PRESENTATION TO PAC ON PROPOSED YELGUN CULTURAL EVENTS SITE - BYRON COMMUNITY CENTRE 1 FEBRUARY 2012 David Milledge Fauna Ecologist INTRODUCTION By way of introduction, I am a fauna ecologist with over 40 years experience in field survey and research in south-eastern Australia. I hold a Masters Degree in Resource Science and have worked for Government authorities in three States and as a private consultant. I am currently employed as a Director of Landmark Ecological Services. I have provided ecological advice to government and non-government organisations and appeared as an expert witness in cases before the NSW Land and Environment Court and various public Commissions of Inquiry. I have published the results of my work widely in scientific journals and the popular literature ( see attached cv ). I have been a resident of Byron Shire for more than 30 years. I drew the boundaries for the Billinudgel Nature Reserve in 1986. I gave evidence to the Simpson Inquiry in 1990 and again to the Cleland Inquiry in 1997 into the national significance of the Marshalls Ridge corridor, the narrowest section of which is impacted by the proposal. I was Byron Council’s ecologist when this proposal was first presented to Council. At that time I supported the concept, which was to move the existing festival from Byron Bay plus run a few additional small events during the year. The main reason that I supported the proposal was that it represented a chance to restore the nationally significant wildlife corridor, which had been progressively degraded by the previous landowner. Maintaining one ownership over the several Lots involved meant that restoration was more likely than if a number of different landowners were involved. At that time I provided a conservation plan to the proponents, which I attached to my written submission to the most recent proposal and which the Commission should have ( copy again attached ). This proposed rezoning of the site repositioned and connected the environmental (7) zones and was based on the principles of landscape ecology, but it was apparently not considered. In my opinion the plan represented the ecological bottom line for effective corridor maintenance in the area, the minimum required to maintain ecosystem functioning and restore the habitats of threatened and other sensitive species. It catered for effective biodiversity conservation with an acceptable level of development for economic and social purposes. I should state that I no longer support the proposal.
SITE’S SIGNIFICANCE The Marshalls Ridges corridor, situated in one of the most biodiverse regions of the continent, is recognised: as a regionally significant corridor under NPWS’s 2003 KHC for NENSW, where it was recognised as a major hinterland to coast link; as a high priority climate change corridor in DECC’s 2007 Key Altitudinal, Latitudinal and Coastal Climate Change Corridors project undertaken for the NRCMA; and more recently, as a key corridor in both the Border Ranges Biodiversity Management Plan and the Northern Rivers Biodiversity Management Plan, representing formal government mechanisms for recovering threatened species. It is essential for maintaining biodiversity in the adjacent Billinudgel Nature Reserve. The importance of the site as a crucial component of the corridor is recognised by Council’s environmental (7) zoning of most of the extant vegetation under the current LEP. The significance of the site for biodiversity conservation has never been challenged. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS None of this appears to have been adequately considered in the Department of Planning’ (DoP) assessment and what has been recommended, in my opinion, is contrary to Government policy. Despite the DoP’s assertion it does not conform to the principles of ESD particularly those of biodiversity conservation and the application of the precautionary principle, and essentially ignores the national significance of the corridor and the sensitivity of the adjoining Nature Reserve. These were key points of Byron Council’s and the OEH’s submissions. The proposal, as recommended for approval, is simply too big and the detrimental impacts will occur too often. This will have the effect of a more or less permanent severing of the site’s corridor function. The so-called environmental safeguards incorporated in the DoP’s conditions suffer major flaws. There will be no independent assessment of compliance with the conditions or of the impacts. The Key Performance Indicator reports are to be prepared by the proponents who will also employ the environmental “representative” overseeing the project. In my opinion the proponents have resiled from their previously stated commitment to restore and maintain the corridor function of the site. 2
The location of the north-south spine road and associated event areas (graphically illustrated in Fig. 8 of the D-G’s Assessment Report) effectively sever the corridor, and the frequency of events with their associated setting- up and dismantling periods will create an almost continuous disturbance regime, maintaining the effect year-round. This will also cut off both the links to the RTA under- and overpasses across the Pacific Highway, established at high cost during the recent Upgrade. Construction of the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel carrying Jones Road across the spine-road will further dislocate the corridor and combined with the removal of vegetation for the widening of the western 340m of Jones Road, without any effective restoration measures, destroys all corridor function in this area. The important fragmented swamp forest patches currently providing an intermittent east-west link north of Jones Road will remain fragmented and are to be further isolated by fencing as the site is to continue to be used for grazing and agricultural purposes between events. Consistent monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts is offered as a mitigation measure and as an example of the application of the precautionary principle, but this is unlikely to produce useful results because no adequate baseline data have been collected. Where, for example, are the data for two of the most sensitive fauna groups, the micro- and megachiropteran bats? Where is the quantitative information on population numbers and seasonal use of the site by threatened bat species? Where are the data on the status of these species in the adjoining Nature Reserve and their resource requirements in the site? What other Threatened species with populations in the Nature Reserve depend on the site’s resources on a regular basis? Where are the data on the status of the Koala in Billinudgel Nature Reserve to gauge the impact on this population? Even with adequate baseline data, monitoring is unlikely to provide conclusive results because of the DoP’s recommendations to increase impacts incrementally over such a short period of time. Many of the adverse effects on fauna populations are likely to be long term and by the time they are detected, it will be too late for remediation. However, with all the evidence of detrimental effects from similar events collated in the Benwell and Scotts report, which reviewed some 70 studies, why is monitoring of such intensive use of the site even being considered? Surely appropriate application of the precautionary principle in these circumstances would be to substantially reduce the levels of impact both spatially and throughout the year before contemplating monitoring. Another mitigation measure, excavation and construction of artificial wetlands around the boundary of the Nature Reserve and SEPP 14 wetlands in the southern section of the site appears equally problematic. No assessment of the potential impacts on the Reserve or wetlands from the impounding of 3
vegetation, transport of sediment and nutrients and incursions of invasive species such as Cane Toads and weeds that this proposal poses appears to have been made. In finishing, I urge the Commission not to uphold such an ecologically damaging recommendation for approval. 4
Recommend
More recommend
