Ms Helen Mulligan
'Stealth REF Submissions'
Department of Environment and Conservation
Conservation Planning Unit
Level 6
PO Box 1967
Hurstville NSW 2220
Dear Ms Mulligan,
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society strongly objects to the proposed
commercial filming for the movie 'Stealth' in the Mt Hay area of Blue
Mountains National Park and the Grose Wilderness Area. Our objection
is based upon the following:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with s.9 of the Wilderness Act 1987
which requires that wilderness be managed 'to protect the unmodified
state of the area and its plant communities.'
That portion of the proposed commercial filming activities based around Butterbox Point and within
the swamp areas are located within the Grose Wilderness.
Even with the best intentions, these activities will unavoidably cause permanent damage
to extremely sensitive and outstanding sandstone and ironstone formations
(some of the best in the Blue Mountains), and to the fragile vegetation
communities, including excellent examples of wind exposed montane heath
and Blue Mountains swamps.
Both communities are recognised as significant
vegetation communities in the Blue Mountains and in the Draft Blue Mountains
City Council LEP 2002, which is currently awaiting gazettal.
Blue Mountains
swamps have been nominated for Vulnerable listing under the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with
a determination pending.
2. The proposal is inconsistent with the general objectives for management
of national parks and of Blue Mountains National Park, that are prescribed
in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, namely to protect and preserve
scenic and natural features and conserve wildlife and biodiversity.
This proposal will unavoidably lead to the damaging of extremely sensitive
geological formations and irreplaceable ironstone formations in particular,
and to trampling of fragile vegetation communities and recruiting native
seedlings, following the late 2002 fires.
The skeletal soils of the
ridges and areas including Butterbox Point are extremely fragile and
highly erodible, and with the scale of this proposal, it will be impossible
to ensure that personnel and equipment placement does not cause damage
to these surfaces.
The Society totally rejects the proponents' assertions
that the proposed activities and associated mitigation measures will
not cause significant environmental degradation to this outstanding
area.
Under the NP&W Act, DEC is required to apply the Precautionary
Principle in assessing impacts of proposals and the Society believes
they must determine that the proposal will adversely affect the unmodified
state of the area and its plant and animal communities.
3. Any proposal that includes off-track activities (including proposed
repeated rock scrambling and swamp access) is totally untenable in these
sensitive montane heath and Blue Mountains swamp areas.
The swamp communities
are extremely fragile and any usage of the existing track through the
swamp for the scale of activity proposed would require establishment
of a considerable length of raised boardwalk that will inevitably create
additional collateral damage.
The use of the untracked portion of the
swamp for filming which will involve multiple takes of a number of people
smashing their way through the swamp, will not only cause immediate
damage to the habitat but create a totally new access track. This will
further open up this area of known habitat for the endangered Giant
Dragonfly Petalura gigantea, to long-term recreational user access.
4. The 8 Part Test carried out for the Giant Dragonfly for the REF is
a superficial statement that fails to provide meaningful assessment
of the potential impact upon the species.
The blatant errors relating
to the species life history and behaviour contained in the consultant's
assessment for the 8 Part Test, negates the validity of their findings.
A significant emergence event for this species, with associated mating
and egg-laying has recently occurred in the immediate area. This event
has been of a scale previously unrecorded for this species.
The importance
of the event in terms of possible metapopulation dynamics at broader
landscape and temporal scales is completely unknown.
Field research
from November 2003 to February 2004 carried out by Ian Baird (with the
support of DEC) suggests that the Mt Hay Range may well now be the most
significant area for this species (unpubl. data).
Although adult dragonflies
will not be present in April, the swamp areas proposed for filming will
likely contain egg-laying and larval sites which will be extremely vulnerable
to the damage caused by the proposed activities.
Contrary to the consultant's
assessment, it is not the activity phases of adults within the prescribed
hanging swamp habitat that is the sole important consideration relating
to the lifecycle of the species.
The consultant asserts that the larvae
occur 'on the edge of the swamp habitats'. This is totally untrue and
they may be found anywhere where suitable moist and soft substrate occurs
from the valley floor drainage line margins to very small and localised
areas of hanging swamps on steep upper slopes (pers. observ.).
The consultant
also asserts that (unnamed) specialist advice suggests that adult dragonflies
are able to move between this and nearby sites containing suitable habitat.
There is no evidence in the literature on the subject to validate this
suggestion, in fact it is widely claimed that the species is in fact
a poor disperser.
Professor John Trueman, a recognised authority on
the subject, in fact stated that 'the adults are rather poor flyers
and hopelessly bad at dispersing'.
It is impossible to predict the
level of impact of the proposed activities upon egg laying sites and
young larval populations in particular. The only micro-site where eggs
have been laid this season, or in fact for many years in this swamp,
could well occur in the area where off-track filming access is proposed.
Egg-laying also occurs in small isolated wet sedge patches (sometimes
on steeper valley side slopes) amongst otherwise drier sedge-land at
these upper Blue Mountains sites (pers. observ.).
In the 8 Part Test,
the consultant also claims that mitigation measures will 'eliminate
any significant impact on the larval habitat', but fails to include
any mention of mitigation measures associated with the repeated personnel
access through the untracked area of swamp, which is the prime issue
of concern.
A buffer that excludes access of any kind would be required
around all potential habitat, which includes both wetter and drier sedgeland
communities at this site.
Early larval establishment and ecology is
a total mystery, as is the duration of the larval life cycle and the
species dispersal ability.
The capacity of the species to effectively
re-colonise suitable nearby habitat is unknown as are the time frames
that may be involved.
The Precautionary Principle requires that the
proposed activity be assessed using the 8 Part Test, as likely to disrupt
the life-cycle of the species such that a viable local population may
be placed at risk of extinction.
5. Unintentional trampling and soil disturbance in vegetation adjacent
to the car park and existing walking tracks will also be unavoidable
with the number of people involved.
6. The proposal is inconsistent with para.19 of the NPWS Filming and
Photography Policy (2001), in that the film content is not related to
and does not promote the management objectives of either Blue Mountains
National Park or the Grose Wilderness.
7. The REF failed to adequately consider the above Policy.
8. Para. 20 of the above Policy states that wilderness areas are not
preferred locations for filming (particularly of this scale of operation).
There are other sites in the Blue Mountains that contain outstanding
scenic attributes suitable for the film, and which do not require use
of a declared Wilderness Area for filming activities and which do not
involve activities that threaten or damage extremely sensitive vegetation
communities and outstanding geological formations.
9. We believe that the proponent has not undertaken an assessment of
alternative sites in the Blue Mountains and that the necessary site
attributes could be located elsewhere.
Regardless of site selected,
the Society strongly opposes filming activities within Blue Mountains'
swamp communities.
10. Approval of this proposal will establish a dangerous precedent for
commercial filming or other commercial activities within Wilderness
Areas. Such a precedent will inevitably lead to a challenge in the NSW
Land and Environment Court, if future proposals are rejected by DEC.
11. The proposal is inconsistent with various components of the NPWS
Wilderness Policy, including the specification that helipads are prohibited.
12. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (s.153A) prohibits issuing
of licences for commercial activities (such as the current commercial
filming proposal) in declared wilderness areas.
13. Under the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management (2001)
(s. 4.1.6), structures and vehicles are not permitted unless required
for management purposes. The proposed helicopter use and construction
of decking and helipads constitutes structures and vehicles and are
thus not permitted.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Baird MEIANZ
Threatened Species Officer