CAVE MANAGEMENT IN NEW SOUTH WALES NATIONAL PARKS
The concept of wildlife conservation and the associated management of wildlife habitats is a relatively new one. Up to 1967, N.S.W. had a hard working band of conservationists who functioned as the Fauna Protection Panel. Naturally, their main interest was wildlife. When the National Parks and Wildlife Service was established in 1967 under the impetus and drive of Mr T.L. Lewis, park management, as opposed to wildlife conservation, came to the fore and national parks were thrust into the limelight.
Staffing the embryonic National Parks and Wildlife Service was a difficult task. Automatically, the bulk of the Fauna Protection Panel officers were assimilated into the centralised state body and settled down to various jobs, mainly in the administrative and wildlife areas.
The problem facing the Minister and Director was how to build up a team experienced in the park management aspects of conservation. At that time, forestry was the closest relative to park management practised in Australia and inevitably some forestry personnel joined the up and coming Service. There were, of course, problems. Foresters are concerned with the production and sale of renewable — with care — products. The complexity and variety of multi-system natural environments make national parks and nature reserves non-renewable resources. With time, the carefully arranged confrontations of forestry recruits and those delightful furry and feathered members of the Australian wildlife contingent has led to management plans for Service-controlled areas which take into account all the needs of wildlife, conservation and recreation. After ten years, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has therefore managed to accumulate and dispense various experts and expertise in the fields of management and interpretation.
While our track record regarding management of surface areas may be presentable, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the management of our below-ground resources, cave systems. In the past, cave systems that happened to come within N.S.W. national park boundaries have been largely ignored, except for historical accidents, such as the establishment of Yarrangobilly tourist caves by the Government Tourist Bureau.
For the majority of new recruit rangers, a cave is something you go through with a cave guide. It has ladders and lights and wire netting to stop you touching formations, and when the guide turns the lights out it's very dark. Very few Service personnel, either at Head Office or field staff level, have had caving experience. This makes the drawing up of management policies extremely difficult and makes the implementation and supervision of any plan well nigh impossible.
Contrary perhaps to the field staffs' beliefs, the caves when ignored refused to disappear, and have suffered considerably as a consequence, through over use and various abuses. Who's responsible for the present state of Colong and Tuglow Caves? To say that cavers are could not be disputed. To leave it at that would be a half truth. Most cavers and cave managers would agree that the condition of a cave is the end product of its management and use.
If the management is ineffective, then any damage wrought by cavers must partly fall on the heads of the managers. Sadly enough, an appreciation of beauty is not always innate. In some generations and individuals, a sense of aesthetics is an acquired taste, and a strong dose of indoctrination may be necessary to impress that fact on the beholder's mind. National park rules, like, "no dogs, no picking wildflowers, no guns, no unauthorised fires", have to be publicised. Park visitors don't inherently know that according to park rules, the picking of wildflowers etc, is a mini-crime, worthy of punishment.
In the same way, unenlightened novice cavers, excited by the wonder and novelty of the experience, are quite unaware that a healthy mud fight in a cavern would be very much frowned upon by cave managers. A more experienced group exploring a new passage might break a collection of fine straws that block the passage, with the comment that, "there's plenty more where they came from". Similarly did our predecessors treat many rare and beautiful parts of the environment, such as rainforest. Only with hindsight do rules develop, unless experiences from similar areas at a more advanced stage of development have led to rules being adopted beforehand in the name of prudence.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service of N.S.W. is relatively well endowed with underground environments. Under its control come Tuglow and Colong Caves in Kanangra-Boyd National Park, Yarrangobilly and Cooleman Caves in Kosciusko National Park and Willi Willi Bat Cave. With the continuing emphasis on land acquisition, there are relatively untouched collections of caves waiting in the wings, which will eventually come under Service management.
While a handful of caves that make up the Yarrangobilly collection have been gently modified to make them more agreeable to tourist traffic, the rest of the caves under Service control could still be classed as "unrefined". The bulk of this paper deals with the problems of managing these undeveloped cave systems.
National parks are set aside for two major reasons. Conservation of wildlife species and their habitats (which loosely constitutes 'scenery') and to provide recreation opportunities for people. Attempting to satisfy both objectives can be difficult, as a brief history of caving in this state will illustrate.
