Approved Area Management Plan - Department of Energy and ... · Peter Whip & Associates • Business Consultants • Planners • Valuers 33 Duck Street Longreach 4730 Telephone 07

Approved Area Management Plan

Title Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall-Tambo and Barcoo Shires Thinning and Encroachment Area Management Plan

Reference no: 2012/004206

Approved 29 July 2012

Entity/ies Sue Akers Desert Channels Queensland Inc PO Box 601 LONGREACH QLD 4730

Area Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall-Tambo and Barcoo Shires

Relevant purpose To control non-native plants or declared pests

To ensure public safety

To establish a necessary fence, firebreak, road or vehicular track

To clear an encroachment

For thinning

For fodder harvesting, other than on a part of the proposed area that is restricted (fodder harvesting) land

Plan period For a period of 10 years from the date of approval

Mandatory condition(s) Not applicable

Additional condition(s) Not applicable

Peter Whip & Associates • Business Consultants • Planners • Valuers 33 Duck Street Longreach 4730

Telephone 07 4658 1512 Fax 07 4658 0427 Email: [email protected]

Application For Area Management Plan

Desert Channels Queensland

OnePlan Pilot project

PRW Agribusiness Longreach Page 2

Prepared By: Peter Whip & Damian Arthur

PRW Agribusiness Longreach

33 Duck Street, Longreach Qld 4730 Tel: 07 4658 1512 Fax: 07 4658 0427

Email: [email protected]

May 2012


Table of Contents

Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Process ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Issues with existing thinning process .............................................................................................................. 6 AMP Proposal Thinning ................................................................................................................................... 7 AMP Proposal Encroachment ......................................................................................................................... 8 Mapping and Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 9 Meeting the Performance Requirements of the Code .................................................................................. 10 Thinning ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Encroachment ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Training and Field Days/Workshops ............................................................................................................. 18

Annexure 1 – Table 5 of RVMC for Western Bioregions ............................................................................... 19 Annexure 2 – Table Stem Densities for Various Regional Ecosystems ......................................................... 25 Annexure 3 – Line Plots for Stem Density – from DERM Draft landholders Guide to Thinning Applications. .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Annexure 4 – Identification of Wetland Zones from DERM Landholder Guide to Fodder Harvesting Applications ................................................................................................................................ 28 Annexure 5 – Definitions from Glossary of Terms ‐ Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2 .................................................................................................................... 29 Annexure 6 – Area Management Clearing Notification Form ....................................................................... 36

