Inquiry Into the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas Within the Bruny Bioregion

Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report August 2007 Resource Planning and Development Commission National Library of Australia Cataloguing–in–Publication data:

Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion. Draft Recommendations Report

ISBN 0 7246 7412 8

Resource Planning and Development Commission GPO Box 1691 Hobart Tasmania 7001 August 2007 E-mail address : [email protected] Production by Artemis Publishing Consultants, Hobart, Tasmania This report is available on the Internet. The Internet address is: website: www.rpdc.tas.gov.au

Printed on environmentally friendly paper Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Invitation to comment

On 6 June 2005 the former Minister for Environment and Planning, the Hon. Judy Jackson, issued a reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission). The terms of reference require the Commission to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations to the Minister on the establishment of marine protected areas in the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Bioregion known as the Bruny Bioregion.

On 8 August 2007, the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Steven Kons, issued a reference to the Commission amending the reference issued on the 6 June 2005.

Following public exhibition of a Background Report and public hearings, the Commission produced an Interim Report for public exhibition. The Interim Report identified areas suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion using the identification criteria outlined in the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy).

The next stage in the inquiry process is for the Commission to complete the identification stage (Steps 3 to 7 of the Strategy). The Commission is then required to undertake the selection stage (Steps 8 to 9 of the Strategy) whereby the selection criteria outlined in the Strategy are applied to guide selection of areas that are suitable for declaration as marine protected areas.

In accordance with the identification and selection stages of the Strategy, this Draft Recommendations Report: • presents bioregional and ecosystem level priorities for marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion; • presents priority areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas; • contains the Commission’s summary of the submissions and information to date with respect to the selection criteria within the Strategy; • presents areas that are suitable for declaration as marine protected areas, following application of the identification and selection criteria of the Strategy; and • identifies potential boundaries and management arrangements for areas suitable for declaration as marine protected areas.

Government agencies, community and other interest groups and individuals are invited to comment in writing on this Draft Recommendations Report. In particular, comments or additional information are sought that are relevant to the selection and management of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion, with respect to the selection criteria or any aspect of Steps 8 and 9 of the Strategy.

Please note that it is not necessary to duplicate information that has already been provided to the Commission through public exhibition of the Background Report and Interim Report.

Submissions that refer to specific areas or places of special value are encouraged to include maps that indicate the location of those areas as accurately as possible.

Public comment will assist the Commission in the preparation of final recommendations.

Resource Planning and Development Commission iii Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Written submissions should be sent to:

Address: Resource Planning and Development Commission, GPO Box 1691, Hobart Tasmania 7001

Phone Number: (03) 6233 2795

Fax Number: (03) 6233 5400

E-mail: [email protected]

Written submissions must be received by the Commission no later than 4.30 pm on Monday 1 October 2007. Late submissions will not be accepted. However, faxed or e-mail copies of submissions will be received up until 4.30 pm on the closing date. Please note that submissions will be treated as public documents unless an acceptable argument is put to the contrary by the person making the submission.

Additional copies of the Draft Recommendations Report may be obtained without cost by contacting the Commission or from the Commission’s office:

3rd floor, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart

The Draft Recommendations Report is available in pdf format on the Commission’s website:

http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au

Resource Planning and Development Commission iv Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Resource Planning and Development Commission

The Resource Planning and Development Commission is a statutory body established by the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997.

The Commission has the following principal functions: • to assess and approve local government planning schemes and planning scheme amendments; • to assess projects of State significance; • to assess Draft State Policies; • to prepare the Tasmanian State of the Environment Report; • to conduct inquiries into the use of public land; • to review representations and the report of the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Water relating to draft water management plans; and • to consider the draft development plan and any representations, statements and recommendations contained in a report of the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority. The Commission is part of the State’s Resource Management and Planning System, the objectives of which are set out in Schedule 1 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 (see Box 1).

The Commission is made up of: • an Executive Commissioner (Simon Cooper) • a Commissioner with planning experience nominated by the Local Government Association of Tasmania (Sandra Hogue) • a Commissioner with expertise and management experience in resource conservation (Helen Locher) • a Commissioner with planning experience and experience in industry and commerce (Jamieson Allom) • a Commissioner with resource conservation or planning experience representing community interests (Catherine Nicholson) • a Commissioner with public administration experience in regard to project implementation (Helen Hudson)

Resource Planning and Development Commission v Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Box 1: Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania

1. The objectives of the resource management and planning system of Tasmania are - a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water; and c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning; and d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); and e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State.

2. In clause 1 (a), “sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while - a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Resource Planning and Development Commission vi Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Delegation to Panel ...... 3 1.3 Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmanian ...... 4 1.4 Promoting sustainable development ...... 4 1.5 Inquiry process ...... 6 1.6 Draft Recommendations Report ...... 8

2 Identification criteria ...... 9

3 Areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas ...... 13

4 Bioregional and ecosystem level priorities for marine protected areas ...... 18

5 Priority areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas ...... 19 5.1 Overview ...... 19 5.2 Comprehensiveness and representativeness of priority areas suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas ...... 24

6 Selection criteria ...... 28

7 Levels of protection ...... 30

8 Areas selected as suitable for declaration as marine protected areas ...... 33 8.1 Overview ...... 33 8.2 Offshore biounit ...... 40 8.2.1 Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A) ...... 40 8.2.2 Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) ...... 43 8.3 Exposed biounit ...... 45 8.3.1 Waterfall Bay–Fortescue Bay MPA ...... 45 8.3.2 Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone B) ...... 48 8.3.3 Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) ...... 50 8.3.4 The Friars MPA ...... 51 8.4 Moderately exposed (Derwent influence) biounit ...... 54 8.4.1 Sloping Island MPA ...... 54 8.4.2 Betsey Island MPA ...... 57 8.4.3 Opossum Bay MPA ...... 59 8.4.4 Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) MPA ...... 61 8.4.5 Tinderbox MPA (extension) ...... 62 8.5 Norfolk biounit ...... 63 8.5.1 Lime Bay MPA ...... 63 Resource Planning and Development Commission vii Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

8.6 Channel biounit ...... 68 8.6.1 D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA ...... 68 8.6.2 Roberts Point MPA ...... 76 8.7 Huon biounit ...... 78 8.7.1 Huon Estuary (Egg Islands) MPA ...... 78 8.8 Derwent biounit ...... 80 8.8.1 River Derwent MPA ...... 80 8.8.2 Droughty Peninsula (Derwent Estuary) MPA ...... 83 8.8.3 South Arm MPA ...... 85 8.9 Open estuaries biounit ...... 87 8.9.1 Port Cygnet MPA ...... 87 8.10 Marine Inlets and Bays biounit ...... 89 8.10.1 Blackman Bay MPA ...... 89 8.10.2 Pitt Water – Orielton Lagoon MPA ...... 93 8.10.3 Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA ...... 95 8.10.4 Cloudy Bay Lagoon MPA ...... 98 8.11 Comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of areas selected as suitable for declaration as marine protected areas ...... 100

9 Management arrangements ...... 105

10 Where to from here ...... 107

11 References ...... 108

12 Glossary ...... 109

Appendix 1 Terms of Reference ...... 110

Appendix 2 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy ...... 115

Appendix 3 Submissions receivved on the Background Report ...... 145

Appendix 4 Issues for futher consideration ...... 147

Appendix 5 Submitters appearing at the hearing held on 25th-27th September and 28th November 2006 ...... 149

Appendix 6 Exhibits tabled at the hearing held on 25th-27th Spetember and 28th November 2006 ...... 151

Appendix 7 Submissions received on the Interim Report ...... 152

Appendix 8 Summary of information and submissions relevant to the selection criteria...... 153

Appendix 9 Priority identified areas characterised against the identification and selection criteria ...... 174 Resource Planning and Development Commission viii Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Tables

Table 1 Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: ecosystems and habitats within biounits and priority identified areas ...... 26

Table 2 Selected marine protected areas and recommended levels of protection ...... 35

Table 3 Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: ecosystems and habitats within biounits and selected marine protected areas ...... 103

Resource Planning and Development Commission ix Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report

Figures

Projection – all maps. Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94) Map Grid of Australia (MGA) Zone 55

Figure 1 Inquiry area. Bruny Bioregion, Tasmanian waters ...... 2

Figure 2 Locations of identified areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 14

Figure 3 Locations of identified areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 16

Figure 4 Locations of priority identified areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 20

Figure 5 Locations of priority identified areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 22

Figure 6 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 36

Figure 7 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion...... 38

Figure 8 Locations of selected marine protected areas within the Offshore biounit ...... 41

Figure 9 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Exposed biounit (Tasman section)...... 46

Figure 10 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Exposed biounit (Bruny section) ...... 53

Figure 11 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Moderately exposed biounit ...... 55

Figure 12 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Norfolk biounit ...... 65

Figure 13 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Channel biounit ...... 69

Figure 14 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Huon biounit ...... 79

Figure 15 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Derwent biounit ...... 81

Figure 16 Location of selected marine protected area within the Open estuaries biounit ...... 88

Figure 17 Locations of Marine Inlets and Bays within the Bruny Bioregion ...... 90

Figure 18 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Blackman Bay ...... 91

Figure 19 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon ...... 94

Figure 20 Location selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Pipe Clay Lagoon ...... 97

Figure 21 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Cloudy Bay Lagoon ...... 99

Resource Planning and Development Commission x Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

1 Introduction

1.1 Background On 6 June 2005 the former Minister for Environment and Planning, the Hon. Judy Jackson, (the Minister) issued a reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission). The terms of reference require the Commission to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations to the Minister1 on the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA) Bioregion known as the Bruny Bioregion.

For the purposes of this inquiry, the Commission delegated conduct of the inquiry to a Panel.

On 8 August 2007 the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Steven Kons, issued a reference to the Commission. This reference amends the reference issued by the former Minister for Environment and Planning on 6 June 2005.

The land that is the subject of the inquiry is that area of public land within the Bruny Bioregion, shown on the attached plan to the terms of reference (Appendix 1), which is within the jurisdiction of Tasmania, with the exception of that land which is specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006.2

The Commission considers that the extent of the inquiry within the Bruny Bioregion is for ‘all marine and tidal waters from the high-water mark to the three nautical mile limit of coastal waters’ (referred to as ‘Tasmanian waters’ for the purposes of this inquiry) (Figure 1), with the exception of that land which is specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006.

In accordance with the inquiry terms of reference and section 21 of the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 the Commission prepared a Background Report.

The Background Report described the resources of the public land subject to the inquiry. This included any environmental, cultural, social, industrial and economic values, and any existing commitments in respect of those resources. The Background Report presented information considered to be relevant to the identification and selection of MPAs, as described in the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (Appendix 2).

In June 2006 the Background Report was placed on exhibition for a period of at least 42 days and public comment invited.

The Commission received and accepted 42 submissions on the Background Report (refer to Appendix 3 for a list of submissions).

1 The present Minister for Planning is the Hon. Steven Kons 2 The Commission has received Ministerial direction to conduct an Integrated Assessment of a Project of State Significance under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 within that area of land specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006. This area is within the Bruny Bioregion.

Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 1 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 1 Inquiry area. Bruny Bioregion, Tasmanian waters

[Back to figures]

Notwithstanding the information contained in the Background Report, and in submissions commenting on the report, the Commission considered that insufficient information was available to enable the preparation of a Draft Recommendations Report that would comply with the Commission’s terms of reference for the inquiry.

The Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 provides for the Commission to hold hearings to inform itself in respect of all matters relevant to the reference. To obtain additional information, the Commission held a hearing in Hobart over four days, 25-27 September 2006 and 28 November 2006.

All persons who made a submission on the Background Report were invited to appear at the hearing. Individuals and groups whom the Commission considered might be able to provide additional information were also invited to appear at the hearing.

All parties were provided with a copy of a document prepared by the Commission titled ‘Issues for further consideration’ (refer to Appendix 4). This document identified the areas where the Commission considered additional information was required before preparing the Draft Recommendations Report. Appendix 5 contains a list of appearances at the hearing. Exhibits tabled at the hearing are listed in Appendix 6.

Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 2 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Prior to producing the Draft Recommendations Report, the Commission decided to seek further public input, focussed solely on the identification stage of the process, by producing an Interim Report and seeking written submissions.

The main content of the Interim Report was the presentation of areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas, based on them having elements that meet the identification criteria of the Strategy.

In March 2007 the Interim Report was placed on exhibition for a period of at least 28 days and public comment invited.

In the invitation to comment on the Interim Report, the Commission indicated that it was not necessary for submissions on the Interim Report to duplicate information that had already been provided to the Commission through public exhibition of the Background Report and public hearings.

The Commission received and accepted 24 submissions on the Interim Report (refer to Appendix 7 for a list of submissions).

All reports prepared by the Commission, public submissions and public exhibits are available in pdf format on the Commission’s website: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au

1.2 Delegation to Panel For the purposes of this inquiry, the Commission delegated its functions and powers to conduct the inquiry to a Panel, in accordance with section 8 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997.

Membership of the Panel was: • Mr Julian Green (Chair) • Dr Helen Locher • Hon John Bennett • Dr Matt Edmunds • Dr Tom Lewis

Following the resignation of Mr Julian Green, effective from 12 January 2007, the Commission revoked the delegation with regard to Mr Green and appointed Dr Helen Locher as Chair of the Panel. Membership of the Panel is: • Dr Helen Locher (Chair) • Hon John Bennett • Dr Matt Edmunds • Dr Tom Lewis

Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 3 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

1.3 Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmanian The Commission is part of the State’s Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS), the objectives of which are set out in Schedule 1 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 (see Box 1, page vi). Under section 6 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997, the Commission must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that furthers the objectives of the RMPS.

The inquiry terms of reference (Appendix 1) are issued under the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991. Under section 6 of the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991, it is the obligation of the Commission to make recommendations that will further the objectives the RMPS. In addition, the Commission has specific objectives under Schedule 1 of the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 (see Box 2).

The inquiry terms of reference (Appendix 1) direct the Commission to act pursuant to the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) (Appendix 2). The primary goal of the Strategy includes recognition of the Tasmanian RMPS.

Box 2: Objectives of the Commission Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 1. The objectives of the Commission are -

a) to promote the balanced use of public land based on – i) the purpose for which it is best suited in the long term interests of the State; and ii) a thorough evaluation of its potential to fulfil social, economic and environmental needs; and b) to encourage public involvement in the land use recommending processes; and c) to acquire the best information and encourage its use as a basis for recommendations and decisions on land use; and d) to promote the sharing of information and responsibility for land use recommendations.

1.4 Promoting sustainable development The objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) of Tasmania include “… to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources …”. In Tasmania, ‘sustainable development’ is defined under clause 2 of the objectives of the RMPS (see Box 1, page vi).

The Australian marine fisheries sector proactively promotes ecologically sustainable development (ESD3). Strategies that may be used to promote ESD within the marine related sectors in Australia have been defined under the National Fisheries ESD program (http://www.fisheries-esd.com/c/home/).

3 The term ESD has been widely adopted in Australia. Globally, it is more widely known as sustainable development (SD). Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 4 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

With respect to the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) within the Bruny Bioregion, the Commission has referred to these defined strategies to assist in its interpretation of the promotion of sustainable development within the marine environment.

These definitions for strategies that may be used to promote ESD have been agreed by the Australian Fisheries Management Forum (which includes the heads of each fisheries agency in Australia) and the Marine and Coastal Committee of the Natural Resources Management Standing Committee (which includes the heads of both fisheries and marine conservation agencies in Australia) (http://www. fisheries-esd.com/c/what/what0400.cfm).

The National Fisheries ESD program describes a hierarchy of strategies that may be used to promote of the overall goal of ESD. Each strategy provides a building block for the next level in the promotion of ESD. The hierarchy of strategies, with ESD at the top of the hierarchy, are:

* ESD Reports for export fisheries to meet Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requirements This example describes the contribution of fisheries management strategies to the promotion of ESD. It is important to note that all other sectors (eg. urban and rural planning, biodiversity conservation, shipping, tourism, etc) will also contribute to the promotion of ESD, through the development of their own strategies at levels in the hierarchy below that of Ecosystem Based Management (EBM).

Within this context, the establishment of MPAs within the Bruny Bioregion is considered most appropriately as contributing to the strategies of EBM and EBFM (as represented in the diagram above and indicated at http://www.fisheries-esd.com/c/what/what0400.cfm) when they are applied at the IMCRA bioregion scale (ie. 100s – 1000s of km, meso-scale) and the local/landscape scale (ie. 10s – 100s of km, micro-scale). These two strategies are defined as:

• “Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) - deals with the aggregate management of all sectors (fishing, shipping, tourism, mining etc) operating within a single bioregion to achieve ESD outcomes. • Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) - deals with the aggregate management of all fisheries related activities within an ecosystem or bioregion. This recognises that any fisheries

Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 5 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

agency can only directly manage ‘fisheries related’ activities (ie. what is covered in their Act/ legislation) To undertake EBFM requires the integrated management of all fishing activities within a region, not just single fisheries, to ensure that the cumulative impacts and the allocation amongst sectors are being adequately managed to assist in achieving ESD for the region.”

As stated previously, this example describes the contribution of fisheries management strategies to the promotion of ESD and that all other sectors will also contribute to the promotion of ESD, through the development of their own strategies at levels in the hierarchy below that of EBM. Therefore, the establishment of MPAs within the Bruny Bioregion is relevant to supporting ecosystem based management strategies developed by all sectors and, thus, supporting EBM and the promotion of (ecologically) sustainable development within the bioregion.

An example of how these strategies are being applied to promote sustainable development within the Australian marine environment, including MPA development, is provided by the Australian Government regional marine planning process.

Australia’s Oceans Policy is a refinement of the Australian Government’s commitment to ESD. Australia’s Oceans Policy sets in place a framework for planning and management based on marine ecosystems within Commonwealth waters (ie. beyond the 3 nautical mile limit of coastal waters) and is being implemented through the introduction of bioregional marine planning (ie. Integrated Oceans Management). A major outcome of the bioregional marine planning process is the development of MPAs within the National Representative System of MPAs in Commonwealth waters

The Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA v4.0) (www.deh.gov. au/imcra) provides the initial spatial framework for classifying bioregions at a scale useful for this bioregional planning and for the development of the National Representative System of MPAs.

The preparation of bioregional marine plans in Commonwealth waters is established through legislation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

1.5 Inquiry process The inquiry process is being conducted in accordance with Part 2 of the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 (the Act).

The inquiry follows the key steps of the Strategy.

“Step 1 The Minister issues a terms of reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission, which then conducts public consultation on the terms of reference. Step 2 Gather data at the bioregion level, including ecosystem mapping. Step 3 Using Tasmanian identification criteria, identify a list of candidate Marine Protected Areas within Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregions to represent major ecosystems. This will include an evaluation of all areas subject to existing fisheries management restrictions.

Identification criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 6 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Step 4 Identification of threatening processes such as human activities and natural occurrences that can cause some of the following effects: habitat destruction; species removal and disturbance; pollution (heavy metals, oil spills and toxic chemicals); and run off. Step 5 Assess the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of ecosystems and habitats in existing Marine Protected Areas within each Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregion. Step 6 Develop priorities for Marine Protected Areas at the bioregional and ecosystem level, based on results of steps 4 and 5. Step 7 Develop additional criteria for identification and selection of Marine Protected Areas if required. Step 8 Select and prioritise sites for Marine Protected Areas from a candidate list of Marine Protected Areas using Tasmanian selection criteria, and any other additional criteria developed in step 7 and identify arrangements for management, funding and enforcement. Step 9 Assess feasibility of potential Marine Protected Areas and negotiate new protected areas. Step 10 The Resource Planning and Development Commission provides to the Minister a final recommendations report on potential Marine Protected Areas based on the completion of steps 2-9 inclusive. Step 11 Obtain Cabinet approval for final management arrangements and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Categories (IUCN) based on management objectives, values and resources identified in this step, and Establish Marine Protected Areas. Step 12 Undertake management tasks, including ongoing evaluation and review of Marine Protected Areas.” The above steps outlined are not necessarily sequential as many of the tasks may be done simultaneously.

Steps 1 to 7 represent the identification stage of the establishment process. In this stage, an assessment of scientific information about Tasmanian waters is used to identify potential MPAs for a given bioregion. Conservation and ecological qualities are the primary values for identifying potential areas.

The Background Report largely addressed Step 2 of the Strategy. Steps 3, 4 and 5 were considered in the Interim Report.

The selection and prioritisation of suitable MPAs, together with an assessment of their feasibility, is done in Steps 8 to 9. The selection criteria take into account broader issues such as economic, social and cultural values of the area (refer Chapter 6 and Appendix 8).

Step 10 is the provision of final recommendations to the Minister.

The remaining steps in the Strategy are not undertaken by the Commission. These steps relate to the approval by Cabinet of final management arrangements, the establishment and the ongoing management and evaluation of MPAs.

Identification criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 7 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

1.6 Draft Recommendations Report The Draft Recommendations Report (this Report) has been prepared in accordance with section 27 of the Act.

The main content of this Draft Recommendations Report is the presentation of areas that are suitable for declaration as marine protected areas, following application of the identification and selection criteria of the Strategy. These areas have been identified using information from the Background Report and Interim Report, public submissions and hearings, and the expertise of the delegated Panel.

The Draft Recommendations Report has been released for public comment so that the Commission can be best informed before completing the selection stage for MPAs and making final recommendations to the Minister. This Draft Recommendations Report enables further engagement and discussion with the community, particularly on Steps 8 to 9 of the selection stage of the Strategy.

Identification criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 8 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

2 Identification criteria

The terms of reference direct the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) to “use the identification criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy to assess which of those areas of public land under investigation are suitable as potential Marine Protected Areas”.

The identification criteria are: • Comprehensiveness • Adequacy • Representativeness • Ecological Importance • International or National Significance • Uniqueness • Productivity • Vulnerability Assessment • Biogeographic Importance • Naturalness

The Commission has assessed each of these identification criteria in turn and evaluated how they are best applied to this process based on their analysis of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy), the Background Report, public submissions and a public hearing, relevant literature and their own expertise. The following presents the definition of each identification criteria in the Strategy and the Commission’s interpretation for each identification criterion for the identification of areas suitable to be included in marine protected areas in the Bruny Bioregion.

The following interpretations of the identification criteria were initially presented in the Interim Report. A fuller explanation of the basis for the Commission’s interpretation was provided in Appendix 8 of the Interim Report.

The Commission did not receive any additional information within submissions on the Interim Report that resulted in the Commission modifying its current interpretation of the identification criteria.

Comprehensiveness The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Adds to the coverage of the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion. • Enhances the comprehensive nature of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania.”

Identification criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 9 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission interprets this criterion to mean:

• There are nine draft biounits in the Bruny Bioregion and, for the purposes of this process, the ecosystems are defined as consolidated (ie. reef) and unconsolidated (eg. silt, sand, seagrass and Caulerpa seaweed beds). • For every biounit, each ecosystem is included where it exists at a meaningful scale4. • MPAs within the Offshore biounit are comprehensive if they include each of the following bathymetric (depth) strata: 40 – 100 m and >100 m.

Adequacy The definition in the Strategy is:

• “The size of the area, its boundaries and location are adequate to ensure that its biological and ecological values can be protected and managed and the impact of activities can be minimised”

The Commission interprets this criterion to mean:

• The individual MPA is large enough in area to meet its objectives. • The MPA contains sufficient habitat area to support the population(s) that it is designed to protect. • The level of protection and resource commitment is sufficient to meet the objectives of the MPA. • The adequacy criterion can only be applied during the selection phase

Representativeness The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Represents one or more ecosystems within an Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregion. • Enhances the representative nature of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania”

The Commission interprets this criterion to mean:

• The MPA(s) in a given biounit contain elements of each of the habitat types that are present in that biounit. For example, if a biounit contains seagrass, sand and reef, an MPA is representative if it has all of these habitat types within it. • For every biounit, each habitat is represented where it exists at a meaningful scale5. • Where data permit, representativeness may be applied at the finer scales of communities and species. • In the absence of data, representativeness cannot be assessed for the Offshore biounit.

4, 5 A quantitative definition of meaningful scale is provided in Section 5.2.

Identification Criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 10 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Ecological Importance The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Contributes to maintenance of essential ecological processes or life support systems; • Contains habitat for rare or endangered species; • Preserves genetic diversity, ie. is diverse or abundant in species; • Contains areas on which other species or other systems are dependant, eg. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or rest areas for migratory species; • Contains one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self-sustaining ecological unit.”

The Commission recognises that the entire Bruny Bioregion is ecologically important and possesses significant biological diversity within a Tasmanian, national and global context; however, in the interests of narrowing the areas of focus, this criterion will be applied based on the weight of evidence.

The Commission accepts that the definition set out in the Strategy is self explanatory.

International or National Significance The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Is listed, or has the potential to be listed, on the World or National Heritage List or declared as Biosphere Reserve or subject to an international or national conservation agreement.”

The Commission notes that this criterion applies in the context of both sites and species.

The Commission recognises that other areas may have important ecological links to listed areas (eg. migratory bird foraging or rest areas linked to Ramsar wetlands).

Uniqueness The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Contains unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems. • Contains unique or unusual geographic features.”

The Commission interprets this criterion to mean entities that are restricted to isolated areas within the bioregion itself.

Productivity The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural productivity.”

Productive areas have a high rate of generation of new biomass. Indicators used by the Commission include vegetation density, microalgal activity, and areas of high continual biota removal.

Identification Criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 11 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Examples of high microalgal activity are inter-tidal and shallow sandy areas as well as estuaries.

Vulnerability Assessment The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Contains ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes.”

The Commission considers types of natural processes relevant to this criterion to include storms and storm surges, random weather events, drought and climate change.

A lack of data prevents identification of areas based on this criterion.

Biogeographic Importance The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Captures important biogeographical qualities.”

The Commission recognises that the biounits represent the different biogeographic areas within the Bruny Bioregion.

The Commission considers that this criterion is implicit in many of the other criteria and has not considered it explicitly.

Naturalness The definition in the Strategy is:

• “Extent to which the area has been protected from, or not been subject to, human-induced change.”

The Commission acknowledges that, through historic and current human usage, all of the bioregion has been subject to some level of human induced change.

For practicality, naturalness was assessed by considering the main human activities and level of usage of an area.

Areas considered less natural include those affected by catchment activities, fishing, flow regulation, human settlement, introduced species, marine farming leases, ocean outfalls, and slipways and boat ramps.

Identification Criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 12 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

3 Areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas

The Commission identified 45 areas containing elements that meet the marine protected area (MPA) identification criteria within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy), as interpreted by the Commission.

These areas were presented in the Interim Report and public submissions sought.

Information sources used for the identification of areas suitable for inclusion within MPAs were the:

• Background Report and supporting documentation; • Public submissions on the Background Report; • Public hearing on the Background Report; • Advice from the Reference Body (established by the Commission)6; • Relevant literature; and • Ecological and conservation expertise within the Panel.

For each identified area, information presented in the Interim Report included summary tables stating the elements of each area that meet the identification criteria. Summary tables that assessed the comprehensiveness and representativeness, of ecosystems and habitats, within each area were also presented within the Interim Report.

In the Interim Report, the Commission emphasised that these areas were not proposed MPAs, but simply areas that contain elements that meet the identification criteria. Specific boundaries or the type of protection recommended for a particular area were not identified during this stage of the process. For convenience, circles and ovals were used to identify areas so they could not be confused with set boundaries.

Boundary and management considerations are part of the final identification phase and selection phase and are presented later in the Draft Recommendations Report (this Report).

The identified areas presented in the Interim Report are presented again in this report. Figures 2 and 3 present the identified areas from a whole of bioregion perspective. These two figures depict the areas with a progressively greater background detail: Figure 2 showing the biounits and ecosystems (where consolidated substratum, ie. reef, is mapped) and Figure 3 showing the mapped habitats.

6 The Reference Body was established to advise the Commission on marine ecosystems and habitat classification within the Bruny Bioregion. The Reference Body presented a report to the Commission on draft ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion. This report was presented in full in Appendix 4 of the Background Report.

Identified Areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 13 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 2 Locations of identified areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures]

Identified Areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 14 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 2 (continued)

[Back to figures]

Identified Areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 15 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 3 Locations of identified areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures]

Identified Areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 16 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 3 (continued)

[Back to figures]

Identified Areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 17 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

4 Bioregional and ecosystem level priorities for marine protected areas

Step 6 of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) is to: “Develop priorities for Marine Protected Areas at the bioregional and ecosystem level, based on results of steps 4 and 5.” Step 4 of the Strategy is to identify threatening processes. Step 5 is to assess comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of ecosystems and habitats within existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Steps 4 and 5 for the Bruny Bioregion were largely addressed within the Interim Report.

Based on the results of Steps 4 and 5, the Commission developed the following priorities for MPAs at the bioregional level.

In addition to acting in accordance with the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (see Box 1, page vi) and the objectives of the Commission under the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 (see Box 2, page 4), further priorities at the bioregional level are:

• Ensure representation of all ecosystems, consistent with Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) principles • Ensure protection of flow on effects, for example protecting heads of estuaries, nursery areas, transport of biomass • Protect linked ecosystems, for example, inter-tidal areas for migratory birds or offshore movement of fish species at different life stages • Protect ecosystems of conservation concern • Ensure maintenance of pristine and near pristine ecosystems • Provide for remediation of degraded ecosystems.

