Newsletter – Spring 2015CLARENCE ENVIRONMENT CENTRE

31 Skinner St, South Grafton 2460Phone / Fax 66 43 1863 Email: admin@cec.org.au

Website www.cec.org.au

____________________________________________________________________Jay Wilson – Our Man in San Fran

The following can be found on the Climate Mobilization.org web site www.theclimatemobilization.org/about_us2#sthash.6VJVDFxg.dpuf

“When I joined The Climate Mobilization, I felt like I was embarking on a new journey...beginning the next chapter in my life. I can’t think of a greater purpose than to accept the greatest moral challenge of our time...‘the fight to save civilization and the natural world from catastrophic climate disruption.’”Jay

ProfileJay is an "old hippie," who was born in America to parents that were a trapeze act who bought their owncircus and toured South America. Jay spend his adult life in Australia, working in Credit Management in the corporate sector for 25 years. Jay left corporate Australia for environmental work after reading the Brundtland Report 1987 "Our Common Future." He adopted a lifestyle of a "Planetary Steward" of a 116 acre heavily forested property in the Clarence Valley, New South Wales, Australia. From 2000 to 2015, he did pro bono volunteering at the Clarence Environment Center, before deciding to return home to the United States in May 2015 to do his best to persuade, cajole and convince all Americans of the urgency to tackle climate change as a planetary emergency.

- See more at: http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/about_us2#sthash.6VJVDFxg.dpuf

You can't keep a good man down, keep up the great work Jay

* * *How effective has the IFOA been?

Wedding Bells State Forest revisited

The historic Forest Agreements were signed in 1999, but has the Integrated Forest Operations Approval (IFOA) achieved its stated objective of meeting the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management (ESFM)? There is ample official evidence showing it has not.

The Auditor General's “2009 Performance Audit” identified that “native forest managed by Forests NSW (FNSW) is being cut faster than it is growing back”, and “current yield from native forests is not sustainable in the long term”.

Over-logging has seriously negative flow-on effects for biodiversity, conservation of which is pivotal to meeting ESFM principles.

Jay - Our Man in San Fran

By 2012, none of the required 5 yearly reviews of the IFOA had been undertaken. The 2009 Final Report on “Progress with Implementation of NSW RFAs” found FNSW's performance in delivering biodiversity outcomes in logged forests, could not be measured. That report identifying an, “absence of any real comparative data on this issue”, adding that this “makes it virtually impossible to determine whether there is improvement or not”.

Boral's failure to obtain Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accreditation in 2013, shows the FSC believed logging processes carried out by FNSW harmed high conservation values, i.e. endangered species and communities.

One glaring example of FNSW failure in its duty of care, is their continued release of harvest plans calling for high intensity logging rates, which they know is triggering the devastating Bell Miner Associated Dieback (BMAD), which is threatening eucalypt forests across NSW. This continues despite the fact FNSW was represented on the BMAD Scientific Working Group which nominated the disease as a Key Threatening Process.

The Final Report acknowledged that the EPA's compliance monitoring and enforcement had “attracted considerable and largely adverse comment from submitters”, recommending the need “to give priority to audit and compliance activity, and that auditing be closely scrutinised as part of the NSW Review”.

A 2014 inquiry into the EPA's performance found the agency had repeatedly failed in this regard, and was subsequently rewarded by the Government with a significant boost to its operating budget. However, the EPA is currently working on an IFOA “remake” which will eliminate many of the biodiversity protections they were previously supposed to enforce. Threatened species, and biodiversity generally, are the big losers.

* * *CSG protest actions ongoing,and good riddance Metgasco?

With no action from the State Coalition government to back up their pre-election rhetoric about wanting to keep the Northern Rivers gas-field free, anti-gas campaigners have ramped up their campaigns, starting with a region wide “spring into spring” action that saw protest gatherings outside the offices of local National Party politicians across the North Coast.

