Tasman National Park - Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service | … Bay Visitor... · 2019-07-02 ·...

siTe PLaN 2007

Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment

Tasman National Park PiraTes bay visiTor service zoNe

Site Plan 2007 Tasman National Park Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone

Tasman National Park and Reserves Pirates Bay Visitor Services Zone Site Plan 2007

Many people have assisted in the preparation of this plan with ideas, feedback and information. It has been great working with a community with so much interest and passion for the place they live, work and recreate in.

ISBN 9780975781562

© Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment 2007

Published by:

Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment GPO Box 1751 HOBART TASMANIA 7001

Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone Site Plan 2007

Contents 1. The Plan – In a Nutshell .......................................................... 1 2. Introduction.............................................................................. 2

Background................................................................................................... 2 Where it is?.................................................................................................. 3 What will the plan do? ............................................................................... 4 Who is this plan for?................................................................................... 4

3. What’s so Special About Pirates Bay? ................................... 5 Social Values................................................................................................. 5 Natural Heritage ......................................................................................... 6 Aboriginal and Historic Heritage.............................................................. 8

4. Vision and Objectives ............................................................ 10 Vision...........................................................................................................10 Objectives...................................................................................................10 The Visitors Experience...........................................................................11

5. The Plan.................................................................................. 12 An Analysis.................................................................................................12 Whole of Zone Strategies .......................................................................14

Presentation........................................................................................21 Management........................................................................................27 Visitor Facilities and Activities .........................................................30

6. Precinct Plans......................................................................... 34 Tessellated Pavement – Eaglehawk Neck Precinct..............................34

The Precinct in Ten Years Time .....................................................34 Visitor Facilities ..................................................................................35

Pirates Bay Beach Precinct ......................................................................36 The Precinct in Ten Years Time .....................................................36 Visitor Facilities ..................................................................................37

Blowhole Precinct.....................................................................................40 The Precinct in Ten Years Time .....................................................40 Visitor Facilities ..................................................................................41

Tasman Arch – Waterfall Bay Precinct .................................................45 The Precinct in Ten Years Time .....................................................45 Visitor Facilities ..................................................................................46

7. Monitoring .............................................................................. 48 Review .................................................................................................48 Performance Indicators.....................................................................49

8. Appendices ............................................................................. 51 Appendix 1 – PWS Action summary..............................................51 Appendix 2 – Threatened Species Table .......................................53 Appendix 3 – Reserve Standards Framework...............................56 Appendix 4 – Precinct Facilities Checklist.....................................58

9. Index........................................................................................ 59


1

1. The Plan – In a Nutshell The Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone is to be the main location for the development of facilities in the Tasman National Park and Reserves.

These facilities will be for a high number of short term visitors.

They will also meet local needs for use of the boat ramp, jetty, community hall and other facilities.

The main strategy is to provide a range of visitor experiences through distinctly different visitor nodes.

The plan focuses development of facilities in three major nodes. Each offers a distinct experience.

∼ Beach and Officers Quarters. The primary experiences being catered for here are beach access, community facilities, and exploring history at the Officers Quarters and Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site.

∼ The Blowhole and Pirates Bay Jetty. A visitor’s node offering water access for outstanding boat-based activities, and exploring the Blowhole, boat sheds and jetty, the sheltered beach and waterfront views. A range of visitor facilities to service marine users and visitors are provided.

∼ Tasmans Arch. A world class national park visitor site offering spectacular views of natural formations, magnificent coastal scenery, and opportunities for gentle bushwalks and exploration and providing support facilities to visitors seeking an outstanding nature based experience in a undeveloped natural and peaceful setting.

These nodes are spread through the Pirates Bay area. Implementing this plan will require close work, dialogue and ongoing partnership with other organisations and the community. The attached map, Map 3 – Master Plan, shows a visual summary of the proposals of the plan.


2

2. Introduction

Background This site plan is for the Pirates Bay Visitor Services Zone. The zone is defined in the Tasman National Park and Reserves Management Plan 2001. The site plan is a requirement of the management plan.

The main reasons for producing a site plan at this time are:

• The need to consider development of parking and other facilities.

• The Tasman Tourism Development Strategy 2005 (Tasman Council, 2005) has a key strategy of creating an iconic natural area destination. It chose the Pirates Bay area as that destination.

The site plan is aspirational; that is it contains a vision and description of how the community and the Parks and Wildlife Service want the zone to function, look and feel in 10 years time. This description of the future is as important to guiding action as the prescriptions. It provides some flexibility for future change beyond the prescriptions contained in this plan.

The zone is the most visited part of the Tasman reserve system. Indeed it is one of Tasmania’s most visited reserve locations, with over a quarter of a million visitors a year to the Blowhole and Tasman Arch alone. Visitation has, and will continue to grow.


3

Where it is? The Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone includes all or part of the following reserves:

• Tessellated Pavement State Reserve,

• Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site,

• Pirates Bay State Reserve, and,

• Tasman National Park from Fossil Island south and west to the road to Waterfall Bay.


4

What will the plan do? The purpose of the site plan is to detail:

• how and where future development of visitor service facilities will occur,

• how visitor activities will be managed,

• how values will be protected and presented.

It is intended to be a guide for ten years. Part of the consultation for this plan involved creating a picture of how stakeholders1 saw the visitor service zone in 10 years time. The plan has been written from that vision.

Who is this plan for? The plan is for the community, including, community groups, local residents, Parks and Wildlife Service staff, designers and planners, and potential business partners.

It is a record of agreed actions and considerations for management and any development to occur in the zone.

In a sense, it is the ‘contract’ between the Parks and Wildlife Service and the community about what has been agreed to allow, and do, in the zone.

1 The primary stakeholders are the local community, Parks and Wildlife Service staff who work in the zone, Tasman Council, interested businesses, and other government agencies with a role in the area.


5

3. What’s so Special About Pirates Bay? The Tasman Peninsula is renowned for its spectacular coastal scenery. The Pirates Bay area is one of the most stunning locations here, and easily the most accessible. The zone is a key point of interest for visitors to the Tasman Peninsula.

It contains a range of natural and cultural heritage features such as the historic site, Officers Quarters, surf beach, scenery, the Tasman Arch and Devils Kitchen. These are of regional, national and international significance. They are spectacularly set between forested mountains and the ocean.

A wide range of visitor activities and interactions occur within the zone. These include sightseeing, swimming, surfing, fishing and boating, hang-gliding, strolling, dog walking, and bushwalking.

It is one of the most visited reserve sites in the state with over a quarter of a million visitors a year.

Social Values

• Recreational Value. The Visitor Service Zone is a popular destination for a wide variety of recreational activities.

It is an important destination for tourists looking for photographic and scenic sites.

The Pirates Bay beach is a popular surf beach, as well as being a venue for walking, swimming and dog walking.

Pirates Bay provides a high quality surf venue.

Bushwalking and nature watching are also popular recreational activities in the area.

As well as these activities inside the Visitor Service Zone, the Blowhole jetty and boat ramps service a range of water-based recreational activities including boating, angling and diving.

• Economic Value. Eaglehawk Neck and the features of the Visitor Service Zone have a long history of providing the basis for a local tourism


6

industry. This has always had its fortunes closely linked to tourism at Port Arthur and the Peninsula in general.

The Lufra Hotel, listed on the Register of the National Estate, overlooks the entrance to the Tessellated Pavement.

Currently there are a variety of businesses including restaurants, cafes, accommodation and tour operators that operate in or adjacent to the zone. These benefit from the attraction of visitors to the features of the zone.

In addition, the Blowhole jetty and boat ramps are a significant centre of economic activity with around 15 water based tourism operators and commercial fishing operators working from the port.

• Educational Value. Interpretation and exploration by visitors and local residents provides a depth of knowledge and experiences that contribute interest and learning to people’s lives. The inspiring beauty of the zone and it’s surrounds is also an opportunity to enhance visitors appreciation and value for the natural world

• Cultural and Social Value. The high scenic quality of the zone and surrounding area is a source of inspiration for many visitors and artists. It makes up a significant part of the local residents’ sense of place - what it is about the area that they like and the experience of their ‘home’.

It is also an iconic cultural location for Tasmanians as an island people both for its strong visual impression of being bound by the sea and as a popular place to visit and show visitors.

• The zone forms an important place for the local community to move around and interact. The community hall in particular is a valuable gathering point and centre of community events.

• Health Value. The attractive and high quality opportunities for outdoor activity are an important source of exercise and relaxation making valuable primary health care contributions to the lives of visitors and residents.

Natural Heritage

• Scenic Value. The Pirates Bay area is visually stunning. Two separate mountain ranges are joined by the sweeping Pirates Bay beach and the sand isthmus of Eaglehawk Neck. High coastal sea cliffs are backed by


7

forested mountains. The setting provides some of Tasmania’s most accessible and spectacular natural coastal scenery.

The view from Tasman National Park Lookout on Pirates Bay Road, while not in the zone or in the national park is an important point of presentation for the area.

Most of the zone has been listed on the Register of the National Estate for its outstanding scenic qualities.

• Geoheritage Value. The zone contains outstanding sites of geoheritage significance. The landscape tells stories of ancient seabeds interacting with recent glaciations.

The Tessellated Pavement is a geological monument of international significance. It is listed on the National Estate as an outstanding example of marine weathering processes.

Tasmans Arch as seen from the ocean. Part of the Tessellated Pavement..

Eaglehawk Neck is a recognised geoheritage feature. It is an outstanding example of an interglacial isthmus.

The Blowhole, Devils Kitchen and Tasman Arch are other important features listed on the National Estate. They demonstrate the power of the sea in shaping the coastline.


8

• Biodiversity Value. The zone is home to many of Tasmania’s most iconic wildlife species including eagles, hooded plovers, whales, devils, fur seals, bandicoots and penguins.

The area has a diverse range of natural habitats, which range from patches of relic rainforest and tall wet forest to dry coastal heaths and woodlands. The heathy vegetation in particular provides habitat for a rich assortment of plants including the beautiful tiger orchid, Diuris sulphurea and the leopard orchid Diuris pardina. Iconic plants include the majestic blue gum Eucalyptus globulus Tasmania’s floral emblem.

Aboriginal and Historic Heritage

• Aboriginal Heritage. Aboriginal people have lived in the area at least for the last 6000 years, when sea levels stabilised. Historical records suggest the PY.DAIR.RER.ME band of the Oyster Bay Tribe were based around Eaglehawk Neck.

The Aboriginal sites and landscape of the zone have strong ongoing significance to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, as well as to the broader Tasmanian community.

• Convict History. The Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site, which once contained a military station, dogline and semaphore, forms an integral part of the Tasman Peninsula’s convict history. It was the Neck and its easily guardable width that contributed to the siting of Port Arthur and other convict stations on the Peninsula in the mid nineteenth century. The Officers Quarters structure and the cultural landscape including the dogline cut are all that is evident above-ground today, however archaeological (sub-surface) material within the Historic Site is of the highest significance.

Eaglehawk Neck circa 1890

• Early Tourism. The natural features of the Forestier and Tasman Peninsulas have historically been destinations for tourists and locals within the area. The Tessellated Pavement is one of Tasmania’s oldest tourist icons. By the late nineteenth century it was a major destination


9

for tourists in Tasmania. The Blowhole, Devil’s Kitchen and Tasman Arch also have a long history as scenic destinations for tourists.

Famous early tourists to the area included Lady Jane Franklin.

The reserves are some of the oldest in Tasmania, with parts of Tasman National Park and Pirates Bay State Reserve being first gazetted in 1917 under the Scenery Preservation Act 1915.


10

4. Vision and Objectives

Vision In 10 years time;

The Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone is world renowned as a place of outstanding scenic beauty.

Visitors enjoy quality, nature based, recreational activities and intriguing natural and historic heritage discovery.

The zone has distinctive destinations offering a rich diversity of well planned and catered for visitor experiences. Visitors leave satisfied and keen to return.

The outstanding heritage values, including those of the surrounding reserves, are well protected and in good condition.

The local community feels at home in the zone. They enjoy it and proudly contribute to its care.

The zone is a vital contributor to the economic, social and cultural life of the region.

Objectives The objectives for the Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone are:

• To provide a high quality visitor experience to a wide range of users and recreational activities including fishing, walking, surfing, nature watching and sight-seeing.

• To protect or enhance outstanding natural and cultural heritage values of the zone in line with community expectations, best practice management guidelines and statutory requirements.

• To engage the community in planning for any management or development not clearly spelt out in the site plan.

• To provide different user groups with a high quality experience.

• To make a valuable contribution to tourism, heritage protection and presentation and economic activity in the region.

• To enhance the local communities quality of life.


