|
Print this submission |
30 September 2005
The Hon. Ian Campbell
Minister for the Environment
Department of Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Mr Campbell,
We act for the Friends of Shannon Creek Action Group Inc ('FOSCAG ').
We refer to the proposed action by North Coast Water ('NCW ') to develop the Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour Regional Water Supply Project, within the Clarence Valley Local Government Area. NCW identified the action as including the following:
The proposed action is to be assessed on the Preliminary Documentation, pursuant to section 87 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ('EPBC Act '). The Preliminary Documentation includes:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Documentation with a focus on the most recent SISs (2005), for the following reasons:
The matter that makes the project a controlled action is 'listed threatened species and communities'. Throughout this submission we use the term 'listed and nominated threatened species' to refer to species listed, or currently nominated to be listed, under the EPBC Act.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Documentation and the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed threatened species and communities. We understand that FOSCAG has prepared a separate submission.
We also acknowledge the considerable and difficult task of preparing the Preliminary Documentation for a large scale action on land of very high conservation value and containing such a large number of listed and nominated threatened species.
We object to the proposed action because we believe that it will have significant direct and indirect impacts on a number of listed and nominated threatened species. We believe that the proposed action would have a significant potential to reduce the long-term regional viability of some listed and nominated threatened species and potentially place these at risk of local extinction. Direct impacts comprise the removal of significant proportions of flora populations and known fauna habitat at the proposed action site. Indirect impacts include the significant potential for the proposed action to spread the plant disease Phytophthora cinnamomi, changes to the fire regime and microclimate of the local area, and the spread of weed species. We consider the potential spread of P. cinnamomi to be a particularly significant issue for listed and nominated threatened species.
We consider that the Preliminary Documentation is inadequate and does not accurately identify or predict the impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species, for the following main reasons:
We are also concerned about the decision by NCW in August 2002 to construct the embankment foundations for the water storage to accommodate a potential future enlargement of the storage from 30,000 ML to 75,000 ML. We consider that such an enlargement has a significant potential to impact listed and nominated threatened species. To note is that the Commission of Inquiry2 identified that the enlargement of a 20,000 ML storage to a 30,000 ML storage at the proposed action site would cause 'unacceptable' impacts on habitats of threatened species.3 Constructing the water storage to accommodate a potential future enlargement represents a foreseeable significant cumulative impact on listed and nominated threatened species, which we believe must be considered in making a decision on the proposed action.
Our concerns with the impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species and the inadequacies of the Preliminary Documentation are set out in more detail below.
CONSERVATION VALUE OF SHANNON CREEK
It must be recognised that the proposed action site at Shannon Creek is of very high conservation value. This is recognised in the SISs (2005), which identify that the site and the surrounding land provides habitat for a large number of species of national, state, and regional conservation significance. The SISs (2005) identify that 62 species listed under the EPBC Act and 107 species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ('TSC Act') have been recorded within the 'study area', including:
In addition, it is understood that a number of species that occur within the proposed action site are currently under consideration to be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, including (J and P Edwards pers. comm. August 2005):
We believe that the potential impacts of the proposed action on these nominated species should also be considered.
KEY IMPACTS ON LISTED AND NOMINATED THREATENED SPECIES
We believe that the proposed action would have significant direct and indirect impacts on a number of listed and nominated threatened species. Such impacts would have a significant potential to reduce the long-term regional viability of some listed and nominated threatened species and potentially place these at risk of local extinction.
Examples of listed and nominated threatened species to be impacted
Examples of listed and nominated threatened species that would be directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed action include:
Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act). The SISs (2005) conclude that the proposed action would have no significant impact on the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby. In contrast, a specialist study undertaken by Ben Lewis (2004)4 identified that the proposed action would remove or modify known refuge, foraging, and dispersal habitat for Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and isolate two or more sub-populations. This would likely make each sub-population more vulnerable to stochastic events such as fire and key threatening processes such as fox predation. The study concluded that the proposed action would likely reduce the long-term viability of the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and potentially place the population at risk of local extinction.
