re: referral response - ki plantation timbers, major ...€¦ · the proposal, in general, is...
Post on 30-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ref File No:
L2019/
State Commission Assessment Panel Attn: Robert Kleeman GPO Box 1815 Adelaide SA 5001 22 May 2019 Dear Mr Kleeman RE: Referral Response - KI Plantation Timbers, Major Development Proposal – Timber Port Facility – Allotment Comprising Pieces Q51* & Q52* DP92343 Hundred of Menzies and Coastal Waters North Coast Kangaroo Island, Smith Bay Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above development proposal by Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers (KIPT), for the development of its proposed timber port at Smith Bay on the North Coast of Kangaroo Island. Council acknowledges that the application is to be assessed by the State Commission Assessment Panel as a Major Development Proposal under Division 2, Major Development or Projects, of the Development Act 1993. Council has reviewed the proposal having had regard to relevant provisions of the Kangaroo Island Development Plan (KIDP) consolidated 17 September 2015, including the zone objectives, desired character and envisaged forms of development for the Coastal Conservation zone. The proposal, in general, is considered not to accord with the Coastal Conservation zone provisions which are applicable to the vast majority of Kangaroo Island’s coastline (without specific policy relating to any existing, commercialised localities). The proposal does demonstrate some merits when assessed against the provisions of the KI Development Plan. However Council holds the view that Smith Bay is not the appropriate location. Council’s assessment in respect of the KIDP has considered the following provisions. Bulk Handling and Storage Facilities Objective(s): 1 PDC(s): 1, 2, 3 & 4 Coastal Areas Objective(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 PDC(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28 & 29 Design and Appearance Objective(s): 1 & 2
2
PDC(s): 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17 & 18 Forestry Objective(s): 1 & 2 Hazards Objective(s): 2 & 8 PDC(s): 1, 2, 4, 24, 25 & 26 Industrial Development Objective(s): 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 PDC(s): 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 Interface Between Land Uses Objective(s): 1, 2 & 3 PDC(s): 1, 2, 4, 8, 11 & 18 Marinas and Maritime Structures Objective(s): 1 PDC(s): 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17 & 18 Natural Resources Objective(s): 2, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13 PDC(s): 1, 3, 7, 12, 28 & 29 Orderly and Sustainable Development Objective(s): 2, 3 & 4 PDC(s): 7 Siting and Visibility Objective(s): 1 PDC(s): 1 & 8 Transportation and Access Objective(s): 1, 2 & 5 PDC(s): 1, 2, 3, 11 & 13 Beyond addressing the planning considerations against the KIDP, the response also expresses the views of the Elected Members of Council in reflecting community sentiment, which Council believes the Commission must consider in assessing this Major Development proposal. The concept of multi-use port facilities in their own right presents a major concern for Council and the community. It is stated in the EIS that “The Guidelines will not be amended as the Government position is that any wharf developed on the Island should have capacity to be used by multiple users." However in Council’s view this requirement has resulted in a serious lack of flexibility in design and location options and no other import or export users has been identified as part of the submission.
3
Guideline 6.3 requires KIPT to "provide evidence and/or justification (social, economic environmental) as to the potential suitability or unsuitability of each alternative location." Council is not satisfied that other sites have been adequately considered: not even a preliminary feasibility study is provided for any of them. As a result of these concerns the following resolutions were passed at the 14 May 2019 Council meeting:
1. Council advise the Minister the requirement to provide a single multi-user
port is not feasible and should be removed from the Guidelines so as to
extend the range of site options for the intended timber harvest export port.
2. Council views Yumbah Aquaculture as an industry that fits well with the
image of Kangaroo Island, supporting the seafood, primary production and
food industry sectors of the island. Council also views opportunities with the
KIPT forests as having the potential to provide positive outcomes for the
island. Both industries should be able to exist with quiet occupation of each
other.
3. Council does not view locating a seaport directly neighbouring the abalone
farm at Smith Bay as providing co habitation, without the ongoing dissimilar
land uses causing conflict and continued dispute for both industries.
4. Council requests that possible seaport locations west of Stokes Bay Road
be more fully assessed.
Council hold the view that, despite the outcome of the major development assessment, all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure that industry of significant economic value is protected from adverse impacts. This would not necessarily be restricted to on-shore aquaculture as is the case with Smith Bay and the current assessment, but ensuring a balanced approach where industry should be afforded the greatest opportunity to exist, or co-exist, with surrounding industry and to develop sustainably and economically into the future.
