Landscape Classification

Endeavour Fern Gully at Red Hill

Endeavour Fern Gully at Red Hill was classified by the National Trust in 2007. This property was donated to the Trust by Mr John Douglas in 1973. The Friends group under the leadership of Mr Stewart Calder erected boardwalks , fenced the gully and established a walking track. The Gully was opened to the public in 1989. We have recently obtained funding to replace boardwalks, control weeds and revegetate the upper slopes above the gully and we are hoping to reopen the property to the public by the end of 2009.

Devilbend Natural Features Reserve Draft Management Plan Submission

These comments are submitted to comply with the closing date for submissions. However, the National Trust of Australia (Vic) Mornington Peninsula Branch, referred to throughout this document as the National Trust, reserves the right to make further comment on this draft management plan when the Monash University aquatic ecology research, including a report on the impact of human access on the shore and water birds at Devilbend has been made available to the public.

General Comments
The National Trust in Australia works to conserve, protect and interpret heritage places and objects of cultural and natural significance that contribute to the public’s experience of our indigenous and non-indigenous Australian heritage including significant natural places.

In1996 the National Trust classified Devilbend as a place of significance which because of its restricted public access had created favourable conditions for a wildlife refuge. The classification noted at the time that the site was developing as a nature reserve, providing a safe habitat for birds and wildlife.

Since then the Mornington Peninsula and the site have changed significantly. The Mornington Peninsula has undergone rapid urbanisation with resultant loss of bushland and habitat for the indigenous animals. Today, notwithstanding Shire policy, violent adverse weather events associated with climate change cause people to feel anxious about growing and retaining trees and shrubs around their homes. Public indemnity risk results in dead trees and limbs being cut down in public places and fire plans are devised to protect human assets rather than the fauna and flora. All this clearing of plants leads to further loss of biodiversity. Freeways divide viable habitat areas rendering them unsustainable, road improvements enable vehicles to travel faster and have become death traps for fauna. Landowners build destructive electrified kangaroo-proof fences around their properties. These fences efficiently kill smaller animals such as echidnas, possums, gliders and birds.

By comparison, Devilbend has become an increasingly tranquil haven for wildlife. The reserve has increased in size since 1996 and with the continued exclusion of public access, the populations of birds have increased. Today in excess of 150 bird species are observed in the reserve including rare and threatened species and over 200 plant species have been identified (compared with 140 species in 1996). The NT is currently updating its classification of Devilbend to reflect the new designation as a Natural Features Reserve with its redefined boundaries, to build on the indigenous history of the place, to update statistics of bird and other wildlife populations and to upgrade its level of significance.

Because of the rapid decline in indigenous biodiversity the National Trust is increasingly concerned to protect and enhance our remaining natural places. Devilbend presents an invaluable opportunity to not only protect existing populations of rare, threatened and more common animals, but also to redress some of the negative effects of development on the Peninsula. Devilbend is almost certainly responsible for sustaining a healthy population of Coots (Fulica atra) on the Peninsula and possibly other species as well. The NT believes the opportunity to enhance the habitat and conservation values of this reserve is too important to compromise the project by adopting half measures.

This is a rare opportunity to give back something to the community. The National Trust is serious about conservation and believes it must strive to achieve the best possible outcomes and that management decisions must be informed by scientific evidence. The strident voices of those who demand short-term gratification by participating in activities which can be enjoyed elsewhere on the Peninsula, must be resisted. Progress towards the primary objective must proceed in a methodical manner, adopting advice based upon approved scientific methods.

The National Trust believes that an understanding of and support for conservation values by the community is the most effective means by which to improve awareness of the need for this heritage protection. The NT works to actively promote conservation values through conservation and education campaigns. It is in this spirit that the National Ttust has entered into a joint agreement with the Devilbend Foundation to seek funding for ongoing community education to monitor and evaluate the fauna and flora in the reserve. The National Trust therefore has a very strong interest in and commitment to the reserve as a conservation area.

Specific Comments
The primary concern is with the Draft Plan’s interpretation of the definition of a Natural Features Reserve. “Conservation is the primary objective in a Natural Features Reserve, and passive recreation, education and research are permitted where they do not conflict with this primary objective”

Peter Watkinson, Executive Director Public Land, on behalf of the Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC, Minister for Environment and Climate Change, 7.4.08. This is reiterated in similar words on P46.
It is the National Trust’s view that this draft fails to satisfy the definition. In this draft, recreation appears to be at least as important as conservation, whereas education and research (funded by Parks Victoria) appears to play an insignificant part. Therefore the National Trust would prefer to see a management plan in which natural conservation is clearly and unambiguously the primary objective. Recreation, research and education are permitted where it can be shown scientifically these activities do not conflict with this primary objective.

For example:
All the area zoned as high quality habitat in the Practical Ecology Report, that is all the water bodies and adjacent shorelines as well as other areas (Practical Ecology Report, Vertebrate Fauna Habitat Quality, Fauna and Flora Assessment, Devilbend Reserve, Map 7) must be protected. This means recreation is not permitted in this area since it does not contribute to conservation and has the high possibility of threatening the values (DRAFT Excerpt from Draft Ecological Risk Report Table 8). Priority Risks identified during the workshop:

Fishing on shorebirds and waterfowl, Score 16, Risk Category: High Access on wetland vegetation and swamp scrub, Score 16, Risk Category: High. Education and research are permitted when it can be shown that these activities will significantly contribute to the conservation of the reserve.

The area zoned for conservation should be increased. Conservation zoning of 37% of the site does not constitute a clear and unambiguous intention to conserve the natural values of the site.

The combination “Conservation and Recreation” zone cannot be applied confidently in Devilbend at the present time. It may have worth in other parks, but because of the absence of clearly defined boundaries or vegetation buffers this zone would be impossible to monitor satisfactorily and could potentially enable negative consequences for the primary objective of conservation. This zoning would particularly affect the retention and protection of indigenous artefacts and sacred places. It cannot be assumed that recreation will not conflict with conservation values of the waterbirds and rare birds such as the Sea-eagle and the Blue-billed Duck in these zones and therefore the Precautionary Principle must be invoked. This zoning cannot realistically prevent the spread or introduction of noxious animals eg marron or carp. This classification cannot safely be employed at present. The situation may change when measures such as revegetation have provided significant buffer zones but this is not the case at present. At Devilbend a “Conservation and Recreation” zone is a profoundly contradictory term.

Ideally the final management plan will include at least as much emphasis on non-conflicting research and educational programs as there is on recreation, both in resource allocation and funding. There is a strong community commitment to and interest in Devilbend. Encouraging this commitment through promotion and funding of educational and research programs can only enhance the conservation values of the reserve and of the larger region. Particularly in the short term these programs have a greater potential to realise the primary objective compared with recreational programs with assessed high risk conservation outcomes.

Suggestions:

1. Implement a Management Plan which unambiguously promotes conservation as a primary objective and permits recreation, research and education where it can be shown scientifically that these activities do not conflict with the primary objective.
2. Implement a 10-year moratorium on any proposed new recreation within the reserve. Limit any new activities to the periphery of the reserve, ie walking, cycling, equestrian tracks are constructed around the perimeter of the reserve but do not enter into the reserve. Stipulate a 10 year review, when revegetation may have formed viable buffers to protect indigenous sites, rare flora, birds and other wildlife.
3. Increase the area zoned as Conservation. Eliminate the “Conservation and Recreation” zone category.
4. Work with community and other groups to undertake and fund ongoing research to inform future conservation management plans.