DOCSLIB.ORG

Robert Kleeman Unit Manager Policy and Strategic Assessment Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Robert Kleeman Unit Manager Policy and Strategic Assessment Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5000 Minister for Planning C/- Robert Kleeman Unit Manager Policy and Strategic Assessment Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5000 Email: [email protected]. 28 May 2019 Dear Minister Re: Smith Bay, Kangaroo Island - Deep Water Port Facility I would like to thank the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and the Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) for consulting the public on the environmental impact statement (EIS) of Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers Ltd (KIPT) in relation to the deepwater port and associated infrastructure in Smith Bay on Kangaroo Island (proposal). This submission makes the following key points: 1. KIPT substantially misrepresented the number of MNEs that may be affected by the proposal. 2. Once KIPT was aware of the known, likely, or potential presence of MNEs in the environment that may be affected (EMBA) by the proposal, it had an obligation to carry out detailed surveys, in accordance with best practice standards and DoEE survey guidelines. KIPT and its consultant, EBS Ecology, substantially failed to fulfill this requirement. 3. KIPT and EBS’ failure as set out in 3 above, should be grounds for DPTI and DoEE to apply the precautionary principle in determining whether MNEs are present in the EMBA. 4. KIPT, for the most part, has failed to evaluate or address the environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed action in relation to MNEs. It has also failed to take into account Significant Impact Guideline 1.1 in relation to making such evaluations. 5. The proposed development will have a significant impact on MNEs in the EMBA. 6. KIPT has failed to demonstrate that potential impacts and risks of the proposed action have been reduced to as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). 7. The proposed is inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1 (Bonn Convention),1 Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA),2 the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA)3, the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA)4 and the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)5. For the reasons above, it is submitted that that the South Australian Minister for Planning, under s 115 and sch 8 cl 20 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA) should not approve the proposed action. It is further submitted that the Commonwealth Minister for Environment, under s133(7) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) should refuse to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the proposed action by KIPT. 1 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, opened for signature 3 June 1992, 331 UNTS 327 (entered into force 21 March 1994) 2 Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, developed 6 February 1974 (entered into force 30 April 1981) 3 China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, developed 20 October 1986 (entered into force 1 September 1988) 4 China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, developed 6 December 2006 (entered into force 13 June 2007) 5 Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (entered into force 1 February 2004) art 3(1)(a). 2 1. KIPT substantially misrepresented the number of Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNEs) that may be affected by the proposal. On 14 December 2016, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment made a decision under s 75 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) determined that the proposal was likely to have a significant impact on the following protected matters: • Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A); • Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A); and • Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A). The Commonwealth Environment Minister found that the proposal was likely to have a significant impact on, but was not limited to, the following MNEs: • the endangered and migratory Southern Right Whale (Eubalaena australis); • the endangered Kangaroo Island Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus multiaculeatus); • the vulnerable Hooded Plover (eastern) (Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis) • the endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern) (Isoodon obesulus obesulus). In June 2017, the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) published guidelines to set the level of assessment for the proposed action (Guidelines). Guideline 1.3 requires KIPT to “describe the environment and management practices of the proposal site and the surrounding areas and other areas that may be affected by the proposal”. The term “environment” is defined by the DAC as the “environmental (biological and physical), social and economic effects associated with the development and the means by which those effects can be managed.”6 KIPT is therefore required by the Guidelines to provide information regarding all MNEs that the proposed action may have a significant impact upon for the purpose of providing the Commonwealth Environment Minister with sufficient information whether or not to approve the proposed action under Part 9 of the EPBC Act. In the EIS, KIPT stated that 78 MNES were listed in the Protected Matters Search. Of these, it provided that 68 were either “not present”, “unlikely to be present” or “potentially present but unlikely to be affected by the proposal.” The only 4 species that it identified as potentially at risk of significant impact were those specified by the Commonwealth Environment Minister. 6 Development Assessment Commission, Guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement: Deep water port facility at Smith Bay, Kangaroo Island (June 2017) 3. 