Environment Australia (Commonwealth)
Supplementary EIS Response
Submission From Environment Australia on the
Nelly Bay Supplementary EIS (SEIS)
General Comments
The Nelly Bay proposed development occurs entirely within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property Area. It is also listed in the Register of the National Estate as a unique and diverse biological system, which demonstrates past and continuing geological and ecological processes, and provides habitats for endangered species. Further, the island is important as a scientific research area and contains important historical and Aboriginal sites.
Environment Australia notes that the majority of measures it recommended to reduce degradation to water quality are set out in the Revised Concept Plan and in commitments set out in the Environment Management Plan. These are:
• guidelines specifying the conditions under which dredging activity can occur;
• long term monitoring of the health of the coral communities within Nelly Bay;
• a commitment to take all reasonable remedial measures should degradation of the coral communities be detected;
• the gentle sloping of all lots down to the water to allow for maximum absorption of nutrient rich runoff;
• leaseholder and land purchase agreements within the development include that the landholder will not cause excessive pollution of the water ways;
• all reasonable measures will be taken to reduce runoff velocity; and
• a commitment to assist in the upgrading of the current sewerage treatment plant and the connection of all dwellings in the Gustav Creek catchment to this system. It is noted that the proponent will provide partial funding for an upgrade of the sewerage treatment plant at Nelly Bay.
While Environment Australia has previously recommended that the use of absorbent bilge pads and oil filters on bilge pumps should be made compulsory for boats using the facilities, it is noted that the proponent has opted to encourage boat owners rather than make this compulsory.
As a general comment, Environment Australia considers that additional detail (and figures) in regard to the proposed construction methodology, and measures for the protection of the environment, should be provided. The final EIS should provide details of all monitoring programs to be implemented, including frequency of monitoring and monitoring locations.
A clear and detailed description of the planning and approval processes should also be provided, including State agencies/legislation under which approvals will be needed etc.
Finally, Environment Australia would like to see the World Heritage values of the area, and possible impacts on these, dealt with in more detail in relation to the site in the final EIS. In addition, there are many unsubstantiated statements in relation to the (lack of) impacts on World Heritage values, which require more scientific justification.
Specific Comments
Executive Summary
The last paragraphs on page 2 refer to complications regarding Native Title, but is unclear as to the process and timing for any resolution and whether it affects the proposal as a whole or just parts of it. A clearer and more detailed discussion of this is required in the final EIS.
Section 4.2.1.6, Control of Noise (page 18)
An estimate of the duration of construction (with greatest noise potential) should be provided.
Section 4.2.3.2, Sources of Armour Rock Material (page 20)
This section implies that all rock will be sourced from on-site. Is there any expectation that off-site rock will be needed? If so, possible sources and transport arrangements should be discussed.
Section 4.2.3.4, Sources of Topsoil (page 20)
The quantities of topsoil required should be estimated, and proposed transport arrangements from the mainland discussed (assuming insufficient local sources).
Section 4.2.4.1, Dewatering Control (page 20)
The discussion on infill rates and how 'unacceptable' quality water will be treated is difficult to follow. What further studies are proposed (and when) to determine if plastic sheeting is required and/or pumping to ensure seepage rates are acceptable during construction works? Strategies for dewatering
Area 2 should be outlined. The standards to be achieved for dewatering into the ocean, and methods to deal with unacceptable quality water should be discussed in detail.
Section 4.2.4.3, Entrance Channel Excavation (page 21)
The 'agreed standards' for water quality should be stated, based on State criteria, ANZECC criteria and criteria developed for Port of Townsville dredging (see also comment above). While it is not explicitly stated in the document, Environment Australia assumes that sedimentation curtains will be installed adjacent to the entrance channel works to protect the nearby reef.
Section 4.2.5, Gustav Creek Sedimentation Control Measures (2nd last para on page 22)
The likelihood of contamination of the sediments to be removed from the sedimentation basin and implications for their suitability for replenishment of the beach should be discussed. Presumably sampling will be required at the time of proposed removal. If sediments are found to be contaminated, a contingency plan for their safe disposal should be developed.
Section 4.2.9.1, Construction Phase (2nd para, page 23)
The location of the proposed holding pond should be stated.
Section 4.3.2 Precinct Controls (page 26)
It is difficult to understand the legislative and planning status of the relevant Council Subdivision Concept Plan and the 'Provisions of the Planning Scheme'. This should be clarified, together with the proposal's compliance with the provisions of this Plan. Legal provisions for enforcement of the Plan should also be stated. For example, what is to stop higher density housing than that currently proposed? Are there avenues for third party comment or appeal for subsequent development of the residential and tourist precincts?
