"SERVING
MANY COMMUNITIES" THE RIVERMOUTH ACTION GROUP INC.
"SERVING
MANY COMMUNITIES"
ABN: 42 095 122 498 Incorporation No: 7145 Sanction No: CP4688
Established May 1988, Incorporated May 1990
P.O. Box 268 MORNINGSIDE 4170.
Ph. (07) 3399 6204
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au
http://www.rag.org.au/default.htm
___________________________________________________________________________________________
8 October, 2000
Project Manager
Port of Brisbane Fisherman Islands Expansion
Projects and Infrastructure Division
Dept. of State Development
Dear Sir
Please find attached our Group's preliminary submission on the Draft Impact
Assessment Study (IAS) for proposed Port of Brisbane extension. We reserve the
right to amend this submission at a later date.
We are concerned not only about the expansion of the Port further into Moreton
Bay and the impact on Moreton Bay but the new and increased transportation infrastructure
which will need to be added (later) to support this expansion. We consider the
POBC and Government Departments have put the 'cart before the horse'. Little
or no land has been set aside for further future rail lines either along the
existing corridor or a new rail corridor.
So much for integrated planning. First it was a new port, then an access road,
then a narrow gauge rail line, then Dual Gauge Rail Line, then a new Port Road,
now an expanded port, and soon a new proposed rail line which nobody is willing
to talking about.
No concern has being shown or allowed in the IAS of the increasing rail transport
noise impact on residents as this real community impact was not included within
the 'Terms of Reference'.
Several issues that were included in the "Terms of Reference" were not addressed
in the IAS.
The some mathematical calculation within the IAS are to say at least POOR.
The calculations made on the amount of dredge material and transportation distance
of the rock required defy even simple logic or simple basic maths.
We also submit our account for $500.00 for our time and expenses in preparation
and writing our submission.
We believe that a Peer Review of IAS must be carried out before the Public
are requested to perform such a time consuming, tiresome, non-profitable and
normally non-reimbursing pursuits. Why is the burden placed on so many members
of the public, community groups, fishing groups and last but not least the environmental
community in order to search out and find the many errors made by so
many well PAID well EDUCATED Consultants for FREE.
If the "Terms of Reference" are not to be enforced then why do we bother at
all. If the "Terms of Reference" can be ignored then they are little more that
a joke upon the community and a blight on the well being of our environment.
We condemn the Draft IAS on the expansion of Fisherman Islands
to the Ministers and Departments involved.
Regards
signed
Barry Wilson
(Chairperson)
RESPONSE TO THE
PORT EXPANSION AT FISHERMAN ISLANDS
DRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY.
___________________________________________________________________________
COMMENTS.
No mention about the increase of air pollution as a result of the increased shipping in Moreton
Bay. Under the MARPOL agreement shipping bunker oil is allowed to be up to 5% Sulphur.
Queensland is reducing diesel fuel sulphur content to 50 ppm.
Light marine fuel burnt to run generators etc whilst in Port contains approximately 1% and
sometimes more Sulphur.
Acid Rain fallout from shipping using Moreton Bay and whilst docked is real concern.
We will consider an FOI on the Department of State Development, Environmental Protection
Agency and a few others for their submission or contributions on this IAS. Just to see what their
intentions are and what inputs they had.
1.3.3
Impact Assessment Study
Hydrology, hydraulics, water quality, ecology, noise and air quality BUT NO LIGHT.
2.4.1
List a number of documents which were not made available on which this study was framed.
Table 2.4.2
The Table 2.4.2. does not exist within the draft or final Brisbane
Gateway Ports Area Study.
The comment about Murarrie: "Suited to all desired industries except air services catering,
air cargo consolidation and ship repair (due to distance from port)."
What is contained in the BGPA is:
"Characteristics: Area essentially a redevelopment opportunity to replace obsolete
industries which have moved out leaving their sites vacant."
"Indicative Uses: A range of light and general industries. Because of infrastructure
availability, including reticulated steam, the area has good potential for the food industry."
2.4.6
"Promote and secure improved road and rail access to the port facilities to......"
