ShoalwaterBay_

MILITARY TRAINING AREA

RESOURCEASSESSMENT

VOLUME 2

AGSO---AUSTRALIA", CI:OlOCICALSURVEY ORGA:\I<"...,nO:\ I:

ABARE

1:-;-1

ShoalwaterBay_

MILITARY TRAINING AREA

RESOURCEASSESSMENT

VOLUME 2

1:-;-1AGSOI\C~TR.\LI,\" GEOLCX-;l(,\l<)~[{\'E"t OR<"J\"ISA110:\:

ABARE

© Commonwealth of Australia 1994

This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research,news reporting, criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may bereproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgment of the source is included.Major extracts or the entire document may not be reproduced by any process without thewritten permission of the Executive Director, ABARE.

ISBN 0 642 20406 3

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsGPO Box 1563 Canberra2601

Telephone (06) 272 2000 Facsimile (06) 272 2001

Australian Geological Survey OrganisationGPO Box 378 Canberra 2601

Telephone (06) 249 9111 Facsimile (06) 249 9999

Bureau of Resource SciencesGPO Box 858 Canberra 2601

Telephone (06) 272 4282 Facsimile (06) 272 4747

ABARE, AGSO and the BRS are research organisations attached to the CommonwealthDepartment of Primary Industries and Energy.

Foreword

The Shoalwater Bay Military Training Areais a valuable national asset. Its valuederives from a variety of current andpotential uses, including military training,conservation of natural and cultural assets(including Aboriginal sites), water supply,mineral deposits, fishing, scientificresearch, recreation and tourism. In August1993 ABARE, AGSO and BRS jointlyreleased 'Shoalwater Bay Military TrainingArea: Resource Assessment'. In that reportinformation was presented to assistdecision makers to determine the relativevalue of these alternative uses and to assessthe additional information required forongoing management decisions.

On 31 May 1994 the CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into the ShoalwaterBay Military Training Area presented itsfinal report to the Commonwealth govern­ment. The stated purpose of that Commis­sion was to identify the environmentalacceptability of alternative land uses.Interpreted that way, the Commission'srole was to provide one set of informationto a broader government decision makingprocess. That is, the Commission's aim wasnot to assess the full range of costs andbenefits of land use options and the finalreport does not present such an assess-

ment. Notwithstanding this, the Commis­sion does make detailed recommendationson land uses and land management in theTraining Area.

The Bureaus believe that a full andobjective assessment of the value from allpotential uses is imperative to assistdecisions about the use of Australia'sassets. Therefore, the intention in pub­lishing this report is to present anassessment of the robustness of theCommission's conclusions and recommen­dations from a broad economic perspec­tive, that is from the viewpoint of multipleobjective resource use.

In this context it should be noted thatsome of the uses are not totally compatible.However, there are management strategieswhich can improve the compatibility ofthese conflicting land uses, such that somecan be concurrently undertaken onadjoining sites or sequentially on the samesite.

This report is presented to assist decisionmakers to determine the set of uses andstrategies with the highest net benefit(including market and non-market values)to all Australians from the Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area.

BRIAN FISHERExecutive DirectorABARE

July 1994

NEIL WILLIAMSExecutive DirectorBRS

HARVEY JACKAExecutive DirectorAGSO

Hi

Acknowledgments

This report was jointly prepared byABARE, AGSO and BRS. Rhonda

- Treadwell and Roger Rose of ABAREprepared the overall document with inputfrom Stuart Davey of BRS. Comments ondrafts provided by Bill Mackay, Liz

iv

Truswell, Paul O'Mara, Neil Williams,Brian Fisher and Derek Staples were alsoinvaluable in finalising the report.

The report was produced by ABARE'spublishing team.

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 61.1 Purpose and contentof report 6

2 Decision framework 82.1 Multiple use 82.2 Values 92.3 Evidence 102.4 Otheraspects of the decision framework 11

3 Conservation 133.1 Conservation values 133.2 Opportunities for concurrent uses 16

4 Military training 174.1 Value 174.2 Impact on other uses 184.3 Opportunities for concurrent uses 18

5 Water catchment 195.1 Value 195.2 Opportunities for concurrent uses 19

6 Mining 226.1 Value of mineral deposits in the Training Area 226.2 Impact on other uses 236.3 Evaluation of impacts of mining and exploration 246.4 Opportunities for concurrent uses 26

v

7 Other potential uses7.1 Aboriginal use7.2 Recreation and tourism7.3 Scientific research and education7.4 Fishing

References

Map

VI

2727272728

29

20

......

Summary

The Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area(referred to as the Training Area in thisreport) has been managed by the Army asa Joint Defence Force training facility since1965. Some commercial fishing, recreationand tourism activities are conducted in thewaters of the Training Area. Part of theTraining Area forms the catchment forwater supply for residents of LivingstoneShire. It is also an important conservationarea and, along with areas to the northwestand southeast, the Training Area is listed onthe Register of the National Estate as theCapricorn Coast Area.

In December 1992 the CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay (hereafter referred to as the Com­mission) was announced. Based on itsinquiry the Commission has recommen­ded that the Training Area be used concur­rently and equally for military training andconservation. In an attempt to improve thecompatibility between these uses it isrecommended that management strategiesbe introduced and a Management Advis­ory Committee advise the Army (asmanager of the Training Area).

The Commission has recommended thatno activities be embarked on which couldadversely affect the water supply toLivingstone Shire. In addition, theCommission has recommended that accessbe granted to local Aborigines due to thelocation of archaeological sites within theTraining Area. Further recommendationspropose continued use of the Training Areafor fishing, tourism and recreation andscientific research. Finally, the Commissionhas recommended that no exploration ormining of any type be allowed in any partof the Training Area.

Resource assessment: vo/. 2

In its inquiry the Commission focusedprimarily on the environmental aspects ofalternative uses of the Training Area andthis focus is reflected in its recommen­dations. Only a limited attempt was madeto analyse the broader issues concerningsocial costs and benefits of alternative landuses. The aim in this report is to addressthese broader issues with a view to as­sessing the robustness of the Commission'sfindings and recommendations from aneconomic perspective.

Decision frameworkIn deciding how to use a resource to maxi­mise the national net benefit, all feasibleuses for that resource need to be con­sidered. In valuing the net benefits associ­ated with each form of use, account needsto be taken of market costs and benefits aswell as any environmental and social con­sequences, with these being quantified indollar terms wherever it is feasible to pro­duce reliable estimates. In other words,within this decision framework bothmarket and non-market values need to beassessed, including assessing the costs ofthe effect of one use on other uses. As partof this process the opportunities formultiple use, sequential use and improvingthe compatibility of uses should beinvestigated.

Such a decision making framework wasapplied to the Training Area in a recentreport by ABARE, BRS and AGSO (1993).In that report an attempt was made toaccount explicitly for all costs and benefitsof alternative land use combinations in theTraining Area. These costs and benefitswere considered from a national

1

perspective. Policy choices were suggestedwhich are flexible enough to allowadaptation to changes in knowledge, com­munity preferences and market conditions.In that report the most critical informationgaps identified were those relating to themineral prospectivity of most of theTraining Area and the variable nature ofinformation on biological resources.

The Commission's stated aim was toidentify the environmental acceptability ofalternative land uses. However, theCommission made strong and detailedrecommendations on land uses and landmanagement in the Training Area but didnot present an analysis of the full range ofcosts and benefits of land use options. Forexample, the Commission made noattempt to fill a critical information gapidentified by ABARE, BRS and AGSO(1993), which was the need for further dataon mineral resources of the Training Area,and indeed recommended that no explo­ration be allowed to collect suchinformation.

The Commission did not take a nationalview of the costs and benefits. Also, ratherthan determine values, it consideredopinions of what some costs and benefitsmay be. In some instances costs andbenefits to the residents of LivingstoneShire and others who live in the vicinity ofthe Training Area were valued more highlythan costs or benefits to other Australians.Consideration of the impact of uses of theTraining Area on the. local community isnecessary but this should not exclude thewider costs and benefits to the wholeAustralian community. In the Com­mission's report, costs of environmentaldisturbance seem to have been givengreater weighting if they were caused bymining than if they were caused by fishingor military training activities.

As the potential uses of the TrainingArea are not totally compatible, with thepossible exception of conservation andwater supply, the decision process needs toinclude examination of strategies to

2

improve the compatibility of uses andassessment of the costs of such strategies.In the Commission's report there was littleexamination of possibilities for promotingcompatibility of mining and other uses,such as management options for mini­mising, and in some cases overcoming,potential adverse impacts of mining onother uses. The question of sequential useof sites in the Training Area for variouspurposes was not considered explicitly inthe Commission's report. Given that thesand mining industry is an acknowledgedleader in minesite rehabilitation, the use ofa sand mining site for another purposeafter rehabilitation is quite feasible.

On the other hand the Commissiondiscussed at length options to improvecompatibility between other uses andconservation in particular. For example, theCommission noted that levels of defenceuse impact have varied across the TrainingArea but these effects '. . . are notirreversible and they can be remediated'.This seems at odds with the recommen­dation that 'no go' areas be enlarged andmore stringently enforced. The Commis­sion noted that recreational fishing and fishtrawling could have significant adverseimpacts on marine fauna and ecosystemsbut it viewed these uses as compatible withconservation provided that a managementplan was adopted. Such findings could beapplied to mining also. The Commissiondid not consider the cost of therecommended management plans or thecost to military training of complying withrecommended conservation strategies.

