HKOLNG EIA_09

Survey	Frequency	Location	Season & Date
Intertidal Assemblages	Once in the dry season Once in the wet season	LPS	Wet Season: 29 Aug 2016 Dry Season: 28 Feb 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Pak Chau	Wet Season: 28 Sep 2016 Dry Season: 27 Feb 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Tau Lo Chau	Wet Season: 30 Sep 2016 Dry Season: 1 Mar 2017
		Yi O	Surveys attempted in Aug/Sept 2016 and Mar 2017 but could not be completed due to obstructions from nearby land owners ⁽²⁾
Subtidal Infauna Assemblages (Benthos)	Once in the dry season Once in the wet season	16 sites within the two subsea pipeline routes and the LNG Terminal site	Dry Season: 1 – 2 Mar 2017 ⁽¹⁾ Wet Season: 5 – 6 Jun 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Subtidal Coral Assemblages	Once in the survey period	LPS	29 Jun 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Pak Chau	27 Jun 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Tau Lo Chau	12 Apr 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Yi O	28 Jun 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Hard substrates along the two subsea pipeline routes	23 to 25 Oct 2017 ⁽¹⁾
Marine Mammal (including observations for other species e.g. sea turtle and whale shark)	Each transect line for the Shipboard Survey was surveyed twice per month for 12 months between June 2016 and May 2017 (inclusive)	Marine waters within the two subsea pipeline routes and the LNG Terminal site, covering six survey areas	16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30 Jun 2016 ⁽³⁾ 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29 Jul 2016 ⁽³⁾ 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 22, 24, 26, 30 Aug 2016 ⁽³⁾ 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 20, 22, 26, 27 Sep 2016 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 17, 25, 27, 28, 31 Oct 2016 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 21, 25, 28 Nov 2016 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22 Dec 2016 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 Jan 2017 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23 Feb 2017 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29 Mar 2017 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 27Apr 2017 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 17, 24 May 2017 Two sets of transect were conducted on these survey days
	Continuous (24-hour) deployment over different seasons for Underwater Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Survey	Tai A Chau	6 Oct 2016 – 5 Dec 2016 17 Feb – 27 Jul 2017 ⁽⁵⁾

Shek Kwu Chau	6 Oct 2016 – 27 Oct 2017 ⁽⁵⁾
Proposed LNG Terminal ⁽⁴⁾	6 Jan – 30 Jun 2017 ⁽⁵⁾
Avifauna	Two days per month, for 12 months between July 2016 and June 2017 (inclusive)	Marine waters south of Lantau Island	14 and 28 Jul 2016 8 and 12 Aug 2016 1 and 5 Sep 2016 3,and 14 Oct 2016 10 and 17 Nov 2016 7 and 13 Dec 2016 6 and 19 Jan 2017 10 and 16 Feb 2017 14 and 20 Mar 2017 5 and 10 Apr 2017 4 and 11 May 2017 5 and 16 Jun 2017

Location	WCZs	Site	Total Number of Infaunal Individuals	Mean Number of Individuals per Station	Mean Number of Individuals per m²	Mean Taxonomic Richness (No. Families) per Station	Mean Taxonomic Richness (No. Species) per Station	Pielou’s Evenness (J)	Shannon Diversity (H’)	Total Biomass (g wet weight)	Mean Biomass per Individual (g wet weight)
BPPS Pipeline	Deep Bay	B1	395	197.5	2057.29	26.0	31.0	0.60	2.26	3.9711	0.0101
Deep Bay	B2	1345	672.5	7005.21	36.0	41.0	0.42	1.71	7.6888	0.0057
North Western	B3	73	36.5	380.21	17.5	19.5	0.92	3.13	0.8451	0.0116
North Western	B4	55	27.5	286.46	13.5	16.0	0.94	3.05	0.3383	0.0062
North Western Supplementary	B5	471	235.5	2453.13	26.5	30.5	0.68	2.50	1.2976	0.0028
North Western Supplementary	B6	119	59.5	619.79	21.0	22.5	0.88	3.12	19.2654	0.1619
Second Southern Supplementary	B7	53	26.5	276.04	12.0	12.5	0.82	2.43	2.5799	0.0487
Second Southern Supplementary	B8	187	93.5	973.96	19.5	20.5	0.79	2.61	2.1653	0.0116
Second Southern Supplementary	B9	125	62.5	651.04	20.5	22.0	0.86	2.91	7.8409	0.0627
LNG Terminal	Southern	B10	70	35.0	364.585	15.0	16.5	0.88	2.87	1.2450	0.0178
Southern	B11	141	70.5	734.38	19.5	21.5	0.75	2.66	4.1832	0.0297
Southern	B12	60	30.0	312.5	10.5	12.5	0.73	2.10	4.6535	0.0776
LPS Pipeline	Southern	B13	121	60.5	630.21	19.5	22.5	0.81	2.90	4.1719	0.0345
Southern	B14	176	88.0	916.67	25.0	30.0	0.87	3.17	5.4543	0.0310
Southern	B15	45	22.5	234.38	9.0	10.5	0.86	2.38	1.7373	0.0386
Southern	B16	49	24.5	255.21	13.0	16.0	0.91	2.92	1.0615	0.0217

Location	WCZs	Site	Total Number of Infaunal Individuals	Mean Number of Individuals per Station	Mean Number of Individuals per m²	Mean Taxonomic Richness (No. Families) per Station	Mean Taxonomic Richness (No. Species) per Station	Pielou’s Evenness (J)	Shannon Diversity (H’)	Total Biomass (g wet weight)	Mean Biomass per Individual (g wet weight)
BPPS Pipeline	Deep Bay	B1	50	25.0	260.42	11.5	11.5	0.83	2.40	3.0404	0.0608
Deep Bay	B2	26	13.0	135.42	9.5	9.5	0.94	2.54	0.9132	0.0351
North Western	B3	4	2.0	20.83	1.5	1.5	1.00	1.10	0.4646	0.1161
North Western	B4	8	4.0	41.67	2.5	2.5	0.87	0.96	0.1971	0.0246
North Western Supplementary	B5	58	29.0	302.08	10.5	10.5	0.75	2.14	0.6758	0.0117
North Western Supplementary	B6	16	8.0	83.33	4.0	4.5	0.79	1.65	3.1273	0.1955
Second Southern Supplementary	B7	60	30.0	312.50	14.0	14.0	0.81	2.46	1.1005	0.0183
Second Southern Supplementary	B8	58	29.0	302.08	17.5	17.5	0.93	3.10	2.3774	0.0410
Second Southern Supplementary	B9	48	24.0	250.00	14.5	14.5	0.90	2.81	0.6883	0.0143
LNG Terminal	Southern	B10	50	25.0	260.42	9.0	9.0	0.71	1.92	1.4302	0.0286
Southern	B11	26	13.0	135.42	6.5	7.0	0.83	1.99	1.3665	0.0526
Southern	B12	48	24.0	250.00	12.0	12.5	0.82	2.45	1.9294	0.0402
LPS Pipeline	Southern	B13	26	13.0	135.42	8.0	8.5	0.89	2.47	2.8580	0.1099
Southern	B14	48	24.0	250.00	9.0	9.0	0.79	2.03	2.6964	0.0562
Southern	B15	34	17.0	177.08	9.0	9.0	0.81	2.08	1.2256	0.0360
Southern	B16	50	25.0	260.42	11.0	13.0	0.88	2.62	1.2721	0.0254

Subtidal Coral Survey

During the surveys, the weather was fine and the sea was calm. The visibility was however poor and generally ranged between 0.1m and 2m and decreased with water depth. The general substrata and biological conditions along each transect noted during the qualitative spot dive reconnaissance check are presented in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4 Description of the Seabed of Each Transect from the Qualitative Surveys

Site	Transect	Depth	Description
LPS	T1 – T4	-2 to -7 mPD	Transects are located at the artificial sloping seawall of the LPS Extension. The site comprised of large boulders and the toe of the seawall was covered with a layer of mud. On the hard substrata, algae were absent and sessile benthos comprised of isolated barnacles. Only sparse colonies of hard coral Turbinaria peltata, Porites sp. and Oulastrea crispata, ahermatypic hard coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and Balanophyllia sp. and octocoral colonies Dendronephthya sp., Echinomuricea sp. and Menella sp./ Paraplexaura sp. were identified.
Tau Lo Chau	T5 – T6	-3 to -10 mPD	Transects on this island to the southeast of South Soko primarily consist of bedrock with some large boulders and sandy area. The hard substrata was colonized by sessile benthos, such as barnacles and bryozoans, and isolated colonies of ahermatypic hard coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and octocoral Dendronephthya sp., Verrucella sp., Echinomuricea sp., Euplexaura sp. and Menella sp. / Paraplexaura sp..
Yi O	T7 – T9	-2 to -3 mPD	The water depth is generally shallow across the Yi O bay. It comprised of bedrock, boulders, rocks and rubbles, but most of the hard substrata were covered with silt. Isolated sessile benthos, including sponge and barnacle, ahermatypic hard coral Balanophyllia sp. and octocoral Guaiagorgia sp. were recorded on the hard substrata.
Pak Chau	T10 – T11	-2 to -6 mPD	The shallow region of the island was mainly composed of large boulders while deeper region (> 5 mPD) was covered with mud. Sessile organisms, such as barnacles, ahermatypic hard coral Balanophyllia sp. and octocoral Guaiagorgia sp. were only observed in the shallow region.
Proposed Subsea Pipeline Routes	B, C, D, F1, F2, F3 and F4 (*Figure 9C.5*)	-10 to -18 mPD	All transects are located along the proposed pipeline routes where some hard substrates (i.e. dump materials) were recorded from the geophysical survey. Most of the transects were characterized by muddy substratum, except scattered boulders were observed in Transects F1 and F3. Octocoral Echinomuricea sp. was recorded only on the hard substratum observed in Transect F1 and F3, but no coral was found in other transects and only isolated colonies of sea anemone were observed on the soft substratum.

Because of the presence of corals in most transects, REA were conducted. The seabed composition was identified and the coral species recorded. Representative photographs of the seabed and coral condition at the survey transects are presented in Figures 9C.6 to 9C.10.

The dive survey reported that the artificial seawall of the LPS was generally covered with low percentage cover (< 5%) and abundance of hard coral, cup corals and octocorals (Table 9C.9 of Annex 9C). Five hard coral species, Turbinaria peltata, Porites sp., Oulastrea crispata, Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and Balanophyllia sp., and three octocoral species, Dendronephthya sp., Echinomuricea sp. and Menella sp./ Paraplexaura sp., were recorded (Table 9C.14 of Annex 9C). The majority of coral recorded were common and widespread species in Hong Kong, including Oulastrea crispata and ahermatypic hard coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and Balanophyllia sp.. Other corals were only present in isolated colonies.

Natural shores of Tau Lo Chau also consisted of low percentage cover (< 5%) and abundance of ahermatypic hard corals and octocorals (Table 9C.10 of Annex 9C). A total of one ahermatypic hard coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and five octocoral species, Dendronephthya sp., Verrucella sp., Echinomuricea sp., Euplexaura sp. and Menella sp. / Paraplexaura sp., were identified (Table 9C.14 of Annex 9C). The coral communities were dominated by octocoral Dendronephthya sp. and Echinomuricea sp., which were common and widespread species in the western waters of Hong Kong. Although some uncommon species, such as Verrucella sp., Euplexaura sp. and Menella sp. / Paraplexaura sp., were recorded, their abundance were very low and they were generally small in size (< 10cm in length).

The dive survey reported that only < 5% cover of ahermatypic hard corals and octocorals were present in the hard substrata of Yi O (Table 9C.11 of Annex 9C). Only two species were identified, including ahermatypic hard coral Balanophyllia sp. and octocoral Guaiagorgia sp. (Table 9C.14 of Annex 9C). The majority of the coral recorded were Guaiagorgia sp., but most of colonies were covered with sediment and exhibited partial mortality, and a low percentage cover of dead coral was noted. Corals recorded are all common species in the western waters in Hong Kong.

The dive survey in Pak Chau reported a low to moderate percentage cover (~6 – 30%) and abundance of octocoral in the subtidal zone from -2 to -4 mPD, but the coverage of ahermatypic hard coral was <5 % (Table 9C.12 of Annex 9C). The coverage of octocoral were dominated by a single species Guaiagorgia sp., and Balanophyllia sp. was the only ahermatypic hard coral recorded. Both species are common species in the western waters in Hong Kong (Table 9C.14 of Annex 9C). Most of the Guaiagorgia sp. recorded are healthy and large in size (> 20cm in length).

Along the LPS Pipeline route at Transect F1 and F3, survey result indicated that coral cover was very low (< 5%) and was restricted on isolated boulders (Table 9C.13 of Annex 9C). Octocoral Echinomuricea sp. was recorded, which was common and widespread species in the western waters in Hong Kong (Table 9C.14 of Annex 9C). Most of the Echinomuricea sp. were covered by sediment and some dead colonies or colonies with partial mortality were recorded. The octocoral were mostly small in size (< 20cm in length).

Overall, results of the dive surveys indicated that the subtidal hard substrate of the Assessment Area showed very limited sessile taxa. Common and widespread corals, including hard coral, ahermatypic hard coral and octocoral, were recorded in very low percentage cover (< 5%) at all sites, except at Pak Chau where low to moderate coral cover (~6 - 30%) contributed by the octocoral Guaiagorgia sp. was recorded.

Marine Mammal Shipboard Survey

Survey Effort

During the 12-month shipboard surveys from June 2016 to May 2017, a total of 120 line-transect surveys were conducted among the six survey areas in Deep Bay (DB), Northwest Lantau (NWL), West Lantau (WL), Southwest Lantau (SWL), Southeast Lantau (SEL) and Lamma (LM) waters. A total of 7,898.44km of survey effort was collected from these line-transect surveys. The details of these survey effort data are presented in Table 9D.1 of Annex 9D.

A total of 93.6% of the total survey effort was conducted under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good visibility) throughout the 12-month study period, and the survey data collected in such condition can be used for encounter rate analysis and abundance/density estimation for Chinese White Dolphins (CWD) (Table 9D.2 of Annex 9D). On the other hand, 63.7% of the total survey effort was conducted in condition of Beaufort Sea State 2 or below, and survey data collected in such condition can be used for encounter rate analysis of Finless Porpoises (FP) (Table 9D.3 of Annex 9D).

Marine Mammal Sightings

During the 12-month study period, a total of 219 groups of 706 CWD and 200 groups of 516 FP were sighted among five of the six survey areas (Tables 9D.2 and 9D.3 of Annex 9D). There were no dolphin or porpoise sighting in DB survey area despite the extensive amount of survey effort being conducted there. Among these marine mammal sightings, 181 of the 219 dolphin groups and 151 of the 200 porpoise groups were sighted during on-effort search (Tables 9D.2 and 9D.3 of Annex 9D), which can be utilized for encounter rate analysis and line-transect analysis for density and abundance estimation.

CWD were mostly sighted in WL (107 groups of 364 dolphins) and SWL (77 groups of 219 dolphins) during the study period. The dolphins were also regularly sighted in NWL with 34 groups of 122 dolphins, but rarely occurred in SEL with only one sighting of a lone individual (Figure 9C.11; Table 9D.2 of Annex 9D).

On the contrary, FPs were only sighted among the three survey areas in southern waters of Hong Kong, including 64 groups of 178 porpoises in SWL, 105 groups of 257 porpoises in SEL and 31 groups of 81 porpoises in LM (Figure 9C.12; Table 9D.3 of Annex 9D).

Photo-identification of Individual CWD

From June 2016 to May 2017, a total of 155 individuals were identified, with 448 re-sightings made among them (Table 9D.4 of Annex 9D). Nearly half of the re-sightings of individual dolphins made during the 12-month shipboard surveys were in WL survey area, comprising 49.1% of the total. Re-sightings were also made regularly in SWL (33.5%) but infrequently in NWL (17.2%). The lone individual sighted in SEL (NL306) was the only identifiable individual recorded for this survey area.

Most identified dolphins were only re-sighted once or twice. On the contrary, 30 individuals were sighted at least five times, and eight individuals (including SL40, SL60, WL42, WL69, WL91, WL123, WL220 and WL232) were sighted at least eight times in total during the 12-month study period, suggesting their frequent usage of this part of Hong Kong waters.

CWD General Distribution

During the 12-month study period, CWD were regularly sighted in NWL, WL and SWL survey areas, while only a lone dolphin was sighted in SEL survey area (Figure 9C.11).

In NWL waters, the dolphins were mainly sighted around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau, and along the western territorial border. A few sightings were also made near the Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) to the northwest of Shum Wat. On the contrary, they were rarely sighted near the Chek Lap Kok Airport and Black Point. In relation to the Project, a number of dolphin sightings were made along the subsea pipeline route to BPPS, mostly to the west and southwest of Sha Chau.

In WL waters, the dolphins were frequently sighted throughout the survey area with the exception of the northern portion overlapped with the Hong Kong Link Road alignment. Dolphin sightings were mainly clustered near Tai O Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau, but the dolphins were infrequently sighted at the inshore waters between Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan. It is noted that dolphin sightings overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route within this survey area.

CWD also occurred throughout the SWL survey area during the 12-month study period, and their sightings were mainly concentrated along the stretch of coastline between Fan Lau and Kau Ling Chung, as well as the southern side of Shui Hau Peninsula. The dolphins also occurred regularly within and around the Soko Islands, but mostly on the western side of this group of islands. In contrast, only a few dolphin groups were sighted at the southern end of the SWL survey area, and as a result only a few dolphin sightings were made along and near this section of the BPPS pipeline route.

There was only one dolphin sighted at the western end of SEL, and the sighting was made far away from the potential site for the LNG Terminal and the LPS Pipeline route.

Seasonal Variation in CWD Distribution

Distinct seasonality in dolphin distribution was recorded among the three areas with their regular occurrence (Figure 9C.13). CWD rarely occurred in NWL waters in spring months (i.e. March – May), while they were evenly distributed throughout the western end of the survey area in summer months (i.e. June – August). In WL waters, the dolphins appeared to occur more regularly throughout the entire survey area in autumn months (i.e. September – November), but their distribution were more confined to the southern portion of the survey area in spring months (i.e. March – May). On the contrary, CWD distribution was more widespread in SWL waters during the summer months (i.e. June – August), but their occurrences were noticeably diminished in winter (i.e. December – February) and spring months.

Distribution of CWD with Different Group Sizes

During the 12-month shipboard surveys, group sizes of CWD ranged from singles to 14 individuals, with an overall mean of 3.2. Most dolphin groups were quite small, with 53.9% of the groups composed of one to two individuals only, and 75.8% of the groups with fewer than five individuals. Only eight out of the 219 dolphin groups contained more than ten individuals per group.

The distribution of CWD with different group sizes sighted during the surveys is shown in Figure 9C.14. The smaller and medium-sized groups were distributed throughout the three survey areas of NWL, WL and SWL, and such distribution was similar to the overall distribution pattern. For the larger dolphin groups (i.e. groups with 7 – 9 dolphins and more than 10 dolphins), they were mostly sighted along the western territorial boundary from Lung Kwu Chau in the north to Fan Lau in the south. Several large groups of dolphins also occurred to the west and northwest of Siu A Chau in SWL waters.

Distribution of Calves of CWD

Of the 706 dolphins sighted during the surveys, 59.8% of them were able to be categorized into six age classes. In particular, a total of two unspotted calves (UCs) and 17 unspotted juveniles (UJs) were sighted. The two UCs were sighted to the west of Tai O Peninsula and near Peaked Hill, both of which were located near the western territorial border (Figure 9C.15). On the other hand, the three UJs sighted in NWL waters were located to the north of Lung Kwu Chau and southwest of Sha Chau. In WL waters, the sightings of UJs were evenly spread along the west coast of Lantau waters, but mostly in the offshore waters near the territorial border. The three UJs sighted in SWL waters were all located along the southern and eastern edges of the Shui Hau Peninsula.

Distribution of CWD Engaged in Different Behavioural Activities

A total of 20 and 17 groups of dolphins were observed to be engaged in feeding and socializing activities respectively during the study period, comprising of 9.1% and 7.8% of all dolphin groups. In addition, there were two groups engaged in traveling activities and one group engaged in milling/resting activity.

Distribution of dolphins engaged in different activities during the shipboard surveys is shown in Figure 9C.16. Most of the feeding activities occurred in the central and southern portions of WL waters. A few sightings engaged in such activities also occurred near the Hong Kong Link Road alignment to the northwest of Shum Wat, as well as to the north of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL waters. In SWL waters, dolphin groups engaged in feeding activities were found along the coastline as well as around the Soko Islands.

In NWL, all three sightings engaged in socializing activities were near the western territorial border, while such sightings were evenly spread in WL waters with no particular concentration. The few dolphin groups engaged in socializing activities in SWL waters were located near Shek Pik and Siu A Chau.

The two dolphin groups engaged in traveling activities were located between Lung Kwu Chau/Sha Chau in NWL and near Shui Hau Peninsula in SWL respectively. The lone group engaged in resting/milling activities was found at the northwestern corner of Lung Kwu Chau.

CWD Encounter Rate

For the 12-month study period, the combined encounter rates of dolphins from NWL, WL, SWL and SEL was 3.4 sightings per 100km of survey effort (DB was excluded with no dolphin sighting made during 467.6km of survey effort). The encounter rate in WL (12.6) was much higher than the ones recorded in SWL (3.6) and NWL (2.4). As there was only one on-effort sighting recorded during 1,661.2 km of survey effort in SEL, the dolphin encounter rate there was 0.1 sightings per 100 km of survey effort.

For the combined dolphin encounter rates of dolphins from NWL, WL and SWL (SEL excluded due to the rare dolphin occurrence), seasonal variation was evident, with much higher encounter rates in summer (24.1) and autumn (20.2) than in winter (9.1) and spring (11.8).

The monthly variations in combined dolphin encounter rates indicated that dolphin occurrences increased noticeably from June through September but dropped to the lowest in March (Figure 9C.19).

CWD Density and Abundance

As there was no dolphin sighting made in the DB survey area, abundance estimation was not conducted for this area. There was only one on-effort sighting made in SEL during the study period, and the abundance estimation was also not feasible. Therefore, the line-transect analysis was only applied to the three survey areas of NWL, WL and SWL.

Only effort and sighting data collected from these three areas under Beaufort 0 – 3 conditions were used in the analysis, which included 3,447.5km of survey effort and 173 dolphin groups for their density and abundance estimations in the survey period (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5 Estimates of Abundance and Associated Parameters for CWD in Different Survey Areas from June 2016 to May 2017

Survey Area	Survey Days	L (km)	n	D (per 100km²)	N	CV(%)
Northwest Lantau (NWL)	24	1156.4	28	19.7	17	52.99
West Lantau (WL)	24	700.9	88	90.2	25	22.14
Southwest Lantau (SWL)	71	1590.2	57	18.4	12	23.73
Southeast Lantau (SEL)	48	1661.4	1	---	---	---

Remarks: L = total length of transect surveyed; n = number of on-effort sightings; D = individual density; N= individual abundance; and CV = coefficient of variation

Among the three survey areas where density estimations were made, WL recorded the highest dolphin density for the 12-month period, with 90.2 individuals/100 km², which was 4-5 times higher than the ones in NWL (19.7) and SWL (18.4).

The abundance estimates of CWD were 25, 17 and 12 dolphins respectively in WL, NWL and SWL survey areas (and zero in DB and SEL survey areas), with a combined estimate of 54 dolphins from the three areas in the survey period (Table 9.5). Notably, the coefficient of variations (CVs) were fairly low for the estimates from the current surveys in WL and SWL, and the resulted estimates from these two areas should be reliable. On the other hand, the CV for estimate in NWL was relatively higher, possibly due to the smaller sample size in number of dolphin groups sighted, and such result should be viewed with caution.

In comparison with the annual abundance estimates from the AFCD long-term marine mammal monitoring study, the estimates from the current survey were generally comparable to the results in 2016 (Figure 9C.20) ([1]). For individual areas, the WL estimate (25 dolphins) from the present survey was slightly lower than the 2016 estimate from the AFCD study (27 dolphins), while the SWL estimate (12 dolphins) from the present survey was slightly higher than the 2016 estimate from the AFCD study (9 dolphins).

Even though the NWL estimate (17 dolphins) from the present survey was noticeably higher than the 2016 estimate from the AFCD study (11 dolphins), the two estimates were not directly comparable, as the present survey only covered the four westernmost transect lines in NWL, where most of the dolphin sightings occurred in 2016 during AFCD monitoring study ([2]). Therefore, the NWL estimate from the present study could have upward bias without surveying the much lower density area in the eastern portion of the NWL survey area.

FP General Distribution

Throughout the 12-month study period, FP were frequently sighted in South Lantau and western Lamma waters, but they did not occur in WL, NWL or DB at all, where the presence of dolphins was predominant year-round (Figure 9C.12).

In South Lantau waters, most porpoise groups were sighted to the south of Tai A Chau, to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau, and in the waters between these two islands. They also occurred in some extent at the southwestern side of Chi Ma Wan Peninsula, at the southern edge of Shui Hau Peninsula, the southwest corner of Cheung Chau, and between the Soko Islands. On the contrary, the porpoises rarely occurred in the western portion of SWL waters, in the inshore waters of Pui O Bay, or at the southeastern portion for SEL.

It is noted that a number of porpoise sightings were made in the vicinity of the potential site for the LNG Terminal. Some porpoise sightings in South Lantau waters were located along the BPPS Pipeline route (i.e. mainly at the section to the south of Tai A Chau extending toward the potential site for the LNG Terminal) and adjacent to the LPS Pipeline route (i.e. mainly at the section to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau extending toward the potential site for the LNG Terminal).

In waters to the west of Lamma Island, most porpoise groups were sighted to the southwest of the island with no particular concentration. However, they were rarely sighted to the southern side of Cheung Chau and near the LPS. It should be noted that only a few porpoise sightings were made along the section of LPS Pipeline route in western Lamma waters.

It should be noted that there was very little overlap in distribution of CWD and FP during the shipboard surveys in 2016 – 2017, even though both species were regularly sighted in South Lantau waters during the 12-month study period (Figures 9C.11 and 9C.12). The only areas with some overlaps of both species were at the southern edge of the Shui Hau Peninsula and the eastern side of the Soko Islands. It appeared that the areas frequented by the dolphins were not used by the porpoises (e.g. the western portion of SWL), and vice versa (e.g. the southern portion of SWL).

Seasonal Variation in FP Distribution

Distinct seasonal variation in porpoise distribution among the three survey areas in southern waters of Hong Kong was observed during the 12-month study period (Figure 9C.17). In South Lantau waters, porpoises were evenly spread between the waters of Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau in winter and spring months (i.e. December to May), and they also occurred in the inshore waters during these two seasons. However, their distribution was largely confined to the offshore waters to the east of Tai A Chau during summer months (i.e. June to August), and the porpoises occurred much less frequently in autumn months (i.e September to November), mainly to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau and at the offshore waters near the southern territorial boundary. Such seasonal pattern was even more pronounced in western Lamma waters, with the majority of porpoise sightings recorded in spring months (i.e. March to May). Only a few porpoise sightings were made there for the rest of the year.

Distribution of FP with Different Group Sizes

During the 12-month shipboard surveys, the porpoise group sizes ranged from singles to 14 animals, with an overall mean of 2.6. The majority of porpoise groups sighted during the study period were very small, with 69.5% of porpoise groups composed of one to two individuals, and all except 24 groups had less than five individuals per group.

The porpoise sighting distributions with different group sizes is shown in Figure 9C.18. The very small groups of one to two porpoises largely resembled their overall distribution during the study period, and the sightings made near Chi Ma Wan Peninsula, Shiu Hau Peninsula as well as the southern end of South Lantau waters were composed mainly of these small porpoise groups.

The medium-sized groups of three to six porpoises were evenly spread across the three survey areas, with the majority of them sighted between Tai A Chau and Shek Kwu Chau. Almost all porpoise sightings made in western Lamma waters were either very small groups of one to two individuals or medium-sized groups of three to six individuals.

Most of the large porpoise groups (with seven to nine animals per group) were located between Shek Kwu Chau and Tai A Chau, and two large groups were also sighted near Chi Ma Wan Peninsula and Cheung Chau respectively. Six porpoise groups were very large with ten or more individuals per group, and five of them were located near Tai A Chau and Shek Kwu Chau, with another one sighted close to the southwestern corner of Lamma Island.

FP Encounter Rate

The combined encounter rates of porpoises from SWL, SEL and LM (the three areas with their occurrences during the 12-month study period) was 3.5 sightings per 100km of survey effort. The encounter rate in SEL (5.5) was higher than the one in SWL (3.4), and much higher than the one in LM (1.9).

Distinct seasonality in porpoise encounter rates was also observed in the southern waters of Hong Kong, with much higher combined porpoise encounter rates recorded in winter (4.5) and spring months (5.9). On the contrary, such rate dropped to the lowest during autumn months (1.5).

The monthly variations in combined porpoise encounter rates indicated that porpoises occurrences peaked during the month of March (coincided with the lowest point for CWD encounter rate), but dropped to the lowest point in September (coincided with the highest point for CWD encounter rate) (Figure 9C.19).

Underwater PAM Survey

Originally, five C-POD units were planned to be deployed at five locations; however, after the initial deployment on 6 January 2017, the C-POD units at the Location 3 and 4 could not be recovered two months later ([3]), and therefore the C-POD data were only available at the Location 1 (Tai A Chau), Location 2 (west of the proposed LNG Terminal; presented as West of HKOLNG hereafter) and Location 5 (Shek Kwu Chau). Although data are only available for three survey locations and the duration of the survey was different from different sites due to the loss of equipment (Table 9.6 for details), the PAM survey covered waters for the control site in Tai A Chau and Shek Kwu Chau and area of the proposed LNG Terminal, and surveys were conducted for both wet and dry seasons as plan. Thus, adequate information regarding occurrence of marine mammal in both day and night time was established to supplement desktop and shipboard survey and compare the relative importance of the proposed LNG Terminal to marine mammal with other areas with known marine mammal occurrence. The summaries of deployment data are presented in Table 9.6, with detection statistics of FP and CWD included in Tables 9D.5 and 9D.6 of Annex 9D.

Table 9.6 Summary of PAM data for each location

Location	Description
Tai A Chau (Location 1)	At the Tai A Chau site, the C-POD units were deployed for 223 logged days (i.e. number of days the C-POD was on and recording) during the period of 6 October 2016 to 27 July 2017. It should be noted that about 165 days were lost during the 13-month monitoring period from 5 December 2016 to 17 February 2017 and from 27 July 2017 to 27 October 2017, as a C-POD unit deployed on 5 December 2016 and 27 July 2017 was lost and not recovered⁽¹⁾. Porpoise activity was recorded on all except 11 days (95.07%), with the mean porpoise DPM per day to be 208.09. After the removal of false positives, 27.35% of all days (i.e. 61 days in total) recorded at Tai A Chau contained dolphin activity with a total of 868 DPM (or 3.89 mean DPM/day) during the 13-month period.
West of HKOLNG (Location 2)	At the West of HKOLNG, the C-POD units were deployed for 204 logged days during the period of 6 January 2017 to 30 June 2017. It should be noted that about 92 days were lost during the 10-month monitoring period from 27 July 2017 to 27 October 2017, as a C-POD unit deployed on 27 July 2017 was lost and not recovered ⁽¹⁾. Porpoise activity was recorded on all days (100%), with the mean porpoise DPM per day to be 369.64. On the contrary, after the removal of false positives, only 4.41% of all days recorded at this site contained dolphin activity with a total of 13 DPM (or 0.06 mean DPM/day) during the 10-month period.
Shek Kwu Chau (Location 5)	At the Shek Kwu Chau site, the C-POD units were deployed for 381 logged days during the period of 6 October 2016 to 27 October 2017. Only about 7 days were lost during the 13-month monitoring period from 14 April 2017 to 20 April 2017 ⁽²⁾. Porpoise activity was recorded on 92.39% of all day with the mean porpoise DPM per day to be 115.67. After the removal of false positives, 14.17% of all days (i.e. 54 days in total) recorded at Shek Kwu Chau contained dolphin activity with a total of 345 DPM (or 0.91 mean DPM/day) during the 13-month monitoring period.

Notes:

(1) Evidence of fishing activities, such as fragments of fishing nets, were recorded on the C-POD holder at location 1 and dragging trail of the C-POD holder was observed on the seabed at location 4 in February 2017, it is suspected that the missing C-POD units and holders may be due to illegal trawling or other fishing activities in South Lantau waters.

(2) The C-POD unit was knocked off by hard object during the deployment period. It is also suspected to be caused by illegal trawling or other fishing activities.

Detections (in terms of DPM) by PAM are used as a proxy to evaluate the occurrence of marine mammals at a site. Variation in detections across sites or over time is therefore indicative of the level of usage in different sites or at different times.

Occurrence of Marine Mammals in the Three Sites

Finless Porpoise

In comparison among the three sites, the porpoise occurrence at the West of HKOLNG (Location 2) was the highest (369.64 DPM per day), followed by the Tai A Chau site (Location 1; 208.09 DPM per day) and Shek Kwu Chau site (Location 5; 115.67 DPM per day) (Table 9.6).