11

The Visitors Experience

Type of Visitor

The experience we are planning for

The facilities required

Local Resident

• enjoy sense of place being a part of their ‘backyard’

• place to enjoy nature

• place to recreate including swimming, relaxing, playing and walking dogs

• appropriate access and linking tracks

• clear signage

Tourist

• easy to find facilities and features

• some features are well known and interpreted while others are there to be ‘discovered’ giving a depth to the experience

• the range and quality of experiences is a good reason to stay longer in the area

• convenient car and van parking

• bus tour facilities (parking and toilets at scenic locations)

• safe walking tracks

• high quality interpretation

• aesthetic design and placement of facilities to enhance sense of wonder

Surfer and Beach Goer

• relaxing and easy going beach

• easy to find and access waves

• not crowded

• safe and stable beach access

• safe carparking

• appropriate level of facilities

Fishers • convenience – want to get to and from the water as quickly and safely as possible

• safe roads and parking and water access

• adequate parking

Bushwalker / natural historians

• safe and aesthetic access to unspoilt nature

• cultural and natural heritage are well protected

• walking tracks and access to features and values

• well serviced trail heads


12

5. The Plan

An Analysis

Challenges The overall challenge of planning for the zone, is dealing with the great diversity of user groups and the nature and character of parts of the zone.

• The cultural heritage landscape (including sub-surface features) and buildings of the historic site require intensive and specialist focus.

• The Pirates Bay State Reserve, a narrow reserve more in character with a municipal coastal reserve, has high levels of informal usage and complicated access and management issues.

• The Blowhole carpark and boating facilities have a noticeably different character to that which might be expected in a state reserve. It is primarily a working port.

• At Tasman Arch and Devils Kitchen there is a distinctly national park feel due to the more isolated and natural setting.

Unlike many national park visitor service zones, this zone has:

• no distinct single road head, or access point. There are several road access points and numerous additional pedestrian ones.

• a wide range of management issues that cannot be easily addressed within the reserve itself requiring considerably more negotiation and partnership with community, local government, other agencies and adjoining land managers and developers.

Visitor numbers Visitor statistics have not been regularly maintained. As a result there are many gaps in the data. The Tasman National Park is a difficult site to measure as it has many entry sites and the different sites have very different user groups.

The tables below show the average monthly vehicle movements for each of the sites for the most recent periods where data was kept. While the Blowhole data is nearly 10 years old, the Tasmans Arch data for the same period suggests that visitor numbers have not fluctuated greatly.

This gives total annual figures for the Tasman Arch of around 130,000 visitors a year, while the Blowhole receives around 210,000 visitors a year (this is calculated from multiplying vehicle count by 2.6).

A major limitation in the data at the moment is the lack of measures of the number of boats and trailers using the Blowhole jetty and carpark and


13

figures on trends. This would be valuable information in helping to plan for provision of facilities.

Port Arthur has received around 240,000 visitors a year for the last few years (according to the Tasmanian Visitors Survey, Tourism Tasmania). Figures from an unpublished survey (a joint survey by Parks and Wildlife Service and Forestry Tasmania) of visitors to Tasmans Arch in 2004 found 92% of visitors to the Arch had visited, or intended to visit, Port Arthur on the same trip.

No figures are recorded for other sites within the zone, however a reasonable estimate of visitor numbers to the zone would be in the vicinity of 250,000 to 400,000. This is based on the premise that some visitors will only go to one of the above sites, and that there are likely to be many additional visitors to Pirates Bay State Reserve, the Officers Mess and Tessellated Pavement.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Aver

age

for m

onth

julau

gse

p oct nov dec jan febmar apr

may jun

Month

Blowhole (94/95- 97/98)

Tasman Arch(00/01 - 05/06

Average number for vehicles per month recorded for the roads into the Blowhole and Tasmans Arch.

Concerns of the Community The main concerns identified in consultation were:

• Character and Concern about Change. Many people expressed an appreciation of the natural character of the area in general and the unique character of Doo Town and the Blowhole area. Often these were accompanied by concerns about change and the increasing business of the area. Comments ranged from; ‘don’t change anything!’ to desire to have the changes carefully planned to maintain character.

• Carparking / Traffic Issues. Carparking and traffic management at the Blowhole featured strongly with many calls for new carparking as well as a wide range of specific suggestions.


14

• Tourism and Tourism Development. A number of comments related to tourism developments. A visitors centre at the bottom of the hill in the Eaglehawk Neck area was suggested. There were some concerns that more restaurants / eateries would hurt existing businesses while there were no calls for more.

More generally, there were comments acknowledging the importance of the area for regional and local tourism.

• Toilets. The need for toilets was raised as an issue across the zone with all five precincts receiving specific calls for toilets and the Blowhole toilets being raised as needing disabled access. Pressure and perceived lack of public access to Officers Mess toilets was also raised.

• Other facilities. A wide range of other facilities were mentioned either specifically or more generally, including showers, picnic tables, walking tracks, signage, rubbish bins etc.

See attached Map 2 – Analysis, for a summary of character, values, issues and key user groups.

Whole of Zone Strategies

Natural Scenic Values

Issues • The zone is a significant part of the scenic views in this area. The views

in the area have a high level of naturalness and contain some of the most dramatic natural coastal scenery in Australia. Any proposal for development will require careful consideration to avoid potential adverse impacts on the natural character and view fields.

Tessellated Pavement

State Reserve

Tasman National Park

Pirates Bay State Reserve

Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site


Arthur H

ighway

Blowhole Road

Pirates Bay Road

Waterfall Bay Road

Eaglehawk Bay

Pirates Bay

Legend Major visitors node

Minor visitors node Road

Precinct boundary

Food Lookout

Swimming Surfing

Toilet

Jetty and Boat Ramp

Walking Track Adjacent reserved land Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone

Blowhole Precinct Character • Vibrant working port and

recreational boating centre • Low key tourist attraction • Unspoilt and dramatic natural

setting

Values • Natural values include

Geoheritage and flora values • Important economic and

recreational values

Issues • Carparking safety and room • Parking for boat trailers • Access for emergency vehicles • Limited opportunity for

expansion • Toilets Access

Key Users • Tourists • Boat launchers / anglers • Marine tour operators • Professional fishing

Pirates Bay Beach Precinct Character • Public beach • ‘Unspoilt’ setting

Values • Scenic value • Shorebirds and penguins

Issues • Access and carparking • Facilities such as showers • Weed control

Key Users • Surfers • Local residents • Tourists • Bathers • Dog walkers

Tasman Arch / Waterfall Bay Precinct Character • Dramatic natural area • Natural landscape and

‘national park’ feel • More isolated than other

precincts

Values • Natural values include

significant Geoheritage and flora values

• Scenic values

Issues • No toilets at popular Tasmans

Arch / Devils Kitchen area • Carparks located on top of key

features • Area suited to taking visitor

pressure from Blowhole

Key Users • Tourists • Bushwalkers • Natural historians

Waterfall Bay

Tasman Arch

Tessellated Pavement—Eaglehawk Neck Precinct Character • Traditional tourist setting • Urbanised surrounds

Values • High Geoheritage values at

Pavement and Neck • Valuable historic heritage

Issues • Difficult access of highway • Limited space for

development of facilities • Lack of tenure certainty on

carparks, public toilets and access.

• Urban development • Weed infestations

Key Users • Tourists • Local residents



Map 2—Analysis Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone Site Plan N

Map 3—Master Plan Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone Site Plan


State Reserve


Pirates Bay State Reserve



Arthur H

ighway

Blowhole Road

Pirates Bay Road

Waterfall Bay Road

Eaglehawk Bay

Pirates Bay

Legend Upgraded or new parking

Road Precinct boundary

Food

Lookout

Swimming Surfing

Toilet

Jetty and Boat Ramp Adjacent reserved land Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone

Future walking track links

Existing walking track links Major visitor services node

Blowhole Precinct

Key Proposals • Maintain character of working

port and recreational boating centre as low key and utilitarian

• Upgrade existing carparks by sealing and line marking, signing

• Develop new parking for cars and boat trailers

• Protect views and natural character

• Allow for very limited development of booking office and other support activities

• Allow for reasonable upgrade of jetty and boat ramp facilities

• See Concept Plan A for details

working port - the stunning marine

environment - sea wildlife - fishing

Pirates Bay Beach Precinct Key Proposals • Upgrade Gravel Pit carpark if

required • Support local community efforts

to protect penguins

Tasman Arch / Waterfall Bay Precinct

Key Proposals • Develop character of ‘national

park’ experience. • Develop key visitor node and

trailhead at Tasman Arch away from cliff edge.

• Rehabilitate existing carparks. • Install new carpark, toilets and

bus parking. • Develop walking track to

Blowhole • See Concept Plan B for details

national park - grand sea cliffs - wild and pristine

nature

Waterfall Bay

Tasman Arch

Tessellated Pavement—Eaglehawk Neck Precinct

Key Proposals • Develop Officers Quarters area

as a key visitor node providing a gateway to the area, community focus and beach access

• Resolve tenure issues with carparking and provide public access for visitors to features and coast

• Provide for workable arrangement with adjoining private landholders and businesses

• Work with DIER, Council and other stakeholders to fix issues of highway access, signage and safety

history - the convict

experience - the beach - the community



Gravel Pit carpark

N


15

Strategies and Actions • Any development in the zone must be located and designed to minimise

impact on the scenic and natural character of the zone and surrounding reserves.

• Any proposed development in the zone which is likely to impact on views should have a visual analysis conducted by an appropriate expert to analyse the likely impact and provide design recommendations.

• Where damage to critical screening vegetation occurs, revegetation with appropriate plants (e.g. effective at screening, of species naturally found in the location, of seed or propogules collected locally) will occur in accordance with the Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice 2003.

Geoheritage The underlying geology of the area is high dolerite mountains overlaying a coastal zone developed in marine mudstones and siltstones. Alluvial and coastal sands fill in the lowest lying areas to complete the picture.

Issues • Nutrient rich runoff from roads and housing, including sewerage above

the Tessellated Pavement, is causing eutrophication and algal growth on the rocks. This is degrading the geoheritage values and a public safety risk due to slipperiness. It is also likely to be impacting on the natural communities of the rock platform.

• The tracks through the dunes are relatively stable for what is typically a highly mobile environment. There are some areas where track braiding and erosion need to be carefully monitored and managed.

• Currently carparks are located on top of the Tasman Arch and Devils Kitchen. Generally visitors expect a more sensitive location for facilities near such significant natural features. Relocating the carparks at these features would improve protection of the natural character of these features as well as reflecting a higher value being placed on them than is currently the case.

• Changes in sea level will have significant impacts on the geoheritage features of the zone. Any significant rise over the next few decades is likely to lead to substantial erosion of the Eaglehawk Neck Isthmus, and to the dunes backing Pirates Bay. These areas are composed of low sand dunes, and are particularly prone to erosion.

Sea level rise will also impact on the sea cliff features by increasing erosion at the base of cliffs, possibly leading to an increase in rates of collapse and subsidence. This has implications for the location of facilities such as carparks close to such features.


16

Strategies and Actions • The zone will be used to promote and interpret the outstanding

geoheritage values of the zone and the surrounding coastline.

• In general, significant infrastructure will not be located on dunes in the zone. Should there be compelling reasons for further consideration of this issue careful consideration will be given to the provisions of the State Coastal Policy.

• Where tracks, such as the Dogline Track, are hardened and these meet the mobile sand of the dune, it will be necessary to remove the hardened surface further back to provide a more gradual and safe transition to the irregular surface of sand.

• Monitor track conditions on fore-dunes for developing blowouts and scarping and take action including signage and fencing to control and/or rehabilitate any degradation.

• Review and update interpretation signs at the geoheritage features in line with an interpretation plan.

Flora

A detail of Eucalyptus tenuiramis silver peppermint, a beautiful, silver barked tree and the dominant tree of the heathy woodland community important for its conservation values.

The zone contains representatives of a high diversity of vegetation communities within a small area. In the south of the zone tall wet stringybark Eucalyptus obliqua forest with a shrubby understorey is the dominant vegetation type. Silver peppermint Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest with a heathy understorey dominates along the coastal areas around the Devils Kitchen and Tasman Arch. Around Pirates Bay a mix of dry eucalypt forests and woodlands with patches dominated by blue gums Eucalyptus globulus stringybarks Eucalyptus obliqua and black peppermints Eucalyptus amygdalina are found.

Issues • A number of listed threatened species have been recorded in the zone.

These include; heath bent grass Deyeuxia densai and Tasman hairy boronia Boronia pilosa subsp. tasmanensis.


17

• A number of significant flora species including species listed on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are found in the zone.

