Appendix Q1 Traffic and transport supporting material Part 1

Proposal for raising Eden Bann Weir and construction of Rookwood Weir: an assessment of impacts on access roads (KBR 2007)

Table of contents

1. Part 1 - Proposal for raising of the Eden Bann Weir and construction of Rookwood Weir: An assessment of impacts on access roads (KBR 2007) ...... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Report extracts ...... 1-1 1.2.1 Objective and scope ...... 1-1 1.2.2 Study area ...... 1-2 1.2.3 Review of previous reports ...... 1-3 1.2.4 Consultation ...... 1-4 1.2.3.1 Introduction ...... 1-4 1.2.3.2 Landholder consultation ...... 1-5 1.2.3.3 Agency consultation ...... 1-30 1.2.3.4 Consultation conclusions ...... 1-33 1.2.5 Road network and traffic analysis ...... 1-34 1.2.5.1 Existing conditions ...... 1-34 1.2.5.2 Considerations for future traffic growth ...... 1-37 1.2.6 References ...... 1-37 1.2.7 Appendices ...... 1-38 1.2.7.1 Appendix A Maps ...... 1-38 1.2.7.2 Appendix B Previous report reviews ...... 1-50 1.2.7.3 Appendix C Consultation ...... 1-60 1.2.7.4 Appendix D Traffic network plans ...... 1-76 2. Part 2 – Weir construction traffic impact assessment ...... 2-1 2.1 Overview and qualifications ...... 2-1 2.2 Traffic generation ...... 2-3 2.2.1 Eden Bann Weir ...... 2-3 2.2.1.1 Traffic volume ...... 2-5 2.2.2.2 Equivalent standard axle load calculation ...... 2-5 2.2.2 Rookwood ...... 2-5 2.2.2.1 Traffic Volumes ...... 2-7 2.2.2.2 Equivalent stand axle load Calculation ...... 2-7 2.3 Road and traffic impact assessment ...... 2-8 2.3.1 Eden Bann Weir ...... 2-8 2.3.2 Rookwood Weir ...... 2-14 3. Part 3 – Roads and bridges concept design ...... 3-1 3.1 Design scope and qualifications ...... 3-1 3.2 Road design criteria ...... 3-2 3.2.1 Eden Bann Weir new site access ...... 3-3

ii Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

3.2.2 Thirsty Creek Road upgrade ...... 3-3 3.3 Bridge design criteria ...... 3-3 3.3.1 Glenroy Crossing ...... 3-17 3.3.2 Riverslea Crossing ...... 3-17 3.3.3 Foleyvale Crossing ...... 3-18 3.3.4 Hanrahan Crossing ...... 3-19 3.4 Road network impact assessment ...... 3-20 4. References ...... 4-1

Table index

Table 1-1 Known crossings ...... 1-4 Table 1-2 Consultation crossing traffic—known crossings ...... 1-8 Table 1-3 Consultation results—unknown crossings ...... 1-26 Table 1-4 Crossing details ...... 1-35 Table 2-1 Traffic generation for cement and fly ash delivery ...... 2-3 Table 2-2 Construction traffic generated for Eden Bann Weir ...... 2-4 Table 2-3 Construction traffic generated for Rookwood Weir ...... 2-6 Table 2-4 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection through and turning movement analysis .. 2-14 Table 2-5 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection through and turning movement analysis ...... 2-20 Table 3-1 Bridge carriageway widths – other than national highways ...... 3-16 Table 3-2 Eden Bann Weir road network impacts (inundation) ...... 3-21 Table 3-3 Eden Bann Weir road network impacts (flooding) ...... 3-33 Table 3-4 Rookwood Weir road network impacts (inundation) ...... 3-35 Table 3-5 Rookwood Weir road network impacts (flooding) ...... 3-50 Table 3-6 Estimated peak water levels ...... 3-52 Table 3-7 Estimated increase in flood duration ...... 3-53

Figure index

Figure 1-1 Glenroy-Marlborough Road – Green Creek Crossing ...... 1-12 Figure 1-2 Glenroy-Marlborough Road – Ten Mile Creek Crossing ...... 1-12 Figure 1-3 Redbank Crossing ...... 1-13 Figure 1-4 Glenroy Crossing ...... 1-14

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material iii

Figure 1-5 Glenroy Crossing aerial view ...... 1-14 Figure 1-6 Craiglee Crossing ...... 1-15 Figure 1-7 Hanrahan Road Crossing ...... 1-17 Figure 1-8 Hanrahan Road Crossing aerial view ...... 1-17 Figure 1-9 Rookwood Crossing ...... 1-18 Figure 1-10 Riverslea Crossing...... 1-20 Figure 1-11 Riverslea Crossing aerial view ...... 1-20 Figure 1-12 The Pocket 4WD access ...... 1-21 Figure 1-13 Smith Road Crossing ...... 1-21 Figure 1-14 Foleyvale Crossing ...... 1-23 Figure 1-15 Boolburra Crossing ...... 1-24 Figure 1-16 Agency survey template ...... 1-31 Figure 1-17 Capricorn Highway Crossing of the Dawson River ...... 1-33 Figure 1-18 Typical shire road ...... 1-34 Figure 2-1 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection background traffic volumes (2012) ...... 2-9 Figure 2-2 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2015) ...... 2-9 Figure 2-3 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2020) ...... 2-10 Figure 2-4 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2025) ...... 2-10 Figure 2-5 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection construction generated traffic volumes ..... 2-11 Figure 2-6 Bruce Highway/Atkinson Road intersection assessment summary ...... 2-11 Figure 2-7 Warrants for turn treatment on the Bruce Highway ...... 2-13 Figure 2-8 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection background traffic volumes (2012) ...... 2-15 Figure 2-9 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2015) ...... 2-16 Figure 2-10 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2020) ...... 2-16 Figure 2-11 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection estimated background traffic volumes (2025) ...... 2-17 Figure 2-12 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection construction generated traffic volumes .... 2-17 Figure 2-13 Capricorn Highway/Third Street intersection assessment summary ...... 2-18 Figure 2-14 Warrants for turn treatment on the Capricorn Highway ...... 2-21 Figure 3-1 Eden Bann Weir proposed northern bank access road upgrade ...... 3-4

iv Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 3-2 Eden Bann Weir proposed new southern bank access ...... 3-5 Figure 3-3 Preliminary road layout plans for Thirsty Creek Road ...... 3-6 Figure 3-4 Eden Bann Weir potentially impacted roads and river crossings...... 3-34 Figure 3-5 Rookwood Weir potentially impacted road and river crossings ...... 3-51

Appendix

Appendix A – DTMR road traffic count data Appendix B – Extract from Chapter 13: Intersection at Grade, Road Planning Design Manual, DTMR 2006

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material v

1. Part 1 - Proposal for raising of the Eden Bann Weir and construction of Rookwood Weir: An assessment of impacts on access roads (KBR 2007)

1.1 Overview The study undertaken by KBR (2007) was commissioned by the Department of Natural Resources and Water for the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to provide preliminary assessment of the impacts of the proposed development of Rookwood Weir and Eden Bann Weir on access roads and river crossings; to identify and assess alternative access options; and to provide concept level cost estimates for the Lower Fitzroy River Infrastructure Project (Project).

KBR 2007 assumed and examined two scenarios:

 Scenario 1 – Eden Bann Weir at FSL 18.5 m AHD and Rookwood Weir at FSL 47.0 m AHD (approximate to the current proposed Eden Bann Weir Stage 2 and Rookwood Weir Stage 1)

 Scenario 2 – Eden Bann Weir at FSL 20.5 m AHD and Rookwood Weir at FSL 49.0 m AHD (approximate to the current proposed Eden Bann Weir Stage 3 and Rookwood Weir Stage 2). Twenty-one potential crossings were identified for both scenarios. Traffic volumes at these crossings varied from a few vehicles a year to approximately 70 vehicles per day. Vehicle types using the crossings also varied, including private cars, light trucks, B-doubles, farm machinery, and so on. KBR 2007 identified that existing crossings are generally single lane, low level causeways with poor flood immunity, with even the highest crossing un-trafficable for several months of the year (drought conditions excepted).

KBR 2007 has been used to inform the traffic and transport assessment undertaken for the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project. Importantly not all recommendations and/or preferred options have been adopted for the Project. Current Project costs estimates are provided in Volume 1 Chapter 2 Project description and Volume 1 Chapter 19 Economics.

Information that is confidential in nature has been withheld. Extracts of KBR 2007 as relevant to the current Project are provided below. Written requests for further information pertaining to KBR 2007 will be considered.

1.2 Report extracts

1.2.1 Objective and scope The Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Study (CQRWSS) has identified that the Lower Fitzroy region is in need of significant water infrastructure development owing to industrial expansion, population growth, farming and livestock development and the need to provide a more efficient and reliable water supply. A number of water supply options were identified by the CQRWSS including the construction of Rookwood Weir and/or the raising of Eden Bann Weir. The government has announced its intention to proceed with the development of these two structures, and has commissioned a number of studies into various issues associated with these proposals.

This study [KBR 2007] was commissioned by the Department of Natural Resources and Water (NRW) to provide an assessment of the impacts of the proposed development of Rookwood Weir

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-1 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

and Eden Bann Weir on access roads and river crossings, to identify and assess alternative access options, and to provide concept level cost estimates. At this concept stage, the scope of the project is limited to road and/or stock crossings over the Fitzroy River or its major tributaries that connect different properties, and that are affected by the full supply level inundation of the constructed weirs or operational releases between Rookwood Weir and Eden Bann Weir. In addition to crossings that meet this definition, some specifically identified additional crossings were included in this study.

Rail or river transport, crossings wholly internal to properties and the potential impacts of the weirs on flood inundation are not generally within the scope of this study. However, some information on these issues is included in this report to provide a more complete picture of the potential access issues and costs, and for consideration in future studies. Consultation during the project was limited to identified landholders riparian to the two proposed weir ponds and key government agencies. The identified landholders have been involved in extensive consultation, previous to this study, regarding a range of issues associated with the Eden Bann Weir and Rookwood Weir proposals. While other landholders are also likely to be affected by the potential access issues caused by the weir developments, it was considered that the consulted landholders would identify the majority of the potential issues. In addition, feedback from Councils enabled potential impacts on the wider community to be assessed at a concept level in this study.

1.2.2 Study area The [KBR 2007] study area stretches from the upstream end of the proposed Rookwood Weir pond on the Mackenzie River (AMTD 336 km) and Dawson River (AMTD 16 km), down to the existing Eden Bann Weir wall at AMTD 141.2 km. The study area and surrounding features of interest are shown on Figure A.1 in Appendix A.

The Fitzroy River in this area has a wide channel, is subject to large floods and presents a significant transport barrier. The closest high level bridges over the Fitzroy River for north-south traffic are located in Rockhampton, with the Capricorn Highway Bridge over the Dawson River providing high level access for east-west traffic. However, even these high level crossings or their approaches are presently un-trafficable in larger floods.

The area is rural in nature with beef cattle grazing the predominant land use. Properties are generally served by unsealed roads, often single lane, branching from the major arteries of the Bruce and Capricorn highways. Five low level shire road crossings span the main Fitzroy/Mackenzie/Dawson Rivers in the study area; the very low Boolburra and Hanrahan Road crossings and the low Foleyvale, Riverslea and Glenroy crossings. These crossings are regularly cut by floods, with even the highest un-trafficable for several months in most years.

The major centre for services is Rockhampton to the east, with the smaller centres of Duaringa to the south-west and Marlborough to the north. The left (western) bank of the Fitzroy River (upstream of around AMTD 170 km) has particularly poor access to Rockhampton, owing to the high frequency with which the river crossings are inundated. When the crossings are cut, some local residents can access Rockhampton via private and shire roads through Marlborough, although these alternatives involve considerable extra travel time. Others cross the river by boat, stationing a car on either bank. Access is thus a significant issue for local residents, many whom have long sought improved levels of flood immunity for their access roads.

1-2 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

1.2.3 Review of previous reports There are a number of previous studies and reports that were relevant to this study. Some of these were known at the commencement of this study and others were identified during the process, primarily through consultation with the identified agencies. These reports were reviewed to identify aspects relevant to access issues.

The key findings from the review of these reports are presented below:

 The Fitzroy River Weir Study (June 2004) provides a concept level evaluation of weir sites on the Fitzroy River. The raising of Eden Bann Weir and the construction of a weir at Rookwood were among the options examined. This report provides an overview of issues associated with each option, including: previous investigations, geology, preliminary design and costing, upstream property impacts, impacts on access roads and crossings and environmental and social aspects. Regarding access, the report offered the best information on crossings in the study area available at the commencement of this study. It identified the majority of the major crossings affected, provided a description of their current usage, proposed which crossings should be replaced and supplied cost estimates. The Fitzroy River Weir Study was a key reference for this study

 A number of social, cultural and economic assessments have been undertaken on the proposed weir developments (in Cook et al 2007, Western et al 2005, Keane 2004, and Hyder 1999). These studies found no cultural significance associated with any of the existing crossings. The studies identified potential impacts from loss of crossings: longer journey times, increased transport costs, increased risks for stock, difficulties in mustering stock and moving machinery, social isolation, difficulties with school access, loss of discretion over marketing decisions, restriction of emergency access and a general reduced quality of life. Higher flood immunity crossings are greatly desired by landholders, some of whom cross by boat during floods as there is no viable alternative. The hazards of these boat crossings are highlighted for children and the elderly

 The Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study (FIIS) identified an agriculture corridor around the Fitzroy River from upstream of the Fitzroy Barrage to the junction of the Dawson and Mackenzie Rivers. Preferred development includes feedlots, horticulture, and piggeries in nine identified potential development areas (PDA). Although no PDAs are currently proposed for the western bank of the river, it is acknowledged that improved access would increase the feasibility of intensive livestock developments on the western bank

 A nickel mine is proposed for land riparian to the Fitzroy River near AMTD 170–180 km. A slurry pipeline is planned to cross the Fitzroy River upstream of its junction with Marlborough Creek (approximately AMTD 171 km) to deliver the ore to Gladstone. The pipeline is planned to be laid below the bed of the river. The majority of the mine traffic is planned to access the site from Marlborough; however, some of the mine and pipeline construction and operational traffic is likely to cross the river, with Glenroy Crossing the most plausible route

 The KBR report on Riverslea Crossing (Dec 2003) provides a preliminary design and costing for a new bridge at this site. It indicates the existing crossing at Riverslea, one of the highest crossings in the area, would have been impassable for an average of 46 days per year since records commenced in 1922. A replacement bridge at deck EL 53 m, estimated to be the one in 5-year ARI flood level, is costed at $5 million

 The Department of Main Roads (MR) investigated upgrade proposals for the Foleyvale Crossing in 1989. The report identified a significant debris problem on the existing structure. It

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-3

also identified that the current crossing is often submerged; for example the crossing was un- trafficable for 72 days in 1983 and for 160 days in 1988–1989. MR examined options to build up the existing causeway but ruled these out due to debris issues. The recommended option was to build a new bridge at RL 55.6 m at a cost of $1.65 million, plus an optional $0.65 million for straightening the approach alignment A more detailed summary of the information in each of these reports, relevant to this study, is included in Appendix B. A number of the reports identified crossings that potentially could be affected by the weir proposals. The crossings identified at the commencement of the study are listed in Table 1-1, and their locations are shown on the maps in Appendix A. Further details about these crossings are presented later in this report. Note that each crossing has been assigned a unique ID number for ease of reference.

Table 1-1 Known crossings

ID Crossing name ID Crossing name

1 Glenavon Access Track 14 Smith Road Crossing

2 Glenroy-Marlborough Road: Green Creek 15 Island Camp Island

3 Glenroy-Marlborough Road: The Islands 18 Separation-Slatey Creek Crossing

4 Glenroy-Marlborough Road: Ten Mile Creek 19 Foleyvale Crossing

5 Redbank Crossing 21 Boolburra Crossing

7 Glenroy Crossing 34* Islands between AMTD 281 and 282

8 Craiglee Crossing 35* The Pocket Island

9 Hanrahan Road Crossing 36* The Pocket Point Island

11 Rookwood Crossing 38* Slatey Creek Island

12 Riverslea Crossing 40* Central Railway Crossing

13 The Pocket 4WD Access

* These crossings were known about at the start of the study, but were outside the study’s scope.

1.2.4 Consultation

1.2.3.1 Introduction The objectives of the consultation associated with this project were to:

 Identify any crossings in the study area not previously known

 Identify the current usage of existing crossings in the study area, the purpose for these trips and the likely impact if some crossings were not available

 Obtain available information on crossings such as general arrangement plans, deck levels and flood immunity

 Identify the alternate routes taken when existing crossings are un-trafficable owing to flooding

 Acquire information on future plans, desires and requirements for transport/access in the area.

1-4 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

This information will feed into the options development and traffic analysis phase of the project.

Consultation was undertaken in two major parts:

 Consultation with the identified riparian landholders

 Consultation with government agencies and other institutions. These two components of the consultation process are described in the following sections.

