Development of the Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1

Table 2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration

Parameter, unit

Frequency

No. of Depths

· Water Depth (m)

· Temperature (oC)

· Salinity (ppt)

· pH (pH unit)

· Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L and % of saturation)

· Turbidity (NTU)

· Suspended Solids (SS), mg/L

· Total alkalinity (mg/L)

· Current velocity (m/s)

· Direction

General water quality monitoring and post DCM 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 less than 6m, mid-depth may be omitted.

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring Locations 2.3.1 Impact water quality monitoring was conducted at eleven monitoring locations (B1-B4, H1, C1, C2, F1, CR1, CR2 & M1) during general water quality monitoring as shown in Figure 2.1. As per the relocation proposal verified by IEC and approved by EPD, the monitoring location C1, C2, S2, F1 are relocated at C1A, C2A, S2A, F1A as equivalent points respectively to clear up the concerns from stakeholders.

Figure 2.1 Water monitoring locations at Artificial Island near SKC

2.3.2 B1 to B4 are located at 4 beaches respectively at the southern shore of Lantau Island. Monitoring station H1 is located at the horseshoe crab habitat at northern SKC, while CR1 and CR2 are located at the coral communities at southwestern shore of SKC. Monitoring station F1 is located at the Cheung Sha Wan Fish Culture Zone while monitoring station M1 is located at Tung Wan at Cheung Chau. Monitoring station F1A is relocated for F1 at the Cheung Sha Wan Fish Culture Zone. S1, S2 and S3 are located at the northern landing site, midway and southern landing site of the proposed submarine cable, respectively. S2A is the relocated monitoring station of S2 which represents the midway landing site of the proposed submarine cable. S1, S2/S2A and S3 are required for monitoring due to the laying of submarine cable. Control stations C1 and C2 at far field locations are for comparison. Control stations C1A and C2A are relocated for C1 and C2 respectively as equivalent far field locations for comparison. 2.3.3 Fourteen monitoring stations are listed in Table 2.2:

Table 2.2 Locations of Marine Water Quality Stations

Monitoring station	Description	Easting	Northing
B1	Beach Cheung Sha Lower	813342	810316
B2	Beach Pui O	815340	811025
B3	Beach Yi Long Wan	817210	808395
B4	Beach Tai Long Wan	817784	808682
H1	Horseshoe Crab Shek Kwu Chau	816477	806953
C1	Control Station (note i)	810850	806288
C1A	Relocated Control Station	812823	806300
C2	Control Station (note ii)	819421	808053
C2A	Relocated Control Station	818869	806808
F1	Cheung Sha Wan Fish Culture Zone (note iii)	818631	810966
F1A	Cheung Sha Wan Fish Culture Zone	819109	810924
S1	Submarine Cable Landing Site	814245	810335
S2	Submarine Cable (note iv)	815076	807747
S2A	Submarine Cable	814808	808515
S3	Submarine Cable Landing Site	816420	805621
CR1	Coral	817144	805597
CR2	Coral	816512	805882
M1	Tung Wan	821572	807799

Note:

i. Relocated to C1A in Mar 2019

ii. Relocated to C2A in Mar 2019

iii. Relocated to S2A in Mar 2019

iv. Relocated to F1A in Mar 2019

2.4 Impact Monitoring Methodology 2.4.1 General water quality monitoring and post DCM water monitoring were conducted three days per week, at mid-flood and mid-ebb tides, at the designated water quality monitoring stations during the reporting period. 2.4.2 The interval between 2 sets of monitoring was not less than 36 hours. Sampling was collected at three water depths, namely, 1m below water surface, mid-depth and 1m above seabed, except where the water depth is less than 6m, the mid-depth was omitted. If the water depth was less than 3m, only the mid-depth station was monitored. 2.4.3 All observations and results were recorded in the data record sheets in Appendix D. Duplicate in-situ measurements and water sampling were carried out in each sampling event. The monitoring probes were retrieved out of water after the first measurement and then redeployed for the second measurement. When the difference in value between the first and second readings of DO or turbidity is more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the reading would be discarded and further readings would be taken.

In-situ Measurement

2.4.4 Levels of DO, pH, temperature, turbidity and salinity would be measured in-situ by portable and weatherproof measuring instrument, e.g. YSI ProDSS and Horiba U-53 Multiparameter complete with cable and sensor. (Refer to http://www.ysi.com/ProDSS for YSI ProDSS technical specification and http://www.horiba.com/process-environmental/products/water-treatment-environment/details/u-50-multiparameter-water-quality-checker-368/ for Horiba U-53 technical specification ). Water current velocity and Water Current direction would be measured by portable and weatherproof current meter, e.g. SonTek Hydrosurveyor (Refer to https://www.sontek.com/media/pdfs/riversurveyor-s5-m9-brochure.pdf for SonTek Hydrosurveyor M9 technical specification). Parameters measured by in-situ measurement is tabulated in Table 2.3

Table 2.3 Parameters Measured by In-situ Measurement

Parameter	Resolution	Range
Temperature	0.1 oC	-5-70 oC
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)	0.01 mg/L	0-50.0 mg/L
Turbidity	0.1 NTU	0-1000 NTU
pH	pH 0.01	pH 0-14
Salinity	0.01 ppt	0-40 ppt
Water Current Velocity	0.001m/s	±20m/s
Water Current Direction	±1o	±2o

Laboratory Analysis

2.4.5 Analysis of Total Alkalinity and SS shall be carried out in a HOKLAS accredited laboratory, as shown in Appendix E. Sufficient water samples shall be collected at the monitoring stations for carrying out the laboratory determinations. The determination work shall be started within 24 hours after collection of the water samples. Analytical methods and detection limits for SS and total alkalinity are presented in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Analytical Methods Applied to Water Quality Samples

Parameter	Analytical method	Detection Level
Suspended Solids, SS	APHA 2540 Di	1 mg/L
Total Alkalinity	APHA 2320	0.01 mg/L

Footnote:

i. APHA 2540 D stands for American Public Health Association Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd Edition.

Field Log

2.4.6 Other relevant data was recorded, such as: monitoring location / position, time, water depth, weather conditions and any special phenomena underway near the monitoring station. 2.5 Monitoring Equipment 2.5.1 Equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme is summarized in Table 2.5 below. Calibration certificates for the water quality monitoring equipment are attached in Appendix F.

Table 2.5 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

Monitored Parameter	Equipment	Brand and Model
DO, Temperature, Salinity, pH and Turbidity	Multi-functional Meter	Horiba U-53
Coordinates	Positioning Equipment	Garmin GPSMAP 78s
Water depth	Water Depth Detector	Hummingbird 160 Portable
SS and Alkalinity	Water Sampler	Wildco 2 L Water Sampler with messenger

2.5.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Measuring Equipment

The instrument is a portable and weatherproof DO probe mounted on the multi-functional meter complete with cable and sensor and is powered by a DC supply source. The equipment was capable of measuring:

l A DO level in the range of 0 ‑ 50 mg/L; and

l Temperature of -5 ‑ 70 degree Celsius.

2.5.3 Turbidity Measurement Instrument

The instrument is a portable and weatherproof turbidity-measuring probe mounted on the multi-functional meter and is powered by a DC supply source. The instrument is equipped with a photoelectric sensor which is capable of measuring turbidity between 0 1000 NTU.

2.5.4 pH Measurement Instrument

The probe consists of a potentiometer, a glass electrode, a reference electrode and a temperature-compensating device mounted on the multi-functional meter. It is readable to 0.1 pH in a range of 0 to 14. Standard buffer solutions of at least pH 7 and pH 10 were used for calibration of the instrument before and after use.

2.5.5 Salinity Measurement Instrument

A portable salinometer mounted on the multi-functional meter capable of measuring salinity in the range of 0-40 parts per thousand (ppt) was provided for measuring salinity of the water at each monitoring location.