Background This project relates particularly to an area of the Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion stretching from Winton to Tambo and covering Regional Ecosystems 4.3.8, 4.3.23, 4.9.7, 4.9.7a, 4.9.8, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 in Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall‐Tambo and Barcoo Shires. This area comprises primarily grassland and associated riparian areas within the Desert Channels region. The cracking clay soils in these areas support a very high diversity of large elapid snakes (front‐fanged, venomous species), several endemic reptile species, and very high densities of a number of grassland birds and small marsupials. Many distinctive species are found only in the grasslands, including Collett’s snake (Pseudechis colletti), the Julia Creek dunnart (Sminthopsis douglasi), long‐tailed planigale (Planigale ingrami) and the skink (Ctenotus schevilli). Much of the biodiversity of the region is based on healthy grassland ecosystems ‐ many of our regions reptile species are “crack dwellers” and rely on healthy grass cover to provide protection during the wet season when the cracking clay soils “close up”. Birds and smaller fauna rely on the crack dwelling reptiles as a food source etc. Vegetation thickening and/or encroachment leads to reduced/no grass leading to no crack dwelling reptiles etc leading to a breakdown in the food chain across most species in these ecosystems. In the associated riparian areas, healthy vegetation structure and wetlands are regarded as being of high importance for the maintenance of biodiversity at a local and regional level, in terms of wildlife corridors and habitat (much of it being mapped by the Environmental Protection Agency as ‘Of Concern’ biodiversity status). Vegetation thickening which began with the big wet seasons of the 1950's has had a significant detrimental effect on the biodiversity of riparian ecosystems with substantial areas now impacted heavily by thick gidyea seedling growth in particular. DCQ shares the concerns of landholders in the region in relation to vegetation thickening within woodlands and encroachment onto grasslands. It is clearly evident that large areas of this region which were once lightly wooded have experienced serious loss of biodiversity through vegetation thickening and/or encroachment. This has been particularly concerning in the riparian regional ecosystems, some of which now appear to be beyond remediation. There is provision under existing legislation for landholders to apply for Development Permits to thin woodlands where vegetation has thickened and to clear vegetation that has encroached within and on to grasslands. However for some time landholders have been concerned with the effectiveness of the process currently required to obtain permits to treat vegetation that has thickened or encroached. It has been a time consuming and costly process for landholders to gather the extensive amount of data required to prepare applications and often requires the assistance (and considerable expense) of consultants. Similarly it is likely that it is very costly and time‐consuming for DNRM to assess the applications and time frames for assessment of these applications have become very lengthy. With this in mind, land managers in the region welcomed new legislation introduced last year to allow for the preparation of Area Management Plans (AMP) aimed at streamlining the process and reducing cost and timeframes for assessment of these types of applications. An AMP, once approved for an area, will give land managers the option to self assess thickening and encroachment for stipulated regional ecosystems and undertake vegetation management in line with the AMP without the need for the lengthy application process. This will improve the administrative process associated with land managers being able to maintain the integrity of these regional ecosystems which are currently under threat.


Process We sought involvement from landholders in the trial to have input and “road test” the new process. We were looking for landholders who:

• were located in the relevant area • had an interest in vegetation management • preferably had undertaken thinning or clearing in the past • preferably were willing to undertake thinning in the near future (within the next 18 months).

We were overwhelmed with responses and our working group included 20 landholders from across the region. We have accepted feedback and input from all 20 landholders and where practical and within the scope of the legislation have incorporated this feedback into this application. Landholder involvement has centred around having input to this application for AMP via teleconference, email and face to face discussions and landholders have had the opportunity to comment on proposals that have been developed to meet the requirements for the AMP to be approved. We have now collated these responses and incorporated them into this draft application, which we believe addresses and meets the Performance Requirements of Parts E and T of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions ‐version 2 6 November 2009 . When/if the AMP is approved, DCQ and PRW Agribusiness will hold several joint field days as an education/awareness process to expose landholders to the process and assist with training for self assessment and treatment of vegetation that has thickened or encroached. In this next phase of the project we will carry out ground truthing of the AMP process on several properties and will provide stem counts etc to allow land managers to self assess thickening and/or encroachment on their property and assist them with mapping etc to confidently carry out treatment under the AMP if/when approved.


Issues with existing thinning process The current process is extremely time consuming and much of this is related to the extensive information required to meet Performance Requirement T.2 i.e. to demonstrate thickening. This is partly due to the subjectivity and ambiguity in Acceptable Solution T.2 surrounding interpretation of past and present imagery to support a percentage increase in crown cover. At present after lengthy presentation of information and interpretation and checking by DNRM staff, if thickening can be satisfactorily demonstrated and the performance requirements are met, a Development Permit to thin will be issued. The permit will normally be issued with the requirement to retain immature tree densities in line with the structure category for that regional ecosystem as per Table 7 of the code (shown below). This is to generate a result with an appropriate immature tree density in line with the structure of the particular regional ecosystem as specified in the REDD.

So regardless of the information supplied and lengthy interpretation by the landholder, his consultant and DNRM Staff, we end up with an already known immature tree retention density at the end of the process (based on Table 7). Our working group considers it is more expedient to adopt for each regional ecosystem an agreed immature tree density that demonstrates thickening and an agreed immature tree retention density as a pragmatic approach to meet Performance Requirements T2 and T6 and ensure a meaningful outcome for the environment and the land manager. We are confident that our proposal will achieve at least the same result as the existing process but in a much more efficient and straight forward manner.