• In particular there are areas of the vulnerable forest communities Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest on sediments and Eucalyptus globulus dry forest. Care needs to be taken where disturbance of these forest types might occur, particularly at the Tasman Arch and around the proposed redevelopment of the carpark there. Siting needs to consider and balance the needs of visitor experience with conservation.

• Weed invasion from existing infestations, garden waste dumping and from adjoining settled areas are a significant threat to the integrity of native vegetation communities. In particular blackberry, Spanish heath and pampas.

Strategies and Actions • Promote and interpret the outstanding flora values of the zone and the

surrounding reserves.

• Manage fire regime and impacts to match the ecological requirements of the flora of the zone while protecting people and built assets on reserve and adjoining lands.

• All proposed works in the zone need to take account of threatened species and any relevant directions from established recovery plans or advice from the Threatened Species Unit, Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW), including, if required detailed impact assessments.

• Undertake a detailed site survey, preferably timed to match flowering of key likely species of interest, in any areas where vegetation disturbance from development is anticipated.

• Develop and maintain a partnership arrangement with the Tasman Council and local care groups, including a prioritisation of target areas and species, to support volunteers in weed control projects, and Parks and Wildlife Service weed control activities in the reserve.

Fauna

Issues • Dunes in front of the site of the former Penzance Motel are the site of a

small but significant little penguin colony. Traffic along the road is a threat to penguins as many nest on the landward side of the road requiring a nightly road crossing.

• Threatened fauna recorded in the zone includes the hooded plover Thinornis rubricollis and the eastern barred bandicoot Perameles gunnii gunnii.


18

• Hooded plovers and other beach wading birds are threatened by beach activities. In particular dogs on beaches are a threat. They are known to kill penguins and eat shorebird eggs.

• The penguin population is of particular interest and value to the local community and of considerable conservation significance.

• Eaglehawk Neck is an important location for The Tasmanian devil in that it is used for movement between the Forestier and Tasman Peninsula. At the moment the Tasman Peninsular populations are considered to be free of the facial tumour disease. There is also a program underway to remove diseased devils from the northern side of Forestier Peninsula and to install structures on the Dunalley Bridge to prevent diseased devils from crossing from the mainland.

Eaglehawk Neck would be a useful place for to provide interpretation on the devil.

• The Tasman National Park and Reserves Management Plan 2001 has detailed actions on dog management in Section 5.4.6 Dog Walking.

Strategies and Actions • Interpret the fauna values of the zone and surrounding reserves. In

particular, provide interpretation on the little penguin. Interpretation on the little penguin will ensure any viewing is undertaken safely and within accepted guidelines.

• Work closely with DPIW Wildlife section to monitor penguin viewing to ensure it is occurring safely for penguins and viewers.

• All proposed works in the zone need to take account of threatened species and any relevant directions from established Recovery Plans or directions from Threatened Species Unit, DPIW, including, if required detailed impact assessments.

• Maintain and enhance populations of hooded plover and little penguin in the zone by cooperatively managing threats with Birds Tasmania, the Eaglehawk Neck Coastcare group and other interested parties. In particular this will require response to the major threats of on beaches of dogs, people and vehicular traffic.

• In conjunction with Birds Tasmania and the Eaglehawk Neck Coastcare group, plan and undertake baseline population surveys of little penguin by the end of 2007.

• Establish collaborative ongoing monitoring programs for hooded plovers and little penguins and identify trigger points for management review.

• Review management if numbers decline.

• Work with local community groups to develop and implement little penguin interpretation.

• Ensure that dog use in the Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone complies with the management plan by taking any necessary consultation and


19

enforcement actions including installation of signage to inform dog owners of requirements.

• Monitor impacts of dogs and track use on the penguin colony at Penzance, and Hooded Plovers and other shore birds, and take any necessary actions including track closing, fencing or restriction on dog movements, allowed under the management plan.

Marine

The zone is the launching point for sea wildlife tours that view the many seal colonies along the coast of the Tasman National Park allowing close viewing.

Issues • The zone is a vital access point to areas of outstanding marine habitat

and wildlife.

• It has been suggested that Waterfall Bay should become a Marine Protected Area.

Strategies and Actions • The zone will be used to promote and interpret the outstanding marine

heritage values of the adjoining coastal and marine environments.

• In particular such interpretation and promotion will be focused at the Blowhole and Tasmans Arch sites.

• As an accessible coastal protected area adjoining areas of significant marine environment, consideration could be given to locating a Marine Protected Area in the vicinity of the zone (Waterfall Bay has been suggested as a possible protected area before). This would support the growing tourism businesses based on the marine environment.

Aboriginal Heritage

Issues • The zone is known to contain sites of Aboriginal heritage value.

Comprehensive surveys of the zone have not been conducted. As the


20

area is coastal it is likely to contain many more sites than are currently known.

• Any disturbance of ground in these areas runs the risk of causing damage to Aboriginal heritage values.

Strategies and Actions • When planning works that require ground disturbance, the responsible

persons must contact the Aboriginal Heritage Office for advice on how to proceed.

Historic Heritage

Issues • The Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site contains important structural remains

of the military station built in 1832, including the oldest remaining timber military building in Australia, the Officers Quarters. The Historic Site incorporates not only the building but also the cultural landscape of Eaglehawk Neck.

• The historic site and its fabric form an important part of the convict story, particularly in relation to Port Arthur. As well as signalling the physical arrival at the Tasman Peninsula, it is the key geographic feature that led to the establishment of the penal settlement at Port Arthur. Consequently the site plays a significant role in the protection, interpretation and presentation of the Peninsula’s convict heritage.

The Officers Quarters at Eaglehawk Neck is one of the last remaining buildings from the convict and military settlement period.

• The Officers Quarters are in need of significant work to stabilise infrastructure and to best present interpretation. There is also some concern that the interpretation itself requires updating.

• Development on adjoining land and in nearby private land could compromise cultural landscape values and other values.


21

Strategies and Actions • Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site will be managed and interpreted as part of

an overall landscape of the Port Arthur / Tasman Peninsula convict heritage.

• Review pines south of dog line in the Historic Site to determine their social and cultural heritage value (including potential Aboriginal heritage impacts of removal) and remove if not of heritage value or likely to impact values with removal.

• Any development in the Historic Site or around the Officers Quarters will adhere to the Burra Charter principles.

• The Parks and Wildlife Service will carefully assess and provide input concerning any development proposals on adjoining and nearby private land in order to ensure appropriate consideration is given to the protection of the Officers Quarters and other historic site values.

• The Parks and Wildlife Service and Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority will work closely together in the short and long term to best manage the Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site.

• Work with the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority (PAHSMA)to explore options for long term management of the Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site including consideration of the historic site being managed by PAHSMA.

• Carry out maintenance works on the Officers Quarters of a standard to maintain the asset in the long term.

• Review and upgrade interpretation as necessary.

Presentation

Maintaining the Area’s Special Character

Issues • The overall character of the zone is one of a dramatic and unspoilt

natural area surrounding low-key recreational beachside settlements. There is a strong commitment by the local community to maintaining


22

this character. In addition, the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy (2005) recognises this character and sees its potential as an area to develop an iconic tourist destination.

Managing the development of tourism infrastructure and services while maintaining and enhancing the local character that is the basis of the industry is challenging and requires ongoing careful management and planning.

• The zone is an important destination and ‘gateway’ for tourists and visitors to the Peninsula. A good first impression is important. The ‘look’ and ‘feel’ of the place should be carefully considered and enhanced where possible.

Strategies and Actions • Maintain the character of the precincts as described in Precinct Plans

ensuring any development or change of management contributes to the character.

• Work closely with Tasman Council and PAHSMA in the development of guidelines and schemes for planning in the area to maintain this character.

• Regularly monitor rubbish and provide policing and cleaning as required, to maintain a high level of cleanliness.

Interpretation and Education

Issues • As the major natural area visitor node in the Tasman National Park, the

visitor service zone is the ideal location for interpreting the outstanding features of the zone and the entire Tasman National Park.

• The current interpretation of the Tessellated Pavement and Tasman Arch could reflect social history, for example the role of convict quarrying of the Tessellated Pavement, in addition to the geology of the area.

• The Blowhole jetty is the launching place for several commercial sea-life tour and dive operations that are based on accessing the marine area in adjoining waters. In particular marine mammals, ocean-going birds and the kelp forests are visited. This location then provides an ideal location for land-based interpretation and promotion of these areas. In addition interpretation could be developed in conjunction with commercial operators.

• The Officers Quarters and the Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site protect an important part of the colonial history of Tasmania. Particularly the penal history of the Tasman Peninsula and Port Arthur. It was the existence of the defensible ‘Neck’ that determined the siting of Port Arthur and the other penal establishments of the Peninsula.


23

Strategies and Actions • The zone will be the primary location for interpretation of the values

and management of the Tasman Peninsula reserves, in particular the Tasman National Park.

• The focal point of static interpretation will be the three main visitor nodes, Officers Quarters, Blowhole and Tasman Arch. Tessellated Pavement will also have static interpretation.

• Ensure any wildlife interpretation contributes to safe and sustainable viewing for wildlife and viewers. Work with commercial operators to develop interpretation of the marine environment.

• The main visitor nodes of the Officers Quarters, Blowhole and Tasman Arch are appropriate locations to interpret general Aboriginal heritage values, especially the role of the area as a ‘contact site’ and as an area with significant cultural resource and landscape value. Any interpretation should be developed in close consultation with the Aboriginal community and approved by the Aboriginal Heritage Office.

• Investigate viability of a park entry brochure for Tasman National Park or the Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone.

• Assess and update interpretation of geoheritage features to integrate latest thinking and more social history and context. Implement as required.

Develop and implement an interpretation plan for the zone using the following three topic areas:

∼ Geoheritage Wonders of the Coast – explaining the outstanding geoheritage features of the area. (Tasmans Arch and Tessellated Pavement)

∼ The Sea and its Wildlife – providing a land-based access to knowledge of the surrounding sea and its biodiversity. (The Blowhole and sea charter operators)

∼ The Port Arthur Connection – showing the role of the Neck in the development of the convict heritage of the Tasman Peninsula, in particular Port Arthur (Officers Quarters).

Orientation and Signage Issues • The zone has a complex interface with numerous public roads, semi-

urban development and commercial enterprises and this tends to result in a proliferation of signs. This can give rise to visual pollution and visitor confusion.

• An unpublished visitor survey at Tasmans Arch in 2004 (a joint Parks and Wildlife Service and Forestry Tasmania survey) found that 20% of visitors found the site by maps and road signs. This indicated a relatively opportunistic visitation compared to Cradle Mountain where only 1% of visitors visited having heard about it on a map or road sign.


24

Strategies and Actions • Work with Council, tourism bodies and Department of Infrastructure,

Energy and Roads (DIER) to develop a signage plan.

Signage Plan

A Signage Plan for the area should:

∼ Take into account existing signage and relevant signage policies.

∼ Involve Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE), Department of Energy, Infrastructure and Resources, and Tasman Council as well as local stakeholders in both development and implementation – integration and partnership are key to overcoming proliferation, confusion and pollution from signage.

∼ Reflect and utilise the role of signs in defining the character of the different precincts.

∼ Clearly define the Tasman National Park through signage that is consistent with a state-wide national park style.

Advertising

Issues • Generally the public does not accept the presence of advertising in

national parks or other conservation reserves.

In addition there was strong stakeholder concern that the zone and the area in general retain a natural unspoilt character and that signage and billboards in particular might detract from this.

Strategies and Actions • No advertising of any sort will be permitted in the Visitor Service zone

other than in the specified locations below.

• Advertising only will be permitted at: 1) The inside of any buildings constructed to provide commercial services. 2) On the outside of any building providing commercial services consistent with an approved signage plan that specifies a consistent style for all visitor services (public and private) and is designed to provide direction, not to promote a product or service.

• Any unauthorised advertising in the zone will be removed.

Information Centre / Booking Office

Issues • The Tasman Tourism Development Strategy 2005 identified the need to

develop visitor arrivals, booking and information services in the vicinity of Pirates Bay.


25

• Suggested locations for such services in the consultation for the draft site plan included; Tasman National Park lookout, the Officers Mess site, the Blowhole and Tasmans Arch.

Strategies and Actions • That any information centre be a project that involves a range of

stakeholders and other activities to make it viable, useful and ‘owned’.

• Work with Tasman Council, other State and Federal Government agencies, private operators and local peak tourism bodies to develop potential gateway visitor centre / booking office in the area, consistent with this site plan.

• That any visitor centre is located adjoining the zone, but in some cases consideration could be given to sharing land where it improves presentation and protection of the zone.

