According to the correspondence,WaterNSW said the report did not reflect what it viewed as indirect rather than direct impacts to flora and fauna in the Burragorang Valley.
The ecologist raised the alarm with the department officials early last year,with documentation showing that similar concerns about the likely impacts to the environment were being raised by government staff and internal inquiries were being made.
The Ecological Consultants Association of NSW raised the episode in a submission to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the state’s beleaguered biodiversity offsets scheme,saying the assessor was asked “to downplay the impacts of the project on biodiversity loss relating to a Critically Endangered Species.”
“We applaud the assessor for standing their ground,but it raises questions about how the NSW government plays by its own rules,and/or the type of companies it is contracting to conduct its ecological assessments,” the submission reads.
The association said it was an example of the offsets scheme “being manipulated for financial and political purposes rather than aiming to retain or adequately offset the loss of biodiversity values”,referring to the compensation for environmental impacts being consequently calculated as less.
Loading
“The fact there has been no thorough investigation into this is concerning. The consultant in question raised the issue with the department,and a private inquiry was launched,but there has been no public statement released,” the submission said.
TheHerald sent questions to the department,however these were forwarded to WaterNSW,who answered by emailing a link to the environmental impact statement currently on exhibition,which has alreadyfaced questions over its accuracy.
TheHerald pressed the department for comment,with a spokesman responding that no complaint was ever received but that the department’s Environment,Energy and Science group would be reviewing the EIS,and all allegations of biodiversity law breaches were taken seriously.
The EIS released last month significantly reduced the expected toll on World Heritage bushland cited in a leaked consultant’s paper that had previously been submitted,and stated up to 92 threatened plant and animal species “could potentially be impacted” by upstream inundation.
Loading
Labor’s Penny Sharpe asked the Treasurer during budget estimates this week whether he was comfortable that the EIS actually dealt with biodiversity offsetting,given “that it’s trying to argue that[the upstream impacts are] temporary rather than permanent?”
Mr Kean replied:“Obviously inundation,temporary or permanent,is going to impact upon the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Whether it’s temporary or permanent,it’s both going to have an impact.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.