CONSERVATION GROUPS ASK MINISTERS TO INTERVENE AS NEW EPA FAILS ITS FIRST FORESTRY TEST

Conservation groups have written to the NSW Minister for the Environment and Minister for Primary Industries asking them to take urgent action to stop illegal logging of Rufous Scub-bird habitat in Styx River State Forest, east of Armidale, and instigate an independent inquiry.

The Rufous Scrub-bird is a small secretive understorey bird of highland wet forests in north-east NSW. It is a living fossil with a lineage dating back 97 to 65 million years but is now listed as vulnerable to extinction, with burning and logging recognised as primary threats.

North East Forest Alliance Spokesperson Dailan Pugh said that in 2007 a Forests NSW ecologist saw Rufous Scrub-birds at 7 locations in compartment 502 of Styx River State Forest.

“Forests NSW identified these records as extremely reliable and they were included in NSW’s Wildlife Atlas.

“Forests NSW’s Threatened Species Licence requires that all suitable habitat within 320 metres of such records must be protected from logging and management burns.
“When a local conservationist inspected the area in March he was shocked to find that Forests NSW had burnt the bird’s habitat and were in the process of logging it. When he checked their logging plans he found that all the records of the Rufous Scrub-birds had been deleted” Mr. Pugh said.

North Coast Environment Council President Susie Russell said she had met with the regional forester about the issue. “I was told that when planning the current logging Forests NSW questioned their ecologist about his records and decided that he had erroneously identified a common bird for the Rufous Scrub-bird.

“In an astounding move, apparently without undertaking new surveys, Forests NSW then attempted to delete all records made by their ecologist and proceeded to ignore both the records of the Rufous Scrub-bird and the mapped habitat in their planning process.

“We know that Forests NSW are desperate for timber and it seems they are prepared to go to any length, including breaching their licence conditions, to obtain it” Ms Russell said.

Clarence Environment Centre spokesperson, John Edwards, said that in response to Forests NSW’s claims that no suitable habitat existed in the area, he organised a visit to the area by two experienced ornithologists.

“Contrary to Forests NSW’s claims, both experts agreed that there are extensive areas of ideal habitat for the Rufous Scrub-bird and that it appeared that logging areas would have been good habitat prior to being trashed.

“Conservationists are dismayed that despite it being over a month since blatantly illegal logging of the habitat of a threatened species was reported to the new Environmental Protection Authority they have failed to undertake a proper investigation and refused to stop the logging.

“We have therefore appealed to the responsible Government Ministers to immediately stop the logging while an independent inquiry into this sordid affair is undertaken” Mr. Edwards said.

Please don’t aid forest destruction Mr Oakeshott!

See letter from forty-seven environment and community advocacy groups here:

Don’t aid forest destruction Mr Oakeshott

Oakeshott throws lifeline to woodchippers

“Rob Oakeshott’s decision to inflict a whole new round of devastation on forests around the country is heartless” said NCEC President and long-time forest activist Susie Russell.

Mr Oakeshott, Federal Member for Lyne, announced on Thursday that he was planning to move a motion in Federal Parliament to allow native forest ‘waste’ burnt in power stations to get renewable energy credits.

“It is incredible that Mr Oakeshott can believe that current forest management around Australia is sustainable.

“In Tasmania some of the biggest, tallest trees in the world are still being felled. In Victoria, conservationists have the State Forestry agency in court again for trying to destroy the last patches of habitat of Victoria’s state emblem the Leadbeater’s Possum. And in NSW, forests are being cut faster than they can regrow in order to meet unsustainable wood supply contracts. This is leading to many breaches of environmental laws but the public has no legal right to pursue these breaches in court and the Government regulator has no teeth.

“Most Australians want the vandalism of our forests to stop.

“And yet Mr Oakeshott plans to throw vandals a lifeline. If his motion is successful not only will forests be woodchipped and fed into the power stations, it will be called ‘green’.

