Key environmental issues

Issues in general

  • Master Plan Terms of Reference appear to assume that development will go ahead. It also suggests that, by streamlining the approvals process, that it will be seeking loopholes in the legislation to approve development applications.
  • Quality of life is a critical factor.
  • Environmental values need to be protected and carrying capacity of the site should be considered.
  • The EIS process and the EPBC Act do not adequately protect the environment.
  • Need a definition of what is considered to be ‘marine industry’.
  • It is important to remember that there are conflicting interest groups to consider in this study, for example; diving does not just belong to one group, marine industries have different needs to recreational boaties and smaller industry operators.
  • Why does the environment always have to compromise over development?
  • The entire study area should be marked in red, indicating no further development allowed.
  • The idea of clean and healthy waterways should be the basis for all recommendations of the master plan .
  • Nothing comes from consultations, its just compromise.
  • ‘No Go Area’ should read ‘Environmentally Protected Area’. This mapping does not present as an environmentally proactive plan.
  • Need to identify sources of turbidity.
  • Do you have accurate depths information? Need best bathymetry for the entire area from Gold Coast City Council.
  • The proposed Moreton Bay Marine Zones are not in red.
  • Would like to see all the relevant values displayed using different colours for koalas, mangroves and remnant vegetation etc.
  • Tipplers and Jumpinpin Bar are areas of concern.
  • SEQ Regional Plan protects koala habitats from future development.
  • The Marine Stadium should be left unchanged as it is a haven for birds and there should be a focus on more low key activities such as canoeing and paddle boating.
  • Visual amenity; consider vegetation on banks
  • Availability of open public space existing and future.
  • Riparian zones to be doubled or tripled.
  • Maintain the 30 m buffer. Dredging will require the securing of banks.
  • Noise of vessels when diving is significant. Can see fish getting out of the path of vessels due to the noise while diving. Noise has an impact on the fish habitat.
  • North East wall and South East side of Wave Break Island good for diving.
  • Can't put a price on the enjoyment experienced on the water.
  • Time with family in a natural setting.
  • Consider the social aspects of the Broadwater usage. Easter time is crowded as it is.
  • Broadwater must remain open. Provides a contrast to urban development.
  • More collection of data is required by the Queensland Government to understand the area.
  • Environment should be considered the foundation of everything and not the other way round.
  • Environmental impact should be the basis of decision making for the master plan .

Site selection

  • Should ensure that industry is positioned where the least impact on the environment can occur. Also to consider the way existing marinas operate to see if those practices can be improved before new marinas are developed.
  • The master plan should highlight sites that are less destructive and ensure that existing marinas are being used effectively.
  • It was suggested that a scale of sustainability could help assess each development option. Also the promotion of other uses such as kayaking should be investigated.
  • There is concern about the benefit of this project. We should be trying to reverse environmental impacts. Industry needs to look at the minimisation of their impacts on the environment. There is a need to consider industry so that it has a less destructive path. In considering options we must look at the management of the site and the mode for financial benefits which coincides with a decrease in environmental impacts.
  • It was noted that there is the need to look at the most practical location. Instead of supporting industry which puts the most pressure on the area we should be looking towards those industries that provide the most benefit to the area.
  • Look at criteria which can reduce the existing high use industry and their impacts.
  • Scope of the master plan should have been expanded to include Brisbane River. Then this area could service the needs of the boating community.
  • Marine infrastructure that has been incorrectly placed should not be expanded. These mistakes are being repeated and boating should be relocated to the Brisbane River.
  • Markings on the map should adequately reflect the size of the site to be developed. The locations marked on the map should be more specific.
  • The Gold Coast to Redlands waterways are unsuitable for major development.
  • Process had been skewed as it is being driven by an industry need. No major marina development should occur in this area.
  • Environmental consideration did not carry enough weight in overall master planning.
  • Not all constraints appear to have been mapped. The area for environmental impact is significantly bigger than just the area being developed.
  • The original location for a marine precinct at Coomera was incorrect.

Dredging

  • Dredging in Moreton Bay study area should be monitored before and after to measure the impact on mangroves.
  • Master planning should consider all environmental impacts of dredging. An example from Port Phillip Bay was discussed at the consultation meeting where there were record kills of penguins and sea lions as a result of dredging events. The scale of this impact was not realised at the time. It is very important that the environmental impact of dredging be taken into full consideration when progressing through this study.

Global warming

  • University of Queensland study indicates that mangroves are one of the best carbon sinks. If government is serious about reducing greenhouse gases it should be protecting its mangroves. Plankton produces 70 per cent of the world's oxygen.
  • The master plan needs to use the latest findings on global warming. More recent than 2001 and data/information used should be peer reviewed. Storm tide information; 300 mm rise over 10 years.

Water quality

  • Environmental monitoring agencies can't control the existing development in this area. As a result we have increasing problems with water quality. What is going to happen to the marine life?

Fish breeding and sea grass

  • Users are demanding a quality experience on the water from an environmental perspective, traffic volumes and safe havens to swim etc. It serves no purpose to develop to such a degree that it impacts on fish breeding, over develop areas or encourage too much traffic as the experience will be lost for many.
  • GCCC is currently mapping this area for seagrass and of-concern vegetation.

Vessel size

  • Different sized vessels create different impacts in relation to the environment. The size of boats should be considered and used in determining the best locations for recreational boating experiences.

RAMSAR

  • RAMSAR sites in the study area should eliminate a development site from consideration.

Consultation

  • It was suggested that it would be preferable to have community consultation held in mixed groups instead of individual interest groups. Competing interest groups brought together would enable a better debate amongst participants regarding the values and ideals of environmental groups. It was suggested that the development groups did not realise the value of these areas.
  • It was suggested that the master plan group should personally consult with each town affected by the master plan .
  • It was argued that the assessment of the Marine Stadium appears not to take into account the seagrass values and presence of sting rays within the area. Currently this area is being mapped for sea grass, turtles and stingrays in the Broadwater. Suggested that this information be included in future master planning when available. It was also stated that the seaway is not only used by boats but also by marine animals.
  • Participants indicated that if an area has high ecological significance as determined by the EPA, then no development should occur. Values include the presence of stingrays, crabs, migratory birds and seagrass.

Jacobs Well

  • Some of the residents of Jacobs Well do not want to see it developed.
  • This plan will give additional support to further development at Steigltz and Jacobs Well.

Coomera

  • Everything downstream will be affected by dredging. River banks in the Coomera River and Saltwater Creek will be affected. There is no quick fix solution.
  • The impacts of dredging may be felt 10 km away. Will the master plan take this into account?
  • Coomera and Steiglitz marine precincts should not have been developed as the environmental assessment was flawed.
  • Development on the Coomera River is fine in parts but industry is trying to develop it into an
    eight-lane highway (i.e. over-develop the area beyond its capacity).
  • People who live near industry don't have positive experiences. Coomera site is a problem due to excessive dredging.