Dear Jennifer,
Last week I imposed the world’s most stringent environmental conditions on the Tamar Valley pulp mill project [in Tasmania]. My decision was based solely on science and implemented the recommendations of the Chief Scientist of Australia, Dr Jim Peacock who had reported on all of the scientific issues which fell under my jurisdiction.
Critics of the mill have claimed that I should have investigated and imposed conditions on matters outside the Commonwealth’s environmental jurisdiction.
They overlook the fact that I have to act within the law and as I have set at greater length on my website the Commonwealth’s environmental jurisdiction is limited to categories detailed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
See below for a summary of the decision. Click here for the media release and links to the complete documentation.
Given the extraordinary degree of misinformation about this matter, I would like to set down a few facts about the mill.
The mill will not process any timber from old growth forests. The timber sources will come exclusively from plantation timber and regrowth forests, ie areas which have previously been logged and have regenerated. Within five years it is expected the mill will be using 80% timber from plantations. All timber sourced is covered by the Tasmanian Regional Forestry Agreement which mandates sustainable forestry practices.
There will be no additional logging needed to support the mill. The economics of the mill are based on adding value to woodchips which would otherwise be exported to overseas pulp mills (all of which would have less stringent environmental conditions than those I have imposed on the Tamar Valley pulp mill.)
The site of the pulp mill is not in a pristine wilderness, but in a precinct zoned “heavy industrial” which includes the Comalco aluminium smelter that has been operating there since 1955 as well as a power station and other industrial operations. Check it out on Google Earth if you don’t have time to visit.
The pulp mill will not add 2% to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian Greenhouse Office advises that because the mill will use renewable wood waste for energy it is likely to be either carbon neutral or have a low emission profile compared with the “business as usual” base case of woodchip production and export to pulp mills overseas. Remember power stations fuelled with renewable fuels (biomass) qualify under the MRET scheme in many circumstances. That is why ethanol and bio-diesel are regarded as green fuels.
As you know, I resolved back in August that I would refer the scientific issues central to my assessment of the proposal to the Chief Scientist of Australia, Dr Jim Peacock, who assembled a panel of scientists toadvise him, each of them an expert in the relevant fields.
The Chief Scientist presented me with his report last week and I have made a decision to approve the mill which, consistent with the recommendations of Dr Peacock, imposes the world’s toughest environmental safeguards.
In August, the draft recommendations of my Department proposed 24 conditions be imposed on the proposed pulp mill. The number of conditions has now doubled to 48. The conditions I have imposed are the toughest to be placed on any mill of this type in the world. My decision was based on a rigorous, accountable and transparent assessment process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
My decision, consistent with Dr Peacock’s recommendations, includes:
1. 16 conditions relating to the management of effluent from the pulp mill, including stringent levels which if exceeded will mean the mill must close until such time as an advanced (tertiary) effluent treatment process that produces high quality water is put in place.
2. maximum dioxin levels in the effluent discharged from the mill will be almost four times more stringent than world’s best practice and trigger levels (which will require immediate remedial action) will be more than six times more stringent.
3. the establishment of an Independent Expert Group, appointed by the Minister and drawn from leading national and international scientists to assist with the design, implementation, monitoring and approval of the pulp mill.
4. a requirement that Gunns prepare for the Minister’s approval an integrated Environmental Impact Management Plan, in consultation with the Independent Expert Group, to ensure no adverse impacts on Commonwealth environment matters. Some elements of the plan will be required to be approved before any construction begins and the final plan requires approval before the mill is commissioned.
5. the appointment by the Minister of an Independent Site Supervisor to monitor Gunns’ compliance with the conditions. The Independent Site Supervisor will have the full range of powers as an inspector under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to ensure there are no impediments in terms of access to information or locations to the performance as supervisor.
6. 17 conditions relating to the protection of both listed threatened and migratory species, including measures to protect the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, the Tasmanian Devil, fur seals, whales, dolphins and rare native vegetation.
7. requirements for around 400 hectares of protected reserve to be set aside for protected plants and animals.
8. a requirement for transparent and regular reporting by Gunns of compliance with the conditions, to be independently audited by an auditor agreed to by the Department. This report must be also be made available to the public.
My decision was based on the advice of the Chief Scientist, comprehensive advice from my Department, and over 36,000 public submissions received during the assessment process. To ensure as much transparency and accountability as possible in the decision-making process, I included three periods of public comment over the five month since the assessment commenced in April 2007.
The Australian Government’s assessment of the mill was restricted to a set of defined environmental matters, namely the marine environment under Commonwealth jurisdiction, and threatened and migratory species.
As has consistently been the case throughout this assessment, the majority of public concerns relate to issues beyond the Australian Government’s legal powers. The Tasmanian Government is responsible for many of the issues surrounding the pulp mill. These include emissions of odours, local air quality and impacts on Tasmanian waters. I should note the stringent conditions on effluent composition that I have imposed (in order to protect Commonwealth waters) will confer added protection to the marine environment within Tasmanian jurisdiction. .
Wood supply issues are not subject to assessment under the EPBC Act so long as the wood supply, as is the case here, is covered by a Regional Forestry Agreement.
I have been very critical of the Tasmanian assessment process. The decision of the Lennon Government to abandon the assessment by the RPDC unfortunately undermined the trust of the people of Tasmania. The RPDC was, as is the usual practice, considering both State and Commonwealth environmental issues in a bilateral process. When Mr Lennon abandoned that process, I had no choice but to consider the Commonwealth issues myself and I have run a transparent and consultative Commonwealth assessment. The outcome of that process ensures that the pulp mill meets world’s best practice in those areas protected under Commonwealth environment law.
Please visit my Department’s website for more information on my decision, the conditions and a copy of the Chief Scientist’s report.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm Turnbull
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer: It seems Malcolm was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I wondered if the extra conditions were designed to force Gunns to back off with their current pulp mill design. Do we have an ECF versus TCF debate on our hands now?
