Revision History

 

 

Content

 

1.     Basic Project Information. 5

2.     Marine Water Quality Monitoring. 9

3.     Noise Monitoring. 16

4.     Waste. 22

5.     Coral 24

6.     Marine Mammal 32

7.     White-Bellied Sea Eagle. 40

8      Summary of Monitoring Exceedance, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Prosecutions  43

9.     EM&A Site Inspection. 44

10.   Conclusion and Recommendations. 45

 

 

Appendix A	Master Programme
Appendix B	Summary of Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Appendix C	Water Quality Monitoring Data Trending
Appendix D	Noise Monitoring Data Trending
Appendix E	Waste Flow Table
Appendix F	Photo Records for Coral Monitoring
Appendix G	Photo Records for Marine Mammal Monitoring
Appendix H	Photo Records for White-bellied Sea Eagle Monitoring
Appendix I	Complaint Log

 

 

 

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 8th 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 April 2020 to 30 June 2020.

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.           The Reporting Scope

1.1.1          This is the 8th Quarterly EM&A Report for the Project which summarizes the key findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting period from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020.

1.2.           Project Organization

1.1.2          The Project Organization structure for Construction Phase is presented in Figure 1.1. 1.1.3          Contact details of the key personnel are presented in Table 1.1 below:

 

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	Jacky Leung	2698-6833
ERM-Hong Kong, Limited	Independent Environmental Checker	Mandy To	2271-3000

1.3.           Summary of Construction Works

1.1.4          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
Breakwater	¡P      Sand blanket laying   ¡P      DCM installation	¡P      On-going   ¡P      On-going
Reclamation area	¡P      Sand blanket laying	¡P      On-going
Seawall portion	¡P      DCM installation   ¡P      Coring for DCM cluster   ¡P      Dredging               ¡P      Cone penetration test   ¡P      Installation of caisson   ¡P      Installation of Prefabricated Vertical Drain	¡P      Completed   ¡P      On-going   ¡P      72,156.7042 m3 of dredged sediment in bulk quantity was dumped at relevant dumping site in total up to 30 June 2020.   ¡P      On-going   ¡P      On-going   ¡P      On-going
Portion 8	¡P      Site trial of sorting facilities	¡P      On-going

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

Table 1.3 Summary of Status for Key Environmental Aspects under the Updated EM&A Manual

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
Regular DCM Monitoring	On-going
Initial Intensive DCM Monitoring	Completed over 11 February 2019 to 10 March 2019, to be resumed whenever DCM related parameter exceeded 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 obstructed due to missing of translocated and tagged coral colonies after typhoons in September 2018; the last post-translocation coral monitoring completed on 28 Mar 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 Monthly Monitoring	On-going
Marine Mammal
Baseline Monitoring	The baseline marine mammal monitoring result has been reported in Baseline Monitoring Report and submitted to EPD under FEP Condition 3.4
Impact Monitoring	On-going
Land-based Theodolite Tracking	30 days of theodolite surveys were started at 21 Feb 2019 and completed in May 2019
Passive Acoustic Monitoring	30 days of PAM surveys were started at 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	On-going

1.1.6          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. 1.1.7          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           

2.1          Water Quality Parameters

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. Besides the above parameters, monitoring of Total Alkalinity, Current Velocity and Current Direction have been undertaken at all fourteen monitoring stations (including S1, S2A and S3) during regular DCM monitoring. 2.1.2          Current velocity and direction, DO, temperature, salinity, turbidity and pH were measured in-situ and the SS, Total Alkalinity were 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 general 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         Total alkalinity (mg/L) ¡P         Current velocity (m/s) ¡P         Direction (in NESW)	General water quality monitoring and Regular 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 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 during general water quality monitoring and fourteen water monitoring locations during regular DCM monitoring, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Water monitoring locations at Artificial Island near SKC

2.3          Action and Limit Levels

2.3.1          Based on the baseline monitoring data and the derivation criteria presented in the Baseline Monitoring Report, the Action/Limit Levels have been derived and are presented in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 for both dry seasons (October ¡V March) and wet seasons (April ¡V September).

