This article is by Scott Jordan, Campaign Coordinator Tarkine National Coalition, initially entitled ‘Shree Minerals’ Impact Statement documentation critically non-compliant‘ dated 20120222..

Shree Minerals – foreign miners pillaging Tasmania’s precious Tarkine wilderness

(Photo courtesy of Tarkine National Coalition, click photo to enlarge)

 

.
Tarkine National Coalition has described the Shree Minerals’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Nelson Bay River open cut iron ore mine as a mismatch of omissions, flawed assumptions and misrepresentations.

Key data on endangered orchids is missing,

and projections on impacts on Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll

are based on flawed and fanciful data.

Spotted-tailed Quoll

.

The EIS produced by the company as part of the Commonwealth environmental assessments has failed to produce a report relating to endangered and critically endangered orchid populations in the vicinity of the proposed open cut mine. The soil borne Mychorizza fungus is highly succeptible to changes in hydrology, and is essential to the germination of the area’s native orchids which cannot exist without Mychorizza. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke included this report as a requirement in the project’s EIS guidelines issued in June 2011.

Australia’s Minister for Environment

Tony Burke

.

“Shree Minerals have decided that undertaking the necessary work on the proposal is likely to uncover some inconvenient truths, and so instead of producing scientific reports they are asking us to suspend common sense and accept that a 220 metre deep hole extending 1km long will have no impact on hydrology.” said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

Utter devastation

A magnetite mine at nearby Savage River

.

“It’s a ridiculous notion when you consider that the mine depth will be some 170 metres below the level of the adjacent Nelson Bay River.”

TNC has also questioned the company’s motives in the clear contradictions and misrepresentations in the data relating to projections of Tasmanian devil roadkill from mine related traffic. The company has used a January-February traffic surveys as a current traffic baseline which skews the data due to the higher level of tourist, campers and shackowner during the traditional summer holiday season.

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (Tasmania) (DIER) data indicates that there is a doubling of vehicles on these road sections between October and January.

The company also asserted an assumed level of mine related traffic that is substantially lower than their own expert produced Traffic Impact Assessment.

The roadkill assumptions were made on an additional 82 vehicles per day in year one, and 34 vehicles per day in years 2-10, while the figures the Traffic Impact Assessment specify 122 vehicles per day in year one, and 89 vehicles per day in ongoing years.

“When you apply the expert Traffic Impact Assessment data and the DIER’s data for current road use, the increase in traffic is 329% in year one and 240% in years 2-10 which contradicts the company’s flawed projections of 89% and 34%”.

“This increase of traffic will, on the company’s formulae, result in up to 32 devil deaths per year, not the 3 per year in presented in the EIS.”
“Shree Minerals either is too incompetent to understand it’s own expert reports, or they have set out to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth and State environmental assessors.”
“Either way, they are unfit to be trusted with a Pilbara style iron ore mine in stronghold of threatened species like the Tarkine.”

The public comment period closed on Monday, and the company now has to compile public comments received and submit them with the EIS to the Commonwealth.

.
.

Discovery of Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease in the Tarkine

Media Release 20120224

.
Tarkine National Coalition has described the discovery of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) at Mt Lindsay in the Tarkine as a tragedy.

“The Tarkine has been for a number of years the last bastion of disease free devils, and news that the disease has been found in the south eastern zone of the Tarkine is devastating news”, said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

“It is now urgent that the federal and state governments step up and take immediate action to prevent any factors that may exacerbate or accelerate the transmission of this disease to the remaining healthy populations in the Tarkine”.

“The decisions made today will have a critical impact on the survival of the Devil in the wild. Delay is no longer an option – today is the day for action.”

“They should start by reinstating the Emergency National Heritage Listing and placing an immediate halt on all mineral exploration activity in the Tarkine to allow EPBC assessments.”

.

NOTE:   EPBC stands for Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

.

.

.

 

Proposed Mine Site Plan (Direct Shipping Ore) with flows to enter tributaries of Nelson River

(Source: Shree Minerals EIS, 2011)

.

“The Nelson Bay Iron Ore Project (ELs 41/2004 & 54/2008) covers the Nelson Bay Magnetite deposit with Inferred Mineral Resources reported to Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) guidelines. Drilling will look to enlarge the deposit and improve the quality of the resource, currently standing at 6.8 Million tonnes @ 38.2% magnetite at a 20% magnetite cut off. In addition exploration work will look follow up recent drilling of near surface iron oxide mineralisation in an attempt delineate direct shipping ore. Exploration of additional magnetic targets will also be undertaken.”

[Source:  Shree Minerals website, ^http://www.shreeminerals.com/shreemin/scripts/page.asp?mid=16&pageid=27]

.

The Irreversible Ecological Damage of Long Wall Mining

.

‘Impacts of Longwall Coal Mining on The Environment‘    >Read Report  (700kb)

[Source: Total Environment Centre, NSW, 2007, ^http://www.tec.org.au/component/docman/doc_view/201-longwall-rep07]

.

 

Mining Experience in New South Wales – Waratah Rivulet

[Source:  ^http://riverssos.org.au/mining-in-nsw/waratah-rivulet/]

.

The image belows show the shocking damage caused by longwall coal mining to the Waratah Rivulet, which flows into Woronora Dam.

Longwalls have run parallel to and directly under this once pristine waterway in the Woronora Catchment Special Area.  You risk an $11,000 fine if you set foot in the Catchment without permission, yet coal companies can cause irreparable damage like this and get away with it.

Waratah Rivulet is a third order stream that is located just to the west of Helensburgh and feeds into the Woronora Dam from the south. Along with its tributaries, it makes up about 29% of the Dam catchment. The Dam provides both the Sutherland Shire and Helensburgh with drinking water. The Rivulet is within the Sydney Catchment Authority managed Woronora Special Area there is no public access without the permission of the SCA. Trespassers are liable to an $11,000 fine.

.

Longwall Mining under Waratah Rivulet

 

Metropolitan Colliery operates under the Woronora Special Area. Excel Coal operated it until October 2006 when Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal mining corporation, purchased it. The method of coal extraction is longwall mining. Recent underground operations have taken place and still are taking place directly below the Waratah Rivulet and its catchment area.

In 2005 the NSW Scientific Committee declared longwall mining to be a key threatening process (read report below). The Waratah Rivulet was listed in the declaration along with several other rivers and creeks as being damaged by mining. No threat abatement plan was ever completed.

In September 2006, conservation groups were informed that serious damage to the Waratah Rivulet had taken place. Photographs were provided and an inspection was organised through the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) to take place on the 24th of November. On November 23rd, the Total Environment Centre met with Peabody Energy at the mining company’s request. They had heard of our forthcoming inspection and wanted to tell us about their operation and future mining plans. Through a PowerPoint presentation they told us we would be shocked by what we would see and that water had drained from the Rivulet but was reappearing further downstream closer to the dam.

The inspection took place on the 24th of November and was attended by officers from the SCA and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the Total Environment Centre, Colong Foundation, Rivers SOS and two independent experts on upland swamps and sandstone geology. We walked the length of the Rivulet that flows over the longwall panels. Although, similar waterways in the area are flowing healthily, the riverbed was completely dry for much of its length. It had suffered some of the worst cracking we had ever seen as a result of longwall mining. The SCA officers indicated that at one series of pools, water levels had dropped about 3m. We were also told there is anecdotal evidence suggesting the Rivulet has ceased to pass over places never previously known to have stopped flowing.

It appeared that the whole watercourse had tilted to the east as a result of the subsidence and upsidence. Rock ledges that were once flat now sloped.  Iron oxide pollution stains were also present. The SCA also told us that they did not know whether water flows were returning further downstream. There was also evidence of failed attempts at remediation with a distinctly different coloured sand having washed out of cracks and now sitting on the dry river bed or in pools.

Also undermined was Flat Rock Swamp at the southernmost extremity of the longwall panels. It is believed to be the main source of water recharge for the Waratah Rivulet. It is highly likely that the swamp has also been damaged and is sitting on a tilt.

TEC has applied under Freedom of Information legislation to the SCA for documents that refer to the damage to the Waratah Rivulet.

