Pacific Highway - Woolgoolga to Ballina

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission

I wish to object to the proposed preferred route for the Pacific Highway Upgrade - Woolgoolga to Ballina on the basis of its likely severe detrimental impacts on biodiversity, specifically on Threatened species and in particular on the Endangered Coastal Emu Population, the Koala and the Long-nosed Potoroo. I have attached separate files in relation to the Koala, Potoroo and other Threatened species with regard to their occurrences in the Wardell area and recommend that the preferred route be changed to the "orange" option, as designated in the EIS for the project, as having the least adverse impacts overall on biodiversity values.

I wish to object to the proposed preferred route for the Pacific Highway Upgrade - Woolgoolga to Ballina on the basis of its likely severe detrimental impacts on biodiversity, specifically on Threatened species and in particular on the Endangered Coastal Emu Population, the Koala and the Long-nosed Potoroo. I have attached separate files in relation to the Koala, Potoroo and other Threatened species with regard to their occurrences in the Wardell area and recommend that the preferred route be changed to the "orange" option, as designated in the EIS for the project, as having the least adverse impacts overall on biodiversity values.

Provision for highway service centres is not mentioned. For convenience of the through traffic users, convenient service centres supplying fuel,vehicle brekdown assistance,toilets, food and rest in one location are essential. Suggested locations about 100 km apart at Chinderah,Ballina, Harwood, Wells Crossing and Woolgoolga at the grade separated intersections would mean less local road traffic and congestion, noise, etc.

Dear staff,

Re: WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA | PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

I wish to make the following submission after reading the EIS:

* I support this project proceeding
* I support the extended work hours to expedite the delivery of the upgrade and minimise disruptions.

I do not live in this region but travel the highway when travelling to Sydney.

Sincerely

Phil Browne

My name is Kathleen Gayle Robinson of 8 Acacia Street Minniewater 2462.
I am in favour of the upgrade as I consider Australian highways to be very inferior. However as I said before if we paid our taxes all our working lives why cant I access the new road at Pillar Valley instead of the 6 mile lane or Tyndale interchange as proposed.? I do not accept that the local roads will be of sufficient standard. It is not the same authority that deals with these roads so I do not know how I can be given a guarantee that the local roads will be maintained. Also there has been a lot of money allocated to improve these local roads to no avail. One section was tarred one morning and had holes by the same afternoon.The road floods readily and I assume the new highway will be out of flood reach.Thank you for your consideration of this matter

Reference SSI-4963
Woolgoolga to Ballina Upgrade
As I have previously stated I wish to object to the lack of access at Pillar valley for Minniewater and
Wooli residents. After the road to Grafton and to Tyndale were just cut PAST this intersection from
Sunday til late Friday to Grafton and longer to Tyndale, I rest my case.Why should a highway be
there that is not available to me as a taxpayer all my working life of 35+ years.
Kathleen Gayle Robinson of 8 Acacia Street,Minniewater

I object to the RMS "preferred route" as it bisects the habitat of the NSW endangered listed Coastal Emu population in the Clarence Valley. Another 80 fauna and flora species are also affected. At a public meeting held at the end of Aug. in Grafton the majority urged the RMS reps. to revert back to the original "orange route".

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am objecting to the RSM "preferred bypass route" which bisects the habitat of the NSW
endangered listed Coastal Emu in the Clarence Valley. See my submission attached. My
recommendation is to revert back to the original "orange route" which follows the existing
highway and causes far less environmental destruction.
Yours faithfully,
Hans Lutter
BirdLife Austr. coordinator for
2020 shorebird project Ballina.


SUBMISSION TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Date 9-1-2013
Major Projects Assessments, Department of Planning and Infrastructure,
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Dear Sir/Madam,
Submission on Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade, Clarence Valley section.
I wish to comment on the recently released Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the upgrade of
the Pacific Highway between Woolgoolga and Ballina. In particular I have serious concerns about
the route through the Clarence Valley from Glenugie to Maclean. My concerns are based on the
potential impact on threatened species (both state and federally listed) and ecosystems generally
along the route. The potential impact on the Coastal Emu is of grave concern. With a greatly
reduced population of about 100+ birds any disturbance to it habitat should be avoided. The
proposed bridges and other methods to address this issue are all unproven and all monitoring will do
is document a further decline in the population. I have grave concerns about the survival of the
other 80+ threatened species and all of the non-threatened species that will lose their habitat when
the forests are cleared for the highway. The protection of compensatory habitat elsewhere will not
assist these habitats and species.
I therefore call on the determining authorities to reject the preferred route throughout the Clarence
Valley and to adopt the orange option which is a much less damaging option for the Valley’s
ecosystems.
At a time of great biodiversity loss we cannot allow such a major impact on the Clarence ecosystems.
There is a viable alternative and it needs to be adopted.
Yours faithfully
Hans Lutter

Hi,
We operate a tourism business at East Wardell are keen to understand any impact on arrivals to & departures from our business. Can you tell us what option was finally chosen (A,B, or C?) for the Wardell interchange on Wardell Rd?

Dear RTA.

My submission... GET IT DONE ASAP!!!!

The route should be along the existing highway as I think habitat protection and nature conservation should be our number one priority. Once lost, it's gone for good, we'll never get those ecosystems back.

