Tasman Flax-lily (Dianella tasmanica) (blue berry) in a Blue Mountains Swamp

At the headwaters of Katoomba Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Q:  When is a protected swamp not deemed a swamp and so not worthy of protection?

Closed sedgeland dominated by Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)

across a Blue Mountains Swamp along the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

A:  When unqualified local Council development planning staff are selectively blind to allow for housing development. 

Colorbond fence encroaching into the above Blue Mountains Swamp 

Along the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Q:  When is a protected swamp deemed a swamp worthy of protection?

A:  When quasi-qualified local Council environmental staff are selectively seeking public relations kudos and grant funding.  

The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project

.

The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project is a recent joint project between Blue Mountains City Council, Gosford City Council, Lithgow City Council and Wingecarribee Shire Council to protect and restore the federally listed Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone endangered ecological community.  

It is funded through a 12 month $400,000 federal Caring for Country grant operating across all four LGAs as well as a 3 year $250,000 NSW Environmental Trust grant focused on the Blue Mountains City Council and Lithgow City Council Local Government Areas.     [Source:  Blue Mountains Council, ^http://saveourswamps.com.au/index.php]

.

Blue Mountains Swamp

A ‘hanging swamp‘ – hanging on a steep slope

.

The Blue Mountains National Park is one of seven national parks which collectively comprise a million hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains Area, which since 2000 has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.   This area is protected internationally for (1) its outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals and (2) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.      [Read More about ^The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage values]

.

Since 12th May 2005,  ‘Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone‘ have been recognised as an important and rare ecological community listed as Endangered under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, as well as within New South Wales under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSC Act).

So naturally, one would expect such swamps to be identified, mapped and ecologically protected – one would expect.  .

These swamps occur naturally in very few places on the planet, as shown (in red) in the following distribution map within south eastern Australia:

.Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone – Global Distribution Map

[Source:  Australian Government, Department of Environment et al.,
^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=32#Distribution, accessed 20121015]

.

Blue Mountains Swamps are included as part of the Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone.   These are the top two red areas in the above map.

The Blue Mountains west of Sydney are Triassic sandstone plateaux.  Blue Mountain Swamps occur in shallow, low-sloping, often narrow headwater valleys (Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990), on long gentle open drainage lines in the lowest foot slopes, low-lying broad valley floors and alluvial flats (Department of Environment and Conservation 2006), and in gully heads, open depressions on ridgetops and steep valley sides associated with semi-permanent water seepage (Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).

Farmers Creek Swamp

Newnes Plateau, Blue Mountains – is it protected?   Or just not targeted for development yet?

Grevillea acanthifolia (pink flower) in the foreground

[Source:  Lithgow Environment Group, ^http://www.lithgowenvironment.org/swamp_watch2.shtml]

.

Most of these swamps are situated within the Greater Blue Mountains Area and so are ecologically protected, but many are not.  Many Blue Mountains Swamps are situated just outside on the fringe lands.  Those fringe lands lie on the bush interface with human residential settlement and despite their environmental protection on paper are at risk of being bulldozed for housing development.   Such threats from development are referred to as ‘edge effects‘.   These swamps are on the edge of housing development, or put the more chronological way, housing development is being allowed to encroach upon the edge of these swamps that were there first.      Other Blue Mountains Swamps such as those up on Newnes Plateau are at risk of being bulldozed and drained for mining.

According to the Blue Mountains Council, there are less than 3,000 hectares of Blue Mountains Swamp in existence. As they predominantly comprise many small areas, they are very susceptible to edge effects.    As the urban footprint expands to the edges of the plateau, the swamps are coming under ever increasing pressure.

.

• Clearing for urban development
• Urban runoff – sediment deposition, tunnelling and channelisation from stormwater discharges
• Bushfire (both ‘wild’ and ‘hazard’ reduction)
• Weed invasion
• Nutrient enrichment (urban runoff)
• Mowing
• Grazing
• Water extraction (bores, tapping natural springs and building dams)

.

