home page | contact us | partners | clients | papers
Specialising in natural resource and social planning; community consultation and facilitation; values mapping and consensus building, mediation and conflict resolution; policy development; program and organisational diagnosis and development.
Grassy White Box Woodlands |
|||
project outline |
|||
Project Update: Winter 2002Whatever happened to???Article by Geoff Tonkin - RLO in the Central West Whatever happened to that constant catch cry of those early landcare days "locking up". It seems to have passed into obscurity, with much relief all around. A big stumbling block for the landcare movement has been buried forever. All the material I have read, and everything I have heard from the most eminent ecologist in the country down, over the last few years now refers to grazing management and possibly cool burning fire as a means to enhance not only remnant areas of vegetation but our whole landscape. As a consequence funding is now becoming available for land managers to fence into more manageable units to achieve these ends. Another stumbling block looming at the moment is the fencing of riparian zones but I predict that this too will be buried as landholders realise that they still need to graze but just in a more sustainable way. Stock water is an issue in any fencing subdivisions but some limited funding for this is also becoming available e.g. Greening Australia. If you have some doubts about fencing off some of your riparian areas let me recount an experience I had some years ago after about two kilometres of the Mandagery Creek was fenced off as part of the twenty kilometre Killenbutta Corridor going through my family property "Brooklyn" near Molong. During shearing, a heavy storm on a bare paddock next to the shearing shed washed mass of sheep manure down under the new fence on the way to the creek. However the dry grass on the other side of the fence caught it all in great heaps and the water flowing into the creek twenty meters below was quite clear. So why not avail yourself of some of these grants and change your landscape by strategically grazing smaller areas with bigger mobs to encourage more deep rooted perennials and less shallow rooted annuals. The choice is yours - so give it a try. You'll be amazed at the results. Funds to protect your woodlandsFinancial incentives for protection The Grassy Box Woodlands project aims to provide support and incentives to landholders wanting to protect remnant Grassy Box Woodlands (yellow or white) (GBW). A small amount of funds is available to provide support in 2002. The funds can be used to assist with physical works such as fencing and weed control, and/or to enable the development and implementation of a management strategy for a remnant. The Grassy Box Woodland project is designed to support landholders who are involved in creative strategies to protect their GBW remnants, especially those which involve partnerships with other stakeholder groups. Application is open to individual landholders, Landcare and other community groups, Local Governments and Rural Land Protection Boards. Applications will be individually and confidentially assessed. For further information and to obtain a copy of the application form, please contact Heather Pearce from Community Solutions on (02) 9818 2684. Heather will also put you in contact with a local member of the project team who will be able to provide further information (details below). Closing date for applications is 30 August 2002.  Launch of NSW Farmers' Resource Management KitArticle by Ray Dowling - RLO in the south At a recent Workshop held in Young, the "Self assessment workbook" was introduced to the public. This easy to use book has been compiled by Belinda Neill from the NSW Farmers Association. It features sections on soil, water, vegetation, fauna, air and rural land management. The book takes the format of a checklist, where the landholder can tick the appropriate box or boxes, to record the current situation. Then they can consider if the factor has a low, medium or high priority. Sections in the workbook deal with how to handle the various low, medium and high priorities. This is a voluntary self assessment workbook. Information is collected for the landholder's own use and does not have to be disclosed to anyone else. Other presentations were given by Rainer Rehwinkel (NPWS), Nicki Taws (Greening Australia), and me (Community Solutions). Rainer spoke on the Conservation Management Network (CMN), and other matters relating to the listing of the Grassy White Box Woodlands as an endangered eco-community. Rainer stimulated much interest with his knowledgeable address. Nicki, who is from Greening Australia in Canberra, spoke on her special subject - birds, and how to bring them back. She has produced an excellent book "Bringing Birds Back" which is a glovebox guide for bird identification and habitat restoration in the ACT and SE NSW. I spoke on Community Solutions involvement with the "Grassy Box Woodland Project" and how landholders can apply for funding to better manage remnant patches of Grassy Box Woodland. I emphasized the importance of finding these sites and preserving & enhancing them. The next stage of the days proceedings was the visit to a Grassy Box Woodland site. This was on Mr. Sam Johnson's property, "Windermere", at Murringo 25km east of Young. This property is quite large by local standards, and is composed principally of native pastures. The people who attended the field day were impressed by the owners management methods. The diversity in the Grassy Woodland grazing paddocks is quite good as this property is carrying a large amount of stock - both sheep and cattle. All the farmers who attended were impressed with the amount of feed Sam has in his native pastures. He is using a type of grazing management he calls Pulse grazing, which allows the grasses and forbs in the pasture long periods without grazing, to recover and grow and even set seed. I would like to thank all who participated in the workshop and field-day for their presentations and help with answering all the questions.  