ConservationThe Training Area has significant value forconservation for several reasons. Themarine zones contain sea grass beds whichare important nursery beds; also some 'atrisk' species (turtles and dugong) inhabitthis zone. The land zones are diverse inlandform, flora and fauna. The wetlandsare important for migratory birds.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

Several endangered or 'at risk' speciesinhabit parts of the Training Area, and itrepresents the geographical limit of thedistributional range of some species. Partlybecause of this there are several unusualassociations of landform and flora.Geological records of the Training Areahold interesting information about theformation of Australia's land massparticularly in relation to sea-level changesand coastal features.

The Commission concluded that parts ofthe Training Area have significant wilder­ness value but these are by no means con­tiguous. On the other hand, conservationand wilderness values of the Training Areahave been lowered by grazing, mining andforestry activities in the past and by theexistence of a substantial feral animalpopulation. Military infrastructure anduse, including cleared areas and impactzones, and managed burning also havenegative impacts on some conservationvalues. Indeed the wilderness value andecological integrity of the Training Area arelikely to be lower than that implied by theCommission. Unfortunately there are noreliable estimates of the value of con­servation of the Training Area.

Military trainingThe benefits to Australia of militarytraining arise from its contribution to theexistence of a credible and efficient defenceforce. The existence of such a force reducesthe risk of threats to Australia's sovereigntyand enables Australia to fulfil internationalpeace keeping obligations. The TrainingArea contributes to national security to theextent that it provides a more effective or aless costly facility than alternative areas.Restricting other activities which is necess­ary for safety during Defence exerciseshelps to protect some aspects of the naturalenvironment of the Training Area.However, military use also has somedetrimental effect on conservation values,such as managed burning.

Resource assessment: vol. 2

The Training Area does have substantialvalue as a military training facility, asindicated by an estimated range of between$60 million and $148 million in the netpresent cost of relocation. However, givenincreasing emphasis to military training inthe far north of Australia the Training Areais likely to experience a decline in use forthis purpose in the future. As militarytraining is not totally incompatible with theother uses being considered for theTraining Area there is no need to relocatethe training facility. To enable concurrentuse with conservation there will beadditional, but unquantified, managementcosts imposed on the Army as managers ofthe Training Area if the Commission'srecommendations are followed.

Water catchmentAbout half of the water catchment forLivingstone Shire lies within the TrainingArea. In recommending that no adverseactivity be permitted in the water catch­ment zone the Commission has assignedinfinite value to the water supply forLivingstone Shire residents. However, thisis not the case and the provision of watersupply can coexist with most other usesprovided that planning and managementof other uses take consideration of theirimpact on both the quantity and quality ofthe water supply.

Any human activity in a water catch­ment area poses some risk to water supply.Conservation is compatible with watercatchment, with mining often seen torepresent the other extreme. However,there are precedents of mining beingconducted in water catchment areaswithout major problems of pollution ordiminution of the water supply; forexample, mineral sand mining at Tomago,New South Wales, coal mining in the watercatchment area for Sydney and mining ofbauxite in Perth's catchment. Also, studiesconducted for the Commission indicatethat there is a very low chance that sand

3

mining within the water catchment areawould adversely affect the water supply. Inthe event that sand mining did affect thewater supply the cost, in present valueterms, may not be high. For example, ifbaseflow was reduced by 10 per cent itwould incur a present value cost of onlyabout $400 000.

If, in the very unlikely event it becamenecessary to replace the present watersupply due to incompatiblity with otheruses, the Livingstone Shire Councilestimated that the cost would be $20.9million. Mining in other regions of theTraining Area could be undertaken with nothreat to the water supply.

MiningAlthough subject to much uncertainty,estimates from various models indicatethat sand mining in the Training Areawould most likely provide net benefits toAustralia. For example, ABARE, AGSOand BRS (1993) estimated that sand miningin the main dune area has a 64 per centchance of being undertaken by a riskneutral company, with an expected netpresent value of $233 million.

Consultants to the Commissionreviewed the submissions and research onsand mining in the Training Area andconcluded that sand mining in both themain dune fields and Clinton Lowlandwould be likely to offer positive neteconomic benefits to the Australiancommunity.

The Commission appeared to discountall this evidence and assumed thatconservation, military training and watersupply have a much larger value, which isalso assumed not to be subject touncertainty.

The Commission's report implied thatmining is always incompatible with otherland uses, that mined areas cannot besuccessfully rehabilitated and that miningis not in society's interests. However, withthe available information it is not possible

4

to determine the level of impact miningwould have on conservation values,particularly ecological integrity. Also, it isfeasible that after mining, rehabilitationcould reestablish ecological integrity ofsome previously degraded sites.

Concurrent military training and miningwithin the Training Area will impose extracosts on both as each would be required tomodify operations to some extent, such asvacating the minesite to allow militaryexercises involving live firing. Assumingthat moving military training to anotherlocation is not necessary, sand miningwould impose a cost on the Army ofaround $3 million to $40 million in presentvalue terms.

With concurrent use, the expected netbenefit of sand mining in the main dunefields after allowing for the costs to militarytraining operations could be between $190million and $230 million. Any benefitsfrom mining in Clinton Lowland or otherregions of the Training Area would beadditional to this amount.

The question of mining in other parts ofthe Training Area was not addressed in theCommission's final report. It is possiblethat substantial deposits of other minerals,particularly gold, exist in the TrainingArea. Given the diversity of the Area, theeffects of mining a deposit on other useswould vary greatly between sites and withmining techniques, and may be quite lowon the cleared areas.

If the Commission's recommendationsare adopted and no further exploration andresource assessment is allowed it ispossible that Australia will forgo a sub­stantially large, but unknown, net benefitfrom the Training Area. Conversely, furtherexploration may indicate that mining theseresources would not be commerciallyviable given market conditions at that timeand mining would not proceed at thatstage. However, future changes in marketconditions or mining technology couldchange the viability of a mineral resourceand a reassessment may be justified.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

Other potential uses

Commercial fishing in the Shoalwater BayArea is small and constitutes less than 1 percent of Queensland fisheries production.Output from the fisheries has beenconstrained by the necessary restrictions toaccess due to military training. Fishingactivities, particularly trawling, can causedamage to seagrass beds and the sea floorand is a threat to some 'at risk' species(dugong and turtles).

The benefits flowing from other uses donot pertain to markets and are difficult tomeasure other than in broad qualitativeterms. The Training Area does have valuefor Aboriginal use, scientific research,recreation and tourism. The former twouses could be accommodated with otheruses relatively easily as they do notsignificantly impact on other uses. Thecurrent low levels of recreation andtourism also could be continued alongsidemost other uses with the continuation ofclosure of the Training Area during mili­tary exercises. However, strategies wouldbe needed to minimise damage to theenvironment should these uses increase inthe future.

Critical aspectsGiven the geological variation and bio­diversity of the Training Area the optimaluse and management strategy will varyacross it. Any approach to decisions andmanagement which considers the TrainingArea as one unit, which appears to havebeen the approach adopted by theCommission, is inappropriate in respect toall land uses.

A decision on resource use is necessarilyconstrained by the available information.As new information becomes available oras market conditions or community pre­ferences change, the optimal use of theresource may also alter. In view of this,maintaining a reasonable degree of flexi-

Resource assessment: vol. 2

bility with respect to future use of theTraining Area is appropriate.

At this stage it may be appropriate tocontinue military use of the Training Areatogether with changes in management toreduce damage to sites with high conser­vation values. Similarly, managementstrategies need to be considered to curbadverse impacts of other uses such asfishing, tourism and recreation on siteswith high conservation values.

Given the current level of knowledgethere is a significant probability thatexploration could reveal a mineral sandsresource of both commercial and nationalimportance. The value of other mineralresources in the Training Area is largelyunknown but given the geologicalstructure of, and past mining in, theTraining Area it is feasible that there areother mineral deposits that would yield netbenefit to Australia.

Even after allowing for the extra costsimposed on military training, mining in theTraining Area is likely to yield net benefits.The total exclusion of mining andexploration as recommended by theCommission would result in the Australiancommunity forgoing an uncertain butpossibly substantial net benefit. Furtherresource assessment, particularly of themineral resources, and additional researchon ecosystems, with a view to ascertainingthe impact of various uses, would substan­tially assist the decision process andsubsequent management strategies to beapplied in the Training Area.

Taking all values into account, includinglikely but uncertain environmental values,there is currently insufficient informationto exclude mining from the Training Area.Rather, there is a significant chance thatexploration could reveal mineral resourcesof national significance which could bedeveloped in ways consistent with all ormost of the Training Area's current militaryuse and conservation values.

5

1Introduction

The Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area(hereafter referred to as the Training Area)covers an area of about 4545 squarekilometres on the central Queenslandcoast. The Training Area is currentlymanaged primarily for military training.Some commercial and recreational fishingis conducted in the waters of the TrainingArea, and part of the Area forms thecatchment for water supply for residents ofLivingstone Shire. It also has conservationvalue and, along with areas to thenorthwest and southeast, the Training Areais listed on the Register of the NationalEstate as the Capricorn Coast Area. InDecember 1992 the CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay (hereafter referred to as the Commis­sion) was announced.

