Newsletter – Spring 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Newsletter – Spring 2020 CLARENCE ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 87-89 Skinner St, South Grafton 2460 Phone / Fax 66 43 4611 Email: [email protected] Website www.cec.org.au Edited by John Edwards What is Swamp Sclerophyll Forest? One very recognisable floodplain forest community, commonly referred to as Paperbark Swamp, is more scientifically known as Swamp Sclerophyll Forest. Since European settlement, this community has been decimated, much of it was drained for agriculture, particularly sugar cane in this region, and for urban expansion. As a result it has been listed as endangered, and given the complicated title of “Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions”. That complication does not stop with the name. The term “floodplain” adds another layer of confusion by bringing in the question of what constitutes a floodplain. For example, in making its determination of the endangered status, the NSW Scientific Committee describes the endangered community as occurring on “peripheral parts of floodplains on soils that are usually waterlogged, stained black or dark grey with humus, and show little influence of saline ground water”, specifically, “where they adjoin lithic substrates or coastal sandplains”. This specific wording means that significant areas of Swamp Sclerophyll forest that occur on ‘coastal sandplains’, such as West Yamba, are not considered to be that endangered community. Floristically identical paperbark forests also occur in swamps that are fed from seepage areas, or soaks, which are associated with Kangaroo Creek Sandstone outcrops in the valley. These are similarly excluded from the protection provided to true floodplain communities, even though they are often permanently wet, or regularly subjected to flooding. Some good news though for the latter, with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust recognising the significance of these sandstone swamp communities by funding a three year program to eliminate weeds, mainly Lantana and Camphor Laurel, from two wetland areas south of Grafton. The first year's work has seen primary weed eradication work undertaken by our experienced bush regeneration team across both sites, with plots being monitored by volunteers to measure the recovery of biodiversity following the Lantana removal. The funding will allow us to undertake follow-up works and extension of weed free buffer zones to ensure full recovery of these rare ecological communities into the future. More news from our bush regen team For the past 3 years, our bush regeneration team has been working under contract to the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (that's what successive coalition governments have reduced our Environment Department to), under their Saving our Species (SOS) program. Specifically, we have been removing weeds from around populations the endangered Bush Sauropus at Trenayr and Shannon Creek. Then 2 years ago, we obtained a 5-year grant from the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to protect dry rainforest remnants at Chambigne and Shannon Creek, which is also linked to SOS, so to let you know more about what that program is all about, here is the latest SOS blurb. Saving our Species takes the best practice approach in conservation science activities, with 400+ on- ground projects. Over 80 staff across the state use their expertise in botany, zoology, and ecology to support more than 300 threatened species. Additional staff in the SoS Development team bring innovative new approaches to large- scale conservation across the state. In 2019-20, we published about 30 scientific papers, supported over 20 external research projects and partnered with 22 university and lab-based researchers - all with the goal of securing a future for threatened species in NSW. This month, you can explore the various ways you can do your bit for threatened NSW species by taking a tour of our new Citizen Science Hub, find out about how science and technology are helping to conserve a critically endangered turtle and listen to our new SoS podcast, which delves into the business of biodiversity. * * * Koala protection becomes political How can that possibly be? In mid-October, I received an email with the attention-grabbing opening line: “The future of koalas is being decided NOW”. The author of that line, Dailan Pugh OAM, spokesperson for the North East Forests Alliance, was referring to the political 'spat' sparked by our own state government representative, Chris Gulaptis. Incredibly, he threatened to plunge the coalition government into crisis by quitting over proposed legislation to protect Australia's koalas. Other National Party members vowed to follow his lead, while their leader, John Barralaro has referred to Koalas as “tree rats”, effectively relegating them to the status of vermin: So what is this about? The legislation in question involves changes to the 20-year-old State Environmental Planning Policy 44 (SEPP 44), where large numbers of tree species have been added to the description of what constitutes core koala habitat. Since its inception, the SEPP has been roundly criticised for its overly simplistic and narrow definition of core habitat. It has never properly protected koalas, and their numbers were already in free-fall even before last year's bushfires decimated populations across the state. Therefore, if Koalas are to survive in Australia, the strengthening of legislation to protect their habitat is imperative. So why the political furore? Surely nobody wants koalas to disappear from the landscape. The problem stems from the fact that Koalas prefer drier sclerophyll forests, relatively little of which is protected in National Parks or areas protected from logging in state forests which are more focussed on rainforests. So, the vast majority of the remaining koala habitat lies in state forests and privately owned land, and farmers and loggers are up in arms because the government has dared to place some restrictions on what they see as their inalienable right to chop down or bulldoze whatever they want. That doctrine has always been supported by the National Party, hence the current stand. The SEPP 44 changes should have happened years ago, and finally the NSW Government has acted, so Mr Gullaptis' suggestion that the changes are "a knee-jerk reaction”, is ridiculous. I believe an overwhelming number of country NSW residents would prefer less land clearing, and certainly an extremely high proportion of them want koalas to thrive. Therefore, Mr Gulaptis was way off the mark when announcing that, by taking the stand against koala protection, he was representing his community. There was an initial standoff between the Liberals and Nationals over the issue, but unfortunately the former finally caved in to the Nationals' demands, and not only have farmers been excluded from any legal requirement to protect Koala habitat, the Local Land Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020, has since been passed through the NSW lower house. That Bill allows farmers to clear land for a whole range of purposes, over and above those RAMAs (routine agricultural management actions) that already 6th November, protest action outside Gulaptis' office exist, all without seeking approval, and private native logging licences have been extended from 15 years to 30 years. So much for the Environment Minister's promise to double the number of Koalas in NSW by 2050. The whole disaster led to a series of protest actions across the state on 6th November, one of which was held outside Mr Gulaptis' office, but the little weasel wasn't there – surprise, surprise! * * * Upper House Inquiry into the building of new dams In response to the Covid 19 pandemic, governments across Australia have been working on packages to stimulate the economy. One proposal that has gained some traction, claims to provide the economic stimulus, and at the same time solve Australia's water problems – build more dams! As a three word slogan, our pollies love three word slogans, it's bound to strike a chord with many, but in reality the idea falls in a heap with the realisation that building dams is one thing, filling them is something else again. The northwest slopes of NSW are dotted with mega-dams, the result of past ill-considered knee-jerk solutions. Keepit, Glen Lyon, and Copeton, to name a few. All those dams spend decades at a time with barely any water in them through lack of rain, mere 'puddles' surrounded by tens of thousands of hectares of weed-infested wastelands rather than stored water. Despite this, every decade or so one government or another will seek to make political mileage by announcing a scheme that will ensure out-back NSW will be drought-proofed as a result. The Mole River dam scheme south of Tenterfield, is one of those proposed under a $1 billion agreement between the State and Federal Governments, starting with a proposed $24m expenditure on a “Final Business Case” for building a dam there. One would think that $100,000 to prepare a business case would be inordinately expensive; what they would get for $24m is hard to imagine. Perhaps that is what it would take to find a consulting firm that is prepared to put together a dodgy business case that supports the government's agenda. Water NSW has prepared a fact sheet, which is Key benefits suitably non-specific, claiming the dam would deliver between 100Gl and 200Gl at an • Enables sustained on-farm productivity as a result of more reliable and secure water supply estimated cost of $355m. Of course, they claim the usual benefits (see at right): • Increases reliability for agricultural production and will help secure existing About ten years ago, we were told by jobs and create new opportunities Tenterfield Council, that any water from the • Improves security of town water supply and Mole will likely be unfit for human provides flood mitigation consumption, because of pollution from an • Supports the downstream Barwon-Darling historic arsenic mine.