Proposed Logging / Plantation - Mt Arthur, Lilydale

Information Brief

Proposed Logging/Plantation - Mt Arthur, Lilydale

13 November 2009

RESIDENTS SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

Residents and community groups from Mt Arthur, Lilydale, fear that a proposed new clearfell logging and plantation development front could compromise the town water supplies, put log trucks on residential roads, degrade their living environment and be visible from many part of the surrounding district.

Logging and plantation is proposed on an approximately 246 acre private block that immediately abuts Lilydale’s town water intake and includes critical areas of Rocky Creek and the water catchment for the supply. The land is in Launceston City Council’s Scenic Protection Zone and Water Catchment Protection Zone.


The proposal will see logging and plantations move into rural living areas on the north-west of Mt Arthur, only a kilometre from the edge of Lilydale village. Roads for log truck access are steep, narrow and have blind corners, causing fears for community safety. The roads also provide access to tourists wishing to visit Mt Arthur’s attractive summit walk. The proposal may also impact on the property values of land used for rural living.

Mt Arthur residents are urgently negotiating with the people proposing the operations, and trying to gain a copy of a Forest Practices Plan, but have also asked Launceston City Council and Ben Lomond Water to assess the proposal and to talk to the Forest Practices Authority to ensure any proposal does not compromise the town water supply or cause community safety issues.

Launceston City Council and Ben Lomond Water are also being asked to consider other ways to protect Lilydale’s town water catchment into the future.

The giant freshwater crayfish, Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish and threatened vegetation communities are believed to be present on the land.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON PROPOSAL

Notification of Proposed Forest Practices – 186 Mountain Rd

A Notice of Intent to conduct forest practices on a parcel of land at 186 Mountain Rd (Title Ref: 158217/1 and 158217/2, PID 1809506) has been issued to adjacent landowners (see attached location map and title plan). The notice identifies these practices as clearfelling and selective harvesting, then converting land to plantation as well as regeneration to native forest.

The notice, issued on the 12/10/09, indicated that forest practices would commence around the 1/11/09. The notice was issued by M.J. Fitch (Real Forest Planning), theForest Practices Officer preparing the Forest Practices Plan (FPP), on behalf of Leigh Bardenhagen who is provided as the contact point (phone no. provided) for further information. A FPP was not available at the time of notification.

Additional Information from Meeting – 28th October 2009

Further information on the proposal was provided to resident representatives at a meeting with Leigh Bardenhagen and Martin Fitch (FPO) on the 28th October 2009, and is summarised in the following.

• The FPP was yet to be certified but forest operations were proposed to commence in mid November 2009 and be complete by early March 2010. The aim was to have the FPP certified within two weeks to allow a start to operations (note these timeframes now appear to have changed).
• Operations will be dominated by clearfell logging and conversion to E. nitens plantation but also include some areas of selective harvesting (with native forest regeneration) to the southern boundary and north-east corner.
• Aerial spraying with pesticides could be used in plantation management if necessary. Only non-residual herbicides (ie. glysophate) will be used and applied through ground based delivery methods such as boom sprays.
• Mountain Rd will be used by log trucks at the expected rate of 4 truck movements per day for an approximate period of 3 months. Truck warning signs will be installed (but not maintained if vandalised) and Leigh offered to liaise with residents to see if truck movements can be timed to minimise impacts on residents and visitors using Mountain Rd. (Residents noted that log truck traffic will be significantly worse during future harvest of the proposed plantation).
• The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) has issued recommendations on several matters related to the proposal, including biodiversity, landscape, and water and soil management. The FPP will incorporate the recommendations of the FPA.
• 1080 baiting will not be used to control browsing animals. Control will be achieved through shooting and protecting trees from damage.
• A fire management plan will be developed as part of the FPP.
• Forest operations will be excluded from areas identified as Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest. Areas of E. viminalis wet forest may be selectively logged. (It was suggested by the residents that the current draft FPP may not reflect the protection of the full extent of these communities. Martin indicated he would review and adjust the draft FPP if necessary).
• Class 2 streams will have 50m streamside buffers, Class 3 streams will have 20m buffers and Class 4 will have 15m buffers (Note increased streamside buffers on Rock Creek (Class 2) have responded to the requirements of C4.4 of the FP Code. It is understood that the FPA has sought the 15m buffers to Class 4 streams).
• Visual terrain modelling has been undertaken to determine likely scenic impacts based on a selection of viewing points in the wider Lilydale area (eg near Plovers Ridge, Second River Rd). This has influenced the proposal for only selective logging in much of the area south of Rocky Ck, with regeneration to native forest.
• Martin noted that the Forest Practices Code (‘the Code’) states at C4.4 that no more than 5% of a town water supply catchment should be felled annually. Prior to FPP certification, the FPO will determine whether this operation will exceed this requirement. Other operations on Forestry Tasmania and private land are already taking place in the catchment and these must be included in these calculations.
• The potential for individual adjacent landowners to negotiate retention of a buffer to their boundary (through a payment to proponent) was ruled out.
• Martin was unable to provide any advice on potential impacts that a plantation may have on water recharge/yield into Rocky Ck and related impacts on the town water intake point.
• Martin was unable to comment on potential impacts on surrounding property values as a result of the proposed operations.

