1.1
ENSR Asia (HK) Ltd. (ENSR)
(hereinafter called the “ET”) was appointed
by Highways Department (hereinafter
called the “Client”) to undertake Environmental Monitoring and Audit for “Hong
Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor” (hereinafter called the “Project”) during
operational phase. Under the requirements of Section 6 of Environmental Permit
EP-162/2003/B and Section 3 of Environmental Permit EP-290/2007, EM&A
programme as set out in the EM&A Manuals is required to be implemented. In
accordance with the Environmental Permit and the EM&A Manuals,
environmental monitoring of operational noise, water quality, ecology and
sedimentation rate are required for the Project.
1.2
Operation for the Project commenced on 1 July 2007. This report
summarises the environmental monitoring and audit works for the Project between
1 and 31 July 2008.
1.3
The structure of the environmental management team is
shown in Figure 1.1. Contacts of key environmental staff of the Project are
shown in Appendix A.
1.4
A layout plan of the Project is provided in Figure 1.2.
1.5
The EM&A programme requires environmental
monitoring for operational noise, water quality, ecology and sedimentation
rate. The EM&A requirements for each item are described in subsequent
sections, including:
·
Monitoring parameters;
·
Environmental mitigation measures, as recommended in the project EIA
final report;
·
Environmental requirements in the contract documents.
1.6
Site audits findings are described in Section 6.
1.7
Advice on the implementation status of environmental
protection and pollution control/mitigation measures are summarised in Section 6
of the Report.
2.1
Noise monitoring is required to monitor the operational
noise level at the nearby sensitive receivers during peak traffic hour.
2.2
The measured noise level was compared to the predicted
traffic noise levels in the EIA under full provision of the mitigation measures.
2.3
The traffic noise level should
be measured twice within the first year of the road opening. Measurements
should be made in terms of the A-weighted L10 over three 30-mins
periods during the peak traffic hour. Other parameters L90 and Leq
would be included for reference purpose.
2.4
Noise monitoring was carried out at NSRs SWC-AN1 and
SWC-AN2 as stated in the EM&A Manual.
2.5
Operational noise monitoring
was completed on 23 June 2008. No
monitoring was carried out in the reporting month.
3.1
The monitoring is to determine
the characteristics of bridge runoff in particular the first flush from the
HK-SWC bridge during rain-storm events and to review the frequency of road
cleaning.
3.2
The original method on road
surface runoff monitoring involves installation of equipments onto the bridge
deck or the parapets on both sides of the expressway. After reviewing by
relevant government departments, including the Hong Kong Police Force and Fire
Services Department, the installation of equipment was considered causing
disturbance to other road users including the fire services and police vehicles
during emergency operation and considered relatively unsafe for the ET staff working
on the expressway.
3.3
An alternative proposal on the
monitoring method using a water tanker to simulate an artificial rainfall by
spraying water onto the catchment area of the monitoring gully during bridge
closure at night was prepared. The alternative proposal was approved by EPD. A
procedural guide was also prepared. The guide was vetted by the IEC and the
Engineer and was reviewed by EPD.
3.4
Two
periods of monitoring during the first 3 months and after 6 months of the
opening of the HK-SWC
Bridge would be required.
The monitoring should include in total 12 sampling / rainstorm events (12 sets
of data) and cover the dry season period. A total of 6 sets of sampling data
should be collected during the first 3 months after the opening of the HK-SWC
bridge. The other 6 sets of sampling data should be collected in month 7 to
month 9 after opening of the HK-SWC
Bridge. The minimum
interval between two sampling events shall not be less than 4 days.
3.5
The commencement
of the road surface runoff monitoring programme was postponed to September 2007
due to the requirement in obtaining consent and relevant permits and licenses
from relevant government departments for working on the bridge deck. The
monitoring of road surface runoff from carriageway was completed on 1 March
2008.
3.6
All
samples were cooled to 4°C without being frozen and delivered to a HOKLAS
laboratory within 24 hours for analysis for the following pollutants in highway
runoff:
ŸTotal suspended solids
ŸTotal organic carbon
ŸChemical oxygen demand
ŸNitrate and nitrite
ŸTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen
ŸTotal phosphorus
ŸCopper
ŸLead
ŸZinc
3.7
Water
samples were collected from six different road gullies, three on each side of
the carriageways. The exact monitoring locations were
recorded in terms of nearby lighting pole / highways chainage.
