Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing

[Xplora]

Thanks for the link. Interesting it says this idea was a coalition policy when I was told by the PV lead on the project it was Steve Bracks ALP.

[Xplora]

One would think a management plan is exactly that and not something that cannot adequately define exactly what they are allowed to do. All the legislative issues should have been addressed first and it is not good enough to simply say they will work within the framework of the relevant legislation or seek to change it. There has been some discussion about the proposal breaching conservation zones but it goes further. The State Planning zone for this area is classified PCRZ and it is a requirement of that zone for all use to be
‘A use conducted by or on behalf of a public land manager or Parks Victoria’
This means PV must build and manage any accommodation. Private concerns cannot because they are not working on behalf of PV.
The other problem they face is the BMO. It is mentioned in the Plan but as a part of any planning approval the fire authority in control (CFA) must assess the buildings and site and one of the most important things they consider is access. This quote from DELWP

"The bushfire mitigation measures forming part of this permit or shown on the endorsed plans, including those relating to construction standards, defendable space, water supply and access, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the relevant fire authority on a continuing basis. This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed."

My neighbours were not allowed to build on their preferred site because of the CFA and access. Access to any of the proposed hard roof accommodation buildings is difficult and impossible for the Razorback. If the regulations are changed to allow this to happen then it will open up scope for further such development in any Vic National Park. This thing only gets worse every time I read it.

[neilmny]

A link to a PV submission form for those that it would help (like me) http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... -form.docx

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Explora sahib, I find it hard to tell the Lib Labs apart these days.Whoever wins power seems to forget about us little people , the future health of the planet and a fair go rather quickly , if they ever had that in their bag to begin with. "If you don't like my principles, then I have others" : Groucho Marx.

[neilmny]

Found a couple of interesting links submitted on snow forums.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/falls ... tgbyb.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-27/p ... il/8149072

[Xplora]

Good one Neil. There is more in the Border Mail as well. All this coverage is since the VNPA have stuck their head up which shows you that governments and media will also take notice when consumer groups speak. Individuals have a much harder time getting their point across.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I do suspect the Front Page story on The Age about this issue appeared because the VNPA have recently put forth their position .Some walkers have only heard about this matter since The Age ran the story.

[redbruce]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/falls ... tgbyb.html

Expect this of the LIbs (remember Kennets plan for the Prom), but a Labour Govt?



.

[Hisham]

Have there been any public responses to the proposal yet?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The VNPA have publicly objected to all of it !!.

[Lophophaps]

PV sent me an email on 20 December, received late yesterday. Been out walking.

GREATER ALPINE NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT Plan RELEASED

Parks Victoria is pleased to advise that the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan is now released. The Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan guides the future management of Alpine, Baw Baw, Errinundra, Mount Buffalo and Snowy River national parks, Avon Wilderness Park, Tara Range Park, and Walhalla, Howqua Hills, Grant, Mount Wills and Mount Murphy Historic Areas.

The intent of the Plan is to protect and enhance the outstanding natural, cultural and recreational values within the parks, which cover over 900 000 hectares in Eastern Victoria. The Plan adopts a landscape-scale approach for managing fire, catchments, pest plants and animals, and recreation and tourism across the Greater Alpine National Parks. The Plan outlines a new visitor experience framework approach, which aims to promote the value and experiences important to park visitors in specific settings, destinations and journeys. The plan seeks to maximise the social and economic benefits of the parks beyond their boundaries including water supply, tourism and education.

For further information or to download a copy online visit: www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/alpsplan.

Printed copies of the plan may be obtained from the Parks Victoria Information Centre, ph 13 19 63 and from Parks Victoria at Level 10, 535 Bourke Street, Melbourne; and from Parks Victoria offices in Mansfield; Bright; Tallangatta; Omeo; Bairnsdale; Traralgon; Mt Beauty; Hayfield; Dargo and Orbost.

*** ends.

The main report is dated ... August 2016. Still no EIS or business plan for the FHAC. I wonder if PV should be asked to extend the DMP submission date until, say, four weeks after the EIS and business plan have been received.

[neilmny]

Thanks for that Lops. Looks like a lot of reading to come.

Have a look at Map-2E-Bogong on that page.
There is a narrow strip between Falls and Hotham zoned "visitor experience" and has "conservation" zoning either side.
I can't exactly pick the alignment but it looks approximately like it would be the current Falls Hotham crossing.
If so is the new plan to create a new track right through a conservation zone?

