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 2.2a	Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.2b	Updated Water Quality Monitoring Stations (since 12 May 2018)
Figure 2.2c	Updated Water Quality Monitoring Stations (since 25 October 2018)
Figure 2.3	Vessel based Dolphin Monitoring Transects in Construction, Post-Construction and Operation Phases
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 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.

This is the 3^rd 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 2018 to 31 December 2018.

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;

· Trench backfilling; and

· Shoreline reinstatement next to the new pipe.

Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Works:

Contracts 3201 to 3205 DCM Works

· DCM works; and

· Seawall construction.

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

· Laying of sand blanket;

· Prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) installation;

· Seawall construction;

· Marine filling; and

· DCM works.

Airfield Works:

Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway

· Cable ducting works;

· Subgrade works;

· Operation of aggregate mixing facility; 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;

· Pipe installation; and

· Builders works of antenna farm.

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

· Removal of existing concrete;

· Fitting out of electrical and mechanical (E&M) works;

· Brick laying works;

· Formwork erection and concreting works; and

· Site clearance.

Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works

· Site establishment;

· Drainage, utility, and road works;

· Piling and structure works; and

· Demolition of footbridge.

Contract 3505 Terminal 2 Spectrum Lighting Mock-ups

· Assembly of structural frame;

· Floor drilling;

· Installation of lighting fittings and panels; and

· Assembly of lighting mock-ups.

Automated People Mover (APM) Works:

Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works

· Site and site office establishment; and

· Modification works at APM depot.

Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works:

Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System

· Site establishment;

· Drainage, utility, and road works;

· Piling and structure works; and

· Demolition of footbridge.

Airport Support Infrastructure & Logistic Works:

Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island

· Site establishment works;

· Diversion of underground utilities;

· Piling and foundation works;

· Cofferdam and support installation for box culvert;

· Rising main installation; and

· Site clearance.

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	243
Water Quality Monitoring	152
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring	24
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring	60⁽¹⁾
Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring ⁽²⁾	8
Coral post-translocation monitoring ⁽³⁾	2
Notes ⁽¹⁾ Including 24 monitoring sessions required under the Updated EM&A Manual and 36 sessions of additional monitoring. ⁽²⁾ 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 2018. ⁽³⁾ Including one set of additional coral post-translocation monitoring (beyond Coral Translocation Plan requirements) conducted in October 2018.

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 pollution control and 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, one monitoring result triggered the Action Level of 1-hour total suspended particulates (TSP) in the reporting period. Corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly which concluded that the case was 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 ecological 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	√		Eight complaints were received on 19 Jan, 5 Feb, 16 May, 28 May, 3 Jul, 27 Aug, 21 Sep, and 6 Nov 2018 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		√	No notification of summons or prosecution were received. For the summonses received in Jun 2017 alleging use of powered mechanical equipment by the contractor outside the permitted hours for the aviation fuel pipeline diversion works in Dec 2016, the prosecution formally offered no evidence against the AAHK and all summonses issued to AAHK were dismissed. The contractor pleaded guilty to contravening the Noise Control Ordinance and was fined by the court on 21 May 2018.	Nil
Changes that affect the EM&A	√		Starting from 12 May 2018, some of the water quality impact stations surrounding the land formation footprint were realigned. Starting from 1 Sep 2018, noise monitoring at NM3A was suspended. Starting from 25 Oct 2018, water quality monitoring at SR1A was commenced.	Nil

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

Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) commissioned Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) to undertake the role of Environmental Team (ET) for carrying out the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) works during the construction phase of the Project in accordance with the Manual submitted under EP Condition 3.1 [1]. AECOM Asia Company Limited (AECOM) was employed by AAHK as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) for the Project.

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

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

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

1.2 Scope of this Report

This is the 3rd 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 2018 to 31 December 2018.

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	Daniel Sum	2585 8495
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

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	Hiu Yeung Tang	6329 3513
Contract 3202 DCM (Package 2) (Samsung-BuildKing Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Ilkwon Nam	9643 3117
	Environmental Officer	David Man	6421 3238
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
	Environmental Officer	Nelson Tam	9721 3942

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	David Ng	9010 7871
	Environmental Officer	Chun Pong Chan	9187 7118
Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works (Leighton – Chun Wo Joint Venture)	Construction Manager	Eric Wu	3973 1718
	Environmental Officer	Stephen Tsang	5508 6361
Contract 3505 Terminal 2 Spectrum Lighting Mock-Ups (Union Contractors Ltd.)	Project Manager	Wylar Chan	9107 5920
	Environmental Officer	Kelvin Lam	9379 2446

Automated People Mover (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

Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium)	Project Manager	Andy Ng	9102 2739
	Environmental Officer	Eric Ha	9215 3432

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

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 reclamation works and land-side works. Reclamation works included deep cement mixing (DCM) works, marine filling, seawall construction, laying of sand blanket, and prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) installation. Land-side works involved mainly foundation and substructure works for Terminal 2 expansion, modification and tunnel work for APM and BHS, and preparation work for utilities, with activities including site establishment, site office construction, road and drainage works, cable ducting, demolition of existing facilities, 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.
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	The post-translocation monitoring programme according to the Coral Translocation Plan was completed in April 2018. On the other hand, one set of additional monitoring (beyond Coral Translocation Plan requirements) was conducted in October 2018.
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 was ongoing during the first three years’ 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
Landscape and Visual Plan	At least 3 months before the commencement of construction works on the formed land of the Project.	The Landscape & Visual Plan was submitted to EPD under EP Condition 2.18.
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:

● 12 dolphin observer trainings provided by ET;

● 24 skipper trainings provided by ET;

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

● 1 training workshop for contractor on construction noise permit requirements provided by ET;

● 1 environmental briefing on environmental compliance and construction waste management provided by EPD and AAHK;

● 3 EPD sharing sessions on key issues of environmental management, waste management, and/or construction dust control; and

● 98 environmental management meetings for EM&A review with works contracts.

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 2018	100.0%	94.4%
Feb 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Mar 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Apr 2018	100.0%	100.0%
May 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Jun 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Jul 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Aug 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Sep 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Oct 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Nov 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Dec 2018	100.0%	100.0%
Overall	100.0%	99.5%
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.

One monitoring result of 1-hour TSP at AR2 triggered the Action Level on 8 January 2018, and corresponding investigation was conducted accordingly. Details of the investigation findings are presented in the Contruction Phase Monthly EM&A Report No. 25, which concluded that the result was 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 2018	Sunny to Rainy	North or East
Apr – Jun 2018	Sunny to Rainy	South or Southwest
Jul – Sep 2018	Sunny to Rainy	South or Southwest
Oct – Dec 2018	Sunny to Rainy	North or East

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 dust control measures taken in the project 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 four to 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 ⁽ⁱ⁾	Site Office		75 dB(A)
NM4	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School		65dB(A) / 70 dB(A) ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾
NM5	Village House in Tin Sum		75 dB(A)
NM6	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan		75 dB(A)
Note: ⁽ⁱ⁾ With the commencement of construction works of Tung Chung East Development near NM3A, the monitoring results obtained at NM3A would be affected by other construction project. According to Section 4.3.3 of the Manual, the noise monitoring at NM3A was suspended starting from 1 September 2018 and would be resumed with the completion of the Tung Chung East Development. ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ Reduced 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 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Feb 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Mar 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Apr 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
May 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Jun 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Jul 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Aug 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Sep 2018	100.0%	N/A*	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Oct 2018	100.0%	N/A*	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Nov 2018	100.0%	N/A*	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Dec 2018	100.0%	N/A*	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. *: Noise monitoring at NM3A was suspended starting from 1 September 2018.

No complaints were received from any sensitive receiver that triggered the Action Level. All monitoring results were also within the corresponding Limit Levels at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.

