CONSTRUCTION
Ronan Kellaghan (Walker - air quality) acknowledged that local wind data records were incomplete and could not be used to characterise wind at the site.  As a result, modelling was based on wind records from the Hobart Airport.  He agreed that site specific data was important and admitted that the model was not able to be verified on the basis of Lauderdale data.  The model also used data from 2006 and did not include recent extreme wind events such as the 174km/hr wind recorded in April 2008.
Mr Kellaghan had not assessed the impact of dust in respect of the revised proposal to contain contaminated sediments.  He acknowledged that suppression of dust would be challenging where the sediments could not be wetted.
Mr Kellaghan stated that samples from East Marsh Lagoon exhibited an odour of hydrogen sulphide, while samples from Ralphs Bay did not exhibit a strong odour.  He admitted that, based on current modelling, odour goals would be exceeded at some residences.
Matthew Bryce (Walker - noise) stated that no noise monitoring had been carried out at the Lauderdale school and said that disruption within the classroom was unlikely unless the windows were open.
Mr Bryce recommended that a 3m high solid perimeter noise barrier be maintained throughout the construction period.

WATER QUALITY
Mr Neil Collins (Walker - water quality) agreed that proposed silt curtains will not contain dissolved contaminants or fine material.
Mr Collins noted Dr Cuff’s (Walker Corp.) evidence that saltwater intrusion could mobilise contaminants from the Lauderdale tip and admitted that this was a risk (though he said an engineering solution could be available).  He also agreed that the extent of contaminated leachate from the disused Lauderdale tip site had not been adequately assessed. 
Mr Collins agreed that draft water quality objectives proposed for the site did not take into account seasonal variation and that an additional 12 months monitoring would be necessary.
Dr Doug Treloar (Walker - Coastal Processes) admitted that the model used to predict water circulation (Delft3D) was still being refined in respect of water quality and may not reliably predict production of monosulphidic black oozes (MBOs).
Daniel Ray gave evidence for Save Ralphs Bay (SRB) that he remains concerned the long term release of nutrients from land masses within the canal estate has not been assessed.  Combined with low flushing rates and potential for stratification, nutrient loads could lead to algal blooms.
Dr Steve Appleyard spoke for SRB from Western Australia by videolink, regarding his experience with regulating canal estates in WA.  It was his experience that conditions change post-construction and modelling has often not predicted impacts in relation to water and sediment quality. 
Dr Appleyard stated that canal estates require intensive management and regulators needed resources and expertise in order to set appropriate conditions, carry out and evaluate monitoring and enforce conditions where necessary.  He noted that, in WA, canal estates had often been a ‘crippling burden’ on local governments.
Dr Appleyard discussed the factors leading to the production of MBOs - sulfides (from sea water), iron, nutrients and organic matter.  He noted that nutrients coming from land masses within canal estates were often the cause of problems.

SEA LEVEL RISE
SRB introduced two recent reports (Copenhagen and White House) indicating that sea level rise could be in excess of 1m by 2100.  Walker’s expert did not believe that these predictions justified any change in their construction design.  Dr Treloar agreed that designing for mid-range predicted sea level rise could reduce the ‘safety factor’ and may mean that houses were subject to more frequent nuisance inundation if higher predictions prove to be accurate.
Dr Treloar admitted park land areas within the development would be subject to periodic inundation, which could impact on the survival of vegetation in those areas.
Dr Treloar admitted that, if the former Lauderdale canal had been dredged to 3m as suggested, there was evidence of considerable sediment deposition at the entrance to the canal.  SRB suggests this has consequences for the ongoing maintenance of the proposed canal estate entrance.

BIRDS
Mr John Delaney (Walker - ecology) acknowledged that the Lauderdale area is an area of international significance in relation to the Pied Oystercatcher.
Dr Iain Taylor was highly critical of the interpretation of the output of the carrying capacity model for Pied Oystercatchers.  It was Dr Taylor’s view that input data for the model was flawed in terms of foraging habits, availability of food, methodology for recording food sizes and assumptions regarding predation and competition.  He was also critical of the use of assumptions based on European Pied Oystercatchers, which behave quite differently to the Australian species.  Therefore, Dr Taylor had no confidence that the model could reliably predict insignificant impact of the development in relation to displacement of birds.
Mr Delaney relied on the carrying capacity modelling to reach his conclusions regarding impact.  He admitted that if there were shown to be errors or deficiencies in the model, he would need to revise his assessment.
He acknowledged that no carrying capacity modelling was done in relation to other bird species.
Mr Delaney admitted that the field surveys carried out had failed to distinguish between the movement patterns of resident and migratory species.
Mr Delaney agreed that reducing the feeding and breeding habitat for a species increased the risk of it becoming ‘threatened’.
Mr Delaney agreed Pied Oystercatcher numbers at the Lauderdale site, and possibly throughout the ‘Derwent Estuary Pittwater Area’ complex, would decline as a result of the proposed development.

