Figure 1.1	Locations of Key Construction Activities
Figure 2.1	Locations of Air and Noise Monitoring Stations and Chek Lap Kok Wind Station
Figure 2.2a	Water Quality Monitoring Stations (before 25 January 2022)
Figure 2.2b	Water Quality Monitoring Stations (on and after 25 January 2022)
Figure 2.3	Overall Sampling Grids for the Newly Reclaimed Area
Figure 2.4	The Backfilling Locations for Treated Marine Sediment
Figure 2.5	Vessel based Dolphin Monitoring Transects in Construction, Post-Construction and Operation Phases
Figure 2.6	Land based Dolphin Monitoring in Baseline and Construction Phases
Figure 2.7	Location for Autonomous Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Figure 2.8	Schematic Diagram for Sewerage System Flow Monitoring
Figure 2.9	Sewerage System Collecting Sewage from Airport

Appendices

Appendix A	Contract Description
Appendix B	Project Organization Chart
Appendix C	Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule (EMIS) for Construction Phase
Appendix D	Monitoring Results
Appendix E	Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring Results
Appendix F	Summary of Environmental Complaints and Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances, Notification of Summons, and Prosecution
Appendix G	Tree Schedule

Abbreviations

3RS	Three-Runway System
AAHK	Airport Authority Hong Kong
AECOM	AECOM Asia Company Limited
ABWF	Architectural, Builder's Work and Finishing Works
ACE	Advisory Council on the Environment
AFCD	Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
AIS	Automatic Information System
ANI	Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphins
APM	Automated People Mover
AW	Airport West
BHS	Baggage Handling System
C	Control
CAP	Contamination Assessment Plan
CAR	Contamination Assessment Report
CDS	Conventional Distance Sampling
CLGs	Community Liaison Groups
COVID	Coronavirus Disease
CTP	Coral Translocation Plan
CWD	Chinese White Dolphin
CV	Coefficient of Variation
DCM	Deep Cement Mixing
DEZ	Dolphin Exclusion Zone
DO	Dissolved Oxygen
DPD	Detection Positive Days
DPM	Detection Positive Minutes
DPSE	Number of Dolphins per 100 Units of Survey Effort
EAR	Ecological Acoustic Recorder
EIA	Environmental Impact Assessment
EM&A	Environmental Monitoring & Audit
EP	Environmental Permit
EPD	Environmental Protection Department
EVT	Eastern Vehicular Tunnel
ET	Environmental Team
FCZ	Fish Culture Zone
HDD	Horizontal Directional Drilling
HKBCF	Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
HKIA	Hong Kong International Airport
HOKLAS	The Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme
HSF	High Speed Ferry
HZMB	Hong-Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
IEC	Independent Environmental Checker
IM	Impact Station
LKC	Lung Kwu Chau
MCDS	Multiple Covariate Distance Sampling
MTCC	Marine Traffic Control Centre
MMHK	Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited
MMWP	Marine Mammal Watching Plan
MSS	Maritime Surveillance System
MTRMP-CAV	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel
NEL	Northeast Lantau
NWL	Northwest Lantau
PAM	Passive Acoustic Monitoring
PM	Partial Mortality
PVD	Prefabricated Vertical Drain
RBRGs	Risk Based Remediation Goals
SC	Sha Chau
SCLKCMP	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park
SCZ	Speed Control Zone
SPSE	Number of On-effort Sightings per 100 Units of Survey Effort
SPS-1	Sewage Pumping Station 1
SR	Sensitive Receiver
SS	Suspended Solids
STG	Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings
SWL	Southwest Lantau
The Project	The Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System
The SkyPier Plan	Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier
T2	Terminal 2
T2C	Terminal 2 Concourse
TCLP	Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure
TCSPS	Tung Chung Sewage Pumping Station
TSP	Total Suspended Particulates
UCS	Unconfined Compressive Strength
WL	West Lantau
WMP	Waste Management Plan
WVT	Western Vehicular Tunnel

Executive summary

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

This is the 7^th Construction Phase Annual EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022.

Key Activities in the Reporting Period

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

Reclamation Works:

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

● Seawall construction; and

● Backfilling works.

Airfield Works:

Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway

● Cabling works; and

● Stockpiling.

Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works

● Construction of tunnel structure;

● Pipe and drainage diversion works;

● Excavation and lateral support systems installation;

● Utilities and backfilling works; and

● Stockpiling.

Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works

● Architectural, Builder's and Finishing works;

● Footing and utilities work;

● Excavation and concreting works;

● Piling work;

● Pavement work;

● Operation of asphalt plant; and

● Cable laying and ducting works.

Contract 3305 Airfield Ground Lighting System

● Cabling works;

● Network installation;

● Genset installation;

● Enhanced vehicular warning light hardware installation;

● Modification works;

● Rectification work for airfield ground lighting system; and

● Software development.

Contract 3306 Observation Facility Control System Supporting Interim 2RS and 3RS

● Equipment installation;

● Cabling works; and

● Installation of temporary site accommodation.

Contract 3307 Fire Training Facility

● Architectural, builder’s and finishing works;

● Excavation works;

● Building construction; and

● Drainage and utilities works.

Contract 3308 Foreign Object Debris Detection System

● Drilling of earthing and lightning pit;

● Lightning and earthing pits installation;

● Foreign Object Debris Tower installation;

● Cable laying, connection and termination works;

● Calibration and site acceptance test for foreign object debris detection sensor;

● Rectification work for handover sensor system; and

● Site formation.

Contract 3310 North Runway Modification Works

● Architectural, builder's work and finishing works;

● Land-based ground improvement works;

● Pre-boring;

● Excavation and footing construction;

● Seawall construction;

● Construction of columns, walls and slabs;

● Construction of stormwater drainage;

● Cutter soil mixing;

● Deep cement mixing;

● Sheet piles and pipe pile installation; and

● Backfilling works.

Third Runway Concourse:

Contract 3403 New Integrated Airport Centres Building and Civil Works

● Architectural, builder's work and finishing works;

● Excavation;

● Steel frame and steel fence installation;

● Roofing installation and steel frame erection of covered walkway;

● Cladding;

● Drainage and ducting;

● Road works;

● Cabling works;

● Demolition works;

● Underground utilities construction; and

● Backfilling.

Contract 3404 Integrated Airport Control System

● Equipment installation;

● Console configuration and system setup;

● Cable laying; and

● System maintenance.

Contract 3405 Three Runway Concourse Foundation and Substructure Works

● Excavation and backfilling;

● Road formation;

● Sheet piling and bored piling; and

● Structure works.

Contract 3408 Third Runway Concourse and Apron Works

● Site setup works;

● Excavation and lateral support works;

● Building construction; and

● Reinforced concrete works.

Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion:

Contract 3508 Terminal 2 Expansion Works

● Architectural, Builder's Work and Finishing works;

● Excavation and footing construction;

● Block wall construction;

● Viaduct pier construction;

● Pump station and electrical station construction;

● Temporary road construction;

● Bridge demolition;

● Tunnel boring machine mobilization;

● Piling works;

● Drainage works; and

● Backfilling.

Automated People Mover (APM) and Baggage Handling System (BHS):

Contract 3601 New Automated People Mover System (TRC Line)

● Pull out test for guideway;

● Guidebeam installation; and

● Concreting work.

Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works

● Car modification;

● Concrete plinth and stitch construction;

● Contact grouting;

● Erection and fixing of power rail; and

● Erection of guide rail.

Baggage Handling System (BHS) Works:

Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System

● BHS installation.

Construction Support (Facilities):

Contract 3721 Construction Support Infrastructure Works

● Laying of drainage pipes, ducts, road work, and water mains;

● Paving works;

● Road works;

● Watermain connection works; and

● Site clearance.

Contract 3723 Construction Support Facilities

● E&M installation;

● Internal ABWF works;

● Footing works;

● Reinforced concrete works;

● Clearance works;

● Operation of centralized power supply building; and

● Operation of sewage treatment plant.

Airport Support Infrastructure:

Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island

● Excavation;

● Parapet wall construction;

● U-channel and tunnel construction;

● Ventilation ducts construction;

● Walkway construction;

● Wall construction;

● Demolition works;

● Falseworks and formworks;

● Erection of scaffolding;

● Rebar fixing and formwork erection;

● Mass concreting;

● Box jacking operation; and

● Backfilling works.

Contract 3802 APM and BHS Tunnels and Related Works

● Excavation and lateral supports;

● Deep jet mixing;

● Demolition works;

● Fencing erection;

● Pipe pile and sheet pile works;

● Tunnel construction; and

● Wall and slab construction.

Contract 3804 East and Landside Fire Stations

● Site setup and formation works;

● Preparation works of bored pile; and

● Excavation.

Construction Support (Services / Licences):

Contract 3901A Concrete Batching Facility

● Material conveyor belt construction;

● Testing and commissioning for conveyor belt; and

● Operation of concrete batching plant, and material conveyor belt.

Contract 3901B Concrete Batching Facility

● Cement tube conveyor trial;

● Testing and commissioning for conveyor belt; and

● Operation of concrete batching plant and material conveyor belt.

Contract 3913 Asphalt Batching Plant

● Operation of asphalt batching plant.

EM&A Activities Conducted in the Reporting Period

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

Monitoring/ Audit Activities	Number of Sessions
Air Quality Monitoring	384
Noise Monitoring	208
Water Quality Monitoring	153
Vessel line-transect surveys for Chinese White Dolphin (CWD) monitoring	24
Land-based theodolite tracking survey effort for CWD monitoring	24

Environmental auditing works, including weekly site inspections of construction works conducted by the ET and bi-weekly site inspections conducted by the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC), audit of SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF), audit of construction and associated vessels, and audit of implementation of Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) and Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan, were conducted in the reporting period. Based on the information including ET’s observations, records of Maritime Surveillance System (MSS), and contractors’ site records, it is noted that the environmental pollution control and mitigation measures were properly implemented and the construction activities of the Project in the reporting period did not introduce adverse impact to the environment.

In accordance with Section 6.2.1.1 of the Manual, the methodology of annual sewage flow monitoring for the existing gravity sewer from the airport discharge manhole to Tung Chung Sewage Pumping Station (TCSPS) should be prepared and submitted to EPD one year before the scheduled commencement of operation of the proposed third runway. As such, the sewage flow monitoring methodology paper was prepared, submitted and subsequently approved by EPD on 21 June 2021. The annual sewage flow monitoring has also been started since June 2021. According to the daily flow monitoring record of Sewage Pumping Station 1 (SPS-1) located at the Airport from January to December 2022, the daily average flow ranged from 10,610 (m³/day) to 15,116 (m³/day), which were well below 80% of pipe full flow capacity of 53,395.2 m³/day as defined in Section 2.6.3 of the approved sewage flow monitoring methodology paper. As the purpose of the sewage flow monitoring is to inform the timing of commencement of planning for the sewer upgrading works and considering that AAHK has initiated to start planning its construction, the annual monitoring was completed in 2022.

Summary Findings of the EM&A Programme

The monitoring works for construction dust, construction noise, water quality, construction waste, landscape & visual, and CWD were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Manual.

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

One monitoring result of construction waste triggered the relevant Action Level, and the corresponding investigation was conducted as stipulated in the EM&A programme. Follow-up actions was carried out by ET and the related contractor, and the case was considered closed.

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

Summary Table

The Key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period are summarised as below:

	Yes	No	Details	Analysis / Recommendation / Remedial Actions
Breach of Limit Level^		√	No exceedance of project-related Limit Level was recorded.	Nil
Breach of Action Level^	√		A complaint regarding general refuse was received in this reporting period.	Follow-up actions have been made by ET and the related contractor, and the case was considered closed.
Complaints Received	√		Eleven complaints were received in 2022: 18 Feb, 22 Mar, 24 Mar, 25 Apr, 16 May, 28 Jun (2 complaints), 30 Jun, 3 Oct, 16 Nov and 19 Dec.	The complaint investigations were carried out in accordance with the Complaint Management Plan. Details are presented in S3.2.1.
Notification of any summons and status of prosecutions		√	No notification of summons nor prosecution was received.	Nil
Changes that affect the EM&A	√		Starting from 25 Jan 2022, 6 water quality impact monitoring stations and 3 sensitive receiver stations were terminated, with the impact monitoring stations relocated back to their original locations and minor adjustment for one of the impact monitoring stations.	Nil

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

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

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

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

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

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

The summary of construction works programme can be referred to the corresponding Monthly EM&A Reports. Description of relevant contracts in the reporting period is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Scope of this Report

This is the 7^th Construction Phase Annual EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022.

1.3 Project Organization

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

Table 1.1: Contact Information of Key Personnel

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Project Manager’s Representative (Airport Authority Hong Kong)	Principal Manager, Environmental Compliance, Sustainability	Lawrence Tsui	2183 2734
Environmental Team (ET) (Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited)	Environmental Team Leader	Terence Kong	2828 5919
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Heidi Yu	2828 5704
	Deputy Environmental Team Leader	Ken Wong	2828 5817
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) (AECOM Asia Company Limited)	Independent Environmental Checker	Roy Man	3922 9141
	Deputy Independent Environmental Checker	Jackel Law	3922 9376

Reclamation Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works (ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Alan Mong	3763 1352
Environmental Officer	Zhang Bin Wang	3763 1451

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Contract 3206 Main Reclamation Works

(ZHEC-CCCC-CDC Joint Venture)

Project Manager

Alan Mong

3763 1352

Environmental Officer

Zhang Bin Wang

3763 1451

Airfield Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3301 North Runway Crossover Taxiway (FJT-CHEC-ZHEC Joint Venture)	Deputy Project Director	Kin Hang Chung	9800 0048
	Environmental Officer	Joe Wong	6182 0351
Contract 3302 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel Advance Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation)	Project Manager	Dickey Yau	5699 4503
	Environmental Officer	Dennis Ho	5645 0563
Contract 3303 Third Runway and Associated Works (SAPR Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Andrew Keung	6277 6628
	Environmental Officer	Gabriel Wong	6114 9590
Contract 3305 Airfield Ground Lighting System (ADB Safegate Hong Kong Limited)	Project Manager	Allam Al-Turk	2944 9725
	Environmental Officer	Ivan Ting	9222 9490
Contract 3306 Observation Facility Control System Supporting Interim 2RS and 3RS (Chinney Alliance Engineering Limited)	Project Director	Dennis Yam	9551 9920
	Environmental Officer	Richard Liu	9216 8990
Contract 3307 Fire Training Facility (Paul Y. Construction Company Limited)	Project Manager	Ken Tang	9640 5397
	Environmental Officer	Ferddy Leung	5585 6746
Contract 3308 Foreign Object Debris Detection System (DAS Aviation Services Group)	Project Manager	Jeffrey Yau	9873 7422
Contract 3310 North Runway Modification Works (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.)	Project Manager	Kingsley Chiang	9424 8437
	Environmental Officer	Federick Wong	9842 2703

Third Runway Concourse:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3402 New Integrated Airport Centres Enabling Works (Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Wyman Lau	6112 9753
	Health Safety Environmental Manager	Mike Leung	6625 2550
Contract 3403 New Integrated Airport Centres Building and Civil Works (Sun Fook Kong Construction Limited)	Project Manager	Alice Leung	9220 3162
	Environmental Officer	Ray Cheung	9785 1566
Contract 3404 Integrated Airport Control System (Shun Hing Systems Integration Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Andy Ng	9102 2739
	Safety Officer	Keith Chau	9620 7515
Contract 3405 Third Runway Concourse Foundation and Substructure Works (China Road and Bridge Corporation – Bachy Soletanche Group Limited – LT Sambo Co., Ltd. Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Francis Choi	9423 3469
	Environmental Officer	Jacky Lai	9028 8975
Contract 3408 Third Runway Concourse and Apron Works (Beijing Urban Construction Group Company Limited and Chevalier (Construction) Company Limited Joint Venture)	Assistant Project Manager	Qian Zhang	5377 7976
	Environmental Officer	Malcolm Leung	7073 7559

Terminal 2 (T2) Expansion Works:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3508 Terminal 2 Expansion Works (Gammon Engineering & Construction Company Limited)	Project Manager	Richard Ellis	6201 5637
Environmental Officer	Fanny Law	6184 4650

Party

Position

Name

Telephone

Contract 3508 Terminal 2

Expansion Works

(Gammon Engineering &

Construction Company

Limited)

Project Manager

Richard Ellis

6201 5637

Environmental Officer

Fanny Law

6184 4650

Automated People Mover (APM) and Baggage Handling System (BHS):

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3601 New Automated People Mover System (TRC Line) (CRRC Puzhen Bombardier Transportation Systems Limited and CRRC Nanjing Puzhen Co., Ltd. Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Hongdan Wei	158 6180 9450
	Environmental Officer	H Y Yue	9185 8186
Contract 3602 Existing APM System Modification Works (Niigata Transys Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Kunihiro Tatecho	9755 0351
	Environmental Officer	Y M Tong	5316 9801
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium)	Project Manager	K C Ho	9272 9626
Contract 3603 3RS Baggage Handling System (VISH Consortium)	Environmental Officer	Richard Ng	9802 9577

Construction Support (Facilities):