[andrewp]

Have a look at Map-2E-Bogong on that page.
There is a narrow strip between Falls and Hotham zoned "visitor experience" and has "conservation" zoning either side.
I can't exactly pick the alignment but it looks approximately like it would be the current Falls Hotham crossing.
If so is the new plan to create a new track right through a conservation zone?

The alignment looks to me like the existing Falls to Hotham Crossing route down to Cobungra Gap past Basalt Temple. Actually on a closer look it's all the AAWT.

The Razorback, Federation Hut, Feathertop and Diamantina Spur are all in a Conservation Zone, but there is a Visitor Experiance Area overlay. Still good grounds to complain about roofed accommodation anywhere in this area, and not to have an $80,000 sign on Feathertop.

Conservation Zone
Areas of high natural value defined through mapping of sensitive ecological
communities, such as alpine bogs, habitat for threatened and rare species and
other important environmental attributes where a very strong management
emphasis is on protection of the environment. The majority of the Alps Natural
Ecosystem is zoned conservation as well as other areas with high conservation
value.
Recreation and nature-based tourism are permitted subject to close management
to ensure minimal impact to values and minimal interference to natural processes.
This usually involves ensuring recreation is low key and dispersed with small-scale
facilities.

[neilmny]

..........GREATER ALPINE NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT Plan RELEASED

For further information or to download a copy online visit: http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/alpsplan.

This document was signed off by a person allegedly found to have unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity and breaching ethics and code of conduct rules.

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/p ... ac/7843458

"The chief executive officer of Parks Victoria, Bradley Fauteux, has been sacked by the State Government over allegations of inappropriate conduct.
Environment Minister Lily D'Ambrosio confirmed Mr Fauteux was asked to resign.
She said the board would ask the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) to investigate the allegations.
Chair of the Parks Victoria board Andrew Fairley said the chief executive was sacked "as a result of unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity" which
breached its ethics policy and public sector code of conduct."

If the alleged conduct etc. was in relation to the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan or the FHAC Draft Master Plan does this affect the validity of the documents?

[Lophophaps]

This document was signed off by a person allegedly found to have unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity and breaching ethics and code of conduct rules. ... She said the board would ask the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) to investigate the allegations. Chair of the Parks Victoria board Andrew Fairley said the chief executive was sacked "as a result of unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity" which breached its ethics policy and public sector code of conduct."

If the alleged conduct etc. was in relation to the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan or the FHAC Draft Master Plan does this affect the validity of the documents?

The nature of the allegations is unclear. However, it seems to me that the sacking and IBAC involvement indicate that whatever was done was fairly serious and fairly certain. Sacking and IBAC are not undertaken for liberating a PV pen. The commercial direction of the DMP and now the master plan is a radical change, and one that may not stand up to scrutiny.

My submission destroys a number of aspects of the DMP, starting with spurious "facts" that have not been checked. I'm working on a sensitivity analysis. There's a lot of unknowns, like the cost of the toilets at intervals of about two hours, with water tanks, say $2 million. If a PV ranger is to enforce the rules then there needs to be a place to stay. At a remote area cost of $2000/square metre each hut will be about $100,000, if not more. The huts need to be fireproof and able to stand up to snow. Add the $15-20 million for the High Plains Road upgrade. Add the maintanance cost, WAG $500,000 a year. Add admin costs, say $200,000 a year. Add staff, say $500,000 a year. Add public liability insurance, no idea of the cost. Add a heap of other things that were not included. These items were excluded to make the return on investment (ROI) look good. Bollocks.

At page 89 the DMP has figures for platform use, 247 bookings for 30 months, or about 100 bookings a year, or $3150 income. deduct, say $1000 for admin and the net profit after expenses is about $2000. The platforms and some tracks cost $800,000, say $700,000 for the platforms. ROI is 2000/700,000 = 0.29%. This is with grossly misleading PV information that would be actionable if it were not a government body. Straight line depreciation over 20 years is $35,000 a year.

The platforms are a terrible use of funds. So will the FHAC, but on a much larger scale. It's important to practise on a small scale before losing money in a big way.

