Bushwalk Australia

Check out my blogpost which in turn links to a Tasmanian Times article that drew my attention to this issue after I heard it discussed on the Ryk Goddard show. http://tastrekker.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/dam-proposed-for-world-heritage-area.html

Here's the basics...
Weir to be constructed on Fish River directly below Walls of Jerusalem (WoJ) walking track car park. Water to be piped 1km downstream to a power station where the WoJ Road turns off Mersey Forest Road. Water will be returned to the river just above the road bridge. They will kindly allow minimum environmental flow equivalent to 10% of summer flow. An access road will be constructed to the power station and along the pipeline to the weir. Power lines will run to Fisher Power Station via Dublin Plains.

Meander Valley Council approval has been obtained and the appeal period ended yesterday. I think this could get built before we know it. Has anybody seen any new work going on? If anyone's going to the WoJ sometime soon please check it out and report back.

The whole box and dice (except power lines) is to be inside the World Heritage Area. What do people think?

HAVE NOT HEARD A THING RE THIS, WILL CERTAINLY CHECK IT OUT, THANKS TASTREKKER! CHEERS GRANNY

I only caught up on this a week ago really bizarre stuff Huh? I'm a little torn as the land is a little degraded and it may well be used to create relatively low impact power however siting it within the WHA is an unwelcome precedent surely....

Strangely enough I witnessed Luke Martin, head of Tourism Tasmania and Simon Currant, developer, gazing across dove lake the other day I wonder what those two are up to .....

Hmm first I've heard of it.

Like SBS I am a little wary of jumping to conclusions either way at the moment - it is a disturbed area and the river flows into a very disturbed lake! But I certainly agree with precedence setting. I am concerned.

If it affects access to the normal Walls walking route, or it's general ambiance (noise, clearing of forest visible from the track) then no way!

I guess the question that needs to be asked is how did this project get through the public consultation phase apparently without anyone noticing it? (Here, at least)

Were there any responses from the public?

Oh *&%$#!, what next?

greyim wrote:http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19513&p=259645&hilit=fish+river#p259645

Aha! Someone did notice the public comment period. However, I think greyim (correct me if I'm wrong) missed the fact this is inside the WHA.

My big concern is precedent setting. If this is allowed it opens up all kinds of development potential for the WHA. Tourism development could be the least of our worries.

I understand we're talking disturbed forest. However, every bit of disturbed forest added to the WHA in 2013 was added for a reason. In this case and many others it was to provide buffers around walking tracks.

If this goes ahead we could have similar proposals for rivers such as Picton , Weld, D'Entrecasteaux, Esperance, Styx, Florentine, Counsel, Liffey and Dove which have been added to the WHA while still being classified as timber production zones.

UNESCO has now twice criticised our governments for failing to apply adequate reservation status to the entire WHA. I am yet to hear a reasonable explanation why the whole WHA should not be national park.

tastrekker wrote:UNESCO has now twice criticised our governments for failing to apply adequate reservation status to the entire WHA. I am yet to hear a reasonable explanation why the whole WHA should not be national park.

Because the pollies are scared about losing votes.
Not sure how reasonable it is, but that's why.

More pollie votes in Jobs,Jobs, & more Jobs at any cost.....Not many in Conservation/UNESCO/....... .....

tastrekker wrote: My big concern is precedent setting. If this is allowed it opens up all kinds of development potential for the WHA. Tourism development could be the least of our worries.

I agree, in WHA, end of story.

Without knowing much of hydro operations ie. the need for such a power scheme (with the dam and it's turbine nearby)?

Wonder, when deciding between acceptable development, what is a worse, more 'worrisome', precedent?
Two Four containers & access road etc V a new hut footprint outbuildings and track, catchment disturbance type V location, a public utility? V a private one? ... comparative return in money and other benefit serviced by each. They are all finite resources/industries when it comes to preserving wilderness values.

Not so fast on the WHA thing, my impression is that it's closely adjacent, but mostly in working forest, see attached kml. The Tasmanian Times article may be a bit misleading in choice of words "forest" for example can mean many different things in Tasmania! IMHO, it would be nice to have less overhead powerlines (unfortunately the is overwhelming precident).

greyim wrote:Not so fast on the WHA thing, my impression is that it's closely adjacent...

Here's the images from my blog post showing the whole development (including the pipeline in greyim's kml) is within the WHA. The 2013 WHA extensions come well down from the previous boundary (which followed the 800m contour) and include a 'bump' around the start of the Walls of Jerusalem track.

Nuts wrote:Wonder, when deciding between acceptable development, what is a worse, more 'worrisome', precedent? Four containers & access road etc V a new hut footprint outbuildings and track...

I'm hearing you Nuts.
Power development (4 containers) in already disturbed area versus commercial hut and associated infrastructure in more pristine/remote area. Perhaps the power development wins.
Access road, pipeline and weir versus carefully constructed and (relatively) hidden walking tracks. IMO Commercial hut wins.
Presentation of the WHA to a broader audience. Commercial hut wins.

Here's a couple of relevant paragraphs from the recent UNESCO WHA Committee decision (page 55) regarding the draft management plan:

c) Establishment of strict criteria for new tourism development within the property
which would be in line with the primary goal of protecting the property’s OUV,
including its wilderness character and cultural attributes;
6. Further urges the State Party to ensure that commercial logging and mining are not
permitted within the entire property, and that all areas of public lands within the
property’s boundaries, including Regional Reserves, Conservation Areas and Future
Potential Production Forest Lands*, have a status that ensures adequate protection of
the OUV of the property;

* The area containing the proposed power station, pipeline and weir, while being included in the WHA, has a tenure of Future Potential Production Forest Lands (FPPFL). This is a classic example of the land classification mess covering much of the 2013 WHA extensions. To add to the confusion, the Tasmanian Reserve Estate lists the weir and half the pipeline as Future Reserve Land on State Forest while the lower half of the pipeline and the power station itself is classified as an Informal Reserve on State Forest.

UNESCO have spoken, twice now, about the 2013 WHA extensions. First when they rejected Australia's request to reverse WHA listing. Second when they rejected the 2015 draft management plan which (a) allowed for forestry and mining activities and (b) did not "... have a status that ensures adequate protection of the OUV (outstanding universal value)..."

Well I never! Listmap is a bit trickier than I thought... so who is responsible for permissions within WHA? Not MVC, DPIWE???

The controversy surrounding this proposed development has hit the press today! http://www.examiner.com.au/story/338428 ... lan/?cs=95

I contacted Fed Environment Dept a couple of months ago. They wrote back to me saying they spoke to the council and the developer to ensure they were aware of the requirement for EPBC approval. Perhaps most interesting thing the Feds discovered is that Tasmania's Large Projects Department is managing the approvals process. It's a very un-large project!!!

I personally wouldn't be a supporter of this regardless if it is hydro, I'm sure we could use alternative green energies in less enviromental sensitive areas.