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3721 Construction Support Infrastructure Works (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.)	Site Agent	Thomas Lui	9011 5340
	Environmental Officer	John Mak	6273 8703
Contract 3723 Eastern Support Area – Construction Support Facilities (Tapbo Construction Company Limited and Konwo Modular House Ltd. Joint Venture.)	Deputy Project Director	Philip Kong	9337 8700
	Environmental Officer	Eddie Suen	6338 8862
Contract 3728 Minor Site Works (Shun Yuen Construction Company Limited)	Contract Manager	C K Liu	9194 8739
	Environmental Officer	Dan Leung	6856 5899
Contract 3733 Emergency Repair Service (Wing Hing Construction Co., Ltd.)	Project Manager	Michael Kan	9206 0550
	Health Safety Environmental Manager	Mike Leung	6625 2550

Airport Support Infrastructure:

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3801 APM and BHS Tunnels on Existing Airport Island (China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.)	Project Manager	Kingsley Chiang	9424 8437
	Environmental Officer	Eunice Kwok	9243 1331
Contract 3802 APM and BHS Tunnels and Related Works (Gammon Engineering & Construction Company Limited)	Project Manager	John Adams	6111 6989
	Environmental Officer	Phoebe Ng	9869 1105
Contract 3804 East and Landside Fire Stations (Beijing Urban Construction Group Company Limited - Beijing Urban Construction International Company Limited - Kin Shing (Leung's) General Contractors Ltd Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Mr. Zhang Xianda	4661 6818
	Environmental Officer	Ms. Kimberly Wong	5542 1669

Construction Support (Services / Licences):

Party	Position	Name	Telephone
Contract 3901A Concrete Batching Facility (K. Wah Concrete Company Limited)	Project Manager	Benedict Wong	9553 2806
	Environmental Officer	C P Fung	9874 2872
Contract 3901B Concrete Batching Facility (Gammon Construction Limited)	Project Manager	Gabriel Chan	2435 3260
	Environmental Officer	Rex Wong	2695 6319
Contract 3913 Asphalt Batching Plant (SPR Joint Venture)	Project Manager	Xie Yi Sheng	6580 6005
Contract 3913 Asphalt Batching Plant (SPR Joint Venture)	Environmental Officer	Kenneth Chan	9300 2182

1.4 Contact Information for the Project

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

Table 1.2: Contact Information of the Project

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

1.5 Summary of Construction Works

The key activities of the Project carried out in the reporting period are located in reclamation areas and existing airport island respectively. Works in the reclamation areas included excavation, road and cabling works, and construction of underground utilities for Terminal 2 Concourse (T2C), ground improvement works, DCM works, backfilling works, seawall, and facilities construction, together with runway and associated works such as box culvert construction, cable laying and ducting works etc. Land-based works on existing airport island involved mainly airfield works, excavation, footing, and piling works for Terminal 2 expansion, modification works for Automated People Mover (APM) and installation works for Baggage Handling System (BHS), and preparation work for utilities, with activities include cabling, pipe and drainage diversion, ducting, excavation, and backfilling works.

Overall, the construction of the Third Runway was substantially completed in late May 2022. AAHK conducted a series of pre-operation drills and the new Integrated Airport Centre of HKIA commenced operation in June 2022. After successful completion of related drills, the Third Runway commenced operation familiarisation on 8 July 2022 and was formally commissioned for operation with effect from 25 November 2022.

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

1.6 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements

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

Table 1.3: Summary of Status for All Environmental Aspects under the Manual

Parameters	EM&A Requirements	Status
Air Quality
Baseline Monitoring	At least 14 consecutive days before commencement of construction work	The baseline air quality monitoring results were reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	At least 3 times every 6 days	On-going
Noise
Baseline Monitoring	Daily for a period of at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction works	The baseline noise monitoring results were reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Weekly	On-going
Water Quality
General Baseline Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, for at least four weeks prior to the commencement of marine works.	The baseline water quality monitoring results were reported in Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
General Impact Water Quality Monitoring for reclamation, water jetting and field joint works	Three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides.	On-going for reclamation works. General impact water quality monitoring for water jetting works was completed on 23 May 2017.
Initial Intensive Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) Water Quality Monitoring	At least four weeks	The Initial Intensive DCM Monitoring Report was submitted and approved by EPD in accordance with the Detailed Plan on DCM.
Regular DCM Water Quality Monitoring	Three times per week until completion of DCM works.	In view of the resumption of DCM works, regular DCM monitoring was resumed since 11 January 2022. As of April 2022, the aforementioned marine-based DCM works were completed, hence the regular DCM monitoring was ceased at all monitoring stations starting from 28 April 2022 and would be resumed if there are marine-based DCM works in the coming future.
Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
Methodology for carrying out annual sewage flow monitoring for concerned gravity sewer	Methodology to be prepared and submitted to EPD at least one year before commencement of the operation of 3RS	The proposed methodology of the annual sewage flow monitoring was approved by EPD. The annual flow monitoring was completed in December 2022.
Details of the routine H2S monitoring system for the sewerage system of 3RS	Details to be prepared and submitted to EPD at least one year before commencement of the operation of 3RS	The details of the routine H₂S monitoring system will be prepared and submitted to EPD at least one year before commencement of operation of 3RS.
Waste Management
Waste Monitoring	At least weekly	On-going
Land Contamination
Supplementary Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP)	At least 3 months before commencement of any soil remediation works.	The Supplementary CAP was submitted and approved by EPD pursuant to EP condition 2.20.
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR)	CAR to be submitted for golf course	The CAR for Golf Course was submitted and accepted by EPD.
Contamination Assessment Report (CAR)	CAR to be submitted for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply Systems	The CARs for Terminal 2 Emergency Power Supply Systems were submitted and accepted by EPD.
Terrestrial Ecology
Pre-construction Egretry Survey Plan	Once per month in the breeding season between April and July, prior to the commencement of HDD drilling works.	The revised Egretry Survey Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.14.
Ecological Monitoring	Monthly monitoring during the HDD construction works period from August to March.	The terrestrial ecological monitoring at Sheung Sha Chau was completed in January 2019.
Marine Ecology
Pre-Construction Phase Coral Dive Survey	Prior to marine construction works	The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12.
Coral Translocation	-	The coral translocation was completed on 5 January 2017.
Coral Post-translocation Monitoring	As per an enhanced monitoring programme based on the Coral Translocation Plan	The post-translocation monitoring programme according to the Coral Translocation Plan was completed in April 2018.
Chinese White Dolphins (CWD)
Baseline Monitoring	6 months of baseline surveys before the commencement of land formation related construction works. Vessel line transect surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking surveys: Two days per month at the Sha Chau station and two days per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station; and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): For the whole duration of baseline period.	Baseline CWD results were reported in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD in accordance with EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Vessel line transect surveys: Two full surveys per month; Land-based theodolite tracking surveys: One day per month at the Sha Chau station and one day per month at the Lung Kwu Chau station; and PAM: For the whole duration for land formation related construction works.	On-going
Landscape and Visual
Landscape and Visual Plan	At least 3 months before the commencement of construction works on the formed land of the Project.	The Landscape & Visual Plan was submitted to EPD under EP Condition 2.18.
Baseline Monitoring	One-off survey within the Project site boundary prior to commencement of any construction works	The baseline landscape & visual monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under EP Condition 3.4.
Impact Monitoring	Weekly	On-going
Environmental Auditing
Regular site inspection	Weekly	On-going
Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) Plan implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
SkyPier High Speed Ferries (HSF) implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Construction and Associated Vessels implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Complaint Hotline and Email channel	Construction phase	On-going
Environmental Log-book	Construction phase	On-going
Silt Curtain Deployment Plan implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going
Spill Response Plan implementation measures	Monitor and check	On-going

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

The EM&A programme also involved weekly site inspections and related auditing conducted by the ET for checking the implementation of the required environmental mitigation measures as recommended in the approved EIA Report. To promote the environmental awareness and enhance the environmental performance of the contractors, environmental briefings, environmental trainings, and regular environmental management meetings were conducted during the reporting period which are summarized as below:

§ 3 skipper trainings provided by ET;

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

§ 210 environmental management meetings for EM&A review with works contracts.

The EM&A programme has been undertaken in accordance with the recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the Manual. Despite that, the implementation of the EM&A programme was slightly affected by various events in the reporting period. In view of the local COVID-19 pandemic situation, special work arrangement, such as working from home, was implemented among government departments in several periods to reduce the flow of people and social contacts in the community. Besides, inclement weather events including tropical cyclones, rainstorms, and thunderstorms were also affected the regular schedules for water quality monitoring and site inspections. A summary of implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix C.

2 Environmental Monitoring and Auditing

2.1 Air Quality Monitoring

Impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted three times every six days at two representative monitoring stations during the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are described in Table 2.1 and presented in Figure 2.1.

2.1.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the air quality monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations

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

2.1.2 Monitoring Results

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

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

	AR1A	AR2
Jan 2022	100%	100%
Feb 2022	100%	100%
Mar 2022	100%	100%
Apr 2022	100%	100%
May 2022	100%	100%
Jun 2022	100%	100%
Jul 2022	100%	100%
Aug 2022	100%	100%
Sep 2022	100%	100%
Oct 2022	100%	100%
Nov 2022	100%	100%
Dec 2022	100%	100%
Overall	100%	100%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of monitoring results.

All monitoring results at AR1A and AR2 were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels.

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

Table 2.3: General Meteorological Condition during Impact Air Quality Monitoring

	Weather	Wind Direction
Jan – Mar 2022	Sunny to Drizzle	Northwest or Northeast
Apr – Jun 2022	Sunny to Drizzle	Southeast or South
Jul – Sep 2022	Sunny to Rainy	Southeast or Southwest
Oct – Dec 2022	Sunny to Drizzle	Northeast or Northwest

2.1.3 Conclusion

No dust emission source was observed at the monitoring stations during the monitoring sessions. As the sensitive receivers were far away from the construction activities, with the implementation of dust control measures, there was no adverse impact at the sensitive receivers attributable to the works of the Project.

2.2 Noise Monitoring

Impact noise monitoring was conducted at four representative monitoring stations once per week during 0700 and 1900 in the reporting period. The locations of monitoring stations are described in Table 2.4 and presented in Figure 2.1.

2.2.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit levels of the noise monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are provided in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Impact Noise Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station	Location	Action Level	Limit Level
NM1A	Man Tung Road Park	When one documented complaint is received from any one of the sensitive receivers	75 dB(A)
NM4	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School		65dB(A) / 70 dB(A) ⁽ⁱ⁾
NM5	Village House in Tin Sum		75 dB(A)
NM6	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan		75 dB(A)
Note: ⁽ⁱ⁾ The Limit Level for NM4 is reduced to 70dB(A) for being an educational institution. During school examination period, the Limit Level is further reduced to 65dB(A).

2.2.2 Monitoring Results

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

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

	NM1A	NM4	NM5	NM6
Jan 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Feb 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Mar 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Apr 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
May 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Jun 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Jul 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Aug 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Sep 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Oct 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Nov 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Dec 2022	100%	100%	100%	100%
Overall	100%	100%	100%	100%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of monitoring results.

No complaints were received from any sensitive receiver that triggered the Action Level.

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

Table 2.6: General Weather Condition during Impact Noise Monitoring

	Weather
Jan – Mar 2022	Sunny to Drizzle
Apr – Jun 2022	Sunny to Drizzle
Jul – Sep 2022	Sunny to Rainy
Oct – Dec 2022	Sunny to Drizzle

2.2.3 Conclusion

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

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Impact water quality monitoring of the Project commenced on 4 Aug 2016. The monitoring was conducted three days per week, at mid-ebb and mid-flood tides, at 23 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 12 impact (IM) stations, 8 sensitive receiver (SR) stations, and 3 control (C) stations in the vicinity of the water quality sensitive receivers around the existing airport island in accordance with the Manual. The purpose of water quality monitoring at the IM stations is to promptly capture any potential water quality impacts from the Project before the impacts could become apparent at sensitive receivers (represented by the SR stations). With the resumption of DCM works, the regular DCM monitoring was conducted from 11 January 2022 onwards. As of April 2022, the aforementioned marine-based DCM works were completed, hence the regular DCM monitoring was ceased at all monitoring stations starting from 28 April 2022. In view of the progress of 3RS land formation with majority of seawall completion, reduction of IM and SR stations for impact water quality monitoring was proposed to EPD with approval granted on 22 December 2021. The reduction of IM and SR stations was effective from 25 January 2022, in which the remaining IM stations were relocated back to their original locations according to coordinates provided in Table 5.2 of the Updated EM&A Manual, with slight modifications to the location of IM2. After the reduction of monitoring stations, there was a total of 14 water quality monitoring stations, comprising 6 impact (IM) stations, 5 sensitive receiver (SR) stations and 3 control (C) stations. Table 2.7 describes the details of the monitoring stations. Figure 2.2a shows the locations of the monitoring stations before the reduction of IM and SR stations, and Figure 2.2b shows the locations of the remaining monitoring stations on and after 25 January 2022.

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

Monitoring Station	Description	Coordinates				Parameters
		Easting		Northing
		Before 25 Jan 2022	After 25 Jan 2022	Before 25 Jan 2022	After 25 Jan 2022
C1	Control Station	804247	804247	815620	815620	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals⁽²⁾
C2	Control Station	806945	806945	825682	825682
C3⁽³⁾	Control Station	817803	817803	822109	822109
IM1⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	807132	806458	817949	818351
IM2⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	806166	806236	818163	819183
IM3⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	805594	N/A	818784	N/A
IM4⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	804607	N/A	819725	N/A
IM5⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	804867	N/A	820735	N/A
IM6⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	805828	N/A	821060	N/A
IM7⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	806835	806835	821349	821349
IM8⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	808140	N/A	821830	N/A
IM9⁽⁷⁾	Impact Station	808811	N/A	822094	N/A
IM10⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	809794	809838	822385	822240
IM11⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	811460	810545	822057	821501
IM12⁽⁸⁾	Impact Station	812046	811519	821459	821162
SR1A⁽¹⁾	Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Seawater Intake for cooling	812660	812660	819977	819977	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR2	Planned marine park / hard corals at The Brothers / Tai Mo To	814166	814166	821463	821463	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS DCM Parameters Total Alkalinity, Heavy Metals⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾
SR3	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park / fishing and spawning grounds in North Lantau	807571	807571	822147	822147	General Parameters DO, pH, Temperature, Salinity, Turbidity, SS
SR4A	Sha Lo Wan	807810	807810	817189	817189
SR5A⁽⁷⁾	San Tau Beach SSSI	810696	N/A	816593	N/A
SR6A⁽^{5) (7)}	Tai Ho Bay, Near Tai Ho Stream SSSI	814739	N/A	817963	N/A
SR7⁽⁷⁾	Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ)	823742	N/A	823636	N/A
SR8⁽⁶⁾	Seawater Intake for cooling at Hong Kong International Airport (East)	811623	811623	820390	820390

Notes:

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

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

⁽³⁾ According to the baseline water quality monitoring report, C3 station is not adequately representative as a control station of IM / SR stations during the flood tide. The control reference has been changed from C3 to SR2 from 1 September 2016 onwards.

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

⁽⁵⁾ As the access to SR6 was obstructed by the construction activities and temporary structures for Tung Chung New Town Extension, the monitoring location was relocated to SR6A starting from 8 August 2019.

⁽⁶⁾The monitoring station for SR8 is subject to future changes due to silt curtain arrangements and the progressive relocation of this seawater intake.

⁽⁷⁾In view of the progress of 3RS land formation with majority of seawall completion, these monitoring stations for impact water quality monitoring were terminated from 25 January 2022 onwards.

⁽⁸⁾With the seawall completion and removal of enhanced open sea silt curtains, these monitoring stations were relocated back to their original locations. For IM2, there was minor adjustment of the monitoring location.

2.3.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring stipulated in the EM&A programme for triggering the relevant investigation and follow-up procedures under the programme are presented in Table 2.8. The control and impact stations during flood tide and ebb tide for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring are presented in Table 2.9. The weather and sea conditions during the reporting period were recorded and are summarized in Table 2.10.

Table 2.8: Action and Limit Levels for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Parameters		Action Level (AL)		Limit Level (LL)
Action and Limit Levels for general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring (excluding SR1A & SR8)
General Water Quality Monitoring	DO in mg/l (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Surface and Middle 4.5 mg/l		Surface and Middle 4.1 mg/l 5 mg/l for Fish Culture Zone (SR7) only
	DO in mg/l (Surface, Middle & Bottom)	Bottom 3.4 mg/l		Bottom 2.7 mg/l
	Suspended Solids (SS) in mg/l	23	or 120% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher	37	or 130% of upstream control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher
	Turbidity in NTU	22.6		36.1
Regular DCM Monitoring⁽⁶⁾	Total Alkalinity in ppm	95		99
	Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Chromium)	0.2		0.2
	Representative Heavy Metals for regular DCM monitoring (Nickel)	3.2		3.6
Action and Limit Levels SR1A
SS (mg/l)		33		42
Action and Limit Levels SR8
SS (mg/l)		52		60

Notes:

⁽¹⁾For DO measurement, Action or Limit Level is triggered when the monitoring result is lower than the limits.