AMP Proposal ‐ Thinning The regional ecosystems covered by the thinning AMP proposal are gidyea regional ecosystems. All regional ecosystems have a description which is accessible to the public via the Department of Natural Resources and Mines website http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife‐ecosystems/biodiversity/regional_ecosystems/ ‐ these descriptions include a Structure Category as referred to in Table 7 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions‐ version 2. Our experience is that under the present assessment process for thinning applications, the structure category is used to determine the number of immature trees per hectare to be retained. The immature tree densities in Table 7 of the code are the effective outcome of what can be a long and laborious process to establish whether thickening has occurred. Our initial approach to the thinning component of this AMP proposed using data relating to structure category as the key evidence to demonstrate vegetation thickening and set immature tree retention rates. Table 7 sets a clear benchmark which up until now was not open to interpretation. We considered that we could remove much of the complicated and ambiguous assessment process by using these immature tree density values as the benchmark i.e. if the area has an immature tree stem density higher than the density shown in Table 7, plus the 30% increase as required in PR T.2, then the area should be accepted as having thickened. We are proposing that a 30% increase in the density of immature trees represents at least a similar increase in the shrub layer woody species crown cover. (We considered that this was a clearer more straightforward approach than the use of reference sites as the reference site approach is too ambiguous and too complex for the average land manager to address adequately. In some areas of our region, for some regional ecosystems, it is virtually impossible to find reference sites such is the extent of gidyea thickening across the landscape. This has contributed significantly to the lengthy assessment process for thinning applications in this region and has resulted in a high degree of frustration for both land managers and departmental staff.) However, after discussions with the department, we have modified this approach to provide more rigour in the AMP’s ability to meet the performance requirements of the code and be more relevant on ground at a point within a regional ecosystem. We have discarded the Table 7 retention rates which we regard as too broad for this purpose. We have used instead immature stem retention densities derived from data in the Vegetation Survey of Queensland Central Western Queensland VJ Neldner Queensland Botany Bulletin No 9 1991. We are proposing the immature tree densities shown in columns 1 and 2 of Annexure 2 as the level which must be retained and the level at which thickening will have been demonstrated. Using Neldner 1991 we have researced the floristic association for each AMP regional ecosystem and have proposed a retention rate of one immature tree per the average number of mature trees per ha.The proposed Adopted Acceptable Solution for PR T.6 has been written to reflect this and ensure the natural floristic composition of the regional ecosystem has been assessed and can be restored ..


http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/biodiversity/regional_ecosystems/

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/biodiversity/regional_ecosystems/

AMP Proposal ‐ Encroachment We initially sought to include small areas of encroachment under the thinning AMP as we had feedback from the landholders on the group that it was virtually impossible to get two dozers (common method to treat encroachment is two dozers and chain) to come to their properties for small areas (less that 1000 hectares). Consequently most landholders end up using a single machine for small areas of encroachment even though legislation permits the use of the cheaper option (two dozers and chain) for treatment of encroachment. After some discussion and the preparation of documentation to support this encroachment section of the AMP, the group asked that we prepare the encroachment section in such a manner that it could apply to all areas of encroachment, not just small areas. The requirements of the code are such that encroachment must be demonstrated using comparison of aerial photography or imagery and it was considered by the group that the encroachment provisions of the AMP that we had prepared to meet the requirements of the code particularly for smaller areas as mentioned above, would be suitable for both small and larger areas. Consequently we have now included provision in this AMP to cover treatment of encroachment vegetation in three of the regional ecosystems listed in Table `1


