Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc. (ASH) PO Box 2457, Townsville Q 4810 Mobile 0427 724 052 [email protected] ATT: Garry Sharman Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability The Hon Kate Jones MP PO Box 15155 City East QLD 4002 27 July 2010 by email cc John Lane c/- DERM CPU Dear Minister
re retaining existing standards of ecological protection in the draft Queensland Coastal Plan. We thank the Acting Minister The Hon. Anastacia Palaszczuk and her staff for the detailed and informative letters of 17 June 2010 and 12 July 2010. Our members will be relieved to know that some important improvements will be possible in the draft Queensland Coastal Plan. In this letter we address only the following statement in the letter of 17 June 2010: The Minister is keen for John Lane and Louise Smyth of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) to continue to work through options with you and other conservation groups to ensure the implementation of the proposed Queensland Coastal plan does not result in a lowering of standards for biodiversity conservation. To this end we have collated some of the Desired Coastal Outcomes (DCOs), from the Cardwell- Hinchinbrook Regional Coastal Plan (CHRCMP) Chapter 3, assembled below in tabular form, for the purpose of ensuring that measure which achieve these outcomes are incorporated into the draft QCP.. Through these DCOs, the CHRCMP expresses prohibition and other strongly protective measures; as directed in 2.9.1 regional policy for implementing State Coastal Plan policy: Decisions and activities regarding planning, development and management within key coastal sites (map 9) and coastal localities (maps 10, 11 and 12) in the Cardwell- Hinchinbrook region are to be compatible with the desired coastal outcomes identified in Chapter 3. In general, the specificity, intent and prohibitive or restrictive power of the measures presented below are generally lacking in the draft Queensland Coastal Plan (QCP), and must be included to ensure the implementation of the proposed Queensland Coastal plan does not result in a lowering of standards for biodiversity conservation. Yours sincerely
Margaret Moorhouse ASH
1 Selected CHRCMP DCOs expressing prohibition
Terms denoting the topic are in bold type; some are colour coded. Tables 1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3, not discussed here, will be the subject of a further submission .
4(a) No new canals, marinas or maritime infrastructure/dredging
Because the draft Queensland Coastal Plan (QCP) does not limit future maritime development (within the life of the draft plan) to the proposed Maritime Development Areas (MDA), the present highly specific prohibitions and restrictions on maritime development and dredging (presented below) would be entirely lost if not written into the draft plan.
Coastal waters retain a relatively pristine and Coastal locality 1.3: Hull River wetlands (map 10) undeveloped character free of new maritime Coastal locality 4.4: Hinchinbrook Channel (map 11) infrastructure, other than essential navigation aids ... Coastal locality 5.1: Gentle Annie wetlands (map 12) Canals or dry land marinas are not developed. Coastal locality 7.4: Forrest Beach to Crystal Creek wetlands (map 12)
Canals or dry land marinas are not developed . Coastal locality 3.1: Tully – Murray wetlands and dunes (map 10) Coastal locality 5.4: Taylors Beach wetlands and dunes (map 12) Coastal locality 7.1: Forrest Beach wetlands and dunes (map 12) Key coastal site 2: Family Islands (maps 9 and 10)
Canals or dry land marinas are not developed in this Key coastal site 3: Kennedy (maps 9 and 10) coastal locality between the Tully River and Cardwell, including the coastal waters of the Tully River, Murray River, Dallachy Creek, Wreck Creek and Meunga Creek ... Coastal waters in the Murray River to Meunga Creek wetlands and dunes (coastal locality 3.6) retain a relatively pristine and undeveloped character free of new maritime infrastructure, other than essential navigation aids.
New private maritime infrastructure or intensive uses Coastal locality 2.3: Richards (Bedarra) Island (map 10) are confined to the existing intensive use areas.
No new capital dredging occurs. Coastal locality 4.4: Hinchinbrook Channel (map 11)
Future maritime infrastructure at Dungeness is small Coastal locality 5.2: Dungeness (map 12) scale ...
2 4(b) aquaculture and agriculture
Because the draft QCP does not adequately address aquaculture and mariculture, the present specific prohibitions and restrictions on aquaculture and agricultural drainage (presented below) would be lost if not written into the draft plan. Water quality standards generally are not adequate for high ecological value coastal wetlands. Discharge licences are licences to pollute; this is unacceptable along this coast. The benthic communities of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area - particularly seagrasses - require protection from ALL human-induced additions of nutrients, chemicals and sediments (specially colloids), which encourage inappropriate growth of algae and weed, reduce light penetration, and foul marine plants. Dilution is not the solution to pollution.
