Andrew Harvey
Natural Values Consultant
Three Capes Track
Parks and Wildlife Service
GPO Box 1751
Hobart TAS 7001
[email protected]
Dear Mr Harvey,
I write in response to the Tasmanian Government’s Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan for the Three Capes Track.
The Tasman National Park was conserved for its outstanding coastal formations as well as the diverse ecosystems contained within its small area: cloud rainforest, coastal heathland, wet and dry sclerophyll forests and buttongrass moorland. It also boasts a third of all plant species found in Tasmania and is home to rare and locally endemic plants such as eyebright, cliff heath, rockfield daisybush and rigid heath. It is a stunning area of Tasmania and I welcome improvements to tracks and some facilities which will make the visitor experience more enjoyable. But the wilderness ambience of this spectacular place will be lost if the project goes ahead as outlined. National parks are classified as World Conservation Union category II reserves which have the protection of biodiversity and ecological processes as their priority and also aim to promote education and recreation within parks.
In promoting the Three Capes Track the DPIPWE has deliberately designed a walk and infrastructure that would appeal to people with little or no bushwalking experience. This is evidenced by the extremely wide track that is proposed and its construction of rock and gravel, which essentially amounts to a footpath being laid through the entire length of the national park. This is in opposition to the narrower, natural trails with some supporting infrastructure, such as duckboarding, that currently exist out to Cape Pillar. The proposal for the massive public huts and commercial huts and all the associated infrastructure for storage, helicopters and toilets also points to a target market with little or no experience of bushwalking and camping.
Attracting new walkers to national parks for education and to provide appropriate recreation opportunities is a worthy object for a national park. When people are helped to experience the joys and wonder of the natural world it increases their understanding of people’s place in the world and the importance of conservation. However, attracting inexperienced walkers to national parks could be said to pose risks for flora and fauna. Novice walkers may not fully understand the great importance of washing down gear to stop the spread of Phytophthorra and weeds. They may also not understand the ease with which eagles and other fauna may be disturbed by noise and activity.
With this in mind the spread of weeds and Phytophthorra have to be considered significant risks with this proposal, as does disturbance of breeding eagles. While threatened species may not be near the proposed track or buildings, an expansion of Phytophthorra across the park will pose a threat. Despite the track being re‐routed to provide buffer zones to identified eagle nests, there will still be the impact on eagles of numerous helicopter flights in and out of the hut areas for servicing and along the track during construction, as well as the noise and activity of the estimated 10,000 walkers annually. The proposal creates a buffer zone of 1km around nests for helicopter flights but provides no evidence for this being an adequate distance to prevent disturbance. When the population of the Wedge‐tailed eagle is at such a precarious level and has been thought to be either stable or in decline, no chances should be taken with the breeding pairs we have left.
The department’s documentation outlines that the Indigenous assessment of the sites of the track and hut nodes has not been completed for various reasons. We cannot allow another disastrous Brighton Bypass situation to occur where important heritage is not identified before construction begins. This assessment must be finished before federal or state approval can be given for any work to begin. What is of great concern to me is the threat this project poses to the purpose and management of national parks for biodiversity and conservation, especially when prudent and feasible alternatives to this proposal are available.
The footprints of each of the accommodation nodes will be massive for such a small park and unlike anything seen in Tasmanian national parks or elsewhere in Australia for that matter. The public 48‐bed huts will have a roof area of at least 200m2: the size of a standard tennis court. There will then be four toilets, a rainwater tank, a helicopter pad, and a storage shed with a fire buffer zone surrounding it. Then with four of the nodes, within 1 kilometre will be a commercial hut, which will presumably be more spacious than the public huts to justify the cost, that will sleep 13 people and will also have to have toilet facilities and presumably storage and a fire buffer zone.
The Overland Walk, which attracts around 8000 walkers a year, has much smaller public hut infrastructure and doesn’t provide cooking and bedding. It could be argued that the exposed location and associated weather of the Overland Track necessitates shelter for walker safety. The same cannot be said of the Three Capes proposal, which is located in a windy but relatively temperate zone of Tasmania with relatively low rainfall compared to the Overland Track, and certainly no snow. The Three Capes proposal represents an unacceptably large development within a national park, especially one as small as the Tasman National Park. I submit that the walk does not need huts of the size being proposed, commercial huts should be sited where they don’t need helicopter servicing, outside the park, and that track work does not need to be as artificial as that proposed. The local community’s suggestion of creating a track which mirrors the successful Great Ocean Walk in Victoria would avoid many of the problems outlined with overdevelopment. Walkers could easily be picked up at points along the track to use private accommodation or elect to use public campgrounds.
The Tasman Peninsula is already a popular walking destination but there are problems with current facilities. Current tracks are in relatively good condition with duckboarding and other infrastructure to protect more sensitive areas but could use some work on parts of the track which may be leading to erosion or vegetation damage. Camping areas are not clearly identified and there are no toilet facilities anywhere along current overnight walking tracks. This can endanger walker safety by polluting water sources and creating visually unappealing areas where toilet waste is not buried deeply enough or animals dig it up. I certainly welcome improvements to tracks and the installation of toilets, with water tanks and clear delineation of camping areas. Creating new tracks or improving links between existing tracks and marketing the park as a multi‐day walk destination is also welcome, as long as the track routes do not pose dangers to the spread of Phytophthorra, weeds or erosion and are not duplicating what already exists.
Providing these improvements to current facilities and marketing the park as a destination for short and long walks with clear information available for would‐be walkers would bring more people into the area to help local businesses. Tourism marketing should focus on getting people down to the Tasman Peninsula for a couple of days or more, rather than letting people think everything can be experienced in a day trip from Hobart, or that Port Arthur is the only thing to see. I seriously question the inclusion of a lengthy boat link in the Three Capes proposal as potentially unsustainable and which may lead to costly bailouts in future. If something goes wrong with the boat or its operation it leaves walkers stranded or entails the Parks Service to provide alternative transport to the next section which is a costly use of staff and resources. This money would be much better spent enlarging the size of the park by purchasing adjacent private land of high conservation value.
Our Parks Service needs adequate funding and staffing. Our parks are a major tourism drawcard as well as being much loved by locals and an important component of our land management. Good facilities can be provided and maintained without resorting to massive over‐development and we all know of other popular walks in the state which are crying out for track and facility improvements. It is difficult to comprehend why the department wants to put all of its eggs in the one basket with the Three Capes Track, when spreading that funding around could improve facilities across the state so more regions of Tasmania can be marketed for their great overnight walking opportunities to supplement the already popular 60 Great Short Walks brochure and advertising.
Yours sincerely
Senator Bob Brown
Australian Greens Leader
First published: 2011-12-23 05:16 AM
