This page is of historical interest only and describes the views that were agrees as the MCofS position at the time of the proposal for the Cairngorm Funicular in the late 1990s. The MCofS response to the latest proposals for a revised Visitor Management Plan as available here.

Critique of Cairngorm Chairlift Company's Visitor Management Plan of June 2000

Produced for the Mountaineering Council of Scotland by Dr Adam Watson, Crathes, Banchory AB31 5JE

Authorship of the Visitor Management Plan (VMP).
It would have been, and would have been seen to be, a more impartial objective VMP if the outsider Dr R. Sidaway had written it as a commission from CCC (obviously in consultation with and then agreement with CCC), rather than joint authorship by him and the CCC's senior staff member T. Adams.

The comments below appear in the order in which the items appear in the VMP, apart from the present paragraph which collates careless mis-spellings.

• Acknowledgements, para 2, Bayfeild mis-spelling.
• Continual use of "Cairngorm", even where the reference is not to CCC or HIE's Cairngorm Estate, e.g. 4.3 bullet 2.
• 5.7.1 para 2 "Fiacaill Ridge Path" when Fiacaill a' Choire Chais path is meant. The Fiacaill Ridge was an established name decades before CCC formed, for the ridge between Coire an t-Sneachda and Coire an Lochain.
• 5.7.7 para 3 Fiacaill a' Choire Cas, and Cairngorm.
• 10.3 Long walkers "Fiaciall Ridge", and 10.7 "Fiaicaill".
• 10.6 Place-name mangling to "Coire Cas Burn" instead of the OS map name Allt a' Choire Chais, and "Aonach Ridge" instead of OS An t-Aonach.
• Appendix 5, 5.1 last line "Cairngom".
• Appendix 6, 6.3.2 Character "the Coire Cas burn", and the "Glenmore Loop" (OS Glen More).

"Executive" summary. Why the pompous overworked term "Executive"? It adds nothing but pretentiousness.

1.4 last bullet. "Car park charges escalating with the length of stay and the Clearway order as prescribed in the Draft VMP are included but proposed as reserve powers". Nothing is stated here or later in the VMP about the detail of such reserve powers or about the processes to be gone through, such as consultation, if it were decided to invoke these reserve powers. It is very important that this omission is rectified by an explicit statement in the final VMP.

4.3 bullet 3 "to enhance the quality of the visitor experience" is absurd. The quality is better now, without a closed system, and is bound to be worse with a closed system.

5.1, "Following public consultation in March and April 1999, the R & G DMS recognises that Coire Cas will remain the main access point to the Cairngorms as there are environmental risks in dispersing use to other locations where conditions are less well understood and the ability to manage them is less well developed." This is a dangerous statement which totally conflicts with well known facts. Almost anywhere OTHER THAN Coire Cas involves far less environmental risks. Because of the granite soils and severe exposure to katabatic winds from the plateau, Coire Cas and nearby land are inherently more easily damaged by human impact than other areas at comparable altitude on more resilient soils and with a better climate, let alone areas at lower altitude, and recovery at Coire Cas and nearby is far slower and more problematic. The soils are coarse, incohesive, and infertile with a very thin layer of topsoil, and very readily erode. Because of this and the severe windy climate, vegetation cover is incomplete, with much bare ground, and most plant communities are highly vulnerable to human impact and recover very slowly from it.

The ability to manage past and current impacts at Coire Cas has been inadequately developed for decades. Several severely damaged slopes have never been tackled by measures for reinstatement, particularly the Cuidhe Crom at the top of Coire Cas, a big area on a slope between there and the Ptarmigan Restaurant with extensions almost to the summit of Cairn Gorm, and a wide band on the upper parts of Fiacaill a' Choire Chais and the nearby slope towards Coire an t-Sneachda (see my Annex 1 below).

The north slopes of Cairn Gorm are unsuitable as a honey pot for many visitors. This has been well known for decades, so it is perverse to persist with the unsustainable notion that Coire Cas should remain as the main access point to the Cairngorms. The main access point should be Glen More. The more fertile soils, complete vegetation cover and resilient plant species there are far less fragile and vulnerable to damage, and recover from damage much faster, and where the climate is better for plant growth as well as more pleasant for most human visitors.

