Department of Environment and Heritage (Queensland) SEIS Response
NELLY BAY HARBOUR:
SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (SEIS)
The following general and attached comments are offered in response to Sinclair Knight Merzí letter of 12 October 1998 inviting comments on the above.
The SEIS fails to clearly and accurately present the project, possible alternatives and the related environmental, social, economic and statutory approval issues. These will need to be properly addressed if the Department is to adequately assess the project, provide sound advice to Government and complete the necessary assessment processes. It is recommended the additional work be presented as a draft final EIS before considering and signing off on the EIS.
The final EIS should be a stand alone document providing a complete description and assessment of the issues raised in these comments and other agency and public submissions to ensure the best outcome for the environment and the community. Such an outcome should meet criteria for ecologically sustainable development (ESD).
The final EIS should identify the entities that will be the applicants for each of the statutory approvals required for this proposal. The currency/validity of all previously issued applications lodged for this proposal should be presented. With the numerous changes that have occurred and elapse of time it is possible that fresh applications may need to be made. The proponent should be aware that if the detailed information relating to each approval is not included in the EIS, it will be required during the application assessment process.
The final EIS should clearly explain the roles and responsibilities of the various Federal, State and local government departments/agencies (including Townsville Port Authority) in the environmental impact assessment and statutory assessment processes.
The revised draft environmental management (EM) plan will need to be developed further. It is expected the final EM plan will be incorporated into the various approvals and environmental authorities. The Department reserves the right to amend the draft EM plan to ensure compliance with the conditions of any licences issued for the proposal.
Native title assessment procedures in accordance with Queensland's Native Title Work Procedures will be followed for all applications.
The final EIS should clearly list all submissions and indicate where the consultants believe each concern has been addressed i.e. both submissions and issues need to be chronologically referenced.
The capacity of any roads to be widened and implications for the adjacent national park as a consequence of the development (during both construction and operational stages) has not been adequately addressed. Similarly, the adequacy of the proposed roundabout at the entrance to the site at Bright Point has not been presented.
The proposed areas for tourist and barge facilities appear to be substantially less than the areas currently in use at Picnic Bay and Arcadia. The adequacy of the proposed areas needs to be substantiated.
Potential increased public pressures on marine and national parks and beaches have not been considered adequately.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Hesse
Manager (Planning and Assessment)
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Coastal Management Issues
The SEIS mentions the GBRMP and GBRWHA, but makes little reference to the Townsville/Whitsunday Marine Park (TWMP). As most of the development is occurring about low water (refer Figure 4.1), TWMP objectives and allowable activities are pertinent.
It is requested that Figure 4.1 be overlaid on a recent aerial photograph of the site to enable assessment of proposed changes against the existing landscape condition.
4.2.2.3. Given the wide variation of wind speed within the Category 3 Cyclone classification, a more informative and useful design criterion would be a specified wind speed over the maximum water fetch (to determine the design wave(s)) together with specified atmospheric pressure for design storm surge.
4.2.3.2 The source(s) of armour rock should be stated together with transport implications. Determine whether extraction of beach sand from sand stockpiled on Nelly Bay beach would constitute mining. If so, that is not a permitted activity in the TWMP. Sand replenishment will require approval pursuant to Section 86 of the Harbours Act 1955, Section 47(1A) of the Beach Protection Act 1968 and the State Marine Park Act 1982.
4.2.5 The significance (if any) of the 'reduction in crest height of the weir in Gustav Creek' (key feature page 15) is not explained.
4.2.9.1 Clarify what constitutes 'solid non-toxic wastes'.
5.2.1.1 Waste facilities (including recycling bins) should be provided at regular intervals around the public areas of the marina with a dedicated maintenance schedule. The statement regarding fish cleaning should be amended to remove provision of facilities for cleaning fish and disposal of fish waste in recognition of the crocodile and shark risks that this type of activity can carry with it in North Queensland. It is not a practice to be encouraged particularly at public boat ramps.