The present result is somewhat different from patterns from the long-term marine mammal monitoring programme (i.e. daytime shipboard survey) conducted by AFCD from 2007 to 2016 ([4]). Since the corresponding grids of the West of HKOLNG site (Location 2; Grid 35N) and Shek Kwu Chau (Location 5; Grid 31S) both recorded only low porpoise densities, while the one at the Tai A Chau (Location 1; Grid 35J) recorded moderate porpoise densities. The differences in FP occurrence patterns may reflect the diel pattern of porpoise occurrence, in which porpoise activity was considerably lower during the daylight hours, when line-transect vessel surveys were regularly conducted, than in the late hours at night and early hours in the morning when visual monitoring is not possible.

Chinese White Dolphin

The dolphin occurrence at the Tai A Chau site (Location 1; 3.89 DPM per day) was the highest among the three sites, while the dolphins rarely occurred at the Shek Kwu Chau site (Location 5; 0.91) and were nearly absent from the West of LNG Terminal (Location 2; 0.06) (Table 9.6).

During the present survey and the AFCD long term marine mammal monitoring conducted in South Lantau waters in 2007 – 2016, three groups of 25 dolphins were sighted to the south of Tai A Chau, while only one group of a single dolphin was sighted to the southeast of Shek Kwu Chau (where the C-POD was deployed for the present study), and no dolphin was sighted at all near the West of LNG Terminal site. Therefore, the PAM results are consistent with the dolphin occurrence pattern deduced from the vessel surveys, even though the PAM data also included information on their occurrence outside of the daylight hours as well.

Seasonal Variations in Occurrences of Marine Mammals

The activity of FP in different months in all deployments at the three sites is summarised in Figure 9C.21 and Table 9.7. When compared with the porpoises, the level of dolphin activity was at a much lower level (Figure 9C.22, Table 9.8).

Table 9.7 Summary of Seasonal Variation in FP Occurrence Detected in the Underwater PAM Survey

Location	Description
Tai A Chau (Location 1)	Porpoise activity was much higher in the months of March and April 2017 when compared to the other months of deployment. Notable peaks occurred during the last week of March 2017 and the second week of April 2017.
West of HKOLNG (Location 2)	May and June 2017 recorded the highest activity month for porpoises in terms of total DPM. The second week of June 2017 recorded the highest total DPM, followed by the third week of February 2017.
Shek Kwu Chau (Location 5)	Porpoise activity was generally higher from the month of January to May 2017 but lower in October to December 2016 as well as in June to October 2017. Notable peaks occurred during the first week of May 2017, followed by the first week of January 2017.

Table 9.8 Summary of Seasonal Variation in CWD Occurrence Detected in the Underwater PAM Survey

Location	Description
Tai A Chau (Location 1)	Dolphin activity at Tai A Chau site was much higher than the other two sites. It should be noted that such activity was only sporadically recorded during the last week of October 2016 and last week of November 2016, but increased substantially starting from the second week of June 2017 and reached the highest until the second week of July 2017.
West of HKOLNG (Location 2)	On the contrary, almost no dolphin activity was recorded at the West of HKOLNG, and only slightly more at Shek Kwu Chau.
Shek Kwu Chau (Location 5)

Finless Porpoise

The PAM results on FP occurrence are consistent with the seasonal occurrence pattern of porpoises recorded during the vessel-based line-transect surveys. At all three sites, porpoise activities were considerably higher during the spring months (i.e. March to May), while their occurrence was much lower in autumn months of October and November (Figure 9C.17).

However, it is important to note that the porpoise activities dropped noticeably in May and June at Tai A Chau (Location 1), and in June at Shek Kwu Chau (Location 5), while such activity remained at similar levels at the West of LNG Terminal in May and June until second week of July (Figure 9C.21). The PAM survey data is consistent with the 12-month marine mammal shipboard survey conducted for the present study. Porpoises predominantly occurred in the offshore waters to the east of Tai A Chau during the summer months (Figure 9C.17).

Chinese White Dolphin

The PAM results on dolphin occurrence are consistent with the occurrence pattern of dolphins recorded during the vessel-based line-transect surveys. Dolphin occurrences near Shek Kwu Chau or the West of LNG Terminal (i.e. the offshore waters of Southeast Lantau region) were extremely rare in the past monitoring surveys (Figure 9C.13). On the other hand, they occurred occasionally to the south of Tai A Chau in the past, and mainly during the summer and late autumn to early winter (Figure 9C.13).

Diel Patterns on Occurrences of Marine Mammals

FP activity in different hours of the day at the three sites is examined and comparison was made on the diel patterns among the three sites by each month (Figure 9C.23). Similarities in the diel patterns were the most noticeable in the months of March, April and May 2017, when all three sites showed a decline in porpoise activity from late morning to the middle of the day to some extent. Due to the low level of dolphin activity in the three sites for the monitoring period, only one diel pattern from all months was examined (Figure 9C.24). Dolphin activity was at the lowest level in the middle of the day, while the highest activity was recorded from early evening until late at night and a lower peak in activity early in the morning.

The underwater PAM survey provided information on the 24 hour-activity pattern of CWD and FP, which has never been examined before for FP. Similar to the CWD ([5]) ([6]), the diel pattern on porpoise occurrence was distinct among the three sites at various months, with a considerable increase in activity in late hours at night and very early hours in the morning that were outside of the daylight hours. As such, the application of PAM has demonstrated its importance to provide supplementary data on the FP and CWD habitat use.

Marine Mammal Baseline Review

To provide a more up-to-date and detailed profile on the occurrence, distribution and abundance of marine mammal in the Assessment Area, an in-depth review of data from the 10-year period of April 2007 to March 2017 for the Assessment Area was conducted. This review included the 10 years of data collected by AFCD and the Hong Kong Cetacean Research Project (HKCRP), analyzed together with the data collected from the 12-month surveys (June 2016 to May 2017) for the present EIA Study. Details of this review are presented in the following sections.

Chinese White Dolphin (CWD)

During the 10-year period of 2007-17, 4,637 groups of 16,649 CWD were sighted in total in five survey areas (Deep Bay (DB), Northwest Lantau (NWL), West Lantau (WL), Southwest Lantau (SWL) and Southeast Lantau (SEL)). Among them, 3,590 groups of 13,071 dolphins were sighted during on-effort search effort of vessel line-transect surveys. CWD were frequently sighted in WL (1,995 groups of 7,393 dolphins) and NWL (1,113 groups of 4,145 dolphins) during on-effort search. They were also regularly sighted in SWL (417 groups of 1,316 dolphins). On the contrary, they were sighted infrequently in DB (54 groups of 180 dolphins) and rarely sighted in SEL (11 groups of 37 dolphins) during the ten-year period, as these two areas were known as marginal habitats for CWD in the past.

Overall Distribution

Distribution of CWD sightings made during on-effort search from the line-transect surveys in 2007-17 is shown in Figure 9D.1. In NWL waters, the sightings were more concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau, near Black Point, Pillar Point, to the north of the airport platform, and at the southwestern end near Shum Wat. Dolphins were densely distributed in WL waters, which overlap with the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline in this area. On the other hand, dolphins were mostly sighted along the coastal waters (spanning from Fan Lau to Shui Hau Peninsula) and around the Soko Islands in SWL waters, and some dolphin sightings were located at and near the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline. Dolphins were regularly sighted within DB, but to a much smaller extent when compared to the nearby NWL waters. Dolphins were mostly sighted at the mouth of Deep Bay, and some dolphin sightings overlapped with the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline. Dolphins rarely occurred in SEL waters, with only 11 sightings made for the entire ten-year period. These sightings were mostly made to the east of Shui Hau Peninsula and near Chi Ma Wan Peninsula, and all these sightings were at a distance from the proposed routes of the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline as well as the proposed site for LNG Terminal.

Habitat Use Patterns

To take into account of the variations of survey effort across different sections within a survey area, among different survey areas and across different years, the quantitative grid analysis of habitat use was conducted to examine CWD usage among 1-km² grids within the six survey areas (DB, NWL, Northeast Lantau (NEL), WL, SWL and SEL) ([7]). For the grid analysis, SPSE (sighting density) ([8]) and DPSE (dolphin density) ([9]) values are deduced for the 352 grids in the six survey areas for evaluation on level of CWD usage.

Several areas were identified with very high SPSE and DPSE values (Figure 9D.2). These included several grids around Lung Kwu Chau in NWL, a number grids along the coastal waters of WL (especially near Tai O Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan, Peaked Hill), and the few grids near Fan Lau and Kau Ling Chung at the border of WL and SWL survey areas (Figure 9D.2) ([10]). On the contrary, the grids within the survey areas of NEL, SEL and DB all recorded very low densities of dolphins. The northern end of WL survey area, the southern and eastern ends of NWL survey area, and most of the SWL survey area also recorded relatively low densities of dolphins during the 10-year period. CWD did not utilize the grids that overlap with the LNG Terminal and the LPS Pipeline. At WL the BPPS Pipeline route overlaps with dolphin density grids of moderate to very high dolphin densities.

Calf Occurrence

From 2007 to 2017, a total of 105 unspotted calves (UCs) and 546 unspotted juveniles (UJs) were sighted with their mothers during on-effort vessel surveys. Distribution of these young calves for the ten-year period is shown in Figure 9D.3. The majority of the UCs were sighted in NWL and WL waters, concentrated in waters between Lung Kwu Chau and Black Point, near Tai O Peninsula, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau. A number of UCs were sighted along or adjacent to the BPPS Pipeline route in the section in WL. On the other hand, the UJs were widely distributed throughout North and West Lantau waters, with the exception of the waters around the airport platform as well as the northern and eastern ends of NEL waters (Figure 9D.3). UJs were sighted along and adjacent to the BPPS Pipeline route within NWL and WL survey areas.

A number of grids in NEL, NWL and SWL survey areas recorded low densities of UJs, while no UC was recorded in DB and SEL waters at all. In WL waters, most grids recorded low densities of UCs, with the exception of five grids with moderate densities recorded, which were located between Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan (Grids D24-25), near Peaked Hill (Grids B28 and A29), and at Fan Lau (Grid C30) (Figure 9D.4). Only a small number of grids in WL waters with low to moderate densities of UCs overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route.

A number of grids recorded moderate to high densities of UJs, including the ones to the north of Lung Kwu Chau (Grid H9) and Tai O Peninsula (Grids E23), near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Grids C26-27) and Fan Lau (Grid C30) (Figure 9D.4). All grids in WL and some grids in NWL and SWL with recorded densities of UJs overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route, but such densities were relatively low.

Behavioural Activities

During 2007 to 2017, there were 501 and 212 sightings of dolphin groups with feeding and socializing activities respectively. Distribution of feeding and socializing activities is shown in Figure 9D.5. The sightings associated for both activities were mainly clustered around The Brothers in NEL, around Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park as well as Black Point in NWL, and throughout the entire coastal waters of WL. In SWL, these sightings were also frequently made along the coastline from Fan Lau to Shui Hau Peninsula, as well as around the Soko Islands. Only a few dolphin sightings associated with feeding activities were made in SEL and DB. A number of sightings associated with these two activities overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route in the section to the west of Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau as well as in WL (Figure 9D.5). Only 43 and 5 sightings of dolphin groups were engaged in traveling and milling/resting activities respectively during the same period.

The grids with moderate to high densities of sightings associated with feeding activities were mainly clustered to the east of Lung Kwu Chau (Grids H10-11), to the north of Tai O Peninsula (Grids D23 & E23), near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Grids B27, C25-27) and at Fan Lau (Grid C30) (Figure 9D.6). The sighting densities in grids that recorded dolphin sightings associated with socializing activities were generally low for most grids in DB, NEL, NWL, WL and SWL survey areas, and only the grids to the north of Lung Kwu Chau in NWL (Grid G8) and near Kai Kung Shan in WL (Grid C27) recorded moderate level of socializing activities (Figure 9D.6). The BPPS Pipeline route in DB, NWL and SWL overlaps with a number of grids with low densities of dolphin sightings associated with feeding and socializing activities as well as all grids in WL with the exception of one grid to the west of Kai Kung Shan (Grid B27) which recorded moderate density of dolphin sightings associated with feeding activities (Figure 9D.6).

Individual Range Use

Up to March 2017, a total of 920 individual CWDs have been identified in Hong Kong waters and the rest of the Pearl River Estuary ([11]). In total, 189 individual dolphins have been seen 15 times or more in western waters of Hong Kong during the ten-year period of 2007-2017, and their ranging patterns were further examined.

For these 189 individual dolphins, the grids with high proportion of individuals utilizing as their 50% UD core areas ([12]) occurred along the entire coastal waters of WL survey area, extending from the north of Tai O Peninsula to Fan Lau (Figure 9D.7). A number of grids around Lung Kwu Chau also recorded a high number of individual dolphins utilizing these areas as their 50% UD core areas. The grids with high proportion of individuals utilizing as their 25% UD core areas were also concentrated around Lung Kwu Chau and the entire coastal waters of WL from Tai O Peninsula to Fan Lau (Figure 9D.7). Most grids in WL with the utilization as 50% UD and 25% UD core areas by a high number of individual dolphins overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route. The three grids to the west and northwest of Lung Kwu Chau (Grids F8-10) which overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline also recorded the utilization as core areas by moderate to high numbers of individual dolphins (Figure 9D.7).

Finless Porpoises (FP)

During the 10-year period of 2007-2017, a total of 1,191 groups of 3,266 FP were sighted in three of the six survey areas (i.e. SWL, SEL and Lamma (LM)), of which 84% of these sightings were made during the dry season (i.e. winter and spring months). Of the 1,191 groups, 932 of them were sighted during on-effort search effort from vessel line transect surveys. FP were most frequently sighted in SEL (416 groups of 1,067 porpoises) during on-effort search. They were also regularly sighted in SWL (253 groups of 752 porpoises) and in LM (263 groups of 769 porpoises). On the contrary, the porpoises were not sighted at all in DB, NWL and WL, and their absence in these waters was consistent with previous monitoring effort in the past two decades.

Overall Distribution

Distribution of FP sightings made during on-effort search from the line-transect surveys in 2007-2017 is shown in Figure 9D.8. In South Lantau waters, the majority of porpoise sightings were concentrated to the south and east of Tai A Chau, around Shek Kwu Chau, and in the offshore waters between Shek Kwu Chau and the Soko Islands. The porpoises also occurred at the channel between Shek Kwu Chau and Cheung Chau, along the coastline at the southern side of Shui Hau Peninsula, and at the southwest corner of Chi Ma Wan Peninsula, but to a much smaller extent. The porpoises were absent from the western portion of SWL survey area, and the southeastern portion of SEL survey area. Porpoise sightings overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route to the south of Tai A Chau, and near the LPS Pipeline section to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau extending toward the proposed LNG Terminal. A number of porpoise groups were also sighted at and near the proposed LNG Terminal. In western Lamma waters, the porpoise sightings were more concentrated to the south of Cheung Chau as well as the southwestern side of Lamma Island, but they were infrequently sighted near the LPS and the offshore waters further south of Cheung Chau. Only a few sightings overlapped with the LPS Pipeline route within this survey area.

Seasonal variation in porpoise distribution was observed in the southern waters of Hong Kong (Figure 9D.9). Although porpoises occurred in South Lantau waters year-round, their occurrence was higher in winter and spring (December to May) when their distribution was more widespread in both SWL and SEL. On the other hand, they occurred in much smaller extent in these waters during summer and autumn (June to November), when their occurrences were largely confined to the waters between Shek Kwu Chau and the Soko Islands but were quite rare in the inshore waters. The seasonal occurrence of porpoises were even more prominent in western Lamma waters, with a strong surge of porpoise occurrence beginning in winter and reaching the peak in spring, followed by a near absence in summer and autumn .

Habitat Use Patterns

Since FP exhibited pronounced seasonal pattern of distribution, the ten-year dataset was further stratified into winter/spring (December to May) and summer/autumn (June to November) to deduce habitat use patterns of porpoises for the dry and wet seasons respectively, as in previous AFCD monitoring studies ([13]).

Based on the quantitative grid analysis within the three survey areas (SWL, SEL and LM), several areas were identified with higher SPSE and DPSE values during the dry season (Figure 9D.10). These included the grids to the south of Tai A Chau (Grid J35), to the west and southwest of Shek Kwu Chau (Grids Q30 & R31), the offshore waters between Shek Kwu Chau and Tai A Chau (Grids N33 & O34), and to the south of Cheung Chau (Grid W31). In waters to the west of Lamma Island, only a few grids to the southwest of the island recorded moderate porpoise densities during the dry season (Grids BB32 & EE32). On the contrary, the porpoises occurred infrequently at the northern and western ends of SWL survey area, the northern and southeastern ends of SEL survey area, and most areas within LM survey area with the exception of a few grids in the southern waters of Cheung Chau and southwestern waters of Lamma Island. During the wet season, much fewer grids with lower densities have recorded porpoise usage than during the dry season (Figure 9D.11). The grids with relatively higher porpoise densities during the wet season were concentrated to the south and southeast of Tai A Chau (e.g. Grids J36, M35), to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau (e.g. Grids R31, Q32), and between the Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau (e.g. Grid N34, O33). A number of grids in the offshore waters to the southwest of Lamma Island also recorded higher porpoise densities. However, the results of these density grids should be treated with some cautions, as the survey effort per grid among these grids were generally low (within the range of 20 - 30 units only) during the wet season of the ten-year period. A number of grids recorded moderate to high porpoise densities near the proposed LNG Terminal (Grids O34 & P34), near the BPPS Pipeline route (Grid J35) and LPS Pipeline route (Grids Q32 & BB32) during the dry season. In the wet season, more grids near the proposed LNG Terminal (Grids O34 & P34), along the BPPS Pipeline route (Grids J36 & M35) and LPS Pipeline route (Grids Q32, R32 & Y33) recorded relatively higher porpoise densities.

Group Sizes

The porpoise group sizes were also examined in detail as a parameter of habitat use, with the assumption that large aggregation of porpoises would suggest association with important foraging and socializing activities. During the dry season, the majority of porpoise groups sighted among the three survey areas (SWL, SEL, LM) was very small, with 62.3% of the groups composed of 1 - 2 animals, and 85.1% of the groups with 1 - 4 animals. Most porpoise groups were also very small during the wet season, with 67.1% of the porpoise groups composed of 1 - 2 animals, and 87.2% of the groups with 1 - 4 animals.

For the larger porpoise groups (i.e. at least 5 animals per group), they were mainly distributed to the south and east of Tai A Chau, to the west of Shek Kwu Chau, to the south of Cheung Chau, and to the southwest of Lamma Island (Figure 9D.12). Only a small number of large porpoise groups were sighted along the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline routes or near the proposed LNG Terminal.

Average group sizes of porpoises were calculated for each of the 311 grids in SWL, SEL and LM survey areas (Figure 9D.13). During the dry season, the grids that recorded larger average porpoise group size were evenly spread throughout the three survey areas, with slightly higher concentrations around the Soko Islands, Shek Kwu Chau, Cheung Chau and the southwestern side of Lamma Island. On the other hand, the grids that recorded larger average porpoise group size during the wet season were mostly located around Tai A Chau and to the west of Shek Kwu Chau. During the dry season, two grids that overlapped with the proposed LNG Terminal (Grid O34 & P34) recorded medium average porpoise group sizes, while several grids that overlapped with the BPPS Pipeline route (Grid H35) and LPS Pipeline route (Grids P32, V32, Z32, AA32 & BB31) recorded larger average porpoise group sizes. On the other hand, only a few grids along the BPPS Pipeline route (Grids H35 & L35) and LPS Pipeline Route (Grids Q32 & U32) recorded larger average porpoise group sizes during the wet season.

Marine Fishes

A total of 76 species from 35 families adult fish species were recorded from the Assessment Area from the gill-netting and hand-lining surveys during the survey period from October 2016 to June 2017. The dominant fish species recorded in the survey, in terms of both biomass and abundance, was the croaker Johnius belangerii. The full list of species recorded during the surveys is presented in Annex 10D.

Abundance and biomass of marine fishes in the survey locations are summarized in Table 9.9 and detailed in Annex 10D. Overall, the highest total abundance and biomass of adult fish was recorded in Site 3 (Tai O) as contributed by a high biomass of the croaker Johnius belangerii. Total species richness was the highest in Sites 9 and 11 (Shek Kwu Chau South and Cheung Chau Southeast). Compared with other survey locations of the Assessment Area, Site 8 (LNG Terminal) showed relatively low biomass and abundance of adult fish. The location with the lowest total biomass, abundance and species richness of adult fish is Site 4 (Peaked Hill).

Table 9.9 Total Abundance, Biomass and Species Richness of Adult Fish of the Assessment Area

Survey Location	Total Biomass (kg)	Total Abundance (No. of Individuals)	Total Species Richness
1 (Deep Bay)	6.41	95	10
2 (Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau)	5.88	78	12
3 (Tai O)	14.24	175	12
4 (Peaked Hill)	1.41	22	3
5 (Fan Lau Kok)	6.67	129	11
6 (South of Soko Islands)	5.46	131	10
7 (Tau Lo Chau East)	8.42	141	14
8 (LNG Terminal)	4.32	77	13
9 (Shek Kwu Chau South)	9.97	112	15
10 (Cheung Chau South)	4.39	46	7
11 (Cheung Chau Southeast)	4.17	70	15
12 (West Lamma)	7.23	121	10
Overall	78.58	1197	76

Survey duration: nine months

A total of 11 fish species of conservation importance were recorded from the survey and they are listed in Table 9.10. All the species with conservation importance, except the croaker Johnius trewavasae, occurred in low abundance (i.e. <2% of the total abundance) compared to the dominant species Johnius belangerii which contributed to about 24% of the total abundance. A total of four, 11 and six species of conservation importance were recorded near the LNG Terminal site (Site 8), along the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline (Sites 1 – 7) and along the proposed route of the LPS Pipeline (Sites 9 – 12), respectively. It appears that none of these species is unique to a particular location of the Assessment Area, and many of these species were also reported elsewhere in Hong Kong waters. For example, Dasyatis zugei, Collichthys lucidus, Dendrophysa russelii, Larimichthys crocea and Otolithes ruber were also reported in North Lantau waters ([14]). Evynnis cardinalis has been reported to have a wide distribution all over Hong Kong inshore waters ([15]), and Scoliodon laticaudus is one of the most common marketed shark species in Hong Kong and southern China ([16]). The seven croaker species and Cynoglossus roulei are susceptible to overexploitation by bottom trawling especially in the PRC; such susceptibility is much reduced in Hong Kong given all forms of trawling have been banned since late 2012.

Table 9.10 Adult Fishes Recorded with Conservation Importance

Family	Species	IUCN Red List	China Species Red List	% of Total Abundance	Recorded Location
Family	Species	IUCN Red List	China Species Red List	% of Total Abundance	LNG Terminal	BPPS Pipeline	LPS Pipeline
Carcharhinidae	Scoliodon laticaudus	Near Threatened	-	2.00%	ü	ü	ü
Cynoglossidae	Cynoglossus roulei	-	Endangered	0.25%	-	ü	-
Dasyatidae	Dasyatis zugei	Near Threatened	-	0.42%	-	ü	ü
Sciaenidae	Chrysochir aureus	-	Vulnerable	0.25%	-	ü	ü
Sciaenidae	Collichthys lucidus	-	Vulnerable	0.67%	ü	ü	ü
Sciaenidae	Dendrophysa russelii	-	Vulnerable	0.50%	-	ü	-
Sciaenidae	Johnius carouna	-	Vulnerable	0.17%	-	ü	-
Sciaenidae	Johnius trewavasae	-	Vulnerable	6.43%	ü	ü	ü
Sciaenidae	Larimichthys crocea	-	Vulnerable	0.08%	-	ü	-
Sciaenidae	Otolithes ruber	-	Vulnerable	0.05%	-	ü	-
Sparidae	Evynnis cardinalis	Endangered	-	2.00%	ü	ü	ü

Boat-based Avifauna Survey

Abundance and Distribution

A total of 2,645 individuals of 39 bird species were recorded during the surveys (Tables 2 and 3 of Annex 9E). The recorded bird species were classified in six (6) groups, including Birds of Prey, Egrets & Herons, Waterbirds and Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons), Gulls & Terns, Seabirds (excluded Gulls & Terns) and Others (Landbirds) (Table 9.11). About half of the identified species are common and widely distributed in Hong Kong such as Black Kite Milvus migrans, Chinese Bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis, Large-billed Crow Corvus macrorhynchos and Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica.

Table 9.11 Bird Species Recorded within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the Surveys

Bird Group	Family	Common Name	Species Name
Birds of Prey	Accipitridae	Black Kite	Milvus migrans
	Accipitridae	Common Buzzard	Buteo japonicus
	Accipitridae	Crested Goshawk	Accipiter trivirgatus
	Accipitridae	Crested Serpent Eagle	Spilornis cheela
	Accipitridae	White-bellied Sea Eagle	Haliaeetus leucogaster
	Falconidae	Common Kestrel	Falco tinnunculus
	Falconidae	Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus
Egrets & Herons	Ardeidae	Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus
	Ardeidae	Great Egret	Ardea alba
	Ardeidae	Little Egret	Egretta garzetta
	Ardeidae	Pacific Reef Egret	Egretta sacra
Gulls & Terns	Laridae	Black-headed Gull	Chroicocephalus ridibundus
	Laridae	Black-tailed Gull	Larus crassirostris
	Laridae	Yellow-legged Gull	Larus cachinnans
	Sternidae	Aleutian Tern	Onychoprion aleuticus
	Sternidae	Black-naped Tern	Sterna sumatrana
	Sternidae	Bridled Tern	Onychoprion anaethetus
	Sternidae	Common Tern	Sterna hirundo
	Sternidae	Greater Crested Tern	Thalasseus bergii
	Sternidae	Little Tern	Sternula albifrons
	Sternidae	Roseate Tern	Sterna dougallii
	Sternidae	Whiskered Tern	Chlidonias hybrida
	Sternidae	White-winged Tern	Chlidonias leucopterus
Seabirds (excluded Gulls & Terns)	Scolopacidae	Red-necked Phalarope	Phalaropus lobatus
Seabirds (excluded Gulls & Terns)	Stercorariidae	Pomarine Jaeger	Stercorarius pomarinus
Waterbirds and Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	Alcedinidae	Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis
	Anatidae	Northern Pintail	Anas acuta
	Scolopacidae	Common Sandpiper	Actitis hypoleucos
	Scolopacidae	Grey-tailed Tattler	Tringa brevipes
	Scolopacidae	Whimbrel	Numenius phaeopus
Others (Landbirds)	Apodidae	House Swift	Apus nipalensis
	Columbidae	Spotted Dove	Spilopelia chinensis
	Corvidae	Large-billed Crow	Corvus macrorhynchos
	Dicruridae	Black Drongo	Dicrurus macrocercus
	Hirundinidae	Barn Swallow	Hirundo rustica
	Laniidae	Long-tailed Shrike	Lanius schach
	Muscicapidae	Blue Rock Thrush	Monticola solitarius
	Pycnonotidae	Chinese Bulbul	Pycnonotus sinensis
	Sturnidae	Crested Myna	Acridotheres cristatellus

Seabirds in particular Gulls and Terns showed the highest mean abundance (~43% of total birds observed) and number of species (12 species) during the surveys. Birds of Prey had the second highest mean abundance while Others (Landbirds) had the second highest number of species (Table 9.12). The five most abundant species recorded were Black Kite Milvus migrans (~28.0%), Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus (~10.0%), White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus (~9.6%), Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana (~9.5%) and Chinese Bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis (~8.4%) (Table 4 of Annex 9E). The detailed bird data are shown in Table 4 of Annex 9E.

Seasonal variation in overall abundance and number of observed species was also apparent in which numbers were the highest in spring and lowest in summer (Table 9.12). Birds of Prey, Egrets and Heron, Gulls and Terns, Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons) and Others (Landbirds) were present all year round within the Avifauna Assessment Area while Seabirds were observed in spring and autumn only (Figures 9C.25 to 9C.30).

Table 9.12 Total and Mean Abundance of Birds within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the Surveys

Bird Group	Total no. of Individuals Recorded
Bird Group	Spring	Summer	Autumn	Winter	Overall
Birds of Prey	159	158	199	264	780
Egrets & Herons	107	28	27	27	189
Gulls & Terns	516	257	225	137	1,135
Seabirds	29	0	2	0	31
Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	12	4	6	1	23
Others	102	54	50	281	487
Total	925	501	509	710	2,645

Bird Group	Mean Abundance (No. of Individuals per Survey Trip)					%
	Spring	Summer	Autumn	Winter	Overall
	(n = 6)	(n = 6)	(n = 6)	(n = 6)	(n = 24)
Birds of Prey	26.5	26.3	33.2	44.0	32.5	29
Egrets & Herons	17.8	4.7	4.5	4.5	7.9	7
Gulls & Terns	86.0	42.8	37.5	22.8	47.3	43
Seabirds	4.8	0.0	0.3	0.0	1.3	1
Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	2.0	0.7	1.0	0.2	1.0	1
Others	17.0	9.0	8.3	46.8	20.3	18
Total	154.2	83.5	84.8	118.3	110.2	100

Bird Group	Total no. of Species Recorded
Bird Group	Spring	Summer	Autumn	Winter	Overall
Birds of Prey	5	2	5	4	7
Egrets & Herons	4	3	3	1	4
Gulls & Terns	10	4	6	2	12
Seabirds	2	0	1	0	2
Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	1	3	2	1	5
Others	6	6	6	6	9
Total	28	18	23	14	39

Notes: Spring (March to May), Summer (June to August), Autumn (September to November), Winter (December to February)

Bird Density

Taking into account of all effective bird sighting records, the analysis of bird density per 1 km² grid suggested that relatively higher bird density (three to more than five bird individuals per effective trip per 1 km²) was observed near west of Soko Islands, East of Siu A Chau, open sea area at west and northeast of Shek Kwu Chau, as well as southwest of Chi Ma Wan Peninsula (Figure 9C.31). Similar pattern was observed in all seasons but more birds were recorded over the open sea in spring and winter (more than three bird individuals per effective trip per 1 km², Figure 9C.32).

Bird Activities and Elevation ([17])

During the surveys, most of the bird species observed were either flying (~39.8%) or roosting (~25.3%) within the Avifauna Assessment Area. Small numbers of birds were seen soaring (~15.0%), foraging (~13.2%) and swimming (~6.7%) in the area (Table 9.13). Noticeable seasonal variation was also observed in which more flying birds (~44-56%) were seen in spring and autumn during the migratory season while more roosting activities (~33-44%) were observed in summer and winter. More bird species were seen roosting in winter (Figure 9C.33). Details of the activities data of each bird species are shown in Table 5 of Annex 9E.

Table 9.13 Bird Activities observed within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the Surveys

	Total No. of Individuals Recorded
	Flying	Roosting	Soaring	Foraging	Swimming
Bird Group
Birds of Prey	87	94	398	201	0
Egrets & Herons	104	76	0	9	0
Gulls & Terns	608	258	0	120	149
Seabirds	3	0	0	0	28
Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	7	15	0	1	0
Others	244	225	0	18	0
Total	1,053	668	398	349	177
Season
Spring	516	103	88	41	177
Summer	164	167	64	106	0
Autumn	226	86	79	118	0
Winter	147	312	167	84	0
Total	1,053	668	398	349	177

Elevation of observed bird individuals were categorised according to the indicative height of the LNG Terminal (~65 m above sea level). Within the Avifauna Assessment Area, over half (~ 74%) of the total birds observed were either resting/below the height of the proposed LNG Terminal indicating that these bird species were generally staying/flying low over the sea surface (Table 9.14). More individuals flying with an elevation range of 1 to 65 m above sea level were observed in the open sea in spring while birds flying/soaring above 65 m above sea level (mainly Birds of Prey) were typically found close to the shoreline (Figures 9C.33 and 9C.25).

Individual bird groups also exhibited clear behavioural patterns. Birds of Prey, mainly the Black Kite, were generally seen flying/soaring with height >65 m above sea level while more individuals with this height were observed over the open sea in winter (Figure 9C.25). Egrets and Herons were observed low-flying (1-65 m above sea level) near the coastline and over open sea (Figure 9C.26). Gulls and terns were found in offshore waters and were usually seen low-flying (1-65 m above sea level). Most foraging / swimming activities and large roosting groups (> 25 individuals) were observed in the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau during winter and spring (Figure 9C.27). Seabirds (excluded Gulls & Terns) (Red-necked Phalarope and Pomarine Jaeger) were found at Soko Islands and the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau during spring and autumn (Figure 9C.28). Usually seen over open sea in spring, Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets and Herons), exhibited more roosting activities and also low-flying during the surveys (Figure 9C.29). The remaining bird groups (Landbirds) were mostly flying with elevations 1-65 m above sea level (Figure 9C.30).

Details of the elevation data of each bird species are shown in Table 5 of Annex 9E.

