Figure 1.1	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 5 January 2019)
Figure 2.2c	Updated Water Quality Monitoring Stations (since 8 August 2019)
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
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
MTCC	Marine Traffic Control Centre
MMHK	Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited
MMWP	Marine Mammal Watching Plan
MSS	Maritime 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
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
TSP	Total Suspended Particulates
WL	West Lantau
WMP	Waste Management Plan

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 4^th 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 2019 to 31 December 2019.

Key Activities in the Reporting Period

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

Advanced Works:

Contract P560 (R) Aviation Fuel Pipeline Diversion Works

● Site reinstatement;

● Shoreline reinstatement next to the new pipe; and

● Stockpiling of construction materials

Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Works:

Contract 3201, 3203, and 3205 DCM Works

● DCM works

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

● Land-based ground improvement works;

● Seawall construction

● PVD installation;

● DCM works; and

● Marine filling.

Airfield Works:

Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway

● Cable ducting works;

● Subgrade compaction and paving works;

● Drainage construction works;

● Operation of aggregate mixing facility; and

● Precast of duct bank and fabrication of steel works.

Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works

● Cable laying and ducting works;

● Trench excavation works;

● Backfilling and reinstatement works; and

● Site establishment.

Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works

● Plant and equipment mobilisation

● Footing and utilities work; and

● Site establishment.

Third Runway Concourse and Integrated Airport Centres Works:

Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works

● Site establishment;

● Installation of sheet and pipe piles;

● Superstructure works;

● Lateral supports and excavation works;

● Structural steel fabrication;

● Road and paving works;

● Drawpit and duct laying works; and

● Manhole, and pipe construction works.

Terminal 2 Expansion Works:

Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station

● Drainage works;

● Excavation works;

● Boring works;

● Pipe installation; and

● Reinstatement Works.

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

● Site clearance;

● Plant mobilization

● Cable duct installation

● Plastering, painting, and fitting out works; and

● Brick wall construction.

Contract 3503 Terminal 2 Foundation and Substructure Works

● Site establishment;

● Demolition works;

● Utilities, drainage, and road works; and

● Piling and structure works.

Automated People Mover (APM) Works:

Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works

● Site establishment;

● Site office construction; and

● Modification works at APM depot

Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works:

Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System

● Site office establishment; and

● BHS modification work at Terminal 1.

Airport Support Infrastructure & Logistic Works:

Contract 3721 Construction Support Infrastructure Works

● Excavation for utilities works; and

● Construction of utilities.

Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island

● Site establishment;

● Cofferdam installation and construction of box culvert;

● Rising main installation;

● Diversion of underground utilities;

● Drilling and grouting works;

● Piling and foundation works;

● Construction of temporary traffic steel deck;

● Demolition works; 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	384
Noise Monitoring	212
Water Quality Monitoring	155
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring	24
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring	36⁽¹⁾
Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring	1
Additional coral post-translocation monitoring	1
Notes ⁽¹⁾ Including 24 monitoring sessions required under the Manual and 12 sessions of additional monitoring.

Environmental auditing works, including weekly site inspections of construction works conducted by the ET and bi-weekly site inspections conducted by the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC), audit of SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF), audit of construction and associated vessels, and audit of implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) and Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan, were conducted in the reporting period. Based on the information including ET’s observations, records of Maritime Surveillance System (MSS), and contractors’ site records, it is noted that 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 environment.

Summary Findings of the EM&A Programme

The monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape & visual, terrestrial ecology, and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Manual. Upon completion of coral translocation in January 2017, additional post-translocation monitoring was also carried out in the reporting period.

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

The water quality monitoring results for turbidity, total alkalinity and chromium obtained during the reporting period were within 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), suspended solids (SS), and nickel, some of the monitoring results triggered the relevant Action or Limit Levels, and the corresponding investigations were conducted accordingly. The investigation findings concluded that all cases were not related to the Project. To conclude, the construction activities in the monitoring period did not introduce adverse impact to all water quality sensitive receivers.

Additional post-translocation monitoring was carried out after the completion of coral translocation in January 2017. The final round of additional coral post-translocation monitoring survey was completed in April 2019. Both Action and Limit Levels were not triggered during this round of monitoring.

The last monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau was undertaken in January 2019, as all the works on Sheung Sha Chau had been completed on 29 January 2019. There was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to ardeids at Sheung Sha Chau by the works.

Summary Table

The Key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period are summarised 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	√		One complaint was received on 12 April 2019.	The complaint investigation was 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.	Nil
Changes that affect the EM&A	√		Starting from 5 Jan 2019, two of the water quality sensitive receiver stations were updated. Starting from 8 Aug 2019, one of the water quality sensitive receiver stations was relocated.	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 4^th 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 2019 to 31 December 2019.

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 9141

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

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 3203 DCM (Package 3) (Sambo E&C Co., Ltd)	Project Manager	Eric Kan	9014 6758
Contract 3205 DCM (Package 5) (Bachy Soletanche - Sambo Joint Venture)	Deputy Project Director	Min Park	9683 0765
	Environmental Officer	William Chan	5408 3045

Reclamation Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3206 (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Kim Chuan Lim	3763 1509
Environmental Officer	Kwai Fung Wong	3763 1452

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Contract 3206

(ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)

Project Manager

Kim Chuan Lim

3763 1509

Environmental Officer

Kwai Fung Wong

3763 1452

Airfield Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway (FJT-CHEC-ZHEC Joint Venture)	Deputy Project Director	Kin Hang Chung	9800 0048
	Environmental Officer	Joe Wong	6182 0351
Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation)	Project Manager	Wan Cheung Lee	6100 6075
	Environmental Officer	Dennis Ho	5645 0563
Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works (SAPR Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Andrew Keung	6277 6628
	Environmental Officer	Pan Fong	9436 9435

Third Runway Concourse and Integrated Airport Centres Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.)	Contract Manager	Michael Kan	9206 0550
Environmental Officer	Lisa He	5374 3418

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works

(Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.)

Contract Manager

Michael Kan

9206 0550

Environmental Officer

Lisa He

5374 3418

Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3501 Antenna Farm and Sewage Pumping Station (Build King Construction Ltd.)	Contracts Manager	Vincent Kwan	9833 1313
	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)	Project Manager	Eric Wu	3973 1718
	Environmental Officer	Malcolm Leung	3973 0850
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	Yolanda Gao	5399 3509
Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works:
Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium)	Project Manager	Andy Ng	9102 2739
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium)	Environmental Officer	Eric Ha	9215 3432

Airport Support Infrastructure and Logistic Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3721 Construction Support Infrastructure Works (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.)	Site Agent	Thomas Lui	9011 5340
	Environmental Officer	Xavier Lam	9493 2944
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-based works. Reclamation works included deep cement mixing (DCM) works, marine filling, seawall construction, and prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) installation. Land-based 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.

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.
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply System No.1 (Volume 1)	CAR to be submitted for golf course first; programme for submission of supplementary CAR at the other areas to be agreed.	The CAR for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply System No.1 (Volume 1) 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.	The terrestrial ecological monitoring at Sheung Sha Chau was completed in January 2019.
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
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 conducted, i.e. in total twice 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, additional 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:

● 1 dolphin observer training provided by ET;

● 22 skipper trainings provided by ET;

● 3 meetings with High Speed Ferry operators for experience sharing and recommendations to strengthen the implementation of the Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier;

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

● 93 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 2019	100%	100%
Feb 2019	100%	100%
Mar 2019	100%	100%
Apr 2019	100%	100%
May 2019	100%	100%
Jun 2019	100%	100%
Jul 2019	100%	100%
Aug 2019	100%	100%
Sep 2019	100%	100%
Oct 2019	100%	100%
Nov 2019	100%	100%
Dec 2019	100%	100%
Overall	100%	100%
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 and AR2 were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels.