[Source:   ‘Blue Mountains Swamps’, Blue Mountains Council, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/sustainableliving/environmentalinformation/livingcatchments/bluemountainsswamps/]

.

Blue Mountains Swamp

Here an acre of pristine Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa) burned at Devil’s Hole, Katoomba

It was set fire to (‘hazard reduced’) by National Parks and Wildlife (NSW) on 20120911

Photo by Editor 20120922, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

..

Blue Mountains Swamps – substrate characteristics

.

Blue Mountains Swamps are characterised by the constant presence of groundwater seeping along the top of impermeable claystone layers in the sandstone and reaches the surface where the claystone protrudes (Keith and Benson 1988; Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005).

The substrate tends to be a shallow black to grey coloured acid, peaty, loamy sandy soil with organic matter and are poorly drained and so tend to be either constantly or intermittently water logged (Hope and Southern 1983; Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990; Stricker and Brown 1994; Stricker and Wall 1994; Winning and Brown 1994; Stricker and Stroinovsky 1995; Benson and McDougall 1997; Whinam and Chilcott 2002; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).

Blue Mountains Swamp on Newnes Plateau

 

The swamps naturally trap sediment and disperse rain water over a wide area and protect floors of headwater valleys from erosion.  They vary in structure and species composition according to geology, topographic location, depth of the water table, extent and duration of water logging and bushfire frequency.

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – vegetation variation

.

The structure of Blue Mountains Swamp vegetation varies from open shrubland to closed heath or open heath (dominated by shrub species but with a sedge and graminoid understorey and occasionally with scattered low trees) to sedgeland and closed sedgeland.   The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area ids listed for its outstanding natural values, a major component of which is the high number of eucalypt species and eucalypt-dominated communities.  These can be found in a great variety of plant communities including within and upslope of Blue Mountains Swamps.

Topographic location, hydrology and soils significantly influence the dominant species composition.   Structure of the vegetation varies from closed heath or scrub to open heath to closed sedgeland or fernland.   The common cross-feature with all types is the presence of frequently waterlogged soil.

The Gully Swamp

Dominant tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades

This one’s ‘protected’ as an Aboriginal Place under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), Part 6

Yet it is infested with environmental and noxious weeds – so what does ‘protected’ mean?

(Photo by Editor 20110502, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Tree Species

.

• Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii
• Mountain Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus aquatica)
• Eucalyptus copulans
• Ed:  Blue Mountains Ash (Eucalyptus oreades), only at creek headwaters around Katoomba

 Eucalyptus mannifera (subspecies ‘gullickii’)

Found naturally in a Blue Mountains Swamp

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Shrub Species

.

• Flax-leaf Heath Myrtle  (Baeckea linifolia)
• Leptospermum juniperinum
• Hakea teretifolia
• Leptospermum grandifolium
• Grevillea acanthifolia (subspecies ‘acanthifolia’)
• Leptospermum polygalifolium
• Banksia spinulosa
• Almaleea incurvata
• Epacris obtusifolia
• Epacris hamiltonii
• Sprengelia incarnata
• Deane’s Boronia   (Boronia deanei)
• Persoonia hindii
• Swamp Bush-pea   (Pultenaea glabra)
• Bantam Bush-pea   (Pultenaea parrisiae)
• Dwarf Kerrawang   (Rulingia prostrata)

.

Flax-leaf Heath Myrtle  (Baeckea linifolia)

In a Blue Mountains Swamp, flowering in late summer

(Photo by Editor 20080128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Fern Species

.

• Water ferns  (Blechnum nudum)
• Pouched Coral ferns Gleichenia spp  (G. dicarpa and G. microphylla)
• Umbrella ferns Sticherus spp
• King Fern   (Todea barbara)
• Drosera binata

.

Blue Mountains Swamp – is this one protected?

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Sedge Species

.

