Echo NetDaily, September 2019:
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Tuesday 17 September 2019
Insecticide poisoning caused the death of 15 Satin Bowerbirds found at Modanville, near Lismore in recent weeks
Echo NetDaily, September 2019:
Insecticide poisoning caused the death of 15 satin bowerbirds found at Modanville, near Lismore in recent weeks, investigators have revealed.
Investigations conducted by North Coast Local Land Services have confirmed that the bird deaths were caused by the banned insecticide Fenthion.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is now seeking assistance from members of the public in a bid to determine how the poisoning occurred.
As the responsible regulator for pesticide use, the EPA is exploring the possibility that the birds, which are a protected native species, may have been deliberately targeted.
No other bird species is known to have been impacted.
EPA Manager Regional Operations North Coast Benjamin Lewin said the killing of native birds, whether through intentional or reckless pesticide misuse, was a serious offence.
‘We are encouraging anyone with information on these deaths, or anyone who may have seen some activity that could be related to this illegal baiting, to contact the EPA as soon as possible,’ Mr Lewin said.
Fenthion, which was banned from use in 2014 with a phase out period of one year, is a broad-spectrum organophosphorus insecticide.
It is extremely toxic to birds and substantial penalties exist for its possession and use.
The chemical was widely used in the past for insect control on a broad range of fruit crops and for external parasite control on livestock.
Thursday 15 August 2019
The controversial carbon credits Australia wants to use equals around 8 yrs worth of fossil fuel emissions of all its Pacific neighbours, including NZ
The Australia Institute, media release, 13 August 2019:
Morrison’s Pollution Loophole Will Weaken Pacific Climate Change Action
Prime Minister Morrison is undermining Pacific action on climate change, with new analysis from the Australia Institute revealing that his pollution loophole is equivalent to around 8 years fossil fuel emissions for the rest of the Pacific and New Zealand.
The Government plans to use Kyoto credits to meet emissions targets – a loophole that means Australia will count controversial past reductions to meet current targets – and essentially be able to keep pollution at the same level.
New research from The Australia Institute shows that if Australia uses this loophole, it would be the equivalent of around eight years of fossil fuel emissions of all its Pacific neighbours.
Australia intends to use 367 Mt of carbon credits to avoid the majority of emission reductions pledged under its Paris Agreement target, meanwhile the entire annual emissions from the Pacific Island Forum members, excluding Australia, is only about 45Mt.
By using this loophole, the federal government is giving the green light to pollution equivalent to:
• Annual emissions of 77,919,000 cars on the road
• Emissions from 95 coal-fired power plants for a whole year
“If Australia is to be a climate leader at the Pacific Island Forum, the federal government needs to show with meaningful action – and that begins with ruling out the use of Kyoto credits to meet climate change obligations,” said Richie Merzian, Director Climate Change & Energy at The Australia Institute.
“The Government’s policy to use Kyoto credits is an insult to Pacific leaders. You can't "step up" in the Pacific while stepping back on climate action.
“The Pacific Island Forum is focused on securing our future in the region – and there is no future without a secure and safe climate.
“Scott Morrison has a choice – Australia can be a leader in the region and a partner in combatting the impact of climate change, or we can continue to completely undermine any efforts by our Pacific partners by using these dodgy credits.”
Download Publication:
PDF P773 Australia's climate loophole and the Pacific [WEB].pdf
Thursday 11 April 2019
Climate change, what’s climate change?
Because the majority of rightwing members of the Australian Parliament refuse to accept the realities of climate change the nation ended up with legislation like this on 3 April 2019.
Unfortunately in this they were aided and abetted by Labor senators even though these senators had reservations about unintended consequences
Medium.com, 3 April 2019:
In the final sitting day
before the election Senators passed a bill to greatly increase the powers and
funding of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Efic).
Under the guise of
Australia’s ‘step-up’ in the Pacific, the Senate has turned this obscure agency
into a larger ‘development bank’ for infrastructure oversea.