Tourism and Guided Tours

Issues • A number of bus tours stop in the zone. They mainly stop at the

Blowhole or Tasmans Arch. Buses require adequate turning and parking. They also need to be able to manoeuvre without the need to reverse. Reversing is unsafe, especially where there are pedestrians moving around.

• Toilets are part of reason for visits to the Blowhole, although bus tours that go past here do not have far to go in any direction before other toilets are encountered.

• Many tours use the area, particularly the Blowhole or Tasmans Arch as a short stopover on tours including Port Arthur, the major feature of the area. This requires that short duration walks are available (5 – 20 min).

Other Commercial Activities

Issues • Currently there is one food van operating under licence in the zone.

This business operates during the tourist season at the Blowhole carpark and was licensed through a public tender process run by the Parks and Wildlife Service. The Parks and Wildlife Service have received approaches to allow other food vans in the zone.

Food vans require access to toilets, and suitable infrastructure for parking, access, power and waste management.

Food vans would not normally be considered to fit with the character of a national park or reserve; however in the case of the Blowhole and in line with the ‘working port’ feel of the site, a food van is not so out of character. The current food van is located in a carpark. This does create conflict and public safety risks with pedestrians and vehicles.


26

• It is in line with community consultation feedback for the draft site plan and the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy to provide a food outlet for the Blowhole area. It is considered that a small permanent eatery will better utilise space and contribute to the visitor experience and quality of park presentation than a food van.

A possible booking office and seafood eatery is suggested for the Blowhole in the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy.

Strategies and Actions • An eatery / booking office facility can be developed at the Blowhole as

shown on the ‘Concept Plan – Blowhole’. Any building would need to be designed to protect the character of the location. In addition, consideration would need to be given to how such a facility was developed and run in relation to serving all commercial operators from the jetty.

• Any development of a eatery / booking office will need to meet the following conditions: 1) Not visible from the Tasman National Park Lookout and visually

discreet from other viewpoints around the Pirates Bay area. This would include the external design being consistent in character with that described on p.40, ‘Character’, of the Site Plan.

2) Will be constructed of materials and colours sympathetic to the surroundings.

3) Total building and deck areas will occupy a footprint no larger than 200 m2 and be contained within the area between the path from the current upper carpark to the Blowhole and lower carpark, the road to the lower carpark and the upper carpark.

4) Building will provide disabled toilets accessible from the upper carpark.

• Any proposals for such a development can only occur through a formal expression of interest process.

• Commercial food providers will not be permitted within the zone, with the following excepted locations and under the following conditions: 1) One food provider may be permitted at the Blowhole either in a food

van in the short term or in a permanent purpose built building in the long term.

2) One food provider may be considered, at either the Gravel Pit carpark or the Officers Quarters, to meet a demonstrated demand for food from beach goers. This will only be permitted where the service is not being provided on immediately adjoining private land.

Proposals for the establishment of food providers at these locations will only be considered where the operator is willing to contribute to necessary parking, toilet, water and other requirements to a level that makes it cost neutral for the Parks and Wildlife Service; the need is demonstrated; and the selection/approval process is transparent.

• A small booking office or tour operator support facilities will be permitted at the Blowhole.


27

New booking facilities will be considered and developed as part of the expression of interest process for the eatery development and will be restricted to the area shown on the site plan.

• Buildings along waterfront closest to jetty (indicated in grey on ‘Concept Plan – Blowhole’) may have their use modified for delivery of commercial activity directly relating to commercial tourist services provided from the jetty.

• No commercial activities will be allowed in the zone that requires exclusive use of a site, other than in accordance with this plan.

• All future commercial activities will be confined to existing visitor access points where disturbed or developed ground exists and not involve disturbance of significant natural, Aboriginal or historic heritage assets.

• Assess the appropriateness of any future commercial activity in terms of how it will fit with the heritage values of the relevant precinct.

Management

Partnership

Issues • Many issues in the area involve many different organisations. For

example the Tasman Council, the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority and regional tourism bodies have a strong interest in what occurs in the zone as a crucial element of the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy. There are also issues such as road management and ownership, access, coordinating signage, integrating planning for reserves and adjoining land.

Strategies and Actions • Support formation of a high level working group to develop and

implement a memorandum of understanding to coordinate efforts to develop and promote the area.

The Pirates Bay Working Group

∼ Membership: Tasman Council, Parks and Wildlife Service, DIER, Port Arthur Regional Marketing Group, Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST), Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, a representative for local community / ‘care’ group interests and fishing / jetty user interests

∼ Key activity: Develop a memorandum of understanding covering issues of roads, signage, promotion, tourism development and infrastructure and to implement this site plan and the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy.

∼ Purpose: Ensure that all plans and activities for the area are compatible and take advantage of combined strengths and resources to best fund, develop and manage the area.

• Work with DIER and council to ensure roads are safe and that road upgrades or other investment in the area address issues raised above


28

including improving highway access to the Officers Quarters, integrated weed control, and directing traffic to Tasman Arch.

Fire

Issues • Fire management is a crucial aspect of managing the zone.

• The zone has an extensive interface with private property including housing and other infrastructure. This makes fire management crucial for protecting both, adjoining property and people from fires on reserved land, and, for protecting assets and people in the zone.

• Protection of the assets and life in the zone and on adjoining land will require a high level of fire protection including fire breaks and prescribed burning.

• The Draft Tasman National Park, Pirates Bay State Reserve and Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site Fire Management Plan is due for completion in 2006.

• The Blowhole, Tasman Arch and Waterfall Bay visitor sites all have only one access for vehicles to places with little or no shelter from forest fires.

• The fire history of the Tasman Peninsula shows a high concentration of fires in the Eaglehawk Neck area. The close proximity to residential areas leads to a significant increase in escaped and unintentional fires.

Strategies and Actions • Implement the Tasman National Park, Pirates Bay State Reserve and

Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site Fire Management Plan.

• Where practical integrate walking track locations with existing and new fire trail locations.

• Any BBQ’s to be gas or electric. Open fire BBQ’s are a potential fire hazard.

• Develop and implement a fire risk management strategy for visitor protection to Waterfall Bay and the Tasman Arch.


29

Safety and Risk Management

Issues • There is a dam beside the Officers Mess that is used for water storage.

It is currently fenced although in a few places the fence is broken and presents a risk for children and other vulnerable people due to the slippery steep slopes of the dam.

The provision of vehicular access and other facilities at Waterfall Bay provide a reasonable expectation and requirement for safety fencing on walking tracks within close proximity. This will be expensive to meet. Tracks heading south from Waterfall Bay carpark, there are several areas that require significant upgrades or installation of safety fencing. This is to provide an appropriate level of risk management due to the proximity of the carpark and possible risk to users.

• Visitor sites in the zone, as defined by the Reserve Standards Framework (a zoning system used by Parks and Wildlife Service to categorise and manage visitor sites in reserves – see Appendix 2 for details), are managed to be Neutral Hazard Zones (Neutral Hazard is defined as not scoring more than 10 on the National Safety Council of Australia’s NSCA Risk Score Calculator Card (1997)).

The exception to this rating are the beaches, defined as visitor sites, which are defined as Moderate Hazard areas.

• Emergency vehicle access is essential. Current problems associated with trailer parking at the Blowhole will at times create a risk for emergency access to the jetty. It is important that this is addressed as soon as possible.

• Waterfall Bay Road is the most difficult road to manage for visitors during high fire danger periods. It is a long drive through forest in which it would be hard or near impossible any fire. There are also no alternative escape routes or safety zones as the forest in the area goes right to the cliff edges.

• Pedestrian movement in the Blowhole carpark is not adequately separated from vehicle movements. This presents several hazards.


30

• Trees and rocks on cliff lines are sometimes unstable and a risk to visitors either above or below.

Strategies and Actions • Safety for visitors, users and staff is a priority in any activity in the zone.

• Provide traffic calming and pedestrian separation in all sealed carparks to Australian Standards.

• Vandalism of signs and other safety infrastructure will be immediately reported to the police and managing authority. Any damaged or defaced infrastructure will be replaced or repaired promptly.

• Respond to reports of unusual movement by trees or rock near cliffs in the zone by having their safety assessed, and taking appropriate action.

• Install and maintain safety fencing to Australian Standard around the dam at the Officers Mess.

Visitor Facilities and Activities

Walking Tracks

Issues • The existing walking track from Devils Kitchen to Waterfall Bay

provides access to spectacular coastal scenery and a strong sense of naturalness and isolation. It does this safely and with easy grades. It is listed as one of the 60 Great Short Walks in Tasmania.

• The Tasman Tourism Development Strategy recommends the creation of a loop track between the Blowhole and Tasman Arch. A track alignment already exists and is well used informally. It would require significant safety facilities to be brought to a standard suitable for formal use. It would provide a valuable link between these sites adding to the range of visitor experiences on offer.

• The Tasman Arch site is also the start of the Tasman Coastal Trail, a five day walk to Cape Pillar. If this walk is more widely promoted, as occurred in 2005, when it was promoted nationally in a joint Tasmanian Government and Australian Geographic publication, the site will take on increasing significance as the start of the walk.

This also applies if current studies into the proposed ‘Three Capes’ walk for the Tasman Peninsula advise the new walk begins in the zone.

• There are numerous missing links in the walking track system around the zone. These are generally utilised by local residents often at risk such as when using narrow roads or walking around rocky foreshores between sandy beaches. While construction of desired links will be expensive and not a priority for tourist visitors to the zone they would be much appreciated and has safety benefits for local residents.


31

• Currently many of the walking options in the zone are not clearly marked or promoted. An integrated promotion of the zone as a place of numerous walking opportunities would add to its attraction to visitors.

Strategies and Actions • Redevelop the Tasman Arch carpark as a major arrival node for the

Tasman National Park. Create the area as a significant trailhead for a wide range of walking experiences and access to the spectacular coastal scenery of the area.

• Provide a range of walking track opportunities.

• Maintain public access to the beach at Tessellated Pavement, Officers Mess / Quarters, Dogline, Gravel Pit, Penzance and the Blowhole.

• Make links between tracks where possible. The highest priority will be to the Blowhole – Tasman Arch link. Support partners who want to develop link tracks that are consistent with this plan. (See those marked on Master Plan – Map 3)

• Ensure any promotion of walks or facilities is matched by facilities with the capacity to cope with visitor numbers and provide a high quality experience.

• Develop a brochure of walks in the zone.

• Construct a walking track loop between the Blowhole and Devils Kitchen that is safe. Promote as an extension of the existing ‘Great Walk’.

Toilets

Issues • There was strong stakeholder feedback about the need for adequate

toilets in the visitor service zone.

• Two exercises were undertaken to determine the priority toilet sites, one as part of a Parks and Wildlife Service run community workshop and one facilitated by the Tasman Residents and Ratepayers Association. Both came up with the Officers Mess / Eaglehawk Neck location as being the highest priority location for a public toilet.

• The toilets at the Blowhole do not have handicapped access. The National Industry Association for Disability Services has requested that priority consideration be given to disability access at popular sites on the Tasman Peninsula.

• Toilets are expensive to maintain due to staff time requirements for cleaning and maintenance costs due to vandalism and general wear and tear.

• The Tasman Arch / Devils Kitchen site receives over150,000 visitors a year, but does not have a toilet. There is a proliferation of tissue paper


32

and faeces in off-track locations in this area which indicates a high level of informal use.

An unpublished visitors survey at the Tasmans Arch in 2004 (a joint Parks and Wildlife Service and Forestry Tasmania survey) found 15% of visitors cited toilets (or lack of toilets) as being a problem at the site. This compared to 2% for Remarkable Cave. This was the most mentioned facility requiring improvement at the Tasman Arch. The survey also noted the proliferation of toilet paper at the site.

Strategies and Actions • Prepare a site design and maintenance plan to guide the provision of any

new toilet facilities in the zone. These will take into account, safety, amenity, conservation values, management risks such as vandalism, ongoing maintenance costs, staffing requirements, and be consistent with the vision and character for the zone and precinct.

• Provide a maximum of one toilet block in or adjoining the visitor service zone at each of the three main visitor nodes; Officers Quarters, Blowhole / Jetty and Tasman Arch.

• Work closely with the owner of the Officers Mess and Tasman Council to ensure that toilet facilities are provided and that they are available for visitors to the Officers Quarters, Historic Site and beach.

• All new toilets will be built to national standards for disability access. All new toilets will be designed and built to have minimal impact on water quality.

• Discuss with The Tasman Council possible joint arrangement for constructing, maintaining and servicing toilets as part of the partnership arrangement.

Other facilities

Issues • There is generally considered to be a lack of public facilities for picnics

BBQ’s and the like in the area. The lack of facilities is not in line with the popularity and character of the area.

