FOI 161205
Document 1
FOI 161205
Document 2
FOI 161205
Document 3
From:
S.47F
To:
EPBC Referrals
Cc:
S.47F
Subject:
response to Centrex proposal 2012/6590
Date:
Friday, 26 October 2012 9:25:24 PM
Personal Details:
S.47F
S.47F
Blackwood
South Australia 5051
Phone S.47F
Email: S.47F @bigpond.com
About the author:
S.47F
Approval for publication:
Approval is given for the text of this submission to be published, if required.
Approval is NOT given to publish my personal details contained on this page.
Forwarded by email: 26th October 2012
Submission to:
Approvals & Wildlife Division
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
RE: Centrex Metals Limited/ Transport-water/Within the Spencer Gulf approx 210 north west
, Adelaide/SA port Spencer Stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula SA
Reference Number 2012/6590
BACKGROUND
Centrex Metals is seeking approval to construct and operate a port, Port Spencer,
approximately 70 kilometres north of Port Lincoln, adjacent to the Lipson Island (Cove) Marine
Conservation Park.
Stage 1, the construction of the Port, has been the subject of a State Government PER, the
response to which (at the time of writing) has yet to be released. I note a draft response is
included in the Company’s application.
Stage 2 of the proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 20 gigalitre
desalination plant. This proposal has yet to be subjected to an environmental impact
assessment.
Centrex has made numerous references to the fact that the Port is to be a multi-user port.
Indeed Eyre Grain is an actual partner in the venture. It is interesting to note that NO
environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to determine any environmental
impacts with respect to this use on the marine and terrestrial environments, yet approval is
being sought to proceed , regardless.
It is noted that the Company is proposing an exclusion zone of 1.5 kilometres on either side of
the jetty. Whilst this is shown on one of the maps accompanying the submission, what is not
shown is the intersection of this exclusion zone and that which surrounds the Lipson Island
Conservation Park.
DISCUSSION
As a respondent to the PER, I have itemised a number of issues relating to scientific rigour with
which the ‘assessments’ undertaken by the Company (or it’s contractors) were conducted. The
details of these are included in the Company’s documentation. In addition, attention is drawn
to:-
The climate study:
By it’s own admission, the Company indicated that a limited meteorological data collection (4
months) was undertaken at the site, with all modelling being supplemented with data from
other source locations (some at least 70 kilometres away). This hardly constitutes a site
specific survey, especially when all noise, dust, and pollutant dispersion patterns are based
upon this data set.
The actual site is within what could be described as a pseudo amphitheatre, and hence
dispersion of noise, dust and pollutants may well be contained within this area, rather than
being dispersed.
Of particular concern is haematite dust and diesel fumes arising from the large number of truck
movements (apparently one movement every 11 minutes on a 24/7 basis) and the diesel
power station. Information pertaining to the link between diesel fume emissions and cancer
was provided in my response to the PER. Such emissions could be an issue in the event of
temperature inversions at the site.
The marine environment:
Concern has been raised as to the impact of the construction of the jetty, given that the
underlying geology is bedrock (granite) overlain by about 1 metre of sand. Information relating
to the methodology to be employed in constructing a pile based jetty is sketchy as is the
potential impact on the marine environment per se, and Lipson Island, in particular.
As mentioned earlier, approval is being sought for stage 2, the desalination plant, despite the
fact that NO environmental impact assessment has been undertaken for this component of the
project. The impact on the environment is therefore unknown.
Little attention has apparently been paid to the migratory patterns of marine animals in this
vicinity and the potential impact the proposed project may have.
Whales, dolphins, great white sharks, and little fairy penguins frequent the area.
There is a breeding colony of little fairy penguins on Lipson Island. What is the state of this
colony? Will the proposed projects have an impact upon the ability of the colony to survive
and prosper?
What has not been answered with any degree of detail is the impact on the sea grass beds as a
result of cape size vessels entering the port area under their own steam or that of the tugs
when they are deployed.
So far as one can determine, the survey of animal and bird life in the area has been limited,
although a few days were spent on Lipson Island documenting species. A few ‘opportunistic’
observations have also been reported. No long term studies have reportedly been undertaken.
Eagles:
Both wedge tailed and white bellied sea eagles have been sighted in this location on more than
one occasion. In fact wedge tailed eagles often nest in the trees on the property to the south
of the development site and it has been reported that a white bellied sea eagle nests in a
location to the north of the project site.
The lack of a detailed base line study is of concern as the public does not have any point of
reference on which to judge the performance of the Company in meeting it’s environmental
obligations.
A large proportion of the Company’s submission on the biodiversity of the site appears to
consist of the reproduction of information pertaining to protected species etc, rather than
actual scientific observation conducted over a period of time in order to determine exactly
what is happening within the Lipson Island Conservation Park (refer to attachment 1) and the
proposed Port precinct and thence what the impacts may or may not be.
The issue of water:
The Company has chosen to seek approval for the project via a number of stages, vide the
port; the desalination plant; the construction of a village; the approval to mine magnetite; the
approval for the magnetite pipeline from Koppio to the Port etc....
However, one theme that is common to most of the approvals is water, or more correctly, the
lack of water on Eyre Peninsula.
Eyre Peninsula’s water supply is predominantly sourced from underground basins. These basins
do not provide an inexhaustible supply and much debate is being undertaken as to the
longevity of the current supply given existing and future demands.
Within this debate is the dewatering of the aquifer associated with mining and the significant
demand placed on existing supplies as a result of the increased mining industry.
Desalination is seen as a possible answer, and in the case of Centrex, it will, if approved, be the
source of water for the transportation of magnetite from the Koppio Mine to the port.
However, on the reverse side of the coin, the Koppio Mine has the potential to significantly
impact upon the aquifer supplying water to the Peninsula.
Any approval for a desalination plant should be undertaken in the light of an environmental
impact assessment of the total project (ie the mine) and not just the impact at the proposed
site of the plant.
CONCLUSION
Given that the Company is seeking approval for stage 1 & 2 of the project without an
environmental impact assessment for the desalination plant and many questions still remaining
unanswered within the response to the PER for stage 1 together with the significant issue of
water supplies (or lack thereof) on Eyre Peninsula, I believe EPCB approval should not be
granted for either stage pending a more rigorous environmental impact assessment which is
more relevant to the actual site and which addresses those issues alluded to above.
I trust these comments will assist in your deliberations
S.47F
S.47F
ATTACHMENT 1 (Information provided by the Lipson Export Port Committee with respect to a
management plan for Lipson Island Conservation Park)
Lipson Cove Management Plan
It is becoming very clear that the proposed Port Spencer; desalination plant, shipping lane,
mooring zone, potential foreign invasive species, sea-grass degradation, pile driving
(blasting), massive industrial infrastructure, storage facilities, diesel generators, dust
pollution, noise pollution, constant road trains 24/7 and increased traffic will ultimately
ruin the natural features and fragile ecosystems of Lipson Cove.
The Lipson Export Port Committee share the same concerns for the future of Lipson Cove
and Lipson Island Conservation Park as the SA Department of Lands 1988 whereby the
Lipson Cove Management Plan (SA Department of Lands 1988, Tim Bond) includes
the following: (underlining added)
Present use
Recreation
Lipson Cove’s main attraction is the varied fishing that is available. Most publications on
fishing refer to Lipson Cove as the best, easily accessible fishing area in the Tumby Bay
district. People visit the area to fish for periods ranging from several hours to several
weeks.
Camping areas have developed behind the beach at Lipson Cove. This area presently has
about 15 camp sites and is serviced by two pit toilets and rubbish bins.
Other recreation use is sight-seeing, nature study and photography. These are encouraged
by the beauty of the area, the accessibility of Lipson Island with its associated breeding
sea birds, the historic features and pleasant environment for picnics, barbecues and
camping.
A walking track has developed leading south from the ‘garden gate’. This provides scenic
views and access to fishing sites.
Conservation
Lipson Island is a conservation park to protect breeding populations of Black-faced
Cormorants, fairy penguins, silver and pacific gulls, sooty oyster-catchers and crested
terns. (underling added)
The national parks and wildlife service does not allow fires, wood collection or camping
on the island. Visitors to the island should contact the ranger at Port Lincoln before
visiting.
Issues:
The level of development
The present users feel that improved facilities will spoil the character of Lipson Cove by
increasing visitor numbers. From a conservation point of view, increased visitation will
increase potential for disturbance to breeding sea birds on Lipson Island.
Protection of the environment from degradation
Campers and vehicles cause the greatest degradation to the environment. Soil at the
camping sites is very compacted from heavy foot and vehicle traffic. Vegetation around
camp sites has been damaged both by people using it for fires and by uncontrolled access
to the beach and around camp sites.
Soil erosion near the cairn for Wallaby Sam’s Cave has nearly closed the cave entrance.
Weeds such as hore hound, onion weed and box thorn occur in the area, all have the
potential to increase their population and become major problems if not controlled.
Enhancement of the environment
Active management such as interpretive signs, road construction, fencing and revegetation
programs will help improve the environment. The objective should be to improve
facilities for environmental protection without increasing the use of the area in peak
periods. These measures will help to retain the character of Lipson Cove.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT
The long term aim for the future of Lipson Cove is determined by the importance of the
various issues associated with the land.
Lipson Cove is seen by the Department of
Lands to be an important recreation area with local pressure to retain its relatively
undeveloped, low use character. This will help the management of Lipson Island
Conservation Park because the breeding sea birds require as little disturbance as
possible (underling added)
Increased use would require more extensive development to protect the environment from
damage. The manager would then incur greater management and running costs.