ABARE, AGSO and BRS (1993) pub­lished an economic and scientific assess­ment of the resources of the Training Area,including a detailed analysis of the likelytradeoffs between values of alternativeuses, given the state of knowledge at thetime of writing. An assessment of the gapsin knowledge and the relevance of thosegaps to decision making was alsoprovided.

The most critical information gapsidentified in that study relate to the geologyand mineral resources of most of theTraining Area and some aspects of itsbiological resources. Less was known offlora than of fauna resources. In that reportit was stressed that the time horizon of anyresource use decision would be limited bychanges in information, communitypreferences and income, technology andmarkets. The major conclusion was thatmanagement of the Training Area needed

6

to be flexible enough to allow adaptation tochanges in the relative values of alternativeuses, and access to the Training Area '...should not be such that potentially bene­ficial activities are discouraged without afull economic assessment' (ABARE, AGSOand BRS 1993, p. 5).

The Commissioners to the Inquirypresented the final report (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994a, b) to the Federal government on31 May 1994. The Commission was wideranging and considered use of the TrainingArea for conservation, military training,Aboriginal use, tourism and recreation,scientific research and education, fishingand mining.

The main recommendations were thatconservation and military training beconcurrent and equal uses of the TrainingArea; that water supply have precedenceover other uses in the catchment region;other current uses and Aboriginal use beallowed subject to military accessrestrictions; and that no mining orexploration of any type be permitted in theTraining Area.

1.1 Purpose and content ofreportIn publishing this report the intention is toassist decision makers to determine the setof uses and strategies with the highest netbenefit from the Training Area (includingmarket and non-market values) to allAustralians. To this end the broadeconomic issues in multiple objectiveresource use are addressed in this report,with a view to assessing the robustness ofthe Commission's conclusions and

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

.0 ......

recommendations from an economicperspective.

In section 2 the issues relating to theoverall decision framework are discussedalong with an assessment of theCommission's framework used in reachingits recommendations. This is followed byan assessment of the issues relating to eachland use identified by the Commission as

Resource assessment: vol. 2

potentially valuable. These are conser­vation, military training, water supply,mining, fishing, Aboriginal use, recreation,tourism and scientific research andeducation. An examination of other landuses such as grazing, aquaculture,horticulture and forestry is contained inABARE, AGSO and BRS (1993) and is notincluded in this report.

7

2Decision framework

The decision making framework applied inABARE, BRS and AGSO (1993) has threeessential features. First, it involves explicit(although not always quantitative)accounting for all costs and benefitsassociated with alternative land usecombinations in the Training Area. Whilequantification may not be possible in allcases, the full range of land use options andthe full extent of costs and benefits, marketand non-market, needs to be considered.This involved assessing the costs of theeffect of one use on other uses andexploring the opportunities for multipleuse and sequential use.

Second, costs and benefits areconsidered from a national, rather than alocal or regional, perspective. Third, policychoices are suggested which are flexibleenough to allow adaptation to futurechanges in information, communitypreferences and in market conditions.

The approach taken by ABARE, BRSandAGSO is based on explicit recognition of thediversity of terrain and of biological andgeological resources in the Training Area.

In the Commission's summary report(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a), it was statedthat the Commission's purpose was toidentify the environmental acceptability ofalternative land uses. Interpreted that way,the Commission's role would have been toprovide one set of information to a broadergovernment decision making process.Such a role would appear to have beenconsistent with the Commission's terms ofreference. However, the Commission madestrong and detailed recommendations onland uses and land management in theTraining Area even though it did not assess

8

the full range of costs and benefits of landuse options and the final report did notpresent such an assessment.

Furthermore, it appears the Commissionhas been selective in regard to information.For example, while the Commissionemployed a consultant to rectify theinformation gap on flora resources of theTraining Area (see Research Report 8 inCommonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994d), it made noattempt to fill the other information gapidentified by ABARE, BRS and AGSO(1993), which was the need for further dataon mineral resources of the Training Area.Indeed the Commission recommendedthat no exploration be allowed to collectsuch information.

The Commission did not take a nationalview of the costs and benefits. Also, ratherthan determine values, it consideredopinions of what some costs and benefitscould be. The Commission's weighting of acost or a benefit appeared to depend onwho bore the cost or who received thebenefit. Costs or benefits to residents ofLivingstone Shire and others who live inthe vicinity of the Training Area seemed tobe valued more highly than costs orbenefits to other Australians. Costs ofenvironmental disturbance appear to havebeen given g;eater weighting if they werecaused by mining than if they were causedby fishing or military training activities.

2.1 Multiple useAs some potential uses of the Training Areaare not totally compatible, with thepossible exception of conservation andwater supply, the decision process needs to

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

include examination of strategies toimprove the compatibility of uses. In theCommission's report there was littlediscussion of possibilities for promotingcompatibility of mining and other uses,such as management strategies tominimise, and in some cases overcome,potential adverse impacts of mining onother uses. For example, the Commissionimplied that it would be commerciallyinfeasible for miners to vacate minesites forperiods to allow military training exercisesto proceed unhindered. This was despitethe fact that the companies interested inmining within the Training Area indicatedthey would be prepared to do so(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 18).

On the other hand the Commissionstressed the compatibility between otheruses and conservation in particular. TheCommission noted that levels of defenceuse impact varied across the Training Areabut these effects'... are not irreversible andthey can be remediated' (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994a, p. 27). The Commission notedthat recreational fishing and fish trawlingcould have adverse impacts on marinefauna and ecosystems but viewed theseuses as compatible with conservation pro­vided a management plan was adopted. Itis unclear why such findings would notalso apply to mining in the Training Area,particularly given the high standard ofsand mining rehabilitation techniques (seesection 5). The Commission itself notedthat the Australian sand mining industry isa world leader in rehabilitation of minesites(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b).

2.2 Values

Market valuesIn general it is relatively easy to determinethe value of resource uses, such as miningand fishing, which produce goods traded

Resource assessment: vol.2

in the market place. For some uses, such asmilitary training, it is possible to estimate avalue by determining the opportunity costof relocating the use to another site. In thesecases there is no need to resort to non­market valuation measures.

It is noteworthy that the Commissiontook the view that any potential incomefrom mining in the Training Area could besubstituted by the development of a minesomewhere else, even another country(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 61). Theremay be another site which could beprofitably developed for sand mining.However, profit from this other minewould result in additional income toAustralia and not necessarily substitute forthe loss of income from mining in theTraining Area.

There is a loss of income to Australia if apotentially profitable mining operation isnot developed. A mine in one part ofAustralia is no more a substitute foranother Australian mine than is the incomeof one family a substitute for the income ofanother family. In addition, it is not clearwhat income, if any, Australians wouldobtain from overseas mines.

By suggesting that one mine maysubstitute for another, the Commissionmanaged to imply that the expected lossfrom not allowing exploration would notbe large. If the potential loss from choosingto ban exploration and consequent con­sideration of mining were only small, thenthe additional conservation benefits fromdoing so would only need to be small.However, the available evidence indicatesa high likelihood of discovery of substan­tial commercial mineral resources. Theadditional conservation benefits from anexploration and mining ban must,therefore, be equally high or greater if thatban is to be optimal from the viewpoint ofnational welfare. Little evidence wasprovided by the Commission to demon­strate that the additional conservationbenefits are potentially very large.

9

Non-market valuesNo reliable estimates exist of non-marketvalues for the Training Area. There arevarious techniques to estimate non-marketvalues, such as contingent valuation, butgreat care needs to be exercised in con­ducting such studies otherwise the validityof the results is questionable. For instance,a major problem is to describe the scenarioin sufficient detail to clearly delineate therisk and consequences so that respondentscan make informed decisions.

The purpose in such studies is to assignmonetary figures to values held by thecommunity. In this context it is vital todraw a distinction between values andattitudes. Values indicate what people arewilling to pay to maintain a particular useof the resource. Attitudes merely indicatepeople's opinion of a resource. Attitudeshave no element of payment or tradeoffand thereby do not necessarily indicatevalues.

2.3 EvidenceIn considering what information ispotentially useful to rational decisionmaking it is important to draw distinctionsbetween values, evidence and opinions. Inthe case of values of market goods, clearevidence of values is available fromexisting markets, such as those for mineralsands. Similarly, there is much scientificknowledge about the nature of the overallgeology and biology of the Training Area,although there are substantial gaps.However, purely subjective views whichconflict with existing evidence will onlymislead, as may unresearched orunsubstantiated interpretation of theevidence.

In the case of non-market values,objective evidence is often lacking. Whenthere is no resort to market tests of value,each individual's view is potentiallyequally valid. However, opinions or indi­vidual statements of value are notnecessarily values, as is evident from the

10

literature on contingent valuation (see forexample Ajzen and Peterson 1988; Imber,Stevenson and Wilks 1991). In addition,care is required in interpreting attitudesand evidence. The approach taken byABARE, BRSand AGSO, as shown in theirreport and subsequent evidence, was topresent an objective assessment of thevalues of alternative uses of the TrainingArea within a consistent framework.However, the Commission has erroneouslyinterpreted this as support for mining(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 98).

