Bay of Fires Community Consultaton
Prepared for: Fionna Bourne - DPIPWE
Prepared by: Wendy Mitchell & Catherine Nicholson December 2009
&' "( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) * ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) + , )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) - - .," ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /) 0 + % )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 1) - (2 )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 3) - + ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 4) $ ( 0 ! )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/ 4) ) , ( 0 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/ 4) ) * " ( 0 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/ ) + - - )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1 ) - ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) * 0 , . ' 5 )5 0 6 6 6 5 & )7 0 ) Authorised by:8888888888888888888888888888 Date: + 0
!"#$%#
Executive Summary 6 6 2 0 9 : 2) " 0 " 0 ;6 " (; 0)< 6 )* 6 "6 0 2<+- ; (), 66 ,0 (- + =,0 - 5 ' 2 ) 56 2 = 0> " ), 6 6 " 6 " 0 )5 6" 6 " " > ) , 1 ), 1 0 ;6 " 0 # ;6 ") 5 6 " 0 =55 ,0 ( - ;55 ,0 -;55 ?; 5 ;5 $ ( ;5 % - @5%-A;5 : 2, @5: ,A;5 - " 5 ;5 5 9 @559A;5 & 5 ;< 5 ;(( , - 0;(5 , : & :6 2) 9 ' " 0 0 2= , ') 6' " ; 2 ), 6 ' " ;" 0 )- 6 ' " ,0 ) ! 5 6 > ) , ' B 6 " 2C $ ;6 ' " 6' > )5 6 26 > D > 6 0 6 0 ) " - ;6 ' B 0D 2 )5 (9 (9 !")5 " 0 2 6 6 " " " (9 )( 26 " > ; ;6 6 0 ' 6 : &) 66 0 = " 6> " 06 22 )
!"#$%#
# $ % , ' " ' 6> " 6 ; 0 ; S ; 9 0 ) % & ' & 6 " 6 " 0" ) * " 6 0 ' B ;6 0 ), " 6 ) - 2 6 0 ) 5 66 S 6"" 0 ; 6> ; " " ) *6 " ;6 0 ,0 ) 56 " ) 56 " 0 ; 0 @ " " A ) , ' B ' 6 @(9 A; " 0 6 S" ) , 6 ' 0 = 0 ) , 6' " ) *6 " " 0 ) $- 0 0 6> " ;066 ;6 ;0 " ; ) 9 6 0" 2; )
!"#$%#
1. Introduction <% +" ? "S 0 2 9 ) C(6 2 2 ) < 0 6 " ;6 22 0 0 " 6 6 0 ) 5 6 0 " "; )5 6 * " 2 ? 0 22 " 7 2 0 2 0D "6 0 2 0 < 0;: "0+ 0 6 ) 2. Description of Area ( ) & 5 9 : 2 "6 0 ; 6 " ' 4/ " ; ;0 )* 5' 9 - " , ? 5' % (!" ,- 6 41 % ( ) & %)$ : 2 + 29 !" & ( , S- " , 0 : ! , 5 9 - " , ? "?;, S (9 9
!"#$%#
3. Community Consultation - Advertising ," 6 &' ; 0% 6)56 " 66 6 ,- ) " 6 0 222 0), " 6 6 2
!"#$%#
, , * # $ * & ) % * - N* & ! - : : "),% $ 2 - 3 $% < 0 - : : "),% + $%
&" - : : "),% + ? $%
" <6 - : : "),% + 3 , S $% 2 6 < 55 2 - : : ") % $% S
@ 1 + ( - : : ") % ? 0 2 0 $ ( A
+ * : ") % ? 0 4 $%
,0 ( < - /: "),% $% : < ; + 5 ,0 : "0 < -; % $% %
: "0 < Tasmanian - : Minerals Council
!"#$%#
7. Written Submissions and Responses 9 0 6 " 0 ; 6. 0 6 " ; 2 " ; /)
7.1. Association Submissions ) ,0 - 5 ;%?? , 6 " ,0 - 5 ;“The ALCT do not support the proposed Bay of Fires National Park. Thus, we will not engage in any consultation by your company. The state government is aware of our position.” ) 5 ,0 - ) 5 ,0 (- /) : & :6 2 1) 5 3) 5 &5 4) 5 , ) 5 - " 5 ) 5$ ( ) 55 ? ) 5 % - @5%-A ) 5 : 2, @5: ,A ) 5 5 9 @559A /) < 5 1) (( , - 0
7.2. Individual Submissions 3) %%G%5 2 4) % ( ) - 0N ) ( 2 6 ) %! , ) %% : 6 ) %(( : ) %,6% ? /) %% ?%! 6 1) %% $? 3) % 4) %S, ;+" ;, ;$ (; ) ?G ) ?H"
!"#$%# /
) +$ ) ! 0 : 0 ) % - ) I < /) %! 0 ; 1) I ,6 3) % 4) - ) ?%! 8. Drop in Sessions and Community Consultations ( 2 S
* - , 0* # $ * & 0
5 0 2 6 - - S0 6> (9 (9 !" ? " * 6 6 2 - " 2C $ ;6 - " 0
0 % 0 ( 0 0 0 ; 6 "" 5 5 * "0 >
* 2C$ 6 > " > ; J 0 ' )*" > )-,!- >
: 20 0 " )) 0' : & - " > 0 " " :6 2 5 " : & " ? " 0 0 5 9 " 00
!"#$%# 1
- " 2 2$ ; : &
< ;0 0 ; 6;2 6 ; 00 @ %$ : 2 9 A ( " " ;6 D : 2 " 0 "" 0
- " ( 2 6 * > * " 2C$ > + S6 ; ; S
%D (, +
9 5 - 0 + " 9 2 " 2 + ; " 0
, " 0 ;)) " ,0 " " ; "6 26 2 )5 0
9 > 0 " 0 20 0 " 5: 60 %$ : 2 " ; ; 5 " " )5 0 " 2 ,0 S (- ; : < ; 5 0 2 6 + 6>
5 0 " ; " ,0 " 2 ' K ,0 6 0 " ";6 " 5,0 6 " ,0 6 2 ; 6 ,0 2 ; 6 2 6 2
!"#$%# 3
56 2 0 6 ,0 2) , 0 0D 06,0 6; "" 5 ) ,0 - 9 6 0 ; 0D 2 ' ,0 , 0. ,0 0 ;6 )
,0 - 5, -5 9 : 2 5
- " ; " 06 ; 6" "
$ " 0 0 0 2 : ( 0 %$ : 2; " ; " 0 6 + ! ; % ; 2 > % N S % !
