To Whom it may concern, Regarding the Sea Aquarium proposed at Encounter bay, by Oceanic ...

421 Pages·2015·12.76 MB·English

Philbey, Janine (DPTI)
From: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2015 9:19 AM
To: Philbey, Janine (DPTI)
Subject: FW: Development No. 010/V030/15
Sara Zuidland
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Tel [phone] | Fax [phone] | Email [email protected] 
From: Darren Bettens [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2015 9:14 AM
To: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Subject: Re: Development No. 010/V030/15
To Whom it may concern, 
Regarding the Sea Aquarium proposed at Encounter bay, by  Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd c/- Donna Ferretti &
Associates Pty Ltd, Development Number: 010/V030/15, I ask you to please not allow yet ANOTHER
ludicrous tourism venture, to harm our local environment.
For many years now, it has become extremely obvious to all of us that live here, that tourism and "progress" is 
put above all else, including the local environment and the wishes and voices of the local ratepayers. This 
proposed development is NOT going to benefit those of us who live here. This quote from one of our locals 
says a lot. 
"There are SO many things that are simply wrong with this proposal‐ as many of the submissions on No 
Underwater Observatory's page have clearly stated. This is NOT educational, it is destructive‐ So they want to 
teach kids and adults how to capture wild fish out of their natural habitat, plonk them in an aquarium where 
they are hand fed (unnatural and cruel), in an aquarium/pen which creates pollution that kills other fishes 
natural habitat, invites seals and sharks to areas where people surf and swim which puts their safety at risk, 
puts the penguins livelihoods at risk, interferes with whale calving, creates more noise and obstructs natural 
views, kills off vulnerable leafy sea dragon, and completely disrupts the eco system." 
It has also been noted that the pen will have to be moved around as it will kill off the plant and animal life on 
the ocean floor beneath it. How can this be ok? Why is this even being considered? When will LOCAL peoples' 
voices be heard for once? I have noted that a lot of support for this project, comes from people that DON'T 
EVEN LIVE HERE!! 
 As a whole, we do not want this development to go ahead, and I ask that, for once, our environment is put 
first before money making schemes. 
Thank you for your time.
Darren
1
Philbey, Janine (DPTI)
From: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 9:37 AM
To: Philbey, Janine (DPTI)
Subject: FW: In response to 010/V030/15

Sara Zuidland
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Tel [phone] | Fax [phone] | Email [email protected] 

From: Dario Centrella [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 6:48 PM
To: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Subject: In response to 010/V030/15

In response to 010/V030/15 by the Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd - c/ Donna Ferretti & Associates Pty Ltd
Hello DAC,

This does appear to be an exciting new development. Although I have in-principle support for tourism
destinations and educational institutions I do have a few concerns in relation to preserving species and our
environment, outlined below,
 Given that this is a tourism venture, the exemption which allows aquaculture activities to avoid
mandatory reporting requirements to the National Pollution Inventory may not hold. The applicant
should demonstrate that their feeding and stocking regime will not exceed the 10 tonnes per annum
threshold for ammonia discharged to water (from feed and fish excrement).
 Secondly, given the common business interests of Oceanic Victor’s directors and Tony’s Tuna
International, plans may be in place to expand commercial southern bluefin tuna ranching operations in
the Encounter Bay area. It would be appropriate for Oceanic Victor to provide a statement confirming or
denying their directors’ interests in future commercial sea-cage aquaculture expansion in the region.
 In my opinion, Oceanic Victor should refer their proposal to the EPBC Act so that the need for Federal
environmental approval may be considered. This is pertinent due to the known occurrence of numerous
protected and threatened species in the Encounter Bay area. The primary attraction, the Southern bluefin
tuna is itself a species of conservation concern, listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List of
threatened species.

1. Southern right whales (Endangered)
Encounter Bay is utilised by migrating Southern Right Whale cows and calves on a seasonal basis.
Given the animal’s preference for shallow, sandy bays and sheltered waters, and the species well
documented occurrence near Granite Island (see SA Whale Centre’s sighting log for details)
opportunities exist for whale entanglement with Oceanic Victors pontoons, moorings and netting. The
proponent should be required to demonstrate how they will minimise opportunities for entanglement,
and how they will respond in the event of an entanglement.

2. White-bellied sea eagles (Endangered in SA)
White-bellied sea eagles are listed as Endangered in South Australia. Given the animals’ total South
Australian population is estimated at 70 breeding pairs, and that a nesting site is known on the
Waitpinga Cliffs, Oceanic Victor should demonstrate its preparedness and plan for any potential
interactions with the species. Entanglement is possible, should a WBSE decide to prey upon fish
contained within the pontoon structure.

