by Lophophaps » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:23 am
PCV, oh good, it's not just me with moving huts and frog wombats. A bushfire sounds nice, an easy solution. i do hope that PV builds bunkers for the 5-10,000 people on the walk.
Final management plan comments
I've briefly looked at the latest plans and continue to be unimpressed. It's the same bland ideas, with all of the downside glossed over. It works like this. A government agency commissions a report. The contractor knows what is required, and that the report should reflect this. If it does not, then there will be no more jobs from that agency. It's subtle but pervading.
This is why the old way of public service advice worked very well. If the Minister had a bad idea than he was so advised, with no threat to public servant's job. The new way is that one agrees with the boss or you may be sacked, or miss out on promotions. The new way is barmy.
Here's a few points from the reports.
As before the layouts are not very good, quite faded. As mentioned above, Diamantina Hut has moved north. There's a handful of typos, but far less than before. It seems that my comments about spelling, punctuation and grammar were noted.
Part A page 1 says "In order to maximise the experiences for a diverse array of walkers, including individual adventure seekers, small and self-guided groups, larger educational and school groups and guided tours, a suite of improvements and additional infrastructure will be developed to the highest standards of sustainable planning, design and management. These upgrades will consist of a higher track quality to enable improved engagement with the surrounds, rest stops to fully appreciate the breathtaking beauty of the High Country, interpretation to gain understanding and insight into the landscapes narratives, and a choice of well-designed, low-impact accommodation options that cater to individual levels of comfort along the walk."
This is nearly all BS. These groups manage at present. There is no need for all this expense!
Part A page 5 says "It is estimated that there will be an uplift in visitor spending, both regionally and by means of travel, to the potential total spend of $23.4 million per annum by 2027 when the trail is fully operational."
I cannot see this happening. It's too much.
Part A page 18 discusses the environmental risk assessment "Biosis identified that, at a top level, there were no significant adverse environmental impacts of the track, and that priority risks could be adequately managed by following normal planning procedures and detailed on-ground assessments prior to construction."
Interesting. What about the 5-10,000 bushwalkers on the FHAC? The OLT has pollution problems due to not enough toilets, and is starting to fix this with a toilet at Pelion Gap. The April 2018 plan seems not to mention toilets between nodes.
Part A page 44, they still suggest a jaunt from a Tawonga camp to Jaithmathang to watch the sunset. The writer is insane! It's a tricky descent from the summit, moreso at night. Just after this is a plan for a new track, bypassing pole 333 to go to Westons. madness! There's already a track, Tawonga, pole 333, Westons.
Part A page 48 says "The most physically challenging of all segments provides walkers with a grade 4 track to conquer. Diamantina Spur heaves up from the valley floor, rising 450 m in roughly 1.5 km". No mention of the rest of the climb, and I abhor the word "conquer".
My January 2017 submission about the Draft Management Plan said:
"3.11 There's contradictions. Page 32 in fine print says "Diamantina River Camp-Mt Feathertop 8.5km (sic) - 760m (sic) climb - 7 hours Grade 4". Page 48 implies that the climb is 450 metres. The climb from the valley to Mt Feathertop is about 900 metres."
That is, they took no notice of my advice. The April 2018 plan is still misleading. No surprise.
Part A page 48 says "Walkers can stop on the spur to spend the night in an area protected by snow gums. An add-on is the climb to Mt Feathertop for sunset or sunrise."
Part A page 49 says "Following a sunrise climb to Mt Feathertop, the final day of the trail takes walkers along the Razorback".
They still have these crazy ideas about sunrises and sunsets. It's too far, too dangerous. I raised both of these in my submission, again ignored.
Part B page 56 details tracks. It's scary in places.
Part B page 57 says "Utilise existing trails where possible. Utilise existing infrastructure as much as possible, minimising the need for additional construction."
So why duplicate the track from Tawonga Huts to pole 333? Why add the huts and platforms? Why over-engineer the tracks? Why add seats?
"Ensure the trail is always clearly visible to the walker and use existing fallen tree branches and/or loose stones to clearly mark the direction and edge of the trail (without impeding drainage)."
Gosh! The tracks I have been on generally are defined by people, boots on the ground. There is no need to have branches and rocks at the edges.
Part B page 62 "Elevated camping platforms can improve the camping experience, especially during bad weather, and better protect the surrounding environments. Each Hiker Camp is proposed to offer 12 elevated 3-person platforms, each able to secure one tent or swag."
What a total waste of resources! Grass works fine, and can have more people camped. How many swags have you seen on bushwalks? I've never seen one. Mentioning swags suggests that the writer has no idea about bushwalking, none at all. The possibility arises that swag is a typo and should be SWAG - Stupid Wild-Arsed Guess.
Part B page 64 "Elevated camp platforms. 4 x 4 metres. Hardwood timber decking. 12 x platforms accommodating 2–3 people per platform. Platforms to be located individually and some groups of 3 or 4 to accommodate larger group settings and families."
This will destroy the environment. The platforms have a huge footprint, and will significantly reduce the number of available tent sites. The platforms have a huge amount of dead space.
"2 x drop toilet cubicles over a sealed vault system."
The numbers envisaged require two sets of two toilets, one set in use, one set not, waiting to be emptied. This is the setup at many popular remote campsites.