5.6.1, para 1. The predicted increase in skier days following funicular opening is 56000 from a present 94000 up to 150000, or 60%. This is vastly more than the 25% in CCC's 1994 Management Plan and the later bogus statements by the SO, HIE and HIE Chairman Dr James Hunter that displacement from other ski areas would be insignificant.

5.7.6 last sentence. "may be a disincentive". Surely it is likely that this would be a big disincentive, and that the restaurant and shop would suffer loss of trade from such folk. In 5.5.7 para 4 this alters to a more realistic "are likely to be deterred". The last phrase, "those that do stay are likely to be attracted away from the Northern Corries by the construction and signing of new short walks from the car park" is unrealistic, because no new short walks are to be constructed, other than a possible "Aonach Loop", dependent on funding, and a possible "Cas Burn Loop", both mentioned later.

5.7.7 para 5, the number of bird watchers is likely to fall greatly on the plateau, but it is unlikely that a high proportion of the displaced bird watchers would go to Coire Cas or the Northern Corries. The bird interest there is far less than that on the plateau. In particular, ptarmigan are an attraction for bird watchers, but summer numbers of ptarmigan on the main heavily-developed parts of the ski area are very low and in most parts zero, due to the developments.

5.8, para 2. The evidence is that direct human disturbance of ground-nesting birds on the plateau has no material adverse effect on breeding success or numbers, so why this speculative comment without supporting evidence?

6.1, 1^st bullet. This boasting is unbecoming and damages Sidaway's reputation. It is nonsense, because visitors to funiculars in the Alps not only have the train ride but also get out to walk if they wish, which many do. The phrase "a funicular railway system designed and managed to help secure the environmental integrity of this special Scottish mountain landscape" is disreputable special pleading. CCC wanted a funicular to make money, and the first VMP draft involved no closed system. The current insensitive and improperly controlled construction works for the funicular have caused the worst damage to "the environmental integrity of this special Scottish mountain landscape" that has ever occurred there in any previous year of human operations.
2^nd bullet "Cairngorm Ski Area… providing spectacular scenery". What, Coire Cas with its dusty and gritty car parks, pylons, cluttered buildings of varying styles, snow fences, severely disturbed ground, artificial reseeded grass, bulldozings, and now massive damage to ground by construction operations?

6.3, more unseemly boasting about "unique environmental management tool". Also, this section and others ignore the fact that much of the damage to soils and vegetation on and near the ski area is done by skiers, skier-watchers, snowboarders, and above all by the CCC's piste machines and quad bikes on thin snow cover.

6.4 Grossly overstated, because what visitors will see in close view from the windows is a highly disturbed landscape and vegetation due to past and current lack of care, and a distorted fauna (either no birds at all, which is a frequent occurrence compared with the 1960s and before, or human-induced very low densities of ptarmigan, pipits, wheatears, dotterel, and human-induced increased frequency of low-ground scavengers (crows, gulls). The section on interpretation is flawed by such hypocrisy. It should be realised that, even if the landscape, vegetation and animals in near view were totally undisturbed and in a pristine state, the concept of an interpretation centre in any site at the far end of a major access facility is not accepted as good established practice (see my Annex 2 below).

6.5 lines 4-5 "will make little use of the Ski Area's managed facilities apart from the car park" is an offensive statement that is wholly at variance with the facts. Many of them use the shop, restaurants, chairlift, and even the ski tows (ski tourers). In any case, Inverness County Council made the car park using taxpayers' money, HIDB improved it using taxpayers' money, and the local authority used to do the snow clearing (it still does in an important sense, through an arrangement with CCC). It is not a CCC car park in the way that other managed facilities such as the ski tows are CCC's.

6.6 A pious hope, unrealistic given past attitudes by HIE and CCC, and current VMP attitudes towards these other users.

8.1, 1^st line, "privately owned by HIE" is misleading and incorrect, given that HIE is a public body dependent on taxpayers' money. Since this VMP is the CCC's VMP and since the car park is leased by HIE to CCC, does it follow that CCC pays and will pay for maintaining car-park surfaces and surrounds, or will HIE pay, or Highland Council? The VMP should clarify this, and likewise on 10, Visitor Management, Footpaths, because HIE owns the land, and so far has funded footpath monitoring and repair. However, CCC's VMP continually mentions "providing" suitable footpaths and even proposing the construction of new ones, so as to manage visitors as a direct consequence of the funicular development. Hence, it should follow that CCC in future must pay for maintenance, repairs and monitoring of footpaths within the ski area, and for creation of new footpaths there. Responsibilities should be clearly stated.

