198101
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
198101 [2016/03/18 09:27] – tyreless | 198101 [2016/03/18 15:18] – tyreless | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
Comparisons between the skiing areas of Kosciusko National Park and overseas should be made with a great deal of caution. The skiing areas of the northern hemisphere are in temperate high latitude areas receiving extensive snow falls. By comparison, the Kosciusko resorts are in the same latitude as the African side of the Mediterranean Sea! In addition, ski field developments in Australia are all at or above the tree line, and in ecological terms are effectively far higher in the mountains than most of their overseas counterparts. There are very few examples overseas of ski resorts which are developed in environments as restricted in their continental distribution or as fragile as the alpine area of Kosciusko National Park. The international importance of the Park was officially acknowledged in January 1977, when it was designated a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO' | Comparisons between the skiing areas of Kosciusko National Park and overseas should be made with a great deal of caution. The skiing areas of the northern hemisphere are in temperate high latitude areas receiving extensive snow falls. By comparison, the Kosciusko resorts are in the same latitude as the African side of the Mediterranean Sea! In addition, ski field developments in Australia are all at or above the tree line, and in ecological terms are effectively far higher in the mountains than most of their overseas counterparts. There are very few examples overseas of ski resorts which are developed in environments as restricted in their continental distribution or as fragile as the alpine area of Kosciusko National Park. The international importance of the Park was officially acknowledged in January 1977, when it was designated a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO' | ||
- | C. Accommodation. | + | __C. Accommodation.__ |
- | WHY HAS THE NEED TO RESTRICT ACCOMMODATION SUDDENLY APPEARED AS AN ISSUE? \\ | + | |
+ | 7. Whyhas the need to restrict accommodation suddenly appeared as an issue? | ||
The 1974 Plan of Management recognised that future major development of tourist overnight facilities, especially of the hotel/ | The 1974 Plan of Management recognised that future major development of tourist overnight facilities, especially of the hotel/ | ||
- | 8. WHY HAVE THE DEVELOPMENTS AT CHARLOTTE PASS VILLAGE BEEN SINGLED OUT FOR POSSIBLE REMOVAL IN YEAR 2015?\\ | + | 8. Why have the developments at Charlotte Pass Village been singled our for possible removal in year 2015? |
The Charlotte Pass Village facilities are in an area of considerable conservation importance, with its glacial features, habitat of the endangered mountain pygmy possum and limited stands of mature snow gums. | The Charlotte Pass Village facilities are in an area of considerable conservation importance, with its glacial features, habitat of the endangered mountain pygmy possum and limited stands of mature snow gums. | ||
- | Significant damage has occurred in the area due to the developments. Recent examples are the major oil spill of winter 1979, and the extensive -soil erosion that required urgent remedial works. The effect of nutrients from sewage treatment is clearly evident in Spencers Creek. The damage to the David Moraine by electrical reticulation works, road works and snow clearing are other examples. There are indications that Spencers Creek is continuing to degrade and widen. The damaging effect of this process on the sphagnum bogs is considerable. | ||
- | The onus is clearly on lessees to demonstrate their capacity to operate without further environmental | + | Significant |
- | 9. WHY ISN'T THERE LOW COST ACCOMMODATION IS KOSCIUSKO NATIONAL PARK?\\ | + | The onus is clearly on lessees to demonstrate their capacity to operate without further environmental damage and degradation of this fragile environment. If they fail to do so, the option outlined in the Planning Issue Statement will be the only responsible course |
- | "Low cost" accommodation | + | |
- | accommodation within | + | |
- | 10 WOULDN'T LARGER CAR PARKS CAUSE MORE DAMAGE THAN ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION?\\ | + | 9. Why isn't there low cost accommodation in Kosciusko National Park? |
- | The construction of buildings does have some detrimental effects, such as rapid run-off. However, it is the provision of associated services, such as access roads, water storage and supply and electricity reticulation, | + | |
- | D. Access. | + | "Low cost" accommodation is precluded from the National Park's snowfields by the enormous costs, at today' |
- | 11. WON'T THE DAILY ROAD JOURNEY TO AND FROM THE RESORTS BE BOTH LENGTHENED BY INEVITABLE DELAYS AND DANGEROUS IN BAD WEATHER IF LIMITS ARE PUT ON THE AMOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION WITHIN THE PARK?\\ | + | |
- | Accommodation within the Park won't eliminate these problems. The Australian Ski Federation' | + | 10. Wouldn' |
+ | |||
+ | The construction of buildings does have some detrimental effects, such as rapid run-off. However, it is the provision of associated services, such as access roads, water storage and supply and electricity reticulation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | __D. Access.__ | ||
+ | |||