3 It is submitted that KIPT misrepresented how many MNES the proposal may have a significant impact on by: • Omitting information on biologically important areas (BIAs) that may, likely, or were known to occur in the proposal area. These included information on the following BIAs, as set out in the Protected Matters Report: o Antipodean Albatross Diomedea antipodensis - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o Southern Royal Albatross Diomedea epomophora - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o Northern Royal Albatross Diomedea sanfordi - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o Shy Albatross Thalassarche cauta cauta - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o White Capped Albatross Thalassarche cauta steadi - Foraging, feeding or related behavior likely to occur within area. o Australian Fairy Tern Sternula nereis nereis – Breeding likely to occur within area. o Loggerhead Turtle Caretta Caretta – Breeding likely to occur within area. o Osprey Pandion haliaetus – Breeding known to occur within area. • Representing that MNES are “not present”, “unlikely to be present”, “potentially present” or had a “possible-fly over” presence when they are known to be present in the proposal area. These included: Table 1: Comparison between known MNE presence as stated in the Protected Matters Search Results and KIPT’s representations in the EIS Name EPBC Act Status Type of Presence KIPT (Protected Matters representation Search) 1. Ardenna carneipes Migratory Species or species Possible- fly over habitat known to Flesh-footed occur within area shearwater 2. Chelonia mydas Vulnerable, Species or species Potentially Migratory habitat known to present Green Turtle occur within area 4 Name EPBC Act Status Type of Presence KIPT (Protected Matters representation Search) 3. Dermochelys Endangered Species or species Unlikely to be coriacea habitat known to present occur within area Leatherback Turtle 4. Pachyptila turtur Vunerable Species or species Possible – fly subantartica habitat known to over occur within area Fairy Prion (Southern) 5. Pandion haliaetus Migratory Breeding known to Possible – fly Osprey occur within area over 6. Phoebetria fusca Vulnerable, Species or species Possible – fly Migratory habitat known to over Sooty Albatross occur within area 7. Pultanea villifera Vulnerable Species or species Unlikely var. gladbrescens habitat known to occur within area Yellow Bush-pea, Splendid Bush-pea • Representing that MNES are “not present”, “unlikely to be present”, “potentially present” or had a “possible-fly over” presence when they were likely to be present in the proposal area. These included: Table 2: Comparison between known MNE presence as stated in the Protected Matters Search Results and KIPT’s representations in the EIS Name EPBC Act Status Type of Presence KIPT (Protected Matters representation Search) 1. Botaurus Endangered Species or species Unlikely to be poiciloptilus habitat likely to present occur within area Australian Bittern 2. Calidris canutus Endangered Species or species Potentially habitat likely to present Red Knot, Knot occur within area 3. Calidris ferruginea Critically Species or species Potentially Endangered habitat likely to present Curlew Sandpiper occur within area 4. Calyptorhynchus Endangered Breeding likely to Potentially lathami occur within area present halmaturinus Glossy Black- 5 Name EPBC Act Status Type of Presence KIPT (Protected Matters representation Search) Cockatoo (Kangaroo Island), Glossy Black- Cockatoo (South Australian) 5. Caretta caretta Endangered, Breeding likely to Unlikely to be Loggerhead
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Recovery Plan for Threatened Albatrosses and Giant Petrels 2011-2016
    National recovery plan for threatened albatrosses and giant petrels 2011-2016 National recovery plan for threatened albatrosses and giant petrels 2011-2016 © Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities This work is copyright. It may be reproduced for study, research or training purposes subject to an acknowledgment of the sources but no commercial usage or sale. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Strategies Branch Australian Antarctic Division Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 203 Channel Highway KINGSTON TAS 7050 Citation Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011), National recovery plan for threatened albatrosses and giant petrels 2011-2016, Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart Acknowledgements This Plan was developed by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The AAD is grateful for the support of a wide range of organisations and individuals, who provided valuable information and assistance during the preparation of this Plan. Particular thanks to: - Ms Rachael Alderman and Dr Rosemary Gales from the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania; and - Mr Ian Hay, Ms Tara Hewitt, Dr Graham Robertson and Dr Mike Double of the AAD. Cover photograph: Light mantled albatross and chick, North Head, Macquarie Island, 2010; photographer Sarah Way, Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment. i Introduction The first Recovery Plan for albatrosses and giant petrels was released in October 2001 in recognition of the need to develop a co-ordinated conservation strategy for albatrosses and giant petrels listed threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
    [Show full text]
  • AAD Place Names Committee Terms of Reference and Guidance for the Consideration of Antarctic Place Names
    AAD Place Names Committee Terms of Reference and Guidance for the Consideration of Antarctic Place Names Document control: The AAD Place Names Committee can agree to changes to the TOR. These are tracked in the document version control process. This is an essential record of the changes made to the document. TOR VERSION CONTROL REVISION HISTORY Date Version Section Revised Revision revised Jan-Aug v0.1-0.9 All Original document written by Ursula Harris, AADC 2015 • Rhonda Bartley, Secretary to the committee • Jason Mundy, General Manager Strategies Branch Jan-Aug • v0.1-0.9 All Ben Raymond, A/g Manager, AADC 2015 • Gill Slocan, TET Manager • Wendy Shaw, Secretary, New Zealand Geographic Board for names in NZ and Antarctica Independent member v0.9.1 01/09/15 added to committee Rob Wooding, General Manager Support Centre representation v1.0 01/09/15 All Document approved by AAD Executive Revision by Ursula Harris, AADC • Member of Antarctic Modernisation Taskforce added • Appendix 1 – Several references CGNA changed to PCPN V2.0 28/09/16 to reflect name change • Appendix 4 - Multiple references to CGNA changed to PCPN to reflect name change • Updated Department name • Update various references August • Section 5: amend secretary appointment V2.1 • Section 7: amend voting arrangement 2018 • Annex A: amend guidance on appropriate types of names and consultation • Revision by AADPNC • Update to include the naming of AAD assets as a function of the Committee V2.2 July 2021 • The composition of the Committee to ensure all branches are represented • Other changes to reflect international and domestic updates to naming principles and procedures AAD Place Names Committee - Terms of Reference Page 0 Version 2.2 May 2021 AAD Place Names Committee Terms of Reference and Guidance for the Consideration of Antarctic Place Names 1.