Based on the results of Steps 4 and 5, the Commission developed the following priorities for MPAs at the ecosystem level:

• Ensure protection of habitats and communities of conservation concern • Ensure maintenance of pristine and near pristine habitats and communities • Provide for remediation of degraded habitats and communities • Ensure the preservation of functional integrity of ecosystems.

Bioregional and ecosystem level priorities will feed into the establishment of management objectives for individual MPAs, together with additional objectives that enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety in accordance with the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (see Box 1, page vi).

Priorities for MPAs Resource Planning and Development Commission 18 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

5 Priority areas that are suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas

5.1 Overview Following application of the bioregional and ecosystems level priorities determined for Step 6 of the Strategy (refer Chapter 4), the Commission determined that 30 of the 45 areas identified in the Interim Report as suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas (MPAs) (refer Chapter 3) are priority areas for potential MPAs.

Identified area number 39, Ralphs Bay Lauderdale, was not assessed against these priorities as this area was excluded by the terms of the amended reference issued on 8 August 2007 (Appendix 1).

Figures 4 and 5 present the priority identified areas from a whole of bioregion perspective. These two figures depict the areas with a progressively greater background detail: Figure 4 showing the biounits and ecosystems (where consolidated substratum, ie. reef, is mapped) and Figure 5 showing the mapped habitats.

As indicated previously, circles and ovals have been used to identify these areas to avoid confusion with set boundaries. Specific boundaries and the type of protection recommended for a particular area were not identified during the identification stage of the process, but are addressed during the selection stage.

Assessessment of the comprehensiveness and representativeness of priority identified areas is presented in Section 5.2. It should be noted that comprehensiveness and representativeness are reassessed during the selection stage to ensure these criteria are met.

Adequacy is influenced by the boundaries and management regime recommended for an MPA and is considered during the selection process.

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 19 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 4 Locations of priority identified areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 20 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 4 (continued)

[Back to figures]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 21 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 5 Locations of priority identified areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 22 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 5 (continued)

[Back to figures]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 23 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

5.2 Comprehensiveness and representativeness of priority areas suitable for inclusion within marine protected areas A summary of the Commission’s interpretation of the identification criteria has been provided in Chapter 2. For Comprehensiveness and Representativeness these were:

Comprehensiveness • There are nine draft biounits in the Bruny Bioregion and, for the purposes of this process, the ecosystems are defined as consolidated (ie. reef) and unconsolidated (eg. silt, sand, seagrass and Caulerpa seaweed beds). • For every biounit, each ecosystem is included where it exists at a meaningful scale. • MPAs within the Offshore biounit are comprehensive if they include each of the following bathymetric (depth) strata: 40 – 100 m and >100 m.

Representativeness • The MPA(s) in a given biounit contain elements of each of the habitat types that are present in that biounit. For example, if a biounit contains seagrass, sand and reef, an MPA is representative if it has all of these habitat types within it. • For every biounit, each habitat is represented where it exists at a meaningful scale. • Where data permit, representativeness may be applied at the finer scales of communities and species. • In the absence of data, representativeness cannot be assessed for the Offshore biounit.

For each biounit, the presence of ecosystems and habitats within each of the priority areas suitable for inclusion within MPAs, and within existing MPAs, is shown in Table 1.

The Commission recognises that the boundaries of ecological features, such as ecosystems and habitats, occur across ecological gradients and not within strictly defined lines. The Commission recognises that the location and features (eg. seagrass density) of some habitats may change over time. The definitions for the habitat categories used by the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute in this mapping were presented in Appendix 5 of the Background Report.

General assumptions on the presence of ecosystems and habitats include:

• The representation of ecosystems and habitats includes the water column above each area; • Within the Derwent biounit, all reef habitat is low profile reef; • Within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit, sparse seagrass and sparse patchy seagrass are considered together as a single habitat category; • Ecosystems and habitats that comprise less than 10 ha within a biounit are not considered as existing at a meaningful scale within that biounit and are not shown as occurring within that biounit;

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 24 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Isolated small patches of habitat (i.e. less than approx. 50 m in the smallest dimension) are not considered as existing at a meaningful scale within identified areas and are usually not shown as occurring within that identified area; and • The scale at which ecosystems and habitats are considered as existing at a meaningful scale may be reassessed during the identification and selection phase.

The Commission considers that the priority identified areas are comprehensive as they collectively include both ecosystem types of consolidated and non-consolidated substratum, wherever present within a biounit, or each of the two key depth strata defined for the Offshore biounit (Table 1).

As shown in Table 1, the priority identified areas do not strictly align with the Commission’s interpretation of representativeness. The priority identified areas do not represent silty sand and patchy seagrass habitats within the Exposed biounit; patchy seagrass habitats within the Moderately- exposed biounit; or medium profile reef habitat within the Channel biounit. It also should be noted that while sand habitat is not formally represented in the Norfolk biounit, it is likely to constitute the main substratum under the seagrass and Caulerpa habitats.

However, within each of these biounits, the Commission considers these habitats are not a reasonable reflection of the marine ecosystems from which they derive. Therefore their non-representation is not of concern. Their presence within each of these biounits is considered as an artefact of the hierarchical regionalisation process used to define the biounits as “areas within the bioregion where the main ecological processes and biotic features are reasonably distinctive and reasonably representative of the processes and biodiversity of that area” (see the Background Report Appendix 4).

As such, it is the view of the Commission that the priority identified areas satisfy the Strategy with regard to reasonably meeting the requirements of the identification criteria relating to representativeness and also the principle of representativeness.

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 25 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] x x x x x x Patchy reef xx ● ● ● ● ● Low profile reef ●●● ●● ●●● ●●● Medium profile reef ???? ???? x ●●●● ●●●● ●● ●●●● High profile reef Not present in biounit ? Unknown, may exist Aquatic macrophyte

Caulerpa ● Sparse & sp patchy seagrass x xxxx xx x xx Patchy seagrass ● ● ● ● ●● ●● xxxxxxx x x Silt Seagrass xxxx x xxxx x x x xxxx xxx xxxx x x Silty sand ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● Sand

●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●●● ●● Hard sand Present in identified area; x Not present in identified area, but biounit;

●

identified areas Key: Tinderbox Marine ReserveTinderbox x Depth rangeArea Name Offshore biounit EcosystemHabitatArea Name Offshore biounit 40 – 100 m depthExposed Biounit Unvegetated Non-consolidated substratumModerately exposed biounit > 100 m depth Vegetated Consolidated substratum (Reef) Existing MPAs 8 Hippolytes■ 1820 Tinderbox21 Crayfish Point22 Opossum Bay x Betsey Is./Lower South Arm x x x x x x x x 16 Primrose/Sloping No 19 Cape Pillar Basin Peninsula East Tasman No 45 Deep Glen Bay/Cape Surville6 Pavement Tess. Pirates Bay, 7 Bay Waterfall x Fortescue Bay 12 Head Tasman x 19 Cape Pillar Basin Peninsula East Tasman ? ? ? ? 9 Peninsula East Tasman Table 1 Table Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: ecosystems habitats within biounits priority ■ [Back to tables]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 26 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] x x x x x Patchy reef ? ? x ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● Low profile reef x Medium profile reef High profile reef x x ●● Not present in biounit ? Unknown, may exist Aquatic macrophyte

Caulerpa Sparse & sp patchy seagrass xx xx Patchy seagrass xxxx x ●● ●● ● ● ? x xxxx xxx x x xxxx x x ● Silt Seagrass ?? xxx xxxx x x x ● ●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● Silty sand x x xx xxxx x x ●●● ● Sand ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● Hard sand Present in identified area; x Not present in identified area, but biounit;

●

priority identified areas Key: Ninepin Point Marine Reserve EcosystemHabitatArea Name Norfolk biounit Channel biounit Unvegetated Non-consolidated substratumHuon biounit Derwent biounit Open estuaries biounit VegetatedMarine Inlet & Bays biounit Consolidated substratum (Reef) Existing MPAs

No 2526 South Norfolk Bay Lime Bay 28 Roberts Point 33■ Bay Little Taylors 35 Upper Huon3638 Upper Derwent40 Clarence Ralphs Bay South Arm 41 Port Cygnet42 x43 Blackman Bay 44 Pittwater 45 ? Pipe Clay Lagoon Cloudy Bay Lagoon x ? ? 3031 Isthmus Bay 32 Simpsons Point Central Channel 34 Ninepin Table 1 Table (cont.) Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: ecosystems habitats within biounits ■ [Back to tables]

Priority identified areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 27 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

6 Selection criteria

The terms of reference direct the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) to “use the selection criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy to select those areas of public land under investigation that are suitable as Marine Protected Areas.”

The selection criteria are:

• Economic Interests • Indigenous Interests • Social Interests • Scientific Interests • Practicality/Feasibility • Vulnerability Assessment • Replication

The definitions of the selection criteria in the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy are:

Economic Interests • “Existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection, eg. for recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for economically important species. • Current or potential use for the extraction of, or exploration for resources. • Importance for shipping and/or trade. • Value due to its contribution to local or regional employment and economic development.”

Indigenous Interests • “Traditional usage and/or current economic value. • Contains indigenous cultural values. • Native title considerations”

Social Interests • “Existing or potential value to the local, national or international communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional, aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.”

Scientific Interests • “Existing or potential value for research and monitoring”.

Selection criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 28 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Practicality/Feasibility • “Degree of insulation from external destructive influences. • Social and political acceptability and a degree of community support. • Access for recreation, tourism, and education. • Lends itself to practical management (cost effectiveness, compliance etc.).”

Vulnerability Assessment • “Extent to which the site is vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes.”

Replication • “Provides a replication of ecosystems within a Marine Protected Area within the bioregion.”

A summary of information relevant to the selection criteria for the Bruny Bioregion, particularly information within the Background Report and information received from public submissions and hearings, is presented in Appendix 8.

Selection criteria Resource Planning and Development Commission 29 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

7 Levels of protection

Recognising the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System (see Box 1, page vi), the primary goal of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) (Appendix 2) is:

“to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine protected areas, to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Tasmania’s biological diversity”.

Within the Strategy, the development of marine protected areas (MPAs) is also guided by a series of secondary goals (ie. ecological, economic, social and scientific) and associated guiding principles.

The Strategy recognises that MPAs can be established for a variety of management purposes and provide for a range of activities while still protecting the environment. The Strategy states “MPAs can be reserved for conservation, fisheries management, research, education, social and historical importance, tourism or recreational use – or any combination of these.”

The Strategy states that the Tasmanian Government will adopt the ‘International Union for the Conservation of Nature’7 Protected Area Management Categories (see Appendix 2) for MPAs that are established under the Strategy. However, these categories are not designed to drive the development of MPAs but to provide an international system of categorisation to facilitate understanding. The Strategy states that MPAs “should be established to meet objectives consistent with national or regional goals and needs and only then be assigned an IUCN category according to agreed management objectives.”

Tasmanian MPAs established under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 may be declared as ‘reserved land’ in one of various classes of reserve (eg. Nature Reserve, State Reserve, National Park, Conservation Area, etc). However, similar to the use of IUCN categories, the classes of reserved land are not designed to drive the development of MPAs but instead should be applied according to the agreed management objectives, values and/or purposes of reservation.

The Strategy also recognises that Tasmanian MPAs may be established as a ‘Marine Resources Protected Area’ under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995.

Given the above, the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) has not applied IUCN categories or classes of reserved land to those areas that have been selected as suitable for declaration as MPAs within this Draft Recommendations Report (see Chapter 8).

To guide the differing management emphases or potential management arrangements required for each MPA (or areas within each MPA) the Commission has identified three levels of protection that may be recommended for these MPAs.

These levels of protection are referred to as:

• Very high level of protection; • High level of protection; or • Medium level of protection.

7 Now the World Conservation Union (abbreviated as IUCN)

Levels of protection Resource Planning and Development Commission 30 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission has deliberately avoided the use of the term ‘low level of protection’ with reference to recommended MPAs. The Commission considers that if this terminology were used to describe an MPA it may be open to misinterpretation that the area has low value as an MPA. In addition, these relative levels of protection may be used to distinguish MPAs from the broader marine area whereby the natural resources are, or may be, managed in an ecologically sustainable manner (ie. a relatively lower level of protection than within an MPA).

Recognising the primary and secondary goals and principles of the Strategy, the Commission has identified the following general characteristics that may apply within each of these levels of protection as:

Very high level of protection • Managed mainly for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring; • Managed for ecosystem conservation and/or maintenance of habitat or species protection; • May be managed for recreation and other social values provided they are consistent with maintaining the ecological objectives of the MPA; • No extractive activities (eg. no fishing, no mining); • No activities that have a physical impact on habitat (eg. no dredging, no land reclamation, no marine farming); • Land-based impacts to be avoided and/or remediated; and • Key ecosystem, habitat, community and/or species biodiversity values to be remediated.

High level of protection • Managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation and/or maintenance of habitat or species protection; • May be managed for science and environmental monitoring; • May be managed for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems; • Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and that are highly understood and controlled (ie. abalone, rock lobster, trolling, line fishing with 5 or less hooks); • No other activities that have a physical impact on habitat or species; • Land-based impacts to be avoided, minimised and/or remediated; and • Key ecosystem, habitat, community and/or species biodiversity values to be remediated.

Medium level of protection • May be managed for ecosystem conservation and recreation, and/or maintenance of habitat or species protection, and/or the sustainable use of natural ecosystems; • Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA;

Levels of protection Resource Planning and Development Commission 31 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection; • No new activities that have a significant physical impact on habitat or species; • No new activities that are contrary to the objectives of the MPA; • Minimise or remediate the impact of current activities that occur within the MPA, or relevant catchment, that may be contrary to the long-term objectives of the MPA (eg. siltation, regulated flows, marine farming, ocean outfalls); • Land-based impacts to be minimised and/or remediated; and • Key ecosystem, habitat, community and/or species biodiversity values to be remediated.

The Commission considers that the onus is on each sector (eg. fisheries, urban planning, recreation, tourism, etc) to establish that access to an MPA by that sector would not be detrimental to the values for which the MPA is declared.

In the drafting and the initial application of these levels of protection to MPAs, the Commission recognises that specific management arrangements will apply within each MPA. Specific management arrangements will need to be applied on a case-by-case basis to meet the particular management objectives for each of those areas declared as MPAs.

The Commission acknowledges that the inquiry terms of reference require that potential arrangements for management are recommended for those areas that are determined to be suitable for declaration as an MPA. However, the Commission notes that to meet the objectives of each MPA, specific management controls additional to those within the final recommendations of the Commission are likely to be developed following the declaration of each MPA.

The development of additional management controls will occur through the formulation of a management plan, including public representations on a draft management plan, by the managing authority for each MPA (eg. the Parks and Wildlife Service under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 or the Department of Primary Industries and Water under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995).

Levels of protection Resource Planning and Development Commission 32 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

8 Areas selected as suitable for declaration as marine protected areas

8.1 Overview Step 7 of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) is to:

“Develop additional criteria for identification and selection of Marine Protected Areas if required.”

The Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) does not currently consider that additional identification and selection criteria are required in order to enable identification and selection of marine protected areas (MPAs) within the Bruny Bioregion.

Step 8 of the Strategy is to:

“Select and prioritise sites for Marine Protected Areas from a candidate list of Marine Protected Areas using Tasmanian selection criteria, and any other additional criteria developed in step 7 and identify arrangements for management, funding and enforcement.”

Where applicable, all available information and particularly that summarised in Appendix 8, has been used to inform the Commission’s views when applying the selection criteria to the priority identified areas and to select those areas that are suitable for declaration as marine protected areas (hereinafter referred to as ‘selected MPAs’).

At the start of the selection phase, the Commission initially characterised each of the 30 priority identified areas (refer Chapter 5) against the selection criteria (see Appendix 9). The Commission used these ecological and conservation values (the identification criteria) and the broad characteristics of human uses and values (the selection criteria) to help select MPAs and set management objectives and levels of protection. All of this information has been used to form the Commission’s views when selecting MPAs within the Bruny Bioregion and is presented for each selected MPA.

Twenty-one areas were selected as suitable for declaration as MPAs. Some of these MPAs are comprised of different zones, whereby the zones may represent different biounits or areas within the MPA with different management objectives and/or recommended levels of protection. The selected MPAs and recommended levels of protection are listed in Table 2. The selected MPAs are shown in Figures 6 to 21.

Figures 6 and 7 present the selected MPAs in a whole of bioregion perspective. These two figures depict the areas with a progressively greater background detail: Figure 6 showing the biounits and ecosystems (where consolidated substratum is mapped) and Figure 7 showing the mapped habitats.

The selected MPAs are presented on a biounit by biounit basis in sections 8.2 to 8.10. These provide a closer examination of each area, the habitats contained within it, surrounding features and recommended levels of protection.

For each selected MPA, the main ecological and practicality considerations used by the Commission to define the MPA are listed, together with the broad management objectives and levels of protection recommended within each MPA.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 33 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

In the final recommendations to the Minister, the Commission is required to provide a range of alternatives giving, in each case, advantages and disadvantages. Where applicable, the Commission has listed options for each MPA in this Draft Recommendations Report where there may be scope for presenting alternatives, particularly with regard to boundaries of the MPAs.

As stated in Chapter 5, the detailed maps presented within these sections recognise that the boundaries of ecological features, such as ecosystems and habitats, occur across ecological gradients and not within strictly defined lines. The Commission recognises that the location and features (eg. seagrass density) of some habitats may change over time. The definitions for the habitat categories used by the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute in this mapping were presented in Appendix 5 of the Background Report.

The Commission’s assessment of comprehensiveness and representativeness of selected MPAs is presented in section 8.11. It should be noted that comprehensiveness and representativeness were reassessed during each stage of the selection process to ensure these criteria were met.

Adequacy is influenced by the boundaries and management regime that are recommended for an MPA and is considered during the selection process.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 34 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Table 2 Selected marine protected areas and recommended levels of protection

Selected Marine Protected Area Recommended Level of Protection Offshore biounit Hippolytes Rocks (Zone A) Very high Cape Pillar (Zone A) Very high Exposed biounit Hippolytes Rocks (Zone B) High Cape Pillar (Zone B) High Waterfall Bay–Fortescue Bay Very High The Friars High Moderately exposed biounit Sloping Island High Betsey Island High Opossum Bay High Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) Very high Tinderbox (extension) Very high Norfolk biounit Lime Bay (Zone A) Very high Lime Bay (Zone B) Medium Channel biounit Roberts Point High D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA Zone A (Ninepin Point extension) Very high Zone B (Simpsons Point) Very high Zone C (Central Channel) Medium Zone D (Isthmus Bay) Medium Huon biounit Huon Estuary High Derwent biounit River Derwent Medium Droughty Peninsula Medium South Arm Very high Open estuaries biounit Port Cygnet Medium Marine Inlet & Bays biounit Blackman Bay Medium Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon Medium Pipe Clay Lagoon Medium Cloudy Bay Lagoon Very high

[Back to tables]

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 35 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 6 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to ecosystems within the Bruny Bioregion,

[Back to figures] Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 36 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 6 (continued)

[Back to figures] Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 37 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 7 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures] Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 38 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 7 (continued)

[Back to figures] Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 39 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

8.2 Offshore biounit

8.2.1 Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A) This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 9 within the Offshore biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 8, page 41) are:

Ecological considerations • Comprehensively protect deeper ecosystems (ie. include the 40-100m and >100 m depth strata); • Provide a scientific reference site for Offshore (shelf) ecosystems; • Protection of likely habitat for endemic handfish species and associated communities in shelf ecosystems; • Protection of albatross and petrel species (ie. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatross and Petrels); and • Increase the resilience of ecosystems to threats.

Practicality considerations • Provide for practical expansion on all seaward boundaries [eg. to include deep reef boundaries and/or further linkages with Hippolytes Rocks MPA (Zone B)]; • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude; • Allow relatively easy access for scientific research and environmental monitoring; • Provide for replication of, or alternative to, other MPAs within the Offshore biounit [eg. Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A)]; and • Avoid areas with greater ease of access for recreational fishers or proximity to boat ramps (eg. seaward of Hippolytes Rocks MPA (Zone B) from Fortescue Bay and Pirates Bay).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 40 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 8 Locations of selected marine protected areas within the Offshore biounit8

[Back to figures]

The area of the Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A) is approximately 3587 ha.

The Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A) consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters within an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

8 The Hippolytes Rocks MPA (Zone B) and the Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) within the adjacent Exposed biounit are shown to demonstrate the linkages with the two MPAs within the Offshore biounit.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 41 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚07´00˝ 148˚04´00˝ thence to 43˚07´00˝ 148˚06´00˝ thence to 43˚11´00˝ 148˚06´00˝ thence to 43˚11´00˝ 148˚02´00˝ thence to 43˚07´50˝ 148˚02´00˝ thence to 43˚07´50˝ 148˚04´00˝ thence to 43˚07´00˝ 148˚04´00˝

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for science, ecosystem conservation and habitat/species protection. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

Permitted recreational or social activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Commercial and recreational fishers are considered to be the main group that will be required to comply with rules for the MPA. As such, it is the Commission’s preferred option to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude.

Options • There is scope to move all of the seaward boundaries of the MPA. • There is scope to move the seaward boundaries of the MPA to the 3 nm limit of coastal waters, rather than being defined solely by points of latitude and longitude. • The Commission has limited information regarding the ecological values for this area. Until the ecological values of the area are characterised, the Commission’s preferred option is for a precautionary approach to management. Following determination of representativeness, and the scientific and ecological values of the area, activities that do not impact on these values may be permitted in the MPA, or defined areas within the MPA. • Given that the value of the area for science is presently unknown, there is scope to initially recommend a high level of protection, and allow highly understood and controlled fisheries to continue until the values of the area are more fully determined. • To minimise social impact and increase reporting of compliance, there may be scope to allow recreational fishing (ie. trolling and line fishing with artificial lures) within all or part of the MPA, provided the scientific and ecological values of the area are not significantly impacted by this activity. • The long-term level of protection for this MPA may be dependant on an assessment of the appropriateness of this MPA and/or the Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) as a scientific reference site for the Offshore biounit.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 42 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Recognising the significant ecological, economic and social value of the eastern Tasman and Forestier Peninsula region and linkages between ecosystems, there is scope for an MPA to be declared within the remaining waters surrounding all of the selected MPAs within the Offshore and Exposed biounits (Tasman section) (eg. from Cape Surville to Black Head or Port Arthur). The values of this broader area would warrant a medium level of protection.

8.2.2 Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area numbers 1 and 9 within the Offshore biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 8, page 41) are:

Ecological considerations • Comprehensively protect deeper ecosystems (ie. include the 40-100m and >100 m depth strata); • Provide a scientific reference site for Offshore (shelf) ecosystems; • Protect part of a significant geomorphic feature (eg. Cape Pillar Basin); • Protection of likely habitat for endemic handfish species and associated communities in shelf ecosystems; • Protection of albatross and petrel species (ie. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatross and Petrels); and • Increase the resilience of ecosystems to threats.

Practicality considerations • Provide for practical expansion on all seaward boundaries [eg. to include deep reef boundaries and/or further linkages with Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B)]; • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude; • Allow relatively easy access for scientific research and environmental monitoring; • Provide for replication of, or alternative to, other MPAs within the Offshore biounit [eg. with Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A)]; and • Avoid areas with greater ease of access for recreational fishers or proximity to boat ramps [eg. seaward of Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) from Fortescue Bay and Port Arthur]

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 43 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The area of the Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) is approximately 3336 ha.

The Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters within an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚12´20˝ 148˚01´00˝ thence to 43˚12´20˝ 148˚03´00˝ thence to 43˚17´00˝ 148˚03´00˝ thence to 43˚17´00˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to 43˚15´00˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to 43˚15´00˝ 148˚01´00˝ thence to 43˚12´20˝ 148˚01´00˝

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

Permitted recreational or social activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • There is scope to move all of the seaward boundaries of the MPA. • There is scope to move the seaward boundaries of the MPA to the 3 nm limit of coastal waters, rather than being defined solely by points of latitude and longitude. • The Commission has limited information regarding the ecological values for this area. Until the ecological values of the area are characterised, the Commission’s preferred option is for a precautionary approach to management. Following determination of representativeness, and the scientific and ecological values of the area, activities that do not impact on these values may be permitted in the MPA, or defined areas within the MPA. • Given that the value of the area for science is presently unknown, there is scope to initially recommend a high level of protection, and allow highly understood and controlled fisheries to continue until the values of the area are more fully determined. • In order to minimise social impact and increase reporting of compliance, there may be scope to allow recreational fishing (ie. trolling and line fishing with artificial lures) within all or part of the MPA, whereby the scientific and ecological values of the area are not significantly impacted by this activity.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 44 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• The long-term level of protection for this MPA may be dependant on an assessment of the appropriateness of this MPA and/or the Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A) as a scientific reference site for the Offshore biounit. • Recognising the significant ecological, economic and social value of the eastern Tasman and Forestier Peninsula region and linkages between ecosystems, there is scope for an MPA to be declared within the remaining waters surrounding all of the selected MPAs within the Offshore and Exposed biounits (Tasman section) (eg. from Cape Surville to Black Head or Port Arthur). The values of this broader area would warrant a medium level of protection.

8.3 Exposed biounit

8.3.1 Waterfall Bay–Fortescue Bay MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area numbers 6 and 7 within the Exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 9, page 46) are:

Ecological considerations • Protect nationally significant example of outstanding marine biodiversity; • Provide scientific reference site, particularly for (relatively) exposed reef ecosystems; • Protect habitat for Waterfall Bay handfish and con-specific handfish species (eg. Loneys/ Ziebells handfish) which are known to occur between Waterfall Bay and Fortescue Bay; • Protect habitat for red handfish; • Protect string kelp (Macrocystis) and associated communities in Fortescue Bay; • Protect sessile invertebrate communities; • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef ecosystems and habitats; • Where practical, include habitat boundaries (eg. mapped reef boundaries to 40m depth); and • Protect geomorphic features of high significance (eg. sea caves, sea cliffs, etc).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 45 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 9 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Exposed biounit (Tasman section)9

[Back to figures] 9 The Hippolytes Rocks MPA (Zone A) and the Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) within the adjacent Offshore biounit are shown to demonstrate the linkages with the MPAs within the Exposed biounit.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 46 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Includes Tasman and Forestier Peninsula High Energy Coastline (Tasmanian geoconservation site); • Facilitate scientific studies and monitoring of ecosystems and temporal trends; • Allow for access for fisheries in the area north of the MPA boundary (ie. from Pirates Bay boat ramp); • Allow for access for fisheries in the area south of the MPA boundary (ie. from the Fortescue Bay boat ramp); • Avoid increased fisheries restrictions in the area around the Fortescue Bay campground; • Minimise the impact on recreational tuna fishing (ie. trolling and line fishing with artificial lures) in the area between Pirates Bay boat ramp and Hippolyte Rocks; • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • To allow for buffering of fishery effects on offshore reef boundaries; • Area includes ‘no netting’ areas at Waterfall Bay and Patersons Arch; • Recognised high value for tourism, especially dive tourism and scenic values; • Facilitate observation and reporting of seabed habitat condition by recreational divers and dive charter operators; and • Provide for practical expansion on the seaward boundaries (eg. to expand MPA to allow for broader habitat/species protection in inshore shelf waters within the Offshore biounit).

The area of Waterfall Bay-Fortescue Bay MPA is approximately 1770 ha.

The Waterfall Bay-Fortescue Bay MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude North of Patersons Arch lookout 43˚03´00˝ 147˚57´08˝ thence to 43˚03´00˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to East of O’Hara Bluff 43˚05´00˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to East of O’Hara Bluff 43˚05´00˝ 147˚59´30˝ thence to 43˚07´50˝ 147˚59´30˝ thence to Point south of Canoe Bay 43˚07´50˝ 147˚57´33˝

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

The area may also be managed for recreation and other social values consistent with the scientific and ecological objectives for which the MPA is established.

Commercial and recreational fishers and other recreational users (ie. recreational divers) are considered to be the main group that will be required to comply with rules for the MPA. As such, it

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 47 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

is the Commission’s preferred option to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude and prominent geographic features.

Options • There is scope to define the seaward boundaries of the MPA as a distance from the coastline (most adequately at least 1000 m), rather than by lines of latitude and longitude as given within the preferred option. • Although not designed primarily to represent ecosystems within the Offshore biounit, the preferred option provides for the option of representation of some of the shallower habitats within the Offshore biounit within an MPA of a very high level of protection. • There is scope to move the seaward boundary of the MPA to include further areas of habitat/ species protection in inshore shelf waters within the Offshore biounit. • Recognising the significant ecological, economic and social value of the eastern Tasman and Forestier Peninsula region and linkages between ecosystems, there is scope for an MPA to be declared within the remaining waters surrounding all of the selected MPAs within the Offshore and Exposed biounits (Tasman section) (eg. from Cape Surville to Black Head or Port Arthur). The values of this broader area would warrant a medium level of protection.

8.3.2 Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone B) This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 8 within the Exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 9, page 46) are:

Ecological considerations • Protect nationally significant example of marine biodiversity; • To protect a unique habitat type (ie. offshore pinnacles); • To protect an ecological unit (ie. island communities); • Protection of seals and the marine environment around a large seal haul-out site; • Protect great white shark around site of high likelihood of occurrence (ie. around seal colony); • Protect sessile invertebrate communities; • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats; and • Where practical, include habitat boundaries (eg. mapped reef boundaries to 40m depth).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 48 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Practicality considerations • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. Offshore and adjacent to Tasman National Park); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Tasman National Park); • Includes Hippolyte Rocks Nature Reserve (Register of the National Estate); • Includes Hippolyte Rock Granite (Tasmanian geoconservation site); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Provide for practical expansion on all seaward boundaries [eg. to include deep reef boundaries and/or linkages with Hippolytes Rocks MPA (Zone A) in the Offshore biounit].