During the meeting with Peabody on 23rd November, the company stated its intentions sometime in 2007 to submit a 3A application under the EP&A Act 1974 (NSW) to mine a further 27 longwall panels that will run under the Rivulet and finish under the Woronora Dam storage area.

This is very alarming given the damage that has already occurred to a catchment that provides the Sutherland Shire & Helensburgh with 29% of their drinking water. The dry bed of Waratah Rivulet above the mining area and the stain of iron oxide pollution may be seen clearly through Google Earth.

.

The Bigger Picture

In 2005 Rivers SOS, a coalition of 30 groups, formed with the aim of campaigning for the NSW Government to mandate a safety zone of at least 1km around rivers and creeks threatened by mining in NSW.

The peak environment groups of NSW endorse this position and it forms part of their election policy document.

.

Longwall Mining under or close to Rivers and Streams:

.

Seven major rivers and numerous creeks in NSW have been permanently damaged by mining operations which have been allowed to go too close to, or under, riverbeds. Some rivers are used as channels for saline and acid wastewater pumped out from mines. Many more are under threat. The Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, is continuing to approve operations with the Department of Planning and DEC also involved in the process, as are a range of agencies (EPA, Fisheries, DIPNR, SCA, etc.) on an Interagency Review Committee. This group gives recommendations concerning underground mine plans to Ian Macdonald, but has no further say in his final decision. A document recently obtained under FOI by Rivers SOS shows that an independent consultant to the Interagency Committee recommended that mining come no closer than 350m to the Cataract River, yet the Minister approved mining to come within 60m.

The damage involves multiple cracking of river bedrock, ranging from hairline cracks to cracks up to several centimetres wide, causing water loss and pollution as ecotoxic chemicals are leached from the fractured rocks.

.

Aquifers may often be breached.

.

Satisfactory remediation is not possible. In addition, rockfalls along mined river gorges are frequent.  The high price of coal and the royalties gained from expanding mines are making it all too tempting for the Government to compromise the integrity of our water catchments and sacrifice natural heritage.

.

Longwall Mining in the Catchments

.

Longwall coal mining is taking place across the catchment areas south of Sydney and is also proposed in the Wyong catchment. Of particular concern is BHP-B’s huge Dendrobium mine which is undermining the Avon and Cordeaux catchments, part of Sydney’s water supply.

A story in the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2005 stated that the SCA were developing a policy for longwall coal mining within the catchments that would be ready by the middle of that year. This policy is yet to materialise.

The SMP approvals process invariably promises remediation and further monitoring. But damage to rivers continues and applications to mine areapproved with little or no significant conditions placed upon the licence.

Remediation involves grouting some cracks but cannot cover all of the cracks, many of which go undetected, in areas where the riverbed is sandy for example.

Sometimes the grout simply washes out of the crack, as is the case in the Waratah Rivulet.

The SCA was established as a result of the 1998 Sydney water crisis. Justice Peter McClellan, who led the subsequent inquiry, determined that a separate catchment management authority with teeth should be created because, as he said “someone should wake up in the morning owning the issue” of adequate management.

An audit of the SCA and the catchments in 1999 found multiple problems including understaffing, the need to interact with so many State agencies, and enormous pressure from developers. Developers in the catchments include mining companies. In spite of government policies such as SEPP 58, stating that development in catchments should have only a “neutral or beneficial effect” on water quality, longwall coal mining in the catchments have been, and are being, approved by the NSW government.

Overidden by the Mining Act 1992, the SCA appears powerless to halt the damage to Sydney’s water supply.

.

Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining – key threatening process listing

[Source: ‘Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining – key threatening process listing’, Dr Lesley Hughes, ChairpersonScientific Committee, Proposed Gazettal date: 15/07/05, Exhibition period: 15/07/05 – 09/09/05on Department of Environment (NSW) website,^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/LongwallMiningKtp.htm]

.

NSW Scientific Committee – final determination

.

The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final Determination to list Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining as a KEY THREATENING PROCESS in Schedule 3 of the Act. Listing of key threatening processes is provided for by Part 2 of the Act.

.

The Scientific Committee has found that:

1. Longwall mining occurs in the Northern, Southern and Western Coalfields of NSW. The Northern Coalfields are centred on the Newcastle-Hunter region. The Southern Coalfield lies principally beneath the Woronora, Nepean and Georges River catchments approximately 80-120 km SSW of Sydney. Coalmines in the Western Coalfield occur along the western margin of the Sydney Basin.   Virtually all coal mining in the Southern and Western Coalfields is underground mining.

2. Longwall mining involves removing a panel of coal by working a face of up to 300 m in width and up to two km long. Longwall panels are laid side by side with coal pillars, referred to as “chain pillars” separating the adjacent panels. Chain pillars generally vary in width from 20-50 m wide (Holla and Barclay 2000). The roof of the working face is temporarily held up by supports that are repositioned as the mine face advances (Karaman et al. 2001). The roof immediately above the coal seam then collapses into the void (also known as the goaf) and a collapse zone is formed above the extracted area. This zone is highly fractured and permeable and normally extends above the seam to a height of five times the extracted seam thickness (typical extracted seam thickness is approximately 2-3.5 m) (ACARP 2002). Above the collapse zone is a fractured zone where the permeability is increased to a lesser extent than in the collapse zone. The fractured zone extends to a height above the seam of approximately 20 times the seam thickness, though in weaker strata this can be as high as 30 times the seam thickness (ACARP 2002). Above this level, the surface strata will crack as a result of bending strains, with the cracks varying in size according to the level of strain, thickness of the overlying rock stratum and frequency of natural joints or planes of weakness in the strata (Holla and Barclay 2000).

3. The principal surface impact of underground coal mining is subsidence (lowering of the surface above areas that are mined) (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000). The total subsidence of a surface point consists of two components, active and residual. Active subsidence, which forms 90 to 95% of the total subsidence in most cases, follows the advance of the working face and usually occurs immediately. Residual subsidence is time-dependent and is due to readjustment and compaction within the goaf (Holla and Barclay 2000). Trough-shaped subsidence profiles associated with longwall mining develop tilt between adjacent points that have subsided different amounts.

Maximum ground tilts are developed above the edges of the area of extraction and may be cumulative if more than one seam is worked up to a common boundary. The surface area affected by ground movement is greater than the area worked in the seam (Bell et al. 2000). In the NSW Southern Coalfield, horizontal displacements can extend for more than one kilometre from mine workings (and in extreme cases in excess of three km) (ACARP 2002, 2003), although at these distances, the horizontal movements have little associated tilt or strain. Subsidence at a surface point is due not only to mining in the panel directly below the point, but also to mining in the adjacent panels. It is not uncommon for mining in each panel to take a year or so and therefore a point on the surface may continue to experience residual subsidence for several years (Holla and Barclay 2000).

4. The degree of subsidence resulting from a particular mining activity depends on a number of site specific factors. Factors that affect subsidence include the design of the mine, the thickness of the coal seam being extracted, the width of the chain pillars, the ratio of the depth of overburden to the longwall panel width and the nature of the overlying strata; sandstones are known to subside less than other substrates such as shales. Subsidence is also dependent on topography, being more evident in hilly terrain than in flat or gently undulating areas (Elsworth and Liu 1995, Holla 1997, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001). The extent and width of surface cracking over and within the vicinity of the mined goaf will also decrease with an increased depth of mining (Elsworth and Liu 1995).

5. Longwall mining can accelerate the natural process of ‘valley bulging’ (ACARP 2001, 2002). This phenomenon is indicated by an irregular upward spike in an otherwise smooth subsidence profile, generally co-inciding with the base of the valley. The spike represents a reduced amount of subsidence, known as ‘upsidence’, in the base and sides of the valley and is generally coupled with the horizontal closure of the valley sides (ACARP 2001, 2002). In most cases, the upsidence effects extend outside the valley and include the immediate cliff lines and ground beyond them (ACARP 2002).

6. Mining subsidence is frequently associated with cracking of valley floors and creeklines and with subsequent effects on surface and groundwater hydrology (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003). Subsidence-induced cracks occurring beneath a stream or other surface water body may result in the loss of water to near-surface groundwater flows.

