Environmental Impact Assessment
Proponent for the proposal: Queensland Department of Natural Resources
Assessment process facilitator: Queensland Department of State Development
Environmental Impact Assessment: Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Australia (Commonwealth)
Designation:
On 23 December 1994, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment directed the proponent to prepare an EIS for the proposal under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIP Act).
The Queensland Government also advised that the components of the proposal within Queensland territory would require assessment at the level of an Impact Assessment Study (IAS) under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act.
To satisfy the environmental requirements of both Governments it was agreed that a single assessment be conducted in the form of a joint Commonwealth EIS/Queensland IAS (to be known as an EIS).
Environment Impact Statement Guidelines
Guidelines (or terms of reference) for the content of the EIS were prepared by Environment Australia, taking into account the requirements of the Administrative Procedures under the EPIP Act and Queensland environmental assessment procedures. Comments were invited on these guidelines from various Commonwealth, Queensland and local government agencies and community organisations. The guidelines were finalised and issued to the proponent in February 1995.
Draft Environment Impact Statement
A Draft EIS was prepared by the proponent's consultant (Sinclair Knight Merz). The Draft EIS was released for public review for a period of 6 weeks, from 11 October to 22 November 1995. During this period, a public meeting was held on Magnetic Island with representatives from the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments.
Following receipt of 256 public submissions on the Draft EIS, a number of planning and legal issues were raised regarding the proposal. These issues included the development of a residential component within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a boundary dispute with the neighbouring land owners at Bright Point, and the proposed excision of part of the Queensland Marine Park for construction of a privately-owned residential/tourism project.
The need to address these issues resulted in considerable delays to the proposal. More recently, the Queensland Government announced that State Cabinet had agreed to spend up to $6 million on public facilities within Nelly Bay.
A revised plan was prepared and released for public review on 7 April 1998, for a period of 3 weeks. Eight public submissions were received, and again many crucial planning and legal issues were raised. See Key Issues.
Supplementary Environment Impact Statement
The Commonwealth and State Governments agreed that a Supplementary EIS should be released for public review in light of the extended period since the preparation of the draft EIS, and the considerable changes to the original proposal. The public was invited to make written submissions on the Supplementary EIS for a period of six weeks, following the release of the SEIS on the 14 October 1998.
More than 650 public submissions were received on the Supplementary EIS, and many environmental, health, planning and legal issues were raised regarding the revised proposal. The 'preferred developer' admitted that the project had to be revised yet again, as the ferry terminal was located in an unsafe position near the opening to the access channel.
Independent reviews
The Department of State Development and Environment Australia commissioned independent reviews on various aspects of the Supplementary EIS.
The James Cook University (Marine Modelling Unit) review of hydrodynamic and coastal engineering issues, commissioned by Environment Australia, expresses concerns about the proposed construction methods, various aspects of water quality, beaches located within the breakwall, design aspects of the breakwall, and elevation of expensive structures. In the light of these findings, it seems that the project will have to be comprehensively revamped.
The legal issues relating to the boundary dispute and the uses allowed under the zonings of the Marine Parks also appear to be unresolved, as do a vast number of other issues. See Public SEIS Responses and Government SEIS Responses and Public EIS (final) Responses.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Queensland Department of State Development released the Final EIS on 24 March 1999.
The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency allowed a period of public comment on the Final EIS, which ended on 23 April 1999. It also requested comments from various Advisory Bodies (eg Department of Education, Department of Transport, Department of Health, the Townsville Port Authority).
However Environment Australia did not allow for further public comment, as the Environmental Protection (Impact of Porposals) Act [EP(IP) Act] does not offer such a provision.
On 1 April 1999, the Minister, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Adminstrative Procedures of the EP(IP) Act, signed an exemption for distribution of the Final EIS (defined to include the DEIS, SEIS and FEIS).
The exemption was said to be in the public interest, since it would have been too expensive to distribute such a large document to over 650 respondents. However, copies were made available to major stakeholders and the Final EIS was published on the Department of State Development's website.
State and Commonwealth Joint Assessment
The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Australia released their joint assessment report on 26 May 1999 (The Environment Assessment Report - Nelly Bay Harbour Development, Magnetic Island NQ).
These government departments concluded that the proposal could be managed so that its environmental impacts, including on the Great Barrier Reef WHA, are acceptable. However this conclusion was subject to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) were required take into account these recommendations when considering whether or not to grant a permit allowing works on the Nelly Bay development proposal to proceed within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Commonwealth Appeal Process
On 14 January 2000, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority decided to grant a permit allowing the dredging of a harbour basin in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which would also provide sand/clay to construct reclaimed land in the State Marine Park for a canal estate-style residential/tourist accommodation development.
In August 2000, an external review of the Authority's decision was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal upheld the decision to issue the permit.
Queensland Appeal Process
The proponent, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, applied in 1993 for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS) permit that would allow the construction of a canal estate residential development in the Townsville/Whitsunday State Marine Park. The QNPWS granted that permit on 14 February 2000.
The decision of the QPWS to grant the permit is reviewable by the Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Act. The North Queensland Conservation Council applied for a Judicial Review and was given legal standing. The matter was heard and the tribunal upheld the State's decision to issue the permit.