2.5.6 Sampler

The water sampler comprises a transparent PVC cylinder, with a capacity of not less than 2 litres, which can be effectively sealed with latex cups at both ends. The sampler has a positive latching system to keep it open and prevent premature closure until released by a messenger when the sampler is at the selected water depth.

2.5.7 Sample Containers and Storage

Water samples for SS were stored in high density polythene bottles with no preservative added, packed in ice (cooled to 4°C without being frozen) and delivered to the laboratory and analysed as soon as possible after collection. Sufficient volume of samples was collected to achieve the detection limit stated in Table 2.4.

2.5.8 Water Depth Detector

A portable, battery-operated echo sounder was used for the determination of water depth at each designated monitoring station. This unit could either be hand-held or affixed to the bottom of the work boat, if the same vessel is to be used throughout the monitoring programme.

2.5.9 Monitoring Position Equipment

Hand-held digital Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with way point bearing indication and Radio Technical Commission for maritime (RTCM) Type 16 error message screen pop-up facilities (for real-time auto-display of error messages and DGPS corrections from the Hong Kong Hydrographic Office) was provided and used to ensure that the water sampling locations were correct during the water quality monitoring work.

2.6 Maintenance and Calibration 2.6.1 The multi-functional meters were checked and calibrated before use. Multi-functional meters were certified by a laboratory accredited under HOKLAS or any other international accreditation scheme, and subsequently re-calibrated at three monthly intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring. Responses of sensors and electrodes were checked with certified standard solutions before each use. Wet bulb calibration for a DO meter was carried out before commencement of monitoring and after completion of all measurements each day. Calibration was not conducted at each monitoring location as daily calibration is adequate for the type of DO meter employed. 2.6.2 Sufficient stocks of spare parts were provided and maintained for replacements when necessary. Backup monitoring equipment was prepared for uninterrupted monitoring during equipment maintenance or calibration during monitoring.
2.7 Action and Limit Levels 2.7.1 The Action and Limit Levels have been set based on the derivation criteria specified in the Updated EM&A Manual and Detailed DCM Plan, as shown in Table 2.6 below.

Table 2.6 Criteria of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Parameters	Action	Limit
Construction Phase Impact Monitoring
DO in mg/L	≤ 5 %-ile of baseline data	≤ 4
SS in mg/L	≥ 95 %-ile of baseline data or 120% of control stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 99 %-ile of baseline data or 130% of control stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Turbidity in NTU	≥ 95 %-ile of baseline data or 120% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 99 %-ile of baseline data or 130% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Temperature in°C	1.8°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day	2°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day
Total Alkalinity in mg/L	≥ 95 %-ile of baseline data or 120% of representative control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher	≥ 99 %-ile of baseline data or 130% of representative control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher

2.7.2 Based on the baseline monitoring data and the derivation criteria specified above, the Action/Limit Levels have been derived and are presented in Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 for both dry seasons (October March) and wet seasons (April September).

Table 2.7 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 stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 10 or 130% of control stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Turbidity in NTU	≥ 5.6 or 120% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 12.8 or 130% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Temperature in°C	1.8°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day	2°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day
Total Alkalinity in mg/L	≥116 or 120% of control stations Total Alkalinity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 118 or 130% of control stations Total Alkalinity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher

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 2.8 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 stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 14 or 130% of control stations SS at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Turbidity in NTU	≥ 4.0 or 120% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 4.3 or 130% of control stations turbidity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher
Temperature in°C	1.8°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day	2°C above the temperature recorded at representative control station at the same tide of the same day
Total Alkalinity in mg/L	≥ 116 mg/L or 120% of representative control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher	≥ 118 mg/L or 130% of representative control station at the same tide of the same day, whichever is higher

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.

2.7.3 If exceedances were found during water quality monitoring, the actions in accordance with the Event and Action Plan shall be carried out according to Appendix G. 2.8 Monitoring Results and Observations 2.8.1 As confirmed by the Contractor on 14 October 2020, all DCM works was completed on 14 October 2020, the post DCM water quality monitoring is required for further 4 weeks (i.e. from 16 October 2020 to 14 November 2020) according to the approved Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing. General water quality monitoring at all the eleven monitoring stations and post DCM monitoring including monitoring stations S1, S2A and S3 were conducted on 2, 4, 6, 10, 12 & 14 November 2020 for post DCM monitoring and on 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28 & 30 November 2020 for general water quality monitoring respectively 2.8.2 Monitoring results of 6 key parameters: Salinity, DO, turbidity, SS, Alkalinity, pH, temperature, water current velocity (for post DCM monitoring) and water current direction (for post DCM monitoring) in this reporting, are summarized in Table 2.9, and details results are presented in Appendix D.

Table 2.9 Summary of Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results

Locations		Parameters
		Salinity (ppt)	Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)		pH	Turbidity (NTU)	Suspended Solids (mg/L)	Temp.(oC)	Total Alkalinity (mg/L) note ii
		Salinity (ppt)	Surface & Middle	Bottom	pH	Turbidity (NTU)	Suspended Solids (mg/L)	Temp.(oC)	Total Alkalinity (mg/L) note ii
B1	Avg.	30.56	8.54	8.54	8.25	3.2	8.26	25.1	111.0
	Min.	29.20	7.08	7.08	7.87	2.3	2.00	22.7	108.0
	Max.	31.66	10.19	10.19	8.69	3.9	31.00	28.8	116.0
B2	Avg.	30.59	8.44	8.56	8.24	3.1	8.51	25.1	111.1
	Min.	29.22	7.32	7.09	7.79	2.3	3.00	22.7	108.0
	Max.	31.66	9.61	10.05	8.68	4.1	31.00	28.7	116.0
B3	Avg.	30.59	8.53	8.62	8.23	3.2	8.51	25.1	111.0
	Min.	29.27	7.16	7.02	7.84	2.1	3.00	22.5	108.0
	Max.	31.74	10.07	9.90	8.61	4.4	31.00	28.8	115.0
B4	Avg.	30.68	8.45	8.60	8.21	3.1	8.05	25.1	111.5
	Min.	29.34	7.14	7.03	7.76	2.2	3.00	22.6	108.0
	Max.	31.59	9.91	10.24	8.62	4.1	28.00	28.6	114.0
C1A	Avg.	30.58	8.56	8.50	8.24	3.1	7.69	25.0	111.5
	Min.	29.34	6.96	7.25	7.81	2.0	2.00	22.3	109.0
	Max.	31.75	10.14	9.72	8.68	4.0	30.00	28.6	115.0
C2A	Avg.	30.64	8.50	8.50	8.23	3.1	8.35	25.1	111.6
	Min.	29.36	7.15	7.15	7.85	2.2	3.00	22.6	108.0
	Max.	31.67	10.07	9.95	8.69	4.0	31.00	28.9	115.0
CR1	Avg.	30.60	8.53	8.50	8.24	3.2	8.25	25.0	111.4
	Min.	29.22	7.15	7.01	7.79	2.0	3.00	22.5	108.0
	Max.	31.70	9.87	10.14	8.67	4.1	32.00	28.8	115.0
CR2	Avg.	30.61	8.58	8.52	8.23	3.2	8.69	25.0	111.5
	Min.	29.19	7.21	6.85	7.86	2.1	3.00	22.4	108.0
	Max.	31.64	10.30	10.17	8.65	4.5	29.00	28.8	116.0
F1A	Avg.	30.58	8.53	8.49	8.22	3.2	9.11	25.0	111.2
	Min.	29.18	7.09	7.03	7.76	2.3	3.00	22.5	108.0
	Max.	31.74	9.81	10.06	8.64	4.2	32.00	28.7	115.0
H1	Avg.	30.63	8.61	8.48	8.22	3.0	8.64	25.0	111.5
	Min.	29.36	7.24	6.89	7.79	2.2	3.00	22.3	108.0
	Max.	31.73	9.99	10.09	8.65	4.0	29.00	28.7	115.0
M1	Avg.	30.62	8.57	8.57	8.23	3.2	8.71	25.0	111.7
	Min.	29.37	7.15	6.84	7.76	2.4	4.00	22.3	108.0
	Max.	31.61	10.21	10.01	8.69	4.2	30.00	28.6	115.0
S1	Avg.	30.90	8.28	8.21	8.16	3.2	7.21	25.8	111.9
	Min.	29.96	7.14	6.83	7.82	2.3	4.00	23.6	107.0
	Max.	31.74	9.92	9.39	8.60	4.0	11.00	28.8	115.0
S2A	Avg.	30.89	8.25	8.27	8.14	3.1	7.35	25.9	111.4
	Min.	30.00	6.97	7.06	7.76	2.4	4.00	23.7	108.0
	Max.	31.74	10.28	10.24	8.61	3.9	17.00	28.9	115.0
S3	Avg.	30.88	8.31	8.37	8.16	3.1	7.50	25.7	111.6
	Min.	30.05	7.12	7.29	7.83	2.2	4.00	23.5	108.0
	Max.	31.63	10.31	10.01	8.61	4.0	18.00	28.8	116.0