Aim
The aim of management at Lipson Cove is:-
To manage Lipson Cove for public recreation while protecting the natural and
historic features from further degradation.
Achieving this aim requires the co-operation of the District Council of Tumby Bay, The
Department of Lands, the Department of Environment and Planning through the National
Parks and Wildlife Service and the Coastal Management Branch and the Lessees of the
War Service Perpetual Lease held over sections 426 and 427. The Department of Lands
can act as an intermediary to liaise with the various groups to a stage where the land is
allocated to the appropriate manager.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are:-
1. To place the land regularly used for public recreation in the Crown Estate.
2. To place the land around Lipson Cove under the care, control and management of
the appropriate land manager.
3.
To describe management guidelines that achieve protection of the natural and
historic features while retaining similar levels of development and use.
FOI 161205
Document 4
From:
S.47F
To:
EPBC Referrals
Subject:
2012/6590 Centrex Metals Limited/Transport - water/Within the Spencer Gulf approx 210km north-west
Adelaide/SA/Port Spencer Stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula, SA
Date:
Monday, 29 October 2012 11:35:03 PM
Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on this referral. Firstly I should declare my interest
as being a very minor shareholder of Centrex Metals Shares (30,000 units). I have bought these
because I believe:
1) They offer a good chance of return due to the quality of the resource and partnership
with China they are developing (in line with current White paper recommendations)
2) The company offers a good triple bottom line of social, economic and environmental
benefits to the Eyre Peninsular. With a resource located in mostly cleared lands, close
to populated areas and existing infrastructure. This is in stark contrast to WA based
operations that I am familiar with such as Kimberley, Pilbara and Midwest iron ore
mines (actual and proposed) located in wild rangeland habitats of international
significance.
I have not provided this comment in the hope that it will progress the matter in a more
expedient manner for personal gain, as even if you choose to assess it I suspect the project will
still proceed in much the same manner and whatever gain I may receive from its progression is
minimal in the overall scheme of things. I do however provide the comment as I have an
affinity with some of the species and the area in question, having travelled there a number of
times and having a number of friends who live there or have lived there (and probably would
still be living there if there was suitable employment).
I read the referral documents with interest and believe they are reflective of the issues as I
know them. They have thoroughly listed the matters of national significance and highlighted
the limited impact of their proposal on them. The matter of nearest proximity and a highest
priority (due to its current decline across a broader area) is that of the small fairy penguin
population that utilises Lipson Isl for nesting. I have grave concerns that the broader South
Australian populations are declining and that not a lot seems to being done by the SA
government or community to monitor the decline, identify causes and mitigate threats.
Potential causes are well identified in the referral document such as declining food stocks due
to diseases and heavy fishing. Whilst development of heavy industry is not directly beneficial
to many species, the opportunity they provide in shifting communities from a landscape scale
primary industries base of fishing and farming to another income stream that uses a very
minimal footprint can reduce pressures on the broader environment. The money they
generate can also help support direct conservation projects such as land rehabilitation, feral
predator intervention, resources for ranger programs and wildlife rescue programs. With the
SA Government trying to get marine park proposals up and fisheries well managed,
opportunities to shift commercial fishers into alternative employment is about the only real
way forward for the state and its biological resources.
S.47F
populations of fairy penguinsS.47F
have left me with an impression of being very resilient to disturbance from humans and our
structures that we have built directly on and around their nesting habitat. You just have to look
at the populations that nest near towns on inhabited islands to see them nesting happily under
houses and animals moving through ports, boat traffic and well-lit areas. To think that a low
visitation port a couple of kms from the island will significantly impact on the population is very
tenuous and not supported by observations other breeding locations. It should be of greater
concern to conservationists that a largely unmanaged campsite is located directly adjacent to
this near shore nesting habit, with impacts from uncontrolled domestic pets being a greater
threat to them
I believe the opportunity for companies like Centrex to work with conservationists and SA
government in helping provide intervention on a species that is declining across all of its
habitats (disturbed and undisturbed) is real and something that should be welcomed by the
Australian Government. I also believe that existing SA government assessment processes are
more than adequate to manage the real and implied impacts of this project, if there are any
impacts they should be able to manage these through regulatory controls, management plans
and offset programs.
S.47F
,
S.47F
S.47F
Kununurra, WA
6743
FOI 161205
Document 5
P.O. Box 95, Tumby Bay, S.A. 5605 Fax: 8688 4218
E-mail: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx Telephone: 8688 4218
Referral Business Entry Point, EIA Policy Section (EPBC Act) Approvals and Wildlife Division
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC)
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
1 November 2012
RE:
Reference Number 2012/6590 - Centrex Metals Limited/ Transport-water/Within the Spencer
Gulf approx. 210 north west, Adelaide/SA Port Spencer Stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula SA.
Dear Chairperson,
As Centrex Metals Limited (Centrex or The Proponent) have indicated on numerous occasions, and as Tumby Bay Residents
and Ratepayers Association Inc. (TBRARA) pointed out in our submission to the proponents Public Environment Report
(PER), the proposed Port Spencer is not viable without the mines, and the mines are not viable without the port. Therefore
the project in its entirety includes the following:
Stage 2;
Magnetite Mines – project ‘Fusion’, up to 7 mines proposed in the Tod River Catchment Area and a National
Wetland,
Desalination Plant,
Transport Corridors,
Slurry pipeline,
Mining Village (to accommodate approx. 1000 employees),
Grain Handling Infrastructure, Storage and Shipping,
Grain Transport Corridors . . . . and the list goes on.
We note that this referral is for DSEWPC’s approval for stage one (1) and stage two (2), noting that the proponent has to
date only completed State Government process (PER) and public consultation for Stage 1. The PER for stage 1 does not
include a desalination plant, whereby the proponent clearly makes reference to it in their referral for DSEWPC’s approval
without the appropriate environmental studies for a desalination plant being undertaken.
The documentary team lead by Dan Monceaux, Creative Director Danimations, confirm that the production of the current
project (a report on the Centrex Port Spencer nationally significant environmental threats) including interviews with state
and commonwealth environmental ministers specifically relating to desalination plants, marine ecological research and
consultation with an emphasis on quantitative field studies, highlights the short comings of the current development
criteria.
At a public meeting in April 2012 in Tumby Bay, Centrex in conjunction with Eyre Iron Pty Ltd stated that the desalination
plant was expected to be 50 GL, the referral now states 5 GL, expandable to 'approximately' 20 GL. Which is it and what is
the environmental impact?
Page 1 of 8
Fig. 2-3 is not distance or dimensionally accurate.
Satellite overlayed image of
Lipson Island with location of Buoy
in scale for distances and site dimensions.
Centrex’s identified 1.5 km development exclusion zone is effectively a 3.0 km Coastal Area which is of great public concern
as it directly restricts access and public activities related to tourism, recreation, powerboat water sports and fishing upon
the immediate beaches and coastal waters of Lipson Cove and Rogers Beach. We note that the Lipson Cove Management
Plan
(SA Department of Lands 1988, Tim Bond) states the following:
Present use
Recreation
Lipson Cove’s main attraction is the varied fishing that is available. Most publications on fishing refer to Lipson Cove as the
best, easily accessible fishing area in the Tumby Bay district. People visit the area to fish for periods ranging from several
hours to several weeks.
Camping areas have developed behind the beach at Lipson Cove. This area presently has about 15 camp sites and is
serviced by two pit toilets and rubbish bins.
Other recreation use is sight-seeing, nature study and photography. These are encouraged by the beauty of the area, the
accessibility of Lipson Island with its associated breeding sea birds, the historic features and pleasant environment for
picnics, barbecues and camping.
A walking track has developed leading south from the ‘garden gate’. This provides scenic views and access to fishing sites.”
Jet Ski’s & Recreation
at Lipson Cove
22 January 2011
Recreational
boating at
Lipson Cove
Page 3 of 8
The proposed Harbour and Proposed Mooring Zone, additionally the 1.5 km development exclusion zone identified in the
proposal by Centrex (fig. 2-3) will impact upon existing Lipson Cove public use for recreational activities as the legislation
for boating activities mandate
a 4 knot speed limit.
That
4 knot speed limit will impact upon the current public use of Rogers Beach and Lipson Cove. Denying the activities
that include Jet Skiing, Water Skiing, Scuba Diving and Free Boarding due to the enclosing of the area by a proposed 3.0 km
wide 2.0 km deep ‘mooring / harbour site’ which would extend along the adjacent shoreline and seaward sections of
Rogers Beach, Lipson Cove and Lipson Island.
A loss of access and public amenity for adjacent residents, the local area holidaying community, state and interstate
tourists, will occur from the proposed mooring area effectively projecting right across the useable beaches and 3.0 km of
offshore waters. The loss of scenic tranquillity, natural solitude and ambiance of nature the beaches currently afford will
predictably result in a significant diminishment of tourist attraction and interest for this area.
The social and commercial impacts to recreational, holiday and tourism, which the local economy is significantly dependent
upon, have not been reported but denied by Centrex. Therefore there has not been a complete socio-economic study to
fully identify the environmental impact of the proposed Port Spencer development.
We consider that Centrex’s statements in their Referral that tourism and the current recreational use being unlikely to be
impacted upon by the project to be misleading and effectively a false representation of fact. The proposed project will NOT
enhance the area, and neither will the security gate and fencing that excludes the public from the iron ore loading wharf
realistically attract tourism to the area. The local community view is that the opposite will result due to the negative
impacts of a port being built in the current proposed location.