3. Great white sharks (Vulnerable)
1
It is known that Great white sharks are attracted to dead fish which settle in the bottom of tuna pens.
How will this potential attractant be managed by Oceanic Victor? Great white sharks have previously
bitten netting at sea-cage aquaculture facilities, become entangled and died. Others have penetrated the
netting and entered the sea cages. Oceanic Victor should demonstrate their preparedness and plan for
responding to any such interactions.

4. Australian sea lions (Endangered)
In the past Australian sea lions have visited Encounter Bay, and allegedly damaged the nets of
fishermen (see Times article from 1984). How will the proponents minimise opportunities for
interactions with this species and respond in the event of an entanglement?

Thanks for your consideration.

I do not wish to address the panel in person.

Dario Centrella
7 Ridge Ave,
Myrtle Bank
2
Representation by Victor Harbor Yacht Club to DAC
Regarding Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd.
Development Number – 010/V030/15

The VHYC is totally opposed to exclusion zones.

The yacht club’s prime objective is to run yacht races and promote sailing, it is
written into our constitution.

It would be advantageous for the Yacht Club to make a verbal submission to
DAC. This would be especially important if members of this committee are not
familiar with yacht racing.

It would give us the opportunity to explain and answer questions relating to the
technical aspects of yacht racing and how this proposal will affect the conducting
of races.

Historical Context
The YC has been sailing on the waters of Encounter Bay since 1957, much of the
time in the sheltered protection of Granite Island. It has shared these waters
with all, fishermen, cray pots, yacht & dinghy rental, fishing nets (now illegal),
moored boats, paragliding boats, whale watching boats, ‘The Big Duck’, the very
aquarium that makes part of this proposal was even operational for some years.
All of these stake holders of this area, at various times, have operated without an
exclusion zone.
The particular site in question is the most protected part of the bay on the north
eastern side of the island.

Hosting of National Championships
The Yacht Club regularly conducts National Championships during the after
Christmas/New Year period, for various class sailing boats. It is also the Club’s
major income earner for the year. Sometimes there are Championships run for 3
1
or 4 classes at one time. Many of the participants are from interstate. This
proposal will have a detrimental effect on many of the Classes decision’s to hold
major events here due to the restriction of course size in the bay. Many of the
classes would see the conditions outside the breakwater too rough to run an
entire course. The water between Granite Island and Seal Rock is rougher than
the open ocean due to 3 different wave actions coming in to play. The prevailing
swell direction is quite often in conflict with wind waves and both of these are
reflected back from the breakwater creating a ‘washing machine’ effect, far from
ideal for off the beach sailing conditions.

The attraction of sailing at Victor Harbor
Classes choose to sail here for many reasons, but mainly for the great sailing
conditions Victor Harbor offers for off the beach sailing craft. In our prevailing
summer SSE breeze, sailing fast to windward on flat water in the protected
waters of the island and then reaching and running with the assistance of the
ocean swells outside the breakwater and over towards Port Elliot, it is the perfect
scenario for off the beach boats. There is not any place quite like Victor Harbor.
We seem to get breezes when gulf waters have none and other days when it is
too wild to sail in the metro waters, Victor is more moderate due to the
protection of Granite Island.
It is testament to our ideal & varying conditions that our club can currently boast
being the home of 4 National Champions from 4 different classes (Yvonne
Catamaran, Stingray Catamaran, Arrow Catamaran and Arafura Catamaran). We
do not want to lose this ideal setting.

Risk Management
At a club racing level, risk management issues with experienced sailors, junior
and beginning sailors and our dedicated volunteers have meant over the years
general club racing has tended to be conducted more and more in the protected
waters inside the breakwater, meaning we have reduced the size of a ‘standard’
sailing course to fit in. We would have to further modify and reduce the size of a
standard course to accommodate a 185m x 185m square exclusion zone
(Oceanic Victor Response Document 4.1 to PIRSA) in the position it is being
proposed…. This is unacceptable to us.
The outer diameter of the sea-cage at 46.5m need only be passed without
collision. A couple of boat lengths (8 – 12m) clearance is all that is needed. If the
anchor points are of concern a modified anchoring system could be adopted
which would give 2 m of depth which would give clearance on yachts ‘under-
carriage’. Racing yachts are trying to avoid contact with any object, fixed or not,
as it slows them down. The sailing boats are built light weight and generally
come off second best in any collision with ‘standard’ boats or obstructions.