IMO there is a lot money swing in the draft of a model meantime. We have no direct equivalent up an running elsewhere. Somebody has to prove the darned thing can work to the world’s best guidelines before the building blocks of engineering can be assembled. The world’s best engineering must come before the science can proceed.
It was always thus.
what a great blog Jennifer….I trust as the days go by that this Mill, despite Malcolms approval with tough guidelines, will be seen for what it is and what it will do. We all kow at times Australia has floods and drought, but we do not have a dam on the Franklin river. In 20 years time we will look back and be very glad we do not have a pulp mill on the Tamar. Malcolm has indeed put great spin on his terms of reference. It seems that even as he was preparing the announcement he could still fit in time for a meeting from the Tas Chamber of Commerce & Industry and one fishermans group. Surely too limited a scope and which experts did he have ?? The ones judged as the most suitable to sit on the RPDC?
He talks about burning biomass..wood pulp…at the same time as Launceston struggles to keep up with demand to buy wood heaters back from it’s coughing citizens. 17 000 woodheater equivalent. How many hectares of timber and what of the animals habitat? Old growth forest or not they will have no where to live and our re growth forests are recovering biospheres, Malcolm should visit one!
There are too many no’s to this and the railroading of the democrtic process i only one aspect. That FOI legislation does NOT apply to our timber industry supply deals hints of a crime somewhere…blogs like yours hopefully lead people to find out the truth.
cheers
John
What a load of moronic crap, John. Many species actually prefer regrowth forests to old growth because of the enhanced growth taking place within them. The entire leaf, sap, blossom and seed based food chains are in peak condition in vigourously regrowing forests.
The wildlife vote with their feet and they move back into a regenerating site within months after harvest operations. Indeed, the most significant adverse effect on regeneration is the concentration of wildlife from adjoining areas as they feed on the abundant supply of fresh, highly nutritious new growth.
This phenomenon has been recognised by forest managers since the Romans introduced Chestnut to Britain for continual management in coppice rotations that, as recorded by Rackham, survive to this day. In those days the problem was Deer and Cattle grazing on, and ruining, the fresh shoots that sprang from the retained stump. In Tasmania it is ‘Roos, Wallabies and all the other leaf feeders that flock there from adjoining areas.
But it is testimony to the intellectual sloth and gross dishonesty of the green movement that they can complain loudly about measures to restrict the impact of wildlife on the quality of regenerating forest while in steadfast denial that the same wildlife flock to a regenerating coupe to exploit the ecological surplus that is produced there.
The real experts in wildlife ecology are the wildlife themselves. And for more than 60 generations of woodsmen they have chosen to associate with those humans who are born, live and die in the forests like themselves.
The wildlife clearly want nothing to do with green ideologues from the urban badlands. And I trust their judgement.
The wildlife clearly want nothing to do with green ideologues from the urban badlands. – Ian Mott
What a stupid bloody comment. Emotive, unsubstantiated rubbish designed to imply all wildlife benefit from new growth forest when old growth gets removed. Typically designed to divide and misinform. Intellectual sloth and gross dishonesty clearly on show.
Well – the tone here keeps lifting!
I’m awaiting Luke’s condemnation and disparagement of all who oppose the mill – the science underpinning the decision is even clearer than that cited to bolster AGW,
We’ve used comparisons with holocaust denial creationists , natural therapy enthusiasts ; can we find a new ad hom for mill opponents?
“can we find a new ad hom for mill opponents?”
The Mill on the Opps.
Does Daniel Gallagher have any facts to contribute here or is this just another dump of ill-informed opinion. Even some minor effort by way of substantiation would improve on your last post.
But lets face it. You know absolutely jack $h!#& about the rate at which wildlife return to previously harvested coupes and even less about the comparative density of animals between old growth and effective regeneration.
And me? I was born in a forest, planted my first trees as a 4 year old in 1959, helped collect native seeds (you could only buy pine in those days), sow them into home made tinplate growtubes (we still have them), spending days out in the monsoon transplanting wildings into the bare patches left by the removal of crofton weed, helped with a classic regen burn, split my first bloodwood posts at 14 years, spent an entire school holiday hand felling a fallow patch and learned, the hard way, how to beat a wildfire without water.
The forest on our previously compulsorily cleared property has gone from 0.5% to between 75% and 85% depending on how one defines the gaps on the margins. It includes all of the original species mix in a multi-aged wet forest mosaic with all of the original inhabitants as honoured guests. And through all that time we have taken poles, posts and sawlogs as required.
So tell us, Daniel. What, exactly, is the nature, duration and extent of your forest management experience? We wait with baited breath.
Now that the Independent umpire (Chief Scientist and a panel of ‘independent experts’) has ruled on the Tasmanian pulp mill, opponents to the pulp mill have moved to target another source.
In what would normally be considered a Secondary boycott under the Trade Practices Act, opponents including Millionaire Business man and Telstra Director Geoff Cousins, are urging the ANZ bank not to invest in the project.
The Wilderness Society and its partners has established a Web site “tellmrsmith.org” for the express purpose of conducting a campaign against the ANZ bank that is designed to send standard emails to the bank that may damage the developer’s Business and urge the ANZ not to invest in this company.
The other partners to this campaign are Bank-track and the Rainforest Action Network both international groups comprising other activist organizations.
Whilst Section 45DD gives an exemption to secondary boycotts for ‘environmental protection’ this is now a moot point as the Chief Scientist and Minister have acted to protect the environment, and the pulp mill as approved will not impact on the Environment. The Federal Court has also ruled that the Regional Forest Agreement protects all environmental values listed by the Commonwealth’s EPBC Act.
Will the ACCC investigate Cousins and his mates!
Facts Ian – that’s right, how about them rather than a boring life story and your usual dump on people who live in the urban environment or are considered green.