Little canopy and dense lantana understorey, a recipe for Bell Miner Associated Dieback

In Grafton, Chris Gulaptis was good enough to come from his office to address the protest without being asked, giving us the news that Metgasco had just knocked back a Government compensation offer, but assured us negotiations were on-going, and that we should have patience with their “gas plan” process.

A petition, drafted by the “Gasfield Free Northern Rivers group and Lock the Gate, was also launched to put further pressure on our politicians to put their words into actions.

In October, the State government announced it had bought back the exploration licence for PEL 445 from the AJ Lucas consortium for $1 million. Lucas had smartly purchased the licence earlier in the year knowing the Government would be offering to buy it back. A tidy profit no doubt for doing absolutely nothing and, as usual the NSW tax-payers are the ones paying.

The BIG news came in early November, when Metgasco announced it had reached an agreement with State Government over its compensation claim and would recommend shareholders accept the $35 million offer to hand back its licences over PELs 13, 16 and 426, which includes all their holdings in the Clarence Valley.

We are all 'holding our breath' hoping the shareholders, who meet towards the end of the year, will accept the offer, in which case gas exploration and mining on the Northern Rivers will almost certainly be 'dead' for good, something that will be mourned by few within the community.

* * *Ongoing 'dramas' about erosion at Qwyarigo

Following the Clarence environment Centre's drafting of a report to Clarence Valley Council detailing a litany of failures in their road maintenance program which caused serious erosion and siltation of wetlands in the Qwyarigo area south of Grafton, we eventually received a response (see on following page). That response was so disappointing that the Centre was prompted to send the following letter to Council.

Attn the General ManagerClarence Valley Council

Dear General ManagerREPORT to Council on erosion issues along

Florda Prince and Florda Gold Drives, Qwyarigo

Two months after submitting our report on the above erosion issues, the Clarence EnvironmentCentre received Council's response, which attempts to absolve Council of any responsibility by blaming it all on adjacent landowners. To say we are disappointed is an understatement.

The response does concede that erosion has occurred, but then goes on to claim that the road worksare “in accordance with Council's road maintenance policy”. By this we assume that Council doesnot see the clearing of blocked culverts, the opening up of side drains to divert storm water, orattempting to slow the flow of storm water along table drains, as part of its maintenance responsibility.

Clarence Anti-gas campaigner, Deb Whitley, manning the petition signing stand in Prince Street.

Instead, it is all the fault of neighbours who were apparently irresponsible by allowing surface waterto flow from their properties onto Council's road. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

As we see it, despite the the assurance that “Council does take environmental issues seriously”,storm-water will continue to degrade the road surface and scour the table drains, and continue todeposit large amounts of silt into the endangered wetland communities.

All we ask is that proper maintenance of culverts be undertaken, and sediment control measures beput in place.

What are Government Biodiversity Strategies worth?

In September, because the CEC had previously taken to trouble to make a submission to the Federal Government's Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030, we received a survey form from the Environment Department wanting our views on whether the Strategy had met its 5 year targets.

Of course the Strategy had been developed under the previous Labor Government, and as we all know, the environmental agenda of the subsequent Abbott Coalition Government has been a lot different, so the survey was an opportunity for us to make a few points, including the following. Who knows someone might take notice.

Question 3.1 Has the Strategy influenced the activities undertaken by your organisation?

Response: No, not much

Comment: As an environment group with biodiversity conservation as our primary aim, there is nothing in the strategy that has altered our focus. Having said that, the Strategy's excellent summing up of the status quo in relation to the environment has been much appreciated.The Clarence Environment Centre (CEC) is currently partnering with the NSW Nature Conservation Council in delivering a major 4 year Federally funded biodiversity project that is employing up to 8 persons. We are also the local coordinator for the national Land for Wildlife program with about 100 properties signed up across the Clarence Valley.

The CEC has had a shop-front presence in Grafton/South Grafton for 26 years with the entire organisation run 100% by volunteers who receive no remuneration or reimbursement for expenses incurred. Because of that dedication, that work would have been done with or without the Strategy.