This is the first mention of a NEW RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
Page 2-9
2.4.9
Draft Brisbane City Plan
"maintaining and developing adequate environmental and safety buffers to Residential Areas,
giving appropriate consideration to cumulative impacts;"
No such buffer for existing residents along the dual-gauge rail line, nor the residents along
Lytton Road Hemmant or Hemmant & Tingalpa Road Hemmant from heavy vehicles.
Light spillage from existing development has not ben addressed by the present policy.
Again light pollution is not mentioned.
3.1.3.
Washing the rock fill before dispatch from quarries could help reduce or eliminate several
pollution issues.
Furthermore if the rocks were to be loaded by a grab and not end-loader or excavator reduced
soil would be transported which could fall from, or be blown from trucks.
3.6
That is a total of 800,000 cu m per year.
3.7.1
40% of 17.5 equals 7 million m3.
25 years at 800,000 cu m per year equals 20 million cu m
Yet only approx. 11 million cubic metres are required!
It's interesting on how these maths will be explained.
Yet none of these figure take into account the shipping channel being lowered from RL-13.5 to
RL-18.5 to allow deeper draft shipping to use the Port of Brisbane.
HIGH CASE
Melbourne-Brisbane Rail Link by 2010 second mention of new rail to the port.
This is the second mention of a NEW RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
Many of the documents (at page 2-4 at 2.4.1) relied upon for the production of this
document were not made available to community groups inspection.
We now await your fully documented response to this, our submission.
Turbidity is not acceptable due to its negative impact near the port
or in Moreton Bay. The EPP on Water restricts sediment from land based
uses. Land developers are presently being targeted by the Brisbane City Council.
This enforcement has been a long time in coming. Past sediment plumes cannot
be used to justify continued turbidity plumes generated by the POBC developments.
The shipping using their propellers will also disturb the sediment in the river
adjacent to the port and impact on a multi-million dollar fishing industry.
The use of dredges which allow the excess of water to overtop the deck or return it to the bay or river through the bottom of the dredge is not acceptable in the 21 century.
Queensland is the only Australian state to allow this method of dredging which allow the
generation of such turbidity in costal water. WHY?
7.6.2.
AHD level 200
Comment to come
"As well, the anecdotal evidence is that cessation of dredging around Mud and St Helena
Islands has significantly reduced the extent of turbidity and silt deposition along the Wynnum
North and Boat Passage area. This also is thought to contribute to reduced siltiness of the
seabed in those areas."
Morton Bay Container Park.
Page 7-167
ditto
ditto
page 7-168
ditto
ditto
ditto
page 7-169
ditto
Table 7.11.1
2003
SO2
???????,868
Does SO2 figures include the increased sulphur from shipping and aircraft emissions.
In the future sulphur reduced diesel fuel will be available in Queensland to be used by heavy
transport. Is there to be any reduction of sulphur emission from the oil refineries or is there an
increase in sulphur as it is partially removed from diesel fuels?
Have the two approved cogeneration power plants and four other being planned within the
airshed been taken into account?. If so, how?
page 7-175
7.11.4.1
Is a demonstration of just about how much (or LITTLE) some people understand about OZONE.
Ozone is a regional issue yet the Ozone reading in the IAS are all readings within a small
regional distance. City to Eagle Farm 8 km and city to Wynnum 14 km.
The figures presented for Ozone levels do not take into account existing prediction of Ozone
which predicts levels of Ozone in the CBD of 130ppb and nor the levels at the northern end of
the Gold Coast of 200 ppb with no Gold Coast emissions are included in the equation. The WHO
limit on Ozone is 80 ppb never to be exceeded.
The NH&MRC levels are 100 ppb for 1 hour level and 80 ppb 4 hour level.
Brisbane has somewhat of a "captive air problem" and "temperature inversion layers" which
trap this smog close to the ground. Some Brisbane suburbs are quoted as having the highest
incidence of children suffering asthma for the whole of Queensland.