Table 9.14 Bird Elevation observed within Avifauna Assessment Area during the Surveys

	Total No. of Individuals Recorded
	Sea-level 0 m	Below Height of LNG Terminal (>0 – 65 m)	Above LNG Terminal (> 65 m)
Bird Group
Birds of Prey	1	314	465
Egrets & Herons	0	189	0
Gulls & Terns	220	904	11
Seabirds	25	6	0
Waterbirds & Wetland Dependent Birds (excluded Egrets & Herons)	0	23	0
Others	0	285	202
Total	246	1,721	678
Season
Spring	202	581	142
Summer	1	419	81
Autumn	37	343	129
Winter	6	378	326
Total	246	1,721	678

Breeding Activity

No sign of breeding behaviour or nests was observed within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the surveys. Meanwhile, 110 individuals of four species of juvenile birds were observed during the surveys, including Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana, Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris, Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus and White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster. Of note is that juvenile Black-naped Terns were observed in summer near Soko Islands, which is close to the known breeding colonies recorded in previous years.

Bird Species of Conservation Interest

There were 24 bird species of conservation interest (either listed as protected in the PRC, listed in CITES, listed as Near Threatened or above under IUCN Red List or with status listed under Fellowes et al. (2002)) recorded within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the surveys. None of them were observed within the LNG Terminal site.

· White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster – recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC, listed as an indeterminate species in the China Red Data Book and CITES Appendix II, and listed as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon resident in Hong Kong. This eagle was recorded in relatively low numbers in all seasons within the Avifauna Assessment Area during the surveys. Most of the bird activities were observed at west of Shek Kwu Chau and at west of Tai A Chau flying/soaring at >65m above sea level (Figure 9C.34).

· Black Kite Milvus migrans – recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC, in CITES Appendix II and listed as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common and widespread resident in Hong Kong. This bird was the most abundant species recorded during the surveys (a total of 740 individuals and ~95% of the total number of Birds of Prey recorded, maximum group size was 12) and more individuals were recorded in winter. Most of the birds were seen foraging/soaring with height over 65 m above sea level and they were mainly distributed around the shoreline (Figure 9C.35).

· Common Buzzard Buteo japonicas – recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC and CITES Appendix II. It is a common and widespread winter visitor in Hong Kong. A total of seven sightings were recorded in Soko Islands, Shek Kwu Chau and Lo Kei Wan, mainly flying/soaring at >65m above sea level (Figure 9C.36).

· Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus - recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC , in CITES Appendix I and listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a scarce resident and widespread winter visitor in Hong Kong. A total of five sightings were recorded in winter and spring at south of Tai A Chau and they were seen roosting at >65 m above sea level (Figure 9C.37).

· Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus - recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC, listed as a rare species in the China Red Data Book and CITES Appendix II. It is an uncommon resident but widely distributed in woodlands and shrublands throughout Hong Kong. Only one sighting was recorded at west of Tai A Chau in autumn and it was seen foraging below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.38).

· Crested Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela - recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC, listed as a vulnerable species in the China Red Data Book, in CITES Appendix II and listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon resident but widely distributed in shrublands on hillsides throughout Hong Kong. Only one sighting was recorded near Lo Kei Wan in spring and it was seen soaring at > 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.39).

· Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus - recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC and CITES Appendix II. It is a common autumn migrant and widespread winter visitor in Hong Kong. Only one sighting was recorded at east of Siu A Chau in autumn and it was seen soaring at > 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.40).

· Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra – recognised as Class II protected species in the PRC, listed as a rare species in the China Red Data Book and listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon resident but widely distributed in coastal areas throughout Hong Kong. This bird was present all year and most of them were seen roosting/flying below 65m above sea level nearshore at Soko Islands (Figure 9C.41).

· Great Egret Ardea alba - recognised as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common resident and winter visitor and widely distributed in Hong Kong. Sightings of these birds were recorded at Soko Islands and Chi Ma Wan Peninsula in May only and they were seen flying at ~2m above sea level (Figure 9C.42).

· Little Egret Egretta garzetta - recognised as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common resident and widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong Kong. Sightings of these birds were recorded at the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau, Soko Islands and near Lo Kei Wan throughout the year, except during winter. All of them were seen roosting/flying below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.43).

· Cattle Egret Bubulcus coromandus - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a resident and common passage migrant and widely distributed in Hong Kong. Sightings of these birds were recorded at the waters between near Lo Kei Wan and at north of Shek Kwu Chau throughout the year, except during winter. All of them were seen roosting/flying below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.44).

· Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus - recognised as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common winter visitor and found in Deep Bay area, Tolo Harbour, Starling Inlet and Victoria Harbour. Sightings of these birds were recorded at offshore South Lantau waters throughout the year, except during summer. Most of them were flying/roosting below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.45).

· Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common summer visitor and found in Mirs Bay, Cape D'Aguilar, Waglan Island and Cheung Chau. Sightings of these birds were mostly recorded around Soko Islands in spring and summer. Most of them were flying/roosting below 65 m above sea level (Figure 9C.46).

· Black-tailed Gull Larus crassirostris - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon winter visitor and found in Deep Bay area, Tolo Harbour, Starling Inlet, Lamma Island and Mirs Bay. Sightings of these birds were recorded at offshore South Lantau waters in spring and winter. Most of them were flying/roosting below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.47).

· Bridled Tern Onychoprion anaethetus - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon summer visitor and found in Mirs Bay, Tolo Channel, Cheung Chau, Waglan Island and Cape D'Aguilar. Sightings of these birds were generally recorded at offshore South Lantau waters in spring, summer and autumn. Most of them were flying/roosting below 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.48).

· Aleutian Tern Onychoprion aleuticus – recognised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It is a passage migrant and is found in the coastal area in Hong Kong during autumn. Sightings of these birds were recorded at offshore South Lantau waters in September only and it was seen flying or foraging at ~10 – 20m above sea level (Figure 9C.49).

· Little Tern Sternula albifrons - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon passage migrant and found in Mai Po, Ting Kau and Tsuen Wan ferry. Sightings of these birds were recorded at offshore South Lantau waters in April only and most of them were seen swimming (Figure 9C.50).

· Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a scarce winter visitor and passage migrant and found in Deep Bay area. One sighting of this bird was recorded at the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau in March and it was seen flying at 15m above sea level (Figure 9C.51).

· Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon summer visitor and found in Mirs Bay, Tolo Channel and Waglan Island. HKBWS recorded breeding Roseate Terns on Soko Islands in 2017. One sighting of this bird was recorded at the south of Shek Kwu Chau in August and it was seen roosting on a buoy at 1m above sea level (Figure 9C.52).

· House Swift Apus nipalensis - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an abundant spring migrant and locally common resident and widely distributed in Hong Kong. Sightings of these birds were recorded at Soko Islands, Tung Wan and Chi Ma Wan Peninsula throughout the year, except during summer. Most of them were flying or foraging above 65m above sea level (Figure 9C.53).

· Grey-tailed Tattler Tringa brevipes - recognised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common passage migrant and found in Deep Bay area. One sighting of this bird was recorded at offshore South Lantau waters in August and it was seen flying at 5m above sea level (Figure 9C.54).

· Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a common passage migrant and found in Deep Bay area, Sai Kung, Tung Ping Chau, Ninepins, Cape D'Aguilar and Pok Fu Lam. One sighting of this bird was recorded at north of Cheung Chau in September and it was seen flying at 30m above sea level (Figure 9C.55).

· Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis - recognised as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is an uncommon resident and widely distributed in ponds throughout Hong Kong. One sighting of this bird was recorded at west of Shek Kwu Chau in August and it was seen flying at 30m above sea level (Figure 9C.56).

· Northern Pintail Anas acuta – recognised as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002). It is a winter visitor and found in Deep Bay area, Shuen Wan, Long Valley and Kam Tin. One sighting of Northern Pintail was recorded in December 2016 at southern Soko Islands and it was seen foraging at 5m above sea level (Figure 9C.57).

Baseline Conditions in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal

Relatively low abundances of birds were recorded in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal. A total of 11 individuals from five bird species, including Aleutian Tern, Barn Swallow, Black Kite, Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull and Bridled Tern, were recorded within 500m of the LNG Terminal Project Site including the Safety Zone (Table 9.15). Aleutian Tern and Black-headed Gull were the most abundant species recorded within 500m of the LNG Terminal Project Site and they were sighted in autumn. Most of the species recorded were flying (nine individuals) while one individual of Black-tailed Gull was roosting and one individual of Black-headed Gull was foraging in the area. All of the flying activities were below 65m above sea level. Of the 24 species of species of conservation interest, Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern were the only recorded species within 500m of the proposed LNG Terminal Project Site during the surveys.

Table 9.15 Bird Species and activity observed within 500m of the LNG Terminal Project Site including the Safety Zone during the Surveys

Bird Species	Total no. of individuals recorded
Season	Spring	Summer	Autumn	Winter	*Total*
Aleutian Tern	0	0	3	0	3
Barn Swallow	2	0	0	0	2
Black-headed Gull	0	0	3	0	3
Black-tailed Gull	1	0	0	1	2
Bridled Tern	0	1	0	0	1
Bird Activity	Flying	Soaring	Foraging	Roosting	Swimming
Aleutian Tern	3	0	0	0	0
Barn Swallow	2	0	0	0	0
Black-headed Gull	2	0	1	0	0
Black-tailed Gull	1	0	0	1	0
Bridled Tern	1	0	0	0	0
Elevation	0m	>0 – 65m	>65m
Aleutian Tern	0	3	0
Barn Swallow	0	2	0
Black-headed Gull	0	3	0
Black-tailed Gull	0	2	0
Bridled Tern	0	1	0

9.3.3 Ecological Profiles

The key findings of the literature review and field surveys are summarized below.

Recognized Sites of Conservation Importance

There are no Special Areas or Conservation Areas that are relevant to marine ecology within the Assessment Area. Recognized sites of conservation importance include a number of existing, proposed and potential marine parks, as well as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Sham Wan Restricted Area.

Existing, Proposed and Potential Marine Parks

The existing, proposed and potential marine parks in the Assessment Area include Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP), The Brothers Marine Park (BMP), the proposed Southwest Lantau Marine Park (SWLMP), South Lantau Marine Park (SLMP) and the marine park for the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RSMP), and the potential South Lamma Marine Park. Details of these marine parks are summarized in Table 9.16. The locations of these marine parks are provided in Figure 9.7 ([18]).

Marine Park	Location	Closest Distance to the Project Site	Date of Designation	Area (hectares)	Conservation Purpose
Existing Marine Park
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park ⁽¹⁾	Northwestern waters of Hong Kong	< 100m	November 1996	1,200	· It was established as protected habitat for the Chinese White Dolphins (Sousa chinensis) (CWD) in the waters around Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau to mitigate the potential cumulative impacts from the Aviation Fuel Facility of Hong Kong International Airport on Sha Chau and other developments. · The fisheries resources in this area are feeding grounds for CWD. Fish of the Engraulidae, Sciaenidae and Clupeidae families found in the Marine Park are an important food component of the CWD.
The Brothers Marine Park ⁽²⁾	Northern Lantau waters, to the east of Chek Lap Kok and to the south of Tuen Mun	~ 9.7km	December 2016	970	· The BMP is a mitigation measure proposed under the EIA study of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Project for the conservation of CWD and enhancement of marine and fisheries resources. · The BMP also contains scattered coral colonies around Tai Mo To, an area of moderate fisheries value and potential spawning grounds of some commercially important fish species.
Proposed Marine Park
Southwest Lantau Marine Park ⁽³⁾	Southwestern waters of Lantau Island, near Fan Lau	< 100m	2018 anticipated	650	· Established for the protection of CWD and for the long-term conservation of the marine environment. · The waters of southwest Lantau are identified as key habitats for CWD. The estimated value of fisheries production (adult and fish fry) was moderate at southwest Lantau.
South Lantau Marine Park ⁽⁴⁾	Waters surrounding the Soko Islands and in the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau	<100m	2019 anticipated	2,067	· The waters of Soko Islands are a unique location where both CWD and the Finless Porpoises (FP) are regular sighted. Waters between the Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau comprise important FP habitats. · The estimated value of fisheries production (adult and fish fry) was high at Soko Islands, and the southern Lantau waters were identified as spawning and nursery grounds for commercial fish. · The marine park integrated the proposed Soko Islands Marine Park and the proposed compensatory marine park for the Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1 at Shek Kwu Chau.
Marine Park for the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System ⁽⁵⁾	Northern Lantau waters, connecting the SCLKCMP and BMP	BPPS Pipeline is located along the boundary of the proposed marine park	2023/24 anticipated	~2,400	· The marine park is a mitigation measure proposed by the 3RS project. · It will provide critical linkages between the SCLKCMP and the BMP and, together, all three Marine Parks will make up a large network of protected areas for CWD.
Potential Marine Park
South Lamma Marine Park ⁽⁶⁾	Southern Lamma waters	~1.7km	Nil	~1,400	· The proposed designation primarily aims to protect one of the core habitats for FP and the nesting site in Sham Wan for green turtles. · The long-term marine mammal monitoring by the AFCD indicated that the usage of South Lamma waters by finless porpoises was relatively low ⁽⁷⁾.

Table 9.17 Ecological Importance of Existing Marine Parks, SSSI and Restricted Area within the Assessment Area

Criteria	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (SCLKCMP)	The Brothers Marine Park (BMP)	Sham Wan Restricted Area and SSSI	San Tau Beach SSSI	Lung Kwu Chau, Tree Island and Sha Chau SSSI
Naturalness	Natural intertidal and subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters	Natural intertidal hard bottom habitat, subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters	Natural sandy shore and marine waters	Natural intertidal and subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters, including mangroves	Natural terrestrial habitat
Size	1,200ha	970ha	0.5ha for the Restricted Area, 4 ha for the SSSI	2.7ha	54ha
Diversity	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Moderate
Rarity	Habitat and species are common in the western water of Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance, included Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) Sousa chinensis, ahermatypic cup coral Balanophyllia sp., Paracyathus rotundatus, hard coral of Faviidae family.	Habitat and species are common in the western water of Hong Kong. Species of conservation importance including CWD, ahermatypic cup coral Balanophyllia sp. and ahermatypic cup coral Paracyathus rotundatus	The sandy shore habitat is common in the southern waters in Hong Kong. These habitat is the major nesting site of Green turtle Chelonia mydas in Hong Kong	Most habitats and species are common in the western water of Hong Kong. A small area of mangroves which include the rare Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, and seagrass bed of Zostera japonica and Halophila ovata are recorded. Horseshoe crab species Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus tridentatus recorded.	Most habitats and species are common for avifauna. An egretry with nests of Great Egret Ardea alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta and Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax were found in Sheung Sha Chau Island.
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitat and marine waters off the island	Linked to the subtidal habitat and marine waters	Linked to the subtidal habitat and marine waters off the islands
Potential Value	Already designated as marine park	Already designated as marine park	Protected area for Green Turtle	Already designated as a SSSI	Already designated as a SSSI
Nursery/Breeding Area	Potential nursery area for CWD	Potential nursery area for CWD	Key known nesting ground for Green Turtle	Potential nursery area for horseshoe crab	Important habitat for avifauna
Age	Designated as marine park in November 1996	Designated as marine park in December 2016.	Designated as SSSI and Restricted Area in 1999	Designated as SSSI in October 1994	Designated as SSSI in September 1979
Abundance	Historically high abundance of CWD. Octocoral Guaiagorgia sp. is recorded in the subtidal hard substratum of Sha Chau and Pak Chau. Abundance of ahermatypic cup corals is low.	Historically high abundance of CWD. Low abundance of octocoral and ahermatypic cup corals was recorded.	Historically a small number of Green Turtles were recorded to nest in Sham Wan.	Moderate for intertidal and subtidal assemblages	Moderate for avifauna
Ecological Importance	High	High	High	High	High

Table 9.18 Ecological Importance of Proposed and Potential Marine Parks within the Assessment Area

Criteria	Southwest Lantau Marine Park (SWLMP)	South Lantau Marine Park (SLMP)	Third Runway Marine Park (3RSMP) before the completion of 3RS construction work	Third Runway Marine Park (3RSMP) after the completion of the 3RS construction work	South Lamma Marine Park
Naturalness	Natural intertidal and subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters	Natural intertidal and subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters	Natural soft bottom habitat and marine waters, with artificial constructed habitats at the airport island seawall. High degree of human disturbance due to 3RS construction work	Natural soft bottom habitat and marine waters, with artificial constructed habitats at the airport island seawall	Natural intertidal and subtidal hard and soft bottom habitat and marine waters
Size	~650ha	~2,067ha	~2,400ha	~2,400ha	~1,400ha
Diversity	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Low
Rarity	Habitats and species are common in the southwestern waters in Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance, included CWD	Habitats and species are common in the southern waters in Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance include CWD, Finless Porpoise (FP) Neophocaena phocaenoides	Habitats and species are common in the western waters in Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance, included CWD and amphioxus	Habitats and species are common in the western waters in Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance, included CWD and amphioxus	Habitats and species are common in the southern waters in Hong Kong. Species with conservation importance, included FP and Green Turtle
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Artificial habitats are re-creatable, but marine waters are not re-creatable	Artificial habitats are re-creatable, but marine waters are not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Physical barriers are present in marine waters, e.g. working vessels, silt curtains, habitats are fragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD and FP habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats and CWD habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats and FP habitats nearby
Potential Value	High upon designation as a Marine Park	High upon designation as a Marine Park	Low due to the 3RS construction work	High upon designation as a Marine Park.	Moderate upon designation as a Marine Park
Nursery/Breeding Area	Potential nursery area for CWD	Potential nursery area for CWD and FP	Unlikely to serve as nursery area for CWD due to 3RS construction works	Potential nursery area for CWD	Potential nursery area for FP and Green Turtle
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance	High abundance of CWD	Records of CWD near Soko Islands and FP near Soko Islands and in the waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau	Historically records of CWD north of the airport island, CWD usage is very low since 3RS construction	CWD expected to increase usage of these waters gradually when construction works cease.	Some records of FP, historically a small number of Green Turtles were recorded
Ecological Importance	High	High	Low	High	Moderate

Table 9.19 Ecological Importance of Intertidal Habitats at the Black Point Power Station (BPPS) and the Lamma Power Station (LPS) Seawalls

Criteria	BPPS Seawall	LPS Seawall
Naturalness	Artificial, constructed habitat	Artificial, constructed habitat
Size	Large. The artificial shore is approximately 1 km in length and is the predominant habitat of the BPPS.	Large. The total length of the artificial shore is approximately 2 km in length and is the predominant habitat type of the LPS.
Diversity	Low	Low
Rarity	Assemblages comprise typical biota of sheltered to moderately-exposed shores in Hong Kong, but with low abundance and diversity. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.	Assemblages comprise typical biota of sheltered to moderately-exposed shores in Hong Kong, but with low abundance and diversity. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable; substrata may be re-colonised by intertidal and subtidal organisms.	Re-creatable; substrata may be re-colonised by intertidal and subtidal organisms
Fragmentation	Low. The surrounding coastlines comprise artificial and natural shores	Low. The surrounding coastlines comprise artificial and natural shores
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way
Potential Value	Unlikely to become an area of conservation value	Unlikely to become an area of conservation value
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	The artificial seawall has been in place since March 1993	The artificial seawall has been in place since the 2000s
Abundance	Lower abundance compared to natural rocky shore habitat	Lower abundance than natural rocky shore habitat
Ecological Importance	Low	Low

Table 9.20 Ecological Importance of Intertidal Habitats on Outlying Islands in the vicinity of the Project Site

Criteria	Tau Lo Chau	Pak Chau
Naturalness	Natural rocky shore habitat	Natural rocky shore habitat
Size	Large. The rocky shore is approximately 1km in length.	Small. The natural rocky shore is approximately 0.5km in length.
Diversity	Moderate	Low
Rarity	Assemblages comprise typical biota of sheltered to moderately-exposed rocky shores in Hong Kong, but the abundance and diversity is higher than the artificial shores. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.	Assemblages comprise typical sheltered to moderately-exposed intertidal species in Hong Kong. The abundance and diversity are low and comparable to the artificial habitats nearby. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way
Potential Value	It is part of the proposed SLMP	It is part of the SCLKCMP
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	N/A.	N/A.
Abundance	Higher abundance compared to artificial rocky shore habitat.	Abundance is comparable to artificial rocky shore habitat.
Ecological Importance	Low to Moderate	Low

Table 9.21 Ecological Importance of Subtidal Hard-Bottom Habitats within and in the vicinity of the Project Site

Criteria	BPPS Seawall	LPS Seawall	BPPS Pipeline	LPS Pipeline
Naturalness	Artificial, constructed habitat	Artificial, constructed habitat	Natural	Natural
Size	Large, approximately 1km in length which is found along a narrow band at depths of 3-4m	Large, approximately 2km in length at depth of 2-7m	Small. Only scattered hard substrate present along the route which is mainly covered with sediments	Small. Only scattered hard substrate present along the route which is mainly covered with sediments
Diversity	Low	Low	Low	Low
Rarity	Habitats similar to the man-made habitats in the western waters. Ahermatypic cup coral Balanophyllia sp., was recorded	Habitats similar to the man-made habitats in the southern and eastern water of Hong Kong. Hard corals Turbinaria peltata, Porites sp. and Oulastrea crispata, ahermatypic cup coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp. and Balanophyllia sp., was recorded	No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.	No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable; substrata may be re-colonised by subtidal organisms including corals	Re-creatable; substrata may be re-colonised by subtidal organisms including corals	Re-creatable (dumped materials)	Re-creatable (dumped materials)
Fragmentation	Low. The surrounding coastlines comprise artificial and natural shores	Low. The surrounding coastlines comprise artificial and natural shores	Fragmented hard substrates	Fragmented hard substrates
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way
Potential Value	Very low since conditions are not highly suited for coral growth. High turbidity and high rates of sedimentation mean that the area is unlikely to become an area of coral conservation.	Low since it is common artificial habitat and it is unlikely to be an area of coral conservation.	Low. These habitats are unlikely to be colonized by hard corals due to the high sedimentation and low light intensity condition.	Low. These habitats are unlikely to be colonized by hard corals due to the high sedimentation and low light intensity condition.
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	The artificial seawall has been in place since 1993	The artificial seawall has been in place since the 2000s	N/A	N/A
Abundance	Very low coverage of coral is present in the artificial seawall	Very low coverage of coral is present in the artificial seawall	No coral is present	Isolated patchy coral on scattered on hard substrate.
Ecological Importance	Low	Low	Low	Low

Table 9.22 Ecological Importance of Subtidal Hard-Bottom Habitats in vicinity of the Project Site

Criteria	Tau Lo Chau	Pak Chau	Yi O
Naturalness	Natural	Natural	Natural
Size	Large, approximately 1 km in length at depth of 3-10m.	Small, approximately 0.5km in length at depth of 2-6m.	Large, approximately 1km in length at depth of 2-3m.
Diversity	Low	Low	Low
Rarity	Ahermatypic cup coral Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp., and 5 species of octocorals were recorded	Ahermatypic cup coral Balanophyllia sp., was recorded. The habitat is generally dominated by octocoral Guaiagorgia sp.	Ahermatypic cup coral Balanophyllia sp., was recorded. The habitat is generally dominated by octocoral Guaiagorgia sp.
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way	Not functionally linked to any high value habitat in a significant way
Potential Value	It is part of the proposed SLMP	It is part of the SCLKCMP	Habitat is relatively undisturbed, some potential value
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance	Very low coverage of coral is present.	Low to moderate percentage cover of octocoral Guaiagorgia sp.	Very low coverage of coral is present.
Ecological Importance	Low	Moderate	Low

Table 9.23 Ecological Importance of Subtidal Soft Benthos Assemblages within and in the vicinity of the Project Site

Criteria	LNG Terminal	BPPS Pipeline	LPS Pipeline
Naturalness	Natural	Natural	Natural
Size	~2.5ha	~50ha, along the approximately 45km pipeline route	~20ha along the approximately 18km pipeline route
Diversity	Low	Low	Low
Rarity	The assemblages are typical of similar habitats in the Hong Kong waters, which are dominated by polychaetes. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.	The assemblages are typical of similar habitats in the Hong Kong waters, which are dominated by polychaetes. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.	The assemblages are typical of similar habitats in the Hong Kong waters, which are dominated by polychaetes. No species recorded are considered rare or of recognised conservation importance.
Re-creatability	Re-creatable; substrata may be recolonised by benthic organisms	Re-creatable; substrata may be recolonised by benthic organisms	Re-creatable; substrata may be recolonised by benthic organisms
Fragmentation	Unfragmented.	Unfragmented.	Unfragmented.
Ecological Linkage	Linked to the subtidal habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats nearby	Linked to the subtidal habitats nearby
Potential Value	It is unlikely that the habitat could develop conservation importance.	It is unlikely that the habitat could develop conservation importance.	It is unlikely that the habitat could develop conservation importance.
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance	In comparison to other parts of the southern waters the assemblages are of low to moderate abundance and biomass.	In comparison to other parts of the southern/ western waters the assemblages are of moderate to high abundance and biomass.	In comparison to other parts of the southern waters the assemblages are of moderate abundance and biomass.
Ecological Importance	Low	Low	Low

Table 9.24 Ecological Importance of Marine Waters within the LNG Terminal and the LPS Pipeline (Figure 9.8)

Criteria	LNG Terminal	LPS Pipeline, LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau	LPS Pipeline, South of Shek Kwu Chau to Lamma
Naturalness	Natural	Natural but in close proximity to marine fairways	Natural but in close proximity to marine fairways
Size	~2.5ha	~5ha, along the approximately 5 km pipeline route	~15ha, along the approximately 13km pipeline route
Diversity	Only FP present, CWD rarely sighted. Anecdotal records of Green Turtles. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Lionhead Croaker, Trewavas Croakers, and Threadfin Porgy, were recorded.	Only FP present, CWD rarely sighted. Anecdotal records of Green Turtles. Fishes with conservation importance, including Reeve’s Croaker and Threadfin Porgy, were recorded.	Only FP present, CWD rarely sighted. Anecdotal records of Green Turtles and Whale Sharks. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Pale-edged Stingray, Reeve’s Croaker, Lionhead Croaker, Trewavas Croaker and Threadfin Porgy, were recorded.
Rarity	FP is a resident species in Hong Kong and all marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	FP is a resident species in Hong Kong and all marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	FP is a resident species in Hong Kong and all marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Linked to FP and marine habitats nearby	Linked to FP and marine habitats nearby	Linked to FP and marine habitats nearby
Potential Value	Some value as it is next to the proposed SLMP	Some value as it is next to the proposed SLMP	Limited value, though next to the potential South Lamma Marine Park
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified	No significant records identified	No significant records identified
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance	Low to moderate density of FP in comparison to other waters of Hong Kong. Green Turtle might be present but transient only at very low abundance. Relatively low abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Low to moderate density of FP in comparison to other waters of Hong Kong. Green Turtle might be present but transient only at very low abundance. Moderate abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Low density of FP in comparison to other waters of Hong Kong. Green Turtle and Whale Shark might be present but transient only at very low abundance. Low to moderate abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.
Ecological Importance	Moderate	Moderate	Low

Table 9.25 Ecological Importance of Marine Waters within the BPPS Pipeline (Figure 9.8)

Criteria	BPPS Pipeline, Black Point to North of Lung Kwu Chau	BPPS Pipeline, North of Lung Kwu Chau to South of Sha Chau	BPPS Pipeline, South of Sha Chau to North of Tai O	BPPS Pipeline, North of Tai O to Fan Lau	BPPS Pipeline, Fan Lau to South of Soko Islands	BPPS Pipeline, South of Soko Islands to LNG Terminal
Naturalness	Natural but in close proximity to marine fairways	Natural mostly	Natural but in close proximity to high-speed ferry route	Natural but in close proximity to marine fairways	Natural but in close proximity to marine fairways	Natural mostly
Size	~10ha, along the approximately 8km pipeline route	~7ha, along the approximately 6km pipeline route	~6ha, along the approximately 8km pipeline route	~13ha, along the approximately 8km pipeline route	~6ha, along the approximately 7km pipeline route	~7ha, along the approximately 9km pipeline route
Diversity	Only CWD present. No fishes with conservation importance was recorded.	Only CWD present. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Pale-edged Stingray, Goatee Croaker, Trewavas Croaker and Tiger-toothed Croaker were recorded.	Only CWD present. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Tongue Sole, Goatee Croaker, Reeve’s Croaker, Trewavas Croaker and Large Yellow Croaker were recorded.	Only CWD present. Fishes with conservation importance, including Tongue Sole, Lionhead Croaker, Goatee Croaker, were recorded.	CWD and FP present; limited range overlap of the two species recorded around Soko Islands; anecdotal records of Green Turtle in south Lantau waters. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Tongue Sole, Lionhead Croaker, Trewavas Croaker and Threadfin Porgy were recorded.	FP present and CWD rarely sighted; limited range overlap of the two species recorded around Soko Islands; anecdotal records of Green Turtle in south Lantau waters. Fishes with conservation importance, including Spadenose Shark, Lionhead Croaker, Caroun Croaker, Trewavas Croaker and Threadfin Porgy were recorded.
Rarity	CWD is a resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	CWD is a resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	CWD is a resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	CWD is a resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	FP and CWD are resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.	FP and CWD are resident species in Hong Kong. All marine fishes with conservation importance are recorded elsewhere in Hong Kong.
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable	Not re-creatable
Fragmentation	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented	Unfragmented
Ecological Linkage	Linked to CWD and marine habitats nearby	Linked to CWD and marine habitats nearby	Linked to CWD and marine habitats nearby	Linked to CWD and marine habitats nearby	Linked to CWD and FP and marine habitats nearby	Linked to CWD and FP and marine habitats nearby
Potential Value	Some value as it is next to the SCLKCMP	Some value as it is next to the SCLKCMP	Some value as it is next to the proposed SCLKCMP and 3RSMP	Some value as it is next to the proposed SWLMP	Some value as it is next to the proposed SLMP	Some value as it is next to the proposed SLMP
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD in SCLKCMP	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD in SCLKCMP	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD in SCLKCMP and proposed 3RSMP	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD in the proposed SWLMP	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD and FP in proposed SLMP	No significant records identified, but adjacent to potential nursery areas for CWD and FP in proposed SLMP
Age	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Abundance	Low CWD density. Moderate abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Moderate CWD densities. Relatively low abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Low CWD density. High abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	High CWD densities. Very low abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Low densities of CWD and FP in comparison to other waters of Hong Kong. Green Turtle might be present but transient only at very low abundance. Moderate abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.	Moderate density of FP in comparison to other waters of Hong Kong. Green Turtle might be present but transient only at very low abundance. Moderate abundance of fish compared to other waters of southern and western Hong Kong.
Ecological Importance	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate to High	Low to Moderate	Moderate

Criteria	Grassland/Shrubland Habitat
Naturalness	Semi-natural and disturbed by hill fire and natural erosion
Size	Approximately 21ha
Diversity	Low to moderate diversity of plant and structural complexity. Low in faunal diversity as shown from data collected in 2015.
Rarity	None reported
Re-creatability	Easy to re-create
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not linked to any ecological significant area
Potential Value	Low, may not be able to develop as woodland as limited by frequent hill fires and limited water storage capacity of soil in this area.
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified from data collected in 2015
Age	Young (less than 5 years old) based on tree size, structure and species composition.
Abundance	Low
Ecological Importance	Moderate

Criteria	Plantation Habitat
Naturalness	Man-made, dominated by exotic trees.
Size	Approximately 0.1ha.
Diversity	Low diversity of plant and structural complexity. Low in faunal diversity as shown from data collected in 2015.
Rarity	None reported
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Fragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not linked to any ecological significant area
Potential Value	Low with native and exotic plant species
Nursery/Breeding Area	No significant records identified from data collected in 2015
Age	Young (less than 20 years old) based on tree size, structure and species composition.
Abundance	Low
Ecological Importance	Low to Moderate

Criteria	Urbanized/Disturbed Area Habitat
Naturalness	Man-made habitat consisted mainly of infrastructure associated with power generation including structures, hardstand areas and access roads and car parks.
Size	Approximately 31ha
Diversity	Low for plant and fauna as shown from data collected in 2015
Rarity	None reported
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Low ecological potential
Nursery/Breeding Area	None
Age	N/A
Abundance	Low
Ecological Importance	Negligible

Criteria	Urbanized/Disturbed Area Habitat
Naturalness	Man-made habitat consisted mainly of infrastructure associated with power generation including structures, hardstand areas and access roads and car parks.
Size	Approximately 31ha
Diversity	Low for plant and fauna
Rarity	None reported
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Low ecological potential
Nursery/Breeding Area	None
Age	N/A
Abundance	Low
Ecological Importance	Negligible

