Public Responses:
Supplementary Environmental Impact Study
Wendy Tubman
Charlie McColl
Julia Walkden
Department of State Development
PO Box 168
Brisbane Albert Street
Qld 4002
Attention: G.W.Mercer
COMMENTS IN RELATION TO NELLY BAY HARBOUR SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (SEIS)
Please record my rejection of the SEIS and my opposition to the proposed project on the basis of the issues addressed below.
Introductory remarks
I ask you to recognise that considerable time and effort has been put into preparing this submission, and to accord it greater moment than was accorded many of the submissions which were made following the release of the Draft EIS. Unless this occurs, the entire process of public comment is belittled and the integrity of the government system cast into disrepute.
The public comment period relies on members of the public being able to submit personal views without being subjected to undue pressure or inaccurate statements designed to influence their views.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case in relation to the Nelly Bay Harbour SEIS, and decision-makers should be aware that responses are likely to have been influenced by tactics used by the Townsville Bulletin and the Magnetic Community News. The latter publication is owned and operated by an Island resident who has a financial involvement with the project.
For example, the former publications (14.11.98), in an editorial, stated "Those opposed to the harbour will stop at nothing to prevent it being built. They are prepared to trade in half-truths, scare tactics and outright lies to achieve this end." No examples of such behaviour are provided.
The latter publication (18.11.98), in a column headed 'Magnetic Mango', stated, with a remarkably cavalier attitude toward the issue of copyright, "Those opposed to the Harbour will seemingly stop at nothing to prevent it being built. Lies, rumours, scare tactics, half-truths and misuse of public information are all part of their campaign". In the same publication, the editor refuted concerns about the safety of a harbour entrance facing south, by informing readers that it faced due west.
Such reporting will undoubtedly have influenced members of the public, undermining and, to an extent, making a mockery of the public comment process.
Failure to address responses to the Draft EIS
The SEIS has failed to address over 55 issues that were raised in submissions to the Draft EIS. Included in these are the accuracy of the business survey results, water quality with respect to all contaminants except faecal coliform, damage to the reef, economic impact of the project, social impact of the project, traffic and people movement in and around the proposed development, and the safety of the harbour.
The SEIS was prepared in order to address public comments on the Draft EIS.
It is not surprising that the public views with increasing cynicism a process that requests comments and then proceeds to ignore the comment provided.
Failure to acknowledge responses to the Draft EIS
Appendix C of the SEIS lists 215 responses from the general public. This is not correct because item 139 represents 64 individual responses. Taking all these 64 valid responses into consideration, there were 278 responses from 294 people. In addition there were 9 responses from advisory bodies. The SEIS (Table 3.1) notes 1,305 comments (including comments in 'pro formas' which were NOT listed in this table), of which 32 were described as 'positive'.
Table 3.1 of the SEIS lists responses grouped according to issue (as determined by the consultants, Sinclair Knight Merz [SKM]). Table 3.1 alleges that 10 respondents stated "The development is contrary to World Heritage convention obligation". In fact, all 150 respondents who submitted what SKM call Pro Forma A made this comment. In other words, 160 not 10 respondents considered the project to contravene Australia's World Heritage obligations. Disenfranchising of submissions is inexcusable.
Misrepresentation of submissions commenting on the Draft EIS
There is evidence that the submission of, at least, one respondent was misinterpreted in the summary of submissions as presented in the SEIS.
The Expression of Interest process
The SEIS makes no comment on the fact that an injection of $6 million of taxpayers money into the project was announced AFTER the 'preferred developer' had been selected from those submitting Expressions of Interest. This effectively and substantially altered the terms and conditions facing tenderers and should have been accompanied by a new call for Expressions of Interest.
The fact that this did not occur makes the process inequitable, and in contravention of public service standards of probity.
Lack of detail in the SEIS
Related to the issue of contempt for the community (see 'Introductory remarks' above), is the issue of lack of detail in the SEIS. I suggest that it is, to quote (myself in) the local newspaper, at best ridiculous and, at worst, deceitful, for the government to expect Islanders to give approval to a concept, while it withholds details that suggest that the concept would not work in practice.
The promise that all comments would be accommodated in the final plan IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. There is evidence that comments in relation to the Draft EIS were NOT considered. As a member for the community, I am not alone in being insulted by being patronisingly asked to accept that, this time, all legitimate concerns would be taken into account in the final plans. The 'Don't you worry about that' approach is just not acceptable these days and reflects badly on the integrity of the government.
The lack of detail and associated lack of certainty has enabled the proponents of the project to enter into 'under the counter' deals with those who oppose the project. Such deals may have contravened due process.
Failure to assess economic impact
The Draft EIS contained an input/output study (of questionable validity); the SEIS, despite the fact that the concept has changed considerably, does not even provide an updated input/output study.
A development such as that proposed would inevitably have a major impact on the Island economy. There would be, for example, a 10% or thereabouts increase in shopping space; a 35% or so increase in 'pub' space. Ferry prices would rise, affecting especially commuters and tourists, which together account for most of the income flowing into the Island.
The Island, already dependent on a seasonal and volatile market, would be severely affected.
To contemplate imposing a development of this size on the Island without an economic assessment verges on culpable negligence.
Failure to undertake cost/benefit analysis
The Executive Summary of the SEIS states "The proposal offers significant benefits to the people of Magnetic Island and Townsville".
Nowhere in the SEIS is this statement substantiated.
