NATIONAL PARK
IN THE
STRZELECKI STATE FOREST
Download PDF version by clicking here
A PROPOSAL FOR A 30,000 HECTARE
NATIONAL PARK
IN THE
STRZELECKI STATE FOREST
"The original 'Great Forest of Gippsland' began near Western Port and extended for 100 to 120 km to the east, with a width of some 50 to 70 kilometres. The trees were mostly blue gum, mountain ash, and messmate with other eucalypts in lesser quantities, together with blackwood, sassafras, and many other understorey species, especially in the gullies." - Francis R Moulds.
Written By Julie Constable, Kim Devenish & Alan Standering June 1998
Supported & endorsed by the South Gippsland Conservation Society.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Key areas for Consideration For National Park Status
2.1 Estimates
2.2 Estimates of Area, Land Status & Forest Type of Proposed National Park
2.3 The Main Body of the Reserve
2.4 State Forest Leased to Amcor
2.5 Outlying Reserves
2.6 Limitations to our knowledge about the Strzelecki State Forest
2.7 Selecting 30,000ha. from the 35,000ha. identified
3. The Natural Significance of the Proposed National Park
3.1 Catchments
3.2 Forest and Flora
3.3 Fauna
4. Present Use
4.1 Brief History
4.2 Land Conservation Council
4.3 Regional Forest Agreements
4.4 Ongoing misrepresentation
4.5 Victorian Plantations Corporation
4.6 'Multiple-use'
4.7 Plantations
5. Problems Associated With Forest Management in the Strzelecki State Forest
5.1 Problems with Harvesting Techniques
5.2 Problems with Soil
5.3 Problems with Tracks
5.4 Problems Associated with Catchments & Water
5.5 Problems with the Forest Code of Practice
5.6 Problems with Edge Effects on Rainforst
5.7 Effects of Forest Management on Flora & Fauna
5.8 Problems Associated with Plantation Forestry
5.9 'Useless scrub', 'Understorey species' or 'Important bush'?
6. The Proposed Reserve & the Government's Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) Criteria
7. Concerns about the Strzelecki State Forest & Support for the Proposal
8. Tourism
8.1 Potential
8.2 Grand Ridge Road
8.3 Other Roads
8.4 Visitors
8.5 Recreation
9. Setting up Costs for the Proposed Reserve
10. Conclusion
Appendix 1: Bibliography
Appendix 2: Rare & Endangered Species in the Strzelecki State Forest
Illustrations:
Front Page - South Gippsland map showing 'Great Forest of Gippsland'
Figure 1- Land use & remaining forest cover
Figure 2- LCC Hardwood & softwood zones
Figure 3- RFA Deferred Forest Area
Figure 4- Current Reserves
Figure 5- Areas to be Considered for National Park Status
Figure 6- Water Catchments
Figure 7- Current Management
Figure 8- Shire Boundaries
Figure 9- Sites of Botanical Significance
Back Cover - Areas to be Considered for National Park Status
1. INTRODUCTION
This submission to the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments proposes that a large National Park must be established in the Strzelecki State Forest so that a balance is struck between the maintenance of biodiverse ecosystems and continuing forestry operations within the region. This submission has been written in response to three major factors. Firstly, past and present management of the Strzelecki State Forest has been found to be ad hoc, indiscriminate and heavy handed. Secondly, the areas location has been conducive to supporting forest types unique to only a small fraction of Victoria. Thirdly the forests also cover the headwaters of five major rivers and numerous creeks.
An attempt is made in this paper to outline land use in the area and put forward the case for the establishment of a National Park linking Tarra-Bulga National Park, Gunyah Reserve, and Turtons Creek scenic reserve. A National Park would ensure proper management of the area and protect significant areas that are currently unprotected (e.g.. Rytons, Gunyah & College Creek) and increase the viability of existing reserves. It is argued that recent developments are likely to have a negative impact on the region, environmentally, socially and economically. It is a major concern that the largest surviving remnant of the Great Forest of Gippsland could be fragmented even further and its botanical significance decreased through poor management and inappropriately treating the land as plantation.
The history of settlement and forestry operations in the entire Strzelecki Ranges show an energetic attempt to alter the region. The Great Forest of Gippsland of which the Strzeleckis formed the core was perhaps 500,000 ha. The Strzelecki Ranges spanned approximately 250,000 ha. The entire area was forested. After 150 years of farming and 50 years of forestry activities, the forest has dwindled to cover a small fraction of the ranges. The forested area is largely confined to the Strzelecki State Forest in the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges, which is generally steeper, wetter and at a higher altitude to the Western ranges.
The Strzelecki State Forest is around 63,000 hectares (or 630 square kilometres). Around 40,000 hectares has been vested with the Victorian Plantations Corporation, 8,617 hectares was leased to Amcor in the 1960s for 60 years. 5,000 ha. is managed by Parks Victoria and the remaining 9,000 ha. is presumably managed by DNRE.
Since the 1930s, 400 farms have been repurchased by the State and incorporated back into the State Forest. These farms amount to 28,000 hectares. A further 9,000 hectares was land briefly leased out to hopeful farmers in the 1890s. This land reverted back to the Crown after proving to be unsuitable for farming and was abandoned, often before any clearing took place. The remaining 26,000 hectares has always been Crown Land. So, in fact, less than half the Strzelecki State Forest is repurchased ex-farmland.
47.3% of public land in Victoria is protected in reserves yet only
8% of public land in the Strzeleckis is protected in reserves.
2% of public land in Victoria has been converted to plantation, yet
35% (approx) of public land in the Strzeleckis has been converted to 'plantation'.
In order to rectify this gross imbalance, approximately 30,000 hectares of the Strzelecki State Forest must be made a National Park, the bulk of which should form one large cohesive shape. This proposal endeavours to outline how this could be best achieved.
Amcor(APM) purchased much of the cleared and forested land on the northern side of the Ranges and a high proportion has been converted to plantation. Most of the southern slopes continue to be managed and used by the State's forestry arm. Many of these areas altered or harvested over this time have shown significant regrowth. Despite such a great deal of regrettable treatment at the hands of white settlers, these Ranges show a remarkable ability to regrow and restore original forest structure, with or without human assistance. These Ranges with their unique blend of altitude, climate and positioning host some of the biggest and fastest growing trees in the world. Likewise, (and this is where the problem lies), these Ranges are also capable of growing plantations at an impressive speed. About one third of the Strzelecki State Forest is termed plantation. This is sixteen times the State average for public land. This proposal points out the problems associated with such intensive plantation forestry practices and clearfelling in this area and attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding the classification of forest in the area. Past records and mapping of forestry operations have been less than adequate, creating a climate of confusion over what is harvestable forest, "plantation" and what is "native bush". This has created much debate over recent actions by the Victorian Plantations Corporation in the Strzelecki State Forest. We would argue that the area identified by the LCC as the hardwood zone contains only a small percentage of harvestable land. This area contains a high percentage of land classified as unavailable or unsuitable for logging due to steep slopes, gullies, roadsides, streamsides etc. We believe the small amount of harvestable land could be realistically considered for preservation within the proposed National Park for conservation reasons.
The problems that have arisen in the area have been compounded by recent legislation that changed the classification of land from public to private. The State Government corporatised their plantation forestry arm, created the VPC and gave them 40,000 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest, even though half of this is not plantation land. More recently legislation has been drawn up and expressions of interest called for the selling of the VPC and forests under their control. This includes the 40,000 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest. In this proposal we will point out that instead of privatising the area, that a great deal of the area must be reserved to meet the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) benchmarks for a comprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) reserve system. The area of the proposed National Park is steep, wet and forms the last, large, continuous tract of public native forest in the Strzelecki Ranges. It is a refuge for flora and fauna in the region, including those endemic to the Mountain Ash Range. The Strzelecki State Forest has more than its fair share of plantations. In return for such intensive use, more than a fair share of bush should be reserved.
This submission will highlight as far as possible the proposed reserve area's importance for its natural beauty and ecology. Flora and fauna assessments that have been undertaken have emphasised the area's significance. The area is unique to the State, mainly supporting mountain ash forest which co-exists with cool temperate rainforest dominated by myrtle beech and sassafras. The remainder is a mosaic of messmate, peppermint, bluegum, blackwood and wattle forests. Hundreds of streams and waterways interlace the proposed reserve, with dozens of spectacular waterfalls. The area contains diverse flora and fauna where forests support rare and endangered species of plants, animals and fish.
This paper argues that by shifting the commercial emphasis from forestry towards tourism, conservation and water production the reserve will be consistent with the Victorian Government's commitment to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee; Regional Biodiversity; the Retention of Native Vegetation Act; and objectives under the Soil Conservation Act and the Water Act. The reserve will also assist Shire Councils to achieve environmental objectives outlined in Planning Schemes, provide the Catchment Management Authority with a sound basis for catchment management and allow the Regional Forest Agreement Taskforce to fulfil its commitment to a CAR reserve system in this strategic and significant mountain range.
2. KEY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR NATIONAL PARK STATUS
2.1 ESTIMATES All hectare estimations must be regarded as approximations.
The Strzelecki State Forest ( 63,000 ha. approx )1 presently has an inadequate collection of small, disjointed reserves ranging in size between 16 ha. and 1600 ha. Together, they amount to around 5000 ha. - a mere 8% of the state forest.
The proposed National Park is largely to be extracted from the following areas:
~24,000 ha. Deferred Forest Area (DFA) in the Eastern Strzeleckis
~ 2300 ha. DFA in Alberton West and the Western Strzeleckis
~ 4000 ha. Some State Forest leased to Amcor
~ 300 ha. a few small, inappropriately located pine plantations
~5000 ha. existing reserves located in the Eastern and Western Strzeleckis and Alberton West 2
35,300 ha. TOTAL
Of which, we believe, a total of 30,000 ha. can be reserved.
LCC Proposed Recommendations 1982 Hardwood and Softwood Production Zones
Brown = Hardwood. Grey = present and future softwood. Diagonal stripes = public state forest leased to APM (Amcor)
Detail from Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement map (1995)
Green = Deferred Forest Areas in the Strzelecki State Forest , as well as Alberton West, to the south, and Won wron and Mullundung to the east
If this was to happen, the areas of forest left in the Strzeleckis still containing land available for logging3 would amount to:
>24,000 ha. Forest and plantation privately owned by Amcor4
4,600 ha. State forest leased to Amcor
20,000 ha. State owned softwood zones
5,300 ha. Areas of 'proposed park' excluded from reserve
2.2 ESTIMATES OF AREA, LAND STATUS & FOREST TYPE OF PROPOSED NAT. PARK
Most of the proposed National Park is made up of native bush, on land currently managed by either Parks Victoria, DNRE, Amcor5 or the Victorian Plantations Corporation6.
While managing to avoid all but the most inappropriately located pine plantations, the proposed National Park inevitably takes up a portion of the state's eucalypt "plantations" on land vested in the VPC and leased by Amcor. How much eucalypt plantation is affected, will not be known until plantation maps become available. The eucalypt reafforestation of ex-farmland, which began in the 1930s was in no way solely for timber use. It is only natural that we choose to keep a proportion of these forests for recreation, the maintenance of ecological processes and catchment health.
Maximum total amount of VPC land affected - approx. 25,000 ha.
Maximum total amount of Amcor leased land affected - approx. 5,000 ha.
Maximum total amount of DNRE land affected - approx 2,000 ha.
Existing reserves - approx. 5,000 ha.
Assuming a reserve of 30,000 ha is established, an approximate breakdown of the areas would be:
>5000 ha. of existing reserves
12,000 ha. Land unavailable or unsuitable for logging -steep slopes, gullies, roadsides & streamsides.
4000 ha. Acacia forest with little harvestable eucalypt
300 ha. Inappropriately located pine plantations
8700 ha. Native forest (& some eucalypt plantation) that would cease to be available for timber
Of this, around: 2000 ha. of state forest leased to Amcor may be affected.
1000 ha. of state forest held by DNRE may be affected.
5700 ha. of state forest vested in the VPC may be affected.
30000 ha. of reserves would amount to approx: 6% of the pre-settlement Great Forest of Gippsland
12% of the Strzelecki Ranges;
or 38% of the remaining native forest in the Strzelecki Ranges
or 48% of the Strzelecki State Forest.
2.3 THE MAIN BODY OF THE NATIONAL PARK
This proposal outlines an area which links (from west to east) the Turtons Creek reserve and Franklin River Reserve with Gunyah Gunyah rainforest reserve, upper Morwell River West Branch, the upper Agnes Catchment, Rytons, Colleges Creek , Middle creek and Albert river catchments,Tarra-Bulga National Park and land to the north and east of Tarra-Bulga.
The Deferred Forest Area:
The area identified by the LCC as the "hardwood production zone"7 closely matches the area identified by the RFA as a "deferred forest area". Deferred Forest Areas(DFA) are areas set aside as interim reserves pending the outcome of the Regional Forest Agreements. The 'main body' of the proposed National Park closely resembles the DFA. 8
We calculate that the DFA area is around 24000 ha (give or take a thousand) and that it contains no pine plantation and around 6000 ha. of land rightly or wrongly termed as 'hardwood plantation' (give or take a thousand).
To highlight the significance of this DFA and in order to understand how we arrived at these calculations, we must study The 1982 LCC Proposed Recommendations for the public land in the Eastern Strzeleckis (South Gippsland Area District 2). This document zoned everything apart from the Reserves (approx 3000 ha. at the time)
either :
F1 - Softwood production zone or
F2 - future softwood production zone
or
E1 - Hardwood production zone (30,000 ha.)
No areas were given a dual softwood / hardwood purpose
The Strzelecki DFA is virtually identical to this 30,000 ha. E1 - Hardwood production zone, with two omissions: The hardwood area leased to Amcor (around 5000 ha.) and areas of hardwood zone that have since been made into reserves (around 1000 ha.) leaving an area of around 24000 ha.