For many years, the cave systems of Tuglow and Colong, Church Creek, Wee Jasper, Cliefden, Wyanbene, Jenolan, Yarrangobilly, Cooleman, and others have been receiving regular visits from cavers, despite the often extremely strenuous walk to the cave entrance. Hundreds of converts have crawled and squeezed their way through passages and caverns, initially resplendent in their omo-white or navy overalls. While the numbers of cavers is on the increase, the quality of the caving experience is undergoing some rather undesirable alterations, from the environmental point of view.
Where access is easy, the degradation of the cave system and the surrounding catchment area is all too evident. While conservation principles have lately started to rear their head in caving circles, historically a certain percentage of the caving fraternity has a reputation for gracing their campsite with copious reminders of the Saturday night's festivities, including beer cans and other items that fail to qualify as biodegradable.
There are various horror stories to be told about the rape and pillage of such once fabulous cave systems as Wee Jasper. Colong Caves have also been so badly damaged through a combination of overuse and unthinking abuse that it surely now rates as a "recreation" cave, akin to the N.S.W. system of State Recreation Areas. Whatever "wilderness" or scientific values it once embodied have long since disappeared.
How is the Service going to handle the increasing numbers of people wanting to cave?
Obviously, the discovery of new cave systems cannot hope to keep up with the growth of the caving fraternity. And there is little logic behind the idea of turning new cavers loose in newly discovered system. The Service has already "lost" too many caves to consider the suggestion.
Systems of regulation are necessary. People shudder in horror and console themselves with the thought that it will never happen here, then they hear that it's necessary to book in advance to visit national parks in the United States. That's not just for campsites; for visitors wanting to bush camp, they have to obtain a "wilderness permit".
An increase in restriction on personal freedom would appear to be a phenomenon of the 20th century that is not about to be welcomed with proverbial open arms. Many outdoorists view any form of pre-selective access system as quite unacceptable. To many people, use of the terms, "back of Bourke" and "beyond the black stump" is still quite valid. The imagined frontiers that lie beyond, give support to the idea of unrestricted access for everyone in this great land of ours. Sad as it may be to some, N.S.W. has already started to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Parks Service. It is now necessary in N.S.W. to book for car camping sites in several of our national parks and in some areas, permission to bush camp is necessary.
The essence of any wilderness experience is the uncontrolled nature of the exercise, and the feeling of isolation that results from exposure to a natural and often potentially dangerous environment. If any part of the wilderness cave experience is to be preserved, one or other of these two components has to suffer.
If uncontrolled access is allowed, eventually a point is reached when the carrying capacity of the cave is so overloaded that cavers are queuing within the cave to move through certain passages: this is already happening in some N.S.W. caves. Apart from the loss of isolation, cave managers must contend with the eventual degradation of the non-renewable resource, the cave environment. If the element of spontaneity is eliminated by making permits necessary, the Service can at least regulate the numbers entering the cave at any time, artificially preserving the so-called 'wilderness' caving experience.
Some efforts have been made by the Service and other bodies in the recent past to use the latter system to protect caves. A system of restricted access appears to work quite well at Yarrangobilly Caves, and Jenolan Caves. Most cavers are aware that they need to be involved in purposeful projects rather than just enjoying themselves — if they want access. Only speleological groups acceptable to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Government Tourist Bureau are allowed to enter particular caves, and they are expected to follow up their expeditions with comprehensive reports or interim results of research activities. To enter Colong and Tuglow Caves, in Kanangra-Boyd National Park, caving groups apply for a permit in writing from the ranger in charge. While Jenolan and Yarrangobilly Caves have the necessary luxury of a ranger or guardian on duty at all times, the combination of short and inexperienced staffing, long distances and difficult access makes surveillance of Colong, Tuglow and Cooleman Caves rather difficult. How often and to what extent the permit system is abused is probably better known to cavers than to Park personnel.
The Service is well aware of its responsibility for managing underground systems and is presently reviewing the somewhat piecemeal arrangements made throughout the state to gain access to Service controlled caves, with a view to standardisation of access procedures. With adequate publicity cavers will hopefully no longer be left in the dark as to the use of caves in national parks. The basis for a management policy has been drawn up by Graeme Worboys, Investigations Officer, National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Realising the susceptible and readily definable nature of a cave system, the management guidelines have been drawn up to protect caves at various levels. The classification scheme is designed to give maximum protection to the most important cave resources. As well as considering the merits of the individual cave, the scheme takes into account:
- the cave in relation to the area surrounding it,
- the importance of that area to the state, nation and the rest of the world.