( 0 9 $2 0 /6 ";0 L S 2
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ubmission regarding the proposed Bay of Fires National Park,5 - " 5 ; / ; ; ;Submission for the Bay of Fires Proposed National Park;5 &5 ) 1 ;I; ;Comment regarding Bay of Fires National Park Boundaries;5$ ( ) !"#$%# 5 6 9 - " ,=+ 29 !"= 0 : ! " " ,> 0 2$ (" 9. Conclusion * 20 " 02 ' " 6 9 : 2; 0 )5" 6'66 . "0 6 0 ; 6 50 0 6) 5 0 0 ) 5 0 9 : 2) ) , ' > 9 : 2;2 2C$ ' ) ) - " " 0 ) /) - 0 ' " ) 12* %% %% % ! 9 - ' > 2)- ' ' 2$ ) % - " ; 2 ,- - - " 6 2 : 2 $ " 0 - " ! " 0 26 6 " " " (9 )( 26 " > ; ;6 6 06 : &) ,0 - " <6 * * & 0 9 G 5 !"#$%# * - " * 5 2 - - 5 ! - - " - ## - " + 0 6 + 2 !IS + #9 % - " - " 9 ! " - " * (9 ( 9 !" 2 - ! ' ! ' "<6 #&' ! , " 0 7 9 9 - " ( 0 0 " + 0 0 + ; 0 2/66 " 0 * " 0 " + 0 2 @ A "N! 0 - " ,0 * " 9 " ! 2- " 9 $ %D " " - " 2N 0 9 0 0 0 " " !"#$%# ! 7 - " - + 9 5 0 2 % 0 2 * % <" ,0 ( - " * % 5 * " " 5 - " * * 5 " !I" 2 < ; + - " 2 ! 00 9 6 " 0 % 2 ,0 + $ - " 2 ; 6 9 - ' " ; 2 <- " " "#2 & 0 6 ) !"#$%# Appendix B Issues Raised During the Public Consultation !"#$%# 1. Issues Raised During the Public Consultation 1.1 Proposed Boundaries - 0 2 0 2)? ? "6 0 20 )- "6 The proposed boundaries are evidently not based on the ecological principles of reserve design. They seem to totally disregard catchment protection and habitat connectivity. The proposal does not represent the variety of landscapes and ecosystems in the area. A comprehensive proposal would include the full range of landscape types and ecosystems; indeed the variety of these in the region is a major rationale for a national park. The proposed reserve boundaries in ‘The Bay of Fires – a new national park for Tasmania’ are based on protection of the natural environment and, as noted in the report, an appropriate planning process will be required to consider cultural heritage, which may extend the proposed boundaries to include important cultural sites. It is useful to consider the objectives of a national park under the Nature Conservation Act 200 To conserve natural biological diversity To conserve geological diversity To preserve the quality of water and protect catchments To conserve sites or areas of cultural significance To encourage education based on the purposes of reservation and the natural or cultural values of the national park, or both To encourage research, particularly that which furthers the purposes of reservation To protect the national park against, and rehabilitate the national park following adverse impacts such as those of fire, introduced species, diseases and soil erosion on the national park's natural and cultural values and on assets within and adjacent to the national park To encourage and provide for tourism, recreational use and enjoyment consistent with the conservation of the national park's natural and cultural values To encourage cooperative management programs with Aboriginal people in areas of significance to them in a manner consistent with the purposes of reservation and the other management objectives To preserve the natural, primitive and remote character of wilderness areas I believe if camping areas are included it places a value on these sites (and helps) to ensure they are appreciated by those who want to preserve the pristine coast and bush, as there is an element of its free is worthless mentality. I am in full support of a national park in the Bay of Fires to help preserve the endangered flora and fauna and promote tourism Local environment groups have recently published a proposal that outlines the minimum reserve area needed to protect the natural values of the region. The Wilderness Society endorses the proposal to protect the conservation values identified in this report !"#$%# Tasmanian Government’s proposed boundaries represent a minimalist national park, which does not truly reflect the values of the Bay of Fires region nor substantially add to Tasmania’s outstanding reserve system The coastal part of the existing Bay of Fires Conservation Area running south from Anson’s Bay includes some very narrow areas. In some cases the Conservation Area only extends to high tide mark or very close to it. There are known management problems associated with these areas including stock access and weeds. We wonder how such areas would qualify for a national park status? The name is the drawcard. Therefore if it is to have meaning to tourists a Bay of Fires National Park must include the bays and beaches The best outcome would be to find a way to place a new Bay of Fires National Park, even if small, with the St Helens, Binalong Bay area, protecting it entirely from dogs and controlling the overuse by campers, while at the same time stepping up conservation services to all bays and beaches in that area. Regardless of this, the Mt William National Park should certainly be extended southward, and the building of any additional infrastructure apart from toilets in the new area should not be allowed I find it would be far more sensible to protect to the strip of land to the East of the Gardens Road to include the camping sites on the shoreline. Large amounts of campers use the camping sites leaving rubbish and mess behind them and damaging the area collecting firewood. This is the area tourists want to visit, not the area proposed All of the reasons suggest that the northern part of the proposed area should be protected by extending the Mt William National Park A possibility would be that Mt William National Park with the proposed addition, to become the Bay of Fires National Park. It was our assumption, when we heard of the proposal, that this was being suggested It is not sensible or logical that two adjoining parks should have different names. The national park should include the beautiful coastline from The Gardens to Binalong Bay. It is this area of coastline that motivated the Premier to nominate the area for national park status. This coastline comprises azure waters, white quartz sand, orange tarnished lichens on the rocks and it is these features that make it such an international drawcard. This coastline is heavily used by campers and other recreational users and needs protection and management. It doesn’t seem logical to have dry Eucalyptus forest on one side of the road as national park and not include the spectacular coastline on the other side of the road in the national park Visitors don’t go into the hinterland its all a coastal thing Very disappointed to see fragmented land parcels, its not good image to portray to visitors If the proposal is a serious one, it should not list eight excluded areas. A bold proposal would only exclude private land within the national park. The best way to protect areas is to include them in order to re-create the natural North South East West corridor that a total integrated system would enable Include the Bay of Fires Connect to Mt William National Park should be further investigated – perhaps it should include it all A significant 2 would be a real draw card for Tasmania Include a greater area into the 2 (see map attached Attachment 1) include Humbug Point and two points of crown land as identified on the !"#$%# Attachment 1 in red. Include all of Bay of Fires area, all state forestland and to west of Doctors Peak The boundaries of the 2 should be as identified in Attachment 3, by the red outline, rather than the proposed boundaries suggested If it is assumed that the coastline is not included in the national park, then it does not seem logical that on one side of the road you can have a dog and on the other side you can’t have a dog. How will this be managed? Having small isolated islands is far from ideal Need a bigger area, which is not fragmented Don’t want a 2 leave it as it is, if it isn’t broke don’t fix it Leave it alone Roads are bad, increased traffic, more cars, off-readers, campervans, not happy The national park should not be called the Bay of Fires National Park if it does not include the coastline Why not link right to Eddistone Light House Mt Pearson State Reserve is not a large enough area. Doctors Peak should be included A 2 with decent and comprehensive boundaries is a significant resource for the future both from a community and for its natural values Include all State Forest, Doctors Peak Forest Reserve, Humbug Point and Bay of Fires There is too much fragmentation if you have virtually two parks The State Forest land should not be logged anymore, its only wood chip grade anyway, and there is only a small area – it should be included in the boundaries. It’s return is small in dollar terms What to see the acres connected, not ad hoc bits and pieces Doctors Peak and Binalong and Humbug should be a part of the proposal The boundary of the national park should come directly to the foreshore Should be one joined up national park Should exclude all private land and include all public land The entire area is a mosaic of reserves; they should be consolidated and integrated into one national park for connectivity, interpretation and naturalness Connectivity is important especially for fauna movement and conservation Being physically separated means there is effectively two national parks proposed A good question to ask is to whether State Forest should be in the national park What detriment will the State Forest suffer if it were to become a part of the national park? Agrees with southern end of Bay of Fires Conservation area being left out of the proposed 2. He likes camping there, having a campfire and his dog. Most people do the right thing, It works well the way it is. If you deny people access they don’t come and stay and learn to value the place and appreciate it. Young people need to be able to visit a place for free and learn to value it. Is concerned if Policeman’s Point is included in the park and then he cant bring his dog there. The dog is part of the family. He can live with the idea of a 2 in the northern end of Bay of Fires, minus Policeman’s Point !"#$%# Don’t understand why beaches in the southern section are excluded. High activity occurs there and they need the protection national park status would provide Include the State Forest, Doctors Peak area; Humbug Point and Bay of Fires, all the south area right to the coast If in two parts, too much fragmentation State Forest has the potentially to be further logged which is unacceptable due to its value Four different conservation management areas, makes management difficult and expensive best to have it all one area State Forest should be part of 2 Management of present 2 and boundaries is very difficult The proposal is flawed; it has no impact on the very areas it should provide increased protection If joined up a big potential for increased walking tracks Not large enough as proposed Short sighted Not enough thought as gone into consideration of the hinterland When parks get closed it drives people into other areas Concerned there is virtually three national parks now proposed for the one area The whole area should be protected not just sections Shore line should be protected The proposed boundaries are insufficient to provide for environmental sustainability wildlife corridors and the protection of flora and fauna The proposal excludes important areas of forest and coast and has given in to commercial interests to the detriment of conservation values Mount Pearson State Reserve, Bay of Fires Conservation areas, the present State Forest, Doctors Peak Forest Reserve, Humbug Point Nature Recreation Area and the coastal section of the Bay of Fires Conservation Area need to be included. 