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 2015 |
AMS1 |
41 |
13 – 93 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
61 |
20 – 217 |
352 |
||
|
January 2016 |
AMS1 |
51 |
11 – 141 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
79 |
7 – 341 |
352 |
||
|
February 2016 |
AMS1 |
35 |
4 – 95 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
40 |
15 – 80 |
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 2015 |
AMS1 |
52 |
25 – 114 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
77 |
44 – 124 |
171 |
||
|
January 2016 |
AMS1 |
43 |
14 – 62 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
58 |
3 – 176 |
171 |
||
|
February 2016 |
AMS1 |
46 |
25 – 83 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
87 |
50 – 168 |
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 2015 |
NMS1 |
65 |
61 – 68 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
56 |
53 – 58 |
||
|
January 2016 |
NMS1 |
61 |
57 – 62 |
|
|
NMS4 |
57 |
55 – 58 |
||
|
February 2016 |
NMS1 |
68 |
62 – 71 |
|
|
NMS4 |
62 |
61 – 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 December 2015 to February
2016, 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 199.12 km of survey effort was collected, with 90.7% 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 135.55 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 63.57 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 December 2015 to February 2016, a total of 26 groups of 99 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All
except two dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Nineteen
on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while the
other five 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 2015 to February 2016 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The
dolphin groups were sighted evenly throughout the survey area, with slightly
higher concentration at the portion half of WL waters but no apparent
concentration (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 less frequently in the
offshore waters and around Tai O Peninsula, Kai Kung Shan, Peaked Hill, and Fan
Lau during the present impact phase period (Figure 1 of Appendix
F).
4.13
None of the 26 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 winter quarters of 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also
compared. Dolphins occurred less
frequently in the winter of 2015-16 when compared to the previous two winter
periods, especially near the Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan (Figure 3 of Appendix F). On the other hand, dolphins occurred
more frequently in the southern part of the survey area and less frequently in
the northern part of the survey area in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 (Figure 3 of Appendix F).
Encounter
rate
4.15
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring period (December 2015 – February 2016), 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 (December 2015
– February 2016)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
12.4 |
62.2 |
|
|
Set 2 (December 10th) |
14.1 |
33.0 |
|
|
Set 3 (January 6th) |
17.6 |
83.5 |
|
|
Set 4 (January 21st) |
10.1 |
76.1 |
|
|
Set 5 (February 4th) |
24.4 |
112.4 |
|
|
Set 6 (February 19th) |
4.4 |
13.3 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (December 2015 to February 2016) 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 2015 – February 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
December 2015 – February 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
13.86 ± 6.78 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
63.40 ± 35.77 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.16
Notably,
the dolphin encounter rates from the present winter quarter of 2015-16 was
similar to the one recorded in winter of 2014-15, but both were lower than the
one recorded in winter of 2013-14 in ER(STG). 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. twelfth
quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.552 and 0.895 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 twelve quarters of the impact phase), and the p-value
for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.799
and 0.957 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 1-12 individuals per group in WL survey area during December
2015 to February 2016. 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 4.8). The average dolphin group size in the WL
region during the present quarter was slightly larger
than the one recorded in the three-month baseline period (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8 Comparison of average dolphin
group sizes from impact monitoring period (December 2015 – February 2016) and
baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
|
|
December 2015 –
February 2016 |
September to November 2014 |
|
|
West Lantau |
3.80 ± 3.25 (n = 26) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.20
Among the 22 groups, 16 of them
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.
4.21
Distribution of dolphins with the
larger groups during December 2015 to February 2016is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix F. Most of these groups were scattered in
the waters between Tai O Peninsula and Fan Lau, with no particular
concentration (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
The two large groups of 12 dolphins each were both sighted near Kai Kung Shan (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
4.22
Distribution of larger dolphin
groups in the present impact phase period was very different from the baseline
period, when they were concentrated to the northwest of Tai O Peninsula as well
as near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure
4 of Appendix F).
Habitat
use
4.23
From December 2015 to February
2016, the most heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins were primarily found between
Kai Kung Shan and Fan Lau, while a few grids near Tai O Peninsula and Yi O also
recorded higher dolphin densities (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.
4.24
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, especially near Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan (Figure 6 of Appendix F). Moreover, the overall densities tended to be higher in the southern
portion of the survey area but lower in the northern portion during the present
impact phase period, which was the opposite during the baseline period (Figure 6 of Appendix F).
Mother-calf
pairs
4.25
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring
period, only two young calves (both were unspotted
juveniles) were
sighted in WL survey area. The young
calves comprised 2.0% of all animals sighted, which was much lower than the percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.6%).
4.26
The rare occurrence of the two
mother-calf pairs were sighted near Tai O Peninsula and off Yi O waters, 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
4.27
During the three-month impact
monitoring period, three dolphin groups were engaged in feeding activities near
Tai O Peninsula and at the offshore waters between Peaked Hill and Fan Lau (Figure 8 of Appendix F), comprising 11.5% of
the total number of dolphin sightings.
This percentage was slightly lower than the percentage recorded
during the baseline period (13.0%).
4.28
On the other hand, one dolphin
group was engaged in traveling activity near Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F), but no dolphin group was
engaged in socializing or milling/resting activity during the present quarter.
4.29
Distribution of different
activities during the present impact phase monitoring period was quite
different from the one during the baseline period, when the main concentration
of the feeding and socializing activities occurred between Tai O and Peaked
Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
4.30
During the three-month monitoring period, none of the 26 dolphin groups was associated with an operating fishing vessel.
Summary
of photo-identification works
4.31
From December 2015 to February
2016, over 2,000 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken
during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
4.32
In total, 46 individuals
sighted 68 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 CH12 and WL152 being sighted
thrice.
Individual
range use
4.33
Ranging patterns of the 46 individuals
identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel
method, and are shown in Appendix V of Appendix F.
4.34
Notably, a number of individual
dolphins (NL120, NL145, NL226, NL295, WL05 and WL11) 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).
4.35
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, with some extending their range use into Southwest Lantau waters (Appendix V of Appendix F).
Conclusion
4.36
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.
4.37
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.
4.38
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 2015 to February 2016)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
01/12/15 |
08:59
- 14:30 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
08/12/15 |
08:53
- 14:24 |
2-3 |
2.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
07/01/16 |
09:07 - 14:34 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
|
12/01/16 |
09:03 - 14:24 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
05/02/16 |
09:09
- 14:30 |
3-4 |
2.5 |
3 |
0 |
|
12/02/16 |
08:56
- 14:29 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4.39
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.
4.40
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.
4.41
The amount of wastes generated by the activities of the Contract during
the reporting month is shown in Appendix
J.