The changes were
strongly criticised by Australia’s development community, and as Australia Institute
research has warned,
risk fast-tracking taxpayer funding towards fossil fuel projects in the region,
undermining the climate action on which the safety of the Pacific depends.
What the Efic?
Efic is a lending agency
whose core job is lending to support Australian exporters, ostensibly small and
medium sized enterprises.
In recent years the
government has used Efic to administer the Northern Australia Infrastructure
Facility (NAIF) — the agency that wanted to lend Adani $1 billion dollars for
its railway line — and the government’s multi-billion dollar Defence
Exports Facility.
By passing the Export Finance and
Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill
2019, the
Senate gives Efic nearly unfettered scope to fund any sort of infrastructure,
and access to an extra billion dollars, increasing six-fold its ‘callable
capital’ to draw on to back up even larger loans.
Despite the stated
purpose of supporting development, under the changes Efic is required only to
maximise ‘Australian benefits’. There is no mention at all of the development
needs and challenges of countries where Efic would invest.
Instead, Efic can now
lend simply to benefit “a person carrying on business or other activities in
Australia”, which the government states will empower Efic to promote fossil
fuel “energy” exports from Australia.
Taxpayers Funding
Fossil Fuels
Efic has a long and
sorry history of funding fossil fuel projects, both overseas and in Australia.
Half of its current portfolio is in the fossil fuel and mining sectors.
Despite being a
Commonwealth agency, Efic explicitly states it is no constrained by the goals
of the Paris Agreement and it has refused to disclose how it considers climate
risk.
The biggest thing Efic
has ever done was backing the PNG LNG project, a massive gas project in Papua
New Guinea. Efic was warned in advance it would likely lead to civil conflict
and economic disruption. And it did, sparking conflict verging on
civil war.
Right now, under current
rules, Efic is thinking about lending money to Woodside to develop an oil and gas field in Senegal in Africa. Efic has
previously been in talks with Adani about its coal mine……..
Labels:
climate change,
fossil fuels,
greenhouse gases,
pollution
Monday 25 February 2019
Is the Great Barrier Reef not dying quickly enough for the Morrison Government and Australian Environment Minister Melissa Price? Are they trying to hasten its death?
Australia's Great Barrier Reef has been under threat from increased human activity for generations.
Sediment runoff due to land clearing and agrigultual activity, pollutants from commercial shipping, unlawful discharge of waste water from mining operations and coral bleaching due to climate change.
North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation is a port authority responsible for facilities at Weipa, Abbot Point, Mackay and Hay Point trading ports, and the non-trading port of Maryborough.
Three of these ports are in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. One of these, Hay Point is reportedly among the largest coal export points in the world.
This is what the Morrison Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has given this corporation permission to do.............
The Guardian, 20 February 2019:
The Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority has approved the dumping of more than 1m tonnes
of dredge spoil near the reef, using a loophole in federal laws that were
supposed to protect the marine park.
The Greens senator Larissa
Waters has called for the permit – which allows maintenance dredging to be
carried out over 10 years at Mackay’s Hay Point port and the sludge to be
dumped within the marine park’s boundaries – to be revoked.
“The last thing the reef
needs is more sludge dumped on it, after being slammed by the floods recently,”
Waters said. “One million tonnes of dumping dredged sludge into world heritage
waters treats our reef like a rubbish tip.”
Acting on concerns from
environmentalists, the federal government banned the disposal of dredge spoil
near the reef in 2015. But the ban applied only to capital dredging.
Maintenance work at ports – designed to remove sediment from shipping lanes as
it accumulates – is not subject to it.
On 29 January the marine
park authority granted conditional approval for North Queensland Bulk Ports to
continue to dump maintenance dredge spoil within the park’s boundaries. The
permit was issued just days before extensive
flooding hit north and central Queensland, spilling large amounts of
sediment into the marine environment.
Waters said the
distinction between capital and maintenance dredging made little difference to
the reef…..
North Queensland Bulk
Ports, in a statement posted online shortly after the permit was issued, said
it had to meet conditions to protect the marine environment. The ports
authority said its dumping plan was peer-reviewed and considered best practice.
