Offroad-Express

The Arthur's Pass National Park Management Plan is currently under
review and the excerpt below is but one small section that might effect
4x4 users in the future. DOC suggest that there are areas available for
4x4 recreation outside the park but maybe we should slow their ambition
to shut down existing legal access avenues?
It does appear that several of these proposals will impact on existing and future 4x4 use of the area.

The full Draft Plan can be obtained free on a CD by emailing
planreview@doc.govt.nz and providing your postal address.
Submissions close on July 31 2006


Policy 8.1(i) of the General Policy for National Parks states that
unformed legal roads within national parks should be closed and the land
incorporated within parks, where they do not provide legal access for
adjacent landowners. Unformed legal roads to which this policy would
apply are on Bealey Spur, Brown Hill and in the Cox valley/Lake Grace area.

Section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980 provides for the investigation
of additions to the park. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has
some discretion on how proposals for additions are processed and their
required processes are set out in section 6 of the General Policy for
National Parks.

Some boundary adjustments will occur as a result of State Highway 73
re-alignments and subsequent road legalisation surveys, in accordance
with section 7.2.9 State Highway 73 and consistent with General Policy 6(k).

*6.2.9(b)* -- A large part of the area known as the Hawdon Flats, or
Riversdale Flats, (see Figure 3 <../110%7EFigures/030%7EFigure-3.html>)
was gazetted as a Reserve for National Park Purposes in 1909, along with
the bulk of the land that now forms the park to the south-east of the
Main Divide, but was not included within the park when it was created in
1930. There has been some confusion over the status of the land but
recent investigation has confirmed that the area is a reserve under the
Reserves Act 1977 and no lease or licence exists over the area. A
smaller part of the Flats is a conservation area under the Conservation Act.

The reserve and conservation area easily meets the criteria in General
Policy 6(h) for an addition or boundary adjustment to a national park
without a formal Section 8 National Parks Act investigation.

Other parts of the Hawdon/Riversdale Flats are freehold and pastoral run
land in irregular disjointed parcels which, through negotiation with
landowners may be able to be amalgamated to provide more manageable park
and freehold land boundaries or acquired for adding to the park.

The Hawdon riverbed passes through the Hawdon/Riversdale Flats,
currently as Crown land. General Policy 6(j) seeks the inclusion within
national parks of Crown riverbed where it is within the boundaries of
the park.

The formed Mount White Road and the side-road to Hawdon Shelter are
mainly on national park land and several unformed roads exist across the
Hawdon/Riversdale Flats. To clarify road administrative responsibilities
it is desirable that formed roads are legalised and/or accepted as
Department facilities and that unformed legal roads are closed (see the
reference to General Policy 8.1(i) under 6.2.9(a) above).


Methods


6.2.9(a)

1. Take opportunities as they arise to negotiate park boundary
adjustments where there would be an overall benefit to the park,
especially in terms of minimising stock movement into the park.

2. Investigate opportunities as they arise to extend the park's
representation of dry tussock grasslands and wet podocarp
rainforest habitats.

3. Seek the closure of the unformed legal roads within the park and
the addition of the lands to the park.

4. Action park boundary adjustments consequent to State Highway 73
road legalisations, in accordance with Method 7.2.9(e).


6.2.9(b)

1. Negotiate with Mt White Station the rationalisation of reserve,
National Park, freehold and pastoral run boundaries and/or grazing
controls on the Hawdon/Riversdale Flats.

2. Recommend to the New Zealand Conservation Authority that the
Hawdon Flats Reserve for National Park Purposes and the adjoining
conservation area be added to the park. See also 3 and 6 below.

3. Seek the inclusion of the lower Hawdon River Crown riverbed within
the area recommended for addition to the park.

4. Seek the legalisation by Selwyn District Council of the formed
Mount White Road.

5. Accept the Hawdon Shelter side-road as a Department administered
Park road (see 6.3.6 Roads, Parking Areas and Vehicles).

6. Seek the closure of the unformed legal roads on Hawdon/Riversdale
Flats and the addition of the lands to the park.

Oops, just emailed you about that

As an update on the consultation about the Arthur's Pass National Park the following is the reply received by one four wheeler who has lodged a submission....

Thanks Richard for this submission; formal acknowledgement is in the post.
It is good to get the full spectrum of view points.
As it will be some months before you get the Department's formal response to your submission I thought a few informal comments may help.

The Arthur's Pass National Park Management Plan is a national park
management plan (not a conservation management plan) under the guidance of the National Parks Act, not primarily the Conservation Act (see last para on pg 13). As such, all public use is subject to the primary consideration of the preservation of the park's natural state (see section 1.2.1).

Yes, ROS does include consideration of motorised access (4WD, aircraft,
power boats etc), but ROS is a system that applies over the whole country
and not all ROS settings (remote, backcountry walk-in, bc accessible
motorised, frontcountry, etc) or potential use activities will be
appropriate in all areas.

The General Policy for National Parks (2005) (see 1.2.2 in Plan) sets very
specific requirements regarding vehicle use in national parks and does
require that we seek closure of unformed legal roads passing through
national parks. For Arthur's Pass NP I cannot think of any route, or even
the old 4WD track up the Poulter, where even "responsible 4WD use" could
occur without significant adverse effects on natural values. As you will see
in section 6.2.2.1 of the Plan we are having enough trouble minimising the
impact of our own DOC usage of ATVs for what is very essential threatened species work, and in section 6.3.6.1 the issue of allowing mountain bike use is big enough without considering public 4WD use.

