Still haven’t seen this species….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/bird-may-halt-palmer-mine-project/3591220/?site=brisbane
Tom
|
||||
12 comments to Black-throated Finches and mining |
||||
|
||||
Black-throated Finches and miningStill haven’t seen this species…. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/bird-may-halt-palmer-mine-project/3591220/?site=brisbane Tom 12 comments to Black-throated Finches and mining |
||||
Quite right, thanks Stephen. Likewise, in Qld it is the Integrated Planning Act that regulates development proposals, but several other acts play a role too. I should also add that under Qld legislation, the Environment minister can declare “critical habitat” for threatened species. This is normally a circle of some arbitrary radius (a km maybe?) around a point record of a threatened species, but clipped to exclude unsuitable habitat within that circle. Not sure that it has any real teeth though, it is used in vegetation clearing permits to increase the amount of offset or compensation that land clearing would attract. From a developer’s perspective, it just costs more clear critical habitat, due to additional conditions imposed on the development permit. I guess a response to Allan might be that environmental legislation is very complex, and many issues are addressed. The outcomes are as we see them, development proceeding at an accelerating pace, biodiversity and natural areas declining at an accelerating pace, productive farmland disappearing at an accelerating pace. Regardless of the intent of the legislation, It doesn’t seem to be doing the job. David James, Sydney burunglaut07@yahoo.com ==============================
________________________________ Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 8:30 AM
Hi David,
In NSW, it is actually the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), rather than the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 (TSC Act) that recognises the need to assess impacts of developments and activities on the status and recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats. The TSC Act merely provides for the listing of threatened biota and key threatening processes, and gives recovery plans and threat abatement plans jurisdictional validity.
Cheers, Stephen
Dr Stephen Ambrose
Director Ambrose Ecological Services Pty Ltd Ryde, NSW
Hi Allan, That is a good point. Believe it or not, the NSW Threatened Species Act (1975) recognises this very concept and provides for recognition, assessment and protection of “potential habitat” for threatened species. It is not often applied very well, but it is there. Obviously, potential habitat is less likely to constrain a proposed development than the presence of threatened species is. The Qld Natutre Conservation Act (1992) and the federal EPBC Act do not recognise and protect the habitat of threatened species in this way, and they are the two Acts that apply at Bimblebox NR. I’m not sure about the other states. In the case of the Bristebirds, the NSW TSC Act would protect the site of the exterminated population (were it in NSW), in theory. In the finch case it would be difficult to apply NSW-like considerations. Black-throated Finch habitat is grassy woodlands and its range was south of NSW border to about Ingham and from near the coast to inland a few hundred kms (ie. most of the Brigalow Belt). That’s an area probably bigger than Victoria, and a lot of habitat. There would need to be some evidence of historical records or some other line of evidence to indicate that the Bimblebox Nature Reserve is in some way more likely to support the finches than is the rest of the unoccupied grassy woodlands of the Brigalow Belt. The reality is that environmental legislation is not designed and not applied to prevent development. The majority view in the Australian community is that, on the whole, development is a good thing. Legislation cannot provide for value judgements that one development is good and another is bad. There can be bans on something like uranium mining and asbestos mining, or on certain practises, but there is no blanket ban on coal mining. So the legislation requires an EIS (or similar) and the evidence and the arguments are complied by the proponent, the public is offered a chance to comment, and a long list of issues is systematically checked over by bureaucrats who then prepare a list of restrictions and conditions. That is the system. What is most disturbing about this case is that Bimblebox Nature Reserve was supposedly donated to the Qld Government (or the Qld people) for the purposes of perpetual conservation, and yet Qld legislation does not protect that land from open-cut mining. That is a disgrace, it seems like treachery. A legislative amendment is needed to fix that problem, but I can’t see that happening in the current political climate in Qld.
David James, Sydney burunglaut07@yahoo.com ==============================
________________________________ Cc: ‘? birding-aus’ Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 10:17 PM
Hi guys,
there is a question that never seems to be asked in relation to receding populations, but seems to come up in my thinking on a regular basis.
