Jane MacDonald - Save Ralphs Bay

Jane MacDonald 

November 22 2009 

Submission on the Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR) for the 

‘Lauderdale Quay’ Development Proposal 

1. Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DIAR. This is my personal submission, 

although I am also the Communication Coordinator of Save Ralphs Bay Inc. As you would be 

aware, this final opportunity for members of the public to make submissions on the 

proposed Ralphs Bay canal estate marks the end of our involvement in a formal stage of our 

long struggle to defend the Bay. It would appear that the assessment of the proposed 

‘development’ is in safe hands, and I look forward to the publication of the final Integrated 

Assessment Report containing the Panel’s final recommendation that the project not 

proceed. I also look forward to celebrating, on the following day, the coming into effect of 

the 171 hectare Ralphs Bay Conservation Area as described on pages 179‐180 of the DIAR. 

This submission period comes at the end of years of effort on the part of many members of 

the community, to prevent the destruction of the Ralphs Bay sandflats at Lauderdale and to 

prevent the construction of a housing subdivision on artificially constructed islands in the 

marine environment at a time of global warming, coastal habitat loss (especially for 

migratory shorebirds) and sea level rise. 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the Tasmanian Planning 

Commission and the members of the Panel assessing the proposed ‘development’, for the 

thorough, comprehensive assessment of the canal estate proposal, and for the fearless and 

independent draft recommendations. I hope that we are now very close to a final decision 

on this matter, which has consumed vast amounts of energy, time and other resources for 

many in the community. The stress has taken its toll on the health of some individuals. The 

disparity between the resources available to the Walker Corporation and its servants and 

the resources available to the community in order to defend Ralphs Bay makes a mockery of 

the frequent cries of, “unfairness” heard from Walker Corp. employees. 

I would like to express my deep personal gratitude to Jessica Feehely, Principal Lawyer at 

the Environmental Defenders’ Office (EDO), whose support, hard work and great 

professionalism have been critical to the presentation of the formal case for saving the 

sandflats of Ralphs Bay from destruction by the proposed canal estate. Roland Browne, the 

barrister for Save Ralphs Bay in the June/July hearings has been a great supporter and an 

exemplary professional, and I thank him sincerely, too. Mr. Browne cross‐examined Walker 

Corp.’s witnesses with courtesy and good grace, extracting whatever concessions were 

necessary to the SRB case without unpleasantness. 

 

Jane MacDonald, submission on DIAR Page 1

I believe there is a price to be paid in future for the frequently unpleasant atmosphere of 

the Hearings, in the intimidating setting of the Federal Court. At least one individual who 

presented valuable evidence in the Hearings remains adamant this is not an experience ever 

to be repeated. Some individuals who chose not to present evidence at the Hearings are 

now more convinced than ever that this is a course of action to be avoided. This does not 

bode well for the future of public participation in assessments of major planning decisions, 

and yet this case is also a clear demonstration of the importance of public participation in 

bringing to light important evidence germane to such decision making. 

It is my sincerely held belief that the RPDC/TPC’s clear preference for Hearings to be 

informal, inquisitorial and as constructive as possible should be vigorously upheld in future, 

to encourage and support public participation. 

The DIAR has made it clear that members of the community are not alone in rejecting the 

Walker Corporation’s destructive proposal, and it will be interesting to see whether that 

Corporation’s employees are about thank the TPC courteously for its thorough assessment 

of the proposal, and accept the decision of the “independent umpire”. 

2. Overall comments on the DIAR 

I believe the DIAR to be generally comprehensive, thorough and rigorous in its reporting and 

assessment of the matters raised in submissions and in the Hearings. The final IAR will be a 

landmark document, of benefit in future decision making and study, and it is to be 

anticipated that some alterations will be made to the draft report in order to make the final 

IAR the very best document it can be. 

3. Comments on the draft recommendations 

3.1 Considerations which overwhelmingly outweigh any economic benefits 

3.1.1 Sustainability of the development (Section 2.7.4 of the draft Report) 

I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the Lauderdale Quay proposal cannot be 

characterised as ‘sustainable development’” and that it does not satisfy the first two 

objectives of the State’s Resource Management or the second principle of the Tasmanian 

State Coastal Policy 1996: ‘the coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner’. 

I support the Panel’s view that, “the construction of a residential estate on the tidal flats of 

Ralphs Bay is an inherently unsustainable approach to satisfying demand for residential 

land”, and that, “The existence of demand for waterfront properties with or without 

berthing facilities is not seen as sufficient justification for engaging in an unsustainable 

practice such as that proposed.” 

