attachment 4 analysis of public submissions · attachment 4 analysis of public submissions ... 20...
TRANSCRIPT
Attachment 4
Analysis of Public Submissions Management Plan Draft Amendments 2016
The Management Plan Draft Amendments (amending the Management Plans for Onkaparinga National Park,
Black Hill, Hallett Cove and Morialta Conservation Parks, and Anstey Hill, O’Halloran Hill, and Onkaparinga
Recreation Parks) was released for public consultation, in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife
1972, from 21 April to 22 July 2016. The release of the draft plan was promoted in The Advertiser. The draft
amendments were available at the DEWNR internet site.
Ninety five submissions were received on the draft management plan amendments. Table 1 provides a list of
individuals and groups who made submissions and Table 2 provides a summary.
Table 1 – Individuals and groups who made a submission (shaded indicates response via yourSAy site)
Date and number of
submission
Name Individual or type of organisation
26 April 1 Andrew Cope College Park Scout Group
28 April 2 Jim Bond Stradbroke Scout Group
9 May 3 Michael and Joan Whitaker Individuals
17 May 4 Shane Johncock Individual
17 May 5 Jeff Groves Individual
25 May 6 Victoria and Russell Waddell Individuals
25 May 7 Meredith Reardon Campbelltown Landcare Group Inc.
25 May 8 Meredith Reardon Individual
25 May 9 Thelma Bridle Native Orchid Society of South Australia Inc.
25 May 10 Julie Hearn Individual
25 May 11 Vanessa Cock Individual
25 May 12 Georgie Collins Individual
25 May 13 Jeff Smith Individual
25 May 14 Alex Blackburn Individual
2 June 15 Angela Schmidt Individual
8 June 16 David Paton Birds SA
12 June 17 Ian McGraw Individual
13 June 18 Brenda Westlake Individual
13 June 19 Brenda Westlake Individual
17 June 20 Julie Hallett Individual
18 June 21 Penny Rendle Friends of Hallett Cove Conservation Park
19 June 22 Trevor Westlake Individual
27 June 23 Judith Pryse Individual
27 June 24 Ron Shipp Individual
28 June 25 Bridget Jan Individual
28 June 26 Amanda Carapetis Individual
Attachment 4
28 June 27 Bill and Mandy Carapetis Individuals
29 June 28 Bryce Dolman Individual
30 June 29 Rebecca Deans Recreation SA
1 July 30 Elizabeth Alvey ARPA Bushwalkers Committee
4 July 31 Hugh McLeay Individual
6 July 32 Vicki Jobber Individual
7 July 33 Matthew Fox Individual
10 July 34 Brenda Crawford Individual
10 July 35 Daniel Palmer Individual
13 July 36 Tim Irvine Individual
13 July 37 Richard Milosh Individual
15 July 38 Lisa Brinkley Individual
17 July 39 Roger Collier Individual
19 July 40 Roger Meeks Individual
19 July 41 Claire Ruse Individual
20 July 42 David Lake SA Tourism Commission
30 May 43 James Crocker SA Water
20 July 44 Andy McKinnon Friends of Onkaparinga Park Inc.
20 July 45 Julie Fiedler Horse SA
20 July 46 Julia Field Individual
20 July 47 Angie Perea Individual
20 July 48 Rebeka Probert Individual
20 July 49 David Rocklyn Individual
21 July 50 Paul Di Ilu Campbelltown City Council
21 July 51 Jasemin Rose St Agnes Bushwalking and Natural History Club
21 July 52 Lyn Harris Individual
21 July 53 Emma Schoell Individual
22 July 54 Four Seasons Walking Club
20 July 55 Tony Lines City of Marion
22 July 56 Fay Patterson Bicycle Institute South Australia
22 July 57 Barbara Saberton Individual
22 July 58 Naomi Rea Individual
25 July 59 Bill Gehling Walking SA
2 May 60 Bill Heaven Individual
30 May 61 Bill Heaven Individual
12 July 62 Bill Heaven Individual
12 May 63 Matt Lang Individual
24 May 64 Rob Individual
24 May 65 Erik Lock Individual
31 May 66 Nick Bowman Individual
Attachment 4
2 June
67
Matthew Lang
Department of Planning, Transport and
Infrastructure
7 June 68 Gail Haygreen Individual
7 June 69 Sonya and Rik Perkins Individual
22 June 70 Geoffrey Lister ARPA
22 June 71 Darren Williams Individual
23 June 72 Lorraine Thomas ABW & ARPA Bushwalkers
24 June 73 Sonya Gordon Individual
25 June 74 John Fleming Friends of Black Hill and Morialta Inc.
27 June 75 Jacqui Mastro Individual
29 June 76 Sarah Kingdon Individual
29 June 77 Anthony Yogt Individual
3 July 78 Joseph Sullivan Individual
4 July 79 Wayne Hooper Individual
4 July 80 Libby Robertson Individual
11 July 81 Russell Dahms Individual
13 July 82 Ruth Surian Individual
16 July 83 Marieka Mysko Individual
21 July 84 Ross Goble Individual
21 July 85 Scott Wood Individual
21 July 86 Kim Leyland Individual
21 July 87 Martin Breed Individual
21 July 88 Dennis Richards Individual
22 July 89
Nicki de Preu Nature Conservation Society of South
Australia
22 July 90 Jamie Sherrah Individual
22 July 91 Jason Anglberger Individual
22 July 92 Kathryn Sherrah Individual
25 July 93 Nicki de Preu Nature Conservation Society of South
Australia
28 July 94 Craig Wilkins Conservation Council of South Australia
3 August 95 John Eaton Individual
14 June 96 Michael H Individual
14 June 97 Trish Green Individual
23 June 98 Ben Trewren Individual
29 June 99 Christine Thomas Individual
3 July 100 Danielle Austin Individual
4 July 101 Alex Wilson Individual
14 July 102 Vicki Tuckey Individual
17 July 103 Fiona Lewis Individual
Attachment 4
19 July 104 Nathan Lysaght Individual
20 July 105 Rosana Cohen Individual
20 July 106 Chris Gilligan Individual