As well as allowing for classification at the service estate level, appropriate management of individual chambers or sections within the cave is accounted for. This system overcomes the major problem of surface-oriented management classifications that have been devised to protect cave areas in the past. It accounts for the variability and individuality of caves within a cavernous area and manages the individual cave according to its inherent values. The system outlined encompasses the finest possible level of classification, ranging from the Service estate level to an individual passage or cavern in a particular section of a particular cave. It is akin to isolating a twig off a tree and looking at its future and the ramifications of altering or damaging it in any way.
Access and permit systems will be determined relative to the cave classification. The system is too complex at this stage for Service personnel to feasibly handle on their own. The amount of work required by the scheme in terms of mapping and categorisation is immense. The value of the system is that it allows for management of a particularly susceptible and a unique area, which in a more general system might be lumped with the remainder of a rather ordinary cave, and hence be subject to a blanket management policy. Undoubtedly, that unique fragment of underground environment would suffer under a management policy designed to suit the bulk of the cave.
What follows is a brief outline of the proposed system of cave classification. Five levels of cave management are recognised in the cave classification. They are :
- the Service Estate Level
- the National Park and Nature Reserve Level
- the Cavernous Area Level
- the Cave Level
- the Within Cave Level.
- The Service Estate Level
At the first level, we consider the management of all cave areas under National Parks and Wildlife Service control. Obviously, Service management principles must be in sympathy with the need to balance the elements of preservation, conservation and recreation relative to the importance of the cave resource. - The National Park/Nature Reserve Level
Management at the second level assesses the value of any cavernous area present in relation to overall Service estate management principles and constraints imposed at the local park or reserve level. At this level, criteria used to evaluate the importance of the cave resource include:- Geological Considerations - such as rock type, structure, unusual fossils, minerals, which might make a particular caving area unusual or unique, i.e. cavernous development in sandstone or lava flows, as opposed to limestone.
- Geomorphological Considerations - From the management point of view, surface and subsurface landforms are important features for consideration, such as extensive caverns, unusual passageways, extensive formations, solution features, etc.
- Hydrological Considerations - Surface and subsurface drainage patterns may determine the significance of an area, i.e. the presence of large underground lakes and waterfalls, or thermal springs.
- Biological Considerations - Biological significance may stem from the cavernous area supporting a diversity of unique, rare or unusual lifeforms, e.g. acting as a bat breeding area.
- Meteorological Considerations - Unusual air movements, temperature, humidity and air composition may require special protection measures for certain cavernous areas.
- Archaeological, Fossil and Sub-fossil Considerations - Anthropogenic influences, the presence of fossil fauna and flora and/or bone deposits may make a particular cavernous area significant.
- Historical Influences - Past access, cave development, vandalism, usage patterns, etc, are all factors which have affected the values of the cave area and thus influence its subsequent management.
- Geographical Setting - The location of a cavernous area can either assist in or hinder the management of the resource. Difficult natural access may limit cave usage while easily accessible areas will be prone to abuse by the broad spectrum of cave users. The influences of geographical setting and visitor pressures on cave protection will be considered in the assessment of an area's significance.
- The Cavernous Area Level
After assessing the importance of a caving area, one of four management classifications will be applied. The area will consequently be managed according to the constraints of the particular classification.- Closed Area
- Restricted Access Area
- Semi-Restricted Access Area
- Open Area
Management at the cavernous area level reflects the degree of importance of the caves, landforms and other natural features in the area. It represents a surface planning concept that directly controls subsurface or cave access. Thus surface management aspects such as the protection of landforms, vegetation communities and stream catchments are considered at this level.
Minimum access requirements for the caving area are delineated at this point though individual caves may be subject to more stringent access controls. Two or more classifications may be required over any other area. For example, Yarrangobilly Caves, within Kosciusko National Park, could be defined as an Open/Restricted Access Area because of the juxtaposition of the developed tourist caves to the south and the undeveloped caves at the northern end of the limestone belt.