“In our region for example, koala habitat will be destroyed and consumers will be asked to pay extra for it as ‘green power’. In fact, there is nothing renewable about it – it is dead koala power that consumers do not want and do not need.

“Mr Oakeshott needs to get out in to the forests across Australia and see what impact the last forest ‘waste’ industry has had. We were told woodchipping would only take the ‘forest waste that would otherwise be left on the forest floor’, but it instead it takes whole trees.

“Mr Oakeshott said he was acting on his conscience when he helped pass the Clean Energy Act last year, but this move will dramatically undermine clean energy in Australia. Destroying native forests results in major carbon emissions because old trees store large amounts of carbon which takes hundreds of years to replace once logged.

“We are asking Mr Oakeshott to come on an urgent inspection of local forests with us to hear the concerns of the local community before he goes through with his motion. We believe it is crucial that he understands that the results of his motion will be widespread forest destruction,” Ms Russell said.

For comment: Susie Russell 0429655044 

Have a say on the future of your seas

The Australian public are custodians of Australia’s territorial waters, these extend from 5.5km to 200 kilometres off-shore from all the lands we claim. These waters are the commons that we all own and have a responsibility to look after. The Commonwealth Government is now deciding what parts of your waters it will protect to establish the promised Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (CAR) marine reserve system.

The reserve system is required to include a full range of ecosystems, reasonably reflect the biotic diversity within those ecosystems, and have the required level of reservation to ensure the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. The evidence is that this will require 20-50% of each population and ecosystem to be fully protected from fishing.

The Commonwealth had divided your waters into six marine regions, and is now deciding the future of five of these regions (it has already decided the fate of waters off Victoria and Tasmania). The waters off NSW are mostly in the Temperate East Marine Region, which extends from Bermagui on the south coast to past Fraser Island, and out to beyond Norfolk Island.

The Commonwealth is proposing that 25% of this region be incorporated into marine reserves, though most reserves are still available for most forms of fishing, with only 4% fully protected in Marine National Park zones.

The proposed outcomes are far worse for coastal ecosystems, with a mere 1.6% of the continental shelf proposed for reservation, with only 0.01% fully protected. Similarly for the continental slope only 8% is proposed for reservation with none fully protected. This is one of the worst outcomes in Australia. We have been duded.

Numerous ecosystems, key ecological features, biologically important areas and severely depleted species have been excluded.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 21 FEBRUARY 2012 TO BE A RESPONSIBLE OWNER AND HAVE YOUR SAY

Conservation groups have reviewed all the Commonwealth’s proposals for this region and recommended a variety of additions, and local conservationist Dailan Pugh has prepared a specific proposal for a Tweed-Byron Marine Reserve. Both reports are available on the marine section of the North Coast Environment Council website http://ncec.wordpress.com/marine/

Please emai your wishes to: Submissions.TemperateEast@environment.gov.au.

Key asks for NSW’s north-coast waters are:

• Establishing the proposed Tweed-Byron Commonwealth Marine Reserve;
• Establishing a link between the proposed Clarence Commonwealth Marine Reserve and the existing Solitary Islands Marine Park, and upgrading the habitat protection zone in the Commonwealth’s existing Solitary Islands Marine Park to a National Parks zone to better protect the habitat of the Grey Nurse Shark, and
• Expanding the boundary of the proposed Hunter Commonwealth Marine Reserve southwards to Nelson Bay;

You may also wish to ask

• That extensive Marine National Park zones be established in all marine reserves, with a minimum of 20-50% of the regional extent of each ecosystem included in Marine National Park zones
• That mining and oil and gas exploration and production be excluded from marine reserves.