“Just like roads,
shipping channels require maintenance to keep ports operating effectively,” the
ports authority said. “Maintenance dredging involves relocating sediment which
travels along the coast and accumulates over the years where our shipping
operation occurs.
“Importantly, our
assessment reports have found the risks to protected areas including the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and
sensitive habitats are predominantly low with some temporary, short-term
impacts to (bottom-dwelling) habitat possible.
“The permits allow for
the long-term, sustainable management of maintenance dredging at the Port and
will safeguard the efficient operations of one of Australia’s most critical
trading ports.”
Maintenance dredging
will begin in late March. Initial dredging will take about 40 days.
BBC, 22 February 2019:
Australia plans to dump
one million tonnes of sludge in the Great Barrier Reef.
Despite strict laws on
dumping waste, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) gave the
go-ahead.
A loophole was found -
the laws don't apply to materials generated from port maintenance work.
It comes one week after
flood water from Queensland spread into the reef, which scientists say will
"smother" the coral.
The industrial residue
is dredged from the bottom of the sea floor near Hay Point Port - one of the
world's largest coal exports and a substantial economic source for the country....
It's just "another
nail in the coffin" for the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier
Reef, which
is already under stress due to climate change, according to Dr Simon Boxall
from the National Oceanography Centre Southampton.
"If they are
dumping it over the coral reef itself, it will have quite a devastating effect.
The sludge is basically blanketing over the coral.
"The coral relies
on the algae, that's what give them their colour and what helps them feed -
without this partnership the coral will suffer dramatically."
Dr Boxall says his
worries about sludge-dumping are short-term - with the current Australian
summer a time for "rapid algae growth".....
Dr Boxall says the
impact will be lessened if the sludge is taken far enough offshore, but that it
will still contain high amounts of harmful materials such as trace metals.
"If it's put into
shallow water it will smother sea life," he says.
"It's important
they get it right.
"It'll cost more
money but that's not the environment's problem - that's the port authorities'
problem."
Last year,
Australia pledged
A$500 million (£275m) to protect the Great Barrier Reef - which has
lost 30% of its coral due to bleaching linked to rising sea temperatures and
damage from crown-of-thorns starfish.
Sunday 3 February 2019
Offensive odour leads to EPA inspection & pollution fine for Clarrich Farms piggery in northern NSW
Clarrich Farms Pty Ltd, a company registered in Queensland since
April 2015, also operates a 2 site
(Breeder-Grower), 1000 sow operation in Northern NSW region of Australia.
One of those piggery sites is on Jacksons Flat
Road, Jacksons Flat near Tabulam in the Clarence Valley.
NSW EPA, media
release, 23 January 2019:
EPA fines Clarrich Farms
$15,000 for failure to manage waste
The NSW Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) has fined Clarrich Farms Pty Ltd $15,000 for
allegedly mismanaging piggery waste at its Tabulam property.
EPA Regional Director
North Adam Gilligan said Clarrich Farms piggery had failed to properly manage
piggery effluent and other waste materials at the premises, posing a risk of
pollution to the nearby Clarence River and breaching their Environment
Protection Licence.
“The EPA carried out an
inspection of Clarrich Farms in July 2018 in response to a complaint about
offensive odours from the piggery. The inspection identified a large area on
the premises that had been smothered by a thick blanket of effluent sludge,” Mr
Gilligan said.
“Our investigations
found that the previous day the licensee had pumped sludge and liquid effluent
from a treatment dam onto the ground to manage odours emitted from the piggery.
“Analysis of sludge
samples returned highly elevated nutrient and faecal contamination levels.
Phosphorus levels were particularly high.
“During the inspection
EPA officers found the sludge and effluent flowing towards the Clarence River,
ultimately covering approximately 7.25 hectares of ground.”
The EPA required
Clarrich Farms to immediately clean up the sludge, and implement ongoing
measures to contain and reduce the elevated phosphorus levels of the impacted
area of land.
