
Content
Chapter Title Page
Figure 1.1 General
Layout Plan of the Project Site
Figure 2.1 Locations of
Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.2 Locations of
Noise Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.3 Locations of
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 4.1 Survey Area
and Transect Walked
List of Appendices
Appendix A Project Organization Chart
Appendix B Tentative Construction Programme
Appendix C Action and Limit Levels for Construction Phase
Appendix D Event and Action Plan for Air Quality, Noise and Water Quality
Appendix E Calibration certificates
Appendix F Graphical plots of the monitoring results
Appendix G Weather conditions during the monitoring period
Appendix H Ecological Monitoring conducted
Appendix I Summary of Bird Surveys conducted
Appendix J Summary of Herpetofauna, and Insects Surveys conducted
Appendix K Environmental Mitigation Measures - Implementation Status
Executive Summary
Mott MacDonald
Hong Kong Ltd. (“MMHK”) has been commissioned by Heng Shung Construction Co.
Ltd. to undertake the Environmental Team (ET) services to carry out
environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) for both pre-construction and
construction phases of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai,
Yuen Long.
This is the 13th
EM&A report submitted under the Condition 4.5 of Environmental Permit No.
EP-311/2008/B. This report summarises the findings on EM&A during the
period from 1 May to 31 May 2011.
Exceedance of Action and Limit
Levels
There was no
breach of Action or Limit levels for Air Quality (1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP) and
Noise level (as Leq) in the reporting month.
Exceedances of pH, DO, turbidity and SS were observed at MP1 to MP6.
Exceedances of pH were often observed at MP1 to MP3 while DO were exceeded
frequently at MP3 to MP6. Turbidity and/or SS exceedances were recorded on a
few days at all monitoring stations. The summary of measured water
quality is presented in Section 3.2.3.
Investigations have been carried out
to identify the causes of exceedance. From investigation, the Contractor has
implemented water quality mitigation measures as recommended in the EIA report.
With external factors affect the adjacent
environments, such as natural variations, pond fish culture activities, algal
bloom and rainstorms, the exceedances were considered not due to construction
works.
Implementation of mitigation
measures
Site audits were carried out on
5, 12, 19 and 25 May 2011 to
confirm the implementation measures undertaken by the Contractor in the
reporting month. The outcomes are presented in Section 6 and the status of implementation of mitigation measures
in the site is shown in Appendix K.
Record of Complaints
There was no
record of complaints received in the reporting month.
Record of Notification of summons
and successful prosecution
There was no
record of Notification of summons and successful prosecution in the reporting
month.
Reporting Changes
There are no
changes to be reported the reporting month.
Future Key Issues
The
major site works to be commissioned in the coming month include band drain
installation, Trial
Embankment
for Ground Improvement and Site Formation (Filling). Potential environmental
impacts due to the construction activities, including air quality, noise, water
quality, ecology and landscape and visual, will be monitored.
Environmental mitigation measures will be
implemented on site as recommended and weekly site audits will be carried out
to ensure that the environmental conditions are acceptable.
In March 2005, the Project Proponent, Profit
Point Enterprises Limited, acquired the development site in Yuen Long at
Wo Shang Wai. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out under the
EIA Ordinance (EIAO) since then and the Environmental Permit (EP-311/2008B) for
construction of the comprehensive development in Wo Shang Wai was granted by
EPD on 29 July 2010. The Project involves the residential development and associated
infrastructure and wetland restoration area and linear
landscape area. The construction works under the Environmental Permit commenced
on 12 May 2010.
Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd. was commissioned as the Contractor for the Project. Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Ltd. (“MMHK”) has been commissioned by Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd. to undertake the Environmental Team (ET) services to carry out environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) for both pre-construction and construction phases of the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long.
According to the EP Condition 4.5, the monthly EM&A Report shall be submitted to the Director within 2 weeks after the end of the reporting month. This report summarises the findings during the period from 1 May 2011 to 31 May 2011.
The
organisation chart and lines of communication with respect to the on-site
environmental management structure together with the contact information of the
key personnel are shown in Appendix A.
During the reporting period, construction works
of the Project undertaken include:
¡
Band
drain installation;
¡
Trial
Embankment for Ground Improvement;
and
¡
Site
formation (Filling)
The Construction Works Programme of the
Project is provided in Appendix B. The
general layout plan of the Project site is shown in Figure 1.1.
The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring of air quality, noise, water quality, ecology and landscape and visual as specified in the approved EM&A Manual.
A summary of impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table 1.1:
Table 1.1: Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements
|
Parameters |
Descriptions |
Locations |
Frequencies |
|
Air Quality |
24-Hour TSP |
ASR1, ASR2A, ASR3, ASR4 |
Once every 6 days |
|
1-Hour TSP |
ASR1, ASR2A, ASR3, ASR4 |
3 times every 6 days |
|
|
Noise |
Leq, 30min |
NSR1, NSR3, NSR5, NSR7 |
Weekly |
|
Water Quality |
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, suspended solids (SS) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) |
MP1 to MP6 |
3 days per week |
|
Ecology |
Birds |
Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m |
Weekly |
|
Dragonflies and Butterflies |
Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m |
Once per month during Mar and Sep to November, and twice per month during Apr to Aug |
|
|
Herpetofauna |
Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m |
Once per month during Apr to Nov |
|
|
Water quality of WRA |
Wetland Restoration Area |
After filling of WRA with water, monthly for in situ water quality and every size months (end of wet season and end of dry season) for laboratory testing |
|
|
Site Inspections |
Within the Project Area and Assessment Area of 500m |
Weekly |
|
|
Landscape and Visual |
Auditing of protection of existing trees,
the transplanting of existing trees, the creation of new wetland, the
planting of new trees and shrubs and other landscape and visual mitigation
measures |
CM1
to CM10 and OM1 to OM7 within the Project Area |
Site inspections once every two weeks
during construction phase; once every two months during operational phase |
The Environmental Quality Performance Limits for air quality, noise and water quality are shown in Appendix C.
The
Event and Action Plan for air quality, noise
and water quality are shown in Appendix D.
The monitoring schedule for the reporting
month is shown in Table 1.2 below:
Table 1.2: Environmental Monitoring and Audit Schedule for May 2011
2.
Impact Monitoring Methodology
|
For air
quality, construction noise and water quality, ecology,
landscape and visual monitoring methodology, including the monitoring
locations, monitoring equipments used, monitoring parameters, and frequency and
duration etc., are detailed in this Chapter.
In accordance with the EM&A Manual, 1-hour and 24-hour TSP levels monitoring are to be conducted during the construction phase. Table 2.1 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of air quality monitoring.
Table 2.1: Air Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
|
Parameter |
Frequency and Duration |
|
|
ASR1, ASR2A, ASR3 & ASR4 |
24-hour TSP |
At least once in every six-days |
|
1-hour TSP |
3 times every six-days |
The
4 air quality monitoring stations were established in the EM&A manual and
were slightly adjusted during the baseline monitoring phase. Locations of the
agreed air quality monitoring stations are listed in Table 2.2 and as shown in Figure
2.1.
Table 2.2: Air monitoring stations
|
Monitoring Stations |
Locations |
|
ASR1 |
Works Site Boundary |
|
ASR2A |
At the rooftop of refuse collection point, which
is located at the southwest of the project area |
|
ASR3 |
At the commercial centre at |
|
ASR4 |
Works Site Boundary |
Continuous 24-hour TSP air quality
monitoring is
conducted using High Volume Sampler (HVS) (Model: GMWS-2310 Accu-vol). The HVS
meets all the requirements of the EM&A Manual. Portable direct reading dust
meters were used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Table 2.3 summarizes the equipment used in the impact
air quality monitoring.
Table 2.3: TSP Monitoring Equipment
|
Equipment |
Model |
|
24-hr TSP monitoring |
|
|
High Volume
Sampler |
GMWS 2310
Accu-vol |
|
Calibrator |
GMW 25 |
|
1-hr TSP monitoring |
|
|
Portable direct
reading dust meter |
AM510 SidePak
Personal Aerosol Monitor |
24-hour
TSP Monitoring
Installation
The HVS was installed in the vicinity of the air sensitive receiver. The following criteria were considered in the installation of the HVS.
· A horizontal platform with appropriate support to secure the sampler against gusty wind was provided.
· The distance between the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.
· A minimum of 2 meters separation from walls, parapets and penthouse was required for rooftop sampler.
· A minimum of 2 meters separation from any supporting structure, measured horizontally was required.
· No furnace or incinerator flues or building vent were nearby.
· Airflow around the sampler was unrestricted.
· The sampler has been more than 20 metres from any drip line.
· Permission was obtained to set up the samplers and to obtain access to the monitoring stations.
· A secured supply of electricity is needed to operate the samplers.
Preparation of Filter Papers
· Glass fibre filters, were labelled and sufficient filters that were clean and without pinholes were selected.
· All filters were equilibrated in the conditioning environment for 24 hours before weighing. The conditioning environment temperature was around 25 °C and not variable by more than ±3 °C with relative humidity (RH) < 50% and was not variable by more than ±5 %. A convenient working RH was 40%.
Field Monitoring
· The power supply was checked to ensure the HVS works properly.
· The filter holder and the area surrounding the filter were cleaned.
· The filter holder was removed by loosening the four bolts and a new filter, with stamped number upward, on a supporting screen was aligned carefully.
· The filter was properly aligned on the screen so that the gasket formed an airtight seal on the outer edges of the filter.
· The swing bolts were fastened to hold the filter holder down to the frame. The pressure applied should be sufficient to avoid air leakage at the edges.
· The shelter lid was closed and was secured with the aluminium strip.
· The HVS was warmed-up for about 5 minutes to establish run-temperature conditions.
· A new flow rate record sheet was set into the flow recorder.
· The flow rate of the HVS was checked and adjusted at around 1.1 m3/min. The range specified in the EM&A Manual was between 0.6-1.7 m3/min.
· The programmable timer was set for a sampling period of 24 hrs + 1 hr, and the starting time, weather condition and the filter number were recorded.
· The initial elapsed time was recorded.
· At the end of sampling, the sampled filter was removed carefully and folded in half length so that only surfaces with collected particulate matter were in contact.
· It was then placed in a clean plastic envelope and sealed.
· All monitoring information was recorded on a standard data sheet.
· Filters were sent to a HOKLAS accredited laboratory for analysis.
Maintenance and Calibration
· The HVS and its accessories are maintained in good working condition, such as replacing motor brushes routinely and checking electrical wiring to ensure a continuous power supply.
· HVSs were calibrated at 2-month intervals.
· Calibration records for HVSs are shown in Appendix E.
1-hour
TSP Monitoring
Field Monitoring
The measuring procedures of the 1-hour dust meter are in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Instruction Manual as follows:
·
Set POWER to “ON”, push
· Push the knob at MEASURE position.
· Push “O-ADJ” button. (Then meter’s indication is 0).
