National Park Feasibility Reference Group

National Park Feasibility Reference Group Notes from Meeting 2, held on 5 April 2017

In attendance: Dr Kate Auty Chair Dr Dianne Firth ACT Heritage Council Mr John Starr ACT Rural Landholders Association Mr Larry O’Loughlin Conservation Council – ACT Region Ms Jenny Bounds Conservation Council – ACT Region Mr Kevin Cox Gungahlin Community Council Ms Karissa Preuss Landcare ACT Mr Rod Griffiths National Parks Association of the ACT Ms Sherry McArdle-English Majura Valley Landcare Mr Paul Davies Natural Resource Management Advisory Committee Mr Jochen Zeil North Canberra Community Council Dr David Shorthouse Wetlands and Woodlands Trust Apologies: Mr Wally Bell Aboriginal Representative Mr Adrian Brown Aboriginal Representative Mr Brendon Mulloy ACT Recreation Users Group Ms Maryclare Woodforde Youth representative Observers: Dr Annie Lane Environment Division Mr Daniel Iglesias Environment Division Speakers: Mr Stuart Jeffress Environment Division Secretariat: Ms Trish Bootes Environment Division Ms Debbie Worner Environment Division Present Ms Kathy Tracy Environment Division

KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE MEETING ACTION

1 Questions addressed Amend the Rural Lease section to show that the Kinlyside nature reserve Secretariat designation was applied in 2014 over the existing Kinlyside rural lease which has been in place for many years.

2 Next steps Reference group members agreed to provide the secretariat with their Reference group advice for the Minister by 5 May 2017. Members will use the four questions Members – by prepared by Environment Division senior officers to assist the group, but 5 May 2017 may choose to edit the questions and can include additional information in the comment section. A summary of comments from group members will be included in the report to the Minister.

3 Report to the Minister The secretariat is to prepare a draft report to the Minister for circulation to Secretariat reference group members for their comment and finalisation.

4 Next Meeting No further meetings are scheduled, however Dr Lane noted that there may Dr Lane be a possibility for the reference group to continue to meet in some form to further support grassy woodlands conservation and management.

1 | P a g e KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE MEETING ACTION

 MINUTES OF LAST MEETING The minutes of the last meeting, held on 7 March 2017, were accepted without change.

Additional member – ParkCare representative Karissa Preuss advised that an additional representative from ParkCare has not been proposed.

 CLARIFICATION OF AREAS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN A NEW NATIONAL PARK Rod Griffith clarified that the NPA’s proposal identified twelve Canberra Nature Park nature reserves as an initial suggestion for inclusion in a national park. The NPA also notes that as approximately two thirds of ACT lowland grassy woodland is outside the protected area estate they would like to have protection of some kind, and good management, for much more of the lowland grassy woodland areas.

The NPA acknowledge that substantial areas are likely to be within rural leases and that a variety of management arrangements can operate well.

A Victorian National Parks Association survey showed that 90% of respondents recognise national parks as important. Recognition of the importance of lowland grassy woodlands is a key aspect of the NPA proposal.

 Presentation: Questions To Be Addressed – Daniel Iglesias Daniel Iglesias, Director of ACT Parks and Conservation presented information on the questions posed by the reference group at the previous meeting. The following are notes from discussion.

Ecological Community Jochen Zeil – there are examples where designation as nature reserve has not ensured protection. For example, the designation of an area on Mt Majura was changed so it could be used as a horse paddock. Friends of Mt Majura lobbied for many years to reverse the process.

David Shorthouse – should the creation of a national park focus on protecting an entire ecological community? For example, Dr Adrian Manning’s work at Mulligans Flat Woodland Sanctuary is trying to reconstruct an ecosystem and the lessons will be applied outside the Sanctuary.

Governance Dianne Firth – how would a new national park fit within the National Capital Authority’s National Capital Open Space system? Daniel Iglesias noted that the Territory Plan must not be inconsistent with the National Capital Plan.

Larry O’Loughlin – an advisory board was previously established for Namadgi National Park but has never been in place for Canberra Nature Park. Rod Griffiths –one of the elements in the ACT’s framework for assigning IUCN categories is Physical Characteristics with two area categories identified: large (more than 5000 ha or part of a contiguous large area being managed in a complementary fashion) and small (5000 ha or less). Canberra Nature Park nature reserves have been identified individually as IUCN Category IV Habitat/Species Management Area. If the reserves were considered together, the combined area is much greater than 5 000 ha and Category II National Park could apply.