1.2.3.2 Landholder consultation The methodology used for the landholder consultation component of the study was as follows:

 Establishment of consultation contact list – NRW provided two lists of landholders—one targeting riparian and near-riparian landholders whose properties may be impacted by the raising of the Eden Bann Weir (20 landholders) and the other targeting riparian and near-riparian landholders whose properties may be impacted by the construction of the Rookwood Weir (30 landholders). The landholders on these lists have been involved in extensive previous consultation regarding a range of issues associated with the Eden Bann Weir and Rookwood Weir proposals in the past. The properties whose owners or operators were consulted are shown on the Figures A.2 to A.11 in Appendix A – It is noted that access issues will impact on a wider audience than the landholders immediately adjacent to the two weir ponds, including: those adjacent to the river between Rookwood and the upstream extent of Eden Bann, those located upstream and downstream of the study area, and non-riparian landholders (particularly those on the western bank). Many of these landholders are likely to use the crossings within the study area. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that these users would only use the major public crossings in the area and that an appreciation of the traffic volume would be obtainable from Councils. However, it is recommended that consultation with a wider range of landholders be considered as part of any future studies.  Preparation of landholder phone questionnaire – A single standard questionnaire was used for all landholders to ascertain their crossing usage pattern and desired future access and transport solutions – The questionnaire incorporated general questions about the property and its purpose, and then went into more specific questions about the frequency, purpose and alternative travel options for the crossings potentially affected by the weir proposals. The questionnaire was designed to take no longer than 30 minutes to complete – A copy of the landholder questionnaire can be found in Appendix C. Note this questionnaire only includes those crossings known at the commencement of the study, although space was included in order to record additional crossings identified by the landholders – For some landholders (Gladstone Pacific Nickel and the Woorabinda Pastoral Company) the agency questionnaire was also used.  Development and distribution of project information package for landholders – A project information package was prepared for all landholders on the consultation list. The purpose of the information package was to: inform landholders about the study, inform landholders that they would be contacted via phone for consultation in the near future, and

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-5

provide landholders with GIS maps of their property to aid them in their preparation for the questionnaire – The project information pack consisted of an introductory letter to landholders, a regional map of the area and GIS map/maps of the landholders’ individual properties and the area surrounding it. – The GIS maps depicted the main known crossings, the weir sites and the estimated extent of inundation. The GIS maps provided to landholders were similar to the maps included in Appendix A. A template of the introductory letter is provided in Appendix C.  Formal phone interviews with landholders – Formal phone interviews commenced one week following the distribution of the landholder information package. The success rate of the telephone consultation was 47 out of 50 or 94% of targeted landholders contacted. The three landholders who were not able to be contacted were due to the following: one contact number could not be obtained, one contact number was disconnected (according to a neighbour the landholder was no longer at the address), and one landholder was unreachable during the consultation period. A key limitation of the consultation process was the restriction of the consultation to telephone contact. Via telephone, it was often difficult to ascertain the area on the map the landholder was discussing when referring to internal crossings. Telephone consultation also requires the respondent to provide answers in an immediate fashion with little time for analysis of their actual situation. This can result in answers based on perception, recent experience and/or ‘guessing’. It is likely that a number of the responses submitted are not accurate reflections of each property’s crossing usage or flooding frequency; rather they are reflective of the respondents individual recent usage and experiences.

Another limitation of the consultation was the misinterpretation of the names of river crossings. On a number of occasions landholders knew the crossings by alternative names and thus had difficulty in identifying the crossings being discussed.

A further limitation to the consultation component was the difficulty landholders had in identifying crossings over small local gullies. These are not likely to be recognised as formal crossings since many of them have no current culvert, embankment or bridge. Notwithstanding this, the majority of these crossings would not fall within this project’s scope so this is considered a minor limitation.

Addressing these limitations would likely involve interviewing each landholder on their property and physically inspecting each potential crossing site accompanied by good quality survey and flood modelling information. This level of detail is beyond the scope of this study.

It is considered that the information obtained in the consultation process is of sufficient quality to support this concept level study.

The crossing traffic derived from the consultation process for those crossings known about at the start of this study is summarised in Table 1-2. Other information obtained through the consultation process is reported in the following sections.

1-6 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Glenavon access track Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 1

 Crossing is the primary road access point to Glenavon property

 Landholder indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable approximately two to three weeks at a time during the wet season, although noted that this was less in drought conditions

 Landholder indicated no alternate vehicle access to the property and that horseback was used when the crossing was un-trafficable

 Landholder stated he had discussed a desired solution for the crossing with NRW at an earlier stage of the weir planning and the only solution was for NRW to resume the property. Ideally, the landholder would like to see NRW ‘leave the property alone’ since if the crossing was to be inundated it would be unworkable. Landholder stated that he thought a bridge over the current crossing would be unfeasible due to costs

 Landholder believes their property will be the most affected by the weir raising.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-7

Table 1-2 Consultation crossing traffic—known crossings

Number of Total frequency of use Typical respondents by landholders alternate route using (trips/month)* (if crossing is untrafficable)

ID Crossing Crossing Vehicles Notes Car/4WD Trucks Stock/walking Overall utilised

1 Glenavon 1 64 As Required 0 64 Nil Car and The landholder didn’t specify how often they take Crossing trucks, trucks over this crossing. including heavy cattle and grain trucks

2 Glenroy- 1 5 5 0 10 Nil Cars and light The usage of this river crossing is best ascertained by Marlborough trucks referring to traffic counts, as many respondents Road: Green appeared to use the Glenroy-Marlborough Road but do Creek not recognise this as a crossing.

3 Glenroy- 0 0 0 0 0 Nil nil The usage of this river crossing is best ascertained by Marlborough referring to traffic counts, as many respondents Road: The appeared to use the Glenroy-Marlborough Road but do Islands not acknowledge this as a crossing.

4 Glenroy- 0 0 0 0 0 Nil nil The usage of this river crossing is best ascertained by Marlborough referring to traffic counts, as many respondents Road: Ten Mile appeared to use this road but not acknowledge this as Creek a crossing.

5 Redbank 1 10 10 4 24 Glenroy Cars, light and Crossing Crossing cattle trucks and mustering cattle

1-8 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Number of Total frequency of use Typical respondents by landholders alternate route using (trips/month)* (if crossing is untrafficable)

ID Crossing Crossing Vehicles Notes Car/4WD Trucks Stock/walking Overall utilised

7 Glenroy 10 237 78 4 319 Glenroy- Cars, heavy One landholder only used this crossing in the month Crossing Marlborough Rd cattle that their internal crossing was un-trafficable. & Bruce (including B- Highway Doubles) and grain trucks

8 Craiglee 2 32 4 1 37 Glenroy Cars, cattle Crossing Crossing trucks and mustering cattle

9 Hanrahan 1 62 3 Unspecified 65 Nil Cars, cattle Recreational users also use this crossing—however Road Crossing trucks, visiting frequency was not specified campers also use this crossing

11 Rookwood 4 65 Unspecified 0 65 Riverslea Cattle 16- One landholder stated he used this crossing ‘when it Crossing Crossing tonne truck, was low enough’ but did not give a more specific car timeframe, so was excluded from frequency. One landholder stated they took 16-tonne trucks across this crossing—but did not specify frequency.

12 Riverslea 17 297 34 0 331 Nil - boat Cars, cattle One landholder stated he took 16-tonne tucks across Crossing access trucks, grain this crossing—but did not specify frequency. The truck landholder also stated they have taken stock across this crossing in the past but not in the past 12—24 months.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-9 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Number of Total frequency of use Typical respondents by landholders alternate route using (trips/month)* (if crossing is untrafficable)

ID Crossing Crossing Vehicles Notes Car/4WD Trucks Stock/walking Overall utilised

13 The Pocket 2 156 8 0 164 Smith Rd Cars, fuel and Landholders consider this crossing is the primary 4wd Access cattle trucks access road to The Pocket.

14 Smith Road 1 31 Unspecified 0 31 Nil - boat Cars, 16-tonne One landholder stated they took trucks across this Crossing access trucks crossing—but did not specify frequency.

15 Island Camp 1 62 Unspecified 62 124 Nil Cars, cattle Landholder stated they took ‘heavy trucks’ across this Island and heavy crossing—but did not specify frequency. trucks

18 Separation- 2 24 19 Unspecified 43 Foleyvale & Cars, heavy One landholder used the crossing at higher Slatey Creek Capricorn machinery, frequencies during farming periods.** Crossing Highway stock

19 Foleyvale 4 129 15 1 145 Duringa-Apis Cars, cattle An additional landholder, outside of the consultation Crossing Ck Rd, Bruce trucks and list, advised they were planning to use this crossing up Highway, & stock to 4 times a day in future. This landholder’s figures are Capricron not included in the values to the left. Highway

21 Boolburra 6 52 27 0 79 Capricorn Cars, grain One landholder used the crossing at higher Crossing Highway trucks, heavy frequencies during farming periods.** machinery such as ploughs

* The number of trips/month shown is for an average month in the year. When a landholder stated the number of days or times they used a crossing (rather than individual trips)—this response was assumed to equate to two trips. The percentage and total frequency were rounded to the nearest whole number. ** When a landholder stated they used the crossing at a certain frequency ‘during farming times’, this was assumed to be three months in a twelve month period.

1-10 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Glenroy–Marlborough Road crossings—Green Creek/The Islands/Ten Mile Creek The Green Creek crossing was the only one of these three Glenroy–Marlborough Road crossings identified as being used by a landholder in the study. No landholder mentioned use of any of the other Glenroy–Marlborough Road crossings.

It could be extrapolated that while many landholders in the area use this road, they do not identify these low lying crossings as actual river crossings. Thus the traffic volumes for the Glenroy–Marlborough determined from the landholder consultation are not likely to be representative of actual traffic volumes. Councils were contacted to obtain traffic count data, however there were no data available for this road.

The Green Creek and Ten Mile Creek crossings are shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2.

Redbank Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 1

 Crossing is used to work the property, which extends over both sides of the river

 Landholder indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable two to three months per year

 The alternate route to Redbank Crossing is the Glenroy Crossing, which the landholder stated was an approximately an extra 30 km each way, or in higher floods, more than 200 km via Marlborough/Rockhampton

 Landholder was concerned that if the crossing was permanently inundated they would be required to truck cattle back and forth across the Glenroy Crossing (approximately 12–13 trips each 60 km) since they currently muster cattle across the Redbank crossing

 The landholder’s desired solution was to build a bridge/causeway over the crossing, although he didn’t feel this would be feasible due to the high cost involved. Landholder instead suggested compensation for having to use the Glenroy Crossing

 The landholder indicated that the foundation at Redbank Crossing consists of deep gravel beds. Also, the landholder indicated it would be better to build a bridge downstream of the existing ford to avoid the requirement for a second bridge over a tributary on the west bank. Redbank Crossing is shown in Figure 1-3.

Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 1-11 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-1 Glenroy-Marlborough Road – Green Creek Crossing

Figure 1-2 Glenroy-Marlborough Road – Ten Mile Creek Crossing

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-12 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-3 Redbank Crossing

Glenroy Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 10 (approximately 37 residents in addition to occasional contractors and visitors).

 This crossing is used for multiple purposes, with the most common purpose being to access/work property on the other side of the river. It is only listed as the primary road access for two of the nine landholders. However, this is the main access to Rockhampton for a number of properties on the western side of the river

 Landholders indicated the Glenroy Crossing is un-trafficable around six weeks a year dependant on the seasons.

 Alternate access to Rockhampton for this crossing is via Marlborough, which landholders indicated adds more than 200 kilometres to their journey (up to an extra two and a half hours)

 All but one landholder (whose property is located on the eastern side of the Fitzroy River) indicated a desire to see an improved crossing at Glenroy. Reasons given included: providing all weather access to Rockhampton, for emergency access, and to improve the safety of using the crossing. Glenroy Crossing is shown in Figure 1-4 and Figure 1-5.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-13 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-4 Glenroy Crossing

Figure 1-5 Glenroy Crossing aerial view

1-14 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Craiglee Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 2

 Crossing is an internal property access for land on western side of river. The crossing is used by the second landholder to retrieve cattle that crossed the river into neighbouring properties

 Landholders indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable approximately six to eight weeks of the year during the wet season, ‘only when the river’s up’

 Craiglee landholder said there is no alternate vehicle access to the property on that side of the river and they would use a boat to cross, but if taking a vehicle they would use Glenroy Crossing which is approximately 40 minutes (40 km) extra each way

 When queried regarding their desired solution for the crossing, the Craiglee landholder stated they needed to keep the crossing, and that it would be very inconvenient to have to travel to Glenroy to access part of their property. The second landholder said their mail delivery would be cut off from their property without this crossing and that a new crossing at Craiglee would be required if the weir inundated the current crossing. Craiglee Crossing is shown in Figure 1-6.

Figure 1-6 Craiglee Crossing

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-15

Hanrahan Road Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 1(10 residents over three properties)

 Crossing is main property access

 Landholder indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable ‘a few weeks a year’ and in the past has been cut off for four or five months

 Landholder indicated no alternate vehicle access to the property and that occupants would boat across if the crossing was inundated, or follow tracks through neighbouring properties (adding approximately two hours to the journey in each direction)

 Landholder was concerned about the effect the loss of Hanrahan Road Crossing would have on their ability to run their property effectively

 The landholder’s desired solution was to build a causeway or small bridge at the crossing site. The deck level of the crossing should be raised by an amount equal to the water level rise should the weir be raised. Would be happy to have the same accessibility as currently, but would not like the crossing to be un-trafficable any more than at present. Hanrahan Road Crossing is shown in Figure 1-7 and Figure 1-8.

Rookwood Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 4 (approximately 9 residents)

 Work is the primary purpose for the use of this crossing, with two landholders using it to access their property (or a neighbouring property) and one landholder using it to retrieve cattle that cross the river when low into neighbouring properties. The final landholder only used the crossing for social purposes

 One landholder stated that the crossing was un-trafficable up to eight months a year, dependent on season. Others suggested that in the past 12 months the crossing was un- trafficable approximately two to four months

 Riverslea Crossing is the alternate access for Rookwood Crossing; however, two landholders suggested that they would reschedule their journey if this crossing was un-trafficable

 The desired solutions offered by landholders for this crossing included: – Retention of the crossing for private access to the Weir Park property, which crosses the river – Construction of a road across the Rookwood Crossing, but this may be unlikely due to cost – Something put in place at the bottom of the weir (landholder indicated they had no need for the Rookwood Crossing should the weir be constructed). Rookwood Crossing is shown in Figure 1-9.

1-16 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-7 Hanrahan Road Crossing

Figure 1-8 Hanrahan Road Crossing aerial view

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-17 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-9 Rookwood Crossing

Riverslea Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 17 (approximately 72 residents + occasional contractors and visitors)

 This crossing is used for multiple purposes, with the most common purpose being to access workplace/property on the other side of the river. It is listed as the primary road access for six of the seventeen properties—it is also the main access to Rockhampton for a number of properties on the western side of the river

 Landholders indicated the Riverslea Crossing is un-trafficable up to three months a year, but a few suggested it was more like two to four weeks during the recent drought

 Most landholders do not have alternate access to Rockhampton for this crossing and boat across or use non-shire tracks through neighbouring properties when the crossing is flooded. Some properties can travel via Marlborough; however, it was highlighted that this alternate route is too long to be feasible

 Landholders indicated a strong desire to see an improved crossing at Riverslea if the weir is raised: – One landholder would like to see a bridge over Riverslea that was passable even in flood conditions – One landholder said it was not an issue as long as a crossing to Rockhampton with the same flood immunity as the Riverslea has currently is retained

1-18 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

– One landholder said NRW was aware that they will have to upgrade the crossing and would like to see this done – One landholder said the Riverslea Crossing must be maintained to current accessibility level once weir goes in – One landholder proposed that a bridge at roundabout (Riverslea Crossing) should be 15– 20 m high (approximately 60 feet) – ‘Have a bridge over Riverslea or another major access for other properties around Rookwood Weir’ – ‘I would like to see a usable crossing maintained at Riverslea. If the weir goes in and Riverslea crossing is flooded, every time we go to town we would need a boat’. Riverslea Crossing is shown in Figure 1-10 and Figure 1-11.

The Pocket 4WD Access Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 2 (eleven residents):

 Crossing is primary road access point to The Pocket property

 Landholders indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable approximately two to three months a year or less

 Landholders stated their alternate access was via Riverslea Crossing, approximately 17 km extra distance each trip

 One landholder’s desired solution was to maintain access across the crossing, as it is inconvenient to travel around via Smith Rd to Riverslea. The second landholder said they would like to keep the crossing but doesn’t see it happening. The Pocket 4WD Access is shown in Figure 1-12.

Smith Road Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 1 (eleven residents).

Despite being a shire road crossing, this crossing was only identified by one landholder in the course of consultation.