Solly and McGauchie were incensed when Cousins was moved onto the TLS board – the ALP said it was an appointment of a Howard “mate”
Well he has been going for Turnbull ever since.
Very good travis!
Once again, Daniel. What, exactly, is the nature, duration and extent of your forest management experience?
Fact: Wildlife feed on young seedlings and shoots to such an extent that they can seriously impair the quality of the regenerating stand.
Fact: Wildlife move to regenerating stands from other parts of the forest.
Fact: The resulting density of these species in regenerating stands is higher than in the rest of the forest.
Fact: Decaying limbs and stems (as found in old growth forests) are a poor source of the leaf, bud, seed and sap that is the basis for almost the entire forest food chains.
Fact: Leaf, bud, seed and sap production are maximised when healthy, early mature stems expand to capture the additional soil moisture, nutrients and sunlight that is present in newly created gaps in the canopy. (ie from thinning and partial harvests).
Fact: Excess competition between stems increases the proportion of biological resources that each stem uses on mere survival. And in the case of Koalas, this results in longer periods in which leaf moisture content is below 65% and nitrogen levels are below 1.5%, rendering the leaves indigestible to the Koalas.
Reasonable Conclusions: Many species prefer regenerating stands to old growth because the volume and nutritional value of food sources are superior to that of old growth (decaying) forest.
Reasonable Conclusion: A properly managed mosaic of coupes in a cycle of growth, harvest and regeneration will support a higher population of dependent species than a neglected decaying forest.
Reasonable Conclusion: The long-term health and survival of dependent species is best served by those who maintain forests in a multi-aged mosaic of vigorous growth.
Reasonable Conclusion: Those who promote the ending of management for timber production in perpetuity are actively promoting a course of action that reduces the wildlife carrying capacity of forests and increases the vulnerability of dependent species.
There was a time when people like us WERE the green movement. That is, until we were betrayed by treeless urban scum. And having first betrayed
the only people who knew how to create splendid native forests on previously cleared land, they now implement policies that betray the very wildlife they so loudly claim to represent.
Is there any wonder that the people who have quietly regenerated native forests all over the country, almost to a man, hate the green movement’s guts?
Surely, Ian Mott, you’re not equating your multi-aged mosaic wet-forest regrowth, selectively logged, with Gunns industrial forestry practises? Theirs is, amongst other things, a selective forcing in plant diversity and therefore animal diversity.
I’m worried about the scale and sustainability of this enterprise, and the nature of the relationship between commission, company,union and political party.Lennon and Gay have been barely able to restrain themselves throughout the process.
The fact that Jim Peacock managed to scare up another 24 conditions in next to no time only throws doubt on the thoroughness of the original requirements.
Just to put the issue of dioxin release into context.
There is a list of permissable concentrations of toxins of almost every variety.
The Australian standard for tolerable monthly intake for dioxins is 70pg/kg of bodyweight/month.
Dioxins occur everywhere.
The major foods contributing to dioxin exposure for the general population are fish, and milk and dairy products.
These are widely promoted as essential foods for good nutrition in Australia.
So we eat the stuff, daily.
A manufacturer or processor does not have to take action to remove dioxins from food products unless the content is above the legal limit.
For those people with an intolerable fear of dioxins, there is not much food available for you to eat that is dioxin free.
Let’s get some common sense into this discussion.
Ian,
I am a practicing forester. I understand your frustration. I have seen the industry in which I work systematically cut to pieces through media fueled lies, supposed forest advocacy by well connected society morons who wouldn’t know a tuart from a pinaster pine and governments that would rather listen to doctors about forest management than professional foresters. I feel so sorry for the many older foresters whose quiet, professional management really led to the creation of much of the modern forest conservation estate that conserved forest values yet provided work for communities of people. Funny that the very same stands these foresters managed are now those the eco-babble rabble suddenly see as threatened and in need of saving. It is a real further kick in the guts that foresters have to now watch the development and implementation of new green-pandering forest policy from the sidelines (since we have an apparently biased view on how to manage forests..Amazing that!!.)
Hate is a strong word but i must say that that is how i feel towards these people who purport to care about the forest but do not take a forestry course to learn the basics or even have the guts to really listen to someone who has an oposing view to theirs with the experience and knowledge to back it up..
Many species prefer regenerating stands to old growth because the volume and nutritional value of food sources are superior to that of old growth (decaying) forest. – Ian Mott
Not all species Ian, hence why some are threatened and endangered.
Those who promote the ending of management for timber production in perpetuity are actively promoting a course of action that reduces the wildlife carrying capacity of forests and increases the vulnerability of dependent species – Ian Mott
So what the hell did the wildlife do before God created “forestry managers”? What a lame argument. People have altered the landscape creating situations where wildlife are dependent on altered environments simply to survive.
That is, until we were betrayed by treeless urban scum – Ian Mott
Same old anti-urban rhetoric.
these people who purport to care about the forest but do not take a forestry course…. – Steve
There are bad forestry practices and there are decent ones. The propensity here for individuals to stereotype all those who oppose certain new developments or industry practices as being ignorant or urban is no different from others labelling all timber workers as red-neck cretins.
Photos are taken of logging dumps, or clear felling after bushfires (eg Mountain Ash) and are provocatively used to attract political and monetary support in urban areas – like GP who target shopping malls.
And so it goes..another election, another emotion charged debate..
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000708.html
The regeneration after clear felling is remarkable and the uptake of carbon must be significant.
Seems everybody missed my point on the Pulp Mill “model”. This thing won’t get a tick till all the sums are done. See the news story by Jim Peacock called “Jumping the Gunn”
Cinders will appreciate that signature species include more than eagles under the RFA.
On standards of environmental measurement under the RFA I appreciate, one of the original scientists concerned had Tassie blood in his veins.
Readers too will one day appreciate that much of the “developed” Tasmanian forests are now mono culture, and as such are hardly an asset in terms of long term diversity which is why Malcolm’s team are still looking at the ground as well as the marine environment.