+ | 11. Won't the daily road journey to and from the resorts be both lengthened by inevitable delays and dangerous in bad weather if limits are put on the amount of accommodaiton within the park? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Accommodation within the Park won't eliminate these problems. The Australian Ski Federation' | ||
Holding the number of visitors entering the Park in private cars at present levels, and meeting demand with new accommodation within the Park, would result in an increase in beds from a little over 6,000 to well over 50,000 within the next 10 years. Fifty thousand beds represent about five towns with the population of Cooma, or two towns the size of Queanbeyan or Goulburn within the snowfields of Kosciusko National Park! | Holding the number of visitors entering the Park in private cars at present levels, and meeting demand with new accommodation within the Park, would result in an increase in beds from a little over 6,000 to well over 50,000 within the next 10 years. Fifty thousand beds represent about five towns with the population of Cooma, or two towns the size of Queanbeyan or Goulburn within the snowfields of Kosciusko National Park! | ||
- | 12. WOULDN'T A MASS TRANSIT | + | 12. Wouldn't a mass transit |
There may be no practical alternative to a mass transit system. The capacity of Kosciusko Road (to Perisher, Smiggins and Guthega) and the Alpine Rd (to Thredbo) in fine weather is about 6,000 cars or 19,000 people over the three hour morning " | There may be no practical alternative to a mass transit system. The capacity of Kosciusko Road (to Perisher, Smiggins and Guthega) and the Alpine Rd (to Thredbo) in fine weather is about 6,000 cars or 19,000 people over the three hour morning " | ||
- | Preliminary estimates put the ultimate ski area capacity of the Park at about 50,000 visitors per day. If opportunities are available for all of these visitors by 1990, some 31,000 (50, | + | Preliminary estimates put the ultimate ski area capacity of the Park at about 50,000 visitors per day. If opportunities are available for all of these visitors by 1990, some 31,000 (50, |
- | A possible option is to continue the current trend to a bus/car mix, with an upgraded bus service as demand requires. Each bus could carry 40 persons whilst occupying a road space equivalent to 4 cars (carrying 12.6 people). If major new ski areas are opened up, mass transit will probably be essential. Investigations are continuing into the efficient and economical organisation of such a system. | + | A possible option is to continue the current trend to a bus/car mix, with an upgraded bus service as demand requires. Each bus could carry 40 persons whilst occupying a road space equivalent to 4 cars (carrying 12.6 people). |
+ | |||
+ | If major new ski areas are opened up, mass transit will probably be essential. Investigations are continuing into the efficient and economical organisation of such a system. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 13. What about a monorail, railway or tunnel system to improve access? | ||
- | 13. WHAT ABOUT A MONORAIL, RAILWAY OR TUNNEL SYSTEM TO IMPROVE ACCESS?\\ | ||
Any such option will be carefully examined, but cost will be critical, particularly if an investment has to be recouped over the normal 10-16 week skiing season. Mass transit systems are unlikely to be essential outside off peak use periods. | Any such option will be carefully examined, but cost will be critical, particularly if an investment has to be recouped over the normal 10-16 week skiing season. Mass transit systems are unlikely to be essential outside off peak use periods. | ||
- | New Skiing Opportunities.\\ | + | __E. New Skiing Opportunities.__ |
- | 14: SHOULD NEW RESORT' | + | |
- | The Planning Issue Statement on Resort Areas indicated that the suitability of any other areas within the Park which may have potential for skiing development will be evaluated. If the Australian Ski Federation | + | 14. Should not new resort |
- | 15. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL OF THE EASTERN PART OF THE SNOWFIELDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SKIING OPPORTUNITIES? | + | The Planning Issue Statement on Resort Areas indicated that the suitability |
- | Accurate estimates are difficult to determine. However | + | |
- | An approximate Peak Day Visitor | + | 15. What is the potential of the eastern part of the snowfields for the development of new skiing opportunities? |
- | Thredbo 7, | + | |
- | Perisher/ | + | Accurate estimates are difficult to determine. However the following table gives an __order of magnitude__ derived from previous studies (e.g. Perisher Range Planning Study) and discussions with resort operators and staff. However, they are not commitments to develop; these will be proposed in the Draft Plan and later prescribed in the adopted Plan of Management. |
- | Guthega 650 | + | |
- | Charlotte Pass 800 | + | __An approximate Peak Day Visitor |
- | 3,450 | + | |
- | ,.._ | + | |a. __Existing__|Thredbo|7,500| |
- | Thredbo 2, | + | | |Perisher/ |
- | Perisher/ | + | | |Guthega|650| |
- | Guthega 550 | + | | |Charlotte Pass|__800__| |
- | Charlotte Pass 15p | + | | | |__23,450__| |
- | "200 | + | |b. __Infill of Existing Areas__|Thredbo|2,500| |
- | Bogong Creek (1 6,500 | + | | |Perisher/ |
- | Twin Valleys (3 4,500 | + | | |Guthega|550| |
- | Blue Cow 3,7Q0 | + | | |Charlotte Pass|__150__| |
- | 14; | + | | | |__6,200__| |
