Submission to the Appeals Convener on the Long-Term Shellsand Dredging, Owen Anchorage

Recfishwest feels compelled to lodge an appeal against the report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority in respect to the Long-Term Shellsand Dredging, Owen Anchorage. (EPA Bulletin 1033).

Recfishwest previously lodged a submission strongly objecting to the proposal (Submission attached). Our objection was based on numerous and compelling grounds and we are consequently astounded at the outcome of the EPA's assessment.

Despite having given careful and thorough consideration to the EPA report we are at a loss to understand the rationale for their conclusions. We believe it to be a disgraceful outcome and one of which the EPA, as an independent and supposedly objective body, should be thoroughly ashamed.

The grounds for our appeal follow.

1. That the EPA has summarily dismissed the advice of the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation and Land Management without reasonable grounds to do so.

These Departments are the principal Western Australian Government agencies responsible for marine fisheries and environmental management. Both have concluded against the Cockburn Cement proposal.

A key conclusion of the Department of Fisheries submission is:

"Recommendation 5 of the 1998 EPA report and recommendations on medium-term dredging in Success Bank ("That the Minister notes that the EPA has formed the view that proposals involving the removal of seagrass and potential seagrass habitat in the long-term for shellsand should be recognised as environmentally unreasonable") remains reasonable."

The key conclusion of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is:

"Based on the information presented in the ERMP CALM considers the proposal will impact significantly and detrimentally on marine biodiversity, specifically seagrass and shallow sand habitat."

Recfishwest contends that there is no new evidence, mitigating factors or proponent commitment presented in the EPA Bulletin 1033 that can be used as grounds for dismissing these concluding statements.

2. Recfishwest contends that the cumulative loss of seagrass in the broader Cockburn Sound/Owen Anchorage area has already exceeded the level of loss that should be deemed a significant environmental impact and that further shellsand dredging must not be permitted.

In assessing the potential environmental impact of the proposal both the proponent and the EPA have limited their scope to the calculation of seagrass loss on the Owen Anchorage area.

This calculation results in an estimate that, at the end of stage two, there will be a cumulative loss of 1287ha or 18.3%.

A difference of opinion already exists in respect to this level of loss. The EPA seemingly accepts the proponents assertion that this is an acceptable percentage loss of seagrass whilst rejecting the collective views of CALM, the Department of Fisheries and Recfishwest that it is completely unacceptable.

Prior to industrialisation of Cockburn Sound the seagrass meadows of Parmelia and Success banks and the Sound formed a more distinct broader seagrass ecosystem. The EPA recognises that Cockburn Sound has already lost 80% of its seagrass since that time.

Recfishwest contends that the cumulative impact of further losses of seagrass from Parmelia and Success Banks, plus the 80% loss of seagrass within Cockburn Sound, cannot be viewed as other than having a very significant environmental impact and one that must not be exceeded.

It is inconceivable that the EPA could sanction further deliberate loss of seagrass in this region.

3. Recfishwest contends that the EPA recommendations 4 and 5 are totally inappropriate and that the EPA must quantitatively define what it has termed "further limited removal of some seagrass".

The EPA has expressed the view that Cockburn Cement Ltd. (CCL) has provided sufficient new information for it to conclude that further limited removal of some seagrass from Owen Anchorage can now be considered environmentally reasonable.

Recfishwest absolutely rejects this view.

Nonetheless the EPA has further stated that whilst it considers that a limited loss of additional seagrass in Owen Anchorage could occur without inducing a significant impact, it wishes to ensure that any additional loss is strictly constrained. This is the basis for the EPA's recommendations 4 and 5.

The implications of these statements are that the EPA believes that there is a limit, within the scope of the CCL proposal, above which further seagrass loss cannot be permitted without creating an unacceptable environmental impact.

Unfortunately the EPA has not attempted to define this limit and, by virtue of its Recommendations 4 and 5, has abrogated this responsibility to the Ministers for the Environment and State Development for them to resolve by negotiation. This negotiation may not be subject to a transparent process.

Recfishwest believes this to be inappropriate and believes that the EPA itself must define what it has termed "further limited removal of some seagrass" and amend recommendations 4 and 5 to include a firm and binding deadline for cessation of dredging operations on Success and Parmelia banks based upon environmental parameters rather than economic and political considerations.

4. Recfishwest contends that the environmental assessment of the CCL proposal has been unduly and inappropriately influenced by economic considerations.

To highlight this we quote the following cleverly constructed words by the EPA; "..while economic issues are not relevant to the EPA's consideration, CCL notes that there are no known resources....that could be accessed commercially outside Success and Parmelia banks." The EPA report then provides a dissertation of economically viable alternatives (to CCL).

Recfishwest believes that these issues should not have been included within the EPA report at all. The biased assessment of economic cost to CCL without determining the economic impact of the ecosystem of Cockburn Sound and Owen Anchorage, which is a responsibility of the EPA, is inexcusable. Certainly the economic issues may become a factor in the subsequent government decision making processes, however they should not be cited or used in a context that may confuse or influence an assessment that is meant to be based on environmental factors alone.

5. Recfishwest contends that the EPA has not addressed or taken into account the impact of the proposal on the longer-term environmental amenity and recreation.

Whilst much emphasis was placed upon seagrass rehabilitation in the ERMP, the EPA have now concluded that;

"The EPA acknowledges that rehabilitation is not currently practicable on an operational scale and more time is required to produce the necessary technology. The EPA also acknowledges that seagrass may be established naturally elsewhere in Owen Anchorage but cannot practically be artificially rehabilitated at present."

Noting the above Recfishwest consider it probable that seagrass rehabilitation to replace seagrass lost to dredging will never eventuate.

Certainly seagrass will not be able to revegetate the area dredged. The EPA report acknowledges this certainty; "The EPA recognises current knowledge confirms that seagrass distributed in Owen's Anchorage is dynamic and seagrasses can establish naturally on shallow bare sand habitat although actual seagrass habitat lost to dredging cannot be practically replaced." and

"Accordingly a simple and conservative way of viewing the impact of dredging is to consider the area of seagrass lost."

As there is no prospect of the dredged area ever being refilled the clear consequence of the CCL proposal is the permanent removal of 1287ha of seagrass and shallow bare sand habitat. The area will be replaced by deep barren trenches forever.

Recfishwest emphasises the permanent legacy of what is in reality a short-term industrial activity. The net present value of lost recreational and environmental amenity approaches infinity compared with the direct and short-term economic benefit of the dredging operation.

The residents of the Perth metropolitan area have already lost a significant proportion of the recreational and environmental amenity 'on their doorstep' that once existed in Cockburn Sound. The prospect of a further deliberate permanent loss of recreational and environmental amenity, on Perth's "doorstep", is disastrous and cannot be allowed to occur.

Recfishwest contends that the permanency of the impacts of the CCL proposed dredging program has not been sufficiently examined or considered.

Conclusion

Recfishwest maintains its strong objection to the continuation of shellsand dredging in Owen anchorage.

We firmly believe that the grounds of our appeal, read in conjunction with our submission to the Cockburn Cement Ltd ERMP, together mount a strong case for the rejection of the EPA report and its recommendations in this matter.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.