The EIS does not quantify the economic impact if Yumbah closes. Indeed, it does not quantify the likely development/expansion limitations on Yumbah’s operations and
production if the Smith Bay port goes ahead, and it does not address the stalling effect the potential port has had on expansion of the Yumbah operations. The closure possibility is real and must be included in the assessments. The fact is that the proposed KIPT development is very close to the existing aquaculture business. There is no way that KIPT can guarantee its operations will not affect those of Yumbah. The EIS (Chapter 27) lists 48 explicit commitments (guarantees) to be delivered by KIPT in association with the Smith Bay Deep Water Port development: 19 of the 48 will be
difficult to implement and consistently maintained and so are unlikely to be reliably met on an ongoing basis. It is most unlikely they could or would be enforced. (see attachment which will be included within the letter once endorsed)
Although the proposal has clearly proceeded well beyond feasibility study stage and KIPT have freehold tenure of the subject land, Council contemplates that comparable levels of
4
investigation of the north-west coast of Kangaroo Island would provide an equallyif not substantially more compelling case for alternative sites to be considered. Smith Bay is further away from the product (supply) end than desirable or necessary and will impose a legacy of continual operation of logging trucks in the central island zone that is dangerous, costly and unnecessary. Much shorter distances to port will result in less kilometres travelled by less trucks and therefore a lower risk of serious incidents with road users and wildlife.
The current EIS fails to adequately address how to get the products to Smith Bay and the profound impact that it will have on the social and environmental island fabrics associated with that task. It is imperative that any road transport route for heavy forestry haulage avoids, as far as practicable, the existing tourism routes, and the major domestic traffic routes. If not, serious conflict and potential incidents with tourism traffic will become a substantial and severe risk, one which Council is not prepared to contemplate. Beyond the physiological and safety issues associated with transport routes, that have not been effectively addressed as part of this EIS, the cost of constructing and maintaining Council road networks to appropriate standards for the proposed semi-trailers, B-double or A-double unit weight and frequency of traffic movement is a deeply serious concern to Council. Defining heavy transport routes, and funding the construction and maintenance of the transport routes needs to be thoroughly considered by the State in assessing this Major Development proposal. Council cannot fund the necessary upgrades and maintenance nor should a small ratepayer base be required to meet such cost. In summary, Council is strongly committed to finding effective strategies for the harvest and export of the Island’s timber resources. However it does not consider the Smith Bay Wharf proposal feasible, especially in the context of road transport routes. Council asks that the above matters be given serious consideration during assessment of the proposed development. Council would appreciate being kept informed on the processing of the application including any variation / amendment that may occur as part of the processing. Should you wish to further discuss any matters associated with this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me on 8553 4500. Yours sincerely Greg Georgopoulos Acting Chief Executive Officer
# Identifier
DEIS ref Proponent Commitment
Qual-
ified
Quant-
ified
Resili-
ence
Servic-
abity
Likely
Compliance comment
1
BIOSEC43
15.5.5
Investigation (during detailed design) of potential
surface treatments or alternative structures to minimise
the impact from exotic species.
✘ ✘ ? ? ❎ Needs particulars
2
GSW6
16.5.2
The dredge spoil dewatering system has been designed
to discharge water with acceptable sediment levels. No
untreated dredge water would be discharged directly into
the marine environment or into the adjoining Smith
Creek.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅ State ASA reference
3
GSW8
16.5.1
The site would be designed to contain and manage all
stormwater runoff during construction and operation as
to eliminate uncontrolled water channeling and
concentrated runoff streams - no site stormwater would
discharge to surface water bodies untreated.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ? ✅ Needs treated water limits
4
GSW9
16.5.1
The internal network of open drains, culvert, pipes and
wetland will be designed to ensure sufficient carrying
capacity with gradients and appropriate controls to
prevent bed erosion and damage.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
5
GSW10
16.5.1
Erosion at the outlet of the wetland system will be
managed via a porous rock weir at the wetland outlet to
distribute water flow over a wide area.
✔︎ ? ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅ Needs flow velocity targets
6
GSW18
16.5.2
Timber log and wood chip storage yards will be
established with bunding and impermeable base, to
isolate runoff from the general stormwater system
and from groundwater. Stormwater runoff (assumed
to be leachate) will drain via a concrete forebay (in
the bunded area) to intercept gross sediment and
debris and to a retention basin (holding pond)
designed to contain flows from storm events. There
will be no discharge of leachate to surface water or
groundwater.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
7
GSW21
16.5.2
The proposed operational wetland pond, retention
basin and swale system will be constructed during
the early phase of construction to function as
sediment capture basins during the major
earthworks and civil works construction phases.
