9.1.1
This Chapter outlines the Landscape
and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) associated with the Drainage Improvement in
Sai Kung (the Project) which is a Designated Project under the Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO).
9.1.2
The LVIA is necessary owing to the
landscape and visual impacts that could result from the construction and
operation of the Project elements as described in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). These
impacts need to be identified for both the construction and operational phases
of the proposed development. In addition, the significance and magnitude of the
expected impacts will vary between construction and operational phases and also
between mitigated and unmitigated conditions. Therefore, the significance and
magnitude during different phases and conditions need to be defined.
The Study
Area
9.2.1
The location plans, layouts and
alignments for the three rivers in Sai Kung are presented in Figures 1.1 – 1.7.
Location of
the LVIA Study Area
9.2.2
For the Landscape Impact Assessment
(LIA), the Study Area was all terrestrial and aquatic surface areas that are
within 500m of the works area of the Project (refer to Figures A9.05A to A9.05C) in accordance with the EIA Ordinance
Guidance Note No. 8/2002, Item 3.3a.
9.2.3
The Study Area of the Visual Impact
Assessment (VIA) includes all terrestrial and aquatic areas within the visual
envelope, or Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) which is shown in Figures A9.10A to A9.10C. The ZVI is defined according to the EIA
Ordinance Guidance Note No. 8/2002, Item 3.3a. It further indicates that
the natural and man-made features determine the possibility of views to the
proposed drainage channel and define the extent of the visual envelope.
9.3.1
The purpose of this LVIA is to
identify the existing landscape and visual quality in the LVIA Study Area and
to evaluate the landscape and visual impacts and to propose mitigation
measures, if necessary.
9.3.2
To achieve this purpose, the following
goals are set out for this LVIA:
·
To perform landscape and visual
baseline studies that describe the existing conditions;
·
To identify and describe the landscape
and visual impacts of the urban and rural areas;
·
To define the significance and
magnitude of these impacts;
·
To propose mitigation measures by
taking local conditions and experience in consideration and to describe the
maintenance and management of these mitigation measures; and
·
To indicate the residual impacts after
mitigation.
9.3.3
To achieve these goals, the following
objectives are set out for this LVIA:
·
To conduct a baseline study that
describes the physical properties of landscape and visual resources and defines
the sensitivity to change of these landscape and visual resources;
·
To describe and define the magnitude
of change to the landscape and visual baseline conditions brought about by the
Project;
·
To define the significance of impacts
according to the sensitivity to change of landscape and visual resources and
the magnitude of change that is caused by the Project;
·
To identify normative mitigation
principles that are applicable to moderate the determined impacts and to select
measures that are practical and viable;
·
To define the residual impacts by comparing
the significance of impacts before mitigation to the same impacts after
mitigation; and
·
To prescribe practical maintenance and
management measures by taking local conditions into account.
9.4.2
The landscape impact assessment shall
assess the source and magnitude of developmental effects on the existing
landscape elements, character and quality in the context of the site and its
environs.
9.4.3
The visual impact assessment shall
assess the source and magnitude of effects caused by the proposed development
on the existing views, visual amenity, character and quality of the visually
sensitive receivers within the context of the site and its environs.
·
existing conditions;
·
unmitigated impacts;
·
partially mitigated impacts after
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures on day 1 of the operational
phase; and
·
residual impact in year 10 of the
operational phase.
LVIA Approach
9.5.1
The approach to this study has three
facets:
·
To be in accordance with the standards
and legislation as described in the EIAO;
·
To follow a sound research ethic; and
·
To base the assessment methodology on
the objectives as set in Section 9.3
for the LIA and VIA studies independently.
9.5.2
For the construction phase, the descriptions
are on the following aspects:
·
backfilling areas
·
temporary buildings and storing areas
9.5.3
For the operation phase, the
description are on the following aspects:
·
embankments and slopes
·
landscape areas
·
drainage channels
Review of Planning and Development Control Framework
9.5.4
A review of the existing planning
studies and documents was undertaken as part of the assessment to gain an
insight into the planned role of the site, its context and to help determine
the projects fit into the wider existing and future landscape context. A review of the existing and development
framework of the site and surrounding areas was undertaken in order to identify
any issue of conflict with the neighbouring planned land uses and to identify
the full extent of the 'visually sensitive receivers' (VSRs). For the purposes
of this study, the Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) and Outline Development Plans
(ODPs) for the Study Area were used as a basis to get an accurate picture of
the future landscape setting and visual context. This also ensures that the
landscape proposals are compatible with the surrounding landscape character
context.