Our biggest current concern is the government's attempts to block our ability to undertake environmental advocacy, remove our charity status, and criminalise peaceful protest action.

Question 3.2 Are there any aspects of the Strategy that are particularly useful for our organisation?

Response: No.

Comment: As stated above, the strategy's summary of the threats facing the environment is excellent, as are its aims to protect it. However, there is a huge disconnect between those aims and objectives, and the Government's actions in recent years. In fact environmental laws have, by and large, not been upheld, and the EPBC Act has been reduced to little more than a licensing mechanism to destroy endangered species and matters of national significance. Compliance with consent conditions are not monitored or enforced, so the state of the environment continues to decline, and the list of threatened species continues to grow.

Over the life of the current State and Federal Governments, environmental laws and regulations have been systematically eroded, funding for the Environmental Defenders Office taken away, and attempts are under way to make environmental activism illegal. We now have serious concerns for the future of our unique natural heritage.

Question 3.3.1 How well did the strategy outline who was responsible for delivery of outcomes?

Response: Poorly

Comment: Sorry, we are unable to immediately answer that question, so I guess the answer is “not well”. However, given the decline and degradation of environmental regulations, we believe that whoever were responsible have clearly failed.

Question 3.3.2 How accessible is information on activities being carried out as part of the Strategy?

Response: ??

Comment: Sorry, we have no idea. We are fully occupied trying to prevent the widespread destruction of biodiversity from Pacific Highway upgrade (how do we justify clearing 200 – 300 metre wide strips through mature forest containing habitat trees that are over 500 years old, to build a road with a footprint barely 40m wide?). We also have threats of gas-fields spreading like a cancer across the landscape, open cut gold mines on the Dorrigo Plateau (the source of drinking water for the best part of 750,000 people); plans to pump sand from our national parks onto beaches to stop the impacts of sea level rise, and suggestions that the Clarence River should become a coal export facility. Far too busy to bother looking to see what other disasters the Department of Environment is planning to allow.

Question 3.3.3 How suitable are the 3 priorities and 10 targets for our organisation?

Response: Limited suitability

Note to newsletter readers: The three priorities are, to put simply, Engaging all Australians, Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate, and achieving measurable results.

Comment: We have not given that matter a lot of thought, Engaging all Australians is always going to be difficult with the contradictory messages coming from Government that claim, for example, that those standing up against environmental destruction are “guilty of treason”!

As far as Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate is concerned, how can the Department possibly achieve that aim with a Government that clearly does not believe there is a problem, and has scrapped every climate change initiative that has been taken over the years. There have been some attempts but we need to put those efforts into perspective. The planting of 20 million trees project, for example, sounds great until we realise that more than that number of trees and shrubs will be bulldozed in the Clarence Valley alone for the Pacific Highway upgrade. Similar numbers will go from the Laird State Forest for a coal mine development, and who knows how many will go from the Liverpool Plains surrounds for another 'mega pit'.

Can we therefore suggest that for the Department to get measurable results, it needs to make some similar calculations, and realise that half of Australia's animals are now listed as threatened through loss of habitat. Then factor in things like the time it takes for a eucalypt to develop hollows (200 years), and how many of the threatened species, 50% of which are tree-hollow dependent, will still be around in 200 years from now.

In relation to the 10 targets.

1. achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation activities.

Figures are easy to manipulate, and no doubt it will be easy to claim that 25% increase. The CEC is currently a part of that statistic, being the recipient of a biodiversity grant that has allowed us to employ up to 8 part time workers. But at the same time the Land for Wildlife program that we have also been involved in has remained unfunded for the last 2 years. At the same time as our part-time team of 8 is working to enhance biodiversity on one side of Pillar Valley in the Grafton District, the Roads and Maritime Services is employing (with much fanfare) hundreds of people driving bulldozers to remove thousands of hectares of forest along the other side of Pillar Valley, much of it listed as Endangered Ecological Communities, to construct the Woolgoolga and Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade. Will those figures be accounted for in your statistical analysis?