I thank the Panel for adhering to the definition of the Precautionary Principle as stated in 

the State Coastal Policy, rather the definition advocated by Mr. Gunson on July 17 th . 

 


3.1.2 Strategic planning generally (Section 2.7.1) 

I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the Lauderdale Quay proposal is not wholly 

consistent with the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System.” 

The proposal is certainly inconsistent with objective (a) of the RMPS, “… the maintenance of 

ecological processes and genetic diversity”. 

Increasingly, climate change and sea level rise threats to Australia’s coasts are being 

understood to be significant threats to ecological processes and genetic diversity. For 

instance, it is pleasing to see in the Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to sea 

level rise (2009; currently open for comment), the following: 

“PRINCIPLE 5 – Minimise the exposure to coastal risks from proposed development in 

coastal areas 

7. Coastal ecosystems are protected from development impacts” 

An ecosystem protection approach maintains ecological processes, biodiversity and genetic 

diversity, even where the natural values are not yet fully described or understood. 

It was pleasing to see the Panel’s support for representors who objected to the unfairness 

of using valued public land for private development, as this has been a considerable cause 

of angst in the community. 

I suggest a correction needs to be made on page 145, where it is stated, “Regarding the 

oft‐cited fact that canal developments are banned in other States, the Panel notes that no 

such ban exists in Tasmania and concludes that such bans are not directly relevant to this 

proposal which must be assessed on its own merits.” 

The municipality of Kingborough banned canal estates in 2000 as mentioned on pages 2 and 

10 of Part B of the Save Ralphs Bay Inc. submission on the DIIS. 

““Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 

5.2.1.8 Canal Estates: Canal estates are not permitted.” 

It was for this reason that Save Ralphs Bay Inc. lodged a Draft Planning Directive with the 

RPDC in 2006, to ban canal estate development in Tasmania, consistent with the 

Kingborough ban. The draft planning directive raised the need for a consistent approach to 

assessing canal estate development in Tasmania. 

3.1.3 Urban form (section 2.7.5) 

I fully support the Panel’s findings that, “the proposed development would be a major and 

unacceptable intervention into Ralphs Bay. It would be an intervention which would only be 

acceptable if warranted by overwhelming and clearly demonstrated benefits arising from 

the proposed project: the Panels’ finding is that the project would not produce such 

benefits.” 


The proposal cannot be amended in any way to produce an urban design compatible with 

the Ralphs Bay location. 

I request that submission 464 be added to the list on page 164, as SRB also noted these 

matters, on page 19 of Part B of our submission on the DIIS (section 2.6.8). 

A ‘not’ appears to be missing in the second last line before the heading, “Summary of 

issuers addressed at the hearings” on page 164 of the DIAR. 

I endorse the Panel’s findings on pages 166‐169 of the DIAR concerning connectivity, 

distances in the development discouraging the use of public transport, the unacceptability 

of the 9m discretionary building height limitation, the incompatibility of the commercial 

buildings with the character of Lauderdale and the likely physical and social isolation of the 

proposed subdivision. 

3.1.4 Avian ecology (section 2.2.2) 

3.1.4.1 Red‐necked Stint 

I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the importance of Lauderdale to at least the 

conservation status of the DEPA with respect to the Red‐necked Stint, and potentially as a 

drought refuge for that and other migratory shorebird species is by itself a sufficient reason 

for rejection of the proposed development.” 

It is a great relief to see the Panel’s support for the continued survival of Red‐necked Stints 

and other migratory shorebirds, especially considering the significant threat posed to these 

birds by habitat loss such as that caused by huge ‘reclamation’ projects in the Yellow Sea. 

It was pleasing to see that the Panel considered, “To suggest that the removal of such a 

large area of important shorebird habitat would not have a significant impact on the DEPA 

population is not, the Panel considers, an acceptable argument, particularly in view of the 

effect loss of incremental habitat has had on migratory shorebirds in the past.” 

It was also pleasing to see that, “it was not considered appropriate to cite anticipated future 

impacts on wader populations at Lauderdale or the wider DEPA to downgrade the potential 

impact of the development. The impact on migratory wader species globally, increased the 

importance of migration end points such as Lauderdale.” 

the Panel’s remarks are a marked 

contrast to the statements made on behalf of the Walker Corporation on November 17, including that, “it is difficult to 

conceive that the loss of 1% of a population of 325 000 (Red‐necked Stints) would constitute 


a significant impact on the species as a whole”, and, “even if 400 (Red‐necked Stints) died, 

this still would not constitute an impact on the species as a whole.” The implication was 

clearly that such deaths were fully justified in order that the Walker Corporation could turn 

a profit from its intended habitat destruction. 

