Menai (Lucas Heights) Update - Vehicle and Mountain Bike Ban - Meeting, Thursday July 7

Reproduced courtesy of trailflix.com.au and the author Steve Mowle... (MotoX community conspicuous by their absence from the meeting!)

RE: VEHICLE & MOUNTAIN BIKE BAN - MEETING, THURSDAY JULY 7
On behalf of all MTB riders I would like to thank all who attended the meeting and especially the efforts of Gavin Atkins, the ANSTO Media Advisor, his approachability, interest and concern were greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr Simon Kean from NOBMOB & Trail Care, who has been instrumental in his support to help us reach a timely solution.
The meeting was beneficial to discuss the various concerns and viewpoints relating to access and riding in the ANTSO buffer zone and adjacent lands.
It was overall a success and great that all major groups had the chance to voice their opinions on all matters raised.

PRESENT AT THE MEETING:
5 Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation reps (ANSTO)
2 reps from Sutherland Police, mainly concerned about any protests being scheduled and safety breaches.
3 Sutherland Shire Council reps
1 CEO and Solicitor for the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LAC)
8 MTB riders representing different MTB clubs & the MTB community in general.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Following from the meeting it is clear that essentially ANSTO concerns revolve around two main issues:
1. The public liability associated with MTBers participating in a dangerous recreational activity;
2. Environmental degradation, (particularly the increase over the previous 2 years) including the cutting down of trees, the building of unapproved wooden structures, the addition of new trails, the diversion of natural waterways and general damage to the native flora and impact on fauna and landscape.

These issues were evident in the various slide photographs presented, showing areas where trees had been cut down, woodwork structures had been built and sections of the main single track had been heavily eroded, causing large areas where sand and silt were being washed away and other where sand and silt were building up, preventing natural water run off.

BACKGROUND TO TRAIL LOCATIONS
An important question was raised as to why riders are bothering ANTSO for trail access and not other land owners? Within the Sydney region trail bike and 4WD vehicles have mainly accessed land outside of National Parks since at least the 1960’s on undeveloped land of various classifications. Mountain Bike riding has grown in popularity from a minority activity in the early 1980’s to the mainstream. As a minority activity riders initially adopted existing trails created by off road vehicles such as 4WD’s and trail bikes and also walking tracks.

Many areas that were previously accessed by riders have become National Parks and many other areas have been developed. The result has been increased concentration of riders on remaining land. While this has been noted in meeting minutes by various State and local Government’s over the last 20 years, it has not been addressed and there are very few formal trails in Sydney.

We believe the answer to the question is really that ANTSO’s buffer zone combined with the land fill has assisted to protect this area of bush from development and that its isolation from National Parks land has prevented it from being absorbed into the parks system. This has acted indirectly to protect the trail network, ie the trails largely exist because of ANTSO and the protection this has given to the land.

CROSS TENURE SOLUTION
The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH, formerly DECCW) has published a mountain biking discussion paper. This paper recognises that a statewide solution, particularly in urban areas, will require cooperation across multiple land tenures and the paper provides some guidance on technical levels. High level coordination between OEH/NPWS and some land managers in mountain biking hotspots has been initiated, however many more land managers need to be engaged. It would be great to see if ANTSO could become part of this Statewide solution.

It was encouraging to hear the LAC rep talking about creating ‘Sydney’s largest conservation area’ within this area, to be known as ‘Heathcote Ridge”. Returning all the Aboriginal owned land to its ‘original state’ is a worthy cause. His comments that access and policy could be adaptable to reflect changing attitudes and community needs was also very encouraging and we hope to discuss this further. Mountain bike trails may fit into this philosophy as while any trail has a certain impact it is by no means irreversible, re-routes and the rehabilitation of walking track segments for example is common practice in bushland management.

PUBLIC LIABILITY
There has been much discussion of public liability across the state as various land managers and insurers try to understand the risks associated with mountain biking and the likelihood of any claims. There are many examples of comparable risk involving general members of the public such as road cycling, council skate parks comprising of sculptured concrete surfaces with appreciable vertical sections, BMX tracks, surf beaches and other risky activities such as rock fishing.

There is currently much inconsistency between councils in NSW when it comes to interpreting mountain biking risk and liability. However many councils have largely resolved this and there are now examples of council trails operating or being developed catering for all skill levels and styles of riding including jumps. The Office of Environment and Heritage has also investigated this aspect and managed to resolve public liability to their satisfaction as discussed during their community consultation and as is evident from current jointly managed rider community and NPWS trails.
We would encourage that ANTSO engages OEH and councils that are implementing these trails to see how these aspects have been addressed. We are happy to assist with facilitating this discussion.

