Revision History
B |
Updated Appendix C&D |
18 March 2024 |
A |
First Submission |
11 February 2022 |
Rev. |
Description of Modification |
Date |
Content
2. Marine Water Quality Monitoring
8 Summary of Monitoring Exceedance, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Prosecutions
10. Conclusion and Recommendations
Appendix A |
|
Appendix B |
Summary of Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation |
Appendix C |
|
Appendix D |
|
Appendix E |
|
Appendix F |
|
Appendix G |
|
Appendix H |
|
Appendix I |
Executive Summary
A1. The Project, Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF), is a Designated Project under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) (EIAO) and is currently governed by a Further Environmental Permit (FEP No. FEP-01/429/2012/A) for the construction and operation of the Project.
A2. In accordance with the Updated Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Manual for the Project, EM&A works for marine water quality, noise, waste management and ecology should be carried out by Environmental Team (ET), Acuity Sustainability Consulting Limited (ASCL), during the construction phase of the Project.
A3. This is the 14th Quarterly EM&A Report, prepared by ASCL, for the Project summarizing and concluding the monitoring results and audit findings of the EM&A programme at and around Shek Kwu Chau (SKC) during the reporting period from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021.
A4. The EM&A works for construction noise, water quality, construction waste, coral, marine mammal and White-Bellied Sea Eagle (WBSE) were conducted during the reporting period in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual.
A5. Weekly site inspections of the construction works were carried out by ET to audit the mitigation measures implementation status. Monthly joint site inspections were carried out by ET and IEC.
1. Basic Project Information 1.1.1 This is the 14th Quarterly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021. 1.2.2 The Project Organization structure for Construction Phase is presented in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Project Organization Chart |
Table 1.1 Contact Details of Key Personnel
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone no. |
Environmental Protection Department |
Project Proponent |
Cheng Tak-Kuen |
2594-6111 |
Keppel Seghers ¡V Zhen Hua Joint Venture |
Project Manager |
Kenny Yu |
2192-0606 |
Acuity Sustainability Consulting Limited |
Environmental Team Leader |
F.C. Tsang |
2698-6833 |
ERM-Hong Kong, Limited |
Independent Environmental Checker |
Mandy To |
2271-3000 |
1.3. Summary of Construction Works
1.3.1 Details of the major construction activities undertaken in this reporting period are shown in Table 1.2 below. The construction programme is presented in Appendix A.Table 1.2 Summary of the Construction Activities Undertaken during the Reporting Period
Location of works |
Construction activities undertaken |
Remarks on progress |
Reclamation area |
¡P Reclamation Works
¡P PVD Remedial Works
¡P Installation of Instrumentation
¡P Site Investigation works for foundation
¡P Foundation works
|
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
|
Seawall portion |
¡P Installation of caisson
¡P Installation of Chinese Pod
¡P Caisson extension works, from +3mPD to +6mPD, at Seawall A and B
|
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
¡P On-going
|
Table 1.3 Summary of Status for Key Environmental Aspects under the Updated EM&A Manual
1.3.3 Other than the EM&A works by ET, environmental briefings, trainings and regular environmental management meetings were conducted, in order to enhance environmental awareness and closely monitor the environmental performance of the contractors. 1.3.4 The EM&A programme has been implemented in accordance with the recommendations presented in the approved EIA Report and the Updated EM&A Manual. A summary of updated implementation status of the environmental mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project during the reporting period is provided in Appendix B.
2. Marine Water Quality Monitoring 2.1.1 Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Turbidity, Suspended Solids (SS), Salinity and pH have been undertaken at the eleven monitoring stations during general water quality monitoring. 2.1.2 DO, temperature, salinity, turbidity and pH were measured in-situ and the SS was assayed in a HOKLAS laboratory. 2.1.3 In associate with the water quality parameters, other relevant data were also measured, such as monitoring location/position, time, water depth, sampling depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work underway nearby were also recorded. 2.1.4 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted 3 days per week in the reporting period. All parameters were monitored during mid-flood and mid-ebb tides at three water depths for water quality monitoring. The interval between two sets of monitoring has not been less than 36 hours. 2.1.5 Table 2.1 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of the impact water quality monitoring.
Table 2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Parameter, unit |
Frequency |
No. of Depths |
¡P Water Depth(m) ¡P Temperature(oC) ¡P Salinity(ppt) ¡P pH (pH unit) ¡P Dissolved Oxygen (DO)(mg/L and % of saturation) ¡P Turbidity(NTU) ¡P Suspended Solids (SS), mg/L ¡P Current velocity (m/s) ¡P Direction (in NESW) |
General water quality monitoring: 3 days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides |
3 water depths: 1m below sea surface, mid-depth and 1m above sea bed. If the water depth is less than 3m, mid-depth sampling only. If water depth is less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted.
|
2.2 Water Quality Monitoring Locations
2.2.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at eleven monitoring locations (i.e. B1-B4, H1, C1A, C2A, F1A, CR1, CR2 and M1) during general water quality monitoring as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Water monitoring locations at Artificial Island near SKC |
Table 2.2 Derived Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Monitoring (Dry Season)
Parameters |
Action |
Limit |
Construction Phase Impact Monitoring |
||
DO in mg/L |
≤ 7.13 |
≤ 4 |
SS in mg/L |
≥ 8 or 120% of control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
≥ 10 or 130% of control station's SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
Turbidity in NTU |
≥ 5.6 or 120% of control station¡¦s turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
≥ 12.81 or 130% of control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
Temperature in¢XC |
1.8¢XC above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day |
2¢XC above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day |
Notes:
i. "Depth-averaged" is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.
ii. For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.
iii. For turbidity, SS and Salinity, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is higher than the limits.
Table 2.3 Derived Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality (Wet Season)
Parameters |
Action |
Limit |
Construction Phase Impact Monitoring |
||
DO in mg/L |
≤ 5.28 |
≤ 4 |
SS in mg/L |
≥ 12 or 120% of control station¡¦s SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
≥ 14 or 130% of control station's SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
Turbidity in NTU |
≥ 4.0 or 120% of control station¡¦s turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
≥ 4.3 or 130% of control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher |
Temperature in¢XC |
1.8¢XC above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day |
2¢XC above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day |
Notes:
i. "Depth-averaged" is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.
ii. For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.
iii. For turbidity, SS and Salinity, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is higher than the limits.
2.4 Monitoring Results and Observations
2.4.1 As confirmed by the Contractor on 14 October 2020, all DCM works was completed on 14 October 2020, the post DCM water quality monitoring was completed for further 4 weeks (i.e. from 16 October 2020 to 14 November 2020) according to the approved Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing. As all DCM work and post DCM water quality monitoring were completed on 14 November 2020, no water quality monitoring was conducted at S1, S2A and S3 after 14 November 2020. Monitoring results of 6 key parameters: Salinity, DO, turbidity, SS, pH and temperature for general water quality monitoring during the reporting period, are summarized in Table 2.4, and results trending are presented graphically in Appendix C.
