Showing posts with label protected species. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protected species. Show all posts

Friday, 5 January 2018

Shark Attacks in Australia: setting the record straight


On Saturday 23 December 2017 Liberal MP for Kooyong and Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Fydenberg penned a media release claiming big bad sharks were about to overwhelm his home state, Western Australia.

The shark in question is the Great WhiteCarcharodon carcharias, classified as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and currently protected as vulnerable and migratory in the Australian EEZ and state waters under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Federal Minister Frydenberg home for the parliamentary break is of course playing local WA politics during the silly season - having forgotten or ignored the fact that the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan falls within his ministerial portfolio.

However, it does appear hard for many other politicians to accept that, in the 224 years of human-shark interaction record keeping undertaken since 1788, the number of deaths due to shark attack barely equates to one death per year along the est. 59,736 kilometres of coastline in this country.

Here are a few facts which are on that record.

A ‘shark attack’ is defined in the ASAF as any human–shark interaction where either a shark (not in captivity) makes a determined attempt to attack a person who is alive and in the water or the shark attacks equipment held by the victim or attacks a small-water craft containing the victim…..

Over the 218 years for which records were available, there have been 592 recorded unprovoked incidents in Australian waters, comprising 178 fatalities, 322 injuries and 92 incidents where no injury occurred. Most of these attacks have occurred since 1900, with 540 recorded unprovoked attacks, including 153 fatalities, 302 injuries and 85 incidents where no injury occurred. Attacks have occurred around most of the Australian coast, most frequently on the more densely populated eastern coast and near major cities…

In the 20 years since 1990, there have been 186 reported incidents, including 22 fatalities (Table 1). This represents a 16% increase in reported attacks during 1990–1999 and a 25% increase over the past 10 years (Fig. 3). The majority of attacks occurred in New South Wales (NSW) with 73 incidents (39%), then Queensland with 43 incidents (23%), Western Australia (WA) with 35 incidents (19%), South Australia with 20 incidents (11%), Victoria with 12 incidents (6%), Tasmania with two incidents (1.5%) and Northern Territory with one incident (0.5%)…..

[CSIRO, Marine and Freshwater Research, 2011, Shark Attacks In Australia, p.745]

SHARK ATTACKS AUSTRALIA-WIDE JANUARY 2012 to NOVEMBER 2017

2012 – 22 attacks (8 provoked) in total, 2 fatalities and 14 attacks involving injury

2013 – 14 attacks (4 provoked) in total, 2 fatalities and 10 attacks involving injury

2014 – 23 attacks (12 provoked) in total, 5 fatalities and 14 attacks involving injury

2015 – 33 attacks (11 provoked) in total, 2 fatalities and 23 attacks involving injury

2016 – 26 cases (9 provoked) in total, 2 fatalities and 16 attacks involving injury

2017 – 19 attacks (2 provoked) in total, 1 fatality and 11 attacks involving injury [up to 24 November 2017]

[Taronga Conservation Society AustraliaThe Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF), Annual Report Summary]

Throughout the world, human populations are increasing whereas shark populations are decreasing because of direct and indirect human impact (Castro et al. 1999). There is evidence that at least some shark populations in Australia have declined as a result of commercial and recreational fishing pressure (Punt and Walker 1998; Punt et al. 2000; Simpfendorfer et al. 2000; McAuley et al. 2007…..

Patterns of attack have changed substantially over time as a result of the changing population and human behaviour. If human activity related to water-based activities and the use of beaches, harbours and rivers continues to change, we can expect to see further changes in the patterns, distribution, frequency and types of attacks in the future. Encounters with sharks, although a rare event, will continue to occur if humans continue to enter the ocean professionally or for recreational pursuit.

It is important to keep the risk of a shark attack in perspective. On average, 87 people drown at Australian beaches each year (SLSA 2010), yet there have been, on average, only 1.1 fatalities per year from shark attack over the past two decades. It is clear that the risk of being bitten or dying from an unprovoked shark attack in Australia remains extremely low.