Section 4.3.3.5 Height (page 28)
In relation to visual impacts, Environment Australia is concerned that some of the buildings could be up to four stories in height. It is noted in the Revised Concept Plan that screening of buildings will be encouraged.
Section 5.1 Construction Phase Impacts (page 32)
Are PASS conditions likely in the excavated spoil in the basin? This should be clarified, together with any testing to indicate the presence or absence of such conditions.
As noted at the end of the 2nd para, effects of turbid discharge water are likely to be a significant impact, and are of most interest to the Commonwealth. Further details on the proposed monitoring regime, and corrective actions, should be provided.
Section 5.2.1. Potential Effects on Water Quality (page 34)
The SEIS indicates that the existing pollution from Gustav Creek does, and will, continue to affect public health and marine species. These effects include the presence of faecal coliforms in unsafe concentrations (up to 30 per cent of the time at certain points) and the possibility of nearbed oxygen depletion with consequent release of sulphides, nutrients and heavy metals from bed sediments (Attachment E page15). This is significant since the same attachment notes that the harbour will fail PWD (NSW) criteria for tidal prism ratio by approximately 14 per cent. It is also noted that point source loads and Gustav Creek discharges are significant, alluding to a failure of effective stormwater and sewerage management. The SEIS states 'the development will not alter the quality of those existing inputs other than to remove gross pollutants...'
The SEIS further notes that water quality from the proposed development will be higher than existing stormwater flows and therefore makes no allowance for wastewater treatment of runoff from carparks, buildings, yards and streets. The SEIS assumes (page 34), without analysis, that the quality of the runoff from the finished development site is anticipated to be relatively innocuous.
Despite recommendations in the SEIS for the use of oil separators and grass filter strips as treatment processes for carpark runoff and diversion of site stormwater outside the boat harbour, the report does not contain the following information:
• proposed stormwater discharges;
• proposed stormwater discharge quality;
• proposed safeguards for sewer pump station and sewer mains;
• the impact of stormwater discharges from the completed development; and
• the impacts from other activities from the completed development.
Environment Australia is of the view that the above issues should be addressed in the final EIS. Solutions to the water quality issue could be the installations of artificial (off-line) wetlands at strategic locations within the harbour and detailed stormwater treatment designs for throughflows and offsite flows.
Section 5.3.6, Design Standards (page 39)
Suggested levels of insurance and bonds for any Deed of Agreement, including the specific components/items of the proposal they cover, should be included in the final EIS.
Section 5.3.12, World Heritage Values (page 41-43)
The establishment, and appropriateness, of a canal development within a World Heritage Property Area needs to be discussed further in the final EIS. This should be assessed against the listed world heritage values for the property.
Environment Australia has difficulty in accepting claims in the SEIS that there will not be increased boat traffic, with the exception of ferry movements, that may impact on marine turtles and dugong in this area. We are of the view that residents living in a coastal residential development, incorporating low, medium and high density residential components, will require personal access to increased numbers of recreational craft. Add to this the potential for increased barge traffic to Nelly Bay and a significant threat is posed to dugong and turtle that may enter these waters. To address this issue, the proponent should provide additional information in relation to the potential threat to marine flora and fauna via increased vessel movements in the final EIS.
Section 5.3.14, Flora and Fauna (page 43-44)
The status of the species mentioned in the 2nd para under the ESP Act should be stated.
Section 5.3.15, Water Quality (page 44)
More details on the likely location of PASS conditions, extent etc should be provided.
Revised Draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
Section 6 (general)
The final EIS should provide a consolidated list (table) of the proposed monitoring programs to be undertaken as part of the EMP. The objectives of each program, key parameters to be monitored, duration of baseline monitoring (if needed), frequency of monitoring, and how the results will be used should be included. Further, the EMP should clearly list the roles and responsibilities of the proponent and respective local, State and Commonwealth agencies during the construction and operational phases of the proposal. Currently it is unclear in the documentation as to who has responsibility for what aspects of the development.
Section 6.1, Purpose (pg 47)
The last sentence in the first paragraph is misleading (this error is also repeated in subsequent places in Chapter 6). The responsibility for developing the plan rests with the proponent, not GBRMPA or QDEH. It would be more correct to say that the proponent will develop the EMP in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, GBRMPA, QDEH etc.
The estimated timing for the development of the EMP, and mechanism to ensure it is binding, presumably through a Deed of Agreement, should be stated.