• The Eaglehawk Neck Community Hall is run by a local residents committee and utilised for a range of community events. It plays an important role in the local community as a communal space. The hall building is owned by the committee and is located within a lease.

• Facilities such as benches, tables, shelters, bins, water and toilets have high maintenance requirements. The costs and ability to maintain these facilities for the long term needs to be carefully considered when considering installing them.


33

Strategies • Prepare a site design and maintenance plan to guide the provision of new

facilities in the zone. These will take into account, safety, amenity, conservation values, management risks such as vandalism, ongoing maintenance costs, staffing requirements, and be consistent with the vision and character for the zone and precinct.

• Continue to provide the lease and access to the community hall as currently allowed under the management plan.

• Seating and or picnic tables may be provided at the three main visitor nodes where a site design is prepared.


34

6. Precinct Plans

Tessellated Pavement – Eaglehawk Neck Precinct

Visitors arrive onto the Tessellated Pavement

The Precinct in Ten Years Time

Character • a classic tourism precinct – a place of promenading tourists collecting happy holiday snaps

• outstanding heritage features are subtly highlighted by the high quality of interpretation, facilities and management

• a pretty and safe family-friendly beach access area

Types of users (trend from now)

• visitors and tourists

• locals

Activities • exploring historic and geological heritage

• beach access and use

• orientation and information collection

Our signs of success

• public carparking is safe and on secure tenure

• commercial facilities on adjoining private land enhance visitor experience

• water draining onto ‘pavement’ from housing and roads does not impact on values or safety

(Trends - stable - increasing - decreasing)


35

Visitor Facilities

Current Situation (Issues and existing facilities) • The road access to the Officers Quarters from the Arthur Highway can

be confusing. Traffic coming from Hobart has to stop at the bottom of a long steep descent. Directional signage to the Officers Mess and Quarters is confusing leading some visitors to miss the Officers Quarters.

• At the time of writing the site plan the Officers Mess is for sale and the historic site is the subject of discussions with the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority about it s future management. The outcomes of either or both of these could have significant impacts on how this area is managed. The Officers Mess / Quarters area is important as a focal point for the local community, is the major beach access point in Pirates Bay and the site of important historical features. Therefore whatever the outcome of these significant ownership and management processes the site plan should acknowledge the site as a major visitor’s node into the future.

• Parking facilities for the Tessellated Pavement are adequate. The Tessellated Pavement State Reserve has no access on public land. More than half of the existing carpark lies on private property. The Parks and Wildlife Service have no formal agreement with the owner of the land regarding its use as a carpark and public access for the reserve. An informal agreement exists regarding use and maintenance.

• Toilets are currently provided for visitors and staff of the historic site at the Officers Mess during open hours under a formal agreement between the owner and the Crown.

• The track in front of the Officers Mess is braiding. The braiding leads to an increase in risk of erosion and is unsightly. In addition there is occasional illegal vehicle access to the beach at this point. Vehicle access is not permitted on the beach as it is a threat to wildlife and safety.

• The track at the Dogline is eroding and has some difficult drops in level. These do not reflect the standard of the track or visitor expectations to that point.

Strategies and Actions • Provision of any new facilities at the Officers Quarters site will require a

site design and maintenance plan. These will take into account, safety, amenity, conservation values, management risks such as vandalism, ongoing maintenance costs, staffing requirements, and be consistent with the vision and character for the zone and precinct.

• Continue to provide carparking for visitors to the Officers Quarters, Historic Site and the beach at the Officers Quarters.

• Formalise agreement on access and use of Tessellated Pavement carpark.


36

• Work with all relevant parties to ensure a viable and high quality visitor site is maintained in the location of the Officers Mess / Quarters including maintaining beach access.

• Work with Tasman Council on the provision of toilet facilities in the precinct.

• Control track braiding at the Officers Mess through construction of one stabilised track and temporary fencing and signs if required.

• Monitor other access track development. Where tracks show signs of erosion or degradation over time take action to remediate.

• Redirect runoff water from the Tessellated Pavement at base of stairs to the adjoining stone beach to reduce algal growth and slip hazard.

Pirates Bay Beach Precinct


Character • a casual and relaxing beachside area

• a popular surf beach

• natural and unspoilt


• surfers

• beach walkers and users

• bathers / recliners

Activities • surfing

• beach walking

• dog walking

• relaxing and playing on the beach

• bird watching


• the local penguin population has increased from its 2006 levels

• extent of environmental weeds has decreased

• number of hooded plovers has been stable or increased

• extent and condition of natural vegetation is stable

• beachside access points are well managed and conveniently located



37

Visitor Facilities

Current Situation (Issues and existing facilities) • The Gravel Pit carpark is an informal carpark initially used as a gravel

dump for road construction. It is a popular place for surfers to check out the waves and take to the beach for surfing.

The carpark is also an important public access point for residents of the Eaglehawk Neck area.

• Informal tracks provide access to the beach in numerous places around Pirates Bay. There are a number of issues associated with these. Generally beach tracks are challenging to maintain due to the erodibility of the sandy soils. There are numerous informal tracks developed between private houses and the beach. Because these tracks occur on public land they can be a safety risk.

• Due to the long interface of residential housing and beach, there are a number of informal access tracks through the Pirates Bay State Reserve. At best these can be convenient and generally stable with little impact. At the other end they can become unsightly, eroding and a safety risk.

• There are two established sites for hang-gliding in the visitor service zone. The management plan did not mention one of these, below the Blowhole Road about 1 km south of the junction with the Arthur Highway. This launch site off dunes has a long history of low level usage. (see next page).


38

Map showing location of existing launch sites and a proposed launch site for hang gliding.

• There is some interest in establishing a new launch site (see map above) this would be to provide a low level launch site that was useable in a wider variety of wind conditions than the current low level launch site. Its location at the head of a small bowl would provide better conditions.

• The Pirates Bay Beach is a popular surf beach. It provides a range of surfing opportunities and conditions.

The Gravel Pit carpark is an informal but popular destination for people looking to check out and access the surf.


39

• An important issue is the provision of public access to the beach along with some basic facilities. There have been requests for toilets and showers at locations along the beach for swimmers and surfers. The possible locations are the Officers Mess and the Gravel Pit carpark.

• With the growing popularity of Shipstern Bluff as an iconic surf destination, it is possible there will be an increased exposure and use of Pirates Bay for surfing as more surfers from around Tasmania and overseas visit the Peninsula.

• Provision of showers and toilets at the Gravel Pit carpark would be difficult due to lack of water and difficulties in disposal of effluent on the sandy soils.

Strategies and Actions • Provide public access to the beach with facilities at the Officers

Quarters site.

• Formalise the Gravel Pit carpark, when required, through hardening and other works. Any works requiring an expansion of the area used or construction of buildings or other structures more than one meter high should only be undertaken with an assessment of visual impact on the character of the Pirates Bay foreshore.

• Liaise with DIER to prevent use of ‘Gravel Pit’ carpark as gravel pit or dumping site.

• Permit continuation of hang-gliding from the established informal launch site from a dune near the ‘quarry’ carpark. Landing is restricted to the beach as per the management plan.

• Consideration be given to amending the management plan to allow a new hang-gliding site closer to the road at the next management plan review.

• Investigate installing a toilet at the Gravel Pit carpark if future demand requires.


40

Blowhole Precinct


Character • a vibrant working port

• clean, safe and functional

• unspoilt natural area

• built features are utilitarian, simple and relaxed and at ease in the natural context – a casual understatement to the stunning natural grandeur around


• professional fishers and other commercial fishing operators

• amateur fishers

• commercial charter and sea-based activity operators

• tourists (attending charter trips)

• tourists (non charter related)

Activities • boating and sea-based activities

• loading and unloading boats

• viewing a working port for visitors

• walking and exploring on foot


• carparking is easy and safe. 90 % of the time there are sufficient parking spaces

• loading and parking for a boat trailer is easy and functional


41

• Visitors are comfortable and safe

• The working port has superseded the Blowhole as a feature

• Pedestrian and vehicular circulation are safely separated

What is proposed to happen

• Widen the access road

• Seal and line mark the carparks

• Construct a new carpark


Visitor Facilities

Current Situation (Issues and facilities) • The Blowhole carpark regularly experiences congestion on weekends

throughout the cray and tuna seasons (roughly November to May). At its peak on a couple of weekends during this season, especially when Tuna Club events are held, cars and boat trailers have been parked on both sides of the Blowhole Road as far back as the Tasmans Arch turnoff in Doo Town. This is a significant safety and amenity issue. There has been considerable community angst and concern about this for many years.

Unfortunately there is not currently any data on exact numbers of vehicles, especially boat trailers and tow vehicles, despite considerable anecdotal evidence.

There is a risk that if any emergency vehicles need to access the jetty area during these peak times that their passage could be impeded.

In 2006 DIER and the Tasman Council undertook a safety audit and determined that signs were needed to prevent parking on one side of the road to keep two lanes of traffic clear. These were vandalised and have not been replaced.

Tour buses have been reported to avoid the site on weekends (despite it having public toilet facilities) because of the difficulties in accessing and turning around when the area is congested.

The trend in boat usage has been that tow vehicles and trailers are getting larger. Marine and Safety Tasmania consider the trend for jetty and boat ramp usage is likely to increase.

The number of sea-life tour and fishing charter operations is increasing and these can require carparking for clients for 4-5 hours. Some operators consider it more effective to have clients park elsewhere (including in Hobart) and deliver them to the jetty in a minibus.

Commercial fishers and tour and charter operators have a need for limited parking for operational vehicles near the jetty. This parking space


42

is not always available on busy days thus having a significant impact on these businesses and their customers.

The Blowhole carpark lacks clear definition of parking spaces often resulting in a confusing and wasteful use of the existing space.

Parking – Where does it stop?

∼ An increase of parking area at the Blowhole is considered the best solution to parking problems however there are significant constraints on providing adequate carparking.

∼ The area is very tightly constrained by the ocean and the coastline and sea-cliffs. It is also a highly visible area in views known for their natural character. Based on visual analysis modelling it is unlikely that any more than 30-40 boat trailer park spaces can be fitted into the area.

∼ It is inefficient for parking areas to be built to cater for peak demands which occur on a handful of weekends while for the rest of the year much of the parking is not used at all. It is not possible to provide adequate parking for 80 – 100 or more trailers on the site.

∼ It also needs to be recognised that while increasing the amount of carparking is clearly needed; improving facilities could bring further increases in usage. Indications are that the trends to bigger boats and more boats will also increase. Therefore it is possible that crowding will occur more frequently in the future as numbers increase.

∼ The key to providing some increase in parking and safety without increasing the area indefinitely is to create clearly defined and regulated parking spaces and traffic flow areas. Enforcement may also be necessary to change the culture initially.

• There is a small body of local fishers who go to sea early, before going to work. They have a quick turnaround and have expressed a preference for having access to parking in the lower carpark during these times (generally before 8 a.m.).

• Sealing and line marking road verges and carparks will allow greater control over parking. Currently the unmarked gravel parking areas do not always work well. If the first vehicles to park do not set up a good


43

pattern (i.e. by parking parallel to the flow of traffic instead of at right angles) the parking area will hold significantly fewer cars.

• Parking in the lower carpark is useful for commercial operators using the jetty. They require long term parking. It needs to be close to the jetty to allow transfer of equipment and quick movement from jetty to parking and back due to waiting boats and clients. A permit system has been suggested to provide some security of access to parking for vehicles belonging to these businesses during busy times.

• Currently the Blowhole road leads to the Blowhole (logically) meaning that most visitors and tourists tend to end up at the Blowhole. Additionally the name ‘Blowhole’ promises a spectacular feature but this is often disappointing, especially as the roof has collapsed since its historic heyday meaning that it does not blow, in any but the most exceptional sea conditions.

Rearranging the intersection in Doo Town to direct the flow of traffic to Tasmans Arch and resigning the turnoff to the ‘Jetty’ could reduce the number of tourists going to the Blowhole, in turn reducing traffic pressure on this hotspot.

• One possibility to resolve traffic congestion at the Blowhole is the construction of a loop road from the Blowhole to Tasmans Arch Road behind Doo Town. At this stage the relative cost of construction of a loop road as well as the substantial impact on vegetation in the national park does not make this a viable option.

Another option suggested is constructing a carpark further up the road near the firetrail. This option would entail a long walk between boat and trailer, which is inconvenient and a safety risk, it would also impact on the amenity of neighbours.

• The management plan allows for the retention of the boat sheds providing the lease conditions continue to be met. Feedback received from the public suggests that visitors to the Blowhole and the jetty enjoy viewing the boatsheds. They contribute to the desired character of the port.