1.2 Criteria - " A thorough negotiation process is needed to determine not only the boundaries for a new protected area, but also the appropriate tenure. We are concerned that the Tasmanian Government has proposed a national park status without consideration of tenure and management arrangements, which can offer appropriate protection for the natural and cultural values of this remarkable area and address some of the concerns held by the Aboriginal community. We believe that the Bay of Fires area has values in accordance with the status of national park and as such it is useful to consider the values and objectives of national parks under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, while noting that other reserve classes provide similar protection under this Act and that legislative change may be necessary to achieve the best outcome for tenure and management via a new co-managed model of protected area. We note that the national park as proposed does not fulfill the stated Values of a national park under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, that is, “A large area of land containing a representative or outstanding sample of major natural regions, !"#$%# / features or scenery”. Notably the proposed area is not large, is fragmented, and does not represent the range of natural features and scenery in the area. We believe that a larger, more comprehensive Protected Area at the Bay of Fires would be in accordance with these Values. As such we support the proposed boundaries presented in the report ‘The Bay of Fires – A New National Park for Tasmania’ prepared by the North East Bioregional Network and Bay of Fires Coastal Preservation Lobby (May 2009). How well do the selected areas meet the criteria for nomination for national park status? Why are some areas excluded from consideration? Logging/forestry interests rather than natural values? Where is the inventory of values that will be protected by the proposed Bay of Fires National Park? Do the selected areas meet the CAR criteria? The information made available on the DPIPWE web site is very brief and is not sufficient for the public to make a considered response to such an important matter. There is no information provided explaining the overall process, which the State Government intends to follow for developing a national park There are no stated terms of reference for the consultation process The very brief information made available on the DPIPWE web site fails to explain why the Anson’s Bay Conservation Area and Doctors Peak Forest Reserve were excluded from the proposed national park. This failure to explain why certain areas are proposed and others excluded is totally unacceptable and serves only to suggest the proposed boundaries are influenced by vested interests and political agendas rather than being scientifically based. If our concerns identified above can be satisfactorily dealt with and another public consultation process is considered, we urge the State Government to explain the reasons why areas are proposed as a national park or other reserve categories Need an overall strategy for nature conservation, we can’t have this add hock approach; need to understand why we are doing this. It should not be driven by tourism. Tourism has its waste products, it is an industry it has its own problems, which need to be dealt with. It doesn’t work because the aims haven’t been stated 1.3 Aboriginal Involvement *6 2 6 0 " 6 0 D 6 0 ) The TCT strongly encourages the State Government to put on hold its plans to develop a Bay of Fires National Park and re-start negotiations with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to determine if they want part or all of the Bay of Fires area transferred to their ownership and whether this might be consistent with the creation of a national park. The Government should also ask the Aboriginal community what management arrangements they would consider. The Bay of Fires Bioregional Network view is that we do not support joint management, it’s already provided for, handing it back or joint management is counter productive, as they don’t have the resources or expertise to manage it appropriately. !"#$%# 1 Evidence of Aboriginal habitations is continuous from Stumpy’s Bay southward to the lagoon north of the Gardens The ALCT do not support the proposed Bay of Fires National Park, and will not engage in any consultation Manage in connection with the Aboriginal people with a view to accessing Federal money and training younger aboriginal people along side the traditional elders to manage and interpret the land for the benefit of all There are many aboriginal artefacts, which are getting ruined or degraded, middens, and stepping-stones etc Reconsider Round Hill (see Round Hill points) At Shelly Point there is a road that goes right through a midden When a\Aboriginal people get hold of the land they exclude white people, and shut of access Can the Aboriginal community claim the Bay of Fires? Aboriginal community are going to have a 24-hour presence at the Garden soon There is a lot of mystery surrounding some Aboriginal items near the area, it is not really known what they are, they should not be trumped up and say they are something when its not really known what they are The Aboriginal artefacts are very important and very fragile; they can’t cope/sustain with a lot of tourism There are middens at Policeman’s Point We would emphasis Objective (i)6 which supports the essential involvement of the Aboriginal community in the boundary consultation and management planning. Importantly, it provides an opportunity for a jointly managed national park model, which has many successful precedents elsewhere in Australia. 1.4 Process The Bay of Fires limitations are not understood, this should be done first Because all of the areas proposed are already reserves I am yet to be convinced that we need a national park. There are many threats to the natural and cultural values of the Bay of Fires including uncontrolled off-road vehicle use, poorly planned camping areas, coastal shacks, fires, weeds, dogs and tourism developments. Prior to considering a national park the Government must work out which ‘traditional practices’ will be banned and which will be allowed. With other national parks these decisions were not made before their declaration and pre-existing problems have never been satisfactorily dealt with. Prior to proposing boundaries of a national park, the Government should commence consultation with recreational users, Break O’Day Council, local and state conservation groups and Aboriginal groups regarding these important management issues. What criteria were used to select the areas nominated for the proposed Bay of Fires National Park? Who undertook the selection? What qualifications does the person(s) involved have? An important consideration for the community is to ensure that good information and data is available which facilitate appropriate decision-making 3<0D " : 2;: - " , !"#$%# 3 Need to ensure that there is an agreementthat will: ) ! 5 ,0 S 6 ) + " 9 6 L Protect all the natural and cultural values of the area Review state nature conservation legislation (in line with other jurisdictions in Australia and commitments under the National Reserve System and related strategies) to provide the legislative framework for land justice and co- management in Tasmanian National Parks and other protected areas, including a Bay of Fires protected area 1.5 Connectivity 56 0 2 06 " 2), P 2 Q;0+ % J 7 " 5 6 " 06 ) 2 ; : &5 . " 0 ) At the very least, the two sections of the proposed national park need to be connected by including the area now designated as State Forest. The proposal to link together reserves from the Mt William National Park in the North to the Humbug Recreational reserve in the south is to be highly recommended. Connectivity of existing protected areas and other land tenures is essential for the protection of the Bay of Fires unique flora and fauna to be enjoyed by locals and visitors alike. Need connectivity, why be half arsed about this? Should include all land to ensure that connectivity happens both from a management prospective, flora and fauna and from a catchment perspective The land should not be fragmented Should include all the conservation areas to connect them for the animals and plant species The proposal is overlooking integration and movement of animals, it is unsustainable Why were the other areas not included? Allowing animals to travel across boundaries is important for their conservation A connected area would be much more beneficial The areas are not connected and don’t provide continuity to the national park Follow the six principles outlined by Goodman (Attachment 2) Two parks are not acceptable The proposed national park would involve two totally disjunct areas, the existing Bay of Fires Conservation Area and the existing Mount Pearson State Reserve. This is quite unusual, presents obvious management problems and sets a bad precedent. There are four different conservation areas presently these need to be consolidated and managed as one land area This is an opportunity to link significant hinterlands with coastal areas it is an important opportunity not to be missed !"#$%# 4 1.6 Break O’Day Council - " 6= 6 " = 0 6 2)2 Their general concerns were related to boundary issues, in particular the exclusion of the State Forest Reserve and Doctors Peak Forest Reserve and to the resources needed to appropriately manage such a proposal Council has no legislative role, no role as a decision maker, and no ability to affect the process! Nor have we been asked to This proposal has the potential to excise more land that Council currently has under its control, and we effectively have less and less land over which we control Once the Government has control it can give the authority for a large developer to put a major development on it, like in other areas 10 objectives apply to most of the reserve classifications. It is really a mosaic of reserves; all these should be consolidated into one national park, not the two that is virtually proposed now. They should join it up. Why should Forest Tasmania be exempt? If it can’t be all combined the proposal is fundamentally flawed Not really achieving anything more by this proposal, just stopping mining and dogs in some areas What benefit to the forestry industry is keeping the state forest and reserve, it is of very little real value to them Why not include Humbug point and Doctors Peak Forest Reserve? Instead of 8000 hectares it could be 18,000 hectares, taking .007% of land from Forestry Tasmania is going to impact insignificantly on their operations Current reserves are getting quickly degraded due to lack of funding and resources State forest and forest reserve land should be included, why have a national park right in the middle of it? Southern part of the Bay of Fires has been traditionally used for camping for 100 years it should not be included Are surprised to see the proposed boundaries – thought it would encompass all the land As a national park it would protect the land more but mostly keep the current uses wouldn’t it? Should keep the traditional use as it is Agree should not touch private land, agree should stop mining, the rest is very common objectives therefore should role all into one At no time have we been told it is two national parks! Weeds are a problem, especially with the current logging, it spreads the weeds, even thought the trucks have a cleaning regime The catchment is also important Habitat protection is important !"