No attempt has been made to assess OR EVEN LIST those alleged benefits.
As any business person (of which I am one) will tell you, it is net benefits which need to be considered. None of the costs which should be weighed against all the alleged benefits are addressed anywhere in the SEIS.
The SEIS contains no cost/benefit analysis; an omission which defies belief.
The SEIS is severely deficient in that it does not address in any way, the issues of costs and benefits.
Failure to provide audit details
The SEIS fails to make any comment on the statements by Arthur Anderson and Associates in relation to the value for money received by the public for its $6 million contribution. Arthur Anderson's advised the government that "Provision of $5.0 million...to NBH...could produce ...40% - 50% on risk capital" and "The original figure...would seem to provide super profit to the developer". The SEIS made absolutely no comment on this extraordinary statement by respected international consultants.
The SEIS makes no attempt to assess the later audit by Cardno and Davies, stating merely that "the Government has received advice that the basic requirement of a functional harbour and ferry terminal could be completed for the amount they are contributing". This ambiguous statement is not followed up. Could, for example, the basic requirements be completed for LESS than the amount they are contributing? The purpose of the SEIS is to evaluate statements made by the proponent (the state government), not merely to accept them.
The Cardno Davies report is not included in the SEIS. The full statement of that company cannot be assessed by the community, and appears not to have been assessed by the preparers of the SEIS.
More than half of the $6m ($3.2m) which would be contributed by the public appears to be for dredging the harbour basin to allow access to the public boat ramp (value $400,000) at the far end of the basin. Fortuitously, for the developers, the public boat ramp is located beyond the residential blocks, meaning that the dredging for the boat ramp will largely benefit the private residential development. The SEIS does not point out this inefficient and expensive design flaw.
Nor does the SEIS point out that the developer is not being charged for fill dredged from the harbour basin at public expense.
There is no substantiation of the questionable statement (SEIS Section 5.3) that "The latter (residential development) provides the profit component which provides the financial offsets and economics (sic) of scale for the safe harbour to be constructed, at least in part, by private enterprise". This rationalisation of the need for the (publicly unwanted) private residential/commercial component of the project reads like a justification by the developers, not the objective assessment of an unbiased assessor. As such it is unacceptable.
Demonstrably biased use of survey data
After considerable time and effort, (including something approaching 50 phone calls) I obtained the detailed results of the residents' survey conducted by SKM for the Draft EIS. (Volume 1 of the Draft EIS stated that they were included in Volume 2 of the report, but this was not the case.)
The summary contained in Volume I of the Draft EIS is not an accurate summary of the survey of residents and consistently inflates the survey results.
For example, the summary states that for:
98% of respondents, landscaping of the site was considered 'very important', the true figure is 89%;
92% of respondents, a safe harbour was considered 'very important', the true figure is 86%;
90% of respondents, public access was considered 'very important', the true figure is 84%;
68% of respondents, a public boat ramp was considered 'very important', the true figure is 53%; and
63% of respondents, marina facilities were considered 'very important', the true figure is 50%.
This inability to accurately report the most basic of data throws the accuracy of the entire report into doubt.
However, what was left out of the 'summary' of survey results in the Draft EIS demonstrates that support for the project was significantly less than the report suggested.
Respondents were asked (Q6a) "On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) how do you rate community services provided on the Island" The set options were 'school', 'health services', 'emergency services' and 'public transport', with an open category 'other'. 'Emergency services' were rated '5' (excellent) by 49.3% of respondents and '4' by a further 24%. 'Public transport was rated '5' (excellent) by 49.3% of respondents and '4' by a further 25.1%.
In the 'other' category, the ferry came up 13 times (out of a total survey population of 222). Of these 13 respondents, 11 rated it '1' (poor), one rated it '2' and one rated it '3' (in relation to lack of government subsidy).
Other facilities rating a '1' were ambulance, children's facilities, shopping, the Council, daycare, evacuation, library, medivac, pedestrian access, police, roads, traffic, bikeways, sewerage, social activities, social activities for teenagers, child care and parking, although none of these were mentioned as often as the issue of ferries.
Question 6b asks "Do you think the proposed development will affect your access to any of the service mentioned above (in Q6a)?" 28.4% answered 'yes'.
Question 6c pushed the issue a bit further with those who had answered 'yes' to Q6b, and asked "Do you think the proposed development will give you better access to such services?".
63.9% of those who had answered 'yes' to Q6b (that is, 63.9% of 28.4% of the total number surveyed - or 18.1%) thought that the development would improve their access to some services.
In Q6d, those who had answered 'yes' to Q6b were asked "What services do you think will be affected?" 1.6% responded 'safe harbour'. This is 1.6% of 28.4% (who answered 'yes' in Q6b). And 1.6% of 28.4% is 0.5% - OR ONE PERSON OUT OF THE 222 INTERVIEWED!!!
Even if 'ferries' (14.8%) and 'Medivac' (3.3%) are included, the number is only 5.6% of the 222 surveyed!
Question 6e, asked the open question "Please state how you think your access to those services will be affected" (remember, this question was posed only to the 28.4% who answered 'yes' to Q6b). Survey results show that 28.8% of 28.4% (that is 8.18%) of people referred in some way to a safe harbour, safe access, medivac facilities or improved transport.
The question has to be asked 'why were these survey results NOT provided in the Draft EIS? Why did the survey summary only include those data that could be interpreted as supportive of the project?
