Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095:body:0:p26
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 67685–70725

the Wheatbelts in WA and the eastern states were cleared by the 1990s (Glanznig 1995). This clearing has not only removed Malleefowl habitat, but also threatens remaining habitat due to fragmentation and dryland salinity.

Habitat remnants, where they exist within the wheatbelts, are often very small and isolated (Brickhill 1985, Saunders 1989, Saunders and Curry 1990, Cutten 1997, Priddel and Wheeler 2003). The larger remnants occur typically in areas unsuitable for agriculture and are often of marginal quality for Malleefowl.

4.2 Current threatening processes

4.2.1 Clearing and habitat destruction
Clearing and habitat destruction continue to be a threat to Malleefowl populations outside reserves even though controls on the clearing of mallee on private land have been imposed in NSW (Local Land services Act 2013 (framework for legal land clearing in NSW) and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (investigative and penalty framework where illegal clearing may have occurred in NSW)), Victoria (Planning and Environment Act 1987 – Clause 52.17 and Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework 2002), SA (Native Vegetation Act 1991), and in WA (Environmental Protection Amendment Act 2003).

While agriculture has been the greatest reason for clearing mallee habitat in the past, new threats are emerging that are targeting remaining areas of habitat. Numerous mining operations, particularly mineral sand mining, have been proposed in mallee areas of NSW, SA, Vic and WA covering many thousands of hectares, and there have also been proposals to clear habitat for industrial waste containment facilities. Some forms of mining involve the removal of all vegetation at a site over large areas and cause major disturbance to the substrate, which has long lasting effects despite efforts at revegetation. Such destructive mining may irrevocably damage existing Malleefowl populations.

Another form of habitat loss and modification is the harvesting of mallee eucalypts for charcoal or oil, and the harvesting of broombush for fencing materials, and in some cases these industries may compromise Malleefowl conservation. For example, Yalgogrin in central NSW is managed for eucalypt production, but is also a highly significant area for Malleefowl conservation and harbours a declining population of the species (Priddel and Wheeler 2003). The part played by eucalypt harvesting in the decline of the Malleefowl has not been studied but the gross changes to habitat structure and floristic composition are likely to be detrimental.
4.2.2 Fragmentation and isolation
Before European settlement, mallee habitats were extensive and nearly contiguous across Australia and surrounded by other habitat types that also harboured Malleefowl or at least enabled their dispersal. However, clearing for agriculture has resulted in fragmentation of the remnant population into a large number of small populations with little opportunity for dispersal between them. Small and isolated populations are especially vulnerable to local extinction by a