seeking a balance - the missing maps! the whole state

These are the maps that should have been included in the South Australian Government's 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the northern Flinders Ranges'!

The very concept of 'seeking a balance' in the northern Flinders implies that some sort of an 'all else being equal' state might prevail between conservation and mining elsewhere in the state - and this is so far from being the case that the notion is rendered absurd! In South Australia, conservation is on a hiding to nothing where it confronts the mining industry!

Take, for instance, Map 1 below -



Here's the whole of the state, showing those areas that are actually excluded from mining industry access. The fully-protected, no mining access 'single proclamation' reserves - that's the Wilderness Protection Areas and some National and Conservation Parks - are marked in 2 shades of dark green, and the 'Areas excluded from the Mining Act' - such as the Leigh Creek Coalfield and the City of Adelaide - are marked in red. (Click the image to go to the Flickr site for larger versions of each image and considerably more detail)

Otherwise the remainder of the area of the state is available to the mining and petroleum industry.

You might be about to be surprised, if not shocked. What follows is a map which contains the same details shown in the first map, with the addition of the mining-industry accessible. 'joint proclamation' Reserves - that's the remainder of the National and Conservation Parks, and the Regional Reserves -



That's right, more than 3/4 of the land area of the reserve system of South Australia is open to the mining industry! All Reserves constitute a little over 20% of the state by area, so if 3/4 of these are mineable, and the remaining 'Areas excluded from the Mining Act' are not large - as can clearly be seen - what follows is that the mining industry has access to more than 90% of the state!

Now, in the 'joint-proclamation' parks access is 'restricted', and there are other restrictions placed on the mining and petroleum industries when dealing with, say, Aboriginal Land and the Woomera Prohibited Area. The industry may well attempt to point to this - in fact, some wring their hands and claim to be tragically inhibited in showering us with the benefits they are doubtlessly only-too-keen to bestow upon us; but let's just have a look at the extent to which their style is actually being cramped, shall we?



Whoah! - bright, isn't it? We've now added the Mineral Leases - that's the Mineral Exploration Leases in blue, and the Mineral Exploration Lease Applications in pink. There are production tenements as well, but they're hard to see at this scale. (A reminder, click each image to see a lot more detail on Flickr)

What you can pick out at this scale is that the Gawler Ranges National Park and the northern section of the adjacent Pinkawillinie Conservation Park, Tallaringa Conservation Park, Lakes Gairdner, Torrens, and Frome, and the Yellabinna, Strzelecki and Innamincka Regional Reserves have now largely been subsumed. Oh, and the Witjira National Park on the northern border is entirely covered.

Did you know Mount Remarkable National Park is largely open to the mining industry, by the way? I thought not.

But that's not the whole story - we haven't looked at the petroleum industry yet! -



Well, isn't that enough to warm a shareholder's heart? Goodbye Simpson Desert Regional Reserve and the remainder of the Innamincka RR. Petroleum Exploration Leases, Exploration Lease Applications, Production Tenements... it certainly makes for a colourful show! If you want the complete details I've included a copy of the Legend as part of this set of images on Flickr.

(You can also go there to scroll through any of these images at a larger scale - Seeking a Balance - the Missing Maps [I recommend the slideshow option - button upper right] - and also to get a foretaste of my next posting, which will deal specifically with the Flinders Ranges and the area surrounding the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - the target of Seeking a Balance.

However, my point is simple. There is no balance between the mining industry and conservation is South Australia. The industry is winning hands-down.

The state government cannot selectively pick a section of the northern Flinders Ranges - one of the few remaining semi-arid mountain ecosystems in Australia in good (and up to excellent) condition at that! - and claim to play an 'even handed' game, as though the industry didn't already have the run of the state. As though such fragile and complex mountain ecosystems weren't the exception rather than the rule in the broad, flat inlands of South Australia. And as if they were well preserved elsewhere and weren't embattled enough already (goats, climate change etc.) This is not just absurd, it's offensive!

NEXT POST - Applying the same focus to the Flinders Ranges.

All these maps were taken from Primary Industries and Resources SA's excellent South Australian Resource information Geoserver. (Ironically, I may be SARIG's biggest fan!)

Images © PIRSA SARIG geoserver 2010 - https://egate.pir.sa.gov.au/geoserver/sarig/frameSet.jsp

 

SaB submission period extended

The public submission deadline for comment on 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' has been deferred until January 29th, 2009

See the most recent posts below for more information about Seeking a Balance.