Spotted-tailed Quoll (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act). The SISs (2005) identify that Spotted-tailed Quoll is dependent on riparian habitats and the integrity of such habitats is critical to the species'survival (SIS 2005 Vol. 3 p 3.144). FOSCAG has submitted that the majority of this habitat within the 'study area' would be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed action and that this and other likely impacts may affect the viability of the local population (J and P Edwards pers. comm. August 2005).
Koala (nominated to be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act). The SISs (2005) identify that the proposed action, including the proposed access road and pipeline, would remove over 16 ha of 'potential/actual' koala habitat (SIS 2005 Vol. 3 p 3.159). It is considered that the proposed action may affect the viability of the local population.
Angophora robur (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act). The SISs (2005) estimate that the proposed action would remove 350 – 400 individuals and 29.4 ha of habitat (representing 0.7 percent of habitat within the 'broader' study area, which appears to include over 7,000 ha of private property). In contrast, FOSCAG has estimated that over 1,000 individuals would be removed, including approximately 450 individuals due to the proposed access road. This may represent at least 9 percent of known habitat within the 'study area' (J and P Edwards pers. comm August 2005). It is considered that the proposed action has a significant potential to affect the viability of the local population.
Phyllanthus microcladus (nominated to be listed as endangered under the EPBC Act). The SISs (2005) estimate that the proposed action would remove 'a significant area' of known habitat and up to 102 individuals, which represents up to 25 percent of the total known population in the 'study area' and 30 percent of the total known population from the Shannon Creek valley. The SISs (2005) conclude that the proposed action would not significantly impact P. microcladus. In contrast, a specialist study undertaken by Anne Clements & Associates (2004)5 on P. microcladus concludes that the proposed action would likely have a significant impact on this species and potentially result in its local extinction.
Lindernia alsinoides (nominated to be listed as endangered under the EPBC Act). It is understood that the L. alsinoides population at Black Swamp is the only known population in NSW (J and P Edwards pers. comm. 14 May 2005). It is considered that this population is directly at risk of destruction due to the proposed pipeline and other construction activities at Black Swamp. It is also indirectly at risk of destruction from the spread of P. cinnamomi, alteration of hydrology, and weed invasion. It is considered that the proposed action may result in the extinction of the only known population of this species.
Eastern Freshwater Cod (listed as endangered under the EPBC Act). The Eastern Freshwater Cod is extremely rare and is currently only known from a small number of waterways, including the Nymboida River6. It is considered that the proposed action may potentially cause loss and degradation of this species'habitat particularly as a result of sedimentation due to construction activities and modification of river flows (particularly the predicted reduction of flows in Blaxland Creek and the lower Orara River) due to water extraction. In addition, the proposed water storage would isolate populations of the species either side of the storage structure7 and may affect dispersal of juveniles.
FOSCAG has identified in their submission many additional listed and nominated threatened species that they believe have been inadequately considered in the Preliminary Documentation and may be significantly impacted by the proposed action, including Melichrus hirsutus, Grevillea beadleana, Black Bittern, Grey-headed Flying Fox, Rufous Bettong, Swift Parrot and others.
Spread of the plant disease Phytophthora cinnamomi
We consider the potential spread of P. cinnamomi to be a particularly significant issue for listed and nominated threatened species. P. cinnamomi is known to affect a range of species within the families represented by the five listed threatened flora species at the proposed action site, including Myrtaceae (eucalypts and angophoras), Proteaceae (grevilleas) and Epacridaceae (heaths).8
P. cinnamomi is listed as a key threatening process to Australia 's biodiversity under the EPBC Act.9 The disease is known to affect a wide range of flora species,10 including a range of species within the families represented by the five listed threatened flora species at the proposed action site.
Once established in an area, P. cinnamomi cannot be eradicated.11 Knowledge of the effectiveness of the available management practices to control the spread of the disease is incomplete12 and it is recognized that it is not always possible to control its spread through soil water and surface water.13 Indeed, the Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan identifies that the success of mitigation measures is likely to vary across the proposed action site (p 4.26).