During the course of the inquiry a greatdeal of information was provided insubmissions and evidence by interestedparties, plus studies undertaken for theCommission (Commonwealth Com­mission of Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay1994c, d and e). It is difficult to gauge whatinformation has been taken as relevant bythe Commission or the weighting given toinformation in the Commission's consider­ation. However, there are many instancesin which emotive appeals by individuals orgroups appear to have been given the sameor greater weight than evidence providedby expert witnesses. In this sense it isimportant to draw a distinction betweenopinions which are subjective andevidence which is objective.

For instance, the Commission's ownconsultants' study by Townley andFlemming (1993) concluded that sandmining would pose a slight risk to thewater supply although it did recommendfurther research. The local communityconsidered that any risk at all wasunacceptable. It appears that more weightwas given to local community opinion thanscientific evidence in reaching recommen­dation 19 '... that all activities ... likely tohave an impact on the quality and quantityof fresh water available to the CapricornCoast ... be prohibited' (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994a, p. 41). This recommendationimplies an infinite value to the water

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

supply, but there is no implication that theresidents should pay according to thisvalue.

A further danger of relying oncommunity attitudes as an indicator ofvalues is that the community may not havesufficient information on which to formrational opinions. Due in part to the accessrestrictions, the community did lackinformation on the Training Area as notedby the Commission (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994b, p. 98, para. 4.25). Given this lackof knowledge, it would be imperative thatin surveying attitudes to alternative uses ofthe Training Area, respondents be givensufficient detail or specifics to clearlydescribe the risk and consequences ofalternative uses to enable them to make aninformed decision. This was not the casewith the survey of attitudes by AGBMcNair (1994) used by the Commission.Indeed respondents may have formed the

"''''impression that mining would affect thewhole Training Area. However, miningwould only affect a very small part of theTraining Area; for example, Pivot Mining'sleases cover only 1.7 per cent of theTraining Area.

2.4 Other aspects of thedecision frameworkIn deciding the best use (or combination ofuses) for the Training Area the Common­wealth government will necessarilyconsider benefits in relation to the whole ofAustralia, not just the local community.Much weight was given to localcommunity views by the Commission. Inseveral instances, the benefits to localresidents of some management choiceswere considered without mention of thepossible costs of those choices to otherAustralians. An example was therecommendation that no action should beallowed that has a potential impact on theLivingstone Shire water supply. Therelevant consideration is the potential

Resource assessment: ool.2

national benefit of the action beingconsidered, compared with any change inthe value of water supply which may resultfrom the action. It is appropriate for policyformulation to identify the nature andextent of the impacts on local residents.However, the consideration of the welfareof local residents should accompany, notexclude, that of other Australian residents.

The best use and management strategywill probably vary across the Training Areaand the Commission's treatment of it asone unit is inappropriate. The boundariesof the Training Area have been definedaccording to the history of human land usepatterns and bear little relationship toecological systems. The diversity withinthe Training Area is useful for militarytraining for which the Training Area wasdefined and acquired in 1965.

This diversity means that the impact ofdifferent land uses varies across theTraining Area. For example, sand miningcan affect the flow of water and the level ofthe water table. In the water catchment forLivingstone Shire the main issue is theextent to which sand mining is likely toaffect the water supply, whereas on ClintonLowland the major concern is whethersand mining will affect the nativevegetation across a wider area than theimmediate vicinity of the mine. Thegeological variation and biodiversity of theTraining Area underlines the desirability ofsetting decisions in the context of eachenvironmental region.

In rejecting mining the Commissionnoted that '... it is generally incompatiblewith the social objectives because itinvolves resource-use decisions which failto ensure intergenerational equity.'(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 27). Thisstatement seems to imply that mining in allareas of Australia, not just the TrainingArea, is incompatible with social objec­tives. Such a statement ignores the fact that,to exist and grow, 'societies must extract,process and consume natural resources'

11

(Pearce and Warford 1993, p. 3). Theproblem is to ensure intergenerationalequity while allowing consumption ofnatural resources, particularly those thatare irreversible.

Intergenerational equity is usuallydefined as increasing the welfare of thecurrent generation without decreasing thewelfare of future generations. This can befacilitated by passing on to the nextgeneration a stock of capital no lower thanthe current level which can then be used toyield the same level of welfare for the nextgeneration. This does not mean that thestock of capital needs to be preserved in itscurrent state. In relation to non-renewableresources, the question is what is the mostefficient way to pass on productive ca­pacity or capital stock, whether it is human,natural or man-made capital (Fisher andThorpe 1992). Mining a non-renewablenatural resource is not inconsistent withsocial goals or intergenerational equity solong as any economic surplus from the useof that resource is invested in futureproductive assets (including humancapital).

Uncertainty surrounding future eventsis an unavoidable aspect of land usedecisions. It is possible to incorporate someconsideration of uncertainty into analysesof the net benefits of resource use. Such anapproach was used by ABARE et al. (1993)in estimating the value of sand mining inthe Training Area. However, the Corn-

12

mission considered that the uncertaintysurrounding the sand mining proposalswas so great that it discounted all theresults from several analyses (Common­wealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 55).

In contrast, the Commission made nomention of the uncertainty which alsoapplies to the values associated with otheruses of the Training Area, such as watercatchment, military training and conser­vation. Although some of these uses maynot produce marketable output, they arenevertheless subject to uncertaintyregarding future values. For example, thevalue of the Training Area for militarytraining in the future is uncertain given theincreasing emphasis on training in the farnorth of Australia (Bergin 1994) and theuncertain nature of any future threat toAustralia.

A decision on resource use is necessarilyconstrained by the available information.Accordingly any opportunity to obtainfurther information should not beprecluded, such as not allowing explo­ration, unless there was no expected netbenefit in acquiring and using thatinformation. When new informationbecomes available or as market conditionschange or the nature of the resource isaltered the optimal use of the resource mayalso change. Therefore, it is economicallydesirable to maintain flexibility aboutfuture use of the Training Area.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

3Conservation

3.1 Conservation values

The Training Area has significant value forconservation for several reasons but thevalue varies across the Training Area'sregions. The marine zones contain seagrassbeds which are important nursery beds forrecruitment to the eastern seaboardfisheries, and some 'at risk' species (such asturtle and dugong) also inhabit this zone.The land zones are diverse in landforrn,flora and fauna, while the wetlands areimportant for migratory birds.

Several endangered or at risk speciesinhabit parts of the Training Area and itrepresents the geographical limit of thedistributional range of some species. Partlybecause of this there are several unusualassociations of landforms and flora.Geological records of the Training Areahold interesting information about theformation of Australia's land mass,particularly processes such as sea-levelchanges affecting coastal features. TheCommission concluded that parts of theTraining Area appear to have highwilderness value. Finally, the Commissiondiscussed Aboriginal values and noted thepresence of several sites of cultural heritagevalue, such as graves and homesteads butdid not include the abandoned JubileeGold Mine (Commonwealth Commissionof Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 94and figure 4.1).

Several factors also detract from theconservation values of the Training Area.First, there is an unquantified but sig­nificant feral animal population and weedinvasion. Second, any wilderness value ofthe Training Area needs to be modified bythe existence of bomb sites, permanent

Resource assessment: vo!. 2

military infrastructure and roads whichcross the Training Area. The Commission'sreport noted the high wilderness value ofthe Training Area and asserted that it is 'thelargest coastal area with high wildernessvalues south of Cooktown on the east coast'(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 50).However, there are deficiencies in theAustralian Heritage Commission's ana­lysis of the wilderness value of the TrainingArea which formed the basis of theCommission's considerations.

A recognised strength of the method­ology used by the Australian HeritageCommission is that it is pragmatic andtransparent through the use of fourindicators of remoteness and naturalness;'remoteness from settlement', 'remotenessfrom access', 'apparent naturalness' and 'bio­physical naturalness'. Further, themethodology'... is designed to measurevariation in wilderness quality in thelandscape using consistent and objectivelymeasurable criteria' (Lesslie, Taylor andMaslen 1993, p. 1).

In applying this methodology to theTraining Area, the Australian HeritageCommission did not use all availableinformation (some of which may not havebeen accessible to it) and failed to provideor justify the weighting factors applied toeach criterion.

These deficiencies are particularlyapparent for the biophysical naturalnesscriterion that is used to determine thefreedom of the natural environment fromchanges caused by modern technologicalsociety, including clearing, grazing andferal animals. The Australian HeritageCommission's analysis did not adequately

13

account for the environmental impact onbiophysical naturalness caused by pastlogging and grazing, military trainingactivities and the presence of feral animals.For example, one region classified ashaving moderate to high wildernessqualities incorporates the two mainlandimpact areas. These areas are subject toshelling, bombing and other live fire whichare likely to detract considerably from thewilderness values of the area.

Townshend Island was omitted from theCommission's wilderness classification butin its submission the Australian HeritageCommission noted that the island is likelyto have moderate wilderness value(Com­monwealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 75 and figure 3.8).In fact this island has a substantialpopulation of feral goats and is used as atarget area by both the RAAF and the RAN.Further, access routes appear not to havebeen captured adequately in the measure­ments for the two criteria of remotenessfrom access and apparent naturalness.

The classification of wilderness valuesacross the Training Area requires a morecomplete accounting of all availableinformation, the use of higher resolutiondata and more complete measures ofdisturbance than those which underlay theclassification used by the Commission.