⁽²⁾For parameters other than DO, Action or Limit Level of water quality results is triggered when monitoring results is higher than the limits.

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

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

⁽⁵⁾The Action and Limit Levels for the two representative heavy metals chosen will be the same as that for the intensive DCM monitoring.

Table 2.9: The Control and Impact Stations during Flood Tide and Ebb Tide for General Water Quality Monitoring and Regular DCM Monitoring

Control Station	Impact Stations
Flood Tide
C1	IM1, IM2, IM3⁽²⁾, IM4⁽²⁾, IM5⁽²⁾, IM6⁽²⁾, IM7, IM8⁽²⁾, SR3
SR2⁽¹⁾	IM7, IM8⁽²⁾, IM9⁽²⁾, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR3, SR4A, SR5A⁽²⁾, SR6A⁽²⁾, SR8
Ebb Tide
C1	SR4A, SR5A⁽²⁾, SR6A⁽²⁾
C2	IM1, IM2, IM3⁽²⁾, IM4⁽²⁾, IM5⁽²⁾, IM6⁽²⁾, IM7, IM8⁽²⁾, IM9⁽²⁾, IM10, IM11, IM12, SR1A, SR2, SR3, SR7⁽²⁾, SR8

Notes:

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

⁽²⁾The general water quality monitoring and regular DCM monitoring at IM3, IM4, IM5, IM6, IM8, IM9, SR5A, SR6A & SR7 were terminated from 25 January 2022 onwards.

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

	Weather	Sea Condition
Jan – Mar 2022	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Apr – Jun 2022	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Jul – Sep 2022	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough
Oct – Dec 2022	Sunny to Rainy	Calm to Rough

2.3.2 Monitoring Results

Percentage of monitoring results within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period are presented in Table 2.11. It should be noted that Hong Kong was under the effect of tropical cyclones from 1 to 2 July, 24 to 25 August, 17 to 18 October, and 1 to 3 November 2022 respectively, and the water quality monitoring results during the said periods might be affected by the inclement weather.

Table 2.11: Percentage of Water Quality Monitoring Results within Action and Limit Levels

		General Water Quality Monitoring				Regular DCM Monitoring
	DO (Surface and Middle)		DO (Bottom)	SS	Turbidity	Alkalinity	Chromium	Nickel
Jan 2022	100%		100%	98.9%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Feb 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Mar 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Apr 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
May 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Jun 2022	100%		98.6%	99.6%	100%	-	-	-
Jul 2022	97.5%		87.3%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Aug 2022	100%		99.5%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Sep 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Oct 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Nov 2022	100%		100%	99.6%	100%	-	-	-
Dec 2022	100%		100%	100%	100%	-	-	-
Overall	99.8%		98.8%	99.8%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Note: The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of depth-averaged results within their corresponding Action and Limit Level by the total number of depth-averaged results.

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

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

2.3.3 Conclusions

During the reporting period, it was noted that the vast majority of monitoring results (from 98.8% for DO (Bottom), 99.8% for DO (Surface and Middle) and SS, to 100% for turbidity, total alkalinity, chromium and nickel as presented in Table 2.11) were within their corresponding Action and Limit Levels, while only a minor number of results triggered their corresponding Action or Limit Level, and investigations were conducted. Based on the findings of the investigations presented in the Construction Phase Monthly EM&A Reports for 2022, all results that triggered the corresponding Action or Limit Level were not related to the Project. Therefore, the Project did not cause adverse impact at the water quality sensitive receivers. All required actions under the Event and Action Plan were followed. These cases were considered to be due to natural fluctuation or other sources not related to the Project.

Nevertheless, the non-project related triggers were attended to and have initiated corresponding actions and measures. As part of the EM&A programme, the construction methods and mitigation measures for water quality will continue to be monitored and opportunities for further enhancement will continue to be explored and implemented where possible, to strive for better protection of water quality and the marine environment.

In the meantime, the contractors were reminded to implement and maintain all mitigation measures during weekly site inspection and regular environmental management meetings. These include maintaining mitigation measures properly for reclamation works including DCM works, marine filling, seawall construction, and bored piling for approach lights as recommended in the Manual.

2.4 Waste Monitoring

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

2.4.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action and Limit Levels of the construction waste are provided in Table 2.12.

Table 2.12: Action and Limit Levels for Construction Waste

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

2.4.2 Summary of Monitoring Results

Weekly monitoring on all works contracts were carried out by the ET in the reporting period to check and monitor the implementation of proper waste management practices.

Recommendations made included provision and maintenance of proper chemical waste storage area, as well as proper handling, segregation, and regular disposal of general refuse. Paper, plastics, and metals were recycled in the reporting period. The contractors implemented the recommended measures to improve waste management issues. Waste management audits were carried out by ET according to the requirement of the WMP, the Manual, and the implementation schedule of the waste management mitigation measures in Appendix C.

The construction waste generated in the reporting period is summarized in Table 2.13.

Table 2.13: Statistics of Construction Waste Generated in the Reporting Period

	Construction and Demolition Material Stockpiled for Reuse or Recycle⁽¹⁾ (m³)	Construction and Demolition Material Reused in the Project⁽²⁾ (m³)	Construction and Demolition Material Reused in other Projects⁽²⁾ (m³)	Construction and Demolition Material Transferred to Public Fill (m³)	Chemical Waste (kg)	Chemical Waste (L)	General Refuse (tonne)
Jan 2022	53,747	13,880	9,741	6,668	400	1,800	4,274
Feb 2022	32,167	55,997	582	3,219	0	0	2,405
Mar 2022	52,788	14,390	957	5,867	0	2,800	1,901
Apr 2022	71,732	25,394	1,181	13,597	0	2,800	1,892
May 2022	73,565	24,722	938	8,313	20	0	3,358
Jun 2022	34,177	42,844	1,211	10,305	1,000	0	2,679
Jul 2022	44,288	33,586	1,125	11,485	0	0	1,953
Aug 2022	19,018	74,991	1,998	9,006	0	0	1,915
Sep 2022	7,051	92,604	1,207	5,452	240	3,800	1,857
Oct 2022	1,358	3,122	6,524	6,009	1,100	2,800	2,108
Nov 2022	1,364	1,667	745	5,515	210	0	2,493
Dec 2022	1,687	0	676	6,799	800	2,000	2,503
Total	392,942	383,200	26,890	92,235	3,770	16,000	29,337
Notes: 1. The excavated materials were temporarily stored at stockpiling area and will be reused in the Project. 2. According to latest update by Contractor, the values in Construction and Demolition Material Reused in the Projects and Construction and Demolition Material Reused in other Projects in 2022 are updated. 3. Figures are rounded off to the nearest tonne.

A complaint regarding general refuse was received on 18 February 2022. This complaint triggered the relevant Action Level, and the corresponding investigation was subsequently conducted in accordance with the Manual and the Complaint Management Plan of the Project. The summary of this complaint and analysis can be found in Appendix F. On the other hand, there were no non-compliance of the WMP, contract-specific WMPs, statutory and contractual requirements that triggered Action and Limit Levels in this reporting period.

2.4.3 Marine Sediment Management

Marine sediment was managed according to the EIA Report, Updated EM&A Manual and WMP and the proposal of Further Development on Treatment Level / Details and the Reuse Mode for Marine Sediment (hereinafter referred to as “Further Development Proposal”) of the Project. Based on EIA requirements, marine sediments would be treated using cement mixing and stabilisation/solidification method. All these treated sediments would be reused on-site as backfilling materials. The sampling process, storage conditions of the excavated marine sediment, treatment process, final backfilling location as well as associated records were inspected and checked by ET and verified by IEC to ensure they were in compliance with the requirements as stipulated in the WMP and Further Development Proposal.

2.4.3.1 Reclaimed Land Area with Ground Improvement Works by Deep Cement Mixing

With reference to the Further Development Proposal approved on 17 January 2020, the marine sediment generated from the areas with ground improvement works of the 3RS Project was treated in-situ with cement by DCM, and the excavated materials would be reused on-site without disposal to sea, it was considered more appropriate to have the excavated materials tested against Risk Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs). Therefore, as an alternative to the testing arrangement presented in the 3RS EIA Report, the assessment approach provided in the EPD’s Practice Guide for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Land (hereafter referred to as “Practice Guide”) was adopted and the quality of excavated marine sediment was assessed against the most stringent RBRG limits (for Rural Residential Land Use) for eight heavy metals including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc and Copper.

If the testing results were below the RBRGs limits, no further environmental treatment would be required for the marine sediment materials excavated from the sampling grid. However, geotechnical treatment might require for marine sediment to improve the quality as backfilling materials. If there was RBRGs exceedance in a particular heavy metal at a certain sampling depth, only excavated sediment material from such sampling depth of the concerned sampling grid, would undergo further cement stabilization, before testing against the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limit of the concerned heavy metal (heavy metal parameter exceeded RBRGs) before reuse. For TCLP limits, please refer to Table 2.14 (Table 4.6 of the Practice Guide). The excavated sediment materials from such sampling depth with exceedance of RBRGs, would be tested against Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) after treatment. The UCS was defined based on respective engineering requirements. The testing frequency for TCLP was the same as that described in Section 10.5.1.14 of the approved EIA Report, i.e. one sample per 50 m³ for the first 1,000 m³ batch of excavated sediment materials. Provided that the samples meet the TCLP limit(s), the subsequent testing frequency would be reduced to be at least two samples per 10,000 m³ batch. In the event that the required level was not achieved, the concerned whole batch should be crushed and the material would be further handled and treated as necessary. The testing frequency should be revised to one sample per 50 m³ batch (with two further samples kept for contingency) and treated samples should be taken for laboratory testing. Once the concerned heavy metal complied with the particular TCLP limit, the previous sampling frequency of at least two samples per 10,000 m³batch should be resumed.

Table 2.14: Universal Treatment Standards for On-site Reuse of Sediment Treated by Cement Mixing and Stabilization

Parameters⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾	TCLP Limit (mg/L)
Arsenic	5
Cadmium	0.11
Total Chromium	0.6
Lead	0.75
Mercury	0.025
Nickel	11
Zinc	4.3

Notes:

1. Universal Treatment Standard – US 40 CFR 268.48

2. For copper, it must be reduced by at least 90% in mobility for copper through cement stabilization/solidification remedial treatment. The reduction of mobility of copper (leachable metals contaminant) should be confirmed through TCLP tests (i.e. to carry out TCLP test for the untreated sediment and for the sediment after treatment and to compare the concentrations of copper in the leachates).

A sampling grid size of 100 m x 100 m was adopted for locating sampling points for areas where marine sediment to be excavated from the newly reclaimed area. One marine sediment sample was taken if the depth of marine sediment to be excavated was less than or equalled to 3 m. If the depth of marine sediment to be excavated was less than or equalled to 6 m, a sample was taken from the depth of 0 - 3 m, and 3 - 6 m. If the marine sediment to be excavated was more than 6 m, a sample was taken from three different depths including one in the depth of 0 - 3 m, 3 - 6 m, and 6 m to the bottom of the marine sediment to be excavated. All above testing should be carried out by HOKLAS laboratory, and the results were checked by ET and IEC.

The tentative location of sampling grids where marine sediment is to be excavated from the newly reclaimed area land was presented in Appendix A of the Further Development Proposal. Figure 2.3 shows all the sampling grids covering all the potential areas where marine sediment was excavated from the newly reclaimed land up to the end of the reporting period. The sampling grid for each area is denoted by specific colour, the sampling grids with light green and light red shaded represent all sampling layer(s) passed RBRGs limit(s) and sampling layer(s) with parameter(s) exceeding RBRGs limit(s), respectively. Details of sampling ID and sampling depths are also presented in each sampling grid. The number of grids for sampling for each area, the number of grids with pass and fail of the RBRGs results, the number of grids with marine sediment not encountered within the final excavation level and the number of grids to be sampled in future reporting period are all summarised in Table 2.15.

Table 2.15: Summary of Marine Sediment Testing Result for the Reclaimed Land Area with Ground Improvement

Sampling Area	Western Vehicular Tunnel	Eastern Vehicular Tunnel	Airport North Fire Station	Terminal 2 Concourse	APM/BHS Tunnel and Ancillary Building with Piled Foundation
Grid Sampling and Testing
Total No. of Grids for Areas where Marine Sediment was Excavated (a)+(b)+(c)	15	11	1	36	33
No. of Grids with “Pass” RBRGs Results (a)	15	8	1	34	29
No. of Grids with “Fail” RBRGs Results (b)	0	0	0	2	3
No. of Grids with marine sediment not encountered within the final excavation level (c)	0	3⁽¹⁾	0	0	1
Total No. of Grids for Potential Areas where Marine Sediment will be Excavated	0	0	0	14⁽²⁾	1
Note: (1) RBRG testing was conducted for one of the sampling grids and the testing results exceeded the RBRG limits. However, the contractor re-confirmed that the marine sediment excavation will not reach the “fail” RBRG level. (2) There are sampling requirements for the western portion of the T2C which is subject to the future development programme of this area.

2.4.3.1.1 Western Vehicular Tunnel and Airport North Fire Station

The Western Vehicular Tunnel (WVT) and Airport North Fire Station were covered by Contract 3303. There are total 16 numbers of sampling grid and all the testing results passed the RBRGs limits. Up to this reporting period, a total of 295,283 m³treated marine sediment was backfilled and the backfilling locations are shown in Figure 2.4. Remaining treated marine sediment and excavated marine sediment were stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for backfilling and geotechnical treatment respectively.

2.4.3.1.2 Eastern Vehicular Tunnel and Terminal 2 Concourse

The Eastern Vehicular Tunnel (EVT) and Terminal 2 Concourse (T2C) were covered by Contracts 3405, 3310 and 3408. Out of the total 47 numbers of sampling grid for EVT and T2C, two sampling grids with Arsenic exceeding RBRGs limit were recorded during this reporting period.

Terminal 2 Concourse

T2C was covered by Contract 3405. Out of 36 numbers of sampling grid, two sampling grids were recorded with Arsenic exceeding the RBRGs limit and the remaining 34 sampling grids passed all the RBRG limits. The Contractor was carrying out (1) the marine sediment excavation works; (2) geotechnical treatment for excavated marine sediment which met RBRG limits; (3) environmental treatment and TCLP testing sampling works for excavated marine sediment which exceeded RBRG limits; and (4) treated marine sediment backfilling works during the reporting period. Up to this reporting period, a total of 56,969 m³treated marine sediment was backfilled and the backfilling locations are shown in Figure 2.4. The remaining treated marine sediment was stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for backfilling. The excavated marine sediment was also stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for geotechnical / environmental treatment before backfilling.

The marine sediment sampling works at the western portion of T2C have not been undertaken and are subject to future development programme at this area.

Eastern Vehicular Tunnel

EVT was covered by Contracts 3310 and 3408. For Contract 3310, there was one sampling grid and all testing results passed the RBRG limits. The excavation works of marine sediment was not commenced during this reporting period. For Contract 3408, out of ten numbers of sampling grids, three sampling grids were recorded with marine sediment not encountered within the final excavation level and the remaining of seven sampling grids passed all the RBRG limits. The Contractor was carrying out marine sediment excavation works during this reporting period. The excavated marine sediment was stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for geotechnical treatment before backfilling.

2.4.3.1.3 APM / BHS Tunnel and Ancillary Building with Piled Foundations

The APM / BHS Tunnel and Ancillary Building with Piled Foundations was covered by Contract 3802. Out of 33 numbers of sampling grid, three sampling grids were recorded with Arsenic exceeding the RBRGs limit, one sampling grid was recorded with marine sediment not encountered within the final excavation level and the remaining 29 sampling grids passed all the RBRG limits. During the reporting period, the Contractor was carrying out (1) the marine sediment excavation works; (2) geotechnical treatment for excavated marine sediment which passed RBRG limits; and (3) treated marine sediment backfilling works whereas environmental treatment and TCLP testing sampling works were completed for the excavated marine sediment which exceeded the RBRGs limits. Up to this reporting period, a total of 876m³ treated marine sediment was backfilled and the backfilling location is shown in Figure 2.4. The remaining treated marine sediment was stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for backfilling. The excavated marine sediment was also stockpiled properly at 3RS project site area and awaited for geotechnical / environmental treatment before backfilling.

Other contractors will be involved in the works for Ancillary Building with Piled Foundations from 2023 onward. Their sampling works and results would be reported in the next Annual EM&A Report.

2.4.3.2 Area without Ground Improvement Works by Deep Cement Mixing

For the excavated marine sediment generated from the areas without ground improvement works by DCM (i.e., construction berth at Area C5 of the reclaimed land area, existing airport island area and approach light area), the excavated marine sediment was treated with cement and tested against the TCLP limits as provided in Table 2.14. The testing frequency was the same as that described in Section 10.5.1.14 of the approved EIA Report, which has been provided in Section 2.4.3.1. The treated marine sediment was tested against relevant engineering requirements to confirm their suitability as backfilling material for respective areas of different future uses. The UCS was also tested and defined based on respective engineering requirements.