No mention is made of increased and increasing aircraft traffic, shipping traffic, the approved
co-generation power station on Gibson Island, the approved co-generation power station at the
BP refinery or the proposed co-generation power station at the Caltex refinery or the regionally
proposed co-generation power station at Carole Park, or the proposed co-generation power
station at Wivenhoe Dam or the proposed co-generation power plant at Rocky Point at the
northern end of the Gold Coast.
What impact will all of these have on the livability of the Brisbane residential areas?
All of these will cause increase emissions in the regional airshed are not included in the
Department of Environment 1993 estimates.
If the "best guess" from the 1993 estimated emissions are relied upon in the year 2000 to
"rubber stamp" development in the south-east Queensland airshed, then its leave us in no
doubt as to why our world's atmosphere is in so much trouble with high air pollution levels.
No actual research appears to have taken place with the production of this IAS to validate the
1993 projected figures of pollution for Brisbane. Why should we be expected to believe that
there is sufficient room in our regional airshed to support this increased shipping proposal given
that approved developments are not as yet factored into air emission tables on which future
developments such as this one has relied upon?
7.13.5.2.2
Daily movement patterns:
"There is a low level of public transport usage in travelling to work compared to the rest of
Brisbane reflecting a low level of service in the area."
This area on the bayside has a long history of neglect of public transport by the Brisbane City
Council and the State Government.
7.13.5.2.4
"There appears to be a low representation of skills in the areas of finance and insurance, and
property and business services to match potential job growth in the Brisbane Gateway Ports
Area."
Just how many jobs of this nature will be needed in the Gateway Ports Area? No where else in
the IAS are the skill mentioned but many other core skill are mentioned.
Where and how was it discovered that these important job skills are:
1 Not found within the local community?
2 Needed in such qualitites withing the Gateway Ports Precinct to be worth mentioning within
this study?.
Furthermore we would not expect many residents with the specialised skills mentioned above
would want to live the GPA given the levels of increasing pollution (noise, air, vibration, light),
noisy freight trains, increasing heavy traffic and aircraft noise.
7.13.5.2.4
"The Brisbane River Management Group (1998) has identified a lack of adequate refuelling
facilities on the Brisbane River for these operators."
Seeing that the POBC controls most of the commercial river front why have they not attended to
this disaster waiting to happen, where refuelling of small shipping is not undertaken in a safe
environment which would reduce potential spillage of fuels and oils and possible fires.
figure 7.13.2
Suburbs names on the map are not really representative of the location of the suburbs.
For example Murarrie, Lindum, Wynnum. Cannon Hill didn't even rate a mention nor Wynnum
North or Wynnum West. Clunes Flat is also incorrectly marked.
This is the case for many of the maps.
"Rail freight services gain access to Fisherman Islands on a spur line from the suburban
passenger rail network. The line is limited in its operational capacity by the need to share the
suburban rail network."
This is the third mention of a NEW RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
All under the page heading of, "Description of Existing Environment."
Hasn't the author travelled along this section of rail line and noticed a dual gauge dedicated
freight rail line built several years ago?
If not it may be advised that ALL members of the IAS team take a train ride to Wynnum North
and then be driven around the area in question as to familiarises themselves as to what they are
writing about.
figure 7.13.3
also page 7-199
figure 7.13.4
The Spelling of "BULLER ISLAND"??????
And again the incorrect placement of location names and omission of suburb names.
figure 7.13.5
I would be only too pleased to hold the hand of this author and take a walk along the
"Boardwalk" as mentioned in the figure 7.13.5 where it is marked, or take his/her hand and show
him/her where it actually is situated approx 2 kilometres south or can be found by referring to
the UBD street directory on map 143 the Mangrove Boardwalk is marked at reference H13.
7.13.6.4
"Fisherman Islands comprises one large, flat land mass developed almost entirely for Port of
Brisbane activities, and a small, separate area of mangroves off the southeastern tip of the large
land area. Both areas are almost entirely surrounded by water."
SMALL area of mangroves????? No mention of the other"small" area of the all important
mangroves on the south west corner of Fisherman Islands? Why Not?