21 July 107 Matthew Forte Individual
22 July 108 Jon Richards Individual
22 July 109 Dennis Richards Individual
22 July 110 Simon McKenna Individual
Table 2- Summary of Submissions
Author Number Percentage
Individual 84 76%
Non-government
Organisation
20 18%
Government 6 6%
Following the careful analysis of all submissions, the feedback received meeting the following criteria has
resulted in an alteration to the draft management plan amendment;
1. provided additional information of direct relevance to management;
2. indicated or clarified a change in Government legislation, management commitment or policy;
3. proposed strategies that would better achieve or assist with management objectives;
4. prompted a re-consideration of the objective and/or strategy and results in an alternative objective
and/or strategy for the park;
5. was an alternate viewpoint received on the topic and is considered a better option than that
proposed in the draft plan; or
6. indicated omissions, inaccuracies or a lack of clarity.
Feedback received meeting the following criteria has not resulted in any alteration to the draft management plan amendment;
7. addressed issues beyond the scope of the plan amendment;
8. was already in the plan amendment or will be considered during the development of a subordinate
plan;
9. offered an open statement, or no change was sought;
10. clearly supported the draft proposals;
11. was an alternate viewpoint received on the topic but the recommendation of the draft plan
amendment was still considered the best option;
12. was based on incorrect information;
13. contributed options that are not possible (generally due to some aspect of existing legislation or
Government policy); or
14. involved details that are not appropriate or necessary for inclusion in a document aimed at providing
management direction over the long term.
Table 3 – Summary of alterations made to the draft plan against each criterion.
CRITERIA COMMENTS RECEIVED
1. 0
2. 0
3. 0
Attachment 4
4. 7
5. 0
6. 26
Comments resulting in a change: 33
7. 17
8. 56
9. 48
10. 134
11. 57
12. 6
13. 4
14. 14
Comments which have not resulted in a change 336
Table 4 sets out a detailed analysis of feedback, whether the management plan was changed, and the
relevant criteria used in making that decision.
Table 4 – Detailed analysis of feedback
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
1 Expressed general support for
the proposed amendments.
1, 6, 10,
11, 12, 13,
14 , 15, 17,
23, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29,
31, 32, 33,
36, 42, 43,
45, 46, 47,
48, 55, 63,
64, 65, 66,
67, 77, 87,
88, 96, 98,
100, 109,
110
No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
2 The Planning and
Development Fund
(administered by DPTI)
provides the means to
acquire land for recreation
and conservation purposes to
provide public open space in
response to increasing urban
development. Onkaparinga
River Reserve, Anstey Hill
Recreation Park and
O'Halloran Hill Recreation
Park, as well as significant
portions of Black Hill and
Morialta Conservation Parks
were acquired through this
Fund. The proposed
management plan
amendments will enable an
increased range of
recreational activities and
greater use of the parks,
supporting the intent of the
Planning and Development
Fund.
67 No change required. No 10
3 Onkaparinga River Reserve,
Morialta and Black Hill
Conservation Parks, Hallett
Cove and Marino
Conservation Parks, Anstey
Hill Recreation Park and
O’Halloran Hill Recreation
Park were proclaimed to
protect remnant native
vegetation and estuarine
habitat in the Adelaide
Mount Lofty Ranges, an area
where less than 12% of the
pre-European vegetation
remains.
93 No change required. No 9
4 Amendments should include
justifications for the changes.
65 Justification for some of the
proposed changes was included in
the preamble for each section of
the amendment document. Further
detail has been incorporated into
the final amendments.
Yes 6
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
5 Amendments will place extra
load on park managers.
59 Many of these amendments will
make park management more
straightforward. DEWNR is
committed to these amendments,
and will appropriately resource park
staff.
No 12
6 Decisions about new
activity/increased visitation
must be informed by
conservation science.
94 Decisions about each new activity
to increase park use will be
informed by conservation science.
No 8
7 Risks of new activities or
increasing visitor numbers
must continue to be
acknowledged and
addressed in management
plans.
94 DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that in some cases, feared
impacts referred to in previous
management plans were
unfounded. DEWNR will
acknowledge risks to conservation
where appropriate, or justification
for change (as for comment 4).
Yes 6
8 Allow for different uses of
parks on specific basis.
59 Uses for each park will be
appropriate to the park.
No 8
9 Integrate park multi-use trails
with external trails.
59 DEWNR will work with neighbours to
seek integration of trail networks.
No 7
10 Bushwalkers have been
ignored in this draft.
Concerned that individual
bushwalking clubs were not
directly consulted.
51 DEWNR seeks to encourage more
users to the park network.