· Push the knob at SENSI ADJ position and set the meter’s indication to S value described on the Test Report using the trimmer for SENSI ADJ.
· Pull out the knob and return it to MEASURE position.
· Push “START” button.
Maintenance and Calibration
· The 1-hour dust meter would be checked at 3-month intervals and calibrated at 1-year intervals throughout all stages of the air quality monitoring.
· Calibration records for direct dust meters are shown in Appendix E.
Following the requirements in the EM&A Manual for noise, noise monitoring has to be carried out during the construction phase. Continuous noise monitoring for the A-weighted levels Leq, L10 and L90 is undertaken once per every week.
Table 2.4 summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of air quality monitoring.
Table 2.4: Noise Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
|
Monitoring Stations |
Parameter |
Frequency and Duration |
|
NSR1, NSR3, NSR5, NSR7 |
Leq, L90 & L10 |
Once every week |
The
4 noise
quality monitoring stations were established in the EM&A manual and were
slightly adjusted during the baseline monitoring phase. Locations of the agreed
noise
quality monitoring stations are listed in Table
2.5 and as shown in Figure
2.2.
Table 2.5: Noise monitoring stations
|
Monitoring Stations |
Locations |
Type of measurement |
|
NSR1 |
Noise monitoring equipment was set up near the
boundary wall at |
Free-field |
|
NSR3 |
The monitoring station was located next to the
guard house at |
Facade |
|
NSR5 |
The monitoring station was located within the work
site boundary. |
Free-field |
|
NSR7 |
The monitoring station was located near the
boundary wall of the house of Mai Po San Tsuen. |
Free-field |
Integrating Sound Level Meter will be used for noise monitoring. It is a Type 1 sound level meter capable of giving a continuous readout of the noise level readings including equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq) and percentile sound pressure level (Lx). They comply with International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1). Table 2.6 summarizes the noise monitoring equipment model being used.
Table 2.6: Noise Monitoring Equipment
|
Monitoring locations |
Equipment Model |
|
|
Integrating Sound
Level Meter |
Calibrator |
|
|
NSR1 |
Rion NL-31 |
Rion NC-74 |
|
NSR3 |
||
|
NSR5 |
||
|
NSR7 |
||
Field Monitoring
· The Sound Level Meter was set on a tripod at a height of at least 1.2 m above the ground.
· Façade and free-field measurements were made at the monitoring locations.
· The battery condition was checked to ensure the correct functioning of the meter.
· Parameters such as frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were set as follows:
- frequency weighting: A
- time weighting: Fast
- time measurement: 30 minutes intervals (between 0700 and 1900)
· Prior to and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using a Calibrator for 94 dB at 1 kHz. If the difference in the calibration level before and after measurement was more than 1 dB, the measurement would be considered invalid has to be repeated after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.
· During the monitoring period, the Leq, L10 and L90 were recorded. In addition, any site observations and noise sources were recorded on a standard record sheet.
Maintenance and Calibration
· The microphone head of the sound level meter and calibrator is cleaned with soft cloth at quarterly intervals.
·
The meter and calibrator are sent to the
supplier or HOKLAS laboratory to check and calibrate at yearly intervals.
·
Calibration records are shown in Appendix E.
In
accordance with the requirements in the EM&A Manual for water quality, water quality parameters including Dissolved Oxygen
(DO), temperature, pH, turbidity, suspended solids (SS) and Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) have to be monitored at designated monitoring stations during
construction of the Project. DO, temperature and
pH were measured in-situ whereas SS and BOD were analysed in a laboratory. The measurements should be taken at all designated monitoring stations,
3 days per week. The interval between any two sets of monitoring was not less
than 36 hours. Table 2.7 summarizes
the monitoring parameters, frequency and duration of water quality monitoring.
Table 2.7: Water Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
|
Monitoring Stations |
Parameter |
Frequency and Duration |
|
MP1, MP2, MP3, MP4, MP5
& MP6 |
DO, temperature, pH, SS,
turbidity, BOD |
Three days every week |
The
6 water quality monitoring stations were
established in the EM&A manual. Locations of the agreed water quality monitoring stations are listed in
Table 2.8
and as shown in Figure
2.3.
Table 2.8: Water quality monitoring stations
|
Monitoring Stations |
Easting |
Northing |
|
MP1 |
838 730.50 |
822 862.25 |
|
MP2 |
838 933.26 |
823 247.41 |
|
MP3 |
839 107.17 |
823 596.84 |
|
MP4 |
839 286.14 |
823 638.55 |
|
MP5 |
839 134.35 |
823 722.99 |
|
MP6 |
839 063.02 |
823 842.25 |
The Water Quality Monitoring Equipments and Analytical Methods applied to Water Quality Samples are given in Table 2.9 and Table 2.10 respectively. Details of which are discussed below.
Table 2.9: Water Quality Monitoring Equipments
|
Equipment |
Model |
Equipment /Serial Number |
|
Dissolved oxygen, temperature & pH Measuring Meter |
YSI Professional Plus |
10D101566 |
|
Turbidimeter |
Hach 2100Q |
09120C000514 |
|
Global Positioning System (GPS) |
Garmin eTrex
|
ENO 007 |
Table 2.10: Analytical Methods applied to Water Quality Samples
|
Determinant, unit |
Standard Method |
|
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L |
In house method based on APHA 2540D; ALS Method Code: EA-025 |
|
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), mg/L |
In house method based on APHA 5210B; ALS Method Code: EP-030 |
All
in-situ monitoring instruments were checked, calibrated and certified by a
laboratory accredited
under HOKLAS or any other international accreditation scheme before use.
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), temperature and pH measuring equipment
A portable, weatherproof multiparameter instrument YSI 556 MPS was used in the monitoring. It can be capable for measuring dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and temperature simultaneously with the following limits:
· a dissolved oxygen level in the range of 0-50 mg/L and 0-500 % saturation;
· a temperature of -5 to 45 degree Celsius; and
· pH value of 0-14 with 0.1 as the base unit.
Turbidity
Measurement Instrument
Portable and weatherproof turbidity meter (HACH model 2100P) was used during impact monitoring. It has a photoelectric sensor capable of measuring turbidity between 0-1000 NTU. Response of the sensor was checked with certified standard turbidity solutions before the start of measurement.
Global
Positioning System
A
hand-held GPS navigator (Garmin eTrex
Suspended Solids and BOD Measurements (Sample
Containers and Storage)
Water samples for SS analysis were stored in
high density polythene bottles with no preservative added, packed in ice
(cooled to 4oC without being frozen), delivered to the laboratory,
and analysed as soon as possible after collection. Analysis was carried out in a
HOKLAS accredited laboratory.
Detection Limit
The limits of
detection for the in-situ and laboratory measurements are shown in Table
2.11.
Table 2.11: Detection
Limits for Water Quality Determinants
|
Determinant |
Limit of Detection |
|
Dissolved Oxygen |
0.1 mg/L |
|
Temperature |
0.1
degree Celsius |
|
pH |
0.01 unit |
|
Turbidity |
0.1 NTU |
|
Suspended Solids |
1 mg/L |
|
BOD |
2 mg/L |
In situ measurement
All pH meters, DO/ temperature meters had been
checked and calibrated prior to use. Standard buffer solution of at least 2 pH
levels (either pH 4 and pH 7 or pH 7 and pH 10) had been used for calibration
of the instrument before and after use.
DO meters had been calibrated by a laboratory
accredited under HOKLAS or any other international accreditation scheme, and
subsequently re-calibrated at 3 monthly intervals throughout all stages of the
water quality monitoring. Responses of sensors and electrodes had been checked
with certified standard solutions before each use. Wet bulb calibrations for
all DO meters had been carried out before measurement at each monitoring
location. For the on site calibration of field equipment, BS 127:1993,
"Guide to field and on-site test methods for the analysis of waters"
had been observed.
Measurements shall be at 3 water depths,
namely, 1m below water surface, mid-depth and 1m above stream bed/pond bed,
except where the water depth less that 6m, the mid-depth
station maybe omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3m, only the
mid-depth station will be monitored.
Replicates in-situ measurements and samples
collected from each independent monitoring event are required for all
parameters to ensure a robust statistically interpretable dataset.
Water Samples Preparation and Analysis
For collection of water sampling within the
water courses, a 500ml clean plastic beaker was used. After collection, the
water samples were stored in high-density polythene bottles. The sample
container was rinsed with a portion
of the water sample. The water sample was then transferred to the container,
labelled with a unique sample ID and sealed with a
screw cap. The water samples were stored in a cool box maintained
at 4oC. The water samples were then delivered to a local
HOKLAS-accredited laboratory (ALS) on
the same day for analysis.
The testing methods of testing parameters as
recommended by EIA or required by EPD,
with the QA/QC results are in accordance with the requirement of HOKLAS or
international accredited scheme.
The calibration certificates for equipments used for in-situ
monitoring of water quality are attached in Appendix E.
Target species and certain other fauna will
be monitored within the Project Area and Assessment Area during the wetland and
residential construction phase. This will be important to ensure that any
unexpected events or impacts either on- or off-site are quickly identified so
that remedial action can be taken. The
groups to be monitored and frequency of monitoring are shown in Table 2.12.
Table 2.12: Summary of Construction Phase Ecological Monitoring
for the Wo Shang Wai WRA
|
|
Construction
Phase Ecological Monitoring |
|
Birds |
Weekly (including Assessment
Area). |
|
Dragonflies and Butterflies |
Once per month during March
and September to November, and twice per month during April to August. |
|
Herpetofauna |
Once per month during April
to November. |
|
Water Quality |
After filling of WRA with
water, monthly for in situ water
quality and every six months (end of the wet season and end of the dry
season) for laboratory testing. |
|
Site Inspections |
Weekly. |
Ecological
monitoring locations during
construction phase are shown in Figure 4.1 and the methodology for ecological monitoring
is detailed in Section 4.
·
The extent of the agreed works area should be regularly
checked during the construction phase. Any trespass by the Contractor outside
the limit of the works, including any damage to existing trees and woodland
shall be noted;
·
The progress of the engineering works should be regularly
reviewed on site to identify the earliest practical opportunities for the
landscape works to be undertaken;
·
All existing vegetation, streams and other features within
the study area which are not directly affected by the works are retained and
protected;
·
The methods of protecting existing vegetation proposed by the
Contractor are acceptable and enforced;
·
Preparation, lifting transport and re-planting operations for
any transplanted trees;
·
The layout, design and construction of buildings conforms to
requirements specified in the EIA report;
·
All landscaping works are carried out in accordance with the
EIA recommendations and with specifications;
·
The planting of new trees, shrubs, groundcover, climbers,
grasses and other plans, together with the replanting of any transplanted trees
are carried out properly and within the right season;
·
All necessary horticultural operations and replacement
planting are undertaken throughout the Establishment Period to ensure the
healthy establishment and growth of both transplanted trees and all newly
establishment plants.