Criteria	Open Sea Habitat for Avifauna
Naturalness	Natural habitat.
Size	Approximately 2.5ha at the LNG Terminal
Diversity	Moderate in avifauna diversity (39 species)
Rarity	24 avifauna species of conservation importance (White-bellied Sea Eagle, Black Kite, Common Buzzard, Peregrine Falcon, Crested Goshawk, Crested Serpent Eagle, Common Kestrel, Pacific Reef Egret, Great Egret, Little Egret, Cattle Egret, Black-headed Gull, Black-naped Tern, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern, Aleutian Tern, Little Tern, Yellow-legged Gull, Roseate Tern, House Swift, Grey-tailed Tattler, Whimbrel, Pied Kingfisher and Northern Pintail) were observed within the Avifauna Assessment Area. Four avifauna species of conservation importance (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern) were observed within the Assessment Area for the proposed LNG Terminal Project Site during the surveys. Breeding ground of Black-naped Terns and Roseate Tern is identified on Soko Islands, which is over 4 km away from the proposed LNG Terminal. The nearest White-bellied Sea Eagle nesting locations are in Shek Kwu Chau (more than 2km away from the proposed route of the LPS Pipeline and about 3.7km from the LNG Terminal) and Lung Kwu Chau (over 1km away from the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline). The egretry on Sha Chau is more than 1.5km to the east of the proposed route of the BPPS Pipeline.
Re-creatability	Not able to be re-created
Fragmentation	Not fragmented
Ecological Linkage	Linked to avifauna habitat nearby
Potential Value	Low ecological potential
Nursery/Breeding Area	Breeding ground of Black-naped Terns and Roseate Terns is identified on Soko Island, which is over 4km away from the proposed LNG Terminal.
Age	Not applicable
Abundance	Low
Ecological Importance	Low

Table 9.31 Species of Conservation Importance within the Assessment Area

Common Name	Scientific Name	Protection Status	Distribution, Rarity and other Notes	Literature	Surveys	Recorded Location
Cup Coral	Balanophyllia sp.	Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586)	Common and widely distributed in Hong Kong, especially in western waters	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline at the BPPS seawall
Cup Coral	Tubastrea/ Dendrophyllia sp.	Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586)	Common and widely distributed in eastern and southern waters in Hong Kong	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the LPS Pipeline at the LPS seawall
Hard Coral	Turbinaria peltata Oulastrea crispata Porites sp.	Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586)	Common and widely distributed in the eastern waters of Hong Kong	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the LPS Pipeline at the LPS seawall
Horseshoe Crab	Tachypleus tridentatus	Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the China Species Red List	Confirmed nursery sites include Tsim Bei Tsui, Ha Pak Nai and Pak Nai in Deep Bay, San Tau near Tung Chung, Shui Hau at south Lantau and Tai Ho Bay in north Lantau. Also recorded in Tai O, Yi O, Sham Wat Wan, Sha Lo Wan and Tung Chung Bay, Tap Shek Kok and northern and western water of Chek Lap Kok	ü		In the vicinity of BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Horseshoe Crab	Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Confirmed nursery sites include Tsim Bei Tsui, Ha Pak Nai and Pak Nai in Deep Bay, San Tau near Tung Chung, Shui Hau at south Lantau and Tai Ho Bay in north Lantau. Also recorded in Tai O, Yi O, Sham Wat Wan, Sha Lo Wan and Tung Chung Bay, Tap Shek Kok and northern and western water of Chek Lap Kok	ü		In the vicinity of BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Green Turtle	Chelonia mydas	Ÿ Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap.170) Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586) Ÿ Listed as “Critically Endangered” in the China Species Red List Ÿ Listed as “Grade II National Key Protected Species” in China Ÿ Listed as " Endangered" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Known to nest mainly at Sham Wan, south of Lamma Island. Nesting was also recorded in Shek Pai Wan and Tung O on Lamma Island, Tai Wan in Sai Kung, Tai Long Wan in Shek O, and a beach on Lantau Island. Inter-nesting areas largely located to the south and southeast of Lamma Island	ü		Not specific, in southern waters of Hong Kong
Whale Shark	Rhincodon typus	Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586) Ÿ Listed as " Endangered" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Anecdotal sightings in shallow waters of Sham Wan in Lamma Island, and in Sai Kung and near Tung Lung Chau	ü		Not specific, in southern waters of Hong Kong
Spadenose Shark	Scoliodon laticaudus	Ÿ Listed as " Near Threatened" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Longheaded Eagle Ray	Aetobatus flagellum	Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Local population has not been assessed	ü		>500 m away from the proposed BPPS Pipeline
Pale-edged Stingray	Dasyatis zugei	Ÿ Listed as " Near Threatened" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Local population has not been assessed	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Longtooth grouper	Epinephelus bruneus	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Rare in Hong Kong waters	ü		>500m away from the BPPS Pipeline
Orange-spotted Grouper	Epinephelus coioides	Ÿ Listed as " Near Threatened" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Common in Hong Kong waters	ü		>500m away from the BPPS Pipeline
Tongue Sole	Cynoglossus roulei	Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Reeve's croaker	Chrysochir aureus	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Lionhead Croaker	Collichthys lucidus	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Goatee Croaker	Dendrophysa russelii	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Caroun Croaker	Johnius carouna	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Trewavas Croaker	Johnius trewavasae	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Large Yellow Croaker	Larimichthys crocea	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Rare in recent years, but it was abundant and a local major catch for local fishermen in the past	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Tiger-toothed Croaker	Otolithes ruber	Ÿ Listed as “Vulnerable” in the China Species Red List	Commonly caught and sold in Hong Kong and southern China, though local population has not been assessed	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Threadfin Porgy	Evynnis cardinalis	Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Wide distribution all over Hong Kong inshore waters		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Banded tuna	Scomberomorus commerson	Ÿ Listed as " Near Threatened" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Local population has not been assessed	ü		>500m away from the BPPS Pipeline
Amphioxus	Branchiostoma belcheri	Ÿ Listed as “Grade II National Key Protected Species” in China Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the China Species Red List	Recorded from across Hong Kong waters, but major records were found in eastern waters, especially Tai Long Wan in Sai Kung	ü		>2km away from the BPPS Pipeline
Chinese White Dolphin	Sousa chinensis	Ÿ Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap.170) Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586) Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the China Species Red List Ÿ Listed as “Grade I National Key Protected Species” in China Ÿ Listed as "Vulnerable" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Range across Pearl River Estuary and across Hong Kong western waters from Deep Bay to Soko Islands	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline
Finless Porpoise	Neophocaena phocaenoides	Ÿ Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap.170) Ÿ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap.586) Ÿ Listed as “Endangered” in the China Species Red List Ÿ Listed as “Grade II National Key Protected Species” in China Ÿ Listed as "Vulnerable" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Range across Hong Kong southern and eastern waters from Soko Islands to Tung Ping Chau, and in PRC waters	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
White-bellied Sea Eagle	Haliaeetus leucogaster	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon resident. Widely distributed in coastal areas throughout Hong Kong	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Aleutian Tern	Onychoprion aleuticus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as "Vulnerable" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species	Passage migrant, fairly common in autumn		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Black Kite	Milvus migrans	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Common Buzzard	Buteo buteo	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC	Common winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong		ü	>1km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Peregrine Falcon	Falco peregrinus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Scarce resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong		ü	>500m away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Crested Goshawk	Accipiter trivirgatus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as a rare species in the China Red Data Book	Uncommon resident. Widely distributed in woodlands and shrublands throughout Hong Kong		ü	>500m away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Crested Serpent Eagle	Spilornis cheela	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as a vulnerable species in the China Red Data Book Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon resident. Widely distributed in shrublands on hillsides throughout Hong Kong		ü	>5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Common Kestrel	Falco tinnunculus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed in Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC	Common autumn migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong		ü	>3.5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Pacific Reef Egret	Egretta sacra	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Class II Protected Animal of PRC Ÿ Listed as a rare species in the China Red Data Book Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon resident. Widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong Kong		ü	>500m away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Great Egret	Ardea alba	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong.	ü	ü	>2.5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Little Egret	Egretta garzetta	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common resident. Widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong Kong.	ü	ü	>500m away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Cattle Egret	Bubulcus coromandus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Resident and common passage migrant. Widely distributed in Hong Kong.	ü	ü	>1.5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Black-headed Gull	Chroicocephalus ridibundus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Potential Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Tolo Harbour, Starling Inlet, Victoria Harbour.	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Black-naped Tern	Sterna sumatrana	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common summer visitor. Found in Mirs Bay, Cape D'Aguilar, Waglan Island, Cheung Chau.	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Black-tailed Gull	Larus crassirostris	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Tolo Harbour, Starling Inlet, Lamma Island, Mirs Bay.		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Bridled Tern	Onychoprion anaethetus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon summer visitor. Found in Mirs Bay, Tolo Channel, Cheung Chau, Waglan Island, Cape D'Aguilar.	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes and LNG Terminal
Little Tern	Sternula albifrons	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon passage migrant. Found in Mai Po, Ting Kau, Tsuen Wan ferry.		ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Yellow-legged Gull	Larus cachinnans	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Scarce winter visitor and passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area.		ü	>5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Roseate Tern	Sterna dougallii	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon summer visitor. Found in Mirs Bay, Tolo Channel and Waglan Island.	ü	ü	In the vicinity of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
House Swift	Apus nipalensis	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Abundant spring migrant and locally common resident. Widely distributed in Hong Kong.		ü	>2km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Grey-tailed Tattler	Tringa brevipes	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as "Near Threatened" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area.		ü	>2km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Whimbrel	Numenius phaeopus	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Common passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area, Sai Kung, Tung Ping Chau, Ninepins, Cape D'Aguilar, Pok Fu Lam.		ü	>5km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Pied Kingfisher	Ceryle rudis	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Local Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Uncommon resident. Widely distributed in ponds throughout Hong Kong.		ü	>2km away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes
Northern Pintail	Anas acuta	Ÿ Listed in Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) Ÿ Listed as Regional Concern in Fellowes et al. (2002)	Winter visitor, recorded in Deep Bay area, Shuen Wan, Long Valley and Kam Tin		ü	>500m away from the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes

9.3.5 Marine Ecological Sensitive Receivers

Based on the review of available information within the Assessment Area, marine ecological sensitive receivers have been identified in accordance with the EIAO-TM criteria, and are consistent with the ones identified in the Water Quality Impact Assessment (Section 7). These sensitive receivers and their distance from the project facilities are listed in Table 9.32 and presented in Figure 7.2.

Table 9.32 Approximate Shortest Distance to Marine Ecological Sensitive Receivers (SRs) around the LPS Pipeline, BPPS Pipeline and LNG Terminal

Sensitive Receiver	Name	Geodesic Distance / Approximate Shortest Distance by Sea (km) from Proposed Project Facilities to SR
		LPS Pipeline / BPPS Pipeline	LNG Terminal
Seagrass Beds	Ha Pak Nai	2.2 / 2.2	>10 / >10
Seagrass Beds	Tung Chung Bay	6.7 / 6.9	>10 / >10
	San Tau	6.1 / 6.3	>10 / >10
	Sham Wat Wan	3.4 / 4.5	>10 / >10
Marine Parks	SCLKCMP	Immediate vicinity	>10 / >10
	Proposed AAHK 3RS MP	Immediate vicinity	>10 / >10
	Proposed SWLMP	Immediate vicinity	9.4 / 9.8
	Proposed SLMP	Immediate vicinity	Immediate vicinity
	Potential South Lamma MP	1.7 / 1.7	>10 / >10
Intertidal Mudflats / Mangroves / Horseshoe Crab Nursery Grounds	Sheung Pak Nai	5.1 / 5.3	>10 / >10
	Ha Pak Nai	2.2 / 2.2	>10 / >10
	Ngau Hom Shek	6.6 / 6.9	>10 / >10
	Lung Kwu Sheung Tan	1.7 / 1.7	>10 / >10
	Tung Chung Bay	6.7 / 6.9	>10 / >10
	San Tau	6.1 / 6.3	>10 / >10
	Sha Lo Wan	3.5 / 3.5	>10 / >10
	Sham Wat Wan	3.4 / 4.5	>10 / >10
	Tai O	1.4 / 1.4	>10 / >10
	Yi O	1.2 / 1.2	>10 / >10
	Fan Lau Tung Wan	2.6 / 2.6	7.4 / 7.4
	Tong Fuk Miu Wan / Shui Hau	5.2 / 5.2	6.7 / 6.7
	Pui O	6.9 / 6.9	9.2 / 9.2
	Shek Kwu Chau North	2.9 / 3.0	5.4 / 5.5
Corals	Artificial Seawall at BPPS	Immediate vicinity	>10 / >10
	Pak Chau	0.3 / 0.3	>10 / >10
	Shek Kwu Chau	1.6 / 1.6	4.3 / 4.3
	Siu A Chau	4.3 / 4.3	5.5 / 5.8
	Tai A Chau	1.1 / 1.1	5.7 / 5.7
	Cheung Chau	4.1 / 5.0	8.9 / 11.2
	Hei Ling Chau	6.6 / 6.6	>10 / >10
	Sunshine Island	7.0 / 7.0	>10 / >10
	Shek Kok Tsui	2.7 / 2.7	>10 / >10
	Pak Kok	3.6 / 4.1	>10 / >10
	Sha Wan	6.6 / 6.9	>10 / >10
	Ap Lei Chau	5.3 / 7.4	>10 / >10
	Wong Chuk Kok	5.9 / 9.3	>10 / >10
	Sham Wan	4.7 / 4.7	>10 / >10
	Luk Chau	3.8 / 7.0	>10 / >10
	Hung Shing Yeh	1.6 / 1.9	>10 / >10
	Ha Mei Wan	1.6 / 1.6	>10 / >10
	Chi Ma Wan Peninsula	7.0 / 7.8	9.9 / 9.9

9.3.6 Terrestrial Ecological Sensitive Receivers

There are no terrestrial ecological sensitive receivers identified within a 500 m Assessment Area from the Project footprint including in offshore and onshore environments. It is noted that there are breeding terns on Soko Islands, egretry at Sha Chau and WBSE nesting sites at Shek Kwu Chau, Lung Kwu Chau, Chi Ma Wan Peninsular near Ha So Pai, Mo Tat Wan of Lamma Island and Sunshine Island outside the Avifauna Assessment Area. These sensitive receivers and their distance from the project facilities are listed in Table 9.33.

Table 9.33 Approximate Shortest Distance to Terrestrial Ecological Sensitive Receivers (SRs) around the LPS Pipeline, BPPS Pipeline and LNG Terminal

Sensitive Receiver	Name	Geodesic Distance / Approximate Shortest Distance by Sea (km) from Proposed Project Facilities to SR
Sensitive Receiver		LPS Pipeline / BPPS Pipeline	LNG Terminal
Breeding Terns	Soko Islands	2.1 / 2.1	4.4 / 4.4
Egretry	Sha Chau	1.9 / 1.9	>10 / >10
WBSE Nesting Sites	Shek Kwu Chau	1.7 / 1.7	3.7/ 3.7
	Lung Kwu Chau	0.9 / 0.9	>10 / >10
	Chi Ma Wan Peninsular near Ha So Pai	4.6 / 4.6	8.0 / 8.0
	Mo Tat Wan of Lamma Island	4.4 / >10	>10 / >10
	Sunshine Island	7.6 / 7.6	>10 / >10

9.4 Assessment Methodology

A desktop literature review and supporting field surveys were conducted in order to establish the ecological profile of the area within and surrounding the Project. The importance of potentially-impacted ecological resources identified within the Assessment Areas was evaluated using the methodology defined in the EIAO-TM. Potential impacts to these resources due to the construction and operation of the Project were assessed (following the EIAO-TM Annex 16 guidelines) and the impacts evaluated (based on the criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 8). Findings of water quality modelling (Section 7) are used, where appropriate, to assess potential impacts on the identified marine ecological resources.

The assessment of potential ecological impacts associated with the construction and operation phases are presented in separate sections for marine ecological resources (excluding marine mammals) (Section 9.5), marine mammals (Section 9.6), marine parks (Section 9.7), offshore avifauna (Section 9.8) and terrestrial ecological resources (Section 9.9).

9.5 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Marine Ecological Resources (Excluding Marine Mammals)

9.5.1 Construction Phase

The construction of the proposed Project will involve Jetty construction (marine piling and jetty topside construction) at the LNG Terminal, construction of the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline which will involve dredging, pipe-laying, jetting and rock armour placement, and land-based construction activities at the GRS at the BPPS and the GRS at the LPS. Potential impacts to marine ecological resources that may arise from these works are summarized in Table 9.34 and discussed further in the following sections. It should be noted that since water depths at the LNG Terminal site are adequate, dredging for navigation approach and manoeuvring/ turning area is not expected during the construction phase (Section 2.7.1).

Table 9.34 Summary of Potential Construction Phase Impacts to Marine Ecological Resources

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Subtidal habitats and marine waters along the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes and Jetty	Temporary loss of 50ha seabed along the approximately 45km BPPS Pipeline route. Temporary loss of 20ha seabed along the approximately 18km LPS Pipeline route. Temporary loss of 18ha of marine waters at the Jetty
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Subtidal and Intertidal Artificial Seawalls at the BPPS and the LPS and nearby marine waters	Temporary loss of existing subtidal and intertidal artificial seawall: 100m of seawall at the BPPS 100m of seawall at the LPS
Underwater sound from marine construction activities	Marine waters near the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes	Vibration and disturbance to nearby organisms
Short-term changes in water quality from marine construction activities	Marine waters and subtidal habitats near the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes	Potential water quality impacts and deposition of sediment onto the seabed affecting organisms
	Marine waters, subtidal and Intertidal Artificial/ Natural Shores along and in the vicinity of the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes	Potential water quality impacts on subtidal and intertidal organisms
Short-term changes in water quality from discharges and runoff from land-based and jetty topside construction activities, and pipeline hydrotesting	Subtidal and intertidal habitats at the BPPS and the BPPS, and marine waters next to the LNG Terminal	Potential water quality impacts on organisms
Accidental spillage/leakage of fuels/ chemicals	Marine waters, subtidal and Intertidal Artificial/ Natural Shores	Potential water quality impacts on organisms

Temporary Habitat Loss and Disturbance

Habitats along the BPPS Pipeline, the LPS Pipeline and the Jetty

Short-term direct impacts to subtidal bottom assemblages will occur as a result of the dredging and jetting works associated with installation of the pipelines. However, once these and subsequent rock armour placement activities have ceased, marine ecological resources are expected to return due to recolonisation of the seabed by benthic fauna.

A number of pipeline protection trench designs which consider the burial depth of the pipe in combination with the width of the pipeline trench for rock armour placement have been developed, with wider trenches (~19-29m) proposed only for ~10km of pipelines that require higher level of protection and narrower trenches (~ 2-8m) proposed for the remaining ~53km of the pipelines. The width of the pipeline trenches has thus been reduced where practicable to minimize the degree of impact as far as possible. Following installation, all pipeline sections will be protected by armour rock, which is necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the pipelines if exposed to gravity anchor drop and drag from shipping. Dredging and jetting works will proceed along the pipeline corridor over a period of about four to six months. Following pipe laying, rock placement along the pipeline routes will take approximately five months. Impacts will be due to removal and burial of organisms due to the seabed disturbance from grab dredging, jetting, pipelay and rock placement activities.

Along the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline, seabed composition was found to range from fine muddy sediment to coarser sediments with benthic assemblages at representative survey locations all found to be dominated by polychaete bristleworms and characterized by similar species diversity and biomass as elsewhere in Hong Kong, and no rare species or species of conservation importance (e.g. the amphioxus Branchiostoma belcheri) were observed. Within these predominantly subtidal soft bottom habitats along the pipeline, some scattered dumped material were found to occur. With the exception of sparse abundance of the octocoral attached to some of this material, no other corals were recorded during dive surveys at the pipeline routes (Section 9.3.2). As such, no rare species or species of conservation importance were observed to inhabit the habitats along the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline, and all of the benthic species are considered to occur frequently in Hong Kong. Overall the subtidal habitats along the two pipeline routes were considered as of low ecological importance (Table 9.23).

Overall, a total of approximately 70ha of seabed habitats will be temporarily lost or disturbed due to subsea pipeline installation activities. The areas of affected habitats are expected to be similar to surrounding seabed areas. As such, the potentially directly impacted subtidal habitats along the two pipeline routes are well-represented in the region and losses will represent a very small fraction of widely available habitat. Given the low ecological value of the associated benthic assemblages, and the recolonization of similar organisms following completion of the pipeline installation works, unacceptable impacts on the ecological resources are not expected.

The works area at the Jetty has been reduced where practical and an area of approximately 18ha is required. In the context of the size of the range of pelagic species such as marine fishes, the size of the disturbed area would be small and no unacceptable impact is expected. Although whale shark and green turtle have been reported in habitats near the LPS Pipeline, their presence is highly opportunistic. Similarly, some fish species of conservation importance were have also been reported in the vicinity of the Project, and they are mobile in nature and are also present in other similar habitats in Hong Kong. It is unlikely that these habitats represent unique habitats that these species would rely on. Horseshoe crabs and their associated habitats are found at some distances from the Project and disturbance to these species and habitats will not occur. Unacceptable impacts on these species are not expected.

Subtidal and Intertidal Habitats at the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline Landfall Points

Direct impacts to subtidal and intertidal hard bottom assemblages at the sloping seawalls at the BPPS (and potentially the LPS as well ([19])) will occur as a result of the pipeline installation works at the pipeline landfall points. The installation method would involve removal of rock material within a short stretch of seawall (approximately 100m at the BPPS, approximately 100m at the LPS) to allow the pipeline landing. On completion of the pipeline landfall works, the seawalls will be reinstated.

The subtidal zone of the BPPS seawall and LPS seawall recorded a few scattered isolated individual colonies of corals and octocorals represented by species that are common in Hong Kong. Similarly, intertidal assemblages were found to be composed of widespread rocky shore species that are common in Hong Kong, with no species of conservation importance recorded. Overall these habitats were considered as of low ecological importance (Tables 9.19 and 9.21).

Following completion of the pipeline installation works at the landfall points, intertidal and subtidal marine organisms are expected to quickly recolonize the reinstated seawalls. Owing to the low ecological value of the seawall habitat and its associated subtidal and intertidal assemblages, unacceptable impacts on the ecological resources are not expected.

Underwater Sound

Intermittent sounds, which occur during construction activities such as marine piling, pipeline construction works and marine vessel movement, may have an impact on marine ecological resources. Potential effects of increased underwater sound include physiological stress, avoidance and injury (at high pressure levels). The level of impact is however dependent upon background sound, number and type of species affected, proximity of organism to the sound source, attenuation properties of seabed sediments and hearing capabilities of the species affected, etc..

Most marine invertebrates do not possess air-filled space and thus it is generally considered that sound would have limited physiological or behavioural effects on marine invertebrates, except if they are located within a few metres of the sound source. Fish, however, can detect underwater sound vibrations through two ways, the lateral line system and the inner ear for species containing air-filled swim bladders. Anthropogenic underwater sounds associated with vessels for this Project, such as barges, supply vessels, dredgers and jetting machine, etc., exhibit major energy below 1,000 Hz and sound levels of between 170 and 190 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m and may be audible to most fish species ([20]). Waters within the Assessment Area and its vicinity is subject to relatively high levels of marine traffic by similar types of vessels; therefore it is reasonable to assume that fish in these waters are habituated to a relatively high background level of underwater sound, and a small increase in vessel activity associated with the construction of this Project is not anticipated to result in unacceptable impacts on fishes. Underwater sound from marine piling involves high intensity pulsed sound with highest energy also below 1,000 Hz, and the soft-start or ramp-up approaches for piling activity (slowly increasing the energy of the emitted sound) are expected to be effective in promoting organisms, such as fish, horseshoe crabs, whale shark and green turtle if temporarily present, to move away from the piling works area and thus keeping potential impacts to within acceptable levels ([21]) ([22]).

Short-Term Changes in Water Quality from Marine Construction Activities

Suspended Solids (SS) Elevations

Marine dredging and jetting is expected to generate SS within the water column and may result in increased sediment deposition on the seabed in close proximity to the works areas. Computational modelling has been undertaken to analyse suspended sediment dispersion from such works (Section 7.7).

Impacts to subtidal assemblages immediately outside of the works areas are expected to occur temporarily as the modelling results indicate that the dredging and jetting works would only result in short-term, localised elevations of SS in each particular location. The habitats affected are expected to be generally confined to the works areas since suspended sediments entering the water column will not be subject to a high degree of lateral dispersion (Section 7.7). Subtidal assemblages in proximity to the Jetty, the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline are considered to be of low ecological value (Table 9.23). As the areas affected are often exposed to SS laden discharges from the Pearl River, the organisms present are thus assumed to be adapted to SS elevation. Based on the assumption that eventually the affected areas will be recolonised by fauna typical of the area, then the temporary loss of these low ecological value assemblages is not considered to be unacceptable. Unacceptable impacts to ecological assemblages, including whale shark, green turtle, horseshoe crabs and fish species of conservation importance if present, in the vicinity of the works areas arising from elevated SS levels are not anticipated.

The elevations in SS are not predicted to affect coral colonies close to the works area at levels of concern (as defined by the WQO and tolerance criterion). The coral species recorded in the Assessment Area are generally adapted to the turbid and hyposaline conditions in western waters. As such, unacceptable impacts to the coral colonies due to elevation in SS are not anticipated. With the proposed mitigation measures of implementation of silt curtain at the working plants and near the coral communities at the BPPS seawall and a reduced working rate, unacceptable residual impacts are not anticipated. Other marine ecological sensitive receivers are predicted to be unaffected (as defined by the WQO and tolerance criterion). Consequently, unacceptable impacts on marine ecological sensitive receivers are not expected.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

The relationships between SS and dissolved oxygen (DO) are complex, with increased SS in the water column combining with a number of other factors to reduce DO concentrations in the water column. Elevated SS (and turbidity) reduces light penetration, lowers the rate of photosynthesis by phytoplankton (primary productivity) and thus lowers the rate of oxygen production in the water column, also release organic matter and thus lead to DO depletion. This has a particularly adverse effect on the eggs and larvae of fish, as at these stages of development, high levels of oxygen in the water are required for growth due to their high metabolic rate. DO depletions are most likely to affect sessile organisms as they cannot move away from areas where DO is low (unlike mobile species such as fish).

With reference to the water quality modelling results (Section 7.7), dredging and jetting works would only generate temporary and localised low level SS elevation and not significant depletions of DO. Depletions of DO as a result of the dredging/ jetting activities have been predicted to be undetectable and compliant with the relevant WQOs. It is thus expected that no unacceptable impacts to the marine ecological assemblages and sensitive receivers present in the vicinity of the pipeline alignment will occur.

Nutrients

High levels of nutrients (total inorganic nitrogen TIN and unionized ammonia UIA) released from disturbed sediments to seawater may potentially cause rapid increases in phytoplankton to the point where an algal bloom may occur. An intense bloom of algae can lead to sharp increases in DO levels in surface water. However, at night and when these algae die there is usually a sharp decrease in the levels of dissolved oxygen in the water, as dead algae fall through the water column and decompose on the bottom. Anoxic conditions may result if DO concentrations are already low or are not replenished. This may result in mortality to marine organisms due to oxygen deprivation.

The water quality modelling results (Section 7.7) have indicated that dredging and jetting would generate low level TIN and UIA elevation in a localised area close to the works. Consequently TIN and UIA levels are not expected to increase from background conditions during the marine operations. Algal blooms and unacceptable impacts to the marine ecological assemblages and habitats present in the vicinity of the marine works areas are not expected to arise due to the works.

Dissolved Metals and Organic Contaminants

Heavy metals, metalloid and trace organic compounds from the sediment samples analysed under this EIA indicated that the levels of these contaminants are below the corresponding proposed assessment criteria (Section 7.7). Dredging and jetting of marine sediment under this Project would unlikely result in significant release of sediment-bounded pollutants into the water column. Therefore, no unacceptable adverse impact to the marine ecological assemblage and habitats with the release of sediment-bounded pollutants would be expected.

Changes in Water Quality from Land-based and Jetty Topside Construction Activities and Pipeline Hydrotesting

For the Jetty topside construction and the land-based construction of the GRS at the BPPS and the GRS at the LPS, which do not involve marine works, indirect impacts to marine ecological resources may include changes in water quality from land-based discharges and site runoff from construction workforce, as described in the water quality impact assessment in Section 7.7. Land-based discharges and runoff from the work site, particularly during minor trenching and equipment installation works, may contain suspended solids which could be a source of water pollution. Uncontrolled disposal of debris and rubbish such as packaging, construction materials and refuse and spillages of chemicals stored on-site, such as oil, diesel and solvents would also result in contamination of construction site runoff. Standard site management practices and mitigation measures, described in Section 7.9.1, are recommended and when properly implemented, it is anticipated that no unacceptable water quality impacts would arise from these works. Consequently, indirect impacts on marine ecological resources would be managed to within acceptable levels.

Also, hydrotesting would be required for checking the integrity of the subsea pipelines. Seawater added with corrosion inhibitor compound would be used for hydrotesting. As assessed in Section 7.7.3, most constituents of the proposed compound are water and other low toxicity substances, and the only constituent of potential ecotoxicological concern is expected to be discharged at concentration below the toxic levels determined by toxicity studies (Annex 7B). The discharge of hydrotest water is thus unlikely to result in notable ecotoxicity in the receiving waters at end-of-pipe, and further dilution and dispersion is expected upon discharge such that potential effect, if any, would be negligible. No unacceptable impact to marine ecological resources would be expected.

Accidental Spillage or Leakage of Fuel/ Chemicals

The use of fuel/chemicals associated with the construction work vessels accidents and construction plants would mean there is a potential of spillage or leakage of such materials if not properly managed. It is expected that chemicals used on the works vessels would be held in low quantities. Fuel spill or leaks would tend to float on the water surface and will evaporate into the atmosphere and dissipate rapidly. The potential for impact to specific biota would depend on the nature and degree of exposure received by a particular individual. However, given the risk of spillage and leakage would generally be limited to minor volumes, no significant impacts would be expected in the event that an unplanned accidental spill or leak occurred. Measures would be implemented for the safe storage, handling and disposal of chemicals and oils to prevent the release into the marine environment. Preventative measures such as bunding of machinery areas and availability of spill cleanup kits would be in place to prevent spillage or leakage of fuel/chemical to reach the marine environment. Unacceptable impacts on ecological resources are thus not expected.

9.5.2 Operation Phase

Potential impacts to marine ecological resources arising during the operation of the Project are summarized in Table 9.35 and discussed further in the following sections. No impacts are expected to occur during the operation of the subsea pipelines which maintenance dredging is not expected.

Table 9.35 Summary of Potential Operation Phase Impacts to Marine Ecological Resources

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Permanent habitat loss and disturbance	Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat at the proposed Jetty	Permanent loss of approximately 0.8 ha of seabed at the footprint of the Jetty piles Creation of hard bottom artificial habitat
Impingement and entrainment due to operation of seawater intake	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential for injury and mortality to marine organisms
Mooring for LNG transfer	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential impacts to introduction of invasive species due to discharge of ballast water from the FSRU Vessel
Changes in water quality due to cooled water discharge	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential impacts to marine organisms due to exposure to cooled water with residual chlorine, concentrated seawater from the freshwater generator, and treated sewage from the FSRU Vessel
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance due to maintenance dredging	Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat and marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Temporary loss of specific areas of seabed as needed
Short-term changes in water quality due to maintenance dredging	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Potential water quality impacts and deposition of sediment onto the seabed affecting benthic organisms
Underwater sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Vibration and disturbance to nearby organisms
Effects of glare from light sources and emergency gas flares	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Potential for disturbance impacts resulting in behavioral changes of Green Turtles
Accidental spillage and leakage of fuel/ chemicals, including incidents e.g. typhoons	Marine waters, subtidal and Intertidal Artificial/ Natural Shores	Potential water quality impacts on organisms

As discussed in Section 7.8, only minor impacts to hydrodynamics and water quality would be expected due to the physical presence of the LNG Terminal during the operation phase and therefore unacceptable impacts to marine ecology including horseshoe crabs, whale shark and green turtle are not anticipated.

Permanent Habitat Loss from Physical Presence of Marine Structures

The presence of the Jetty will result in a permanent loss of a small area (approximately 0.8ha) of subtidal soft bottom habitat and water column due to installation of piles and mooring structures, and any foundations on the seabed. Impacts will be due to burial and physical disturbance of organisms as the structures are installed to the seabed.

By adopting a Structural Jacket design for the Jetty, the overall number of open-ended steel tubular piles that is required to be installed is reduced to approximately 80, compared to the approximately 400 piles for the traditional piled substructure design. The loss of habitat has thus been reduced to minimize the degree of impact as far as possible.

Findings from the literature, supplemented by field surveys indicated the benthic assemblage within and in the vicinity of the Jetty was dominated by polychaete bristleworms and characterized by similar species diversity and biomass as elsewhere in Hong Kong and was considered of low ecological value (Table 9.23). All of the benthic species recorded at the Jetty occur frequently in Hong Kong and no rare species or species of conservation importance (e.g. the amphioxus Branchiostoma belcheri) were observed. Given the low ecological value of the associated benthic assemblages and only a small area of the soft-bottom seabed will be lost, unacceptable impacts on the ecological resources are not expected.