If the water body is located in an area where the coal seam is less than approximately 100-120 m below the surface, longwall mining can cause the water body to lose flow permanently. If the coal seam is deeper than approximately 150 m, the water loss may be temporary unless the area is affected by severe geological disturbances such as strong faulting. In the majority of cases, surface waters lost to the sub-surface re-emerge downstream. The ability of the water body to recover is dependent on the width of the crack, the surface gradient, the substrate composition and the presence of organic matter. An already-reduced flow rate due to drought conditions or an upstream dam or weir will increase the impact of water loss through cracking. The potential for closure of surface cracks is improved at sites with a low surface gradient although even temporary cracking, leading to loss of flow, may have long-term effects on ecological function in localised areas. The steeper the gradient, the more likely that any solids transported by water flow will be moved downstream allowing the void to remain open and the potential loss of flows to the subsurface to continue.

A lack of thick alluvium in the streambed may also prolong stream dewatering (by at least 13 years, in one case study in West Virginia, Gill 2000).

Impacts on the flows of ephemeral creeks are likely to be greater than those on permanent creeks (Holla and Barclay 2000). Cracking and subsequent water loss can result in permanent changes to riparian community structure and composition.

7. Subsidence can also cause decreased stability of slopes and escarpments, contamination of groundwater by acid drainage, increased sedimentation, bank instability and loss, creation or alteration of riffle and pool sequences, changes to flood behaviour, increased rates of erosion with associated turbidity impacts, and deterioration of water quality due to a reduction in dissolved oxygen and to increased salinity, iron oxides, manganese, and electrical conductivity (Booth et al. 1998, Booth and Bertsch 1999, Sidle et al. 2000, DLWC 2001, Gill 2000, Stout 2003). Displacement of flows may occur where water from mine workings is discharged at a point or seepage zone remote from the stream, and in some cases, into a completely different catchment. Where subsidence cracks allow surface water to mix with subsurface water, the resulting mixture may have altered chemical properties. The occurrence of iron precipitate and iron-oxidising bacteria is particularly evident in rivers where surface cracking has occurred. These bacteria commonly occur in Hawkesbury Sandstone areas, where seepage through the rock is often rich in iron compounds (Jones and Clark 1991) and are able to grow in water lacking dissolved oxygen. Where the bacteria grow as thick mats they reduce interstitial habitat, clog streams and reduce available food (DIPNR 2003). Loss of native plants and animals may occur directly via iron toxicity, or indirectly via smothering. Long-term studies in the United States indicate that reductions in diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates occur in streams in the vicinity of longwall mining and these effects may still be evident 12 years after mining (Stout 2003, 2004).

8. The extraction of coal and the subsequent cracking of strata surrounding the goaf may liberate methane, carbon dioxide and other gases. Most of the gas is removed by the ventilation system of the mine but some gas remains within the goaf areas. Gases tend to diffuse upwards through any cracks occurring in the strata and be emitted from the surface (ACARP 2001). Gas emissions can result in localised plant death as anaerobic conditions are created within the soil (Everett et al. 1998).

9. Subsidence due to longwall mining can destabilise cliff-lines and increase the probability of localised rockfalls and cliff collapse (Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002). This has occurred in the Western Coalfield and in some areas of the Southern Coalfield (ACARP 2001). These rockfalls have generally occurred within months of the cliffline being undermined but in some cases up to 18 years after surface cracking first became visible following mining (ACARP 2001). Changes to cliff-line topography may result in an alteration to the environment of overhangs and blowouts. These changes may result in the loss of roosts for bats and nest sites for cliff-nesting birds.

10. Damage to some creek systems in the Hunter Valley has been associated with subsidence due to longwall mining. Affected creeks include Eui Creek, Wambo Creek, Bowmans Creek, Fishery Creek and Black Creek (Dept of Sustainable Natural Resources 2003, in lit.). Damage has occurred as a result of loss of stability, with consequent release of sediment into the downstream environment, loss of stream flow, death of fringing vegetation, and release of iron rich and occasionally highly acidic leachate. In the Southern Coalfields substantial surface cracking has occurred in watercourses within the Upper Nepean, Avon, Cordeaux, Cataract, Bargo, Georges and Woronora catchments, including Flying Fox Creek, Wongawilli Creek, Native Dog Creek and Waratah Rivulet. The usual sequence of events has been subsidence-induced cracking within the streambed, followed by significant dewatering of permanent pools and in some cases complete absence of surface flow.

11. The most widely publicised subsidence event in the Southern Coalfields was the cracking of the Cataract riverbed downstream of the Broughtons Pass Weir to the confluence of the Nepean River. Mining in the vicinity began in 1988 with five longwall panels having faces of 110 m that were widened in 1992 to 155 m. In 1994, the river downstream of the longwall mining operations dried up (ACARP 2001, 2002). Water that re-emerged downstream was notably deoxygenated and heavily contaminated with iron deposits; no aquatic life was found in these areas (Everett et al. 1998). In 1998, a Mining Wardens Court Hearing concluded that 80% of the drying of the Cataract River was due to longwall mining operations, with the balance attributed to reduced flows regulated by Sydney Water. Reduction of the surface river flow was accompanied by release of gas, fish kills, iron bacteria mats, and deterioration of water quality and instream habitat. Periodic drying of the river has continued, with cessation of flow recorded on over 20 occasions between June 1999 and October 2002 (DIPNR 2003). At one site, the ‘Bubble Pool”, localised water loss up to 4 ML/day has been recorded (DIPNR 2003).

Piezometers indicated that there was an unusually high permeability in the sandstone, indicating widespread bedrock fracturing (DIPNR 2003). High gas emissions within and around areas of dead vegetation on the banks of the river have been observed and it is likely that this dieback is related to the generation of anoxic conditions in the soil as the migrating gas is oxidised (Everett et al. 1998). An attempt to rectify the cracking by grouting of the most severe crack in 1999 was only partially successful (AWT 2000). In 2001, water in the Cataract River was still highly coloured, flammable gas was still being released and flow losses of about 50% (3-3.5 ML/day) still occurring (DLWC 2001). Environmental flow releases of 1.75 ML/day in the Cataract River released from Broughtons Pass Weir were not considered enough to keep the river flowing or to maintain acceptable water quality (DIPNR 2003).

12. Subsidence associated with longwall mining has contributed to adverse effects (see below) on upland swamps. These effects have been examined in most detail on the Woronora Plateau (e.g. Young 1982, Gibbins 2003, Sydney Catchment Authority, in lit.), although functionally similar swamps exist in the Blue Mountains and on Newnes Plateau and are likely to be affected by the same processes. These swamps occur in the headwaters of the Woronora River and O’Hares Creek, both major tributaries of the Georges River, as well as major tributaries of the Nepean River, including the Cataract and Cordeaux Rivers. The swamps are exceptionally species rich with up to 70 plant species in 15 m2 (Keith and Myerscough 1993) and are habitats of particular conservation significance for their biota. The swamps occur on sandstone in valleys with slopes usually less than ten degrees in areas of shallow, impervious substrate formed by either the bedrock or clay horizons (Young and Young 1988). The low gradient, low discharge streams cannot effectively flush sediment so they lack continuous open channels and water is held in a perched water table. The swamps act as water filters, releasing water slowly to downstream creek systems thus acting to regulate water quality and flows from the upper catchment areas (Young and Young 1988).

13. Upland swamps on the Woronora Plateau are characterised by ti-tree thicket, cyperoid heath, sedgeland, restioid heath and Banksia thicket with the primary floristic variation being related to soil moisture and fertility (Young 1986, Keith and Myerscough 1993). Related swamp systems occur in the upper Blue Mountains including the Blue Mountains Sedge Swamps (also known as hanging swamps) which occur on steep valley sides below an outcropping claystone substratum and the Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamps and Coxs River Swamps which are also hydrologically dependent on the continuance of specific topographic and geological conditions (Keith and Benson 1988, Benson and Keith 1990). The swamps are subject to recurring drying and wetting, fires, erosion and partial flushing of the sediments (Young 1982, Keith 1991). The conversion of perched water table flows into subsurface flows through voids, as a result of mining-induced subsidence may significantly affect the water balance of upland swamps (eg Young and Wray 2000). The scale of this impact is currently unknown, however, changes in vegetation may not occur immediately. Over time, areas of altered hydrological regime may experience a modification to the vegetation community present, with species being favoured that prefer the new conditions. The timeframe of these changes is likely to be long-term. While subsidence may be detected and monitored within months of a mining operation, displacement of susceptible species by those suited to altered conditions is likely to extend over years to decades as the vegetation equilibrates to the new hydrological regime (Keith 1991, NPWS 2001). These impacts will be exacerbated in periods of low flow. Mine subsidence may be followed by severe and rapid erosion where warping of the swamp surface results in altered flows and surface cracking creates nick-points (Young 1982). Fire regimes may also be altered, as dried peaty soils become oxidised and potentially flammable (Sydney Catchment Authority, in lit.) (Kodela et al. 2001).