Like the Glenroy—Marlborough Road crossings, it is possible that this crossing was not highlighted by landholders as they do not acknowledge this as a Fitzroy River crossing as the crossing is located some distance up Melaleuca Creek. Also, the potential users of this crossing seem to use The Pocket 4WD access as their main access as it is a significant short cut:

 Landholder indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable approximately three weeks to a month per year

 Landholder stated their alternate access was via the Rookwood or Riverslea crossings, approximately 10 minutes extra travel time each trip

 Landholder seemed satisfied that this crossing would be required to be maintained as it is located on a shire road. Smith Road Crossing is shown in Figure 1-13.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-19 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-10 Riverslea Crossing

Figure 1-11 Riverslea Crossing aerial view

1-20 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-12 The Pocket 4WD access

Figure 1-13 Smith Road Crossing

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-21 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Island Camp Island Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 1 (8 residents):

 Crossing is used to access grazing land on the Island Camp property

 Landholder indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable approximately three months a year, up to six months dependent on season

 Landholder stated there was no alternate access for this crossing

 Landholder would like to see the internal crossings (there are a number of small islands on the property, as well as Island Camp Island) built up as business and lifestyle would be affected if the property could not use these crossings to access paddocks with vehicles.

Separation-Slatey Creek Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 2 (7 residents + occasional contractors):

 Crossing is used for share-farming and to traffic heavy machinery between Separation and Slatey-Creek properties

 Landholders indicated that the crossing is currently un-trafficable one to two months per year

 Landholder stated their alternate access was via Foleyvale Crossing through Duaringa

 In regards to a desired solution for this crossing, both landholders suggested that it would be preferable to keep the crossing but unfeasible to build a bridge or causeway over the crossing and that if the crossing was cut off ‘they just wouldn’t be able to use it’. One landholder suggested they may lose out financially from the land that was cleared but they still wanted to see the weir go ahead.

Foleyvale Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 4 (approximately 24 residents in addition to occasional contractors):

Note that one of the landholders does not currently use the Foleyvale Crossing, however is investigating share farming with the Foleyvale property and provided answers according to expected crossing usage.

 This crossing is the primary road access for the Foleyvale and Stoney Creek properties, and is used for work related purposes for the other landholders

 Foleyvale property landholder stated that the crossing was un-trafficable ‘whenever there is heavy rain’—two or three times a year for up to eight weeks. Other landholders supported that this crossing can be untrafficable for between one and three months a year

 Three landholders stated that alternate access for the Foleyvale crossing is via the Riverslea crossing and through Marlborough (approximately 1 hour extra travel time each trip); however, one landholder stated they had to use a boat if the Foleyvale Crossing was unavailable

 Landholders expressed their desire to see the Foleyvale crossing raised should the weir be built. One landholder also stated that it would be good if they opened a road up from Riverslea crossing to the Foleyvale crossing as it would significantly reduce travel for people in that area. He indicated that there is currently a track through there but it hasn’t been up kept by the Council.

1-22 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Note: One landholder outside of the core consultation scope sourced the consultation contact details from a neighbour and contacted us to discuss their usage of Foleyvale crossing. This landholder stated that they would be using this crossing up to four times a day from 2008, and that the crossing was their main access to town and to their working property. An alternate route is via Riverslea crossing; however, the landholder indicated that if Foleyvale Crossing is un- trafficable Riverslea is un-trafficable a short time after, which leaves the Duaringa-Apis Creek Road to the north as the only access. The landholder stated that this detour was not a long term viable option as it is a significant distance to travel (approximately three hours extra travel time each way). The landholder stated the ‘most practical outcome would be to combine the Riverslea and Foleyvale crossings into one good high-level crossing’.

This landholder also expressed concern that they, as members of the community outside of the consultation scope, would not be involved with the project planning even though the potential inundation of the crossing could impact their future business planning.

Foleyvale Crossing is shown in Figure 1-14.

Figure 1-14 Foleyvale Crossing

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-23 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Boolburra Crossing Number of landholders identified using the crossing = 5 (approximately 17 residents in addition to occasional contractors):

 This crossing was stated as having been used primarily for work purposes by landholders, including travelling to and from work in Duaringa or to access other properties owned by the landholders

 Landholder’s responses to the untrafficability of this crossing owing to flooding were particularly variable, from a couple of times per year up to six months of the year dependant on season and climate

 Alternate access for this crossing is via the Capricorn Highway, which runs parallel to the road on which the crossing is located (10–15 km difference in distance)

 Five landholders expressed their desire to see the Boolburra crossing raised or a culvert put in place should the weir be raised, although one said they were indifferent as long as their internal crossing was not affected by the weir raising. The final landholder said not having the Boolburra crossing wouldn’t have a significant effect on their property. Boolburra Crossing is shown in Figure 1-15. Note the high level railway crossing (ID 40) in the background.

Figure 1-15 Boolburra Crossing

1-24 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Other crossings identified by landholders There were a number of other internal crossing identified by landholders, however most of these were over creeks or gullies within properties and were outside the scope of this project. Details of other crossings identified by individual landholders are summarised in the table below.

Note that there were a small number of ‘crossings’ that were identified from previous studies, but did not fall within this project’s scope. These included the Pocket Island, the Pocket Point Island, Slatey Creek Island, Central Railway Crossing and Islands between AMTD 281 and 282. None of these crossings were mentioned by landholders during the consultation phase for this project.

Of the crossings in Table 1-3 it was considered that Melrose Bottom Crossing, the Yarra- Tarawong Crossing and the Mourangee Dawson River Crossing, due to their similarities to the Redbank, Craiglee, and Separation-Slatey Creek crossings, were within the project’s scope. Consequently, these crossings were considered in the options analysis stage.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-25 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Table 1-3 Consultation results—unknown crossings

Frequency Additional time/ Property Crossing identified Usage Purpose crossing un- Alternate route distance/cost Details trafficable

EDEN BANN WEIR

Marble Ridges Wattlebank (ID23) Very Only when cattle Not offered Via Rockhampton A few hours Located approximately 1 mile south of occasionally need to be (100+ km) weir. Landholder stated that this retrieved from crossing would not be an issue as other side of river. stock would not be able to cross the river once weir was raised.

Eden Bann Embankment on 5 30 times a To poison noxious Not at all during No vehicle route; Extra distance The only access to the area to poison small gullies year (~ twice grasses in gullies drought, only when alternate the weeds—would adversely affect running between a month) to prevent spread. water reaches over horseback/walking the property if they could not access 143 and 151 2 metres in weir. access around top of these gullies to poison. When the weir AMTD (ID 25) property along electrical is full the gullies are all still accessible lines clearing then along but are underwater during heavy minor watercourse flooding. (finishing at 151 AMTD)

Internal access Once every 2 Sun Water 2 to 3 times a year No alternate route Reschedule trip Used by Sun Water employees only, road from Eden months employee access (wet season) not Eden Bann property landholders. Bann property to to weir. Eden Bann Weir (ID 24)

Glenavon Crossing over 3 to 4 days To access parts of Can be out for two No alternate access for Not offered Basic concrete culvert located where lower section of per week property for work. or three weeks at a vehicles (horseback) the Glenavon track meets Boggy Boggy Creek (ID time during the wet Creek. Currently, when weir is full this 27) season. crossing is trafficable.

Crossing over 3 to 4 days To access parts of Can be out for two No alternate access for Not offered Road over dirt—located upstream Princhester Creek per week property for work. or three weeks at a vehicles (horseback) from the Glenavon Access Track and (26) time during the wet is used when the Glenavon Access season. Track is flooded.

1-26 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Frequency Additional time/ Property Crossing identified Usage Purpose crossing un- Alternate route distance/cost Details trafficable Mt Fairview Two crossings—at 12 times a Primary road Up to a week per No alternate route Not offered Low level road on dirt crossing. Major (top property) AMTD 163 and year access to property year—seasonally gully at AMTD 160-161 and minor between AMTD (no shire road dependent. gully at 163. If these crossings are 161 and 160 (ID access). inundated there will be no vehicle 28) access to the property. Landholder suggested that the desired solution would be to create an alternate access route at a higher point on the property.

Coorumburra Crossings on the 1 day per To access A month to three Nil Nil Embankment pushed up on western horseshoe lagoon week paddocks in this weeks a year side of lagoon (off track). (ID 29) area of property. (drought year)

Internal Twice a day General access to A month to three Nil Nil Cleared road across creek. Currently, Marlborough property. weeks a year this crossing is approximately 1 to 2 Creek crossing (ID (drought year) metres higher than water level when 30) dam is full.

Melrose ‘Bottom Crossing’ Twice a year Used to track 1 to 2 months a Glenroy crossing— Not a significant Natural ford approximately 1 1/2 (ID 6) cattle and bull year maximum. however would normally time or distance, kilometres north of the Glenroy dozer across the avoid taking cattle across really just an Crossing. Usually a few inches deep river. Glenroy crossing inconvenience with water—rarely flooded. When the weir is full (as it is currently), crossing is accessible for both cattle and bull dozer. So long as can get across Glenroy Crossing, losing access to the Bottom Crossing is not a significant issue—however having Bottom Crossing affected would be an inconvenience and an expense.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-27

Frequency Additional time/ Property Crossing identified Usage Purpose crossing un- Alternate route distance/cost Details trafficable

ROOKWOOD WEIR

The Ranch Two internal 4 to 5 days To access Up to a week a year. No alternate route Nil Low level crossing—road over dirt. crossings at north per week paddocks across Property has pumps on both sides of and south areas of the east side of the creek. property (ID 31) the river.

Riverview 2 tributary Once a month To check fences Never un-trafficable Nil Nil Northern crossing is laneway with crossings on north in northern trough and pipeline. Landholder section of property section of stated that NRW proposed that they (ID 32) property. would put in a bank if crossing were inundated and the bank would service Tributary crossing 1 to 2 days To check fences Never un-trafficable Nil Nil both northern and southern parts of on south of per week and access lower property. property (ID 32) paddock.

Fitzroy Pocket Melaleuca Creek Once a month To kill noxious Approximately 50 No alternate for this No alternative for No description offered. Landholder crossing within weeds on river days per year—less purpose this purpose expressed concern that once weir is property (ID 33) bank and check in drought conditions raised, this crossing may be cattle. inundated and they will not be able to access country across the other side of Melaleuca Creek.

Island Camp Series of internal Most days (3 To access 3 months to 6 No alternate access for Nil available Landholder stated that at 50 to 55 gully crossings to to 4 days per grazing land and months a year. vehicles—have to use (horseback). feet of water all these crossings are the west of the week) to check on Seasonal. horseback or go through out. Landholder would like to see property (AMTD cattle other property. these internal crossings retained as 287—290) (ID 37) their business and lifestyle would be affected if they couldn’t use these crossings to access paddocks with vehicles.

1-28 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Frequency Additional time/ Property Crossing identified Usage Purpose crossing un- Alternate route distance/cost Details trafficable Yarra Internal crossing 8 trips per To manage 2 to 4 weeks per Riverslea Crossing Extra hour and a This crossing is located over the (ID 17) week share-farming on year half Fitzroy River between the Yarra and property south of approximately Tarrawong properties at around river. AMTD 296. It was described as a low lying road over dirt approximately 100 metres wide. Landholder said it would likely be too costly to place a bridge over the crossing, instead suggesting compensation as the only option if the crossing was inundated.

Duaringa Internal crossing 2 or 3 times a To access Only in serious Via Aroona Road Extra half an Gravelled road over dirt crossing that Station over Bone Creek, week while property below downpour (once in hour is at least 90 foot wide (the width of parallel to farming the Bone Creek. four years) the machinery transported over it). boundary between area property 8KM36 (ID 39)

Mourangee Internal crossing Once or twice To shift grain Twice a year Boolburra Crossing Extra half hour Crossing is pipes in the creek—low (ID 20) a year (for a within property. approximately each way lying. Located between Mourangee month) and property number 1k405. Half a meter of water in crossing and it is un-trafficable.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 1-29

Other landholder comments Landholders raised a number of issues during the consultation phase that did not relate purely to access issues for the crossings within this study’s scope. Landholders were advised that these issues would be passed to NRW for consideration. Landholders were also advised to speak to NRW if they wished to discuss these issues further. Issues raised issues included the following:

 A number of landholders were concerned about inundation of their land, particularly low lying river frontage and land along gullies. One landholder had serious concerns that they would lose ‘half their property (under 40–50 ft of water) if the weir goes in’. Other landholders said it would create significant areas of the property that would be flooded depending on the height of the weir, and that raising the weir would affect the workability of property, particularly for the low-lying country that fronts the river

 A number of landholders raised concerns about flooding of internal property gullies (rather than river crossings) isolating sections of their property, causing additional work during the harvest season, or affecting the property’s general entry

 Two landholders expressed concern that watering of cattle may be affected by raising the weir, for example reduction in access to gentle slopes/shallow depths for easy access. Gravel ramps or offstream watering points have apparently been raised as possible solutions in the past

 One landholder was worried about mud on riverbanks when water is let out of the weir; that the raising of weir will create a more significant problem of cattle trying to reach the river to drink, bogging in the river banks and crocodiles eating them

 One landholder said Thirsty Creek Road should be improved as is dangerous in its current state

 Some landholders expressed support for the weir raising.

1.2.3.3 Agency consultation A number of agencies with significant interest or knowledge of access issues in the study area were approached as part of this project. The agencies contacted as part of this study are:

 Fitzroy Shire

 Livingstone Shire

 Duaringa Shire

 Woorabinda Pastoral Company

 Gladstone Pacific Nickel Limited

 Department of Main Roads

 Department of State Development

 Department of Infrastructure (now Department of Infrastructure and Planning)

 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. The last three were particularly identified because of their involvement in the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study.

A standard set of questions were asked of each agency, as shown below (Figure 1-16).

1-30 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Figure 1-16 Agency survey template

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-31 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Each agency was asked these questions in a phone interview. In some cases follow up phone calls, emails, or meetings were used to confirm and expand the information provided. The key findings from the agency consultation are presented below:

 Fitzroy Shire Council indicated they would not support any decrease to the current level of service provided by the roads due to increased flooding or inundation from the weir proposals without extensive community consultation

 None of the Councils had traffic studies or development plans for the study area. Capital works programs included minor allowances for paving small sections on shire roads in the study area

 Traffic data on the main highways and some of the major shire roads was available

 MR provided plans of the major highway crossings. Plans of the existing shire crossings were rare

 Flooding information and road closure information was not generally available, other than the records available from the Riverslea Gauging Station

 Fitzroy Shire maintains property access roads on the western side of the river, but does not maintain the connecting roads from Foleyvale Crossing to Riverslea Crossing and to Glenroy Crossing on the western side of river

 A recognition of strong community desire for improved flood immunity for crossings. A high level bridge would be a big improvement in the standard of living

 Woorabinda Pastoral Company intends to develop their properties and indicated their use of the Foleyvale Crossing will significantly increase. In the past the Woorabinda Pastoral Company has suffered losses due to lack of road access for grain trucks, with the harvested grain rotting while the Foleyvale Crossing was un-trafficable. They expressed a strong desire to see the crossing upgraded

 Gladstone Pacific Nickel Limited plans to develop a haul road crossing within the Coorumburra property over Marlborough Creek from some of the mining pits to the beneficiation plant. A slurry pipeline is planned under the bed of the Fitzroy River. They are concerned about the impact of the weir on the internal property crossing to Horseshoe Lagoon and about the need for Coorumburra Road (the Glenroy–Marlborough Road) to be upgraded for heavy traffic. They also expressed a desire to see Glenroy Crossing and crossings on Glenroy–Marlborough Road improved

 MR indicated there are issues with periodic (20 year) major flood events at the Fitzroy River Floodplain just to the south and west of Rockhampton. Rockhampton also has looming capacity issues with the Bruce Highway through the city and the bridges. A third crossing, in addition to the two in Rockhampton, is necessary to cope with traffic growth. One possible location for a crossing of the Fitzroy River would be just downstream of the Eden Bann Weir near Canoona (approximately AMTD 121). MR recommends considering this option as an alternate to replacing Glenroy Crossing

 MR is concerned about the effect Rookwood Weir may have on the flood immunity of the Dawson Bridge of the Capricorn Highway (shown in Figure 1-17). They are also concerned about the potential impact of water pipeline corridors on road corridors. They also state that construction traffic for the weir proposals needs analysis

1-32 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

 The Department of State Development, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and Department of Infrastructure provided details on the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study. Current crossings of the river are not reliable enough for intensive agriculture to expand on the western side of the river, even though there are appropriate soils. Intensive agriculture requires good access for the delivery of inputs (such as grain) and for transport of their product to market. (Further details on this study are included in Section 2.1 and in Appendix B.)

Figure 1-17 Capricorn Highway Crossing of the Dawson River

The full responses by each agency are included in Appendix C.