7.13.6.4
"Other dominant features along the Port of Brisbane wharf include light towers, storage tanks
(silos), conveyors, and of course, the ships that dock for periods of time (refer to Figure
7.13.7)."
Light spillage to southern suburbs.
"The lights on the Port of Brisbane site are dominant features in the night landscape. Again,
these lights can be seen from long distances, and serve to mark the entrance to the river. They
are however, just a small part of a sea of lights that dominates the night sky in this area."
Light Spillage.
"Land to the south of Fisherman Islands (and the Whyte Island oil refinery) is predominantly
residential, with a range of public recreation areas along the foreshore."
Its quite evident the author has no idea. The Caltex (previously AMPOL) Refinery has always
been at Lytton and called the AMPOL Lytton Refinery. White Island existed as an Island until
the Port access road sealed Crab Creek from tidal flows from Moreton Bay. The two ends of
Crab Creek can be seen on UBD map 143 at reference B3 and G7 . Unfortunately the UBD also
has mis represented Whyte Island.
Views to Fisherman Islands from the foreshore north of the Brisbane River mouth, are generally
obscured by Juna Point. However, the gantry cranes are visible from the Bramble Bay foreshore
on the Redcliffe Peninsular, particularly at night when the lights along the wharves are ablaze
(refer to Figure 7.13.19 and Figure 7.13.20).
7.13.6.6
"Visual and Environment Overview
It is evident that a number of sites are more sensitive to existing development at Fisherman
Islands than others, due primarily to unhindered views to the site. Those sites in the area
surrounding Fisherman Islands that are currently most affected by the night lights along the
wharves include:
Although the port infrastructure is visible during the daytime, it is not a dominant feature and
generally blends into the horizon line. On hazy days it disappears altogether.
At night time however, the port is highly visible, even from great distances, because the wharves
are lit up with very bright lights. These lights are a very dominant feature in the night
landscape, particularly from the visually sensitive areas described above. Although the lights do
not have any direct impact on these areas through intrusion of light into premises, they affect
views in the direction of the port with their intense glow on the horizon."
Shielding to stop the glare of existing Fisherman Islands' lights is required.
Australia Trade Coast
"The intent of the strategy is to optimise development of the Brisbane Gateway Ports Area as a
world class transport hub based on the existing sea and air ports and excellent road and rail
infrastructure, whilst balancing the environmental, social and economic effects of
development."
This is the fourth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
Nothing wrong with the existing rail line's capacity in this sentence is there?
Maybe be someone should read the "Lytton Road East Development Study." Sewage
capacity on the south side of GPA is of limited capacity and the sewerage plant
at Lytton is for domestic waste only not Industrial and the Gibson Island plant
has industrial effluent restrictions with very limited expansion capacity especially
when it has to cope with all the upstream residential developments and the building
of a new parallel trunk sewer line to Gibson Island will be needed to cater for
the ever increasing sewerage loads from the Bulimba Creek Catchment housing developments.
Page 7-217
7.14.4 "For example, throughout SEQ it is estimated that less than 10% of all jobs
are in the manufacturing sector and 9% in transport and storage, while around
25% are in wholesale/retail and 20% in community services. Within the local
area the estimated distribution of jobs is This does not necessarily suggest that the local area is deficient in community
services and, to a lesser extent, wholesale/retail." Refer 7-190 No mention if the need for previous types of employment. This is the fifth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
Brisbane City Councils Economic Development Strategy Brisbane City Councils Economic Development Strategy has 11 key themes.
1. Major new investment growth.
2. World class research and advanced technology industry.
3. New export markets.
4. Tourism boost.
5. "World Best" education levels.
6. Priority for infrastructure projects.
7. Strategic land development.
8. Small business initiatives.
9. Streamlined regulatory and approval processes.
10. A plan for suburbs and neighbourhoods.
11. Quality of life issues. This list appears to be in order of importance! "Increased Area of Hard-bottom Habitat The expansion of the rock wall will
increase the area of available habitat for hard-bottom biota. It would be expected
that the rock walls will eventually be colonised by sessile fauna and fouling
organisms (eg. oysters, barnacles, algae, bryozoans). Site inspections indicate
that a range of common mollusc, barnacle and macroalgal species inhabit the
rock wall at the existing port area."
