I have been advised that VDL is in close contact with the assessments section of the Federal Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and that a referral under the EPBC Act is likely to be made in the very near future.

Once the referral has been listed on the following website there will be a period for public submissions:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/index.html

VDL’s misleading press release and fact sheet can be seen here:

http://www.vdlfarms.com.au/

Thank you Peter.

Not yet referred under EPBC Act (according to its website). Initial referral under the Commonwealth Act has a comment period is only 10 days however.

When a formal referral for this proposal is provided, it will be made available for 10 business days for public comments, via the EPBC Act Public Notices pages of the department’s website at the following link: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=invitation_to_comment&limit=999&text;_search=

Cont ...

Cont ...

Alternatively, the list of referrals open for comment can be found by going to the department’s home page (http://www.environment.gov.au), clicking on ‘EPBC Act’ in the left hand drop down menu, then following the link to ‘Latest referrals and public notices’ on the top right hand corner of that EPBC Act page.

Cont ...

Cont…

Guidance on how to comment on referrals is also available on the website, at this link: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/epbc-help.html#referrals

Cont…

Cont ...

But for more details on the proposal go to:

http://www.vdlfarms.com.au/woolnorth-development

Tasmania urgently needs useful, comprehensive land clearance controls enshrined in legislation.

The issue is not what may be protected Jan but what is being lost. The retention of vegetation and thus the associated threatened species habitat on lowland private land is a major issue for Tasmania.

This proposal just shows how inadequate the forest peace process has been regarding the conservation of biodiversity, by excluding private land, the largest single land tenure in Tasmania.

Andrew Ricketts
Convenor
The Environment Association TEA Inc.

Remember that 1080 is still available in Tasmania to select customers,, and that an outfit the size of VDL is unlikely to tolerate competition from native or exotic herbivores.

Even if some VDL bush was spared for devils and quolls, it’s unlikely that their food sources would survive amidst intensive industrial dairying.

Concerned Dasyurids should contact Bryan Green, or his immediate superior, Bob Gordon.

John Hayward

I note that former director of Forestry Tasmania, Mr Miles Hampton, is now well embedded in this Chartered company that received an enormous grant of free land that ultimately totalled 366,725 acres of Tasmanian soil.
This was made possible by whatever King who reigned in that time, by way of the imbibing of enormous quantities of spirituous liquors, thus became quite easily persuaded by the shifty more schemerous inclined plutocrats then dwelling in London Town and among its environs and surrounds.
Since then this charter has been kept operational by similarly inclined persons of relative mien from among those in Australia’s more artificial realms of society, whereby attachment to such a royalty gifted enterprise is only available to those who have deftly conjured up a notoriety of high-level influence and who are also in possession of confidential governmental persuasions.

Circular Head with more cows than ever? Hopefully bovine spongiform encephalopathy or foot and mouth disease never reach our shores despite the increasing impacts of globalisation. I wonder what the bovine form of “all eggs in one basket” looks like?

“but it seems to be seeking every last hectare"What is wrong with your maths Peter ?Of the 7000ha, VDL wish to clear 1818ha leaving 3241ha of native vegetation in formal covenented reserve and 876 in voluntary reserve.
Why didn’t you mention the fact that they are also planting 100m wide native vegetation corridoors to link previously anexed areas of vegetation and thus providing a better enviroment for the Devils and Quolls than what exists there now.
I don’t know why you are worrying about Devils and Quolls anyway because I thought they all lived in the “Tarkine “.

According to a statement contained in a recent Annal Report the VDL were proposing a Wallaby proof fence to surround their pastured and new pastured land areas, this being deemed necessary to prohibit the trespass of any or all pasture grazing wildlife .
So with this statement of a Devil proof fence, perhaps this was a ‘misprint or a typical obfuscation’ as to the real reason for this expenditure?
I note that the former long term director of 5 years, then recently appointed as chairman of the board of Forestry Tasmania, Mr Miles Hampton himself, would not be unacquainted to misleading boardroom statements occasionally emanating from within the Forestry Tasmania GBE, then being issued to the public media.
Mr Miles Hampton also a director of VDL and its associated companies, then since his appointment as the chairman of Forestry Tasmania he did quite recently resign from this chairmanship of Forestry Tasmania GBE, after the following announcement was made public.

Bryan Green at that time had announced to the board of Forestry Tasmania, that in future the volume and regularity of taxpayer funds previously flowing like a raging river into this GBE would no longer continue into the futures and were likely to be much reduced.
Then of course the sudden departure from the board of Forestry Tasmania of one Miles Hampton, was quick to follow on from the very time of Bryan Green’s statement.