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.

ii. Total alkalinity test was only conducted for further 4 weeks after the completion of DCM works (14 October 2020) with reference to master programme in Appendix A.

iii. Monitoring at S1, S2A and S3 shall only be conducted for further 4 weeks after the completion of DCM works (14 October 2020) referring to master programme in Appendix A.

2.8.3 During the impact monitoring period for November 2020, ten (10) of general & post DCM water quality monitoring results of suspended solids (SS) obtained had exceeded Action Level. Eleven (11) of general & post DCM water quality monitoring results of SS obtained during the reporting period had exceeded the Limit Level. 2.8.4 Details of the exceedance are presented in Section 8. 2.8.5 Mitigation measures minimizing the adverse impacts on water implemented are listed in the implementation schedule given in Appendix B.

3. Noise Monitoring 3.1 Monitoring Requirements 3.1.1 To ensure no adverse noise impact, noise monitoring is recommended to be carried out at the nearby noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) during construction phase. 3.1.2 In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, baseline noise level at the noise monitoring stations was established as presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report. Impact noise monitoring was conducted once per week in the form of 30-minutes measurements Leq, L10 and L90 levels recorded at each monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 hours on normal weekdays. 3.1.3 In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual, additional weekly impact monitoring should be carried out during respective restricted hours period (1900 0700 hours) if the construction works were conducted at evening and night time. Additional weekly noise monitoring was conducted once per week in the form of 5-minutes measurements Leq, L10 and L90 levels recorded at each monitoring station between 1900 and 0700 hours as well as public holidays and Sundays. 3.2 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Time, Frequency 3.2.1 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. 3.2.2 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 5mins 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. The monitoring schedule is provided in Appendix C.

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

3.3 Noise Monitoring Locations 3.3.1 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

3.3.2 M1, M2 and M3 are Shek Kwu Chau Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre Hostel 1, 2 and 3 respectively of The Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Abusers (SARDA) located at southern part of Shek Kwu Chau. 3.3.3 Measurements at M1 & M3 were conducted at a point 1m from the exterior of the sensitive receivers building façade and at a position 1.2m above the ground. Measurement setup at M3 has been varying with minor adjustment to minimize the disturbance to the users of Treatment Centre. Measurement at M2 was conducted at a point 1m from building façade of the ceiling of 1st floor level for avoidance of mutual disturbance with users of Treatment Centre. The minor adjustment of monitoring locations, which were in favour to mutual convenience with the users of Treatment Centre, were found with no effect on monitoring result based on on-site observation and experience from the Baseline monitoring of the Project. The noise monitoring stations are summarized in Table 3.2 below.

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

3.4 Impact Monitoring Methodology 3.4.1 At each designated monitoring location, measurements of six 5-minutes A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level [Leq 5min] was carried out between 0700 and 1900 hours for daytime measurements on a normal weekdays (exclude Sunday or general holiday). The measured six impact noise levels at each monitoring location shall then be averaged in logarithmic scale and expressed in terms of the 30 minutes A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq 30min) for the time period between 0700 and 1900 hours on normal weekdays. 3.4.2 At each designated monitoring location, measurements of three 5-minutes A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level [Leq 5min] was carried out between 1900 and 0700 hours for evening time and night time measurements. 3.4.3 The monitoring procedures are as follows:

l The microphone head of the lead level meter was normally positioned 1m exterior of the noise sensitive façade and lowered sufficiently so that the buildings external wall acts as a reflecting surface.

l If there is a problem with the access to the normal monitoring position, an alternative may be chosen and appropriate correction would be applied according to acoustic principle when necessary. For reference, +3 dB(A) correction would be made for free-filed measurements.

l The battery condition was checked to ensure good functioning of the meter.

l Parameters such as frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were set as follows:

- Frequency weight: A

- Time weighting: Fast

- Measurement time: 5 minutes

l Prior to and after noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the calibrator for 94.0 dB at 1000Hz. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement is more than 1.0 dB, the measurement was considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement was required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.

l For Noise monitoring was carried out for 30 mins by sound level meter. At the end of the monitoring period, noise levels in terms of Leq, L10 and L90 were recorded. In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded when the equipment were checked and inspected.

l All the monitoring data within the sound level meter system was downloaded through the computer software.

3.5 Monitoring Equipment 3.5.1 Integrated sound level meter was used for the noise monitoring. The meter shall comply with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651: 1979 (Type 1) and 804: 1985 (Type 1) specifications. 3.5.2 Equipment used in the impact noise monitoring programme is summarized in Table 3.3 below. Calibration certificates for the noise monitoring equipment are attached in Appendix H.

Table 3.3 Impact Noise Monitoring Equipment

Equipment

Brand and Model

Sound Level Meter

NTi XL2

SVANTEK 971

Sound Level Meter Calibrator

Pulsar 105

3.6 Maintenance and Calibration 3.6.1 The maintenance and calibration procedures were as follows:

l The microphone head of the sound level meter and calibrator were cleaned with a soft cloth at quarterly intervals.

l The sound level meter and calibrator were checked and calibrated at yearly intervals

l Immediately prior to and following each noise measurement the accuracy of the sound level meter shall be checked using an acoustic calibrator generating a known sound pressure level at a known frequency. Measurements may be accepted as valid only if the calibration levels from before and after the noise measurement agree to within 1.0dB.

3.7 Action and Limit Levels 3.7.1 The Action/Limit Levels in line with the criteria of Practice Note for Professional Persons (ProPECC PN 2/93) Noise from Construction Activities 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 3.4.

Table 3.4 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)

Notes: If works are to be carried out during restricted hours, the conditions stipulated in the Construction Noise Permit (CNP) issued by the Noise Control Authority have to be followed.

3.7.2 If exceedances were found during noise monitoring. The actions in accordance with the Event and Action Plan shall be carried out according to Appendix I. 3.8 Monitoring Results and Observations 3.8.1 Impact monitoring for noise impact for daytime was carried out on 2, 9, 16, 23 November 2020. Impact monitoring for noise impact for evening time and night time was carried out on 2&3, 9&10, 16&17, 23&24 November 2020. The impact noise levels at Noise Monitoring Stations at SKC (i.e. M1/N_S1 to M3/N_S3) are summarized in Table 3.6, Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 respectively. Details of noise monitoring results are presented in Appendix J. 3.8.2 Major construction activity, major noise source and extreme weather which might affect the results were recorded during the impact monitoring. 3.8.3 According to our field observations, the major noise source identified at the alternative noise monitoring station in the reporting month are summarised in Table 3.5. No noticeable noise source was found near the monitoring station M2 and air conditioning units were observed nearby monitoring stations M1 and M3.