Bushwalkers were not ignored in the
preparation of these amendments.
Individual bushwalking clubs were
provided the same opportunity to
comment on these amendments as
other groups.
No 12
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
11 Opposed to recreation in
parks other than walking due
to conflict with the enjoyment
and safety of walkers,
accelerate track erosion in
the steep terrain and
because there are fragile
soils, spread of weed species
and soil pathogens,
dangerous and highly
variable track conditions for
bikes, horses, vehicles, public
safety with regard to
speeding mountain bikes,
horses, vehicles, risk,
frequency and possible
consequences of fires,
reduce visitor experience of
natural conditions, and noise
intrusion.
58 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and providing unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that in some cases, feared
impacts referred to in previous
management plans were
unfounded.
Impacts described in the submission
can be managed through careful
design and planning.
No 12
12 Opposed to increased
recreational use of tracks and
trails.
93 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and providing unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
No 11
13 References literature showing
negative impacts to birds
caused by wildlife viewing,
hiking, running, cycling,
canoeing, horse-riding and
dog walking.
93 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and providing unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
No 11
14 Recommend that the
statement “Detailed
vegetation and habitat
audits will be conducted prior
to any developments” is
retained. Audits need to be
undertaken by staff with
ecological expertise and
incorporate independent
local knowledge of the area.
93 Developments will occur only in
areas that have been determined
appropriate for such. This
determination will be undertaken by
qualified DEWNR staff.
No 8
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
15 Adequate resources must be
allocated to ensure a rigorous
and long term monitoring
program which can assess
the environmental impacts of
increased usage of tracks
and trails. This will also inform
future decisions regarding
recreational use and
management within these
parks.
93, 94 DEWNR will continue to monitor park
health to inform future
management decisions.
No 7
16 Plan is insufficient in detail. 5, 7, 8, 16,
50, 51, 54
Management plans are overarching
legislative documents. Excessive
detail restricts prompt adaptive
management actions. Some further
detail regarding broad justifications
and risks will be included.
Yes 6
17 Removal of zoning in Anstey
Hill RP is unacceptable.
5, 39 Conservation Zones have not been
removed from Anstey Hill RP in the
final amendments
Yes 4
18 Conservation zones should
not be removed.
94 Conservation Zones have not been
removed from Anstey Hill RP in the
final amendments
Yes 4
19 Zoning for Anstey Hill RP
should be retained to define
areas of high conservation
value.
39, 51, 89,
93
Conservation Zones have not been
removed from Anstey Hill RP in the
final amendments
Yes 4
20 Risks should be minimised by
excluding new/increased
activity from conservation
zones.
94 Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location.
No 8
21 Management should focus
on conservation, not
recreation.
81, 89, 93 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and providing unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
No 9
22 Management should
balance conservation and
recreation requirements.
Potential conflicts should not
go unrecognised.
94 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and providing unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
No 9
23 Supports aims of Establishing
MLR as International
mountain bike destination.
56, 72, 84,
85, 96, 108
No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
24 Comments on the report
“Establishing the Adelaide
Mount Lofty Ranges as an
International Mountain Bike
Destination”
5, 8 Comments are noted. No 7
25 Cycling should be allowed
through all parks.
2, 14, 17,
28, 36, 79,
80, 91
No change required. No 10
26 Dedicated mountain bike
trails are easier to manage
use.
85, 107,
109
No change required. No 10
27 Supports changes, with
careful management of
relationship between walkers
and cyclists.
56, 70, 72,
97
No change required. No 10
28 Manage use through trail
design and construction.
Compares requirements of
cycling trails with walking
trails.
59, 107,
109
DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that properly managed
shared use trails can be enjoyed by
walkers, runners, cyclists, and horse
riders.
No 8
29 Recognise higher cost of
multi-use trails.
59 DEWNR builds all trails to a standard
appropriate to use and location.
No 9
30 Tracks will require more
maintenance.
50, 51 DEWNR has employed a Trails
Officer to maintain trails through the
region.
No 9
31 Mountain bike tracks should
be single use only.
9, 49, 51,
54
Trail planning will occur separately.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 14
32 Multi-use trails are not
appropriate in all cases – calls
for some trails to be single use
(walking or cycling) if
required.
59 Trail planning will occur separately.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 14
33 Wishes to see provision in
parks for cyclists other than
mountain bikers, such as trails
for novices to experience the
bush by bicycle, and
commuting routes up and
down the hills face, linking
with external bicycle
commuting networks,
56 DEWNR is committed to balancing
conservation and recreation
outcomes and to provide unique
experiences for people to enjoy
and connect with nature.
Commuting routes through parks
can certainly add to this. This will be
considered as part of ongoing trail
planning.
No 14
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
34 Cyclists do not remain on
designated paths.
50 DEWNR’s experience has shown that
cyclists will remain on paths that
provide them with the experience
they seek.
No 12
35 Comment on positive nature
of shared use trails, with
encounters being very
friendly and polite.
86 DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that properly managed
shared use trails can be enjoyed by
walkers, runners, cyclists, and horse
riders.
No 9
36 Not in favour of allowing
cycling on all walking trails,
suggests assessment of
suitability prior to trail
planning.
59 DEWNR is committed to creating
opportunities for all people to enjoy
parks, which will require some trails
to be shared use. DEWNR’s recent
experience has shown that properly
managed shared use trails can be
enjoyed by walkers, runners, cyclists,
and horse riders.