Sailing courses are set depending on the direction of the wind and changes of
wind direction during races often effect where boats sail on the course. Courses
may be altered during a race to reflect the change of wind direction. Race
Management must have the ability to shorten or lengthen, or alter the direction
of a leg of the course to ensure a fair race. The ability of Race Management to
reconfigure a course would be restricted if an exclusion zone was introduced.
2
There are times when wind direction dictates we sail within 20m of the Screw
Pile Jetty and within a couple of boat lengths of moored vessels which are even
closer to the Island than the current proposal will be. Even with the proposed
aquarium situated in its southern most corner of the 12Ha site it will still have a
major impact on racing.
If this proposal is accepted in its current form it would be like telling the local
football club we are going to fence off one of the goal squares on the oval and
run sheep in it …. But you can still play football around it.

Discover Sailing Classes for Dinghy and Power Boats
The Victor Harbor Yacht Club is an accredited Yachting Australian Discover Sailing
Centre. We run, through the Southern Ocean Sailing Centre, introductory and
advanced sailing instruction to new sailors. The protected area inside the island is
utilised by this training program. 1 local government high school, 2 private
schools utilise this facility during terms 1 and 4, after school, up to 3 afternoons
each week. As well as the school based sailing there are ‘off the street’
participants involved in the program.
Over 20 new people, ‘off the street’, took advantage of a nationally recognised
‘Discover Sailing’ day on the 17th of October held at the YC. This proposal will
take away the most protected part of the bay, the ideal location for new
inexperienced sailors to learn how to sail.

Impact of Club membership
Even though we offer these programs, which promote sailing amongst all ages
not many stay as long term racing YC members.
The YC is small and over the last 20 years numbers of dedicated sailors have
declined. We have many dedicated volunteers who get enjoyment and
satisfaction out of being part of a club environment.
Declining numbers of active sailors has meant to keep the club financially viable
we have had to share our facilities; Victor Harbor Rotary Club; Victor Dragon
Boat Club; Encounter Paddlers all use the club as a base. The club is utilised for
many functions, funerals, ‘work shows’, Pilates sessions, play groups & weddings.
If we reduce the sailing, we risk depleting and losing more sailors and as a result
this local sporting venue will be at risk.

Our Position
The ideal outcome for the Yacht Club would be that this aquarium proposal
should be out side the break water in deeper water, where it will have less of an
effect on the marine park area, local shipwrecks and not be an obstruction to
current users of the bay. In the OV submission they state the mooring ropes
securing the proposed sea-cage have been selected to with stand adverse
conditions found at Encounter Bay. Encounter Bay is large enough for them to
operate with no effect inside the breakwater.
If this application by OV is approved on the proposed site, the next best outcome
for the yacht club would be … No Exclusion Zones.

3
Other related issues

$10 000 guarantee (Oceanic Victor Response Document 5.1 to PIRSA) if the
venture should fail is grossly inadequate if marine salvage is required. The tidal
power generator stranded off Normanville is an example. The yacht club has
previously had to put up with the abandoned ‘Below Decks Aquarium’ pontoon
being moored in the bay for more than a full season of racing before it was
removed. We should not have to put up with a situation like that, should it occur
again.

I also note that this proposal to DAC no longer includes a floating pontoon
between the breakwater and Screw Pile Jetty (in original application to PIRSA)
and patrons of the ‘marine site’ will be transported via a catamaran from existing
jetty facilities. I assume DEWNR/Oceanic Victor, or whoever is responsible for
maintenance has budgeted for an upgrade to the Screw Pile jetty and associated
boarding ramps/jetties.

Steve Adams
General Committee representative

4
South Australian 
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 
REPRESENTATION ON APPLICATION – CATEGORY 3 

Applicant:  Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd 
c/‐ Donna Ferretti  & Associates Pty Ltd 
Development Number:  010/V030/15 (Appian 704)
Nature of Development:  In sea marine aquarium in Encounter Bay
Type of development:  Merit 
Zone / Policy Area:  Granite Island Zone (Victor Harbor (City) development plan) and Land not within a 
council area (coastal waters) development plan 
Subject Land:  Locational Coordinates ‐Latitudes and Longitudes: 
35o 33' 32.12" S, 138o 38' 16.98" E 35o 33' 24.40" S, 138o 38' 06.80" E 35o 33' 
32.72" S, 138o 37' 57.34" E 35o 33' 40.45" S, 138o 38' 07.52" E 35o 33' 32.12" S, 
138o 38' 16.98" E 
Contact Officer:  Janine Philbey
Phone Number:  08 7109 7062
Close Date:  21 October 2015

