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 |
||||
|
March 2016 |
AMS1 |
45 |
3 – 113 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
88 |
23 – 238 |
352 |
||
|
April 2016 |
AMS1 |
38 |
19 – 79 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
39 |
22 – 63 |
352 |
||
|
May 2016 |
AMS1 |
28 |
4 – 63 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
36 |
17 – 70 |
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 |
||||
|
March 2016 |
AMS1 |
32 |
9 – 59 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
57 |
24 – 103 |
171 |
||
|
April 2016 |
AMS1 |
20 |
10 – 28 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
43 |
23 – 75 |
171 |
||
|
May 2016 |
AMS1 |
24 |
14 – 38 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
58 |
23 – 142 |
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 |
|||
|
March 2016 |
NMS1 |
60 |
59 – 62 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
58 |
56 – 61 |
||
|
April 2016 |
NMS1 |
68 |
64 – 71 |
|
|
NMS4 |
59 |
58 – 60 |
||
|
May 2016 |
NMS1 |
67 |
64 – 69 |
|
|
NMS4 |
58 |
53 – 59 |
||
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 March
to May 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 199.50 km of survey effort was collected, with 90.3% 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 135.14 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 64.36 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 March to May 2016, a total of 22 groups of 88 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 three 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 March to May 2016 is
shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The
dolphin groups were mainly sighted in the central and southern portions of the
survey area, from the south of Tai O Peninsula to Fan Lau, with slightly higher
concentration near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure 1 of Appendix
F). Only one large group of 13 dolphins was sighted
in the northern portion of the survey area (i.e. to the west of the airport
platform).
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 during the present impact phase
period (Figure
1 of Appendix
F).
4.13
None of the 22 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 spring quarters of 2013-15 were also compared. Dolphins appeared to occur less
frequently in the spring of 2016 when compared to the previous three spring
periods, especially near the Tai O Peninsula and in the offshore waters (Figure 3 of Appendix F).
Encounter
rate
4.15
During the present three-month impact phase
monitoring period (March to May 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 the 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 (March – May
2016)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
4.4 |
13.3 |
|
|
Set 2 (March 14th) |
11.4 |
51.4 |
|
|
Set 3 (April 7th) |
13.0 |
82.6 |
|
|
Set 4 (April 20th) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
Set 5 (May 13th) |
18.1 |
54.2 |
|
|
Set 6 (May 25th) |
10.9 |
92.5 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (March to May 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) |
||
|
March – May 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
March – May 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
9.64
± 6.44 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
49.01
± 36.69 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.16
Notably,
the encounter rates of sightings (ER(STG)) for the present spring quarter of
2016 was the lowest among all quarters since 2013, while the encounter rates of
dolphins (ER(ANI)) from the present quarter was also among the lowest since
2013 but was slightly higher than the one from the spring quarter of 2015 (Table 4 of Appendix F). Both encounter rates in spring quarters
of 2015 and 2016 were lower than the ones in 2013 and 2014 (Table 4 of Appendix F), which is a
concern. 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. thirteenth
quarter of the impact phase), the p-value for the differences in average
dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.129 and 0.723 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 thirteen quarters of the impact phase), and the
p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI
were 0.608 and 0.926 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 1-13 individuals per group in WL survey area during March
to May 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, as shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Comparison of average dolphin
group sizes from impact monitoring period (March – May 2016) and baseline
monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group
Size |
|
|
March-May 2016 |
September – November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
4.00 ± 3.13 (n = 22) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.20
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). Among the 22 groups, half of them were
composed of 1-3 dolphins, while there were five 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 March to May 2016 is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix F. Most of these groups were scattered in
the waters between Tai O Peninsula and Peaked Hill, with no particular
concentration (Figure 4 of Appendix F).
The two large groups of 12 and 13 dolphins respectively were sighted to the
north of HKLR09 alignment and 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 more 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 March to May 2016, the
most heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins with higher densities were
primarily found between Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung Shan as well as between
Peaked Hill and Fan Lau (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 less evenly distributed in the present impact
phase monitoring period, and also lower in certain areas such as the waters
just to the south of the HKLR09 alignment, around Tai O Peninsula and Kai Kung
Shan (Figure 6 of Appendix F).
Mother-calf
pairs
4.25
During the three-month impact phase
monitoring
period, only one young calf (a
unspotted juvenile)
was sighted in WL survey area. This young calf comprised 1.1%
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 only
mother-calf pair was sighted to the north of HKLR09 alignment during the
quarterly period, 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
Kai Kung Shan and to the west of the airport (Figure 8 of Appendix F), comprising 13.6% of the total number of dolphin
sightings. This percentage was very similar to the percentage recorded during the baseline period (13.0%).
4.28
On the other hand, two dolphin
groups were engaged in socializing activities to the west of the airport and
near Peaked Hill respectively (Figure 8 of Appendix F),
while no dolphin group was engaged in traveling 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 in the central portion of
the survey area between Tai O and Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
4.30
During the three-month monitoring period, none of the 22 dolphin groups was associated with an operating fishing vessel.
Summary
of photo-identification works
4.31
From March to May 2016, over
2,500 digital photographs of Chinese White Dolphins were taken during the
impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification work.
4.32
In total, 38 individuals
sighted 48 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
WL68 being sighted thrice.
Individual
range use
4.33
Ranging patterns of the 38 individuals
identified during the three-month study period were determined by fixed kernel
method, as shown in Appendix V of Appendix F.
4.34
Notably, a number of individual
dolphins (e.g. NL136, NL182, NL309) that primarily centered their range use in
North Lantau in the past 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 (March to May 2016)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
02/03/16 |
09:08
- 14:30 |
1 |
2.5 |
3 |
3 |
|
16/03/16 |
09:25
- 14:34 |
1-2 |
3-3.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
21/04/16 |
09:19 - 14:30 |
1-2 |
1.5-3.5 |
3 |
0 |
|
29/04/16 |
08:57 - 14:20 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
|
09/05/16 |
09:06
- 14:35 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
16/05/16 |
09:11
- 14:42 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
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.