Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in Queensland -...

Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in QueenslandMartin F J Taylor WWF-Australia, May 2013

Publication details

ISBN: 978-1-921031-48-9

Author: Martin F J Taylor

Publisher: WWF-Australia

www.wwf.org.au

GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW 2001 Tel: +61 (0)2 9281 5515

First published May 2013 by WWF-Australia. Any reproduction in full or part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.

Suggested citation: Taylor, M.F.J. 2013. Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in Queensland. WWF-Australia, Sydney.

Design: Mary Clare Design

Printed on FSC certified paper (Monza Satin Recycled) by Platypus Graphics.

Cover: Mooloola clearing, Sunshine Coast © Barry Traill.

Acknowledgements

WWF acknowledges the assistance of the Sara Halvedene Foundation, as well as the advice of Dr Martine Maron and Professor Clive McAlpine at University of Queensland, Barry Traill and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

WWF also gratefully acknowledges Queensland Government departmental officers for their assistance in accessing government public data sources.

Peer reviewers

WWF acknowledges with special thanks the contributions of the eminent ecologists who reviewed this study to ensure scientific rigour:

• William F Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor, Australian Laureate, and Prince Bernhard Chair in International Nature Conservation at James Cook University, Cairns Campus, Queensland.

• Carla Catterall, Professor of Ecology, Griffith School of Environment and Environmental Futures Centre, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland.

Indemnity

Statistics and maps in this report are produced in accordance with the terms of non-commercial licenses for the use of underlying Queensland or Australian government spatial or non-spatial databases. Any errors in map production or statistical analysis are WWF’s alone.

About the author

Martin Taylor is a conservation scientist with WWF-Australia and has published ground-breaking analyses of the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act in the United States, threats to international whale habitats, and the effectiveness of conservation actions in Australia including protected areas for threatened species. He has served on the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission and as an NGO observer at CITES. He is a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.

*

SuMMAry 2InTroducTIon 4neW cleArIng purpoSe For “hIgh-vAlue AgrIculTure” 6Ecosystem composition of at-risk mature bushland 7

Limitations of Commonwealth regulation as a substitute for state protection 7

Threatened species occurrences 11

Carbon storage 11

reMovAl oF reSTrIcTIonS on cleArIng oF hIgh-vAlue regroWTh 18Ecosystem composition of at-risk regrowth 20

Threatened species occurrences 21

Carbon storage 21

AlTered provISIonS In regArd To proSecuTIon oF IllegAl cleArIng 22reMovAl oF rIverIne proTecTIon perMITS 23AppendIx: MeThodS 25TABleSTable 1. Distribution of at-risk mature bushland and at-risk regrowth due to 8 proposed VMA amendments, by local government area. LGAs are ordered by declining total area at-risk.

Table 2. Ecosystem composition of mature bushland in areas with 10 potential for high-value agriculture clearing.

Table 3. Numbers of threatened species in different status and taxonomic 13 groups occurring within 1km of the areas mapped of respectively, at-risk mature bushland and at-risk regrowing bushland.

Table 4. Threatened species occurrences with 1km of respectively, at-risk 14 mature bushland and at-risk regrowing bushland.

Table 5. At-risk regrowth by category of protection under current legislation. 20

Table 6. Ecosystem composition of at-risk regrowth. 20

FIgureSFigure 1. ABOVE: areas cleared for the first time in Queensland compared with other 4 states and BELOW: areas cleared in Queensland as a percentage of forest remaining compared with the Amazon Basin.

Figure 2. Distribution of at-risk mature bushland by local government areas 9 in Queensland.

Figure 3. Distribution of at-risk regrowth bushland by local government 10 areas in Queensland.

conTenTS

2WWF Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in Queensland 2013 page

Summary

SuMMAry This report provides the first estimates of environmental values placed at-risk of renewed

clearing due to recently proposed changes to land clearing legislation in Queensland.

Four major changes have been proposed by the Queensland Government.

1. Allowing a new category of broadscale clearing of mature bushland for ‘high-value agriculture’;

2. Removal of protections of high conservation value bushland previously cleared and now regrowing;

3. Removal of requirement for permits to clear native vegetation in watercourses;

4. Altered provisions in regard to enforcement of illegal clearing.

Contrary to statements made by the Queensland Government, this analysis unequivocally shows these changes, if implemented, would constitute a significant reduction in the current level of statutory vegetation protection.

Ch

ain

ed

Po

Pla

r B

ox

(au

gath

ella

) © B

ar

rY

tra

ill


Summary

1. At-risk mature bushland: Using soils maps and the Queensland Agricultural Land Audit currently underway, we estimated 1.3 million hectares of mature bushland would be placed at risk due to a proposed new clearing purpose for ‘high-value agriculture’ (at-risk mature bushland). Approximately 13% of at-risk mature bushland comprises threatened ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) and would likely require Commonwealth approval before any clearing could take place. A further 8% is comprised of endangered or of concern regional ecosystems under Vegetation Management Act criteria. Under the proposed changes, if this area was to be cleared, ten ‘least concern’ regional ecosystems would reach ‘of concern’ status, while eight ‘of concern’ ecosystems would reach ‘endangered’ status under current Vegetation Management Act criteria. Of species listed as ‘threatened’ under the Commonwealth EPBCA with occurrence records in the Queensland Government’s WildNet database, 66 species had more than two records within 1km of at-risk mature bushland. An additional 19 species listed under state law also meet these criteria. At-risk mature bushland contains a potential stock of about 184 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

2. At-risk regrowth bushland: We estimated approximately 700,000 hectares of regrowing high conservation value bushland would lose protection under the proposed changes, therefore placing them at-risk of renewed clearing (‘at-risk regrowth’). Most of this area (approximately 79%) is currently protected due to the presence of essential habitat for threatened species or endangered ecosystems. About 35% of at-risk regrowth comprises threatened ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth EPBCA, which would likely require Commonwealth approval before any clearing could take place. Allowing this bushland to regrow to maturity, free from the risk of repeat clearing, would result in the downlisting of 27 regional ecosystems to less threatened categories under the Vegetation Management Act. Of species listed as ‘threatened’ under the Commonwealth EPBCA with occurrence records in the Queensland Government’s WildNet database, 122 have more than two occurrences within 1km of regrowth bushland at-risk of clearing due to the proposed changes. An additional 36 species listed under state law also meet these criteria. This at-risk regrowth bushland holds a stock of about 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. If allowed to regrow to maturity, it would absorb an estimated additional 139 million tonnes.

3. At-risk riparian bushland: As a result of removal of the requirement for riverine protection permits under the Queensland Water Act, we estimated that about 85,000km of regrowing native bushland along streams is being opened to unrestricted clearing, exclusive of the categories listed above.

4. Enforcement: We found it was not possible to quantify increases in illegal clearing that might result from changes to enforcement provisions. However, it is probable that illegal clearing would increase if prosecution provisions are implemented as proposed. Unexplained and possibly illegal clearing currently represents 12.5% of all clearing.

Only a fraction of these areas placed at-risk of renewed clearing by the proposed amendments would require Commonwealth approval under the EPBCA for clearing activities. Unlike the Vegetation Management Act, the EPBCA is not based on certified regulatory maps. It is, therefore, difficult to assess simply from desktop analysis whether a given project site is regulated under the EPBCA. An additional concern is that landholders may clear areas under the false assumption that because Vegetation Management Act restrictions have been removed, no further regulatory restrictions remain.


Introduction

Figure 1. ABOVE: areas cleared for the first time in

Queensland compared with other states, and BELOW:

areas cleared in Queensland as a percentage of forest

remaining compared with the Amazon Basin.1

InTroducTIon Until recently, Australia claimed among the highest rates of forest destruction or bushland clearing in the world.

Areas cleared have long been dominated by Queensland, where clearing rates before 2002 were on par with clearing in the Amazon Basin (Fig. 1). 2

Two key reforms that drove a significant, recent decline in clearing rates in Queensland were a legislated ban on broadscale clearing of mature bushland, which commenced in 2006, and the 2009 expansion of clearing restrictions to previously cleared and now regrowing bushland with high conservation value. 3

The Queensland Government recently proposed significant changes to legislative controls over tree clearing. These included amendments to the Vegetation Management Act and some important amendments to the Water Act. 4 The Government has stated that the proposed changes to the Vegetation Management Act would not represent a reduction in levels of environmental protection.