The EPA is also liaising
with Clarrich Farms on the broader environmental management of the facility
including increased environmental monitoring requirements.
The EPA investigates all
reports of suspected pollution and encourages anyone with a concern, or
knowledge of environmental harm to contact the 24-hour EPA Environment Line on
131 555.
Penalty notices are one
of a number of tools the EPA can use to achieve environmental compliance,
including formal warnings, official cautions, licence conditions, notices and
directions and prosecutions. For more information about the EPA’s regulatory
tools, see the EPA Compliance Policy at
www.epa.nsw.gov.au/legislation/prosguid.htm
Labels:
Clarence Valley,
EPA,
pollution
Saturday 13 October 2018
Quotes of the Week
“I fear that the danger of plastic bags is much exaggerated” [Former sacked prime minister & Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott quoted in The Guardian on the subject of plastics polluting the environment, 6 October 2018]
“A key architect of the landmark Paris climate
deal has lambasted the Coalition government’s inaction on greenhouse gas
emissions, saying it “goes against the science”, squanders economic opportunity
and risks Australia’s international standing. Laurence Tubiana, a respected
French diplomat and economist, also says Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s claim
that Australia will meet its Paris targets “at a canter” is contradicted by
international scientific opinion.” [Journalist Nicole Hasham in The
Sydney Morning Herald, 3 October 2018]
“To me this particular event seems to show the Liberal party has
been taken over frankly by extremists on the hard right who aren’t particularly
motivated to win elections and aren’t particularly motivated to serve the
public. They’re just motivated by a crazy agenda.” [Alexander Turnbull, son of deposed Liberal prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull in The
Guardian, 11 October 2018]
Labels:
climate change,
Liberal Party of Australia,
pollution,
science
Wednesday 12 September 2018
Yet another opportunistic mining exploration company has the Clarence Valley in its sights: Public Meeting 2.30pm on 13 September 2018 at Grafton Regional Library
Having received approval from the NSW mining regulator in June 2018 Castillo Copper Limited (CCZ) has
proceeded with its exploratory drilling program with a view to establishing an
open cut mine at Cangai in the Clarence Valley.
Castillo Copper Limited image |
This small West
Australian base metal exploration company may be operating on a shoestring
budget and currently trade at only $0.039 per ordinary share, however an open
cut mine so close to the Mann River means that the greed of Messrs. Peter Meagher, Peter Smith And Alan
Armstrong has the potential to severely damage the Clarence River system.
2 hrs ·
Goodbye Mann and Clarence Rivers if this gets approval. The plan is to
open cut mine and that involves removing a large hill and metal extraction
usually involves highly polluting chemicals. This is no win for the Valley. It
is a disaster. A meeting is being held at the Clarence Regional Library in
Grafton at 2.30 PM on Thursday September 13 to discuss this threat to the
Rivers. All welcome.
Labels:
Clarence Valley,
environmental vandalism,
mining,
pollution
Saturday 4 August 2018
Friday 3 August 2018
Supermarket giant Coles’ “bagflip’’ did not go down well and the company was stopped in its tracks
This was typical of the response to the Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd end of July 2018 announcement that is was indefinitely suspending a full ban on the use of free plastic shopping bags in its stores.
The Daily Examiner, 2 August 2018, p.13:
Supermarket giant Coles’
“bagflip’’ in continuing to hand out free reusable plastic bags is a perplexing
move.
After spending the past
month getting its customers used to the idea there would be no more single-use
bags, Coles management has caved in to the tantrums of some customers unable to
get their head around the notion of doing something to help the environment or
pay up.
Not surprisingly the
environmentalists are outraged.
For a start the
so-called reusable plastic bags are just a step up from the tissue-thin,
single-use bags clogging landfill and choking marine wildlife.
The smart thing about
the proposed bag ban was that the supermarket was using a price signal to
reinforce the change, a language its bargain-hunting customers were sure to
understand.
No longer.
The customer has come
first, ahead of the environment, good planning and common sense.