Re the unformed legal roads, closing them and adding the lands to the
national park does not materially reduce public access rights, public access
being also a legislative right under the NP Act. Yes it does reduce
potential vehicle access rights but if you look at the topo maps you will
see that the roads in question are simply not usable by any 4WD vehicle.
They run up mountain slopes through beech forest with often very wet
soil/ground conditions. As an ex-surveyor I can attest that not all legal
roads were provided with the idea in mind of vehicle use; most were created at the time of foot and horse traffic, and the two we are proposing to close were created to allow for the legal movement of pastoralist's sheep from the grazed river flats to the 'alpine tussock meadows', through the State forests. There are many such unformed roads of a similar kind through the forests in Canterbury.

You drew comparisons with the Plan provisions for stone and gravel removal, mining, etc. Read the plan carefully; stone/gravel removal is very site-specific and/or for essential purposes (e.g. maintaining SH73), mining is effectively prohibited in this national park, military training is very low key (or beneficial in providing Park management assistance), etc.

Regards,
Poma Palmer
Snr Planner

This a direct reference from the NZ Mountain Bike website....why do you think DOC want to close legal roads?

Draft Arthur's Pass National Park Management Plan

The Draft Arthur's Pass National Park Management Plan, released 06 May 2006, proposes allowing mountain biking up the Poulter valley to either the Casey or Trust/Poulter Huts. Section 6.3.6.1 of the Plan has a full discussion of the issues and sets out the policy options. A particular issue is how to monitor any biking activity, as required by Policy 8.6(k) of the General Policy for National Parks, and biker suggestions on this are welcomed. Submissions on the Draft Plan are requested, up to the closing time/date of 4:30 pm 31 July 2006. The Plan is on the DOC web-site and/or can be obtained via planreview@doc.govt.nz.

Sorry Peter I do not understand your posing here.
What is the problem?
Your statement 'Why do you think DOC wants to close legal roads?'
Seems to be to be an unjustified point. Are you just grabbing headline action without substance?
To me it seems a bit like you are. In this case your wording I think is inappropriate.
Poma Palmer (from DOC) points out the road closures are for administrative purposes, it is not a move to reduce existing access to the park. I will raise our support of this view shortly.
It is unfair in our view for you particularly as you represent a national body to make such allegations without substance of fact. In our experience in the South Island, we work closely with DOC and they are not in favour of locking up or closing roads just to block access, in fact quiet the reverse, there are many 4WD activities that have been actually added since DOC have taken over the management of new conservation areas and we are working on more opportunities especially as we go through the Land Tenure Review process.

National Parks are a special case (and they are special places too they need careful respect) however as you know under the act vehicular activity is specifically not allowed in any National Park unless it is on a public road.
Our organisation and local clubs (prior to our formation) have been involved with various Arthur’s Park Plans since it was formed and there is nothing in the current plan that causes us any concern.

In the Arthur's Pass National Park (APNP) plans case, the short version is that in the latest plan (with reference to closing some public roads) it simply tidies up some paper roads that are drawn on paper and in reality have never been or will never actual be used. They go back to early horse trails and even then some were impassable on a horse. Prior to the APNP being formed access for hunting and possible logging was allowed for, hence the early surveyors simply drew in routes and established them as public roads. We have a very similar situation on Banks Peninsular; paper roads everywhere, most no use unless you have mountain climbing gear! So that to those who may not know the area then yes, it does look like public roads being closed, however in this case it is just a tidy up.

Our view is that 4WD access to APNP is sufficient as it is, and this plan supports that position, and there is no need for any additional access by vehicles.
With reference to Mountain Bikes, this is part of their move to allow more mountain bike opportunities in national parks, in total, and in the case of APNP there move could well be appropriate.

We will not be making a submission as it is not required. We do work locally with DOC on this and other parks in the region and we were fully updated and involved prior to the plan going public.
Paul

Thank you Paul, but my posting (not posing) was to highlight the different approach by DOC to another vehicle, the mountainbike.
The NZFWDA and I are aware of the often strange places that legal roads were applied in past years but the statement by Poma from DOC that there is no real change in public access is tenuous as he continues on to say that vehicles will be excluded. National Parks are valued but even they may in future regret eliminating some of the access options that were put in place by those with foresight.

The efforts of the Canterbury Combined group are respected and the local relationship with DOC sems to be working well. While your group may be happy with the presentation of the draft Arthur's Pass National Park Management Plan as it stands, there may be other views in the wider community that are equally worthwhile and my efforts are towards encouraging people to think about why and how DOC reaches some conclusions.

A strong involvement by four wheeling in the public process is a clear message of our continuing interest in the fate of legal roads everywhere and of our presence as a recreation.

Peter

peter, i can see where you're coming from

This a direct reference from the NZ Mountain Bike website....why do you think DOC want to close legal roads?

as this happened at karamea. a certain track which has just been handed over as a mountain bike track by DOC and the govt was an old bush road that was overgrown and mostly unused for years. after a hard slog from some of the local 4WDers to get the track open and useable was handed over to mountain bikes.