3.1.4.2 Pied Oystercatcher 

I fully support the Panel’s conclusion in respect of the Pied Oystercatcher that, “there is a 

significant risk that at least a large part of the Lauderdale population of the species would 

be lost as a result of the proposed development. When combined with the international 

significance to the species of the site which would be lost as a result of the proposed 

development, the Panel considers this is to be an unacceptable result.” 

It is also pleasing to see the Panel’s confirmation, in its “assessment and findings” 

commencing on page 74, that, “the site of the proposed development at Lauderdale is 

nationally and internationally significant for the species.” 

It was reassuring to read on page 76 that, “The Panel does not, however, accept that if the 

species as a whole is not significantly affected, that necessarily means the environmental 

impact of the development in this respect is acceptable.” 

On page 70, three lines above “Feeding”, the reference to, “occasional long flats” may be an 

error, with “flights” as the intended term. 

On page 63, there is a reference to Representor 491. The identity of this representor 

appears to have been omitted from both Appendix 2 and Appendix 4. It appears that the 

fourth dot point on page 63 should perhaps begin with the word, “since”. 

References on page 74 (14 th line from bottom of page) and page 75 (10 th line from bottom) 

to the Pied Oystercatcher being (or not being) an “adaptive” species may need correcting to 

read, “adaptable.” 

The reference 5 lines from the bottom of page 74 to the “abductor” muscles of shellfish 

should probably be to, “adductor” muscles. 

3.2 Additional matters militating against approval 

3.2.1 Visual impact (Section 2.7.6) 

I fully agree that, “the visual impact of the development (in particular in its reclamation 

stage and to a lesser extent thereafter) would be significantly detrimental” and … “a 

negative factor in the overall assessment”. 

However, I do not agree that this factor is, “not sufficient on its own to justify rejection of 

the proposal”, since the visual impact has been the subject of such strong negative reactions 

over many years since the canal estate proposal was first put forward. I note that there is 


no reference to any favourable response to the visual impact of the development, on pages 

170‐171. 

I request that submission 464 be added to the list on page 170, since Part A of the Save 

Ralphs Bay submission on the DIIS discussed landscape and visual character on page 12 and 

on pages 22‐23 and Part B discussed visual amenity on pages 45‐47. We also included a 

DVD, calendars and cards as part of our submission, each of which indicated the value 

placed by the community on Ralphs Bay views. 

The discussion of Table 5 in the text, “Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia” on 

page 174 of the DIAR is very interesting, and I am pleased to see the support it gives to the 

approach taken by Ms. Pat Barwick in her evidence on behalf of SRB. It has been my own 

personal experience that the sensitivity of the viewer continually develops as a result of a 

deepening understanding of that which is viewed. Before 2004, even though I am a nature 

lover and biology teacher, I was only vaguely aware of the larger shorebirds on Ralphs Bay 

sandflats, and had no clear idea of how they use the feeding grounds. As a result of the 

understanding developed in the years since 2004, I now take great pleasure from observing 

the feeding and roosting of the shorebirds at varying locations as the state of the tide, 

weather and season vary. It is a great delight to observe the smaller shorebirds (Red‐necked 

Stints, Red‐capped Plovers, Double‐banded Plovers) and a matter of great satisfaction to be 

able to tell the difference between them. This year, I have seen Bar‐tailed Godwits on the 

sandflats at Lauderdale and South Arm. I now know where to look for Pied Oystercatchers 

sitting on their nests, and have a much greater appreciation of the species diversity in the 

saltmarsh fringing the bay. It was a delight to see the first flock of Red‐Necked Stints arrive 

in September this year, and the visual delight was greatly enhanced by the knowledge that 

these tiny birds had flown to Lauderdale from Siberia. 

I have conducted field excursions to Ralphs Bay for a number of schools and colleges over 

the years, and it is my belief that, for many, many individuals, the “viewer sensitivity” to 

Ralphs Bay vistas has developed considerably since the canal estate proposal first 

threatened the bay. It is my hope that future educational and interpretative endeavours 

will continue to develop the widest possible appreciation of the many Ralphs Bay aesthetic, 

natural and scientific values. 

I was pleased to see, that in marked contrast to the Walker Corporation’s expert at the 

hearings, the WA document also advocated consideration of those who have chosen to live 

in a scenic and unspoilt area, including taking note of local protests, as indicated on page 

174 of the DIAR and the Panel’s comments following, at the top of page 175: 

‘“Degree of sensitivity of viewers; those who are more likely to be more sensitive include 

wilderness users, other recreational users, tourists, people who chose to live in an area 

because of its landscape character and views (e.g. assessed by noting how vocal observers 

are about specific travel routes or use areas, indicated in letters, protests etc).” The 

frequency with which representors and witnesses referred to the high value and importance 

they placed upon their experience of the view, on a daily basis and otherwise, demonstrates 

a high level of sensitivity. That was borne out in the evidence.’” 