0

100

200

300

400

500

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

Fir

st t

ime

clea

rin

g (

1,0

00

ha

)

QldNSW

WAOther states

QUEENSLAND

AMAZON BASIN

Are

a f

ores

t cl

eare

d a

s %

of

tha

t re

ma

inin

g (

%)

0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%


Introduction

In tabling the bill for amendments to the Vegetation Management Act, Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, the Hon. Andrew Cripps, MP, stated, “today’s announcement in no way indicates a relaxing of environmental standards”. 5

At the time he was Opposition Leader and prior to gaining government, Queensland Premier, the Hon. Campbell Newman, MP, committed to “retain the current level of statutory vegetation protection”. 6

The purpose of this report is to determine the extent to which the proposed changes represent a reduction in the current level of statutory vegetation protection in Queensland.

We estimate the areas that would be put at-risk of clearing as a result of these legislative changes. We quantify some of the major environmental values also put at-risk: ecosystems, species and carbon storage. Our methods are detailed in the Appendix.

There are four major changes considered here. Amendments to the Vegetation Management Act 7 would

1. Remove restrictions on clearing of bushland that was cleared over 23 years ago and is now regrowing (high-value regrowth);

2. Allow a new type of broadscale clearing of mature bushland for ‘high-value agriculture’;

3. Alter provisions in regard to prosecution of illegal clearing.

Also recently enacted are changes to the Water Act 8 that

4. Remove the requirement for riverine protection permits (or compliance with approved guidelines) to clear native vegetation in watercourses.

1 ABOVE: Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2012. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, LULUCF Activity Tables 1990-2010. Australian Government, Canberra.

BELOW: Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA). 2012. Land cover change in Queensland 2009-2010: Statewide Landcover and Trees Study Report. DSITIA, Brisbane. 96pp.

Ministry of Science and Technology. 2010. Taxas anuais do desmatamento – 1988 até 2012. Government of Brazil. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2012.htm accessed 2 May 2010.

and analysis by mongabay.com. 2010. The Amazon. Webpage http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html accessed 2 May 2010.

2 Laurance, W.C. 2011. Painting the rainforests REDD. Australian Geographic (July-Aug), pp 102-3.

Bradshaw, C.J. 2012. Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. Journal of Plant Ecology 5, pp 109-120

3 Beattie, P. 2004. Tree clearing ban will make Queenslanders top global warming warriors. Media statement from 30 March 2004 by Premier of Queensland The Hon. Peter Beattie MP, Premier of Queensland, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Robertson, S. 2009. Regrowth legislation takes balanced approach. Media statement from 6 October 2009 by The Hon. Stephen Robertson, Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

4 Queensland Parliament. 2013a. Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill 2013. Portable Document Format file (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2013/VegeMgmtFramwkAB13.pdf) accessed 2 May 2013.

Queensland Parliament. 2013b. Land, Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Portable Document Format file http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2013/LandWaterOLAB13.pdf accessed 2 May 2013.

5 Queensland Parliament. 2013c. Record of Proceedings. Portable Document Format file http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2013/2013_03_20_WEEKLY.pdf accessed 20 March 2013. p 758.

6 Newman, C. 2012. Letter to WWF CEO Dermot O’Gorman, dated 14 March 2012.7 For the parliamentary inquiry into the Bill, the text of the Bill, explanatory notes and submissions to the enquiry see: Queensland

Parliament, 2013d. Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill 2013. Webpage http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/committees/SDIIC/inquiries/current-inquiries/10-VegetatationMgmtFramewk accessed 2 May 2013.

8 Queensland Parliament. 2013e. Water Act 2000. Portable Document Format file http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WaterA00.pdf accessed 2 May 2013.


New Clearing Purpose for “High Value Agriculture”

The proposed amendments to the Vegetation Management Act (VMA amendments) introduce a new allowable clearing purpose for ‘high-value agriculture’ (including ‘irrigated high value agriculture’). These would effectively reverse the 2006 ban on broadscale clearing of mature bushland in areas deemed high-value for cropping, horticulture or for irrigated pastures. 9

neW cleArIng purpoSe For “hIgh-vAlue

AgrIculTure”We considered only areas of mature bushland that fall in areas of potential for high-value agriculture. These are additional to and distinct from the at-risk regrowth bushland areas quantified in the next section.

We mapped areas with potential to support high-value agriculture projects based on three soil types: Class A soils as classified in 39 Queensland Government agricultural suitability assessments, and cracking clay and brown or black duplex soil subdivisions in the 1:2.4 million national soils atlas. Detailed methods are outlined in the Appendix. We mapped only mature bushland 10 that occurred on these three soil types. This bushland is at-risk of clearing for high-value agriculture, provided for by the VMA amendments, and referred to as ‘at-risk mature bushland’.

We estimated there is about 1.3 million hectares of at-risk mature bushland. At-risk mature bushland is broadly, but very unevenly distributed across local government areas in Queensland. The greatest absolute area is the western Atherton Tableland (Tables 1-2, Fig. 2).

Cle

ar

ing

Bu

lldo

zer

kn

oC

kin

g d

ow

n s

ing

le tr

ee

© C

aFn

eC



ecoSySTeM coMpoSITIon oF AT-rISk MATure BuShlAnd

We intersected the map of at-risk mature bushland with Queensland Regional Ecosystems 2009 Version 7. We sorted regional ecosystems into those regulated under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) and those otherwise listed under three conservation status

categories of the Vegetation Management Act – ‘least concern’, ‘of concern’ or ‘endangered’ (see Appendix).

Approximately 13% of this area would likely require approval for clearing under Commonwealth law due to the occurrence of EPBCA threatened ecological communities (Table 2). A further area, which could not feasibly be estimated here, may also trigger EPBCA approval due to the occurrence of EPBCA-listed species discussed below.

We calculated the expected changes – in areas of mature or remnant extent of regional ecosystems – that would result if all at-risk mature bushland were to be cleared. We used as baseline the Queensland Government’s estimates of remnant extent in 2005 and applied the Vegetation Management Act criteria for ‘endangered’, ‘of concern’ and ‘least concern’.

We found if all at-risk mature bushland was cleared, and maps were amended accordingly (see Appendix), that

• 10 ‘least concern’ ecosystems would move up to ‘of concern’ status

• 8 ‘of concern’ ecosystems would move up to ‘endangered’ status.

9 “high value agriculture clearing means clearing carried out to establish, cultivate and harvest crops, other than clearing for grazing activities or plantation forestry.” (Queensland Parliament 2013a, p 47).

“irrigated high-value agriculture clearing means clearing carried out to establish, cultivate and harvest crops, or pasture, other than clearing for plantation forestry, that will be supplied with water by artificial means.” (Queensland Parliament 2013a, p 48).

10 Areas other than cleared or regrowth in the National Vegetation Information System Major Vegetation Groups Version 4.1 in Australian Government. 2012. NVIS products for use at a national scale. Australian Government, Canberra. Webpage http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/nvis/mvg/accessed 2 May 2013.

lIMITATIonS oF coMMonWeAlTh

regulATIon AS A SuBSTITuTe For STATe proTecTIon

Although areas of at-risk mature bushland would be opened to broadscale clearing under the proposed VMA amendments, approximately 13% of this area would most probably require approval for clearing of threatened ecological communities under the EPBCA. EPBCA regulation, although an indispensable ‘backstop’, may be less likely to prevent clearing than existing Vegetation Management Act restrictions for a number of reasons.

• Referrals of clearing proposals are the proponent’s responsibility under the EPBCA. Unlike Queensland, the EPBCA agency has no screening program for possibly illegal clearing;

• Landholders may be under the false assumption that clearing does not require EPBCA approval if Vegetation Management Act restrictions have been removed;

• Unlike the Vegetation Management Act, the EPBCA is not based on certified maps of protected bushland.



Table 1. Distribution of at-risk mature bushland and at-risk regrowth due to proposed VMA amendments, by local government area. LGAs are ordered by declining total area at risk.