Table 2.4 Summary of Regular Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results
Locations |
Parameters |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Salinity (ppt) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
Temp. (oC) |
|||||||||||||||||
Surface & Middle |
Bottom |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
||
B1 |
Avg. |
30.62 |
30.97 |
32.27 |
8.85 |
8.65 |
8.47 |
8.81 |
8.66 |
8.39 |
8.30 |
8.27 |
8.37 |
3.4 |
3.3 |
3.7 |
8.19 |
7.90 |
9.37 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.5 |
Min. |
28.27 |
29.46 |
29.98 |
6.98 |
7.55 |
7.48 |
6.72 |
8.04 |
7.58 |
8.11 |
8.07 |
8.15 |
2.0 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.3 |
26.1 |
21.6 |
|
Max. |
32.37 |
32.69 |
35.30 |
10.53 |
9.36 |
9.31 |
9.97 |
9.77 |
9.20 |
8.61 |
8.48 |
8.87 |
5.6 |
5.4 |
6.5 |
26.00 |
18.00 |
32.00 |
29.9 |
28.9 |
26.7 |
|
B2 |
Avg. |
30.51 |
30.90 |
32.28 |
8.69 |
8.53 |
8.61 |
8.73 |
8.60 |
8.55 |
8.29 |
8.28 |
8.38 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.6 |
7.71 |
7.08 |
9.40 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.07 |
29.17 |
30.13 |
7.14 |
7.52 |
7.68 |
6.37 |
7.62 |
7.56 |
8.05 |
8.10 |
8.19 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.3 |
26.2 |
21.8 |
|
Max. |
31.94 |
32.10 |
35.73 |
10.55 |
9.40 |
9.73 |
10.44 |
9.32 |
9.65 |
8.56 |
8.48 |
8.74 |
5.7 |
5.2 |
5.9 |
18.00 |
21.00 |
22.00 |
30.1 |
28.9 |
26.7 |
|
B3 |
Avg. |
30.79 |
30.95 |
32.13 |
8.64 |
8.51 |
8.43 |
8.72 |
8.53 |
8.42 |
8.31 |
8.24 |
8.35 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
3.8 |
9.04 |
6.79 |
9.90 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.82 |
29.44 |
29.48 |
6.32 |
7.52 |
7.47 |
7.23 |
7.43 |
7.49 |
8.04 |
8.06 |
8.06 |
2.0 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.3 |
26.2 |
21.5 |
|
Max. |
32.39 |
32.51 |
35.64 |
10.15 |
9.35 |
9.46 |
10.07 |
9.46 |
9.55 |
8.59 |
8.46 |
8.89 |
5.9 |
5.6 |
6.9 |
18.00 |
14.00 |
26.00 |
30.2 |
28.7 |
27.1 |
|
B4 |
Avg. |
30.77 |
30.99 |
32.19 |
8.70 |
8.65 |
8.47 |
8.77 |
8.70 |
8.45 |
8.31 |
8.27 |
8.38 |
3.4 |
3.3 |
3.7 |
8.43 |
7.38 |
9.36 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.46 |
29.55 |
29.95 |
7.03 |
7.89 |
7.74 |
6.44 |
8.07 |
7.65 |
8.06 |
8.08 |
8.14 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
2.2 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.4 |
26.0 |
21.8 |
|
Max. |
32.33 |
32.54 |
35.59 |
9.98 |
9.54 |
9.51 |
10.00 |
9.59 |
9.62 |
8.56 |
8.46 |
8.74 |
5.9 |
4.7 |
7.0 |
20.00 |
16.00 |
25.00 |
30.2 |
28.9 |
27.2 |
|
C1A
|
Avg. |
30.73 |
30.98 |
32.13 |
8.64 |
8.64 |
8.41 |
8.70 |
8.60 |
8.51 |
8.32 |
8.26 |
8.36 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
5.3 |
8.40 |
8.71 |
10.53 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.19 |
29.47 |
29.17 |
6.39 |
7.92 |
7.32 |
7.08 |
7.81 |
7.39 |
8.06 |
8.07 |
8.06 |
3.1 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
26.4 |
26.1 |
21.7 |
|
Max. |
32.50 |
32.40 |
35.39 |
10.34 |
9.67 |
9.82 |
10.20 |
9.65 |
9.63 |
8.59 |
8.55 |
8.81 |
8.9 |
6.9 |
9.7 |
27.00 |
21.00 |
32.00 |
29.9 |
28.8 |
27.0 |
|
C2A |
Avg. |
30.72 |
31.01 |
32.31 |
8.67 |
8.64 |
8.38 |
8.71 |
8.58 |
8.34 |
8.30 |
8.26 |
8.36 |
4.6 |
4.2 |
6.3 |
8.40 |
8.45 |
10.99 |
28.2 |
27.3 |
23.5 |
Min. |
28.64 |
29.43 |
29.71 |
6.57 |
7.41 |
6.32 |
6.65 |
7.84 |
6.30 |
8.00 |
8.05 |
8.08 |
2.9 |
2.6 |
3.2 |
3.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
26.4 |
26.0 |
21.2 |
|
Max. |
32.58 |
32.48 |
36.52 |
10.26 |
9.41 |
9.42 |
10.32 |
9.31 |
9.06 |
8.59 |
8.47 |
9.01 |
7.6 |
7.0 |
47.7 |
18.00 |
22.00 |
37.00 |
30.3 |
28.9 |
27.1 |
|
CR1 |
Avg. |
30.63 |
31.00 |
32.29 |
8.59 |
8.55 |
8.37 |
8.68 |
8.51 |
8.46 |
8.32 |
8.26 |
8.37 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
4.3 |
8.21 |
8.03 |
9.92 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.5 |
Min. |
28.46 |
29.48 |
29.57 |
6.97 |
7.65 |
6.32 |
7.43 |
7.70 |
6.31 |
8.04 |
8.05 |
8.08 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.3 |
26.2 |
21.1 |
|
Max. |
32.43 |
32.37 |
36.57 |
9.70 |
9.32 |
9.40 |
10.20 |
9.64 |
9.43 |
8.62 |
8.55 |
9.06 |
5.5 |
5.2 |
24.3 |
19.00 |
17.00 |
24.00 |
30.4 |
28.7 |
27.1 |
|
CR2 |
Avg. |
30.54 |
31.00 |
32.11 |
8.61 |
8.61 |
8.41 |
8.66 |
8.68 |
8.39 |
8.30 |
8.27 |
8.36 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
4.0 |
8.50 |
7.40 |
10.23 |
28.0 |
27.4 |
23.5 |
Min. |
28.34 |
29.42 |
29.31 |
6.35 |
7.66 |
6.02 |
6.52 |
7.99 |
6.06 |
8.08 |
8.06 |
8.13 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.5 |
26.3 |
21.1 |
|
Max. |
32.52 |
32.43 |
36.40 |
10.25 |
9.63 |
9.46 |
10.10 |
9.32 |
9.44 |
8.61 |
8.50 |
9.14 |
6.1 |
5.0 |
10.4 |
22.00 |
16.00 |
31.00 |
30.3 |
28.9 |
26.3 |
|
F1A |
Avg. |
30.77 |
31.11 |
32.24 |
8.74 |
8.68 |
8.42 |
8.61 |
8.69 |
8.46 |
8.28 |
8.27 |
8.40 |
3.4 |
3.1 |
3.7 |
8.89 |
7.72 |
