DOCSLIB.ORG

Hillview Hard Rock Quarry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hillview Hard Rock Quarry Forster office 4 Breese Parade | PO Box 450 Forster NSW 2428 29 March 2019 Your ref: BM:rd Mr Rob Beckett Enquiries: Bruce Moore Environmental Assessment Officer Resource Assessments Planning & Environment GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Dear Rob Hillview Hard Rock Quarry It is understood that the Department of Planning and Environment has received a request to re-issue Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the Hillview Hard Rock Quarry (SSD 8239), located 8km south of Stroud, within the MidCoast local government area. The proposal involves: • establishing a quarry to extract and process up to 1.5 million tonnes of hard rock per annum for up to 30 years; • constructing of associated site infrastructure and amenities; • installing and operating a concrete batching plant; • recycling concrete waste for use in blended aggregates and road base; and • transporting material off-site via public roads. The proposed development is State Significant Development (SSD) under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 . It is acknowledged that the formal time frame for submissions has lapsed, however Council would still like to take the opportunity to provide the following comments in relation to the proposal. • The land of the development is partially cleared/ modified and partly vegetated with native vegetation communities. Native vegetation communities of the land include rainforest and dry forest types and two (2) EECs have been recorded (lowland rainforest and Lower Hunter Spotted Gum/ Ironbark Forest). Two (2) threatened species appear to have been recorded on the land of the proposed development, namely yellow-bellied glider and glossy black-cockatoo (BioNet records; preliminary EA report). The development as proposed will have a range of biodiversity impacts, including clearing of native vegetation and removal of habitat known or likely to be used by EEC and threatened biodiversity. • The development has a statutory responsibility to address the relevant provisions of Commonwealth and State biodiversity legislation, including the EPBC Act 1999, State Forster | Gloucester | Taree | Tea Gardens | Stroud | ABN: 44 961 208 161 | Contact us: 6591 7222 [email protected] | www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au | midcoastcouncil | @midcoastcouncil Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection, s4.15 of the EP&A Act 1979 and the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2015 . The means with which a proponent addresses these statutes is clearly prescribed and the relevant literature reviews, field surveys, mapping and assessments will need to be conducted by properly qualified person(s) and submitted as part of any Application. We understand that a Biodiversity Assessment Report prepared in accordance with the BAM will form part of the development application. This is appropriate and outlines the required avoid – mitigate – offset hierarchy of ecological assessment decision-making. • In addition to these standard statutory requirements, I would note that the application should consider and report on any of the twenty (20) matters set-out in s4.1 of the Great Lakes DCP 2014 that are relevant to the proposal. These local provisions are very important in the consideration of the ecological impacts of a development proposal and to the management or delivery of protective safeguards, in our opinion. • Whilst we recognise that there is a statutory biodiversity assessment process that the applicant will need to address, there are key or priority issues that we would like specific attention given to in this proposal. These are: o The avoid – mitigate – offset hierarchy is very important. In this manner, the footprint of the proposed quarry as well as associated features such as road and service upgrades, should be designed in a manner that avoids clearing of native vegetation and biodiversity impacts, at every possible opportunity. o Hollow-bearing trees are critical habitat features. A survey of the locations of hollow-bearing trees should be provided in the development footprints, with notes on the size class of hollows present. A compensatory replacement program of nesting boxes, re-erected felled hollow trees and refurbished natural hollows should be provided. o Appropriate field surveys for threatened flora and fauna species that are potential or likely inhabitants of the land are required in appropriate seasons and weather conditions. Adequate and reasonable surveys to determine the presence of fauna species should include, at a minimum, Elliott trapping, cage trapping, hair tubes/ funnels, bat detection, harp trapping, spotlighting, koala habitat and scat searches, call playback, diurnal and nocturnal herpetofauna surveys, bird census, searches for evidence, predator scat analysis, and opportunistic sightings. o The land is within the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative wildlife corridor area and has recently been identified in a report commissioned by MidCoast Council (Lechner & Tiang Chin Fung, 2018, Connectivity Modelling of Karuah Catchment, NSW Australia) as within an area identified as one of the top three (3) highest priority wildlife corridor areas in the Karuah Catchment. This corridor area extends from Karuah National Park/ Karuah Nature Reserve to Monkerai Nature Reserve. The proposal should consider this report. The outcomes of the proposal should firstly not compromise existing connectivity in this landscape and secondly deliver improved outcomes for connectivity in this landscape by the provision of protective safeguards and offset measures. o Offsets should be adequately and proactively secured and managed. Whilst we recognise that the NSW assessment scheme may permit the use of payment of funds for offset measures or regional offset measures, we are firmly of the opinion that for this project and for our community that offsets should be provided locally and as close as possible to the footprint of the impact. As mentioned, this should contribute to sub-regional connectivity. Details of the offset measures should be clearly expressed in the application Page 2 of 5 for review and endorsement by Council (whether that be by public dedication (eg. extension of Karuah Nature Reserve) or stewardship site or other appropriate mechanism). o The proposal should consider its effects on downstream receiving waterbodies which include productive, sensitive and significant waterways, including coastal wetlands, a gazetted Marine Park and important aquaculture areas. The proposal should consider and respond to the details in the Karuah River Catchment Management Plan (MidCoast Council, 2014). o Assessment of the requisite width of buffers between the development footprint and any sensitive and important habitats needs to be satisfactorily undertaken such that harmful effects associated with pollution, noise, disturbance, altered conditions and invasive species can be avoided or suitably managed. • Road intersections will need to be investigated, surveyed and a preliminary design submitted to both Council and the RMS: o There appears to be limited road reserve width along The Bucketts Way at the Maytoms Lane intersection. To provide a suitable de-acceleration and acceleration lanes for this intersection design, land acquisition for road widen purposes maybe required, so a detailed survey of the existing road carriageway and its location relative to the adjacent road reserve/property boundaries will be required. o Access onto The Bucketts Way - Any mitigation of the resultant noise issues that will adversely affect the adjacent properties could impede the sight distance of drivers of vehicles entering this intersection. o The existing road side vegetation in the first instance, should be retained and enhanced. If some clearing of roadside vegetation must be undertaken for safety/upgrading works, then this loss needs to be considered in offset calculations. o Booral Road is of poor condition, in particular where crossing the Myall Lakes National Park (ie between Lewis Creek/The Branch River and Crawford River) where there are a combination of narrow carriageway width, sharp hairpin turns and steep road gradients. This road is not suitable for further heavy traffic. The EIS should reflect this issue, for the restriction of the through traffic either originating from or travelling to the development site. • Construction of the intersection of The Bucketts Way and Maytoms Lane, and Maytoms Lane will need to be staged so it is undertaken prior to the commencement of internal construction. • Maytoms Lane will need to be constructed to Council's and any RFS requirements. Should also be sealed with an AC10 asphaltic seal for both dust and noise reduction. • The ongoing maintenance of the road carriageway and associate infrastructure within this portion of Maytoms Lane to the west of The Bucketts Way will need to be undertaken by the applicant. • There are numerous streams and watercourses (including Double Creek) that are indicated as blue lines on the topographical maps and are located and drain through the development site (proposed pit, process and stock pile area and haul road (haul road extends over Double Creek) As well the quarry will interfere with and have an impact on the groundwater movement/catchment. Page 3 of 5 • A stormwater flood investigation study will need to be undertaken to determine the 1% AEP and PMF. Issues to be further investigated are: - o Identify any adverse effects that may occur to the downstream properties. Included are the reduction of base flows that will result from the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wisconsin's Water Quality
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Bureau Division of Environmental Management EGAD #: 3200-2020-13 dnr.wi.gov 101 S Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 Wisconsin’s 2020 Water Quality Report to Congress i Governor Tony Evers Natural Resources Board Dr. Frederick Prehn, Chair Gregory Kazmierski, Vice-Chair Julie Anderson, Secretary William Bruins Terry Hilgenberg Bill Smith Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Preston D. Cole, Secretary Beth Bier, Deputy Secretary Todd Ambs, Assistant Deputy Secretary Environmental Management Division Darsi Foss, Administrator Jim Zellmer, Deputy Administrator Adrian Stocks, Director, Water Quality Steve Galarneau, Director, Office of Great Waters Steve Elmore, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater External Services Division Dave Siebert, Division Administrator Brian Weigel, Director, Watershed Management Michael Thompson, Director, Waterways Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Division Scott Loomans, Division Administrator Justine Hasz, Director, Fisheries Management Wisconsin’s 2020 Water Quality Report to Congress ii Wisconsin’s Water Quality Report The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires all states to prepare a Water Quality Report to Congress every two years. This “Integrated Report” combines the CWA sections 305(b), 303(d), and 314. The report contains an overall summary of water quality conditions in the State and an updated Impaired Waters List. Wisconsin data are also provided electronically to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Integrated Reporting Process. Wisconsin’s 2020 Wisconsin Water Quality Report to Congress summarizes assessment progress and activities related to water quality protection during the past two years. This document is an online publication only that can be accessed at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) website: dnr.wi.gov Cover photo: Popple River in Florence County (2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Context Statement for the Gloucester Subregion, PDF, 11.22 MB