Readers should follow the Quin pulp mill story after I’ve finished hammering that flat footed ALP leadership on their hospital program for the bush.
http://nwtasmania.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=1065548&category=general
So, more unsubstantiated opinion from Gallagher and still no word on the nature, duration and extent of your forest management experience?
So tell us all, Daniel, which forest dwelling species are on the threatened or endangered list? And which of those DO NOT exploit the ecological surplus created by a regenerating stand?
And Nick just doesn’t get it. Does he seriously think that regenerating stands are not thinned or partially harvested in Tasmania? A metrocentric moron might gain that impression if his only source of information was the mainstream images of final harvest coupes but one with even the most rudimentary grasp of forest growth and ecological processes SHOULD know that it takes a number of thinnings to produce a high quality mature stand.
And it is those numerous thinning events spread over 80 or more years that will provide the major feed stock for the pulp mill. When the urban punters build houses with bent stems then there will be no need for a pulp mill.
And while the Gunns coupes may well be larger than my own operations, the outcomes are essentially the same because the TasForest managed area is correspondingly larger too.
Spot on, Steve. I wouldn’t dream of performing a tracheotomy on a choking patient if there was a trained medico who knew exactly what to do. But we are subjected to clowns like “Doctors for Forests” who are convinced that our perfectly healthy forests need their attention and seek to perform the equivalent of a tracheotomy to our forests, and armed with a blunt machete.
Hate is, indeed, a strong term but what other word can one use to describe people who offend every fibre of one’s being? People hate paedophiles, not so much for the act but, rather, for the betrayal of trust and the damage they inflict. So let it be with the green movement.
First Nazis, now paedophiles. What a little charmer you are Mott. So full of your own bloody self-righteousness it makes me wonder how you ever see daylight when your head’s so far up your cloaca. Spare us the hate and vitriol and personal sob stories.
Wu, faan jue nei ma ge hai.
The extraordinary gall of the green movement is highlighted by the current criticism of TasForests for replacing some harvested coupes with planted trees.
We have had more than two decades of green calls to end the harvesting of all native forest, including regenerated forest, on the bogus claim that new plantations could fill the gap. We have also had numerous examples of regenerated stands being taken out of production and put into the Sparks and Wildfires estate due to their high conservation values.
In NSW we have even had single species plantations, like Tom Rummery Forest, planted in the 60’s at the behest of the Board of the Bannana Growers Federation (including my Father) as a secure supply of case wood, being handed over to the parks estate in direct contempt for the original objectives.
The phasing out of ALL native forest harvesting, without any reference to tenure or regeneration status, is still part of the official ALP policy platform.
There have also been numerous green campaigns to induce consumers to favour plantation wood even though it is produced in a way that delivers fewer ecological benefits than regenerated forests.
And after all this we have clowns criticising the forest managers for taking the only rational response to all those signals, that is, opting for the more expensive, less profitable, less ecologically contributive plantation option that the ignorant urban public have been stooged into favouring.
The green movement is getting exactly the kind of forest that they demanded and are now complaining that it doesn’t deliver the very benefits they had willingly foregone when they started discriminating against regenerated native forest.
The stark truth of the matter is that the ONLY reason why a forest manager would waste money and effort planting trees when he could produce a better, cheaper and more profitable forest by natural regeneration, IS THE MALIGNANT INFLUENCE OF THE GREEN MOVEMENT.
You are getting the forest and biodiversity values you deserve. Eat $hit.
Just like the ABC, there seems to be a lack of awareness about the conditions recommended by the Chief Scientist and imposed by the Minister. Gunns in proposing to start work with eight weeks are not jumping the gun, but acting in accordance with the conditions.
Number 7 of these conditions require an Environmental Impact Management Plan (EIMP) that may be submitted to the Minister in sections, it being recognised that some parts of the EIMP will need to be approved pre-construction, whereas other sections will require the completion of further studies including the hydrodynamic modelling referred to in condition 38.
Condition 8 states: All provisions of this approval identified as required prior to and during construction must be implemented prior to the relevant stage of construction.
Eg the studies will be done as required, eg the building of the factory is not dependent on the study of the impact of the wharf.
When it comes to the effluent modelling that seems such a concern, despite a report to the Federal Minister that stated of kraft mills in Sweden 19 were ECF, 2 TCF and one both. In total these 22 mills produced less that 1 gram per year of toxic dioxin. This modelling is to be done once the independent panel is in place. Hopefully one of these experts will be from oversears and be able to explain the findings of the Nye Beach Oregon study to the Minister see http://www.deq.state.or.us/wr/LocalProjects/GPToledo/WQeval.pdf
Daniel,
My question arising from your comment is then.. who determines what is good and bad forestry practice? I have no problem with counter points of view if they are respectful, considered and informed but if it is from those that think they know how to manage forests after reading the Sunday Times or watching Four Corners then I have a serious problem with that…I can tell you that in my area of forest industry management we do change forest practice in response to well conducted ecological research, technical innovation and as a response to the continuous improvement cycle that is inherent in an Environmental Management Systems (EMS). But this change is nothing compared to that we have experienced through radical government policy change that applies very little of what I mention above and is much more in response to pressure by influential lobby groups. The short term nature of politicking is very poorly aligned and currently counter productive to the long term management considerations required for the successful management/conservation of forests.
Cinders: What’s the bet on pulp mill effluent recycling?
“They could do more extensive modifying of the effluent. If they put in another phase of clean-up it might cost another big sum of money, but it may be necessary,” Dr Peacock said.
“But in itself being an environmental problem, in that case it wouldn’t be a marine effluent (problem) probably, but it could be a chance to use the effluent agriculturally, or in other ways.
“Any modification would have to have a clearance.”
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=425649
Gavin,
Whilst not for me to criticise reported comments, my earlier post shows that the Chief scientist himself recomended conditions that allow construction to start before the completion of the modelling exercises etc. so I am not sure why he is making such comments.