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 2019	Sunny to Cloudy	North or East
Apr – Jun 2019	Sunny to Rainy	East or Southwest
Jul – Sep 2019	Sunny to Rainy	Southwest
Oct – Dec 2019	Sunny to Drizzle	Northwest

2.1.3 Conclusion

Major sources of dust observed at the monitoring stations during the monitoring sessions were local air pollution and nearby traffic emissions. As the sensitive receivers were far away from the construction activities, with the implementation of dust control measures, there was no adverse impact at the sensitive receivers attributable to the works of the Project.

2.2 Noise Monitoring

Impact noise monitoring was conducted at four 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)
NM4	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School		65dB(A) / 70 dB(A) ⁽ⁱ⁾
NM5	Village House in Tin Sum		75 dB(A)
NM6	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan		75 dB(A)
Note: ⁽ⁱ⁾ The Limit Level for NM4 is reduced to 70dB(A) for being an educational institution. During school examination period, the Limit Level is further reduced to 65dB(A).

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	NM4	NM5	NM6
Jan 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Feb 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Mar 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Apr 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
May 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Jun 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Jul 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Aug 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Sep 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Oct 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Nov 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Dec 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%
Overall	100%	100%	100%	100%
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.

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 2019	Sunny to Cloudy
Apr – Jun 2019	Sunny to Drizzle
Jul – Sep 2019	Sunny to Drizzle
Oct – Dec 2019	Sunny to Cloudy

2.2.3 Conclusion

Major sources of noise dominating the monitoring stations observed during the construction noise impact monitoring were road traffic noise near NM1A, school activities at NM4, and aircraft and helicopter noise near NM5 and NM6 during the reporting period. As the sensitive receivers were far away from the construction activities, with the implementation of noise control measures, there was no adverse impact at the sensitive receivers attributable to the works of the Project.

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Impact water quality monitoring of the Project commenced on 4 Aug 2016. During the reporting period, water quality monitoring was conducted three days per week, at mid-ebb and mid-flood tides, at 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact (IM) stations, 8 sensitive receiver (SR) stations, and 3 control (C) stations in the vicinity of the water quality sensitive receivers around the existing 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.

To better reflect the water quality in the immediate vicinity of the intake, the monitoring location of SR1A was shifted closer to the intake starting from 5 January 2019. The monitoring location for SR8 was shifted as well to avoid unnecessary disruptions associated with ongoing construction activities on the same day. The updated monitoring locations are presented in Figure 2.2b.

Starting from 8 August 2019, the monitoring location of SR6 was shifted to SR6A as the access to SR6 was obstructed by construction activities and temporary structures for Tung Chung New Town Extension. The updated monitoring locations are presented in Figure 2.2c.

Table 2.7: Monitoring Locations and Parameters for Impact Water Quality Monitoring

Monitoring Stations	Description	Coordinates		Parameters
		Easting	Northing
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	807132	817949
IM2	Impact Station	806166	818163
IM3	Impact Station	805594	818784
IM4	Impact Station	804607	819725
IM5	Impact Station	804867	820735
IM6	Impact Station	805828	821060
IM7	Impact Station	806835	821349
IM8	Impact Station	808140	821830
IM9	Impact Station	808811	822094
IM10	Impact Station	809794	822385
IM11	Impact Station	811460	822057
IM12	Impact Station	812046	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
SR1A⁽¹⁾		812660 (From 5 Jan 2019 onwards)	819977
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⁽⁵⁾	Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI	814663	817899
SR6A⁽⁵⁾	Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI	814739	817963
SR7	Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ)	823742	823636
SR8⁽⁶⁾	Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East)	811418	820246
SR8⁽⁶⁾		811623 (From 5 Jan 2019 onwards)	820390

Notes:

⁽¹⁾With the operation of HKBCF, water quality monitoring at SR1A was commenced on 25 October 2018. To better reflect the water quality in the immediate vicinity of the intake, the monitoring location of SR1A has been shifted closer to the intake starting from 5 January 2019.

⁽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⁾ As the access to SR6 was obstructed by the construction activities and temporary structures for Tung Chung New Town Extension, the monitoring location was relocated to SR6A starting from 8 August 2019.

⁽⁶⁾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 SR1A & 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 SR1A
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, SR3
SR2⁽¹⁾	IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A, SR6, SR6A, SR8
Ebb Tide
C1	SR4A, SR5A, SR6, SR6A
C2	IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM7, IM8, IM9, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7, SR8

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

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

	Weather	Sea Condition
Jan – Mar 2019	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Apr – Jun 2019	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Jul – Sep 2019	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Oct – Dec 2019	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 30 July to 2 August, 28 to 29 August and 1 to 3 September 2019 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 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	99.7%
Feb 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	98.6%
Mar 2019	100%	100%	99.0%	100%	100%	100%	99.7%
Apr 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
May 2019	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Jun 2019	98.4%	96.1%	100%	100%	100%	100%	99.3%
Jul 2019	98.5%	91.4%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Aug 2019	100%	100%	99.6%	100%	100%	100%	98.7%
Sep 2019	99.5%	100%	98.7%	100%	100%	100%	99.7%
Oct 2019	100%	100%	99.1%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Nov 2019	100%	100%	99.8%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Dec 2019	100%	100%	98.8%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Overall	99.7%	99.0%	99.6%	100%	100%	100%	99.6%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of depth-averaged results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of depth-averaged results.

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

For DO, SS 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 99.0% for DO (Bottom) to 100% for turbidity, alkalinity, and chromium 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 2019, 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 spillage 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 2019	5,675	9,430	618	11,417	1,125	35,880	319
Feb 2019	3,329	13,262	446	5,833	255	22,500	317
Mar 2019	4,516	10,056	6,903	6,780	240	18,700	362
Apr 2019	10,184	5,748	5,184	5,598	90	13,200	432
May 2019	13,616	10,284	0	5,617	230	18,000	242
Jun 2019	9,982	4,684	339	5,570	150	15,400	354
Jul 2019	4,821	4,568	665	4,627	200	9,040	399
Aug 2019	7,766	5,568	0	3,447	200	7,200	827
Sep 2019	4,369	11,844	327	3,963	75	3,600	748
Oct 2019	1,948	19,316	0	3,600	0	3,000	796
Nov 2019	1,403	26,774	0	3,380	90	6,600	680
Dec 2019	835	30,475	0	3,027	70	7,000	779
Total	68,440	152,010	14,480	62,860	2,730	160,120	6255
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 proper handling, segregation, and regular disposal of general refuse. The contractors implemented the recommended measures to improve waste management issues.

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 January 2019 and December 2019, 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 during the construction phase of the Project has also been reviewed.

This reporting period is effectively the third 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 2019 and compared with the construction phase monitoring data for the previous years.

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, which 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.

Density and abundance analysis made use of both conventional distance sampling (CDS) and a more sophisticated approach – multiple covariate distance sampling (MCDS) to estimate CWD abundance for the waters of Hong Kong. The additional analysis using MCDS is more time-consuming and labour-intensive, as it uses information on environmental factors that are likely to affect detection probability (such as variables describing sighting conditions), and generally produces estimates with higher precision (i.e., lower variances and CVs). However, datasets with small sample sizes (such as often occurs in marine mammal studies) can make it difficult or impossible to achieve model “convergence” in some MCDS analyses, and thus it is critical to always start each analysis with CDS methods (this also helps to determine the appropriate truncation distance and overall modelling approach).

Based on the vessel survey data, seasonal differences in dolphin density and use of the study area were examined, using the solar seasons (Winter: December-February, Spring: March-May, Summer: June-August, Autumn: September-November) and/or oceanographic seasons (Dry: October-March, Wet: April-September).