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
Total Alkalinity in mg/L	≥116 or 120% of control station¡¦s Total Alkalinity at the same tide of the same day of measurement, whichever is higher	≥ 118 or 130% of control station¡¦s 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 2.3 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
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.

 

2.4          Monitoring Results and Observations

2.4.1          DCM injection works and sand blanket laying works were conducted during the reporting period, thus both general water quality monitoring at the eleven monitoring stations and general DCM monitoring including monitoring stations S1, S2A and S3 were conducted. Monitoring results of 7 key parameters: Salinity, DO, turbidity, SS, pH, temperature and total alkalinity in each month of this reporting period, are summarized in Table 2.4, and results trending are presented graphically in Appendix C.

 

Table 2.4 Summary of Regular DCM Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results

 

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 is only conducted on DCM working day with reference to master programme in Appendix A.

       iii.            Monitoring at S1, S2A and S3 shall only be conducted during DCM work period referring to master programme in Appendix A.

 

2.4.2          All of the monitoring results for DO, turbidity, temperature and total alkalinity obtained in the reporting period complied with their corresponding Action and Limit levels, while numbers of result for SS triggered their corresponding Action or Limit Levels, and investigations were conducted accordingly. For the salinity, pH, DO, turbidity, temperature, SS and total alkalinity, their trends were fluctuated independent to the site activities and presented in Appendix C. 2.4.3          No major pollution source and extreme weather which might affect the results were observed during the impact monitoring. 2.4.4          During the regular DCM impact monitoring period for April to June 2020, two (2) exceedances of the Action Level for SS were recorded and one (1) of the monitoring results for SS obtained during the reporting period had exceeded the relevant Limit Level. Investigations were conducted, and results indicated the SS exceedances were not attributable to the Project works. Details of the exceedance are presented in Section 8. 2.4.5          Implemented mitigation measures minimizing the adverse impacts on water are listed in the implementation schedule given in Appendix B.

 

3.         Noise Monitoring

3           

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 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.

 Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Time, Frequency and Duration

 

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

3.2.2          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. 3.2.3          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. 3.2.4          Based on the concern of novel coronavirus in Feb 2020, the Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Abusers (SARDA) issued a notice on rejection of access for noise monitoring practice effective from 31 Jan 2020. Hence, the weekly noise monitoring at the selected noise sensitive receivers (M1, M2 & M3) as per the monitoring schedule were suspended from February 2020 to May 2020. 3.2.5          Considering the absence of noise sensitive receivers except SARDA in close proximity of the Project site. ET proposed and IEC agreed to perform the alternative noise monitoring at the farthest barge (MA) available ¡§i.e. FTB-17 or equivalent barge subject to site condition¡¨ outside the site boundary with no construction works as shown in Figure 3.2 below. 3.2.6          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
MA	-	The farthest barge outside the site boundary with no construction works subject to site condition	-	Free field

Note (*): Temporary suspended due to denied access by SARDA from Feb 2020 to May 2020.

 

Figure 3.2 Proposed alternative noise monitoring location at barge FTB-17 at Shek Kwu Chau

 

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

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.

 

3.4          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) and alternative monitoring location (i.e. MA) 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) and alternative monitoring location (i.e. MA) 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 designated noise monitoring station in the reporting month are summarised in Table 3.4. No noticeable noise source was found near the monitoring station M1, M2 & M3 and sound of sea waves was found near the monitoring station MA.

Table 3.4 Summary of Field Observation

Monitoring Station	Major Noise Source
M1	Nil
M2	Nil
M3	Nil
MA	Sound of sea waves

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

Table 3.5 Summary of Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Daytime (0700 ¡V 1900 hrs)

3.4.5          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).