The subsea jetty infrastructure can create new hard bottom artificial habitat which has the potential to act as hard substrate for the settlement of epifaunal marine organisms that would not otherwise be successful in colonizing the area. Where permitted, colonization of the structures over time is expected to lead to the development of a marine fouling community. The presence of the structures and fouling community may provide subtidal and intertidal predator and prey refuges, foraging resources for pelagic fish and may support fish aggregations in a similar manner to artificial reefs. Effects associated with creation of artificial habitat may include increased biological productivity and increased diversity of niche habitats.

Impingement and Entrainment of Marine Ecological Resources

In order to provide water to heat exchangers for the regasification of LNG, seawater will be extracted from marine waters at the LNG Terminal through a seawater intake on the hull of the FSRU Vessel at up to a maximum rate of about 20,000m³ per hour. Ballast water uptake by LNGC and the FSRU Vessel may also be needed. The inflowing seawater at the seawater intake may have negative effects on marine ecological resources due to the physical damage caused by collisions with the screening system (impingement) and due to their uptake to the process system (entrainment). The swimming speeds of juveniles and larvae vary greatly but are generally slower than the water velocity of the intake system. Owing to their larger size, juvenile fish are generally more susceptible to impingement, whilst planktonic larvae and eggs are more exposed to entrainment, as their small size enables them to pass through the screening system. Adult fish are in general much less susceptible to risks of impingement and entrainment since they can swim at higher velocities and hence can counteract the intake velocity and actively move away.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the intake of seawater may minimally increase the natural mortality rate of juvenile fish, planktonic larvae and eggs due to impingement and entrainment, it has been noted that the significance of such impacts is strongly dependent on the ecological sensitivity and the productivity of the impacted area as well as the rate of water intake. Findings from the field surveys (see Annex 10C) suggested that the supply of eggs and planktonic larvae would appear limited in the waters of the LNG Terminal when compared to other part of the Assessment Area over time consistently. Considering the low ecological sensitivity and productivity in eggs and planktonic larvae near the LNG Terminal, unacceptable impacts due to impingement and entrainment of marine ecological resources is not anticipated.

Mooring for LNG Transfer

No discharge of ballast water from LNGC is expected since LNGC would arrive at the LNG Terminal with LNG cargoes and thus with minimal ballast water. Consequently it is not expected to introduce invasive alien species to local waters. During the mooring for LNG transfer, ballast water will be taken on-board the LNGC from the surrounding sea and pumped into its double hull ballast tanks to compensate for the LNG cargo unloading process. For the FSRU Vessel, ballast water will be taken on-board the FSRU Vessel from the sea at the Jetty and pumped into its double hull ballast tanks to compensate for the discharge of LNG, and will be discharged back to the sea at the Jetty on receipt of LNG, respectively. Given the uptake and discharge of ballast water for the FSRU Vessel will be undertaken at the Jetty, it is not expected to introduce invasive alien species and thus adverse impact from the discharge of ballast water is not expected.

Changes in Water Quality due to Cooled Water Discharge

Cooled water from the regasification process with a temperature of about 9°C cooler than ambient seawater will be discharged continuously during normal operations at up to a maximum rate of about 20,000m³ per hour. Computational modelling has been undertaken to analyse the dispersion of the cooled water plume (refer Section 7.8.1). The model indicated a temperature change exceeding the WQO of ± 2°C would be localized within the immediate proximity of the discharge outfall of the FSRU Vessel in both the dry season and wet season. The cooled water plume will undergo rapid mixing such that beyond the immediate vicinity of the discharge point, down-current water temperatures are expected to return to within 2°C of ambient in a short distance (Annex 7G). The predicted maximum change in water temperature at the nearest sensitive receivers is less than 1°C (Section 7.8.1) and is well below the proposed assessment criteria based on WQO, and is considered to be within or similar to range of daily fluctuation. Full compliance with the WQO for seawater temperature is predicted at all marine ecological sensitive receivers in both the dry and wet seasons.

The potential impacts of the cooled seawater discharge are principally related to the physiological effects on marine biota in the highly localized zone of reduced temperature near the point of discharge. Organisms within this zone will include transient pelagic organisms in the water column and sessile and low-mobility benthic organisms inhabiting the subtidal soft bottom habitat and the fouling community that develops on subsea infrastructure. Potential impacts due to exposure to small reductions in temperature will be confined to minor reductions in the rate of physiological processes (e.g. metabolic processes). Hong Kong marine biota are typically adapted to large seasonal water temperature differences and exposed organisms are expected to be tolerant of the predicted small reductions in temperature associated with the cooled water discharge. Within the water column, any potential for impact to pelagic organisms such as plankton and fish will likely be further reduced by their temporary transient presence near the outfall and the possibility that mobile species would have the capability to move away. Given reduced temperature of the cooled water discharges is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts on marine ecological resources of the area, no unacceptable impacts are expected.

To counteract the settlement and growth of marine organisms on the vaporization system, the system would be dosed with a small quantity of sodium hypochlorite which acts as an antifoulant to inhibit the growth of organisms within the system. The use of alternative, non-chlorinated organic compounds as antifoulants, e.g. Ultra-Violet (UV) light, ozone, chlorine dioxide, copper biocides and other commercial antifouling chemicals, has been considered. The alternatives of using UV light and ozone are not recommended because they do not provide the required residual biological control through the entire vaporization system. The use of hazardous chemicals such as chlorine dioxide, copper biocides and other commercial antifouling chemicals is also not recommended as they could have toxic effect on marine ecology and require space on board the FSRU Vessel for production and storage (hence increases operational safety issues). Sodium hypochlorite is thus proposed as an antifoulant.

The quantity of sodium hypochlorite used will be limited such that its potential toxicity effect to marine ecological sensitive receivers will be negligible. Following the dosing of the seawater at the intake, most chlorine will react and be neutralized within the water circulation system. On discharge to the sea, low residual concentrations of chlorine (up to 0.5 mg L^-1) will undergo rapid dilution in the prevailing currents and will further reduce due to rapid chemical and photo-degradation processes. Computational modelling of the total residual chlorine (TRC) has indicated that TRC concentrations are expected to reduce within acceptable levels within less than 100m of the discharge outfall of the FSRU Vessel in the dry season and approximately 130m in the wet season (Annex 7G). Full compliance with the WQO for the assessment criterion (0.02 mg L^-1) for TRC is predicted at all marine ecological sensitive receivers in both the dry and wet seasons.

The potential for toxicological effects to marine ecological resources due to exceedance of the TRC assessment criterion will be confined to a small mixing zone at the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. Exposure within this zone, however will not be continuous due to shifting plume direction depending on currents. In addition, pelagic marine organisms such as fish and plankton would be expected to have a transient temporary presence within the mixing zone such that exposure time may not be of sufficient duration to elicit a toxic response. Given trace TRC concentration in the cooled seawater discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts on marine ecological resources of the area, no unacceptable impacts are expected.

A freshwater generator will be provided on board the FSRU Vessel to provide potable water for staff onsite. The freshwater generator would employ vacuum distillation for freshwater production and no chemical additive would be required for its normal operation. The assessment in Section 7.8.2 suggested that salinity change due to the discharge of concentrated seawater would only result in < 2% elevation at the point of discharge, which is much lower than the corresponding WQO criteria of 10%. Concentrated seawater would also be further diluted and dispersed upon discharge to within or similar to the range of daily fluctuation and therefore no unacceptable impact on marine ecology is expected.

For the discharge of a small quantity of treated sewage (maximum about 14.4m³day^-1) from the operation of the LNG Terminal, the modelling results and assessment in Section 7.8.3 showed that such discharge would be compliant with the corresponding WQOs and/or discharge standard. Thus, no unacceptable secondary impact on marine ecology from the increase in pollution load from treated sewage discharge from the proposed Project is expected. Other pollution load and effluent generated from the LNG Terminal operation would be stored in storage tank(s) on board and collected for treatment and disposal at appropriate facilities on land (see Section 7.8.3), and so no impact to marine ecology is expected.

Temporary Habitat Loss and Disturbance from Maintenance Dredging

Maintenance dredging at the LNG Terminal may be required once every around five years (subject to site condition) to maintain sufficient clearance for safe navigation of the LNGC. The scale and extent of dredging would be much smaller than similar marine works of the construction phase, which will be confined to the area within the LNG Terminal and will not encroach into the proposed SLMP.

None of the marine ecological sensitive receivers presented in Table 9.3 is found within the potential maintenance dredging area and thus direct, short-term habitat disturbance will not occur at these sensitive receivers. Short-term direct impacts to subtidal bottom assemblages may occur as a result of maintenance dredging if needed, although once completed seabed would be available for recolonisation by benthic fauna. Given the low ecological value of the associated benthic assemblages, no unacceptable impacts is expected.

Short-term Changes in Water Quality from Maintenance Dredging

Potential water quality impacts on ecological assemblage and nearby sensitive receivers from operation phase maintenance dredging would be much less significant than similar activities assessed in Section 9.5.1. Sensitive receivers presented in Table 9.32 are considered to be of sufficient distance from the potential maintenance dredging area and are unlikely to be affected indirectly by impacts to water quality. With the implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the water quality impact assessment in Section 7.9.1, such as the use of silt curtains and appropriate working rate, potential impacts to marine ecological resources are expected to be reduced to within acceptable levels as assessed in Section 7.8.5. Consequently, unacceptable impacts to organisms in the vicinity of the dredging areas arising from elevated SS and nutrient levels, sediment deposition, and depletion of DO are not anticipated.

Underwater Sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC Transit

The FSRU Vessel is anticipated to be permanently moored and so transit would be minimal except for typhoon evacuation. For LNG cargo delivery to the LNG Terminal, it is expected that on average one LNGC would arrive every five to eight days, subject to actual gas demand. LNGC transits would be assisted by tug boats for safe mooring at the Jetty. A stand-by vessel would be stationed at the LNG Terminal to support operational activities. Consequently, very few vessel movements are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal, and the underwater sound characteristics of the vessels involved are very much similar to those in the area at present from similar marine traffic. Marine organisms in these waters are habituated to the background level of underwater sound, and a small increase in vessel activity associated with the operation of this Project is not anticipated to result in unacceptable impacts on marine ecology, including horseshoe crabs, whale shark and green turtle if temporarily present.

Most of the sound generated by the LNG Terminal and visiting LNGC will be from engine for power generation and machinery mounted on the decks and platform above the waterline, i.e. airborne. Though continuous, the low level of vibration and underwater sound transmitted into the surrounding waters and the seabed from Project operation is expected to be of low energy and in lower frequencies. This is likely to be absorbed by natural and traffic related background sound, and given that marine organisms are habituated to background underwater ground, unacceptable impacts on marine ecology are not expected, including whale shark and green turtle if temporarily present.

Effects of Glare from Light Sources and Emergency Gas Flares

The LNG Terminal will operate on a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year basis. Operational and navigational lighting will be required to meet operational need and in line with safety requirements. Lighting design information is currently not available but it is anticipated that most of the lighting will be kept minimal and facing downward. Flaring of gas would occur during emergency/ upset conditions only as part of safety measures to maintain integrity of the facility.

Of the marine ecological resources, potential impacts to Green Turtle from glare effect of light sources are relevant and assessed. Marine turtle behaviour at nesting beaches is largely guided by light cues and they have a tendency to orientate towards brightness ([23]). As a result, lighting from coastal developments has a potential to disrupt the behaviour of nesting adult turtles and hatchlings ([24]). Hatchlings use light as a cue to locate the ocean and are often attracted or disorientated by artificial light rather than being deterred by it, which can lead to mortality through exhaustion, dehydration or predation. Adults have been observed to continue nesting despite the introduction of artificial light on beaches and sea-finding behaviour by adults is rarely disrupted by artificial lighting ([25]).

Based on the suggested night-time lighting controls to reduce light impact from the LNG Terminal and given the offshore location of the LNG Terminal which is distant (>15km) and not in the line of sight of the Green Turtle nesting beach at Sham Wan SSSI, there is no potential for glare effect of light sources to interfere with the behaviour of any turtle hatchlings or affect normal adult nesting behaviour. Unacceptable adverse impacts from glare effect of light sources on Green Turtle are not anticipated.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of LNG/ Fuel / Chemicals

LNG spillage from the LNG Terminal and visiting LNGCs is not considered a major issue because LNG vaporizes at ambient temperature ([26]). In any case of LNG spillage, there would not be any significant residues in the receiving waters from the LNG and hence impact on marine ecological resources would be negligible.

Risk of spillage or leakage of other chemicals would be managed by implementing preventive measures at the LNG Terminal such as bunding and closed drainage of machinery and chemical storage areas and provision of spill clean-up kits to prevent spillage or leakage to reach the marine environment. Unacceptable impacts on marine ecology are thus not expected.

During incidents (e.g. typhoons) and emergency conditions, visiting LNGC (if present) and the FSRU Vessel will sail away to the waters outside Hong Kong as a precautionary measure to minimize accidental events. In the extremely unlikely event of an LNGC fuel spillage, the spill would tend to float on the water surface, subject to dilution, dispersion and evaporation into the atmosphere. As required under the EIA Study Brief, modelling of the unlikely event of fuel spillage has been conducted, in the absence of spill response, and predicted the spilled fuel could extend over Hong Kong southern waters with trajectory depending on the prevailing wind and currents at the time (see Section 7.8.4). Potential impacts from fuel spills include physical effects due to coating and smothering of organisms which can impair life functions such as feeding, ability to respire and mobility as well as sub-lethal and lethal effects caused by exposure to dissolved aromatic hydrocarbons. The potential for impact to marine ecological resources and habitats would however depend on the nature and degree of exposure following clean-up.

As discussed in Section 3 and Section 5, the LNGCs are double-hulled and well equipped with navigational equipment and lighting and would comply with all standard vessel operating and communication procedures to reduce the risks of vessel collision. It is also important to recognize that upon a spill event, immediate response would be provided and clean-up effort would be deployed as necessary. The Marine Department also has a sophisticated Maritime Oil Spill Response Plan (MOSRP) in place that complies with the provisions of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (OPRC). The MOSRP aims to ensure a quick and effective response to any spill incidents in local Hong Kong waters. A project-specific contingency plan will also be prepared including protocols for containment, remediation and reporting accidental spills. Given the extremely low likelihood of such spill event and the effective implementation of contingency plan if this occurs, no unacceptable impacts on marine ecology would be expected.

9.6 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Marine Mammals

9.6.1 Construction Phase

Further to the construction activities described in Section 9.5.1, potential impacts to marine mammals during the construction phase are summarized in Table 9.36 and discussed further in the following sections. No re-alignment of the existing subsea utilities is required under this Project and hence no impacts on marine mammals is expected in this regard.

Table 9.36 Summary of Construction Phase Impacts to Marine Mammals

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline	Disturbance to habitats within active work fronts
Underwater sound from Jetty pile installation works	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Potential for acoustic disturbance resulting in behavioural changes and hearing injury
Increased marine traffic from marine construction activities	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Potential for injury from vessel strike
Short-term changes in water quality from marine construction activities, including from transportation and disposal of dredged sediments	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Potential direct impacts due to changes in water quality
		Potential for secondary impacts due to changes in prey resource distribution
		Potential for secondary impacts from contaminant release from seabed disturbance leading to potential bioaccumulation effects.
Underwater sound from marine construction activities	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Potential for disturbance impacts resulting in behavioral changes
Accidental spillage/leakage of fuels/ chemicals	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Potential for sublethal toxicity effects and irritation

Temporary Habitat Loss and Disturbance

For marine construction activities, it is important to reduce the number and size of works areas and total duration of marine works to limit potential short-term behavioural disturbance and / or displacement of marine mammals.

The works area at the Jetty has been reduced where practical and an area of approximately 18 ha is required. In the context of the size of the range of marine mammals, the size of the disturbed area would be small. Marine mammals are expected to avoid the vicinity of the works areas and would return to the areas upon cessation of the disturbance. Similar predictions have been made in approved EIA report when evaluating the impacts of marine construction works on CWD ([27]). Consequently there may be a decline of FP usage of some waters of Southeast Lantau where the LNG Terminal is located, while the animals are expected to move to the boarder southern Lantau waters including the Southwest Lantau and Lamma and continue to use the broader areas to a similar degree. Considering the temporary nature of the disturbance (about six to nine months for the Jetty jacket installation and marine piling works), unacceptable impacts on marine mammals are not expected. Upon cessation of the disturbance, no significant long-term change in marine mammal distribution, abundance and usage pattern in the wider Hong Kong waters is expected.

The construction of the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline which will involve dredging, pipe-laying, jetting and rock armour placement. Each activity is scheduled to take place within a period of about four to six months. With a short works programme enabled by working 24 hours a day in some areas of the pipeline routes, it is expected that marine mammals that have avoided the vicinity of the works areas can return to the area sooner. Also, although some locations to be impacted may have moderate to high ecological importance, it is important to note that not the entire lengths of the two pipeline routes would be disturbed at any one time because pipeline dredging, pipe-laying, jetting and rock armour placement activities would be undertaken at discrete work fronts (each within a few hundred metres from the pipeline centreline), and these activities would be carried out in sequence, i.e. phased. Considering the temporary nature of the disturbance and with management of work fronts/sequence, impacts on marine mammals are expected to be of minor significance, except for sections of the BPPS Pipeline (between North of Tai O to Fan Lau, and between South of Soko Islands to LNG Terminal) and the LPS Pipeline (LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau) where impact of minor to moderate significance is expected hence requiring mitigation. Upon cessation of the disturbance, no significant long-term change in marine mammal distribution, abundance and usage pattern in the wider Hong Kong waters is expected.

Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing disturbance to marine mammals and has been adopted in marine construction activities in Hong Kong. It is considered that the implementation of marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring will be effective in further reducing the disturbance of marine mammals during construction works at both daytime and night-time. Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring has been adopted in marine construction activities in Hong Kong during both daytime and night-time, in particular the north Lantau waters where CWD is more abundant ([28]) ([29]) ([30]) ([31]). CWD which is pale in colour is relatively easy to see during both daytime and night-time with sufficient lighting typical on marine barges. Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring has been demonstrated to be technically feasible, and also effective in reducing disturbance to marine mammals and there is no reported case of marine mammal injury/behavioural change due to marine construction works with the implementation of marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring. Therefore BPPS Pipeline construction works (with the exception described below considering impact on FP) will be carried out 24 hours a day to minimize the total works duration. This is especially necessary for the BPPS Pipeline sections that crosses the Urmston Road Channel and Adamasta Channel and adjacent to the Lantau Channel Traffic Separation Scheme for safety reasons, as it is important to minimise the duration of works in these areas to also prevent risk to vessels and high speed ferries in these busy channels. It is not expected that night time works will have any significant impact on CWD. As a mitigation measure, considering the moderate to high ecological value of the waters from North of Tai O to Fan Lau to CWD, pipeline dredging/ jetting will avoid the peak months of dolphin calving (May and June).

Findings from the EIA showed that FP exhibited the tendency for greater activity in late hours at night and very early hours at surveyed locations compared to daylight hours. Consequently to mitigate potential disturbance to FP especially in waters of moderate ecological importance, i.e. South of Soko Islands to LNG Terminal along the BPPS Pipeline, and LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau along the LPS Pipeline, pipeline dredging/ jetting works are recommended to be scheduled to take place for 12 hours during daytime period (0700-1900) with marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring. Pipeline dredging/ jetting works for the remainder of the LPS Pipeline would proceed with marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring for 24 hours a day to minimize the total works duration. No unacceptable impact to FP is expected given the low ecological importance of these waters to the species and the effective implementation of 24-hour marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring.

It is important to note that in Hong Kong, many similar subsea pipelines have been installed or permitted in marine mammal habitats. There is no evidence of significant residual impacts on marine mammals due to pipeline installation activities. This Project has adopted similar construction methodology and mitigation measures and with appropriate mitigation, potential impacts to marine mammals are deemed environmentally acceptable.

Underwater Sound from Jetty Pile Installation Works

Underwater piling activities at the Jetty would result in a short-term increase in underwater sound, which may potentially affect marine mammals.

For this Project, jacket structures have been proposed for the construction of the Jetty. This involves the offloading of the prefabricated jackets with mudmat base using a crane barge and lowering them to the seabed. Once in position, the jackets would be further secured through installing piles at pre-determined places on the jacket structure. The piles would need to be installed using a combination of vibratory/ hydraulic ‘pushing’ and hydraulic hammering similar to the percussive pile driving method. Based on the preliminary engineering design a total of ~80 nos. of open-ended steel tubular piles would be required. It would take approximately a few months to complete installation of piles.

Vibratory/ hydraulic ‘pushing’ piling method produces a continuous sound with peak pressures lower than those produced from impulses generated by impact piling such as percussive piling ([32]). Whilst the typical sound source levels of impact piling range from 180–235 dB re 1 μPa (most of the sound energy usually occurs at lower frequencies between 100 Hz and 1 kHz), the typical sound source levels of vibratory piling range from 160–200 dB re 1 μPa (most of the sound energy also usually occurs at lower frequencies between 100 Hz and 2 kHz) ([33]). The use of vibratory piling method where technically feasible (i.e. over soft marine deposit of the seabed) is considered to be less disturbing to marine mammals and effective in reducing potential underwater sound impacts on marine mammals.

Underwater percussive piling has the potential to generate high intensity pulsed sound. The sound through the structure-borne sound pathway would have highest energy at the lower frequencies from about 100 Hz to 1 kHz ([34])([35]) but the frequency range extends much higher than this. Sounds are transmitted to the water via both structure-borne and air-borne sound pathways. Structure-borne vibrations from the percussive hammer are re-radiated as sound into the water via the piles, the substrata and the piling rig to the barge. Piling through soft sediment such as would occur at the Jetty typically generates lower sound levels than through rocky substrata.

The air-borne sound pathway consists of sound propagation from the percussive hammer and the piles through the air to the water surface. However, the sound transmitted to the water via the air-borne sound path is not expected to be significant as sound is reflected and does not penetrate the water surface at angles greater than about 13° from the vertical, such that the distance at which sounds could be transmitted into the water column would be very small (i.e. largely confined to in the order of a few meters to the side of the hydraulic hammer).

Small cetaceans are acoustically sensitive at certain frequencies, and sound is important to their behavioural activities. Sound that masks communications for socializing and group cohesion or echolocation for foraging could have a potential impact. The reactions from impacted cetaceans can range from brief interruption of normal activities to short- or long-term displacement from noisy areas. Although pulsed high-energy sound also has the potential to induce physical hearing injury in marine mammals, this is unlikely other than in the immediate vicinity of pile driving activities.

CWD have been reported to use five categories of vocalisation associated with different activities ([36]). These animals use high frequency broad-band clicks in the range of 8 kHz to > 22 kHz during foraging ([37]). During both foraging and socialising, burst pulse sounds of barks and quacks in the frequency range of 0.6 kHz to > 22 kHz are used. Low frequency narrow band grunt vocalisations in the range of 0.5 kHz to 2.6 kHz are also used during socialising activity. CWD also have whistle vocalisations in a wide frequency from 0.9 kHz to 22 kHz. CWD are acoustically sensitive at a peak range of 8 - 90 kHz, and sound produced during percussive piling would be audible and may overlap and mask frequencies including those used for socializing and foraging, resulting in behavioural responses including avoidance. Considering that CWD are rarely sighted near the works area at the LNG Terminal and therefore the potentially affected waters do not constitute important habitat for these animals, potential disturbance impacts are not anticipated. CWD habitats further west (e.g. Soko Islands, the western portion of the proposed SLMP, and the proposed SWLMP) are over 4 km away and acoustic disturbance from piling, if any, would be negligible.

In contrast, FP vocalise at much higher frequencies than CWD. FP produce high frequency ultrasonic narrowband clicks at a peak frequency of 142 kHz, which are inaudible to the human ear ([38]). They are high frequency specialists, and sound produced during the short term percussive piling works would be audible and may overlap and mask frequencies including those used for socializing but would not likely mask the ultrasonic frequencies used in echolocation for foraging. The waters in the surrounds of the Jetty is a FP habitat of moderate ecological importance, with higher sightings in winter and spring and with greater activity occurring at late hours at night and very early hours. FP would be expected to respond by avoiding a localised works area near the Jetty and the effect would be limited to behavioural disturbance impacts on affected individuals only without affecting the functionality of key habitats such as the eastern portion of the proposed SLMP. In the context of the size of the range of these animals, the size of the disturbed area would be small, and no significant long-term change in marine mammal distribution, abundance and usage pattern in the wider Hong Kong waters is expected.

Studies undertaken by the UK Government’s body on Wind Farm Research (COWRIE - Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into The Environment) collected measurements of sound levels created during percussive piling for wind turbines on five wind farms throughout the North Sea ([39]). Source levels during the measured pile driving operations, with piles of much larger diameter (4 – 4.7m) than that proposed in this Project (about 1.5m) hence requiring higher pile driving energy with higher resultant underwater sound level, varied between 243 and 257 dB re 1 Pa at 1 m, with an average value of 250 dB re 1 Pa at 1 m. The study reported that measurements of > 130 dB level (from which marine mammals may suffer physical injury or permanent damage to hearing ([40])) were found not to exceed a few hundred metres and hence stated that a static harbour porpoise at a typical range of 250m could be exposed to the sound during the entire pile driving operation without harm. In addition, impacts to marine mammals from percussive piling operations in offshore waters can be significantly reduced by avoidance of marine percussive piling works during peak season of occurrence, adopting soft-starts procedures and strictly controlled marine mammal exclusion zones ([41]). As such, impacts on the behavioural disturbance and habitat displacement of marine mammals are not considered to be significant. Recent field study of percussive piling at waters near southwest of Lamma Island for an offshore wind mast installation indicated that the measured average underwater noise level is approximately 117.5 dB re 1μPa at 1 m ([42]) ([43]), which was much lower than the threshold value suggested above. It demonstrates that underwater sound from percussive piling could be managed to within levels acceptable to marine mammals.

Another experience of percussive piling in Hong Kong indicated that although this type of piling may result in temporary avoidance of the affected area by individual animals present in the vicinity, they would return on cessation of construction activities ([44]). Percussive piling equipment is typically fitted with a bubble jacket or bubble curtains, which have been demonstrated to be effective at reducing transmission of underwater sound generated during pile driving ([45]). Studies conducted during the construction of the Aviation Fuel Receiving Facility on Sha Chau reported sound level reduction by 3 to 5 dB in the overall broadband range. The bubble curtain was found to provide a reduction of 3 to 5 dB in the overall broadband sound level. At the 1.6 to 6.4 kHz band, bubbles reduced sound levels by 15 to 20 dB, and at the 400 to 800 Hz band by 8 to 10 dB. The bubble curtains were therefore shown to be particularly effective at reducing the higher frequency content of the pulses. Similarly, studies for the Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility demonstrated consistent and significant sound attenuation with bubble curtains in place ([46]).

Considering the technical feasibility and environmental acceptability for the installation of piles based on local and overseas experience, it is considered jetty construction using percussive piling would result in moderate impacts to marine mammals requiring mitigation. To further mitigate the increased underwater sound level, the following measures are recommended:

· Use of more environmental friendly percussive piling - hydraulic hammering (replace conventional diesel hammering);

· Use of Noise Reduction System for hydraulic hammering which is a well proven technique. Such system fully encloses the hammer and pile during driving. This proven technology can effectively reduce the airborne noise by 10 dB to 18 dB;

· Use of vibratory/ hydraulic pushing method to vibrate / push the open-ended steel tubular pile for the upper layer of the seabed (~70% in total pile length, subject to actual seabed condition) and only use hydraulic hammer (if needed) to install the remainder of the pile length through the lower layer of the seabed (~30% in total pile length, subject to actual seabed condition), therefore significantly reducing the percussive piling required and the associated noise impact from hydraulic hammer; and

· Use of a bubble curtain at each piling location.

In addition, the latest marine mammal data indicated that FP occurs in South Lantau waters year-round. Their occurrence is higher in winter and spring (December to May) when their distribution is more widespread in south Lantau waters. Impacts to marine mammals from percussive piling operations for the Jetty construction can be significantly reduced by avoidance of marine percussive piling during the peak season of FP (December to May), avoidance of night-time working and adopting soft-start procedures and strictly controlled marine mammal exclusion zones. On this basis and taking account of previous experience of response of affected animals to piling works, impacts due to behavioural disturbance and habitat displacement of marine mammals are not considered to be significant. Provided effective mitigation measures are implemented, unacceptable adverse impacts of increased underwater sound level on marine mammals and nearby proposed marine park (i.e. SLMP) are not anticipated.

Increased Marine Traffic

The construction of the Jetty and subsea pipeline installation works will require the use of marine works vessels such as supply/cargo vessel, tug boats, crane barge, dredging/ jetting plant, pipe-lay barge and flat-top barges, etc.. There are two main ways increased vessel movements due to construction activities has the potential to impact marine mammals. Firstly, vessel movements may potentially increase physical risks to marine mammals. Secondly, the physical presence of works vessels may cause short-term avoidance of the area where works vessels are operating, and this has been discussed above in terms of temporary disturbance.

In Hong Kong, there have been instances when marine mammals have been killed or injured by vessel collisions ([47])([48])([49]) , but it is thought that this risk is mainly associated with high-speed vessels such as high-speed ferries. In terms of potential impacts arising from works vessel movements of this Project, the risk of vessel collision is considered to be very small, as works vessels would be slow-moving. Works vessels would typically travel at up to about 10-12 knots during transit and be virtually stationary at work. Slow-moving vessels would not pose a significant risk to marine mammals including young animals. The risk of vessel strike would also be managed through precautionary measures (Section 9.11).

The marine construction works of the Project is expected to involve a relatively small number of works vessels (typical < 10 at any one time at each work front) (e.g. 1 dredger/ jetting plant/ pipelay barge, 1 anchor handling tugboat, 1-2 dumping barge for dredging/ rock placement work front, 1-2 survey boat, 1 crew boat, 1-2 guard/ supply Boat), and the frequency/ trip of vessel would also be low (expected to be about 15 trips per day). Marine vessels would make use of designated fairways to access the works areas, and would reduce traversing sensitive habitats such as existing and proposed marine parks where practicable. It should be noted that waters off western and southern Hong Kong have high levels of existing marine traffic. In this context, vessel traffic associated with the proposed Project would represent only a minor incremental increase in marine traffic in the area. The movements of all marine works vessels for the construction works will be maintained to the specific works areas with the implementation of the rules for vessel operation.

Given the slow-moving nature of the relatively small number of works vessels involved in the construction of the Project, unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Silt curtains are proposed to be deployed for subsea pipeline construction works. These would be deployed around the working plants (e.g. dredgers and jetting machine) as well as around sensitive receivers such as marine parks. The extent of the silt curtain deployment would be managed and controlled to minimize disturbance to marine mammals in the areas. Similar arrangements for silt curtain deployment have been adopted for marine projects in north Lantau waters and no incidents of injury or entanglement of marine mammals have been reported. Therefore unacceptable adverse impacts on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Short-term Changes in Water Quality

High SS levels and depletion of DO do not appear to have a direct impact on marine mammals since these animals are air breathing and therefore SS in the water column as a result of dredging, jetting and transportation and disposal of dredged sediments have no effect on their respiratory surfaces. Also marine mammals have evolved to inhabit areas near river mouths and estuarine-influenced coastal waters and are therefore well-adapted for hunting in turbid waters, owing to their use of echolocation, in addition to visual information.

With reference to the water quality modelling results (Section 7.7), fisheries resources are not predicted to be adversely affected, as the SS and nutrient elevations and DO depletion are localised to the works areas (and sites of dredged sediment disposal). It should be noted that marine mammals and their prey species are naturally exposed to high levels of suspended solids in the Pearl River Estuary. The consequences of this are that impacts to marine mammals through loss of localised feeding habitat (fisheries resources) are not predicted to occur. It is thus expected that adverse impacts to marine mammals arising from potential change in water quality will not occur.

Another potential impact on marine mammals associated with disturbance of bottom sediment during dredging or jetting is the potential bioaccumulation of released contaminants. The potential for release of contaminants from sediments when disturbed has been reviewed in Section 7.7.1, whereas, a comprehensive set of data on the quality of marine sediment is provided in Section 8. It is concluded that no significant release of heavy metals, metalloid and trace organic compounds from the sediment samples analysed under this EIA and the levels of these contaminants are below the corresponding proposed assessment criteria. As the release of heavy metals and micro-organic pollutants from the sediment when disturbed and subsequently disposed of are expected to be of short duration and at low levels, impacts on marine mammals due to bioaccumulation of released contaminants from dredged sediments are not expected to occur.

Underwater Sound from Marine Construction Activities

Marine construction activities can result in a minor and short term increase in underwater sound from marine vessels, which may potentially affect marine mammals.

Dredging, jetting and large works vessel traffic generally results in low frequency noise, typically in the range of 0.02 to 1 kHz which is below the peak range of 8 - 90 kHz and 142 kHz reported for dolphins and porpoises respectively (see details presented earlier). For this reason, underwater sound generated by dredging, jetting and other marine works is not expected to acoustically interfere significantly with dolphins or porpoises. Marine mammals may have short-term avoidance of the immediate works areas of sound generating activities, but are expected to return when the disturbance ceases. Unacceptable adverse impacts of increased underwater sound level on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of Fuel / Chemicals

As previously discussed in Section 9.5.1, the risk of spills and leaks would generally be limited to minor volumes and with implementation of preventative measures including bunding areas and provision of spill kit, no significant impacts would be expected.