There is no credible data presented by Centrex that might support their assertion that Lipson Cove needs ‘industrial’
features to draw in more visitors; the natural features, scenic beauty, biodiversity and undeveloped – yet accessible
aspects of the area have historically been proven to be a draw card for visitors to this region, hence our mention
of the book ‘101 Australian Best Beaches’ on the following pages, also noting that Lipson Cove is never
unoccupied. The greater reality being that any ‘industrial’ features will have a net negative impact.
Page 45 of the Referral document states;
“The port will not be expected to have a significant impact on the species either through impact on breeding sites,
feeding numbers or potential marine mammal collision.”
TBRARA completely disagree with the above statement. We seek to reiterate that numerous marine mammals and sea
birds breed and live within and near the vicinity of the proposed port. That abundance of marine life are scientifically
reported to be sensitive to noise, light, sediment and turbidity increases, submarine noise pollution, air pollution and
introduction of invasive species. This being a particular threat when one considers that the area is scientifically reported
and very well documented to be an significant ‘breeding area’ for birds and marine mammals.
Of specific mention is the relevance to the Approvals & Wildlife Division, DSEWPC, with direct relation to this EPCB Act
referral, is the Southern Right Whale, Fairy Tern and the Hooded Plover. They are just three (3) examples among twenty
(20) listed endangered bird, marine mammal and plant species.
There must be recognition for the Centrex Port Spencer development to require application of a ‘Controlled Action’ due to
the ‘National Environmental Significance’ within this immediate area.
Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis) –
Status: endangered, resident of Rogers Beach and Lipson Cove
Page 4 of 8
Marine/migratory listed, and ‘endangered’ Southern Right Whale
(Eubalaena australis) calf, Lipson Island Conservation Park.
15 August 2012
Marine/migratory listed ‘endangered’ Southern Right Whale
(Eubalaena australis), Lipson Island Conservation Park
10th July 2011
Sternula nereis nereis— Fairy Tern (Australian)
Listed as Vulnerable under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, “Recent studies indicate
that the Little (Fairy) Tern may realistically be regarded as endangered within South Australia (Copley 1996).
Breeding
populations of Fairy Terns have been recorded at Lipson Cove” - K S Edyvane May 1999
South Australia: Listed as Endangered under the
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
A representation of the significant public record for Lipson Cove and Lipson
Island is the upcoming release of the book titled
‘101 Best Australian Beaches’, the first ever authoritative list of Australia's Best Beaches.
The publication is due for launch on 2nd November 2012 by New South
Publishers, and not surprisingly will feature Lipson Cove as one of the best 101
from a total of 11, 761 mainland beaches in Australia.
We provide to you this link for further reference
http://101bestbeaches.com/beaches/south-australia/lipson-cove
TBRARA and Lipson Export Port Committee (a subcommittee of TBRARA) share the same concerns for the future of Lipson
Cove and Lipson Island Conservation Park as the SA Department of Lands 1988, whereby the Lipson Cove Management Plan
(SA Department of Lands 1988, Tim Bond) includes the following:
Conservation
Lipson Island is a Conservation Park to protect breeding populations of Black-faced Cormorants, Fairy Penguins,
Silver and Pacific Gulls, Sooty Oyster-Catchers and Crested Terns. The national parks and wildlife service does not
allow fires, wood collection or camping on the island. Visitors to the island should contact the ranger at Port Lincoln
before visiting.
Issues:
The level of development
The present users feel that improved facilities will spoil the character of Lipson Cove by increasing visitor numbers.
From a conservation point of view, increased visitation will increase potential for disturbance to breeding sea birds
on Lipson Island.
Page 5 of 8
Protection of the environment from degradation
Campers and vehicles cause the greatest degradation to the environment. Soil at the camping sites is very
compacted from heavy foot and vehicle traffic. Vegetation around camp sites has been damaged both by people
using it for fires and by uncontrolled access to the beach and around camp sites.
Soil erosion near the cairn for Wallaby Sam’s Cave has nearly closed the cave entrance.
Weeds such as Horehound, Onion Weed and Box Thorn occur in the area, all have the potential to increase their
population and become major problems if not controlled.
Enhancement of the environment
Active management such as interpretive signs, road construction, fencing and revegetation programs will help
improve the environment. The objective should be to improve facilities for environmental protection without
increasing the use of the area in peak periods. These measures will help to retain the character of Lipson Cove.
Future Management
The long term aim for the future of Lipson Cove is determined by the importance of the various issues associated
with the land. Lipson Cove is seen by the Department of Lands to be an important recreation area with local
pressure to retain its relatively undeveloped, low use character. This will help the management of Lipson Island
Conservation Park because the breeding sea birds require as little disturbance as possible. Increased use would
require more extensive development to protect the environment from damage. The manager would then incur
greater management and running costs.
Aim
The aim of management at Lipson Cove is:-
1. To manage Lipson Cove for public recreation while protecting the natural and historic features from further
degradation.
2. Achieving this aim requires the co-operation of the District Council of Tumby Bay, The Department of
Lands, the Department of Environment and Planning through the National Parks and Wildlife Service and
the Coastal Management Branch and the Lessees of the War Service Perpetual Lease held over sections
426 and 427. The Department of Lands can act as an intermediary to liaise with the various groups to a
stage where the land is allocated to the appropriate manager.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are:-
1. To place the land regularly used for public recreation in the Crown Estate.
2. To place the land around Lipson Cove under the care, control and management of the appropriate land
manager.
3. To describe management guidelines that achieve protection of the natural and historic features while
retaining similar levels of development and use.
In Conclusion
On behalf of the many nationally significant, vulnerable, endangered, threatened, and in decline species, either resident or
migratory to Lipson Island Conservation Park and the marine waters of the Port Spencer site, TBRARA, our members and
our local communities seek the Approvals and Wildlife division to consider advising the proponent (Centrex) to pursue a
more appropriate location.
There have been locations which are less expediently convenient but which do exist (contrary to the proponents elected
limited consideration and viability studies for alternative sites), and there are alternate development sites currently under
construction of which Centrex may joint partner and/or obtain facility and access contracts at.
We believe the Lipson Island Conservation Park to be a proven significant breeding area for not only marine birds, but also
marine mammals as well, particularly the Bottlenose Dolphin
(Tursiops truncates), Common Dolphin
(Delphinus delphis) and the Southern Right Whale
(Eubalaena australis) of which documentation and local knowledge cannot be ignored.
Page 6 of 8
Acknowledgements
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=23941
http://www.bugbitten.com/blogs/Australia_Oceania/gembagemba/For_all_the_Birdy_Deviants.html
Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 2 - Identification of areas of high conservation value in South
Australia K S Edyvane May 1999
http://www.ffc.org.au/FFC_files/MPA%20refs/SARDI%20reports%20and%20maps/marine_biodiversity_part2_full_version.
pdf
http://tothescrubandbeyond.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/can-lipson-cove-be-spared/
http://thetravellingnovocastrians.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/arno-bay-and-lipson-cove-on-western.html
http://travelgeneration.com/travel-stories/a-day-in-paradise-lipson-cove-south-australia/
http://www.getjealous.com/philandmel/journal/2689782/cummins-to-lipson-cove.html
http://niknoff.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/on-road-part-8.html
http://tumby.com.au/articles/camping-areas-at-tumby-bay
Danimations website www.danimations.com.au
www.cuttlefishcountry.com.au
Lipson Cove Management Plan
(SA Department of Lands 1988, Tim Bond) Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Website)
101 Australian Best Beaches Website http://101bestbeaches.com/beaches/south-australia/lipson-cove
Centrex Metals Public Environment Report (PER)
Centrex Metals Referral document 2012/6590
TBRARA Submission to Centex Metals Port ‘Major Development’ PER
Fusion (Koppio) Heritage Agreement Drilling Program, Eyre Peninsula (EPBC 2012/6399)
Page 8 of 8
FOI 161205
Document 5a
Tumby Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association Inc.
ABN: 56 857 913 343
P.O. Box 95, Tumby Bay, S.A. 5605
Telephone: 8688 4218
Fax: 8688 4218
www.tbrara.com.au
e-mail: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Referral Business Entry Point, EIA Policy Section (EPBC Act) Approvals and Wildlife Division
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
11 June 2012
RE: Submission to Title of Referral: Eyre Iron Pty Ltd/Mining/Eyre Peninsula/SA/Fusion (Koppio) Heritage Agreement
Drilling Program Date Received: 23 May 2012 Reference Number: 2012/6399
Dear Chairperson,
The Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc. (TBRARA) have substantial concerns with the proposed exploration
and mining development ventures across the region and wider Eyre Peninsula; this is perhaps alarming considering that we
have deteriorating water tables with unresolved issues and many threatened and endemic species which will be either
directly or indirectly impacted upon, not to mention our sustainable natural resources and renewable agriculture, fishing and
aquaculture industries.
This paper is a submission to Approvals and Wildlife Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts in
regards to an environmental footprint area for the entire Eyre Peninsula mining venture, as Eyre Iron/Centrex Metals (the
company/s) are continually proposing new projects, therefore adding to the footprint area while their application process is
focussed upon stages and individually targeted projects, whereby the separation of smaller projects and developments are
that which have State Government attention.
