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 |
||||
|
September 2015 |
AMS1 |
32 |
3 – 101 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
40 |
8 – 95 |
352 |
||
|
*October 2015 |
AMS1 |
86 |
34 – 150 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
84 |
27 – 163 |
352 |
||
|
November 2015 |
AMS1 |
55 |
18 – 177 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
47 |
23 – 80 |
352 |
||
* The 1-hour TSP concentration
on 30 October 2015 (13:00-15:00) at AMS1 are considered invalid and therefore
excluded in the calculation for average and range of concentration.
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 |
||||
|
September 2015 |
AMS1 |
40 |
21 – 80 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
42 |
21 – 89 |
171 |
||
|
October 2015 |
AMS1 |
86 |
35 – 156 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
62 |
33 – 102 |
171 |
||
|
November 2015 |
AMS1 |
40 |
29 – 61 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
47 |
32 – 62 |
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 |
|||
|
September 2015 |
NMS1 |
70 |
66 – 71 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
62 |
55 – 63 |
||
|
October 2015 |
NMS1 |
70 |
62 – 72 |
|
|
NMS4 |
59 |
58 – 60 |
||
|
November 2015 |
NMS1 |
69 |
59 – 72 |
|
|
NMS4 |
61 |
56 – 64 |
||
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 September to November 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 200.99 km of survey effort was collected, with 92.0%
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 135.21 km, while the effort
on secondary lines was 65.78 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 September to November
2015,
a total of 26 groups of 101 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All
except three dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Sixteen
on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while the
other seven 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 September to November 2015 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The
dolphin groups were mainly sighted adjacent to the HKSAR western territorial
boundary extended from the HKLR09 alignment in the north to Fan Lau in the
south. It appeared that a lot more
dolphin sightings were made in the offshore waters than inshore waters (Figure 1 of Appendix F).
4.12
Sighting distribution of dolphins in the present
quarter was quite different from the one during the baseline period in
September to November 2011. When
compared to the baseline period, dolphins occurred much more frequently in the
offshore waters and much less frequently nearshore around Tai O Peninsula, Kai
Kung Shan and Fan Lau during the present impact phase period. Moreover, several dolphin groups were
sighted adjacent to the HKLR09 alignment during the present quarter, where
dolphins were rarely sighted there during the baseline period (Figure 1 of Appendix F).
4.13
Four of the 26 dolphin groups were 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 autumn quarters of 2013, 2014 and 2015 were also compared (Figure 3 of Appendix F). Much fewer dolphins occurred between the
inshore waters between Tai O Peninsula and Fan Lau in autumn months of 2015
when compared to the previous two autumns in 2013 and 2014. On the other hand, dolphins occurred
much more frequently in the offshore waters in 2015. Overall, there appeared to be progressively
fewer dolphins utilizing WL survey area in autumn 2015 than during the previous
two autumn periods.
Encounter
rate
4.15
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring period (September – November 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 (September – November
2015)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
4.5 |
31.4 |
|
|
Set 2 (September 10th) |
14.2 |
47.3 |
|
|
Set 3 (October 7th) |
13.3 |
66.7 |
|
|
Set 4 (October 15th) |
12.8 |
12.8 |
|
|
Set 5 (November 13th) |
8.6 |
34.3 |
|
|
Set 6 (November 19th) |
16.8 |
67.2 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (September – November 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) |
||
|
September- November 2011 |
September- November 2015 |
September- November 2011 |
||
|
West Lantau |
11.71
± 4.43 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
43.30
± 21.38 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.16
Notably,
the dolphin encounter rates from the present autumn quarter of 2015 was similar
to the one recorded in autumn of 2014 (ER(STG): 10.57
and ER(ANI): 36.63), but both were much lower than the one recorded in autumn
of 2013 (ER(STG): 20.51 and ER(ANI): 60.68). Such temporal trend should be
continuously monitoring to detect any further decline in the future, even
though the Action or Limit Level has not been triggered under the Event and
Action Plan for this quarter.