#$%# Improved management plans are required for existing conservation areas, see what happened at Coles Bay when this transpired Numbers of visitors for national parks is increasing but funding is down If this is done it needs to be properly managed and well resourced with a good management plan Access into areas is presently problematic Funding hasn’t been mentioned Avoid multiple labelling Improve resources Humbug Point should be part of the national park All of the boating access is at Humbug Point Humbug Point needs more discussion This is a prime opportunity to look ahead, and understand discuss the values, what you are trying to protect with this proposal, or protect against, e.g., farming, mining, forestry? The East Coast is a time warp; it has unique values, lifestyle, values, safety space, and flora to be conserved It’s easy to encompass a larger area, as there are no private landholders involved, its all government Why aren’t you talking to Forest Tasmania – its ridiculous you aren’t! Logging and other activities impact on the coast There is nothing wrong with the two pieces of land, it covers the Bay of Fires Area, its not locking it up, and it offers more protection Being a national park will mean there will be no mining and you won’t even be able to pick up a limb that has fallen to the ground The proposal won’t make any difference to the Mt Pearson area Have you talked to the Aboriginal community about this; it is quite clear they don’t want it Will there be restrictions on agricultural chemicals use? How might it affect any proposed marine park on the southern section of the Bay of Fires? We weren’t given time to consider, its hard to make suggestions when you don’t have all the facts. There has been nothing put to us to consider. Will there be an appeals process. Does it have to go before the two houses of parliament? Can a subsequent government change boundaries? You can extend anything but it’s hard to take away The fact that a state forest is dead plum in the middle is an issue Leave as it is, you can’t manage what you have already Where is the official catchment? Is the quarry included or excluded? Is the 14 H is that the little strip in front of Tuckers? !"#$%# 1.7 Catchment Area 6 0 6 ;0 6 '0 0 ; ;6 6 " 00 ) The importance of water catchment hasn’t been considered in this proposal well enough Most of the coastal area is water catchment Should not allow logging in a water catchment area If you don’t include the state forest you will be logging in a catchment area The coastal catchment is marked as a yellow line on Attachment 4 A sensible reserve design would at least include the catchments of the east- flowing watercourses, which enter the Bay of Fires. Without doing so we believe that the proposed boundaries do not address Objective (c)7. The upper catchments on the western side of the drainage divide are also intact and present an opportunity for protecting the headwaters of several important watercourses such as Littlechilds Creek. It is an upper catchments area, it should not be logged, its catchments potential is critical and a proper assessment needs to be made. 1.8 Northern Section of the Proposed Bay of Fires , 9 : 2 " " ; 6 6 " = ;6 " ; " " ) It is desirable to protect the fragile northern beaches with their strongly Aboriginal connection and sites from too much use and this argues for the proposed northern section being included within a national park The northern part of the proposed park already shares a boundary with Mt William National Park. The ecology is continuous. Migratory birds for which this is a notably important area in summer, fly between the rocks and beaches at Policeman’s Point and the spit at the end of Abbotsbury Beach depending on conditions of wind and tide, and move from one to the other if disturbed, i.e. beaches to the north and south of the outlet from Anson’s Bay form a single ecological unit. This area should be in the Mt William National Park, all its values equate with that park Need to ensure this section remains unspoilt It should be part of the Mt William National Park This land should be protected, it has high values for birds, and it’s connectivity to Mt William National Park It has significant Aboriginal heritage, and it’s a unit in itself, not really connected to the southern part This is a water catchment area 4: 2<0D ";: - " , : !"#$%# 1.9 Southern Section of the Proposed Bay of Fires 5( 9 : 26 9 )56 ' > ' ),> 6 2; 6 > 06 ' ) 6"6 D ; " " " 6 )% " ) Very high conservation values here, it has some of the most important natural assets, wet and dry heath land, and the wet lands or the lagoons, these are some of the best wetlands you will find anywhere on the east coast of Tasmania There is no argument on a conservation basis, the only argument is trying to appease the traditional campers or lobby groups, which is not a good strategy for the long-term sustainability of the region The proposal won’t protect this area and it is getting really trashed The proposal won’t protect this high values area Bay of Fires area needs protection it is a high values area Don’t call it the Bay of Fires National Park if you don’t include the Bay of Fires. This is the real area that needs protection; it’s over used and getting spoilt 80% of the problem exist here, 20% the hinterland This area should be in the national park Leave this out of the national park Dogs are a real issue and they are (but shouldn’t be) driving such discussions, we should simply provide an exercise paddock for them, and exclude them from the beaches This is not really the Bay of Fires area It’s not a national park, not remote, call it a recreational area Should be in the national park but retain existing leases! In agreement of the southern end of Bay of Fires Conservation area being left out of the proposed national park I find it unnecessary to blanket such a large area in national park. The area proposed practically protects itself due to the hilly terrain and thick bush. It is largely inaccessible having only a few defined tracks that start at Binalong Bay and link up with the Old Gardens Road. These tracks lead to the Lagoons, the old quarry and through to the Gardens and Anson’s Bay road. As an off road motorcyclist I have been riding these tracks for the past 20 years with my friends. We always stay to the defined tracks when in this area to minimise our disturbance. During this time I have rarely come across another person, as there is basically nothing for any tourist to see there. I find it would be far more sensible to protect the strip of land to the East of the Gardens Road to include the camping sites on the shoreline. Large amounts of campers use the camping sites leaving rubbish and mess behind them and damaging the area collecting firewood. This is the area tourists want to visit, not the area proposed. !"#$%# 1.10 Amenity *6 0 6 > " 0") The use of motorbikes on the beaches damages the sand dunes I have always ridden my bike in these areas Bay of Fires is not interested in being another gold coast style development, the country feel and look is vital to hold Don’t want a whole lot of new tracks opened up, it could damage the environment and possibly, effect Aboriginal sites of importance Can’t have national park on one side of the road and logging on the other, its ridiculous Making a national park it is expected that access and facilities will increase/improve, however if you make it all national park, you can continue to preserve the high value areas as relatively undisturbed and using the existing infrastructure, just improve it a bit The charm of Binalong Bay as a coastal hamlet should be retained. Development should occur at St Helens Recently the Bay of Fires has been popularized through media attention, the result being a great deal of degradation of the natural landscape through misuse and enforced alternations to the foreshore by man made constructions to cope with the influx of visitors and the vehicular homes Young people need to be able to visit a place for free and learn to value it 1.11 Flora and Fauna 5 62 6 "0 )5 0 " " " )* " 6 2> )* 1 ' 20 ; 6 ; 0 )< "" 0 ; 6 " 0 : I ,) North of the Gardens should be preserved for the shorebirds, don’t promote this area to the public at all, because the beaches here are needed for birds to nest, rest and breed. Have this area as a real breeding ground for shorebirds. It is incredibly important to preserve the trees which form hollows such as Stringy Bark or Obliqua Eucalyptus Albugo, for nesting birds and other animals, especially important in forest reserve and state forest land, owls, Swift Parrot, eagles and also the Aboriginal people use them for different purposes The threatened New Holland Mouse is located in a select area of the North and North East of Tasmania and in the proposed national park area; Reference, the brochure by McQuillan,10 as Attachment 8 Swiss Parrot habitat is marked in green on map, Attachment 16, and have been recorded on Humbug Hill, refer Attachment 11 + ;5; ; 9 ;A New National Park for Northeast Tasmania;: & :6 2; 0 ; ) + ;5; ; 9 ;A New National Park for Northeast Tasmania;: & :6 2; 0 ;501; /;@, 4A) % J ; ; 2 6;The Threatened New Holland Mouse;7 " 5 ) !"#$%# Connectivity is required for animal welfare All dogs to be kept on a lead on or off the beaches. Small Penguin colonies and Hooded Plovers at risk from untethered dogs Thirty species of threatened flora has been recorded and documented as being within five km of the proposed reserve11 Twenty-five species of threatened flora known from the proposed reserve have been identified12 Eight threatened fauna have been recorded in the proposed area13 The national park should include the Doctors Peak Forest Reserve. The recently rediscovered Hibbertia rufa is located in this area There are important conservation areas in the national park which need to be managed well For biodiversity and habitat it is important to maintain a collection of species and vegetation Impacts on flora and fauna including shorebirds & coastal vegetation/ management issues? There is no ecological sustainability embodied in this proposal The hooded plovers and other shore birds are very vulnerable, especially in the egg laying and incubation stage to dogs and humans and beach activities, they really should have all the protection available, e.g. fencing off areas etc. 4 wheel drives and motorbikes on beaches should not be allowed Habitat should be the prime consideration especially for migrating and shore birds, which depend on good habitat to rest and breed after long flights of migration Button grass plains are not well surveyed, this need to happen first, need to protect bio diversity See threatened species as documented in Attachment 5 Any interpretation centre, needs to be carefully considered, as there is a very good bit of forest at the junction, it should not be disturbed, contains Tasmanian Smoke Bush, Conospermum Hookeri Migratory birds need the shore to rest, feed and breed, after some huge flights, Protect coastal vegetation, it gets removed to create a view, for firewood etc. An expanded national park proposal, as documented in the report ‘The Bay of Fires – a new national park for Tasmania’, would much more fully address Objective (a)14 than the current Tasmanian Government proposal which excludes many important elements of biodiversity (e.g. coastal lagoons, under-reserved vegetation communities, threatened species such as Pomaderris Elachophylla) Need for a comprehensive flora and fauna survey, this has never been done or was done inadequately many years ago, a new survey is badly required before this proceeds : &0 :6 2; ;5 9 ;A New National Park for North East Tasmania= 9 L;:; ;: &0 :6 2; ;5 9 ;A New National Park for North East Tasmania; : &0 :6 2; ;5 9 ;A New National Park for North East Tasmania= /: 2<0D ";: - " , : !"