Practical example ‐ Thinning Interpretation of the up to date Regional Ecosystem map covering their land supported by information from the Regional Ecosystem Decsription Database has enabled a land manager to identify the relevant regional ecosystem they are seeking to thin. Next they ascertain that the regional ecosystem is one of those covered by the AMP and proceed to Column 2 of Annexure 2 to find out the density of immature trees which would indicate a “trigger point” for thickening i.e. a density of immature trees which must be present before it can be deemed that thickening has been demonstrated. They carry out line plots to determine the number of mature and immature trees per ha in the target area and use this information to determine if thickening is established, and if so, calculate the retention ratio by working out how many immature trees need to be retained for each mature tree to meet the retention density set out in column 1 of Annexure 2. For example:

Regional Ecosystem 4.9.16Structure Category Mid denseProposed immature tree density which demonstrates thickening has occurred, as per Annexure 2 AMP

455 stems per ha

Proposed immature tree retention density as per Annexure 2 AMP

350 stems per ha

Average immature tree density measured on line plots

2000 stems per ha

Average mature tree density measured on line plots

200 stems per ha

Status Vegetation has clearly thickened Action Thin in line with AMP, mature trees to be retained

and 350 immature trees per ha to be retained in even configuration by retaining 2 immature trees per dead or alive mature tree. Other PR's to be met as Adopted Acceptable Solutions in AMP.

Mapping and Documentation Any land holder seeking to treat vegetation under this AMP, will need to map the area and complete an Area Management Clearing Notification (see Annexure 6) and submit it to the department prior to carrying out any clearing under this AMP.


Meeting the Performance Requirements of the Code There have been significant examples of mechanical thinning work done in the region along with treatment of encroaching vegetation with sound outcomes to date. These “tried and true” methods have previously been demonstrated to meet the requirements of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2. We submit the following acceptable solutions to meet the requirements of the code for our application for an Area Management Plan covering thinning in Gidgee Regional Ecosystems 4.3.8, 4.3.23, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 and encroachment in Regional Ecosystems 4.9.7, 4.9.7a and 4.9.8 in Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall‐Tambo and Barcoo Shires.

Thinning Thinning means the selective clearing of vegetation at a locality to restore a regional ecosystem to the floristic composition and range of densities typical of the regional ecosystem surrounding that locality. The term does not include using a chain or cable linked between 2 tractors, bulldozers or other traction engines. Performance requirement Acceptable solution (AS)

What is currently accepted by DERM Adopted Acceptable solution (ASS) for Area Management Plan What we propose under this AMP

PR T.1: Clearing limited to specific regional ecosystems To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—clearing for the purpose of thinning does not occur in the regional ecosystems listed in Table 5, except where clearing is solely for removing native plants not indigenous to the bioregion.

Regional Ecosystems 4.3.8, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 are not listed in Table 5 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2.

As per Acceptable solution at left. Table 5 is attached as Annexure 1. RE 4.3.23 is listed in Table 5 but advice from DNRM indicates that this is an anomalywhich is expected to be rectified by the end of 2012. DNRM have advised that they will be developing an operational policy which will allow applications for thinning in RE 4.3.23 and in that way this AMP will be consistent with that operational policy.

PR T.2: Vegetation Density To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—clearing only occurs where there is an increase of greater than 30% in the cover or density of vegetation within the application area when compared with the cover or density of vegetation typical of the same regional ecosystem surrounding that locality.

AS T.2 AS T.2.1 Clearing only occurs in areas where— there is an increase of greater than 30% in the woody species crown cover determined by comparison of the most recent suitable imagery of the application area with past suitable imagery of the application area; or b) the woody species crown cover is greater than 70% on past suitable imagery, and the stem density of immature trees is greater than 1000 stems per hectare; or c) the total application area is less than 15 hectares and there is a stem density of immature trees and woody plants greater than 250 stems in each 50 metre x 50 metre (0.25 hectare) area.

AAS T.2.1 Mechanical clearing will only occur where there is demonstrated thickening i.e. the density of immature trees (gidgee)per ha is greater than 30% above the relevant retention density set out in column 1 of Annexure 2 of this AMP. An increase of greater than 30% in the density of immature gidgee trees would mean a stem density of immature trees per hectare for the various regional ecosystems as shown in column 2 of Annexure 2. Density of vegetation within the application area will be determined by measuring line plots to calculate the average tree density or stem count. Instructions for conducting line plots are contained in Annexure 3.


PR T.3: Wetlands To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—assessable vegetation associated with any natural significant wetland, natural wetland is protected to maintain— a) water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and other pollutants; and b) aquatic habitat; and c) terrestrial habitat.

AS T.3 Clearing does not occur— a) in any natural wetland; and b) within 100 metres from any natural wetland; and c) in any natural significant wetland; and d) within 200 metres of any natural significant wetland.

AAS T.3 a)regional ecosystems 4.3.8, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 are not listed in Table 13 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2 and b)there are no significant wetlands within the area covered by the Area Management Plan and c)there are no active springs in or immediately adjacent to the gidgee regional ecosystems covered by this Area Management Plan and d)there are no Ramsar wetlands within the area covered by the Area Management Plan OR AAS T.3.1 Where it is necessary to mechanically clear in a natural wetland the Performance Requirement will be met by a)identifying the three wetland zones according to the figure shown below (Figure 8 from the DERM Landholders Guide to fodder harvesting applications –see also Annexure 4)

and b)avoiding any clearing in Zone C and restricting clearing to Zone B i.e. riparian associated vegetation and Zone A i.e. surrounding vegetation and c)not removing mature trees and d)minimising soil disturbance and maintaining ground cover ‐dead or alive and e)operating machinery in a manner that will avoid accelerated erosion and f)clearing during the dry season to avoid soil compaction and to ensure the area will revegetate before the next wet season and g)ensuring no pollutants, such as fuel or oil, enter the wetland and h)maintaining the shade environment and litter fall directly adjacent to Zone C


PR T.4: Watercourses To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation, prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—assessable vegetation associated with any watercourse is protected to maintain— a) bank stability by protecting against bank erosion; and b) water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and other pollutants; and c) aquatic habitat; and d) terrestrial habitat.

AS T.4 T.4.1 Mechanical clearing does not occur in the regional ecosystems listed in Table 6. Regional Ecosystems 4.3.8, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 are not listed in Table 6 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2

AAS T.4 Where it is necessary to mechanically clear assessable vegetation (i.e. seedling gidgee) associated with a watercourse the Performance Requirement will be met by: a)not clearing between the high banks of the watercourse and b)maintaining an uncleared buffer along each bank of a distance equivalent to three times the height of the watercourse bank and c)not removing mature trees and d)minimising soil disturbance and maintaining ground cover ‐dead or alive and e)operating machinery in a manner that will avoid accelerated erosion and f)clearing during the dry season to avoid soil compaction and to ensure the area will revegetate before the next wet season and g)ensuring no pollutants, such as fuel or oil, enter the watercourse

PR T.5: Soil erosion To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation and maintains ecological processes—the effect of clearing does not result in— a) mass movement, gully erosion, rill erosion, sheet erosion, tunnel erosion, stream bank erosion, wind erosion, or scalding; and b) any associated loss of chemical, physical or biological fertility— including, but not limited to water holding capacity, soil structure, organic matter, soil biology, and nutrients, within and/or outside the lot(s) that are the subject of the application.

AS T.5. T.5.1 Mechanical clearing only occurs on— a) stable soils on a slope less than 10%; and b) unstable soils on a slope less than 3%; and c) very unstable soils on a slope less than 1%.

AAS T.5 AAST.5.1 Regional ecosystems 4.3.8, 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 4.9.11, 4.9.16, 5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1 soils are Dermosols, Hydrosols, Chromosols or Vertosols which are either Stable or Unstable as defined in Table 14 Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2. To meet the Performance Requirement mechanical clearing in all regional ecosystems will only occur on stable and unstable soils on a slope less than 3%. Published technical data for each land zone 7 and 9 regional ecosystem describes the landform as flat to gently undulating plains or low hills and associated plains. The low hills and associated plains of 4.9.16 are described in the full description of the regional ecosystem "with slopes between 1‐3%". It follows that the other land zone 7 and 9 regional ecosystems and the streams that drain them i.e. the land zone 3 regional ecosystems, must be less than or equal to 3% slope. To meet the Performance Requirement and simplify the self assessment process 3% has been adopted as the upper limit for mechanical clearing. Where landholders have any doubt in this regard, slope will be measured using a clinometers to assess that slope in the area to be thinned is less than 3%.


PR T.6 Conserving remnant vegetation that are regional ecosystems To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes, clearing activities— a) maintain the natural floristic composition and range of sizes of each species of the regional ecosystem evenly spaced across the application area; and b) do not remove mature trees.

AS T.6 T.6.1. Clearing— a) does not remove mature trees; and b) does not remove immature trees below the relevant density in Table 7; and c) occurs in a configuration that evenly retains in each 50 metre x 50 metre area the range of sizes of each of the species, except for native plants not indigenous to the bioregion.

AAS T.6 AAS T.6.1 To meet the Performance Requirement mechanical clearing ‐ a)will not remove mature trees (trees with stem diameter greater than 20cm at 1.3m height) and b)will not remove immature trees below the relevant density in Annexure 2; and c)will only commence after sufficient line plots have been undertaken to determine the natural density of the regional ecosystem by calculating the average number of mature trees (dead and alive) per ha; and d) will retain the relevant density of immature trees in Annexure 2 as a ratio of immature trees to mature trees:and e)will retain the relevant density of immature trees in Annexure 2 in a configuration that is consistent with the spacing of the mature trees; and f)will retain the relevant density of immature trees in Annexure 2 in the range of sizes for each of the species. Based on existing district standards, this clearing will generally be undertaken using: 1. Single machine with 20’/6 metre

stick rake. 2. 20’/6 metre clearing bar towed

behind single machine. 3. Chain saw in small areas.

PR T.7: Acid sulfate soils To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation and maintains ecological processes, clearing activities do not result in disturbance of acid sulfate soils or changes to the hydrology of the location that will either— a) aerate horizons containing iron sulfides; or b) mobilise acid and/or metals.

AS T.7 T.7.1 Clearing in land zone 1, land zone 2 or land zone 3 in areas below 5 metre Australian Height Datum— a) is carried out in accordance with an acid sulfate soils environmental management plan as outlined in the State Planning Policy 2/02 Guideline: Planning and Managing Development involving Acid Sulfate Soils; and b) follows management principles in accordance with the Soil Management Guidelines in the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual.

AAS T.7 T.7.1 The Performance Requirement is met as the Area Management Plan does not cover any Land Zone 1 or Land Zone 2 regional ecosystems and none of the Land Zone 3 regional ecosystems are below 5 metre Australian Height Datum.


Encroachment Encroachment means a woody species that has invaded an area of a grassland regional ecosystem to an extent the area is no longer consistent with the description of the regional ecosystem. Performance Requirement Acceptable Solution Adopted Acceptable Solution PR E.1: Clearing limited to specific regional ecosystems To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that conserves remnant vegetation that are regional ecosystems, does not cause land degradation, prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—clearing for the purpose of encroachment only occurs in the regional ecosystems listed in Table 1.

AAS E.1 Propose to clear encroachment only in Regional Ecosystems 4.9.7, 4.9.7a and 4.9.8 which are listed in Table 1.

PR E.2: Mature trees To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—clearing does not remove mature trees.

AAS E.2 To meet the Performance Requirement mechanical clearing will not remove mature trees. Based on existing district standards, this clearing will generally be undertaken using:

1. Single machine with 20’/6 metre stick rake.

2. 20’/6 metre clearing bar towed behind single machine.

3. Chain saw in small areas. 4. Two dozers and chain

PR E.3: Demonstrated encroachment To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that conserves remnant vegetation that are regional ecosystems, does not cause land degradation, prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—clearing only occurs in areas where there is demonstrated encroachment.

AAS E.3 Clearing will only occur in areas of demonstrated encroachment which will be determined by: a) comparison of historical—greater than 10 years old—and recent—less than 10 years old—aerial photography or satellite imagery that shows the application area at a scale and clarity to allow for accurate measurement of an increase in the extent of woody vegetation within the application area; or b) the presence of woody species within the application area that are not listed in the regional ecosystem’s full description in the Regional Ecosystem Description Database.


PR E.4: Wetlands To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—assessable vegetation associated with any natural significant wetland, natural wetland is protected to maintain— a) water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and other pollutants; and b) aquatic habitat; and c) terrestrial habitat.

AS E.4 AS E.4.1 Clearing does not occur— a) in any natural wetland; and b) within 100 metres from any natural wetland; and c) in any natural significant wetland; and d) within 200 metres from any natural significant wetland. OR AS E.4.2 Clearing is limited to native plants that are not indigenous to the bioregion.

AAS E.4 AAS E.4.1 a)regional ecosystems 4.9.7, 4.9.7a and 4.9.8 are not listed in Table 13 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2 and b)there are no significant wetlands within the area covered by the Area Management Plan and c)there are no active springs in or immediately adjacent to the boree/gidgee regional ecosystems covered by this Area Management Plan and d)there are no Ramsar wetlands within the area covered by the Area Management Plan OR AAS E.4.2 Where it is necessary to mechanically clear in a natural wetland the Performance Requirement will be met by a)identifying the three wetland zones according to the figure shown below (Figure 8 from the DERM Landholders Guide to fodder harvesting applications –see also Annexure 4)

and b)avoiding any clearing in Zone C and restricting clearing to Zone B i.e. riparian associated vegetation and Zone A i.e. surrounding vegetation and c)not removing mature trees and d)minimising soil disturbance and maintaining ground cover ‐dead or alive and e)operating machinery in a manner that will avoid accelerated erosion and f)clearing during the dry season to avoid soil compaction and to ensure the area will revegetate before the next wet season and g)ensuring no pollutants, such as fuel or oil, enter the wetland and h)maintaining the shade environment and litter fall directly adjacent to Zone C h) using only either:

1. Single machine with 20’/6 metre stick rake;

2. 20’/6 metre clearing bar towed behind single machine or;

3. Chain saw in small areas.


PR E.5: Watercourses To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation, prevents the loss of biodiversity and maintains ecological processes—assessable vegetation associated with any watercourse is protected to maintain— a) bank stability by protecting against bank erosion; and b) water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and other pollutants; and c) aquatic habitat; and d) terrestrial habitat.

AS E.5 AS E.5.1 Clearing does not occur— a) in any watercourse; and b) within 200 metres from each high bank of each watercourse with a stream order 5 or greater; and c) within 100 metres from each high bank of each watercourse with a stream order 3 or 4; and d) within 50 metres from each high bank of each watercourse with a stream order 1 or 2. OR AS E.5.2 Clearing is limited to native plants that are not indigenous to the bioregion.

AAS E.5 AAS E.5.1 Where it is necessary to mechanically clear assessable vegetation (i.e. seedling gidgee or boree) associated with a watercourse the Performance Requirement will be met by: a)not clearing between the high banks of the watercourse and b)maintaining an uncleared buffer along each bank of a distance equivalent to three times the height of the watercourse bank and c)not removing mature trees and d)minimising soil disturbance and maintaining ground cover ‐dead or alive and e)operating machinery in a manner that will avoid accelerated erosion and f)clearing during the dry season to avoid soil compaction and to ensure the area will revegetate before the next wet season and g)ensuring no pollutants, such as fuel or oil, enter the watercourse and h) using only either:

1. Single machine with 20’/6 metre stick rake;

2. 20’/6 metre clearing bar towed behind single machine or;

3. Chain saw in small areas.

PR E.6: Soil erosion To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation and maintains ecological processes —the effect of clearing does not result in— a) mass movement, gully erosion, rill erosion, sheet erosion, tunnel erosion, stream bank erosion, wind erosion, or scalding; and b) any associated loss of chemical, physical or biological fertility— including, but not limited to water holding capacity, soil structure, organic matter, soil biology, and nutrients, within and/or outside the lot(s) that are the subject of the application.

AS E.6 AS E.6.1 Mechanical clearing only occurs on— a) stable soils on a slope less than 10%; and b) unstable soils on a slope less than 3%; and c) very unstable soils on a slope less than 1%. OR AS E.6.2 Clearing is limited to native plants that are not indigenous to the bioregion.

AAS E.6 AASE.6.1 Regional ecosystems 4.9.7, 4.9.7a and 4.9.8 soils are Dermosols, Hydrosols, Chromosols or Vertosols which are either Stable or Unstable as defined in Table 14 Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2. To meet the Performance Requirement mechanical clearing in all regional ecosystems will only occur on stable and unstable soils on a slope less than 3%. Published technical data for each land zone 9 regional ecosystem describes the landform as flat to gently undulating plains with slope less than 3%. To meet the Performance Requirement and simplify the self assessment process 3% has been adopted as the upper limit for mechanical clearing. Where landholders have any doubt in this regard, slope will be measured using a clinometers to assess that slope in the area to be treated is less than 3%.


PR E.7: Acid sulfate soils To regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that does not cause land degradation and maintains ecological processes, clearing activities do not result in disturbance of acid sulfate soils or changes to the hydrology of the location that will either— a) aerate horizons containing iron sulfides; or b) mobilise acid and/or metals.

AS E.7 E.7.1 Clearing in land zone 1, land zone 2 or land zone 3 in areas below 5 metre Australian Height Datum— a) is carried out in accordance with an acid sulfate soils environmental management plan as outlined in the State Planning Policy 2/02 Guideline: Planning and Managing Development involving Acid Sulfate Soils; and b) follows management principles in accordance with the Soil Management Guidelines in the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual.

AAS E.7 E.7.1 The Performance Requirement is met as the encroachment component of this Area Management Plan does not cover any Land Zone 1, Land Zone 2 or Land Zone 3 regional ecosystems.



Training and Field Days/Workshops DCQ will facilitate training days and/or workshops to provide training in the use of the AMP once the AMP is approved. These will cover areas such as:

• Use of the RE database to identify structure category and retention densities • Carrying out stem counts • Acceptable solutions for the region

DCQ will have sufficient skilled personnel to carry out stem counts for those graziers who do not possess and are unable to obtain the skills themselves to carry out stem counts etc.

Annexure 1 – Table 5 of RVMC for Western Bioregions







Annexure 2 – Table Stem Densities for Various Regional Ecosystems Recommended density based on floristic composition as per Neldner 1991.

Regional Ecosystem

Column 1 This is the minimum density of immature trees

per ha to be retained under any thinning operation

Column 2 Thickening is demonstrated when density of immature trees per hareaches this level

5.7.7 and 5.7.7x1

215 stems ‐ maintain crown cover above 15% 280 stems per ha

4.9.16 350 stems ‐ maintain crown cover above 15% 455 stems per ha






ALL Mature Trees (as per Code) are retained (that is trees with greater than 20cm diameter at 1.3m height)

ALL Maintain range of species and size classes

ALL No loss of integrity to the ecosystem


Annexure 3 – Line Plots for Stem Density – from DERM Draft landholders Guide to Thinning Applications.



Annexure 4 – Identification of Wetland Zones from DERM Landholder Guide to Fodder Harvesting Applications


Annexure 5 – Definitions from Glossary of Terms ‐ Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions – version 2








Annexure 6 – Area Management Clearing Notification Form



Documents

Approved Area Management Plan - Department of Energy and ... · Peter Whip & Associates • Business Consultants • Planners • Valuers 33 Duck Street Longreach 4730 Telephone 07