My name: __________________________________   Business Hours Contact No:   ________________________________  
  After Hours Contact No:   ___________________________________  
  Fax No:   _____________________________________________________  
  Email:     _____________________________________________________  

My postal address  ____________________________________________________________________   Postcode ______________  

My interests are:    owner of local property 
occupier of local property 
a representative of a company/other organisation affected by the proposal 
a private citizen 

The address of the property affected is ___________________________________________________   Postcode ______________  

The specific aspects of the application to which I make comment on are: 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________  
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________  
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________  

I  wish to be heard in support of my submission 
  do not wish to be heard in support of my submission 
  (Please tick one) 

By  appearing personally 
  being represented by the following person:  
  (Please tick one) 

Date _________________________________   Signature  _________________________________________________  

Return Address: The Secretary, Development Assessment Commission, GPO Box 1815, Adelaide SA 5001.
The swim with the tuna proposal is a low density aquaculture development within 1km
of Victor Harbors town beach, sailing club, surf beaches, Chiton Rocks surf club,
Granite Island and it's associated reefs and sea grass meadows. The proposal suggests
that the proponents will seek an aquaculture license to keep 60 Southern blue fin tuna
in the facility. The aquaculture license Oceanic Victor have applied for is for up to 6
tonnes of fish, including up to 5 tonnes of wild caught tuna.
As a local resident I have concerns with this proposal. These concerns include the
following.
1) Visual Impact
Every house between Adelaide road, and the Hindmarsh River outlet, that has a
Seaview, will have a permanent view of this facility.
The facility is not just the underwater viewing platform. It now includes the 45m diameter
ring, above the waterline. The ring, pontoon, and associated rigging will be highly
visible. The facility will also be light with stationary and strobe lights at night time. These
strobe lights will be visible from every house with a sea view along Hindmarsh Road.
There will be numerous boat movements daily between the structure and its pontoon.
How will the visual impact of the facility affect these residents. How will the visual impact
of the facility affect property prices? Do all of these residents want a full time view of the
facility?
My bathroom window looks directly at the Eastern end on the Granite Island breakwater,
and the water to the East of this point. I will look out at the tuna pen every single
morning. I will find this view offensive.
Please find attached a petition signed primarily by local residents. Many of these local
residents will have their view impacted by this proposal.
2) Traffic on the causeway.
The causeway is a shared use facility between the tramway, foot traffic, and recreational
fishers.
Conflict already arises between foot traffic and vehicle movements on the causeway.
When vehicles pass, the width of the remaining walkway is minimal. For elderly
walkers, families with prams, and large groups this is a safety issue. Any increase in
vehicle movements increases the threat of incident or accident. This development will
impact the functionality of the causeway.
It will also increase traffic movements, thus increasing wear and tear, on this heritage
listed structure.
3) Bird poo
Who will clean up all the excess bird poo on Granite Island, the causeway, and Victor
Harbor foreshore?
4) Is this a soft introduction to commercial scale aquaculture in our local waters?
Why are the proponents looking to get into the tourist industry in Victor Harbor? Their
main business history is not in the tourist industry and their home town is Port Lincoln.
This facility is currently operating in Port Lincoln. Can you guarantee the plan to move
this facility is not a soft introduction to commercial aquaculture in our waters? Are the
proponents trying to set a precedent?
Would the State Government and Victor Harbor council support large scale aquaculture
if proposed at a later date?
Has the possibility of large scale aquaculture been discussed?
The proponents lack of transparency for this proposal is highly suspicious. They don't
answer concerned residents questions via their Facebook page, the Q and A session at
the Grosvener Hotel offered no right of reply to anyone with real questions, and the
balance of their information session was conducted at the tourist information center. A
location where locals never go. Why are the proponents being so secretive? What are
they trying to hide?
5) An increased shark presence in our local waters.
Papastamatiou et al, 2010 (1) concluded that aquaculture does influence the feeding
patterns of sharks. Acoustic tagging and tracking of sharks in the vicinity of two isolated
aquaculture pens has shown tiger sharks regularly returned to the pens as part of their
feed run. Sandbar sharks took up permanent residence in the vicinity of the pens.
I contacted Yanis Papastamatiou and asked his opinion about this proposal. His
remarks were;
"The cages will almost certainly attract sharks. Our data suggests that coastal
residential species (e.g. potentially bronze whalers in your area) will set up residency
under cages but will perform diel shifts. In other words they will be there day or night
and leave during the other periods of the day/night. This in itself is normal behavior it
will just happen to be centered under the cages. The cages will also attract more
transient species (white sharks) but is unlikely to keep them there for long (2-4 weeks).