The area of Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone B) is approximately 410 ha.

The Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone B) consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚07´00˝ 148˚02´00˝ thence to 43˚07´00˝ 148˚04´00˝ thence to 43˚07´50˝ 148˚04´00˝˝ thence to 43˚07´50˝ 148˚02´00˝ thence to 43˚07´00˝ 148˚02´00˝

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and habitat/species protection. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and that are highly understood and controlled (ie. abalone, rock lobster, trolling, line fishing with 5 or less hooks).

The Commission recognises that further area specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

Options • There is scope to define the seaward boundaries of the MPA as a distance from the coastline (most adequately at least 500 m), rather than by lines of latitude and longitude as given within the preferred option. • There is scope to move each of the seaward boundaries of the MPA, dependant on the final recommendations for the Hippolyte Rocks MPA (Zone A).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 49 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

8.3.3 Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 9 within the Exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 9, page 46) are:

Ecological considerations • Protect an ecological unit (ie. island communities); • Protect seals and the marine environment around a large seal haul-out site on Tasman Island; • Protect great white shark around site of high likelihood of occurrence (ie. around seal colony); • Protect little penguins, sooty shearwaters and short-tailed shearwaters within the marine environment around Tasman Island; • Protect sessile invertebrate communities; • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats; and • Where practical, include habitat boundaries (eg. mapped reef boundaries to 40m depth contour around island).

Practicality considerations • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to Tasman National Park); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Tasman National Park); • Includes Tasman and Forestier Peninsula High Energy Coastline and Tasman Island - Cape Pillar Dolerite (Tasmanian geoconservation sites); • Includes Tasman Peninsula (Register of the National Estate); • Avoid potential sites with greater ease of access or proximity to boat ramps (eg. Fortescue Bay and Port Arthur); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Facilitate observation and reporting of seabed habitat condition by commercial abalone divers; • Recognised high value for tourism, especially biodiversity and scenic values; • Includes wreck of the ‘Nord’ (Historic Shipwreck and dive site); • Provide for practical expansion on all seaward boundaries [eg. to include deep reef boundaries and/or linkages with Cape Pillar MPA (Zone A) in Offshore biounit]; and • Provide for replication of MPAs within the Exposed biounit (eg. with The Friars MPAs with similar values in the Bruny section of the Exposed biounit). The area of the Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) is approximately 1005 ha.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 50 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) consists of all of that area within Tasmania waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Nord Bluff 43˚12´23˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to North of Nord Bluff 43˚12´20˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to 43˚12´20˝ 148˚01´00˝ thence to 43˚15´00˝ 148˚01´00˝ thence to 43˚15´00˝ 147˚59´00˝ thence to Yankee Rock 43˚13´18˝ 147˚59´00˝

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be primarily managed for ecosystem conservation and recreation, habitat/species protection and sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological and scenic values for which the MPA is established.

8.3.4 The Friars MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 12 within the Exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 10, page 53) are:

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 51 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Ecological considerations • Protect seals and the marine environment around the largest seal haul-out site in the Bruny Bioregion at The Friars; • Protect great white shark around site of high likelihood of occurrence (ie. around seal colony); • Protect short-tailed shearwaters within the marine environment around relatively large shearwater colonies on Tasman Head and the Friars; • Protect sessile invertebrate communities; • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats; and • Where practical, include habitat boundaries (eg. mapped reef boundaries to 40m depth contour around island).

Practicality considerations • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to South Bruny National Park); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to South Bruny National Park); • Avoid potential sites with greater ease of access or proximity to boat ramps for recreational fishers (eg. Adventure Bay, Southport and Dover); • Avoid current marine farming zones in southern D’Entrecasteaux Channel (and areas indicated for potential expansion of the salmon farming industry outside of the southern Channel region); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Facilitate observation and reporting of seabed habitat condition by commercial abalone divers; • Recognised high value for tourism, especially biodiversity and scenic values; • Provide for practical expansion on all seaward boundaries (eg. to include deep reef boundaries, or, to include linking with Huon candidate MPA in Commonwealth waters); and • Provide for replication of MPAs within the Exposed biounit (eg. with Cape Pillar MPA (Zone B) with similar values in the Tasman section of the Exposed biounit).

The area of The Friars MPA is approximately 1579 ha.

The Friars MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚30´02˝ 147˚16´30˝ thence to 43˚33´00˝ 147˚16´30˝ thence to 43˚33´00˝ 147˚19´00˝ thence to 43˚30´03˝ 147˚19´00˝

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 52 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 10 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Exposed biounit (Bruny section)

[Back to figures]

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 53 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and recreation, habitat/species protection and sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on ecological and scenic values for which the MPA is established.

Commercial fishers are considered to be the main group that will be required to comply with rules for the MPA. As such, it is the Commission’s preferred option to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude.

Options • There is scope to move each of the seaward boundaries of the MPA to include deeper reef habitat that is not currently mapped. • There is scope to move the southern boundary south to the 3nm limit of coastal waters. This may provide an opportunity for linkage with the Huon candidate MPA in Commonwealth waters. • There is scope to define the seaward boundaries of the MPA as a distance from the coastline (most adequately at least 1000 m), rather than by lines of latitude and longitude as given within the preferred option.

8.4 Moderately exposed (Derwent influence) biounit

8.4.1. Sloping Island MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 16 within the Moderately- exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

For practicality and ecological continuity, it is proposed that the Sloping Island MPA (Figure 11, page 55) is linked with the Lime Bay MPA, within the Norfolk biounit (see section 8.5), to form a larger linked protected area (ie. the Sloping Island-Lime Bay MPA).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 54 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 11 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Moderately exposed biounit10

[Back to figures]

10 The Lime Bay MPA (Zones A and B) within the adjacent Norfolk biounit are shown to demonstrate the linkage between the zones of this MPA and the Sloping Island MPA. Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 55 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define the Sloping Island MPA are:

Ecological considerations • Protect little penguins within the marine environment around the very large penguin colonies on Sloping Island; • Protection of habitat for (reported) spotted and red handfish populations; • Increase the resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats; • Where practical, to include habitat boundaries (eg. reef boundaries around island); • Protect an ecological unit (ie. island communities); • Include part of the deep channel and some deep holes in area north of Sloping Island; and • Protection of areas of vegetated habitat (eg. seagrass).

Practicality considerations • Avoidance of (high usage) boat ramp at Primrose Sands; • Avoid urban development in Southern Beaches area (eg. Dodges Ferry, Carlton and Primrose Sands); • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve); • Includes Tasman Peninsula (Register of the National Estate); • Avoid access point from Sloping Main; • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Incorporates area with ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; and • That boundaries be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features.

The area of the Sloping Island MPA is approximately 930 ha.

The Sloping Island MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of a line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Green Head 42˚56´05˝ 147˚40´45˝ thence to 42˚56´00˝ 147˚40´45˝ thence to 42˚56´00˝ 147˚37´50˝ thence to 42˚57´45˝ 147˚37´50˝ thence to Lobster Pt. 42˚57´45˝ 147˚40´08˝

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 56 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing. In particular, the Commission notes that management of the rock lobster fishery should ensure that ecosystem effects of fishing (as have been reported within habitat utilised by locally extinct spotted and red handfish communities in the Primrose Sands area) are avoided.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted (eg. no dredging, no land reclamation, no marine farming).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • There is scope to move the northern and western boundaries further seaward to include more of the deep channel and deep holes off Sloping Island, which are of ecological interest.

8.4.2 Betsey Island MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 22 within the Moderately- exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 11, page 55) are:

Ecological considerations • Protect little penguins within the marine environment around the largest little penguin colony in Bruny Bioregion; • Protect short-tailed shearwaters within the marine environment around one of the largest shearwater colonies in the Bruny Bioregion;

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 57 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Protect ecological system (ie. island communities); • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats; • Protect areas of unconsolidated substratum ecosystems (eg. sand habitat and hard sand) as potential scientific reference site for this ecosystem type; • Where practical, include habitat boundaries (eg. reef boundaries around island); and • Contribute to protection of albatross and petrel species (ie. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatross and Petrels).

Practicality considerations • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to Betsey Island Nature Reserve and extending offshore); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Betsey Island Nature Reserve); • Avoid boat ramps and access points for recreational fishers in Frederick Henry Bay (eg. Cremorne, Dodges Ferry and Primrose Sands boat ramps); Nubeena boat ramp; and the Margate (Dru Point) boat ramp (in the Channel biounit); • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Avoid current marine farming zones off Bruny Island and areas indicated for potential expansion of the salmon farming industry off Bruny Island; • Include Betsey Island Wreck Graveyard (dive site); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; and • Provide for practical expansion of the MPA area on all boundaries, particularly on the eastern and southern boundaries.

The area of the Betsey Island MPA is approximately 2753 ha.

The Betsey Island MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters within a line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚02´10˝ 147˚28´00˝ thence (through Black Jack Rocks) to 43˚02´10˝ 147˚30´00˝ thence to 43˚08´00˝ 147˚30´00˝ thence to 43˚08´00˝ 147˚28´00˝ thence to 43˚02´10˝ 147˚28´00˝

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and recreation, habitat/species protection, and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. The area may be managed for science. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection. Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and that are highly understood and controlled (ie. abalone, rock lobster, trolling, line fishing with 5 or less hooks).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 58 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission recognises that further area specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted (eg. no dredging, no land reclamation, no marine farming).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological values for which the MPA is established.

The Commission recognises that the area contains a site designated for the sea dumping of ships (ie. wreck graveyard). However, given current environmental requirements for sea dumping, the Commission does not consider that this use would be contrary to the broad objectives proposed for the MPA.

Options • There is scope to move the east and west boundaries further out, but particularly the east boundary, to more adequately represent unconsolidated habitats. This area to the east of the proposed MPA is less likely to be utilised by recreational fishers than that to the west. • There is scope to move the southern boundary seawards into Storm Bay to represent more fully the shallow shelf ecosystems within the Offshore biounit. • There is scope to include zoning within the MPA to provide for a scientific reference site for unconsolidated substratum ecosystems (eg. sand habitat and hard sand). With reference to practicality considerations, a potential boundary for this zoning is the parallel of latitude of 43˚05´00˝. The Commission would recommend a very high level of protection for the zone south of this latitude. No extractive activities would occur within this zone of the MPA.

8.4.3 Opossum Bay MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 21 within the Moderately exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 11, page 55) are:

Ecological considerations • Maintain or remediate estuarine habitat suitable for spotted handfish populations; • Protection of short-tailed shearwaters within the marine environment around a relatively large shearwater colony (eg. Pigeon Holes); and • Increase resilience of ecosystems to threats, particularly reef habitats.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 59 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Practicality considerations • The head of the estuary is within the (River) Derwent Conservation Area (ie. protection of ecosystem values in linked ecosystem); • Land-based threat abatement will primarily occur through Clarence City Council; • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Incorporates area with ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; and • Can utilise Derwent Estuary Program (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) environmental management plan.

The area of the Opossum Bay MPA is approximately 1443 ha.

The the Opossum Bay MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Gellibrand Point 42˚57´47˝ 147˚24´15˝ thence to 42˚57´47˝ 147˚23´00˝ thence to 43˚02´14˝ 147˚23´00˝ thence to Johns Point 43˚02´14˝ 147˚24´14˝ thence to

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and recreation, habitat/species protection (particularly habitat occupied or potentially occupied by spotted handfish) and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

The Commission considers that aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities, such as stormwater and waste water outfalls, habitat disturbance and coastal developments and from ecosystem effects of fishing.

The Commission recognises that further area specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted (eg. no dredging, no land reclamation, no marine farming).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on ecological values for which the MPA is established.

This should allow continuation of most current activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 60 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The compatibility of anchoring and mooring with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

8.4.4 Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 20 within the Moderately exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 11, page 55) are:

Ecological considerations • Provide a scientific reference site; and • Maintain or remediate biodiversity.

Practicality considerations • The area is currently a scientific research site; • Area is adjacent to the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Marine Research Laboratories; • Current educational and recreational amenity; • Current fisheries restrictions within Taroona Waters Research Area (ie. line fishing only); • The head of the estuary is within (River) Derwent Conservation Area (ie. protection of ecosystem values in linked ecosystem); • Land-based threat abatement will primarily occur through Kingborough Council; and • Can utilise the Derwent Estuary Program (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) environmental management plan.

The total area of the Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) MPA is approximately 118 ha.

The Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) MPA consists of all of that area within the Taroona Waters Research Area as defined within the Fisheries Rules 1999 and the Fisheries (Research Area) Order 2004.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 61 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be primarily managed for science, ecosystem conservation and recreation. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • There is scope to allow line fishing within the MPA, as currently permitted within the Taroona Waters Research Area, and thus recommend a high level of protection.

8.4.5 Tinderbox MPA (extension) This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 18 within the Moderately exposed biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 11, page 55) are:

Ecological considerations • Provide a scientific reference site; • Increase the adequacy of the current Tinderbox MPA as a scientific reference site (eg. protect more mobile species) • Maintain or remediate biodiversity.

Practicality considerations • A large part of the current MPA is a scientific research site; • Over half of the proposed area includes the current Tinderbox Marine Nature Reserve; • The area has public recognition as an MPA; • Current educational and recreational amenity of the area; • Extension incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Extension incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; and • Extension incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction.

The area of the Tinderbox MPA (including the current MPA, which is approximately 55 ha) is approximately 94 ha.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 62 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Tinderbox MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 700 m SW of Tinderbox Bay 43˚03´38˝ 147˚19´19˝ thence to 43˚03´46˝ 147˚19´19˝ thence East and then North along an imaginary line to 200 m from the coast 43˚02´20˝ 147˚20´29˝ thence to Lucas Point 43˚02´20˝ 147˚20´19˝

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for science, ecosystem conservation and recreation. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • There is scope to extend the northern boundary toward Blackmans Bay. However, the Commission considers that the ecological values in this area may be compromised in the vicinity of the major ocean outfall at Blackmans Bay. • There is scope to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude. However, the Commission considers that the current boundary, defined by a distance of 200 m offshore, is well established within the community and should therefore be continued for any extension of this MPA.

8.5 Norfolk biounit

8.5.1 Lime Bay MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area numbers 25 and 26 within the Norfolk biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

For practicality, it is proposed that this MPA (Figure 12, page 65) is linked with the Sloping Island MPA, within the Moderately exposed biounit (see section 8.4), to form a larger linked protected area (ie. the Sloping Island-Lime Bay MPA).

Within the Lime Bay MPA, two zones with different primary objectives have been identified.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 63 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for zone A of the MPA.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for zone B of the MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define the Lime Bay MPA (Figure 12 page 65) are:

Zone A

Ecological considerations • To provide a scientific reference site, particularly for vegetated habitats (eg. Caulerpa and seagrass); • To be of sufficient size to adequately protect the main species within vegetated habitats; • Where practical, to include habitat boundaries (eg. edges of vegetated habitats); • To increase the resilience of ecosystems containing vegetated habitats and reef habitats to threats; and • To allow for linkage with ecosystems in MPAs within the adjacent biounit (eg. the Sloping Island MPA)

Practicality considerations • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve and Coal Mines Historic Site); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve and Coal Mines Historic Site); • Avoid main access site for recreational fishers from the main campground at the Lime Bay State Reserve; • Avoid main human settlements around Norfolk Bay (eg. Eaglehawk Neck, Murdunna, Taranna, Premaydena); • Avoid access site for indigenous community at Saltwater River; • For boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • To position the closest boundary at least one km from Saltwater River boat ramp; • Try where practical, to avoid marine farming lease areas; • No marine farming lease within marine farming zone 12 (south-east of Ironstone Point; • Incorporates area with ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Provides for practical expansion of area or alternative to Zone B [eg. on southern boundary, especially if marine farming activities within marine farming zone 13 at Green Head compromise the ecological objectives of Lime Bay MPA (Zone B)].

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 64 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 12 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Norfolk biounit11

[Back to figures] Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for science, ecosystem conservation, and habitat/species protection. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection.

11 The Sloping Island MPA (within the adjacent Moderately exposed biounit) is shown to demonstrate the linkage between these MPAs.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 65 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The area may also be managed for recreation and other social values consistent with the scientific and ecological objectives for which the MPA is established.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted.

The Commission recommends that no marine farming lease be granted within the currently unoccupied marine farming zone 12 (south-east of Ironstone Point) within the Lime Bay MPA (Zone A).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

The compatibility of anchoring and mooring with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

Options • There is scope to extend the southern boundary of Zone A (eg. to the boundary of the Coal Mines Historic Site). However, this would reduce access for recreational fishers from Saltwater River and the boat ramp. • There is scope to create a further zone due south of Zone A, to be primarily managed for habitat protection of vegetated habitats (eg. Caulerpa and seagrass), by extending the eastern boundary due south. This zone would be recommended as a medium level of protection.

Zone B

Ecological considerations • Protect ecosystems linking Lime Bay MPA (Zone A) and Sloping Island MPA in adjacent biounit; • Increase representation of vegetated habitats in protected areas; and Provide habitat protection for vegetated (and other) habitats.

Practicality considerations • Simplify management by linking adjacent MPAs; • Minimise impacts from land-based activities (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve); • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Lime Bay State Reserve); • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA;

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 66 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Incorporates area with ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; and • Where practical, avoid marine farming lease areas.

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for recreation, habitat/species protection, and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection.

The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for these fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing.

No new activities that have a significant physical impact on habitat or species are permitted (eg. no new marine farming).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological values for which the MPA is established.

This should allow continuation of present activities (except some net fisheries) but should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

The compatibility of anchoring with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

Options • There is scope to modify the configuration of the northern boundary of the MPA following an assessment of the compatibility of marine farming activities within marine farming zone 13 at Green Head with the ecological objectives of the Lime Bay MPA (Zone B).

The total area of the Lime Bay MPA (Zone A and B) is approximately 1686 ha.

The area of the Lime Bay MPA (Zone A) is approximately 726 ha.

The area of the Lime Bay MPA (Zone B) is approximately 960 ha.

The Lime Bay MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 67 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Landmark Latitude Longitude Zone A Plunkett Pt. 42˚59´10˝ 147˚43´22˝ thence to 42˚59´10˝ 147˚45´00˝ thence to 42˚57´00˝ 147˚45´00˝ thence to Whitehouse Pt. 42˚57´00˝ 147˚43´35˝ Zone B Whitehouse Pt. 42˚57´00˝ 147˚43´35˝ thence to 42˚57´00˝ 147˚45´00˝ thence to 42˚56´00˝ 147˚45´00˝ thence to 42˚56´00˝ 147˚40´45˝ thence to Green Head 42˚56´05˝ 147˚40´45˝

8.6 Channel biounit

8.6.1 D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area numbers 30, 31, 32 and 34 within the Channel biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

Within the D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA (Figure 13, page 69), four zones with different primary objectives have been identified.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for zone A of the MPA - Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve (extension). The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for zone B of the MPA - Simpsons Point. The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for zone C of the MPA - Central Channel. The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for zone D of the MPA - Isthmus Bay. The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 13, page 69) are:

Zone A - Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve (extension)

Ecological considerations • Provide a scientific reference site; • Increase the adequacy of the current Ninepin Point MPA as a scientific reference site (eg. protect more mobile species); • Maintain or remediate biodiversity; • Increase the resilience of reef ecosystems to threats;

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 68 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 13 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat

within the Channel biounit [Back to figures]

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 69 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Protection of seaweed diversity; • Protection of sessile invertebrate communities; and • Include boundaries of reef habitat (including ecological unit at Arch Rock).

Practicality considerations • Part of the area is a current scientific research site; • The proposed area includes the current Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve; • The area has public recognition as an MPA; • Current educational and recreational amenity; • Upstream Huon estuary within draft Huon Estuary MPA (ie. linked ecosystems); • Upstream Port Cygnet estuary within Port Cygnet Conservation Area and draft Port Cygnet MPA (ie. linked ecosystems); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Minimal commercial fishing in the area; and • Avoidance of marine farming zones.

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for science, ecosystem conservation, recreation and habitat/ species protection. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 70 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Options • There is scope to define the boundaries of the MPA using a distance of 500 m offshore from the coast, as is currently defined for the Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve. However, the Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve is established as a distance from a single point rather than along a length of coast and, in this instance, the suitability of extending this definition along a length of coast is uncertain (in contrast to the current Tinderbox Marine Nature Reserve). The Commission has explored the option of defining the boundary as a distance offshore from Ninepin Point, Arch Rock and along the coast but considers this option to be unsatisfactory for the MPA.

Zone B - Simpsons Point

Ecological considerations • Provide a scientific reference site; • Protection of sessile invertebrate communities, particularly seawhip communities; • Maintain or remediate biodiversity; • Increase resilience of reef ecosystems; and • Include boundaries of reef habitat.

Practicality considerations • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Minimal commercial fishing in the area; • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Where practical, avoid marine farming zones; and • Consideration of activity within current marine farming leases.

No extractive activities should occur within the MPA.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat should be permitted.

The Commission recommends that no marine farming lease be granted within the currently unoccupied marine farming zone 14A (south of Simpsons Point) within the D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA (Zone B).

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 71 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Permitted recreational or social activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • It is the Commission’s view that all of zone B should be granted a very high level of protection. However, the Commission recognises that a marine farming lease and zone currently exists within the area and, for practicality reasons, the marine farming zone 13 (at Simpsons Point) should be granted a medium level of protection. • The Commission recognises that some activities associated with marine farming may occur outside the marine farming lease and/or zone (eg. mooring of marine farming equipment and dispersion of solid waste). This may be contrary to the values and level of protection recommended for this MPA. • There is scope to define the seaward boundaries of the MPA as a distance from the coastline (most adequately at least 500 m), rather than by lines of latitude and longitude as given within the preferred option. • There is scope to define the southern boundaries of Zone B further north towards Simpsons Point, providing that natural boundaries of reef habitat continue to be recognised.

Zone C – Central Channel

Ecological considerations • Maintain or remediate biodiversity; • Protect habitat for threatened seastars (Smilasterias tasmaniae); • Protect and remediate potential habitat for spotted handfish; • Protect and remediate potential habitat for Gunns screw shell; • Protection and remediation of habitat (eg. sand, silt, etc) within unconsolidated ecosystems; • Protect and remediate diverse invertebrate communities, including sponge garden and scallop communities; and • Increase resilience (ie. to introduced species) of unconsolidated ecosystems (eg. sand, silt, etc).

Practicality considerations • Provides linkage between Zone A [Ninepin Point (extension)] and Zone B (Simpsons Point) and, thus, with Zone D (Isthmus Bay); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geographic features; • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Allow for access for non-permitted fisheries in the area north of the MPA boundary (ie. north from Middleton boat ramp);

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 72 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Allow for access for non-permitted fisheries in the area south and west of the MPA boundary (ie. from the Alonnah and Verona Sands boat ramps); • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Minimal commercial fishing in the area; and • Where practical, avoid marine farming zones (and areas indicated for potential expansion of the salmon farming industry in the southern Channel region).

Management objectives and level of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation, recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection. The Commission considers that aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from habitat disturbance and coastal developments. Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established. Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA. Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection. The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing. In particular, the Commission seeks further evidence regarding the compatibility of extraction of habitat-forming invertebrate species (ie. scallops) and the values for which the MPA is to be established. Commercial and recreational fishers are considered to be the main group that will be required to comply with rules for the MPA. As such, it is the Commission’s preferred option to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude and prominent geographic features.

Options • There is scope to move the southern boundary of Zone C further south.

Zone D – Isthmus Bay

Ecological considerations • Protect and remediate habitat for migratory birds; • Protect little penguins at Bruny Island Neck colony within the Channel marine environment; • Protect habitat for threatened seastars (Smilasterias tasmaniae);

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 73 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Protect and remediate potential habitat for spotted handfish; • Maintain or remediate biodiversity; • Protection and remediation of habitat (eg. sand, silt, etc) within unconsolidated ecosystems; and • Increase resilience to threats (ie. to introduced species) of unconsolidated ecosystems (eg. sand, silt, etc).

Practicality considerations • Provides linkage with Zone B (Simpsons Point) and, thus, Zone C (Central Channel) and Zone A [Ninepin Point (extension)] • Includes Bruny Island Neck Game Reserve (subject to current reserved land management and planning); • Includes The Neck Tombolo and Dunefield (Tasmanian geoconservation site); • Boundaries to be straight lines of latitude and longitude and/or incorporate distinct geograhic features; • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Minimal commercial fishing in area, and • Where practical, avoid marine farming zones, especially within Great Bay and north Isthmus Bay

The Commission considers that aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from habitat disturbance and coastal developments.

Over time, this may require modification of current activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection.

The Commission recognises that further area-specific management controls for fisheries may be required following the determination of ecosystem effects of fishing. In particular, the Commission seeks further evidence regarding the compatibility of extraction of habitat-forming invertebrate species (ie. scallops) and the values for which the MPA is to be established.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 74 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The compatibility of the collection of invertebrates (eg. bait collecting or harvesting of shellfish) with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

The compatibility of objectives that may allow for the taking of game species (as within the area of the current Game Reserve) and the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

Options • There is scope to move the northern boundary of Zone D further south. However, this would reduce the linkage between ecosystems within Zone D and the other zones within the D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA.

The total area of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA is approximately 7259 ha.

The area of Zone A - Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve (extension) is approximately 564 ha.

The area of Zone B - Simpsons Point is approximately 318 ha.

The area of Zone C – Central Channel is approximately 3904 ha.

The area of Zone D – Isthmus Bay is approximately 2473 ha.

The D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA (Zones A, B, C and D) consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward, or within, an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 75 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Landmark Latitude Longitude Zone A Verona Sands 43˚16´39˝ 147˚09´40˝ thence to (Ninepin Point - 43˚17´20˝ 147˚09´40˝ thence (south of extension) Arch Rock) to 43˚17´20˝ 147˚13´30˝ thence to 43˚16´44˝ 147˚13´30˝

Zone B 43˚16´07˝ 147˚17´00˝ thence to (Simpsons Point) 43˚14´00˝ 147˚17´00˝ thence to 43˚14´00˝ 147˚18´00˝ thence to 43˚15´40˝ 147˚18´00˝

Zone C 43˚16´44˝ 147˚13´30˝ thence to (Central Channel) 43˚17´20˝ 147˚13´30˝ thence (south of Arch Rock) to 43˚17´20˝ 147˚09´40˝ thence to 43˚18´40˝ 147˚09´40˝ thence (north of marine farming zone 15A) to North of Alonnah 43˚18´40˝ 147˚14´32˝ thence north along boat ramp the coast to 43˚16´07˝ 147˚17´00˝ thence to 43˚14´00˝ 147˚17´00˝ thence to South of Middleton 43˚14´00˝ 147˚15´24˝ thence south along boat ramp the coast to 43˚16´44˝ 147˚13´30˝

Zone D 43˚15´40˝ 147˚18´00˝ thence to (Isthmus Bay) 43˚14´00˝ 147˚18´00˝ thence to SW corner of marine 43˚14´00˝ 147˚19´30˝ thence to farming zone 10 Point north of 43˚14´13˝ 147˚20´53˝ Porpoise Head

8.6.2 Roberts Point MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 28 within the Channel biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 13, page 69) are:

Ecological considerations • Protect core habitat for black cowrie Umbilia hesitata population and associated communities; • Increase representativeness of ecosystems within the Channel biounit (ie. includes silt habitats)

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 76 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Practicality considerations • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Minimal commercial fishing; • Avoid Bruny Island ferry terminal; and • Avoid marine farming zones. The area of the Roberts Point MPA is approximately 118 ha.

The Roberts Point MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Bruny Island ferry terminal 43˚08´35˝ 147˚17´12˝ thence 500 m north to 43˚08´19˝ 147˚17´12˝ thence Along an imaginary line 500 m from the to coast around Roberts Point 43˚08´55˝ 147˚17´33˝

Management objectives and levels of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation, recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a high level of protection.

The Commission considers that aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities, habitat disturbance (particularly potential marine farming) and coastal developments.

This should allow continuation of present activities but should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological values for which the MPA is established.

The compatibility of anchoring and mooring with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

Government agencies are considered to be the main group that will be required to comply with rules for the MPA. The option presented is to define the boundaries of the MPA using a general distance from the coast rather than as lines of latitude and longitude.

Options • For consistency with most other selected MPAs within the bioregion, there is scope to define the boundaries of the MPA using lines of latitude and longitude and/or distinct geographic features.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 77 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

8.7 Huon biounit

8.7.1 Huon Estuary (Egg Islands) MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 35 within the Huon biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 14, page 79) are:

Ecological considerations • Maintain water quality for linked ecosystems, especially within downstream areas suitable as MPAs (eg. within lower Huon, Port Cygnet, and Channel biounit); • Maintain estuarine processes, including nutrient cycling, hydrodynamic, sedimentary and geomorphic processes; • Protect habitat for migratory whitebait species, including Australian grayling; • Provide potential reference site for drowned river valley type estuaries (eg. to compare with more degraded Derwent estuary); and • Protect estuarine system of priority representative conservation value as determined by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project (CFEV project).