Table 2.13: Construction and Operation
Phase Audit Checklist
|
Area of Works |
Items to be Monitored |
|
Works Area |
Check the extent of the Works to ensure that the Works Area
is not exceeded |
|
Protection of all trees and woodland blocks to be retained |
Identification and demarcation of trees / vegetation to be
retained, erection of physical protection (e.g. fencing), monitoring against
possible incursion, physical damage, fire, pollution, surface erosion, etc. |
|
Streams |
Ensure no run-off into existing streams |
|
Clearance of existing vegetation |
Identification and demarcation of trees / vegetation to be
cleared, checking of extent of works to minimize damage, monitoring of
adjacent areas against possible incursion, physical damage, fire, pollution,
surface erosion, etc. |
|
Transplanting of trees |
Identification and demarcation of trees / vegetation to be
transplanted, monitoring of extent of pruning / lifting works to minimize
damage, timing of operations implementation of all stages of preparatory and
translocation works, and maintenance of transplanted vegetation, etc. |
|
Topsoil stripping |
Ensuring existing topsoil is stripped and stored under
recognized good practice and is hydroseeded and regularly turned to prevent
anaerobic conditions |
|
New buildings |
Ensure that building finishes accord with mitigation
proposals with regard to colour and albedo. |
|
Boundaries |
Ensuring hoarding are erected as required |
|
Noise Barrier |
Ensure noise barrier design accords with the mitigation
proposals with regard to location, materials and finishes. |
|
Night-time lighting |
Ensuring night-time lighting is directional, hooded and
shielded away from VSRs |
|
Plant supply |
Monitoring of operations relating to the supply of
specialist plant material (including the collecting, germination and growth
of plants from seed) to ensure that plants will be available in time to be
used within the construction works. |
|
Landscape and wetland treatments generally |
Check that wetland, and hard / soft landscape designs
conform to intent of mitigation measures and agreed designs |
|
Soiling, planting, etc. |
Monitoring of implementation and maintenance of soiling and
planting works against possible incursion, physical damage, fire, pollution,
surface erosion, etc. |
|
Establishment Works |
Monitoring of implementation of maintenance operation
during Establishment Period |
The monitoring locations should check
against the mitigation measures proposed under the approved Environmental
Impact Assessment, which are summarised as follows:
Table 2.14: Proposed Construction Phase
Mitigation Measures
|
ID No. |
Landscape and Visual
Mitigation Measure |
|
CM1 |
The construction area and contractor’s temporary works
areas should be minimised to avoid impacts on adjacent landscape. |
|
CM2 |
Screening of construction works by hoardings/noise barriers
around Works area in visually unobtrusive colours, to screen Works. |
|
CM3 |
Reduction of construction period to practical minimum. |
|
CM4 |
Topsoil, where identified, should be stripped and stored
for re-use in the construction of the soft landscape works, where the soil
material meets acceptable criteria and where practical. The Contract Specification shall include
storage and reuse of topsoil as appropriate. |
|
CM5 |
Hydroseeding or sheeting of soil stockpiles with visually
unobtrusive material (in earth tone). |
|
CM6 |
Advance screen planting to noise barriers. |
|
CM7 |
Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all
lights. |
|
CM8 |
Ensure no run-off into streams adjacent to Project Area. |
|
CM9 |
Protection of existing trees on boundary of project area
shall be carefully protected during construction. Detailed Tree Protection Specification
shall be provided in the Contract Specification. Under this specification,
the Contractor shall be required to submit, for approval, a detailed working
method statement for the protection of trees prior to undertaking any works
adjacent to all retained trees, including trees in contractor’s works
areas. (Tree protection measures will
be detailed at S16 and Tree Removal Application stage). |
|
CM10 |
Trees unavoidably affected by the works shall be
transplanted where practical. Trees
should be transplanted straight to their destinations and not held in a
nursery. A detailed Tree Transplanting
Specification shall be provided in the Contract Specification, if applicable.
Sufficient time for necessary tree root and crown preparation periods shall
be allowed in the project programme. |
Table 2.15: Proposed Operation Phase
Mitigation Measures
|
ID
No. |
Landscape
Mitigation Measure |
|
OM1 |
Compensatory Tree Planting for all felled trees shall be
provided to the satisfaction of relevant Government departments. Required numbers and locations of
compensatory trees shall be determined and agreed separately with Government during
the Tree Felling Application process under ETWBTC 3/2006. |
|
OM2 |
A continuous belt of screen planting along southern
perimeter of project area with fast growing tree species. At least 450 trees capable of reaching a
height > 10m within 10 years should be planted. Planting of the belt of trees shall be
carried out as advance works ahead of other site formation and building
works. |
|
OM3 |
Maximise soft landscape and amenity water bodies in
residential areas of the development.
Approximately 750 of trees (of Heavy Standard size) should be planted. Where space permits, roadside berms should
be created. Street trees should be of species that reach a mature height of
no less than 15m. |
|
OM4 |
Maximise freshwater habitat wetland creation consistent
with achieving other parameters. Min
4.74 ha to be provided. Wetlands must
have natural edge profiles with >1m wide emergent zone. No access to the wetland by residents and
all wetlands must be screened from residential development by a continuous
tree screen at interface with residential development or earth mounding such
that disturbance is minimised. Implementation of the wetland shall be carried
out as advance works. |
|
OM5 |
Use appropriate (visually unobtrusive and non-reflective)
building materials and colours in built structures. |
|
OM6 |
During detailed design, refine building layout to create a
min 10m wide gap between buildings north of Wo Shang Wai pond and also two
min 10m wide gaps in the row of buildings adjacent to Royal Palms. |
|
OM7 |
Streetscape elements (e.g. paving, signage, street
furniture, lighting etc.) shall be sensitively designed in a manner that
responds to the local context, and minimises potential negative landscape and
visual impacts. Lighting units should
be directional and minimise unnecessary light spill. |
Impact
monitoring for air quality (dust), noise and water quality due to the
construction work were undertaken during the reporting month in compliance with
the EM&A manual in the reporting period. Regular site inspections were
carried out on 5, 12, 19 and 25 May in the reporting
month to assess the compliance with environmental requirements.
Results of 1-hour TSP at the four monitoring locations are summarised in Table 3.1. Graphical plots of the monitoring results are shown in Appendix F.
Table 3.1: Summary
of 1-hour TSP monitoring results
|
Monitoring Date |
Start Time |
1-hr TSP (μg/m3) |
Range (μg/m3) |
Action Level (μg/m3) |
Limit Level (μg/m3) |
|||
|
1st Result |
2nd Result |
3rd Result |
||||||
|
ASR1 |
||||||||
|
5-May-11 |
9:06 |
102 |
98 |
95 |
82 - 143 |
378 |
500 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
9:02 |
97 |
90 |
82 |
||||
|
17-May-11 |
9:09 |
90 |
97 |
102 |
||||
|
23-May-11 |
8:45 |
106 |
98 |
93 |
||||
|
27-May-11 |
8:40 |
136 |
143 |
135 |
||||
|
ASR2A |
||||||||
|
5-May-11 |
13:11 |
93 |
90 |
102 |
83 - 136 |
357 |
500 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
13:17 |
94 |
88 |
83 |
||||
|
17-May-11 |
13:10 |
84 |
91 |
95 |
||||
|
23-May-11 |
12:55 |
102 |
97 |
89 |
||||
|
27-May-11 |
13:19 |
131 |
136 |
125 |
||||
|
ASR3 |
||||||||
|
5-May-11 |
12:58 |
91 |
90 |
103 |
85 - 144 |
358 |
500 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
13:03 |
86 |
89 |
85 |
||||
|
17-May-11 |
13:03 |
88 |
105 |
90 |
||||
|
23-May-11 |
12:35 |
98 |
92 |
87 |
||||
|
27-May-11 |
12:55 |
137 |
144 |
138 |
||||
|
ASR4 |
||||||||
|
5-May-11 |
8:48 |
109 |
104 |
110 |
82 - 162 |
372 |
500 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
8:53 |
95 |
87 |
82 |
||||
|
17-May-11 |
9:02 |
89 |
93 |
99 |
||||
|
23-May-11 |
8:38 |
105 |
97 |
91 |
||||
|
27-May-11 |
8:33 |
162 |
154 |
146 |
||||
Results of 24-hour TSP at the four monitoring locations are summarised in Table 3.2. Graphical plots of the monitoring results are shown in Appendix F.
Table 3.2: Summary
of 24-hour TSP monitoring results
|
Monitoring Date |
Monitoring Results (μg/m3) |
Range (μg/m3) |
Action Level (μg/m3) |
Limit Level (μg/m3) |
|
ASR1 |
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
90 |
83 - 98 |
226 |
260 |
|
11-May-11 |
83 |
|||
|
17-May-11 |
98 |
|||
|
23-May-11 |
92 |
|||
|
27-May-11 |
91 |
|||
|
ASR2A |
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
88 |
81 - 91 |
213 |
260 |
|
11-May-11 |
83 |
|||
|
17-May-11 |
82 |
|||
|
23-May-11 |
81 |
|||
|
27-May-11 |
91 |
|||
|
ASR3 |
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
91 |
86 - 91 |
205 |
260 |
|
11-May-11 |
91 |
|||
|
17-May-11 |
90 |
|||
|
23-May-11 |
87 |
|||
|
27-May-11 |
86 |
|||
|
ASR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
110 |
83 - 110 |
237 |
260 |
|
11-May-11 |
83 |
|||
|
17-May-11 |
94 |
|||
|
23-May-11 |
90 |
|||
|
27-May-11 |
88 |
No exceedance of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP (Action or Limit Level) was recorded in the reporting period.
The weather conditions in the reporting period are provided in Appendix G. (Data on 28 May 2011 was not available due to technical issue)
The construction noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 3.3. Graphical plots of the monitoring data are shown in Appendix F.
Table 3.3: Summary
of Construction noise
monitoring results
|
Monitoring Date |
Start Time |
Mean & Range
of Noise Levels, dB(A) |
Limit Level for Leq
(dB) |
||
|
Leq |
L10 |
L90 |
|||
|
NSR1 |
|
|
|
|
> 75 |
|
5-May-11 |
13:19 |
48 |
49 |
41 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
13:23 |
56 |
59 |
53 |
|
|
17-May-11 |
13:15 |
55 |
57 |
52 |
|
|
23-May-11 |
13:05 |
56 |
58 |
53 |
|
|
NSR3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
13:58 |
51 |
52 |
43 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
14:02 |
55 |
57 |
46 |
|
|
17-May-11 |
13:55 |
56 |
58 |
48 |
|
|
23-May-11 |
13:48 |
55 |
57 |
47 |
|
|
NSR5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
8:52 |
53 |
56 |
48 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
8:58 |
58 |
60 |
55 |
|
|
17-May-11 |
9:06 |
54 |
56 |
49 |
|
|
23-May-11 |
8:42 |
57 |
58 |
54 |
|
|
NSR7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5-May-11 |
9:32 |
65 |
67 |
61 |
|
|
11-May-11 |
9:11 |
64 |
66 |
58 |
|
|
17-May-11 |
9:49 |
65 |
67 |
62 |
|
|
23-May-11 |
9:22 |
65 |
66 |
59 |
|
No exceedance (Action/Limit Level) of construction noise was recorded in the reporting period.