10.12 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.07 |
29.81 |
29.90 |
6.57 |
7.80 |
7.38 |
6.88 |
7.85 |
7.45 |
8.02 |
8.09 |
8.08 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
26.2 |
26.0 |
21.6 |
|
Max. |
32.27 |
32.63 |
35.11 |
10.29 |
9.43 |
9.51 |
10.16 |
9.32 |
9.52 |
8.58 |
8.57 |
8.91 |
6.2 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
18.00 |
21.00 |
34.00 |
30.4 |
28.6 |
27.2 |
|
H1 |
Avg. |
30.75 |
31.04 |
32.28 |
8.60 |
8.63 |
8.44 |
8.62 |
8.59 |
8.49 |
8.29 |
8.29 |
8.39 |
3.4 |
3.2 |
4.1 |
8.24 |
8.12 |
9.17 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.5 |
Min. |
28.54 |
29.09 |
29.31 |
6.31 |
7.57 |
6.10 |
6.76 |
7.59 |
6.36 |
8.05 |
8.00 |
8.09 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.7 |
26.0 |
21.2 |
|
Max. |
32.69 |
32.54 |
36.43 |
9.92 |
9.89 |
9.49 |
9.75 |
9.38 |
9.52 |
8.51 |
8.61 |
9.22 |
5.7 |
5.4 |
23.1 |
23.00 |
18.00 |
27.00 |
30.4 |
28.7 |
26.4 |
|
M1 |
Avg. |
30.72 |
31.16 |
32.21 |
8.64 |
8.71 |
8.51 |
8.75 |
8.79 |
8.51 |
8.31 |
8.27 |
8.37 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
7.87 |
8.47 |
9.56 |
28.1 |
27.4 |
23.6 |
Min. |
28.32 |
29.40 |
29.33 |
6.77 |
7.93 |
7.39 |
6.35 |
7.58 |
7.41 |
8.11 |
8.01 |
8.09 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
2.3 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
26.4 |
26.1 |
21.4 |
|
Max. |
32.70 |
32.69 |
35.66 |
9.87 |
9.61 |
9.67 |
9.85 |
9.83 |
9.66 |
8.50 |
8.62 |
8.98 |
5.0 |
5.4 |
6.1 |
16.00 |
34.00 |
30.00 |
30.3 |
28.8 |
27.1 |
Notes:
i. "Avg", ¡§Min¡¨ and ¡§Max¡¨ is the average, minimum and maximum respectively of the data from measurements conducted under mid-flood and mid-ebb tides at three water depths, except that of DO where the data for ¡§Surface & Middle¡¨ and ¡§Bottom¡¨ are calculated separately.
3. Noise Monitoring
3.1 Noise Monitoring Parameters
3.1.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted weekly in the reporting period between 0700-1900 hours on normal weekdays. Additional impact noise monitoring was conducted weekly in the reporting period between 1900-0700 hours on all days as well as public holidays and Sundays. 3.1.2 Construction noise level measured in terms of the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (LAeq). Leq 30min was used as the monitoring parameter for the time period between 0700 and 1900 hours on normal weekdays. Leq 5min was used as the monitoring parameter for the time period between 1900 and 0700 hours as well as public holidays and Sundays. Table 3.1 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of the impact noise monitoring and additional impact noise monitoring.Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Time, Frequency and Duration
Monitoring Station |
Time |
Duration |
Parameters |
M1/ N_S1, M2/ N_S2, M3/ N_S3 |
Day time: 0700-1900 hrs (during normal weekdays) |
Once per week Leq 5min/Leq 30min (average of 6 consecutive Leq 5min) |
Leq, L10 & L90 |
Evening time: 1900-2300 hrs (including normal weekdays, also public holidays and Sundays) |
Once per week Leq 5min (3 sets of Leq 5min) |
Leq, L10 & L90 |
|
Night time: 2300-0700 hrs (including normal weekdays, also public holidays and Sundays) |
Once per week Leq 5min (3 sets of Leq 5min) |
Leq, L10 & L90 |
3.2 Noise Monitoring Locations
3.2.1 Three noise monitoring locations for impact monitoring and additional impact monitoring at the nearby sensitive receivers are shown in Figure 3.1
|
Figure 3.1 Noise monitoring locations at SKC |
Table 3.2 Noise Monitoring Location
Station |
NSR ID in EIA Report |
Noise Monitoring Location |
Type of sensitive receiver(s) |
Measurement Type |
M1 |
N_S1 |
Shek Kwu Chau Treatment & Rehabilitation Centre Hostel 1 |
Residential |
Façade |
M2 |
N_S2 |
Shek Kwu Chau Treatment & Rehabilitation Centre Hostel 2 |
Residential |
Façade |
M3 |
N_S3 |
Shek Kwu Chau Treatment & Rehabilitation Centre Hostel 3 |
Residential |
Façade |
3.3 Action and Limit Levels
3.3.1 The Action/Limit Levels in line with the criteria of Practice Note for Professional Persons (ProPECC PN 2/93) ¡§Noise from Construction Activities ¡V Non-statutory Controls¡¨ and Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process issued by HKSAR Environmental Protection Department [¡§EPD¡¨] under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, Cap 499, S.16 is presented in Table 3.3.Table 3.3 Action and Limit Levels for Noise per Updated EM&A Manual
Time Period |
Action |
Limit (dB(A)) |
0700-1900 hrs on normal weekdays |
When one documented complaint is received |
75 dB(A) |
3.4 Monitoring Results and Observations
