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

Wednesday 7 December 2016

Dutch-owned 'super' trawler "Geelong Star" has left Australian waters and will not be returning



Save Our Marine Life is celebrating the fact that the Dutch-owned factory trawler Geelong Star has left Australian waters and will not be returning.

The trawler has removed its Australian flag of convenience and been reflagged as Dutch – in the process its old name KW 172 Dirk Dirk has been re-instated.

ABC News reported on 24 November 2016 that:

The ship's departure came just before Labor and Greens members on a Senate committee recommended all mid-water trawlers be banned from fishing in Australian waters.

The committee had been investigating the environmental, social and economic impacts of super trawlers.

In 2012, ships known as super trawlers were prohibited from fishing in Australian waters, but the ban only applied to vessels over 130 metres, and not the Geelong Star, which is 95 metres.

Labor and Greens committee members also urged the Federal Government to appoint a National Recreational Fishing Council.

The report said public confidence in the management of Australia's fisheries needed to be enhanced, and it suggested the Australian Fisheries Management Authority publish information about fishing activity in the Small Pelagic Fishery regularly, such as bycatch quantities.

Liberal Senators Jonathon Duniam and David Bushby dissented from the recommendations, and said the Government was "committed to maintaining a balanced and science-based approach to all decisions regarding access to Commonwealth fisheries".

The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications report into the Environmental, social and economic impacts of large-capacity fishing vessels commonly known as 'Supertrawlers' operating in Australia's marine jurisdiction was published in November 2016.