Given that one of these projects is not viable without the others i.e. Centrex Metals/Eyre Iron have repeatedly stated that
they will not start construction on Port Spencer (Stage 1 application) until the Fusion project, which is now 7 proposed mines
in the Koppio Hills (Fusion) has approval (Stage 2 application). The public are very much concerned with the Company/s
misrepresenting information to the state and local governments, with the desired outcome of that which is for one project
approval then the other approvals will follow.
It is of greater concern that each project application will have its own environmental footprint impact area, which may receive
approval from State or Commonwealth Government, however, when one considers the entire footprint area for Stages 1 and
2 (remembering that the Company/s have made it very clear that Stage 1 will not begin until stage 2 is approved) then the
entire environmental footprint area should be that of all proposed development stages to be considered in one application.
The development being;
7 proposed magnetite mines in the Fusion (Koppio Hills) project,
1 hematite mine (Carrow),
2 other Magnetite mines (Bungalow & Wilgerup),
1 proposed processing plant,
1 slurry pipeline,
Multiple transport corridors,
Multiple diesel generators,
1 power corridor,
1 export port site,
1 shipping lane,
1 ship mooring,
1 desalination plant,
1 grain handling facility,
Multiple grain transport corridors.
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Issue 1
The ‘bigger’ picture of the company/s exploration and mining proposals present a concerning outlook of what is actually
being proposed across the region. The environmental footprint area of the Fusion exploration and mining project covers a
vast area, including the proposed Heritage Agreement drilling 2012/6399, within the Koppio Hills and the Tod River Wetland
System.
Image showing three (3) of the proposed ‘Fusion’ mine sites, possible locations for processing plants,
possible routes for the slurry pipeline (mine to port) and the potential dry land salinity impact (de-watering)
upon the Koppio Hills Prime Agricultural Land within a nationally significant wetland.
Issue 2
The current drilling projects within the Tod River Catchment System “national wetland” also include the two (2) parcels of
land under the Heritage Agreement to Eyre Iron’s referral 2012/6399. It is clear that any proposed drilling within these HA’s
and within the Tod Catchment area should be denied or require a “controlled action” and as such the drilling be regulated
and the project be of the best practice for drilling through aquifer layers, to obtain the best possible precaution for the risks
associated with contamination and as to set a standard for the proposed mines in the area which de-watering will
potentially cause significant dry land salinity, noting that the current sustainable agriculture and economy of the region is at
risk.
Image from the EPBC tool search for Matters of Environmental Significance. Showing that the proposed drilling program
2012/6399 and the current drilling program, exploration and proposed Fusion mines are within the Tod River Wetland System.
Page 3 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Issue 3
Considering that the company/s are currently drilling through water tables, aquifer layers and within the Tod River Wetland
System, it should be noted that the risk of the intensive drilling contamination and mine de-watering presents a real threat
to the prime agricultural land that the existing sustainable economy is dependent upon. The TBRARA urge the minister to
stop the current drilling programs within this area until the appropriate regulations are applied where pressure sealing and
grouting is completed within appropriate Department for Water (DFW) regulations.
Image showing the potential impact of de-watering upon the Koppio Hills/Tod River Wetland System
Issue 4
The Fusion Project is dependent on the proposed port (Port Spencer), associated infrastructure, therefore Port Spencer is
dependent upon the Fusion Project and associated infrastructure, and hence the vast impacts from exploration to export
should be contained in a single application process. It would seem that these companies (Eyre Iron/Centrex metals) are
trying to fast track separate ‘slices’ of what is actually being proposed.
Issue 5
The potential impact upon ‘Matters of Environment Significance’ should therefore include all aspects of what is being
proposed and as to the entirety of the projects environment footprint area be investigated for “Matters of Environmental
Significance”. These different aspects which make up the total footprint (direct and indirect) include:
-
exploration and intensive drilling,
-
potential ground water contamination from drilling within the Tod River wetland system and Heritage Agreement land,
-
mine site de-watering within a catchment area as to increase dry land salinity,
-
processing plant,
-
slurry pipeline,
-
transport corridors,
-
power corridors,
-
diesel generator,
-
storage facilities,
-
jetty,
-
desalination plant,
-
shipping lane (for Cape Size vessels),
-
ship mooring.
(Note: The proposed Port Spencer boundary abuts Lipson Cove whereby “Lipson Island Conservation Park” / Register of the
National Estate is only 800m from the proposed port site)
Page 4 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Image showing the seven (7) ‘named’ mines proposed to be included in the Fusion Project
Project fusion pipeline 40km x 20 metre easement or 80Ha per pipe (ore and return water)
40,000m x 20m (800,000m2) =
80 Ha
Project Fusion Transport Corridor – 40,000m x 50m (2,000,000m2) =
200 Ha
Proposed Port Spencer/Lipson Cove Site boundary = approx
120 Ha Swaffers Road transport corridor (or Highway to port site) 5000m x 40m (200,000m2) =
20 Ha
Jetty 515m x 20m = 10,300m2 + 320m x 20m (6,400 m2) =
1.67 Ha
4km Offshore Mooring (Exclusion) zone 500m x 300 x 2 (Approx area needed for 2 Cape Class ships 300,000m2) =
30 Ha
Shipping Lane 4kms offshore 4000m x 300m (1,200,000m2) =
120 Ha Grain Transport Corridor
-
Lincoln – Swaffers Rd 70,000m x 50m = 3,500,000m2,
-
Cummins – highway 37,000m x 50m = 1,850,000m2,
-
Wanilla – highway 20,000m x 40m = 800,000m2,
-
Edillilie – highway 25,000m x 40m = 1,000,000m2,
-
Yeelanna – Ungarra – highway 50,000m x 50m = 2,500,000m2,
-
Karkoo – highway 60,000m x 40m = 2,400,000m2,
-
Kimba – Cowell 84,000m x 50m = 4,200,000m2,
-
Cowell – Swaffers Road 96,000m x 50m = 4,800,000m2,
-
Lock – Rudall 52,000m x 50m = 2,600,000m2,
-
Rudall – highway 58,000m x 50m = 2,900,000m2,
-
Warramboo - Lock 55,000m x 50m = 2,750,000m2,
-
Cleve – highway 24,000m x 50m = 1,200,000m2,
-
Darke Peak – Rudall 26,000 x 50m = 1,300,000m2,
Total estimate grain transport corridor environmental footprint area from storage to Port Spencer:
(31,800,000m2) =
3,180 Ha
Page 6 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Grain Storage footprint area
1 tonne of wheat/grain occupies an area of 1.6m3. The volume of a cone is 1/3 × pi × r2× h.
The volumetric capacity of a cone with a height of 3 metres and a base radius of 4 metres (thereby having an external surface
gradient to the apex of 30 degrees – the free standing fall break-away angle) is 50.24m3.
The same cone having a capacity to contain 31.4 tonnes of wheat.
The base radius for a volumetric capacity for 500,000 tonnes (the base radius that a single 499,557 tonne pile of wheat can
occupy) is a circle with a radius of 86 metres and with a height of 64.5 metres.
The area of a circle with a radius of 86 metres is 23,235.2m2
As 10,000m2 = 1 hectare, then 23,235m2 = 2.32 hectares
A single 500,000 tonne pile of wheat/grain will have a mound height (apex) of 64.5 metres and will cover a footprint area of
ground measuring a Total
2.32 hectares (minimum)
*note: Haulage roads, semi trailer = 25tonne into 500,000 Tonne = 20, 000 trucks*
Total estimated Environmental Footprint Area for the proposed project / potential direct and indirect impact upon
“Matters of Environmental Significance” = 6123.03 Ha
Issue 7
The following provides a brief summary of the key Port features proposed to be developed in each stage:
Stage 1, Port development
Jetty
Hematite and grain storage area
Ship loading area
Supporting Port infrastructure, and
Road access upgrades.
Stage 2,
magnetite development (2013-2015),
Magnetite storage area and
dewatering plant Magnetite import from proposed mines via underground
slurry pipelines, and
Desalination plant for mine operation and Port use.
Stages 3 and 4, Port expansion, (post 2014):
Expansion of magnetite storage and processing, and
1 extra hematite and grain storage shed respectively.
“The Project is proposed to be developed in four stages with Stage 1 being the subject of this PER. Stage 1 would be
constructed to allow the export of hematite and grain.
Stages 2 - 4 would allow for export of magnetite and be subject to further development approvals. Stage 2 would include
development of a desalination plant for mine operation and Port use, and magnetite storage and processing infrastructure.
Stages 3 and 4 of Port expansion (post-2014) would include expansion of magnetite storage and addition of extra hematite and
grain storage facilities.” - Centrex’s Draft Port Spencer Public Environmental Report, February 2012
“The decision to proceed with construction [stage 1] will be made along with a decision on the development of a magnetite
mine and magnetite concentrate processing plant [stage 2]. These decisions are planned to be made late this year or early
next year,” Jim White says. – Centrex Metals managing director
“The Project’s [proposed Port Spencer] viability directly relates to the feasibility of Centrex’s
magnetite mines [Fusion] on the Eyre Peninsula, and would only commence construction upon
receipt of development approval from the government for both Stages 1 and 2, and determination
of the viability of developing a magnetite mine. Centrex’s current proposed program is for Port
Stage 1 construction to start in Q3 2012, with operations commencing in Q4 2014.”
Page 7 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Issue 8
Centrex’s proposed Port Spencer (stage 1) application process is already underway and may or may not receive approval
from the SA State Government. The concern being that the stage 2 has been left behind in the application process, being
environmental impacts on matters of environmental significance for the magnetite mine Fusion/Koppio Hills, Tod River
Wetland System and Heritage Land Agreement blocks to which the proposed port is entirely dependent upon.