9.6.2 Operation Phase

Potential impacts to marine mammals during the operation phase of the Project are summarized in Table 9.37 and discussed further in the following sections. No impacts are expected to occur during the operation of the subsea pipelines which maintenance dredging is not expected.

Table 9.37 Summary of Operation Phase Impacts to Marine Mammals

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Permanent habitat loss	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Permanent loss of approximately 2.5 ha of marine waters due to Jetty resulting in potential loss of foraging area, loss of carrying capacity and habitat fragmentation
Underwater sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits, and from LNG Terminal operation such as regasification process	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential for acoustic disturbance impacts resulting in behavioral changes
Increased marine traffic from LNG Terminal operation	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal and vessel transit routes	Potential for injury from vessel strike
Changes in water quality due to cooled water discharge	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential impacts due to exposure to cooled water with residual chlorine, concentrated seawater from the freshwater generator, and treated sewage from the FSRU Vessel
Temporary habitat disturbance and short-term changes in water quality due to maintenance dredging	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Disturbance to habitats within active works area and secondary impact from water quality changes
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, including incidents e.g. typhoons	At the LNG Terminal and surrounding waters	Potential for sublethal toxicity effects and irritation

As discussed in Section 7, only minor impacts to hydrodynamics and water quality would be expected due to the physical presence of the LNG Terminal during the operation phase and therefore impacts marine mammals to and their prey resources are not expected.

Potential impacts of impingement and entrainment of marine ecological resources at the seawater intake of the FSRU Vessel and through ballast water uptake of visiting LNGC have been assessed in Section 9.5.2 and unacceptable impact is not anticipated. Therefore no unacceptable impacts on marine mammals in terms of prey availability are anticipated. Also, potential impacts associated with ballast water discharge from mooring of LNG transfer have been assessed in Section 9.5.2 and unacceptable impact is not anticipated. Therefore no unacceptable impacts on marine mammals are anticipated.

Permanent Habitat Loss from Physical Presence of Marine Structures

As the construction of the Jetty progresses, the open marine waters at the LNG Terminal site will become occupied by the piled structures of the Jetty resulting in direct permanent loss of an area of the marine environment used by FP. Construction of the Jetty would result in approximately 2.5 ha permanent direct loss of marine mammal habitat, which have been rated of moderate ecological importance for FP only. It is considered that the area of marine water permanently occupied by the Jetty would be small and represents only a very small portion of available habitat for the species and would represent only a very minor portion of an individual animal’s movement range. While the habitat loss would represent a small loss of area for marine mammal foraging, this loss is not expected to reduce the foraging success or availability of prey resources (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) for FP which is an opportunistic feeder. Given the very small habitat loss and no adverse impacts to prey availability, loss of marine mammal carrying capacity is not predicted. Similarly, given the small scale of habitat loss and its offshore position in relatively deep open waters, the presence of the Jetty is not expected to affect movements of FP beyond a highly localized area such that significant adverse impacts due to habitat fragmentation effects is not expected. Overall, given that the potential impacts constitute a permanent loss of only a very small area of moderate ecological importance FP habitat with little, if any, secondary impacts, no unacceptable impacts on marine mammals would be expected. No significant long-term change in marine mammal distribution, abundance and usage pattern in the wider Hong Kong waters is expected. Enhancement measures are proposed (Section 9.12 refers) with a view to bringing possible enhancement to the marine habitats in south Lantau.

Underwater Sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC Transit, and from LNG Terminal Operation such as Regasification Process

As discussed in Section 9.5.2, very few vessel movements from visiting LNGC and stand-by vessel are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal, and the underwater sound characteristics of the vessels involved are very much similar to those in the area at present from similar marine traffic. Marine mammals in these waters are habituated to the background level of underwater sound, and a small increase in vessel activity associated with the operation of this Project is not anticipated to result in unacceptable impacts on marine mammals.

Also, most of the sound generated by the LNG Terminal, including sounds from engines, generators, onboard equipment and facilities, and the regasification process, and visiting LNGC will be airborne, and the continuous and low level of underwater sound transmitted into the surrounding waters is expected to be of low energy and in lower frequencies (e.g. 20Hz to 2.5kHz between 155 and 185 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m for the FSRU Vessel) (Section 9.5.2). These sounds are below the peak range of 8 - 90 kHz and 142 kHz reported for dolphins and porpoises respectively (see details presented in Section 9.6.1) and thus CWD and FP are not expected to be acoustically disturbed. It is noted that CWD are rarely sighted near the LNG Terminal and thus potential impacts to CWD are negligible, and CWD habitats further west (e.g. Soko Islands, the western portion of the proposed SLMP, and the proposed SWLMP) are over 4 km away and acoustic disturbance from LNG Terminal operation, if any, would also be negligible. Although FP inhabit the waters of the LNG Terminal, they are high frequency specialists and potential acoustic disturbance impacts would be limited, and the functionality of key habitats nearby such as the eastern portion of the proposed SLMP is also not expected to be affected, considering the minimal impact on marine ecological resources also (Section 9.5.2). Overall, unacceptable impacts of increased underwater sound level from LNG Terminal operation on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Increased Marine Traffic

During normal operations, the FSRU Vessel will be permanently moored at the Jetty and thus will not pose any risk of vessel collision with marine mammals. As discussed, very few vessel movements from visiting LNGC and stand-by vessel are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal. Tugs will be used to manoeuvre the visiting LNGC at slow speed until berthed alongside the jetty. Considering the slow speed of these vessels, it is not expected there would be a significant risk of vessel strike due to these vessel movements. Unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Changes in Water Quality due to Cooled Water Discharge

Maintenance Dredging at the LNG Terminal

Maintenance dredging at the LNG Terminal may be required once every around five years (subject to site condition) to maintain sufficient clearance for safe navigation of the LNGC. In the context of the size of the range of marine mammals, the size of the area where maintenance dredging may be needed would be small, which will be confined to the area within the LNG Terminal and will not encroach into the proposed SLMP. Considering the infrequent and temporary nature of the disturbance, unacceptable impacts on marine mammals are not expected.

As discussed in Section 9.6.1, changes in SS, DO, nutrient and contaminant levels associated with marine dredging are not expected to result in unacceptable adverse impacts on marine mammals. Considering the scale, frequency and locations of maintenance dredging which are much smaller than those in the construction phase, unacceptable adverse impacts on marine mammals are not expected.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of LNG/ Fuel/ Chemicals

As discussed in Section 9.5.2, LNG spillage from the LNG Terminal and visiting LNGCs is not considered a major issue because LNG vaporizes at ambient temperature and no significant residues would remain in the receiving waters, thus impact on marine mammals would be negligible. Risk of spillage or leakage of other chemicals would be managed by implementing preventive measures at the LNG Terminal (Section 9.5.2) and hence unacceptable impacts on marine ecology are not expected.

During incidents (e.g. typhoons) and emergency conditions, visiting LNGC (if present) and the FSRU Vessel will sail away to the waters outside Hong Kong as a precautionary measure to minimize accidental events. It is expected that very few vessel movements (the FSRU Vessel and additional stand-by vessel) are expected for such emergency conditions. Considering the slow speed of these vessels, it is not expected there would be a significant risk of vessel strike due to these vessel movements. Unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic due to potential incidents (e.g. during typhoon) on marine mammals are not anticipated.

Modelling of a hypothetical and unlikely event of fuel spillage has been conducted, and in the absence of spill response, the spilled fuel is predicted to extend over Hong Kong southern waters with trajectory depending on the prevailing wind and currents at the time (see Section 7.8.4). In the event of the hypothetical spill scenario occurred, direct impacts to marine mammals would be reduced by the possibility that they would be capable to move away from the slick affected area. Field and experimental observations indicate small cetaceans may be able to detect and avoid hydrocarbon slicks ([50])([51]), although there are also instances where cetaceans have swum directly into oiled areas without seeming to detect the slicks or because the slicks could not be avoided. As air breathing animals, cetaceans could be exposed to hydrocarbons when inadvertently surfacing through a slick at the sea surface, although it is thought only minor oil adherence may occur as they are smooth-skinned. Direct contact with a slick and inhalation of vapours may injure or irritate eyes, airways and other body cavities. As small cetaceans are “gulp feeders” targeting specific individual prey, they are likely less susceptible to ingest hydrocarbons due to feeding at depth away from the sea surface and are likely to avoid slicks. Potential impacts to prey resources are assessed in Section 9.6.1 and Section 10.5.2 and the assessments concluded that with immediate response and clean-up effort to minimize the degree of exposure to spilled fuel, it would be unlikely to result in a significant impact to prey resources beyond a temporary effects on distribution.

While fuel spill in large volume would give rise to adverse impacts to marine mammals, it must be recognized that the potential for impact to occur is negligible taking into account the extremely remote likelihood of this event occurring. A project-specific contingency plan will be prepared including protocols for containment, remediation and reporting accidental spill event. Given the extremely low likelihood of such spill event and the effective implementation of contingency plan if this occurs, no unacceptable impacts on marine mammals would be expected.

9.7 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Marine Parks

9.7.1 Construction Phase

Further to the construction activities described in Section 9.5.1, potential impacts to the existing, proposed and potential marine parks during the construction phase are summarized in Table 9.38 and discussed further in the following sections. It should be noted that none of the existing, proposed or potential marine parks is found within the Project sites and thus permanent and temporary habitat loss as well as temporary habitat disturbance will not occur at these marine parks. According to the current Project schedule, the proposed 3RSMP would not be in place at the time of Project construction. As such, no unacceptable impacts on marine parks due to habitat loss and disturbance would be expected. No re-alignment of the existing subsea utilities is required under this Project and hence no impacts on marine parks is expected in this regard.

Table 9.38 Summary of Construction Phase Impacts to Marine Parks

Nature of Impact	Marine Park Affected	Potential Impact
Underwater sound from Jetty pile installation works	SLMP	Potential for acoustic disturbance resulting in behavioural changes and hearing injury
Increased marine traffic from marine construction activities	Marine parks in the west	Potential for injury from vessel strike
Short-term changes in water quality from marine construction activities, including from transportation and disposal of dredged sediments	Marine parks in the west	Potential indirect impacts due to changes in water quality
		Potential for secondary impacts due to changes in prey resource distribution
		Potential for secondary impacts from contaminant release from seabed disturbance leading to potential bioaccumulation effects.
Underwater sound from marine construction activities	Marine parks in the west	Potential for disturbance impacts resulting in behavioral changes
Accidental spillage/leakage of fuels/ chemicals	Marine parks in the west	Potential for sublethal toxicity effects and irritation

Underwater Sound from Jetty Pile Installation Works

Underwater piling activities at the Jetty would result in a short-term increase in underwater sound (Section 9.6.1), which may potentially affect the functionality at the proposed SLMP located in the immediate vicinity. The proposed SLMP is a location where CWD is sighted mostly in its western portion and FP is regularly sighted throughout the marine park. As discussed in Section 9.6.1, CWD habitats further west (e.g. Soko Islands, the western portion of the proposed SLMP, and the proposed SWLMP) are over 4km away and acoustic disturbance from piling, if any, would be negligible. FP would be expected to respond by avoiding a localised works area near the Jetty and the effect would be limited to behavioural response including avoidance by affected individuals only without affecting the functionality of key habitats such as the eastern portion of the proposed SLMP. Impacts on the proposed SLMP are expected to be of moderate significance requiring mitigation.

To further reduce the impacts to the functionality of the proposed SLMP from percussive piling operations for the Jetty construction, it is recommended to avoid marine percussive piling during the peak season of FP (December to May) in south Lantau waters, avoid night-time working and adopt soft-start procedures and strictly controlled marine mammal exclusion zones. Specific measures including use of hydraulic hammers, acoustic decoupling and bubble curtain are also proposed to mitigate the potential underwater sound impacts. These measures have been adopted in marine construction activities in Hong Kong and have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing disturbance to marine mammals and thus the functionality of the proposed SLMP. On this basis and taking account of previous experience, unacceptable adverse impacts of increased underwater sound level on the functionality of the nearby proposed marine park (SLMP) are not anticipated.

Increased Marine Traffic

The marine construction vessels would make use of designated fairways to access the works areas, and would avoid traversing sensitive habitats such as existing and proposed marine parks where practicable. In case the construction vessels used in the Project need to pass through the existing and proposed marine parks, the 10-knot vessel speed limit of the Marine Parks and Reserves Regulations (Cap. 476A) will be strictly followed. Also, any anchoring/ anchor spread requirements will avoid encroachment into the existing and proposed marine parks. Given the works vessels would be slow-moving (< 10 knots) and the Project is expected to involve a relatively small number of works vessels (typical < 10 at any one time at each work front) (e.g. 1 dredger/ jetting plant/ pipelay barge, 1 anchor handling tugboat, 1-2 dumping barge for dredging/ rock placement work front, 1-2 survey Boat, 1 crew Boat, 1-2 guard/ supply boat), and the frequency/ trip of vessel would also be low (expected to be about 15 trips per day), unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic on the functionality of the existing and proposed marine parks are not anticipated. The movements of all marine works vessels for the construction works will be maintained to the specific works areas with the implementation of the rules for vessel operation including the use of predefined and regular routes that do not encroach into existing and proposed marine parks. Specific measures including speed restriction, use of predefined and regular routes, and avoidance of stopping over or anchoring within marine parks are therefore proposed to mitigate the potential marine traffic impacts.

Short-term Changes in Water Quality

With reference to the water quality modelling results (Section 7.7), elevation of SS near the pipeline routes is predicted, particularly for jetting next to the existing and proposed marine parks. Jetting works undertaken next to the marine park boundary is predicted to result in elevated level of SS for a short period of time, and would return to lower level as the jetting machine moves away from the marine parks. In general, potential water quality impact only occurs for a limited period of time, as shown in the high percentage time compliance of the SS criteria in Annex 7C. As described in Section 7.7, potential impacts on the marine parks are expected to require mitigation.

The potential for release of contaminants from disturbed sediments during dredging or jetting has been reviewed in Section 7.7.1. It is concluded that no significant release of heavy metals, metalloid and trace organic compounds from the sediment samples analysed under this EIA and the levels of these contaminants are below the corresponding proposed assessment criteria. In addition, due to the short duration and low level of pollutants from the disturbed and subsequently disposed sediment, impacts on marine flora and fauna in the marine parks due to bioaccumulation of released contaminants from dredged sediments are not expected to occur.

Mitigation measures including implementation of silt curtain at sediment sources (dredgers and jetting machine), reduction of working rates as well as silt curtain adjacent to the marine parks are recommended to reduce the potential water quality impact in the receiving waters and nearby marine parks. Full compliance in terms of SS elevation and sedimentation flux at all marine parks is predicted under the mitigated scenarios. It is considered that the change in water quality due to the marine construction works of the Project would be localised to the works areas, transient and within acceptable levels as defined by the WQO and tolerance criterion. In addition, as discussed in Section 9.6.1, marine mammals and their prey species are naturally exposed to high levels of suspended solids in the Pearl River Estuary. Adverse impacts to marine mammals and prey resources arising from potential change in water quality are not expected to occur. As such, unacceptable impacts on the functionality of the existing and proposed marine parks are not anticipated.

Underwater Sound from Marine Construction Activities

Marine construction activities can result in a minor and short term increase in underwater sound from marine vessels, which may potentially affect the habitats at the existing, proposed or potential marine parks. As discussed in Section 9.6.1, dredging, jetting and large works vessel traffic generally results in low frequency sound, which is not expected to acoustically interfere significantly with dolphins or porpoises, and hence unlikely to affect the functionality of existing and proposed marine parks for the conservation of these species. Unacceptable adverse impacts of increased underwater sound level on the functionality of marine parks are not anticipated.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of Fuel / Chemicals

9.7.2 Operation Phase

Potential impacts to the existing, proposed and potential marine parks during the operation phase of the Project are summarized in Table 9.39 and discussed further in the following sections. No impacts are expected to occur during the operation of the subsea pipelines which maintenance dredging is not expected.

Table 9.39 Summary of Operation Phase Impacts to Marine Parks

Nature of Impact	Marine Park Affected	Potential Impact
Underwater sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits, and from LNG Terminal operation such as regasification process	SLMP	Potential for acoustic disturbance impacts resulting in behavioral changes
Increased marine traffic from LNG Terminal operation	SLMP	Potential for injury from vessel strike
Mooring for LNG transfer	SLMP	Potential impacts to introduction of invasive species due to discharge of ballast water from the FSRU Vessel
Changes in water quality due to cooled water discharge with antifoulants	SLMP	Potential impacts due to exposure to cooled water with residual chlorine, concentrated seawater from the freshwater generator, and treated sewage from the FSRU Vessel
Temporary habitat disturbance and short-term changes in water quality due to maintenance dredging	SLMP	Disturbance to habitats within active works area and secondary impact from water quality changes
Implementation of Safety Zone	SLMP	No potential impact as the Safety Zone which is within the Project Site is outside the proposed SLMP
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, including incidents e.g. typhoons	Primarily SLMP, potentially other marine parks in the west also	Potential for sublethal toxicity effects and irritation

Underwater Sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC Transit, and from LNG Terminal Operation such as Regasification Process

As discussed in Section 9.5.2, very few vessel movements from visiting LNGC and stand-by vessel are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal, and the underwater sound characteristics of the vessels involved are very much similar to those in the area at present from similar marine traffic. In addition, the LNGC will not pass through the proposed SLMP during maneuvering to the Jetty. Therefore, a small increase in vessel activity associated with the operation of this Project is not anticipated to result in unacceptable impacts on the functionality of the nearby proposed marine parks.

Also, most of the sound generated by the LNG Terminal, including sounds from engines, generators, onboard equipment and facilities, and the regasification process, and visiting LNGC will be airborne, and the continuous and low level of underwater sound transmitted into the surrounding waters is expected to be of low energy and in lower frequencies (e.g. 20Hz to 2.5kHz between 155 and 185 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m for the FSRU Vessel) (Section 9.5.2). These sounds are below the peak range of 8 - 90 kHz and 142 kHz reported for dolphins and porpoises respectively (see details presented in Section 9.6.1) and thus CWD and FP are not expected to be acoustically disturbed. The functionality of key habitats nearby such as the eastern portion of the proposed SLMP is also not expected to be affected, considering the minimal impact on marine ecological resources also (Section 9.5.2). Overall, unacceptable impacts of increased underwater sound level from LNG Terminal operation on the functionality of the nearby proposed marine parks for the conservation of these species are not anticipated.

Increased Marine Traffic

During normal operations, the FSRU Vessel will be permanently moored at the Jetty. Due to its safe operational requirement, the FSRU Vessel will need transit through the proposed SLMP during manoeuvring to the Jetty and after typhoon event, which is anticipated to be 3-4 times a year, under pilotage, with the stand-by vessel in attendance and under tug control at a low manoeuvring speed, and thus will not affect the functionality of the existing, proposed and potential marine parks. In addition, the LNGC will not pass through the proposed SLMP during maneuvering to the Jetty and after typhoon event. No impact to the marine buoy at the corner of SLMP during berthing of the FSRU Vessel and LNGC is expected.

Other boats are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal and would generally make use of designated fairways and would avoid traversing sensitive habitats such as existing and proposed marine parks where practicable. In case the stand-by vessel used in the Project travel to the existing and proposed marine parks, the 10-knot vessel speed limit of the Marine Parks and Reserves Regulations (Cap. 476A) will be strictly followed. Also, any anchoring/ anchor spread requirements will avoid encroachment into existing, proposed and potential marine parks. Considering the slow speed of these vessels and the frequency/ trip of vessel would also be low, unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic on the functionality of the existing, proposed and planned marine parks are not anticipated.

Mooring for LNG Transfer

No discharge of ballast water from LNGC is expected since LNGC would arrive at the LNG Terminal with LNG cargoes and thus with minimal ballast water. Consequently it is not expected to introduce invasive alien species to local waters including the proposed SLMP. During the mooring for LNG transfer, ballast water will be taken on-board the LNGC from the surrounding sea and pumped into its double hull ballast tanks to compensate for the LNG cargo unloading process. For the FSRU Vessel, ballast water will be taken on-board the FSRU Vessel from the sea at the Jetty and pumped into its double hull ballast tanks to compensate for the discharge of LNG, and will be discharged back to the sea at the Jetty on receipt of LNG, respectively. Given the uptake and discharge of ballast water for the FSRU Vessel will be undertaken at the Jetty and at a distance about 200-300m from the proposed SLMP, it is not expected to introduce invasive alien species, and adverse impact on the proposed SLMP from the uptake and discharge of ballast water is also not expected.

Changes in Water Quality due to Cooled Water Discharge with Antifoulants

As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 9.5.2, results of the water quality modelling have predicted that effects of the cooled water discharge from the FSRU Vessel is localized and confined to the immediate vicinity of the discharge point in both seasons. The predicted maximum change in water temperature at the nearest sensitive receiver at the proposed SLMP is less than 1°C (Section 7.8.1) and is well below the proposed assessment criteria based on WQO, and is considered to be within or similar to range of daily fluctuation. In addition, the antifoulant sodium hypochlorite will mostly react and be neutralised within the water circulation system and the discharge is expected to contain low residual concentrations of chlorine (up to 0.5 mg L^-1), which will then undergo rapid dilution in the prevailing currents and will further reduce due to rapid chemical and photo-degradation processes. Computational modelling of the total residual chlorine (TRC) has indicated that TRC concentrations are expected to reduce within acceptable levels within less than 100m of the discharge outfall of the FSRU Vessel in the dry season and approximately 130m in the wet season, which is outside the nearby proposed SLMP. Full compliance with the WQO for the assessment criterion (0.02 mg L^-1) for TRC is predicted at all existing, proposed and potential marine parks in both the dry and wet seasons and thus the existing, proposed and potential marine parks are not predicted to be affected by this discharge. Also as discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 9.5.2, the TRC in the discharge would be at very low level which is not expected to result in adverse impact on nearby marine ecology. Discharge of very small quantities of concentrated seawater from the freshwater generator and treated effluent from the FSRU Vessel is also unlikely to affect marine parks as demonstrated by the full compliance of the corresponding WQOs and/or discharge standard in both seasons. Overall, no unacceptable impacts of cooled water discharge with antifoulants on the functionality of marine parks are anticipated.

Maintenance Dredging at the LNG Terminal

Maintenance dredging at the LNG Terminal may be required once every around five years (subject to site condition) to maintain sufficient clearance for safe navigation of the LNGC. Maintenance dredging within the proposed SLMP is not anticipated. It is expected that the size of the area where maintenance dredging may be needed would be small, which will be confined to the area within the LNG Terminal. Potential water quality impacts on ecological assemblage and nearby sensitive receivers including existing, proposed and potential marine parks from operation phase maintenance dredging would be much less significant than similar activities assessed in Section 9.5.1. Considering the infrequent, small scale and temporary nature of the disturbance and the implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the water quality impact assessment in Section 7.9, such as the use of silt curtains and appropriate working rate, unacceptable impacts on the functionality of marine parks are not expected.

Implementation of Safety Zone at the LNG Terminal

It is normal practice in the LNG industry to implement a safety zone around the LNG Terminal to ensure safe and secure operations to avoid any safety incidents, and to avoid disturbance to gas send-out operations. As the facilities will form critical infrastructure to provide gas for power generation, to provide the protection to these facilities, no unauthorized vessels including fishing vessels are permitted to enter the Safety Zone (see Section 3.3.1).

The Safety Zone with a radius of approximately 250 m from the centre of the LNG Terminal Jetty is located outside the proposed SLMP. It is anticipated that all access into the Safety Zone must be authorized by the LNG Terminal Operator in order to not allow any unauthorized access by vessels or non-essential personnel. Additionally, any authorized vessels and any equipment deployed on board such vessels within the safety zone should be intrinsically safe. The LNG Terminal Operator will regularly monitor the safety zone through active patrols to ‘warn-off’ any vessels that may be encroaching into the Safety Zone. Details and procedures of its implementation will be discussed and agreed with the relevant authorities. It is believed that the siting and implementation of the proposed Safety Zone would have negligible impact to the proposed SLMP.

The LNG Terminal Operator will also monitor an area beyond the Safety Zone to ensure that the passing traffic does not affect the safety of the LNG Terminal operations. The area to be monitored include the southeastern portion of the proposed SLMP. The operational requirements and implementation procedures of this area are subject to further review and will be determined with relevant authorities under separate exercise outside from the EIA Study process. The implementation of this area will be agreed with relevant authorities including the AFCD such that it will not be in conflict with or compromise the future planning, management and operation of the proposed SLMP.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of LNG/ Fuel/ Chemicals

As discussed in Section 9.5.2, LNG spillage from the LNG Terminal and visiting LNGCs is not considered a major issue because LNG vaporizes at ambient temperature and no significant residues would remain in the receiving waters, thus impact on marine mammals and marine parks would be negligible. Risk of spillage or leakage of other chemicals would be managed by implementing preventive measures at the LNG Terminal (Section 9.5.2) and hence unacceptable impacts on marine parks are not expected.

During incidents (e.g. typhoons) and emergency conditions, visiting LNGC (if present) and the FSRU Vessel will sail away to the waters outside Hong Kong as a precautionary measure to minimize accidental events. It is expected that very few vessel movements (the FSRU Vessel and additional guard boats) are expected for such emergency conditions. All marine park regulations will be followed for Project activities during typhoon and no stopping over or anchoring will be carried out at the proposed SLMP. During typhoon/emergency conditions, the LNGC and FSRU Vessel will sail away to the waters outside Hong Kong in the southward direction and will not pass through the proposed SLMP. On the return trip to the LNG Terminal after typhoon, depending on weather and met-ocean conditions around the typhoon event, the FSRU Vessel may pass through the proposed SLMP during manoeuvring to the Jetty and will avoid clashing with the marker buoy at the southeastern corner of the proposed SLMP. The LNGC will not pass through the proposed SLMP during manoeuvring to the Jetty.

Modelling of a hypothetical and unlikely event of fuel spillage of LNGC fuel has been conducted, and in the absence of spill response, the spilled fuel is predicted to extend over Hong Kong southern waters with trajectory depending on the prevailing wind and currents at the time (see Section 7.8.4). In the event of the hypothetical worst-case spill scenario occurred, the predicted shortest travel time of oil patches to Soko Island would be 4 hours, with oil patches reaching the proposed SLMP within the first two hours after the spill. Since the LNG Terminal will be operated 24 hours a day with standby vessels, it is expected that the immediate response and action will be carried out for such unlikely spill scenario and thus impacts to marine parks are expected to be limited. With immediate response and clean-up effort to minimize the degree of exposure to spilled fuel, it would be unlikely to result in a significant impact to marine parks beyond a temporary effect on distribution.

While fuel spill in large volume would give rise to adverse impacts to marine parks, it must be recognized that the potential for impact to occur is negligible taking into account the extremely remote likelihood of this event occurring. A project-specific contingency plan will be prepared including protocols for containment, remediation and reporting accidental spill event to mitigate the potential impact of accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals / fuels. Given the extremely low likelihood of such spill event and the effective implementation of contingency plan if this occurs, no unacceptable impacts on marine parks would be expected.

9.8 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Offshore Avifauna

9.8.1 Construction Phase

Potential impacts to offshore avifauna during the construction phase are associated with direct habitat loss within the project footprint and disturbance related to the physical presence of works vessels and noise generation from construction and subsea pipeline installation activities. These potential impacts are summarized in Table 9.40 and discussed further in the following sections.

Table 9.40 Summary of Construction Phase Impacts to Offshore Avifauna

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Permanent habitat loss due to physical presence of marine structures	Waters at the Jetty	Permanent loss of approximately 2.5ha of marine waters due to Jetty structure resulting in potential loss of area for avifauna utilization (e.g. roosting and foraging) and habitat fragmentation.
Potential disturbance from presence of works vessels and noise and light generation from construction and subsea pipeline installation activities	Waters at the Jetty and along the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Potential for disturbance resulting in behavioural changes

Permanent Habitat Loss

Construction of the Jetty and associated structures would result in permanent loss of a small area (approximately 2.5ha) of marine waters. This physical loss of habitat due to the Project could potentially affect some individuals of the frequently sighted bird species that utilise these waters. There will not be permanent habitat loss to avifauna and their habitats for subsea pipeline installation.

Based on the survey findings, only four of the 24 species of conservation interest recorded (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern) were sighted flying within 500m of the proposed LNG Terminal Project Site. Relatively low bird density (mean of less than 1 individual per effective survey trip per km²) was recorded within 500m of the proposed LNG Terminal Project Site and most species recorded were flying over the area with limited number foraging/ roosting in the area (Table 9.15). The affected waters at the Jetty are therefore considered not to constitute an important foraging area for avifauna including White-bellied Sea Eagle (WBSE), terns, seabirds and migratory birds. For this reason, the relatively small scale loss of approximately of 2.5ha of marine waters within the Project Site of low ecological importance to avifauna is not expected to be significant for resident or migratory bird populations, and impacts due to habitat fragmentation or habitat isolation are not predicted given the open sea setting. Although WBSE foraging distance during incubation/chick-rearing could reach as far as 2km from nesting locations and juvenile WBSE could travel 3 – 15km a day, the loss of open water habitat would represent a negligible loss of marine habitat in the context of the size of available marine areas in the range of these birds and is not expected to reduce avifauna’s foraging success or availability of prey resources. Based on these considerations and noting the fisheries impact assessment (Section 10) predicted no adverse impact to fisheries (i.e. prey) resources, no unacceptable adverse impacts on avifauna are anticipated.

Habitat Disturbance

Disturbance to avifauna due to noise from the marine vessels and construction activities as well as operational lighting on the marine vessels are not expected to be significant owing to the short term nature of the construction works (approximately 21 months) confined to localised works areas in the open sea. All marine vessels used in the construction of the Project will adopt night time lighting controls to reduce light impacts (Section 11.8). Any potential for impact will be further reduced by their temporary transient presence near the works area and in the context of the continued availability of surrounding marine waters for avifauna to use. Moreover, as discussed in Section 9.6.1, the Project is expected to involve a relatively small number of works vessels (typical < 10) at any one time at each work front, and the frequency/ trip of vessel would also be low (expected to be about 15 trips per day), which would represent only a minor incremental increase in marine traffic in the area. Given the slow-moving nature of the relatively small number of works vessels involved in the construction of the Project, unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic on offshore avifauna are not anticipated.

WBSE nesting locations were reported in Chi Ma Wan Peninsular near Ha So Pai, Mo Tat Wan of Lamma Island and Sunshine Island which are located far away (> 4.5km) from the Project. Given the foraging distance for WBSE during incubation/chick-rearing is generally 2km, potential disturbance to WBSE from these nesting locations is not anticipated. Other avifauna habitats such as egretry at Sha Chau, breeding terns on Soko Islands and WBSE nesting sites reported in Shek Kwu Chau and Lung Kwu Chau are at some distances (about 1 – 2km away) from the marine works areas, and with the implementation of good construction practice and environmental mitigation measures, these habitats are not expected to be disturbed by construction activities of this Project. Unacceptable adverse impacts to offshore avifauna due to disturbance effects from construction of the Project, including noise from the marine vessels and construction activities, operational lighting on the marine vessels and increase in marine traffic are not anticipated.

9.8.2 Operation Phase

Potential impacts to offshore avifauna during the operation phase are associated with potential for interactions with the physical structure of the LNG Terminal resulting in potential bird collision risk and general disturbance such as artificial light emissions, noise emission from the LNG Terminal and associated vessels, etc.. These potential impacts are summarized in Table 9.41 and discussed further in the following sections.

Table 9.41 Summary of Operation Phase Impacts to Avifauna

Nature of Impact	Habitat Affected	Potential Impact
Potential interactions with the structure of the FSRU Vessel and Jetty (bird collision risk)	Waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential for behavioural changes and injury
Potential disturbance and artificial lighting from the presence of LNG Terminal, and associated vessels, and from other operational activities	Waters at the LNG Terminal	Potential for disturbance resulting in behavioural changes
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, including incidents e.g. typhoons	At the LNG Terminal and surrounding waters	Potential for sublethal toxicity effects and irritation

Although potential impacts from flaring of gas by the FSRU Vessel will result in mortality of bird that passes by the vent stack when flaring happens, flaring would occur during emergency/ upset conditions only as part of safety measures to maintain integrity of the facility. Given flaring would not occur during normal operations, no unacceptable impact is expected.

Physical Interactions with the LNG Terminal

During normal operations, the FSRU Vessel will be permanently moored at the Jetty and occupy a relatively small area of open marine waters with a vertical height of up to about 65m above the waterline. Visiting LNGCs would dock at the LNG Terminal every five to eight days. The LNG Terminal will be equipped with operational and navigational lighting in line with safety requirements. Consequently, the physical presence of the LNG Terminal may have a certain level of risk of bird collision. The FSRU Vessel and LNGC would be of a similar size to the tankers and cargo ships that, for instance routinely move through the East Lamma Shipping Channel crossing Hong Kong southern waters each day (and night). It should be highlighted that the operation of LNG Terminal will mainly consist of two main vessels, FSRU Vessel and LNGC (~345m in length) which may interact with avifauna physically. Given there is no gas flare under normal operation and rotating turbines, indirect interaction to avifauna is limited to operational and navigational lighting of the LNG Terminal.