New land-based aquaculture does not adversely affect Coastal locality 7.4: Forrest Beach to Crystal Creek the values of this site’s coastal resources, particularly the wetlands (map 12) coastal wetlands. Key coastal site 4: Hinchinbrook (maps 9 and 11) Existing and new land-based aquaculture does not adversely affect the coastal resource values, particularly of the Hinchinbrook Channel and adjoining estuarine communities.
Drainage schemes and agricultural development Coastal locality 7.3: Allingham/Mungalla wetlands (map within and adjacent to this coastal locality do not interfere 12) with the natural hydrological functioning of the wetlands.
No new aquaculture development occurs. Key coastal site 2: Family Islands (maps 9 and 10)
5(a) Landscape/Scenic; WH aesthetic values/integrity
The draft QCP deals poorly with world heritage aesthetic and wilderness values. The directions below, which now guide assessment managers including local councils, are generally stronger than the measures proposed in the draft QCP; representing a reduction in protection levels when compared with the CHRCMP.
Natural scenic landscape values which are part of the Key coastal site 1: Hull (maps 9 and 10) area’s World Heritage values are maintained , particularly in and adjoining areas with high or very high scenic coastal landscape values (e.g. the coastline from Wongaling Beach to Tully River and the Walter Hill Range), through ensuring minimal visual impact from commercial and residential development.
The scenic coastal landscape values of the prominent Coastal locality 1.2: Tam O’Shanter Point (map 10) coastal headland at Tam O’Shanter Point are protected from incompatible development and activities.
The very high natural scenic landscape values are Key coastal site 2: Family Islands (maps 9 and 10) maintained and coastal development has minimal impact on coastal resources and coastal processes.
The very high scenic coastal landscape values of the Coastal locality 3.1: Tully – Murray wetlands and dunes open coast at the mouths of the Tully and Murray rivers (map 10) are maintained .
The site’s overall high natural integrity and outstanding Key coastal site 4: Hinchinbrook (maps 9 and 11) biodiversity, which are part of the area’s World Heritage
3 values, are maintained , including: ... The very high natural scenic landscape values of the passage landscape comprising the Cardwell Range escarpment, Hinchinbrook Island and Hinchinbrook Channel, a re maintained with minimal visual impact from commercial and residential development.
The very high scenic coastal landscape values of Coastal locality 4.1: Garden (Tindappah) Island (map 11) Garden (Tindappah) Island are protected from Coastal locality 4.4: Hinchinbrook Channel (map 11) incompatible development and activities.
Any future development of Port Hinchinbrook is low- Coastal locality 4.2: Port Hinchinbrook (map 11) key and can demonstrate that coastal resources and their values are not adversely affected ... Any future development of Port Hinchinbrook should also demonstrate minimal adverse impacts on the scenic values of the Hinchinbrook Channel.
The very high scenic coastal landscape values are Coastal locality 4.3: Hinchinbrook Channel scenic rim maintained. (map 11) Coastal locality 4.5: Hinchinbrook Island (map 11)
Natural scenic landscape values which are part of the Key coastal site 5: Herbert (maps 9 and 12) area’s World Heritage values are maintained , particularly in and adjoining areas with high or very high scenic coastal landscape values (e.g. the open coastline from Taylors Beach to Lucinda), by ensuring minimal coastal visual impact from commercial and residential land use .
5(b) Building height and screening The directions below now direct assessment managers, including local councils, when assessing development. If these specific measures are not represented in the draft QCP the result would be a reduction in protection level when compared with the CHRCMP. The reference to the Deed of Agreement for "Port Hinchinbrook" gives teeth to an otherwise toothless (ex- legislative) agreement. The draft QCP entirely lacks this protective measure.
Buildings are screened with native vegetation to Coastal locality 2.1: Dunk (Coonanglebah) Island Spit complement the landscape character and do not exceed and associated freehold land (map 10) two storeys. Coastal locality 4.5: Hinchinbrook Island (map 11)
Buildings are naturally screened and complementary to Coastal locality 2.2: Thorpe (Timana) Island (map 10) the landscape character of the island, and do not exceed Coastal locality 2.3: Richards (Bedarra) Island (map 10) two storeys. The present character and scale of development is maintained.
Building heights do not exceed the specifications in the Coastal locality 4.2: Port Hinchinbrook (map 11)9 Conformed Deed and the Deed of Variation for development at Port Hinchinbrook, or any subsequent binding agreements.
