Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage … Hut...general public of the project and the...

Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage Management Plan Consultation Report May 2014 By Duncan Marshall

1. Introduction and Overview The National Capital Authority (NCA) commissioned Duncan Marshall to prepare a heritage management plan for Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park. The hut is on the Commonwealth Heritage List. In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) and the NCA’s commitment to community engagement, the draft heritage management plan, was made available for public comment from 8 March 2014 to 11 April 2014. This brief report records the outcomes of the public consultation. Notices were placed in the Canberra Times and The Australian on 8 March 2014 notifying the general public of the project and the opportunity to comment. The report was publically available on the NCA’s ‘Have Your Say’ website, and stakeholders were notified in writing. A public information session was held on 18 March 2014 for any interested parties. Representatives from the following organisations attended the session:

• National Trust of Australia (ACT) • Friends of Grasslands • Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute (ACT Committee).

As a result of this process, three written submissions were received from the:

• Department of Parliamentary Services • National Trust of Australia (ACT) • Friends of Grasslands.

Responses to the sets of comments are provided below. The submissions are included in Appendix A.

Surveyors Hut Heritage Management Plan Consultation Report May 2014

1

2. Response to Submission 1

Department of Parliamentary Services comments Response

Thanked NCA for the opportunity to comment, noted Commonwealth Parliament identified as a stakeholder, that NCA will consult as appropriate, and otherwise had no comments about or concerns with the draft HMP.

Noted


Friends of Grasslands comments Response

FOG supports the preparation of a draft Heritage Management Plan for Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park. Our primary concern is the conservation of the natural heritage of Surveyors Park and adjacent woodlands.

Noted

While passing mention is made of the relationship to the adjacent grassy woodlands to the south west, we regard this as inadequate. These lands have inadequate tenure to protect their nationally significant conservation values, and FOG recently advocated to NCA and to the Commonwealth Parliament that the lands be rezoned from parliamentary purposes to open space under the National Capital Plan. In relation to the Draft Management Plan, FOG submits that the area shaded green in Draft Figure 28 needs to be enlarged since significant vegetation values (particularly known patches of Button Wrinklewort) occur much closer to Capital Circle than indicated here. FOG is able to assist in any ground work required.

Figure 28 derives from a separate study undertaken for the NCA. A note will be added to the figure to indicate the possibility of the need to review the suggested boundary.

Restitution of interpretive signage is sensibly featured in the Draft Plan. FOG is all in favour but has two aspects to contribute. The first is that signage near the Hut should include basic information about, and invite visits into, the adjacent Grassy Woodland. The second is that an NCA sign, entitled “Woodland Community”, presumably of the same generation as the signs alongside the Hut, exists 300m to the SW of the Hut. This sign introduces important aspects of woodland-threatening processes and notes the local presence of Button Wrinklewort. It also discusses the threat from Acacia baileyana, a threat now nearing elimination here through FOG's partnership in weed control with the NCA. If signs are updated at the Hut, this sign also needs new work.

Reference to the adjacent woodland in the interpretation material at the park will be suggested (Strategy 18.1). The woodlands sign outside of the park is beyond the scope of the HMP to address.

The assessment of weeds in the grassed areas of the Park (p. 9) is deficient in several ways. Capeweed is selected as the “worst” species, ignoring weeds of far greater impact. Chilean Needle Grass and St John’s Wort, both Weeds of National Significance, are present in the Park, as is the

Text amended to refer to the range of weeds (Section 2.2.2). Weed control is already included in the priority works


2

Friends of Grasslands comments Response regionally invasive weed African Lovegrass – all present a major threat to natural heritage values. These weeds must be actively controlled through an annual spraying program covering the lands between Commonwealth and Adelaide Avenues and Capital and State Circles.

for the park, although weed control beyond the park is beyond the scope of the HMP itself.

FOG rejects the notion that the stands of Elm, Ash, Poplar and other weeds constitute a “mix of evergreen and deciduous tree canopy......rare in the parliamentary zone” (p9) that warrant conserving. These woody weeds have high potential to invade areas of high conservation value and need to be eliminated. Removal of these woody weeds would restore the landscape to a condition similar to that of the time when Surveyor’s Hut was established, aiding interpretation for visitors.

The full text refers to the design style of the park, including the mix of trees, and that it is common in Canberra but rare in the Parliamentary Zone. However, while there is reference to the design style, it is not found to be significant and is therefore not deserving of conservation. No change made to the HMP. The weed potential is recognised, weed control measures are included, and the possible long term option of converting the park to a native landscape character is identified, but the NCA has decided this is not a short-term possibility.