Many activities associated with the proposed action are considered high-risk activities in relation to the spread of P. cinnamomi. These include earthworks (including the construction and maintenance of roads and the management of drainage), movement of equipment and vehicles, revegetation activities, and the movement of soil and plant material.14
We consider that due to the large scale of the proposed action, the scale at which the high-risk activities would be undertaken, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of management measures, the proposed action has a significant potential to spread P. cinnamomi to currently unaffected areas. Such areas include within the 'study area'; as well as downstream of the proposed action site. We also consider that the mitigation measures outlined in the Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan would be unlikely to prevent the spread of the disease and in many cases are impractical.
Further concerns regarding listed and nominated threatened species and the spread of P. cinnamomi are identified below.
INADEQUACIES OF PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION
The SISs (2005) have not assessed the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed threatened species specifically in accordance with the EPBC Act Administrative Guidelines on Significance (Department of Environment and Heritage 2004) ('the Administrative Guidelines').
The basis in the SISs (2005) for determining whether the proposed action would have a significant impact on a listed threatened species is the 8 part test, which is required to be considered under NSW legislation. However, the criteria comprising the 8 part test is different to the criteria set out in the Administrative Guidelines and does not necessarily require the same type of inquiry or level of investigation. Consequently, it is considered that the SISs (2005) may have failed to specifically consider a number of the criteria set out in the Administrative Guidelines. In particular, the guidelines specifically provide for the following:
The SISs (2005) must assess the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed threatened species specifically in accordance with the Administrative Guidelines.
Lack of comprehensive summary
There is no clear and comprehensive summary of the potential impacts of the entire proposed action. The Executive Summaries in the SISs (2005) only provide a summary of the potential impacts of each of the three main components of the proposed action. The reader is required to put this information together to identify the total impacts of the entire proposed action. In addition, the Executive Summaries provided in the SISs (2005) do not adequately summarize the impacts of the proposed action on threatened species. For example, each summary states that the proposed action would result in:
'the removal of some threatened plant individuals of threatened and/or regionally significant plants (such as Angophora robur, Boronia hapalophylla, Eucalyptus tetrapleura, Bertya longistylar, Melichrus hirsutus, Phyllanthus microcladus, and Lindernia alsinoides)' (emphasis added).
This means that decision-makers and the general public are required to review the entire SISs (2005) (comprising about 4, 500 pages) to identify the other plants of conservation significance that would be impacted by the proposed action, and to identify the nature and extent of the impacts on these species. This is a very difficult and time-consuming task.
Definition of 'study area'
The definition of the 'study area' provided in the SISs (2005) appears to vary throughout. This has important implications in relation to determining the relative proportions of each vegetation community that would be cleared and that would remain as a result of the proposed action.
The 'study area' is clearly defined as NCW land at Shannon Creek (including the land to be developed, the storage buffer area (1689 ha), compensatory habitat (700 ha)) as well as portions of Chambigne Nature Reserve and private land (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 1.5). The NCW land comprises 4,700 ha (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 1.8), while the total 'study area' is estimated to comprise under 6,000 ha. However, in assessing the extent of habitat removal for the each of the main components of the proposed action, the 'study area' becomes 11,954 ha for some components (see SISs 2005 Vols. 1A and 1B p 6.44, Table 6.14) and 8458 ha for other components (see SISs 2005 Vols. 1C p 6.44 Table 6.14). The result is that the figures determining the proportion of each vegetation community that would remain in the 'study area' become distorted and misleading. It allows the SISs (2005) to conclude that only small proportions of each vegetation community would be cleared.
A more accurate and less misleading approach would be to identify the proportion of each vegetation community that would be cleared on NCW land. This approach is particularly important when it is considered that much of the enlarged 'study area' appears to comprise privately owned land, over which NCW would clearly have no control. Consequently, the claim in the SISs (2005) that this vegetation would 'remain' within the 'study area' is misleading and should not be made.
Uncertainty and unsupported assumptions
There is a high level of uncertainty in relation to many of the predictions made in the SISs (2005) in regard to the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species. In addition, the SISs (2005) make many conclusions in relation to potential impacts based on significant assumptions that are not explained or adequately qualified or quantified and assertions that are not supported by scientific evidence. As such, we believe that in many cases the SISs (2005) do not accurately identify or predict the impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species. Uncertainty relates in particular to the following:
These issues are discussed further below.