Landscape
Impact Assessment
9.5.5
The assessment of the potential
impacts of a proposed scheme on the existing landscape comprises two distinct
sections:
·
baseline survey; and
·
potential landscape impacts
assessment.
9.5.6
To conduct the landscape baseline
study that describes the physical properties of the landscape, two surveys were
carried out with considerations in both the present and planned future
landscape: the first was a desktop survey and the second was a site
survey. A baseline survey of the
existing landscape character and quality has been undertaken through site
inspections and desktop surveys. Landscape elements considered included:
·
local topography;
·
woodland extent and type;
·
other vegetation types;
·
built form;
·
patterns of settlement;
·
land use;
·
scenic spots;
·
details of local materials, styles,
streetscapes, etc.;
·
prominent watercourses; and
·
cultural and religious identity.
9.5.7
Planned developments either within the
study area or adjacent to it were also considered. The baseline survey formed
the basis of the landscape context by describing broadly homogenous units of
similar character. The individual landscape character areas (LCA) and resources
were rated using low, medium or high depending not only on the quality of
elements present but also their sensitivity to change and local or regional
importance. The quality of the landscape was not only related to its visual
amenity. The magnitude of change arising from the implementation of the scheme
proposals was rated as negligible, small, intermediate or large.
9.5.8
Potential landscape impacts of the
proposals were resulted from:
·
identification of the sources of
impact, and their magnitude, that would be generated during construction and
operation of the scheme; and,
·
identification of the principal
landscape impacts, primarily in consideration of the degree of change to the
baseline conditions. The impacts are considered systematically in terms of the
landscape elements, the site and its context.
9.5.9
Factors affecting the evaluation of
the magnitude of landscape impacts were:
·
compatibility of the project with the
surrounding landscape;
·
duration of impacts under construction
and operational phases;
·
scale of the development; and
·
reversibility of change.
9.5.10
Factors affecting
the evaluation of the sensitivity of landscape character/resources were:
·
quality of landscape characters /
resources;
·
importance and rarity of special
landscape elements;
·
ability of the landscape to
accommodate change;
·
significance of the change in local
and regional context, and
·
maturity of the landscape.
9.5.11
The significance
threshold for impacts to landscape character and resources was rated as
significant, moderate, slight or negligible. The
impacts may be either beneficial or adverse.
9.5.12
The impact is a
product of the magnitude of change which the proposals will cause to the
existing landscape context and it's ability to tolerate the change, i.e. its
quality and sensitivity. The significance threshold is derived from The
Significance Threshold Matrix A as described in Table 9.5a:
Table 9.5a The
Significance Threshold Matrix A
|
Magnitude
of
Change
caused by
Proposals
|
Large
|
Moderate Impact
|
Moderate / Significant
Impact
|
Significant Impact
|
|
Intermediate
|
Slight / Moderate
Impact
|
Moderate Impact
|
Moderate / Significant
Impact
|
|
Small
|
Slight Impact
|
Slight / Moderate
Impact
|
Moderate Impact
|
|
Negligible
|
Negligible Impact
|
Negligible Impact
|
Negligible Impact
|
|
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
|
|
Sensitivity
To Change
|
Tree Survey
Methodology
9.5.13
To minimise conflicts with existing
vegetation, a tree survey was completed based on an agreed methodology, and involved
the identification of tree groups and significant individual trees with fung
shui importance. Approximate numbers of trees and the range of species and
sizes in each tree group was given, in addition to the proportion of species
and sizes as a percentage of each group. The location, size and species of the
significant individual trees with fung shui importance were also given. This allowed the fine tuning of the proposed
detail design for the proposed scheme and ensured that any significant trees,
where possible, were protected during both the design and construction periods.