The four classifications are elaborated below:
- Closed Cavernous Area - Two types of cave classification are planned under this category. They include Closed Cavernous Access, (such as an important maternity cave bat breeding colony) and areas meriting scientific research: Scientific Reference Areas. Access to either area would be subject to the granting of a scientific permit by the Director.
- Restricted Access Cavernous Area - Three types of caves come under this classification. They are Closed Caves, Scientific Reference Caves and Restricted Access Caves The minimum access restrictions on the area are determined by access conditions to Restricted Access Caves. All cavernous areas in the Service estate deemed as being significant for the preservation and protection of the cave resource come under this category.
- Semi-Restricted Access Cavernous Areas - Geographical and sociological pressures generally influence the designation of an area as semi-restricted. Minimum access requirements are those necessary for a Speleological Access Cave. Under this category come Closed Caves, Scientific Reference Caves, Limited Access Caves and Speleological Access Caves. Generally, the area's physical and/or biological attributes are not sufficiently important to warrant special protection as a Closed or Restricted Access Area
- Open Cavernous Area - Under the final classification come all caves that have either negligible scientific value, or have been altered or developed in such a way as to impair these values, Caves open to general visitor access are also defined as Open Cavernous. Under this classification, you may find Closed Caves, Scientific Reference Caves, Limited Access Caves, Speleological Access Caves, Adventure Caves and Public Access Caves.
- The Cave Level
To go one step further, the management scheme now considers management at the individual cave level. It's at the cave level that the practical question of cave access really comes to the fore. The six classifications at this level are listed below.
- Group I - Closed Caves - Access is not permitted to Closed Caves. The classification may be a function of danger (i.e. bad air or unstable sections) or for the protection of caves awaiting further classification. Access will only be granted to experienced cavers undertaking a Service-approved cave classification study.
- Group II - Scientific Reference Caves - As the best representatives of the geomorphological, geological, biological and/or speleothem attributes of caves in the area, these caves are managed as a reference set of caves and cave life, for present and future use.
Preference for this classification goes to caves where man's disturbance has been minimal. Scientific reference caves will be gated and access will be granted for the purposes of detailed research work only to experienced cavers who hold a standard scientific permit. Inexperienced cavers who can demonstrate their research qualifications and aptitude must be accompanied by a team of experienced cavers. An experienced caver will at all times be responsible for the safety of the party and protection of the caves; maximum and minimum party numbers will be set for each cave.
- Group III - Limited Access Caves - Two kinds of caves are considered here. They include caves that warrant special protection in deference to the quality of their physical and/or biological attributes, (even though these may be duplicated in Scientific Reference Caves in the area) or caves that have a degree of difficulty which limits cave exploration to experienced cavers, i.e. safety considerations. Management aims are to preserve the high quality of the caves and/or to maintain a high safety standard. Access to the caves is restricted to experienced cavers only, and a maximum carrying capacity will be set for each cave. Where possible, gates will be installed, and the frequency of visits may be restricted to minimise damage. Detailed speleological research is to be encouraged.
- Group IV - Speleological Access Caves - The physical/biological nature of this class of caves does not warrant special protection, and the degree of caving difficulty makes it suitable for novice cavers, i.e training caves.
The principal management aim is to maintains the cave's natural features and to provide the appropriate exploration opportunities for cavers Where possible, gates will be installed, access will be granted to any caving group which has an experienced leader and deputy, and the ratio of experienced to inexperienced cavers does not exceed 1 : 3. Restrictions on the numbers within a cave at any one time will depend on the individual cave. Novices will be restricted to 25% of the total party.
- Group V - Adventure Caves - An adventure cave has little or no inherent value other than its morphological form, and is suitable for use by inexperienced but properly equipped parties. The principal management aim is to permit speleological exploration to non-speleological society groups in caves where the degree of difficulty and potential damage factors are low. Gates will be installed wherever physically possible.
- Group VI - Public Access Caves - All caves in open areas that have been or are suitable for development as public inspection caves come under this category. Public access is generally supervised by a ranger, and no special equipment or clothing is necessary for the ranger or the public.
A checklist of important features has been compiled to assist the evaluation of individual caves.