The Committee report stated:
1.46 The FV Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015.40 The Geelong Star is a 3181 tonne factory freezer vessel with a hold capacity of 1061 tonnes. At 95.18 metres, the Geelong Star is the longest fishing vessel in the AFZ.41
1.47 The operation of the Geelong Star in the SPF is a joint enterprise between Seafish Tasmania and Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV and its Australian subsidiary, Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd.42 The fish caught by the Geelong Star is shipped to export markets, usually in West Africa.43
1.48 AFMA was notified that Seafish Tasmania had nominated the Geelong Star to fish its concessions in the SPF on 12 February 2015. Following registration of the Geelong Star as an Australian-flagged boat by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority,44 AFMA confirmed that the vessel met its requirements. The Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015. As the Geelong Star is less than 130 metres in length, it is not affected by the ban introduced by the government in April 2015….
1.50 Since it commenced operating, AFMA has initiated various regulatory measures in response to mortalities of protected species caused by the operations of the Geelong Star. Various stakeholders are also concerned about the effect of the trawler's operations on other commercial fishing operations and recreational fishing activities. Both the fishing activities of the Geelong Star and the regulatory approach taken by AFMA have attracted controversy. 
1.51 Environmental non-government organisations expressed opposition to the activities of the Geelong Star and the approach taken to managing the SPF. Environment Tasmania and the Australian Marine Conservation Society both called on the government to 'enact a permanent ban on the operation of factory freezer trawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery'.45 The Conservation Council SA provided a list of recommendations regarding potential localised depletion, adverse environmental effects, how to minimise impacts on protected species and the presence of AFMA observers on the vessel. The Conservation Council SA called for vessels such as the Geelong Star to be banned from the fishery 'until management strategies', including the recommendations outlined in its submission, 'are in place to effectively minimise impacts on protected species'.46
1.52 Recreational fishing interests are another key stakeholder group. Submitters in this group expressed concern about potential repercussions for the Australian recreational fishing sector from the operations of the Geelong Star. The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) called for a moratorium on 'industry scale' fishing in areas of the SPF that are of concern to the recreational fishing sector. The ARFF argued that this moratorium should remain in place 'until a comprehensive assessment has been conducted to determine whether industrial scale fishing of the SPF is the highest and best use of the SPF, in our nation's interest and whether the small pelagic fishery should be commercially fished at all'.47
1.53 Seafish Tasmania, the operator of the Geelong Star, argued that the use of a factory freezer trawler such as the Geelong Star is the only way that operations in the SPF can be commercially viable. Seafish Tasmania also advised that, over 11 years, it has worked within the regulatory arrangements to assist in developing management plans and strategies 'that support the sustainable management of the SPF'.48 Seafish Tasmania added: 
The current management regime in the SPF, and in particular the conditions applied to the Geelong Star, are extremely strict. Clearly, they are designed  
to provide a high degree of public confidence that the operations of the vessel are being closely monitored and managed.49
1.54 Seafish Tasmania concluded: 
The company has made substantial investments in supporting scientific surveys and more recently in bringing freezer trawlers from Europe to catch our quota and to produce high quality fish for human consumption. It is time to let us get on with the job of catching our quota.50
1.55 Seafish Tasmania and the Small Pelagic Fishery Industry Association (SPFIA) also argued that the science-based management of the fishery and the statutory fishing rights associated with the vessel should be respected. For example, the SPFIA submitted: 
The impact of the continued political interventions in the management of the Small Pelagic Fishery is being felt well beyond the confines of this Association. Although SPF quota holders are effectively the primary target of the political attacks, there is widespread erosion of industry confidence in the ability of AFMA to manage fisheries in an independent, non-political and science based manner. Consequently, industry confidence in the quality and security of their Statutory Fishing Rights is being steadily undermined. 
In these destabilising circumstances, it should not be surprising if industry were to take a shorter term view of their investments reflecting the increased political risk being faced. This is exactly the situation that Government sought to avoid by providing the fishing industry with well defined, long term secure fishing rights to inspire operators to take economically responsible decisions and to look after the marine resources on which their businesses depend.51
1.56 Other commercial fishing interests urged the committee and other interested stakeholders to separate concerns about factory freezer vessels operating in the SPF, where resource sharing issues involving recreational fishers are important, and the operation of factory freezer trawlers in other fisheries. Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing, which has operated a factory freezer vessel in the blue grenadier fishery since 1988, urged the committee to separate 'what we see are two dissimilar issues', namely concerns about 'super trawlers' in the SPF and the operation of factory freezer trawlers elsewhere. It explained: 
The current community concern which has led to this inquiry is not necessary driven by the size or freezing capacity of the vessel or the science of the fishery, as evidenced in the blue grenadier fishery, but centres around resource sharing and access to a fish species that recreational fishers consider is a significant driver in maintaining healthy populations of key recreational species.52……..
1.62 The Geelong Star is 95 metres long and, therefore, is not covered by the 130-metre definition of super trawler used for the ban. Nevertheless, the Geelong Star has commonly been referred to as a super trawler, including by the media and state governments.58 In addition, some of the concerns expressed by groups that opposed the Margiris have similarly been applied to the Geelong Star. Some submitters also argued that there is only a marginal difference in the quota allocated to the Abel Tasman, which was banned, and vessels such as the Geelong Star that are not.59 Other submitters, however, maintain that 'there is no correlation between vessel size and fishing power'.60
1.63 On this issue, Mr Allan Hansard, Managing Director, Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, commented: 'It is not necessarily the size of the boat; it is that intensity that we need to really focus on in this case'.61
1.64 From the perspective of the Stop the Trawler Alliance, which is an alliance of environment, fishing and tourism organisations established in 2012 in response to the Margiris, the principal issue is that a factory freezer vessel is operating in the SPF, not that a vessel of a certain size is operating.62......
The end result was this:
Recommendation 1 
6.22 The committee recommends that the Australian government ban all factory freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.
The full report can be read here.

Because the recommendation is not yet reflected in legislation and because there is some uncertainty about the reasons the trawler vacated Australian waters as well as a fear it may eventually return, concerned people should write to Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce MP and Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Anne Ruston who have portfolio responsibility for fisheries management and to their federal MP calling on government to permanently ban all freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in Australian Small Pelagic Fisheries.

Save Our Marine Life has started a petition here. 

Tuesday 29 November 2016

Iluka Development Application No. SUB2015/0034: "The Bob Jelly Gazette" decides it always knew it would happen


In March 2016 the Ratepayers Association of Iluka Inc. published its regular newsletter in which its president, real estate agent Graeme Lynn, stated the following:
Eight months later and the story has changed – now we’re told there was always going to be a major revision of the development application:

As  for those ordinary people who “suddenly became town planners and without any knowledge were telling everyone the design was poor and needed redoing”.