There is a tendency to write habitat off in relation to development assessments, when it is confirmed that a subject species is no longer present and hasn’t been for some time, Greg Roberts’ Eastern Bristlebird habitat may be a candidate for such a notion in the future, as an example, as is Black-throated Finch habitat.
On the other hand threatened species are subject to recovery actions by government departments to promote their return to a more secure status. If the southern population of Black-throated Finch is confirmed as not being present at this site, should the habitat be rendered unusable? If so, where will the proposed recovering populations live?
The writing off of previously occupied habitat, due to a threatened species not being present is surely ensuring that the species will remain threatened, particularly in that area…….yes….no?
Allan Richardson Morisset NSW
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org =============================== ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi guys,
there is a question that never seems to be asked in relation to receding populations, but seems to come up in my thinking on a regular basis.
There is a tendency to write habitat off in relation to development assessments, when it is confirmed that a subject species is no longer present and hasn’t been for some time, Greg Roberts’ Eastern Bristlebird habitat may be a candidate for such a notion in the future, as an example, as is Black-throated Finch habitat.
On the other hand threatened species are subject to recovery actions by government departments to promote their return to a more secure status. If the southern population of Black-throated Finch is confirmed as not being present at this site, should the habitat be rendered unusable? If so, where will the proposed recovering populations live?
The writing off of previously occupied habitat, due to a threatened species not being present is surely ensuring that the species will remain threatened, particularly in that area…….yes….no?
Allan Richardson Morisset NSW
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Which I’m sure leaves most of us who are naive to this (which I suspect includes most of the general public) totally gobsmacked. I guess one could hope for an intervention to maintain the spirit of, as opposed to the legal status of, such a reserve
Andrew Bell
By far the most worrying thing about this is not the Black-throated Finches but the statement “planning to build an open cut coal mine in the Bimblebox Nature Refuge near Alpha. ”
What exactly IS a Nature Refuge then???
Rosemary
PS Despite our several long visits to Oz the Black-throated Finch also eluded us!
PPS The Australian economy must be one of the healthiest in the world at the moment if the exchange rate is anything to go by – I don’t think you really need a new mine just yet!
Hi everyone some comments – mining leases can be issued under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 over Nature Refuges. The declaration of a Nature Refuge, even thought it is declared under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, does not preclude mining. The clearing of vegetation for mining is not assessed under the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
cheers
Following on from David’s comments, the best way to get the details is look at the documentation. Those associated with the EPBC referral are here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=4737 The actual EIS is here: http://www.waratahcoal.com/eis-executive-summary This is a large document so the relevant details may be Section 6 of Volume 2 (Terrestial Ecology) and Sections 10A and 12A of the Appendices (I suspect this will argue the values of the habitat). Looks to me like an incidental record (rather than during formal surveys) so I am not going to provide any comments either way (I have to do this enough for work in NSW) but could be some interesting discussions. However, a quick glance appears to suggest that they might have been seen at both the mine annd port sites? (this is in Section 2 Volume 4 as well). I don’t know about legislation in Qld regarding reserve tenures, but mining would not be allowed in a Nature Reserve (gazetted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act) though if there was mining interests in the first place the reserve may be made a State Conservation Area (though not certain about open cut mining in these). I guess the project is open for public comment, so if you want to provide comment, the links above (and those provided earlier) may help you do this. Cheers, Peter