3

Friends of Grasslands comments Response

While not FOG’s area of expertise, contributors to our work parties have pointed out a number of cultural heritage elements in the adjacent woodlands that complement Surveyor’s Hut. These include ongoing association with the site by the Ngunnawal traditional owners and an apparent, early rubbish dump from the time of Canberra’s establishment, and add to the case for managing woodlands and Surveyors Park together.

The draft HMP was provided to the Representative Aboriginal Organisations but no comments were forthcoming, and the archaeological research found no Aboriginal cultural material present in the park. It is recognised that all parts of the ACT carry cultural and spiritual values for the contemporary Aboriginal community. None the less, in the context of the current study and the lack of specific evidence related to this place, Surveyors Park would not meet the relevant heritage criterion regarding Aboriginal associations. The existence of possible cultural heritage features in the woodland area will be noted in the HMP, as these may relate to the early camps (Section 2.3).

There is integrated management of the cultural and natural heritage of Surveyors Park and adjacent woodlands

To the extent possible, the HMP seeks to achieve this (Strategies 8.1, 11.1, 12.3, 12.4 and 18.1). But it is not a plan for the woodland itself.

The lands should be rezoned as open space under the National Capital Plan

The HMP provides sufficient environmental and heritage protection of the site.

The full set of interpretive signs is upgraded The scope of the HMP does not include woodland signage outside of the park.

Herbaceous weeds are actively controlled with an annual spraying program prioritising African Lovegrass, Chilean Needle Grass and St John’s Wort

As noted above, weed control measures are included in the HMP (Strategies 11.1, 12.3, 12.4).

Woody weeds along the creek line should be removed The park only includes a part of these plantings. The long-term option of converting the park to native vegetation is noted as a possibility but the NCA does not support this as a short-term action.

Only locally indigenous species are planted at the site No new plantings are anticipated. In the case of


4

Friends of Grasslands comments Response existing plantings, see above.


National Trust of Australia (ACT) comments Response

The draft Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage Management Plan is prepared in accordance with the Burra Charter (Appendix F) and satisfies Schedules 7A and 7B of the EPBC Act Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1) (Appendix G).

Noted.

The threshold for satisfying CHL criteria is at the local level. Consequently any place that contributes some or any significance would be able to be included in the official values. Taking this into account, the Trust suggests that the significance analysis of the draft plan be reviewed to see whether there may be additional aspects contributing to the significance of the Hut, Gardens or its Setting. If so, these should be included in the statement of significance and protected by suitable conservation policies and implementation strategies. It may also be appropriate to note in 1.0 Introduction and preamble to 3.0 Analysis of Evidence and Appendix C that unlike State and Territory significance thresholds, Commonwealth Heritage List threshold includes local significance.

The analysis has been reviewed. A comment has been included in the preamble to Chapter 3 regarding thresholds.

Taking the fact that only some significance needs to be found to reach the threshold to satisfy including a place in the CHL the aesthetic value of the Park may be able to be found significant particularly by a community group such as the Friends of Grasslands. This should be considered in 2.5 Aesthetics and 2.6.1 Native Vegetation.

The relevant criterion refers to ‘a particular community or cultural group’, not a ‘community group’. Community groups are very different from communities and cultural groups. Communities are normally defined by locality (eg. the Canberra community) or an ethnic or other association (eg. the Italian community of Canberra). A cultural group is normally defined by shared cultural qualities, values and practices. It is not considered that FOG would meet the definition of a community, or cultural group, although it is a community group.

In 2.7 Social Value the assessment finds that no evidence of any current associations emerged. This would appear to be contrary to the evidence that every year the ACT Chapter of the now Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute (NSW) hold

As above, neither the Institute nor the Trust are considered to meet the definition of a community, or cultural group.


5

National Trust of Australia (ACT) comments Response a Surveyors’ breakfast at the Hut. The Trust suggests that this be given greater recognition recognising that local significance is relevant when assessing criteria thresholds for places included or being assessed for inclusion in the CHL. There may also be evidence that the National Trust of Australia (ACT) has standing as a community group given the fact that the ACT president unveiled a plaque in 2006. Consequently the Trust suggests that criterion (g) in 3 Analysis of Evidence might therefore be likely to be satisfied.