3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services.This appears to be an opportunity for a carbon trading scheme, something else the Federal Government has ruled out.

Targets 4 to 7 are all admirable and we would love to hear if there is any good news to report. However, we have not noticed any Government announcement in relation to those achievements having been met, and when it comes to Target 7 - reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities, we know that target has not been achieved. Weed infestations, particularly in State Forests in NSW, where no real weed control programs have ever been initiated, are out of control with the Bell Miner Associated Dieback threatening Eucalypt forests all along the eastern seaboard as a direct result.

Target 8 - By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities, cannot possibly have been met with cuts to environmental science bodies, including CSIRO, right across the board.

Target 9 - By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, is currently being met in NSW with State Government currently reviewing its environmental laws. However, it is generally acknowledged that those changes will significantly water down protection for threatened species from native forest logging and allow virtual clear-felling of what are now termed “regrowth forests”. The Native Vegetation Act is being trashed to appease the National Party, and laws governing development and mining applications are being “simplified” in order to “streamline” approvals.

Target 10 – Develop a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system, begs the question, since the previous Strategy, The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996) was introduced more than 20 years ago, why has such a system not been developed before now, and how on earth can any of targets 1 – 9 be reported without such a mechanism being in place? The reality is that with the massive cuts to front-line science sections in Fisheries, National Parks and Wildlife, and similar agencies, along with the removal of all climate change research, there is currently nobody undertaking the monitoring necessary to measure trends in relation to biodiversity or the environment generally in Australia.

Question 3.4 Suggestions to improve the Strategy.

Existing format is appropriate.

Comment: As stated earlier, we believe the Strategy to be excellent, and congratulate those that compiled it. It is the implementation of those ideals that have been such a dismal failure, and a sad indictment on successive Governments for not adequately funding the necessary initiatives.

We have no doubt that the “Save our Species” project, for example, will be held up as a shining example of the Government's commitment to protecting biodiversity. Our organisation has been involved in the process as an “expert” on some 7 threatened species. In almost every case, a single population was selected for priority protection over the 100 year horizon period, with the other populations virtually abandoned. To date though I am not aware of a single follow up action being undertaken (perhaps that is just a lack of communication).

Question 3.4.2 Developing a single on-line resource

Comment: A one stop shop for information would be good, but most of us do not have the time to continually monitor these sites. There needs to be better dissemination of information – e.g. radio and TV news items. Good news is always welcome.

* * *A walk in the Park

Some months ago, a member of the public reported sighting flaming “plumes” and flares at night in the Fortis Creek National Park, which could be seen from their home overlooking the Park. We reported this to the Parks' office in Grafton who were unable to explain what it was, but promised to investigate. We heard nothing more, but later heard a rumour that 'rave' parties were being held periodically in the park, attended by huge crowds of revellers.

More recently, the initial informant reported the flaring was still occurring, so Trish and I decided to investigate further. Plotting the compass reading on a map, the sightings appeared to align with a place marked Morgan's Camp, some 6km north of the Coaldale Road which, because of a lockable gate, necessitated walking into the area (the gate was unlocked, but we didn't want to risk being locked in).

The outcome as far as the investigation was concerned was negative, but it did allow me to indulge in my passion for botany, as the bush was ablaze with colour. The downside however, was the weather on the day, so later in the week I took the opportunity of a day off, in better weather conditions, to take a more relaxed look with a friend. The diversity, and significance of the flora was outstanding, and basically by observing little more than the road verges, we were able to identify more than 200 plant species, including 5 species listed as threatened, and 4 others that have been identified as meeting the criteria for listing, along with 20 species that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

We actually met up with the responsible Park Ranger who made the comment that it was wonderful to see people walking in and enjoying the park. Like many of our amazingly diverse national parks, the State Government has failed to fund any basic visitor facilities, there are no picnic or parking areas, no even a toilet. Nevertheless, I can thoroughly recommend that others take the opportunity, particularly during the late winter – early spring flowering season. If you haven't already done so, this is what you missed.