- | 21000 ) visitors/ | + | |c. __Possible New Areas__|Bogong Creek (2)|6,500| |
- | 23,350 day | + | | |Twin Valleys (3)|4,500| |
+ | | |Blue Cow|__3,700__| | ||
+ | | | |__14, | ||
+ | | | Total|__44, | ||
+ | |ski areas served by|the Alpine Way|21, | ||
+ | |ski areas served by|Kosciusko Road (Main Road 286|23, | ||
(1) approx. 70% of these visitors are alpine skiers. | (1) approx. 70% of these visitors are alpine skiers. | ||
Line 205: | Line 219: | ||
(3) This is one of several possible sites for a development on the Ramshead Range. | (3) This is one of several possible sites for a development on the Ramshead Range. | ||
- | The Legalities | + | __F. The Legal Requirements |
- | HOW DOES THE LAW OF THE STATE OF N.S.W. | + | |
- | The main legal requirements are contained in the National | + | 16. How does the law of the State of N.S.W. |
- | a. | + | |
- | b. Inf ill of Existing Areas | + | |
- | c. Possible New Areas .r ....... | + | The __main__ |
- | , | + | |
- | I.e. Ski areas served by the Alpine Way | + | (1) __N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974__. |
- | It 11 U" | + | |
- | (Main Road 286) | + | (a) Section 81(4) requiresthat any developments proposed for a park have to be in accordance with its plan of management. |
- | (1) N.SW. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1 74. | ||
- | (a) Se& | ||
(b) Section 72(4) requires that in the preparation of a plan of management the following Objectives will have to be taken into account: | (b) Section 72(4) requires that in the preparation of a plan of management the following Objectives will have to be taken into account: | ||
- | The conservation of wildlife. | ||
- | The preservation of a national park and the protection of its special features. | ||
- | The prevention of any works that adversely affect the natural | ||
- | condition and special features of a national park. | ||
- | The preservation of any historic structure or object or any relic or Aboriginal place in a national park. | ||
- | The appropriate use of a national park by lessees and licensees | ||
- | or occupants. | ||
- | The preservation of a national park as a catchment area. | ||
- | The protection of a national park against fire and erosion. | ||
- | The setting apart of wilderness areas. | ||
- | The encouragement and regulation of the appropriate use, understanding and enjoyment of a national park. | ||
- | (2) Clean Waters Act 1970. | ||
- | (a)-CIaggifioation-cif-Waters. The State Pollution Control Commission proposed by advertisement in the national press, to classify the waters within Kosciusko National Park. Public submissions closed on 25th May 1979 is proposed to classify the waters below resort areas as either Protected. Waters (P) or Controlled Waters (C). This will require any effluent from resort delclopments to comply with the standards set in.the,Act. Standards will be imposed on allowable pollutants. (Sections 11, 12, 13). | ||
- | (b) Licensing. When issuing a license for a sewerage works the State Pollution ControlCOmmission must take.into account the possible extent of the pollution of any waters and the classification of these waters (Section 20(0 | ||
- | - (c) Discharge into Classified Waters. Nutrients are not to be discharged from, the resorts.if.they.cause excessive plant growth in the water of the receiving streams. Unless otherwise determined, there has to be a dilution | ||
- | - of a9 parts of fresh water to 1 part effluent. | ||
- | CO Environmental Planning and Assessment Act .1979. . | ||
- | r Thie-ACt" | ||
- | at Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for works such as resort developments (Section 112). The Environmental Impact Statement must take into account a number of factors. Of particular importance to resort developments are those referring to pollution, waste disposal, demands on natural resources (e.g. water), and cumulative effects. | ||
- | The Act also requires public exhibition of Environmental Impact Statements, and allows for Commissions of Inquiry to analyse contentious issues. The Service is subject to the Land and Environment Court in all matters relating to this and the Clean Waters | + | * The conservation of wildlife. |
+ | |||
+ | * The preservation of a national park and the protection of its special features. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The prevention of any works that adversely affect the natural condition and special features of a national park. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The preservation of any historic structure or object or any relic or Aboriginal place in a national park. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The appropriate use of a national park by lessees and licensees or occupants. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The preservation of a national park as a catchment area. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The protection of a national park against fire and erosion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The setting apart of wilderness areas. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The encouragement and regulation of the appropriate use, understanding and enjoyment of a national park. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (2) __Clean Waters Act 1970__. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (a) __Classification of Waters__. The State Pollution Control Commission proposed by advertisement in the national press, to classify the waters within Kosciusko National Park. Public submissions closed on 25th May 1979. It is proposed to classify the waters below resort areas as either Protected Waters (P) or Controlled Waters (C). This will require any effluent from resort developments to comply with the standards set in the Act. Standards will be imposed on allowable pollutants. (Sections 11, 12, 13). | ||