[CSIRO, Marine and Freshwater Research, 2011, Shark Attacks In Australia]

ABC News, 8 February 2016:

The shark nets used on Sydney beaches in New South Wales do nothing to reduce the chance of attacks, a statistical analysis has found.

Associate Professor Laurie Laurenson from Deakin University's School of Life and Environmental Sciences has analysed 50 years of data about shark mitigation programs and coastal populations in NSW and South Africa.

He told Four Corners reducing the density of local shark populations did not reduce the likelihood of shark attack.

"I can show statistically that there is no relationship between the number of sharks out there and the number of shark attacks," he said.

"It's just simply not there … I'm surprised that it's not there, but it's not there."

It is the first time a comprehensive analysis has been done in an effort to link populations of sharks and people and the number of attacks in netted areas.

The findings are included in an unpublished paper which is in the process of being peer reviewed.

"We could not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between the density of the sharks and the number of attacks in the localised area around Sydney where there have been historically large numbers of attacks and there've been large numbers of mitigation programs," Dr Laurenson said.

In early 2017 North Coast Voices observed about the predictably lethal consequences of shark netting that the NSW North Coast marine species protection record is a very sad affair.

Sunday, 24 December 2017

Is the Berejiklian Government treating a conservation trust & koala protection fund as a method to pork barrel on the NSW North Coast ahead of the next state election?


The koala population of New South Wales ends the year as it began - in danger of localised extinction on the NSW North Coast and widespread extinction across the state.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December 2017:

Koala populations are under siege in many parts of NSW, including the far north coast of NSW. 
Photo: Cole Bennetts

The Berejiklian government proceeded to buy two blocks of land for koala habitat, overriding internal concerns the purchases were "not a priority" as protections were already in place.

The acquisition of the land in the Tweed Shire earlier this year comes as a new poll finds strong strong local support for new koala national parks.

There is also confirmation the state's new biodiversity conservation act prevents threatened regional populations of any species - including koalas - securing elevated endangered status.

Documents released under freedom of information to the North Coast Environment Centre (NCEC) reveal Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) staff doubted the benefits of paying almost $1 million for about 104 hectares of land for koala protection near Pottsville, north of Byron Bay……

Ashley Love, a spokesman for the North Coast Environment Council, said the spending appeared aimed at shoring up support for National MPs in marginal electorates in the region.

Mr Love is also concerned the government will squander the $10 million koala fund - meant to protect "vital" habitat - and a separate $240 million biodiversity conservation trust to protect land with high conservation values.

"It was a bad precedent at the very beginning of when this government's going to spend a lot of money on private land," he said…..

A ReachTEL of 700 residents in the state seat of Lismore found 68.3 per cent of participants in Lismore town and 71.9 per cent in Ballina support the creation of national parks to protect koalas from logging and land clearing.

"This polling shows that were the government to create them, they would be broadly welcomed,"  Alix Goodwin, chief executive of the NSW National Parks Association, said.

"We expect that the forthcoming Whole of Government Koala Strategy will reflect the wishes of the community and include new protected areas."

The new biodiversity conservation act, which is widely viewed as easing controls on land-clearing, has also stripped the NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee of its ability to highlight localised threats to species.

The independent NSW Scientific Committee made a preliminary finding in August that the koala population near Port Stephens was endangered as it is '"facing a very high risk of extinction in NSW in the near future."

However, the new conservation regulations passed later that month precluded a local population of a species from having a separate rating if it already listed. Koalas are deemed "vulnerable" in NSW.