Table 3.5 Summary of Field Observation

Monitoring Station	Major Noise Source
M1	Air-conditioning units
M2	Nil
M3	Air-conditioning units

No data from impact monitoring during daytime has exceeded the stipulated limit level at 75 dB(A).

Table 3.6 Summary of Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Day Time (0700 1900 hours)

Location	Measured Noise Level in dB(A)
Location	Range of Leq 30min	Range of L10 30min	Range of L90 30min
M1	54.5 61.8	56.4 68.3	46.7 60.4
M2	56.1 65.1	60.3 67.3	45.8 61.6
M3	51.3 56.8	59.8 66.9	49.4 54.9

Applicable mitigation measures for construction works are fully implemented as shown in Appendix B, where double-glazed windows and air conditioning system were also installed and confirmed operable for the NSRs (N_S1, N_S2 & N_S3).

During the noise monitoring event, frontline staff of ET had inquired the treatment centre users on any noise disturbance from the construction activities at evening and night time, where no complaint and adverse opinions was received.

Data from impact monitoring during evening time and night time were compared with the NCO criteria. Where site inspection and auditing on Contractors record have shown that the conditions stipulated in the Construction Noise Permit (CNP) issued by the Noise Control Authority for construction works during restricted hours were followed. No inappropriate practice was spotted during evening time and night time construction works, thus the stipulated requirement on noise impact control during night time and evening time was achieved.

Table 3.7 Summary of Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Evening Time (1900 2300 hours)

Location	Measured Noise Level in dB(A)
Location	Range of Leq 5min	Range of L10 5min	Range of L90 5min
M1	48.7 61.7	54.8 66.4	46.6 59.8
M2	52.4 60.0	55.6 68.9	48.2 59.9
M3	49.0 56.1	50.4 60.4	45.4 54.5

Table 3.8 Summary of Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Night Time (2300 0700 hours)

Location	Measured Noise Level in dB(A)
Location	Range of Leq 5min	Range of L10 5min	Range of L90 5min
M1	50.8 64.8	55.0 67.3	42.2 62.4
M2	50.9 61.8	55.5 68.5	46.4 58.9
M3	49.0 57.5	52.9 63.2	42.5 56.9

5. Coral

5.1 Coral Monitoring Requirements 5.1.1 To monitor the health condition of corals during different phases, corals located within areas likely to be affected by the Project, corals located at control sites (areas unlikely to be affected by the Project), the trans-located coral colonies as well as the tagged natural coral colonies at the recipient site were chosen, in order to identify any adverse indirect impact from the marine works. The size, percentage cover and health condition of corals (i.e. any sign of abnormal appearance, such as layer of mucus, bleaching, partial mortality etc.) at representative transects should be recorded during each monitoring. 5.2 Coral Monitoring Parameters, Time, Frequency 5.2.1 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) survey was conducted on 26 June 2018 at the suggested control site and indirect impact site within two weeks before commencement of the construction work which was 29 June 2018. 10 selected hard coral colonies with the similar species were tagged at both control and indirect impact sites. Following coral translocation in the recipient site R3, 16 coral colonies attached to rocks less than 50 cm in diameter were translocated and tagged, as well as 10 selected natural coral colonies, at the recipient site. One additional REA survey was conducted in December 2018 to further assess the seabed condition at Indirect Impact Site after Typhoon Mangkhut. 5.2.2 Tagged coral colonies at the suggested control site and indirect impact site are being monitored weekly for the first month and followed by monthly monitoring for two months. Quarterly monitoring will be carried out after the first three-months monthly monitoring for until the end of the construction phase. The selected Control Site is located at Yuen Kong Chau of Soko Islands about 7 km away from the project area. Tagged coral colonies at the proposed recipient site are being monitored quarterly for one year. The selected recipient site R3 is located at the opposite side of the Project area at about 2 km away. The detailed survey of the Control Site and Impact Site were conducted before the commencement of the Construction Phase. 5.2.3 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 tagged coral colony. The general environmental conditions including weather, sea, and tidal conditions of impact site, control site and recipient site were monitored. 5.2.4 Table 5.1 summarizes the monitoring locations, time and frequency of the tagged coral colonies monitoring. The monitoring schedule is provided in Appendix C.

Table 5.1 Tagged Coral Monitoring Locations, Time and Frequency

Monitoring Location	Monitoring Month/Year	Frequency	No. of Monitoring Survey
10 selected hard coral colonies at control site / indirect impact site	1st Month	Weekly Survey	4
	2nd to 3th Months	Monthly Survey	2
	4th Month (postponed to 5th month due to diver accident in Shek Kwu Chau in October 2018)	Re-tagging of Coral Colonies in Indirect Impact Site after Typhoon Mangkhut
	4th Month (postponed to 5th month due to diver accident in Shek Kwu Chau in October 2018 and further postpone to 6th month due to adverse weather)	Re-tagging of Coral Colonies in Control Site after Typhoon Mangkhut
	5th Month (postponed to 6th month due to diver accident in Shek Kwu Chau and further postponed to 7th month due to delay of re-tagging activities at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site)	Post Re-tagging Monthly Survey	1
	7th to 76th Months (postponed to 8th to 76th month due to diver accident in Shek Kwu Chau in October 2018)	Quarterly Survey	23
16 translocated hard coral colonies and 10 selected natural hard coral colonies at recipient site R3	1st Year	Quarterly Survey	4

5.3 Coral Monitoring Locations 5.3.1 Location of the ten tagged coral colonies at each of the proposed indirect impact site (re-tagging after typhoon Mangkhut), control site (baseline) and recipient site R3 (translocation) 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

5.3.2 The GPS coordinates of the tagged coral colonies, retagged coral colonies and recipient site were shown in Table 5.2, Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 respectively.

Table 5.2 Tagged Natural Corals during Baseline and Re-tagged Natural Corals after Typhoon Manghkut at Control Site near Yuen Long Chau

Coral #	GPS Coordinates
1	N22°0945.96	E113°5457.81
2R	N22°1129.12	E113°5909.01
3	N22°0945.81	E113°5457.78
4	N22°0945.70	E113°5457.95
5R	N22°1129.10	E113°5909.18
6	N22°0945.75	E113°5458.02
7R	N22°1129.17	E113°5908.86
7	N22°0945.65	E113°5457.94
8	N22°0945.53	E113°5457.90
9	N22°0946.23	E113°5454.70
10R	N22°1129.18	E113°5908.91

Notes:

i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.

Table 5.3 Re-tagged Natural Corals after Typhoon Manghkut at Indirect Impact Site near SKC

Coral # note i	GPS Coordinates
11R	N22°1129.14	E113°5908.92
12R	N22°1129.12	E113°5909.01
13R	N22°1129.11	E113°5909.07
14R	N22°1129.13	E113°5909.12
15R	N22°1129.10	E113°5909.18
16R	N22°1129.07	E113°5909.23
17R	N22°1129.17	E113°5908.86
18R	N22°1129.14	E113°5908.94
19R	N22°1129.20	E113°5908.81
20R	N22°1129.18	E113°5908.91

Notes:

i. The re-tagged corals were marked as ##R.

Table 5.4 GPS Coordinates of Recipient Site R3

Site	GPS Coordinates
R3	N22°1143.69	E113°28.99

5.4 Impact Monitoring Methodology 5.4.1 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.

5.5 Action and Limit Levels 5.5.1 Monitoring result was reviewed and compared against the below Action Level and Limit Level (AL/LL) as set with the below Table 5.5 and Table 5.6.

Table 5.5 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 5.6 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.

5.5.2 If exceedance was found during coral monitoring. The actions in accordance with the Event and Action Plan should be carried out according to Appendix L. 5.6 Monitoring Results and Observations 5.6.1 No coral monitoring survey had been done during the reporting period and the 8th quarterly coral monitoring during construction phase at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site would be scheduled in December 2020.

