The following is a brief introduction to the topic:

How big will the channel deepening footprint be?

Can we be sure it will not add to the present problems in the fish and penguin population caused by drought?

What will happen to all the other sea birds?

How many buried toxins will be released?

 

Earthcare St Kilda Inc., a community-based environment group with 64 members in the City of Port Phillip area, is concerned about environmental and conservation issues both locally and regionally. Earthcare’s main focus is on the research and monitoring the Little Penguin colony at St Kilda Breakwater. The study is now in its twenty ^thyear.

The group’s policy is not to be against development, but instead support sustainable developments based on sound scientific principles and with minimal adverse impacts on the community or the environment. Earthcare is interested in any proposed development, particularly if it’s located in the parklands, along the foreshore or in Port Phillip Bay. It will take action if necessary.

In 1986, the City of St Kilda Council commissioned Professor Mike Cullen of Monash University Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Department to conduct research and assess importance of the Little Penguin colony on the breakwater. Professor Cullen began a voluntary study with St Kilda ranger Neil Blake. The St Kilda Penguin Study Group, incorporated into Earthcare St Kilda, continues to this day.

Earthcare St Kilda has been invited to join the St Kilda Breakwater Wildlife Management Cooperative Area Advisory Group. The group is made up of representatives of St Kilda Yacht Squadron and City of Port Phillip, as well as Parks Victoria. The group’s purpose is to make decisions and oversee a variety of issues related to the management St Kilda Harbour.

Earthcare St Kilda’s Little Penguin Study Group has hosted thousands over the years. This includes primary, secondary, and tertiary school students. There are also two Little Penguin tour companies in St Kilda. Urban Penguins, a Docklands-based company, has provided a letter in support of our submission.

Earthcare St Kilda is deeply concerned about the proposed Channel Deepening Project of the Port of Melbourne Corporation. They have made a submission (Submission No. 161).

 

General observations about the SEES and SEES process

We are shocked and disappointed by the Victorian Government’s decision to create a completely new independent panel, excluding all members of the original panel. The new panel members appear to lack the experience and expertise to review the complex issues properly. We are led to believe that the Victorian government does not want to conduct a thorough evaluation, but is rather rushing the process to get a positive result for Channel Deepening.

We acknowledge that the PoMC has engaged the community in a formal way, but we believe the public’s involvement is minimal, especially for a project of this size, complexity, and importance. Six weeks is not enough time for the public review the complex issues in the new environmental report of 15,000 pages and to make submissions. The time limit of four weeks set for the SEES process is also contemptible. This shows that the Victorian Government, and PoMC only have a limited concern for the health of Port Phillip Bay’s environment.

We note that, just as with the previous EES, the Victorian Government has made a clear decision not to consider alternatives such as the use of ports or rails from other states.

The economic impact of a Bay that deteriorates due to channel deepening is not estimated. This could have a very large effect on businesses and communities who depend on the Bay. It is difficult to accept the economic benefits of a project that has a cost estimated at over $750,000,000 and continues to rise. This does not include the additional costs associated with major changes in land-based infrastructure, such as the relocation of Footscray Market and potential losses due to damage to the Bay.

Earthcare’s concerns regarding potential impacts of proposed channel deepening in the bay

 

Waves, currents, and sea level

Earthcare finds it difficult to comment authoritatively on the SEES findings or the testimony of experts that the Project will have little impact on sea levels, wave, currents, and tides. We are concerned if the predictions of the SEES prove to be incorrect.

We are particularly sceptical of modelling that predicts the extent and size of dredging plumes outside the site of dredging in the shipping channel, especially in northern part of bay where the particle sizes are extremely fine. The risk is high that the fine sediments, along with the heavy metals and toxins contained therein, will be resuspended every time a storm occurs.

Reduced capacity for nutrient processing

As we believed in the previous EES report, there is still a real danger to the denitrification of the bay. The 1996 CSIRO Port Phillip Bay Environmental Effects Study suggested that dredging be minimized to protect the denitrification function performed by benthic organisms in the Bay sediments. This is a major reason why scallop dredging in Port Phillip Bay ceased.

We urge that the precautionary principle be applied and this issue be given the most serious consideration, both in terms of whether the Project should go ahead at all and, if given the go ahead, what must be done and by whom, to monitor the dredging program to prevent loss of the nitrogen processing capacity of the Bay.

Increased risk of oil spills

Were an oil tanker to run aground at the Port Phillip Heads, the consequent oil-spill would be a monumental environmental, social and economic disaster. We believe that restrictive measures should be in place to prevent oil tankers with a draft in excess of 12 metres from being allowed to enter the Bay, even if the decision is made to deepen the channel at the entrance to the Bay.

