New proposals for commercial activities in parks

[davidmorr]

My club the other day got a letter from the CEO of the Office of Environment and Heritage. The letter said they were conducting a review into allowing commercial use of a closed road in Myall Lakes NP "following receipt of a proposal from a company". "The review will aim to determine the environmental, social and economic impacts of this proposal."

Further enquiries reveal that there has not actually been any proposal, but they say there has been general interest.

One might also ask why economic impacts are being considered given that afaik, the national parks act does not mention economic impacts.

"About 40 stakeholder groups have been sent the same letter (including Land Council, Council, Commercial Operators, Bush Walking Groups / Cycle Groups)." I am sure 4WD groups are probably in the 40 too.

From comments made, it seems this is a scheme initiated by the CEO to see how much opposition there would be.

I would be interested to know whether this is happening in other areas as well. This might be the thin end of the wedge allowing commercial activities in all parks.

[michael_p]

O dear god. Horses in KNP, raising Warragamba Dam and now this. Is there no end to this assault on our NPs.

David, thank you for sharing this with us.I personally haven't seen anything like this proposed elsewhere. Maybe you are right, this could be testing of the waters to gauge opposition. Is there a way for people to express their opposition to this proposal.

Cheers,
Michael.

[Allchin09]

Yes, doesn't sound like the right way to go about managing NPs. Would you be able to share the letter David?

Alex.

[davidmorr]

This is the initial letter received last Friday.

My initial comments were:

It is interesting that they are concerned with economic impacts. The national parks legislation states that national parks are for conservation of nature and heritage. Nowhere does it mention economic aspects.

I note also that they are not asking for a written submission, but just a talk or phone call.

Having seen many such requests from the public service over the years, I would suggest they have already made their decision to allow it, and this is a public relations exercise so they can say they consulted stakeholders. The stakeholders will probably include companies who want to do this, four wheel drive clubs, horse riders, etc, people who traditionally want national parks opened up for any sort of use.

As for the proposal, I believe it is the thin end of the wedge. This sort of activity will become the norm in national parks.

For us, the question is whether we want to be walking to Johnson's Hill or Shelly Beach while being overtaken by four wheel drive vehicles, or to arrive at those locations to find a big camp set up. From examples at Barrington Tops, it is not a pleasant experience.

The track itself may well suffer - it is already very waterlogged in places - and require expensive repairs. This would be money taken away from other parts of the park or other parks in the region. (Did you know that half of the budget of the Hunter region NPWS is spent on maintaining the road across Barrington Tops?)

[davidmorr]

With an appointment for a phone chat today, we got the background info only last night.

Background information for stakeholder consultation - Mining road fire trail access review.pdf

(471.88 KiB) Downloaded 264 times

Map - Background information - stakeholder consultation - Mining road fire trail access review.pdf

(1.63 MiB) Downloaded 237 times

Please note that what they have marked as the mining road on the map is not the actual mining road which runs parallel to the track they show, about 1km nearer the coast. What they have marked is the track that we walk on. The map actually labels the correct road as "The Mining Road" although it does not show the full length of it.

[davidmorr]

Here is an annotated map of the area from Google. If you compare with the map they supplied, you can see that they have labelled Old Gibber Road as the Mining Road.

Now the Mining Road was a public road for many years, linking Tea Gardens and Seal Rocks. It had been gravelled and was a very solid road suitable for mining trucks. The Old Gibber Road is just a fire trail, mostly sand, which is only used for firefighting and occasional access to Johnson's Hill. It is quite boggy in places, especially the side-road to Johnson's Hill. It was never open to the public in the history of the park afaik, whereas the Mining Road was.

We might presume that the purpose of this proposal is to raise money for NPWS. If they allow vehicles to regularly use the Old Gibber Road, it will deteriorate quickly. To maintain it as a viable access road for commercial activities will likely require major (and expensive) works to improve its quality. It is likely that the cost of this would far exceed the income derived from the commercial activities.

The most telling part of the background info they supply is this statement:

"For visitors, the Mining Road fire trail is in an area of the park zoned for its secluded setting and minimal infrastructure. The trail offers a more remote and self-reliant experience, compared to other more developed areas of the park."

So remoteness and self-reliance are the important characteristics. 4WD camping does not quite gel with this concept.

It goes on to say:

"Since 2002 the area has become increasingly popular for activities by individuals, school and other groups, commercial tourism and adventure based events."

I think they are stretching the point here. I imagine the rest of the park has been used for these activities, but I doubt if this particular area has been.

[davidmorr]

I a conversation with a rep of the local National Parks Association this morning, he said that there is a directive from the minister that this is to happen, which is why there is such a rush.

[davidmorr]

O dear god. Horses in KNP, raising Warragamba Dam and now this. Is there no end to this assault on our NPs.

David, thank you for sharing this with us.I personally haven't seen anything like this proposed elsewhere. Maybe you are right, this could be testing of the waters to gauge opposition. Is there a way for people to express their opposition to this proposal.

At this stage, it is just a consultation. They say there will have to be a new plan of management to allow this, at which point public comments are sought. However, in recent times, as in many areas of government, they just run roughshod over procedures and do what they like.

I would suggest that the most useful way to make your feelings known would be to contact your local state lower and upper house members and make sure they know you are unhappy about this.

[michael_p]

Thank you for taking the time to compile all this information.

Yes, a change in the PoM will most likely be required so there is time to mount a campaign against this stupid idea. Please keep us updated.

Regards,
Michael.

[mandragara]

I'm familiar with the area. The road they seem to be referring to is Old Gibber Road. It's a sandy road that goes through a wetland that is full of birds and other animals. Having 4WDs hooning down there would certainly damage the area.

As someone who lives in a Sydney postcode, I'm not sure how best to protest this, any advice?

[davidmorr]

Since our organisation was one of very few to be asked, I am going to suggest that they need to consult more widely, such as bird and plant organisations. So I am looking for ideas of what sort of organisations may want to have input into this.

For your own personal way to help, I think contacting the your local member of state parliament, the minister for the environment and the premier would be a good start. Say that you have heard there is a proposal and that you object to it because ....

It looks like they are trying to rush this through so as to prevent mobilisation against it, so once it becomes known that there is opposition, they might think again.