He would also be fully aware of the detailed reporting by the Department Expert consultants on the costs and difficulties of ‘closed loop’ or installing a Desalination plant to further treat the salty effluent, as they are available on the DEW web site.
He would also be fully aware that the ECF technology is used throughout the world and scientific studies show that where converted from the old chlorine bleaching, levels of dioxin are virtually eliminated in the effluent, in the sediment and in the ‘sentinal species’.
all the evidence available to the general public on the Department web site and also available to the Chief scientist shows the risk to the develpoper is extremely low, as the treated effluent using the proposed technology means that its toxity is below levels of scientifc significance.
It is of interest to compare the treated effluent from the pulp mill with that in the Minister’s electorate, the industrial waste water and sewerage plant at Bondi only applies primary treatment with no disinfectant to the 130,000 tonnes of effluent pumped out 2.2 km offshore each day. The pulp mill will use secondary treatment and other measures, a longer pipeline and less than half the effluent, I wonder what the Chief Scientist would say of that!
He is unlikely to observe that there is one set of standards for urban Australia and another altogether for rural Australia. And never the twain shall meet.
I am still waiting for all those eco-perverts in Sydney to show us how well they have restored the tank stream to its original pristine condition. They just can’t see the habitat for the motorway, the concrete and the multi-storeys.
But gosh, is that the time? Got to go, catch you later.
Any sign of a fact or two from Gallagher or Wu?
Any sign of those threatened species that don’t migrate to the ecological surplus created by regenerating coupes?
Steve, your question regarding who determines what is good or bad is valid. The criticisms leveled here are not only against those that read the Sunday Times or watch 4 Corners and are instant experts, but also those that do have practical experience and knowledge but a different point of view. Government policy change is another beast altogether, and there are lobby groups from both sides of the divide that apply the pressure. However, when weighing up just how much and by who can often depend on your point of view. I agree that for long-term issues such as environmental management, politics needs to take a back seat. Instead more funding gets cut, departments get rebranded and decisions are made for the stock exchange, not the long-term future of natural resources.
Ian Mott you don’t warrant an answer, you’re a crass idiot.
Cinders raises a good point re Sydney waste water and the Chief Scientist.
Naturally, all human wastewater should be recycled.
So Gallagher has refused to provide any information whatsoever as to his experience in forest management. He has also refused to provide any response to the facts I provided him in response to his previous demand that I supply same.
Gallagher also claimed that forest dwelling species on the rare and threatened list are in that cohort because they do not gain any benefit from the ecological surplus found in regenerating coupes. But when asked to identify these species and explain how and why they miss out on these benefits, he refuses to respond at all.
Once again we have the classic pattern of the bull$hit artist who will aggressively bandy about his sweeping generalities but is extremely reluctant to move from the general to the specific.
So where does that leave us? It is now a matter of record that when put to the test, the self appointed representatives of the green movement on this thread were both unwilling and unable to refute my original statement, which was;
“Wildlife are the ultimate experts in forest ecology and they actively vote with their feet in favour of forests that are part of an on-going timber production cycle”.
When given a choice, wildlife prefer woodsmen to wankers.
Once again we have the classic pattern of the bull$hit artist who will aggressively bandy about his sweeping generalities but is extremely reluctant to move from the general to the specific. – Ian Mott
I have lurked on this weblog long enough to know that with you it makes no difference how much experience or knowledge one has. If they have opposing views to you, you are the ultimate expert and moral defender. Your comments here further support this view.
It is now a matter of record that when put to the test, the self appointed representatives of the green movement on this thread were both unwilling and unable to refute my original statement – Ian Mott.
I am not a greenie Mott. Never said I was and it is a conclusion you have come to because it is easy to pigeon-hole people and you are a bigot.
When given a choice, wildlife prefer woodsmen to wankers. – Ian Mott
I feel sorry for you only having people for company.
Hello guys,
I’m not familiar with Aussie forests, but some wildlife in northern forests prefer the regrowth in clear cut areas and plantations to old growth.
Especially mouse.
On the other hand wildlife as golden eagles need at least 300 year old trees for their nests. The reindeers need as well old growth trees for the special lichen that is growing on the trees.
Guess the case is similar with wildlife in Tassie.
Some wildlife prefer regrowth to old growth and vice versa.
As for decayed trees Ian they have a huge biodiversity,mainly insects, that benefit the whole food chain.
Our problem here with biodiversity and food chains are there are too few decayed trees…
Anne,
Yes a similar story in Tassie’s forests, but perhaps we have gove over board in forest conservation with 47% of the native forest now in reservation. This compares to the Convention of biological diversity target of 10% managed for conservation.
A good place to start looking at some the science of the ecology of our wet eucalypt forests is the long term research site in the Warra at http://www.warra.com/warra/ this has a whole raft of projects and reports including habitat studies in regrowth, old growth and forest floor decaying logs etc.
Hi Cinders,
Thanks for the link, btw I meant MOOSE not mouse:)
Yes, Ann, in Australia the harvestable sections of our native forests have between six and 12 large old trees per hectare retained for habitat purposes. This is on top of the formal reserve system and on top of the large areas within our “working forests” that are also set aside for habitat purposes. These include riparian areas, buffers to wetlands, steep slopes and known nesting sites of threatened species.
This level of so-called habitat protection prescription is grossly in excess of the actual demand for nest hollows by our wildlife. Surveys of animal density conducted in the more productive regions of Eastern Australia have found that the actual demand for nest hollows by the main hollow using species is only in the order of one hollow for each ten hectares. Yet, the standard prescription of 6 hollow bearing trees/ha, with an average of 3 hollows per tree, amounts to a minimum over-delivery of 180 times the actual requirement.
Furthermore, much of the forest estate has substantially lower animal density than the survey averages, especially in drought where population declines of 80% are normal. And on top of this, many hollow using species are not actually “hollow dependent” as some have no trouble constructing suitable nests (Possum Dreys) from sticks, leaves and bark and these are often occupied by other species.
