By
Anthony Amis
PO
Box 222
INDEX
The economic value of recreational fishing
I
would like to submit my submission to the Regional Forest Agreement
Process for the Gippsland region. I would also like the opportunity for
myself and a member of my group to address the panel hearings when that
opportunity arises.
I would like to express my alarm that the RFA process has paid so little attention to aquatic fauna species and factors concerning their long term survival. As a recreational fisherman it alarms me that land use decisions are being made without wider participation of the conservation and fishing community.
I
also am alarmed at the general decline in the health of Gippsland's
rivers which can be blamed on very poor catchment management from all
land users. My submission however will focus on the
role of forestry in degrading the aquatic environment to the dis-benefit
of recreational fishermen and conservationists.
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF RECREATIONAL FISHING
I
would like to bring to your attention an extremely important report
which the Gippsland RFA fails to mention in their September 1999 Assessment
Report. The report is entitled
Fisheries Economic Impact Studies
Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in Victoria July 1997 - Fisheries
Victoria. The fact that the economic considerations
outlined in this report were not acknowledged by the Assessment Report,
reveals to me that the worth of recreational fishermen to the Gippsland
economy have not been factored into the Regional Forest Agreements. This oversight is appalling and reveals
a gaping hole in the Assessment Report.
It could be interpreted as being a deliberate oversight.
The
following quotes are taken directly from the Fisheries Victoria report
(please note that the south east takes in the Gippsland RFA area);
p1
“ Results from the study indicate that in the last year an estimated
$1.037 billion was spent on recreational fishing activities in Victoria
. . . this represents approximately $200 spent per kilogram of fish
caught and kept. The contribution of the recreational fishing
sector (including support industries) to the Victorian economy (Gross
State Product) is estimated to be $1.265 billion per annum, and the
provision of fishing related goods and services generates approximately
27,000 jobs annually . . . Melbourne region made the largest contribution
to Gross Regional Product ($765 million per annum), North East ($171
million), South East ($144 million), South West ($106 million), North
West ($76 million)”.
p9 “Allocation of recorded
expenditure items as fishing expenditure;
p19
“ Most inland/freshwater species caught (current trip) in South East:
p21
“main reason cited for undertaking current trip in South East:
p23
“the north east and south east regions attracted the highest proporation
of fishers who made overnight trips:
south east motel/hotel 13%, camping 59%, private rental 7%, friends
9%,other 12%."
p25
|
Region
|
Average
per capita fishing relatedexpenditure
by
|
Average number nights stayed
|
Average
per capita annual capital
|
|
Melb
|
$21.52
|
0.49
|
$740.98
|
|
North
East
|
$27.53 |
1.21
|
$127.12
|
|
North
West
|
$16.52
|
0.70
|
$107.25
|
|
South
East
|
$50.02
|
2.30
|
$171.17
|
|
South
West
|
$38.33
|
1.06
|
$304.95
|
p26
Estimate of gross expenditure on recreational fishing in Victoria
|
region
|
gross
current (trip related
expenditure $m)
|
gross capital expenditure $m |
total
gross expenditure
$m
|
%
of Vic expenditure
|
|
Melbourne
|
140.8
|
465.8
|
606.6
|
58.4
|
|
North East |
38.7
|
80.0
|
118.8
|
11.4
|
|
North West |
25.2
|
70.4
|
95.6
|
9.2
|
|
South
East
|
40.8
|
75.6
|
116.4
|
11.2
|
|
South
West
|
32.0
|
67.7
|
99.7
|
9.6
|
|
Total
|
277.5
|
759.5
|
1037.1
|
100.00
|
p28
|
Contribution to gross state product (gsp)
|
total
|
south east
|
|
Gross
State Product ($million in 96)
|
$1265
|
$
144
|
|
Employment
Generated
|
27,000
|
3,300
|
|
household disposable income ($million) |
$830
|
$ 99
|
Compare these figures with those produced in the RFA Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report where on p82
"In 1995-96, tourism and recreation (calculated
as the sum of cultural and recreational services, and accomodation,
cafes and restaurants) contributed around 3.8% ($4.2 billion) of Victoria's
gross state product (ABS 1996).
For the same period, employment in the recreational, personal
and other services accounted for 7.5%, or 142 900 people in the State.
. . In 1995-96, cultural, recreational, personal and other services
employed over 10 200 people or 10.4 % (a rise from 1677 in just 5 years
- see page 10 of RFA Assessment Report) of the total employment in the
Gippsland region. This
did not, however, include the contribution of tourism and recreation
to the retail and wholesale industries.
Combined, these industries were the largest employer in 1995-96
in Gippsland, employing approximately 18 300 people, or 18.5% of the
total workforce . . . Tourism is significant to the local economies
of many centres in Gippsland.
In towns such as Lakes Entrance, Metung and Bairnsdale, significant
investment has been made in facilities for accomodation and entertainment
including fishing, boating and cultural opportunities (USE 1996). The direct value of the Gippsland Lakes
area to the tourism industry is approximately $200 million per year
(EGCALP 1997). . ."
According to the Fisheries Economic Impact Studies
Economic
Impact of Recreational Fishing in Victoria July 1997 - Fisheries Victoria,
a major proportion of this amount must have been generated by recreational
fishermen, but the RFA submission document fails to mention recreational
fishing in any detailed manner.
(ie p84 "More
than half the visitors to Gippsland travel for holidays or to visit
friends and relatives Table 8.2 Most Popular Visitor Activities in the
Gippsland Region, 1995").
In
fact when fishing is discussed at all it is the only mentioned in terms
of minor detail. (ie p84, p87, p100). Surely a recreation which is so important
to the economy of Gippsland requires a more detailed analysis than what
was given in the RFA Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report.
Now
I will would like to focus on the issue of stream ecology and the fact
that if the rivers silt up due to poor management in catchments, through
activities such as forestry, fishermen will miss out, with fly fishermen
being the first to go.
A forest is more than just trees. It is an incredibly diverse series of ecosystems connected by a countless array of complex interactions. And one fact often overlooked by the timber industry and conservationists alike is that forests are vital for the long term health of our water resources. Poorly planned plantation and native forest harvesting can have serious impacts on our waterways.
"The
major single cause throughout the world of the extinctions of populations
of fish (and indeed most other species of both plants and animals) is
the destruction of habitat". Dr
Peter Maitland.
A
stream is completely dependent on the surrounding land and vegetation
in its catchment and is consequently subjected to the effects of actions
carried out there. A stream is a system of habitats linked
together in a continuous one-way flow of water, so the actions on a
stream at one point can also affect areas downstream. The majority of native freshwater fishes
occur in rivers and streams which form most of the freshwater acquatic
habitats in Victoria.
