MEDIA> NTN NSW UPDATE
JUNE 2004
Aerial Spraying & Contaminated Land Issues
Time to celebrate! NTN committee members have recently had big wins bringing major benefits for the Australian environment. Win or lose we are always thankful and proud, of hard working NTN members nationwide, but aint it grand when those successes come rolling in.
Aerial Spraying
Ellen White from northern NSW has stopped aerial spraying with glyphosate, over 35H of Bitou Bush in the Dirawong Reserve at Evans Head.
In 2002 the Dirawong Reserve Trust, charged with the job of managing the reserve initiated the aerial spraying of the costal Bitou Bush. There was no follow up weed management plan prepared. Despite mixed success and clear evidence that exclusion zones had experienced vegetation deaths from drift, more spraying went ahead in 2003. Although the Trust had decided not to spray the northern headland covered with Themeda grasslands, almost all of the coastal areas was sprayed, including former exclusion zones, wetlands, lagoons, and creeks.
Ellen notes some of the negative effects seen after the spraying as:
 Erosion due to death of large areas of Bitou Bush.
Increase in range and abundance of non-target weeds such as Glory Lily.
Death of many native sedges, grasses and ferns. Recovery has been slow or non-existent.
Exposure to salt laden winds causing die back in Banksia integrifolia.
Negative impacts on native animals i.e. birds, insects, leaf eating wallabies. Spraying took place at half-tide creating a real threat to the exposured flora and fauna on rock platforms.
In Ellen’s words “It was clear that the only way the Dirawong Trust would discontinue the aerial spraying was to have little Bitou Bush to spray. To this end hundreds of hours were spent by dedicated workers, voluntarily pulling out Bitou seedlings as they emerged.” Ellen developed a weed management strategy and coordinated bush regenerative work by securing funding and the help of different greening groups largely following the Bradley method of bush regeneration.
It was a huge undertaking with fantastic results. Ellen makes note of a few lessons to be learned from her experience.
Board members for reserve trusts need some ecological background or training.
There is a serious lack of information regarding the effects of glyphosate on Australian flora and fauna.
Herbicide spraying has limited justifiable application in eradication of Bitou bush.
Contaminated Land
John Craven, also from the north coast of NSW, represents NTN as the Nature Conservation Council’s nomination on the Site Auditors Accreditation Committee for the NSW, EPA. This committee has come about in relation to the Contaminated Land Management Act-Amended 2003 and is charged with the task of accrediting new auditors, reviewing their performance and formulating guidelines for accrediting site auditors and auditor procedures.
John, with his environment and legal background, could see that the Act is ambiguous in its statements about auditor’s conflict of interest. Therefore, he was arlarmed when the Draft Guidelines for the Act appeared to even more clearly make it possible for auditors to audit there own first tier site assessments or that of their employers.
NOTE: Stages in site remediation
The site assessment and remediation process may divided into two stages (or tiers):
In the first tier consultants generally engaged by the site owners or developers, to design and conduct a site assessment, and any necessary remediation and validation, and document the processes and information in reports.
In the second tier, site auditors accredited under the CLM Act independently review the assessment, remedial and validation plans or reports prepared by the contaminated land consultants for the purposes stated in the Act. The review is a “site audit” and the accredited site auditor can only undertake it according to the conditions set out in the CLM Act.
John was able to bring about amendments that better support the public interest and the final draft now states:
“A conflict of interest may also arise if the site to be audited is one for which either the site auditor or the site auditor’s employer has been directly involved in previous or current assessment, remediation or validation of the site.”
It is noted by John that the Act itself remains ambiguous and is still cause for concern. But thanks to John’s astuteness and action, clarification within the Guidelines could stop blatant conflicts of interest or help to sway a court case - for the public interest- that could emerge on this issue.
This is a victory that has far-reaching positive repercussions for the many and varied contaminated land problems plaguing NSW.
|