General weather conditions throughout the impact monitoring period were recorded and summarized in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: General Weather Condition During Impact Noise Monitoring

	Weather
Jan – Mar 2018	Sunny to Cloudy
Apr – Jun 2018	Sunny to Cloudy
Jul – Sep 2018	Sunny to Cloudy
Oct – Dec 2018	Sunny to Cloudy

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 aircraft noise near NM1A, aircraft and construction vessel noise 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 noise control measures taken in the project 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 22 to 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact (IM) stations, 7 to 8 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 2.7 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.2a shows the locations of the monitoring stations.

Starting from 12 May 2018, some of the IM stations surrounding the land formation footprint were realigned to maintain an appropriate buffer distance away from the enhanced silt curtain. The updated monitoring locations are presented in Figure 2.2b. With the operation of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities, water quality monitoring at SR1A station was also commenced on 25 October 2018. The monitoring locations since 25 October 2018 are shown in Figure 2.2c.

Table 2.7: 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
IM1	Impact Station	807132 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	817949
IM2	Impact Station	806193	818852
IM2	Impact Station	806166 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	818163
IM3	Impact Station	806019	819411
IM3	Impact Station	805594 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	818784
IM4	Impact Station	805039	819570
IM4	Impact Station	804607 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	819725
IM5	Impact Station	804924	820564
IM5	Impact Station	804867 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	820735
IM6	Impact Station	805828	821060
IM7	Impact Station	806835	821349
IM8	Impact Station	807838	821695
IM8	Impact Station	808140 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	821830
IM9	Impact Station	808811	822094
IM10	Impact Station	809838	822240
IM10	Impact Station	809794 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	822385
IM11	Impact Station	810545	821501
IM11	Impact Station	811460 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	822057
IM12	Impact Station	811519	821162
IM12	Impact Station	812046 (From 12 May 2018 onwards)	821459
SR1A⁽¹⁾	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)	811418	820246

Notes:

⁽¹⁾With the operation of HKBCF, water quality monitoring at SR1A was commenced on 25 October 2018.

⁽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 2.8. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 2.9. The weather and sea conditions during the reporting period are recorded and summarized in Table 2.10.

Table 2.8: 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)		33		42
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 2.9: 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⁽²⁾, 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 September 2016 onwards.
⁽²⁾: With the operation of HKBCF, water quality monitoring at SR1 station was commenced on 25 October 2018.

Table 2.10: General Weather Condition and Sea Condition During Impact Water Quality Monitoring

	Weather	Sea Condition
Jan – Mar 2018	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Apr – Jun 2018	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Jul – Sep 2018	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Oct – Dec 2018	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough

2.3.2 Monitoring Results

Percentage of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.11. It should be noted that Hong Kong was under the effect of tropical cyclones from 5 to 8 June, 17 to 24 July, 9 to 15 August, 11 to 13 September, 14 to 17 September, and 31 October to 2 November 2018 respectively, and the water quality monitoring results during the said periods might be affected by the inclement weather.

Table 2.11: 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 2018	100.0%	100.0%	99.8%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Feb 2018	100.0%	100.0%	98.4%	100.0%	100.0%	99.0%	99.7%
Mar 2018	100.0%	100.0%	97.3%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	99.7%
Apr 2018	100.0%	100.0%	98.9%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	99.3%
May 2018	100.0%	100.0%	99.8%	100.0%	100.0%	99.7%	96.1%
Jun 2018	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	89.4%
Jul 2018	99.5%	100.0%	99.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Aug 2018	97.6%	98.8%	99.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Sep 2018	99.5%	100.0%	98.5%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	96.0%
Oct 2018	100.0%	100.0%	99.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	98.3%
Nov 2018	100.0%	100.0%	98.4%	98.6%	100.0%	100.0%	98.0%
Dec 2018	100.0%	100.0%	99.8%	100.0%	100.0%	99.0%	99.4%
Overall	99.7%	99.9%	99.0%	99.9%	100.0%	99.8%	98.1%
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, cases triggering 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 (overall 98.1% for nickel to 100% for alkalinity as presented in Table 2.11) 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. Based on the findings of the investigations presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Reports for 2018, 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 maintenance of silt curtains 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 2.12.

Table 2.12: 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 2.13.

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 2.13: Statistics of Construction Waste Generated in the Reporting Period

	C&D⁽¹⁾ Material Stockpiled for Reuse or Recycle (m³)	C&DMaterial Reused in the Project (m³)	C&D Material Reused in other Projects (m³)	C&D Material Transferred to Public Fill (m³)	Chemical Waste (kg)	Chemical Waste (L)	General Refuse (tonne)
Jan 2018	662	4,310	0	601	210	45,200	162
Feb 2018	739	480	0	1,393	225	25,000	146
Mar 2018	1,238	5,563	0	1,741	165	18,000	297
Apr 2018	1,366	3,514	0	996	955	18,600	201
May 2018	3,649	4,350	0	6,419	165	19,400	205
Jun 2018	512	1,452	0	12,498	640	41,980	231
Jul 2018	1,916	1,952	0	15,104	1,870	54,400	408
Aug 2018	2,752	3,488	0	10,365	588	25,400	248
Sep 2018	4,309	3,457	0	5,688	70	24,520	434
Oct 2018	4,146	5,400	0	5,746	285	38,480	445
Nov 2018	3,107	3,719	1,238	9,440	180	9,440	519
Dec 2018	5,965	3,849	0	4,362	300	14,400	354
Total	30,361	41,534	1,238	74,353	5,653	334,820	3,650
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 monitoring on all works contracts were carried out by the ET to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices during the construction phase.

Recommendations made included provision and maintenance of proper chemical waste storage area, as well as handling, segregation, and regular disposal of general refuse. The contractors had taken actions to implement the recommended measures.

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 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 2018 and 31 December 2018, 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 second 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 2018 and compared with the construction phase monitoring data for 2017, as well as the 6-months baseline survey (Q1 and Q2 2016) supplemented with the initial 6-months of construction phase monitoring data (Q3 and Q4 2016), 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). The locations of the CWD vessel survey transects are shown in Figure 2.3. 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 the 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 dolphins and their re-sighting locations, depicting the range use and cross-area movement of re-sighted individuals, where practicable. Travelling of CWDs in the north of Lung Kwu Chau were particularly supplemented with information from land-based theodolite tracking survey findings.

For the land-based theodolite tracking surveys, 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 details on CWD monitoring and data analysis methodologies refer to Section 10.2.4 of the EM&A Manual. The locations of land-based survey stations are described in Table 2.14 and depicted in Figure 2.4. The location of the Passive Acoustic Monitoring device at A5 is shown in Figure 2.5.

Table 2.14: 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 2.15. 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. If persisting declines in the CWD running quarterly encounter rate values are determined month on month, an appropriate short term response is then possible if the decline is shown to be related to 3RS construction activity.

Table 2.15: Derived Values of Action Level and Limit Level for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

	NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL as a Whole
Action Level⁽¹⁾	Running quarterly STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35
Limit Level⁽¹⁾	Two consecutive running quarterly (3-month) STG < 1.86 & ANI < 9.35

Notes: (1) Action Level and/or Limit Level will be triggered if both STG and ANI fall below the criteria

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 2018 to December 2018, 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 areas having longer distance of survey effort). A total of 5,441.1 km survey effort was collected in this reporting period. The percentages of the total survey effort collected in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas were around 20.8%, 32.8%, 2.1%, 13.5% and 30.8%, respectively.

In total, 91.9% (4,999.7 km) of the survey effort was collected under favourable weather condition (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond), which 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 215 groups consisting of 686 CWDs were sighted. Amongst these 215 groups of CWDs, 200 groups with 651 CWDs were sighted during on-effort surveys under favorable weather condition (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond).

The numbers of sightings by survey areas were: two groups of two CWDs in NEL; 52 groups of 147 CWDs in NWL; six groups of 22 CWDs in AW; 113 groups of 392 CWDs in WL; while there were 42 groups of 123 CWDs seen in SWL.