Estimating removal of flora individuals and population sizes
The methodology employed in the SISs (2005) to estimate the numbers of individuals of listed threatened species to be removed and the population size to remain intact typically comprises estimating the average density of a species per hectare within known habitat and extrapolating this figure to include 'potential habitat'. This is a crude method because 'potential habitat' is only defined in very general terms and significant assumptions are made in relation to the distribution of species within that habitat. In addition, it is typically unclear how the average density of a species per hectare is established. For example, it appears that in some cases, the maximum number of individuals per quadrat is used rather than the average number of individuals per hectare (eg. see SIS 2005 Vol. 3 p 2.24). In reality, threatened species are likely to occur in a patchy distribution in accordance with a complex range of environmental factors such as soil type, soil moisture, disturbance regime, aspect, etc.
The methodology used and the assumptions made appear to have resulted in significant underestimations of numbers of individuals of listed threatened species that would be removed as a result of the proposed action and significant over estimations of population sizes that would remain intact. For example:
The SIS (2005 Vol. 3 p 2.113 - 2.115) identifies that Eucalyptus tetrapleura (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act) occurs at an average density of 25 individuals per quadrat ('randomly located within E. tetrapleura/ Ironbark habitat') and 'tends to be scattered throughout much of the Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest within the Shannon Creek locality'. This is despite identifying that Eucalyptus tetrapleura has specific habitat requirements, including generally being associated with the junction 'of the Kangaroo Creek sandstone formation and the Grafton formation' and preferring low lying areas with poor drainage (p 2.116). The SIS then derives a total population size for the species within the 'study area' of 3173 individuals by assuming that Eucalyptus tetrapleura occurs in one tenth of the Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest. No justification is made for this significant assumption. FOSCAG are of the opinion that this assumption is a substantial overestimation of known habitat and consequently population size. FOSCAG estimate that the total population size within NCW land east of Shannon Creek is less than 200 individuals (J and P Edwards pers. comm. August 2005).
The SISs (2005) indicate that about 50 individuals of Angophora robur would be removed due to the proposed access road. However, a targeted survey by FOSCAG of the access road site (recording all individuals encountered) identified that about 450 individuals that would be removed (J and P Edwards pers. comm. August 2005).
The SISs (2005) estimate the total population of Bertya longistylar within the 'study area' to be 1, 280 (standard error of 311). In comparison, a targeted survey by FOSCAG within the entire area considered to provide habitat for the species (recording all individuals encountered) identified a total population of 503 individuals (J and P Edwards pers. comm. 14 May 2005).
In some cases, the SISs (2005) are not always clear about how many individuals would be directly impacted by the proposed action. For example, the estimated numbers of Boronia hapalophylla and Eucalyptus tetrapleura to be removed is between 253 and 400 individuals and between 38 and 116 individuals respectively. Clearly, there may be a significant difference in impact between removing 253 individuals and removing 400 individuals.
We submit that such over/under estimations and lack of accurate predictions may affect the conclusion that the proposed action would not have a significant impact on a particular listed threatened species.
Estimating removal of fauna habitat
The SISs (2005) generally describe in some detail the specific habitat requirements of each listed threatened fauna species based on literature research. However, the habitat at the proposed action site that would be impacted and the habitat that would remain intact are not analyzed in accordance with these specific habitat requirements. Rather, habitats are typically only analyzed in very general terms using the term 'potential habitat' and little attempt has been made to further qualify habitat values.
The assessment of the impacts of the proposed action on the Grey-headed Flying Fox (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act) provides an example to highlight this issue. The SIS (2005 Vol. 3 p 3.241) identifies that no specific surveys were undertaken for the Grey-headed Flying Fox, and provides a general description of the habitat values of the 'study area' for the species as follows:
'There is some potential for the species to feed on flowering eucalypts in the area, tree species known to be utilised by the species and occurring within the study site comprising Blackbutt, Red Bloodwood, Baileys Stringybark, Needlebark Stringybark, Swamp Mahogany, Swamp Turpentine and Broad-leaved Paperbark (Richards 2004).'
