Shannon and D'entrecasteaux National Parks: Analysis of Public
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SHANNON AND D’ENTRECASTEAUX NATIONAL PARKS Analysis of Public Submissions to the Draft Management Plan 2008 Department of Environment and Conservation for the Conservation Commission of Western Australia CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 Method of Analysis 1 Analysis Process 2 ANALYSIS TABLES 3 GENERAL 3 PREFACE 12 PART A: INTRODUCTION 12 2. Regional Context 12 3. Management Plan Area 12 4. Key Values 18 PART B: MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS AND PURPOSE 18 6. Vision 18 7. Legislative Framework 19 8. Management Arrangements with Aboriginal People 20 9. Management Planning Process 21 10. Performance Assessment 21 PART C: MANAGING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 21 11. Biogeography 22 12. Climate Change 22 13. Geology, Landform and Soils 23 14. Landscape Quality 25 15. Soil and Catchment Protection 25 16. Native Plants and Plant Communities 28 17. Native Animals and Habitats 29 18. Species and Communities of Conservation Significance 30 19. Environmental Weeds 34 20. Introduced and Other Problem Animals 38 21. Diseases 43 22. Fire 45 PART D: MANAGING OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE 68 23. Indigenous Heritage 69 24. Non-Indigenous Heritage 70 PART E: MANAGING RECREATION AND TOURISM 73 25. Recreational Opportunities 76 26. Visitor Access 84 27. Recreational Use 98 28. Commercial Tourism Operations 138 29. Visitor Safety 139 30. Domestic Animals 139 PART F: MANAGING SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE USE 143 31. Traditional Hunting and Gathering 143 32. Mining 143 33. Commercial Fishing 147 34. Defence Force Training 147 35. Scientific and Research Use 148 36. Public and Private Utilities and Services 148 37. Rehabilitation 149 Analysis of Public Submissions i 38. Beekeeping 150 39. Forest Produce 155 40. Water Resources 156 PART G: INVOLVING THE COMMUNITY 158 41. Information, Education and Interpretation 158 42. Working with the Community 159 PART H: MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN 159 43. Administration 159 44. Research and Monitoring 160 APPENDIX 1 SUBMITTERS TO THE DRAFT PLAN 161 Analysis of Public Submissions ii BACKGROUND This document is an analysis of public submissions to the Shannon and D'Entrecasteaux National Parks Draft Management Plan 2005. The plan was released for public comment on 21 May 2005 for a period of 3 months. Late submissions were accepted. A total of 1073 public submissions were received. All submissions have been summarised and changes have been made to the plan where appropriate. Following the release of the plan, advertisements were placed in two issues of the local newspapers and two issues of The West Australian, advising that the plan was available for comment (Appendix 1). The plan was distributed to State Government departments, tertiary institutions, recreation and conservation groups, local authorities, libraries and other community groups and individuals who expressed interest during the preparation of the draft. The plan was available for viewing and/or downloading from the Department of Environment and Conservation’s (the Department’s) NatureBase website, from which electronic submissions could be made. Printed copies of the plan were made available at Departmental offices in Kensington, Manjimup, Pemberton and Denmark, and could be inspected at the Departmental library at Woodvale, and the libraries and municipal office of the shires of Manjimup and Nannup. Method of Analysis The public submissions to the plan were analysed by the planning team according to the process depicted in the flow chart overleaf. More specifically: The comments made in each submission were collated according to the section of the plan they addressed. Each comment made was assessed using the following criteria: 1. The plan was amended if the comment: (a) provided additional resource information of direct relevance to management; (b) provided additional information on affected user groups of direct relevance to management; (c) indicated a change in (or clarified) Government legislation, management commitment or management policy; (d) proposed strategies that would better achieve management goals and objectives; or (e) indicated omissions, inaccuracies or a lack of clarity in the plan. 2. The plan was not amended if the comment: (a) clearly supported the draft proposals; (b) was a neutral, general or immaterial statement, did not seek an amendment or was a question not requiring an amendment; (c) addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan; (d) was already made in the plan, or had been considered during plan preparation; (e) was one amongst several widely divergent viewpoints received on the topic and the text/recommendation of the plan was still considered appropriate/the best option; (f) contributed options which were not possible (generally due to some aspect of existing legislation, Government or Departmental policy); (g) was based on incomplete, assumed, dated, unclear or incorrect information or has misunderstood the points raised in the plan; or (h) involved details that are not necessary or appropriate for inclusion in the plan, particularly in a document aimed at providing management direction over the long term. The reasons why recommendations in the plan were or were not changed, and the relevant criteria used, were discussed with each comment. Minor editorial changes referred to in the submissions have also been made. Submissions have been assessed entirely on the cogency of points raised. No subjective weighting has been given to any submission for reasons of its origin or any other factor that would give cause to elevate the importance of any submission above another. Analysis of Public Submissions 1 Analysis Process SUMMARY OF POINTS MADE WITHIN NO NOTE POINT MADE AND SCOPE CONVEY TO RELEVANT OF PLAN? DECISION MAKERS. 