8.1, para 1, 2 lines up, a rise of skier visits of 56000 from 94000 to 150000 is not 59%, but 60% (59.57446%). Appendix 1's Table 1.3 gives the increase as a ridiculously precise 55460, but the other values as 94000 and 150000, and other values in the Table also rounded similarly to the nearest 1000. Interestingly, 55460 is exactly 59.000% of 94000, a value so improbably precise that it must have been calculated the other way round, i.e. deciding the increase would be 59%, applying this to the 94000, and then rounding the resulting 149460 incorrectly upwards to 150000. Clearly this is not an objective statement based on sound reliable evidence!

8.2, 2^nd last sentence is gratuitously and incorrectly offensive towards mountain users, "enjoys free use of the car park and benefit from…and parking provided by the Company". The car park was paid for and improved by taxpayers' money, and the parking is not "provided by the Company". Also, 5.7.1 states that 2250 of this group annually pay on the chairlift, but this is omitted here. Disreputable arguments.

8.3, 1^st bullet, summer car-park charges for all, but refunds only to those buying a ticket on funicular or for skiing! Still inequitable, with differential car park charges for those not using the funicular, even though all car parks were funded and improved entirely with taxpayers' money. Should be opposed resolutely and absolutely.

8.3.1, separate the haves and have-nots!

8.3.2, The £2 or £4 is for site management (bullet one). Bullet two says the fee for funicular users "includes a site management contribution", but it is unclear whether this is also £2 or £4. If it is less, this is inequitable discrimination against those not using the funicular. Bullet three says skiers in summer will not have to pay a "second contribution" at the car park, but this too is unclear.

8.6 "discourage parking for longer periods". It is not stated whether this is for all users, or just those not using the funicular.

8.7 Another draconian suggestion. It is very unlikely that people using Coire na Ciste car park to reach high ground would rise greatly because of car-park charges at Coire Cas. Coire na Ciste is too low and too far east of the main desired hill routes.

9.9 Funicular visitors forced to stay an average "residence time" of an hour are unlikely to find this gives them "maximum enjoyment and fulfilment" (9.23)! Also, if the average is one hour at peak times, it must follow that some individuals will have to move after a shorter time, whereas others will be there longer than an hour at peak times (any average must entail a spread of individual values above and below that average). The VMP's authors seem oblivious to this obvious statistical fact. Also it is unclear whether the average residence time includes the funicular journey or whether it refers solely to the time in the Ptarmigan building. These issues need to be clarified.

9.16, last 2 bullets. A ski mountaineer or ski tourer using downhill skis with skins in a small rucksack cannot be distinguished from an ordinary skier, and only those carrying much equipment such as ice axe can be thus distinguished. The same applies to a birdwatcher with or without downhill skis, who has binoculars in a small rucksack, or is the open carrying of binoculars forbidden for downhill skiers? Some of this is absurd.

9.19 monitor "so far as is practical" is more realistic, but too vague and undefined.

9.21 again "monitor so far as is practical" is too vague and undefined.

9.22 puts the likely blame for environmental impacts on "certain categories of visitors" (undefined again) and the "ski spectator" group, but impacts by skiers themselves and above all by poor use of piste machines are more likely to be important, to judge from my experience of impacts there, including being independent monitor in 1990-99.

9.23 "maximum enjoyment and fulfilment" is a ridiculous statement, given a closed system.

9.27 "Non-skiing visitors" will not be permitted to leave the building, but are ski spectators not non-skiing visitors? According to Appendix 2, Glossary of Definitions, 2^nd page, "Categories of Non-Skiing Visitors", category "Skiing Visitors/Ski spectators", they are. This is confusing and unclear.

9.30 what are "appropriately sized groups"? Dividing up coach parties seems an unpopular move. "Where necessary" is undefined.