Without a price tag,
customers are going to treat the reusable bags just like the old ones, which
will add a splash of colour to the litter.
It has the same logic as
trying to improve a child’s behaviour by giving in to its demand.
The “child” in this case
does spend millions of dollars in your store, but with Woolworths continuing to
charge the 15 cents for resuable bags, shoppers didn‘t have many options.
By midday on 2 August 2018 Coles reversed its backflip and set a new deadline for stores - 29 August 2018 is now the deadline for handouts of free reusable plastic shopping bags.
Hopefully by the beginning of 2019 even reuseable plastic bags will no longer be available for purchase.
Labels:
Australia,
environment,
pollution
Friday 13 July 2018
Five to face Brisbane court over serious breaches of environmental law
It is thought
that up to 320 square kilometres of agricultural land around Chinchilla may be at risk from contamination by chemicals and gases, due to alleged mismanagement
of underground burning by Linc Energy
Limited.
In November 2016 former Linc Energy chief executive Peter Bond along with four former
staff members – Donald Schofield (managing
director), Stephen Dumble (chief
operations officer), Jacobus Terblanche
(chief operations manager) and Darryl
Rattai (former general manager) – were summonsed
for breaching environmental law.
However their matters were adjoined until after The Queen v. Linc Energy Ltd was
concluded and are all five are now due to face a committal hearing in the Brisbane
Magistrates Court this month.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
A gas company has been
fined a record $4.5 million for causing serious environmental harm at its
underground coal gasification plant on Queensland's western Darling Downs.
Linc Energy was found guilty by a District Court jury in Brisbane last
month after a 10-week trial.
The company was charged
with five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing serious environmental harm
between 2007 and 2013 at Hopeland near Chinchilla.
Linc Energy mismanaged
the underground burning of coal seams, which caused rock to fracture and
allowed the escape of toxic gases which contaminated the air, soil and water on
site.
The court heard the
highest fine imposed upon a company so far in Queensland for similar offending
was $500,000.
Linc Energy did not
defend itself during the trial because it is now in liquidation.
Five executive directors
have been charged with failing to ensure compliance of the company and are due
to face a committal hearing in the Brisbane Magistrates Court in July.
Prosecutor Ralph Devlin
told the court the company knew it was causing damage but pressed ahead with
operations, and described its offending as "serious".
"The defendant
acted in devious and cavalier way … its motivation was commercial gain,"
he said.
"It pursued
commercial interests over environmental safeguards."
The court heard there
would be monitoring and remediation of the site for decades to come, and it
will take potentially between 10 to 20 years for groundwater to recover.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
10 April 2018:
“It was an undefended
case, the liquidators chose not to defend it, so, of course, there is going to
be a guilty verdict,’’ he [Peter
Bond] told The Australian of Monday's court ruling.
“It means nothing; there
was no one in court to call bullshit and there was a lot of bullshit to that
case."
Excerpt from THE
QUEEN v. LINC ENERGY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION), 11 May 2018, Sentence:
HIS HONOUR: On the 9th
of April 2018, Linc Energy Limited in liquidation was found guilty by a jury of
five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing serious environmental harm. That
followed a 10-week trial, and the offence is contained in the Environmental
Protection Act. There was no appearance by the defendant in in liquidation pursuant to an order of the
Supreme Court under the Corporations Law. The liquidators did not have to
appear. That caused particular difficulties during the trial and also has an
impact on sentence proceedings as I have not been assisted by any submissions
on behalf of the defendant in relation to penalty.
As the defendant is a
corporation, the only penalties that are open are financial: either a fine or
compensation. The provision in relation to the imposition of fines is covered
by sections 45 to 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. The first aspect of
that is that, pursuant to section 48(1)(a) and (b) and subsection (2) of that
Penalties and Sentences Act, the Court must take into account:
…so far as is practicable,
the financial circumstances of the offender and the nature of the burden the
imposition of the fine would have on the offender.
