Submission objecting to the proposed filming of the movie 'Stealth' in Blue Mountains National Park.


24 March 2004

Ms Helen Mulligan
'Stealth REF Submissions'
Department of Environment and Conservation
Conservation Planning Unit
Level 6
PO Box 1967
Hurstville NSW 2220

Re. Submission objecting to the proposed filming of the movie 'Stealth' in Blue Mountains National Park.


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.

The Society urges the Department of Environment and Conservation to refuse this commercial filming proposal.
We believe that in addition to the significant negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed activity and the inconsistency of the commercial proposal with the Wilderness Act and the NP&W Act and the objectives that underpin wilderness declaration; that approval of this proposal would establish a dangerous precedent for commercial activities in declared wilderness areas in NSW.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Baird MEIANZ
Threatened Species Officer