14. The upland swamps of the Woronora Plateau and the hanging swamps of the Blue Mountains provide habitat for a range of fauna including birds, reptiles and frogs. Reliance of fauna on the swamps increases during low rainfall periods. A range of threatened fauna including the Blue Mountains Water Skink, Eulamprus leuraensis, the Giant Dragonfly, Petalura gigantea, the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus, the Red-crowned Toadlet, Pseudophryne australis, the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus and Littlejohn’s Tree Frog, Litoria littlejohni, are known to use the swamps as habitat. Of these species, the frogs are likely to suffer the greatest impacts as a result of hydrological change in the swamps because of their reliance on the water within these areas either as foraging or breeding habitat. Plant species such as Persoonia acerosa, Pultenaea glabra, P. aristata and Acacia baueri ssp. aspera are often recorded in close proximity to the swamps.

Cliffline species such as Epacris hamiltonii and Apatophyllum constablei that rely on surface or subsurface water may also be affected by hydrological impacts on upland swamps, as well as accelerated cliff collapse associated with longwall mining.

15. Flora and fauna may also be affected by activities associated with longwall mining in addition to the direct impacts of subsidence. These activities include clearing of native vegetation and removal of bush rock for surface facilities such as roads and coal wash emplacement and discharge of mine water into swamps and streams. Weed invasion, erosion and siltation may occur following vegetation clearing or enrichment by mine water. Clearing of native vegetation, Bushrock removal, Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses and Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands are listed as Key Threatening Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).

.

The following threatened species and ecological communities are known to occur in areas affected by subsidence due to longwall mining and their habitats are likely to be altered by subsidence and mining-associated activities:

Endangered Species

 

• Epacris hamiltonii    a shrub
• Eulamprus leuraensis    Blue Mountains Water Skink
• Hoplocephalus bungaroides    Broad-headed Snake
• Isoodon obesulus    Southern Brown Bandicoot
• Petalura gigantea    Giant Dragonfly

.

Vulnerable species

 

• Acacia baueri subsp. aspera
• Apatophyllum constablei
• Boronia deanei
• Cercartetus nanus    Eastern Pygmy Possum
• Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens
• Grevillea longifolia
• Heleioporus australiacus    Giant Burrowing Frog
• Ixobrychus flavicollis    Black Bittern
• Leucopogon exolasius
• Litoria littlejohni    Littlejohn’s Tree Frog
• Melaleuca deanei
• Mixophyes balbus    Stuttering Frog
• Myotis adversus    Large-footed Myotis
• Persoonia acerosa
• Potorous tridactylus    Long-nosed Potoroo
• Pseudophryne australis    Red-crowned Toadlet
• Pteropus poliocephalus    Grey-headed Flying Fox
• Pterostylis pulchella
• Pultenaea aristata
• Pultenaea glabra
• Tetratheca juncea
• Varanus rosenbergi    Rosenberg’s Goanna

.

Endangered Ecological Communities

.

• Genowlan Point Allocasuarina nana Heathland
• Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion
• O’Hares Creek Shale Forest
• Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest

.

Species and populations of species not currently listed as threatened but that may become so as a result of habitat alteration following subsidence due to longwall mining include:

• Acacia ptychoclada
• Almaleea incurvata
• Darwinia grandiflora
• Dillwynia stipulifera
• Epacris coricea
• Grevillea acanthifolia subsp. acanthifolia
• Hydromys chrysogaster    Water rat
• Lomandra fluviatilis
• Olearia quercifolia
• Pseudanthus pimelioides

.

16. Mitigation measures to repair cracking creek beds have had only limited success and are still considered experimental (ACARP 2002). Cracks less than 10 mm wide may eventually reseal without active intervention provided there is a clay fraction in the soil and at least some water flow is maintained.

Cracks 10-50 mm wide may be sealed with a grouting compound or bentonite.

Cracks wider than 50 mm require concrete (ACARP 2002). Pattern grouting in the vicinity of Marhnyes Hole in the Georges River has been successful at restoring surface flows and reducing pool drainage following fracturing of the riverbed (International Environmental Consultants 2004). Grouting of cracks also appears to have been relatively effective in Wambo Creek in the Hunter Valley. Installation of a grout curtain in the Cataract River, however, has been only partially successful and it was concluded in 2002, after rehabilitation measures had taken place, that the environment flows released from Broughtons Pass Weir by the Sydney Catchment Authority were insufficient to keep the Cataract River flowing or to maintain acceptable water quality (DIPNR 2003). Mitigation measures themselves may have additional environmental impacts due to disturbance from access tracks, the siting of drilling rigs, removal of riparian vegetation, and unintended release of the grouting material into the water. Furthermore, even measures that are successful in terms of restoring flows involve temporary rerouting of surface flows while mitigation is carried out (generally for 2-3 weeks at each grouting site). Planning for remediation measures may also be hampered by the lack of predictability of some impacts, and difficulties gaining access to remote areas where remedial works are needed. The long-term success of mitigation measures such as grouting is not yet known. It is possible that any ongoing subsidence after grouting may reopen cracks or create new ones.

Further, it is not yet known whether the clay substance bentonite, which is often added to the cement in the grouting mix, is sufficiently stable to prevent shrinkage. Grouting under upland and hanging swamps that have no definite channel is probably not feasible.

17. Empirical methods have been developed from large data sets to predict conventional subsidence effects (ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003). In general, these models have proved more accurate when predicting the potential degree of subsidence in flat or gently undulating terrain than in steep topography (ACARP 2003). A major issue identified in the ACARP (2001, 2002) reports was the lack of knowledge about horizontal stresses in geological strata, particularly those associated with river valleys. These horizontal stresses appear to play a major role in the magnitude and extent of surface subsidence impacts. The cumulative impacts of multiple panels also appear to have been poorly monitored. The general trend in the mining industry in recent years toward increased panel widths (from 200 up to 300 m), which allows greater economies in the overall costs of extraction, means that future impacts will tend to be greater than those in the past (ACARP 2001, 2002).

18. In view of the above the Scientific Committee is of the opinion that Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining adversely affects two or more threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened.

.

References

.

ACARP (2001) ‘Impacts of Mine Subsidence on the Strata & Hydrology of River Valleys – Management Guidelines for Undermining Cliffs, Gorges and River Systems’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C8005 Stage 1, March 2001.

ACARP (2002) ‘Impacts of Mine Subsidence on the Strata & Hydrology of River Valleys – Management Guidelines for Undermining Cliffs, Gorges and River Systems’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C9067 Stage 2, June 2002.

ACARP (2003) ‘Review of Industry Subsidence Data in Relation to the Influence of Overburden Lithology on Subsidence and an Initial Assessment of a Sub-Surface Fracturing Model for Groundwater Analysis’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C10023, September 2003.

AWT (2000) ‘Investigation of the impact of bed cracking on water quality in the Cataract River.’ Prepared for the Dept. of Land and Water Conservation Sydney South Coast Region. AWT Report no. 2000/0366.

Bell FG, Stacey TR, Genske DD (2000) Mining subsidence and its effect on the environment: some differing examples. Environmental Geology 40, 135-152.

Benson DH, Keith DA (1990) The natural vegetation of the Wallerawang 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2, 305-335.

Booth CJ, Bertsch LP (1999) Groundwater geochemistry in shallow aquifers above longwall mines in Illinois, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 7, 561-575.

