Mt Airly - letter by Col

[Easy77]

Found this on ausjeepoffroad forum. It's a letter from Col (Mt Airly).

http://caperteevalleyalliance.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/letter-from-col-ribaux-miner-geologist.html

[Steve F]

A great read.

Cheers
Steve

[Dru]

Awesome history, extraordinary man.

[Heidi]

The plan of management is available for comment - suggest every one reads it and provide feedback to NPWS via Draft plan of management process or this will be closed

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/publications/parks/150508-mugiisca-pom-draft.htm

Pay particular attention to the relocation of the gate

[Steve F]

Supplied some feedback and added my email to the list so I hope I get updates.

Cheers
Steve

[TRBN8R]

Feedback and details submitted... Hope they leave the gates as they currently are.....

[Dru]

If you have not done already, it is worth reading the Draft Plan of Management in full. It is not good reading for 4WD and simple requests to keep the gates open will inevitably achieve little. The report is littered with well trodden environmental wording and principals that in my interpretation reads as a desire to simply deny access. It is afterall easy to maintain supposed environmental values by being misanthropic.

In particular the (very real) management concerns on Genowlan Point (the end of what we have been calling the Mt Airlie trail) regarding (a) Heathland Endangered Ecological Community (the heath we walk through at the top of the track to get to the viewing points) and (b) the Critically endangered species Pultenaea sp Genowlan Point (and the vulnerable mintbush): these have direct impacts on management of 4wd access. Which is appropriate.

With respect to (a):
We should understand that Endangered Ecological Communities are not uncommon. Work I have been doing recently has been impacted by STIF (Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest) and Sydney Blue-Gum High Forest - very interesting. These issues are normal discussion points for development, but recreational purposes seem not to have the ducks in a row on proactively responding to this sort of thing. I expect this to lead to an acceptance of the draft which seem to me to be somewhat extreme.

With respect to (b):
Some of the report elements seems contradictory. Eg they discuss a concern for Pultenanaea being trampled by vehicles. This through the closed trail in the Heath at the top. At the same time (elsewhere) they indicate that Pultenaea is limited to the 250sqm that is fenced off at the highest point. And they admit that in spite of ecological audit and inspection they have not been able to find the plant in the heath area. Surely denying use of some 3km of trail (rough guess) is excessive to protect 250 sq m.

A couple of further confusions are:

1: There is another Endangered Ecological Community (several actually) that I think is related to the grotto area (which we were calling "Jurassic Park"). They seem to be proposing retaining 4wd access to this uninteresting driving, which I suspect may be the only part of the trail that actually IS at risk of vehicle damage. The only thing holding it together so far is Col and his work in the trail base with carpets and similar textiles.

2: This damage and threat that we are claimed to bring forth is based on an estimated 200 vehicles a year. Really? It is also noted that theose vehicles tend to be clubs, no doubt signed up to "tread softly".

3: It is acknowledged that the trail is of interest (to a small number of) 4wd-ers due to the technical challenge of the driving and the competencies that are required to negotiate it. And then they advise that alternative 4wd-ing opportunities abound in alternative National Parks in the area (remember how hard it has been to get another A Grade Trip up for Jambo?). They are also concerned that they could not "maintain or re-build" the trail (heaven forbid) due to the steepness and location. Quote: "Some existing vehicle routes in the park are steep and difficult to negotiate safely. Considerable reconstruction and maintenance would be required to enable unregulated public use of these vehicle routes."

Surely the simple answer is to control entry and insist on driving competencies, which afterall is where the interest lies. Col Ribeaux seems to have been managing this without the resources available to NPWS. On this, Col is barely a footnote in the report. "Culture" apparently doesn't include a history of managing access and 4wding to the area. He is credited for walking tracks, which is considerably more consistent with their mantra.

We are going to need to do something more than expressing interest if we want to be listened to on this issue.