2.4.3.2.1 Construction Berth at Area C5 of the Reclaimed Land Area

A construction berth was constructed at the eastern portion of newly reclamation area by Contract 3206. During the installation of casing, approximately 99m³ of marine sediment was generated and treated with cement stabilisation. The treated marine sediment was then tested against the TCLP limits and no exceedance was found. The treated marine sediment was backfilled and the backfilling location (a total of 117m³treated marine sediment) is shown in Figure 2.4.

2.4.3.2.2 T2 Foundation and Substructure Works

Approximately 60m³ of marine sediment was excavated and treated with cement stabilisation by Contract 3503. The treated marine sediment samples were collected and tested against the criteria for reuse of treated marine sediments with reference to the Universal Treatment Standards, which specify the TCLP test limits and passed the TCLP limits. All the marine sediment generated was treated and treated marine sediment backfilling work was completed. The backfilling locations of all treated marine sediment (a total of 72m³) are shown in Figure 2.4.

2.4.3.2.3 Approach Light Area

The marine sediment generated from Approach Light Area was covered by Contract 3303. The sampling works, treatment works, TCLP testing work and backfilling of the treated marine sediment were completed. The excavated marine sediment was about 2,251 m³and treated with cement stabilisation. The treated marine sediment samples were collected and tested against the TCLP limits and no exceedance was found. The backfilling location of treated marine sediment (a total of 2,404m³) is shown in Figure 2.4.

2.5 Chinese White Dolphins

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

· to monitor the potential shift in the CWD travelling areas and habitat use;

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

· to provide a dataset that can be compatible with the AFCD long-term monitoring, be stratified in such a way as to allow the calculation of density and abundance for the different phases and to calculate the trends from these estimates; and

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

This section summarises the results of the CWD construction phase monitoring effort over a 12-month period from January 2022 through December 2022, to gather information on the spatial and temporal distribution patterns as well as calculate density and abundance of CWD in western Hong Kong waters. Supplementary information collected focusing on northwestern Lantau waters, including habitat use and behaviours of CWD during the construction phase of the Project, has also been reviewed.

This reporting period is effectively the sixth full year of construction phase monitoring of CWDs. The overall monitoring programme commenced in August 2016, although there were no marine construction works in August and September 2016, and only localised sand blanket laying and DCM trial works from October to December 2016. This annual report reviews the construction phase monitoring data for 2022 and compares it with the construction phase monitoring data for the previous years.

CWD monitoring was conducted by undertaking vessel line-transect surveys, supplemented by land-based theodolite tracking survey and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM). The vessel line transects covered Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL) and Southwest Lantau (SWL) areas at a frequency of two full surveys per month as proposed in Section 10.2.3.2 of the Updated EM&A Manual, which is consistent with the AFCD long-term monitoring programme (except AW). The locations of the CWD vessel survey transects are shown in Figure 2.5. Additional survey effort was collected on a voluntary basis at the same frequency of two surveys per month from Deep Bay (DB) (refer to Appendix E for the location of this additional survey), which is an area that historically had CWD in the outer bay, to establish a full understanding of CWD abundance. All the DB data were considered supplemental and were only used for density and abundance estimation.

Density and abundance analysis made use of both conventional distance sampling (CDS) and a more sophisticated approach – multiple covariate distance sampling (MCDS) to estimate CWD abundance for the waters of Hong Kong. The additional analysis using MCDS is more time-consuming and labour-intensive than CDS as it uses information on environmental factors that are likely to affect detection probability (such as variables describing sighting conditions) and generally produces estimates with higher precision (i.e., lower variances and CVs) (Marques and Buckland, 2003 & 2004). However, datasets with small sample sizes (such as often occur in marine mammal studies) can make it difficult or impossible to achieve model “convergence” in some MCDS analyses, and thus it is critical to always start each analysis with CDS methods (this also helps to determine the appropriate truncation distance and overall modelling approach).

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

The travelling patterns in different areas were reviewed by using photo-identification of individual dolphins and their re-sighting locations, depicting the range use and cross-area movement of re-sighted individuals, where practicable. Travelling of CWDs in the north of Lung Kwu Chau were particularly supplemented with information from land-based theodolite tracking survey findings.

For the land-based theodolite tracking surveys, the monitoring frequency during the construction phase for marine works was one day per month at both the Lung Kwu Chau (LKC) station and Sha Chau (SC) station, as stipulated in Section 10.2.3.4 of the EM&A Manual. PAM was also deployed for the construction phase with data supplementing the results of both vessel and land-based surveys. For details on CWD monitoring and data analysis methodologies refer to Section 10.2.4 of the EM&A Manual. The locations of land-based survey stations are described in Table 2.16 and depicted in Figure 2.6. The location of the Passive Acoustic Monitoring device at A5 (with the coordinates of 22° 20.299’ N, 113° 53.871’ E) is shown in Figure 2.7.

Table 2.16: Land-based Survey Station Details

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

Stations

Location

Geographical Coordinates

Station Height (m)

Approximate Tracking Distance (km)

Sha Chau (SC)

22° 20’ 43.5” N

113° 53’ 24.66” E

45.66

Lung Kwu Chau (LKC)

22° 22’ 44.83” N

113° 53’ 0.2” E

70.40

2.5.1 Action and Limit Levels

The Action Level and Limit Level for CWD monitoring were formulated by an action response approach using the running quarterly dolphin encounter rates (Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphin Sightings ‘STG’ and Encounter Rate by Number of Dolphins ‘ANI’) derived from baseline monitoring data covering six months from mid-December 2015 to June 2016, as presented in the CWD Baseline Monitoring Report. The derived values of Action and Limit Levels for CWD monitoring are shown in Table 2.17. Running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI have been determined for each month since August 2016 to compare with the derived Action/limit levels for construction phase monitoring of CWD. If persisting declines in the CWD running quarterly encounter rate values are determined month on month, an appropriate short-term response is then possible if the decline is shown to be related to 3RS construction activity.

Table 2.17: Derived Values of Action Level and Limit Level for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring

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

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

2.5.2 Summary of Monitoring Results

2.5.2.1 Summary of Vessel Line-transect Survey Monitoring Results

2.5.2.1.1 Survey Effort

During the reporting period from January 2022 through December 2022, surveys were completed in Northeast Lantau (NEL), Northwest Lantau (NWL), Airport West (AW), West Lantau (WL), and Southwest Lantau (SWL) survey areas. A total of around 5343.3 km survey effort was collected in this reporting period.

Around 94.6% (5,054.5 km) of the survey effort was collected under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond), and can be utilised in analyses of encounter rates, density and abundance.

The breakdown of the survey effort by survey areas is tabulated in Table 1 of Appendix E. A detailed record of the survey effort data is also provided in Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.2 Sighting Distribution

During the reporting period, a total of 172 groups consisting of 594 CWDs were sighted in NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas during on-effort surveys. Apart from that, there was one off-effort sighting recorded. Amongst the 172 groups of CWDs, 170 groups with 585 CWDs were sighted during on-effort surveys under favourable weather conditions (Beaufort 0-3 and visibility of approximately 1200 m or beyond). The off-effort sighting was excluded from analysis in the following sections. Breakdown of the sightings by survey areas are tabulated in Table 2 of Appendix E.

In NWL (including AW transects), CWDs were mainly sighted within and around the SCLKCMP, particularly in waters around Lung Kwu Chau. Compared to 2021, there were fewer sightings recorded further away from SCLKCMP. Several sightings were also recorded at the west of the existing Hong Kong International Airport. One sighting was recorded within the 3RS temporary works area.

In WL, CWD sightings were recorded on all transects. The sightings were distributed quite evenly over the entire survey area between Tai O and Fan Lau.

In SWL, sightings of CWD were scattered at most of the survey area except the waters to the southeast of the Soko Islands. There was a cluster of CWD sightings near Fan Lau.

No CWDs were recorded in NEL survey area. The sighting locations of CWDs during this reporting period are depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.3 Encounter Rates

Two types of dolphin encounter rates were calculated based on the data collected during the reporting period. They included the number of dolphin sightings per 100 kilometers survey effort (STG) and total number of dolphins per 100 kilometers survey effort (ANI). The dolphin encounter rates were calculated by using survey data collected under favorable weather conditions only (Beaufort sea state 3 or below with favorable visibility). Encounter rate provides a short to medium term frequency method for monitoring and responding appropriately to changes in CWD abundance as project works progress (referring to Section 10.5.2.3 of the EM&A Manual). The two types of encounter rates provide an overall indication of changes in CWD numbers over time in western Hong Kong waters.

During the reporting period, the overall combined STG and ANI of CWDs (from NEL, NWL, AW, WL and SWL) in 2022 were 3.36 and 11.57 respectively. Dolphin encounter rates by survey area and a summary of monthly encounter rates are presented in Table 3 and Table 4 of Appendix E respectively. Compared by area, WL had the highest encounter rates STG and ANI amongst the survey areas, followed by SWL.

The temporal trends in 2022 overall exhibited typical seasonal patterns. The peak monthly STG and ANI occurred in July and reached the lowest in December. The trend is quite similar to those of previous years (e.g. 2018-2019) in that the lowest encounter rates were usually recorded in wintertime but a bit different from last two years (i.e. 2020-2021), in which the lowest encounter rate occurred in August (Summer). The trends of both monthly STG and ANI are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E.

Running quarterly encounter rates STG and ANI data were determined for each month for comparison with the Action/Limit levels for construction phase monitoring of CWD. Although the running quarterly ANI has fallen below the Action Level in April, November and December 2022, the overall Action Level was not triggered in this reporting period because the running quarterly STG of those months remained above the Action Level. However, it should be noted that the running quarterly STG of April 2022 has reached the lowest of the year (1.93) and it was very close to the Action Level. The Limit Level was not triggered during this reporting period as there were not any two consecutive running quarterly STG and ANI falling below the Action Level. The running quarterly STG and ANI from January to December 2022 are summarised in Table 4 of Appendix E. The graphical plots of running quarterly encounter rates of the current reporting year and the past reporting years are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Appendix E respectively.

2.5.2.1.4 Density and Abundance Estimation

Line-transect analyses to estimate the density and abundance of CWDs in Hong Kong waters during the reporting period were conducted using the same basic methods as in previous analyses. Although we experimented with Beaufort sea state as a co-variate, for 2022 the best estimate of abundance was obtained using Conventional Distance Sampling and a half-normal model with a cosine adjustment (effective strip width = 330 m). The detection function of 3RS CWD monitoring data of this reporting period is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix E and the various parameters of the 2022 estimates are shown in Table 5 of Appendix E. The overall abundance estimated for this reporting period (incorporating an entire year of data from all four seasons) was 35 CWDs (CV = 15.8%, indicating a good level of precision <20%). This is nearly the same as the estimate from last year, and up slightly from the estimate from two years ago. For comparison, the 2021 estimate was 34 CWDs (CV = 15.5%), and the 2020 abundance was 32 CWDs (CV = 12.8%). As in all recent years, the area with the highest abundance and highest density in 2022 was WL (N=22; this has been consistent over the AFCD long-term records). NWL showed a very similar number of dolphins from the previous year (3 in 2022 and 4 in 2021), though SWL showed a slight increase (from 7 to 10). NEL registered an abundance of zero, which has been the case in most of the last 10-12 years observed from both AFCD’s and 3RS’s monitoring. Overall, the number of dolphins was similar, though up very slightly, from last year. Though this may be indicative of the start of some recovery, after dolphins moved away from the works area in past years, we are not yet seeing signs of a strong recovery in numbers. The drop in numbers since about 2010 is thought to be partly related to the impacts from the construction of the Hong-Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB). The HZMB impacts on dolphins would be expected to have been most severe between 2013-2016 (when the brunt of construction was occurring), and in fact, this time period saw a significant drop in numbers of dolphins in Hong Kong (see Jefferson 2018). Though this will require further examination, an increase since then is consistent with what was predicted in the 3RS EIA.

It is worth noting that the 3RS EIA predicted significant impacts on CWDs (Mott MacDonald 2014), and a drop in numbers of dolphins in the area during the most intensive part of the 3RS construction phase is thus expected. Reclamation filling works were substantially completed in 2021, so there is expected to be some recovery now that the main marine filling and reclamation works are done. However, this issue will need to be examined with more data over several years, as recovery may take some time. Cumulative impacts due to the 3RS project with other concurrent projects (e.g., reclamation works near Tung Chung in recent years, for instance) will become clearer as works progress, and as our dataset grows.

In addition to estimating year-round abundance for each of the survey areas, a seasonal analysis was also conducted (the pooled dataset from all survey areas was used, as stratifying by both survey area and season would reduce the sample sizes that result in estimates with unacceptably low levels of precision) (refer to Table 5 of Appendix E). The autumn estimate was the lowest (N=24 dolphins), which is different from what has traditionally been the case for dolphin numbers in Hong Kong. The summer estimate showed the highest numbers (N=56 dolphins), which is not unexpected, based on historical records. The 2022 seasonal analysis shows that, as in the past, there was a marked influx of dolphins into Hong Kong during the wet season (especially in summer months).

2.5.2.1.5 Quantitative Grid Analysis on Habitat Use

Quantitative grid analysis was conducted to examine the habitat use amongst the survey areas, both SPSE (no. of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort) and DPSE (no. of dolphins per 100 units of survey effort) values for each 1 km² grid were calculated in all grids amongst all survey areas for the period from January 2022 to December 2022. SPSE and DPSE of the current reporting year and the previous reporting years are depicted in Figure 5 of Appendix E.

After a mild rebound of CWDs’ usage of waters around SCLKCMP in NWL in 2021 from a relatively low usage of the waters in 2019 and 2020, CWDs reduced the use of waters around SCLKCMP again in 2022. At the southwestern corner of NWL, CWDs’ usage remained similar to last year.

The important dolphin habitats in WL survey area in 2022 are largely similar to 2021 with a decreased use of waters around Tai O but an increase in use around Peaked Hill. Grids with high SPSE and/or DPSE value(s) in WL were near Tai O, Yi O, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau.

In SWL, there was mild rebound of CWDs’ usage at the Soko Islands in 2022 after a continuous decline since 2020, while the waters around Fan Lau and Fan Lau Tung Wan remained frequently used by CWDs.

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

2.5.2.1.6 Group Size

During the reporting period from January 2022 to December 2022, group size of CWDs ranged from one to 18 dolphins, with an average of 3.45, taking into account of all on-effort CWD sightings recorded. The average group sizes of NWL, AW, WL and SWL were 2.47, 1.00, 3.75 and 3.23 respectively. By four solar seasons, the average group size of CWDs was the highest in spring (3.82) but the lowest in autumn (2.76). The summaries of the average group size of CWDs by survey area and by season are presented in Table 6 and Table 7 of Appendix E.

CWD sightings with small group size (i.e. 1 to 2 dolphins per group) were dominant in 2022 with around 52.3% of all on-effort sightings. Nine sightings, which accounted for 5.2% of all sightings, were large CWD groups with 10 or more dolphins per group.

Both small and medium CWD groups were generally sighted throughout the distribution range of dolphins in NWL, WL and SWL waters, except the observation that medium-sized group was absent from the coastal waters of Tai Long Wan and Tong Wan near Shek Pik in SWL survey area. Large-sized CWD groups were recorded in WL and SWL survey areas, particularly near Fan Lau, but absent from NWL survey area. The sighting distribution of CWDs with different group sizes is illustrated in Figure 7 of Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.7 Activities and Association with Fishing Boats

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

During the reporting period, a total of 48, 27, 34 and 2 groups of CWDs were observed engaging in foraging, travelling, socialising and resting/milling activities, comprising of 28%, 16%, 20% and 1% of all on-effort CWD sightings respectively. The sighting locations of CWD groups engaged in different types of activities are depicted in Figure 8 of Appendix E while the percentages of different activities for each of the survey areas are shown in Table 8 of Appendix E.

In NWL, foraging activities occurred within and outside SCLKCMP, and off the Lantau coast at the southwestern corner of the survey area. Socialising activities were observed at the northwest corner of the 3RS temporary works area and off the Lantau coast at the southwest corner of the survey area. One CWD sighting engaged in travelling activities was recorded just outside the northeast corner of SCLKCMP.

In WL, foraging activities of CWDs occurred throughout the entire survey area. CWD sightings engaged in socializing activities occurred mainly at waters between Yi O and Peaked Hill, and also at Fan Lau. Travelling activities were mainly clustered between Yi O and Fan Lau, while one CWD sighting engaged in milling/resting activities was recorded at Peaked Hill.

In SWL, the sightings with observed activities were scattered amongst the survey area. The only CWD sighting engaged in milling/resting activities was recorded at the waters between Shek Pik and the Soko Islands.

A total of 14 sightings of CWDs were observed associating with operating fishing boats, including gill netters (seven groups) and purse seiners (seven groups), accounting for 8.1% of all on-effort sightings in 2022. CWDs’ association with operating fishing boats in 2022 showed a minor drop compared to that of last year (9.0% in 2021).