Booth CJ, Spande ED, Pattee CT, Miller JD, Bertsch LP (1998) Positive and negative impacts of longwall mine subsidence on a sandstone aquifer.

Environmental Geology 34, 223-233.

DIPNR (2003) ‘Hydrological and water quality assessment of the Cataract River; June 1999 to October 2002: Implications for the management of longwall coal mining.’ NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Wollongong.

DLWC (2001) ‘Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Proposed Dendrobium Underground Coal Mine Project by BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd, Wollongong, Wingecarribee & Wollondilly Local Government Areas’. Department of Land and Water Conservation, July 2001.

Elsworth D, Liu J (1995) Topographic influence of longwall mining on ground-water supplies. Ground Water 33, 786-793.

Everett M, Ross T, Hunt G (eds) (1998) ‘Final Report of the Cataract River Taskforce. A report to the Upper Nepean Catchment Management Committee of the studies of water loss in the lower Cataract River during the period 1993 to 1997.’ Cataract River Taskforce, Picton.

Gibbins L (2003) A geophysical investigation of two upland swamps, Woronora Plateau, NSW, Australia. Honours Thesis, Macquarie University.

Gill DR (2000) Hydrogeologic analysis of streamflow in relation to undergraound mining in northern West Virginia. MSc thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Holla L (1997) Ground movement due to longwall mining in high relief areas in New South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34, 775-787.

Holla L, Barclay E (2000) ‘Mine subsidence in the Southern Coalfield, NSW, Australia’. Mineral Resources of NSW, Sydney.

International Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd (2004) ‘Pattern grouting remediation activities: Review of Environmental Effects Georges River Pools 5-22. May, 2004’.

Jones DC, Clark NR (eds) (1991) Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet 9030, NSW. Geological Survey, NSW Department of Minerals and Energy.

Karaman A, Carpenter PJ, Booth CJ (2001) Type-curve analysis of water-level changes induced by a longwall mine. Environmental Geology 40, 897-901.

Keith DA (1991) Coexistence and species diversity in upland swamp vegetation. PhD thesis. University of Sydney.

Keith DA (1994) Floristics, structure and diversity of natural vegetation in the O’Hares Creek catchment, south of Sydney. Cunninghamia 3, 543-594.

Keith DA, Benson DH (1988) The natural vegetation of the Katoomba 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2, 107-143.

Kodela PG, Sainty GR, Bravo FJ, James TA (2001) ‘Wingecarribee Swamp flora survey and related management issues.’ Sydney Catchment Authority, New South Wales.

Keith DA, Myerscough PJ (1983) Floristics and soil relations of upland swamp vegetation near Sydney. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 325-344.

NPWS (2001) ‘NPWS Primary Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Dendrobium Coal Project’. National Parks and Wildlife Service, July 2001.

Sidle RC, Kamil I, Sharma A, Yamashita S (2000) Stream response to subsidence from underground coal mining in central Utah. Environmental Geology 39, 279-291.

Stout BM III (2003) ‘Impact of longwall mining on headwater streams in northern West Virginia’. Final Report, June 2003 for the West Virginia Water Research Institute.

Stout BM III (2004) ‘Do headwater streams recover from longwall mining impacts in northern West Virginia’. Final Report, August 2004 for the West Virginia Water Research Institute.

Young ARM (1982) Upland swamps (dells) on the Woronora Plateau, N.S.W. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.

Young ARM (1986) The geomorphic development of upland dells (upland swamps) on the Woronora Plateau, NSW, Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F. Bd 30, Heft 3,312-327.

Young RW, Wray RAL (2000) The geomorphology of sandstones in the Sydney Region. In McNally GH and Franklin BJ eds Sandstone City – Sydney’s Dimension Stone and other Sandstone Geomaterials. Proceedings of a symposium held on 7th July 2000, 15th Australian Geological Convention, University of

Technology Sydney. Monograph No. 5, Geological Society of Australia, Springwood, NSW. Pp 55-73.

Young RW, Young ARM (1988) ‘Altogether barren, peculiarly romantic’: the sandstone lands around Sydney. Australian Geographer 19, 9-25.

.

What area of old growth native forest has been saved from business-as-usual deforestation as a result of the United Nation’s declaration of 2011 as the International Year of Forests?

In Tasmania frankly it’s been logging Business-as-Usual 

for taxpayer-funded ‘Forestry Tasmania’

(Source: Still Wild Still Threatened,

^http://observertree.org/2011/12/22/mirandas-daily-blog-day-8/)

.

UN International Year of Forests 2011 – ‘Global Objectives‘?

This is (was) the official UN website:  ^http://www.un.org/en/events/iyof2011/

.

Well, at the time of writing, the public relations material on the official UN website conveys a general message that the ‘Forests 2011‘ programme is intended “to strengthen global efforts to improve the state of forests” and draws upon its dedicated subsidiary United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), adopting four Global Objectives:

1. Reverse Forest Loss – reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest management, including protection,restoration, afforestation and reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent forest degradation.
2. Enhance Forest-based Benefits – economic, social and environmental benefits, including by improving the livelihoods of forest-dependent people.
3. Increase Sustainably Managed Forests –  including protected forests, and increase the proportion of forest products derived from sustainably managed forests.
4. Mobilize Financial Resources – reverse the decline in official development assistance for sustainable forest management and mobilise significantly-increased new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementation of sustainable forest management.

.

[Source: ^http://www.un.org/en/events/iyof2011/forests-for-people/global-objectives/]

.

Sounds encouraging, but where are the stated deliverables?, key result areas?, key performance indicators?, programme targets?, UN budget to achieve these global objectives?  Where is the implementation plan and the delegated implementation task force?

The website is thick on its public relations message, but thin on substance.  In the absence of any mention of the means to achieve these four objectives, my initial reaction is that it is more motherhood and perhaps just about ‘raising awareness‘.  But don’t we already know that deforestation is a critical global problem?

.

The aim of the  UN International Year of Forests 2011 seems to have merely been “to raise awareness and strengthen the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests for the benefit of current and future generations“.

.

It just sounds like more Forestry spin!

.

And ‘sustainable forest management‘ is a familiar phrase and one bandied about not by environmentalists, but by forestry industry – i.e. industrial loggers. Type ‘sustainable forest management’ in Google at look at the websites results:

• Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry  (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
• Australian Forest Education Alliance (AFEA) – includes members from Australian Forest Products Association, Forests NSW, Forest Education Foundation Tasmania, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Forestry Sustainable Forestry Program (Southern Cross University), NSW Forest Products Commission WA, VicForests (i.e. all derive revenue directly from logging, or subsidised by industrial loggers)
• Forestry Tasmania  (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
• Forests NSW  (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
• Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations  (encouraged forest be used for wood production)
• The Institute of Foresters of Australia
• Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria)  (encouraged logging and burning of native forests)
• etc.

.

UN International Year of Forests 2011 – ‘Global Achievements‘?

.

The only other information that may be gleaned from the official UN site covers topics such as promotional events, films, photos, collaborative global partner organisations plus some forest statistics, a few online publications but that’s about it.   So today on 30th December 2011 as the International Year for Forests draws to a close, what has the UN programme actually achieved?

What area of the world’s native forests has been protected from otherwise business-as-usual deforestation?  What has stopped Forestry Tasmania and its band of loggers from their business-as-usual holocaust treatment of Tasmania’s endangered ancient native forest ecosystems?

Answer:    More PR funding for the UN’s next programme?

.

Australian Government’s endorsement of International Year of Forests 2011 

.

Rather than convey an assessment here, I shall just quote from the Australian Government’s website dedicated to supporting this programme (before it vanishes):

.

[Source:  ^http://www.internationalyearofforests.com.au/] .

Australia’s Forests

.

‘Australia has some of the most beautiful and productive forest areas in the whole world. These fantastic and magical places mean a lot of different things to different people. Some of us work with the wood from the forests. Some work with the creatures that live in the forests. Some of us live in the forests and some of us play in the forest (camping, hiking, exploring) and some of us just love looking and being in a forest!

‘Without a doubt what ever your use, be it a little or a lot, Australian’s should be proud of Australia’s forests!