If the Australian habitat prescriptions were applied to the industry in, say, Switzerland or Austria for example, the slope prescriptions alone would effectively preclude most forest harvesting in those countries.
So when you read or hear about some sort of green nutter complaining about the loss of habitat quality from harvesting activity in Australia you can be absolutely certain that you are listening to an ignorant moron talking through their ass.
Brushtail possums are adaptable but usually live in tree hollows. In Tasmania it was found that the habitat quality was usually lower in the first few years after a fire or logging, but acceptable after 4-6 years.
Common ringtail possums build dreys.
Greater gliders live in tree hollows of tall Eucalypts from 10-40m off the ground. “The availability of high hollows in large old trees is a critical component of greater glider habitat” An individual may use 2 – 18 dens, prefers deep hollows and may build nests in them. “The need for specific types of hollows and the restricted gum leaf diet of greater gliders probably explains their inability to survive clearing near their habitat. Near Queanbeyan the numbers of greater gliders were twice as high in unlogged moist forest than in logged components and they have not colonised pine forest.”
“The availability of shelter sites is a critical requirement for the survival of all Australian gliders. All species appear to be virtually dependent on cavities in large old trees, both as shelter or den sites and places in which to nest and breed as they spend at least 50% of their life inside a tree hollow. Whilst there have been observations of animals denning in other locations, such as the sugar glider nesting on the ground under sheets of corrugated iron and the feathertail glider living under bark strips, such records are comparatively rare. Therefore, the selection of a nest tree, the number of different nest trees used, and the types of trees occupied, are key aspects of the biology and ecology of all gliders….gliders usually select very old, large diameter stems as nest sites, in part because these are the ones that typically contain cavities.” Gliders rarely nest or den in a single hollow-bearing tree but use multiple hollows.
Cinders: That link offers some curious papers given its your answer to Ann
I went to this page “Carbon, biomass and coarse woody debris” seeking insights to current wildlife conservation programs.
http://www.warra.com/warra/pub_html/publications_Carbon__biomass_and_coarse_woody_debris.html
This paper “Fuel characteristics and low intensity burning in Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest at the Warra LTER site” is of interest to the bushfire frequency buffs but I reckon it’s entirely about getting logs out of eucalyptus regen after timber extraction. In fact the whole site begs the question, how independent is their research?
http://www.warra.com/warra/documents/publications/tasforests/tasforests_13/13.261-
280.pdf
Ann: E oblique forests extend from north to south and are greatly varied depending on soil types and rainfall. My place is partly covered in old regrowth and is teeming with wildlife. Owls become a hazard after dark.
It’s difficult for me to imagine what any fire would do to all creatures large and small. Robins live in the exposed dead wood, pigmy possums live in the green. Native currants in the prickly undergrowth are quite palatable to us and brushtails eat the softer curls in the man ferns. None of this is mentioned above.
It should be pointed out, Libby, that while Greater Gliders may tend to use from 2 to 18 dens, they still only use one at a time.
Indeed, one of the greatest scientific frauds perpetrated on the forest community is the implication that all Den use is mutually exclusive. This has produced downright stupid claims that Greater Gliders therefore need 18 exclusive Dens while each other resident species needs its own exclusive set of hollows.
The simple truth is that hollow using species exhibit behaviour much like students on vacation, occupying various beds of opportunity depending on the circumstances. And they do so in a continuous game of “musical chairs” but where in most cases there are more chairs than participants.
The other major piece of scientific fraud is the notion that each individual of a hollow using species needs it’s own set of hollows. Again this is pure bunkum as Squirrel Gliders have up to 10 animals per den with 5 adults, Yellow Bellied Gliders have one male with up to 3 adult females and their young, Sugar Gliders have up to 7 adults and their young for the season, comprising 2 per female and two litters per season.
Both Ringtail and Brushtailed Possums will utilise a vast array of alternate locations like dense vegetation, aerial debris, hollow logs on ground, termite nests, and in private forests includes sheds, mailboxes, old vehicle parts, empty cans, Banana bunches and, of course, Possum Dreys.
Feathertails, Squirrel Gliders and Sugar Gliders also use Possum Dreys.
See “Whats Wrong with the Qld forestry Code of Practice” (parts 1,2 & 3) at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
The other interesting point about Greater Gliders is that they are reliant on leaf moisture content and nitogen levels in the same way that Koalas are. And that means they need fresh new leaf not old dry leaf.
And that means their food quality needs are best served by young growing forests while their shelter needs are best met by decaying old forests.
The irony is that after more than two millenia of active management of forests and the employment of extraordinary artifice in the conversion of wood for tools, shelter, furniture, implements, storage vessels, boats, carts and even aeroplanes, we have a green departmental culture that cannot get it’s tiny brain around the fact that the cheapest, most effective, most timely and appropriate shelter for forest dwelling species can be produced by the woodsmen using the very wood products that come from the same forest.
There is not the slightest doubt that the preferences of hollow using species can be met with greater certainty by artificial means than by leaving a perfectly solid mature tree for the 100 odd years it will take to develop some sort of hollow that may or may not be of the size, shape, aspect and height required.
We are told that we have this very serious obligation to provide for the needs of hollow using species but are then told that if there are no hollows present then a 100 year long wait for nature to deliver that service is quite OK.
It is a position that is both morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I decided to seek the wisdom of a glider researcher. He has spent many years working with marsupials in- and ex-situ and researching gliders, and I have no doubt as to his credibility. He was particularly fond of the claim of “scientific fraud”. In fact he was quite bemused by the whole discussion.
Glider behaviour varies not only amongst species but locations. Denning groups are often fluid amongst socially polygynous species, therefore you wont necessarily get the same individuals or numbers of individuals in the same den each night, and whilst a greater glider may not use one particular den on a given night, someone else will. As previously stated, virtually all gliders are dependent on tree hollows for denning.
