proposed extension of public golf course at kau …...figures 2.2b schematic water flow of the...

Proposed Extension of Public Golf Course

at Kau Sai Chau Island, Sai Kung

Water Quality Impact Assessment on

Land Drainage System September 2005

Proposed Extension of Public Golf Course At Kau Sai Chau Island, Sai Kung Water Quality Impact Assessment – Land Drainage System Issue 5 __________________________________________________________________________________________

September 2005 i Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

Content

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

2. Water Quality Monitoring at Existing Golf Course..................................................................................2

3. Proposed third Golf Course - Turf area...................................................................................................10

4. Water quality at proposed new lakes and existing reservoir during rainstorm event .........................12 Turfgrass (Bermuda vs Seashore paspalum).....................................................................................................12 Fate of Fertilizer ...............................................................................................................................................12 Fate of Pesticides ..............................................................................................................................................13 Water quality prediction in the proposed third golf course ..............................................................................16 Hydrological calculation and assumptions.......................................................................................................17 (i) Lake near Hole 4 ..........................................................................................................................................18

Calculation - Step I (Fertilizer application load to the Primary catchment of existing golf course).............18 Calculation - Step II (Comparison of Bermuda and Seashore paspalum) ....................................................18 Calculation - Step III (Fertilizer load to Bermuda and Seashore paspalum) ................................................19 Calculation - Step IV (predicted fertilizer application at proposed third golf course)..................................20

First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period..........20 Second Year: 12 months of Establishment period...................................................................................21

Calculation - Step V (concentrations at overflow during rainstorm)............................................................21 (ii) Hole 5 and Part of Hole 6 ...........................................................................................................................22 (A) Reduction in Flow Volume..........................................................................................................................22 (B) Reduction in Turfgrass area........................................................................................................................23

Calculation - Step I (predicted fertilizer application at proposed third golf course) ....................................23 First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period..........23

Mitigation measure at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 .............................................................................................24 Combination of the use of filter system and bio-pesticides control at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 ................24

(iii) Lake near Hole 10......................................................................................................................................26 Calculation - Step I (predicted annual load at lake near hole 10).................................................................26

First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period..........26 Second Year: 12 months of Establishment period...................................................................................27

Calculation - Step II (concentrations at overflow during rainstorm)............................................................27 Prediction of overflow events from Lakes near Holes 10..................................................................................27 (iv) Irrigation Lake 1D......................................................................................................................................28

Calculation - Step I (Predicted annual load at Irrigation Lake 1D) ..............................................................28 First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period..........28 Second Year: 12 months of Establishment period...................................................................................28

(v) Existing reservoir.........................................................................................................................................29

5. Prediction on overflow occurrence - Past 10 years rainfall record in Hong Kong ...............................31


September 2005 ii Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

List of Figures Figure 1a Marine Monitoring locations at existing course Figure 1b Freshwater Monitoring locations at existing course Figure 2 Proposed Drainage Master Plan Figure 2.1 Location of water sensitive receivers Figures 2.2a Schematic water flow of the closed low flow drainage system at the proposed third golf course Figures 2.2b Schematic water flow of the closed low flow drainage system at the proposed third golf course Figure 2.3 Schematic water flow of the main drainage system for the existing golf course Figure 2.4a Preliminary design for the proposed filter at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 Figure 2.4b Proposed locations for filter locations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 List of Appendix Annex I Pesticides Estimation Appendix A Water Quality Monitoring Data (1996-2004) Appendix B Catchpits and sub-soil drainage at Greens, Tees and Fairways Appendix C Literature review for the potential effects of chemical run-off and leaching from golf course on

environmental waters Appendix D Calculation on catchment dilution to lakes near hole 4 and Hole 10 Appendix E Supportive information on the efficiency of the filter system from supplier List of Tables Table 1 Freshwater and marine water monitoring locations for the existing golf course ........................................................... 2 Table 2 Description of the freshwater and marine water monitoring locations at existing golf course ...................................... 2 Table 3 Marine Water Quality Monitoring Result (1996 to 2004) for Existing Golf Course ..................................................... 3 Table 4 Freshwater Quality Monitoring Result (1996 to 2004) for Existing Golf Course.......................................................... 6 Table 5 Summary of Water Quality Objectives for Port Shelter ................................................................................................ 8 Table 6 Water Quality Monitoring Guideline apply for Existing Golf Course (EM&A) ........................................................... 9 Table 7 Turf Area of the proposed third golf course ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 8 Runoff from Holes 1-18 of the proposed third golf course to the existing reservoir/marsh......................................... 11 Table 9 Summary of the pesticides applies to proposed third golf courses .............................................................................. 13 Table 10 Nutrient absorption rate by Bermuda at the existing golf course............................................................................... 18 Table 11 Bermuda vs Seashore paspalum ................................................................................................................................ 19 Table 12 Comparison of fertilizer load between Bermuda grass and Seashore paspalum........................................................ 19 Table 13 Proposed fertilizers application to Seashore paspalum at the proposed third golf course.......................................... 20 Table 14 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 4 (First Year) ....................................................................................... 20 Table 15 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 4 (After establishment) ........................................................................ 21 Table 16 Catchment Dilution during 1 in 2 years storm event ................................................................................................. 21 Table 17 Estimated overflow pollutant concentrations at lake near Hole 4 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm ............................... 21 Table 18 Calculation of existing and future flow volume from turfgrass area to existing marsh (1 in 2 yrs) ........................... 22 Table 19 Calculation of existing and future turfgrass area to existing marsh ........................................................................... 23 Table 20 Predicted Concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 (First Year) .......................................................................... 23 Table 21 Predicted Concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 (After Establishment) .......................................................... 24 Table 22 Performance of Filter System .................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 23 Aesthetic and functional threshold table for the proposed third golf course.............................................................. 25 Table 24 Proposed List of Biological Products apply at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 ................................................................. 26 Table 25 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 10 (First Year) ..................................................................................... 27 Table 26 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 10 (After Establishment)...................................................................... 27 Table 27 Catchment Dilution during 1 in 2 years storm events................................................................................................ 27 Table 28 Estimated overflow pollutant concentrations at lake near Hole 10 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm ............................. 28 Table 29 Predicted Concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (First Year) ..................................................................................... 28 Table 30 Predicted Concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (After Establishment) ..................................................................... 29 Table 31 Proportion Flow of Additional Pollutant Load to Existing Reservoir........................................................................ 29 Table 32 Expected Existing Reservoir Pollutant Concentrations with the additional Pollutant Load during the Operational

Phase of the Proposed Third Golf Course ...................................................................................................................... 29 Table 33 Estimation on the overflow events at the existing reservoir ...................................................................................... 30 Table 34 Monthly rainfall (mm/month) over the past 10 years in Hong Kong......................................................................... 31 Table 35 Maximum rainfall over the past 10 years in Hong Kong........................................................................................... 31 Table 36 Number of days that rainfall greater than the retaining capacity of proposed new lakes........................................... 32


September 2005 iii Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

DOCUMENT CONTROL No. 382210.REP

AMENDMENT RECORD

Proposed Extension of Public Golf Course at Kau Sai Chau Island, Sai Kung – Environmental Impact Assessment

Prepared by: Esther Tong

Initials: ET Water Quality Assessment Impact – Land Drainage System

Client: HKJC

Date: July 2005

Pages: Date: Issue No.

Description: Initials:

All May 05 1 Issue 1 ET

All June 05 2 Issue 2 ET

All July 05 3 Issue 3 ET

All Aug 05 4 Issue 4 ET

Aug 05 5 New Annex I – pesticides concentrations ET

Section 3 par. 3.4 (revised) and New Table 8b ET

Section 4 par. 4.19 and 4.20 (new) ET

Section 4 par. 4.51 (revised) and Table 21 (revised) ET

The Registered Recipient is responsible for destroying or marking as “superseded” all superseded documents.


September 2005 1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

1. Introduction 1.1 In order to conserve water and to minimise potential environmental impacts on marine and

mariculture areas around the Island, the overall water management and land drainage for the existing golf course is based on a concept of self containment and effluent re-cycling. This approach has been seen as successful and will be adopted for the proposed third golf course. Similar approach of turfgrass management practice will also apply to the land drainage system of proposed third golf course to ensure freshwater and marine water qualities are within acceptable levels.

1.2 The two existing courses are planted with bermuda grass a grass species popular for golf courses.

Bermuda grass must be irrigated using fresh water. To reduce fresh water consumption on the third course Seashore paspalum is selected. Seashore paspalum is a perennial, warm season, sod forming grass. It is also a halophytic (salt tolerant) grass with salinity tolerance ranges among the highest of turfgrass species. Seashore paspalum requires a much lower fertilizer and water requirements than Bermudagrasses.

1.3 Water quality at the proposed third golf course is assessed using the past 9 year’s comprehensive

water quality monitoring data by Jockey Club at the existing golf course. Moreover, past 10 years rainfall data are also included for the estimation. The prediction approach is shown as follows:

(a) Summarize the past 9 years freshwater and marine water quality data at all monitoring locations at the existing golf course

(b) Present the preliminary design of the proposed close drainage system and 18 holes turf area (c) Summarize fertilizer applications load to the primary catchment at the existing golf course (d) Summarize residual fertilizer load at the existing reservoir from the primary catchment (e) Calculate the nutrient absorption load per unit turf at the existing golf course (f) Prediction of leaching concentrations at the new lakes of the proposed third golf course (based

on the past 10 years rainfall data) (g) Prediction of existing reservoir water quality with the additional pollutant load from the

proposed third golf course (based on the past 10 years rainfall data) (h) Estimate the frequency of the overflow events at the proposed third golf course (based on the

past 10 years rainfall data) 1.4 A turfgrass management guideline for the proposed third golf course will be presented as an

Appendix A6.4 in the EIA report.



2. Water Quality Monitoring at Existing Golf Course 2.1 The operational phase water quality monitoring for the existing 36 holes golf course

(approximate 35 ha tees and fairway and 2 ha of greens). Table 1 summarises the freshwater and marine water monitoring locations for the existing golf course. Figures 1a and 1b show the marine and freshwater monitoring locations for the existing golf course.

Table 1 Freshwater and marine water monitoring locations for the existing golf course

Water Quality Monitoring locations

Freshwater Marine Surface runoff in the main catchment area • Lake by Hole 1

• Existing Reservoir -

Surface runoff from North Course Holes 2, 3 and 4 on the western side of the island

- Marine A

The small indirect catchment around North Course Hole 15, South Course Holes 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 and 9 which channels water to freshwater pond on the north eastern side of the island

• Lake by Holes 15/29 • Pond

Marine B

Control station - Marine C Fish Culture Zone - • Tai Tau Chau (TTC)

• Kai Lung Wan (KLW)

Table 2 Description of the freshwater and marine water monitoring locations at existing golf course

Freshwater Lake by Hole 1 A small water body into which treated sewage effluent is discharged. This lake is at the head

of the ‘primary’ catchment that drains via stream course through a series of other ‘lakes’ into the reservoir.

Reservoir The main freshwater body on KSC and specifically designed to store water for irrigation purposes.

Lake by Holes 15/29 This ‘lake’ lies immediately before a natural freshwater marsh and is mid-way down the ‘secondary” catchment at KSC. The secondary catchment drains the pond beside the golf course maintenance area, where chemicals are stored and prepared for application and where all course vehicles/equipment are maintain and stored.

Pond This pond is the final receptor in the secondary catchment. The pond is bound on the upstream by the marsh and has been efficiently acting as a sink for various nutrients, and on the downstream side by a concrete weir. Thus, in the dry season the pond is effectively an enclosed water body, but overflow to the sea occurs when water supply is adequate in heavy rain (Fig 1c).

Marine water Station A An enclosed area within Yim Tin Tsai Typhoon Shelter on the western side of the site which

potentially receives surface water from holes N2, N3 & N4. Station B Immediately offshore from the freshwater pond on the eastern side of the island which

potentially receives surface water from holes N15, S2, S3, S8 and S9. Station C A marine water control station that was also used during Construction Phase water quality

monitoring. Kai Lung Wan Fish Culture Zone (KLW)

Located in relatively deep water, this is the main fish culture zone (FCZ) around Kau Sai Chau. It is located close to the landing jetty (approximate 400m), on the west coast of the island.

Tai Tau Chai Fish culture zone (TTC)

A smaller FCZ beside an island of the same name. This location is approximate 500m from the east coast of KSC and cascade from the Freshwater Pond.

2.2 Tables 3 and 4 show the laboratory test results at marine and freshwater monitoring locations

during the operational phase of the existing North and South course (1996-2004) (Appendix A).

Proposed Extension of Public Golf Course At Kau Sai Chau Island, Sai Kung Water Quality Impact Assessment – Land Drainage System Issue 5 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

August 2005 3 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

Table 3 Marine Water Quality Monitoring Result (1996 to 2004) for Existing Golf Course

Station Year DO (mg/L) Temp (oC) pH Turbidity

(NTU) Salinity (ppt)

1997 7.81 19.0 8.17 2 30.1

Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)

Nitrite (mg/L)

Nitrate (mg/L) TIN (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) Unionized

Ammonia (mg/L)Total PO4

(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Chl a (μg/L)

Chlorpyrifos (μg/L)

Diazinon (μg/L)

Iprodione (μg/L)

Mancozeb (μg/L)

1996 <0.05 <0.005 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.002 <0.005 <0.005 10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - 1997 <0.05 <0.005 0.03 0.09 0.37 0.003 0.05 <0.005 7 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.30 0.003 0.02 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.002 0.02 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Marine A

2004 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5



1997 6.81 28.7 7.95 4 30.2


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L)

1996 <0.05 <0.005 0.03 0.09 0.20 0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1997 <0.05 <0.005 0.05 0.10 0.38 0.003 0.06 <0.005 8 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.002 0.02 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 <0.05 <0.005 <0.01 0.06 0.23 0.002 0.09 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.05 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Marine B

2004 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5





1997 6.44 27.9 7.97 2 30.4


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L)

1996 <0.05 <0.005 0.31 0.37 0.50 0.002 <0.005 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1997 <0.05 <0.005 0.03 0.08 0.34 0.002 0.07 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1998 <0.05 <0.005 0.02 0.08 0.22 0.002 0.09 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1999 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.07 0.43 0.002 0.06 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.01 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Marine C

2004 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5



1997 6.84 28.4 8.10 3 30.1


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L) 1996 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.002 0.06 <0.005 <5

1997 <0.05 <0.005 0.02 0.07 0.33 0.002 0.05 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1998 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.26 0.001 0.04 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1999 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.002 0.05 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.03 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.03 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Tai Tau Chau

2004 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5





1997 8.26 29.9 8.18 1 29.8


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L) 1996 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.002 0.06 <0.005 <5

1997 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.39 0.001 0.07 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1998 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.001 0.06 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1999 <0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.06 0.29 0.002 0.05 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.04 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Kai Lung Wan

2004 - - 0.02 - - - <0.1 - - -- <0.5 -- <0.5

Remarks: ϕ - All pesticides are measured below the reporting limits (0.5 ug/L) over years of monitoring result at the existing golf course. Therefore, <0.5 ug/L is the resultant concentration of pesticides at the proposed third golf course. Monitoring frequency: 1996-1998 (once per month); 1999-2004 (4 times per year) Selected pesticides were examined based on the actual application of pesticides during the specific sampling period. Bold : Exceedance to Table 6.4 guideline value When value is has the < sign, it is smaller than reporting limit. Unioinzed ammonia (calculated value).



Table 4 Freshwater Quality Monitoring Result (1996 to 2004) for Existing Golf Course

Station Year DO (mg/L) Temp (oC) pH Turbidity (NTU) Salinity (ppt)

1997 9.55 29.3 6.83 57 0


Nitrite (mg/L)


ammonia (mg/L)Total PO4

(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Chl a (μg/L)

Chlorpyrifos (μg/L)

Diazinon (μg/L)

Iprodione (μg/L)

Mancozeb (μg/L)

1996 0.62 0.31 3.22 4.1 1.4 0.003 0.16 0.05 25 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1997 0.53 0.13 1.72 2.3 1.3 0.003 0.17 0.08 40 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 0.21 0.05 1.56 1.8 1.1 0.001 0.15 0.04 42 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 0.11 0.05 4.90 5.1 0.9 0.001 0.04 <0.005 25 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.79 - - - <0.005 - 10 - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.98 - - - <0.005 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 1.08 - - - 0.22 - 9 - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.60 - - - 0.10 - 13 - <0.5 - <0.5

Lake 1

2004 - - 0.56 - - - 0.25 - 38 - <0.5 - <0.5 Station Year DO (mg/L) Temp (oC) pH Turbidity (NTU) Salinity (ppt)

1997 5.98 29.6 7.10 5 0


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L)

1996 0.13 0.06 0.83 0.8 1.1 0.004 <0.005 0.11 59 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

1997 0.16 0.02 0.34 0.5 0.5 0.001 0.03 <0.005 16 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 0.32 0.01 0.30 0.4 0.6 0.003 0.03 <0.005 10 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 0.11 0.01 0.35 0.5 0.6 0.001 0.02 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.22 - - - 0.12 - 20 - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.30 - - - <0.005 - 19 - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.20 - - - <0.005 - 19 - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.13 - - - <0.005 - 14 - <0.5 - <0.5

Reservoir

2004 - - 0.14 - - - <0.005 - 8 - <0.5 - <0.5



Station Year DO (mg/L) Temp (oC) pH Turbidity (NTU) Salinity (ppt)

1997 6.91 26.5 6.41 9 0


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L)

1996 0.25 0.03 1.60 1.8 1.1 0.001 0.08 0.07 12 - - - -

1997 0.28 0.04 0.56 0.8 0.5 0.002 0.03 <0.005 7 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 0.11 0.02 0.29 0.5 0.7 0.001 0.07 <0.005 8 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 0.33 0.01 0.02 0.3 0.3 0.001 0.01 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.03 - - - 0.02 - 15 - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.01 - - - 0.01 - 20 - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.08 - - - 0.01 - 16 - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.02 - - - 0.02 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

Lake 15/19

2004 - - 0.02 - - - 0.01 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5 Station Year DO (mg/L) Temp (oC) pH Turbidity (NTU) Salinity (ppt)

1997 8.06 28.8 6.47 13 0


Nitrite (mg/L)



(mg/L) Ortho PO4

(mg/L) Ch a

(μg/L)Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L) Diazinon

(μg/L) Iprodione

(μg/L) Mancozeb

(μg/L)

1996 0.59 0.04 1.14 1.7 0.1 0.002 0.01 0.07 <5 - - - -

1997 0.17 0.03 0.62 0.8 <0.05 0.001 0.03 0.02 6 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

1998 0.14 0.01 0.20 0.3 0.1 0.001 0.01 <0.005 <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

1999 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.2 <0.05 0.001 0.01 <0.005 <5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5

2000 - - 0.05 - - - 0.01 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2001 - - 0.02 - - - 0.01 - 7 - <0.5 - <0.5

2002 - - 0.12 - - - 0.01 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

2003 - - 0.02 - - - 0.01 - 11 - <0.5 - <0.5

Pond after Marsh

2004 - - 0.03 - - - 0.01 - <5 - <0.5 - <0.5

Remarks: ϕ - All pesticides are measured below the reporting limits (0.5 ug/L) over years of monitoring result at the existing golf course. Therefore, <0.5 ug/L is the resultant concentration of pesticides at the proposed third golf course. Monitoring frequency: 1996-1998 (once per month); 1999-2004 (4 times per year) Selected pesticides were examined based on the actual application of pesticides during the specific sampling period. Bold : Exceedance to Table 6.4 guideline value; When value is has the < sign, it is smaller than reporting limit. ; Unioinzed ammonia (calculated value).



2.3 The WPCO provides the statutory framework for the protection and control of water quality in Hong

Kong. According to the ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, Hong Kong waters are divided into ten Water Control Zones (WCZs). Corresponding statements of Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are stipulated for different water regimes (marine waters, inland waters, bathing beaches, secondary contact recreation subzones and fish culture subzones) based on their beneficial uses. Their corresponding WQOs are listed in Table 6a.