3.4.6          During the noise monitoring event, frontline staff of ET have 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.

3.4.7          Data from impact monitoring during evening time and night time were compared with the NCO criteria. Where site inspection and auditing on Contractor¡¦s 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 were 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 3.6 Summary of the Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Evening Time (1900-2300 hrs)

Table 3.7 Summary of Additional Impact Noise Monitoring Results during Night Time (2300 ¡V 0700 hrs)

 

 

 

4.         Waste

4           

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. 0 tonnes of paper was generated on site and collected by registered recycling collector. No plastic waste was collected by registered recycling collector. 0 L of chemical waste was collected by licensed chemical waste collector. 45.5 m3 of other types of wastes (e.g. general refuse) were generated on site and disposed of at Landfill. 60,411.5 m3 of fill sand and 62,859.5 m3 of fill rock were imported during the reporting period.

 

4.3          5,277.82 m3 of dredged sediment in bulk quantity was dumped according to its dumping permit (EP/MD/20-125) during the reporting period.

 

4.4          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.

 

4.5          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.

 

Table 4.1 Quantities of Waste Generated from the Project

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.

 

4.6          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.

 

 

5.         Coral

5           

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: 5.2.1          The GPS coordinates of the tagged coral colonies and retagged coral colonies at both indirect impact site, control site and recipient site R3 were shown in Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 respectively.

 

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 6th quarterly coral monitoring during construction phase at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site was conducted on 26 Jun 2020 and the weather condition was summarized in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Weather Condition for the 6th Quarterly Coral Monitoring during Construction Phase at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site

Date	Condition	Average Underwater Visibility
26 Jun 2020	-          Southwest wind force 4 -          Sunny period	Less than 0.5m

 

Table 5.7 Sizes, Condition, Mortality, Bleaching and Sediment of 10 Natural Coral Colonies at Control Site of 6th Quarterly Coral Monitoring (26 Jun 2020) during 22nd to 24th Months Construction Phase Monitoring

Coral #	Species	Size (cm) ¡V Max. Diameter	Condition	Mortality (%)		Bleaching (%)		Sediment (%)
				Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018)	26 Jun 2020	Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018)	26 Jun 2020	Baseline (26 Jun 2018 & 3 Dec 2018)	26 Jun 2020
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 6th Quarterly Coral Monitoring (26 Jun 2020) during 22nd to 24th Months Construction Phase Monitoring

Coral #	Species	Size (cm) ¡V Max. Diameter	Condition	Mortality (%)		Bleaching (%)		Sediment (%)
				Baseline (23 Nov 2018)	26 Jun 2020	Baseline (23 Nov 2018)	26 Jun 2020	Baseline (23 Nov 2018)	26 Jun 2020
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.

5.4.3          The re-tagging activity had been done at both Indirect Impact Site and Control Site on November 2018 and December 2018 respectively. A total of 20 tagged coral colonies (10 at control site and 10 at indirect impact site including the re-tagged coral colonies) were monitored. Similar to the baseline results performed in June, November and December 2018 and the results of the previous five quarterly coral monitoring during construction phase, the health condition of all tagged and re-tagged coral colonies at Indirect Impact Site and Control site were good in general. No increased mortality was recorded during the survey in June 2020. 5.4.4          No sediment, bleaching or increased mortality in the general condition of coral colonies were observed during the 6th quarterly coral monitoring period. No deterioration of the coral community was observed in the ecological monitoring results when compared with the baseline ecological monitoring results. There is no AL/LL exceedance during the monitoring period.  

6.         Marine Mammal

6           

6.1          Survey Methods

6.1.1          Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

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.

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:

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)

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.

 

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

 

6.1.2.1         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.

 

6.1.2.2         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.