10.4, 2^nd bullet. To "promote" paths on the ski area conflicts with previous agreements at HIE annual liaison meetings that such promotion leads to heavier impacts and is therefore undesirable. CCC took this critical line at liaison meetings in 1993, and all agreed that the Tourist Board should stop promoting the track up from the bottom station and that signs indicating this as a route should be removed. The place for promoting paths is in the woodland zone, where soils are resilient and recovery is fast, not the sub-alpine and alpine zones.

10.6 para 2. The "Aonach Ridge Loop" would be "a lengthy and costly footpath". This proposal was made in the first draft VMP, and my critical analysis of that VMP for the Funicular Sub-group of the Cairngorms Partnership (October 1995) went into some detail on this proposed path (see my Annex 3 below). It is inherently a highly unsatisfactory line for any footpath because of a) numerous groundwater flushes, many of them rock-controlled because of ice-smoothed bedrock near the surface and others from frequent spring-lines below a large catchment area of runoff from Sron an Aonaich, b) poorly drained soils along a traverse, and c) nearly all of it is on pristine ground so far unaffected by human impact. It would damage yet another extensive area of so far undamaged hillside for no good reason.

It is likewise undesirable to develop the proposed new paths "Coire Cas Burn Loop" and "Glenmore Link". The rationale for these suggestions is nowhere stated properly. The suggestions appear to be merely unstated assumptions, involving the notion that provision of new paths must be made for larger numbers of visitors to Coire Cas and nearby, but there is no evidence that they would demand these new paths. ANY promotion of activities above the woodland zone is likely to be damaging.

The proposed Navigation Course "in the area of the Aonach Ridge" is another woolly idea without proper justification, and would depend on "funding assistance" (further taxpayers' money). It would lead to more unnecessary overuse of fragile ground. It should be realised that Cairn Gorm is an inherently unsuitable site for honey pot human activities because of its granitic soils (See my Annex 3 below).

10.7 1^st bullet "maintaining access routes from Coire Cas car park primarily for mountain users", but it is unclear what "maintaining" means in this context, particularly given that this statement conflicts with 10.4 that some access routes from Coire Cas car park are to be promoted (not just maintained) for sightseers and short walk users (i.e. not mountain users). To make sense and avoid this conflict, 10.7.1 should read "access routes leading out of the ski area from Coire Cas car park". It is surprising that the VMP authors did not notice this obvious discrepancy.
2^nd bullet. The car parking is there anyway, so what does "providing" mean? No good reason is given for separating haves and have-nots, and no justification (3^rd bullet) for the likelihood of more taxpayers' money being wasted on a new path from the lower car park. Access from the car park to the Northern Corries path is obvious, so why introduce yet another new path?
4^th bullet "communicate… before their arrival". How? Presumably by signs, which would involve further inappropriate and unnecessary intrusion on a wild landscape.
5^th bullet. What are "information lines"/

10.10 how can CCC "provide walking routes" and "improve key access paths" when CCC does not own the ground and when HIE has organised and funded such paths hitherto? CCC cannot improve key access paths "from Coire Cas to the Ski Area" when most of the ski area is in Coire Cas; this is nonsensical.

10.11 how can CCC "provide ranger-led walks" when HIE currently pays entirely for rangers? Does it follow that CCC would pay new rangers for these walks? How can there be such walks on the "Cas Burn Loop" which in 10.6 is given as a "potential new path" (i.e. for the future, not an existing one)? Likewise Cas Burn in 10.12, and Glenmore Link in 10.12.

10.12 and 10.14 Such promotion is unnecessary and undesirable, as are the "gateways" in 10.20. All these proposals would lead to overuse of fragile ground that clearly cannot withstand impacts from large numbers of visitors.

10.13 CCC will promote the "philosophy: Enjoy the Mountain, Please Leave It as You Would Wish to Find It". This does not square with their desire for a railway which is bound to be far more damaging to the hill than any previous development by the Company, and which is now proving by its construction works to be more damaging.

10.18 No adequate justification given.

10.19 "The reserve powers which provide fall-back positions are not exclusive to the Chairlift Company: some rest with Statutory bodies". This attempt to pass the buck away from CCC is disreputable special pleading. If CCC and HIE had not insisted on the funicular, the inequitable draconian "reserve powers" and "fall-back positions" would have been wholly unnecessary.