1.2.3.4 Consultation conclusions The major conclusions drawn from the consultation phase of the project include:

 Based on the consultation with landholders and agencies, there is a very strong desire for the raising of the major bridges in the area, Riverslea, Glenroy and Foleyvale and to a lesser extent for Boolburra

 Most crossings are used for farm management purposes, including journeys between properties, within properties, and between properties and services in Rockhampton. Reduction in the serviceability of these crossings will have significant farm management consequences. These consequences include: additional time and costs, increased stress and risk to stock, safety risks in increased boat crossings, difficulties in mustering stock and moving machinery, difficulty in moving products to market, difficulties for accessing services (shops, schools, mail, emergency services), and restriction of social activities

 Recollections of the frequency of crossing inundation varied between landholders. However, it is apparent that most of the main river crossings in the area are inundated on a semi-regular basis, typically for a number of months in most years

 There was a strong desire to continue to be involved in future consultation processes for the weir developments, both from landholders and some of the agencies. There appears to be desire from landholders from outside the riparian zone to be involved in consultation

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-33 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

 Consultation with the Department of State Development, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the Department of Infrastructure (and the review of relevant reports in Appendix B Section 3) indicates that the proposed developments in the FIIS will involve a significant increase in the traffic in the area. The proposed development areas are mostly on the eastern side of the river due to the poor flood immunity of the river crossings. It is expected that if the crossings over the Fitzroy River were improved, then a significant proportion of this development could occur on the western bank (perhaps 25–50 %)

 A significant number of additional crossings were identified through the consultation process. While most of these crossings are low-level internal crossings over creeks and gullies, they may in total result in a significant additional cost. At the completion of the data review and consultation phases of the project, 21 crossings had been identified that fell within the scope of the study. Details of these crossings sourced from the data review (particularly from Keane 2004), the consultation process and the site inspection are summarised in Table 1-4.

1.2.5 Road network and traffic analysis

1.2.5.1 Existing conditions To ensure the local and strategic importance of each crossing could be correctly evaluated, a basic review of the existing road network and traffic volumes was undertaken.

The existing road network in the region is largely controlled by Fitzroy Shire Council, with the exception of private access roads, the Aroona Road/Boolburra-Edungalba Road in Duaringa Shire and the state controlled Duaringa-Apis Creek Road (Rd 5101). Two state controlled highways bracket the study area, the Capricorn Highway (Rd 16A) to the south and Bruce Highway (Rd 10F) to the north-east. A site visit to the region confirmed that the road network is generally composed of unsealed rural roads, with poor horizontal and vertical alignment. The condition of these roads is typically such that vehicles could not travel safely over a speed of approximately 60 km/h. A typical shire road is shown in Figure 1-18.

Figure 1-18 Typical shire road

1-34 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Appendix D contains traffic network plans for the study area, with roads classified into highways, regional roads, district roads, and access roads. A brief description of this road classification is as follows:

 Highways and regional roads: These roads are state controlled and serve to link major centres. They primarily carry high volumes of through traffic and have limited access points

 District roads: These roads provide links to access roads and primarily carry through traffic. In some instances, direct property access off these roads may occur

 Access roads: These roads provide direct access to properties and are controlled by the relevant local council. The traffic figures shown for each of the 21 crossings on the plans in Appendix D were derived from community consultation, and the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) values shown on roads were obtained from the local Councils and Department of Main Roads. The mean monthly traffic volumes indicated on the crossings are thus likely to be low, as the actual amount of crossing traffic will be significantly higher due to regional traffic movements, particularly for the shire and state controlled roads. These plans illustrate the limited nature of the road network on the western side of the Fitzroy River.

The traffic volumes in the region are quite low, with AADT’s numbering around 60 vehicles. There are expected to be significant fluctuations in the traffic volumes from seasonal effects, particularly since nearly all of the riparian crossing users are primary producers.

The Glenroy, Glenroy-Marlborough, Riverslea and Rosewood Wycarbah roads were considered to be district level roads and as such, any crossings located on these roads are of significant strategic importance. Whilst the AADT traffic volumes are below the volume normally expected for district level roads, they serve the purpose of district roads for the regional network of this area.

Glenroy Road connects to Glenroy–Marlborough Road, providing a route north to the township of Marlborough. The crossing volumes indicated by the community consultation are significantly lower than the expected amount of traffic on the Glenroy–Marlborough Road, and no Council traffic counts were available. Glenroy-Marlborough Road does provide an important connection, being the only road access to many properties on the western bank of the Fitzroy River in times of flood.

The Foleyvale Crossing is located on the state controlled Duaringa-Apis Creek Road, and is also considered to have significant strategic importance, providing the first significant north-south link between the Capricorn Highway and the Bruce Highway/Marlborough-Sarina Road west of Rockhampton. Therefore, it is considered important to maintain or improve the level of service at this location.

Boolburra Crossing is located on the Duaringa Shire Road of Aroona Road/Boolburra-Edungalba Road. A traffic count in the vicinity of the crossing of 15 vehicles per day was provided by Duaringa Shire. Additional information would be required to correctly establish the position of this road on the hierarchy. For the purposes of this study it was estimated to be an access road. Thirsty Creek Road, Smith Road and Hanrahan Road are also owned and maintained by Fitzroy Shire Council and are considered to be access roads.

1-36 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

1.2.5.2 Considerations for future traffic growth From the review of previous studies and the agency consultation, two developments which could significantly increase the traffic volumes in the region were identified. These are the Marlborough Nickel Mine to the north of the Fitzroy River and the Potential Development Areas (PDA) indicated in the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study.

The Marlborough Nickel Mine is expected to create significant additional traffic on the Glenroy– Marlborough Road and traversing Glenroy Crossing. Traffic on the Glenroy–Marlborough Road could be even further increased if the option to transport the ore by truck to Marlborough and then by train to Gladstone is selected over the currently preferred slurry pipeline option. The PDAs are expected to contain feedlots, horticulture, and piggeries. A considerable amount of traffic will be generated by vehicles required to operate these industries. The existing roads in the study area identified as likely to carry this additional traffic include:

 Jackson Road

 Riverslea Road

 Thirsty Creek Road

 Rosewood Wycarbah Road

 Atkinson Road. Further details on these potential developments can be found in the report reviews in Appendix B of this report.

The aforementioned developments were taken into account in evaluating the strategic importance of these crossings, and have provided additional support for the replacement of the identified crossings. However, for the purposes of this study, no additional costs have been included solely to meet the requirements of these potential future developments.

Synergies between potential future developments in the area and the construction of the weirs should be sought in future investigations, with the aim of minimising costs and ensuring that an appropriate level of flood immunity is achieved.

1.2.6 References Cook M, Blake T, Story G (Jan 2007), Assessment of Potential Social and Non Indigenous Cultural Heritage Impacts of Proposed New Water Infrastructure on the Lower Fitzroy River, Report prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Water.

Cotterell E (Aug 1998), Fish Passage in Streams—Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings, Fish Habitat Guideline FHG 001, Fisheries Group, DPI, Qld Government.

GHD (May 2005), Fitzroy Agricultural Development Area—Transport and Access Report, Report for the Department of State Development and Innovation. GHD (April 2006), Fitzroy Agricultural Development Area—Land Suitability Study, Report for The Coordinator General.

Hyder Consulting (July 1999), Initial Environmental Evaluation—Lower Fitzroy River Weirs and Mt Bridget Dam, Connor River.

KBR (Dec 2003), New Bridge Over Fitzroy River at Riverslea—Preliminary Design Report, Prepared for the Department of Natural Resources.

41/20736/446697 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 1-37 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

Keane ML (June 2004), Fitzroy River Weir Study, Water Planning, Rockhampton, Department of Natural Resource, Mines and Energy. Lagoon Hill Nickel NL (May 1998), Marlborough Nickel Project - Environmental Impact Statement. Submission to the Qld Department of Mines and Energy, Prepared by Quartz Water Australia Pty Ltd. Lagoon Hill Nickel NL (Oct 1998), Marlborough Nickel Project - Addendum to Environmental Impact Statement, Submission to the Qld Department of Mines and Energy, Prepared by Quartz Water Australia Pty Ltd. Marlborough Nickel Pty Ltd (Mar 1999), Marlborough Nickel Project - Environmental Management Overview Strategy, Submission to the Qld Department of Mines and Energy.

Main Roads (July 1989,) Planning Report—Upgrading Proposals for Mackenzie River Bridge & Approaches, Prepared by No 15 (Emerald) District Design Office.

Main Roads (June 2002), Road Drainage Design Manual, Qld Government.

Qld Transport and Main Roads (2004), Capricornia Integrated Regional Transport Plan 2004- 2030, Qld Government.

Rawlinsons (2007), Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook 2007.

The Coordinator General (Oct 2006), Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study—Infrastructure Requirements Draft Report.

URS (April 2007), Gladstone Nickel Project-Environmental Impact Statement, Gladstone Pacific Nickel Ltd.

Western M, Laffan W, Prangnell J, Bell S, Pettitt J, Arts D (Sept 2005), Final Combined Report— Pre-feasibility Comparison of Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Options, University of Qld Social Research Centre, Prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

1.2.7 Appendices

1.2.7.1 Appendix A Maps

 Figure A1: Regional map

 Figures A2 – A11: Detailed maps

1-38 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material 20 149°30'0"E 150°0'0"E 150°30'0"E KEY MAP MARLBOROUGH

10

PRINCHESTER

0 MAR 440 LBOR OUGH SARINA ROAD ­ 450 KUNWARARA

M

A

R

L 430 B MERIMAL 0 O QUEENSLAND R LIVINGSTONE SHIRE O 460 U G H C ID26 RE EK (! GLENAVON ACCESS TRACK 23°0'0"S 23°0'0"S ID27 (! GLEN GEDDES 420 ID30 470 (! EDEN BANN WEIR GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH ROAD - GREEN CREEK 150 480 ID29 K AMTD141.2km E 170 ID28 E (! ID25 0 R (! 160 C GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH ROAD - TEN MILE CREEK (! 490 ER (! ID24 CANOONA RK 180 ! A ( *# D P GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH ROAD - THE ISLANDS FLOODRUNNER A 410 140(! MAN IL R O ID23 ID22 BR M OAD (! UC R R E E HIG D A BA H N (! W Y REDBANK CROSSING K 120 AY R O O YAAMBA MILMAN M A D 130 S S

110 O 190 R GLENROY R OAD 400 MELROSE BOTTOM CROSSING (! CAMMOO (! DUARINGA SHIRE THE CAVES 390 GLENROY CROSSING C 100 RA IG AD N GHT RO O A U AD G R LEN 200 H RO A Y R B D O R AD A A C O Y R CRAIGLEE CROSSING

W E 380 80 (! C D PANDOIN R 90 O

E O I

W P E S LEGEND O 210 R FITZROY SHIRE R OCKHA A D MPT RO O *# AD A N Weirs O L - R R OU RI NO - W AR DG N L E CO L L ROCKHAMPTON 370 E A (! 220 N In Scope, River Crossing W D 70 S N R CITY VE A O T A M D 60 S I In Scope, Gully Crossing 0 L E

C (! L )" R Outside Scope, River Crossing O D ROCKHAMPTON E 360 B R U AR 50 E R A RET K A R T R I OA D Outside Scope, Gully Crossing IN N C 230 IGHW O A G H Y E N A M C R M O R 350 A P A ICG Stream Gauging Station E I N R A F E S P V I C T K C 240 A )" IA H C Z R GRACEMEREL E - R E G E HANRAHAN ROAD CROSSING R O R A AMTD K CE Y O ME R RE D A O RO E D Y ON A (! A V T A D )" G C D E N R Populated Places L I EE R 250 KABRA W O R K E IV H P P Y R M 340 O G RIVERSLEA CROSSING R I E S WOORABINDA SHIRE Z STANWELL T H Railway Stations N I T WARREN T A F L T ROOKWOOD WEIR E MIDGEE R THE POCKET 4WD ACCESS N 23°30'0"S 23°30'0"S O 260 KALAPA Highway A AMTD265.4km R KWO D (! U UC RT BUSHLEY B D H SMITH ROAD CROSSING M (! C 320 # District Road R A *(! ROOKWOOD CROSSING E WOORABINDA SHIRE C (! WYCARBAH E FOLEYVALE CROSSING YARRA - TARRAWONG 270 K K ID33 E CROSSING Access Road N (! THIRSTY CREEK ROAD )" Z (! !(! BOULDERCOMBE I ( )" E ID32 BLUFF WALTON 300 ARCH

Track / Private Access R SEPERATION - SLATEY I (! V PARNABAL CREEK CROSSING E (! ID31 R WESTWOOD Railways (! UMOLO (! 90 310 ID37 (! ID34 RIVERSLEA GAUGING STATION 0 OLD WESTWOOD ! (! Watercourse K ID38 ( EE DINGO ID35 )" R (! (! MOUNT MORGAN C GOOWARRA D Local Government EBoundary JACKSON ROAD A ID36 O CHARL EVU R

TRYPHINIA ID39 S 70 Full Supply Level Eden Bann - 20.5m N ISLAND CAMP ISLAND N (! U Rookwood - 49m WALLAROO 10(! M MOUNT MORGAN SHIRE AROON MOURANGEE DAWSON RIVER CROSSING )" A ROAD 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 60 DUARINGA L D (! E D I A C O ID40 A R H DISCLAIMER VEL O A D H R R A G Kilometres A BOOLBURRA CROSSING R K BANANA SHIRE N This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the E W D E A T R 20 Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers 1:450,000 S W H C O O I of data that make up this map. E G

Grid Datum: GDA94 N W H N W - O A Y While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources (! D B R O 50 I and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for

V O SOURCE: E any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in K ID41 W C E R T negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you E S Data Supplied by DepartmentM of Natural Resources and Water, 2006. Geosciences Australia 2006.HA R 40 E might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. IM RLE Y149°30'0"E C 150°0'0"E 150°30'0"E This map incorporates dataOS whichA CRE Eis:K Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. W File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Regional Map.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.1 December 2007 REGIONAL MAP K E 172LN393 E R C 8RP860382 D 1LBG40101 E 11RP844200 T 4LI233 61FTY1482 4RP849066 16LI309 N 2RP620757 A 948RP844201 11RP844200 L P 3RP620757 4RP860382 3RP849066 AD E MONA VALE RO 35CP909289 11RP844200 DEN BAN 3RP836508 ­ N ROAD 39LBG40141 2RP849066 4RP836508 2044LBG40126 531LIV40114 1RP620757 1RP843068 10RP865909 14LI47 182LN1318 Eden Bann 182LN1318 D

17LI50 A 1RP601266

O

R 26LI83

2016RP841502 K 182LN1318 N

A A TK 1RP862018 B IN 14LI47 EDEN BANN WEIR E SO 8RP865909 12RP888195 L N ID24 T R AMTD141.2km T O 987LBG4075 A A D 3RP862018 ID25 2RP605153 1RP601409 !( W C A 142 *# N O O 144 Eden Bann Weir 656LBG4063 N N A A 140 T ID23 C 143 IV E R

E 655LBG4063 BEAR 139 CR E !( E K E 3LN560 11RP888195 K 126P40115 1976LIV40684 656LBG4063 FITZROY 655LBG4063 RIVER B RU CE 138 126 125 H 117LN841503 124 123 IG 127P40115 HW 2RP605153 122 AY ID22 EK 758LBG4019 RE N C 127 68LN1786 JUNCTIO !( 371RP601497 137 18LI53 1LBG4022 139P40114 370RP601497 120 2RP601497 128 1RP601497 119 Marble Ridges L A 136 G O 73LN679 O 69LN1786 3LBG4022 N 129 1936LIV40685 118 C 139P40114 R E EK 117 117LN841503 40LN327 75LN888 116 135 2LBG4022 130 LEGEND 115 K E 39LN327 RE 6RP601495 74LN679 *# C Weirs NY 77LN679 ST O 134 131 78LN679 3RP601496 In Scope, Gully Crossing 17LIV401172 17LIV401172 1846LN21 42LN593 133 40LN327 !( In Scope,38LN327 River Crossing 132 39LN327 Outside Scope,9LN2128 Gully Crossing 1RP601495 S K IX E 80LN678 !( M E 2RP601495 Outside Scope, River Crossing 3RP601496 2RP601496 R 47LN676 IL E C E 227RP601495 75LN678 25LN200 C MIL 76LN678 AMTD R O 79LN678 60LN676 56LN676 E TW 46LN676 E 25LN200 26LN200 K 1RP601496 2RP613052 Highway 54LN674 20LIV401211 2RP618636 KEY MAP 55LN674 2RP616106 District Road 1809LN248 5RP601495 42LN678 4RP601495 59LN2339 3RP601495 49LN676Access Road 43LN6762 81LN1104 Track / Private Access 41LN659 3 1 4RP601496 2RP849079 Major Watercourse52LN673 53LN673 26LN200 20LIV401211 40LN659 4 50LN676 103LN698 5RP601496 2RP611460 Minor Watercourse K 32LN673 DISCLAIMER E 86LN659 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the E 49LN676 1654LIV40518 R 5 Full Supply Level 18.5mAHD Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers C S 2RP612773 2RP861244 of data that make up this map. E 3SP148090 T I L 2RP611939 A R M 1MPH3920 T 36LN375 FOU Full Supply Level 20.5mAHD While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources IO 6 and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for N 2RP616021 C 1RP861244 any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in R 8 47LN667 Lot Boundary E K negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you 46LN667 2SP148090 E E 37LN376 E might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. 1498LIV40412 K 4LIV40919 7 44LN667 CR EK Land Owners S 1RP616021 RE 45LN667 ND C 9 A A L IS E SOURCE:114LN1783 29LN325 U 00.511.522.5G G 30LN660 O 35LN325 D LENROY 4LIV40919 L 1SP148090 I Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 ROAD 2RP60940810 R 31LN660 Geoscience Australia data 2006.1902LIV40683 118LN301 18LN872 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia10LN299 2006. 32LN659 24LN654 Kilometres 33LN659 23LN655 File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 1.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.2 ember 2007 Dec EDEN BANN WEIR SHEET 1 OF 10 M

