Development in protected Moreton Bay wetlands fails to demonstrate 'net benefit'

Final plans to build 3,600 homes on internationally-protected wetlands at Toondah Harbour in Moreton Bay, Queensland, appear doomed because they fail to meet Federal Government requirements.

The environmental impact statement for the town on Ramsar wetlands fails to demonstrate how the project will provide a stipulated "net benefit" to those wetlands.

It also falls foul of a Federal Government obligation to make "wise use" of Ramsar wetlands.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek must decide by April 23 whether to approve the project following submission of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) by the Walker Group.

Federal Government guidelines refer to the necessity for plans to describe a "net benefit" to the Moreton Bay Ramsar site and other matters of national environmental significance seven times.

The guidelines stipulate:

'The EIS must demonstrate how a net benefit will be achieved for the Moreton Bay Ramsar site and other MNES (matters of national environmental significance) through the implementation of avoidance, mitigation and offset measures in a timely, transparent and scientifically robust manner.'

The guidelines say "net benefit" might include actions to

'...improve existing habitat for MNES, create new habitat for MNES, reduce threats to habitat for MNES and avert the loss of habitat for MNES under threat.'

Half-baked EIS sells out protected Toondah Harbour

The public is being invited to comment on the draft environmental impact statement for a town of 7,200 on protected wetlands in Toondah Harbour.

But the EIS contains only two statements claiming the achievement of a "net benefit", neither of which refer to the targets specified in the guidelines.

It merely claims '...a significant net benefit to the environment and Moreton Bay' and 'a significant long term net benefit to Moreton Bay environment'.

Despite this, a Walker Group media release says:

'The EIS confirms the most important point that should enable the Federal Government to approve Toondah Harbour; and that is, it will deliver a net environmental benefit to the Moreton Bay Ramsar area.'

But a spokesman for Walker failed to respond to a request to point to the passage in the EIS which supports such a claim.

Walker's strategy is to offset impacts on the specified areas by creating a fund administered by an offset fund manager which will then establish an environmental trust fund (ETF).

The guidelines stipulate:

'...the outcomes of the offset strategy need to be specific, measurable and achievable based on robust baseline data and demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that predicted outcomes will be achieved.'

But far from projects being specific and measurable, the EIS contains phrases such as:

'...a program to identify and review potential projects will be undertaken on a yearly basis.

Specific offset projects will be nominated and outlined...

...could be utilised for an initial tranche of projects.'

Section 5.9.5 of the final EIS is headlined 'Providing Conservation Benefits' but the section – containing only 131 words – says:

'...specific projects have not been discussed with any of the entities responsible" and it fails to mention any projects that will actually be delivered.'

Government denies Walker's claim of support to destroy wetlands

A government department has denied claims by a developer that a submission for an environmentally-destructive town plan is in review.

The guidelines also require a completed ‘offsets guide’ but Walker says, 'The offset guide is not applicable to the ETF,' despite such a fund being its method of seeking to offset impacts.

An Australian Government fact sheet points out that the international Ramsar Convention commits member countries to plan for the "wise use" of wetlands, a concept that includes delivering ecosystem benefits over the long term.

It mentions that ongoing threats to wetlands include urban encroachment.

A Ramsar fact sheet states governments which are part of the convention have committed to 'the wise use and effective management' of wetlands. It contains the blunt instruction:

'DO NOT

Fill in or build on wetlands as this disrupts and reduces their ability to provide natural functions.'

In dealing with this topic, appendix T of the Walker EIS provides a legal opinion stating:

'Residential developments have not typically been considered "wise use" of wetlands because they may not protect the ecological character or adopt an ecosystem approach to ensure the wetlands are preserved for the future.'

But the opinion claims:

'...a world’s best practice approach to a residential development is capable of being "wise use’"..The wetland developments in London and Hong Kong, for example, show how a residential development within protected wetlands can be capable of satisfying the "wise use" obligation...'

The opinion fails to note that in London the residential development did not take place within protected wetlands — the development paid for the creation of the wetlands.

Albanese refuses to back ALP decision on Toondah Harbour development

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has refused to commit to opposing the construction of a town in internationally protected waters in Moreton Bay, Queensland.

Until 1989 a 50-hectare area of Barnes, south of the Thames, comprised low-lying derelict land and four vast abandoned Victorian reservoirs.

Then the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust:

'entered into a partnership with Thames Water, the reservoir owners, and Berkeley Homes who purchased ten hectares of the site for residential development.'

Berkeley Homes says on an affiliated website that it bought the derelict land and '...funded the adjoining London Wetland Centre, opened in 2000'.

Ramsar says on its website:

'London Wetland Centre was the first project of its kind in the world where more than 40 hectares of wetlands were created in the heart of a capital city.'

The Mai Po wetlands in Hong Kong were created on many traditional fish ponds with fishers living alongside.

The management plan allows consideration of limited low-density private residential or recreational developments at the landward fringe in exchange for committed long-term conservation and management of the remaining ponds or restoration of degraded wetlands within the development site.

Neither London nor Hong Kong wetlands involve building a town with thousands of homes.

Housing density could pose a problem in the approval process.

The Newman Government's official Toondah Harbour Priority Development Area proposal in 2013 stated it:

'...will include opportunities for mixed use and medium density residential development.'

However, figure 5-13 in the final EIS shows the residential area for the proposed 3,600 homes will be on six hectares of reclaimed land, giving a density of 600 homes per hectare. A London Assembly research paper dubs anything more than 350 homes per hectare as "hyperdensity".

Proposed development on protected wetlands raises community fears

Opponents of a plan to build a town on internationally-recognised wetlands and marine park are gearing up for the release of an environmental impact study (EIS) of the project.

The draft EIS forecasts the project is likely to have a significant residual impact on the critically endangered eastern curlew, critically endangered great knot, endangered lesser sand plover and vulnerable bar-tailed godwit.

There are dramatic differences in dollar values provided in Walker Group documents.

In October last year, the draft EIS estimated damage caused by the project to the environment would need $4.75 million in remediation, '...providing an overall benefit to migratory birds and wetland habitats in the MBRS'.

Just 13 months later, the final EIS estimates the area impacted has risen from 34.7 ha to 58.7 ha and that the amount of money needed to offset this damage has nearly doubled to $9 million despite the project's footprint remaining the same.