The methodology and scope including the programme for the tree survey and
felling application had been approved by the relevant authorities primarily
LCSD and AFCD. The figures contained in
this report were made reference to the findings of the detailed Tree Survey
Report.
Visual Impact Assessment
9.5.14
The
assessment of the potential visual impact of the scheme
comprises three distinct parts:
·
Quality of
landscape characters / resources
·
Baseline survey
·
Visual impact
assessment
9.5.15
For the Visual Impact Assessment
(VIA), the assessment area is taken to include the visual envelope or Zone of
Visual Influence (ZVI) which includes all areas from which the scheme proposals
can be seen. This area forms the view shed formed by natural / manmade features
such as existing ridgelines, built development and for example areas of
woodland / large trees.
9.5.16
The baseline survey of all views
towards the proposals is undertaken by identifying:
·
The visual envelope as has been described above and may
contain both open and partial views of the proposals. This must also include
indirect effects such as offsite construction activities; and
·
The visually
sensitive receivers (VSRs) within the visual envelope whose views will be
affected by the scheme. The identified VSRs include planned visually sensitive
receivers (PVSRs). The potential receivers are considered as four groups:
-
Quality of landscape characters /
resources;
-
Views from residences - the most
sensitive of receivers due to the high potential of intrusion on the visual
amenity and quality of life;
-
View from workplaces - less sensitive
than above due to visual amenity being less important within the work
environment, and
-
Views from public areas - including
all areas apart from the above, e.g., public parks, recreation grounds,
footpaths, roads, cultural sites, etc. Sensitivity of this group depends on the
transitory nature of the receiver, e.g. sitting in a park or travelling on a
highway. Also considered is the degree of view or glimpsed views.
9.5.17
However, the assessment of sensitivity
has also been based on the quality and extent of the existing view. Therefore,
a view from a residential property which would normally be considered the most
sensitive view may be less so if, for example, it is degraded by existing
development or partially screened by intervening visual obstacles such as
existing vegetation.
9.5.18
The location and direction of its view
relative to the scheme also influences the sensitivity of each group. Typical
viewpoints from within each of the visually sensitive groups are identified and
their views described. Both present and future visually sensitive receivers are
considered.
9.5.19
The baseline survey formed the basis
of the visual character and quality of the site. Potential visual impacts were
resulted from:
·
identification of the sources of visual impacts, and
their magnitude, that would be generated during construction and operation of
the scheme; and
·
identification of
the principal visual impacts primarily in consideration of the degree of change
to the baseline conditions.
9.5.20
The impact assessment was related to
the typical viewpoints within the visual receiver group, as identified
previously, and their existing and potential views subsequent to the scheme
development. The factors affecting the magnitude of change for assessing the
visual impacts included the following:
·
compatibility of
the project with the surrounding landscape forming the view;
·
duration of
impacts under construction and operational phases;
·
scale of the
development;
·
reversibility of
change;
·
viewing distance;
and
·
potential
blockage of the view.
9.5.21
Factors affecting the sensitivity of
receivers for evaluation of visual impacts were:
·
value and quality
of existing views;
·
availability and
amenity of alternative views;
·
type and
estimated number of receiver population;
·
duration or
frequency of view; and
·
degree of
visibility.
9.5.22
The views available to the identified
VSRs were rated according to their sensitivity to change using low, medium or
high. Whilst the magnitude of change arising from the implementation of the
proposed scheme was rated as negligible, small, intermediate or large. The
significance threshold for visual impact was rated in a similar fashion to the
landscape impact, i.e. significant, moderate, slight and negligible. The
impacts may be either beneficial or adverse.
9.5.23
The impact is a product of the
magnitude of change which the proposals will cause to the existing landscape
context and it's ability to tolerate the change, i.e. its quality and
sensitivity. The significance threshold is derived from The Significance
Threshold Matrix (Table 9.5a).
