各位，項目倡議人己提交進一步生態調查的資料，環諮會將在11月10日討論有關結果!!!!!!!

有關結果己上載到環諮會網頁：
http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/englis ... E_Paper_27_2008.pdf

如果你有意見，請盡量在會前fax予環諮會袐書Ms. Loletta Lau (fax no. 2872 0603)，傳予環諮會委員及主席！！！

  The conclusion is that Lung Mei has "Low" ecological value!!!

痴線！鬼話連篇！真係睇到火都黎埋！

7. The survey design is considered appropriate for EIA purpose in
accordance with paragraph 2.3 of GN 7/2002: “In most cases, it is impractical
for an ecological baseline survey to provide exhaustive ecological information
of a site (e.g. an exhaustive species list). It should also be noted that
ecological assessment of an EIA differs from an academic study (e.g.
autecology of a certain species) in that the latter aims at revealing specific
biological information in great details or depth. An ecological baseline
survey is more general in nature and mainly aims at revealing the general
ecological profile of the study area to facilitate the subsequent impact
assessment.”

Consultant 班人用得幾多時間做 survey？網友們又用左幾多時間落龍尾？政府或者 Consultant 覺得點吾 practical 、點吾想做都好，網友做左o既成績同資料都已經係鐵一般事實，大家都見得到。

點可以話因為佢地自己個 ecological baseline survey 可以 general D，就接受一個垃圾 report，而吾理已經眾所周知o既鐵一般事實？簡直係本末倒置！

即係話, 民間動員做了一個詳細的 exhaustive species list,
佢地完全不聞不問, 連參考都冇提及。
淨係識得講自已冇能力咁做,
只係可以求其做一個粗疏的報告,
重叫人信佢個報告。

等於一個學生, 冇能力做好本身的功課,
人地同學做好哂, 重好詳細,
佢就重好意思叫老師唔好理其他同學付出的努力,
畀佢最高分。
我覺得這正就是無恥的行為。

這報告得出的結論"Lung Mei has "Low" ecological value",
是對比幾個site得出來, 不過全是由形容詞組成, 沒有data support,很空泛。
反之, 我們的學者版友做的對比幾個site的生態價值,
羅列出各site的 species data , 比這報告專業得多,
而且得成結論是龍尾具高生態價值。

關於民間調查，第 18 頁提左一句咁多o羅！

Overall Ecological Value:

Overall Low, taking into consideration the
information reported by members of the
public recently and the additional extensive
intertidal surveys.

完全將事實扭曲，佢地 consider 左乜野？佢地自己又有幾 extensive？

7. The survey design is considered appropriate for EIA purpose in
accordance with paragraph 2.3 of GN 7/2002: “In most cases, it is impractical
for an ecological baseline survey to provide exhaustive ecological information
of a site (e.g. an exhaustive species list). It should also be noted that
ecological assessment of an EIA differs from an academic study (e.g.
autecology of a certain species) in that the latter aims at revealing specific
biological information in great details or depth. An ecological baseline
survey is more general in nature and mainly aims at revealing the general
ecological profile of the study area to facilitate the subsequent impact
assessment.”



hahahaha....
is there anything more ridiculous than the highlighted part?
the aim of a survey doesn't reveal the reality, but "facilitate the subsequent impact assessment".....

報告中指出:
"17. Members of the public reported that there is a total of 165 marine
faunal species recorded in Lung Mei from December 2007 to October 2008.
The list has been reviewed by the consultant but has not been independently
verified for accuracy in taxonomic identification (as it is very difficult to
confirm species identification through photographs). It is also understood that
field surveys conducted by members of the public utilized methodologies
different from the EIA report and the additional extensive intertidal surveys.
Findings of the surveys by the public and those of the EIA report and the
additional extensive intertidal surveys would, therefore, invariably differ and it
might not be appropriate to make direct comparison between the data obtained
from these different surveys."



比譽:
(1)一個曾經不合格, 沒有盡力做好survey, 老師要他再做多次功課的學生
有何資格去評論另一個比他勤力做survey的學生?

現在就算一般的攝影器材比起以前已有很大進步, 可以拍攝到很仔細的特徵,
外國很多生態研究亦已很著重Photo Id. Method,
在不需採集樣本情況下, 可以作為species id 的方法之一。
一些研究, 甚至可以憑照片分辨認出個別個體。
關於photo id.這一點, 資深的鳥攝人士可能更清楚。
當然照片id方法不能保証全部正確, 但總比連照片也沒提供的報告更佳,
只要照片中找到物種的特徵, 是一個可以接受的調查方法。
如果他們連普通的照片 id 方法也不能掌握, 談何專業?

(2)一個只是抽樣式的調查, 當然不能和一個徹底的普查相比。

報告沒有好好反省自己的不足,
反而去評論比他更詳細的調查。
荒謬!

[ 本帖最後由 SimFish 於 2008-11-4 17:10 編輯 ]

真是很求其, 寫一堆廢話, 其實最少都要有些references, 譬如列出所有記錄到的Species, 列出呢一間做Eco 顧問的職員履歷, 比較民間參與調查的市民履歷, 咁先睇到邊一邊的報告有更高的可信性.