Practicality considerations • Link with land-based reserve management (ie. adjacent to Egg Islands Conservation Area); • Includes Egg Islands Tidal Delta (Tasmanian geoconservation site) to downstream boundary; • Includes Egg Islands Geoheritage Area (Register of the National Estate) to downstream boundary; • Avoid marine farming lease areas in lower Huon River; • Provide access for fisheries that are highly understood and controlled; • Incorporates fisheries rules for ‘inland waters’; • Provides for practical expansion of area (eg. on southern boundary where marine fisheries restrictions incorporate ‘shark refuge area’ and ‘no netting’ fisheries restrictions); and • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through one council (ie. Huon Valley Council).

The area of the Huon Estuary (Egg Islands) MPA is approximately 697 ha.

The Huon Estuary (Egg Islands) MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 78 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 14 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Huon biounit

[Back to figures] Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 79 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Landmark Latitude Longitude Heriots Pt. 43˚07´43˝ 146˚59´35˝ thence to Glaziers Bay 43˚08´35˝ 146˚59´57˝

The MPA may also be managed for science and/or environmental monitoring.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and that are highly understood and controlled.

No activities that have a physical impact on habitat are permitted (eg. no dredging, no land reclamation, no marine farming).

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the ecological values for which the MPA is established.

This should allow continuation of present activities (eg. fishing in inland waters) but should ensure that any new developments and activities (ie. land-based impacts) do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Options • It is the Commission’s view that this MPA is the only option in the Huon biounit for the Commission to meet the terms of reference. • There is some scope to move the southern boundary of the MPA (in particular, to align it with the boundary for inland waters at Castle Forbes Bay). However, the Commission considers that the proposed boundary is the better option as it aligns with the Egg Islands Tidal Delta geoconservation site and the Egg Islands Geoheritage Area on the Register of the National Estate.

8.8 Derwent biounit

8.8.1 River Derwent MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 36 within the Derwent biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 15, page 81) are:

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 80 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 15 Locations of selected marine protected areas with reference to habitat within the Derwent biounit12

[Back to figures]

12 On 8 August 2007 the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Steven Kons, issued a reference amending the initial reference to the Commission. The amended reference excludes the area of land specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006 from the MPA inquiry area.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 81 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Maintain or remediate estuarine processes and wetland system, including nutrient cycling, hydrodynamic, sedimentary and geomorphic processes; • Maintain or remediate water quality for linked ecosystems, especially within downstream areas that are suitable MPAs [eg. within lower Derwent and Moderately exposed (Derwent influenced) biounit]; • Protect the Bridgewater wetland area; • Protect habitat for migratory whitebait species, including Australian grayling; • Protect vegetated habitat (ie. Ruppia sp.); • Protect estuarine system of very-high integrated conservation value as determined by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project (CFEV project); and • Protect estuarine system of priority representative conservation value (CFEV project).

Practicality considerations • Area is contained within the (River) Derwent Conservation Area (subject to current reserved land management and planning);

• Includes River Derwent Conservation Area (Register of the National Estate);

• Includes Lower Derwent River Estuarine Delta and Floodplain (Tasmanian geoconservation site);

• Includes River Derwent Wetland (Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia);

• Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA;

• Incorporates fisheries rules for ‘inland waters’; • Estuary south of MPA includes ‘shark refuge area’ and ‘no netting’ marine fisheries restrictions • Provides for practical expansion of area (eg. on southern boundary); and • Can utilise Derwent Estuary Program (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) environmental management plan.

The area of the River Derwent MPA is approximately 1618 ha.

The River Derwent MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Dogshear Pt. 42˚47´24˝ 147˚16´59˝ thence to 42˚47´28˝ 147˚17´31˝

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 82 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission considers that aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities within the estuarine catchment and to remediate key ecological processes. Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established. Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

Options • It is the Commission’s view that this MPA is the only option in the Derwent biounit whereby the head of the estuary and vegetated habitats may be protected. • There is scope to move the downstream boundary south to the parallel of latitude of Restdown Point, to increase representativness of habitats (eg. sand and seagrass) within the MPA. However, the Commission considers that the proposed boundary is most practical as it aligns with the (River) Derwent Conservation Area and River Derwent Conservation Area (Register of the National Estate). • There is scope for zoning within the MPA to provide for a zone encompassing the Bridgewater wetland area that may be recommended for protection at a high level of protection.

8.8.2 Droughty Peninsula (Derwent Estuary) MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 38 within the Derwent biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 15, page 81) are:

Ecological considerations • Maintain or remediate estuarine habitat for known spotted handfish populations; • Maintain or remediate estuarine habitat potentially occupied by spotted handfish; • Maintain or remediate reef ecosystems within the Derwent biounit; • Protect estuarine system of very-high integrated conservation value (CFEV project); and • Protect estuarine system of priority representative conservation value (CFEV project).

Practicality considerations • The head of the estuary is within (River) Derwent Conservation Area (ie. protection of ecosystem values in linked ecosystem); • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through Clarence City Council;

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 83 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Northern boundary in Ralphs Bay is south of areas currently zoned residential under the Eastern Shore Planning Scheme Area 1 1963; • Northern boundary within Ralphs Bay is at least 1 km from Rokeby waste water treatment outfall; • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ and ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Provides for practical expansion of area (eg. to proposed Opossum Bay MPA with similar values within Moderately exposed biounit); and • Can utilise Derwent Estuary Program (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) management planning.

The area of the Droughty Peninsula (Derwent Estuary) MPA is approximately 738 ha

The Droughty Peninsula (Derwent Estuary) MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 42˚55´00˝ 147˚26´06˝ thence to 42˚55´00˝ 147˚26´20˝ thence to 42˚56´50˝ 147˚26´20˝ thence to 42˚56´50˝ 147˚23´50˝ thence to 42˚55´10˝ 147˚23´50˝ thence to Tranmere Point 42˚55´10˝ 147˚24´35˝

Management objectives and levels of protection This area should be managed primarily for recreation, habitat/species protection (particularly habitat that is occupied or potentially occupied by spotted handfish) and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection.

The Commission considers the aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities, such as stormwater and waste water outfalls, habitat disturbance and coastal developments and from ecosystem effects of fishing.

Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection.

The compatibility of anchoring and mooring with the values for which the MPA is established should be determined and managed accordingly.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 84 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Options • It is the Commission’s view that this MPA provides the preferred option in the Derwent biounit whereby a significant amount of the reef ecosystem within this biounit and known populations of, and potential habitat for, spotted handfish may be protected. • There is scope to move the northern boundary of the MPA in the main Derwent estuary in a southerly direction, to below the areas adjacent to those zoned residential within the current planning scheme at the approximate latitude of 42˚55 30˝S. • There is scope to move the northern boundary of the MPA in the main Derwent estuary in a northerly direction, to at least Bellerive Beach, to include additional habitat for known spotted handfish populations and habitat potentially occupied by spotted handfish. However, this would extend the MPA significantly into areas adjacent to those zoned residential within the current planning scheme, with a greater level of threat from stormwater, coastal development and habitat disturbance. • There is scope to define the seaward boundaries of the MPA as a distance from the coastline (most adequately at least 1000 m), rather than by lines of latitude and longitude as given within the preferred option.

8.8.3 South Arm MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 40 within the Derwent biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 15, page 81) are:

Ecological considerations • Maintain or remediate inter-tidal estuarine habitat, particularly that suitable for feeding or rest areas for migratory birds; • Scientific reference site for migratory birds; • Protect productivity of shallow sediments within inter-tidal habitat; • Protect geomorphic processes associated with tidal flat; • Protect estuarine system of very-high integrated conservation value (CFEV project); and • Protect estuarine system of priority representative conservation value (CFEV project).

Practicality considerations • Area is contained within South Arm Conservation Area (subject to current reserved land management and planning);

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 85 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Area is linked to Pitt Water – Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site by migratory birds; • The head of the estuary is within the (River) Derwent Conservation Area (ie protection of ecosystem values in linked ecosystem); • Upstream ecosystems are within selected MPAs (eg. Droughty Peninsula MPA and, thus, protection of linked ecosystems). • Includes ‘Ralphs Bay Conservation Area and Adjacent Area’ (Register of the National Estate)13; • Includes Ralphs Bay Tidal Flat (Tasmanian geoconservation site); • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Provides for practical expansion of area (eg. on northern boundary); • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through one council (ie. Clarence City Council); and • Can utilise Derwent Estuary Program (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) environmental management plan.

The area of the South Arm MPA is approximately 774 ha.

The South Arm MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚00´55˝ 147˚25´41˝ to 43˚00´23˝ 147˚28´16˝

The Commission considers the aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from habitat disturbance and coastal developments and minimise disturbance to migratory and resident birds.

The area may also be managed for recreation and other social values consistent with the scientific and ecological objectives for which the MPA is established.

Permitted activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

The compatibility of activities that may compromise specific scientific values of the MPA (eg. off leash dog walking) should be established and managed accordingly.

13 Note that, although having a similar name, this area listed on the Register of the National Estate is not the area of land specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006. Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 86 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Options • There is scope to move the northern boundary of the MPA in a northerly direction to include areas of sub-tidal sand habitat from within the biounit and/or be defined by a parallel of latitude. • However, the Commission considers that the proposed boundary is most practical as it aligns with both the South Arm Conservation Area and the ‘Ralphs Bay Conservation Area and Adjacent Area’ (Register of the National Estate).

8.9 Open estuaries biounit

8.9.1 Port Cygnet MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 41 within the Open estuaries biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 16, page 88) are:

Ecological considerations • Ensure that the system of MPAs within the Bruny Bioregion is comprehensive; and • Provide for a potential reference site for Open estuaries within the bioregion.

Practicality considerations • Includes Port Cygnet Conservation Area to seaward boundary (subject to current reserved land management and planning); • Includes Port Cygnet Wildlife Sanctuary (Register of the National Estate); • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates ‘no rock lobster potting’ fisheries restriction; • Provides for practical expansion of area (eg. on southern boundary); and • Land-based threat abatement will primarily occur through one council (ie. Huon Valley Council).

The area of Port Cygnet suitable MPA is approximately 103 ha.

The Port Cygnet MPA consists of all of that area within Tasmanian waters landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Catos Bay 43˚10´41˝ 147˚05´00˝ to Crooked Tree Pt 43˚10´39˝ 147˚05´22˝

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 87 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 16 Location of selected marine protected area within the Open estuaries biounit

[Back to figures] Management objectives and levels of protection This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation, recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection. The Commission considers the aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities, such as stormwater and waste water outfalls, habitat disturbance and coastal developments and from ecosystem effects of fishing.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 88 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established. Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA. Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection. The Commission notes that, other than the current status of the area as reserved land, the Commission has not been provided with any evidence regarding the values of the area.

Options • It is the Commission’s view that this MPA is the only option in the Open estuaries biounit for the Commission to meet the terms of reference. • There is some scope to move the southern boundary of the MPA. However, the Commission considers that the proposed boundary is most practical as it aligns with the Port Cygnet Conservation Area and the Port Cygnet Wildlife Sanctuary on the Register of the National Estate.

8.10 Marine Inlets and Bays biounit The Marine Inlets and Bays biounit consists of seven estuaries within the Bruny Bioregion as shown in Figure 17 (page 90). These are Blackman Bay, Carlton, Pittwater, Pipe Clay Lagoon, North West Bay River, Crooks and Cloudy Bay Lagoon.

8.10.1 Blackman Bay MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 42 within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 18, page 91) are:

Ecological considerations • Promote long-term maintenance of ecological processes and viability of an estuarine system; • Protect estuarine system of very high integrated conservation value as determined by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project (CFEV project); • Habitat protection for vegetated habitats (eg. seagrass, Ruppia sp); • Protect threatened seaweed species (Cystoseira trinodis); • Protect migratory bird habitat; and • Protect geomorphic processes and geoconservation sites (eg. bay mouth spit, mid bay spits, bay head beach) Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 89 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 17 Locations of Marine Inlets and Bays within the Bruny Bioregion

[Back to figures] Practicality considerations • Provide for an integrated approach to management at a practical spatial scale (ie. an estuarine system); • Area is linked to Pitt Water – Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site by migratory birds; • Includes Blackman Bay Coastal Landforms (Tasmanian geoconservation site); • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘limited netting’ fisheries restriction; • Consideration of activity within current marine farming leases; and • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through two councils (ie. Sorell and Tasman Councils).

The area of the Blackman Bay MPA is approximately 2709 ha.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 90 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 18 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Blackman Bay

[Back to figures] The Blackman Bay MPA consists of all of that area within Blackman Bay south of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude Marion Bay Spit. 42˚50´44˝ 147˚53´03˝ to Little Chinaman Bay 42˚50´41˝ 147˚53´21˝ - to the Blackman Bay entrance of the Denison Canal at co-ordinates 42˚53´23˝S, 147˚48´44˝E.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 91 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Management objectives and levels of protection The Commission considers that all of Blackman Bay should be included within an MPA. The MPA should be managed as a functional ecosystem unit using an integrated approach to management.

This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation, recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection.

The Commission considers the aspects within this level of protection that are particularly relevant to this MPA are the need to minimise impacts from land-based activities, habitat disturbance and coastal developments

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

Gillnet fishing is not consistent with this level of protection.

Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Options • The draft recommendation of the Commission is that the area is granted a medium level of protection. • There is scope for zoning within the Blackman Bay MPA. The Commission has identified three general areas that are outside of the main marine farming zones, whereby the ecological values within those areas may warrant a higher level of protection. These areas are indicated with a broken line in Figure 18 (page 91) and are: • A (Boomer Bay – Dunalley). Contains key sites for threatened seaweed species (Cystoseria trinodis). Potential for high level of protection; B (Porpoise Hole). Contains important habitat for migratory birds. Reference site for migratory birds. Potential for very high or high level of protection; and C (Blackman Rivulet). Potential scientific reference site, particularly for vegetated habitats (eg. seagrass and Ruppia). May provide for replication of the reference site for vegetated habitats within Lime Bay MPA. Potential for very high level of protection. • The Commission recognises that some activities associated with marine farming (eg. accessing and servicing leases) may occur outside the marine farming leases and zones. These may be contrary to the values and level of protection identified for each of the three areas listed above.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 92 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

8.10.2 Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 43 within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 19, page 94) are:

Ecological considerations • Promote long-term maintenance of ecological processes and viability of an estuarine system; • Protect estuarine system of very-high integrated conservation value (CFEV project); • Protect ecological values of Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon Ramsar Wetland of International Significance; • Protected habitat for live-bearing seastar species (Patiriella vivipara); • Protect migratory bird habitat; and • Protect geomorphic processes and geoconservation sites (eg. Seven Mile Beach mid-bay spit).

Practicality considerations • Provide for an integrated approach to management at a practical spatial scale (ie. an estuarine system); • Representative of most habitats in the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit; • Includes Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon Ramsar Wetland; • Includes Pitt Water Nature Reserve (subject to current reserved land management and planning); • Includes part of Seven Mile Beach Protected Area; • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restriction; • Consideration of activity within current marine farming leases; • Recognised increasing level of threat from coastal and urban development; and • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through two councils (ie. Sorell and Clarence City Councils).

The area of the Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon MPA is approximately 4592 ha.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 93 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 19 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon

[Back to figures]

The Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon MPA consists of all of that area within Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon landwards of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 42˚50´46˝ 147˚36´48˝ to 42˚51´02˝ 147˚37´14˝

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 94 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Management objectives and levels of protection The Commission considers that all of Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon should be included within an MPA. The MPA should be managed as a functional ecosystem unit using an integrated approach to management.

The MPA may also be managed for science (eg. migratory birds).

Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

This should allow continuation of present activities but should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Options • The draft recommendation of the Commission is that the area is granted a medium level of protection. • There is scope for zoning within the Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon MPA. Areas where a higher level of protection are, or may be, warranted include the: i) Current Pitt Water Nature Reserve (five separate areas); ii) Pitt Water–Orielton Lagoon Ramsar Wetland; iii) Seven Mile Beach Protected Area; and iv) Areas where marine farming activity is not currently undertaken. • The Commission is deferring zoning considerations within Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon until it receives and analyses any further information from the public consultation process. The Commission is particularly interested in submissions that address integrated management of the Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon MPA.

8.10.3 Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 44 within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 95 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Commission recommends a medium level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 20, page 97) are:

Ecological considerations • Promote the long-term maintenance of ecological processes and viability of an estuarine system; • Maintain or remediate inter-tidal estuarine habitat, particularly that suitable for feeding or rest areas for migratory birds; and • Protect habitat for threatened live-bearing seastar species (Patirella vivipara).

Practicality considerations • Provide for an integrated approach to management at a practical spatial scale (ie. an estuarine system); • Area is linked to Pitt Water – Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site by migratory birds; • Provide access for fisheries that can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA; • Incorporates ‘shark refuge area’ fisheries restrictions; • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restriction; • Provide for current marine farming activity within the area; • Part of area is adjacent to the Cape Deslacs Nature Reserve (subject to current reserved land management and planning); and • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through one council (ie. Clarence City Council).

The area of the Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA is approximately 531 ha.

The Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA consists of all of that area within Pipe Clay Lagoon landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 42˚57´42˝ 147˚32´19˝ to 42˚57´46˝ 147˚32´25˝

Management objectives and levels of protection The Commission considers that all of Pipe Clay Lagoon should be included within an MPA. The MPA should be managed as a functional ecosystem unit using an integrated approach to management.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 96 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 20 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Pipe Clay Lagoon

[Back to figures] This area should be managed primarily for ecosystem conservation, recreation, habitat/species protection and the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a medium level of protection.

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 97 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Over time, this may require modification of present activities and should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Extractive activities are restricted to those that have a minimal physical impact on ecosystems and habitat, low bycatch and can be managed to maintain the natural values of the MPA.

This should allow continuation of present activities but should ensure that any new developments and activities do not impact on the values for which the MPA is established.

Options • There may be scope for zoning within the Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA. Some of those areas that are outside current marine farming zones may be recommended for a higher level of protection. • The Commission seeks further evidence relating to zoning within the Pipe Clay Lagoon MPA.

8.10.4 Cloudy Bay Lagoon MPA This selected MPA incorporates aspects of priority identified area number 45 within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit (refer Chapter 5). The characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, are described in Appendix 9.

The Commission recommends a very high level of protection for this MPA.

The primary considerations used by the Commission to define this MPA (Figure 21, page 99) are:

Ecological considerations • Promote the long-term maintenance of ecological processes and viability of an estuarine system; • Provide a scientific reference site, particularly for Marine Inlet and Bay estuaries; • Protect the estuarine system of highest level of naturalness within the Bruny Bioregion (CFEV project); • Protect an estuarine system of priority representative conservation value (CFEV project); • Protect all habitat not currently utilised by marine farming activities; and • Mitigate potential impact of current marine farming activities on ecological values of the area (ie. potential for translocation of introduced marine species).

Practicality considerations • Provide for an integrated approach to management at a practical spatial scale (ie. an estuarine system); • The estuary has a natural estuarine catchment (ie. minimal impact from land-based activities); • Area is relatively isolated (ie. limited visitation);

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 98 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Figure 21 Location of selected marine protected area with reference to habitat, within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit – Cloudy Bay Lagoon

[Back to figures] • Represents most habitats within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit; • Mouth of the estuary adjacent to South Bruny National Park (ie. can incorporate current reserve management planning); • Adjacent to Cloudy Bay Mid-Bay Spit (Tasmanian geoconservation site); and • Incorporates area with ‘no netting’ fisheries restriction;

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 99 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Consideration of activity within current marine farming leases; and • Land-based threat abatement will occur primarily through one council (ie. Kingborough Council). The total area of the Cloudy Bay Lagoon MPA is approximately 612 ha.

The Cloudy Bay Lagoon MPA consists of all of that area within Cloudy Bay Lagoon landward of an imaginary line being from points defined by co-ordinates (GDA94):

Landmark Latitude Longitude 43˚26´22˝ 147˚12´03˝ to 43˚26´16˝ 147˚12´10˝

Management objectives and levels of protection This area should be managed primarily for science, ecosystem conservation and habitat/species protection. To achieve this, the Commission recommends a very high level of protection. No extractive activities should occur within the MPA. No activities that have a physical impact on habitat should be permitted. Permitted recreational or social activities within the MPA should not impact on the scientific and ecological values for which the MPA is established.

Options • It is the Commissions view that all of Cloudy Bay Lagoon should be included within an MPA. Ideally, all of this MPA should be granted a very high level of protection. • However, the Commission recognises that marine farming leases and zones currently exist within the area and, for practicality reasons, the marine farming zone will probably warrant a medium level of protection. • In addition, the Commission recognises that some activities associated with marine farming that may occur outside of the marine farming zone (eg. accessing and serving leases) may be contrary to the values and level of protection recommended for this MPA.

8.11 Comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of areas selected as suitable for declaration as marine protected areas Chapter 2 provided a summary of the Commission’s interpretation of the identification criteria.

For Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness these were:

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 100 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• For every biounit, each ecosystem is included where it exists at a meaningful scale. • MPAs within the Offshore biounit are comprehensive if they include each of the following bathymetric (depth) strata: 40 – 100 m and >100 m.

Adequacy • The individual MPA is large enough in area to meet its objectives. • The MPA contains sufficient habitat area to support the population(s) that it is designed to protect. • Level of protection and resource commitment is sufficient to meet the objectives of the MPA • The adequacy criterion can only be applied during the selection phase

For each biounit, the presence of ecosystems and habitats within each of the suitable MPAs (and within existing MPAs) is shown in Table 2.

As stated earlier in this report, the Commission recognises that the boundaries of ecological features, such as ecosystems and habitats, occur across ecological gradients and not within strictly defined lines. As such, the Commission recognises that the location and features (eg. seagrass density) of some habitats may change over time.

General assumptions on the presence of ecosystems and habitats include: • The representation of ecosystems and habitats includes the water column above each area; • Within the Derwent biounit, all reef habitat is low profile reef; • Within the Marine Inlets and Bays biounit, sparse seagrass and sparse patchy seagrass are considered together as a single habitat category; • Ecosystems and habitats that comprise less than 10 ha within a biounit are not considered as existing at a meaningful scale within that biounit and are not shown as occurring within that biounit; • Isolated small patches of habitat (ie. less than approx. 50 m in the smallest dimension) are not considered as existing at a meaningful scale within MPAs and are usually not shown as occurring within that MPA; and

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 101 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• The scale at which ecosystems and habitats are considered as existing at a meaningful scale may be reassessed further during the selection phase.

The MPAs are comprehensive as they collectively include both ecosystem types of consolidated and unconsolidated substratum, wherever present within a biounit, or the defined depth stratum within the Offshore biounit (Table 3).

As shown in Table 3, the MPAs do not strictly align with the Commission’s interpretation of representativeness. The MPAs do not represent silty sand and the various seagrass habitats within the Exposed biounit; patchy seagrass habitats within the Moderately-exposed biounit; and medium profile reef habitat within the Channel biounit. It also should be noted that while sand habitat is not formally represented in the Norfolk biounit, it is likely to constitute the main substratum under the seagrass and Caulerpa habitats.

As such, it is the view of the Commission that the MPAs satisfy the Strategy with regard to reasonably meeting the requirements of both the identification criterion of representativeness and the principle of representativeness.

The Commission considers that the individual MPAs are adequate in that they are large enough to meet their objectives, contain sufficient habitat area to support the population(s) they are designed to protect and that the recommended level of protection is sufficient to meet the objectives of the MPA.

The Commission considers that the system of selected MPAs presented in this report is adequate as the MPAs collectively meet the identification criteria (particularly comprehensiveness and representativeness) and collectively address the primary goal of the Strategy. This is:

“Recognising the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System, the primary goal of the Strategy is:

to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine protected areas, to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Tasmania’s biological diversity.”

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 102 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] x x x x x x Patchy reef xx ● ● ● ● ● Low profile reef x ●●● ●●● Medium profile reef ???? ???? ●● ●●● ●●●● High profile reef Aquatic macrophyte Caulerpa Not present in biounit ? Unknown, may exist

Sparse & sp patchy seagrass x xx Patchy seagrass xxx ● x xxx x ●● ●● Silt Seagrass x xxx xxxx xxxx xxx x xxx xxxx x x x Silty sand ● ●● ●● ● ● Sand xxx xx x x x x x x ●● ●● ●●●●● ●● Hard sand Present in MPA; Present in MPA; x but present in biounit; Not present in MPA,

●

within biounits and selected marine protected areas Key: Hippolytes Rocks (Zone A) ? ? Sloping Island Cape Pillar (Zone A) ? ? Tinderbox Marine Reserve Tinderbox Depth rangeMarine Protected Area Offshore bionit Hippolytes Rocks (Zone A) Cape Pillar (Zone A) EcosystemHabitatMarine Protected Area Offshore biounit 40 – 100 m depthExposed biounit Hippolytes Rocks (Zone B) Cape Pillar (Zone B) Bay–Fortescue Bay Waterfall The Friars UnvegetatedModerately exposed biounit Betsey Island Non-consolidated substratumOpossum Bay (Crayfish Pt) Waters Taroona (extension) Tinderbox > 100 m depth Vegetated Consolidated substratum (Reef) Existing MPAs

■ Table 3 Table Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: ecosystems habitats ■ [Back to tables]

Selected areas Resource Planning and Development Commission 103 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] x x x x x Patchy reef ? ? ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Low profile reef x x xxx Medium profile reef High profile reef x xx x x x ●● Aquatic macrophyte Caulerpa Not present in biounit ? Unknown, may exist

Sparse & sp patchy seagrass xx Patchy seagrass xxx x ●● ●●● ● ● x x xxx x xxxx xxx ● Silt Seagrass x xxx xxxx x ● ●●● ● ●●●● ● ●● ● ● Silty sand ??? ??? x x xx xxxx x x ● Sand ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● Present in MPA; Present in MPA; x but present in biounit; Not present in MPA, Hard sand

●

biounit Bays ecosystems and habitats within biounits and MPAs ecosystems and habitats within biounits MPAs Key: (Ninepin Point extension) Ninepin Point Marine Reserve Zone A Zone B (Simpsons Point) Zone C (Central Channel) Zone D (Isthmus Bay) EcosystemHabitatMarine Protected Area Norfolk biounit Lime Bay (Zone A) Lime Bay (Zone B) Channel biounit Roberts Point Unvegetated Non-consolidated substratumHuon biounit Huon estuaryDerwent biounit River DerwentDroughty PeninsulaSouth Arm Open estuaries biounit VegetatedPort Cygnet Marine Inlet & x Blackman Bay Consolidated substratum Lagoon Pittwater-Orielton Pipe Clay Lagoon Cloudy Bay Lagoon x x (Reef)

Existing MPAs D’Entrecasteaux Channel MPA ■ Table 3 Table (continued) Comprehensiveness and representativeness assessment: [Back to tables] ■

Management arrangements Resource Planning and Development Commission 104 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

9 Management arrangements

Step 8 of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) is to:

“Select and prioritise sites for Marine Protected Areas from a candidate list of Marine Protected Areas using Tasmanian selection criteria … … … and identify arrangements for management, funding and enforcement.”

The inquiry terms of reference require the Resource Planning Development Commission (the Commission) to identify potential arrangements for management for those areas that are determined to be suitable for declaration as marine protected areas (MPAs).

Chapters 7 and 8 constitute the core management arrangements described within this Draft Recommendations Report. In Chapter 7, the Commission identified three general levels of protection (ie. very high, high and medium) that may apply to MPAs and listed the key management objectives and permitted activities that are considered to characterise each of these levels of protection. In Chapter 8, the Commission selected MPAs and identified the primary management objectives and level(s) of protection that may apply to each MPA.

As stated in Chapter 7, the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) identifies that the current management framework within Tasmania provides for MPAs to be declared as either:

• ‘Reserved land’ in one of a number of classes (eg. Nature Reserve, State Reserve, National Park, Conservation Area, etc) under the Nature Conservation Act 2002; and/or • A ‘marine resources protected area’ under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995. The main managing authority for ‘reserved land’ is the Parks and Wildlife Service (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment) under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002.

The main managing authority for a ‘marine resources protected area’ is the Department of Primary Industries and Water under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995.

The Strategy states that the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (subsequently repealed by the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, with declaration of reserved land under the Nature Conservation Act 2002) will be utilised to establish new MPAs. The Commission accepts that this legislation will be used to establish new MPAs.

The Commission notes that to meet the objectives of each MPA, specific management controls additional to those within the final recommendations of the Commission, are likely to be developed following the declaration of each MPA. The development of additional specific management controls will occur through the formulation of a management plan, including public representations on a draft management plan, by the managing authority for each MPA (eg. the Parks and Wildlife Service under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 or the Department of Primary Industries and Water under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995).

The Commission recognises that for many of the areas selected as MPAs, management plans (or draft management plans) or other policy documents currently apply for various sectors within each selected MPA. The Commission recommends that to achieve a cost effective approach to management and

Management arrangements Resource Planning and Development Commission 105 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

planning for MPAs in the Bruny Bioregion relevant aspects of these documents may be integrated into the management planning within each MPA. Some relevant examples of these policy and planning documents within the Bruny Bioregion include the:

• State Coastal Policy; • State Policy on Water Quality Management; • Natural Resource Management Strategy for Southern Tasmania; • Local Government Planning Schemes; • Reserved Land Management Plans (or Draft Plans); • Fisheries Management Plans; • Marine Farming Development Plans; • Threatened Species Strategy for Tasmania; • Nature Conservation Strategy; • A Wetlands Strategy for Tasmania; • Derwent Estuary Environmental Management Plan; and • Catchment Management Plans (various).