• Large tussock sedge, Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus

• Rhizomatous sedges and cord rushes:

• Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)
• Lepidosperma limicola
• Ptilothrix deusta
• Lepyrodia scariosa
• Leptocarpus tenax
• Cord-rush    (Baloskion longipes)

.

‘Edge Effects’ – when housing development is allowed to encroach upon Blue Mountains Swamps

(Where Fifth Avenue Katoomba has priority over the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, before it enters the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area)

Tree species here is Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Grasses and Herbs Species

.

• Deyeuxia spp  (D. gunniana, D. quadriseta),
• Swamp Millet   (sachne globosa )
• Lachnogrostis filiformis
• Poa spp  (P. labillardierei var. labillardierei, P. sieberiana)
• Tetrarrhena turfosa
• Entolasia stricta
• Dampiera stricta
• Mirbelia rubiifolia
• Gonocarpus teucrioides
• Carex klaphakei
• Derwentia blakelyi
• Wingecarribee Gentian    ( Gentiana wingecarribiensis)
• Lepidosperma evansianum
• Yellow Loose Strife   (Lysimachia vulgaris var. davurica)
• Tawny Leek-orchid  (Prasophyllum fuscum)
• Dark Leek-orchid   (Prasophyllum uroglossum)
• Large Tongue Orchid   (Cryptostylis subulata)

.

Large Tongue Orchid (Cryptostylis subulata)

Blue Mountains Swamp

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

For further Reading visit: ^Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone ,   ^Blue Mountains Swamps in the Sydney Basin Bioregion – profile

.

So what differentiates a Blue Mountains Swamp?

.

What is common across the above varying substrate and vegetation characteristics, that differentiates a Blue Mountains Swamp from other vegetation communities are the following attributes:

1. Situated on the Narrabeen Sandstone plateaux across the Blue Mountains region
2. Underlying sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer
3. Ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained
4. Presence of groundwater
5. Constantly or intermediately waterlogged soil
6. Locally native vegetation that thrives in such waterlogged soils

.

Q:  But where do the spatial limits of a Blue Mountains Swamp begin and end?  Are Blue Mountains Swamps dependent upon the health of adjoining vegetation communities, particularly of those upstream.

A:  Probably, but who knows and who is researching Blue Mountains Swamps?

 

Q:  Is it the physical characteristics that differentiate a Blue Mountains Swamp from other less significant vegetation communities or is it our selective attitudes that decide whether to protect it or condemn it?

God Government Death Lever

.

A Save or Bulldoze Case Study:  

‘Katoomba Creek Swamp at Twynam Street’

.

Katoomba Creek Swamp

With a cluster of magnificent King Ferns (Todea barbara) up the back, which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

 

Katoomba Creek in the Upper Central Blue Mountains flows northward from a central plateau into the Grose Valley within the Blue Mountains National Park.

Katoomba Creek Swamp

Dominated by Pouched Coral Ferns (Gleichenia dicarpa), which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage

Tree canopy is Blue Mountains Ash  (Eucalyptus oreades), which is rare and in the Blue Mountains found only around Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

The headwaters of Katoomba Creek are forked from four upland gullies, one which has been dammed for water reservoir (Cascade Reservoir), and another starts near Twynam Street which forms the outer settlement area of Katoomba.  It is just three kilometres upstream from the World Heritage Area – the boundary of which is rather arbitrary and should be here at the precious headwaters.

Yet despite the substrate and vegetation characteristics of the creek headwaters suiting those of a Blue Mountains Swamp, Blue Mountains Council’s chief housing development manager, Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services on 13th February 2012 deemed that “the vegetation community across the site is consistent with the Eucalyptus oreades Open Forest community, and known variations of that community, and is not a hanging swamp.”

