Community Bulletins
Community Bulletin 3
Fisherman Islands Proposed Port Expansion
Your opportunity to provide input into the Impact Assessment Study
What's in this bulletin
- Introduction
- Potential impacts of the proposal
- Environmental enhancement opportunities and management plans
- Community opinion
- Invitation for public comment
Introduction
The Port of Brisbane Corporation is proposing to reclaim up to 270ha of land at Fisherman Islands at the mouth of the Brisbane River (as shown on the map) to provide an additional 1,800m of quayline (wharf frontage) and associated infrastructure to accommodate the projected future growth of the Port of Brisbane. This area is outside the Moreton Bay Marine Park.
If approved, the proposed reclamation would take up to 25 years to complete, and would involve the construction of a sea wall and areas for placement of dredged material.
Following a period for public comment, the Terms of Reference to guide the preparation of an Impact Assessment Study (IAS) on the likely impacts of the proposal, were finalised in January 1999.
A Draft IAS has now been completed following intensive technical and environmental assessments, along with targeted community consultation, and is now on display for public review and comment.
This bulletin provides a summary of the findings of the Draft IAS, explains where and when you can consult the Draft IAS, and how you can submit your comments.
Why does the port need to expand?
The airport and seaport are the two main drivers for the economic growth of South East Queensland. The efficiency of the port influences the competitiveness and efficiency of Queensland’s economy. Extra wharf and port land is required to support projected trade growth, to relocate existing port facilities at Hamilton, and to accommodate the trend towards larger ships which need deeper berths.
These impacts include:
Hydrodynamic Processes: Refinement of the design of the proposed extension has achieved a shape with only minor and localised effects on the tide/wind-induced currents in the port region.
Tidal Flushing in Bramble and Waterloo Bays: Modelling under a range of scenarios shows the effects of the proposed reclamation would be very small. Overall, the flushing potential in Bramble and Waterloo Bays (located to the north and south, respectively, of the proposed expansion), is not adversely affected. Short-term periods of slightly higher concentrations in these areas is offset by other periods of improvement.
Water Quality: Environmental Protection Agency modelling shows no adverse long-term impacts on water quality from the proposed reclamation; in fact, there may be some improvement in water quality in northern Waterloo Bay to the south of the proposed reclamation. There would be some turbidity during construction, for which controls and monitoring would be needed.
Sedimentation Impacts: Impacts on sedimentation are projected to be minor and localised near the proposed reclamation. There could be some local disturbance of the seabed along the south-eastern bund in the shallower water with slightly higher deposition of suspended fine, silty material in that area. However, there is no evidence that the development will have broader adverse impacts on sedimentation or act as a groyne trapping sand on the southern side.
Marine Ecology: The main impact to the marine ecology is the direct loss of the sub-tidal seabed under the proposed expansion, affecting approximately 90 hectares of patchy seagrass. The relative value of the marine environment lost directly to the proposed reclamation is significant in a local context, but low in a regional context. The area containing patches of seagrass represents about 3% of the local seagrass resource in the port area. Mangrove habitat in surrounding areas will not be impacted.
Localised minor changes to hydrodynamic processes may have a small, localised effect on sedimentation patterns, seabed habitat and seagrasses. There is no indication of adverse effects on processes that could have any significant impacts on the marine ecology within the Moreton Bay Marine Park.
Terrestrial Ecology: The existing reclamation area supports a range of bird-roosting and feeding habitats. These will be lost as the existing reclamation area is filled.
The proposed development would have both beneficial and adverse impacts, including:
- creation of additional high-tide roost sites for shorebirds, waterbirds and seabirds which use the area
- potential disturbance by construction activities within the existing reclamation and, following completion
- longer flight paths for species travelling around the proposed development to and from feeding habitat at Juno Point north of the Brisbane River
No potential adverse impacts on RAMSAR sites in the region have been identified.
Mitigation strategies include:
- Undertaking construction to minimise work activities around main roost sites during periods when high numbers of migratory waders are present
- Establishing alternative permanent and/or temporary high-tide roost sites. One such permanent roost site is already under construction at Fisherman Islands
Traffic: An additional 20 truck arrivals per hour at Fisherman Islands are projected during the first two years of bund wall construction, representing an increase of 1.75% to the existing total vehicular traffic volume. The temporary incremental increase in total daily traffic volume over the two-year first stage of construction can be accommodated.
Options are available to restrict truck movements during peak period, if monitoring shows any need to reduce traffic congestion. Once the first stage of construction is completed, further rock supply will be at a lower rate, and traffic impacts will reduce.
Noise and Air Quality: The nearest residences are some 6 kilometres from the site, and noise impact from on-site construction is expected to be negligible. The key issue is rock haulage traffic noise along Lytton Road in the first two years of construction. Rock haulage to the site will therefore be restricted to daylight hours (ie. there will be no truck traffic at night). Assessments indicate an imperceptible increase in noise.
