Developer contradicted by his own ecologist

The assertions of developer John Zavolokin reported in the last Peninsula News are contradicted by the statements of the ecologist he paid to write the ecological report for the development application.

The developer said "surveys have shown that endangered ecological communities did not exist on the site".

The ecological report states very clearly that two endangered ecological communities exist on this site.

The report further states that the remnant of one of them on this site, Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland, will be destroyed by this development.

The Department of Environment and Conservation also recognises the existence of this endangered ecological community.

Writing on behalf of the Minister Mr Bob Debus, deputy director general Mr Simon Smith states: "... the site supports a sample of the Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland endangered ecological community...".

The developer said "our proposal is ecologically responsible ... and of absolute integrity". However the ecological report states that the bandicoots that live on this site will be destroyed by the development.

Other statements by the developer are inaccurate or misleading.

The developer said "we have named every tree and surveyed every plant with an arborist".

Arborists usually focus on trees, and the arborist's report in the DA only provides information about the trees surveyed.

There would be millions of plants on the site that are not trees. I question that the arborist surveyed every plant on this site.

John Zavolokin said "No threatened species were present on the site."

Of the known threatened species of birds and animals, three threatened species are recorded as using this site. These are swift parrots, grey-headed flying fox, and glossy black cockatoos.

However these species fly, and so do not use this site exclusively. These species are threatened with extinction because of the destruction of their habitat. This is why the habitat provided by this site is significant for their survival.

Further, this site is the territory of the endangered barking owl. These birds need a territory of between 30 and 200 hectares to survive.

The developer also "rejected the assertion that there was a lack of knowledge about the site".

First, surveys by the arborist and ecologist do not give the full picture. This is demonstrated by the ecologist's statement in the DA's report that no glossy black cockatoos have been seen feeding in the vicinity of Veron Rd.

However, I collected evidence from four people who had seen glossy black cockatoos feeding in this vicinity. Also the ecologist did not survey owls, and so the endangered barking owls' use of this site was not included in his report.

Second, Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland has only been classified recently. The NSW Scientific Committee stated in its determination in 2002 that there was a lack of knowledge about this endangered ecological community.

The Scientific Committee provided a list of plants that comprise this community, but said that there were many other unknown vegetation types to consider, eg bulbs, corms, rhizomes. Also many plant species have seeds in the soil, but not growing, so there is no evidence of them.

Further, without identifying every plant on the site, or every bird, animal or insect that uses the site, we don't know whether any other threatened or endangered species are present on the site.

This is why the precautionary principle should apply, so that we don't destroy something we don't yet understand.

Shirley Hotchkiss, Umina