Over the weekend the Save Arkaroola campaign placed an advertisement in the Weekend Australian (see at left), while the Wilderness Society ran its own on page 3 of today's Advertiser (below)

Today the Arkaroola Sanctuary released its own 'From the Ark update' announcing the postponement of the submission deadline. Notably, this included the following -

Arkaroola has received advice that the consultation process requires submissions to specifically address the management policies and zoning framework proposed in Seeking a Balance. So please when you Have Your Say, be sure to evaluate the document and make recommendations that can be considered in any revisionary process. We need to balance passion with purpose — to achieve a much better level of protection for Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and by inference, the Northern Flinders Ranges.

Now, it would be nothing short of outrageous should the State Government attempt to ignore submissions on Seeking a Balance that simply say 'we do not want to see any mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and to the extent that Seeking a Balance allows this I/we oppose it' - or even 'Please, just don't mine Arkaroola' - rather than addressing in detail a complicated mish-mash of zones that contradict existing legislation and don't even provide continuous 'whole of landscape' corridors for the local biota. I trust they will not attempt to do so.

In fact, given the clear conflict with the existing Class A Environmental Zone and no explanation of what the mining 'infrastructure' the new plan is prepared to see installed across the northern Flinders (in all but the limited areas assigned to Zone 1 in their plan) it's hard to work out what SaB actually means! (Click here for details)

So, I would argue that the Seeking a Balance process is flawed enough without any hypothetical figure in the state government attempting to say 'well, we're opening up the area to mining, and you must limit your comments to discussing the framework we've set up for this - but in choosing to comment you might perhaps hope to tweak our boundaries a little!'


the albert namatjira approach


But as no-one will want to see a submission wasted, and as I've advised before in this journal (see below) that submissions don't have to be long-winded or overly-detailed, I will also advise that they should at least contain wording to the effect that "I write with reference to your 'Seeking a Balance' document - and this is what I think of your proposed mining Access Zones..." and then propose what you'd wish to see for the area.

If we have to see the world through their framework let's take the Albert Namatjira approach - and paint the ranges purple!

(In SaB's mapping purple indicates Access Zone 1 - where the mining industry is most restricted - more zoning details )

don't submit - make a submission!

Submissions on 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' plan are rolling in.

As we've noted previously, submissions don't have to involve a complex examination of the issues and intricacies of the proposed zoning system. They can be short and punchy should you only wish to make clear your own opposition to the concept of mining being allowed in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. I have chosen something from this genre as the first example piece I've posted below.

Of course, if you are able to find the time to assemble a more complex argument it's also good to tackle any of the broad range of specific issues the document raises - or the questions it leaves begging! Accordingly, I've attached a couple more examples that pursue different lines of argument in more detail.

You don't have to buy into the bizarre idea that some kind of reasonable 'balance' can be achieved by allowing mining in a wilderness area! As a correspondent asks below 'Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau?' Isn't the whole point of conservation areas is that they are excluded from precisely this kind of economic activity? In Arkaroola and the wild northern Flinders Ranges the state government simply cannot have its environmental cake and eat yellowcake, too!

So; don't submit - make a submission! And when it comes to submissions, the main thing is that they arrive on Mr Tyne's and/or Mr Irving's desks - or in their in-boxes - by December 19! Their contact details are posted again below.

There's also an excellent collection of example submissions available at the Save Arkaroola website - see the links at the bottom of the 'how can I help?' page


example one

Gentlemen,

Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau? Would NT allow mining on Uluru? Would WA allow mining in the Stirling Ranges? Would Tasmania allow mining at Cradle Mountain? Would Victoria allow mining on the summit of Mt Bogong? Would Queensland allow mining on the Great Barrier Reef?

Rhetorical questions but germane ones. Unless one has been to Siller's Lookout on a cool winter's morning its impossible to describe the effect this area has on people. Arkaroola should be our 'secular scared site', to be FULLY and unequivocally preserved as an ecologically contiguous whole forever, not subject to an internecine cartographic 'death of a thousand cuts' and subsequent glossy greenwash campaign ('Seeking a Balance' being a typical example of the latter). Even when I cant get to Arkaroola, I feel better just knowing it is there, and I know I am not alone. I wonder how long I will be able to feel that way.

The fact that it has not been formally declared a national park is a historical anomaly ameliorated only by the excellent stewardship the Spriggs have demonstrated for decades. Why aren't they celebrated even more than they are for being the real pioneers of sustainable eco-tourism in this state?

I will leave the broader political, environmental, indigenous, spiritual and yes, even the economic arguments (see above) for the TOTAL PRESERVATION of this trifling percentage of the state, compelling as they are, to the many others who will surely submit their despairing and bewildered responses to this new government plan. Suffice to say that no government that pursues these policies will ever get my vote.