Dr. Ruth Eriksen explained the “Ralphs Bay conundrum” – the fact that, while Ralphs Bay sediments may, under some testing regimes, show low levels of heavy metal contamination, the mercury levels in Ralphs Bay food chains are often alarmingly high.  For example, the levels of mercury detected in Ralphs Bay flathead are among the highest to be found anywhere in the Derwent estuary.

Dr. Eriksen called for further testing to be carried out into the bioavailability of heavy metals such as mercury, and expressed her concern that the long-term mobility of heavy metals was poorly understood at present.  This means it is difficult to say whether or not oxidative release of heavy metals into the environment would be a problem in the proposed development in the long term.

Dr. Eriksen emphasized that current best-practice guidelines for assessing environmental toxicity adopt a “weight of evidence” approach in which site-specific information may trigger further investigation. 

The Walker Corporation’s lawyer, Mr. Gunson, pressed Dr. Eriksen to agree that the development could be approved subject to additional monitoring.  However, Dr. Eriksen’s professional opinion was that further test results should be taken into account before the RPDC makes its final recommendation.

Under cross-examination, Dr. Eriksen said, “I would like to see more information on the nature and spatial distribution of contaminants in the navigation channel sediments, because I am concerned about their behaviour in the bund and in the final built form of the development, and the long-term oxidation and release of metals in the development.  This hasn’t been addressed in the investigations so far.”

Dr. Eriksen is a co-author of the Water Quality Improvement Plan for Derwent heavy metals (WQIP, 2007).

In other news from the Hearings on Monday, the Walker Corporation’s noise expert, Matthew Bryce agreed that noise levels during construction would exceed guidelines.  Mr. Bryce admitted that he did not do any monitoring at the Lauderdale school, but he said the modelling suggests the school would not experience annoyance in the classrooms – if the windows remain closed.

A 3m high noise barrier of solid material would be erected at the edge of the development site along the Lauderdale foreshore. 

“The erection of this noise barrier would cause an immediate, significant and long-term loss of visual amenity for local residents travelling past the northern section of the Bay, if the proposed development went ahead”, said SRB spokesperson, Jane MacDonald.

The Walker Corporation’s air quality expert, Mr. Ronan Kellaghan, admitted that Walker Corporation’s wind data was incomplete and that, owing to a lack of site-specific data, measurements from the Hobart airport had been used in the modeling of pollutant dispersal.  Furthermore, 2006 data had been used and hence recent high wind levels were not included.  Mr. Kellaghan admitted that the use of site-specific wind data from Ralphs Bay would have been preferable.  He did not speak to local residents about wind conditions in Ralphs Bay before conducting the modeling exercise. 

In relation to odours, Mr. Kellaghan confirmed that the sandflats Walker Corporation plans to excavate are not currently smelly, but that there is an odour of hydrogen sulfide at Eastmarsh Lagoon, several minutes’ drive away from the proposed development site.

His modeling of risks associated with airborne dust had not taken account of the changed development methodology revealed by the Walker Corporation last week, including a new containment area of sediments to be dewatered.  The new arrangements may present difficulties in minimizing dust emissions from the site.

The hearings are to enable the Commission to be better informed and gain further information about the DIIS. It is inquisitorial by nature, meaning that the Panel can ask questions and seek out information that will assist it to undertake the assessment and make recommendations to the Minister. Other parties - e.g Save Ralphs Bay - can also question witnesses.

Following the hearings the RPDC Panel will prepare a Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR) which will be open for Public Exhibition.
It may choose to have public hearings on the DIAR.

The Walker Corp. then prepares the Final Integrated Impact Statement (FIIS)

The RPDC prepares the final Assessment Report. The Report is referred to the Federal Government and then presented to the State Government.

Written representations, evidence from expert witnesses and the hearing schedule are available on the RPDC website http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/lauderdale_quay/hearing and http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/lauderdale_quay/whats_new

Hearings will be held at Federal Court No.1 in Davey Street at the following times:
9:00am – 11:00am, 11:30am – 1:00pm, 2:00pm – 3:00pm and 3:30pm – 4:30pm.