Cave Description Checklist
- location and external relationships
- individual cave history
- cave map
- mineralogy
- hydrology
- biology
- meteorology
- special features e.g. speleothems
- sub-fossils (bones)
- archaeology
- geology
- vandalism
- potential gate site (environmental impact on the site)
- maximum/minimum limit on the number of cavers for the cave
- minimum amount of user equipment needed for the cave
- recommended frequency of visits to the cave.
The within cave level of management recognises the need to differentially manage extensive and variable cave chambers, for example bat breeding chambers, sections of the cave that exhibit rare and delicate formations or archaeological deposits. By zoning part of caves according to the 'within cave' concept. it is possible to allow recreation/exploration activities within the greater part of the cave whilst protecting the remainder as a reference section.
At this level, detailed evaluation of the individual cave resource and a cave map of a standard no less than CRG4D will be required. The Service will here need to rely heavily on the assistance of expert speleological groups for the compilation of effective management proposals.
A within cave classification prepared for the management of the Mammoth Cave System by the U.S. National Park Service has been adopted as the basis for the within cave classification. Zones are designated by the letters A to G in order of use and development.
- Zone A - Closed Passages - These passages may be closed by gate for either safety or scientific reasons.
- Zone B - Scientific Reference Zone - Whenever possible, passages regarded as excellent representatives of various cave attributes will be closed to access from the rest of the cave by a gate, and access will be granted on the basis of a scientific permit.
- Zone C - Limited Access Zone - where possible, strategically placed gates will restrict access to passages or chambers whose physical and/or biological attributes warrant special protection or could be considered a safety hazard for inexperienced cavers.
- Zone D - Natural Passage - Only cavers properly equipped and experienced in caving techniques may traverse natural passages which have not been improved in any way.
- Zone E - Partially Developed Passage - no electric lighting - passages which are partially developed or have once been developed are designated Zone E. Lighting is provided by hand-carried lanterns and such passages provide a 'wild cave' experience for visitors.
- Zone F - Fully Developed Passage - electrically lighted - all electrically lit cave passages, equipped with paths, bridges, steps, ladders etc. are zoned F. Except where otherwise stated, guides accompany all visitors and a fee is charged. Cave parties are limited in size and the frequency of visits will be dependent on the individual cave management.
- Zone G - Intensive Dark Area - Cave Zone G is limited to those areas where visitors assemble i.e. "such places, essential to the comfort and convenience of the visitor, are located in sections of cave passages which have low aesthetic and/or scientific value".
Armed with a cave management policy, the Service is very much in the position of Moses who comes down to his people after stormy sessions on the mountain. It's the case of the chosen few, "These are the rules, and for the good of all those who shall follow, they must be heeded."
Is that what the management system really boils down to? A complicated method of deciding who shall enter and who shall not? Cave management, in common with national park management as a whole, revolves around the concept of people management. The guidelines proposed set limits, as far as cave use is concerned. It's a matter of fitting the people in around these limitations rather than the other way round. The caves were formed in response to a host of climatic and geological factors, and were not designed to anticipate or flexibly cope with large influxes of people. As Moses realised, without law and order his chosen people had little chance of survival. Our caves could suffer the same fate.
The system outlined above provides a framework for cave management. It is receiving considerable airing, and with advice and suggestions from interested speleos, it is hoped to develop a workable management plan which can be used for all Service cave areas.
Yarrangobilly District has received the management plan with enthusiasm and is presently putting the initial "capital" investment into its implementation, on the understanding that the benefits of such a system for management, in the long run, well outweigh the initial hard work. Their job is to match the 175 caves known in the area to the classification scheme outlined. The rangers acknowledge that they are unable to do the ground work themselves, and are using a variety of methods to classify caves. These include the recommendations of Service personnel, interested speleo groups carrying out research in the caves, and cave reports collected over long periods of time. In order to monitor the effect of speleo use of the caves, it is planned to photograph all caves for reference purposes. The rangers are confident that the system is workable, and hope that by example its use will spread to other cave areas controlled by the Service. Undoubtedly, Yarrangobilly Caves have received closer attention over the years because the district duties focus onto cave management.
There are a number of implications for cave users.