3.8
The
monitoring of road surface runoff from carriageway was completed on 1 March
2008. No monitoring was carried out in the reporting month.
4.1
As required under Clause 6.9, 6.7 and 6.10 of the
Environmental Permit EP-162/2003/B, Clause 3.4 of the Environmental Permit
EP-290/2007 and Section 6.3.2 – 6.3.4 of the EM&A Manual, operational
disturbance on intertidal bird communities,
bridge lighting scheme and bird collisions, and replanted mangroves have to be
monitored bi-monthly (for 2 years), monthly (for 3 years) and quarterly (for 2
years) respectively.
4.2
The trigger and action levels
for bird density for the monitoring on intertidal bird communities are provided
in Appendix A.
Monitoring Equipment
4.3
Equipment used for monitoring
included a 20-60x telescope, 10x42 binoculars, and a hand-held GPS.
Monitoring Locations
4.4
Two monitoring locations were
selected: Ngau Hom Shek (NHS) and Sheung Pak Nai (SPN). The NHS site locates adjacent to the Hong Kong - Shenzhen Western Corridor (HK-SWC), and
provides information for potential operational phase disturbance. The SPN site was used as a control site
during the monitoring process in construction phase. In this Project, the SPN site was also used as
a control site to maintain consistency. It is located approximately 950m to the southwest of NHS.
Monitoring Methodology
Intertidal Mudflat
Monitoring
4.5
The abundance and diversity of
bird species within a 100m x
100m quadrat (10,000m2) of exposed mudflat
were recorded. The monitoring was
carried out during low tide when at least 100m
of mudflat was exposed. Data was
recorded at both NHS and SPN sites.
4.6
The density and diversity of bird
species were then compared with the baseline data recorded from September 2001
to May 2002, as presented in the Shenzhen Western Corridor EIA Report (EIA).
Tideline
Monitoring
4.7
A survey was conducted along a 10m wide belt transect centred along the
tideline at NHS and SPN. The survey was
conducted during low tide when at least 100m of mudflat was exposed. The transect at NHS extended 250m from the alignment of the HK-SWC towards
both sides (Figure 4.1). The transect
was divided into 10 sections of 50m.
Total area of a transect = 10m
x 500m = 5000m2
4.8
Telescope and binoculars were
used to scan from one end to the other end of the transect. 1.5 minutes were spent in each section. The number and species of birds were recorded
in each section. The same method was
used at the SPN site, except that there was no bridge alignment and the
transect was set on a random section along the tideline.
4.9
The density of birds within the
tideline transects at NHS and SPN were then tested for their significance of
difference using parametric t-test, or non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, where:
Null Hypothesis = No
difference in bird densities along the tidelines at NHS and SPN
4.10
Additionally, bird abundance
and species composition were being compared with the baseline data recorded
from September 2001 to May 2002, as presented in the EIA.
Monitoring of Effects of
Shade
4.11
In order to monitor the effects
of the shade of the HK-SWC to birds, the density and composition of bird
species were recorded on the mudflat underneath the HK-SWC in 3 strips that lie
parallel to it: 1) the strip of mudflat right under the bridge (recommended by
the EM&A Manual); 2) the strip of mudflat within the shade; and 3) the
strip of mudflat outside the shade and bridge. The strips extended from the shore towards the
sea. Monitoring was carried out during
low tide when at least 250m
of mudflat was exposed. Each strip was 250m in length, 40m in width (width of HK-SWC) and were divided into 5
sections of 50m.
Total area of a strip = 250
x 40 = 10,000m2
4.12
Since the sun does not always
shine at the 12 o’clock position, the shade of the bridge rarely lies right
under the bridge. It is therefore
recommended to follow the shade of the bridge and collect information there, in
addition to collecting information from right under the bridge as recommended
by the EM&A Manual.
4.13
The collected information from
the 3 strips of mudflat were being tested for their significance of difference using
the parametric t-test, or non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, where:
Null Hypothesis = No
difference in bird densities on different strips of mudflat
Results and observation
4.14
The intertidal bird surveys were conducted on 17 July 2008. The weather was fine and sunny. The temperature was about 29oC and
the humidity was about 80%.
