AUSTRALIA
Ecologist so troubled by Warragamba dam wall environmental impact statement she resignedNSW parliamentary inquiry told concerns of Rachel Musgrave and another ecologist were ‘watered down’ by consultants
Warragamba dam is the primary reservoir for water supply for Sydney.
Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian
Peter Hannam
Mon 8 Nov 2021
Ecologists involved in the multibillion dollar plan to raise the wall of Sydney’s main water reservoir say their input detailing the threat to endangered species in the world heritage-listed region was either watered down or ignored altogether.
The claims – made in separate evidence presented on Monday to a NSW upper house inquiry into the state government’s plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall at least 14 metres – raise fresh questions over the independence of the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the project.
Rachel Musgrave, a former primary assessor for biodiversity surveys and analysis for the EIS, said she had resigned out of concern her accreditation as an ecologist might be at risk if she had signed off on the draft report as proposed.
NSW government urged to consider alternatives to raising Warragamba dam wall
At stake for the proponent, the state government’s WaterNSW, was the prospect of at least $2bn in costs of offsetting the likely damage caused by inundating as much as 6,000 hectares in the Blue Mountains world heritage region to Sydney’s west. The raised wall itself may cost as much as $1.6bn.
Musgrave said she was worried the consultants hired by WaterNSW wanted her to interpret the impacts of the wall raising as “indirect” rather than direct to reduce or eliminate the cost. She said she was also overruled on issues, including the terminology used in the EIS.
“As I felt that the changes were not immaterial – these were substantive changes to the impact assessment – and I requested that my name be removed … from the report”, she said.
The request was refused, so Musgrave resigned rather than put her qualification in peril: “We have certain obligations and our code of conduct as an accredited assessor.”
A second ecologist, Ross Crates, an expert on the critically endangered regent honeyeater, told the committee his findings had been “watered down” by the consultants he and Musgrave were working for.
Crates, a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University, said there were as few as 350 of the birds left in the wild, with the majority of them in the Blue Mountains region.
A survey of about one-fifth of the proposed impact site had identified a minimum of 21 of the birds and seven nests, he said.
“There has been significant editing to the wording that I initially proposed for the upstream biodiversity assessment reports” in the EIS, Crates said. “That has been significantly diluted presumably to water down the envisaged impacts of the proposed development.” Words such as “will” were altered to “could”, he said.
Warragamba Dam: would a higher wall have prevented Sydney flooding?
Crates said he was also concerned the EIS had been designed to exclude a major area – between zero-2.78 metres and 10.25-14 metres above the current maximum flood level – from calculations for offsets. “This will be a huge area of mapped important regent honeyeater habitat that would not be offset in the current offset calculation strategy,” he said.
Steve Douglas, an ecologist who made an independent review of the draft and final versions of the EIS, said “there’s multiple instances of selective editing to favour the proponent’s interests”.
“[They] essentially dilute the impact and make it look not as significant as it is,” he said, adding he agreed with Crates about the “inability of offsets to achieve what they’re intended to” including for endangered plants.
Guardian Australia approached the western Sydney minister, Stuart Ayres, for comment. His office forwarded the request to WaterNSW.
“The Warragamba wall-raising proposal’s EIS process is strictly governed by multiple legislative and procedural parameters and subject to state and commonwealth government review to ensure the assessment and consultation work was fully compliant and meets the highest standard,” the spokesperson said.
Adam Searle, one of the Labor MPs on the panel, said the work done by the ecologists “had been reported in a way that they didn’t agree to”.
It raised questions “whether [the consultants] edited the evidence to the advantage of the proponent [WaterNSW]”, instead of operating at arm’s length as it should, he said.
Justin Field, an independent NSW MP and chair of the committee, said the evidence heard was “extraordinary”, including that there had been inadequate resources allocated to obtaining expert studies into the project’s damage.
“The NSW government has continued to dodge questions about this project saying all will be revealed in the final EIS,” he said. “Now we see the final EIS and there are few clear answers and the integrity and adequacy of the entire EIS has been called into question by subject matter experts.”
Harry Burkitt, the general manager of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, said “the reason the Warragamba EIS leaves so many stones unturned is because there is a group of cockroaches under every rock”.
He said the evidence strengthened the case for the state’s planning minister, Rob Stokes, to review the whole EIS process. The government should instead focus on alternative measures to reduce flood risks in the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain rather than raising the dam wall, he said.