5.3.1 Statements such as 'the majority of works which might cause significant environmental harm have been completed' are not substantiated and therefore misleading.
5.3.10 The GBRMPA and DEH appeals processes differ. State Marine Parksí permits can be appealed through Judicial Review, but decisions cannot be overturned. Judicial Review focuses on the procedures adopted in coming to a conclusion, not the actual decision. GBRMPA permits can be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the possibility that decisions can be overturned. The SEIS does not draw this distinction.
5.3.11. The SEIS fails to note that activities occurring below High Water require a State Marine Park permit. Reference should be made to the TWMP zoning plan and activities consistent with its zoning objectives.
5.3.11. The area to be reclaimed was not specified: only that it was less than in the draft EIS. The area of reclamation needs to be clearly defined on a plan, perhaps by overlay, incorporated as part of dot point 2 above.
5.3.12 Comments made about the negligible risks to dugong and sea turtles as a result of increased vessel traffic, and the quick recovery of fish and benthic communities after the construction phase in Nelly Bay, are unsubstantiated. No details of assessments or studies that may support such statements were provided.
5.3.13 The area of mangroves to be removed was not specified. 'Some' is an inadequate description.
6.4. How was it determined that the biological impact monitoring should concentrate solely on coral reef health and turbidity impacts, as opposed to other possible indicators (temperature, dissolved oxygen)?
All monitoring in the marine park (TWMP and GBRMP) will require marine park research permits, and new barge services will need to be permitted to access Nelly Bay.
Paragraph 6 of the executive summary states that the water quality within the marina basin will fail to meet primary contact recreation guidelines as defined in ANZECC water quality guidelines 1992 for approximately 10% of the time. The SEIS justifies the prediction on the basis that such exceedance is not uncommon on beaches in any location near urban areas. The results (30% of time unsafe to swim at creek end, 10% at public beach) should be investigated further and a comparison made of existing Nelly Bay and the Strand swimming beaches.
Details as to how the beach will be monitored and closed during any such unsafe times should be explained. This impact should be quantified more accurately in terms of what magnitude rainfall event will be required (1 in 5 year, 1 in 10 year event, etc.) to cause a decline in water quality to the point where it is no longer safe for primary contact recreation at the beaches and how many days it will take for water quality to improve to an acceptable level following rainfall events.
The results of a model study of the wave climate within the harbour under a range of ambient conditions should be included to confirm suitability for and constraints on ëday to dayí operations. This is more relevant now that the public transport facilities have been moved towards the harbour entrance to what appears to be a more exposed location given the reduction in length of the outer breakwater.
An attempt should be made to determine where surface pollutants (primarily wind driven) will concentrate. Note that although the bulk of the water may be suitable for primary contact, it will take very little 2-stroke, diesel or sewage scum to make the public beach unpleasant.
Some statements in the SEIS are self serving and not appropriate in such documents. This is particularly so for the sections on World Heritage area and marine park.
Waterways (page 25) - Works in, on, over, through, or across any foreshore, or land lying under the sea within Queensland waters or any land lying under any harbour (including any navigable river), whether or not the foreshore or land is alienated or held from the Crown, require approval pursuant to section 86 of the Harbours Act 1955. Section 86 is administered by the Department of Environment and Heritage. This and other approvals required should be fully detailed as requested above.
The development appears likely to require Canals Act approvals.
The cost of providing a smaller, dedicated safe harbour only (smaller breakwater, public/ferry wharf, boatramp only) and rehabilitation of the remaining site should be detailed to determine its viability as an option.
The current concept plan appears to cater for fewer private boats, the number of which is unclear. It has limited public wharf facilities or tie up area for day visitors in their own boats. These factors may trigger the requirement to construct another or extended marina/wharf in the future and should be addressed.
