Proposed Port Expansion at Fisherman Islands: Draft Impact Assessment Study. Volume 1

July 2000

Prepared by: WBM Oceanics Australia

The Project

The proposed port expansion at Fisherman Islands involves extension of the existing reclamation to provide additional quayline length of 1800 metres and an additional 230 hectares of associated Port land. The proponent is the Port of Brisbane Corporation (PBC). The proposed reclamation area is outside the Moreton Bay Marine Park, the boundary of which was designated to provide for port expansion. The proposed reclamation works would involve:

• initial construction of a perimeter bund wall, including the quayline revetment, and
• infilling the reclamation area over about 25 years with sediments obtained from:
• maintenance dredging of the shipping channels; and
• development dredging of the new quayline.

The project requires importation of rock material for the perimeter bund wall. For practical design reasons, the bund needs to achieve initial closure and commencement of a prolonged settlement period within the first 2 years. The process used in the existing reclamation area for placing and containing the dredged sediments, with finer material below a sand capping and detention basins to ensure suitable discharge of surplus waters, will be extended to the proposed works.

Need for the Development

Progressive development of the Port of Brisbane over the past 25 years has focussed on Fisherman Islands at the mouth of the Brisbane River. This is consistent with strategic planning aimed at relocating associated industry away from residential areas, achieving navigable channel depths without the need for excessive dredging along the river and optimising use of the Gateway Port area for trade, transport and industry purposes. The proposed expansion is consistent with and supports the Australia TradeCoast strategic objectives for the region.

The need for port expansion arises from two sources, each with their own demands on port land and infrastructure:

• growth in trade and related shipping and logistics trends; and
• demand for land for port-related commercial and industrial development.

Trade projections to the year 2025 show anticipated growth in all cargo types, with strong growth expected in containers (6.9% average annual growth), motor vehicles (4.7% average annual growth) and break bulk (2.9% average annual growth). Actual total container volumes for 1999/00 (430,000 TEU’s) are 20% above the projections in the 1992 Strategic Plan. Total container numbers are projected to reach up to 1.9 million by 2025. Total trade is projected to reach up to 61.4 million tonnes by the year 2025.

Port capacity analysis modelling shows that demand for port land will exceed the current supply at Fisherman Islands by the year 2007. Similarly, demand for quayline will exceed available deep-water frontage on Fisherman Islands by the year 2009. Consideration of demand drivers and the analysis of existing port capacity reveal that 230 additional hectares of land will be required for industrial and commercial development purposes, and 1,800 additional metres of quayline will be needed at Fisherman Islands by the year 2025.

The Port of Brisbane, together with the airport, are the two major economic drivers for the future development of the South East Queensland area. Constraining port growth would result in loss of economic development opportunities, loss of competitiveness of the Port, higher costs for existing business and adverse impacts on the Queensland economy.

Fisherman Islands provides significant feasible development opportunities in terms of serviced land for commercial and industrial development. The site provides excellent road access, rail access, deep-water frontage, and synergies with existing port operations. Alternative location options for future port development have been considered as follows:

• Clunies Flats – disadvantaged in terms of practical constraints, cost, servicing and environmental effects associated with extensive dredging to achieve sufficient deep-water access.
• Juno Point – disadvantaged terms of land acquisition and preparation costs, available height limitations (due to proximity to Brisbane Airport), infrastructure deficiencies and significant environmental issues.
• Pinkenba – lacks deep-water frontage area, limited land resource and access constraints.

Quality of Future Development on Fisherman Islands

The Fisherman Islands employment base is projected to be between 4,409 and 7,590 persons by 2025. This will require provision of public transport, community services, emergency planning, car parking and road design capacities.

An urban design plan has been developed with maximum opportunities for public access and provisions for lakelands, public facilities, open space, a visitor/environment centre, public focus area on the future outer sea wall and a green space network. The proposed port expansion will also provide environmental enhancement opportunities.

Port of Brisbane Corporation Environmental Management

The Corporation has a responsibility to manage development in an ecologically sustainable manner. The Corporation’s role as assessment manager for strategic port land, under the Integrated Planning Act, will assist the Corporation’s objective of sustainable development.

The PBC has an accredited Environmental Management System (EMS) which is implemented to ensure world class environmental standards in its operation of the Port. An Environmental Management Plan has been developed as part of this IAS process. The provisions of the EM Plan will be incorporated into the Port’s EMS and implemented as an integral part of the ongoing environmental management process.