4 6. No beach huts/conversion PTO; removal of huts
These specific directions are prohibitions which are lacking in the draft QCP, because the latter's general prohibition on development in hazard zones is accompanied by exceptions and loopholes.
Existing ‘permits to occupy’ for beach huts are not Coastal locality 4.4: Hinchinbrook Channel (map 11) upgraded to leasehold or freehold. No new permits to Coastal locality 5.1: Gentle Annie wetlands (map 12) occupy are granted. Coastal locality 7.1: Forrest Beach wetlands and dunes (map 12) Coastal locality 7.4: Forrest Beach to Crystal Creek wetlands (map 12)
With the consent of affected landholders, Coastal locality 7.2: Cassady Beach dunes (map 12) 6. inappropriately sited buildings on the coastal dune are removed.
7. Sewage treatment: to be ecologically sustainable
A sewerage infrastructure scheme connecting the Key coastal site 1: Hull (maps 9 and 10) townships of Wongaling Beach and South Mission Coastal locality 1.4: Hull Heads (map 10) Beach ... Hull Heads ... Tully Heads ... to a sewage treatment plant is provided and operated in an ecologically Coastal locality 1.5: Tully Heads (map 10) sustainable manner .
Sewage treatment and waste-disposal facilities for the Coastal locality 2.1: Dunk (Coonanglebah) Island Spit Dunk Island Resort ... Bedarra Island Resort ... Cape and associated freehold land (map 10) Richards ... are maintained and operated in an ecologically Coastal locality 2.3: Richards (Bedarra) Island (map 10) sustainable manner. Coastal locality 4.5: Hinchinbrook Island (map 11) The directions (above) call for an appropriately high (ecologically sustainable) standard of installation and management of sewage treatment works. This is a higher standard than (for instance) best practice. Without this direction (lacking in the draft QCP) there is no doubt that lower standards will prevail. This is a real and current risk. The Cassowary Coast Regional Council is proposing, right now, to discharge treated sewage effluent into the Hinchinbrook Passage. In this wet tropics region the Council has difficult problems to overcome in designing a system which will not pollute its waterways. Nevertheless, this is what must be done. The costs of human hygiene can no longer be thrust onto the natural environment. To settle for less will also present health problems to future generations as a result of eating contaminated seafoods. Once a discharge licence is provided, it is virtually irreversible, under current law. Because local human population growth will inevitable increase the quantity of pollutants discharged, it is vital that ecologically sustainable is retained as the standard for any discharge. Water quality standards as generally applied tend to rely on dilution, an easy standard to manipulate; simply add more clean water prior to discharge. While this might serve tolerably well for short term human health issues, it introduces into the environment the same absolute quantity of pollutants ("nutrients"), regardless of the dilution factor. The Hinchinbrook Passage is already subject to dirty discharges from very large dry land prawn farms and a barramundi cage farm (about 200 ha of ponds), best understood as very intensive lot-feeding operations. These farms were approved prior to the CHRCMP coming into effect. The Hindcasting study led by Professor Helene Marsh showed that there is now nowhere near enough seagrass to support the much reduced (but larger than today's) dugong population that survived the
5 commercial slaughter which ended about 1960. This represents a huge loss in turtle and dugong habitat. Recurrent and persisting bottom damage done by trawling is one obvious reason; the less obvious reasons include all those which reduce light penetration, however slightly, in our shallow Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Such impacts include persistent trawling and dredging plumes, agricultural run-off and aquacultural waste, and the pollutant-fed proliferation of minute organic forms in the water column, such as algae. Seagrass is also badly affected by chemical pollution such as drainage from disturbed acid sulfate soils. The Hinchinbrook Passage is crucial for the one dugong population which, if fully protected from human- related mortality and morbidity , may have a chance of long term survival as the last representative population of its species. Day and night, these huge specialist herbivores must seek selected nutritional seagrasses. With the areal extent of seagrass meadows so much reduced, choice is restricted with likely consequences for lowered nutrition. Sea turtles (and many other species) also depend on seagrass. Other protective measures will fail if seagrass is not given the highest possible protection, and provision made for substantial rehabilitation and restoration of former seagrass meadows. Without a healthy habitat no other protective measures can succeed. The Great Barrier Reef as a whole is poised for dramatic decline. We appreciate that DERM is one of a number of agencies, State and Commonwealth, which have heavy responsibilities in this matter; but this is no reason for the Queensland Government to make its draft QCP the obvious weak link in the chain of protectio n.
8. Some specific conservation directions
Water quality. The standard no adverse impact is presently under discussion. If not applied as directed below, the draft QCP will have lower standards of protection than the present plans.
