NSW Roads and Maritime
Services (RMS), an agency of the NSW Government, is upgrading the Pacific
Highway in the north of the state. The
proposal for the upgrade of the 155 km section from Woolgoolga, north of Coffs
Harbour, to Ballina recently went on public exhibition.
The Clarence Valley
Conservation Coalition has grave concerns about the environmental impact of the
proposed route of this upgrade through the Clarence Valley. Below
is part of the CVCC’s submission on the proposal.
A. COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS - GLENUGIE TO THE ILUKA TURNOFF
1. The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition
opposes the proposed highway route through the Clarence Valley because of the
severe impact it will have on the biodiversity of the area.
2. The 48 km of the route from Glenugie to the
Clarence River will have a devastating effect on flora and fauna.
- Around 948 hectares of vegetation will be
cleared in an area important for its biodiversity. Threatened flora species to be destroyed include
Square-fruited Ironbark and Weeping Paperbark.
- Vegetation to be cleared includes 337 hectares
of Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs).
Amongst these EECs are sections of Nationally Listed Lowland Rainforest.
- The Endangered Coastal Emu (with an existing
population of only about 100 birds in the Clarence Valley) will have its range bisected
by the highway. This almost certainly will have a disastrous effect on this
remnant population.
- More
than 80 other threatened species will be impacted by the chosen route. Some species relying on this area
for habitat include the Rufous Bettong, Powerful Owl, Yellow-bellied
Glider, Grey-crowned Babbler, Diamond Firetail, Black-chinned Honeyeater, Brown
Treecreeper and Squirrel Glider.
3.
At a time when scientists and members of the community are becoming
increasingly concerned about extinctions and the threat of extinctions as well
as general biodiversity loss, we need to be taking a much more precautionary
approach to developments which are certain to have severe impacts on the
natural world.
4.
The CVCC is concerned that the RMS has chosen from its original list of
possible routes the one which will cause the most severe environmental damage.
5.
While social and economic factors need to be considered in route selection, it
is important to remember that both the economy and society are subsets of the
environment. Neither will continue in a
healthy state if the environment continues to be damaged. It is not just this one development –
damaging as it will be – but the cumulative impact of many developments which
place unreasonable stress on the natural world.
6. The CVCC believes that the least
damaging route environmentally would have been the orange route in the original
list – the route which follows the existing highway. Construction of the highway upgrade in the
Kempsey area clearly indicates that such a route, with the highway raised to
limit problems with flooding, is possible.
While this may be dismissed as being too expensive, there is the
question of valuing the environment and biodiversity loss along the route
already chosen by the RMS. The true cost
of the chosen route has not been assessed because the cost of the environmental
damage that is inevitable has not been factored in.
B. COMMENTS ON SOME
OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES
1. The Endangered
Coastal Emu
The
CVCC is very concerned about the mitigation measures proposed for the
endangered coastal emu.
- There
is no certainty that the underpasses described in the documentation will be an
effective measure in allowing the emus access to their range. As well as the issue of whether the species
will use an underpass, there is the issue of the location of these structures
to suit the birds’ movement pattern.
- ·
The
RMS (former RTA) has known about the coastal emu issue in the Clarence Valley
for years and the fact that its highway upgrade will impact on this species. However, it has not undertaken or, as far as
we know, moved to have undertaken any scientific studies of this species until
very recently. Moreover this recent satellite-tracking
study of young birds raised in captivity has been a failure. It did not run its
intended course, largely, as we understand it, because of the mortality of a
number of the subject emus. The RMS’ lack of commitment to any research on
this matter is extremely disappointing and does not augur well for its
mitigation proposals.
2.
Off-sets
- ·
The
CVCC acknowledges that offsets are supported by government instrumentalities and
developers as a way to expedite developments in areas with important natural
values which will be destroyed or severely damaged by developments.
- ·
However,
it cannot be logically argued that providing another area as compensation will
result in no net biodiversity loss. Quite
obviously biodiversity lost in one area cannot be relaced by biodiversity
already existing in another area.
- ·
And
net biodiversity loss is a major issue. Scientists and members of the community
are concerned about this and about the cumulative impact of biodiversity loss
across the nation.
- ·
Governments
and their instrumentalities continue to pay lipservice to the concept of
ecologically sustainable development and its principles but, in reality, little
has changed. Putting in place measures
such as off-sets merely gives the appearance that something positive is being
done.
- ·
Even
if off-sets were a valid compensation for loss of ecosystems, there is always the
problem of finding the equivalent or even near-equivalent ecosystems to use as
off-sets. Where, for example, will the
RMS or its agents find suitable offsets for the Clarence Lowland Rainforest
EECs ?
CONCLUSION
In
conclusion the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition strongly opposes the
chosen route for the Pacific Highway through the Clarence Valley because of the
devastating environmental impact this development with have on an area with
significant remnant native vegetation which provides habitat for a broad range
of fauna, including many which are threatened.