The Commission argued that the wholeof the Training Area should be conservedfor reasons of ecological integrity. Thisview seems to be a t the heart of theCommission's recommendation againstmining in the Training Area. The Com­mission argued that mining and con­sequent rehabilitation would inevitablydestroy that integrity. However, this is notclearly the case and the following pointsneed to be considered in the context ofmining's impact on ecological integrity.• The Commission found that the TrainingArea displayed a high degree of ecologicalintegrity (Commonwealth Commission ofInquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 42,para. 3.79) although it correctly noted that

14

there was disagreement on where theTraining Area lies on the continuum ofecological integrity or whether theecological integrity of the Training Areawas of uniform value (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994b, p. 38, para. 3.65).• Ecological integrity is a complex conceptand encompasses the capacity of an eco­system to remain healthy, to maintain itsorganisation (in terms of species structure,population and ecosystem processes), andto maintain the evolutionary potentialessential for its adaptation to changingenvironmental conditions (Amos, Kirk­patrick and Giese 1993). The ability of anecosystem to maintain its organisation canbe affected by the level of environmentalchange and there is a threshold beyondwhich this ability is lost and the ecosystemwill reorganise into a different, oftenecologically impoverished ecosystem (seeRAC 1992, pp. 107-10). If a segment of theecosystem becomes degraded or impov­erished, the ecological integrity of theecosystem can still be maintained as longas the disturbance does not reorganise orchange the whole ecosystem to anotherthreshold. The disturbance of segments ofthe ecosystem can be ecologically sustain­able if appropriate and quick restorationtakes place.- In considering ecological sustainability avery long period of time is appropriate. Itis important to define ecological integrityin relation to time and geographical zones.However, the studies that have beenundertaken have not collectively yieldedsufficient knowledge of the ecosystems todetermine the ecological integrity of theTraining Area.• The level and uniformity of ecologicalintegrity of the Training Area has still to beascertained. The Training Area was puttogether with military training (andpresumably ease of management) in mind.It is unlikely that the value of ecologicalintegrity would be uniform across theTraining Area. Parts of the southern,

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

western and central sections of the TrainingArea have been degraded and severelymodified by grazing and associatedclearing activities.- Similarly, the development of theSamuel Hill base and airstrip, roads andother airstrips have greatly modified partsof the Training Area. Prior to military usethe Training Area had a history of logging,grazing and mining. The dune fields wereperiodically subjected to fire disturbance.Given these aspects the boundaries of theTraining Area are unlikely to coincide withan area of uniform value of ecologicalintegrity.• It is unclear why mining would have asignificant impact on ecological integritywhereas military training and commercialfishing activities would not. If pursued inan unrestricted manner all three activitieshave the potential to fragment habitat andthereby affect the biodiversity and henceecological integrity of the Training Area.- There is insufficient knowledge to allowa rigorous assessment of the impact ofmining on the ecological integrity of theTraining Area. Similarly, further researchwould be necessary to determine howmining can be designed so as to minimiseimpacts on conservation values and integ­rity of ecosystems. There is the possibilitythat rehabilitation of minesites couldreestablish the integrity of ecosystems thathave already been degraded by militaryactivity, weeds and feral animals.- There is no proof that sand mining in theTraining Area would fragment habitat tosuch an extent as to affect the biodiversityof the Training Area. At anyone time thearea disturbed by sand mining would besmall. Also, by using knowledge gained inan Environmental Impact Statement, itcould be possible to implement appro­priate mine planning to leave the moreenvironmentally sensitive habitatsundisturbed and interconnected to providebiodiversity refuges for sites that are beingrehabilitated. Fragmentation, therefore, isnot necessarily an issue.

Resource assessment: vol.2

- While the Commission noted thepotential damage trawling could have onseagrass beds in Port Clinton the concept ofecological integrity was not applied. Anymine that was contemplated would disturban area only a fraction of that disturbed bytrawling, and minesites are rehabilitatedwhile trawl sites are left in a degraded state.Yet the expected net value from miningexceeds the gross value of trawling byorders of magnitude. ABARE, BRS andAGSO (1993) estimated the expected netpresent value of mining the main dunefields at around $233 million, whereas theannual net value of fishing in the TrainingArea was likely to be far less than $1million.• Mine rehabilitation could not restore theecological integrity to its present conditionin the majority of situations within the firstdecade. However, rehabilitation if carefullyand scientifically undertaken couldreplicate the species composition of minedsites and over time the organisation ofspecies and the site's ecological processescould approximate the current ecologicalintegrity of particular sites.

The diversity of the Training Area andthe consequent variation in conservationvalues would suggest that the net gainsfrom restricting other uses would varyacross the Training Area. In restrictingother uses there will be some forgonevalues (or opportunity costs) or increasesin operational costs to other users incomplying with conservation require­ments. The Commission appears to haveignored such costs. Also, the value of anextra unit of a good is often lower than thatfor the last unit; likewise the value ofconserving an additional hectare of an areawill usually be less than that of the first. Thedecision whether to conserve particularareas should be based on comparison of thenet benefit of conserving that areacompared with other uses. It should not beassumed that conserving all of the TrainingArea is necessary to generate net benefits toAustralia.

15

3.2 Opportunities forconcurrent usesDevoting the whole of the Training Areapurely to conservation would severelylimit other uses as few of the alternativeuses are totally compatible withconservation. However, there are strategieswhich can be adopted to lessen the impactof other uses on conservation values. Forinstance, the Commission has recommen­ded that the Army delineate further 'no go'areas in environmentally sensitive areas. Inthis case concurrent uses are accommo­dated on adjoining areas principally by

16

setting aside corridors of environmentallysensitive areas with high conservationvalue. The concept of ecological integrity isimportant in the successful integration ofmultiple uses in this manner. In otherinstances, both conservation and anotheruse may be possible on the same site if theother use has low impact on theenvironment, such as some scientificresearch and exploration. A third strategyis for sequential use of the Training Area byconservation and other uses. For example,a site may be used for military training ormining for a period, then rehabilitated andconserved.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

4Military training

4.1 Value

The Training Area has been managed bythe Army as a Joint Defence Force trainingfacility since 1965. The benefit to Australiaof military training is difficult to quantifydirectly as it derives from its contributionto the existence of a credible and efficientdefence force which reduces the risk ofthreats to Australia's sovereignty andenables Australia to fulfil international obli­gations such as peace keeping. The role oftraining is to maintain readiness andimprove efficiency of the military force.The importance of Shoalwater Bay to thattraining function depends on both theusefulness of the Training Area to trainingneeds and its cost relative to trainingalternatives.

The Training Area is used frequently formilitary training, about 70 per cent of theyear (Commonwealth Commission ofInquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 161,para. 9.12). However, this training facilityis not a permanent base for troops, unlikeseveral other training facilities in Australia.In addition, military training use is con­centrated in the central and western sectorswith very little use of the dune systems(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 18). Despitethis the Department of Defence emphasisesthe benefit for training of the variation inlandforms across the Training Area. Thelocation of the Training Area offers otheradvantages in that no permission fromsurrounding communities is requiredbefore military training exercises and issufficiently large to allow live firing.Several other military training areas alsohave these advantages (Bergin 1994).

Resource assessment: vo!. 2

As there are alternative sites (albeit notperfect substitutes) it is possible to estimatethe value of the Training Area for militarytraining indirectly by estimating the cost ofacquiring and relocating the trainingfacility to another site (that is, theopportunity cost). This opportunity costshould include any forgone value of theTraining Area where the alternative sitedoes not offer the same desirablecharacteristics. For example, an alternativesite may involve higher transport costs tothe military in moving troops for training.It is important in this analysis not tooverlook the value from any new use of theTraining Area in the absence of the military,plus any change in value for existing usessuch as fishing and conservation.

The Commission noted that based onestimates of the Department of Defenceand a commissioned studybyJames (1994),relocating the military training facility andachieving similar training results else­where over a 26 year period may have a netpresent cost of between $180 million and$268 million (Commonwealth Commissionof Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p.122, para. 7.25). However, the Departmentof Defence has overestimated the cost, asindicated by ABARE estimates provided tothe Commission, mainly because the cost ofpurchasing land for a new training area isincluded but the sales revenue for sellingthe Training Area is not included. Given theestimated land value of $120 million(Auditor General 1992) the above costrange should be reduced to between $60million and $148 million. Before theseestimates were made available, ABARE,BRSand AGSO (1993) concluded that therewas a strong case for retaining the Training

17

Area while there is demand for its trainingfacilities, because of the various aspects ofdislocation, the costs and difficulties inacquiring another suitable site and the costof establishing new training facilities.Bergin (1994) in reviewing the Departmentof Defence's submission found that theTraining Area is a substantial asset formilitary training, but not essential. He alsoconcluded that in the future the use andimportance of the Training Area formilitary training is likely to decline becauseof the shift in focus to training in the northend of Australia.

4.2 Impact on other usesThe overriding effect of military trainingon other uses is to restrict access to theTraining Area. This has tended to maintainsome conservation values in the TrainingArea. The direct effects of military use onconservation values varies greatly acrossthe Training Area - from some almostuntouched pockets in the mainland hillsand mountains to the target ranges onTownshend Island. This island bombingrange is in a World Heritage area. Inaddition, the location of infrastructure suchas airstrips, roads, camps, target rangesand the maintenance of cleared zoneswould have reduced any conservationvalue those sites may have possessed.