The Draft EIS included only survey results which supported the case of the proponents and excluded those which painted the opposite picture. If the negative data were excluded unintentionally, it is a case of sloppy work. If the data were excluded intentionally, it is a case of unprofessional and unethical conduct which casts doubts on the objectivity and integrity of the entire report and on the subsequent report prepared by the same consultants.
I have not sought to access the results of the business survey, but note that three submissions to the Draft EIS commented negatively on the accuracy of the business survey. These serious allegations were not addressed in the SEIS.
Much has been made of the 'fact' that the majority of Islanders support the proposal. No survey of Islanders' views on the subject support these claims.
The Raggatt survey of 1988 indicated "a narrow majority of island residents opposed to the proposal, and a two to one majority against it in the Nelly Bay area".
The SKM survey of residents demonstrates, not surprisingly, that 95% of Islanders were in favour of "doing something" with the site. Considerably fewer (62%) thought that "the development would clean up the site and that any form of development would be better than the site's present condition" - hardly fulsome support! This survey was undertaken before the state government had committed $6 million of taxpayers' money to the provision of a safe harbour, walkways, parks etc. As there was a widely held view that the development was the price we had to pay for a safe harbour and the clean up of Nelly Bay, I would suggest there would now be difficulty finding even 10% who were in favour of the development per se.
The third survey of 600 residents (the Bennett 1996/97 survey), to which 121 Islanders responded, showed 69% strongly in favour of a totally different solution to the two issues of a safe landing and a clean-up of Nelly, with a further 18% believing that the alternative solution had some merit.
Congestion in Precincts 5 and 7
I attach (Attachment A) a copy of an article written by me for the local newspaper, Magnetic Times. This article reveals that the amount of space allowed in Precincts 5 and 7 for what I call 'public business activity' is totally inadequate, representing less than one third of the Picnic Bay Mall block. No scale is provided on the maps in the SEIS (itself a deplorable omission) but, by deduction, it is possible to show that a (maximum) total area of 12,000 sq. m. has been allowed. This is laughably small and patently inadequate.
Congestion arising over time is understandable, but to design for congestion is unforgivable.
The area would not even meet current needs, let alone allow for growth.
Unacceptable traffic movement arrangements
A single-lane roundabout is proposed for the intersection of Sooning St and Arcadia Road. All traffic in and out of the barge terminal, ferry terminal, medivac facility, hotel and shopping complex, would be required to pass through this roundabout.
All traffic travelling from Picnic or Nelly Bays to Arcadia or Horseshoe Bay (and vice versa) would pass through this same roundabout, as would all traffic associated with any future residential development at Bright Point.
Traffic waiting to enter the roundabout would back up on both streetfronts of the school and up and over the hill (a blind corner) to Arcadia.
What is being proposed is 'accidents waiting to happen'. This situation is totally unacceptable in terms of safety and ambience, and was not considered in the SEIS.
Unsafe ferry terminal location
The concept presented in the SEIS provides a harbour with, according to the plan prepared by Plante and Associates, an entrance to the harbour facing due south, into the face of prevailing winds.
In addition, the outer harbour wall, the structure which protects the ferry terminal from south-easterlies (another prevailing wind), has, inexplicably, been shortened by one third.
Finally, the spending beach, designed to absorb wave energy, which was a feature of earlier concepts, has been totally removed.
The SEIS makes NO COMMENT AT ALL on these major changes to the harbour design, which would appear to jeopardise the safety of the harbour.
The tie-up points for the ferries are irrefutably, in the least safe parts of the development. Again, the SEIS makes no comment on this, despite the fact that the public would now be paying $6 million for a safe harbour.
The terminal facilities, which are publicly-funded would bear the brunt of any heavy weather.
The 30m entrance channel to the harbour would be used, quite probably simultaneously, by ferries, barges and a range of powered and non-powered private craft (being used by people of varying marine expertise). This density of traffic in a narrow channel, especially one in which strong swells are likely, and which is very close to a swimming beach, is deemed to be unsafe. The SEIS does not address this issue.
Ownership of facilities
The SEIS has sought public comment without advising the public of the financial contributions it may well be expected to make in the future. This is not acceptable and is likely to positively skew the public responses received.
If the waterways are controlled by the Townsville City Council, ratepayers may well be up for very high maintenance bills (as was the case in Raby Bay, Qld). Respondents need to know these 'details' before assessing their support for the project. The fact that the SEIS does not point this out is yet another example of its deficiency.
The project gives no assurance that the public carparking spaces at the terminal, which would remain in private hands, would not become paid parking, nor that spaces would not be given away by the owners to their supporters.
The SEIS does not address this issue.
Additional hotel space
There would appear to be little justification for the construction of a further 1,150 sq metres of hotel space. The Island is already well, if not over-supplied, with hotels. The addition of a further large 'drinkery' would lead to further problems with alcoholism (already a problem on the Island) and an increased occurrence of alcohol-related disturbances and of DUI charges.
The hotel would also contribute significantly to noise problems in the amphitheatre that is this part of Nelly Bay.
Questions need to be asked about the issue of locating a large hotel inside a facility which is being partly funded by the taxpayer.
Inadequate parking
The SEIS recommends a decrease in the number of car parking spaces, from 350 in the Draft EIS to 200 in the SEIS. This is despite the fact that several submissions to the Draft EIS suggested that 350 was not enough. The rationale in the SEIS for decreasing the number is spurious.