Observations of CWD association with operating fishing boats were scattered in WL and SWL. Associations with gill netters were mainly observed between Sham Wat and Tai O in WL and west of the Soko Islands in SWL. The two sightings in association with purse seiners in WL were observed near the artificial island of the tunnel entrance of HZMB in mainland waters and near Peaked Hill, respectively. While in SWL, associations with operating purse seiners were mainly observed at both longitudinal ends near Fan Lau and Shui Hau. There was no observation of CWD association with operating fishing boats in NWL, where Lung Kwu Chau was an area that used to be a favourite fishing ground in earlier years. The sighting locations of CWD groups associated with operating fishing boats are depicted in Figure 9 of Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.8 Mother-calf / Mother-unspotted Juvenile Pairs

During the reporting period, a total of 31 sightings were observed having mother-and-unspotted calf (UC), mother-and-unspotted juvenile (UJ) and/or mother-and-mottled pairs, which accounted for about 18.0% of all on-effort sightings of 2022. The sighting number was similar to that of 2021 (32 sightings). For different survey areas, the percentages of sightings with mother-calf pairs in NWL, WL and SWL were 13.3%, 24.0% and 8.9% respectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of sightings with mother-calf pairs of a survey area by the total number of on-effort sightings of that survey area.

The abovementioned 31 sightings included three pair of mother-and-UC and 37 pairs of mother-and-UJ. According to the results of photo-identification, a total of six mother-calf pairs were successfully identified from these 31 sightings.

Most of the sightings with mother-calf pairs were recorded in WL between Yi O and Peaked Hill. In NWL, one sighting with mother-calf pairs was recorded west off Lung Kwu Chau while another was recorded to the west of the existing airport. In SWL, major of the sightings with the presence of mother-calf pairs occurred in waters around Fan Lau and Fan Lau Tung Wan. The sighting distribution of mother-calf pairs is depicted in Figure 10 of Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.9 Photo Identification – Summary

In 2022, a total of 17 newly identified CWD individuals were added to the photo-identification catalogues, including four animals added to NL catalogue, 10 animals added to WL catalogue and another three animals added to SWL catalogue. One animal, namely WLMM125 was confirmed to be a duplicate of another individual (i.e. SLMM044), which had already been identified previously. Therefore, all records under this duplicate were transferred to the records under SLMM044.

In 2022, a total of 103 CWD individuals were identified for altogether 303 times from all sightings. Amongst these 103 CWD individuals, 19, 56 and 28 belonged to NL, WL and SL catalogues respectively. There were 66 individuals (around 64.1%) that were sighted more than once. Twenty-two of these 66 re-sighted individuals were sighted five times or more.

The most frequently re-sighted animal in 2022 was SLMM037, which was sighted 12 times, followed by SLMM002 and SLMM044 (each being re-sighted 10 times). SLMM037 was also the most frequently re-sighted animal of the previous reporting year (i.e. being sighted for 15 times in 2021). Since the establishment of the photo-identification catalogue, the most frequently re-sighted animal is SLMM014 which has been sighted 62 times, followed by SLMM003 and SLMM037 (each being sighted 53 times), WLMM001 (sighted 49 times) and SLMM010 (sighted 48 times). There are few more animals including NLMM013, WLMM007, WLMM027, WLMM043, WLM056, WLMM071, WLMM079, WLMM114, WLMM131, SLMM002, SLMM007, SLMM012, SLMM049 and SLMM052, that have been sighted 30 times or more.

Twenty-six animals that were frequently using Hong Kong waters in previous years (with 10 or more re-sighting records since the commencement of the monitoring in mid-December 2015) have disappeared from our sighting records in 2022 (note that these dolphins may still be using Hong Kong waters, but may have not been detected on our surveys). These animals are NLMM001, NLMM002, NLMM004, NLMM006, NLMM010, NLMM018, NLMM019, NLMM020, NLMM043, SLMM011, SLMM015, SLMM017, SLMM022, SLMM028, SLMM045, SLMM053, WLMM006, WLMM008, WLMM009, WLMM030, WLMM054, WLMM060, WLMM078, WLMM086, WLMM090 and WLMM107. Some of these individuals (i.e. NLMM002, NLMM004, NLMM006, NLMM010, NLMM018, NLMM019, NLMM043, SLMM011, SLMM015, SLMM017 SLMM028, SLMM053, WLMM060 and WLMM078) have not been seen in Hong Kong waters for two or even more years. We could not confirm if these animals were occurring elsewhere in mainland waters, or if some of them have already passed away.

On the other hand, some dolphins (with 10 or more re-sighting records since the commencement of the monitoring in 2015) that disappeared from previous years have returned to Hong Kong waters in 2022. These dolphins include SLMM002, SLMM044, SLMM050, WLMM005, WLMM049, WLMM081 and WLMM109. Amongst these animals, SLMM002 and SLMM044 showed the most noticeable return to Hong Kong waters in 2022. These two animals disappeared from our sightings in 2021 but then returned to Hong Kong waters with 10 re-sightings each in 2022 and became the 2^nd most re-sighted animals of the year. Another animal namely WLMM049 also showed a remarkable return to Hong Kong waters in 2022. WLMM049 was first identified in 2016 and re-sighted from 2017 to 2019 but disappeared from our sightings in 2020 and 2021, followed by a return of five re-sightings in 2022.

In previous years, special attention had been given to SLMM028, which had a severe injury in 2018. It showed good signs of recovery from its serious injury with normal foraging behaviour recorded 2019 and 2020, however, it was not sighted during vessel surveys for two years since 2021. Continuous attention will be given to SLMM028 in 2023.

A summary of the photo-identification of CWDs is presented in Table 9 of Appendix E.

2.5.2.1.10 Photo Identification – Range Use of Identified CWD individuals

SLMM037, the most frequently re-sighted animal in 2022 and also the 2^nd most frequently re-sighted animal since mid-December 2015, continued to occur frequently in WL and SWL waters. Following the shrinking range use in SWL in the last two years, SLMM037’s range use in the area rebounded to the eastern end of the area up to waters near Shui Hau in 2022 but was again absent from the Soko Islands like in 2021. SLMM037’s range use in WL looks shifted southward with a reduction of use of waters near Tai O Peninsula and it tended to shift its range use to inner water along the coast of WL in 2022 compared with previous years.

SLMM002 and SLMM044, the 2^nd most frequently re-sighted animal in 2022, reappeared in Hong Kong western waters after their absences in 2021. Compared to previous years, like SLMM037, SLMM002’s range use shifted a bit southward in WL and expended a bit to the eastern end of SWL. On the other hand, SLMM044’s range use in WL and SWL remained similar compared with previous years, with a shrinkage of use of the middle part of SWL.

SLMM014, the most frequently re-sighted animal since mid-December 2015, showed a remarkable shrinkage of range use that it was almost entirely absent from WL in 2022 except appearing once at Fan Lau. In SWL, SLMM014 continued to utilise the entire area from Fan Lau to Shui Hau.

In 2022, the range use of SLMM003, the second most frequently re-sighted animal since mid-December 2015, remained similar to previous years except for a reduction of use of waters at Tai O Peninsula and a little eastward extension in SWL.

WLMM001, the third most frequently re-sighted animal since mid-December 2015, showed a noticeable shift of range use in WL in 2022 compared to 2021 that its range use “inverted” from northern part to southern part of the survey area. It was absent in waters from the northernmost transect to Yi O in WL in 2022.

The sighting locations of SLMM037, SLM002, SLMM044, SLMM014, SLMM003 and WLMM001 are depicted in location maps under Figure 11 of Appendix E, which provide the indicative distribution range use of representative individuals recorded for the 3RS CWD monitoring.

2.5.2.1.11 Photo Identification – Cross-area Movement

Amongst the 66 individuals that were re-sighted more than once in 2022, 43 individuals showed cross-area movement between survey areas. This accounted for about 41.7% of all 103 identified animals in 2022. Amongst these 43 animals, 7 animals (16.3%) were re-sighted in both NWL (including AW) and WL, 31 animals (72.1%) were recorded in both WL and SWL. There were three animals (7.0%) namely WLMM019, WLMM071 and WLMM131 which were recorded occurring in all three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL) in 2022. Another two animals (4.7%) from NL catalogue, namely NLMM063 and NLMM085, were recorded in both NL and SWL. It is believed that these two animals also utilise WL, which connects NWL and SWL.

2.5.2.1.12 Photo Identification – Residency Pattern

The residency patterns of the dolphin individuals identified under this monitoring programme have been examined. For residency pattern analysis, both seasonal and annual occurrence patterns of identified CWD individuals with 15 or more re-sighting records (since the establishment of the photo-identification database) were carefully examined. “Residents” are defined as individual dolphins that were regularly sighted for at least three consecutive years, while “Visitors” are individuals that were intermittently sighted during the past years since the establishment of the photo-identification database. Seasonal occurrence patterns were also examined to distinguish individuals that occurred year-round (i.e. individual dolphins sighted in all four seasons of a year in at least one of the last two years) or seasonally (i.e. individual dolphins that occurred only in certain season(s) of a year). Therefore, there are four combined classifications of the residency pattern of an individual dolphin theoretically. These four classifications are:

· “Year-round resident” – dolphin which appears in Hong Kong waters in all four seasons of a year in at least one of the two last years and it was sighted for at least three consecutive years

· “Seasonal resident” – dolphin which appears in Hong Kong waters only in certain season(s) of a year and it was sighted for at least three consecutive years

· “Year-round visitor” – dolphin which appears in Hong Kong waters in four seasons of a year in at least one of the two last years and it was NOT sighted for at least three consecutive years

· “Seasonal visitor” – dolphin which appears in Hong Kong waters only in certain season(s) of a year and it was NOT sighted for at least three consecutive years

Up to year 2022, photo-identification records of 58 dolphin individuals that have at least 15 re-sightings since the establishment of the database were examined. There are ten animals namely SLMM003, SLMM010, SLMM014, SLMM037, SLMM049, SLMM052, WLMM065, WLMM079, WLMM114 and WLMM131 being defined as year-round residents while 46 animals were considered as seasonal residents. Only two, namely SLMM011 and SLMM044, out of these 58 individuals are considered as visitors to Hong Kong waters. However, it should be noted that the low number of dolphins being classified as visitors at present is mainly because of difficulty for visitor dolphins to meet the minimum requirement of at least 15 re-sightings with their intermittent sighting records. The details of the residency pattern of these 58 animals are shown in Appendix E.

2.5.2.2 Summary of Land-based Theodolite Tracking Monitoring Results

In this reporting period, land-based surveys commenced on 17 January 2022, and concluded on 19 December 2022. A total of 24 days and 144 hours of land-based theodolite survey effort were accomplished, including 12 days and 72 hours from LKC and 12 days and 72 hours from SC (Table 10 of Appendix E for summary). A total of 5 CWD groups were tracked from land, for a total of 1.07 hours, all from the LKC station (Table 10, Figure 12 Appendix E). CWD sightings were all within 2.1 km of the LKC tracking station. The number of CWD groups sighted from LKC per survey hour was 0.07, compared to 0.22 in 2021, 0.29 in 2020, 0.33 in 2019, 0.77 in 2018, and 0.89 in 2017. No CWDs were observed from SC. No calves were recorded off LKC during theodolite tracking surveys.

After raw data were filtered, only 3 CWD group tracks off LKC fit criteria for movement analyses, due to the majority of CWD group tracks being too short in duration (< 10 minutes) to include. From the tracks that fit the criteria, only 4, 10-minute short-track segments could be extracted for potential analyses. Based on this information, sample sizes were simply too low for appropriate statistical analyses, and therefore the present data are summarised to show potential trends. Due to low sample size, all data were used to summarise diurnal, annual, and group size patterns and behavioural state activity. Filtered standardised short-track segments were used to summarise movement patterns, similar to 2020 and 2021 data analysis.

2.5.2.2.1 Time of Day

The diurnal pattern of CWDs was calculated by dividing the total tracking time of CWD groups (prior to filtering short-track data) by the total effort per hour block, and depicted in Figure 13 of Appendix E. Off LKC, the highest proportion of CWD tracking time per hour of effort was recorded during the 1100 hour block (3.7%), the 1400 hour block (3.3%), and the 1300 hour block (2.2%) whilst the lowest percentages were recorded in the early morning and during the 1200 hour block (<1% each).

2.5.2.2.2 Time of Year

CWDs were observed from LKC only during February (winter) and November (autumn), during the dry season of 2022, as depicted in Figure 14 of Appendix E. This pattern is similar to 2021 and 2020 when CWDs were observed most often during the dry season and during winter; however, CWDs were observed during more months and also observed during the wet season in previous years. It is not clear what natural or anthropogenic factors may have contributed to this change in observation.

2.5.2.2.3 Group Size

The mean group size of CWDs off LKC prior to filtering tracks was 2.2±1.6, ranging from singletons to a maximum group size of 5 dolphins (Table 11 of Appendix E). In comparison, the group size was 3.0±1.8 (range 1-7) in 2021, 1.8±0.9 (range 1-4) in 2020, 1.9±1.2 (range 1-6) in 2019, and 2.6±1.5 in 2018 (range 1-8).

Based on proximity to the SCLKCMP boundary, the mean CWD group size was 1.5±0.7 (n=2, range 1-2) both inside the marine park and when crossing the marine park boundary. A single group of 5 individuals was observed outside the SCLKCMP boundary. The sighting distribution of CWDs relative to group sizes within the SCLKCMP, crossing the SCLKCMP boundary and outside the SCLKCMP are represented in Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 of Appendix E respectively.

After filtering tracks to assign vessel presence/absence, the mean group size of CWDs was 1.7±0.6 (range 1-2) when no vessels were present and 2±0 when vessels were present (Table 11 of Appendix E).

2.5.2.2.4 Behavioural State

The unknown behavioural category (48%, n=57) was excluded from the following summary of behavioural states. CWDs were recorded foraging (56%), travelling (42%), and resting (2%) during theodolite tracking time, prior to filtering tracks (Figure 18 of Appendix E). Milling and socialising behaviour were not recorded off LKC in 2022.

Within the boundary of the SCLKCMP, observed CWD behavioural states included foraging (67%), travelling (22%), and resting (11%) (Figure 19 of Appendix E). Outside of the SCLKCMP, the only observed CWD behavioural state was travelling (100%). CWDs crossing the SCLKCMP boundary were only recorded foraging (100%).

2.5.2.2.5 Movement Patterns and Vessel Activity

Plots of vessels, including a small number of high-speed ferries, and CWDs continue to show overlap in habitat off LKC throughout the year (Figure 20 of Appendix E).

Off LKC in 2022, 193 vessels were recorded during theodolite tracking surveys. Only one vessel, a transportation boat, was recorded within 500m of dolphins (based on filtered short-track segments). Mean speed, reorientation rate and linearity for CWDs in the presence and absence of vessels are detailed in Table 12 of Appendix E. Due to extremely small sample sizes (no vessel = 3; high speed ferry = 0; other vessels =1), statistical analyses were not possible; and it is cautioned that the apparent high speed of "no vessel" vs. the much lower single observation of "other vessel" cannot be assessed as a meaningful difference.

2.5.2.2.6 Summary of findings for 2022

● Similar to 2020 and 2021, 2022 provided few samples and the inability to conduct robust statistical analyses. While low numbers make most statistical analyses impossible, it is nevertheless clear that off LKC there continues to be a decrease of CWDs compared to earlier years. This is of interest especially as the overall statistics of number of animals in Hong Kong waters showed a slight increase (see section 2.5.2.1.4).

● The number of CWD groups sighted from LKC per survey hour was 0.07, compared to 0.22 in 2021, 0.29 in 2020, 0.33 in 2019, 0.77 in 2018, and 0.89 in 2017.

● CWDs were observed most often during the late morning and early afternoon hours (1100, 1300, and 1400 hour blocks). This pattern was similar to 2021, but differed from 2020, when CWDs were observed most often during the 0900 morning hour block and almost none observed after noon. Again, it is cautioned that with so few data this past year, such hourly sightings cannot be assessed as true diurnal patterns.

● The highest percentages of CWDs were observed during the autumn and winter seasons, similar to 2021, 2020, and 2019.

● In 2022, CWDs were recorded only in the dry season. In 2021 and 2020, although CWDs were recorded during both oceanographic seasons, they were observed most often during the dry season.

● Maximum CWD group size in 2022 was 5 individuals, compared to a maximum of 7 individuals in 2021, a maximum of 4 individuals in 2020, maximum of 6 individuals in 2019, and a maximum of 8 individuals in 2018.

● Overall, waters off Lung Kwu Chau were primarily used for travelling and foraging, which is similar to the high percentage of travelling and foraging observed in 2021 and 2020.

● CWD groups were observed inside, outside, and crossing the SCLKCMP boundary, and group size was larger outside of the park, which differs from 2021 when group sizes were larger inside boundary. The caveat of small sample sizes making comparisons in this instance holds.

● Foraging, travelling, and resting were observed within the SCLKCMP boundary; only foraging was observed by CWDs crossing the SCLKCMP boundary; and only travelling was observed outside of the SCLKCMP boundary. This pattern differs from 2021, but is similar to 2020 data.

● Only one vessel was recorded within 500m of CWD groups in 2022, based on filtered short-track segments, which is likely to be due to low sample size, but could also reflect potential CWD avoidance of vessels off LKC.

