

On the implementation of MMWP, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for sand blanket laying works and dolphin observers were deployed in accordance with the MMWP. On the implementation of DEZ 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 were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works. Testing on night vision devices for DEZ 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 silt curtains during the reporting period, while there were six records of dolphin sighting within the DEZ of DCM works. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET during weekly site inspections.

External stakeholder engagement activities ranging from liaison meetings with the local community, relevant professional and green groups, regular meetings with other stakeholders, setting up of a dedicated project website for the general public, to marine work site visit and feature stories publishing etc., were carried out to update them on the environmental aspects of the Project and ensure transparent and engaging communication.

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.

[1] The Manual is available on the Project’s dedicated website (accessible at: http://env.threerunwaysystem.com/en/index.html).