If one also considers the port location into the equation of the total project (which one must) then the following may be of
consideration for direct/indirect impact upon matters of environmental significance:
The “Lipson Island Conservation Park” IUCN Category 3, noting that the primary objective is to “To protect
specific outstanding natural features and their associated biodiversity and habitats”. The Island and coastal
area supports various marine flora and fauna listed under EPBC Act legislation.
The “Sir Joseph Banks Marine Park”
1 Threatened ecological community “Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South
Australia”
40 Threatened Species
34 Migratory Species
2 Nationally Important Wetlands
65 Listed Marine Species
12 Whales and Other Cetaceans
3 places on the RNE
9 State Reserves
Image of a Southern Right Whale (listed as endangered under the EPBC Act) within the proposed port development site
9.07.2011, taken by Golder & Associates when conducting their marine study for the proposed Port Spencer.
Page 8 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Issue 9
Eyre Iron referral 2012/6399 – DES Koppio Baseline Flora Assessment of Heritage Agreements 1206001 and 1206002
Flora: “Two conservation-significant flora species were positively recorded in the heritage areas. One orchid species recorded
may also be of an endangered species but this could not be confirmed due to its vegetative state. Presence and locations of
conservation significant species are summarized in Table 9.”
TBRARA view the Eyre Iron referral to be lacking sufficient data of birds, reptiles, butterflies, fungi, insects and flora whereby
there are some inconsistencies within the document, particularly with a possible endangered orchid species which could not be
identified.
Issue 10
TBRARA consider that the Eyre Iron referral 2012/6399 drilling program must include the implications of water aquifer
contamination with saline water, especially when drilling through freshwater aquifers, as is currently occurring with no
regulations to pressure seal and protect from contaminating many other aquifers, which sustain and support Eyre Peninsula’s
bio-diversity and unique and complex fractured rock hydrology.
Issue 11
As research and scientific evidence would suggest (V & C Semeniuk Research Group 2007 - A Baseline Survey of the
Wetlands of Eyre Peninsula 2005-2007) drilling and/or mine de-watering within the Tod River Wetland System could also
adversely have impact upon the Big Swamp wetland, which is directly downstream of the Tod River Catchment.
Big Swamp is the largest freshwater wetland in the southern Eyre Peninsula.
Issue 12
According to DENR’s Eyre Peninsula Biodiversity Plan (Matthews et al, 2001) Isolation and fragmentation, Change of land use
and Salinity increase within the Koppio Hills would thereby affect plant communities, and the Koppio Hills have been identified
as a threatened habitat area. If this occurs, and the appropriate ‘controls’ for exploration and mining are not in place then the
impact of this could be huge, threatening the entire habitat areas which supports the diverse fauna species directly and
indirectly.
Conclusion
The proposed exploration and mining covers a greater area which does include matters that warrant an EPBC referral
inclusive of that greater area at this earlier stage of the entire project footprint. The sectioning and isolation of impact areas
for environmental threats of significance must not be promoted.
The sectioning and micro sampling of flora and fauna, as has been provide to date, does not provide adequate accuracy of
assessment whereby the interrelationship of the biodiversity demand for sustainability is both identified and presented.
The extent of ground water impact, in itself a direct threat to flora and fauna sustainability, by the proposed development
activity is both without study and thereby the scientific data to enable credible consideration for detrimental impacts is not
able to support pure theory and speculation.
The flora and fauna studies for the Eyre Iron referral 2012/6399 were not conducted with appropriate micro-migratory and
breeding seasonal considerations. The extreme limit in duration of study denies capacity for credible identification. There is no
credible reason why the referral, Heritage Agreement drilling 2012/6399 that is within the Koppio Hills/Tod River Wetland
System can be justified to support such a restriction upon assessment where the detriment of important, threatened,
endangered, significant species is known to likely be affected.
It is for each and all of these reasons that the legislative oversight and protection considerations afforded by the EPBC Act may
be applied upon the proposed Heritage Agreement drilling 2012/6399 as ‘a controlled action’.
Page 9 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 10 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 11 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 12 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 13 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 14 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 15 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 16 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 17 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 18 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 19 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 20 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 21 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 22 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Page 23 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Biodiversity
Species Profile and Threats Database
About us
Contact us
You are here: Environment home» Biodiversity» Threatened Species & Ecological Communities» SPRAT
Peppermint Box (
Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland
of South Australia
Glossary
SPRAT Profile
EPBC Act Status and Documents
Distribution Map
Newsletters
Caveat
For information to assist proponents in referral, environmental assessment and compliance issues, refer to the
Listing Advice, Conservation Advice and Recovery Plan. Note: the Listing Advice defines the national ecological
community and includes
Key Diagnostic Characteristics,
Condition Thresholds and aspects for additional
consideration.
Page 24 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the
Conservation Advice for recovery, mitigation and conservation information. For further information, refer to the
Policy Statement, SPRAT Profile or Information Sheets.
Legal Status and Documents
Top
EPBC Act Listing Status
Listed as Critically Endangered
Date Effective
21 Jun 2007
Commonwealth Listing Advice on Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus
odorata)
Grassy Woodland of South Australia (Threatened
Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2007i) [Listing Advice].
Listing and Conservation Advices
Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Peppermint Box
(Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008ado)
[Conservation Advice].
EPBC Act policy statement 3.7 - Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus
odorata)
Grassy Woodland of South Australia and Iron-grass
Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia (Department
of the Environment and Water Resources, 2007ba) [Admin
Guideline].
Farming and nationally protected Peppermint Box
Policy Statements and other Information Sheets
Grassy Woodland (Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), 2011x)
[Information Sheet].
Advice on the presence of hybrids in listed ecological
communities (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC),
2011an) [Information Sheet].
Map of Peppermint Box Grassy Woodland and Iron-grass
Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia (Department
Indicative Distribution Map(s)
of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (DSEWPaC), 2011p) [Indicative Map].
Distribution Map
Top
Distribution Map
This map has been compiled from datasets with a range of scales and quality.
Species or ecological community distributions included in this map are only
indicative and not meant for local assessment. Planning or investment decisions
at a local scale should seek some form of ground-truthing to confirm the
existence of the species or ecological community at locations of interest. Such
assessments should refer to the text of the Listing Advice, which is the legal
entity protected under the EPBC Act.
Page 25 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
Newsletters
Top
EPBC Act email updates can be received via the Communities for Communities newsletter and the EPBC Act
newsletter.
Caveat
Top
This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological
communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade
and commercial use protected under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the
EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published
literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the
information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or
completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be
occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database.
The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This
database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and
organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in
deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.
Citation: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Peppermint
Box (
Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia in Community and Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available
from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 2012-05-10T21:28:55EST.
| Accessibility | Disclaimer | Privacy | © Commonwealth of Australia | Help
Last updated: Tuesday, 31-Jan-2012 16:11:29 EST
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
+61 2 6274 1111 ABN
| Australian Government | Caring for our Country |
Page 26 of 27
Tumby Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc – Submission to Eyre Iron Pty Ltd Heritage Agreement Referral 2012/6399
References
1. Eyre Iron website www.eyreiron.com.au
2. Centrex Metals website www.
centrexmetals.com.au
3. Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) website www.
asx.com.au
4. EPBC Act Matters of Environmental Significance Tool Search website
www.environment.gov.au
5. Centrex’s Port Spencer Draft Public Environmental Report, February 2012
6. http://www.asiaminer.com/magazine/current-news/4155-iron-ore-new-jv-for-sa-deepwater-export-port.html IRON
ORE - New JV for SA deepwater export port
7. IUCN website www.
iucn.org
8. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
9. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Conservation, Marine Parks
www.environment.sa.gov.au/Conservation/Coastal marine/Marine parks/Park locations maps/Sir Joseph Banks Gro
up
10. V & C Semeniuk Research Group 2007 - A Baseline Survey of the Wetlands of Eyre Peninsula 2005-2007
Page 27 of 27
FOI 161205
Document 6
From:
S.47F
To:
EPBC Referrals
Cc:
S.47F @esc.net.au
Subject:
Public comment to EPBC referral 2012/6590
Date:
Thursday, 1 November 2012 10:02:37 AM
Dear sir,
I would like to submit my comments on the following proposal:
Centrex Metals Limited/Transport – water/ Within the Spencer Gulf approx. 210 km
north-west Adelaide/ SA/ Port Spencer stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula, SA.
Referral number: 2012/ 6590
As a resident of South Australia, I have grave concerns on the impact on the Little Blue
Penguin colony, an EPBC Act protected species, from Centrex Metals proposal to build a
bulk commodities export port at Lipson Cove . In particular, Lipson Island, home to the
Little Blue Penguin colony, lies only 1 km south of the project site. Here in South
Australia, many residents across the state are concerned about the declining population
numbers of our Little Blue Penguin colonies. There has been much publicity in the
media since the beginning of the year calling on the SA government to cull New Zealand
Fur Seals because fishermen blame them for the population decline of the Little Blue
Penguins at Granite Island, and Kangaroo Island. Thank goodness Minister Paul Caica
rejected the call for a cull, stating there was no evidence to support the claim the
decline was due to the seals. (We could look to those fishermen taking too much from
the ocean, leaving less food for both seals and penguins). And so, with the general
public fully aware of the problems of our penguin numbers, I would urge the
government not to risk any new problems by granting this major development so close
to the Lipson Island penguin colony.