RLO Ray Dowling (2nd from left) owner Sam Johnson (in middle) and others inspecting 'Windermere' Local Solutions conference a successArticle by Toni McLeish - RLO in the north Fifty six people attended the Local Solutions for Local Issues conference held in mid-May. Approximately 70% of participants were landholders. Shire Councils, County Councils and RLPB representatives made up a big portion of the other 30% in attendance. GBW identification The conference started with Kevin Thiele (Conservation Management Network) clarifying issues about identification of Grassy Box Woodlands and their distribution in the state. Kevin noted that past set stocking grazing practices have reduced biodiversity in many sites. Travelling stock routes James Austen (NW RLPB Environmental officer) continued this theme highlighting that the very nature of travelling stock routes - informal crash grazing with long rest periods - has led to a number of high conservation areas remaining on TSRs throughout the north west. James has produced a report "The Conservation and Identification of Biodiversity on TSRs and Reserves of North West NSW" (available from RLPBs in the North West). RLPBs need the support of the community if they are to meet environmental outcomes. Threatening processes Ecologist Wendy Hawes (DLWC) completed the total picture with an excellent power point presentation covering all flora and fauna that make up the Grassy Box Woodland community. She led us through a number of threatening processes and gave us some solutions to these threats. Native Vegetation Act When commenting on the Native Vegetation Act Wendy encouraged everyone to make constructive comments including possible criticisms to the appropriate people - Catchment Boards, Vegetation Committees, Local Politicians. She advised trying not to take your frustration out on the local people whose job it is to implement these Acts. Threatened Species Act Geoff Robertson from NPWS Threatened Species Unit clarified the Threatened Species Act and its impacts on us as land holders/managers. The Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC Act) protects endangered ecological communities, (i.e. an assemblage of species occupying an area) by
The nomination of a community is considered by a Scientific Committee of 10 appointed by the Minister for the Environment. The nomination process is public, but the nominee can elect to have their details kept confidential. Main Points:
Group work was also part of the day, with a variety of real life Woodland management scenarios being looked at, including health assessment, listing, threats and looking at solutions. I will summarise these in the next Update Thankyou A most informative and constructive day for all concerned with much valuable information exchanged between land managers and government agencies. Thankyou to volunteer facilitators and presenters, representing RLPBs, the Conservation Management Network, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, Greening Australia, Bushcare, County Councils and NSW Farmers Association.  Implications of the White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland Listing to Your PropertyArticle by Alison Colyer, NSW & ACT Threatened Species Network Coordinator In March 2002, White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland was added to the schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) (TSC Act) under the category of Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). The community has been drastically reduced in area and is highly fragmented because of clearing for cropping and pasture improvement. This ecological community is an important habitat for endangered species such as the regent honeyeater and squirrel glider. Given that the majority of box-gum woodland is found on private land, its recovery is highly dependent upon the cooperation and support of landowners. In consideration of the impacts of this listing, the two questions that must be addressed by landholders are 'Does the box-gum community occur on my property?' and 'Is the action that I am planning to take going to have a significant impact upon this listed community?' These questions will be addressed in two parts. Does this box-gum community occur on my property? As with any ecological community, box-gum woodland is made up of an assemblage of species. This includes the indicator species for the community type (in this case white box, yellow box and Blakely's red gum) as well as other plants AND animals that are often found in association. In addition, some other points must be considered when classifying a site. These include the type and amount of understorey on the property, the habitat value to native fauna, the role the property plays in providing linkages or buffer zones for other higher quality remnants, and regional settings such as the extent of other high quality box-woodland in the area. However, this box-gum woodland community is even broader in definition than most because if recognises that some remnant woodlands may be highly degraded. According to the definition of this EEC by the NSW Scientific Committee, it includes sites where "...vegetation, either understorey or overstorey or both, would, under appropriate management, respond to assisted natural regeneration, such as where the natural soil and associated seed bank are still at least partially intact". The reason that degraded properties were included within the determination was to ensure the protection of all box-gum sites, even in regions where only very poor quality community still exists. However, the interpretation of "assisted natural regeneration" is very broad. It could simply mean sites where an underlying seed bank still remains, and so refers to areas that are still relatively intact. However it could perhaps also include seedling propagation from bordering vegetation, in which case even cropped or grazing country with isolated paddock trees may be a part of the box-gum woodland community. It is likely that there will be considerable debate both within agencies and the community over the definition of this term. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is currently in the process of developing guidelines to try to address this issue and help landholders identify the box-gum woodland community on their property. Guidelines will hopefully also be produced that refer to various management strategies on box-gum woodland. At this point, if in doubt the safest approach is to proceed under the assumption that the box-gum woodland community is present. Keep your eye on the NPWS website (www.npws.nsw.gov.au), or your local NPWS office. Is the action that I am planning to take going to have a significant impact upon this listed community? Once it has been determined that box-gum woodland is present on your property, what are the implications? Listing of an EEC does not affect the carrying out of routine agricultural activities, as these are usually considered to be existing uses. Existing uses refer to a continuation of a legal land use that was occurring prior to the listing. This does not, however, permit an enlargement, expansion or intensification of a land use. Also, actions for which approval has already been provided are usually not affected. So, for example, grazing would probably be able to continue without assessment. However, if it is intensified by pasture improvement, expanded by vegetation clearing, or altered by ploughing for cropping, these actions would be unlikely to be exempt. For activities such as the subdivision of land, the erection of a building, extension of agricultural practices, and clearing, a development application must be made. It is required under the NSW Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997) that all clearing activities are referred to the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC). Under the Act, Clearing means any one of the following:
If the site in question is a listed EEC, then further considerations of significant impact must be taken into account. The test for whether an action will have a significant impact is outlined under the TSC Act, and is commonly known as the 8-part test. The tests that are of particular relevance to EECs are;
These 'tests' are designed to act as prompts, indicating that your action may affect endangered box-gum community. It is intended that you consult with your local state agency representative (either NPWS or DLWC). This ensures that decisions are site specific, and that a precautionary approach is taken. Issues such as the quantity and quality of the remaining EEC in the region need to be considered, as well as the amount that remains as a whole across the state in relation to its historical distribution. For example, if the action is to be carried out in an area that was once extensive box-gum woodland, and the site is now one of the few remaining remnants in the area, under part (c) it is likely that the clearance of even a small portion of the site would be considered a significant impact. Part (d) requires specific consideration not just of the flora but also the fauna that makes up the EEC, with investigation into issues such as habitat linkages. Should the proposed action involve clearing, this will trigger part (g) as land clearing was listed as a Key Threatening Process in NSW in 2001. Whatever the grounds, if a significant impact is deemed to be likely, then the action must be referred to NPWS for approval, and a species impact statement may need to be produced. In all cases, it is advisable that applications for approval are made whenever there may be doubt over the impact of an activity. According to the NSW Scientific Committee, "[Assessment of development applications] is not a ban on all actions but a process to ensure that these actions are compatible with the continued survival and evolutionary development of threatened species populations and ecological communities". It may even be that under certain circumstances, some management actions could be considered as an appropriate ecological management technique for the community to support site restoration and rehabilitation. If you would like more information on this or other listed Endangered Ecological Communities, contact Alison Colyer, the NSW & ACT Threatened Species Network Coordinator, on 9281 5515 or at acolyer@wwf.org.au. References
Email Q&A on Grassy Box Woodland issues - if you would like to be part, please contact Geoff Tonkin GBW Information Kit now availableA new information kit on Grassy White Box Woodlands has been produced by the project team including information on
To obtain a copy (or copies) please contact Heather Pearce on (02) 9818 2684. Getting InformationRural Liaison Officers (RLOs)
Toni McLeish
Geoff Tonkin
Ray Dowling
Team Leaders for the Rural Liaison Program and Heather Pearce: ph/fax (02) 9818 2684 and email: heather@sydney.net
Erica Higginson - contact in NPWS This project is funded by the Natural Heritage Trust |
CONTENTS:Funds to protect your woodands Launch of NSW Farmers' Resource Management Kit Local Solutions conference a success Implications of the White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland Listing to Your Property |