Stability of Dredge Material Ground

It has been estimated that the effective life of the capping to be placed over sediments with toxic material will last for 30 years, before toxic materials, algal cysts and other dangerous substances will have the potential to re-enter the water column in the bay. No commitment is given to monitor the effectiveness of the capping or to place further capping material if leakage is detected.

It seems that this issue will be shrugged off by the proponent through short term planning, only to be left as a nasty legacy for future generations to deal with.

Dredging schedule for Yarra River and Hobsons Bay

If the decision is made by the Victorian Government that the Channel Deepening Project is to go ahead we are deeply concerned about the schedule for dredging the Yarra River (Mid-sized TSHD and Backhoe/Grab dredge) in Summer and autumn, and Williamstown Channel in late winter to spring (Mid-sized TSHD) and again in autumn (Backhoe/Grab dredge). Our major concerns are threefold; Firstly there is a high risk to human health from toxins, heavy metals and algal cysts from dredge plumes possibly reaching the northern bay shores at a time of peak recreational use in the summer, secondly this is at the time of spawning by Anchovy (Engraulis australis), which is from October to March peaking in January (Aquaculture and Fisheries SEES), and thirdly the St Kilda and Phillip Island penguins rely on Port Phillip Bay fish stocks to attain breeding condition in winter and early spring. Research undertaken by Earthcare has demonstrated that anchovy comprise over ninety percent of the diet of the St Kilda population of Little Penguins.

This concern about the schedule of dredging was raised by Earthcare in the previous EES process (Submission No. 161), for which we suggested almost no seasonal ‘window of opportunity’ exists, when the works would not cause some potential harm to the Little Penguin Colony at St Kilda Harbour and ecology in the northern area of the Bay. If dredging is to go ahead, a very narrow window of opportunity may exist in late autumn to early winter, when conditions in the Bay are relatively calm and penguins have completed moulting, but have not yet commenced breeding.

Potential impacts of the Channel Deepening Project on the St Kilda population of Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)

The St Kilda population of little penguins is both locally and globally significant. Locally, the penguins are an iconic species, enjoyed by locals and tourists alike. The colony attracts numerous visitors and supports at least two tour operation businesses. The colony is supported by the City of Port Phillip sister city of Obu in Japan by annual grants and visitation. Penguins living at St Kilda are a unique example of how a wild population of animals can live successfully in very close proximity to an urban area, and offer many insights into urban ecology, all of which are as yet not fully investigated and understood.

Earthcare St Kilda has a number of concerns about the effect of the channel deepening project on the St Kilda population of little penguins. These concerns were outlined to the panel hearing on the channel deepening project after the release of the first environmental effects statement (Submission No. 161). We believe that the SEES commissioned by the Port of Melbourne Corporation has failed to accurately assess the impacts of the channel deepening project on little penguins, and they face both direct and indirect threats to their survival and breeding success from this project.

Since the first environmental effects statement, we have conducted our own research on the penguin population from St Kilda and found that spring and summer distribution patterns of penguins differ greatly from those reported in the SEES. Using state of the art remote satellite tracking devices, we found that penguins are in locations likely to be greatly effected by the channel deepening project. In addition, information from data loggers we used to study the diving patterns of penguins has revealed that they use the whole water column to search and hunt for food. This use of the entire water column, together with their pattern of distribution, will mean that the turbidity caused by channel deepening is likely to have a significant effect on this small population of Little Penguins.

In light of the above research, we wish to question several aspects of the SEES (in particular appendix 56) and the assessment of the impact of the CDP on Little Penguins as “minor”, based on a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

– The way in which the survey of Little Penguin distribution was conducted and the distribution maps which were used to assess the impact of the CDP on little penguins

– Assumptions made and use of the Population Viability Analysis model

– Calculation of the ‘consequences’ and ‘risk quotients’

– Assessment of the effects of the CDP on anchovy, a primary food source for Little Penguins in Port Phillip Bay and a complete disregard of penguins supplementary food (squid) and other fish species (including sandy sprat and garfish)

The level of detail about our objections to the channel deepening project in this submission is indicative of the limited time given to read and respond to the 15,000 page SEES. However, we are expressing interest in making a more detailed oral presentation on Earthcare’s concerns about the channel deepening project, the failings of the SEES and what we perceive to be the actual effects of the channel deepening project on Little Penguins, to the panel inquiry hearing for this project.

The following members of Earthcare St Kilda wish to make a presentation to the panel hearing:

Mr Andrew McCutcheon

Earthcare St Kilda Inc President