There
are an enourmous number of invertebrates (animals without backbones)
that live in streams. These include Mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies,
alderflies, craneflies, blackflies, dragonflies, aquatic worms, snails,
small spiders (called watermites), crustacea such as yabbies, nematodes,
flatworms, freshwater sponges and freshwater crabs. Many invertebrates such as mayflies hatch
from eggs in the water. The
invertebrates are found mainly attached to and amongst snags, leaf packs
and rocks. Leaves falling
into the stream are eaten directly by invertebrates known as "shredders",
such as some stonefly and caddisfly larvae, which shred or bite the
softer parts of the plant material.
Material not consumed by the shredders is colonised by microorganisms
such as aquatic fungi and bacteria and broken down to progressively
smaller sizes. Freshwater algae also colonise the leaves
and twigs. Invertebrates
known as "scrapers", such as some mayflies and snails feed directly
on the fungi and algae.
As the organic material is broken down, the resultant finer material
then serves as a food source for other invertebrates which filter material
from the water (filter-feeders), or collect deposited material on stream
beds (detritus-feeders).
These animals, in turn are preyed upon by other invertebrates and animals such as fish and platypus. Fish are then a food source for water birds and other fish-eating animals. Insects and other terrestrial invertebrates which live in the riparian vegetation and fall into rivers and streams form a substantial part of the diet of many native and introduced fish species.
Newly emerged mayfly adults need bushes near the stream to rest. Trees protect the swarms of mayflies from wind. Other material from trees such as leaf litter, is utilised by blackfish larvae/juveniles as nursery grounds, providing their food source and shelter. As well as providing instream habitat (such as fallen logs, branches, bark, leaves and submerged tree roots etc), the root systems of riparian (riverside) vegetation bind streamside substrate, preventing erosion and hence high turbidity levels and increased siltation. Without streamside vegetation the entire food chain is at risk.
As
freshwater ecosystems get silted up, there is a decrease in diversity
of macroinvertebrates, often decreasing to just populations of worms
which can survive in the silt bed. Problem fish such as European Carp are
best suited for seeking out these worms as Carp have a bottom grubbing
feeding style.
The major effect of sedimentation is the blanketing of the stream bed (substratum) and the filling of pools and scour holes. Clogging of the stream bed removes spaces between particles which are used as rearing and habitat areas by juvenile fish, small species and stream invertebrates. The eggs of species such as Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica) which are deposited in gravel substrate are liable to smothering by sediment. Silt clogs mayfly gills and smothers the bed of the river (where they live) and kills algae growing on rocks (their food). Deposited silt can suffocate and kill Blackfish eggs. High turbidity levels can be lethal to blackfish larvae and juveniles. Even adults have been observed dying in highly turbid river water, their gills clogged up with fine sediment. Heavy siltation can also smother habitat, spawning grounds and food sources and can move into estuaries, smothering fish breeding grounds, particulary after periods of high rainfall..
Adult
blackfish for instance live in submerged hollow logs or amongst a clump
of logs/branches (called snags) or submerged tree roots.
Hollow logs are used for breeding which occurs in early summer. A female and a male pair up, the female
laying several hundred sticky eggs which attach in layers to the bottom
of the inside of the log. Only
about 500 eggs nearly 4mm in diameter are laid by a 300mm female. The eggs are then guarded by the male
(not the female), who also fans away any silt which may settle on the
eggs. Depositing eggs in less suitable areas
such as sediment covered logs will lead to reduced egg and larvae survival.
LOGGING
AND CLEARING OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND ITS IMPACT ON FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS.
"The most common environmental change caused by land use activities in the catchments is an increase in sediment input to rivers and streams. Increased levels of sediment can adversely affect all aspects of freshwater ecosystems by reducing water quality and degrading or destroying habitat. Increased turbidity or suspended sediment can have adverse physical, physiological and behavioural effects on stream-dwelling flora and fauna". Page 200 Gippsland - Comprehensive Regional Assessment - September 1999. Published by the joint Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) Steering Committee.
Sediment (particles of material suspended in the water column or deposited in the stream bed) is a natural component of rivers and streams. Natural erosion and decay processes constantly deliver sediment to streams, so that all waterways carry some level of sediment. This is normally low in upland streams, but can be relatively higher in lowland rivers. Artificially increased loads of sediment, resulting from human activity, can have adverse effects on both the physical form of the river, and aquatic flora and fauna.
Timber
harvesting is one human activity that increases sediment levels in river
and streams. Depending on soil types, a lot of sediment
can be washed into rivers and streams during periods of high rainfall
when overland flow is generated.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology (CRCCH) has recently concluded that the main source of sediment from timber harvesting is i) unsealed roads, ii) snig tracks, iii) log landings, iv) general harvesting areas. In regards to roads and tracks “more than 80% of the rain that falls onto these surfaces is converted to runoff. These large volumes of water transport sediments through the landscape” and “Only about 10-20% of rainfall is converted to runoff in general harvesting areas, limiting sediment transport to short distances”
This
difference is attributed to the fact that general harvesting areas retain
a high percentage of vegetation and contact cover meaning that water
accumulates more slowly. (Although it has to be said that on many
clearfelled coupes that vegetation is limited and in some plantations
I've witnessed in the Strzelecki's there is barely any vegetation of
any kind left after harvesting at all).
The
CRCCH also found that “*Sediment
concentrations in road runoff were between 5 and 8 times higher
The key is to minimise the impact of sediment delivery pathways. For instance the CRCCH found in the Cuttagee Creek Catchment in NSW “has an additional 10km of stream channels or gullies due to gully inititiation at road drainage outlets and because of these new channels, some 31% of the natural stream network now receives runoff and associated pollutants from road drainage outlets. 83% of gully initiation occurred at relief culverts draining cut-and-fill roads and that the combination of large contributing road length and steep hillslope gradient results in erosion and gully formation at the road-drainage outlet”. Thus it is crucial that roads must be sited away from streams.
According
to the CRCCH “best management
practices have to be applied in every logged forest to manage these
sources and pathways." These practices include: *establishing riparian buffer-strips of
variable width, *harvesting alternate coupes, *siting and designing
roads and road crossings to minimise sediment input and *restricting
logging activities in relation to coupe slope and soil type.
All
forestry operations are supposed to be carried out in accordance to
the Code of Forest Practices. There are two types of standards for public
and private land. Generally
the Code for private land is less strict.