The travelling pattern in different areas were 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 survey for one day at LKC station was conducted on a voluntary basis in this year to collect supplementary information for the Project, such that a total of two 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 (with the coordinates of 22° 20.299’ N, 113° 53.871’ E) 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 2019 to December 2019, survey effort was completed in Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL), and Southwest Lantau (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 (i.e. larger survey area having longer distance of survey effort). A total of 5,445.0 km survey effort was collected in this reporting period (NEL: 1,141.5 km, NWL: 1,796.9 km, AW: 113.9 km, WL: 712.4 km, and SWL: 1,680.3 km). The percentage of the total survey effort collected in NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL was around 21.0%, 33.0%, 2.1%, 13.1% and 30.9% respectively.

Around 94.1% (5,123.1 km) of the survey effort was collected under favorable weather condition (i.e. Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond), and 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 167 groups consisting of 606 CWDs were sighted in NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas. Amongst these 167 groups of CWDs, 165 groups with 596 CWDs were sighted during on-effort surveys under favourable weather condition (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond).

The number of sightings by survey area recorded that NWL comprised 25 groups of 54 CWDs, AW comprised three groups of 17 CWDs, WL comprised 98 groups of 394 CWDs, while there were 41 groups of 141 CWDs seen in SWL. No CWDs were recorded in NEL survey area.

In NWL (including AW transects), CWDs were mostly sighted in two localities including waters around Lung Kwu Chau, and waters off Sham Wat (the southwestern corner of the survey area). Around Lung Kwu Chau, sightings of CWDs were particularly recorded in the western side as well as in waters between Lung Kwu Chau and Black Point. At the southwestern part of the survey area, CWD sightings were recorded in waters between the 3RS temporary works area and Sham Wat Wan.

In WL, the majority of CWDs were sighted along the coast and offshore waters from Tai O to Peaked Hill, as well as the waters off Fan Lau.

In SWL, sightings of CWDs were scattered amongst the survey area, with more sightings particularly around Fan Lau and Lo Kei Wan.

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 kilometers survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins per 100 kilometers 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 NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) in 2019 were 3.22 and 11.63 respectively. Dolphin encounter rates by survey area and a summary of monthly encounter rates are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix E respectively. Compared by area, WL had the highest encounter rates STG and ANI amongst the survey areas, followed by AW and SWL. The monthly encounter rates revealed that summer months generally recorded higher STG and ANI. The highest STG and ANI both occurred in July 2019. The lowest STG and ANI both occurred in February 2019, which is quite different from the result of year 2018 that the highest ANI was exceptionally recorded in February.

The trends of both monthly STG and ANI are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E. The temporal trends in 2019 is rather a normal seasonal trend that the peak occurred in summertime from July to September and decline in wintertime from January to March. It is different to 2018 in which the peak occurred unexpectedly in February.

Running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI data were determined for each month for comparison with the Action/limit levels for construction phase monitoring of CWD. The overall Action Level was not triggered in this reporting period, though the running quarterly STG was once close to the Action Level whilst the running quarterly ANI had dropped below the Action Level. The running quarterly STG and ANI from January to December 2019 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. The best estimate of abundance was obtained using Beaufort sea state as a co-variate, and a half-normal model with a cosine adjustment (effective strip width = 173 m). The detection function of 3RS CWD monitoring data of this reporting period is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix E and the various parameters of the 2019 estimates are shown in Table 3 of Appendix E. The overall abundance estimated for this reporting period (incorporating an entire year of data from all four seasons) was 40 CWDs (CV = 14.6%, indicating a very good level of precision <20%), which shows a large decrease from last year. For comparison, the 2018 abundance was 77 CWDs (CV = 18.9%). As in analyses of the last reporting year in 2018, the area with the highest abundance and highest density was WL (N=22, this has been consistent over the AFCD long-term records). NWL showed a large drop in the numbers of dolphins (from 22 in 2018 to 8 in 2019), as did SWL (from 15 to 9). NEL registered an abundance of zero, which has been the case in most of the last 8 years. Overall, all areas showed a decrease from the previous year’s estimates, suggesting that any potential recovery of dolphins in North Lantau waters following the recent completion of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) marine works may have been interrupted. The HZMB construction phase impacts on dolphins would be expected to have been most significant between 2013 and 2016 (when the brunt of construction was occurring), and in fact, this time period saw a significant drop in numbers of dolphins in Hong Kong (Jefferson 2018).

It is worth noting, however, that the 3RS EIA predicted shifting of dolphins to waters outside of Hong Kong, and a drop in numbers of dolphins in the area during the 3RS construction phase (EIA Report Section 13.9.2) is thus anticipated. However, this will need to be examined with more data over the coming several years, after the cumulative impacts due to the 3RS Project along with other concurrent projects will become more clear as 3RS works progress, and the Project 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 spring estimate was the lowest (N=27 dolphins), which has traditionally been the case for dolphin numbers in Hong Kong. The summer estimate showed the highest numbers (N=73 dolphins), which is also expected based on historical records. The seasonal analysis shows that, as in the past, there was a significant influx of dolphins into Hong Kong during the wet season (summer and autumn).

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 for each 1 km² grid were calculated in all grids amongst all survey areas for the period from January 2019 to December 2019. SPSE and DPSE of the last reporting year and the current reporting year are depicted in Figure 5 of Appendix E.

In 2018, it was reported that the important habitat of CWDs in SCLKCMP of NWL waters with high dolphin densities recorded in 2017 has become relatively less important. The pattern was similar in 2019 with decreasing SPSE and DPSE values over the grids around SCLKCMP, particularly around Lung Kwu Chau. Waters off Sham Wat Wan in the NWL survey area has also recorded lower DPSE values compared to year 2018.

The important dolphin habitats in WL survey area in 2019 are largely similar to 2018; grids with high SPSE and/or DPSE value(s) in WL were near Tai O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. Yi O has experienced a rebound of SPSE and DPSE values compared to the year 2018 (when a drop of importance was recorded).

While in SWL, the coastal waters around Fan Lau Tung Wan encountered a slight decrease in importance, while Fan Lau had higher SPSE and DPSE values than 2018. The waters around the Soko Islands, particularly the central part of the islands, became relatively more important to CWD as there are increases in DPSE values among the grids.

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 restricted to waters off West Lantau, at Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau.

Group Size

During the reporting period from January 2019 to December 2019, group size of CWDs ranged from one to 21 dolphins, with an average of 3.63, taking into account all CWD sightings recorded. The average group sizes of NWL, AW, WL and SWL were 2.16, 5.67, 4.02 and 3.44 respectively. By four solar seasons, the average group size of CWDs was the highest in spring (4.13) but the lowest in winter (2.68). 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 around half of the sightings during the reporting period (about 48.5%). Similarly, medium-sized CWD groups (i.e. 3 to 9 dolphins per group) accounted for around 45.5%. Ten sightings, which accounted for 6.0% of the sightings, were large CWD groups with 10 or more dolphins per group.

Both small and medium CWD groups were sighted throughout the distribution range of dolphins in NWL, WL and SWL waters. There were more large-sized CWD groups sighted in WL than in SWL. No large CWD group was recorded in NWL. In WL, large CWD groups were mainly recorded at Tai O, waters between Yi O and Peaked Hill and also at Fan Lau. While in SWL, the large CWD groups were sighted at the central part of the Soko Islands. 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 41, 14, 21 and 1 groups of CWDs were observed engaging in feeding, travelling, socialising and resting/milling activities, comprising of 24.6%, 8.4%, 12.6% and 0.6% 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.

In NWL, feeding activities mainly occurred in the southwestern part of the survey area, at the waters between the 3RS works area and coast of northwest Lantau. Occasional feeding activities were also observed north off Lung Kwu Chau. The feeding activities of CWD occurred along the coast of WL from Tai O to Fan Lau, and extended to coast in SWL survey area. In SWL, feeding activities also occurred in the northern part of the Soko Islands. Considering the sample size of sighting data of different survey areas, AW has the highest percentage of feeding again in 2019, as all CWD sightings recorded in that area showed feeding activities (although it should be kept in mind that the sample size in AW was very small), followed by SWL. A significant increase in feeding activities was observed in SWL from 17% of sightings in 2018 to 29% of sightings in 2019. However, the feeding activities recorded in NWL declined from 38% of sightings in 2018 to 28% of sightings in 2019.