10.22 "in the light of monitoring evidence" is unclear. If monitoring shows that use of other parts of the ski area is too damaging, this is not a good reason for promoting and developing a new path on ground that so far has been almost all pristine. Instead, promotion of existing routes should stop, and ideally should not start.

12.4, para 1 last sentence, Effects of "additional use" cannot be "mitigated" by "separating long-distance walkers and climbers into the lower car park". A non-sequitur.

12.5 2^nd bullet, "damage to vegetation, soils and geomorphology". The authors must mean landforms, not geomorphology. Damage to botany and pedology would be equally silly incorrect usage.

12.6 covers the proposed monitoring of visitor numbers and distribution, vegetation trampling, habitat changes, footpath widening and disturbance to birds. In the 2^nd sentence, the monitoring of soils and geomorphology is "considered to be of equal importance but less timely in their ability to guide management policy and will be kept under review". Impacts on soils are no less "timely in their ability to guide management action", and indeed frequently show human impacts in the absence of obvious vegetation damage due to trampling, habitat changes, and evidence of adverse effects on bird numbers or breeding success due to human disturbance. The quoted remark above shows that those drawing up the proposed monitoring do not properly understand the problems. If they did, they would not have made such an incorrect decision. Moreover, it is not explicitly obvious what is meant by the vague term "habitat changes", and this should be clarified.

12.11 An Annual Report by a Reporting Officer, assisted in the preparation of the report by a Scientific Advisor, the Head Ranger (paid by HIE), and a CCC Director cannot possibly be seen as independent and objective, and should be altered. The Reporting Officer should write the report under his/her name and address, after consultation with the Head Ranger and CCC, and if possible (but not necessarily) their agreement, in the same way as has been normal practice for reports on monitoring at other Scottish ski areas.

Appendix 3
3.7 Car park charges are not new (e.g. Loch an Eilein, FE Glenmore, ski areas in America and the Alps). The difference is that CCC does not own the land and did not pay for the car parks or the road. A big difference!

3.10 Nothing is said about annual early-summer monitoring of damage due to operation of the ski area in the previous winter. Other ski companies have to pay for this, and CCC used to do so (paying me), but the work this year was done by the Head Ranger paid by HIE, who cannot be perceived to be independent. This is another subsidy to CCC from the taxpayer, via HIE. It is surprising that the VMP omits this aspect. If it is kept out, the misleading impression will be given to readers of the VMP that all damage in the ski area is caused by non-skiing summer visitors, and that the monitoring of damage by them is very important.

Third Party Maintenance
Line 2 "The Estate is protected etc". Only parts of the Estate are protected. Some are not, e.g. the ski area and the area north-east of upper Coire na Ciste.

Appendix 6
6.2.1 Potential for interpretation: "landforms, coire (sic), boulder field, solifluction lobes, and avalanche track" (there is no "avalanche track" here or elsewhere on the ski area) could all be better shown (apart from the mythical avalanche track) from the roadside on the way to the ski area. Other landform features could be shown better from that roadside, such as meltwater channels, tors, collapsed tors, kettle-hole lochans, eroding and non-eroding blanket bog, pine roots in bog peat, moraines, fluvioglacial deposits, and the Allt Mor flood effects. Some of these are invisible from the proposed route in Coire Cas, and others are much further away than when viewed from the roadside. The roadside on the way up to the ski area would be better for showing "vegetation and wildlife" (and do they not know that wildlife includes vegetation?), Also, Coire Cas has been severely disturbed by the developments, whereas most ground further down and outside the ski area is in a pristine or near pristine state. The statement that it may be possible to hear ptarmigan is ironic. Ptarmigan numbers are at so extremely low there because of the developments that they seldom call except in the half dark at dusk and dawn.

6.3.1 No justification is given for this expensive new path. Of less importance, "some boardwalk if required" would be out of place and inappropriate. It is undesirable to cause disturb and urbanise more ground which is at present pristine. Those who wish to do so are official vandals, keen to spend taxpayers' money on developing and opening up the already over-developed and overused Glen More and Coire Cas when the opposite is required. 2^nd last para, would be "popular with families and educational groups" is mere assumption or wish, unsupported by evidence. Potential for interpretation; "wilderness feel" (with boardwalks and a machine-made path through an area that is at present pristine?).