• Fish waste and cleaning causes problems at times with unpleasant fish waste left on the jetty. This can be a minor safety hazard and also unpleasant for other users of the jetty.

• There is currently no fresh water provided at the jetty. This has been identified as a problem for fishers, divers and charter operators where basic fresh water would allow critical equipment to be cleaned on the site.


44

• The jetty and boat ramps require access for vehicles servicing boats, dropping off and picking up supplies and vehicles with trailers dropping off boats.

Strategies and Actions • Allow for an increase in parking to cater for at least 35 boat trailers and

towing vehicles in marked dedicated spaces at the Blowhole.

• Work with the relevant authority to plan and construct new carparking at the Blowhole. The carpark should provide additional boat and trailer parking spaces as well as providing for bus and carparking.

• Maintain the undisturbed natural views of the Blowhole area from the Officers Mess and the Tasman National Park lookout.

• Provide fresh water from the dam in the reserve to the jetty area for basic cleaning if another party is willing to undertake the infrastructure development and maintenance in a way that does not impact on reserve values.

• Investigate upgrading access at the Blowhole toilets to a disabled access standard.

• Work with the Tasman Council, MAST and the Tuna Club to develop a strategy for keeping the area clean of fish waste including the investigation of a possible cleaning area and marine waste transfer facilities.

• Work with the management authority to widen Blowhole Road and signpost to enable safe parking and passage during peak times.

• Work with the management authority to seal and line mark existing carparks for optimal use of parking and turning spaces and to limit impacts of erosion and runoff from carparks.

• Provide limited short time and off-peak boat trailer parking, car parking of up to one hour and parking for commercial operators and lessees in the lower carpark.

• Give consideration to metered parking in some locations.

• Work with Tasmanian Police to ensure enforcement of any traffic and parking controls installed in the precinct.

• Work with relevant authorities to rename Blowhole Road to Tasmans Arch Road.


45

Tasman Arch – Waterfall Bay Precinct


Character • natural solitude, unspoilt

• a distinctly ‘national park’ experience

• high quality facilities enhance the ‘Wow!’ sensation of discovering the spectacular natural features of this area


• tourists

• bushwalkers

• nature observers

Activities • sight seeing

• photography

• bushwalking

• nature viewing


• a new carpark at the Devils Kitchen / Tasman Arch and new toilet facilities

• a world class trailhead for natural area exploring

• the walking tracks and viewing and safety infrastructure are first class



46

Visitor Facilities

Current Situation (Issues and existing facilities)

The carpark at Tasman Arch is located right on top of the very natural feature being presented.

• The current carparks at the Tasman Arch and Devils Kitchen are located on top of the very features they seek to provide access to. This is not in line with contemporary visitor expectations for presentation of such values. Generally it would be considered that visitor facilities be designed and located to minimise impact on the features.

• Day use visitor access to the sea cliffs in the zone – at Waterfall Bay Road, Tasman Arch and the Blowhole – is replicated with the three sites within a small three kilometre stretch of coast. A key problem with visitor services in the zone and more generally on the peninsula and in Tasman National Park has been the unfocused ‘scatter gun’ array visitor sites, with no clear focus or arrival point.

• Converting the road to ‘management access only’ would facilitate developing Tasman Arch as a focused ‘national park’ visitor’s node. It would allow resources to be better focused on a higher quality location, rather than diluted across sites. This is consistent with the overall strategy of the Tasman Tourism Development Strategy 2005 to create a strong distinctive iconic natural destination on the Tasman Peninsula.

• The draft Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone considered a number of options for the future management of Waterfall Bay Road inside the national park. After taking into account responses to the draft site plan, the preference of the Parks and Wildlife Service is to use the road for management access only, once the Tasman Arch node is redeveloped in line with this site plan.

• The Waterfall Bay Road needs to be maintained as a management access road for emergency and fire management purposes.


47

Strategies • Develop the Tasman Arch site as the primary national park presentation

and visitor activity site for the Tasman Peninsula and Tasman National Park.

• Ensure best use of resources to provide a high quality visitor experience in precinct.

• Construct new toilets at the Devils Kitchen /Tasman Arch precinct.

• Provide some natural seating areas for picnics, thermos stops, ect., allowing visitors to rest and linger longer.

• Convert Waterfall Bay Road to management access only, when redevelopment of the consolidated Tasman Arch / Devils Kitchen visitor node begins. This should include a communications plan and consideration of private land access, walking groups and cyclist use.

20

30

EXISTING TOILET FACILITIES

TUNA CLUB

LOWER CARPARK SEALED AND LINEMARKED AND SIGNED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM USE AND ACCESS FOR JETTY USERS

BLOWHOLE

SEA CLIFFS

LONG TERM (2—8 HR) CAR PARKING

BUS BAYS

BOAT AND TRAILER PARKING

BLOWHOLE ROAD SLIGHTLY WIDENED AND MARKED AND SIGNED TO ALLOW OVERFLOW BOAT TRAILER PARKING IN DESIGNATED LOCATIONS

EXISTING CARPARK FULLY SEALED AND LINEMARKED FOR CARS 1—2 HOUR PARKING WITH SUFFICIENT TURNING CIRCLE FOR BUSES

NEW CARPARK APPROX.: • 30—40 BOAT AND TRAILER

PARK SPACES (ALSO SUITABLE FOR CAMPERVANS)

• 20 CAR PARK SPACES NEW CARPARK IS LOCATED AWAY FROM HIGHER SLOPE TO AVOID IMPACTING VIEWFIELDS. IT WILL REQUIRE CAREFUL RETENTION OF VEGETATION TO SCREEN EFFECTIVELY

PEDESTRIAN LINK TO JETTY AND BLOWHOLE AND WALKING TRACK TO TASMAN’S ARCH

EXISTING VEGETATION RETAINED

BLOWHO

LE R

OAD

25

35

15

BOAT SHEDS

POSSIBLE FUTURE EATERY / BOOKING OFFICE AND SEATING

BOAT RAMPS

JETTY

Concept Plan — Blowhole Scale 1: 1000 Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone Site Plan

EXISTING WALKING TRACK

ARROWS INDICATE ONEWAY TRAFFIC FLOW

POSSIBLE FUTURE FISH CLEANING AND MARINE WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY IN JETTY VICINITY

N

NOTE: LAYOUT IS CONCEPTUAL; FURTHER DETAILED DESIGN WILL BE REQUIRED

Legend

Existing Road alignment Walking Track

Lookout Toilet

Tasman Arch Road

New Car Park Provision of adequate parking away from key spectacular features allowing them to be ‘discovered’ and presented in a more natural context. At the same time recognising the need to provide a highly accessible view for some people, the walk to the Tasman Arch is kept very short (30—40 meters).

New walking tracks providing a 1—1.5 hour loop walk to Blowhole and Pirates Bay Beach following cliffs to east and returning via beach and forest to west

New toilet block with disabled access

The Tasman National Park Experience

Information, seating, toilets and trail head for the following walks: • Tasman Arch Lookout (1 min) • Devils Kitchen (10 min return) • Coastal Cliffs Loop (15—30 min) • Blowhole / Pirates Bay Beach (1

hr return) • Waterfall Bay (1.5 hr return) • Clemes Peak / Waterfall Bluff

(3-4 hr return) • Tasman Coastal Trail (3-5 days

one way) With some new track work and signage it is possible to generate a visitors destination that provides a diverse range of high quality nature experiences and destinations.

Existing walking track to Waterfall Bay and Tasman Coastal Trail

New walking track

Existing walking tracks

Existing walking tracks

Existing road rehabilitated

Sea cliffs

Devils Kitchen

Tasmans Arch

Concept Plan — Tasmans Arch Scale 1: 1000 Pirates Bay Visitor Service Zone Site Plan

N

NOTE: LAYOUT IS CONCEPTUAL; FURTHER DETAILED DESIGN WILL BE REQUIRED


48

7. Monitoring This plan is a road map for action. It is to direct improvements in how the zone is managed, used and enjoyed.

The Parks and Wildlife Service is committed to a system of adaptive management. Preparing a plan is just one step in a cyclic process of good reserve management.

The system is intended to be simple and flexible. It is focused on achieving results.

The adaptive management cycle 2 Source: Jones (2005)

A key ingredient to this management is monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan. For this, two reviews are committed below.

The stating of clear measurable performance indicators also provides the community and partners in implementation with an easy method of holding Parks and Wildlife Service to account.

Review • The plan is to have an interim evaluation after five years.

This evaluation will be a check on the performance indicators by collating relevant data, reviewing progress and making recommendations as appropriate for any adjustments in management. An informal public feedback process may also be run at this time.

2 Jones, G 2005, ‘Is the management plan achieving its objectives?’ In Worboys, G, Lockwood, M & De Lacy, T,

Protected Area Management. Principles and Practice, Second edition, Oxford University Press.


49

• The plan will be fully reviewed in 10 years time. The plan has not been written to work beyond 10 years without a thorough review and evaluation of its effectiveness and the currency of its objectives and vision. This review will require full public consultation and engagement.

Performance Indicators

Outcome Community is satisfied with how the zone is managed

Measure Number of Ministerial responses per year in relation to toilet and carparking facilities in the zone.

Great result Increase in positive – Decrease in negative

Acceptable Numbers stable

Failure Increase in negative – Decrease in positive

Outcome Zone attracts tourists to area.

Measure Cyclical maintenance and inspection carried out on heritage buildings and surrounding cultural landscape as per schedule.

Great result Work and inspections are all carried out and condition of site improves.

Acceptable Priority work and inspections are carried out and condition of site is stable.

Failure Insufficient work and inspection occur and condition of site deteriorates.

Outcome Cultural Values Protected

Measure Number of visitors to Tasman Arch site as measured by vehicle count.

Great result Levels increase by more than 30% in relation to total visitor numbers for Tasmania.

Acceptable Current levels are maintained.

Failure Number of visitors falls in relation to total visitor numbers for Tasmania.

Outcome Natural values are protected

Measures Number of little penguins in Penzance colony.

Change in extent of erosion and track degradation on beach access as recorded by photo points at:

• Officers Mess / Quarters

• Dog line

• Gravel Pit carpark


50

• Penzance

Great result Numbers increased. Despite increased usage track has been managed and has no increase in extent of impact

Acceptable Numbers stable Tracks show no increase in extent of impact

Failure Numbers decreased Extent of impact has increased

Outcome Site plan guided management actions

Measures Extent of implementation of following carparking improvements for Blowhole Precinct:

• Carparks sealed and lined

• New carpark constructed

• Peak parking strategy developed

Extent of implementation of following developments for Tasman Arch Precinct:

• New trailhead and parking established

• Track upgrade to Blowhole completed

Great result All completed within 2 years of release of plan

All completed within 4 years of release of plan

Acceptable All completed within 5 years of release of plan

All completed within 8 years of release of plan

Failure Not completed Not completed

8. Appendices Appendix 1 – PWS Action summary

Look at the relevant section of the Site Plan before undertaking any works in the Visitor Service Zone. Check and adhere to the relevant strategies.