One can only conclude that their well may be a similar modus of media releases effectively put into place with Mr Hampton now a firmly embedded director of VDL?
Mr Miles Hampton currently sits on a number of very influential government boards as well aas a sitting director on the executive boards in the this State’s private sector, one in particular is as the chairman of all Tasmania’s water boards and authorities, another being on the board of My State Financial here in Tasmania.

There can be no doubt that along with his placement on the State government planning tribunal, that there would not be anyone else in this State who occupies such a lofty perch as he, moving in and among all that happens in this State.

If you listen to the Greens and a few others then agriculture is the future of Tasmania. Not that it worked overly well last time we tried relying upon it. And not that it doesn’t come with an environmental downside. But supposedly it is the future.

If you want agriculture then you can’t have forests on the same land. Simple as that. And if “agriculture is the future” then we’ll be having more farms and less forests in the future - also fairly obvious to thinking persons.

VDL’s Referral was posted on the Dept’s website on 2 January in a cynical attempt to evade proper public scrutiny as it coincides with the holiday period and timescale for public submissions into the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=6710

Submissions quoting the reference number and title of the referral require to be made within 10 business days, i.e. by Wednesday, 16 January, as follows:

Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Fax: 02 6274 1789

Or post to:

Referral Business Entry Point, EIA Policy Section (EPBC Act)
Approvals and Wildlife Division
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

VDL’s proposed dairy farm expansion on the Woolnorth property involves the clearance of 1,818 hectares of native vegetation and I shall be opposing this destructive proposal on the following grounds. I presume that TWS, ET and ACF will also find sufficient time from their busy Ta Ann promotion/marketing schedule to make submissions against the proposal.

The proposal will have a potentially devastating and unacceptable impact on threatened species such as the Tasmanian Devil regardless of the mitigation measures proposed.

Woolnorth is one of the last DFTD-free refuges for the threatened Tasmanian Devil and the EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna shows that the listing of the Tasmanian Devil was upgraded to endangered species status on 29 May 2009 having first been listed as a vulnerable species in May 2006.

The draft Tasmanian Devil Recovery Plan prepared by DPIWE in 2010 has yet to be incorporated within the EPBC Act which appears to breach Section 273 of the EPBC Act which specifies the deadline for recovery plans as follows:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a recovery plan for a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community must be made and in force within 3 years of the decision under section 269AA to have the plan.

(2) The Minister may, in writing, extend the period within which a recovery plan must be made. Only one extension can be granted for the making of the plan, and the period of the extension must not be more than 3 years.

However, the Conservation Advice approved by the Federal Minister for the Environment on 19 May 2009 is required to be taken into account when assessing any proposal referred under the EPBC Act. It advises that the main identified threats to the Tasmanian Devil are DFTD and motor vehicles, while culling by humans is a lesser threat. In addition to the identified threats, the main potential threats include foxes and habitat modification. If Tasmanian Devil densities become very low there is a risk that disturbance or destruction of maternal dens, as a result of land clearance, for example, for urban development, forestry and agriculture, could affect the species’ breeding success and pose a significant threat to the Tasmanian Devil.

The following Conservation Advice clearly precludes the development of any proposal which will impact upon the threatened Devil population in the Woolnorth region, especially given that this is one of the last remaining refuges for healthy DFTD-free Devils. The proponent admits that “The expansion and intensification of land use through dairy development and operation will result in an increase in road traffic. Significant increases in traffic levels may result and an increase in the frequency of road kills.”

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/299-conservation-advice.pdf

I do not agree with the proponent’s proposal for a devil proof fence to be constructed to protect the Woolnorth devils from DFTD as this will reduce the genetic diversity of the local population and has the potential to create a population susceptible to future disease from in-breeding. It also requires further unnatural human interference in the way of a prey management plan which will be implemented to ensure that prey continues to be available throughout the year inside the devil proof fence. Such a plan will upset the natural balance of the ecosystem with unknown and potentially devastating effects.

In addition to the Tasmanian Devil, the list of Tasmanian threatened species for which the proposal provides an unacceptable risk includes the Spotted-tailed Quoll and Tiger Quoll for which Recovery Plans are currently in preparation.

Furthermore, Woolnorth is on the migration route of the critically endangered orange bellied parrot.

Threatened wedge-tailed eagles will also be put at more risk as they will lose habitat and be put at risk when scavenging roadkill if the proposal proceeds.

To be Continued

Continued

Industrial dairy farms use a vast amount of highly toxic chemicals which pose an unacceptable risk to our threatened native flora and fauna and the adverse impact of these does not appear to be adequately addressed. The proponent admits that “dairy expansion on land to be cleared and intensification of grazing will increase effluent and nutrient loads in the riverine habitats.”

The proposal also significantly increases the risk of diseases entering Tasmania such as Bovine Johne’s Disease which has the potential to decimate the industry.