其實佢列出的四個sites 的比較都有問題, 都顯示唔到究竟有冇代表性, 究竟是間顧問公司自己故意選擇的地點, 還是用最基本, 在大學都學過的隨機方法取樣作分析?

其實都完全睇唔明呢個報告的各項結論點解, 單是可重建方面, 只有龍尾可重建, 其他三個就唔可以, 咁究竟點解呢? 每一點都完全唔清楚, 根本就是一個完全不合格的報告, 簡直完全meet 唔到最基本的要求.

重有係年初個會嘅報告：
http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/englis ... CE_Paper_1_2008.PDF

其實, 我覺得佢地係為政府可以展開工程在鋪路, 所以,
可吾可以
1. 就這份報告的不合理處做一些分析, 將結果交與新聞界
2. 就你們調查所得, 與這份報告寄去世界性的討論環保的雜誌/學術期刊, 題目己經吾再係"保護龍尾" 而係(這份)環評報告的合理性和角色.

If any one want to organize a protest on that day ..... pls voice out as I would like to be there

一味響度話low low...common, very common..但又拿唔到實質的data, list和數字...我都識寫啦!!:
"After intensive study in my garden, it is found to support high diversity of species. Most of the fauna & flora I found were very rare and endemic to the Hong Kong. Based on the ecological value of my garden, my house should have very very high value!!!"


佢真係覺得d岩岸生物係move freely in the sea??!!!! 你試下潛水見唔見到d相手蟹, d鼓蝦, d籐壺好自由自在咁響個海度游??!!!
佢地係好需要呢d岩石或泥灘做shelter, 或者做surface area俾佢地躲藏又好, 棲息又好, 繁殖都好!! 叫佢地move freely in the sea?? 一定即刻做點心啦!!! 咁簡單的野我都知啦....寫果條友知唔知咩叫Micro-habitat架...??


而照佢咁講, 香港..甚至世界大部份地區的海岸, 真係冇乜保育價值...可個個海岸見到的野, 一定會可以隔離個岸見到架啦!! 可以鏟晒佢啦....唉...
Habitat的conservation, 係應該用一個整體去考慮, 並唔係話呢度果度d生物可有可無...
郊野公園的呢一個林, 同那一個林, 都可能係差唔多野...並唔係話咁就可以斬左果個林就冇乜影響...究竟佢明唔明白"郊野公園"."保護地方"成立的意義架...


仲有我真係好想叫佢去揀是但一個灘, 要佢在一年內搵晒我地果差不多200隻野出黎!!! 如果佢真係可以在一個灘搵晒, 我拜佢做契哥!!



龍尾在佢Active search調查的6個sites之中排第4, 但在討論中只集中比較佢同另外3個"similar ecological characteristics" 的 Quantitaive Survey...係唔係想轉移視聽呢??!!



寫得呢句野既人簡直係可恥!! 以為自己讀多少少書, 質疑人地辛苦出來的作業...!!
最諷刺係...佢自己個份報告同埋個list, 根本都唔駛verified添!! 因為有少少知識的人都知..係垃圾..不知所謂...



係呀! 今次我好贊成佢!! 根本冇得做direct comparison...因為高下立見!! 佢果d data..吹水多過事實..., 我地果d先係現實的資料, 梗係冇得比較啦...


寫呢份野的朋友!! 唔該你檢討一下自己大學讀邊科!! 學過d咩!! 學下認錯!! 學下接納人地意見啦!! 唉...

[ 本帖最後由 blackdogto 於 2008-11-4 21:20 編輯 ]

睇完資料，只想到一個童話故事：

《皇帝的新衣 - 荒謬環評龍尾版》

從前某熱帶小國有一個皇帝，
有日忽發奇想，要到北極遊覽一下，
太子知道了，當下大力讚成，
還主動替皇帝訂製一套保暖衣，
聘請全國最有名的裁縫師來製造。

裁縫師只花了兩三天功夫，便將保暖衣縫好了，
交到皇帝手中，說道：「這保暖衣透氣度甚低，
只有關節活動所必需的三十個小洞，
皇上大可放心穿上它到北極遊玩。」
太子也在旁大加讚賞，鼓勵皇帝馬上起程。

皇帝聽了非常高興，
決定在出發之前穿上保暖衣出巡，
讓廣大國民見識一下。

出巡當日，一班喜愛攝影的小朋友給皇帝拍了不少照片，
大叫：「哎唷！皇上的新衣上滿是洞洞，足足有一百六十多個，
透氣度高得很，去北極一定冷死！」

裁縫師聽了，說：「縫衣服不是數學，保暖衣是按太子的規格縫製的，
而規格只要求洞不要太多，沒有說明一百個不合格。」

小朋友又說：「哎唷，皇上簡直衣不敝體，照片上明明見到皇上的丁丁！」
裁縫師狡辯道：「照片難以清楚確認皇上身上的器官，
你又沒有按照規格的要求找專家測量洞的大小，
怎能和我找到的相提並論，你怎知道拍到的不是皇上的手指？」