A development such as this would have devastating effects on the feeding, breeding
and resting behaviours of these birds during port construction and operations. We could
also expect invasive species entering our pest-free waters on or in ballast water from
Chinese vessels. Furthermore, the jetty to be used in the area is short, and may cause
accidental oil spills.
As stated above, I have concerns of the impact on the Little Blue Penguins. But also in
this area we have dolphins, Australian Sea Lions, Great White Sharks, the Southern Right
Whales visit this area, and there is a wide range of sea birds. It’s also a favourite spot
for campers and swimmers. This area is too valuable as a conservation park to risk to
development on this scale.
I would recommend the port be built at Cape Hardy/ Port Neill to the north, or Point
Drummond on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula.
Here in South Australia we value our marine life uniqueness and richness, and want to
protect and conserve it. Please do not allow Centrex Metals to build the port at Lipson
Cove, where the effects may cause irreversible damage to our marine life, but instead,
build the port at the suggested locations mentioned above.
Yours truly,
S.47F
Lobethal, SA. 5241
S.47F
S.47F @esc.net.au
FOI 161205
Document 7
From:
S.47F
To:
EPBC Referrals
Subject:
Public comment to EPBC referral 2012/6590 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date:
Thursday, 1 November 2012 2:16:54 PM
Submission on above-named referral.
I would like to submit my comments on the following proposal:
Centrex Metals Limited/Transport – water/ Within the Spencer Gulf approx. 210 km
north-west Adelaide/ SA/ Port Spencer stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula, SA.
Referral number: 2012/ 6590
As a resident of South Australia, I have grave concerns on the impact on the Little Blue
Penguin colony, an EPBC Act protected species, from Centrex Metals proposal to build a
bulk commodities export port at Lipson Cove . In particular, Lipson Island, home to the
Little Blue Penguin colony, lies only 1 km south of the project site. Here in South
Australia, many residents across the state are concerned about the declining population
numbers of our Little Blue Penguin colonies. There has been much publicity in the
media since the beginning of the year calling on the SA government to cull New Zealand
Fur Seals because fishermen blame them for the population decline of the Little Blue
Penguins at Granite Island, and Kangaroo Island. Fortunately Minister Paul Caica
rejected the call for a cull, stating there was no evidence to support the claim the
decline was due to the seals. (We could look to those fishermen taking too much from
the ocean, leaving less food for both seals and penguins). And so, with the general
public fully aware of the problems of our penguin numbers, I would urge the
government not to risk any new problems by granting this major development so close
to the Lipson Island penguin colony.
A development such as this would have devastating effects on the feeding, breeding
and resting behaviours of these birds during port construction and operations. We could
also expect invasive species entering our pest-free waters on or in ballast water from
Chinese vessels. Furthermore, the jetty to be used in the area is short, and may cause
accidental oil spills.
As stated above, I have concerns for the impact on the Little Blue Penguins. But also in
this area we have dolphins, Australian Sea Lions, Great White Sharks, the Southern Right
Whales visit this area, and there is a wide range of sea birds. It’s also a favourite spot
for campers and swimmers. This area is too valuable as a conservation park to risk to
development on this scale.
I would recommend the port be built at Cape Hardy/ Port Neill to the north, or Point
Drummond on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula.
Here in South Australia we value our marine life uniqueness and richness, and want to
protect and conserve it. Please do not allow Centrex Metals to build the port at Lipson
Cove, where the effects may cause irreversible damage to our marine life, but instead,
build the port at the suggested locations mentioned above.
Thank you
S.47F
South Australia 5109
Ph. S.47F
FOI 161205
Document 8
31 October 2012
Referral Business Entry Point, EIA Policy
Section (EPBC Act) Approvals and Wildlife Division
Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
Email:
xxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Fax: 02 6274 1789
RE: Port Spencer Stage 1 and 2 Eyre Peninsula (formerly referred to as Sheep Hill)
Reference Number:
2012/6590
Proponent:
Centrex Metals Limited/Transport - water/Within the
Spencer Gulf approx 210km north-west Adelaide/SA/Port
Spencer Stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula, SA
To whom it may concern
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on referral 2012/6590.
The Conservation Council of South Australia (Conservation Council SA) is the Peak
conservation body for South Australia representing over 50 of the State’s environment
and conservation organisations.
The Conservation Council of South Australia believes that the proposal for Port Spencer
Stages 1 and 2 wil have a significant impact on matters protected by the EPBC Act.
Furthermore, we believe that this proposal is just one on many development projects in
this region to the potential scale of tens of bil ions of dol ars (See RESIC1 draft
recommendations (2012) and media release SC172/20122 from the Hon Simon Crean).
1 Consultation paper: RESIC recommendations following the Infrastructure Demand Study
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/minerals/home/resic/resic initiatives/infrastructure demand study
2 Landmark regional development agreement signed in Whyalla 25 September 2012 SC172/2012
http://www.minister.regional.gov.au/sc/releases/2012/september/sc172 2012.aspx
We are increasingly disappointed that current and future development proposals
continue to be undertaken in an ad hoc manner without due regard or assessment of
the cumulative impacts on the biodiversity values of national significance in the region.
In the immediate vicinity, the scale of this port at stages one and two (with further
mention of stages 3 and 4) is significant and wil bring considerable disturbance to the
site that is just 1.5 km from the jetty spur, and 1 km from the project site to Lipson Island.
Lipson Island is a one hectare conservation park for the protection of marine birds and is
an acknowledged biodiversity hotspot by DEWNR. It is also an IUCN Category three
natural monument. Lipson Island contains one of the very few stable colonies of
Eudyptua minor (Little Penguin) when many colonies around the state are in steep
decline.3 In light of the alarming decline of many South Australian Little Penguin
colonies, in our view,
the responsible move would be to determine whether the Lipson
Island colony is indeed resilient to the impacts that will be caused by the construction
and operation of this port.
Staged Development
It is our position that stages one and two be assessed in this referral as a minimum.
Cumulative impacts and suggestion for a strategic assessment of Spencer Gulf under
the EPBC Act
It is recognised by the proponent that there are a number of listed and threatened
fauna species within 10 km of the site and other species regarded as likely to occur at
the site. In this regard, the development should be considered in the broader context
of the cumulative impacts from current and proposed developments in Spencer Gulf.
Cumulative impacts are taking place on land, and in the coastal and marine
environments creating a variety of disturbances, pollution risks and biodiversity impacts.
Increased shipping also brings the risk of marine pests and spills. To properly assess the
cumulative impacts of current and proposed developments, a strategic assessment of
the Spencer Gulf region should be carried out in line with the provisions of the EPBC Act.
This would require collaboration between the federal and state government as wel as
other potential partners such as Centrex.
There must be greater recognition of the environmental values of Spencer Gulf, being
a reverse estuary of changing salinity, unique habitats and unique ecosystems.
3 Wiebkin, A. S. (2011) Conservation management priorities for little penguin populations in Gulf St
Vincent. Report to Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. South
Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No.
F2011/000188-1. SARDI Research Report Series No.588. 97pp.
Considering that a bulk export facility is proposed further north for Port Bonython
through the middle of the breeding aggregation area of the Upper Spencer Gulf giant
Australian cuttlefish, and further proposed projects including to expand to Lucky Bay
Harbor and multiple desalination plants, it would make sense to consider al such
developments strategical y. A strategic assessment would determine where these could
be best placed and consolidated.
To date, we do not believe that project alternatives have been considered in a
strategic manner. We note that there is no uniting, single vision for the future
development of the region to guide planning and best protect the environment. We
are seeing multiple port proposals, landing facilities and desalination plants proposed
across the Spencer Gulf region with inadequate consideration on how these projects
could be integrated for efficient infrastructure and infrastructure corridors.
Desalination
The impacts of the proposed desalination plant from 5GL/year to 20 GL/year and its
outfall discharge have not properly been described. The concentrated brine stream
that wil also contain a variety of desalination chemicals, should be described with
impacts modelled. Impacts on prey species that may be an important food source for
EPBC listed species known to reside in the area, including those on Lipson Island, should
be assessed. No such description of model ing or the impacts has been provided.
The Conservation Council of South Australia has a long standing view that a state-wide
desalination policy is required to prevent excessive multiple small, medium and large
desalination plants being built across coastal regions in an ad hoc manner. To date
there has been poor planning, with little integration or consideration of the cumulative
impacts of building desalination facilities across South Australia.
The scale of the desalination plant in this proposal is unclear. A 20 GL/year desalination
plant is relatively large and the brine outfall may have an impact on the local marine
environment. At a public meeting in Tumby Bay in April 2012, I understand that a 50
GL/year plant was mentioned. This matter must be clarified so that an assessment can
be made on the ultimate size of the desalination plant proposed.
Wastewater
Management of the wastewater from washing and dewatering the haematite is also a
significant potential impact. It is not clear how this wil be managed to prevent pol ution.
Power Supply
It is our view that comments relating to the Power Supply in this referral borderline on
green washing and should not be accepted in their current form.
From the information provided Centrex propose to purchase electricity from the grid in
a standard (black) electricity contract. The fact that Eyre Peninsula is one of the most
suitable locations in Australia for wind, and the development or otherwise of
transmission upgrades for the “Green Grid” concept,
does not create any entitlement
for Centrex to infer that their project is greener in using electricity. Particularly when
there is no current commitment for Centrex to commit to accredited GreenPower in this
referral.
The basic power requirement of 5MW during construction and 12 MW during operation
are not disputed. The Centrex contribution to a spur line to the grid is not disputed,
however the percentage of this contribution should also be stated by the proponent.