Socialising activities were mainly observed around the western waters of HKIA, Tai O and Fan Lau. Travelling activities in NWL were mainly sighted around northern waters of Lung Kwu Chau. In WL and SWL, travelling activities mainly occurred in the relatively offshore waters. In addition, the only sighting with resting/milling activities was recorded in the coastal waters between Yi O and Peaked Hill in WL. The percentages of different activities for each of the survey areas are shown in Table 6 of Appendix E.

A total of four sightings of CWDs were observed associating with operating fishing boats, including gill netters (two groups), purse seiners (one group) and pair trawlers (one group), accounted for 2.4% of all sightings in 2019. There is an observable declining trend of CWD association with operating fishing boats in the past years (7.2% in 2016, 6.3% in 2017 and 3.7% in 2018). Such a declining trend may be attributed to a reduction of fishing activities particularly purse seiner operations in waters north of Lung Kwu Chau and in southwest Lantau waters based on field observations by survey teams during CWD monitoring. CWD association with operating fishing boats were mainly observed around Fan Lau. No observation of boat association with operating gill netters was recorded in NWL, where the waters north off Lung Kwu Chau used to be a favourite fishing ground in the past years. Based on field observation, the fishing activities in waters north off Lung Kwu Chau diminished in 2019. Although a trawling ban was implemented 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 pair trawlers in WL close to 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, a total of 25 sightings were observed having mother-and-unspotted calf (UC) and/or mother-and-unspotted juvenile (UJ) pairs, which accounted for about 15.0% of all sightings of 2019. The percentage was slightly higher than that of 2018 (i.e. 13.0%). For different survey areas, the percentages of sightings with mother-calf pairs in NWL (including AW), WL and SWL were 3.6%, 22.4% and 4.9% respectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of sightings with mother-calf pairs of a survey area by the total number of sightings of that survey area. Although a drastic decline in percentage of sightings with mother-calf pairs is found in NWL (from 19% in 2018 to 3.6% in 2019), there is an observable increase in WL from 13.3% in 2018 to 22.4% in 2019. The percentage remained relatively stable in SWL.

The abovementioned 25 sightings included six pairs of mother-and-UC and 23 pairs of mother-and-UJ. According to the result of photo-identification, these 25 sightings contained one identified UC individual and nine identified UJ individuals.

Most of the sightings with mother-calf pair were recorded in WL between Tai O and Peaked Hill. In NWL, the only sighting with mother-calf pair was recorded in the western waters off HKIA, while the two sightings in SWL occurred around the Soko Islands. 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 26 newly identified CWD individuals were added to the photo-identification catalogues, including four added to NL catalogue, 18 added to WL catalogue and four added to SL catalogue. Four animals namely WLMM116, WLMM119, WLMM120 and SLMM069 were confirmed to be duplicates of identified individuals in earlier time, namely WLMM054, SLMM058, WLMM106 and SLMM035 respectively. Therefore, all records under these four duplicates were transferred to the records under WLMM054, SLMM058, WLMM106 and SLMM035 respectively.

A total of 155 CWD individuals were identified for altogether 399 times from all sightings in 2019, that are relatively similar to the figures of last year (i.e. a total of 158 CWD individuals were identified for 431 times in 2018). Amongst these 155 CWD individuals, 38, 84 and 33 belonged to NL, WL and SWL catalogues, respectively. Amongst these 155 identified individuals, 92 individuals (around 59.4%) were sighted more than once. The number of re-sightings of an identified animal ranged from two to 10 times. The re-sighting rates (number of identified individuals that were re-sighted more than once in the reporting period divided by the total number of the identified individuals in the catalogue in the reporting period) of NL, WL and SWL catalogues were 50.0%, 57.1% and 75.8% respectively. Twenty-seven of these 92 re-sighted individuals were sighted five times or above.

The most frequently re-sighted animal in 2019 was WLMM079 (re-sighted 10 times), followed by SLMM003, SLMM052 and WLMM043 (all being re-sighted 8 times). The most frequently re-sighted animal since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue is SLMM014 which has been identified 31 times, followed by WLMM001 (identified 30 times) and WLMM027 (identified 27 times).

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

Photo Identification – Range Use of Identified CWD individuals

WLMM079, the most frequently re-sighted animal in 2019, used to utilize WL water extensively in the past years. In 2019, it continued to occur frequently in WL waters but extended its range use further eastward to the Soko Islands in SWL waters.

SLMM014, the most frequently re-sighted animal since 2015, ranged from waters near Yi O in WL to the Soko Islands and Lo Kei Wan in SWL. The range use of SLMM014 in SWL continued to shrink in 2019, which only extended to Shek Pik with a significant reduction in use of waters between the Soko Islands and the coast of Southwest Lantau, where it used to occur in previous years.

In 2019, the range use of WLMM001, the second most frequently re-sighted animal since 2015, is similar to previous reporting years, as it appeared extensively in WL from Tai O to Fan Lau. WLMM001 showed an increased usage of waters between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau in 2018, while re-sightings were relatively scattered in WL waters this year.

WLMM027, the third most frequently re-sighted animal since 2015, used to have two relatively distinct distribution ranges, one in the northwest from Tree Island within SCLKCMP to waters around Sham Wat and HZMB Hong Kong Link Road, and the other in the southwest from Fan Lau to Shui Hau. In 2019, the re-sightings continued to be consistent with the distribution pattern in previous years.

A special mother-calf pair with a prolonged bonding, NLMM013 and its calf NLMM006 (a spotted juvenile), was once reported with significantly reduced occurrence in NWL in 2017 (re-sighted only 1 and 2 times in 2017, respectively) but re-utilized NWL waters in 2018 (5 and 7 re-sightings in 2018, respectively). Continuous utilization of NWL waters by this special pair was observed in 2019 (with re-sighting 3 and 4 times respectively). However, the number of sightings of NLMM006 and NLMM013 were much fewer when compared with 2016. Similar to previous years, their distribution range was highly restricted to NWL waters, particularly the waters around Lung Kwu Chau.

Two animals, namely SLMM011 and SLMM015, reported in 2018 significantly shrank their range use from Hong Kong waters in 2018 compared to previous years. Both of them were regularly seen in 2016 to 2017 having more than five re-sightings each year, but disappeared from Hong Kong waters in 2018. In 2019, SLMM011 returned to Hong Kong western waters and was sighted 4 times in WL and SWL waters. However, SLMM015 was not sighted in 2019, apparently disappearing from Hong Kong waters for the second consecutive year.

SLMM028 had a severe injury with deep cuts on its dorsal ridge and keel in 2018. In 2019, SLMM028 was sighted 4 times in WL and SWL but not in NWL where it used to occur in past years. It was observed recovering from the injury after receiving in-situ treatment (i.e. injection of antibiotics) in the wild last year. It continued to show good signs of health as it was observed engaging in normal feeding and socializing behaviour with other dolphins.

The sighting locations of WLMM079, SLMM014, WLMM001, WLMM027, NLMM006, NLMM013, SLMM011 and SLMM028 are depicted in location maps under Figure 11 of Appendix E, which provide the indicative distribution range use of representative individuals recorded for the 3RS CWD monitoring.

Photo Identification – Cross-area Movement

Amongst the 92 individuals that were re-sighted more than once in 2019, 54 individuals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. This accounted for about 34.8% of all 155 identified animals. Amongst these 54 animals, 12 animals (22.2%) were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and WL, while 40 animals (74.1%) were recorded in both WL and SWL. Unlike previous years, no animals were recorded occurring in all three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL, including AW) in 2019. However, two (3.7%) out of these 52 animals were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and SWL.