Standards in the Code are often a bare minimum. Department studies to justify catchment
management are not accountable to peer review making independent analysis
of the Code invalid. 20
metre buffer zones are inadequate and in many plantation areas there
are no streamside buffers at all.
Rivers and streams deserve much wider buffers.
In
regards to the RFA Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report there is
reference made that if the Code of Forest Practices is adhered to then
water quality will not suffer.
p18
"The Victorian Parliament ratified the Code of Forest Practices for
Timber Production (the Code) in May 1989 in accordance with section
55 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987."
p18
"Since its implementation in 1989, several reviews of aspects of the
Code have been undertaken (Victorian Auditor-General 1993; CNR 1995a,
CNR 1995b, CNR 1995c; O'Shaughnessy 1995).
Revision No. 2 (NRE 1996a) of the Code was developed by NRE involving
scientific review and community consultation. This included a review of the Code by
CSIRO based on scientific evidence, experience and observation of its
effectiveness in achieving environmental care. The revised Code was ratified by Parliament
in December 1996."
p19 "In general, the Code
is implemented at a local level through a set of regional prescriptions.
These detailed prescriptions take account of local conditions
such as climate, forest type, topography, elevation, soil type, and
various management activities. They must be consistent with the Code,
based on relevant scientific input, and reviewed periodically. Regional prescriptions for the Forest
Management Areas in Gippsland region were reviewed in 1997-98 to incorporate
the requirements of the revised Code (NRE 1996a)."
p70 "Plantation management
in Victoria must comply with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber
Production (Code) (NRE 1996a).
The Code provides Statewide goals and guidelines for plantation
establishment and management, and a number of Statewide minimum standards
(such as set back reservations along streamsides)."
p71
"Compliance with the Code on private lands and public land vested with
the Victorian Plantations Corporation (VPC), including plantations licensed
to Hancock Victorian Plantations Pty Ltd, is requiredthrough Planning
Schemes admistered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Monitoring of operations on these lands is the responsibility
of local municipalites through their planning scheme provisions."
p71 "The Victorian Code
and associated controls have been accredited by the Commonwealth Government
as the basis for removing export controls on plantation products."
p104 "The Code of Forest
Practices for Timber Production (Code) requires that water quality and
yield are protected in water supply catchments. . . Where Special Area
Plans do not exist or specify minimum standards, the Code or regional
prescriptions provide minimum requirements for seasonal closures, stream
buffers, filter strips and slope limitations.
Minimum widths for stream buffers and fliter strips are a function
of the soil type, stream class and slope, and can vary from 10 to 40m
depnding on soil permeability and potential for overland flow".
However
there is no in depth discussion in the Comprehensive Regional Assessment
Report about the Code and the absolute need to maintain filter and buffer
strips from all logging. For instance on page 21 of the Code it
states that "trees located
in filter strips may be felled".
This statement does not have the best interests of the waterways
at heart. Filter strips in my opinion should be
increased, as should buffer zones in all forest coupes. Loggers should not be given the opportunity
to risk any increase in sedimentation entering our waterways. The Code in relation to private forests
and buffers etc page 48 is quite appalling. Quite clearly a timber operator reading
the Code in a minimalist way can log buffer strips and filter strips. This interpretation of the Code by private
forest growers is leading to absolutely massive water quality problems
in the Gippsland RFA area. It
should also be stated that recent logging activities in public forests,
for probably the last 5 years, have focused on ridges and slopes higher
up in the catchments. This
means that the streams upstream of these coupes are impacted and often
do not have any flowing water.
This is quite serious meaning that streamflow generated in the
headwaters of creeks etc is reduced, meaning that less quality water
is entering the catchments.
The
Assessment report mentions on page 112
"However, some
of the road network established prior to the Code, does not meet current
standards and therefore is a potential source of sediment".
This is correct, the existing roading network on many areas of
private land is appalling, but many new roads and snig tracks are sub-standard
as well. Much work needs
to be done to tighten up roading on private land.
From my observations I can generally say that roading on public
forests is of a higher standard than those roads on private land.
In
1988 The State of the Environment Report on Victoria’s Inland Waters
wrote that “Overall,
this impact on the aquatic environment is characterised by *potentially
greater input of particulate matter over time due to the increased frequency
of harvesting and soil disturbance, *greater reduction in water yield
and streamflow due to greater water requirements of softwood forests,
*potentially greater contamination of waterways resulting from the aerial
application of biocides and fertilisers, and their transport to waterways
and *Changes in the diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates, deriving
from changes by pine plantations in the composition of organic matter
entering streams”.
On
page 70 of the Assessment Report "The
total plantation area in the Gippsland region in 1998 was approximately
85 700ha. Of this area,
some 54 000 ha are owned by Australian Paper Plantation Pty Ltd (APP),
26 000 ha of plantation are owned by Hancock Victorian Plantations Pty
Ltd, and some 5 700 ha are in private ownership (GFP 1998)." This is a vast holding of land. I have personally witnessed some truelly
horrendous logging occurring on private land owned by both Amcor and
Hancock. Some of Amcor's
plantations have no buffer zone on streams at all, meaning that huge
amounts of sediment can wash into creeks after rainfall. This problem is increased due to the steepness
of many of these plantation sites.
Amcor should be made to revegetate all their buffer zones and
steep hillsides with indigenous vegetation and then retire those areas
from timber harvesting permanently.
This is the only chance we have if we are to save the waterways
and downstream water users including fishermen.
The
Hancock situation is an ecological disaster, with that company targeting
and then logging, the best of what remains of indigenous vegetation
left in their land holdings. I have personally witnessed buffer zones
and filter strips logged and remnant old regrowth cleared by that company,
acting in total knowledge that local councils will find it next to impossible
to prosecute breaches of the Code of Forest Practices due to the watering
down of the Code. The fact
that Hancock now controls the headwaters of numerous rivers and streams
in the Strzeleckis will have long term impacts on the freshwater ecology
of the region for many years.
From details released by the Australian Securities Commission
it shows that Ian Ferguson - Professor of Forestry at Melbourne University
is a director of Hancock Victorian Plantations.
The fact that a fellow with wide spread respect from many in
the forestry field is a director of a company which is acting so environmentally
irresponsibly is a sad inditement on the state of
forestry in Victoria.