Local Government Area At-risk mature bushland (ha)11

At-risk regrowth (ha)

Total bushland at-risk (ha)

TABLELANDS REGIONAL 251,659 10,967 262,626

ETHERIDGE SHIRE 172,556 – 172,556

ROMA REGIONAL 117,982 28,840 146,822

DALBY REGIONAL 88,679 23,375 112,054

GOONDIWINDI REGIONAL 64,656 27,645 92,300

CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL 49,081 42,039 91,119

CHARTERS TOWERS REGIONAL 82,951 51 83,002

BANANA SHIRE 40,845 30,643 71,487

ISAAC REGIONAL 45,881 19,192 65,072

SCENIC RIM REGIONAL 3,773 50,602 54,374

BLACKALL TAMBO REGIONAL 51,631 295 51,927

SOMERSET REGIONAL 4,025 43,306 47,331

GLADSTONE REGIONAL 1,180 42,987 44,167

BALONNE SHIRE 24,020 19,347 43,366

BUNDABERG REGIONAL 11,273 28,681 39,953

TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL 13,056 26,834 39,889

ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL 12,346 27,163 39,509

CARPENTARIA SHIRE 36,760 1 36,761

GYMPIE REGIONAL 893 35,476 36,369

NORTH BURNETT REGIONAL 7,560 26,827 34,387

LOCKYER VALLEY REGIONAL 2,058 31,609 33,667

SOUTH BURNETT REGIONAL 2,144 30,375 32,519

MCKINLAY SHIRE 29,488 – 29,488

BURKE SHIRE 28,712 – 28,712

MURWEH SHIRE 27,757 770 28,527

SOUTHERN DOWNS REGIONAL 13,683 13,133 26,817

CLONCURRY SHIRE 26,548 – 26,548

FLINDERS SHIRE 26,106 10 26,116

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL 376 22,331 22,707

COOK SHIRE 21,282 400 21,683

LOGAN CITY 1,182 20,422 21,604

FRASER COAST REGIONAL 6,077 15,267 21,344

BURDEKIN SHIRE 19,639 619 20,258

WHITSUNDAY REGIONAL 12,583 4,598 17,181

MORETON BAY REGIONAL 614 15,860 16,473

IPSWICH CITY 496 15,468 15,964

MACKAY REGIONAL 4,785 9,268 14,053

GOLD COAST CITY 168 9,218 9,386

RICHMOND SHIRE 7,877 1 7,878

TOWNSVILLE CITY 6,687 538 7,225



Cairns

roCkhaMPton

Biloela

BrisBane

Mt isa

norManton

weiPa

inghaM

aYr

Bowenhughenden

longreaCh

eMerald

CharleVille

roMa

BundaBerg

st george

dalBY

CunnaMulla

MaCkaY

BRISBANE CITY 79 5,790 5,869

AURUKUN SHIRE 5,434 2 5,436

BARCALDINE REGIONAL 4,666 731 5,397

CASSOWARY COAST REGIONAL – 5,168 5,168

REDLAND CITY 79 3,661 3,740

CAIRNS REGIONAL – 3,161 3,161

WOORABINDA SHIRE 1,888 21 1,909

MOUNT ISA CITY 1,120 – 1,120

HOPE VALE SHIRE 1,063 33 1,096

QUILPIE SHIRE 1,081 14 1,095

KOWANYAMA SHIRE 1,015 – 1,015

23 other LGAs with totals below 1000 ha 34 1,564 1,598

TOTAL 1,335,526 694,301 2,029,827

Figure 2. Distribution of at-risk mature bushland by local government areas as of 2008

in Queensland.

Local Government Area At-risk mature bushland (ha)11

At-risk regrowth (ha)

Total bushland at-risk (ha)

AT-rISk MATure BuShlAnd By lgA

< 1,000 ha

1 – 10,000 ha

10 – 50,000 ha

50 – 100,000 ha

100 – 260,000 ha

11 Areas are weighted sums across the three soils categories, see Appendix for details.



Figure 3 Distribution of at-risk regrowth bushland by local government areas as of

2008 in Queensland.

Table 2. Ecosystem composition of at-risk mature bushland.

Regulated ecosystems A class soils where mapped

Cracking clay soils

elsewhere

Black and brown duplex

soils elsewhere

At-risk mature bushland

(ha)12

Area (ha)

(%) (ha) (ha) Area (ha)

(%)

EPBCA Threatened Ecological Community 13 130,549 13% 48,006 17,183 169,106 13%

Vegetation Management Act Endangered 7,461 0.8% 3,132 1,372 10,077 0.8%

Vegetation Management Act Of Concern 73,242 7.4% 59,991 15,255 118,938 9.1%

Vegetation Management Act Least Concern 775,239 79% 311,321 79,750 1,012,611 77%

Grand Total 986,492 100% 422,451 113,560 1,310,734 100%

Cairns

roCkhaMPton

Biloela

BrisBane

Mt isa

norManton

weiPa

inghaM

aYr

Bowenhughenden

longreaCh

eMerald

CharleVille

roMa

BundaBerg

st george

dalBY

CunnaMulla

MaCkaY

AT-rISk regroWTh BuShlAnd By lgA

< 1,000 ha

1 – 5,000 ha

5 – 10,000 ha

10 – 25,000 ha

25 – 50,000 ha

12 Total is a weighted sum, not a simple sum, across the three soils categories (see Appendix for details).13 Note all regional ecosystems within EPBCA threatened ecological communities also are listed under one of the three VMA categories;

however, their areas are only shown under the EPBCA total.

Note: There is an error in the legend (above) in the

printed copy of this report. This legend is correct.



ThreATened SpecIeS occurrenceS

We obtained over 32,000 records for terrestrial or inland aquatic threatened species listed under Queensland or Commonwealth law from the Queensland Government’s WildNet database (October 2008 release). We identified 3,686 records for 85 species with two or more occurrences within 1km of

mature bushland with high-value agriculture potential as mapped in this analysis (Tables 3-4). The 1km buffer was used because the average precision of records is greater than 1km, meaning the location is not known or reported in WildNet to better than 1km precision (on average).

We found that 66 species listed as threatened under the Commonwealth EPBCA and an additional 19 species listed under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act had more than two records within 1km of at-risk mature bushland (Tables 3-4).

Prominent among these species were

• The koala (2,198 records)

• Glossy black-cockatoo (97 records)

• Spotted-tailed and northern quolls (45 and 16 records)

As previously noted, the presence of EPBCA listed species in some areas may require approval by the Commonwealth for any high-value agriculture clearing in practice.

Over 30,000 other records were withheld in the version of WildNet provided. Therefore, the statistics published here represent only a partial picture of the threatened species values of at-risk mature bushland.

We also included inland aquatic species of fish, frogs and turtles because their freshwater habitat quality is directly affected by clearing of bushland along stream banks and, more broadly, in the catchments.

cArBon STorAge We used the maximum potential biomass layer of the Department of Climate Change’s National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) to estimate sink potential of the mature bushland within the high carbon-value

agriculture footprint (see Appendix for methods).

We estimated about 184 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be stored in at-risk mature bushland.

ko

ala

s ©

Ma

rtin

ha

rV

eY

/ ww

F-Ca

no

n



Table 3. Numbers of threatened species in different status and taxonomic groups occurring within 1km of the areas mapped of at-risk mature bushland and at-risk regrowing bushland, respectively.

Conservation status Taxonomic group At-risk mature bushland

At-risk regrowth

EPBCA endangered or critically endangered Mammal 9 11

Bird 8 10

Reptile 4 4

Frog 4 5

Fish 2 3

Invertebrate 0 1

Plant 3 16

All 30 50

EPBCA vulnerable Mammal 9 9

Bird 5 6

Reptile 7 9

Frog 1 2

Fish 2 3

Plant 12 43

All 36 72

NCA endangered exclusive of above Reptile 1 1

Invertebrate 1 2

Plant 0 1

All 2 4

NCA vulnerable exclusive of above Mammal 1 3

Bird 10 14

Frog 4 5

Invertebrate 2 4

Plant 0 6

All 17 32

Grand Total 85 158


WWF Bushland at-risk of renewed clearing in Queensland



Table 4. Threatened species occurrences with 1km of at-risk mature bushland and at-risk regrowing bushland, respectively.