Table 5 Summary of Water Quality Objectives for Port Shelter Parameter Objectives Part or parts of Zone

(a) 2m of seabed: > 2 mg/L (b) Depth-averaged: > 4 mg/L

Marine waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones

(c) 2m of seabed: > 2 mg/L (d) Depth-averaged: > 5 mg/L

Fish Culture Subzones

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

> 4.0 mg/L Inland water

Bacteria Annual geometric mean for depth-averaged E. coli < 610cfu/100mL

Secondary Contact Recreation Subzone and Fish Culture Subzones

Salinity Change of ambient salinity level < 10% Whole zone

Rise in ambient SS level: < 30% Not give rise to accumulation of SS which may adversely affect aquatic communities

Marine water Suspended Solid (SS)

Annual median < 25 mg/L Inland water

Unionized Ammonia < 0.021 mg/L Whole zone

Temperature Change of natural daily temperature range < 2°C

Whole zone

In range of 6.5 - 8.5 units, change of natural pH range < 0.2 units

Marine water except Bathing Beach Subzones

pH

In range of 6.0 – 9.0 units, change of natural pH range < 0.5 units

Bathing Beach Subzones

Annual mean depth-averaged inorganic nitrogen < 0.1 mg/L

Marine waters Nutrients

Not cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other aquatic plants

Marine waters

BOD5 < 5 mg/L Inland waters

COD < 30 mg/L Inland waters

Turbidity No changes in turbidity or other factors arising from water discharges shall reduce light transmission substantially from the normal level


Not attain the levels as to produce significant toxic effects in humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms with due regard to biologically cumulative effects in food chains and to toxicant interactions with each other.

Whole zone Dangerous substances

Not cause a risk to any beneficial use of the aquatic environmental.

Whole zone

Colour < 50 Hazen units Inland waters



Parameter Objectives Part or parts of Zone Visible foam, oil scum, litter Not to be present Whole zone

Odour Not cause objectionable odours Whole zone

Phenol Not be present in such quantities as to produce a specific odour, or in concentrations > 0.05 mg/L as C6H5OH


2.4 All monitoring guidelines and other relevant standards for physio-chemical parameters which are used

to undertake a water quality assessment are indicated in Table 6b. Most of the guideline values are derived from the 90th percentile of operational phase monitoring data and has been agreed by EPD in 1998 for the existing golf course. The exceedance of any one of the guideline will be considered as exceedance of the Trigger Level for the existing golf course.

Table 6 Water Quality Monitoring Guideline apply for Existing Golf Course (EM&A)

Parameter (mg/L unless stated) Freshwater Marine Water pH 6.0-9.0(1) 6.5-8.5(1) Turbidity (NTU) - 18(1) Dissolved Oxygen >4(1) >4(1) Chlorophyll a (mg/m³) <5(1) <20(1) Nitrate N 0.20(1) 0.090(2) Nitrite N 0.20(1) 0.005(2) Ammoniacal N 0.50(1) 0.050(2) Total Kjeldahl N 1.2(2) 0.500(2) Total Phosphate 0.1(1) 0.090(2) Ortho Phosphate 0.05(1) 0.010(2) Conductivity (µS/cm) <1000(1) -

Note: (1) These values are based on professional judgement and knowledge (2) Based on 90th percentile of operational phase monitoring data (1996 to June 1998)



3. Proposed third Golf Course - Turf area 3.1 The total turf area of the proposed third golf course has 19.2 ha while the existing two golf courses has

approximate 40 ha.

Table 7 Turf Area of the proposed third golf course

Hole No. Greens Tees + Fairways Total 1 838 m² 19,391 m² 20,229 m² 2 528 m² 9,494 m² 10,022 m² 3 571 m² 5,080 m² 5,651 m² 4 632 m² 13,267 m² 13,899 m²

5* 521 m² 3,372 m² 3,893 m² 6 350 m² 7,753 m² 8,103 m²

6** 0 m² 5,267 m² 5,267 m² 7 515 m² 11,130 m² 11,645 m² 8 494 m² 1,623 m² 2,117 m² 9 678 m² 11,114 m² 11,792 m²

10 826 m² 15,543 m² 16,369 m² 11 706 m² 11,965 m² 12,671 m² 12 553 m² 8,547 m² 9,100 m² 13 907 m² 3,461 m² 4,368 m² 14 691 m² 9,067 m² 9,758 m² 15 410 m² 2,835 m² 3,245 m² 16 401 m² 14,084 m² 14,485 m² 17 712 m² 11,879 m² 12,591 m² 18 907 m² 16,322 m² 17,229 m²

Total 11,240 m² 181,194 m² 192,434 m²

Remarks: * - Pollutants runoff from Hole 5 will be discharge to Marsh (wetland) for further polishing purpose. ** - About half the area of Hole 6 will be discharged through Marsh (wetland) for further polishing purpose. 3.2 Surface runoff from turf area (greens, tees and Fairways) of the proposed third golf course will be

collected by the proposed closed drainage system and overflow to the existing reservoir for irrigation purpose summarizes in the following table (except Hole 5 and part of Hole 6). The closed drainage low flow system for the third golf course is designed for 1 in 2 years storm event1, no overflow events will be occurred at all of the proposed new lakes during 1 in 2 years storm events.

3.3 The golf course runoff is collected by a series of catchpits and sub-soil drainage that discharge to the

closed low flow drainage system. The sub-soil drainage will be constructed both in fairways and greens (Appendix B). The sub-surface drainage spacing of 12 meters will be sufficient to ensure that all soils are free draining, and there would be no standing water with its associated turf maintenance problems.

1 The low flow drainage system has been designed using HR Wallingford’s HydroWorks software, which is an industry standard for drainage system design in Hong Kong, used both by DSD and EPD. The HydroWorks software utilizes DSD storm design profiles as published in DSD’s Stormwater Manual. The managed turf areas have been measured and incorporated in the drainage model to ensure the drainage system has sufficient capacity for events up to a 1 in 2 years return period.



Table 8 Runoff from Holes 1-18 of the proposed third golf course to the existing reservoir/marsh

Hole No. 1 in 2 years (8hrs) 1 2112 m³ 2 971 m³ 3 548 m³ 4 1347 m³

5* 377 m³ 6 785 m³

6** 511 m³ 7 1129 m³ 8 205 m³ 9 1143 m³

10 1587 m³ 11 1228 m³ 12 882 m³ 13 423 m³ 14 946 m³ 15 317 m³ 16 1404 m³ 17 1220 m³ 18 1670 m³

Total 17918 m³ Remarks: * - Pollutants runoff from Hole 5 will be discharge to Marsh (wetland) for further polishing purpose. ** - About half the area of Hole 6 will be discharged through Marsh (wetland) for further polishing purpose.



4. Water quality at proposed new lakes and existing reservoir during rainstorm event

Turfgrass (Bermuda vs Seashore paspalum) 4.1 Seashore paspalum is selected for the proposed third golf course with the following reasons: (a) Salt tolerance: Seashore paspalum is one of the most salt tolerant of the warm season grasses on the market rivaled only by Seashore dropseed turf varieties. (b) Drought resistance: it involves the ability to produce extensive, deep root systems as well as an overall lower water use requirement. Deeply developed root systems allow the extraction of water deep within the soil profile. As a soil dries out near the surface, Seashore paspalum roots extract water from moist soil deeper below the surface. (c) Wear/ Traffic Tolerance: On golf courses, wear injuries usually result from physical abrasions and torn plant tissue caused by maintenance vehicles, golf cars, incoming balls and foot traffic. It is known to have less or similar injuries from wear than Bermudagrass of like texture. It forms such a dense tight sod on putting greens that few ball marks are observed even on heavily played. (d) Shade/ Low Light Tolerance: Seashore paspalums perform well under shaded and reduced light conditions that receive at least two hours of direct sunlight daily. In rainy, low-light environments or cloudy, foggy or smoggy conditions, most Seashore paspalums will perform well. (e) Soil pH Adaptation: Seashore paspalums in general, will tolerate pH ranges from a very acidic (pH 3.5) to highly alkaline (pH 10.2), and they root equally well in sands, heavy clays, silts and mucks. (f) Low Oxygen/ Hypoxia Tolerance: Seashore paspalums have a history of tolerating total ocean water inundations and the low oxygen problems associated with waterlogged or wet and boggy environments. (g) Disease Resistance: Most Seashore paspalum varieties do not have a wide variety of disease problems that tend to plague other warm season grasses. (h) Low Fertility Requirement: The Seashore paspalums developed and thrived in stressful, ocean-exposed ecosystems. This helps explain how Seashore paspalum developed such efficient nutrient uptake and utilization mechanisms. Seashore paspalum will grow when the availability of nutrients is quite low as well as in situations of severe nutrient imbalances. (i) Weed Control: Most weeds lack the necessary level of salt tolerance to compete with Seashore paspalum in salt-affected turfgrass environments. Weeds can be controlled in Seashore paspalum turf utilizing many standard chemical herbicides and in much low dosage. Seashore paspalum however, provides the option of utilizing salt or salt water applications for weed control. (j) Insect Pests: In general, Seashore paspalum has less insect pest pressures than most warm season perennial grasses. Insect problems do occur, however, and can be controlled by conventional insecticides.

Fate of Fertilizer 4.2 Fertilizers applied to turfgrass areas can have a variety of fates in the environment. They can be taken

up by plants, volatilized into the atmosphere, carried by runoff in surface water, adsorbed to soil particles, degraded by biological and chemical processes, and leached through the soil profile.

4.3 Soil characteristics that affect fertilizer fate include: water content, bulk density, pH, temperature,

organic matter, structure, and caution exchange capacity. Climate and slope of the site also area important factors, as are the physiochemical properties, solubility, and chemical concentration of the fertilizer. Management practices that affect fertilizer fate include: application rate, placement, timing of application, formulation, and irrigation practices.



4.4 Erosion can be a major carrier of organic nitrogen in surface water runoff but turfgrass greatly reduce erosion by decreasing surface runoff velocity, increasing infiltration, and stabilizing the soil.

4.5 In general, relatively small amounts of leachate are collected during the summer months because

evapotranspiration uses large quantities of soil water and prevents rapid downward movement of rainfall or irrigation. The microorganisms associated with turf are responsible for metabolizing pesticides and using nutrients to support their growth.

4.6 Nitrogen used by microorganisms is turned into complex organic compounds within the micro-

organisms. These microorganisms are relatively short-lived, and when they die the nitrogen is released as complex forms of N. Microbial population turns this quick-release N (Fertilizer) into slow-release N. The rapidly utilized applied N results in very little mobile form of N (Free NO3). Complex forms of N do not move downward to any extent in soils.

4.7 Phosphorus will also be applied to turf to support healthy plant and root growth. Phosphorus generally

does not move in sol because it binds with clay, aluminum and calcium. It also applied less frequently and generally at much lower application rate than nitrogen fertilizers.

Fate of Pesticides 4.8 Pesticides generally are man-made. The main concern with pesticide use is human exposure. Human

exposure occurs from direct inhalation of the pesticide's active ingredient, which can occur if the pesticide is volatile, through contact with treated plant surfaces, or through drinking water.

4.9 Pesticide leaching is controlled by two primary factors. First, the chemical properties of the pesticide

are very important. Some pesticides adsorb strongly to soils while others adsorb very weakly or not at all. Soil adsorption is typically expressed as an adsorption coefficient (Koc). A Koc value of less than 100 indicates that a pesticide is very mobile in soils. A Koc value between 100 and 1000 indicates that a pesticide is moderately mobile, and that mobility would be determined by other factors such as soil type and persistence. A Koc value of 1000 or more usually indicates that a pesticide is immobile.

Table 9 Summary of the pesticides applies to proposed third golf courses

Product Name Common name Soil Adsorption coefficient Half-life in soil, DT50 Weed control and Herbicide Image Imazaquin 4,929 7-133 days Roundup® Glyphosate 24,000 3-130 days Ronstar* Oxadiazon 3,200 < 2 days 2,4-D/MCPP* 2,4-D/Mecoprop 26 13-21 days Disease Control & Fungicides Diaconil® Chlorothalonil 1,787 30-120 days Mancozeb Mancozeb 2,000 3-60 days Rovral Iprodione 700 2-160 days Aliette* Fosetyl Aluminum 325 2 days Insect Control and Insecticide Applications Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos 6,070 60-120 days Chipco Choice® Fipronil 6,863 12-122 days Merit® Imidachloprid 1,310 7-146 days Biobit# Bacillus thuringiensis N/A < 1 week



Remarks: Each of the above-mentioned pesticides products is specific to different types of disease, insects and weeds. It is importation to note that they are not for routine application. When there is an outbreak which exceeds the acceptable level (Table 21), it will be applied to infected area for case by case basis. * and # are proposed newly recommended pesticides products for the proposed third golf course. # : Biopesticide control for the proposed third golf course N/A : not applicable 4.10 A second important factor in determining the potential for pesticide leaching is the length of time a

pesticide remains in the soil. The term half-life, DT50 is commonly used to describe pesticide persistence. A half-life is the time, usually measured in days or weeks, takes for the pesticide to break down and reach one-half of its initial concentration. If a pesticide has a DT50 of less than 30 days, it is considered non-persistent. Even if the Koc value is less than 100, there is little chance the pesticide will move to groundwater, since it breaks down so rapidly. If a pesticide has a DT50 of 30 to 120 days, it is considered moderately persistent, and a DT50 greater than 120 days is considered persistent.

4.11 After 9 years of operation experience on the turfgrass management at the existing golf course, it has

enable prediction of pest infestations and recognition of unfavorable climate conditions, and accordingly has lead to the development and establishment of a regular and well understood cycle of pesticides applications. Although pesticide inventory covers a wide range of pesticides, it does not mean routine application on turfgrass. Selected pesticides is only required for specific use when there is an outbreak which exceed the acceptable level (Table 21). Each pesticide has its own specific function to deal with turf diseases, weeds and insects on greens, tees and fairways. Greens are the only area required for high turf quality standard (1.1 ha) with respect to tees and fairways (18.1 ha) at the proposed third golf course.

4.12 The selection criteria of the selected pesticides for freshwater and marine water monitoring are focus

on the application frequency and method over the past 9 years. Insecticides (Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon) and Fungicides (Iprodione and Mancozeb) are the four major products which have been applied and monitored at the existing golf course throughout the past 9 years. Insecticide Diazinon is expected not to be a frequently use at the proposed third golf course.

4.13 Fungicides will only be applied to greens. Damage to fairways and tees as a result of disease is

perceived to be acceptable and consistent with the desired goal of minimizing fungicide application. All of the chosen fungicides are strongly-bound to soil, minimizing the chance of runoff (non-persistence and high Koc value). Fungicides mainly control Winter Fusarium, Brown Patch, Dollar Spot and Helminthosporium. For the proposed third golf course, the use of localized salty water application will also be explored as an alternative control for disease treatment because the Seashore paspalum have a higher salt tolerance than Bermuda grass. The disease outbreak (application of fungicide) is required mainly depends on the weather condition (temperature and humidity). Brown Patch outbreak is normally happen in November each year and Helminthosporium is most likely to be happened in Apr and May each year. Preventative application may be necessary if conditions are conducive to disease. Moreover, young turf is more susceptible to disease. It is expensive and labor intensive to control disease once established. Jockey Club has many years on early detection and prompt control of disease during known susceptible periods, it is the most efficient way to control fungal attacks for the golf course. Only 3-4 months are susceptible per year to the diseases which required fungicide applications when infection exceeds the acceptable level (Iprodione and Mancozeb).

4.14 The most common invertebrate pests likely to be found on Kau Sai Chau are Cut Worms, Army

Worms, Mole Crickets and White Grubs. Insect invasions will be most prevalent during the turf



establishment stage when the roots and stems of the plant are at a young and immature stage. By understanding the lifecycle of insects, the most sensitive point in their life cycle when they can be effectively controlled can be determined. The target species of insecticides are army worm, cut worm and mole crickets when there is an outbreak over the past 9 years. Critical stage for the most effectively insecticides treatment are (i) early nymph stage for mole crickets during May and June (peak rate), (ii) larval/caterpillar stage of army worm by feeding the young turf on blade, crown and stem (turf establishment period), (iii) cut worms are targeted for regular, preventative sprays. Insecticides (Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon) will be required to apply at this critical stage when damage exceeds the acceptable level. For the proposed new golf course, biopesticides (Bacillus Thuringiensis) will be the first priority method to control the insect problems

4.15 Mechanical method (hand pulling) of removing turfgrass weeds will be the primary means of control.

Broad leaved weeds will be removed mechanically by maintenance staff. 80% of weed species are smothered by the sense Bermuda grass covering. For the proposed third golf course, application of localized salt water will be explored to suppress or eradicated the weeds in order to minimize the herbicides applications. For those persistent weeds need to be removed, herbicides are required to apply by one application or at most second light application on the leaf surface only. Herbicide will not be used on wet day (only dry days) with very litter air movement to reduce the risk of spray drift to non-targeted areas. No herbicides is applied during the rainfall (predicted heavy rainfall in the next few days) to eliminate the risk of immediate runoff before absorption by vegetation. Moreover, method of herbicide application was site specific to an area over the dense vegetation, and the volume of chemical applied was small (few liters per hectare with high water dilution). Although no water samples were collected for analysis, no water quality impacts on stream and marine water is expected. This approach is acceptable by EPD during the operational phase monitoring at the existing golf course.

4.16 A new turf (Seashore paspalum) will be used instead of Bermuda grass planted at the existing golf

courses and newly proposed pesticides will also be applied at the proposed third golf course. To ensure the predicted effectiveness of turfgrass management plan for the proposed third golf course, pesticides are subjected to monitoring as proposed in the EM&A programme for the third golf course.

4.17 Table 9 shows that pesticide used in the existing golf course has a high soil sorption coefficient

indicate that a pesticide is immobile in soil. At the existing and proposed third golf course, turf grows on sandy loam soil with clay based which will further protect the leaching to groundwater. Clay layer creates a confining layer in the subsurface due to low permeability (small grain sizes) with large surface areas and pore spaces are not well connected. Turf along with soil act as a natural filter by capturing solid particles, retaining chemicals or dissolved substances on the soil particle surface, transforming chemicals through microbial biological processing and retarding movement of substances. Thus, leaching to groundwater potential to sensitive streams and reservoir is not expected.

4.18 Turf, as a system, has a high level of microbial activity which, combined with the large amount of

surface organic matter which creates a unique environment that minimizes the possibility of substantial downward movement of agrochemicals. For golf courses, water quality is often linked to the use of pesticides and fertilizers on the course. Literature review on the chemicals leaching and runoff on environmental water is presented in the Appendix C.

4.19 In the past 9 years water and ecological quality monitoring data at the existing KSC golf course, all

monitoring data combines all complex physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of the fate of fertilizer and pesticides in the exiting golf course and reflects the ultimate resultant integration in the water quality monitoring results. It is the real case study and reflects the successful of the integrated



turfgrass management plan applies in the KSC existing golf course. Good water quality in the third golf course will be expected in the following reasons: (i) Reduce fertilizers application load to Seashore paspalum and (ii) same approach of turfgrass management plan applies to the proposed third golf course in future. Pesticides concentration prediction, environmental fate in soil and water and mode of action at the proposed third golf course is shown in Annex I.

4.20 Representative pesticides concentrations have been monitored at the existing golf courses over the past

9 years, all measured pesticides concentrations at sensitive receivers are below detection limit (0.5 μg/L). With the same approach of turf grass management applies to the proposed third golf course, the predicted pesticides concentrations at the proposed third golf course for those frequently applied at the existing golf courses are expected to be no worse than the existing golf courses. For those newly proposed pesticides with a very short half-life, the predicted concentrations should be no worse than the existing monitoring data, i.e. below the detection limit.

4.21 Nutrient states will be monitored every 3 months of the year through soil testing to determine the

nutrient status and overall health of soil. Slow release fertilizers will be used together with spoon feeding through foliar applications. This practice will ensure that there would be no nutrient loading within the soil and efficient turf nutrient uptake, minimizing the potential for nutrient loss from the soil.