The Commission would welcome more evidence to assist in making final recommendations on the arrangements of management, funding and enforcement with regard to the selected MPAs presented in Chapter 8 of this Draft Recommendations Report.

Management arrangements Resource Planning and Development Commission 106 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

10 Where to from here

In accordance with the inquiry terms of reference and section 27 of the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991, the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) has prepared this draft report of its proposed recommendations for public comment.

The next stage is for the Commission to receive public submissions and to hold hearings on this Draft Recommendations Report.

Relevant material obtained from public submissions and hearings on this Draft Recommendations Report will be incorporated into the selection of marine protected areas, in accordance with the identification and selection criteria within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy, for final recommendation to the Minister for Planning. The Commission is required to make final recommendations on the areas that are suitable for declaration as marine protected areas, their potential boundaries and potential arrangements for management.

The Final Recommendations Report is to include a range of alternatives giving, in each case, its advantages and disadvantages.

Where to from here Resource Planning and Development Commission 107 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

11 References

Commonwealth of Australia (1998). Australia’s Oceans Policy. Environment Australia, Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia (2006). A Guide to the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Version 4.0. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia.

IMCRA Technical Group (1998). Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia: An ecosystem-based classification for marine and coastal environments. Version 3.3. Environment Australia, Commonwealth Department of the Environment. Canberra.

Resource Planning and Development Commission (2006). Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion: Background Report. Resource Planning and Development Commission, Hobart. 147p.

Resource Planning and Development Commission (2007). Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion: Interim Report. Resource Planning and Development Commission, Hobart. 110p.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (2001). Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania, Hobart.

References Resource Planning and Development Commission 108 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

12 Glossary

Act (The) Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991

ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

CAR Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative

CFEV Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values

Commission (The) Resource Planning and Development Commission

EBFM Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management

EBM Ecosystem Based Management

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development

GDA94 Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 ha hectare

IMCRA Interim (or Integrated) Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia

IUCN W orld Conservation Union (formerly the International Union for the Conservation of Nature km kilometre m metre

Minister (The) Minister for Planning

MPA Marine Protected Area nm nautical mile

Ramsar site Ramsar Wetland of International Significance

RMPS Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania

RPDC Resource Planning and Development Commission

Strategy (The) Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy

Tasmanian waters Marine and tidal waters adjacent to Tasmania, from the high water mark to the three nm limit of coastal waters

Glossary Resource Planning and Development Commission 109 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 1

Terms of reference The Terms of reference issued on 6 June 2005 by the former Minister for Environment and Planning, the Hon. Judy Jackson, are as follows:

“Pursuant to Section 14 of the Public Land (Administration of Forests) Act 1991, a reference is hereby issued to the Resource Planning and Development Commission. The Commission is to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations on the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Bioregion known as the Bruny Bioregion.

1. Description of the Land That area of public land within the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Bruny Bioregion as shown on the attached plan.

2. The Scope of the Inquiry Acting pursuant to the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy, the inquiry is to:

(a) use the identification criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy to assess which of those areas of public land under investigation are suitable as potential Marine Protected Areas.

(b) use the selection criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy to select those areas of public land under investigation that are suitable for declaration as Marine Protected Areas.

(c) identify potential boundaries and arrangements for management of the areas of public land under investigation determined to be suitable for declaration as Marine Protected Areas as a result of completing (a) and (b) above.

(d) make recommendations to the Minister for Environment and Planning on the following matters:

(i) those areas of public land under investigation which meet the identification and selection criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy, and are suitable for declaration as Marine Protected Areas;

(ii) the potential boundaries of any area of public land under investigation determined to be suitable for declaration as a Marine Protected Area;

(iii) the potential arrangements for management of any area of public land under investigation determined to be suitable for declaration as a Marine Protected Area.

Appendix 1 Resource Planning and Development Commission 110 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

3. Matters to be taken into account In arriving at its recommendations the Commission is to take into account the following:

(a) the marine habitat mapping which has been carried out in the bioregion.

(b) the existing Marine Protected Areas within the Bruny bioregion (Tinderbox Marine Nature Reserve and Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve).

(c) whether any areas within the public land under investigation that are subject to existing fisheries management restrictions, can be established as a Marine Protected Area, or form part thereof.

(d) whe ther the provision of different management zones, allowing for differing forms of activity are an appropriate means of managing the area, when identifying potential arrangements for management.

4. Recommendations Report In the final recommendations report to the Minister for Environment and Planning, the Commission is to provide a range of alternatives giving, in each case, its advantages and disadvantages.

5. Date of Submission of Final Recommendations The Commission is to provide its Final Recommendations to the Minister by 30 November 2006.”

Appendix 1 Resource Planning and Development Commission 111 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 1 Resource Planning and Development Commission 112 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Terms of reference issued on 8 August 2007 by the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Steven Kons, are as follows:

“I, Steven Kons, Minister administering the Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991, hereby issue a reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations on the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Bioregion known as the Bruny Bioregion.

Pursuant to section 16 of the Act this reference amends the reference issued by the Minister for Environment and Planning on 6 June 2005 under section 14 of the Act.

1. Description of the Land That area of public land within the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Bruny Bioregion as shown on the attached plan with the exception of that land which is specified in Schedule 1 of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area (Clarification) Act 2006.

2. The Scope of the Inquiry The inquiry is to:

(a) use the identification criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy adopted by the Tasmanian Government in August 2001 to assess which of those areas of public land under investigation are suitable as potential Marine Protected Areas.

(d) make recommendations to the Minister for Planning on the following matters:

(ii) the potential boundaries of any area of public land under investigation determined to be suitable for declaration as a Marine Protected Area;

(iii) the potential arrangements for management of any area of public land under investigation determined to be suitable for declaration as a Marine Protected Area.

Appendix 1 Resource Planning and Development Commission 113 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

3. Matters to be taken into account In arriving at its recommendations the Commission is to take into account the following:

(a) the marine habitat mapping which has been carried out in the bioregion.

(b) the existing Marine Protected Areas within the Bruny bioregion (Tinderbox Marine Nature Reserve and Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve).

(c) whether any areas within the public land under investigation that are subject to existing fisheries management restrictions, can be established as a Marine Protected Area, or form part thereof.

(d) whether the provision of different management zones, allowing for differing forms of activity are an appropriate means of managing the area, when identifying potential arrangements for management.

4. Recommendations Report In the final recommendations report to the Minister for Planning, the Commission is to provide a range of alternatives giving, in each case, its advantages and disadvantages.

5. Date of Submission of Final Recommendations The Commission is to provide its final recommendations to the Minister by 28 February 2008 or such later date as the Minister may direct in writing.”

Appendix 1 Resource Planning and Development Commission 114 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 2

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy

Appendix 2 Resource Planning and Development Commission 115

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy

DEPARTMENT of PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, WATER and ENVIRONMENT Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Published by the Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania ISBN 0724662677

Recommended Citation: Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy, Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania, Hobart.

This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Inquiries should be directed to the General Manager, Strategic Issues and Programs, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, GPO Box 44, Hobart, TAS, 7001.

Disclaimer Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the basis that the Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania, its agents and employees are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement or advice referred to herein. Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Marine and Marine Industries Council 4

Marine Ecosystem Management in Tasmania 5

Representative System of Marine Protected Areas 6

Primary Goal 6

Secondary Goals 6

Ecological 6

Economic 6

Social 7

Scientific 7

Principles 7

What is a Marine Protected Area? 8

Development of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas 11

How are Marine Protected Areas Identified and Selected 12

Key Steps in the Development of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas 14

Criteria for Identification of Marine Protected Areas 16

Criteria for Selection of Marine Protected Areas 18

Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas 19

Public Education and Consultation 20

Review of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas 21

Glossary 23

Appendix 1 24

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 119 120 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Introduction Tasmania has a spectacular coastline and diverse marine environment which combine to form an integral part of the lifestyle of many Tasmanians. In recognition of the importance of the marine environment to the During the year 2000 a new large marine people of Tasmania, the Government is committed reserve was created in Tasmanian State to ensuring the long-term ecological viability of waters around Macquarie Island. This reserve the marine environment, and the protection of its comprises some 75,000 hectares. biological diversity. There has been an increasing recognition The geographical position and varying climatic in the Tasmanian community of the need to conditions of Tasmania, together with the influence better protect parts of the marine environment, of ocean currents, combine to produce a marine in a similar manner to the way in which parts of environment recognised as one of the most the terrestrial environment are protected. The biologically diverse in the world. The coast of increasing recognition of the value and vulnerability Tasmania includes rocky reefs, sandy beaches, sea of our offshore waters, together with Tasmania’s cliffs, headlands, estuaries, natural harbours and active involvement in the development of a National open coasts. The marine environment contains a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, rich variety of marine life that includes kelp forests, has resulted in the need for a more formal and seagrass beds and sponge gardens each with their systematic approach to the protection of the own communities of fish and invertebrates. It is Tasmanian marine environment. the home of many commercially important species including abalone and rock lobster. It also hosts a range of special creatures from sea dragons and fairy penguins to great white sharks and migrating whales. Protection of Tasmania’s coastal areas commenced in 1916 with the declaration of the Freycinet National Park. Since then, many terrestrial areas have been set aside to protect physical and biological features, however, these rarely extended beyond the shoreline. In 1991 the Tasmanian Government announced a strategy for marine conservation, and declared four marine reserves as a result. These marine reserves include three small areas – Governor Island, Ninepin Point and Tinderbox – and one larger area off Maria Island.

photo: Jon Bryan

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 121 Marine and Marine Industries Council The Marine and Marine Industries Council (MMIC) was established by the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment in August 1999, with its first task being the development of a policy framework for a system of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania. The members of the Marine and Marine Industries Council represent a range of key stakeholders, and have individual expertise in areas such as marine conservation, management and utilisation. The chairman of the Marine and Marine Industries Council is Mr Tony Harrison, a marine management consultant.

Name Representing Mr Peter Bosworth 5 Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment Mr Jon Bryan Tasmanian Conservation Trust Professor Colin Buxton Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania Mr Owen Carington Smith Tasmanian Aquaculture Council Mr John Cocker Australian Underwater Federation Mr Colin Dyke Tasmanian Aquaculture Council Dr Graham Edgar Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania Mr Tony J Harrison (Chair) Independent Chairman Mr Bob Lister Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Mr Michael Lynch Tasmanian Conservation Trust Mr Michael Mansell 1 Tasmanian Aboriginal Cultural Fishing Advisory Committee Mr Mark O’May Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Mr Jim Rees 3 Marine Recreational Fishery Council Mr Stuart Richey Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Mr Alex Schaap 2 Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment Ms Dianne Snowden Community Representative Inspector Hank Timmerman 4 Department of Police and Public Safety Mr Malcolm Wells Department of State Development Notes: 1 Mr Michael Mansell resigned and was replaced by Mr Greg Brown 2 Mr Alex Schaap resigned and was replaced by Mr Dennis Witt 5 3 Mr Jim Rees resigned and was replaced by Mr Chris White 4 Inspector Hank Timmerman resigned and was replaced by Inspector Steve Williams 5 Mr Peter Bosworth and Mr Dennis Witt resigned and were replaced by Mr Glenn Appleyard

122 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Marine Ecosystem Management in Tasmania Australia’s governments are working together to set up a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas throughout Australia’s entire marine zone. The aim of which is to protect areas that represent all of or control fishing activities within the marine the major ecological regions and the communities of environment, even if a part of that environment plants and animals they contain. is reserved under that Act. Marine reserves are therefore established under both the National Australia’s marine and coastal organisms have Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 and Living Marine been classified by the Interim Marine and Coastal Resources Management Act 1995. Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA) into 60 different areas, or bioregions. Each contains Within this marine management framework, distinct combinations of biological and physical Tasmania has declared five marine reserves: features. Through this process, Tasmania’s inshore Governor Island Marine Nature Reserve, Ninepin hard rocky reefs have been classified into eight Point Marine Nature Reserve, Tinderbox Marine bioregions. The Interim Marine and Coastal Nature Reserve, Maria Island National Park, and Regionalisation for Australia provides the template Macquarie Island Nature Reserve. These marine and the scientific base on which governments can reserves are reserved under the National Parks and select marine areas for the national system. Wildlife Act 1970, and the fish within the reserves are protected under the Living Marine Resources With the development of a systems based Management Act 1995. The present marine reserves approach to the conservation and management comprise 3.4 % of State waters. of the marine environment at the national level, the somewhat ad hoc approach to the reservation Since the development of the Marine Reserves of marine protected areas in Tasmania needs to be Strategy in 1991, and the subsequent declaration reviewed. This Strategy is the result of such a review, of five marine reserves, there has been and recommends a systems based approach for the no substantial progress in relation to the protection of the Tasmanian marine environment. development of a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania. In fact, Currently, Tasmania’s marine environment and the the 1991 Marine Reserves Strategy did not activities within the marine environment are managed set out a clear framework for progressing through a range of legislation and State Policies. The a system of marine reserves, but major pieces of legislation are: Living Marine Resources concentrated on individual reserves. Management Act 1995; National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970; Marine Farming Planning Act 1995; and Environmental Recognition of the need for a clear Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. The two framework to guide progress, together relevant State Policies are the State Coastal Policy 1996, and with a strong impetus nationally for the the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997. cooperative establishment of a National Representative System of Marine The purpose of the Living Marine Resources Management Protected Areas, forms the basis for the Act 1995 is to promote the sustainable management of living development of this new comprehensive marine resources, make provision for the development of Marine Protected Areas Strategy. This management plans for fish resources, and the protection Strategy will provide the framework for the of marine habitats. There are currently a number of areas identification, selection and establishment established for fisheries management purposes under of new marine reserves in Tasmania, which the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995. These together will form a Representative System areas provide varying levels of protection to the marine of Marine Protected Areas for the State, and plants and animals, and include recreational fishing contribute to the National Representative areas, no netting or restricted fishing areas, and shark System of Marine Protected Areas. nursery waters. This Strategy has been developed in The purpose of the National Parks and Wildlife the context of recognition that area based Act 1970 is to make provision for the establishment conservation does not of itself ensure that marine and management of National Parks and other conservation and management objectives are met. reserves and for the conservation and A combination of on and off reserve management protection of the fauna and flora of Tasmania. is central to achieving those objectives. Tasmania is The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 can more fortunate than most jurisdictions in having a robust protect and manage selected areas of the management framework for key issues such as fishery marine environment in a similar manner exploitation and aquaculture development. to terrestrial areas. However, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 can not be used to protect fish,

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 123 Primary Goal Representative System of Marine Recognising the Tasmanian Resource Management Protected Areas and Planning System, the primary goal of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy is: Effective marine biodiversity conservation is to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and recognised both nationally and internationally representative system of marine protected areas, to as relying on two basic strategies: contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine (i) the establishment of a representative and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes system of Marine Protected Areas, and and systems, and to protect Tasmania’s biological (ii) the ecologically sustainable management of diversity. natural resources. The Tasmanian Government recognises the need to formally conserve and protect the full range of marine ecosystems, habitats and species that occur along Tasmania’s coast. The need also extends to include the conservation and protection of significant physical natural features and seascapes, marine and cultural heritage, and aesthetic and wilderness values, together with providing specific sites for education and recreation, and scientific research and monitoring. The Tasmanian Government also recognises that no Marine Protected Area will be sustainable if established or managed in isolation. There are biological, social and economic interactions between different places and components of the marine system that are an integral part of any Strategy. Approaching the conservation and management of a Marine Protected Area by evaluating the whole system is a necessary part of striking an appropriate balance between conservation and development, and between the differing management emphasis required for areas within the Marine Protected Area. Given this, a set of goals and principles have been developed to guide the establishment of a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania which is comprehensive, adequate and representative of the Tasmanian marine environment. Secondary Goals The development of the comprehensive, representative and adequate system of Marine Protected Areas outlined in this Strategy is also guided by a series of secondary goals. These secondary goals are aimed at particular management goals of the system, and are not hierarchical in nature or application. Ecological ∑• To protect threatened, rare, or endangered species, or ecological communities, and in particular, habitats considered critical for the survival of such species. ∑• To provide for special groups of organisms, eg. species with complex habitat requirements, mobile or migratory species, and species vulnerable to disturbance which may depend on reservation for their conservation. ∑• To protect areas of: (i) high species diversity; (ii) natural refugia for flora and fauna; and (iii) centres of endemism. ∑• To facilitate the restoration of degraded marine ecosystems. Economic ∑• To protect and manage: (i) habitats of significance to the life-cycles of economically important species; and (ii) habitats, species and seascapes of importance to recreation and tourism. ∑• To provide a formal management framework for a broad spectrum of human activities, including recreation, tourism and the use or extraction of resources, that are compatible with the primary goal.

124 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Social • To protect and manage significant geological, archaeological, historical and cultural sites. • To protect the natural aesthetic values of marine and estuarine areas. • To cater for the management of marine areas and species in partnership with indigenous communities. ∑• To achieve the support and cooperation of the community, and to facilitate the interpretation of marine and estuarine systems for the purposes of conservation, recreation and public education. Scientific ∑• To provide for reference sites for scientific • Precautionary Principle – the absence of studies, including sites for baseline fisheries scientific certainty should not be a reason for monitoring and long-term environmental postponing measures to establish Marine Protected monitoring. Areas to protect representative ecosystems. If an activity is assessed as having a low risk of causing Principles serious or irreversible adverse impacts, or if there is insufficient information with which to assess The Representative System of Marine Protected fully and with certainty the magnitude and nature Areas in Tasmania should be developed in of impacts, decision making should proceed in a accordance with the following principles. conservative and cautious manner. • Regional Framework – the Interim Marine – the process of and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia provides • Consultation identification and selection of Marine the regional planning framework for developing the Protected Areas will include effective public Representative System of Marine Protected Areas consultation with appropriate community in Tasmania, with ecosystems used as the basis for and interest groups, to address current and determining representativeness. future social, economic and cultural issues. • Comprehensiveness – the Representative System – the of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania will include the full • Indigenous Involvement interests of Australia’s indigenous people range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale should be recognised and incorporated in within and across each bioregion. decision making. • Adequacy – the Representative System of Marine – the Tasmanian Protected Areas in Tasmania will have the required level of • Displacement Government recognises the importance reservation to ensure the ecological viability and integrity of displacement issues. To address these of populations, species and communities. issues, the Tasmanian Government has • Representativeness – those marine areas that are agreed to establish a process for providing selected for inclusion in Marine Protected Areas should special adjustment payments on a case by reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine case basis (ex poste) to certain individuals ecosystems from which they derive. directly affected by a Marine Protected Area. – the Representative • Highly Protected Areas • Decision Making – decision making System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania will processes should effectively integrate both aim to include some highly protected areas (IUCN long-term and short-term environmental, Categories I and II) in each bioregion. economic, social and equity considerations. In adopting the above principles it is recognised that they may be amended in light of new information and issues. For example, it is recognised that the definition of bioregions under the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia is interim and is based upon the best available information. As an ongoing iterative process, it will be subject to change in light of new information.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 125 What is a Marine Protected Area? A Marine Protected Area within the Tasmanian system is defined in the following manner.

An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1994).

126 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy A number of key characteristics will define Marine Protected Areas that form the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania, as compared to other marine managed areas. The characteristics are that a Marine Protected Area: The categories are not designed to drive • has been established for the conservation of the development of protected area systems biodiversity (consistent with the primary goal); but to provide an international system of ∑• is able to be classified into one or more of the categorisation to facilitate understanding. six International Union for the Conservation They are not a commentary on management of Nature (IUCN) Protected Area Management effectiveness and should be interpreted with Categories (refer to Appendix 1) reflecting the flexibility at national and regional levels. Marine values and objectives of the Marine Protected Protected Areas should be established to meet Area; objectives consistent with national or regional ∑• must have secure status which can only be goals and needs and only then be assigned an revoked by a Parliamentary process; and International Union for the Conservation of ∑• contributes to the representativeness, Nature (IUCN) category according to the agreed comprehensiveness or adequacy of the management objectives. Tasmanian System. The current marine management framework of The Strategy recognises that Marine Protected Tasmania provides for five possible types of Marine Areas can be established for a variety of Protected Area. The Living Marine Resources management purposes and provide for a range of Management Act 1995 provides for one type, known activities while still protecting the environment. For as a Marine Resources Protected Area, and the example, Marine Protected Areas can be reserved National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 provides for for conservation, fisheries management, research, the remaining four types: Nature Reserve, State education, social and historical importance, tourism Reserve, National Park or Conservation Area or recreational use – or a combination of any of these. (refer to Appendix 2). Recognising the range of purposes for the establishment of a Marine Protected Area, and the need for a system that enables a national and internationally consistent scheme of management types, the Tasmanian Government has adopted the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Protected Area Management Categories (refer to Appendix 1). These categories provide a uniform classification which both identifies the principal management objectives of the protected area, as well as acknowledging that other secondary uses and values can be conserved through reservation. There are six International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Protected Area Management Categories into which a Marine Protected Area, or parts thereof, can be classified. Categories I and II are highly protected, or no take areas, Category III is a limited use area, and Categories IV–VI are multiple use areas. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Management Categories provide for large Marine Protected Areas to contain identifiable zones of different categories dependent on the management objectives and the levels of protection applying to those zones. It also allows for the nesting of Marine Protected Areas of different categories.

photo: Jon Bryan

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 127 128 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Development of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas The principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness have been adopted by the Tasmanian Government to guide the development of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania. Put simply, to be comprehensive the system of Marine Protected Areas will include the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion of Tasmania. The adequacy of the system will be measured against the requirement that the level of protection will ensure the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. In order to be representative the system will include Marine Protected Areas selected on the basis that they reasonably reflect the biological diversity of the ecosystem from which they derive. An essential step in the conservation and management of the marine environment is the determination of biogeographic regions. This allows a vast area to be partitioned into smaller units on the basis of the ecosystems contained within each biogeographic or ecological unit. In natural ecosystems an understanding of the patterns of biodiversity, particularly habitat biodiversity, is essential for identifying an ecologically or biogeographically representative system of protected areas. The Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia classifies and partitions the Australian marine organisms into various biogeographic regions. This process has identified eight inshore rocky reef bioregions within Tasmanian waters. The bioregions are: Otway, Twofold Shelf, Flinders, Boags, Freycinet, Bruny, Davey and Franklin. The map opposite illustrates the location and extent of each of these bioregions. The Tasmanian Government recognises that the successful establishment of a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania is dependent upon a transparent, accountable and consultative process (Refer to page 12-13). Therefore it is proposed that the Tasmanian system will be established using the twelve step process outlined in this Strategy. This process will allow Marine Protected Areas to be identified, selected and established using the best available scientific information, and through a process that the Tasmanian community can easily understand and actively participate in.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 129 How are Marine Protected Areas Identified and Selected?

The identification and selection process outlined in this Strategy provides a transparent and rigorous identification and selection process, in which decisions will be based on scientific, economic and social information. The identification and selection process will also consider safety issues including access to fishing grounds for small vessels, access to safe anchorage and for movement of vessels in Marine Protected Areas, in accordance with International Law. This is vital for the ongoing growth and acceptance of the Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.

130 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy The Tasmanian Government is committed to establishing a Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas which will have broad based community support. There will be a number of opportunities for the community and other stakeholders to contribute to the process of identification and selection of Marine The success of the Tasmanian System Protected Areas. of Marine Protected Areas depends not only on a formal and inclusive process for The aim of the identification and selection the identification and selection of Marine process is to meet the primary goal of establishing Protected Areas, but also the body who carries and managing a comprehensive, adequate and out the identification and selection process. representative system of Marine Protected Areas, With this in mind the Tasmanian Government will whilst taking into account and minimising any appoint the Resource Planning and Development negative impact on social, cultural and economic Commission to carry out the identification and values. selection process for Marine Protected Areas. The The identification and selection process is Resource Planning and Development Commission made up of a number of stages. Conservation may appoint Assistant Commissioners with relevant and ecological qualities are the primary values expertise to assist with the task. for identifying potential areas. The selection The criteria that follow are important. All criteria take into account broader issues such areas being considered for inclusion in the as economic, social and cultural values of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas area. It is recognised that some areas are subject need to be assessed against all criteria however, to statutory obligations and entitlements and in not all criteria will be equally relevant in all cases. selecting Marine Protected Areas these must be acknowledged and considered. The first stage is the assessment of scientific information about Tasmania’s State waters to identify areas for potential Marine Protected Areas using the identification criteria outlined in this Strategy (Steps 1–7). The results of this stage will then be discussed with Tasmanians, and their input incorporated into the finalisation of the first stage. The second stage (Steps 8–9) is the application of the selection criteria listed in this Strategy to those potential Marine Protected Areas identified as a result of stage one. This selection process will be conducted on a bioregional basis. The results of this stage will also be discussed with the community and their input incorporated in the final recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas within each bioregion.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 131 Key Steps in the Development of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas

Step 1 The Minister issues a terms of reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission, which then conducts public consultation on the terms of reference. Step 2 Gather data at the bioregion level, including ecosystem mapping. Step 3 Using Tasmanian identification criteria, identify a list of candidate Marine Protected Areas within Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregions to represent major ecosystems. This will include an evaluation of all areas subject to existing fisheries management restrictions. Step 4 Identification of threatening processes such as human activities and natural occurrences that can cause some of the following effects: habitat destruction; species removal and disturbance; pollution (heavy metals, oil spills and toxic chemicals); and run off. Step 5 Assess the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of ecosystems and habitats in existing Marine Protected Areas within each Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregion. Step 6 Develop priorities for Marine Protected Areas at the bioregional and ecosystem level, based on results of steps 4 and 5. Step 7 Develop additional criteria for identification and selection of Marine Protected Areas if required. Step 8 Select and prioritise sites for Marine Protected Areas from a candidate list of Marine Protected Areas using Tasmanian selection criteria, and any other additional criteria developed in step 7 and identify arrangements for management, funding and enforcement. Step 9 Assess feasibility of potential Marine Protected Areas and negotiate new protected areas. Step 10 The Resource Planning and Development Commission provides to the Minister a final recommendations report on potential Marine Protected Areas based on the completion of steps 2-9 inclusive. Step 11 Obtain Cabinet approval for final management arrangements and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Categories (IUCN) based on management objectives, values and resources identified in this step, and Establish Marine Protected Areas. Step 12 Undertake management tasks, including ongoing evaluation and review of Marine Protected Areas.

The steps outlined above are not necessarily a sequence as many of the tasks may be performed simultaneously. In addition, all will involve feedback loops as the process is continual. The relationship between these steps is illustrated opposite.

132 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Reference to RPDC (step 1)

Public Consultation

Gather bioregional data (step 2)

Identify potential MPAs Identify risks to environment Assess existing MPAs (step 3) (step 4) (step 5) Identification

Public Consultation Develop bioregional priorities for MPAs (step 6) Additional identification and selection criteria MPAs (step 7) Select and prioritise MPAs (step 8)

Assess feasibility of MPAs (step 9)

Selection Public Consultation

RPDC final recommendations to the Minister (step 10)

Public Consultation Cabinet approval for the establishment of MPAs and IUCN categories including any displacement issues (step 11)

Establishment Undertake ongoing management of MPAs (step 12)

RPDC = Resource Planning and Development Commission MPA = Marine Protected Area IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature Categories

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 133 Criteria for Identification of Marine Protected Areas The identification of potential Marine Protected Areas to form part of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania will be conducted through a formal process, with each potential Marine Protected Area being measured against clearly enunciated identification criteria.

The identification criteria adopted by the Tasmanian Government are as follows. Comprehensiveness ∑• Adds to the coverage of the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion. ∑• Enhances the comprehensive nature of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania. Adequacy ∑• The size of the area, its boundaries and location are adequate to ensure that its biological and ecological values can be protected and managed and the impact of activities can be minimised. Representativeness ∑• Represents one or more ecosystems within an Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia bioregion. ∑• Enhances the representative nature of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania. Ecological Importance • Contributes to maintenance of essential ecological processes or life-support systems. • Contains habitat for rare or endangered species. ∑• Preserves genetic diversity, ie. is diverse or abundant in species. ∑• Contains areas on which other species or other systems are dependent, eg. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or rest areas for migratory species. ∑• Contains one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self-sustaining ecological unit. International or National Significance ∑• Is listed, or has the potential to be listed, on the World or National Heritage List or declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an international or national conservation agreement. Uniqueness ∑• Contains unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems. ∑• Contains unique or unusual geographic features.

134 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Productivity • Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural productivity. Vulnerability Assessment • Contains ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes. Biogeographic Importance ∑• Captures important biogeographical qualities. Naturalness • Extent to which the area has been protected from, or not been subject to, human-induced change.

photo: Jon Bryan

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 135 Criteria for Selection of Marine Protected Areas Once potential Marine Protected Areas have been identified through the identification process, the selection of individual Marine Protected Areas to form part of the Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas will occur. Like the identification process, the selection of Marine Protected Areas will be done via the application of a series of formal selection criteria set out in this Strategy.

The formal selection process for Marine Protected Areas involves assessing each potential Marine Protected Area against the following criteria. Economic Interests ∑• Existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection, eg. for recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for economically important species. ∑• Current or potential use for the extraction of, or exploration for resources. ∑• Importance for shipping and/or trade. • Value due to its contribution to local or regional employment and economic development. Indigenous Interests • Traditional usage and/or current economic value. ∑• Contains indigenous cultural values. ∑• Native title considerations. Social Interests • Existing or potential value to the local, national or international communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional, aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values. Scientific Interests ∑• Existing or potential value for research and monitoring. Practicality/Feasibility ∑• Degree of insulation from external destructive influences. • Social and political acceptability, and a degree of community support. • Access for recreation, tourism, education. • Lends itself to practical management (cost effectiveness, compliance etc.). Vulnerability Assessment • Extent to which the site is vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes. Replication ∑• Provides a replication of ecosystems within a Marine Protected Area within the bioregion.