Recommended Landscape & Visual Impact Mitigation
Measures
9.5.24
The identification of the landscape
and visual impacts highlighted those sources of conflict requiring design
solutions or modifications to reduce the impacts, and, if possible, blend the
development and associated activities with respect to the surrounding
landscape. These mitigation measures should take into account factors
including:
·
preservation of
existing vegetation as far as possible;
·
woodland, tree
and shrub planting of new or disturbed slopes, amenity strips and areas,
central reservations and adjacent to any new structures to aid stabilisation;
·
consideration of
the contouring of new slopes in order to visually integrate them into the
existing topography use of vegetated earth mounding or structural solutions for
screening;
·
sensitive treatment of structural
forms;
·
appropriate design of hard landscape,
furniture and other elements;
·
careful consideration of significant
landscape elements; and
·
feasibility of mitigation measures in
respect of funding, implementation phasing and maintenance.
9.5.25
These objectives resulted in the
formation of landscape mitigation proposals alleviated the previously
identified landscape and visual impacts as far as possible. The aim is the
design of integrated landscape proposals to alleviate the landscape and visual
impacts that arise from the final scheme, both during its construction and
operational phases, and to ensure that the residual impacts are acceptable. As
the scheme proposals, in particular the phasing of the project, develop, a
programme for the implementation, management and maintenance of landscape works
will be included together with a schedule of recommended mitigation measures. A
separate description of mitigation measures for each Schedule 2 DP is included
in the EIA.
Defining the Residual Impacts
9.5.26
The residual impacts are those, which
remain after the proposed mitigation measures have been successfully
implemented. This is assessed both during the construction period and during
the design year, which is taken to be 10 years after the proposed scheme has
been opened to normal operation. During the design year, the soft landscape
mitigation measures are deemed to have reached a level of maturity, which
allows them to perform their original design objectives.
9.5.27
As described above, the level of
impact is a product of the magnitude of change, which the proposals will cause
to the landscape character, landscape resource or visual amenity, and their
sensitivity to change. It is a comparison of the future landscape modified by
the proposals with the landscape, which would have existed during this period if
the proposed scheme had not been constructed. This assessment also considers
the ability of the landscape character, landscape resource or visual amenity to
tolerate change, i.e. its quality and sensitivity taking into account the
beneficial effects of the proposed mitigation. The significance threshold is
derived from the matrices described separately above for the landscape and
visual impacts.
9.5.28
In accordance with Annex 10
of the EIAO TM, a final conclusion is also made of the residual
landscape and visual impacts attributable to the proposed scheme. The degree of
residual impact is considered in accordance with the Residual Impact
Significance Threshold Matrix in Table
9.5b.
Table
9.5b Residual Impact Significance
Threshold Matrix
|
Beneficial
|
Acceptable
|
Acceptable
with Mitigation
|
Unacceptable
|
Undetermined
|
|
The project will complement
the landscape and visual character of its setting, will follow the relevant
planning objectives and will improve overall and visual quality.
|
There will be no
significant effects on the landscape and no significant visual effects caused
by the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views.
|
There some adverse effects,
but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific
measures.
|
The
adverse affects are considered too excessive and would not be reduced to an
acceptable level by mitigation.
|
Significant Adverse effects
are likely but the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be
determined from the study. Further detailed study will be required for the
specific effects in question.
|
9.6.1
A number of outline zoning plans (OZPs)
and outline development plans (ODPs) were examined in order to review the
planning and development control framework.
The following OZPs and Layout Plans were reviewed; Pak Kong and Sha Kok
Mei Outline Zoning Plan No. S/SK-PK/7, Ho Chung OZP No. S/SK-HC/5, Hebe Haven
OZP No. S/SK-HH/3, Tseng Lan Shue OZP No. S/SK-TLS/5, Clearwater Bay North DPA
Plan No. DPA/SK-CWBN/1 and Sai Kung Town Outline Development Plan No. D/SK-T2.
9.6.2
The landscape-related land use zonings
present in the Study Area and relevant to the LVIA are as follows (refer to Figures A9.07A to C):
·
Green Belt - the planning function of
"GB" is to limit the encroachment of urban development into the
countryside.
·
Conservation Area - the planning function of a CA is to retain
existing natural characteristic of the area.
9.6.3
No part of the drainage channels will
be constructed through either Green Belt or Conservation Areas, therefore the
Project is considered not to be in conflict with the landscape zonings in the
area.