✔︎ ✘ ✔︎ ? ❎
Sediment capture not
quantified
8
AQ5
17.5.4
Layout designed to minimise vehicle movements.
✔︎ ✘ ? ? ❎
Vehicle movements not
quantified
9
CCS8
19.4.4
Designing marine and coastal infrastructure to take
into account the predicted worst-case sea level rise
and sea temperature rise. This would prevent the
flooding of infrastructure and ensure that
construction materials were adequate for the
predicted sea temperature and acidity changes.
Consideration would also be given to the predicted
increase in storm intensity and frequency.
? ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
Consideration' needs to be
a design inclusion - severe
weather event increase are
real.
10
CCS9
19.4.4
Designing the causeway structure for a 1-in-500-
year storm event (that is, a 10 per cent encounter
probability over the 50-year life of the structure) on
the basis that the wave modelling undertaken
demonstrates that the additional engineering
required to meet this standard is not significantly
greater-than for lesser storm event frequencies.
Causeway maintenance (for example, replacement
of a small percentage of armour rocks) would be
required after major storm events.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✘ ✘ ❎
Construction must fully
resist storm events
11
CCS10
19.4.4
Determining the size of surface water catchments,
including sedimentation ponds and
drainage/diversion infrastructure, by considering
the likely worst-case changes in the magnitude and
duration of rainfall events, to prevent below-quality
water being discharged to the environment.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
worst case to be included,
Specify acceptable water
quality to be met
12
CCS11
19.4.4
Ensuring that construction materials for onshore
infrastructure were designed to cope with the
expected change in surface temperatures and
different wind conditions associated with increased
storm intensity and frequency.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
13
CCS13
19.4.4
Designing habitable buildings to promote passive
cooling, thereby reducing energy demands and
providing respite for the workforce during extreme
heat days.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
Currently a SA
requirement.
14
CCS15
19.4.4
Use of a floating pontoon for the berth face itself, to
ensure that the wharf height above water is
maintained at a constant level despite predicted
changes in sea level.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
15
NVL1
18.3.4
The potential shielding provided by site
topography, woodchip and log stockpiles and
intervening buildings would be taken into account
in locating plant and equipment.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
16
NVL3
18.3.4
Noisy plant, site access roads and site compounds
would be located as far from occupied premises as
practicable.
✘ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ Specify targets and limits
17
NVL4
18.3.4
Equipment that emits noise predominantly in a
particular direction wasbe sited such that noise is
directed away from occupied premises where
feasible.
✘ ✘ n/a ? ❎ Specify targets and limits
18
NVL5
18.3.4
Acoustic enclosures would be installed around
above ground equipment where noise levels are
predicted to exceed the relevant noise level targets
at sensitive land uses, where safe and practical.
✘ ✘ n/a ? ❎
Specify noise levels to be
met
19
AC2
1.5.4
Stormwater diversion channels, compacting
proposed storage areas, construction
of first-flush ponds and the use of closed conveyors
and telescopic shiploaders, would reduce the
potential impacts to negligible at the abalone farm’s
three seawater intake points.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
Unclear. Are these definite
or being considered?
20
AC9
11.5.8
If considered necessary, an open bypass system
could be installed in the near-shore section of the
causeway to minimise the interruption to tidal
currents. This could comprise either large culverts
or a pier, the size of which would be determined by
hydrodynamic modelling. Given the small predicted
maximum increase in temperature such a measure
is not considered essential and it needs to be
recognised that the benefit of such a bypass system
may be offset by compromising the protective
barrier formed by the causeway in relation to
effluent from the degraded Smith Creek during
rainfall events.
✘ ✘ ? ? ❎ An observation?
21
AC10
11.5.8
It may be possible to engineer a gated culvert
through the causeway that could fulfil
a dual function by allowing through-flows during
summer (thereby managing the risk of small
temperature increases). The gate could then be
closed during other months and thereby facilitate
the redirection of Smith Creek discharges further
offshore during major flow events (particularly
during autumn and winter) thus improving
nearshore water quality.
✔︎ ✘ ✘ ✘ ❎ An observation?
22
TT7
21.5.5
Road design considerations (where upgrades are
proposed), including adjustment to the vertical and
horizontal alignments, low noise pavement
surfaces, road gradient modifications, speed limit
reduction and traffic management measures, where
these do not affect the function and safety of the
road.