Sunday, 17 December 2017

Shark management on the NSW North Coast


Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, Inquiry Report, Shark mitigation and deterrent measures, December 2017:

List of recommendations
Recommendation 1
8.19 The committee recommends that the New South Wales and Queensland Governments:
* immediately replace lethal drum lines with SMART drum lines; and
* phase out shark meshing programs and increase funding and support for the development and implementation of a wide range of non-lethal shark mitigation and deterrent measures.
8.20 The committee further recommends that the Australian Government pursue this recommendation at a future Meeting of Environment Ministers.
Recommendation 2
8.28 The committee recommends that, while state government lethal shark control programs remain in place, management arrangements for these programs should include more effective and transparent catch monitoring with the objective of improving understanding of the efficacy of lethal measures for public safety and the effects of the measures on the populations of marine species.
Recommendation 3
8.29 The committee recommends that the Australian Government:
* establish a publicly accessible national database of target and non-target species interactions with shark control measures; and
* require the Department of the Environment and Energy to use this information to prepare and publish an annual assessment of the impacts of lethal shark control measures on target and non-target marine species.
Recommendation 4
8.30 The committee recommends that state governments review and regularly audit the quality of the data collected on target and non-target species interactions with shark control measures.
Recommendation 5
8.37 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a review into the effectiveness of shark research and, following the review, commit to providing funding on a long-term basis for research areas that are considered likely to significantly contribute to improved knowledge about effective shark mitigation and deterrent measures.
Recommendation 6
8.38 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the funding provided to CSIRO to enable CSIRO to:
* undertake ongoing data collection and monitoring to support the determination of white shark population trends;
* develop a predictive model of shark abundance and location; and
*• undertake a social survey to determine how the behaviour of water users has changed in response to the recent human–shark interactions.
8.39 The committee further recommends that the Australian Government seek advice from CSIRO as to whether research can be undertaken to address anecdotal evidence presented to the committee on the potential risk that certain ocean-based activities, such as the use of teaser baits in cage diving, crayfish pots and trophy hunting, might increase the risk of human–shark interactions. The Australian Government should review the funding provided for marine science research to enable CSIRO (or another research institution) to conduct the research CSIRO advises could be undertaken.
Recommendation 7
8.42 The committee recommends that the Australian Government initiate discussions with state and Northern Territory governments regarding the clinical information collected about shark bite incidents to enable subsequent expert analysis of shark behaviour.
Recommendation 8
8.46 The committee recommends that the Australian Government match funding provided by state governments in support of the development of new and emerging shark mitigation and deterrent measures.
Recommendation 9
8.52 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a process to ensure products marketed as personal shark deterrent devices are independently verified as being fit-for-purpose.
Recommendation 10
8.53 The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment and Energy and relevant state governments work with key stakeholder groups, such as national surfing organisations, to encourage water users to take all reasonable steps to reduce the probability of being involved in a shark bite incident, including by endorsing the use of independently verified personal deterrent devices.
Recommendation 11
8.55 The committee recommends that the Western Australian Government's trial rebate program for independently verified personal deterrent devices be made ongoing in Western Australia and adopted by other relevant state governments.
8.56 The committee further recommends that relevant state governments consider developing programs for subsidising independently verified personal deterrent devices for occasional surfers at beaches associated with the risk of dangerous shark encounters.
Recommendation 12
8.62 The committee recommends that the Australian Government hold a National Shark Summit of shark experts.
Recommendation 13
8.63 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a National Shark Stakeholder Working Group comprising key stakeholders in shark management policies. The principal function of the Working Group would be to further the objective of ending lethal shark control programs by developing strategies and facilitating information sharing about the effective use of non-lethal measures.
Recommendation 14
8.68 The committee recommends that the National Shark Stakeholder Working Group review the adequacy of information available to beachgoers regarding the risk presented by sharks, such as signage at beaches and how real-time information provided through shark alert apps can be made available at beaches.
Recommendation 15
8.69 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, working with relevant state governments, develop a program to provide grants for specialised trauma kits at venues near beaches associated with the risk of human–shark encounters.
Recommendation 16
8.70 The committee recommends that relevant state governments review the water safety education programs and education about sharks generally that is provided in schools (particularly schools in coastal areas), with a view to enhancing the education provided on reducing the risk of shark interactions and improving knowledge about shark behaviour and the ecological value of sharks.
8.71 As part of these reviews, the committee recommends that state governments consider the role that relevant community and scientific organisations with expertise in human–shark encounters could have in supporting the delivery of such programs.
Recommendation 17
8.72 The committee recommends that the National Shark Stakeholder Working Group review the various social media accounts and apps that distribute real-time information about shark sightings and warnings about the risk of shark activity to consider whether an integrated national database and app should be established.
Recommendation 18
8.74 The committee recommends that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries improve its consultation and communication with animal rescue groups regarding marine wildlife caught in or injured by lethal shark control measures.
Recommendation 19
8.80 In light of the repeated use of section 158 exemptions for lethal shark control programs, the committee recommends that the next independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 carefully consider whether section 158 is operating as intended. In particular, the committee recommends that the independent review consider:
* whether the matters the Minister may consider in determining the national interest should be limited; and
* whether section 158 should be amended to prohibit the repeated granting of exemptions for the same controlled action or any other controlled action of a similar nature.
Recommendation 20
8.81 The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment and Energy refrain from granting exemptions under section 158 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for matters relating to shark control programs until after the operation of section 158 has been reviewed in accordance with Recommendation 19.