Save Arkaroola. Save our National Parks system.

example two

I want have to my opinion registered that exploration and mining, and in particular uranium mining, has the potential to seriously damage Arkaroola’s acclaimed tourism operation.

Arkaroola is an area of high conservation value in South Australia. Arkaroola is now known as Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, with official sanctuary status under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

I am very concerned about the water use of a mine. The hydrology of the Flinders Ranges is highly complex. The relationship between aquifers, the surface springs and recharge rates requires investigation so they are not put at risk.

In a submission to the Australian Government in 2007, Marathon Resources advised that it would require 5·5 million litres a day for processing activities should a mining application be approved in the future.

The company would seek water from a variety of sources on the plains and in the ranges. Any approval to extract this measure of water from the region would contravene the government’s own targets and prescriptions around the sustainable use of water resources. It is vital that ecosystems like that in Arkaroola, enduring periods of drought as it did through the 10 years to summer 2008/9, not have their water resources compromised.

I believe that Arkaroola’s water needs to be given the highest level of protection.

Through Seeking a Balance, the government plans to introduce a new regulatory framework that will likely see parts of the Arkaroola landscape, currently protected under Environmental Class A provisions, re-zoned for standard exploration and mining activities. This is totally unacceptable.

The iconic features of Mount Painter and Mt Gee must be protected from invasive activity such as mining.

Arkaroola remains relatively weed-free, with weeds mostly restricted to day visitor areas and watercourses in the southern and south-eastern sections of the property. This situation would change dramatically with the incursion of mining activity in the region as exploration and mining increases the risk of weed introduction.

Even after a decade of drought, the integrity of Arkaroola’s native vegetation, particularly in the Mount Painter zone is highly rated. A fragmented zoning arrangement for sections of this highland area provides little assurance that this will continue.

Arkaroola had the shortest grazing history of any pastoral property in the Northern Flinders Ranges. Much of the sanctuary’s heartland has never carried livestock and plant communities are intact. Great topographic variation provides a wealth of micro-climates and environmental niches. There is great potential for remnant populations of small mammals to have survived on Arkaroola.

Some of the wildest, most elevated, least modified and most biodiverse landscapes in the Flinders Ranges occur in north- eastern districts. Five properties with contiguous landholding provide refuge for remnant, endemic, rare and threatened species, some of which are found nowhere else in the world. They also provide a corridor of connectivity for the movement of dispersing rock-wallabies. With its unique geology and landforms, lack of weediness, intact plant communities, and position as the northernmost protected area in the Flinders Ranges, Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a critical part of a greater Northern Flinders corridor. Despite this, in developing the Seeking a Balance framework, the South Australian Government has failed to deliver appropriate levels of protection for individual species and ignores its own policies that advocate landscape scale conservation The new framework, it is claimed, will balance resource use and conservation, and provide more certainty for mining and exploration companies, landholders, traditional owners and the community.

I believe that Seeking a Balance is inconsistent with other natural resource management policies, is flawed in its methodology, and is skewed toward exploration and mining at the expense of the environment. It is appalling that people like me have to respond in this way to something that should be so far from reality as to be a poor joke. Unfortunately the proposals are real and scary.

example three

To whom it may concern:

I have been informed that the government wishes to "re-evaluate" its zoning on mining activities in the Northern Flinders Ranges. I have deduced from the publication 'Seeking a Balance' that the general aim is for the government to protect certain places of higher environmental/cultural/wildlife/geological/heritage/tourism value within the region, but then open the remaining areas in the region to mining exploration an activities.

I am opposed to this proposal, as there are a number of reasons that this act could be devastating to the area. Firstly, there are a number of endemic species to the area, and if disturbed by mining activities, or if invasive species are introduced through an increase of traffic into previously untouched areas, we could lose plants and animals not found anywhere else in the world.

There are also species that have been endangered that thrive in the area, such as the Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby. The species has a high concentration of colonies along the Arkaroola Creek, however in the proposed re-zoning, there are no bio-corridors linking the colonies in the north with those in the central regions or the north eastern region. Bio-corridors are essential to species survival as they allow the species to move to adjacent areas and to adapt to environmental change.

There are also important issues for Indigenous people, namely the Adnyamathanha People, which are barely even skimmed across in the proposal. Are the traditional owners being consulted on this matter? If so, are their opinions and concerns taken into account, or is this process simply a formality? Please inform me on this matter, as I am very unclear about the process undertaken in this circumstance.