A large number of the 200 or so car parks in the current proposal will be required by the shops and the hotel in order to meet legislative requirements. The remaining number would be woefully inadequate even by current standards, and even more so if there is growth over time.
Water quality
The SEIS estimates that the water quality in the harbour would exceed contamination standards between 10% and 30% of the time. The SEIS admits that that figure is based on "very limited data" collected "under low or no flow conditions".
The SEIS acknowledges that, during the wet season, this information is unlikely to reflect conditions in Gustav Creek, and notes that wet weather in Sydney results in faecal coliform counts 3-110 times greater than the 'indicative only' estimates provided in the SEIS.
The SEIS acknowledges that periods of "unacceptable water quality within harbour waters during and after wet weather...may be prolonged..". The harbour is likely to be closed to 'primary contact' (including swimming and wading) during that time. If the contamination becomes too severe, even secondary contact, such as fishing, would be ill-advised.
The Draft EIS acknowledged that "stratification" would occur in the water column. This would produce 'rotten egg' gas. This would be particularly apparent in the sedimentation basin in Gustav Creek at the Sooning Street crossing, upwind of the School, Clinic and the high-priced residential areas of the Nelly Bay Harbour development and the surrounding area. The SEIS does not address this issue.
The SEIS acknowledges that low oxygen levels in the harbour waters may trigger the release of sulphides, nutrients and heavy metals from creek-bed sediments.
The Queensland government has, elsewhere, recognised that cadmium, lead, arsenic, phosphates, petroleum products, litter, copper, zinc, aluminium, nitrates and nutrients are likely to cause environmental and health problems. There are no figures in the SEIS on any of these contaminants, despite the fact that many of the submissions to the Draft EIS asked for better water quality discussion, better testing and better analysis of impact. None of that has occurred.
For the above reasons, the treatment of water quality in the SEIS, an issue which is of major concern to the community, is inadequate.
Damage to the fringing reef
The SEIS does not consider how the movement of polluted water from the harbour basin to the sea would impact on the fringing reef of Nelly Bay.
Expert studies have stated that the increase in nutrients and sediment flowing from the basin can be expected to promote algal growth and sedimentation in both Nelly and Geoffrey Bays, killing corals by smothering.
Expert studies have shown that, for 75% of the time, an eddy in Nelly Bay pushes water southward along the beach toward Rocky Bay. Pollution from the marina would be swept over the whole length of the bay, and swept back toward the marina at ebb tide.
Experts have also stated that a large increase in runoff associated with the concrete expanses in the development would lower sea salinity and damage corals on the adjacent reefs.
The coral bleaching which resulted from the January rains demonstrates that corals in Nelly Bay are already under stress; further disturbance could tip the balance for those that remain. The project proposes to destroy some of the largest and oldest corals around Magnetic Island, including one that is estimated to be several hundred years old.
These issues are not addressed in the SEIS.
Inconsistency with the state government's coastal management policy
The project would be in direct contravention of the state government's coastal management policy, in relation to canal estates. This is not noted in the SEIS.
Examination of alternatives
The SEIS has given no fresh consideration of alternative solutions to the matter of a safe landing for the island, despite the call for this in comments on the Draft EIS. This issue is a fundamental component of the Terms of Reference and needs to be treated seriously.
In Section 5.3.1 of the SEIS it is stated that "If there were no existing works on the Nelly Bay site then a more detailed discussion of alternatives may be warranted but, in accordance with the conclusion of the Draft EIS, as the majority of works which might cause significant environmental harm have been completed, to consider dismantling or abandoning those works only to build a safe harbour at another site on the island, has little logical foundation".
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the economic issue of sunk costs and a lack of appreciation of logic. There is NO logic (or economic justification) for throwing good money after bad. There is NO logic (or economic justification) in finishing something just because it has been started.
Summary
The SEIS is a totally inadequate document, not only deficient in any number of areas, but biased in its approach.
The only thing that can be said in its favour is that it, by default, demonstrates that the proposed concept is destructive of the environment and community, does not deliver a satisfactory level of net benefit and cannot be objectively supported by government at any level on any basis.
I request that the project be rejected once and for all and that the $6 million of public money be used to make the Picnic Bay jetty safe and to clean up the mess at Nelly Bay.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Tubman
20 November 1998
Attachment A "A question of space", extract from Magnetic Times, Volume 2, Issue 5
Attachment B "NBH: Just how safe is it?", extract from Magnetic Times, Volume 2, Issue 5
POST SCRIPT
Today's Townsville Bulletin (21 November 1998) carries a story, confirmed by Director of Sunferries, Mr Kjell Johansson, that the developer has "acknowledged some of the issues raised by Sunferries were well founded and the development company was prepared to address these issues. "It is likely the ferry terminal and tie-up facilities will be relocated to a more sheltered position" Mr Plante said."
The article goes on to state "Mr Plante said further discussions would be held on passenger management, luggage handling, bus and other vehicle access and carparking".
These fundamental design flaws were identified by the local newspaper (Magnetic Times) and the community during the six week public comment period and without the benefit of any scale drawings. (See Attachment B)
Why is it that those responsible for the SEIS, with tens of thousands of dollars, months, if not years, of time, and alleged expertise in preparing Environmental Impact Studies failed to identify these obvious problems?
The answer can only be incompetence or bias. Either answer means that the SEIS must be rejected.
The developers have now failed for a third time to come up with a concept which is acceptable, even at the most basic level.
The changes which would be required to address just this one design flaw in the current attempt would involve a whole new design, with considerable additional dredging and reduction in private/residential space.