Although the Commission found thatmost local residents believed the Army tobe managing the Training Area effectivelyfor conservation, it noted '... most partieshave little or no information as to how theArea is managed' (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994b, p. 98, para. 4.25). Conversely,the Commission noted several concernsabout the Army's conservation manage­ment, principally the lack of effective feralanimal and weed control measures,controlled burning which could reduce the

18

biodiversity of the Training Area, and theneed to redefine 'no go' areas (Hynes 1993;Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b, paras. 9.39-55).The Commission recommended that theArmy produce a strategic plan specificallyto address these problems and to increasethe size and policing of 'no go' areascontaining environmentally sensitive sites.

4.3 Opportunities forconcurrent usesThe Commission's recommended land useoption is equal use for military training andconservation. The recommended compo­sition of the Management AdvisoryCommittee with six conservationists andonly one defence representative couldresult in a much heavier emphasis onconservation practices in the Training Area.The Commission did find that the Armycould greatly improve some of its resourcemanagement practices as outlined above.With the recommended changes inmanagement practices the Commissionfound military training and conservationcould be concurrent uses of the TrainingArea.

Similarly, as discussed in the followingsection, some changes in management arenecessary to enable concurrent use formilitary training and water supply of thecatchment area in the southern sector of theTraining Area. Such requirements are likelyto impose additional costs to the military inmanaging the Training Area and inconducting training exercises.

As mentioned above the major impact ofmilitary use of the Training Area on otheruses is to restrict access. There appear tohave been no major problems with thispractice in the past with fishing, recreationand tourism. Similar practices could beentered into with other potential users suchas miners and Aborigines.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

5Water catchment

5.1 Value

About half of the water catchment forLivingstone Shire lies within the TrainingArea. This is the only water supply for theCapricorn Coast region and as suchrepresents a significant regional asset. Anyuse of the Training Area which reduced thequantity or quality of this water supplywould impose costs on local residents. Notsurprisingly, the community attitudesurvey by the Commission's consultants(AGB McNair 1994) indicated that theresidents valued the water and wouldtolerate no activities which would pose anyrisk whatsoever to their water supply. Thiswas the main reason underlying thecommunity's strong opposition to mining.

In this context it is important not to con­fuse attitudes with values, as mentionedabove. It is evident that the local residentsplace some value on their water supply butthe community attitude survey cannotindicate the magnitude of the value of thatsupply. It is also worth noting that only twoof the five mining leases in the TrainingArea could possibly affect the watersupply. The other three leases and potentialsand mining sites on Clinton Lowland aretotally unconnected with the LivingstoneShire water catchment area.

In deciding on the optimal use of theexisting water catchment zone in theTraining Area any alternative supply needsto be considered - its nature in terms ofquality, quantity and overall cost (that isthe opportunity cost). One indicator of thevalue of this water supply is provided bythe cost of replacing the present watersupply, which was estimated to be $20.9million by the Livingstone Shire Council. In

Resource assessment: vo/. 2

recommending that no adverse activity bepermitted in the water catchment zone theCommission assigned infinite value to thewater supply for Livingstone Shireresidents. Water supply for LivingstoneShire is important. However, it is not ofinfinite importance. It is no more importantthan water supply to similar populationselsewhere in Australia. Reasonable esti­mates of the values which Australiansplace on domestic water supplies can bededuced by the behaviour of people in theincreasing number of urban and rural areaswhere water is paid for on the basis ofindividual usage. That behaviour indicatesnot that people value water supplies sohighly that they will brook 'no risk' tosupplies, but that they are quite sensitive tothe price of water.

The Commission did not recommendthat Livingstone Shire residents should payincreased water charges to reflect this valueor to compensate the rest of Australia forincome forgone from barring other uses ofthis Commonwealth land. Based on thevalue which other Australians place onwater supplies, the amount that the Shire'sresidents would be willing to pay may besmall. Whether or not water supply is anissue depends on that value and on thelikelihood of there being a significantmineral deposit in the relatively small areacontaining parts of Pivot Mining's leases 1and 2 which may impinge on the watersupply (see map).

5.2 Opportunities forconcurrent usesAny human activity in a water catchmentarea poses some risk to water supply. Land

19

A Shoalwater Bay Area

Shoalwater Bay Area Boundary

20

~- Catchment

Pivot mining leases..............

Clinton Lowland Sand Mass

Byfield mineral sands deposit

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

use decisions for such areas need toconsider not only the net benefits fromalternative uses as well as water supply butalso the level of risk each use poses for thewater supply.

At one extreme, conservation is totallycompatible with water catchment. Miningis often seen to represent the other extreme.However, there are precedents of miningbeing conducted in water catchment areaswithout major problems of pollution ordiminution of the water supply; forexample, mineral sand mining at Tomago,New South Wales and coal mining in thewater catchment area for Sydney. Perhapsthe most striking example is the mining ofbauxite by Alcoa in the water catchment forPerth, which because of its topography,climate and growth has placed con­siderable emphasis on water supply andquality issues. Alcoa has won awards forthe excellence of its environmental work,including the prestigious Global 500 awardfrom the United Nations. Although theissue in the Perth catchment area wasdifferent to the Training Area the exampleshows the very real possibility of successfulconcurrent use of an area for watercatchment and mining.

An Army training camp base, includinglatrines, is located in the water catchmentarea. While such infrastructure remains inthe water catchment area there is a risk ofcontaminating the water supply. Also,there is the risk of accidental spillages frommilitary operations. In view of this, theCommission recommended that Defencefacilities and activities '... should be

Resource assessment: uol. 2

assessed to ensure that they pose no risk tothe quality or quantity of the water supply.No activity which places the water supplyat risk should be permitted' (Common­wealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 41).

Given the concerns about the effect ofsand mining on the water supply for theLivingstone Shire the Commissionengaged Townley and Flemming of CSIROto examine this issue in detail. Theconclusion of that study (Townley andFlemming 1993) was that sand mining inthe leases held by Pivot Mining wasunlikely to have any more than minimaleffects on the water supply. However, itwas recommended that further research onhydrology and on the location of any acidsulphate soils surrounding any proposedmine should be conducted before theestablishment of such a mine.

In ABARE, BRS and AGSO (1993) anestimate is provided of the additional costto Livingstone Shire of a reduction inbaseflow into Waterpark Creek. It isestimated that the cost of a 10 per centreduction in baseflow would impose a costwith a present value of $400000. As well asthese costs there could be a reduction ofwater quality which would causeadditional costs through increasedtreatment of water. The choice of 10per centappears pessimistic in the light of Townleyand Flemming's study. A reduction inbaseflow would mean that the Shire wouldneed to bring forward its capital worksprogram or introduce a unit charge forwater to discourage water use.

21

6Mining

6.1 Value of mineral depositsin the Training AreaPrior to the Army acquiring the TrainingArea in 1965 there was some explorationand mining activity, such as shallowunderground mining of gold. Availabledata indicate that heavy mineral sands arewidespread in the extensive sand masses ofthe Area. While there is a reasonably highprospect of other mineral deposits (such asgold) in the Training Area there areinsufficient data to assess the commercialviability of mining any such deposits.Further exploration would be required toascertain the extent of mineral sands andheavy mineral deposits in the TrainingArea and the likelihood of mining beingviable.

Sand mining is very likely to generatebenefits to Australia. ABARE, AGSO andBRS (1993) estimated that there is a 64 percent chance that a risk neutral producerwould begin mining the main dune regionand the operation would produce anexpected net present value of $233 million.Insufficient information was available toABARE, AGSO and BRS (1993) to enable acomplete analysis of mining of ClintonLowland, although, based on availableinformation and assumed grades for aheavy mineral deposit, it appears highlylikely that mining would yield a positivenet present value.

On the basis of further confidential dataJames (1994), a consultant to the Com­mission, concluded that mining in ClintonLowland was likely to be commerciallyattractive and offered positive net benefits.Other evidence, based on variousmodelling approaches, presented to the

22

Commission tends to confirm the view thatmineral sands mining is likely to offerbenefit to Australia but these estimatesvary widely (Commonwealth Commissionof Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p.130).

The Commission ignored such evidenceas '... the characteristics of the resourcehave not been verified' (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994a, p. 33). However, it recommen­ded no further exploration. The presence ofa commercially viable mineral sandsresource in the Training Area has yet to beestablished and requires further explo­ration. The implementation of this recom­mendation would deny essential infor­mation to decision makers in assessing thenet benefit of alternative uses of theTraining Area.

The question of mining in other regionsof the Training Area was not addressed inthe Commission's report. It is possible thatsubstantial deposits of other minerals existin the Area. Given the diversity of theTraining Area the effects of mining adeposit on other uses could vary greatlybetween sites and with mining techniques.For instance, little or no conservation valuewould be lost by locating a mine in thealready cleared areas. This fact was ignoredby the Commission which recommendedthat mining be banned because of 'stronglocal opposition' and the need to maintainthe ecological integrity of the Area.