Jenny Bounds –the Woodlands Trust has an impression that corporations feel that national parks should be funded by government.

Karissa Preuss – Parkcare and Landcare groups have observed that corporate funding is more likely for joint community/government partnerships.

Kevin Cox –corporate sponsorship for a protected area is more likely to be provided from businesses in the local community.

Rural John Starr – the Rural Lease section should be amended to show that Kinlyside rural lease has been in place for many years and the area designated as Kinlyside Nature Reserve has been applied only since 2014. Daniel Iglesias supported the correction, and noted that the ecological and heritage values of Kinlyside Nature Reserve have been retained because of management by the rural lessee.

Mr Starr noted that he wanted to be clear about which areas of land were under consideration to become a national park before making a decision. Mr Starr also noted that he would have appreciated advice prior to the first meeting that Kinlyside Nature Reserve was part of the area being considered for possible national park designation.

Jenny Bounds –expressed strong support for the Kinlyside model where both rural lease and nature reserve designation apply, noting that some bird species found at Kinlyside Nature Reserve are not present at Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve. Ms Bounds noted that not all ecologically valuable land needs to be in national park.

Costs Daniel Iglesias – there will be additional costs if a new national park is established such as signs, brochures and new management plan. Some costs could be phased in, but it is clear that the costs will not be trivial. Rod Griffiths observed that benefits must also be considered.

Karissa Preuss –there is considerable agitation from ParkCare groups outside the areas identified for possible inclusion in a new national park. The issue is becoming divisive within ParkCare.

 Presentation: Canberra Nature Park Draft Reserve Management Plan – Stuart Jeffress Stuart Jeffress, Manager of Canberra Nature Park, ACT Parks and Conservation, outlined components of the draft Canberra Nature Park management plan which is currently in preparation. He noted that the management plan is one of many documents that guide management decisions including, for example, woodland and grassland strategies.

The draft plan identifies nature reserves into the following complexes: Northern Woodlands, Central Grasslands, Sandstone Reserves, Connections with Rivers, Kowen Escarpment and Molonglo Gorge, Woden Woodlands and Grasslands and Southern Hills. Work is underway on action plans for each 3 | P a g e complex which will include more detail on management actions to support ecosystems. The action plans will have a 3-5 year timeframe and also support 5 year implementation reporting to the Minister that is required under the Nature Conservation Act.

A Conservation Effectiveness Monitoring Program (CEMP) is also being developed to support monitoring of ecosystem condition. Eight ecosystem groups have been identified: Lowland Native Grasslands, Lowland Woodlands, Lowland Forests, Upland Native Grasslands, Upland Woodlands, Upland Forests, Upland Bogs and Fens; Aquatic and Riparian.

Daniel Iglesias noted that the allocation of nature reserves into complexes is a way of applying knowledge to an ecological community and also a way of managing people and recreational use.

Mr Iglesias also clarified that the Canberra Nature Park Draft Management Plan will not be released until after completion of the national park feasibility study process.

David Shorthouse noted that there is value in different kind of plans. The management plan is a legal document which applies to identified areas, while strategies are broader and apply to ecosystems across tenure. It is the responsibility of the land manager to draw in all strategies and plans into management implementation. The ACT Lowland Woodland Conservation Strategy identified important areas of land, and over the past 10 years some of these areas have been included within the reserve system where the management plan applies.

Jenny Bounds asked if ecological guidelines or something similar could be prepared for Canberra Nature Park, in the same way as has been done for Molonglo. Ms Bounds also noted that some actions identified in management plans are not actioned. The offsets program largely works well because additional resourcing is provided.

Rod Griffiths observed that the draft Canberra Nature Park management has progressed significantly and that he supports the development of complexes. However it is still the NPA’s aim to see as much lowland grassy woodland protected and well managed as well as possible, both inside and outside nature reserves.

 Next steps Annie Lane noted that a few issues have been raised that require further consideration:

 What lowland grassy woodland areas are not protected? These areas are under a mix of land tenures and further consideration is required on actions to support them. It is important to note that many may already be well managed.

 What alternative arrangements may be appropriate for grassy woodlands outside of the protected area system e.g. co-management. Governments cannot protect all important ecosystems without help.

 Clarify terminology e.g. ecosystem, landscape, complexes, habitat so that we are clear in our discussions.

Some of these issues are beyond the scope of the National Park Feasibility Reference Group and the ACT Government will need to give further thought to an appropriate approach. There may be a possibility for the reference group to continue to meet in some form, to support further examination of support for grassy woodlands. For example, through input into the draft Canberra Nature Park management plan.