In NEL, the two sightings were recorded at the western side of the survey area. One group was sighted at the westernmost transect of NEL survey area, off the northwestern corner of the Brothers Marine Park (BMP) whilst the other group was sighted within the BMP, around the southwestern corner of the marine park.

In NWL, CWDs were mostly sighted within or around the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP), particularly in the northwestern part off Lung Kwu Chau. Around one-third 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. Two scattered CWD sightings were recorded at the waters off Castle Peak Power Plant and the waters off the easternmost corner of the 3RS works area respectively.

In WL, CWDs were sighted along the entire coast and offshore waters from Sham Wat to Fan Lau.

In SWL, sightings of CWDs were scattered in the survey area particularly around Fan Lau and Fan Lau Tung Wan, and northern waters around the Soko Islands. However, there were somewhat fewer sightings at the eastern end of the survey area.

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 an overall indication of changes in CWD numbers over time in western Hong Kong waters.

During the reporting period, the overall combined STG and ANI of CWDs from all survey areas in 2018 were 4.00 and 13.02 respectively. Dolphin encounter rates by survey area and a summary of monthly encounter rates are presented respectively 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 AW and NWL. Compared by month, summer months had generally higher STG and ANI, although the monthly STG peaked in February while monthly ANI peaked in January 2018. The lowest STG occurred in December 2018, whilst the lowest ANI occurred in May 2018.

The trends of both monthly STG and ANI are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E. The temporal trends in 2018 were generally similar to the past year in the way that the period of Jun to Sep was still consistently recorded with higher STG and ANI, notwithstanding the peak summer ANI recorded in 2018 were lower than the previous years, and the spring period was recorded with lower STG and ANI despite the occasional rise in ANI in May 2017 versus the drop in May 2018. Monthly STG and ANI in the winter of 2017-2018 was an exception that the values were consistently high across Dec 2017 to Feb 2018 when compared to the past years, although a rise was recorded in Feb 2017. Another variation in 2018 was observed for the trend across Oct to Dec being a reverse of V-shape which was recorded for 2016 and 2017.

Running quarterly encounter rates using 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 2018 are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix E. The graphical plots of running quarterly encounter rates of the current reporting year and the past reporting years are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E respectively.

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 4 of Appendix E. The overall abundance estimated for this reporting period (incorporating an entire year of data from all four seasons) was 77 CWDs (CV = 18.9%, indicating a good level of precision <20%), which shows a stable trend from last year. For comparison, the 2017 abundance was 71 CWDs (CV = 19.9%). As in analyses of the last reporting year in 2017, the area with the highest abundance and highest density was WL (N=38, this has been consistent over the AFCD long-term records), although NWL also had reasonably high numbers of dolphins (N=22), and registered higher numbers than SWL (N=15), the opposite trend from last year. NEL for the first time in several years registered dolphin sightings, and an abundance of 2 dolphins. Due to the recent completion and operation of the Hong-Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, there may be some recovery of dolphins in the North Lantau area as a result. However, this will need to be examined with more data over several years, and the cumulative impacts due to 3RS project with other concurrent projects will become more apparent as works progress, and our dataset grows.

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 winter estimate was the lowest (N=61 dolphins), though traditionally spring was generally the low season for dolphin numbers in Hong Kong. The summer estimate showed the highest numbers (N=99 dolphins), which is not unexpected from historical records.

Quantitative Grid Analysis on Habitat Use

Habitat use amongst the survey areas was 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 period from January 2018 to December 2018. SPSE and DPSE of the last reporting year and the current reporting year are depicted in Figure 5 of Appendix E.

Compared with last reporting period (i.e. year 2017), the important habitat of CWDs in SCLKCMP of NWL waters with high dolphin densities recorded in 2018 has slightly shifted particularly to the waters off southwestern Lung Kwu Chau. The southwestern part of the NWL survey area (waters between Sham Wat and the 3RS works area) has become more important as increased usage by CWDs in this area was reported last year in 2017 and this trend was continuing in 2018.

The important dolphin habitat in WL survey area in 2018 is largely similar to 2017; grids with high SPSE and/or DPSE value(s) in WL were near Tai O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. Yi O has become less important in 2018, as relatively lower SPSE and DPSE values were recorded.

In SWL, the coastal waters around Fan Lau Tung Wan remain as an important habitat of CWDs. However, there was an overall decreasing trend of dolphin usage in the coastal waters from Shek Pik to Lo Kei Wan and Shui Hau, as well as offshore waters around the Soko Islands.

Cumulative SPSE and DPSE values were also calculated by using the 3RS CWD monitoring data since mid-Dec 2015 and are depicted in Figure 6 of Appendix E. Grids in western waters of Hong Kong with higher dolphin density are waters off northwestern Lung Kwu Chau, Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau.

Group Size

During the reporting period from January 2018 to December 2018, group size of CWDs ranged from one to 15 dolphins, with an average of 3.19 (from CWD sightings including off-effort sighting, i.e. 215 groups with 686 CWDs). The average group size recorded was the highest in AW (3.67) followed by WL (3.47). Using the four solar seasons, the average group size of CWDs was the highest in winter (3.54) but the lowest in spring (2.80). The summaries of the average group size of CWDs by survey area and by season are presented in Table 4 and Table 5 of Appendix E.

Small-sized CWD groups (i.e. 1 to 2 dolphins per group) accounted for more than half of the sightings during the reporting period (about 54.9%) and medium-sized CWD groups (3 to 9 dolphins per group) accounted for around 40.5%. Ten sightings, which accounted for 4.6% of the sightings, contained 10 or more dolphins per group, which is similar to previous years (nine sightings in 2017 and 10 sightings in 2016).

Both small and medium-sized CWD groups were sighted throughout the distribution range of dolphins in NWL, WL and SWL waters. In NEL, both sightings of CWD were comprised of a single dolphin only. There were relatively higher numbers of large-sized CWD groups sighted in WL than in SWL or NWL. In NWL (including AW transects), two large CWD groups were sighted in the southwestern part of the survey area. In WL, the sighting locations of large CWD groups ranged from Tai O to Fan Lau, particularly between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. In SWL, the only large CWD group was sighted at the east of Fan Lau Tung Wan. The sighting distribution of CWDs with different group sizes is illustrated in Figure 7 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 53, 15, 21 and 1 groups of CWDs were observed engaging in feeding, travelling, socializing and resting/milling activities, comprising of 24.7%, 7.0%, 9.8% and 0.5% of all CWD sightings respectively. The sighting locations of CWD groups engaged in different types of activities are depicted in Figure 8 of Appendix E.

Feeding activities mainly occurred from north of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL down to Sham Wat and in WL, except the waters within the 3RS works area. Occasional feeding activities were also observed off the northeastern waters of the existing HKIA (including eastern end of NWL and western end of NEL survey areas) and the waters between the northern part of the Soko Islands and coast of southwest Lantau. Considering the sample size of sighting data of different survey areas, AW had the highest percentage of feeding again in 2018 (although the sample size in AW was very small), followed by NWL. A significant increase in feeding activities was observed in NWL from 15% in 2017 to 38% in 2018, which is similar to the percentage recorded in 2016 (i.e. 41%). More feeding activities were recorded within SCLKCMP in NWL compared to 2017.

Socializing activities were mainly sighted around Lung Kwu Chau, the southwestern part of the NWL survey area, Tai O, Fan Lau and Fan Lau Tung Wan. Travelling activities in NWL were mainly sighted near Sha Chau, whilst there was also one record of travelling activities across Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR). In WL, travelling activities frequently occurred in the northernmost waters of the survey area, and coastal waters between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. There were also two sightings with travelling activities scattered in SWL. Overall, the only sighting with resting/milling activities was recorded in the waters between the Soko Islands and southern Lantau. The percentages of different activities for each of the survey areas are shown in Table 6 of Appendix E.