#$%# Need a biodiversity accurate map – need a larger area for it to truly meet objectives as far as flora and fauna is concerned The Humbug Reserve should also be part of the Bay of Fires National Park, Humbug is a nesting and habitat for two pairs of sea eagles 1.12 Resources *6 2$ 0 . 6 0 6 0' 260 6" 0 ) While I urge the Government to implement the proposal put forward by the Bay of Fires Preservation Lobby, and North East Bioregional Network, I also press the point that unless there is proper staffing, and immediate and firm implementation of sound ecological management, then forget about it Parks and Wildlife funding has been slashed. How can this national park be managed with less funding? Resource issue is of real concern Parks cant manage the current area, what additional funds would be allocated Concerned resources are insufficient now; creating a new national park will further dilute resources Currently Parks and Wildlife do not have the resources they need to adequately manage the area in their care, creating more area for Parks to manage is futile unless adequate resources are provided Definitely need an injection of resources to manage it properly Need more local resources to manage the area Need more resources to manage the area Parks don’t have enough money to manage effectively the 37% of landmass they presently have. Will funding be increased? No point in doing this if there is not an increase in funding. How will the values be protected with the present funding arrangements? St Helens is short of gravel, yet need to maintain roads, and need gravel to do that. Need to be an increase in funding If declared a national park then it is assumes that resources will increase National park must attract more funding Need proper resources to ensure protection of such a significant features Don’t have funds to manage what you have under your control now Very concerned with lack of resources – very few people on the ground The proposal is somewhat unwise when considering the resources we can put into it Government wants it both ways; wants the national park and its tourism potential don’t want to spend the money to look after it Government just wants an area to exploit !"#$%# / Need to employ more rangers, we teach them at TAFE and uni and then they cant get a job, its disgraceful Save money by joining in all up – must be saving to be had Illegal activity occurs in prohibited areas currently, resources and planning is required to address this issue, see Attachment 13 Need to connect with the Aboriginal people and work with them more 1.13 Education *6 2 6 " 6 0 ; 0 6 6 ) A system to educate and train the public is a necessity, to pay, to look after, to pick up dog faeces, to take away rubbish, to recycle, to abide by the rules, look after birds and other wildlife especially in sensitive breeding seasons etc. People think it’s their right, there needs to be a big cultural shift Have little concept about the importance of some species and how vulnerable they are Don’t understand the need for coastal habitat Don’t understand the damage 4-wheel drive and motorbikes do on the beach and sand dunes Don’t understand the biological needs of animals and birds, including Little Penguins 1.14 Management 5 " 2;6 (9 (9 !" 6 0 0 )% ' " ) The land tenure, ongoing protection and management structure arrangements, and the identification of cultural heritage needing protection, should be developed through the negotiation process. The Tasmanian Conservation Trust believes it is premature and inappropriate to seek public input regarding the boundaries for the proposed Bay of Fires National Park as Aboriginal concerns and existing management problems should have been dealt with first. The TCT does not oppose a national park and still sees it as one option for the area. This region should continue to receive the greatest possible protection and attention from DPIPWE and our strong recommendation is that whatever course is eventually adopted, that department must employ more rangers and other staff Management is easier if all the land is encompassed and is one land tenure Would like to see a joint management initiative with the Aboriginal Community, this would enable current elders to train and mentor younger community people coming up through the ranks and provide employment and ongoing connection to the land Management issues are a huge problem, lack of resources only 4 rangers for a huge area, 10 days on 10 days off means there are only two rangers, really quite inadequate !"#$%# 1 The critical thing is the number of visitors who use the area, this is the Southern part of the Bay of Fires, more infrastructure and management is required to halt this destruction. Tourists come for the scenery and the beaches and they are getting trashed. If you have to pay to enter a park you probably value it more How will new rules regarding dogs, motorbikes, 4WD’s and woodcutting be policed? People leave trash including broken bottles; they should be made to clean it up – e.g. a refundable deposit system Put more rangers on the ground Need a management plan What has happened to the last three management plans for the Bay of Fires beach area? There is a great need for careful management of this area, but specifically, there is a very great need to maintain a clearly marked track to reduce the instances of ‘bush bashing’ and people getting lost (we often get people wandering onto our property trying to find the track I am generally in favour of the proposal however I am worried about the impact on land that will no doubt eventuate from the new listing and increased international exposure Need to ensure that income generated is put straight back into the area Need a good management plan (joint) with the indigenous community? 1.15 Infrastructure 56 "6> ) It is desirable that extra tourist traffic should be directed towards the area where there is already coastal development and infrastructure to provide for and accommodate it With increased visitors numbers rubbish disposal and toilet management will need to be improved How to pay for camping fees and parks passes? Interpretation signs, visitor centres, car parking, track management will all be needed in order to control where visitors go. At the moment there are very limited signs and information in the area and people do not know what to do and where to go. There is no explanation of what and where the Bay of Fires or The Gardens is! Consequently people start exploring in all directions and create wider impact when less impact is needed. The extent of coastal tracks is growing and it is not currently managed. Strongly appose any new roads in the area Maintain Reid’s road Don’t upgrade other roads, maintain existing roads only Any interpretation centre, needs to be carefully considered, as there is a very good bit of forest at the junction it should not be distributed, contains Conospermum Hookeri (Tasmanian smoke bush): rather the small triangle bit, this area would be good for an interpretative centre, see Attachment 7 We need politicians and bureaucrats to get on board and realise the potential here and the funds required to do it properly !"#$%# 3 Infrastructure should concentrate on the southern section; leave the northern section alone to conserve it Huge drop off to the side of the Bay of Fires road, very dangerous, an accident waiting to happen No toilets on the Bay of Fires walk, this is very bad, need a drop toilet on the route, my daughter was a guide for them, you take a shovel and go in the bush The intersection servicing Reid’s Road, the Gardens Road, Binalong Bay Road and the Humbug Point Road must be upgraded, as it is currently sub-standard and dangerous and cannot support additional traffic flows Why make new infrastructure when these already exist at five camping areas (4 sets of toilets) and at Gardens Road The North East Bioregional Group opinion is that these people should camp at the St Helens camping complex, which can cater for large vehicles. Perhaps a mini bus can go out to the Bay of fires, the Winnebago’s are too big, and take up too much space; they take the space of three campsites. Otherwise you need to make the campsites bigger and the roads wider and we need to avoid this. 1.16 Private Land ? ' 6 > ) Private Land (including ours) within or bordering the national park simply need zoning, which explicitly preserves the current title and land use where possible, or offers compensation where not possible or incompatible Privately owned and cleared land entirely surrounds the Northern proposed national park area Need to ensure access to beaches are maintained 1.17 Mt William National Park 56 %$ : 2 ' : 9 : 2; 0 0 2) Mt William National Park should be renamed and included as an inherent part of the Bay of Fires National Park (it is worth noting that Lonely Planet was lauding the remote beaches of North of Eddystone, not the populated areas South to Binalong Bay (the real Bay of Fires) – the wilderness is the attraction, but the proposal in its current form is demonstrably not giving any thought to this) The spit should be included in the Mt William National Park The northern section should be in the Mt William National Park – it joins that land and has the same inherent values The Bay of Fire words are over used. It really should be joined to Mt William National Park 1.18 Swimcart Beach The St Helens Surf Angling Club have run a competition off the beach for 30 years, they want to ensure they retain their club house and right to host this annual event Badly designed camping area here Long narrow strip behind the beach area, is were the camping is, people camp actually on the sand dunes there, 20 to 30 tracks to the beach have been forged !"#$%# 4 Some attempts to reduce camping here or restrict camping, I would not let camping occur on the south side, and keep camping to the North on the access road They are 400 metres from the toilet there, but because of its long narrow track used for camping, people just go in the bush Need designated sites here, 1 – 30 say, when they are gone that’s it, closed to further campers For a small fee, people are accountable, if people are registered they are less likely to do the wrong thing, they are traceable and you can limit the number of people camping there, at present they just keep pushing out and expanding the area Need more staff to achieve this I believe current status is all that is needed 1.19 Cosy Corner Have toilets Should be limit on campers, sites should be numbered, when those camping sites are taken, the site should be closed off to further campers A small fee will ensure that all rubbish etc is removed as it has identified the camper 1.20 The Gardens My family owns a shack in ‘The Gardens’ area of the Bay of Fires. I notice that this area is not included in the national park based on reasons of existing recreational use. I would like to know what would be done to protect the integrity of the beach, dune, marine and forest areas of this beautiful and pristine area? The end of the road at the Gardens is problematic for vehicles Lack of signage and direction here is difficult for visitors 200 cars are going into the Gardens daily 1.21 Break Yoke Beach ,0 6 " ) This area hasn’t been mentioned yet; it is worthy of increased protection This area is full of Aboriginal heritage items, which really haven’t been mapped 1.22 Policeman’s Point 56 0 )5 "0 ' ;6 " )*6 0 2 = 0 )5 0, S0 ".60 ' 0 ) 20 6 0" )9 6 " )* 5 ) The North East Bioregional Group’s opinion is that any area if it’s a camping area it needs to be managed, e.g. Designated sites, small fee, accountability, management, otherwise it just gets degraded quickly !"