I understand that the timber sourced from Hancock's holdings in the Strzelecki's is sent to the Planthard mill in Morwell, where they have a licence to cut 100,000 cubic metres each year. 40,000 cubic metres of woodchips is sent to Amcor's Maryvale mill from Planthard. This amount is clearly unsustainable. On what basis was Planthard granted the rights to cut such an enourmous amount of timber? I understand that Planthard is owned by the Thomas P Clark group of companies whose Victorian directors include Roger Clark, John Clark and Lorraine Clark.
In 1996 a company called Fitzmaurice Pty Ltd directed by John and Roger Clark sold their office and land in South Melbourne to Crown Casino for $10,500,000. Crown Casino needed that land for their carpark. At this stage the Clark's apparently had invested some $20 million in refurbishing the SECV site in Morwell to begin their Planthard business, which incidently is the largest hardwood sawmill in Australia. Planthard signed a deal from the Victorian Plantation Corporation to access timber from the Strezlecki's.
A
inaugral member of the VPC board was George B Little who left his position
of Deputy Director of the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority in 1993.
Given that the sustainable yield calculations have been proved
to be erroneous (see Age Newspaper Page 13, 16/2/00) and that VPC was
brought out by Hancock, a subsidiary of the John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance Company, what happens if the sustainable yield from the Strzelecki's
just doesn't add up. Does
this mean that Hancock will have to cut every stick of timber out of
the Strzelecki's to meet their licence agreements? Does it mean that Hancock will have to
be given access to State Forests to meet this shortfall in demand. Already the Radcon mill in Yarram has
been adversely affected by the sale of the state's plantations to Hancock. What impact will this forestry have on
wildlife and the waterways of the Strzelecki's? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Increased
levels of sediment can adversely affect all aspects of freshwater ecosystems
by: reducing light penetration, increased
loads of nutrients and toxic substances attached to sediment particles,
clogging gills and causing asphyxiation, causing illness and reduced
growth rates or death through ingestion, reduced visibility, filling
spaces in the river bed and destroying important habitat, working its
way into the stream bed, interfering with feeding by organisms that
filter food from the water column, destroying attachment sites for animals
and eggs, smothering plants.
Erosion often liberates soluble nutrients, but also sediment particles have nutrient molecules attached, which ultimately pollute the river system. Logging also effects water yield which in turn effects the temperature of the water, thereby placing further pressure on species dependent on fresh, clean water. Reduced streamflows may exacerbate water quality problems. In regards to the Otways, Otways Ranges Environment Network found that logging on an 80 year rotation basis would reduce water yield by 25 to 33% because young trees require large amounts of water to grow. In April 1998 the (CRCCH) published the results of a five year analysis of water yields in Mountain Ash forest catchments. The study concluded that old growth Mountain Ash forests have almost twice the water yield of young regrowth forests resulting from clearfelling or wildlife regeneration.
In
regards to plantations it could be argued that the environmental impact
of softwood and eucalypt plantation forestry is more severe on waterways
than timber harvesting in native forests.
This is due to logging rotations in plantations being between
15 and 40 years meaning that there is more silvicultural tending and
that “growing pines appear
to make a larger impact on water yield than do regenerating eucalypts”.
It
is encouraging that the Assessment Report looks into the water yield
issue; eg's
p108 "The potential for
forest management activities to impact water quality and quantity, and
aquatic values is well recognised."
p109 "The effects of 'best
practice' forest harvesting and regeneration operations on water yield
and water quality were investigated in the Corranderrk Experiment. .
. The results to date indicate that water yield in the selectively felled
catchment declined less than in the clearfelled area.
However, the more intensive road network of the selectively felled
catchment affected water quality for 10 years, compared with five years
for the clearfelled catchment."
p109
"A study by Grayson in catchments in the Central Highlands concluded
that the impact of well supervised timber harvesting on water quality
is small. They noted that the suspension of logging
during wet weather, the use of buffer strips, and the management of
runoff from roads, snig tracks and log landings, eliminated contaminated
runoff into streams."
p109-110 "O'Shaughnessy
and Associates (1995) noted that roads and tracks might present a greater
hazard than timber harvesting with regard to sedimentation of streams. Preliminary results of monitoring in the
Traralgon Creek catchment by Sadek et al. (1998) showed that the existence
of unsealed roads and associated landslides in forested catchments have
an impact on stream turbidity and sediments.
The research by Grayson et al. (1993) and work by Haydon et al.
(1991) also suggests that there is a positive relationship between the
frequency of road use and the production of coarse sediment and total
sediments. This highlights the need for high standards
of road construction and management to help prevent the entry of runoff
into streams (Haydon et al. 1991).
Also Dargavel . . . "
p110
"The literature demonstrates that different silvicultural systems have
different impacts on water yield and quality within harvesting areas
. . . Hydrological resaerch in the Central Highlands also indicates
that large-scale regeneration or reforestation activities following
timber harvesting or wildfire may reduce long-term water yields in Ash
forests (Kuczera 1985), as young, fast growing forests use more water
. . . As the forest regenerates, water yield decreases to a minimum
of about half the original yields at 20-30 years and then steadily increases
to pre-fire yields at around 150 years . . . Kuczera (1985) also showed
that for every one per cent of mature forest converted to regrowth,
a decline of 6mm in annual water yield could be expected some 30 years
later."
However
there is a lack of information in the Assessment report about the impacts
of both a decline in water quality and quantity and its impacts on freshwater
species. If there is less water there is likely
to be less fish, thereby impacting on both the economy and ecology of
the Gippsland region.
The
following information was taken from SSP Technical Report No 5 - A Review
of Australian Studies on the Effects of Forestry Practices on Aquatic
Values. TJ Doeg and JD
Koehn Fisheries Division
September 1990. I did not
see this publication listed in the Gippsland RFA bibliography, it should
have been there.
West
Barham Catchment - Otway Ranges
p6 "Mean stream turbibity
(over all samples) was significantly higher in the harvested catchments
than in the unharvested sub-catchment of similar size. Mean filterable solids were also significantly
higher in samples from the larger disturbed catchments, but not
in the smaller subcatchments . . . " p7
"The
p9 "In the Picaninny Creek,
the concentration of suspended solids increased marginally following
clearfelling, but the increase did not persist. Sediment trapped behind the Picaninny
weir showed that total export of suspended material increased from 40kg/ha/annum
in the pre-treatment phase to a peak of 90 kg/ha/annum in 1974, followed
by a rapid return to pre-treatement levels.