Intertidal
Mudflat Monitoring
4.15
Graph
4.1 shows the number and species of shorebirds recorded at the 100m x 100m
mudflat quadrats at NHS and SPN.
Graph 4.1 Abundance
and Species Composition of Shorebirds on the Exposed Mudflats (100m x 100m
Quadrat) at Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak Nai – 17 July 2008
4.16
At
the NHS impact monitoring site, two species (Little Egret Egretta alba and White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis) of two individuals of birds were recorded; whereas at the SPN control
site, four species (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta, Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus and Green
Sandpiper Tringa ochropus) of eight individuals of
birds were recorded.
4.17
The
NHS impact site recorded less abundance and diversity of birds than the SPN
control site. Nevertheless the
differences in abundance and diversity between the two monitoring sites are not
significant enough to suggest an adverse impact on bird communities from the
bridge.
4.18
Table
4.1 compares the density and number of shorebird species recorded during the
EIA and the recent survey.
Table
4.1 Density and Number of Shorebird
Species Recorded during the Previous EIA and the Survey on 17 July 2008 on the
Exposed Mudflats (100m x 100m Quadrat) at Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak Nai
|
|
Density of Shorebirds
(Birds/Ha)
|
No. of species
|
|
|
Ngau Hom Shek
|
Sheung Pak Nai
|
Ngau Hom Shek
|
Sheung Pak Nai
|
|
Current Survey
|
2
|
8
|
2
|
4
|
|
Previous EIA
|
2.3
|
4.2
|
1.3
|
1.8
|
4.19
The
shorebird density and the number of shorebird species at NHS and SPN recorded
during this survey were both higher than / similar to the numbers recording
during EIA. The results of this survey
suggest that the operation of HK-SWC had no effect on the shorebird communities
during this survey.
4.20
The
densities of shorebirds recorded during this survey were similar to the
previous monitoring survey conducted in May 2008 (3 and 2 in NHS and SPN
respectively). The densities recorded
during the recent surveys (May and July 2008)
were lower than those recorded in winter months (November 2007 and
January 2008), where a large population of passage migrants and winter visitors
in local areas could be the cause of the higher numbers.
Tideline
Monitoring
4.21
Graph
4.2 presents the abundance and species composition of shorebirds recorded on
the 500m x 10m tideline transects at NHS and SPN.
Graph 4.2 Abundance and Species Composition of Shorebirds
along the Tidelines (500m x 10m transect) at Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak
Nai – 17 July 2008
4.22
At the NHS impact monitoring site, five species of 24
individuals of shorebirds (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta, Chinese
Pond Heron Ardeola
bacchus, White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis and Black-crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax) were recorded; whereas at the SPN control site, four species of 20
individuals of shorebirds (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta,
Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola
bacchus and Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus) were recorded.
4.23
The
tideline transects at the NHS impact site and SPN control sites recorded
approximately the same abundance and diversity of shorebirds, indicating that
shorebird communities are not adversely affected by the operation of the
HK-SWC.
4.24
A
parametric t-test found no statistically significant difference between the
bird abundance along the tidelines at NHS and SPN (P=0.637). This further supports that the operation of
HK-SWC has no impact on the shorebird communities at NHS during the survey.
4.25
Table
4.2 compares the density and number of shorebird species recorded during the
EIA and the recent survey.
Table 4.2 Density
and Number of Shorebird Species Recorded during the Previous EIA and the Survey
on 17 July 2008 along the Tidelines (500m x 10m
transect) at Ngau Hom Shek and Sheung Pak Nai
|
|
Density of shorebird (birds/ha)
|
No. of species
|
|
|
Ngau Hom Shek
|
Sheung Pak Nai
|
Ngau Hom Shek
|
Sheung Pak Nai
|
|
Current survey
|
48
|
40
|
5
|
4
|
|
Previous EIA
|
23.2
|
58.2
|
1.8
|
2
|
4.26
The shorebird density at the NHS monitoring site
recorded during this survey is higher than that recorded during the previous
EIA, but the SPN control site recorded less shorebird density than the previous
EIA. The number of species recorded
during this survey was slightly higher than that recorded during EIA. The results of this survey suggest
that the operation of HK-SWC at NHS had
no effect on the shorebird communities during this survey.