Is the public to be subjected to yet further delays and the expense associated with a supplementary, Supplementary EIS? Is the public expected to contribute yet more funds to make the project viable for the developers, as it had to last time necessary changes reduced the developers profits? How many chances is this incompetent group to be given?
The government must now call a halt to this ridiculous process, dismiss the preferred developers and the notion of a private residential/commercial development, and take charge of the tasks of providing for the public a safe landing on the Island and of cleaning up the mess at Nelly Bay.
Wendy Tubman
21 November 1998
Top of page
22 Corica Cres.
Horseshoe Bay,
Magnetic Island Q.4819
Mr G. Mercer,
Department of State Development,
P.O. Box 168,
Brisbane Albert Street Q. 4002
Dear Mr Mercer,
Re: Nelly Bay Harbour - Supplementary EIS (S-EIS)
I have read the S-EIS for Nelly Bay Harbour (NBH) and on the basis of the material contained in the document I have concluded that the project is so childishly conceived, so deviously presented and so grossly amateurish and impractical that it would clearly cause unacceptable impacts to the Magnetic Island environment and community of which I am part. I therefore object to the Nelly Bay Harbour proposal and submit the following account of some of my more serious reservations.
I'll begin by quoting from a recent edition of Magnetic Community News (MCN 18.11.98) to demonstrate the amateurish incompetence to which I referred above. Under a banner "Our View", the one-time concept designer for Magnetic Keys, "project consultant" for NBH and current publisher of MCN, Geoff Orpin (Janfont Holdings Pty Ltd. ACN 010 970 055), suggests that those who utter claims that the entrance to the harbour faces south are stupid and misinformed. "Anyone with half a brain would know that the entrance faces west", he writes.
I invite the reader to consult the S-EIS and refer to the Revised Concept Plan (Fig.4.1), noting the compass points at the top left of the page (indicating "Approximate True North") and the likely position of the dredged access channel - a straight strip almost kissing the rounded ends of each of the breakwaters. Perhaps people with whole brains see things differently but the direction of the channel appears to be approximately due south.
Mr Orpin's successor at NBH, Geoff Plante, seems to be suffering from a similar disability. Mr Plante used the pages of MCN recently to hotly deny suggestions that the proposed ferry landing might be unsafe because it would be exposed to southerly weather at the entrance to the harbour. He even quoted an engineer! A fortnight passes and Mr Plante has changed his mind, acknowledged the safety issue and agreed to try to relocate the ferry terminal and ferry tie-up facilities "...to a more sheltered position" (Townsville Bulletin 21.11.98). It is unclear just what authority Geoff Plante has to be offering deals over Crown Land but it is more disturbing that such a fatal flaw should arise so soon after the government has spent over $200,000 and three years developing a new concept plan.
Why was a new concept needed? Because the 1995 design was illegal. It was illogical. It was arbitrary, silly, last minute adhockery. In short, it was incompetent.
The federal government then abdicated responsibility for delivering and managing the EIS process, leaving as much as possible to state agencies which took no responsibility at all. They lit the EIS fuse then stood back and watched it skyrocket unguided into administrative limbo. This is the document within which GBRMPA must find the scientifically defensible statement of reasons for issuing a permit. This is the permit which will set loose a million cubic metre wet dredging operation on a fragile and faltering world heritage listed reef. This will become the Sewers Canal of the Pacific - a loose bowel on the deck of the Great Barrier Reef.
The S-EIS is a joke, a trivialising travesty, a perversion of the environmental impact assessment process. The travesty begins with the insulting superficiality of the 1995 response spread sheet which literally missed the point of many submissions. It is not surprising that matters raised in the Draft were not addressed in the so-called 'supplement'. The authors saw no need to answer questions that might compromise their favoured project.
It is less surprising that terms of reference requested from the public in April 1998 were also stuffed up and ignored. The state government agencies might have been quick to spread around or just leak the contents of the response summary (at least to MCN) but when it came to delivering proper explanations of government policy (eg jurisdiction questions relating to the finished harbour or the status of Native Title in Nelly Bay), there was nothing, as if they operate on a different agenda.
How is it that the proponent can simply ignore the questions that specifically relate to its intended actions within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? How can consumers (of ferry services), ratepayers (who must fund the maintenance of the NBH waterways), government agencies (who might have administrative functions), businesses (which might have to change location) and ordinary residents (who pay for the thing and have to live with it) reasonably assess a proposal that is still under development, is subject to change without notice, is still likely to be an illegal use, has no responsible government advocate and which actually has no starter to use its 'safe harbour' facilities?
If there is no user for the facilities, why start an irreversible dredge-and-reclaim operation? If small is beautiful and the Queensland Government is willing to pay-up for a safe landing for Magnetic Island, why not look for the least intrusive, least destructive place for a harbour? Why impose an ugly, polluting, outmoded canal residential estate which is not sustainable and will not create one job?
How can the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park be legally abused and exploited as a quarry for reclamation materials? Will the federal minister or the Marine Park Authority actually spell out the limits of Commonwealth authority (to put the proponents out of their misery) or will they allow Queensland to continue serving up ridiculous concept proposals whilst ever there is a budget left to feed on? Surely the Commonwealth must now act - even if only to protect the Barrier Reef and Queenslanders from themselves.