Well it appears that the “experts” are not as disdainful as Bob Jelly & Co, because this turned up in one of the documents being submitted to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel on behalf of the developer:
So   congratulations to all those locals at Iluka who took the photographs, did the geo-plotting and otherwise supplied information for the Thursday, 16 June 2016 blog post

Sunday 20 November 2016

This is just not good enough, Premier Baird!


This lack of prior consultation with indigenous Native Title holders or registered claimants happens too often at state and local government level in NSW to be considered instances of accidental oversight.

It certainly does not show the NSW Government in a good light when it ignores both federal and state legislation and/or regulations requiring such consultation.

Click on image to enlarge

Tuesday 15 November 2016

Clarence Valley Council announces Section 55 amendment to application for SUB2015/0034 a 162 lot subdivision at Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka


On 10 November 2016 Clarence Valley Council sent out by email a letter dated 7 November 2016 concerning a development application being determined by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel:

Redesigned subdivision plan for 157 lot development:

NOTE: This is not the plan sent with the official notification email. This final plan was sent by a second email 4 days later - cutting the time in which a submission based on accurate information could be created by a total of 7 submission period days.


Previous subdivision plan for 162 lot development:




Note: Streetscape plantings are indicative only and were not part of the development application.

Amended DA documents can be viewed and download here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fo7a1wml2tak7xf/SUB2015-0034%20Amended%20Application%20Documents.pdf?dl=0

A brief history of the development application here.

Sunday 6 November 2016

At the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart Australia it was unanimously agreed to create Ross Sea marine protected area


CCAMLR to create world's largest Marine Protected Area
The world's experts on Antarctic marine conservation have agreed to establish a marine protected area (MPA) in Antarctica's Ross Sea.
This week at the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart, Australia, all Member countries have agreed to a joint USA/New Zealand proposal to establish a 1.55 million km2area of the Ross Sea with special protection from human activities.
This new MPA, to come into force in December 2017, will limit, or entirely prohibit, certain activities in order to meet specific conservation, habitat protection, ecosystem monitoring and fisheries management objectives. Seventy-two percent of the MPA will be a 'no-take' zone, which forbids all fishing, while other sections will permit some harvesting of fish and krill for scientific research.
CCAMLR Executive Secretary, Andrew Wright, is excited by this achievement and acknowledges that the decision has been several years in the making.
"This has been an incredibly complex negotiation which has required a number of Member countries bringing their hopes and concerns to the table at six annual CCAMLR meetings as well as at intersessional workshops.
"A number of details regarding the MPA are yet to be finalised but the establishment of the protected zone is in no doubt and we are incredibly proud to have reached this point," said Mr Wright.
CCAMLR's Scientific Committee first endorsed the scientific basis for proposals for the Ross Sea region put forward by the USA and New Zealand in 2011. It invited the Commission to consider the proposals and provide guidance on how they could be progressed. Each year from 2012 to 2015 the proposal was refined in terms of the scientific data to support the proposal as well as the specific details such as exact location of the boundaries of the MPA. Details of implementation of the MPA will be negotiated through the development of a specific monitoring and assessment plan. The delegations of New Zealand and the USA will facilitate this process.
This year's decision to establish a Ross Sea MPA follows CCAMLR's establishment, in 2009, of the world’s first high-seas MPA, the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA, a region covering 94 000 km2 in the south Atlantic.
"This decision represents an almost unprecedented level of international cooperation regarding a large marine ecosystem comprising important benthic and pelagic habitats," said Mr Wright.
"It has been well worth the wait because there is now agreement among all Members that this is the right thing to do and they will all work towards the MPA's successful implementation," he said.
MPAs aim to provide protection to marine species, biodiversity, habitat, foraging and nursery areas, as well as to preserve historical and cultural sites. MPAs can assist in rebuilding fish stocks, supporting ecosystem processes, monitoring ecosystem change and sustaining biological diversity.
Areas closed to fishing, or in which fishing activities are restricted, can be used by scientists to compare with areas that are open to fishing. This enables scientists to research the relative impacts of fishing and other changes, such as those arising from climate change. This can help our understanding of the range of variables affecting the overall status and health of marine ecosystems.
ABC News, 28 October 2016:
A hard-won agreement to establish the first large-scale marine park in international waters south of Australia has been described as a "turning point" for conservation, however an expiry date of 35 years concerns the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Today, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) meeting in Hobart announced agreement had been reached between the member nations over the establishment of the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area, which will cover more than one and a half million square kilometres in Antarctica.
The agreement follows years of wrangling and failure to reach consensus, with Russia proving to be a stumbling block.
The area, which has been described as "the size of France, Germany and Spain combined", is revered for its biodiversity.
"Today's agreement is a turning point for the protection of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean," Chris Johnson, WWF Australia Ocean Science Manager, said.
"It is home to one third of the world's Adélie penguins, one quarter of all emperor penguins, one third of all Antarctic petrels, and over half of all South Pacific Weddell seals."
Mr Johnson said while the announcement was "good news", the expiration of the zone after 35 years was a cause for concern…..