6. Marine Mammal

6.1 Monitoring Requirements 6.1.1 The marine mammal monitoring programme would focus on Finless Porpoise, as the study area near Shek Kwu Chau has been identified as a hotspot for this species, while the Chinese White Dolphins rarely occurred there in the past. 6.1.2 The monitoring will verify the predicted impacts on marine mammals, and examine whether the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA report have been effectively implemented to protect marine mammals from negative impacts from construction activities. 6.1.3 The Vessel-based Line-transect Survey, the Passive Acoustic Monitoring and the Land-based Theodolite Tracking will be conducted to provide systematic, quantitative measurements of occurrence, encounter rate, habitat use, movement and behavioural patterns of marine mammals within or near the Project Area during construction and operational phases. 6.1.4 The mammal monitoring works during construction consist of the following three survey methods:

· Vessel-based Line-transect Survey to monitor the occurrence of Finless Porpoises (and Chinese White Dolphins) in the study area during construction works, by comparing with the findings of the pre-construction marine mammal monitoring;

· Passive Acoustic Monitoring to study the usage of the Project Area and two control sites in South Lantau Waters by Finless Porpoise during construction works, in reference with the baseline findings of the pre-construction marine mammal monitoring; and

· Land-based Theodolite Tracking to study the movement and behavioral pattern of Finless Porpoise within and around the Project Area during construction works.

6.1.5 The marine mammal observation works of Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone (MMEZ) and Marine Mammal Watching as two of the specific mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA report shall be fully and properly implemented for the Project to minimize disturbance on Finless Porpoise during construction and operational phases. 6.2 Survey Methods 6.2.1 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

6.2.1.1 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.

6.2.1.2 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:

line transect

Figure 6.1 Line Transects for Marine Mammal Surveys

6.2.1.3 The surveys should cover all 4 seasons in order to take natural fluctuation and seasonal variations into account for data analysis of distribution, encounter rate, density and habitat use of both porpoises and dolphins (if any). In comparison to the baseline monitoring results, results from the analysed construction phase monitoring data would allow the detection of any changes of their usage of habitat, in response to the scheduled construction works. The monitoring surveys shall be conducted throughout the construction phase involving marine construction work with the frequency shown in Table 6.1 below:

Table 6.1 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Frequency

Season	Months	Frequency
Peak Season	December, January, February, March, April & May	Twice per month
Non-peak Season	June, July, August, September, October & November	Once per month

6.2.1.4 For each vessel survey, a 15-m inboard vessel with an open upper deck (about 4.5 m above water surface) would be used to make observations from the flying bridge area. Two experienced marine mammal observers (a data recorder and a primary observer) would make up the on-effort survey team, and the survey vessel would transit different transect lines at a constant speed of 13-15 km per hour. The data recorder shall search with unaided eyes and fill out the datasheets, while the primary observer shall search for dolphins and porpoises continuously through 7 x 50 marine binoculars. Both observers shall search the sea ahead of the vessel, between 270o and 90o (in relation to the bow, which is defined as 0°). Two additional experienced observers shall be available on the boat to work in shift (i.e. rotate every 30 minutes) in order to minimize fatigue of the survey team members. All observers shall be experienced in small cetacean survey techniques and identifying local cetacean species with extensive training by marine mammal specialist of the ET.

6.2.1.5 During on-effort survey periods, the survey team shall record effort data including time, position (latitude and longitude), weather conditions (Beaufort sea state and visibility), and distance travelled in each series (a continuous period of search effort) with the assistance of a handheld GPS (Garmin eTrex Legend). Data including time, position and vessel speed would also be automatically and continuously logged by handheld GPS throughout the entire survey for subsequent review.

6.2.1.6 When porpoises or dolphins are sighted, the survey team shall end the survey effort, and immediately record the initial sighting distance and angle of the porpoise or dolphin group from the survey vessel, as well as the sighting time and position. Then the research vessel shall be diverted from its course to approach the animals for species identification, group size estimation, assessment of group composition, behavioural observations, and collection of identification photos (feasible only for Chinese White Dolphin). The perpendicular distance (PSD) of the porpoise or dolphin group to the transect line would then be calculated from the initial sighting distance and angle, which shall be used in the line-transect analysis for density and abundance estimation.

6.2.1.7 The line-transect survey data shall be integrated with a Geographic Information System (GIS) to visualize and interpret different spatial and temporal patterns of porpoise and dolphin distribution using their sighting positions collected from vessel surveys. Location data of porpoise and dolphin groups would be plotted on map layers of Hong Kong using a desktop GIS (e.g. ArcView© 3.1) to examine their distribution patterns in details. The encounter rate could be used as an indicator to determine areas or time periods of importance to porpoises within the study area. For encounter rate analysis of finless porpoises, only survey data collected under Beaufort 2 or below condition would be used for encounter rate analysis.

6.2.1.8 To take into account of the variations of survey effort across different sections within survey area, the quantitative grid analysis of habitat use would be conducted to examine finless porpoise usage among 1-km2 grids within the Southeast Lantau survey area. For the grid analysis, SPSE (sighting density) and DPSE (porpoise density) values would be deduced for evaluation on level of porpoise usage. First, positions of on-effort porpoise sightings from the study period are plotted onto 68 grids (1 km x 1 km each) within the survey area. Sighting density grids and porpoise density grids shall then be normalized with the amount of survey effort conducted within each grid. The total amount of survey effort spent on each grid shall be calculated by examining the survey coverage on each line-transect survey to determine how many times the grid had been surveyed during study period. With the amount of survey effort calculated for each grid, the sighting density and porpoise density of each grid shall be further normalized (i.e. divided by the unit of survey effort).

6.2.1.9 The newly-derived unit for sighting density was termed SPSE, representing the number of on-effort sightings per 100 units of survey effort. In addition, the derived unit for actual porpoise density was termed DPSE, representing the number of dolphins/porpoise per 100 units of survey effort. Among the 1-km2 grids that were partially covered by land, the percentage of sea area was calculated using GIS tools, and their SPSE and DPSE values were adjusted accordingly. The following formulae shall be used to estimate SPSE and DPSE in each 1-km2 grid within the study area:

SPSE = ((S / E) x 100) / SA%

DPSE = ((D / E) x 100) / SA%

where S = total number of on-effort sightings

D = total number of dolphins/porpoises from on-effort sightings

E = total number of units of survey effort

SA% = percentage of sea area

6.2.2 Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

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.

Note*: The alternative PAM device adjacent to the Project site was deployed from 5 Mar to 11 Apr 2019, which contained a full 37 days acoustic monitoring data set. After the confirmation of loss of the original PAM within the Project site, this data set was proposed to replace that of the original one, as consulted with AFCD accordingly.

Figure 6.2 Locations of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

6.2.3 These three detectors will be deployed on-site to carry out 24-hours monitoring for a period listed as Table 6.2 below during the construction phase.

Table 6.2 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

6.2.3.1 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.

6.2.3.2 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.

6.2.4 Land-based Theodolite Tracking

6.2.4.1 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

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 6.3 below, preferably at the initial stage of the construction period (i.e. December 2018 to May 2019).

Table 6.3 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

6.2.4.2 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 was 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.

6.3 Specific Mitigation Measures 6.3.1 Monitored exclusion zones

6.3.1.1 A MMEZ with 250 m distance from silt curtain shall be established during the above situation. If 3 or more construction vessels are required with MMOs duty and operating in close proximity, for the purpose of avoiding accidental entrance to the works area by Marine Mammal, a cluster MMEZ plan will be implemented to form a MMEZ with 250 m distance from the boundary of a work area as indicated in Figure 1 for reference. A team of MMO (i.e. at least two MMOs per day/night shift teams) would be arranged at the out-lying construction vessels to form the cluster MMEZ. The MMEZ serves as a monitoring approach to provide appropriate and immediate actions once finless porpoise or Chinese White Dolphin is sighted within the MMEZ. All MMEZ will be monitored by competent Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) to be provided by the Environmental Team for the IWMF and trained by the Marine Mammal Monitoring Specialist of the ET who is independent from KSZHJV. The marine mammal observer(s) shall be independent of the construction contractor and shall form part of the Environmental Team and have the power to call-off construction activities.