There appears no mention about the increased level of Tributyl-tin (TBT) from
increased shipping and its devastating impact on this same marine life and mollusc
both at the key line and in Moreton Bay and its accumulative effect on the food
chain. Nor how the extended wall would provide a breeding grounds for marine
nasties imported in ballast waters.
HAT Bird Roost
missing in on the CD rom.
table 8.10.3
and on second last line of page
MORTON BAY
ALSO.
Table 8.10.4
Table 8.10.5
And third last line on page.
ALSO
Page 8-115
Table 8.10.6
ALSO
Page 8-118
2nd para of 8.11.3.1
8.10.1.4.1
"The Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 1997 (EPP Noise) specifies
a planning noise level for a state controlled road of 68 dB(A)
assessed as the L10 (18 hour) level. The L10 (18 hour)
measure of traffic noise can be described as the A - weighted noise level exceeded
for 10 percent of the time during the 18 hour period between 6:00 AM and 12:00
midnight."
SEE ATTACHMENTS Noise Readings one hour readings. (The one hour reading are not on web page)
But the Approx. 36 hour chart and Graph of L1, L5, L10, L50, L90, L95, L99 are available to be seen.
The L10 (app 36 hour) is 73.9 dB (A). Well in excess of the state planning
policy of 68 dB(A) (18 hour).
1331 Lytton Road Hemmant approx 8.09 37 pm Thursday night to early Saturday
morning almost 36 hours of one second recordings. Taken from inside of a close
in porch with louvers open. Not taken to any standard but a
noise measurement within a home along Lytton Road over a continuous 35 hour
54 min 49 sec period
Table 8.10.9 Calculated road traffic noise for the existing traffic flow on Lytton
Road and with addition of the haul trucks traffic.
Noise Sensitive Place
Calculated L10 (18 hour (without the
haul traffic) dB(A)
Calculated L10 (18 hour (with the haul
traffic) dB(A)
Lytton Road to Interchange with Poppy Street
77.3
77.6
The traffic noise along Lytton Road is already near three times the State Planning
Level. But the consultants predict another .3 dB(A) will not be noticed.
Isn't that just wonderful for Hemmant residents? Just as Hemmant dies from
death of a thousand cuts some one considers a few more nicks won't be noticed.
What we should see contained in the IAS is that until the road noise
is reduced to or below the State Planning Level, no further development should
be allowed which would increase traffic along Lytton Road, Hemmant and impact
on residential homes.
Now this would be a good time to for the POBC to invest in noise reduction
and resident relocations for those residents who are suffering noise levels
above the State Planning Policy Level. Page 8-119 This suggestion of the use of a chemical suppressant for dust control in an
marine environment by a company who profess to be a leader in marine consulting
defies belief. How could such a suggestion be made and not be picked up before printing?
Dust control should be a prime objective. Rocks washed at the Quarry. All loading of rocks by grab only. No end loaders or excavators. Truck wash before exiting the quarries unless truck stays on a sealed surface
which is kept dust free. All loads to be fully covered before leaving the Quarry. The road from the quarry is inspected regularly and if sediment is being dragged
out onto the road a road sweeper kept on site at the quarry and used throughout
the day to control deposited sediment. AT THE PORT That the vehicles leaving the port precinct also be covered if the trucks are
not swept out before leaving. All trucks and construction vehicles pass through a wheel wash if vehicles
are driving through unsealed sections and a shake down grids are not sufficient
to shake off any dust or the area is wet from rain or whatever. All vehicles which are to be used for transportation of rock need to be inspected
on a regular basis to ensure that the rear doors are sealing and not depositing
material along the transportation corridor and that exhaust plumes and drive
by noise be monitored and a satisfactory noise level not exceeded and enforced.