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. eleventh
quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.222 and 0.361 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 eleven quarters of the impact phase), and the p-value
for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.827
and 0.945 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 1-22 individuals per group in WL survey area during September
to November 2015. The average
dolphin group size for the three-month period was compared with the one deduced
from the baseline period in September to November 2011 (Table 4). The average dolphin group size in the WL
region during the present quarter was slightly higher
than the one recorded in the three-month baseline period (Table 4). Among the
26 groups, 14 of them were composed of 1-2 dolphins, while there were eight
groups with more than 5 animals per group, and one group with more than 10
animals per group.
Table 4.8 Comparison of average dolphin
group sizes from impact monitoring period (September – November 2015) and baseline
monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
|
|
September to
November 2015 |
September to November 2014 |
|
|
West Lantau |
3.88 ± 4.38 (n = 26) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.20
Distribution of dolphins with the
larger groups during September to November 2015 is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix F. Most of these groups were scattered
along the western territorial boundary between Tai O and Peaked Hill, while
there were two separate groups to the north of HKLR09 alignment and near Fan
Lau respectively (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
The exceptionally large group of 22 dolphins was sighted to the west of Peaked
Hill (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
4.21
Distribution of larger dolphin
groups in the present impact phase period was very different from the baseline
period, when they mostly occurred to the northwest of Tai O Peninsula as well
as near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure
4 of Appendix F).
Habitat
use
4.22
From September to November 2015,
the most heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins were primarily found to the
west of Tai O Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (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 (six
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.
4.23
When compared with the habitat
use pattern recorded during the baseline period in 2011, it appears that the
overall dolphin densities were lower in West Lantau waters during the present
impact phase period in 2015, especially at the inshore waters near Tai O
Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau (Figure
6 of Appendix F). 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
4.24
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring
period, four young calves (including two unspotted
calves and two unspotted juveniles) were sighted in WL survey area. The young calves comprised 4.0%
of all animals sighted, which was lower than the percentage recorded during
the baseline monitoring period (6.6%).
4.25
The four mother-calf pairs were
sighted along the western territorial boundary between Tai O Peninsula and
Peaked Hill, which was very different from 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
4.26
During the three-month impact
monitoring period, there was only one dolphin sighting that the dolphins were
engaged in both feeding and socializing activities near Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F), comprising 3.8% of
the total number of dolphin sightings.
This percentage was much lower than the percentages
recorded during the baseline period (13.0%
for feeding activities and 6.5% for socializing activities). 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
drastically different from the one during the baseline period, when the main
concentration of these activities occurred between Tai O and Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
4.28
During the three-month monitoring period, none of the 26 dolphin groups was associated with an operating fishing vessel.
Summary
of photo-identification works
4.29
From September to November 2015,
over 2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the
impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
4.30
In total, 57 individuals
sighted 67 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
WL46 being sighted thrice.
4.31
Notably, eight of these 57
individuals (NL33, NL123, NL284, NL285, WL05, WL79, WL241 and WL243) were also
sighted in North Lantau waters during the HKLR03 monitoring surveys in the same
three-month period, showing some individual movements across the HKLR09 bridge
alignment.
Individual
range use
4.32
Ranging patterns of the 57 individuals
identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel
method, and are shown in Appendix V of Appendix F.
4.33
Notably, a number of individual
dolphins (NL33, NL123, NL284, NL285, NL287) that
primarily centered their range use in North Lantau were found extending their
ranges to West Lantau waters (especially to the south of the HKLR09 alignment),
further shifting or expanding their range use away from North Lantau waters (Appendix V of Appendix F).
4.34
On the contrary, the majority
of these individuals that primarily centered their range use in West Lantau
were still sighted within their normal range during the present quarterly
period Appendix V of Appendix F).
Conclusion
4.35
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.
4.36
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.
4.37
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 (September to November 2015)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
04/09/2015 |
08:59
- 14:31 |
2 |
1.5 |
3 |
3 |
|
23/09/2015 |
09:02
- 14:30 |
2 |
1.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
02/10/2015 |
08:56
- 14:17 |
2 |
1.5 |
3 |
2 |
|
14/10/2015 |
08:58
- 14:28 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|
04/11/15 |
09:01
- 14:28 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
20/11/15 |
09:02
- 14:31 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4.38
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.
4.39
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.
4.40
The amount of wastes generated by the activities of the Contract during
the reporting month is shown in Appendix
J.