    Context statement for the Gloucester subregion Product 1.1 from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment 28 May 2014 A scientific collaboration between the Department of the Environment, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia The Bioregional Assessment Programme The Bioregional Assessment Programme is a transparent and accessible programme of baseline assessments that increase the available science for decision making associated with coal seam gas and large coal mines. A bioregional assessment is a scientific analysis of the ecology, hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of a bioregion with explicit assessment of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining development on water resources. This Programme draws on the best available scientific information and knowledge from many sources, including government, industry and regional communities, to produce bioregional assessments that are independent, scientifically robust, and relevant and meaningful at a regional scale. The Programme is funded by the Australian Government Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia are collaborating to undertake bioregional assessments. For more information, visit <www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au>. Department of the Environment The Office of Water Science, within the Australian Government Department of the Environment, is strengthening the regulation of coal seam gas and large coal mining development by ensuring that future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert advice about the potential water related impacts of those developments. For more information, visit <www.environment.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-mining/>. Bureau of Meteorology The Bureau of Meteorology is Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Give Fish a Chance in the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park
    Give Fish a Chance in the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park The Give Fish a Chance campaign is designed to promote the need for a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine sanctuaries in the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park. This will require up to half of all key marine habitats and all Grey Nurse Shark key habitats to be protected in marine sanctuaries. You can support this campaign by making a submission to the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park draft zoning plan. The Marine Park Authority is asking for comments on the draft zoning plan before 23rd September 2006. We encourage you to ask the NSW Government to Give Fish a Chance by supporting additional sanctuary zones by filling in the submission form attached. A key requirement of marine parks is to protect marine wildlife yet some of the areas with the highest biodiversity have only been partly protected. For example, large areas of seagrass meadows, vital to protect juvenile fish, in the Myall River remain inadequately protected. For the marine park to protect fish so they can breed, feed and recover in numbers, it needs to provide marine sanctuaries for up to half of each habitat type, including rocky reefs, islands, seagrass and sand. Snapper Island and Boondaba Island in Port Stephens, for example, are areas that deserve to be fully protected. Perhaps most importantly, many of the critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark key habitat areas receive only partial protection. Latitude Rock near Forster, Edith Breakers at Seal Rocks and Little Broughton Island near Port Stephens will receive insufficient protection if the current zoning plan goes ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Karuah Catchment Management Plan
    Karuah Catchment Management Plan - Community and Stakeholder Forum Forum Outcomes Report PCB Consulting July 2014 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Our Vision ................................................................................................................................................ 2 What we love about our Karuah River Catchment ............................................................................. 3 What we hope for from the Karuah River Catchment Management Plan ......................................... 3 Our Catchment Values ............................................................................................................................ 4 Community / Social Value ................................................................................................................... 5 Economic Value ................................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental Value ........................................................................................................................... 5 Our Past ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Our Current Situation .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marlborough Rivers and Their Margins
    The Natural Character of selected Marlborough Rivers and their margins May 2014 C10003 Prepared for Marlborough District Council (MDC) Updated Report May 2014 Boffa Miskell Limited: James Bentley, Sally Bishop, Alistair Marshall, Brian McAuslan, Marlborough District Council: Pere Hawes, Peter Hamill This report draws on the findings of the following report: ‘Natural Character: Application of the River Significance Assessment Method to Marlborough District’, past of the River Values Assessment System: Volume 2: Application to cultural, production and environment values. LEaP Report No. 24B, Lincoln University, New Zealand: Neil Deans (Nelson - Marlborough Fish and Game) Val Wadsworth (Marlborough District Council) Brin Williman (Marlborough District Council) Allan Rackham (Boffa Miskell) James Bentley (Boffa Miskell) The Natural Character of selected Marlborough Rivers and their margins The winding nature of the Wairau River channel and its The ox-bow lake of Grove Arm in the Wairau Plain broad semi-braided river bed. Much of the lower banks of the river are lined by willows and gorse. Contents A Section A: INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PROCESS 5 Introduction 6 Study Process 7 B Section B: APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY 9 Definition of Natural Character 10 Naturalness 10 Natural Character Values of Rivers and their margins 14 The River Environment Classification System (REC) 14 Assessment Criteria 16 C Section C SELECTED RIVERS & THEIR MARGINS IN THE MARLBOROUGH REGION 23 Marlborough’s Rivers 24 Wairau River 26 Awatere River 28 Rai and Pelorus Rivers 29 Clarence River 30 Other Rivers within Marlborough 30 D Section D: EVALUATION OF SELECTED RIVERS AND THEIR MARGINS 33 Inventory of Selected Marlborough Rivers 34 E Section E REFERENCES 47 References 48 Websites 48 Section A: INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PROCESS 6 Introduction Marlborough District Council (MDC) engaged Boffa and Mapping the Marlborough Coastal Environment, Miskell Ltd (BML) to assess selected rivers and their (2014), Boffa Miskell et al’.