Despite the fact that a number of identified CWD individuals were re-sighted in different survey areas, 38 (41.3%) out of those 92 animals re-sighted at least twice in 2019 were not observed crossing between different survey areas and were sighted in only one survey area.

2.5.2.2 Summary of Land-based Theodolite Tracking Monitoring Results

Survey Effort

In this reporting period, land-based surveys commenced on 8 January 2019, and concluded on 30 December 2019. A total of 36 days and 216:04 (hh:mm) of land-based theodolite survey effort were accomplished, including 24 days and 144:04 (hh:mm) from LKC and 12 days and 72:00 (hh:mm) from SC (Table 8 of Appendix E for summary). A total of 47 CWD groups were tracked from land, all from the LKC station (Table 8, Figure 12 Appendix E). While most initial sightings were within 1 km of the LKC tracking station, sightings were as far out as 2.5 km, towards the NE of the station. No CWDs were observed from SC.

After the raw data were filtered, 16 CWD group tracks fit criteria for analyses due to numerous CWD group tracks that were too short in duration (< 10 minutes) to include. From the tracks that fit criteria, 23 10-minute short-track segments were extracted for analyses. The number of CWD groups sighted per survey hour was 0.33 from LKC and 0 from SC. From LKC, sighting per survey hour was less than one-half of that observed in 2018 (0.77 groups per survey hour) and 2017 (0.89 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, the highest percentages of CWD groups (per hour of effort) were observed in the morning during the 0800 (13%) and 0900 (10%) hour blocks, whilst the lowest percentages were observed in the afternoon after the 1200 hour block. Indeed, the first two hour blocks of the day accounted for slightly over one-half of all sightings in the 6 hours (1000-1600) after this.

Time of Year

The highest percentage of CWD groups observed from LKC was during February (21%) and the lowest percentages observed were during April and May (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 during the winter (December-February) (with the a priori assumption that dolphins would be observed evenly during solar seasons and months of the year), and less than expected by statistical chance during the spring (March-May; Chi-square test, χ²=5.68, n=47, df=3, P<0.05). This differs from 2018 when CWDs were observed less than expected by statistical chance during the winter season and more during the spring and autumn seasons. In 2019, there was no statistical difference in CWD presence relative to oceanographic season (Chi-square test, χ²=1.06, n=47, df=1, P>0.05). This also differs from 2018 when CWDs were observed more than expected by statistical chance during the dry season.

Group Size

The mean group size of CWD filtered tracks off LKC was 2.13±1.04, ranging from singletons to a maximum group size of five dolphins (Table 9 of Appendix E), lower than in the past three years (3.26±1.50 in 2018, 3.03±1.58 in 2017, and 3.08±1.81 in 2016). Based on solar season, the mean group size of CWDs was significantly lower in the autumn (1.38±0.49) than in any other season (winter = 2.67±1.26, summer = 2.50±0.51, spring = 2.0±0; (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=54.55, df=3, p<0.001). This is contrary to 2018 when group size was higher in autumn than in the summer or winter.

Group size did not differ significantly based on oceanographic season (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=2.50, df=1, p=0.114) or proximity to the SCLKCMP boundary (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=4.77, df=2, p=0.09). In 2018 and 2017, group size was significantly higher outside the SCLKCMP, where ferry traffic is routed, than inside the boundary. 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 lower when high-speed ferries under speed restriction were within 500m of CWD groups than for all other categories (no boats, high-speed ferries, and other boats present; Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared=12.18, df=3, p<0.01).

Behavioural State

Excluding the unknown behavioural category from the filtered segments, travelling (50%) and foraging (37%) were observed more frequently than expected by statistical chance off LKC, and resting (8%) and socializing (6%) were observed less frequently (Chi-square test, χ²=29.69, n=52, 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, travelling (n=24, 77%) was observed most frequently, followed by socializing (n=3, 10%), foraging (n=2, 6%), and resting (n=2, 6%). CWD groups that crossed the marine park boundary were observed foraging (n=3, 60%) and travelling (n=2, 40%) only. CWD groups outside of the marine park were observed foraging (n=14, 87%) and resting (n=2, 13%) only (Figure 19 of Appendix E). In 2018, CWDs inside the marine park were observed foraging and travelling most frequently, CWDs crossing the boundary were observed travelling and foraging, and CWDs outside the marine park were observed foraging, travelling and socializing, but were not recorded resting.

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 2019, vessels were recorded within 500 meters of focal CWD groups on only 7 occasions (based on filtered 10-minute segments), including high-speed ferries under speed restriction on 1 occasion, high-speed ferries on 3 occasions, and other vessels (e.g., fishing and container vessels) on 3 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=0.6497), reorientation rate (p=0.1399) and linearity (p=0.5363). However, sample size was low for each vessel type present.

Summary of findings for 2019:

● Overall, there were fewer CWD groups sighted per survey hour of effort than in the past several years, providing few samples for robust analysis.

● Most CWD groups were observed within the SCLKCMP; however, this trend may reflect a sighting bias wherein single CWDs may be more difficult to locate farther from the survey platform.

● Overall, waters off Lung Kwu Chau continue to be habitat used for foraging and travelling (observed more than expected by statistical chance). Resting and socializing were observed less than expected by statistical chance. However, travelling was observed most frequently within the SCLKCMP boundary and foraging was observed most frequently outside of the marine park, which differs from previous years.

● The highest percentages of CWDs were observed during morning hours and during the winter season (February having the highest percentage of CWDs recorded). In 2018 the peak percentage of CWDs were observed during the spring and autumn, with a lower percentage observed in the winter.

● CWD group size was smaller in 2019 than in the past three years. Group size was significantly smaller in the autumn than any other season and in the presence of high-speed ferries under speed restriction.

● Sample sizes for the vessel categories are very small (e.g., high-speed ferries under speed restriction are within 500m of CWD in only one sample), and therefore not robust. The small sample sizes may reflect CWD potential avoidance of vessels off LKC.

● Off Sha Chau, there were no CWD sightings during land-based theodolite works in 2019.

2.5.2.3 Summary of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Results

Dolphin Detection Rates Per Day

From 10 January 2019 to 7 January 2020, there were eight deployment periods of Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) at position A5 for PAM (with the coordinates of 22° 20.299’ N, 113° 53.871’ E). During this period (Deployments 1 through 8), dolphins were detected at site A5 in a total of 378 of 103,514 files (0.37% of files), as summarized in Table 11 of Appendix E. Dolphins were detected on 137 of 362 days (38% of days) with recording effort (Figure 21 of Appendix E). On days with dolphins detected, the mean percentage of files with detections per day was 1.0%, and the maximum percentage of files with dolphin detections was 7.6%, on 21 July 2019. On 51 of 137 days with dolphin detections (37%), only one file containing dolphin signals was detected, and on the other 86 days, two or more files containing dolphin signals were detected. Clicks were the predominant type of dolphin signal detected (n = 376 of 379 detections, or 99%). Whistles (n = 3) were only rarely detected throughout the monitoring period.

Dolphin detection rates were greatest in the winter and spring, decreased in summer (with the exception of an unusually high detection rate on 21 July 2019), and remained relatively low through the autumn (Figure 21 of Appendix E). During winter through spring of 2019 (Deployments 1 to 3), dolphins were detected on more than 50% of recording days, and in 0.52%–0.86% of files (Table 11 of Appendix E). In summer (Deployments 4 and 5), dolphins were detected on 26%–34% of recording days and in 0.16%–0.37% of files, and in autumn (Deployments 6 and 7), dolphins were detected on 14%–20% of recording days and in 0.06%–0.16% of files. During early winter 2019–2020 (Deployment 8), dolphin detection rates began to increase again, with detections on 39% of recording days and in 0.24% of files. The overall metrics for dolphin occurrence during this reporting period are comparable to previously reported values from monitoring at site A5 in 2018 (Table 12 of Appendix E).