At this stage my bottom line is that the DMP is a great work of fiction and totally unsuted as a basis for planning. There will need to be a further DMP with real data. This of course will delay the time to market. I'd give McGregor Coxall until 30 April 2016 to walk the FHAC, check the log books, check the sources, cost everything, review the master plan, review the EIS and business plan, and write a second DMP. If McGregor Coxall cannot do this then the obvious remedy is for a refund plus McGregor Coxall to pay for the loss of income due to the delay. At total benefits cited in the DMP of over $40 million a year, McGregor Coxall can pay $3 million a month until the second DMP is produced. It will be interesting if McGregor Coxall staff can be held personally liable.

[Xplora]

Reading the Greater ANP management plan and although it does not mention hard roof accommodation on the Razorback there is a hint. It also mentions only basic camping at Fed hut. Platforms are not basic camping. For Tawonga huts area there is mention of investigation of other accommodation but they would still have to pass all other state and local council regulations plus the BMO. Section 8.3 is important to read as it mentions Feathertop and West Kiewa but not Tawonga.

"Mount Feathertop VEA
Mount Feathertop is regarded as one of the finest mountain experiences in Victoria due to its expansive views and remote and natural character. The mountain draws people for challenging overnight hikes and long day walks. In winter it is a popular backcountry ski touring and snowshoeing area. The lower slopes in forested country around Harrietville provide cycling opportunities.
Goals
Maintain Mount Feathertop as a premier hiking and winter destination, retaining its remote and natural character. Investigate linking Mount Feathertop into the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing while protecting the area’s character.
Strategies
• Provide facilities to support self-reliant walkers and cross-country skiers.
• Permit dispersed camping.
• Maintain Washington Creek, Bon Accord Hut site and Old Feathertop Hut site as very basic (no facilities) camping areas.
• Maintain basic camping areas at Federation Hut and MUMC Hut.
• Maintain Federation and MUMC Huts; discourage use for shelter except in emergencies.
• Maintain as a fuel-stove only area, with the exception of Washington Creek Camping Area.
• Promote and support Harrietville, Mt Hotham and Dinner Plain as key bases for exploring Mount Feathertop area.
• Work with Harrietville community to explore options for shared walking and cycling trails on lower slopes.
• Maintain The Razorback, Bungalow Spur, Diamantina Spur and North West Spur walking tracks as key walker and skier only access tracks to Mount Feathertop.
• Investigate feasibility of including Mount Feathertop as part the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing. Ensure development of new facilities for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing are sympathetic to the area’s landscape (section 8.3)."

Bogong High Plains VEA
Based around Falls Creek, this area is a valued alpine setting among snow gums, high plains and the peaks of Mount McKay, Mount Cope, Mount Jim and Mount Nelse. It is a popular destination for sightseeing, short to medium length walks and horse riding in summer including some camping with horses, and ski-touring and snowshoeing in winter, including groomed trails managed by Falls Creek Alpine Resort. Alpine huts and historic connections to alpine grazing play a central role to the visitor experience in this area. The Bogong High Plains north of Falls Creek has no vehicle access providing remote self-reliant recreation opportunities in an alpine environment.
Goals
Provide the opportunity (non-winter) for scenic driving and a range of easily accessible recreation opportunities, such as short to medium walks to areas with significant historic values. Provide the opportunity for cross-country winter recreation.
Strategies
• Support the development of the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing, including new types of accommodation and linkages between Falls Creek Alpine Resort and the park.
• Promote Falls Creek Alpine Resort and Bright and Mount Beauty townships as the major gateways to the area; promote as an area for visitors to Falls Creek to explore.
• Maintain start of Heathy Spur Track as a key visitor gateway and trailhead. Maintain Pretty Valley Pondage area as a secondary trailhead.
• Support promotion of Alpine Discovery Drive as a non-winter tourist circuit.
• Maintain Bogong High Plains Road as two wheel drive, summer access to popular visitor sites, including facilities and information that allow a high level of access with disabled access where possible.
• Maintain winter closure of Bogong High Plains Road.
• Protect and interpret the area's significant historic features, with priority to Wallaces Hut – Cope Hut and Tawonga Huts and Yards precincts.
• Do not permit use of Wallaces Hut for shelter or accommodation. Discourage use of other huts for shelter except in emergencies.
• Permit dispersed camping except within 200 m of Bogong High Plains Road, 200 m of Wallaces Hut or within 100 m of designated Falls–Hotham Alpine Crossing camping areas.
• Maintain Tawonga Huts, Pretty Valley and Langford West as designated camping areas, including facilities to allow camping with horses.
• Permit horse riding as per map 4F.