4.27
The densities of shorebirds at NHS and SPN recorded
during this survey were lower than the previous survey conducted in May
2008. In the previous survey, there were
70 birds/ha and 64 birds/ha at NHS and SPN respectively; during this survey,
there were 48 birds/ha and 40 birds/ha at NHS and SPN. For species richness, the number of species
recorded during this survey, five for NHS and four for SPN, were about the same
as those recorded in the May survey, six for NHS and six for SPN.
Monitoring of Effects of
Shade
4.28
During
the survey, three sets of data, ‘In Shade’, ‘Under Bridge’ and ‘On Exposed
Mudflat’, were collected.
4.29
Graph
4.3 presents the results recorded during the survey for effects of shade on the
strips of mudflat (250m x 40m) at the NHS impact monitoring site.
Graph 4.3 Abundance and Species Composition of
Shorebirds on the Strips of Mudflats (250m x 40m)
“In Shade”, “Under Bridge” and “On Exposed
Mudflat” at Ngau Hom Shek – 17 July 2008
4.30
At
the strip of mudflat right under HK-SWC (Under Bridge), three species (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta and Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica) of seven individuals were recorded; whereas four species (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta, Chinse Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus and Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica) of nine individuals were recorded in
shade, and three species of 16 individuals (Great Egret Egretta alba, Little Egret Egretta garzetta and Chinse Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus) were recorded on exposed mudflat.
4.31
The
recent monitoring survey show that species abundance on the surveyed area “Under
Bridge” and “In Shade” were lower than that on “Exposed Mudflat”, suggesting
that the operation of the HK-SWC may have potential impacts on the distribution
of shorebird community.
4.32
As
discussed in the operation monitoring report dated November 2007, distribution
of shorebirds may be affected by a number of abiotic or biotic factors apart
from the operation of the HK-SWC, and they are listed below:
l
Early-staged
establishment of benthos communities in the mudflat under bridge after the construction
phase provide less food resource for shorebirds, which may account for the
lower number of shorebirds recorded under the bridge. However, benthos communities in mudflat under
the bridge are expected to build up gradually in long-term and such factor should
be diminished in the future.
l
The
curve-shaped tideline at some locations may provide less feeding area and
feeding opportunities for shorebirds, which may affect their distribution at
NHS.
l
The
uneven and patchy distribution of shorebirds in nature means that it may cause
bias in statistical analysis.
l
A succession of oyster farms
was found located on the mudflat approximately 50m away from both sides of the alignment of
HK-SWC. The oyster areas were observed
to be a popular feeding ground for shorebirds and were frequently visited. The abundant food resource in these areas may
have a positive effect on the abundance and diversity of intertidal shorebirds
on the strip of exposed mudflat at NHS.
4.33
Nevertheless,
a statistical one-way anova test found no statistically significant difference
between the bird abundance within the mudflats ‘In shade’, ‘Under Bridge’ and ‘On Exposed Mudflat’
(P=0.462). This result suggests that the
physical existence of the HK-SWC and its shade has no adverse impact on the
shorebird communities at NHS during the recent survey.
Monitoring Equipment
4.34
A camera and a pair of binoculars
were required during the monitoring process.
Monitoring Locations
4.35
The monitoring of bird collisions
took place along the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor (HK-SWC), which is
approximately 5.5km long and 40m
wide.
Monitoring Methodology
4.36
A survey was conducted to
assess the impacts of different lighting schemes on bird mortality as caused by
collision with the bridge and associated structures. In order to monitor the bird’s mortality, a survey
was carried out along the HK-SWC at both sides of the carriageway covering both
the Hong Kong and Shenzhen sections. Attention was paid to the road surface while
attempts were made to spot dead birds. Sea
surface was also scanned for any floating dead birds.
4.37
The four lighting schemes are
listed as follows:
§
Scheme 1 – Monday to Thursday and Sunday, 19.30-22.00. Architectural lighting for the tower.
§
Scheme 2 – Friday, Saturday and general festival, 19.30-22.00. Architectural lighting for the tower and side
faces of the deck.