Section 48, subsection
(2) provides the Court may fine if it is unable to find out the matters referred to in subsection (1). There
is no information before me as to the circumstances of the liquidation of the
corporation. I am unaware of any of its assets or liabilities, or whether it
will have the capacity to pay fines. As to the utility of imposing a financial
penalty on a corporation in liquidation, there are no restrictions in law as to
that. Indeed, the cases referred to me demonstrate it is appropriate, 25
whether as a need for denunciation or general deterrence of specific criminal
conduct…..
In relation to counts 1
to 3, a combination of section 437 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and
45 section 181B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 provides a maximum
penalty of five times the 4165 penalty units, that is, a total of 1,561,875
thousand dollars for each of the offences covered in counts 1 to 3……
In my view, the
defendant put its commercial interests well above its duty to conduct its
processes in a way that safeguarded the environment. This is shown by its continued
efforts to be seen as a successful Gas to Liquid producer on a commercial
scale, where it operated gasifiers clearly above hydrostatic pressure to
produce suitable gas for the GTL process, well knowing that contaminants were
escaping widely and that damage to the land structure was occurring. As I have
noted during the course of argument, there are varying degrees of wilfulness,
which is an element of each offence.
The Prosecution have
submitted that the appropriate way to approach the quantum is 45 by assessing
the maximum and then reaching an appropriate proportion to address each
offence. In terms of the section I earlier quoted in relation to the quantum of
fines, it seems to me the damage
occasioned by each of these offences is significant and needs to be taken into
account in the calculation of a quantum. In relation to each of counts 1 to 3,
I accept the Prosecution’s submission that it is appropriate to impose 50 per
cent of the maximum in relation to those.
In relation to each of
counts 4 and 5, as I have noted, there are aggravating features. The defendant
was well aware of the problems with the site and proceeded in disregard of its
own experts. They had clearly advised the site was unsuitable because of the
earlier gasifier operations; however, the defendant persisted simply 10 on a
commercial basis.
In relation to the final
count, the defendant purposely hid the issue of groundwater contamination from
the regulator. I accept the Prosecution’s submission that fines in relation to
each of those later offences should be at 75 per cent of the maximum.
I intend to reduce each
of those fines to recognise the totality issues that I have spoken about,
including the interplay between each offence and the damage that has actually
been occasioned. On each of counts 1, 2 and 3, I fine the defendant the sum of
$700,000. On each of counts 4 and 5, I fine the defendant the sum of
$1,200,000. Convictions are recorded. The Prosecution does not seek its costs
in relation to this Prosecution.
Labels:
Coal Seam Gas Mining,
court,
environmental vandalism,
law,
pollution
Friday 6 July 2018
A CERTAIN RMS ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT: Open Letter to NSW Premier & Liberal MP for Willoughby, Gladys Berejiklian, as well as Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight & Nationals MP for Oxley, Melinda Pavey
Dear Premier Berejiklian and Minister Pavey,
Communities in the Clarence River estuary are concerned about an aspect of the NSW Government's current Pacific Highway construction planning.
Below are some of those concerns expressed to local newspaper The Daily Examiner with regard to a Roads and Maritime Services
(RMS) plan
to install a temporary asphalt batching plant at Woombah on the Clarence River
flood plain.
The build is
scheduled to start this month and the plant will operate for the next two and a
half years.
Please note
the attitude – local residents are not amused at the high-handed way in which
the NSW Government and RMS went about a cursory declaration of intent.
“What they’re not happy
about is an asphalt batching plant being built right near their houses, using
their only connecting road to the villages”
“We want the highway,
and we want the asphalt plant to be somewhere, but we want it to be away from
our communities where it won’t impact on our health and safety”
“The plant will add a
reported 500 truck moments and 100 car movements per day at peak, or one every
minute, and residents are concerned the additional traffic will create safety
problems, and a bottleneck at their intersection, which they already describe
as “tight” after it was temporarily re-routed. They also cite concerns over
possible health affects the dust may cause for nearby residents.”
We have a resident as
close as 450 metres from the plant who is suffering from lung cancer….Although
Pacific Complete have been made aware of this, since they were first told they
have failed to take action to acknowledge her.”