It would appear that the days of open slather have disappeared forever. No longer can a budding caver wake up on Thursday morning, leap out of bed enthusiastically and proclaim: 'by jove, I think I'll go caving this weekend'. At least, not in Service controlled caves. It will be necessity for cavers to make application for a permit to use a particular caving area, Caving societies who wish to use caving areas in national parks will be expected to register with the National Park and Wildlife Service. Their application for official acceptance as approved cave users will be considered on the basis of their members' caving experience and their stated code of ethics or constitution regarding cave use.
Cavers not affiliated with approved caving societies will be eligible to apply for inclusion on the list of state-wide cavers, but must have written backing from an approved caving organisation and show that they are responsible members of the caving fraternity. Only ASF affiliated groups are allowed to enter caves at Yarrangobilly, though others may use the ungated caves at Cooleman with a permit.
Once approval is granted at the Head Office level, cavers must make application to the particular park each time they want to use the cave systems in that area. Each park will have a current list of approved cave users and will grant access on the basis of the carrying capacity of the cave and the order of receipt of applications. In many cases, cavers will have to collect and return keys to particular caves.
The Service has been fortunate over the past few years to have had close contact with speleo groups, usually affiliated with the Australian Speleological Federation. Responsible members of the caving movement, aware of the "survival of the fittest" maxim are doing all they can to justify their continued access to caves, by promulgating their environmental consciousness and their efforts to undertake cave research. Evaluating these is quite beyond the service's ability in terms of manpower, management priorities and expertise. It is interesting to note these "professional" cavers are actually making demands on the National Parks and Wildlife Service to protect the cave systems and the caving experience.
Recent meetings with interested cavers and service personnel have brought to the fore the following considerations, which shall serve as conclusions for this paper:
- There is a growing need for service personnel to be exposed to the joys and techniques of caving on a first hand basis. With a greater knowledge of cave systems and the sport, the people charged with control of caves will be getting near to the time when they can make detailed informed practical cave management decisions.
- Arising from staff inexperience and often inadequate staffing in national parks, supervision of cave recreation is extremely difficult. It has been suggested that interested and qualified speleos may be keen to undertake the honorary rangers course which would give them the authority to caution and/or prosecute illegal cave users, or any acts of vandalism in the vicinity of, or within caves. More importantly, as honorary rangers they would be in the position to inform the unenlightened members of the caving fraternity about the Service's access policy.
- Every attempt must be made to advertise the policy of permits, either at the cave entrance, the closest road head, or cave gear retail outlets and outdoor clubs, including of course the caving fraternity. Ignorance is an excuse, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service must make sure that cavers don't get the chance to use that excuse. While the law would argue that an offence is punishable whatever, if we take a similar approach the Service shall grow rich on the fines. At the same time, we shall forfeit the resource that we claim to protect, the underground world.
- Regular checking of the caves themselves is necessary to ensure that the system itself is not abused by illegal use of ungated caves, and more importantly, that those cavers who have permits to enter are not inconvenienced by cavers attempting to gain illegal entry. A combination of rangers with cave experience and cavers with honorary ranger experience should, in the future, make supervision and monitoring of the cave environment possible.
- Cave gating must be carried out as soon as possible to protect caves presently in use and those not yet popularised. Without gating and regular checking of cave areas, illegal use will continue.
- Use should be made of trip reports, cave research and photographs collected by park authorities as a means of monitoring cave damage.
- The permit system should be standardised, efficient and geared to protect the most sensitive features of the cave.
The service shall be depending in the future on cave users to supply much of the information needed to determine the correct classification and hence, management for a cave.
Yarrangobilly rangers will be circularising all caving groups, asking them to supply details of their capabilities regarding cave research and survey. On receipt of this information which will need at least annual updating, rangers will compare applications to enter a cave with the group's capabilities and the management classification of that cave. Access to an alternative cave may be granted on consideration of all data.
Chartered as it is to preserve a special quality, rather than a special quantity of particular environments, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has the choice of either restricting cave access or watching their gradual degradation. The old saying, 'the world owes me a living' is no longer realistic, especially in terms of park, and hence, cave management.
In conclusion, the responsibility of conserving caves is a joint responsibility. It rests with managers and users. The managers are duty bound to set conditions of use. If these aren't forthcoming, users cannot be expected to formulate their own standards acceptable to the Service.
FOOTNOTE
The preceding paper is largely based on "A Basis for Cave Management" drawn up by Graham Worboys, Investigations Officer, National Parks and Wildlife Service, N.S.W., 1976