THE GREATER GLIDER - OUR LATEST THREATENED SPECIES

The Greater Glider ( Petauroides voluns) with its two northern and southern subspecies, was once common across the east coast of Queensland, NSW and Victoria, from sea level to around 1,200m elevation.

Now, after a comprehensive 20-year monitoring program in conservation reserves, state forests and a range of forest types and ages, the Federal government has taken the Scientific Committee's advice and listed Greater Glider as a Vulnerable species under the  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

The glider, a pretty animal, might easily have raised the same awareness and public interest as the koala, only being a shy, dedicated nocturnal, hollow-dependent animal, it is rarely seen by anyone not out at night looking for them.

Despite its name, it is a light, fragile animal, with a head and body length of just over 30 cm, large furry ears, a long tail for steering and balance, and fine bones covered by a dense weightless fluffy coat. Single young are born between March to June each year, reach sexual maturity in their second year, and have an estimated age limit of 15 years.

Greater Gliders' home range is small, between1-4 ha, to 16ha in more open forests, yet they depend on large tracts of intact forest for survival, do not inhabit small remnant forests, and will not disperse through non-native vegetation.

The gliders are absent in areas with under 6 den hollows per hectare, and are now known to need at least 160 km² of connected native forest, with a ratio of 2-4 living old-growth hollow-bearing trees for every 2 ha, to sustain a viable population.

Also, through a high sensitivity to disturbance, and a poor ability to recover, and because most prime habitat is in areas best suited to timber production, the Scientific Committee's advice assigns a catastrophic consequence for the species by fragmentation and habitat loss through clearing, clear-fell logging and prescribed burning, and severe consequences by the current shorter rotation logging practices, frequent fires, and a gradual loss of remaining old dead stags.

In 2010 the gliders were absent from all surveyed sites after widespread state wildfires in 2009.

- Patricia Edwards

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on October 24, 2016  

REMOVAL OF FERAL PESTS FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA'S DIRK HARTOG ISLAND

Four hundred years ago Dirk Hartog, a captain with the Dutch East India Company, landed on the Western Australian coast on what is now called Dirk Hartog Island. The island was visited by further explorers including Willem de Vlamingh and William Dampier.

 

Dirk Hartog Island, now a national park in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area, is Western Australia’s largest island. It is 80 km long and 15 km at its widest point with an area of about 63,000 hectares.

When these early explorers landed on the island there were, according to subfossil records, 13 native mammal species living there.  Today there are just three.  The local extinctions have been the result of human activity including the introduction of goats, sheep and cats.  By 2009, when it became a national park, the island’s goat population had expanded to an estimated 10,000 and the impact of these animals grazing and trampling on the native vegetation had been very severe.

“Return to 1616” is an ambitious $16.3 million project to eradicate all feral animals from the island and return the 10 locally extinct species – including the Woylie, Chuditch (Western Quoll), Dibbler and Western Barred Bandicoot – to the island. There are also plans to introduce two other threatened species, the Banded Hare-wallaby and the Rufous Hare-wallaby, from neighbouring islands in order to aid their conservation.

Two-thirds of the funding for the project comes from an offset which was a condition for Chevron’s Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island and a third from Western Australia’s Department of Parks and Wildlife.

The project has used a variety of methods to remove the feral animals.  “Judas” goats wearing radio collars have been used to locate goats for aerial shooting programs. Methods such as pheromone lures and mouse sound effects have been used to trap cats while baiting has also eradicated many of these pests.  Infra-red motion cameras and cat-detector dogs have also been used to detect cats.

Species introduction will only take place after the project operators are sure that the cat menace has been completely removed and the native vegetation has had time to recover.

            -  Leonie Blain

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on September 26, 2016 

HIGHWAY UPGRADE THROUGH CLARENCE VALLEY TO DEVASTATE WILDLIFE

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), an agency of the NSW Government, is upgrading the Pacific Highway in the north of the state.  The proposal for the upgrade of the 155 km section from Woolgoolga, north of Coffs Harbour, to Ballina recently went on public exhibition. 

The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition has grave concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed route of this upgrade through the Clarence Valley.   Below is part of the CVCC’s submission on the proposal.

