User Tools

Site Tools


198101

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
198101 [2016/03/17 22:27]
tyreless
198101 [2016/03/18 04:18]
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'​s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. 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'​s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme.
  
-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/​motel/​lodge type, should be encouraged outside the Park, relieving the very problems now experienced with sewerage disposal and water supply. This principle, adopted after public input and discussion, forms the basis for the accommodation proposals outlined to date in the review of the Plan. The 1974 Plan of Management recognised that future major development of tourist overnight facilities, especially of the hotel/​motel/​lodge type, should be encouraged outside the Park, relieving the very problems now experienced with sewerage disposal and water supply. This principle, adopted after public input and discussion, forms the basis for the accommodation proposals outlined to date in the review of the Plan.
  
-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 ​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 ​of action if the long term protection of their replaceable natural features of the area is to be guaranteed. The year 2015 is the date the Head Lease covering the developments expires. The investments under the lease will revert ​to the Crownthus enabling decisions ​to be made on the future use of the facilities.+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 worksroad 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.
  
-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 ​of action if the long term protection of their replaceable natural features of the area is to be guaranteedThe year 2015 is the date the Head Lease covering the developments expires. The investments under the lease will revert ​to the Crownthus enabling decisions to be made on the future use of the facilities.
-"Low cost" accommodation ​is precluded from the National Park's snowfields by the enormous costs, at today'​s prices, ​of developing any new accommodation in such an environmentIt is far cheaper ​to build outside ​the Parkand it must be emphasised that only one quarter ​of present peak day visitors stay in +
-accommodation within ​the Park.+
  
-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,​ and the impact of sewerage effluent on creeks and rivers which has the greater effect. This impact reaches well beyond the resorts themselves, spreading along roads, sewerage and electricity lines for example. It will be of little value having larger car parks if the road capacity precludes any large increase in private vehicles entering the-resort areas during peak periods. Such an increase in capacity will require major road reconstruction.+
  
-D. Access. ​\\ +"Low cost" accommodation is precluded from the National Park's snowfields by the enormous costs, at today'​s prices, of developing any new accommodation in such an environment. It is far cheaper to build outside the Park, and it must be emphasised that only one quarter of present peak day visitors stay in accommodation within the Park. 
-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'​s conservative projections indicated that at the end of this decade there will be 97,000 visitors in the Park on a peak day. (See A.1.). If this number of users could fit on the ski slopes (see 12), even a doubling of existing accommodation would result in only a 6% reduction in the traffic on the access roads. The sometimes long, sometimes dangerous journey would remain a problem to be tackled by other means. Hence, research is continuing into the safety aspects of Winter ​access.+10. Wouldn'​t larger carparks cause more damage than additional accommodation?​ 
 + 
 +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,​ and the impact of sewerage effluent on creeks and rivers which has the greater effect. This impact reaches well beyond the resorts themselves, spreading along roads, sewerage and electricity lines for example. It will be of little value having larger car parks if the road capacity precludes any large increase in private vehicles entering the resort areas during peak periods. Such an increase in capacity will require major road reconstruction. 
 + 
 +__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'​s conservative projections indicated that at the end of this decade there will be 97,000 visitors in the Park on a peak day. (See A.1.). If this number of users could fit on the ski slopes (see 12), even a doubling of existing accommodation would result in only a 6% reduction in the traffic on the access roads. The sometimes long, sometimes dangerous journey would remain a problem to be tackled by other means. Hence, research is continuing into the safety aspects of winter ​access.
  
 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 ​(BUSSYSTEM BE UNECONOMICAL AND UNRELIABLE?\\+12. Wouldn't a mass transit ​(bussystem be uneconimical and unreliable? 
 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 "​rush"​. This is based on the capacities of 1,000 cars per lane per hour, with each car carrying an average of 3.15 persons. 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 "​rush"​. This is based on the capacities of 1,000 cars per lane per hour, with each car carrying an average of 3.15 persons.
  