#$%# Just because it’s a free camping area it doesn’t mean it gets no management The visual continuity of the beaches running northward and southward of the outlet to Anson’s Bay is an important facet of the existing ecotourism venture in Mt William National Park. Any further permanent development at Policeman’s Point, or greater use of that area would be incompatible with that venture and could put it at risk. The Point is heavily used and is being degraded 100 families are going to be disadvantaged Retain camping at Policeman’s Point I have been camping all my life and I am 65, there is no provision for camping anywhere else at Anson’s Bay (other than Policeman’s Point). The area has been used for 100 years. No shacks were built there as it was a police reserve, still is and was not available for lease. Is concerned if Policeman’s Point is included in the park and then he can’t bring his dog there. The dog is part of the family. He can live with the idea of a national park in the northern end of Bay of Fires, minus Policeman’s Point. Around 100 families regularly camp at the Point; there would be a significant outcry if the proposed boundaries stay as they are proposed, as it’s a very traditionally used spot for the last 40 years Locals at Anson’s Bay access the point to see local conditions on the Bar before taking their boat out, they need to retain free access to the area for that purpose Restricting camping at the Point would increase pressure at other camping sites Access is via a public road There are no facilities here, but mostly people manage camping fairly well, apart from some broken bottles etc. Policeman’s Point is currently a free camping area where you can take your dog. When it, Policeman’s Point becomes a national park it will no longer be free camping and dog friendly. Some of the campers will then be attracted to the Binalong Bay to The Gardens camping areas because they are free and dog friendly. This will put pressure on an already heavily used camping area. Should be free camping, don’t want to pay to go here, don’t agree with the national park, don’t want more visitors, don’t want tourism, boundary wrong, needs to be redrawn Will there be facilities put at the point? Don’t want PP to be leased to a big developer Migratory birds use the southern section, to rest, they have come from the other side of the world, they are chased away by all these dogs allowed there, its not right At times there are huge numbers of campers here and its not at all hygienic, drop toilets are required There are Aboriginal middens here Need a long drop toilet here Retain camping but need a toilet Fishermen must have road access to assess and ascertain the state of the bar-way before taking their boat out to sea Locking it up makes it accessible only to the fit as it is too far for elderly to walk and too rough !"#$%# It is needed for emergency vehicles access, 2 drowning in the last 5 years and several near misses from bar-way accidents We don’t trust to Government not to lease Policeman’s Point to a private operator. Which would effectively lock us out of our only accessible decent beach. We never want to see another overpriced resort here, which is priced beyond the means of working Tasmanians. The echo centre of Tasmaus Quest is already too much! 1.23 Jeanerette Beach and Big Lagoon , 6 6 ") There were a few people who considered that the coastal area between Jeanerette Beach and Big Lagoon should be included in the national park The coastal area between Jeanerette Beach and Big Lagoon should be included in the national park Particularly, what will be done to protect the areas, and surrounding, Jeanerette Beach, Swim cart Beach, and Boulder Hill? The area is heavily used, but that is no reason just because its popular and not to include it in the national park Toilet Limit camping again, have numbered sites, small fee, close off after full Increase funding for parks to manage this 1.24 Bells Marsh * " " %; P 6 6? " 2 % 6( ! : Q) 1 This area has really good conservation areas, high values, potentially not included in the national park proposal? Significantly there are no tracks in this area Additional to the national park proposal, a contiguous area of intact native forest and other vegetation was identified around Bells Marsh Forest Reserve to the west of Mount Pearson SR. This ‘Bells Marsh Reserve Extension’ is suggested as a complementary reserve to the proposed national park. This extension includes Bells Marsh FR and intact forest to the west and northeast, which is presently State Forest (some of which is designated ‘Informal Reserve’). The proposed extension would involve expanding the boundaries of the existing reserve. This would protect some of the most significant patches of old-growth forest in the lower George catchments and provides a landscape linkage from the coastal hills of Mount Pearson toward Siamese Ridge and the Northeast Highlands. 1.25 Sloop Lagoon and Big Lagoon, Grants Lagoon 5 0 9 ( C ), 6 06 ? S )5 0 06 ' 6 " ;6 0 ) Close of some tracks 1+ ;5; ; 9 ;A New national Park for Northeast Tasmania;: & :6 2; 0 ;3) !"#$%# Lots of rough 4 wheel drive roads, garbage getting dumped, loss of habitat, no real reason to drive around in here! Has high conservation values, nice coastal heath land Significant conservation values Lots of informal camping No toilets No camping should be allowed in this fragile area 1.26 Taylor’s Beach , 6 6 ") No toilet, it’s a very nice spot - Taylor’s Beach Need a toilet at Taylor’s Beach Regulate camping, ideally only 6 sites here Taylor’s Beach, regulate, when full close, off, small fee to encourage responsible camping and removal of rubbish In order to reduce the impact of camping on the coastline south of the Gardens I believe that the new national park should include the construction of a properly controlled and served camping ground/caravan park in the vicinity of Sloop Lagoon We believe the vast majority of visitors to the area are seeking the white sand and distinct coastline of the Bay of Fires. To this effect we believe the proposed national park should include the Gardens Conservation Area and South of the Garden, areas known locally as Taylor’s Beach and Sloop Rock, in order that these fragile environments are better protected The lagoons on the coastline should be included in the national park as these areas have important wildlife& vegetation habitats that need to be protected There are lagoons and creeks all along this area, they should all be included in the national park The marshes should be protected, they are very important for ecological purposes Camping on the edge of the wetland is degrading the land, where there is informal camping, with no toilets, no control, its very bad, opening up tracks, cutting firewood, and lots of damage being done there 1.27 Round Hill ! 6 " ) There is a rockery at Round hill, which needs protection Includes Aboriginal middens Would be devastating if it got burnt out Needs a management plan Very important area for the local Aboriginal people, they use it for many purposes including collecting grasses 1.28 Mussel Roe Bay (" '" 6 6> ) !"#$%# 1.29 Humbug Point + ' 0 6 ; )5 0> 0 6 6 0> 0 = 2 6 " " 6 6 0 " 2) 6";> 0 '6 D "6 ) Nature Conservation area doesn’t protect it from mining, this is one reason why it should be included in the national park Attachment 18 illustrates the great beauty of George Bay area and shows that Humbug Point should be included in the national park proposal; it also shows the remarkable Peron Dunes to the South might well have been included too An argument against including beaches between Humbug Point and The Gardens in a national park may be that current local and visitor use of these beaches for recreation is already too great. It is fortunate that the recreational and conservation areas are in place. Humbug Point should remain as a Nature Recreation Area and not be included in the national park. I agree that the coastal reserve and Humbug Point have been left out of the proposed Park because of the impact a possible Nat Pk would have on the activities currently carried out there, ie, camping, Swimcart Surf Fishing Competition that has been operating for 47 years, mountain biking, horse riding in the Humbug area and the ability for people to have their dogs in the area. I am not a dog owner but they need to be able to take them somewhere. I believe some parts of the community are pushing to include the coastal area and Humbug into the Park, if there is going to be a Park I believe this would be a mistake. Existing Conservation Areas (Anson’s Bay and Bay of Fires from the Gardens to Binalong Bay) and Humbug Point Recreational Area are 80% of the problem the National park is trying to solve, and yet they are excluded from the proposal These are the heavily populated tourist haunts that need proper infrastructure and management that the national park status can assist in providing; including self-funding by users of access roads. Again, if this is a serious proposal, some local noses need to be put out of joint, to end the traditionally free recreational values of the region. Humbug Point should be in the national park also. It is a high activity and recreational area but needs protection also Binalong Bay and Humbug recreational area should be included in the national park Humbug should at the very least be upgraded in terms of protection Foreshore areas south of the gardens should be in the national park Should be included in the national park The little bays and beaches here a very precious People cut down trees for a view and for firewood, it should be included it needs greater protection The national park should also include the Humbug Point Nature Area Need to consider the proposal in conjunction with a Marine Reserve, which may happen in the future, there are currently no-go zone areas to leave the rock lobsters alone at Elephant Rock and on the kelp beds. Sea urchins are a major problem and we need the rock lobsters back to control them. Humbug Point should be included !"#$%# Don’t include Humbug Point in the national park and keep dog access. Camping is an important tradition, designated areas need to planned and managed Humbug Point has significant flora and fauna present see Attachment 15 The Humbug Reserve should also be part of the Bay of Fires National Park, Humbug is a nesting and habitat for two pairs of Sea Eagles 1.30 Doctors Peak Forest Reserve *6 0 + 29 !" 