Pacific Highway - Woolgoolga to Ballina

Dear Authorities, [email protected]

RE: Woolgoolga to Ballina upgrade,

I am writing this submission in the hope that common sense will prevail. When determining your final solution of the upgrading the Pacific Hwy between Glenugie and Maclean.

I attended a community meeting at Grafton on the 31/8/12. In which key players in your department also attended and addressed that meeting. We were informed that of the four possible highway routes up for discussion. Two routes were in reality were the stand out solutions. One being an upgrade of the existing route, but involved the cost of flood proofing that route and relocation of some housing to make this happen. The other route was creating a whole new route to the east, through largely untouched flora and fauna, saving something like 17 k/ms of distance in the process.

An array of issues regarding the pros and cons of each of these desired routes were discussed and various presentations were viewed. I walked away from that meeting with a deep feeling that ONLY one route made sense to the BIG picture and that it was a no brainer. Only one route provided minimal disturbance to the existing environment and status quo.
.
The existing Highway route was originally chosen a long, long time ago and has served motorists very well. Except of course in this day and age where it is undesired to have small towns becoming bottlenecks, to the speeds of multilane highways and therefore bypasses are required. Most of the existing route is NOT flooded often and it is agreed that as the major east coast thoroughfare flooding should not happen. So with the correct engineering, this can be taken out of the equation, just as it was at Kempsie. As far as the existing property owners living near the highway are concerned, they all knew when they purchased property near the highway, that it was in fact the highway route and appropriately zoned for possible expansion or upgrade. So a highway upgrade should not come as a major surprise.

The eastern proposed route is a whole other kettle of fish. This proposed route would largely encompass an untouched paradise and refuge for many endangered plants and animals. In my view it would be criminal to
unnecessarily disturb it. Especially, when there is a predestined thoroughfare already in place. My major concern after attending that meeting is for the Coastal Emu. It is almost EXTINCT; this is pretty much the Coastal Emu's last pocket of habitat. The proposed route will in effect fence in half its necessary free range area into two separate areas where it would find it impossible to commute across. This could very much spell the death knell to this species FOREVER. Unproven man made crossings have been suggested, but emu's are not smart, with wildlife experts stating the chances of success being very small. Let alone the concept providing condensed ambushed points for predators even IF the emu's somehow managed to find and figure out what these crossings were for.
Surely, for the sake of an approximate 17k/m saving of highway driving (less than 6 minutes driving at 100km/h) we would all happily pay that price rather than risking Emu extinction. It is NOT worth the risk. Let alone the unnecessary disturbance to other wildlife habitat of these pristine rainforest and native bushlands.
This is NOT your basic scrub we are talking about. You have the opportunity to preserve all of this for future
generations.

It greatly makes more sense to me to flood proof the existing route by building up the base and design engineering in overpasses where required, it is easier to herd stock under the overpasses rather than hope Emu's somehow work things out, as per the other option. This is a Win, Win, Win situation. Habitat and Emu's survive for future generations. Stakeholders knowing they already live on a highway, get assistance in moving homesteads to possibly better parts of their existing properties or nearby, (not necessarily a bad thing) if required. The small riverside country towns have an even better economic possibility of survival as they are not greatly removed from highway travellers who can easily peel off for the services that these towns provide.
In summing up, I hope you can see that this is a no brainer too.

Yours Faithfully
Gregg Rigby, The Gap Rd, Woodburn NSW 2472

Hi,

The Corindi Community Group are concerned at the timing for the Woolgoolga to Ballina Highway upgrade. As people are still on Christmas leave we consider to get the best feed back from the community (that is the aim) you should reschedule the meeting to early February and at a time when people will be available (7pm). Thank you for considering this proposal.

Regards,

Graeme Geyson
Hon. Secretary
CCGInc

At this stage approx 1500 trucks use the Pacific Hwy, with every kilometer of hwy completed another 2 trucks join this queue. By the time the hwy is completed there will be 2,000 trucks passing Corindi each night. The noise from these trucks is compounded by still nights and westerly winds. At the moment the hwy is down at ground level but with the upgrade the hwy is likely to be raised over flood plains. this will increase the noise dramatically at Corindi Beach. The fact that the hwy will be further away will make no difference to the noise level. The residence do not want their quality of life degraded by hwy noise. It is requested that sound deadening surface be used on the hwy passing the Corindi Beach Village and that noise barriers be installed on brideges in our vicinity. We see that the flooding of Eggins Road has been considered and we thank you for that. Graeme Geyson Hon. Sec

