In another post, I’ve put email correspondence regarding my belief Long Valley Nature Park is far worse for bird diversity than it could or should be: 長谷自然公園的雙重多樣性高於生物多樣性，但仍有改進的潛力.
Here, partly to show I wasn’t just being wise after the event, some correspondence in 2021, as work was underway [started late 2019, continued into 2024 – a remarkably long time given not a huge amount was changed!]
From me to the Environmental Protection Department, 25 March 2021:
I’m a keen birdwatcher, so very aware Long Valley, near Sheung Shui, is one of Hong Kong’s top birdwatching sites.
Especially with Covid, it’s a few months since I’ve visited, but I have seen concerning reports of work underway that is damaging the area, making it worse as a place for a wide variety of birds.
Yesterday came a report of a small marsh having been destroyed – filled in with rocks and rubble, which were for some reason being crushed into place with a heavy roller. To my eyes, this work is eco-vandalism; destroying one of Hong Kong’s few places for freshwater marsh birds including Painted Snipe – a key species of concern when birdwatchers and other conservationists successfully argued for protecting Long Valley from a bridge
planned by the KCR [now MTR].
Worse still, it seems this work is by the CEDD; I haven’t heard much about it, might be for the planned nature park, but if so this could be all park and no nature at this rate. I hope the EPD can investigate.
To me, there should be a halt to such destructive practices.
Ideally, promptly work to create some similar habitats: like small marshes with vegetation cover [even some cut vegetation, before new plants grow] where birds can hide; also arrange rice farming ready for the autumn migrants to arrive, such as the critically endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting.
EPD replied:
I refer to your preceding email dated 25 March 2021 regarding your concerns on Long Valley and our phone conversation just now.
While we will be investigating into the case, grateful if you provide us supplementary information on the location of the incident you observed. I attach a location map for your reference.
As discussed over the phone, we have also informed CEDD about the complaint. Please kindly confirm if you wish to disclose your personal contact information including email/ phone to the CEDD for subsequent follow up.
I did reply:
A bit delayed, but here’s a google map reference from my friend who took the photo: [deleted link here; old news now] Photo attached.
As my friend noted: “I got a reply from HKBWS after they asked around, apparently being made into irrigation channel, but i would have thought they would assess each field to see whether the habitat is already in good shape or not, that pond was tip top shape and housed plenty of good birds”
– so it’s exactly the kind of area that Long Valley was protected for; I was among those advocating protection, and in my messages noted I believed the soil ecology will be hard to reproduce. [Others did far more to protect Long Valley, vs MTR bridge plans]
Another message on birding Whatsapp group:
“Long valley. Quiet in all respects. Many fields scoured bare, others overgrown waiting for development. Not many birds about. OBP x6, r-t x1and Richard’s pipit x1, yellow wag x20+. No citrine found. Single Taiga fly, W-s starling, r-r swallow, S stonechat x3. “ – couple of photos also, attached.
Scouring areas bare is not the way to do conservation!
Nor are wetlands just easily made by taking land, adding water. See Wetland Park, say; I’ve done v brief EIA work at some West Rail ponds, which were about lifeless; more birds at sewage leaks in a nearby drainage channel.
I know re consultants involved etc.
Also know env consultants can be useless, just in it for the money, even if have fancy univ qualifications. [heard of a Harvard guy “surveying” Chek Lap Kok, cheerfully told people he was just here for the money; biostitutes a friend angrily told me]
You might also see if they would be open to having concerned birdwatchers for site visit, see if can protect some remaining areas, and maybe create some pools in short term.
I also sent the above to CEDD; led to quite some correspondence, including:
From CEDD, 26 April 2021:
CEDD undertakes to develop some 37 ha of land in Long Valley into a nature park (i.e. the Long Valley Nature Park (LVNP)) aiming to conserve and enhance its ecological value. We understand that the ecological value of Long Valley relies much on the existing farming practices, wet agriculture in particular. Hence, we will preserve the existing farmlands in Long Valley as far as possible, with only essential but minimal improvement/construction works undertaken. For instance, we need to remove the substandard temporary structures in the fields and asbestos sheets along the earth bunds, construct an ecologically-friendly irrigation channel system, as well as construct basic farming and visitor facilities mainly on originally disturbed areas. We will also restore/create some marshes, ponds and wet agricultural fields from banana fields, dry farmlands and abandoned fields to raise the ratio and diversity of wetland habitats. On the other hand, we have been carrying out habitat maintenance works at the fields that do not require any improvement/construction works.