2 )* " ; 6 ;0 0 ; "Hibbertia rufa. Button grass towards western section Good habitat in this area I do not disagree with the areas chosen but believe that the Doctors Peak Forest Reserve could have been included because of its rare species and that it is important area for the local indigenous people Forestry reserve doesn’t protect it from mining, and potential disturbance to habitat Hunting is allowed in a reserve, which we would like to cease The proposed national park should be extended to encompass the two adjoining areas of State Forest and the Doctors Peak Forest Reserve This area forms part of the upper catchment, as such it should be part of the national park, it is full of swamps, and other significant sites, including flora and fauna species The proposal should include the forest and forest reserve land Why would a forest reserve not be part of the national park The national park should include the Doctors Peak Forest Reserve. The recently rediscovered Hibbertia rufa is located in this area There is little difference in the conservation status, why not join it all up It has recently (within the last 2 years) been wood chipped? Should not be logged The proposed national park should be extended to encompass the two adjoining areas of State Forest and the Doctors Peak Forest Reserve and the road link from south of the Gardens across to the Anson’s Bay Road should be improved 1.31 State Forest 5 0 (9 2 ;' " 0 6= All forest Reserves and State Forests East of Anson’s River and South to Reid’s Road should be included as inherent natural areas of the national park. This could be done with stroke of a pen, it is inherently absurd to “surround’ them with a national park. Logging should be stopped; it should be part of the national park (only very low grade wood chip timber and very few local jobs) This area forms part of the upper catchment; as such it should not be logged The State Forest has important conservation values, and we don’t have faith in the forestry management practices to look after it properly !"#$%# Areas were identified as Swift Parrot habitat but still it was logged, e.g. the Forestry department is not protecting areas of high conservation habitat areas A lot of the area in here is marshy and should not be logged. It should be included in the national park Objective (g)16 allows for rehabilitation following adverse impacts, which would allow inclusion in the national park of dry eucalypt forest, which has been subject to selective logging in the past (as outlined in the ‘The Bay of Fires – a new National Park for Tasmania’ report) The two sections of the proposal should be joined with the inclusion of the State Forest, providing a corridor and access to wet lands 1.32 Reid’s Road The portion of Reid’s Road traversing the proposed national park should be excluded from the park and retained on Councils road register On the corner of Reid’s Road on Crown land a large turning circle should be provided, ideal spot for an interpretative centre, it’s a better location than Binalong Bay 1.33 Economic *6 26 " " )56 " " ; 0 (; D 6 0 ) Economic benefit would come to St Helens by the proposal, there are only 450 rateable notices at Binalong Bay presently, and a significant park can draw a crowd St Helens would be the gateway to the national park What of eco businesses. Will they be allowed? Don’t want the State Government to lease to a big company for an inappropriate development right on the beach or at Policeman’s Point 1.34 Land Degradation *6 The Bay of Fires has been under great pressure for many years, and that pressure is about to become extreme. By pressure I mean abuse, and over use by many interest groups. Unless the Government protects this environmental gem with properly funded management, i.e. a national park, (based on ecological protection, not money making potential), or Conservation Area status that is fully and permanently policed and enforced, then the area will be another environmentally degraded, over developed, tacky generic beach area. Already local residents, and other Tasmanians, are rapidly destroying the foreshore vegetation for views and fuel. Four wheel driving, off road motor bikes and wood cutting in protected and non protected areas is rampant, blatant and completely un -checked. Dogs, (nearly always running free), are more prolific on the beaches than native birds. But who cares, they are on holiday too aren’t they? The local council is hell bent on milking the area for maximum money return. No consideration given to the human carrying capacity in terms of retaining the magnificent beauty and ambience 3: 2<0D ";: - " , : !"#$%# / Many acres are getting seriously degraded, as an example, Swim cart Beach, including damage by dogs and human activities including toilet waste, straight in the bush, with no attempt to dig a toilet, the bush is full of toilet paper and human waste At present the increasing numbers of campers are leaving more and more rubbish, and damaging existing vegetation on the foreshore and around lagoons How do 4 wheel bashers go down with a national park concept? 1.35 Fire Management 5 " ;6 2 ; > )% ' "". 2= ' " 0 6 Potential very real threat from campers fires getting away, needs regulating and managing to ensure locals don’t get burnt out by campers who insist on having their fire in any weather or conditions Shouldn’t allow campfires they are a huge fire risk, threats to property in the area from campers Rubbish is becoming problematic Fires service is done by volunteers, there is just a couple of people only left at Binalong Bay, really don’t have the manpower or the facilities to manage it anymore, its too big task and there is ever increasing risks. The current method is to back burn and put in bulldozers, what would you think of that in a national park? Making people only clear a building envelope and keeping the rest bush is making the fire danger greater How will campfires and their potential fire threat be managed? Entire species will be lost in the event of a big fire in the region Management is easier if all the land is encompassed and is one tenure All fires are by people lighting them, I can’t remember one fire, which came from other means People think they have a right to light a campfire in all weather and conditions; it needs a lot more management Will there be an increased fire risk to locals because of the national park It’s a real danger it will go right through the national park What is the fire plan? Our risk of fire comes from the tip at Anson’s Bay It’s very dry and if the wind was coming to us, we would be in a lot of trouble !"#$%# 1 1.36 Visitor Infrastructure *6 2 6 6 ;6 ) ( ' " 60 6 The existing facilities in the area are ok although the Gardens end of the Bay of Fires needs to have some toilets and bins for day trippers who drive up there Any new infrastructure and visitor facilities should be provided in St Helens Need to have tourism facilities to attract and nurture visitors e.g. like Freycinet National Park Don’t want to have a facility like at Freycinet National Park Binalong Bay road is the primary access road for the majority of tourists, we as one of the closest residents to the Gardens Road turn off, witness the daily dilemma of hire cars, campervans, bikes and boats hesitating or stopping at this dangerous, unexpected blind junction at the top of the hill (also including the Humbug Point turn off to the right and the Reid’s road turn off to the left) not knowing where to go. This would be an ideal location for a Bay of Fires National Park information/interpretation centre. Given the high traffic density now and the increasing density into the future, this could be the focal point for the whole area. An astute management/business plan could see it as a primary funding income stream for the necessary operation and maintenance of the park. I have noticed over the years that the bushland that covers the hill between Binalong Bay Beach and Jeanerette Beach has become trampled and damaged. This is due to many tourists trying to make their way through on a popular walk. This area is not marked in any way and it is impossible for people to find a track. Degradation occurs because people are trying to forge new tracks, hoping to find ‘the’ track The North East Bioregional group want as little development as possible, not happy with NRM process. Its worthy of attention because of the way it is. People like the uncluttered, no boardwalk look and feel, e.g. not too developed, lack of signage is good, its nice and low key. 1.37 Dog Management *6 0 2 6 0 ) The North East Bioregional Group think the dogs are a major problem, have a photo of nine dogs unleased on the beach; they dig up penguins, chase birds, have a severe impact on wildlife, particular on shorebirds and penguins and other animals. Their impact is largely under rated and underestimated. Health issue is significant; dog poo is a health hazard. Problem for children etc. Dog poo is very toxic and quite unhealthy, and does interfere with people’s enjoyment of the area. It’s not regulated so it’s very unpleasant for little kids, potentially an accident waiting to happen. We witnessed a dog biting a child. Therefore its big safety issues which need addressing. From Jeanerette Beach and north – should be no dog beaches Allow dogs on Binalong Bay beach only The presence of dogs creates great disturbance to nesting shore birds Greater control of dogs is required Dogs should be on leads !"#$%# 3 Dogs dig up and chase birds and Little Penguins No dogs in national park Shorebirds are declining it is well documented, have to give birds a higher consideration than dogs, dogs can go elsewhere, shore birds have very specific requirements which must have a higher priority Dogs go into the reserve for hunting Allow dogs in BB beach (special exemptions) Put up dog fences where appropriate Dog faeces on the beach, people should be made to collect them Limit dog access to some areas Dogs should be excluded and an area made for their exercise – not on the beach, they shouldn’t have the importance placed on them they have They play havoc on the birds, which use certain places after migrating after an enormous flight and are exhausted, we should have more sympathy Dogs are problematic I want to take my dog camping with me; he is part of the family Dogs should be allowed Dogs should be restricted to one beach only, land behind the beach should be in the national park and dogs should always be on a lead, because of birds and other peoples safely All dogs to be kept on a lead on or off the beaches. Small Penguin colonies and Hooded plovers at risk from untethered dogs 1.38 Old Quarry Area – Sloop Lagoon Some discussion suggested that the Old Quarry near Sloop Lagoon should be rehabilitated and included in the national park. North East Bioregional Group supports this. Steep quarry very degraded 1.39 Mining and Logging & 6" ) Are still problematic for the proposal for the proposed boundaries Logging creates openings into the bush, for off-roaders, rubbish dumping and fire wood collection, and the spreading of weeds Forestry Tasmania does not have a good track record of managing their reserves well, as an example there was logging in the protected State Forest Conservation area. They recently logged an area they knew was habitat for identified Swift Parrot, marked as ‘x’ on Attachment 4. Log trucks and national park do not work together; it’s a very poor image to be giving to visitors Safety would increase with fewer trucks on the road Bad publicity to see log trucks in or around the national park 90% (98%in some coups) of logs are chipped from this area that earns 50 cents per tonne. – Is this the value of this national park? !"