The economic benefits in justification of the proposal appear to be unverified and totally overstated and do not justify the project especially considering that no alternatives appear to have been considered. For example, there are thousands of hectares of useless e.nitens plantations in the North West which could be cleared and converted to other uses such as dairy farming and a large number of existing dairy farms are currently for sale. An article in the Examiner dated 4 January also demonstrates that VDL’s expansion is already having a detrimental effect on small dairy farmers at the cost of the local community. 

It would also appear that the proposal is in breach of Tasmania’s Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate which specifically provides that Tasmania maintains a permanent forest estate that comprises areas of native forest managed on a sustainable basis both within formal reserves and within multiple-use forests across public and private land for all its various production, conservation and amenity values.

http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/permanent_native_forest_estate_policy

In February 2007 a revised Policy was issued to meet the requirements of Clause 45 of the May 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. Clause 45 requires that the Policy describe the agreed approach to the phasing out of broad scale clearing and conversion of native forest, which is that:

•  95% of the 1996 Comprehensive Regional Assessments (CRA) native forest area is to be maintained on a statewide basis.
•  Broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest be phased out on public land by 2010.
•  Broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest on private land be phased out over a period of ten years from 13 May 2005.
•  Assessment criteria for regulating forest clearing and conversion to ensure protection of regional biodiversity and water quality values and to meet salinity objectives.
•  Broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest on public land has ceased.

The Forest Practices Authority has advised that the area of native forest retained on a statewide basis is approaching the 95 percent level and in the Woolnorth bioregion there has already been a huge reduction of 41,966.6 hectares, or 11.2%, from the 1996 RFA Area.

http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/81852/Monitoring_of_the_permanent_native_forest_estate_1_Oct_2012.pdf

In December a revised policy was approved and released by the Minister for Energy and Resources that provides a 40 hectares limit to the area of native forest that can be cleared and converted on any property until 2015, when all broadscale clearing will end.

In September 2011 the Policy was further revised by the Minister at his entire discretion without any public consultation on the pretext of clarifying terminology and implementation mechanisms. However, it is clear that the Policy was revised in order to facilitate the current proposal by VDL which exceeds the 40 hectares clearance cap by 4,445 % and would not otherwise have been allowed to proceed.

In any event the proposal clearly fails to comply with the requirements of clause 4.8:

“Clearance and conversion of native forest on public and private land for any development proposal, which, in its entirety demonstrates substantial public benefits, including where conservation benefits will arise from the proposal through secured actions to improve biodiversity, water quality, salinity or other land degradation outcomes, is not limited by the forest community retention levels or property conversion limits.”

I am also extremely concerned that the proponents have apparently been in extensive discussions with the Department of Environment for some time about the proposal and have been provided with undue favour.

Finally, I would remind the Minister for the Environment of Section 3A - Principles of ecologically sustainable development of the EPBC Act which requires that “the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making”.

Thank you PB for your researches and the following advices given to the Tasmanian Times Forum.
I also thank you PB for the clarification to claims I myself have made toward this VDL ‘local dairy-farmer ruining’ expansion they have planned.

A note to shaun at comment #11, shaun you seemed quick or somewhat eager to cast your opinion as to the ‘Greens seeking to interfere with the proposed uptake and or impetus of expansion in agricultural pursuits in Tasmania.)

shaun there must come a time in the lives of the people of Tasmania to realize that the Greens are not the harbinger of all evils that befall Tasmania, why not have a read-up on the enormous destructive achievements of (Forestry Tasmania in their profitless yet ongoing opportunistic encroachment upon so many and much of Tasmania’s Ancient Old Growth Forests?

Generally I read and respect the comments you submit to Tas Times shaun, but this one at #11 does not serve you so well, take into account the increased level of cow faeces and urine’s that will (by way of local rains and water-flows) will inevitably be directed into the relevant watercourses and waterways, creeks and rivers etc, in this specific VDL dominated sector of Tasmania.
When one reads the annual reports of VDL they reek of government servitude and concessions to further the ends of this profit before probity Van Diemans Land Company.

In view of the current bushfires situation I requested an extension to the period for public submissions which closes on Wednesday, 16 January and the Dept. has just responded as follows:

“Public comment opportunities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are governed by various rules and timeframes. In this case, there is no statutory provision to extend the public comment period, and it is not possible to do so given the statutory deadline before which the minister must make his decision whether the proposal is a controlled action requiring full assessment.

However, we do accommodate late submissions wherever possible, particularly where there are clear extenuating circumstances and / or prior arrangements are made. Please talk to the assessment officer, Ms Naomi Montalto (telephone (02) 6275 9703; e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) if you would like to make a late submission.

I note also that the proponent has nominated the proposal as a controlled action. If the proposal is determined to be a controlled action, further opportunities for public comment will arise.”