The burning question which flows from these recommendations is: Will the Berejiklian Government listen?

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

The NSW Government’s Latest Attack On The Environment


How important is protection of the natural environment to the NSW Government? 
Many in the community believe that the Government gives it a very low priority.   There are even some who would assert that the NSW Coalition Government is conducting a war on the environment.
Concern about the Government’s environmental attitudes is the inevitable result of a series of its policies and legislation over recent years.  A few examples are its original very strong support for CSG and unconventional gas mining[1], its weakening of land-clearing and biodiversity protection laws[2], its strong support of coal mine expansions despite community opposition[3], and more recently, its plan to change the law to enable Lithgow’s Springvale Mine to stay open despite its threat to Sydney’s water catchment[4].
The latest major threat to the natural environment in NSW is the re-structure of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).  The National Parks and Wildlife Service, a part of the Office of Environment and Heritage,  manages more than 870 national parks and reserves covering over 7 million hectares of land  which is more than 9% of the state’s land area.
The restructure which is currently under way involves the amalgamation of administrative areas, and either the loss of experienced officers or their demotion to what will be little more than clerical roles with substantially reduced salaries.  In addition there are serious concerns about the effect of the changes on fire-fighting capacity as well as on pest management.
The changes resulting from this restructure will have serious effects throughout the state.
Grafton on the NSW North Coast, for years an administrative centre for NPWS, will lose that function. Despite Grafton’s location in the geographical centre of the new region, the administrative headquarters is being transferred to Coffs Harbour. 
Clarence Valley locals, having seen over recent years the steady transfer of state government jobs from Grafton to Coffs Harbour, are angry about this.  What makes this decision even more nonsensical to some Clarence residents is that the Clarence Valley LGA (Local Government Area) contains one of the biggest areas of national parks on the North Coast.  Clarence Valley Mayor, Cr Jim Simmons, pointed out recently that the Clarence had 2,262 sq km of national parks, 22% of the Council area, while Coffs Harbour, has only 42 sq km – a mere 4% of the Coffs council area.
While there is concern about job losses, the loss of expertise in the Service and the impact of this drawn-out and unfair process on the Service officers, there is another major concern – the long-term effect on our very important national parks estate.  Despite the claims by politicians, including the Nationals Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, this is a cost-cutting exercise at a time when the Government has boasted about a record budget surplus of $4.5 billion.  Any claim that it is not cost-cutting when the NPWS budget has been reduced by $121 million is obviously ludicrous.
However, it is probably more than just a cost-cutting exercise.  It is almost certain that it is at least partly driven by the ideology of the Coalition Government a core part of which, according to John Menadue[5], is commercializing and privatising public assets.
With reference to this, Menadue said: “A clear case at the moment is the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is being deliberately underfunded and forced to seek private funding and promoting commercial access to public parks.
“Yet this is happening when, with growing population density, we have a greatly increased need for public parks, gardens and open space. Furthermore, we were able to fund our public parks for decades in the past when we were much poorer than we are today. We need to protect our parks more than ever and we have more money to do so. Yet state governments are screwing national parks with funds to force commercialization and privatization.”
In the same post Menadue quoted figures from John Benson about the downgrading of the NPWS[6]. The number of rangers has been reduced by more than 90 over seven years. Only two of 14 regional managers have been appointed after a restructure and a similar threat faces critical staff at the area management level. Staff is so reduced in some regions that basic amenities cannot be maintained and a lack of field staff presence disappoints public visitor expectations.”
Despite all the spin from politicians and bureaucrats, it is obvious that the government intends to downgrade our national parks and is setting up the National Parks and Wildlife Service for failure. If the community, including that in our local area, does not protest vehemently enough, we will be stuck with this vandalism until this arrogant government is removed.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers

Footnotes
[1] In particular for Metgasco in the Northern Rivers – until the very strong community opposition forced a buy-back of the Metgasco licence.
[2] The 2016 Biodiversity Conservation Act and Local Land Services Amendment Act. There are strong concerns that this legislation will lead to huge biodiversity loss and allow broadscale land clearing.
[6] John Benson’s post on Menadue’s blog - https://johnmenadue.com/john-benson-biodiversity-is-threatened-in-new-south-wales/  provides an interesting view of the former world class quality of the NSW national parks estate and its current decline.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.

Thursday, 19 October 2017

Be a hero - save an endangered Swift Parrot family today


Swift Parrot
Lathamus discolor
Psittacidae
Critically endangered (Australian federal listing)
IUCN Red List
Image: Geoffrey Dabb/ Canberra Birds

Swift Parrots breed only in Tasmania and then fly across Bass Strait to forage on the flowering eucalypts in open box–ironbark forests of the Australian mainland. While on the mainland, they are nomadic, spending weeks or months at some sites and only a few hours at others, determined by the supply of nectar. [Birdlife Australia]

                                     

Go to https://pozible.com/project/operation-pko to donate

ABC News, 18 October 2017:

The parrots are nomadic and eat nectar, travelling in flocks to nest near flowering eucalypts.
"This year, all their food is on the east coast of Tasmania, and that area is full of sugar gliders," Dr Stojanovic said.
"We're very concerned that all the birds we bred on predator-free islands last year, will end up nesting on the mainland in sugar glider habitat and be eaten."
With the help of an electrician, Dr Stojanovic has designed "a possum-keeper-outer" nest boxes, with a door to close behind the parrot once darkness fell.
"Effectively, it's just a little motor and a light sensor," he said.
"As soon as it's daytime the sensor automatically detects that there's ambient light and it will open to release the parrot to go about their business….
Dr Stojanovic said previous research had shown the possums could eat parrots "within a couple of days" of the bird laying its eggs.
"About half of the female swift parrots that nest on the mainland of Tasmania each year end up being eaten by sugar gliders," he said.
"It can be a really severe rate of predation."
Dr Stojanovic said the crowd-funding protection measures were needed due to ongoing deforestation of the swift parrot habitat, by logging.

Monday, 16 October 2017

Update on the proposed 140 lot community title residential subdivision in Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW


Hickey Street and environs in Iluka at the mouth of the Clarence River

The proposed 140 lot community title residential subdivision in Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW was declared a controlled action on 6 October 2017 and, as such, requires assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and ministerial approval before it can proceed.

According to Australian Government Dept. of  Environment and Energy the relevant controlling provisions are:

World Heritage properties (sections 12 & 15A)
National Heritage places (sections 15B & 15C)
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A)

There are five levels of controlled action assessment provided under the Act and the development proposal assessment for this subdivision will be by preliminary documentation, due to it being considered a proposal where the impacts are localised, easily predicted or where the impacts have already been adequately assessed under other legislation.

It is the responsibility of the development applicant, Stevens Holdings Pty Limited, to prepare documentation to support the assessment process.

Preliminary documentation assessment is one of the four levels requiring a public comment phase as part of the process. The availability of assessment documentation for public comment will be advertised in the relevant press and on the Department's website.