O 13LI41

2LI334 U DISCLAIMER N 13LI41 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the T KEY MAP LEGEND Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers A 16LI49 I N

of data that make up this map. K

H E *# Weirs 3USL42122 U While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of thisE map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources R T 2266LBG40146 C A 7LI40 and Water makes no representations or warranties aboutC its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for TK I R 34LBG40163 2 NSO any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility andY all liability (including without limitation, liability in E N In Scope, Gully Crossing E 16LI49 R N ­ O negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you K 16LI49 A O 2266LBG40146 3 1 D might incur as a result of this map being inaccurateT or incomplete in any way and for any reason. !( S In Scope, River Crossing

SOURCE: 4 Outside Scope, Gully Crossing Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 ID26 1LI318 Geoscience Australia data 2006. !( !( Outside Scope, River Crossing This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 5 22LI67 AMTD 35LBG40187 29LI106 6 Highway 8 7 District Road 9 Access Road

34LBG40163 10 Track /1SP166190 Private Access 19LI56 35LBG40187 Major Watercourse 7LI76 K 2SP166190 E Minor Watercourse E 20LI67 AKY CR R O EEK C !( Y

Full Supply Level 18.5mAHDD

N

A

S Coorumburra GLENAVON ACCESS TRACK P Full Supply Level 20.5mAHD20LI56 RIN CHE STE R C Lot Boundary 2358LBG40148 RE EK S C O A RRUMB 154 Land Owners N U 153 D R ID27 Y

R 155 C Glenavon 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 R A 33LI143 E R 1895LBG40112 E K 2358LBG40148 O ID30 156 152 A D Kilometres

K !( E 157 E R 151 C H

G U 21LI236 O R K O E E B R 158 16LI309 L Y C

R G BOG A 150 M 8PN27 Mt Fairview 8LI65 20LI67 R E 11RP844200

V 8LI65 I

R

Y

O 149 R

170 Z

T I ID29 1LI224 F Eden Bann 2044LBG40126 !( 171 ID28 160 169 148 14LI47 1992PAK40103 17LI50 172 161 AD 168 ID25 RO NN A 2359LBG40149 162 B 167 N 166 E 147 D 165 17PN27 E 173 30PN56 14LI47 ID24 164 163 17PN27 Eden Bann!( Weir 146 ILE C K 145 *# 2359LBG40149 M R EE 142 141 2007LBG40131 N E 144

174 T 114FTY861 Aricia State Forest

177 EDEN BANN WEIR Bannockburn AMTD141.2km 175 176 85RP900583 1976LIV40684 13PN125 5PAK40204 86RP900583 117LN841503

1960PAK40104 85RP900583 S Mt Fairview I X K M EE IL CR RED E J ON BANK C UNC TI RO R A FAIR E D T M IL V EK GH E I EI C 86RP900583 E Redbank R W 117LN841503 E E R K O A 86RP900583 23PN125 8CP899147 16PN19 D Marble Ridges File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 2.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.3 ember 2007 Dec EDEN BANN WEIR SHEET 2 OF 10 8LI65 S 11LI139 8LI65 E 158 V 11LI139 K E G GY CREE N R M B OG T E E A 20LI67 E N R E L 20LI67 N C B R O M E 8LI65 R I E O L K UG R E 20LI67 E H C V C I ­ R R R

E 11LI139 8LI65 E 8PN27 E Y E 12LI139 K 170 Mt Fairview K O 12LI139 1LI224 R ID29 21LI236 Z T Glenavon I

GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH ROAD F 12LI139 1LI224 171 - GREEN CREEK Coorumburra !( !( 169 160 2004LBG40130 8LI65 13LI139 1992PAK40103 172 161 L E C 168 ID28 I R 13LI139 2359LBG40149 M E 2250PAK40120 E N K 2359LBG40149 1992PAK40103 162 E 167 T !( 166 2354PAK40133 17PN27 !( 2007LBG40131 165 GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH 13LI139 2007LBG40131 173 ROAD - TEN MILE CREEK 30PN56 2004LBG40130 164 163 15LI140 180 17PN27 GLENROY-MARLBOROUGH ROAD 179 - THE ISLANDS FLOODRUNNER 2359LBG40149 2007LBG40131 181 174 Redbank 178

114FTY861 2340PAK40132 177 Aricia State Forest 182 Bannockburn 14LI140 175 176 85RP900583 18PN24 5PAK40204 15LI140 183 1960PAK40104 13PN125 85RP900583 REDBANK CROSSING Mt Fairview !( 86RP900583

16LI140 16LI140 184 Redbank 86RP900583 Muldoon 86RP900583 M U L 185 D EIG 16LI140 O H

O T M

N F IL A

16PN19 C E IR 2310PAK40118 CR V R 186 EEK E IE

E W

K R 7PAK40206 16PN19 O 2310PAK40118 A D 187 8CP899147 17LI141 LEGEND 23PN125 *# Weirs 18LI141 CREEK P AM C 188 In Scope, Gully Crossing 6PAK40205 !( In Scope, River Crossing R 1356PAK4060 ED Outside Scope, Gully Crossing B 1321PAK4056 AN 189 1320PAK4056 K R !( 16PN19 O Outside Scope, River Crossing AD 3LI18 AMTD D G 6PAK40205 OA LE S R NR 190 1916PAK4099 RD OY Highway A -M 3LI18 ICH A 1AP2499 R RL KEY MAP24PN217 BO District Road RO U 19LI18 28PN34 GH 20PN479 R Melrose 191 Access Road OA D Melrose T 1386PAK4061 E 2 1PAK40194 N Track / Private Access

7PN179 MELROSE BOTTOM CROSSING M 3 1 I

L

!( E D OA C Major Watercourse R R OY E 4 192 NR E LE K Minor Watercourse DISCLAIMER 12PN442 G 27PN470 27PN470 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the 5 Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers Glenroy Full Supply Level 18.5mAHD GLE of data that make up this map. NR GLENROY CROSSING O 20PN479 Southland 14PN394 14PN394 15PN34 Y Full Supply Level 20.5mAHD 2PN443 !( While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources C 11PN464 193 6 and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy,K reliability, completeness or suitability for R 15PN34 12PN442 REE E any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability C (including without limitation, liability in E K K D 8 Lot Boundary negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirectC or consequential damage) and costs which you A might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incompleteA in any way and for any reason. O Hillview 7 B R 2024PAK40102 Land Owners Glenroy E 9 H 194 SOURCE: 2PN443 C N 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 A 10 M 2PN443 2PAK40202 Geoscience Australia data 2006. M 15PN34 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. O 2PAK40202 Kilometres C Redbank13PN443 14PN394 File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 3.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.4 December 2007 EDEN BANN WEIR SHEET 3 OF 10 27PN470 11PN464 !(Glenroy193 2PN443 15PN34 Hillview 15PN34 2024PAK40102 Glenroy 194 ­ 2PN443

2PN443 2PAK40202 2PAK40202 14PN394

12PN442 195

20PN479

3PAK40202 14PN394 13PN443 Southland 196 3PAK40202 Hillview

15PN34 Redbank 13PN443

197 13PN443 11PN89 14PN394 198 199 14PN30 200 20PN479 1PN418 201

1PN418 25PN366 3PN30 202 21PN53 Homehill

4PN64 203

4PAK40203

4PAK40203 21PN53 3PN30 204 21PN53

D

A CRAIGLEE CROSSING

4PN64 O

R !( E OAD H CRAIGLEE R

C 1552PN14 LEGEND

N 5PN28 A Craiglee M *# Weirs M 8PN266 206 4PAK40203

O C In Scope, Gully Crossing

!( In Scope, River Crossing 4PAK40203 207 Outside Scope, Gully Crossing 2025PAK4095 !( Outside Scope, River Crossing 4363PH697 4363PH697AMTD 208 2025PAK4095

D Highway

A

R O KEY MAP E 5PN28 R V District Road I

H R

A Y 209 1847PAK4089

B O Access Road R R

Z A T 2 I C F Y Track / Private Access

W 3 1 19PN51

D

210 O Major Watercourse 16NPW598 O 4 W 10PN244 15PAK40179

E Minor Watercourse DISCLAIMER S This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the O 10PN397 R 5 Full Supply Level 18.5mAHD Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers 11PN244 of data that make up this map. 19PN51 1917PAK40156 11PN244 9PN30 211 Full Supply Level 20.5mAHD While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources 1769PAK4085 6 11PN244 and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for 17PAK40179 any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in 6PN51 8 Lot Boundary negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you 28PN244 might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. 7 Land Owners 13PN382 9 212 SOURCE: 10PN397 28PN244 00.511.522.5 Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 6PN51 10 9PN191 8PN191 13PN382 Geoscience Australia data 2006. 99PN260 8PN191 Kilometres This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 217 2RP618120

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 4.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.5 ember 2007 Dec EDEN BANN WEIR SHEET 4 OF 10 2PN218 15PAK40179 13PN382 13PN382 1PN214 ­

1PN214

17PAK40179 D A

Kilometres O

R

3PAK40135 R

3PAK40135 O

N

N Weirs Highway Road District Access Road Track / PrivateAccess Major Watercourse Minor Watercourse Lot Boundary Land Owners

In Scope, Gully Crossing Gully Scope, In Crossing River Scope, In Outside Scope, GullyCrossing Outside Scope, River Crossing AMTD O C 8PN191 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ! ( ! ( # *

11PN244

20PN472 LEGEND

K

E

E

24PN244 R

C

8PN191 H

A

O Figure A.6 EDEN BANN WEIR / ROOKWOOD WEIR 10 5 OFSHEET M 8PN191 1

D

A 9PN191

11PN244 O

R

T 2 T

E

R 3 4 5 6 7

R

24PN244 A

B K

E E K

R E 4PAK40136 E

C 8 9

R

10

D C

O B 4PAK40136

2RP618120

11PN244

O

U

W R

20PN472

E KEY MAP C

S

S O

28PN244 R 25PN244 26PN244

D A O R

H

28PN244 A B 4PAK40136 R A

C 99PN260 99PN260 Y W

238 D 237

O 25PN244 O 239 W 240

E 5PAK40136

S

K

O E

R E R 236

100PN256 C

E L

1917PAK40156 I

M

O

W T 235 1769PAK4085 5PAK40136 234 18PN61

6PN51

19PN51 K E E

R

C

O

T

I

U

233 Q

S

O M 225 211 224 6PN51 212 232 18PN61 213 226 223 2322PAK40119 227 228 231 1PN20 18PN61 229

230

R

E

V

214 I

R

222 Y

O R Z T I F 215 221 10PN397

216

1631PAK4068

K 220

E

E

R

C

E

L I M

E N I N 217 219

K EE R D A C O 218 K R

C

9PN30 E 4PN23 A H

B C N A M M O

C K

E E R C N

A 10PN397

N

Y

T 16NPW598 1LR19 1

K REE UCA C LE A L E M 16NPW598 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the the by caused access on DISCLAIMER impacts potential of identification the layers with assist different to the produced between been has errors map overlay This some be may there Note; proposals. Weir Bann Eden and Rookwood map. this up make that data of Resources Natural of Department the and KBR map, this of accuracy the ensure to taken is care every While in liability limitation, without (including and Water liability all makes and no you representations which responsibility costs and disclaims and or warranties damage) purpose consequential about particular or any its indirect accuracy,reliability, (including damages completeness losses, reason. any expenses, all for or for suitability and way any in negligence) for incomplete or inaccurate being map this of result a as incur might SOURCE: SOURCE: Department of Natural Resources andAerial Water 2006. Photo Date: 14.8.99 GeoscienceAustralia data 2006. This map incorporates data which is: Copyright CommonwealthAustralia of 2006. 7SP118531 File File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 5.mxd ember 2007 Dec ember BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 4PAK40136 DISCLAIMER LEGEND KEY MAP This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the 239 Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers *# Weirs of data that make up this map. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources 2 and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for In Scope, Gully Crossing C any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in 4PN23 O negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you

3 1 M ­ might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. !( In Scope, River Crossing M 1PN20

A 240 4PAK40136

T N HIR ST Outside Scope, Gully Crossing 1LR19 4 C SOURCE:

Y H CREEK SQUITO CREEK 3PAK40135

E O Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 M !( Outside Scope, River Crossing R Geoscience Australia data 2006. 5 O This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. A

AMTD D 241 6 242 Highway 8 243 District Road 7 244 5PN13 9 2PN21 19CP881493 Access Road7SP118531 2PN21 H 245 AN 10 RA 246 Track / Private Access HA N R OA 247 D 2PN21 Major Watercourse 7SP118531 248 7SP118531 Minor Watercourse 19CP881493 DYS PAD C !( Full SupplyR Level 47mAHD E HANRAHAN ROAD CROSSING EEK E E CR K MU Full Supply Level 49mAHD 2PN21 2PN21 8PN142 Lot Boundary 250 Land Owners 1PN461 1PN461 00.511.522.5 251 Kilometres

252 18PN116

ME 253 LA 5PN13 LE UC 2414PAK40127 5RP619714 A 254

C R 255 E E K 256 1728PN384

1SP132038 7PN807942 257 18PN116 18PN116 4PAK40180

1SP132038 Melaleuca 2327PAK40122 258

261 262 259 260

263 1SP136791

3PN106

6PN141 264

2SP136791 Weir Park 7PN807942 Fitzroy Pocket 265 2SP132038 Llandilla *# SMITH ROAD CROSSING !( ROOKWOOD WEIR D A 3PN106 AMTD265.4km O 266 R !(

K Weir Park D R A A ROOKWOOD CROSSING 37PN536 P O R D!( R 6PN141 H RO I T O A I KWO E FITZROY RIVER M OD O S 6PN141 RO W 267 AD R THIRSTY CREEK ROAD Y 269 268 A 272 271 K K

E E R E 20PN254 R 273 R E 16PN39 A C R Yarra 75PN112 R O C O G A N 1711PAK4069 Y A 2RP614103 14PN39 3SP132038 D 3SP132038 T 77PN112 Riverslea G Coolabah S O 274 G 1RP614103 R I

H ration T File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 6.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.7 December 2007 ROOKWOOD WEIR SHEET 6 OF 10 D 6PN141 !(Weir Park A ROO 3PN106 O KWO FITZROY RIVER Weir Park R OD R H OAD 267 IT 268 14PN39 M Y 272 271 269 S A K 270 R REE R A C 6PN141 2SP132038 EUC 273 16PN39 A ELAL Llandilla R M O 20PN254 A 6PN141 1711PAK4069 D ­ Fitzroy Pocket 274 1SP132038 1RP614103 75PN112 14PN39

K

E

3SP132038 E Coolabah ID33 77PN112 2RP614103 R

C

275 1857PAK4091 16PN39

Melaleuca O Yarra !( G

N

3SP132038 RIVERSLEA CROSSING A YARRA - TARRAWONG G

276 O CROSSING !( G RIVERSLEA ROAD THE POCKET 4WD ACCESS !( 1SP166189 297 !( 296 1LR137 3LR37 298 1SP132038 RIVERSLEA GAUGING STATION 295 ID32 7PAK40219 21PN81 1SP132038 299 Mrala Separation 277 Riverslea Riverview 300 2SP158491 2RP908640 294 3RP908640 301 3LR37 302 278 303 1SP158491 !( 293 36PN409 36PN458 1284PAK4057 1285PAK4057 1PAK40152

ID31 D 279 The Ranch THIRSTY CREEK A 292 70PN111 O !( R SPRING CREEK

K

27PN258 E

TA E RRAWO 1005PAK4046 NG 2144PAK40114 R ROAD 992PAK4044 81PN111 C

1LR137 The Pocket Y 280 T 291 S

R

I

H

S T L A 19PAK40192 T E 10PAK40215 Y 992PAK4044 C R 281 E E K 4PN434 290 850PAK4036 Slatey Creek !( ID34 Tarrawong LEGEND 282 58PN110 *# Weirs 289 ID35 58PN110 2RP608563 1PN4 In Scope, Gully Crossing !( 95PN211 16PAK40178 283 1RP607239 !( In Scope, River Crossing ID37 288 D !( A Outside Scope,23PAK40199 Gully Crossing 36PN409 O

R

27PN258 L !( 287 1RP605561 L Outside Scope, River Crossing JACKSON ROAD 25PN188 I 2RP607239 95PN211 G 284 Stream Gauging26PAK40211 Station ID36 ISLAND CAMP ISLAND 286 RIVERS !( LEAAMTD ROAD D

A

285 !( O 92PN211 Highway R

A

KEY MAP E District Road L

S

25PN188 R

E

Access Road V

I

Island Camp 93PN161 2 R 21SP118420 Track / Private Access 3 1 22SP118420 Major Watercourse 4

A Minor Watercourse D DISCLAIMER

A MThis map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the 5 Full Supply Level 47mAHD SRookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers 85PN209 of data that make up this map. R 89PN387 J