-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,​000-19,​000) peak day visitors will have to be accommodated within the Park or be transported in by other means. Extra lanes would increase the capacity of the roads but cost in excess of $20 million, require massive car parks and still fall well short of demand. Similar expenditures would be required on sub-regional roads leading to the Park. .+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,​000-19,​000) peak day visitors will have to be accommodated within the Park or be transported in by other means. Extra lanes would increase the capacity of the roads but cost in excess of $20 million, require massive car parks and still fall well short of demand. Similar expenditures would be required on sub-regional roads leading to the Park.
  
-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'​AREAS BE DEVELOPED TO EASE PRESSURE ON EXISTING RESORTS AND TO HELP ELIMINATE OVERCROWDING?​ \\+
  
-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 evaluatedIf the Australian Ski Federation ​ estimates are correct these areas will be needed by 1982; if the high demand estimate is correct the areas will be needed by 1984. It is possible that some of these potential new resorts ​will be for day use, and hence different from Thredbo, Perisher, etc.+14Should not new resort ​areas be development to ease pressure on existing ​resorts and to help eliminate overcrowding?​
  
-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 ​of any other areas within the Park which may have potential for skiing development will be evaluatedIf the Australian Ski Federation estimates ​are correct ​these areas will be needed by 1982; if the high demand estimate is correct ​the areas will be needed by 1984. It is possible that some of these potential new resorts will be for day use, and hence different from Thredbo, Perisher, etc.
-Accurate estimates are difficult to determine. However ​the following table gives an order of magnitude derived from previous studies (e.gPerisher 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.+
  
-An approximate Peak Day Visitor ​Ca acit  Eastern Resort ​Areas +15. What is the potential of the eastern part of the snowfields for the development of new skiing opportunities?​ 
-Thredbo 7,​500 + 
-Perisher/​Smiggins 14,500 +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 ​Capacity (1Eastern Resort ​Areas__ 
-3,450  + 
-,.._ +|a. __Existing__|Thredbo|7,500| 
-Thredbo 2,​500 +| |Perisher/​Smiggins|14,500| 
-Perisher/​Smiggins 3,000 +| |Guthega|650| 
-Guthega 550 +| |Charlotte Pass|__800__| 
-Charlotte Pass  15p  +| | |__23,450__| 
-"200 +|b__Infill of Existing Areas__|Thredbo|2,500| 
-Bogong Creek (6,500 +| |Perisher/​Smiggins|3,000| 
-Twin Valleys (3 4,500 +| |Guthega|550| 
-Blue Cow 3,7Q0  +| |Charlotte Pass|__150__| 
-14;​70Q  ​Total 44;350 +| | |__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,​700__| 
 +| | Total|__44,​350__| 
 +|ski areas served by|the Alpine Way|21,​000 ​visitors/day| 
 +|ski areas served by|Kosciusko Road (Main Road 286|23,​350 ​visitors/day|
  