Friday 21 October 2016

Say No To Shark Nets and watch turtle release at Lighthouse Beach, Ballina at 10am Sunday 23 October 2016


Shark nets are not the answer.
Fundamentally shark nets don't keep people safe and 80% of what they kill will be harmless to humans.
Proponents of shark nets will tell you that there have been no shark attacks at a netted beach in NSW since 1937. Wrong.
NSW Dept of Primary Industries report 27 attacks including one fatality at netted beaches.
Assoc Prof Laurie Laurenson of Deakin University studied 50 years of data from shark mitigation programs (culling and netting). He found no statistical difference in the rate of shark attack and the density of sharks in an area.
The only shark mitigation measure in the world that has proven to be 100% effective is the Shark Spotters program in Cape Town, South Africa. Eleven years and not a single attack, in a very popular beach area with an abundance of White Sharks.
Shark attack is an incredibly rare event. 6 people in a year across the entire planet died from sharks in 2015. Almost everything else you can think of kills more people. More people died taking selfies.
Over the years, I've done a fair number of media interviews. But I have experienced nothing even remotely close to the media feeding frenzy that follows a shark attack.
I was there the day Cooper Allen was bitten a few weeks ago. Even as he was carried down the beach toward the surf club it was clear he would be OK. But still, within an hour, every major news outlet in the country was on the beach, posting hourly updates, gathering enough footage to lead the evening news bulletin. Totally out of proportion to what had actually just occurred.
There is no doubt our community is spooked. There is a genuine fear among our surfers. I regularly hear, "but something must be done". I agree.
We cannot ignore the impact on our community, on the town's reputation, on our tourism and hospitality industries which contribute so much to our local economy.
But we need to look at what hasn't been done yet and what might actually work.
Surf clubs have applied for funding for watch towers. A basic that has still not been funded.

A trial of paid professional shark spotters at Byron Bay was discontinued after no ongoing funding.


The Shark Watch group formed locally with no assistance from Council or the State Government. Specifically designed to keep watch on our surfers 
from headlands using volunteers and drones, the group is still waiting to hear on a funding application for $50,000 to provide equipment and training.
Where are the shark alarms we were promised?
Where are the shark bite first aid kits?
Why do we have a funding program for innovative responses, but the one company that has developed an effective deterrent, Shark Shield, is getting no assistance from government to get their product to market?
All of these things are far more effective in preventing shark attack than nets. But still we wait.
Shark nets are a fishing device, not a barrier. The nets in NSW are 150m long, 6m high and are placed in water 10-12m deep. As a fishing device they 
have the highest by-catch rate of any technique available.
I've spent the last 9 years of my life trying to protect and save our local sea turtle population through Australian Seabird Rescue. All species of sea turtle are at risk of extinction. Everything I've done will be wasted if we introduce shark nets. Quite simply the nets will kill more turtles than we have been able to save.
The 60 bottlenose dolphins that make up the Richmond River pod face decimation, with DPI staff estimating that up to 20 could be killed in the first few months of shark nets.
These are some of the reasons why I'll be joining my colleagues from Seabird Rescue at Lighthouse Beach at 10am this Sunday (23/10).
We'll be releasing Kimba the green sea turtle after 3 months in care. Back to the ocean, where the sharks also live. But the greatest threat to Kimba isn't sharks. It's humans.
Please join us in saying no to shark nets.
* Image from Facebook