“The inspections confirmed that some basic features common to hanging swamps are present on the land, such as steep slopes and groundwater seepage which supports the occurrence of the fern species Pouched Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa), which is also found in swamps.  However, the absence of many typical Blue Mountains Swamp species, the presence of a prominent tree canopy, the absence of peat formation and the co-existence of the ferns with established and emerging sclerophyll shrub species, make this community inconsistent with that of the Blue Mountains Swamp Community.”

Furthermore, while the sheltered south easterly aspect, steep slope, the underlying geology and locally moist conditions provide a niche within the forested E. oreades- E. radiata – E. piperita community for ferns and other species to flourish in the wet conditions, the area does not support the usual suite of Blue Mountains swamp sedges, ground layer and shrub vegetation, nor the development of peat, nor is it wet enough to prevent the co-existence of other drier sclerophyll forest understory and canopy species in this vicinity.

The Proposed Housing Development Site at 121 Twynam Street Katoomba

The same Katoomba Creek Swamp – Tasman Flax-lily (Dianella tasmanica) in foreground

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Blue Mountains Council’s Environmental Scientist and Environmental/Landscape Assessment Officer have inspected and assessed this swamp and deemed it not a swamp but a ‘wet forest‘.

Ed:  What puritanical pretense!

.

This pristine vegetation community lies wholly within the riparian zone of the headwaters of Katoomba Creek (just metres away from the above photo).  The underlying substrate is sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer.  The soil is ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained.  It has constant groundwater causing waterlogged soil.  The vegetation is a carpet of Pouched Coral Ferns, with a large cluster of King Ferns.  It has Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa), its Lepidosperma limicola (sedge grass in foreground).    The tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades which is common across Blue Mountains Swamps found at creek headwaters, but endemic only around Katoomba.

Is this more Swamp Selective Bias?

Indeed, the Blue Mountains Council ecological mapping assigned this site as a dry sclerophyll  Eucalyptus piperita/ Eucalyptus sieberi forest.  Woops.

The Council judgment letter stated that this site is zoned under Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1991 as Residential Bushland Conservation.  But in fact, 80% of the site is zoned as a ‘Protected Area – Environmental Constraint‘  (see below extract).  Woops.

.

The ‘Environmental Constraint Area‘ zoning under Local Enviropnment Plan 1991 for 121 Twynam Street (perimeter highlighted)

covers 80% of the site from the street frontage.

.

LEP 1991 Protected Areas Objectives:   Clause 7.2 Environmental Constraint Area

.

(a) To protect environmentally sensitive land and areas of high scenic value in the City  (Ed: not that any reasonable person could possibly deem the Blue Mountains to be a ‘city’).
(b) To provide a buffer around areas of ecological significance.  (Ed: Such as a pristine Blue Mountains Swamp)
(c) To restrict development on land that is inappropriate by reason of its physical characteristics or bushfire risk.  (Ed: the site is Bushfire Risk Category 1)

.

121 Twynam Street is zoned a Category 1 Bushfire Risk

.

The Slope of the site exceeds 33% grade, which exceeds the limits for the Council’s development criteria

.

LEP 1991 Clause 11.3  ‘Environmental Constraint Area’

.

“The Council shall not consent to development in a Protected Area – Environmental Constraint Area, unless it is satisfied, by means of a detailed environmental assessment, that the development complies with the objectives of the Protected Area that are relevant to the development and will comply with the Development Criteria in clause 10 that are relevant to the development.”

 

Council Judgment:

.

 “In conclusion it is considered that the proposed dwelling and driveway have been designed and located to ensure that the development will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and is suitable for the site.”

.

[Sources:  ‘Proposed dwelling at 121 Twynam Street, Katoomba”  letter by Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services, Blue Mountains Council’s Development, Health & Customer Services Department, 20120213, Ref: X/69/2010;  Blue Mountains Council website – ‘Interactive Maps’, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/index.cfm]

.

Ed:  So is this judgment and the process one of selective blindness, ignoring rules, hypocrisy, incompetence, or worse?   In the case of Katoomba Creek Swamp, the decision is not to save this particular Blue Mountains Swamp, but to bulldoze it.