6.3.4 These details show even more clearly the undesirability of the proposed course by CCC and HIE. Because of the wet ground there, the area chosen is unsuitable, and severe damage is certain if this silly proposal were to be implemented. Markers are to be used and moved frequently, and course sites are to be moved " to ensure that tracks are not formed", i.e. dispersing damage to a more extensive area. Such dispersal totally conflicts with frequent VMP statements on the need to keep visitors on paths and not let them stray to damage ground off paths. The VMP states "Controls will be sited in robust areas and moved if necessary", but on the proposed area there are no robust parts that can withstand much human impact. Since a brief site visit is enough to show the area's unsuitability, one can only assume that those proposing the course made no such visit, or were ignorant of the area's soil/water/vegetation drawbacks. This indicates an evident lack of relevant technical expertise currently in CCC and HIE.

For the proposed course, the use of "will" rather than "would" is unacceptable for any proposal until it has been finally agreed that it should be implemented, e.g. "The navigation course will be situated" (1^st bullet). The 4^th bullet "If levels of use become excessive, limits will be placed on permissions granted" is vague. How is it to be decided what is "excessive", and what do "limits" mean?

One can well ask why so much organised activity has to go to Cairn Gorm and in particular Coire Cas, when it can be done on more resilient ground elsewhere. This and other proposals in 6.3 would have been redundant if the voluntary bodies' proposals for the ski area's redevelopment had been accepted. These damaging proposals show that CCC/HIE/FE must be seen to be organising schemes in and near the ski area to amuse the larger numbers of summer visitors anticipated after the funicular and to divert them from more damaging activities. The root flaw is to have a funicular that CCC/HIE wish in order to attract more people in summer. It is completely illogical. However, it becomes a face-saver to CCC/HIE once one assumes that a funicular must come and will attract more summer visitors to an area that manifestly cannot withstand this. The end-point for coaches and cars should be Glen More, with a gondola to Coire Cas, as at Aonach Mor. If this were so, none of these damaging proposals would have been made, and most of the other paraphernalia of iniquitous car-park charges for those not using the funicular, separate car parks, and massive monitoring, would be unnecessary. So would the very VMP itself.

Conclusions

SNH and Highland Council should be asked to reject the VMP as inadequate because of its lack of clarity, special pleading, incorrect statements, frequent vagueness, carelessness, and above all inappropriate taxpayer-paid schemes certain to lead to overuse of ground that cannot withstand much human impact. There should be total opposition to this VMP, its unnecessary schemes, and its draconian powers held in reserve, i.e. no co-operation with the designated lower car park and new path from it, a boycott of the proposed honesty box there, opposition to inequitable car-park charges for funicular users versus non-users, criticism of further spending of taxpayers' money on existing and proposed new footpaths on the ski area, and off it with the "Glenmore Loop". A call should be made for CCC to pay for annual monitoring of damage due to operation of the skiing facilities. There should be opposition to the obvious lack of perceived independence in the proposed scheme for reporting other kinds of annual monitoring, where half of the four people involved are HIE's Head Ranger and a CCC Director.

Annex 1. The inherent unsuitability of Cairn Gorm as a honey pot for visitors

Notes from papers in the Proceedings of the Conference on Conservation of the Cairngorms (1990, published by Centre for Scottish Studies & Natural Environment Research Council)

R.D. Cramond, then Deputy Chairman of the HIDB, delivered a paper on Cairngorm – conservation and development: living together, in which he stated under the heading Visitor pressures and the honey pot idea, referring to the HIDB's Cairngorm Estate, "visitor pressures have to be managed in ways which will minimise damage to fragile environments. This is not easy, but there is something to be said for the 'Honey Pot' technique…..if visitors can be channelled to one relatively limited area where paths can be provided that is surely much better than letting damage spread haphazardly over much wider areas" (p. 23). In my paper on Human impact on the Cairngorms environment above timber line, under the heading The 'honeypot' idea (p. 76), I wrote "strong promotion of an area often leads to heavy use. If the area is on fertile soils at low altitudes, the ground may well be able to cope. If it is on poor soils at high altitudes, however, heavy use leads to damage that cannot be repaired without recourse to techniques that detract from a wild area…..Cramond's idea (this book) is to use Cairn Gorm as a well-managed honeypot for many tourists to enjoy. He suggests that this would relieve pressures on the National Nature Reserve and the Northern Corries SSSI. However, the infertile, highly erodible granite soils, sparse vegetation cover and severe climate of Cairn Gorm make it inherently unsuitable for a honeypot. Moreover, the honeypot which is already at Cairn Gorm has not relieved pressure on the NNR and the Northern Corries, but has added to them".