I referred to the current ‘Civil Liability Act, 2002, Number 22, Divisions 4 and 5’.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/vi...002+FIRST...

This document defines the terms ‘dangerous recreational activity’ and ‘obvious risk’. The document states that ANSTO is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by a MTBer as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the MTBer.
The document goes on to state that ANSTO does not owe any duty of care to a MTBer who engages in a recreational activity to take care in respect of a risk if the risk was the subject of a ‘risk warning’.
A ‘risk warning’ can be given in the form of signage.
This simple form of providing signage for MTBers to outline these points would alleviate any threat of a liability claim against ANSTO.

FURTHER POINTS OF DISCUSSION
Some other points include:
- ‘Traffic crowding’ at the trail heads across from ANSTO is a safety concern of ANTSO’s and RTA. There may be action taken by RTA to alter intersection layout and/or the road verge.
- Concerns over the increase in rubbish dumping; and the continued presence of motor cross bike and four wheel drive vehicles.
- Up to 1500 mountain bikers ride these trails each week. This is typical of other areas in NSW and Australia. Examples exist where this level of usage may be sustainable.
- Studies confirm that at least 60% of trail erosion is due to water runoff. On a poorly designed trail this is much higher. Many studies also show that a rider (combined weight of 75 kg rider with a 10-12 kg bike) causes no more or very little damage to the trails compared with a 75kg walker. (Some recent studies show that a MTB, with very little rolling resistance causes less damage to a trail than a walker or jogger struggling to find grip). Local studies show that for the first 200 passes a bike may cause higher scatter in the first 25 passes for a recently placed loose surface. A walker tends to bed the surface in more quickly. Once bedded in the wear rate is similar (slightly higher or lower depending on gradients and direction of travel). At worst, bike trails may require slightly more maintenance than walking tracks and in each case water flow is the biggest cause of wear. IMBA design principles provide for fun trails that control water runoff and minimise erosion.
- It was the very small minority of mountain bikers responsible for the tree lopping and woodwork structure.
- It is the history of motorised vehicles that provide the majority of sand and silt drainage problems and major trail erosion.
- The large majority of mountain bikers using these trails are 25-40 y/o, who enjoy the sport for its physical activity as well as the chance to get outdoors and enjoy nature, particularly the beautiful areas these trails take in, including east coast specific flora & fauna, the creeks and waterfalls, amazing sandstone rock formations etc. If riders did not appreciate the bush they would ride in an urban setting.
- While most of the MTB trails used are on ANSTO land, there are in fact 6 different land owners occupying the large area the trails are spread over. This makes it very difficult to know which land you are riding on, where you may or may not be trespassing and the associated consequences, with little or no boundary markings in the area.
- I was asked, by the LAC rep, about my personal stance on ‘thoughtfully breaking the law’, considering riding these trails is trespassing. I pointed out that most of the 1500 riders who use these trails each week were not aware they were trespassing and since the signs warning of reinforcing these rules had been placed recently, I had stopped riding the trails, and in fact had encouraged all other MTBers to do the same.
Other points to consider are that:
- NSW is very much behind the rest of the country and the rest of the world in terms of providing MTBers with areas to participate in what is a very popular recreation activity.
- MTBing is not only the quickest growing recreational activity in Australia; it is currently one of the most participated recreational activities in Australia.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?
As agreed, we look forward to meeting again in the near future, to continue discussion. We hope that we can reach a timely solution.

In the immediate term we would suggest that ANTSO considers:
• Looking into public liability and liaising with other land managers who have already investigated and resolved mountain bike access.
• Reviewing the OEH Discussion Paper and NobMob reports to provide general context of trail networks, design considerations, rider demographics, the net benefit of encouraging greater appreciation by society of the bush.
• How ANTSO could become part of a statewide solution.
• Whether ANTSO could form a similar partnership as in other successfully managed networks with a rider user group.
We have riders who can assist with introductions and explanation of document content.
During this time riders will begin to develop a proposal. This will involve:
• Identifying and mapping where the boundaries lie between the many different land owners.
• Beginning consultation with different land owners.
• Identifying which trail segments are within each land title.
• Identifying key trail segments and points of interest including technical terrain features.
• Liaising with local residents about bushcare, rehabilitation and potential user conflict.

We really hope to lift the reinforcement of trespassing on this land and give responsible, environmentally minded MTBers the chance to ride this awesome area again soon.

Steve Mowle [email protected]

Any MTBers who would like to share thoughts/recommendations can send them to Gavin Atkins at this email address: [email protected]
The idea of this is not to gather petitions – ANSTO have plenty of those emails already - but to have some concrete, workable proposals that may then be discussed at another meeting.

It has been suggested we have written responses to ASNSTO by 18 Monday July