I believe that the visual impact of the canal estate project would be so significant for the 

community that it would contribute to the mental, emotional and physical health impacts, 

and it should therefore join the matters in the first group of impacts, which 

“overwhelmingly outweigh” any potential economic benefits. 

3.2.2 Construction duration (Section 2.1.1) 

I fully support the Panel’s assessment, findings and conclusions, including that, “some of the 

construction impacts could have unacceptable impacts as a result of the extended 

construction duration. These impacts mainly centre on noise, dust and odour.” However, I 

would add the long duration of the negative visual impacts to this list. 

3.2.3 Social, cultural, health and general community impacts (Section 2.6) 

I support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the impact of the development of the project on the 

amenity of the existing community, particularly during the construction period, as well as 

the likely lack of integration and social cohesion of the completed development with the 

Lauderdale community, are significant negative matters to be taken into account”. 

I request that submission 464 be added to the list at the top of page 130, as Part B of the 

Save Ralphs Bay Inc submission stated on page 50, “Tasmania’s “brand” and its appeal as a 

tourism destination is all about being distinctively “natural”, “unspoiled”, friendly and 

retaining values and community spirit that have been diminished elsewhere.” (This last 

phrase was quoted in the DIAR text). 

It was very pleasing to see, on page 133, strong recognition of the importance of the ‘sense 

of place’ experienced by local residents, and the impact of the proposed development on 

this. 

It was also pleasing to see the Panel’s acknowledgement of the recreational value of the bay, 

for windsurfers, recreational divers and bird watchers. 

As described on page 135, the strength of the impacts on community members also suggest 

this group of issues should be moved up from, “additional matters” status to the first 

category of matters, “overwhelmingly outweighing” any potential economic benefits. 

As stated on page 135 of the DIAR: 

“The construction process with respect to the land forms will continue for up to seven years, 

and during that time its appearance, and its likely potential generation of noise and dust, 

together with construction activity and traffic, will replace the existing amenity with that of 

a construction site. This will be experienced by the residents of the existing community and 

to a lesser degree by visitors as well as persons regularly passing through Lauderdale. 

“The impact, particularly having regard to its duration, was identified by the evidence at the 

hearing as a significant impost on the local community and visitors, during that construction 

period. For particularly that significant portion of the existing community opposed to the 


project, the Panel considers the experience of the impact would be very substantial, and a 

cause of diminished amenity.” 

Furthermore, as stated on page 136: 

“Dr Law also emphasised his concern that the effects of the protracted construction period 

upon the local community, could be expected to give rise to significant levels of stress. The 

Panel notes that there is no evidence to the contrary, and accepts that this is a potential 

consequence of the development, should it proceed.” 

I would contend that these impacts, with the visual impact previously discussed, are likely to 

result in high levels of harm within the community and that this should overwhelmingly 

outweigh any economic benefits. 

3.2.4 Need for the development (Section 2.7.2) 

I am pleased to see on page 149 that the DIAR refers to, “need (in the sense of necessity)”, 

in contrast to Mr. McElwaine’s and Mr. Shephard’s assertions in the hearings on July 8 that 

‘need’ does not mean ‘necessity’. Mr. Brothers (for Walker Corp.), speaking after lunch on 

the same day, argued that ‘need’ and ‘demand’ are, “one and the same”. This is a 

pernicious line of reasoning, which could lead to considerable social harm if generally 

followed. 

Presumably the Proponent’s conflation of ‘need’ with ‘demand’ must be taken to mean, 

‘within the limits of the law’, otherwise it would surely be arguable that there is a need in 

society for the provision of various drugs of addiction? Even within the law, it could perhaps 

be argued that the ‘need’ for cosmetic surgery was as great or greater than the need for lifesaving 

surgery, provided only that the ‘demand’ could be demonstrated. If healthcare 

funding was allocated in accordance with such reasoning, great harm could result. 

In resisting such argument, the Panel is playing an important role in upholding standards of 

ethical decision making in Tasmania. 

I would have liked to see a stronger concluding statement in this section, as the ‘Panel 

conclusions’ refer only to demand, despite the previous comments that, “the Panel’s view is 

that the absence of a need (in the sense of necessity) places a greater onus on the 

Proponent to justify the success of the project. In this context, the Panel notes that any risk 

that the project may fail is a risk likely to be borne not only by the Proponent but to a large 

extent also by the public.” 

