Dear Malcolm Turnbull

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull
Minister for Water and Environment
ParliamentHouse.
Canberra. ACT 2000.

Dear Minister. 20th March 2007

I am writing to ask you to intervene in the State and Federal process concerning the proposal to build one of the worlds largest Kraft Bleached Pulp Mill at Long Reach in Northern Tasmania.
I am writing,

• As a long time resident of Northern Tasmania, currently living within 2.5Kms of the proposed site of the Pulp Mill.
• As a committed long term volunteer for community and environmental (Landcare) groups.
• As a Tasmanian who is proud to defend our clean, green and diverse natural, business, artistic and community resources and values.

I would like to draw your attention to just one adverse aspect of this mammoth project, for which you have direct responsibility for. Namely the huge adverse effect on loss of bio-diversity, loss of habitat, loss of ordinary, endangered and threatened animals of logging “native forests” proposed by the Proponent and State Government.

I am not sure if you are aware of the details of the wood supply which underline this project, which in itself is not part of the Pulp Mill assessment process. The Proponents Integrated Logistical Statement (ILS) details the following:

• 7,000,000 tonnes of hardwood woodchips would be required per year, for 30 years.
• That on average 200 tonnes of timber is recovered from a hectare of “native forest”. Note that this is a very high average figure to base recovery on; it is currently 165 tonnes per hectare, based on Forestry Tasmania’s own figures.
• That “native forest” timber will start off as 80% of the wood supplies, reducing to 20% after 15 years, which will then continue until the end of the project or until plantations come fully on line.

If you calculate out the above details, you will find that 292,000 hectares of “native forest’ is proposed to be logged over the initial 20 years of the project. I have researched by phoning Tasmanian and interstate Parks and Wild Life Departments and extensive Googling, to establish just how many animals above say mouse size (it was an easy size concept to put across) live in mature diverse “native forest”.

This base line includes mouse like rodents, snakes, lizards, birds, all sizes, and quolls. Native cats (not feral), wombats, possums, bats and wallabies. The concentration of these animals suggested by the many staff that I contacted varied from 250 to 200,000 per hectare. I appreciate that there are many other factors that would need to be considered, and its site specific, and animals move out, and they are killed by the use of 1080, and Altazine compounds, and the timber recovery rate could easily be 30% lower thereby increasing the hecterage required etc. However I have taken only 100 animals per hectare, as the very least number that will be directly affected.

THAT IS 29, 200,000 ANIMALS. THAT WILL BE THE VERY MINIUM ADVERSLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

You can not let this happen. Please get someone to verify these figures. This can not be left to happen. This does not include smaller animals, insects, and the full range of flora including all the “minor” tree species not required for wood chipping.

Being a volunteer, particularly with Landcare, in just the last few weeks I have received more that 6 papers from State and Federal Departments highlighting how to!, offering grants for! -increasing bio-diversity. I have received an invitation to an International “Bio-Diversity in Production Areas” Conference to be held in Launceston, plus in this weekend’s newspaper there where three adverts for Community grants and Federal Grants again to increase and protect bio-diversity. Telling me that I should value the environment etc. Yet I live within a 2.0 hours driving range of where its proposed to log ( by clear felling methods, not sustainable selective methods) at least 292,000 hectares of “native forests” for pulp wood-woodchips, and lose 29,200,000 native animals over 20 years.

I do not want to take up your time with the full range of my concerns about this specific aspect or the many other comparable adverse aspects of this project.

I appreciate that the limited scope of the formal assessment dictated by the Proponent and the State Government may mean that you can only look at the immediate effects of the actual site and pipe line corridor of the Pulp Mill. But in that area alone there are 5 threatened plus 5 endangered species plus 21 migratory bird species involved. The Proponents ILS only says that these “have been considered”. There is no statement to say how these will be protected. If I wanted to cut down trees to build a new shed, or dam, or roadway, or bulldoze the landscape, where 5 endangered and 5 threatened species were established, I would not be allowed to. The Proponent is also proposing to take 50 hectares of State Forest adjoining the proposed mill site to build a hazardous materials waste dump. In the ILS the Proponent acknowledges that even with an 8 mm lining that the dam/land fill reserve will leak. This site is located up hill and within a kilometre of the Tamar River.

Please comment on these concerns and issues raised. Can we allow 29,200,000 animals to die?

John Day
Rowella

2nd Letter

Dear Minister. 2ndApril 2007

I am writing to you again, to ask you to intervene in the State and Federal process concerning the proposal to build one of the worlds largest Kraft Bleached Pulp Mill at Long Reach in Northern Tasmania. I have recently written to you on the 20thMarch 2007 about one aspect of this proposed Pulp Mill.

In the last week you, the Prime Minister and the Opposition party have stated that some 65,000 hectares a year in Australia are clear felled.

Please be aware that if the proposed pulp mill is given the go ahead then you will be increasing this figure in the first year of its operation by 26,000 hectares of “native forest” alone; which will gradually reduce in year 20 and there after to 7,000 hectares per year. In all in the first 20years of it operation to a total of 292,000 hectares of “native forest” will be clear felled and the residue; approximately 3,000,000 tonnes per year of green “waste” subsequently burnt.

This, if allowed to proceed will be a national and international disgrace, and go against every national and international parameter for combating global warming and maintaining bio-diversity.

John Day
Rowella