Being highly visually orientated, birds are therefore well-adapted, and capable to navigate and avoid obstacles. However, birds are not immune to collisions with structures and the risk is typically considered to be mainly related to the visual properties of the structure, for instance, where structures appear invisible (e.g. powerlines at night) or create deceptive effects (e.g. transparency or mirror effects due to window glazing). Operational and navigational lighting will be required to meet operational need and in line with safety requirements. Detailed lighting design information will be developed during detailed engineering design and it is anticipated that most of the lighting will be kept minimal and facing downward at the LNG Terminal. Given the LNG Terminal would be a visible solid structure with lighting during night time, such deceptive effects are not expected to occur and potential risk is also expected to be no different to that associated with other large vessels operating in Hong Kong ([52]). Considering the low bird density recorded within 500m of the proposed LNG Terminal, no unacceptable impact to avifauna is anticipated.

Habitat Disturbance and Artificial Lighting

During the operation phase, operations at the LNG Terminal including LNGC visit every five to eight days, movements of other vessels and potentially works vessels for maintenance dredging (if necessary) would result in a localized increased in noise and artificial light emissions, localized change in water quality due to cooled water discharge and potentially disturbance effects from physical presence of people and vessels. In view of very few vessel movements from visiting LNGC and a stand-by vessel are expected for the day-to-day operation of the LNG Terminal, the increased marine traffic would be negligible when compared to the high levels of existing marine traffic in southern waters of Hong Kong. As such, potential impacts of increased marine traffic to avifauna are not anticipated. In addition, as discussed in Section 7.8, results of the water quality modelling have predicted that effects of the cooled water discharge from the FSRU Vessel is localized and confined to the immediate vicinity of the discharge point in both seasons and no unacceptable secondary impact on marine ecology and fisheries from the discharge is expected (see Sections 9.5.2 and 10.5.2). As such, potential disturbance on foraging of birds due to change in water quality is not anticipated.

It is known some migrating birds and seabirds can be attracted to artificial lighting during night time, in offshore environments ([53])([54])([55])([56])([57]). Others may change flight direction to avoid the light source, while some may fly past exhibiting no attraction or avoidance. Disorientation caused by effect of bright lights is also reported. The LNG Terminal is located over 3.7km away from the nearest breeding site for terns and nesting site for WBSE and the LNG Terminal and areas in the vicinity are not an important bird habitat and have relatively low utilization.

While the LNG Terminal is relatively remote in Hong Kong, it would not be the only light source in this environment. Given its location in coastal waters, many other light sources such as from shipping, fishing vessels, and light sources on land would also encountered and be visible to birds traversing these waters at night time. Moreover, the suggested night time lighting controls at the LNG Terminal (refer Section 11.8) would reduce the potential for attraction and any disorientation effects. Considering the low bird density recorded within 500m of the proposed LNG Terminal, no unacceptable impact to avifauna is anticipated. Moreover, given the location of the LNG Terminal is distant (> 3.7km) from the nearest WBSE nesting site / tern breeding site, there is limited potential for artificial lighting to interfere with the behaviour of any roosting or breeding activities of avifauna. Unacceptable adverse impacts from artificial lighting on the breeding / nesting sites of these species are not anticipated.

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of LNG/ Fuel/ Chemicals

As discussed in Section 9.5.2, LNG spillage from the LNG Terminal and visiting LNGCs is not considered a major issue because LNG vaporizes at ambient temperature and no significant residues would remain in the receiving waters, thus impact on avifauna would be negligible. Risk of spillage or leakage of other chemicals would be managed by implementing preventive measures at the LNG Terminal (Section 9.5.2) and hence unacceptable impacts on offshore avifauna are not expected.

In the extremely unlikely event of an LNGC fuel spillage, the spill would tend to float on the water surface, subject to rapid dilution, dispersion and evaporation into the atmosphere. Modelling of a hypothetical and unlikely event of fuel spillage has been conducted, and in the absence of spill response, the spilled fuel is predicted to extend over Hong Kong southern waters with trajectory depending on the prevailing wind and currents at the time (see Section 7.8.4). In the event of the hypothetical spill scenario occurred, direct impacts to offshore avifauna (especially Gulls & Terns and Seabirds with swimming behaviour) would be expected. It is important to recognize that upon a spill event, immediate response would be provided and clean-up effort would be deployed as necessary. The potential for impact to offshore avifauna would depend on the nature and degree of exposure following clean-up. A project-specific contingency plan will be prepared including protocols for containment, remediation and reporting accidental spill event. Given the extremely low likelihood of such spill event and the effective implementation of contingency plan if this occurs, no unacceptable impacts on offshore avifauna would be expected.

9.9 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Terrestrial Ecological Resources

The proposed land-based work activities associated with the construction of the GRS at the BPPS and the GRS at the LPS would require limited land clearance and include construction of the new gas receiving facilities as well as new pipe racks and shore crossing excavations, all located within the boundaries of the existing BPPS and LPS. The directly affected area at both the BPPS and the LPS is on existing urbanised/disturbed area; hence all the upland and surrounding natural habitats of the Assessment Area at both locations, if any, will not be directly disturbed.

As discussed in Section 9.3.2, the proposed GRS at the LPS will be located on the extension site within the existing boundaries of the LPS. The Assessment Area for terrestrial ecology around this Project site overlaps with the LPS site only which is industrial in nature and does not cover any natural terrestrial habitats. The site is subject to anthropogenic disturbance related to existing LPS operations, at the terrestrial ecological resources (vegetation, habitats and wildlife) within the LPS are very limited and are considered of minimal ecological interest/ concern. Potential impact of the land-based construction on terrestrial habitats and wildlife resources at the LPS is therefore considered negligible.

Potential impacts to terrestrial ecological resources at the BPPS arising during the construction and operational phases are detailed below.

9.9.1 Construction Phase

Potential impacts on terrestrial ecology include:

· Loss of habitats and associated flora and fauna within the Project’s footprint;

· Potential impacts to the surrounding habitats and associated wildlife due to physical disturbance including noise and increased human activity; and

· Potential impacts to wildlife, including restriction of wildlife utilization (i.e. transit, feeding and roosting), degradation of habitat quality/ecological function, as a result of isolation and fragmentation of ecological habitat.

Habitat Loss

Approximately 0.4ha of the existing urbanised/disturbed area within the Project’s footprint at the BPPS will be directly affected. There will be no major impacts on the natural terrestrial ecological resources, as all the work activities will be conducted within the BPPS site boundaries on the existing urbanised/disturbed area. No flora or fauna of species of conservation importance was recorded in the Assessment Area, and fauna species recorded in the wider BPPS area are very likely to be passing by only and no fauna is likely to rely on this habitat type. No unacceptable impact due to habitat loss is expected. Habitat fragmentation and isolation are not expected, as the affected habitat (urbanised/disturbed areas) are located in the existing BPPS and already isolated by existing development.

Habitat Disturbance

The main secondary impacts to the surrounding natural habitats (generally of low ecological importance) and associated wildlife may arise from the potential increase in habitat disturbances from the potential of increased noise, human activities, lighting during night-time and other physical disturbances such as construction site runoff and construction dust during the work activities. These disturbances would as a result, bring about indirect impacts to nearby habitats and their associated fauna. Potential impacts to wildlife include temporary avoidance of areas in the vicinity of works area or close to the source of disturbance.

The impacts however, are expected to be minor owing to the temporary nature of the construction works (approximately 21 months) well contained within the urbanised/disturbed areas of the BPPS boundaries. Major lighting sources will be pointed inward and downwards to avoid disturbance to wildlife. Good construction practice, regular checks on the construction boundaries and environmental mitigation measures will be implemented. The impacts are therefore expected to be acceptable.

9.9.2 Operation Phase

Potential impacts to terrestrial ecological resources include:

· Potential impacts to the surrounding natural habitat and associated wildlife due to increased human activity and disturbance (i.e. noise and light pollution) associated with the operation of the Project; and

· Potential impacts to wildlife during operation of the Project, due to the increase in noise and air pollution, lighting and glare.

Operational phase impacts to terrestrial ecology may arise from an increase in human activities in the area, and subsequently cause disturbances to the surrounding habitats and associated wildlife. Given the generally low level of human activity required to operate the Project and workforce is confined within the BPPS, it is not expected that operational phase ecological impacts will be significant.

Where possible, structures will utilise appropriate design to complement the surrounding landscape. Materials and finishes will be considered during detailed design. Major lighting sources will be pointed inward and downwards to avoid disturbance to wildlife. Air quality and noise impacts on fauna due to the operation of the Project are expected to be low and not significant.

9.10 Impact Evaluation

Based upon the information presented in Sections 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 the significance of the ecological impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project has been evaluated in accordance with the EIAO-TM (Annex 8, Table 1). The outcomes of this evaluation are summarised in Table 9.42 to Table 9.46.

Table 9.42 Significance of Marine Ecological Impacts (excluding Marine Mammals) Associated with the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project Evaluated in accordance with EIAO-TM

Potential Impact	Source	Receiver	Nature of Impact							Overall Impact Significance		Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Potential Impact		Receiver	Habitat Quality	Species Affected	Size	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude
Construction phase
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Construction of BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline and construction of Jetty	Subtidal habitats and marine waters along the pipeline routes and Jetty	Low to moderate	Common benthic fauna dominated by polychaete bristleworms	Approximately 70ha of seabed along the pipelines and about 18ha of marine waters at the Jetty	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
		Intertidal and subtidal artificial seawall and nearby marine waters	Low	Common and widespread species	100m of seawall at the BPPS (and potentially the LPS too if an alternative landfall point is used)	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Underwater sound	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters near the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes	Variable; from low and moderate to high	Common and widespread species	Vicinity of work sites and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No; mitigation measures for marine mammals would further reduce impacts
Short-term changes in water quality	Marine construction activities	Marine waters near the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline routes	Variable; from low and moderate to high	Common and widespread species	The area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the works areas.	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No; water quality mitigation measures would further reduce impacts
Short-term changes in water quality	Discharges and runoff from land-based and jetty topside construction activities, and pipeline hydrotesting	Subtidal and intertidal habitats at the BPPS and the LPS, and marine waters next to the LNG Terminal	Low to moderate	Common and widespread species	The area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the works areas.	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No; standard site practices would further reduce impacts
Accidental spillage and leakage of fuel/ chemicals	Construction activities at Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters, subtidal and Intertidal Artificial/ Natural Shores	Variable; from low and moderate to high	Common and widespread species	Small area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak	Temporary	Reversible	Very small	Negligible		No; preventive measures would further reduce impacts
Operation Phase
Permanent habitat loss	Physical presence of Jetty	Subtidal soft bottom habitat within the Jetty piles	Low	Common benthic fauna dominated by polychaete bristleworms	Very small; approximately 0.8ha of seabed	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	Minor		No
Impingement and entrainment	Operation of seawater circulation system of FSRU Vessel	Marine waters in the vicinity of the seawater intake	Moderate	Juveniles, eggs and larvae of marine fishes and other ecological resource that are common and widespread	Marine waters in close proximity to the seawater intake	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Mooring for LNG transfer	Discharge of ballast water	Marine waters in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal	Moderate	Common and widespread species	Nil, no discharge from visiting LNGC	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Very small	Negligible		No
Changes in water quality	Cooled water discharge from the FSRU Vessel	Marine waters in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal	Moderate	Common and widespread species	The mixing zone of the cooled water and TRC discharge will be confined to the close proximity of the LNG Terminal	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Maintenance Dredging at LNG Terminal	Subtidal soft bottom habitat and marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Low	Common benthic fauna dominated by polychaete bristleworms	Specific areas at the LNG Terminal	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Short-term changes in water quality	Maintenance Dredging at LNG Terminal	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Moderate	Common and widespread species	The area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the dredging works	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No; water quality mitigation measures would further reduce impacts
Underwater sound	FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Moderate	Common and widespread species	Vicinity of vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Effects of glare from light sources and emergency gas flares	Jetty, FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits	Marine waters near the LNG Terminal	Moderate	Common and widespread species	Vicinity of Jetty and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No
Accidental spillage and leakage of fuel / chemicals, including incidents e.g. typhoons	Operations for LNG Terminal	Marine waters, subtidal and Intertidal Artificial/ Natural Shores	Variable; from low and moderate to high	Common and widespread species	Area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak, scale dependent on spill volume and trajectory	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor		No; effective implementation of a contingency plan to contain and clean up any spilled or leaked fuels or chemicals would further reduce impacts

Table 9.43 Significance of Ecological Impacts to Marine Mammals Associated with the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project Evaluated in accordance with EIAO-TM

Potential Impact	Source	Receiver	Nature of Impact						Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Potential Impact		Receiver	Habitat Quality	Species Affected	Size	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude
Construction phase
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance	Construction of Jetty	Marine waters at the Jetty	Moderate for FP	FP	Confined to localised works areas; about 18ha	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
* excluding underwater disturbance from pile installation and increased marine traffic which are evaluated separately	Construction of BPPS Pipeline	Marine waters along Black Point to North of Lung Kwu Chau, South of Sha Chau and North of Tai O, and between Fan Lau and South of Soko Islands	Variable; low to moderate for CWD	CWD	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
		Marine waters between North of Tai O to Fan Lau, and between South of Soko Islands to LNG Terminal	Moderate to high for CWD, Moderate for FP	FP and CWD	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small to medium	Minor to Moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*). Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
	Construction of LPS Pipeline	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau	Moderate for FP	FP	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small to medium	Minor to Moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*). Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
		Marine waters from South of Shek Kwu Chau to the LPS	Low for FP	FP	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
Underwater sound from Jetty pile installation works	Underwater percussive piling	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Medium	Moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*). Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
Increased marine traffic from marine construction activities	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Variable; low to moderate to high for CWD and low to moderate for FP	FP and CWD	Vicinity of work sites and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; precautionary measures would further reduce impacts
Short-term changes in water quality	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Variable; low to moderate to high for CWD and low to moderate for FP	FP and CWD	The area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; water quality mitigation measures would further reduce impacts
Underwater sound from marine construction activities	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Variable; low to moderate to high for CWD and low to moderate for FP	FP and CWD	Vicinity of work sites and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Accidental spillage/leakage of fuels/ chemicals	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine waters at the Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Variable; low to moderate to high for CWD and low to moderate for FP	FP and CWD	Small area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak	Temporary	Reversible	Very small	Negligible	No
Operation Phase
Permanent habitat loss	Physical presence of Jetty	Marine waters at the LNG Terminal	Moderate for FP (N/A for CWD)	Primarily FP	Small and confined to the physical footprint of the Jetty; about 2.5ha	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	Minor	No
Underwater sound	FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	LNG Terminal and vicinity of vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Increased marine traffic	Visiting LNGC and supply/ guard vessel for LNG Terminal operation	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	LNG Terminal and vicinity of vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; precautionary measures would further reduce impacts
Changes in water quality	Cooled water discharge from the FSRU Vessel	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	The mixing zone of the cooled water and TRC discharge will be confined to the close proximity of the LNG Terminal	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Temporary habitat disturbance and short-term changes in water quality	Maintenance Dredging at LNG Terminal	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	Specific areas at the LNG Terminal and area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the dredging works	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, including incidents e.g. typhoons	Operations for LNG Terminal	Marine waters at LNG Terminal and surrounds	Moderate for FP, Low for CWD habitats some distance away	FP and CWD	Area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak, scale dependent on spill volume and trajectory	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; effective implementation of a contingency plan to contain and clean up any spilled or leaked fuels or chemicals would further reduce impacts

Table 9.44 Significance of Ecological Impacts to Marine Parks Associated with the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project Evaluated in accordance with EIAO-TM

Potential Impact	Source	Receiver	Nature of Impact						Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Potential Impact		Receiver	Habitat Quality	Species Affected	Size	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude
Construction phase
Underwater sound from Jetty pile installation works	Underwater percussive piling	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Medium	Moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*). Marine mammal exclusion zone monitoring as precautionary measures
Increased marine traffic from marine construction activities	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine parks in the west	High	FP and CWD	Vicinity of work sites and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small to Medium *	Minor to moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*)
Short-term changes in water quality	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine parks in the west	High	FP and CWD	The area affected is expected to be within a short distance of the works areas.	Temporary	Reversible	Small to Medium *	Minor to moderate	Yes (see *Table 9.47*). Water quality monitoring would be conducted at existing and proposed marine parks in vicinity of work areas
Underwater sound from marine construction activities	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine parks in the west	High	FP and CWD	Vicinity of work sites and vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Accidental spillage/leakage of fuels/ chemicals	Construction of Jetty, BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Marine parks in the west	High	FP and CWD	Small area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak	Temporary	Reversible	Very small	Negligible	No
Operation Phase
Underwater sound	FSRU Vessel and LNGC transits	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	LNG Terminal and vicinity of vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Increased marine traffic	Visiting LNGC and supply/ guard vessel for LNG Terminal operation	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	LNG Terminal and vicinity of vessel transit routes	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; precautionary measures would further reduce impacts
Mooring for LNG transfer	Discharge of ballast water	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	Nil, no discharge from visiting LNGC	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Very small	Negligible	No
Changes in water quality	Cooled water discharge from the FSRU Vessel	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	The mixing zone of the cooled water and TRC discharge will be confined to the close proximity of the LNG Terminal	Long term throughout the operation phase	Reversible	Small	Minor	No. Water quality monitoring would be conducted at SLMP
Temporary habitat disturbance and short-term changes in water quality	Maintenance Dredging at LNG Terminal	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	Specific areas at the LNG Terminal outside of the SLMP	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; water quality mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. Water quality monitoring would be conducted at SLMP before, during and after the dredging works
Implementation of safety zone	Implementation of safety zone	SLMP	High	FP and CWD	About 20ha within and around the LNG Terminal outside of the SLMP	Long term throughout the operation phase	n/a	Very small	Negligible	No
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, , including incidents e.g. typhoons	Operations for LNG Terminal	Primarily SLMP, potentially other marine parks in the west also	High	FP and CWD	Area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak, scale dependent on spill volume and trajectory	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No; effective implementation of a contingency plan to contain and clean up any spilled or leaked fuels or chemicals would further reduce impacts

* Taking into account the established boundaries of marine parks and the purpose and functions of marine parks.

Table 9.45 Significance of Ecological Impacts to Offshore Avifauna Associated with the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project Evaluated in accordance with EIAO-TM

Potential Impact		Source	Receiver	Nature of Impact						Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Potential Impact			Receiver	Habitat Quality	Species Affected	Size	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Construction phase
Permanent habitat loss	Construction and physical presence of Jetty		Avifauna utilizing waters at the LNG Terminal	Low	Low diversity of birds, only four species of conservation interest recorded within 500m of LNG Terminal Project Site (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern)	Approximately 2.5ha, only low density of bird affected	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	Minor	No
Habitat Disturbance	Presence of works vessels and noise and light generation from construction and subsea pipeline installation activities		Avifauna utilizing waters at the Jetty and along the BPPS Pipeline and LPS Pipeline	Low	Low diversity of birds, only four species of conservation interest recorded within 500m of LNG Terminal Project Site (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern)	Confined to localised works areas	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor	No
Operation Phase
Potential for bird interactions and collision risk	Physical presence of LNG Terminal		Avifauna utilizing waters at the LNG Terminal	Low	Low diversity of birds, only four species of conservation interest recorded within 500m of LNG Terminal Project Site (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern)	Confined to the vicinity of the site, only low density of bird affected	Long term throughout the operation phase	Irreversible	Small	Minor	No
Habitat disturbance, e.g. light and noise emissions	Presence of LNG Terminal, and associated vessels, and from other operational activities		Waters at the LNG Terminal	Low	Low diversity of birds, only four species of conservation interest recorded within 500m of LNG Terminal Project Site (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern)	Confined to the vicinity of the site, only low density of bird affected	Long term throughout the operation phase	Irreversible	Small	Minor	No
Accidental spillage and leakage of chemicals/ fuel, , including incidents e.g. typhoons	Operations for LNG Terminal		Waters at the LNG Terminal	Low	Low diversity of birds, only four species of conservation interest recorded within 500m of LNG Terminal Project Site (Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern)	Area affected in the vicinity of the spill/leak, scale dependent on spill volume and trajectory	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Negligible	No

Table 9.46 Significance of Terrestrial Ecological Impacts (excluding Offshore Avifauna) Associated with the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project Evaluated in accordance with EIAO-TM

Potential Impact	Source	Receiver	Nature of Impact						Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Potential Impact		Receiver	Habitat Quality	Species Affected	Size	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Overall Impact Significance	Mitigation/ Precautionary Measures Required
Construction phase
Habitat loss, fragmentation and isolation	Onshore construction works for GRS at the BPPS	Flora and fauna present or utilizing urbanized/disturbed habitat	Negligible	No species of conservation interest recorded	0.4ha	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Negligible	No
Habitat disturbance	Onshore construction works for GRS at the BPPS	Fauna present or utilizing surrounding habitat	Negligible	No species of conservation interest recorded	Some avoidance of areas in the vicinity of works area or close to the source of disturbance	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Negligible	No
Operation Phase
Habitat disturbance	GRS at the BPPS	Fauna present or utilizing surrounding habitat	Negligible	No species of conservation interest recorded	Area in the immediate vicinity	Permanent	Ireversible	Small	Negligible	No

9.11 Mitigation Measures

9.11.1 General

In accordance with the guidelines in the EIAO-TM on marine and terrestrial ecology impact assessment, the general policy for mitigating impacts to marine and terrestrial ecological resources, in order of priority, are:

· Avoidance: Potential impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by adopting suitable alternatives;

· Minimisation: Unavoidable impacts should be minimised by taking appropriate and practicable measures such as constraints on the intensity of works operations (e.g. dredging rates) or timing of works operations; and

· Compensation: The loss of important species and habitats may be provided for elsewhere as compensation. Enhancement and other conservation measures should always be considered whenever possible.

To summarise, this assessment of impacts demonstrates that impacts will largely be avoided during the construction and operation of the proposed Project, particularly to the key ecological sensitive receivers, through the following measures:

· Adoption of Floating Technology: The adoption of floating technology (i.e. FSRU Vessel) avoids larger scale impacts associated with traditional onshore terminal development concepts. Compared to traditional onshore terminals, the use of FSRU Vessel avoids the need for any coastal reclamation and largely avoids the loss of seabed area given the FSRU floats. As is the case for this Project, it also results in avoidance of capital dredging works typically required for approach channel and turning basin to reach shallower water coastal locations since the LNG Terminal can be situated in deeper water.

· Avoid Direct and Indirect Impacts to Ecologically Sensitive Habitats: The site for the LNG Terminal has been selected based on a review of alternative locations based on environmental, marine uses and other considerations (refer Section 2). The proposed location took account of relatively lower FP densities and little use of these waters by CWD, thus avoiding the most important areas with high sightings densities of these species. The location of the LNG Terminal and the associated pipeline routes are selected with due consideration of the environmental constraints including the existing, proposed and potential marine parks and potential impacts on these sensitive receivers. In particular the location for the LNG Terminal has avoided the proposed SLMP and buffer distance to the proposed SLMP (approximately 100m) has been maintained considering other environmental and operational constraints in the vicinity. The buffer distance is demonstrated to be adequate based on no indirect water quality and marine ecological impacts on the proposed SLMP during the construction and operation phases of this Project. Alternative pipeline routes were studied and the selected pipeline routes are at some distances from ecologically sensitive shoreline habitats and are routed to avoid the existing SCLKCMP and proposed SWLMP and SLMP. Shore landing works for the LPS Pipeline and BPPS Pipeline are both located at existing artificial seawall, thus avoiding adjacent natural shores. Dispersion of sediment and associated pollutants from dredging and jetting does not affect the ecological receivers at levels of concern with implementation of suggested mitigation measures.

· Avoid Direct and Indirect Impacts to Terrestrial Natural Habitats: The proposed GRS at the LPS and GRS at the BPPS are located within existing urbanised/ disturbed areas within the site boundaries of these premises, avoiding impacts on the surrounding terrestrial natural habitats.

· Adoption of Construction Methods with Less Disturbance to Marine Mammals: A combination of vibratory/ hydraulic ‘pushing’ and hydraulic hammering method is proposed for the construction of the Jetty, which result in less disturbance to marine mammals. The use of jacket structures for the Jetty also significantly reduced the number of piles required to be installed (~80 nos., compared to ~400 nos. for the traditional piled substructure design), shortening the construction duration vastly and minimizing disturbance to marine mammals.

· Adoption of Appropriate Working Rates and Mitigation Measures: The modelling work has demonstrated that the selected working rates for dredging and jetting with mitigation measures will not cause unacceptable impacts to the receiving water quality. Consequently, unacceptable indirect impacts to marine ecological sensitive receivers and resources have been avoided.

· Construction Equipment: The construction of the subsea pipelines has been shown to be environmentally acceptable and compliant with the water quality assessment criteria.

9.11.2 General Measures for Marine Ecological Resources

The following general measures to reduce potential construction and operation impacts on the marine ecological resources, including horseshoe crabs, whale shark, green turtle and marine mammals, are recommended:

· Vessel operators will be required to control and manage all effluent from vessels. These kinds of wastewater shall be brought back to port where possible and discharged at appropriate collection and treatment system to prevent avoidable water quality impacts;

· A policy of no dumping of rubbish, food, oil, or chemicals will be strictly enforced. This will also be covered in the contractor briefings;

· Only well-maintained and inspected vessels would be used to limit any potential discharges to the marine environment; and

· Standard site practices outlined in ProPECC PN 1/94 ”Construction Site Drainage” will be followed as far as practicable in order to reduce surface runoff, minimise erosion, and also to retain and reduce any SS prior to discharge. The details of this practice are listed in Section 7.9.

9.11.3 Specific Measures for Marine Mammals/ Marine Parks

The mitigation measures summarized in Table 9.47 are proposed to be implemented to mitigate potential impacts on marine mammals/ existing, planned and potential marine parks.

Table 9.47 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Marine Mammals/ Marine Parks

Impact	Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance for the construction of BPPS Pipeline	· Pipeline dredging/ jetting works between North of Tai O and Fan Lau will avoid the peak months of CWD calving (May and June). · Pipeline dredging / jetting works between South of Soko Islands and the LNG Terminal will be restricted to a daily maximum of 12 hours with daytime (0700 – 1900) operations.
Temporary habitat loss and disturbance for the construction of LPS Pipeline	· Pipeline dredging/ jetting from LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau will be restricted to a daily maximum of 12 hours with daytime (0700 – 1900) operations.
Underwater sound from Jetty pile installation works	Use of vibratory/ hydraulic pushing method to vibrate / push the open-ended steel tubular pile for the upper layer of the seabed and only use hydraulic hammer (if needed) to install the remainder of the pile length through the lower layer of the seabed. During underwater percussive piling works: · Quieter hydraulic hammers should be used instead of the noisier diesel hammers; · Use of Noise Reduction System for hydraulic hammering; · Acoustic decoupling of noisy equipment on work barges should be undertaken; · Using ramp-up piling procedures. This comprises of low energy driving for a period of time prior to commencement of full piling. This will promote avoidance of the area by marine mammals when sounds levels are not injurious. Blow frequency during this ramping up period should replicate the intensity that would be undertaken during full piling (e.g. one blow every two seconds) to provide cues for marine mammals to localize the sound source. Pile blow energy should be ramped up gradually over the ‘soft start’ period. Activities will be continuous without short-breaks and avoiding sudden random loud sound emissions; · Underwater percussive piling should be conducted inside a bubble curtain so as to ameliorate underwater sound level transmission; · The percussive pile driving will be conducted during the daytime (0700 – 1900) for a maximum of 12 hours, avoiding generation of underwater sounds at night time; and · Underwater percussive piling works for the Jetty construction will avoid the peak season of FP (December to May).
Increased marine traffic from marine construction activities	· The vessel operators of this Project will be required to use predefined and regular routes (that do not encroach into existing and proposed marine parks), make use of designated fairways to access the works areas, and would avoid traversing sensitive habitats such as existing and proposed marine parks. Predefined and regular routes will become known to FP and CWD using these waters. This measure will further serve to minimise disturbance to marine mammals due to vessel movements; · Any anchoring/ anchor spread requirements during Project construction will avoid encroachment into the existing and proposed marine parks; · Silt curtain deployment during Project construction will avoid encroachment into the existing and proposed marine park; · No stopping over or anchoring activity of vessels related to the Project should be conducted within existing and proposed marine parks even before, during and after typhoon.
Short-term changes in water quality	· Use of appropriate dredging and jetting rates with the use of silt curtain where needed as recommended in the Water Quality section (*Section 7*) to reduce potential water quality impacts from elevated SS due to the proposed marine works; · Silt curtain will be checked and maintained to ensure its effectiveness in mitigating water quality impacts on existing, planned and potential marine parks.

The following precautionary measures are proposed to be implemented to further reduce potential construction and operation impacts on marine mammals:

· All vessel operators working on the Project will be given a briefing, alerting them to the possible presence of dolphins and porpoises in the marine works areas, and the guidelines for safe vessel operation in the presence of these animals. The vessels will avoid using high speed as far as possible. By observing the guidelines, vessels will be operated in an appropriate manner so that marine mammals will not be subject to undue disturbance or harassment;

· All vessels used in this Project will be required to slow down to 10 knots around the Project’s marine works areas and areas with high dolphin and porpoise usage, including existing and proposed marine parks. With implementation of this measure, the chance of vessel strike resulting in physical injury or mortality of marine mammals will be extremely unlikely;

· During underwater percussive piling works, a marine mammal exclusion zone within a radius of 500m radius will be implemented during underwater percussive piling works. Qualified observer(s) will scan an exclusion zone of 500m radius around the work area for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of piling. If a marine mammal is observed in the exclusion zone, piling will be delayed until they have left the area. This measure will ensure the area in the vicinity of the underwater percussive piling work is clear of marine mammals prior to the commencement of works and will serve to reduce any disturbance to marine mammals. When a marine mammal is spotted by qualified personnel within the exclusion zone, piling works will cease and will not resume until the observer confirms that the zone has been continuously clear of the marine mammal for a period of 30 minutes. This measure will ensure the area in the vicinity of the piling is clear of the marine mammal during works and will serve to reduce any disturbance to marine mammals;

· During marine dredging or jetting operations, a marine mammal exclusion zone within a radius of 250m from dredger or jetting machine will be implemented. Qualified observer(s) will scan an exclusion zone of 250m radius around the work area for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of dredging or jetting. If cetaceans or other megafauna are observed in the exclusion zone, dredging or jetting will be delayed until they have left the area. This measure will ensure the area in the vicinity of the dredging or jetting work is clear of marine mammals prior to the commencement of works and will serve to reduce any disturbance to marine mammals. When a marine mammal is spotted by qualified personnel within the exclusion zone, dredging or jetting works will cease and will not resume until the observer confirms that the zone has been continuously clear of the marine mammal for a period of 30 minutes. This measure will ensure the area in the vicinity of the works is clear of the marine mammal during works and will serve to reduce any disturbance to marine mammals. If necessary, for night-time works, exclusion zone monitoring for FP by underwater acoustic means would be explored to supplement the exclusion zone monitoring by trained observers. A site trial will be conducted to demonstrate its practicability/ effectiveness before actual implementation during the night-time works;

· Implementation of a contingency plan to contain and clean up the spilled or leaked fuels or chemicals at the LNG Terminal, surrounding waters and marine parks.

The following precautionary measures are proposed to be implemented to further reduce potential construction and operation impacts on marine parks:

· All vessel operators working on the Project will be given a briefing, alerting them the locations of the existing, proposed and potential marine parks and the regulations for marine parks. The vessels will avoid using high speed as far as possible;

· The vessel operators of this Project will be required to use predefined and regular routes (that do not encroach into existing and proposed marine parks), and would avoid traversing sensitive habitats such as existing and proposed marine parks, with the exception of the FSRU Vessel which will need to transit through the proposed SLMP during manoeuvring to the Jetty and after typhoon event due to its safe operational requirement;

· Silt curtain deployment during maintenance dredging will avoid encroachment into the proposed SLMP;

· Implementation of a marine mammal exclusion zone during underwater percussive piling works and pipeline dredging and jetting works (details described above);

· No stopping over or anchoring activity of vessels related to the Project should be conducted within existing and proposed marine parks, even before, during and after typhoon; and

· Implementation of a contingency plan to contain and clean up the spilled or leaked fuels or chemicals at the LNG Terminal, surrounding waters and marine parks.

9.11.4 Measures for Terrestrial Ecological Resources

The discussion in Sections 9.8 and 9.9 has indicated that the impacts on ecological resources due to the construction and operation of the Project are generally expected to be negligible to minor. Good site practices (e.g. night-time lighting controls, avoid encroachment and disturbance to natural habitats, etc.) will be adopted and no specific mitigation measures for terrestrial ecological resources are required.