‘The United Nations announced 2011 as the International Year of Forests. Australians can unite and celebrate our sustainably managed forests and the diversity that our forests bring to our lives. Our forests give us wood that we use every single day and these very same forests give us the best playground that our kids could ever hope for. Australia’s forests are used by everyone and are the best in the world!

.

Ministers Address

.

‘Australia has about 4 per cent of the world’s forests on 5 per cent of the world’s land area, and has one of the best managed forestry sectors in the world.

‘The nation’s forests, and the products they produce, provide significant employment, environmental and recreational benefits to communities across Australia. Australia’s forestry and wood manufacturing sector employs nearly 76,000 people, many in regional areas, and generates around $7 billion worth of wood and paper products annually.

‘Across the nation the forests in conservation reserves cover over 23 million hectares. These reserves provide recreational benefits for communities and contribute to the 12 billion tonnes of carbon stored by Australian forests. Industry and government have been working hard to make sure our forests remain sustainable and viable for the long-term.

‘The Australian Government recognise the importance of World Forestry Day and the International Year of Forests and has actively supported both initiatives. This year the Gillard Government intends to release legislation to ban the importation of timber products that have not been legally harvested. This law will contribute to global efforts to stop illegal logging, provide for sustainable forest products made in Australia and reduce unfair competition. The Gillard Government remains committed to promoting sustainable forestry initiatives and encourages people to celebrate the International Year of the Forest.’

Senator Joe Ludwig,

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

.

And guess who’s embraced the 2011 International Year of Forests with public relations relish?

.

Forestry Tasmania

“Congratulations to Forestry Tasmania (FT) who held a successful Tasmanian launch of International Year of Forests. Held in Hobart on 25 January the ‘forest in the city’ event proved to be a popular summer holiday diversion with a steady stream of families, shoppers and naturalist flowing in to the Melville Street Dome throughout the afternoon.”
.

[Source: ^http://www.internationalyearofforests.com.au/news.php]

.

.

‘International Year of Forests 2011 off and running in Tasmania’

.

[Source: Forestry Tasmania website, 20110131, ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2011/01/international-year-of-forests-2011-off-and-running-in-tasmania?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+forestrytas+%28ForestryTas.com.au+News+and+Topics%29]

..

‘Forestry Tasmania (FT) kicked off its celebrations for the United Nations International Year of Forests 2011 with an open day at the ‘forest in the city’ in its Hobart headquarters on 25 January.   The event proved to be a popular summer holiday diversion, with a steady stream of families, shoppers and naturalists flowing into the Melville Street Dome throughout the afternoon. Their curiosity was rewarded by science and fire fighting displays, indoor abseiling, and even the opportunity for the young (and young at heart) to have their photo taken with ‘Krusty’, FT’s very own giant freshwater crayfish.

Forestry Tasmania’s promotional campaign for the International Year of Forests 2011

…to educate children early on that Forestry is good for native forests.

Tasmania’s endangered Giant Freshwater Crayfish just loves loggers destroying its habitat.

Get ’em while they’re young Bob!

.

Forestry Tasmania’s General Manager Corporate Relations and Tourism, Ken Jeffreys, said the open day was just a taste of things to come, with a 12-month calendar of events planned to celebrate the International Year of Forests.

“We have a number of exciting projects scheduled over the next year, such as the opening of new accommodation at Tahune, to be called the AirWalk Lodge.

“This development will, for the first time, see family accommodation available at one of Tasmania’s most highly visited tourism attractions. It will allow our guests to spend a full day experiencing all of the activities on offer at the AirWalk, as well as the many other attractions on offer in the Huon Valley.

“The year will also see a number of high-profile sporting events on state forest, including mountain biking and the multi-sport Ben Lomond Descent.

“And one of our bursary recipients, Shannon Banks, is going to attempt to visit all 52 of our recreation and tourism attractions around the State over the year. She’ll be writing a blog about her adventures, which we hope will inspire Tasmanians to experience the wonders of the forests in their own backyard.”

.

Mr Jeffreys said FT’s staff were excited by the opportunities presented by the International Year of Forests 2011.

“This year, we want to show the community that we are proud of the work we do to ensure the full range of forest values are maintained in perpetuity.  Our staff worked hard to create displays for the launch that were fun and informative. The public’s reception showed us that there is a great deal of interest, and open-mindedness, about the way our forests are managed.”

.

Speech notes Simon Grove (Conservation Biologist with Forestry Tasmania – Division of Forest Research & Development):

.

‘Before I hand over to Rebecca White MHA to officially launch the International Year of Forests, I’ve been asked to say a few words about what our forests mean to the people that work here in Forestry Tasmania. Since our values come from our personal life-experiences, all I can do is tell you my own story, while recognising that every one of us here has their own story too.

I work as a researcher, a conservation biologist, with Forestry Tasmania. In some ways I deal with the meat in the sandwich that is forestry today – what does nature have to say about how we manage – or should manage – the forests in our care?   But I want to start at the beginning. Life is all about discovery, learning and figuring things out, and I was lucky to discover early in life that nature, and forests, can be an excellent source of inspiration and experimentation. So here are a few of my naturalists’ memories, going back to toddlerdom.

I remember:

1. Figuring out that earthworms have bristles that work like legs – if you fill an empty milk-bottle with worms and then leave the milk-bottle in the kitchen, the worms climb out and slither all over the kitchen floor.
2. Learning that if I sat very still in the woods, I could watch the native mice going about their lives – and I could even catch them in my hands – but that they would bite my little sister’s hands if she tried the same thing.
3. Learning that bumblebees loved the nectar of honeysuckle flowers as much as I did – and that they wouldn’t sting if I picked them up to enjoy the sensation of having them buzzing around in my cupped hands – but that they would sting my little sister’s hands if she tried the same thing.
4. Discovering that it wasn’t only nasty wasps that filled the summer air with their droning, but beautiful flower-loving hoverflies – but little sisters aren’t always good at telling them apart.
5. Realising that hungry ground-beetles eat lizards if you keep them in the same cage and don’t feed them.
6. Learning that baby starlings abandoned by their parents get too hot if you try and incubate them on the boiler.
7. Discovering that tadpoles kept in a glass jar don’t turn into frogs unless you give them some land to climb out onto.
8. Realising that flower-presses were designed for delicate plants such as dandelions, and not for cacti.
9. Learning that seashells brought back from the beach get very smelly if they still have their animals in them.
10. Discovering that puffball fungi give off clouds of spores if you wee on them.
11. Discovering that blackbirds’ eggs taste as good as chooks’ eggs if you fry them up on a camping stove in the garden.
12. Figuring out that foxes eat cherries – you can find the stones in their poos.
13. Figuring out that I could make wonderfully whiffy stink-bomb mixture by adding all sorts of sordid ingredients – dog-poo, apple-cores, ink – to the liquid accumulating in the bottom of a tree-hollow; but that if I then added real chemical stink-bomb ingredients to this then I ended up with dead-maggot stew instead.

.

We all have stories like this. (Ed: perhaps only at FT)   In retrospect, we can see that they make us who we are today. Our challenge is to ensure that the next generation is encouraged to explore and experiment too.

I didn’t grow up in Tasmania, but the other side of the world in England. But I don’t think it would have made much difference to my outlook as a child. Nature’s all around us, and children the world over are tuned into it. If it’s nurtured, as it was in me, the empathy for nature can grow. Otherwise it may die away. The presence here today of so many families and children is testament to the amount of nurturing going on around us – which is wonderful to see. And what better place to do so than in our forests.

Some of us are lucky in that as adults we still get to liberate our inner child from time to time – every day if we’re very lucky. That’s how I’ve managed to live my life since leaving school – right through the years of university study; of working with nature conservation organisations in the UK; of working in Uganda as a conservation trainer in the forest department and in Indonesia as a training adviser on an international sustainable forest management project. It’s how I lived my life when I was researching rainforest insects in North Queensland for my PhD. And it’s how I have done so for the past decade as a conservation biologist here at Forestry Tasmania.

And despite what you might expect from media coverage of forestry issues, I don’t feel alone. Many people working in forestry here in Tasmania are naturalists at heart, and many more who wouldn’t call themselves naturalists nevertheless have a deep appreciation for the bush and an understanding of what makes it tick. Not so much sawdust in our veins, as bushdust – an empathy with the forests, and a recognition that we humans are not so much their lords and masters as their stewards.