Monday, 2 October 2017

Iluka Real Estate decided to tout a proposed development and instead stirred up the local community


Perhaps thinking to further his own commercial interests and apply a little pressure to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (NJRPP) currently considering a proposed 140 lot development on environmentally sensitive land, Iluka Real Estate owner Graeme Lynn took to the airwaves on 26 September 2017 spruiking this development which he has been advertising online since  2015.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lynn all he did was demonstrate that the Iluka community is not happy with the scale and design of this development application, as well as concerned with loss of biodiversity and habitat – particularly destruction of a Coastal Cypress Pine Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), loss of local koala habitat and fragmentation of a known wildlife corridor.

Up to the point that Mr. Lynn rose to his feet at the NJRPP Public Briefing Meeting on 20 September, the community debate on this planning issue had remained civil and constructive. Most Iluka residents are obviously trying to ensure it stays that way.

Here is how the online response to Mr. Lynn's on-air statements played out:


DEVELOPMENT PLAN DIVIDES ILUKA

Opponents of a major residential subdivision planned for Iluka say it puts the village's unique charm at risk.

The Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council has been working with the Stevens Group on a 140-lot development on Hickey Street.

The state's Joint Regional Planning Panel hosted a public briefing on the issue last week.

Tony Belton, from the Association of Iluka Residents, said it was a huge project which threatened the character of the village.

"Iluka has so far avoided the over-commercialised coastal development that now characterises many seaside destinations," he said.

"And I think that sort of sums it up, people come here for that unique coastal experience that sadly has largely been lost due to over development.

"One speaker at the meeting the other day said this kind of development would be more suitable for a place like Mount Druitt. 

"And indeed that's the issue, it's a huge development with little consideration for the world-heritage status next door or for the feel of Iluka as it is now."

But not everyone is opposed.

The President of the Iluka Ratepayers Association, Graeme Lynn, said residents could see benefits in the proposal.

The shops here need more customers," he said.

"The golf club is right next door and it definitely needs more customers and it'll give better access to the golf club ... coming all the way through. 

"And the shops in town need those extra customers."

A spokesperson for Birrigan Gargle Land Council declined to speak with the ABC until after the development application had been finalised.