A total of eight sightings of CWDs were observed associating with operating fishing boats, including gillnetters (four groups), purse-seiners (three groups) and a shrimp trawler (one group), accounted for 3.7% of all sightings in 2018. The percentage is significantly lower than those of 2016 and 2017 (i.e. 7.2% and 6.3% respectively). CWD associations with operating fishing boats were mainly observed in WL, around Tai O and Yi O. In NWL, one observation of boat association with an operating gillnetter was recorded in the waters near Sham Wat, while another observation of boat association with an operating purse-seiner was observed at the waters north of Lung Kwu Chau. In SWL, a boat association with an operating purse-seiner was recorded near Shui Hau. Although a trawling ban was implemented in Hong Kong in December 2012, illegal trawling activities were still observed near the western and southwestern borders of Hong Kong. One group of CWDs was observed feeding in association with trawling activities in WL within the Hong Kong border. The sighting locations of CWD groups associated with operating fishing boats are depicted in Figure 9 of Appendix E.

Mother-calf / Mother-unspotted Juvenile Pairs

During the reporting period, 28 sightings were observed that included mother-and-unspotted calf (UC), or mother-and-unspotted juvenile (UJ) (mother-UC/ mother-UJ) pairs, which accounted for about 13.0% of all sightings in 2018. The percentage was slightly lower than in 2017 (14.7%). The percentages of sightings with mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs in NWL (including AW), WL and SWL were 19.0%, 13.3% and 4.8% respectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of sightings with mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs of a survey area by the total number of sightings of that survey area. There was an increase in percentage of sightings with mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs in NWL, but a decline in both WL and SWL compared to 2017. The majority of the sightings with mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs in NWL was recorded either to the north of Lung Kwu Chau or at the southwestern part of the survey area. In WL, a decreased number of mother-UC/ mother-UJ sighting was recorded around Tai O compared to 2017. The mother-UC/ mother-UJ sightings in WL seemed to shift a bit southward to waters around Fan Lau. While in SWL, the only two mother-UC/ mother-UJ sightings were restricted to waters around Fan Lau and Fan Lau Tung Wan. Overall, mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs were mainly recorded in waters along the west side of the existing airport to Fan Lau. The sighting distribution of mother-UC/ mother-UJ pairs is depicted in Figure 10 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Summary

During the reporting period, a total of 36 newly identified CWD individuals were added to the photo-identification catalogues, including nine individuals added to NL catalogue, 24 individuals added to WL catalogue and three individuals added to SL catalogue. Five animals, namely NLMM045, WLMM021, WLMM057, WLMM123, and SLMM047, were confirmed to be re-sighted of identified individuals in earlier period for the 3RS CWD monitoring programme, namely WLMM047, SLMM017, WLMM028, WLMM019 and WLMM18 respectively. Therefore, all records under these five re-sighted individuals were logged to the series of records under WLMM047, SLMM017, WLMM028, WLMM019 and WLMM18 respectively.

A total of 158 CWD individuals were identified for 431 times from all sightings in 2018. Amongst these 158 CWD individuals, 40, 79 and 39 belonged to NL, WL and SWL catalogues respectively. Amongst these 158 identified individuals, 97 individuals (around 61.4%) were sighted for 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 21.8%, 37.6% and 32.8% respectively. Thirty-two of these 97 re-sighted individuals were sighted for five times or above.

The most frequently re-sighted animal in 2018 was WLMM001, which has been re-sighted for 11 times, followed by NLMM063, SLMM003 and WLMM071 (re-sighted for 9 times), and it is also the third most-frequently re-sighted animal since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue, with a total number of 21 re-sighting records. The most and the second most re-sighted individuals since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue are SLMM014 (26 re-sighting records) and WLMM027 (22 re-sighting records) respectively. Another animal SLMM010 was also re-sighted for 21 times.

In the Annual EM&A Report No.2 for 2017, it was reported that the frequently seen mother-and-spotted juvenile pair NLMM006 and NLMM013 in 2016 had significantly reduced their time spent in NWL in 2017 (re-sighted for only 1 and 2 times in 2017, respectively). There was an increase in sightings of these two individuals in NWL waters in 2018 (re-sighted for 5 and 7 times in 2018, respectively).

Two animals, namely SLMM011 and SLMM015, significantly decreased their use of Hong Kong waters in 2018 compared to previous years. They were regularly seen in 2016 to 2017 having more than five re-sighting records in each year, but not observed in Hong Kong waters during the 3RS CWD monitoring for this reporting year. Nevertheless, there were several individuals, such as NLMM004, NLMM23, SLMM010, SLMM014, SLMM028, SLMM052, WLMM001, WLMM043, WLMM065, WLMM071, WLMM079, frequently observed in Hong Kong waters during these three years of monitoring.

In September 2018, local media reported that AFCD found a severely injured CWD on 25^th August 2018 in Lantau waters with three deep cuts on its dorsal ridge and keel that believed to be caused by collision with vessel propeller. On 27^th August 2018, this injured animal has received in-situ treatment (i.e. injection of antibiotics) in the wild from a professional team of veterinary from Ocean Park under the coordination of AFCD. We found that this injured animal is SLMM028 under our CWD photo-identification catalogue. In 2018, SLMM028 has been re-sighted for 4 times from January to July 2018 before the injury. The first re-sighting of SLM028 after its injury came in November 2018 and it was then re-sighted again in December 2018. Details of these two re-sighting records after the injury were specifically reported in the relevant Monthly EM&A Reports for November 2018 and December 2018.

Summary of the photo-identification of CWDs is presented in Table 7 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Range Use of Identified CWD individuals

Similar to previous reporting years, WLMM001 appeared extensively in WL from Tai O to Fan Lau and also occurred in the western waters of SWL survey area. In 2018, WLMM001 showed an increase usage of waters between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau compared to the previous year.

SLMM014 ranged from waters near Yi O in WL to the Soko Islands and Lo Kei Wan in SWL. SLMM014 was not re-sighted as often as in 2017, its range shrank a bit in 2018, which covered from Peaked Hill to Shek Pik. Such a reduction in SLMM014 distribution range is most observable in waters between the Soko Islands and the coast of South Lantau, where it used to occur in previous years.

WLMM027 used to have distribution range from western waters of the existing HKIA to waters near Tai O, and also ranged from Fan Lau to Shui Hau in the past years. It was seldom being recorded in WL waters. In 2018 records, its distribution range extended a bit northward to Tree Island within SCLKCMP and was absent in WL.

SLMM010 distribution range is extensive, which recorded in WL and SWL from Tai O to the Soko Islands, particularly from waters near Yi O to Fan Lau Tung Wan.

NLMM006 and NLMM013 continued to use waters exclusively within and around SCLKCMP in 2018 but there was a re-sighting of NLMM013 alone without NLMM006 in waters near Tai O in WL, which was the first time we encountered it outside NWL survey area.

SLMM028 had a range use covering NWL, WL and SWL. Its distribution range is observed from the southwestern part of NWL survey area to the Soko Islands and Lo Kei Wan in SWL. It greatly reduced the use of SWL waters since 2017 and utilized more often the southwestern corner of NWL survey area. After the severe injury in August 2018, the survey team spotted SLMM028 in waters around Tai O in November 2018. Although it was observed that its surfacing movement was a bit unnatural when compared to other non-injured dolphins, the wounds on its dorsal ridge and keel were observed to be healing well and it was foraging during the sighting period. The injured SLMM028 was then re-sighted again in December 2018 at the southwestern corner of NWL survey area.

The sighting locations of WLMM001, SLMM014, WLMM027, SLMM010, NLMM006, NLMM013 and SLMM028 are depicted in location maps under Figure 11 of Appendix E.