Additional water samples taken within the catchment showed that
the increase in suspended sediment was caused by run-off from a road
crossing, and not from the clearfelled area itself."
p12 "Although water quality
parameters were not measured, soil erosion "increased greatly after
the logging operations"
p17 "However, suspended
sediment concentrations in Strinybark Creek during logging were considerably
higher than in other as yet undisturbed catchments, with the actual
increases being variable and differing between storms, but in the range
of 0 to 300%. Estimates of suspended sediment loads
also showed an increase of 150% in the disturbed catchment in the first
storm after the start of treatment, but the loads appeared to be reducing
towards the end of the logging."
p20 "Following clearing
of the eucalypt forest, storm run-off increased by an average of 40%
compared to the uncleared eucalypt catchment, and more than doubled
in one of the cleared pine forest catchments . . ."
p28
"No changes in flow-weighted mean annual sediment concentrations could
be determined in the April Road North Catchments, and only a small increase
occurred in the year of logging in the Yerraminnup South catchment (however,
larger increases were noted in this year in the control Yerraminnup
North catchment). In both
cases, buffer strips of 100 m
and 50 m respectively had been left along the stream banks .
. . "
p29 "Suspended sediment
concentrations were elevated by a factor of 3 to 5 in all four catchments
following cutting, reaching a maximum two years after logging, then
declining in the following year due to lower rainfall and revegetation."
p32 In the Sutton trial,
where the buffer strips were completely removed, there was an increase
in organic material accession and sand deposition from road surfaces
to the stream, particulary at road crossings.
This somewhat altered the flow path and channel morphology in
the two years following the trial.
Some bank collapse was caused by trees falling across the stream
channel during logging. Algal blooms were also noted following
the trial
Logging
can also cause increased nutrients entering waterways.
Algal blooms are a result of nutrient enrichment which has become
a problem throughout Australia.
These blooms are caused by a combination of the build up of nutrients
and reduced water flows. Excessive algal growth deprives waters
of oxygen, resulting in slimy, smelly water which kills fish and causes
rashes and eye irritations in humans.
Algal blooms can also make fish toxic for human consumption. The recent Gippsland Lakes bloom resulted
in the suspension of commercial prawn fishing from both the Lakes and
nearby ocean waters. Runoff
from logging (including the application of fertilisers) contributes
to algal blooms as does sewage and agricultural effluent.
As mentioned earlier, the amount of time devoted by the RFA process to look after the long term interests of waterways that are affected by logging activity, especially in the headwaters of many catchments, seems to have been neglected. I have selected the following quotes from the Assessment document that not enough information is at hand to be making long term decisions regarding forest agreements, when the impacts of those agreements on fish and macroinvertebrates are unknown. It is also disturbing to note that the RFA is being pushed through to be signed by March 31st, when two important studies relating to fish and macroinvertebrates will probably not be published by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources until June this year.
More
research needs to be done in relation to both matters and it appears
from the invertebrate studies that the dataset is sub-optimal. Tentatively it could be said that research
is leading towards suggestions that logging activities do impact on
macroinvertebrate communities, however some insect populations increase
downstream of logging coupes due to small increases in light, nutrients
and organic debris. However
much more research is required.
There is also a lack of budget within the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment to conduct widespread surveys.
Budget cuts over the past few years have severely impacted on
the Department. In researching for this submission I was
alarmed that much of the research done in this area was done during
the eighties.
p113 "Increased stream
sedimentation is regarded as a threat to species such as the Spotted
Tree Frog and Giant Burrowing Frog.
Therefore management prescriptions, including special requirements,
are in place for stream buffers, roads and stream crossings in catchments
containing these species."
p198
"Twenty-one freshwater fish have been recorded in the Gippsland RFA
Region to date, and 15 are known or suspected to migrate as part of
their life cycle. There are insufficient data to estimate
the total number of macroinvertebrate species in the Gippsland region."
p199
". . . However, significant data gaps exist on life history and population
characteristics for all priority fish species.
The most significant gaps relate to spawning behaviour, including
induction cues and location of egg laying sites, both within the catchment
and within the stream. There is also limited data on cues for
migration, preferred larval habitats, and reactions of priority fish
species to disturbances, particulary increased sediment and turbidity."
p199 "There are still
considerable gaps in the knowledge of aquatic macroinvertebrates in
the Gippsland RFA Region. The lack of adequate distributional and
historical data makes it almost impossible to identify other taxa that
may qualify for inclusion in a priority list.
Almost no comprehensive data are available for life histories
of priority aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa (and most other macroinvertebrate
taxa as well)."
p199 "Of the 21 native
freshwater fish species recorded from Gippsland, 7 are listed as threatened
fauna in Victoria (NRE 1999b), five of which are listed under the Flora
and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, and one of which is listed under the Commonwealth
Endangered Species Protection Act 1992."
p199
"Eight aquatic macroinvertebrate species known from Gippsland are listed
as threatened in Victoria (CNR 1995f), with two of these listed under
the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988".
p200 "Priority Aquatic
Fauna Species Occurring in Gippsland
Mountain Galaxias, Dwarf Galaxias (FFG), Striped Gudgeon, Cox's Gudgeon (FFG), Macquarie Perch (FFG), Australian Mudfish (FFG), Australian Grayling (FFG/ESP), Lilly Pilly Burrowing Cray, Narracan Burrowing Cray (FFG), Strzelecki Burrowing Cray, Alpine Spiny Gray, South Gippsland Sping Gray, Dragonfly (FFG), Caddisfly, Stonefly"
p201 "While the potential
impacts of these activities and associated environmental changes are
well established, few scientifically derived data are available that
directly relate the impact of most activities to any of the priority
aquatic species. Therefore,
in most cases, the impact on priority species in Gippsland needs to
be predicted from the results of studies conducted elsewhere.
While specific date relating activities or disturbances and the
impacts on priority species may not exist, sufficient information is
available to adequately predict the likely impacts on priority species
in the Region."
As
stated earlier, the Gippsland Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report
has done very little to ensure that the aquatic values of streams in
the Gippsland RFA region will be adequately protected in the future.
The following references, none of which appear in the Assessment
Report bibliography, provide an opportuntity to understand the complexities
of protecting the fauna which rely on the waterways for their survival. One has to wonder why most of these texts
weren't considered in the drafting of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment
Report. As it stands
the Regional Assessment Report is fundamentally flawed for ignoring
the majority of these reports.
Daily flow rates to maintain optimum habitat for fish assemblages in
the Tambo River, Gippsland: a
preliminary assessment. P.N.
Hall & D.J. Harrington - Feb 1991 - Flora and Fauna Division, Vic.