Sunday 16 October 2016

Not impressed by the arguments made for shark netting the NSW Far North Coast


The following article was one of the more balanced media reports on shark attacks on the NSW North Coast since the fatality at Ballina in 2015.

A fatality which brought shark attack deaths in the region to seven in thirty-four years – that is, an average of one fatality every 4.85 years.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 October 2016:

The Baird government's decision to drop its opposition to shark nets for the state's northern beaches ignored recommendations of one of its own departments and the scientific consensus, experts say.

Another shark bite last week – the sixth since the start of 2015 for the Ballina-Byron area alone – was the last straw for Premier Mike Baird. On Wednesday, he explained his backflip, saying it was time to "prioritise human life over everything".

Only one fatality has been recorded in the state's 51 netted beaches since their introduction in Sydney in 1937, back in 1951. There have, though, been 33 so-called unprovoked attacks some serious ones.

"We need some sort of protection," said Richard Beckers, owner of Ballina Surf shop and a supporter of the nets.

Mr Beckers said he had cancelled $100,000 in orders after two incidents in as many weeks. Sales of body and surf boards have dived about 90 per cent as surfers head to beaches considered safer elsewhere….

Until last week, Mr Baird – himself a keen surfer – had resisted calls for the nets. Instead, he heeded advice from scientists who argue there is little evidence nets alone make beaches safer while killing thousands of marine creatures over the years.

The policy reversal "is a political decision – it's not based on data," said Culum Brown, an associate professor at Macquarie University. "The costs are well known and there's little to nothing in terms of benefits."

Existing nets are typically 150 metres long and about six metres deep, allowing plenty of space for sharks to get around, over or under them.

A parliamentary inquiry earlier this year recommended the Department of Primary Industries "move toward replacement of current shark meshing with more ecologically sustainable technologies".

Colin Simpfendorfer, director of the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture at James Cook University, said great white sharks have been protected for two decades in a bid to reverse their population's steep decline.

"The whole point [of nets] is that they catch sharks," Professor Simpfendorfer said. "You are looking to reduce the abundance of sharks where people want to swim."

The 189 sea creatures caught in the existing nets in 2014-15 included 44 target sharks – whites, tigers and bulls – as well as harmless shark species, dolphins and turtles. Of these, 116 died before they could be released, government data shows.

Over the past century, the national annual deaths from sharks is 1.3 people on average, rising to two people during the past five years, according to Taronga Zoo's shark file. Australians make an estimated 100 million visits to the beach a year.

By contrast, five people died from dogs in 2013, with 44 killed by falling out of bed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.

"You're more likely to get killed by bees or by horses than by sharks," Professor Brown said.

Of course the NSW Coalition Government, and particularly Premier Mike Baird furiously chasing electoral popularity in the face of falling poll numbers, is not inclined to step back from the recent back flip on shark netting.

Readers can make up their own minds about whether trying to lay shark netting on the NSW Far North Coast in the face of an increasingly warm and fast Australian Eastern Current and frequently gale-driven coastal seas is going to work.

The Baird Government's $16 million attempt earlier this year to install shark netting at Lighthouse Beach, Ballina and Seven Mile Beach, Lennox Head failed miserably due to predictable rough conditions, large swells and sand movement along the coast.

Below are excerpts from Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters (2011) by John G. West Coordinator, Australian Shark Attack File, Taronga Conservation Society Australia.