136 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas The declaration of new Marine Protected Areas as a result of the implementation of the comprehensive, systems based framework set out in this Strategy, will combine to provide Tasmania with a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. The Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 will be utilised to establish new Marine Protected Areas (see Appendix 2). The Government is committed to the ongoing assessment of the performance of Marine Protected Areas in meeting the objectives for which they were declared. To meet this commitment the Government, through the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment and the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, will undertake a regular monitoring and research program at two levels. The first level of the program will involve a performance assessment of each individual Marine Protected Area. The second level will be an investigation into the effectiveness of the Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas as a whole.

The program will involve an assessment of how each Marine Protected Area is being used, by way of surveillance or activity monitoring together with undertaking ongoing scientific research, to provide information on the condition of the Marine Protected Areas and the impacts of both human use and natural occurrences. The results of monitoring and research will then be fed into the management planning process, and will thus ensure that the management plan of each Marine Protected Area is based on the most up to date information available.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 137 Public Education and

Consultation Tasmania’s marine resources form an essential part of the State’s economic and cultural heritage. Through the development of this Strategy, the Tasmanian Government has recognised the need to formally conserve and protect the full range of marine ecosystems, habitats and species that occur along Tasmania’s coast. It also recognises that the effective management of these resources is a shared responsibility between government, users and the wider community. The early involvement and active participation o f d i r e c t and indirect users of the marine environment, and the community in general, is crucial to the successful development, implementation and management of a Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Education and awareness of this Strategy is therefore of the utmost importance. All parties must be well informed. The aims of the Strategy must be clearly defined and understood. It is essential that all stakeholders who may be involved in, or affected by, Marine Protected Area development and/or management and the suite of issues that relate to them, be identified and a consultation and education process established. Consultation and education engenders a sense of stewardship and increases the ability of stakeholders to provide informed contributions. It also enables decision makers to have a good understanding of the concerns and values of stakeholders. This Strategy recommends that the education priorities for the Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas are as follows. ∑ • Develop an education and community awareness program to promote Tasmania’s marine biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems. ∑ • Develop an education and community awareness program to promote the role and benefits of establishing Marine Protected Areas. ∑• Investigate and support opportunities to establish community-based monitoring and awareness programs (such as ‘Dragon Search’, ‘Reef Watch’) as tools to raise community awareness of Tasmanian’s diverse marine environments. The awareness and education component of the program will develop different types of materials for different audiences, including schools, resource users, government agencies, community and various non government groups. A wide range of education tools can be used, for example, public meetings, brochures, booklets and educational videos.

138 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Review of the Representative System of Marine Protected Areas

The Tasmanian Government, stakeholders and community will review the policy framework for the establishment of the Tasmanian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas outlined in this Strategy five years after the finalisation of the Strategy. This review will ensure that the policy framework outlined in this Strategy continues to provide the most effective process for the development of Marine Protected Areas within Tasmanian State waters.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 139 140 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Glossary Adequacy The maintenance of the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. Baseline The territorial sea baseline is the line from which the seaward limits of Australia’s maritime zones or has not been subject to human-induced are measured. change. Biodiversity The variety of life forms – the different Replication The principle that if more than one plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they sample of an ecosystem is reserved across its contain, and the ecosystems they form. It is usually geographic range this will decrease the likelihood considered at three levels: genetic diversity, that chance events will cause the ecosystem to species diversity and ecosystem diversity. decline. Bioregion or Biogeographic Region A Representativeness Those marine areas that complex area (land/sea) composed of a cluster are selected for inclusion in reserves should of interacting ecosystems that are repeated in reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine similar form throughout. Region descriptions seek ecosystems from which they derive. to describe the dominant land/sea scape in terms State waters State waters are (a) any waters of of a hierarchy of interacting biophysical attributes. the territorial sea of Australia that are (i) within 3 Biogeographic regions vary in size, with larger nautical miles of the baseline by reference to which regions found where areas have more subdued the territorial limits of Australia are defined for the environmental gradients. These are defined and purposes of international law; and (ii) adjacent to delineated at the meso-scale. the State; and (b) any marine or tidal waters that Comprehensiveness Includes the full range of are on the landward side of that baseline and ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within are adjacent to the State, except inland waters; and across each bioregion. and (c) any land which is swept by those waters to the highest landward extent; and (d) in Conservation The protection, maintenance, relation to a fishery managed under a law of management, sustainable use, restoration and Tasmania under an arrangement, any waters enhancement of the natural environment. to which the arrangement relates; and (e) Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal and in relation to recreational fishing to which micro-organism communities and their non-living the Commonwealth Act does not apply, environment interacting as a functional unit. any waters to which the legislative powers of Tasmania extend. In relation to a fishery The Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for IMCRA managed under law other than a law of Australia is an ecosystem based classification for marine Tasmania under an arrangement, State and coastal environments. It provides ecologically based waters do not include any waters to which regionalisations at the mesoscale (100–1000 km) and at a that arrangement relates. provincial scale (greater than 1000 km). In summary: this means the near coastal The near coastal waters extending from the Inshore waters extending from the coastline and coastline and estuaries out to 3 nautical miles seaward estuaries out to 3 nautical miles seaward of of the baseline, which is the boundary of the State and the baseline. Territory waters. Threatened species and/or ecological International Union for the Conservation communities A species or ecological of Nature Guidelines for Protected Area community that is vulnerable or endangered. Management Categories Nationally and Internationally recognised categories for marine Threatening processes The dominant protected areas. See Appendix 1 for full explanation limiting factors and constraints to the ongoing of the different categories. conservation of biodiversity. Marine Protected Area An area of land and/ Viability The likelihood of long-term survival of the or sea especially dedicated to the protection example/population of the particular ecosystem or and maintenance of biological diversity, species under consideration. and of natural and associated cultural Vulnerability The predisposition of an area to a resources, and managed through legal or threatening process. other effective means. Naturalness The extent to which an area has been protected from,

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 141 Appendix 1 International Union for the Conservation of Nature Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories Category Ia Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. Category Ib Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. Category II National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. Category III Natural Monument: Protected Area managed for conservation of specific natural features Area containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. Category IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species. Category V Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Areas managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation Area of land, with coast and seas as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. Category VI Managed Resource Protected Areas: Protected Area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

For further information regarding the objectives of each of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management categories outlined above, please refer to Appendix Three of the publication titled, Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: A Guide for Action by Australian Governments. A full reference for this publication can be found in the list of Suggested Further Reading on page 26 of this Strategy.

142 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Appendix 2 Potential types of Marine Protected Area within Tasmania’s existing marine ecosystem management framework Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 Marine Resources Protected Area An area established for any or all of the following purposes: • the protection of representative samples of marine and estuarine habitats and ecosystems; • the maintenance of fish species and genetic diversity; • the protection of sites of ecological significance The purposes of reservation are the protection and or fragility; maintenance of any one or more of the following: • the protection of biological productivity of fish a) the natural and cultural values of the area of land; species through enhanced egg production and b) sites, objects or places of significance to settlement within, and propagation from, the Aboriginal people contained in that area of land; area; c) use of the area of land by Aboriginal people – • the protection of vulnerable fish species and their habitats; while providing for ecologically sustainable • the establishment of scientific reference area; recreation consistent with conserving any of the • public education in the resources, protection and things referred to in paragraph (a), (b) and (c) as use of the marine environment. applicable.

Establishment Process National Park The Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 A large area of natural land containing provides for the establishment of a Marine Protected a representative or outstanding sample Area as a marine resources protected area by the Minister of major natural regions, features or for Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Before the scenery. The purposes of reservation are Minister establishes a marine resources protected area, a the protection and maintenance of the draft marine resources protected area management plan is natural and cultural values of the area prepared and approved. The marine resources protected of land while providing for ecologically area management plan is released for public comment prior sustainable recreation consistent with to its approval. conserving those values.

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 Conservation Area Nature Reserve An area of land predominantly in a natural state. The purposes of reservation are the An area of land that contains natural values that contribute protection and maintenance of the natural to the natural biological diversity or geological diversity and cultural values of the area of land and of the area of land, or both; and are unique, important or the sustainable use of the natural resources have representative value. The purposes of reservation of that area of land. are the conservation of the natural biological diversity or geological diversity of the area of land, or both, Establishment Process and the conservation of the natural values of that The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 provides area of land that are unique, important or have for the establishment of a Marine Protected representative value. Area as either: a National Park; a State Reserve; State Reserve a Nature Reserve; or a Conservation Area. These areas are declared by the Governor, and in the case An area of land containing any of the of a National Park, State Reserve or a Nature Reserve, following: the declaration is also approved by both Houses of ∑• significant natural landscapes; Parliament. Once the Marine Protected Area is established • natural features; a management plan is prepared and approved. The • signs, objects or places of management plan is released for public comment prior to significance to Aboriginal people. its approval.

Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy 143 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Suggested Further Reading Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 2000, Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy: Background Report, Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania, Hobart. Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia Technical Group, 1998, Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia: an ecosystem-based classification for marine and coastal environments Version 3.3, Environment Australia, Canberra. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Task Force on Marine Protected Areas, 1998, Guidelines for Establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, Environment Australia, Canberra. World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN – The World Conservation Union, 1998, Protected Areas Programme PARKS The International Journal for Protected Area Managers, Volume 8, Number 2, June 1998. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Task Force on Marine Protected Areas, 1999, Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: A Guide for Action by Australian Governments, Environment Australia, Canberra. Environment Australia, Australia’s Marine Protected Areas, Environment Australia, Canberra. Department of Conservation and Land Management, NEW HORIZONS the way ahead in marine conservation and management, Government of Western Australia.

Introduction Resource Planning and Development Commission 144 144 Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 3

Submissions received on the Background Report

Sub Name Organisation Suburb State # Parks and Wildlife Service (Southern 1 Mr Michael Garner Region), Department of Tourism, Arts and Huonville TAS the Environment 2 Dr Andrew Davey Sandfly TAS 3 Mr Kim Gibson Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd Hobart TAS 4 Ms Elizabeth Lonie Email only 5 Ms Lynne Woodlock Mt Nelson TAS 6 Mr Ronald Babcock Email only 7 Ms Amanada Shanahan Email only 8 Mr John Diggle Inland Fisheries Service Moonah TAS 9 Mr Bob Lister Tasmanian Scallop Fishermen’s Association Taroona TAS 10 Ms Renae Christmas Mt Stuart TAS 11 Mr Craig Bohm Australian Marine Conservation Society Manly QLD 12 Ms Helen Pryor Cygnet TAS 13 Ms Mary Jolly Taroona TAS 14 Ms Margie Jenkin Fern Tree TAS 15 Ms Jane Hutchinson Hobart TAS 16 Mr Jak Denny Tasmanian Sub Aqua Club Rosny Park TAS 17 Ms Esther Staal Hobart TAS 18 Mr Michael Jacques Broadmarsh TAS 19 Dr Peter Last Hobart TAS 20 Mr Jon Bryan Tasmanian Conservation Trust Hobart TAS 21 Dr Graham Edgar Hobart TAS Mr Gary Myors and 22 Eaglehawk Dive Centre Eaglehawk Neck TAS Mr Mick Baron Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s 23 Mr Rodney Treloggen St Helens TAS Association 24 Mr Kim Evans Department of Primary Industries and Water Hobart TAS 25 Dr Eric Woehler Birds Tasmania Hobart TAS 26 Mr Peter Bosworth Tea Tree TAS 27 Mr Jon Nevill Sandy Bay TAS Department of Tourism, Arts and the 28 Mr Scott Gadd Hobart TAS Environment 29 Mr Greg Woodham Sandy Bay TAS 30 Mr Roger King Sandy Bay TAS

Appendix 3 Resource Planning and Development Commission 145 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Sub Name Organisation Suburb State # 31 Mr Rob Royle Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd Hobart TAS 32 Ms Bianca Priest WWF Australia Lower Sandy Bay TAS 33 Mr Christian Bell Marine & Coastal Community Network Hobart TAS 34 Mr Tim Alexander Glenorchy TAS Tasmanian Scalefish Fisherman’s 35 Ms Colleen Osbourne Somerset TAS Association Tasmanian Association for Recreational 36 Ms Anne Purtill Battery Point TAS Fishing 37 Ms Ursula Taylor Derwent Estuary Program Hobart TAS 38 Dr Neville Barrett Hobart TAS 39 Mr Neil Stump Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Sandy Bay TAS 40 Dr Jane Elek Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association Hobart TAS 41 Mr Jeremy Rockliff, MHA Tasmanian Liberal Party Hobart TAS 42 Ms Vanessa Elwell-Gavins NRM South New Town TAS

Appendix 3 Resource Planning and Development Commission 146 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 4

Issues for further consideration Issues and information gaps that were identified by the Commission as requiring further exploration at the hearing on the Background Report are listed below.

Identification criteria • Comprehensiveness – Draft biounits and ecosystems – Ecosystem mapping • Adequacy – Biodiversity conservation and planning – Targets – Highly protected and multiple use MPAs • Representativeness – Biodiversity surrogates (habitat and species) • Ecological Importance – Threatened species distributions • International or National Significance • Uniqueness • Productivity – Relative productivity of ecosystems and habitats • Vulnerability Assessment – Relative vulnerability of ecosystems and habitats to natural processes • Biogeographic Importance • Naturalness

Selection criteria • Economic Interests – Major economic developments, including ports – Marine farming development – Potential commercial fishing areas (eg. scallop beds) – Tourism costs/benefits

Appendix 4 Resource Planning and Development Commission 147 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

• Indigenous Interests – Indigenous interests • Social Interests – Aesthetic values – Public education • Scientific Interests – Scientific reference sites (particularly for baseline fisheries monitoring and long-term environmental monitoring) – Ongoing assessment of the performance of MPAs • Practicality/Feasibility – Costs of establishment, management and monitoring – Recreational fishing • Vulnerability Assessment • Replication

Appendix 4 Resource Planning and Development Commission 148 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 5

Submitters appearing at the hearing held on 25th to 27th September and 28th November 2006

Sub # Name / Organisation Represented by 25 – 27 September 2006 38 Dr Neville Barrett 21 Dr Graham Edgar 19 Dr Peter Last 22 Eaglehawk Dive Centre Mr Gary Myors Mr Mick Baron Ms Karen Gowlett-Holmes 28 Dept. of Tourism, Arts and the Environment Mr Peter Mooney Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Mr Caleb Pedder 8 Inland Fisheries Service Mr Stuart Chilcott 3 Tasmanian Port Corporation Pty Ltd Mr Kim Gibson Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association Mr Pheroze Jungalwalla Dr Dom O’Brien Dept. of Economic Development Mr Peter Sheldon-Collins Dr Tristan Richards 24 Dept. of Primary Industries and Water Ms Kate Kent Tasmanian Aquaculture & Fisheries Institute Prof. Colin Buxton 40 Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association Dr Jane Elek Marine and Safety Tasmania Mr Colin Finch 36 Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing Ms Cheryl Arnol 27 Mr Jon Nevill 33 Marine and Coastal Community Network Mr Christian Bell 39 Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Mr Neil Stump 23 Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fisherman’s Association Mr Rodney Treloggen 20 Tasmanian Conservation Trust Mr John Samson 25 Birds Tasmania Mr Jon Bryan 18 Mr Michael Jacques 31, Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd Mr Rob Royle 29,30 Mr Greg Woodham Mr Roger King Mr Ken Hoskins Save Ralphs Bay Inc Ms Jane McDonald

Appendix 5 Resource Planning and Development Commission 149 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Sub # Name / Organisation Represented by 28 November 2006 24 Dept. of Primary Industries and Water Mr Wes Ford Dr John Whittington Tourism Tasmania Mr Scott Gadd Dr Claire Ellis 36 Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing Mr Andrew Large 35 Tasmanian Scalefish Fisherman’s Association Mr Neil Stump

Appendix 5 Resource Planning and Development Commission 150 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 6

Exhibits tabled at the hearing held on 25th to 27th September and 28th November 2006

Exhibit # Name Organisation Document Sub # 25 - 27 September 2006 E1 Mr Pheroze Jungalwalla Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association Submission E2 Dr Eric Woehler Birds Tasmania Powerpoint 25 E3 Mr Jon Bryan Tasmanian Conservation Trust Submission 20 E4 Ms Jane MacDonald Save Ralphs Bay Inc Submission E5 Dr Graham Edgar Powerpoint 21 E6 Dr Peter Last Powerpoint 19 E7 Mr Caleb Pedder Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Submission E8 Mr Gary Myors and Mr Mick Eaglehawk Dive Centre Submission 22 Baron E9 Mr Norm McIlfatrick Dept. of Economic Development Submission E10 Mr Kim Evans Dept. Of Primary Industries and Water Submission 24 E11 Prof. Colin Buxton Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Submission Institute E12 Dr Jane Elek Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association Submission 40 E13 Ms Cheryl Arnol Tasmanian Association for Recreational Submission 36 Fishing E14 Mr Christian Bell Marine and Coastal Community Network Powerpoint 39 E15 Mr Rob Royle Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd Powerpoint 31 E16 Mr Jon Nevill Extracts from 27 selected papers

Exhibit # Name Organisation Document Sub # 28 November 2006 E17 Mr Kim Evans Dept. Of Primary Industries and Water Submission 24 E18 Ms Felicia Mariani Tourism Tasmania Submission

Appendix 6 Resource Planning and Development Commission 151 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 7

Submissions received on the Interim Report

Sub Name Organisation Suburb State # 43 Mr Richard Koch Sandy Bay TAS 44 Mr Andrew Paul Clarence City Council Rosny Park TAS 45 Mr Mark Chesterman Howrah TAS 46 Mr Steve Jackson Woodbridge TAS 47 Dr Eric Woehler Birds Tasmania Hobart TAS 48 Ms Lia Morris Walker Corporation Sandy Bay TAS 49 Mr Scott Gadd Department of Tourism, Arts and the Hobart TAS Environment 50 Mr Mick Baron Eaglehawk Dive Centre Eagle Hawk Neck TAS 51 Mr Jak Denny Tasmanian Sub Aqua Club Rosny Park TAS 52 Dr Jane Elek Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association Hobart TAS 53 Ms Jane MacDonald Save Ralphs Bay Inc Rokeby TAS 54 Mr Jon Bryan Tasmanian Conservation Trust Hobart TAS 55 Mr Michael Jacques Tasmanian Scuba Diving Club Hobart TAS 56 Mr Rob Royle Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd Hobart TAS 57 Ms Anne Purtill Tasmanian Association for Recreational Battery Point TAS Fishing 58 Dr Nic Bax CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Hobart TAS 59 Prof Colin Buxton Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Taroona TAS Institute 60 Mr Neil Stump Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Sandy Bay TAS 61 Dr Craig Sanderson Hobart TAS 62 Mr Ian Marmion Lauderdale TAS 63 Sen Christine Milne Australian Greens Hobart TAS 64 Mr Norm McIlfatrick Department of Economic Development Hobart TAS 65 Mr Kim Evans Department of Primary Industries and Water Hobart TAS 66 Mr Bob Campbell Tasmania Together Progress Board Hobart TAS

Appendix 7 Resource Planning and Development Commission 152 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 8

Summary of information and submissions relevant to the selection criteria The terms of reference direct the Resource Planning and Development Commission (the Commission) to use the selection criteria contained within the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy to select those areas of public land under investigation that are suitable as Marine Protected Areas.

The selection criteria are: • Economic Interests • Indigenous Interests • Social Interests • Scientific Interests • Practicality/Feasibility • Vulnerability Assessment • Replication

Economic Interests The definition of Economic Interests in the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) is:

• “Existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection, eg. for recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for economically important species. • Current or potential use for the extraction of, or exploration for resources. • Importance for shipping and/or trade. • Value due to its contribution to local or regional employment and economic development.” The waters of the Bruny Bioregion are of significant economic importance to Tasmania, particularly for commercial fishing, marine farming, tourism and recreation, urban and industrial development (including waste disposal from ocean outfalls) and shipping. Major commercial fisheries within the bioregion include abalone, rock lobster and scalefish. Approximately 15% of the State abalone catch and 10% of the rock lobster catch is taken from within the bioregion. About 37% of the State’s scalefish catch comes from within the bioregion. The Background Report provided a summary of the catches of the main commercial species at the spatial scale of fishing block. Marine farming is a major economic interest in the Bruny Bioregion with most marine farming in Tasmania occurring within the bioregion. The Background Report stated that about 85% of salmonid and 66% of shellfish production occurred within the region. As such, marine farming provides a major contribution to local and regional employment and economic development.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 153 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The marine environment of the Bruny Bioregion provides significant scenic and natural values for a large number of tourism operation in Tasmania, including businesses such as diving, fishing, sea- kayaking, cruise ships and wildlife tours. Visitor numbers to major tourism destinations and sites of nature recreation were provided in the Background Report.

Fishing for scalefish, abalone and rock lobster is an important recreational activity with the Bruny Bioregion, with the highest participation rates in the State occurring within the bioregion. On a per capita basis, line fishing is by far the most popular fishing activity within the region.

All waters of the Bruny Bioregion are extremely popular for recreational boating (including fishing, cruising and sailing) particularly the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Derwent estuary region. Over 40% of boating in marine waters in Tasmania occurs within the bioregion.

Recreational diving is very popular with the bioregion providing some of the best temperate water diving in the world, particularly in the area around the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas.

The terrestrial area adjacent to the Bruny Bioregion is the most populated area in Tasmania. The capital city, Hobart, is located within the bioregion on the shores of the Derwent estuary. Other areas of significant urban development include Blackmans Bay-Kingston, Margate and Midway Point-Sorell. As such, the waters of the bioregion, especially within the Derwent estuary, North West Bay and Pitt Water are economically important as sites for major marine and estuarine waste water outfalls.

The Bruny Bioregion is very important for shipping. The Port of Hobart is the southern-most deep water port in Australia and has an international container service and is the cruise ship and naval destination in Tasmania. Pilotage zones for vessels over 35 m in length occur in the Derwent estuary, D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Port Arthur

As stated in the Background Report, no mineral or petroleum resources of consequence have been located within the Bruny Bioregion.

Submissions that referred to economic interests within the Bruny Bioregion were of two general types. These were submissions that discussed the potential: • positive economic benefits from MPA declaration on tourism and recreation, particularly dive tourism, eco-tourism and protection of scenic sites, if significant biodiversity values are protected; and • negative economic impact from marine protected area (MPA) declaration on commercial and recreational fishing, marine farming, urban and industrial development, and shipping, if more restrictive management conditions are imposed within an MPA. The Australian Greens submission (63) referred to the high value of ecosystem services provided by coastal ecosystems, as reported in a journal article (Nature) on the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital (Costanza et al. 1997). The Australian Greens recommended that consideration of the value of the bioregion’s ecosystem services to the communities and regional economies of southern Tasmania, and the wider community, be integrated in the inquiry recommendations.

A submission from Save Ralphs Bay Inc (SRB Inc) (53) also referred to the assessment of the value of ecosystem services by Costanza et al. (1997). SRB Inc stated that the economic value of estuary

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 154 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] ecosystems is the highest of any of the earths ecosystems, with regard to the ecosystem services that they provide.

Existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection, eg. for recreation or tourism….

At the hearing, Mr Scott Gadd representing Tourism Tasmania (Exhibit 18) stated that, without commissioning specific research, the potential costs or benefits to tourism from the declaration of MPAs could only be described in broad terms. Mr Gadd suggested that MPAs could both add or detract from the economic value to tourism, depending on the specific management objectives of an MPA. As an example, Mr Gadd stated that the Bruny Bioregion was already an important social and economic region for local tourism, particularly recreational fishing, and that an MPA that restricted these activities may be seen as a threat with negative economic effects. Mr Gadd emphasised the economic importance of recreational fishing within the region, citing the significance to the Tasmanian economy of Tasmanians purchasing fuel, fishing tackle and accommodation. Current recreational fishing was described as being a significant driver of intrastate tourism in areas such as Bruny Island and the Tasman Peninsula. Alternatively, Mr Gadd stated that promotion of sound management practices that support sustainability of natural resources, such as within MPAs, was likely to reinforce the appeal of the State and alter visitation levels. However, Mr Gadd emphasised that realisation of this type of economic benefit usually required a significant marketing effort and budget.

At the hearing, Mr Andrew Large representing the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish) suggested that if biodiversity was protected within ‘no-take’ MPAs, anglers may be attracted to the edges of MPAs in the belief that the adjacent fishery may be enhanced.

With regard to tourism associated with the cruise ship industry, the Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (Tasports) (3) submitted that the diversity and unique natural features within areas of ecological, historical and cultural significance are a distinct marketing advantage in attracting visitors. At the hearing, Mr Kim Gibson representing Tasports stated that the area around Port Arthur was very popular for cruise ships, including day cruising from Hobart. Mr Gibson identified that the rocky pillars around Cape Raoul and Tasman Island and the seal haul out sites in this area were of particular scenic value. The lack of development in the area was also cited as being an attraction for cruising based tourism. However, it was emphasised that this type of tourism was not involved in viewing the underwater environment generally associated with protection within an MPA (as would occur, for example, with a glass bottom boat tour).

The Commission questioned Mr Gibson regarding potential impacts from marine farming infrastructure on scenic values to the cruise ship industry. Using the D’Entrecasteaux Channel region as an example, Mr Gibson was of the opinion that the presence of salmon farms was not seen as being detrimental to these scenic values. Mr Gibson stated that many tourists were quite interested in viewing the marine farms, particularly because Tasmania is famous for its seafood industry.

Submissions from the Tasmanian Sub-Aqua Club (16), Mr Michael Jacques (18) and Messers Gary Myors and Mick Baron (22) referred to the potential for increased dive tourism associated with the declaration of MPAs. In particular, these submissions made reference to an MPA(s) within the Tasman and Forestier Peninsula region and especially the area around Waterfall Bay to O’Hara Bluff.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 155 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Mr Jacques submitted that an MPA(s) within the Tasman Peninsula region, which is of world- class standard for diving, would become a positive tourism and recreational asset with respect to recreational scuba diving. In providing economic reasons for establishing an MPA in this area, Mr Jacques submitted that “the area was already recognised and heavily promoted nationally and internationally as a showpiece Tasmanian diving area; that tourist infrastructure was relatively well-developed including established dive charter businesses; that diver tourism complements existing tourist businesses in the region; that dive tourists are big spenders compared to the average visitor; and that declaration of an MPA would raise the profile of the area as a tourist destination and add to the ‘clean green’ image of this popular area, even among non-divers.”

Messers Myors and Baron (22) submitted that surveys conducted in both Australia and New Zealand had shown that marine reserves increase visitation numbers. Therefore, increased visitation associated with an MPA around Waterfall Bay to O’Hara Bluff would be economically advantageous to the whole Tasman Peninsula community.

Tourism Tasmania provided an exhibit at the hearing (Exhibit 18) stating they have been working with local dive operators in the national and international promotion of Tasmania as a world class diving destination. The exhibit stated that surveys of interstate and international visitors for 2005/06 revealed that 3,700 visitors participated in scuba diving or snorkelling within Tasmania and contributed more than $10 million to the State economy. Because key diving destinations are located around the State, the positive impact on regional visitation from dive tourism was stated as an important outcome from this type of visitor activity. However, at the hearing, Mr Scott Gadd representing Tourism Tasmania stated that although dive tourism within the region had the potential to expand, it was seen by this agency as a limited niche market.

The Parks and Wildlife Service (1) submitted that an expanded MPA at Ninepin Point could be used as a commercial dive site, thus providing a growing tourism opportunity close to Hobart.

Some submissions referred to tourism opportunities that were provided from the viewing of marine wildlife, particularly seals and birds.

The Department of Primary Industries and Water (24) submitted that wildlife ecotours are among the most lucrative tourism enterprises in the Bruny Bioregion, especially around areas such as the The Friars and The Hippolytes that are major seal haul-out sites. Tourism Tasmania (Exhibit 18) submitted that declaration of an MPA(s) should have some benefit for nature based tourism businesses within the region because species diversity contributes positively to the visitor experience, particularly highly prized moments associated with unexpected wildlife encounters.

Birds Tasmania (25) submitted that bird watching was a recreational and educational activity that provided a largely ignored and unrealised contribution to the Tasmanian economy. Birds Tasmania stated that, based on experiences elsewhere in the world, the economic potential of bird watching is very large and should not be under-estimated. However, the contribution to the Tasmanian economy from bird watchers is presently unknown. In addition, Birds Tasmania submitted that the eco-tourism industry within the Bruny Bioregion relied on the conservation of critical habitat that supports many of the key aspects of the environment on which this industry is based.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 156 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

At the hearing Ms Jane McDonald representing Save Ralphs Bay Inc (SRB Inc) (Exhibt 4), and in a submission from SRB Inc. (53) suggested that an MPA(s) in the South Arm- Ralphs Bay region would provide economic value through recreation and tourism, because of the ecological values of the areas and its close proximity to Hobart.

Existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection, eg. for … … …… … a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for economically important species.

The economic importance of commercial fisheries within the Bruny Bioregion, and the potential for economic impact on this industry through declaration of MPAs, was raised in many submissions from the fishing industry.