Will the new Pacific highway affect 110 Luthers road Halfway Creek. On the map the highway is nearly on one corner of the property also is their any flood barriers that will push more water over our land. We have done a lot of work to reduce the flood water on this property so that we can grow crops.
Thanks look forward to hearing from you David Bovey.
email: [email protected]

I attended community meeting in Corindi Wednesday 16/1/13.
I found it informative. We could not understand Chris when he spoke.
My comment has always been the noise factor of trucks decelerating when travelling South, coming around the turn on the h'way at the Corindi - Red Rock off shoot. When the road (Section 1) is completed it won't make any difference as a truck stop is being built at the Arrawarra turn off. Trucks will still be decelerating.
One lady sitting next to me complained loudly about 6 trucks passing together at night. She lives at least 800M further away from the h'way than us (back in Corindi) yet when people spoke she said "I can't hear him". Makes our noise concerns more valid.
Inspecting 12 months after completion and again in 2026 (letter ref CE12/1703 undated). 13 years. Some of us won't be here. With the recent storms over last 3 days it has been great. Wind coming from the East.
We need help now, not in years to come.

Dear Madam/ Sir
I like to submit the following on Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade:
After travelling in the area this issue was brought to my attention and I am appalled to hear and read about the destructve impact the proposed upgrade of this highway.
In my local area I have witnessed several road upgrades and unfortunately the most grave predictions regarding
environmental considerations were usually correct.
I have written a paper published by the Royal Zoological Society on roadkill "NO PRESCRIPTION YET TO COUNTER THE ROADKILL OF OUR NATIVE FAUNA: A STUDY OF ROADKILL IN THE NARRABEEN CATCHMENT OF SYDNEY" and have been a member of a team with National Parks and Wildlife Service writing a recovery plan for an endangered ecological communiy.
In the proposed scenario the coastal emu endagered population will be hugely effected and their survival into the future is to my understanding quite unlikely.
The highway is also to affect the critically endangered vegetation community ' Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical
Australia'. Critically endangered means it is already critically endangered and any extra burden will be likely to wipe it
out.
Road construction as well as maintenance will be an extra burden and whilst the effects are often hidden for a fair
number of years the decline of this community has to be expected if the proposal goes ahead.
Changes in the soil from imported materials and changes in drainage patterns invariably will help to establish a different micro-organism structure in the soil. Our knowledge of 5% of all micro-organisms combined with our growing understanding of the need for specific micro-organism compositions for different vegetation communities highlights the enormous risk we would take if this route were to be choosen.
The above mentioned fauna and flora is only a slither from the overall affected wildlife populations and their habitat.
I request that a route with much less impact on our wildlife habitat be found. Compensation somewhere else is not an
ethical choice.
Yours faithfully
Conny Harris

My submission regards the length of proposed highway between the southern intersection/access to Maclean and approx 3km north(your ref drawing CD-p-089 and CD-P-090, length 80600 to 82800) We are the owners of Lot1911 DP 1145226 and Lot 21 DP 230180. The aforementioned land along with the general township of Townsend which is an earmarked residential growth area for the lower clarence will be detrimentally effected by the visual and noise factors during and after construction. Especially if the option of an off ramp to Jubilee St is adopted.I therefore would suggest that if at all possible a combination of an earth mound and wall barrier along with the low noise pavement would be beneficial in maintaining the amenity of this growing area. My concerns also are about the stormwater drainage management of downstream flows through our land . When the RTA purchased land from our family to bypass Maclean they split the family farm in two and concentrated flows
creating a new and problematic stormwater erosion canal. My question is how the RMS will deal with flows from the western side of the highway and are they willing to try and rectify or at least find an amicable solution to this problem which they created.
Regards Ivars Katuzans