Part B, page 64 details lodges - there is no other word - with "1 x communal hut. Full weather protection. Tables and chairs for dining. Kitchen for fully catered services. Water provision by roof water harvesting (non-potable water quality). Solar power (for charging of low-voltage devices such as cameras and phones). Outdoor decking for social engagement and relaxation. Integrated lockers and drying room/ area."
This is not what our wild and beautiful places are about. The proposal reeks of privatisation of the mountains at our expense. Ghastly. Note that before (from memory) the huts were temporary. Now they are fixed. How long before they are used in winter? What about the conservation zone on Diamantina Spur?
Part B page 78 "The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing should meet or exceed the pre-walking standards of other iconic walks."
Not good. Part of the charm of the place is the variety of tracks, obstacles, and challenges. The FHAC proposes to homogenise that, making it one size fits all. This is bollocks.
Part C page 86 says "Recent research undertaken and brought forward in 'Victoria's Nature-Based Tourism Strategy' 2008–2012, shows shifts in consumer preferences from traditional independent multi-day bushwalking trips to a greater demand for soft adventure, comfort and security offered by commercial operators."
This needs to be verified. I suspect it's mainly BS.
Part C page 87 says of the Overland Track "Bookable tent platforms at most overnight nodes. Toilet facilities. Non-bookable basic hut facilities [i.e. no mattress or cooking facilities). $150 per person total".
Can OLT platforms be booked? The OLT costs $200 plus a park fee, $30 minimum.
Part C page 88 "Limited surveys have indicated that current users are of a diverse mix of day walkers, with overnight users tending to seek an adventurous, self-sufficient experience. The nature of the solely tent-based accommodation dictates the current profile of users, with overnight users consisting predominantly of 'adventure seekers' and outdoor educational groups such as scouts and school groups.
"Adventure seekers
"The ‘adventure seekers’ are a market which has been described as valuing the ‘wild’ experience and being self-sufficient. This group consists mainly of experienced to very experienced walkers who are fully independent in terms of drop-off and pick-up and for all equipment. They value solitude and wish to pit themselves against nature while being fully immersed in it, and wish to ‘tread lightly’. This user profile is dictated by the relatively high level of difficulty of trail segments, together with the nature of the solely tent-based accommodation."
I've taken beginners to the Bogong High Plains, summer and winter.
Part C page 90 "According to the visitation numbers outlined in these reports it can be assumed that groups that will take up the opportunity for facilitated walking will be drawn from the following areas:
– Bushwalkers in the High Country
– 7,000 pa international visitors.
– 193,000 pa domestic overnight visitors.
– 93,000 pa day-trippers.
– Total 293,000 bushwalkers."
Right, 293,000 bushwalkers. The BS level is rising.
Part C page 91 says that there are three scenarios for the number of walkers low 5175, medium 7777 and high 10,699. I love the way that they have such precise figures. The OLT has 7-9000 walkers a year. This is a long-established internationally recognised walk, brilliant scenery. How can an upstart like FHAC compete? I simply cannot see even the low figure being met.
Part C page 91 "One approach to estimating the number of walkers who may take up the opportunity for facilitated walks on the proposed trail is to estimate the market share of the number of current bushwalkers in the High Country. As outlined above the estimate is 293,000 per annum. This is increased by the official visitation forecasts to estimate that the number of bushwalkers will increase to 427,000 per annum by 2027."
BS's getting higher. I will attempt to dig out, perhaps with the help of 427,000 bushwalkers.
Part C page 93 "All of the trails mentioned above are one-way only. The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will be marketed and managed as a one-way walking experience, although some walkers will inevitably enter the trails from other origins such as Harrietville and Dinner Plain, as well as from the Mt Loch trail head. With a potential diversity of origins, walkers will meet on the trail network over an extended period in the middle of the day."
Nobody, repeat nobody tells me where and how and in what direction I walk. On a recent trip to the region, of the 11 nights I varied campsites for six nights. Too far, too windy, saw an easier way. The route was varied as well.
Part C page 96 "A significant opportunity for the private sector is to tap into the delivery of infrastructure associated with the trailhead locations. These are the Lakeside trailhead at Falls Creek and the Mt Loch trailhead in Mt Hotham. These trailheads would include not only components of the trail infrastructure, such as information boards and maps, trailhead sculpture for photo opportunities and some seating for preparation works, and could also be enriched by the following:
– Cafe/ Restaurant to celebrate 'last and first meals of quality'".
Good grief, they want to put a cafe at Heathy and Loch! If they rely on walkers they will go broke. Even on a main road there will probably be limited custom - drivers will not want to stop that close to Falls and Hotham Heights.
Part C page 103 has a total cost of $34,090,506. I love the fact that they have the cost to the nearest dollar. Page 92 of the DMP had capital costs of $22.4 million. Given that the cost has jumped over 50%, might not a figure to the nearest dollar be a tad silly?
There seems to be no mention of bushwalkers displaced by the new infrastructure, or how our experiences are compromised bt the FHAC. Finally, there is an Australian track standard. In Victoria we walk in tracks, not trails.
If this monstrosity proceeds, let it be. Let it fail, wait for the rescues and deaths, then see who takes responsibility for the chaos. If FHAC is approved I will advise the State Coroner of my misgivings. If there's a death then it wil be on record that it was preventable.