Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Jordan Crugnale
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Phil Wright
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
    • Zoe Geyer
  • Features
    • Features 2022
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Bass Coast Prize
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
  • Contact us

Detours ahead

25/2/2022

6 Comments

 
Picture
By Dave Sutton
 
THE Wonthaggi-Inverloch inland shared pathway was proposed a number of years ago utilising the unused road reserves between Wonthaggi and Inverloch. I have long advocated that these unused road reserves would be an ideal biolink across the landscape that would retain the existing intact indigenous remnant vegetation, provide good habitat for native fauna and, with careful planning, could double as a cycle/walking trail between the two townships.
 
The design of the shared pathway could and should retain the existing remnant vegetation and cater for the cycle/walking trail alongside existing vegetation and use the opportunity to plant additional indigenous vegetation that would include overstorey, mid-storey and groundcover plants. I do, however, have serious reservations about the current plan being put forward by the council.

The plan will encroach on significant remnant vegetation which has high biodiversity values and provides excellent habitat for indigenous mammals, reptiles, birds and insects. The plan fails to recognise the value of the native vegetation and the eco-services it provides for native fauna species.
 
I estimate the length of the latest published version of the trail, in areas where the most significant remnant vegetation remains relatively intact, is approximately 3km in length x 20.12 metres wide (the width of most unused road reserves) which equals 6.04 hectares of prime bushland.

The proposed trail would cut though the remnant vegetation, effectively dividing it into two parallel corridors of vegetation. It is unclear how wide the path would be but it would need to be wide enough to cater for cyclists.
Assuming the path is to be one of the widths below, vegetation loss is calculated to be as follows:
  • At 1.5 metres wide = 0.45ha,
  • At 3 metres wide = 0.9ha
  • At 4 metres wide = 1.2ha
  • At 6 metres wide = 1.8ha

None of this is acceptable. To further fragment an already highly fragmented landscape in 2022 when we know that loss of biodiversity, through clearing of vegetation at a global scale, is contributing to climate change should not be an option. If this was to proceed, the resilience of the remaining vegetation would be lost through weed invasion, change of hydrology and reduction of the tree canopy in an already narrow strip, causing drying out of the understorey. Any remaining biodiversity values would be considerably diminished.
 
It is worth noting:
  • Bass Coast Shire has a very low percentage of remnant indigenous vegetation due to historic land clearing and ongoing urban development.
  • The council has declared a climate emergency that one would assume any decision-making would include consideration of environmental values.
  • The council has a Natural Environment Strategy  that aims for a  1.5% increase in revegetation across the landscape per annum,
  • The council, in partnership with Bass Coast Landcare Network, has an ongoing, very successful biolinks project that is focussed on revegetating creeks and gullies across the Shire,
  • The council’s mapping layer on its website, notably across the area where the shared trail is proposed, shows ALL the unused road reserves for this proposed pathway designated as a biolink.
​The question is: how does this proposal fit with the above council policies, actions and aims?
 
I see the inland trail as an opportunity to get the landowners on board and achieve a net vegetation gain as opposed to a net loss of a significant area of valuable biodiversity.

​I am aware of at least one landholder alongside the trail who would consider giving up a corridor of their pasture for the trail if it meant retaining remnant vegetation. Others could possibly agree to do the same or be open to strategic land purchases if the existing vegetation is retained and revegetation is undertaken as a significant high priority component of the project.

 
Land clearing is death by a thousand cuts. We live in a world of rapid climate change and we are going to need to retain every tree possible for a sustainable future.
Coastal won't work
By Danny Drummond
 
  Regarding the two options for a track from Wonthaggi to Inverloch – inland or coastal – the issues of public land management are more complex than some commentators may think. It’s important to note the Bunurong coast is a State Park with strict planning controls.
  The inland option is through unused road reserves leased for grazing.  The concept for a walking/cycle track along unused road reserves between Wonthaggi and Drowleys Road goes back more than 20 years. The then Department of Conservation and Natural Resources called for ideas to create a track from Phillip Island to Wilsons Prom.
  It was recognised back then that the Bunurong coast from Cape Paterson to Inverloch was not suitable for a number of environmental reasons. It would require vegetation clearing along its full length with few options for offset planting. There are also a number of endangered species along that coast.
  The road reserve option, on the other hand, required less vegetation clearing plus the existing cleared sections would be replanted, providing far more habitat than was lost. A wildlife corridor being created the whole way.
  Where the road reserve is fully vegetated there may be options to place the track on cleared adjacent land in consultation with adjoining landowners.
  This track will provide a peaceful ride free of traffic noise for tourists and locals. It will be a great asset for Bass Coast. 