LAND TENURE AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Current Land Tenure and Zoning.

The current owner of the 246 acre (99.86 ha) lot is Hume and Kerrison Pty Ltd but it is understood that the contractor proposing to undertake the forest practices is in the process of purchasing the land. It is unknown when the contract is due to be finalised or what conditions are attached. The parcel is under a Private Timber Reserve (PTR).

Large portions of the land are covered by Special Zones – Water Catchment Protection and Scenic Protection Zones under the Launceston City Council (LCC) Planning Scheme. Title Ref: 158217/1 is zoned as Rural and the smaller 158217/2 is zoned Forest Practices.

Lilydale’s Town Water Supply

Over 65% of the parcel is under Launceston City Council’s (LCC) Water Catchment Protection Zone. The land includes long sections of Rocky Creek and its tributaries and the associated water catchments which feed one of the intakes for Lilydale’s town water supply. The land abuts the parcel owned by LCC, which includes the water intake, and appears to contain a significant part of the Rocky Creek catchment, critical for water quality management. It is understood Ben Lomond Water now manages the water assets (eg tanks, dam wall, intake point, pipes) but it is unclear what their role is in regard to water catchment management.

The current proposal will see a relatively significant portion of the Rocky Creek town water supply catchment converted to plantation. Plantation development in this location has the potential to reduce water recharge into Rocky Ck and therefore impact on Lilydale’s town water supplies. This impact may be exacerbated by other potential operation and conversions in the Rocky Ck catchment. The FPP and FPA do not appear to have made any assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal on future water recharge / quantity in Rocky Ck.

Residents are concerned that, under the proposed FPP, aerial spraying of pesticides is able to be undertaken in the Rocky Ck catchment and adjacent residences. This has the potential to impact on drinking water quality.

Both water quality and quantity impacts, have potential to impact on the threatened species that are reliant on riparian habitat.

It is understood a ‘Waterwatch’ site is regularly monitored on Rocky Creek downstream of the proposal.

Mountain Road Safety

The intent is to use Mountain Road for log truck access and egress.

Due to its narrow, steep, gravel surface and blind corners, residents have very high safety concerns in regard to proposed use of Mountain Rd by log trucks. A number of resident’s driveways also enter onto Mountain Rd and the road needs grading annually to maintain an acceptable surface. Due to these conditions, the level of proposed log truck movement can only increase the probability of accidents and ‘near misses’ as well as the consequences of such events. Even at low speeds vehicles often have to quickly pull close to the verge of the road to avoid collision with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. With wide log trucks, the ability to take such actions to avoid collision will be significantly reduced and potentially dangerous. In many sections of road where passing log trucks will be near impossible, it will also be difficult to safely reverse considerable distances to find a point where trucks can pass each other. As we presume log trucks will not wish to reverse, it will be other road uses that will have to do this.

Leigh has offered to further discuss the timing of log truck movements on Mountain Rd but residents do not believe this will provide any significant mitigation of the increased risks.

Scenic Amenity and Landscape Character

Over 75% of the parcels is under LCC’s Scenic Protection Zoning suggesting that tree cover on the land is likely to be visible from parts of the Lilydale-Karoola-Lalla area.

Mountain Road, which is a rural living precinct, is lined by almost contiguous tracts of bushland. Any development or land use visible from the road is rural residential in character. The road is used by bushwalkers and tourist walking to the summit of Mt Arthur. Given the scale of the proposal, there appears to be potential to adversely impact on the landscape character and residential amenity of the area, with subsequent impacts on property values.

Natural values

Both the threatened giant freshwater crayfish (Astacopsis gouldii) and the Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish (Engageus orramakunna) have been recorded in very close proximity to the parcel and both are likely to be present within it. Both species

habitat is associated with waterways and drainage seeps. Skemps snail may also be present.

Two threatened vegetation communities Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest and Eucalyptus viminalis wet forest are mapped (TasVeg) as being present on the parcel. Other threatened mammal fauna species, including spotted tail quoll, are likely to utilise habitat on the parcel. Approximately 90 acres of private land to the east of the proposal is covenanted under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, given its significant natural values.

The proposal has potential to impact on all these natural or conservation values.

Economic Values

This is potential for forest practices in this location to impact on property values associated with rural living in the immediate area as well as the broader Lilydale area. There is also potential impacts on any future local tourism pursuits in the area (eg. visitor accommodation)

MT ARTHUR RESIDENT ACTION TO DATE

Mt Arthur residents’ response to proposed forest practices

Nearly all Mt Arthur residents, who have been regularly meeting since notification, are generally opposed to clearfell logging involving conversion to plantation on this property. This opposition is due to potential impacts to water, the visual and rural living environment, and ongoing community safety issues into the future.

Conversely, some residents have indicated they may be willing to accept a selective logging regime across the property (retaining buffers to streamsides, roadsides and threatened communities), with regeneration to native forest, as long as Mountain Rd is not used for log truck traffic.