There are also implications for tourism. As Arkaroola is an outstanding example of eco-tourism, the affects of mining exploration and activities going on within the sanctuary are not appealing to potential eco-tourists. The general characteristics of mining, such as water over-use, waste (see Marathon Exploration's inappropriate methods and waste dumping at Mt Gee and Yudnamutana Gorge), as well as pollution (both noise and air etc) will have a negative impact on the landscape, and therefore reduce the appeal to tourists, not to mention all other species that live there.

Geologically, the entire area is significant. There are important features within the area that have scientific importance, including holding information about past climates, which is becoming more and more important in the face of accelerated climate change.

Astronomically, Arkaroola has a spectacular outlook, with very little light pollution and usually fine weather, the star gazing is an attraction for tourists and astronomers. If mining activities are permitted nearby, what sort of affect will the amazing clear skies encounter?

The Euro-entric heritage of the area dates back to the 1840s, with the area being used for a number of different fields. Agriculture did not suit the landscape, and mining was tried and abandoned, and the most appropriate use was found - a wilderness sanctuary. Going back to mining in the area would be a step backwards - does the government want to move forward or backward? We don't need any more reasons for the other states to call SA a "little backwater".

I am also concerned that the mine at Beverly is perhaps not being fully utilised if concentration has turned towards the areas around Arkaroola. Are there issues regarding the Beverly mine that the public should be aware of?

It appears to me that the government are placing mining above environment and conservation in this instance, which is absolutely appalling. That is not what I elected the government to do. I am deeply disappointed that the policy makers have not learned a thing when it comes to over exploitation of resources, environmental degradation, climate change, and environmental irresponsibility. If economy is the states only concern and priority, then we will ruin our precious environment.

Please do not open up areas in the Northern Flinders Ranges to mining and resource exploration and activities that are currently protected. I would prefer to see a higher level of protection to the entire area. As biodiversity does not limit itself to pockets of landscape in the region - neither should the protective zoning.

Please reconsider your proposal to provide better environmental protection of these important areas

Submissions on Seeking a Balance are due in on December 19th (There are rumours of a postponement of this deadline until the end of January next year, but neither PIRSA's nor the Dept for Environment's 'Seeking a Balance' websites currently confirm this. I'll update this information when and if it changes.) They can be e-mailed or posted to;

Email: jason.irving@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8124 4707
Post: Mr Jason Irving
Manager Policy and Planning
Department for Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

Email: ted.tyne@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8463 3033
Post: Dr Ted Tyne
Director, Mineral Resources
Primary Industries and Resources SA
GPO Box 1671
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

 

seeking a balance - not a great lookout for sillers!

There's no more famous image of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary than the one at left. This view of Siller's Lookout, terminus of the outward-bound leg of the Ridgetop Tour (a party of which can be seen here on the summit) is known across Australia and the world. It's one of the iconic images of South Australian tourism, and Australian eco-tourism, full stop!

In fact, this version of the image is taken from the state government's own 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' (SaB) document.

But the image is used very widely - the most well-known variant being Arkaroola's own take, as used, in the example at right, in The Wilderness Society's advertisement highlighting the risk mining poses to the area.

Referring to his then newly-released 'Seeking a Balance' plan, South Australia's Environment Minister Jay Weatherill told the ABC News on the 28th of October this year -

"I think what people need to rest assured about is that when they think about Arkaroola and they think about the iconic spots, the things that they have in their minds will be now [be] protected"

As I've said, there's no more iconic image of the Sanctuary than this view of Siller's - with the lookout massif in the foreground, and the ranges on the southern flank of lower Yudnamutana Gorge rolling off to the plains and Lake Frome behind.

But in 'Seeking a Balance' the Minister has not seen fit to grant any extra protection to Siller's Lookout, nor the bulk of the country you can see in the background in these iconic images!

That's right - in his plan this area is consigned (along with the bulk of the region) to Access Zone 3 (the 'yellow zone': see the detail of SaB's own map at left) - open to standard mineral exploration and mining access, with no approval required for either activity from the Department for the Environment!

A discussion of the inadequacies of the proposed zoning system, with particular regard to the apparent conflict with the Planning Act's existing 'Class A Environmental Zone' for the Flinders Ranges - inadequacies that remain even when it comes to those areas supposedly afforded a 'higher' level of protection - can be found in the previous post - a Class A confusion.

But to choose not to assign a higher level of protection to the icon area of Arkaroola, and then to tell the public you've 'protected' all 'the things they have in their minds... when they think about Arkaroola' - well, it's breathtaking, isn't it? But not as in 'what a breathtaking view!'


don't submit - make submissions!