Some trails may be designated for
single use only.
No 8
37 Amendments will increase
danger to walkers on multi-
use trails.
59 DEWNR is committed to creating
opportunities for all people to enjoy
parks, which will require some trails
to be shared use. DEWNR believes
that walkers will be safer on
appropriately managed multi-use
trails than they would have been on
single use trails with unauthorised
cycling, due to improvements in trail
use behaviour.
No 11
38 Concerned that increased
visitation by cyclists will not
compensate for
displacement of walkers.
59 DEWNR is committed to creating
opportunities for all people to enjoy
parks. DEWNR’s recent experience
has shown that properly managed
shared use trails can be enjoyed by
walkers, runners, cyclists, and horse
riders.
No 9
39 Opposed to cycling on
walking tracks.
37 DEWNR is committed to creating
opportunities for all people to enjoy
parks, which will require some trails
to be shared use. Cycling will be
allowed on tracks and trails that
have been identified through trail
planning processes as suitable for
such use.
No 8
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
40 Walkers do not like shared-
use trails, and may be turned
away from the parks by such.
3, 5, 49,
54, 59, 70
DEWNR is committed to creating
opportunities for all people to enjoy
parks, which will require some trails
to be shared use. DEWNR’s recent
experience has shown that properly
managed shared use trails can be
enjoyed by walkers, runners, cyclists,
and horse riders.
No 11
41 Walkers are willing to share
wide tracks, but not narrow
trails.
51, 54 Trail planning will occur separately.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 14
42 Existing walking trails should
be retained for the use of
walkers, alternate trails should
be developed for cycling.
30 Trail planning will occur separately.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 14
43 Cyclists should use a bell or
other warning device when
approaching walkers or other
park users.
51, 54 DEWNR will encourage cyclists to
provide adequate warning when
approaching other park users.
No 7
44 Does not support separate
trail system for walkers and
riders.
95 Trail planning will occur separately.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 11
45 Recommend against
allowing cycling to occur in
areas where listed species or
communities are known to
occur.
93 Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location. Where practicable
alternatives are available, no trail
will occur in areas where listed
species or communities are known
to occur.
No 9
46 Ecological footprint of trails
could be offset by mtb
community.
87 DEWNR encourages mountain bikers
to be involved with park
maintenance and restoration works.
No 14
47 Believes mountain bikes pose
a threat to the welfare of
park ecosystems.
51, 95, 102 DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that in some cases, feared
impacts referred to in previous
management plans were
unfounded.
No 12
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
48 The statement in the existing
text that mountain bike riding
“often conflicts with the
enjoyment and safety of
walkers and can lead to
accelerated track erosion”
has not changed and needs
to be acknowledged. The
proposed text is too broad
and, if adopted, requires
further clarification about
areas within these parks
where mountain bike riding is
“appropriate”. Recommend
a review of current zoning to
ensure that the trail network
where mountain bike trails
are to be developed avoid
areas of high conservation
value.
93 DEWNR’s recent experience has
shown that in some cases, feared
impacts referred to in previous
management plans were
unfounded. DEWNR will
acknowledge risks to conservation
where appropriate, or justification
for change (as for comment 4).
Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location. Where practicable
alternatives are available, no trail
will occur in areas where listed
species or communities are known
to occur. New control measures
have been developed for cyclists.
No 11
49 Trail use should be
undertaken in a sustainable
manner.
89, 93 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use.
No 8
50 Bike riding trails should be
fenced, or continuously
monitored by rangers, to
ensure these users do not
move away from designated
trails.
3 DEWNR’s experience has shown that
cyclists will remain on paths that
provide them with the experience
they seek.
No 11
51 Mountain biking should be
allowed only in areas that are
already degraded.
95, 102 Many mountain bikers wish to
experience less degraded areas.
Parks can be an ideal location for
this experience to occur.
No 11
52 Raises possible impacts on
public purse due to litigious
park users injured as a result
of shared use trails.
95 DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription. Shared use trails are
designed to ensure sight lines and
passing opportunities adequate for
trail speed, alignments and
gradients to minimise erosion, and
signage to ensure users are aware
of potential other users.
No 11
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
53 Asks how/States that trails will
be designated for cycling to
ensure they do not
compromise safety,
sustainability, and park
values.
30, 51 DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription. Shared use trails are
designed to ensure sight lines and
passing opportunities adequate for
trail speed, alignments and
gradients to minimise erosion, and
signage to ensure users are aware
of potential other users.
No 11
54 Asks what evidence DEWNR
holds showing that managed
cycling reduces illegal
cycling activity.
74 Shared use trails in Cleland CP and
Sturt Gorge, Shepherds Hill, and
Cobbler Creek RPs see little, if any,
illegal cycling activity.
No 9
55 Notes degradation at other
illegal mountain bike sites.
74 Agree that illegal mountain bike
sites can result in degradation.
DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription.
No 9
56 Questions how trails will be
closed and rehabilitated.
51 Depending on the nature of the trail
to be closed, a number of
techniques can be used. These
include ‘ripping’, to encourage
plant growth, replanting, covering
with off cuts, and more. Most
importantly, an alternate alignment
should be provided.