9.7.1
The landscape baseline of the Study
Area comprises landscape resources and landscape character. The existing landscape resources are shown
in Figures A9.05A to A9.05C. Landscape character has been categorized
into landscape character areas (LCAs) as per LCA boundaries shown in Figures A9.06A to A9.06D.
9.7.2
The LCAs identified were LCA1 Wooded
Upland, LCA2 Lowland Valley, LCA3 Waterfront Rural Fringe and LCA4 Residential
Rural Fringe. LCA1 is characterised by
well-wooded higher elevated land to the north and south of the Project. LCA2 is the lower land between elevated land
characterised mainly by agricultural or abandoned agricultural land. LCA3 is the essential land in proximity to
Sai Kung Hoi characterised by most agricultural or abandoned agricultural
land. LCA4 is characterised by rural
village development.
9.7.3
The tree survey report conducted for
this project indicated that just over 1,000 trees were identified with the main
species commonly found in Hong Kong and mostly in poor or fair condition.
Landscape
Resources During Construction
9.8.1
The landscape impacts on existing
landscape resources during construction will be generated by the removal of
existing vegetation, the modification of existing natural terrain and river
corridors. The impact on landscape resources is shown in Figures A9.08A to A9.08F and summarised in Figure A9.09.
Impacts on
Landscape Resources During Operation
9.8.2
The Project will not generate any
further changes, activities, movement or alterations to the baseline conditions
after completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the levels of impacts on landscape
resources above and beyond those produced during construction are predicted.
Impacts on
Landscape Character During Construction
9.8.3
The presence of the Project elements
within the LCAs will change their character.
The unmitigated impact on the landscape character is summarised in Figure A9.09
Impacts on
Landscape Character During Operation
9.8.4
The Project will not generate any
further changes, activities, movement or alterations to the baseline conditions
after completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the levels of impacts on landscape
character above and beyond those produced during construction are predicted.
Visual
Resources During Construction
9.10.1 The visual impacts on existing views during construction will be
generated by the removal of existing vegetation, the modification of existing
natural terrain and river corridors, and the activity generally associated with
construction works such as machinery, temporary buildings and hoarding.
9.10.2 The Project will not
generate any further changes, activities, movement or alterations to the
baseline conditions after completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the levels of
impacts on visual resources above and beyond those produced during construction
are predicted.
Introduction
9.11.1 Refer to Sections 9.5.24 -
9.5.25 for the rationale behind landscape mitigation measures, these
mitigation measures devised took into account the following:
·
consideration of surface finishes
within and next to the channel which are visually recessive;
·
feasibility of mitigation measures in
respect of funding, implementation phasing and maintenance.
Standards, Legislation
and Guidelines
9.11.2 New landscape works will be designed in accordance with:
·
Works Branch Technical Circular (WBTC)
17/2000 "Improvement to the Appearance of Slopes" which outlines the
principles and procedures recommended for all departments involved in new slope
formation and in upgrading and maintenance of existing slopes for improving the
aesthetic and environmental impact of slope works;
·
GEO Publication No 1/2000
"Technical Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and Bio-Engineering for
Man-made Slopes and Retaining Walls" which prescribes good practice for
the aesthetic landscape design of slopes and retaining walls; and
·
WBTC 14/2002 "Management and
Maintenance of Natural Vegetation and Landscape Works, and Tree
Preservation" and ETWBC No2/2004 “Maintenance of Vegetation and Hard
Landscape Features” which defines the management and maintenance
responsibilities for natural vegetation and landscape works, including both
softworks and hardworks, and the authorities for tree preservation and felling.
Minimum 1:1 compensatory ratio will be adopted in designing the planting works
within the site boundary.
Landscape
Mitigation Measures
9.11.3 The proposed landscape mitigation measures and how they would be
effective are illustrated in Figures
A9.13A to E. They would be
developed during the detailed design phase.
Residual Landscape Impacts
Residual
Visual Impacts
9.12 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
Requirements
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 1 –
Gabions with Pits to Plant Riparian Vegetation.
During detailed design, there should be co-ordination between the designers to
ensure that pits are allowed in gabions with sufficient soil for the planting
of riparian vegetation. Suggested species are shown in Table 9.5c.