No, you don't have to subscribe to the logic of planning for mining access to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and simultaneously proclaiming that it's been protected! Nor play-along with tweaking the boundaries of access and planning zones that overlap and contradict each other.

Make a submission on Seeking a Balance. They don't have to be long and complicated. You are completely entitled to express an opinion that mining is not a suitable option for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary without having to enter into detailed discussion of the intricacies of Class A Zoning versus SaB access zoning, or discussion of why there are no linking biological corridors running north to south in the Government's plan, or any other of the broad range of issues the plan raises. Not if you don't wish to.

In fact, I'd argue that because SaB and the existing Class A Zone provisions are in such obvious conflict, and because we have no definition provided for any of the allowable mining 'infrastructure' associated with SaB (but explicitly excluded by class A), it's actually difficult to assess the implications of Seeking a Balance, full stop!

But it's clear that the mining industry cannot expect to have the run of the whole state - and since they tell us 'certainty' is what they crave, let them be certain that these wild ranges are off-limits!

Submissions on Seeking a Balance are due in on December 19th. They can be e-mailed or posted to -

Email: jason.irving@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8124 4707
Post: Mr Jason Irving
Manager Policy and Planning
Department for Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

Email: ted.tyne@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8463 3033
Post: Dr Ted Tyne
Director, Mineral Resources
Primary Industries and Resources SA
GPO Box 1671
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia


for example


I've attached the first example submission on SaB below. It's written from the perspective of someone who is pro-mining, but, as they say, not at any cost! I am hoping that a series of such submissions will shortly be appearing on the Save Arkaroola website.

Dear Dr Tyne & Mr Irving

I am writing to you to strongly urge you to reconsider the Proposed Management Zones for the northeastern region of the Northern Flinders Ranges as indicated in the document Seeking a Balance.

I consider myself pro-mining and am All for economic benefit for the State of South Australia – BUT NOT AT ANY COST !

I enjoy bushwalking, camping and nature and I have visited the beautiful, stunning and quite magnificent Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary many times. I have also taken the exciting four wheel drive Ridgetop Tour through this iconic area, much of which, under the proposed zoning would become Access Zone 3: for Standard exploration and mining access.

It is my belief that this environmentally fragile region, which is currently suffering under more than a decade of drought, at least in the foreseeable future, would be irreparably damaged by current mining and exploration techniques. Many species are under considerable threat to their survival, and additional pressure could be catastrophic for them particularly given global warming.

To quote 'Seeking a Balance' itself - 'much of the Northern Flinders Ranges lies within the Development Plan’s Environmental Class A Zone. The prime objectives of the Environmental Class A Zone seek to conserve the natural character and environment of the area and to protect the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources.'

I believe it would be better to strengthen the existing Class A Environmental standards rather than bringing in a whole new raft of legislation.

The Development Act says ‘Mining operations should not take place here unless the deposits are of such paramount significance that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden’ and that ‘exploitation of the deposits is in the National or State interest’ and that ‘investigations have show that alternative deposits are not available on other land in the locality..’

I believe it is pointless and dangerous to risk the introduction of new legislation when the current simply needs tweeking. Present techniques are too risky and likely to cause environmental, cultural, tourism and/or other damage and will be a blight on the landscape for decades to come.

Please follow the advice of moderation and withdraw the Management Zoning proposals mooted in Seeking a Balance.

 

a Class A confusion?

The map at left, courtesy of The Wilderness Society, superimposes the Class A Environmental Zone created by the 2003 Development Plan for the Flinders Ranges (or Class A for short) over the recently released 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' (SaB) document's proposed mineral access zoning.

(Click the image to go to the flickr page where it's possible to access large - and very large - versions of this map.)

To quote 'Seeking a Balance' itself 'much of the Northern Flinders Ranges lies within the Development Plan’s Environmental Class A Zone. The prime objectives of the Environmental Class A Zone seek to conserve the natural character and environment of the area and to protect the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources.

In the map the Class A Zone is indicated by the large red hatched area. Under the existing Class A provisions mining is currently possible within it only if the deposit is of 'paramount importance' and in 'the national interest' and if no similar resource is available outside the zone. Any proposed 'infrastructure' is limited to walkers huts and associated rainwater tanks and the like.

'Seeking a Balance' excludes mining and associated infrastructure only in the Purple Zones (Zone 1 in SaB). While this is an excellent result in the case of the Mawson Plateau, the largest such area, the story for the rest of the northern Flinders is rather different, and particularly for the disputed area of Exploration Lease 4355, which is shown outlined in black (see detail map below).

