canberrabirds

jerrabomberra wetland

Subject: jerrabomberra wetland
From: Ian Fraser <>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:21:35 +1100
Ian's points are of course valid and I don't mean to disrespect him or them. However I think we need to be cautious about importing too uncritically models from elsewhere which were designed in different situations. For instance Banrock works because the commercial part of it - winery, restaurant etc - is on the bank, high above the floodplain and river. Access to the wetlands involves a not inconsiderable walk down (and back up) the slope; my observation has been that only a small percentage of the visitors are interested enough in the wetlands to make the trek, so they put money into it (via the winery) without disturbing it unduly.

Another model which has been strongly mooted for Jerra is the London Wetlands. I have no direct experience of it, but it is clearly a remarkable achievement. However, an important part of it involves pinioned exotic species and the opportunity to view them at close range with little effort, so the relevance to us again is limited.

One reason for this is that Jerra is a nature reserve, which implies - or certainly should imply - certain restrictions and makes some uses inappropriate in that setting. I have no issues with an education/interpretation centre - indeed it should be part of any reserve in an ideal world - but that's a very different thing from the proposals we read this morning, and on previous recent occasions when Ms Beebey has run this same story. A nature reserve, and especially a small wetland, is not a place for people to run or cycle for exercise, or for restaurants. Bear in mind that most of the reserve area is Wildlife Refuge Zone or Refuge Buffer Zone, where general access or development will presumably still not be allowed. Much of the rest is wetland, leaving very little space for development - and all of it adjacent to wetland habitat.

While I for one would certainly like to see the sewage pond complex incorporated into the reserve, there are obvious historical reasons why this has not happened, and obvious management ones why it is unlikely to do so in the imaginable future. This makes the situation very different from that across the road, and our best bet might indeed be to try to ameliorate the siting of the substation.

With respect, I think the reference to anything being 'better than more apartments' is a bit of a furphy. Apartments are not proposed for the wetland itself; they will be built at Eastlake no matter what, and our job is to minimise the impact of their inhabitants on the reserve - perhaps primarily by education, by policing, by an effective buffer zone and by offering more convenient locales for running, dog-exercising, picnicking etc.

Anyway, I'll go back to what I should be doing and leave this to others now. Thanks Ian, for prompting me to some slightly more thoughtful responses.

Oh, and I agree - Disneyfy is definitely the correct verb.

cheers

Ian Fraser

Ian Hodgson wrote:
If, as seems to be the case, the main reason for moving the substation is to increase the value of the surrounding land for the purposes of subsequent development, then I would think COG, however skilled we may be in making submissions, is on a hiding to nothing, given what must be a relatively miniscule number of users that the wetlands attract in their present form. I don't see how developing the Jerrabombera wetlands along the lines of the Hunter Valley and Banrock Station wetlands is Disneyfying the place, at least not from looking at the pictures of the two centres shown on the Riversmart website. Business breakfasts may be slightly over the top, but the idea of a centre to educate the community about the value and fascination of bird life can't be all bad, and supporting something along those lines, which seems to me far better than more apartments, however tastefully designed, may be the best way to get support for saving the wetlands from ultimate destruction.

Ian Hodgson
 
On 03/02/2010, at 9:29 AM, Ian Fraser wrote:

Unless things have changed - and they may have, and I can't quickly lay my hands on the plan details - my understanding is that the site of the proposed substation is pretty much where the existing smaller pump station etc is, opposite the Kelly Swamp carpark. That to me seems less alarming than proposals to Disneylandise the area to attract 100,000 recreationists (or breakfast meetings - presumably not in the hides or on the grass!), apparently just because....

Ian
On 03/02/2010, at 7:44 AM, Elizabeth Compston wrote:

  
This morning's CT  .  "Revitalised wetlands may attract business breakfast meetings".  Riversmart--go to riversmart.org.  to get details---100,000 visitors, but they won't be birds.   I have not looked at the website yet, but will later.  It could be that they have good ideas.  It is the location of the electricity substation that worries me, and its size

Anyone been there lately?

Elizabeth

*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Please ensure that emails posted to the list are less than 100 kb in size.
List-Post: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");"><>
List-Help: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-help");"><>
List-Unsubscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-unsubscribe");"><>
List-Subscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-subscribe");"><>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-owner");"><>

    

*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Please ensure that emails posted to the list are less than 100 kb in size.
List-Post: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");"><>
List-Help: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-help");"><>
List-Unsubscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-unsubscribe");"><>
List-Subscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-subscribe");"><>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-owner");"><>



  

-- 

Ian Fraser, m("pcug.org.au","ianf");">
Environment Tours; Vertego Environmental Consultancy
GPO Box 3268, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6249 1560  
---
    


-- 

Ian Fraser, m("pcug.org.au","ianf");">
Environment Tours; Vertego Environmental Consultancy
GPO Box 3268, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6249 1560  
---
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the Canberra Ornithologists Group mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the list contact David McDonald, list manager, phone (02) 6231 8904 or email . If you can not contact David McDonald e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU