Charles and Claire Gilmour
AS stakeholders in the appropriate protection of surrounding rainforest, water catchment and significant endangered species habitat, we also have been refused information: Complaint to Forestry Tas. Geoff Law charged

The truth of the matter is, neither FT nor the FPA will freely give information (some of which they don’t have anyway, ie the long term effects of their practices) to ANYONE (besides their own), no matter what or who is threatened by their forest practices. They will use any excuse to weasel out of their obligations to the Tasmanian community. Forestry’s role is clearly becoming one of, not forest managers, but a bully boy SLAPP force.

And the Governments role? Well it appears Labor’s legacy to Tasmania is to willingly sacrifice Tasmania’s natural resources. Continue to sacrifice previously crown land which was converted by a former Liberal premier and now Gunns director into state forest. Thereby allowing his company to clearfell it and use it as they wish, with no possibility of any other use, ie food production, endangered species habitat, carbon storage, to ever exist. And the price for the honour of using what was public land? NIL.

How proud David Bartlett must be to continue to support an ex liberal premier’s dream. That’s a very clever Labor Premier! Labor was a joke under Lennon and it continues to be so under Bartlett. Bartlett is a fool if he thinks he rules. As every time he allows Forestry Tasmania to ignore the public, he proves his weakness.

Below are letters requesting information from Forestry and the Forest Practices Board and the Forest Practices Board response. The upshot being – no info from them until we supply information! But then again that is the name of their game isn’t it. Smoke, mirrors, merry-go- rounds, ultimately hiding and denying the truth.

Is it any wonder so many are becoming more wild and feeling more threatened as time goes on.

Read for yourself:

FOREST PRACTICES AUTHORITY
Aidan Flanagan
Inquiries : y-v^ AOOZ: COOA
Phone : 0362337954 Fax , : MC07/1062
Our re I :
3 lsi July 2007

Charles and Clair Gilmour 311 Coopers Road ROCKY CAPE TAS 7321
Dear Mr and Ms Gilmour
Thank you for your email of 7 July 2007 in which you raised a number of issues regarding Forestry Practices Plan (FPP) DAS0028.
I am advised that Mr Mike Farrow, District Manager, Murchison District, Forestry Tasmania, met will you recently on site to discuss issues raised directly with them.
You will appreciate your email covered a wide range of issues and in order to better respond, I shall address each concern/request individually and in the order presented.
1. This issue has been raised with Forestry Tasmania and they have agreed to review the structure with a view to assessing whether there are any current actions required to protect the creek’s natural value.
2. Roads which are in existence at the time a FPP is prepared are only required to be upgraded if they are causing or likely to cause significant environmental damage to soil or water values.
3. This will be reviewed as per comment 1.
4. The Forest Practices Code 2000 requires neighbours within 100m of the boundary of planned forestry practices are to be notified. This requirement encourages effective communication and consultation during the planning phase. If your boundary is outside the 100m requirement, there is no obligation for Forestry Tasmania to notify you. Please advise if your property is within this zone and you were not advised of the planned activity.
5. Please elaborate as the Authority can only respond to specific issues.
6. As per response 5.
7. As per response 5.
8. As per response 5.
30 Patrick Street. Hobart. Tasmania. Australia 7000
Phone: (03) 6233 7966 Fax: (03) 6233 7954
email: info I/1 fpa.tas.gov.au

9. The Code provides guidelines when restrictions are appropriately applied. Please provide specifics regarding weather conditions, dates and what, if any, adverse effects resulted.
10. The movement of machinery between Coupes does not require a specific Forest Practices Plan.
1 1 . Access issues are not within the jurisdiction of the Forest Practices Act.
12. Investigations are professionally and independently undertaken in response to all allegations raised. Such investigations may require consultation with land managers, and others. The Forest Practices Authority does not believe that further investigation is warranted in relation to this matter.
13. Site specific reports are not necessarily required for every instance under which a FPP applies. Generic prescriptions apply with respect to many values.
I am not able to respond to your request for unspecified reports and information covering a wide range of topics, but would be happy to provide information in relation to any specific reports that are held by the Forest Practices Authority.
Finally, the Authority has no role in independent and voluntary certification schemes, such as those applying under the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). I note you have raised with issues directly with the AFS secretariat and Forestry Tasmania.
Yours sincerely
i )
Graham Wilkinson
Chief Forest Practices Officer

…

4th July 2007

Aidan Flanagan
& Graham Wilkinson
Forest Practices Officer & Chief Forest Practices Officer
Forest Practices Authority

Dear Mr Flanagan & Mr Wilkinson,

Formal Complaints.

We, Charles and Claire Gilmour of 311 Coopers Road, Rocky Cape formally allege breaches on a new forestry road extending from Newhaven spur 3 (FPP – DAS0028), traveling towards Millicent Valley, as follows:

1. Constructing inadequate and inefficient “fill” bridges over Hook Creek and adjoining streams – the introduced fill over a concrete culvert will ultimately introduce silt to the creeks.
2. The road traverses parallel to Hook Creek for some 500m but does not have a 40 m buffer.
3. Inadequate siltation traps on gutters and table drains affecting all crossed creeks in the area. Subsequent siltation has occurred. Photo evidence and on site siltation.
4. No notification to us on the construction of these bridges over Hook Creek and feeder streams which ultimately affects our water supply and quality of water and the habitat of the Federally Protected Giant Fresh Water Lobster and many other fish species.
5. Inadequate protection of upper catchment of Hook Creek which ultimately eventually supplies water to our and other homes and farms in the area.
6. No taking into account and consideration and subsequent protection, of the upper reaches of Hook Creek which have been declared an Undisturbed River by the Australian Heritage Commission.
7. Inadequate protection of Millicent Valley – a Forestry Commissioned protected area and a known ecological sensitive area. (see attached photo)
8. Inadequate protection of the Giant Freshwater Lobster and its habitat.
9. Construction of 4km and 5.1 km of road in extremely wet weather.
10. Inadequate management, planning and duty of care by Murchinson District Forest Manager and Road Construction Manager by allowing two bulldozers without an FPP plan to walk the machines from the end of Newhaven spur 3 Extension (FPP – DAS0028) to Southern Break extension (FPP – DAS0017).
11. Additionally we lodge a formal complaint on the complete and dangerous blockage of our only alternative escape route in the event of fire or flood, due to 3 locked FT gates. We have previously requested a key, but have been ignored. This was always available to us prior to FT coming into the area.
12. Also, our alleged breach and formal complaint regarding inadequate fire break on coupe CF017A, has not been adequately addressed by the FPA. No one from FT or FPA has actually looked at the site with us. And specifically in regard to Graham Wilkinson’s letter dated 27th June 2007 (FPA06/107.9) FT Murchinson staff have specifically refused to meet with us on site in respect of the burn, although we requested this on 2 occasions in person and once on the phone. Is Forestry interested in the publics and neighbours concerns? As per Aidan Flanagans email 15/3/07 – “The Authority appreciates the role members of the public play in helping to ensure best practices are consistently applied under forest practices.” We don’t believe best practices, let alone safe practices, were applied. We assumed the FPA was there to address alleged breaches? When will this be done? As it is now out of FT’s hands, and an alleged breach, the FPA must address this. We understand as a public service and as an authority to ensure proper Forestry Practices, you are there to serve the public, is this correct? Or is the FPA there only to serve the interests of Forestry Tasmania? What is the point of any FPA, if you people just ring FT and ask whether everything is ok and they say yes, so you don’t investigate? Is it no wonder Forestry as whole has such a bad reputation? Anyone who looks at the site can see there has not been an adequate fire break. As it was the FT Murchinson District Road Manager who told us he was the one who lit the fire, we wonder about his experience in fire management. As there is no doubt that Forestry fires have got out of control previously, recalling to mind that ancient tree, El Grande and just recently FT’s apology to Devonport residents of smoke problems, due to unforeseen changed weather conditions. If this had “accidentally” happened here, with the lack of an adequate fire break, and the dry nature of the forest at the time, we would have been burnt out. As a formal complaint we want this issue properly addressed through the appropriate channels, namely the FPA.
13. We also allege no reports on the following have been done by either FT or FPA in regard to Forestry operations in the Newhaven spur 3 and Southern break road/Hook creek road areas.

As there is obviously going to be high impact broadscale intensive clear felling in this area, with a potential to affect our lifestyle, health, water quantity and quality and ultimately our livelihoods, as well as profoundly effect the environment through destruction of ecosystems – the ecology and biodiversity of the area, we would appreciate being supplied with the following:

1. Scientific reports on the studies FT/FPA has done on the Federally protected Giant Freshwater Lobster in the area.
2. Scientific reports on the studies FT/FPA has done on the currently disease free Tasmanian Devils residing in the area.
3. Scientific reports on the current water quality of the many creeks and what follow up measures will be in place to test the water quality to ensure the protection of the Giant Fresh Water Lobster.
4. Scientific reports on the current water quality of the many creeks and what follow up measures will be in place to test the water quality to ensure the protection of our quality of water prior to and after any poisoning.
5. Scientific reports on the endangered bird species residing in the area. Including the Wedge Tailed Eagle, the Grey Goshawk, Azure Kingfisher.
6. Scientific reports on the Burrowing Crayfish in the area.
7. Scientific reports on any endangered flora in the area. Such as the banksia serrata. Protection of wire grass which does not regenerate after a burn.
8. Documentation on each river, creek and stream, class 1, 2, 3, 4, and what protection buffers each of these many many creeks have been given.
9. Hydrology reports on the water catchment supplying the district.
10. Scientific reports on the water consumption of the, to be, introduced plantations or new resown regrowth over the life of the plantations/regrowth and the effects this will have on water availability down stream. Obviously highly important considering global warming/ climate change/effects of drought and water shortages especially over summer periods.
11. Scientific reports on the overall impact on the ecology and biodiversity of clearfelling such a vast area. In total approx 6000 acres including what has already been clear felled.
12. Scientific and health reports on the impact to our health from smoke inhalation when burning off such a vast area, obviously over a number of years.
13. The amount of, application manner, and type of poisons that will be used in spraying any eventual plantations.
14. Scientific reports on soil viability after cut/burn/poison/plantation rotations.
15. As this area is State Forest and thus still owned by the public, what would be the projected financial return to Forestry on this area: a) from woodchips, saw logs, speciality timbers, manferns harvested by way of clear felling? b) from timber company’s lease of land to grow their tree plantations/regrowth/specilalty timbers? c) from the water supplied to the plantations/regrowth?
16. Where will the saw logs and wood chips from this area be down stream processed, in Tasmania or overseas?
17. How long will the forest companies have use of this State Forest land to grow their tree plantations/regrowth? If gates are to be erected, how long will they have sole use of this land for?
18. Will you be appropriately notifying us and Tasmanian Fire Services in future of windrow or regeneration burns in the Shakespeare Hills area? And in future we will require a Fire plan.
19. As Millicent Valley is an ecologically sensitive area, what prescriptions will FT/FPA put in place to protect this valley?

As Forestry Tasmania/Forest Practices Authority says it does these reports 3-5 years prior to logging, we assume, as we have been told by FT Murchinson District Manager Mike Farrow this area will be logged in 2008, the reports have been done prior to the recent roads going in and would subsequently be available to us. Mike Farrow said FT does not do these reports, but it is the FPA in conjuction with DPWI who does them. Thus we request them from the FPA. As per the Good Neighbour Charter “We will consult with local government on three year forward plans as required under the Forest Practices Act”.

If these reports have not been done we would require experts to assess the above issues and supply answers to all our questions prior to further road construction and logging/clearfelling in this area.

Another local creeks catchment, Crayfish creek, has been all but destroyed due to forest practices. We obviously are very concerned about not only losing our and our local communities only water supply/catchment, but the detrimental long term effects on the environment.

In accordance with the Australian Forest Standard requirements for certification under the following criteria, we require our above concerns to be fully addressed, and for us to be notified and consulted with in regard to any Mawbanna/Montumana/Shakespeare Hills/Hook Creek/Crayfish Creek area forestry operations. We require notification in writing, as previously telephoning us of a FT fire an hour or so prior to the fire whilst we are at work is inadequate.

As per AFS

4.3 Criterion 3 – Forest management shall protect and maintain the biological diversity of forests, including their successional stages, across the regional landscape

Note – The intent of the requirements under this criterion is to protect and maintain the elements of the biological diversity of forests, including where relevant:

– ecosystem diversity, by maintaining the range of ecosystems across the landscape;
– species diversity, by maintaining forest dependent species; and
– genetic diversity, by maintaining representative species populations across their range.