LCC Softwood zones: The extensive softwood zones in the Strzelecki State Forest are all outside of the proposed National Park with a few minor exceptions. As such, these zones are not particularly relevant to this proposal. However, as these zones contain a proportion of native bush in gullies, corridors and remnant patches, assurances must be given that native forest within softwood zones are adequately protected.
LCC Hardwood zones The area is predominantly native forest. Assuming that all the land claimed as 'hardwood plantation' in this zone actually is plantation, then only around one quarter of the hardwood zone is plantation. The hardwood plantations are generally small, scattered, of variable quality and in amongst native bush.
In 1980, the area now mapped as a Deferred Forest Area (around 24000 ha.) was said to contain 4,600 ha of hardwood plantation. A bush to plantation ratio of 4:1. 9
Since 1982, an extra 3000 hectares of State 'hardwood plantation' has been claimed.10 How much of this lies within the proposed National Park is unknown due to the fact that since that time, around 5700 extra hectares of ex-farmland have been re-purchased (none of which is part of the DFA ) and these areas carry some of these hardwood plantations; some softwood plantations; and in some cases were made reserves. Also, pine plantations have in some cases been cleared and converted to hardwood plantations. In 1987, it became state policy not to clear native vegetation in order to establish plantations on public land, so post - 1987 logging coupes in this area, once regenerated, cannot legitimately be called plantation.
The Strzelecki Deferred Forest Area was put in place for a very good reason. It accurately identifies the state managed section of the Strzelecki State Forest that should be considered for reserve status because of its botanical significance (it unfortunately omits the areas of hardwood production leased by Amcor).
At present, the state government claims that due to an agreement between Mr Kennett and Mr Keating in 1995, the Strzelecki Deferred Forest Area has lost its deferred forest status because it has been vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation. The State's attempt to bypass this State-Federal Regional Forest Agreement, on the grounds that a quarter of this area is possibly hardwood plantation, is an unjustifiable claim.
The LCC clearly stress the need for multiple use in all hardwood zones. It made no distinction between the treatment of hardwood plantation and native hardwood, strongly suggesting that hardwood plantations were in no way exempt from multiple use guidelines. While recognising its timber harvesting potential, it stresses the need to balance this with a host of other environmental, soil conservation, water production and recreational considerations, which is the essence of 'multiple use'.
Hardwood plantations are generally local stock, mostly mountain ash and as such could realistically be viewed and classified as native bush. Treating hardwood plantation as native bush merely re-imposes the sensible "multiple-use" principles necessary to keep future options open. Present management regimes - operating under the Private section of the Forest Code of Practice, the switch to short rotation plantation, the treatment of land as if freehold, the claimed exemption from the DFA system, the change of terminology from 'reforestation' to 'plantation' all run contrary to the spirit of "multiple use".
The 'hardwood plantations' cover too small a proportion and are too inconsistent in quality, often fail to fit the official definitions of plantation and are sometimes too inappropriately located to justify moving the entire State managed chunk of the hardwood production zone (around 24000 ha.) into the hands of a plantation corporation.
2.4 STATE FOREST LEASED TO AMCOR
8617 ha. to the north was leased to Amcor in the 1960s for 60 years. This land is also zoned either hardwood or softwood production. The majority is hardwood with the softwood zones mostly to the far north. It is most regrettable that Amcor leased hardwood zones in the Strzelecki State Forest have been omitted from the DFA as they contain magnificent areas of bush, including the area referred to as College Creek, which by all rights deserves the highest reserve status. It is short-sighted to use present short-term lease arrangements as reason to exempt this public land from the RFA reserve process and this National Park proposal.
2.5 OUTLYING RESERVES
The patchwork nature of the Strzelecki State Forest means that many existing reserves and smaller areas that deserve reserve status will inevitably remain isolated and scattered around the fringes. The existing Jack River Reserve, Macks creek reserve, Morwell National Park , Mt Worth State Park, Hedley range, the reserves gazetted for Boolarra and Mirboo North are such places that remain disconnected from the main body.
2.6 LIMITATIONS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENTIRE STATE FOREST
This submission deals largely with the 'main body' of the National Park, but recognises that outlying patches of the Strzelecki State Forest which we have failed to identify, may also be of such significance that a reserve status is appropriate.
2.7 SELECTING 30,000 HA. FROM THE 35,000 (approx) HA. IDENTIFIED
As we have identified the LCC hardwood zones, RFA Deferred Forest Areas and existing reserves, amounting to approximately 35,000 ha. in order to select 30,000 ha. for a reserve, a thorough study is needed in order to extract the most appropriate 5,000 ha. from the proposed area.
This land must be removed on the basis of its importance to the timber industry, the lack of natural importance and its strategic insignificance for conservation purposes. Possible examples:
Alberton West - some of this area is necessary for firewood harvesting, although its isolated nature requires that some of the area be reserved.
English's Corner Vicinity(south of Grand Ridge Road - high degree of plantation and radically altered state of the land.
Morwell River prison farm vicinity - high concentration of hardwood 'plantation' in certain areas.
3.THE NATURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK
3.1 CATCHMENTS
The proposed National Park area includes headwaters of the Tarwin River East Branch, Agnes, Franklin, Albert, Jack, Tarra, Morwell rivers, Middle and Merrimans and Turtons Creeks.11 The Agnes provides water for the townships of Toora, Welshpool and Port Welshpool and the Tarra River is a proclaimed water supply river. This move to reserve these areas will help conserve the biodiversity of the region, aid sustainable land management practices and protect and guarantee river and stream flows in the region, as well as work to slow the siltation process which is so apparent downstream - especially evident in Corner Inlet where within living memory, areas have been transformed from sandy beaches to mudflats.
One of the guidelines which accompany the Regional Forest Agreements literature on CAR12 reserves, states that 'the adequacy of the reserve system be considered in a landscape context'. The inclusion of whole catchments is seen as desirable. The topography of the proposed reserve and the numerous headwaters it contains, will allow improvements in water quality and yield to complement the preservation of habitat and biodiversity. The Regional Catchment Strategy has placed habitat reduction as an issue of regional priority, along with water quality and land degradation.13
3.2 THE FOREST & FLORA
Due to its inaccessibility and topography much of the area within the proposed National Park has been saved from human disturbance or fire and contains much remnant vegetation similar to Tarra Bulga National Park. The Eastern Strzeleckis are steep and wet and rainforest acts as a deterrent to fire. These ranges are particularly notable for the health and vigour and comparative maturity of its regrowth areas. Unlike much of the State which has a great deal of 1939 (Black Friday) regrowth, the Strzelecki State Forest has a great deal of regrowth dating from the turn of the century onwards. Prior to settlement, the old age of the mountain ash suggested a low frequency of fire. After settlement, fires seemed to become an annual event.14 However, the numerous fires that the Strzeleckis endured in the early part of the century, never managed to consume the entire area.
In 1984 AC Beauglehole listed 13 rare and interesting vascular plants from the Eastern Strzeleckis.15 Also recorded in this area is the dishia rodwayi, a rare underground fungus and adiantum diaphanum, the endangered filmy maidenhair.16
Victoria's area of cool, temperate rainforest are small and rare and listed as threatened list in Victoria's Flora & Fauna Guarantee. The Strzeleckis are one of four most significant sites for this type of forest.17 The flora of the Strzelecki rainforest includes myrtle beech, blackwoods, sassafras, hazel, musk daisy-bush, blanketwood, mountain pepper, mountain correa, treeferns, slender tree ferns, climbers, epiphytes, mosses and fungi. Rainforest occurs throughout the proposed reserve area. Tarra Bulga National Park contains only small representative examples.
In 1984, a C, F & L report identified 400 ha. at Rytons and 2500 hectares in the Gunyah region as being of State significance for its undisturbed wet sclerophyll forest and cool temperate rainforest.18 In 1990 after further study, the Gunyah region (along with Paradise Valley at Wilsons Promontory) was recognised as a site of national significance for rainforest.19 Despite all this, the amount reserved is a mere 650 ha. and the surrounding area, containing old growth, mature regrowth (1914) and extensive rainforest was vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation, who have logged extensively in the site of botanical significance identified by C,F&L and partly in the Gunyah reserve, in the last 18 months.20
There are many areas that have not been thoroughly studied Only recently the rare forked fern, tmesipteris elongata was identified in the Agnes Catchment in an extensive cool temperate rainforest site.21 E Fraser's survey work shows extensive myrtle beech/sassafras areas and old growth areas outside of the Gunyah Reserve within the Agnes Catchment. NRE rainforest mapping in the Gunyah area also shows extensive tracts of rainforest, west of the reserve boundary and south between Stronachs Road and Redhill Track in the Franklin catchment. It appears from old maps, that these areas were part of the original Gunyah Reserve, which used to be much bigger.22 Linking the Tarra Bulga Park with the reserve at Gunyah, the original reserve, the Agnes Catchment and the Rytons site would ensure greater protection for these rare and significant ecosystems. The Strzelecki Ranges and Wilsons Promontory are unique in that they are the only Victorian rainforest areas where myrtle beech and southern sassafras dominate the canopy.
The cool temperate rainforest communities overlap with the wet sclerophyll forest, dominated by the Mountain Ash. This contiguous association is particularly important in maintaining the unique biodiversity within these ecosystems. In these forest communities any 'distinction between rainforest and eucalypt forest (is) ecologically meaningless.23 These associations are being disturbed by present forestry practices where Mountain Ash (eucalyptus regnans) and acacia forests are being systematically replaced by shining gum (eucalyptus nitens), a non-endemic species The importation of this non-local species into the Strzeleckis may result in unforeseen changes to the ecosystem.
The Mountain Ash is the world's largest flowering plant and it was in these ranges, that the world's largest specimen was found in 1881( and chopped down). Mountain Ash forests only grow in select regions of Victoria and Tasmania. Mountain ash forests are under-represented in reserves in the Strzelecki State Forest. The senescent trees in the Gunyah Reserve, ancient when the first settlers arrived, will eventually die. Mature mountain ash, close to hollowing age are being felled. Unless something is done to address this problem there is little likelihood that many sizable Mountain ash regrowth areas will be allowed to become old growth once again. 24
While the Mountain Ash is the dominant eucalypt in the proposed National Park, other eucalypts include the grey gum, peppermint, messmate and blue gum. This area should be considered for nomination under the World Heritage Continental Eucalypt theme.
3.3 FAUNA
The Strzelecki State Forest is home to mammals such as echidnas, platypus, koalas, wombats, two species of antechinus, two species of bandicoot,25 the black wallaby a variety of gliders and possums (including sugar glider, greater glider26 and yellow bellied glider27), several native rats (including the rare broad-toothed rat) and bats, including the bent wing bat, potoroos and the rare and endangered tiger quoll, (the largest carnivorous marsupial on the Australian mainland), and the Southern rat kangaroo, common in Tasmania, but very rare on the mainland. The dingo, once common, has disappeared from the region. 28 The koala population in South Gippsland is an endemic population and contains the 'greatest genetic diversity in Victoria's koala populations'. They are genetically distinct from the koalas originating from French Island, and which have been translocated into other parts of Victoria.29
There are many rare and endangered fauna in the Strzelecki State Forest and under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee their habitat must be secured. Many of these species are awaiting the drawing up of action statements. Dr Barry Traill, quoting from the NRE data base identified 16 endangered fauna species occurring in forest in the Strzeleckis owned by Amcor.30 The giant earthworm , confined to the South Gippsland region alone can also be found in the Strzelecki State Forest. At least 80 species of birds inhabit the forests, the most famous being the Superb lyrebird. 31Threatened bird species include the barking owl, the powerful owl, sooty owl and the grey goshawk. There are 14 species of reptiles. Native fish are also present - the Australian grayling , spotted galaxis and the striped gudgeon. A report on the Australian grayling stated that 'there are no totally protected grayling populations in Victoria. All rivers known to contain grayling are susceptible to some form of habitat degradation.' 32 In this region, the grayling has been found in the Tarwin, Agnes, Albert, Franklin and Latrobe rivers. It is the only extant member of the Prototroctidae family. 33
4. PRESENT USE
4.1 BRIEF HISTORY
Before white settlement, the 'Great Forest of Gippsland', of which the Strzelecki Ranges formed the core, was estimated to be 100-120km long and 50-70km wide.34 The Ranges contained a great deal of the remnant ancient forest known as 'cool temperate rainforest' - a forest community which thrived long before climatic changes led to the dominance of eucalypts. The Great Forest of Gippsland also contained a mosaic of messmate, mountain ash, blue gum and acacia forests, etc.
The first white settlers would recount how a walk through the Ranges would take one through areas of old growth, areas of regrowth, scrub, rainforest, etc. all in the spate of an hour or so. During the mid 1800s the lowland forests surrounding the Strzeleckis and virtually the whole of the Western Strzelecki Ranges were settled and the bulk of the forest cleared for farmland. By the 1890s a deep economic slump led to the opening up of most of the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges as well. At the time this was highly controversial due to its high quality forest and unsuitable terrain. This sparked off a period of clearing, ringbarking and burning that lasted three decades. By the 1930s this destructive and unsuccessful trend was effectively reversed by a new policy of repurchasing this land with the intention of allowing (and in some cases assisting) it to return to its original state. This began a gradual depopulation of the Ranges, which continues today. Today, almost half of the Strzelecki State Forest is repurchased ex-farmland; the other half has always been public native forest.