 (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 ​of Planning\\ +__F. The Legal Requirements ​of Planning.__ 
-HOW DOES THE LAW OF THE STATE OF N.S.W. ​AFFECT PLANNING FOR RESORT DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN KOSCIUSKO NATIONAL PARK?\\ + 
-The main legal requirements are contained in the National ​Parks and Wildlife ​Act 1974, Clean Waters ​Act 1970 and the Environmental ​Planning,and Assessment ​.Act 1979.    +16. How does the law of the State of N.S.W. ​affect planning for resort developments within Kosciusko National Park? 
-a.  + 
-b. Inf ill of Existing Areas  + 
-c. Possible New Areas  .r ....... +The __main__ ​legal requirements are contained in the __National ​Parks and Wildlife ​Act__ 1974, __Clean ​Waters ​Act__ 1970 and the __Environmental ​Planning and Assessment ​Act__ 1979.    
-+ 
-I.e. Ski areas served by the Alpine Way +(1) __N.S.WNational Parks and Wildlife Act 1974__
-It 11 U"​ "​ Kosciusko Road + 
-(Main Road 286)+(aSection 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&​b1ori-81(4)recili1i66-t1ii1Farizidelielatthents proposed for a park have to be in accordance with its plan of management. 
 (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"​bind6.the'​NatiOnal-Paik6 ' afid"​ffildlife-Service and requires that 
-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 ​Act.+* 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 ​Waters ​Act__. 
 + 
 +__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,​ are located relatively high within water catchments (see 6). Perisher Valley, for example, has to provide sufficient water for water supply, including fire fighting, and operation of a sewerage works from a catchment of less than 1,000 ha. the situation is worse at Charlotte Pass and Smiggin Holes and somewhat better at Thredbo (cecause it is served by a larger catchment). 
 + 
 +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?​  +19If water is a constrainthow does this affect planning options?
-The basic problem is that the ski resorts, unlik'​ie,​ their -1,​Verseas +
-counterparts,​ are located relatively high within Viatei. dOt'​Ohments (see 6). Perisher Valley, for example, has to provide sufficient Ater for water supply, including fire fighting, and. operation of a sewera0 works from a datcbment of less than 1 909.0- 1a T1 tuat.'​ion`-'​1,​61-'​4. :At Charlotte Pass +
-and. Smiggin Holes and somevir.b.aVODetter;​t hretio (because is served by +
-a. larger catchment) . 4. ;​7. . +
-. . +
-Strict standards for treatehi-effluent-li,r4-...requirpd for the category +
-of Classified Waters proposed. for the ,:​resort\caiieas (s'ee- 16(2)). It appears that the 191 dilution requirement cannot be met even for existing develop- +
-ments at Per1,​elil.W.:​14;​-'​Smiggin Holes and Charlotte Pass,​t__I 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.+
  
-18WHAT EACTIG"​.1.1 DO WATER, SUPPLY. PROBLEMS: ​ HAVE ON PIAIlTIN NEW AREAS? +A day visitor uses far less water and produces far less sewage than an overnight visitorThe current design criteria for sewerage works indicates that five day visitors produce ​the same load on these services as every overnight visitorRecent studies ​in the Park have suggested that the actual ratio may be nearer to 20 to 1. Henceplanning for day use rather than overnight accommodation will allow for more people ​to use the same facilities within the Park.
-, None of the existing resort areas has an adequate vrate# storage and +
-supply capacityii...3;​-,​R.he.,​1-'​dioi--ts:​!high ​in water catchmentsFiArequire +
-considerable inv.gsUgatibn and,​..expenditur'​.of fundi:On .1,T.,:​atei4S-upp1y and stozage ​to bring,;:​sitOrage capacity supply gp.-,tb '​acceptaAle. municipal standards. 'Tile answers may not be easily found,'​ and 'bei eitiestl'​ons of the' scale of technOlogical interventions appropriate for.,,,​am4iongl,​ ,park and international biosphere reseryeT The Problem is not so critical at Guthea or Thredbo.+
  
-19. IF WATER IS A CONSTRAINT,​HOW DOES IT 2GT PLNT OPTIONS? +=====Walks ProgrammeAmendment.=====
-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: ​ 11.12111LENT. ru 1 8r. +Waterfall - Kingfisher ​Pool - Morella ​Karong ​- Heathcote: Train 840 CMapCampbelltown14kmEasyLeaderDavid Ingram. Contact Leader in Clubroom on Wednesday 18th February.
-'Waterfall - .Kingfisher ​'​PoolMorel;​a. ​Karong ​liflo.rabinda - HeathooteV171T-AlAr64-204:"​I''''​tambAltoivn14 EMEASY. +
-LEADERDAVID INGRAM. Contact Leader in Clubroom on Wednesday 18th February.+
  
 +====="​Stop Press"​=====
  
-"Stop Press" ​by Anon.+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,​ said she did not wish to be named nor did she want the location to be made known as the Club was not yet known to have bought the land as the Committee was still considering the matter. (The Club does in fact own the land though only a select few members know of it. "The others will come round in time." said the spokesperson.)  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,​ said she did not wish to be named nor did she want the location to be made known as the Club was not yet known to have bought the land as the Committee was still considering the matter. (The Club does in fact own the land though only a select few members know of it. "The others will come round in time." said the spokesperson.)
198101.txt · Last modified: 2016/03/18 04:47 by tyreless