[Lophophaps]

Xplora, thanks for that. I've just finished my submission based on the DMP, and will now look at the Greater ANP Management Plan. Giving all this information over the Christmas New Year period with no EIS and no business plan is a pain. Also, it's very hot. This hour a week ago it was cool on Bogong.

[jdeks]

My submission destroys a number of aspects of the DMP, starting with spurious "facts" that have not been checked. I'm working on a sensitivity analysis. There's a lot of unknowns, like the cost of the toilets at intervals of about two hours, with water tanks, say $2 million. If a PV ranger is to enforce the rules then there needs to be a place to stay. At a remote area cost of $2000/square metre each hut will be about $100,000, if not more. The huts need to be fireproof and able to stand up to snow. Add the $15-20 million for the High Plains Road upgrade. Add the maintanance cost, WAG $500,000 a year. Add admin costs, say $200,000 a year. Add staff, say $500,000 a year. Add public liability insurance, no idea of the cost. Add a heap of other things that were not included. These items were excluded to make the return on investment (ROI) look good. Bollocks.

....

At this stage my bottom line is that the DMP is a great work of fiction and totally unsuted as a basis for planning. There will need to be a further DMP with real data. This of course will delay the time to market. I'd give McGregor Coxall until 30 April 2016 to walk the FHAC, check the log books, check the sources, cost everything, review the master plan, review the EIS and business plan, and write a second DMP. If McGregor Coxall cannot do this then the obvious remedy is for a refund plus McGregor Coxall to pay for the loss of income due to the delay. At total benefits cited in the DMP of over $40 million a year, McGregor Coxall can pay $3 million a month until the second DMP is produced. It will be interesting if McGregor Coxall staff can be held personally liable.

Are these guys actually under any obligation at all to heed or act on any of these submissions? Or are they free to do the usual " thankyou for you valued input, we will take it into consideration " and then ignore it all and do whatever they want anyway ?

[Lophophaps]

Are these guys actually under any obligation at all to heed or act on any of these submissions? Or are they free to do the usual " thankyou for you valued input, we will take it into consideration " and then ignore it all and do whatever they want anyway ?

That's a good question. In many years of writing submission I had not asked that. It seems to me that as public servants there is an obligation to make the best use of resources. If it can be shown that doing this or that is not a good use of resources, then there appears to be an obligation to do something else. My 10 year expenditure is $50-60 million, and income is way below this. Despite economic multipliers, I'm struggling to see the economic case. I've devoted quite a lot of words tearing the DMP apart, and the financial analysis follows this theme. Also, I'm raising the matter with the Auditor General, and he will hopefully look at this in more depth. Knowing the AG is involved will hopefully lead to rational decisions. The results of the court cases will also have an impact.

There needs to be more awareness in the field. Anyone going to the Bogong High Plains or Feathertop should put something in the log books. As Diamantina Spur is unsuited for the hoi polloi, maybe add the FHAC slogan, See Hotham and die, or SHD. It's time to use harder words.

[Lophophaps]

Some time ago PV said that there would be a business case and/or EIS available with the DMP. As far as I'm aware, neither are public documents. I cannot find a record of when PV made the statement about the business case and EIS. Can some organised person with a good memory please direct me to the PV document? Advice regarding the status of these two reports would be appreciated. Thanks.

[north-north-west]

Thanks for that Lops. Looks like a lot of reading to come.

Have a look at Map-2E-Bogong on that page.
There is a narrow strip between Falls and Hotham zoned "visitor experience" and has "conservation" zoning either side.
I can't exactly pick the alignment but it looks approximately like it would be the current Falls Hotham crossing.
If so is the new plan to create a new track right through a conservation zone?

So 'Visitor Experience Area' is now management doublespeak for 'walking track''? Just take me out the back and shoot me; I can't deal with any more of this garbage.

[neilmny]

Thanks for that Lops. Looks like a lot of reading to come.

Have a look at Map-2E-Bogong on that page.
There is a narrow strip between Falls and Hotham zoned "visitor experience" and has "conservation" zoning either side.
I can't exactly pick the alignment but it looks approximately like it would be the current Falls Hotham crossing.
If so is the new plan to create a new track right through a conservation zone?

So 'Visitor Experience Area' is now management doublespeak for 'walking track''? Just take me out the back and shoot me; I can't deal with any more of this garbage.