Tip trucks with barn rear doors need to be used because the size of the rocks
being transported. All heavy transport vehicles to be inspected for exhaust emissions whilst starting
up and driving off loaded as a condition of continuing transport contract. It may be necessary to not allow certain makes of trucks to take part in the
contract and vehicles over a certain age so that the lowest emissions possible
can be achieved along the haul route. That the diesel used be of the lowest sulphur content presently available in
Brisbane as part of the contract. A comparison of BP against Caltex. Find a
supplier with <0.1% Sulphur "In estimating daily and hourly truck volumes required to supply this volume
of rock over a two year construction period, assumptions were made in relation
to critical parameters as follows: Average truck volume - 15 m3
Haul period - 50 weeks/year
Haul days/week - 6
Haulage hours/day - 10 On the basis of the above listed assumptions, 207 truck visits/day (i.e. 414
vehicle trip ends) would be required for rock haulage over the first two year
period. Over a ten hour day, there would be an average of 21 loaded trucks entering
the Port each hour (i.e 42 trips/hour)." This page really starts the maths test for some of the development. From reading
the tables the following figures are discovered: 15 cubic metres average truck 25 trucks in use 10 hours per day 3 minutes apart (same direction) Therefore vehicle passes every 1.5 minutes
in one direction or the other. 170 km per day per truck 6 days a week 50 weeks a year 2 years Consultants Calculation for the number of trucks was 207 per day. 10 hrs x 60 min /3 = 200 trips per day / 25 trucks =8 trips each x 15 m3 each
= 120 tonne per truck per day or 3,000 m3 to 3,105 m3 (if based on 21 loads/hr)
That's wonderful if all trucks start and finish at the same time and if the
170 km were enough distance allow to reach the quarry for the 8 trips per day.
Each trip distance allowed for 21.25 km round trip. Yet it is greater
that 30 km round trip from the Gateway Motorway to the new reclamation site
and will increase by a further 5 km nearing completion of the expansion.
So much for which quarry may be used and the calculation of pollution from
the trucks travelling the haul route. So much for the so called scientific evidence
from the consultants and the prechecking by the POBC and WBM. If work will only take place over ten hours per day then the following: If the first trucks leaves the quarry at 7 am and the 25th trucks
leave the quarry at 8.15 am on its first trip. (Trucks are 3 minutes apart.)
The last truck loaded must not leave later than 4.24 pm to arrive at the Port
and unload to finish by 5 pm (half the 1h15m round trip). Given that the quarry cannot be accessed within less than 11 km and
36 minutes turn around time (unload and depart).. The difference is 12 loads per day = 180 m3 per day less than estimated. 180 m3 per day x 6 days =1080 m3 per week = 54,000 m3 per year short = 108,000
m3 short over 2 years. That is a basic 3.5% error without taking into account that the fill most probably
be obtained within the distance used in the calculations for the pollution.
Issues of mechanical breakdowns of equipment at the Port end, the Quarry end,
public holidays, blasting times, strikes, fuel shortages, approval times for
the quarries to conduct their own IAS for their applications to expand, road
repairs due to the much increased heavy vehicles, the Port Motorway-Gateway
Motorway interchange development, the Lytton Road / Port Motorway development
just to mention a few have not been factored into the delivery times of the
trucks. Nor has the possibility of stopping trucks from the quarries during
peak hours due to traffic congestion. As a mater of fact if a tight schedule were to eventuate due to a necessity
to complete the bund wall this would result in 24 hour a day 7 days a week movements
of trucks. Is the POBC commitment to this scenario not happening sometime in the
future? Depending on the distance between the quarry and the drop off point at the
port (which will increase as the fill is places) the turn around time will increase
or else doubling handling will occur and more emission will occur at the port
which remains un-calculated. The most likely scenario is twice to three times the number of trucks and twice
to three times the distance travelled each day with the corresponding lesser
amount of rock being delivered and thus a increase in error previously calculated.