In the late 1940s plantations were introduced, mostly pinus radiata and to a lesser extent, mountain ash as well as some blue gum. This also continues to the present day. In the 1960s, a chunk of the northern side of the Strzelecki State Forest was leased to Amcor for 60 years. In 1993, the bulk of the Strzelecki State Forest was vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation and the land was reclassified to be treated as 'private' land. This occurred without adequate public consultation, local input and the display of maps. In 1998, the Victorian Plantations Corporation and its assets, comprising forest on168,000 ha. of Victorian public land was put up for sale with the intention of closing the deal before December 31 1998. This decision affects 40,000 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest, at least half of which is not plantation land.
4.2 LAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL
In 1982, the Land Conservation Council classified the Strzelecki State Forest into either hardwood or softwood zones.
The hardwood zone which approximates the shape and size of the proposed National Park was seen as a public, 'multiple use' area and the Recommendations for the South Gippsland Area, District, 2 1982 recommended that land use be balanced and said that a return of a similar structure to the original forest was desirable for restoration of options in land use. The report also stated that their 'knowledge of the distribution and ecology of plants was very imperfect and that there may be areas where special values remain unrecognised.35 It also said that the present legal status and land tenure should continue.
The vesting of land in the VPC and the possible privatisation seem to run counter to the LCC recommendations. It is clearly evident, that privatising the forest and allowing public land to be treated as 'private', provides less environmental protection under the Forest Code of Practice36 and removes the 'flexibility in planning', which the LCC saw as essential.
4.3 REGIONAL FOREST AGREEMENTS
The corporatisation of the Strzelecki State Forest has also run counter to the spirit of the Regional Forest Agreement process. By including approximately 20,000 ha. of non-plantation land in the VPC land holdings and then exempting vested land from the Deferred Forest Areas37, the public process has been marred and placed in a state of confusion.38 Members of the public eager to nominate significant areas in the Strzelecki State Forest for reserve or heritage status have been puzzled by the forest being coloured purple on the RFA maps.39 It also appears that many politicians were unaware of the amount of native forest, which was included in the VPC's Strzelecki holdings40.
4.4 ONGOING MISREPRESENTATION
The Strzelecki State Forest is often misrepresented in journals and publications, as well as in the classroom. Often referred to as failed farmland, the impression of the Strzelecki State Forest cast in people's mind can be of a place which was once completely cleared and restored to forest by the State and APM. This is far from the truth. In fact, less than half of the Strzelecki State Forest was repurchased. The remainder has been Crown Land since white settlement. Less than one third of the Strzelecki State Forest was re-forested. The remainder was always forested, or regenerated without human existence. In a press article, Susan Davies said of the Regional Forest Agreement Taskforce after a field trip into the Strzelecki State Forest, "They have been led to believe that all the land vested with the VPC was plantation or 'worthless scrub', but they've now seen these inaccuracies with their own eyes."41
4.5 VICTORIAN PLANTATIONS CORPORATION
Under the present management of the VPC, whose charter it is to manage State plantations for high returns, other management prescriptions and land uses will suffer.
Already areas of mature regrowth and old growth native forests have been converted to plantation under VPC management42, (although it is State policy not to convert publicly owned native vegetation into plantation), and highly significant areas have been earmarked for plantation uses43. Old blackwood forests have been harvested. Native forest, only 20 years old has been harvested. In a letter from Mr. Peter Ryan (Gippsland MP), 2,000 ha. of this vested land are described as 'eucalypt forest theoretically available for logging' and 2,000 ha. as 'understorey species which could be reforested'.44 This implies that not only plantation areas will be available for harvesting, but native forest. Furthermore, some of the areas containing understorey species are actually well established blackwood dominated rainforest in sensitive headwaters and should preferably be left intact. Logging these areas and/or transforming areas into plantation will have a direct effect on the biodiversity of the Strzelecki State Forest, as fragmentation of the forest increases.45 The higher rotation rates which are permitted when an area is defined as plantation or for plantation use will certainly have deleterious effects on soil and the quantity and quality of water. 46 Residents in the Strzeleckis have indicated their serious concerns with the lack of conservation principles in the Strzelecki State Forest and perceived changes to landscape and aesthetic values and threats to wildlife corridors. 47
The need to create a large, viable reserve has become more urgent recently as locals have witnessed a dramatic increase in the extent and frequency of logging activity under VPC management. There are grave fears that this corporation has over committed itself to supplying an unsustainably high volume of timber from this forest. 48 If forestry operations are degrading other values, then the practice of this activity needs to be reviewed.
4.6 'MULTIPLE-USE'
Timber interests dominate the use of this land. The traditional Victorian 'multiple-use' policy for State forests is basically the idea that habitat values, water quality values, recreational values etc. all must be recognised along with timber values. Yet here in the Strzelecki State Forest, only 8% of the forest is protected in reserves. Tourism is stifled. Currently, (apart from Tarra - Bulga and the area immediately surrounding it) the area within the proposed National Park boundaries is uninhabited, receives minimal care and attention, has no facilities, shops, accommodation, and offers the visitor no information or assistance of any kind, save for a few rudimentary picnic areas. Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve ( presently 650 hectares) is an area of national significance yet does not even carry a single signpost. There are no rangers patrolling the Strzelecki State Forest on a full time basis. With the recent closure to all but logging vehicles of the Morwell River Road, a scenic road which follows a gully from the Grand Ridge Road through to Boolarra, locals are worried that tourism potential for the area and local access will be further eroded. The changes to the landscape from intensive plantation forestry will threaten tourism in the Eastern Strzeleckis and the general business of the area.
The Regional Forest Agreement Report states that, 'Where gaps have already been identified, and current threatening processes may preclude future reservation options, immediate action should be taken to ensure that the CAR reserve system is established'.49 In the case of the Strzelecki State Forest we identify these gaps and threatening processes to be:
* the lack of conservation measures
* the ongoing misrepresentation of the true quality of the bush
* the attempts to change the status of the public land in the 1960s (leases to Amcor) and the 1990s (vesting & privatisation under the VPC)
* and the dominance of forestry in the Strzelecki State Forest
and feel this warrants an immediate freeze on logging operations in the hardwood areas pending investigation and the enlargement of reserve areas.
One of the criteria in applying the CAR reserve system says that, 'optimal nature conservation outcomes as well as acceptable social and economic outcomes' should be ensured.50 At present timber values, although important, outweigh conservation values, social values and other economic considerations, such as tourism and water production. This imbalance is having an impact on social values in the region with many groups unhappy with the present emphasis on forestry.51 This proposal, which would divest some hardwood zones from VPC management and reserve some of the State Forest leased to Amcor, would restore some balance in land use in this significant State Forest.
Plantation forestry is of course going to continue to contribute to the economy of the region and will avoid serious future conflict if appropriate land is used for this purpose. The heart of the Strzelecki State Forest is not an appropriate location for plantation forestry. The Victorian Plantations Corporation and Amcor can play a positive role and gain much needed praise and positive publicity by supporting this proposal and its conservation outcomes.
Before this public wilderness is permanently removed from the public realm, it is vital that a substantial amount is set aside in reserves and strict 'multiple use' guidelines are imposed on the remainder. Of public land in Victoria, 47.3% is protected in parks and reserves compared to only 8% in the Strzelecki State Forest, despite the fact that the Strzelecki State Forest is a sanctuary for flora and fauna in a region largely dominated by agriculture and intrusive forestry practices, such as clearfelling and pine plantation. The current reserves are small, scattered and vulnerable and with the recent changes to management in this forest, insufficient to maintain the natural processes of these ranges, conserve the rich biodiversity, care for the threatened cool temperate rainforest communities and preserve the landscape values and historic associations of this mountain ash range. It is fair to expect that 47.3% of the Strzelecki State Forest be protected in reserves also.
4.7 PLANTATIONS
The softwood zone of the Strzelecki State Forest was vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation because of the existence of 13,000 ha. of pine plantation. As the vesting of the hardwood zone in the VPC, on account of the presence of a small amount of eucalypt plantation, is causing the public outcry and controversy, we will discuss plantations at some length.
Definition of Plantations:
The Victorian State Government, in several of its publications, uses this sentence to define plantations:- "a forest stand established by the planting or sowing of trees of either native or exotic species selected for their wood-producing properties and managed intensively for timber production".52
Judy Clarke, from the Australian National University, and author of "Australia's Plantations" uses this definition:- "trees planted and managed in an agricultural context for which wood production is the major objective"53
The National Forest Policy Statement agreed to by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments defines plantation as "intensively managed stands of trees of either native or exotic species, created by the regular placement of seeds or seedlings." The addition of the phrase 'regular placement', effectively excludes areas which have been aerial seeded, seeded by hot burns or by seed trees.
Others have expressed the idea that plantation management involves striving towards creating a Monoculture - removing as many other competing plants as possible, in order for the planted species to gain maximum use of water, sunlight and nutrient, and the exclusion or eradication of fauna which may eat or damage the planted species.
It can be argued that planted forests that have not been intensively managed, or treated in an agricultural context (farmed) could not rightly be called plantations.
The idea of "intensive management" implies that an area of planted trees requires regular attention in order to be classed as a plantation. Intensive management often means the intensive use of herbicides, insecticides and poisons, often inappropriate in State Forests where Native Flora and Fauna have certain legal rights to live in relatively undisturbed peace. Intensive management also means intensive cultivation - thinning and pruning, etc.- a must for increasing the value of a tree crop and increasing employment, but in State Forests these activities are less desirable as they increase the level of human interference on these wild places.
The emphasis on wood-production in the first two definitions can be interpreted in several ways. Wood is not always produced to be cut down and used. Wood production can be for the storage of carbon - seen as important in the control of the greenhouse effect. Wood production can be for erosion control , wind breaks, beautification, flood management, etc. People who have planted trees with the intention of future harvesting may at some point decide that they would prefer not to cut them down after all. Can these areas still be referred to as plantation?
In some areas of the Strzelecki State Forest, the Forestry Department converted public native bush into plantations (on private land this is still allowed). Plantations were established in all sorts of unsuitable places - water supply catchments, outrageously steep slopes, areas of important wildlife habitat, areas of great tourism and recreational potential, and in crucial wildlife corridors, etc. Pine trees were the favoured plantation tree. While the pine trees are mainly restricted to the areas outside the proposed National Park, there is still local concern about these sensitive areas and their future. Once they are cut down, will these areas be restored to native bush, or continue to be used to grow plantations despite their unsuitability?
In the Strzelecki State Forest the problem of defining plantation is further complicated by the claimed existence of 7,000 ha. of eucalypt plantation.54
Few would bother to dispute that the one-million-odd-hectares of planted Pines in Australia (mostly pinus radiata) were plantations, even though a great deal have experienced a lack of intensive management. However, when it comes to the areas of native trees labelled "plantation", a great deal more scrutiny is needed, and the official definitions must be applied more stringently in order to accurately identify true plantations from areas which should rightly be classed as regrowth. There are fears that in the Strzeleckis regenerated native bush logging coupes have been relabelled 'plantation', areas which were assisted to regenerate under the reafforestation scheme from the 1930s are being classified as 'plantation' and areas which were never cleared or have regenerated naturally may also have been wrongly placed in the 'plantation' category.55
"Regrowth" is defined by Judy Clarke as "A native forest dominated by early stages of succession following natural or artificial disturbance"56
The Victorian State Government uses the term "Regeneration", and defines it as:
"The renewal of forest by natural or artificial means"
The National Forest Policy Statement defines native forest as 'any local indigenous community...and containing throughout its growth the complement of native species and habitats...or having the potential to develop these characteristics. It includes forests with these characteristics that have been regenerated with human assistance following disturbance."57
Using these definitions of plantation, regrowth and native forest it could be argued that there are far fewer eucalypt plantations in the Strzelecki State Forest than official estimates suggest due to:
* The lack of intensive management. Due to the fact that, eucalypt "plantations" often occur in the middle of native forest , or contain a diverse understorey and overstorey virtually identical to Native Forest Regrowth, or benefit from a great lack of "intensive management", they can in many cases be indistinguishable from regrowth.
* The absence of regular placement of seeds or seedlings and the use of seed trees or aerial seeding in forestry regeneration.
* The 1987 State Policy that prohibits the conversion of bush to plantation on public land means that young stands of eucalypt, established since 1987 in areas already classified as forest, (e.g.. in the Agnes Catchment) cannot legally be called plantation.
* The hardwood reafforestation program was instigated to rectify the mistake of opening up the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges to settlement and was seen as an effort to regain the original structure of the forest - not a conversion to plantation.
* In the Strzelecki State Forest, plantations have existed for 50 years. The local forestry authorities were actually required to meet annual targets for establishing new plantations in order to receive the full quota of Government funding. There is strong evidence that, in order to meet these targets, areas of logged bush, once regenerated, were reclassified as plantation.
* The LCC didn't distinguish between hardwood plantation and native eucalypt forest and suggested that the multiple use guidelines be applied to the whole area.58
It is important that we take a fresh look at all the areas currently labelled "hardwood plantation" and clearly distinguish the real thing from the fake, because, among other reasons, native regrowth has the right to be left alone for an average of 100 years between logging ventures under the state's multiple use policy. Plantations, however, have no such rights and can be felled 3 or 4 or 5 or more times per century, with devastating effects on the ecological balance of the area.
Agro-forestry on private land may have a future in this region, but this is still a long way off. Eventually, the focus for the timber industry will have to shift from public native forest to plantations on private land, but in the meantime the Strzelecki State Forest is viewed as a convenient resource to plunder. Rather than work toward a gradual shift toward establishing tree farms on cleared farmland (as most recent reports on the subject recommend), the State is seeking to simply privatise State plantations and in doing so may be hoping to avoid responsibility. Rather than move the plantation industry into the hands of farmers (the logical choice) this planned privatisation will put the industry into the hands of a small number of large corporations. Foreign bidders are welcomed. Without doubt, this public asset will be offered up for sale in large chunks - too expensive for ordinary farmers to buy, but easily afforded by large corporations. A State monopoly will be replaced by a corporate monopoly and small-scale agro-forestry will continue to be discouraged.59
Conservationists are generally in favour of plantations as a way to ease pressure on the native forests. The conversion of such a high proportion of the Strzelecki State Forest to pine plantation forestry, should in all fairness serve to ease pressure on the remaining native bush. This has not happened. There are at least 15,000 ha. of pine plantation in the Strzelecki State Forest. The proportion of plantations in this State Forest is among the highest,60 and yet native forest continues to be clearfelled and converted to plantation. If there are any legitimate hardwood plantations within the proposed National Park, then in fairness to the amount of native forest converted to plantation in this region, they can be relinquished and allowed to return to native forest.
5. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE STRZELECKI STATE FOREST
5.1 PROBLEMS WITH TIMBER HARVESTING TECHNIQUES
The favoured technique for harvesting timber in present times is clearfelling. Clearfelling harvests, flattens and strips an area of all species including the non-target species. Small local mills in the past selectively logged areas, having less impact on the structure of the forest and the lives of its inhabitants.
5.2 PROBLEMS WITH SOIL
The Strzeleckis are prone to 'soil slippage and erosion'.61 Soil loss in the Eastern Strzeleckis usually occurs during heavy rains and floods.62 To a degree this is naturally occurring due to its steepness and soil type. However, disturbance due to land clearing will exacerbate the problems as it has done in the past. The Panel which rejected Amcor's applications to clear native vegetation said that, 'it is widely acknowledged that the initial clearance of the Strzeleckis was a major environmental mistake'. 63 The Panel Report on Applications by Amcor noted that the 'regular harvesting of timber also breaks the natural cycle of regeneration, maturation and decay that contributes to soil fertility, its micro-organisms and stability'. 64 When harvesting cycles are increased (as has been occurring in the SSF under the VPC), these problems are compounded.
5.3 PROBLEMS WITH TRACKS
Present forestry operations in the area use unsealed tracks. These tracks can lose up to 50-90 tonnes per hectare of soil run off compared to .5 tonnes/hectare in undisturbed catchments in wet weather. 65 This proposal to shift land use practices would see many of these tracks decommissioned or reduced in size.
5.4 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CATCHMENTS & WATER
Water quality is a major concern in this region.66 It is a vital key to the living standards and economic viability of the region. Locals are keenly aware of land care issues and are alarmed at the standard of town water supplies.67 Reports state that 'many of the streams in the region may be regarded as outfalls that often would not meet secondary effluent standards'.68 The amount of effort going into revegetating and fencing waterways downstream is encouraging. However, if the upper catchment is continually being clearfelled, then, prepared for plantations which involves further soil disturbance, all the good Landcare work downstream will be compromised. The cessation of logging in the uppermost headwaters of all of South Gippsland's major rivers, would be a move whole-heartedly welcomed by locals. Mature forests increase streamflow. Young forests are thirstier and reduce streamflow. CSIRO research identified the root cause of increased blue-green algae to be soil disturbance69, coupled with the slower stream flow and increased sunlight of the warmer months. Logging creates soil disturbance and lets in more sunlight. Forest left in an undisturbed state reduces soil disturbance and keeps waterways shaded, cool and clean.
Given the high population density and the high degree of commerce and industry in the Latrobe Valley, along with a future growth in population and development in the South Gippsland region, the demands for high volumes of quality water supply from the Strzeleckis will rise. The maintenance of and developments in farming, fishing, industry, aquaculture, horticulture, tourism and recreation will be reliant on a water supply of guaranteed quality and predictable quantity.
The Regional Catchment Strategy states that "to a large extent the future of tourism and recreation industries is largely dependent on the sustainability of healthy catchments"70 and it recognises the interrelationship of trees and catchments to the economic sustainability of fishing and farming in the South Gippsland region. Protecting the headwaters will contribute greatly to this valuable water asset and would help to avoid costs of high magnitude in the future. 71 High costs for water treatment is an admission of environmental failure. The report further emphasises the problems of soil erosion, exacerbated by land clearing and resulting loss of habitat values and deposition to coastal systems. The report placed habitat reduction as an issue of regional priority, along with water quality and land degradation.72
Tim Fisher writes that, 'Long term research by the Melbourne Water Corporation has established that old growth forests in Victoria's central highlands can yield up to twice as much water as regrowth forests managed for timber production. Management of forests for timber production uses large volumes of water, 'water which would otherwise have an economic value'. He says that 'water balance research on eucalypt plantations confirms the enormous capacity of young, vigorous eucalypt plantings to utilise available water,' and that' it is very likely that all eucalypt clearfelling activities throughout Victoria have a major impact on regional water production values'.73
Dr John Dargavel confirms that the issue of water consumption is of great importance in the Strzeleckis and that short rotation tree plantations would dramatically reduce stream flows. 74 Longer rotation rates and more restricted logging access would delay the cost of constructing more major dams for the South Gippsland and Latrobe areas. The LCC Proposed Recommendations 1982 for the South Gippsland Area 2 also says, that 'it is possible to improve the quality of water by partial or complete treatment - at a cost. It must, however, be recognised that the higher the original quality of water, the cheaper and more efficient is the treatment and, in most cases, the more acceptable the end product.'75 Water Watch figures gathered in South Gippsland, show that water quality is greatly enhanced by being produced in an undisturbed catchment. 76
The LCC Report also said that 'Catchments must be protected from 'damage to other hydrologic properties, soil erosion, and contamination from chemical or biological sources'. 77 Clearfelling as opposed to selective timber harvesting damages soil structure, leaches out nutrients and may cause run off and siltation in the waterways. Short rotation plantation forestry exacerbates the detrimental effects of clearfelling by increasing the frequency of these disturbances. The State Environment Protection Policy says that the 'application of biocides and fertilisers shall be controlled to ensure that run-off to surface waters is prevented or minimised'78 suggesting that the use of herbicides and other chemical control methods in forestry operations may be damaging to water quality. Plantation forestry uses a great deal of poisons, herbicides and pesticides.
5.5 PROBLEMS WITH THE FOREST CODE OF PRACTICE
There are two sections of the Forest Code of Practice - a public and a private section. Since 1993 the status of the Strzelecki State Forest has been changed. Even though it is public land, the 40,000 hectares which has been vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation is to be managed under the private section of the Code of Practice. The private section of the Code is administered by local Shires with the assistance of referral bodies, such as the Catchment Management Authority. The private section of the Forest Code is much less stringent in its environmental, ecological and social requirements, than the public section, although environmental care principles provide a context for the timber harvesting prescriptions and guidelines. 79
Public land managers hold responsibility for flora and fauna, regional biodiversity, habitat trees, recruitment of old trees, protection of old growth forest and rainforest. They are required to consider linking conservation reserves and give environmental values the highest priority in special management zones. Native forest must be allowed to regenerate after logging coupes and not be logged again for at least 80 years. In the public section of the Code, there is also provision for public participation in the development of forest planning. Since 1987 it has been State policy not to remove native vegetation on public land to establish plantations.
At present these guidelines for the treatment of public land are being sidestepped by treating most of the Strzelecki State Forest as private land or as plantation. Areas of native forest have been converted to plantation, despite this being contrary to State Policy. (On the other hand, private landowner permits have not been acquired for the removal of native vegetation in some coupes.) Areas that have been logged are being logged again too soon. The public has not been invited to participate in the preparation of harvesting plans. This situation will only place further stress on the health of the forest, the catchments and worry the public unless the situation is rectified.
The Panel Report on Applications by Amcor pointed out that the 'standards laid down in the Code of Practices are in fact minimum standards' and that 'compliance with the Code is not of itself a guarantee that environmental damage will not occur'80. Expertise and resources are required to police the Forest Code of Practice, draw up special prescriptions for local areas and make decisions on granting permits for the removal of native vegetation. Local Shires are concerned about their role in this regard. These problems would be alleviated to a large extent and good environmental outcomes would be assured by adopting this proposal of a large National Park.
5.6 PROBLEMS WITH EDGE EFFECTS ON RAINFOREST
Along with a number of endangered species, the area in question has a significant amount of cool temperate rainforest, which is listed as an endangered community. 81 There are many reports giving recommendations on the management of rainforest. Recommendations often include leaving wide buffer zones and that the Government should purchase privately owned sites of rainforest for their greater protection.82 The rainforest of the Strzeleckis is comprised of blackwood, sassafras, hazel , musk, silverwattle, pittosporum, treeferns, epiphytes, mosses and fungi. The dominant tree in this community is myrtle beech.
Boundary activities and edge effects can cause progressive invasion by pest plants and animals, make changes to soil conditions and water flows, cause exposure of the forest to sun and wind and change fire patterns. The stable microclimate within the rainforest is dramatically altered when exposed to the extremes of heat and cold. The logging of regrowth in sensitive areas would certainly exacerbate the 'edge effects', creating future management problems that the Shires or CMA or DNRE or all three will have to address in the future, with possible costly regional economic consequences.
Myrtle Wilt: One example of edge effects is the spread of myrtle wilt, a fatal fungal infection affecting myrtle beech trees. Examples of myrtle wilt are found on the edge of logging coupes. This has now affected trees in the Tarra Bulga National Park83 and on the Toora-Gunyah Road,84 and it presents a very real threat to other areas of rainforest in the Strzeleckis, as it is thought to be spread by traffic and disturbance. Healthy trees are often unaffected, but partially damaged or weakened trees such as those that can be found on the edge of logging coupes are particularly vulnerable to the infection. Once established in myrtle beech forests, there could be a permanent change to ecosystems in the region.85
The gullies of the Strzelecki Ranges are often extremely difficult to access. The difficulty of the terrain is credited as a protection against the spread of myrtle wilt. Logging ridges and slopes leaves these gullies exposed and vulnerable to the spread of the infection.
The Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve and the Tarra Bulga National Park are now surrounded by land managed by the Victorian Plantations Corporation. Rainforest sites, such as Rytons and rainforest gullies throughout the Ranges have been included in the VPC's land package.
Containing these rainforest communities within a larger reserve system is the ideal management practice for this sensitive community and would fulfil the the State's, Shire's and the CMA's commitment to biodiversity.
5.7 EFFECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ON FLORA AND FAUNA
All Strzelecki animals and plants whether threatened, rare or common require a healthy and flourishing forest environment in which to thrive.
In 'The Lyrebird', Pauline Reilly says that lyrebirds need on average 3 ha. each for foraging and nesting. Clearfelling removes protection for their nests and trees in which to roost and removes leaf litter with a 'consequent disappearance of the food species necessary for lyrebirds..'86 The lyrebird once widespread throughout the Strzelecki Range is now largely confined to the Eastern Strzeleckis. The lyrebird is not endemic to Wilsons Promontory National Park in the south.
The NRE publication Victoria's Biodiversity, Directions in Management states that 'timber harvesting, particularly clearfelling silvicultural systems, can result in changes from forest dominated by old trees with a diverse structure and species mix to even aged stands with simplified structure and few old trees'.87 Regardless of how common or rare a plant or animal is, clearfelling is undoubtedly an added strain on the native fauna and flora. Plantation forestry with its shorter rotation rates multiplies this effect. Clearing exposes the forest's edges to excessive winds and sun, resulting in further damage. Clearfelling kills and displaces fauna. Displacement often spells death. The mountain ash and other eucalypts do not bear flowers and seeds until they are 20 years old. Short rotation plantation forestry (20 -30 years) removes trees soon after they reach seed bearing age. This means that for most of the time a short rotation hardwood plantation will not be able to support animals and birds such as honeyeaters, lorikeets and the sugar glider which depend partly on seeds and nectar as a food source. In turn, the area cannot support animals like owls and quolls that prey on these smaller animals.
Even planned rotation rates of 80 years and more will not provide 'mature or senescent growth stages before being harvested. The result is the reduction or loss of some characteristics of mature or senescent forests upon which a significant part of biota depend'.88Hollowing begins in trees after 100 years and the hollows provide nesting sites. If some hollow bearing trees are left for nesting, they are weakened and often die from exposure after clearfelling. The damage to the understorey, the feeding trees and the forest floor results in insufficient habitat to support feeding and breeding requirements. "The threatened Powerful Owl is vulnerable in this respect as a breeding pair require approximately 800-1,000 ha. of forest which is dominated by old trees and has high populations of possums and gliders".89
A 1996 Panel hearing into biodiversity in plantations concluded that eucalypt plantations do not support the same diversity of species and number of individuals as do native forests and that clearfelling and plantation forestry do have a detrimental effect on ecological processes and genetic diversity. 90 Further, there is evidence to suggest that the understorey of harvested areas changes. This results in a decline in species that usually 'regenerate vegetatively after physical disturbance'. 91 Understorey species which may survive one round of plantation are less likely to come back after the second round of plantation and so on, because regular clearfelling depletes the built-up stock of dormant seeds on the forest floor.
Native fish are also in danger from changes to the forest. The natural processes of soil movement are exacerbated by clearfelling, which can increase soil run-off into creeks and rivers. Even when 'good' logging practices are employed, the vagaries of the weather can result in most of the total value of sediment flow during relatively brief periods of heavy rain.92 The siltation of creeks and rivers affects native fish breeding cycles, food sources and alters the clarity and temperature of the water. Water becomes muddied by 'suspended solids', leading to a range of problems. Perhaps more serious is the unseen siltation of stream beds, where the entire ecosystem at the bottom of rivers and creeks are covered over with mud and killed. Unlike suspended solids, stream bed sediment does not wash away as readily.
Uninterrupted wildlife corridors are vital. Badly located coupes and plantations can be harmful. The CAR document says that there is a risk to the long term survival of forest communities and individual species if an area is inadequately reserved.93
5.8 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PLANTATION FORESTRY
All the detrimental effects that clearfelling silviculture can have are exacerbated by plantation forestry. When an area is labelled 'plantation', the other trees, shrubs and floral species lose their rights in the forest. The area may be clearfelled many times per century.