Criterion (c) only requires there to be potential for the place to yield information contributing to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history. The conclusion to 3 Analysis of Evidence (c) notes that the scientific value is moderate and that there is potential for the place to meet this criterion. The threshold does not require the potential to be tested. The Trust suggests that criterion (c) might be likely to be satisfied because the value is moderate (ie higher than local).

The archaeological advice suggests the current approach is justified. The potential is noted as a possible value but testing/research is required to demonstrate the potential to a higher degree before the value can be substantiated. Policies are included to protect possible values.

If a review of 3 Analysis of Evidence, as suggested in 1 to 4 above, finds additional criteria satisfied then 4. Statement of Significance and 4.2 Attributes Related to Significance require amendment, as well as Table 5 (pp 62-65).

Noted.

The Project Brief, 2.0 Project Objectives (Appendix A) requires the plan to comply with the EPBC Act requirements. The CH record shows that the Surveyors Hut has three official values – (a) historic process, (f) technical achievement and (h) significant people while the draft plan identifies that the Hut and Park satisfy criterion (a) historic process, (b) rarity and (h) significant people. Until the relevant Minister makes any amendment to the statutory values the plan must ensure that the significance of all the statutory official values are conserved and protected. In 5.2 Legislative Requirements under Commonwealth Heritage Listing the Trust suggests that some reference should be made of the official values and some explanation should be included explaining how the NCA will protect and conserve the official values as well as any values revealed in this draft plan, in Table, Table 5, Policy 1 and Policy 5 Implementation Strategies 5.1 and 5.3. 6.1 Objectives may also need to be a little more specific to ensure that the official CH values are conserved and protected. Note that the Schedule 7B No. 1 in Appendix G may need to be more specific. In these circumstances it may be suitable for the plan to suggest that the NCA make recommendations to the Australian Heritage Council to review the significance of the Hut and Park taking the findings of this plan into account. If the relevant Minister makes any changes to the official values, then there may be a need to review this plan.

The differences between the Commonwealth Heritage values and those identified in the HMP have no consequence in terms of the protective measures included in the HMP. Some of the differences relate to associations, which have no consequences for protection, and otherwise to the technical/creative value of the hut. As the hut is fully protected by the conservation policy, again, there is no consequence arising from this different finding about value. None the less, a strategy has been amended to provide for NCA consultation with the Department of the Environment regarding this issue (Strategy 5.3).


6


Presumably if camping in the Park is unapproved then it would be illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that some measures be taken to monitor and restrict such a use (5.3 Stakeholders Users and visitors, pp 56-57, p 59 and Table 5 pp 62-65). This issue might also be considered together with measures to minimise any adverse visual impact resulting from car parking, park furniture and out of scale and inappropriate interpretation signs. The Trust recommends that these aspects be given consideration with appropriate policies (Policy 16) and implementation strategies (eg 11.4 and commentary to 18.1).

Text has been included regarding monitoring of camping (Strategy 14.2). An additional strategy will be included to consider screen plantings for the carpark (Strategy 11.8). The issue of new park furniture is already addressed in a policy (Policy 17). An additional strategy will be included regarding signage (Strategy 18.2).

Figures 3, 4 and 5 include a north point. These figures already include north points.

Charles Scrivener was a NSW District Surveyor (p 17). Text clarified that Hay is in NSW.

The NCA’s Griffin Legacy and Roger Pegrum’s Bush Capital are references worthy of noting (p 17).

References noted in bibliography.

Identify the President of the National Trust of Australia who unveiled the Institution of Surveyors plaque in April 2006 (p 31) believed to be Eric Martin AM.

Text amended.

If aesthetic values exist they may be adversely affected by cars parking in the setting of the Park (p 33).

This issue has been addressed as above.

Is it possible to identify the location of the park site in the aerial photograph Figure 28 (p 34)?

Figure amended.

Under the paragraph headed: Condition of the archaeology features, third line, correct the name of Capital Circle (omit Commonwealth) (p 43).

Text amended.

If the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute hold surveyors’ breakfasts during heritage week every year, does that not constitute social value (2.7 Social Value p 44 and criterion (g) p 46)?

As discussed above.

Omit ‘subject to further research’ (criterion (d) p 46). Disagree.

Omit ‘arguably’ second paragraph under criterion (h) p 47. As part of the analysis, this use seems acceptable. However it has been deleted from the statement of significance.

Between used and camping in Users and visitors second paragraph in 5.3 Stakeholders (p 56) omit: as an unapproved and insert ‘illegally as a’.