As discussed above, the validity of thesereasons are questionable and do notprovide sufficient evidence to ban miningacross the whole Area. Such a ban wouldonly be justified if the likely net benefitfrom all possible mining in any part of the

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

Training Area were to be less than any otheruse which was incompatible with mining.

6.2 Impact on other usesThe sand mining industry is an acknowl­edged international leader in minesiterehabilitation. It is possible to reconstructthe environment reasonably closely aftermining is completed, although it may notbe possible to replicate exactly the existingdunes in terms of gradient.

Aspects which may be lost are themicrodiversity and internal stratigraphy ofthe mined area. However, if these featureshave particular value it may be possible toset aside certain areas for conservation.ABARE, BRS and AGSO (1993) estimatethat 10-30 per cent of the dune area maycontain commercially viable mineral sandsdeposits. Thus, much of the area would beundisturbed by mining.

In terms of wilderness or amenity valuesmining is incompatible, yet there is thepossibility of sequential use after success­ful minesite rehabilitation. For instance,several areas previously mined for mineralsands are listed or intended for listing inthe Register of the National Estate (Com­monwealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994b,p. 199,para. 10.114).

The Department of Defence has notedthat any mining activity would imposecosts on the military, but appears to havesomewhat overstated the cost (Common­wealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 19). As militaryuse of the eastern dune fields is low, sandmining in those areas would have littleimpact on the design and undertaking ofexercises. With concurrent use, theexpected net benefit of mining afterallowing for the costs to military trainingoperations, as estimated by the Depart­ment of Defence, could be between $190million and $230 million (based on ABAREestimates).

The fishing industry was concerned atthe possible effect of sand mining on the

Resource assessment: vol.2

pattern of freshwater flow and its effect onfish nursery beds. However, Townley andFlemming (1993) concluded that sandmining in the eastern dune fields wouldnot significantly affect groundwater flowsto the coast. It is noteworthy that neitherthe local fishermen nor the Commissionseem concerned that Livingstone Shire'swater extractions from Waterpark creekwould disturb the balance of Corio Bay tothe south of the Training Area.

Spillage from barges was held by someto be a major risk to seagrass beds. How­ever, such spillage seems extremelyunlikely given the record at other sandmining sites such as North StradbrokeIsland (Commonwealth Commission ofInquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 196,para. 10.96). In fact, natural damage fromperiodic cyclones is perhaps more likelythan damage from spillage.

Mining could destroy archaeologicalsites, but the use of an Aboriginal adviserto locate and recognise archaeological sitesof particular value could significantlyreduce such risk and is a common practicein the mining industry.

The earth sciences value of the TrainingArea could be lowered by mining whichdestroys the geological structure of theminesite. However, it would be possible toset aside areas for scientific research. Inaddition, there is an opportunity forscientific research to gain from knowledgegleaned during mineral exploration andmining. Similarly, local knowledge of floraand fauna is often enhanced by surveysconducted for environmental impactstudies (see, for example, material inGEOPEKO 1992).

The only effect of mining on recreationaland tourist use is to restrict access to thatsite and to lower the visual amenity valuefor some people. Given that most rec­reational and tourist use is confined to themarine zone it is quite likely that theminesite would not be visible to manyusers and hence not affect visual amenityvalue.

23

6.3 Evaluation of impacts ofmining and explorationIn evaluating alternative land uses of theTraining Area the Commission made use ofthe following scenarios:A Status Quo;B Exploration and sand mining on Clinton

Lowland;C Exploration and mineral sand mining

over Pivot Mining NL leases 1-5 andexploration in areas of interest to RZMPty Ltd; and

D Reservation of the Area for natureconservation.Aspects of the Commission's evaluation

of Scenario B (Commonwealth Com­mission of Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay1994b, pp. 296-308) are inadequate andmisleading. For example, the harmfuleffects of exploration on Clinton Lowlandare overstated by the Commission as itstates that ' ... Increased explorationactivity will result in more widespread dis­turbance to vegetation and will causeincreased erosion ... Exploration activitieshave a high potential to increase the risk offire. The establishment of tracks associatedwith exploration provides a mechanism forincreased uncontrolled access to the Area.Uncontrolled access has the potential toincrease disturbance through introductionof pests, in particular weeds, and fire'(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 302, para.A.128).

As pointed out in ABARE et al. (1993)adverse effects on vegetation can be kept toa low level of impact, provided appropriatecare is taken during the explorationprogram. Past experience has shown that ittakes only a few years for vegetation toregrow over disturbed areas. Apparentlythe Commission did not use this infor­mation. The risk of fire from exploration,given appropriate precautions, should notexceed the fire risk of other activitiesconsidered to be acceptable for the TrainingArea, such as military exercises. The impact

24

of continuing use of tracks after theexploration program should be negated bythe fact that Clinton Lowland is alreadyisolated from the mainland by seawater,mangroves and swamps; and access to thearea is restricted by the Army. Any tracksresulting from exploration activities wouldbe overgrown in a few years. It is noted inthe report itself (Commonwealth Commis­sion of Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b,p. 303, para. A.141) that continuedrestriction of public access to the TrainingArea and a relatively low level of tourismand recreation use are envisaged under thisscenario, suggesting that uncontrolledaccess is not likely to eventuate in theTraining Area.

The Commission noted that explorationand mining of Clinton Lowland wasincompatible with the Lowland's highwilderness values (Commonwealth Com­mission of Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay1994b, paras. A.128 and A.134). Thevalidity of the assessments of wildernessvalues used in the Commission's report arediscussed in section 2 above. Much of theland indicated as having high wildernessvalue has anthropogenic impacts andchanges, including feral animals, aircraftpresence and military training activitiesthat diminish wilderness values.

The risk of fire and the introduction ofspecies in a closely controlled miningoperation should not exceed the risk ofsimilar hazards associated with militaryexercises carried out in the Training Area.While the Commission noted that miningwill create potential for increased fire andintroduced species (CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay 1994b, para. A.129), it seemed tooverstate the risks associated with miningcompared with risks arising from someother uses of the Training Area.

The Commission believed that miningwould result in the permanent loss of muchof Clinton Lowland's earth science values- potentially important records of pastclimate and dune building processes

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b, para. A.130).An exploration program is essential toestablish whether a heavy mineral sandsresource is present and whether mining isjustified. Similarly, further scientificinformation may need to be collected toascertain the earth science values. Onlyafter such research would it be possible toweigh the value of such a mineral resource(if any) against the value of the Lowland'searth science values. Furthermore, a mineplan could cater for heritage values so as tominimise impacts, such as avoiding anydisturbance to sites of particularsignificance.

Clinton Lowland could be explored forminerals without compromising theNational Estate values and ecologicalintegrity of the Training Area. This wasclearly pointed out in ABARE et al. (1993,pp. 89-90) in the discussion of explorationimpacts on conservation values; however,there is no reference to this discussion in theCommission's considerations (Common­wealth Commission of Inquiry into Shoal­water Bay 1994b, p. 184, para. 10.28).Appropriate management and minesiteplanning could be implemented tominimise impact on recognised values ofClinton Lowland. Rehabilitation could beundertaken to restore the environment toalmost the equivalent of unmined lands.

The Commission appeared not to haveundertaken a geographical analysis of thenational estate values of the Training Areato determine the likely extent of impact onnational estate values, particularly inrespect of Clinton Lowland. TheCommission saw the Lowland as anintegral part of the Training Area and theeffects of activities on the Lowland werenot considered in isolation from the Area asa whole. The Commission's view was thatthe Lowland contributed to and was part ofthe Training Area's values at all levels andtherefore any effect on the values of theLowland would also potentially seriouslydiminish the values and ecological

Resource assessment: vo!. 2

integrity of the Training Area as a whole(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 256, para.16.81). Such a conclusion was madewithout the Commission undertaking ajustifiable or rigorous evaluation of theLowland's contribution to the TrainingArea's heritage values and environmentalquality and how exploration and miningwould impact on such values.

Before the Commission's inquiry,Clinton Lowland was not recognised forhaving the following heritage values:unusual richness or diversity of flora andfauna; wilderness attributes; under­standing of the history of humanoccupation; importance to the communityfor aesthetic characteristics; demonstrationof range of landscapes, environments orecosystems, and complexity of vegetationpattern. Evidence in the report does notindicate that such values are now true forthe Lowland. Indications are that suchvalues would not be applicable to theLowland although, apart from wilderness,they are recognisable values for other partsof the Training Area. National Estate valuesfor Clinton Lowland that can be recognised(GEOPEKO 1992: Annexure A,Attachment B and Annexure E) are:- that this is the only place within the

Training Area where parallel beachridges occur and thus it is an importantcomponent of the high landform diver­sity and geomorphological researchsignificance of the national estate listing;

- the major occurrence of wet heath(sedgelands) including wallum andseveral species at or near their knowndistributional limits;

- the presence of Aboriginal archae­ological sites; and

- the presence of the Eastern Curlew(Numenius madagascariensis) on mudflatsthat border the Lowland.The Commission stated (Common­

wealth Commission of Inquiry intoShoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 302, para. A.133)that it was possible that the noise from

25

mining operations would have an adverseeffect on waders and shorebirds. Militaryexercises involving low level bombing runsby aircraft also involve high noise levels,probably much higher than those in amining operation, yet military trainingactivity was considered to be an acceptedland use in the Training Area.