Actions

Improve beach access tracks including stabilisation and safety improvements, at Dogline and other locations. (p 16, p. 36)

Monitor foreshore tracks and erosion (p.16, p. 36)

Develop an integrated interpretation plan for the Tasman Peninsula (p.23 & p. 15-20)

Review and update interpretation of values in line with interpretation plan (see p. 15-20)

Develop a partnership arrangement with local car group to support volunteers in weed control (p. 17)

Monitor penguin populations (p. 18)

Take action to enhance hooded plover and penguin populations working with DPIW and local care groups (p.18)

Review pines south of dogline for values and if of no heritage value and no threat to values, remove (p.20)

Work with Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority to explore options for long term management of the Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site (p. 21)

Monitor rubbish levels and maintain cleanliness (p.22)

Investigate park entry brochure for Tasman National Park and Visitor Service Zone (p. 23)

Work with DIER, Council and tourism bodies to develop signage plan (p.23)

Conduct an Expression of Interest process for a eatery / booking office at the Blowhole (p. 25-26)

Set up high level working Group to implement development and promotion of area (p. 27)

Implement the Tasman National Park, Pirates Bay State Reserve and Eaglehawk Neck Historic Site Fire Management Plan. (p. 28)

Develop and implement a fire risk management strategy for visitor protection to Waterfall Bay and the Tasman Arch. (p. 28)


52

Install and maintain safety fencing around the dam at the Officers Mess to Australian Standard. (p. 30)

Reports of movement by trees or rock near cliffs in the zone are assessed and appropriate action taken. (p. 30)

Report any vandalism of signs and other safety infrastructure immediately to the police and managing authority. Replace damaged or defaced infrastructure or repaired promptly. (p. 30)

Redevelop the Tasman Arch carpark as a major arrival node for the Tasman National Park (p. 31 and 46)

Construct a walking track loop between the Blowhole and Devils Kitchen that is safe. (p. 31)

Develop a brochure of walks in the zone. (p. 31)

Work closely with the owner of the Officers Mess and Tasman Council to ensure that toilets facilities are provided for visitors to the Officers Quarters, Historic Site and beach. (p. 32)

Formalise agreement on access and use of Tessellated Pavement carpark. (p. 36)

Redirect runoff water from the Tessellated Pavement at base of stairs to the adjoining stone beach. (p. 36)

Work with the relevant authority to plan and construct new carparking at the Blowhole. (p. 44)

Investigate upgrading access at the Blowhole toilets to a disability accessible standard. (p. 44)

Work with the Tasman Council, MAST and the Tuna Club to develop strategy for keeping the area clean of fish waste. (p. 44)

Work with the management authority to widen Blowhole Road and signpost to enable safe parking and passage during peak times. (p. 44)

Work with the management authority to seal and line mark existing carparks for optimal use. (p. 44)

Give consideration to metered parking in some locations. (p. 44)

Work with Tasmanian Police to ensure enforcement of any traffic and parking controls installed in the precinct. (p. 44)

Work with relevant authorities to rename Blowhole Road to Tasmans Arch Road. (p. 44)

Convert Waterfall Bay Road to management access only, when redevelopment of the consolidated Tasman Arch visitor node begins. (p. 46)


53

Appendix 2 – Threatened Species Table

Species

Stat

us –

Tas

man

ia 3

Stat

us -

Aus

tral

ia 4

Distribution

Ris

k of

impa

ct b

y th

is P

lan

5

Strategy to ameliorate risk

wedge-tailed eagle Aquila audax fleayi

e EN Occurs in vicinity and likely to visit the zone – no critical habitat.

low -

white-bellied sea-eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster

v - Occurs in vicinity and likely to visit the zone – no critical habitat.

low -

swift parrot Lathamus discolour

e EN Have been recorded in the zone at Tessellated Pavement.

Medium

The presence of blue gums and swamp gums around the Tessellated Pavement and in Tasman National Park around the Blowhole provide small areas of valuable foraging habitat. Removal of any of these larger trees for safety or infrastructure would reduce habitat and any such removal should include a strategy of planting replacement specimens.

eastern barred bandicoot Perameles gunnii gunnii

- VU Recorded in vicinity. Area around the zone has considerable suitable habitat

Medium

Increased traffic along roads leading to increased road kill is main threat. Where possible monitor and install appropriate traffic controls.

Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii

v VU Occurs in vicinity and likely to visit the zone – no critical habitat.

Medium

Increased traffic along roads and increased roadkill (devils are scavengers and at risk when eating roadkill) are the main risk from this plan. Where possible monitor and

3 Listing under Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 r – rare, e – endangered, v – vulnerable. 4 Listing under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EN – endangered, VU – vulnerable, CR – Critically Endangered 5 Low risk – Actions proposed in this plan will have a negligible risk of increasing the impact on the species, Medium risk – Actions proposed in this plan will have a small risk of increasing the impact on the species, High risk – Actions proposed in this plan will have a reasonable chance of increasing the impact on the species,


54

install appropriate traffic controls.

burgundy snail Helicarion rubicundus

r - Recorded near the zone. Likely to occur in the tall wet forest around Waterfall Bay.

Low -

Mt. Mangana stag beetle Lissotes menalcas

v - Recorded near the zone. Likely to occur in the tall wet forest around Waterfall Bay.

Low -

live-bearing seastar Patiriella vivipara

e - Recorded in the rocks around the Tessellated Pavement

Medium

Changes in water quality at the Blowhole, or Tessellated Pavement could result in increased algal growth on rocks which reduces habitat for the Seastar. All actions taken in the zone should be carefully managed to minimise and improve water quality.

Flora

Juniper wattle Acacia ulicifolia

r -

Recorded within 1 km of zone and found in similar habitat to that found in zone.

low -

Daddy long-legs Calonemorchis filamentosa

r -


low -

Tiny midge orchid Corunastylis nuda

r -


low -

Heath bent grass Deyeuxia densa

r -

Recorded in the zone in at least two locations in Tasman National Park near the Blowhole and the Tasman Arch.

Medium

Works on new carparking at the Blowhole and near the Tasman Arch will require careful survey work to determine if any impact is likely on this species.

Swamp diuris Diuris palustris

e -


low -

Eastern eyebright Euphrasia collina ssp. deflexifolia

e -


low -


55

Peninsula eyebright Euphrasia semipicta

e EN

Recorded in the zone in at least two locations in Tasman National Park near the Arthurs Peak hangliding launch site.

Medium

Any works or changes in use near the hang gliding site would need careful assessment of this species.

Gentle rush Juncus amabilis

r -

Recorded in the zone in at least one location in Tasman National Park on the road to Waterfall Bay.

low -

Wiry mitrewort Phyllangium divergens

v -


low -

Pretty leek orchid Prasophyllum pulchellum

e CR


low -

Azure sun orchid Thelymitra jonesii

e -


low -


56

Appendix 3 – Reserve Standards Framework

Reserve Standard Framework Summary (Reserve Standard Framework is a system used by Parks and Wildlife Service to determine management and maintenance requirements for assets across all reserve categories in the State)


Site Category Current • Day Use Comfort (Mid)

• Visitor Safety Rating Neutral


57

Site Aspiration for this Plan • Same

Facilities requiring works to come up to standard

• -

Facilities currently over standard

• -

Other Issues • -




Site Aspiration for this plan • Same


• Provision of potable water


• -

Other Issues • -

Pirates Bay Beach

Site Category Current • Day Use Get Away (Basic)

• Visitor Safety Rating Moderate



• Suitable safety signage is required for visitors to the beach.


• -

Other Issues • Adjust RSF site boundary include area of carpark and fencing car park on adjoining Crown Reserve and Freehold title

Blowhole

Site Category Current • Day Use Comfort (Complex)




• Carparking places marked


• Comprehensive orientation signage

• Access to toilet

Facilities currently over • -


58

standard

Other Issues • -

Tasman Arch


Site Aspiration for this plan • Day Use Comfort (Complex)




• Comprehensive orientation signage

• Access to toilet


• -

Other Issues • -

Waterfall Bay Carpark


Other Issues • See pages 48 - 50

Appendix 4 – Precinct Facilities Checklist Site

Wat

erfa

ll B

ay

Tas

man

A

rch

/ Dev

ils

Kit

chen

B

low

hole

/ Je

tty

Pir

ates

Bay

B

each

and

Fo

resh

ore

Eag

leha

wk

Nec

k H

isto

ric

Site

T

esse

llate

d P

avem

ent

Toilets 6

Commercial facilities 7

Walking Tracks

Picnic facilities 8

6 Exception will be made if provision of toilet occurs as part of development of adjoining private land where the toilets are a part of the development 7 See page 30-32 for conditions 8 Low key natural seating, no BBQ’s or picnic tables


59

9. Index

A

Aboriginal heritage8, 19–20

B

beach1, 5, 6, 11, 18, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 49, 52, 57

Blowhole1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58 carpark............................... 12, 13 toilet access .............................14

D

dam.................................29, 44 Devils Kitchen7, 12, 15, 16, 30,

31, 45, 46, 47, 52, 58 diving................................5, 22 dogline.....................................8 dogs...................5, 11, 18, 19 Dootown .............13, 41, 43

E

Eaglehawk Neck1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 28, 31, 34, 51, 57, 58

F

fauna...............................17–19 fire ...................17, 28, 29, 51

fishers.............40, 41, 42, 43 flora.................16–17, 16–17

G

geoheritage.....7, 15–16, 23

H

hall ....................................6, 32 hang gliding..................37, 39 history.............................8, 22

convict.......................................... 8 tourism ........................................ 8

I

interpretation.......................6

L

local government.............12

O

Officers Quarters1, 5, 8, 20, 21, 22, 28, 32, 35, 39

P

partnership.....1, 12, 17, 24 pedestrian....................12, 30 penguin ..........19, 17–19, 36 port ...................6, 12, 40, 43

R

recreation..............................5

road3, 12, 17, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 53, 55

S

scenic value..............6–7, 14 surfing...................................38

T

Tasman Arch2, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 58

Tessellated Pavement3, 7, 13, 15, 22, 31, 34, 35, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58

threatened species17, 18, 53 toilet .......14, 25, 31, 35, 58 tourism4, 2, 14, 22, 26, 27, 30 trailers............12, 41, 42, 44

V

Visitor numbers................12

W

walking tracks11, 14, 29, 45

coNTacT DeTaiLs

Parks and Wildlife service GPo box 1751 Hobart, Tasmania, 7001

1300 135 513

www.parks.tas.gov.au

1.89

1.87

0.41

1.55

1.89

1.87

0.41

1.551.57

conc

rete

boa

t ra

mp

eac 2

c

dd

eac 2eac 2

AS

Location for existing food van

2.21.04

1.56

1.54

1.55

1.89

1.87

0.41

0.48

1.55

0.09

0.611.55

1.7

1.561.49

0.96

0.14

0.18

1.46

1.34

1.41

1.29

1.34 1.72

1.41

1.44

1.37

1.31

1.252.03

0.97

6.95

6.25

5.76

5.05

1.66

1.63

8.288.46

5.765.77

5.666.345.06

6.51

6.29

3.935.32

5.72

4.68

5.375.275.56

5.31

5.41

5.33

5.37

5.225.07

4.47

3.66

2.9

2.11

2.721.93

2.06

1.79

1.57

1.71

2.15

2.11

6.33

5.374.82

4.53

4.45

2.76

2.76 2.38

2.41

2.39

2.25

4.32

3.342.77

3.05

3.353.384.09

6.79

5.444.14

4.07

3.9

2.5

6.12

6.04

7.72

7.56

8.00

6.477.93 9.45

7.005.865.38

4.43 4.57

7

8.41

8.10

9.99

9.76

9.55

9.73 9.02

8.96

9.57

9.82

9.52

9.5

9.83

9.95

9.59

9.64

10.039.09

16.11

16.18

16.16

17.74

20.13

22.98

24.21

10.78

15.25

15.54

12.54

13.31

12.49

12.22

10.95

10.50

10.15

9.75

11.33

11.02

10.7

10.1

9.92

10.01

9.82

10.09

10.86

11.56

11.66

10.00

10.83

10.0210.18

6.78

8.23

12.33

12.2711.02

9.99

12.29

11

12.32

12.22

12.33

12.0811.88

13.07

12.1311.91

13.08

11.5611.34

12.36

17.14

16.88

12.38

17.4

16.8

13.25

11.94

12.06

11.6611.58

13.68

11.3511.312.4

11.17

10.91

9.86

11.94

11.87

11.02

9.38

12.1

21.46

21.29

19.6

22.25

27.37

21.0524.66

25.01

24.89

27.75

28.22

25.97

32.67

30.79

33.38

32.21

33.07

29.49

30.44

29.89

29.62

32.48

28.86

26.73

1.57+

10.49

8.969.33

9.919.99

10.29

10.149.5

9.39

10.1

10.36

10.9310.7711.88

10.44 10.84

14.52

24.16

24.17

19.9

19.16

21.3 25.39

24.58

21.9

18.16

18.18

5.00

5.00

10.00

10.00

5.00

5.00

10.00

10.0

0

20.0

0

20.00

25.00

25.0

0

15.00

15.0

0

30.0

0

TOP

OF

CL

IF

F

top

of b

ank

Blocktuna club

conc

rete

boa

t ra

mp

BLOW HOLE

toilets

of

fence

Future Eatery

BEACH

10.01

eac 2

2000

1.266

1.206

1.2971.926

1.8991.865

1.403

1.383

1.377

1.7442.042

1.9392.014

2.006

1.334

1.858

1.350

1.958

2.241

1.8842.186

2.2091.933

4.022

4.098

4.576

4.975

4.882

5.510

4.948

3.416

3.255

1.5

2.0

2.5

2.5

2. 5

3.0

3 .0

3.5

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Existing track to beach

JOINS

7 cars

Existing shed to be retained

rk

fkrk

AS(q)AS

rkrk

rk

AS

AS

AS

AS(q)

AS(q)

AS(q)

AS

AS

10.0

0

1.57

4.23

3.67

2.24 2.41

2.55

2.99

3.26

3.29

3.42

3.60

4.13 4.