Whilst electricity and greenhouse gas emissions are not triggers for EPBC assessment or
controls the commitments relating to energy and greenhouse commitments by Centrex
should be open, transparent and very clear. This would require Centrex to properly
describe commitments of the project for 1) reducing energy use; 2) commitments to
contributing to accredited GreenPower; 3) commitments to purchasing accredited
offsets; and 4) how these efforts may reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Given that the South Australian Government has a commitment for accredited
GreenPower covering 50% of its own electricity consumption by 2014, it would be
appropriate for Centrex to describe its commitment for accredited GreenPower
associated with its 12MW Port Spencer requirement and its projected 80MW to 100 MW
power consumption for its mining and port activities in the future. This commitment
should be expressed as both a percentage of total electricity consumption and in terms
of MWh/year.
I would be happy to discuss these aspects and provide further detail if required.
Tim Kelly
S.47F
Chief Executive
FOI 161205 -
Document 9
Dan Monceaux
Director, Danimations Pty Ltd
157 Franklin St, Adelaide
SA 5000
xxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
To whom it may concern,
Please accept this as my formal submission to EPBC Act referral,
Ref# 2012/6590
Centrex Metals Limited/Transport - water/Within the Spencer Gulf approx 210km north-west Adelaide/SA/Port
Spencer Stage 1 and 2, Eyre Peninsula, SA
FROM SHEEP HILL TO PORT SPENCER
When Port Spencer was first brokered to the public, it took the name of Sheep Hill- and for years, media releases and
interviews carefully avoided mentioning the true location of the proposed facility- adjacent to Lipson Cove. Since then,
apparent efforts by the company to keep costs down, confuse EP locals and minimise opposition to the chosen location
have abounded. Prior to this, Centrex upset already locals in Port Lincoln by launching plans to export from their
waterfront, resulting in significant public protests and outcry.
In various news articles in the Eyre Tribune and Port Lincoln Times, dating from 2008 and 2009 the future Port Spencer
location was referred to a variety of ambiguous ways, including near Port Neill, north of Tumby Bay, south of Cowley’s
Beach and near Cape Hardy- the company being careful not to mention the project site's 1km proximity to Lipson
Island Conservation Park, or its position between the public beaches of Lipson Cove and Rogers Beach. The proposed
jetty spur is 1.4 kilometres from the island, which was established as a conservation park in 1967, and is an IUCN
Category III 'natural monument'. Lipson Cove will also feature in a new book 'Australia's 101 Best Beaches' due for
release in November. It is referred to in 'Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia – Part 2 – Identification of
areas of high conservation value in South Australia' as a biodiversity hotspot (Dyane, 1999). Excerpt below:
AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE IN THE DUTTON BIOUNIT
Lipson Cove-Lipson Island
Prime IUCN Conservation Values: rare and endangered species/habitats, biodiversity (IUCN Category IA).
IUCN categorization criteria:
–
naturalness (not subjected to human-induced change)
–
biogeography (representative marine habitats),
–
ecological (diversity of marine habitats, breeding sites for seabirds- Little Penguins, Black-faced Cormorants,
Silver Gulls, Crested Terns and the 'vulnerable' Fairy Tern),
–
economic (marine scale fish fisheries, tourism),
–
social (recreation),
–
national (Register of the National Estate- Lipson Island Conservation Park),
–
practicality (insulation, compatibility- adjacent to Lipson Island Conservation Park).
It is apparent that a provisional marine park boundary (Brian Marsh, submissions to Port Spencer PER) was likely to
include Lipson Island within the Sir Joseph Banks Group park, which had this boundary been committed to, would have
honoured the above listed and long established values. Instead, the boundary was shifted southward, and Centrex's port
plan accomodated to such an extent as this referral to the EPBC Act was only made
after I identified the unreasonable
degree of risk presented to EPBC Act listed species recorded by Centrex in their commissioned biological surveys.
Despite recommendations from DPTI and DEWNR, the Company elected not to refer the project at the appropriate
time- before the State determined the appropriate level of assessment. I maintain that had this occurred prior to March,
the project would have been directed to an EIS, requiring appropriate rigor and depth of study prior to receiving
approval.
SURVEYS ARE SEASONALLY BIASED & DATA DEFICIENT
To date they have shown themselves to be at best indifferent to the conservation value of this area, producing seasonally
biases and inadequate survey data, particularly of Lipson Island and surrounding waters. Surveys of Lipson Island were
conducted over two consecutive days in late May 2011 (PER Appendix J), despite contractor Golder Associates being
engaged by the company at least as early as at least 2010. It is therefore unreasonable that no Summer biological
surveys have been conducted, and similarly, no intertidal or subtidal surveys at the Lipson Island biodiversity hotspot.
Summer surveys would capture a much clearer picture of the area's value, as it is utilised by a range of migratory bird
species. It would also reveal any potential populations of reptiles and bats on Lipson Island which were previously
speculated upon but not observed (Appendix J, Port Spencer PER).
LITTLE PENGUIN POPULATION MISREPRESENTED!
The most alarming aspect to Centrex's biological survey was in their decision to initially not count the penguins, and yet
to falsely assume that the population was in decline (based on the State's overall trend). This is not believed to be the
case, and the colony was known to be stable in 2006 (Wiebken, 2011). Nevertheless, 87 active burrows were counted, in
which 26 penguins and four eggs were found. 8 other burrows contained Silver Gulls or Rock Doves. Centrex and
Golder Associates' contractor DES states of the remaining 53 burrows that 'observations of scats and tracks around
burrow entrances suggest that the Little Penguin would be the most likely occupants.' If this judgement is accepted,
using standard practice estimation technique (confirmed by John Ayliffe of Kingscote Aquarium, Kangaroo Island) 2
birds per burrow are assumed. This presents a potential total population of approximately 152 birds, 52% greater than
the 1991 and 2006 estimates (Wiebken, 2011). I was shocked to read that in this referral document, Centrex state the
observed number of penguins on the island to have been 31... a number which bears no obvious correlation to their
previous (and only) penguin survey work from May of 2011. This is extremely misleading considering active burrow
counts are not mentioned. Weather conditions can greatly affect the number of penguins to be found in burrows at any
given time (Ayliffe, 2012) and DEWNR has been previously critical of Centrex's knack for 'downplaying' the area's
conservation values (Correspondence obtained by FoI). I believe this to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth,
designed to diminish the perceived conservation value of Lipson Island to breeding sea birds. I reach this conclusion
after also being flatly lied to in person by a representative of Centrex Metals at a public information stand at Cleve Field
Days (where I was told there were 23 penguins in total). I was also denied permission to record a public meeting in
Tumby Bay in April by a Centrex representative who told me that there were no sensitive 'environmental issues' related
to Port Spencer.
Lies aside, this colony is the northernmost in Spencer Gulf, and therefore at the limits of the animal's range. If this
colony is
actually counted and shown to be stable or even growing, its conservation value only stands to increase, and
with it the justification for relocating this project. It is important to note that the Little Penguin was recently
recommended for reclassification as Vulnerable in South Australia (Wiebken, 2011).
SEAGRASS HABITAT LOSS & IMPACT ON PREY SPECIES
I'm concerned about the potential impact of seagrass loss on the availability of food for EPBC listed species. Causes for
this potential future loss include sedimentation and turbidity increases during construction, and shading from the wharf
and moored vessels once operational. It is important to note that whilst it is not an EPBC listed species, the seagrass
Posidonia sinuosa (shown to occur at the port site) is IUCN listed as 'Vulnerable' and should perhaps be considered for
future EPBC nomination.
DESALINATION UNCERTAINTY & IMPACTS ON MARINE BIOTA
At a public meeting in Tumby Bay in April I recall asking a representative of Centrex about the size of the future
desalination plant proposed for Port Spencer. I was told 50 Gigalitres per annum, but I now read that a 5 GL plant is
proposed, expandanble to approximately 20 GL. I am concerned about the possiblity of 'approximately' to allow
Centrex to scale up their proposed plant at a later date, and believe Centrex should specify a maximum output capacity
for the plant. I would also like to see oceanographic studies produced by Golder in 2008 (and referenced here in this
referral) which can substantiate a case for having the brine outflow located just 515 metres out from shore. Desalination
plants have the potential to create brine plumes if the return stream is not adequately mixed. This can also result in the
creation of deoxygenated zones, which could have heavy localised impacts on sessile and benthic organisms,
particularly during dodge tides (period of little tidal flow) (Kaempf 2009, 2011). This uncertainty is linked to the
uncertainty of not knowing explicitly which species exist around Lipson Island. I am also concerned about the potential
for fish larvae to be killed or harmed by low levels of available oxygen, or plumes of elevated salinity, or entrapment or
entrainment in the desalination plant's intake mechanism (yet to be specified). I am particularly concerned about the
weak swimming EPBC listed Sygnathids (seadragons) may be succeptible to this. Another species of conservation
concern (though not EPBC listed) known to the area is the Crested Threefin, which is endemic to SA waters, only found
here, and known to reside at the port site. I am also concerned that prey species for EPBC listed Little Penguin and
Fairy Tern may be harmed or killed in any of these ways, reducing the amount of available food for them in close
proximity to their breeding site at Lipson Island.