However, exact locations and species will be developed during detailed design.
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 2 -
Rip Rap and Riffles Treatment to Channel Base. In some locations, the base of the existing
channels will remain untouched. However, for the locations which required
engineering treatment, the channel base should be covered in rip-rap which is
considered to be more aesthetically appropriate than fair-faced concrete.
Riffles with different water depths would be created during the detailed design
stage incorporating aquatic plants. (refer to Table 9.5c for aquatic planting list).
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 3 -
Surface Treatment of Flood Walls and Retaining Walls. At the design stage, there should be comprehensive planning by the
designers to ensure that the appearance of flood walls incorporates aesthetic
treatments as illustrated in Figure
A9.12A, which is considered to be aesthetically appropriate than fair-faced
concrete.
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 4 –
Compensatory Planting along Drainage Channel. At the
detailed design stage, tree and shrub planting should be included by the
designer using amenity species along footpath areas or woodland seedling tree
and shrub on slopes.
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 5 –
New Roadside Tree Planting along Access Roads. During
the detailed design stage, allowance should be made for planting of standard
size trees as illustrated in Figure
A9.12B. The minimum compensatory
ratio should be 1:1.
·
Landscape Mitigation Measure 6 –
Grass Concrete Slab. During the detailed design,
grass concrete slabs would be used in maintenance access over covered culverts
and access ramps to produce a more pronounced greening effect.
9.12.5
In addition to the Landscape
Mitigation Measures set out above, tree felling operations will be carried out
just before commencement of works and tree debris to be removed immediately
after felling. In order to speed up the restoration of greenery of the
environment, advance compensatory planting will be carried out as far as
practicable.
9.13.1
Summary of Key Findings – Landscape
Impacts: The landscape impacts on the landscape resources and character are
predicted to be negligible in LCA1 Wooded Upland, LCA 3 Waterfront Rural Fringe
and LCA 4 Residential Rural Fringe, even without mitigation measures incorporated
into the Project. The landscape impacts on the landscape resources and
character within LCA2 Lowland Valley are predicted to be moderate adverse
without mitigation measures incorporated into the Project due mainly to the
loss of approximately 442 existing trees. The incorporation of landscape
mitigation measures through tree planting, the greening of slopes and channel
edges would lessen the landscape impact to slight-moderate although overall the
impact would remain adverse.
9.13.2
Summary of Key Findings – Visual
Impacts: The unmitigated visual impact of the Project on VSR 1 is predicted to
be slight-moderate adverse, due to the loss of the surrounding vegetation and
the construction of a below ground level channel. The unmitigated visual impact
of the Project on VSR 2 is predicted to be slight-moderate adverse due to the
presence of an existing drainage channel, within the vicinity of the new works.
The unmitigated visual impacts of the Project on viewer groups at VSR3 near
Hiram's Highway are predicted to be moderate-significant adverse due to the
intrusion of the new works into existing views. The unmitigated visual impact
of the Project on VSR4 is predicted to be slight-moderate adverse due to the
loss of surrounding vegetation and the construction of the channel. It is
predicted that, through the incorporation of mitigation measures, adverse
visual impacts can be reduced to slight adverse except for VSR3 where moderate
adverse visual impact would be expected.
9.13.3
Conclusion on Significance of Residual
Impact. The significance of the
residual landscape and visual impacts is evaluated as described in Annex 10
of the Technical Memorandum to the EIA Ordnance (refer to Section 9.5.28). From a landscape planning perspective, the
main impact as a consequence is the residual landscape impacts within LCA2
Lowland Valley where slight-moderate adverse impacts are predicted and at VSR3
where moderate adverse visual impacts are predicted.
9.13.4
Despite the fact that the impacts
cannot be mitigated to achieve a beneficial level from a landscape planning
perspective, the presence of the drainage channels within a flat coastal
landscape is considered to be acceptable with the implementation of mitigation
measures (LMMs) recommended in this LVIA.