thank you for your time . i object to the project specifically the glenugie to tyndale section. as i live within 500m of the proposed road i will be greatly effected. firstly as is mentioned in the eis the design as it stands will have a large enough effect on the flows of champions creek to increase the flooding upsteam where my property access lies. this will reduce the time i have to prepare for major flooding. the bridge over champions ck on somervale road will undoubtably be effected as well as only 500m downstream a creek that can now break its banks and run 300-400m wide will be resticted down to 60-90m. presently during periods of heavy rain the creek laps the deck of the bridge. even a rise of 100-200mm will make that section of somervale rd impassable. this is my route to town for food and fuel supplies in preparation for major floods which often follow. gary mcpherson and his hydrology engineer have inspected this area and agree. i obect to the proposal because of the effects the noise will have on me and my family. at its closest i believe i will trying to sleep 300m from an interstate highway when for the last 20 years i had only nature's sounds to sleep with. at present there is no traffic noises here at night. the only suggestions that are being offered are modifications to my house. i live in an elevated timber house with a clear line to a proposed elevated road. i can only think that double glazing and soundproofing walls would be on offer with perhaps mechanical ventilation. if i want to live in a tomb i go to egypt. i sleep with windows open i have a modest stand alone solar system that only powers fridge and lights so i would love to hear what plans are in store to enable me to sleep at night. i am sure there have been numerous noise complaints in the past so the solutions or attempted solutions should be well documented. i fear nothing will happen until the road is built and i complain, so i am presently seeking professional advice to ensure this is not the case. i am also objecting to the quality , the accuracy of the flora and flora studies. the maps of the somervale rd champions ck area that show vegetation types and endangered / vulnerable fauna are indisputable evidence of an incomplete inaccurate study and im sure i would be even more dissappointed if i knew its cost.. i have lived here for over 20yrs and without even trying have seen fruit dove, bittern, cockatoo, owl, phascogale,glider and other listed species. perhaps i object the most to an area marked in the maps as disturbed which upon closer inspection turns out to be an untouched wetland . im thinking if you looked at it from google earth that one would concude that the area had been cleared. the swamp in question cannot support trees least of all a machine to push them over. i have seen brolgas dancing and black swans nesting on it however. once again thanks for your time

The proposed route between Broadwater and Coolgardie will, if constructed, destroy, fragment and isolate the largest and most significant areas of native vegetation in the Lower Richmond Valley, have significant impacts on several Matters of National Environmental Significance and destroy biogeographically significant areas with numerous species occurring at the extreme limit of their geographic range. None of these impacts are able to be mitigated or offset. Specifically, the proposed upgrade between Broadwater and Coolgardie will:
* destroy and degrade substantial areas of six Endangered Ecological Communities and the habitat of at least 40 threatened species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995;
* disturb and destroy culturally significant features including scar trees, middens and ceremonial grounds that are of great importance to the Bundjalung people;
* heavily impact upon the largest known and only viable coastal population of the nationally Vulnerable Long-nosed Potoroo on the Far North Coast; and
* generate significant adverse impacts on a large high-density resident population of the nationally Vulnerable Koala.

The proposed route of the Pacific Highway upgrade between Broadwater and Coolgardie will completely isolate the Wardell wetlands and heathlands by clearing all corridors and connecting habitats that link this area to the Blackwall Range, the Tuckean Swamp, Broadwater NP and other adjoining habitats. All of these areas are documented as having national conservation value. The proposed route will result in the clearance and fragmentation of the known habitat of at least 40 threatened species, many of which are listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

The existing route of the Pacific Highway between Broadwater and Coolgardie is at least 2.5km shorter than the proposed upgrade/deviation. The existing route has negligible conservation value.

Thus I believe that the Governrment should upgrade the current road now rather than try and create a brand new highway (which may take years), using scare government resources, and which will wreak havoc on what's left of our precious natural environment.

I have reviewed the EIS report regarding the Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade. As I have a particular area of interest / concern, I wish to make a submission regarding the EIS.

My particular interest in the project comes from ownership of a rural property which is adjacent to the eastern side of the Highway at approximately XX XX. The real property description is XXXX on XXXX XXXX. The complete address (per Valuer-General records) is simply "XXXX XXXX XXXX". At present, access to our property is directly from / to the Pacific Highway at two locations:

Access (1): approx XXXX - access to the neighbouring XXXX property and via that access to our property; and
Access (2). approx XXXX - access directly to our property.

Upon reviewing the EIS, in particular Chapters 5 (which shows no access to our property) and Chapter 14 (which does not list our present property access), it appears that it is intended to remove access to our property without providing alternative (or, for that matter, any) access. That is contrary to my understanding, prior to the release of the EIS, of the intent of the NSW Government. Obviously, loss of access to the property would be disastrous for our continued ability to use the property for our cattle business. The neighbouring cane farm would be similarly impacted.

I object to the current configuration of the project and require details please of a proposed adjustment to the project - and related supplement to the EIS - to ensure our property has reasonable access to allow it to be continued to be used as envisaged. In particular, we need the capacity at both access points to:

* enter the property when our vehicles and trucks are travelling up from the south (eg from Grafton) and heading north-bound toward the property. That is, we need to get light & heavy vehicles to turn right, across the south-bound lanes, into the property. On this point, it is also important for me to understand the profile of the space between the northbound & southbound lanes - it will need to be passable for cattle trucks, low loaders, etc.