While the use of appropriate plant and equipment is unavoidable for carrying out the above mentioned improvement/construction works, we have limited the use of plant and equipment to the smallest scale as far as possible. We have regularly consulted the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and our ecological advisors, i.e. the Conservancy Association and Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, on carrying out the improvement/construction works. Below are photos showing part of the improvement works completed before and after restoration of the wetland habitats at the LVNP.
Before Restoration After Restoration
Plant Operation on Abandoned Farmland for Restoration Works After Restoration for Abandoned Farmland During the construction works, the contractor will make use of the existing earth bund with some modification works as the temporary access. In fact, the temporary access is only limited to be used by small plants and trucks permitted under the contract. For the modification works on the earth bund, the contractor has placed the membrane sheet for separating the existing soil from the external materials. Upon completion of the works, the membrane sheet and external materials will be completely removed and the existing soil will be reinstated.
I was more upbeat in reply, including:
Many thanks for taking the time to make an in-depth reply.
This indeed seems very promising; including retaining the original soil.
But, I found comments from birders here weren’t real positive; and emailed:
Seems to be engineers at work, ignorant of ecology, and not really caring either. [If you do care, make changes. Not just defensive words…]
“While the farmland birds will hopefully return to the shallow ponds currently under construction, the irrigation ditches they modified are far from eco(most importantly bird)-friendly. I don’t know why they think a rectangular gabion-walled ditch is good enough for the birds, as these will make foraging along the water edge quite a challenge being so far from the water surface
This was taken last Friday [see below], and all “enhanced” ditches I saw are like thisIt would be quite difficult for birds (except long-necked long-legged species like ardeids) to stand on the perpendicular edge and try to strike the water surface especially in the dry winter season with low water level. Would have been much more eco-friendly if it was shaped in an inverted trapezoidal cross section I’ve talked to the HKBWS about this, so hopefully something can be done”
“Oh good grief… that’s just hopeless. As ever an over engineered solution. All that’s needed is a muddy ditch which has worked perfectly well up until now…”
“Agree. But seems like engineers just can’t resist doing “something” in their work site😂”
“That is rubbish.The design! Not the previous comment!”
“But that’s where they need to be guided by those who know better… this is just a DSD project with some farmland around itThis is of use to none of the bird species of importance at LV It’s more a lack of an ecological design perspective”
“I assume the design would have had to have been okayed by AFCD before construction?””If they insist on drainage capacity in a public park, even gabion in the inverted trapezoidal shape (with a very gentle slope gradient, of course) is much better than what they have now, especially when it’s overgrown”So, the CEDD has taken one of Hong Kong’s top birdwatching sites, and largely trashed it in the name of a “nature park”.
I hope this can be rectified.
Birders would be happy to help; not just criticise.Some know a lot about and even experienced in habitat management. Unlike your consultants, it seems.
Do you folks in CEDD want something to be proud of, which birders report highly of? Or a nightmare effort, consigning much of Long Valley’s value for birds to the history books?
I followed up:
In future, I hope you and colleagues can also visit Long Valley, maybe with friends, and show how your work has helped to increase the numbers of the special bird species there – like Painted Snipe, rails, snipe and other shorebirds, as well as Yellow-breasted Buntings.
Much depends on other places with migrants like the bunting, but maybe Painted Snipe breeding can increase, for instance.
Here’s hoping!
[And after I had complaints for sharing whatsapp group remarks; maybe correct, but still important what happens to Long Valley, its wildlife, and its value for people inc non-experts who surely will appreciate the wildlife.]
Then from me, 6 May 2021:
Quick, more positive update:
One friend telling me he likes the look of the new wetland areas, thinks they could be good in a couple of years.
– hope this proves true!
Led to this:
Thank you for your positive feedback via the email of 6 May 2021 on our effort made to provide more wetland habitats.
Regarding your concerns expressed via the emails of 26 and 28 April 2021, we would like to advise you of the following:
We are devoted to enhancing the wetland habitats and agricultural fields when developing the Long Valley Nature Park. Apart from an increase of about 8 ha wetlands, we also construct the irrigation channel which is an integral part of the improved irrigation system in support of the above.
Upon completion of the restoration and creation works, the wetland habitats will be raised to around 70% of the area in the Long Valley Nature Park. To maintain the enlarged wetland habitats, the improved irrigation system is required. We have consulted the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and our ecological advisors, i.e. The Conservancy Association and Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS) on the provision of the irrigation channel at the Park and adopted a design, rectangular type gabion channel with an aim to minimising the footprint of the irrigation channel so that the existing habitats could be preserved as far as practicable.
The gabion wall will also allow plants to grow between the rock crevices and create microhabitats for wildlife, insects and herpetofauna in particular.