Development of future infrastructure on Fisherman Islands will be subject to separate assessment processes to ensure the development does not have unacceptable adverse impacts.

Impact Assessment Process

The requirement for this impact assessment relates to Section 29 of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act (1971), the need for an IAS to accompany applications for approval of the proposed works and the Queensland Department of Transport Environment Policy for Queensland Ports. The Terms of Reference (TOR) were prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a process which involved community and government agency consultation. Responsibility for coordinating the IAS resides with the Department of State Development (DSD).

The IAS process has been used to:

1. undertake meaningful consultation so that all issues are identified and dealt with properly;
2. refine the design to minimise adverse environmental impacts;
3. assess and document a factual account of the potential environmental impacts, both adverse and beneficial, to accompany the applications for approval of the project; and
4. determine and document accompanying environmental and cultural heritage management, mitigation, compensation and monitoring provisions.

Community Consultation

Extensive community stakeholder consultation has been undertaken for the IAS, which succeeded in obtaining targeted input from identified stakeholders, complemented by broader community input. Consultation with indigenous communities is on-going.

The community consultation process included community bulletins, community and stakeholder meeting, workshops and one-on-one consultation. Both the draft Terms of Reference and the draft IAS have been placed on public display and comments invited from the community.

Design Refinement

Hydrodynamic modelling showed that there are benefits in truncating the northeast corner of the proposed reclamation. Such truncation streamlines water flow and minimises effects on currents, flushing and sedimentation. It also reduces the area of seabed habitat directly lost to the reclamation. This truncation reduces the land area potentially available to the port by about 40ha, but is cost-effective in terms of the trade projections and economic demand modelling undertaken.

The engineering design required geotechnical fieldwork and analysis to ensure stability of the perimeter bund resting on soft muddy foundations, and to ensure construction procedures which protect the surrounding environment. This showed that an initial part-construction of the bund wall is needed, followed by a lengthy period of settlement to build up foundation stability. The bund would be completed to final height over time as foundation strength is achieved.

The first stage of construction is scheduled to occur before the proposed new Port Road is in place. The construction procedure seeks to minimise the rock volume needed in that first stage and ensure truck traffic impacts along the haul road to the Port are acceptable. Existing licensed rock quarries will be utilised, with transportation routes to the Gateway Motorway and thence to the Port via Lytton Road and Port Road. Alternative rock transportation routes (eg. from Moreton Bay by barge) have been assessed.

Summary of Environmental Impacts

Environmental impacts of the proposed reclamation have been assessed and documented in this IAS consistent with the requirements of the Terms of Reference. Key issues are summarised below.

Soils and Sediments: Testing has shown that the material to be dredged for the proposed reclamation will not cause any site contamination issues.

Hydrodynamic Processes: Refinement of the layout design has achieved a configuration with only minor and localised effects on the tide/wind induced currents, these being confined predominantly to the bund truncation area outside the Moreton Bay Marine Park. No tidal impacts in the Brisbane River are expected.

Tidal Flushing in Bramble and Waterloo Bays: Modelling of dispersion of both river discharges and point-source discharge plumes in the region, under a range of seasonal tide/wind scenarios for the existing and developed cases, shows the effects of the reclamation are very small, and are slightly beneficial or adverse depending on the particular location and prevailing winds at any given time. Overall, the flushing potential in Bramble and Waterloo Bays is not adversely affected.

Water Quality: Previous studies have found that water quality in the Port region is significantly affected by discharges from both the Brisbane River catchment and Sewage Treatment Plants. Modelling for the IAS shows that there will be no adverse impacts on water quality from the proposed reclamation.

The EPA has undertaken independent modelling of water quality processes and impacts using their RWQM2 model as part of the IAS process, incorporating inter-related hydrodynamic, sediment, nutrient and water quality processes. There will be changed sediment resuspension dynamics in southern Bramble Bay immediately northwest of the expansion due to reduced wave energy there during east to southeast wind/wave conditions. The area includes highly active sandy shoals with relatively strong tide/wind induced currents and full exposure to northerly waves, with substantial regular sediment resuspension even with reduced wave influence.

The EPA modelling confirms no adverse long term impacts on water quality, with short term beneficial and adverse impacts at various locations depending on prevailing winds. There may be some improvement to water quality in northern Waterloo Bay to the south of the expansion due to significantly reduced inflow to that area of river and Sewage Treatment Plant discharges.