4.22 Potassium and micro nutrients are essential and supplementary elements for plant growth. Potassium

is the most abundant cation utilized in plant growth which is taken up by the plant roots from soil and circulates thought the plant in form of K+. Clay and organic matter in soil are negatively charged and therefore have the ability to hold positively charged cations such as potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+), Magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+) and hydrogen (H+). The ability to hold these positively charged cations is called the soil’s cation exchange capacity and is an important to measure for the soils fertility. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) measures the number of available exchange sites. The availability of potassium increases as the percentage of exchange sites occupied with potassium increase. Based on the routine soil test result at the on CEC, K and micro nutrients values (routine soil test programme is part of the existing and proposed turfgrass management plan), it can be determine whether the K or micro nutrients is less than standard, greater than standard or at optimum level. The soil properties can be, therefore, maintained in an optimum condition and should be desirable condition for the growth of turfgrass at existing and proposed golf courses.

Water quality prediction in the proposed third golf course 4.23 A more drought tolerant, disease resistance and low fertility requirement of turfgrass (Seashore

paspalum) will be used instead of Bermuda in the proposed third golf course. Reduction of irrigation water use, fertilizer dosage and pesticides application will be expected in the future at the proposed third golf course. Based on the past 9 year’s turfgrass management experiences, good water quality and positive ecological monitoring results at the adjacent existing golf courses, pollutant runoff in the existing golf courses is extreme low.

4.24 For the proposed third golf course, the soil, turf management and physical conditions are very similar

with the adjacent existing golf course With the same approach of turfgrass management plan (types of fertilizers and pesticides and frequency of application), similar fates of the fertilizers and pesticides are expected in the proposed third golf course. A turfgrass management guideline (Appendix A6.4) for the proposed third golf course is provided in the EIA report for reference.



4.25 The following sections are the prediction for the water quality at new lakes and existing reservoir when the proposed third golf courses come into operational phase. Prediction of water quality is mainly based on the past 9 year’s water monitoring data and past 10 year’s of rainfall record in Hong Kong.

4.26 The main low flow drainage system is a closed drainage system designed for 1 in 2 years storm events.

Lake near Hole 4 and Lake near Hole 10 are proposed new lakes temporary hold surface runoff from the proposed third golf course. Runoff collected in these two new lakes will be pumped via a proposed irrigation buffer lake 1D, and then overflow into the existing reservoir by gravity for irrigation purpose. The system will only overflow when the rainstorm event is greater than 1 in 2 years storm events at Lake near Hole 4 and Lake near Hole 10 only. Figure 2 shows the master low flow drainage system for the proposed third golf course.

4.27 The proposed new lakes are as follows:

Lake near Hole 4 (Designed volume = 1,870 m³; Catchment area = 75,000 m²) Lake near Hole 10 (Designed volume = 9,880 m³; Catchment area = 160,000 m²) Irrigation Lake 1D (Designed volume = 25,000 m³)

4.28 Irrigation lake 1D is the first collection point for golf course pollutants from the proposed third golf

course when the lake is full, water will overflow to the existing reservoir by gravity through underground pipe. The pollutant concentrations for the following critical locations have been estimated and checked against monitoring guidelines:

(i) Lake near Hole 4 (ii) Hole 5 (iii) Lake near Hole 10 (iv) Irrigation Lake 1D (v) Existing Reservoir

4.29 Figure 2.1 shows the location of water sensitive receivers. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show the schematic

water flow of the closed low flow drainage system at the proposed third golf course. Figure 2.3 shows the schematic water flow of the main drainage system for the existing golf course.

Hydrological calculation and assumptions (a) Calculation of the nutrient absorption rate for Bermuda at existing golf course (based on the past 9

years water quality monitoring in Hong Kong). (b) Assumption on nutrient absorption rate for Seashore paspalum (c) Prediction of water quality from Seashore paspalum at the proposed golf course (based on past 10

years rainfall data in Hong Kong) (d) Prediction of water quality at the new lake / existing reservoirs during 1 in 2 years storm event



(i) Lake near Hole 4 4.30 For the proposed third golf course, a closed low flow drainage system is proposed to collect all of the

golf course pollutants (nutrients and pesticides). All pollutants from the proposed third golf course will be collected by underground pipes and diverted (either pumping or by gravity) to the existing reservoir for irrigation purpose except Hole 5 and part of Hole 6. Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 runoff will be diverted to the existing marsh before discharge to marine.

Calculation - Step I (Fertilizer application load to the Primary catchment of existing golf course) 4.31 The existing reservoir acts as the final receptor of primary catchment. The direct primary catchment

area is 69 hectares to the reservoir including 31 hectares of turf area. Thus, leaching from the turf within the primary catchment will flow into the reservoir for storage.

4.32 The below table shows the summarized the fertilizer application load, residual load in the existing

reservoir and calculated runoff percentage from turf area over the past years at the primary catchment. For the worst case scenario, the lowest absorption rate taken up by turf will be used for the following water quality prediction at the new lakes at the proposed third golf course.

Table 10 Nutrient absorption rate by Bermuda at the existing golf course

Total fertilizer load at

primary catchment Residual load at the existing reservoir

Nutrient absorption rate by turf (%)

Year TIN (kg) TP (kg) TIN (kg) TP (kg) TIN TP 1996 10233 2689 162 15 98.4% 99.4% 1997 9975 2456 83 5 99.2% 99.8% 1998 9886 2047 44 10 99.6% 99.5% 1999 9107 1937 39 2 99.6% 99.9% 2000 9549 2312 36 8.5 99.6% 99.6% 2001 8592 2080 35 8.5 99.6% 99.6% 2002 9980 2416 48 8.5 99.5% 99.6% 2003 9789 2002 36 8.5 99.6% 99.6% 2004 8030 1944 31 8.5 99.6% 99.6%

Remarks: The calculation assumption of nutrient absorption rate by turf: (i) The lowest fertilizer load (monthly) at the primary catchment within a year, then convert monthly value (by

multiply by 12) to get a lowest annual load per year. It also assumes all of the organic fertilizer converts to available inorganic form;

(ii) For the highest residual load calculation, the highest nutrient concentration recorded within a year at the reservoir and assuming the reservoir is full (concentration times volume equals load).

Calculation - Step II (Comparison of Bermuda and Seashore paspalum) 4.33 Seashore Paspalum is a warm season turfgrass and can be used tee to green on golf courses. It can be

irrigated with fresh water or thrives on saltier water sources, such as effluent (recycled water or gray water) or brackish water. This is good for conservation to irrigate golf courses. It is fairly cold tolerant and coastal environments. Moreover, it does well at lower heights of cut and can be used on the greens of a golf course as well as the fairways.



4.34 In general, Seashore Paspalum requires approximately 50% less water and 75% less nitrogen than Bermuda Grass 2. Therefore, less nitrogen run-off is expected. Seashore Paspalum has different irrigation and fertilization needs than Bermuda Grass.

4.35 Characteristics for the Bermuda and Seashore paspalum are shown in the following table. Due to their

similarity, nutrient absorption performance is assumed to be the same and apply to the water quality prediction at the proposed third golf course.

Table 11 Bermuda vs Seashore paspalum

Environment Bermuda Grass Seashore paspalum Moving height (inches) 0.5-1.5 1-2 Soil Wide Range Wide Range Leaf texture Fine-Medium Fine-Medium Drought Tolerance Good Good Salt Tolerance Good Excellent Shade Tolerance Poor Poor Wear Tolerance Good-Excellent Good-Excellent Nematode Tolerance Poor Good Maintenance Level Medium-High Medium Uses Athletic Fields, Golf Lawns, Athletic Fields, Golf Establishment Methods Sod, Sprigs, Plugs, some seed Sod, Plugs, sprigs

Source: (Green Industry, 2002). Best Management Practices for protection of water resources in Florida. This paper is developed jointly by the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sevices, Department of Cummunity Affairs, water management districts, the University of Florida and many private industry partners.

Calculation - Step III (Fertilizer load to Bermuda and Seashore paspalum) 4.36 As mention above, Seashore paspalum is the proposed turf for the proposed third golf course.

Bermuda is the turf species used in the existing golf courses. Seashore paspalum are more drought and disease tolerant species than Bermuda and require much lower fertilizer application.

4.37 By comparing to the existing golf course and the proposed third golf course on the fertilizer

application load, the fertilizer application load reduction per hectare after establishment period for TIN and TP are 6.2% and 38% respectively.

Table 12 Comparison of fertilizer load between Bermuda grass and Seashore paspalum

Primary Catchment

(existing golf course) - Bermuda grass

Proposed third golf course practice

- Seashore paspalum

TIN TP TIN TP Establishment kg/ha/3months 110 90 90# 100# After Establishment kg/ha/yr 289* 70* 271 43

* The lowest application rate per ha turf over the 9 years fertilizer application data. # Maximum fertilizer load within the 3 months period.

2 (California Fairways, 2004). SeaDwarf Seashore Paspalum - Super Supplies And Products



Table 13 Proposed fertilizers application to Seashore paspalum at the proposed third golf course

TIN TP Turfgrass Establishment period to the proposed third golf course (first 3 months) Green + Tee + Fairway 245 kg/ha/3months 250 kg/ha/3months After Establishment period to the proposed third golf course Green (Winter + Summer) 465 kg/ha/year 47 kg/ha/year Tee + Fairway (Winter + Summer) 258 kg/ha/year 42 kg/ha/year Worst Case - Maximum Fertilizer Load (All turf will be treated as green) Winter + Summer 465 kg/ha/month 47 kg/ha/month Estimated max. annual fertilizer load to the proposed third golf course First year (3 months establishment) + 9 months after establishment

245 + [(465÷12) x 9] = 594 kg/ha/year

250 + [47÷12 x 9] = 285 kg/ha/year

Second year (12 months after establishment) 465 kg/ha/year 47 kg/ha/year

Remarks: Please refer to Appendix A6.4 Turfgrass management guideline for details.

Calculation - Step IV (predicted fertilizer application at proposed third golf course) 4.38 Lake near Hole 4 collects the golf course pollutants from Hole 4 only through underground pipe. Turf

area for Hole 4 is 1.39 ha.

First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period 4.39 Expected annual fertilizer loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus are 594 kgN/ha and 285 kgP/ha

respectively (Table 13). The predicted concentrations at lake near Hole 4 are shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 4 (First Year)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 594 kg/ha x 1.39 ha = 826 kg N 285 kg/ha x 1.39 ha = 396 kg P Annual residual load## 826 x (1-0.984) = 13 kg N 396 x (1-0.994) = 2.4 kg P

Predicted annual volume from Hole 4 to lake* 165994 m³ Expected concentrations at lake near hole 4 (13/165994)x1000 = 0.08 mg N/L (2.4/165994)x1000 = 0.014 mg P/L

Remarks: # - Please refer to Table 13 for fertilizer load; ## - Please refer to Table 10 * - The annual rainfall volume is lowest record in wet season of the past 10 years in Hong Kong.

4.40 One of the most important sources of water for the growth of turfgrass is rainfall. Evapotranspiration of a turfgrass is the total amount of soil water used for transpiration by the plants and evaporation from the surrounding soil surface. In other words, the turfgrass evapotranspiration represents the amount of water utilized by the turfgrass and its environment. If the rainfall is larger than the evapotranspiration, there will be an excess amount of water cannot be readily absorbed by the turfgrass. The rainfall and evapotranspiration rate in the past 10 years in Hong Kong shows that net positive values (rainfall > evapotranspiration rate) are recorded from Apr to Oct. Therefore, these are the potential months for the pollutants leaching from turf. The net water volume indicates that there will be a potential of excess water being runoff from the turfgrass area. For the irrigation approach at the golf course, it is also taken into account with the rainfall and evapotranspiration rate before



irrigation. Therefore, the lowest rainfall record in the past 10 years between Apr to Oct will be used as the worst case scenario for the calculation of the potential runoff volume from turfgrass area.

Second Year: 12 months of Establishment period 4.41 Expected annual fertilizer loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus are 465 kgN/ha and 47 kgP/ha


Table 15 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 4 (After establishment)


Predicted annual volume from Hole 4 to lake* 165994 m³ Expected concentrations at lake near hole 4 (10/165994 m³)x1000 = 0.06 mgN/L (0.4/165994 m³)x1000 = 0.002 mg P/L


Calculation - Step V (concentrations at overflow during rainstorm) Prediction of overflow events from Lakes near Holes 4 4.42 The proposed closed drainage system at the third golf course can catering for 1 in 2 years rainstorm

event and will divert all surface runoff to the existing reservoir. No overflow at any of the proposed new Lake near hole 4 is expected when 1 in 2 years rainstorm event occurs. For the worse case of this study, overflow will occur during 1 in 2 years storm events.

Table 16 Catchment Dilution during 1 in 2 years storm event

Lake Volume (m³)

Catchment runoff volume – 1 in 2 yrs (m³) Dilution factor

Lake near Hole 4 1870 7024 1870/(1870+7024) = 0.21 Assumption: (i) The water level at Lake near Hole 4 before overflow (1 in 2 yrs rainstorm) is full; (ii) there will be dilution from Lake 4’s catchment to the pollutant during 1 in 2 yrs storm event during overflow. It will never happen for the proposed third golf course drainage design under 1 in 2 yrs storm events (the proposed drainage design should be greater than 1 in 2 yrs storm events) but will be used as the worst case scenario for estimation. Please refer to Appendix D for more details schematic explanation and calculation. Table 17 Estimated overflow pollutant concentrations at lake near Hole 4 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm

TIN TP

First Year : Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period Predicted concentration during operational phase 0.08 x 0.21 = 0.017 mg/L 0.014 x 0.21 = 0.003 mg/LSecond Year : 12 months of Establishment period Predicted concentration during operational phase 0.06 x 0.21 = 0.013 mg/L 0.002 x 0.21 = 0.0004 mg/L



4.43 In conclusion, total inorganic nitrogen concentrations overflowing to the marine water from Lake near Hole 4 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm events complies to (i) Table 6 guideline values for the existing golf course (TIN < 0.145 mg/L) and (ii) WQO guideline value at Port Shelter (< 0.1 mg/L) (Table 5). For Total Phosphate, there is no WQO guideline value at Port Shelter. The predicted concentrations are in compliance with the Table 6 guideline values (TP < 0.09 mg/L).

(ii) Hole 5 and Part of Hole 6 4.44 The existing marsh near holes 5 has been used for polishing the pollutants from the secondary

catchment (57.2 ha) of the existing golf course since the existing golf course come into operation. According to the monitoring records, positive results of ecology and water quality have been recorded at the marsh over years. This demonstrates that the marsh can actively polishing pollutants runoff from turfgrass, providing a stable habitat for living organisms and enhances diversity.

4.45 Pollutants from holes N15, S1 to S9 (existing golf course) flow to the existing marsh for further

polishing before overflow to the marine water. With the new proposed closed drainage system for the proposed third golf course, the pollutants from the existing holes S1, S7 and S9 will be collected and diverted back to the existing reservoir rather than discharge directly to the marsh. The net pollutant load from the turfgrass to the marsh will be reduced. The pollutants runoff from Hole 5 (mainly greens) and part of Hole 6 (fairway) will not be collected by the proposed closed drainage system which will be diverted to the existing marsh. Since there will be a net decrease of flow to the marsh, no adverse impact on water quality is expected from Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 during the operational phase of the proposed third golf course.

4.46 For comparison, the reduction in flow volume (Table 18) and turfgrass area (Table 19) is calculated as

a result of the change in the flow pattern on completion of the proposed drainage system. 4.47 For the existing system, the golf course pollutants of N15, S1 to S9 flows to the marsh for polishing

before overflow to the marine water. The estimated flow to the marsh (1 in 2 yrs) of the existing system is 4,522 m³. For hole 5 and part of hole 6, estimated flows (1 in 2 yrs) are 377 m³ and 511 m³ respectively. With the implementation of proposed closed drainage system, annual pollutant flow from S1, S7 and S9 (1,219 m³) will be diverted back to the existing reservoir for irrigation rather than flowing to the existing marsh. The net pollutant flow volume to marsh will be reduced by 7.3%. In terms of turfgrass area, there is a net reduction of 6.6% with the proposed drainage system. This concludes that water quality will be improved after the implementation of the proposed closed low flow drainage system.

(A) Reduction in Flow Volume

Table 18 Calculation of existing and future flow volume from turfgrass area to existing marsh (1 in 2 yrs) Existing marsh (N15, S1-S9) 4,522 m³Flow reduction as a result of diverting the runoff to existing reservoir rather than marsh Holes S1, S7, S9 deduct 1,219 m³Increase water flow from the new proposed golf course to marsh Part of Hole 6 add 511 m³Hole 5 add 377 m³Net flow to the existing marsh in future 4,191 m³Net water low volume reduction (4,522 – 4,191) / 4,522 (%) 7.3 %



(B) Reduction in Turfgrass area Table 19 Calculation of existing and future turfgrass area to existing marsh

Area of existsing golf course discharge directly to the marsh Tee + Green + Fairway N15 6,254 m² S1 4,790 m² S2 1,556 m² S3 9,328 m² S4 5,556 m² S5 1,000 m² S6 6,972 m² S7 3,314 m² S8 3,296 m² S9 4,104 m²

Sub-total 46,171 m² Area of existing golf course with runoff that will be diverted back to the existing reservoir by the proposed closed low flow drainage system Tee + Green + Fairway

S1 4,790 m² S7 3,314 m² S9 4,104 m²

deduct Sub-total 12,208 m² Area of the proposed new golf course that will discharge to the marsh Hole 5 3,893 m² Part of Hole 6 5,267 m²

add Sub-total 9,160 m² NET area that will be discharge to the marsh in future 43,123 m² Area reduction (46,171 – 43,123) / 46,171 (%) 6.6%

Calculation - Step I (predicted fertilizer application at proposed third golf course) 4.48 Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 golf course runoff will be diverted into the marsh during rain. Turf area for

Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 is 0.916ha.


respectively (Table 13). The predicted concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 are shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Predicted Concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 (First Year)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 594 kg/ha x 0.916 ha = 544 kg N 285 kg/ha x 0.916 ha = 261 kg P Annual residual load## 544 x (1-0.984) = 8.7 kg N 261 x (1-0.994) = 1.5 kg P

Predicted annual volume from Hole5 and part of Hole 6* 109397 m³

Expected concentrations Hole5 and part of Hole 6 (8.7/109397)x1000 = 0.08 mg N/L (1.5/109397)x1000 = 0.014 mg P/L




4.50 Expected annual fertilizer loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus are 465 kgN/ha and 47 kgP/ha

respectively (Table 13). The predicted concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 shown in Table 21.

Table 21 Predicted Concentrations at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 (After Establishment)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 465 kg/ha x 0.916 ha = 426 kg N 47 kg/ha x 0.916 ha = 43 kg P Annual residual load## 426 x (1-0.984) = 6.8 kg N 43 x (1-0.994) = 0.26 kg P

Predicted annual volume from Hole5 and part of Hole 6* 109397 m³

Expected concentrations Hole5 and part of Hole 6 (6.8/109397 m³)x1000 = 0.06 mgN/L (0.26/109397 m³)x1000 = 0.002 mg P/L


Mitigation measure at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6

Combination of the use of filter system and bio-pesticides control at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 4.51 Filter systems at hole 5 and part of Hole 6 for the removal of surface runoff pollutant is proposed as an

effective mitigation measures. The following table shows the removal performance of the proposed filter system based on a designed maximum flow per unit. Proposed filter systems will be installed at underground catchpits of Hole 5 and part of Hole 6. The runoff from Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 will be passing though this filter system before discharge into the marsh. Detail design of the proposed filter and proposed locations are shown in Figures 2.4a and 2.4b respectively. Both nutrients and pesticides can be absorption by this filter system effectively as shown in the following table and details in Appendix E.

Table 22 Performance of Filter System

Analysed components Influent conc. (mg/L) Effluent conc. (mg/L) Removal rate (%)

TSS 295 9 96.95 TPH@ 320 16 95.00 Zinc 0.45 0.06 86.67 BOD 250 26 89.60 COD 650 130 80.00 TN 54.4 17.7 67.46 TP 28.9 7.39 74.43

Remark: Source is provided from the Manufacturer (http://www.ads-pipe.com/us/en/products/stormpure.shtml) @Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) includes a broad family of several hundred chemical compounds and they are mixture of chemicals basically made from hydrogen and carbon which represent between 50% and 98% of its composition. All of the pesticides used in KSC golf course are organic in natures which contain high percentage of carbon and hydrogen components. The proposed filter system should have the removal capacity for the pesticides from the runoff if present. Based on the filter performance mentioned above, it can effectively removal nutrients and pesticides from the turf if present.