23

5.795. 6

9

5.75

5.65

3.86

3.57

3.41

2.87

2.48

2.11

1.70

1.66

1.65

2.89

3.23

3.63

4.23

4.83

6.20

4.81

4.21

7.066.96

7.43

8.00

6.78 6.

876.

987.

17

7.38

7.69

7.99

8.17

8.52 8.

78 8.90 9.

20

6.99

7.69

8.73 9.20

7.09

8.03

7.14

7.55

7.86

8.20

8.66 8.

99

9.63

9.58

9.11

8.90

8.70 10

.19

9.80

9.69

9.86

10.5

110

.44

10.7

7

10. 8

6

10. 5

1

10.8

7

10.0

810

.66

10. 7

7

10.8

0

10. 8

0

10.9

1

10. 7

8

10. 9

2

10.8

610

.85

10. 9

2

10. 7

9

11.3

0

10. 9

2

10. 9

6

10.8

6

10.9

1

10.7

3

10.2

8

9.95

10.5

8

10.0

1

10.1

4

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.5

4.5

5.0

5.5

5.5

6.0

6.0

6.5

6.5

7.0

7.0

7.5

7.5

8.0

8.0

8.5

8.5

9.0

9.0

9.5

9.5

10.0

10.0

10.5

10.5

10.5

11.0

EXIST PATH

5.5

eacIL 1.5IL 1.4 1.55

IL 1.6

Flush kerb,drain to plant filter beds

lookout

Parking for 9 Boat trailers

No parking - drop off zone for tour operators

Drainage swale

1.45

2.0

eac

eac

Stacked boulders as beachedge. Size range 300 -600mm

Parking areafor four boat trailers

Existing edge to carpark

eac

BUS PARKING

c

eac

2 spaces

Gravel turn around

Existing firetrack

Bus parking

eac

eac

1.57

4.23

3.67

2.24 2.

412.

55

2.99

3.26

3.29

3.42

3.60

4.13

4.23

4.73

5.02 5.

075.

675.

74

5.50

œ=ë

,

4.985.45

5.344.

665.

36

5.36

4.68

4.76

5.42

5.59

5.09

5.30

5.71

5.75 5.

76 5.78

5.75

5.46

5.61 5.

735.

73

5.79

5.77

5.73

5.69

5.75

5.65

5.41

5.21

4.91

4.64

4.29

3.86

3.57

3.41

2.87

2.48

2.11

1.70

1.66

1.65

2.89

3.23

3.63

4.23

4.83

6.20

4.81

4.21

7.066.

96

7.43

8.00

6.78

6.87

6.98

7.17

7.38

7.69

7.99

8.17

8.52

8.78

8.90

9.20

6.99

7.69

8.73 9.

20

7.09

8.03

7.14

7.55

7.86

8.20

8.66

8.99

9.63

9.58

9.11

8.90

8.70 10

.19

9.80

9.69

9.86

10.5

110

.44 10

.77

10.8

6

10.5

1

10.8

7

10.0

810

.66

10.7

7

10.8

0

10.8

0

10.9

1

10.7

8

10.9

2

10.8

6

10.8

5

10.9

2

10.7

9

11.3

0

10.9

2

10.9

6

10.8

6 10.9

1

11.0

211

.00

10.7

3

10.2

8

9.95

10.5

8

10.0

1

10.1

4

0.5

1.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

+

TOP

OF

CLIFF

TRACK

WALKING

jetty

of

line

GI sh

ed

base o

f GI po

st

old pe

g

old pe

g

peg

3.5 fence

fenc

e

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.5

5.0

5.0

5.5

5.5

6.0

6.0

6.5

6.5

7.0

7.0

7.5

7.5

8.0

8.0

8.5

8.5

9.0

9. 0

9.0

9.5

9.5

9. 5

9.5

10.0

10.0

10 .0

10.0

10.0

10.5

10.5

10. 5

10.5

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.5

11 .5

11.5

12.0

12.0

12.0

12.5

12.5

13.0

13.0

13.5

13.5

14.0

14 .0

14. 5

14 .5

15.0

15.0

15.5

15.5

16.0

16.0

16.5

16.5

16.5

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.5

17.5

17.5

18. 0

18.0

18.0

18. 5

18.5

18.5

19. 0

19.0

19.0

19. 5

19.5

20. 0

20.0

20.5

20.5

21.0

21.0

21.5

21.5

22.0

22.0

5.510

4.948

4.826

4.010

3.062

3.416

3.255

3.046

2.989

2.949

3.070

3.744

4.338

3.838

3.666

2.880

2.961

3.257

2.740

2.099

1.982

1.742

3.703

7.824

9.195

9.839

10.067

10.747

11.403

1.690

1.803

1.440

1.645

9.289 8.328

6.8156.7767.180

8.646

11.044

11.286

5.692

1 .5

2.0 2.5 3.

0

3.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

5 .0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7 .5

8 .0

8. 5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

10.5

11.0

11.0

11 .0

22.5

22.5

23.0

23. 0

23. 5

23. 5

24. 0

24. 0

24.5

24.5

25.0

25.0

25.5

25. 5

26.0

26. 0

26.5

26. 5

27.0

27. 0

27. 5

27.5

28.0

28.0

28.5

28.5

29.0

29. 0

29.5

29. 5

30.0

30. 0

30.5

30.5

31.0

31.0

31.5

31.5

32.0

32.0

32.5

32.5

33.0

pp

pp

PP

PP

PP

Existing track to beach

conc

rete

boa

t ram

p

conc

rete

boa

t ram

p

jetty

conc

rete

boa

t ram

p

New boulder embankment. Max. 950mm high

Existing stone wall

Remove weeds.Plant additional Casuarinas for viewing through the trees to the water

Existing path to be retained

Retain existing path

Provide pit & outlet culvert as shown.

Exact route of pipe dependent on location of existing Casuarinas.

Reinforce existing Casuarinas in this area

8 cars 11 cars

Existing track

5 cars

5 cars

5 cars

NB(q)

NB(q) NB(q)

NB

(q)

eaceac

eac

eac

eac

eac

NB(q)

NB(q)

NB(q)

NB

NB NB

NB

AS

NB

NB

1 No. disabled toilet B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

32.16

LEGEND

Existing tree

Proposed tree

Existing bush

Proposed bush rehabilitation

Bio-retention Swales

Existing two coat seal

New two coat seal

New Bitumen (quartz agg)

New Asphalt

New Asphalt (quartz agg)

Gravel paths

Alternative paving (eg) exposed aggregate concrete with dolerite agg.

Alternative paving (eg) exposed aggregate concrete with plum coloured agg.

Large aggregate (50-100mm diam)exposed aggr. concrete

Disabled parking Spaces

Boulder embankment

Rollover kerb (eg) DIER

Flush kerb

Bollards

Gabion retaining wall

Boulder embankment

Existing level

Proposed level

Existing contour at 1.0m interval

Power pole

32.4

rk

fk

NB(q)

NB

EB

eac

AS(q)

AS

B

PP

d

eac2

leac

rk

PIRATES BAY

N

AS

AS

Exposed aggregate concrete drain

leac

JOINS

6000

10.33

rk

5 cars

Motorbike Parking

20 spaces

BLOWHOLE ROAD

eac

eac

FUTURE STAGE

FUTURE STAGE

REV F

0 2 3 4 51 10 15 20 25M

PIRATES BAY CARPARKS

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN

Susan Small Landscape Architect25/33 Salamanca Place - Hobart

Ph/Fax 6224 4889email: [email protected]

SCALE 1:500@A1 Date: 1.5.2008

JOINS

eac

15 min. maximum drop off parking

Gravel footpath - 1000-1500mm wide with handrail

Boulder retaining wall

6000 8000 1500

New

cen

tre li

ne

Angle parking (approx. 30 degree) 8000m wide

900

TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BLOWHOLE ROAD1:100

Exi

stin

g ce

ntre

lin e

Asphalt road - 6000 wide

Boulder retaining wall / edge

Approximate existing ground line

Approx. existing ground

Eac drainage swale - 900 wide

G

G

TASMAN ARCH

DEVILS KITCHEN

Walking track

Path width to be reduced to 2.5m wide.Remove additional bitumen & rehabilitate bush. Reseal path using quartz chips in aggregate

Possible future accessible loop to carpark.

32.16

2500

2500

PS

G

G

eac2NB

NB

NB

NB

Existing Bush

G

Retain fire trail. Path width to be reduced to 2.5m wide.Remove additional bitumen & rehabilitate bush

Walker Registration Track head shelter

2500

2000

eg

eg

G

eac2

B

G

PS

PS

PS

PSG

G

eg

Provide seats adjacent Walker Registration

EB

EB

EB

EB

N

4500

4500

2500

2500

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

PS

PS

EB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

EBEB

4500

3000

eac2

eac2

eac2

Picnic tables

EBEB

NB

26 car spaces

Overflow parking - Stage 1

eac2

B

B

56.378

56.153

55.861

56.468

57.221

57.526

57.527

57.871

57.502

57.115

57.113

57.332

57.396

57.691

58.150

56.430

56.021

56.185

56.737

56.507

56.516

56.212

55.153

54.865

54.806

53.025

53.034

52.990

BB

B B BB

57.79

52.86

57.4

09

57.6

79

57.9

12

57.6

65

52.6

85

52.2

81

52.1

68

52.5

28

58

.64 5

58

.24 2

57

.93 1

57

.81 3

58

.24 6

57

.62 3

57

.75 9

57

.79 9

52

.43 8

53

.08 4

50

.87 7

50

.26 5

46.5

47.0

48.0

48.0

48.0

48.5

49.0

49.5

49.5

50.0

50.5

50.5

51.0

51.5

51.5

52.0

52.5

52.5

53.0

53.5

53.5

54.0

54.5

54.5

55.0

55.5

55.5

5 6. 0

56 .0

56.5

56. 5

57.0

57.0

57.5

57.5

57.5

58.0

58.0

59.32

5

58.12

58.80

58.70

4

58.53

58.49

58.39

8

58.10

58.14

58.33

0

60.29

60.18

59.89

9

59.32

59.26

59.26

8

59.39

59.37

59.24

360.83

60.71

60.44

9

60.15

59.90

59.59

59.4059.3759.35

59.35

59.35

59.37

59.16

59.32

59.51

59.71

59.74

60.03

60.62

60.71

60.29

59.75

59.49

59.48

59.35

60.09

60.12

60.13

60.05

49.11

47.87

48.80

48.6448.66

48.30

49.38

54.26

55.88

51.51

50.17

49.46

53.46

53.38

53.22

55.23

54.97

54.79

58.24

58.17

57.00

56.17

55.53

55.10

54.34

55.70

54.45

56.32

56.68

55.83

55.29

54.81

54.32

54.06

53.89

53.14

52.30

51.68

51.23

53.28

53.63

54.21

54.87

49.74

49.19

48.65

48.79

47.73

48.01

53.50

54.54

56.14

53.93

55.32

55.82

54.34

58.20

57.75

58.05

58.12

58.7058.53

58.3958.10

58.33

60.09

60.12

60.13

60.05

48.80

48.64

48.30

49.38

51.51

50.17

49.46

53.46

53.38

53.22

55.23

54.97

54.79

57.00

56.17

55.10

58.5

58.5

59.0

59.0

59.5

59.5

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.5

60.5

58.5

58.5

59.0

59 .0

2000

Retain all existing trees

Timber / raised deckwith balustrade

Existing stand of Eucalyptus sp.to be retained

Area to be retained as lookout to Tasman Arch.Remove bitumen and provide exposed aggregate concrete surface only.

New toilet block

STAGE 1 - 2 cubicle toiletsSTAGE 2 - 4-6 cubicle toilets

Possible picnic tables location

Existing Bush

Interps and maps

Rehabilitate this track

Remove lookout

G

0 2 3 4 51 10 15 20 25M

REV F

TASMAN ARCH CARPARK

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN

Susan Small Landscape Architect25/33 Salamanca Place - Hobart

Ph/Fax 6224 4889email: [email protected]

SCALE 1:500@A1 1:1000@A3Date: 28.04.2008.

32.16

LEGEND

Existing tree

Proposed tree

Existing bush

Proposed bush rehabilitation

Existing two coat seal

New two coat seal on existing base course

New two coat seal

New two coat seal (quartz aggragate)

New gravel track / existing gravel track

Alternative paving eg exposed aggregate concrete with coloured aggregate

Existing level

Proposed level

Existing contour at 1.0m interval

Picnic tables

32.4

EB

B

PS

NB

NB(q)

G / eg

eac2

Date post:	28-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Tasman National Park - Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service | … Bay Visitor... · 2019-07-02 ·...

Documents