Short rotation plantations were developed in order to encourage agro-forestry on private land. A 20-30 year wait for a return on an investment is more attractive to a farmer than a 50-100 year wait. However, this intensive production is an unsuitable practice in the Strzelecki State Forest, where foresters must combat the native wildlife and vegetation, such as swamp wallabies, bush rats, wattle trees and ants and where soil and water conservation, tourism, recreation and habitat are high priorities.
It is interesting to note the conclusions of the Independent Panel, which rejected Amcor's applications to convert 2,000 ha. of native vegetation in the Strzelecki Ranges into eucalypt plantation. They stated that the removal of native vegetation would be contrary to the policy on the retention and re-establishment of native vegetation set out in Clause 3-8.1 of the State Planning Scheme. The plan to convert native vegetation into plantation was found to be not in accordance with the policy for timber production (Clause 3-10.1) as the proposed plantations were not on predominantly cleared land. The panel found that 'native vegetation has an inherent value fundamentally different to a plantation in terms of habitat and biodiversity' and that 'any reduction in size of vegetation reduces its value in terms of critical mass and increased edge effect.' 94 The Panel also acknowledged that there was other cleared land available for plantation purposes even if it had to be purchased.
Similarly, any moves to convert native vegetation in the Strzelecki State Forest into plantation or even harvesting eucalypt forest could be rejected on these grounds. The 2,000 ha. of eucalypt forest and the 2,000 ha. of understorey species referred to by Peter Ryan95 have an inherent worth as native forest, wildlife habitat, scenic values etc. Coupled with the inability to use the 14,000 hectares of steep slopes and gullies for timber production and the need to abide by regulations set out by the Catchment Management Authority and Water Authorities, this land could become a liability for any licensees. Therefore the creation of this park will have little negative effect on the timber and plantation industries, while benefiting conservation, tourism and water production.
5.9 "USELESS SCRUB", "UNDERSTOREY SPECIES" OR "IMPORTANT FOREST"?
In the proposed National Park, there are acacia forests (blackwood, silver wattle, black wattle etc.) supporting abundant wildlife and a diverse understorey of ferns, epiphytes, and fungi and other species characteristic of the wet forest. Some of these areas have been earmarked for removal and the establishment of eucalypt plantations.96 There is a tendency for foresters to continue the suppression of acacia regrowth with a regime of ringbarking and spraying. This is seen by many as a foolhardy move as:
1. Acacia forest is native bush and by rights must not be destroyed for plantation purposes on public land.
2. Acacia forests often tend to be the 'pioneer species' in areas too poor in nutrient to support eucalypt forest - such as previously eroded, cleared or degraded land. As legumes often with short life cycles, acacias restock degraded areas with new nutrient in a manner more efficient and cheaper than any man-made technique. In dry, nutrient-poor Australia, acacias are a blessing, not a curse.
3. Acacias, blackwoods in particular, make excellent timber and in this region grow at a mind boggling rate.
4. This type of forest prepares the way for the re-emergence of eucalypts once conditions become suitable.
5. Acacias provide food sources for several species of fauna
6. THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK AND THE CAR CRITERIA
The Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system formulated by the Commonwealth and the State Governments as part of the Regional Forest Agreements is governed by a set of criteria. 97 The proposed National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest meets CAR objectives and is further supported by guidelines in reserve design.
The objectives of biodiversity conservation in the Regional Forest Agreements are:
-to maintain ecological processes and the dynamics of forest ecosystems in their landscape context
-to maintain viable examples of forest ecosystems throughout their natural ranges
-to maintain viable populations of native forest species throughout their natural ranges
-to maintain the genetic diversity of native forest species.98
To achieve this, the RFA process seeks to preserve "15% of the pre-1750 distribution of each forest ecosystem" and states that 'the principle of comprehensiveness requires that the reserve system should sample each forest ecosystem within a region'.99
The original 'Great Forest of Gippsland' was at least 500,000 ha. '100 - 120 kilometres long by 50 -70 kilometres wide'. 100 Due mostly to land clearing for agriculture, and to a lesser extent, conversion of native vegetation to plantation, the original Great Gippsland Forest has been reduced to less than 15% of its former size. This phenomenal loss of forest cover for this region is well documented as one of the most radical and rapid land transformations in Australia, if not the world. However, the remaining forest covers a variety of forest types: wet sclerophyll dominated by mountain ash; blackwood forests; cool temperate rainforest; messmate, peppermint and stringy bark forest in accordance with the objective of comprehensiveness.
Viewing the Great Gippsland Forest as an entity unto itself, in order to even come halfway close to CAR criteria and the objectives of maintaining viable populations throughout their natural ranges, all remaining native vegetation in the Strzeleckis should be reserved. In preparation for the CAR reserve system, the Hardwood zone of the Strzelecki State Forest, approximately 25,000 ha. was made a deferred forest, exempting it from timber harvesting pending the outcomes of the RFA. However, because this 'hardwood zone' has been vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation, it has supposedly been exempted from the CAR system. This is a travesty which needs to be reversed immediately. The Deferred Forest Areas were put in place to ensure that the CAR reserve system could be established. Under the heading 'Urgency and Practicability', the Report says, 'Where gaps have already been identified and current threatening processes may preclude future reservation options, immediate action should be taken to ensure that the CAR reserve system is established'.
In the discussion of adequacy, the report states that ' the general rule is that the chances of long term survival increase with increased proportions of populations or forest ecosystems reserved and appropriately managed.... Most estimates show that the risk of loss is highest where only a small percentage of the distribution of the community or species is reserved and adjoining unreserved forest is cleared or significantly modified.' They also stress the problems of threatening processes (e.g.. land clearing and disease) on surrounding land may affect the adequacy of the reserve system.
This is relevant to the Strzelecki State Forest. The small, isolated reserves we have at present are under threat from the high rotation, plantation forestry which has recently been undertaken by the Victorian Plantations Corporation. The threatened cool, temperate rainforest community is especially vulnerable to 'edge effects' from timber harvesting, and the spread of myrtle wilt is a danger. High rotation timber harvesting also affects the age distribution of the Mountain ash in the forest. By keeping the forest young, biodiversity and ecological processes are modified.
Representativeness embodies the objective that 'sample areas of the forest that are selected for inclusion in reserves should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the communities.'101 Basically this argues that if forest species are distributed across the reserve and other measures of forest diversity are present then there is increased 'confidence that the reserve system does cover the full range of biodiversity'. By including different forest types and ages over a large area, the proposed National Park should meet this objective.
The proposed National Park meets many of the guidelines on reserve design in the report, in that it incorporates catchments; is a 'large enough to sustain the viability, quality and integrity of populations'; covers many vegetation types and faunal species and successional stages and it links reserves across the landscape. 102 The nationally agreed criteria for the CAR reserve system also draw attention to areas which are 'natural refugia for flora and fauna and centres of endemism'103 The Eastern Strzeleckis has become a refugium, an isolated sanctuary for some flora and fauna in an area where so much forest has been lost. For example, the Superb lyrebird once endemic across the Strzelecki Ranges is now largely restricted to the dense forest of the Eastern Strzeleckis and does not inhabit the more southerly Wilsons Promontory National Park.
The Report also says that 'priority attention should be given to rare, vulnerable and endangered ecosystems and species'.104 Rare and endangered forest ecosystems, such as old growth mountain ash and cool temperate rainforest will have protection from threatening activities on contiguous land by being within the larger reserve system, and replication across the reserve of forest types will ensure against loss of forest types through stochastic events, such as fire. 105 In the Strzeleckis, despite the persistence of mountain ash throughout the Ranges, old growth mountain ash is becoming rare and endangered due to forestry practices and the lack of reserves. The persistent clearfelling of ridges and slopes prevents the return of old growth. The presence of regrowth, which has escaped fire and clearing from the turn of the century (some of the oldest regrowth mountain ash in the State) and subsequent regrowth can provide a range of successional stages of Mountain Ash, which would be of State significance. The protection of these Mountain ash ranges will link the otherwise, small, vulnerable and isolated reserves, in which the old growth mountain ash may eventually suffer extinction. The inclusion of these areas to complement the old growth already present in reserves is in keeping with the Report's advice that, 'reservation of an appropriate mosaic of age-classes, which with ecological processes intact will have the potential to generate the old growth of the future'. 106
7. CONCERNS ABOUT CONSERVATION VALUES IN AND SUPPORT FOR THE STRZELECKI STATE FOREST
Some local groups and residents are in the process of forming responses to and letters of support for this proposal. However, community concerns about the past and present management of the Strzelecki State Forest and the need to protect the environment are evident.
LOCAL SHIRES
The Strzelecki State Forest Shire falls within the boundaries of the Shires of Wellington, Latrobe and South Gippsland. All three Shire Councils have outlined environmental strategies in their Planning Schemes. The Shires of Wellington and Latrobe have said that native forest in the Strzeleckis, including areas of regrowth are worthy of conservation.107 The Shire of South Gippsland in its Planning Scheme has recognised the environmental significance of public land in the Shire, the need to protect and conserve biodiversity, and to encourage the linkage of land areas into more environmentally viable parcels. It recognises the problems of small reserves, "some of which are the only known sites of original remnant vegetation'108 and the problems of edge effects. Erosion is also of concern.
The South Gippsland Shire Council in 1997 expressed the need for the linking and upgrading of the Turtons Creek and Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve to the status of a state or national park. The tourism potential of the area was cited. In May 1998, the Council passed a motion to ask the State Government to delay implementation of the VPC privatisation bill until consultation has been held with the people of South Gippsland. Councillor Western stressed the importance of the Strzeleckis in terms of water, ecology and tourism and the need for a 'linked reserve' through the Eastern Strzeleckis.109 Concerns have been expressed about lack of resources and expertise to monitor logging and plantation activities in this forest.
The proposed National Park should be appealing to the Shire Councils. It will provide a sound base for each Shire's commitments to the biodiversity and environment of the region and promote further tourism in the area, while relieving Shires of much of their forestry duties, such as monitoring and policing the Forest Code of Practice and assessing applications for the clearing of native vegetation and the establishment of plantations.
WEST GIPPSLAND CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The CMA has been charged with the care of catchments and a commitment to biodiveristy. A draft version of this proposal was presented to the CMA after the Corner Inlet Management Group asked that the CMA consider the proposal. At a CMA board meeting held on 25/5/98 it was stated that the issue of the reserve 'has the potential to become a significant local issue and it is recommended that the CMA adopt an active role' and 'ensure that the RFA process include a detailed appreciation of the biological resources of the Eastern Strzelecki forests before the process determines the design of a CAR reserve system'. The motion 'that the CMA express the view that the native forest in VPC land become part of the RFA process' was carried.
LOCAL GROUPS/RESIDENTS
At a public meeting to discuss the South Gippsland Shire's draft planning strategy in July 1997, there was a general consensus that 'the natural environment be protected as a priority over and above any economic considerations'. 110
Local residents have been active in writing letters to newspapers, politicians, NRE and the RFA, voicing concerns about the treatment of the Strzelecki State Forest and the lack of public consultation in the vesting and privatisation process.
Demonstration: Seventy local residents attended a demonstration on the steps of Parliament House on April 28 1998 to protest against the inappropriate vesting of bushland in the Strzelecki State Forest with the Victorian Plantations Corporation and the continuation of the privatisation process, while local grievances had not been resolved. They also called for the creation of a 30,000 ha. National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest.
At the Yarram RFA meeting held on May 18 1998, over 70 local residents and representatives of community organisations demanded 'increased protection for remnant Strzelecki forests'.111 There was an overwhelming sense of unfairness expressed in regard to the Strzelecki State Forest being written off as a plantation area and anger expressed at past and present management practices in this significant State Forest.112 At the RFA forest heritage meeting at Foster on June 17 1998, the Eastern Strzeleckis were given a high rating from the majority of the 70 people in attendance.
The South Gippsland Conservation Society has expressed concern about the privatisation of the Strzelecki State Forest and the threats to conservation and public access through its newsletters. The Society has provided financial assistance for the printing and distribution of this submission and offers its wholehearted endorsement for its objectives.
The Mt. Best Concerned Residents Group have expressed concerns about the corporatisation and privatisation of the VPC and the management of the Strzelecki State Forest. They are worried by the inappropriate labelling of forest areas as plantation and threats to the scenic values and ecological values of the Strzelecki State Forest.
Susan Davies, local MP for Gippsland West, has voiced her concerns about the alienation of public land through corporatisation and privatisation in the local media and in Parliament. She has expressed her concerns about logging in sensitive catchments and stated her aims for lifting the status of the Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve and linking this reserve with the Tarra-Bulga National Park.113
Franklin Landcare Group, President has expressed fears about the lack of information and public consultation about the privatisation of the Strzelecki State Forest and logging plans.114
The Latrobe Valley Field Naturalist Club supports the proposal for a large National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest, which includes and links the Gunyah Reserve with the Tarra-Bulga National Park.
GUNAI/KURNAI NATIVE TITLE CLAIM
A claim was lodged on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai community on April 4 1997 for all the unalienated Crown Land in an area bordered by the Tarwin River in the west to the Snowy River in east. This includes much of the Strzelecki State Forest. Until this claim is resolved, the Crown Land is supposed to remain intact and not be dramatically altered. Vesting the bulk of the Strzelecki State Forest in the Victorian Plantations Corporation and re-defining it as 'private' land, privatising the VPC and converting native forest into plantation is a dramatic alteration.
VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY/TREATIES
The proposal for a large National Park in the headwaters and upper catchments of the Strzelecki State Forest will have a positive effect on the objectives of the Victorian Coastal Strategy and will benefit the marine reserves in and adjacent to Corner Inlet. The wetlands of Corner Inlet are one of Victoria's largest feeding grounds for international wading bird species. Headwater protection will contribute to the conservation of this important habitat and assist in the fulfilment of Australia's obligations under the international treaties - JAMBA, CAMBAR and RAMSAR.