4.52 The proposed third golf course has a turfgrass management plan with integrated pest management plan (IPM). The management practice approach will extend from the existing golf course to the proposed third golf course.

4.53 Integrated Pest Management is a management plan that uses a variety of control measures to keep

Turfgrass pest population below levels that are economically and aesthetically damaging, without creating a hazard to people and the environment. The basic components of IPM are control strategies include, species and cultural selection, good mowing , irrigation practices, fertility and pH management, thatch control, rootzone management through good cultural practices such as aeration, wear management etc. Biological pest control and chemical pest control by developing a turf management plan encompassing these features as best management practices. The emphasis is always on prevention: eliminating conditions that promote the establishment of the pest. If the pest becomes established, physical removal can be a viable option rather than chemical or biological control. The first step should always be prevention: eliminating conditions that promote the establishment of the pest. If the pest becomes established, physical removal can be a viable option rather than chemical or biological control. Other aspects of IPM include the use of mechanical, physical and regulatory methods.

4.54 The goal of biological control is to use enemies (predators, parasites, and pathogens) to maintain

populations of the species at a level that does not require further control measures. It is only one aspect of an overall strategy of integrated pest management (IPM), which aims to control of pest species using the most cost-effective, efficient, and environmentally-friendly methods available. Other aspects of IPM should include cultural and chemical method of control.

4.55 The threshold levels set in the Turfgrass management plan have been established with years of

experience and would be applied universally across the golf courses (Table 23). Primary treatment (First detection of pests or when seasonal conditions indicated pest outbreaks were probable) of pest at Hole 5 & part of Hole 6 will be done through use of biological treatments where products are available for specific pests. It is preferred to apply such products at an early stage of infestation to give the application the best chance of success. It is because bio-pesticides available and proposed either only effective to pests are in the immature stage or take longer time to have an effect (mode of actions are less specific than chemical pesticides) on pest populations and actions. It is therefore not recommended to use at later stage or after the exceedance to the threshold level. Bio-pesticides use in Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 is a preventive approach to try to prevent threshold levels being reached. If there is an exceedance of the threshold level, it is not necessary to automatically trigger the use pesticides application. Golf Course Superintendent could then make decision on the type of treatment besides pesticides application. There are many other factors have to taken into account prior to chemical application such as current weather, pest life cycle, other maintenance practices that could assists etc.

Table 23 Aesthetic and functional threshold table for the proposed third golf course

Pest Greens Tees & Fairways Roughs Detection method Diseases Helminthosporum Pythium Rhizoctonia Dollar spot Cuvulera

5% 5% 5% 10% 10%

Untreated

Untreated

Visual inspection / Microscope



Pest Greens Tees & Fairways Roughs Detection method Insects White Grubs Mole Crickets Sod Webworms Armyworms Cutworms

2 nos. / sq. ft. 2 nos. / sq. ft. 4 nos. / sq. ft. Not required 1 nos. / sq. ft.

4 nos. / sq. ft. 3 nos. / sq. ft.

8-10 nos. / sq. ft. 4 nos. /sq. ft. 5 nos. / sq. ft.

6 nos. /sq. ft. 6 nos. / sq. ft. Not required 6 nos. /sq. ft. Not required

Visual + soil inspect Visual + soap flush Visual + soap flush Visual + soap flush Visual + soap flush

Weeds Nutsedge Torpedograss Broadleave weeds

Hand pulled Hand pulled Hand pulled

2 nos. / sq. ft. 2 nos. / sq.ft. 2 nos. / sq. ft.

6 nos. / sq. ft. 4 nos. / sq. ft. 6 nos. / sq. ft.

Visual inspection

Remarks: Threshold levels represent percent of area affected or number of insect / weeds per square foot required prior to any treatment application. 4.56 The following table shows the list insecticides and fungicides are suitable to apply for the proposed

third golf course. Bacillus thuringiensis will be the selected and use as primary treatment as a bio-control to Hole 5 and part of Hole 6. All of the proposed biological products are registered pesticides by AFCD.

Table 24 Proposed List of Biological Products apply at Hole 5 and part of Hole 6

Target species Biological products

Armyworms, sod webworms

Neem (AFCD Reg. No. 2P262), Bacillus thuringiensis (AFCD Reg. No. 2P12), Spodoptera litura Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus (AFCD Reg. No. 2P242)

Insects

Mole crickets Beauveria bassiana (AFCD Reg. No. 2P239) Disease Dollar spot Trichoderma harzianum (AFCD Reg. No. 2P255)*

(iii) Lake near Hole 10 4.57 The pollutants from Holes 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 will be diverted to the Lake near Hole 10 by

the proposed closed low flow drainage system. The total turf area for Holes 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 is 9.44 ha.

Calculation - Step I (predicted annual load at lake near hole 10)





Table 25 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 10 (First Year)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 594 kg/ha x 9.44 ha = 5607 kg N 285 kg/ha x 9.44 ha = 2690 kg P Annual residual load## 5607 x (1-0.984) = 90 kg N 2690 x (1-0.994) = 16 kg P

Predicted annual volume from Hole 9 to 17 lake* 1127156 m³ Expected concentrations at lake near hole 10 (90/1127156)x1000 = 0.08 mg N/L (16/1127156)x1000 = 0.014 mg P/L




Table 26 Predicted Concentrations at Lake near Hole 10 (After Establishment)


Predicted annual volume from Hole 9 to 17 lake* 1127156 m³ Expected concentrations at lake near hole 10 (70/1127156)x1000 = 0.06 mg N/L (2.7/1127156)x1000 = 0.002 mg P/L


Calculation - Step II (concentrations at overflow during rainstorm)

Prediction of overflow events from Lakes near Holes 10 4.60 The proposed closed drainage system at the third golf course can catering for 1 in 2 years rainstorm

event and will divert all surface runoff to the existing reservoir. No overflow at any of the proposed new Lake near hole 10 is expected when 1 in 2 years rainstorm event occurs. For the worse case of this study, overflow will occur during 1 in 2 years storm events.

Table 27 Catchment Dilution during 1 in 2 years storm events

Lake Volume (m³)

Catchment runoff volume – 1 in 2 yrs (m³) Dilution factor

Lake near Hole 10 9880 14984 9880/ (9880+14981) = 0.39 Assumption: (i) The water level at Lake near Hole 4 before overflow (1 in 2 yrs rainstorm) is full; (ii) there will be dilution from Lake 4’s catchment to the pollutant during 1 in 2 yrs storm event during overflow. It will never happen for the proposed third golf course drainage design under 1 in 2 yrs storm events (the proposed drainage design should be greater than 1 in 2 yrs storm events) but will be used as the worst case scenario for estimation. Please refer to Appendix D for more details schematic explanation and calculation.



Table 28 Estimated overflow pollutant concentrations at lake near Hole 10 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm

TIN TP

First Year : Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period Predicted concentration during operational phase 0.08 x 0.39 = 0.031 mg/L 0.014 x 0.39 = 0.005 mg/LSecond Year : 12 months of Establishment period Predicted concentration during operational phase 0.06 x 0.39 = 0.023 mg/L 0.002 x 0.39 = 0.007 mg/L

4.61 In conclusion, total inorganic nitrogen concentrations overflowing to the marine water from Lake near

Hole 10 during 1 in 2 years rainstorm events complies to (i) Table 6 guideline values for the existing golf course (TIN < 0.145 mg/L) and (ii) WQO guideline value at Port Shelter (< 0.1 mg/L) (Table 5). For Total Phosphate, there is no WQO guideline value at Port Shelter. The predicted concentrations are in compliance with the Table 6 guideline values (TP < 0.09 mg/L).

(iv) Irrigation Lake 1D 4.62 The Irrigation Lake ID is the first collection point of all pollutants from the proposed third golf course

and diverts the water back to the existing reservoir by gravity. The total turf area to irrigation lake 1D is 18.71 ha. The Irrigation Lake will also collect the pollutants from S1, S7 and S9 (1.22 ha) from the existing golf course. The predicted load at Irrigation Lake 1D is shown in the following table.

Calculation - Step I (Predicted annual load at Irrigation Lake 1D)


respectively (Table 13). The predicted concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D are shown in Table 29.

Table 29 Predicted Concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (First Year)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 594 kg/ha x 19.94 ha = 11844 kg N 285 kg/ha x 19.94 ha = 5683 kg P Annual residual load## 11844 x (1-0.984) = 190 kg N 5683 x (1-0.994) = 34 kg P

Annual runoff volume from Holes 1-18 + S1,S7,S9* 2381111 m³

Expected concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (190/2381111)x1000 = 0.08 mg N/L (34/2381111)x1000 = 0.014 mg P/L Remarks: # - Please refer to Table 13 for fertilizer load; ## - Please refer to Table 10 * - The annual rainfall volume is lowest record in wet season of the past 10 years in Hong Kong.


respectively (Table 13). The predicted concentrations at Irrigation lake 1D are shown in Table 30.



Table 30 Predicted Concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (After Establishment)

TIN TP Annual fertilizer load# 465 kg/ha x 19.94 ha = 9272 kg N 47 kg/ha x 19.94 ha =937 kg P Annual residual load## 9272 x (1-0.984) = 148 kg N 937 x (1-0.994) = 5.6 kg P

Annual runoff volume from Holes 1-18 + S1,S7,S9* 2381111 m³

Expected concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D (148/2381111)x1000 = 0.06 mg N/L (5.6/2381111)x1000 = 0.002 mg P/L

Remarks: # - Please refer to Table 13 for fertilizer load; ## - Please refer to Table 10 * - The annual rainfall volume is lowest record of the past 10 years in Hong Kong.

(v) Existing reservoir 4.65 The expected pollutant concentration at the Irrigation Lake 1D is better than the 9 years monitoring

data at existing reservoir as shown in Table 31.

Table 31 Proportion Flow of Additional Pollutant Load to Existing Reservoir

m³ flow proportion Existing Reservoir 439,007Ω 0.942 Additional 1 in 2 yrs surface runoff volume from the third golf course and part of the existing golf course (S1, S7 and S9) 25,852 0.058

Remark: Ω - Worst case scenario: Assume the existing reservoir has already contained 439,007m³ of water (maximum volume is 464859 m³), the addition pollutant flow from the proposed third golf course (Irrigation lake) and existing golf course (S1, S7 and S9) will induce the overflow event at existing reservoir during 1 in 2 years rainstorm event. Table 32 Expected Existing Reservoir Pollutant Concentrations with the additional Pollutant Load during the

Operational Phase of the Proposed Third Golf Course

Concentration at Irrigation Lake 1D

Concentration at existing reservoir Flow proportion Cumulative concentration at existing reservoir

TIN (mg/L)

TP (mg/L)

TIN (mg/L)

TP (mg/L) Lake 1D Reservoir TIN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)

First Year: Turf establishment period (First 3 months) + 9 months of after establishment period 0.08 0.014 0.86 0.1 0.058 0.942 0.08 x 0.058 + 0.86 x 0.942

= 0.814 mg/L 0.014 x 0.058 + 0.1 x 0.942

= 0.095 mg/L Second Year: 12 months of Establishment period

0.06 0.002 0.86 0.1 0.058 0.942 0.06 x 0.058 + 0.86 x 0.942 = 0.813 mg/L

0.002 x 0.058 + 0.1 x 0.942 = 0.094 mg/L

Remarks: TIN and TP at existing reservoir is the highest record over the past 9 years monitoring data (worst case scenario)

4.66 The expected TIN and TP concentrations (Table 30) with the addition of the pollutant load from the

proposed third golf course at the existing reservoir is well within the range of water quality at existing reservoir over the past 9 years (TIN range from 0.4 to 0.86 mg/L; TP range from 0.02 to 0.1 mg/L). Therefore, no cumulative impact to the water quality at the existing reservoir during the operational phase of the third golf course is expected when 1 in 2 years rainstorm event occurs. The volume of the additional flow from the proposed third golf course is only 4% to the existing reservoir.



4.67 Overflow events at the existing reservoir was extremely low over 9 years operational phase of the existing golf course but there is no available record for the frequent of the overflow event at the existing reservoir. The most relevant record is water level at the existing reservoir. Based on the Jockey Club experience, water level at the existing reservoir in March is the lowest when it compares to any other months with a year. It normally takes at least 2-3 months to refill the existing reservoir at the full capacity but depends on the rainfall volume, irrigation usage and evapotranspiration rate at existing golf course.

4.68 All assumptions are based on the worst case scenario to estimate the overflow event at the existing

reservoir, they are shown as follows: (i) Highest volume recorded in the existing reservoir in March over past 9 years is approximate 340,897

m³ (recorded at 8.8 mPD); Full capacity of the existing reservoir (12 mPD equals to 464,859 m³); and (ii) Maximum monthly rainfall recorded based on the past 10 year’s rainfall record.

Table 33 Estimation on the overflow events at the existing reservoir

Maximum rainfall#

(m³)

ET## (m³/month)

Irrigation usage

(m³/month)

Net volume flow into

reservoir (m³)*

Volume in the existing

reservoir (before) m³

Volume in the existing

reservoir (after) m³

Probability of overflow event

at existing reservoir

Jan 8,880 40,406 50,341 -81,867 - - - Feb 18,216 36,598 53,583 -71,964 - - - Mar 25,389 42,504 24,154 -41,270 - - - Apr 61,289 50,784 8,873 1,632 340,897 342,529 No < 464,859 m³May 120,188 63,480 38,064 18,644 342,529 361,172 No < 464,859 m³Jun 142,692 69,883 26,332 46,477 361,172 407,649 No < 464,859 m³Jul 122,768 83,076 33,607 6,086 407,649 413,735 No < 464,859 m³Aug 148,536 74,962 17,898 55,676 413,735 469,411 Yes > 464,859 m³Sep 113,736 66,571 56,367 -9,202 - - - Oct 54,952 62,266 56,367 -63,681 - - - Nov 13,320 49,018 44,956 -80,653 - - - Dec 10,360 42,338 51,459 -83,437 - - - Remarks: # - Rainfall water flows into the existing reservoir (HKO) ## - Evapotranspiration rate (HKO) * Net volume flow into reservoir = Maximum rainfall - evapotranspiration - irrigation usage 4.69 Table 31 shows that no net water is runoff into the existing reservoir for storage during September to

March (negative value) due to the rainfall volume gain is less than evapotranspiration loss and irrigation usage. Net water only starts built up in the existing reservoir from April to August gradually. Overflow event happens only during August based on the worst case scenario estimation, the excess quantity is 4,552 m³. Maximum number (past 10 years) of rainy days in August is 3 days. The overflow volume and frequency is considered extremely low (0.82% per year).



4.70 Table 34 shows the decreasing trend of annual rainfall over years.

Table 34 Monthly rainfall (mm/month) over the past 10 years in Hong Kong

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual1994 0 50.5 26.5 6 183.7 290.2 1147.2 597.6 298.9 2.2 0.2 122.6 2725.61995 21.1 33.1 32.4 76.3 20.8 243.9 668.7 1090.1 81.4 476.9 1.8 7.9 2754.41996 1.3 27.2 83.1 228.7 313.9 404 230.3 308.3 604 44.8 3.5 0 2249.11997 44.6 111.7 34.8 133.2 300.8 783.6 746 829 232.9 112.8 7.1 6.5 3343.01998 48.9 153.7 55.3 237.1 335.2 814.5 267.2 245.4 230.9 133.9 28.8 13.7 2564.61999 4.5 0 23.6 176.9 177.8 197.4 203.8 892 365.7 38.8 15.7 32.9 2129.12000 70.3 27.6 40.9 547.7 208.3 443.3 304 600.7 152.6 204.1 96.8 56 2752.32001 47.6 10.9 56.5 133 162 1083.6 656.4 318.9 563.3 10.7 23.3 44.6 3110.82002 25 4.6 238.7 12.4 275.6 237.6 320.8 365.9 723 199 23.3 64.1 2490.02003 21.7 15.1 38.6 84.5 249 523.5 101.8 415 394 48.6 50.1 0 1941.92004 51 51.8 104.3 147.2 194.4 144.7 386.7 488.5 167.3 2.3 0.4 0 1738.6

4.71 Moreover, the additional flow from the proposed third golf course will theoretical dilute the

concentration of pollutant in the reservoirs but the effect is insignificant. Even overflow event occurs at the existing reservoir, all marine monitoring locations including Fish Culture Zones of Tai Tau Chau and Kai Lung Wan are well within the WQO guidelines of Port Shelter over the past 9 years monitoring data. Therefore, no impacts will be anticipated during the normal operation or overflow events at the existing reservoir.

5. Prediction on overflow occurrence - Past 10 years rainfall record in Hong Kong 4.72 Maximum rainfall (mm/day) in Hong Kong over the past 10 years is summarized at Table 35. The

rainfall record showed that rain occurs mainly at wet season dominantly between April to September.

Table 35 Maximum rainfall over the past 10 years in Hong Kong

Maximum rainfall (mm/d) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1994 25 4.1 14.6 167 69.1 187 53.8 197 93.9 116 44.1 25.8 1995 2.2 0 3.6 81.5 46.9 148 86 288 128 30.8 15.7 10.8 1996 51.8 69.3 14.9 88.2 99.8 118.9 128.9 78.9 66.9 53 10.8 7.8 1997 30.5 33.9 7.8 63.4 56.6 145.1 122.6 199.7 96.3 54.6 3.2 4 1998 31.8 58.4 14.6 76.4 78.1 411.3 80.8 41.9 65.7 54.4 14.7 8.4 1999 2.4 0 7.9 81.5 46.9 61.3 41.8 207.4 276 30.8 15.7 4 2000 32.6 4.8 14.6 172.5 69.1 168.1 53.8 153.2 93.9 116 44.1 25.8 2001 27.3 8.8 46.2 46.6 50.8 136.4 142.1 90.6 133.2 9.2 1.1 18.4 2002 13.7 2.6 130 9.2 56.3 109.2 71.8 91.7 162.8 66.2 9.2 23 2003 16.5 14.4 10.7 65.4 141.1 134.3 31.2 77.5 97 32.7 32.7 40.3 2004 30.7 15 89 55.4 124.4 34.2 94.3 114.7 58.8 2.3 0.4 1

Max. rainfall over 10 years of rainfall record 51.8 69.3 130 172.5 141.1 411.3 142.1 288 276 116 44.1 40.3

Remarks: The data is provided by Hong Kong Observatory Data with bold and underline means rainfall >149 mm/d.



4.73 For rainfall intensity for 1 in 2 years is 149 mm/d3 (8 hrs) (The maximum capacity for the proposed low flow drainage system can be catered). If the rainfall intensity exceeds this intensity, overflow at the proposed new lakes may occur at the new proposed lakes near Holes 4 and 10.

4.74 Table 34 presents the number of days which the rainfall in Hong Kong is greater than 149 mm/d based

on the past 10 year’s maximum rainfall record. The predicted maximum overflow frequency from the new lakes is 7 days per year only at the proposed new lakes. With the low overflow event occurrence frequency is expected, no water quality impact is anticipated during the operational phase of the proposed third golf course.

Table 36 Number of days that rainfall greater than the retaining capacity of proposed new lakes

Days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Sub-Total1994 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4 2000 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Max 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 7

3 Despite some variations in extreme rainfall across the Territory, the rainfall statistics at RO headquarters/King’s Park are recommended for general application because of long-term and good quality records at other stations are not readily available in digitized form for statistical analysis. The recommended Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) relationship is based on the Gumbel Solution in the frequency analysis of the annual maximum rainfall recorded at RO Headquarters and King’s Park (RO, 1991). For detail calculation, please refer to DSD Stormwater Drainage Manual (Planning, Design and Management).