O A Y Full SupplyA Level 49mAHD C WhileA every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources 6 W 13PN311 K D 125SP169173 and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for 88PN346 H S any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in 12PN279 Lot BoundaryIG O 8 negligence)26PN257 for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you H 13SP167118 N 91PN161 might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. N ROAD DUMP Mourangee 7 O 10SP167118 R R OLand OwnersH 130PN212 O 9 IC L A 13SP167118 83PN159 R R SOURCE: D P 00.511.522.5A O Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 10 84PN159 C A D Geoscience Australia data 2006. 89PN387 131PN310 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 87PN161 Kilometres 9LHDT40116 112PN161 128PN181

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 7.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.8 ember 2007 Dec ROOKWOOD WEIR SHEET 7 OF 10 D 5RP619714 U A R KEY MAP LEGEND 8PN142 I 1LR146 N 7SP118531 G *# A Weirs

1LR146 A P 1SP132038 I 2 1LR146 S In Scope, Gully Crossing

C 1LR146 R 3 1 E !( In Scope, River Crossing E 5RP619714 K ­

R 4 Outside Scope, Gully Crossing O

A D !( Outside Scope, River Crossing 5 1LR146 335 Foleyvale 1LR146 AMTD 334 M A C 336 K 6 E N Highway Z 1LR146 8 7KM73 IE 5LR146 R 7 District Road IV 337 E R 9 Access Road 1LR146 10 332 Track / Private Access

Major Watercourse 2LR37 FOLEYVALE CROSSING 1LR146 Stoney Creek 331 Minor Watercourse

S O !( 323 Full Supply Level 47mAHD R R 327 322 1SP132038 4KM73 E 324 2SP132038 L Full Supply Level 49mAHD

L Llandilla

H 330 326 I 328 L Melaleuca Lot Boundary L

S 329

325 R Land Owners

O

A 321 D 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Y L 4KM73 L U Kilometres G

N E D R A D 320 G A O R K E D E A R O C R H IS IT P 319 M Sorrell Hills A S A 3SP132038 G IN R A 4KM73 U 4KM73 2SP132038 D

K 318 E E 3LR37 R 3SP132038 C Yarra

E IL M SMIT N H ROAD E E 317 2SP132038 T IX S 1SP132038 1SP132038 D R U IVE A Y R RO 300 R 316 ITZ I F N G Separation A 301

A P 302 I S

C 303 R E 315 E K

R O 304 A 3LR37 D

3LR37 314 305 2KM2 Wallbury DISCLAIMER 2KM2 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the 306 27PN258 Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers of data that make up this map. Slatey Creek 313 While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources 307 S and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for L !( A any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in T E negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you SEPERATION - SLATEY CREEK Y C might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. CROSSING R ID38 E E D K 4PN434 A RO SOURCE: G 312 !( ON Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 W 309 RA Geoscience Australia data 2006. AR 27PN258 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. T 22FTY1231 29KM282 3PN258

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 8.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.9 ember 2007 Dec ROOKWOOD WEIR SHEET 8 OF 10 306 LEGEND KEY MAP 313 # 3LR37 * Weirs !( 307 2 3LR37 Separation In Scope, Gully Crossing 2KM2 M A EK C RE ­ 308 C 3 1 K SEPERATION - SLATEY CREEK CROSSING ATEY D !( E R SL OA In Scope, River Crossing Wallbury N E R Z IV G 2KM2 I R !( N E Y 4PN434 O R O W 4 312 R A Outside Scope, Gully Crossing IV Z 309 R E IT R R F TA ID38 !( Outside Scope, River Crossing 27PN258 5 AMTD 311 310 0 EK 6 CRE MILE Highway TEEN FOUR 8 Slatey Creek District Road 7 9 Access Road 29KM282 1 10 Track / Private Access 27PN258 27PN258

Major Watercourse 2 Minor Watercourse 22FTY1231

Full Supply LevelTWE 47mAHDLVE MIL E CREEK 3 Full Supply Level 49mAHD 39KM148 Donovan’s Block R Lot Boundary E IV R N Land Owners O U S PP W 4 E A R D H UT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 C RE EK Kilometres22FTY1231

5 D

A Mourangee

O 38KM148 R

Duaringa Station

K

E E

K R

6 E

E C

K

E R S

26PN257 C E I

R P C S

Y A D K

N

C A

O 7 A 26PN257 G

R L

T

N I

S R

A A

E

U D 8 EK RE C NE 9LHDT40116 29KM282SE RO !( KE 9 MOURANGEE DAWSON RIVER 40KM149 ID39 CROSSING 22FTY1231 !( 10

36KM108 47KM298 11 8KM36 ADA MS ROAD

29KM282 31PN119 28PN261 REET 47KM298 12 IA ST 1K405 OR B K 31PN119 VICT O E N RE 13 1RP612269 51KM276 E S C C AROO ER CAPRIC R NA RO RP ORN HIGHWAY ELIZAB E AD A 60KM261 ETH STRE E SH ET 48KM258 K 14 MARGAR ET STREET D A O EK R 12KM13 E CRE N MIL S 58KM232 2K405 DISCLAIMER SEVE N 48KM258 34PN119 W 35KM122 13KM13 9KM22 This map has been produced to assist with the identification of 43KM841524potential impacts on accessO caused by the 15 Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between D the different layers C 48KM258 22PAK40153 2RP612269 45PN133 A A Glencoe of data that make up this map. I 3K4013 IN P 34PN119 2SP106363 H R 14KM13 BOOLBURRA CROSSING While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the DepartmentU of Natural Resources I A C !(!( and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability,B completeness or suitability for O 18KM11 ID40 73PN439 any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in R BO 21KM53 N negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequentialD damage) and costs which you 35KM163 3K4013 OL 19KM53 B might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in anyA way and for any reason. H 2K405 U O 15KM13 RR I A G 17 19PAK40142 R ED L H U E 27PN47 H NG SOURCE: V W E A A 20KM160 35KM163 RB LB A E A 44PN124 R 88CP843089 RT R Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 Y C O G RE AD 25KM53 21PAK40150 EK Geoscience Australia data 2006. 30RP904510 4K4015 18 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 4K4015 10KM42 5KM63 1PAK40139

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 9.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.10 December 2007 ROOKWOOD WEIR SHEET 9 OF 10 A A 11 26PN257 29KM282 D 47KM298 AD T A MS ROAD

= Mourangee

7

0 29KM282 8KM36 28PN261 REET 47KM298 12 31PN119 A ST ORI B 31PN119 ICT O V N 13 51KM276 E 1K405 1RP612269 C ARO CAPRIC R ONA RO ORN HIGHWAY ELIZAB E AD 60KM261 ETH STRE E ET 48KM258 K 14 MA ­ RGAR ET STREET D A O EK R 12KM13 E CRE N MIL S 58KM232 2K405 34PN119 SEVE N 48KM258 W 35KM122 13KM13 9KM22 43KM841524 O 15 D 48KM258 Glencoe 2RP612269 45PN133 IA 3K4013 IN BOOLBURRA CROSSING 34PN119 H 14KM13 2SP106363 U A ID40 !( B !( 73PN439 21KM53 BO D OL A 19KM53 18KM11 35KM163 3K4013 2K405 BU O 15KM13 RR R 17 A 19PAK40142 L ED E UN V 27PN47 H GA A 35KM163 ER LB R 20KM160 BE A G 88CP843089 RT RO CR AD K 21PAK40150 EE 25KM53 E 18 K 30RP904510 E D

R A C

O S 1PAK40139 R R

4K4015 29KM53 E 10KM42 P A

R T 17PN167 A I 8PN363 H 11PN302 31KM215 S R

5KM63 A B 19

A 2PAK40139 44PN124

4K4015 C 22KM124 5KM63 9PN363 3PAK40139 10PN302

D A 20 25KM63 O 22KM124 R 4RP608301 4PAK40140 14PAK40141 25KM63 D A

A T Y 3K406 I L A O E W R M H R O IG 5K408 7KM260 A N H A N B 5PAK40140 2RP610428 TR OR 5K408 A R E E IC 7KM260 C R C PR R A K 21 U C

13PAK40141 E E

B E

K E

6PAK40140 L R

O C C AP 1RP613002 R O I A

C 51PN236 I OR B

N 1RP613002 N HIG 56PN247 I

H H 7KM260 WA Y U

22 A

7KM260 B 22KM124 7PAK40141 86SP167240 56PN247 7KM260 88SP167240 3K406 5K408 LEGEND ID41 2275LHDT40327 WAWOON CREEK *# Weirs 11KM41 1RP613002 23KM12 1RP613002 !( 55PN247 27KM126 47PN446 In Scope, Gully Crossing85PN372 53PN220 54PN235 !( In Scope, River Crossing PE ARL 24 CRE EK 22KM37 Outside Scope, Gully Crossing 1K407 !( Outside Scope, River Crossing 34PN440 AMTD 25 23KM37 Highway KEY MAP District Road 2CP847222 26 23KM12 Access44PN372 Road 1K407 2 2CP847222 28PN230 28PN230 Track / Private Access 3 1 23KM12 21KM56 27 K E Major Watercourse E R

C 4 B Y

I O LO Minor Watercourse E B

DISCLAIMER L K D 29PN230 A

28 C This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the A 5 DU Full31PN230 Supply Level 47mAHD W A A Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers R L S I of data that make up this map. N B O 29PN230 G N FullA Supply Level 49mAHD R While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources R 6 31PN230 31PN230 O I A and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for V D 6KM178 E 8 Lot Boundary any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in R negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you 20CP849909 7 might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. 29 Land Owners 9 45PN373 SOURCE: 00.511.522.5 Department of Natural Resources and Water 2006. Aerial Photo Date: 14.8.99 45PN37310 6KM178 45PN373 Geoscience Australia data 2006. 18KM21 30 This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 18KM21 Kilometres 17KM140

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Weir Crossings Sht 10.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure A.11 December 2007 ROOKWOOD WEIR SHEET 10 OF 10

1.2.7.2 Appendix B Previous report reviews

 Marlborough Nickel Project (1999 – 2007)

 Assessment of potential social and non-indigenous cultural heritage impacts of proposed new water infrastructure on the Lower Fitzroy River (M Cook et al, Jan 2007) (Draft)

 Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study (The Coordinator-General, 2005-6)

 Final combined report – pre-feasibility comparison of the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Study options (Western M et al, Sept 2005)

 Capricornia Integrated Regional Transport plan 2004-2030 (Qld Transport and Main Roads, 2004)

 Fitzroy River Weir Study (ML Keane, June 2004)

 New bridge over the Fitzroy River at Riverslea Preliminary Design report (KBR, Dec 2003)

 Initial environmental evaluation – Lower Fitzroy River Weirs and Mt Bridget Dam, Connors River (Hyder, July 1999)

 Fitzroy River Weir Study HEC-RAS Analysis (NR&W 1998)

 Planning report – upgrading proposals for Mackenzie River bridge and approaches (Main Roads July 1989).

1-50 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

Appendix B Previous Report Reviews

1. MARLBOROUGH NICKEL PROJECT (1999-2007) A number of reports related to this project have been reviewed, as detailed below. Gladstone Nickel Project - Environmental Impact Statement (URS, April 2007) This EIS is for a Nickel/Cobalt Refinery near Gladstone. It includes a 180km slurry pipeline from the mine site near Marlborough. Details from this EIS of note include: • The slurry pipeline is planned to tunnel below the Fitzroy R just upstream of its junction with Marlborough Ck (~AMTD 171 km). • An alternative to the pipeline is to transport the ore by truck north to Marlborough and then by rail to Gladstone. While the slurry option appears to be preferred, the rail option has not been ruled out. • The traffic attributable to pipeline construction will have no significant (less than a 5% impact) on road pavements. 300 Workers will be housed at 3 worker village sites with one near the Fitzroy River. Pipes will be delivered to the sites by semi- trailer (2600 truck trips, each 22t, over 8 months = 10-17 truck trips/day). Local traffic estimated at 30 4WD trips/day. A further 200 truck trips will be required for mobilisation and demobilisation together with 100 semi-trailer trips to establish the workers villages. While not clear in the report, some of this construction traffic is likely to cross the river, possibly via the Glenroy Bridge. • Traffic associated with the refinery neat Gladstone is also detailed. This report does not discuss traffic associated with the mine site, rather, this is included in the reports below. Marlborough Nickel Project - Environmental Management Overview Study (Marlborough Nickel Pty Ltd 1999) This document was prepared to meet the requirements of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, and covers the mine and refinery. At the time this report was prepared the refinery was proposed to be sited at the mine (rather than near Gladstone as in the 2007 report). The report indicates the mine has an estimated life of 25 years, and 2 covers an area of about 77 kmP P near Marlborough Ck. Other details of note in this study include: • The short term construction workforce is estimated to peak at 1200 workers, with construction over 14 months, with workers housed near the site. • The operational workforce is estimated to be 200 workers over 20 years. These figures include workers for the refinery co-located at the mine, and thus the current proposed workforce is likely to be less.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-1 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

Marlborough Nickel Project - Addendum to Environmental Impact Statement (Lagoon Hill Nickel Oct 1998) This report was produced subsequent to the EIS for this project, and addresses a number of issues that were raised following the EIS. Details of note in this study include: • Construction traffic will use Coorumburra Rd (also known as the Glenroy Marlborough Rd), and consequently will not cross the Fitzroy R. • Of the 1265 construction workforce, 10-15% are expected to travel outside the site daily. Most workers will leave the site on Saturday and return on Sunday/Monday. The report estimate trips as 330 on weekdays and 1900 on weekends. • Construction traffic estimated at 20-40 trucks/day. • 250 person normal operational workforce. 130 expected to travel to site in company buses each day. These figures also include workers for the refinery co-located at the mine, and thus the current proposed workforce is likely to be less. Marlborough Nickel Project - Environmental Impact Statement (Lagoon Hill Nickel May 1998) The EIS for the mine site, which also included an on-site refinery, contains the following additional details of note for this study: • Indicates a rail spur may be built north to Marlborough for transport of bulk reagents and the product, however trucks may be used for the first 18 months while the spur line is constructed • Road access to the site is proposed via the existing Coorumburra Rd (also known as the Glenroy Marlborough Rd) Upgrades to this road are proposed, including some realignment, although it will remain a gravel road.

2. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOCIAL AND NON INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED NEW WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE LOWER FITZROY RIVER (M COOK ET AL, JAN 2007) (DRAFT) This study, commissioned by NRW, identifies the significant social and non- indigenous cultural heritage issues, assesses their magnitude, and develops strategies to deal with the impacts. It provides a historical account of the development of the region. The report identifies Glenroy Crossing and Riverslea Crossing, but does not find any cultural significance associated with these crossings. The report identifies the following social issues relating to crossings: • Inundation of Glenroy Crossing and Riverslea Crossing - causing longer journey times, increased transport costs, difficulties in mustering stock, and restriction of emergency access.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-2 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

• Creation of islands - causing difficulties in moving stock and machinery. One landholder states that the increased difficulties in mustering cattle will make their property non-viable. • Inundation of informal crossings - adding time and cost to cattle movements. The report states that there are no significant social issues associated with the weir proposals on a macro scale, other than a collective apprehension about the weir projects. The report recommends consultation and the provision of information to alleviate these concerns.