No 9
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
57 Management Plan
amendments should not be
developed until the following
process has been
undertaken:
1. The location of significant
flora and fauna populations
and habitat and threatened
ecological communities
2. The potential adverse
impacts of an increase in
vehicle traffic on biodiversity
3. The potential adverse
impacts of trail construction,
realignment and
maintenance on biodiversity
4. The potential adverse
impacts of increased soil
erosion due to increased
track usage by mountain
bikes, cars and horses
5. Management of the
spread of Pc
89, 93 Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location. Where practicable
alternatives are available, no trail
will occur in areas where listed
species or communities are known
to occur. New control measures
have been developed for cyclists.
No 8
58 Cycling specific and shared
use trails should be provided
in O’Halloran Hill RP.
4, 14, 28,
36, 55
No change required. No 10
59 Supports cycling in O’Halloran
Hill RP with ongoing
monitoring and assessment.
93 No change required. No 10
60 North-south trail within
O’Halloran Hill should be
formalised for shared-use,
with clear signage to direct to
other facilities.
55 No change required. No 10
61 Walking only trails should be
provided in O’Halloran Hill RP.
54 Trail planning for O’Halloran Hill RP
will occur in due course.
Appropriateness of shared and
single use trails will be assessed at
this time.
No 14
62 Cycling should be allowed
through Onkaparinga River
NP.
4, 6, 10,
11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 23,
25, 26, 27,
28, 32, 36,
45, 46, 47,
48
No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
63 Supports safe cycling in
Onkaparinga NP.
54 No change required. No 10
64 Opposed to unspecified
cycling in Onkaparinga NP.
54 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use.
No 8
65 Opposed to cycling in
Onkaparinga NP.
3, 93 DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription.
No 11
66 The potential risks of vehicle
access identified in the
Onkaparinga Reserve
management plan remain
valid.
93 DEWNR’s acknowledges an
unintentional lack of clarity in
reference to public vehicle access.
There is no intention to allow motor
vehicle access beyond designated
car parks.
Yes 6
67 Due to unsustainable nature
of existing trails, mountain
bike should not be permitted
in Onkaparinga NP at the
areas associates with gates
11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
44 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use. Unsustainable
trails will be closed or modified to a
sustainable standard.
No 8
68 Support cycling through
Morialta and Black Hill CPs.
17, 28, 36,
63, 84
No change required. No 10
69 Wording for Black Hill/Morialta
re cycling should be as for
Anstey Hill (i.e., not just for
‘future consideration’)
63 Cycling in both Morialta/Black Hill
CPs and Anstey Hill RP will only be
allowed (following this
management plan amendment
process) if separate trail planning
processes identify it as suitable.
No 8
70 Opposed to mountain biking
in Black Hill and Morialta CPs.
49, 74, 95,
105
DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription.
No 11
71 Opposed to unspecified
mountain biking in Black Hill
and Morialta CPs.
54 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use.
No 8
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
72 Opposed to cycling in
Morialta and Black Hill CPs
due to risk of Phytophthora
spread. Existing control
measures are not designed
for use by cyclists.
50, 95 Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location. Where practicable
alternatives are available, no trail
will occur in areas where listed
species or communities are known
to occur. New control measures
have been developed for cyclists.
No 9
73 Support cycling through
Anstey Hill RP
17, 28, 34,
35, 36, 52,
69, 91, 96,
97
No change required. No 10
74 Mountain bike trails in Anstey
Hill RP should be accessible
from Vista Rd.
17 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use, and will seek
to join with neighbouring trail
networks.
No 8
75 The recently upgraded track
at Ridge Top (Anstey Hill RP) is
clearly designed for MTBers,
before this consultation
process has been finalised.
51 Recent trail works in Anstey Hill RP
have been undertaken to upgrade
the walking trail network. The trail
has existed for some time on an
unsustainable alignment down the
gully. These new works will keep the
trail to a much more sustainable
alignment.
No 9
76 What will the newly upgraded
zig zag tracks in Anstey Hill RP
be used for if mtbs are not
allowed into the park?
51 Recent trail works in Anstey Hill RP
have been undertaken to upgrade
the walking trail network. If
mountain bikes were not allowed
into the park these trails would
continue to be used by walkers.
No 14
76a Why are new trails being
constructed in Anstey Hill
ahead of repairing existing
tracks in poor condition?
99 Tracks and trails are being
upgraded based on current and
expected usage.
No 8
77 Opposed to unspecified
cycling in Anstey Hill RP.
54 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use.
No 8
78 Opposed to cycling in Anstey
Hill RP.
24, 103,
104
DEWNR’s experience has shown that
managed access has a better
outcome for park values (both
environmental and social) than
proscription.
No 11
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
79 Opposed to cycling in Anstey
Hill RP outside of Managed
Recreation Zone B.
93 Cycling will be allowed on tracks
and trails that have been identified
through trail planning processes as
suitable for such use.
No 8
80 Cycling should only be
allowed in Anstey Hill RP
outside of high conservation
zones.
39 Risks will be minimised by assessing
the possible impact each new
activity may have on the proposed
location. Where practicable
alternatives are available, no trail
will occur in areas where listed
species or communities are known
to occur.
No 9
81 The new track to access from
gate 18 (Anstey Hill RP) is
unnecessary.
51, 54 Trail planning processes identified
this as a required connection to
avoid using an existing trail on a
neighbour’s land.
No 14
82 The track in south eastern
section of Anstey Hill RP has
narrow sight lines and is not
suitable for shared use.
