09.03.01 Electrona  

Director of Environmental Management,
GPO Box 44A
Hobart,
Tasmania, 7001

March 9, 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,


Proposed Wharf Development at Electrona

Despite the appearance of wide ranging draft guidelines for the preparation of a Developmental Proposal and Environmental Management Plan for the proposed wharf development at Electrona, the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) views the proposed Electrona Port facility with grave concern and respectfully submits the following comments.

Conceptually, it may seem ideal to move the non-tourist shipping activity away from Hobart as well as to reduce the road transportation of logs to Triabunna. The reality however, is that if the proposed development were to go ahead, there is a strong likelihood of there being a number of significantly negative impacts on the marine environment, with serious concomitant effects influencing a number of our TFIC members (along with their employees and families). These marine farming ventures, commercial fishermen and seafood processors are reliant upon North West Bay and the D’Entrecasteaux Channel region for their livelihood. Some members have substantial investment and infrastructure in the Bay and Channel, while others rely upon the marine habitat to provide the nursery breeding/feeding environment to contribute to wild fish stocks.

Marine farming, processing, and value-adding of Atlantic salmon, Pacific oysters and blue mussels in the area generates substantial employment for the region and contributes significantly to the Tasmanian economy. Any risk to these ventures from the proposed port facility is completely untenable. Even the mere concept of a woodchip shipping facility in the region will automatically negate the ‘Clean, Green’ image that the state and seafood industry has taken so long to establish. It will totally undermine the worth of the marine farming/aquaculture industry for the region, and as such have a deleterious effect on the state’s economy.

As the peak representative body for the fishing and marine farming industries in Tasmania, TFIC strenuously advocates the vital necessity of maximum protection for the marine environment. Undesirable resultant effects (such as economic and social/community problems) would become a reality should the marine environment within the proposed (and adjacent areas) become compromised and degraded. Valid points worthy of serious consideration due to a probable likely negative impact in this instance include but are not limited to the following, in no particular order:

• Tri-butyl-tin pollution and poisoning from international vessels anti-fouling paints that may accumulate in (farmed and wild) bi-valves and other marine organisms.
• Undesirable marine noise from facility construction and subsequent slow moving shipping in the region having an undesirable effect on caged marine farm species.
• Possible fuel/oil spills from both vessels and the facility would be disastrous for the region’s marine environment as well as stakeholders such as marine farmers.
• Woodchips and the associated dust contain tannin that is poisonous to farmed salmon. It would realistically be impossible to totally contain this potential contamination during high winds.
• Fragile and endangered species such as the leafy sea-dragon and the spotted handfish (seen during this summer at Tinderbox) may be further threatened.
• Increased maritime activity would require increased tugboat activity, which (combined with the propeller wash from the cargo vessels) will virtually guarantee an undesirable elevation of sediment from the seabed. This is likely to have the effect of releasing unknown quantities of dangerous poisons, organochlorides and heavy metals (from historical land-based agricultural and industrial sources) into the water column. These poisons and heavy metals have been assimilated and isolated (by the environment) over decades of seasonal layers of silt and sediment. The probability of this sediment being disturbed by a vessel grounding or unnecessary propeller wash/thrust is unthinkable. In this scenario it would destroy all bi-valve (filter-feeder) marine-farming ventures in the region due to the ability of bi-valves to accumulate these substances to levels toxic to humans.
• Tinderbox Marine Reserve would have large vessels passing within metres of the outer boundaries, creating a significant threat to the biodiversity that existing marine reserves should hold sacred.
• Increased maritime activity (utilising large deep-draft ocean-going cargo vessels) will unnecessarily disturb and destroy areas of North West Bay and the D’Entrecasteaux Channel region vitally important to the marine environment as a shark/finfish nursery.
• Potential algal blooms could be caused by turbidity, elevated nutrient levels, sediment disturbance, low oxygen levels (coupled with elevated pH levels) and poor tidal flushing of the area.
• Release of dino-flagellates into the water column from disturbed sediments must be considered due to the disastrous effect this would have on marine farming.
• Increased international maritime activity increases the likelihood of an exotic marine species (or disease) being introduced to the area via hull fouling or ballast water.
• Increased siltation is probable with increased marine traffic and construction activities. Resultant elevated sediment levels in the water column are totally undesirable when viewed in conjunction with the marine farming already established in the area.
• Despite the best intentions, human systems and endeavours are subject to frailty, extraordinary conditions, deterioration or complacency from time to time. A storm or flood event coupled with environmental disturbances could easily have a catastrophic effect on the established marine farming ventures and wild fish nursery areas found in the immediate region of the proposed development.
• Water resources are already severely challenged in the Kingborough Council region, to a point where the existing stakeholders are suffering restrictions. How can additional demands be adequately met? At what cost to water quality and adequacy of service?
• Future uses envisaged for the port facility could bring other unseen or unimagined problems.
Issues and others such as these are deserving of an adequate response. It is therefore fitting that the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council joins with our industry members and other stakeholders who are demanding a full and independent marine environmental evaluation (eg CSIRO or UTAS). This study must by definition be one that considers the impact of the proposed facility on the entire marine environment due to it being proposed in an area that is zoned for marine farming and is an important wild fish nursery area.

This assessment would need to ensure that an extensive study of the substrate is implemented to determine likely levels of sediment disturbance, as well as existing heavy metals, organo-chlorides and pesticides/herbicides etc in the substrate. Other vital considerations would have to include vessel propeller wash (using a worst case scenario of a vessel grounding, tugboats etc); and the probable impact on water quality (both marine and fresh), marine species, endangered species and current stakeholders.

Anything less would be environmentally irresponsible.

Yours faithfully,



Ralph Mitchell

Executive Officer

Back to top