I am astounded that the promoters of NBH can blithely refer to the "scaled-down" aspects of the project, such as a reduction in the expected population of the finished project - itself a mendacious artifice - then quietly slip into the Appendices, details of building heights for Precinct Six (6) of 18.5 metres AHD - that is 14.5 metres above the reclaim. I am no expert but I believe a five (5) storey building can be squeezed out of 14.5m. Are these people for real?
How is it that Townsville City Council can try out town planning exercises on Unallocated State Land without any oversight from the Queensland Government? For example, why allow the construction of four and five storey buildings on this exposed, noisy, polluted waterfront (as proposed for precincts 5 and 7 according to the S-EIS p83&88)? Why doesn't the Queensland Government set its own guidelines for the development of a safe landing for Magnetic Island? The local council has no expertise in this area - in fact it has spent the last few years separating its affairs from those of the Townsville Port Authority (TPA) which truly is in the business of harbour management.
So what if the TPA is "investigating opportunities to reduce all non-core activities..."? The Queensland Government has announced its intention to provide a facility within the port limits. If the TPA will not accept it (which surely is not the case?) then why doesn't this infrastructure come under the jurisdiction of the Transport Department?
Although specifically requested to appraise the ACTUAL specifications of rock in the main breakwater, the proponent has chosen to hide the truth. At p19 the S-EIS suggests that the applicant (the Queensland Government) takes its instructions about construction standards from Townsville City Council. Instead of facing the fact that the breakwater was constructed in 1989-90 to standards far below "the original design" because the rock delivered from Bright Point was underweight, the government wants to divert attention elsewhere. The main breakwater is not built to a standard which will give adequate cyclone protection. Even according to the original specifications the harbour would have to be vacated by all vessels in the event of a cyclone (PER, 1988, p56). Why doesn't the S-EIS deal with this matter? Why is there no plan for rectification dredging should the breakwaters be "15%" damaged by a cyclone?
Why is there no survey plan of the existing site including the dredged access channel? Why is there no details of the buildings and land tenure at the so-called "public access ferry terminal" - which is in fact a private building to be constructed on freehold land. Why doesn't the S-EIS explain that (with the exception of a footpath and hole) there is to be no publicly owned infrastructure at the ferry landing? Since when was an artificial beach public infrastructure?
Why does the S-EIS (at p1) refer to a "lease area"? When will the Applicant issue this lease? Will the lease be issued to the same specified, non-changeable-even-by-internal-corporate-directorship-changes party (NBH P/L) that was issued a Permit to Occupy? Will the government allow them to change ownership of the company even though it has previously specified that it will not allow such alterations?
Why is it that the plans disclosed by Douglas Partners in Appendix D appear to be so different from the official Plan of Development (Fig.4.1)? Why have they measured the breakwaters, especially the 'wave dissipator' and found them to be so different from the originally proposed shape and location? Does the Applicant have any idea that the placement of ferry terminal buildings and landing pontoons etc at the head of an access channel exposed to the south and even east of south may have dire consequences? Could this be a design flaw even more fatal than the illegal 'sausage' that torpedoed the last proposal?
Why is the Queensland Government proposing works which will expose residents to high levels of contaminated waters. If it is not possible to control the levels of faecal coliforms in Gustav Creek, even after million have been spent augmenting the Nelly Bay sewerage treatment plant, what hope is there for the stratified waters in the enclosed beaches, in the sedimentation dam, in the remnant mangrove stand? Will a siren, bell or flashing lights be installed to warn bathers (even pedestrians) that contamination levels are currently dangerous?
Why is the Queensland Government promoting the reclamation and freeholding of land which it knows is subject to inundation from storm surge (Cyclone Justin 1997) and the flooding of Gustav Creek (1990, 1997, 1998)? The experience of landslides and flooding in January 1998 and the subsequent failure of insurance companies to pay up for storm surge and flood damage (not at Nelly Bay but elsewhere in the Townsville region) indicates that no coverage is available. The S-EIS tries to slide around this by not answering the question.
It also tries to slide around the question raised by the Whitehouse Inquiry, namely, what provision will be made for rehabilitation insurance? Will the GBRMPA please specify EXACTLY what indemnity it will require from whom for the specific project at Nelly Bay. Will the Queensland Government pick up the tab for completion of the project should the preferred developers prefer something different? How can the GBRMPA rely on a promise, given by a third party, that NBH P/L is completely reliable, has expertise and funding and will carry out the works to the end come-what-may? This is palpable drivel.
In about 1994 the Queensland Government conducted a study of marina development in the state. From memory the study concluded that a mainland marina constructed from scratch would only realise about 30-40% of the construction cost at time of sale. For an island site limited by sensitivity requirements in a Marine Park and only a few kilometres for large mainland marinas with the full range of facilities the cost/benefit ratio would be dramatically reduced. Quite likely (and looking at the numbers for this project) Nelly Bay Harbour marina would be worth nothing...it would be a continuous liability. And who would be paying for its upkeep? Townsville ratepayers. And they don't even know it because the City Council will not admit anything. This is an outrage!
I have made little comment here about the way the S-EIS has dealt or not dealt with issues relating to impacts of the NBH project on the natural environment of Nelly Bay and the Magnetic Island world heritage area. I believe the Applicant has absolutely no idea what it is doing and that the S-EIS reflects accurately this ignorance.