The extent of habitat removal for the species is assessed as follows (p 3.242):
'Within NCW land it is estimated that approximately the following areas of relevant habitats will not be cleared:
- Hoop Pine Dry Rainforest (community 1) – 34 ha;
- Brush Box - Mixed Eucalypt Moist Gully Forest (community 2) – 164 ha;
- River Oak Riparian Forest (community 4) – 87 ha;
- Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (community 3) – 80 ha;' etc
'In total 3,937 hectares of forest and woodland with foraging habitat will remain.'
Such an approach to habitat assessment is simplistic and does not allow a meaningful or accurate assessment of the habitat values of the 'study area' for listed threatened fauna species. It does not capture the variability in habitat values within each vegetation type and it does not account for the typical patchy distribution of threatened species according to a complex range of environmental factors. It has typically resulted in entire vegetation types being identified as habitat for specific listed threatened fauna species. Consequently the SISs (2005) are able to conclude in each case that the proposed action would not have a significant impact because the majority of habitat for a species would remain intact within the 'study area'. Such conclusions should be regarded as inaccurate. Habitat assessments must be based on a detailed analysis of the specific habitat values for each listed threatened fauna species. It is acknowledged that in the case of the proposed action, this is a considerable and difficult task. However, without such an analysis, it is considered that the habitat assessments provided in the SISs (2005) are largely meaningless.
Identifying habitat corridors and connectivity
The proposed action would clearly result in substantial fragmentation of the landscape (particularly due to the water storage) and associated potentially significant impacts on habitat corridors and connectivity. It is considered that the SISs (2005) have not adequately assessed this potential impact.
Typically, the basis for the conclusions in the SISs (2005) that the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on listed threatened fauna species are that a large amount of 'potential habitat' for each species would remain intact. As identified above, such an approach to habitat assessment is simplistic and does not allow a meaningful assessment of the habitat corridor values for each threatened species. In particular, it fails to consider the specific behavioral patterns of species.
The assessment of the impacts of the proposed action on the habitat corridors of the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act) provides an example to highlight this issue. The SIS (2005 Vol. 3 pp 3.225 and 3.229) concludes that the proposed action would not significantly impact the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby because the majority of 'potential habitat' in the 'study area' would remain intact and the species would likely continue to disperse throughout this habitat. The assessment of habitat corridors for the species is made in very general terms only, with the extent of detail limited to identifying '…approximately 1.03 km of suitable steep rocky habitat where rock wallabies can cross between escarpments' (SIS 2005 Vol. 3 p 3.225). Such broad generalizations and assumptions in regard to Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby corridor habitat are shown to be inaccurate by a specialist study undertaken by Ben Lewis (2004).15 The study concluded that the proposed action would directly impact on a known key habitat corridor (which corresponds to the 'potential habitat corridor' identified in the SIS) between the eastern and western escarpments of the Shannon Creek valley. This impact would likely reduce the long-term viability of the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and potentially place the population at risk of local extinction. Surveys undertaken for the study to the north of the proposed spillway indicate that no other possible habitat corridors exist between the eastern and western escarpments. The study concluded that any proposed action to provide such a corridor (through revegetation etc) would not effectively mitigate impacts because there was no evidence of use of the eastern escarpment areas north of the proposed spillway, and in any case, the corridor would be severed by the proposed access road.
Spread of the plant disease Phytophthora cinnamomi
There is considerable uncertainty in the SISs (2005) regarding the potential for the proposed action to spread P. cinnamomi and affect listed threatened species. Many of the conclusions that P. cinnamomi would not have a significant impact on listed threatened species rely heavily on the significant assumption that the disease is already present in the area. However, the evidence provided to support this assertion is inadequate. Indeed, it is understood that a significant number of the infected sites occur directly down slope of considerable earth works undertaken in early 2004 (J and P Edwards pers. comm. 14 May 2005). Consequently, the apparent lack of visual signs of infection may be due to the disease only being recently introduced to the area by construction activities.
It is also important to recognize that P. cinnamomi can pose a significant threat to a vegetation community without the effects of the disease being immediately apparent.16 The disease may be present in a community for many years without causing visible damage, with damage potentially occurring when environmental stresses, such as water logging, drought and fire, become present.17 However, the basis for much of the risk assessment in the Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan is that a vegetation community is not susceptible to the disease when it is widespread within the community and no symptoms are apparent (p 3.12). This assumption is clearly incorrect. In addition, the SISs (2005) do not address the potential for the proposed action to cause environmental stresses (for example, due to changed hydrology causing water logging or drought stress or increased fire intensity) and therefore increase the risk of damage to vegetation communities currently affected by the disease.