ABSTRACT. Although infrequent, shark attacks attract a high level of public and media interest, and often have serious consequences for those attacked.
Data from the Australian Shark Attack File were examined to determine trends in unprovoked shark attacks since 1900, particularly over the past two decades.
The way people use the ocean has changed over time. The rise in Australian shark attacks, from an average of 6.5 incidents per year in 1990–2000, to 15 incidents per year over the past decade, coincides with an increasing human population, more people visiting beaches, a rise in the popularity of water-based fitness and recreational activities and people accessing previously isolated coastal areas.
There is no evidence of increasing shark numbers that would influence the rise of attacks in Australian waters. The risk of a fatality from shark attack in Australia remains low, with an average of 1.1 fatalities year1 over the past 20 years.
The increase in shark attacks over the past two decades is consistent with international statistics of shark attacks increasing annually because of the greater numbers of people in the water.
RESULTS
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 (Fig. 1).
In the first half of the 20th century, there was an increase in the number of recorded shark attacks, culminating in a peak in the 1930s when there were 74 incidents (Fig. 2).
The number of attacks then dropped, to stabilise ,35 incidents per decade from the 1940s to the 1970s. Since 1980, the number of reported attacks has increased to 121 incidents in the past decade (Fig. 2).
There had been a decrease in the average annual fatality rate, which had fallen from a peak of 3.4 year1 in the 1930s, to an average of 1.1 year1 for the past two decades.
The number of fatal attacks relative to the number of total attacks per decade has also decreased over this period, from 45% in the 1930s to 10% in the past decade. These declining chances of a shark attack resulting in fatality are also reported elsewhere in the world (Woolgar et al. 2001; Burgess 2009).
In the 20-year period of the 1930s and 1940s, the fatality ratio was 1:2.4 incidents. In the past 20 years, the fatality ratio has been 1:8.5 incidents.
Comparison of attacks per capita indicated that the number of incidents was highest in the 1930s, at 10 attacks per million people per decade, decreasing to an average of 3.3 attacks per million people per decade until the 1990s.
The past two decades have exhibited an increase in attacks, up to 3.5 attacks per million people per decade (1990–1999) and 5.4 attacks per million people per decade 2000–2009 (Fig. 3).
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%)
CONCLUSION
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.
According to Taronga Conservation Society there have been 216 recorded unprovoked shark attacks in New South Wales in the last 100 years of which 48 were fatal. 

UPDATE

The unintended impacts of shark mesh was on show on Saturday, with a juvenile humpback whale becoming entangled in a net near Coolangatta on the Gold Coast. The calf's mother helped keep the animal near the surface long enough for a patrol to arrive and cut the whale free. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 October 2016]

in 1951, New South Wales recorded its worst year of shark encounters at netted beaches, with three separate incidents, including the fatality of local surf ski champion Frank Olkulich (21) who was fatality bitten at a Newcastle Beach called Merewether while treading water……In the 23 years, since September 1992, there has been 21 unwanted shark encounters at netted beaches in NSW; almost one per year*. This doesn’t include the death of a 15-year old boy who drowned after being caught in a shark net at Shoal Bay in March 2007.[3] It does however include the shark incident on 12 February 2009 at Bondi Beach when Glen Orgias (33) lost his left hand after being bitten by a 2.5m white shark while surfing and the severe bite that Andrew Lindop (15) received by a suspected 2.6m white shark at Avalon Beach on 1 March 2009……In January 2012, surfer Glen Folkard was severely bitten by a bull shark at Redhead Beach, north of Sydney. This incident is still waiting a review by DPI, New South Wales, and, along with another two unwanted shark encounters at meshed beaches, was meant to be part of the programme’s 5-year review in September 2014. At the time of this article, this review has still not been finalised. [Sea Shepherd, 5 August 2015]

Wednesday 13 July 2016

Yamba Mega Port: nothing to see here, move along


This is the ‘back of the envelope’ mapping done by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd for its proposed plan to construct an industrial port on 27.2 per cent of the entire Clarence River Estuary. Neat, tidy and full of unnaturally straight lines.

When asked about impacts on the environment the proposed industrialisation of the Port of Yamba would cause, the spokespeople for Australian Infrastructure Developments usually only have two things to say.

Firstly they point out that the initial environmental advice (which no-one outside the company appears to have sighted) gives the all clear – especially with regard to seagrass beds which supposedly do not exist in the channels to be dredged under this plan.