Photo Identification – Cross-area Movement

Amongst those 97 re-sighted individuals, 63 individuals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. This accounted for about 39.9% of all 158 identified animals. Thirty-four (53.97%) out of these 63 animals were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and WL, while 31 (49.2%) animals were recorded in both WL and SWL. Seven (11.1%) out of these 63 animals were re-sighted in three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL, including AW). These seven animals were SLMM028, WLMM004, WLMM027, WLMM060, WLMM063, WLMM071 and WLMM080. Despite the fact that a number of identified CWD individuals were re-sighted in different survey areas, more than half of the animals re-sighted at least twice in 2018 were not observed crossing between different survey areas and were sighted in only one survey area repeatedly. For instance, 13 individuals occurred repeatedly in NWL, and 21 animals were re-sighted within WL, while two animals occurred repeatedly in SWL.

The sighting locations of these re-sighted individuals having cross-area movements in NWL, WL and SWL are depicted in the location maps of Figure 11 in Appendix E, which provide the indicative distribution range use of representative individuals recorded for the 3RS CWD monitoring.

2.5.2.2 Summary of Land-based Theodolite Tracking Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

In this reporting period, the land-based surveys commenced on 15 January 2018, and concluded on 19 December 2018. A total of 60 days and 360:00 (hh:mm) of land-based theodolite survey effort have been accomplished, including 36 days and 216:00 (hh:mm) from LKC and 24 days and 144:00 (hh:mm) from SC (Table 8 of Appendix E for summary). A total of 167 CWD groups were tracked from land, all from the LKC station (Table 8, Figure 12 Appendix E). No CWDs were observed from SC. On the other hand, PAM by EAR detections of dolphins south of SC (see Section 2.5.2.3) did not overlap with land-based theodolite tracking effort off SC. Four days aligned with theodolite observation effort, but EAR detections were recorded outside of land-based survey hours.

After the raw data were filtered, 65 CWD group focal follows fit criteria for analyses. From these focal follow tracks, 72 10-minute short-track segments were extracted for analyses. CWD group sighting per survey hour was 0.77 from LKC and 0 from SC. From LKC, sighting per survey hour was less than in 2017 (0.89 groups per survey hour), but more than in 2016 (0.58 groups per survey hour).

Time of Day

The diurnal pattern of CWDs was calculated by dividing the total tracking time of CWD groups (prior to filtering short-track data) by the total effort per hour block, and depicted in Figure 13 of Appendix E. Off LKC, higher percentages of CWD groups (per hour of effort) were observed during the 0900 (15%), 1000 (18%), 1100 (17%), and 1300 (15%) hour blocks. This pattern is similar to the diurnal pattern observed in 2017 off LKC. In 2016, the 1000, 1300, and 1400 hour blocks were highest, with fewer sightings during the mid-day 1100 and 1200 hour blocks.

Time of Year

The highest percentage of CWD groups observed from LKC was during March (20%) and the lowest percentages observed were during January, June and August (2% each month) as depicted in Figure 14 of Appendix E. Based on solar season, CWDs were observed significantly more than expected by statistical chance (with the a priori assumption that dolphins would be observed evenly during solar seasons and months of the year) during the spring (March-May) and autumn (September-November), and less than expected by statistical chance during the winter (December-February) and summer (June-August) (Chi-square test, χ²=32.40, n=167, df=3, P<0.001). This pattern is slightly different than observed in 2017 in which CWDs were observed more frequently from September through December, with a peak in February, and less frequently from March through August. Based on oceanographic season, CWDs were observed more than expected by statistical chance during the dry season (November-May), and less than expected by statistical chance during the wet season (Chi-square test, χ²=26.89, n=167, df=1, P<0.001).

Group Size

The mean group size of CWD filtered tracks off LKC was 3.26±1.50, ranging from singletons to a maximum group size of eight dolphins (Table 9 of Appendix E), similar to the two previous years (3.08±1.81 in 2016 and 3.03±1.58 in 2017). Based on solar season, the mean group size of CWDs was high in spring (3.64±1.54) and autumn (3.41±1.58), and low in summer (2.29±0.68) and winter (2.64±1.08) (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=46.55, df=3, p<0.001), similar to vessel-based findings with the highest group sizes in spring and lowest in summer. Based on oceanographic season, the mean group size was significantly higher during the dry season (3.57±1.56) than during the wet season (2.45±0.94) (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=50.816, df=1, p<0.001). The Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests showed that group size outside of the SCLKCMP (3.57±1.13), where ferry traffic is routed, was significantly higher than group size inside the SCLKCMP boundary (3.05±1.72) (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=19.59, df=2, p<0.001). A similar group size pattern was observed in 2017.

The sighting distribution of CWDs relative to group sizes within the SCLKCMP, crossing the SCLKCMP boundary and outside the SCLKCMP are represented in Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 of Appendix E respectively. Relative to vessel activity, mean group size was higher when high-speed ferries were within 500m of CWD groups than when no boats were present or when non-ferry boats were present, and higher when high-speed ferries under speed restriction were present than when no boats were present (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=26.67, df=3, p<0.001). Singletons were only observed inside the boundary near shore. However, this trend may reflect a sighting bias wherein single CWDs may be more difficult to locate farther from the survey platform.

Behavioural State

Excluding the unknown behavioural category from the filtered segments, foraging (52%) and travelling (38%) were observed more frequently than expected by statistical chance off LKC, and resting (2%) and socializing (8%) were observed less frequently (Chi-square test, χ²=171.07, n=243, df=3, P<0.001) (Figure 18 of Appendix E). This statistic is for comparative purposes only, for different years, areas, or other variables, as there is no a priori reason to believe that different behaviours would occur in equal percentages "by chance". Milling behaviour was not observed within short-track filtered segments.

Within the boundary of the SCLKCMP, foraging (51%) and travelling (39%) were observed most frequently, followed by socializing (8%) and resting (3%). CWD groups that were crossing the marine park boundary were observed travelling (90%) and foraging (10%) only. CWD groups outside of the marine park were observed foraging (66%), travelling (23%), and socializing (10%), but not resting (Figure 19 of Appendix E).

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 20 of Appendix E).

Off LKC in 2018, vessels were recorded within 500 meters of focal CWD groups on 17 occasions (based on filtered 10-minute segments), including high-speed ferries under speed restriction on 8 occasions, high-speed ferries on 2 occasions, and other vessels (e.g., fishing, government, and research vessels) on 7 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 10 of Appendix E. A basic one-way ANOVA showed no significant difference at the 0.05 alpha level in CWD movement patterns relative to vessel type present, including swimming speed (p=0.1804), reorientation rate (p=0.9188) and linearity (p=0.7625). However, sample size was low for each vessel type present. These findings differ from results in 2017, in which reorientation rate and linearity varied significantly in the presence of different vessel types.

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 in small groups (<3 individuals) and in larger groups (>6 individuals). Swimming speed was significantly faster in the presence of high-speed ferries under speed restriction and “other” non-ferry boats.

● Reorientation rate & Linearity: the models did not detect significant variation in reorientation rate or linearity based on any terms (group size, behaviour, oceanographic season, and marine park).

Summary of findings for 2018:

● Lung Kwu Chau remains an important foraging habitat, where foraging and travelling were observed more than expected by statistical chance, while resting and socializing were observed less than expected by statistical chance.

● Off Lung Kwu Chau, the peak percentage of CWDs were observed during the spring and autumn. Low percentage of CWDs were observed during the winter and summer. Overall, CWDs were observed more than expected by statistical chance during the dry season (November-May), and less than expected during the wet season.

● Group size was significantly larger in the spring, autumn, outside the SCLKCMP, and in the presence of high-speed ferries and high-speed ferries under speed restriction. Group size was significantly smaller in summer, winter, inside the SCLKCMP, and when no boats were present.

● Sample sizes for the vessel categories are very small (e.g., all <10 samples), and therefore not robust, and should be interpreted with caution. The small sample sizes may reflect CWD potential avoidance of vessels off LKC.