The EIS is open for comment until 29 November.
Peter Hannam
Mon 8 Nov 2021
Ecologists involved in the multibillion dollar plan to raise the wall of Sydney’s main water reservoir say their input detailing the threat to endangered species in the world heritage-listed region was either watered down or ignored altogether.
The claims – made in separate evidence presented on Monday to a NSW upper house inquiry into the state government’s plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall at least 14 metres – raise fresh questions over the independence of the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the project.
Rachel Musgrave, a former primary assessor for biodiversity surveys and analysis for the EIS, said she had resigned out of concern her accreditation as an ecologist might be at risk if she had signed off on the draft report as proposed.
NSW government urged to consider alternatives to raising Warragamba dam wall
At stake for the proponent, the state government’s WaterNSW, was the prospect of at least $2bn in costs of offsetting the likely damage caused by inundating as much as 6,000 hectares in the Blue Mountains world heritage region to Sydney’s west. The raised wall itself may cost as much as $1.6bn.
Musgrave said she was worried the consultants hired by WaterNSW wanted her to interpret the impacts of the wall raising as “indirect” rather than direct to reduce or eliminate the cost. She said she was also overruled on issues, including the terminology used in the EIS.
“As I felt that the changes were not immaterial – these were substantive changes to the impact assessment – and I requested that my name be removed … from the report”, she said.
The request was refused, so Musgrave resigned rather than put her qualification in peril: “We have certain obligations and our code of conduct as an accredited assessor.”
A second ecologist, Ross Crates, an expert on the critically endangered regent honeyeater, told the committee his findings had been “watered down” by the consultants he and Musgrave were working for.
Crates, a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University, said there were as few as 350 of the birds left in the wild, with the majority of them in the Blue Mountains region.
A survey of about one-fifth of the proposed impact site had identified a minimum of 21 of the birds and seven nests, he said.
“There has been significant editing to the wording that I initially proposed for the upstream biodiversity assessment reports” in the EIS, Crates said. “That has been significantly diluted presumably to water down the envisaged impacts of the proposed development.” Words such as “will” were altered to “could”, he said.
Warragamba Dam: would a higher wall have prevented Sydney flooding?
Crates said he was also concerned the EIS had been designed to exclude a major area – between zero-2.78 metres and 10.25-14 metres above the current maximum flood level – from calculations for offsets. “This will be a huge area of mapped important regent honeyeater habitat that would not be offset in the current offset calculation strategy,” he said.
Steve Douglas, an ecologist who made an independent review of the draft and final versions of the EIS, said “there’s multiple instances of selective editing to favour the proponent’s interests”.
“[They] essentially dilute the impact and make it look not as significant as it is,” he said, adding he agreed with Crates about the “inability of offsets to achieve what they’re intended to” including for endangered plants.
Guardian Australia approached the western Sydney minister, Stuart Ayres, for comment. His office forwarded the request to WaterNSW.
“The Warragamba wall-raising proposal’s EIS process is strictly governed by multiple legislative and procedural parameters and subject to state and commonwealth government review to ensure the assessment and consultation work was fully compliant and meets the highest standard,” the spokesperson said.
Adam Searle, one of the Labor MPs on the panel, said the work done by the ecologists “had been reported in a way that they didn’t agree to”.
It raised questions “whether [the consultants] edited the evidence to the advantage of the proponent [WaterNSW]”, instead of operating at arm’s length as it should, he said.
Justin Field, an independent NSW MP and chair of the committee, said the evidence heard was “extraordinary”, including that there had been inadequate resources allocated to obtaining expert studies into the project’s damage.
“The NSW government has continued to dodge questions about this project saying all will be revealed in the final EIS,” he said. “Now we see the final EIS and there are few clear answers and the integrity and adequacy of the entire EIS has been called into question by subject matter experts.”
Harry Burkitt, the general manager of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, said “the reason the Warragamba EIS leaves so many stones unturned is because there is a group of cockroaches under every rock”.
He said the evidence strengthened the case for the state’s planning minister, Rob Stokes, to review the whole EIS process. The government should instead focus on alternative measures to reduce flood risks in the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain rather than raising the dam wall, he said.
The EIS is open for comment until 29 November.
No comments:
Post a Comment