2(C) YES IS A SUPPORT THE NO YES CHANGE PLAN? NOTE POINT MADE; NO SOUGHT? RESPONSE NEEDED. 2(A) YES NOTE POINT MADE; NO RESPONSE NEEDED. 2(B) ARE POINTS NO IS NO ALREADY MODIFICATION NOTE POINT MADE AND COVERED? FEASIBLE? EXPLAIN WHY. 2(F), 2(G), 2(H) YES YES NOTE POINT MADE AND IS NO NOTE POINT MADE AND INDICATE RELEVANT MODIFICATION EXPLAIN WHY. 2(E) SECTION OR POLICY.2(D) PRACTICAL? YES RECOMMEND MODIFICATION TO PLAN AND CITE RELEVANT CRITERIA. 1(A) - 1(E) Analysis of Public Submissions 2 ANALYSIS TABLES: No. of Section Summary of Comment Discussion/Action taken Criteria Submissions General 1 General Many of the proposed initiatives will lead to the protection of the special values of the Noted 2(a) area 1 General The committee fully supports the need for a detailed plan to protect the unique natural Noted 2(a), 2(b) and heritage features of the park 1 General The authors are to be commended for the Shannon D'Entrecasteaux National Parks Noted 2(a), 2(b) Draft Management Plan 2005. The plan incorporates iconic coastal and forested regions of the State, valued by West Australian and national / international visitors for their scenic beauty and quality as wilderness. The importance of the plan for the management area is acknowledged, as are the increasing pressures placed on the Park from exponential visitor rates. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River supports the general strategies and recommendations of the Management Plan 1 General I am on the whole delighted with the draft Shannon and D'Entrecasteaux Parks Draft Noted 2(a), 2(b) Management Plan. There are, in my opinion, some issues which require clarification or amendment. Generally, the DMP outlines a responsible and informed approach to other problematic issues of management 1 General This is an impressive attempt by responsible managers of the natural environment Noted 2(a) 1 General We believe the plan is a step in the right direction and contains many good points. Noted 2(a), 2(b) However, we do believe there are areas where it could also be improved upon 1 General Based on firsthand knowledge of the site and recollection of the results of surveys Noted 2(a) conducted there, Wetlands International - Oceania generally concurs with the statements and proposals concerning wetlands and their biodiversity in this plan 1 General The plan is a very comprehensive document supported by a large body of research data Noted 2(a) 1 General I found the Draft Management Plan comprehensive and interesting and generally Noted 2(a) presenting reasonable and achievable goals 1 General As well as a draft management plan this document is also an important reference work. ISBN numbers are only sought for saleable publications. Management plans are issued 2(d) It contains many valuable pieces of information as well as a comprehensive reference free of charge, therefore the Department does not seek ISBN numbers for them list (all 212 of them). This document therefore also deserves an ISBN number. I understand this only costs an extra $10 or so in total for the production run of the draft plan (not for each plan). This figure can be checked with CALM's Strategic Development and Corporate Affairs Division Analysis of Public Submissions 3 No. of Section Summary of Comment Discussion/Action taken Criteria Submissions 1 General We think you have, with a few exceptions, done a fine job with your management plan. Noted 2(a), 2(b) You will note that we are more concerned with how this plan will actually be administered. If your management and administration can incorporate our concerns we believe it will considerably enhance the Premier's objectives and enhance bushwalking opportunities and preserve the National Parks 1 General The plan needs a common sense approach and not be bent by the greens and The management plan is driven by legislation, Departmental policy and conservation 2(e) environmentalists objections 1 General This draft contains a thorough and comprehensive treatment of the key issues on which The Department is considering options which includes the one you have put forward. 2(c), 2(d), the objectives and ways of achieving the objectives were based. Rather than repeat this However, this would apply to future plans and not this one 2(f) comprehensive approach the final plan would be a very readable document of most of the basis is left out and only the key points, objectives and ways of achieving the objectives are retained, modified where appropriate by comments received on the draft plan.