#$%# 4 What is the cost benefit analysis!! Forest areas will regenerate if they are left alone to heal Loggers come from Fingal and Campbelltown and Scottsdale, very few local jobs would be affected Forestry Tasmania has becoming increasingly uncooperative in the past 18 months, as we have tried to protect logging coupes of high conservation value Need to decrease the logging activity in the region, as it is not compatible with a national park Logging and indeed mining are not consistent within a national park I am all for the creation of a national park, don’t know why Mt Pearson is included. It has all been logged and mined before and not many go there Logging should cease in the State Forest 1.40 Risks 5 2 ;6 2 2 6# 6 ) The area is currently free of phytophthora, when the area is opened up the risk of infiltration of weeds etc is greater Need to think carefully about access, where, when and why Need to do surveys to increase the knowledge bank on biodiversity in the region, as all data is very outdated The report compiled by the North East Bioregional Network should be considered before proceeding with this proposal; it can be downloaded from www.northeastbioregional.network.org.au. Recently a 27-lot subdivision was proposed; please see the objections, and the letter regarding threatened species and especially the Swift Parrot, see Attachment 12 and a letter rejecting the subdivision from Birds Tasmania, see Attachment 14 There is a lack of proper surveying happening here. Eagles nest in this area. While eucalypt forest, heath lands and moor lands typically have good capacity to regenerate following burning, changes in the frequency, intensity and seasonality of burning can lead to a shift in species and habitat diversity which may have a negative impact on biodiversity Black wood forests is the only vegetation type in the proposed reserve that is threatened by fires since the surrounding eucalypt forest is likely to invade these areas following a fire There are tip concerns at Anson’s Bay, and fire danger comes from the tip area 1.41 Rainforest – Doctors Peak Forest Reserve There is a small area of rain forest and it should not be logged or chipped State reserve it should not be touched as it has wetlands inside it North East Bioregional Group state this holds different forest types and different habitat in one consolidated area !"#$%# 1.42 Camping 56 0 )5 6 " 0 0 ";" ; " " 2$ 6 0 ) In order to reduce the impact of camping on the coastline south of the Gardens I believe that the new national park should include the construction of a properly controlled and serviced camping ground/caravan park in the vicinity of Sloop Lagoon Unregulated camping is having negative impacts on the land, with trees being cut for firewood, new tracks being forged into the bush, the bush being pushed back, rubbish being dumped in the bush, unregulated toilet areas in the bush, trampling of natural conservation areas including indigenous heritage sites Develop the old camping area at Moulting Bay, which is within the Humbug Point Nature Reserve area for RV vehicles, it would take the pressure of other camping areas Camping areas along the south section of Bay of Fires could continue even if the area is within a national park, the only prohibition really is dogs, provision could be made to exercise them somewhere, perhaps on Binalong Bay Beach If campfires are allowed, then collecting firewood will need to be managed. At the moment campers take wood from the Mt Pearson Reserve A reasonable fee for camping would help to provide some funds Collection of fees is needed Booze up camping and generators should be banned Allow camping but manage better Providing free areas only degrades areas quickly Many campers just do their business in the bush. There are human faeces and toilet paper all over the bush, its very unhealthy Allow camping in the Bay of Fires, just increase the control and improve the infrastructure there. Make people pay for the experience Do need to have camping access but it should be like Freycinet where a number of camping sites are available, you have to book, when these are full that’s it Need to retain camping but a little bit of supervision would be welcome It’s a very traditionally used land for camping Around the Gardens has been called ‘pristine’ but I have old photographs which prove its been a heavily used area for many years, fishing and such I would like to see all camping areas included in the national park Should pay for the experience and the revenue returned to the park for its maintenance. Too many campers use and abuse the areas cutting down vegetation and fences I believe if camping areas are included it places a value on these sites (and helps) to ensure they are appreciated by those who want to preserve the pristine coast and bush, as there is an element of its free is worthless’ mentality !"#$%# 1.43 Large Private Land Holders , " 0 %G %% 5 2 ) We do hope that the national park status will help protect the land Bay of Fires (south) is a perfect example of how quickly an area can get degraded by heavy uncontrolled use 1.44 Volunteers ? " )5 " "0 ; 0 " ) 1.45 Status Quo ( 6 0 ' ) The existing boundaries don’t work It should be left, as it is – no changes at all I am concerned about the degradation, especially the southern section of the Bay of Fires area, which is happening at the camping sites, people should pay to use the site and they would respect it more, but they should stay as a conservation area Need a presence there to collect fees and to manage the area Don’t agree with the proposal, people have to have somewhere to go. Putting and charging fees discourages people, People should have access, do want to see better management but not a national park I have always camped here with my dog and want to continue to do so Don’t want to see the area leased to a big developer Don’t want another Coles Bay Eco tourism means its remote – it should not be opened up too much 1.46 General Park Entry Clarification Issues - 2 0> ;6 0 > = 0 6 Would there be boom gates Resident entry to the national park Visitor entry to the national park Pet entry to the national park Will there be 24 access Would there be check points What about my dog Will there be a tollbooth? !"#$%# 1.47 General Comments 5 ;6 ) Historically the name was given from a ship out to sea to the whole sweep of coastline north of St Helens point It’s very difficult to say that you can do this here and that there, but you cant do that in this area, and then there is the issue of boundaries, how do people know where the boundaries are Believes it is inappropriate to declare national parks on the basis of a listing in a tourist’s guide book (Lonely Planet) as being a place worth visiting. The existing reserve status was given as part of a thorough review process under the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process, which recognised the conservation values of the area. Everyone has a vested interest, need to be very careful. This is one of the most beautiful places in the world and I have travelled extensively, most other areas have been chopped down and exploited You need some places where people can go The whole thing is a con. Binalong Bay and the Gardens were known in their own right first, then the Bay of Fires walk changed everything, you wouldn’t be feeling the same about this area if it were merely to move more land into the Mt William National Park or to call it the Mt Pearson National Park If it’s political what are the intentions, and why? If it is for real conservation measures then they should be considered Need to have a further meeting The map should have had more of the names, beach names, points marked on it Some people didn’t get notices of the public consultation The Departments database is wrong I don’t agree with the process, Council has not had an opportunity as a council to look at the proposal. The council really doesn’t have a say in this anyway, it’s outside of our jurisdiction, and perhaps at the draft management plan stage it can have some involvement? What opportunities do NRM have to influence this process? Council hasn’t been consulted until now! The Council told me that if my house burnt down I would not be allowed to rebuild at Anson’s Bay Forestry has too much say over land generally What advantage is this going to be to anyone? What is the reason for excluding some areas? Effectively it’s a political stunt It’s really just a re-classification, just take out four objectives including mining, substantially it’s a national park now Its really just playing lip service to an important opportunity If you are going to make a national park make a proper one Making it a national park sends a message that the place is valued I find it unnecessary to blanket such a large area in national park. The area proposed practically protects itself due to the hilly terrain and thick bush. It is !"#$%# largely inaccessible having only a few defined tracks that start at Binalong Bay and link up with the old gardens road. These tracks lead to the Lagoons, the Old Quarry and through to the Gardens and Anson’s Bay Road. People understand and accept more when an area is in a national park, they understand there are limitations. We believe that the concept of a national park designed specifically to protect the natural wonders of the Bay of Fires is an essential step which we strongly endorse in principle, however the proposal needs a strong Mission Statement and an articulation of clear benefits over and above the existing patchwork management of the area (what’s in it for locals and visitors generally). As an off road motorcyclist I have been riding these tracks for the past 20 years with my friends. We always stay to the defined tracks when in this area to minimise our disturbance. During this time I have rarely come across another person, as there is basically nothing for any tourist to see there. No attempts should be made to mollify some Tasmanian Aboriginals, the free camping lobby, woodcutters, off-road vehicle and motorbike riders, professional fishers, amateur fishers, shack owners, dog owners, rapacious developers, real estate companies - you get the picture. It is PROTECTED from further damaging human activity, or it is not. You can’t have it both ways. I am generally in favour of the proposal however I am worried about the increased impact on the land that will no doubt eventuate from the new listing and the increased international exposure I support the concept A significant land mass would really be a national park that could attract significant attention, resources, be worthy of marketing appropriate and attract visitors to the state in a sustainably managed way How can tourism issues/opportunities be enhanced? Don’t want a big developer to be able to put a hotel or something anywhere on the site area anytime in the future The Tasmanian Land Trust works to preserve significant land titles We would encourage the Tasmanian Government to continue marine conservation planning in the Freycinet Bioregion and to investigate the potential for a marine reserve in the Bay of Fires. This would not only help to protect the significant marine biodiversity of this area, but also complement the terrestrial national park for both biodiversity protection and visitor appeal. !"#$%#