Dolphin Diel Pattern

Dolphin detection rates at A5 from 10 Jan 2019 to 07 Jan 2020 were greater at night than during daytime, with a peak in detections in the hour 2100 (as indicated in Figure 22 of Appendix E). This pattern of detection was similar when 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). In winter and spring, peak detection hours were from 2100 – 0000 and 1900 – 2300, respectively, with secondary peaks in the early morning around 0300–0400 (winter) and 0600 (spring); in winter another peak in detections was observed in the afternoon at 1500. Although dolphin detection rates were relatively low in summer and autumn, a weak diel trend was still apparent, with peak detections in the evening and night-time hours of 1900–2000 and 0100 (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. In 2019, mean daily sound pressure level over the full bandwidth ranged from 107 dB to 121 dB, with a mean of 117 dB rms re 1 µPa (Figure 24 of Appendix E). Mean daily sound pressure levels in all frequency bands were lowest during the winter deployments. Mean SPL in the lowest frequency band (0-2 kHz) increased from 114 dB during winter to 118 dB during spring and was slightly lower at 116 dB in summer. The low frequency band (0-2 kHz) showed a peak in SPL in late April of approximately 121 dB and was also high (119 dB) in November 2019. There was a pronounced, temporary drop in SPL by approximately 10 dB in the 0-2 kHz band during the first week of February, with minimum SPL around early February during the Lunar Chinese New Year period, but mean values resumed by 10 February. In the mid- and high-frequency bands (above 2 kHz), SPL increased steadily throughout the spring and summer and reached a maximum in November 2019 of approximately 5-7 dB greater than winter and early spring levels. SPL then decreased in all bands by approximately 6 dB in December 2019.

Daily mean sound pressure levels in the 16-32 kHz band, in which energy from CWD clicks occurs, ranged from 95 to 101 dB, with the minimum in winter and maximum in autumn (Figure 24 of Appendix E). The autumn maximum in SPL coincided with the lowest acoustic detection rates of CWD, and it is possible that the higher noise levels reduced the probability of dolphin detection during this period. Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin click and whistle frequencies are above 16 kHz and below 10 kHz, respectively (Sims et al. 2012). However, 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 hour 1900, which was mainly due to the contribution from the 0-2 kHz frequency band (Figure 25 of Appendix E). This daily peak was most pronounced in spring (March-April-May) and gradually subsided through summer, autumn, and winter. In winter and spring, SPL in the low frequency band increased during the daytime (beginning at 0700), likely due to increased anthropogenic traffic during daylight hours (Figure 26 of Appendix E), but this trend was not readily apparent in summer and autumn. The seasonally shifting evening 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). Overall, daily noise levels decreased throughout the night-time hours of 0000 to 0700 and were lowest at 0700, and increased throughout the day thereafter, likely due to the contribution of anthropogenic traffic and activity during daytime as well as the fish chorus in late afternoon hours. 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).

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, 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 2019 was 40 dolphins, which is much lower than the year before, with a CV of 14.6% (which indicates a very good level of precision). It is not surprising to see that the estimate of total dolphin numbers in Hong Kong was lower than the previous year’s estimate (77 in 2018, CV = 18.9%), and a change from one year to the next should never be taken as an indication of long-term trends. Although CWD estimates in Hong Kong increased somewhat from 2016 to 2018 (Jefferson 2018; 3RS Annual EM&A Report 2018), Hong Kong waters have been showing an overall declining trend in dolphin numbers over the last decade (see Jefferson 2018), and the 3RS EIA predicted shifting of dolphins away to waters outside Hong Kong and a significant effect on numbers in Hong Kong during intensive periods of construction (EIA Report Section 13.9.2). There was increased seawall construction and marine filling in the 3RS works area and marine construction work for other concurrent projects, for example reclamation works for the Tung Chung New Town Extension underway during 2019 in North Lantau waters, with that work effort involving over a dozen barges. This is likely to be the phase of construction that has the most impact on dolphins and such works will continue for at least another year. Also, as marine fill activity proceeds, more of the shallow seabed that was once dolphin habitat is converted to land, and it is no longer available as dolphin habitat.

The seasonal analysis showed that during summer, dolphin numbers are still reasonably high in Hong Kong waters. The 2019 seasonal range is 27 to 73 dolphins. The spring estimate was the lowest (27 dolphins), while the summer estimate was the highest (73 dolphins), and this indicates that, despite the overall reduction in the average number of dolphins using Hong Kong waters in recent years, there are over 70 dolphins still present in Hong Kong in the summer months. The main concern is that dolphin numbers in West and Southwest Lantau have also decreased since last year, and this suggests that construction activities throughout western Hong Kong (which, besides the 3RS works, also includes IWMF works at Shek Kwu Chau) and other factors that are affecting dolphins north of Lantau Island may also be affecting their use of the waters south and west of the island. The potential for cumulative and far-ranging impacts from projects in specific areas are not well understood, and should be investigated in future monitoring efforts. This is a particularly acute concern for the West Lantau area, which is known to represent the highest-density area for CWDs and although not directly impacted by marine construction in the past few years, the area is nonetheless showing evidence of decreased numbers.

Within NWL waters, dolphins are mostly found around the Castle Peak and Lung Kwu Chau 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 was substantially higher. Therefore, the drop in 2019 to 8 dolphins is not likely due to the effects of the SCZ, which has been in operation for several years but is more likely due to relatively more construction works for the 3RS reclamation and concurrent activities (such as changes in overall vessel traffic) in NL waters. Long-term CWD monitoring data that are being collected during the course of this Project will help to identify any specific impacts resulting from overall vessel traffic.

Regarding the effectiveness of the implementation of SkyPier HSF route diversion in alleviating the impacts on travelling areas of CWD using the waters between the project and SCLKCMP, and the areas between the CWD hotspots to the Northwest, Northeast and West Lantau, in view of last year’s increased sightings of CWD at NEL area from vessel surveys there may have been some progress. The traveling areas are still being used, though at a lower level. However, the HZMB marine work has now been completed, and this may have affected things as well. HZMB impacts were likely most severe during the period from 2013 to 2016 (a period which saw an overall decline in CWD numbers in Hong Kong – Jefferson 2018), and the increase in CWD numbers seen in 2018 may have been a result of the recovery from this period of HZMB impacts. It is likely that the 3RS construction work and other concurrent activities in NL waters going on in 2019 caused dolphins to shift away from the area as predicted in the EIA (Section 13.9.2), but history suggests that when construction is completed, a rebound in numbers can be expected (Jefferson 2018).

Regarding the results of photo-identification work, a total number of 155 CWD individuals were identified altogether 399 times from all sightings in 2019, with 92 individuals (around 59.4%) sighted more than once. Fifty-four individuals (around 34.8%) of the 155 identified animals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas. Unlike the previous years, no animals were recorded occurring in all three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL, including AW) in 2019, nevertheless, two out of these 54 animals were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and SWL. Regarding the re-sighted CWDs, the mother-and-spotted juvenile pair NLMM006 and NLMM013 was observed with continuous utilization of NWL waters in 2019. SLMM011, which was not found in Hong Kong waters in 2018, returned to the western waters with three re-sightings in 2019. There were other dolphins, such as SLMM014, SLMM028, WLMM001, WLMM027, WLMM079, which continued to frequent Hong Kong waters in 2019.

One of the major concerns expressed in the 3RS 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 southwestern New Territories coastline. During the construction phase, dolphins are still using these travel areas, as movements between WL and NWL have been documented, several sightings of small-sized CWD group were recorded in 2018 at the easternmost area of NWL and at NEL (3RS Annual EM&A Report 2018). Sightings in the travel areas may have decreased (especially in 2019), but that is to be expected, as construction for the 3RS continues. It should also be kept in mind that 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

During 24 days and 144 hours at the theodolite station on LKC, a total of only 47 CWD groups were tracked, and only 16 groups fit criteria for analyses due to most tracks being less than 10 minutes in duration. The sighting rate was 0.33 per survey hour, less than one-half the sighting rate in 2018 and 2017. Probably as a result of low sample sizes, few parameters showed significant levels in behavioural traits, and potential conclusions must therefore be viewed with some caution. Furthermore, it is considered not appropriate to use generalized additive models to analyse observations for this year, due to low sample sizes. No dolphins were seen from SC in 2019, same as in 2018.