* and, conversely, the same types of vehicles exiting the property to travel back towards Grafton - ie turning left back onto the south-bound lanes.


We have a property adjacent to the eastern side of the highway, at approx XX XXXX. It appears from the EIS that the service road at this point will be on the western side of the highway, and thus of no utility to us. The EIS is deficient in that it fails to recognise our property access at XXXX and fails to specify the proposed alternative access to our property from the north or the south. The project needs to be updated, and the EIS accordingly supplemented, to ensure that our property will continue to have usable, practical and non-circuitous access.

The proposal represents a minimalist approach for fauna movement and the upgrade needs to include a network of overpasses or better choices in road alignment to minimise fragmentation of large patches of vegetation.

SUBMISSION CONCERNING
PROPERTY ON WANTS LANE, GLENUGIE
Lot 116:DP751376 & Lot 68:DP751376
Emu access and our access
Submitted by Sarah Fletcher
247 Wants Lane
Postal add: Box 227, South Grafton 2460
15/Feb/2013

A very relevant matter to be considered about the Pacific Highway proposal to cross our property and divide it into 2 pieces diagonally is that there is no adequate access for us to the other side. We live on the southern side and ½ our tea tree plantation will be on the northern side of the proposed Pacific Highway.

There is no proper EMU ACCESS, either. There is a proposed bridge over the wetland on the property but that does not appear to be an adequate access for emus, our machinery or ourselves to farm or enjoy the northern side of our property.

We need 2 accesses: one on the western side of the wetland bridge for emus, work on that plantation, bushland and paddock and one on the eastern side of the wetland bridge for emus, work on that plantation, bushland, wetland and walks to the river.

The loss, severance and disturbance of this land is very stressful to us. At the least we were expecting to be able to have access to our land that will be on the "other" side of the highway. Now it appears you have not given us an underpass adequate for our harvester, other machinery and ourselves to care for and enjoy all it offers us--wet land, river, bush land and all that goes with it.

Don't forget the proper emu access.

Bridges between Corindi River and Casson Creek. Consultation period with adjacent land holders should any modifications/changes to plan be made as a result of submissions post 18/02/13.

19/1/2013 29 High Street,
Urunga. 2455
Major Projects Assessments, Dept. of Planning & Infrastructure,
GPO Box 9,
SYDNEY. 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re Proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade

The following are my comments on the recently released EIS regarding the above upgrade.
I, & my wife, are strongly opposed to the selected route from Glenugie to Maclean. It appears, from the map, that this proposed route follows a line predominantly thru undeveloped (& probably public) land. A route, such as this, is quite obviously the worst choice for the future of our country & for the future of our country's wildlife. All new selected roadway routes should be confined entirely to land that has already been damaged by previous human activity. Most definitely, not thru our untouched areas. We have already destroyed massive amounts (too much) of our countryside, & it is an indisputable fact that there is not very much remaining. Continuing to destroy more is, quite clearly, the incorrect approach. The route should follow beside the existing Grafton highway, or, if a shortening of the distance is required, to reduce the construction(& driving) time & cost, then an alternative line can & should be selected thru private (i.e. already damaged) properties, completely avoiding the pristine areas & the wetland areas. This has the benefit of minimizing the required number of bridges, & therefore reducing the overall cost & construction times. On the map, there appears to be sufficient available land for this purpose. If we continue to demolish the ever diminishing remainder of our original countryside, & we seem to be doing this more rapidly nowadays, thru new roadways, housing developments, mining projects, etc, then we are ensuring that OUR future, & that of our native animals & birds, is doomed. It is very simple logic & commonsense. Don't forget the 1800's Easter Island tragedy. We are steadily heading down the same pathway, & have nearly arrived at the limit. We must stop. An enquiry at the local National Parks organization indicated that there are only about 100, (or a few more), species of birds remaining in the proposed route area, & any disturbance to their habitat will be critical for their survival. Also, even though we live at Urunga, my wife & I have been regularly visiting Brooms Head (near Maclean) over the last 9 years, & we have noticed, over this period, the reduction in the number of native Emus in that & nearby areas. So some (probably) human activity is already affecting this situation. The Highway route will only make it worse. The number of kangaroos, so far, seems to have been unaffected, but their (& many other animal's) habitat will also be threatened. Clearly, we must avoid interfering with this remaining fairly narrow coastal strip of land.

An alternative route thru already damaged land should be the only one to be considered.

Yours faithfully
Ron & Anne Cameron.
[email protected]

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.