.

Bushcare Rehabilitation Site on a tributary of Katoomba Falls Creek

The Gully, Katoomba, Blue Mountains

This was allegedly ripped up by Blue Mountains Council to accommodate a marathon.

(click photo to enlarge)

.

‘The Gully‘ situated in the upper central Blue Mountains of New South Wales (NSW) is a natural creek valley surrounded by the township development of Katoomba, within a corridor and upstream of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

This valley has a disgraceful history of forced eviction of Aboriginal people from their traditional tribal lands by Blue Mountains Council in 1957, of environmental devastation to build a race track in the 1960s, of associated deforestation and commercial tourism exploitation, followed after the racetrack’s rundown and loan default, by many years of ecological neglect.

More recently, despite the efforts of members of the local community to rehabilitate degraded areas and eroded watercourses, a new threat has emerged – ‘Adventure Tourism‘.

Back in 2008, two separate organisations – AROC Sport Pty Ltd and The Wilderness Society NSW (an organisation which should know better) decided to launch respective marathons each through the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.   They each proposed their respective marathon events with the government custodian of the World Heritage Area, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and since both marathon courses also involved running through community land, they also approached the custodian, Blue Mountains (city) Council.

AROC Sport Pty Ltd proposed its Ultra Marathon with UK outdoor gear sponsor The North Face which it termed ‘2008 North Face 100‘ marathon – a 10okm individual marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including through the magnificent Jamison Valley.  The Wilderness Society NSW proposed a similar marathon termed ‘Wild Endurance 100 Blue Mountains‘, also a 100km team-based marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including the Jamison Valley.  Both events were publicised as being one off events, but have since become annual events attracting hundreds of competitors and spectators.

In January 2008, The Habitat Advocate learned that these two events had already been approved by the Regional Director of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS NSW), Geoff Luscombe, without apparently any consultation either with the Blue Mountains community nor with any conservation groups that have for many decades had a close association with the Blue Mountains and its conservation.   [BMNP POM:  “A Neighbour Relations Strategy will be developed to raise awareness about the  park’s significant natural and cultural values, inform park neighbours about park management programs and encourage appropriate behaviour to minimise impacts on the park. Within the City of Blue Mountains, “neighbours” will include the whole community.”]

On 20080130, The Habitat Advocate wrote to the Blue Mountains (city) Council’s then Acting Bushland Management Project Officer, Ms Arienne Murphy, explaining our concern:

“The degree of environmental protection and safeguards for these affected natural areas that Council may be imposing upon the respective event organisers, and the trend of adventure tourism and elite sporting events using natural areas of high conservation value is one that warrants appropriate environmental safeguards, monitoring and a transparent decision making process.”

.

The Habitat Advocate requested from Blue Mountains (city) Council:

• A copy of the user requirements including any standard terms and conditions that Council issues to (1) casual recreational license holders and (2) ongoing recreational license holders of Council-managed/controlled natural areas in the Blue Mountains Local Government Area.
• A copy of the specific operating terms and conditions relating to the proposed Northface 100 and Wild Endurance marathon events both due to take place around Nellies Glen and through the Jamison Valley wilderness in May 2008.

.

The correspondence was ignored by Council and no information was received from Council.

At the time, The Habitat Advocate also raised similar concerns about the risks of damaging ecological impacts and of the unsuitability of these two events through the World Heritage Area with interested representatives of conservation groups – The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, the National Parks Association of NSW, and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

Issues raised included:

• To examine and improve the rule that regulate these events
• To identify the location of high conservation value natural communities that the routes of each event propose to pass through
• How the responsible custodian (NPWS NSW) proposes to ensure these communities are not adversely impacted
• To protect and defend the important natural values of the Blue Mountains and the rare and threatened habitat of its flora and fauna.
• The hold the NPWS NSW as custodian of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to account under the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management (May 2001) [BMNP POM]and in accordance with its mottos of ‘tread lightly’ and ‘take only photos and leave only footprints’.
• Ensure protection of wilderness values and adherence to a wilderness code of conduct to ensure “minimal impact codes or practices for potentially high impact activities
  including cycling, horse riding, adventure activities and vehicle touring”  [BMNP POM, p.52]

.

