AKF predictions and EPA response

Perhaps not surprisingly, given previous outcomes, the Australian Koala Foundation‘s Deborah Tabbart has predicted that Burke’s impending announcement will be based on political, rather than environmental priorities.

Accordingly the predictions go-

  • He is going to list the koala in South East Queensland as Endangered (and we know it is already functionally extinct).
  • He is going to list the koala on the east of the Dividing Range in New South Wales as Vulnerable – but not on the west, particularly the Gunnedah population because of coal and coal seam gas interests.
  • He is going to list the koala in Western Queensland because the science is AKF funded and shows massive declines.
  • He is not going to list the koala in Central Queensland because of coal and coal seam gas and the infrastructure that go es with those industries. They are currently listed as Common.
  • He is not going to list the koala in Eastern Victoria because of logging interests and in Western Victoria, because they think they are pests. They are currently not listed at all under State legislation.

Burke was getting the TSSC to define over abundant and declining populations and the major difference between the two is that the former don’t have chlamydia. Given the koala recovery officer’s acknowledgment that the koalas around Numeralla aren’t declining, Deborah’s prediction that all koalas east of the Dividing Range in NSW will be listed as vulnerable may be against the odds.

Further to the requirements for a broader formal complaint about FNSW’s failure to maintain the Australian Forestry Standard, the NSW EPA have recently responded to the complaint about logging in Cpt 34 in East Boyd SF.

The EPA confirm that logging can now be undertaken over 60% of a compartment every 5 years and reaffirm their concerns about water pollution and erosion. Unfortunately they have no formal measures to determine the impact of logging on the local or broader environment.

A surrogate is ‘forest typing’, that requires forest managers to keep track of any changes to species composition, in particular those that are associated with reduced site productivity. The EPA where also able to confirm that FNSW doesn’t do that.

 

Advertisements
1 comment
  1. lynnejb said:

    god…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: