There seems to be an exponential growth in the number of EEC's I have just found out that a study I did for a development about 18 months ago the vegetation community is now classified as an TEC at the time I did the study it was'nt but the development still hasn't been lodged so I informed the client that it is now an TEC and awaiting his reply, will wear ear muffs when he calls!

Just a quick note on TECs (not EECs anymore) and how their definitions are open to some interpretation...  I was dealing with a saltmarsh issue and needed to clarify if some scattered Sarcocornia quinquinerva plants located in the upper part of a stormwater drain constitute the TEC.  (The drains are artificaily created as is the whole shoreline in this section of the Tuggerah Lake, the saltmarsh here has established itself).

The answer from both Council and DECC (Gosford) was "yes", (even though the area in question is not conducive for saltmarsh - wrong slope, to much shade and high densitites of Phragmites reed - in other words if you wanted to rehabilitate the saltmarsh around the lake you wouldn't make the upslope areas of the stormwater drains the focus...)

The reason I was given was that due to climate change, the saltmarsh distribution is likley to change, ie. move upshore and so we need to start thinking about that now ( I guess this is the precautionary principle).

So if you're dealing with saltmarsh, beware that this may also include an area 20-30m upslope from where the saltmarsh community currently is.

Posted on behalf of Judie Rawling:

WHEN A SINGLE TREE CAN CONSTITUTE AN ENDANGERED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Important questions have been raised in recent dealings with a number of Sydney councils in areas which prior to urbanisation, supported stands of Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) and other plant communities now listed as Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs).   Very conservative interpretations of the Final Determinations of the NSW Scientific Committee by some individuals has pointed to all sorts of ethical issues for ecological consultants, and presents a myriad of practical problems for members of the community who happen to live in those areas.  

To further complicate matters, a recent Land & Environment Court decision to recognize a heritage-listed house and garden on Sydney’s North Shore as a BGHF community and to support DECC in requiring its return to ‘bushland’ on the basis that some representative native canopy trees had been retained in the arboretum established in the late 19^th century, raises alarm bells for anyone who has retained native trees on their property, or those who have followed the trend to planting local native species.  For the BGHF and other EECs, the fundamental problem appears to be a very narrow, and in my opinion ill-considered, interpretation of some elements of the Final Determinations.  

For the ‘critically endangered’ BGHF in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, problems centre largely on Item 9, which reads (in part) “Highly modified relics of the community also persist as small clumps of trees without a native understorey”; and Item 11, which reads (in part) “A number of stands of Blue Gum Forests have highly modified understories, in which the native woody component has been largely replaced by woody exotic species or by increased abundance of native and exotic grasses”.

These extracts from the Final Determination have been interpreted by some Council officers, supported by consultants employed to support their stance, to mean that a single tree growing in a garden setting, in a lawn, or even a tree retained in a paved parking lot for shade, represents the critically endangered BGHF community – with all the inherent issues and problems that this entails.  In fact, in some cases, it has been considered that the presence of any tree species listed under a FD indicates the presence of that EEC – notwithstanding that many of these species occur in a number of different vegetation communities and cannot be considered in any sense of the word to be ‘diagnostic’ solely of the subject EEC. Some consultants go even further, and where commonly occurring species as Oplismenus, Dichondra, Pratia, or Acacia are observed growing in introduced lawns, garden beds or on disused land, declare the site to be ‘actively regenerating’ to the said EEC – describing such species  as ‘characteristic’; in one singular case, of regenerating BGHF.   Such sites are said to represent ‘potential bushland’ – which is stretching it a bit! 

Similarly, some of the older Determinations such as Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF, 10/98) or Sydney Turpentine/Ironbark Forest (STIF, 11/98) present problems as they describe the EECs as persisting mainly as “fragmented stands” or individual trees”, or even as “seed in the soil seed bank”, with “many species being absent from the above-ground biomass”.  This has given rise to ridiculous situations whereby a cleared horse paddock in Kellyville was subject to a Species Impact Statement; and where a landowner in central Castle Hill whose small suburban Lot retains 5 native trees has been instructed to carry out a full flora and fauna survey and 7-part test in order to submit a DA to demolish the existing 70 year old house and build a new one.  This week, a council officer attended a construction site in the Hills District and attempted to stop work on a project which had a Council-approved DA and a Vegetation Management Plan in place because the former pasture site retained a few Blue Gums on the perimeters of the property. 

Such interpretations and leaps of fancy obviously impact most heavily on properties which are fully developed, and may have been so for many years.  Plans to rebuild an old house on an established Lot, add an extra room or a swimming pool, or even realign the driveway now requires detailed ecological assessment, often including an SIS, and if the area formerly supported an EEC, the chances of getting permission are pretty slim.  More and more cases are being referred to the L&E Court, while DECC in their impractical way we all know and love, continue to persist in the belief that such properties can and should be ‘returned to bushland’, regardless of land tenure and existing land use.  Of course, ‘Greenfield sites’ are another matter all together, and development applications for such sites rightly should have to undergo thorough ecological assessment.   In initiating this discussion the author is not referring to projects proposed by big developers who are seeking a maximum return on their investments, but to the small property owner with limited resources; but currently the law makes no obvious distinction between such individuals and a real ‘developer’.   

Any involvement in controversial projects (which is almost anything these days – considering most of the vegetation in the Sydney Region is ‘threatened’ in some way) puts the ecological consultant at a distinct disadvantage.  Go along with the ultra-conservative viewpoint and one risks being considered irrational and a ‘radical greenie’ – and your potential client base narrows.  Take issue, and you risk being seen as a troublemaker or labelled ‘pro-development’; in extreme cases even ‘blacklisted’.  Appeals to common sense usually fall on deaf ears; and attempts to approach the problem in a measured scientific manner, or to provide a practical workable approach to environmental management serves only to risk the wrath of the conservation lobby and (not infrequently) of agency middle level management - which has to be said - has largely been captured by the extreme end of the bush regeneration movement.

While not in any way opposing the fundamental conservation ethic or the urgent need to protect remnant native bushland, I would suggest that this narrow interpretation of the legislation and the often impractical and (at times) impossible demands imposed by local control authorities are counter-productive, and serve only to alienate well meaning and previously supportive community members.   As an ecological consultant with over 20 years of on-ground bushland management experience, I would urge other consultants; council and agency personnel alike to consider the implications of their decisions and recommendations, and to routinely ask themselves “are my conditions reasonable, and ultimately achievable?”  “Could I comply with these conditions if I had a reasonable level of resources and there are no external constraints?”  If the answer to any of these is ‘no’, then reconsider.  

The author and other colleagues have approached the Scientific Committee from time to time requesting clarification of some of their more problematic statements, but these have not been forthcoming.   However, although some of the individuals involved have said privately that although the original intent of the Committee was not necessarily in keeping with current interpretations (as described here), there are apparently no plans to issue explanations or guidelines – which rather leaves the legislation open to interpretation – and misuse.

So…. for landowners, whether big or small: what next?  If and when this new approach gains currency, will we see trees on residential blocks being routinely cut down to avoid future problems (yes, you can do it, despite tree preservation laws if you are really determined), and will people stop planting local native trees just in case they are ‘creating’ a future EEC?  It seems a likely scenario; and one which is diametrically opposed to the fundamental aims of the environmental legislation.  A dilemma indeed! 

Need I add that the views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of other members of the ECA. 

Judith Rawling _{BA,DipEd,DipEnvStud,MEnvStud}

Managing Director

UBM Ecological Consultants, UBM Projects

4 July 2008

At the southern extremity of the old Maroota State Forest is a very good Sydney Blue Gum community, which has evaded extensive fire activity for decades, This community would not be listed as a BGHF community though, and I wonder how you would classify this area. When I was a member of the local RFS we protected this area consistently because we knew no other communiy like this existed anywhere else in the 4000ha+ of the State Forest.

DEW seems to be dealing with this issue very well and including condition in their definitions of EECs under the EPBC Act. For example their definition of White Box woodland includes factors such as patch size, number of species in the groundcover and number of  "important" species. It makes for an interesting assessment when the state and federal defintiions of the same community differ.

Hey there Richard!

I think you really have put your finger on the heart of this matter - can we really define something (in this case an ecological community) that probably does not exist? Religions have been wrestling with this for centuries and perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book and make it a matter of faith that something that is unknowable actually exists.

Makes it hard to do a 7 part test though ...