June 2005 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

APPENDIX A

WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA AT EXISTING GOLF COURSE

(1996-2004)


September 2005 AppA-1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

Freshwater Monitoring Results (1996-1999)


Nitrite Nitrogen

(mg/l)

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L)

Total Kjeldah Nitrogen (mg/L)

Total Phosphate

(mg/L)

Ortho Phosphate

(mg/L)

Chl a (μg/L)

Lake 1 Oct-96 <0.1 0.07 5.89 1.7 0.05 <0.01 45

Lake 1 Nov-96 <0.1 0.07 1.88 0.6 0.21 0.09 20

Lake 1 Dec-96 1.5 0.17 1.89 1.8 0.21 0.04 10

Lake 1 Jan-97 4.1 0.93 3.77 4.8 0.39 0.32 <5

Lake 1 Feb-97 <0.1 0.03 2.09 1.1 0.27 0.04 <5

Lake 1 Mar-97 0.6 0.33 2.53 1.8 0.36 0.13 <5

Lake 1 Apr-97 <0.1 0.04 2.55 0.6 0.18 0.15 25

Lake 1 May-97 <0.1 0.04 0.92 1.5 0.17 0.03 95

Lake 1 Jun-97 0.2 0.02 0.86 1.1 0.19 0.11 10

Lake 1 Jul-97 <0.1 0.02 1.06 0.8 0.1 0.04 170

Lake 1 Aug-97 <0.1 <0.01 1.14 0.8 0.03 <0.01 65

Lake 1 Sep-97 0.2 0.04 1.06 1.2 0.13 0.07 15

Lake 1 Oct-97 <0.1 0.02 0.63 0.6 0.05 <0.01 15

Lake 1 Nov-97 <0.1 0.05 1.85 0.7 0.09 0.02 40

Lake 1 Dec-97 <0.1 0.02 2.22 0.6 0.04 0.02 30

Lake 1 Jan-98 0.3 0.18 3.09 1.6 0.08 0.08 115

Lake 1 Feb-98 0.4 <0.01 1.57 1.5 0.14 0.08 10

Lake 1 Mar-98 <0.1 0.02 2.32 1.3 0.42 0.02 25

Lake 1 Jun-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.08 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Lake 1 Oct-98 <0.1 0.04 0.73 0.8 0.09 <0.01 55

Lake 1 Jan-99 <0.1 0.05 4.9 0.9 0.04 <0.01 25

Lake 1 Mar-99 <0.1 0.02 1.22 1.5 0.04 <0.01 15

Lake 1 Jun-99 <0.1 <0.01 2.04 1.1 0.08 <0.01 25

Lake 1 Sept-99 <0.1 0.04 1.08 0.8 0.36 <0.01 30

Reservoir Jul-95 0.42 0.04 0.33 1.52 <0.01 0.02 15

Reservoir Sep-95 <0.1 <0.01 0.56 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 15

Reservoir Oct-95 0.2 0.15 0.38 1.3 0.03 <0.01 20

Reservoir Jan-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.5 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Apr-96 <0.1 0.09 0.68 0.5 0.08 0.06 25

Reservoir May-96 <0.1 0.03 0.57 0.3 0.17 <0.01 60

Reservoir Jun-96 <0.1 0.03 0.68 1 0.11 0.36 75

Reservoir Jul-96 <0.1 0.06 0.70 1.5 0.14 0.23 <54

Reservoir Aug-96 <0.1 0.06 0.44 1.2 0.18 0.16 45

Reservoir Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.06 3.5 0.16 0.11 240

Reservoir Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.84 1.1 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Nov-96 <0.1 0.03 0.76 0.4 0.04 <0.01 20

Reservoir Dec-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.75 1.2 0.02 0.04 10

Reservoir Jan-97 <0.1 0.04 0.82 0.6 0.03 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Feb-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.68 0.2 0.03 <0.01 10

Reservoir Mar-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.59 0.6 0.02 <0.01 10

Reservoir Apr-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 0.8 0.04 <0.01 45

Reservoir May-97 <0.1 0.04 0.16 0.8 0.05 0.02 20




Nitrite Nitrogen

(mg/l)



Total Phosphate

(mg/L)

Ortho Phosphate

(mg/L)

Chl a (μg/L)

Reservoir Jun-97 <0.1 0.02 0.2 0.9 0.06 <0.01 45

Reservoir Jul-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.05 0.5 0.03 <0.01 20

Reservoir Aug-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.26 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Sep-97 0.2 <0.01 0.22 0.7 0.02 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Oct-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.31 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Nov-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.34 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 15

Reservoir Dec-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.34 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Jan-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.41 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Feb-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.41 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 25

Reservoir Mar-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.33 1.2 0.12 0.02 <5

Reservoir Jun-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.04 0.6 <0.01 <0.01 15

Reservoir Oct-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.24 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Jan-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.35 0.6 0.02 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Mar-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.31 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Jun-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.21 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Reservoir Sept-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jul-95 0.85 0.03 3.08 3.11 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Sep-95 0.4 0.03 1.77 1.6 0.03 <0.01 100

FW lake by hole15/29 Oct-95 0.4 <0.01 1.78 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 15

FW lake by hole15/29 Jan-96 0.3 0.04 2.59 1.1 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Feb-96 0.2 <0.01 1.97 3.4 0.08 <0.01 10

FW lake by hole15/29 Mar-96 0.3 0.02 0.9 1.4 0.05 0.03 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Apr-96 <0.1 0.1 4.09 1.3 0.14 0.24 30

FW lake by hole15/29 May-96 0.2 <0.01 1.74 0.9 0.41 0.4 25

FW lake by hole15/29 Jun-96 0.2 0.02 1.57 1 0.02 <0.01 15

FW lake by hole15/29 Jul-96 0.5 0.06 2.21 1.3 0.11 0.04 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Aug-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.46 0.7 0.04 0.02 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.64 1 <0.01 <0.01 10

FW lake by hole15/29 Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.1 0.6 <0.01 <0.01 10

FW lake by hole15/29 Nov-96 0.3 0.1 0.62 0.4 0.05 <0.01 15

FW lake by hole15/29 Dec-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.31 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jan-97 0.4 0.38 2.92 1.1 0.02 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Feb-97 0.2 <0.01 0.28 0.4 0.02 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Mar-97 0.4 <0.01 0.1 1.1 0.02 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Apr-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.05 0.2 0.03 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 May-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.41 0.4 0.04 <0.01 15

FW lake by hole15/29 Jun-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.47 0.3 0.06 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jul-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.16 0.3 0.06 0.05 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Aug-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.16 0.4 0.02 0.02 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Sep-97 <0.1 <0.01 1.55 1.4 0.08 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Oct-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.17 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Nov-97 <0.1 0.02 0.33 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 15

FW lake by hole15/29 Dec-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.16 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jan-98 0.2 0.07 0.16 1.1 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Feb-98 0.2 <0.01 0.31 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <5




Nitrite Nitrogen

(mg/l)



Total Phosphate

(mg/L)

Ortho Phosphate

(mg/L)

Chl a (μg/L)

FW lake by hole15/29 Mar-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.8 0.29 0.02 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jun-98 <0.1 0.02 0.82 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 20

FW lake by hole15/29 Oct-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.04 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jan-99 0.3 <0.01 0.02 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Mar-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.16 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Jun-99 <0.1 0.02 0.10 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <5

FW lake by hole15/29 Sept-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.31 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Jan-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.75 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Feb-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.44 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Mar-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.84 0.06 0.06 0.02 <5

Pond after Marsh May-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.38 0.48 0.48 0.41 10

Pond after Marsh Jul-96 <0.1 0.02 1.22 0.06 0.06 0.02 <5

Pond after Marsh Jul-96 5 0.3 3.24 0.21 0.21 0.17 <5

Pond after Marsh Aug-96 <0.1 <0.01 1.55 0.06 0.06 0.05 <5

Pond after Marsh Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.57 0.06 0.06 0.04 <5

Pond after Marsh Oct-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.28 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Nov-96 <0.1 0.07 0.17 0.05 0.05 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Dec-96 <0.1 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Jan-97 <0.1 0.23 4.77 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Feb-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Mar-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Apr-97 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <5

Pond after Marsh May-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.04 <5

Pond after Marsh Jun-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.35 0.04 0.04 0.03 <5

Pond after Marsh Jul-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Aug-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Sep-97 <0.1 0.02 1.21 0.05 0.05 0.02 <5

Pond after Marsh Oct-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Nov-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.23 0.02 0.02 <0.01 20

Pond after Marsh Dec-97 <0.1 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5


Pond after Marsh Feb-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.46 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Mar-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.07 0.31 0.02 0.02 <5

Pond after Marsh Jun-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Oct-98 <0.1 <0.01 0.06 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <5


Pond after Marsh Mar-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Jun-99 <0.1 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5

Pond after Marsh Sept-99 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <5



Freshwater Monitoring Result (2000-2004)

NO3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Chl-a (μg/L) Mancozeb (μg/L) Diazinon (μg/L)

Lake 1 Jan-00 1.21 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Mar-00 1.08 0.4 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Jul-00 0.89 0.3 20 <0.5 <0.5

Lake 1 Dec-00 0.92 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Feb-01 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Lake 1 May-01 0.12 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Lake 1 Jul-01 0.27 <0.1 15 <0.5

Lake 1 Nov-01 0.98 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Jan-02 1.13 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Mar-02 1.14 0.4 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Jul-02 0.69 0.3 20 <0.5 <0.5

Lake 1 Dec-02 1.34 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Feb-03 1.92 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 May-03 <0.01 <0.1 20 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Jul-03 0.16 <0.1 10 - <0.5

Lake 1 Nov-03 0.32 <0.1 15 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Feb-04 1.11 <0.1 55 <0.5 -

Lake 1 Apr-04 <0.01 0.1 20 <0.5 -

Reservoir Jan-00 0.22 <0.1 22 <0.5 -

Reservoir Mar-00 0.01 <0.1 10 <0.5 -

Reservoir Jul-00 0.03 <0.1 20 - <0.5

Reservoir Dec-00 0.12 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Reservoir Feb-01 0.02 <0.1 10 <0.5

Reservoir May-01 0.02 <0.1 15 <0.5

Reservoir Jul-01 0.12 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Reservoir Nov-01 0.3 <0.1 19 - -

Reservoir Jan-02 0.28 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Reservoir Mar-02 0.03 <0.1 60 <0.5 -

Reservoir Jul-02 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 <0.5

Reservoir Dec-02 0.46 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Reservoir Feb-03 0.14 <0.1 22 <0.5 -

Reservoir May-03 0.03 <0.1 10 <0.5 -

Reservoir Jul-03 0.02 <0.1 20 - <0.5

Reservoir Nov-03 0.32 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Reservoir Feb-04 0.26 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Reservoir Apr-04 0.02 <0.1 10 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Jan-00 0.13 <0.1 45 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Mar-00 0.15 0.1 <5 <0.5 <0.5

Lake 15/29 Jul-00 0.08 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Dec-00 0.05 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Feb-01 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Lake 15/29 May-01 0.11 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Lake 15/29 Jul-01 0.04 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Lake 15/29 Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 20 - -

Lake 15/29 Jan-02 0.03 <0.1 10 <0.5 -



NO3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Chl-a (μg/L) Mancozeb (μg/L) Diazinon (μg/L)

Lake 15/29 Mar-02 0.18 <0.1 45 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Jul-02 0.02 0.3 <5 <0.5 <0.5

Lake 15/29 Dec-02 0.08 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Feb-03 0.03 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 May-03 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Jul-03 <0.01 <0.1 <5 - <0.5

Lake 15/29 Nov-03 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Feb-04 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Lake 15/29 Apr-04 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Jan-00 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Mar-00 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Jul-00 <0.01 <0.1 30 - <0.5

Pond after Marsh Dec-00 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Feb-01 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Pond after Marsh May-01 0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Pond after Marsh Jul-01 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5

Pond after Marsh Nov-01 0.02 <0.1 7 - -

Pond after Marsh Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Mar-02 0.35 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Jul-02 0.02 <0.1 <5 <0.5 <0.5

Pond after Marsh Dec-02 0.08 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh May-03 0.04 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Jul-03 <0.01 <0.1 30 - <0.5

Pond after Marsh Nov-03 0.03 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Pond after Marsh Apr-04 0.04 <0.1 <5 <0.5 -

Marine water Quality (1995-1999)

Depth Ammonia (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) Nitrate (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) Total PO4 (mg/L) Ortho PO4 (mg/L) Chl a (μg/L)

Marine Station A

Dec-96 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.030 0.100 <0.005 <0.005 10

Jan-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.050 0.010 <0.005 15

Feb-97 Mid depth <0.050 0.010 0.030 0.700 0.020 0.010 <5

Mar-97 Mid depth <0.050 0.010 0.160 0.200 <0.005 <0.005 10

Apr-97 Mid depth <0.050 <0.005 0.110 0.200 <0.005 <0.005 15

May-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.010 <0.005 <5 Jun-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jul-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.030 <0.005 <5

Aug-97 Surface <0.050 0.020 <0.005 0.400 0.050 0.010 <5 Sep-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.050 0.090 <0.005 <5 Oct-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.050 <0.005 <5 Nov-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.030 1.100 0.070 <0.005 <5 Dec-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.400 0.140 <0.005 <5 Jan-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5




Feb-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Mar-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Jun-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Oct-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Jan-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Mar-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.015 <0.005 <5 Jun-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Sept-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5

Marine Station B

Dec-96 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.030 0.200 <0.005 <0.005 5

Jan-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.050 0.030 0.010 20

Feb-97 Mid depth <0.050 0.010 0.030 0.900 0.030 <0.005 6

Mar-97 Mid depth <0.050 0.010 0.280 0.500 0.050 <0.005 5

Apr-97 Mid depth <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.300 <0.005 <0.005 20

May-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.010 <0.005 <5 Jun-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jul-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.040 <0.005 <5

Aug-97 Surface <0.050 0.010 0.080 0.500 0.060 <0.005 <5 Sep-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.080 0.300 0.070 <0.005 <5 Oct-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.070 <0.005 <5 Nov-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.040 0.400 0.020 <0.005 <5 Dec-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.400 0.300 0.020 <5 Jan-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Feb-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.040 <0.005 <5 Mar-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Jun-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Oct-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.040 <0.005 <5 Jan-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Mar-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.500 0.300 0.010 <5 Jun-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Sept-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.030 <0.005 <5

Marine Station C

Dec-96 Mid depth <0.050 <0.005 0.310 0.500 0.010 <0.005 <5 Jan-97 Mid depth <0.050 <0.005 0.180 0.700 0.020 <0.005 <5 Feb-97 Mid depth <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.020 <0.005 <5 Mar-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.500 0.060 <0.005 <5 Apr-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.050 0.040 <0.005 <5 May-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.050 0.050 <0.005 <5 Jun-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.100 0.100 0.070 <0.005 <5 Jul-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.070 <0.005 <5

Aug-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.030 1.100 0.080 <0.005 <5 Sep-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.320 0.020 <5 Oct-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Nov-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Dec-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Jan-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.320 0.020 <5




Feb-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Mar-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Jun-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.100 0.100 0.070 <0.005 <5 Oct-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.008 0.200 0.070 <0.005 <5 Jan-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.030 1.000 0.090 <0.005 <5 Mar-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.200 0.140 0.010 <5 Jun-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 <0.005 <0.005 <5 Sept-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5

Tai Tau Chau

Dec-96 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jan-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Feb-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.050 <0.005 <5 Mar-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.400 0.070 <0.005 <5 Apr-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.060 0.006 <5 May-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.060 0.500 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jun-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.120 0.020 <5 Jul-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5

Aug-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.006 <0.005 <5 Sep-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Oct-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.020 0.400 0.070 <0.005 <5 Nov-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 <0.050 0.006 <5 Dec-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.060 0.500 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jan-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.060 0.006 <5 Feb-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.200 0.060 0.010 <5 Mar-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.005 0.200 0.050 0.020 <5 Jun-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.007 <0.005 <5 Oct-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.006 <0.005 <5 Jan-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.040 <0.005 <5 Mar-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jun-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.300 0.040 <0.005 <5 Sept-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.050 <0.005 <5

Kai Lung Wan

Dec-96 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 0.060 <0.005 <5 Jan-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.030 <0.005 <5 Feb-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.030 <0.005 <5 Mar-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.200 0.090 <0.005 <5 Apr-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.060 0.010 <5 May-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.500 0.050 <0.005 <5 Jun-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 1.300 0.290 0.010 <5 Jul-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.400 <0.005 <0.005 <5

Aug-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.020 <0.005 <5 Sep-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.200 0.030 <0.005 <5 Oct-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.060 0.010 <5 Nov-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.500 0.050 <0.005 <5 Dec-97 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.090 0.010 <5 Jan-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.030 <0.005 <5




Feb-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.200 0.090 <0.005 <5 Mar-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.050 0.010 <5 Jun-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.060 0.010 <5 Oct-98 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.100 0.050 0.010 <5 Jan-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.150 0.060 <0.005 <5 Mar-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.300 0.030 <0.005 <5 Jun-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 <0.005 0.600 0.020 <0.005 <5 Sept-99 Surface <0.050 <0.005 0.010 0.100 0.090 <0.005 <5

Marine water Quality (2000-2004)

Location Depth Date NO3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Mancozeb (mg/L) Diazinon (mg/L)

Marine A Surface Jan-00 0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Mar-00 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Jul-00 0.05 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine A Surface Dec-00 0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Feb-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine A Surface May-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Jul-01 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine A Surface Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Mar-02 0.03 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Jul-02 0.09 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine A Surface Dec-02 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface May-03 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Jul-03 <0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine A Surface Nov-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine A Surface Apr-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Jan-00 0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Mar-00 0.03 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Jul-00 0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine B Surface Dec-00 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Feb-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine B Surface May-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Jul-01 0.06 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine B Surface Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Mar-02 0.06 <0.1 <0.5 -


Marine B Surface Dec-02 0.03 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface May-03 0.05 <0.1 <0.5 -


Marine B Surface Nov-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -




Marine B Surface Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine B Surface Apr-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Jan-00 0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Mar-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Jul-00 <0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine C Surface Dec-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Feb-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine C Surface May-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Jul-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Marine C Surface Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Mar-02 0.03 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Jul-02 0.12 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine C Surface Dec-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface May-03 0.04 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Jul-03 0.03 <0.1 - <0.5

Marine C Surface Nov-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine C Surface Apr-04 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Jan-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Mar-00 0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Jul-00 0.02 <0.1 - <0.5

Tai Tau Chau Surface Dec-00 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Feb-01 0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Tai Tau Chau Surface May-01 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Jul-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Mar-02 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -


Tai Tau Chau Surface Dec-02 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface May-03 0.06 <0.1 <0.5 -


Tai Tau Chau Surface Nov-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau Surface Apr-04 0.02 0.2 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Jan-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Mar-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface Jul-00 0.03 <0.1 - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface Dec-00 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Feb-01 <0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface May-01 0.03 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Jul-01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Nov-01 <0.01 <0.1 - -




Kai Lung Wan Surface Jan-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Mar-02 0.03 <0.1 <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface Jul-02 0.12 <0.1 - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface Dec-02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Feb-03 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface May-03 0.05 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Jul-03 <0.01 <0.1 - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan Surface Nov-03 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Feb-04 <0.01 <0.1 <0.5 -

Kai Lung Wan Surface Apr-04 0.02 <0.1 <0.5 -

Marine and Freshwater Quality (1995-1999): Pesticides

Chlorpyrifos (ug/L) Diazinon (ug/L) Iprodione (ug/L) Mancozeb (ug/L)

Sep-95

Reservoir <0.5 <0.5 - -

Lake 1 <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine A <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine B <0.5 <0.5 - -

Tai Tau Chau <0.5 <0.5 - -

Oct-95

Reservoir <0.5 <0.5 - -

Lake 1 <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine A <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine B <0.5 <0.5 - -

Tai Tau Chau <0.5 <0.5 - -

May-96

Reservoir - <0.5 <0.5 -

Lake 1 - <0.5 <0.5 -

Marine A - <0.5 <0.5 -

Marine B - <0.5 <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau - <0.5 <0.5 -

Jul-96

Reservoir <0.5 - <0.5 -

Lake 1 <0.5 - <0.5 -

Marine A <0.5 - <0.5 -

Marine B <0.5 - <0.5 -

Tai Tau Chau <0.5 - <0.5 -

Aug-96

Reservoir <0.5 - - -

Lake 1 <0.5 - - -

Marine A <0.5 - - -

Marine B <0.5 - - -

Tai Tau Chau <0.5 - - -

Mar-97

Reservoir - - - <0.5




Lake 1 - - - <0.5

Lake 15/29 - - - <0.5

Pond after marsh - - - <0.5

Marine A - - - <0.5

Marine B - - - <0.5

Marine C - - - <0.5

Tai Tau Chau - - - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan - - - <0.5

Jul-97

Reservoir <0.5 <0.5 - -

Lake 1 <0.5 <0.5 - -

Lake 15/29 <0.5 <0.5 - -

Pond after marsh <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine A <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine B <0.5 <0.5 - -

Marine C <0.5 <0.5 - -

Tai Tau Chau <0.5 <0.5 - -

Kai Lung Wan <0.5 <0.5 - -

Dec-97 - <0.5 - -

Reservoir - <0.5 - -

Lake 1 - <0.5 - -

Lake 15/29 - <0.5 - -

Pond after marsh - <0.5 - -

Marine A - <0.5 - -

Marine B - <0.5 - -

Marine C - <0.5 - -

Tai Tau Chau - <0.5 - -

Kai Lung Wan - <0.5 - -

Mar-98

Reservoir - - - <0.5

Lake 1 - - - <0.5

Lake 15/29 - - - <0.5

Pond after marsh - - - <0.5

Marine A - - - <0.5

Marine B - - - <0.5

Marine C - - - <0.5

Tai Tau Chau - - - <0.5

Kai Lung Wan - - - <0.5

Oct-98


Lake 1 - <0.5 - -

Lake 15/29 - <0.5 - -


Marine A - <0.5 - -

Marine B - <0.5 - -

Marine C - <0.5 - -






Jan-99


Lake 1 - <0.5 - -

Lake 15/29 - <0.5 - -


Marine A - <0.5 - -

Marine B - <0.5 - -

Marine C - <0.5 - -




September 2005 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

APPENDIX B

CATCHPITS AND SUB-SOIL DRAINAGE AT GREENS, TEES AND FAIRWAYS



APPENDIX C

LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL RUN-OFF AND LEACHING FROM GOLF COURSE

ON ENVIRONMENTAL WATERS


September 2005 AppC-1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

Literature review on Fate of Chemicals and Pesticides from Golf Course to environmental Waters

One of greatest concern is the fertilizers and pesticides used to maintain golf courses will pollute drinking water supplies, including both surface and groundwater sources. People are concerned about the effects of high nutrient levels on human health and the ecology of surface waters, and about the potential effects of elevated pesticide levels in drinking water on cancer and other health problems. Many studies were conducted on the major pathways of chemicals and pesticides fates in the environment, including leaching, runoff, plant uptake and utilization, microbial degradation, and volatilization and other gaseous losses. Fate of Turf Nitrogen

Nitrogen (N) is water-soluble in many of its forms. It potentially can enter groundwater via leaching and surface waters via runoff, even in situations where erosion may be minimal. Leaching of fertilized nitrogen applied to turfgrass has been shown to be highly influenced by soil texture, source, rate and timing, irrigation/rainfall and the age of the turf system.

