Botany Bay and Catchment Alliance

IPART will be finalising its recommendations over the coming months.  Responses to the Draft recommendations can be read at www.ipart.nsw.gov.au (click on Other Industries).  IPART is yet to address the issue of empty containers and the need to increase Customs and AQIS examinations.  It recommends that the State Government ask for Auslink funding to fix homegrown rail freight problems at the expense of funding for a national project such as the Inland Rail from Gladstone through Parkes to Melbourne.

IPART, the RTA, Sydney Ports and others recommend the introduction(beyond the trial) of Super B Doubles onto our roads.  The Port is not in a Greenfield site – it is surrounded by some of Australia’s oldest suburbs and it is inappropriate to be introducing these monsters (with BTriples to follow) when individuals are downsizing to bicycles and smaller vehicles.

In 2002 BioBanking under the name Green Offsets was placed on exhibition by the EPA.  BBACA put in a submission(http://botanybay.info/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/submissiongreenoffsets.pdf ) and then kept asking for an acknowledgement and/or further information - we forwarded our request to Lis Corbyn on a few occasions and each time we were ignored.  When the determination for the Port Expansion was put in the public domain(October 2005) it contained a reference to the Draft Green Offsets saying that it would be used for Penrhyn Estuary.  This year Sydney Ports used the Green Draft Offsets in establishing a ‘value’ for Penrhyn should the ‘enhancement’ plan for the area fail – link http://www.botanybay.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/penrhyn-estuary-offset-package-0705-5015b.pdf  Isn’t it grand to live in a parliamentary democracy?

Public consultation for BIOBANKING  – Compare with Draft Green Offsets(2002)

The Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) has released several important components of the BioBanking Scheme for community comment. They are the: Regulatory Impact Statement for the proposed regulation for the scheme, the Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2007

• Draft BioBanking Assessment Methodology
• Draft Compliance Assurance Strategy.

The closing date for submissions is Friday 1 February 2008:   biobanking@environment.nsw.gov.au   OR

Dr Richard Sheldrake,Deputy Director General
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW
PO Box A290,Sydney South NSW 1232

Submissions should include your name, address, contact phone numbers and email address and indicate whether you:

would like to receive further information about the scheme;are interested in participating in the scheme and would like to attend information sessions and receive information for potential participants when the scheme commences:are interested in receiving information about training on the credit calculator.

IT IS NOT JUST TASMANIA‘S ENVIRONMENT THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

We hear a lot about the Pulp Mill in Tasmania but in Botany Bay we also have dozens of species and communities protected under Commonwealth law.  Various marine species around Bare Island are included – the Weedy Sea Dragon, pipefishes, White’s Sea Horse (see photo) and many more live around the Island and whales and dolphins are regular visitors.

The Energy Australia Botany Bay cable from Kurnell to La Perouse will impact an area near Bare Island.  Because of the possible impacts on Commonwealth Protected Species, Energy Australia was required to write to the Department of Environment and Water Resources(DEWR) for an assessment of their development.  The process is called a ‘referral’ to the EPBC Act.  That referral was written in July 2007.  On December 3, 2007 DEWR ceased to exist and staff and sections within this department were incorporated into the Department of Environment, Heritage and The Arts with our local member, Peter Garrett, as Minister.  On December 4, still calling themselves DEWR, staff of the former department issued a determination on the Energy Australia referral. (more…)

The latest issue of Environmentally Speaking from Botany Bay Explorers: click here – enviro-speaking-14.doc

Timing is all. Yesterday while Kevin Rudd was announcing his new cabinet, the Premier of NSW took the opportunity to ‘advise’ NSW taxpayers that the expansion of Port Botany would be costing them $1 billion not the $500 million announced 6 months earlier, or the $240million 3 years earlier. If taxpayers get out of this one at 10 times the original estimate they can probably count themselves lucky. Luck is what the government is counting on to attract a third stevedore as well. Yesterday’s announcement of the award of the tender to Baulderstone Hornibrook and Jan de Nul also gave the government the opportunity to slip in another piece of ‘advice’. This expansion apparently will double the current capacity of the port. Transport carriers, in submissions to IPART, have argued that the Port is operating well below capacity; both stevedores at the Commission of Inquiry said that on the current footprint they could move in excess of 4 million containers. Even at the approved capacity levels of 1.3 million for each terminal, that brings us to an overall capacity around 5.2 million.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Port was based on a capacity of 3.2million. The Minister’s approval was based on 3.2 million so why now talk of 5 million plus when under the NSW Ports Growth Plan Newcastle becomes the next container port after Port Botany reaches 3.2 million.

Click to see: Map of Dredging area and other developments in Botany Bay.pdf

Read Media Releases of 31/5/07 where the Port costs $500 million31/5/07 Port announcement and 29/11/07 where it now costs $1 billion and capacity has increased from 3.2million to 5.2 million containers. Expansion 29/11/07

Don’t expect any analysis of this project from the Sydney(CBD) Morning Herald. Below is what appeared in The Age: Misleading quotes from Iemma commenting on the needs of farmers even though his Transport Minister is on record as saying that Federal money should be spent in Sydney in preference to building the Inland Rail through Parkes and other Regional Centres. (more…)