Question 3.4.3 Demonstrating clearer linkages between the Government's policies, programmes, and regulatory initiatives, actions and international obligations

Comment: We would prefer to see evidence of any connection between Government policy and the aims and objectives of the Strategy, or compliance with international obligations. Approving the building of a coal export facility immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef would be a case in point!

In conclusion, we are sorry we cannot be more positive in our responses, but we have to say it as we see it. We genuinely hope our responses will be read and prove to be of assistance.

Acacia Ruppii - Endangered Dodonaea crucifolia. Rare. Grevillea banyabba. Vulnerable

* * *Now, the ugly side of Fortis Creek NP

Just two weeks after writing the above rave review of Fortis Creek National Park, urging readers to take the opportunity to visit national parks and reserves to enjoy nature at its very best, Trish and I were invited by the ranger to accompany Parks' staff to help identify the threatened species in the field so they can be adequately protected.

At the last minute the trip was canceled, so as we were ready to go and had nothing else planned, we decided to spend another enjoyable day, this time in another part of the park to the south of the prescribed hazard reduction burn. We were horrified at what we found, which I'm forced to describe as the ugly side of the way our national parks are being managed, and the too frequent burning off that the Service is being forced to undertake is just the start.

Prostanthera sejuncta. Endangered

Caleana major. Large Duck Orchid

Diuris sulphurea. A Donkey Orchid Lyperanthus suaveolens. Brown Beaks Orchid

Calochilus campestris. Copper Beard Orchid Isopogon petiolaris. A Drum Stick

Scores of old-growth habitat trees had been bulldozed

Aside from the fact that frequent fire is listed as a Key Threatening Process because of the seriously negative effect it has on biodiversity, and the question of whether there is a need for frequent hazard reduction in relatively remote areas like Fortis Creek which have no nearby urban settlements that could be threatened by fire, what we observed was environmental bastardy at its worst. For kilometres along a service trail, practically every old-growth tree within 40m of the track had been bulldozed, the type of vandalism that, had it occurred on private land, would surely have resulted in prosecution and heavy fines.

The loss to native fauna by destroying those hollow-bearing trees is incalculable, and animals occupying those hollows would undoubtedly have been killed or injured.

It is well documented that about half of all threatened fauna in Australia are tree-hollow dependent, and loss of habitat is the primary reason for their decline. What is not so well known is the time frame required for those trees to form hollows, which is literally hundreds of years.

Research undertaken at the Australian National University has determined that: “Large hollows, in Blackbutts (the main species targeted at Fortis Creek) with a minimum entrance greater than 10cm, are formed after approximately 240 years”. I observed some hollows greater than 30cm.

In reality, many of these trees were already mature when Captain Cook sailed by 2½ centuries ago, and survived the timber getter's axe in the 1800s because they were already too old, only to be mindlessly destroyed today.

Tourism is the life blood of the Valley, one of the world's biodiversity hotspots, and it's supported by wonderful national parks and world heritage areas, but what tourist wants to see this?

Naturally, we expressed our concerns to the area manager and when, after 10 days had elapsed, we had received no response, we conveyed those concerns to the minister and the Environmental Defenders Office. As it happened a response from the area manager arrived by post the day after we emailed the Minister, containing an explanation that what had occurred was policy, and provided a bundle of pamphlets and internal documents to back it up.

In short, the trees in question had been bulldozed because of an increase of OH&S incidents in recent years. I'm sure that increase has a direct correlation to the introduction of excessive hazard reduction quotas over the same period. The fact that too frequent fire is a known Key Threatening Process which is having a disastrous impact on biodiversity, which then leads to the need to destroy scores of habitat trees, is ironic in the extreme, something we subsequently attempted to convey to the Minister.

Hollows of this size in Blackbutts, only occur in trees over 300 years old.