To date, the affected group of Mt Arthur residents have agreed to focus on direct discussions with the proponent and relevant authorities (Council, Ben Lomond Water, Forest Practices Authority) rather than trying to work through the mass media or to secure wider community opposition through public meetings and the like. Residents have taken this approach because they believed it was the decent thing to do, because they are loathed to further destabilise the Lilydale community, because they hoped to demonstrate that their individual concerns are sincere and that they are seeking discussions in good faith.

Discussion with Proponent and FPO

Residents have been meeting with Leigh to obtain further information and to determine if he will compromise on the proposal. At this point the only area of likely compromise appears to be around protecting a 20m visual buffer to Mountain Road and potentially ruling out any activities in the far north-east corner of the block, due to the presence of multiple drainage lines and paperbark swamp.

Residents are also discussing other potential land use options with Leigh but there is currently no clear indication that such options would be acceptable to Leigh (see Other Land Use Options).

The FPO has only provided residents with a draft map of proposed activities (see attachment). At the first meeting, the FPO indicated he would provide a complete draft

FPP (at a cost of $50) but, after further follow up by residents, he is yet to provide this detailed document. The FPO has since indicated he does not intend to provide residents with a draft FPP at this point in time. The reason provided was that consultation with Launceston City Council has potential to change to the plan and, if the plan was provided to residents in its current form they may become unnecessarily concerned about its content.

Launceston City Council

After some lobbying by residents and key Aldermen, LCC have drafted a fairly comprehensive letter to the FPA (see attachment) requesting that any certification of a FPP be suspended until such time as Council has had an opportunity to assess potential impacts and full consultation between Council and the proponent has taken place. In this letter Council has also indicated it is seeking to undertake impact assessments in regard to hydrology, flora and fauna, visual amenity and heavy vehicle movement.

It is noted that Section A3.2 of the Forest Practices Code 2000 states that consultation with local government will occur prior to certification of FPPs involving: - areas with landscape protection provisions in planning schemes; operations which potentially affect water quality in a listed town water supply catchment (see Appendix 2); operations within 2km upstream of a town water supply intake; construction of new access or major upgrading of existing access for timber harvesting onto local government roads.” Rocky Ck intake (028) is listed in Appendix 2 of the code. This provides LCC with a mandate to pursuit these issues with the FPA or proponent.

Ben Lomond Water

While Ben Lomond Water has been tardy in responding to residents’ concerns, it is understood they have now written to the FPA seeking some involvement in the issue.

Forest Practices Authority

The FPAs only response to date has been to encourage residents, prior to certification of an FPP, to seek information relating to their concerns from the proponent. The FPA indicated that if a copy of the FPP cannot be obtained from the proponent after certification, then residents should request a copy from the FPA via Freedom of Information processes.

Exploration of Other Land Use Options

The current land owner, Hume and Kerrison, have had the land parcel on the real estate market for at least 8 (?) months. During this period adjacent landowners are

aware of a number of parties that have been interested in purchasing the land to build a house. It is understood that LCC had advised some potential purchasers that there are likely to be issues associated with rezoning of the land and removal of the PTR. This may have resulted in parties withdrawing their interest in purchasing the land.

Residents have explored several alternative land use options amongst themselves, with the proponent and other authorities. While problematic, one option for the community is to try and negotiate with the current owner, Hume and Kerrison, and the proponent (who is in the process of purchasing the parcel) to purchase the land themselves. If this were achievable, the intent would be to covenant the land (to prevent future forest practices) and to then on sell for development of 1-3 dwellings. However, this would rely on the community being able to raise finances and LCC providing some sought of ‘in principle’ approval allowing development of dwellings. It is presumed that LCC would see such development as a better outcome for water quality than the proposed forest practices.

A more preferable option would be for LCC or Ben Lomond Water to consider a joint purchase and reconfiguration of the parcel, potentially in partnership with the community, to covenant and protect key parts of the water catchment while allowing building envelopes for sustainable development of dwellings.

FUTURE ACTIONS

Mt Arthur resident are continuing to negotiate, lobby authorities and inform the community on a range of fronts.

The following actions are currently being pursued by Mt Arthur residents:

• Ongoing meetings and correspondence with Launceston City Council and Ben Lomond Water
• Ongoing meetings and correspondence with proponent (Leigh)
• Coordination of Information Evening for wider Lilydale community
• Provide detailed information and meet with other local community groups (eg LPG, MEAMG, LPA)
• Explore options for independent assessment and audit of proposed Forest Practices Plan
• Coordinate independent forest hydrological assessment to identify likely impacts on water
• Discussion with Tasmanian Land Conservancy about covenanting/purchase options
• Further contact with FPA to determine what actions they are undertaking

As previously noted, Mt Arthur residents have avoided a media campaign (radio, TV, newspaper, community rallies, fund raising) to date. However, residents group recognise this issue has implications for the wider Lilydale community and that the residents cannot prevent other individuals or groups taking what ever action they see fit. It is acknowledged that once current avenues for discussion and negotiation have been exhausted, there may be a mood to involve the media in seeking to gain a satisfactory outcome.