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Firstly, this is an extraordinary location for the extremely rare southern subspecies of Black-throated Finch, inland from Emerald and Rockhampton. There have been no records anywhere near there for decades, and as far as I know, there are no other populations south of the Burdekin River. This is a very significant record. Anthea asked why can’t the government stop this. They can, but will they? The EPBC Act enables the federal environment minister to decline the development application due to the presence of the finches, but it does not entail the minister to do so. Environmental impact assessment in this country is not so much about saying yes or no to a proposal; most of the emphasis is on determining how to proceed with the least amount of environmental harm. That means detailed arguments, weighing up the costs against the benefits, and that often becomes a value judgement. A development proponent might try to argue that there are no finches there (challenge the records) or that they are just migrants and not resident there, or that the loss of a small population will not harm the species as a whole, or (most likely) that they can manage the environment so as not to affect the finches. A large mining company is also likely to put immense pressure on cabinet ministers and opposition members to pressure the environment minister (sometimes the decisions are made higher up than the environment minister for reasons other than the EIS documents). When the EIS goes to public comment, there is an opportunity for counter arguments to be made, though of course any opponents do not have the resources, time, or land access that the proponents have. When the minister makes a decision in favour it will certainly be loaded with strict conditions, so not a simple yes . There is opportunity for the proponent or opponents (depending which way it goes) to challenge the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I would expect in a case like this, if the decision was yes, a challenge would be lodged because of the implications that such a ruling has for protection of all threatened species in the future. However, the AAT only looks at merit, i.e. whether everything is above board and complete, not whether it is right. It all takes a long time to play out. Since BTFI is also listed as endangered in Qld the Nature Conservation Act and the Integrated Planning and Assessment Act give the Qld environment minister a similar opportunity to decline the application or approve it with conditions (though the processes differ). I believe the Bimbelbox Nature Reserve is managed by the Qld dept of Environment and Resources Management (if they still go by that name). I’d be surprised if open cut mining in a nature reserve could be permitted under Qld legislation. However, legislation is always full of clauses and loop holes. Perhaps a state significant project overrides nature reserves, or perhaps the NR can be deregistered. I can’t think of an angle that would give the federal government the power to protect a few acres of Qld Nature Reserve, but the EPBC act is very complicated. John said “Yes, we need export dollars and jobs and a boost in the rural economy BUT……..”
No offence, but do we really need more coal mines? Sounds like economic mantra to me. If mining was going to save the rural economy it would surely be saved already. How many jobs will come, and who will get them? Not the locals, because there are none, probably the same big contract companies that work on all big mines. Where do the export dollars go? Not into farms and food production, not into local schools, maybe into executive salaries and superannuation funds, if they stay in the country at all. Where is the sustainability in exponential acceleration of mining, export and combustion of coal? I suggest that our grand children will not be thanking us for the prosperity we bring upon ourselves and the unrepairable mess we leave to them.
David James, Sydney burunglaut07@yahoo.com ==============================
________________________________ Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011 2:08 PM
If the Commonwealth Govt can step in and prevent the Victorian Govt’s attempt to re-establish cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park, why cant it likewise prevent mining in a Queensland Nature Refuge?
Anthea Fleming
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org =============================== ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
This project is currently open for public comment and the Bimblebox web site has information and resources for submissions:
http://bimblebox.org/?page_id=410
Cheers,
Stewart
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
More information about Bimblebox Nature Refuge can be found at http://bimblebox.org.
Stephen Ambrose Ryde, NSW
If the Commonwealth Govt can step in and prevent the Victorian Govt’s attempt to re-establish cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park, why cant it likewise prevent mining in a Queensland Nature Refuge?
Anthea Fleming
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
My question is “Why is mining even proposed on the Refuge?” Surely the management authority, whoever it is has had some input into this proposal ……………. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, we need export dollars and jobs and a boost in the rural economy BUT……..
Yours in all things “green”
Regards
John Harris Manager, Environment and Sustainability Donvale Christian College 155 Tindals Rd Donvale 3111 03 9844 2471 Ext 277 03 9844 1102 Fax 0409 090 955 john.harris@donvale.vic.edu.au
President, Field Naturalists Club of Victoria (FNCV) Past President, Victorian Association for Environmental Education (VAEE) Still haven’t seen this species….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/bird-may-halt-palmer-mine-project/3591220/?site=brisbane
Tom