“We live within one
kilometre of the plant and we found out two weeks ago by letterbox drop”
“We found out last Wednesday
they didn’t tell anyone else. We’ve been around to other residents who are just
outside the area and they had no idea the plant was coming at all.”
I also draw your attention to the content of emails coming out of Iluka:
“Woombah
is surrounded by World Heritage National Park. Within the waterways affected by
run off from the proposed asphalt plant is the organic Solum Farm. Woombah
Coffee will also be affected. Not to mention the multiple organic gardners who sell
at the Yamba Markets and those who grow their own food.
The small community of
Woombah and its neighbour Iluka are places that welcome tourists for the
natural and clean beauty of the environment. An asphalt plant WILL threaten
that.
In addition, the Esk
River at Woombah is fed by many of the creeks and waterways in the bushland
where the asphalt plant is proposed. They will be adversely affected, which
will flow into the Esk which will flow into the Clarence which will affect the
fishing, oyster and prawn industries, on which many make their living. Not to
mention the tourist industry that survives because our area offers a clean
environment with unpolluted air and water.
This proposal is an
outrage. Teven said NO. Woombah says NO as well.”
“What about our kids on
school buses with no seatbelts and the increase in traffic particularly trucks”
“Iluka Naturally, turn
off at the asphalt plant, how ironic.”
For my own part I would add to these expressions of concern the fact that the 80ha, NPWS-managed Mororo Creek Nature Reserve is only est. 98 metres from the western end of the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt batching site.
This protected land parcel is one of the reserves which form part of a forested corridor linking Bundjalung National Park to the east and the protected areas of the Richmond Range to the west. It lies within the boundaries of the Yaegl Local Aboriginal Land Council area, the Clarence Valley Local Government Area and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
The Mororo Creek Reserve conserves areas of endangered swamp sclerophyll forest, coastal saltmarsh, subtropical coastal floodplain forest and swamp oak floodplain forest.
For my own part I would add to these expressions of concern the fact that the 80ha, NPWS-managed Mororo Creek Nature Reserve is only est. 98 metres from the western end of the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt batching site.
This protected land parcel is one of the reserves which form part of a forested corridor linking Bundjalung National Park to the east and the protected areas of the Richmond Range to the west. It lies within the boundaries of the Yaegl Local Aboriginal Land Council area, the Clarence Valley Local Government Area and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
The Mororo Creek Reserve conserves areas of endangered swamp sclerophyll forest, coastal saltmarsh, subtropical coastal floodplain forest and swamp oak floodplain forest.
Most importantly, Mororo Creek and several of its tributaries which run through this reserve empty into the Clarence River Estuary less than est. 2km from the proposed asphalt batching site.
Now I have no
idea why the NSW Government decided that a brief three-page information sheet
and invitation to comment published online at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/northern-nsw/woolgoolga-to-ballina/w2b-woombah-batch-plant-notification-2018-06.pdf
was to be the limit
of its community consultation effort or why a similar document was sent at
short notice to such a small number of Woombah residents.
I don’t
pretend to understand why the information sheet contained just one small image
of a section of a Pillar Valley temporary asphalt batching plant with no description
of typical batching plant infrastructure and no Woombah site layout plan at
all, much less one to scale.
There was not
a hint in the information sheet of the range of known issues which can arise during site
construction, plant operation and site rehabilitation.
Those
residents who were originally invited to comment were supplied with less than
rudimentary information on which to assess the desirability of a batching plant
on the designated site.
Given that
the proposed Woombah asphalt batching plant site is est. 2 to 2.5kms as the crow
flies from Clarence River estuary waters
which:
(1) are
covered by Yaegl Native Title;
(2) at certain points are covered by international treaties, including JAMBA, CAMBA,
ROKAMBA;
(3) contain
the second largest area of seagrass (83 ha), the largest area of mangroves (765
ha) and the third largest area of saltmarsh (290ha) in the northern rivers
region [Williams et al 2006 in Northern Rivers
Regional Biodiversity Management Plan 2010];
(4) are part
of the largest combined river-ocean fishery in NSW containing high fisheries value
marine species; and
(5) are a
vital component of regional tourism,
perhaps Premier
Berejiklian and Minister Pavey can answer two vital questions.