A meeting was held at the office of the Colong Fondation in Sydney on Wednesday 20080206 between The Habitat Advocate, the above conservation groups and with Geoff Luscombe as well as with The Wilderness Society.  The above concerns were raised with Mr Luscombe and he politely gave assurances that both events would not cause damage to ecology.  The key document that would guide the conduct of the events and protect the ecology was the then ‘Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region‘ (dated 20070926), by the then umbrella department of NSPW NSW, The Department of Environment and Climate Change.

However, no specific recognition, rules or guidelines were made to allow for commercial marathons involving large numver of participants and spectators within either the Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region nor within the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management.

Indeed the Interim Policy includes clauses that run counter the large scale of two such commecvial marathons as per the following extract clauses:

.

‘Environmental Protection’:

.

Clause 5.1.11:    “Commercial activities will not be permitted to lead to permanent or unsustainable impacts on the resource or become a significant proportion of visitor impact on a site or area.”

.

Slashed vegetation for the marathon through The Gully’s swamp, Katoomba

But what is the impact is occurring upon  flora deep in the Jamison Valley Wilderness?

Who monitors the marathons?  Who is the watchdog over the custodian?

.

Clause  5.1.13  “The current Minimal Impact Bushwalking Code (Australian Alps National Parks) should be used by operators/guides as a minimum code of behaviour for all activities.” 

.

[Ed.  But under NPWS NSW Activity Agreement with AROC Sport, AROC Sport needs only..”Use best endeavours to ensure that participants adhere to the approved route on recognised and approved fire trails and walking tracks within the Park and do not deviate from these trails and tracks at any time.”]

.

Clause  5.1.14   “No modification to the environment, permanent or temporary, will be permitted (eg. fixtures or temporary caches) without specific Department approval.”

[Ed.  So where is the NPWS NSW monitoring of compliance, or lack thereof?]

.

Cliff Walk slashed along the top of the Blue Mountains Western Escarpment

to accommodate the North Face 100 marathon in 2008

(Photo by Editor 20080517)

.

North Face 100 participant runs through a Gully Bushcare Site, previously fenced off and sign posted

This riparian area was disturbed by Sydney Water in 2007 during its Sewer Amplification Project.

The site was subsequently rehabilitated with native plants by Networks Alliance in co-operation with local coucil and the local buschare group.

.

‘Recreation Management’:

.

Clause  5.1.21  “Commercial activities can only form a minor component of total use and not lead to the domination of a particular setting, site, route or activity, or unreasonably restrict or exclude the recreational opportunity of other users.”

Runners take right of way over bushwalkers

What happens when the marathons are required to stay together in teams?

.

Clause  5.1.22  “Acceptable levels of use, in relation to the conservation and protection of the environment, will be based on precautionary principles determined by the Department and this process may not maximise commercial opportunities.”

Northface100 competitors – 1000 registered entrants an “acceptable level of use”?

.

‘Appropriate Activities’:

.

Clause  5.1.25  “Activities resulting in minimal impact will be preferred over those causing greater impact (eg. track walking versus off-track walking).”  [Ed.  No mention here about commercial marathons involving hundreds of participants]

Does my team have to stick together over the entire length of the trail?
Wild Endurance:  Yes. It is compulsory for the whole team to stay together the whole time. The team must arrive together and depart from each Checkpoint and also cross the finish line together. Of course if you are in the Relay event, then only half the team needs to arrive at each checkpoint and cross the finish line together.

.

.

