The public has been invited to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 7,200 towns on the protected wetlands of Toonda Harbour, Moreton Bay, Queensland. Below is Steve Bishop’s post.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required for a project to build a town of about 7,200 residents on protected Queensland wetlands falls short of its primary objective.
Walker Corporation hopes to build 3,600 homes in Toonda Harbor, near Cleveland, but a recently released draft environmental impact statement, which took nearly four years to prepare, outlines the necessary requirements. not. “Net income” for the Ramsar Wetlands. It fails to provide concrete and measurable results for offset strategies. I am unable to include a “complete offset guide”.
Federal guidelines for editing statements stipulate that it must “Demonstrate how net profit is achieved” For internationally recognized Moreton Bay wetlands and other areas of national environmental importance.
A word search of the draft EIS on page 953 did not find any mention of providing a “net profit” in these designated areas.
The guidelines for compiling the EIS, in relation to issues of national environmental significance (MNES), such as the potential to improve existing MNES habitats, in the context of providing benefits in addition to the current situation: You have used the term “net income” seven times. New Habitats for Multinationals, Reduce Threats to Habitats for Multinationals and Avoid Habitat Loss for Threatened Multinationals.
However, the EIS draft omits any reference to “net income” “Total Profit”the Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines “whole” as follows: “Including everything between the extreme points.”
By that definition, there could be wide spread benefits, but not necessarily beyond the current situation.
According to the guidelines, profit is “Offset Strategy” and that “The results of an offset strategy should be specific, measurable, and achievable, based on solid baseline data, and should demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that the predicted results will be achieved. I have.”.
However, the EIS draft contains the following imprecise and indeterminate phrases:
…actions most likely to result in significant ecological benefits…
…offset funds can be used to support the Council…
The offset project is expected to be delivered not only within the City of Redland’s LGA, but also within the wider Moreton Bay area with benefits on a local and regional scale.
Conservation results for shorebirds can also be achieved through indirect countermeasures…
Such inaccuracies are inconsistent with the federal requirements of the guidelines for providing information in the draft EIS.
“…under Part 9 of the EPBC Act must be sufficient to enable the Minister to make an informed decision as to whether to approve.” [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act]…”
Government guidelines state that EIS:
“An offset strategy should include a ‘complete offset guide’. “
Neither an Executive Summary nor Chapter 29 is included. “Environmental Offset Strategy”contains a reference to an “offset guide”.
The Executive Summary of the EIS Draft references: “surveillance measures” However, until Chapter 29, the statement acknowledges that it has been difficult to provide concrete and measurable commitments.
Note that some items, such as environmental controls and monitoring programs, cannot be detailed at this preliminary design stage…
As a result of these difficulties, proponents have sought a series of direct and indirect offsets through funds managed by third parties that have the ability to access public lands and obtain approvals not available to commercial entities such as proponents. propose to provide
EIS has determined that the project will result in direct loss of marine and wetland habitat, including 3.4 ha of mangroves, 37 ha of seagrass, and 8.8 ha of sand and tidal flats.
5 species of migratory birds “The project is likely to have a significant impact.” finished “28.9 hectares of feeding ground lost…”.
However, citing the $4.75 million in funding needed to offset the damage caused by the project, EIS said endangered shorebirds are also likely to be affected. I’m here. “Significant residual impacts on 28.9 ha of foraging habitat…”.
EIS believes that the project will have significant residual impacts on the endangered flounder, the endangered Onott, the endangered sandpiper, and the vulnerable vertail godwit. I’m assuming it’s likely.
But in a 12-minute video produced by Walker Corporation, an ornithologist says of Crew:
“We do not anticipate that the population will be impacted by the loss of feeding grounds at Tunda Harbor due to the project…”
EIS is now available on Walker Corporation’s Toondah website. The website downplays the scale of the proposed urban development within the bay, which has a population roughly the same size as the towns of Atherton and Innisfail. “Coastal Village”.
However, both Atherton (population: 7,201) and Innisfail (population: 7,179) are described as substantial towns.
A company spokesperson did not respond to two emails.
Steve Bishop is a journalist and author. You can read more about his Steve at stevebishop.net.
Subscribe to IA that supports independent journalism.