VICTORIAN CONSERVATION GROUPS
Victorian conservation groups, Environment Victoria and Friends of the Earth have publicised their concerns for the privatisation of the Strzelecki State Forest and the lack of environmental safeguards in their newsletters and in the media. 115
Greening Australia has expressed a desire to enlarge the Tarra-Bulga Park.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
State Parliamentary debates from Hansard, 29/4/98 and 11/5/98 indicate that there is more than enough reason to doubt the wisdom of current management practices and trends in the Strzelecki State Forest. The State opposition since 1993 have raised various concerns, but have always voted in support of Government legislation regarding the Victorian Plantations Corporation until April 1998, when the opposition was concerned enough to speak at great length about a range of problems, referring on numerous occasions to concerns raised in regard to the Strzelecki State Forest and voted against the 1998 VPC Amendment Bill. On April 29, 1998 and May 11, 1998, a total of 10 Labor MP's voiced their protest as did Susan Davies, Independent MP. State National MP's also added some doubts and misgivings of their own.
The Shadow Environment Minister, Sherryl Garbutt highlighted problems regarding limitations to 'multiple use' of areas vested in the VPC in the State Parliament, e.g., road closures, loss of recreation and conservation areas, the loss of native forest. threats to tourism, effects on water and soil conservation. Ms. Garbutt also questioned the cost/benefits of this shift of public assets, and argued strongly against the haste with which the Government is pursuing these ends without adequate public consultation and information. 116 Many speeches supported calls to delay the Bill until community and environmental concerns had been resolved and inappropriate lands divested from the VPC. Susan Davies, Gippsland West gave an account of the lack of Government interest in community concerns, the incomplete mapping of the Strzelecki State Forest, the inappropriate timing of the Bill ( the RFA process for Gippsland was about to begin) and the environmental problems inherent in treating VPC land as 'private'.
The VPC Amendment Bill 1998 received 27 No votes in the Lower House and 9 No votes in the Upper House.
8. TOURISM
8.1 POTENTIAL
This beautiful place with its cool, ferny understoreys and towering mountain ash rising into the sky, a stunning array of intriguing mosses, fungi and ferns, habitat for rare and beautiful wildlife is only 2 - 3 hours drive from Melbourne. The mystique of the Superb Lyrebird has the potential to attract visitors from far and wide. Its prowess as a song bird and its remarkable plumage makes it one of the most famous of Australia's fauna. Koalas are also a big drawcard. The Strzeleckis are blessed with an abundance of both. Visiting this area leaves an indelible impression.
The enormous fame of the tiny Tarra-Bulga National Park117 is direct proof that as a natural forest destination, the Strzeleckis do not disappoint the visitor. South Gippsland has a rare and valuable treasure in the Strzelecki State Forest. The knowledge that an area is protected in a National Park somehow makes it more attractive to the potential visitor. Once an area is a National Park, it appears on maps, in guide books and tourist information literature and its fame continues to grow.
Reports from the U.S. state that by the year 2000, forest based recreation in the U.S. is expected to generate 30 times more income than revenue earned through timber sales. 118 Not only is tourism a less destructive land use alternative it has the potential to easily out-perform forestry on an economic level, provide more jobs, and maximise local revenue benefit.
8.2 GRAND RIDGE ROAD
Much of the proposed National Park is traversed by the Grand Ridge Road, a tourist route as soulful and historic as it is winding. Neither widened nor straightened, this authentic vintage mountain road has always had a great appeal. With a little promotion, the Grand Ridge Road could spark great public curiosity.
8.3 OTHER ROADS
Dozens of other wonderful, old roads are to be found in these Ranges:- the Toora-Gunyah Road, Turtons Creek Road, Tarra River Road, Morwell River Road, Christies-Albert River Road, McLeans Road etc all of which provide a unique experience for the motorist. Devil's Pinch Road and Dingo Creek Road and many forestry tracks may serve as marvellous hiking tracks.
8.4 VISITORS
National Park status for the area outlined would greatly enhance the tourism potential of the region and provide benefits for the towns in the Latrobe Valley and South Gippsland.
DCNR estimated that the Strzelecki Ranges received 150,000 visitors annually (mostly day visitors). 119 This is without facilities or signs except in Tarra Bulga National Park, which receives 80,000 visitor days per annum. Wilsons Promontory National Park receives, 128,000 day visits and 240,000 overnight visitors per year.120 Developments on Wilsons Promontory will inevitably increase visitor numbers to the region, both on-season and off-season.
A recent tourism survey121 calculated the average spending patterns of overnight visitors to this region at between $86 and $112 per day, depending on whether the visitors were from overseas, interstate or Victorian and whether they paid for accommodation or stayed with friends, etc. Day visitors on average spend $40 per day. If the added attraction of the Strzeleckis could convince just a quarter of Wilsons Prom visitors to stay another day exploring the region to the immediate north, staying overnight in Foster, Balook, Toora, Mirboo North, Yarram, Fish Creek, Boolarra or Welshpool; refuelling their car, shopping, going out for dinner etc., the region could realistically see a direct injection of $8.6 million to $11.2 million into the local economy. 100,000 extra day visitors would inject an extra $4 million. The towns of South Gippsland are strategically located halfway between Wilsons Promontory and the Strzeleckis and may stand to reap much benefit from this proposal.
8.5 RECREATION
The proposed National Park would provide opportunities for the development of recreational activities such as picnicking, camping, bushwalking, swimming, bird watching, koala spotting and fishing. All these activities are low impact, yet bring revenue into the region.
9. SETTING UP COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK
As the whole area is already State owned, a park could be formed without needing to purchase land.
The establishment of a National Park in this area would not necessarily conflict with any local social, sporting or recreational interest. Off-road motor cycle riding and prospecting are uses which have the potential to conflict with the aims of a National Park, but with adequate consultation and agreement, there is no reason why these activities cannot continue. The proposed area is generally not used for firewood gathering. The extremely steep terrain makes much of the area unsuitable for logging and intensive timber production.
The area is serviced by reasonably adequate roads though rarely used as a thoroughfare. Traffic is light, mostly being tourists, logging trucks and the horses and wagons which are for hire.
The forest within the proposed area has largely been spared the interference caused by the establishment of plantations and continues to display its remarkable vigour and resilience. Costly restoration efforts are largely unnecessary.
Whether it be promoted as a tourist destination or not, it would doubtlessly remain wild and tourist impact would be largely limited to roadsides, tracks and designated areas which already exist. As roadsides and tracks carry exquisite bush there is little need to 'go bush' to experience the place. The terrain, climate and the leeches serve as a natural deterrent to this activity. Simple paths and boardwalks could serve as an excellent way to view rainforest gullies and ensure that human impact in highly sensitive areas is kept within reasonable limits.
Creating a park in this vicinity would not only conserve the forest habitat and ensure the integrity of these important water catchments, it would also provide for future innovations in tourism and recreation and a renewed interest in the Strzelecki Ranges.
The township of Balook, close to the Tarra-Bulga National Park, is a natural base for the Park as it has already evolved into a hub with an information centre, Ranger quarters, various forms of accommodation and fuel and food for sale.
Mirboo North, Foster, Toora, Welshpool, Yarram and Boolarra could all serve as tourist 'stepping-off points'.
The development of major facilities within the newly formed park can evolve slowly as is needed. Beyond the upkeep of existing signage, picnic areas, toilets and camping areas and the provision of picnic area firewood and additional toilets no dramatic infrastructure expenditure would be necessary.
However, it is long overdue that these Mountain Ranges had an adequate staff of Rangers and works crew who are stationed in, and responsible for the Strzelecki State Forest for the multitude of tasks that any State Forest requires, whether it be a reserve or not.
10. CONCLUSION
ð It is clear that the treatment of the Strzelecki Forest since white settlement has been heavy handed and the environment in the region has suffered. Management of the remaining forest indicates that a balance still has not been reached. The Eastern Strzelecki Ranges is a forest isolate surrounded by privately owned cleared land. The formation of a large National Park will ensure that the long term future of much of the remaining forest is taken seriously.
ð A large National Park in these Ranges is long overdue. A 30,000 ha. reserve would protect roughly half of the Strzelecki State Forest and allow for the future preservation of around 6 or 7% of the original Great Forest of Gippsland.
ð The need for a large conservation reserve has become more pressing with the vesting of and plans to privatise a large area of native forest in the Strzelecki State Forest.
ð The key areas identified for the establishment of a National Park include current reserves, LCC hardwood zones and RFA Deferred Forest Areas. The area amounts to 35,000 ha. of which 30,000 ha. should be be selected for National Park status. Our own field trips, maps, research and consultation with other locals have consistently reassured us that the areas identified in this proposal are indeed amongst the most significant areas of bush in the Ranges.
ð The natural significance of the Strzelecki State Forest has been downplayed and misrepresented. First hand experience over an extended period of time is necessary for a full appreciation of the quality of this forest and the tragedy of its continuing misuse since white settlement. Likewise, first hand experience bears witness to the forest's remarkable power to restore itself to its former state, once the misuse ceases.
ð The entire Strzelecki State Forest is public land, whether it be vested, leased, reforested, regrowth, old growth, alienated or otherwise, and as such should be considered in its entirety. Only viable pine plantation areas could legitimately be excluded from consideration for reserves status.
- Lease contracts held by Amcor or the VPC should in no way exempt any significant public land from reserve status.
- Old land titles showing whether areas were alienated from the Crown and re-purchased or not bear little relationship with the current state of the forest and can no longer be used to exempt areas from reserve status.
- Likewise, it is wrong to consider young forest as less worthy of reserve status. The level of human interference in the Strzelecki State Forest has left the majority of the land carrying forest 100 years old or younger. Old growth areas occur throughout, but no longer dominate as they did before white settlement. Areas of forest between 50 and 100 years have regrown from fires or land clearing. Areas younger than 50 years are generally regrowth after logging or areas which naturally regenerated or were re-forested with human assistance.
- Likewise, it is equally irrelevant to consider areas which were at one stage cleared to be less significant than areas which were never cleared. Wilderness is not merely to be found in 'untouched' places. Wilderness returns. In the Strzeleckis wilderness returns with remarkable vigour.
- Likewise, the presence of a proportion of 'planted' eucalypt forest cannot be used to exempt areas from reserve status. A viable reserve needs a large, continuous tract of land and a minimum of disturbance. 'Planted' ash forest bears much the same structure and understorey as naturally regenerated areas and are too scattered to be singled out.
ð The proposed area would make an excellent National Park. It is spectacular, diverse and beautiful. The array of common, interesting, rare and downright endangered species present in the Strzelecki State Forest do not enjoy the protection which they deserve. The preservation of water catchments, flora and fauna and the integrity of the forest community are all important environmental, social and economic responsibilities, which need to be upheld.
ð Presently, only 8% of public land in the Strzelecki Ranges has any degree of reserve status - 5,000 ha. in total. This amounts to about 1% of the original Great Forest of Gippsland. These reserves are small and scattered.
ð The foremost value of the Strzelecki State Forest is that it is a wild place. As with most wild places the most sensible and cost effective land management practice is to keep interference to a minimum.
ð Although eucalypt and acacia are generally tough, rainforest is more vulnerable and prone to edge effects caused by activity on adjacent land and worsened by fragmentation and isolation. The Strzelecki State Forest is still among the four most significant sites in Victoria for cool, temperate rainforest, yet the proportion of rainforest has declined due to increased disturbance. Inclusion within a large reserve area will enhance the protection of these significant, yet vulnerable areas of rainforest.
ð Present land use in the Eastern Strzeleckis is weighted too heavily towards the cutting of native timber, the cultivation of pine and short rotation hardwood plantations. Due to
- the high proportion of the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges that is already privately owned by Amcor
- the high level of intensive plantation forestry on public and private land
- the removal of such a high proportion of native forest since white settlement
the remaining public native forest deserves to be treated with great consideration.
ð State policies and treaties all agree that generally:
- public native bush should not be cleared, unless it is regenerated
- plantations should be established on cleared private farmland
- the current state of the environment could do with some improvement
- biodiversity be maintained and improved
- habitat depletion is the major threat to native flora and fauna
ð Current forest management impinges on many aspects of the nature of the Ranges - soil disturbance, water quality, water yield, rainforest health, flora and fauna are all compromised as a result. Plantation forestry exacerbates these problems further as harvesting occurs more often leading to more frequent stress.
- Concerned parties, such as, Shires, CMA, conservation and interest groups, despite the best intentions, do not have the resources to carry out their responsibilities to the environment in the area. There is a serious lack of monitoring and policing of forestry activities and forestry planning is conducted with the minimum of consultation.
- Water quality, quantity and consistency of stream flow throughout the year are vital to the very quality of life for everything and everyone living in the region, and as such is seen by locals as an issue of vital importance. Improper use of the forests at our water's source cannot be tolerated.
- Forestry tracks, timber harvesting on steep slopes, heavy rain after timber harvesting all contribute to soil disturbance.
- Increased nutrient content, in waterways caused primarily by soil disturbance, and exacerbated by hot summers has a drastic effect on river health, water quality and aquatic life.
The formation of a National Park is an appropriate way to help secure soil and water conservation in the region's major headwaters and fulfil regional commitments to the environment and biodiversity.
ð Vigorous efforts should be made to shift plantation forestry away from public land towards farm based agro-forestry as recommended in several reports.
ð We are confident that any cost/benefit analysis that adequately assesses the region on social, economic and environmental grounds will show that in terms of tourism, water production and conservation there will be a direct economic benefit.
ð The formation of this National Park will have minimal impact on forestry in the region.
- Amcor owns vast areas of private forest and plantation.