If there is some distinct planning convention involved in the use of the term, ‘need’, this 

could usefully be explained in this section of the final IAR, as it is not clear to me why the 

points raised by representors appear to have made little impact on the Panel’s assessment, 

findings and conclusions. 

3.2.5 Environmental offsets (Section 2.2.3) 


I fully concur with the Panel’s conclusions that, “While the environmental offset measures 

proposed as part of the project have the potential to partially offset the ecological losses 

caused by the proposed development, the Panel is not satisfied that these measures will be 

effective to any substantial degree. Although the proposed environmental monitoring 

programs would reveal whether the measures are succeeding, there is no apparent solution 

in the event they are not succeeding”. Further, that, “the extent to which the offsets will be 

effective is not demonstrated, or capable of being known in any long‐term sense, prior to 

the development occurring. The implementation of the offsets prior to the development 

would not, on the evidence, give any basis for confidence in their long‐term effectiveness.” 

The statement attributed to Mr. Delaney, that, “there would be no adverse impact on 

feeding grounds for fish or aquatic organisms or loss of plant wader animal communities in 

the mercury rich sediments in the navigation channel” may need to be checked against the 

transcript? 

(There are a number of instances of ‘dependant’ on pages 97 – 99 which could usefully be 

corrected to ‘dependent’ in the final IAR). 

3.2.6 Performance conditions and bonds (Section 2.11) 

Thank you! This was perhaps the most enjoyable statement in the entire DIAR. Please stick 

resolutely to the view that, “neither the conditions suggested on behalf of the 

Proponent in its draft set of conditions (Exhibit W1, Schedule G) nor any 

other conditions of which the Panel can conceive, would resolve the reasons 

for the recommendation that the project should not proceed.” 

3.3 Other risks and uncertainties 

3.3.1 Dredging and sedimentation (Section 2.1.2) 

In the light of his extensive experience and his professional credentials, I would suggest that 

Dr. Steve Appleyard’s evidence was sufficient grounds for including dredging and 

sedimentation on the list of “other risks and uncertainties”, or perhaps at a higher level of 

concern. 

I am unclear as to why the “Ralphs Bay conundrum” features in this section, as I feel it is 

more relevant to section 2.2.1, “Environmental impacts – Contamination”. However, I will 

discuss the “Ralphs Bay conundrum” under this heading, as this is where it appears in the 

DIAR. 

The Panel conclusions to this section appear to include a misunderstanding of the “Ralphs 

Bay conundrum”. As I understand it, this is not, “the variations between metal levels found 


in sediments and levels resulting from elutriate tests” but, instead, the surprisingly high 

levels of mercury found in Ralphs Bay biota, especially flathead, whilst the mercury levels in 

Ralphs Bay sediments and water are not correspondingly elevated to the same degree. 

The importance of this is that mercury in Ralphs Bay may be in an especially bioavailable 

form, and, whatever form it is in, it is entering the food chain and bioaccumulating at high 

levels. A higher proportion of flathead from Ralphs Bay contain mercury at levels above the 

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) guideline than at other sites sampled in 

the estuary (fig. 4.63 on p. 162, Nyrstar Triennial EMP 2007‐08 and fig. 4.76 on p. 146 of the 

Nyrstar 2008‐09 EMP Annual Review). These fish are not suitable for human consumption. 

The most significant reason to be concerned about environmental pollutants is if they are 

toxic or otherwise harmful to living organisms. Thus the high levels of mercury entering the 

food chain in Ralphs Bay are a matter of significant concern. 

A precautionary approach to disturbing Ralphs Bay sediments would help to ensure that, 

whilst Ralphs Bay mercury in flathead levels are already high, remobilised mercury resulting 

from sediment disturbance would not exacerbate the problem. 

Table 4.19 on page 164 of the Nyrstar Triennial EMP 2007‐08 provides a statistical review of 

mercury levels in flathead for the five monitoring regions, between 1991 and 2007 (table 

reproduced on the following page). 

It is significant to note that, 

• In the 17 years’ worth of data presented, mercury levels in Ralphs Bay flathead were at 

or above the ANZFA guideline (0.5mg/kg) in 13 of the 17 years. 

• Mercury levels were higher at Ralphs Bay than at all other sites in 8 of the 17 years, 

including in 4 of the 5 most recent years for which data is reported. 

• Ralphs Bay provided 3 of the 5 highest ever levels of mercury in flathead shown in the 

17 year data set, and the 3 rd highest figure was a runner‐up to the Ralphs Bay level, in 

1994. 