In 2019, dolphins were sighted as far as 2.5 km from the LKC station, with most sightings made in the first two hours of observation of the day, 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., slightly more than all other sightings for the next 6 hours. There were significantly more sightings in Winter (Dec–Feb) for this past year than in Spring (Mar–May), but oceanographic wet versus dry seasons showed no statistically-valid overall difference. Mean group size was also lower this past year (at about 2 animals per group) than in previous years (at about 3 animals per group). Group size was also lower when groups were within 500 m of high-speed ferries under speed restriction than for all other categories of vessels and no vessel. However, data for the high-speed ferry lane and outside of it were very sparse this past year, and most dolphins were sighted closer to shore, within the designated area of the SCLKCMP. Furthermore, in 2019, there were no significant differences of behavioural types of speeds, reorientation rates, and linearity of movements relative to types of vessels, but with low sample sizes and lack of robustness for analyses.

Overall, there was an obvious decline in habitat use by CWDs north of the SCLKCMP. This survey finding is in line with the vessel surveys for this general area and may be due to ongoing 3RS Project and other concurrent project construction activities in NL waters. The observed decline may also have been due to other unknown factors, for example relating to the decline of fishing activity identified by monitoring team here, or from other marine traffic activities not associated with 3RS construction works. Survey data shows that the heaviest use of waters north of the SCLKCMP by CWDs was in the first several hours of survey during the morning.

Almost all sightings and tracks were within the SCLKMP this year with comparatively fewer sightings and tracks (small sample sizes obtained) in and outside the speed control zone. This may be due to the animals using NL waters generally avoiding this area due to disturbance from ongoing marine traffic activities. It is hoped that dolphins will return to this previous CWD "hotspot" area north of the SCLKCMP and monitoring in this important area will continue for the duration of the land formation related construction works.

2.5.3.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring

The PAM data continue to provide useful information, especially on patterns of dolphin vocalization at night, which has previously been unavailable to us and could not be recorded during the land-based survey conducted during daytime at south of Sha Chau. The diurnal detection of clicks showed a consistent pattern of higher levels in late evening and at night compared with the day, which may be indicative of increased use of echolocation by dolphins during hours of darkness.

The PAM data provide evidence that dolphins are using the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year. In 2019, dolphins were present with especially high incidence in winter (Jan-Feb), and less so in other seasons which supplement the low observations by vessel-transect surveys and land-based theodolite tracking at daytime. 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 less present in winter and summer and the wet season overall, than in spring and autumn. Dolphins were detected more frequently during night-time hours than during the day, and this may be related to increased nocturnal foraging behaviour. This has been a general trend throughout PAM monitoring in most parts of Hong Kong. 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, because of decreased industrial activity at night.

Although the land-based and vessel-based observations indicate a potential decrease in dolphin habitat use, the PAM seems to be stable/comparable to the previous year, suggesting that dolphins continue to use the area especially in winter, and then primarily at night and in conditions when visual observation is not feasible (however, note that during 2018 there was a long gap in acoustic monitoring from June to August, so direct comparison of these months is not possible). Analysis of the most recent (December 2019) dataset suggests that dolphin acoustic activity began to increase again during early winter, but continued PAM is needed to assess whether this trend will continue and result in comparable dolphin occurrence to that detected in previous years.

Overall, there was an increase in ambient sound pressure level at the PAM station in 2019 compared to that in 2013 (EIA Report Section 13.4.6). Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, a net increase of 5 dB represents a near doubling of the ambient sound pressure level. Increased ambient sound pressure level could be attributed to anthropogenic inputs from marine traffic activities and construction activities. Although specific anthropogenic sounds can also affect marine mammal occurrence and behaviour, overall increases in ambient noise due to anthropogenic inputs are documented to have significant impacts on distribution, behaviour, and health in many cetacean species and areas around the world (e.g. Buckstaff et al. 2013, Castellote et al. 2012, Finneran et al. 2015, Nowacek et al. 2007, Rolland et al. 2012).

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 2019 are summarised as follows.

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

The latest monitoring data indicate there was decreased use of all the areas within Hong Kong in 2019, as compared to the previous year. Year 2018 indicated a year of partial recovery from the negative impacts caused by the HZMB Hong Kong Link Road construction phase, after its completion, and that in contrast 2019 saw 3RS Project construction activities increase including extensive seawall construction activities and increased marine filling activity as well as increasing marine works for the Tung Chung New Town Extension project, with associated impacts and disturbance in NL waters for example from construction vessel marine traffic. As the 3RS EIA predicted, dolphins have likely shifted their activities away from the more intensive 3RS construction works although even with the disturbance they are still using Hong Kong’s western waters for important ecological activities like feeding and resting.

Effectiveness of the HSF Speed and Routing Restrictions to the CWDs

As detailed above, we now have four years of data from the period since the SCZ was implemented, and the information available from both the vessel-based and land-based monitoring indicates that dolphin use of the NW Lantau area has fluctuated from year to year (ranging from 8 to 22 dolphins), with a period of initial increase once the SCZ was put into effect. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the SCZ is not having negative impacts on dolphin use of this area, and at the same time, is likely reducing the chances of dolphins being hit by vessels traveling at high speed.

Waters around Lung Kwu Chau remain a significant year-round habitat, especially for foraging, though they have become increasingly less important in recent years. There is no evidence of a decline in dolphin use of the HSF SCZ around Lung Kwu Chau is the result of ferries being re-routed to that area with slower speeds at the end of 2015. The recent (2019) decline in numbers of dolphins in that area is not considered to be linked to the SCZ.

Trends in Long Term Monitoring Data

From vessel surveys conducted in 2019, CWD use of Hong Kong waters appears to be down significantly from 2018. West Lantau waters are still being used as the most important habitat in Hong Kong, which has been true since CWD monitoring in Hong Kong first started in 1995/1996. It is estimated that 40 dolphins (on average) were found within Hong Kong waters in 2019, which is down from last year (2018). Seasonally, the number within Hong Kong ranges from about 27 to 73. There continues to be no evidence that the implementation of the SkyPier 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.

Land-based observation efforts was reduced in 2019, however, sighting data were standardized by effort to account for the difference. Although land-based observations and theodolite tracking do not present overall estimates of numbers of dolphins, the 2019 data from LKC shows a reduction in CWD groups sighted and tracked compared to the past three years. This indicates a lower use of this area by CWDs, perhaps indicative of the increasing construction and other marine traffic activities in the NL waters as discussed earlier. It is possible, as mentioned in Section 2.5.3, that the data from the past three years (before 2019) represent a partial rebound of dolphin use of waters north of Lantau Island due to the intensive HZMB construction activities of 2013-2016 coming to an end (see also Jefferson 2018). During 2019, the ongoing 3RS Project marine construction activities may have reduced dolphin use in North Lantau waters in the way that was predicted in the 3RS EIA (Section 13.9.2).

It is important to remember that dolphins shift around within their habitat from year to year, due to both natural and anthropogenic factors. Thus, evidence of a decrease or increase in numbers from one year to the next should not necessarily be taken as indication of an overall population decline or recovery. Dolphins live for many decades (in some cases, over 50 years).

The CWD construction phase monitoring data so far appear to be generally consistent with findings of the ecological assessments completed during the 3RS EIA, which predicted significant negative impacts during construction, including from the physical loss of habitat due to the reclamation (EIA Report Section 13.9.1). 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 dolphins shifting away from NL and nearby waters is to be expected during periods of construction works of the 3RS, such as increased seawall construction and marine filling activity, as has occurred in 2019, and this is broadly in line with EIA predictions.