Roughly, Blue Zones (SaB Access Zone 2a) allow for restricted, 'non-disturbing' exploration activity and potential mining access only from 'outside' those zones (i.e from underground.) Any activity must be jointly-approved by both the Dept for Mineral Resources and the Dept for Environment.

But please bear in mind, within controversial uranium exploration lease EL 4355 - the black outline - the exploration drilling around Mount Gee and Mount Painter has largely been done already in or adjacent to these sectors. Since these zones are confined to ridge-tops they would not in any case be likely targets for direct mining access since the uranium resource lies hundreds of metres below them! (Although currently effectively ruled out by the terms of the Class A Zone optimal efficiency and economy would be achieved by accessing any resource from a low-lying gorge/valley area adjacent to it - and as we see by glancing at the map and in the discussion of the other access zones below, SaB apparently might provide such opportunities!)


it's more by way of being guidelines


Still on the blue zones (2a), while exploration may be restricted - even if that's actually moot - undefined mining 'infrastructure' is allowable. I can't tell you what 'infrastructure' might be because nowhere is that made clear! There is no specific reference to Class A but reference is made to proposals being 'assessed in light of planning guidelines and identified values'.

Now, 'guidelines' is a scary word, particularly when it's being used to describe something that is actually the mainstay of protection for the area!

Green Zones (SaB Access Zone 2b) allow for both exploration drilling and the creation of undefined 'infrastructure' and mining with the approval of both the Mineral Resources Dept. and the Dept. for the Environment on a case-by-case basis. Again, Class A is not specifically cited, but a clearer reference (better than 'planning guidelines', anyway!) is made to 'Development Plan guidelines'; but note again, this key existing legislation is still - disturbingly - referred to as 'guidelines'!

Yellow Zones (SaB Access Zone 3) - by far the largest area - allow for mining to occur as it might anywhere else in the state where only the standard provisions of the Mining Act apply. No Dept. for Environment approval is required to grant either exploration or mining permits. Might they also serve as potential departure points for shafts and declines accessing resources under the higher conservation value areas?


a very uneasy 'balance'


Do you see something of a tension here? We are apparently to believe that the Class A Zoning still exists across its marked area - legislation that was set up specifically to 'preserve the character of the ranges' and dramatically limit mining activity - and simultaneously that the new 'Seeking a Balance' plan 'increases the level of protection for the area' while apparently allowing for both infrastructure and access that Class A specifically does not permit!

Meanwhile it simultaneously reduces the bulk of the area to the same 'standard mining regulations only' status as the adjacent plains and the bulk of the rest of the state! If this supersedes Class A it's a disaster; if the two are supposed to simultaneously co-exist the tensions between them are absurd; and how are we to judge which will prevail?...


the corridors of power?


The astute among you will also notice that there are no continuous 'corridors' linking the higher value conservation areas (Zones 1 and 2a and 2b) from north to south. Such continuous corridors are standard practice elsewhere in the state where the Govt's 'Naturelinks' program is operational.

But take another look; there are apparent corridors! Consider the continuous Zone 3 'standard regs only' zones surrounding the uranium resource, which is centred on Mount Gee in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and EL 4355 (see the detail map above).

And look at the potential link this 'standard mining access' zoning provides to the proposed processing facilities on the eastern plains!

Consider the long peninsula of green (SaB Access Zone 2B) that snakes away from Mount Gee and Mount Painter to the south east towards the proposed processing zone. Why on earth would this, the northern side of the valley of the East Painter Creek warrant a higher protection status while the southern side, which is virtually identical as a landscape, is cast into the 'access all areas' zone? Why indeed, if not to provide for a potential haulage or pipeline route on the southern side?


make submissions - but don't submit!


Submissions on seeking a balance are due in a fortnight (December 19th). Details for where they can be sent are available via the Seeking a Balance PDF (or booklet itself), or at the Save Arkaroola website (+ see link in image below)

Don't let the above phase you! Submissions don't have to be long and complicated. You are completely entitled to express an opinion that mining is not a suitable option for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary without having to enter into detailed discussion of the intricacies of Class A Zoning versus SaB access zoning if you don't wish to. I provide these details for information, and because I want to make clear my concerns with notions that the 'balance' SaB seeks is only a 'reasonable' weighing of options.

It's an intellectual fallacy that there's always a 'middle ground' that needs to be sought in any argument and is the most 'reasonable' position. Could we really believe that a half-scale Franklin Dam would have been a rational compromise? Or that we could safely drill for oil on half the Barrier Reef?