(ii)
"In the Tambo River system the species of the highest conservation values
and the most abundant of the larger native species was the Australian
Grayling (prototroctes maraena) a species classified as 'vulnerable'
and listed under the State Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988)."
p5 "Specimens of four
native and one introduced fish species were collected at the four sites
. . . 14 native and 3 introduced fish species have been collected from
the Tambo system and its main tributaries, during 1969-91 . . . species
which have a relatively unrestricted distribution throughout the system. Blackfish, tupong, common galaxias, smelt
and both species of eel."
p6 "Species which appeared
to be primarily restricted to the rivers middle and lower reaches (southern
pigmy perch, estuary perch, Australian grayling and both species of
lamprey. Species restricted
to upper reaches - spotted galaxias, rainbow trout (brown trout)."
p9 "Preservation of the
Tambo River's population of Grayling is of fundamental importance, especially
because of lack of understanding of grayling genetics (Brown 1983) and
the life cycle which is presumed to include a larval marine phase (Berra
1987). The grayling population of the Tambo River
is believed to be a major breeding population and probably directly
influences the distribution and abundance of the species at least across
eastern Victorian rivers . . . Of particular importance are the adverse
effects of poor water quality during low-flow summer months and maintenance
of suitable flows and conditions for spawning and subsequent transfer
of larvae to the rivers lower reaches during late autumn."
p10 "The Tambo River is
also important because it supports a population of Australian Bass at
the westerly limit of the species known geographic range.
Currently classified in Victoria as potentially threatened, this
species depends on seasonal high-flow events and unobstructed passage".
p15 "Fish surveys in Victoria's
coastal rivers and streams during the last 20 years indicate that grayling
is relatively more abundant and more consistently present in the Tambo
River than in other waters surveyed.
The Australian grayling is listed under the State Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Act which is a state government committment to maintain important
grayling habitat or to restrict processes considered to threaten the
species".
p15 "Populations of spotted
galaxias - a species classified as potentially threatened in Victoria
are believed to occur in tributaries
of the Tambo River and are known to have a marine juvenile phase
. . . "
Management Plan for Freshwater Fisheries in Major
Gippsland Rivers.
Water Resource Requirements D.N. Hall Jan 91
p14
"Of particular significance to water resource management in the study
area is the presence of populations of Australian grayling in the Snowy,
Tambo, Mitchell and lower Thomson rivers.
The relatively patchy or restricted distribution of grayling
now compared with that last century has been ascribed largely to water
and land management practices (Jackson and Koehn, 1988)."
p16 "High priority is
therefore directed towards maintenance of grayling habitat, provision
of access by migrating larvae and juveniles to and from the estuaries,
and maintenance of suitable flows and water temperatures during and
immediately following spawning by grayling."
p16 "The freshwater populations
of the Mitchell (sites 20,21) (please note that these sites are now
protected under the Heritage Rivers Act), the Snowy (sites 25-22) and
Tambo Rivers (sites 36-40) had the highest conservation values.
Safeguarding the Mitchell River was given top priority because
fish distributions in the Snowy and Tambo Rivers were deduced largely
from fish collections .
. . The lower Thomson (site 14) has been assigned a high conservation
value because of the presence of grayling . . . Sites between the Thomson
Dam and Bruntons Bridge (sites 31-35) were classified at the head of
the average category because of their unusually high proporation of
large blackfish (please note that these sites are now protected under
the Heritage Rivers Act). The upper Latrobe River and its tributaries
(Mowell and upper Tyers Rivers) had relatively high proportions of blackfish,
as did the Thomson above Cowwarr (site 15), Glenmaggie Creek (site 18)
and the Tanjil River (sites 27-28) . . . The Aberfeldy River (sites
29, 30) was given a higher conservation ranking than would be expected
. . . owing to the catchment's excellent condition."
p17 "The State of the
Environment Report 1988 (Ministry for Environmental Planning 1989) tabled
a series of estimates of use (angler/day) for each river catchment across
the state . . . the resulting estimates suggest that the Latrobe and
Tambo basins each catered for 150 000 angler days per annum, and the
Snowy, Mitchell and Thomson basins each catered for 100 000 angler days
per annum."
p17 "The Upper Latrobe
River (5-7) contained the best of the 'average' fish populations for
anglers . . . The Thomson River downstream from Thomson Reservoir to
Brunton's Bridge (31-35) (most of this area is now protected under the
Heritage Rivers Act) and the Aberfeldy River (29-30)
(most of this area is now protected under the Heritage Rivers
Act) contained fish populations with the highest proportions of 'size'
angling species. Better than average angling opportunities
were also identified at Glenmaggie Creek and at sites on the Morwell
(site 10), Tyers (site 12) and Tanjil (site 28) rivers in the Latrobe
River catchment."
Preliminary assessment of daily flows required to maintain habitat
for fish assemblages in the Latrobe, Mitchell and Snowy Rivers, Gippsland. Douglas N. Hall July 1989. Technical Report Series No. 85
p16 "Information on the
occurence and distribution of fish species in the Latrobe, Thomson,
Mitchell and Snowy Rivers is available from the results of surveys conducted
during the 1970's and early 1980's (Tunbridge and Gleane 1982). A systematic fish sampling program was
undertaken during the present study to determine the distribution and
relative abundance of fish
species at each of the 22 flow study sites and an additional 3 fish
survey sites nominated by the DWR."
p18 "Ten native and four
introduced fish species were collected from the Latrobe River and tributary
sites. Previously 15 native
freshwater fish species have been collected during fish surveys of the
Latrobe system including the following species not collected in 1988
- Australian Grayling, broad-finned galaxias, dwarf galaxias, striped
gudgeon, blue spot goby and non-parasitic lamprey and 6 introduced species. Species found included Australian smelt,
Blackfish, Estuary Perch, Long finned - eel, short
p20 "A depauperate fish
fauna - both in species richness and fish numbers was encountered from
Rosedale up to Lake Narracan area mainly smelt, carp and english perch."
p21 "The fish populations
of the Latrobe River downstream of Lake Narracan have decreased dramatically
both in terms of numbers of fish and also biomass over the last 15 years.