Taxonomic group

Scientific name Common name EPBCA status 14

NCA status 15

At-risk mature

bushland 16

At-risk regrowth

1 Mammal Bettongia tropica northern bettong E E 4 8

1 Mammal Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat V R 2 6

1 Mammal Dasyurus hallucatus northern quoll E C 16 61

1 Mammal Dasyurus maculatus gracilis

spotted-tailed quoll (northern subspecies)

E E 8 12

1 Mammal Dasyurus maculatus maculatus

spotted-tailed quoll (southern subspecies)

E V 37 161

1 Mammal Hipposideros semoni Semon`s leaf-nosed bat E E 2

1 Mammal Lasiorhinus krefftii northern hairy-nosed wombat

E E 2 5

1 Mammal Macroderma gigas ghost bat V 16 96

1 Mammal Murina florium tube-nosed insectivo-rous bat

V 2

1 Mammal Nyctophilus timoriensis eastern long-eared bat V V 5 5

1 Mammal Onychogalea fraenata bridled nailtail wallaby E E 2 13

1 Mammal Petaurus australis unnamed subsp.

yellow-bellied glider (northern subspecies)

V V 4 4

1 Mammal Petaurus gracilis mahogany glider E E 3

1 Mammal Petrogale penicillata brush-tailed rock-wallaby V V 32 134

1 Mammal Petrogale persephone Proserpine rock-wallaby E E 127

1 Mammal Phascolarctos cinereus Koala (SE Qld) V V 2198 7322

1 Mammal Potorous tridactylus tridactylus

long-nosed potoroo V V 3 47

1 Mammal Pseudomys oralis Hastings River mouse E V 21

1 Mammal Pteropus conspicillatus spectacled flying-fox V C 21 55

1 Mammal Pteropus poliocephalus grey-headed flying-fox V C 55 390

1 Mammal Rhinolophus philippinensis

greater large-eared horseshoe bat

E E 5 3

1 Mammal Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus

bare-rumped sheathtail bat

CE E 3

1 Mammal Sminthopsis douglasi Julia Creek dunnart E E 5

1 Mammal Taphozous australis coastal sheathtail bat V 6

1 Mammal Xeromys myoides false water-rat V V 8 46

2 Bird Anthochaera phrygia regent honeyeater E E 9 40

2 Bird Atrichornis rufescens rufous scrub-bird V 14

2 Bird Calyptorhynchus lathami

glossy black-cockatoo V 95 480

2 Bird Calyptorhynchus lathami lathami

glossy black-cockatoo (eastern)

V 2 148

14 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as amended, CE = Critically Endangered, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable.

15 Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1994 as amended, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, C= Common, R=Rare.16 Frequencies of occurrence are weighted sums across the three soils categories (see Appendix for details).



Taxonomic group


NCA status 15

At-risk mature

bushland 16

At-risk regrowth

2 Bird Casuarius casuarius johnsonii

Southern cassowary E E 9 74

2 Bird Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni

Coxen’s fig-parrot E E 8 78

2 Bird Cyclopsitta diophthalma macleayana

Macleay’s fig-parrot V 9 52

2 Bird Dasyornis brachypterus eastern bristlebird E E 34

2 Bird Eclectus roratus macgillivrayi

eclectus parrot V 2

2 Bird Epthianura crocea macgregori

yellow chat (Dawson) CE E 4

2 Bird Erythrotriorchis radiatus

red goshawk V E 43 146

2 Bird Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian finch E E 24 6

2 Bird Esacus magnirostris beach stone-curlew V 29 93

2 Bird Geophaps scripta scripta squatter pigeon (south-ern subspecies)

V V 49 129

2 Bird Lathamus discolor swift parrot E E 6 36

2 Bird Lophochroa leadbeateri Major Mitchell’s cockatoo V 2 41

2 Bird Malurus coronatus purple-crowned fairy-wren

V 11

2 Bird Neochmia phaeton crimson finch V 21 41

2 Bird Neochmia phaeton phaeton

crimson finch V 2 4

2 Bird Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda

star finch (eastern subspecies)

E E 2 3

2 Bird Ninox rufa queenslandica

rufous owl (southern subspecies)

V 16 47

2 Bird Ninox strenua powerful owl V 45 264

2 Bird Pedionomus torquatus plains-wanderer V V 5 8

2 Bird Pezoporus wallicus wallicus

ground parrot V 34

2 Bird Podargus ocellatus plumiferus

plumed frogmouth V 149

2 Bird Poephila cincta cincta black-throated finch (white-rumped subspe

E V 13 26

2 Bird Rostratula australis Australian painted snipe V V 21 113

2 Bird Stipiturus malachurus southern emu-wren V 11

2 Bird Turnix melanogaster black-breasted button-quail

V V 31 355

2 Bird Turnix olivii buff-breasted button-quail

E V 2 9

2 Bird Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli

masked owl (northern subspecies)

V V 2

3 Reptile Coeranoscincus reticulatus

three-toed snake-tooth skink

V R 11



3 Reptile Delma labialis striped-tailed delma V V 2

3 Reptile Delma torquata collared delma V V 12 28

3 Reptile Denisonia maculata ornamental snake V V 9 34

3 Reptile Egernia rugosa yakka skink V V 10 16

3 Reptile Elseya lavarackorum Gulf snapping turtle E V 4

3 Reptile Elusor macrurus Mary River turtle E E 29 48

3 Reptile Furina dunmalli Dunmall’s snake V V 4 9

3 Reptile Hemiaspis damelii grey snake E 18 28

3 Reptile Lerista allanae Allan’s lerista E E 6 3

3 Reptile Nangura spinosa Nangur skink CE R 6

3 Reptile Nephrurus sphyrurus border thick-tailed gecko V R 5 5

3 Reptile Nyctimystes dayi Australian lacelid E E 6 26

3 Reptile Paradelma orientalis brigalow scaly-foot V V 21 35

3 Reptile Wollumbinia belli Bell’s turtle V C 2 2

4 Frog Adelotus brevis tusked frog V 40 614

4 Frog Crinia tinnula wallum froglet V 5 165

4 Frog Litoria freycineti wallum rocketfrog V 2 20

4 Frog Litoria nannotis waterfall frog E E 4 32

4 Frog Litoria olongburensis wallum sedgefrog V V 25

4 Frog Litoria pearsoniana cascade treefrog V 27 619

4 Frog Litoria rheocola common mistfrog E E 16 37

4 Frog Litoria subglandulosa New England treefrog V 56

4 Frog Mixophyes fleayi Fleay’s barred frog E E 518

4 Frog Mixophyes iteratus giant barred frog E E 338 775

4 Frog Pseudophryne covacevichae

magnificent broodfrog V V 7 7

4 Frog Taudactylus eungellensis Eungella dayfrog E E 2 25

5 Fish Maccullochella peelii mariensis

Mary River cod E 12 31

5 Fish Maccullochella peelii peelii

Murray cod V 3 8

5 Fish Melanotaenia eachamensis

Lake Eacham rainbowfish E 3 7

5 Fish Nannoperca oxleyana Oxleyan pygmy perch E V 6

5 Fish Neoceratodus forsteri Australian lungfish V 106 172

5 Fish Pseudomugil mellis honey blue eye V V 10

6 Invertebrate Acrodipsas illidgei Illidge’s ant-blue V 25

6 Invertebrate Adclarkia dawsonensis boggomoss snail CE 2

6 Invertebrate Argyreus hyperbius inconstans

Australian fritillary E 9

6 Invertebrate Hypochrysops apollo apollo

Apollo jewel (Wet Tropics subspecies)

V 5

Taxonomic group


NCA status 15

At-risk mature

bushland 16

At-risk regrowth



6 Invertebrate Hypochrysops piceata bulloak jewel E 3 21

6 Invertebrate Jalmenus evagoras eubulus

imperial hairstreak (northern subspecies)

V 12 13

6 Invertebrate Ornithoptera richmondia Richmond birdwing V 9 89

7 Plant Acacia attenuata V V 3 11

7 Plant Acacia grandifolia V C 14

7 Plant Alectryon ramiflorus E E 4 6

7 Plant Allocasuarina emuina Mt. Emu she-oak E E 5

7 Plant Archidendron lovelliae bacon wood V V 2

7 Plant Baloghia marmorata jointed baloghia V V 13

7 Plant Banksia conferta conferta

V 3

7 Plant Bertya opponens V C 2

7 Plant Bertya pinifolia V V 2

7 Plant Boronia keysii Key’s boronia V V 2

7 Plant Bosistoa transversa three-leaved bosistoa V C 35

7 Plant Cadellia pentastylis ooline V V 13

7 Plant Clematis fawcettii V V 2

7 Plant Coopernookia scabridiuscula

coopernookia V V 2

7 Plant Corchorus cunninghamii E E 6

7 Plant Corymbia xanthope Glen Geddes bloodwood V V 3

7 Plant Cossinia australiana E E 16

7 Plant Cryptocarya foetida stinking cryptocarya V V 6

7 Plant Cupaniopsis shirleyana V V 2 16

7 Plant Cupaniopsis tomentella Boonah tuckeroo V V 3

7 Plant Davidsonia johnsonii smooth Davidsonia E E 2

7 Plant Daviesia discolor V V 2

7 Plant Decaspermum struckoilicum

E E 5

7 Plant Denhamia parvifolia V V 2 6

7 Plant Diploglottis campbellii small-leaved tamarind E E 5

7 Plant Dodonaea rupicola V V 2

7 Plant Endiandra floydii E E 4

7 Plant Endiandra hayesii rusty rose walnut V V 9

7 Plant Eucalyptus conglomerata

swamp stringybark E E 5

7 Plant Eucalyptus hallii Goodwood gum V V 16 21

7 Plant Eucalyptus raveretiana black ironbox V V 7 22

7 Plant Floydia praealta ball nut V V 13

7 Plant Fontainea rostrata V V 2 6

7 Plant Fontainea venosa V V 2 7

Taxonomic group


NCA status 15

At-risk mature

bushland 16

At-risk regrowth



7 Plant Gossia fragrantissima E E 2

7 Plant Gossia gonoclada E E 3 6

7 Plant Graptophyllum ilicifolium

holly-leaved graptophyllum

V V 3

7 Plant Graptophyllum reticulatum

reticulated holly E E 7

7 Plant Grevillea linsmithii E 4

7 Plant Hakea trineura V V 4

7 Plant Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia

red bopple nut V 11

7 Plant Leucopogon cuspidatus V C 4

7 Plant Livistona drudei Halifax fan palm V 2

7 Plant Macadamia integrifolia macadamia nut V V 3 36

7 Plant Macadamia ternifolia bopple nut V V 25

7 Plant Macadamia tetraphylla V V 20

7 Plant Marsdenia brevifolia V V 2

7 Plant Marsdenia coronata slender milkvine V V 4

7 Plant Marsdenia longiloba V V 4

7 Plant Maundia triglochinoides V 2

7 Plant Myrmecodia beccarii Antplant V V 3

7 Plant Neisosperma kilneri V V 2

7 Plant Niemeyera whitei V 2

7 Plant Ochrosia moorei southern ochrosia E E 2

7 Plant Pimelea leptospermoides V R 2

7 Plant Pomaderris clivicola V E 2 4

7 Plant Pouteria eerwah shiny-leaved coondoo E C 2 17

7 Plant Quassia bidwillii quassia V V 25 23

7 Plant Randia moorei spiny gardenia E E 14

7 Plant Ricinocarpos speciosus V 3

7 Plant Romnalda strobilacea V V 8

7 Plant Symplocos baeuerlenii small-leaved hazelwood V V 6

7 Plant Syzygium hodgkinsoniae red lilly pilly V V 12

7 Plant Syzygium moorei Durobby V V 10

7 Plant Triunia robusta E E 6

7 Plant Xanthostemon oppositifolius

southern penda V V 5 11

7 Plant Zieria verrucosa V V 3

Taxonomic group


NCA status 15

At-risk mature

bushland 16

At-risk regrowth


Removal of Restrictions on Clearing of High-Value Regrowth

reMovAl oF reSTrIcTIonS

on cleArIng oF hIgh-vAlue

regroWTh

Under existing provisions of the Vegetation Management Act, clearing is restricted in bushland that:• has been cleared previously, but

• has not been cleared since 31 December 1989 (‘high-value regrowth’), and

• has not yet regrown to maturity, and

• where one of the following criteria in the current regrowth clearing code 17 also apply

1. Endangered regional ecosystems are present (as mapped)

2. Essential Regrowth Habitat for certain threatened species is present (as mapped)

3. In or within 100m of any wetland

4. Within a Great Barrier Reef Wetland Protection Zone (as mapped)

5. On slopes over 12%

6. Within a stream protection zone (from 10–50m wide depending on stream order)

Ch

ain

ed

Co

ola

Ba

h n

or

th o

F Cle

rM

on

t © B

ar

rY

tra

ill



These areas are not absolutely protected, but rather restricted for clearing purposes. Clearing may still be permitted for limited purposes such as weeding, thinning, buildings, roads and fences. Or, in cases where an appropriate exchange or offset area is protected, to replace restricted areas that are lost due to clearing for other purposes.

Proposed VMA amendments would remove these restrictions, except on leasehold land and in 50m protection buffers along certain Great Barrier Reef watercourses.

We mapped the areas of high conservation value regrowth bushland that are currently protected from clearing for any purpose under the regrowth clearing code but which would lose such protection under the proposed VMA amendments using a variety of sources (see Appendix).

We refer to this as ‘at-risk regrowth’. We estimated the total area to be approximately 700,000 hectares (Table 5). Most at-risk regrowth occurs in the Atherton Tablelands and around Cairns, and in Central and South-eastern Queensland (Table 1, Fig. 3).

Approximately 79% of this area is currently protected under the regrowth vegetation code due to the presence of ecosystems considered endangered under the Vegetation Management Act or the presence of essential regrowth habitat for threatened species (Table 5). Significant areas are also protected by virtue of proximity to streams or high slopes. A negligible component is protected by virtue of being within Great Barrier Reef wetland protection zones (Table 5). The fate of regrowth in these wetland protection zones in uncertain. Although the Queensland Government has ruled out the clearing of regrowing bushland in watercourse protection zones in regulated Burdekin, Wet Tropics and Mackay coastal catchments, 18 clearing of high-value regrowth in wetland protection zones in the same catchments has not been ruled out.

17 Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2011. Regrowth vegetation code—On freehold and Indigenous land and leasehold land for agriculture and grazing—version 2. Portable Document Format file http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/pdf/regrowth-code-sept-2011.pdf accessed 2 May 2013.

18 “regrowth watercourse area means an area located within 50m of a watercourse located in the Burdekin, Mackay Whitsunday or Wet Tropics catchments identified on the vegetation management watercourse map.” (Queensland Parliament 2013a, p 49).

Cle

ar

ing

ne

xt to

Bo

on

da

nd

illa s

tate Fo

re

st ©

Ma

rtin

taYlo

r



ecoSySTeM coMpoSITIon oF

AT-rISk regroWTh

We intersected the at-risk regrowth map with Queensland Regional Ecosystems (pre-clearing extent) Version 7. We sorted regional ecosystems into those regulated under the Commonwealth EPBCA and those otherwise listed under three status categories of the Vegetation Management Act – ‘least concern’, ‘of concern’ or ‘endangered’ (for detailed methods, see Appendix).

Approximately 35% of at-risk regrowth contains threatened ecological communities under the EPBCA (Table 6), which means it is still likely to require Commonwealth approval for clearing. As previously mentioned, however, broad coverage by the EPBCA does not mean that a given patch is protected in practice.

If at-risk regrowth remained under protection as currently provided by legislation, and was permitted to regrow to maturity, it would result in changes in numbers of regional ecosystems meeting different conservation status criteria under the Vegetation Management Act. We calculated the expected changes in areas of remnant extent of regional ecosystems due to maturation of at-risk regrowth in Tables 5-6. We used as baseline the remnant extent in 2005 and applied the Vegetation Management Act criteria for ‘endangered’, ‘of concern’ and ‘least concern’ (see Appendix).

We found if the at-risk regrowth bushland were allowed to regrow to maturity, and maps were amended accordingly, that

• 16 ‘endangered’ ecosystems would revert to ‘of concern’ status

• 3 ‘endangered’ ecosystems would revert to ‘least concern’ status

• 8 ‘of concern’ ecosystems would revert to ‘least concern’ status

Table 5. At-risk regrowth by category of protection

under current legislation.

Category Area (ha) 19 Area (%)

1. Endangered regional ecosystems 20 366,881 53%

2. Essential regrowth habitat 183,017 26%

3. Wetlands 100m buffer 21,069 3%

4. Great Barrier Reef Wetlands 1,151 0.2%

5. Slopes over 12% 68,735 10%

6. Stream protection zones 21 53,496 8%

At-risk regrowth total 694,349 100%

Table 6. Ecosystem composition of

at-risk regrowth.

Regulated ecosystems At-risk regrowth

Area (ha) (%)

EPBCA Threatened Ecological Communities 22 246,125 35%

Vegetation Management Act Endangered 68,860 10%

Vegetation Management Act Of concern 154,670 22%

Vegetation Management Act Least concern 224,690 32%

Grand Total 694,349 100%



ThreATened SpecIeS occurrenceS

Of those species listed as ‘threatened’ under the Commonwealth EPBCA, 122 species had more than two occurrences within 1km of the at-risk regrowth. An additional 36 species listed under state law also met these criteria (Tables 3-4).

Notable species with high occurrence frequencies in at-risk regrowth include

• The koala (7,322 records)

• Powerful Owl (264 records)

• Cassowary (74 records)

• Spotted-tailed quoll (173 records)

• Wild Macadamias, Queensland’s only endemic native crop plant (3 species, 81 records)

As previously mentioned, the presence of EPBCA-listed species in some areas may require approval by the Commonwealth for any clearing of at-risk regrowth (in practice). Also, many records were withheld in the version of WildNet made available, resulting in only a partial picture of the association of at-risk regrowth with threatened species.

cArBon STorAge We estimated carbon sink potential as for at-risk mature bushland above.