9.12 Enhancement Measures

CLP and HK Electric believe that the development of this Project provides an opportunity to enhance the marine environment of southern Lantau for the benefit of its biodiversity and the community. Through the provision of independent funding for conservation, education, research and ecotourism programmes, CLP and HK Electric believe it can create the necessary stimulus to bring potential enhancement initiatives to fruition, in support of the vision of “Conservation for the South” formulated by the HKSAR Government in the Sustainable Lantau Blueprint ([58]).

The enhancements envisaged are not intended to address or mitigate the potential impacts of the Project as such will be addressed through specific construction practices, mitigation measures and monitoring programmes. Rather, the enhancements envisaged include a broad range of positive contribution to biodiversity and the community in terms of nature conservation, improvement and sharing of scientific knowledge, engagement with the community through leisure and recreational uses, etc., and would by all means support the actions formulated under Hong Kong’s first city-level Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) where opportunities and synergies exist.

CLP and HK Electric have identified the following key possible enhancements:

Marine Conservation

The waters in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal would be zoned as the South Lantau Marine Park for the purposes of conservation, education and recreation. CLP and HK Electric are prepared, as a stakeholder, to provide funding for biodiversity monitoring programmes that may assist in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of this marine conservation area (and the Southwest Lantau Marine Park nearby). These programmes may include mid- to long-term Finless Porpoise and Chinese White Dolphin surveys (land-based, vessel-based and acoustic studies), fisheries surveys (studies on productivity and operations) and other ecological surveys (amphioxus and coral studies). Biodiversity monitoring programmes for other areas/ species of conservation importance/interest in southern Lantau, e.g. mangrove and sandflat habitats of Shui Hau and Pui O, horseshoe crab habitats and nursery grounds, key coral areas, etc., would also be encouraged and supported to strengthen the scientific knowledge essential for the conservation of priority habitats and the preparation of new, and review of existing, species conservation action plans under the BSAP.

Habitat Restoration and Rehabilitation

Natural and artificial marine habitats of southern Lantau are facing challenges as some habitats have been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances. The funding provided by this Project can be used to support habitat rehabilitation programmes such as mangrove planting in Shui Hau and Pui O, coral transplantation pilot studies, artificial reef deployment in South Lantau waters, eco-enhancement retrofitting of existing artificial seawalls, etc., initiated by the Government or other interested parties to enhance the ecological values of these habitats.

Education and Ecotourism

Awareness and appreciation of conservation and sustainable management and use of biodiversity is key to benefiting our community and the future generations. The funding provided by this Project can support education and eco-friendly recreational efforts focusing on marine and nature conservation in southern Lantau. Such efforts could include education programmes (e.g. academy for citizen scientists, ecotourism ambassadors), conservation campaigns (e.g. coastal clean-up, marine littler/ plastic survey), “green” dolphin watching or recreational fishing, etc.. The success from education and conservation programmes such as the Ting Kok Coastal Conservation Plan (Ting Kok+) will be drawn on when evaluating funding initiatives.

With input from a range of stakeholders including Government, NGOs, local community groups and fishing interests, CLP and HK Electric propose that an Marine Enhancement Plan be developed. This Plan will contain the key attributes as described above, and will draw on the views and feedback from stakeholders to identify enhancement and conservation initiatives of broad impact and interest. CLP and HK Electric are committed to collaborating with relevant Government departments and other stakeholders to formulate and then agree, after the EIA process has been completed, on the most appropriate mechanism, funding and time of implementation of an Enhancement Plan for the Project.

9.13 Residual Impacts

Taking into consideration the impact assessments in the previous sections and with effective implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the significance of residual impacts on marine ecology and terrestrial ecology including sensitive receivers such as existing and proposed marine parks (Table 9.42 to Table 9.46) are minor and acceptable. Residual impacts in terms of permanent habitat loss occurring as a result of the proposed Project have been determined and are as follows:

· The loss of about 0.8ha of subtidal soft bottom habitat and water column within the footprint of the piles at the Jetty. The residual impact is considered to be acceptable as the habitat is of low ecological value and very small in size in the context of surrounding similar habitat; and

· The loss of about 2.5ha of FP and offshore avifauna habitats within the footprint of the Jetty. The residual impact is considered to be acceptable as the habitat is very small in size in the context of surrounding available habitat for these species. Taking account of the sizable movement ranges and mobility of affected animals, it is expected that the loss would not give rise to significant adverse impacts on individuals or the populations as a whole. Additionally, the habitat which would be lost is not considered to be unique or critical habitat in terms of habitat utilization by the species.

The significance of the residual impacts of habitat loss has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.4.3 of the EIAO-TM in Table 9.48 below.

Table 9.48 Assessment of Residual Impacts from the Project

Criteria	Assessment
Effects on public health and health of biota or risk to life	The loss of habitats within the footprint of the Jetty is very small in size in the context of surrounding available habitat for marine mammals. In addition, the change in water quality would not directly impact marine mammals (both CWD and FP) and are not expected to have indirect biological consequences affecting their fitness or vital rates. Elevated sediment concentrations and sediment deposition may cause smothering of benthic assemblages. No unacceptable adverse impacts on fisheries resources and therefore prey resources for marine mammals is predicted to occur due to water quality impacts.
Magnitude of the adverse environmental impacts	Given the mitigation measures are in place, adverse environmental impacts to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks are expected to be insignificant. In addition, the presence of the Jetty structures and fouling community may provide subtidal and intertidal predator and prey refuges, foraging resources for pelagic fish and may support fish aggregations in a similar manner to artificial reefs. Impacts associated with creation of artificial habitat may include increased biological productivity and increased diversity of niche habitats, which can result in minor localized positive impacts on marine communities.
Geographic extent of the adverse environmental impacts	The geographic extent of the adverse impacts on marine mammals from the Project construction will be small and in the areas of relatively lower ecological importance for marine mammals. The potential water quality impacts will be limited to nearby works area around the proposed pipelines and the Jetty. The working rates of dredging and jetting activities have been optimized so that there is no unacceptable water quality impact to the nearby sensitive receivers.
Duration and frequency of the adverse environmental impacts	The loss of habitat will be permanent upon completion. The areas involved are considered small in relation to the overall sea area.
Likely size of the community or the environment that may be affected by the adverse impacts	The overall geographic extent affected by the Project will be confined to a small area in relation to the population range of marine mammals (i.e. CWD and FP).
Degree to which the adverse environmental impacts are reversible or irreversible	The habitat loss due to the piles of the Jetty will be permanent and irreversible.
Ecological context	Waters at north of Tai O to Fan Lau are high ecological value habitat for CWD. Waters at LNG Terminal and from LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau are moderate ecological value habitat for FP. Existing, proposed and potential marine parks are moderate to high ecological values.
Degree of disruption to sites of cultural heritage.	Not applicable.
International and regional importance.	CWD and FP are listed as Vulnerable in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Likelihood and degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts.	Given there are mitigation measures and precautionary measures in place and these measure have been proven to be effective from local marine infrastructure works, it is expected that degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts would be low.
Compliance with relevant established principles and criteria	Yes

Criteria

Assessment

Effects on public health and health of biota or risk to life

The loss of habitats within the footprint of the Jetty is very small in size in the context of surrounding available habitat for marine mammals. In addition, the change in water quality would not directly impact marine mammals (both CWD and FP) and are not expected to have indirect biological consequences affecting their fitness or vital rates. Elevated sediment concentrations and sediment deposition may cause smothering of benthic assemblages. No unacceptable adverse impacts on fisheries resources and therefore prey resources for marine mammals is predicted to occur due to water quality impacts.

Magnitude of the adverse environmental impacts

Given the mitigation measures are in place, adverse environmental impacts to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks are expected to be insignificant. In addition, the presence of the Jetty structures and fouling community may provide subtidal and intertidal predator and prey refuges, foraging resources for pelagic fish and may support fish aggregations in a similar manner to artificial reefs. Impacts associated with creation of artificial habitat may include increased biological productivity and increased diversity of niche habitats, which can result in minor localized positive impacts on marine communities.

Geographic extent of the adverse environmental impacts

The geographic extent of the adverse impacts on marine mammals from the Project construction will be small and in the areas of relatively lower ecological importance for marine mammals. The potential water quality impacts will be limited to nearby works area around the proposed pipelines and the Jetty. The working rates of dredging and jetting activities have been optimized so that there is no unacceptable water quality impact to the nearby sensitive receivers.

Duration and frequency of the adverse environmental impacts

The loss of habitat will be permanent upon completion. The areas involved are considered small in relation to the overall sea area.

Likely size of the community or the environment that may be affected by the adverse impacts

The overall geographic extent affected by the Project will be confined to a small area in relation to the population range of marine mammals (i.e. CWD and FP).

Degree to which the adverse environmental impacts are reversible or irreversible

The habitat loss due to the piles of the Jetty will be permanent and irreversible.

Ecological context

Waters at north of Tai O to Fan Lau are high ecological value habitat for CWD. Waters at LNG Terminal and from LNG Terminal to South of Shek Kwu Chau are moderate ecological value habitat for FP. Existing, proposed and potential marine parks are moderate to high ecological values.

Degree of disruption to sites of cultural heritage.

Not applicable.

International and regional importance.

CWD and FP are listed as Vulnerable in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Likelihood and degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts.

Given there are mitigation measures and precautionary measures in place and these measure have been proven to be effective from local marine infrastructure works, it is expected that degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts would be low.

Compliance with relevant established principles and criteria

Yes

Based upon the above, the residual impacts associated with the habitat loss for the Project would be considered to be acceptable and have met the requirements of Section 4.4.3 of the EIAO-TM.

9.14 Cumulative Impacts

9.14.1 Cumulative Impacts on Marine Ecological Resources

Information from publicly available sources suggested that the construction/ implementation programmes of a number of projects would coincide with this Project (see Annex 3A for concurrent projects identified). The Water Quality Assessment (Section 7.7) was based on the worst-case scenarios of concurrent construction activities of this Project as well as relevant concurrent projects (see Annex 7B for the detailed consideration) and thus has also incorporated potential cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts of the various construction activities of this Project and other relevant concurrent projects have been demonstrated in Section 7.7 as not causing unacceptable impacts to water quality. Consequently, unacceptable cumulative impacts to marine ecological resources are not predicted to occur. Project-specific adverse operation phase impacts on marine ecological resources are not expected to occur (Sections 9.5.2 and 9.6.2) and no operational impacts are anticipated from concurrent projects, thus operation phase cumulative impacts with other developments in and around the LNG Terminal site in South Lantau waters are not predicted.

Intertidal and subtidal habitats and assemblages to be impacted by the Project are considered as of low ecological value. Effects on these habitats and assemblages as a result of this Project are not anticipated to contribute to unacceptable cumulative impacts with other developments in southern, western and northwestern and Hong Kong waters. As for the potential cumulative impacts on marine mammals, impacts presented in Section 9.6 were examined to evaluate potential cumulative impacts with other developments in southern, western or northwestern Hong Kong waters. Outcomes of this evaluation are summarised as follows:

· Habitat Loss and disturbance: only temporary disturbance to CWD habitat is anticipated as a result of this Project. The extent of disturbance is expected to be small and confined to localised works areas of the active construction workfronts. Major concurrent development projects in this part of Hong Kong are expected to result in a loss of about 650ha of potential CWD habitats in north Lantau waters by the 3RS Project. It is also expected to result in a loss of about 127 ha of potential CWD habitats in north Lantau waters by the Tung Chung New Town Extension (TCNTE) Project, which is not a key CWD habitat and thus it is likely to cause only minor contributions to the total cumulative impacts. The severity of such cumulative habitat loss is expected to be significantly reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation measures proposed as part of the 3RS EIA study and TCNTE EIA study. Unacceptable cumulative effect is not expected. Permanent loss and temporary disturbance of FP habitat as a result of this Project is considered to be small and is confined to deeper waters away from concurrent projects near Shek Kwu Chau (IWMF Phase 1 project) and southwest Lamma (offshore windfarm project). The habitat loss due to the Project contributed to less than 5% of overall habitat loss due to all proposed marine infrastructure projects in Southern FCZ, which is considered to be minor. Thus it is unlikely to exert an unacceptable cumulative effect.

· Underwater Sound: this Project is located at sufficient distance from other projects and high speed ferries would not be used for this Project. Given the similarity in underwater acoustic profiles generated by works vessels of this Project and other projects (e.g. by the use of large vessels generating low-frequency sound), cumulative effects of works vessels operational sound, if any, are anticipated to be negligible. The proposed piling works for the Jetty construction will be temporary and with the mitigation measures in place, including avoidance of marine percussive piling during the peak season of FP (December to May), avoidance of night-time working and adopting soft-start procedures and strictly controlled marine mammal exclusion zones similar to our concurrent projects, it is not expected to result in significant cumulative impact to marine mammals.

· Marine Traffic: this Project is located at sufficient distance from other projects in the vicinity. It is expected to involve a relatively small number of works vessels (typical < 10) (e.g. 1 dredger/ jetting plant/ pipelay barge, 1 anchor handling tugboat, 1-2 dumping barge for dredging/ rock placement work front, 1-2 survey boat, 1 crew boat, 1-2 guard/ supply boat) at any one time at each work front, and the frequency/ trip of vessel would also be low (expected to be about 15 trips per day). Given the waters off western and southern Hong Kong have high levels of existing marine traffic, the cumulative effects of marine traffic disturbance and marine mammal collision risk, if any, are anticipated to be negligible. It is expected that similar, slow-moving works vessels would be used in this Project and other projects, and similar mitigation measures, e.g. vessel speed limit and regular routes (Section 9.11) would be adopted in different projects to minimise the magnitude of potential cumulative impacts.

On the basis of the above, cumulative impacts on marine mammals and are not predicted to occur.

9.14.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Ecological Resources

At present, there are no planned projects in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal or near the LPS or that BPPS that could create cumulative terrestrial ecological impacts during the construction of the Project, besides the operation of the existing LPS and BPPS. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

9.15 Environmental Monitoring & Audit

9.15.1 Construction Phase

During the construction phase, the following EM&A measures will be undertaken to verify the predictions in the impact assessment and ensure the environmental acceptability of the construction works:

· Water quality impacts will be monitored and checked through the implementation of a Water Quality EM&A programme (refer to Section 7.12 for details). The monitoring and control of water quality impacts will also serve to avoid unacceptable impacts to marine ecological resources and marine parks;

· A marine mammal exclusion zone will also be implemented and monitored by qualified observers for the presence of marine mammals during Jetty underwater percussive piling works and dredging and jetting works of the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline; and

· Baseline, impact and post-construction monitoring of marine mammal using vessel-based line transect survey and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will be undertaken to keep track of potential changes in the usage of waters in the vicinity of the Project’s works areas by FP.

Details of the methods for the above monitoring works will be elaborated in the EM&A Manual.

9.15.2 Operation Phase

The assessment presented above has indicated that unacceptable operational phase impacts are not expected to occur to marine ecological resources. Consequently, no marine ecology-specific operation phase EM&A measures are considered necessary. During the operation phase, water quality impacts will be monitored and checked through the implementation of a Water Quality EM&A programme (refer to Section 7 for details). The monitoring and control of water quality impacts will also serve to avoid unacceptable impacts to marine ecological resources.

Subject to the outcomes of the post-construction marine mammal monitoring by PAM, additional monitoring may be undertaken as an enhancement programme to keep track of potential changes in the usage of waters in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal by FP.

9.16 Summary & Conclusions

Following a site selection study, preferred locations for the LNG Terminal and LPS Pipeline and BPPS Pipeline have been selected that avoid, to the extent practical, adverse impacts to habitats or species of high ecological value (e.g. existing and proposed marine parks).

9.16.1 Marine Ecological Resources

A review of baseline information on marine ecological resources surrounding the waters of the proposed Project from available literature and field surveys has been undertaken, covering the intertidal, sub-tidal soft bottom and hard bottom habitats and marine waters. Results from the review and the field surveys indicate that although both CWD and FP are present in the Assessment Area, their habitats of some ecological importance only overlap with the Project infrastructure in some locations, e.g. Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau, West Lantau and waters between Soko Islands and Shek Kwu Chau. Marine ecological resources in close proximity to the Project are generally regarded as of low ecological values (apart from high ecological values for the proposed South Lantau Marine Park which is located in the close vicinity), whereas further afield habitats and sensitive receivers of ecological values such as the corals Pak Chau and existing and proposed marine parks (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, proposed Southwest Lantau Marine Park and proposed 3RS Marine Park) can be found. The presence of species of conservation importance such as green turtle and whale shark in the Assessment Area is very occasional.

The loss and disturbance of intertidal and subtidal habitats due to the construction of the Jetty, the LPS Pipeline and the BPPS Pipeline is considered as environmentally acceptable to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks since the areas affected are relatively small in the context of the extent of similar habitat available in the vicinity and the low ecological value of the affected assemblages. Recolonisation by organisms in these habitats as well as new artificial habitats provided by the subsea Jetty infrastructure is expected to occur.

The loss of about 2.5ha of FP habitats within the footprint of the Jetty is considered to be acceptable to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks as the habitat is very small in size in the context of surrounding available habitat for the key species. Taking account of the sizable movement ranges and mobility of affected animals, it is expected that the loss would not give rise to significant adverse impacts on individuals or the populations as a whole. Additionally, the habitat which would be lost is not considered to be unique or critical habitat in terms of habitat utilization by the species. Similarly, these waters are not key habitats for horseshoe crabs, marine turtle and whale shark and impacts to these species would be negligible. Marine mammals are expected to temporarily avoid active marine construction areas, and would return upon cessation of such activities. With the implementation of mitigation measures including briefing to Project vessel operators, the use of predefined and regular routes, optimized piling method with ramp-up procedures, marine mammal exclusion zone, restriction of piling works during night-time and peak season of FP and control of dredging / jetting rates, no unacceptable impacts are anticipated considering also the short duration of works at specific locations during the phased construction activities.

Underwater percussive piling for Jetty construction has the potential to cause impacts to marine ecological resources especially marine mammals through underwater sound generation. With the adoption of recommended mitigation measures, including the use of hydraulic hammering with noise reduction system, use of bubble curtain, avoidance of marine percussive piling during the peak season of FP (December to May), avoidance of night-time working and adopting soft-start procedures and strictly controlled marine mammal exclusion zones, no unacceptable impacts on these species are expected. Underwater sound and increase marine traffic generated from other marine construction activities are also not expected to result in unacceptable impacts to marine ecological resources especially marine mammals, considering the relatively small number of works vessels and trips involved, slow-moving nature of these vessels and the habituation of similar sounds by the species in the current underwater soundscape.

As impacts of short-term changes in water quality arising from the construction of the Jetty, LPS pipeline and BPPS Pipeline are predicted to be largely confined to the specific works areas. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the predicted elevations of suspended sediment due to the Project are not predicted to cause exceedances of the WQO outside of the mixing zones, unacceptable adverse impacts to water quality, and hence marine ecological resources, marine turtles, whale sharks, marine mammals, existing and proposed marine parks, are not anticipated. The assessment of water quality impacts demonstrated that marine ecological sensitive receivers, including existing and proposed marine parks, would not be unacceptably affected as defined by the relevant assessment criteria.

The mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to water quality to acceptable levels (compliance with WQOs) during Project construction are also expected to mitigate impacts to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks. Precautionary measures designed to reduce impacts to marine mammals that use the Project’s marine construction works areas include restrictions on vessel speed and use of predefined and regular routes. Specific mitigation measures have been identified for marine works and these include use of hydraulic hammers, bubble curtain and ramp-up procedures for underwater percussive piling, exclusion zone monitoring during underwater percussive piling and marine dredging and jetting works, and scheduling these construction activities to avoid periods of higher level of marine mammal activities.

Unacceptable adverse impacts to marine ecological resources, marine mammals and marine parks, associated with cooled water discharge, impingement and entrainment of planktonic eggs and larvae, increased marine traffic and underwater sound from project vessels, and maintenance dredging, are not expected to occur during the operation of the Project. Potential incidents (e.g. during typhoon) may result in additional vessel movements during such emergency conditions, however, considering the slow speed of these vessels, it is not expected there would be a significant risk of vessel strike due to these vessel movements. Unacceptable adverse impacts of increased marine traffic due to potential incidents (e.g. during typhoon) on marine mammals are not anticipated. Accidental spill events at a scale that may impact marine ecology and marine parks are extremely unlikely to occur, and contingency plan will be in place to reduce potential impacts. No marine ecology-specific mitigation measures are required during operation. The implementation of a managed safety zone around the LNG Terminal has no potential impact on marine park as the safety zone is outside the proposed SLMP.

9.16.2 Terrestrial Ecological Resources

The review of terrestrial ecological resources indicated that no terrestrial ecological sensitive receivers were identified within a 500 m Assessment Area from the Project footprint including in offshore and onshore environments. However, breeding terns on Soko Islands, egretry at Sha Chau and WBSE nesting sites at Shek Kwu Chau, Lung Kwu Chau, Chi Ma Wan Peninsular near Ha So Pai, Mo Tat Wan of Lamma Island and Sunshine Island were reported outside the 500m Assessment Area from the Project footprint. Further baseline field surveys reported a relatively low diversity (five species) and density (mean of less than 1 individual per effective survey trip per km²) of avifauna in the marine waters of the LNG Terminal and its vicinity, and only four bird of species of conservation importance, Black-headed Gull, Black-tailed Gull, Bridled Tern and Aleutian Tern was observed within 500 m of the proposed LNG Terminal during the 12-month surveys. All of these species except Aleutian Terns are common and widespread in Hong Kong. The physical presence of the LNG Terminal in these waters, which are evaluated as of low ecological importance to offshore avifauna including WBSE, seabirds and migratory birds, is not expected to result in unacceptable impacts to avifauna considering the size of available marine areas in the range of these birds. Unacceptable impacts on avifauna due to noise and light emissions from construction and operational activities are also not expected with the implementation of night time lighting control and good site practices.

The GRS at the BPPS and the GRS at the LPS is located in urbanised/ disturbed areas within the boundaries of the BPPS and the LPS respectively. The habitat is of negligible ecological importance and no species of conservation importance was recorded. As all land-based construction and operation phase activities will be confined to this habitat type within the BPPS and the LPS, potential impacts on terrestrial ecological resources during construction and operation of the Project are considered to be negligible, and no adverse residual impacts are expected.

([1]) Hung SK (2017) Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong waters: final report (2016-17). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 154 pp.

([2]) Hung SK (2017) Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong waters: final report (2016-17). An unpublished report submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 154 pp.

([3]) Evidence of fishing activities, such as fragments of fishing nets, were recorded on the C-POD holder at location 1 and dragging trail of the C-POD holder was observed on the seabed at location 4 in February 2017, it is suspected that the missing C-POD units and holders may be due to illegal trawling or other fishing activities in South Lantau waters.

([4]) Hong Kong Cetacean Research Project (2017) Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong Waters (2016-2017): Final Report submitted to the AFCD.

([5]) Hung SK (2014) Monitoring of Marine Mammals in Hong Kong Waters (2013-14): Final Report. Submitted to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Tender Re.: AFCD/SQ/183/12.

([6]) Munger L, Lammers M, Cifuentes M, Würsig B, Jefferson TA, Hung SK (2016) Spatial and temporal variation of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in Hong Kong waters from year-round passive acoustic monitoring. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140: 2754-2765

([7]) Hung SK (2008) Habitat use of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) in Hong Kong. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 266 p.

([8]) Representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort

([9]) Representing the number of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort

([10]) It should be noted that the grid at the northeast corner of the airport island (i.e. Grid M16) yielded high SPSE and DPSE values, but the result could be biased with only 13 units of survey effort and three groups of nine dolphins sighted within this grid at the edge of the airport restricted area during the 10-year period.

([12]) To deduce home ranges for individual dolphins, the computer program calculated kernel density estimates based on all re-sighting positions of each individual dolphin. The kernel estimator calculated the overall ranging area at 95% UD level, as well as the core areas at two different levels (50% and 25% UD).

([14]) Mott MacDonald (2014) Environmental Impact Assessment of Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (AEIAR-185/2014). Prepared for Airport Authority Hong Kong.

([15]) Law S (2017) The biology and fisheries status of seabreams (family: sparidae) in Hong Kong and adjacent waters. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.

([16]) Lam YV (2009) The shark fisheries of Southern China and the reproductive biology of the spadenose shark, Scoliodon laticaudus. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4327854.

([17]) Some of the birds were found roosting at an elevation more than 0 m and they were generally sighted roosting on the trees / bedrocks / artificial structure on the nearby landmass; or floating objects on water surface.

([19]) In the event that the pre-installed pipeline cannot be used for the LPS tie-in, an alternative landfall point will be used

([20]) Richardson WJ, Greene CRG, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1995) Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, 576 pp

([21]) Nedwell JR, Parvin SJ, Edwards B, Workman R, Brooker AG & Kynoch JE (2008). Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 to COWRIE Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9554279-5-4.

([22]) Robinson SP, Lepper PA & Ablitt J (2007). The measurement of the underwater radiated noise from marine piling including characterisation of a “soft start” period. In Proceedings of Oceans 2007 – Europe, Aberdeen, UK, June 18-21, 2007, pp. 1-6.

([23]) Witheringtom BE and Martin RE (2003) Understanding, assessing and resolving light-pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Third Edition. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2 73pp.

([25]) Witheringtom BE and Martin RE (2003) Understanding, assessing and resolving light-pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Third Edition. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2 73pp.

([26]) The boiling point of the main component in LNG, methane, is at −161.6°C at 1 atmospheric pressure.

([27]) Mott MacDonald (2014) EIA Report for the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014).

([28]) Arup (2009) EIA Report for the Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (Register No.: AEIAR-145/2009)

([29]) AECOM (2009) EIA Report for the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (Register No.: AEIAR-146/2009)

([30]) AECOM (2012) EIA Report for the Tung Chung New Town Extension (Register No.: AEIAR-196/2016)

([31]) Mott MacDonald (2014) EIA Report for the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (Register No.: AEIAR-185/2014).

([32]) Popper AN, Hawkins AD, Fay RR, Mann DA, Bartol S, Carlson TJ, Coombs S, Ellison WT, Gentry RL, Halvorsen MB, Løkkeborg ·S, Rogers PH, Southall BL, Zeddies DG, Tavolga WN (2014) Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI.

([34]) Andersson MH, Andersson S, Ahlsén J, Andersson BL, Hammar J, Persson LKG, Pihl J, Sigray P, Wikström A (2017) A framework for regulating underwater noise during pile driving. A technical Vindval report, ISBN 978-91-620-6775-5, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.

([35]) Norro AMJ, Rumes B, Degraer SJ (2013). Differentiating between underwater construction noise of monopile and jacket foundations for offshore windmills: a case study from the Belgian part of the North Sea. The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 897624, 7p.

([36]) Van Parijs SM, Corkeron PJ (2001) Vocalizations and behaviour of Pacific Humpback Dolphins Sousa chinensis. Ethology 107: 701-716.

([37]) It should be noted that Van Parijs & Corkeron (2001) only recorded up to a maximum of 22 kHz, and it is understood that many of these sounds may have components that go above 22 kHz

([38]) Goold JC & Jefferson TA (2002) Acoustic signals from free-ranging finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides) in waters around Hong Kong. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 10:131-139.

([39]) Nedwell J R , Parvin S J, Edwards B, Workman R , Brooker A G and Kynoch J E (2008) Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 to COWRIE Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9554279-5-4.

([41]) Nedwell J R , Parvin S J, Edwards B, Workman R , Brooker A G and Kynoch J E (2008) Op cit..

([42]) Paul-Y Construction Company Limited (2012). Underwater Noise Monitoring for Offshore Wind Monitoring Station. Submitted to The Hongkong Electric Company Limited.

([43]) Pile diameter of about 1m. The piling was done by a hydraulic hammer. Bubble curtains were in place when the sound measurements were made. The reported noise level at 1 m was a calculated value based on measurement taken at 10 m.

([44]) Würsig BJ, Greene CR & Jefferson TA 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research 49:79-93.

([45]) Würsig BJ, Greene CR & Jefferson TA 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research 49:79-93.

([46]) Airport Authority 2005. Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility selection of bubble jacket to attenuate noise from underwater percussive piling. ACE-EIA Paper 2/2005.

([47]) Parsons ECM, Jefferson TA (2000) Post-mortem investigations on stranded dolphins and porpoises from Hong Kong waters. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36: 342-356

([48]) Jefferson TA, Curry BE, Kinoshita R (2002) Mortality and morbidity of Hong Kong finless porpoises, with special emphasis on the role of environmental contaminants. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology (Supplement) 10: 161- 171

([49]) AFCD Stranding Programme Records (Unpublished).

([50]) Geraci JR ans St Aubin DJ 1990. Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego USA 259 pp.

([51]) Smith TG, Geraci JR and St Aubin 1983. Reaction of Bottlenose Dolphins Tursiops truncatus to a controlled oil spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1522-1525.

([52]) The maximum air draft for container ship in Hong Kong is 64.5m, which is comparable to ~ 65m height of the FSRU Vessel. (Reference: Marine Department (2006). Study on the Next Generation of Large Containerships and Its Potential Implications for the Port of Hong Kong. Available at: https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/containership_study.pdf

([53]) Weisse. FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, Huettmann AW, Diamond AW and Linke J. 2001. Seabirds at Risk around Offshore Oil Platforms in the North-West Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47: 1285-1290.

([54]) Ronconi RA, Allard KA and Taylor PD 2015. Bird interactions with offshore oil and gas platforms: Review of impacts and monitoring techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 147:32-45.

([55]) Poot H, Ens BJ, de Vries H, Donners MAH, Wernand MR, and Marquenie JM. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/

([56]) Bruinzeel LW, van Belle J, Davids L and van de Lar F 2009. The impact of conventional illumination of offshore platforms in the North Sea on migratory bird populations. Altenburg & Wymenga Ecologisch Onderzoek. A&W-Rapport 1227.

([57]) Ronconi RA, Allard KA, Taylor PD (2015) Bird interactions with offshore oil and gas platforms: Review of impacts and monitoring techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 147: 34-45.

([58]) DevB and CEDD (2017) Sustainable Lantau Blueprint. June 2017. 55pp.

9.3.1 Assessment Area

9.3.2 Field Survey Findings

Survey Schedule

Intertidal Survey

Subtidal Benthos Survey

Dry Season

Subtidal Coral Survey

Marine Mammal Shipboard Survey

Survey Effort

Marine Mammal Sightings

Photo-identification of Individual CWD

CWD General Distribution

Seasonal Variation in CWD Distribution

Distribution of CWD with Different Group Sizes

Distribution of Calves of CWD

Distribution of CWD Engaged in Different Behavioural Activities

CWD Encounter Rate

CWD Density and Abundance

FP General Distribution

Seasonal Variation in FP Distribution

Distribution of FP with Different Group Sizes

FP Encounter Rate

Underwater PAM Survey

Occurrence of Marine Mammals in the Three Sites

Seasonal Variations in Occurrences of Marine Mammals

Diel Patterns on Occurrences of Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Baseline Review

Chinese White Dolphin (CWD)

Finless Porpoises (FP)

Marine Fishes

Boat-based Avifauna Survey

Abundance and Distribution

Bird Density

Bird Activities and Elevation ([17])

Breeding Activity

Bird Species of Conservation Interest

Baseline Conditions in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal

9.3.3 Ecological Profiles

Recognized Sites of Conservation Importance

Existing, Proposed and Potential Marine Parks

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Sham Wan Restricted Area

Marine Mammals

Horseshoe Crab, and its Breeding and Nursery Grounds

Mangroves

Coral Communities

Amphioxus

Other Intertidal and Subtidal Assemblages

Whale Shark and Sea Turtle

Terrestrial Ecology, including Avifauna

9.3.4 Ecological Importance

Evaluation of Ecological Habitats

Species of Conservation Importance

9.3.5 Marine Ecological Sensitive Receivers

9.3.6 Terrestrial Ecological Sensitive Receivers

9.5 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Marine Ecological Resources (Excluding Marine Mammals)

9.5.1 Construction Phase

Temporary Habitat Loss and Disturbance

Habitats along the BPPS Pipeline, the LPS Pipeline and the Jetty

Subtidal and Intertidal Habitats at the BPPS Pipeline and the LPS Pipeline Landfall Points

Underwater Sound

Short-Term Changes in Water Quality from Marine Construction Activities

Suspended Solids (SS) Elevations

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals and Organic Contaminants

Changes in Water Quality from Land-based and Jetty Topside Construction Activities and Pipeline Hydrotesting

Accidental Spillage or Leakage of Fuel/ Chemicals

9.5.2 Operation Phase

Permanent Habitat Loss from Physical Presence of Marine Structures

Impingement and Entrainment of Marine Ecological Resources

Mooring for LNG Transfer

Changes in Water Quality due to Cooled Water Discharge

Temporary Habitat Loss and Disturbance from Maintenance Dredging

Short-term Changes in Water Quality from Maintenance Dredging

Underwater Sound from FSRU Vessel and LNGC Transit

Effects of Glare from Light Sources and Emergency Gas Flares

Accidental Spillage and Leakage of LNG/ Fuel / Chemicals

9.6 Potential Impacts & Impact Assessment on Marine Mammals

9.6.1 Construction Phase