The Port has a comprehensive Environmental Management System audited to both ISO14001 and European standards, together with an effective Stormwater Management Plan for the existing reclamation to ensure thorough on-site control and treatment of storm waters and no contaminant discharge to surrounding areas. These Plans will be extended to cover the new reclamation.

A key water quality issue identified is turbidity during construction, for which controls and monitoring will be needed. Feasible options are outlined in the Environmental Management Plan.

Sedimentation Impacts: Consistent with the minor and local effects on hydrodynamic processes, any impacts on sedimentation are projected to be both minor and localised near the reclamation. Any re-adjustments by way of local scour near the bund would occur predominantly along the bund truncation area outside the Marine Park.

There is no evidence that the development will have broader adverse impacts on sedimentation or act as a groyne in trapping sand on the southern side.

Marine Ecology: The main impact to marine ecology is direct loss of the sub-tidal seabed under the proposed expansion, being 140 hectares of un-vegetated substrates and about 90 hectares containing seagrass patches. The area containing patches of seagrass represents about 3% of the local seagrass resource in the Port region. Mangrove habitat in surrounding areas will not be impacted. Localised minor changes to hydrodynamic processes may have some minor, localised effect on sedimentation patterns, seabed habitat and seagrasses. There is no indication of adverse effects on processes which could have significant impacts on the marine ecology within the Moreton Bay Marine Park.

Local commercial fisheries include trawling, netting, crabbing and bait worm harvesting. The area is also used by recreational fishers. The relative value of the marine environment lost directly to the reclamation is significant in a local context, but low in a regional context.

Terrestrial Ecology: The existing reclamation area supports a range of roosting and feeding habitats suitable for a diversity of shorebirds, waterbirds and seabirds. The Port expansion area is almost exclusively sub-tidal and is used by seabirds and waterbirds which feed in the open waters. Six of these species are of conservation interest – including the Little Tern listed as endangered under State legislation and others listed under international conservation agreements.

The proposed development will have both beneficial and adverse impacts as follows:

• Temporary replacement high tide roost sites for shorebirds, waterbirds and seabirds which use the area will be created and likely to be used, over some 20 to 25 years until full development is complete;
• No potential adverse impacts on RAMSAR sites in the region are indentified;
• There will be potential disturbance by construction activities to avifauna within the existing reclamation, requiring management action;
• Following completion, longer flight paths may be experienced for species travelling around the development to and from feeding habitat at Juno Point north of the Brisbane River.

Impact mitigation strategies recommended include construction strategies to minimise works activities around main roost sites during periods of high migratory wader abundance. The proposed reclamation will provide time to determine and implement alternative permanent and/or temporary high tide roost(s) of suitable design and location in the area, including the proposed bird roost site presently under construction.

Traffic: An additional 20 truck arrivals at Fisherman Islands per hour are projected during the first two years of bund wall construction. This represents a temporary incremental increase in total daily traffic volume over the two-year first stage of construction of 1.8% at the Gateway intersection, including 6.5% for heavy vehicles, and 3.4% at Hemmant along Lytton Road, including 10% for heavy vehicles, equivalent to the situation expected after about 3 years of normal traffic growth.

Analysis of traffic flow at critical intersections demonstrates that traffic increases can be accommodated. Options are available to restrict truck movements during peak periods if monitoring shows any need to reduce traffic congestion. The new Port Road may become available for use at some stage in the construction timeframe, thus minimising impacts along the existing route.

Noise and Air Quality: The nearest residences are some 6 kilometres from the site. Noise impacts there from on-site construction will be negligible. Dust levels from the Port activities are presently low and will be managed as needed with vegetation and other surface treatments to prevent dust nuisance. The key issue is rock haulage traffic noise along Lytton Road in the first two years of construction. In that regard:

• Rock haulage to the site will be restricted to daylight hours (ie. no truck traffic at night);
• Assessments indicate a small relative increase in noise level (the 18 hour L10) from 77.3 db at present to 77.6 db, which will not be perceptible.

Visual Impacts: The likely visual impact is an increase in the extent of the night lighting on the horizon visible from residential and Bay areas. Mitigation measures include installing new lighting to minimise the intensity of light visible from a distance, a vegetation buffer along the southern side of Lucinda Drive to screen lights and reflections, and liaising with Council and/or residents to establish vegetation screens at key locations in foreshore parks, ensuring desired views are maintained.

Economic Impacts: Existing employment comprises an on-site work force of 1350 and 8250 indirect equivalent full time jobs generated from port activities. By the year 2025 this is projected to increase to over 6000 on site and the order of 20,000 indirect equivalent full time jobs, if the development proceeds.