- The VPC will continue to manage the bulk of the softwood zone and some of the hardwood zone.
- NRE will continue forestry operations in some of the areas of the Strzelecki State Forest under its management.
ð The proposal for a large National Park reflects the spirit of the CAR criteria in that it maintains biodiversity and forest ecosystems across their natural range. It fits reserve design criteria by including various forest types and ages, by linking reserves and acting as a sanctuary for flora and fauna in the Strzelecki Ranges.
ð Assuming the original Great Forest of Gippsland to be around 500,000 ha., this National Park would account for 6 or 7%. By CAR standards this is less than the desirable standard of 15% of pre-1750 forest cover. Nevertheless 6 or 7% would be six times better than the amount of reserves currently in place. 30,000 ha. must be seen as the minimum amount of reserve necessary at this present time. As this falls so far short of CAR targets, a reserve system smaller than 30,000 ha. is not a serious option.
ð The treatment of the Strzelecki State Forest is a significant local issue and the government needs to re-assess the impact that recent restructuring and reclassification has had and is likely to have in the future. Numerous politicians as well as state and local interest groups have expressed concern over the vesting and privatisation of Victorian public land, in particular non-plantation forest and the current land management practices in the Strzelecki State Forest. Many groups support the proposal for a large National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest.
ð The Strzelecki State Forest has two vital ingredients for successful tourism - it is worth visiting and it is less than 3 hours drive away from several million people. Even with a modest budget, the Strzelecki State Forest could be made far more tourist friendly than it currently is, with great potential benefits to the economy of the region. Tourism is capable of being a far more benign and lucrative alternative economic use.
ð Human beings need protection also. The logging trucks that dominate the old, windy roads present a threat to road safety. A National Park can restrict and regulate logging truck access and in doing so increase safety.
ð The Strzelecki State Forest deserves an adequate staff employed to care for the environment. The State Forest has continually suffered from a history of State miserliness. Major spending is unnecessary in order to establish this National Park beyond the provision of some basic facilities and an adequate staff.
ð This area is capable of yielding a balance of economic, social and environmental values that could satisfy the local community and all concerned parties. The creation of this National Park will highlight the region's natural beauty, help to fulfil commitments to regional biodiversity and land care, preserve vital headwaters, protect habitat and heritage values and offer high protection for this large public remnant of the Great Forest of Gippsland.
The process of establishing a National Park must commence with a moratorium on forestry operations in the proposed area, an assessment of flora and fauna, the completion of Ecological Vegetation Class mapping, an accurate identification of plantations (according to agreeable, consistent definitions), and an evaluation of all recent forestry plans and operations. Following this there should be investigations of reserve boundaries, removal of areas deemed of low natural significance or best left available for timber harvesting, gazetting of the proposal and a comprehensive management plan for the National Park drafted. Throughout this process public input and scrutiny should be required and encouraged.
This proposal should be seen as a viable and realistic basis from which the State and Federal Governments can achieve a balance of values and responsibilities to the industry and the environment.
1 We calculate this on the basis of past records and NRE statistics regarding additional purchases. There is a possibility that the Amcor leased land has been counted twice. If so, the size of the Strzelecki State Forest is more like 54,400 ha.
2 Existing reserves are of course non-negotiable areas
3 These are of course gross areas which do not indicate net areas directly available for logging.
4 1980 figures. Possibly a larger area now. Some of these areas have voluntarily been made reserves by Amcor.
5 Amcor was leased 8617 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest in the 1960s for 60 years.
6 VPC was vested with 40,000 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest in 1993
7 See Land Conservation Council Map & RFA Deferred Forest Area Map
8 Those of us involved in the drafting of the boundaries of the 'main body' did so before becoming aware of either map by on the ground observation and study of topographic maps we arrived at an area almost identical to the LCC 'hardwood zone' and the RFA's 'deferred forest area'. However we had also identified extra land in the section leased to Amcor which unfortunately has been left out of the 'deferred forest area' .
9 LCC (1980) LCC South Gippsland Area District 2
10 Angus Pollock, Issues magazine
11 See Figure - Water Catchments
12 CAR stands for comprehensive, adequate and comprehensive
13 Regional Catchment Strategy 1996
14 Fires were deliberately lit as a form of land clearing, often on the hottest days leading to out of control situations.
15 See Appendix 2: Rare & Endangered Species in the SSF.
16 Neville Walsh, Royal Botanical Gardens, Herbarium, Personal correspondence. Adiantum diaphanum appears on the F&F Guarantee threatened list.
17 F & F Survey & Management Group. 1990, Table 1
18 C,F&L, Sites of Botanical Significance in Central Gippsland, 1984.
19 F & F Survey & Management Group. 1990, p. iv Mapping of rainforest is not complete. However, it is clear from maps that are available, that n extensive sections and smaller patches of rainforest have been vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation.
20 After clearfelling this area of native forest, the ash was replaced with a non-endemic species, even though it is against State Policy to convert public bush into plantation.
21 Current flora and fauna survey work by naturalist Elaina Fraser.
22 A map of the original Gunyah reserve dating back to the 1890s is shown in McNaughton W, Gunyah 1894-1940 and also on parish maps.
23 Dargavel J 1995 Fashioning Australia's Forests p187
24 Regrowth area are 'part of the continuum of the ecosystem and should not be regarded as being unworthy of conservation' (Panel Report, 1996).
25 Brown and dusky antechinus and the long and short nosed bandicoot
26 The greater glider is absent from Wilsons Promontory
27 Recent chew balls from College Creek of yellow bellied glider identified by B Treggs
28 LCC South Gippsland Area District 2 (1980) p. 283-4
29 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations September 1996 p. 46
30 Panel Report p. 40
31 The superb lyrebird is not endemic to Wilsons Promontory National Park. The LCC report says that it was introduced there but didn't survive.
32 Jackson 1988 Review of biological information, distribution & status of the Australian grayling p 15
33 The underlined species are rare or threatened. See Appendix 2 - Rare & Endangered Flora & Fauna
34 Moulds, E The Dynamic Forest p.106
35 Proposed Recommendations South Gippsland Area District 2, LCC 1982 Introduction
36 See section 5.5 which outlines differences between the public and private sections of the Code.
37 Areas set aside under interim protection and exempt from timber harvesting pending the outcomes of the Regional Forest Agreement.
38 Some of the newspaper articles listed in the bibliography outline these concerns. Members of the public have received letters from Forestry, indicating that during the RFA process areas of public land may be considered for inclusion within the reserves system, while they hear that the Vic. Gov. is passing bills to ease the sale of the VPC and placing advertisements in newspapers asking for expressions of interest to buy it.
39 Purple indicates that the land is set aside for plantation purposes
40 Alan Stockdale said that he was unaware that native forest was involved in the VPC's holdings and that there was room for negotiation- Foster Mirror, May 27, p. 1
41 Foster Mirror, 10/6/98
42 A large area (from no name track, past Redhill Track and on to Stronachs Road and then north of the Gunyah reserve), part of the 2,500 ha. site of botanical significance,ie undisturbed wet sclerophyll forest, at Gunyah Gunyah has been clearfelled and replaced with a non-endemic species. See also Strzelecki Blues p.17f..
43 Indeed, not only has the Government vested pine plantations and eucalypt plantations in the VPC, they have also vested approx. 20,000 ha. of non-plantation land in the corporation. Areas of rainforest, acacia forests, eucalypt forest, some of which have been described as sites of botanical significance. Most of the vested area is in highly sensitive water catchments and headwaters.
44 Personal correspondence. These areas are not plantations, have an inherent worth as native forest and should not be part of the vested land. Coupled with the fact that approximately 12,000 ha. is unavailable for logging because of steep slopes, water ways etc, in the proposed reserve, the creation of this reserve will have a negligible effect on genuine plantation holdings.
45 The Panel Report on Applications by Amcor Plantations argued that while eucalypt plantations provide 'abetter habitat for native fauna than pine plantations or cleared agricultural land, this habitat value cannot be compared with a naturally occurring forest with its diversity of species, range of maturity and fully developed understorey'. p. 42 They continued, 'when eucalypt plantations are first established they have no ecosystem. This is unlike selective logging in native forests where, although aspects of the ecosystem may be damaged, it will not be entirely destroyed and will recover.'
46 See section 5.4 Catchments & Water
47 Personal conservations, letters and minutes of the Mt. Best Concerned Residents Group, 24/5/98; RFA meetings held in Foster and Yarram.
48 In 1978 the entire hardwood harvest for Won Wron, Mullungdung, Alberton West and the Strzelecki State Forest was 47,000m3. (LCC, 1982) The VPC has promised to provide from its chunk of the Strzelecki State Forest alone, 100,000m3 to just one of its customers. (Latrobe Valley Express, 13/11/97)
49 Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia, ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement, p. 8
50 Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia, p.8
51 Mt. Best Concerned Residents ; Land care groups; South Gippsland Conservation Society etc.
52 e.g. Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, p. 65
53 Clarke, J Australia's Plantations (1995) p. 109
54 See problems with estimating plantation hectares in 'Key Areas for Consideration..'
55 One of the myths perpetuated about the SSF is that it was all cleared farmland. In fact only half the SSF was bought farmland and that was also in various stages of natural regeneration.
56 Clarke J p. 108
57 National Forest Policy Statement p. 48
58 LCC 1982 Proposed Recommendations
59 This viewpoint is also expressed in 'Dangers in Privatisation' an article from The Weekly Times 20/5/98. The article points out that privatisation of the State's plantations will result in further job losses in the industry by the reduction in small-scale private forestry investment.
60 2% of public land in Victoria is plantation, but in the Strzeleckis 33% approx. is plantation.
61 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations Sep.1996 P.48
62 Even without forestry activities soil loss is serious. For example, it was estimated that more that 8,000 tonnes of soil containing large quantities of nitrogen and phosphorous was washed down the Agnes River during one day of heavy flooding in November 1995. SG Regional Water Authority 1997Catchment Management Activity Report.
63 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations September 1996 p.52
64 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations September 1996 p.45
65 Regional Catchment Strategy 1997 p.23
66 For example, this is supported by the WaterWatch initiatives being carried out in the region
67 Recent blue-green algae outbreaks in Lance Creek reservoir shows how quickly and easily water supplies can deteriorate.
68 South Gippsland Region Water Authority Submission to the Victorian Coastal and Bay Management Council on the Draft Victorian Coastal Strategy Feb 1997
69 Walbrink, p. 5 The Contribution of channel banks and gully walls to total Phosphorus loads in the Murrumbidgee River
70 W Gippslnd Reg. Catchment & Land Protection Board 1997 Regional Catchment Strategy p.18
71 The cost of treating water in a closed catchment may be as little as $10 per megalitre, while in a cleared treatment is significantly higher (perhaps $100)South Gippsland Water Board figures. Recently $25 million was allocated for the improvement of town water supplies & treatment of effluent within the region.
72 Regional Catchment Strategy 1996
73 Fisher, T (1997) National Competition Policy: Review of the Forests Act p.11-12
74 Personal correspondence
75 LCC Proposed Recommendations 1982,South Gippsland Area, District 2 p.24
76 Water Watch results from West and South Gippsland June 1997-May 1998
77 LCC Proposed Recommendations 1982,South Gippsland Area, District 2 p.24
78 SEPP Victorian Government Gazette, 26 Feb 1988
79 Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, Chapter 1.2
80 Panel Report on Applications by Amcor pp. 32;34
81 Flora & Fauna Guarantee 1988
82 C,F&L (1987)Definition of Rainforest in Victoria's Rainforests-An Overview p.13
83 Personal correspondence
84 Packman J; Kile G 'A Survey of Myrtle Wilt in the Central Highlands & Strzelecki Ranges of Victoria'. in Victoria's Rainforests: Perspectives and Definition, Classification and Management
85 Packman J; Kile G ibid The authors state that out of two infection sites at least one was related to illegal cutting activities. Both the Agnes and Franklin catchments were affected.
86 Reilly, Pauline. The Lyrebird p. 83
87 Victoria's Biodiversity Directions in Management p.83
88 Victoria's Biodiversity Directions in Management p. 83
89 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations September 1996 p.43
90 ibid September 1996 p.46
91 Victoria's Biodiversity Directions in Management p.83
92 Doeg T (1990) ...Effects of Forestry Practices on Aquatic Values
93 Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in Australia, p.4
94 Report of Panel Hearing on Applications by Amcor Plantations September 1996 p.57
95 Correspondence, May 5 1998
96 "2,000 hectares of previous cleared land now supporting understorey species which could be reforested". Peter Ryan, May 5, 1998. Some of this forest has been regenerating since early this century and fits the definition of 'native forest' described in the National Forest Policy Statement. p.48
97 Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in Australia,
98 ibid p.2
99 ibid p.10
100 Moulds, Francis R (1991) The Dynamic Forest Lynedoch p. 106
101 Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in Australia, p.5
102 ibid p.16
103 ibid p.14
104 ibid p. 10
105 ibid p.4
106 ibid p. 14
107 Independent Panel Report. p. 45
108 Shire of South Gippsland Planning Scheme
109 Foster Mirror, May 27 1998. Councillor Western also raised questions about the classification of certain areas in the SSF as plantation.