My brother and I used to call chainsaws ‘long bottoms’, because to my ear they sounded like someone doing a very long fart. Later in my youth I came to see them as the conservationist’s friend, as we went about clearing wildling pines invading the heathland where rare birds nested. Today I know that chainsaws also have more prosaic functions – people use them to harvest trees so that they can be turned into products that we all use, such as timber and paper. This would be a tragic end for the forest if harvest were indeed the end-point. But it’s not, because experience shows that the elements of nature displaced by the harvest begin to move straight back in almost as soon as the chainsaws fall silent, and the forest begins to regrow and to fill with life again.

A background in natural history is good for making connections – among species and among natural processes. We learn that eagles feed on pademelons that graze on grasses and browse on young saplings; eagles nest in the old trees that grew up after the last wildfire and that escaped the browsing of pademelons; fungi and beetles recycle the trees – and even the eagles and pademelons – once they die. Eagles, trees, fungi, pademelons and beetles are all connected. Those of us steeped in natural history and ecology also make connections between humans and the rest of nature. We’re the original environmentalists. We recognise that the world faces not only a GFC but also a GEC – a global environmental crisis. I should emphasise that this crisis is not the outcome of sustainable forestry. But it is the cumulative outcome of all of our growing material demands outstripping the planet’s ability to supply. We all – especially our children – have to deal with the consequences.

In this context, we still expect the world’s remaining forests to be reservoirs of nature and yet to continue to supply our material and spiritual needs. It’s a big ask, but it can be done – certainly so in a place like Tasmania, with all the expertise in forestry and conservation at our disposal.

If I’ve discovered one big theme about the natural world during my life, it is that nature, for all its fragility, is remarkably resilient – think how forests recover after a bushfire. And the main take-home message from the forestry Masters course that I took at Oxford all those years ago, reinforced by daily experience since then, is that forestry is as much about people as it is about trees. Connecting the two concepts I come to a heartening conclusion. Through the increasing value that all of us place on our forests, they look set to become landscapes not of conflict but of reconciliation. Let’s see if we can use this International Year of Forests to further that end.

I’d now like to formally hand over to Rebecca White MHA, so that she can officially launch this International Year of Forests as Forestry Tasmania’s Ambassador.’

.

(Tasmanian) State Labor Member for Lyons and International Year of Forests Ambassador, Rebecca White MP, was on hand to officially launch Forestry Tasmania’s celebrations for 2011. She said the UN’s theme for the year, ‘celebrating forests for people’, had struck a deep chord with her.

“This theme resonated deeply with me, as it conveys the need to manage forests for many values, including conservation and sustainable development.  It means that these values, which are often portrayed as being in conflict, are in fact intertwined.  It also recognises that people are central to the effective management of forests.

“With careful, scientifically driven management, such as we have in Tasmania, there need not be a contradiction between conserving biodiversity and providing wood products and other non-commercial values from forests.

Forestry Holocaust of the Tarkine, October 2009

.

“While not all values may be delivered in any one area of forest, they are delivered across the entire landscape.  While there are of course a number of challenges confronting the forest industry at present, it’s nonetheless important to remember that our state forests provide skilled employment for thousands of Tasmanians, and indirect employment for many more in our rural and regional communities.

“And of course, our state forests also provide clean drinking water to our towns and cities, they store the equivalent of 24% of Tasmania’s carbon emissions each year, and they provide a host of recreation activities and tourism attractions that appeal to locals and visitors alike.”

Upper Florentine old growth forest clearfelled by Forestry Tasmania in 2009,

situated behind Forest Defenders’ Camp Flozza

(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click to enlarge)

.

World Deforestation Clock

.

• Each year about 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests.
• From 1990 to 2000, the net forest loss was 8.9 million hectares per year.
• From 2000 to 2005, the net forest loss was 7.3 million hectares per year – an area the size of Sierra Leone or Panama and equivalent to 200 km2 per day.
• Primary forests are lost or modified at a rate of 6 million hectares per year through deforestation or selective logging.
• Plantation forests are established at a rate of 2.8 million hectares per year.

.

NOTE:   13,000,000 hectares/year = .412 hectares/sec

[Source of statistics: FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2005]

See the World Deforestation Clock at http://www.cifor.org/defclock.

.

The following article was ‘borrowed’ from CanDoBetter.net under the title ‘The Tarkine Wilderness under threat‘ by author Vivienne Ortega dated 20111207:

.

‘Tasmania’s Tarkine Wilderness Endangered!’

The Tarkine region is located in the north-west of Tasmania. The area encompasses 447,000 hectares of wilderness including the Southern Hemispheres largest single tract of temperate rain forest, a wild coastline with an extraordinary wealth of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sites. It’s the habitat for over 50 threatened species.  The extensive rainforests, beautiful river gorges, buttongrass mountain tops, flowering heathlands and long wild beaches combine to make the Tarkine one of the world’s great treasures.

These rainforests are important for their flora which has links to the ancient continent of Gondwana, and for their lichens and fossils which help tell the story of Australia’s ancient flora and its evolution.  The Tarkine is a  sensitive region rich in mega-diversity.  It’s one of the world’s last remaining temperate rain-forests, the home of the Tasmanian Devil and many other precious species.

.

Tarkine National Heritage a must

How many places on Earth still look like this?

What an incredible asset of  eco-experience (not dodgy eco-tourism) wild Tasmania offers the world’s discerning explorer?

.

The Tarkine must be put on the National Heritage List.  The heritage assessment of The Tarkine will help ensure that the heritage values are considered in decision-making, so heritage protection is balanced with the social and economic aspirations of the Tasmanian community. Short-term economic benefits should not be at the expense of the un-quantifiable value of ancient woodlands, rugged coastlines, and forest habitat destruction.  Mining companies like Venture Minerals are desperate to exploit the minerals beneath Tasmania’s environmentally significant Tarkine area.

Enter the Tin Men

.

Demand for metals superior to Tasmania’s ecology?

.

Chinese demand for base metals such as gold, iron, tin, zinc, lead, copper is at an all time high,  and this would mean logging, pollution, roads, and heavy traffic destroying the landscape and pristine rivers.

Environment Minister Tony Burke was called on to immediately include the Tarkine on the emergency National Heritage Listing amid concerns about the impact on the Tasmanian devil population of a revised tourist road project.   He denied that he made a promise to do so.  His predecessor, Peter Garrett, first gave the Tarkine wilderness a one-year emergency listing, which Mr Burke let expire.  Since then he has let a British mining company test drill in the area. Mr Burke says the new plan for a tourist road is not the same as the original 132-kilometre loop road plan that was subject to a now lapsed emergency listing.  One road is not similarly destructive an another?   Mining and road proposals threaten to carve up Tasmania’s unprotected the Tarkine wilderness area, local defenders say.

Venture Mineral’s Mt Lindsay tin, tungsten and iron mining proposal, coupled with the revival of the controversial Tarkine link road proposal, should have given Mr Burke grounds to reinstate Tarkine’s emergency National Heritage listing.  Heritage listings would not stop mining, but developments would have to pass more rigorous and critical environmental tests.

The Mount Lindsay tin project is the largest of several mines planned around the Tarkine in an emerging new Tasmanian environmental battle. The Tarkine National Coalition said up to nine new open cut mines are in development there.  Venture Minerals predict $1 billion in revenue, with more than 500 jobs in construction and 200 in operation.  Surely the threats of mining are enough reasons for an emergency heritage listing for the Tarkine?

Mr Burke says the principle that a heritage listing automatically locks out all development is wrong.  He says with or without a heritage listing, environmental protection remains.  “Developments” and “protection” are inherently contradictory.   Mr Jordan who heads the Tarkine National Coalition says Mr Burke’s decision to lift the heritage listing means other mining companies will not be scrutinised as closely as Beacon Hill Resources.  The whole area should be protected as a national park.

The interests of miners are being placed above the Minister’s obligations to the environment. All three proposed mining projects will have secured Commonwealth environmental permits during the 18 month period he had at his disposal, allowing them to avoid scrutiny against National Heritage criteria. They will also be allowed to continue exploration drilling and associated access roading without need for Commonwealth assessments.