To whom it concerns

Date 07/01/2013

Major Projects Assessments, Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission on Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade

I wish to comment on the recently released Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Woolgoolga and Ballina. In particular I have serious concerns about the route through the Clarence Valley from Glenugie to Maclean. My concerns are based on the potential impact on threatened species (both state and federally listed) and ecosystems generally along the route. The potential impact on the Coastal Emu is of grave concern. With a greatly reduced population of about 100+ birds any disturbance to it habitat should be avoided. The proposed bridges and other methods to address this issue are all unproven and all monitoring will do is document a further decline in the population. I have grave concerns about the survival of the other 80+ threatened species and all of the non-threatened species that will lose their habitat when the forests are cleared for the highway. The protection of compensatory habitat elsewhere will not assist these habitats and species.

I therefore call on the determining authorities to reject the preferred route throughout the Clarence Valley and to adopt the orange option which is a much less damaging option for the Valley's ecosystems.

At a time of great biodiversity loss we cannot allow such a major impact on the Clarence ecosystems. There is a viable alternative and it needs to be adopted.



Yours faithfully

Charles S Dove

Dear Sirs / Mesdames

My understanding is that, for the Pacific Highway upgrade through the Clarence Valley area, the preferred option is - somewhat naturally - the supposedly cheaper alternative. The "orange option", approximating to the route of the existing highway, will prove, it is believed, much more expensive, as it will impact on more people and property.

However, is any value in these deliberations being put on the permanent loss of ecosystems which, once lost, will be irretrievable? Maintaining the greatest biodiversity possible is of value to all our futures. This is known and accepted - but conveniently forgotten when immediate expenditure comes into consideration! We can and should do better!

Please register my disapproval of the destruction of important natural habitat that the present preferred option entails. Please plan for the long term - not a brief monetary advantage.

Barrie Ayres 37/7 Bortfield Drive Chiswick NSW 2046 (02) XXXX XXXX

As an ecologist, scientist, camper, birder and citizen (even one who drives long distances), I feel compelled to comment on the recently released Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Woolgoolga and Ballina. I, along with many other highly esteemed scientists in Australia, have serious concerns about the route through the Clarence Valley from Glenugie to Maclean. My concerns are based on the potential impact on threatened species (both state and federally listed) and ecosystems generally along the route.

As someone who has done in-depth study on road ecology, it is very frustrating that the money provided by the government into university research that focuses on how we can reduce the impact of roads on wildlife is being wasted - since none of this research seems to have been taken into consideration by the NSW government. The reason scientists study these systems and alternatives is so they may be put into practice and we can live sustainably.

While roads are imperitive to the proper function of our nation, so are our ecosystems. There are many ways to compromise, build better roads, improve existing routes, while keeping crucial habitat connections and minimiize impact on endangered species. Unfortunately the proposed mitigating methods have not been shown to be effective.

I am supporting the call on the determining authorities to reject the preferred route throughout the Clarence Valley and to adopt the orange option which is a much less damaging option for the Valley's ecosystems.

SUBMISSION TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Major Projects Assessments, Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission on Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade

Please consider the following comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Woolgoolga and Ballina.

The main focus of our concern is the proposal to construct 48km of new highway through Glenugie to Maclean. This is the largest construction of new highway along the eastern seaboard and it will pass through the most ecologically diverse andrelatively intact forested areas of anywhere in NSW. One of the key reasons for this high biodiversity is the absence of a major road to date.

The primary reason for not duplicating the existing route is the cost of building bridges over flood plain. This has recently been achieved successfully with the Kempsey upgrade - it can be done, but the choice is one of internalising or externalising costs at the expense of the environment. Money can be found, as illustrated by the State Government who recently discovered they had $1 billion they didn't know they had.

The environmental costs of clearing over 948 hectares of vegetation including 337 hectares of Endangered Ecological
Communities (EECs) including the Nationally listed Lowland Subtropical Rainforest cannot be measured nor replaced - that is why they are protected. The cumulative impacts on these EECs is unacceptable. There is insufficient detail in the offset strategy to determine whether 3421 hectares of `like for like' vegetation can be acquired. For example, it is very unlikely that the RMS is going to be able to find 56ha of Lowland Sub tropical Rainforest as outlined in their offset strategy, not to mention the other EECS. That is why they are provided `state wide recognition and protection. This detail needs to be made available and the vegetation communities identified and assessed as being suitable prior to the EIA being endorsed. These acquisition costs need to be factored into the equation now as being part of the overall project budget. This is the only means available of providing a fully costed project.

We have concerns that there has not been any baseline monitoring done in regard to the Endangered Population of Coastal Emu. RMS identified the route in 2006. Only recently have RMS trialled the attachment of satellite trackers. This project should have been started five years ago to get data on the location and the best possible crossing structures for the emus to continue utilising the Coldstream. To suggest that RMS will build a land bridge post construction if the emus do not use the flood mitigation related under passes is unrealistic. There is no information in the monitoring strategy to outline how long or how many emus will trigger this very expensive addition. Is there money to be set aside for this project? Again without this, it is not a fully costed project against which the ecologically less destructive route option can be accurately compared.

In our opinion the environmental costs are too great for very little human gain. We therefore call on the determining
authorities to reject the preferred route throughout the Clarence Valley and to adopt the orange option which is a much less damaging option for the Valley's ecosystems and possibly tax payers and rate payers' contributions.

Yours faithfully,

L. M. Wright and V. S. Acera Tejeda