太子見形勢不對，再給小朋友鬧下去就要露饀了，
便硬說皇上專機快要起飛，前呼後擁地將皇帝送到機場。

皇帝到了北極，一下機便覺渾身不對勁，
冷風由保暖衣的上百多個洞口湧入，
不消一會便四肢麻木、全身殭硬 - 冷死了。

留在國內的太子早有準備，
一收到皇帝駕崩的消息，便馬上打開國庫，
取出金銀珠寶清還之前的債務，
更以此換來各路諸侯的效忠擁護，
安穩地坐上了皇帝的寶座。

至於小朋友拍得皇上丁丁的照片，
就印成了一本本小冊子，在民間廣為流傳，
永遠地為這個無恥專業裁縫師的荒謬行為作見證，
還成為人體解剖學的重要參考紀錄。

[ 本帖最後由 BWA 於 2008-11-4 22:35 編輯 ]

仲有3點未講:

成份補充資料, 完全冇交代過Species richness的問題...對生物有少少認識的人, 應該都知道Species richness同Species diversity係生態價值的重要指標!! 唔係下下要講都稀有性Rarity的....報告內容對此輕輕帶過!! 好明顯避重就輕! 卑鄙!!



報告話龍尾冇重要的孕育及繁殖地...而其他地方就有紅樹林及海草床代之...
但好明顯, 我在龍尾係見到好多好多魚仔, 蟹仔, 墨魚蛋, 墨魚仔, 螺蛋, 海牛卵....盧慈河口位, 有咁多魚迴遊...而更明顯的, 係好多好多海星在該處交配繁殖, 那邊蟹又搞野, 這邊海牛又嬉春!!! 咁都話No significant nursery or breeding ground??!!! 無論岩石, 泥地, 河口...所有地方都有佢地在行房, 在生產, 在育幼, 在成長!!!
究竟佢significant nursery or breeding ground既定義係咩呀?? 酒池肉林呀??!!



講到Re-creatability(可再建立性)....竟然夠膽死咁講....真係想叫佢去淺水灣Recreate一個高生態岩岸俾我睇...
呢位師兄真係吹水唔抹嘴...


[ 本帖最後由 blackdogto 於 2008-11-5 00:16 編輯 ]

'15. In comparison with other sites covered in the additional surveys, the
diversity of species at Lung Mei was not regarded as high. The marine fauna
recorded there were mostly typical species that can be found on other sandy
and rocky shores in Hong Kong. Lung Mei did not appear to serve as
critical/unique habitats for species of conservation importance, or support
significant populations of such species.'
Someone kindly tell me where are those spots of 'other sandy and rocky shores in HK'?

'17. Members of the public reported that there is a total of 165 marine
faunal species recorded in Lung Mei from December 2007 to October 2008.
The list has been reviewed by the consultant but has not been independently
verified for accuracy in taxonomic identification (as it is very difficult to
confirm species identification through photographs). It is also understood that
field surveys conducted by members of the public utilized methodologies
different from the EIA report and the additional extensive intertidal surveys.Findings of the surveys by the public and those of the EIA report and the
additional extensive intertidal surveys would, therefore, invariably differ and it
might not be appropriate to make direct comparison between the data obtained
from these different surveys.'
Agree! since I saw how 'pros' like them conduct their survey with my own eyes and how they turned the beach upside down!
Will those who wrote these craps dare to face to face with people like us and tell what they've done to prove their nonsence?

[ 本帖最後由 kingarthur 於 2008-11-5 13:20 編輯 ]

The removal of rocks/hard objects in the intertidal zone will be
conducted progressively during low tide (i.e. 10 m2 for each removal)
and under the supervision of a qualified fish specialist.
The “cleared” areas will be properly fenced off (e.g. by geotextile
curtain) immediately after removal of the rocks/hard objects. A
qualified fish specialist will inspect the areas beforehand to avoid
trapping any Two-spot Goby and Tropical Sand Goby inside the
enclosed area; and
A trial will be conducted in the beginning of the rock removal work so
as to fine-tune the above method, if necessary.

佢當大家都係stupid，搵個人去睇住部bulldozer剷泥車，唔好剷到Ｄ有保育價值的魚，剷完之後，再確保佢唔好番黎？！

個顧問唔知係咪寫到無野好寫，無實質的data好寫，就作Ｄ鬼話連篇來迷惑大眾，我相信ACE委員都有清晰的頭腦，佢地野搵人信都幾奇！

又係嗰句, 如果只微微觀睇 "200m", 以consultants (或代表正苦)的思維, 香港冇乜海岸有生態價值

可能寫呢段嘢個顧問諗住自己會親身去陪住架鏟泥車都未定。

佢可能化身牛背鷺, 跟住bulldozer後面, 見有魚就捉.  consultants 不顧自身安全去救魚仔, 偉大!