4.1
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP are summarized in Table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. Graphical presentations of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring results
are shown in Appendices B and C respectively.
Table 4.1 Summary Table of 1-hour TSP Monitoring
Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Concentration (µg/m3) |
Action
Level, µg/m3 |
Limit
Level, µg/m3 |
|
|
Average |
Range |
||||
|
December 2014 |
AMS1 |
41 |
17 – 91 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
42 |
16 – 73 |
352 |
||
|
January 2015 |
AMS1 |
60 |
20 – 143 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
53 |
28 – 95 |
352 |
||
|
February 2015 |
AMS1 |
50 |
23 – 72 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
52 |
23 – 100 |
352 |
||
Table 4.2 Summary
Table of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Concentration (µg/m3) |
Action
Level, µg/m3 |
Limit
Level, µg/m3 |
|
|
Average |
Range |
||||
|
December 2014 |
AMS1 |
87 |
37 – 128 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
76 |
15 – 116 |
171 |
||
|
January 2015 |
AMS1 |
119 |
52 – *365 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
72 |
48 – 113 |
171 |
||
|
February 2015 |
AMS1 |
104 |
37 – 244 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
92 |
41 – 158 |
171 |
||
4.2
According to our field observations, the major dust source identified at
the designated air quality monitoring stations in the reporting period are as
follows:
Table
4.3 Observation at Dust
Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring Station |
Major Dust Source |
|
AMS1 |
Exhaust from marine traffic |
|
AMS4 |
N/A |
4.3
The wind data monitoring results were attached in the Monthly EM&A
Reports
4.4
The noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 4.4. Graphical presentations of noise
monitoring are shown in Appendix D.
Table 4.4 Summary
Table of Noise
Monitoring Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Noise Level, Leq
(30min) dB(A) |
Limit
Level |
|
|
Average |
Range |
|||
|
December 2014 |
NMS1 |
71 |
68 - 73 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
62 |
57 – 64 |
||
|
January 2015 |
NMS1 |
71 |
68 - 73 |
|
|
NMS4 |
62 |
60 – 64 |
||
|
February 2015 |
NMS1 |
71 |
71 |
|
|
NMS4 |
62 |
61 – 62 |
||
Remark: +3dB(A) Façade correction included
4.5
According to our field observations, the major noise source identified
at the designated noise monitoring stations in the reporting period are as
follows:
Table 4.5 Observation
at Noise
Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring Station |
Major Noise Source |
|
NMS1 |
Air
traffic & marine traffic noise |
|
NMS4 |
Air
traffic & marine traffic noise |
4.6
The graphical presentation of water quality at the monitoring stations
is shown in Appendix E.
4.7
Water quality impact sources during the water quality monitoring were
the construction activities of the Contract, nearby construction activities by
other parties and near by operating vessels by other
parties.
Summary
of survey effort and dolphin sightings
4.8
During the period of December
2014 to February 2015, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel surveys were conducted to
cover all transect lines in WL survey area twice per month.
4.9
From these surveys, a total of 198.00 km of survey effort was collected, with 86.8% of the total survey effort being conducted
under favourable weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort
Sea State 3 or below with good visibility). The total survey effort conducted on primary lines was 128.90 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 67.08km.
Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both
considered as on-effort survey data. Summary table of the survey effort is shown in Appendix I of Appendix F.
4.10
During the six sets of monitoring surveys in December
2014 to February 2015, a total of 29
groups of 135 Chinese White
Dolphins were sighted. All except three sightings were made during on-effort
search. Seventeen on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while the other on-effort sightings were made on secondary
lines. Summary table of the
dolphin sightings is shown in Appendix
II of Appendix F.
Distribution
4.11
Distribution of dolphin sightings made during
monitoring surveys in December 2014 to February 2015 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The
dolphin groups were evenly distributed throughout the WL survey area, with no
particular concentration of sightings (Figure 1 of Appendix
F). However, it appeared that more dolphins
occurred in the central portion of the survey area between Tai O Peninsula and
Kai Kung Shan, while they occurred less frequently at the northern and southern
end of the survey area.
4.12
Sighting distribution of dolphins in the
present quarter was similar to the one during the baseline period, with some
apparent differences. There
appeared to be fewer dolphins sighted to the north of Tai O Peninsula and Fan
Lau during the present monitoring quarter when compared to the dolphin
distribution record in the baseline period.