Therefore if twice the distance, twice the truck will be needed and the last
of the 50 truck would not be loaded until 9.30 am if trucks are no closer that
3 minutes apart. If the distance is twice and the number of trucks is 50 (just so there is a
truck being loaded every 3 minutes for the port) the last truck to load would
not exceed 3.42 pm and be short 26 loads Consequently the figures for the transport of fill are not believable nor is
the calculation of the pollution factors as represented in the IAS. "Even at a worst case situation, with assumption that the reclamation works
will be carried out continuously every day, seven days a week in a period of
18 months, the highest total additional input into the airshed from
the haul trucks and from the heavy machinery air emissions will not exceeded
more than 0.1 percent of the estimated motor vehicle emissions in the
South-East Queensland for 2003. Considering the estimate of the annual emissions
in tonnes in South-East Queensland, as presented in Section 7.11 (Table 7.11.1),
the total additional input to the South-East Queensland Airshed from the air
emissions of the trucks and the heavy machinery likely to be used at the proposed
reclamation site is negligible." In light of the error in the estimation of number of truck, distance travelled
and number of trips the above cannot be said to be anywhere near accurate. Further
if a EXPERT believes that and increase of 0.1% is an acceptable figure of emissions
then Moreton Bay and the community have much to fear from EXPERTS. An increase of 1 in 1000 of air emissions in the South East Queensland airshed
is a very significant increase. If you believe otherwise we would appreciate
reading your point of view in your detailed response to the submission on its
justification. 8.12.1.2 "Source of Quarry Rock Rock material to be used in bund construction is expected to be drawn from
one or more of the existing licensed quarries in southern Redlands Shire, Beenleigh,
the Coomera area and/or at Petrie." None of these quarry sites are within 170 km per day divided by 8 round trips
distance. 8.12.3.1
"With regard to rail transport, it is expected that: This is the sixth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands
This is the seventh mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands
This is the eighth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands
Contractors to be bound in their contract that speed checking will be part
of their management responsibilities and if drivers are observed exceeding road
limits that they will immediately reassigned to other work not associated with
the port development. Warning will be in writing to all drivers and each driver must sign for a copy
and a duplicate copy given to all drivers who must carry at all times whilst
carrying fill to the Port. This warning to contain information and responsibilities
about designated route which must be followed unless agreement to changes are
made due to temporary road works or accidents etc. Covering of loads, speeding,
wheel wash usage, hours of operation, exhaust pollution in the way of black
smoke, use of low sulphur fuel. And the penalties which will be imposed if caught
not complying with the conditions of contract. The table 8.12.3 suggests that the Gateway Motorway at the Mt Gravatt Motorway
and Capalaba Road has daily traffic volume of 50,000 yet page 8-127 says a similar
dual divided road on Whyte Island will only cater for 30,000 vpd. The approx distance from the end of Fisherman Islands to the intersection of
the Gateway Motorway and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road is 23 km. It is acknowledged that there are peak hour traffic bank-ups along Lytton Road
and the Gateway Motorway. No figures are contained within the study to document
the present extent of this traffic delays which occur daily on work days and
how these delays would effect the heavy transport travelling to and from the
port. This omission is was obvious to our group. We suggest it could mislead
the decision makers when they review this report on how much of an impact this
extra traffic will have the local existing users. "There will be a need for the existing rail line to cater for an increased
capacity, however exact timings cannot be accurately determined at this stage
as this will depend upon the specific timing of new development at the port."
This is the ninth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
For example, recent developments in transport technology include the increased
use of 40 foot containers instead of 20 foot containers and double stacking
of containers on rail - although this cannot happen on the existing route at
this time.) This is the tenth mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
8.12.3.1 The nature of community consultation associated with increasing the capacity
of an existing rail line would therefore depend upon a broad range of factors
(eg the nature of the capacity increase, specific community sectors influenced,
and legislative requirements). This is the eleventh mention of the RAIL line to Fisherman Islands.
8.12.5 Crash Monitoring- ....Each crash should be investigated to
determine if any road environment factors contributed to the crash so that any
remedial action can be taken. Isn't it about time the word MUST appeared in Management Plans.
WERE THE RESIDENTS OF MURARRIE IN THE LETTER BOX AREA
FOR THIS STUDY????? 8.13.3.1 Employment of youth in the port area has a very limiting issue no transport.