Leaching is most noticeable during periods when temperature is low and precipitation (minus potential evapotranspiration) is high. These conditions reduce the loss of nitrogen from the turf system by limiting denitrification, ammonia volatilization, microbial immobilization and plant uptake. During very dry months with minimal precipitation, leaching of nitrogen should be insignificant, and other avenues of nitrogen loss may dominate. When the soil is dry, the ammonium, which absorbs readily onto negatively-charged soil surfaces, will be reduced to nitrate or nitrite. If the area were then to undergo a deep watering, the potential for leaching the mobile nitrate would be significant. Relatively small amounts of leachate ate collected during the summer months. Evapotranspiration uses large quantities of soil water and prevents rapid downward movement of rainfall or irrigation. As the soil dries from the use of water by plants, the storage capacity of the soil increases and a large rain event may result in little downward water movement if the surface soil is relatively dry. If irrigation is used to keep the soil moisture content near field capacity, then subsequent rain events could be expected to result in significant deep leaching of water and the materials dissolved in the water.

The high level of surface organic matter associated with a turf contributes to a correspondingly high level of microbial activity. The microorganisms associated with turf are responsible for metabolizing pesticides and using nutrients to support their growth. Note the small amount of applied N that actually was found below the soil surface, regardless of application timing.

Turfgrass roots must compete with a very active microbial population for applied N. The nitrogen used by microorganisms is turned into complex organic compounds within the micro-organisms. However, these microorganisms are relatively short-lived, and when they die the nitrogen is released as complex forms of N. Thus, even when a quick-release form of N is applied to the turf, a large fraction of the N is captured by a microbial population that turns this quick-release N into slow-release N. The rapidly utilized applied N results in very little free NO3, which is the mobile form of N. Complex forms of N do not move downward to any extent in soils. Turfgrass roots and soil microbes are efficient at absorbing N and utilize N and those are the key elements to slowdown (infiltration) and breakdown the N leaching from turf.

In summary, nitrogen applied to a dense, well-maintained turf is rapidly utilized by the turf, with little chance of downward N mobility. Timing of N application did not have a large impact on N fate or leaching. Late fall applied N can also rapidly utilized by soil microorganisms and turfgrass plants.



Nitrogen Leaching • Properly maintained turf allows less than 1% of the nitrogen applied to leach to a depth of four feet in general. • When more nitrogen is applied than is needed, both the amount and the percentage of nitrogen lost increases. • Sandy soils are more prone to leaching losses than clayey soils. • Nitrogen leaching losses can be greatly reduced by irrigating lightly and frequently, rather than heavily and

less frequently. • Leaching losses can be reduced by applying nitrogen in smaller amounts on a more frequent basis. • Irrigating bermudagrass with adequate amounts (no drought stress) of moderately saline water did not

increase the concentration or amount of nitrate leached. • Higher amounts of salinity in the root zone, drought, or the combination of these two stresses caused high

concentrations and amounts of nitrate to leach from bermudagrass turf. This suggests that the capacity of the root system of the turf is impaired by drought, high salinity, or both and that management modifications may be needed to prevent nitrate leaching.

• Light applications of slow-release N sources on a frequent interval provided excellent protection from nitrate leaching.

Nitrogen runoff • Dense turf cover reduces the potential for runoff losses of nitrogen. • Significant runoff losses are more likely to occur on compacted soils. • Much greater N runoff occurred when soil moisture levels were high, as compared to moderate or low. • Buffer strips reduced nitrogen runoff when soil moisture was low to moderate at the time of the runoff event,

but not when soil moisture levels were high. • Nitrogen runoff was significantly less when a slow release product (sulfur-coated urea) was used compared to

a more soluble product (urea). Phosphorus P binds strongly with numerous organic and mineral constituents in the soil profile and exhibits relatively low solubility in water and by transport of sediment, therefore, erosion. As erosion carries soil particles to storm-water drains, streams or lakes, P (bound to the soil particles) is carried with it. Erosion is usually insignificant in healthy grass stands established on good soil. With correct apply P fertilizer to dense, well-maintained turfgrass, P loss via runoff will be negligible. Thicker turf can reduce runoff. Fate of Pesticides

Pesticide fate is a more complex issue than nitrogen fate. Pesticides generally are man-made, and their appearance in drinking water is a direct consequence of their use by man. The main concern with pesticide use is human exposure, although other issues such as non-target effects of pesticides also are important.

Pesticide leaching is controlled by two primary factors. Firstly, chemical properties of the pesticides. Some pesticides adsorb strongly to soils while others adsorb very weakly or not at all. Soil adsorption is typically expressed as an adsorption coefficient. Koc. A Koc value of less than 100 indicates that a pesticide is very mobile in soils. A Koc value between 100 and 1000 indicates that a pesticide is moderately mobile, and that mobility would be determined by other factors such as soil type and persistence. A Koc value of 1000 or more usually indicates that a pesticide is immobile. Secondly, Half-life of the pesticides. It deters the potential for pesticide leaching is the length of time a pesticide remains in the soil. The term half-life, DT50 is commonly used to describe pesticide persistence. A half-life is the time, usually measured in days or weeks, that it takes for the pesticide to break down and reach one-half of its initial concentration. If a pesticide has a DT50 of less than 30 days, it is considered non-persistent. Even if the Koc value is less than 100, there is little chance the pesticide



will move to groundwater, since it breaks down so rapidly. If a pesticide has a DT50 of 30 to 120 days, it is considered moderately persistent, and a DT50 greater than 120 days is considered persistent.

Pesticide Leaching

Factors Affecting Leaching of Pesticides A. Compound-Related Factors: Potential Mobility -Initial amounts, Solubility in water, Persistence, Adsorption.

B. Environmental Factors: Interception by leaves and thatch, Photodegradation, Precipitation, Topography, slope, Soil texture, Soil organic matter, Root density, Soil moisture, Groundwater table, Size of treated area Water is necessary to leach chemicals. However, chemicals very rarely move at the same rate water does. Most chemicals move more slowly and break down before they are leached past the root zone. In general:

• The lower the potential mobility, the less leaching can be expected. • All factors favoring microbial activity favor breakdown of chemical residues.

These two basic rules give reasonably good indications for the potential a chemical may have to contaminate groundwater in a particular area. Groundwater contamination with pesticide residues tends to occur more often where chemicals are used year after year in relatively large quantities, and where root systems are not coherent (primarily agricultural uses). Achieving high levels of turf quality requires numerous inputs, including fertilizers, irrigation, topdressing, cultivation, wetting agents, biostimulants, and pesticides while practices such as topdressing, cultivation, and wetting agents are considered environmentally benign. Proper management is still key, and on certain sites, particularly those with sandy soils, shallow groundwater, and proximity to water bodies, turf managers need to pick the pesticides they do use with care.

Pesticide runoff

• Dense turf cover reduces the potential for runoff losses of pesticides. • The physical and chemical properties of pesticides are good indicators of potential runoff losses. • Heavy textured, compacted soils are much more prone to runoff losses than sandy soils. • Moist soils are more prone to runoff losses than drier soils. • When soil moisture is low to moderate prior to rainfall events, buffer strips are very effective at reducing

runoff losses of pesticides. • Turfgrass thatch plays an important role in adsorbing and degrading applied pesticides. • Application of soluble herbicides dormant turf can produce very high levels of runoff losses Management practices to reduce nutrient losses from turf Although the Best Management Practices (BMPs) are site specificity, the following are frequently cited as ways to reduce the risk of losing nutrients through surface runoff and leaching.

Avoid applications if severe weather is impending. Use slow-release fertilizers. Maintain thick, healthy turf with good cultural practices: proper mowing height, core cultivation,

dethatching, good pest controls, etc.



Use fertilizer with appropriate N:P ratios (4:1 is common; many products go much higher). Avoid Triple 10 or similar “balanced” products.

Never allow fertilizer to be thrown directly into a body of water during application. Use untreated and unfertilized buffer strips adjacent to bodies of water. Test your soils and adjust fertilization rates accordingly. Avoid applying material that requires watering-in when soil already is saturated.

Pesticide application within 12 hours of an expected rain event should be avoided. Runoff events occurring at 24-72 hours after pesticide application will contain reduced pesticide concentrations versus runoff that occurs within 12 hours of a pesticide application.

Choosing pesticides that require low active ingredient application rates dramatically reduces the amount of pesticide runoff. The best way to reduce pesticide runoff or leaching is to not use a pesticide. The second best way is to choose a pesticide with good environmental properties, and one of the best is a low application rate.

Reference:

B. E. Branham, Ph.D., Associate Professor; F. Z. Kandil, Ph.D., Research Assistant; and J. Mueller, Research Assistant; Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. B.E. Branham, F.Z. Kandil, and J. Mueller. Best Management Practices to Reduce Pesticide Runoff from Turf. A common-sense approach can greatly reduce the risk of water contamination. Baird, James H. 1996. Evaluation of best management practices to protect surface water quality from pesticides and fertilizer applied to bermudagrass fairways. 1995 Environmental Research Summary. United States Golf Association. In press. Bowman, D. C., D. A. Devitt, and W. W. Miller. 1995. The effect of salinity on nitrate leaching from turfgrass. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 45-49. Brady, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soil, pp. 4070. 8th Edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY. Branham, B., E. Miltner, and P. Rieke. 1995. Potential groundwater contamination from pesticides and fertilizers used on golf courses. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 33-37. Brauen, S. E., and G. Stahnke. 1995. Leaching of nitrate from sand putting greens. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 29-32. Cisar, J. L., and G. H. Synder. 1996. Mobility and persistence of pesticides applied to a USGA green. III: Organophosphate recovery in clippings, thatch, soil, and percolate. Crop Sci. 36:1433-1438. Dr. Bruce Branham, Dr. Eric Milnert and Dr. Paul Rieke, 1995. Potential Groundwater Contamination from Pesticides and Fertilizers Used on Golf Courses. Michigan State University. USGA Green Section Record 1995 January/February Vol 33(1): 33-37 Dr. Karl H. Deubert, 1990. Environmental Fate of Common Turf Pesticides. Factors Leading to Leaching. University of Massachusetts, Cranberry Experiment Station, East Wareham, Massachusetts. Reprinted from the USGA Green Section Record 28(4): 5-8. The author thanks Dr. Richard Cooper, University of Massachusetts, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, and Mr. Ed Nash, Superintendent, Bass River Golf Course, South Yarmouth, Mass.. for their helpful comments. Federal Register. 1975. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. Federal Register 40:59, 566588.



Gaines, T.P. and G.A. Mitchell. 1979. Chemical Methods for Soil and Plant Analysis. University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station Agronomy Handbook No. 1. Tifton, GA. Gardner, D. S., and B. E. Branham. 2001. Effect of turfgrass cover and irrigation on soil mobility and dissipation of mefanoxam and propiconazole. J. Environ. Qual. 30:1612-1618. Gardner, D. S., and B. E. Branham. 2001. Mobility and dissipation of ethofumesate and halofenozide in turfgrass and bare soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:2894-2898. Gardner, D. S., B. E. Branham, and D. W. Lickfeldt. 2000. Effect of turfgrass on soil mobility and dissipation of cyproconazole. Crop Sci. 40:1333-1339. Gold, A. J., T. G. Morton, W. M. Sullivan, and J. McClory. 1988. Leaching of 2, 4-D and dicamba from home lawns. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 37:121-129. Horst, G. L., P. J. Shea, and N. Christians. 1995. Pesticide degradation under golf course fairway conditions. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 26-28. James T. Snow, 2000. Loss of Nitrogen and Pesticides from Turf via Leaching and Runoff. National Director, USGA Green Sectio. Australian Turfgrass Conference. Kenna, M. P. 1995. What happens to pesticides applied to golf courses. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 1-9. Linde, D. T., T. L. Watschke, and J. A. Borger. 1995. Transport of runoff and nutrients from fairway turfs. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 42-44. Liskey Eric, 2001. Water polluter or water filter? Primedia Business Magazines & Media Inc. Petrovic, A. M. 1995. The impact of soil type and precipitation on pesticide and nutrient leaching from fairway turf. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 38-41. Petrovic, A. M., W. C. Barrett, I. Larsson-Kovach, C. M. Reid, and D. J. Lisk. 1996. The influence of a peat amendment and turf density on downward migration of metalaxyl fungicide in creeping bentgrass sand lysimeters. Chemosphere. 33(11):2335-2340. Petrovic, A.M. 1989. Golf course management and nitrates in groundwater. Golf Course Management. 57(9):5464. Plank, C.O. 1989. Soil Test Handbook for Georgia. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Sartain, Jerry B, 1998. Fertilize bermudagrass greens smarly and safely Primedia Business Magazines & Media Inc. Smith, A. 1995. Potential movement of pesticides following application to golf courses. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 13-14. Smith, A. E., and D. C. Bridges. 1996. Movement of certain herbicides following application to simulated golf course greens and fairways. Crop Sci. 36:1439-1445. Smith, A. E., and D. C. Bridges. 1996. Potential movement of certain pesticides following application to golf courses. 1995 Environmental Research Summary. USGA. In press. Snyder, G. H., and J. L. Cisar. 1995. Pesticide mobility and persistence in a high-sand-content green. USGA



Green Section Record. 33(1): 15-18. Starrett, S. K., and N. E. Christians. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus fate when applied to turfgrass in golf course fairway condition. USGA Green Section Record. 33(1): 23-25. T. Powell Gaines and S.T. Gaines, 1994. Soil Texture Effect on Nitrate Leaching in Soil Percolates Physical Soil Testing Laboratory, Tifton, Georgia. COMMON. SOIL SCI. PLANT ANAL., 25(13&14), 2561-2570. United States Golf Association Green Section Staff. 1960. Specifications for a method of putting green construction. USGA J. Turf Management 13(5):2428. United States Golf Association Green Section. 1992. Environmental Research Summary, 10. Wauchope, R. D., T. M. Butler, A. G. Hornsby, P.W.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J. P. Burt. 1991. The SCS/ARS/CES pesticide database for environmental decision-making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1-155.



APPENDIX D

CALCULATION ON CATCHMENT DILUTION TO LAKES NEAR HOLE 4 AND HOLE 10


September 2005 AppD-1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - SIDE VIEW OF THE PROPOSED LAKE

Catchment water flow direction to proposed lakeLake water overflow direction

Total rainfall volume from catchment area(1 in 2 yrs 8 hrs as worst case scenario)

Proposed lake

Lake Overflow when rainstorm event isgreater than 1 in 2 yrs 8 hrs storm event.

Assumption for the worst case scenario: (i) The lake was full before the 1 in 2 yrs storm event; and (ii) The whole lake volume will be overflowed out during the 1 in 2 yrs storm event. Sampling calculation on Pollutant Dilution during Turf Establishment Period The TIN concentration (before overflow) at Lake near to hole 4 is 0.08 mg/L (Calculation shown in Table 14 has already taken into account of pollutant load from the 1.39 ha turf area to this lake). The maximum volume of the proposed lake equals to 1,870m³. During 1 in 2 yrs storm event, Lake near to Hole 4’s catchment volume equals to 7,024m³. The dilution factor by the catchment volume to lake volume during 1 in 2 yrs overflow events occur equals to 1,870 ÷ (7,024+1,870) = 0.21. The predicted TIN concentration during overflow equals to 0.08 mg/L x 0.21 = 0.017 mg/L


August 2005 AppE-1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

APPENDIX E

SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE FILTER SYSETM FROM SUPPLIER


August 2005 AppE-2 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc


September 2005 Ann-I Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

ANNEX I

PESTICIDES ESTIMATION


September 2005 Ann-I-1 Black & Veatch Note 22 Aug 05.doc

Pesticides concentrations (selected representative for the existing golf courses monitoring) measured at all marine and freshwater locations are well below the pesticides reporting limit (0.5 µg/L) over 9 years at the existing golf courses. The proposed third golf course is an extension (to the southeast side of the Kai Sai Chau Island) from the existing golf courses and the whole proposed third golf course is within the Kau Sai Chau Island. Types of the diseases, weeds and pests found at the proposed third golf course in future are expected to be fairly similar to the existing golf courses. The usage of pesticides at the proposed third golf course in terms of application frequency will, therefore, similar to the existing golf courses practices. Similar approach of the specific turfgrass management plan will extend from the existing golf courses to the proposed third golf course. Physical soil characteristics, soil moisture, pH and soil temperature (which may have an effect on the pesticides degradation rate/pathway) at the new proposed third golf course have the same soil type and turfgrass management approach and control as the existing golf courses. Therefore, pesticides degradation rate/pathway (for those have been applied at the existing golf courses over the past 10 years) at the proposed third golf course should be no significant change in future third golf course operation when it compares with the existing golf courses. Pesticides apply to the existing golf courses which will also apply to the proposed third golf course. In addition, environmental friendly pesticides will also introduce to the proposed third golf course turfgrass management plan. The characteristics of the newly proposed pesticides at the proposed third golf course are as follows: (i) Shorter half-life than the pesticides use at the existing golf courses – non-persistence in nature (the average length of time to reach one-half of the originally applied dosage is much shorter); (ii) Bio-pesticides (such as Bacillus thuringiensis) will be applied at the Hole 5 and part of Hole 6 – less chemical application is expected at the proposed third golf course; and (iii) New turfgrass (Seashore paspalum) is selected at the proposed third golf course which is more disease resistance and higher salt tolerance than the turfgrass at the existing golf courses (Bermuda grass), lower pesticides application frequency is expected at the proposed third golf course. In addition, localized use of salt water application can be an alternative of weed control than chemical.