51 The sight lines and width will be
appropriate for the expected speed
users will be travelling.
No 14
83 Horse riding trails should be
fenced, or continuously
monitored by rangers, to
ensure these users do not
move away from designated
trails.
3 DEWNR will ensure adequate
signage is in place to ensure horse
riders are aware of trail access.
No 11
84 Due to species conflict, horse
riding should occur
separately from dog walking.
9 DEWNR recognises that dogs and
horses may conflict at times, and will
ensure that where dogs and horses
may both be present, signage is
provided to ensure users are aware
of potential other users.
No 8
85 Horses spread weeds and
cause erosion.
51 Horse riding will be allowed on
tracks and trails that have been
identified through trail planning
processes as suitable for such use.
Areas of high conservation
significance will be avoided.
No 8
86 Supports horse riding in
Onkaparinga NP
6, 10, 11,
12, 13, 15,
23, 25, 26,
27, 32, 45,
46, 47, 48,
53, 75, 76
No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
87 Happy to pay annual fee to
be allowed to ride inside the
boundary of Onkaparinga
River Reserve.
76 At this time, DEWNR does not expect
to charge fees for visitor access to
Onkaparinga River Reserve.
No 9
88 Support horse riding in
Onkaparinga RP, noting
requirement for effective
management.
44, 54 No change required. No 10
89 Opposed to horse-riding in
Onkaparinga River Reserve
through areas of high
conservation significance.
93 Horse riding will be allowed on
tracks and trails that have been
identified through trail planning
processes as suitable for such use.
Areas of high conservation
significance will be avoided.
No 8
90 Due to unsustainable nature
of existing trails, horse riding
should not be permitted in
Onkaparinga NP at the areas
associates with gates 11, 12,
16, 17, 18, and 19.
44 Horse riding will be allowed on
tracks and trails that have been
identified through trail planning
processes as suitable for such use.
Areas of high conservation
significance will be avoided.
No 8
91 Opposed to horse riding in
Onkaparinga NP.
3, 93 Horse riding will be allowed on
tracks and trails that have been
identified through trail planning
processes as suitable for such use.
No 11
92 Regarding provision for horse
riding in Anstey Hill RP, clause
1.8 contradicts clause 3.2 of
the amendments.
24, 51 Horse riding will not be permitted in
Anstey Hill RP due to contradictory
language in the draft amendments
Yes 6
93 Supports Horse riding in
Anstey Hill RP
38, 69, 91 Horse riding will not be permitted in
Anstey Hill RP due to contradictory
language in the draft amendments
Yes 10
94 Opposed to horse riding in
Anstey Hill RP.
24, 51 Horse riding will not be permitted in
Anstey Hill RP due to contradictory
language in the draft amendments
Yes 6
95 Camping should be available
along trails throughout the
hills face zone.
2 Camping will be made available in
some DEWNR-managed parks.
Other opportunities should be
sought through other land
managers.
No 13
96 Would like to see more ‘hike
in only’ campsites in closer
proximity to Adelaide to
introduce younger people to
hiking.
2 Camping will be made available in
some DEWNR-managed parks.
Other opportunities should be
sought through other land
managers.
No 13
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
97 Would like to see bike
camping opportunities
through the hills.
2 Camping will be made available in
some DEWNR-managed parks.
Other opportunities should be
sought through other land
managers.
No 13
98 Zero impact bush camping
should be allowed
throughout more parks and
natural areas.
2 Camping will be made available in
some DEWNR-managed parks.
Other opportunities should be
sought through other land
managers.
No 13
99 Bush camping should be
allowed in all parks.
2 Camping will be made available in
only some DEWNR-managed parks.
No 11
100 Bush camping should not be
permitted in areas open to
general public.
9 Specific camping locations, and
their access to general public, will
be developed in subsequent
planning. DEWNR notes benefits of
segregating campers from other
park users.
No 8
100a Camping should not be only
for “families and larger
groups”
100 A range of camping opportunities
will be provided, focussing firstly on
allowing those with less experience
to try out camping easily.
No 8
101 Camping opportunities
should include both hike in
and vehicle access camping.
1 Specific camping opportunities will
be developed in subsequent
planning. DEWNR will seek to
include both drive and hike in
options.
No 8
102 Concerned with fire danger
and reckless behaviour at
campgrounds.
77 DEWNR will manage new
campgrounds as it does existing,
with regular patrols as appropriate.
No 9
103 Concerned that kids may
destroy native species while
building cubby houses.
60 DEWNR believes that kids building
cubby houses in parks will ultimately
work to the greater good of
environmental respect,
responsibility, and custodianship.
No 11
104 Asks will camp sites be
bookable?
77 DEWNR expects to have online
booking available for campsites in
Onkaparinga River Reserve.
No 9
105 Camping opportunities
should be provided in Black
Hill and Morialta CPs.
2 Camping will not be made
available in Black Hill and Morialta
Conservation Parks at this time.
No 11
106 Supports camping in Anstey
Hill and Onkaparinga River.
72, 79, 80,
91, 100
No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
107 Supportive of bush camping
in Anstey Hill RP, provided it is
appropriately managed.
51, 54 No change required. No 10
108 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP.
24 DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
109 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP in areas of high
conservation significance.
93 DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
110 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP, due to
increased security risk.
34, 35, 40,
41, 51, 52
DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
111 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP as it may
increase private vehicle use
and would require the
installation of toilets.