3.4.1 Impact monitoring for noise impact for daytime was conducted in the reporting period. The impact noise levels at Noise Monitoring Stations at SKC (i.e. M1/ N_S1 to M3/ N_S3) are summarized in Table 3.5. Additional impact monitoring during restricted hours was conducted in the reporting period. The additional impact noise levels at Noise Monitoring Stations at SKC (i.e. M1/ N_S1 to M3/ N_S3) are summarized in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 respectively. Trending of the noise monitoring results is presented graphically in Appendix D. 3.4.2 Major construction activity, major noise source and extreme weather which might affect the results were recorded during the impact monitoring. 3.4.3 According to our field observations, the major noise source identified at the noise monitoring station in the reporting month are summarised in Table 3.4. Sound from the intermittent piling work was the noticeable noise source for monitoring stations M1, M2 and M3. Air conditioning units were also observed at station M3 during the impact monitoring.Table 3.4 Summary of Field Observation
Monitoring Station |
Major Noise Source |
M1 |
Sound from the intermittent piling work |
M2 |
Sound from the intermittent piling work |
M3 |
Sound from the intermittent piling work, air-conditioner |
Table 3.5 Summary of Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Daytime (0700 ¡V 1900 hrs)
Location |
Noise in dB(A) |
||||||||
Range of Leq 30min |
Range of L10 30min |
Range of L90 30min |
|||||||
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
|
M1 |
55.9 ¡V 57.5 |
55.1 ¡V 61.9 |
56.1 ¡V 61.5 |
57.6 ¡V 59.0 |
56.7 ¡V 63.5 |
57.6 ¡V 65.3 |
53.9 ¡V 55.3 |
53.1 ¡V 59.5 |
50.8 ¡V 54.8 |
M2 |
54.2 ¡V 55.9 |
54.2 ¡V 61.4 |
53.3 ¡V 62.0 |
56.2 ¡V 58.1 |
56.0 ¡V 64.3 |
55.0 ¡V 64.7 |
46.1 ¡V 53.7 |
48.6 ¡V 54.4 |
50.8 ¡V 56.0 |
M3 |
52.0 ¡V 55.5 |
52.9 ¡V 62.1 |
53.3 ¡V 61.8 |
53.8 ¡V 56.9 |
54.2 ¡V 67.7 |
55.7 ¡V 65.7 |
49.1 ¡V 53.4 |
51.3 ¡V 56.1 |
48.2 ¡V 54.1 |
Table 3.6 Summary of the Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Evening Time (1900-2300 hrs)
Location |
Noise in dB(A) |
||||||||
Range of Leq 5min |
Range of L10 5min |
Range of L90 5min |
|||||||
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
|
M1 |
43.0 ¡V 56.1 |
45.7 ¡V 54.4 |
44.5 ¡V 49.9 |
43.9 ¡V 57.8 |
47.1 ¡V 58.8 |
45.7 ¡V 51.6 |
42.2 ¡V 53.2 |
43.5 ¡V 50.0 |
42.8 ¡V 48.7 |
M2 |
48.3 ¡V 58.8 |
49.0 ¡V 54.3 |
44.9 ¡V 54.1 |
50.3 ¡V 63.2 |
50.0 ¡V 57.5 |
46.1 ¡V 55.9 |
46.1 ¡V 53.7 |
47.1 ¡V 51.1 |
43.3 ¡V 51.9 |
M3 |
43.1 ¡V 58.9 |
44.5 ¡V 53.6 |
46.2 ¡V 53.2 |
44.0 ¡V 60.5 |
45.0 ¡V 54.3 |
47.0 ¡V 54.3 |
41.1 ¡V 54.6 |
43.8 ¡V 50.3 |
43.0 ¡V 52.0 |
Table 3.7 Summary of Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Night Time (2300 ¡V 0700 hrs)
Location |
Noise in dB(A)[1] |
||||||||
Range of Leq 5min |
Range of L10 5min |
Range of L90 5min |
|||||||
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
|
M1 |
42.8 ¡V 55.1 |
42.1 ¡V 46.6 |
40.7 ¡V 48.3 |
43.8 ¡V 57.2 |
44.8 ¡V 48.7 |
42.5 ¡V 50.3 |
41.9 ¡V 52.9 |
40.3 ¡V 45.3 |
39.5 ¡V 47.3 |
M2 |
47.3 ¡V 57.8 |
45.1 ¡V 54.5 |
42.6 ¡V 52.2 |
47.9 ¡V 58.2 |
46.7 ¡V 57.7 |
45.0 ¡V 54.9 |
45.7 ¡V 52.7 |
42.0 ¡V 50.0 |
39.3 ¡V 49.5 |
M3 |
42.1 ¡V 55.0 |
42.6 ¡V 52.6 |
42.9 ¡V 53.3 |
42.9 ¡V 57.7 |
43.4 ¡V 54.2 |
44.0 ¡V 54.2 |
41.2 ¡V 52.3 |
41.1 ¡V 50.0 |
41.5 ¡V 52.3 |
Note:
[1] No construction work was conducted during the night time period in the reporting period. |
4.1 The waste generated from this Project includes inert construction and demolition (C&D) materials, and non-inert C&D materials. Non-inert C&D materials are made up of general refuse, vegetative wastes and recyclable wastes such as plastics and paper/cardboard packaging waste. Steel materials generated from the project are also grouped into non-inert C&D materials as the materials were not disposed of with other inert C&D materials.
4.2 As advised by the Contractor, for C&D waste, no metals were generated and collected by registered recycling collector. 161.0kg of paper was generated on site and collected by registered recycling collector. No plastic waste was collected by registered recycling collector. No chemical waste was collected by licensed chemical waste collector. 13.0 m3 of other types of wastes (e.g. general refuse) were generated on site and disposed of at Landfill. 19,109.5 m3 of fill rock was imported during the reporting period. No public fill was imported during the reporting period.
4.3 Chemical waste generated from the cleaning of oil stain and leakage on deck of barges was stored in the chemical waste storage area on the barges.
4.4 With reference to relevant handling records and trip tickets of this Project, the quantities of different types of waste generated in the reporting period are summarised in Table 4.1. Details of cumulative waste management data are presented as a waste flow table in Appendix E.
4.5 Although there is not much waste generation in the reporting period from the Project, the Contractor is reminded to sort and store any solid and liquid waste on-site properly prior to disposal.