No! Absurdity must be named. There's no place for miners in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and the kind of convoluted logic that gives us a mish-mash of zoning and a mesh of contradictions like that found in SaB only serves to reinforce this argument. If 'certainty' is what's required then let the industry be 'certain' that it has no place here.

And I'll happily post any copies of submissions people care to send me that might serve as a good inspiration and example to other friends of the wild ranges! Feel free to either post them as a comment below or e-mail them directly to me.

savearkaroola launched!

With less than 3 weeks to go before formal public comment on the fate of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary closes, the Sprigg family have launched savearkaroola.com.au, a site set up specifically to put their case in defending the Sanctuary from the combined encroachments of the mining industry and state government departments apparently unwilling to defend it from them.

The Spriggs raise similar concerns to those voiced on this site regarding 'Seeking a Balance,'the state government's proposed blueprint for mineral exploration access in the the northern Flinders Ranges.

They are also unable to understand why it did not at least reinforce (or, in the circumstances, decisively exceed!) existing legislative protections covering the region - the Environmental Class A Zone - which was designed specifically to protect the character of the ranges.


Seeking a Balance - or $eeking a Billion?!


Instead, this document sets up a series of potential access zones that, although they afford some welcome - and long overdue - high-level protections in the north of the Sanctuary, would appear to be not much better than a blueprint for mining access routes into the heart of the Sanctuary itself; the Mount Gee and Mount Painter region!

Subsequent claims from the Department for Environment that the Class A Zone provisions still underlie 'Seeking a Balance' have decidedly not reassured anyone who cares about the ranges.

As I have discussed previously (see link plus the previous post), it is rather hard to reconcile legislation that specifically restricts 'infrastructure' to walkers huts and rainwater tanks and proposes that mining could only be possible in the rarest of circumstances - conditions patently not met in what is now Exploration Lease 4355 - with the SaB's proposed zoning, which includes substantial areas (covering even iconic sites such as Siller's Lookout!) where only the standard access provisions of the Mining Act would apply!

In any case, factor in Minerals Minister Paul Holloway's recent dismissive claim in Parliament that he can choose to treat the Class A Zone provisions as 'guidelines', and you have a situation where all true friends of the ranges can only be on high alert!


from the ark


Further, the Sprigg family have just published a special edition of their 'From the Ark' Newsletter, specifically putting their case for the proper protection of the Sanctuary.

This document is well worth reading; you might, for instance, be bemused - if not a little shocked - to discover on page 3 what method was used to officially determine the 'landscape quality' of the Sanctuary!

But then, the Spriggs have had to suffer much at the hands of both the 'access all areas' arm of the mining industry and its state government enablers. One can only hope their long fight will shortly yield the decisive, and positive, outcome they - and the Sanctuary - deserve!

It's little wonder, then, that the Newsletter contains a little mischief - I've attached it below - a reliable, thorough, and rigorously scientific test calculated to determine if the viewer is suffering from 'Gottamineopia', a fortunately rare hybrid of single-minded myopia and tunnel-vision!



 

of cowboys, calisthenics, and crocodile tears

A posse of Cowboys (and a Cowgirl!) strode into town Thursday morning, and moseyed on down to the Sebel Playford on North Terrace, just in time for Marathon Resources' Annual General Meeting, which was being held inside this mighty fancy saloon.

You may recall that Premier Mike Rann had announced that his government would not tolerate 'cowboy operators' when he suspended Marathon's licence to drill in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary early last year.

These ornery dudes were itchin' to get back to drilling ("it ain't thrillin' if we ain't drillin'!..."), and had brought their own cordless rigs along to demonstrate the 'real responsible' manner in which they'd like to go about it. They acknowledged there'd been mistakes in the past; "we're sorry, and we won't do it again. But they went on to explain "and hell, if we do do it again, well, we'll be sorry then, too!..."

In fact, it'd be hard to imagine a sorrier posse!

But leaving aside the opinions of this Wild Bunch, given the seriousness of Marathon's breaches of their exploration lease many of us were surprised when one of Sheriff Rann's Deputies - Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway - handed Marathon a renewed exploration licence for the same area last month.

And many were also surprised when he went on to announce the publication of 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges.' Because from a simple glance - see at right - at the 'Proposed Management Zones' map on page 15 it's hard not to conclude that one of the main purposes of SaB is to allow for the creation of mining access corridors across the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

For the only explanation I can conceive of for the strange 'exposed midriff' that runs along the centre of this map - a gap where only standard mining regulations would apply and the Department for Environment (DEH) would hold no sway - is that it is designed to let the mining industry extract uranium at Mount Gee in the centre of the Sanctuary and transport it to processing facilities on the adjacent plains.


corridors for wildlife - or whacking-great trucks?


