NPWS are seriously suggesting to do sand mining right next to black rock camping area in the bundjalung national park, for 5 years !!! they try to sell the idea as being restauration, but the only environmental assessment stressed to better leave everything as is .......... please send a submission before 4pm on 30/1/15 to: [email protected] cheerio 1. Easy ways to make a submission: Email your submission to: [email protected] Post: Dimitri Young, Senior Team Leader, Planning North East Region, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Locked Bag 914, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 2. You may like to choose from the topics below or develop your own points. Importantly, it needs to be in your own words: A. Misleading information with the claim that the activity is rehabilitation not mining – Flagship Commodities Pty Ltd to under contract with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to remove ilmenite, a mineral rich sand from an old sand mining site next to Jerusalem Creek in the Bundjalung National Park. NPWS claims this is a contaminated site needing rehabilitation, this was stated as a low priority in the original Plan of Management developed in 1986 (almost 30 years ago). More recently in 2002 independent advice obtained from Earth Sciences Pty Ltd recommending the sand be remediated in-situ. It appears that NPWS have decided to disregard this more recent study in favour for a 30-year-old plan. Why has NPWS acted against the 2002 advice? It is likely there is some gain for NPWS given it involves the extraction and sale of $30M of mineral rich sand. Yet it is called a rehabilitation project. B. Mining in a National Park - Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1990 ‘It is unlawful to prospect or mine for minerals in a national park or historic site, except as expressly authorised by an Act of Parliament.’ Are NPWS circumventing the system for their own benefit? The proposal involves disturbing more than 1.5 Hectares of coastal forest, extracting 150,000 Tons of sand to 8M depth, trucking it to Brisbane and exporting it to China. NPWS. This is mining under the guise of rehabilitation. Mining should not be allowed to occur in National Parks. C. National Parks are proposing the development and assessing it for approval themselves – The proposal is to be assessed under Part 3A of the EP&A Act 1979 and as such will be assessed by OEH (National Parks essentially). Proposals can be assessed under Part 3A when they are deemed non-contentious and attract less than 25 objections and do not have a local council objection. If proper community consultation was undertaken they would know there are more than 25 objections. Assessment of this large project by OEH (essentially the person proposing the action) is entirely inappropriate for a proposal of this scale involving the removal of approximately $30M of sand. This proposal should be assessed by an independent authority. D. Serious safety issues for residents and visitors to the National Park at Jerusalem Creek – Every weekday for the next 3 to 4 years there will be 10 large mining trucks using the narrow Gap Road (one truck will pass every 20 minutes). This does not include all the service vehicles and employee vehicles associated with the mining operation. For residents and visitors on The Gap Road it means additional risk of a traffic accident on a narrow road with many blind driveways; risk of accident to caravans (wide vehicles) unable to pull over for trucks; increased noise and dust for residents; and general loss of amenity. This amount of heavy fully loaded trucks will impact on the quality of the road for residents and visitors and will mean higher maintenance costs for residents as well as the Richmond Valley Council (inadvertently residents also). This mining proposal will significantly put residents and visitors at risk. E. Lack of proper community consultation – Under EP&A Act 1979 Part 5 NPWS have statutory requirements to consult with adjoining landholders regarding loss of amenity, residents’ concerns and the wider community regarding loss of recreational values and access to Black Rocks Campground. NPWS failed to attend the Gap Rd landholder meeting at Evans Head with Flagship Commodities. There has been no wider community consultation since this date. Landholders were promised a further meeting during the exhibition period and this has not occurred. NPWS failed to deliver documentation to landholders until 11 days into the exhibition period. The information was subsequently left with a landholder to distribute to the other residents, neither professional nor adequate. Urge NPWS to undertake proper community consultation. 3. TIPS: Your submission should include what you want. E.g. For these reasons the proposal should be rejected and not approved Send your own submission i.e. use your own words (copied submissions only count as one submission) Ensure your friends, partner and colleagues also have their separate say
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:27:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015