The SISs (2005) do not assess the potential impact of the inundation of the water storage area spreading the disease up slope to surrounding areas. Removal of vegetation within the proposed inundation area would disturb soils and vegetation matter infected with P. cinnamomi. As the disease may be spread by surface water,18 it is considered that the slow filling of the water storage has a significant potential to spread the disease to surrounding up slope areas, including towards the 'high risk' ecological communities.
It is not clear exactly what areas of the 'study area' are currently infected by P. cinnamomi and what areas are free of the disease. The Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan identifies that the disease may have spread into several vegetation communities in which it has not yet been detected (p 3.11). This has important implications in regard to the effectiveness of management measures such as quarantine and hygiene, which depend on accurate demarcation of disease boundaries. For example, in order for construction wash-down facilities to be accurately located so as to be effective, the disease boundaries of the entire site that would be traversed by construction vehicles must be determined. Sampling undertaken so far has been limited (Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan pp 3.6 and 3.6) and there does not appear to be any proposed action to undertake further monitoring to better define disease boundaries (Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan p 5.1).
Many of the mitigation measures proposed to minimize the risk of the proposed action spreading P. cinnamomi appear impractical. It is unclear how it would be ensured that runoff from wash down areas only flows into areas already containing P. cinnamomi, particularly in cases where wash down areas are to be located some distance from these areas. Best practice management requires that water which cannot be directed into already contaminated areas be contained and taken off-site.19 This management measure has not been proposed. In addition it is unclear how vehicles will leave infected areas without becoming re-infected, given the wash-down facilities will be located only in infected areas (Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Plan p 4.25).
Change in fire regimes
The SISs (2005) identify that the proposed action would result in a change to the fire regime of the local area due to cessation of grazing and the presence of the water storage. It is predicted generally that fire frequency would decline and fire intensity would increase, and that the water storage may prevent fires from spreading as frequently to gully areas. Changes to fire regimes have a significant potential to impact species'distribution and abundance. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the SISs (2005) regarding potential impacts on listed threatened species. Typically, potential impacts are 'unknown' or are unclear, and where it is stated that the changed fire regime is 'likely to benefit' a listed threatened species, no justification is made for this assertion. For example, the predicted impacts on Angophora robur are stated as being 'unclear' and also 'may benefit'.
Change in microclimate
The SISs (2005) identify that the proposed action would result in a change to the microclimate of the local area due to the water storage. For each listed threatened species, it is stated that such changes are likely to be small and/or would not likely have a significant impact. However, no justification is given for this assertion. The SISs (2005) reference a scientific study, which identifies that large bodies of water typically have some influence on microclimate. If, as indicated, the proposed action would result in a change to microclimate, this change needs to be better qualified and any conclusions justified based on the best available scientific evidence.
Compensatory habitat
A primary measure to mitigate the impacts of the proposed action is the provision of a compensatory habitat area ('CHA'), located near the proposed action site. The SISs (2005) rely heavily on this proposed CHA in concluding that the proposed action would not have a significant impact on listed and nominated threatened and rare species and ecological communities.
It is important to recognize that the only value of the proposed CHA relates to its medium and long-term protection. The proposed CHA currently exists as habitat. Therefore in the short-term, the proposed CHA would not contribute to the habitat of the local area or region. Rather, there would be a net loss of about 300 ha of habitat.
The Director-Generals Requirements provide that an assessment be made of the ecological values of the proposed CHA for threatened species and ecological communities to determine whether the CHA is of equivalent ecological value to the habitat that would be impacted by the proposed action (SIS 2005 Vol. 1C A.22). While it is understood that further studies would be undertaken (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 7.8), the SISs (2005) are very light on detail in relation to this requirement (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 7.7-7.8). However, it is clear that the preliminary assessment of the proposed CHA (provided in the Compensatory Habitat Management Plan ('CHMP')) is not adequate to confirm that the CHA is of equivalent ecological value to the habitat that would be impacted by the proposed action (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 7.8).