SEE THE SUBMISSION GUIDE ON OUR MARINE PAGE

http://ncec.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/final-submission-guide-to-temperate-east-marine-region-draft-plan-feb-2012.pdf 

Shifting freight to rail is the only way to get serious about Highway safety

The North Coast Environment Council (NCEC) claimed today the recent road tragedy at Urunga could have been much worse if the truck was carrying fuel or gas. NCEC spokesperson, John Jeayes, said, “It is very likely the truck driver may not have caused this terrible accident but the mere fact that B-Doubles and other heavy trucks are on our highways will contribute to more and more of these sorts of accidents.”

In an article “Shifting freight to rail could make the Pacific Highway safer”, Phillip Laird of Wollongong University wrote:

“Articulated trucks such as semi-trailers and “B-Doubles” are involved in about 30% of fatal road accidents on the Pacific Highway. As the number of trucks carrying freight between Sydney and Brisbane increases, we will see more tragic incidents like the fatal crash involving a B-Double on 8 January 2012 near Urunga.”¹

“Why, asks Mr Jeayes, “are we trying to convert the Pacific Highway into a super highway to cater for truck transport when the vast majority of North Coast residents just want a safe and adequate highway? The majority of long distance freight should be on an upgraded railway, he claimed.”

“Given some adequate funding the rail line could handle all the dangerous intercity cargo and make the highway less dangerous.”

“There is a lack of lateral thinking on solving the intercity cargo problem.

Why does ALL the money go into the highway and not equal sums into rail?

Could more be accomplished for the funds and the time available by choosing easier routes which are environmentally and economically sustainable?

How are the priorities for work decided and by whom? Is the community reference group work structured to give the result the RTA wanted in the first place no matter what community objections are raised.

Are there any North Coast residents outside the transport industry in favour of B-Doubles on our highway? How many people on the North Coast are afraid to drive after dark on our highways and mix it with convoys of trucks?

Is the upgrade of the Pacific Highway from Newcastle to Tweed more about business than road safety?

Even with the upgrade completed fatalities involving heavy trucks will continue as was indicated with the recent Tintenbar smash on a section of completed highway.²

Transport chiefs around Australia have said that improving the rail system to travel at 80kph

to carry cargo from Melbourne to Brisbane would result in the disappearance of long distance trucks from the highways.”

1 http://theconversation.edu.au/shifting-freight-to-rail-could-make-the-pacific-highway-safer-4882

 2 http://www.mydailynews.com.au/story/2011/01/01/crash-fatality-accident-ballina/

Victorian plan to log ‘parks and reserves’ a cause for alarm in NSW

“We are horrified that as the International Year of Forests draws to a close, we have a Government in Australia proposing to open up protected areas for logging” said NCEC President Susie Russell.

 “In response to the Victorian timber supply crisis resulting from decades of over-cutting and unsustainable practices, the Victorian Liberal Minister responsible is recommending the logging of ‘parks, reserves and water catchments’ ¹ as well as reducing protections for endangered species, bringing in 20 year wood supply contracts and making taxpayers liable for any timber shortfalls.

 “The Victorian Timber Action Plan released yesterday is an ecological and social disaster,” she said.

“What is alarming is that instead of seeing the writing on the wall for an industry that has failed to develop its own resource or respect the environment, the Victorian Government plans to head back to the dark ages and repeat the same mistakes by entrenching over-cutting, taxpayer liability and weakening environmental protection of key natural assets.

“It is a recipe for ongoing conflict in Victoria’s forests. You would think they would have learned something from the NSW experience. In NSW where 20 year contracts have been in place for more than a decade, and despite lax environmental regulation, taxpayers are already paying compensation to timber companies.

“The fight for the forests will be well and truly on again if the NSW Government follows suit and tries to open up protected areas for logging. We certainly hope they have more sense than to return to an era of protracted forest protest, ” she warned.

“We ask that Premier Barry O’Farrell and Forestry Minister Katrina Hodgkinson rule out solving the timber supply crisis in NSW by opening up national parks and other protected areas for logging, or watering down what we consider to be the already weak environmental protection measures that apply to logging.