There is a complete lack of any real need for routine hazard reduction in remote areas such as Fortis Creek, particularly in late winter, early spring, when reptiles and micro-bats are hibernating, and birds nesting, simply adds to the senseless nature of what occurred, but this is a message that we just don't seem to be able to get through.

Now, having read “The Pictorial Guide for Hazardous Tree Management on the Fireground” provided to us as justification for the tree destruction, we have to say the message appears to support the arguments we put forward in or earlier letter, i.e. old-growth trees, a fast disappearing feature of Australian forests, are a critical component of healthy ecosystems, and have to be protected, not bulldozed.

The Guide's stated aims are “to assist firefighters conducting hazardous tree risk assessments of trees that:

• Should be avoided when making a fire control line• Need protection from further weakening by fire• Wherever possible protected and extinguished due to their cultural or environmental values.

This guide recommends the marking system for managing the risk of hazardous trees in either prescribed burning or wildfire operations”.

Specific quotes include: “Wherever possible high risk stands and areas of increased fuel hazard need to be avoided or diverted around when establishing fire control lines”, and one that specifically relates to the prescribed burn at Fortis Creek: “Wherever possible prior to ignition (backburn or prescribed burn) these trees should be hand raked or cleared around with a machine and/or foam suppressant applied to protect them”.

All of this, and more, has been conveyed to the Minister, so we await a more sensible response.

* * *Our caring Council

It was heartening to read (Clarence Valley Council's October Newsletter) that Council's staff had realigned a planned road at Stockyard Creek to avoid a population of an endangered wattle species (Acacia ruppii).

Perhaps times have changed, but some years ago the Clarence Environment Centre was contracted to undertake a flora survey on roadside along that same Stockyard Creek Road, where a power line extension was planned, and we found no less than 3 threatened species including that endangered wattle.

Our recommendation was that insulated wiring could be used to reduce the clearing width, something that had occurred at the other end of the road nearer Copmanhurst. Failing that we recommended that clearing be done by chain saw rather than a bulldozer to avoid damaging the endangered 2m tall shrubs.

Council then granted approval on the condition that our recommendations be followed.

Endangered Acacia ruppii

Two weeks later, the then Country Energy bulldozed the entire length, more than a kilometre, reducing it to bare dirt, destroying the lot. Not only that but a neighbouring landowner took the opportunity of a handy bulldozer to clear an additional 10m width to build a new boundary fence.

Finally, barely a year later, the electricity provider used herbicide along an older section of power line just up the road, poisoning even more of the endangered wattles.

This poisoning occurred despite a sign, put there by the previous Copmanhurst Shire Council, proclaiming that it was a "Significant Environmental Roadside Area". Our official complaints to Council and the then Department of Environment and Climate Change failed to result in any action against the perpetrators.

As I said, perhaps things are changing, but given Council trashed a roadside population of endangered

Weeping Paperbark on the Armidale Road with their mulching machine a couple of years ago, and mowed a population of endangered Swamp Foxglove at Coutts Crossing shortly after, I'll reserve praise for a few years until convinced this latest Stockyard Creek population has actually survived.

* * *Report of illegal clearing and damage to an Endangered Ecological Community

As part of the Upper Coldstream Biodiversity Project, the CEC undertakes flora and weed assessments of selected properties across the Pillar Valley project area.

The Wooli Road TSR was surveyed in June at which time it was noted, but not reported, that young trees had been cut down, and clearing for new fences was excessive, i.e. upwards of 20m, where the relevant RAMA stipulates a maximum of 6m. RAMA stands for “routine agricultural management activity”, a regulation that allows clearing without approval, and is frequently abused by landowners seeking to clear more land.

Follow-up flora survey work on 6th October revealed that further random mechanical clearing of native vegetation had occurred. The ongoing clearing was undertaken in what we had earlier identified as Swamp Oak Floodplain forest of the NSW North Coast, an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC).

A 30m strip bulldozed for a new fence, the flattened Swamp Oaks are still lying among the sedge tussocks and

are not visible in the picture

The roadside bulldozed to bare dirt.