A submission from the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) (39) requested that proposed MPAs be sited to have a minimal impact on current fishing operations. To achieve this, TFIC suggested that wherever possible an IUCN Category VI (Managed Resource Protected Area) classification should be assigned to an MPA.

In a submission on the Interim Report, TFIC (60) requested that the Commission adopt a principle of ‘least cost’ to the fishing industry when applying the criterion of Economic Interests to the selection of MPAs. TFIC provided a number of examples, using the identified areas presented in the Interim Report, whereby the cost to the fishing industry could be minimised in the selection process.

TFIC (39) submitted that a key economic concern of its members was that of added financial impost on fishers within the scalefish fishery through the declaration of MPAs. TFIC stated that these scalefish fishers may be required to up-grade their vessel and license packages if significant areas of sheltered waters are included within any new MPAs where current access was further restricted.

The Tasmanian Scalefish Fisherman’s Association (TSFA) (35) submitted that their industry had already suffered economic impact through increased fisheries restrictions. The TSFA submission stated that there “are many marine geographical regions which our State’s commercial fishermen have already forfeited their access or fishing methods access for the greater good”.

At the hearing Mr Neil Stump represented the TSFA. Mr Stump emphasised that there were many areas within the Bruny Bioregion where the scalefish industry was currently denied access or there was restricted, access. Mr Stump suggested that these areas should be considered for incorporation into, or recognised formally as, MPAs.

The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fisherman’s Association (TRLFA) (23) submitted that they opposed ‘no-take’ MPAs, suggesting that these types of MPAs could threaten the sustainability of the rock lobster fishery. Of particular concern to the TRLFA is the potential cumulative economic (and ecological) impact of declaring MPAs over time. However, the TRLFA emphasised that they did not oppose the creation of other categories of MPAs.

The TRLFA stated that the primary concern of the rock lobster industry was maintaining the biological and socio-economic sustainability of the resource on which the industry depends. In their submission, the TRFLA stated that if circumstances supported the creation of ‘no-take’ MPAs, the government should purchase as much commercial rock lobster quota as is necessary to maintain the biological and socio-economic equilibrium of the fishery.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 157 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

At the hearing, Mr Rodney Treloggen, representing the TRLFA responded to suggestions in several submissions and exhibits regarding the establishment of an MPA on the east coast of the Tasman Peninsula. Mr Treloggen stated that the area from Eagle Hawk Neck to Cape Pillar was of great economic importance to the rock lobster industry, being very productive and a safe place to work in adverse weather conditions.

Submissions from the Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd. (TAC) (31), and Mr Roger King (30) emphasised the economic importance to the abalone fishery of maintaining continuity of market supply. Mr King submitted that areas that may be regarded as inconsequential or of low contribution to the fishery, because of relatively small catches, provide huge benefit to maintaining supply, particularly during bad weather. Mr King submitted that the D’Entrecasteaux Channel is an excellent example of this type of economically important area. Mr Greg Woodham (29) submitted that all abalone-producing areas are important to the abalone fishery.

The submission from the TAC (31) and TAC exhibit (Exhibit 15) at the hearing stated that the economic importance of the abalone fishery was under-represented within the Background Report because the catch statistics presented from 2000 to 2004 were from a period of stock rebuilding for the fishery. The TAC submitted abalone catch data for the Bruny Bioregion for the previous 30 years and suggested that the Commission should consider these catches as a more accurate reflection of the economic importance of the fishery in fishing blocks and within the bioregion.

The Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) (24) submitted that the commercial abalone fishery around Storm Bay (fishing blocks 16, 20 and 21), particularly to the east of Bruny Island and to the south east of the Tasman Peninsula, represented an area of increasingly high performance within this fishery.

The utility of presenting ‘beach price’ values for commercial fisheries was raised in the submissions from the TFIC (39) and the TAC (31), as they would not accurately reflect current values. The TAC submission and exhibit at the hearing (Exhibit 15) stated that the Background Report made no comment on the value of the abalone industry to the Tasmanian economy. The TAC submitted that, proportionally, the post harvest production of abalone from Bruny-Bioregion adds $43.7 million to Tasmania’s industry production and $28.5 million to the Gross State Product. This valuation of the abalone fishery was obtained from the report, ‘An analysis of the abalone and rock lobster post harvesting industry’ (Felmingham 2004). This report was included with the TAC submission.

At the hearing, the Commission questioned Mr Rob Royle representing the TAC on the potential economic impact on the abalone fishery from establishment of MPAs if abalone fishing was excluded. Mr Royle stated that unless the area was very large (eg. the scale of a fishing block or an area where 100’s of tonnes of abalone was harvested) it would be unlikely to result in an adjustment of the Total Allowable Catch for the fishery. Mr Royle stated that this was because the Total Allowable Catch for the abalone fishery was set conservatively for sustainability reasons.

Professor Colin Buxton representing the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) (Exhibit 11) was questioned at the hearing about the ability to determine adjustments to the Total Allowable Catch of quota managed fisheries, when fishing was excluded within MPAs. Professor Buxton responded that it would be difficult to model adjustments because data was not usually

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 158 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents] collected at the (fine) spatial scale at which most MPAs are declared. Professor Buxton stated that any adjustment to the Total Allowable Catch would necessarily be a precautionary estimate based on how much catch may come out of an MPA of a certain size. Professor Buxton suggested that any adjustment would need to be negotiated with industry, with or without economic compensation.

At the hearing, Mr Wes Ford representing DPIW (Exhibit 10 and 17) supported the statement of Professor Buxton regarding the difficulty of determining catch at the spatial scale of most current MPAs. The Commission questioned Mr Ford about potential compensation to abalone fishers if the Total Allowable Catch for this fishery was reduced because of the declaration of MPAs. Mr Ford stated it was his view that, under the Abalone Deed of Agreement, the government was able to determine what the sustainable harvest level should be and that if the Total Allowable Catch was reduced for sustainability reasons then industry would not be compensated.

Several submissions noted that some commercial fisheries in the Bruny Bioregion were not recorded within the Background Report. Submissions from the Tasmanian Scallop Fisherman’s Association (9), DPIW (24) and TFIC (39) noted that commercial fishing for scallops had recently occurred in the Marion Bay area in late 2005. The DPIW submission noted that a small-pelagic fishery for redbait, using mid-water trawl gear, had occurred between Cape Sonnerat and Cape Pillar in 2003.

A submission from TFIC (39) and an exhibit tabled at the hearing by the Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association (TSGA) (Exhibit 1) emphasised the economic significance of the Bruny Bioregion to the marine farming industry within Tasmania. These submissions stated that, when recommending MPAs within the bioregion, it should be recognised that some MPAs may compromise the future needs of the industry, including opportunities for expansion of farms outside the lease areas that had already been granted.

The TSGA submitted that industry growth of at least 30 to 50% is forecast for over the next 5 to 10 years. The TSGA submission sought recognition that “over the next 10 years industry may require a 50% increase in area suitable for marine salmonid aquaculture in the Bruny Bioregion in order to meet industry growth led by market demand.” At the hearing, Mr Pheroze Jungalwalla and Dr Dom O’Brien representing the TSGA indicated that general areas where expansion may occur included the outside of the lower D’Entrecasteaux Channel and areas like Trumpeter Bay (North Bruny Island) and Storm Bay.

The Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) (Exhibit 17) provided an exhibit at the hearing that noted the growth projection of the TSGA. DPIW confirmed that the industry was currently looking for further expansion of waters in the Huon River and the Port Esperance and D’Entrecasteaux Channel Marine Farming Development Plans. DPIW stated that the nature of the marine farm planning process made it difficult to forecast marine farming developments, but that these regions will remain the most significant production areas for the Tasmanian salmonid industry for the foreseeable future.

At the hearing, Mr Wes Ford representing DPIW (Exhibit 10 and 17) stated that finding suitable areas within the Huon and D’Entrecasteaux systems, in conjunction with community engagement, would be a challenge for DPIW as the marine farm planning authority. However, Mr Ford proposed that the salmonid industry probably had the capacity to expand by about 10-20% in zones that were currently unallocated or not fully utilised.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 159 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Importance for shipping and/or trade

The submission from Tasports (3) emphasised the importance of commercial shipping within the Bruny Bioregion. Tasports stated that where any MPA was established within pilotage zones “careful consideration must be given when determining their location and IUCN management category to ensure that the integrity of safe navigational and operational requirements are maintained.” In addition, Tasports submitted that the inquiry should consider any future economic activity in the region where shipping access is required from newly developed shore based facilities and wharf infrastructures. In response to a question from the Commission at the hearing, Mr Kim Gibson representing Tasports indicated that the development of a new port in the bioregion was unlikely, unless a decision was made to reopen Port Huon or Port Esperance.

Value due to its contribution to local or regional employment and economic development

At the hearing Mr Peter Shelton-Collins representing the Department of Economic Development (DED) (Exhibit 9) emphasised a need to recognise and understand the potential implications and conflict between the location and values of MPAs and urban settlement and development and economic activity. In particular, Mr Shelton-Collins highlighted an increase in population and resettlement in new urban areas and the associated stormwater issues. Areas where planned developments were highlighted at the hearing and in the DED exhibit included, the Kingston CBD and Blackmans Bay; North West Bay Marine Park; Lauderdale Quay; Port Arthur; Pitt Water and the Southern Beaches. The Pitt Water area included several planned developments, at Llanherne Spit (Seven Mile Beach); Cambridge Industrial Area; and Hobart International Airport. In a public submission on the Interim Report, DED (64) listed key identified areas that may have implications for urban settlement and industrial and commercial development if MPAs were established in these areas.

Other aspects of this sub-criterion (eg. commercial fishing, marine farming) have been addressed in the summary of the other sub-criterion for Economic Interests.

Indigenous Interests The definition of Indigenous Interests in the Strategy is: • “Traditional usage and/or current economic value. • Contains indigenous cultural values. • Native title considerations”

The Background Report identified that the Tasmanian Aboriginal community considers the entire Tasmanian coastline to be of significant cultural value with respect to the marine environment.

Tasmanian Aborigines engage in cultural fishing practices within the marine environment of the Bruny Bioregion.

Some coastal sites having significant indigenous values are listed on the Register of the National Estate.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 160 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Tasmanian Aboriginal community hold title to coastal land within the bioregion at Risdon Cove and Oyster Bay.

The Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (TALSC) gave a presentation at the hearing. Mr Caleb Pedder appearing on behalf of the TALSC (Exhibit 7) submitted that traditional usage within the Bruny Bioregion included gathering of shellfish (such as abalone, crayfish and limpets), bull kelp for baskets and shell for necklaces. Mr Pedder indicated that the vast majority of cultural fishing occurs in the inshore area and up to the high tide mark.

The TALSC (Exhibit 7) submitted that there are a number of areas within the Bruny Bioregion that the Tasmanian Aboriginal community access for cultural fishing purposes. In particular, community access to land on Bruny Island (Murrayfield property) and Saltwater River were two areas that are used as bases for cultural activity. The TALSC stated that the “resources of Trumpeter Bay (Bruny Island) are used for cultural reasons including the teaching of youth about the marine environment and cultural gathering of resources”. As such, the “Aboriginal community would support Trumpeter Bay (Bruny Island) being declared as an MPA through the exclusion of commercial fishing”.

The TALSC exhibit (Exhibit 7) emphasised that sustainability was a key element of Aboriginal culture and that the community is supportive of processes to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the sea/land and its resources. However, with increasing development and the community’s limited ability to access areas “any further restrictions on areas that are now accessible would not be supported by the Aboriginal community unless it was due to sustainability reasons”.

In summary, the TALSC exhibit (Exhibit 7) stated: • “The creation of Marine Protected Areas is supported if it provides protection and positive management of marine resources. • The creation of Marine Protected Areas must not stop or reduce Aboriginal cultural activities, such as shell gathering either for consumption or shell necklaces or art. • Any restrictions on Aboriginal access for Marine Protected Areas management purposes must be negotiated with the Aboriginal community.”

Social Interests The definition of Social Interests in the Strategy is: • “Existing or potential value to the local, national or international communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional, aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.”

The Background Report presented summary information about the cultural and heritage values of the Bruny Bioregion including, indigenous values; historic heritage; and shipwreck sites. Recreational values summarised in the Background Report included, recreational fishing, boating and diving, tourism and nature recreation. Sites of educational importance were described.

Major economic values of the Bruny Bioregion were described in the Backgound Report. A summary of economic values is provided under the selection criterion, Economic Interests.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 161 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Indigenous values are summarised under the selection criterion, Indigenous Interests.

A summary of national and international value is provided in the Interim Report under the identification criterion, International or National Significance.

At the hearing, Mr Jon Nevill (27 and Exhibit 16) presented and discussed statements of social interest found within key International and National policy documents relating to biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and the establishment of protected areas. Mr Nevill stated that an understanding of these policy documents provides much of the historical context to the development of the National Representative System of MPAs, as prescribed in the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy.

Mr Nevill referred to certain social principles and objectives found within the: • Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (1972); • Convention on Biological Diversity (1993); • Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity (1995); • Johannesburg Agreements (World Summit on Sustainable Development) (2002); • Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992); • National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996); • Australia’s Oceans Policy (1998); and • Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (1999).

Quoting from the Stockholm Declaration, Mr Nevill stated, “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations”.

Mr Nevill emphasised to the Commission that ethical aspects of biodiversity conservation were an important social issue that should be considered in the establishment of MPAs. In supporting this view, Mr Nevill quoted from the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (as endorsed by the Australian Government, all State Governments and the peak body of Local Government in Australia) whereby:

“There is in the community a view that the conservation of biological diversity also has an ethical basis. We share the earth with many other life forms which warrant our respect, whether or not they are of benefit to us. Earth belongs to the future as well as the present; no single species or generation can claim it as its own”.

In reference to these policies and statements, Mr Nevill proposed that a key social aspect of the establishment of MPAs was that humans need to accord the right to peaceful co-existence to at least a fair proportion of the other living residents of the planet. Mr Nevill suggested that the ethical statement quoted above was not currently being used by Australian scientists and managers, but should be, in supporting the establishment of MPAs.

Other submissions regarding social interests within the Bruny Bioregion, generally referred to recreational fishing, boating and diving.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 162 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

The Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish) (36) submission emphasised that the Bruny Bioregion embraces numerous and varied fisheries of prime significance to recreational fishers and that any proposed MPA will have profound implications for recreational fishing in the south-east. In recognition of the complexity and popularity of the region to recreational fishing, TARFish stated that “its close location to and easy access from major population centres, makes it extremely difficult to identify areas which can be enclosed in an MPA without significant impact on the recreational fishing community.” TARFish submitted that “in no case should MPAs encompass two or more kilometres of the coastline… … as this would push recreational fishers further out to sea, raising access and safety issues”. Similar issues regarding the impact of ‘no-take’ MPAs on recreational fishers were raised in a submission from Dr Andrew Davey (2).

At the hearing, Mr Andrew Large representing TARFish stated that all facets of recreational fishing within Tasmania were undertaken within the Bruny Bioregion and that a major concentration of fishing within the State occurred within the bioregion. Mr Large emphasised that because much of the region was accessible, and there were numerous sheltered waters, many new recreational anglers try fishing and boating for the first time within the Bruny Bioregion. Mr Large noted that recreational gamefishing in the region had significantly increased in the past 10 years. Mr Large stated that the region from Pirates Bay (Tasman Peninsula) out to the continental shelf was very important to this growing fishery.

DPIW (24) submitted that commercial scalefish fishing was not allowed in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the Huon River estuary and, with respect to scalefish, these areas are restricted to recreational fishing.

The Inland Fisheries Service (8) submission stated that whitebait runs within the Derwent and Huon estuaries were the basis of a small recreational fishery in the bioregion and this important fishery value should be recognised by the inquiry.

Dr Andrew Davey (2) submitted that the Background Report did not contain sufficient information on the location of popular recreational activities such as fishing spots and safe anchorages. Mr Davey suggested that this information should be collected in order to prevent their potential loss to conservation measures like MPAs.

Mr Michael Jacques (18) provided a detailed submission with regard to Tasmanian recreational scuba diving. Mr Jacques is the author of the book Dive Tasmania, which was the primary reference for dive sites presented in the Background Report. For ease of discussion in his submission, Mr Jacques described the dive community as being roughly divided into two groups which he labelled as ‘sportdivers’, whose principal activities are focussed on the appreciation of the physical environment of the ocean, and ‘recreational dive fisherman’, who are principally motivated by an interest in participating in recreational fishing. While acknowledging considerable overlap between the activities of the two groups, Mr Jacques stated that “the sportdiver is more likely to see an MPA declaration as generally enhancing their dive experience in an area, whereas the recreational dive fisherman more often views it as a potential impediment”.

Submissions from Mr Jacques (18) and Messers Gary Myors and Mick Baron (22) referred to the international reputation of the Tasman Peninsula region as a diving location. It was stated that the values of the area were well-publicised internationally (eg. within National Geographic magazine)

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 163 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

whereby an eminent and independent international photographer (Mr David Doubilet) described the area as the best temperate diving area in the world.

Mr Jacques (18) submitted that the Tasman Peninsula region was easily in the top ten of Australia’s premier diving locations. Messers Myors and Baron stated that a recent survey of Australian divers had rated Tasmania the fourth most desired dive destination. A submission from the Tasmanian Sub-Aqua Club (16) stated that Waterfall Bay is regarded as the most prominent location for divers in southern Tasmania. In support of the recreational values of this region to divers, Mr Jacques submitted that an MPA within the Tasman Peninsula region would protect an already popular, high profile, recreational area. Mr Jacques stated that the area provided a good mixture of accessible dive sites for all levels of proficiency, and sheltered locations with clear water, allowing for safer use of the MPA by recreational divers.

Messers Myors and Baron (22) submitted that the Blow Hole to O’Hara Bluff region of the Tasman Peninsula offered access to a wider range of users for education and marine research. Their submission noted that educational uses of the areas included opportunities for school children for snorkelling and natural history studies and for tertiary students involved in marine studies. The area was also used for the filming of documentaries for the wider education of the general public.

With regard to heritage values, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (20) submitted that the ‘SS Nord’, just to the north of Tasman Island, is one of the most impressive wrecks for diving in Australian waters.

An exhibit for Tourism Tasmania (Exhibit 18) stated that protected area management will usually include an educational component and that effective education and interpretation often requires dedicated infrastructure. This may contribute to the perception that the areas possess ‘special’ values. However, Tourism Tasmania suggested that this infrastructure (eg. interpretative signage) also has the potential to become an impost on the aesthetics of the region potentially impacting on views and seascapes.

Scientific Interests The definition of Scientific Interests in the Strategy is: • “Existing or potential value for research and monitoring”. The Strategy identifies that the Representative System of MPAs in Tasmania should aim to include some highly protected areas (IUCN Categories I and II) in each bioregion. The IUCN Category Ia, Strict Nature Reserve, is a protected area managed mainly for science. In addition, a secondary goal of MPAs within the Strategy is to provide reference sites for scientific studies, including sites for baseline fisheries monitoring and long-term environmental monitoring.

The Background Report recognised that the waters of the Bruny Bioregion have been the subject of many scientific studies and surveys. Relevant scientific data was summarised within the Background Report.

The Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research laboratories are based in Hobart central within the Bruny Bioregion.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 164 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

TAFI conducts a substantial amount of research within the waters of the Bruny Bioregion. TAFI conducts fisheries monitoring and provides fishery assessments for the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW).

The Tinderbox and Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserves provide sites for ongoing investigations into the effects of human activities on the marine environment. The Taroona Waters (Crayfish Point) site, adjacent to the TAFI Marine Research Laboratories, is regularly used as a research site.

Several submissions referred to the value of MPAs as scientific reference sites, particularly the use of ‘no-take’ MPAs as baseline areas for fisheries monitoring and management. The Marine and Coastal Community Network (MCCN) (33) and Dr Graham Edgar (21) both submitted that further ‘no take’ MPAs should be established to act as scientific reference areas for marine ecosystems. They stated that the individual impact of fishing on marine biodiversity could only be adequately assessed by maintaining some sites free of fishing. As such, the MCCN suggested that recreational and commercial fishers would gain from the creation of scientific reference areas.

A submission from Mr Richard Koch (43) also submitted that ‘no-take’ MPAs were important for providing baseline data for marine ecosystems. Mr Koch emphasised the long-term nature of ecological change within ‘no-take’ MPAs, citing an example from the Leigh Marine Reserve in New Zealand where the effects of ecosystem recovery are still being realised over 20 years after the creation of the reserve.

At the hearing, Mr Wes Ford representing DPIW stated that MPAs where fishing is excluded provide a very valuable tool for understanding predator-prey relationships associated with fished species. However, Mr Ford stated that large numbers of these ‘no-take’ MPAs were not needed to obtain this type of information. Mr Ford indicated that DPIW had a range of strategies for determining areas that would be useful for this research purposes (eg. abalone closures) and ‘no-take’ MPAs were used opportunistically for research when issues arose.

In response to a written request to TAFI from the Commission regarding requirements for scientific reference sites, Professor Colin Buxton representing TAFI (Exhibit 11) stated that:

“TAFI is firmly of the opinion that MPAs are an important research tool, acting as a reference against which biodiversity conservation and fisheries management can be assessed. In Tasmania, such studies have been particularly useful in understanding the effects of fishing on the environment, providing insights into a number of key ecological and behavioural processes including movement and growth, species interactions and density dependence on recruitment, growth and survival.

Despite this value, we do not advocate the need to establish MPAs for their research goals. Rather we suggest that if MPAs are selected for their primary objective – conservation of biodiversity, then they are likely to also be adequate in a scientific reference role, and we (TAFI) will use them as such.”

At the hearing, Professor Colin Buxton stated that, through a commitment to the National Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Fisheries program, TAFI had recently begun to examine and develop research programs that attempt to understand the broader ecosystem effects of fishing and aquaculture. Professor Buxton stated that MPAs are a very important part of this research, with the Maria Island Marine Nature Reserve and Taroona Water (Crayfish Point) being fundamental tools

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 165 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

in understanding ecosystem effects. Professor Buxton emphasised that it was the long-term nature of the research program at the Maria Island site that was of greatest value. In addition, Professor Buxton stated that TAFI use MPAs as a component of its internal, ongoing assessment of fisheries.

Birds Tasmania (25) submitted that some of the longest time series of data for migratory and resident shorebirds in Australia are collected from within the Bruny bioregion. It was submitted that data sets spanning more than 40 years exist for Lauderdale, Barilla Bay and South Arm. In addition to these sites, Birds Tasmania indicated that Pipe Clay Lagoon, Orielton Lagoon, Sorell and Marion Bay are key scientific sites within the bioregion warranting recognition and protection. Birds Tasmania stated that this monitoring data provides valuable long term information on trends and patterns that scientists can use to track changes in the environment.

Some submissions referred to specific areas as having scientific value.

Mr Micheal Jacques (18) submitted that the east coast of the Tasman Peninsula is a relatively well studied area that is readily accessible for scientific study, providing an excellent representation of many marine communities. Messrs Garry Myors and Mick Baron (22) also stated that this region has scientific interest for tertiary students involved in marine studies.

A submission from the Parks and Wildlife Service (1) suggested that a larger MPA at Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve would provide a scientific bench-mark reserve for this part of the Channel.

Submissions from relevant government agencies, DPIW and DTAE (other than an expanded Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve), and TAFI did not indicate any particular sites or specific scientific needs within the bioregion where MPAs were required, including for fisheries management or environmental monitoring.

Practicality/Feasibility The definition of Practicality/Feasibility in the Strategy is: • “Degree of insulation from external destructive influences. • Social and political acceptability and a degree of community support. • Access for recreation, tourism, and education. • Lends itself to practical management (cost effectiveness, compliance etc.).”

An analysis of the identification criterion, Naturalness, was provided in the Interim Report whereby the Commission acknowledged that, through historic and current human usage, all of the bioregion has been subject to some level of human induced change (ie. external destructive influences). Areas considered less natural include those affected by catchment activities, fishing, flow regulation, human settlement, introduced marine species, marine farming leases, ocean outfalls, and slipways and boat ramps.

Marine areas adjacent to coastal reserved land may be considered to have a greater degree of insulation from some external destructive influences. The location of coastal reserved land was presented in the Background Report.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 166 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Two assessments of the naturalness of estuaries or their catchments within the Bruny Bioregion were presented in the Background Report. In general, the degree of naturalness relates to the percentage of remaining natural vegetation cover and the amount of urban development in each estuarine catchment.

An analysis of threatening processes within the Bruny Bioregion, including external destructive influences, was provided as a chapter in the Interim Report.

The Commission is unable to comment on the political acceptability of marine protected areas, as that is a matter for the government of the day.

Previous reports from this inquiry have not, as yet, assessed the social acceptability and degree of community support for marine protected areas.

As stated above, the location of coastal reserved land was presented in the Background Report. These areas may indicate accessible sites for recreation, tourism and education. In addition, the location of prominent tourism sites was indicated and described in the Background Report.

Boat ramps and jetties provide access for water-based recreation such as fishing and boating. The location of major boat ramps and jetties were shown in the Background Report.

Current reserved land below the high water mark, marine areas adjacent to coastal reserved land and areas subject to current fisheries restrictions may lend themselves to practical management. The Background Report showed the location of coastal reserved land. The Background Report showed areas where recreational netting and rock lobster potting restrictions applied and declared shark refuge areas, where further fisheries restrictions apply.

Degree of insulation from external destructive influences

A submission from the Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE) (28) stated that, as far as possible, MPAs should be sited next to existing terrestrial reserves as this would provide for integrated management and would minimise negative impacts in the MPA from land based activities. This rational was supported by the submission from the Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association (40).

Social and political acceptability and a degree of community support

The Tasmania Together Progress Board (TTPB) (66) submitted that they support the creation of MPAs in the Bruny Bioregion. The TTPB submission stated that the establishment of MPAs in the Bruny Bioregion will contribute to achievement of targets for the Tasmania Together benchmark “11.4.5 – Establishment of a representative system of Marine Protected Areas in the 8 interim Tasmanian marine bioregions in accordance with the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy.”

Mr Jon Nevill (27) provided a submission where he suggested that, notwithstanding the commitment to the establishment of marine protected areas contained in many International, National and State policy documents, general community and political perceptions were that MPAs were an exception rather than the rule.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 167 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

A submission from the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) (60) stated that TFIC supports the establishment or expansion of MPAs in the Channel area where they do not compromise marine farming activities. In addition, TFIC stated that it did not oppose MPAs in Marine Inlet and Bay estuaries providing existing commercial fishing and marine farming activities are not compromised.

The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association (TRLFA) (23) submission stated that it was not opposed to the creation of MPAs. The TRLFA submitted that their organisation, in concert with the Minister for Primary Industries, believe that all Tasmanian rock lobster grounds should be protected by IUCN Class Six (VI) MPAs. The TRFLA stated that they support the establishment and monitoring of Class Six (VI) MPAs with achievable objectives and measured, managed outcomes. However, the TRLFA submitted that they were presently opposed to the establishment of further MPAs in Tasmanian State waters until the effects on their fishery of existing State and Commonwealth MPAs was determined. The TRLFA stated that “no-take MPAs should only be considered for the Bruny Bioegion if localised, site-specific circumstances provide overwhelming empirical evidence that they would create ecosystem and community benefits at that site that would outweigh the harm to our fishery”.

Mr Neil Stump represented the Tasmanian Scalefish Fisherman’s Association (TSFA) at the hearing. Mr Stump stated that, from the perspective of the TSFA, it is important to have a transparent rationale for why some activities may or may not be excluded from certain areas that might be recommended as suitable MPAs. The Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish) (36) submitted that their organisation recognised the need for MPAs and, in principle, supports the role of MPAs in the conservation of the marine environment. TARFish stated that it “appreciates that the establishment of MPAs and their placement is a highly controversial and emotive issue, and one that requires careful and rigorous consideration of all aspects and impacts on the community and the environment”.

At the hearing Mr Andrew Large representing TARFish emphasised to the Commission the importance of safety issues for anglers fishing out of small boats. Mr Large stated that planning for MPAs should recognise the possibility that reduced access to some areas may force boaters further afield than currently occurred. In particular, Mr Large stated that this would be an issue if ‘no-take’ areas were located in close proximity to recognised boat launching sites. Mr Large stated that it was important to recognise the needs of the ‘smallest’ recreational fishers; such as those that were shore based or operated out of the smallest boats.

Mr Jeremy Rockcliff MHA, Tasmanian Liberal Party, (41) submitted that in the consideration into the establishment of MPAs, “there must be an appropriate balance struck between giving Tasmania’s valued fishing industry continued access to an ongoing and adequate level of stock and ensuring that unique marine areas are retained for future generations”.

The Australian Greens (63) submitted that they support the establishment of MPAs that meet the identification criteria within the Strategy.

With regard to their proposal for an MPA on the Tasman Peninsula in the Blow Hole to O’Hara Bluff region, Messers Gary Myors and Mick Baron (22) submitted that this proposal has the in principal support of several previous Ministers for Tourism, local regional tourism organizations, the Tasmanian diving industry and Local Dive Clubs.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 168 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Access for recreation, tourism, and education

Submissions on this aspect of the selection criterion have largely been summarised under the previous selection criteria of Economic Interests, Indigenous Interests, Social Interests and Scientific Interests.

Lends itself to practical management (cost effectiveness, compliance etc.)

The Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE), Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS), is considered the principal management authority for current MPAs in Tasmania. A submission from DTAE (28) made substantial comment with regard to the practical management of MPAs within the Bruny Bioregion.