§
Scheme 3 – Special festival and events, 19.30-22.00. Architectural lighting for the tower, stay
cables and the side faces of the deck.
§
Scheme 4 – During inclement weather, turn off the architectural lighting.
Results and observations
4.38
The survey was conducted on 17 July 2008 at 7.45pm. Lighting Scheme 1 was being monitored.
4.39
No dead bird was found on the
bridge nor floating on water surface during the survey. There was no significant evidence to suggest
adverse impacts from the HK-SWC on bird collision.
Monitoring Equipment
4.40
A retractable metallic
measuring tape, a soft measuring tape (over 4m) and a camera were used to
monitor the growth of mangrove seedlings.
Monitoring Locations
4.41
The monitoring of the survival
and growth of the compensatory mangrove plantation took place right below the HK-SWC
on the mudflat near the shore at NHS (Figure 4.2). The total area of the plantation was 2010.9m2. It was composed of 7,736 Kandelia obovata droppers.
Monitoring Methodology
4.42
A survey should monitor the density,
growth and health condition of the compensatory mangrove plantation that was
being established on 9 February 2007, after the clearance for the construction
of the SWC.
4.43
The mangrove plantation was
being divided equally into three zones, where Zone 1 was the closest to the
shore and Zone 3 was the furthest. Within each zone, three quadrats, which were
one square meter in size, were being chosen at random. The number of mangrove planting was counted
within each quadrat and the heights of three representative individuals were
measured. The heights of the tallest and
the shortest individual, and the trunk diameter of the most representative
individual were also measured. The
health condition of the plantings was also assessed in the scale of good, fair
and poor.
Results and observations
4.44
The mangrove plantation
monitoring was conducted on 17 July 2008 during low tide condition.
4.45
Table
4.3 summarises
the conditions of mangrove plantation during the monitoring survey:
Table 4.3 Summary of the Density,
Growth and Health Condition of the Mangrove Plantation
|
|
Zone 1
|
Zone 2
|
Zone 3
|
|
Density (Individuals / sq. m)
|
9.7
|
5.3
|
5.7
|
|
Average Height of 3 Representative
Individuals (cm)
|
64.6
|
73.7
|
74.2
|
|
Height - Minimum (cm)
|
44.0
|
60.0
|
65.0
|
|
Height - Maximum (cm)
|
72.7
|
79.3
|
84.0
|
|
Estimated Trunk Diameter (cm)
|
1.2
|
1.7
|
1.4
|
|
Average Health (Good / Fair / Poor)
|
Good
|
Good
|
Good
|
4.46
The
results show that Zone 1 had the highest density while Zone 2 and 3 had similar
density. There was no obvious change in
density of plantings since the initial mangrove survey in October 2007 (seven
individuals at Zone 1 and six individuals at Zone 2 and Zone 3).
4.47
In
average, Zone 2 and 3 supported the tallest individuals of about 74 cm in
height, while Zone 1 supported the shortest individuals of 65 cm in height. Zone 2 had the highest value for estimated
truck diameter for mangrove plants, while Zone 1 had the lowest.
4.48
Active growth of mangrove plantings was recorded at all three zones since
the last survey in April 2008. Mangrove
plantings in Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 recorded an average growth of 2 cm, 17
cm and 9 cm in height respectively since the last survey. In addition, trunk diameter of plantings in
Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 increased by 0.4 cm, 1 cm and 0.7 cm respectively
when compared with the last survey.
4.49
As suggested in the October
2007 report, environmental factors including substrate composition, salinity
and tidal action could affect the growth pattern of mangrove stands. Plantings that are further offshore may
suffer from more environmental stress such as high salinity, extreme temperature
and low oxygen supply, which could
be factors for their variable growth as recorded.
4.50
In
general, the health condition of the mangrove plantation was good across all
three zones.
5.1
As required under Clause 6.2 of the Environmental
Permit EP-162/2003/B, monitoring on the sedimentation rate in Deep Bay
would be required on a monthly basis during the first year of operation of the
bridge.
5.2
The monitoring work took place every month starting
from the construction phase and up to one year after the project has commenced the
operation. Additional work may be needed subject to the weather condition.