For the purpose of the predicted water quality at proposed lakes, estimated pesticide runoff percentage based on maximum pesticides application over the past 10 years at the existing golf courses are estimated. The assumptions are shown as follows: (i) Pesticide monitoring concentration at reservoir is equal to 0.5 µg/L for the worse case concentration calculation (all monitoring data at the existing golf courses showed pesticide concentrations are undetectable over the past 10 years at all marine and freshwater monitoring locations); (ii) Each worse case scenario was done in the existing golf course within one day (i.e. either case 1 or case 2 within one day); (iii) Lowest rainfall to the reservoir is calculated based on the lowest rainfall over past 10 years; and (iv) The pesticide dosing per unit area at the existing golf courses is at same application dose per unit area at the proposed third golf course;

At Existing Golf Courses

Maximum application at the

existing golf courses over the

past 10 years

Pesticide concentration

Dosing per unit area

Area applied by pesticide

Total pesticide load to

turfgrass

Calculated pesticide load at reservoir

Pesticide runoff

percentage

Worse Case Scenario 1

Chlopyrifos for 9 holes (green + tee

+ fairway) 400 g/L 4 L/ha 7 ha 11200 g 0.0816 g 0.00036 %

Worse Case Scenario 2

Mancozeb for 18 holes green only 750 g/kg 25 kg/ha 1 ha 18750 g 0.0816 g 0.00022 %

Estimate runoff percentage for Chlorpyrifos and Mancozeb are 0.00036% and 0.00022% respectively. These values are used in the following section as the worse case prediction of pesticide concentrations at the proposed third golf course during operation phase. The predicted results below show that Chlorpyrifos and Mancozeb are at undetectable levels at all proposed lakes before the lake overflow to marine water/existing reservoir. As both pesticides are the most representative pesticides will be applied at the existing and proposed third golf courses, other pesticides (less frequent application and less area required to be applied) will also be at undetectable levels. No water quality impact is anticipated during the operational phase at the proposed third golf course. Chlorpyifos prediction at proposed third golf course

Predicted Chlorpyifos concentration at Lake near Hole 4 before lake overflow

Concentration Maximum chlorpyrifos application load = maximum unit volume x turfgrass area 4 L/ha x 1.39 ha = 5.56 L

Maximum Chlorpyrifos concentration 400 g/L Maximum Chlorpyrifos load to hole 4 = 400 g/L x 5.56 L = 2,224 g x 0.00036% = 8,006 µg 1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake 4 1,347 m³

Expected concentrations at lake near hole 4 (8,006÷1,347) = 0.006 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L



Predicted Chlorpyifos concentration at Lake near Hole 10 before lake overflow

Concentration

Maximum chlorpyrifos application load = maximum unit volume x turfgrass area 4 L/ha x 9.44 ha = 37.76 L

Maximum Chlorpyrifos concentration 400 g/L Maximum Chlorpyrifos load to holes 9-17 = 400 g/L x 37.76 L = 15,104 g x 0.00036% = 54,374 µg

1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake 10 9,150 m³ Expected concentrations at lake near hole 10 (54,374÷9,150) = 0.006 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L

Predicted Chlorpyifos concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D before lake overflow to reservoir

Concentration

Maximum chlorpyrifos application load = maximum unit volume x turfgrass area 4 L/ha x 19.94 ha = 79.76 L

Maximum Chlorpyrifos concentration 400 g/L Maximum Chlorpyrifos load to holes 1-18 = 400 g/L x 79.76 L = 31,904 g x 0.00036% = 114,854 µg

1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake 1D 17,918 m³ Expected concentrations at lake 1D (114,854÷17,918) = 0.006 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L

Mancozeb prediction at proposed third golf course

Predicted Mancozeb concentration at Lake near Hole 4 before lake overflow

Concentration Maximum mancozeb concentration 750 g/kg

Maximum mancozeb application load = maximum unit volume x green area 750 g/kg x 25 kg x 0.0632 ha = 1,185 g

Maximum mancozeb load to hole 4 1,185 g x 0.00022% = 2,607 µg 1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake near 4 1,347 m³

Expected concentrations at lake near hole 4 (2,607÷1347) = 0.002 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L

Predicted Mancozeb concentration at Lake near Hole 10 before lake overflow


Maximum mancozeb application load = maximum unit volume x green area 750 g/kg x 25 kg x 0.5884 ha = 11032 g

Maximum mancozeb load to holes 9-17 1,1032 g x 0.00022% = 24,270 µg 1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake 10 9150 m³

Expected concentrations at lake near hole 10 (24,270÷9,150) = 0.003 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L



Predicted Mancozeb concentrations at Irrigation Lake 1D before lake overflow to reservoir


Maximum mancozeb application load = maximum unit volume x green area 750 g/kg x 25 kg x 1.12 ha = 21,000 g

Maximum mancozeb load to holes 1-18 21,000 g x 0.00022% = 46,200 µg 1 in 2 yrs storm water flow to lake 1D 17,918 m³

Expected concentrations at lake 1D (46,200÷17,918) = 0.003 µg/L (undetectable), i.e. < 0.5 µg/L



HERBICIDES Imazaquin is a imidazole compound used as a selective, pre- and postemergence herbicide. It controls weeds by inhibiting the acetohydroxy acid synthase enzyme responsible for the production of valine, leucine and isoleucine. Activity is first seen in the growing points of susceptible plants where amino acid demands are greatest. The compound is used to control grasses and broadleaved weeds. When imazaquin is applied to soil, susceptible weeds emerge, growth stops and the weeds either die or are not competetive with the crop. When applied postemergence, adsorption occurs through both the foliage and roots, growth stops and the weeds either die or are not competitive with the crop. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil and Groundwater The movement of imazaquin in the soil is limited. The compound is nonvolatile. Loss from photodecomposition is minor. Imazaquin readily breaks down via microbial breakdown in the soil. It is decarboxylated slowly to CO2, as well as degraded to the major and minor metabolites. Breakdown of Chemical in Vegetation Imazaquin is absorbed rapidly through roots and foliage and translocates through both the xylem and phloem. Tolerant plants such as soybeans metabolize the active ingredient quickly. Susceptible plants either do not metabolize or slowly metabolize imazaquin. Glyphosate is used to control grasses, herbaceous plants including deep rooted perennial weeds, brush, some broadleaf trees and shrubs, and some conifers. Glyphosate does not control all broadleaf woody plants. Timing is critical for effectiveness on some broadleaf woody plants and conifers. Glyphosate applied to foliage is absorbed by leaves and rapidly moves through the plant. It acts by preventing the plant from producing an essential amino acid. This reduces the production of protein in the plant, and inhibits plant growth. Glyphosate is metabolized or broken down by some plants, while other plants do not break it down. Aminomethylphosphonic acid is the main break-down product of glyphosate in plants. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil • Residual Soil Activity: Glyphosate is not generally active in the soil. It is not usually absorbed from the soil

by plants. • Adsorption: Glyphosate is both strongly adsorbed by the soil. • Persistence and Agents of Degradation: Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of

time, depending on soil texture and organic matter content. The half-life of glyphosate can range from 3 to 130 days. Soil microorganisms break down glyphosate.

• Metabolites/Degradation Products and Potential Environmental Effects: The main break-down product of glyphosate in the soil is aminomethylphosphonic acid, which is broken down further by soil microorganisms. The main break-down product is carbon dioxide.

Breakdown of Chemical in Water • Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. • Potential for Leaching Into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate is strongly

adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The data reported above are results of animal studies which the Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated in support of the registration of glyphosate. These data are used to make inferences relative to human health. Harzard Based on the results of animal studies, glyphosate does not cause genetic damage or birth defects, and has little or no effect on fertility, reproduction, or development of offspring. There is not enough information available at



this time to determine whether glyphosate causes cancer. There have been no reported cases of long term health effects in humans due to glyphosate exposure. Oxadiazon is an oxadiazole herbicide used for pre-emergent control of grasses, broadleaves, vines, brambles, brush, and trees. Oxadiazon inhibits the plant enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase. Being a single-application pre-emergent herbicide, Ronstar needs to be in the ground before weed seeds start to germinate. It’s best applied in late winter for summer weeds or late summer for winter grass. Oxadiazon rapidly absorbs onto soil colloids; exhibits very low risk of leaching and lateral movement; has minimal impact on flora and fauna; and very low toxicity to fish and birds. Only one application is required. It controls different weeds for different periods, but 10 weeks is a reliable overall average for its residual control. Ronstar is a pre-emergent herbicide that is registered on warm-season turf only. Its effectiveness depends on its granules being in the ground before rather than after weed germination occurs. This means late winter is its ideal application time, so that it is ready to work as the ground’s temperature increases. Microbes and sunlight break down Oxadiazon in the environment. Oxadiazon’s potential to leach to groundwater is low; surface runoff potential is intermediate, and the potential for loss on eroded soil is high. Oxidiazon is moderately volatile, and the potential for loss the atmosphere is moderate. Oxidiazon does not bioconcentrate (build up) through the food chain. Oxadiazon is adsorbed through the shoots and leaves and is translocated (moved throughout) to other plant parts. 2,4- Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid has a relatively short half-life and is rather immobile in the soil. In 35 recent studies across the U.S., the average lowest depth detected ranged from 6 to 12 inches in soils of the southern United States to 16 to 24 inches in low organic soils. Soils were sampled to a depth of 48 inches. Its average half-life in soils ranged from 13 days in southern soils to 21 days in high organic matter soils. The average half-life in grass was 6.1 days and 6.9 days in thatch. The acid form of 2,4-D, as well as the amine and ester chemical groups, metabolized to compounds of nontoxicological significance and ultimately to forms of carbon. Thus, 2,4-D is considered a biodegradable compound. Under normal conditions, 2,4-D residues are not persistent in soil, water, or vegetation. 2,4-D, in addition to being the most widely used agricultural herbicide worldwide, is also the most widely used lawn care herbicide in Canada, where it was introduced in 1947. Since 1986, 2,4-D has been reviewed by more than a dozen government and independent expert panels, including the Canadian Centre for Toxicology review conducted for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and a more recent review by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. A 11 expert panels concluded that the continued use of the herbicide 2,4-D poses no unreasonable risk to humans or the environment. Canadians are understandably concerned about pesticide use. The 114 research studies completed in these areas under the EPA registration program confirm the existing toxicology data package. Apart from the hundreds of unpublished studies required by various regulatory agencies around the world, there are more than 4,000 peer-reviewed, published studies on 2,4-D in the scientific literature. The recent studies reconfirm: • 2,4-D has moderate to low acute toxicity; • At the concentrations which may be found in the environment, 2,4-D is highly unlikely to present a threat to

wildlife; • Subchronic effects are generally limited to very high doses when compared to the exposure levels humans

may face in the environment; • 2,4-D has low reproductive toxicity; • 2,4-D does not cause birth defects; • Chronic effects are also limited to high doses; • Based on the extensive toxicology, it is highly improbable that 2,4-D causes cancer; • 2,4-D has low potential to cause neurotoxicity in short and long term exposures; and



• 2,4-D does not cause genetic damage. Although the publications of many anti-pesticide advocacy groups continue to show 2,4-D to be a mutagen, there are now more than 25 recent, state-of-the-art EPA/GLP mutagenicity studies on 2,4-D in the toxicology data package, none of which show any evidence of mutagenicity. Mecoprop is commonly called MCPP. Mecoprop is a selective, hormone-type phenoxy herbicide. It is applied post-emergence and is used on ornamentals and sports turf, for forest site preparation, and on drainage ditch banks for selective control of surface creeping broadleaf weeds such as clovers, chickweed, lambsquarters, ivy, plantain and others. It is also used on wheat, barley, and oats. Mecoprop is absorbed by plant leaves and translocated to the roots. It affects enzyme activity and plant growth. It acts relatively slowly requiring three to four weeks for control. It is available as a liquid concentrate, granules, and is sprayed on fertilizer pellets to produce weed and feed products. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil and Groundwater The duration of mecoprop's residual activity in soil is about one month. Adsorption of mecoprop increases with an increase in organic matter in the soil. Unaged MCPP and its salt forms are very mobile in a variety of soils. In general, phenoxy herbicides such as MCPP are not sufficiently persistent to reach groundwater. FUNGICIDES Chlorothalonil acts on the enzyme systems in fungi. It persists on the surface of plant foliage. Chlorothalonil is a contact fungicide which acts to prevent fungal diseases in plants. There is widespread use of chlorothalonil on many different crops. Chlorothalonil use represents approximately 15% of all US fungicide use by weight. Chlorothalonil is typically applied multiple times to a crop in a season, with short intervals between applications. Chlorothalonil is a polychlorinated aromatic fungicide, but it is atypical in that it does not have the high degree of persistence associated with many other chlorinated organics. The difference is attributed to the two nitrile groups which activate the molecule. Several of chlorothalonil’s primary metabolites are also polychlorinated, and they appear to be more persistent and more mobile than chlorothalonil. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil • Residual soil activity: Chlorothalonil is active in the soil. It is not usually absorbed from the soil by plants. • Adsorption: Chlorothalonil is adsorbed to the soil. • Persistence and agents of degradation: Chlorothalonil is moderately persistent in soil. The half-life of

chlorothalonil is up to 1-3 months in moderately moist soils in temperate regions. Under drier conditions, the rate of degradation is slower. Soil microorganisms break down chlorothalonil.

Breakdown of Chemical in Water • Solubility: Chlorothalonil is almost insoluble in water. In very basic water (pH 9.0), about 65% of the

chlorothalonil was degraded into two major metabolites after 10 weeks. • Potential for leaching into ground-water: The potential for leaching is generally low. The mobility of

chlorothalonil in soil is low in most soils, but in sandy soils, it is moderately mobile. • Surface waters: Runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas.

Chlorothalonil is adsorbed to soil particles. Hazard Based on the results of animal studies, chlorothalonil is not classified as an agent which causes genetic damage, birth defects or as an agent which affects fertility, reproduction or the development of offspring. Chlorothalonil is classified as a possible carcinogen. Chlorothalonil has not been found to be toxic to the nervous system.



Mancozeb is a coordination product of zinc ion and manganese ethylene bisdithiocarbamate to control of fungal diseases. It is classified as a contact fungicide with preventive activity. It inhibits enzyme activity in fungi by forming a complex with metal-containing enzymes including those involved in production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Breakdown of Chemical in Soil • Residual soil activity: Mancozeb is not generally active in the soil. Mancozeb rapidly degrades in the soil

into numerous secondary products, principally ethylenethiourea (ETU), and eventually CO2. ETU can be absorbed by plants.

• Adsorption: Mancozeb is not adsorbed by the soil because it degrades quickly. • Persistence and agents of degradation: Mancozeb remains unchanged in the soil for only short periods of

time. One study recovered only 1.16% of mancozeb seven days after application to silt loam soils, while the half-life was measured as only three days on Immokalee fine sand. Another study reported a half-life of 60 days. Soil microorganisms readily break down Mancozeb.

Breakdown of Chemical in Water • Solubility: Mancozeb is practically insoluble in water. • Potential for leaching into ground-water: As a practically insoluble substance, mancozeb leaches less than

10 cm in loam soil. • Surface waters: Mancozeb rapidly decomposes in water with a half-life of less than one day in sterilewater

(pH range 5-7). Photolytic degradation is the major pathway for ETU in water. In water the half-life of mancozeb is approximately one to two days.

Iprodione is used to control a broad range of stem and root rots, molds, and mildews in conifer nurseries due to such fungi as Botrytis, Fusar ium, and Rhizoctonia. Iprodione is a contact, curative fungicide, which inhibits germination of fungal spores and growth of fungal mycelium. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil • Residual soil activity: Iprodione is active in the soil, and some residual fungicidal activity will persist for

varying periods of time. • Persistence and agents of degradation: The half-life of iprodione in soil ranges widely, with values between

two and 160 days having been reported. The values depend not only on the soil type, clay content and acidity, but also very significantly on the number of prior applications of iprodione. In one typical study, the initial half-life was more than 35 days, but fell to 2 days after the third application. The primary agents of degradation in neutral soil are bacteria, but they are less active under acidic conditions. Chemical processes are most important in alkaline soils. Ultraviolet light, a component of sunlight, also causes degradation of iprodione.

Breakdown of Chemical in Water • Solubility: Iprodione is moderately soluble in water (13 mg/L at 20ø C). • Potential for leaching into ground-water: There is no information on the presence of iprodione in ground-

water. Iprodione has the potential for leaching into ground-water but has a highly mobile to mobile in loamy sand and sand, and slightly mobile in sandy loam and loam soils.

• Surface waters: Information on the presence or absence of iprodione in surface water is currently unavailable. Laboratory hydrolysis and photolysis studies show that iprodione degrades with a half-life of about 20 days in the dark in water at neutral pH, but 3-7 days in sunshine. So Iprodione should dissipate rapidly under natural field conditions.

Hazard Iprodione is not classified as an agent which causes birth defects or genetic damage, or as an agent which affects fertility, reproduction, or development of offspring. The EPA has classified Iprodione as a Group B2 - Probable Human Carcinogen.



Aliette (fosetyl-aluminum) is an organic phosphate compound used as a systemic fungicide with protective activity. It is rapidly absorbed through the plant leaves or roots, with translocation both up and down inside the plant. It is a systemic fungicide that acts by inhibiting spore germination and penetration into the plant, and by blocking mycelial growth and spore production. Also enhances the plant’s own natural defense systems against diseases. Mode of action is multi-site. Fosetyl-aluminum has preventive and curative properties against diseases caused by Oomycetes, (“water mold” fungi). This includes Phytophthora and Pythium root and crown rots and downy mildews. It also has some activity against bacterial diseases such as Pseudomonas blister spot on apple, and certain other fungal diseases such as Alternaria purple spot on onion. (i) The potential for ground water and/or surface water contamination by fosetyl-aluminum is expected to be

very low in most cases. (ii) Fosetyl- aluminum degrades rapidly in soil to non-toxic components. (iii) It is quite persistent on vegetation. (iv) Fosetyl- aluminum does not pose a risk to birds or fish, and does not adversely effect aquatic plants INSECTICIDES Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos is one of the many organophosphate insecticides. Like other organophosphates, chlorpyrifos' insecticidal activity is caused by the inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase which results in the accumulation of the neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, at the nerve endings. This results in excessive transmission of nerve impulses, which causes mortality in the target pest. This reaction is also the mechanism by which high levels of organophosphate insecticides can produce toxic effects in mammals.

The environmental fate database for chlorpyrifos is largely complete. The major route of dissipation appears to be aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Abiotic hydrolysis, photodegradation, and volatilization do not seem to play a significant role in the dissipation process. Based on available data, chlorpyrifos appears to degrade slowly in soil under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Information on leaching and adsorption/desorption indicate that parent chlorpyrifos is largely immobile. The environmental fate of the major chlorpyrifos degradate, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), indicates that it is mobile in soils and persistent in soils when not exposed to light. Available field data indicate that chlorpyrifos has a half-life in the field of less than 60 days, with little or no leaching observed. Most of chlorpyrifos runoff is generally via adsorption to eroding soil rather than by dissolution in runoff water.

Chlorpyrifos is one of the most-widely used active ingredients for pest control products in the world. It is used to protect a number of important agricultural crops, such as corn, citrus, alfalfa, peanuts, and others, from pest insect attack. It is also used to control over 250 non-agricultural insect and arthropod pests, including subterranean termites, cockroaches, fleas, ants, and others, that are found in and around structures and on lawns, trees and shrubs. Chlorpyrifos was first registered in 1965 and has been on the market for more than thirty years. Today, it is registered in more than 98 countries worldwide, including most developed nations.

Chlorpyrifos is one of the great success stories in pest control today. It is used in and around tens of millions of homes worldwide each year to effectively control disease-bearing pests, such as cockroaches, ticks, fleas, termites and other insects. Growers count on chlorpyrifos insecticide to defend more than 50 different crops against damage caused by insect pests.

More than 3,600 studies have been conducted examining critical aspects of chlorpyrifos products as they relate to health and safety. More than US $100 million has been spent examining the uses and impact of chlorpyrifos-



containing products on human health and the environment. In terms of human health and safety, no pest control product has been more thoroughly studied.

Chlorpyrifos is a degradable compound, and a number of environmental forces may be active in its breakdown. In all systems (soil, water, plants and animals), the major pathway of degradation begins with cleavage of the phosphorus ester bond to yield 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP). This first step is a detoxification, as TCP has no insecticidal activity and is considered toxicologically insignificant by regulatory authorities. In soil and water, TCP is further degraded via microbial activity and photolysis to carbon dioxide and organic matter. In animals, TCP may be excreted directly or following conjugation; in plants TCP conjugates are sequestered.

