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 2016 |
AMS1 |
16 |
7 – 37 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
37 |
8 – 148 |
352 |
||
|
July 2016 |
AMS1 |
18 |
4 – 44 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
51 |
3 – 211 |
352 |
||
|
August 2016 |
AMS1 |
28 |
3 – 86 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
37 |
5 – 125 |
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 2016 |
AMS1 |
20 |
6 – 49 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
26 |
20 – 33 |
171 |
||
|
July 2016 |
AMS1 |
16 |
11 – 24 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
34 |
13 – 91 |
171 |
||
|
August 2016 |
AMS1 |
25 |
9 – 42 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
36 |
9 – 50 |
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 2016 |
NMS1 |
67 |
57 – 71 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
58 |
55 – 62 |
||
|
July 2016 |
NMS1 |
64 |
57 – 68 |
|
|
NMS4 |
57 |
55 – 58 |
||
|
August 2016 |
NMS1 |
66 |
57 – 71 |
|
|
NMS4 |
58 |
54 – 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 June
to August 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 197.77 km of survey effort was collected, with 100% 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 133.78 km, while the effort on secondary lines was 63.99 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 2016, a total of 30 groups of 86 Chinese White Dolphins were sighted. All
except three dolphin sightings were made during on-effort search. Nineteen
on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while the
other eight 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 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).
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 30 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 (June to August 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
(June – August 2016)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
8.9 |
22.3 |
|
|
Set 2 (June 20th) |
26.9 |
53.7 |
|
|
Set 3 (July 6th) |
17.7 |
57.4 |
|
|
Set 4 (July
13th) |
13.7 |
36.5 |
|
|
Set 5 (August
9th) |
4.6 |
4.6 |
|
|
Set 6 (August
16th) |
13.1 |
34.9 |
Table 4.7 Comparison of average dolphin
encounter rates from impact monitoring period (June to August 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) |
||
|
June – August 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
June – August 2016 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
14.14 ± 7.66 |
16.43 ±
7.70 |
34.91 ± 19.69 |
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 0.617 and 0.178 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 0.708 and 0.858 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 June to August 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 (June – August 2016)
and baseline monitoring period (September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group Size |
|
|
June-August
2016 |
September – November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
2.87 ± 2.05 (n = 30) |
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 30 groups, 22 of them were
composed of only 1-3 dolphins, while there were only six groups with five or
more animals per group.
4.21
Distribution
of dolphins with the larger groups during June to August 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).
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
June to August 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
1.2%
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 this mother-calf pair was sighted to the southwest of Tai O
Peninsula 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, two dolphin groups were engaged in
feeding activities near Kai Kung Shan and Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F), comprising 6.7% of the total number of
dolphin sightings. This percentage
was much lower the percentage recorded during the baseline period (13.0%).
4.28
On
the other hand, two dolphin groups were engaged in socializing and traveling
activities respectively near Kai Kung Shan during the present quarter (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
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 at the central
portion of the survey area between Tai O Peninsula and Peaked Hill (Figure 8 of Appendix F).
4.30
During
the three-month monitoring period, none of the 30 dolphin groups was associated
with any operating fishing vessel.
Summary of photo-identification works
4.31
From
June to August 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, 26 individuals sighted 30 times altogether were identified (see summary
table in Appendix III of Appendix F
and photographs of identified individuals in Appendix IV of Appendix F).
All identified individuals were sighted only once or twice during the
three-month period.
Individual range use
4.33
Ranging
patterns of the 26 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. NL120, NL123, NL287) 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 (June to August 2016)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin
Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
02/06/16 |
09:10 - 14:32 |
3-4 |
2.5 |
3 |
0 |
|
16/06/16 |
09:27 - 14:31 |
2-3 |
2.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
07/07/16 |
09:22 -
14:30 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
15/07/16 |
09:24 -
14:30 |
2-4 |
4.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
11/08/16 |
09:57 - 14:34 |
2 |
2-3 |
3 |
0 |
|
25/08/16 |
09:15 - 14:15 |
2 |
2.5 |
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.