The water quality monitoring results are summarized in Table 3.4. Graphical plots of the monitoring data are shown in Appendix F.
Table 3.4: Summary of Water quality monitoring results
|
Monitoring Date |
Temp (oC) |
pH |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
DOS (%) |
Turbidity (NT) |
BOD (mg/L) |
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
|
MP1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
28.2 |
7.4 |
2.6 |
33.9 |
26.6 |
7 |
28 |
|
5/5/2011 |
24.6 |
7.5 |
2.1 |
25.2 |
46.7 |
4.5 |
53 |
|
7/5/2011 |
25.2 |
7.8 |
3.2 |
39.0 |
182.5 |
4 |
162.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.4 |
2.8 |
34.5 |
146.0 |
3.5 |
118.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
27.6 |
8.0 |
3.2 |
41.0 |
66.5 |
8 |
77.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
26.6 |
8.0 |
6.0 |
74.5 |
62.2 |
3 |
58.5 |
|
16/5/2011 |
27.2 |
7.5 |
1.5 |
18.5 |
33.7 |
5 |
30 |
|
18/5/2011 |
26.8 |
7.5 |
2.1 |
20.1 |
46.4 |
4.5 |
42.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
26.9 |
7.4 |
3.7 |
47.3 |
44.4 |
5.5 |
42 |
|
23/5/2011 |
25.4 |
7.5 |
3.8 |
46.4 |
57.5 |
4.5 |
70 |
|
25/5/2011 |
24.7 |
7.6 |
2.9 |
35.2 |
47.3 |
4 |
50 |
|
27/5/2011 |
26.9 |
7.6 |
3.5 |
45.9 |
42.2 |
5.5 |
13 |
|
30/5/2011 |
27.5 |
7.4 |
4.2 |
53.7 |
30.1 |
4 |
19 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<1.23 |
- |
>173 |
- |
>231 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<1.17 |
- |
>177 |
- |
>299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
27.5 |
7.5 |
4.6 |
59.2 |
29.1 |
6 |
33.5 |
|
5/5/2011 |
24.5 |
7.4 |
2.3 |
28.5 |
34.6 |
6 |
42.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
25.1 |
7.6 |
4.9 |
59.6 |
197.0 |
6 |
305.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
27.2 |
7.5 |
4.8 |
61.0 |
53.5 |
3 |
57.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
26.4 |
8.1 |
4.2 |
51.3 |
60.1 |
4 |
69.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
26.3 |
7.8 |
5.7 |
70.4 |
27.2 |
3 |
19.5 |
|
16/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.5 |
2.3 |
29.1 |
26.7 |
4 |
18 |
|
18/5/2011 |
27.1 |
7.5 |
2.4 |
28.4 |
34.8 |
4 |
29.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
26.6 |
7.5 |
3.6 |
45.7 |
31.3 |
4 |
24.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
25.6 |
7.6 |
4.2 |
50.7 |
33.4 |
4 |
34 |
|
25/5/2011 |
25.1 |
7.6 |
3.6 |
44.0 |
23.0 |
3 |
26.5 |
|
27/5/2011 |
26.9 |
7.5 |
3.6 |
48.2 |
45.9 |
4 |
13.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
26.3 |
7.6 |
3.5 |
43.6 |
32.5 |
3 |
19.5 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<1.04 |
- |
>132 |
- |
>170 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<0.89 |
- |
>163 |
- |
>209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
28.7 |
7.8 |
7.5 |
97.4 |
33.6 |
7.5 |
37 |
|
5/5/2011 |
26.2 |
7.5 |
3.7 |
45.7 |
34.5 |
9 |
41.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
27.4 |
7.6 |
5.3 |
67.9 |
42.9 |
13 |
40.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
29.0 |
7.6 |
5.1 |
67.3 |
26.0 |
9 |
40 |
|
11/5/2011 |
29.9 |
7.5 |
3.5 |
47.0 |
45.5 |
7 |
66 |
|
13/5/2011 |
29.8 |
7.5 |
6.0 |
79.5 |
39.9 |
7 |
44.5 |
|
16/5/2011 |
28.2 |
7.8 |
7.7 |
99.3 |
35.7 |
8.5 |
38 |
|
18/5/2011 |
27.4 |
7.7 |
7.5 |
88.6 |
36.2 |
8.5 |
37 |
|
20/5/2011 |
27.5 |
7.8 |
7.3 |
93.2 |
33.6 |
11 |
37.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
26.7 |
7.3 |
3.2 |
40.2 |
37.8 |
8 |
37 |
|
25/5/2011 |
24.9 |
7.4 |
4.2 |
51.6 |
46.5 |
8 |
51.5 |
|
27/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.9 |
5.2 |
66.8 |
30.8 |
9 |
33 |
|
30/5/2011 |
28.5 |
7.8 |
5.4 |
70.1 |
36.2 |
9 |
35 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<6.85 |
- |
>64 |
- |
>65 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<6.65 |
- |
>67 |
- |
>66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
27.7 |
7.0 |
1.7 |
21.3 |
54.3 |
13 |
55.5 |
|
5/5/2011 |
24.8 |
6.9 |
1.1 |
12.7 |
56.6 |
9 |
26 |
|
7/5/2011 |
27.3 |
7.0 |
1.9 |
24.6 |
33.4 |
9 |
24.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
28.3 |
6.9 |
1.6 |
20.1 |
57.1 |
9 |
30.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
28.5 |
7.0 |
1.2 |
14.9 |
30.6 |
6 |
16 |
|
13/5/2011 |
26.7 |
7.3 |
2.6 |
32.5 |
109.0 |
8 |
86 |
|
16/5/2011 |
26.8 |
7.2 |
1.3 |
16.0 |
44.3 |
8 |
23 |
|
18/5/2011 |
26.5 |
7.3 |
1.2 |
14.9 |
115.0 |
13 |
181.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.2 |
1.2 |
15.4 |
53.0 |
14 |
18 |
|
23/5/2011 |
24.3 |
7.2 |
1.9 |
22.9 |
84.9 |
3 |
97 |
|
25/5/2011 |
23.0 |
7.2 |
1.4 |
16.0 |
26.7 |
3.5 |
23 |
|
27/5/2011 |
28.1 |
7.1 |
2.0 |
25.1 |
32.9 |
8.5 |
22.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
27.3 |
7.0 |
1.3 |
16.7 |
40.2 |
6 |
19 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<3.91 |
- |
>60 |
- |
>50 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<3.82 |
- |
>64 |
- |
>53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
28.8 |
7.3 |
5.4 |
72.3 |
41.1 |
7 |
33.5 |
|
5/5/2011 |
24.7 |
7.1 |
3.1 |
38.0 |
36.2 |
4 |
36.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
27.2 |
7.1 |
3.7 |
47.9 |
23.7 |
4.5 |
26.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
27.7 |
7.4 |
8.8 |
116.9 |
29.5 |
5.5 |
26 |
|
11/5/2011 |
29.5 |
7.3 |
8.8 |
118.6 |
29.4 |
9.5 |
46 |
|
13/5/2011 |
26.7 |
7.5 |
4.0 |
49.9 |
223.5 |
10 |
139 |
|
16/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.3 |
1.3 |
16.6 |
72.8 |
7.5 |
70.5 |
|
18/5/2011 |
27.3 |
7.2 |
1.3 |
16.0 |
36.1 |
5 |
20.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
27.7 |
7.8 |
10.1 |
129.2 |
135.5 |
37 |
69.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
24.8 |
7.2 |
3.0 |
36.6 |
56.4 |
3 |
39 |
|
25/5/2011 |
23.8 |
7.3 |
3.0 |
35.8 |
27.1 |
3 |
20.5 |
|
27/5/2011 |
29.5 |
7.3 |
3.8 |
50.6 |
39.8 |
3 |
25.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
28.6 |
7.3 |
4.5 |
59.5 |
42.6 |
4 |
34 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<4.13 |
- |
>81 |
- |
>66 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<3.87 |
- |
>84 |
- |
>69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
28.3 |
6.9 |
4.5 |
59.6 |
88.0 |
3.5 |
68 |
|
5/5/2011 |
24.4 |
7.2 |
2.6 |
31.2 |
53.4 |
3 |
50.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
26.9 |
7.1 |
4.3 |
55.1 |
43.8 |
4 |
39.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
28.6 |
7.1 |
7.6 |
100.9 |
50.9 |
3.5 |
41 |
|
11/5/2011 |
28.9 |
7.0 |
4.8 |
64.5 |
82.8 |
5 |
108.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
26.7 |
7.2 |
4.6 |
57.3 |
178.0 |
13 |
118 |
|
16/5/2011 |
27.0 |
7.1 |
2.4 |
31.0 |
36.7 |
3 |
23 |
|
18/5/2011 |
27.5 |
7.2 |
2.8 |
32.5 |
66.9 |
4 |
49.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
27.5 |
7.5 |
11.4 |
145.6 |
98.7 |
23 |
59 |
|
23/5/2011 |
24.7 |
7.1 |
3.9 |
47.2 |
76.7 |
3 |
59 |
|
25/5/2011 |
23.5 |
7.2 |
4.0 |
47.2 |
46.0 |
2.5 |
30 |
|
27/5/2011 |
29.1 |
7.4 |
4.5 |
59.2 |
38.9 |
3 |
28.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
27.9 |
7.3 |
5.4 |
71.3 |
46.2 |
2 |
25 |
|
Action Level |
- |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<4.61 |
- |
>94 |
- |
>75 |
|
Limit Level |
- |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<4.52 |
- |
>96 |
- |
>75 |
Notes:
Values Bold indicate Action Level exceedance.
Values Underlined and Bold indicate
Limit Level exceedance.
Exceedances of pH, DO, turbidity and SS were observed at MP1 to MP6.
Exceedances of pH were frequently observed at MP1 to MP3 while DO were exceeded
frequently at MP3 to MP6. Turbidity and/or SS exceedances were recorded on a
few days at all monitoring stations.
The Event
and Action Plan in Appendix D was followed under these cases of exceedances.
From
investigation, construction activities during the period of exceedance included
mainly band drain installation, trial embankment for ground improvement and
site formation (filling). It was observed that the Contractor has implemented
water quality mitigation measures as recommended in the EIA report, including
the provision of temporary drainage facility and associated treatment facility.
Sand bags are in place in the temporary drainage channel to enhance the
desilting efficiency. The Contractor further enhanced the water quality
mitigation measures by erecting several segments of rock bunds at the discharge
outlet to avoid site runoff draining directly to the northern ditches.