DTAE submitted that it was in the process of drafting a Marine Reserves Management Strategy that would provide the PWS with an ‘internal guide’ for the management of Tasmania’s existing marine reserves until 2011. DTAE stated that this document identified existing reserve management issues, including resource, staff and training issues. Following the public hearing, a draft copy of the Marine Reserves Management Strategy was provided to the Commission.

DTAE submitted that any new MPAs, if established as reserves where the PWS had statutory responsibilities, would have considerable impact on the management resources of the PWS. The DTAE submission stated that:

“Currently PWS is not adequately resourced to manage the existing marine reserves and the strategy identifies issues in existing reserves that are not managed due to lack of resources, training and suitably authorised officers. As there is lack of resources for existing reserves, PWS will not be able to effectively manage additional reserves without a considerable increase in resources, staff and training.

If PWS is to be the managing authority for any additional MPAs, then PWS should be adequately resourced for long term management of the MPAs in order to manage any threats, such as introduced species and to undertake an active and effective compliance role.

It is recommended that identification of the resource requirements for management and compliance in the proposed MPAs must form part of a proposal to Government when seeking signing off of the MPAs, and that an adequate resource package be part of the commitment to the establishment and ongoing management of MPAs”.

Mr Peter Mooney represented the PWS at the hearing. Mr Mooney stated that he wished to strongly re-emphasise the above comments from the DTAE submission (28) and that the PWS would not be able to manage any new MPAs with their current resources.

The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) (39) submitted that they strongly supported the need for recommendations in relation to funding enforcement, ongoing management and monitoring of proposed MPAs. However, TFIC indicated that any additional costs associated with the establishment of MPAs should not be attributed to the seafood industry.

Mr Wes Ford represented the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) (Exhibit 17) at the hearing. Mr Ford stated that, from a fisheries management perspective, once fisheries rules were established for any new MPA there would be little extra cost to DPIW in managing the area.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 169 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

However, Mr Ford suggested that it was likely the Tasmanian Marine Police would incur extra costs with regard to enforcing compliance in MPAs and for taking breaches of rules to court.

DTAE (28) submitted that good stakeholder engagement is part of successful management for any reserve. DTAE recommended that a comprehensive consultation program be undertaken, during the reserve selection and design phase, in order to minimise potential management issues stemming from stakeholder discontent, once the reserves are declared The DTAE submission stated that a key issue with existing reserves relates to the inherent difficulty of identification of their boundaries on the water by the public, recreational fishers, commercial fishermen and enforcement agencies. DTAE submitted that “the reserve design criteria should have heavy weight on practical management boundaries and the final boundary should be a practical one, even if everything else does not neatly fit.” DTAE recommended that a hierarchy of methods for MPA boundary delineation should be considered ranging from the most desirable (eg. line of sight to prominent terrestrial features) to the least desirable (eg. marker buoys) and including unacceptable practices (eg. bathymetric contours). At the hearing, Mr Mooney stated that for the current MPAs, recreational fishers were the largest user group that needed to understand the location of boundaries. For recreational fishers, Mr Mooney suggested that the easiest way to define boundaries was through lining up headland points, rather than a set distance offshore. Mr Mooney stated that it would be unfair to expect every recreational fisher to have a suitable Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to determine the location of MPA boundaries. Mr Richard Koch (43) also recommended ways at which boundaries of MPAs should be defined to ensure straightforward compliance and enforcement at sea. As far as possible, Mr Koch suggested that boundaries should be defined by straight lines of latitude and longitude, using decimal-minutes, and the GDA 94 datum. With regard to the Ninepin Point and Tinderbox Marine Nature Reserves, DTAE recommended that the boundaries should be reviewed and re-positioned to better reflect the values that they are set up to protect, such as reef habitats, and to improve overall management of the reserves. The Parks and Wildlife Service (1) suggested that at the Ninepin Point Reserve terrestrial markers, clearly visible from the sea and land, were required for identification and enforcement. With regard to fishing restrictions, several other submissions also noted that users should be able to easily and accurately identify MPA boundaries and that they should be easy to police. Mr Richard Koch (43) suggested that there was significant misunderstanding regarding the, the legal status, boundaries, zoning and terminology used to describe Tasmania’s current MPAs, including among the primary managers of the MPAs. Mr Koch stated that these factors made it difficult to promote the existence, extent or benefits of MPAs and to ensure compliance and enforcement of rules among the Tasmanian community.

At the hearing Mr Ford representing DPIW, suggested that an important issue of practicality that the Commission should consider was the number of different types of fishing restrictions within multiple use MPAs. Mr Ford stated that it would be difficult to explain to the public ‘too many’ different types of fishing restrictions within any one area. Mr Mooney representing the PWS stated that, from a management perspective, is would be best to keep any zoning within MPAs as simple as possible.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 170 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

At the hearing Mr Peter Mooney suggested that the large number of government agencies with jurisdiction in MPAs made it difficult for users to understand the responsibilities of each agency. Mr Mooney stated that there was a need for better formal coordination and linkages between agencies, including resource allocation, with regard to management and monitoring of MPAs. With regard to this issue, Mr Mooney emphasised that it was important for the community to see that there was a wise use of resources in MPA management.

In his submission, Mr Koch (43) quoted from the Commission’s Final Recommendations Report of the Inquiry into the establishment of MPAs within the Davey and Twofold Shelf Bioregions, whereby:

“The Commission strongly recommends that the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, the Nature Conservation Act 2002 and the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 be amended to enable biodiversity conservation of marine flora and fauna to be managed by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. This would avoid duplication of management planning and processes, a complex management system that would be difficult for all stakeholders and users to understand, and result in a more efficient use of resources.”

Mr Koch stated that if this statement remained the view of the Commission then it should be restated in the recommendations of this inquiry.

In response to a request by the Commission, Mr Kim Evans (Exhibit 17) representing the DPIW submitted that:

“The National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 cannot be used to protect fish or control fishing within the marine environment, even where that environment is protected under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 as an MPA. DPIW is responsible for managing fish resources within MPAs and in the marine environment more generally. To ensure that fish which use or are contained within MPAs are adequately protected, and that the requirements for fish in relation to MPAs are reflected in fishery management plans and other tools under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995, DTAE consults with DPIW when developing management arrangement for an MPA.”

At the hearing, the Commission questioned Mr Ford regarding processes for closing a marine farming zone or lease if it occurred within an area that was declared as an MPA and those marine farming activities were determined to be incompatible with the values of that MPA. Mr Ford stated that he believed the process for cancellation of a lease under the Marine Farming Planning Act 1995 would be fraught with difficulty and that the government may be required to provide fair market compensation to the lease holder. Mr Ford stated that this legislative power was, as yet, untested and that the government may find itself challenged in court if this action was pursued. Further to Mr Ford’s comments at the hearing, the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) (65) submitted that if any part of a marine farming lease were set aside for a public purpose, the government may be liable for significant compensation under the Marine Farming Planning Act 1995.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 171 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Vulnerability Assessment The definition of Vulnerability Assessment in the Strategy is:

• “Extent to which the site is vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes.” The Background Report presented assessments of the naturalness of estuaries and their catchments, reflecting an indication of catchment threats such a land clearing and urban development.

The Background Report summarised the major fisheries within the bioregion, and the gear types used, including the level of catch at the scale of fishing block.

With regard to pollution sources, the location of major marine and estuarine waste water outfalls and major slipways within the bioregion was also presented in the Background Report. The majority of these types of sites are located within the Derwent estuary.

The location of marine farms within the Bruny Bioregion was shown in the Background Report.

The location of major boat ramps were presented in the Background Report. Boat ramps, slipways and marine farms are recognised as sites where translocation of introduced marine species may occur.

Step 4 of the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy (the Strategy) is the:

“Identification of threatening processes such as human activities and natural occurrences that can cause some of the following effects: habitat destruction; species removal and disturbance; pollution (heavy metals, oil spills and toxic chemicals); and run off.”

An analysis of threatening processes to address Step 4 was provided in the Interim Report.

The submission from Dr Graham Edgar (21, Exhibit 5) included two recent scientific papers describing declines in marine biodiversity across the Bruny bioregion [Edgar and Samson (2004) and Edgar et al (2005)], of which Dr Edgar is the principal author.

Summarising these papers and other referenced material in his submission, Dr Edgar stated that:

• “The major human impacts in the region are associated with fishing, introduced species, oceanographic climatic shifts, downstream catchment effects of sedimentation, eutrophication and nutrification, and pollution”; • “Fishing negatively affects marine plants and animals in a number of ways – direct exploitation, by-catch, habitat damage resulting from destructive fishing practices, and indirect effects involving interactions between species (e.g. trophic cascades)”; • “In many, probably most, cases the different human impacts operate synergistically, such that the net impact of multiple stressors is much greater than the total of individual stressors added together. Thus, for example, introduced species are much more likely to establish and become pests at sites stressed by pollution, overfishing or global warming (e.g. North Pacific seastars >5 cm radius are, with very few exceptions, only seen at sites affected by pollution, siltation or marine farms, whereas larval seastars

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 172 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

occur abundantly along much of the Tasmanian east coast). Another example is that impacts of fishing (e.g, functional removal of lobsters allowing grazers such as urchins to become more abundant) are likely to be substantially greater in a changing oceanographic climate.” • “At the state management level, it is impossible to instigate significant controls on climate change, and difficult to control invasive species that are already established; however, the localised threats of fishing, pollution and catchment runoff can be greatly reduced.”

Many other submissions and persons appearing at the hearing referred to most of the same threats to biodiversity within the bioregion as those stated within the written submission of Dr Edgar, notably in submissions from Mr Michael Jacques (18); Mr Jon Nevill (27); Birds Tasmania (25); the Marine and Coastal Community Network (MCCN) (33); Dr Neville Barrett (38); the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (Exhibit 3); and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (Exhibit 7).

Replication The definition of Replication in the Strategy is: • “Provides a replication of ecosystems within a Marine Protected Area within the bioregion.” A submission from Birds Tasmania (25) referred to replication of ecosystems within MPAs. With regard to resident and migratory shorebird species, Birds Tasmania submitted that conservation efforts would be maximised by protecting a network of sites within the bioregion. Birds Tasmania stated that “… there is no value in protecting a single habitat – unless it is unique – rather, conservation efforts are strengthened by an approach that conserves a series or network of ecosystems and their habitats throughout a region”.

At the hearing, Birds Tasmania (Exhibit 2) expanded further on the value of replication of protected sites for shorebird species. Birds Tasmania submitted that priority sites within the bioregion must be considered as a network because of frequent movement of shorebirds among sites; movement between sites depending on factors such as age, tide, time of day and night, time of year and disturbance.

The Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association (52) submitted that more than one habitat location should be protected for threatened or endemic species that only occur in few areas within the bioregion, such as the spotted handfish and live-bearing seastar.

Appendix 8 Resource Planning and Development Commission 173 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Appendix 9

Priority identified areas characterised against the identification and selection criteria For each of the following priority identified areas, the characteristics of the identification criteria within the following tables were presented within the Interim Report. The Interim Report was placed on public exhibition and submissions invited.

Where appropriate, some minor characteristics of the identification criteria have been amended or modified following submissions on the Interim Report.

These include: • The inclusion of threatened whales (ie. Humpback and Southern Right) within some areas, and thus International Significance under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). • The characterisation of Great white shark under International Significance under the Bonn Convention. • The inclusion of threatened New Zealand fur seals within some areas. • In areas where the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) has been listed under International/National Significance, Albatross and Petrels have been listed against the sub-criterion for migratory species. • Under International/National Significance, the collective description of ‘Migratory Bird Agreements’ where migratory shorebirds and seabirds are listed under the following agreements:

■ China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA);

■ Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA);

■ Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA); and

■ Partnership for the conservation of migratory waterbirds and the sustainable use of their habitats in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. • The inclusion of commercially exploited fish (ie. fish, abalone, rock lobster) under the criterion of Productivity in some areas where significant fishing activity occurs but was erroneously omitted within the Interim Report.

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 174 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit

Offshore Biounit Exposed Biounit Priority Area 1945 Number Area Name Cape Pillar Basin East Tasman Deep Glen Bay Pirates Bay Peninsula Landmarks Cape Pillar and Tasman Waterfall Bay to Tasman Deep Glen Bay/Cape Pirates Bay - Tesselated Island, offshore from Cape Island Surville Pavements to Blow Hole Raoul Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or String kelp Macrocystis systems Threatened species Great white shark, NZ fur Red handfish, Waterfall Seastar Patiriella vivipara, seals, whales Bay handfish, Great white whales shark, NZ fur seals, whales Diverse or abundant Cavern, wall, seaweed, deep Cavern, wall, deep reef, species reef, shelf, pelagic, Rock Rock lobster, Abalone, lobster, abalone, reef fishes, reef fishes red algal species Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Seal colony, Little Seal colony, Little Shorebirds, whales, Little migratory species penguins, shearwaters penguins, shearwaters penguins (Short tailed and Sooty), (Short tailed and Sooty), Albatross and Petrels, Albatross and Petrels, Whales Whales Ecological Unit Deep water basin, island Cavern fauna, island, Pinnacles pinnacles National/ Migratory bird agreements, Register National Estate, Register National Estate, International ACAP, Bonn Migratory bird agreements, Migratory bird agreements, Bonn Significance ACAP, Bonn Uniqueness Deep water basin Seacliffs, pinnacles, High energy coastline, sea Tessellated pavements, offshore islands, high caves, pinnacles blow hole, seacaves, high High energy coastline, energy coastline, energy coastline tombolo, Dolerite geomorphology Dolerite geomorphology Productivity Rock lobster, reef fishes Pelagic fish schools, rock Fish, abalone, rock lobster lobster, abalone, reef fishes Naturalness Fishing Fishing Fishing Fishing, human visitation, boat ramp Notes Tasman National Park Tasman National Park Tasman National Park Tasman National Park, Pirates Bay Historic Site Selection criteria Economic Interests Scenic cruises, Commercial Scenic cruises, Commercial Commercial fishing, Dive Commercial fishing, Dive fishing, Shipping, fishing fishing, Shipping, fishing tourism, tourism, charters, bird watching charters, bird watching charters charters Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Aesthetic value, tuna Aesthetic value, tuna Aesthetic value, fishing, Aesthetic value, fishing, fishing, boating, fishing, boating, boating, diving boating, diving Scientific Interests Potential reference site, Potential reference site, Tesselated Pavements Deep water basin, shelf Deep water basin, shelf water communities, water communities, seabirds, seals seabirds, seals Practicality/ Isolated, near National Isolated, near National Adjacent Tasman National Adjacent Tasman National Feasibility Park, manage through Park, manage through Park, manage through Park and Pirates Bay State Fisheries Rules Fisheries Rules Fisheries Rules Reserve, manage through Fisheries Rules Vulnerability Fishing Fishing Fishing Fishing, human visitation, Assessment boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 175 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Exposed Biounit Priority Area 6789 Number Area Name Waterfall Bay Fortescue Bay Hippolytes East Tasman Peninsula Landmarks Waterfall Bay to northern Fortescue Bay to Cape Big Hippolyte Waterfall Bay to Tasman Fortescue Bay Hauy Island Identification criteria

Ecological Importance Ecological processes or String kelp Macrocystis String kelp Macrocystis String kelp Macrocystis systems Threatened species Red handfish, Waterfall Seastar Patiriella vivipara Great white shark Red handfish, Waterfall Bay handfish, Loneys/ Bay handfish, Great white Ziebells handfish, whales shark, NZ fur seal, whales Diverse or abundant species Cavern, wall, seaweed, Shallow seaweed, lobster, Wall, deep reef, shelf, Cavern, wall, seaweed, deep deep reef, shelf, pelagic, abalone, fish, red algal pelagic reef, shelf, pelagic, Rock Rock lobster, Abalone, reef species lobster, abalone, reef fishes, fishes, red algal species red algal species Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Whales Seal haul-out, Little Shearwaters, seal colony, Seal colony; shearwaters migratory species Penguins Little Penguins (Short tailed and Sooty) , Little penguins, Albatross and Petrels Ecological Unit Cavern fauna Offshore island(s) from Cavern fauna, island, deep water pinnacles National/ Register National Estate, Register National Estate Register National Estate Register National Estate International Bonn Migratory bird agreements, Migratory bird agreements, Significance Bonn ACAP, Bonn Uniqueness Seacliffs, sea caves Seamount/offshore island Seacliffs, pinnacles, offshore islands, high high energy coastline energy coastline, dolerite geomorphology Productivity Fish, abalone, rock lobster Fish, abalone, rock lobster, Fish, rock lobster Pelagic fish schools, rock seaweed lobster, abalone, reef fishes Naturalness Fishing Fishing, catchment Fishing Fishing activities, human visitation, boat ramp Notes Tasman National Park Tasman National Park Tasman National Park Tasman National Park

Selection criteria Economic Interests Commercial fishing, Dive Commercial fishing, Dive Commercial fishing, dive Commercial fishing, Dive tourism, tourism, tourism, fishing charters, tourism, fishing charters, bird watching charters bird watching charters Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Aesthetic value, fishing, Aesthetic value, fishing, Aesthetic value, fishing, Aesthetic value, fishing, boating, diving boating, diving boating, diving boating, diving Scientific Interests Potential reference site, Potential reference site, Potential reference site Potential reference site, handfish, diverse fauna Macrocystis Deep water basin, shelf water communities, seabirds, seals Practicality/ Adjacent Tasman National Adjacent Tasman National Isolated, adjacent Tasman Adjacent Tasman National Feasibility Park, manage largely Park, manage largely National Park, manage Park, manage largely through Fisheries Rules through Fisheries Rules largely through Fisheries through Fisheries Rules Rules Vulnerability Fishing Fishing, catchment Fishing Fishing Assessment activities, human visitation, boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 176 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Exposed Biounit Moderately exposed Biounit Priority Area 12 18 20 21 22 Number Area Name The Friars Tinderbox Crayfish Point Opossum Betsey Island Landmarks Cloudy Bay to Boreel Tinderbox to Crayfish Point Gellibrand Point to Iron Pot to Betsey Head Blackmans Bay Johns Point Island Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or systems Threatened species Great white shark Spotted handfish Diverse or abundant Sessile invertebrates Rock lobster, sea species dragons Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Shearwaters, seal Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge, Sea birds, whales, migratory species colony shearwaters Little penguins, Albatross and petrels Ecological Unit Islands Islands National/ Migratory bird Migratory bird Migratory bird International agreements, Bonn agreements agreements, Bonn, Significance ACAP Uniqueness Blackmans Bay dolerite contact Productivity Fish, abalone, rock lobster Naturalness Fishing Fishing, human Fishing, human Fishing, human Fishing, human settlement, settlement, industry, settlement, industry, visitation, introduced introduced species, introduced marine introduced marine species marine farming, boat species species, boat ramp ramp Notes South Bruny Tinderbox Marine Crayfish Point Betsey Island Nature National Park Nature Reserve (Taroona Waters) Reserve, Calverts Lagoon Conservation Area

Selection criteria Economic Interests Scenic cruises, Commercial fishing, Commercial fishing, commercial fishing shipping shipping Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Aesthetic, boating Fishing, boating, Diving Fishing, boating Fishing, boating, diving wreck graveyard Scientific Interests Potential reference Current reference site Current reference site Handfish, seabirds Seabirds site Practicality/ Relatively isolated, Extension to Current reference Betsey Island Nature Feasibility South Bruny Tinderbox Marine site, educational Reserve, Calverts National Park, Nature Reserve, diving Lagoon Conservation managed largely educational dive trail Area through Fisheries Rules Vulnerability Fishing Fishing, human Fishing, human Fishing, human Fishing, human Assessment settlement, settlement, outfall, settlement, industry, visitation, introduced introduced species, introduced marine introduced marine species, manage marine farming, boat species species, boat ramp largely through ramp Fisheries Rules Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 177 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Moderately Norfolk Biouit Channel Biounit exposed Biounit Priority Area 16 25 26 28 30 Number Area Name Primrose/ South Norfolk Lime Bay Roberts Point Isthmus Bay Sloping Bay Landmarks Lobster Point, Plunkett Point to Lime Bay Roberts Point Chuckle Head to Sloping Island, Sympathy Point Simpsons Bay Carlton Bluff, Primrose Point Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or systems Threatened species Spotted handfish, Seastar Smilasterias Red handfish tasmaniae Spotted handfish Diverse or abundant Black cowrie species community

Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Handfish, Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge, migratory species shorebirds, shearwaters; Little penguins; shark shearwaters refuge Ecological Unit Island Island Black cowrie community National/ Register National Register National Register National Register National International Estate, Migratory bird Estate Estate Estate, Migratory bird Significance agreements agreements Uniqueness Frederick Henry Bay Black cowrie Neck tombolo and Beach alignment community dunefield Productivity Seagrass, Caulerpa Seagrass, Caulerpa Shallow sediments (microalgae) Naturalness Fishing, human Fishing, marine Fishing, human Introduced species, Introduced species, settlement, human farming, boat ramp visitation fishing, marine fishing, marine visitation, introduced farming, farming, species, boat ramp Notes Lime Bay State Lime Bay State Bruny Island Neck Reserve Reserve, Coal Mines Game Reserve Historic Site

Selection criteria Economic Interests Commercial scalefish Commercial scalefish Commercial Shipping, ferry Marine farming scalefish, marine farming Indigenous Interests Saltwater River Saltwater River Saltwater River Not site specific Not site specific access access access Social Interests Fishing, boating, Fishing, boating Fishing, boating Fishing, boating Fishing, boating diving Scientific Interests Handfish species, Vegetated areas Vegetated areas Black cowrie Migratory birds seabirds community Practicality/ Accessible from Adjacent to Lime Includes Bruny Island Feasibility southern beaches, Bay State Reserve, Neck Game Reserve human settlement, Coal Mines Historic adjacent to Lime Bay Site State Reserve Vulnerability Fishing, human Fishing, marine Fishing, human Introduced species, Introduced species, Assessment settlement, human farming, boat ramp visitation fishing, marine fishing, marine visitation, introduced farming, farming, species, boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 178 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Channel Biounit Huon Biounit Priority Area 31 32 33 34 35 Number Area Name Simpsons Point Central Channel Little Taylors Ninepin Upper Huon Bay Landmarks Simpsons Point, Central Channel Little Taylors Bay to Ninepin Point, Arch Huonville to Egg eastern and western from Middleton to Satellite Island Rock, Butts Reef Islands sides Lower Esperance

Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or Sessile invertebrates Sediment/current Nutrient cycling for systems communities Huon estuary Threatened species Seastar Smilasterias Seastars Smilasterias Seastars Smilasterias Grayling tasmaniae tasmaniae and tasmaniae and Patiriella vivipara, Patiriella vivipara, Gunns screw shell, Gunns screw shell, Spotted handfish Spotted handfish Diverse or abundant Sea whips, Scallops, sediment Scallops, sediment Seaweed diversity, species scallops, sediment communities, communities, fish diversity and communities seaweed diversity seaweed diversity abundance, sessile invertebrates, Little penguins Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge Shark refuge, migratory species whitebait, grayling Ecological Unit Sea whip community Islands Islands Islands Wetland system National/ Register National International Estate Significance Uniqueness Sea whip community Tidal delta Productivity Scallops, seagrasses Shallow sediments (microalgae) Naturalness Marine farming, Marine farming, Marine farming, Marine farming, Catchment activities, fishing, introduced fishing, introduced fishing, introduced fishing, introduced boat ramp species species, boat ramp species, boat ramp species, boat ramp Notes Ninepin Point Ninepin Point Egg Islands Marine Nature Marine Nature Conservation Area Reserve Reserve

Selection criteria Economic Interests Marine farming, Marine farming, Marine farming Diving shipping shipping Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Fishing, boating, Fishing, scallops, Fishing, scallops, Diving, fishing Aesthetics, fishing, diving boating, boating boating Scientific Interests Invertebrates, seastars Invertebrates, Seastars, potential Current reference Potential reference seaweeds, seastars, handfish site, seaweeds, site for estuary type, potential handfish invertebrates geomorphology Practicality/ Marine farms, Marine farms, Marine farms, Ninepin Point Egg Islands Feasibility adjacent Ninepin adjacent central Marine Nature Conservation Area, Point MNR Channel Reserve catchment in one council Vulnerability Marine farming, Marine farming, Marine farming, Marine farming, Catchment activities, Assessment fishing, introduced fishing, introduced fishing, introduced fishing, introduced boat ramp species species, boat ramp species, boat ramp species, boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 179 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Derwent Biounit Open Estuaries Biounit Priority Area 36 38 40 41 Number Area Name Upper Derwent Clarence Ralphs Bay South Port Cygnet Arm Landmarks New Norfolk to Dogshear Kangaroo Bluff to Droughty South Arm flats Cygnet to Crooked Tree Point Point Point Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or Nutrient cycling for systems Derwent estuary Threatened species Grayling Spotted handfish Eastern Curlew Diverse or abundant Whitebait species

Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Wetland birds, whitebait, Shark refuge, Spotted Shorebirds, shark refuge Shark refuge migratory species grayling, shark refuge handfish Ecological Unit Wetland system National/ Wetland Directory Linkage to Ramsar (Pitt Register of the National International Water), Register National Estate Significance Estate, Migratory bird agreements Uniqueness Estuarine delta and Ralphs Bay Tidal Flat floodplain Productivity Macrophyte (Ruppia) Shallow sediments (microalgae) Naturalness Industry, regulated flows, Heavy metals, human Human settlement, Catchment activities, human settlement, settlement, introduced introduced species human settlement, fishing, agriculture, introduced marine species, fishing, port boat ramp species, fishing, boat ramp Notes (River) Derwent South Arm Conservation Port Cygnet Conservation Conservation Area Area Area

Selection criteria Economic Interests Pulp and paper mill, Human settlement, outfalls, Human settlement Upstream hydro power shipping generation Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Fishing, boating, bird Fishing, boating, aesthetic Bird-watching, fishing Fishing, boating watching Scientific Interests Wetland, geomorphology Handfish, potential Migratory birds, Potential reference site for reference site for Derwent Geomorphology Open estuaries Estuary Practicality/ (River) Derwent Adjacent land in one South Arm Conservation Port Cygnet Conservation Feasibility Conservation Area, council, Derwent Estuary Area, adjacent land in one Area, catchment in one Program council, Derwent Estuary council Derwent Estuary Program Program Vulnerability Industry, regulated flows, Heavy metals, human Human settlement, Catchment activities, Assessment human settlement, settlement, introduced introduced species human settlement, fishing, agriculture, introduced marine species, fishing, port boat ramp species, fishing, boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 180 Inquiry into the establishment of marine protected areas within the Bruny Bioregion

Draft Recommendations Report [Back to contents]

Characteristics of each priority identified area, against the identification and selection criteria, by biounit (continued) Marine Inlets and Bays Biounit Priority Area 42 43 44 45 Number Area Name Blackman Bay Pitt Water Pipe Clay Lagoon Cloudy Bay Lagoon Landmarks Pitt Water and Orielton Blackman Bay Pipe Clay Lagoon Cloudy Bay Lagoon Lagoon Identification criteria Ecological Importance Ecological processes or Inlet system Inlet system Inlet system Inlet system systems Threatened species Seaweed Cystoseira trinodis Seastar Patiriella vivpara Seastar Patiriella vivpara Eastern Curlew Diverse or abundant Seaweed diversity species

Nursery; Feed/Breed/Rest Shark refuge, shorebirds Shark refuge, shorebirds Shark refuge, shorebirds migratory species Ecological Unit Inlet system Inlet system Inlet system Inlet system National/ Linkage to Ramsar site Ramsar site, Register Linkage to Ramsar site (Pitt International (Pitt Water), Migratory National Estate, Water); bird agreements Significance Migratory bird agreements Migratory bird agreements Uniqueness Extralimital fish species, Seven Mile Beach Spit Blackman Bay Coastal Landforms Productivity Seagrass, shallow sediments Seagrass, shallow sediments Shallow sediments Seagrass, shallow sediments (microalgae) (microalgae) (microalgae) (microalgae) Naturalness Marine farming, catchment Human settlement, Human settlement, marine Marine farming, fishing, activities, human visitation, catchment activities marine farming, human visitation, most natural estuary in fishing, introduced species, farming, fishing, regulated introduced species, fishing, bioregion boat ramp flows, reclamation, boat ramp introduced species, boat ramp Notes Pitt Water Nature Reserve, Cape Deslacs Nature South Bruny National Park Seven Mile Beach Reserve Protected Area

Selection criteria Economic Interests Marine farms, commercial Marine farms, ocean Marine farms, human Marine farms scalefish, Dunalley Canal outfalls, human settlement settlement

Indigenous Interests Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Not site specific Social Interests Fishing, boating, bird Fishing, boating, bird Fishing, boating, bird Fishing watching watching watching Scientific Interests Migratory birds, seaweed, Ramsar site, migratory Migratory birds Potential reference site geomorphology birds, seastars for Marine Inlet and Bay estuaries Practicality/ Catchment in two councils Ramsar site, Pitt Water Adjacent to Cape Deslacs Relatively isolated, Feasibility Nature Reserve, Seven Nature Reserve, catchment adjacent to National Park, Mile Beach Protected Area, in one council, catchment in one council estuary within two councils Vulnerability Marine farming, catchment Human settlement, Human settlement, marine Marine farming, fishing, Assessment activities, human visitation, catchment activities marine farming, human visitation, most natural estuary in fishing, introduced species, farming, fishing, regulated introduced species, fishing, bioregion boat ramp flows, reclamation, boat ramp introduced species, boat ramp Replication

Appendix 9 Resource Planning and Development Commission 181