Visual Impacts: There would be an increase in the extent of the night lighting on the horizon visible from residential and bay areas. Proposed mitigation measures include:
- Locating and designing the 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
- Liaising with Brisbane City Council and residents to establish vegetation screens at key locations in foreshore parks between Wynnum and Wellington Point, ensuring desired views are maintained
Economic Impacts: By the year 2025 employment is projected to increase to over 6,000 on site (currently 1,350) and to around 20,000 direct and indirect full-time equivalent jobs generated by port activities (currently 8,250). The proposed reclamation will also provide further impetus to the Australia TradeCoast, and improve land-use patterns and values around Hamilton.
If the proposed development does not go ahead, there would be a higher cost to Brisbane and Queensland importers and exporters associated with land transport.
The main likely detrimental impact 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.
Social Impacts: Positive impacts for the local and regional community are predicted, including increased employment opportunities, and increased recreational and tourism opportunities through the proposed provision of a Visitors’ Centre, public focus area, bikeway/pedestrian network, and cruise ship terminal. Potential negative social impacts include some loss of fishing grounds, traffic noise, and increased daily traffic flow in the initial two-year construction phase.
Cultural Heritage: Consultation with indigenous groups who claim traditional association with the study area has commenced and is ongoing. It is not known whether there is any archaeological material of significance in the area.
Environmental enhancement opportunities and management plans
A range of options have been considered with regard to environmental management, impact mitigation and provision of additional benefits to the broader community, in response to the impacts identified.
These include:
- refinement of the final bund wall shape to provide for minimal hydrodynamic impact and opportunities for mangrove establishment
- staged construction to minimise haul-route traffic and associated noise
- construction strategy to minimise and control turbidity during construction of rock bund
- construction strategy to minimise impacts on birds
- continued use of detention basins to control quality of discharged waters
- extension of the Corporation’s Environmental Management System — which is now ISO 14001 accredited — and Stormwater Management Plan to the new proposed reclamation area
- a monitoring and response plan for the construction period
- new bird roosting sites
- ensuring minimal night-time lighting in areas visible from residences
- provision of community access and use of non-port foreshore areas
Community opinion
Public submissions and stakeholder consultation indicate that there is both support for, and issues with, the proposed expansion.
The economic resource of the port, and its recreational and employment potential, appear to be highly valued, with the general view that port activity is a legitimate use of coastal land. However, the proposed reclamation must be justified and not cause unacceptable damage to the ecological viability of Moreton Bay or other bay-dependent industries, specifically fishing, tourism and recreation. The aspiration appears to be the protection of the environmental health of Moreton Bay (ie. its water quality, and marine and terrestrial habitats).
The key concerns raised through consultation regarding perceived potential impacts from the proposed expansion were:
- impacts on land and marine ecology
- siltation
- the water quality of Moreton Bay
- operational impacts associated with increased noise pollution and traffic congestion from increased rail freight haulage and road transport
- operational impacts associated with risk of pollution from increased shipping accidents, industrial activity, handling of hazardous goods and ballast water management associated with an expanded port
The last two impacts are not addressed by the Draft IAS as they are outside the Terms of Reference. However, they will be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the appropriate forums.
Invitation for Public Comment
Inspection of the Draft Impact Assessment Study
The Draft IAS may be consulted during business hours from Monday to Friday for a period of eight (8) weeks from 14 August 2000 to 6 October 2000 at the following locations:
| Port Office Sandpiper Avenue Fisherman Islands Tel: 3258 4888 Wynnum Library Civic Centre Bay Terrace Wynnum Tel: 3403 8888 Hamilton Library Racecourse Road (corner Rossiter Parade) Ascot Tel: 3403 8888 Redcliffe Library Downs Street Redcliffe Tel: 3283 0311 | State Library of Queensland Queensland Cultural Centre Stanley Street South Brisbane Tel: 3840 7666 Carindale Library Carindale Regional Shopping Centre Old Cleveland Road Carindale Tel: 3403 8888 Naturally Queensland Information Centre Environmental Protection Agency 160 Ann Street Brisbane Tel: 3227 8187 |
In addition, key information relating to the Draft IAS will be on display at the Port Office and the Naturally Queensland Information Centre throughout the public display period.
The Executive Summary of the Draft IAS can be viewed on the Department of State Development website at: http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/invest/majorprojects/ and on the Port of Brisbane Corporation website at http://www.portbris.com.au.
| The Draft IAS may be obtained from: | Submissions Invited | ||||||||||
| Written submissions on the Draft IAS are invited from interested parties. Submissions will be accepted until the close of business on Monday, 9 October 2000 and must be forwarded to: Project Manager — |
Submissions may be faxed, but will be disregarded if an original signed copy is not received within five working days. Submissions may be published as part of the assessment process, unless confidentiality was specifically requested and this request was judged to be sustainable against an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. Copies of all submissions will be forwarded to the proponent who may contact submitters to clarify issues. Please type submissions in black ink on A4 paper to assist in reproduction.