The use of dreys by feathertails, sugars and squirrels is very, very rare, and more as a refuge than denning area. Whilst feathertails have been found in strange places like electrical power boxes, squirrels and sugars rely on tree hollows. Ringtails and brushtails will utilise other sites for denning (as mentioned previously), but ringtails tend to be quite a bit fussier. In more urban environments you may see some deviations from natural behaviour.
Regarding the use of artificial nest boxes, David Lindenmayer has written much on why they should be discouraged as replacements for natural hollows. Lindenmayer found the long-term use of nest boxes unsustainable. Who builds, supplies and erects them, who pays for them? Where does the man-power come from to do all this? Who maintains them, as they are prone to disintegrating? As I wrote previously, greater gliders require hollows at a certain height, which accompanies trees of a certain age. Providing nest boxes wont necessarily replace hollows if they are not high enough and are therefore not used.
Yes, greater gliders need young leaves in order to meet their energy requirements. The energetics of gliders is itself an interesting topic.
The Greater Glider (Petaroides volans) has featured strongly on this discussion on the approval of the Tasmanian pulp mill. Whilst fascinating is it relevant to Turnbull’s decision?
Whilst the Glider seems to be common along the eastern sea board of mainland Australia, it appears never to be considered a native of the island state of Tasmania.
Tasmanian possums are the Common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) Sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) Brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), Eastern pygmy possum Cercartetus nanus and Little pygmy possum (Cercartetus lepidus)
The Brushtail is perhaps the most common and its population by all accounts is increasing rapidly over the last three decades.
This is despite industrial forestry in the form ‘clearfelling’ and of exporting woodchips since 1971. Clearly forestry in Tasmania and the location of the factory that turns woodchips into pulp has no impact on the greater glider population of mainland Australia.
Perhaps the mill could have been assessed by a Greater Glider expert or as the marine environment was involved why not a Dugong expert as Tasmania does not have these either!
Nope, greater gliders are not relevant to Turnbull’s decision. Many discussions on this weblog become broader in scope or deviate into related areas. It is not uncommon.
Tasmania doesn’t have Thylacines either.
So how old does our Tassie cyclical reforestation have to get before tree hollows become common? Do such systems produce hollows before harvest? Just asking? Wouldn’t tree hollows be seen as spoilt timber?
And yes I would imagine that there are no forest elves distributing nest boxes.
Been busy all day touching up a solid coffee table with funny coloured wood that turned up under a punching bag and junk prints at a garage sale. The lighter streaks had me fooled.
Underneath was an old removalist sticker, guaranteed now, it came from Tasmania. Fifteen kg of knotty old but dense blackwood!
What’s it worth? this fine crafted re polished piece of furniture instead of a lump of firewood out in the bush. Something new that good, fully imported or otherwise starts at $500 an item.
cinders for one in the greater scheme of things never talks about the alternatives as everything is sold off for pulpwood. That’s the difference between us, I’m a connoisseur of those long lived understorey trees out in the Tasmanian forest.
” My place is partly covered in old regrowth and is teeming with wildlife. Owls become a hazard after dark. ” – Gavin
Seems like a nice place Gavin !!!! As for the nesting boxes , don’t they need somebody who keeps them up ??? Anyway with bird nesting boxes they need cleaning up every year or so , otherwise the eggs will rot!
Come on people, why no comments on the Dugongs or who would support a Dugong expert assessing the pulp mill. These magnificent species on Northern Australia surely must be impacted upon by the pulp mill or maybe Tasmania’s forest practices that are alleged to be only for pulp wood and only “cyclical reforestation”.
It is always appropriate to expand the topic to other issues provided the original topic, in this case the pulp mill is not linked as a cause to the other issue, in this case ‘greater gliders’.
The Tasmanian tiger has disappeared from both Mainland Australia and Tasmania, in the island State its extinction was assisted by the “European” influence, but no one blames current forest practices or the pulp mill, except for Sydney silvertail Geoffrey Cousin’s source of Tassie forests facts, fiction writer Richard Flanagan.
Tasmanian forests are managed for a broad range of uses and products, many are non wood and many are seen as environmental values. Forest managers through the application of management planning and the forest practices code funded by the sale of wood products ensure there are an abundance of habitat trees with hollows and other requirements. (check the Wedge tailed eagle story at http://www.tca.org.au/index.shtml )
Special timbers production is another key management option with dedicated STMU managed on long rotations and species based harvest regimes. All this and more can be discovered by a read of the ten year review on Tasmania’s RFA at the http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/policy/rfa/ via the sustainability indicators report and the Implementation of the RFA
However neither of these reports will have details of the dugongs, perhaps we need to check with one of the Wilderness Society’s Wild Country Scientists.
Hi Cinders,
As a former environmental activist, some companies have always had a bad reputation among activists. One of them is Gunn’s . If it is justified or not , I dunno. Note, I’m not against forestry if it’s managed in a proper way. Hey, we need work and products.
There are some other companies worldwide that has as well a bad reputation, among them are Stora Enso, in the Northern hemisphere, the Canadian company that manufactures Kleenex , Rimbunad Hijau in Malaysia and PNG, to take some examples.
Our expansion of the discussion to gliders and hollow trees comes after Ian’s statement:
” Fact: Decaying limbs and stems (as found in old growth forests) are a poor source of the leaf, bud, seed and sap that is the basis for almost the entire forest ”
Dcaying limbs etc . might be a bad source for fresh leafs etc. but what I wanted to point out that decaying limbs, trees are extremely useful for some species. That’s why we were discusiing gliders who seem to be hollow dependent.
Worldwide environmentalists are looking for conservation of old growth forests, that’s why the debate is so hot…. I have learned a lot from Cinders and Gavin’s links.
