Archived page, Submission James Point Stage One Port, Kwinana (Assessment No 1353)- Appeal

Submitted 5 Dec 2002

Recfishwest wishes to appeal against the above EPA assessment.

The basis of our appeal is that the EPA has not adequately dealt with the impact of the proposal on marine biota and habitats.

Recfishwest is also concerned with a broad issue that we believe is increasingly becoming a feature of EPA assessments. This is the way that future management plans on specific potential impacts are proposed as a way of dealing with that impact.

Use of future management plans to prevent impacts

In this case the EPA has recommended that the proposal may be implemented subject to conditions which include a number of management plans which are not available at the time of approval. It is by no means certain that such management plans can guarantee that adverse impacts will not arise or that their impacts can be ameliorated if they do arise.

Where such management plans are relied upon to deal with an impact there should be evidence that the management will be able to deal with any impacts.

Recfishwest recognises the benefits of having the development of environmental management protocols run parallel with finalization of project design. We also recognize that the EMPs will also be developed in liaison with the DEP.

However, this expediency should not be permitted to circumvent the public scrutiny process and submissions to the EMPs at the same level of consultative review of the original proposal should be sought.

That is, Recfishwest views with concern Government's seeming acceptance of proponents separating the various environmental planning components of the planning process while at the same time not enforcing the full requirements of the environmental assessment process in relation to its consultative requirements.

Impact on marine biota and habitats

In regard to the impact on marine biota and habitats, the EPA on p12, "holds the view that the level of cumulative loss is significant".

Also on p 12 Fisheries advise, "productive areas such as seagrass beds, shallow sand areas that could be potentially recolonised by seagrass, and reef areas represent an incremental loss to fisheries and the marine environment".

To deal with the "irreversible modification of shallow sandy habitat that is likely to have once supported seagrass"... "The EPA acknowledges that off-sets may not be achievable in the local area of the development but there are opportunities to implement management actions to achieve the maintenance or improvement of the ecological and or social values of the broader Cockburn Sound" (p13-14).

The EPA has thus recommended Condition 9. The whole of Condition 9 is concerned with a Marine Habitat Restoration and Management Plan which would carry out some investigations and management actions with the objective of achieving maintenance or improvement of the ecological and/or social values of Cockburn Sound. This is a compilation of nice sounding words which is not guaranteed to do anything to offset the admitted cumulative loss of ecological values.

The Interim Environmental Management Plan for Cockburn Sound was prepared by the Cockburn Sound Management Council (CSMC) in collaboration with the EPA. That Plan sets out "Guidelines for Developments Affecting the Shoreline and Seabed". Although that Plan has not yet been formally adopted by government it nevertheless sets out current standards for management of the Sound which have been agreed by the EPA. The guidelines state that proponents should endeavour to limit environmental impacts. Where it is not possible to limit such impacts, offsets will be required. Offsets should not trade between social and environmental values. They should preferably be in the area affected. They should permanently achieve a no net loss of values outcome. Wherever possible, the offset should replace the value on a like for like basis.

Recfishwest considers that it is totally and absolutely unacceptable for the EPA to completely ignore the guidelines established for developments in Cockburn Sound by the CSMC which it has collaborated in developing. The EPA acknowledges that off-sets may not be achievable in the local area; but suggests there are opportunities for maintenance or improvement of ecological or social values elsewhere in the Sound. Maintenance is not enough for an offset where there is already a recognised harmful impact. A social value offset is specifically in breach of the CSMC guidelines. In fact it is not likely that any appropriate offset is available for further loss of shallow potential seagrass habitat along the shore of the Sound. However, if such an offset is possible it should be identified and the conditions of its implementation specified as a commitment by the proponent.

Recfishwest is prepared to explain and amplify its appeal as considered necessary. CSMC documents should be available through its office in Rockingham, phone 9591 3837.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.