14 comments
Comments
Roslyn Woodward Grahame Lynne is not only from Iluka real estate, he is also the president of the Iluka golf club, president of the association of Iluka residents and president of the Iluka Rotary. He spoke at the judicial panel meeting but did not declare he had an obvious financial interest. This map clearly shows the proximity to the World Heritage Area on the other side of Iluka Rd and the important east-west wildlife corridor link to the Clarence River. There are many threatened species on the site and lots of Koala sightings. The land council may need funds we are not to question that - but this land could certainly qualify for a biodiversity off-set which would be a win for the land council, Iluka's amenity and wildlife.
6 · 19 hrs
Jill Garsden Oh, no, please, no......Iluka is the only north coast coastal town we can retreat to without feeling that it's become too overdeveloped and touristy. Its charm and attraction lies in the fact that it has withstood further development. If it becomes like every other coastal town then it will lose not only our regular visits, but also those of many others.
2 · 17 hrs
Annie Leggett Well of course Graeme Lynn thinks it's a great idea.... he is the real estate agent working with the developer to sell the land/development.... good for him sure.... lots of money in it for him.... Good for the people of Iluka ?? Now that is a better question? If you listen to others, who aren't just focused on the money .... there are many things that are not okay about the development in its current proposal.
Tania Laurie What's wrong with all you Anti-development activists. The fact of the matter is that the population is growing and more housing is required. Don't you realize that there were native flora and fauna once where houses are now. As stated, heritage listed land is near so these species will move to safer habitat, not be wiped out. And it would be a disgrace to think all this opposition is because the Aboriginal land Council is involved. Eventually communities have to grow to help accommodate existing residents family as they get older and will help keep communities family orientated. Besides all that, it's a great economic injection for the town. Wake up and stop whinging.
1 · 17 hrs
Louise Devonforlunch No mention is made of the fact there have been four gravesites discovered. Two are located on the DA site and two opposite on the crown land. Ground Penetrating Radar undertaken during the Heritage study confirmed one of the gravesites had an 9/10 chance of containing human remains but despite this the site was excavated recently to the extent that one of the most intact gravesites has been destroyed beyond recognition!
Dave Schwarz You'd have to wonder what the Land Council is up to, seems the mighty $ is more important than the precious land? I'm no Greenie, but the argument the shops need more customers is surely crazy, surely the residents need fewer shops? 
Carol Watkins ILUKA CEMETERY 
Elizabeth Street 
Iluka NSW 2466
The Iluka Cemetery has been subdivided into a lot of about .3 ha and is believed to contain three bodies. The graves are thought to be located on the crest of a small sand dune about 20 metres off the northern side of Elizabeth Street. The site of the graves is covered with scrub vegetation. Only one grave is marked with a wooden cross and it bears the name of Earnest Eaton. Graves are not visible from the road. A memorial wall is located on the same side of the road about 100 metres away.
https://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/metro/page.asp...
Peter Appleton One thing that surprised me with the original DA, listed by council on Christmas Eve 2015, is that they appeared to be unaware that this is an historic sand mining site. Seems strange to me as there are records and maps everywhere saying its been sand mined. As I understand it a Section 149 Certificate is a legal document issued by NSW councils under the EPA Act which gives detailed information about sites. The Clarence Valley Council (CVC) Section 149(2) Certificate issued for this site (as per the released DA material) does not mention the sand mining history of the site. Page 10 of the certificate says, "Council records do not have sufficient information about previous use of this land to determine if the land is contaminated." The engineering consultants engaged by the developer (Cardno Pty Ltd) then seem to run with this in their 8 August 2015 report which says on page 5, "There is no available evidence of land clearing, mining infrastructure, mining pits or dredging ponds in the aerial photography, which suggests that no mining, or on site separation processes were conducted on site." Seriously??? Cardno would then appear NOT to have undertaken any soil samples with regards to Zircon, Rutile or any of the other associated sand mining minerals.
Louise Devonforlunch Yes the original Cemetery was near Sid & Eileen Gill Park however the DA site was set aside as an additional cemetery between 1910 and 1928 when it was returned to Crown Land. The gravesites that were found at the South Western end of the DA site about 100m from each other. There are four in total but now since one has been destroyed only three remain. This is a part of Iluka’s history and whether they are Aboriginal or European they warrant further investigation and respectfully treated not subjected to the heavy handed approach used recently by the Police as I understand it.
Peter Appleton As you know Louise the one that has been destroyed was mentioned at a JRPP briefing meeting at Clarence Valley Council offices on 16 August 2017. In attendance were panel members Garry West (Chair), Stephen Gow, Jim Simmons, Jason Kingsley. Apologies from Pam Westing. Also in attendance were council assessment staff Carmen Landers (Development Planner) and Nigel Sutton (Development Engineer). "Key Issues Discussed" included "Aboriginal Burial Site". 
No cultural heritage or aboriginal heritage reports were presented with either the original or amended DA, despite council being advised via submissions of the likely presence on site of at least one aboriginal gravesite. This latest round of submissions commenced before the completion of both the Extent Heritage "Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment" and "Baseline Historical Archaeological Assessment" reports. These reports were released to submitters only after they complained about their absence and were then only forwarded by council to two submitters that I am aware of. 
My email to council following this incident includes, "Were the local police involved in this operation advised by council that this site is currently subject to a development application and has been referred to the commonwealth with a decision still pending as to whether it becomes a controlled action? Were police advised by council that this is likely to be an aboriginal grave that they were bulldozing or is this something that council still wishes to dispute? Were police advised that this part of the DA site was an area described by the ecological consultant for the applicant as being the best example on site of the endangered ecological community Callitris columellaris? Were police advised that this is an historic sand mining site with the potential for radioactive concentrations of mineral sands to be found beneath the surface?" 
The excavator operator (a local) was left unsupervised to backfill after the excavation, was wearing no safety equipment, face mask etc and advised that he had excavated to a depth of 2 metres.