✘ ✘ ? ? ❎ These are possibles only
23
MWQ
9.5.2
The fines content of material used in the causeway
core construction will be minimised in order to
minimise the impact of plume due to causeway
construction.
✔︎ ✘ ? n/a ❎ Specify targets and limits
24
MWQ6
9.5.2
10.5.1
The length of exposed causeway core before
geotextile fabric and armour placement will be
minimised in order to minimise the impact of plume
due to adverse sea states, and erosion prior to rock
armouring, during causeway construction.
✔︎ ✘ ✘ n/a ❎ Specify limits
25
NVL39
18.4.5
Piling should be scheduled outside the months
when cetaceans may be present in or near the
development area.
✔︎ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ Specify periods
26
BIOSEC2
15.5.3
Earthmoving equipment would be sourced locally
wherever possible.
✘ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ Definition needed
27
BIOSEC32
15.5.4
Equipment used during construction would meet
the national standards for biofouling management.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
28
BIOSEC41
15.5.4
The pontoon (purchased in Korea as a barge) has
been sandblasted and repainted with anti-fouling
paint and would be inspected by Australian
engineers before arrival at Smith Bay.
✔︎ ✘ ✔︎ ✔︎ ❎
Standards to be met
needed.
29
AQ14
17.5.4
Variable-height woodchip stackers and/or
telescopic chutes may be used for shiploading.
✘ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ "..may be…." ?
30
CCS1
19.4.4
Minimising electricity consumption through the use
of energy-efficient infrastructure such as low-
friction conveyors, lighting and air-conditioning.
✘ ✘ n/a n/a ❎
Does this mean Energy
Audit? If so, needs
specifics
31
CCS2
19.4.4
Investigating the installation of solar photovoltaic
panels to supply electricity to site buildings and for
site lighting, minimising the potential for downtime
associated with power outages under peak load
situations.
✔︎ ✘ ✔︎ ✔︎ ❎
Unclear - is this standby or
load trimming?
32
MNES16
14.4.4
The number of vehicles required to transport timber
products would be minimised wherever possible by
using high productivity vehicles such as B-doubles
and A-doubles.
Duplicate - see #36
33
NVL2
18.3.4
Processes and equipment that generate lower noise
levels would be selected where feasible.
✔︎ ✘ n/a n/a ❎
Specify standards to be
met
34
NVL25
18.4.1
Low-vibration plant alternatives, such as the
smallest practicable vibratory compactor, would be
used where feasible.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
35
NVL34
18.4.5
Low-noise-impact techniques such as suction piling
or vibro-piling should be used in preference to
impact piling where possible.
✔︎ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ Unclear.
36
TT2
21.5.5
The use of high productivity vehicles, specifically
Performance Based Standard (PBS) Level 2A (B-
double) and/or PBS Level 2B (short road train or
A-double) vehicles.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅ Duplicate - see #32
37
AC2
11.5.4
Stormwater diversion channels, compacting
proposed storage areas, construction
of first-flush ponds and the use of closed conveyors
and telescopic shiploaders, would reduce the
potential impacts to negligible at the abalone farm’s
three seawater intake points.
Duplicate - see #19
38
AC2
11.5.4
Stormwater diversion channels, compacting
proposed storage areas, construction of first-flush
ponds and the use of closed conveyors and
telescopic shiploaders, will reduce the potential
impacts to negligible at the abalone farm intake
area.
Duplicate - see #19
39
MNES4
14.4.3
Evaluating alternative piling methodologies that
have lower noise emissions.
Duplicate - see #35
40
NVL2
18.3.4
Processes and equipment that generate lower noise
levels would be selected where feasible.
Duplicate - see #34
41
NVL25
18.4.1
Low-vibration plant alternatives, such as the
smallest practicable vibratory compactor, would be
used where feasible.
Duplicate - see #34
42
NVL34
18.4.5
Low-noise-impact techniques such as suction piling
or vibro-piling should be used in preference to
impact piling where possible.