I am disappointed that the federal government has allowed the Applicant to set its own agenda in the EIS process but take heart from the evidence that Queensland has made such a hash of this assessment that it will never again be allowed such liberty with priceless national assets.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
Yours faithfully,
Hugh McColl
24 November 1998
Mr GW Mercer
Department of State Development
PO Box 168
BRISBANE ALBERT STREET
QLD 4002
Dear Mr Mercer,
Re: Supplementary Environmental Impact Study, Nelly Bay Harbour Proposal – October 1998
The Supplementary Environmental Impact Study is so fundamentally flawed and inadequate that it is an insult to the 300 plus members of the public and the nine advisory bodies who made submissions on the proposal in 1995 and 1998.
It is equally an insult to the Queensland taxpayers who have paid well over $500 000 for the Expression of Interest process, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and associated studies to date.
As well, the State Government has now promised to contribute a further $6m to the scheme so that the 'preferred' developers can make a profit!
Immediate concerns:
•Most of the questions raised during the two periods of public comment have not been answered.
•The plans of the current proposal that are included in the SEIS for comment are unapproved conceptual layouts only.
•These diagrams are accompanied by a warning that the plans are being constantly updated and that they are unapproved by Council.
•These diagrams are still subject to survey and have not been drawn to scale. It is doubtful that the concept will fit on the area available.
•These unacceptable diagrams are accompanied by vague and unsubstantiated statements, since the concept has not advanced to a stage that would make anything else possible.
• The 'safe' ferry landing, which is often given as the project's reason for being, is located in the most unsafe position possible. The Magnetic Island's sole ferry company has recently indicated that it does not want to use the facility. The developers admit that the concept must be redesigned.
Even though the State Government and the 'preferred' developer (Nelly Bay Harbour Pty Ltd) have had three years to prepare the Supplementary EIS, they have yet again failed to come up with a concept that will withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Clearly the 'preferred' developers and those responsible for producing the EIS are grossly incompetent.
The Environmental Impact Statement Process
Magnetic Quay
The May 1988 Public Environment Report (PER) required by the Commonwealth Government for the Magnetic Quay project was repeated in August 1988, because many substantive concerns were inadequately addressed. The release of the August 1988 PER was followed by a period of peer review, when more concerns were raised.
At the end of the periods for public comment and peer review many questions remained unanswered, but the process rolled on and the permit was granted. Conditions requiring environmental safeguards (such as sheet piling, silt curtains, rehabilitation insurance) were attached to the permit, in an attempt to mitigate the impacts of the dredging in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Although the Magnetic Quay developers tried for several months, the safeguards could not be successfully implemented. The resulting cost blowouts caused the collapse of the project. The Draft EIS and the Supplementary EIS fail to point out this crucial fact.
Nelly Bay Harbour
The 1998 Nelly Bay Harbour EIS process appears to be even more ineffectual than the 1988 Magnetic Quay PER process. After the release of two expensive and abysmally inadequate documents, neither the Draft EIS nor the Supplementary EIS adequately address the original Terms of Reference.
Moreover, the October 1998 Supplementary EIS does not even begin to address the wide-ranging concerns raised by the advisory bodies and the community during the periods of public comment in November 1995 and April 1998. The developers have admitted that the concept will have to be redesigned, which could result in yet another supplementary EIS.
The Townsville City Council, Mayor Tony Mooney, and State Government bureaucrats and politicians (all of whom apparently see the success of their careers linked to their ongoing support of a development in Nelly Bay) remain steadfast in their refusal to acknowledge a host of problems, ranging from engineering to legal, that are sure to guarantee the collapse of any concept involving dredging in a reef environment in a World Heritage region.
The Draft EIS (DEIS) and Supplementary EIS (SEIS) fail to adequately address the Terms of Reference (1995 Draft EIS, vol 1, page 184)
• The SEIS fails to give the name of the proponent: Has this changed to the Department of Natural Resources?
• The SEIS fails to reveal the names of the present directors and shareholders of Nelly Bay Harbour P/L and Nelly Bay Harbour Developments P/L.
• The SEIS fails to include an adequate description of the current proposal, and merely provides a summary of how the present concept differs from the last. Diagrams for the current proposal are included, however each diagram contains a notice stating that the layouts are conceptual only, unapproved by Council, and subject to final survey. Also attached to each diagram is a warning that the plan is being constantly updated.
• The development objectives: The development objective as described in the DEIS was "to construct a financially viable facility on the site of the failed MQ project." The development objective was not changed or even discussed in the SEIS, so it may be assumed that the objective of this proposal remains the same as in 1995.
However, since the State Government has decided to contribute $6m to the scheme in order to ensure the proposal's viability, the development objective has obviously not been met. What is the objective now? If it is to provide a safe ferry landing and a safe harbour for small boats, this could be otherwise accomplished with far less environmental damage and cost to the community.
• The background to the proposal: The DEIS and SEIS fail to point out that the previous project had to be abandoned because the funding bank refused further loans. Over 30 million dollars had been spent on the project, and only the breakwalls and part of the access channel had been constructed. The engineers were unable to make the breakwalls seal so that the marina basin could be excavated in the dry. The bank decided that "the downside far outweighed the upside" and refused further funding.
The SEIS fails to point out that Takora, the company that owns the headland adjacent to the development, is suing the State Government in the Supreme Court over the refusal of the State Government to register their development plan for Bright Point. The State Government believed that the Bright Point boundary adjacent to its Nelly Bay Harbour project was in the wrong location.
However it was later found that the Nelly Bay Harbour boundary was in the wrong location. This dispute must be resolved before the EIS process continues further, as it affects Precinct 5 of the project.
