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 |
||||
|
June 2015 |
AMS1 |
32 |
14 – 181 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
27 |
14 – 98 |
352 |
||
|
July 2015 |
AMS1 |
34 |
7 – 213 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
43 |
11 – 279 |
352 |
||
|
August 2015 |
AMS1 |
48 |
14 – 207 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
39 |
14 – 131 |
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 |
||||
|
June 2015 |
AMS1 |
15 |
9 – 27 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
21 |
5 – 39 |
171 |
||
|
July 2015 |
AMS1 |
42 |
21 – 74 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
25 |
17 – 35 |
171 |
||
|
August 2015 |
AMS1 |
54 |
18 – 101 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
53 |
23 – 103 |
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 |
|||
|
June 2015 |
NMS1 |
69 |
68 - 69 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
62 |
54 – 64 |
||
|
July 2015 |
NMS1 |
70 |
67 – 71 |
|
|
NMS4 |
58 |
52 – 63 |
||
|
August 2015 |
NMS1 |
71 |
70 – 72 |
|
|
NMS4 |
52 |
51 – 53 |
||
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 nearby operating vessels by other parties.
Summary
of survey effort and dolphin sightings
4.8
During the period of June to August 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 199.77 km of survey effort was collected, with 86.2% 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 133.76 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 66.01 km.
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 June to August 2015, a total of 27 groups of 116 Chinese White
Dolphins were sighted. All except one sightings were made during on-effort
search. Eighteen 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 June to August 2015 is
shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The
dolphin groups were mainly clustered near Tai O Peninsula, Peaked Hill and Fan
Lau. It appeared that they have
avoided the waters between Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan (Figure 1 of Appendix F).
4.12
Sighting distribution of dolphins in the present
quarter was generally similar to the one during the baseline period, but with
some subtle differences. Dolphins
occurred less frequently between Tai O Peninsula and Peaked Hill during the
present impact phase period.
Moreover, two dolphin groups were sighted to the north of the HKLR09
alignment during the present quarter, where no dolphin was sighted during the
baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix
F).
4.13
Two of the 27 dolphin groups was sighted near the
HKLR09 alignment in WL survey area during the present quarter (Figure 2 of Appendix F).
4.14
Distribution patterns of dolphin sightings in the
past three summer quarters of 2013, 2014 and 2015 were also compared (Figure 3 of Appendix F). Much fewer dolphins occurred between Tai
O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan, as well as around Fan Lau in 2015. On the other hand, after a decline in
dolphin usage to the north of Tai O Peninsula in 2014, their usage has
rebounded in 2015. Overall, there
appeared to be fewer dolphins utilizing WL survey area in summer 2015 than
during the previous two summer periods.
Encounter
rate
4.15
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring period (June – August 2015), 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 present quarter 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 (June – August
2015)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
15.8 |
121.2 |
|
|
Set 2 (June 18th) |
6.5 |
38.9 |
|
|
Set 3 (July 6th) |
13.1 |
74.5 |
|
|
Set 4 (July 28th) |
13.2 |
66.0 |
|
|
Set 5 (August 18th) |
20.5 |
61.5 |
|
|
Set 6 (August 26th) |
5.0 |
5.0 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (June – August 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) |
||
|
June - August 2015 |
September- November 2011 |
June - August 2015 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
12.36
± 5.81 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
61.19
± 38.63 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.16
Notably, the dolphin encounter rates from the
present summer quarter of 2015 was much lower than the ones recorded from
previous summers of 2014 (ER(STG): 22.90 and ER(ANI):
101.41) and 2015 (ER(STG): 26.89 and ER(ANI): 94.75). Such temporal trend should be
continuously monitoring to detect any further decline, even though the Action
or Limit Level has not been triggered under the Event and Action Plan.
4.17
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. tenth quarter of the impact phase), the
p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.325 and 0.892 respectively. Therefore,
no significant difference in dolphin encounter rate was detected between the
baseline period and the present quarter.
4.18
Another
comparison was made between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the
impact phase (i.e. first ten quarters of the impact phase), and the p-value for
the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.976
and 0.998 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
4.19
Group size of Chinese White
Dolphins ranged from 1-20 individuals per group in WL survey area between June to August 2015.
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).