Duplicate - see #35
43
MWQ4
9.5.1
Realtime monitoring and reactive management
(detailed in the Dredge Management Plan (DMP))
will provide protection against acute plume impacts
at key sensitive receptors including:
• monitoring water quality at the Yumbah seawater
intakes and at an appropriate location between the
dredge and the seawater intakes
• water quality monitoring sensors that provide
‘real time’ data on water quality via telemetry
• assessing monitoring data in ‘real time’ against
threshold triggers
• providing the monitoring data in ‘real time’ to the
dredge operator, KIPT environmental management
personnel and EPA
• triggering audible stop work alarms on the dredge
if thresholds are exceeded
• dredge work ceases until turbidity levels return to
acceptable levels and have stabilised (these levels
to be defined in the DMP).
Due to the relatively close proximity of key
receptors and the dredge plume source (i.e.
approximately 500 metres), turbidity trigger
exceedances would need to be closely monitored
and the timescale for management response actions
would need to be short (~30 minutes) in order to be
of practical benefit in mitigating acute plume
impacts.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ n/a ✅
Offsets
44
MNES43
14.5.1
KIPT would commit funds towards the Kangaroo
Island Feral Cat Eradication Program, a joint
program, led by NRKI and the Kangaroo Island
Council, with the aim of eradicating feral cats, as
part of KIPT’s offset for potential impacts to
Kangaroo Island echidna.
✔︎ ✘ n/a n/a ❎ $ missing
45
TE2
13.5.2
Under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, clearing a
small amount of terrestrial native vegetation would
require the preparation of an offset strategy
developed in consultation with the NVC (see
Chapter 26 – Environmental Management
Framework). The offset package would likely
include an on-ground SEB to protect an area of
vegetation and provide fauna habitat.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a ✔︎ ✅
Not quantified yet but is
a mandatory requirement
(resolution presumed)
46
TE14
13.5.3
KIPT proposes to continue providing significant
ongoing support to the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Recovery Program on Kangaroo Island to ensure
that KIPT's activities on Kangaroo Island result in a
net environmental benefit to the glossy black-
cockatoo species.
✔︎ ✘ n/a ✘ ❎ $ and period missing,
47
CCS4
19.4.4
Seeking to use grid electricity wherever possible
and increase the use of renewably- generated
electricity, to reduce the reliance on diesel-powered
on-site generation.
✔︎ ✘ ✔︎ ✔︎ ❎ Specify % renewable
48
CCS14
19.4.4
Minimising on-site water requirements by
investigating alternative sources of industrial water
to meet needs such as for dust suppression. This
would reduce the risk of supply shortages that may
occur as a result of greater evaporation rates and/or
higher consumption associated with warmer
weather.
✔︎ ✘ ✘ ✘ ❎
Specify requirements and
how achievable
Proponent has large
holdings of fresh water
further west.
49
BIOSEC61
15.7
KIPT would fund the marine pest and eradication
surveys of Smith Bay in addition to implementing
an operational Marine Pest Management Plan.
✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✔︎ ✅
50
NVL3
18.4.1 Purchase the nearest sensitive receptor (R1). ✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
51
SE2
22.6.2
KIPT would assist government with understanding
housing needs, where it can, and sees benefit to the
company and the community in having a settled
resident workforce, living and working permanently
on Kangaroo Island.
✘ ✘ n/a ✘ ❎ Particulars needed
52
SE3
22.6.2
There is also scope to increase the size of Parndana
township through residential subdivision. The
Kangaroo Island Community Club (based in
Parndana) has specific plans to subdivide and
release housing allotments created from the
scrubland immediately to the west of the township
between Smith Street and Rowland Hill Highway.
KIPT has committed to provide a seed loan of up to
$100,000 to cover the initial project costs prior to
the marketing and sale of housing lots.
✔︎ ✔︎ n/a n/a ✅
53
SE4
22.6.2
There is also potential for residential development
on the western end of Kangaroo Island by re-
establishing housing vacated during the farm
consolidation and switch
to forestry that occurred in the 1990s and 2000s.
KIPT owns at least 30 potential residential
allotments that could be created with a change to
planning rules to allow the existing forestry estates
to be subdivided. Thirty new homes would
accommodate about 70 people. Every property has,
at the very least, a house site with a dam, phone
connection and electricity, some have habitable
dwellings and others have dilapidated structures
that could be replaced, or repaired and refurbished.
✘ ✘ ✔︎ ✔︎ ❎ Nil commitment
Legend
✔✔︎ = "appears met": ✘ = "appears not met"
Definitions used:
Explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
Commitment: The state or quality of dedication to a cause.
Qualify: Characterise, call, or name; define.
Quantify: Express or measure the quantity
Resilience: The capacity to recover quickly from difficulties.
Serviceable: Likely to meet 10 yr continuous service
top related