The VMP shows that HIE and CCC still persist with this fallacious notion, despite the great experience available from many countries and from Cairn Gorm that it is flawed, including experience at Cairn Gorm since 1990. This well demonstrates HIE's technical unfitness and incongruity to be owner of its Cairngorm Estate, and CCC's failure to see past its desire to make the maximum money by promoting tourists to visit its leased area. Both HIE and CCC should long ago have seen the wisdom of diverting investment on to visitor attractions on resilient low ground, such as Glenshee Chairlift Company did by developing a golf course on farmland near Alyth. The more successful ski companies in the Alps and North America have proved the value of this approach for decades.

Notes produced for the CP Funicular Sub-group meeting of 19 Oct. 95, by member Adam Watson

1. Cairn Gorm has inherently unsuitable soils for a human visitor honey pot, at all altitudes down to the upper woodland line. Damage to vegetation and soils, soil erosion, increased run-off, and recovery time after impact and damage, are all greater than at comparable altitudes, aspects and gradients on better soils. The financial costs of reinstatement and restoration are also greater, and already the costs to the taxpayer have been very large for such works.
2. The current developments have led to widespread damage on several entire slopes on the upper parts of Cairngorm Estate (including the Northern Corries Site of Special Scientific Interest) and the plateau inside the National Nature Reserve. The scientific evidence on this, provided by A. Watson (commissioned by NCC), was accepted by both sides at the Lurcher's Gully Public Inquiry in 1981, including the Inquiry Reporter, and he included a summary accepting it in his Findings of Fact. The main summary data were published in the international scientific journal Biological Conservation in 1985. The continuing problem of damaged slopes within the Estate was described in more detail in the writer's Environmental Baseline Study for HIE (1994), and the recommendation was made and accepted that. the only way to reduce damage there was to have fewer people on these slopes and allow recovery to proceed by natural means. It was suggested that signs be erected, requesting walkers to avoid these areas, and the signs were erected in 1995, but people still go there. No attempt at reinstatement has been made on these areas, and in the writer's view none is technically feasible without massive expenditure of taxpayers' money on schemes which would be inappropriate and incongruous on near-natural ground at high altitude.

(Note. The Environmental Baseline Study of Damaged Ground on Cairngorm Estate (1994) by A. Watson for HIE, available at the main national public libraries, gives full descriptions and locations of the extensive slopes that have remained damaged and without reinstatement, and of certain smaller areas likewise. This situation has not changed materially since 1994, since when there has been no attempt to reinstate the main damaged slopes.)

Annex 2. Proposed interpretation centre at Ptarmigan building

(Produced for Cairngorms Partnership Board's Funicular Sub-group by member Adam Watson, November 1995)

Interpretative visitor centre at Ptarmigan building. This is an inappropriate place, as experience elsewhere in Scotland and abroad shows that visitor centres should not be sited at the end of major access facilities, such as hilltops, glen road-ends etc, but should be in settlements. Also, Don Aldridge, who was presented to us as an international expert on interpretation, made clear in his excellent booklet that it is unwise to have visitor centres anywhere without a wider plan of interpretation for that area and a much larger area around it (i.e. for Cairn Gorm, there should be a wider interpretation plan for the entire area from Aviemore to Cairn Gorm, including the Glen More corridor). When I asked him whether his support for the Cairn Gorm visitor centre did not go against his own philosophy and principles as stated in his own booklet, he ducked the question totally and, ostrich-like, put his head in the sand by waffling about a different issue. Clearly, a wider plan for interpretation is necessary before considering the planning application that includes the proposed Ptarmigan visitor centre.