● Off Sha Chau, where there were no shore-based sightings this past year, underwater recordings (see the next section) and theodolite station observation times did not overlap.

2.5.2.3 Summary of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Results

Dolphin Detection Rates Per Day

From 16 December 2017 to 9 January 2019, there were seven deployment periods of Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) at position A5 for PAM. During this period (Deployments 1 through 7), dolphins were detected at site A5 in a total of 286 of 80,246 files (0.36% of files), as summarized in Table 11 of Appendix E. Dolphins were detected on 123 of 281 days (44% of days) with recording effort (Figure 21 of Appendix E). On 59 of 123 days with dolphin detections (48%), only one file containing dolphin signals was detected, and on the other 64 days, two or more files containing dolphin signals were detected. When categorized by call type, clicks were the predominant type of dolphin signal detected (n = 267 of 289 signals detected, or 92%). Whistles (n = 22) were occasionally detected throughout the monitoring period. Overall, these metrics are remarkably similar to those of the previous year in 2017 (Table 12 of Appendix E), indicating that even though there is rather small amount of activity of dolphins in this area south of Sha Chau, the activity has not decreased in this monitoring year.

Acoustic detections of dolphins on the EAR south of SC did not overlap with land-based theodolite tracking effort off SC (see Section 2.5.2.2). Four days aligned with theodolite observation effort, but EAR detections were recorded outside of land-based survey hours.

Dolphin acoustic detection rates were highest in the winter, decreased in spring through early summer, and increased again in late autumn through winter (Figure 21 of Appendix E). During the winter (Deployments 1, 2 and 7), dolphins were detected on more than 50% of recording days, and in 0.50%-0.63% of files. During spring and early summer (Deployments 3 and 4), dolphins were detected on 47% and 17% of recording days respectively, and in 0.33% and 0.08% of files, respectively. In autumn (Deployments 5 and 6), dolphins were detected on approximately 40% of recording days and in 0.25% - 0.31% of files (Table 11 of Appendix E).

Low detection rates in summer may also be an artefact of low recording effort during summer months. The gap in recording from late June to early September was due to an EAR power supply malfunction during its deployment from mid-July to early September 2018. The issue was addressed by installing new connectors and conducting additional testing of EAR prior to further deployments.

Dolphin Diel Pattern

As in previous years, dolphin detection rates at A5 from 16 Dec 2017 to 09 Jan 2019 were higher at night than during daytime, with peak detection hours from 1800 to 2100 (as indicated in Figure 22 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 was not evident in summer, in which the number of detections (and recording effort) was low. In spring and autumn, dolphin detections were higher during the hours 1900-2200, and in winter, detections peaked at 1800 (Figure 23 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 24 of Appendix E). Mean daily sound pressure levels in all frequency bands were lowest in December through February, and increased during the spring months. The low frequency band (0-2 kHz) showed a peak in SPL in April and was also high in November 2018. The SPL in mid- to high frequency bands (above 2 kHz) was greatest in June (Figure 24 of Appendix E). In the previous year (2017), peak SPL were observed in a different month of the year (August), which may be related to varying levels of anthropogenic and/or natural sound sources in different months between the two years. However, recording gaps in late March – early May of 2017 and July – August of 2018 preclude direct comparisons of these periods between years.

Daily mean sound pressure levels in the 16-32 kHz band, in which energy from CWD clicks occurs, ranged from approximately 94 to 102 dB with the maximum in summer and minimum in winter (Figure 24 of Appendix E). CWD click and whistle frequencies are above 16 kHz and below 10 kHz, respectively (Sims et al. 2012); however, the sounds from dolphins were very rare in the data compared to other sound sources and would not be distinguishable in ambient noise summary plots, although they are distinguishable to an analyst listening specifically for dolphin sounds in the full data files. Because of strong overlap between anthropogenic and/or natural sound sources and whistle sounds, it is possible that some whistles were missed in the data record due to noise masking. The extent to which ambient received sound levels influenced detectability of dolphin signals was not quantified for this data set.

Diel Sound Pressure Level

Mean sound pressure levels plotted by hour indicated a daily peak during the hours 1900-2000, which was mainly due to the contribution from the 0-2 kHz frequency band that is not the high-sensitivity region of CWD hearing (Figure 25 of Appendix E). This daily peak was most pronounced in spring (March-April-May) and gradually subsided through summer and autumn, and was not distinctive in winter, although afternoon and evening SPL in winter were greater than early to midmorning hours (Figure 26 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 (Figure 25 of Appendix E).

Daily noise levels decreased throughout the night-time hours of 0000 to 0600 and were lowest at 0600, and increased throughout the day beginning at approximately 0700, likely due to the contribution of anthropogenic traffic and activity during daytime as well as the fish chorus in late afternoon hours (Figure 25 of Appendix E).

2.5.3 Discussions on CWD Monitoring Results

Each main survey type used in this project (i.e., vessel-based line transect with 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 vessel-based monitoring data, the estimate of overall abundance for 2018 was 77 dolphins with a CV of 18.9% (which indicates a good level of precision) which is somewhat higher than the previous year’s estimate (71 dolphins in 2017, CV = 19.9%). It should be noted that there are several major factors being taken into account in the line-transect analysis (conducted using the program Distance), which affect the overall abundance estimates. These major factors include not only the number of sightings, but also the amount of search effort, average group size, and detectability, each of which vary from year to year. Distance analysis techniques have been used for many years, as they provide reliable indications of density and abundance (though with a level of uncertainty indicated by the CV) from all the various factors that affect abundance. The higher abundance estimate this year is partly due to the fact that size-bias corrected average group size (determined by the linear regression method in the program Distance, which accounts for the possibility of missing small groups at long distances) was higher in 2018, and also may be influenced by different behaviours of dolphins that may also affect their sightability (as reflected in the different detection function curves for the two years, 2017 and 2018). It is important to emphasize that abundance fluctuations in one year do not necessarily mean population increased or reflect the long-term trend. Likewise, a lower number of CWD sightings and fewer numbers of CWDs recorded in 2018 compared to 2017 may not mean that the overall abundance estimate will drop as reflected in the 2018 data. There has been a general declining trend from 2002-2015 (see Jefferson 2018) and dolphins move around among the various areas across the Pearl River Estuary region from year to year. A formal trends analysis may be possible at a later point once we have a longer-term dataset.

The seasonal analysis showed that within summer, dolphin numbers are still quite high in Hong Kong waters. The 2018 seasonal range is 61-99 dolphins. The winter estimate was the lowest (61 dolphins), while the summer estimate was the highest (99 dolphins), and this indicates that, despite the overall reduction in the average number of dolphins using Hong Kong waters in recent years, there are nearly 100 dolphins still present in Hong Kong in the summer months.

Within NWL waters, dolphins are mostly found around the Castle Peak and LKC areas. 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. The 2018 estimate was 22 dolphins, and this is substantially higher. Therefore, these preliminary analyses have not supported the hypothesis of a decline.

We need to further examine 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. However, in view of the increased sightings of CWD at NEL area from vessel surveys there may have been some progress, as dolphins would likely have moved from the west to the NEL area. However, the HZMB has been completed, and this may have affected dolphin use of these travelling areas as well. As the dolphin numbers estimated in NWL and WL were generally stable or increasing from 2016-2018, the travel area is apparently still being used.

