The debate about what is planned for our native forests is far from over.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Having brought you these two stories in recent weeks ...
… we now bring you this further dissection of the proposed new Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOA) from North East Forest Alliance’s (NEFA) Dailan Pugh.
Mr Pugh takes issue with the answers from the EPA:
1) Why have buffers in head-water streams been reduced from 10 metres to five metres?
Currently all mapped, and the vast majority of "unmapped", headwater (ie catchments < 20ha) streams in north-east NSW require 10 metre buffers.
The proposal to reduce the current requirement to apply 10m buffers to all headwater streams within 100km upstream of the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) mapped distributions of a threatened fish is a huge reduction. The plan is to only retain 10m buffers on all headwater streams within the North Coast Intensive Zone. All other headwater streams are intended to have buffers reduced to 5m.
My assessment of the Clarence and Richmond catchments is this will represent around a 35 per cent reduction of existing riparian buffers (outside 'informal reserves'), a 24 per cent reduction due to changes in stream buffers and an additional 11 per cent reduction due to the loss of protections around records of threatened fauna.
The scientific evidence is that we should be increasing buffers on headwater streams to 30m, not reducing most of them to 5m.
2) Why have specifications for threatened species protections been removed?
For north-east NSW the intent is to remove the need to survey for and protect 22 threatened animals (nine mammals, six birds, six frogs and one reptile), with prescriptions only retained for 14 species.
A total of 60 threatened plants will still require limited surveys and limited protection ranging from Roadside Management Plans up to 20m exclusions.
Overall 228 threatened plant species (72 per cent) will lose all protection and 28 species (nine per cent) will have reduced protection.
- Dailan Pugh (NEFA)
Of the 91 species currently requiring 50m buffers around them (ie 0.79ha), 79 will have all protection removed and the rest will have buffers reduced to 20m (i.e. 0.13ha).
The agencies intend to set aside "wildlife clumps" as an alternative, though these will not be based on surveys or records, rather they will just be subjectively chosen by the Forestry Corporation and thus will not necessarily protect any threatened species.
3) Why has the need to look for and protect koalas prior to logging been removed?
Since 1997 the Forestry Corporation have been required to thoroughly search for Koala scats ahead of logging and establish exclusion zones around Koala High Use Areas.
NEFA caught them out in 2012 for refusing to do the searches with the thoroughness required, so rather than requiring independent searches the EPA and Forestry Corporation agreed to use modelling.
In 2016 the EPA convened an expert panel to review various approaches, coupled with extensive groundwork, to identify potential Koala habitat.
The project found that neither modelling nor detailed mapping were accurate enough to identifying the "occurrence of feed trees and therefore habitat class at the level of detail required for management in state forests".
The panel unanimously agreed "the primary intent and focus should be to identify the location, distribution and extent of areas that are supporting extant/resident koala populations".
Undaunted the EPA were determined to get rid of surveys so they had DPI-forestry prepare a model that they are now using for regulation - requiring increased tree retention in virtual habitat rather than exclusion of logging from occupied habitat.
4) Why is there a need to establish a 140,000 ha intensive clearfell area between Grafton and Taree?
Within the loggable area of the 140,000ha North Coast Intensive Logging Zone the requirement will be to retain up to five hollow-bearing trees per hectare, and in modelled Koala habitat up to five – 10 Koala feed trees per hectare (where they still survive).
The stated intent is to maximise the inclusion of these retained trees within the 10 per cent of the loggable area that will be set aside as wildlife and habitat clumps.
For the remaining 90 per cent of the loggable area there will be no minimum tree retention requirements, so if the tree retention requirements have been met in the clumps (which is likely) then they will be able to clearfell patches up to 45ha in extent.
The reason it is being done is to increase short-term yields and to convert native forests into what the EPA call "quasi-plantations".
5) Why has the overall amount of timber to be taken from public native forests been increased by 59,300 cubic metres?
The EPA asserts that the IFOA does not change future wood supplies. Mr Pugh however refutes this:
The NSW Government repeatedly promised the new IFOA would result in "no net change to wood supply and no erosion of environmental values".
According to the available data, for north-east NSW currently 177,700 m3 per annum of large and small high quality saw logs from native forests and hardwood plantations is committed to sawmillers in Wood Supply Agreements. This is the current wood supply.
The Natural Resources Commission's (NRCs) assessment of available timber yields was that even with the increased logging intensity, reduction of stream buffers, and removal of protections for threatened species that "it is not possible to meet the Government’s commitments around both environmental values and wood supply".
They identified there would still be a shortfall of 7,600 to 8,600 cubic metres of high quality saw logs per annum due to protections for Endangered Ecological Communities and Koalas, which they are now proposing to make up for by logging protected old growth forest and rainforest.
Nowhere in their documents do the NRC say what timber volumes they base these conclusions on. When I asked, I was told that their considerations have been based on high quality saw log volumes from north-east NSW's native forests and hardwood plantations of 237,000m3 per annum.
This is an increase of 59,300m3 above current wood supply commitments.
6) Is it true that contracts for native timber supplies have already been signed - for example with Boral through until 2028?
The current Wood Supply Agreements (WSA) have been issued until 2023.
In 2014 the NSW Government spent $8.55 million to buy back 50,000 m3 per annum of high quality saw logs from Boral “to reduce the harvest of high-quality saw logs on the North Coast to ensure the long-term sustainable supply of timber from the region’s forests".
Their WSA was extended until 2028, effectively increasing the total volume committed to Boral. Now the timber theoretically bought back, and more, appears to have been re-allocated to the industry for free according to the NRC figures.
The Forestry Corporation have also issued an Expression of Interest for new WSAs for 416,851 tonnes per annum of low quality sawlogs and residual logs (ie logs at least 10cm in diameter and 2.4m long) from north east NSW’s native forests and plantations (58 per cent) of the total log resources predicted to be produced), which the EOI sates they intend to issue in June 2018.
These volumes assume that the new logging rules have been approved.
The NSW Government seeks feedback on the new rules proposed for native forestry on public land in NSW.
Closing date is July 13.