Secondly they say the Environmental Impact Statement which will have to be produced before they can move forward will be the company’s guideline for development.

In recent weeks there has been a third claim and that is that the company will cut another “entrance” on the north side of the river mouth so that Dirragun reef can lie undisturbed.

We are told there’s nothing for Lower Clarence communities to worry about at all.

But what do people actually living in the Clarence Estuary know about their river?

Well, firstly locals know that there are sea grass beds along the route the large cargo vessels will take back and forth from the four proposed terminals and, that the seagrass beds from the western end of Goodwood Island down the channel leading to the container terminal will in all likelihood be destroyed by the company’s deep channel dredging. 

They are also aware of the degree of mangrove loss likely to occur and, the saltmarsh that will be eliminated during construction along with roosting & feeding habitat of migratory birds protected under the internationally recognised Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), Australia-China Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

These three agreements oblige the governments concerned; to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of listed migratory species, including the establishment of sanctuaries.

Living as they do in a richly biodiverse region, locals are well aware that the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also provides for protection of migratory species as a matter of National Environmental Significance.

[Clarence River County Council, Clarence Estuary Management Plan, 2006]
Click on images to enlarge

In fact locals know full well that Des Euen and his backers would have to play merry hell with estuarine and intertidal areas of a wetlands system that eight years ago the NSW Department of Environment was recommending should be placed on the National Reserve System [Clarence Lowlands Wetland Conservation Assessment, December 2008].

Secondly, locals are aware that any genuine Environmental Impact Statement would point to all these risks and more.

Thirdly, there is the puzzling matter of the proposed new harbour entrance which has surfaced.

As anyone can see on the snapshot of part of the NSW Roads and Maritime Services coastal boating map (below), the north side of the harbour mouth is already listed as the safe route for shipping to enter the estuary – the approach leads are clearly marked.
Click on image to enlarge
So where is this new entrance to be cut? Some or all of the 1,280m north breakwater wall built between 1952-1968 under the Clarence Harbour Works Act would have to be removed – and therein lies the rub.

Prior to construction of the entrance works floods caused significant changes to the shape of the river entrance and the location of navigable channels (Soros Longworth & McKenzie 1978) and the partial or complete removal of one or both of these walls is likely to see sand build up in the river between Iluka and Hickey Island as it did in the mid-1800s and/or further inside the smooth water limit of the main channel. Maintenance dredging may have to be an annual event, rather than a probable bi-annual event to keep the proposed new port navigable.

I won’t even go near the loss of a measure of protection in heavy seas and storms for all boats seeking harbour – the evidence of our own eyes during this year’s east coast lows are enough to give most of the population of Yamba and Iluka a fair idea of what to expect.

Thursday 16 June 2016

A remnant Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in Iluka, New South Wales


Images supplied by Iluka resident
Coastal Cypress Pine, Callitris columellaris distribution on Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka, which is currently the subject of a development application for subdivision into 162 residential lots:
Image supplied by Dr. Miles Holmes, PhD (Anthropology) University of Queensland,
Honorary Research Fellow University of Queensland

This forest appears to meet the requirements for being classified as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), in that even small patches that have been disturbed in the past by clearing, or fire are still considered to be important remnants of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest and meet the criteria of being an EEC [NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion, 2009].

However, the developer of record Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Stevens Group) is thought to be resistant to the possibility that this mapping represents a viable remnant forest which would meet the requirements for such a classification.

Environmentally conscious village residents are concerned about the fate of this small forest on Lot 99 as it is to be clear felled to make way for residential land parcels.

These are excerpts from advice given to the NSW Government in 2008 concerning Coastal Cypress Pine forests on the NSW North Coast:

Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is the name given to the ecological community dominated by Coastal Cypress Pine, Callitris columellaris, found typically on coastal sand plains, north from the Angourie area on the far north coast of NSW. The community typically has a closed to open canopy of C. columellaris, which may be mixed with eucalypts, wattles, banksias and/or rainforest trees, and an open to sparse understorey of shrubs, sedges and herbs. Structural forms of the community include woodland, open forest and closed forest, although the tree stratum may be very sparse, absent, or comprised only of dead trees in stands affected by partial clearing, tree senescence or fire…..