Also, much of the clearing had occurred along the bank of Amos Creek, also an illegal act, where significant erosion has occurred in the past, a clear sign of the fragility of floodplain alluvium. Therefore it was decided the matter should be reported to the relevant authority.

The property is managed by Local Lands Services, so the report of the incident was made to staff at the Armidale Road office, who made it clear the LLS was not implicated in the clearing, and was most likely done by the holder of the grazing lease. Nevertheless they promised to investigate the report, but declined the offer for one of our members to accompany them to the site.

The site is flood-prone, and with our having identified 22 of the 45 flora species, listed in the NSW Scientific Committee's determination as typically occurring in Swamp Oak Floodplain forest, there can be little doubt that the forest there is that EEC.

The management of the TSR has a number of short-comings including a failure to manage noxious weeds such as Groundsel Bush and other problem weed species like Camphor Laurel, Senna, Broad-leaved Paspalum and Lantana, and Salvinia in some of the wetland ponds. This is not a good look for the LLS, formerly the Pastures Protection Board.

Another notable management failure is the lack of fencing along the creek line, where the major erosion is occurring, allowing cattle to trample the banks and further exacerbate the problem.

During our latest survey we had also flushed out two wild dog pups. Having feral dogs breeding on their property is another 'bad look' for the pest control authority.

Potential offences include destroying native vegetation on public land; removing native vegetation on creek banks, and harming an endangered community which can result in heavy fines or imprisonment.

The random knocking over of trees and shrubs had nothing to do with weed control, as only native species were damaged. At right we see Swamp Oaks cut down while healthy Camphor Laurels have been left. In fact it is difficult to determine any logical motive for the destruction.

It is important that all land managers are aware of the values of native vegetation on their holdings, and measures put in place to protect those values, It is equally important that tenants are made aware of those values, and what they can and cannot do.

The Swamp Oak stumps, from earlier random clearing, stand alongside several Camphor Laurel trees that have been left standing.

It occurred to us that here was a portion of degraded crown land, that no longer has any function as a travelling stock route, and contains the remnants of an endangered ecological community, and how easily it could become a Landcare project.

Our strongest recommendation to LLS was to fence off the floodplain area to exclude cattle from the EEC entirely, and prevent further erosion of the creek banks. What action will be taken against the lessee or whether our recommendation will be taken seriously, remains to be seen.

* * *Another forestry management plan

This seems to be the season for reviews of environmental strategies and, given current government's right wing agenda, the cynic in me suggests they are mostly aimed at watering down environmental protection. As well as the Federal Government's review into the effectiveness of the national EPBC Act (our comments above), the State Government is asking for comments in relation to a review of the Local Lands Services, which incorporates the former Catchment Management Authority, effectively moving away from environmental protection to focus on support services for agriculture and forestry.

Not sure if there is any point in wasting time commenting on that review, but there was also a new Draft Forests Management Plan put out by Forest Corporation. We concluded that that document was clearly aimed at impressing an uninformed public, and is so far removed from on-ground reality that it lacks any credibility at all, and despite generally saying all the right things, does include matters that set the alarm bells ringing.

For example there is reference to “Forestry Corporation Native Forest Silviculture Manual”, and how it “outlines the ecological principles driving forest dynamics and describes forest events such as harvesting and fire fuel management”, going on to explain in bureaucratic 'gobble-de-gook' that, “The IFOA specifies further constraints that apply to harvesting, such as, the scale or extent of harvesting, basal area limits and habitat tree retention requirements, which ensure that ecological outcomes are achieved”. They go on to explain that “the manual describes how to assess the condition of the forest on a site-specific basis and formulate the appropriate silvicultural approach for regeneration (restarting the stand) or growth (retaining trees to grow on for the future)”.

This assessment of condition, allowing the “restarting of the stand”, is the discredited, highly ecologically destructive, Australian Group Selection, and Timber Stand Improvement techniques of the past, and is already happening again to facilitate the heavy harvesting rates that make industrial scale machine logging more profitable. They refer to this as “finding a balance that delivers a sound outcome for the forest and its ecological and production values”.