On page 20, it is stated that sand will be obtained from the south of the main breakwater for beach nourishment purposes within the harbour. On pages 51 and 52, it is then stated that the condition of the beach south of the breakwater should be monitored and renourished where required. The Beach Protection Authority is mentioned as possibly being responsible for the monitoring after four years. It is also stated that excessive beach erosion is unlikely.
Removal of sand from the area south of the main breakwater would result in increased vulnerability of this area to storm attack. To ensure that esplanade is not jeopardised, a sufficient buffer of sand should be retained to accommodate expected fluctuations. Such a buffer may leave insufficient sand for nourishment purposes within the harbour. Accordingly, the quantities of sand available from the specified sources should be ascertained and compared with the requirement for nourishment of beaches within the harbour. If there is insufficient sand available from this source, an alternative(s) should be identified, quantified and any impacts associated with extraction assessed.
The specification of a trigger point for rehabilitation of the beach south of the main breakwater should be a matter for the Townsville City Council, as it will be the councilís assets which will be under threat from any erosion. Responsibility for rehabilitation through beach nourishment should be a matter for the proponent/successors in title.
The Beach Protection Authority does not have the resources to undertake beach monitoring and is not prepared to assume the responsibility.
Environment Issues
There is insufficient information provided to establish what statutory approvals are required for individual construction and operational activities. It is recommended that the final EIS have regard for approvals required under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and in particular the environmentally relevant activities defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998. The supplement fails to acknowledge changes to regulation which have occurred since the release of the draft EIS and provides insufficient detail to establish which threshold category would apply to each ERA activity.
Drawings 4.2 and 4.3 show the sewage pumping station on alternate banks of Gustav Creek. Clarification is required.
Clarify the design equivalent population capacity of the sewage pumping station, where any sewage pumping station overflow will be directed and proposed safeguards to manage the incidence of sewage overflows from this site in the event of power failure or a significant rainfall event.
Clarify the locations, number and size of vessel berths (commercial and private) to be provided in the proposed harbour and provisions for sewage pumpout facilities.
4.2.1.6 - The continuous operation of large dewatering pumps may result in significant disturbance to nearby residences in Nelly Bay. The SEIS includes no detail on what level of noise is likely to be generated by the proposal for different times of the day or when particular activities are being carried out. The Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 1997 provides that where an application for an environmental authority includes the conduct of a noise relevant activity, such as construction works, a noise management plan can be required as a condition of the environmental authority. It is recommended that appropriate modelling and consideration of the noise impacts associated with the proposal be provided in the final EIS. It should be noted that the issues of noise and dust were of a concern to the residents of Nelly Bay, and were the subjects of complaints during the earlier construction phase
4.2.3.1 Clarify whether a pit will be excavated for acid sulphate soils (ASS) prior to excavation and subsequent burial of ASS and whether deep burial means below the water table. The proponent needs to substantiate that an earthworks balance can be achieved: if not, alternate sources and spoil disposal options, as appropriate, need to be defined.
4.2.4.3 - This section discusses the excavation of the entrance channel and refers the reader to section 5.3.1 in the document. Section 5.3.1 discusses alternative sites and not water quality issues. Perhaps section 5.3.15 or Element 1 of the EMP were the intended references. The final EIS needs to have regard to the likelihood that a turbidity control plan may be required as part of any approval granted for the proposal and that such a plan will need to involve greater detail than simply measurements of turbidity at the site of the works. The final EIS should present potential experimental design and control sites for monitoring requirements for turbidity and suspended solids for this proposal.
4.2.7 - The minimal detail provided in the indicative construction schedule of a period of 32 weeks is not sufficient to consider what impacts may occur over time during the construction phase for the proposal. The timing of these proposed works should be detailed in the final EIS.
4.2.9.1 - Sewage treatment is an environmentally relevant activity licensed by the Department (ERA15). Consistent with current policy, the Department and the GBRMPA are unlikely to approve the use of temporary septic tanks as an appropriate treatment technology for the site. It is recommended that the final EIS include consideration of the use of package plant or pump out technology to service the sewage waste from the site during construction. It is noted that the SEIS attributes the cause for poor water quality in Gustav Creek and the proposed marina to septic tank runoff from this catchment, but recommends that this technology is appropriate for the site.