We also used actual forest cover data in 2010 to estimate current stocks of CO2 in at-risk regrowth (see Appendix).

At-risk regrowth was estimated to hold a stock of approximately 46 million tonnes of CO2 as of 2010. It had potential to absorb an additional (approximate) 139 million tonnes of CO2 for a total maximum potential sink of 185 million tonnes.

For comparison, Queensland’s annual emissions from land clearing were 23.5 million tonnes in 2010 , and Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 were approx. 561 million tonnes. 23

We advise caution with the estimate of 46 million tonnes present-day stock. The regression on which it is based is essentially the relation between forest cover and maximum potential CO2 stock for mature bushland. Regenerating bushland is likely to have lower tree basal area and wood volume for a given canopy cover relative to mature bushland. As a result, the regression equation likely over-estimates standing carbon stock.

19 Each total is in addition to and exclusive of the previous levels. Where there were multiple overlaps of categories the cell was recorded only under the higher ranked category. Ranking was based on perceived significance for terrestrial biodiversity.

20 Regrowth of a regional ecosystem either Endangered Dominant or Endangered Sub-dominant under the Vegetation Management Act classification.

21 Estimated using as base the 1:100,000 Ordered Drainage layer, removing stream segments in the at-risk regrowth layer, exclusive of the above categories, and buffering by the distances for respective stream orders in Table 4 (in Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2011. Landholders’ guide to the regrowth vegetation code. Queensland Government, Brisbane. Portable Document Format file http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/pdf/regrowth-guide-code-sept-2011.pdf accessed 2 May 2013, p 7).

22 Note all regional ecosystems within EPBCA threatened ecological communities also are listed under one of the three VMA categories but their areas are only shown under the EPBCA total.

23 Australian Government. 2013. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Australian Government, Canberra. Webpage http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/ accessed 2 May 2013.


Altered Provisions in Regard to Prosecution of Illegal Clearing

AlTered provISIonS

In regArd To proSecuTIon

oF IllegAl cleArIng

The VMA amendments provide a number of measures that would significantly change the ability of the state agency administering the Vegetation Management Act to enforce compliance.The VMA amendments would remove the requirement for landholders to secure a permit for clearing for certain purposes, such as weed and pest control, harvesting of mulga bushland for fodder, thinning of woody encroachment and rural property infrastructure. In place of permits, landholders would only be required to clear in conformity with new clearing codes for those activities, as is currently the case for clearing of high-value regrowth. This is likely, however, to make it more difficult for the administering agency to keep track of possibly illegal activities, and it would no longer receive revenue from permit fees toward meeting administration costs.

The VMA amendments would also allow defendants facing prosecutions for illegal clearing to be able to employ new defences of ‘mistaken belief’ or that a person other than the defendant was responsible for the clearing. Defendants would be allowed to withhold incriminating information from the prosecution.

Finally, the proposed changes would also remove the power of the Vegetation Management Act administering agency to cancel a state land lease if the lessee has more than one conviction for a vegetation clearing offence.24

While it is not possible to know how much more illegal clearing might occur as a result of the proposed VMA amendments, the proposed reduction in scope for successful enforcement has the potential to result in increased illegal land clearing.

Unexplained and possibly illegal land clearing is already quite extensive. In 2009-10, 12.5% of all clearing was unexplained. Unexplained clearing has been declining in absolute area, yet increasing as a proportion of all areas cleared across the last three land clearing reports for Queensland. 25

Mo

olo

ola

Cle

ar

ing

su

ns

hin

e C

oa

st ©

Ba

rr

Y tr

aill


Removal of Riverine Protection Permits

24 Submission by the Environmental Defenders Office of Queensland to the parliamentary inquiry into the Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill 2013. Bragg, J. 2013. Letter to State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee. Portable Document Format file http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/SDIIC/2013/10-VegetationMgmtFramewk/submissions/075.pdf accessed 2 May 2013

25 In the 2007-8 supplement to the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) report, 87,000 hectares were cleared under exemptions, 23,500 hectares under permit, and 12,500 hectares (10%) were unexplained. In the 2008-9 supplement, 51,272 hectares were cleared under exemptions, 37,658 hectares under permit and 11,007 hectares (11%) were unexplained. In the 2009-10 supplement, 57,250 hectares were cleared under exemptions, 11,300 hectares under permit and 9,820 hectares (12.5%) were unexplained.

26Queensland Parliament. 2013b. Land, Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Portable Document Format file http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2013/LandWaterOLAB13.pdf accessed 2 May 2013.

27 Queensland Parliament. 2013f. Land, Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 Explanatory Notes. Portable Document Format. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2013/LandWaterOLAB13E.pdf accessed 2 May 2013.

reMovAl oF rIverIne proTecTIon

perMITS

On 2 May 2013, the Queensland Government passed amendments to the Water Act 2000 26 that will affect regrowing native vegetation in watercourses, distinct from and additional to the categories quantified above. In the amended Act, there is no longer a requirement for riverine protection permits (or compliance with approved guidelines) for clearing riverine bushland between the

outer banks of watercourses, unless actual excavation or placement of fill is involved. Prior to the change, the Water Act required permits to destroy any native bushland in a watercourse lake or spring, whether mature or non-mature, and whether the stream is intermittent or perennial.

The expressed intent of the amendments was that protection of riverine bushland be referred to the Vegetation Management Act and that removal of this provision in the Water Act represents merely the removal of duplication. 27 However, while the Vegetation Management Act restricts clearing of mature bushland, it does not (in general) protect regrowing bushland, other than for certain high-value regrowth in stream protection zones and along regulated Great Barrier Reef watercourses. As discussed above, even that protection is proposed to be curtailed.

With the removal of both Water Act and Vegetation Management Act protections for regrowth, riverine regrowth bushland would be re-opened to unrestricted clearing statewide.

To estimate the length of streams affected by this change, we selected streamlines in the 1:100,000 Ordered Drainage spatial layer that also mapped as non-remnant in the National Vegetation Information System Major Vegetation Groups (Version 4.1). We excluded stream segments already accounted for under at-risk regrowth in stream protection zones (Table 5), regrowth on leasehold land, and along regulated watercourses in Great Barrier Reef watercourse (which would remain protected) and stream segments mapped as exempt from Vegetation Management Act provisions on property specific maps (PMAV-X).

Removal of Riverine Protection Permits


We estimated about 84,827km in cumulative length of mapped streamlines with riverine regrowth bushland have been put at-risk by removal of protections under the Water Act.

This figure is an underestimate, as it does not include

• Regrowth other than high-value regrowth on leasehold land or in PMAV-X (exempt) areas, which previously would have been protected only by the Water Act

• Narrow bands of remnant that do not appear on certified regulatory maps due to their small scale

• Watercourses actually under regulation by the Water Act, which are not included on 1:100,000 ordered drainage map due to the scale

• Wetlands, lakes, or springs.

If it becomes extensive in scale as a result of removing the current restrictions of the Water Act, clearing of this riverine regrowth vegetation would likely have a major impact on bank stability, soil loss, and waterway pollution by sediments.

wate

r lilie

s (n

YM

Ph

ae

a) ©

stu

ar

t Bla

nC

h.


Appendix

APPENDIX: METHODSFor convenience, we refer to a spatial database – whether grids, lines, points or polygons – using the generic term ‘layer’. All layers used were freely available government data downloaded from Queensland Government Information Service (QGIS) website 28 , unless noted otherwise. All geoprocessing was performed in ArcGIS version 10.

MAPPINg AT-rISk MATurE buSHlANDWe extracted soil class A, A1 and A2 polygons from 39 of the agricultural suitability projects in Queensland, identified in the index layer Soil and Land Resource Project Boundaries Queensland (Version 9/1/2013) layer. These soil classes were considered suitable for broadacre crops or horticulture. Data for 73 possibly informative projects were unable to be utilised due to the suitability field being empty, not being available in QGIS, or being redundant. The project codes of soil projects incorporated into the map are: ABC, ABN, ATR, BAB, BRB, BRL, BSA, CBW, CQG, EDD, GCL, GDR, GRIP, HTC, KAL, KCM, LDL, LFZ, LOC, MAJCK, MCD, MCL, MDIA, MHB, MRC, MTL, MVK, MWD, SAT, SRM, TAB, TVB, WDH, WLM, ZAA, ZAT, ZAV, ZCQ2 and ZMN2.

