It's open slather for land clearing in the Territory - Sign the submission today!

Dear Pastoral Land Board,
I am writing to urgently request that you reject the application by Cross Pacific Investments Pty Ltd. to clear 562 hectares of native vegetation at Scott Creek Station.
I submit that it is totally inappropriate that this application be assessed under the Gunner Government’s “Simplified Pastoral Land Clearing guidelines”. This is not a simple application, but one which risks significant impacts on biodiversity at a landscape scale when considered cumulatively with the other components of the proponent’s development.  It should be rejected, and the project as a whole immediately referred for assessment under the Environment Protection Act NT and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cth) as it clearly meets the threshold of having the potential to have a significant impact on the environment and a number of matters of national environmental significance.
I submit the following:
<ol>
<li>Two applications in the same area have been stacked in as many weeks. The current application seeks to clear 562 ha of vegetation.  However, the  Proponent has also very recently submitted application PL2021/0006 to clear 884 hectares of “new” native vegetation, and “reclear” 633 hectares of native vegetation. In addition, the proponent has an adjacent non pastoral use permit NPU17/1-A, comprising 890.68ha of land cleared alongside Scott Creek (leaving little riparian vegetation which would act as a biodiversity refuge, wildlife corridor, and barrier to sediment and chemical run-off). This brings the Proponent’s entire development to 2970 hectares. Taken cumulatively, this is an extremely large cotton development that may have significant environmental impacts.</li>
<li>There are 18 listed threatened species that may be impacted by the proposed development, including the northern brushtail possum, the northern quoll, the Gouldian Finch, the partridge pigeon and the freshwater sawfish.  The Department’s own research indicates that clearing over 1500ha within a 3000ha area may have significant impacts on biodiversity and make some populations unsustainable at a landscape scale. This is undoubtedly a significant impact. Only cursory analysis is given of the biodiversity impacts of the proposal at a landscape and regional scale.</li>
<li>Despite the considerable quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from the project this impact is not mentioned, nor are any offsets proposed to mitigate these emissions. This is unacceptable at a time when the NT Government needs to be reducing emissions to play its part in addressing climate change. The total emissions produced from land clearing applications currently being assessed by the Pastoral Land Board is equivalent to 13% of  the NT's annual greenhouse gas emissions. To fast track land clearing is inconsistent with the NT Government’s greenhouse gas emissions target of net zero emissions by 2050.</li>
<li>There is inadequate explanation of the likely impacts on sediment run-off, erosion, dust and soil quality in the application.  The tillage of Scott Creek Station will significantly increase the risk of soil degradation, erosion and dust, particularly in years when it is not possible to plant crops due to low rainfall. There is the potential for contamination of soils from chemicals and fertilisers applied on the area, as well as changes to soil structure.</li>
<li>There are likely to be sacred sites in the vicinity of the Application area. A registry extract is manifestly inadequate to protect these, and any other sites that may exist in the area. An authority certificate granted under the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) should be a mandatory requirement.</li>
</ol>
I am extremely concerned that 13% of the Daly catchment is already cleared, and there are no caps in place to prevent largescale devastation of this highly valued region, with irreversible impacts, including on the magnificent free-flowing Daly River. The “simplified guidelines” are a huge step backwards for protection of our savannas and rivers, and are likely to be inconsistent with the requirements of both Northern Territory and Commonwealth environmental legislation.
The Application should:
(a) be rejected and resubmitted as a standard application; and
(b) be referred for assessment under both the Environment Protection Act NT and EPBC Act.