4.2.9.2 - The relationship between the proponent and the TCC needs to be clearly stated for the future operation of the sewage pumping station (SPS) and other sewerage infrastructure constructed for this proposal. If the SPS is to be operated by TCC then the council will need to amend its current EPA licence and take responsibility for any future overflows from the SPS to nearby receiving waters.
5.1 The statement in paragraph 3 that dust and noise impacts will be restricted to nearby residents and passers-by is not adequate and these impacts need to be more accurately quantified. The SEIS is lacking in detail on which adjoining properties will be potentially impacted by the construction of the proposal and how the proponents propose to manage these impacts. Statements that these issues will be addressed in the EM plan is inadequate.
5.2.1.1 It is not explained how the use of antifouling paints is to be minimised on boats within the marina.
5.2.1.1 Stormwater runoff in paragraph two gives the example that drainage from hard areas may be directed over grassed areas prior to discharge. This example is not realistic as it is inconsistent with the statement made under 4.3.5.4 that a design solution for allotments and buildings is to drain to roadways and then gross pollutant traps or similar to mitigate impacts from stormwater. Such examples can result in confusion on how stormwater will be managed and should be reconciled for the final EIS.
5.2.1.2 & 5.3.15 - Water quality predictions. See comments above on the issue of bathing water quality and residence times within Nelly Bay Harbour and the need for monitoring and public notification of pollution events.
Cultural Heritage Issues
The following two issues were advised in the DEH review of the draft EIS report of Nelly Bay Harbour and have not been addressed in this SEIS:
The report provides no basic description of the impact of the development on cultural heritage places or sites. For example, while it is assumed Site NB#2 (State register number FK:A72) will be destroyed by the development, this has not been plainly stated.
Site FKA72 is protected under the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 and any impacts in the site must take account of the provisions of the Act.
Any inspection of cultural heritage places in the development area should be conducted by the traditional owners and a qualified archaeologist.
Any collection of cultural heritage items should be in accordance with the provisions of the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987.
If any human remains are found during the development of the harbour all work should cease immediately in the area. The regional archaeologist (Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage) and Aboriginal traditional owner representatives should be contacted immediately. This obligation should be acknowledged in the final EIS and incorporated into the EM plan.
The ecological sustainability of the proposed development
The consultants and proponent's attention is drawn to the Simmons Report which includes sound advice and strategies for meeting ESD criteria. Selected passages are quoted below with DEH comments shown in italics:
'4. Precautionary Principle For Environmental Management
....... All options would have to be evaluated as legitimate options to a completed development in order for any choice of action to be justifiable in environmentally (ecologically) sustainable terms. Economic criteria including capital and maintenance cost issues would form part of the risk-weighting process.......
The current development proposal documentation (FEIS) should be sufficiently detailed to enable risk-weighted consequences to be evaluated for the choice to complete a constructed development.........
5. The Options For Deconstruction
5.1 Basic Approach
........ It can therefore be argued that the Commonwealth Government in particular should now ccept some responsibility for costs of actions to restore an acceptable environment in the locality. There may also be a role for the State Government to contribute in some manner (which it has undertaken to do).
5.2 Partial Deconstruction Compromises
Questions of public access, harbour, mooring and sheltered anchorage require community and professional advice. It is expected that the latest proposal for development is based on such advice.(As such advice is not complete in the SEIS, it should be included in the FEIS). It is also expected that it would be structured on achieving a revenue base (land sales and marina/harbour activities) to pay for development and operation costs, routine infrastructure maintenance, plus profits for the entrepreneur and facility operators. (Implied in the SEIS).
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Considering that the same environmental values are (should be) the core of all parties' interests in the area, the most responsible course now would be to initiate a responsible and comprehensive best-practice process.