We also extracted class A soil polygons from the Central Queensland Important Agricultural Areas (Version 7/3/2013). Where polygons were mixed, we included all polygons where A class soils were dominant.

The resulting mosaic map only represented less than half of the state. To fill in gaps, we used the Australian Government’s Digital Atlas of Australian Soils (Version 2009, 1:2.4 million). We first intersected the class A soils mosaic derived as above with the national atlas and estimated the proportions of class A soils in each of the soil subdivisions of the Atlas (Table 7).

The only soil types with above average proportions of class A soils (25%) were cracking clays (66%) and black and brown duplex soils (40% and 45%, respectively).

In areas with gaps due to lack of A class soils mapping, we substituted these soil types as Categories 2 (cracking clays) and 3 (brown or black duplex), respectively, to indicate potential for high-value agriculture.

Table 7. Proportion of A class soils from

Queensland Government agricultural suitability

mapping projects occurring in subdivisions

of the Digital Atlas of Australian Soils.

Subdivision % class A soils

Cracking clay 66%

Brown duplex 45%

Black duplex 40%

Red duplex 20%

Yellow duplex 12%

Massive earths 12%

Non-cracking clay 11%

Sands 9%

Loams 8%

Lake 2%

Bare rock 1%

Gley duplex 0%

28 Queensland Government. 2013. Queensland Government Information Service. Website http://dds.information.qld.gov.au/dds/ accessed 2 May 2013.


Appendix

The final mosaic layer produced was a 1 hectare cell-size grid map of Queensland with soils in four classes: 0 – no suitable soil, 1 – mapped class A soils, 2 – cracking clays, and 3 – brown or black duplex soils.

We also excluded the following cells from this layer

• Tenure other than freehold, leasehold, or Indigenous (protected areas, reserves, state forests, defence land – see below for methods)

• Under a non-agricultural intensive land use per Australian Government’s Land Use 2005/6 layer

• Category X exempt from clearing restrictions already on a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) (Property Maps of Assessable Vegetation, Version 18/03/2013)

• Areas already cleared (from the Australian Government’s National Vegetation Information System: Major Vegetation Groups Version 4.1)

• Areas with slope over 8% (estimated from the Australian Government’s 9 Second Digital Elevation Model)

• Where tree cover in 2006-10 was less than 25% (calculation provided below)

• Annual rainfall below 450mm (from the Australian Government’s Multi-Criteria Analysis Shell or MCASS data portfolio). 29

The final masked layer termed ‘ARMB’ was deemed to be an indicator of mature bushland at-risk of high-value agricultural clearing.

We intersected ARMB with Queensland Regional Ecosystems 2009 (Version 7) to calculate the ecosystem composition of ARMB. To calculate the total for a given regional ecosystem overlapping ARMB, we included 100% of overlap with class A soils, but only 66% of the overlap with cracking clay soils (the percentage of A class soils in that subdivision from Table 7), and 40% of the overlap with black or brown duplex soils (the lesser of the percentages of A class soils in those two subdivisions from Table 7).

We sorted regional ecosystems (REs) into those likely to be regulated under the Commonwealth EPBCA, and otherwise. This was done using a list of regional ecosystem subtypes that closely approximate listed Commonwealth threatened ecological communities. The list was kindly provided by the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts.

To estimate the change in VMA status that would result if all ARMB were to be cleared, we applied the following criteria, as applied in the Queensland Government’s most recent analysis of remnant extent in 2005 30

• If remnant falls below 10%, then RE is ‘endangered’

• For pre-clearing extent below 1000 hectares or remnant extent below 10,000 hectares, if remnant is less than or equal to 30% of pre-clearing extent, then RE is ‘endangered’. Otherwise, RE is ‘of concern’

• For pre-clearing extent above 1000 hectares and remnant extent above 10,000 hectares, if remnant is less than or equal to 30% of pre-clearing extent, then RE is ‘of concern’. Otherwise, RE is ‘least concern’.

We applied these criteria to regional ecosystems based on remnant extent in 2005, and again after subtracting the areas of each regional ecosystem within at-risk mature bushland from its remnant extent in 2005. We then tallied up the regional ecosystems changing nominal VMA status (Nominal in the sense of meeting the criteria. To be recognised as such in law, requires adoption of an official amended regional ecosystems map).


Appendix

To quantify threatened species occurrences in at-risk mature bushland, we selected from the Queensland Government’s WildNet database of species occurrences (Version 15/7/2008) those records that fell within 1km of each of the three ARMB soil classes. As the average precision of WildNet records was 1.7 km, we used a 1 km buffer to reduce the error of failing to count species records as falling within ARMB when they had a reasonable probability of doing so, within the precision of the record. We excluded marine species. Over 30,000 records were withheld in the version of WildNet provided. As a result the statistics derived here present only a partial picture of the association with threatened species.

As for overlaps with regional ecosystems, we derived a weighted sum of threatened species occurrences using (as weights) the observed proportions of class A soils within the cracking clay and duplex soil classes. To calculate the total of occurrences for a given species overlapping ARMB, we included 100% of occurrences within 1km of class A soils, 66% of occurrences within 1km of cracking clay soils and 40% of occurrences within 1km of black or brown duplex soils. We rounded fractional values to give a final whole number sum of occurrences for a given species.

See below for estimation of carbon storage in biomass within ARMB bushland.

MAPPINg AT-rISk rEgrOwTHThe Vegetation Management Act primarily restricts clearing of mature bushland. However, it also restricts clearing of regulated regrowth, which is comprised of

a) High-value regrowth regional ecosystems of any threat status (not cleared since December 1989) (High-value Regrowth, Version 2.1, 16/09/2011)

b) Category C or 4 on a PMAV (Property Maps of Assessable Vegetation layer, published 18/03/2013)

c) Any native woody regrowth bushland within 50 metres (m) of a regrowth watercourse in the Burdekin, Mackay Whitsunday and Wet Tropics Great Barrier Reef catchments (Regrowth Watercourses layer, Version 2.1, 16/09/2011).

The proposed VMA amendments, would remove restrictions for a) and b) on indigenous and freehold land, but retain watercourse regrowth restrictions (c) on all tenures.

Firstly, we combined a) and b) areas above into a single High-Value Regrowth (HVR) layer. Because watercourse regrowth (c) above, will continue to be protected under proposed VMA amendments, it was not included. To facilitate calculation, we converted the HVR layer to a 1 hectare grid in Albers Equal Area projection, which sacrifices some accuracy.

The proposed VMA amendments make specific provisions that HVR, other than that on leasehold land or in Reef watercourses, would become exempt from clearing restrictions in place since 2009. Moreover, HVR also falls in areas mapped as already exempt from clearing restrictions at the property level on official PMAVs and so would be unaffected by the proposed amendments.

29 Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences. 2013a. Multi-Criteria Analysis Shell for Spatial Decision support. Australian Government, Canberra. Webpage http://www.daff.gov.au/abares/data/mcass accessed 2 May 2013.

30 Accad, A., Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A. and R.E. Niehus. 2008. Remnant Vegetation in Queensland. Analysis of remnant vegetation 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005, including regional ecosystem information. Queensland Herbarium, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.


Appendix

Accordingly, we masked out of the HVR layer any 1 hectare pixel as follows.

• Touching a regulated Great Barrier Reef watercourse, as it would continue to be protected (as in (c), above).

• Already exempt from all clearing restrictions on official property maps of vegetation (PMAV-X available from (b), above)

• Under a tenure, other than indigenous or freehold, as they would continue to be protected. As none was available, we constructed an updated tenure map for Australia – calling upon, in order of priority: Aboriginal Land 1996; Rangelands tenure 1999 and Forest tenure 2008 (all from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences), and Geoscience Australia’s Land Tenure 1993. Indigenous land whether leasehold or freehold was treated as Indigenous land for the purposes of the Regrowth code 2011. Gaps in a given layer were filled using the layer below it, until a complete tessellation of Australia was achieved. Tenure was reprojected to align with a standard 1 hectare Albers grid.

