The way
potential impacts on threatened species are assessed when compiling an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), has always been a concern. This was
highlighted recently when Essential Energy decided to move a transmission line
in Lawrence, east of Grafton.
Despite
assuring concerned citizens that they always minimise environmental impacts,
their plan would arguably have had the greatest possible impact.
That
choice required the removal of twelve old-growth eucalypts, including one
Forest Red Gum where Koalas are regularly sighted. The ecologist's report also
made the patently erroneous claim that the 200 year old trees had “few if any
hollows”, and a legal requirement that an EIS must contain“a description of
any feasible alternatives”, was ignored.
A
mandatory search of wildlife atlas records was undertaken to determine what
threatened species have been recorded in the vicinity. However, no survey was
undertaken to determine if any of those species were actually present.
The EIS
concluded that “The proposal will not have a
significant impact on any threatened species that may use the trees”, and “With the implementation of mitigation measures
described in this report, risk to threatened species that may periodically use
the trees, is considered low”.
A search for those “mitigation measures”, found only an
assurance that tree removal would not occur during their breeding season. For
the 6 identified micro-bat species, that period was identified as spring.
However, where micro-bats are involved, there is a well-recognised season when
clearing should not occur, that is winter when they go into a type of
hibernation known as “torpor'. Unsurprisingly, that fact received no
consideration.
When that anomaly was raised, the response further
highlighted their knowledge gaps, claiming bats live under loose bark on trees,
and as the trees in question were smooth barked, they were unlikely to be used
as habitat. The fact is that, while there are bat species that live under loose
bark, none of the 6 identified species do that, with most known to use tree
hollows.
Fortunately, locals have done their homework, and
identified a route option which required virtually no tree removal, and that
option is now under consideration.
- John Edwards
This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on April 15, 2019