    [Show full text]
  • Redundant Weir Removal: the Branch River Crossing - a Case Study
    Redundant Weir Removal: The Branch River Crossing - A Case Study THE BRANCH RIVER Other industries that are important to FRESHWATER CROSSING the region include commercial fishing and oyster farming, which are strongly The Project linked to local waterways and rely on a The removal of the Branch River healthy catchment. Crossing is part of a larger weir removal project being undertaken by WWF History Australia, the Environmental Trust of The Branch River Crossing was NSW and NSW Fisheries, with another constructed in 1951 by the Colonial 2 redundant weirs to be removed over Sugar Refinery (CSR) for timber the next 12 months. This project aims to hauling to the mills. At that time a small increase public awareness of the township with a sawmill, school, environmental effects of in-stream several homesteads and a general store barriers. It provides a framework to was located beside the crossing. Fishing facilitate community-based weir was a popular activity for the locals as removal projects and demonstrates the both fresh and saltwater habitats were ecological benefits of improved river available. People also travelled upriver, health. The weir removal framework by boat, from Port Stephens to fish and will assist in the development of similar to take advantage of social occasions projects throughout Australia in the (Anon. 1987). future. Current Use Location The Branch River Crossing is no longer The Branch River Crossing is located used by CSR and is now the near Port Stephens in the Karuah River responsibility of the Great Lakes Catchment, NSW, about 22 km NNE of Council. Land adjacent to the crossing Karuah.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous and Minority Placenames
    Indigenous and Minority Placenames Indigenous and Minority Placenames Australian and International Perspectives Edited by Ian D. Clark, Luise Hercus and Laura Kostanski Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author: Clark, Ian D., 1958- author. Title: Indigenous and minority placenames : Australian and international perspectives Ian D. Clark, Luise Hercus and Laura Kostanski. Series: Aboriginal history monograph; ISBN: 9781925021622 (paperback) 9781925021639 (ebook) Subjects: Names, Geographical--Aboriginal Australian. Names, Geographical--Australia. Other Authors/Contributors: Hercus, Luise, author. Kostanski, Laura, author. Dewey Number: 919.4003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design by Nic Welbourn and layout by ANU Press Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2014 ANU Press Contents Notes on Contributors . .vii 1 . Introduction: Indigenous and Minority Placenames – Australian and International Perspectives . 1 Ian D. Clark, Luise Hercus, and Laura Kostanski 2 . Comitative placenames in central NSW . 11 David Nash 3. The diminutive suffix dool- in placenames of central north NSW 39 David Nash 4 . Placenames as a guide to language distribution in the Upper Hunter, and the landnám problem in Australian toponomastics . 57 Jim Wafer 5 . Illuminating the cave names of Gundungurra country . 83 Jim Smith 6 . Doing things with toponyms: the pragmatics of placenames in Western Arnhem Land .