In HKBWS’s latest site visit in April 2021, they found Long-toed Stint strolling in the paddy fields and Red-necked Phalarope foraging in the shallow water habitats. Nests and fledglings of different species such as Black-winged Stilt, Greater Painted-snipe and White-breasted Waterhen were also observed at the wetlands. It provides evidence that the wetland habitats (e.g. wet agricultural lands, shallow water habitats) have provided suitable places for the waterbirds.
I followed up:
Well, this seems more promising.
To me, good if the irrigation can sometimes mimic flooding; I believe the area is important partly for being floodplain, with nutrients periodically added this way [so, in some other parts of HK, wetlands are often not so rich; water too clean!].
Stilts can breed in open areas; phalaropes passage migrants that also [mostly] feed on sea. Nice to know of them, yet to me relatively easy.
BUT, to me, is good to know re breeding painted snipe – especially; a key species of Long Valley. With more habitat, can hope for population increase.
Also White-breasted Waterhen: widespread, but seems to need plenty of dense vegetation to nest in [my impression].
With additional wetlands, should find more birds; with some surprises in species that become regular.
Hopefully, too, a neat trail system, with hides and even simple screens with viewing slots.
I’d have some places like perches for kingfishers etc in front of hides;
chances to get very low down for taking photos from about eye level [as attached – Red-necked Stint; I was lying on sand, at Shui Hau, Lantau], which you don’t often get in reserves.
Maybe areas for regular public, might be noisier; some that are more for people who are more focused on trying to see/photograph birds etc. [not just experts; even if someone has never watched birds before and just has a phone camera, should be ok if they are ok with waiting, being quiet etc]
I may join the Birdw Soc online meeting re the construction work.
Still think you may find it useful to have some other birdwatchers visit the actual site; some might have ideas that are worthwhile, and more readily implemented now than later.
Inc some with wetland/other habitat management expertise.
On 29 May 2021:
I took part in HK Birdwatching Soc Zoom meeting re Long Valley yesterday evening.
To me, main thing was it helped show a site visit/meeting including some society members, maybe others who are concerned and knowledgeable, could be useful.
With you, but also seems AFCD vital.
While if CEDD, AFCD etc closed to ideas etc, well that’s too bad, especially for a taxpayer-funded project for a public nature park.
Does seem the degree of secrecy has been remarkable for such a project.
Maybe there are concerns re criticisms, some highly sensitive people.
– but surely better to have criticisms of plans, which can be amended if needs be.
Rather than afterwards, when the project is launched.
[I had a short meeting with Wetland Park planners somewhat early on; led to no changes. Afterwards, I believed the park sucks big time, given the vast monies spent, for relatively unsuccessful wetland areas. But, maybe no one really cares.]
From your emails, I think you do care; it’s my hope that in future you and colleagues would like to bring friends, family, show them this nature park you helped create.
Yesterday, did see re wetland creation at Long Valley; heard there may be improvements already, and plenty of potential for more. Good.
But also things to wonder about.
For me, striking your eco consultancy does not list birds.
Birdw Soc has not involved membership; to me, terrible. Members were vital to helping the push to protect Long Valley from KCR bridge plans.
Members also have a vast amount of knowledge, experience; can be a great source of ideas.
– some have worked on habitat management etc. Some visited many wetland reserves, so can draw on ideas from around the world.
Access was a massive concern in meeting yesterday.
To me, the map with small public area looks foolish; something drawn up in a distant office maybe, not suiting reality.
Clearly, could have people walk along at least the eastern boundary, maybe around all the area; can’t really restrict maybe.
Could have some viewpoints etc, maybe screens so not readily seen by birds nearby.
What of access elsewhere?
– we saw drainage channels, temporary access roads, marked on maps.
But what about the paths for visitors; and for people working in area?
What about bird hides, small viewing spots etc?
Will birders be able to access areas that regular people – just out for fun, instagram photos, relaxation by nearby residents – are supposed to keep away from?
How to limit access to key areas; should have core areas even within the biodiversity zone, where shy birds can feed, breed in peace [highlighting this in February 2024: the answer is No; lacks areas for birds that prefer some distance between them and humans].
How about one way system idea?
Will there be wetlands that might look ugly to engineers like you? – dirty [nutrient rich] water and mud, dense vegetation?
Anyone mention idea of building sand/soil bank or two, maybe partly used to screen humans from sight – in hope of attracting nesting kingfishers, even bee-eaters?
Pheasant-tailed Jacana mentioned? – potential for creating suitable breeding area?
Importantly: need flexibility, so can improve things that work, stop things that are not successful. We’re none of us all-knowing gods!
Well, just a flurry of ideas here as I write this. Others have more concerns, ideas; it is very late. for such brainstorming, but still worth a try.
- and that was evidently that; my contact at CEDD perhaps just gave up here!