4.13
Only one of the 29 dolphin groups was sighted
near the HKLR09 alignment in WL survey area during the present quarter (Figure 1 of Appendix F).
Encounter
rate
4.14
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring period, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins deduced from
the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary transect lines
under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or below) from
West Lantau survey area are shown in Table
4.6. The average encounter
rates deduced from the six sets of surveys from December 2014 to February 2015 were also compared with the ones deduced from the baseline monitoring
period (September – November 2011) (Table
4.7).
Table 4.6 Dolphin encounter rates (sightings
per 100 km of survey effort) during the impact monitoring period (December 2014
– February 2015)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
13.8 |
110.3 |
|
|
Set 2
(December 10th) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
Set 3 (January 9th) |
16.6 |
41.6 |
|
|
Set 4 (January 23rd) |
17.2 |
46.0 |
|
|
Set 5 (February 3rd) |
9.6 |
72.3 |
|
|
Set 6 (February 10th) |
19.7 |
74.0 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (December 2014 – February 2015)
and baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
(no. of on-effort dolphin sightings per 100 km of survey effort) |
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all
on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey effort) |
||
|
December 2014 - February
2015 |
September- November 2011 |
December 2014 - February
2015 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
12.84
± 7.17 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
57.36
± 37.35 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.15
The encounter rates were also calculated for
the present quarter using both primary and secondary survey effort. The encounter rates of sightings (STG)
and dolphins (ANI) in WL were 12.6 sightings and 57.7 dolphins per 100 km of
survey effort respectively during the present quarter.
4.16
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine
whether there were any significant differences in the average encounter rates
between the baseline and impact monitoring periods. For the comparison between the baseline
period and the present quarter (i.e. eighth quarter of the impact phase), the
p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.423 and 0.889 respectively. Therefore,
no significant difference in dolphin encounter rate was detected between the
baseline period and the present quarter.
4.17
Another comparison was made between the
baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the impact phase (i.e. first eight
quarters of the impact phase), and the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.974 and 0.935 respectively. As a result, no significant difference
was found in the dolphin encounter rates between the baseline period and the
cumulative quarters in the impact phase.
Group
size
4.18
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from 1-14 individuals per group in WL survey area
between December 2014
and February 2015.
The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared
with the one deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as
shown in Table 4.8. The average dolphin group size in the WL
region during the present quarter was higher than the
one recorded in the three-month baseline period (Table 4.8). About half of the dolphin groups were composed
of 1-3 dolphins, but there were also eleven groups with more than 5 animals per
group, and four groups with over 10 animals.
Table 4.8 Comparison of average dolphin
group sizes from impact monitoring period (December 2014 – February 2015) and
baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
|
|
December 2014 –
February 2015 |
September to November 2014 |
|
|
West Lantau |
4.66 ± 3.78 (n = 29) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.19
Distribution of dolphins with the
larger groups during December 2014 to February 2015 is shown Figure 3 of Appendix F. These groups were scattered from the
bridge alignment to Fan Lau waters, with slightly higher concentration near Kai
Kung Shan. This was slightly
different from the baseline period, when the larger dolphin groups mostly
occurred to the northwest of Tai O Peninsula (near the bridge alignment) as
well as near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure 3 of Appendix F).
Habitat
use
4.20
From December 2014 to February
2015, the most heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins were mainly found near
Tai O Peninsula, near Kai Kung Shan and near Fan Lau (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix F). Conversely, their densities were much
lower at the northern end of the survey area, especially near the bridge
alignment. However, it should be cautioned
that the amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month period was fairly low
(6 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore the habitat use
pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated with
caution. A more complete picture of
dolphin habitat use pattern will be presented when more survey effort for each
grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.
4.21
When compared with the habitat
use pattern recorded during the baseline period, it appears that the overall
dolphin densities were lower in West Lantau waters, especially the waters
adjacent to Tai O Peninsula, and between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau during the
present quarter (Figure 5 of Appendix F).
Mother-calf
pairs
4.22
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring
period, a total of four unspotted calves (UC) and one
unspotted juvenile (UJ)
were sighted in WL survey area. The young calves comprised 3.7%
of all animals sighted, which was only half of the percentage recorded
during the baseline monitoring period (6.6%).