6.3.1.2 According to the Condition 2.25 of the FEP, MMEZ should be implemented 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. Also, marine construction works expected to produce underwater acoustic disturbance as per Condition 2.27 of the FEP, especially within December and May, would require the implementation of MMEZ, which currently all those specific construction activities have been replaced by less acoustically disturbing construction methods such as Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) and Precast Concrete Blocks Installation as discussed in Section 5.3 of the Detailed Monitoring Programme on Finless Porpoise, however, MMEZ would also be implemented for precautionary purpose for DCM works.

6.3.1.3 A MMEZ with 250 m distance from the boundary of a work area shall be established during the above situation. A typical MMEZ is indicated in Figure 6.4 for reference. The MMEZ serves as a monitoring approach to provide appropriate and immediate actions once finless porpoise or Chinese White Dolphin is sighted within the MMEZ. All MMEZ will be monitored by competent Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) to be provided by the Environmental Team (ET) for the IWMF and trained by the Marine Mammal Monitoring Specialist of the ET who is independent from KSZHJV.

Figure 6.4 Illustration of Typical MMEZ

6.3.1.4 Prior to the commencement of construction activity, our MMOs shall ensure the boundary of a marine work area and setting up of the MMEZ for the work area and get access to the monitoring location on a barge or a lookout point where there is no obstructed views for monitoring the MMEZ during the construction activity. The MMEZ shall be scanned thoroughly by a MMO for any presence of marine mammal e.g. finless porpoise for an initial period of 30 minutes. Construction activity shall only be commenced after the MMO has confirmed that the MMEZ is clear of the marine mammal for the initial period of 30 minutes. The MMO shall then inform the construction superintendent through mobile phone or handheld transceivers to certify the commencement of construction activity. The MMEZ monitoring shall be carried on throughout the period for all active construction activities requiring implementation of MMEZ.

6.3.1.5 When any mammal marine, e.g. Finless Porpoise, is detected by the MMO within the MMEZ during construction, the MMO shall inform the construction superintendent immediately through mobile phone or handheld transceivers to cease construction activity within the MMEZ. Construction activity shall not be re-commenced until the MMO confirms that the MMEZ is continuously clear of marine mammal for a period of 30 minutes. The MMO shall then inform the construction superintendent through mobile phone or handheld transceivers to certify the re-commencement of construction activity.

6.3.1.6 As there could be a number of Contractors working at the same time within a work area for the IWMF project, a full contact list of MMEZ monitoring team members of the ET and the relevant responsible construction superintendents of the Contractor at the site shall be prepared, updated regularly and circulated to all parties involved in the MMEZ monitoring. With a full contact list, our MMOs shall be able to find out the contacts of corresponding persons in case of marine mammal sighting within and near the MMEZ or emergent occurrence of any unpredictable impact on marine mammal.

6.3.1.7 If a marine mammal is still observed in close vicinity but outside the MMEZ, the MMO shall inform the construction superintendent about the presence of marine mammal. The MMO shall remain in position and closely observe the movement of the marine mammal as well as searching for the appearance of any other marine mammal within the MMEZ. No matter the marine mammal is observed within or in close vicinity but outside the MMEZ, the construction superintendent or relevant persons shall inform all vessel captains involved in construction activities around the MMEZ to pay special attention of the presence of the marine mammal in order to reduce chance of collision with them. In case of injury or live-stranded marine mammal being found within the MMEZ, the marine mammal observer shall immediately inform the construction superintendent to suspend construction activities within the works area and contact AFCD through 1823 marine mammal stranding hotline.

6.3.2 Marine mammal watching plan

6.3.2.1 Upon the completion of silt curtain installation/re-installation/relocation, the marine works would be conducted within an enclosed environment within the silt curtain. Subsequently, Visual Inspection of the Waters Surrounded by Silt Curtains (Section 2.1, MMWP) and Regular Inspection of Deployed Silt Curtain (Section 2.2, MMWP) inspection under Marine Mammal Watching Plan would be implemented (where applicable, Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone shall be conducted at the meantime).

6.3.2.2 Before commencement of dredging/sand blanket laying work at each designated area, a trained MMO shall check whether position frame silt curtains are ready, well prepared and operated without any obvious damage. Also, the MMO shall confirm the presence of the relevant frontline staff of the main contractor or its sub-contractors and engineers on board to ensure the effective communication, coordination and implementation of the response plan in relation to any incidents involving marine mammals within the waters surrounded by the position frame type silt curtains and the work areas. Also, there are lookout points at an elevated level on each barge, clear and safe access at the edges of the derrick lighter/ flag-top barge for inspection during dredging/sand blanket laying works, provision of sufficient lighting is required if working at night.

6.3.2.3 During the operation, the inspection will be conducted daily. The MMO will walk along the edge of derrick lighter (DL) and flag-top barge (FB) along the position frame silt curtain or proper location without obstacles where appropriate to inspect the position frame silt curtain with naked eyes, the MMO will check that the position frame silt curtains are maintained in the correct positions with no obvious defects / entanglement and there is no observable muddy water passing through the position frame silt curtain system. Any floating refuse trapped by the silt curtain shall be removed as part of the regular inspection. For night inspection, spotlight will be used to provide sufficient brightness to assist the inspection in dark condition.

6.3.2.4 For the re-deployment of the localized silt curtains (frame-type, cage-type or enclosed floating-type silt curtains), MMO will conduct visual inspection to confirm that there is no presence of marine mammal within the localized silt curtains (frame-type, cage-type or enclosed floating-type silt curtains). Visual inspection will be conducted every an hour by MMO for confirming that there is no any marine mammal observed in the surrounding area of the deployed silt curtain during re-deployment of localized silt curtains (frame-type, cage-type or enclosed floating-type silt curtains). The duration will be subject to various conditions, e.g. weather or angle of observation. The works can only commence after confirming that the surrounding waters of the localized silt curtains has not contain any marine mammal. Thereafter, frontline staff, i.e. foremen, site agent, superintendents and engineers will assist our MMO in implementing the plan from the active work fronts within the waters surrounded by the silt curtains throughout the work period. The MMO will conduct regular check to observe the presence of any marine mammal around the localized silt curtain or being trapped by the localized silt curtain daily. The MMOs will also check if the localized silt curtains are in correct positions.

6.3.2.5 The MMO shall fill up our Marine Mammal Sighting Record Sheet. After inspection, those records should be kept properly and submitted to the project team. In case there is any marine mammal being found, the MMO should carry out the response actions and communicate with relevant parties to stop and then resume work after the discovered marine mammal leaves. After lifting up and mobilization of silt curtain, the MMO will repeat the procedures of regular and visual inspection until the end of the construction works.

6.3.2.6 Each lookout point will have an unobstructed view to waters around the DL and FB. The MMO will move around the DL and FB to establish a clear and unobstructed view as much as they can without compromising the safety concern. When appropriate, the lookout point can be replaced by a proper location if unobstructed view can be assured.

6.4 Results and Observations 6.4.1 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

6.4.1.1 The monthly survey was conducted on 17 November 2020. As this is not the designated peak season (December May), one survey was completed. A total of 40.5 km on effort (transects only) survey length was completed, 20.2% of which was conducted at Beaufort Sea State 2 or better (Table 6.4). No finless porpoise was recorded.