    [Show full text]
  • South-East Marine Region Profile
    South-east marine region profile A description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the South-east Marine Region June 2015 © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 South-east marine region profile: A description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the South-east Marine Region is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ This report should be attributed as ‘South-east marine region profile: A description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the South-east Marine Region, Commonwealth of Australia 2015’. The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’. Front cover: Seamount (CSIRO) Back cover: Royal penguin colony at Finch Creek, Macquarie Island (Melinda Brouwer) B / South-east marine region profile South-east marine region profile A description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the South-east Marine Region Contents Figures iv Tables iv Executive Summary 1 The marine environment of the South-east Marine Region 1 Provincial bioregions of the South-east Marine Region 2 Conservation values of the South-east Marine Region 2 Key ecological features 2 Protected species 2 Protected places 2 Human activities and the marine environment 3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Tasmania's Offshore Islands and Their Role in Nature
    Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 83 OVERVIEW OF TASMANIA’S OFFSHORE ISLANDS AND THEIR ROLE IN NATURE CONSERVATION by Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris (with one text-figure, two tables, eight plates and two appendices) Bryant, S.L. & Harris, S. 2020 (9:xii): Overview of Tasmania’s offshore islands and their role in nature conservation.Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.26749/rstpp.154.83 ISSN: 0080–4703. Tasmanian Land Conservancy, PO Box 2112, Lower Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia (SLB*); Department of Archaeology and Natural History, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601 (SH). *Author for correspondence: Email: [email protected] Since the 1970s, knowledge of Tasmania’s offshore islands has expanded greatly due to an increase in systematic and regional surveys, the continuation of several long-term monitoring programs and the improved delivery of pest management and translocation programs. However, many islands remain data-poor especially for invertebrate fauna, and non-vascular flora, and information sources are dispersed across numerous platforms. While more than 90% of Tasmania’s offshore islands are statutory reserves, many are impacted by a range of disturbances, particularly invasive species with no decision-making framework in place to prioritise their management. This paper synthesises the significant contribution offshore islands make to Tasmania’s land-based natural assets and identifies gaps and deficiencies hampering their protection. A continuing focus on detailed gap-filling surveys aided by partnership restoration programs and collaborative national forums must be strengthened if we are to capitalise on the conservation benefits islands provide in the face of rapidly changing environmental conditions and pressure for future use.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aborigines of Tasmania
    This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stakeholder Analysis of Macquarie Island
    A stakeholder analysis of Macquarie Island Identifying opportunities and constraints, and facing the future Jennifer Parnell BNEWS (honours) " ' This thesis is submitted as partial requirement of a Bachelor of Natural Environment and Wilderness Studies (honours) at the School Geography and Environrnental Studies, University of Tasmania, 2007. I.. (f\of(i? '1"he~i7 ?A ~(\IELL t) tvo.