Exceedances of action level of pH
were observed at MP1 and MP2 on various days and one occasion of limit level
exceedance of pH was found at MP2 on 11 May 2011. On the other hand, limit
level of turbidity was exceeded at MP1 on 7 May 2011 and on the same day
exceedances of limit levels of turbidity and SS were observed at MP2. From
investigation, there was no direct discharge from the site to the ditch where
MP1 and MP2 are located, so the exceedances were not considered to be related
to the construction activities. The exceedances of pH could be due to natural
variations. The turbidity/SS exceedance could be due to low water level and
prominent fish activity in the stream (photo 4) on the monitoring date.
The action level of pH and limit
level of DO exceedances were frequently observed at MP3. The action level of SS
was exceedance once on 11 May 2011. As understood, the fish pond near the site
(represented by MP3) was being separated from the construction site by the WRA
since November 2010, so the exceedances were not considered to be related to
the construction activities. The exceedances of pH could be due to natural
variations while exceedances of DO and SS maybe due to external factors such as
pond fish culture activities which were out of the control of the project.
pH was exceeded only once at MP5 on
20 May 2011. Action and limit levels of DO were exceeded frequently
(particularly at MP4). DO at MP5 to MP6 fluctuated in May 2011 and were very
high on some days (e.g. 10.1 mg/L at MP5 and 11.4 mg/L at MP6 on 20 May 2011).
Limit level exceedances of turbidity and/SS were observed at MP4 on 3, 13, 18
and 23 May 2011; at MP5 on 13, 16 and 20 May 2011; and at MP6 on 11, 13 and 20
May 2011.
From observations on 20 May 2011,
green water was observed at the ditch near MP4 to MP6 and this showed that
algal bloom appearing in April 2011 has persisted. Under sunlight,
photosynthesis dominates and DO increases. As algae grows further and dies, it
causes increase in suspended solid and a decrease in DO in the water. The fluctuation
of DO were recorded during May 2011 confirmed that there was algal bloom in the
ditch.
The growth and death of algae
increased turbidity and SS in the water, causing exceedances at MP4 to MP6. On
the other hand, the dying of algae later on has resulted in a decrease in DO
and caused an exceedance of SS. It was therefore considered that the DO
exceedances during the period and turbidity/SS exceedances on 3, 16, 18 and 20
were caused by algal bloom.
From record of the Hong Kong
Observatory, Amber and Red rainstorm warning signals were hoisted on 13 and 22
May 2011 respectively. The heavy rainfall could have caused large amount of
surface runoff from all sources in the vicinity of the ditch. It is believed
that the runoff has significantly increased the turbulence and thus resulted in
higher turbidity and SS inside the ditch water on 13 and 23 May 2011.
Moreover, since the site discharge
was controlled and treated by the AquaSed system during the period, it was
concluded that the exceedances were not related to the construction activities
in the project.
This report documents surveys
conducted in the Survey Area between 1 May and 31 May 2011. The Wetland Restoration Area (hereafter WRA) is also surveyed as the
area is accessible and site formation works for WRA has been completed. The updated survey transect is provided in Figure 4.1. Dates and ecological surveys conducted during this period are
summarised in Appendix H.
Monitoring was undertaken following
the survey methodology in the EM&A Manual. A transect was followed in the
bird surveys (see Figure 4.1). All bird species of conservation importance and/or wetland dependent
were identified and enumerated. Flying birds were not recorded unless they were
foraging and associated with the habitat (such as swifts). Further, notable
bird observations during other surveys were also recorded.
Bird
surveys were conducted on a weekly basis. A total of 20 bird species of
conservation importance and/or wetland-dependence were recorded within 500 m of
the Project Site while 13 bird species were recorded in the WRA. Of the 13
species recorded within the WRA, 11 of them were species of conservation
importance and/or wetland-dependent species. A summary of survey data is
provided in Appendix I. The site
supported breeding pairs of some wetland-dependent birds, including five to six
pairs of Little Ringed Plover Charadrius
dubius, one pair of White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus and two suspected records of Zitting
Cisticola Cisticola juncidis. Other birds breeding on-site include Chinese
Bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis,
Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris
and Plain Prinia Prinia inornata.
Species and numbers recorded in this survey period are typical of fish
pond areas in early summer months indicating that birds in the area are not
presently being adversely affected by the construction of the WRA.
Two day
time and two night time herpetofauna surveys were conducted in the period. A total of four amphibian species and a
single reptile species were recorded in the survey area, while three of these
amphibian species were recorded in the WRA. Tadpoles, probably of Günther’s
Frog Rana guentheri, were recorded in
high numbers in the fish-free pond (marsh area). All species recorded are very
common and widespread in northwestern
Monitoring
of dragonflies and butterflies was conducted on a twice monthly basis. A total
of 15 dragonfly species and nine butterfly species were recorded in the survey,
of which ten dragonfly and four butterfly species were recorded in the WRA. One
dragonfly species of conservation importance (i.e. Coastal Glider Macrodiplax cora) was recorded in the
survey area. This species is considered to be uncommon and of Local Concern in
Monitoring
of mammals was conducted concurrently with other surveys. No mammals were
recorded in the survey period.
Ecological monitoring during May 2011 was carried out following the
survey methodology and frequency outlined in the EM&A Manual.
A total of 20 bird species, 15 dragonfly species, 9 butterfly species, 4
amphibian and 1 reptile species were recorded in the survey area. Survey
findings indicate that the ponds within the Survey Area supported numbers and
diversity of wetland-dependent birds and other species of conservation
importance typical of fish pond areas in early wet season.
13 bird species, 10 dragonfly species, 4 butterfly species and 3
amphibian species were recorded in the WRA. These findings indicate that the
WRA is already supporting wetland-dependent birds and other species of
conservation importance.
The EM&A programme for Landscape and
Visual impact due to the construction commenced in May 2010 and was continued
during the reporting period. Site inspections on Landscape and Visual impact were
carried out on 12 and 31 May 2011 to confirm the implementation of mitigation
measures at construction stage.
The audit
was undertaken with references to the specific checklists provided in Tables 2.13 – 2.15 and audit results
are summarized as below:
Table 5.1: Construction and Operation Phase Audit Summary
|
Area of Works |
Items to be Monitored |
|
Works Area |
The boundaries of the works
area have been established on site in accordance with the contract documents
and approved plans (EP), and the limit of current heavy construction activity
is now confined to within the site hoardings (North side of the site /
access road) and the noise barriers (other sides of the site). Minor works
such as horticultural maintenance of the planting and transplanted trees,
and boundary fence repair was proceeding along the Royal Palms - No construction works were
observed to have exceeded the site boundaries. Moreover, no construction was carried out at the wetland restoration area after 15 November 2010. |
|
Protection of all trees and
woodland blocks to be retained |
Trees retained within the
site along the northeast boundary, beside wetland restoration area cell 4,
have been identified and protected by temporary protective fencing. |
|
Streams |
The works site is encircled
by a berm to intercept surface water and prevent it from washing off into
any of the neighboring sites. Surface
water is collected within the site in a temporary drainage channel. Gravels beds and barriers have been
installed to filter site runoff, sedimentation tanks provided to enable
primary treatment before discharge to mains drains. |
|
Clearance of existing vegetation |
Site clearance was completed
prior to the commencement of construction.
|
|
Transplanting of trees |
Tree transplanting has been
completed, with the trees relocated to various points within the planting
strip along the southern boundary of the site, outside the noise
barrier. The trees continue to re-establish
well. |
|
Topsoil stripping |
Suitable pond bund and soil material
which had been excavated and stockpiled from the original site, has now
largely been re-used within the landscape works Dust suppression measures are
active along all internal site access tracks. |
|
New buildings |
No new permanent buildings
have yet been constructed on site |
|
Boundaries |
Hoardings have been erected
along most of the boundaries of the site.
Installation of new screen fence between the future residential sites
and the constructed wetland restoration areas is complete. Fence has been
painted green to match with the surrounding vegetated environment. |
|
Noise Barrier |
Noise barriers have been
installed along the southern and western boundaries of the site in
accordance with the contract requirements.
Their design complies with the mitigation requirements, with upper 6
to 7m portion of the barrier being made from a translucent material with
green tinted (to match with the environment). Supporting GMS structure,
likewise, has been painted green. |
|
Night-time lighting |
No night-time works were
reported to have been carried out during the monitoring period |
|
Landscape and wetland treatments |
Continuous belt of screen
planting along the southern and western boundaries of the site has been
completed. The formation, soiling and
water control structures for all four of the wetland restoration areas has
been completed. The wetland areas have been
established, with the ponds in cell 1to cell 4 now partially filled with
rain water. |
|
Soiling |
The soiling for the advance
planting strip has been completed.
The soil placement and grading for each of the wetland restoration
areas has been completed. |
|
Plant supply |
The plant material used for
the Advance Planting Strip along the southern and western boundaries of the
site are all common species and came from commercial sources. Details of the procurement of special
plant material for the wetland areas are to be provided when nursery
supplies become available in 2011. |
|
Planting |
The total numbers of trees
that will reach a minimum of 10m in the advance planting strip meet the
contract requirements. The tree
species are all from the approved list.
This planting should achieve the required screening effect. A number of newly planted trees that have
died, and a few others are in poor condition. Replacement planting is required. |
|
Establishment Works |
The advance planting, the
compensatory planting and the transplanted trees are being maintained by the
landscape sub-contractor in accordance with the specification to ensure that
the contract requirements are met. Overhanging trees from
adjacent properties have been cut back to allow more light to the shrubs
within the Advance Planting Strip, and will need to be regularly
managed Low coverage of some areas of
shrubs need to be rectified with further infill planting. Weeding is required. Leaves from trees along the
boundary fence which have fallen, within the advance planting strip and are
affecting the health of the shrubs and should be cleared. Some of the stands of Phragmites australis reeds
(translocated from the original site) which are set away from the current
water edge of the ponds in cell1 and cell 2 are in poor condition. Watering
is required. |
The ET had carried out construction phase
weekly site inspections on 5, 12, 19 and 25 May 2011. All observations have
been recorded in the site inspection checklist and passed to the Contractor
together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary.
The key observations from site inspections and associated recommendations are
summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Summary of Site Inspections and Recommendations
|
Key Observations |
ET Recommendation |
Contractor’s Responses / Action(s) Undertaken |
Close-out (Date) |
|
Some tarpaulins for stockpiles have
been weathered out |
To replace the old tarpaulin
sheets |
Agreed and action taken |
19 May 2011 |
|
The access road for reed
transplant was dry |
To provide watering to the road
and implement watering regularly during the work |
Agreed and action immediately taken |
19 May 2011 |
|
Large area of ponding water |
To clear the stagnant water |
Agreed and action taken |
8 Jun 2011 |
|
Soil slid into drainage channel in
the site after rainfall |
To remove the soil from the
channel |
Agreed and action taken |
1 Jun 2011 |
|
Some tarpaulin sheets for trial
embankment slopes have been weathered out |
To provide the old tarpaulin
sheets |
Agreed and action to be taken |
On-going |
|
Rock filter in drainage channel
partially washed away |
To make good the rock filter |
Agreed and action taken |
8 Jun 2011 |
The Contractor has been registered as a
chemical waste producer for the Project. Construction and demolition (C&D)
material sorting was carried out on site. A sufficient number of receptacles were
available for general refuse collection.