Clause  5.1.27  “Where impacts associated with activities are high and sites are deemed suitable for recreational purposes, sites may be managed by the Department to provide for intensive use.”    [Ed.  No mention was made by Luscombe about any monitoring and enforcement by NPWS NSW]

.

Revisiting the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management:

.

• The Service will continue to develop its Discovery interpretive program, including investigation of options for improving the quality, quantity and geographic spread of activities offered
• The emphasis will continue to be on environmental interpretation and education and away from hard adventure.
• Recreation Opportunities:  Use by domestic and international tourists is largely day use concentrated on the scenic escarpment areas of the Jamison and Grose valleys, from Wentworth Falls to Katoomba and at Blackheath, although other relatively easily accessible areas are popular for adventure ecotourism (see section 4.3.8 Guided Tours and Commercial
  Recreation).
• With tourism in the Blue Mountains region projected to increase strongly over the next five years, the need to minimise the impacts of tourism on the natural environment is a growing concern.
• Recreation use of the park includes a wide range of activities and is distributed throughout the park…Use is distributed throughout the year, with peaks during school holiday periods and long weekends.
• The park is under increasing pressure from the growing number of park visitors, with some popular bushwalking and camping areas such as the Grose Valley, Wollangambe
  area, the Wild Dog Mountains, Burralow Creek, Erskine Creek, Glenbrook Creek, Ingar and Murphys Glen showing signs of unacceptable environmental impacts.
• Adventure activities such as canyoning, abseiling and rockclimbing have increased dramatically in 56 popularity, with visitation to one popular canyon having doubled over a two year period.  These activities are associated with a proliferation of informal foot tracks which are eroding with increasing use. Vegetation is being denuded at popular abseiling and/or rockclimbing access points and public safety is an issue at some sites, particularly where there is conflict with other users.
• Major management considerations include the need to raise awareness of visitor impacts, to monitor visitor use and, where necessary, to regulate visitor numbers to
  protect the park environment, ensure visitor safety and maintain recreation experiences appropriate to a natural or wilderness setting.
• Regulation of large groups, commercial activities and adventure activities needs to be considered in relation to both environmental impacts and public safety. Use of the park
  by larger groups has the greatest potential to impact on the park. User conflicts, risks of accidents and injuries and impacts on natural and cultural heritage values all rise in
  proportion to the size of the group.
• The existing facilities have been developed over a period of more than a hundred years and are not necessarily compatible with existing design, safety and maintenance standards, may be having an unacceptable environmental impact and/or are inadequate to satisfy existing or projected recreation and tourism demand and patterns of use.
• A major review of existing facilities is required and clearer priorities for maintenance and
  upgrading of facilities or removal need to be developed to ensure that conservation and
  recreation objectives can both be met in a management environment of limited
  resources.
• Natural areas:  Recreation tends to be more dispersed and any facilities provided are relatively low-key compared to the developed areas, catering for a lower level of use.
• Wilderness areas: This setting provides opportunities for solitude and self-reliant recreation.
• Competitive activities including rogaining and orienteering will not be permitted in wilderness areas.

 

“The nominated area has a complicated border, defined partly by adjoining privately owned lands which, in the Blue Mountains Park section, also divides it into northern and southern sections along the corridor of the Great Western Highway. The heart of each Park is reserved as wilderness which totals 54% of the nominated area. ”

[Source: ‘Greater Blue Mountains (world heritage) Area’, United Nations Environment Programme, World ConbservationMonitoring Centre ].

 

The ‘Wild Endurance’ course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness

.

.
‘NorthFace 100’ marathon course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness

“Saturday 19th May 2012:  The 5th Annual North Face 100 will begin at Leura’s Fairmont Resort in the Blue Mountains Australia.

Some 900 runners will embark on a 100km trail race which will take them through Jamison Valley, Narrowneck Plateau, Megalong Valley…”

.

Ed:   Is this what custodianship of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area has become – all about maximising visitation over conservation?

.