~ fl\-J \0i10S1 (J.jQ1S') 7,.00"1 THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA LIBRARY A 7002 15928108 - Statement of Authenticity No materials contained within this thesis have been accepted for the award of another degree within any tertiary institution. This thesis contains no materials that have been written or published by another, to the best of my knowledge, except where indicated and referenced in the text. Jennifer Parnell June 2007 Abstract Macquarie Island (MI) is a remote oceanic island located half way between Tasmania and Antarctica. It falls under the jurisdiction of Tasmania and is managed by the State as a restricted nature reserve. MI has been recognised internationally as a world heritage area and biosphere reserve, and at the national level it has been placed on the Register of the National Estate. The management regime for MI is complex, reflecting an elaborate regulatory framework typical of a protected area in Australia's federal system. Central to this regime is the newly revised Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan (MINR Plan) that came into effect in 2006. MI has a multitude of stakeholders borne from the management regime, historical and contemporary context of human use, and environmental movement. Stakeholders are defined by their ability to influence, or be influenced by the management regime.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Subantarctic Islands 12 Nov – 4 Dec 2017
    New Zealand Subantarctic Islands 12 Nov – 4 Dec 2017 … a personal trip report by Jesper Hornskov goodbirdmail(at)gmail.com © this draft 24 Jan 2018 I joined the 2017 version of the Heritage Expedtion ‘Birding Down Under’ voyage – The official trip reports covering this and five others are accessible via the link https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/trip/birding-downunder-2018/ … and I heartily recommend reading all of them in order to get an idea of how different each trip is. While you are at it, accounts of less comprehensive trips are posted elsewhere on the Heritage Expedition website, e g https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/trip/macquarie-island-expedition-cruise- new-zealand/ The report is written mostly to help digest a wonderful trip, but if other people – Team Members as well as prospective travelers – enjoy it, find it helpful, or amusing, then so much the better… Itinerary: 12 Nov: arrived Invercargill after a journey that saw me leave home @08h00 GST + 1 on 10th… To walk off the many hours spent on planes and in airports I grabbed a free map at the Heritage Expedition recommended Kelvin Hotel and set out on a stroll - did Queen’s Park 19h05-20h15, then walked on along Queen’s Drive skirting the SE corner of Thomson’s Bush (an attractive patch of native forest which it was, alas, too late in the day to explore) and back to town along the embankment of Waihopai river as it was getting dark. Back at hotel 21h45 & managed to grab a trendy pita bread for dinner just before the joint closed.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Meeting of Advisory Committee Title: Australia's Report On
    AC4 Doc 30 Agenda Item No. 7.1 Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels Fourth Meeting of Advisory Committee Cape Town, South Africa, 22 – 25 August 2008 ______________________________________________________________ __ Title: Australia's Report on Implementation of ACAP Author: Australia 1/07/2008 AC4 Doc 30 Agenda Item No. 7.1 1/07/2008 AC4 Doc 43 Agenda Item No. 7.1 Australia's Report on Implementation of ACAP December 2006 – April 2008 The following information summarises activities undertaken, or being undertaken, by Australia in support of its obligations under the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) and in furtherance of the objective of the Agreement. The activities have been, or will be, undertaken primarily by government agencies, however many involve support from others, including the fishing industry and conservation organisations. 1. Species Conservation Within Australia's jurisdiction, there are breeding populations for eight ACAP Annex 1 listed species, five albatrosses (wandering, black-browed, grey-headed, light-mantled sooty and shy albatrosses) and three petrels (the grey petrel, northern and southern giant petrels). The current status of the Australian breeding populations of these eight species is summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Australian breeding populations of ACAP listed species Species Number of Trend Comments breeding pairs Wandering albatross 6-15 (1995/96 to Stable/ No evidence of recolonisation of Heard & – Macquarie Island 2006/07) decreasing? McDonald Islands. Biennially breeding species, numbers vary each year; in 2007/08 there were only five. Black-browed albatross – Macquarie Island 46 (2006/07) Stable Bishop and Clerk Islets are a collection of – Bishop and Clerk Islets ~140 (1998/99) Unknown rocks offshore which are difficult to access.