While the criterion is largely focused on native forest management, it is relevant to some aspects of plantation management such as planning and establishment. Other issues relating to biological diversity are addressed under Criterion 5, which addresses forest ecosystem health and vitality.
4.3.1 The forest manager shall actively identify and assess the significance of biological diversity values and structural elements (such as standing and fallen dead wood and hollow bearing trees) to support the maintenance and protection of identified Significant Biological Diversity Values.
The assessment of the significance of biological diversity values shall be based on existing relevant knowledge and forest planning instruments and shall be undertaken in a regional context.
4.3.2 The forest manager shall identify and assess the bioregional impact on identified Significant Biological Diversity Values of converting native vegetation to plantation or non-forest cover when planning the conversion of that vegetation and ensure that planning and practices support the protection and maintenance of Significant Biological Diversity Values likely to be affected by forest operations.
The forest manager shall not undertake conversion, except in circumstances where conversion entails a limited portion of the forest type at the bioregional level and where it is reasonably certain that it does not involve viable examples of:
_ threatened (including vulnerable, rare or endangered) forest ecosystems;
_ old-growth forest that is rare or depleted within a forest ecosystem; and
_ important habitat of threatened (including vulnerable, rare or endangered) species.
In addition, the forest manager shall not carry out conversion of native vegetation which would result in that vegetation community or ecosystem becoming threatened or endangered in accordance with Commonwealth, State and Territory laws, regulations or species recovery plans.

As significant conversion of native forest to plantation has already taken place in this catchment, and FT is intending on clearfelling the rest, we allege FT will be threatening the ecosystem, catchment and the endangered species and their habitat in the area. What is FPA intending to do to ensure this does not happen?

4.6 Criterion 6 – Forest management shall protect soil and water resources
Note – The intent of the requirements under this criterion is to maintain the protective and productive functions of forests and their ecosystem services to society through good management of factors, such as erosion, vegetation cover, and chemical pollutants and contaminants that affect a range of important soil and water properties, such as soil biology, structure and fertility, water quality and water flows.
Other issues relating to protection of soil and water resources are addressed under Criterion 4, which addresses maintenance of long-term site productivity.
4.6.1 The forest manager shall identify and assess the inherent soil and water values that can be adversely affected by forest operations in order to maintain the productive and protective functions of the forest.
4.6.2 The forest manager shall manage forest operations to minimise adverse changes to water quality (physical, chemical or biological) with the objective of:
_ minimising transport of soil from disturbed areas into waterways;
_ maintaining riparian zones and protective buffer strips; and
_ designing, constructing and maintaining temporary and permanent roads and roadway crossings of waterways to recognised standards intended to minimize degradation of water quality.
Note – Requirement 4.6.5 addresses contamination from chemical, fuel and oil pollutants.
4.6.3 The forest manager shall manage forest operations to ensure hydrological flows are in accordance with authorised regional catchment goals, where they exist.

Where regional catchment goals do not exist, the forest manager shall minimise adverse environmental impacts of changes in hydrological flows by ensuring that:
_ both long term and short term disturbances to hydrological flows relative to the existing situation are taken into account; and
_ the environmental impacts of both increased and reduced hydrological flows are taken into account.

To ensure FT’s and the subsequent involved Forest Company’s gaining certification obviously, can the FPA adequately address the above criteria?

As we have significant and numerous legitimate concerns and are significant stakeholders, (please see attached AFS letter regarding formally registering ourselves as stakeholders) we would appreciate an on site meeting to discuss these issues at your earliest convenience. As FT, and no doubt the FPA, has been aware of the above issues for a number of weeks, we would appreciate a meeting with a Forest Practices Authority Officer within the next couple of weeks.

Yours Sincerely,

Charles and Claire Gilmour
311 Coopers Road
Rocky Cape, TAS, 7321

Attachments:
Millicent Valley Sign declaring area as environmentally fragile
Giant Freshwater Lobster – Rare Blue – in Hook Creek
Hook Creek – untouched
Crayfish Creek – typical crossing in area – feeder creeks/catchment destroyed
Tas Undisturbed River map from Aust. Heritage Commission

Accompanying email:
AFS letter registering as a stakeholder

Cc Hon. Member Paul Lennon
Cc Hon. Member Malcolm Turnbull
Cc Hon. Member Paula Wriedt