Water quality is of a standard that protects, maintains Key coastal site 6: Ripple Creek (maps 9 and 12) and enhances the ecological sustainability of aquatic Key coastal site 7: Halifax (maps 9 and 12) ecosystems. Stockpiles of mill mud , ash, fertiliser, drain spoil and other potential pollutants are managed to have no adverse impacts on waterways.
Stockpiles of mill mud , ash, fertiliser, drain spoil and Coastal locality 3.2: Barretts Lagoon (map 10) other potential pollutants are managed to have no adverse impacts on the Barretts Lagoon catchment.
Tourism and recreation The standard for tourism and recreation expressed below may be unique, due to the origins of the CHRCMP in the Statement of Reasons on which the Commonwealth relied in 1996 in the Federal Court. The present draft QCP does not include this direction, hence lowers the present standards of protection.
Future tourism and recreational activities have minimal Key coastal site 4: Hinchinbrook (maps 9 and 11) impact on the remote and pristine nature of the site. Tourism is ecologically sustainable and compatible with the scale and character of the landscape. A range of nature-based experiences and opportunities is maintained.
6 Hinchinbrook regional ecosystems and coastal wetlands (seagrass) The following provide explicit and comprehensive direction to protect ecosystems, seagrass in particular. See 7 (above) for significance of seagrass. The draft QCP will lack measures of this strength, unless the additional measures currently being considered for the Hinchinbrook area are formulated to achieve the same prohibitive effect.
The extent, integrity and biological diversity of all Coastal locality 4.3: Hinchinbrook Channel scenic rim regional ecosystems are maintained, or rehabilitated (map 11) where possible.
The extent, integrity and biological diversity of the Coastal locality 4.4: Hinchinbrook Channel (map 11) significant coastal wetlands, particularly areas of seagrass, are maintained and protected from incompatible development and activities.
Any future development of Port Hinchinbrook is low- Coastal locality 4.2: Port Hinchinbrook (map 11) key and can demonstrate that coastal resources and their values are not adversely affected . In particular, development should not contribute to degradation and loss of coastal wetlands, Fish Habitat Areas or shorebird roost areas, or lead to an increased risk of flooding ...
Dallachy airstrip and mahogany glider habitat The third direction (below) is not, as far as we can see, covered in the draft QCP or in the Far North Queensland 2009-2031 Regional Plan in this degree of specificity. This measure is vitally important for the endangered mahogany glider. At the time of the release of the CHRCMP (2004) conservationists felt very relieved that regional EPA staff had been able to properly protect this area abutting Edmund Kennedy National Park by restrictions placed on the length of the airstrip and type of aircraft to nothing bigger than Dash-8. Since then Williams Corporation (Keith Williams) has approached Cassowary Coast Regional Council for a lease over the airstrip, ostensibly for (at least) daily use by Dash-8 aircraft. If the restrictions currently in effect are not included in the draft QCP, this proposed use (if granted in some form) would undoubtedly be upgraded later to use by much larger aircraft. The developer's original intention was to land airbus passenger jets at Dallachy. This is why the measures below were written into the CHRCMP. To omit these restrictions from the draft QCP would be an obvious reduction in the current standard of ecological protection. See attached extracts from council minutes, below.
The extent, integrity and functioning of the endangered Coastal locality 3.4: Dallachy Airstrip (map 10) regional ecosystems at Dallachy Airstrip reserve are maintained. While maintaining airstrip functionality31, the Dallachy Airstrip reserve (Lot 134 on Plan SP106046) remains an effective wildlife corridor between the coast at Edmund Kennedy National Park and the Cardwell Range. Future use of the Dallachy Airstrip reserve includes an aerodrome suitable for use by aircraft, up to a DHC- 8:300, on a code 2 airfield with a maximum length of 1200 metres.
7 Rehabilitation of pine forest land for mahogany glider habitat
Following the harvest of pine plantations adjacent to Key coastal site 4: Hinchinbrook (maps 9 and 11) the Hinchinbrook Channel, suitable areas are rehabilitated to the native habitat of the mahogany glider.
The draft QCP lacks this direction, entirely removing a significant contribution to the species survival of the mahogany glider. When the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan was completed in 2000, the mahogany glider scientists Steve Jackson and Steve Van Dyck completed papers in which the land mapped as critical habitat for the mahogany glider was described as being insufficient to ensure a long term future for the species. The replacement of the pine forest land (when harvested) to mahogany glider habitat was a sound conservation benefit agreement given teeth by being incorporated in the CHRCMP. If this measure is omitted from the draft QCP, the outcome would be a distinct loss of future mahogany glider habitat, long since known to be inadequate in extent and badly affected by fragmentation and development activities.