● There were no sightings of CWDs off Sha Chau during land-based theodolite work in 2022 (the same as 2021 and 2020).

2.5.2.3 Summary of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Results

2.5.2.3.1 Dolphin Detection per Day

During 10 January 2022 to 30 December 2022, there were five deployment periods of F-POD and C-POD at position A5 for PAM (with the coordinates of 22° 20.299’ N, 113° 53.871’ E). During the deployment period, CWDs were detected at Location A5 with a total of 215 true dolphin Detection Positive Minutes (DPM), as summarised in Table 13 of Appendix E. Dolphins were detected on 52 of 359 days with recording effort (Figure 21 of Appendix E).

The activity of CWDs was represented by the percentage of Detection Positive Days (DPD) over total logged days (i.e. DPD %). Over the five deployment periods, DPD % ranged from 0% to 27.60%, while the presence of CWD was detected in overall 14.49% of the logged days (as summarised in Table 13 of Appendix E). Low dolphin activity was generally recorded from PAM at Location A5 throughout deployment periods in 2022. While comparing with the previously reported values, the overall dolphin occurrence during this reporting period represents an increase in detection rates compared to year 2021 (Table 14 of Appendix E).

In terms of solar season, as illustrated in Figure 21 of Appendix E, the DPM recorded at winter months were the greatest among all seasons, which accounted for more than half of the total DPM recorded throughout the deployment periods. In spring, the CWD detections dropped and remained low throughout the season. Between summer and mid-autumn, DPM were only recorded occasionally on a few days. The 4th deployment which falls between summer and early autumn recorded zero DPM. In late autumn, relatively higher levels of DPM were recorded, making the total DPM in spring and in autumn to be similar.

2.5.2.3.2 Dolphin Diel Pattern

Dolphin detection rates at A5 were overall greater at night than during daytime, with a peak in detections in the 0200 time block and remaining high in the hour 0100, 0500, 0700 and 1800 blocks (as indicated in Figure 22 of Appendix E). The higher night-time detection rate observed during this monitoring period is similar to the diel pattern in dolphin detections observed throughout Hong Kong waters, with higher numbers of detections during night-time and fewest detections at midday (Munger et al. 2016). In winter, peak detection hours were at 0700 and 1800 while peak detection hours in spring were 0000 and 0400 (Figure 23 of Appendix E). In autumn, there was a peak detection at hour 0200 while no detections were recorded during the daytime. Dolphin detection rates were low in summer and there were no observable diel patterns.

2.5.3 Discussion on CWD Monitoring Results

CWD monitoring by vessel surveys has been conducted as required during the construction phase. Supplementary surveys including land-based theodolite tracking and underwater passive acoustic monitoring have provided additional information (such as habitat use of CWDs during day and night) for facilitating a review of the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed and any need for adaptive management measures. In addition to interpreting monitoring data in relation to identifying any project impacts, the interpretation of data from all three monitoring types can also assist in examining the kinds of issues that need to be considered for management and conservation of CWD in Hong Kong.

2.5.3.1 Vessel Line-transect Survey and Photo-identification

From the CWD vessel-based monitoring data, the estimate of overall abundance for 2022 was 35 dolphins, which is slightly higher than the year before, with a CV of 15.8% (which indicates a good level of precision). It is not surprising to see that the estimate of total dolphin numbers in Hong Kong was a bit higher than the previous year’s estimate (34 dolphins in 2021, CV = 15.5%), though a change from one year to the next should never be taken as an indication of long-term trends. Although CWD estimates in Hong Kong increased somewhat from 2016 to 2018 (Jefferson 2018; 3RS Annual EM&A Report 2018), Hong Kong waters have been showing an overall declining trend in dolphin numbers over much of the last decade or so (see Jefferson 2018), and the 3RS EIA predicted shifting of dolphins away to waters outside Hong Kong and a significant effect on numbers in Hong Kong during intensive periods of construction (EIA Report Section 13.9.2). From 2018-2021, there were seawall construction and marine filling in the 3RS works area, as well as reclamation works for the Tung Chung New Town Extension concurrently in North Lantau waters (note that the changes in the size of the different survey areas over the past few decades have been taken into account in the line-transect analysis for this year, with the total area of the NWL area being reduced to account for this loss of potential habitat). Year 2021 was still in the phase of construction that had the most impact on dolphins, though 2022 is now beyond that period. Since the major reclamation work for the 3RS project concluded in 2021, some level of recovery would be expected, and some early signs of that might be seen in the data. However, many more years of similar survey effort will be needed to examine this issue thoroughly, and we should not yet conclude that recovery has begun. In fact, some time delay in seeing an increase in dolphin numbers would be reasonable to expect.

Within NWL waters, CWD have recently been mostly found around the Castle Peak and Lung Kwu Chau areas. A total of 16 dolphin sightings were made (in favourable weather conditions) in NWL including AW transects in 2022, indicating that, while dolphins largely moved away from this area in 2020, they may be starting to return. The seasonal analysis showed that during summer, dolphin numbers are somewhat higher in Hong Kong waters. The 2022 seasonal range is 24 to 56 dolphins. The autumn estimate was the lowest (24 dolphins), while the summer estimate was the highest (56 dolphins), and this indicates that, despite the overall reduction in the average number of dolphins using Hong Kong waters in recent years, there are well over 50 dolphins estimated to be present in Hong Kong in the summer months. The main concern is that dolphin numbers in NWL have decreased quite significantly in the past decade, from around 100 to less than 20 (see Jefferson 2018). Some good news is that in WL and SWL dolphin numbers have remained similar to those in previous years. Past decreases suggested that construction activities in other areas of western Hong Kong waters (which, besides the 3RS works, includes IWMF works at Shek Kwu Chau) and other factors that are affecting dolphins north of Lantau Island may also be affecting their use of the waters south and west of Lantau Island. The potential for cumulative and far-ranging impacts from projects in specific areas is not well understood, and should be investigated in future monitoring efforts (including both those in relation to this project, and other studies outside the 3RS monitoring effort). This would be a particularly acute concern for the West Lantau area, which is known to represent the highest-density area for CWDs and although not directly impacted by marine construction in the past few years, the area has nonetheless shown evidence of a decrease in CWD numbers.

In earlier years, concerns had been expressed by some interested stakeholders that dolphin numbers in NWL may have decreased specifically due to hypothesized negative impacts from the re-routing of high-speed ferries (HSFs) to the Speed Control Zone (SCZ) north of Lung Kwu Chau. The analysis covering the entire first year post-SCZ (2016) provided an estimated abundance of 15 dolphins for NWL (refer to the 2016 annual report). The estimate for 2017 for the same area was 14 dolphins. The 2018 estimate was substantially higher at 22 dolphins. Therefore, the drop in 2019 to 8 dolphins was not likely due to the effects of the SCZ, which had been in operation for several years, but was more likely due to relatively more construction works for the 3RS and concurrent activities (such as changes in overall vessel traffic) in NL waters, or due to other unknown reasons. This belief is further bolstered by the fact that daily HSF trips were down substantially to single-digits in 2020 to 2022 due to COVID-19 impacts, and yet CWD numbers continued to decrease. Whatever the reasons for the fluctuations in numbers of dolphins in the NWL area, there is still no evidence that the SCZ has had any negative impacts on the dolphins.

Concerns were expressed in the 3RS EIA about the potential impacts on the travel corridor/area between both the 3RS Project Area and SCLKCMP, and between CWD hotspots in NWL, NEL and WL, and the concern on the effectiveness of implementing the SkyPier HSF route diversion in alleviating the impacts on CWD travelling areas. Increased CWD sightings from vessel surveys in NEL area during 2018 suggested that a slight rebound in the use of these travel areas by CWDs may have occurred, however this increase has not continued in 2019-2022. HZMB impacts were likely most severe during the period from 2013 to 2016 when construction works were ongoing (a period which saw an overall decline in CWD numbers in Hong Kong – Jefferson 2018), and the increase in CWD numbers seen in 2018 may have been the initial stages of recovery from that period of more intensive HZMB construction impacts. It is likely that the 3RS construction works and other concurrent activities in NL waters in 2019 onwards may have caused dolphins to again move away from these areas, as predicted in the 3RS EIA (Section 13.9.2). Nevertheless, it is noted that previous experience suggests that when construction is completed, and the new marine park goes into effect, a rebound in numbers can again be expected (see Jefferson 2018). Data since 2018 indicate that the travelling areas are still being used, although at a lower level. It should also be kept in mind that dolphins tend to move through these areas relatively quickly and do not generally spend as much time milling as they do in the main foraging/socialising areas, which may further reduce the chance of dolphin sightings.

Regarding the results of photo-identification work, a total of 103 CWD individuals were identified for altogether 303 times from all sightings in 2022, with 66 individuals (around 64.1%) that were sighted more than once. Amongst the 66 individuals that were re-sighted more than once in 2022, 43 individuals showed cross-area movement between survey areas. This accounted for about 41.7% of all 103 identified animals in 2022. Forty-three individuals (around 65.2%) of the 66 re-sighted animals showed cross-area movement between different survey areas, with three animals recorded occurring in all three main survey areas (WL, SWL and NWL). After a remarkable increase for cross-area movement involving NWL (21 individuals) in 2021 compared to 2020 (only eight individuals), the number of identified individuals with cross-area movement involved NWL dropped to 12 individuals. Amongst the re-sighted CWDs, SLMM037, the most frequently re-sighted animal in 2022 and also the 2^nd most frequently re-sighted animal since mid-December 2015, continued to occur frequently in WL and SWL waters. Ten identified dolphins were considered as year-round residents in view of their occurrence pattern in all seasons for consecutive years.

2.5.3.2 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

In the accumulation of 12 days and 72 hours of theodolite surveys at the station on LKC in 2022, a total of 5 CWD groups were tracked, and only 3 groups fit the criteria for movement pattern summary due to most tracks being less than 10 minutes in duration. Due to low sample sizes, as in 2020 and 2021, we were unable to conduct robust statistical analyses. While there are not enough data for robust statistical analyses of behaviours of CWD relative to group sizes, presence of vessels, etc., it is clear that habitat use off LKC has continued to decrease in the past several years. The present data are summarised to show the apparent present situation and potential trends. During the total of 12 days and 72 hours of theodolite surveys off SC in 2022, no dolphins were observed or tracked, similar to previous years (2018 to 2021).

The sighting rate off LKC in 2022 was 0.07 CWDs per survey hour, lower than any sighting rate since 2017. This differs slightly from the small apparent increase in overall numbers based on vessel surveys, including a slight increase in usage of this particular area in 2021.

In 2022, all dolphin records were within 2.1 km of the LKC station. Survey data show that the heaviest use of waters north of the SCLKCMP by CWDs was in the late morning and early afternoon hours, with a peak in sightings during the 1100 and 1400 hour blocks. CWDs were tracked only during the dry season, in late autumn and winter seasons. Maximum CWD group size was 5 dolphins, and no calves were observed.

Overall, waters off Lung Kwu Chau continue to be important habitat used for foraging and travelling. Only one vessel was recorded within 500m of a CWD group, which may be due to low sample size or reflect potential CWD avoidance of vessels off LKC. It is hoped that dolphins will return to this former CWD “hotspot” area north of the SCLKCMP as 3RS marine activities wind down, and monitoring for rebound use in this important area will continue.

2.5.3.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring

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

The PAM data provide evidence that dolphins are using the area around south of Sha Chau. In 2022, dolphins were present with especially high incidence in late autumn and winter (November to February), and less so in other seasons, with no acoustic detections from mid-August to mid-October. This lack of detections may represent a reduction or absence of dolphin usage, but it could also be related to high ambient noise levels that reduced the detectability of dolphin signals.

Dolphins were detected more frequently during night-time hours than during the day, and this may be related to nocturnal foraging behaviour. This has been a general trend throughout PAM monitoring in most parts of Hong Kong (Munger et al. 2016). It is also possible that at least a portion of this diel trend is related to dolphins utilising this area more intensively at night than in daytime, because of decreased industrial activity at night.

The PAM in 2022 represents a slight increase in overall dolphin detection from 2021 but is still relatively lower than the previous year in terms of percentage of days with dolphin detections (i.e. 22% of days with dolphins in 2020 and 38% of days with dolphins in 2019). However, the seasonal and diel detection patterns observed in 2022 suggest that dolphins continue to use the Sha Chau area especially in winter, and then primarily at night and in conditions when visual observation is not feasible.

2.5.4 Conclusions of CWD Monitoring Results

With reference to the aims of construction phase CWD monitoring described in the EM&A Manual (Section 10.2.1.2-4), the key findings of CWD monitoring in 2022 are summarised as follows.

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

The latest monitoring data indicate mixed trends in use of areas within Hong Kong waters in 2022, as compared to the previous year. The main area of increased use was West and Southwest Lantau, which both showed an increase from the previous year. As expected and predicted in the 3RS EIA, dolphins likely shifted their activities away from the 3RS construction activities as well as increasing marine works for the Tung Chung New Town Extension project in 2019-2021. Nevertheless, they still used Hong Kong’s western waters (primarily SWL and WL) for important ecological activities like foraging and resting, despite the disturbance. Whether a possible increase observed in 2021/2022 is indicative of the start of a long-term dolphin recovery in the area remains to be seen. The main issue now is how much recovery there will be when the marine construction activities end in this area, and future monitoring efforts beyond the construction phase will help to track this.

2.5.4.2 Effectiveness of the HSF Speed and Routing Restrictions to the CWDs

As detailed above, we now have seven years of data from the period since the SCZ was implemented, and the information available from both the vessel-based and land-based monitoring indicates that dolphin use of the NWL area has fluctuated from year to year (ranging from 1 to 22 dolphins), with a period of initial increase after the SCZ was put into effect. Due to COVID-19 effects, 2020, 2021 and 2022 were years of significantly decreased HSF activity in general, including in the SCZ area, and yet there was still a reduction in the use of NWL. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the SCZ is not impacting dolphin use of this area, and at the same time, is likely reducing the chances of dolphins being hit by vessels travelling at high speed. Observations in 2021 and 2022 are line with those previous assessments.

Waters around Lung Kwu Chau have historically been a significant year-round habitat, especially for foraging, though 2020 saw a very large decline in use of this area by CWDs. There is no evidence that the observed decline in dolphin use of the HSF SCZ around Lung Kwu Chau was due to ferries being re-routed to that area with slower speeds at the end of 2015. The decline in numbers of dolphins in NWL area is not considered to be linked to HSF re-routings and the SCZ, and the apparent increase in 2021 and 2022 is considered encouraging.

2.5.4.3 Trends in Long Term Monitoring Data

From vessel surveys conducted, though there appears to be a continuous uptick in 2022 following 2021, CWD use of Hong Kong waters was down significantly from 2019. West Lantau waters are still being used as the most important habitat in Hong Kong, as has been the case since CWD monitoring in Hong Kong first started in 1995/1996. It is estimated that 35 dolphins (on average) were found within Hong Kong waters in 2022, which is up slightly from 34 dolphins last year (2021). Seasonally, the CWD numbers within Hong Kong ranged from about 24 to 56 in 2022. There continues to be no evidence that the implementation of the SkyPier SCZ is having any negative impacts on dolphin use of the NWL area. In fact, daily SkyPier HSF trips were down substantially from 2020 to 2022 due to COVID-19 (refer to Section 2.7 and Table 2.26), thus there was no substantive new data on CWDs tracked near HSFs over the monitoring period.

While land-based observations and theodolite tracking do not present overall estimates of numbers of dolphins, the 2022 data from LKC are similar to 2021 and 2020 data, which show a reduction in CWD groups sighted and tracked compared to earlier years of 2017-2019. This indicates a continued lower use of this area by CWDs. It is possible, as mentioned in Section 2.5.3, that the data from the three years before 2020 represent a partial rebound of dolphin use of waters north of Lantau Island due to cessation of the intensive HZMB construction activities of 2013-2016 (see also Jefferson 2018). In 2021, continuing from 2020 and 2019, the ongoing 3RS Project marine construction activities reduced dolphin use in North Lantau waters in the way that was predicted in the 3RS EIA (Section 13.9.2). Although the major reclamation work for the 3RS project concluded in 2021 and some level of localized CWD rebound may be anticipated, a time delay in rebound is a reasonable potential.

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

The CWD construction phase monitoring data so far appear to be generally consistent with findings of the ecological assessments completed during the 3RS EIA, which predicted significant negative impacts during construction, including from the physical loss of habitat due to the reclamation (EIA Report Section 13.9.1). No unexpected ecological impacts on CWDs have been identified, while the increase in abundance in 2021 and 2022, though small, is encouraging nonetheless. However, it should be noted that dolphins shifting away from NL and nearby waters is to be expected during 3RS construction works, such as intensive seawall construction and marine filling activities, as had occurred in 2020 and early 2021, and this is broadly in line with EIA predictions.

In the 3RS EIA and as reported in the last several Annual EM&A Reports, it was predicted that dolphins would shift away from portions of their home range that are experiencing intense human activities and that appears to have been the case in 2020 as seawall works and marine filling activities intensified. These impacts are anthropogenic disturbances and therefore are of conservation concern; however, they are likely temporary and reversible and previous studies have supported that dolphin numbers can be expected to recover over the long-term, after completion of works (assuming that the habitat is properly protected and still of adequate quality – Jefferson 2018). Monitoring for the 3RS will continue during 2023 and beyond, with the goal being to determine the extent of remaining project impacts, to facilitate a review of the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and to determine any need for adaptive management measures.