The construction costs for the reclamation over 25 years are estimated to be about $30million for the bund walls, $466million for capital improvements to wharves and facilities, and about $126million in land fill costs and provision of roads and services. Benefits derived in the form of contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the 25 year period are estimated at $632million from construction activities and $9.6billion from port operations. The incremental contribution to GDP of port operations associated directly with the reclamation increases progressively from about year 2008 to a sustained annual contribution of about $1.0billion per year at year 2025 of which 90% contributes to the South East Queensland Gross Regional Product.

The expansion at Fisherman Islands will provide further impetus to the Australia TradeCoast logistics, transport and trade service cluster. It will facilitate improved land use and values at Hamilton.

Should the development not proceed, there would be higher cost to Brisbane and Queensland importers and exporters associated with land transport. Not proceeding would also diminish the role of the Port of Brisbane, particularly with respect to its fastest growing item (containers), which would have an impact on jobs at the Port and a corresponding flow on effect. This may not just be a ‘no growth’ scenario, but a decline scenario because of lack of competitiveness and inability to handle vessel size requirements in the future.

The main likely detrimental impact of the proposal is reduction in the economic value of the marine environment, and associated loss to recreational and commercial fishing. Such impacts are expected to be minor relative to the economic benefits gained.

Social Impacts: A number of positive impacts for the local and regional community are predicted, including increased employment opportunities and the opportunity to present environmental and cultural values to the community, through the development of an Visitors Centre and other public facilities on the site. There will be increased recreational opportunities through the provision of a public focus area and the provision of a bikeway/pedestrian network. Benefits will accrue to the tourism industry both locally and regionally through these public facilities and a proposed cruise ship terminal. Additional positive impacts would be realised if a number of proposed environmental and community benefit options are adopted.

Likely negative social impacts include some loss of fishing grounds, traffic noise and increased daily traffic flow in the initial two year construction phase.

Community Consultation: There is both support for and objection to the proposed expansion among the community groups consulted. The potential economic and employment benefits are recognised. The overwhelming aspiration is that the environmental health of Moreton Bay is the most highly valued natural resource in the area. The general view is that, while port activity is a legitimate use of coastal land, the expansion must be justified and not cause unacceptable damage to the ecological viability of Moreton Bay.

Cultural Heritage: Consultation with indigenous groups who claim traditional association with the study area has commenced and is ongoing. Each group has or will be preparing its own statement on cultural significance. There may be some archaeological material of significance in the area. Cultural Heritage Management Plan provisions are outlined to ensure appropriate dealing with that material.

Environmental Enhancement Opportunities and Management Plans: A range of options have been considered as part of environmental enhancement management, impact mitigation and provision of additional benefits to the broader community, including the following:

Beneficial Design Features

• Refine shape to provide optimally for:
• Minimal hydrodynamic impact; and
• Opportunities for mangrove establishment.
• Staged construction to minimise haul route traffic and associated noise;
• Continued use of detention basins to control quality of discharged waters;
• Provide for community access and use of non-port foreshore areas;
• Provide new bird roosting site(s); and
• Ensure minimal night-time lighting intensity at residential areas.

Environmental Enhancement Opportunities

• Provision of bird roosting habitats;
• Mangrove cultivation in constructed waterways;
• Landscaping and revegetation to provide terrestrial habitats;
• Enhancements to the existing environmental lake; and
• Environmental and cultural heritage education facilities.

Environmental Management Plan

• Construction strategy to minimise impact on birds;
• Construction strategy to minimise and control turbidity during construction of perimeter rock bund wall;
• Implementation of PBC’s Dredging and Dredged Material Management Plan and environmental guidelines for the dredging vessels;
• Extension of the existing accredited Environment Management System and Stormwater Management Plan to the new area;
• Specific environmental management and monitoring plan provisions covering the construction period for mitigation and management of any adverse impacts related to:
• traffic,
• turbidity from construction activities,
• seagrass communities,
• avifauna utilisation of the area, and
• noise and air quality.

Conclusion

The proposed port expansion provides major benefits in the areas of economic activity, employment and integrated sustainable development of the Australia TradeCoast precinct. Adverse impacts are generally minor and localised in the areas of hydrodynamics, turbidity, marine and terrestrial ecology and traffic. These impacts have been minimised through appropriate design and will be mitigated and managed via an Environmental Management Plan.