    [Show full text]
  • Bronze Battler October 2016
    CLUB NEWS th Bass Catch October 15-16 2016 See details scribed by Rico van de Kerkhof in the first article. Presidents Message Dear club members, already this year’s Bass fishing season has been interesting and I most warmly look forward to seeing you at our club meeting on Tuesday at Northmead Bowling Club and again at this coming weekend, as we undertake our October Bass Catch on the 15th and 16th, with camping commencing on the 14th at Yellomundee Regional Park. See Rico’s article for full details, registration and tight lines. Alan Izzard. The Editors Message Welcome to the October 2016 edition of Bronze Battler – it’s a bumper edition. Mostly due to my inability to create the August 2016 edition. Some articles have been held back to this October edition and I thank the authors for their patience. I also thank all contributors immensely and if you’re in need of immense thanking – 1 send me your fishing adventures, spell checked, punctuated and prose perfect with pictures. So for the record, there wasn’t an August edition due to the editor’s inability to juggle life’s events. Some have said it was because he can’t land Australian Salmon and in some ways this is perfectly true, and not just salmon, I’ve been dropping luderick also. I worry my fishing has turned into a spectator sport – whereby I watch others catching fish. I hope you enjoy this edition, I’m privileged to have read the advanced submissions and it’s got me quite excited, I’m really looking forward to our up and coming Bass Sydney events.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Advisian
    INFRASTRUCTURE & ENGINEERING ATTACHMENT A REPORT ON PUBLIC EXHIBITION – KARUAH RIVER AND STROUD FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY AND PLAN ORDINARY MEETING 26 FEBRUARY 2020 MidCoast Council Karuah River and Stroud Flood Study Update Volume 1 – Report Karuah River and Stroud Flood Study Update Volume 1 - Draft Report DRAFT Level 17, 141 Walker St North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia Revision B October 2019 rp301015-03792lc_crt190928-Karuah River & Stroud FS_Volume 1.docm www.advisian.com MidCoast Council Karuah River and Stroud Flood Study Update Volume 1 – Report Disclaimer This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of MidCoast Council, and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between MidCoast Council and Advisian. Advisian accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. Copying this report without the permission of MidCoast Council and Advisian is not permitted. Cover Photo: Floodwaters flowing across Cowper Street, Stroud on the morning of 21st April 2015 (Source: Gloucester Advocate) Project No: 301015-03792 Project: Karuah River & Stroud Flood Study Update Volume 1: Report Advisian Rev Description Author Review Date DRAFTApproval 0 Draft for Internal Review LC 31/01/2018 L Collins A Draft Report – Issued for Council LC CRT 5/02/2018 Review L Collins C Thomas B Draft Report for Public Exhibition LC CRT 23/10/2019 L Collins C Thomas Chris Thomas rp301015-03792lc_crt190928-Karuah River & Stroud FS_Volume 1 MidCoast Council Karuah River and Stroud Flood Study Update Volume 1 – Report Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix VI Manitowoc River Basin Watershed Narratives and Tables
    Appendix VI Manitowoc River Basin Watershed Narratives and Tables Table of Contents SEVENMILE-SILVER CREEK WATERSHED (MA01) ...................................................................................... 3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................ 3 STREAM DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 3 LAKE DESCRIPTIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 9 LOWER MANITOWOC RIVER WATERSHED (MA02)................................................................................... 16 EXISTING MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 16 STREAM DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 16 LAKE DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................................................................ 24 BRANCH RIVER WATERSHED (MA03) ............................................................................................................ 27 EXISTING MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 27 STREAMS DESCRIPTIONS.........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Health Assessment of the Karuah River
    An Ecological Health Assessment of the Karuah River Brendan Haine, Peter Scanes & Adam McSorley Office of Environment and Heritage Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary..................................................................................................... viii 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 1.1. Background ....................................................................................................1 1.2. Scope..............................................................................................................2 2. Methods.................................................................................................................4 2.1. System Structure............................................................................................5 2.1.1. Saltmarsh, Mangrove and Seagrass Habitats ........................................5 2.1.2. Condition of Riparian Zones in the Karuah River Catchment................5 2.2. Biological Structure........................................................................................7 2.2.1. Mudflat Invertebrate
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Ice Fishing 2005/2006 Regulations
    Maine State Library Maine State Documents Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1-1-2005 Maine Ice Fishing 2005/2006 Regulations Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalmaine.com/ifw_law_books Recommended Citation "Maine Ice Fishing 2005/2006 Regulations" (2005). Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books. 454. http://digitalmaine.com/ifw_law_books/454 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife at Maine State Documents. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books by an authorized administrator of Maine State Documents. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE OF MAINE ICE FISHING 2005/2006 REGULATIONS Regulations effective Ice-in 2005 - March 31, 2006 www.mefishwildlife.com A MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR I want to thank you for choosing to ice fish in Maine. Maine is well known for its wealth of natural resources. Those of us who live and visit Maine recognize the value of Maine’s waterways. Where else but Maine can you fish in over 6,000 lakes and ponds and 32,000 miles of rivers and streams for gamefish such as brook trout, landlocked salmon and smallmouth bass. Over 260,000 people fish in Maine each year, creating an economic impact of nearly $300 million annually. These anglers support over $100 million of wages and salaries, and generate nearly $200 million in retail sales. They also reel in nearly $20 million in tax revenue to the state. Your fishing license dollars not only are a boon to the state’s economy, but it is your license dollars that fund the Department of Inland fisheries and Wildlife.
    [Show full text]