24 DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
112 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP, due to
increased risk of fire.
34, 35, 40,
41, 51, 52
DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
113 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP, due to
increased likelihood of
rubbish.
69, 83 DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
114 Opposed to camping in
Anstey Hill RP, due to
increased environmental risk.
34, 35, 40,
41, 51, 52,
69, 83, 103
DEWNR intends to provide
opportunities for low-impact group
camping in Anstey Hill RP. Camping
will only be allowed by
arrangement with the district
manager and following specific
activity impact assessments.
No 8
115 Opposed to camping in
Onkaparinga River NP due to
vague wording in plan.
54 DEWNR’s intent is for camping to be
developed on the southern side of
the gorge, near gate 15. This
decision has followed activity
impact assessments.
No 11
116 Opposed to camping in
Onkaparinga River NP in
areas of high conservation
significance.
93 DEWNR’s intent is for camping to be
developed on the southern side of
the gorge, near gate 15. This
decision has followed activity
impact assessments.
No 11
117 Supports dog walking in
parks.
72 No change required. No 10
118 Where dogs may and may
not be permitted should be
specified.
5, 7 On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
No 8
119 Dogs should remain on lead
in park at all times.
9, 51 Dogs must remain on lead in park at
all times.
Yes 6
120 Due to species conflict, horse
riding should occur
separately from dog walking.
9 DEWNR recognises that dogs and
horses may conflict at times, and will
ensure that where dogs and horses
may both be present, signage is
provided to ensure users are aware
of potential other users.
No 8
121 Supports dog walking in
Hallett Cove to increase
visitor use, make the park
safer, and decrease
antisocial behaviour.
71, 73 No change required. No 10
122 Dog walking should be
permitted in Hallett Cove CP
to reduce confusion around
where dogs are allowed.
55, 105 No change required. No 10
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
123 Opposed to dog walking in
Hallett Cove CP.
18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 93
On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
No 11
124 Asks what resource has
DEWNR provided to assessing
impacts of dog walking in
Hallett Cove CP, as identified
in 2010 management plan?
93 DEWNR has not provided a formal
resource for assessing impacts of
dog walking in Hallett Cove CP.
Experienced park managers have
identified that the section of the
Coast Park Walking Trail that runs
through Hallett Cove CP is
appropriate for the walking of dogs
on leads. This will provide a
continuous link along the coast and
will prevent dog walkers from
leaving the path and making their
own way onto native habitat. Other
trails may be identified as suitable
for such use following environmental
risk assessments.
No 9
125 Dogs should be permitted in
Hallett Cove CP only on the
foreshore trail.
54, 71 On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. As a first step,
the portion of the Coast Park Trail
which runs through Hallett Cove
Conservation Park will be dedicated
as suitable for dog walking on a
lead in order to provide a
continuous link along the trail. Other
trails may be identified as suitable
for such use following environmental
risk assessments.
No 11
126 Believes Hallett Cove CP
should not attract more
visitors, and a study should be
undertaken to assess the
environmental suitability of
attracting more visitors.
18, 21 DEWNR is committed to the
objective of encouraging more
people to visit natural spaces,
including Hallett Cove CP.
11
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
127 Opposed to dog walking
outside of the recreation
zones in Black Hill and
Morialta CPs.
50, 57, 74,
93
On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
No 11
128 Opposed to dog walking in
Black Hill and Morialta CPs.
49, 82, 90,
92, 95, 102
On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
No 11
129 Other ways to encourage
more people to visit Black Hill:
better documentation on
walking trails (a list of routes,
time and difficulty and maps
on big boards at the trail
heads); street signage toward
Addison Ave trailhead;
advertising the walking trails;
geocaching initiatives;
organised walking event from
Black Hill to Morialta; add
some lookouts (there's not
much to see at Black Hill
summit, too many trees).
90 DEWNR will consider these other
opportunities.
No 7
130 Supports dog walking in
Onkaparinga NP.
54 No change required. No 10
131 Opposed to dog walking in
Onkaparinga NP.
3, 93 On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
No 11
132 Dog walking in Onkaparinga
NP should be on lead.
44 On lead dog walking will be
allowed on tracks and trails and in
areas that have been identified
through planning processes as
suitable for such use. Areas of high
conservation significance will be
avoided.
Yes 6
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
133 Human-powered boats
should be allowed on
reservoirs.
2 Outside of DEWNR’s management. No 7
133a Four-wheel drives should be
allowed in the parks.
101 There is no intention at this time to
allow public motor vehicle access
beyond designated car parks.
No 7
134 Motor bikes should not be
allowed in parks.
51 DEWNR’s acknowledges an
unintentional lack of clarity in
reference to public vehicle access.
There is no intention to allow
unauthorised public motor vehicle
access beyond designated car
parks.
Yes 6
135 Opposed to motor vehicles in
Onkaparinga NP.
3 DEWNR’s acknowledges an
unintentional lack of clarity in
reference to public vehicle access.
There is no intention to allow
unauthorised public motor vehicle
access beyond designated car
parks.
Yes 6
136 Public motor vehicle should
not be allowed on publically
accessible tracks.
5, 7, 8, 24 DEWNR’s acknowledges an
unintentional lack of clarity in
reference to public vehicle access.
There is no intention to allow
unauthorised public motor vehicle
access beyond designated car
parks.