On another matter, we would like to see some independent assessment, or even a reference to research supporting the Draft Plan's justification of higher harvest rates of certain Eucalypt species which, very conveniently, just happens to include some of the more sought after timber species.That 'justification' is based around supposed fire, shade, and competition intolerance, claiming that: “The very intolerant species (such as blackbutt, flooded gum and alpine ash) tend to be faster growing, are less tolerant of fire and regenerate mainly from seed. The light demanding nature of these species means that more intensive harvesting and removal of overstorey is beneficial to the establishment and development of regeneration”. A very convenient claim, and one we do not believe is scientifically supported, and certainly not good for biodiversity, and must be questioned.

Another unreferenced claim, which should be questioned, is that: “Sustainable timber harvesting combined with measures such as prescribed burning that reduce the intensity of bush fires can reduce the net production of carbon to the atmosphere each year”.

The Draft Plan's response to Bell Miner Associated Dieback (BMAD) is disappointing to say the least, and its proposed action is summed up by “Forest Corporation will continue to monitor and evaluate the extent and severity of BMAD through aerial surveillance and apply adaptive management principles where practicable”.

That adaptive management so far has amounted to increased burning, a listed key threatening process, and more intensive logging to salvage trees before they die. According to the Plan: “Dieback in trees occurs naturally as a result of short term adverse physical impacts such as drought, unseasonally high soil moisture or damaging wildfire. Dieback may also be due to natural biological factors such as insect plague and spread of fungal disease. Not once does it mention impacts from logging such as the opening up of the forest canopy beyond 35%, the level above which the NSW Scientific Committee identified is a trigger for the disease.

The Plan's response to cattle grazing is also disappointing for, despite a previous Labor Government Minister assuring us that grazing in State forests was to be phased out, no such commitment appears in this plan, and the only mention of cattle is an acknowledgement that “fees are collected for areas of State forest that are leased for beef cattle production”.

Grazing by hoofed animals is a listed Key Threatening Process, and has serious negative impacts on biodiversity and water quality, and is a major contributor to soil erosion. Graziers who lease state forest land are notorious for 'dropping matches' to generate 'green pick' for their stock, another Key Threatening Process, all of which makes a joke of Forest Corp's claims that: “The native forests of NSW possess an array of ecosystems and other environmental values that the Forestry Corporation is committed to maintaining and enhancing wherever possible. The principle of ecologically sustainable forest management (ESFM) is fundamental and entails the maintenance of ecological processes, biodiversity and protection of water quality”.

If anything good comes from any of these reviews we will keep you informed.

* * *Culture on the Clarence

For the second year running the “Culture on the Clarence” street event has been a great success, with the Clarence Environment Centre again manning our information stall on Skinner Street.

Many thanks to Dolores, Steve, Ashleigh and Dianne for giving up their Sunday to make the day a success.

* * *Steve and Dianne manning the Clarence Environment

Centre desk for the Culture on the Clarence event.

Parks and Wildlife collaboration

In November, the CEC continued its long association with the National Parks and Wildlife Service on a tour of the remote Chambigne Nature Reserve, to locate, count, and tag one of five endangered plant species known to occur in the park, the Beadle's Grevillea (Grevillea beadleana), which is suspected of being a separate sub-species to others growing in scattered locations on the New England Tablelands. The objective was to develop a management strategy to protect this fire sensitive species from bushfire.

At day's end the extensive search had located less than 20 plants, showing the population has remained relatively stable since it was first discovered 20 years ago.

Also on the day I took the opportunity to show the NPWS team an Aboriginal art site which Trish and I had discovered years ago and had not previously been officially recorded. It is one of many such art sites in the area, and the reason the Service has been able to access funding to purchase several additional portions of land

adjoining the original reserve.

* * *

To:

Grevillea beadleana

Perched on a cliff ledge, a ranger undertakes the tricky task of tagging the endangered plants.