Table 9.5c Proposed Aquatic Planting for Drainage
Channels
Note: These species are indicative and provided for
reference only. The selection of the
final species will depend on the actual parameters of the water bodies designed
during the detailed design phase of the project
|
Species
|
Plant size
(cm)
|
Density /
Sqm
|
% cover
|
Block size
(minimum no. of
plants planted in a block)
|
|
Mix
1: shallow pools area: permanently wet, no fast flows
|
|
Cyperus
involucratus
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
27
|
|
Commelina
diffusa
|
10
|
9
|
5
|
72
|
|
Eleocharis
plantagineiformis
|
10
|
9
|
10
|
36
|
|
Euryale
ferox
|
10
|
4
|
10
|
12
|
|
Fimbristylis
complanata
|
10
|
13
|
5
|
26
|
|
Ludwigia
adscendens
|
20
|
13
|
20
|
52
|
|
Nymphaea
lotus var. dentata
|
20
|
4
|
10
|
12
|
|
Ottelia
alismoides
|
10
|
13
|
5
|
26
|
|
Polygonum
glabrum
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
36
|
|
Utricularia
aurea
|
10
|
13
|
5
|
26
|
|
Vallisneria
spiralis
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
26
|
|
|
|
Mix
2: shallow pools area: damp and seasonally wet, no fast flows
|
|
Bacopa
monnieri
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Fimbristylis
complanata
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Fimbristylis
subspicata
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Juncos
effusus
|
20
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Ludwigia
adscendens
|
20
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Polygonum
hydropiper
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Ranunculus
scleratus
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
27
|
|
Rumex
maritimus
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Saururus
chinensis
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
45
|
|
|
|
Mix
3: main ponds area: damp and seasonally wet
|
|
Commelina
diffusa
|
10
|
9
|
10
|
54
|
|
Cyperus
malaccensis var. brevifolius
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Fimbristylis
subspicata
|
20
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Juncos
effusus
|
20
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Polygonum
glabrum
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Polygonum
hydropiper
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
54
|
|
Rumex
maritimus
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
52
|
|
Schoenoplectus
mucronatus
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
54
|
|
|
|
Mix
4: main ponds area: permanently wet
|
|
Cyperus
involucratus
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
27
|
|
Cyperus
malaccensis var. brevifolius
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Ludwigia
adscendens
|
20
|
13
|
20
|
52
|
|
Polygonum
glabrum
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Polygonum
hydropiper
|
20
|
9
|
20
|
54
|
|
Schoenoplectus
mucronatus
|
20
|
9
|
10
|
54
|
|
|
|
Mix
5: dry bunds area (hydroseed mix, spreading rate 25g/m²)
|
|
Chloris
barbata
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
-
|
|
Chrysopogon
aciculatus
|
-
|
-
|
20
|
-
|
|
Eremochloa
ciliaris
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
-
|
|
Eremochloa
ophiuroides
|
-
|
-
|
20
|
-
|
|
Paspalum
distichum
|
-
|
-
|
30
|
-
|
|
Paspalum
orbiculare
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
-
|
|
|
|
Mix
6: buffer tree and shrub mix
|
|
Bridelia
tomentosa
|
Whip
|
1
|
20
|
-
|
|
Celtis
tetranda
|
Whip
|
1
|
20
|
-
|
|
Ficus
virens
|
Whip
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Macaranga
tanarius
|
Whip
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Melastoma
candidum
|
30
|
1
|
20
|
-
|
|
Rhaphiolepis
indica
|
30
|
1
|
20
|
-
|
|
|
|
Mix
7: Bamboo
|
|
Bambusa
tuldoides
|
90
|
1
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Mix
8: shrub mix for fringes of shallow pools
|
|
Embelia
laeta
|
30
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Melastoma
candidum
|
30
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Melastoma
sanguineum
|
30
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Phyllanthus
emblica
|
Whip
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Rhaphiolepis
indica
|
30
|
1
|
20
|
-
|
|
Sageretia
thea
|
30
|
1
|
10
|
-
|
|
Sapium
sebiferum
|
Whip
|
1
|
30
|
-
|
|
|
|
Mix
9: deep water pond
|
|
Euryale
ferox
|
20
|
4
per basket
|
-
|
Total
320 plants
|
|
Nymphaea
lotus var. dentata
|
20
|
4
per basket
|
-
|
Total
320 plants
|