Monitoring of dolphins must continue in order to allow us to evaluate the full extent of impacts and any recovery that occurs in the future, and stabilization or an increase in abundance of Hong Kong CWDs is desirable for the long-term health of this population. As dolphin numbers in Hong Kong appeared to be going down in 2020, and remained much lower than in the past in 2021 and 2022, though with a slight increase compared with 2020, diligent monitoring should continue. At this stage of 3RS construction, all recommended mitigations have been implemented and although impacts are occurring, these are likely to be temporary and within previously predicted patterns. Once marine construction is completed, and the proposed marine park in North Lantau comes online, the situation should improve. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be kept under review over the next few years, as CWD monitoring continues.

2.5.4.4 Long Term Conservation and Management Suggestions

In terms of the long-term conservation and management of the CWD population and specifically that portion that uses Hong Kong waters, it is important for numbers to stabilize once marine construction is completed, as the evidence suggests both that dolphins are using Hong Kong waters less intensively and that the overall population is declining (see Huang et al. 2012; Jefferson 2018). The intensive evaluation of construction methods that was undertaken in the EIA process for this project (which resulted in methods that are less harmful to dolphins, such the use of Deep Cement Mixing for site stabilization) should be seen an example and should be emulated in future impact assessments. Importantly, there is also ongoing evaluation of the impacts, and the ability to re-evaluate, if any significant, any unexpected impacts appear to be occurring.

A major goal for Hong Kong and mainland management authorities (primarily the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department) should be to establish effective measures including, but not limited to, protection of critical foraging and breeding habitat, as well as important travel routes for the dolphins. Most importantly, the area along the entire west coast of Lantau Island has consistently been used as prime habitat by CWDs for the past several decades, but unfortunately numbers there have declined recently. This region has been confirmed by the current 3RS Project monitoring efforts to remain as the most important habitat for dolphins in Hong Kong, based on densities of CWD use, but most of the area remains unprotected. The formation of Marine Parks/ Reserves for CWDs in this area should be seen as a high priority for protecting critical dolphin habitat for the future of CWDs in Hong Kong. If it is used properly, the knowledge learned from the 3RS project, as well as the funding support and attention given the CWDs from this project (e.g., through the Marine Ecology Enhancement Fund), can be very helpful for management authorities in achieving the important long-term goal of stabilizing the CWD population, and ensuring its long-term health and survival.

2.5.5 Site Audit for CWD-related Mitigation Measures

During the reporting period, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for marine filling and bored piling works, and dolphin observers were deployed by contractors in accordance with the Marine Mammal Watching Plan. Teams of at least two dolphin observers were deployed by contractors for continuous monitoring of the Dolphin Exclusion Zone (DEZ) for DCM works, seawall construction and marine bored piling for approach lights in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Training for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring was provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with the training records kept by the ET. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records, no dolphins or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains during the reporting period. As for DEZ monitoring records, no dolphins or other marine mammals were observed within the DEZs in this reporting period. These contractors’ records were audited by the ET during site inspection.

Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were carried out during weekly site inspection and are summarized in Section 2.7. Summary of audits of SkyPier High Speed Ferries route diversion and speed control and construction vessel management are presented in Section 2.8 and Section 2.9, respectively.

2.6 Sewage Flow Monitoring

In accordance with the approved EIA Report (AEIAR-185/2014) for Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS), the gravity sewer from the airport discharge manhole to TCSPS was recommended to be upgraded by AAHK to cater for the ultimate design sewage flow from the expanded airport. It was recommended in section 6.2.1.1 of the Manual that AAHK should conduct annual monitoring for the sewage flow build-up of the gravity sewer from the airport discharge manhole to TCSPS one year before the scheduled commencement of operation of the proposed third runway. The annual monitoring results shall inform the timing of commencement of the planning of the sewer upgrading works. The sewage flow monitoring methodology paper (the Paper) was prepared, submitted and subsequently approved by EPD on 21 June 2021.

2.6.1 Brief Summary of the Agreed Method

With reference to the Paper, the existing sewer to be monitored is the section between FMH7042035 (reference point A) and FMH7043286 (reference point C). A schematic diagram of the sewage system between reference point A and C is presented in Figure 2.8. The locations of these reference points are presented in Figure 2.9. To determine if the threshold of 80% of the design capacity is being reached, an approach using the Colebrook-White equation was used.

● Segment 1: for sewage pipelines serving the airport – the critical segment is the 1050mm sewer between manholes FMH7042032 and FMH7042033, where the 80% threshold of full flow capacity is 53,395.2 m³/day; and

● Segment 2: for the sewage pipelines serving the airport and catchment L4 – the critical segment is the 1050mm sewer between manholes FMH7043288 and FMH7043287, where the of 80% threshold of full flow capacity is 57,628.8 m³/day.

According to the Paper, segment 1 would reach its 80% full flow capacity before segment 2. Hence, segment 1 was considered the critical segment within the section between reference points A and C, and it was agreed to conduct sewage flow monitoring for segment 1 only. With the daily flow rate of SPS-1, which collects sewage arising from the Airport, is available from AAHK, desk-based flow monitoring would be conducted by comparing the daily average flow rate of SPS-1 (i.e. Q1) against the threshold of 80% of pipe capacity of segment 1 (i.e. 53,395.2

m³/day) in accordance with the following criteria:

● If Q1 ≤ 53,395.2 m³/day, planning of sewerage upgrading works can be on hold until results of next annual monitoring; and

● If Q1 > 53,395.2 m³/day, planning of sewerage upgrading works shall be considered to start and annual monitoring shall be discontinued.

Within the monitoring period, if the daily average flow rate of SPS-1 (i.e. Q1) is higher than the threshold of 53,395.2 m³/day, planning of sewerage upgrading works shall be considered to start and the annual monitoring shall be discontinued. The above approach was agreed to be adopted as part of annual monitoring for the sewage flow increment of the concerned gravity sewer in 2021 and 2022.

2.6.2 Desk-Based Monitoring Result

To fulfil the requirements as mentioned in previous section, the annual sewage flow monitoring has been started since June 2021. According to the daily flow monitoring record of SPS-1 from January to December 2022 (see Appendix D), the daily average flows were well below the above-mentioned threshold of 53,395.2 m³/day. To conclude, the summary of daily average flow at SPS1 during this reporting period is presented in Table 2.18. As the purpose of the sewage flow monitoring is to inform the timing of commencement of planning for the sewer upgrading works and considering that AAHK has initiated to start planning its construction, the annual monitoring was completed in 2022.

Table 2.18: Summary of daily average flow at Sewage Pumping Station 1 (SPS1)

Month	Jan-22	Feb-22	Mar-22	Apr-22	May-22	Jun-22	Jul-22	Aug-22	Sep-22	Oct-22	Nov-22	Dec-22
Average of daily flow at SPS1 (in m³/day)	11,765	10,731	10,610	10,670	13,102	13,718	14,728	15,116	12,232	12,442	13,711	12,645

Month

Jan-22

Feb-22

Mar-22

Apr-22

May-22

Jun-22

Jul-22

Aug-22

Sep-22

Oct-22

Nov-22

Dec-22

Average of daily flow at SPS1

(in m³/day)

11,765

10,731

10,610

10,670

13,102

13,718

14,728

15,116

12,232

12,442

13,711

12,645

Source: Excerpted from Quarterly EM&A Reports

2.7 Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures

Implementation of applicable landscape and visual mitigation measures (reference to the environmental protection measures CM1 – CM10 in Appendix C) was monitored in accordance with the Manual. All measures undertaken by both the contractor and the landscape contractor during the construction phase and first year of the operation phase are audited by a landscape architect, as a member of the ET, on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the intended aims of the measures.

Site inspection and audit are undertaken as necessary in the construction and operation phase in accordance with the Monitoring Programme for Landscape and Visual as shown in Table 2.19. In case of non-conformity, specific recommendations will be made and actions will be proposed in accordance with the Event and Action Plan as shown in Table 2.20. No non-conformity was recorded during the reporting period.

Table 2.19: Monitoring Programme for Landscape and Visual

Stage	Monitoring Task	Monitoring Report	Form of Approval	Frequency
Detailed Design	Checking of design works against the recommendations of the landscape and visual impact assessments within the EIA shall be undertaken during detailed design and tender stage, to ensure that they fulfil the intention of the mitigation measures. Any changes to the design, including design changes on site shall also be checked.	Report by AAHK / PM confirming that the design conforms to requirements of EP.	Approved by Client	At the end of the Detailed Design Phase
Construction	Checking of the contractor’s operations during the construction period.	Report on Contractor's compliance, by ET	Counter signature of report by IEC	Weekly
Establishment Works	Checking of the planting works during the twelve-month Establishment Period after completion of each batch of transplanting works.	Report on Contractor's compliance, by ET	Counter signature of report by IEC	Every two months
Long Term Management (10 year)	Monitoring of the long-term management of the planting works in the period up to 10 years after completion of each batch of transplanting works.	Report on Compliance by ET or Maintenance Agency as appropriate	Counter signature of report by Management Agency	Annually

Table 2.20: Event and Action Plan for Landscape and Visual

Event Action Level	Action
	ET	IEC	AAHK / PM	Contractor
Design Check	Check final design conforms to the requirements of EP and prepare report.	Check report. Recommend remedial design if necessary.	Undertake remedial design if necessary.
Non-conformity on one occasion	Identify source. Inform IEC and AAHK / PM. Discuss remedial actions with IEC, AAHK / PM and Contractor. Monitor remedial actions until rectification has been completed.	Check report. Check Contractor’s working method. Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures. Advise AAHK / PM on effectiveness of proposed remedial measures. Check implementation of remedial measures.	Notify Contractor. Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented.	Amend working methods to prevent recurrence of non-conformity. Rectify damage and undertake additional action necessary.
Repeated Non-conformity	Identify source. Inform IEC and AAHK / PM. Increase monitoring frequency. Discuss remedial actions with IEC, AAHK / PM and Contractor. Monitor remedial actions until rectification has been completed. If non-conformity stops, cease additional monitoring.	Check monitoring report. Check Contractor’s working method. Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures. Advise AAHK / PM on effectiveness of proposed remedial measures. Supervise implementation of remedial measures.	Notify Contractor. Ensure remedial measures area properly implemented.	Amend working methods to prevent recurrence of non-conformity. Rectify damage and undertake additional action necessary.
Note: (1) For PM in Table 2.20, refers to Project Manager only.

2.7.1 The implementation status of the environmental protection measures

The implementation status of the environmental protection measures is summarised below in Table 2.21. For trees which were managed by the Project during the reporting period, relevant measures have been implemented by Contracts 3302, 3303, 3508, 3602 and 3801.

Table 2.21: Landscape and Visual – Construction Phase Audit Summary

Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures during Construction Implementation Status	Implementation Status	Relevant Contract(s) in the Reporting Period
CM1- The construction area and contractor’s temporary works areas shall be minimised to avoid impacts on adjacent landscape.	The implementation of mitigation measures were checked by ET during weekly site inspection and clarified by the Contractors during the monthly Environmental Management Meetings. Implementation of the measures CM5, CM6 and CM7 by Contractors was observed.	All works contracts
CM2 – Reduction of construction period to practical minimum.
CM3 – Phasing of the construction stage to reduce visual impacts during the construction phase.
CM4 – Construction traffic (land and sea) including construction plants, construction vessels and barges shall be kept to a practical minimum.
CM5 – Erection of decorative mesh screens or construction hoardings around works areas in visually unobtrusive colours.
CM6 – Avoidance of excessive height and bulk of site buildings and structures
CM7 – Control of night-time lighting by hooding all lights and through minimisation of night working periods
CM8 – All existing trees shall be carefully protected during construction. Detailed Tree Protection Specification shall be provided in the Contract Specification. Under this specification, the Contractor shall be required to submit, for approval, a detailed working method statement for the protection of trees prior to undertaking any works adjacent to all retained trees, including trees in contractor’s works areas	Tree Protection Specifications have been provided in the relevant Contract Specifications respectively for implementation by the Contractors under the Project. The Contractors’ performance on the implementation of the trees maintenance and protection measures were observed and checked by the ET weekly during construction period.	3302, 3508, 3602, 3801
CM9 – Trees unavoidably affected by the works shall be transplanted where practical. A detailed Tree Transplanting Specification shall be provided in the Contract Specification, if applicable. Sufficient time for necessary tree root and crown preparation periods shall be allowed in the project programme	Tree Transplanting Specifications have been provided in the relevant Contract Specifications respectively for implementation by the Contractors under the Project where trees will unavoidably be affected by the construction works. The Contractors were required to submit Method Statements for tree transplanting prior to the transplanting works. Tree inspections were conducted by ET to check the tree transplanting works implemented by the Contractors on site. The Contractors’ performance on the implementation of trees maintenance and protection measures on transplanted trees were observed and checked by the ET bi-monthly during the 12-month establishment period after the completion of each batch of transplanting works. Long term management of the transplanted trees were currently monitored by ET annually.	3508, 3801
CM 10 – Land formation works shall be followed with advanced hydroseeding around taxiways and runways as soon as practical	As of November 2022, the Contractor’s performance on the implementation of advanced hydroseeding works was observed and checked by the ET during weekly site inspection.	3303
	With effective from 1 Dec 2022, the advanced hydroseeding works around taxiways and runways were partially completed at this stage and would resume in next phase.	Not available (To be implemented)

The 3RS Project is a mega project covering a number of detailed design contracts and many construction works contracts in different design and construction stages. Works areas would be taken up by different 3RS works contracts in stages with the commencement of construction, and the landscape and visual elements of these contract of the 3RS Project also designed and implemented at various stages of the Project.

Broad-brush tree survey and assessment were undertaken for the entire 3RS Project during EIA stage. After that, detailed design consultants had conducted more detailed tree surveys and assessments so that the landscape and visual elements were refined and aligned with their respective design areas. With the award of specific 3RS construction works contracts, the respective contractors would conduct their own detailed tree survey and assessment as necessary, to confirm the tree status at the time of their possession of the site. The tree survey and assessment from the respective contractors were taken as the baseline of that particular piece of works area before being affected by 3RS Project. Some of the tree group areas as identified in approved EIA report were affected by 3RS construction works as of 2022. Environmental monitoring and audit work which included the auditing of contractor’s work in landscape and visual aspects such as tree preservation, protection and transplantation was implemented in accordance with the updated construction programme and the relevant requirements of the EP and the Updated EM&A Manual.

As of October 2022, there were no provisional trees for Contract 3508 as all site areas were handed over to Contract 3508. The total number of retained trees, transplanted trees and to-be-transplanted trees under the management of Project are summarized in Table 2.22. The tree schedule updated as of end 2022 is shown in Appendix G.

Table 2.22: Summary of the Number of Retained, Transplanted and To-be-transplanted Trees as of December 2022

Existing
Contract	Retained (nos.)	Transplanted (nos.)		To-be-transplanted (nos.)
Contract	Retained (nos.)	Establishment Period	Long Term Management Period	To-be-transplanted (nos.)
3302	9	0	0	0
3503	0	0	9	0
3508	37	0	12	0
3602	0	0	0	0
3801	3	0	5⁽¹⁾	0
Sub-total	49	0	26	0

Note:

(1) Three transplanted trees (CT1194, CT1794 and CT1795) were subsequently felled after transplantation. Please refer to Table 2.24 for details.

Table 2.23 lists the affected tree ID together with the reasons for change of tree status between the tree schedules as of end 2021 and end 2022.

The total number of retained trees of the Project as of end 2022 was 49. Compared to 52 nos. of retained trees for existing works contracts reported in the tree schedule as of end 2021, the change in number was due to the following reasons:

· A storage area with some trees were handed over from Contract 3801 to AAHK. The trees were excluded from the Project (-5 nos);

· Some trees outside the site hoarding of Contract 3602 were felled (-2 nos);

· Some trees near Airport North Interchange under Contract 3801 were removed due to potential safety issues along Airport Express Line (AEL) railway track (-9 nos); and

· A works area with 13 nos. of trees next to East Coast Road were handed over to Contract 3508 and the status of those trees were shifted from provisional retained trees to existing trees (+13 nos).

Table 2.23: Summary of the Tree Status Changes between end 2021 and end 2022

Tree ID(s)	Contract	Status as of end 2021	Status as of end 2022	Remarks	Impacts to Total Tree Number
CT1855, CT1856, CT1857, T4, T5	3801	Retain	Excluded from the Project	5 nos. of trees were handed over to AAHK. The trees were excluded from the Project.	Retain: - 5 nos.
T0035, T0036	3602	Retain	Excluded from the Project	2 nos. of trees outside the site hoarding of Contract 3602 were felled.	Retain: - 2 nos.
CT1406, CT1407, CT1411, CT1413, CT1414, CT1415, CT1416, CT1418, T6	3801	Retain	Fell	9 nos. of trees were removed due to potential safety issues along Airport Express Line (AEL) railway track.	Retain: - 9 nos.
T1381A, T1382A, T1384A, T1385A, T1386A, T1387A, T1388A, T1389A, T1390A, T1391A, T1392A, A3, A4	3508	Provisional Retain	Retain	A works area with 13 nos. of trees next to East Coast Road were handed over to Contract 3508 and the status of those trees were shifted from provisional retain trees to existing trees.	Retain: + 13 nos.