Danny Drummond is a former Parks Victoria ranger who was involved in early planning for the pathway.
Picture
​Inland pathway back on track
Sept 24, 2021 - 20 years ago Danny Drummond drew a mud map of a cycle and walking track linking Wonthaggi and Inverloch. ​

Picture
Same old story
Feb 11, 2022 - When Frank Coldebella saw the front page headlines about a bike path in the Sentinel Times, he had a sense of deja vu.

​To remove vegetation is easy, but to revegetate … and more of it is needed … is a difficult process that can take decades for many plants to reach maturity, especially large, old-growth trees that provide vital habitat hollows for numerous fauna species. Revegetation adjacent to remnant vegetation will, over time, improve biodiversity values and overall resilience to climate change.

​The council website states:
  • ​‘Where the path does run through existing vegetation, an avoid and minimise principal has been applied to minimise the amount of vegetation being removed. It is not possible to achieve the above. There is 3km of relatively intact vegetation that no matter how or where the path is placed will split the vegetation into two distinct corridors opening the canopy up as noted above.  
  • ‘Any vegetation removal that takes place will be offset as per state government requirements and additional native vegetation planting will take place where the path runs through cleared farmland’
 
Vegetation ‘offsets as per state government requirements’ cannot, and do not provide net gain of native vegetation. It is simply a process that protects another area of vegetation, not necessarily within the local area, and often not even the same vegetation community, in exchange for removing/destroying high value indigenous vegetation. This is a net loss of vegetation.
 
The Gippsland Threatened Species Action Group, of which I am a member, has been looking at using the unused road reserves as an east-west wildlife corridor for threatened fauna species. This includes the critically endangered Lace Monitor, which has been sighted in places along the proposed trail, the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the Growling Grass Frog. To date, there have been very few wildlife surveys undertaken in this general area. Landcare staff have undertaken some wildlife monitoring in the immediate area and our group has strategically placed acoustic recording monitors to ascertain the presence or otherwise of any listed threatened species recorded for the area.
 
I have highlighted a number of issues above re the proposed pathway - the issues raised are not insurmountable but more discussion is required between all stakeholders in the near future.
 
Dave Sutton is a former president of the South Gippsland Conservation Society and a member of the Gippsland Threatened Species Action Group. ​
6 Comments
Tim Herring
25/2/2022 11:02:11 am

Forgive me being pedantic, but a hectare is 10,000m2, so 20.12m x 3,000m is 6Ha and a 3m wide path is 0.9Ha.
I agree wholeheartedly with retaining bush corridors and would welcome paths set on one side using farmer's lands where practical, but 3m paths through the bush can be done well by "wandering" around trees and tunnelling through vegetation (say 4m height). A good example is the new bike/walking path using the Cemetery Road in Corinella (to be opened later this year) which has done just that.
Good article though, as I hope it promotes thought by the planners!

Reply
Catherine Watson, Editor
25/2/2022 02:42:11 pm

Whoops, good pickup Tim. Dave was working under pressure to meet the deadline! Corrected now.

Reply
Barbara T Moje
25/2/2022 11:29:21 am

I am looking forward to riding that path and am happy to ride around trees (let alone rest beneath their welcome shade!) as well as helping revegetate bits that need to be cleared or already cleared areas along the future path. I totally agree that any clearing of remnant bush must be avoided at all cost. I also feel that this project could be a great opportunity to increase and strengthen the already existing bio links. So : Landcare sign me up for planting bee. ;)

Reply
Laura Brearley
25/2/2022 06:00:39 pm

Great to learn about the Gippsland Threatened Species Action Group.
All power to you Dave and the Southern Brown Bandicoots, Lace Monitors and Growling Grass Frogs.
May you all live long and prosper.

Reply
Julie Thomas
25/2/2022 11:00:26 pm


Thank you, David and Danny. These articles reinforce my views on recreational trails in this area ('Will Your Feet be the End of Me?' 16/7/21)
I believe that responsible protection of wildlife habitat goes far beyond leaving trees in place. The important part, so often overlooked, is in the earth and tiny unseen plants and microorganisms there. They feed everything - from the ground up.
Nowadays, projects like this must be seen as an opportunity to restore this natural material, the vegetation and the creatures that depend on it, following the destruction caused by less sensitive human development in the past.

Reply
Neil Rankine
27/2/2022 01:17:51 pm

How about we organise with the government to compulsorily acquire a strip equivalent to run along beside the bush, then strategically decide where to plant and where the path goes. It can't be a big price for a few hectares of land to acquire.

Reply



Leave a Reply.