3. FITZROY INDUSTRY AND INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY (THE COORDINATOR GENERAL, 2005-6) This study has involved the identification of potential development sites in the Fitzroy area and the necessary infrastructure needed to ensure their successful implementation. Two main development sites have been identified: • An industrial corridor along the Capricorn Highway between Gracemere and Stanwell. Preferred development for this area is light metals and rural processing. • An agriculture corridor around the Fitzroy River from upstream of the Fitzroy Barrage to the junction of the Dawson and Mackenzie Rivers. Preferred development in this area is intensive animal husbandry. The agricultural corridor is thus of great interest to this study. A map showing the development areas, courtesy of DIP, is shown on the following page. Three reports emanating from this study have been reviewed, as detailed below. Infrastructure Requirements Draft Report (October 2006) This report discusses the likely common user infrastructure requirements for the identified industries. In the agricultural corridor the identified industries include feedlots, horticulture, and piggeries in 9 Potential Development Areas (PDAs). Details of note in this study include: • Each agricultural PDA has the potential to generate 170-510 truck trips/week (2 way). (One 15,000 head cattle feedlot is estimated to generate 170 truck trips per week.) Total number of trips estimated to be about 2480 trips/week (2 way). The report indicates the current transport network is unlikely to be able to meet this additional demand. • The sequence of development starts with the north eastern part, PDA’s 3, 4 and 5. PDA’s 1, 2, and 9 are the last to be developed owing to the lack of existing road infrastructure. • The total proposed development includes – 10-12 cattle feedlots capacity 15,000 head each – 20 to 30 large piggeries producing a total of 6,750,000 Standard Pig Units – Fodder crops - 3,750 to 4,500 ha (25-30 ha/head of cattle) – Horticultural crops - 3,500 ha

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-3 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

• Current ‘design’ speeds of existing gravel roads are about 60 km/hr. Most roads are single lane (3.5-5m wide), with some short wider sealed sections. Almost all culverts and bridges are low level, and subject to flooding. The condition of culverts and bridges are generally average, but quite a few show signs of rot and damage to abutments. Sub-standard visibility is common near culverts and bridges. Road drainage appears not to meet latest standards. Owing to this, the report concludes roads should be costed as new construction rather than a road upgrade. The report gives some specific comments on selected roads such as Riverslea Rd, Thirsty Ck Rd, Hanrahan Rd, and Ridgelands Rd. • Costs of road development total $290 million. This cost based on a new trunk road (9m wide sealed carriageway) at $1300/m, new feeder road (6m wide sealed, 2x1m unsealed shoulders) $1,100/m. Costs includes a new bridge over the Fitzroy River below Eden Bann to access PDA 5. The construction cost of this bridge is approximately estimated at $3.4M, scaled to $5.4M including preliminaries and contingency. This new bridge is described as part of a new high level trunk road west of Rockhampton, joining the Atkinson Rd/Bruce Highway intersection with the Capricorn Highway near Stanwell. • The proposed access to PDA 1 crosses Princhester Ck, in approximately the location of the Glenavon Access Track crossing. (“Un-named Road” in Figure 17 of the report). • A number of other proposed access roads go close to the river and may cross gullies affected by ponding or flood effects. This includes: – Thirsty Ck Rd is nominated as the access for the southern part of PDA 7 – Jackson Rd for PDA 9 (Road near the Fitzroy River appears to not exist at present) • A ground truthing survey and photos of existing road conditions is presented in Appendix D and E. Land Suitability Study (April 2006) This report identifies areas to the west of Rockhampton that are suitable for agricultural development. Points of relevance to this study include: • It identifies the 9 PDAs that are also used in the Oct 2006 report, although it is noted that some of the PDAs (PDA 7 & 8) are shown in the April 2006 report as extending slightly to the western side of the river, which would require the use of Riverslea and Hanrahan Rd Crossings. • For feeder routes, such as would apply to the Riverslea and Hanrahan Rd Crossings, initial construction proposed is an 8m formation (unsealed), followed by 2 x 3m sealed lanes, and finally an 8.5m wide sealed carriageway.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-4 5 December 2007 BB rrr rrruu cc ee HH FITZROY INDUSTRY AND ww 22 yy INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY 22 GlenGlen GeddesGeddes RossmoyaRossmoya 11 EdenEden BannBann WeirWeir 33 AreasAreas ofof greatestgreatest suitabiltysuitabilty forfor intensiveintensive YaambaYaamba

NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY NOT GOVERNMENT livestocklivestocklivestock andandand horticulturalhorticulturalhorticultural developmentsdevelopmentsdevelopments 44

55 TheThe CavesCaves

AGRICULTURAL CORRIDOR

ververver ververver ververver

i i i i i i i i i

R R R R R R R R R

y y y y y y y y y

o o o o o o o o o RockhamptonRockhampton r r r RockhamptonRockhampton r r r RockhamptonRockhampton r r r

z z z z z z z z z

t t t t t t t t t

i i i i i i i i i

F F F F F F F F F 66

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSE FOR DISCUSSION INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR StanwellStanwell GracemereGracemere

77

ProposedProposed RookwoodRookwood WeirWeir WycarbahWycarbah

WestwoodWestwood 99 88 MountMount MorganMorgan wwyy iiiccoorrnn HHw CCaapprriiicc 01530 GogangoGogango GrantleighGrantleigh kilometres DuaringaDuaringa CONCEPT PLAN CONCEPT Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

• The report examines a host of criteria, including: tenure, climate, environmental factors, soils, slope, flooding, water quality, and erosion risk. Initially the assessment appears to look at both sides of the river, but part way through the report the western side appears to have been dropped. (From consultation with DSD it is understood this refocus occurred because of the lack of road access to the western bank.) From an examination of the material presented it appears that, except for access, land on the western bank is just as suitable for feedlot development as that identified on the eastern bank. • Appendix C of this report covers roads and access, with a detailed survey of the selected existing roads provided. Much of this appears to be updated and re- presented in the Oct 2006 report. Transport and Access Report (May 2005) This report documents earlier work on transport and access requirements for the FIIS. Much of the information in it is summarised and updated in the Oct 2006 report. Addition points of note include: • Riverslea Rd, Thirsty Ck Rd, Rosewood Rd and Hanrahan Rd are all marked as “Feeder Routes” to the PDAs east of the Fitzroy River. Atkinson Rd is also marked as a feeder route to a potential development site to the north. • This report classifies “Trunk Routes” as roads that provide the highest level function within the study area and a reasonably high-level of accessibility to the wider network. They are also expected to cater for slightly higher traffic volumes than other levels of the road hierarchy. One crossing of the Fitzroy River is identified as a trunk route, a high level crossing proposed downstream of Eden Bann Weir. • “Feeder Routes” are classified as roads secondary to the Trunk Routes which provide access to the agricultural development areas from the Trunk Routes. • “Access Routes” are classified as roads that provide the lowest function within the road network and will only carry very small levels of traffic and will not be constructed to a very high standard. The Access Routes were not identified nor costed within the Transport and Access Report. • No consideration for development of the land to the west of the Fitzroy River is given in this report, and no feeder routes or access routes are identified as crossing the river within the study area, although some may cross affected gullies. • Traffic volume assumptions were made, but they are not road specific. There is no breakdown between Trunk Routes and Feeder Routes for traffic volumes.

4. FINAL COMBINED REPORT - PRE-FEASIBILITY COMPARISON OF THE CENTRAL QUEENSLAND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STUDY OPTIONS (WESTERN M. ET AL, SEPT 2005) This report, prepared for NRW, presents a result of a socio-economic and cultural pre- feasibility comparison of proposed water supply options in the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy. Sites examined include Eden Bann Weir and Rookwood Weir.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-7 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

The report identifies that: • Rookwood Weir will inundate the existing Riverslea Crossing. and that the likely replacement by a higher flood immunity crossing is greatly desired by landholders. • Eden Bann Weir will impact on Redbank, Craiglee, Glenroy, Princhester, Boggy and Ten Mile Ck crossings. • Social isolation, impacts on property management, and increased risk to stock as potential impacts from reduced access. • Existing shire roads surrounding Rookwood would require upgrading from shire roads to formed roads for construction purposes • Rookwood Crossing is unlikely to be replaced, as it only provides occasional access to one property. • Rookwood Weir would create 6 isolated islands covering 287 ha. • Eight families (34 individuals) currently lose river crossings during floods. These families have a vehicle parked each side of river and cross by boat. The report advises the consideration of the changes that might occur in the usage of the crossings as a result of the weir construction, and current and future public transport routes.

5. CAPRICORNIA INTEGRATED REGIONAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2004-2030 (QLD TRANSPORT & MAIN ROADS, 2004) The Capricornia Integrated Regional Transport Plan was developed by Queensland Transport and the Department of Main Roads in partnership with Fitzroy, Livingstone and Mount Morgan Shire Councils and Rockhampton City Council. The plan aims to help meet the emerging transport needs of the Capricornia region, in response to growth in population, employment and industry within the region. Regarding the road network around the Fitzroy River, the plan notes: - "there may be significant increases in the volume of traffic on roads servicing agricultural developments around the Lower Fitzroy River from Ridgelands to Rookwood-Riverslea" The plan also records an action for relevant agencies to: - "Consider the transport implications of current industry development and infrastructure planning studies associated with the Stanwell Industrial Corridor and agricultural areas along the Fitzroy River."

6. FITZROY RIVER WEIR STUDY (KEANE, JUNE 2004) The Fitzroy River Weir Study, by the (then) Department of Natural Resources, Mines, and Energy, is a study which provides a concept level evaluation of a number of different weir sites on the Fitzroy River. Raising of Eden Bann Weir and a weir at Rookwood are among the options examined.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-8 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

The report provides an overview of many issues associated with each option, including previous investigations, geology, preliminary design and costing, upstream property impacts, impacts on access roads and crossings, environmental issues, and social aspects. Regarding access, the report provided the best information on the crossings available at the start of this study. It identifies the majority of the major crossings affected, provides a description of their current usage, proposes which crossings should be replaced, and provides some ballpark cost estimates. This report was a key reference for this study.

7. NEW BRIDGE OVER FITZROY RIVER AT RIVERSLEA - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT (KBR, DEC 2003) This report presented the results of a preliminary design and costing for a new bridge at Riverslea, carried out for the Department of Natural Resources in Rockhampton. It gives the existing level of the bridge at Riverslea at EL 36.8m AHD, about 2m above bed level, and that an analysis of flood records indicates the existing crossing would have been impassable for an average of 46 days per year since records commenced in 1922. The report states the current traffic volumes are around 60 vehicles per day. Two raised bridge deck levels were examined, at EL 47.0 and 53.0, which is stated to be the 1 in 2 and 1 in 5 year ARI flood levels. Sound rock for foundations was assumed at EL 34.0. The bridge was designed to be submerged and for debris loads. Drawings of the concept design are included in the report. Some details of the two levels of bridge are described in the following table.

Deck Level EL 48 m AHD Deck Level EL 53 m AHD

Length 207m 276m Width 8m 8m No of Spans 6 x 34.5m 8 x 34.5m Cost (Dec 2003) $3.6 million $5.0 million

8. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - LOWER FITZROY RIVER WEIRS AND MT BRIDGET DAM, CONNORS RIVER (HYDER, JULY 1999) This study was undertaken for the Department of Natural Resources to identify key issues related to the raising of Eden Bann and a number of weir options in the Riverslea area, including Rookwood Weir. It included community consultation, data review, and a number of component studies on flora, fauna, cultural heritage, biophysical assessment, and socioeconomic assessment. In relation to access issues, points of relevance include: • For Eden Bann Weir, it identifies impacts on Redbank, Craiglee, Glenroy, Princhester, Boggy and Ten Mile Ck crossings. • For Rookwood Weir, it identifies impacts on Riverslea Crossing, and the local landholder’s desires for an improved crossing.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-9 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

• It indicates social isolation, increased operation costs, longer on-farm access routes and loss of discretion over marketing decisions as impacts. High prices may be missed due to inability to offer products to market in a timely fashion. Difficulties for school access and social contact may be experienced, and reduced quality of life. • The Riverslea Crossing was constructed in 1966, and upgraded in 1989. • Access is lost across Riverslea Crossing on average 46 days/a since 1922, with this increasing to more than 100 days/a in wet years. • 8 families (34 individuals) currently lose river crossings during floods - have a vehicle parked each side of river and cross by boat in these conditions. The report notes this is hazardous for children and older people. • It contains a landsat image of the 1988 flood, EL 58.6 at Riverslea GS, showing the extent of inundation.

9. FITZROY RIVER WEIR STUDY HEC-RAS ANALYSIS (NR&W 1998) NRW have undertaken HEC-RAS flood modelling for a number of cases involving Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir, but unfortunately no report was produced on this work, although some output files were available. Interpretation of this information was not included within this study. This work may be of some benefit in future analysis of the weirs potential effect on the flood inundation of crossings. However it is understood that this modelling did not explicitly model the effect of the crossing structures on flooding, which is likely to be important when evaluating floods at or near deck level.

10. PLANNING REPORT- UPGRADING PROPOSALS FOR MACKENZIE RIVER BRIDGE & APPROACHES (MAIN ROADS JULY 1989) This report investigates upgrading proposals for the crossing of Mackenzie River on the Duaringa-Apis Ck Rd, also known as Foleyvale Crossing. It includes drawings of the existing structure, hydrology at the site, and preliminary design and costing. Points of relevance from this report include: • Traffic volumes are given as 80 vehicles per day, 45% commercial vehicles. • Existing structure deck level at RL 49.0m. Significant debris problem on existing structure. • Current crossing often submerged, for example, for 72 days in 1983, and for 160 days in 88-89. • Options to build up existing causeway examined, but ruled out owing to debris problems. • Construction of a bridge on a new alignment for 4 RLs from RL53 to RL63 costed. • Recommended option at RL 55.6, $1.65 million, plus an optional $0.65 million for straightening the approach alignment.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 B-10 5 December 2007

1.2.7.3 Appendix C Consultation

 Landholder survey template

 Landholder letter

 Agency consultation response – Fitzroy Shire

 Agency consultation response – Livingstone Shire

 Agency consultation response – Duaringa Shire

 Agency consultation response – Woorabinda Pastoral Company

 Agency consultation response – Gladstone Pacific Nickel Limited

 Agency consultation response – Department of Main Roads

 Agency consultation response – Department of State Development

 Agency consultation response – Department of Infrastructure

 Agency consultation response – Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

1-60 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material

BEU701-C-S0003

4 July 2007

Impacts on access from the proposed construction of Rookwood Weir and raising of Eden Bann Weir

Dear ,

As you may be aware the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Study (CQRWSS) has identified the need for additional water resources within the Lower Fitzroy Region. A number of water resource development options have been identified by CQRWSS, including: ¾ the raising of Eden Bann Weir, and

¾ the construction of a new weir at the Rookwood site.

A number of studies have been undertaken on these development options, and you may have been previously consulted with on issues such as potential cultural heritage or vegetation impacts. In this study, Kellogg, Brown & Root Pty Ltd has been engaged by the Department of Natural Resources and Water to consult with you and other stakeholders in order to determine the potential impacts on access that may eventuate as a result of the proposed projects. This study is focused on the potential impacts on transport across the river and tributaries, how these impacts might affect your family or business, and what options are available to address these impacts.

We intend to contact you by telephone in approximately one week’s time in order to conduct a short questionnaire. The questionnaire will take a few minutes of your time to complete and will focus on the following areas:

1. Your current transport patterns (including those of your family and employees)

1

¾ The frequency that you use each river, creek, or gully crossing that may be impacted by the weir proposals.

¾ The destination and reasons for your journeys, for example, to Rockhampton for schooling.

¾ The alternate routes you take when low level crossings are closed owing to flooding.

2. Your desires for the development of transport options in the study area.

In order to help us with this questionnaire, and address your access requirements, please take a moment to think about your current use of river crossings in preparation for our call.

We have included regional and individual area map/s with this letter that shows the river crossings we are aware of in the study area, as well as the weir sites and the estimated extent of inundation, which should aid our discussion.

Please note that the focus of this survey is only on the impact of the weir proposals on access. Any concerns on other issues related to these weir proposals should be directed to Craig Gordon of the Department of Natural Resources & Water on 07 4938 6735.

The contact details we have for you are shown at the top of this letter. Please contact us if your contact details have changed, or if you have any concerns regarding this process.

Yours sincerely,

Kellogg Brown & Root

2 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

3. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - FITZROY SHIRE As an overall comment, Fitzroy Shire Council indicated they would not support any decrease to the current level of service provided by the roads due to increased flooding or inundation from the weir proposals without extensive community consultation. Responses to the survey questions are as follows: 1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies No plans for this area, other than the 5 year capital works program. This program indicates some projects to pave sections of Riverslea Road and Glenroy Road: • Glenroy Rd, $150,000 in 2008/09 & $200,000 in 2009/10, scope will be upgrading gravel section of the road to a bitumen standard, location yet to be confirmed. • Riverslea Rd, $200,000 in 2009/10, scope will be upgrading gravel section of the road to a bitumen standard, location yet to be confirmed. 2. Traffic data Available Data • Riverslea Rd approx AADT = 71 • Glenroy Rd approx AADT = 53 No data available for Hanrahan or Smith Rd crossings. 3. Crossing data Available data: • We have a plan of the Glenroy crossing structure, however arbitrary level data relative to a TBM on a tree are used. • We are unable to locate plans of Riverslea crossing at this stage. We know that the deck level is approximately 3.0m relative to the heights provided by the gauging station. • As a guide, when Riverslea gauging station indicates a flow at 2.0m, Glenroy crossing is about to go under. • The Pocket 4WD access is considered a substantial shortcut by locals - 2 houses use it. Used to have pipes, but these have washed away. • Shire does not maintain connecting roads on western side of river. Plans of the Shire maintained roads provided. No plans available for Smith Rd Crossing or Hanrahan Rd Crossing. 4. Flooding data Riverslea GS the best source - the height on the gauge that causes inundation of Riverslea and Glenroy it goes out is as above. 5. Current transport issues See the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study (FIIS). Further information can be obtained at www.infrastructure.qld.gov.au/fiis It is important that you are aware of the study. A transport study was completed as part of the FIIS.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-5 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

Marlborough Nickel is fairly advanced in their planning, and have apparently designed the pipeline to Gladstone, which is planned to tunnel under the river. 6. Desired transport options Community desire for improved flood immunity for crossings. Note Riverslea has stairs constructed so residents can cross by boats when the crossing is out - no alternative access. A high level bridge would be a big improvement in the standard of living Glenroy has alternate road access, but does take considerably longer. 7. Other Council receives many requests to seal various sections of roads in the Shire.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-6 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

4. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - LIVINGSTONE SHIRE The responses from Livingstone Shire are shown below

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies No plans available for this area - it is principally a rural area.