Text amended.


7


In dot point 11 under Key management issues add after sets ‘but not encouraging camping’.

Text amended.

Begin Policy 7 (p 67) with ‘In accordance with its Heritage Strategy the’

Text added into a commentary.

Add to Implementation Strategies 11.4 after graffiti ‘and illegal camping’.

This issue has not been raised by the actual place manager as a significant issue.

Add to Implementation Strategies 14.2 after that ‘illegal camping’.

Text amended.

Page 72, add to Policy 16: ‘Implementation Strategies 16.1 Continue to encourage public access to and through the Park. 16.2 Minimise the potential adverse visual impact if car parking on the Park setting. 16.3 Consider the introduction of measures to restrict illegal camping.’

The proposed Strategy 16.1 does not seem to add anything to the policy. The issue raised by proposed Strategy 16.2 will be addressed at Policy 11. And as above, the park manager has not raised camping as a significant issue requiring action.

Commentary under Implementation Strategies page 72 omit the last sentence under the second dot point and insert: ‘This may involve careful consideration of the scale and location of signs’.

New strategy included to address this issue (Strategy 18.2).

In 7 Bibliography include reference to National Capital Authority’s Griffin Legacy and Roger Pegrum’s Bush Capital (pp 76-77).

References noted.

APPENDIX A – SUBMISSIONS


9

SUBMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SERVICES Good afternoon Anna Thanks for your letter of 28 February 214 to Ilse inviting DPS to comment on the Surveyors Hut & Surveyors Park Draft Heritage Management Plan. Ilse has asked me to reply on her behalf. Thanks for the opportunity to review the draft HMP. We note the Commonwealth Parliament is identified as a stakeholder, and that the NA will consult when appropriate (Policy 10). We have no comments about or concerns with the draft HMP. Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries. Regards Marika Marika Behr Assistant Director Heritage Strategic Asset Planning and Performance Department of Parliamentary Services


10


11

SURVEYORS HUT AND SURVEYORS PARK HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

DRAFT 3 National Trust of Australia (Australian Capital Territory) COMMENTS Background and Purpose The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires Commonwealth agencies to assess their property assets for any heritage significance. The EPBC Act also requires Commonwealth agencies to prepare management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places which they own or control in order to protect and conserve their heritage values. The Surveyors Hut is a place included in the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL). The draft Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage Management Plan assesses the place for its heritage significance and concludes that it satisfies Commonwealth Heritage criteria (a) historic value, (b) rarity and (h) association with a person of importance in Australia’s history. The document provides conservation policies and implementation strategies to conserve and protect those values. General The draft Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage Management Plan is prepared in accordance with the Burra Charter (Appendix F) and satisfies Schedules 7A and 7B of the EPBC Act Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1) (Appendix G). Issues However there are some matters and items which might improve the plan and which the National Capital Authority (NCA) might consider reviewing for inclusion. There are also some errors which should be corrected. These are divided into those matters of a general nature and those matters of a detailed nature. Matters of a general nature are:

1. The threshold for satisfying CHL criteria is at the local level. Consequently any place that contributes some or any significance would be able to be included in the official values. Taking this into account, the Trust suggests that the significance analysis of the draft plan be reviewed to see whether there may be additional aspects contributing to the significance of the Hut, Gardens or its Setting. If so, these should be included in the statement of significance and protected by suitable conservation policies and implementation strategies. It may also be appropriate to note in 1.0 Introduction and preamble to 3.0 Analysis of Evidence and Appendix C that unlike State and Territory significance thresholds, Commonwealth Heritage List threshold includes local significance.

2. Taking the fact that only some significance needs to be found to reach the threshold to satisfy including a place in the CHL the aesthetic value of the Park may be able to be found significant particularly by a community group such as the Friends of Grasslands. This should be considered in 2.5 Aesthetics and 2.6.1 Native Vegetation.


12

3. In 2.7 Social Value the assessment finds that no evidence of any current associations emerged. This would appear to be contrary to the evidence that every year the ACT Chapter of the now Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute (NSW) hold a Surveyors’ breakfast at the Hut. The Trust suggests that this be given greater recognition recognising that local significance is relevant when assessing criteria thresholds for places included or being assessed for inclusion in the CHL. There may also be evidence that the National Trust of Australia (ACT) has standing as a community group given the fact that the ACT president unveiled a plaque in 2006. Consequently the Trust suggests that criterion (g) in 3 Analysis of Evidence might therefore be likely to be satisfied.