In the 3RS EIA and in last year’s Annual EM&A Report, it was predicted that dolphins would shift away from portions of their home range that are experiencing intense human activities, and that appears to be the case in 2019 as seawall works and marine filling activity has intensified. These impacts are a type of anthropogenic disturbance and therefore are of conservation concern; however, they are temporary and reversible, while previous studies have supported that dolphin numbers would recover in long-term after completion of works (assuming that the habitat is properly protected and still of adequate quality). Monitoring for the 3RS will continue during 2020 and beyond, with the goal being to evaluate these impacts (focussing on impacts that appear greater than predicted impacts) and recovery that occurs in the future.

With the physical loss of some habitats through 3RS reclamation, it is unknown if we can expect a full recovery in CWD numbers to those found in the past, but at least stabilization of abundance of Hong Kong CWDs is desirable for the long-term health of this population. As dolphin numbers appear to be going down in all the areas of Hong Kong in 2019, this should be monitored carefully in the future. Adaptive management measures may be considered, as appropriate, should there be any deviation from anticipated 3RS impacts. At this stage of 3RS construction, recommended mitigations have been implemented and although impacts are occurring, these are hopefully temporary and within previously predicted patterns. Once marine construction is completed, and the proposed marine park in North Lantau comes into effect, the situation should improve. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be kept under review over the next few years as EM&A monitoring continues.

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, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains during the reporting period. As for DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within the DEZs in this reporting period, whilst the contractor reported one record of dolphin sighting outside the DEZ of DCM works. These contractors’ records were audited by the ET during site inspection.

In June 2019, site audit to the DEZ monitoring for DCM works area were made by dolphin experts, and discussions with 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 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.

During the reporting period, implementation of recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures (CM1 – CM10) where applicable was monitored weekly in accordance with the Manual and no non-conformity was recorded. In case of non-conformity, specific recommendations will be made, and actions will be proposed according to the Event and Action Plan. The monitoring status is summarised in Appendix C.

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 Terrestrial 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.

The shoreline landscape reinstatement works at the HDD daylighting location on Sheung Sha Chau were finished in January 2020. The ET carried out the last monthly ecological monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau Island in January 2020 and found that there was no encroachment of any works upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to the ardeids foraging on the island by the works and no signs of breeding or nursery activities were observed. At the HDD daylighting location, neither nest nor breeding activity of ardeids was found during the last ecological monitoring and weekly site inspections in the reporting period. All the HDD construction including shoreline landscape reinstatement works on Sheung Sha Chau was completed on 29 January 2019. Therefore, terrestrial ecological monitoring had been ceased since February 2019.

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 six skipper workshops were held in 2019 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, 7,849 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 33 and 102, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in 2019 was 83, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

The total 7,849 ferry movements audited and all HSFs travelled through the SCZ with average speeds at or below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. 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, giving way to other vessels or vessel engine failure 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 vessels entered the SCZ through 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-19	Feb-19	Mar-19	Apr-19	May-19	Jun-19	Jul-19	Aug-19	Sep-19	Oct-19	Nov-19	Dec-19
Total number of ferry movements recorded and audited	806	726	806	782	676	630	640	612	600	529	510	532
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	805	725	804	777	674	628	639	610	597	529	510	531
No. of SkyPier HSFs in compliance with Average Speed within 15 knots in SCZ	806	726	806	782	676	630	640	612	600	529	510	532
Range of Daily Movement (including all SkyPier HSFs)	87-94	82-94	83-88	86-89	82-88	82-82	33-83	63-82	76-95	81-102	79-82	78-83

Source: Excerpted from Monthly and Quarterly EM&A Reports

2.9 Audit of the 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 Maritime 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 bi-weekly Marine Traffic Control Center (MTCC) audit and such deviations were also reviewed and highlighted during the monthly Environmental Management Meeting.

A total of 22 skipper training workshops were held by ET in 2019 with 120 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 45 skipper training workshops were held with 82 captains by contractors’ 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

One post-translocation monitoring survey was conducted during the reporting period. The 8^th post-translocation monitoring survey, which was subsequent to the 7^th monitoring survey conducted in October 2018, was the final round of additional monitoring survey and was completed in April 2019.

The Action and Limited Levels stipulated in the CTP were not triggered for the 8^th survey. Based on the results of the 8^th post-translocation monitoring, ≥25% change in partial mortality was recorded on 57 out of 59 translocated corals (97% of the tagged translocated coral colonies that were studied). For control corals, ≥25% change was recorded on 15 out of 18 control corals (83% of the tagged control coral colonies that were studied) and no change was recorded on one control coral. The health condition ranged from 0 to 4 for both control and translocated coral.

As the average partial mortality recorded during the 7^th and 8^th monitoring is similar to each other and the average general health condition was remained between 1.5 and 2.5 for both rounds of monitoring, the coral condition appeared to have been stabilized after the damage caused by typhoon Mangkhut in September 2018.

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. There were continuous exchanges with the local communities, relevant professionals, experts, and other stakeholders. Below are highlights of the engagement activities held in 2019.

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 AAHK 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 AAHK 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 August, September and December 2019. 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 June and December 2019. 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 June and December 2019.

2.11.3 Other Stakeholders

To encourage two-way communications with stakeholders and the community, a dedicated telephone hotline and email has been set up since December 2015. Six enquiries were received via the hotline, and twelve enquiries were received via the dedicated email in 2019.

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 DCM works, seawall construction, and marine filling, as well as land-based works such as excavation, piling, T2 expansion works, APM and BHS work. 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

One environmental complaint was received in the reporting period. The environmental complaint was attended to and investigations were conducted by the ET in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan. The summary of the complaint 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.

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 2019 to 31 December 2019, 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 water quality, the monitoring results for turbidity, total alkalinity and chromium 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, SS 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 dust, construction noise, waste, CWD, and coral post-translocation monitoring did not trigger their corresponding Action or Limit Levels during the reporting period.

The monthly terrestrial ecology monitoring on Sheung Sha Chau observed that there was no encroachment upon the egretry area nor any significant disturbance to ardeids at Sheung Sha Chau by the works. As all the works on Sheung Sha Chau were completed on 29 January 2019, terrestrial ecological monitoring was ceased after that day.

A total of 5,445.0 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line-transect monitoring for CWD during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 167 groups of 606 CWDs were sighted, with 25 groups of 54 CWDs in NWL, three groups of 17 CWDs in AW, 98 groups of 394 CWDs in WL and 41 groups of 141 CWDs in SWL. No CWDs were recorded in NEL survey area. The combined encounter rates by number of dolphin sightings and by number of dolphins were 3.22 and 11.63 respectively. No triggering of Action and Limit Level on the encounter rates were recorded during the construction phase during 2019. Overall abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 40 dolphins in 2019 from line-transect analysis. CWD relative occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau peaked in February, with fewer sightings during April and May. Waters off Lung Kwu Chau continue to be habitat used for foraging and travelling. Passive acoustic monitoring provides evidence that dolphins continue using the area around south of Sha Chau throughout the year, with especially high incidence in winter than in other seasons in 2019. The acoustic data also showed consistently higher levels of dolphin clicking activity 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, 7,849 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 33 and 102, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all the SkyPier HSFs in 2019 was 83 movements, within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements. The total 7,849 ferry movements in 2019, all HSFs were found travelling through the SCZ with average speeds at or below 15 knots. All ferry movements that did not strictly follow the diverted route were investigated.

The audit of construction and associated 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 22 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET from January to December 2019 with captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 45 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, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains during the reporting period. As for DEZ monitoring records, no dolphin or other marine mammals were observed within the DEZs in this reporting period, whilst the contractor reported one record of dolphin sighting outside 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 including 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).