"The presence of relatively large numbers of blackfish, trout
and small species such as smelt and pigmy perch upstream from Lake Narracan
- combined with an absence or scarcity of these species and the
decreased carrying capacity of the lower section of the river since
1973 . . . indicates that the ecology of the Latrobe downstream from
Lake Narracan has undergone a substantial change over the last 15 years."
p21 "A hypothesis to explain the recently observed distribution of fish in the Lower Latrobe concerns the annual load of suspended solids. Poor land use practices, removal of river bank vegetation and instream debris, substantial daily flow variations induced by stream regulation, meander cuts and a variety of other industrial, agricultural and river management practices have had the cumulative effect of substantially increasing the sediment load of the river. Increased levels of sediment in streams can have a direct effect on fish populations by decreasing the survival rate of demersal embryos (Cooper 1965), by reducing rearing and reproductive habitat for juvenile and adult fish (Bjorn et al, 1977, Berkel and Rabeni 1987), by abrading gill and other tissues, by interfering with determined behavioural responses such as feeding and avoidance, and finally by reducing the stream's capacity to produce or provide food organisms.
Recent studies of increased sedimentation in streams have consistently
indicated dramatic changes in species composition, diversity and total
numbers of invertebrates which can be attributed to the effects of physical
abrasion by organisms by suspended sediment, smothering of suitable
habitat, reduction in the capacity of smothered areas to produce food
organisms and the alteration of behavioural responses like drift (see
Hall 1988)."
p22 "The invertebrate
communities of the Latrobe downstream of Narracan are impoverished both
in terms of species diversity and biomass.
Robinson (1988) attributed changes in the species diversity of
aquatic invertebrates downstream of Lake Narracan to increased loads
of suspended sediment, altered substrate types and flow regulation practices."
p23
"The unstable and mobile nature of the Latrobe river bed below Lake
Narracan, combined with the river's load of suspended sediment and subsequent
impoverished macro-invertebrate fauna could provide a convenient explanation for the observed numbers of
species composition of the fish fauna.
Freshwater blackfish and tupong are primarily benthic insect
feeders and their absence might be attributed to the lack of suitable
food or their inability to locate sufficient food items."
p25 "11 native and 4 introduced
species were collected from the Thomson River and tributary site.
During previous surveys by the Fisheries and Wildlife Department
a total of seven native and 3 exotic fish species were recorded in the
Thomson River. Found Australian Grayling, Australian
Smelt, blackfish, long finned eel, short finned eel, estuary perch,
flat headed gudgeon, common galaxias, mountain galaxias, southern pigmy
perch, tupong + brown trout, carp, english perch, mosquito fish)."
p29 "11 species of native
freshwater fish were collected from the Mitchell River and no introduced
species were encountered. Previously
7 native and 2 exotic species of freshwater fish have been recorded
from the Mitchell. Found
Australian Grayling, Australian Smelt, blackfish, long finned eel, short
finned eel, estuary perch, flat headed gudgeon, short headed lamprey,
common galaxias, southern pigmy perch, tupong + brown trout, carp, english
perch, mosquito fish)."
p36 "The behavioural and life history activities of freshwater fish species can be divided into 4 major categories; rearing, resting, spawning and passage. Each of these activities require particular habitat features and are considered seperately."
p37 "Rearing habitat is
arguably the most critical habitat type to be preserved while considering
flow reductions. It invariably
emcompesses the largest area of habitat in a river . . . food sources
for riverine fish species can be arbitrarily divided into 2 categories
- riparian for terrestrial and instream.
Riparian habitat generally harbours diverse and abundant terrestrial
insect fauna which commonly contribute as fish food by flying, falling
or crawling to the surface water and thereby becoming available to fish."
p38 "Aquatic invertebrates
are the major components of the diet of most native freshwater fish
species inhabiting Victorian coastal streams.
Clean gravels and cobbles in riffles are often the most productive
areas in a river for macroinvertebrates . . . Aletrnatively for those
rivers or sections of rivers with predominately sand substrates most
invertebrate production is usually associated with instream debris such
as rocks, twigs and leaves."
p39 "There is very little
quantitative information available on the resting habitat requirements
of native Australian freshwater fish, or the proportion of time a species
rests either daily, seasonally or with age . . . "
p95 "A period of at least
2 years is a minimum estimate of the time required to generate a comprehensive
assessment of instream flow material . . ."
Please
note, under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, an Action Statement is
required for species listed. However due to time constraints every
species listed doesn't necessarily have action statements written for
them. This is the case for the following species,
meaning that proper management of environmental conditions pertaining
to the safeguarding of these creatures habitat isn't happening on an
ecological footing.
Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Scientific Advisory Committee - Nomination
No. 3 Item No. A4041
Final Recommendation on a nomination for Listing
Prototroctes
maraena Gunther, 1864 - Australian Grayling
Date
of final recommendation: 22/5/91
Criterion 1.2 The taxon is significantly prone to future threats which
are likely to result in extinction
Evidence:
What
is known of the species' breeding patterns suggest that migration between
river and the ocean is required (Hall and Harrington 1989); thus the
SAC is satisfied that any threat to the river systems in which the species
occurs causes a significant threat to its reproduction.
Those few rivers where large populations are known to occur are
threatened by possible water storage development which could create
barriers to fish passage (Koehn & Morrison 1990) and by other developments,
as none of the major catchments are within boundaries of National Parks. Predation by introduced trout is another
possible threat (Koehn & O'Connor 1990).
Background Information
-Categorised as "vulnerable" in Victoria by Baker-Gabb (1991), Koehn
& Morison (1990) and Cadwallader et al. (1984).
-The
species is considered by the Endangered Species Committee of the Total
Environment Centre to be one of the most endangered of Australia's freshwater
fishes.
-CONCOM recognises the species as endangered (Burbidge & Jenkins
1984)
-Harris (1987) identifies the species as being threatened
-The
viable size of Grayling populations within Victoria is not known. Few large populations have been found.
-A
congenor of this species declined rapidly to extinction in New Zealand
during the 1920's. Prototroctes
Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Scientific Advisory
Committee - Nomination No. 304
Item No. A4155
Final Recommendation on a nomination for Listing
Gobiomorphus coxii Kreft 1864 - Cox's Gudgeon
Sub-criterion 1.2.1 The
taxon is very rare in terms of abundance or distribution
Evidence: Only 18 specimens
of Gobiomorphus coxii have been collected from a total of 10 sites in
the state. The species
is restricted to lowland coastal areas in south-eastern Victoria from
the Franklin River in South Gippsland eastward to the New South Wales
border, north-east of Mallacoota in East Gippsland
-Several potentially threatening processes which have either been listed
(The increase in sedimentation input into Victorian rivers and streams
due to human activities . . . may represent a threat to Cox's Gudgeon.
Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Scientific Advisory
Committee - Nomination No. 141
Item No. A4055
Final Recommendation on a nomination for Listing
Galaxiella pusilla (Mack 1936) - Dwarf Galaxias
Criterion 1.1 the taxon
is in a state of demonstrable decline which is likely to result in extinction
Evidence: The species
has declined in a qualitative number of river systems. It has suffered a demonstrable decline
in the Western Port area and in South Gippsland. Freshwater wetlands in this area have
been reduced by 99% since European settlement.