No passenger trains, no busses, no ferries absolutely no public transport and
lets face the real issues how does an unemployed youth afford driving lessons
or a car to be able to drive to a job in this area of the GPA. I would not accept
the suggestion of riding a bicycle to the port given sharing the road with heavy
transports at 80 to 100 km per hour loaded with 15 m3 of rock weighing in excess
of 22 tonnes. 8.13.10 "Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures which may be considered to reduce the impacts of the lighting
include: Locate and design the new lighting to minimise the intensity of light visible
from a distance at residential areas and from boats and ships in the Bay; A vegetation buffer along the southern side of Lucinda Drive to screen low
level lights, such as street and car park lights; and Liaise with Council and/or residents at Wynnum to establish vegetation
screens at key locations in foreshore parks between Wynnum and Wellington Point,
ensuring desired views are maintained." Isn't just wonderful that a suggestion has been put in writing that the Bayside
residents who have paid substantial amounts of money to live on the Bayside
with views of the bay are now being told that in order to reduce the glare from
the POBC lighting they need to plant trees along the foreshore to block the
glare at night and their bay views during the day. Don't expect the POBC to
become good corporate neighbours and no longer face their unshielded high output
lighting at their suburbs. Our group was unfortunately under the impression that when IAS are produced
the consultant engaged under the terms of reference carried out studies and
complied a report containing the information on which the different levels Government
could make their decision to allow or not the proposed development. With fishing in the Bay being responsible for a large multi-million dollar
industry and supplying a large percentage of Queensland's seafood catch and
in some species more that 50% of the catch. The Dugongs habitat in Moreton Bay
has been under stress from algae blooms this year and any sea grass area is
very important for their food. The sport and recreational fishing industry employs
more people that the port at Fisherman Islands ever will and has been totally
disregarded in this study. Our Group take exception with the following paragraph: "Moreton Bay supports a sizeable component of this industry, although
it has not been possible to derive estimates of the number of local operators
and the estimated value of their operations. Nor has it been possible to estimate
the proportion of local fishers who operate within the vicinity of the proposed
expansion." We are under the impression that all trawler operators have licences issued
by the Queensland Government. The POBC can nearly to the very cent tell us how much the expansion is needed,
how much it will cost, what financial benefit the expansion will be to Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, the local residents and how much profit they will derive
from the expansion. However when it comes to the destruction of any mangroves, mangrove habitat,
fish breeding habitat and marine animals' nursery areas, wetlands, sand bars,
sea grass beds, fishing areas, siltation of professional worming areas, there
is no knowledge on what impact it will have in the scheme of things or what
economic loss may be experiences by the existing users of these natural attributes.
How can we as a community believe that on the balance of things this development
will not be a too costly an impact upon the natural environment of Moreton Bay.
We suggest in light of the number of basic flaws within the IAS which we have
raised that the above issues be addressed and when complete that we then be
allowed to re-examine the Draft IAS before it is refereed to as a completed
IAS. As under the terms of the IAS we request a response to each and every
issue we have raised before the issue is decided. (Refer to page 6.1.2)
Many of the "Terms of Reference" have not been complied with. If these
"Terms" are not enforced then it makes a mockery of having them in the first
place. Has our Group just wasted our time with the Terms of Reference and the
many hours taken to produce this extensive submission? "TERMS OF REFERENCE Traffic and Transport Given the extended construction period, the combined operational traffic and
transport of the current Fisherman Islands port complex and the added construction
transport requirements should be estimated. Detail the transport and traffic
implications during the construction stage including: For the operational phase, details of the anticipated internal road network,
daily traffic generated, access arrangements and car parks should be provided.
Details of rail access and anticipated modal split between road and rail should
be described. As indicated in the Section of the terms of reference, headed Scope of this
Impact Assessment Study, the planning and provision of transport infrastructure
beyond the Fisherman Islands site is outside the scope of this IA. However,
the IA study should describe the process for traffic and transport infrastructure
assessment." In conclusion our Group submits the following: We therefore content that there are too many mistakes in IAS and much
missing information on which an responsible administration could make informed
decision. Your choice can only now be to refuse this application based on IAS
credibility.
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au
as a community service.