Breakdown of Chemical in Soil Laboratory soil studies demonstrate that chlorpyrifos is only moderately persistent and binds strongly to soil particles, preventing leaching to ground water. When applied at normal agricultural rates, typical aerobic soil degradation half-lives are on the order of one to two months. Both microbial degradation and abiotic degradation (i.e., hydrolysis) are important factors in its dissipation from soil, with the latter being especially predominant in alkaline soils.

Chlorpyrifos has a soil adsorption coefficient (Koc) of greater than 6000, and so exhibits a strong tendency to be adsorbed by soil and soil organic matter. This places chlorpyrifos in the "immobile" leaching category and field-testing has confirmed the negligible downward mobility of chlorpyrifos. The strong adsorption to soil, together with the rapid degradation, results in limited surface runoff potential in agricultural settings. Large-scale field runoff studies have confirmed that even under relatively severe conditions (heavy rainstorms closely following application), generally less than 1 percent of the applied chlorpyrifos can move off the edge of treated fields through runoff water and eroding soil particles.

Breakdown of Chemical in Water Laboratory studies on the fate of chlorpyrifos in pure water indicate that hydrolysis and photolysis occur at moderate rates under neutral conditions. Hydrolytic and photolytic half-lives are both around a month, at neutral pH 25° C. Under more alkaline conditions, hydrolysis proceeds more rapidly, with half-lives of around two weeks observed at pH 9. In natural water samples, however, degradation often proceeds significantly faster; a 16-fold enhancement of hydrolysis rate has been observed in pond and canal water samples. Results of field-testing conducted in aquatic ecosystems corroborate the rapid dissipation of chlorpyrifos from natural waters. Half-lives in the water column of less than one day are typical, due to a combination of degradation, volatilization and partitioning into sediments. Dissipation rates in sediment are similar to those observed in soil. Plant fate and metabolism Results of greenhouse and field research studies show no tendency for chlorpyrifos soil residues to be taken up into plants through growing plant roots; chlorpyrifos is non-systemic in nature. On the surface of plant foliage, rapid dissipation of residue occurs. The most important route of dissipation is volatility, with photodegradation being somewhat less important. Typical foliar dissipation half-lives of 1 to 7 days have been observed. Dissipation rates from turfgrass and thatch are often slightly longer, with 7 to 10 day half-lives most common. Following foliar application, small quantities of chlorpyrifos are absorbed into plant tissue and are readily metabolized/detoxified into TCP conjugates. From the standpoint of biological availability, dislodgeable foliar residues of chlorpyrifos comprise a rather small proportion of the total residue present and decline even more rapidly than total residues. Dislodgeable residues typically represent less than 10 percent of total residues, and half-lives of 0.5 to 3 days are common. Fipronil, the newest active ingredient on the US market, is now available in Maxforce FC bait stations. Fipronil offers the pest control industry a new chemistry with a unique mode of action. Maxforce used this new chemistry to create bait stations that offer both long-term control and faster results than demonstrated by other ant and cockroach bait products.



Fipronil affects target species by blocking the chloride channels of neurons; therefore the resting membrane potential cannot be re-established, the result is excessive neuronal activity. At sufficient doses fipronil causes paralysis and insect death. Fipronil is a highly active, broad-spectrum insecticide from the phenyl pyrazole family. Scientists discovered fipronil and identified its insecticidal properties in 1987. Used at low doses, the active ingredient is highly effective against a broad range of insect pests, including ants and roaches. While fipronil is very effective against target insects, it has low toxicity to non-target animals. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil The average Koc value for fipronil is 803, indicating low-to-moderate sorption to soil surfaces (Mede, 1997; DPR 2001). It has been suggested by the U.S. EPA that fipronil has a low to slight mobility in soil, this would result in a low potential for ground water contamination (U.S. EPA 1996; Burr, 1997). It is the opinion of the U.S. EPA that the surface degradation of fipronil occurs mainly through slow photolysis and /or soil binding along with microbial mediated processes; however, below the surface fipronil has a tendency to dissipate by soil binding along with gradual microbial breakdown (U.S. EPA, 1996). A comparative study of the adsorption of 5 fipronil using two Sahelian soils and a Mediterranean soil (Montpellier) found that fipronil sorption is positively correlated with organic carbon content in the soil (Bobe et al., 1997). In a similar study the adsorption/desorption characteristics of one of the major metabolites of fipronil was studied. The objective was to determine the adsorption/desorption characteristics of the sulfide metabolite using four soils and one sediment. The authors suggested that, depending on the soil type, the sulfide metabolite has a low to slight mobility in soil and would not be expected to move to deeper soil layers (Burr et al., 1997). Breakdown of Chemical in Field Dissipation Reported values for field dissipation half-lives are 33-75 days for bare soil and 12-15 days in turf. The photodegradation of fipronil in loamy soil is considered slow, with a half-life of 34 days. Under aerobic conditions, organisms present in the soil gradually breakdown fipronil. Aerobic soil metabolism studies reported the half-life of fipronil in sandy loam to be 120 days with the amide and sulfone metabolites accounting for 27-38% and 14-24% of the total applied radioactivity, respectively (U.S. EPA, 1996). Breakdown of Chemical in Water The reported solubilities for fipronil are 2.0-2.4 ppm (U.S EPA 1996; Kidd and James 1991; Ayliffe 1998). The reported half-life for fipronil under aerobic aquatic conditions was about 14.5 days. The major metabolite (sulfide degradate) represented 74% of the total radioactive residues after 30 days (Feung and Yenne 1997). The remaining minor metabolites were 7 identified by HPLC as the amide degradate, the carboxamide, and the desulfinyl photodegradate. Each was less than 4% of the applied dose throughout the study. The sulfide degradate was a significant metabolite in anaerobic aquatic conditions whereas under aerobic soil conditions the amide and the sulfone were identified as the major degradation products (Feung and Yenne, 1997). Fipronil is readily transformed into its desulfinyl photodegradate when exposed to sunlight. Laboratory data indicate that fipronil is much more susceptible to breakdown through photolysis rather than hydrolysis in water. In soil, fipronil tends to dissipate by soil binding along with gradual microbial breakdown; however, on the soil surface photolysis may also be important. A reported field half-life of fipronil under aerobic aquatic conditions was 14.5 days. Imidacloprid is completely degradable and will not persist in soil. The rate of degradation of imidacloprid on soil is enhanced under the influence of sunlight. A total of thirteen terrestrial field dissipation studies with imidacloprid were performed the USA in Georgia, Minnesota, California, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Wisconsin. The determined DT50- values ranged from 7 to 146 days. These DT50-values are considerably lower than those determined in laboratory tests, a fact which can also be seen in the results from field soil dissipation studies performed in Europe. If data from different locations are compared it is important to consider the influence of the vegetation (bare versus cropped soil), the soil moisture and especially the temperature. The studies performed in northern Europe at several sites resulted in an average DT50 of 174 days (bare soil situation),



but 83 and 124 days under cropped conditions. The mean DT50 obtained from field studies conducted on bare soil in southern Europe was 110 days. In summary it can be concluded that imidacloprid does not persist in soil and disappears to a large extent under the conditions of a temperate climate. By long term dissipation studies with repetitive applications that imidacloprid does not accumulate and that it will actually reach a plateau concentration in soil within a few years. Breakdown of Chemical in Soil Summarising the knowledge gathered concerning fate of imidacloprid in the terrestrial environment it becomes evident that mainly biotic degradation processes together with photochemical degradation and binding to soil matter contribute to its disappearance. Since the processes are continuous though not very rapid with the formation of carbon dioxide as the product of complete mineralization, there is no risk of accumulation in soil, even if imidacloprid is applied repeatedly over several seasons. This has been found under laboratory conditions and in field studies on cropped or bare soil by research at Bayer as well as at independent laboratories. With imidacloprid it was possible to discover a molecule that offers the favourable effects of a limited mobility. The POW and KOC-values are already sufficiently high for systemic action into the roots of plants or within plants for pest control. On the other hand, the KOC-values are still in that range where translocation from soil is negligible under normal conditions. This is especially true if the effect of residence time in the soil on the sorption/desorption behaviour is considered. Imidacloprid does not persist in aqueous environments. If it is exposed to sunlight, rapid degradation occurs. This is relevant for the fate of imidacloprid in natural surface waters (including sediments of streams, rivers and lakes) and in aerosol, fog or rain water. Imidacloprid is a chloronicotinyl insecticide with very weak basic properties. Its water solubility and partition coefficient in octanol-water are not influenced by the pH-values between 4 and 9. With a water solubility of 610 mg/L and a log POW of 0.56, imidacloprid can be classified as a hydrophilic substance with no potential for accumulation in biological tissues and enrichment in the food chain. Sunlight and anaerobic conditions accelerated the degradation of imidacloprid. The degradation pathway shows that the substance itself and not the individual degradations of the parent compound are present in the soil. There is no likelihood of an accumulation occurring following repeated yearly applications. Long term studies in England indicate that the maximum concentrations in the soil reaches a plateau having a relatively low residue level (≤0.030 mg of imidacloprid/kg). The degree of binding of imidacloprid to the soil is high and is not readily released. Thus the overall effect is that the compound remains in the upper root zone. The translocation to deeper-lying soil zones is negligible. This is confirmed by laboratory studies and three free-land Lysimeter trails in German using various quantities of imidacloprid. Field trials in Europe and the USA confirmed the low mobility of imidacloprid. No measureable residues were detectable at a soil-depth of 120 cm (LOR = 0.01 µg/L). The results of ground-water monitoring studies carried out in the USA and Canada showed that is not detectable in groundwater. Imidacloprid is not stabile in an aqueous environment. In such an environment, sunlight further accelerates the degradation. Those characteristics influence the environmental behaviour of imidaclcoprid on surface-water, water-sediment (rivers and lakes) as well as in fog and rain. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring bacterial disease of insects. These bacteria are the active ingredient in some insecticides. Bt insecticides are most commonly used against some leaf- and needle-feeding caterpillars. Recently, strains have been produced that affect certain fly larvae, such as mosquitoes, and larvae of leaf beetles. Bt is considered safe to people and nontarget species, such as wildlife. Some formulations can be used on essentially all food Crops. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an insecticide with unusual properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations. Bt is a naturally occurring bacterium common in soils throughout the world. Several strains can infect and kill insects. Because of this property, Bt has been developed for insect control. At present, Bt is the only "microbial insecticide" in widespread use.



The insecticidal activity of Bt was first discovered in 1911. However, it was not commercially available until the 1950s. In recent years, there has been tremendous renewed interest in Bt. Several new products have been developed, largely because of the safety associated with Bt-based insecticides. Unlike typical nerve-poison insecticides, Bt acts by producing proteins (delta-endotoxin, the "toxic crystal") that reacts with the cells of the gut lining of susceptible insects. These Bt proteins paralyze the digestive system, and the infected insect stops feeding within hours. Bt-affected insects generally die from starvation, which can take several days. Occasionally, the bacteria enter the insect's blood and reproduce within the insect. However, in most insects it is the reaction of the protein crystal that is lethal to the insect. Even dead bacteria containing the proteins are effective insecticides. More recently, strains have been developed with activity against some leaf beetles, such as the Colorado potato beetle and elm leaf beetle (san diego strain, tenebrionis strain). Among the various Bt strains, insecticidal activity is specific. That is, Bt strains developed for mosquito larvae do not affect caterpillars. Development of Bt products is an active area and many manufacturers produce a variety of products. Effectiveness of the various formulations may differ. Development of Bt products is currently an active area and many manufacturers produce a variety of products. Effectiveness of the various formulations may differ. Disadvantages Bt is susceptible to degradation by sunlight. Most formulations persist on foliage less than a week following application. Some of the newer strains developed for leaf beetle control become ineffective in about 24 hours. Manufacturers are experimenting with several techniques to increase its persistence. One involves inserting Bt toxic crystal genes into other species of bacteria that can better survive on leaf surfaces (e.g., the M-Trak formulation of san diego strain). The highly specific activity of Bt insecticides might limit their use on Crops where problems with several pests occur, including nonsusceptible insects (aphids, grasshoppers, etc.). As strictly a stomach poison insecticide, Bt must be eaten to be effective, and application coverage must be thorough. This further limits its usefulness against pests that are susceptible to Bt but rarely have an opportunity to eat it in field use, such as codling moth or corn earworm that tunnel into plants. Additives (sticking or wetting agents) often are useful in a Bt application to improve performance, allowing it to cover and resist washing. Since Bt does not kill rapidly, users may incorrectly assume that it is ineffective a day or two after treatment. This, however, is merely a perceptual problem, because Bt-affected insects eat little or nothing before they die. Bt-based products tend to have a shorter shelf life than other insecticides. Manufacturers generally indicate reduced effectiveness after two to three years of storage. Liquid formulations are more perishable than dry formulations. Shelf life is greatest when storage conditions are cool, dry and out of direct sunlight. Relative Effectiveness Some naturally occurring bacteria can cause epizootics, especially if the pest population is under stress from lack of food, overcrowding, or cold weather. These epizootics are not as common as those caused by other naturally occurring pathogens. Commercial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis, however, are widely used. Greenhouses, tree and field crops, waterways and thousands of acres of forests are sprayed annually with commercial Bt products. Successful use of these Bt formulations requires application to the correct target species at a susceptible stage of development, in the right concentration, at the correct temperature (warm enough for the insects to be actively feeding), and before the insect pests bore into the crop plant or fruit where they are protected. Young larvae are usually most susceptible. Caterpillar growth may be retarded even if less than a lethal dose is eaten. Determining when most of the pest population is at a susceptible stage is key to optimizing the use of this microbial insecticide.



Not all caterpillar pests are equally susceptible to Bt. Beet armyworm has proven difficult to control, and some moth species, including some populations of diamondback moth, a major worldwide pest of cole crops, have evolved resistance to the Bt variety kurstaki toxins. Corn earworm, squash vine borer larvae, and codling moth larvae are susceptible, but field control is difficult because they rapidly bore into and are protected by plant tissue. Bt is effective against European corn borer if it is applied just as the larvae are hatching. Bt formulations for use against Colorado potato beetle may vary in effectiveness. Bt formulations may be deactivated in sunlight and may be effective for only one to three days. Rain or overhead irrigation can also reduce effectiveness by washing Bt from crop foliage. Some formulations, such as those involving the genetic engineering of the Bt toxin, aim to overcome these problems. Advantages The specific activity of Bt generally is considered highly beneficial. Unlike most insecticides, Bt insecticides do not have a broad spectrum of activity, so they do not kill beneficial insects. This includes the natural enemies of insects (predators and parasites), as well as beneficial pollinators, such as honeybees. Therefore, Bt integrates well with other natural controls. For example, in Colorado, Bt to control corn borers in field corn has been stimulated by its ability to often avoid later spider mite problems. Mite outbreaks commonly result following destruction of their natural enemies by less selective treatments. Perhaps the major advantage is that Bt is essentially nontoxic to people, pets and wildlife. This high margin of safety recommends its use on food Crops or in other sensitive sites where pesticide use can cause adverse effects.

Breakdown in soil and groundwater B.t. is a naturally-occurring pathogen that readily breaks down in the environment. Due to its short biological half-life and its specificity, B.t. is less likely than chemical pesticides to cause field resistance in target insects. B.t. is moderately persistent in soil. Its half-life in suitable conditions is about 4 months. B.t. spores are released into the soil from decomposing dead insects after they have been killed by it. B.t. is rapidly inactivated in soils that have a pH below 5.1. Microbial pesticides such as B.t. are classified as immobile because they do not move, or leach, with groundwater. Because of their rapid biological breakdown and low toxicity, they pose no threat to groundwater. Breakdown in water The EPA has not issued restrictions for the use of B.t. around bodies of water. It can be effective for up to 48 hours in water. Afterwards, it gradually settles out or adheres to suspended organic matter. Breakdown in vegetation B.t. is relatively short-lived on foliage because the ultraviolet (UV) light of the sun destroys it very rapidly. Its half-life under normal sunlight conditions is 3.8 hours. It is not poisonous to plants and has not shown any adverse effect upon seed generation or plant vigor.

Figure No.1a

Prepared CheckedET JW

DateMay-05

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PUBLIC GOLF COURSE AT KAU SAI CHAU, SAI KUNG

LOCATIONS OF MARINE WATER MONITORING STATIONSAT EXISTING GOLF COURSES

MARINE MONITORING STATION

MARINE CONTROL STATION

FISH CULTURE ZONE

Figure No.1b


DateMay-05


LOCATIONS OF FRESHWATER MONITORING STATIONSAT EXISTING GOLF COURSES

MONITORING LOCATIONS

A EXISTING RESERVOIR

B LAKE 1

C LAKE 15/29

D POND AFTER MARSH

Remarks: The small pond is bound on the upstream by the marsh and has been efficiently acting as a sink for various nutrients, and on the downstream side by a concrete weir. In the dry season the pond is effectively an enclosed water body, but overflow to the sea occurs when water supply is adequate in heavy rain.

Figure No.1c


DateAug-05


SMALL POND LOCATED AT THE END OF EXISTING MARSH (SECONDARY CATCHMENT) OF THE EXISTING GOLF COURSES

Remarks: In the dry season the pond is effectively an enclosed water body, but overflow to the sea occurs when water supply is adequate in heavy rain.

Small pond located at the existing marsh

(downstream side has a concrete weir)

Figure No.2.1


DateMay-05


PROPOSED 18-HOLE THIRD GOLF COURSE(WATER SENSITIVE RECEIVERS)

F1

F2

C

MG2

Lake near Hole 4

Lake near Hole 10

MG Mangrove

C Coral (higher ecological value)

F Fish Cultural Zone

M

MG1

M Marsh

Lake near hole 4 to F1 (approx. 750 m)

Lake near hole 10 to (i) MG2 (approx. 80 m); (ii) F2 (approx. 650 m); and (iii) Coral (approx. 800m)

Existing reservoir to MG1 (approx. 100 m)

Figure No.2.2a

(Sheet 1 of 2)Prepared Checked

ET JW

DateMay-05


PROPOSED 18-HOLE THIRD GOLF COURSE(SCHEMATIC WATER FLOW OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM)

12

11

16

14

15

13

10

17

9Rising main

Gravity pipe

Underground tank

Lake near Hole 10

Figure No.2.2b

(Sheet 2 of 2)Prepared Checked

ET JW

DateMay-05


PROPOSED 18-HOLE THIRD GOLF COURSE(SCHEMATIC WATER FLOW OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM)

Lake near Hole 10

Rising main

Gravity pipe

Underground tank

Irrigation Buffer Lake 1D

Existing reservoir

Marsh area located at existing golf course

6

4

5

3

1

18

2

8

9

17

7

Primary Catchment BoundarySecondary Catchment Boundary

Schematic Water flow direction(Primary Catchment)Schematic Water flow direction(Secondary Catchment)

Figure No.2.3


DateMay-05


EXISTING GOLF COURSES CATCHMENT AREAS(SCHEMATIC WATER FLOW OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM)

Discharge to marine water when overflow

Discharge to marine water when reservoir is full and overflow

Primary Catchment of Existing Golf course

Secondary Catchment of Existing Golf course

Existing Reservoir

Existing Marsh

Figure No.2.4a


DateMay-05


PROPOSED FILTER SYSTEM (COLLECTION OF SURFACE RUNOFF) AT HOLE 5

The catch basin insert is a two-stage unit that will fit into 24" nominal diameter catch basins.

The upper section consists of a perforated metal catch basket covered by a geotexitile filter bag. This assembly captures sediment and debris while allowing filtered water to pass freely down through the center cone.

THe lower stage contains a patented Mycelx® filter insert that attracts and holds tiny particles of hydrocarbons and oil-bound pollutants. The specially treated adsorbent material instantly bonds contaminant particles, resulting in a 95% removal rate of total petroleum hydrocarbons.

Figure No. 2.4b


DateMay-05


PROPOSED FILTER SYSTEM LOCATIONS AT HOLE 5 AND PART OF HOLE 6

proposed extension of public golf course at kau …...figures 2.2b schematic water flow of the...

Documents