Table 6.4 Summary of Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Effort

Date	Area*	Beaufort	Effort (km)	Season	Vessel	Effort Type**
17 Nov2020	ON	1	8.2	AUTUMN	SEAMARHK	P
		2	18.8
		3	13.5

* As shown in Figure. 6.1

** P (from AFCD) denotes the ON EFFORT survey on the transect line, not the adjoining passages

6.4.1.2 A review of the long term AFCD marine mammal monitoring programme, the EIA and the pre-construction baseline monitoring report for this project was conducted. Pre-construction baseline monitoring was conducted in Feb - Apr 2018 and the EIA was conducted during the peak porpoise months (Dec 2008 to May 2009). The AFCD long term monitoring data and November 2018 & 2019 impact survey results could be compared directly to November 2020 Impact Survey results. It was noted that the 5th & 17th month of impact monitoring is November 2018 & 2019 respectively and these data were included.

6.4.1.3 A review of the Beaufort Sea State in November survey conditions between 2009 and 2019 (only data available from AFCD at time of writing; (AFCD 20181; 20172; 20163; 20154; 20145; 20136; 20127; 20118; 20109), EIA 2009 and Baseline 2018 & Impact 2019) show that between 35.4 % and 81.2 % of survey effort had been conducted at Beaufort Sea State 2 or better in the past. During November 2019 Impact monitoring, 73.6 % of the survey effort was conducted at Beaufort 2 or better. For this project in November 2020, 20.2 % of the survey was conducted at Beaufort Sea State 2 or better and, as such, survey conditions in November 2020 were below average when compared to other surveys.

6.4.1.4 A review of the porpoise sightings in the survey area for November between 2009-2019 (no AFCD survey was conducted in 2013) indicated that there were fluctuations between the number of sightings usually recorded. For all weather conditions, and for the eight years data available, two years recorded zero (0) sightings (2009, 2012 conducted by AFCD), six year recorded one (1) sighting (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2017 conducted by AFCD) and one year recorded four (4) sightings (2016 conducted by AFCD). For impact monitoring in November 2018 & 2019, one (1) sighting and 0 counter rates were recorded respectively. For impact monitoring in 2020 conducted by ET, no finless porpoise sighting was recorded. Effort varied considerably between years and the average number of sightings (per km) was 0.00km-1. For November 2018 & 2019, the calculated encounter rates were 0.03 & 0 sightings km-1 respectively. There is no trend in encounter rates recorded by the AFCD long term monitoring programme, the inherent variability for surveys that focus on relatively small populations of highly mobile individuals is highlighted.

6.4.1.5 The impacts of the Project on marine mammals as predicted in the EIA were that construction activities would cause individuals to move away from the area. With only a small area being surveyed by vessels, with no control area, and as porpoise density is obviously low in such a small area, it is difficult to discern significant changes in sightings occurrence from vessel surveys alone. The sightings data presented in AFCD long term monitoring reports indicate that a sighting rate of 0 and 1 (per 40 km) for the month of November was common. Since construction commenced, there had been one or no finless porpoise sightings recorded in the month of November. This observation is only for daylight hours, and visual detection. The number of sightings in November 2020 is comparable to the numbers recorded during AFCD long term monitoring studies, prior to the commencement of IWMF and the first two years impact monitoring records.

6.4.1.6 This observation was only for daylight hours, and visual detection. The analyses of the static PAM dataset provided detailed information on diurnal occurrence patterns. Each static PAM station recorded porpoise at each site every day of the PAM study and therefore, showed that the area immediately adjacent to the Project site has not been abandoned during parts of the designated peak season for porpoise. It was noted that the encounter rate for November 2020 was equal to impact monitoring result of November 2018 & 2019, prior to early construction stage at SKC.

6.4.2 PAM and Land-based Theodolite Tracking

6.4.2.1 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 had 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 showed 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).

6.4.2.2 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.

6.4.2.3 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 yielded large quantities of data, would allow a more comprehensive assessment of the EIA predictions.

6.4.2.4 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.

6.4.2.5 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.

6.4.2.6 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.

6.4.3 Specific Mitigation Measures

6.4.3.1 Silt curtains were deployed for DCM during the reporting period. Teams of two MMO were on duty for continuous monitoring of the Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone (MMEZ) for DCM works, MMEZ installation/re-installation/relocation process of silt curtains, and the marine mammal trapping checking and silt curtains inspection in accordance with the Detailed Monitoring Programme of Finless Porpoise and Marine Mammal Watching Plan respectively. Trainings for the MMO were provided by the ET prior to the aforementioned works, with a cumulative total of 98 individuals being trained and the training records kept by the ET. From the Marine Mammal Watching observation records and MMEZ monitoring log records, no Finless Porpoise or other marine mammals were observed within or around the MMEZ and silt curtains in the reporting month.

6.4.4 References

1. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2018. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2017-March 2018) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

2. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2017. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2016-March 2017) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

3. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2016. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2015-March 2016) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

4. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2015. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2014-March 2015) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

5. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2014. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2013-March 2014) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

6. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2013. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2012-March 2013) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

7. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2012. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2011-March 2012) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

8. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2011. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2010-March 2011) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

9. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2010. Annual Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2009-March 2010) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html

8. Summary of Monitoring Exceedance, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Prosecutions 8.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is shown in below Figure 8.1:

Figure 8.1 Environmental Complaint Handling Procedures

8.2 No exceedance of the Action and Limit Levels of the regular WBSE monitoring was recorded during the reporting period.

Table 8.1 Summary of SS Compliance Status at Impact Stations (Mid-Ebb Tide)

Date	B1	B2	B3	B4	CR1	CR2	F1A	H1	S1	S2A	S3	M1
2-11-2020
4-11-2020
6-11-2020
10-11-2020
12-11-2020
14-11-2020
16-11-2020
18-11-2020
20-11-2020
24-11-2020						31
26-11-2020
28-11-2020
30-11-2020
No. of SS Exceedances	2	2	1	1	1	2	0	0	1	1	1	1

Note 1: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream/unrelated stream (neither upstream nor downstream, far away) of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream/unrelated stream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream/unrelated stream station with respect to IWMF Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow
	Downstream station with respect to IWMF Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow/station within the Project site
	NA for measurement
	Cancelled due to incident or adverse weather

Table 8.2 Summary of SS Compliance Status at Impact Stations (Mid-Flood Tide)

Date	B1	B2	B3	B4	CR1	CR2	F1A	H1	S1	S2A	S3	M1
2-11-2020
4-11-2020
6-11-2020
10-11-2020
12-11-2020
14-11-2020
16-11-2020
18-11-2020
20-11-2020
24-11-2020
26-11-2020
28-11-2020
30-11-2020
No. of SS Exceedances	1	1	1	0	0	2	1	0	1	0	1	0

Note 1: Detailed results are presented in Appendix D

Legend:

	No exceedance of Action Level and Limit Level
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Action Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream/unrelated stream (neither upstream nor downstream, far away) of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located downstream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Exceedance of Limit Level recorded at monitoring station located upstream/unrelated stream of the Project based on dominant tidal flow
	Upstream/unrelated stream station with respect to IWMF Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow
	Downstream station with respect to IWMF Project during the respective tide based on dominant tidal flow/station within the Project site
	NA for measurement
	Cancelled due to incident or adverse weather

8.3 Ten (10) of the general water quality monitoring results of suspended solids (SS) obtained had exceeded Action Level. Eleven (11) of general water quality monitoring results of SS obtained during the reporting period had exceeded the Limit Level. Investigation was carried out immediately for each of the exceedance cases during the reporting period. 8.4 No project-related Action Level & Limit Level exceedance was recorded from the 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2020 as shown in Appendix N. 8.5 The Contractor has been reminded that all measures recommended in the deposited Silt Curtain Deployment Plan shall be fully and properly implemented for the Project as per Clause 2.6A of the FEP. 8.6 No notification of summons and prosecution was received in the reporting period. 8.7 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix O.