The preliminary assessment is based only on presence and absence data and does not take into account the size or quality of the habitat (CHMP 2005 p 2.15). This is significant, particularly because the habitat values within different areas of the CHA are identified as varying 'substantially' (CHMP 2005 p 2.14). Consequently, it is considered that the assertion that the proposed CHA is expected to effectively moderate the overall impact of the proposed action on threatened and rare species and ecological communities (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 7.8) is inappropriate and should not be made.
The preliminary assessment indicates that the CHA does not provide equivalent ecological values to the habitat impacted by the proposed action, and is unlikely to fully compensate for these impacts (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 7.8). A number of threatened species are not well represented within the CHA and may not be represented at all (CHMP 2005 p iii). The proposed CHA was determined prior to the consideration of a large number of threatened species not previously assessed in the original EIS/SIS (1999) (SIS 2005 Vol. 2 p 7.7). Consequently, it is unclear whether it provides equivalent habitat in relation to the listed threatened species not assessed in the original EIS/SIS (1999). The CHMP only identifies that the proposed CHA contains habitat for 75 percent of the threatened species listed in the original EIS (1999) (p 2.15).
To meet the Director-General Requirement that the CHA must provide '…adequate compensation for the direction and indirect impacts of the activity on threatened flora and fauna species…' (SIS Vol. 2 p 7.7), it appears that additional land to the proposed CHA may need to be dedicated. Additional land may need to be acquired by NCW should the existing land be determined not suitable.
It appears that Black Swamp (located on land owned by NCW) is not currently included in the CHA (CHMP; SIS 2005 Vol. 1C p 8.2). We consider that Black Swamp should be included in the CHA because of its very high conservation value. Black Swamp contains core koala habitat, Angophora robur and Lindernia alsinoides (J Edwards pers. comm. 21 June 2005).
A number of modifications to the design of the proposed action could significantly reduce the impacts of the action on listed and nominated threatened species. We believe that the Preliminary Documentation has inadequately investigated such modifications. In particular:
Modifying the alignment of the proposed access road could avoid impacts on Melichrus hirsutus, Angohora robur, Eucalyptus tetrapleura, Boronia hapalophylla, core koala habitat, and core Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby habitat.
Modifying the alignment of the proposed pipeline route could avoid impacts on Angophora robur, Lindernia alsinoides, core koala habitat, and core Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby habitat.
Consolidating the proposed separate infrastructure corridors into a single appropriately located corridor could avoid impacts on a number of listed and nominated threatened species.
FOSCAG has provided additional comments in their submission in relation to modifications to the design of the proposed action, including detailed comments on the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the Alternate Routes Review (Greenloaning Biostudies 2004).
CONCLUSION
We object to the proposed action because we believe that it will have significant direct and indirect impacts on a number of listed and nominated threatened species. We believe that the proposed action would have a significant potential to reduce the long-term regional viability of some listed and nominated threatened species and potentially place these at risk of local extinction.
We have reviewed the Preliminary Documentation with a particular focus on the most recent SISs (2005). We consider that the Preliminary Documentation is inadequate and does not accurately identify or predict the impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species, for the following main reasons:
Inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and flawed methodologies in the SISs (2005).
Conclusions in the SISs (2005) based on significant assumptions that are not explained or adequately qualified and assertions that are not supported by scientific evidence.
A high level of uncertainty in the SISs (2005) in relation to many of the predictions made regarding the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species.
A failure in the SISs (2005) to adequately consider the precautionary principle in assessing the potential impacts of the proposed action on listed and nominated threatened species.
A number of modifications to the design of the proposed action could significantly reduce the impacts of the action on listed and nominated threatened species. We believe that such modifications have been inadequately investigated.
Constructing the water storage to accommodate a potential future enlargement represents a foreseeable significant cumulative impact on listed and nominated threatened species, which we believe must be considered in making a decision on the proposed action.
Yours faithfully,
Environmental Defender's Office Ltd
Ilona Millar, Principal Solicitor
Tom Holden, Scientific Advisor
 |
This site was last updated
Friday 3 October, 2008
|
||