1. Is the Woombah asphalt batching plant
site above the 100 year flood level for the lower Clarence Valley flood plain?
Because if it
is not, then the NSW Government’s cavalier attitude to flood risk management
would potentially see toxic waste from asphalt batching flow into the Clarence
River estuary during a flood event – including solid waste and any organic
solvents/hydrocarbons captured in holding ponds for the life of the plant –
along with any nearby excavated plant/road construction materials. After all, extreme flood event
height predictions for that general area are 3.5 to 4.5 mAHD.
2. Why on earth was a decision made to
site the asphalt batching plant and access road at a point along the Pacific
Highway where it would cause the maximum damage to Iluka’s clean, green destination
image and vital tourism trade?
When the NSW Government
first mooted the Pacific Highway upgrade on the North Coast one of the
advantages it canvassed was an increase in tourism numbers due to better road
conditions.
In the 2015-16
financial year annual visitor
numbers to the Clarence Valley were approximately 986,000 persons and their
estimated spending was in the vicinity of $383.3 million. By
the end of the 2016 calendar year the tourism
visitor count for that year had reached over 1 million.
Most of these
visitors holidayed along the Clarence Coast and Iluka is a strong component of that
coastal tourism.
If the NSW Government seriously believes that leaving Woombah-Iluka with only one safe, unimpeded access point
for day, weekend and long-stay visitors, the Yamba to Iluka foot passenger
only ferry, will
not significantly affect tourism numbers over the course of two and a half
years, one has to wonder if it bothered to investigate the issue at all before signing off on the proposed plant site.
The effect of
siting the asphalt batching plant and access road on the designated site will
in all likelihood have the effect of diminishing not growing tourism traffic to
Iluka for a period beyond the years it actually takes to complete the Maclean
to Devil’s Pulpit section of the highway upgrade, as visitor perception of a holiday area can change when industrial level activity becomes visually prominent.
When it comes to commitment to the community consultation process, the NSW Government obviously hasn’t insisted that Roads and Maritime Services live up to its undertaking to engage
with communities to understand their needs and consider these when making
decisions.
In fact,
looking at satellite images of the site one cannot escape the suspicion that pre-construction
ground preparation had already commenced before any information was sent out to
selected Woombah residents.
Since news of the asphalt batching plan site reached the Lower Clarence and residents began to approach their local state member, there appears to have been a promise made to hold a "drop-in information session" at an unspecified date.
Having experienced NSW departmental drop-in information sessions, I am well aware that they are of limited value as purveyors of anything other that the meagre degree of information found in the aforementioned three page RMS document and, ineffectual as vehicles for genuine community consultation.
The people of Woombah and Iluka deserve better. They deserve a formal information night which canvasses all the issues, with representatives from RMS and the Pacific Highway project team prepared to address concerns and answer questions, as well as representatives of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight in attendance as observers.
Since news of the asphalt batching plan site reached the Lower Clarence and residents began to approach their local state member, there appears to have been a promise made to hold a "drop-in information session" at an unspecified date.
Having experienced NSW departmental drop-in information sessions, I am well aware that they are of limited value as purveyors of anything other that the meagre degree of information found in the aforementioned three page RMS document and, ineffectual as vehicles for genuine community consultation.
The people of Woombah and Iluka deserve better. They deserve a formal information night which canvasses all the issues, with representatives from RMS and the Pacific Highway project team prepared to address concerns and answer questions, as well as representatives of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight in attendance as observers.
I’m sure that
all residents and business owners in both Woombah and Iluka would appreciate
both Premier and Minster taking the time to consider these questions and ensure government genuinely consults with both village communities before considering proceeding with any Roads and Maritime Servces site proposal.
Sincerely,
Clarence Girl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)