Lindenmeyer is the clown who dumped on my detailed submission on Habitat Tree retention prescriptions as being “complete rubbish and not based on any science” BEFORE he had even read the document. If he had, in fact, read the paper he would have noted that it was a comprehensive response to a detailed literature review by the Qld Habitat Tree Advisory Group.
Lindenmeyer’s views on artificial hollows are equally as ignorant. His question as to who would build and maintain them betrays the extent of that manifest ignorance of practical forest management and forest economics.
In the case of private forests, blind freddy would know that the forest owner, who is currently required to set aside 12 perfectly good sawlogs in the pathetic expectation that they might provide a home sometime in year 2127, will have a very powerful interest in finding a cheaper, more timely, and reliable way of delivering this ecological service.
A single sawlog, with 1.8m3 of wood will convert to 0.9m3 of sawn wood worth $900 to any one of the thousand odd forest owners who mill their own product. There will be another $100 worth of residual product like firewood, posts etc so Lindenmeyers preferred option of 12 stems/ha involves an up front pre-payment of $12,000/ha to provide nest hollows in 120 years time.
The forest owner does not simply forego this amount. He also foregoes the compound interest on that money for the next 120 years. And at 7% return per annum, this $12,000 will double every decade to apoint where the actual cost per hectare blows out to $96,000/ha in only 30 years time.
Some may question the validity of using compound interest in this calculation but if Lindenmeyer would not forego the compound interest in his personal superannuation then he has no right to demand that forest owners forego the same benefits in their forest operations.
And are we to seriously believe that the forest owner cannot build a set of six artificial nests that will last until the next major harvest in 30 years time for less than $12,000?
I can build a cabin, with ensuite bathroom and kitchen for less than that. I can build a set of artificial hollows that will meet the full range of needs of all resident species, and that those species will actually favour over randomly shaped natural ones, for less than 10% of the current cost of the Lindenmeyer option. But Lindenmeyer would rather my animals bide their time until the tree rots in year 2127.
And who will monitor the forest to ensure that artificial nests are maintained? The same set of Departmental Goons who will come round at each harvest time between now and year 2127 to make sure that my useless “recruitment habitat trees” are not removed during the harvest operation, thats who.
I challenge Lindenmeyer to a public debate on this issue any time he thinks he is up for it.
Libby you should have known you’d get a response like this! This town aint big enough for more than one expert.
The researcher I spoke to is in agreement with Lindenmayer’s views, as are many others. Unless your artificial nest box is going to be built of concrete it is still going to need to be checked for other species, maintained and replaced. Why would the forest owner want to waste his/her time building only six? Unfortunately I think Lindenmayer would have better things to do with his time than be engaged in a public debate.
What a breathtakingly stupid statement, Libby. Do forest owners and EPA staff currently go around checking tree hollows to make sure the “right” species are in them?
And in a regrowth forest where there are no hollow bearing trees, then surely, even a rabid eco-cretin could see that a box made of durability class 1 wood that lasts 50 years is miles better than no hollows at all for 120 years?
Read my above post again, Libby. It is currently part of the code of practice to set aside up to 12 mature trees without hollows per hectare if there are no hollow trees present. The departmental goons will inspect the site after each harvest operation to confirm that these 12 completely non-contributive trees have been retained. They can just as easily confirm that any artificial boxes are in good order.
Meanwhile, the species that need hollows have to bide their time for the 120 years it will take for those trees to form hollows.
And as for your researcher, I regard the entire arboreal mammal research community as some of the most incompetent or venal practitioners on the planet.
Tell you what, why don’t you just ask Lindenmeyer if he will post his nest box analysis here as a lead article for proper review by those with a real interest in the issue? At the moment the only real “review” of his work has been by his own little band of departmental mates.
” Meanwhile, the species that need hollows have to bide their time for the 120 years it will take for those trees to form hollows.” – Ian
I read a quite interesting article on a Swedish ornithologist site. It was on tree hollows for different species of birds and mammals.
It seems like a new method is being worked out , roughly translated as ” veteranisation”.
The method is very easy. Just use a saw and hammer and make new hollows in regrowth trees …
This makes the trees ” older” in a shorter time , which will suit different animals….
“What a breathtakingly stupid statement, Libby. ”
Perhaps I am adjusting my logic to suit yours Ian! Feral species have a tendency to take up residence in artificial nest boxes.
“And as for your researcher, I regard the entire arboreal mammal research community as some of the most incompetent or venal practitioners on the planet.”
But of course Ian. No one would expect anything less from you! You are remarkably consistent in your loathing of any researcher that opposes your views!
No Libby, I loathe researchers who accept public funding to do their PhD, release their thesis as input to the policy process, but then refuse to supply the data sets unless I grant the researcher a written veto over any conclusions that might be drawn from the data.
I loathe researchers who make sweeping statements on topics like nest hollows when they are clearly in total ignorance of the range of construction methods, costs and durability properties of various construction materials.
And I loathe senior NRM spivs who refuse to provide detailed responses to major criticisms of the science when those criticisms are made to a formal regulatory drafting process. The scum in NSW did not even stoop to holding any form of industry feedback. They just handed down prescriptions, some of which will seriously impair the species they claim to be “protecting”.
And I loathe half baked experts who would have us believe that feral species are more likely to use artificial nests than natural ones. If feral occupation of hollows is an issue then it is clearly an issue in natural hollows as well. And as artificial nest boxes are currently more likely to be found in urban landscapes there is more than adequate grounds for concluding that the data on feral occupation of artificial dens has a severe urban bias.
As I said before, why not get Lindenmeyer to post his august works on artificial nesting on this blog for proper scrutiny, by real “stakeholders”?
Go do some reading about pest species and natural hollows and artificial nest boxes. Your conclusion about urban landscapes just makes me shake my head…
“Proper scrutiny” does not exist when it has been signed off with your name Ian. It requires someone well-read and experienced (=knowledgable), preferrably able to be polite and fair. Travis had it spot on.