4. Criterion (c) only requires there to be potential for the place to yield information contributing to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history. The conclusion to 3 Analysis of Evidence (c) notes that the scientific value is moderate and that there is potential for the place to meet this criterion. The threshold does not require the potential to be tested. The Trust suggests that criterion (c) might be likely to be satisfied because the value is moderate (ie higher than local).

5. If a review of 3 Analysis of Evidence, as suggested in 1 to 4 above, finds additional criteria satisfied then 4. Statement of Significance and 4.2 Attributes Related to Significance require amendment, as well as Table 5 (pp 62-65).

6. The Project Brief, 2.0 Project Objectives (Appendix A) requires the plan to comply with the EPBC Act requirements. The CH record shows that the Surveyors Hut has three official values – (a) historic process, (f) technical achievement and (h) significant people while the draft plan identifies that the Hut and Park satisfy criterion (a) historic process, (b) rarity and (h) significant people. Until the relevant Minister makes any amendment to the statutory values the plan must ensure that the significance of all the statutory official values are conserved and protected. In 5.2 Legislative Requirements under Commonwealth Heritage Listing the Trust suggests that some reference should be made of the official values and some explanation should be included explaining how the NCA will protect and conserve the official values as well as any values revealed in this draft plan, in Table, Table 5, Policy 1 and Policy 5 Implementation Strategies 5.1 and 5.3. 6.1 Objectives may also need to be a little more specific to ensure that the official CH values are conserved and protected. Note that the Schedule 7B No. 1 in Appendix G may need to be more specific. In these circumstances it may be suitable for the plan to suggest that the NCA make recommendations to the Australian Heritage Council to review the significance of the Hut and Park taking the findings of this plan into account. If the relevant Minister makes any changes to the official values, then there may be a need to review this plan.

7. Presumably if camping in the Park is unapproved then it would be illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that some measures be taken to monitor and restrict such a use (5.3 Stakeholders Users and visitors, pp 56-57, p 59 and Table 5 pp 62-65). This issue might also be considered together with measures to minimise any adverse visual impact resulting from car parking, park furniture and out of scale and inappropriate interpretation signs. The Trust recommends that these aspects be given consideration with appropriate policies (Policy 16) and implementation strategies (eg 11.4 and commentary to 18.1).


13

To apply the comments suggested above, the following matters of detail would need attention. These and other matters of detail such as corrections are:

1. Figures 3, 4 and 5 include a north point. 2. Charles Scrivener was a NSW District Surveyor (p 17). 3. The NCA’s Griffin Legacy and Roger Pegrum’s Bush Capital are references

worthy of noting (p 17). 4. Identify the President of the National Trust of Australia who unveiled the

Institution of Surveyors plaque in April 2006 (p 31) believed to be Eric Martin AM.

5. If aesthetic values exist they may be adversely affected by cars parking in the setting of the Park (p 33).

6. Is it possible to identify the location of the park site in the aerial photograph Figure 28 (p 34)?

7. Under the paragraph headed: Condition of the archaeology features, third line, correct the name of Capital Circle (omit Commonwealth) (p 43).

8. If the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute hold surveyors’ breakfasts during heritage week every year, does that not constitute social value (2.7 Social Value p 44 and criterion (g) p 46)?

9. Omit ‘subject to further research’ (criterion (d) p 46). 10. Omit ‘arguably’ second paragraph under criterion (h) p 47. 11. Between used and camping in Users and visitors second paragraph in 5.3

Stakeholders (p 56) omit: as an unapproved and insert ‘illegally as a’. 12. In dot point 11 under Key management issues add after sets ‘but not

encouraging camping’. 13. Begin Policy 7 (p 67) with ‘In accordance with its Heritage Strategy the’ 14. Add to Implementation Strategies 11.4 after graffiti ‘and illegal camping’. 15. Add to Implementation Strategies 14.2 after that ‘illegal camping’. 16. Page 72, add to Policy 16: ‘Implementation Strategies 16.1 Continue to

encourage public access to and through the Park. 16.2 Minimise the potential adverse visual impact if car parking on the Park setting. 16.3 Consider the introduction of measures to restrict illegal camping.’

17. Commentary under Implementation Strategies page 72 omit the last sentence under the second dot point and insert: ‘This may involve careful consideration of the scale and location of signs’.

18. In 7 Bibliography include reference to National Capital Authority’s Griffin Legacy and Roger Pegrum’s Bush Capital (pp 76-77).

