Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00346:reg:7:p14
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00346
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 7 (pt 14/23)
Character Range: 188917–191972

Any protection measures required at sites (e.g., fencing, signage, track closures) will generally have minimal impact on current recreational activities; the way some reserves are managed in relation to public recreational activities may also be affected.
    * Improving the intrinsic natural values and visual amenity enjoyed by visitors to such areas and increasing opportunities for tourism and education.
The negative social impacts are mostly associated with the restriction of rural and residential, agricultural and infrastructure development on land containing threatened populations or ecological communities:
    * Where any alteration or rejection of development proposals will prevent or reduce the delivery of essential services that are required by the community, although the extent of this impact will vary from site-to-site and will depend upon the type of proposed development and the availability of alternatives.
    * Where there is a need to conserve remnant grasslands on cemeteries, this may limit the availability of burial plots.

Economic Impacts
The recovery actions stated in this Recovery Plan primarily related to the establishment of a network of reserves or managed lands for the long-term conservation have various economic implications. Any land acquisitions or rejection or alteration of proposed developments will have economic impact on government authorities, land holders, developers and parties serviced by the land and/or development. Some economic and conservation trade-offs potentially emerge from the actions includes the following:
    * Habitat conservation may increase restrictions on particular land-uses such as reduced grazing opportunities or prevent some agricultural enterprises from converting to cropping or introduced pastures.
    * Adequate protection and conservation of habitat critical for the survival of the Spiny Rice-flower, that is also prime land for development, will be expensive to acquire for the parks and reserve system. The need to establish buffer zones around habitat critical for the survival of the species may also cause a trade-off in economic returns.
    * Population protection and threat mitigation can be expensive due to the extent of threats (e.g., weed diversity and coverage), and the on-going need for management.
    * Reserve management costs are likely to be much higher per unit area due to the patchy quality and degraded condition of many remaining sites. Remnants are often isolated and present logistical issues, such as the distance and time to travel to sites.
    * Surveying for the presence of threatened species can be costly and time consuming, and access to private lands for this purpose is sometimes problematic. Therefore, it may not be practical to survey all potential sites and habitats within the time frame of this Recovery Plan. Conservation agencies should use all other means at their disposal for obtaining this information, including the survey work undertaken by consultants and students, and then incorporate this information into