You may ask yourself why, for instance, the northern side of the valley of the Mount Painter Creek is deemed worthy of DEH protection (the green peninsula that runs east from Mount Gee and Mount Painter) while the southern side is left to the industry? Why in a document that is supposedly based on sound ecological principles are there no linking corridors form north to south in this spectacular wild region? Where are the values that inform the state government's NatureLinks program - that recognises the vital nature of biological corridors elsewhere in the state - in this instance?

The period for comment on this document closes on December the 19th.

It has been hard to clarify the meaning of so much of SaB - particularly the question of what constitutes 'infrastructure', and why this would even be being contemplated by the Department for the Environment in an area where under existing legislation - the Class A Environmental Zone for the Flinders Ranges (constituted under the Planning Act) - in order to preserve the character of the ranges any such 'infrastructure' is restricted to walkers huts and rainwater tanks!.

This issue will be dealt with specifically in my next post. And shortly a series of postings on websites - including this one - will go over all these issues in detail and call on lovers of the South Australian environment to have their say on SaB before the closure date.

For we can hardly afford to rest on out laurels...


shareholders on the march?


Because, inside the Marathon AGM, Chairman Peter Williams had an explicit message for Marathon's shareholders: after complaining that his company 'was not consulted' in the creation of the document (if it's any consolation neither was I, The Wilderness Society, or Marg Sprigg!) he asked shareholders to write in and express their views on Seeking a Balance:

The State Government has invited stakeholders to make submissions up to 19 December 2009 on its “Seeking a Balance”paper.

The Marathon Board encourages shareholders and other stakeholders to review the government document and, if thought appropriate, we ask you to make a submission to the Government outlining your own views on what the realistic “balance”should be.

Now, it's not hard to imagine what those views might be! But in case they didn't get it he went further, telling the Adelaide Advertiser;

Marathon chairman Peter Williams said the imposition of the "Seeking the Balance" management plan would set a dangerous precedent, as mining companies would no longer have certainty that the regulations they were working under were consistent and reliable...

"We find now that there could be areas of the state that have been previously subjected to conditions that are strict...and now we find that the government wants to impose some arrangements over the top.

they brought it on themselves


For a start, having been with Marathon since its inception Peter Williams knows only too well that the reason SaB even exists is his company's own track record in the Sanctuary!

Given that so many felt it was it was already outrageous enough that they were ever allowed in in the first place, even viewed purely tactically it is almost impossible to fathom how his company could ever have allowed such a dramatic breach of regulations to occur.

And if the mining industry are so keen on 'certainty' why don't they just accept that there are some places that they should not go, and the heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary is one of them?

It's particularly hard to fathom why Paul Holloway's department sticks to its guns in such a bloody-minded manner on this issue. Perhaps it's their own Cowboy enthusiasms?

Because Seeking a Balance is, to put it bluntly, rather a dog's breakfast!

This is where we must consider the question of calisthenics. Even leaving aside for a moment the question of SaB's debatable environmental bona fides, being prepared to go to such lengths to create a complex overlapping mosaic of regulations and ministerial responsibilities is pretty hard to reconcile with oft-repeated claims that the government want to streamline the mining industry's access across the state and provide 'certainty'.

Why not just face it; if you have to twist yourself into such a bizarre, convoluted shape in order to allow something then surely it's time to accept that there's an inherent problem with that very something?


no false 'balance'


Marathon presumes to claim on behalf of the mining industry that it's being hard done by in SaB, and the environmental movement certainly has little reason to be happy (leaving aside the long-overdue protections for the magnificent Mawson Plateau).

But any attempt by the government to play the 'we're being criticised by both sides, we must be right' game will hardly wash!

Because if SaB is really as, ahem, 'over the top' in regulating the environment of the northern Flinders as Marathon would have us believe, why did Mineral Resources Director Dr. Paul Heithersay tell the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy "it allows the majority of North Flinders Ranges to stay open to mining and exploration" but they "would be more nuanced about how we manage this"?

So much for any industry crocodile tears. There really is just one 'certainty' here: Marathon have demonstrated only too clearly why the mining industry and high-value conservation areas do not mix. Now let's just grow up and accept it.

As Greens MLC Mark Parnell told ABC news while the Wild Bunch capered behind him on Thursday -

"South Australia has a good future and a big future in mining. Over 90 per cent, in fact closer to 95 per cent, of the state is open to mining," he said.

"We need to make sure that our most important natural areas are protected and Arkaroola should be very close to the top of the list."

Sheriff Rann, it's time to run the cowboys out of town for good!