We denoted this layer masked HVR (MHVR). Within MHVR, the current regrowth clearing code 31 allows clearing for limited purposes of fences, roads, buildings, firebreaks, and environmental thinning, but restricts clearing for any other purpose. Even with limited purposes, an exchange area must be protected to offset any loss due to clearing. These restrictions apply to the following areas

1. An endangered regional ecosystem

2. Within essential regrowth habitat

3. Within general wetland protection zones

4. On land over 12% slope

5. Within Great Barrier Reef Wetland Protection zones

6. Within stream protection zones (Table 4 of the Code)

To identify the reduced subset of MHVR actually restricted by code and therefore placed at-risk by proposed VMA amendments, we determined whether or not particular code restrictions applied to each 1 hectare pixel as follows:

1. Endangered ecosystems: We used the regional ecosystem status already in the High-value Regrowth layer directly.

2. Essential regrowth habitat: We used the mapped Essential Regrowth Habitat Version 3.1, (16/9/2011)

3. Wetland protection zones: We created a new layer combining the Queensland Wetland Data Version 3.0 - Wetland points and Wetland areas (29/02/2012) layers, and adding 100m buffers around both as specified in the regrowth clearing code, and finally intersecting with MHVR. Where the majority of an MHVR grid cell fell within an area or its buffer, we recorded this restriction as present (1) otherwise absent (0).

4. Slopes over 12%: We used the ArcGIS 10 slope algorithm to generate a map of percentage slopes for Queensland based on the Geoscience Australia’s 9 second Digital Elevation Model, Version 3 (30/06/2008). This was reprojected to a 1 hectare Albers grid aligned to MHVR. Wherever MHVR fell within a slope pixel over 12%, we recorded this restriction as present (1) or absent (0) otherwise.


Appendix

5. Great Barrier Reef Regrowth Wetlands: We used the Vegetation Management Act Great Barrier Reef Regrowth Wetlands, Version 2.1 (16/09/2011) layer directly as either present (1) or absent (0).

We combined these into a single mosaic with each cell taking the code 1-5 above, according to the order in the list. For example, a given pixel might contain both 2. Essential Habitat and 5. GBR wetlands, but, it was scored only as 2 to ensure mutually exclusive mapping of categories.

6. Stream protection zones: This code restriction was mapped separately using linear shapefile geoprocessing because the 10-50m buffers could not be accurately represented by the 100mx100m cells used above. We first clipped the Ordered Drainage 100K – Queensland (Version 31/8/2010) layer to select only stream segments falling within the HVR layer, masked to remove leasehold land, Reef watercourses and PMAV-X as described above. We also excluded stream segments already accounted for under code restrictions 1-5 above. Finally, we constructed buffers around the remaining stream segments using the distances in Table 4 of the regrowth code according to stream order, as mapped in Ordered Drainage.

We converted grids back to shapefiles and combined the six code restriction layers in order of priority shown above to produce a combined At-Risk Regrowth (ARR) polygon shapefile.

To determine the composition of ARR by Regional Ecosystems, we intersected the ARR layer with Queensland Regional Ecosystems (Version 7) as for ARMB, above.

To estimate the change in VMA status that would result if all ARR continued to be protected as at present, we applied the VMA regional ecosystem status criteria as for ARMB, above, to regional ecosystems based on remnant extent in 200532, and again after adding the areas of at-risk regrowth to the remnant extent in 2005, assuming that all ARR regrows to maturity. We then tallied up the regional ecosystems that changed their nominal VMA status.

To tally the threatened species occurrences in ARR, we intersected ARR with Queensland WildNet 2008 as for ARMB, above.

ESTIMATION Of cArbON STOckSTo estimate carbon stocks and sink potential, we used the NCAS Maximum Potential Vegetation Biomass layer for Australia (MaxBio), which has units of tonnes per hectare. We converted this to a new maximum potential carbon dioxide stock layer (MPC) in units of tonnes carbon dioxide per hectare, using an average conversion factor of 1.65 tonnes CO2-equivalents per tonne of dry biomass. 33

We determined for each 1 hectare pixel of both ARMB and ARR layers derived above, the MPC value and summed across all cells to estimate the maximum potential stock of carbon dioxide that could be stored in bushland biomass within these two at-risk categories. We calculated MPC separately for the three high-value agriculture soil categories in ARMB and estimated the total potential carbon stock including 100% of the MPC sum for class A soils, but only 66% of the sum for cracking clay soils (the percentage of A class soils in that subdivision from Table 7), and 40% of the sum for black or brown duplex soils (the lesser of the percentages of A class soils in those two subdivisions from Table 7).

31 Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011), cited above.32 Accad et al. (2008), cited above.33 Table 69 in National Forest Inventory 2003. Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003, Australian

Government, Canberra.


Appendix

To predict the standing (as distinct from potential) stock of carbon dioxide in ARR areas, we first derived a regression equation to predict standing carbon stock from the observed forest cover. We selected the years 1972, 1980, 1989, 1995, 2000, 2006 and 2010 from the NCAS forest cover data portfolio, which consists of 25m grids and aggregated to 1km grids, each ranging in value from 0 to 1600 (100%). We masked out areas – outside Queensland or shown in National Vegetation Information System Major Vegetation Groups (Version 4.1) – as cleared or regrowth, to ensure that we were estimating forest cover only for mature bushland in Queensland. Only mature bushland should have a stock equal to maximum potential. We obtained the maximum forest cover (0-1600) observed across all seven years for each 1km grid cell of all mature bushland in Queensland, and using zonal statistics in ArcGIS10 obtained the average MPC value across all grid cells of the same forest cover value. We converted forest cover values to arcsin √ transformed proportions to normalise the distribution 34 (Fig. 4). We excluded from the regression 100% or 0% forest cover cells due to their very different behaviour (large gray circles in Fig. 4). ARR grid cells, being composed of regrowth, fell largely between these two extremes of observed forest cover at the 1km grid scale. We then used the observed forest cover in 2010 within the ARR footprint to predict standing stock in carbon dioxide tonnes per hectare and summed standing stock across 1 hectare ARR cells.

Figure 4. Means of maximum potential CO2 for 1599 forest cover classes in 2010, for mature uncleared

bushland in Queensland, as estimated from National Carbon Accounting System

data. Fitted regression was linear on arcsin √

transformed forest cover (0% and 100% tree cover values, indicated as grey

circles, were not included in the regression).

The difference between predicted standing biomass and maximum potential biomass was taken to represent the carbon sequestration opportunity from protecting and restoring native bushland within the ARR footprint.

The estimates derived must be treated with caution, however, because the regression is essentially the relation between forest cover and maximum potential carbon stock for mature bushland. Regenerating bushland is likely to have lower tree basal area and wood volume for a given canopy cover relative to mature bushland. Hence, the fitted regression is expected to over-predict carbon stocks for regenerating bushland.

34 Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1983. Biometry. 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.


Appendix

rEMOvAl Of rIvErINE PrOTEcTION PErMITSTo estimate stream and river segments at-risk from land clearing due recent changes under the Water Act, we clipped the following from Ordered Drainage 100K – Queensland (Version 31/8/2010) and summed all the stream segment lengths:-

• Other than freehold and Indigenous land, as determined above. High-value Regrowth would still be protected on rural leasehold land and watercourses under the proposed VMA amendments

• Great Barrier Reef watercourses, as mapped, where all regrowth would still be protected

• Mature uncleared bushland from National Vegetation Information System: Major Vegetation Groups Version 4.1, which would still largely be protected or subject to the changes dealt with above for high-value agriculture clearing.

wwf.Org.AubuSHlAND AT rISk Of rENEwED clEArINg IN QuEENSlAND 2013

grEAT bArrIEr rEEfWWF has helped secure new highly protected

areas that help recovery of fish populations and which build the resilience of the reef system.

EArTH HOurEarth Hour was co-founded by WWF-Australia and has evolved into one of the most recognised campaigns in history.

NINgAlOOWWF has played a pivotal

role in securing sanctuaries within Ningaloo waters.

ANTArcTIcA & THE SOuTHErN OcEAN

WWF continues to promote sustainable fisheries and to protect seabirds from

fishing and pest animals.

lANDclEArINgWWF has campaigned alongside farmers, industry, Indigenous communities and local and state governments to help see broadscale clearing of remnant bushland in Queensland significantly reduced.

SOuTHwEST AuSTrAlIA EcOrEgIONWWF helped to ensure that some 5,000 hectares of globally important, privately-owned bushland in WA’s wheatbelt is protected.

Why we are here

wwf.org.au

To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

©1986 Panda symbol WWF ® WWF is a registered trademark

WWF-Australia National Office

Level 13, 235 Jones Street,Ultimo NSW 2007GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW 2001

Tel: 61 2 9281 5515Freecall: 1800 032 551Fax: 61 2 9281 1060Email: [email protected]

wwf —35 years of advancing environmental protection in Australia

© N

AS

A

Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in Queensland -...

Documents

Transcript of Bushland at risk of renewed clearing in Queensland -...