It's endless NNW, TV, radio, "Newspapers" it gets up my nose big time. Everything hype and crap
Don't forget the "stakeholders" have been consulted regarding the "visitor experience area"...........YYYAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHH
Where's my chill pills

[Lophophaps]

I had not quite so far as deciphering the GANPMP VEA meaning. I note that soon I will need a lexicon for all the initials. A few minutes ago I found a few VEA references in the GANPMP, and others that may be of interest.

Page 11 "The use of Visitor Experience Areas (VEAs) was not raised in submissions. However, Parks Victoria has further developed this program since the draft plan was released and the final plan reflects this."

Page 26 "Visitor Experience Area (VEA) overlay covers areas ... that are of value for a notable experience, from remote hiking and camping to highly developed areas catering for large numbers of visitors."

Page 59 says "Work with Australian Alps Liaison Committee, shires, Alpine Resorts, other land managers, user groups and the community to minimise impacts on the parks' scenic values, especially at summits, major viewing areas and Visitor Experience Areas"

Page 59 says "Work with groups and the community to ensure recreation has a minimal impact".

Page 132 says "The proposed Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing is a three-day walk linking Falls Creek and Mount Hotham Resorts within the Visitor Experience overlays".

The page 26 reference is interesting. The definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Note also page 59 “minimise impacts on the parks' scenic values”. This is not happening. Having 15,000 people a year climb Diamantina Spur, a multi-million dollar chain of toilets, water and fire refuges, shelters, lodges, drones, helicopters and the like easily breaches the page 26 advice. The doublespeak is like something from Orwell's 1984, China or the USSR.

[north-north-west]

Page 59 says "Work with groups and the community to ensure recreation has a minimal impact".

We need to insist that PV gives us a reasonable, sensible, (decipherable) and consistent definition of 'minimal impact'.

[Lophophaps]

NNW, the second and third lines of my summary deal with this point, and say in part:
"Words and maps are often convoluted, do not convey information, are contradictory and are wrong".
Later I have 58 points utterly shredding the DMP. The word "sic" is mentioned 88 times. I could have had perhaps another 40 sics but the point has been made - many mistakes.

I'll add something about a minimal impact definition. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Xplora]

Some time ago PV said that there would be a business case and/or EIS available with the DMP. As far as I'm aware, neither are public documents. I cannot find a record of when PV made the statement about the business case and EIS. Can some organised person with a good memory please direct me to the PV document? Advice regarding the status of these two reports would be appreciated. Thanks.

I believe it was only the Environmental risk assessment that was to be made available. This is on page 3 of the Consultation feedback document. The Plan mentions the need for a detailed business case on page vii.

[Lophophaps]

Xplora, thanks. I had the environmental risk assessment noted, but could not find it.

Parks Victoria has produced an undated document "Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing ... Consultation Phase 1 - What we've heard about the preliminary concept." Page three says:
"An environmental risk assessment is also being completed as part of the development of the master plan ... The final risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released."

So I think there's a reasonable expectation that the environmental risk assessment should be available. I'll be chasing this up today. Perhaps other people could also do this.

Page viii of the DMP says:
"A detailed business case will be necessary to model potential revenue opportunities as well as the ground maintenance regimes (sic), marketing and operations costs."
This is quite hard to understand. A business case is critical when deciding if expenditure should proceed. The DMP has some very suss figures as justification for the walk, and much more accuracy is needed. Now. I'll be drawing this to attention as well.

To date my expenditure estimates have been very much on the low side. While my figures are most probably inaccurate, I've included all the expenditure items that I can identify and the likely revenue for 10 years. The loss is $3-4 million a year. Job creation is mentioned. At $3-400,000 a job a year for about 100 jobs it's expensive.

[north-north-west]

At $3-400,000 a job a year for about 100 jobs it's expensive.

I'd like one of those jobs. Pay's better than being a politician.

[Lophophaps]

At $3-400,000 a job a year for about 100 jobs it's expensive.

I'd like one of those jobs. Pay's better than being a politician.

Enough to buy a property on the Gold Coast. The former member for Farrer Sussan Ley thinks so. Oh, I'm sorry, that line is from next week's news conference.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I was up on the BHP this week in a foggy white out on Tuesday and I should have put a protest message in the Wallace's hut book. Now I have to forget about bliss , being alone and serene on top of Mt Jagungal and Mt Wills and Mt Cope all in the same week just passed and start typing up my submission for this poo... scheme .
I will be back up on the BHP in 2 weeks and will leave a protest message in every bleeding hut I visit . My route will cover at least 8 huts!.