Table 4.1 Quantities of Waste Generated from the Project
Reporting Month |
Actual Quantities of Inert C&D Materials Generated Monthly |
Actual Quantities of C&D Wastes Generated Monthly |
||||||||||||
Total Quantity Generated |
Hard Rock and Large Broken Concrete (see Note 1) |
Reused in the Contract |
Reused in other Projects |
Disposed as Public Fill |
Imported Fill |
Metals |
Paper / cardboard packaging |
Plastics (see Note 2) |
Chemical Waste |
Others, e.g. general refuse (see Note 3) |
||||
Sand |
Public Fill |
Rock |
||||||||||||
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000m3) |
(in ,000kg) |
(in ,000kg) |
(in ,000kg) |
(in ,000kg) |
(in ,000L) |
(in ,000m3) |
|||
Oct 2021 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6.8885 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Nov 2021 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6.2975 |
0 |
0.1610 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0130 |
Dec 2021 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5.9235 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Notes:
1. Broken concrete for recycling into aggregates.
2. Plastic refer to plastic bottles / containers, plastic sheets / foam from packaging materials.
3. Use the conversion factor: 1 full load of dumping truck being equivalent to 6.5 m3 by volume.
5.1 Coral Monitoring Parameters
5.1.1 Ten (10) tagged coral colonies at each site of suggested control site and indirect impact site are being monitored weekly for the first month and followed by monthly monitoring for three months. The selected Control Site is located at Yuen Kong Chau of Soko Islands about 7 km away from the project area. After the hitting of super typhoon Mangkhut in mid-September 2018, the coral re-tagging activities at indirect impact site and control site were conducted in November and December 2018 respectively. Tagged coral colonies at the proposed recipient site are being monitored quarterly for one year and the last post-translocation coral monitoring was completed on 28 Mar 2019. The selected recipient site R3 is located the opposite side of the Project area at about 2 km away. 5.1.2 Monitoring recorded the following parameters (using the same methodology adopted during the pre-translocation survey); the size, presence, health conditions (percentage of mortality/bleaching) and percentage of sediment of each trans-located coral colony. The general environmental conditions including weather, sea, and tidal conditions of survey sites were monitored. 5.1.3 Health status of coral was assessed by the following criteria:Hard coral: Percentage of surface area exhibiting partial mortality and blanched/bleached area of each coral colony and degree of sedimentation.
5.2 Coral Monitoring Locations
Location of the ten tagged coral colonies at each of the proposed indirect impact site, control site, the recipient site R3 and REA transect at proposed indirect impact site are shown in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 respectively:
|
Figure 5.1 Tagged Natural Corals at Indirect Impact Site Near SKC for re-tagging after typhoon Mangkhut |
|
Figure 5.2 Tagged Natural Corals at Control Site Near Yuen Kong Chau for re-tagging after typhoon Mangkhut |
|
Figure 5.3 Tagged Translocation Corals at Recipient Site R3 near SKC |
Table 5.1 Tagged Natural Corals during Baseline and Re-tagged Natural Corals after Typhoon Manghkut at Control Site near Yuen Long Chau
Coral # note i |
GPS Coordinates |
|
1 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.96¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦57.81¡¨ |
2R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.12¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.01¡¨ |
3 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.81¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦57.78¡¨ |
4 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.70¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦57.95¡¨ |
5R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.10¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.18¡¨ |
6 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.75¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦58.02¡¨ |
7R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.17¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.86¡¨ |
7 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.65¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦57.94¡¨ |
8 |
N22¢X09¡¦45.53¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦57.90¡¨ |
9 |
N22¢X09¡¦46.23¡¨ |
E113¢X54¡¦54.70¡¨ |
10R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.18¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.91¡¨ |
Notes:
i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.
Table 5.2 Re-tagged Natural Corals after Typhoon Manghkut at Indirect Impact Site near SKC
Coral # note i |
GPS Coordinates |
|
11R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.14¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.92¡¨ |
12R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.12¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.01¡¨ |
13R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.11¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.07¡¨ |
14R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.13¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.12¡¨ |
15R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.10¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.18¡¨ |
16R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.07¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦09.23¡¨ |
17R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.17¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.86¡¨ |
18R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.14¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.94¡¨ |
19R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.20¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.81¡¨ |
20R |
N22¢X11¡¦29.18¡¨ |
E113¢X59¡¦08.91¡¨ |
Notes:
i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.
Table 5.3 GPS Coordinates of Recipient Site R3
Site |
GPS Coordinates |
|
R3 |
N22¢X11¡¦43.69¡¨ |
E113¢X28.99¡¨ |
5.3 Action and Limit Levels
5.3.1 Monitoring result was reviewed and compared against the below Action Level and Limit Level (AL/LL) as set with the below Table 5.4 and Table 5.5.
Table 5.4 Action and Limit Levels for Construction Phase Coral Monitoring
Parameter |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
Mortality |
If during Impact Monitoring a 15% increase in the percentage of partial mortality on the corals occurs at more than 20% of the tagged indirect impact site coral colonies that is not recorded on the tagged corals at the control site, then the Action Level is exceeded. |
If during Impact Monitoring a 25% increase in the percentage of partial mortality on the corals occurs at more than 20% of the tagged indirect impact site coral colonies that is not recorded on the tagged corals at the control site, then the Limit Level is exceeded. |
Table 5.5 Action and Limit Levels for Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring
Parameter |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
Mortality |
If during Post-Translocation Monitoring a 15% increase in the percentage of partial mortality on the corals occurs at more than 20% of the translocated coral colonies that is not recorded on the original corals in the recipient site, then the Action Level is exceeded. |
If during Post-Translocation Monitoring a 25% increase in the percentage of partial mortality on the corals occurs at more than 20% of the translocated coral colonies that is not recorded on the original corals in the recipient site, then the Limit Level is exceeded. |
5.4 Monitoring Results and Observations
5.4.1 Ten (10) hard coral colonies were monitored at each site of Control and Indirect Impact sites as suggested in the Construction Phase Monitoring Plan. The general health conditions (size, mortality, bleaching and sediment) were recorded and summarized in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8. Photos of each tagged coral colonies were taken during the monitoring activities and shown in Appendix F. 5.4.2 The 12th quarterly coral monitoring during construction phase at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site was conducted on 24 December 2021 and the weather condition was summarized in Table 5.6.Table 5.6 Weather Condition for the 12th Quarterly Coral Monitoring during Construction Phase at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site
Date |
Condition |
Average Underwater Visibility |
24 December 2021 |
- North wind force 3-4, - Sunny Day |
Less than 0.5m |
Table 5.7 Sizes, Condition, Mortality, Bleaching and Sediment of 10 Natural Coral Colonies at Control Site of 12th Quarterly Coral Monitoring (24 December 2021) during 40th to 42nd Monthly Construction Phase Monitoring
Coral # |
Species |
Size (cm) ¡V Max. Diameter |
Condition |
Mortality (%) |
Bleaching (%) |
Sediment (%) |
|||
Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
||||
1 |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
25 |
Fair |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2R |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
10 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Psammocora superficialis |
18 |
Fair |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
Turbinaria peltata |
13 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5R |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
18 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
Cyphastrea serailia |
43 |
Fair |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7R |
Coscinaraea sp. |
15 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
21 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
11 |
Fair |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10R |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
20 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Notes:
i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.