Section 6.4, Overview (pg 47 - 48)
The development of contingency plans, in the event monitoring indicates that impacts are unacceptable, should be included. To this end, it should also be noted that the EMP will be an evolving document that is designed to adapt to changing circumstances during the construction and operational phases of the proposal.
Element 8 - Preservation of Archaeological Artefacts (pg 57)
Nelly Bay is an area of high significance to the local Aboriginal community even though most of the archaeological deposits in the area have been excavated to further archaeological/scientific knowledge of the region, or disturbed and damaged by the previous development of Nelly Bay. The Aboriginal heritage of Nelly Bay is considered extremely important by the local Aboriginal community as one of their few remaining links with Magnetic Island following their removal from the island earlier this century.
Given the development will require further major excavation to be carried out in the foreshore area and the possibility of further sites in this area, Environment Australia strongly supports the recommendation that a qualified archaeologist appointed by the QDEH and the Wulgurukaba Corporation, and an observer from the Corporation, be employed to monitor any excavations associated with the proposed development. Environment Australia also suggests that the Wulgurukaba corporation be immediately notified, and works suspended, should any human remains be uncovered.
Further, Environment Australia welcomes the proposed establishment of a keeping place for the Wulgurukaba Corporation to house collected Aboriginal archaeological material, and trusts that consultation with the Wulgurukaba community will continue throughout the current development and any future development proposed in the Nelly Bay Area. Confirmation of this matter should be provided in the final EIS.
Appendix A
The last paragraph (page 68) refers to a Code of Practice, Plan of Development, Management Agreements and Landscape Master Plan to be developed by various agencies. The status and relevance of these documents should be clarified.
Appendix F
Is a boat speed limit specified for Precinct 1?
Appendix G
It would appear from the existing Magnetic Island control plan that more than 50% of the foreshore area originally identified as open space will be taken over by private development. Does this apparent contradiction create a legal hurdle? With this in mind, it would be useful if the final EIS discussed the status of 'Control Plan No. 6', and it relationship to any other planning documents/instruments.
Appendix H
See comment above.
Appendix I
What is the status of the development lease, applications and other planning processes mentioned in the first three paras? Page 96 (Post 1990) implies that all previous Local and State approvals may have lapsed? This issues needs to be addressed in the final EIS.
Additional Issues to be Addressed in Final EIS
Visual Impacts
Discussion of the likely visual impacts of the revised proposal should be included in the Final EIS. To assist in this aspect, it is recommended that detailed elevations and perspective drawings be included in the final EIS. Further, it would be useful if a transparent overlay of the proposed development could be placed over an aerial photograph of the site to illustrate the positioning of each precinct within the existing environment. Such a tool would greatly assist in visualising the extent of mangrove removal required and works to the mouth of Gustav Creek which is difficult to determine with the current plans in the SEIS. Environment Australia understands that such representative drawings have been prepared by Nelly Bay Harbour Pty Ltd.
Ferry Services
Recent claims have been raised by the ferry operator to Magnetic Island 'Sunferries' that the increased distance between the Nelly Bay development and Townsville harbour will result in the possible need of an additional craft resulting in increased maintenance and insurance costs, construction of further landing facilities and extra staff. These additional requirements would result in increased fares and could have an adverse effect on tourist numbers and property values on the island. These issues need to be discussed in the final EIS.
Safe Harbour
Claims have been brought to Environment Australia's attention recently in relation to the placement of the ferry wharf and its exposure to the entrance of the channel. Concerns have been raised that the positioning of the ferry wharf facilities will not protect the facility from rough seas and, therefore, compromise the safety of passengers. This issue needs to be examined in the final EIS. It is important to note that one of the main justifications for the development was the establishment of a safe harbour.
There appears to be a lack of detail discussion in the SEIS as to how the revised project will affect the community economically, including and importantly, in relation to existing businesses at Picnic Bay.
State funding
The final EIS should provide a breakdown of the $6 million to be provided by the State Government, and the expected contribution of existing businesses (eg. ferry operations) to the development.
Indemnity
The final EIS should discuss in detail how the indemnity offered to the Queensland Government will be transferred to the preferred developer. It should also address the preferred developer's capacity to provide such indemnity.
Consolidated list of commitments
A consolidated list of all commitments made in the Draft, Supplementary and Final EISs (perhaps in table format under the key management issues) should be provided in the final EIS.
Note: The Environmental Protection Group of Environment Australia commissioned the Marine Modelling Unit of the School of Engineering of James Cook University to review the Supplementary Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIS) as well as selected public submissions for the Nelly Bay Harbour development. The review is limited to hydrodynamic and selected coastal engineering aspects of the Nelly Bay Harbour proposal.