5.3
Monitoring was carried out at 7 monitoring stations as
specified in the approved Sedimentation Rate Monitoring Plan at Tsim Bei Tsui,
Mai Po mudflat and those between HK-SWC and Tsim Bei Tsui. These include two
locations at Tsim Bei Tsui (Stations P1 & P2), three locations at the Mai
Po Mudflat (Stations P3 to P5) and two locations near Sha Kiu Tsuen (Stations
P6 & P7).
5.4
The sedimentation rate monitoring in Deep Bay
was completed on 17 June 2008. No monitoring was carried out in the reporting
month.
6.1
Site audits were carried out on a
weekly basis to monitor environmental issues on the site to confirm that all
mitigation measures were implemented properly. The summary of site audit in the
reporting period is attached in Appendix C.
6.2
All permits/licences/notifications
obtained as of the reporting period are summarised in Table 6.1
Table
6.1 Summary of Environmental
Notification, Licensing and Permit Status
|
Permit No.
|
Valid Period
|
Description
|
Status
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
Environmental
Permit
|
|
EP-162/2003/B
|
19 Jan. 04
|
-
|
1.
Construction and
operation of a 3.2 km dual
3-lane carriageway elevated structure of the Shenzhen Western Corridor
spanning across Deep
Bay from Ngau Hom Shek
to the section of the Shenzhen Western Corridor within the boundary within the
Mainland.
2.
Construction and
operation of a 340 m dual
3-lane carriageway of the Deep Bay Link connecting to the Shenzhen Western
Corridor at Ngau Hom Shek.
|
Valid
|
|
EP-290/2007
|
20 Nov. 07
|
-
|
1.
Operation of a 2.0km
dual 3-lane carriageway elevated structure of the Shenzhen
Bay Bridge
spanning across Deep Bay from Shenzhen
Bay Bridge
– Hong Kong Section to Shenzhen
Bay Port,
Hong Kong Port Area at Dongjiaotou.
|
Valid
|
6.3
The ET
conducted site inspections on 7, 17 and 22 July 2008.
6.4
No specific finding was
identified in the reporting month.
Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule
(EMIS)
6.5
According
to the Environmental Permit (EP-162/2003/B), the
mitigation measures detailed in the permits are required to be implemented. An
updated summary of the EMIS is presented in Appendix D.
6.6
No exceedance was recorded in the reporting
month.
6.7
The Event
and Action Plans for feeding shorebirds are presented in Appendix B.
6.8
Appendix E presents the
environmental complaint flow diagram of the Project.
6.9
No
complaint, summon or prosecution related to environmental issues was received
or made against the Project in the reporting period.
7.1
Key issues to be considered in the coming month
include:
·
Maintain sufficient cleaning works for the carriageway by vacuum air
sweeper(s) to remove grits and pollutants; and
·
Implementation of the Emergency Response Plan for Spillage of Chemicals.
7.2
Tentative environmental monitoring and audit schedule
for the next reporting month is shown in Appendix F.
8.1
Environmental impact monitoring was performed between 1
and 31 July 2008. All monitoring results in the reporting period were checked
and reviewed.
8.2
No operational noise monitoring was carried out in the
reporting month since the monitoring had been completed.
8.3
No road surface runoff from
carriageway monitoring was carried out in the reporting month since the
monitoring had been completed.
8.4
From the intertidal bird
communities monitoring, the physical existence of the HK-SWC and its shade did
not show an adverse impact on the shorebird communities at NHS.
8.5
No bird mortality was recorded during this month’s bridge
lighting scheme and bird collisions survey.
8.6
During the monitoring of the
replanted mangrove, the health condition of the mangrove plantation was good at
all three zones.
8.7
No sedimentation rate monitoring
was carried out in the reporting month since the monitoring had been completed.
8.8
No specific observation was
identified during the site audits in the reporting month.
8.9
No complaint, notification of
summons or prosecution related to environmental issues was made against the
Project in the reporting period.
8.10
According to the environmental audits performed, the
following recommendations were made:
Water Quality Impact
·
Maintain sufficient cleaning works for the carriageway by vacuum air
sweeper(s) to remove grits and pollutants.
·
Implement the Emergency Response Plan for Spillage of Chemicals.