• This is in spite of the fact that environmental monitoring shows higher levels of mercury 

in sediments and water at the “Above Tasman Bridge” location, as would be expected. 


Table 4.19 Statistical review of mercury levels in flathead for the five monitoring 

regions, 1991–2007. (units are mg/kg) 

Returning to the DIAR, Dr. Treloar’s statements reported on page 18 give further cause for 

concern: 

“Dr Treloar noted that the CSIRO figures show a net export of sediment from Ralphs Bay and 

that modelling of sediment movement from construction and the resuspension of 

sediments from the finished development indicate that the changes would be very local. 

Nevertheless, Dr Treloar conceded that there could be a significant impact on sediment 

transport in Ralphs Bay although it was very unlikely such sediments would reach the 

handfish colonies.” 

Whilst visible sediments may (or may not) be transported over short distances, the 

continued transport of metals in soluble forms over longer distances remains an issue. 

Considering that heavy metals in Ralphs Bay have travelled many km from the zincworks 

and the paper mill, it is a significant concern that such pollutants could affect handfish 

colonies and, indeed, travel around the South Arm Peninsula to have an impact on 

aquaculture operations in Pipeclay Lagoon. (See fig. 6, General circulation pattern for 

coastal waters in southeast Tasmania, Bruny Bioregion Background Report, RPDC). 

It is believed that the Derwent is the source of high metal levels found in oysters as far away 

as Pittwater. 


The Panel assessment and findings on page 21 of the DIAR appear to restrict discussion to 

the topic of sediment plumes, without considering dissolved metals, which are especially 

concerning because of their likely high bioavailability for uptake, bioaccumulation and 

biomagnification up the food chain. 

These matters are perhaps more relevant to section 2.2.1. 

3.3.2 Flushing, sedimentation and dredging (Section 2.1.9) 

I fully support the Panel’s conclusions that, “Sediment transport and, or, build‐up in the 

internal canals and the main navigation channel remains a concern which cannot be 

modelled with certainty. The implications of more frequent maintenance dredging remain in 

issue – particularly if this responsibility devolves to Clarence City Council (see section 2.10.1 

of this draft Report).” And, “this aspect would require greater certainty – including 

resolution of the question as to who is to be responsible for maintenance dredging.” 

On page 43, it may be that Dr. Treloar noted that the CSIRO figures show net export of 

sediment “into” the River Derwent from Ralphs Bay (rather than “from the River Derwent 

from Ralphs bay”). 

3.3.3 Pied Oystercatchers 

It is not clear why this appears in the “overwhelmingly outweighs” section and also the 

“other risks and uncertainties” list of the draft recommendations. I fully support the 

conclusion that threats to the Pied Oystercatcher are one of the factors which 

“overwhelmingly outweighs” any potential economic benefits of the proposal, and I 

consider that, in using the phrase, “an unacceptable result”, the Panel also gives this issue 

the higher priority level. 

3.3.4 Spotted Handfish 

I support the Panel’s conclusions in respect of the Spotted Handfish. 

However, I would give this matter higher priority, given that the Spotted Handfish is already 

listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN. 

Synergies between threats do not appear to have been considered, nor the risk of toxicity 

resulting from the remobilisation of heavy metals in dissolved form, nor the hydrological 

modelling of potential movement of dissolved metals out of Ralphs Bay and through nearby 

handfish colonies. 

On page 42 of Part B of the Save Ralphs Bay submission on the DIIS, we requested, “that the 

RPDC panel considers seeking a briefing from CSIRO scientists in the fields of hydrology and 

sediment transport regarding the possibility that pollutants disturbed by the proposed 


“development” might travel to the Opossum Bay MPA or even right around the coast to 

Frederick Henry Bay, home to spotted handfish and red handfish colonies outside the 

Derwent estuary.” It does not appear that CSIRO hydrological modelling has been taken 

into consideration. 

Has there been an inadvertent omission of “issues raised in written representations” or 

“issues addressed at the hearings”, in this section of the DIAR, before the “Panel assessment 

and findings” on the Spotted Handfish on page 88? 

4. Topics not mentioned in the draft recommendations 

4.1 Sea level rise 

I was surprised that the Panel did not consider sea level rise to be an issue of significance in 

the case of a decision regarding the construction of a housing subdivision in the sea. 

It is my belief that frivolous construction projects in the marine environment cannot 

possibly be consistent with the application of the Precautionary Principal. Reliance on any 

particular engineering standard for sea level rise reminds me of King Canute’s (alleged) 

confidence in his ability to command the waves to stay back. 