About half of the groups were composed of 1-2 dolphins, while there were
nine groups with more than 5 animals per group, and two groups with more than
10 animals per group.
Table 4.8 Comparison of average dolphin
group sizes from impact monitoring period (June – August 2015) and baseline
monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
|
|
June – August
2015 |
September to November 2014 |
|
|
West Lantau |
4.30 ± 4.28 (n = 27) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.20
Distribution of dolphins with the
larger groups during June to August 2015 is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix F. These groups were scattered from the
bridge alignment to Fan Lau waters with no particular concentration, and a
number of these large groups were located along the western territorial
boundary (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
The distribution of larger dolphin groups was very different from the baseline
period, when they mostly occurred to the northwest of Tai O Peninsula (near the
bridge alignment) as well as near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
Habitat
use
4.21
From June to August 2015, the most
heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins were mainly found near Tai O
Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau, which is similar to the previous
monitoring quarters (Figures 5a and 5b of Appendix F). 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.
4.22
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 during the present impact
phase period, especially the waters near Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau. Moreover, distribution of dolphins was patchier
in the present impact phase quarter with a number of grids recorded the absence
of dolphin sightings (Figure 6 of Appendix F).
Mother-calf
pairs
4.23
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring
period, five unspotted juveniles (UJ) were
sighted in WL survey area. The young
calves comprised 4.3% of all animals sighted, which was lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.6%).
4.24
The five mother-calf pairs were
sighted near the bridge alignment, Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau (Figure 7 of Appendix F). This was in stark contrast to the
baseline period when calf occurrence was more frequent and concentrated near
Tai O Peninsula at the northern portion of WL waters (Figure 7 of Appendix F).
Activities
and associations with fishing boats
4.25
During the three-month impact
monitoring period, three dolphin sightings were associated with feeding activities between near the HKLR09 bridge alignment and Fan Lau (Figure 8 of Appendix F), comprising 11.1% of
the total number of dolphin sightings.
This percentage was very similar to the percentage recorded
during the baseline period (13.0%).
4.26
Moreover, three dolphin
sightings were associated with socializing activity near the HKLR09 bridge
alignment, Peaked Hill and Fan Lau (Figure
8 of Appendix F), while no dolphin group was engaged in traveling or
milling/resting activity during the present quarter.
4.27
Distribution of feeding and
socializing activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was somewhat
different from the one during the baseline period, with the main concentration
of these activities occurred between Tai O and Peaked Hill during the baseline
period. On the contrary, the
occurrence of these activities was more wide-spread in different parts of the
WL survey area during the impact phase period (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
4.28
During the three-month monitoring period, only one of the 27 dolphin groups was associated with an operating
purse-seiner near Fan Lau.
Summary
of photo-identification works
4.29
From June to August 2015, over
2,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the impact
phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
4.30
In total, 64 individuals
sighted 77 times altogether were identified (see summary table in Appendix III of Appendix F and photographs of identified
individuals in Appendix IV of Appendix F. Almost all identified individuals were
sighted only once or twice during the three-month period, with the exception of
three individuals (NL120, NL140 and WL214) being sighted thrice.
Individual
range use
4.31
Ranging patterns of the 64 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
Notably, a number of individual
dolphins (NL136, NL210, NL242, NL261, NL280, NL284, NL295 and WL11) that
primarily centered their range use in North Lantau were found extending their
ranges to the southern part of West Lantau waters, further expanding their
range use away from North Lantau waters (Appendix
V of Appendix F).
4.33
On the contrary, most
individuals that primarily centered their range use in West Lantau were sighted
within their normal range during the present quarterly period Appendix V of Appendix F).
Conclusion
4.34
During the present quarter of
dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of the HKLR09 construction
project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from general observations.
4.35
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.
4.36
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 (June to August 2015)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
03/06/15 |
09:12 - 14:43 |
2- 4 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
11/06/15 |
09:05 - 14:30 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
|
06/07/15 |
09:22
- 14:53 |
2 |
2-3 |
3 |
3 |
|
16/07/15 |
09:28
- 14:44 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
13/08/15 |
09:05 - 14:31 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
|
21/08/15 |
09:02 - 14:16 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4.37
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.
4.38
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.
4.39
The amount of wastes generated by the activities of the Contract during
the reporting month is shown in Appendix
J.