4.23
The infrequent occurrence of
the five mother-calf pairs during three dolphin sightings were
all located at the southern end of the survey area. This was in stark contrast to the
baseline period when calf occurrence was more frequent and more concentrated
near Tai O Peninsula at the northern portion of WL waters (Figure 6 of Appendix F).
Activities
and associations with fishing boats
4.24
During the three-month impact
monitoring period, four dolphin sightings were associated with feeding activities
between Tai O Peninsula and Peaked Hill (Figure
7 of Appendix F), comprising 13.8% of the total number of dolphin sightings. This percentage was very similar to the
percentage recorded during the baseline period (13.0%). Only one of the 29
sightings was associated with socializing activity just north of Peaked Hill (Figure 7 of Appendix F), while no
dolphin group was engaged in traveling or milling/resting activity during the
present quarter.
4.25
Notably, distribution of the
feeding and socializing activities during the present impact phase monitoring
period was largely similar to the one during the baseline period, with the main
concentration of these activities occurred between Tai O and Peaked Hill during
the baseline period as well (Figure 7 of Appendix F).
4.26
During the three-month monitoring period, one of the dolphin groups was associated with an operating
purse-seiner.
Summary
of photo-identification works
4.27
From December 2014 to February
2015, over 2,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken
during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
4.28
In total, 40 individuals
sighted 56 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Appendix III of Appendix F and photographs of identified
individuals in Appendix IV of Appendix F. The majority of identified individuals
were sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, but three
individuals (NL188, WL137 and WL215) were sighted 3-4 times.
4.29
Notably, two of these 40
individuals (i.e. NL259, NL285) were also sighted in North Lantau waters during
the HKLR03 monitoring surveys in the same three-month period, showing their
extensive movement across the HKLR09 bridge alignment. Moreover, some individuals that were
consistently sighted in North Lantau waters in the past were identified in West
Lantau waters (e.g. EL01, NL188, NL259, NL285).
4.30
During the three-month period,
two recognizable females, NL188 and WL21, were accompanied with their calves
during their re-sightings.
Individual
range use
4.31
Ranging patterns of the 40 individuals
identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel
method, and are shown in Appendix V of Appendix F.
4.32
For those that primarily used
West Lantau waters as their home ranges, most of their re-sightings were made
at the middle or southern portion of their ranges during the present quarter,
but seldom occurred near the HKLR09 alignment where they were frequently
re-sighted in the past. It is
possible that their range use in West Lantau waters have been somewhat affected
by the HKLR09 construction activities with some moderate shift in range
use. It will be crucial to examine
whether such shifts are temporary or permanent in nature, which may have been
as a result of disturbance from the HKLR09-related works.
Conclusion
4.33
During this quarter of dolphin
monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of the HKLR09 construction
project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.
4.34
Nevertheless, the dolphin usage
in WL region should be continuously monitored, to further examine whether it
has been significantly affected by the on-going construction activities in
relation to the HZMB works.
4.35
Additional land-based dolphin behavior and movement monitoring were
conducted in the reporting period. The progress of the monitoring is summarized
in the Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Progress
Record of Additional Land-based Dolphin Behaviour and
Movement Monitoring (December 2014 to February 2015)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
05/12/14 |
09:04
- 14:38 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
18/12/14 |
09:00
- 14:15 |
2 |
2.5 |
3 |
0 |
|
02/01/15 |
09:07
- 14:29 |
2 |
2.5-3 |
3 |
0 |
|
21/01/15 |
09:14
- 13:15 |
1-2 |
3-3.5 |
3 |
0 |
|
17/02/15 |
09:03
- 14:31 |
1 |
3.5-4 |
3 |
0 |
|
26/02/15 |
08:59
- 14:32 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4.36
Detailed monitoring methodology and results will be provided in a
separate report after the completion of full set of additional land-based
dolphin behavior and movement monitoring.
4.37
The Contractor was advised to minimize the wastes generated through the
recycling or reusing. All mitigation measures stipulated in approved waste management
plan shall be fully implemented.
4.38
The amount of wastes generated by the activities of the Contract during
the reporting month is shown in Appendix
J.