The mining will cause havoc to the pristine condition of the area. There is nothing “sustainable” now. It’s just window-dressing. What about the costs and long term damage of these industries and jobs? Mr Burke is supposed to represent the environment, not the mining industries. As with his population strategy, that come to nothing, he is now abrogating his duty to protect one of the last temperate rain-forest areas in the world.

.It is wrong to destroy sacred and holy places to plunder their riches, and the same applies to Nature’s sacred places.

A proud colonial relic of a Tasmanian old growth forest raped, pillaged and plundered

 

 

…and today colonial logger descendants, hanging on to the past, are paupers.

(Photo by editor 20110928, free in public domain – click to enlarge, then click to enlarge again)

 

.

^Save the Tarkine before it is massacred down to this!

.

Please email a demand to the ultimate decision maker of our temporary time:

Australia’s current Environment Minister: Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au

.

(This article was first compiled back on 20100316.  The video by Brent Melton ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ highlights issues and threats that remain highly prevalent):

.

Tarkine Wilderness

(Photo by Des Houghton)

.

The Tarkine in north-west Tasmania contains Australia’s largest tract of temperate rainforest, and is home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species.These include such unique animals as the Giant Freshwater Lobster – the world’s largest freshwater crustacean, and the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle – Australia’s largest Eagle, and the famous Tasmanian Devil.

However, the Tasmanian Labor Government has plans to construct a new tourist road through over 5 kilometres pristine rainforest for tourism development. The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area..

On 16-Mar-2010 Director Brent Melton released the free webcast video ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ :

.

Video Source:  ^http://photopia.me/index.php/client-downloads/cat_view/15-downloads.html

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Emergency National Heritage Listing’

.

[Source:   Tarkine National Coalition:    ^http://www.tarkine.org/]

.

‘Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has used emergency provisions under national environment law to include the Tarkine in the National Heritage List. This is a significant milestone in the campaign to protect the Tarkine, and now ensures that the Tarkine Road and any future developments will now have to be assessed against the National Heritage Listing. The boundary of the 447,000 hectare listing follows the boundary for the proposed Tarkine National Park. The fight goes on. The Tarkine Road still is not defeated, and the long term aim of a Tarkine National Park and World Heritage Area will require us to continue the campaign to ensure protection of this special place.’

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Road referred to Commonwealth’

.

‘The $23million Forestry Tasmania Tarkine Road has been referred to the Commonwealth for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act assessment. This project will intorduce the fatal Devil facial tumor disease to this last refuge of isolated healthy Tasmanian devils.The project is critically non-compliant, and is clearly unacceptable.’

‘Forestry Tasmania’s “Tarkine Drive”- A proposal to bulldoze a new road through the heart of the Tarkine rainforest.’

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Government Lodges its Tarkine Road Project with the Commonwealth’

.

The Tasmanian Government has lodged the Tarkine Road project with the Commonwealth for Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

“Impact on the Tasmanian devil is considered to be potentially significant for the following reasons:

1. There is considerable potential for increased roadkill rates following completion of the road.
2. Animals with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates and low natural densities (such as devils) tend to be negatively affected by roads and traffic (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009).
3. The increase in Arthur River crossing sites may lead to the spread of DFTD into new areas south of the Arthur River. “

– Excerpt from the Tasmanian Government’s Tarkine Road EPBC referral lodged 28 October 2009.

.

‘The public comment period has now closed.’

‘The Tasmanian government’s logging agency, Forestry Tasmania, has recently produced a proposal to carve a road right through the pristine rainforest in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘The proposed road is clearly destructive from an environmental point of view – as, in its current form, it would involve bulldozing over twenty kilometres of new road into remote, virgin rainforest. It would also dramatically increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, invasion from weeds and feral species, along with exacerbating myrtle wilt disease in the heart of the Tarkine Rainforest.’

‘It will also compromise the last wild refuge of disease free Tasmanian devils – a move described by scientists as condemning the Devil to exctintion in the wild. Even the government’s own report aknowledges that the road will likely introduce the facial tumor disease into this isolated healthy population.’

‘The proposal also diverts $23 million of the Tasmanian government’s money away from a strategic tourism plan for the Tarkine region towards this road proposal. The road will aim to ‘capture’ all of the tourists visiting the Tarkine region, divert them away from ugly logging operations, and direct them on a sanitised Forestry Tasmania controlled drive channelling visitors to Forestry Tasmania’s failing ‘Dismal swamp’ visitor centre. In doing so, – this road proposal would involve bulldozing several sections of road through pristine rainforest, including in globally significant rainforest reserves in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘It is critically important that a strategic rather than piecemeal approach to public investment in the Tarkine is taken. It is also critically important that government puts public money towards infrastructure and projects that don’t harm the environment, are good value for money, and deliver benefits to the broader community. The Tarkine already has hundreds of kilometres of sealed and unsealed roads, extensive infrastructure, and extensive accessibility for tourists to world-class natural attractions. It already has several accessible and popular ‘loop’ roads showcasing its extraordinary values. However, it doesn’t have the basic signage, promotion, visitor entry points and other basic tourist infrastructure needed to really help put the region on the map.’

‘When weighed up against the dozens of exciting projects in the Tarkine region that could and should be funded – along with the desperate need for development of the most basic infrastructure such as visitor signs and entry points to the Tarkine – this would be a very poor way for government to spend taxpayers’ dollars.’

Reference Documents

Originally available at the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts:  http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5169

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources  – Proposed Tarkine Tourist Drive’

.

Source:  Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, Originally available at: ^http://dierp.dot.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/45404/DIER_Tarkine_Tourist_Drive_Overview.pdf

.

[Read Tarkine Road Proposal]

.

---

.

‘Tarkine road plan sparks tourism row’

.

[Source:    ABC Northern Tasmania, 20090524,  ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579226.htm?site=northtas]

.

A Tarkine wilderness lobby group has called for reform of Forestry Tasmania and questioned the agency’s role in running tourism ventures.

Concerns about the State Government’s plan to build a $23 million tourist road through the Tarkine, in the north-west, were raised at a forum in Wynyard yesterday.

The project is expected to create 600 jobs and inject $70 million a year into the north-west economy.

But there is concern the project could impact on the Tasmanian devil and jeopardise tourism by tarnishing the Tarkine’s wilderness brand.

The Tarkine National Coalition’s spokesman Phil Pullinger says some of the $23 million should be going to local tourism ventures rather than Forestry Tasmania to build the road.

“We’ve got these tourism operators that are completely having to sink or swim on their own merits and we’ve got a government agency, which is supposed to be returning money to the taxpayer, swallowing up all of the public money,” he said.

“That is a real problem and that is what we need clear reform on.”

Forestry Tasmania’s Ken Jeffreys says it would not gain from building the road.

“Forestry Tasmania will not make a brass razoo out of this $23 million Tarkine drive, in fact it will lose access to some 650 hectares of forest that would otherwise be available for harvesting, so this is really a community service by Forestry Tasmania,” he said.

Both Opposition parties are urging the government to drop the plan.

The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area.’

.

---

.

 

.

‘The Federal Government last night confirmed that it had still not received any referral for the proposed Tarkine Road from Forestry Tasmania or the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.

Greens Deputy Leader, Christine Milne says the delayed referral shows the Bartlett government is worried that a tick from the Environment Minister will be felt in poling booths at the upcoming state elections.

“It seems that Premier Bartlett is keen to delay the referral so that consideration is squashed into the Christmas, New Year holiday season in the hope that people are so distracted that they will miss the 10 day period for public consultation.”

Senator Milne called on the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, to reject the road immediately upon receiving the application as he did with for the proposed coal port at Shoalwater Bay.

“The Tasmanian Devil is on the road to extinction and Premier Bartlett’s Tarkine vandalism will see the process accelerated. This is a test of Minister Garrett’s commitment to the protection of biodiversity and Australian species.”

“With Premier Bartlett speaking at the Press Club today he should explain to the nation’s journalist’s why he is intent on wasting $23m of tax payer’s money and risk sending the Tasmanian Devil further along the road to extinction all to support a logging industry extravaganza. Hardly clean and green Mr Bartlett.”

.