• Need for the proposal: The SEIS fails to provide an analysis of the need for the proposal. The need for a safe ferry landing for Magnetic Island is stated several times, however the safe ferry landing at Picnic Bay could be built with minimal environmental damage and at far less expense than the Nelly Bay Harbour proposal.
What is the need for the residential accommodation when there is so much land and houses for sale on Magnetic Island? What is the need for more tourist accommodation when the present tourist operators struggle to get by? What is the need for another tavern, when there are already three on the island? What is the need for more commercial development when many of the businesses on the island barely survive from year to year? Why does Magnetic Island need a ferry terminal at Nelly Bay when the travelling distance is shorter from Townsville to Picnic Bay, and the trip more comfortable in the prevailing southeasterly winds?
• Prudent and feasible alternatives: The DEIS and SEIS failed to adequately assess the proposal as required under Section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. The 'Do-nothing' and 'Reinstate the Site' options were dismissed largely because the costs would have to be borne by the state. Partial deconstruction as an alternative was not considered.
The DEIS (1995) stated that the NBH proposal was fully funded and viable, so should be given priority before any alternative that relies on public money. The present NBH project is not a viable proposition unless the State Government contributes $6m for the public infrastructure, so it should not receive a higher priority than any other alternative.
The environmental impacts of dredging the harbour basin will be great, since the sheet piling cannot now (and never could) hold back sediment from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The ongoing pollution from the boats and the canal estate residential/tourism accommodation will degrade the Nelly and Geoffrey Bay fringing reefs and adjacent beaches for as long as the development exists.
An independent cost/benefit analysis of a greater range of alternatives must be undertaken before the EIS process continues further, especially since the State Government is committed to contributing $6m toward the project. It is important to note that the State Government is committing itself to paying for the dredging of the harbour basin, and activity which proved expensive and difficult last time around. The State will have to bear the cost blow-outs, which will be considerable.
If a less expensive, lower-impact alternative could be found that delivers the perceived needs of the community (ie a safe ferry landing, a small boat harbour, and the mess in Nelly Bay cleaned up) , it should take priority over the present Nelly Bay Harbour proposal.
• Impacts on World Heritage values: The SEIS fails to adequately discuss the impact of the project on Magnetic Island's World Heritage values. The SEIS includes a statement from Environment Australia: "construction activities are not automatically precluded from World Heritage areas and permits may be issued if it can be shown that the activities will not damage the area, and the primary purpose of the activities is not in conflict with the management principles for the area."
The dredging and reclamation of Nelly Bay's State Marine Park to construct a canal estate residential/tourism development for private gain surely is in conflict with the objects of the Townsville-Whitsunday Marine Park Zoning Plan.
The dredging of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to provide fill for a canal estate residential/tourist accommodation development in the adjacent State Marine Park and a carpark in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park surely does not comply with the Central Section Zoning Plan of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
The SEIS states that filling that corner of Nelly Bay with canal estate/tourist accommodation will clean up the mess in Nelly Bay and enhance its World Heritage values. This is utter rubbish. The World Heritage values of the area would be better enhanced by an alternative development that restored the World Heritage property as much as possible, while complying with the object of the zoning and fulfilling the needs of the community.
The endangered Green Turtle is known to lay its eggs in Nelly Bay during the summer months. There will be a much greater risk of boat strikes to these protected marine animals if the project goes ahead. This was not discussed in the SEIS.
• The SEIS fails to discuss the legislative basis or government policy on which the project is based.
• The SEIS fails to provide details of the costs of proceeding with the development: the costs to government, the costs to the developer or the ongoing costs to the community.
• The SEIS fails to discuss the several major constraints on the proposal:
- native title;
- engineering difficulties and their costs;
- the Takora lawsuit and its possible repercussions;
- aspects of the proposal that do not comply with the state and federal marine park zonings;
- the State Marine Park Act requirement that excision of part of the state marine park can take place only after parliamentary approval;
- the Section 30 (Australian Heritage Commission Act) requirement to adequately assess prudent and feasible alternatives;
- the viability of the project is doubtful, even with a government contribution, since its viability relies on the saleability of the residential land, which is is not insurable since it is located in a flood-prone, storm-surge area;
- the appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the permit is granted.
• The SEIS fails to discuss the precedent of reclaiming part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Queensland Marine Park for residential purposes (legal and moral discussion).
• The SEIS fails to provide a timescale or staging for implementation of the project.
Five additional pages of the original Terms of Reference outline further matters to be addressed. These relate to socio-economic and town planning concerns, environmental impacts during the construction and operational phases, the environmental safeguards, monitoring proposals and the Environmental Management Plan.
However, the project has not progressed past the concept stage. Consequently it has been impossible to describe crucial aspects of the proposal, to properly assess it's impacts on the environment, or to propose adequate safeguards.
No amount of revision of the project design, additional public comment, and further and better EISes will alter the fact that the environmental, legal, engineering, design, and economic pitfalls are insurmountable. If this proposal goes ahead just to please a few short-sighted bureaucrates and politicians, then the EIS process is indeed just a worthless public relations exercise.
How many more chances, at great expense to the public, will Nelly Bay Harbour Pty Ltd be given to come up with a project? Surely this incompetent company must be dismissed, and the State Government use the EIS process to come up with a prudent and feasible alternative that will clean up the mess in Nelly Bay and provide a safe ferry landing in Picnic Bay.
Sincerely yours,
Julia Walkden