    [Show full text]
  • Wendy Andrew
    Footprints The People and Places of Early Clarence Plains and Rokeby Wendy Andrew Tranmere-Clarence Plains Land & Coastcare Inc. Footprints The People and Places of Early Clarence Plains and Rokeby WENDY ANDREW TRANMERE-CLARENCE PLAINS LAND & COASTCARE INC. Hobart, Tasmania 2008 i Cover Photograph. Main Road Rokeby c. 1910. From left to right: Hawthorne Cottage; Rokeby Watch House; Free’s Cottage; ‘Bayview’ and the 1860s Schoolhouse next to the Clarence Plains Rivulet. Of these, only the Watch House and the Schoolhouse building remain. Hawthorn in fl ower. Photograph: Bruce Andrew. Inside Cover. Section: Van Diemen’s Land Sidney Hall TLMAP 880fb 1828 Map of Police Districts. ii Footprints The People and Places of Early Clarence Plains and Rokeby Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time. Let us, then, be up and doing, With a heart for any fate; Still achieving, still pursuing, Learn to labour and to wait. ‘A Psalm of Life’ (1838) Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 1807-1882 iii Published by: Tranmere-Clarence Plains Land & Coastcare Inc, 2008. 158 Carella Street Howrah, Tasmania 7018 Email: [email protected] ©Wendy Andrew, 2008 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior consent of the publishers. The National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Andrew, Wendy. Footprints: The People and Places of Early Clarence Plains and Rokeby / Wendy Andrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
    World Heritage 36 COM Distribution Limited WHC-12/36.COM/8E Paris, 15 June 2012 Original: English/French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE World Heritage Committee Thirty-sixth session Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation 24 June – 6 July 2012 Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda: Establishment of the World Heritage List and of the List of World Heritage in Danger 8E: Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value SUMMARY This Document presents the Draft Decision concerning the adoption of ninety- four retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value submitted by thirty- six States Parties for properties which had no Statement approved at the time of their inscription on the World Heritage List. Annex I contains the full text of the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value concerned. Draft Decision: 36 COM 8E, see Point II. I. Background 1. A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value represents a formalization, in an agreed format, of the reasons why a World Heritage property has Outstanding Universal Value. The concept of Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, as an essential requirement for the inscription of a property on the World Heritage List, was introduced in the Operational Guidelines in 2005. All sites inscribed since 2007 present such a Statement. 2. In 2007, the World Heritage Committee (see Decision 31 COM 11D.1), requested that Statements of Outstanding Universal Value be drafted and approved retrospectively, for all World Heritage properties inscribed between 1978 and 2006, prior to the launching of the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting in each Region.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTORNIS in Confinuafion of New Zealand Bird Notes Volume XVI, No
    NOTORN QUARTERLY JOURNAL of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (Incorporatedl Volume Sixteen, Number Three;September, 1969 NOTORNIS In confinuafion of New Zealand Bird Notes Volume XVI, No. 3 SEPTEMBER, 1969 JOURNAL OF THE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND (Incorporated) Registered with the G.P.O., Wellington, as a Magazine Edited by R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Remuera, S.E. 2 Annual Subscription: Ordinary Member, $2; Endowment Member, $3 Life Membership, $40 (for members over thirty years of age) Subscriptions are a minimum of $2 a year, payable at the time of application and the first of each year thereafter. OFFICERS 1969 - 70 President - Dr. G. R. WILLIAMS, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Private Bag, Wellington Vice-president - Mr. F. C. KINSKY, Dominion Museum, Wellington Editor - Mr. R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Auckland, 5 Assistant Editor - Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Treasurer - Mr. J. P. C. WATT, P.O. Box 1168, Dunedin Secretary - Mr. B. A. ELLIS, 36 Hartley Avenue, Christchurch, 5 Members of Cguncil: Mr. B. D. BELL, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Wellington Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Dr. P. C. BULL, 131 Waterloo Road, Lower Hutt Dr. R. A. FALLA, 41 Kotari Road, Days Bay, Wellington Mrs. J. B. HAMEL, 42 Ann Street, Roslyn, Dunedin Mr. N. B. MACKENZIE, Pakowai, Napier R.D. 3 Mr. R. R. SUTTON, Lorneville Post Office, Invercargill Convenors and Organisers: Nest Records: Mr. D. E. CROCKETT, 90 Jellicoe Street, Wanganui Beach Patrol: Mr. M. J. IMBER, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Wellington Recording: Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan 2006
    Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan 2006 Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan 2006 Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan 2006 MACQUARIE ISLAND NATURE RESERVE AND WORLD HERITAGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006 This management plan for the Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part 3 of the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002. This plan replaces the Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan 1991 in accordance with s. 19(2)(b) of the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002. The appendices provide additional information and are not part of the statutory plan. In accordance with s.30(1)(a) of the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, the managing authority for the reserve, in this case the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, will give effect to the provisions of this management plan. This plan only applies to the Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and that part of the World Heritage Area that is within it, i.e. to 3 nautical miles. It does not apply to that part of the World Heritage Area between 3 and 12 nautical miles. It also does not apply to the Macquarie Island Marine Park on the eastern side of the reserve between 3 and 200 nautical miles. Unless otherwise specified, this plan adopts the interpretation of terms given in s. 3 of the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002. The term ‘Minister’ when used in the plan means the Minister administering the Act.
    [Show full text]