6.1.3          Land-based Theodolite Tracking

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

6.1.3.1          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

 

6.1.3.2         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 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 zones

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 plan

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 Survey

6.3.1.1          Five monthly surveys were conducted during the reporting period. As this is covering designated peak season (December ¡V May) and non-peak season (June ¡V November), two survey were completed in April and May 2020 separately while one survey was completed in June 2020. A total on effort (transects only) survey length of 202.6 km was completed, 167.1 km at Beaufort Sea State 2 or better (Table 6.3). Twenty sightings were recorded during the reporting period (Table 6.4).

Table 6.3 Summary of Vessel-based Line-transect Survey Effort

*         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 Sightings recorded during Apr to Jun 2020 Vessel-based Line-transect Survey

Figure 6.4         Plot of encounter rate during April to June in 2009 ¡V 2020 from different surveys

6.3.1.2         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. Both the EIA and the pre-construction baseline monitoring were conducted during the peak porpoise months Dec 2008 to May 2009 and Feb to April 2018, respectively. The AFCD long term monitoring data, EIA data, baseline monitoring in 2018 and impact monitoring in 2019 should be compared directly to Impact Survey results of the reporting periods.

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 April to June 2020 were within the % limits of previous AFCD surveys, similar to impact monitoring surveys conducted in 2019.

6.3.1.4         A review of all the porpoise sightings in the survey area for April to June between 2009-2018 indicates that there is more sightings usually recorded in April to June. Given the similar survey conditions and the encounter rate recorded for porpoise in the project area during the reporting period, the encounter rate for April to June 2020 was 0.16, 0.05, 0.00 km-1 respectively (see Figure 6.4), it is noted that the encounter rate of impact survey is similar when compared to other years. It is noted that the reporting period was covering peak and non-peak season and that works at IWMF are increasing, 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 April to June 2020, as was similar to the case in 2019 impact monitoring conducted by ET and the encounter rates of impact surveys were lying within the range of encounter rate in AFCD surveys.    

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.

6.3.2          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 6.5).

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 6.5 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.

6.3.2.7         Photo records of the marine mammal monitoring taken during the reporting period are presented in Appendix G.

6.3.3          Specific Mitigation Measures

6.3.3.1         Silt curtains were deployed for sand blanket laying works and DCM during the reporting period. At least two MMO were on duty for continuous monitoring of the Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone (MMEZ) for DCM works and 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.

 

 

7.         White-Bellied Sea Eagle

7           

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          Results and Observations

7.2.1          Five monitoring 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)
17 April 2020	-          East wind force 4 -          Sunny	28
30 April 2020	-          Southwest wind force 4 to 5 -          Sunny	29
15 May 2020	-          South wind force 3 to 4 -          Sunny	29
29 May 2020	-          Southwest wind force 3 -          Sunny	30
26 June 2020	-          South wind force 4 -          Sunny	31

7.2.2          Two WBSE adults were recorded near SKC island during the survey in April, May and June 2020. No abnormal behaviour of the adults were recorded during the reporting period. 7.2.3          Since the incubation period was finished in March 2020, the monthly construction phase monitoring was resumed in April, May and June 2020 in order to monitor the incubation period, utilization of the area by WBSE and their responses to construction disturbance. The nest will be inspected daily during the first week of nesting period when the chick was recorded according to the updated EM&A Manual. 7.2.4          No disturbances from anthropogenic activities on the island were recorded during the monitoring surveys. However, fishing boats moving close to the shore were recorded. Since the nest is about 160m away from the shore and it is not accessible, fishing boat activities did not show any direct disturbance to the WBSE nest.

 

Figure 7.1 Location of WBSE Nest on SKC

7.2.5          No invasion of other fauna species was recorded and no sign of using the construction site as a foraging ground was recorded as well. 7.2.6          During the reporting period, no abnormal behaviour of the recorded adults was shown. All marine works during 22nd to 24th month construction period (i.e. April 2020 to June 2020) did not show any influence on the WBSE. 7.2.7          Photo records of the WBSE taken during the reporting period are presented in Appendix H.