As advised by the Contractor, 0 tonnes of C&D material were
generated on site during the period. No metals was generated and collected by
registered recycling collector. No paper cardboard packing and plastic were
generated on site and collected by registered recycling collector. No chemical
waste was generated and collected by licensed chemical waste collector. 1.8
tonnes of other types of wastes (e.g. general refuse) was generated on site and
disposed of at public landfill facility at NENT.
The Contractor is advised to maintain on
site waste sorting and recording system and maximize reuse/recycling of C&D
wastes.
The environmental permits, licenses, and/or
notifications on environmental protection for this Project which were valid during
the period is summarised in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Status of Environmental Submissions, Licenses and Permits
|
Statutory Reference |
Description |
Permit /Reference No. |
Status |
|
EIAO |
Environmental Permit |
EP-311/2008B |
Valid |
|
APCO |
Notification of Construction Work under
APCO |
316688 (27 Apr
2010) |
Valid |
|
WPCO |
Discharge License |
WT00007442-2010 (2 Nov 2010) |
Valid |
|
WDO |
Registration as Chemical
Waste Producer |
WPN0000-542-H3083-04 |
Valid |
|
WDO |
Bill Account for disposal |
700945423 |
Valid |
Legend: EIAO – Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance
APCO – Air Pollution Control Ordinance
WPCO – Water Pollution Control Ordinance
WDO – Waste Disposal Ordinance
The EM&A programme followed the
recommended mitigation measures in the EM&A manual. The EM&A
requirements as well as the summary of implementation status of the
environmental mitigation measures are provided in Appendix K. In particular, the following mitigation
measures were brought to attention during the site audits:
Air Quality
·
All
stockpiles should be
covered by tarpaulin or kept wet by water spraying;
·
All
vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the
construction sites;
·
the
portion of road leading the construction site that is within
·
During the dry season, sufficient water spraying
should be provided at haul road to reduce dust emission; and
·
Ensure proper functioning of the wheel wash facility.
Noise
·
Mobile
plant should be sited
as far away from NSRs as possible;
·
Plant
known to emit noise strongly in one direction should be orientated to direct
noise away from the NSRs; and
·
The construction activities should be better scheduled to reduce noise nuisance.
Water Quality
·
Water accumulated in the site (including water inside
drip trays) should be cleared frequently;
·
Ensure
proper functioning of the wastewater
treatment facility; and
·
Silt and debris should be removed from the temporary
drainage channel regularly.
Waste management
·
Reuse the excavated materials as far as practical to
reduce the amount of waste disposal;
·
Ensure drip trays are provided for chemical containers
to prevent leakage or soil contamination;
·
All
plants and vehicles should be properly maintained to prevent oil leakage;
·
Oil
stains on soil should be cleared by disposal of contaminated soil; and
There is no breach of Action or Limit Levels for Air Quality and Noise monitoring in the reporting month.
Exceedances of pH, DO, turbidity and SS were observed at MP1 to MP6. Exceedances of pH were frequently observed at MP1 to MP3 while DO were exceeded frequently at MP3 to MP6. Turbidity and/or SS exceedances were recorded on a few days at all monitoring stations.
Table 7.1: Summary of exceedances in Water Quality
|
Monitoring Date |
pH |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
Turbidity (NT) |
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
|
MP1 |
|
|
|
|
|
7/5/2011 |
7.8 |
3.2 |
182.5 |
162.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
8.0 |
3.2 |
66.5 |
77.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
8.0 |
6.0 |
62.2 |
58.5 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.6 |
2.9 |
47.3 |
50 |
|
27/5/2011 |
7.6 |
3.5 |
42.2 |
13 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<1.23 |
>173 |
>231 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<1.17 |
>177 |
>299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP2 |
|
|
|
|
|
7/5/2011 |
7.6 |
4.9 |
197.0 |
305.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
8.1 |
4.2 |
60.1 |
69.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
7.8 |
5.7 |
27.2 |
19.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
7.6 |
4.2 |
33.4 |
34 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.6 |
3.6 |
23.0 |
26.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
7.6 |
3.5 |
32.5 |
19.5 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<1.04 |
>132 |
>170 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<0.89 |
>163 |
>209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
7.8 |
7.5 |
33.6 |
37 |
|
5/5/2011 |
7.5 |
3.7 |
34.5 |
41.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
7.6 |
5.3 |
42.9 |
40.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
7.6 |
5.1 |
26.0 |
40 |
|
11/5/2011 |
7.5 |
3.5 |
45.5 |
66 |
|
13/5/2011 |
7.5 |
6.0 |
39.9 |
44.5 |
|
16/5/2011 |
7.8 |
7.7 |
35.7 |
38 |
|
18/5/2011 |
7.7 |
7.5 |
36.2 |
37 |
|
20/5/2011 |
7.8 |
7.3 |
33.6 |
37.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
7.3 |
3.2 |
37.8 |
37 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.4 |
4.2 |
46.5 |
51.5 |
|
27/5/2011 |
7.9 |
5.2 |
30.8 |
33 |
|
30/5/2011 |
7.8 |
5.4 |
36.2 |
35 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<6.85 |
>64 |
>65 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<6.65 |
>67 |
>66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP4 |
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
7.0 |
1.7 |
54.3 |
55.5 |
|
5/5/2011 |
6.9 |
1.1 |
56.6 |
26 |
|
7/5/2011 |
7.0 |
1.9 |
33.4 |
24.5 |
|
9/5/2011 |
6.9 |
1.6 |
57.1 |
30.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
7.0 |
1.2 |
30.6 |
16 |
|
13/5/2011 |
7.3 |
2.6 |
109.0 |
86 |
|
16/5/2011 |
7.2 |
1.3 |
44.3 |
23 |
|
18/5/2011 |
7.3 |
1.2 |
115.0 |
181.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
7.2 |
1.2 |
53.0 |
18 |
|
23/5/2011 |
7.2 |
1.9 |
84.9 |
97 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.2 |
1.4 |
26.7 |
23 |
|
27/5/2011 |
7.1 |
2.0 |
32.9 |
22.5 |
|
30/5/2011 |
7.0 |
1.3 |
40.2 |
19 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<3.91 |
>60 |
>50 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<3.82 |
>64 |
>53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP5 |
|
|
|
|
|
5/5/2011 |
7.1 |
3.1 |
36.2 |
36.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
7.1 |
3.7 |
23.7 |
26.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
7.5 |
4.0 |
223.5 |
139 |
|
16/5/2011 |
7.3 |
1.3 |
72.8 |
70.5 |
|
18/5/2011 |
7.2 |
1.3 |
36.1 |
20.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
7.8 |
10.1 |
135.5 |
69.5 |
|
23/5/2011 |
7.2 |
3.0 |
56.4 |
39 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.3 |
3.0 |
27.1 |
20.5 |
|
27/5/2011 |
7.3 |
3.8 |
39.8 |
25.5 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<4.13 |
>81 |
>66 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<3.87 |
>84 |
>69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP6 |
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2011 |
6.9 |
4.5 |
88.0 |
68 |
|
5/5/2011 |
7.2 |
2.6 |
53.4 |
50.5 |
|
7/5/2011 |
7.1 |
4.3 |
43.8 |
39.5 |
|
11/5/2011 |
7.0 |
4.8 |
82.8 |
108.5 |
|
13/5/2011 |
7.2 |
4.6 |
178.0 |
118 |
|
16/5/2011 |
7.1 |
2.4 |
36.7 |
23 |
|
18/5/2011 |
7.2 |
2.8 |
66.9 |
49.5 |
|
20/5/2011 |
7.5 |
11.4 |
98.7 |
59 |
|
23/5/2011 |
7.1 |
3.9 |
76.7 |
59 |
|
25/5/2011 |
7.2 |
4.0 |
46.0 |
30 |
|
27/5/2011 |
7.4 |
4.5 |
38.9 |
28.5 |
|
Action Level |
<5.5 or >7.5 |
<4.61 |
>94 |
>75 |
|
Limit Level |
<4.0 or >8.0 |
<4.52 |
>96 |
>75 |
Notes:
Values Bold indicate Action Level exceedance.
Values Underlined and Bold indicate
Limit Level exceedance.
No environmental complaint was received the reporting month.
No notifications of summons or successful prosecution were received the reporting month.
Investigations have been carried out to identify
the causes of exceedance.
From investigation, construction activities
during the period of exceedance included mainly band drain installation, trial
embankment and site formation (filling). It was observed that the Contractor
has implemented water quality mitigation measures as recommended in the EIA
report, including the provision of temporary drainage facility and associated
treatment facility. Sand bags are in place in the temporary drainage channel to
enhance the desilting efficiency. The Contractor further enhanced the water
quality mitigation measures by erecting several segments of rock bunds at the
discharge outlet to avoid site runoff draining directly to the northern
ditches.
With external factors
affect the adjacent environments, such as natural variations, pond fish culture
activities, algal bloom and rainstorms, the exceedances were considered not due
to construction works.
As non-compliances have been recorded, the
Event and Action Plan has been followed. Although it is considered that the
exceedances were not related to the Project, the Contractor was reminded to
implement the water quality mitigation measures in accordance with the
recommendation stated in Section 5.6.1 – 5.6.4 of the EIA Report as far as
practicable and regular spot check would be conducted on the nearby discharge
by Contractor and inform ET for investigation.
To cater for the site runoff in wet season, the
Contractor has further enhanced the water quality mitigation measures by erecting
several segments of rock bunds at the discharge outlet to avoid site runoff
draining directly to the northern ditches.
Cumulative statistics for complaints, notifications of summons and
successful prosecutions for the Project account for period starting from the
date of commencement of construction (i.e. 12 May 2010) to the end of the
reporting month and are summarized in the Table
7.2 below.
Table 7.2: Statistics for complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions
|
Reporting Period |
Cumulative
Statistics |
||
|
|
Complaints |
Notifications of
summons |
Successful
prosecutions |
|
This reporting month (May 2011) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
From 12 May 2010 to end
of the reporting month (May 2011) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
The major site works to be commissioned in the coming month include:
¡
Band
drain installation (until end of June 2011);
¡
Trial Embankment for Ground Improvement (until end of June 2011); and
¡
Site
Formation (Filling)
Key issues to be considered in the coming month include:
¡
Generation
of dust from activities on-site (esp. stockpiling for Trial Embankment) during
dry weather condition;
¡
Noise
impact from operating equipment and machinery on-site;
¡
Generation
of site surface runoffs and wastewater from activities on-site;
¡
Sorting,
recycling, storage and disposal of general refuse and construction waste from
activities on-site; and
¡
Management
of chemicals and avoidance of oil spillage on-site and to the drainage.