Yes 6
137 Opposed to motor vehicles in
Anstey Hill RP.
24, 51, 69 DEWNR’s acknowledges an
unintentional lack of clarity in
reference to public vehicle access.
There is no intention to allow
unauthorised public motor vehicle
access beyond designated car
parks.
Yes 6
138 The AMLR has only 10% of
native vegetation remaining,
care should be taken to not
further degrade this.
7 Care will be taken not to further
degrade this.
No 7
139 Rubbish dumping occurs in
parks. Government should
provide free dumping for
those that find dumping fees
too expensive.
9 Outside of DEWNR’s management. No 7
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
140 All users should be
welcomed, but all users
should appreciate the natural
assets in which they recreate.
9 Agreed. No 9
141 Questions how DEWNR will
adequately police the new
park users.
16, 51 Many of these amendments are
intended to address current illegal
behaviour. Furthermore, this election
commitment has funded five new
Rangers.
No 9
142 Not enough resources to
manage compliant
behaviour.
5, 24, 30,
49, 51
Many of these amendments are
intended to address current illegal
behaviour. Furthermore, this election
commitment has funded five new
Rangers.
No 9
143 Rangers should spend more
time in parks, for compliance
and public education.
49 Many of these amendments are
intended to address current illegal
behaviour. Furthermore, this election
commitment has funded five new
Rangers.
No 9
144 Development of trails should
consider consistency of trail
products across the State.
29 Agreed. No 9
145 Recommends the use of the
Australian Walking Track
Grading Standard.
29 Noted. No 9
146 Would like to be kept up to
date with trail developments
in parks.
29 Trail developments in parks are
displayed on the DEWNR parks
website (www.parks.sa.gov.au)
No 9
147 Asks whether bushwalking
clubs can be notified in
advance of events in parks.
30 Events in parks will be displayed on
the DEWNR parks website
(www.parks.sa.gov.au)
No 9
148 Would like to see rubbish bins
reintroduced to Morialta CP.
33, 49, 57 DEWNR prefers to encourage
people to remove whatever rubbish
they bring into the park. Need for
rubbish bins will be reassessed
following these developments.
No 7
149 Poor signage leads to lack of
understanding of appropriate
behaviours.
49 Agreed. No 9
150 What impacts will the plan
have on local fauna?
52 DEWNR believes that increasing
visitors to parks will ultimately work to
the greater good of environmental
respect, responsibility, and
custodianship.
No 9
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
151 Wishes to see toilets at
Addison Ave, Black Hill CP
managed.
74 Noted. No 7
152 Officers with high level
qualifications in
environmental science should
be involved in decisions on
appropriateness of
recreational activities.
54 Officers with high level qualifications
in environmental science are
involved in decisions on
appropriateness of recreational
activities.
No 9
153 Opposed to canoeing in
Onkaparinga River RP.
54 Canoeing will continue to be
allowed in the Onkaparinga River
RP.
No 11
154 Glenthorne Farm should be
included in O’Halloran Hill RP.
55 Noted. No 7
155 Trying to make money from
parks is misguided.
58 These amendments are not
intended to draw revenue from
parks.
No 9
156 Volunteer groups should be
included in park planning
processes.
60 As far as possible, key volunteer
groups are included by local
rangers in park planning processes.
No 9
157 Concerned that DEWNR has
compromised conservation
values for visitor increases.
61 DEWNR is committed to engaging
more people with our natural
spaces. Our vision is that by 2020,
South Australia’s parks will be
celebrated for the benefits they
provide to communities and the
contribution people make to
conservation. Encouraging more
people to visit parks and establish a
connection with nature has
significant health benefits, and
facilitates ongoing custodianship of
our parks into the future.
No 9
158 Would appreciate new users
being encouraged to
participate in park
maintenance.
62 DEWNR encourages all park users to
participate in park maintenance.
No 9
159 Cautions against overuse of
fire tracks in trail planning,
72 DEWNR prefers to use existing
alignments in trail planning as far as
possible, but recognises that better
experiences for all users are often
found away from fire tracks.
No 9
Attachment 4
Comment
No.
Comment Sub No Proposed Response Plan
Amen
ded
Criteria
160 We strongly recommend
ongoing monitoring of the
impacts of nature-based
tourism pursuits is required to
determine the sustainability of
such initiatives and enable
early detection and
management intervention if
needed.
93 DEWNR will continue to monitor park
health.
No 9
161 We understand that work on
infrastructure upgrades in
some parks may have started
already. We would
appreciate advice on this
matter.
94 Concept and design work has
commenced (or been completed)
for Cobbler Creek, Anstey Hill,
Onkaparinga River, and O’Halloran
Hill Recreation Parks, Hallett Cove,
Black Hill, Morialta, and Para Wirra
Conservation Parks, and
Onkaparinga River National Park.
Some elements of construction work
have commenced (or been
completed) for Cobbler Creek, and
Anstey Hill Recreation Parks, Hallett
Cove Conservation Park, and
Onkaparinga River National Park.
Only construction works consistent
with existing management plans
have commenced.
No 9
162 Given the Parks and
Wilderness Council has not
yet been constituted, what
alternative arrangements are
in place to maintain normal
checks and balances?
94 The Parks and Wilderness Council
has been constituted prior to
adoption of these amendments.
No 9
163 Large groups of walkers
damage trails.
95 Noted. No 9