Jenny Bound supported the key issues identified by Annie Lane and supports an ongoing role for the reference group.

Rod Griffiths commented that some years ago there was a community group to advise ACT Parks and Conservation Service (later clarified as the Nature Conservation and Namadgi Sub-committee operating under the Environment Advisory Committee) and that gap exists for a formal arrangement between the community and the people on the ground.

Jochen Zeil noted that the NPA proposal has thrown up questions about the best way to protect lowland grassy woodland. Reference group discussions have identified that national park listing would not change much about protection of grassy woodland and may prove to be divisive for ParkCare groups. The advice to the Minister should now include a question on how the ACT Government can better protect lowland grassy woodland, and note that many different approaches may be appropriate. The use of different management arrangements to enhance an ecosystem is one of the key outcomes from the group.

Mr Zeil noted that more time is required for the Northside Community Council to contribute to the advice for the Minister, but it would be possible within 10 days and stated that it is important that the conversation does not now conclude.

Sherry McArdle English commented that community engagement is key and that ACT Roads conducted a good process for community input as part of developing the Majura Parkway. This process included opportunity for leaseholders to be fully engaged in protecting ecosystems. Many Majura Valley landholders support ecological community and cultural heritage protection and are likely to financially support actions to enhance natural values. LMAs are generally not effective.

Karissa Prouse noted that general feedback from Parkcare/Landcare is that the groups would like to achieve protection and good management of grassy woodlands, but designation as a national park is not necessarily the best approach. There is a view that a broad ACT Natural Resource Management Strategy is required. A few weeks will be required to get input for the Minister from ParkCare and Landcare members.

Larry O’Loughlin supports taking further time to provide advice to the Minister, noting that the broader community are more likely to accept outcomes if they view the process as reasonable. He also supports the concept of further discussion to best support lowland grassy woodlands, especially outside the protected area. Protecting the ecosystem is bigger than the current national park issue.

Paul Davies noted that in the 1960s the NPA proposed a small area around Mt Kelly for protection as a national park. By the time Namadgi National Park was established in 1984 a much larger area of land was included and it is important to acknowledge the NPA’s vision.

He observed that the Canberra Nature Park draft management plan has made good progress and the development of other documentation and reporting should allow the ACT Parks Service to deal with all of the issues that are important in a national park e.g. fire, access weed, education, tourism. A nil tenure approach is most important to capture other areas currently not protected.

5 | P a g e Mr Davies noted that he would like time to consult with his NRMAC colleagues before contributing to the advice to the Minister, but that his consultation should be possible within 10 days.

Kevin Cox also noted that he has confidence that the final Canberra Nature Park draft management plan will be a good management tool, and he will discuss the advice to be provided to the Minister with the Gunghalin Community Council. Mr Cox observed that he is disappointed that there are areas of public land within Gunghalin that do not have a management plan.

Rod Griffiths expressed his view that the outcomes of the reference group to date are positive, and noted how important it is to have community engagement.

 ADVICE TO THE MINISTER Four questions have been prepared by Environment Division senior officers to assist reference group members to provide their advice, and to also assist the secretariat in preparing the reference group’s report to the Minister.

Group members may choose to edit questions if required and can also include additional information. A summary of comments from group members may be included in the report to the Minister.

The meeting agreed that members will provide their response to the secretariat by 5 May 2017.

When all responses have been received, the secretariat will prepare a draft report to the Minister, and circulate to group members for comment.

 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Annie Lane noted that the group should note that the Minister may choose to place the report on the internet for public access. Larry O’Loghlan observed that Minister Gentleman would need to liaise with coalition partners before releasing the report.

David Shorthouse commented that the National Park Feasibility Reference Group process was not dissimilar to the West Greenway process which had included a communiqué after each meeting to ensure the community was well informed which then encouraged the Minister to come to a decision.

 EVALUATION Annie Lane asked the group to complete an evaluation form on the reference group process, for return to the secretariat.

Kate Auty noted the value of the group working well together. She also expressed concern that some members did not feel adequately informed before the first meeting.

Jenny Bounds thought that the timeframe for choosing a representative was a little too short for some groups/organisations.

Larry O’Loughlan noted he assumed the group would be providing advice to the Environment Directorate, rather than the Minister, because the invitation letter was from the Directorate. David Shorthouse thanked Kate Auty for contributing in her role as Chair.

 Meeting Close The meeting closed at 4.30 pm. No further meetings are scheduled.

7 | P a g e