The environmental site inspection and environmental monitoring will be continued in the coming month. Impact monitoring for air, noise, water quality, ecology and landscape and visual in accordance with the approved EM&A Manual has commenced since 12 May 2010. The tentative monitoring schedule for June 2011 is shown in the Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Tentative Environmental Monitoring and
Audit Schedule for Jun 2011

The EM&A programme as recommended in the EM&A manual has been undertaken in the reporting month since 12 May 2010.
Monitoring of Air Quality, Noise, Water Quality, Ecology and Landscape and Visual impacts due to the Project was under way. In particular, the 1-hr TSP, 24-hr TSP, noise level (as Leq) and water quality parameters (such as pH, DO and SS) under monitoring have been checked against established Action and Limit levels.
There was no breach of Action and Limit Levels for 1-hr TSP,
24-hr TSP and noise in the
reporting month.
Exceedances of pH,
DO, turbidity and SS were observed at MP1 to MP6. Exceedances of pH were
frequently observed at MP1 to MP3 while DO were exceeded frequently at MP3 to
MP6. Turbidity and/or SS exceedances were recorded on a few days at all
monitoring stations. The summary of measured water quality is presented
in Section 3.2.3.
From
investigation, the Contractor has implemented water quality mitigation measures
as recommended in the EIA report. With external factors affect the adjacent
environments, such as natural variations, pond fish culture activities, algal
bloom and rainstorms, the exceedances were considered not due to construction
works.
With considerations
on the construction activities and environment, the following recommendations
were provided:
Air Quality
·
All stockpiles should be covered by tarpaulin or kept
wet by water spraying;
·
All
vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the
construction sites;
·
the
portion of road leading the construction site that is within
·
Sufficient water spraying should be provided at haul
road to reduce dust emission, especially during dry weather conditions; and
·
Ensure proper functioning of the wheel wash facility.
Noise
·
Mobile plant should be sited as far away from NSRs as
possible;
·
Plant
known to emit noise strongly in one direction should be orientated to direct
noise away from the NSRs; and
·
The
construction activities should be better scheduled to reduce noise nuisance.
Water Quality
·
Water accumulated in the site (including water inside
drip trays) should be cleared frequently;
·
Ensure
proper functioning of the wastewater treatment facility; and
·
Silt and debris should be removed from the temporary
drainage channel regularly.
Waste management
·
Reuse the excavated materials as far as practical to
reduce the amount of waste disposal;
·
Ensure drip trays are provided for chemical containers
to prevent leakage or soil contamination;
·
All
plants and vehicles should be properly maintained to prevent oil leakage;
·
Oil
stains on soil should be cleared by disposal of contaminated soil;


Contact information:
|
Company |
Position |
Name |
Telephone / |
|
Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd. (The Contractor) |
Assistant Construction
Manager |
Ms Lynne Hung |
2908 2391 |
|
Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd. (The Contractor) |
Site Agent |
Mr Poon Man Ho |
9426 3533 |
|
Heng Shung Construction Co. Ltd. (The Contractor) |
Environmental Officer |
Mr. Lun Ho Yin |
9866 7497 |
|
ENVIRON Hong
Kong Ltd (IEC) |
Independent Environmental
Checker |
Mr |
3743 0788 |
|
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Ltd. (ET) |
ET Team Leader |
Ms Florence Yuen |
2828 5768 |
Appendix C.
Action
and Limit Levels for Construction Phase
|
Air
Quality
Action
and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP
|
Monitoring Station |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
|
ASR1 |
226 |
260 |
|
ASR2A |
213 |
260 |
|
ASR3 |
205 |
260 |
|
ASR4 |
237 |
260 |
Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP
|
Monitoring Station |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
|
ASR1 |
378 |
500 |
|
ASR2A |
357 |
500 |
|
ASR3 |
358 |
500 |
|
ASR4 |
372 |
500 |
Noise
Action and Limit Levels for
Construction Noise
|
Time Period |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
|
NSR1, NSR3, NSR5, NSR7 |
||
|
0700 – 1900 hours on
normal weekdays |
When one documented
complaint is received from any one of the sensitive receivers |
75 dB(A) |
Water Quality
Action and Limit
Levels for Water Quality
|
Parameters |
DO in mg/L |
Turbidity in NTU |
SS in mg/L |
pH |
||||
|
|
Action
Level |
Limit
Level |
Action
Level |
Action
Level |
Action
Level |
Limit
Level |
Action
Level |
Limit
Level |
|
MP1 |
1.23 |
1.17 |
173 |
177 |
231 |
299 |
< 5.5 or > 7.5 |
< 4.0 or > 8.0 |
|
MP2 |
1.04 |
0.89 |
132 |
163 |
170 |
209 |
||
|
MP3 |
6.85 |
6.65 |
64 |
67 |
65 |
66 |
||
|
MP4 |
3.91 |
3.82 |
60 |
64 |
50 |
53 |
||
|
MP5 |
4.13 |
3.87 |
81 |
84 |
66 |
69 |
||
|
MP6 |
4.61 |
4.52 |
94 |
96 |
75 |
75 |
||
Appendix D.
Event and Action Plan for Air Quality, Noise, Water Quality, Ecology
and Landscape & Visual
|
Air Quality
|
Event |
Action |
|||
|
ET Leader |
IEC |
ER |
Contractor |
|
|
Action Level |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Exceedance for one sample |
1.
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and
propose remedial measures. 2.
Inform IEC and ER. 3.
Repeat measurement to confirm finding. 4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily. |
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET. 2.
Check Contractor’s working method. |
1.
Notify Contractor. |
1.
Rectify any unacceptable practice. 2.
Amend working methods if appropriate. |
|
2.
Exceedance for two or more consecutive samples |
1.
Identify the source. 2.
Inform IEC and ER. 3.
Advise ER on the
effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures 4.
Repeat measurements to confirm findings. 5.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily. 6.
Discuss with IEC and the Contractor on remedial actions
required. 7.
If exceedance continues, arrange meeting with IEC and ER. 8.
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET. 2.
Check the Contractor’s working method. 3.
Discuss with ET Leader and the Contractor on possible remedial
measures. 4.
Advise ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial
measures. 5.
Supervise implementation of remedial measures. |
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. 2.
Notify the Contractor. 3.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented. |
1.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working
days of notification. 2.
Implement the agreed proposals. 3.
Amend proposal if appropriate. |
|
Limit Level |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Exceedance for one sample |
1.
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and
propose remedial measures. 2.
Inform ER and EPD. 3.
Repeat measurement to confirm finding. 4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily. 5.
Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial actions and keep
IEC, EPD and ER informed of the results. |
1.
Check monitoring data submitted by ET. 2.
Check the Contractor’s working method. 3.
Discuss with ET Leader and the Contractor on possible remedial
measures. 4.
Advise ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial
measures. 5.
Supervise implementation of remedial measures. |
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. 2.
Notify the Contractor. 3.
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented. |
1.
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance. 2.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working
days of notification. 3.
Implement the agreed proposals. 4.
Amend proposal if appropriate. |
|
2.
Exceedance for two or more consecutive samples |
1.
Notify IEC, ER, EPD and the Contractor. 2.
Identify the source. 3.
Repeat measurements to confirm findings. 4.
Increase monitoring frequency to daily. 5.
Carry out analysis of the Contractor’s working procedures to
determine possible mitigation to be implemented. 6.
Arrange meeting IEC and ER to discuss the remedial actions to be
taken. 7.
Assess effectiveness of the Contractor’s remedial actions and
keep IEC, EPD and ER informed of the results. 8.
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
1.
Discuss amongst ER, ET Leader and the Contractor on the
potential remedial actions. 2.
Review the Contractor’s remedial actions whenever necessary and
advise ER accordingly. 3.
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures. |
1.
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. 2.
Notify the Contractor. 3.
In consultation with IEC, agree with the remedial measures to be
implemented. 4.
Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented. 5.
If exceedance continues, consider what activity of the work is
responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that activity of work until
the exceedance is abated. |
1.
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance. 2.
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working
days of notification. 3.
Implement the agreed proposals. 4.
Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control. 5.