9. OTHER
Sand extraction
This is effectively a prohibition on sand extraction in the Hull River unless the beach can be shown to be unaffected.
Beach erosion in Kennedy Bay is not exacerbated by Coastal locality 1.2: Tam O’Shanter Point (map 10) any future sand extraction from the Hull River. exclusive use by private interests at the expense of public access "Should" is not the strongest term, but nevertheless is an important and politically popular consideration that would be expected to carry a lot of weight. Is this adequately covered in the draft QCP?
Where new maritime infrastructure is required to Key coastal site 4: Hinchinbrook (maps 9 and 11) manage visitor use and interpretation of sensitive marine environments, such as coral reefs, it should not lead to exclusive use by private interests at the expense of public access.
Giving teeth to the Deed of Agreement
Management is in accordance with the Conformed Coastal locality 4.2: Port Hinchinbrook (map 11) Deed and the Deed of Variation, or any subsequent binding agreements. This measure for "Port Hinchinbrook" gives legislative teeth to an otherwise toothless (ex-legislative) agreement. The draft QCP entirely lacks this strongly protective measure. We remind the planners of the Commonwealth-Queensland agreement arising out of the Federal court case in Sydney in 1996.
8 Waste management facilities for vessel generated sewage
Development in Port Hinchinbrook provides Coastal locality 4.2: Port Hinchinbrook (map 11) appropriate tourist-based infrastructure including appropriate waste management facilities.
This direction has not yet been met at "Port Hinchinbrook", and it must be included in the draft QCP. There are two issues: • raw sewage overflow discharge into the marina basin, and • disposal of sewage from boats using the marina. The raw sewage overflow (eg when pumps break down) should not be able to reach the waters of the Hinchinbrook Passage or its tributaries. A different arrangement must be designed. If this measure in the CHRCMP is abandoned, this will never happen; an opportunity lost and a clear loss of protection compared with the current standard. The provision of waste disposal facilities is almost completely non-existent among Queensland's marinas. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's marina A shame on the state, and a source of pollution hidden by unworkable marine sewage regulations. The usual reason offered is that vessel-based sewage is saline. This problem must be solved. The facts: • most marinas do not have waste disposal facilities for vessel-originating sewage. • marinas do not allow the emptying of porta-potties and the like into their toilets. • where there are no waste disposal facilities, ALL sewage generated on board enters the Great Barrier Reef. The marine sewage regulations contain elaborate directions as to particle size and where macerated sewage can be dumped inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Quite clearly these regulations have little to do with ecological considerations, and much to do with aesthetic and human health considerations. Apart from those rare sites where there may be land-based facilities, the total amount of sewage going onto the GBR, its value as nutrient and particle pollution, is exactly the same as before the regulations came into effect. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has done no more than "encourage" the development of pump-out facilities and develop "guidelines for best environmental construction of marina facilities to include pump out facilities". We are aware of boaties who have in good faith bought porta-potties (which produce non-saline sewage) only to discover that they have not been allowed to empty these ashore. So - into the sea it goes ...
ATTACHMENT FOLLOWS
Extracts from meeting minutes of the Cardwell Shire Council 2007 and Cassowary Coast Regional Council 2008
9 DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET
Cardwell Shire Council Minutes of Local Government Meeting
Item Number: 9.2 CCRC-86/08 – DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR DALLACHY AERODROME (Cont’d…) With a view to the future, Port Hinchinbrook or an associated company, are looking to operate flights from Cairns to Townsville, daily if possible. They have also registered the business name “Hinchinbrook Airport” for possible use. It is proposed that all privately owned aircraft would be welcome to use the airstrip for a fee.
Officer’s Recommendation: “That Council allocate an amount of $15,000 in the 2008/09 budget to engage Airport Consultants to undertake a study to consider and safeguard Council’s interest in any future leasing arrangements involving the Dallachy Aerodrome.” Moved Cr I Rule Seconded Cr R Sorbello Resolution Number 0151 “That the Acting Director Civil Services’ Report No. CCRC-86/08 be received and Mr Williams be advised that under the Local Government Act 1993 Council cannot deal directly with Williams Corporation Pty Ltd. Furthermore, future use of the three aerodromes in Council’s jurisdiction will be reviewed by Council’s Sub-Committee for Aerodromes and as part of the budget process.” CARRIED end of submission
10