I request that the Panel gives further consideration to the seriousness of the risk of much 

higher than anticipated sea level rises, coupled with increasingly severe weather impacts. 

I would like to draw the Panel’s attention to matters raised in a number of extracts from the 

‘Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts’ report, released by the Australian Government 

Department of Climate Change on November 14. (Emphases added). 

KEY FINDINGS 

• Climate change risks in the coastal zone are large, increasing and in some areas will be felt 

in the near term. While these risks will unfold over time, there is a case to begin now with 

early national action to reduce current risks and avoid the building of new exposures. 

• Avoidance of future risk is the most cost‐effective adaptation response in most cases. 

Decisions on future development, particularly in areas highly exposed to the impacts of 

climate change, should not increase risk. 

• Natural ecosystems provide valuable ecosystem services and can buffer many of the 

risks associated with a changing climate in the coastal zone. Planning is needed to 

maximise system resilience, allow for ecosystem movement and make explicit decisions 

about tradeoffs. 


p. 120. Climate change impacts on infrastructure are expected to include accelerated 

degradation of materials and foundations of buildings and facilities, mainly due to rising 

sea levels, increased ground movement, changes in ground water affecting the chemical 

structure of foundations and fatigue of structures from extreme storm events. 

p.122, Box 5.13 Concrete Structures and the implications of Climate Change 

Concrete is one of the most common construction materials. Increased atmospheric carbon 

dioxide concentrations, temperature (and humidity) increases, and sea water splash can all 

accelerate the degradation process of concrete. This will require costly and disruptive 

repairs during the service life of many concrete structures. 

A study examined the stresses, corrosion and shear failure of a typical reinforced concrete 

bridge girder over a 100 year period and found that the probability of corrosion initiation is 

up to 720 per cent higher for the worst case scenario. Probabilities of failure are also up to 

18 per cent higher in the worst than the best mitigation scenario. 

p. 128. Highly developed areas such as the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast also depend on 

tourism to support regional economies and are vulnerable to sea‐level rise, erosion and 

storm surges. The low‐lying nature of many of the tourism and housing developments, 

particularly canal estates and coastal housing, leave these areas vulnerable to storm 

inundation and beach erosion. 

p.129, 5.4.2 Insurance 

The coastal zone is particularly vulnerable to sealevel rise and flooding, more damaging 

cyclones and catastrophic storms, and erosion as a result of climate change. The coastal 

zone also contains much of the infrastructure (homes, commercial and industrial buildings, 

ports and other physical assets) that is the client base of the insurance industry. Climate 

change will therefore significantly increase the exposure of residential and other buildings 

to potential loss and damage. But it will be the insurance industry which will be the first to 

bear the cost of any damages and losses resulting from any increase in extreme weather 

events. 

The specific costs to the insurance industry from climate change are difficult to predict with 

certainty. 

In a number of parts of Australia the insurance industry does not offer residential flood 

insurance. 

This is because until recently insurers have not been able to map, understand and price the 

risk of flooding in order to set a premium. The Australian insurance industry also does not 

generally cover the risks of storm surge, landslip and sea‐level rise. Risks from climate 

change will build on and compound these areas of existing risk and uncertainty. 

Apart from increasing the difficulty in pricing risk, climate change affects the insurance 

industry’s ability to pool risk. Already, 19 of the 20 largest property insurance losses in 


Australia have been weather related. Climate change exacerbates extreme weather events 

and reduces the ability to spread risk. 

p.136. Australians continue to flock to the coast. Rapid and ongoing population growth in 

coastal areas in the past few decades, which has led to the construction of more 

infrastructure and greater pressure on coastal ecosystems, has also increased the level of 

national risk to climate change impacts. Amenity migration is expected to continue for the 

next 15 years as baby boomers retire to coastal areas. To cater for this growth, developers 

increasingly purchase land in the coastal zone and seek rezoning for greenfield 

subdivisions. Some of this development is in low‐lying land areas, and some development 

reflects the growing popularity of canal estate developments. Unless there are constraints 

on such land use decisions, made now and over the next few years, climate change 

impacts will exacerbate the risks property owners and governments face in the future. 