The
species occurs mostly in swamps and billabongs . . .
p76 "Habitat: Typically in still or slow-flowing waters
such as swamps, drains and backwaters of creeks and streams; often in shallow
water overgrown with aquatic plants. . . "Cadwallader, PL and Backhouse
GN (1983) A guide to the freshwater fish of Victoria.
Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Scientific Advisory
Committee - Nomination No. 266
Item No. I4802
Final Recommendation on a nomination for Listing
Engaeus phyllocercus Smith
and Schuster - Narracan Burrowing Crayfish
Although Engaeus phyllocercus can be found in State forests within
its range, its habitat has been substantially modified. Any activities which damage stream banks,
alter drainage patterns and water table levels or remove remnant native
vegetation represent a threat to the species.
Engaeus phyllocercus is found over a 30km2 area of the highland region
of the Western Strzelecki Ranges in South Gippsland. Its burrows are typically found in the
flood bed region of fern tree gullies in wet sclerophyll forest
Biological Information for Management of Native
Freshwater Fish in Victoria
JD
Koehn WG O'Connor April 1990
Some
other listed fish species from the Gippsland region
Pouched Lamprey (Geotria australis) - Potentially threatened
Freshwater Herring (Potamalosa richmondia) - Endangered
Broad-finned galaxias (Galaxias brevipinnis) - Potentially threatened
Spotted galaxias (Galaxias truttaceus) - Potentially threatened
Dwarf
galaxias (Galaxias pusilla) - Potentially threatened
Australian bass (Macquaria novemaculeata) - Potentially threatened
Freshwater Fishes of Australia - Dr Gerald R.
Allen
p189 "Cox's Gudgeon:
Inhabits swift-flowing streams, often in rapids.
Spawning occurs in summer.
The eggs are deposited on rock surfaces and are guarded by the
male until hatching, which requires 3-5 days.
The larvae are washed downstream to lowland rivers and estuaries. Upstream migration occurs as the young
fish increase in size . . . The species penetrates well inland to altitudes
of at least 700 m. Food
items include aquatic insects, crustaceans and other fishes."
p47 "Australian Grayling:
Inhabits creeks and rivers, usually in cool, clear waters over
gravel bottoms in sections alternating between pools and rapids.
They often form large schools especially prior to spawning. The reproductive period is from late summer
to autumn. Each female
produces about 25 000 to 68 000 eggs that sink to the bottom just downstream
of the spawning site. Hatching
occurs in about 10-20 days. The
newly hatched larvae are apparently swept downstream to estuaries or
the sea where they remain for about 6 months before returning to fresh water to complete their life
cycles. . . They eat small crustaceans, insects and their larvae and
algae."
Technical Report No 52. - A review of biological
information, distribution and status of the Australian Grayling (Prototroctes
maraena) Gunther in Victoria PD
Jackson and JD Koehn 1988
(iv) Key stages in the
early life history, dynamics of existing populations and habitat requirements
of Australian Grayling, especially during the first 6 months of life
are poorly documented. It
is not known whether discrete stocks of Australian Grayling ascend different
freshwater streams or whether there is one stock which ascends streams
at random after larvae have mingled in coastal waters.
If the latter is the case, spawning may occur only in a few freshwater
streams, making the species vulnerable to environmental alteration. None of the major catchments containing
Australian Grayling are within boundaries of National Parks, thus no
Australian Grayling population in Victoria is adequately protected.
p8 Results from the Tambo
River in 1981 show that ripe grayling were present well upstream from
the end of April until the end of May.
p9 the eggs settle in
interstices of the gravel bottom
p11 the most frequent
food items found were immature stages of aquatic insects such as chironoids,
trichopterans and ephemopterans, gastropods and abundant plant material
p14 Due to the gaps in
our knowledge of the life cycle and population genetics of the species,
conclusions of the status of grayling based purely on distributional
data should be viewed with considerable caution.
Habitat requirements for first 6 months are unknown
p15
not sure whether the species can spawn in heavily silted rivers
p15 'thus there are no
totally protected grayling populations in Victoria. All rivers known to contain grayling are
susceptible to some form of habitat destruction in the future.
Heritage Rivers
The
following information in the Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report
outlined the following issues regarding protection through Heritage
Rivers etc.
p105
In the Gippsland region, the corridors of the Mitta Mitta, Mitchell
and Wonnangatta and Thomson Rivers have been designated as Heritage
Rivers and are protected under the Heritage Rivers Act 1992.
p106 Those catchments
which have not been subject to physical or biological processes that
leave the environment impaired or changed, have been designated as Essentially
Natural Catchments. In
the Gippsland region, seven catchments were identified and recommended
as Essentially Natural Catchments:
Avon, Turton and Dolodrook Rivers and Ben Cruachan Creek; Stony
Creek, Wongungurra River headwaters, Blue Rag Creek, Pinnacle Creek,
Punchen Creek and Mount Vereker Creek . . . A draft management plan
for heritage rivers and natural catchments in Gippsland was released
for comment in November 1997 (NRE 1997h). . .
p106
The Environment Protection Act 1970 provides for the declaration of
State Environment Protection Policies (SEPP) for defined areas in order
to maintain environmental quality sufficient to protect existing and
anticipated beneficial uses. State
Environment Protection Policies relevant to the Gippsland region include: *State Environment Protection Policy (Waters
of Victoria) 1988, including Schedule F5 (The Latrobe and Thomson River
Basins and Merriman Creek Catchment and Schedule F3 (Waters of Gippsland
Lakes and Catchment) . . .
p202 Following the Land
Conservation Council's (LCC) Rivers and Streams Special Investigation,
the corridors of the Mitta Mitta (above Lake Dartmouth), the Mitchell
and Wonnangatta Rivers and the Thomson River below the dam and above
Cowarr weir) were declared to be Heritage River Areas under the Heritage
Rivers Act 1992 . . . Draft management plans for these heritage rivers
have been produced abd include strategies to protect significant environmental
values in each river.
Timber harvesting is excluded from the seven
Natural Catchment Areas in the Gippsland Region declared under the Heritage
Rivers Act 1992.
p236
Private landholders are responsible for controlling activities
on their land. Native Vegetation Retention Controls,
Flora and Fauna Guarantee and the Code provide mechanisms for protecting
environmental values on private land, however, their implementation
lacks coordination.