Regarding the results of photo-identification work, a total number of 158 CWD individuals were identified altogether 431 times from all sightings in 2018, with 97 individuals (around 61.4%) sighted more than once. Sixty-three individuals (around 39.9%) of the 158 identified animals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. Seven animals (SLMM028, WLMM004, WLMM027, WLMM060, WLMM063, WLMM071 and WLMM080) were resighted in three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL, including AW). Regarding the resighted CWDs, there was an increase in sightings of the mother-and-spotted juvenile pair NLMM006 and NLMM013 in NWL waters in 2018 compared with reported in 2017. There were two animals (SLMM011 and SLMM015) significantly decreased their use of Hong Kong waters in 2018 compared to previous years, nevertheless, there were still some animals, such as NLMM004, NLMM23, SLMM010, SLMM014, SLMM028, SLMM052, WLMM001, WLMM043, WLMM065, WLMM071, WLMM079, which continued to frequent Hong Kong waters in 2018.

One of the major concerns expressed in the EIA was the potential impacts on the travel corridor/area between the existing airport and the SCLKCMP, as well as between the airport and the New Territories coastline (EIA Section 13.9.1.31 refers). During the construction phase, dolphins are still using these travel areas, as movements between WL and NWL/NEL have been documented. Sightings in the travel areas may not be very common, but that is to be expected, as dolphins tend to move through these areas relatively quickly and do not generally spend as much time milling as they do in the main feeding/socializing areas.

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 spring and autumn and during the dry season. Group sizes of CWDs were larger during the same time periods – during the spring, autumn, and dry season. Group sizes were also larger outside the boundary of the SCLKCMP and when ferries were within 500m of CWDs. This larger grouping pattern 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 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).

CWD swimming speed varied based on endogenous factors (CWD group size and behavioural state) and boat type present. Swimming speed was significantly faster when in smaller groups (<3 individuals) and larger groups (>6 individuals). Swimming speed was also significantly faster in the presence of high-speed ferries under speed restriction and “other” non-ferry boats, indicating potential avoidance of vessels. Foraging behaviour was associated with significantly slower swimming speed than travelling. There was no statistically significant difference in reorientation rate and linearity based on GAM output of various factors, including in the presence of vessels (very possibly due to generally small sample sizes, especially for high-speed ferries going at high speed). Sample size in this category is further indication of general vessel avoidance. As in previous years, dolphins within 500 m of high speed ferries travelling at high speed were so infrequently tracked that distinction in speeds, reorientations, etc. could not be made with statistical significance. However, it is our strong impression that this lack of data indicates that dolphins are diving longer and avoiding such ferries underwater.

There were no CWDs observed off Sha Chau, which is consistent with the low numbers observed in 2016 and 2017 (two groups per year). The primary behaviour observed from this location in 2017 was travelling, suggesting that CWDs are simply moving through the area to more suitable habitat. However, one minute of foraging behaviour was also observed in 2017. 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 the EIA 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 had previously been unavailable to us in the early years of the long-term study. 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 foraging and concomitant use of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness. This increase in dolphin acoustic activity at night has been a general trend throughout PAM monitoring in most parts of Hong Kong (Munger et al. 2016). It is also possible that at least a portion of this diel trend is related to dolphins utilizing this area more intensively at night than in daytime, likely because of decreased anthropogenic traffic and activity at night.

The PAM data provide evidence that dolphins are using the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year. In 2018, 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. Interestingly, this is a different pattern from that observed from theodolite tracking north of Lung Kwu Chau, where dolphins were generally observed less in winter (and summer and the wet season overall), than in spring and autumn.

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 2018 are summarised as follows:

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

The latest monitoring data indicate that both NL and WL waters were being used more heavily in 2018 than in the past years, possibly due to shifting of dolphins back towards NWL and NEL, which were highly-disturbed habitats during the HZMB construction. Dolphin sightings are again being made by vessel surveys around the Brothers Islands of NEL, and this may be a promising sign of some recovery there.

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. Observation effort in 2018 was also nearly the same as the previous two years. However, sightings per survey hour fell between the two – higher than 2016 (an increase of about 0.2 sightings per survey hour), but lower than 2017 (a decrease of about 0.1 sightings per survey hour).

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 is 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 2018, CWD use of Hong Kong waters appears to be slightly up from 2016-2017. West Lantau waters appear relatively stable, and dolphins may be shifting from SWL back into NL waters. It is estimated that 77 dolphins (on average) were found within Hong Kong waters in 2018, which is up slightly from last year (2017). 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.

It is important to note that dolphins shift around within their habitat from year to year, due to both natural and anthropogenic factors. Thus, an apparent increase in numbers from one year to the next should not necessarily be taken as evidence of an overall recovery. Dolphins live for many decades (in some cases, over 50 years), and thus long-term monitoring using consistent methods is needed over an extended period of time in order to evaluate the conservation status of the CWD population and how its use of Hong Kong waters is being affected.

From land-based surveys with theodolite-tracking in 2017 (i.e., the previous year), 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. In 2018, use of LKC by CWD was also highest during mid-day, but during a slightly expanded time between 9 and 13 hours when compared to 2017. In 2018, the highest month of occurrence off LKC was March, with lows in January, June, August, and December. Overall, the wet season of June-October accounted for a generally low pattern of sightings and tracks. In 2018, mean group size off LKC was about 3.3, with singles up to a maximum of 8 CWDs per group, slightly higher but not significantly so when compared to years 2016 and 2017. As in 2017, group size was largest outside of the SCLKCMP, at about 3.6, compared to inside of the park at about 3.1. 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 station, as it is easier to find and track dolphins when they are closer. Group size was largest when HSF’s (> 15 knots) were within 500 m of CWDs, indicative that either dolphins aggregate in response to rapidly-approaching vessels, remain near vessels more often when in larger groups, or both. As well, group sizes were larger when high-speed ferries under speed restriction (≤ 15 knots) were within 500 m of CWDs than when no boats were present.

Overall, as in previous years, in 2018 the behavioural states of foraging and travelling were by far the most frequent off LKC. In 2018, swim speed increased in small groups with <3 individuals and in larger groups of >6 individuals, a somewhat different situation than in 2017, when swim speed increased only with increasing number of animals, to >5. Foraging and socializing were indicated by slower swim speeds than when dolphins were travelling, and swim speed was significantly faster when high-speed ferries were within 500m and under speed restriction than "other" non-ferry vessels. Swim speeds and high-speed ferries travelling at high speed showed no significant difference this past year, likely due to small sample sizes. However, see group size differences by vessel category (above). Also, unlike in 2017, in 2018 there were no significant indications of reorientation or linearity changing by the parameters of vessel types or speeds.

The CWD construction phase monitoring data so far appear to be consistent with findings of the ecological assessments completed during the EIA, which predicted negative impacts during construction including from the physical loss of habitat due to the reclamation. No unexpected ecological impacts on CWDs have been identified. Construction practices have been modified to avoid negative impacts on dolphins, as much as is feasible. However, it should be noted that some shifting away from North Lantau waters can be expected during reclamation work for the construction of the 3RS; if that occurs it would also be consistent with the EIA predictions. We expect that dolphins will shift away from portions of their home range that are experiencing intense human activity or disturbance (for example the major works activities associated with large scale land formation). The collective scale of the construction works site and cumulative anthropogenic disturbance during 3RS construction was anticipated to lead to the temporary displacement of CWDs from the area. However, these impacts are usually not permanent and past experience tells us that dolphins will likely recover to some extent, as discussed in the EIA (refers to Sections 13.9.1.5 and 13.9.2.112; Jefferson, 2000; Jefferson and Hung, 2004; Jefferson, 2007), once the construction work is completed (assuming that that the habitat is still of adequate quality). In fact, we may already be seeing this with the HZMB Project. Monitoring for the 3RS will be continued in line with EM&A requirements and with an eye toward evaluating the anticipated 3RS project impacts as well as any ‘recovery’ in CWD use of North Lantau waters in the future. Adaptive management measures may be considered, as appropriate, should there be any deviation from anticipated impacts. At this stage of 3RS construction, recommended mitigation measures have been implemented in accordance with all requirements and appear to have been effective. Effectiveness of mitigation measures will be kept under review.