“The timber supply crisis in NSW can only be dealt with by reducing contracted volumes, and reducing taxpayer liability. The biodiversity and climate crises can only be dealt with by protecting habitat, carbon stored in large trees, reserve connectivity and water catchment integrity.

“The way forward is less native forest logging not more… Victoria is certainly marching backwards under Bailleau,” Ms Russell said.

^1.http://premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111213_Timber_Industry_Action_Plan.pdf

Environment Office a toothless tiger when it comes to rainforest protection.

A major development on the NSW mid-north coast that will see the villages of Lake Cathie and Bonny Hills connected with residential and commercial buildings, has been approved.

 “However the approval fails to apply the 100m buffer required to protect littoral (coastal) rainforest,” said NCEC President Susie Russell.

“The site includes one of the largest littoral (coastal) rainforest remnants and it is in relatively good condition. Littoral rainforest is rare now, is an Endangered Ecological Community, and also has a special State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP 26) to ensure it is adequately recognised and protected.

“The SEPP requires that land within 100m of the rainforest shall be a buffer and should not be developed,” she said.

“The Littoral rainforest on the Lake Cathie/ Bonny Hills site is barely 100m in width. The development will have an average buffer of 47m and in some parts will have no buffer, with the road easement hard against the rainforest edge. The developers suggest that the road should be considered as part of the buffer!

“The Office of the Environment and Heritage made 2 submissions to the development pointing out that a 100m buffer was required. The Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority did the same. The developer and the Planning Department ignored them both and accepted the development proposal with less than half the buffer required by the SEPP.

“As the Northern Rivers CMA said in their submission, ‘the beach is subject to coastal erosion and recession’. When I visited the site on Sunday this was clearly apparent,” Ms Russell said.

“We can expect to see the extent of the rainforest diminish over time as higher tides eat away the vegetation on the coastal side. A100m buffer is to allow the rainforest to extend to the west over time and protect it from development impacts.

“This development approval with its pathetic rainforest buffer once again demonstrates that the NSW Government pays only lip-service to environmental protection and the Office of Environment and Heritage, responsible for providing advice on, and policing environmental policy and law, is ignored by the Department of Planning in its considerations.

For the environmental assets of NSW it is a death of many thousands of cuts,” Ms Russell said.

 

For the OEH submission see: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/31d6e14bac4c70d32a0c91f71c926b2e/OE&H%20response_%20EEC.pdf

For the NR CMA submission see: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/10f19c2479da689b465c9094f3509aec/Northern%20Rivers%20Catchment%20Management%20Authority.pdf

Flood plain development at West Byron. Climate change – what climate change?

With world Governments due to meet in Durban, South Africa to keep trying to hammer out a global agreement for action on climate change, it’s clear that Australian Governments are still largely in the denial phase.

According to NCEC President Susie Russell, this is demonstrated by the business as usual approach to planning and development, where Governments still encourage development of land subject to increasing natural hazards, using the same energy-guzzling designs.

“The proposed new suburb of Byron Bay – West Byron, is a case in point.

“The development will see about 1000 homes, plus retail and industrial buildings built on the floodplain of the Belongil Creek.

“Developing the floodplain of a coastal estuary is not wise. With sea-levels rising and rainfalls intensifying due to climate change it will subject future landowners to massive risks and hardships.

“Scientists have been telling us since the mid- 1990s that we can expect more intense rainfall events, with a likelihood of more flash flooding. One in a 100 year floods can be expected every 20 years. This is consistent with what we are seeing in Northern NSW.

“If the NSW Government accepts this ‘concept’ and rezones this floodplain for residential, retail and industrial development, will the taxpayers of NSW be responsible for picking up the tab for flood damage to this suburban infrastructure?

“The public has less than 2 days to comment on this development ‘concept’. ¹ Many questions about it remain unanswered. Changes to the planning process introduced under the previous Government mean that developers can get approval before detailing exactly what they plan to do, how they plan to solve various problems or deal with particular environmental impacts.