Table 5.8 Sizes, Condition, Mortality, Bleaching and Sediment of 10 Natural Coral Colonies at Indirect Impact Site of 12th Quarterly Coral Monitoring (24 December 2021) during 40th to 42nd Monthly Construction Phase Monitoring
Coral # |
Species |
Size (cm) ¡V Max. Diameter |
Condition |
Mortality (%) |
Bleaching (%) |
Sediment (%) |
|||
Baseline (23 Nov 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
Baseline (23 Nov 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
Baseline (23 Nov 2018) |
24 Dec 2021 |
||||
11R |
Cyphastrea serailia |
48 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12R |
Favites chinensis |
27 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13R |
Turbinaria peltata |
21 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14R |
Favites chinensis |
8 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15R |
Goniopora stutchburyi |
11 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16R |
Psammocora superficialis |
27 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17R |
Favites chinensis |
15 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18R |
Psammocora superficialis |
39 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19R |
Psammocora superficialis |
42 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20R |
Psammocora superficialis |
29 |
Good |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Notes:
i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.
6.1.1.1 For the vessel-based marine mammal surveys, the monitoring team adopted the standard line-transect method (Buckland et al. 2001) as same as that adopted during the EIA study and pre-construction phase monitoring to allow fair comparison of marine mammal monitoring results.
6.1.1.2 Eight transect lines are set at Southeast Lantau survey area, including Shek Kwu Chau, waters between Shek Kwu Chau and the Soko Islands, inshore waters of Lantau Island (e.g. Pui O Wan) as well as southwest corner of Cheung Chau as shown in Figure 6.1 below:
|
Figure 6.1 Line Transects for Marine Mammal Surveys |
6.1.1.3 In comparison to the baseline monitoring results, results from the analyzed construction phase monitoring data would allow the detection of any changes of their usage of habitat, in response to the scheduled construction works.
6.1.2 Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
6.1.2.1 The PAM aims to study the usage of an area by Finless Porpoise by using an array of automated static porpoise detectors (e.g. C-POD) which would be deployed at different locations to detect the unique ultra-high frequency sounds produced by Finless Porpoise. During the construction period, the PAM survey will be conducted including placement of two passive porpoise detectors outside the Project Area as control site (i.e. within Pui O Wan and to the south of Tai A Chau) and one porpoise detector within the Project Area (i.e. near Shek Kwu Chau) as shown in Figure 6.2 below.
|
6.1.2.2 These three detectors will be deployed on-site to carry out 24-hours monitoring for a period listed as Table 6.1 below during the construction phase.
Table 6.1 PAM Deployment Period
Season |
Months |
Deployment Period |
Peak Season |
December, January, February, March, April or May |
At least 30 days during the peak months of porpoise occurrence in South Lantau waters |
6.1.2.3 The automated static porpoise detectors shall detect the presence and number of finless porpoise and Chinese White Dolphins respectively over the deployment period, with the false signal such as boat sonar and sediment transport noise distinguished and filtered out. The detectors shall be deployed and retrieved by professional dive team on the seabed of the three selected location shown in Figure 6.2. During each deployment, the C-POD unit serial numbers as well as the time and date of deployments shall be recorded. Information including the GPS positions and water depth at each of the deployment locations shall also be obtained.
6.1.2.4 The diel patterns (i.e. 24-hour activity pattern) of finless porpoise occurrence among the three sites at Shek Kwu Chau, Tai A Chau and Pui O Wan shall be analyzed. Peaks and troughs of finless porpoise occurrence per hour of day would be identified and compared with the results obtained from pre-construction monitoring.
6.1.3 Land-based Theodolite Tracking
6.1.3.1 The Land-based Theodolite Tracking study would use the same station as in the AFCD monitoring study(same as the baseline monitoring location), which is situated at the southwest side of Shek Kwu Chau (GPS position: 22o11.47¡¦ N and 113o59.33¡¦ E) as shown in below Figure 6.3. The station was selected based on its height above sea level (at least 20 metres), close proximity to shore, and relatively unobstructed views of the entire Project Area to the southwest of Shek Kwu Chau. The height of the Shek Kwu Chau Station established by the HKCRP team is 74.6 m high at mean low water, and only a few hundred metres to the IWMF reclamation site, which is ideal for the purpose for the present behavioural and movement monitoring of finless porpoises as well during construction phase considering there as an un-obstructed vantage point at a height above the Project Site.
|
Figure 6.3 Locations of Land-based Theodolite Tracking |
6.1.3.2 During the construction phase, Land-based Theodolite Tracking will be carried out for approximately six hours of tracking for each day of field work for a period listed as Table 6.2 below, preferably at the initial stage of the construction period (i.e. December 2018 to May 2019).
Table 6.2 Land-based Theodolite Tracking Survey Period
Season |
Months |
Survey Period |
Peak Season |
December, January, February, March, April or May |
30 days during the peak months of porpoise occurrence in South Lantau waters |
6.1.3.3 The monitoring period for land-based theodolite tracking will be proposed to be overlapped with the PAM. The monitoring team consists of one experienced theodolite operator and at least two field observers for assistance. To conduct theodolite tracking, the observers will search systematically for Finless Porpoise using the unaided eye and 7 x 50 handheld binoculars on each survey day throughout the study area. When an individual or group of porpoises is located, a theodolite tracking session will be initiated and focal follow methods will be used to track the porpoise(s). Behavioural state data (i.e. resting, milling, travelling, feeding and socializing) shall also be recorded every 5 minutes for the focal individual or group. Positions of porpoises and boats shall be measured using a digital theodolite connected to a laptop computer. This tracking survey will be conducted during the peak season between December 2018 and May 2019 for 30 surveys spanning across 15-16 weeks during the peak season to provide good temporal coverage during the initial stage of the construction period.
6.2 Specific Mitigation Measures
6.2.1 Monitored exclusion zones6.2.1.1 During the installation/re-installation/relocation process of floating type silt curtains, in order to avoid the accidental entrance and entrapment of marine mammals within the silt curtains, a monitored exclusion zone of 250 m radius from silt curtain should be implemented and monitored by competent Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs). Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone (MMEZ) would also be implemented for precautionary purpose for DCM works.
6.2.2 Marine mammal watching plan6.2.2.1 Upon the completion of silt curtain installation/re-installation/relocation, marine mammal watching plan would be implemented to observe the presence of any marine mammal around the localized silt curtain or being trapped by the localized silt curtain.
6.3 Results and Observations
6.3.1 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey6.3.1.1 Three monthly surveys were conducted during the reporting period. As this is covering designated off-peak season (June - November) and peak season (December ¡V May), one survey was conducted in October and November 2021 respectively, two surveys were conducted in December 2021. A total on effort (transects only) survey length of 162.3 km was completed, 98.4 km at Beaufort Sea State 2 or better (Table 6.3). Two (2) Finless Porpoise sightings were recorded; and the details of recorded sightings were summarized (Table 6.4, Figure 6.4).