Stop the relevant activity of works as determined by ER until
the exceedance is abated. |
Construction Noise
|
Event |
Action |
|||
|
ET Leader |
IEC |
ER |
Contractor |
|
|
Action Level |
1. Notify IEC and the Contractor. 2. Carry out investigation. 3. Report the results of investigation to IEC and the Contractor. 4. Discuss with the Contractor and formulate remedial measures. 5. Increase monitoring frequency to check mitigation measures. |
1. Review with analysed results submitted by ET. 2. Review the proposed remedial measures by the Contractor and advise ER
accordingly. 3. Supervise the implement of remedial measures. |
1. Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. 2. Notify the Contractor. 3. Require the Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed
noise problem. 4. Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented. |
1. Submit noise mitigation proposals to IEC. 2. Implement noise mitigation proposals. |
|
Limit Level |
1. Identify the source. 2. Notify IEC, ER, EPD and the Contractor. 3. Repeat measurement to confirm findings. 4. Increase monitoring frequency. 5. Carry out analysis of Contractor’s working procedures to determine
possible mitigation to be implemented. 6. Inform IEC, ER, and EPD the causes & actions taken for the
exceedances. 7. Assess effectiveness of the Contractor’s remedial actions and keep
IEC, EPD and ER informed of the results. 8. If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
1. Discuss amongst ER, ET Leader and the Contractor on the potential
remedial actions. 2. Review the Contractor’s remedial actions whenever necessary to assure
their effectiveness and advise ER accordingly. 3. Supervise the implementation of remedial measures. |
1. Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. 2. Notify the Contractor. 3. Require the Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed
noise problem. 4. Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented. 5. If exceedance continues, consider what activity of the work is
responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that activity of work until
the exceedance is abated. |
1. Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance. 2. Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of
notification. 3. Implement the agreed proposals. 4. Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control. 5. Stop the relevant activity of works as determined by the ER until the
exceedance is abated. |
Water Quality
|
Event |
Action |
|||
|
ET Leader |
IEC |
ER |
Contractor |
|
|
Action Level |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Exceedance for one sample |
1. Repeat
in-situ measurement to confirm finding; 2. Identify
source(s) of impact; 3. Inform
IEC and Contractor; 4. Check
monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; 5. Discuss
mitigation measures with IEC and Contractor; and 6. Repeat
measurement on next day of exceedance. |
1. Discuss
with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; 2. Review
proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER
accordingly; and 3. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Discuss
with IEC on the proposed mitigation measures; and 2. Make
agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented. |
1. Inform
the ER and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; 2. Rectify
unacceptable practice; 3. Check
all plant and equipment; 4. Consider
changes of working methods; 5. Discuss
with ET and IEC and propose mitigation measures to IEC and ER; and 6. Implement
the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
2. Exceedance for two or more consecutive samples |
1. Repeat
in-situ measurement to confirm finding; 2. Identify
source(s) of impact; 3. Inform
IEC and Contractor; 4. Check
monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; 5. Discuss
mitigation measures with IEC and Contractor; 6. Ensure
mitigation measures are implemented; 7. Prepare
to increase the monitoring frequency to daily; and 8. Repeat
measurement on next day of exceedance. |
1. Discuss
with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; 2. Review
proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER
accordingly; and 3. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Discuss
with IEC on the proposed mitigation measures; 2. Make
agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; and 3. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Inform
the Engineer and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; 2. Rectify
unacceptable practice; 3. Check
all plant and equipment; 4. Consider
changes of working methods; 5. Discuss
with ET and IEC and propose mitigation measures to IEC and ER within 3
working days; and 6. Implement
the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
Limit Level |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Exceedance for one sample |
1. Repeat
in-situ measurement to confirm finding; 2. Identify
source(s) of impact; 3. Inform
IEC, Contractor and EPD; 4. Check
monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; 5. Discuss
mitigation measures with IEC, ER and Contractor; 6. Ensure
mitigation measures are implemented; and 7. Increase
the monitoring frequency to daily until no exceedance of Limit level. |
1. Discuss
with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; 2. Review
proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER
accordingly; and 3. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Discuss
with IEC, ET and Contractor on the proposed mitigation measures; and 2. Request
Contractor to critically review the working methods; 3. Make
agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; and 4. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Inform
the Engineer and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; 2. Rectify
unacceptable practice; 3. Check
all plant and equipment; 4. Consider
changes of working methods; 5. Discuss
with ET and IEC and ER and propose mitigation measures to IEC and ER within 3
working days; and 6. Implement
the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
2. Exceedance for two or more consecutive samples |
1. Repeat
in-situ measurement to confirm finding; 2. Identify
source(s) of impact; 3. Inform
IEC, Contractor and EPD; 4. Check
monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; 5. Discuss
mitigation measures with IEC, ER and Contractor; 6. Ensure
mitigation measures are implemented; and 7. Increase
the monitoring frequency to daily until no exceedance of Limit level for two
consecutive days. |
1. Discuss
with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; 2. Review
proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the ER
accordingly; and 3. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
1. Discuss
with IEC, ET and Contractor on the proposed mitigation measures; and 2. Request
Contractor to critically review the working methods; 3. Make
agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; 4. Assess
the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures; and 5. Consider
and instruct, if necessary, the Contractor to slow down or to stop all or
part of the marine work until no exceedance of Limit Level. |
1. Inform
the ER and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; 2. Rectify
unacceptable practice; 3. Check
all plant and equipment; 4. Consider
changes of working methods; 5. Discuss
with ET and IEC and ER and propose mitigation measures to IEC and ER within 3
working days; 6. Implement
the agreed mitigation measures; and 7. As
directed by the Engineer, to slow down or to stop all or part of the marine
work or construction activities. |
Appendix E.
Calibration
certificates
|
Appendix F.
Graphical plots of the
monitoring results
|
Appendix G.
Weather conditions
during the monitoring period
|
Appendix H.
Ecological
Monitoring conducted
|
|
May 2011 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies & butterflies |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 2011 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Mammals |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birds |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonflies & butterflies |
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Visits |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
* Light grey cells indicated
public holidays or Sundays.
Appendix I.
Summary of Bird Surveys conducted
|
Table
I1. Summary of bird monitoring in the
Survey Area
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status (2) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(3) |
Mean(4) |
|||
|
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus
ruficollis |
LC, (1) |
4 |
4.3 |
|
Great Egret |
Egretta alba |
PRC, (1) |
4 |
8.8 |
|
Intermediate Egret |
Egretta
intermedia |
RC, (1) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (1) |
4 |
33.5 |
|
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis |
(LC), (1) |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (1) |
4 |
15.0 |
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax
nycticorax |
LC, (1) |
4 |
1.8 |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill |
Platalea minor |
PGC, EN, (1) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
(RC) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis
phoenicurus |
(1) |
4 |
4.8 |
|
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus
himantopus |
RC, (1) |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius
dubius |
LC, (1) |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis
hypoleucos |
(1) |
2 |
1.8 |
|
Whiskered Tern |
Chlidonias
hybridus |
(1) |
1 |
2.8 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
(1) |
2 |
1.0 |
|
Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla flava |
(1) |
3 |
47.5 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola
juncidis |
LC |
2 |
0.8 |
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Sturnus sinensis |
(LC) |
3 |
1.8 |
|
No. of Species Recorded |
18 |
|||
(1) indicates wetland-dependant or wetland-associated species.
(2) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and BirdLife International listing (2010).
(3) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(4) refers to the mean
number of individuals recorded in each survey in the Survey Area (excluding the
WRA).
(5) Black-faced Spoonbill is listed as endangered
in the IUCN Red List.
Table I2. Summary of bird monitoring in the WRA
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status (2) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(3) |
Mean(4) |
|||
|
Great Egret |
Egretta alba |
PRC, (1) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
PRC, (1) |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Ardeola bacchus |
PRC, (1) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
(RC) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis
phoenicurus |
(1) |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius
dubius |
LC, (1) |
4 |
5.5 |
|
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis
hypoleucos |
(1) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
(1) |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla flava |
(1) |
2 |
1.8 |
|
Richard's Pipit |
Anthus richardi |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola
juncidis |
LC |
3 |
2.5 |
|
Scaly-breasted Munia |
Lonchura
punctulata |
- |
1 |
7.5 |
|
White-shouldered Starling |
Sturnus sinensis |
(LC) |
1 |
0.3 |
|
No. of Species Recorded |
13 |
|||
(1) indicates wetland-dependant or -associated species.
(2) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and BirdLife International listing (2010).
(3) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(4) refers to the mean number of individuals recorded in each survey in the WRA
Appendix J.
Summary
of Herpetofauna, and Insects Surveys conducted
|
Table
J1. Summary of herpetofauna monitoring in
the Survey Area
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|||
|
Amphibian |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Asian Common Toad |
Bufo
melanostictus |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Ornate Pigmy Frog |
Microhyla ornata |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Paddy Frog |
Fejervarya
limnocharis |
- |
2 |
1.5 |
|
Günther's Frog |
Rana guentheri |
- |
2 |
8.5 |
|
|
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|
Reptile |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Bowring's Gecko |
Hemidactylus
bowringii |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Chan et al. (2005) and Karsen et al. (1998).
(2) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(3) refers to the mean number of individuals recorded in each survey in the survey (excluding the WRA).
Table J2. Summary of herpetofauna monitoring in the
WRA
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|||
|
Amphibian |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Ornate Pigmy Frog |
Microhyla ornata |
- |
1 |
10.0 |
|
Paddy Frog |
Fejervarya
limnocharis |
- |
1 |
2.0 |
|
Günther's Frog |
Rana guentheri |
- |
2 |
10.5 |
|
|
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|
Reptiles |
|
|
0 |
|
|
(No Records in May 2011) |
||||
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Chan et al. (2005) and Karsen et al. (1998).
(2) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(3) refers to the mean number of individuals recorded in each
survey in the WRA.
Table
J3. Summary of mammal monitoring in the
Survey Area
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
Mammal |
|
|
|
|
(No Records in May 2011) |
|
|
|
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and Shek (2006).
Table J4. Summary of mammal monitoring in the WRA
|
Species Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
Mammal |
|
|
|
|
(No Records in May 2011) |
|
|
|
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002) and Shek (2006).
Table J5. Summary
of dragonfly and butterfly monitoring in the Survey Area
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|||
|
Odonate |
No. of Species Recorded |
10 |
||
|
Common Bluetail |
Aschnura
senegalensis |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Common Flangetail |
Ictinogomphus
pertinax |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Regal Pond Cruiser |
Epophthalmia
elegans |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Asian Amberwing |
Brachythemis
contaminata |
- |
1 |
2.5 |
|
Crimson Darter |
Crocothemis
servilia |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Amber-winged Glider |
Hydrobasileus
croceus |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Coastal Glider |
Macrodiplax cora |
LC |
1 |
4.5 |
|
Green Skimmer |
Orthetrum sabina |
- |
2 |
3.5 |
|
Wandering Glider |
Pantala
flavescens |
- |
1 |
3.5 |
|
Variegated Flutterer |
Rhyothemis
variegata |
- |
2 |
8.5 |
|
Butterfly |
No. of Species Recorded |
6 |
||
|
Common Mormon |
Papilio polytes |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Red-base Jezebel |
Delias pasithoe |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
- |
2 |
10.0 |
|
Lemon Emigrant |
Catopsilia |
- |
2 |
1.5 |
|
Pale Grass Blue |
Zizeeria maha |
- |
2 |
3.0 |
|
Dark Grass Blue |
Zizeeria
karsandra |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Lo & Hui (2004), Wilson (2004) and Young & Yiu (2002).
(2) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(3) refers to the mean number of individuals recorded in each survey in the survey (excluding the WRA).
Table J6. Summary of dragonfly and butterfly
monitoring in the WRA
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Conservation Status(1) |
May 2011 |
|
|
Occurrence(2) |
Mean(3) |
|||
|
Odonate |
No. of Species Recorded |
10 |
||
|
Common Bluetail |
Aschnura
senegalensis |
- |
2 |
271.5 |
|
Pale-spotted Emperor |
Anax guttatus |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Blue Dasher |
Brachydiplax
chalybea |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Asian Amberwing |
Brachythemis
contaminata |
- |
2 |
8.0 |
|
Blue Percher |
Diplacodes
trivialis |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Pied Percher |
Neurothemis
tullia |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Green Skimmer |
Orthetrum sabina |
- |
1 |
8.0 |
|
Wandering Glider |
Pantala
flavescens |
- |
1 |
5.5 |
|
Variegated Flutterer |
Rhyothemis
variegata |
- |
1 |
7.5 |
|
Saddlebag Glider |
Tramea virginia |
- |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Butterfly |
No. of Species Recorded |
4 |
||
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
- |
2 |
2.5 |
|
Pale Grass Blue |
Zizeeria maha |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Dark-band Bush Brown |
Mycalesis mineus |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Blue Spotted Crow |
Euploea midamus |
- |
1 |
0.5 |
(1) Conservation status follows that of Fellowes et al. (2002), Lo & Hui (2004), Wilson (2004) and Young & Yiu (2002).
(2) indicates number of surveys recorded within the reporting period.
(3) refers to the mean number of individuals
recorded in each survey in the WRA.