The species composition of a site will be influenced by the size of the site, recent rainfall or drought condition and by its disturbance (including fire) history. The number of species, and the above ground relative abundance of species will change with time since fire, and may also change in response to changes in fire regime (including changes in fire frequency). At any one time, above ground individuals of some species may be absent, but the species may be represented below ground in the soil seed banks or as dormant structures such as bulbs, corms, rhizomes, rootstocks or lignotubers. The list of species given above is of vascular plant species; the community also includes micro-organisms, fungi, cryptogamic plants and a diverse fauna, both vertebrate and invertebrate…..

Based on detailed field inspections, the total distribution of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest covers approximately 150 ha (A. Benwell, unpubl. data), and is certainly less than 200 ha. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is currently known from 15-20 localities, most of which are patches no larger than 10 ha. Stands of the community have been mapped in Bundjalung, Yuraygir and Broadwater National Parks (Griffith 1983, 1984, 1985) and Billinudgel Nature Reserve (Benwell 1998), accounting for about half of the total known occurrence. The remaining stands occur primarily on private land or road easements. All known occurrences of the community are within a total extent of occurrence of 2500 –3000 km2. These estimates indicate that the community has a highly restricted distribution……

Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is eligible to be listed as an Endangered Ecological Community as, in the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing a very high risk of extinction in New South Wales in the near future…. [Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion - endangered ecological community listing NSW Scientific Committee - final determination, October 2008]


This flora species list is compiled from notes supplied by John Edwards (Clarence Environment Centre) & M.L. de Lepervanche and shows that the lot contains at least 28 of the 50 indicative species found in a Coastal Pine Forest Endangered Ecological Community (EEC):

Coastal Pine EEC indicative species
* = species identified
Abildgaardia vaginata
Acacia aulacocarpa
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
*
Acacia ulicifolia
Acianthus caudatus
Acianthus exsertus
*
Acronychia imperforata
*
Acrotriche aggregata
Allocasuarina littoralis
*
Alyxia ruscifolia
Araucaria cunninghamii
Aristida spp.
Astroloma humifusum
Austromyrtus dulcis
*
Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum
Banksia integrifolia subsp. Integrifolia
*
Banksia serrata
*
Bulboschoenus barbata
Callitris columellaris
*
Chiloglottis sp.
Commelina cyanea
*
Corymbia intermedia
*
Cyclophyllum longipetalum
Cymbopogon refractus var. refractus
Cyperus stradbrokensis
*
Dianella caerulea
*
Eragrostis brownii
*
Eucalyptus pilularis
Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra
Eucalyptus signata
Euroschinus falcata
*
Halfordia kendack
Hoya australis subsp. australis
*
Imperata cylindrica var. major
*
Leptospermum polygalifolium
*
Leucopogon ericoides
Leucopogon leptospermoides
*
Leucopogon margarodes
Lomandra longifolia
*
Monotoca elliptica
*
Notelaea longifolia
*
Oxylobium robustum
Paspalidium distans
*
Persoonia stradbrokensis
*
Platycerium bifurcatum
*
Pomax umbellata
*
Pteridium esculentum
*
Pterostylis nutans
*
Pterostylis pedunculata
*
Zieria smithii

Examples of 24 of the 28 Coastal Pine EEC indicative species which are known to grow on Lot 99:
 Acacia disparrima 
 Acronychia imperforata
 Allocasuarina littoralis
 Austromyrtus dulcis
 Banksia integrifolia
 Banksia serrata
 Commelina cyanea
 Corymbia intermedia
Dianella caerulea
Eragrostis brownii 
Euroschinus falcata
Hoya australis
Imperata cylindric
Leptospermum polygalifolium
Leucopogon leptospermoides
Lomandra longifolia
Monotoca elliptica
Notelaea longifolia
Pteridium esculentum
Pterostylis nutans
 Pomax umbellata
 Platycerium bifurcatum
 Persoonia stradbrokensis
Paspalidium distans
Photographs courtesy of John Edwards