Table 6.3 Summary of Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Effort
Date |
Area* |
Beaufort |
Effort (km) |
Season |
Vessel |
Effort Type** |
25 October 2021 |
SEL |
1 |
14.8 |
AUTUMN |
SEAMARHK |
P |
2 |
21.1 |
|||||
3 |
5.0 |
|||||
10 November 2021 |
SEL |
1 |
2.8 |
AUTUMN |
SEAMARHK |
P |
2 |
24.6 |
|||||
3 |
12.3 |
|||||
4 |
1.6 |
|||||
9 December 2021 |
SEL |
1 |
2.9 |
WINTER |
SEAMARHK |
P |
2 |
15.0 |
|||||
3 |
11.7 |
|||||
4 |
10.6 |
|||||
17 December 2021 |
SEL |
1 |
1.0 |
WINTER |
SEAMARHK |
P |
2 |
16.2 |
|||||
3 |
13.0 |
|||||
4 |
9.7 |
* As shown in Figure. 6.1
** P (from AFCD) denotes the ON EFFORT survey on the transect line, not the adjoining passages
Table 6.4 Summary of Sightings Recorded during October 2021 to December 2021 of Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Effort
Date |
Species |
Sighting No. |
Time |
Group Size |
PSD |
Behaviour |
Lat. |
Long. |
Area |
Effort |
Season |
10 Nov 2021 |
Finless Porpoise |
99 |
12:22 |
1 |
N/A |
Travelling |
22.18479 |
113.9835 |
SEL |
On |
AUTUMN |
9 Dec 2021 |
Finless Porpoise |
100 |
10:40 |
1 |
14 |
Unknown |
22.1929 |
113.9437 |
SEL |
On |
WINTER |
Figure 6.4 Location of sightings recorded during October to December 2021 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey
Figure 6.5 Plot
of encounter rate during October to December in 2009 ¡V 2021 from different
surveys
6.3.1.3 A review of the Beaufort Sea state survey conditions between 2009 and 2018 (only data available from AFCD at time of writing; (AFCD 2018; 2017; 2016; 2015; 2014; 2013; 2012; 2011; 2010)) shows that survey conditions in October and November 2021 were better than average for previous AFCD surveys conducted while survey conditions in December was within the % limits of previous AFCD long-term monitoring surveys.
6.3.1.4 A review of all the porpoise sightings in the survey area for October to December between 2009 - 2021 indicates that there is no sighting usually recorded in October to December. Given the similar survey conditions and the encounter rate recorded for porpoise in the project area during the reporting period, the encounter rate for October to December 2021 were between 0.00km-1 and 0.02km-1 (see Figure 6.5), it is noted that the encounter rate of impact survey is low when compared to other years. It is noted that the reporting period was covering between both non-peak and peak season and that construction not related to IWMF is ongoing on the southern boundary of the study site, both which may impact encounter rates. It is also noted that the impact survey focuses on a relatively small populations of highly mobile individuals and the survey area conducted for this monitoring is very small. For October to December 2021, the number of recorded sightings was similar to the case in 2019 impact monitoring conducted by ET.
6.3.1.5 Data and records of the implemented mitigation measures, including construction vessel routing and speed control, marine mammal watching plan and avoidance of noisy work during the peak season, are collected form the Contractor and now under detail review. As surveys continue for this project, data shall be constantly re-evaluated across survey months to discern trends and impacts, if any.
6.3.1.6 Photo records of the line-transect survey during the reporting period are presented in Appendix G.
6.3.2 PAM and Land-based Theodolite Tracking
6.3.2.1 30 days of PAM surveys were started at 1 May 2019 and completed until the end of May 2019. Multiple PAM systems were deployed at three sites. The PAM system located at the IWMF was lost, however, an alternative data set has been identified. The PAM systems at the two control sites Tai A Chau and Pui O were recovered on 3 August 2019. A summary of marine mammal detections shows that porpoise were recorded every day of deployment at each site, but at varying frequencies. The detailed theodolite result was presented in 17th Monthly EM&A report (November 2019) while detailed PAM result was presented in 18th Monthly EM&A report (December 2019).
6.3.2.2 For the baseline study, the DPM for each site was 11,160 (Shek Kwu Chau), 16,089 (Tai A Chau) and 3645 (Pui O Wan), totalling 30,894 DPM across all three sites, compared to DPMs of 4740 (Shek Kwu Chau), 7725 (Tai A Chau) and 23,986 (Pui O Wan), totalling 36,451 DPM, for the impact phase study. As the impact phase study was longer than the baseline study, it is not appropriate to directly compare total counts of DPM, however, the DPM rate (the average number of detections per day) for each site can be more directly compared. During the baseline study, Shek Kwu Chau averaged 338.2 DPM per day compared to 124.8 DPM per day, during the impact phase study. This showed a decrease in the daily average of porpoise detection at Shek Kwu Chau. During the baseline study, Tai A Chau averaged 487.6 DPM per day compared to 179.7 DPM per day, during the impact phase study. This showed a decrease in the daily average of porpoise detection at Tai A Chau. During the baseline study, Pui O Wan averaged 98.5 DPM per day compared to 557.8 DPM per day, during the impact phase study. This showed a significant increase in the daily average of porpoise detections at Pui O Wan (Table 6.6).
6.3.2.3 Overall, the PAM study showed that porpoise continue to consistently utilise the Shek Kwu Chau habitat immediately adjacent to the IWMF construction activities, although to a lesser degree than that prior to construction activities. In addition, the Pui O Wan site, which is 2.5 km away from the IWMF construction area, was also consistently utilised during the impact phase PAM study. A continued assessment of fine scale habitat use, particularly through PAM which yields large quantities of data, would allow a more comprehensive assessment of the EIA predictions.
Table 6.6 Summary Statistic Comparison of Baseline (2018) and Impact Phase (2019) Passive Acoustic Monitoring
6.3.2.4 Theodolite surveys were completed in May 2019. In total, thirty four days of theodolite tracking were completed between February - May 2019, comprising 167 hours and 49 minutes of observation. No Chinese white dolphin was observed and only one finless was recorded. The finless porpoise encounter rate was calculated as 0.006 finless porpoise per hour, in all weather conditions.
6.3.2.5 A total of 2620 vessels of ten different types were observed and tracked within or in the proximity of the IWMF construction site. These comprised fishing boats (236), speed boats (29), container boats (155), government boats (22), high speed ferries (53), others (13) and IWMF-Related construction platforms (974), tug boats(240), transportation boats (363), construction boats (531 and approximately 8 buoys were present marking the site boundary. The detailed Land-based Theodolite Tracking Report was presented in 5th Quarterly EM&A report and 17th Monthly EM&A report.