As pointed out in the Commission'sreport the critical and yet unanswerablequestion is whether the mineral resourcesin parts of the Lowland are significant andthe extent and value of those deposits ifthey were mined. However, '... only adetailed program of exploration, assess­ment and feasibility analysis can determinewhether mining might actually be under­taken' (Commonwealth Commission ofInquiry into Shoalwater Bay 1994b, p. 304,para. A.142). The Commission acknow­ledged (in paras. A.143, A.146 and A.147)that exploration is essential to assess thevarious economic objectives associatedwith a mining operation on ClintonLowland. Quantification of the economicvalues is a missing key element of abalanced assessment of the values of theTraining Area. Proper comparative assess­ment of the Training Area's values is arequirement for a decision regarding theappropriate land use that reflects thenational interest.

Exploration is necessary to establish thepresence, location and characteristics of themineral resource so that the value, extentand relative impact of mining can be basedon firm data.

6.4 Opportunities forconcurrent usesThe Commission's recommendationsappear to be based on the premise that

26

mining is incompatible with all other uses.This may be true if neither miners nor otherpotential users are willing to adoptpractices consistent with multiple use.However, it is often feasible to alter the useand management of an area to accom­modate more than one use. Mining is notundertaken in an unrestricted fashion inAustralia, as there is usually a requirementby government and a commitment by theminer to instigate practices to minimiseenvironmental damage and to rehabilitatethe minesite.

In contrast to its consideration of otheruses, the Commission did not fully explorepossibilities for the compatibility of miningand other uses, and dismissed options forminimising, and in some cases over­coming, potential adverse impacts ofmining on other uses. For instance, theCommission gave little consideration to thepossibility of setting aside highly sensitiveareas in order to retain sites with highconservation value while mining othersites. Recommendations of this nature aremade in relation to military trainingthrough the recommended extension to 'nogo' areas.

As discussed in section 5, sand mining isunlikely to affect the water supplyalthough further research would beadvisable before mining proceeds in partsof the catchment area. Pivot indicated itswillingness to forgo mining at sites whichcould pose a threat to the water supply(Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, p. 183, para.10.20). Under such circumstances the twouses can be considered compatibleconcurrent uses.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

7Other potential uses

7.1 Aboriginal use

The eastern dune fields of the TrainingArea contain some archaeological sites ofinterest to a local Aboriginal group. TheCommissioners found that access to suchsites for Aborigines could be accom­modated with concurrent use for militarytraining and conservation, but that itwould be necessary to bar access duringactual military exercises. However, if sucharchaeological sites are to be preserved itwould be necessary to restrict access tothem.

The exact number, location andcharacteristics of Aboriginal archaeol­ogical sites in the Training Area isunknown, and therefore it is not possible atthis stage to determine their value.

As with other uses of the Training Areathe decision about whether to preserve aparticular Aboriginal archaeological siteshould be based on the net benefit ofpreserving that site compared with that ofother uses which are incompatible, such asmilitary training, recreational use ormining.

The potential impact of other uses onAboriginal values is uncertain. Someprotective measures would be required ifrecreational and tourist use on the easterndune fields was to grow substantially. It isalso possible that military training andmining could have an adverse impact ifsufficient care were not taken.

To guard against damage from suchsources it would be necessary to instigatecertain strategies, perhaps including theemployment of a local Aborigine to adviseon the location and recognition ofarchaeological sites.

Resource assessment: vol. 2

7.2 Recreation and tourism

There is currently only minor use of theTraining Area for recreation or tourism,mainly in the marine zone. Both these useshave probably been discouraged by thedifficulty of access due to military trainingneeds and lack of roads.

While current levels of recreation andtourism may not pose a serious threat toconservation values, Aboriginal sites orother uses of the Training Area, this maynot be the case in the future. Substantialgrowth of tourist and recreational use ofmarine zones could have adverse impactson fishing either directly or through theireffect on the fish population. If either orboth uses were to increase it would bebeneficial to subject recreation and tourismto controls designed to minimise impactson other valuable uses of the Training Area.

7.3 Scientific research andeducationGiven the diversity of flora, fauna andlandforms, the Training Area holds valuefor scientific research. Further scientificvalue derives from the Area being thegeographic extremity of some species andfrom its unusual associations of land andflora.

Scientific research would have little ifany impact on other uses of the TrainingArea. However, other uses have thepotential to affect the Area's value forscientific use. There is potential forscientific research to gain from knowledgegleaned during mineral exploration andmining. Conversely, mining could detractfrom earth science values by upsetting the

27

geological structure of a site. Such a losscould be avoided by not allowing miningat sites of particular scientific value. Othercommercial uses which alter the nature ofthe Training Area also have the potential todetract from scientific values.

7.4 FishingCommercial fishing in the Training Area issmall. Even the larger area defined inABARE, BRS and AGSO (1993, p. 113)constitutes less than one per cent of totalQueensland fisheries production. There are

28

insufficient data available to assess thesustainability of the fishery or theprofitability of fishing in the Training Area.

Although a fisheries resource exists inthe Training Area, access is restricted bymilitary training safety requirements.Given continuing use of the Training Areafor defence purposes substantial growth ofcommercial fishing in the Training Area isunlikely while there are other moreaccessible fisheries. If fishing activity wereto increase research would be needed toassess the sustainability of the fishery andassist in designing management plans.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

References

ABARE, BRS and AGSO 1993, ShoalwaterBay Military Training Area: ResourceAssessment, AGPS, Canberra.

AGB McNair 1994, 'Survey of attitudestoward land use issues for ShoalwaterBay Military Training Area', inCommonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay (l994e), ResearchReports, Report no. 5, vol. C, pp. 301-27.

Ajzen, I. and Peterson, G.L. 1988,Contingent value measurement: theprice of everything and the value ofnothing?, in G.L. Peterson, B.L. Driverand R Gregory (eds), Amenity ResourceValuation: Integrating Economics withOther Disciplines, Venture Publishing,State College, PA.:66-76.

Amos, N., Kirkpatrick, J.B. and Giese, M.1993, Conservation of Biological Diversity,Ecological Integrity and EcologicallySustainable Development: A DiscussionPaper, Australian Conservation Found­ation and World Wildlife Fund, Fitzroy,Victoria.

Auditor General 1992, Efficiency Audit:Department of Defence, Management ofArmy Training Areas, Audit Report no. 38,AGPS, Canberra.

Bergin, A. 1994, 'A review of theDepartment of Defence submission to theCommonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay', in CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay (l994c), Research Reports, Report no.5, vol. A, pp. 99-116.

Commonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay 1994a, SummaryReport, Report no. 4, AGPS, Canberra.

-- 1994b, Final Report, Report no. 4,AGPS, Canberra.

Resource assessment: vo/. 2

-- 1994c, Research Reports, Report no. 5,vol, A, AGPS, Canberra.

-- 1994d, Research Reports, Report no. 5,vol. B, AGPS, Canberra.

-- 1994e, Research Reports, Report no. 5,vol. C, AGPS, Canberra.

Fisher, B.S. and Thorpe, S. 1992, 'Issues ir\resource management', AustralianJournal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34,no. 2, pp. 87-102.

GEOPEKO 1992, Notice of Intention inRelation to Environment Protection (Impactof Proposals) Act 1974, Clinton LowlandsProspect: Stages 1 and 2 Exploration, April1992, Clinton Lowlands Joint VenturePeko Exploration Ltd.

Hynes, RA. 1993, 'Review of ShoalwaterBay Training Area; environmentalimpact assessment and landmanagement plan', in CommonwealthCommission of Inquiry into ShoalwaterBay (l994e), Research Reports, Report no.5, vol. C, pp. 109-267.

Imber, D., Stevenson, G. and Wilks, L. 1991,A Contingent Valuation Survey of theKakadu Conservation Zone, RAC ResearchPaper No. 3, vol. 1, February 1991,Resource Assessment Commission,Canberra.

[ames, D. 1994, 'Economic aspects ofmanagement options for the ShoalwaterBay Military Training Area', inCommonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay (l994e), ResearchReports, Report no. 5, vol. C, pp. 269-300.

Lesslie, R, Taylor, D. and Maslen, M. 1993,National Wilderness Inventory Handbook,Australian Heritage Commission,Canberra.

Pearce, D.W. and Warford, J.J. 1993, WorldWithoutEnd,Economics, Environment and

29

Sustainable Development, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

RAC 1992, Forest and Timber Inquiry FinalReport, Resource AssessmentCommission, Canberra.

Townley, L.R. and Flemming. PM. 1993,'Hydrological overview of the

30

Shoalwater Bay Region - with specialemphasis on the eastern dune fields', inCommonwealth Commission of Inquiryinto Shoalwater Bay (l994c), ResearchReports, Report no. 5, vol. A, pp. 29-98.

Shoalwater BayMilitary Training Area

Shoalwater Bay

The Shoalwater Bay TrainingArea is a military training

facility. Research hasindicated the Training Area

also has value forconservation and water supplyand is highly prospective forminerals. The Commission

has recommended that miningand exploration be banned

from the Training Area.

In this report the availableinformation is drawn together

in a multiple resource useframework to examine the

validity of the Commission'srecommended use of the

Training Area.

rrr::RRP$AI

"-.. _-- .