A.  COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - GLENUGIE TO THE  ILUKA TURNOFF

1. The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition opposes the proposed highway route through the Clarence Valley because of the severe impact it will have on the biodiversity of the area.

2. The 48 km of the route from Glenugie to the Clarence River will have a devastating effect on flora and fauna. 

• Around 948 hectares of vegetation will be cleared in an area important for its biodiversity. Threatened  flora species to be destroyed include Square-fruited Ironbark and Weeping Paperbark.

• Vegetation to be cleared includes 337 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs).  Amongst these EECs are sections of Nationally Listed  Lowland Rainforest.

• The Endangered Coastal Emu (with an existing population of only about 100 birds in the Clarence Valley) will have its range bisected by the highway. This almost certainly will have a disastrous effect on this remnant population.

• More than 80 other threatened species will be impacted by the chosen route.   Some species relying on this area for habitat include the Rufous Bettong, Powerful Owl, Yellow-bellied Glider, Grey-crowned Babbler, Diamond Firetail, Black-chinned Honeyeater, Brown Treecreeper and Squirrel Glider.

3.  At a time when scientists and members of the community are becoming increasingly concerned about extinctions and the threat of extinctions as well as general biodiversity loss, we need to be taking a much more precautionary approach to developments which are certain to have severe impacts on the natural world.

4. The CVCC is concerned that the RMS has chosen from its original list of possible routes the one which will cause the most severe environmental damage.

5. While social and economic factors need to be considered in route selection, it is important to remember that both the economy and society are subsets of the environment.  Neither will continue in a healthy state if the environment continues to be damaged.  It is not just this one development – damaging as it will be – but the cumulative impact of many developments which place unreasonable stress on the natural world.

6. The CVCC believes that the least damaging route environmentally would have been the orange route in the original list – the route which follows the existing highway.  Construction of the highway upgrade in the Kempsey area clearly indicates that such a route, with the highway raised to limit problems with flooding, is possible.  While this may be dismissed as being too expensive, there is the question of valuing the environment and biodiversity loss along the route already chosen by the RMS.  The true cost of the chosen route has not been assessed because the cost of the environmental damage that is inevitable has not been factored in.

B. COMMENTS ON SOME OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES

1. The Endangered Coastal Emu

The CVCC is very concerned about the mitigation measures proposed for the endangered coastal emu.

• There is no certainty that the underpasses described in the documentation will be an effective measure in allowing the emus access to their range.  As well as the issue of whether the species will use an underpass, there is the issue of the location of these structures to suit the birds’ movement pattern.

• ·        The RMS (former RTA) has known about the coastal emu issue in the Clarence Valley for years and the fact that its highway upgrade will impact on this species. However, it has not undertaken or, as far as we know, moved to have undertaken any scientific studies of this species until very recently.  Moreover this recent satellite-tracking study of young birds raised in captivity has been a failure. It did not run its intended course, largely, as we understand it, because of the mortality of a number of the subject emus. The RMS’ lack of commitment to any research on this matter is extremely disappointing and does not augur well for its mitigation proposals.

2. Off-sets

• ·          The CVCC acknowledges that offsets are supported by government instrumentalities and developers as a way to expedite developments in areas with important natural values which will be destroyed or severely damaged by developments.

• ·        However, it cannot be logically argued that providing another area as compensation will result in no net biodiversity loss.  Quite obviously biodiversity lost in one area cannot be relaced by biodiversity already existing in another area.

• ·        And net biodiversity loss is a major issue. Scientists and members of the community are concerned about this and about the cumulative impact of biodiversity loss across the nation.

• ·        Governments and their instrumentalities continue to pay lipservice to the concept of ecologically sustainable development and its principles but, in reality, little has changed.  Putting in place measures such as off-sets merely gives the appearance that something positive is being done.

• ·        Even if off-sets were a valid compensation for loss of ecosystems, there is always the problem of finding the equivalent or even near-equivalent ecosystems to use as off-sets.  Where, for example, will the RMS or its agents find suitable offsets for the Clarence Lowland Rainforest EECs ?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition strongly opposes the chosen route for the Pacific Highway through the Clarence Valley because of the devastating environmental impact this development with have on an area with significant remnant native vegetation which provides habitat for a broad range of fauna, including many which are threatened.