LIGHT, SOUND AND DISTURBANCE TO BREEDING BIRDS
I have ongoing concerns about the introduction of a '15 mile light' into an environment which currently features no
permanent light pollution in the vicinity. I am also concerned about noise generated at the site (potentially 24 hours),
and the increase in human activity in the area accompanying the port's operation. If evaporating ponds and human waste
are managed poorly on site (ie. not contained) this will lead to an increase in scavenger species, who will in turn
compete for breeding sites on Lipson Island (where a small number of rock pidgeons and silver gulls currently reside). I
am also concerned about the introduction of grain spillage from cartage to the area, which presumably will arrive by
road. This has the potential to dramatically increase populations of species who thrive on grain (pidgeons, doves etc)
etc) which represents a major new destabilising force on the present ecology. Increases in pidgeon and dove populations
may compete with Little Penguins for burrows on Lipson Island, threatening their future breeding success. Grain spill
must be kept to a minimum to mitigate this risk.
As for the Hooded Plovers and migratory birds who favour the mainland beaches, they are likely to have to contend
with increased visitation by humans and dogs as construction and port workers spend increasing amounts of time in the
vicinity. This may in turn lead to increased volumes of human garbage and fishing debris entering the water and proving
an entanglement or ingestion hazard for marine mammals (dolphins and sealions) and feeding seabirds like the Fairy
Tern and Little Penguin.
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS!
In choosing the location at Lipson Cove, Centrex Metals states in this referral that bathymetry between the chosen
Lipson Cove site and Cape Hardy was comprehensively surveyed. This begs the question as to
why Port Gibbon (which
lies outside this surveyed area) is the only potential port development site listed by Centrex as a valid project
alternative. I believe Cape Hardy has been
consciously omitted for fear of a genuine and reasonable recommendation
being made from a Federal level to relocate the project. It is my belief that the project should indeed be relocated, either
further to the north (Cape Hardy) to alleviate unnecessary pressure on the breeding success of birds roosting and
residing on Lipson Island, or due west to Point Drummond, for the same effect. Relocating to Point Drummond could
also provide Centrex with access to 40m deep water, a shorter path to market, and remove the unnecessary shipping
risks associated with passage by sea through Spencer Gulf and around the Southern tip of Eyre Peninsula.
PER, EPBC... NEXT STOP, EIS?
Since the Port Spencer project (then called Sheep Hill) received major project status in January of 2011, its scope has
fluctuated in size. At the drafting of 'Guidelines for a PER' the port proposal featured a desalination plant and slurry
pipeline for the transport of ore. When the PER was released, these elements were consipicuously absent. At the same
time, the company admitted that no construction would occur until stages 1 and 2 were approved. Why not then treat the
project as a whole, and see that an EIS is prepared? It would appear by the stucture of this EPBC referral that Centrex
are now effectively seeking approval for all development (stages 1-4) at the Lipson Cove site.
I was pleased to see that this EPBC referral was made, after the company's admission of numerous EPBC Act listed
species being present in the area. I was disappointed to learn that despite DENR and DPTI recommending the project be
referred to the EPBC, the State was unwilling to make the referral on behalf of the Company. It is my concern that the
State has a pronounced conflict of interest in this project as a future beneficiary of its royalties and taxes, and that
unreasonable envionmental sacrifices stand to be made for the sake of fast-tracked revenue. I see this as an increasing
problem in light of the Federal push to shift EPBC Act obligations and resposibilities back into the hands of the State
Governments of Australia... but that's a story for another submission.
MORE RARE AND NEAR THREATENED SPECIES
Looking beyond currently listed species known to occur within 5km of the project site, it is important to consider the
following records of rare and near-threatened species (SA), listed on the Atlas of Living Australia. Some of these may
appear as EPBC listed species in the future. Unfortunately, the Atlas of Living Australia is also data deficient on the
marine environment at Lipson Cove. These species will also face issues of displacement, disturbance and increased
competition if the proposed port development is approved.
•
Common Sandpiper
•
Australasian Shoveler
•
Musk Duck
•
Sooty Oystercatcher
•
Pied Oystercatcher
•
Blue billed duck
•
Glossy Ibis
•
Pacific Golden Plover
•
Rock Parrot
IMPACTS TO COMMONWEALTH WATERS
Transit of vessels through the Great Australian Bight Marine Park whilst enroute to China presents risks to the
conservation values of this park, particularly to cetaceans via potential boat strike incidents, or accidents resulting in oil
spill. Such a spill would impact a wide variety of species exposed to floating slicks, as well as the ingestion of toxins
present in dispersant chemicals used during an ensuing clean-up.
IMPACTS TO EPBC ACT LISTED SPECIES
Impact pile-driving and pile driving for jetty construction will have an impact on marine biota, but to an unknown
extent. There is potential for injury or death of fish, cephalopods and marine mammals within 500m range, and
realistically, only marine mammals are likely to be observed by the construction team, while impacts to subtidal
organisms will be much harder to control. Animals which could be affected include EPBC protected sygnathids
(thought to possibly occur in the area, PER Appendix J), Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphins, Southern Right Whales and
Australian Sealions. Cuttlefish, octopus and squid are also highly sensative to submarine noise pollution, though none
are listed under the EPBC Act at this time.
INTRODUCTION OF INVASIVE SPECIES
I'm also concerned about invasive species entering what are presently pest-free waters on the hulls of or in ballast water
from inbound Chinese vessels. Like the bird above the water, marine organisms compete for food and habitat, and once
established are extremely difficult to completely remove. This lends weigh to the argument for establishing a shipping
terminus somewhere like Point Drummond, where multiple spurs could be developed, and shipping concentrated.
Centrex admit that there is no evidence of any subtidal or intertidal pest species at this time at Lipson Cove, and I'd like
it to stay that way. Foreign vessels will inevitably impact the integrity of this environment to the detriment of native
species.
UNREASONABLE OIL SPILL RISK
The proposed jetty is also very short (515m) so an accident resulting in an oil spill could be devastating for the adjacent
beaches and island. A precedent for this was set back in 1992 in Northern Spencer Gulf at Port Bonython, when a ship's
hull was pierced by a tug boat. This resulted in 300 tonnes of bunker fuel oil spilling into the gulf, ultimately killing
birds and other organisms as the oil travelled south into the mangroves south of Pirie. No recovery attempt was made to
clean up the landed oil on that occasion, other than bombarding the slick initially with dispersants- even in shallow
water. This of course merely sinks the oil, introducing new toxic contaminants to the area which persist in 'capsules'
beneath the waves. I was haunted by images of oiled birds after last year's Bay of Plenty spill, where the Rena ran
aground in New Zealand. To place such a risk right next door to this important colony is so obviously irresponsible.
Relocation away from this site is the only way to limit the potential for unnecessary harm to the adjoining Rogers and
Lipson Cove Beaches and to Lipson Island's breeding EPBC listed marine birds, including the Fairy Tern, Hooded
Plover, Little Penguin, Black-faced cormorants, Sooty Terns, Sooty Oystercatchers, Pied Oystercatchers and visiting
migratory species.
In closing, it is my sincere opinion that Centrex have done little to earn the community's trust by withholding (the port's
initial location) and manipulating (penguin count) information. They have conducted inadequate biological surveys and
beligerently pushed ahead with their preferred location, scrubbing out evidence of potentially viable alternatives. I am
confident that this development can find a better home for itself elsewhere in South Australian waters, however, there's
only one Lipson Island and this 'biodiversity hotspot' can't be moved. Lipson Island Conservation Park and its wildlife
deserves better.
Yours sincerely,
Dan Monceaux
Director, Cuttlefish Country
http://cuttlefishcountry.com
FOI 161205 -
Document 10
The short-term economic gain is not enough to justify the long-term irreplaceable
loss to the land and marine biodiversity in Spencer Gulf and the Great Australian
Bight. This is a planet with finite resources. Future life and promises for increased
material lifestyle cannot be built on the reality of destroying the living ecosystems
that sustain life.
I am a scholar of cultural change and the current passion in industrialised and
semi-industrialised counties for economies based on more 'development', which
in a few years will be redescribed as 'destruction'. Now is the time to stop.
I add the following statement.
Facing the future: rethinking ‘progress’
S.47F
We are faced with a situation in relation to the health of the planet which has not been
faced before. We do not have guidelines to follow. New practices have to be
developed, in particular, new ways of describing the challenges that have to be faced.
The view of ‘progress’ which has served us well so far needs scrutiny. In the past
western culture has moved through agricultural revolutions, industrial revolutions,
technological revolutions, and we are in the middle of a social revolution which we are
still coming to terms with. The challenges that we face now, in being custodians of the
planet, require us to move quickly into another revolution, and that is a revolution of the
mind. This requires us to think and act differently. To move into this zone we need to
draw on all the systems of knowledge which have been developed so far, and then
apply informed imagination to develop permanent, sustainable, practices for the future.
So far, our freedoms have allowed us to choose what we want to do, for ourselves, our
families, our companies and workplaces, our state, our country. Now we need to make
decisions from different bases. This requires vision, imagination and knowledge. I
believe most people understand that new pathways about every aspect of our lives and
our culture need to be put forward so that there is a shared community response to
global issues.
I believe that this is an historical time when we need to pause from the work that we
have done well in the past and know how to keep doing, and ask whether we are
taking enough notice of the new issues that confront us. This is what I mean about ‘the
revolution of the mind’. In this community we are in an ideal situation to act responsibly
so that world class practice can occur. In itself, this could provide economic benefit to
the community as knowledge capital. A similar example from the past is the way China
had developed the one child policy in response to severe population pressure, and the
ways South Australia has exported knowledge about dry land farming to many other
regions in the world.
This project facing us is on another scale again. The core of this new work is
knowledge, education and community understanding and support. This re