Furthermore, the total number of provisional retain trees has been reduced to 0 as compared to the 51 trees in the previous reporting period. The change in number was because those trees were either handed over to Contract 3508, confirmed missing during the initial tree survey or outside of 3RS works area, while the remaining one tree was found duplicated.

In this reporting period, the cumulative total number of transplanted trees under the Project remained unchanged (i.e. 26) comparing to the previous reporting period. Meanwhile, a total of twelve trees under Contract 3508 (i.e. T1493, T1494, T1495, T1496, T1497, T1498, T1499, T1500, T1501, T1502, T1503, T1504) were transitioned from establishment period to long term management period during the reporting period.

Also, the total number of provisional transplanted trees was also reduced from 10 to 0 as the recommendation of those trees was changed from “Transplant” to “Fell” due to conflict with works and transplanting was not recommended due to poor health condition and low amenity value.

The summary of transplanted trees updated in the reporting period is shown in Table 2.24. Photos of the transplanted trees are presented in Table 2.25.

Table 2.24: Summary of the Transplanted Trees in the Reporting Period

Tree ID	Transplant Date	Management Stage	Management Agency	Remarks
CT276	3 May 2018	Long Term Management period Jun 2019 – May 2028	Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station	Establishment Period was completed. Next inspection will be conducted in February 2023.
CT1253	4 May 2018	Long Term Management period Jun 2019 – May 2028	Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station
T835	22 Jan 2020	Long Term Management period Feb 2021 – Jan 2030	AAHK	Establishment Period was completed. Next inspection will be conducted in February 2023.
T836	13 Dec 2019	Long Term Management period Feb 2021 – Jan 2030	AAHK
T838	22 Jan 2020	Long Term Management period Feb 2021 – Jan 2030	AAHK
T812	21 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK	Establishment Period was completed. Next inspection will be conducted in December 2023.
T814	20 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK
T815	15 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK
T829	18 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK
T830	14 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK
T831	19 Dec 2020	Long Term Management period Jan 2022 – Dec 2031	AAHK
T1493	6 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508	Establishment Period was completed. Next inspection will be conducted in July 2023.
T1494	6 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1495	10 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1496	5 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1497	5 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1498	29 Jun 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1499	29 Jun 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1500	30 Jun 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1501	30 Jun 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1502	5 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1503	6 Jul 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
T1504	24 Jun 2021	Long Term Management period Aug 2022 – Jul 2031	Contract 3508
CT1194	4 May 2018	Long Term Management period Jun 2019 – May 2028	Southern Landside Petrol Filling Station	Establishment Period was completed. Uprooted and collapsed due to Typhoon Higos on 18 August 2020. Tree removal was conducted as recommended by tree specialist of the contractor of Southern Landside Petrol Filing Station.
CT1794	3 May 2018	Long Term Management period Jun 2019 – May 2028	AsiaWorld-Expo	Establishment Period was completed. The tree within the land parcel was acquired by the government for construction of emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AsiaWorld-Expo. The tree was felled in late 2020.
CT1795	3 May 2018	Long Term Management period Jun 2019 – May 2028	AsiaWorld-Expo	Establishment Period was completed. The tree within the land parcel was acquired by the government for construction of emergency hospital to handle COVID19 pandemic at AsiaWorld-Expo. The tree was felled in late 2020.

Table 2.25: Photos of the Existing Transplanted Trees in the Reporting Period

Under 10-year Long-term Management (Jun 2019 – May 2028):

CT276	CT1253
Under 10-year Long-term Management (Feb 2021 – Jan 2030):

T835	T836	T838

Under 10-year Long-term Management (Jan 2020 – Dec 2031):

T812	T814	T815

T829	T830	T831
Under 10-year Long-term Management (Aug 2022 – Jul 2031):

T1493	T1494	T1495

T1496	T1497	T1498

T1499	T1500	T1501

T1502	T1503	T1504

2.8 Environmental Site Inspection

Site inspections of the construction works were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures for the Project. Bi-weekly site inspections were also conducted by the IEC. Besides, ad-hoc site inspections were conducted by ET and IEC if environmental problems were identified, or subsequent to receipt of an environmental complaint, or as part of the investigation work. These site inspections provided a direct means to reinforce the specified environmental protection requirements and pollution control measures in construction sites.

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

· The EIA and EM&A requirements;

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

· The EP conditions and other submissions under the EP;

· Monitoring results of EM&A programme;

· Works progress and programme;

· Proposal of individual works;

· Contract specifications on environmental protection; and

· Previous site inspection results.

Good site practices were observed in site inspections during the reporting period. Advice was given when necessary to ensure the construction workforce were familiar with relevant procedures, and to maintain good environmental performance on site. Regular toolbox talks on environmental issues were organized for the construction workforce by the contractors to ensure understanding and proper implementation of environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures. Environmental briefings on EP and EM&A requirements were also provided to the new contracts by ET.

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

2.9 Audit of the SkyPier High Speed Ferries

The Marine Travel Routes and Management Plan for High Speed Ferries of SkyPier (the SkyPier Plan) was submitted to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) for comment and subsequently submitted to and approved by EPD in November 2015 under EP Condition 2.10. The approved SkyPier Plan is available on the dedicated website of the Project. In the SkyPier Plan, AAHK has committed to implementing the mitigation measure of requiring HSFs of SkyPier travelling between HKIA and Zhuhai / Macau to start diverting the route with associated speed control across the area, i.e. SCZ, with high CWD abundance. The route diversion and speed restriction at the SCZ have been implemented since 28 December 2015. The IEC has also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme. The latest summary of key audit findings in the reporting period is presented in Table 2.26.

According to the approved SkyPier Plan, dolphin habitat index has been reviewed in the reporting period based on findings of the AFCD’s marine mammals monitoring report 2021-22 and historical dolphin density records. Grids for dolphin hotspot remained largely unchanged, thus the HSF route diversion arrangement remained unchanged.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all SkyPier HSF services to/from Zhuhai and Macau have been suspended from 25 March 2020 until further notice. Ferry service between HKIA SkyPier and Macau was resumed on 30 December 2022.

In total, 1 ferry movement between HKIA SkyPier and Macau was audited in the reporting period, and it travelled through the SCZ with average speeds at or below 15 knots, which complied with the SkyPier Plan. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in the reporting period, including those not using the diverted route, ranged between 1 and 8, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in the reporting period was 3.7, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

Table 2.26: Summary of Key Audit Findings against the SkyPier Plan

Requirements in the SkyPier Plan	Jan-22	Feb-22	Mar-22	Apr-22	May-22	Jun-22	Jul-22	Aug-22	Sep-22	Oct-22	Nov-22	Dec-22
Total number of HSF movements recorded and audited for HSF to/from Zhuhai and Macau	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Use diverted route and enter / leave SCZ through Gate Access Points	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
No. of SkyPier HSFs in compliance with Average Speed within 15 knots in SCZ	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Range of Daily Movement (including all SkyPier HSFs)	3-4	3-4	2-3	2-3	1-3	3-3	3-5	5-6	7-8	3-3	2-4	5-6

Source: Excerpted from Monthly and Quarterly EM&A Reports

2.10 Audit of the Construction and Associated Vessels

The audit of construction and associated vessels in accordance with the Marine Travel Route and Management Plan for Construction and Associated Vessel (MTRMP-CAV) has started since August 2016. ET has audited relevant information including AIS data, vessel tracks and other relevant records provided by the contractors to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The Maritime Surveillance System (MSS) was launched in March 2017. The MSS automatically recorded deviation cases such as speeding, entering no entry zone, and not travelling through designated gates. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. The 3-month rolling programme submitted by contractors for construction vessel activities were also checked every month to ensure the logistic of construction vessels were well planned to achieve a practicable minimum. The IEC has also performed audit on the compliance of the requirements as part of the EM&A programme.

A total of 3 skipper training workshops were held by ET during the reporting period with 8 concerned captains of construction vessels associated with the 3RS contracts to familiarise them with the predefined routes, general education on local cetaceans, guidelines for avoiding adverse water quality impact, the required environmental practices / measures while operating construction and associated vessels under the Project, and guidelines for operating vessels safely in the presence of CWDs. Another 19 skipper training workshops were held with 26 captains by contractors’ Environmental Officers and competency tests were conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET. In addition, ET participated Marine Management Liaison Group meetings to assist and resolve any marine issues which might be encountered under the Project.

2.11 External Stakeholder Engagement

In accordance with the EP’s requirements of setting up Community and Professional Liaison Groups, the AAHK has been continuing to proactively reach out to a wide spectrum of external stakeholders to update them on the environmental aspects of the Project and to seek their insights and views. There were continuous exchanges with the local communities, relevant professionals, experts, and other stakeholders. Below are highlights of the engagement activities held in 2022.

2.11.1 Community Liaison Groups

In order to enhance transparency and communication with the community in a proactive way, five Community Liaison Groups (CLGs) were set up in 2012 in the neighbouring districts of HKIA, namely Islands, Kwai Tsing, Shatin, Tsuen Wan and Tuen Mun. The CLGs are comprehensive platforms for the AAHK to update the community leaders about the detailed design, progress of construction and operation, and environmental monitoring and audit results of the Project, and listen to their views on various topics related to HKIA and the Project, including environmental matters. The AAHK also leverages on the CLGs to exchange views with the community on the latest airport developments, hence enhancing airport services and helping to contribute to the betterment of these districts. The CLGs have a total of about 130 members involving district councillors and community leaders. In 2022, one meeting was held in August. Project information including latest development of the 3RS Project, environmental monitoring and audit results, and details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures were presented in the meeting.

2.11.2 Professional Liaison Group and Green Non-Governmental Organizations

The Professional Liaison Group, comprising 18 members of relevant professionals and experts, was set up to enhance transparency and communication, as well as enquiries and complaints-handling on all environmental issues related to the Project; and to promote community cooperation and participation and implementation of suitable local environmental enhancement works that are included in the Environmental Permit. In 2022, one meeting was held in September. Project information including latest development of the 3RS Project, environmental monitoring and audit results, and details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures were presented in the meeting.

Roundtable meetings with Green Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were proactively arranged to facilitate exchanges on environmental issues related to the Project. Updates of the Project, including environmental monitoring and audit results and details on the implementation of environmental enhancement measures were shared with the participants. In 2022, one meeting was held in September.

2.11.3 Fishermen Liaison

In an effort to deepen outreach to the fishermen community, a dedicated Fishermen Liaison Group was set up in November 2016 to share updates on environmental matters and progress of construction and operation with the chairmen and leaders of fishermen groups and associations. In 2022, one meeting was held in June.

2.11.4 Other Stakeholders

The AAHK attended a Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development meeting in May 2022 to share with members updates regarding environmental, construction and funding aspects and submitted an update paper in November 2022. Furthermore, the AAHK submitted a paper to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) in July 2022 reporting an update on the implementation of the marine ecology mitigation and enhancement measures for the 3RS Project.

To encourage two-way communications with stakeholders and the community, a dedicated telephone hotline and email has been set up since December 2015. Two enquiries were received via the hotline and no enquiry was received via the dedicated email in 2022.

2.12 Review of the Key Assumptions Adopted in the EIA Report

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

2.13 Key Environmental Issues for the Coming Reporting Period

The key environmental issues for the Project in the coming reporting period are expected to be associated with construction activities including:

· Generation of dust from construction works and stockpiles;

· Noise from operating equipment and machinery on-site;

· Generation of site surface runoffs and wastewater from activities on-site;

· DEZ monitoring for seawall construction;

· Implementation of MMWP for silt curtain deployment;

· Sorting, recycling, storage and disposal of general refuse and construction waste;

· Reuse of treated marine sediments from piling and excavation works;

· Management of chemicals and avoidance of oil spillage on-site; and

· Acoustic decoupling measures for equipment on marine vessels.

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

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

3.1 Compliance with Other Statutory Environmental Requirements

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

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

3.2.1 Complaints

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

3.2.2 Notifications of Summons or Status of Prosecution

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

3.3 Cumulative Statistics

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

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

In the reporting period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, the EM&A programme has been implemented in accordance with the Manual of the Project. The EM&A works carried out during the reporting period include construction dust and noise measurements, water quality monitoring, vessel line-transect surveys, land-based theodolite tracking surveys supplemented with passive acoustic monitoring for CWD monitoring, waste monitoring, as well as environmental site inspections and landscape and visual monitoring for the Project’s construction works.

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

The monitoring results in relation to the construction dust, construction noise, and CWD did not trigger their corresponding Action or Limit Levels during the reporting period.

One monitoring result of construction waste triggered the relevant Action Level, and the corresponding investigation was conducted as stipulated in the EM&A programme. Follow-up actions were carried out by ET and the related contractor, and the case was considered closed.

A total of 5343.3 km survey effort was conducted for the vessel line-transect monitoring for CWD during the 12-month monitoring period. A total of 172 groups of 594 CWDs were sighted in NWL, AW, WL and SWL survey areas. No CWDs were recorded in NEL survey area. The combined encounter rates by number of dolphin sightings and by number of dolphins were 3.36 and 11.57 respectively. No triggering of Action and Limit Levels for encounter rates were recorded during the construction phase during 2022. Overall abundance of CWD in Hong Kong western waters was estimated at 35 dolphins in 2022 from line-transect analysis. CWD occurrence from land-based surveys around Lung Kwu Chau only recorded during dry season. Waters off Lung Kwu Chau continue to be habitat used primarily for travelling and foraging. Passive acoustic monitoring provides evidence that dolphins continued using the area around south of Sha Chau in 2022, especially in winter, and then primarily at night.

In accordance with Section 6.2.1.1 of the Manual, the methodology of annual sewage flow monitoring for the existing gravity sewer from the airport discharge manhole to Tung Chung Sewage Pumping Station (TCSPS) should be prepared and submitted to EPD one year before the scheduled commencement of operation of the proposed third runway. As such, the sewage flow monitoring methodology paper was prepared, submitted and subsequently approved by EPD on 21 June 2021. The annual sewage flow monitoring was started in June 2021. According to the daily flow monitoring record of Sewage Pumping Station 1 (SPS-1) located at the Airport from January to December 2022, the daily average flow ranged from 10,610 (m³/day) to 15,116 (m³/day), which were well below 80% of pipe full flow capacity of 53,395.2 m³/day as defined in Section 2.6.3 of the approved sewage flow monitoring methodology paper. As the purpose of the sewage flow monitoring is to inform the timing of commencement of planning for the sewer upgrading works and considering that AAHK has initiated to start planning its construction, the annual monitoring was completed in 2022.

Ferry service between HKIA SkyPier and Macau was resumed on 30 December 2022. In total, 1 HSF movement between HKIA SkyPier and Macau was recorded in the reporting period. The daily movements of all SkyPier HSFs in the reporting period, including those not using the diverted route, ranged between 1 and 8, which falls within the maximum daily cap number of 125. The annual daily average of all SkyPier HSF movements in the reporting period was 3.7, which falls within the annual daily average cap of 99 SkyPier HSF movements.

The audit of construction and associated vessels has started since August 2016. ET has conducted audit to ensure that the contractors were fully complied with the requirements of the MTRMP-CAV. The MSS was launched in March 2017. The MSS automatically recorded the deviation case such as speeding, entering no entry zone, not travelling through the designated gate. ET conducted checking to ensure the MSS records all deviation cases accurately. A total of 3 skipper training workshops were conducted by the ET during the reporting period with captains of construction vessels associated with 3RS contracts. Another 19 skipper training workshops were held by contractors’ Environmental Officers and competency tests were conducted subsequently with the trained captains by ET.

On the implementation of MMWP, silt curtains were in place by the contractors for marine filling and bored piling works and dolphin observers were deployed in accordance with the MMWP. On the implementation of DEZ Plan, dolphin observers were deployed by the contractors for continuous monitoring of the DEZ for DCM works, seawall construction and marine bored piling for approach lights in accordance with the DEZ Plan. Trainings for the dolphin observers on the implementation of MMWP and DEZ monitoring were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works. From the contractors’ MMWP observation records, no dolphins or other marine mammals were observed within or around the silt curtains during the reporting period. As for DEZ monitoring records, no dolphins or other marine mammals were observed within the DEZs in this reporting period. Audits of acoustic decoupling for construction vessels were also carried out by the ET during weekly site inspections.

AAHK strives to be highly transparent in its works and continues to engage with stakeholders through meetings and communications. Having said that, the dedicated 3RS Project website provides up-to-date information including EM&A results, updated plans and submissions in accordance with requirements in the EP, materials of the liaison group meetings, flyers introducing the environmental initiatives of the 3RS Project, as well as information on the status and operation of the Marine Ecology Enhancement Fund and the Fisheries Enhancement Fund.

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