Annex 3. "Gateway" boards and other promotion of path use, and the proposed "Aonach Link Path"

Items below are from my comments on the first draft VMP, and show no advance in understanding of these issues by CCC and HIE. The first item is about "gateway" boards, signs and leaflets that promote path use, and the second is about a proposed new path called the "Aonach Loop Path" in the current VMP.

Comments on Cairngorm Chairlift Company's Visitor Management Plan (Oct. 1995)
Produced for Cairngorms Partnership Board's Funicular Sub-group by member Adam Watson (November 1995)

P. 11, the "gateway" boards are likely to lead to more use of the Ptarmigan track and Northern Corries paths, not less as implied on P. 10. In 1993, CCC and HIE decided that signs and other information for the "Ptarmigan Trail" (from the bottom station up the road to the Ptarmigan Restaurant) were leading to over-use, and succeeded in having all signs removed and information excluded from new guide leaflets and other new publications by the local Tourist Board. The Environmental Baseline Study on Damaged Ground at Cairngorm Estate, commissioned by HIE (A. Watson 1994, Section 12.2.3. Ending the promotion of walkers' routes) describes the accepted reasoning that was agreed by all concerned at the time.

P.17, l., new circular designated walk from above the Coire Cas car park to Clach Bharraig, then to above Coire na Ciste., then back to Coire Cas, plus the diagonal consisting of part of the old path from Glen More to Cairn Gorm. At present there is no path on this 4km route, apart from a) the diagonal on the old Cairn Gorm path, and b) short broken sections between the car park and Clach Bharraig. Both a) and b) are in poor condition (rough and wet, and in the case of a) wide and showing rill erosion though also showing signs of recovery from former heavy use in the 1950s. The writer walked the entire route on 22 October to check ground conditions, as his recollections were that they would be highly unsuitable.

Site inspection of vegetation, soils, water issues, and path condition confirmed this. The proposal, if implemented as stated, would cause severe ground damage on an area that is mostly pristine at present. The soil types, drainage, gradient of slope across the path, exposure, and vegetation types on these slopes render them inherently unsuitable for such a route, unless the whole route were turned at the outset into an artificial path of boulders and other hardcore that would have to be imported, before the route was promoted and opened for use. This would be very expensive, and would require costly annual maintenance. The questions arise who would pay for this, and would this involve taxpayers' money.

A map in LUC's Environmental Statement for the funicular application shows soil types on Cairn Gorm. From Coire Cas to Clach Bharraig, most of the proposed route is on item 6 of LUC's map (a peaty-gleyed podzol with some subalpine podzol), and some on item 8 (peaty gley), all over granite drift. Many flushes flow through very wet ground, and the main vegetation is a wet heath dominated by deer sedge with heather, cross-leaved heath, purple moor grass, cotton grass, and bog asphodel. Along the corner from Clach Bharraig towards Coire na Ciste, there is map item 1. (a "peaty podzol on skeletal and residual debris and rock"), and there are also patches of ice-smoothed bedrock and many small patches of bare ground with granite grit granules, the vegetation being a very fragile heather/bearberry/deer sedge community. On a considerable length of the slope towards Coire na Ciste, there is blanket hill peat 25-100cm thick, not shown on the LUC map, with a vegetation dominated by tall heather, above morainic ground with peat up to 50cm thick. Into Coire na Ciste, the route is on item 12 (a "peaty gley on fluvioglacial moraine", with many patches of bare ground), then item 6 (a peaty-gleyed podzol with some subalpine podzol, over granite drift), then on item 9 (a subalpine podzol over granite drift and associated colluvium, with many patches of bare ground and prostrate vegetation), then on item 6 again, and lastly on item 8.

The writer spent an afternoon on site inspection, and made many notes on vegetation, soils, peat thickness, drainage and path condition. However, the experience of the damage and subsequent repair costs on the main Northern Corries path should perhaps be sufficient to make the bodies involved rule out this proposal, unless paths are built to a high standard of surface and width at the outset.

(Note added June 2000. Obviously the bodies involved have paid no attention to sense on this matter. The above document was freely available to Cairngorms Partnership Board members, including the CCC's Chairman Hamish Swan).