In February 2000 when about 97% of the field surveys had been completed, the Study Team confirmed from the field team members that there was a total of four days saved from the 134 allocated days. The four days of survey effort, initially budgeted for surveying Montane Forest, had been saved and re-allocated for surveying other habitats, including Freshwater/Brackish Wetland, Natural Watercourse, Intertidal Mudflat and Cultivation (10).
As most of the montane forests are located on steep slopes or in ravine valleys which are almost impossible to access and, in many areas, the conditions are too dangerous for our surveyors to survey alone. Hence, four days of effort has been saved from surveying the habitat. As montane forest is located at high altitude (> 600 m above sea level) and of limited distribution, and the characteristics of this habitat are much less heterogeneous than those of the high variability vegetation habitats (eg lowland forest and mixed shrubland), it was considered reasonable and acceptable to shift the unexpended days to other habitats. It was believed that the redistribution of these unexpended days would not affect the quality and accuracy of the mapping of montane forest.
Based on input from our field surveyors, proposals to utilise the four saved survey days for habitats which satisfy the prioritisation criteria (which have also been employed in the proposal for usage of the remaining six contingency days) (see Section 5.2.1 for criteria). Based on the criteria, it was proposed to spend one day on the wetland at Sheung Miu Tin, one day on natural watercourse at Shum Wat, one day on intertidal mudflat at Kei Ling Ha Hoi and one day on cultivation at Shap Pat Heung. The usage of the remaining four days of ecological field survey effort is summarised below (Table 5.2b):
Table 5.2b Effort Allocation for Remaining Unexpended Days |
| Habitat Type |
Location |
Site No. |
No. of Day(s) Allocated |
Rationale for Selection |
| Wetland |
Sheung Miu Tin |
165 |
1 |
Survey results on wetland habitats showed low mapping accuracy.Other habitats tend to intermingle and mis-classified with this habitat type.Habitat highly heterogeneous in nature and vulnerable to disturbance.Site proposed by ESMG (Annex C of TR2). |
| Natural Watercourse |
Shum Wat |
166 |
1 |
Survey results on natural watercourse habitats showed that the habitat is highly variable and vulnerable to disturbance (eg pollution).Site proposed by ESMG (Annex C of TR2). |
| Intertidal Mudflat |
Kei Ling Ha Hoi |
167 |
1 |
Habitat has indicative high value. Survey results on mudflat habitats showed that they are susceptible to disturbance. Site proposed by ESMG (Annex C of TR2). |
| Cultivation |
Shap Pat Heung |
138 |
1 |
Survey results on cultivation habitats showed that some mapped areas have been mis-classified and should be re-classified high value habitats (e.g. lowland forest and wetlands). Only a small portion of this site was surveyed due to the large area and complexity of the site. |
The initial and actual allocation of survey efforts to individual habitat categories is summarised in Table 5.2c (see Section 3.1 of TR2 for details on initial survey effort allocation). The total number of survey days spent on the high, medium and low ecological value habitats are 93, 39 and 8, respectively.
| Table 5.2c Allocation of Ecological Survey Efforts (Days) to the Habitat Categories |
Habitat Category |
No. of Days Initially Allocated |
No. of Days Un-used |
Days from Remaining Contingency |
Days from Unexpended Days |
Total No. of Surveys Days Actually Spent |
| High Value |
|
|
|
|
|
| Fung Shui Forest |
8 |
0 |
|
|
8 |
| Montane Forest |
8 |
4 |
|
|
4 |
| Lowland Forest |
15 |
0 |
|
|
15 |
| Mixed Shrubland |
15 |
0 |
2 |
|
17 |
| Freshwater/Brackish Wetland |
15 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
18 |
| Natural Watercourse |
13 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
| Mangrove |
6 |
0 |
|
|
6 |
| Seagrass Bed |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Intertidal Mudflat |
8 |
0 |
|
1 |
9 |
| Total : 93 |
| Medium Value |
|
|
|
|
|
| Shrubby Grassland |
6 |
0 |
|
|
6 |
| Baeckia Shrubland |
8 |
0 |
|
|
8 |
| Plantation or Plantation/Mixed Forest |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Fishpond/Gei Wai |
6 |
0 |
|
|
6 |
| Sandy Shore |
4 |
0 |
|
|
4 |
| Rocky Shore |
4 |
0 |
|
|
4 |
| Cultivation |
8 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
| Total: 39 |
| Low Value |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bare Rock or Soil |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Grassland |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Modified Watercourse |
3 |
0 |
|
|
3 |
| Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Golf Course/Urban Park |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Quarry |
1 |
0 |
|
|
1 |
| Total: 8 |
| Negligible Value |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rural Industrial Storage/Containers |
0 |
0 |
|
|
0 |
| Landfill |
0 |
0 |
|
|
0 |
| Other |
0 |
0 |
|
|
0 |
| Total No. of Days |
134 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
140 |
(10 ) The proposal for use of the four expended days was submitted to the ESMG on 3 February 2000 and approval was confirmed on 11 February 2000. |
|