The hearings are open to the public and you may be interested to attend some sessions.

The exhibition is being held at The Salamanca Collection Gallery from 10am this Friday April 24 until 5pm on Sunday.

The exhibition features the work of Hobart photographers, David Jamrozik, Wolfgang Glowacki and Ian Jeanneret.  These three photographers were motivated to stage the exhibition by their love of Ralphs Bay and its many moods, of the bird life that abounds and the deep sense of place the bay gives.  They share the concern that all this could be lost as the result of an inappropriate development. 

“If I can capture and hold some of the magical beauty of Ralphs Bay in my images perhaps I can re-awaken in some people a desire to live in harmony with this environment - to observe and understand it,” says David Jamrozik.

Wolfgang Glowacki has a love of special places such as Ralphs Bay and would
hate to see it destroyed. 

Ian Jeanneret says, “I just love this natural world we live in. My photographs are simply reproductions of the beauty to be seen around us every day and I have a great desire to share it through my work.”

“The Walker Corporation’s canal estate proposal is fundamentally, fatally flawed” says Dr. Eric Woehler, Chair of Birds Tasmania.

Submission after submission on the RPDC website reveals that international experts and Tasmanian government departments hold very similar concerns to those raised by the wider community.  A total of 547 submissions were received by the RPDC. 

“Birds Tasmania and Save Ralphs Bay Inc. have worked hard for more than 5 years to show the folly of this proposal to excavate the sandflats of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area in order to build a housing subdivision in the sea”, says SRB spokesperson Jane MacDonald. 

“Our arguments against this destructive proposal have always been well grounded, as confirmed by hard hitting submissions from around Australia and the world.”

Download a pdf version of the newsletter at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/Newsletters/NewsLetterIssue17.pdf

Thanks, too for all your generous donations, purchases, new memberships and renewals - what a difference they will make! After the submission period closes, there will be Hearings and the more money we can raise, the more expert witnesses we can bring forward. Paypal donations have started to come in through the website. This is very encouraging.

Welcome to all who have joined SRB or signed up in recent days to receive SRB emails. Here is an update on the current situation:

- we still have 18 days until the 4.30pm deadline on April 6th for submissions to reach the RPDC.
Contact details for the RPDC are at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/lauderdale_quay/whats_new
- our experts are working away, studying their sections of the DIIS and the appendices. Some have already completed their submissions and sent them through for inclusion in the SRB submission.
- we have a new section on the SRB website at http://www.saveralphsbay.org/submissions/submIndex.htm to help you plan a submission. This is where you can find arguments against the development and some key quotes from the DIIS. This evolving section is very much a work in progress, so send us more great quotes as you find them in the DIIS, indicating which section they should go in, and the exact page the quote comes from.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP SAVE RALPHS BAY?

Pick something that suits you - there are plenty of ways to help!

* Read the Executive Summary of the DIIS - it’s only 28 pages of text and a few pages of colour illustrations. Click http://www.ralphsbay.net.au/DIIS.asp for the Executive Summary, but be warned, it may take a few minutes to download even on Broadband.
* Read the DIIS itself which is “only” 415 pages long. Click http://www.ralphsbay.net.au/DIIS.asp for the DIIS, which is a smaller file size and downloads fast.
* If you’re an expert, by all means read your section/s of the appendices (over 6000 pages in total, so not for the general reader!). Contact us if you can offer expert input, even if you won’t be able to put your name to it.
* Send in your favourite short quotes from the DIIS to illustrate what madness the canal estate proposal really is.  Don’t forget the page number.

*** WRITE a submission, and deliver, mail or email it to the RPDC by 4.30pm on April 6th. It doesn’t have to be long and you don’t need to be an expert. You can just say how the development would affect you and your family.*** Contact details for the RPDC are at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/lauderdale_quay/whats_new

* Forward this email to your friends and encourage them to sign in to receive these emailed updates from http://www.saveralphsbay.org
* Join SRB at http://www.saveralphsbay.org if not yet a member.
* Send us a donation to help fund expert witnesses. This can be done electronically at http://srb.pmhclients.com/index.php/common/donate/ or by snail mail to PO Box 161, Rokeby, Tas. 7019
* Put a Save Ralphs Bay sticker on your car.
* Keep talking about the bay.
* Letters to the Editor and to politicians are always worthwhile.

Thank you for all your help and support - it is all very much appreciated.
With your help we WILL win the battle to save Ralphs Bay!

Save Ralphs Bay Inc