“As a community we should be planning and building for a future of greater climatic instability, not continuing the folly of building new suburbs on flood prone land,” she said.

¹. http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3547

NCEC Requests stop work on forestry operations in Boambee State Forest

The North Coast Environment Council has written to Coalition Environment Minister Robyn Parker requesting an immediate halt to logging in Boambee State Forest until it can be assessed against precautionary criteria.

In her evidence to the recent Estimates Committee hearings Ms Parker said that Forests NSW has been advised to take a precautionary approach to logging Koala habitat in Boambee State Forest.

Members of the North Coast Environment Council (NCEC) undertook an inspection on the weekend of the logging operations in the vicinity of log dumps No 1 and 3 in Compartment 602 Boambee State Forest and formed the opinion that the logging operation is clearly not taking a precautionary approach.

“The intensity of the logging operation exceeds a precautionary approach. The basal area removal of logged areas is estimated to be 80-90% with the only trees marked for retention being scattered and isolated seed trees and some Koala primary browse trees,” said Mr Ashley Love, spokesperson for the NCEC.

“From stump observation a high proportion of Tallowwood logs are being removed – an estimate of 4-5 times that being retained as primary browse trees. The removal of an estimated 80 % of large Tallowwood primary browse trees in the logging operation is not a precautionary approach in relation to maintaining Koala habitat.

“Further, the intensity of the logging operation is likely to promote a dense lantana understorey in the forest where this species is already a common component of the understorey in an area that is potentially susceptible to Bell Miner Assisted Dieback, a threatening process under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act,” Mr Love concluded.

Timber Supply Crisis to cost taxpayers millions for non-existent timber.

Court documents obtained by the NCEC confirm that Forests NSW are unable to meet timber commitments and are having to pay out mills for timber that never existed.

NCEC President, Susie Russell, said that ever since the NSW Government gave new Wood Supply Agreements for timber from public land to millers in 2004, Forests NSW have not been able to supply the committed volumes.

“At the time the new Wood Supply Agreements were issued there was abundant evidence that Forests NSW’s resource estimates were grossly overstated and unreliable. Unfortunately at that time the NSW Government removed a clause that was in previous agreements that allowed timber commitments to be reduced in line with yield reviews.

“Timber giant Boral initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court against Forests NSW in 2010 claiming Forests NSW have been unable to supply them with contracted timber volumes since 2002. The court documents show that Forests NSW were forced to pay Boral half a million dollars in 2006 for undersupply to that time. Since then supply has been declining and Forests NSW now owe Boral almost twice as much again,” she said.

“Forests NSW have also been forced to buy back timber commitments from other millers

“In vain efforts to meet shortfalls Forests NSW have been over-logging plantations, cutting trees before they mature, increasing logging intensities, logging stream buffers, logging trees and areas required to be retained for threatened species and buying timber from private properties.

“Despite leaving the forest looking like a battlefield and cutting out the future sawlogs, Forests NSW still cannot get them enough wood,” said long-time forest activist with the North East Forest Alliance, Dailan Pugh, who as a result of analysing all FNSW timber yield estimates predicted the timber supply crisis in 1999.

“The NSW Government’s recklessness in issuing the new Wood Supply Agreements in 2004 has already cost taxpayers a fortune, and exposed us to many millions of dollars in future compensation. The environmental costs are astronomical,” he said.

“The crisis is real and ongoing. The gross over-cutting now happening must be stopped immediately. Timber quotas must be immediately reduced to a sustainable level. The legal dispute between the Government and Boral is perhaps the only opportunity this Government will have to make these changes. Failure to do so could lead to further massive compensation payouts as well as doing irreparable damage to our public forests,” Ms Russell said.

To see the court document see:

http://nefa.org.au/resources/Summons_Boral_v_Forestry_Commission.pdf