2. Traffic data No traffic data available for affected roads. Marlborough Nickel may have some traffic data.

3. Crossing data No affected crossings in Livingstone Shire, and hence no data on this.

4. Flooding data We don’t have any records when Apis Ck Rd is closed, but I can only remember a few times over the last five years when it was closed.

5. Current transport issues No current issues.

6. Desired transport options No particular desired options. Advised to speak to the locals.

7. Other No other issues.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-7 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

5. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - DUARINGA SHIRE The responses from Duaringa Shire are shown below 1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies None undertaken in this area. 2. Traffic Data Aroona Road - nil available Boolburra-Edungalba - March 2006 - Average Daily 15V.P.D, Commercial 21% CV 3. Crossing Data The Aroona Road/Boolburra Road crossing of the Dawson River is an unconstructed track across the bed of the stream. Used by locals as an alternative access form Boolburra Road to Duaringa. Often cut by flooding. No plans available. The Apis Creek Road crossing of the Mackenzie River is a constructed low level crossing not infrequently inundated. This is a declared Main Road; the Department should have information and drawings of this crossing. 4. Flooding Data No reliable information. 5. Current Transport Issues Apis Creek Road regularly cut by flooding at the Mackenzie River, but also untrafficable at times because of washouts at local creeks and gullies. 6. Desired Options Raising of the Mackenzie River crossing on Apis Creek Road. 7. Other There may be issues for local accesses on properties in the Boolburra area (East of the Dawson River) which I am unaware of at this stage.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-8 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

6. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - WOORABINDA PASTORAL COMPANY The responses from Woorabinda Pastoral Company are shown below

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies No specific studies, however Woorabinda Pastoral Company has lodged an application with the shire council for further water allocation. When this is approved, their intention is to greater develop the properties they hold (Stoney Creek and Foleyvale) and use the Duaringa/Apis Creek Road and Foleyvale Crossing in a significantly increased capacity.

2. Traffic data

Not applicable to this agency.

3. Crossing data Not applicable to this agency.

4. Flooding data Respondent was not aware of any road closures on the Duaringa/Apis Creek Road in the past 12 years, but the crossing has flooded during this period.

5. Current transport issues Transport issues with the flooding of the Foleyvale Crossing and the transport of grain around the region. Woorabinda Pastoral Company respondent said he had written in the past to the council and Department of Main Roads about a bridge over Duaringa/Apis Creek Rd (Foleyvale Crossing) with no response received. Respondent said that in the wet season approximately seven to eight years ago the Woorabinda Pastoral Company lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits due to lack of road access for grain trucks; with the harvested grain rotting due to heavy rain while the Foleyvale Crossing was untrafficable.

6. Desired transport options Respondent strongly indicated that the company would like to see an improved bridge over the Foleyvale Crossing.

7. Other Would be quite happy to see the weir go in. They would prefer the inundation level to come over the current Foleyvale Crossing so that a new bridge would be required and the current crossing replaced.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-9 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

7. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - GLADSTONE PACIFIC NICKEL LIMITED The responses from Gladstone Pacific Nickel Limited are shown below

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies Plans exist to develop a haul road crossing within the Coorumburra property over Marlborough Creek from some of the mining pits to the beneficiation plant. A slurry pipeline is planned to go under the bed of the Fitzroy River. No current public reports available, however advised to review the 1999 Marlborough Nickel Environmental Impact Statement (see Appendix B). In planning the location of the haul road it would be advantageous (for the company) to know the area and level of inundation the weir will result in. Respondent also said they would be trying to keep the haul road within the road reserve area. Construction to sections of the haul road is planned to commence within 18 months.

2. Traffic data None available; there is need to update traffic counts (from what can be found in the 1999 EIS). Respondent indicated they hadn’t reached this stage in planning the haul road yet.

3. Crossing data Concerned about the internal property crossing to Horseshoe Lagoon as there is an existing bank to access the Lagoon. Respondent had spoken to the previous property owner of Coorumburra who said the bank would probably be inundated at the levels proposed on the maps.

4. Flooding data None available

5. Current transport issues Concerned that Coorumburra Road takes lots of heavy traffic. Respondent said it was indicated to him that the Coorumburra Road was scheduled for an upgrade, and the impacts of constructing the new haul road would bring a further need for that. Glenroy Crossing highlighted as a ‘weak link in the area’.

6. Desired transport options Glenroy Crossing is the prime crossing for western access and should be improved. Crossings on Glenroy-Marlborough road - three low level slab crossings - should be improved as well if the weir goes in as they will likely be affected.

7. Other Nil mentioned

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-10 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

8. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS The responses from the Department of Main Roads are shown below.

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies Referred to the Capricornia Integrated Regional Transport Plan - on web under QT (Reviewed in Appendix B) Also referred to the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study. GHD has looked at internal roads to service 9 agricultural areas as part of this study, including the required upgrades and costing. Contacts in DSD and GHD provided.

2. Traffic data MR does have traffic counts for highways. Most roads are local government roads. The GHD study report may have guesstimates of traffic on local roads (much less traffic). Traffic count data provided.

3. Crossing data MR provided a 1989 MR report looking at the upgrade of the Duaringa-Apis Ck Rd crossing of the Mackenzie R (Foleyvale Crossing). This report has a plan of the existing crossing (dated 29/1/65) and indicates the current deck level is at RL 49.0. MR provided plans of the Capricorn Highway Bridge and a number of smaller crossings along the Capricorn and Bruce Highways.

4. Flooding data

Capricorn Highway Bridge was closed owing to flooding for 5-7 days just after it opened in 1976. Some historical flood levels provided on crossing plans.

5. Current transport issues There are issues with periodic (20 yr) major flood events of the Fitzroy River floodplain just to the south and west of Rockhampton. Rockhampton also has looming capacity issues with the Bruce Highway through the city and the bridges. A third crossing is necessary to cope with traffic growth. Rockhampton City Council (with Main Roads involvement and funding) are current carrying out traffic studies and modeling. Preliminary steps have been taken to instigate studies with respect to bridge crossings, raising the road across the flood plain, the Capricorn Highway/Bruce highway intersection and an alternative flood free route to the west of Rockhampton. Traffic growth has been strong on both the Capricorn and Bruce highways in recent years on account of strong economic activity and population growth. The second stage of the Yarwun Refinery in Gladstone has just been announced. The Dept of State development is planning for major industrial and agribusiness type growth in the Stanwell- Gracemere- Fitzroy area. Various major industry and infrastructure projects are planned for the Rockhampton/Gladstone hinterland.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-11 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

6. Desired transport options One possible location for an upstream crossing of the Fitzroy River would be just downstream of the Eden Bann Weir near Canoona (approx AMTD 121). No specific investigations have yet been undertaken. Any raising of the road over the Fitzroy floodplain south of the Capricorn Highway will be very expensive as a bridge structure would be required to avoid acerbating flooding of Rockhampton, including the airport.

7. Other Issues include: • The potential impact of pipeline corridors delivering water from Rookwood Weir on road corridors – possible future pipeline direct from Rookwood to the Stanwell- Gracemere industrial precinct and linking with the pipeline planned as apart of the recently planned multi-user corridor Rockhampton/Stanwell – Gladstone. Possible issues include occupying valuable road corridor space, crossing of roads, drainage impacts, and construction impacts. • Some concern that water from the Rookwood Weir could cause issues related to back-up in times of major floods and affect the Dawson Bridge and Capricorn Highway. • Recommend considering alternatives in relation to a replacement bridge for the Glenroy crossing given the high cost of bridges in the current construction industry climate. A new bridge below Eden Bann which would have wider road network advantages and serve potential agricultural areas identified south of the Fitzroy River as part of the Dept of State Development/Dept of Infrastructure work in relation to future intensive agribusiness activities. Wider benefits may encourage other stakeholders and a collaborative approach. • Construction traffic to the weir proposals needs analysis, and the proposed junction upgrades, etc. provided to MR for review.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-12 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

9. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT The responses from the Department of State Development are shown below.

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies The Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study. Most of the components of this study have been completed. Area of the study is from the junction with the Dawson down to Eden Bann Weir, so directly overlaps with the area impacted by the weirs. (See review in Appendix B) GHD has undertaken a review of the infrastructure for this study, including roads. GHD study updated last year. An earlier study was focused just on roads. It included modeling of traffic flows, and Atkinsons Rd, Riverslea Rd, and Glenroy Rd were looked at. Summary reports are available on the study as well. Summary reports and traffic reports provided (See review in Appendix B). Website at:

www.infrastructure.qld.gov.au/fiisHTU .UTH

2. Traffic data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

3. Crossing data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

4. Flooding data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

5. Current transport issues

• Current crossings of the river are not reliable enough for intensive agriculture to expand on the western side of the river, even though there are appropriate soils. Hence FIIS does not recommend intensive agriculture in this area. The crossing flood immunity is the controlling factor on development on the west bank. One existing feedlot on the western bank wants to expand, but will not invest until the access is improved. Improved access across the river would allow feedlots or support industry (grain, etc) to be undertaken on the western side of the river. • Closures of access past 2 or 3 days are an issue for feedlots - if so feedlots will require larger grain storage facilities, etc, to cope with supply interruptions. • MR is looking at the flood immunity for the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns. Area around Rockhampton is low and can be cut, isolating communities. MR just starting to look at high level crossing to the west of Rockhampton near Canoona. • Gladstone Pacific Nickel (Marlborough Nickel) are looking at a slurry pipeline to Gladstone. Construction will require access for workers and pipes. • Enertrade are looking at the CQ Gas Pipeline, which will cross the river somewhere in this area (perhaps near Thirsty Ck?) Will also need access for workers and pipes.

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-13 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

6. Desired transport options See Q5

7. Other Nil

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-14 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

10. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE The responses from the Department of Infrastructure are shown below.

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies The Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study - reports as provided by DSD. In Mar 2007 Main Roads looked at grade separated access for road/rail at Gracemere - This is close to Rockhampton - so unlikely to have much influence on river crossings in the Eden Bann/Rookwood area.

2. Traffic data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

3. Crossing data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

4. Flooding data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

5. Current transport issues Improved access to the western side of the river will be of benefit

6. Desired transport options Improved flood immunity access to western side, through provision of a road across the top of the weir or similar.

7. Other Nil

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-15 5 December 2007 Not government policy Commercial in Confidence

11. AGENCY CONSULTATION RESPONSE - DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES The responses from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries are shown below.

1. Traffic Plans/Studies and/or Development Plans/Studies The Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study - reports as provided by DSD. KPMG undertook a global market analysis for what might be suitable for the area - report dated April 03 - identified light metals, intensive agriculture & meat processing.

2. Traffic data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

3. Crossing data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

4. Flooding data None available (other than what might be in the GHD report for the FIIS)

5. Current transport issues

• Northern side of river will benefit enormously from improved flood mitigation, both at Riverslea and Glenroy. • Will eventually get a large energy user near to Stanwell Power Station- wholesale rates for electricity. - however this is unlikely to have much impact on the traffic over the crossings in the study area. (Could be magnesium processing, coking coal, etc) • Horticulture - companies are looking for suitable sites to provide geographic diversity for food supplies (particularly given Cyclone Larry). Will requires a significant transport hub with refrigeration - will need this in the infrastructure corridor. • Soils suitable for intensive agriculture on northern/western bank, but crossings are the constraint. Grain needs to be trucked in and cattle out. • Existing feedlot on western bank. Crossing under water 60 days/year, and tends to be in a single block of time - can’t get grain in or cattle out without a much longer trip. Trip is longer, slower, and bumpier - causes bruising and heat stress, particularly for very fat cattle. Also an animal welfare issue - stressed cattle may have to be put down, and is a reportable incident under animal welfare legislation. Difficult to meet contract conditions for product delivery

6. Desired transport options Raising Riverslea and Glenroy crossings to get improved flood immunity - get down to 10-15 days per year rather than 60-100.

7. Other Nil

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 C-16 5 December 2007

1.2.7.4 Appendix D Traffic network plans

1-76 Draft environmental impact statement June 2015 41/20736/446697 Volume 3, Appendix Q Chapter 16 Transport supporting material M A DISCLAIMER R L This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the BO R AT Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers O KI UG NS of data that make up this map. H ON C ROAD RE While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources EK and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for CA any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in DAL LM negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you AH R ­ might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. ID1 O A #: 64 D CO RR !( KEY MAP UM BU LIVINGSTONE SHIRE RR A

R O

A

D

150

M ID2 BANN RO AD O N A R #: 10 170 E T B D K A E INS N ON K !( 160 R ID4 OA R EDEN BANN WEIR D O A #: N/A D !( !( AMTD141.2km 180 *# ID3 140 #: N/A

G L ID5 E !( N #: 20 R O F Y A 120 - I M RED R BA V A NK I R E RO W L A B F D R O IT O R Z A 130 O R D U O G Y

H R I R V O E AD A R O D R ID6 GLE DS = 53 NROY R R 190 #: N/A DT OAD GLENR A AA OY CH ROA RI D !(

!( LEGEND ID7 GLEN #: 315 RO *# Weirs Y R OA D !( River Crossing

Gully Crossing OAD IGNAU GL R A G EN R HT RO H C R Y R A OAD O B ADAMTD R GLE 200 A NR FITZROY SHIRE C OY Y FITZROY SHIRE ROADS R W OA D D O G O District Road L EN W R E OY S R D O O Access Road ID8 R A D O

A D R A #: 36 H RO O RINIS E MO STATE CONTROLLED ROAD R

C

E CRAIGLEE ROAD !( R

H E Highway I

C

DUARINGA SHIRE P

N

A

M Regional Road

M

O C OTHER ROADS District Road

210 Access Road Track / Private Access

Railway

AD Major Watercourse RO OR NN CO Local Government Boundary

220 Lot Boundary

C O Full Supply Level M M AN C H ID1 ID of Crossing E R O #: 64 Mean Monthly Traffic Volume 036912 A D (from Landholder Consultation)

Kilometres AADT = 53 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume

SOURCE: Geoscience Australia data 2006. DCDB 2006. This map incorporates data which is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006. BA RR File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Traffic Network Sht 1.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure D.1 December 2007 TRAFFIC NETWORK PLAN SHEET 1 OF 2 DISCLAIMER This map has been produced to assist with the identification of potential impacts on access caused by the KEY MAP Rookwood and Eden Bann Weir proposals. Note; there may be some overlay errors between the different layers of data that make up this map.

While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this map, KBR and the Department of Natural Resources and Water makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for B any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in AR ­ R E negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you TT ROAD might incur as a result of this map being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. 230 R O S E W

O

O D W Y C A R 240 B A

H

R

H O ANRAHA N ROAD A

D

!( 250 ID9 #: 65 WOORABINDA SHIRE

340 D R A O O S R E Y E W R L O O L O O A D V W K 260 H W Y FITZROY SHIRE IG CA ID19 O R S H B O O A D ROOKWOOD WEIR H R #: 144 R O R R O AMTD265.4km A E ID14 AD D L !(

L

#: 31 H 330 D A I K ROAD ID11 *# L R O !( A L R P !( S #: 65 K IR

R E E E W FITZRO !( O Y RIVER R A C 320 OAD D S R I H ID10 P T Y A I A M R #: N/A A S R G A ID12 R ID13 IN O R #: 331 A D A D #: 164 A LEGEND U !( D O H ROA D R !( R I T !( I V

M F S E *# Weirs R A 300 S O L L E D R !( River Crossing A A A ID17 R O O G A R U #: 35 D S K Gully Crossing

E

E

ID18 R AD AMTD O C #: 43 R 280

Y

G T N !( O S FITZROY SHIRE ROADS W R A I RR 290 A H T A T District Road A 310 D G I T L 0 = L Access Road DUARINGA SHIRE 7 R !( 1 O

A

ID16 ID15 D STATE CONTROLLED ROAD RIVE RSLEA R #: N/A #: 62 OA !( D Highway WOORABINDA SHIRE Regional Road

Y OTHER ROADS A MOUNT MORGAN SHIRE W D

A J H District Road A IG O

C H R L E K N P I S R C M Access Road O O H

U

AADT =AADT 70 H N IC

D A R R P R ID20 O A D Track / Private Access A C T

#: N/A D H I G Railway H !( W 10 A Y Major Watercourse

CAPRICO BANANA SHIRE RN HIGHWA AROO Local Government Boundary Y NA ROAD Lot Boundary ID21 D #: 81 15 A !( T = O D R AA Full Supply Level N

A W ID of Crossing C O D A D ID1 A W O A P R R O - Mean Monthly Traffic Volume VEL I #: 64 036912RA C R G O D R (from Landholder Consultation) N A O

R H O I 20 R G W

U H T Average Annual Daily Traffic Kilometres W B AADT = 53 S A L Y E Volume O

W

O

SOURCE: Geoscience Australia data 2006. DCDB 2006. This map incorporates data whichB is: Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2006.

File Path: O:\BRS\Projects\Beu\BEU701 - FitzroyWeirsAccess\E4 - GIS\Mxd\U-REP-001\Traffic Network Sht 2.mxd

BEU701-U-REP-001 Rev 1 Figure D.2 December 2007 TRAFFIC NETWORK PLAN SHEET 2 OF 2