These and other decisions made in recent decades increase the vulnerability of the 

Australian community to the impacts of climate change. 

p.137. Governments at all levels also need to be aware of the potential future costs of 

natural disasters, which currently cost around $1 billion per year on average. Many extreme 

weather events occur in the coastal zone, and climate change will increase their frequency 

and severity, possibly exponentially (see Chapter 2). This could mean that the costs of 

natural disasters could double or more in the next few decades. Intervention to constrain 

increases in exposure to such hazards would be of economic and social benefit. The 

combination of large and increasing risk from climate change in the coastal zone, the 

making of basically irreversible decisions on long‐lived assets, and the lag effect in action 

to reduce risk indicate a need for early adaptation in many cases. 

p.141 • adopt the precautionary principle and avoid actions that will make it more 

difficult to cope with climate risks in the future 

• make more conscious decisions about the extent to which risks are being transferred to 

future generations, and the basis on which tradeoffs between the built and natural 

environment are made 

6.3.2 Guidance for risk management 

Adaptation planning should be developed on the basis of the best science and be updated 

periodically as new science becomes available. As outlined in Chapter 2, atmospheric and 

oceanic evidence for climate change is pointing more and more to what had previously 

been perceived as worse‐case rates and extent of sea‐level rise, ocean temperature 

warming, changes in rainfall and runoff patterns, and the intensity and distribution of 

extreme events. In the light of that evidence, it is appropriate to clarify national 

frameworks and standards to address risk from climate change impacts in the coastal zone. 


There is clearly a relationship between the nature of a risk that confronts a particular 

place and the need for society to take steps to manage the risk. As the likelihood and 

consequence increase, the need for more restrictive provisions on land use will increase. 

4.2 Potential impacts on aquaculture 

The Scope Guidelines for the IIS cover hydrology, water circulation patterns, water quality 

and impacts on aquaculture in sections 5.2.1 (13) (page 38); 5.2.5 (1) and (3) on page 40, 

5.2.9 (5) on page 42. However, these matters do not appear to have been considered at all. 

The matter of potential impacts on aquaculture was raised on pages 31‐32 of Part B of the 

Save Ralphs Bay submission on the DIIS. 

I hope that the Commission considers carefully any submissions on the DIAR which raise this 

topic for consideration. 

4.3 The Lauderdale tip 

The “Panel conclusions ‐ Contamination” on page 59 of the DIAR and the “Panel 

conclusions – Groundwater” on page 34 both indicate significant concerns regarding the 

Lauderdale tip. 

In the light of these concerns, I request that the issue of the Lauderdale tip is added to the 

list of, “Other risks and uncertainties” in the draft recommendations. 

4.4 Noise impacts on marine wildlife 

On page 28 of the DIAR it is stated, “Fish and marine mammals would likely be driven from 

Ralphs Bay, and possibly the Derwent Estuary, for at least the five year period of civil 

construction work. Immobile and site dependent species such as the endangered Spotted 

Handfish could be subject to considerable long‐term behavioural and physiological 

stresses.” 

However, in the Panel’s conclusions on noise, dust and odour on page 31, it is stated, “The 

Panel is satisfied on all the evidence that vibration and underwater noise is probably 

unlikely to affect terrestrial and marine wildlife to a point of concern.” It is difficult to see 

how the Panel could be unconcerned by the level of impact described on page 28, especially 

in the light of the considerable public interest in the return of whales to the Derwent and 

the enjoyment derived by many from watching dolphins in Derwent waters. 

I suggest this is another factor which should be listed as an, “additional matter militating 

against approval”, or at the very least, another addition to the list of “risks and 

uncertainties.” 

4.5 Contamination 


Based on the evidence presented, I do not support the Panel’s conclusion on page 59 of the 

DIAR that, “the proposal is generally acceptable in terms of potential contamination and 

water quality”. Dr. Appleyard’s concerns regarding the high level of problems associated 

with Monosulfidic Black Oozes (MBO’s) should not be dismissed lightly, given his credentials 

and experience. Dr. Larsen’s comments regarding the manageability of MBO’s should be 

checked very carefully with Dr. Appleyard. My understanding is that “managing” MBO’s is 

enormously difficult and expensive. 

On page 50, I suggest the term “removing” is more apt in the description of denitrification 

than, “consuming”. (3 lines above the bold italic heading in the middle of the page). 

At the beginning of the second paragraph on page 54, it appears that the words “metals in” 

should be added, so that the sentence reads: “Dr Eriksen acknowledged that metals in 

Derwent Estuary sediments were tightly bound under normal conditions.” (However, it is 

difficult to know what ”normal conditions” means in this sentence). 

In the section on Stormwater on page 56, I suggest that, “loss of” needs to be added, to give 

the following sentence: “Prevention and, or, mitigation procedures include reduced 

nitrogen input, protection against loss of denitrification and overall river flow management 

to minimise stagnant periods.” 

5. References 

‘Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts’, Australian Government Department of Climate 

Change, released November 14 2009 

Nyrstar 2008‐09 EMP Annual Review 

Nyrstar Triennial EMP 2007‐08

Jane MacDonald - Save Ralphs Bay

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?