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. In the reporting period, site inspections were carried out on 3, 10, 17 & 24 November 2020 at the site portions listed in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1 Site Inspection Record

Date	Inspected Site Portion	Time
3 November 2020	Portion 1, 1A & 1B (near SKC)	10:30 11:30 AM
10 November 2020	Portion 1, 1A & 1B (near SKC)	10:10 11:10 AM
17 November 2020	Portion 1, 1A & 1B (near SKC)	10:25 11:25 AM
24 November 2020	Portion 1, 1A & 1B (near SKC)	10:40 11:40 AM

9.2 One joint site inspection with IEC was carried out on 17 November 2020. 9.3 Environmental deficiencies were observed during weekly site inspection. Key observations during the site inspections and during the reporting period are summarized in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Site Observations

Date

Environmental Observations

Follow-up Status

3 November 2020 (Site inspection)

Observation(s) and Recommendation(s)

1. On DL5, soil was found on the edge of the barge, soil should be removed.

1. Soil along the edge of DL5 had been cleaned.

10 November 2020 (Site inspection)

Observation(s) and Recommendation(s)

1. Two NRMM labels were observed on the roller machine, only correct NRMM label can be displayed on corresponding machine.

1. The NRMM display label had been corrected on the roller machine.

17 November 2020 (Site inspection)

Observation(s) and Recommendation(s)

1. On vertical seawall, soil and rubbish was observed on the edge of the caisson. Wind-blown rubbish was observed on the sea surface near the vertical seawall.

1. Rubbish and soil had been cleared on the edge of caisson and sea surface respectively.

24 November 2020 (Site inspection)

Observation(s) and Recommendation(s)

1. No NRMM label was observed on PME.

2. On A2, A3, drip tray for generator was not plugged.

1. NRMM label had been shown on PME

2. Drip tray for generator had been plugged.

9.4 The Contractor had rectified all the observations identified during environmental site inspections in the reporting period. The Contractor had been reminded to suspend the related works immediately if silt curtain was found any damage in the future, until fixing of damaged silt curtain is completed. 9.5 According to the EIA Study Report, Environmental Permit, contract documents and Updated EM&A Manual, the mitigation measures detailed in the documents 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. Future Key Issues 10.1 Works to be undertaken in the next reporting month are:

· Placing rock filter at reclamation area

· Installation of Caisson

· Reclamation works

· Installation of Chinese Pod

10.2 Potential environmental impacts arising from the above construction activities are mainly associated with water quality, construction noise, waste management and ecology. 10.3 The key environmental mitigation measures for the Project in the coming reporting period expected to be associated with the construction activities include:

· Reduction of noise from equipment and machinery on-site;

· Installation of silt curtains for reclamation works;

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

· Management of chemicals and avoidance of oil spillage on-site, especially under heavy rains and adverse weather; and

· Implementation of MMEZ and inspection of enclosed environment within silt curtains as per DMPFP;

· Regulation on rate and means for filling works as stipulated in Table 1 of FEP or the approved Supporting Document for Reviewing Dredging Rate and Filling Rate, whichever is applicable;

· Confirmation of the absence of silt content in the rock filling material and the filling work is properly conducted;

· Installation process of floating silt curtain according to approved Silt Curtain Deployment Plan.

10.4 The tentative schedule of regular construction noise, water quality and ecology monitoring in the next reporting period is presented in Appendix P. The regular construction noise, water quality and ecology monitoring will be conducted at the same monitoring locations in the next reporting period.

A	First Submission	14 December 2020
Rev.	Description of Modification	Date

Appendix A	Master Programme
Appendix B	Summary of Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Appendix C	Impact Monitoring Schedule of the Reporting Month
Appendix D	Water Quality Monitoring Data
Appendix E	HOKLAS Laboratory Certificate
Appendix F	Water Quality Equipment Calibration Certificate
Appendix G	Event/ Action Plan for Water Quality Exceedance
Appendix H	Noise Monitoring Equipment Calibration Certificate
Appendix I	Event/Action Plan for Noise Exceedance
Appendix J	Noise Monitoring Data
Appendix K	Waste Flow Table
Appendix L	Event/Action Plan for Coral Monitoring
Appendix M	Event/Action Plan for White-bellied Sea Eagle Monitoring
Appendix N	Exceedance Report
Appendix O	Complaint Log
Appendix P	Impact Monitoring Schedule of Next Reporting Month

Party	Position	Name	Telephone no.
Keppel Seghers 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

Permit/ Licences/ Notification	Reference	Validity Period	Remarks
Variation of Environmental Permit	EP-429/2012/A	Throughout the Contract
Further Environmental Permit	FEP-01/429/2012/A	Throughout the Contract
Notification of Construction Works under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation (Form NA)	Ref No.: 428778	15/12/2017 22/09/2024
Wastewater Discharge Licence	WT00033787-2019	22/08/2019 31/08/2024
Chemical Waste Producer Registration	WPN0017-933-K3301-01	Throughout the Contract
	WPN5213-961-K3301-02	Throughout the Contract
	WPN5296-839-K3301-03	Throughout the Contract
Construction Noise Permit (24 hours)	GW-RS0857-20	24/11/2020 23/05/2021	Portion 1, 1A & 1B
Construction Noise Permit (24 hours)	GW-RE0957-20	24/11/2020 23/05/2021	Portion 8
Billing Account for Disposal of Construction Waste	A/C No.:7029768	Throughout the Contract

Parameters	Status
Water Quality
Baseline Monitoring under Updated EM&A Manual and Detailed Plan on DCM	The baseline water quality monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under FEP Condition 3.4
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Post DCM Monitoring	On-going, all DCM was completed on 14 October 2020, regular DCM monitoring for further 4 weeks (i.e form 16 October 2020 to 14 November 2020) is required according to the approved Detailed Plan on Deep Cement Mixing
Initial Intensive DCM Monitoring	Conducted from 11 February 2019 to 10 March 2019, had not been resumed since there was no DCM related parameter exceeding the AL/LL.
Baseline Water Quality of wet season	Completed over 13 August 2018 to 7 September 2018
Noise
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline noise monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under FEP Condition 3.4
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Waste Management
Mitigation Measures in Waste Monitoring Plan	On-going
Coral
Pre-translocation Survey and Coral Mapping	The Coral Translocation Plan was submitted and approved by EPD under EP Condition 2.12
Coral Translocation	Completed on 28 March 2018
Post-Translocation Coral Monitoring	Survey affected by missing of translocated and tagged coral colonies after typhoons in September 2018, completed on 28 March 2019.
Pre-construction Coral Survey and Tagging	Completed on 26 June 2018
Tagged Coral Monitoring	Survey obstructed due to missing of tagged coral colonies after typhoons in September 2018
Coral Survey and Re-tagging	Re-tagging at Indirect Impact Site was conducted on 23 November and Re-tagging at Control Site was conducted on 3 December 2018.
Post Re-tagging Coral Monitoring	On-going
Marine Mammal
Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Baseline Monitoring	The baseline marine mammal monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under FEP Condition 3.4
Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Impact Monitoring	On-going
Land-based Theodolite Tracking	30 days of theodolite surveys were started on 21 Feb 2019 and completed in May 2019.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring	30 days of PAM surveys were started on 1 May 2019 and completed until the end of May 2019.
White-bellied Sea Eagle
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline WBSE monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under FEP Condition 3.4
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Environmental Audit
Site Inspection covering Measures of Air Quality, Noise Impact, Water Quality, Waste, Ecological Quality, Fisheries, Landscape and Visual	On-going
Mitigation Measures in Marine Mammal Watching Plan (MMWP)	On-going
Mitigation Measures in Detailed Monitoring Programme on Finless Porpoise (DMPFP)	On-going
Mitigation Measures in Vessel Travel Details	On-going
Daily Site Audit and Monitoring for Dredging Work	Completed

Equipment	Quantity
Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42 Binocular	1
Swarovski EL Range 8 x 42 Binocular	1
Swarovski ATX 25-60 x 85 Spotting Scope	1
Canon 1Dx Mark II Camera	1
Canon EF300mm F2.8 Lens with Canon 2x Teleconverter	1
Canon PowerShot G7X Camera	1
Garmin GPSMAP 64S	1