6.3.2.6 The baseline theodolite tracking was conducted immediately prior to and during the site preparation activities of the site. The baseline data records a decrease in porpoise sightings as site preparation activities commenced and notes that the decrease was most likely due to the onset of site preparation activities. The impact theodolite tracking conducted for this study records a marked increase in the number of Project related vessels and platforms and, in agreement with baseline conclusions, shows a concomitant decrease in finless porpoise sightings.
7. White-Bellied Sea Eagle
7.1 WBSE Monitoring Parameters
7.1.1 The objective of the construction phase monitoring should be to verify the utilisation of the area by WBSE, their responses to construction disturbance, as well as the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Throughout the construction phase, field surveys should be conducted twice per month during their core breeding season (from December to May), and once per month outside their core breeding season (from June to November). The monitoring frequency should be increased to weekly during the incubation period of each year. In order to confirm their foraging ground near the construction site, it is necessary to conduct daily monitoring during the first week of nestling period in each year. 7.1.2 Since the location of the WBSE nest was located at the southwest of SKC within the hillside shrubland, it is impossible to observe the eggs during incubation period. Therefore, monitoring with increased frequency during incubation period could not be carried out. Daily monitoring will be carried out once any chick is recorded during the monitoring day.7.2.1 Seven monitoring surveys for monthly construction phase were conducted during the reporting period. Since there is no landing point along the western part of SKC, boat survey was used for the monitoring survey. In order to increase the chance of finding the WBSEs, monitoring survey was carried out either early in the morning or later in the afternoon. The weather conditions of monitoring survey were shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Weather Conditions during the WBSE Monitoring (Monthly)
Date |
Condition |
Temperature (¢J) |
28 October 2021 |
- Northeast wind force 4 to 5 - Sunny Day |
29 |
25 November 2021 |
- Northeast wind force 4 to 5 - Sunny Day |
23 |
2 December 2021 |
- Northeast wind force 3 to 4 - Sunny Day |
25 |
9 December 2021 |
- North wind force 3 to 4 - Sunny Day |
24 |
16 December 2021 |
- Northeast wind force 4 to 5 - Sunny Day |
22 |
24 December 2021 |
- North wind force 3 to 4 - Sunny Day |
22 |
30 December 2021 |
- North wind force 4 to 5 - Sunny Day |
25 |
7.2.3 No disturbances from anthropogenic activities on the island were recorded during the monitoring survey. No invasion of other fauna species was recorded as well.
Figure 7.1 Location of WBSE Nest on SKC
7.2.4 No invasion of other fauna species was recorded and no sign of using the construction site as a foraging ground was recorded as well. 7.2.5 During the reporting period, no abnormal behaviour of the recorded adults and chick was shown. All marine works during the fortieth to forty-second months construction period did not show any influence on the WBSE. 7.2.6 Photo records of the WBSE taken during the reporting period are presented in Appendix H.
8. Summary of Monitoring Exceedance, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Prosecutions
8.1 No exceedance of the Action and Limit Levels of the regular construction noise, coral and WBSE monitoring was recorded during the reporting period.
8.2 During the general water quality monitoring period for October to December 2021, fifty-five (55) of general water quality monitoring results of suspended solids (SS) obtained had exceeded Action Level. One hundred and four (104) of general water quality monitoring results of SS obtained during the reporting period had exceeded the Limit Level. Three (3) of the general water quality monitoring results of dissolved oxygen (DO) obtained had exceeded Action Level. Investigations were carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases during the reporting period.
8.3 No notification of summons and prosecution was received in the reporting period.
8.4 A complaint was received by EPD on 01 December 2021 and referred to the ET, IEC and SO on 15 December 2021. The complaint was related to oil spillage/leakage and the use of restricted liquid fuel. Investigation including reviewing contract¡¦s precautionary measure and their training mechanism against chemical/ oil spillage, carrying out follow-up site visit of the oil filling operation and reviewing the laboratory report of the sulfur content of fuel oil used in the past five months has been conducted by ET. After the investigation, it was considered that no non-compliance had been found for the oil filling operation, chemical leakage/spillage and sulfur content of fuel oil.
8.5 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix I.
9. EM&A Site Inspection
9.1 Site inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation measures under the Contract. Site inspections were carried out at the Site Portions 1, 1A, 1B during the reporting period. Portions 1, 1A & 1B were the sites near SKC within the Site boundary.
9.2 Joint site inspection with IEC was carried out on a monthly basis.
9.3 Minor deficiencies were observed during weekly site inspection. Key observations during the site inspections are summarized below:
¡P Prevention actions for oil/chemical spillage were not carried out properly
¡P Chemical was not stored properly at designated storage place
¡P Chemical waste was not stored in chemical waste cabinet and the cabinet was not
locked up
¡P Non-road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) label was not displayed properly
¡P Dust control measures to exposed earth surface and stockpile of dusty material were
not carried out properly
¡P Housekeeping was not maintained and general waste was not stored in enclosed
rubbish bin
¡P Stagnant water inside the drip tray of generator should be cleaned
9.4 The Contractor had rectified all of the observations identified during environmental site inspections in the reporting period.
9.5 According to the EIA Study Report, Environmental Permit, contract documents and Updated EM&A Manual, the mitigation measures detailed in the documents, except the silt curtain system, are implemented as much as practical during the reporting period. An updated Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is provided in Appendix B.
10. Conclusion and Recommendations
10.1 This 14th Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report summarizes the EM&A works undertaken during the period from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021 in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the requirement under EP- 429/2012/A and FEP-01/429/2012/A.
10.2 Construction noise, water quality, construction waste, coral, marine mammal and White-Bellied Sea Eagle (WBSE) monitoring were carried out in the reporting period. No project-related exceedance of the Action and Limit Levels was recorded during the reporting period.
10.3 Weekly environmental site inspections were conducted during the reporting period. Environmental deficiencies were observed during site inspection and were rectified.
10.4 According to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting period, the Contractor was reminded to pay attention on on-site housekeeping, the proper storage of the chemicals, chemical waste and construction waste, dust control measure for exposed earth surface and stockpile of dusty material and the proper NRMM labelling.
10.5 A complaint regarding oil spillage/leakage and the use of restricted liquid fuel was received by EPD on 1 December 2021. After the investigation, it was considered that no non-compliance had been found for the oil filling operation, chemical leakage/spillage and sulfur content of fuel oil.
10.6 No notification of summons or prosecution was received since commencement of the Contract.
10.7 The ET will keep track on the construction works to confirm compliance of environmental requirements and the proper implementation of all necessary mitigation measures.