+ | |||
+ | (b) Licensing. When issuing a license for a sewerage works the State Pollution Control Commission must take into account the possible extent of the pollution of any waters and the classification of these waters (Section 20(6)). | ||
+ | |||
+ | (c) Discharge into Classified Waters. Nutrients are not to be discharged from the resorts if they cause excessive plant growth in the water of the receiving streams. Unless otherwise determined, there has to be a dilution of 19 parts of fresh water to 1 part effluent. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (3) __Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979__. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Act binds the National Parks and Wildlife Service and requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for works such as resort developments (Section 112). The Environmental Impact Statement must take into account a number of factors. Of particular importance to resort developments are those referring to pollution, waste disposal, demands on natural resources (e.g. water), and cumulative effects. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Act also requires public exhibition of Environmental Impact Statements, and allows for Commissions of Inquiry to analyse contentious issues. The Service is subject to the Land and Environment Court in all matters relating to this and the __Clean | ||
+ | |||
+ | __G. Water supply and Sewerage.__ | ||
+ | |||
+ | 17. Why do sewerage effluent problems cause so much concern and comment? | ||
+ | |||
+ | The basic problem is that the ski resorts, unlike their overseas counterparts, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Strict standards for treated effluend are required for the category of Classified Waters proposed for the resort areas (see 16(2)). It appears that the 19:1 dilution requirement cannot be met even for existing developments at Perisher Valley, Smiggin Holes and Charlotte Pass. The position at Thredbo is marginal. The State Pollution Control Commmission is studying the problem with a view to amending sewerage plant licenses or imposing new standards to ensure classification requirements are met. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 18. What effect do water supply problems have on planning new areas? | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the existing resort areas has an adequate water storage and supply capacity. The resorts high in water catchments will require considerable investigation and expenditure of funds on water supply and storage to bring storage capacity supply up to acceptable municipal standards. The answers may not be easily found, and beg questions of the scale of technological interventions appropriate for a national park and international biosphere reserve. The Problem is not so critical at Guthea or Thredbo. | ||
- | 17.- WHY DO SZTERA.GE -EPFLUENT2 PROBLEMS CAUSE SO 111.1.9H-COU-ERTIWD COADEENT? | + | 19. If water is a constraint, how does this affect planning options? |
- | The basic problem is that the ski resorts, unlik' | + | |
- | counterparts, | + | |
- | and. Smiggin Holes and somevir.b.aVODetter; | + | |
- | a. larger catchment) . 4. ; | + | |
- | . . | + | |
- | Strict standards for treatehi-effluent-li,r4-...requirpd for the category | + | |
- | of Classified Waters proposed. for the ,: | + | |
- | ments at Per1, | + | |
- | 18. WHAT EACTIG" | + | A day visitor uses far less water and produces far less sewage than an overnight visitor. The current design criteria for sewerage works indicates that five day visitors produce |
- | , None of the existing resort areas has an adequate vrate# storage and | + | |
- | supply capacityii. ...3; | + | |
- | considerable inv.gsUgatibn and, | + | |
- | 19. IF WATER IS A CONSTRAINT, | + | =====Walks Programme: Amendment.===== |
- | A day visitor uses far less water and produces far less sewage than an overnight visitor. The current design criteria. for sewer,:age works indicates thaii fill* day visitors produce the same load on these services as every overnight visitor.Recent studies in the Park have suggested that the actual ratio may be nearer to 20 to 1. Hence, planning for day use rather than overnight accommodation will allow for more people to use the same facilities within the Park. | + | |
+ | __Sunday, 22nd February, 1981.__ | ||
- | WALKS PROGRAM: | + | Waterfall - Kingfisher |
- | 'Waterfall - .Kingfisher | + | |
- | LEADER: DAVID INGRAM. Contact Leader in Clubroom on Wednesday 18th February. | + | |
+ | =====" | ||
- | "Stop Press" | + | by Anon. [Dot Butler] |
It was revealed today that an important new coal deposit has been found in Kangaroo Valley. A spokesperson for the owners of the land on which it wad discovered, The Sydney Belly Worshippers, | It was revealed today that an important new coal deposit has been found in Kangaroo Valley. A spokesperson for the owners of the land on which it wad discovered, The Sydney Belly Worshippers, |
198101.txt · Last modified: 2016/03/18 15:47 by tyreless