110 Foster Mirror, 15/7/97
111 Sentinel Times, May 26 1998
112 See the list of related newspaper articles dealing with the privatisation of the SSF and the RFA meetings in the bibliography
113 Foster Mirror 17/6/98
114 Leongatha Star, 2/6/98 p.8
115 Age 17/3/98;Environment Victoria Newsletter, March 1998;FoE, Fitzroy Newsletter, Dec, 1997
116 Hansard, 29/4/98
117 Listed in virtually every guide book in just about every language as a place well worth a look
118 National Geographic March 1997
119 Welcome to the Strzelecki Forest Drive, DCNR
120 Wilsons Promontory Management Plane June 1997 p.21\
121 Tourism Victoria Research Branch Profile of Travel to Victoria's Regions
From Sites of Botanical Significance in Central Gippsland, C,F&L & National Herbarium 1984
4. Gunyah vicinity
5. Ryton vicinity
3. Tarra
APPENDIX 1
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE STRZELECKI STATE FOREST
Threatened flora and fauna (F&F Guarantee Act 1988) which occur in South Gippsland:
Thelymitra epipactoides Metallic sun orchid
Thelymitra mathewsii Spiral sun orchid
Threatened flora and fauna (F&F Guarantee Act 1988) which occur in the Strzelecki State Forest:
Adiantum diaphanum Filmy maidenhair
Cyathea Cunninghamii Slender tree fern
Dasyurus Maculatus Tiger Quoll
Ninox Strenua Powerful owl
Tyto tenebricosa Sooty owl
Megascolides australis Giant Gippsland Earth worm
Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling
Miniopterus schreibersii Common Bent wing Bat
Threatened Community: Cool temperate rainforest community
Rare Species found in the Strzelecki State Forest:
Ninox connivens Barking owl
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk
Galaxias truttaceus spotted galaxis
Gobiomorphus australis striped gudgeon
tmesipteris elongata forked fern
Potorous sp. Potoroo
Petaurus australis Yellow bellied glider
Mastacomys fuscus Broad-toothed rat
Dishia rodwayi fungus
Rare and Interesting Vascular Plants in the Eastern Strzeleckis, South Gippsland identified by A.C. Beauglehole, OAM : The Distribution & Conservation of Vascular Plants in the South Gippsland Area, Victoria.(1984)
Acacia Howittii (c3) Sticky wattle
Deyeuxia rodwayi Bent grass
Dichopogon Fimbriatus Nodding Chocolate lily
Juncus Prismatocarpus Branching rush
Microsorium scandens (c3) Fragrant fern
Montia Fontana Water blinks
Nertera Reptans Dwarf nertera
Phebalium bilobium Notched Phebalium
Poa ensiformis type of Tussock grass
Pterostylis decurva Summer Greenhood
Sarcochilus australis Gunn's Orchid
The following are vascular plants (Beauglehole) of South Gippsland, exclusive to D sector and cannot be found in any other sector of South Gippsland and thus are of regional significance. (Sector D includes the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges, the South Gippsland foothills and part of the Latrobe Valley because of this, it cannot be fully known whether all of these species are found within the proposed reserve).
acacia acinacea Gold dust wattle
obliquinervia Mountain hickory wattle
Atherosperma moschatus (c3) Southern sassafras (also at Wilsons Prom)
Nothofagus cunninghamii Myrtle Beech
eucalyptus angophorvides (c1) Apple topped box
eucalyptus elata River peppermint (not in reserve, grows 30-700m)
eucalyptus rubida Candle bark (not in reserve)
eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark (not in reserve; dry forest)
epilobium pallidiflorum Showy willow herb (not in reserve)
montia fontana Water blinks
Lomatia myricoides River lomatia (not in reserve)
Persoonia confertiflora Cluster flower Geebung (not in reserve)
Pomaderris langigera Woolly Pomaderris (not in reserve)
Pomaderris vacciniifolia (c1) Round leaf Pomaderris (not in reserve)
Galium liratum Furrowed bedstraw (not in reserve)
Correa lawrencia Mountain correa
Dodonaea angustissima Slender hop bush (not in reserve)
Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme speedwell
Solarium linearifolium Mountain kangaroo apple (not in reserve)
Tetratheca labillardierei Glandular Pink bells (not in reserve)
Verbena bonariensis Purple topped verbena (not in reserve)
isoetes drummondii Plain quillwort (also found in f)
microsorium scandens Fragrant fern (also at Prom)
tmesipteris obata (c2) oval fork fern
lepidosperma tortuosum tortuous sedge
Vallisneria gigantia eelweed
Juncus prismatocarpus branching rush
Corybas aconitiflorus Spurredhelmet orchid
Thelymitra chasmogama Globe hood sun orchid
Thelymitra Macmillinii Crimson sun orchid
Amphibromus fluitanas Graceful swamp wallaby grass
Marsdenia rostrate Milk vine
Callitriche umbonata Water starwort
Wahlenbergia communis Tufted blue bell
Stellaria caespitosa Star wort
Einadia hastata Saloop Salt bush
Haloragis heterophylla Varied Raspwort
Prostanthera sp.aff howelliae type of mint bush
Amyema Miquellii Box mistletoe
c1: confined to South Gippsland Study area for Victoria except for 1 other study area
c2: confined to South Gippsland Study area for Victoria except for 2 other study areas
c3: confined to South Gippsland Study area for Victoria except for 3 other study area
APPENDIX 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beauglehole, AC (1984) The Distribution & Conservation of Vascular Plants in South Gippsland W. Victoria Field Naturalists Club, Portland
Bowler, Jim (1993) From Sand Dunes to Tall Timber South Gippsland Conservation Society, Vic.
CF&L (1984) Sites of Botanical Significance in Central Victoria
CF&L (1987) Definition of Rainforest in Victorian Rainforest - An Overview
CF&L Tarra-Bulga National Park
Chesterfield, E (1996) Changes in Mised Forest after Fire & After Clearfelling silviculture on the Errinundra Plateau
Clarke, J(1995) Australia's Plantations Environment Victoria
Commonwealth Gov. National Forest Policy Statement 1992
Dargavel, John (1995) Fashioning Australia's Forests Oxford Uni Press
DC&E Welcome to the Strzelecki Forest Drive
DC&E (1995) Native Forests & Woodchipping A Victorian Perspective
DC&E See How they Grow
DCNR (1989) Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production
DCNR East Gippsland Forest Management Plan
DCNR Rainforest Definition and Protection in the
East Gippsland Forest Management Area
DNRE (1996) Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production
DNRE (1997) Victoria's Biodiversity Directions in Management
DNRE (1996) The Forests Service (brochure)
DNRE Central Highlands Comprehensive Regional Assessment
DNRE (1997) Biodiversity - Sustaining Our Living Wealth
DNRE (1996) Tarra Bulga National Park Management Plans
Dale, B (1982) Bibliography for the Corner Inlet Arthur Rylah Institute
Devenish K & Constable J (1997) Strzelecki Blues: Mucking Around with a State Forest
Doeg, T & Koehn J A Review of Australian Studies on the Effects of Forestry Practices on Aquatic Values C & E, 1990
Fisher T (1997) National Competition Policy: Review of the Forests Act 1958 ACF
Flora & Fauna Survey & Management Group Sites of Botanical Significance for Rainforest
in South Gippsland, March 1990
Forests Commission of The Strzeleckis: A New Future for the Heartbreak Hills Vic,(1979)
Fraser, Elaina Current Research in Agnes Catchment & College Creek
Gardner, PD (1992) Names of South Gippsland Ngarak Press
Gardner, PD (1992) Names of the Latrobe Valley & West Gippsland Ngarak Press
Gott, B & Conran J (1991) Victorian Koori Plants
Griffiths, Tom (1972) Secrets of the Forest: Discovering History in Melbourne's Ash Range Allen & Unwin,
Hubbard A, Latham TJune 1997 The Proposed Clearing of Strzelecki Bushland in Gippsland
Jackson, P & Koehn J (1988) A Review of biological information, distribution & status of the Australian grayling Gunther in Victoria Arthur Rylah Institute
Kile, G & Packham J A Survey of Myrtle Wilt in the Central Highlands & Strzelecki Ranges Monash Publications in Geography
Land Conservation Council South Gippsland Area District 2 1980
Land Conservation Council Proposed Recommendations SG Area District 2 June 1982
Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corp. Mag. Yarmbler May 1997
Morcombe (1974) Mammals of Australia Golden Press, NSW
Moulds, Francis R (1991) The Dynamic Forest Lynedoch
Pollock, A Issues Magazine 1995
Race, Digby (1993) Agroforestry Agmedia, Vic.
Reichl, Phyllis Mountain Forests of Gippsland Thomas Nelson, Vic.
SG Regional Water Auth. Catchment Management Activity Report March 1996
SG Shire Council 1997 SG Municipal Strategic Statement Draft
SG Shire (1997) SG Draft Strategy Plan
SGCS (1985) Beach and Bush Day Trips SGCS
Victorian Government Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Victorian Plantations Corporation (1997) Annual Report
West Gippsland Regional Catchment & Land Protection Board(1995) Water Quality Management Strategy
West Gippsland CALP (1997) Regional Catchment Strategy
Wallbrink, PJ et al The Contribution of channel banks and gully walls to total Phosphorus loads in the Murrumbidgee River
WG CALP Regional Catchment Strategy Oct. 1996Corner Inlet & Nooramunga Marine Reserve Management Plans
WG Catchment Management Authority (1997) Operating Agreement between DNRE & XXX
Catchment Management Authority for the Implementation of XXX Regional Water Strategy
State Plantations Impact Study
Local History
Ashenden, Arthur (1985) A History of Dollar 1885-1985 SG Publishing Co.
Collett, Barry (1994) Wednesdays Closest to the Full Moon Melbourne University Press, Vic.
Cox, George Notes on Gippsland History, Vol1,2
Shire of Alberton & Yarram District Historical Society
Fitzgerald, Bryan (1982) A Tale from Tipperary to Gunyah Gunyah
Fletcher, M (1986) Gippsland Heritage Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 E-Gee Printers
Johnston, Chris (1991) Latrobe Valley Heritage Study LV Printers, Vic.
Kennedy, Trevor (1992) Water from the Billy Binginwarri 1882-1988
Kerr, Phyllis (1981) Agnes Who? SG Shire Historical Society
Littlejohn, EJ (1978) Seventy Years Around Ryton in the Strzelecki Ranges Enterprise Press
Lonsdale, Alf (1982) Mount 'A" (Mount Best 1892-1982) James Yeates Printing
McMaster, May (1996) Turtons Creek, Valley of Treasure & Charm South Gippsland Publishing
Malone, HJ (1984) Buffalo 1894-1983
Vale, J & Everitt, N (1979) With Mud on their Boots SG Publishing Co.
Wells, John (1986) Gippsland: People, Place & Their Past Landmark Press,Vic.
York, AA (1985) Journey to the 80's in Gippsland Drouin Commercial Printers
Land of the Lyre Bird Shire of Korumburra, Vic.
Articles:
State Park for Turtons Creek - Gunyah? Foster Mirror, July 30 1997
Port may be surveyed for commercial shipping access Foster Mirror July 30, 1996
Minister supportive of port, timber, gas & water Foster Mirror Aug 20 1997
Move for More plantations Foster Mirror Sept 10, 1997
Native Title only for undeveloped Crown Land Foster Mirror Aug 20 1997
The Future's in Timber, but we need a port Leongatha Star, Aug 26 1997
Woodchips Yes or No (Letter) Foster Mirror Oct, 8 1997
Victoria Rated last for saving Wildlife Age July 18 1997
Chipping away at our profits (Letter) Age June 26 1997
Logging Action Unpopoular Foster Mirror July 23 1997
$200,000 works on the Franklin Star July 15 1997
Residents have their say on planning report Star July 15 1997
Premier Opens World Class Mill Latrobe Valley Express Nov 13, 1997
Morwell Sawmill Project Underway Latrobe Valley Express Sept 16, 1996
Morwell Sawmill on Track Latrobe Valley Express Dec 12, 1996
MP attacks state over public land sell-off plan Age Nov 6, 1997
Water Catchment in private hands (Letter) Foster Mirror Oct 15, 1997
The Great Forest Sell off FoE, Fitzroy Newsletter, Dec, 1997 p.11
Forest land privatised, hearing told Age Feb 2, 1998
Forest sale open to all Herald/Sun March 17, 1998
State timber sell-off this year Age March 17, 1998
Victoria's State Plantations - Corporatised, Vested & on the verge of being privatised Environment
Victoria Newsletter, March 1998
Fear or Favour in VPC sale? Yarram Standard March 18, 1998
Look What's Happening To Our Forest Foster Mirror March 25, 1998
Forests sell-off Sentinel Times April 21, 1998
Do we want our forests sold off? Foster Mirror April 22, 1998
Locals demonstrate against privatisation of Strzelecki Forest Foster Mirror April 29, 1998
Protest anger at plantations law Herald Sun April 29, 1998
Locals protest at Strz forest sale Star May 5, 1998
Still hope for forest Sentinel Times May 5, 1998
Letter Sentinel Times May 5, 1998
Forest confusion reigns despite VPC assurances Yarram Standard May 13, 1998
Still hope for Strzelecki forest Yarram Standard May 13, 1998
Shire admits forest confusion Star May 19, 1998
VPC speaker addresses council Foster Mirror May 20, 1998
Davies takes forest fears to PM's taskforce Star May 26, 1998
Heat on govt over forests Sentinel Times May 26, 1998
Meeting on regional forest agreement Foster Mirror May 27, 1998
Susan Davies is fighting for our forest Foster Mirror May 27, 1998
Council acts on Strzeleckis Foster Mirror May 27, 1998
VPC official rejects local forest fears Yarram Standard May 27, 1998
Landcare awardee worries about Strz forest Star June 2, 1998 p.8
Strzelecki Forest Privatization Bill South Gippsland Conservation Society Newsletter, Autumn 98 Vol. 5-1
Victorian Plantations-Corporatised, Vested & on the verge of being Privatised South Gippsland Conservation Society Newsletter, Autumn 98
Dangers in Privatisation Weekly Times May 20, 1998
Fears for Strzeleckis at Forest Agreement Meeting Yarram Standard May 29, 1998
Strzelecki State Forest wil not go Mirboo North Times May 6, 1998
How will this affect the Strzeleckis? Foster Mirror June 10, 1998