Friends of Grasslands supporting native grassy ecosystems

PO Box 440, Jamison Centre ACT 2614

phone: 02 6288 2413 email: [email protected] web: http://www.fog.org.au

Anna Wong National Capital Authority GPO Box 373 Canberra ACT 2601 email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Draft Heritage Management Plan for Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Friends of Grasslands (FOG) is a community group dedicated to the conservation of natural temperate grassy ecosystems in south-eastern Australia. FOG advocates, educates and advises on matters to do with the conservation of grassy ecosystems, and carries out surveys and other on-ground work. FOG is based in Canberra and its members include professional scientists, landowners, land managers and members of the public. FOG supports the preparation of a draft Heritage Management Plan for Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park. Our primary concern is the conservation of the natural heritage of Surveyors Park and adjacent woodlands. The woodlands are of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act, containing the nationally endangered ecological community White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and populations of the endangered Button Wrinklewort, Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides. Under a partnership agreement with the NCA, FOG has undertaken seven volunteer conservation work parties on the larger site from 2011 and in February 2014 completed the first cut over of invasive woody weeds outside the plants along the creek line. In addition FOG has overseen contract spraying of herbaceous weeds on the site. FOG appreciated the opportunity to attend the public information session on 18 March and has prepared a series of recommendations to follow-up:- The plan deals with built heritage and the park structures around these footprints. While passing mention is made of the relationship to the adjacent grassy woodlands to the south west, we regard this as inadequate. These lands have inadequate tenure to protect their nationally significant conservation values, and FOG recently advocated to NCA and to the Commonwealth Parliament that the lands be rezoned from parliamentary purposes to open space under the National Capital Plan. In relation to the Draft Management Plan, FOG submits that the area shaded green in Draft Figure 28 needs to be enlarged since significant vegetation values (particularly known patches of Button Wrinklewort) occur much closer to Capital Circle than indicated here. FOG is able to assist in any ground work required. Restitution of interpretive signage is sensibly featured in the Draft Plan. FOG is all in favour but has two aspects to contribute. The first is that signage near the Hut should include basic information about, and invite visits into, the adjacent Grassy Woodland. The second is that an NCA sign, entitled “Woodland Community”, presumably of the same generation as the signs alongside the Hut, exists 300m to the SW of the Hut. This sign introduces important aspects of woodland-threatening processes and notes the local presence of Button Wrinklewort. It also discusses the threat from Acacia baileyana, a

mailto:[email protected]


1

threat now nearing elimination here through FOG's partnership in weed control with the NCA. If signs are updated at the Hut, this sign also needs new work. The assessment of weeds in the grassed areas of the Park (p. 9) is deficient in several ways. Capeweed is selected as the “worst” species, ignoring weeds of far greater impact. Chilean Needle Grass and St John’s Wort, both Weeds of National Significance, are present in the Park, as is the regionally invasive weed African Lovegrass – all present a major threat to natural heritage values. These weeds must be actively controlled through an annual spraying program covering the lands between Commonwealth and Adelaide Avenues and Capital and State Circles. FOG rejects the notion that the stands of Elm, Ash, Poplar and other weeds constitute a “mix of evergreen and deciduous tree canopy......rare in the parliamentary zone” (p9) that warrant conserving. These woody weeds have high potential to invade areas of high conservation value and need to be eliminated. Removal of these woody weeds would restore the landscape to a condition similar to that of the time when Surveyor’s Hut was established, aiding interpretation for visitors. While not FOG’s area of expertise, contributors to our work parties have pointed out a number of cultural heritage elements in the adjacent woodlands that complement Surveyor’s Hut. These include ongoing association with the site by the Ngunnawal traditional owners and an apparent, early rubbish dump from the time of Canberra’s establishment, and add to the case for managing woodlands and Surveyors Park together. In summary, FOG recommends that: There is integrated management of the cultural and natural heritage of Surveyors

Park and adjacent woodlands; The lands should be rezoned as open space under the National Capital Plan; The full set of interpretive signs is upgraded; Herbaceous weeds are actively controlled with an annual spraying program

prioritising African Lovegrass, Chilean Needle Grass and St John’s Wort; Woody weeds along the creek line should be removed; and Only locally indigenous species are planted at the site.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Sharp President 9 April 2014

Date post:	13-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongcong
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Surveyors Hut and Surveyors Park Heritage … Hut...general public of the project and the...

Documents