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 and marine filling works, and dolphin observers were deployed by contractors 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, PVD installation and seawall construction in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Training for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring was 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, the ET was notified on six records of dolphin sightings 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 suspended 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.

In May 2018, site audit to the DEZ monitoring for DCM works area were made by dolphin experts Dr. Jefferson and Prof. Würsig, and discussions with on-site dolphin observers conducting DEZ monitoring were made. There were useful interactions between the dolphin experts and dolphin observers, and no issues on the audit of DEZ monitoring.

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.

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, terrestrial 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 2018 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 significant disturbance to the ardeids on the island by the works. Sign of early breeding activity of ardeids was observed in March, and sign of a few nursery activities were observed in August 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 2.16.

According to the approved SkyPier Plan, dolphin habitat index has been reviewed in the reporting period based on findings of the AFCD’s marine mammals monitoring report 2017-18 and historical dolphin density records. Grids for dolphin hotspot remained unchanged, thus the HSF route diversion arrangement remained unchanged.

A total of three skipper workshops were held in 2018 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, 10,421 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 12 and 102, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in 2018 was 91, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

Out of the 10,421 ferry movements audited, 10,419 HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speeds at or below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. For the case of average speed over 15 knots on 6 November and 18 December 2018, ET had conducted investigations and findings were provided in respective Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Reports. 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.

Insufficient and no 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 2.16 Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan

Requirements in the SkyPier Plan	Jan-18	Feb-18	Mar-18	Apr-18	May-18	Jun-18	Jul-18	Aug-18	Sep-18	Oct-18	Nov-18	Dec-18
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited	886	812	884	853	888	865	887	882	801	894	870	899
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	886	806	883	849	888	864	884	880	800	893	870	897
No. of SkyPier HSFs in compliance with Average Speed within 15 knots in SCZ	886	812	884	853	888	865	887	882	801	894	869	898
Range of Daily Movement (including all SkyPier HSFs)	89-91	87-96	84-90	92-94	89-90	87-91	88-90	74-90	12-99 ⁽¹⁾	87-102	86-92	90-92

Source: Excerpted from Monthly and Quarterly EM&A Reports

Note: ⁽¹⁾ Due to Super Typhoon Mangkhut, comparatively low daily movement was recorded in September 2018.

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 travelling 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 Marine Traffic Control Center (MTCC) audit and such deviations were also reviewed and highlighted during the monthly Environmental Management Meeting.

A total of 24 skipper training workshops were held by ET in 2018 with 138 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 64 skipper training workshops were held with 99 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

Two post-translocation monitoring surveys were conducted during the reporting period. The 6th post-translocation monitoring survey, which is also the final round of survey committed in the Coral Translocation Plan (CTP), was conducted on 2 and 3 April 2018, while the 7th post-translocation monitoring survey, which is an additional monitoring surveys proposed in the Detailed Coral Translocation Report, was conducted on 5 and 6 October 2018.

The Action and Limited Levels stipulated in the CTP were not triggered for both the 6th and 7th survey. The similarities in the monitoring results between October 2018 and April 2018 suggested that the conditions of the corals have been stabilized. The results of both surveys are similar in terms of their percentage change in partial mortality (PM). The tagged translocated corals which recorded ≥25% change in PM increased from 94.1% in April and 95.0% in October, while the tagged control corals which recorded ≥25% change in PM decreased from 100% in April to 94% in October. Moreover, the average general health condition remained between the range of 1.5 and 2.5 in both surveys.

Furthermore, despite two control colonies and 25 translocated colonies have been swept away by Typhoon Mangkhut on 16 September 2018, the coral colonies remained at the recipient site have shown similar PM (especially for the translocated corals) compared to the previous survey. The average PM of tagged translocated corals decreased from 76.4% to 74.6% from April to October and that of the tagged control corals decreased from 74.0% to 71.1%, showing that the condition of the remaining colonies has somehow been stabilized.

The next additional post-translocation monitoring survey is scheduled in April 2019 and the results will be reported in the respective Quarterly EM&A Report.

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 2018.

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.

In the reporting period, two rounds of four meetings were held in July and December 2018. Project information including latest development of the 3RS Project, environmental monitoring and audit results, details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures and enrichment of airport facilities and services were presented in the meetings.

2.11.2 Professional Liaison Group and Green Non-Governmental Organizations

The Professional Liaison Group, comprising 20 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.

In the reporting period, two PLG meetings were held in July and December 2018. Project information including latest development of the 3RS Project, environmental monitoring and audit results and details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures were presented in the meetings.

Roundtable meetings with Green Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were proactively arranged to facilitate exchanges on environmental issues related to the Project. Updates of the Project, including environmental monitoring and audit results and details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures were shared with the participants. Two roundtable meetings were held in July and December 2018.

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. Two meetings were held in February and July 2018.

2.11.4 Other Stakeholders

The AAHK attended a Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development meeting in April 2018 to share with members updates regarding environmental, construction and funding aspects; and a Marine Parks Committee meeting in October 2018 regarding Marine Park for the Project. The AAHK also submitted a paper to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) in July 2018 reporting an update on the implementation of the marine ecology mitigation and enhancement measures for the 3RS Project.

A media workshop regarding Aviation Fuel Pipelines Installation by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) was held in April 2018. A visit to the marine work site and MTCC was arranged for the Human Settlements and Environment Commission of Shenzhen Municipality in May 2018 to share about the 3RS Project and the AAHK’s marine surveillance measures. 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 2018 totalled 105,794, 2.7% higher than the number of visits in 2017.

To encourage two-way communications with stakeholders and the community, a dedicated telephone hotline and email was set up since December 2015. Four enquiries were received via the hotline, and twelve enquiries were received via the dedicated email in 2018.

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

Eight 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 F.

3.2.2 Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution

No notification of summons or prosecution were received in the reporting period.

For the summonses received in June 2017 on the alleged use of powered mechanical equipment by the contractor outside the permitted hours for the aviation fuel pipeline diversion works in December 2016, the prosecution formally offered no evidence against the AAHK and all summonses issued to AAHK were dismissed. The contractor pleaded guilty to contravening the Noise Control Ordinance and was fined by the court in May 2018.

3.3 Cumulative Statistics

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

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

In the reporting period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, 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, one monitoring result triggered the Action 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 in January to March, August to December 2018, i.e. outside of ardeid’s breeding season from April to July 2018.

A total of 5,441.1 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line-transect monitoring for CWD during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 215 groups of 686 CWDs were sighted, with two groups of 2 CWDs in NEL, 52 groups of 147 CWDs in NWL, six groups of 22 CWDs in AW, 113 groups of 392 CWDs in WL and 42 groups of 123 CWDs in SWL. The combined encounter rates by number of dolphin sightings and by number of dolphins were 4.00 and 13.02 respectively. No triggering of Action and Limit Level on the encounter rates were recorded during the construction phase during 2018. Average annual abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 77 dolphins in 2018 from line-transect analysis. CWD relative occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau peaked in March, with fewer sightings during the winter (December-February) and summer (June-August), and increased during the spring (March-May) and autumn (September-November). Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain an important foraging area for CWDs throughout the year. Passive acoustic monitoring provides evidence that dolphins are using the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year, with especially high incidence in winter in 2018. The acoustic data also showed consistently higher levels of dolphin clicking activity in late evening and at night compared with daytime, which may be indicative of increased foraging and concomitant use of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness.

Ferry movements between HKIA SkyPier and Zhuhai / Macau were audited in the reporting period. In total, 10,421 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 12 and 102, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all the SkyPier HSFs in 2018 was 91 movements, within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements. Out of the total 10,421 ferry movements in 2018, only two HSFs were found travelling through the SCZ with average speeds over 15 knots. 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 travelling through the designated gate. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. A total of 24 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET from January to December 2018 with captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 64 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 and marine filling 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 works, 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. 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 sightings 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, organising of media workshop, and visit to the marine work site and MTCC 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).