The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch (QLD) Inc.
Final submission
into
Senate inquiry into urban water management
Prepared by: Simon Baltais
Wednesday, 20 March 2002
CONTENTS
1.0IntroductionPage3
1.1Overview and scope3
1.2Methodology3
2.0Scientific background3
2.1Introduction3
2.2Scientific and other information of relevance to the inquiry3
2.2.1Lack of compliance3
2.2.2Road contribute significant pollutants4
2.2.3Moreton Bay drowning in silt and nutrients5
2.2.4Moreton Bay continues to degrade5
2.2.5Questionable facts delivered and advertised to the public9
2.2.6Population growth9
3.0Historical Overview11
3.1Introduction11
3.2Historical information11
4.0Current events13
4.1Roads and stormwater13
4.2Poor town planning13
4.2.1Destruction of natural waterways13
4.2.2Loss of wetlands13
4.2.3Lack of attention to waterway rehabilitation13
4.2.4Over reliance on natural waterways to deal with stormwater 14
4.2.5Waterway management plans14
4.2.6Development control and enforcement 14
4.2.7Tree clearing15
4.2.8Legal system15
4.3Preliminary submission15
5.0Case history16
5.1Ney Road. 16
5.2Nth Stradbroke Island17
5.3Un-named waterway, Thorneside. See appendix J.17
5.4Ross Creek, Cleveland.18
5.5Brisbane City Plan, Wakerley Local Plan. 19
5.6Tingalpa Creek Waterway Management Plan.19
5.7Victoria Point (coastal issues)20
5.8Starkey Street, Wellington Point21
6.0Conclusion22
23
7.0References
Appendix A – RSC report on builders compliance
Appendix B – Examples of urban water design
Appendix C – Genetic defects in mangroves
Appendix D – Seagrass Watch
Appendix E – Preliminary submission to senate inquiry
Appendix F – Wakerley Local Plan.
Appendix G – Correspondence
Appendix H – Stormwater and roads
Appendix I – Tingalpa Creek WMP
Appendix J - Photographs
Submission – into Senate inquiry into urban water management
1.0Introduction
This report provides a brief historical and present day overview of stormwater management in the Redland Shire and Brisbane City, which are located within South East Queensland.
Supporting research is included to provide a scientific background to the issues presented in this report.
While we acknowledge there have been some improvements in practices and technology, our observations indicate there is a substantial effort still required to ensure ecological sustainable development (ESD) principles are incorporated into stormwater and silt management.
1.1Methodology
The report provides a brief historical overview of stormwater management and associated activities in the Redland Shire Council and Brisbane City region utilising letters obtained from the same. Current events are presented and supporting documentation is attached and located in the appendices of this report. Case history with supporting photographic evidence and the location of specific sites are supplied.
2.0Scientific background
2.1Introduction
The following provides background scientific and other information in support of issues and concerns raised in this report.
2.2Scientific and other information of relevance to the inquiry
2.2.1Lack of compliance
A 1999 study revealed that while 81% of builders indicated sediment is a pollutant, 53% of them did not comply with relevant environmental legislation (RSC, 1999). Refer appendix A.
2.2.2Road contribute significant pollutants
Research on cities in the United States showed runoff from roads is generally highly contaminated and based upon complete cleansing of street surfaces by a moderate to heavy storm of one hour duration, stormwater runoff would contribute considerably more pollution load than would the same city’s raw sewerage during the same period of time (QLD Transport, 1991).
Table 1A. Urban road runoff water quality
Pollutant / Urban runoff concentrationsOil and grease (mg/L) / 1-10
Heavy metals (ug/L)
Zinc / 200
Source: QLD Dept. Transport, Eastern Corridor Water Quality Study, Dec 1991.
Runoff from street surfaces is generally highly contaminated, and, based upon complete cleansing of street surfaces by a moderate to heavy storm, of one hour duration, stormwater runoff would contribute considerably more pollution load than would the same city’s raw sewerage during the same period of time. Source: QLD dept. Transport, 1991 - (Sartor & Boyd, 1972)
Years of study reveal that the vast majority of stormwater toxicants and much of the conventional pollutants are associated with automobile use and maintenance activities and that these pollutants are strongly associated with the particulates suspended in the stormwater (the non-filterable components or suspended solids) USA EPA – (R.Pitt)
Recent research reveals grey mangroves (Avicennia marina var. australasica) around the western embayment of Moreton Bay are suffering from genetic abnormalities, showing a positive correlation between the concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the frequency of mutations in mangroves growing in contaminated sediments (Godson). PAHs come from the operation of motor vehicles. Refer appendix C.
2.2.3Moreton Bay drowning in silt and nutrients
The most extreme enhancement of sediment and nutrient runoff is via urbanisation. (Abal et al., 1998).
Only a major tree planting effort along the region’s creeks could help save the bay from drowning in sediment (Dennison, 2001).
Urban stormwater containing garden fertiliser, animal faeces, septic system leachate and sewerage system overflows may also be significant localised sources of N and other nutrients. Typical stormwater flows can contain concentrations of total N and P of the order of 2 mg/L-N and 1 mg/L-P (GHD 1981)[1]. A Victorian study (Weeks 1982)[2] showed that the total flux of nutrients in stormwater from urban catchments may equal that in sewage discharges for the same population. (Brodie, 1995).
2.2.4Moreton Bay continues to degrade
WPSQBB findings showed scientific reports from the QLD EPA departmental Healthy Waterways Web site ( revealed Moreton Bay was continuing to degrade, with 38% of catchments and rivers showing a continued decline, 38% unchanged and only 24% improving. Of the catchments, 37.5% are in decline and 38% of our rivers are likewise. Only 1 catchment had improved (Waterloo Bay). Of those rivers and catchments showing no change in their scorecard result in 2000 to 2001, 62.5% of these are still rating a fail. Refer to tables 1 – 7.
Table 1. Source: QLD EPA, healthywaterways;
Catchment/River / Report card result for period / Status2000 / 2001
Noosa River / A- / A- # / No change
Maroochy River / C+ / C # / Decline
Mooloolah River / B / B- # / Decline
Pumicestone Passage / B- / B * / Improvement
Caboolture River / C / C / No change
Pine Rivers / D / D+ / Improvement
Brisbane River / D / D- / Decline
Bremer River / F / F / No change
Logan River / D / D- / Decline
Albert River / D / D * / No change
Coomera River / B+ / B * / Decline
Nerang River / C+ / B * / Improvement
Tweed River / C+ / B- # / Improvement
Nth Deception Bay / D / D- / Decline
Sth Deception Bay / D / D / No change
Bramble Bay / F / F / No change
Waterloo Bay / C+ / B- / Improvement
Central Bay / B / B / No change
Eastern Banks / B- / C / Decline
Southern Bay / C- / C- / No change
Eastern Bay / - / A- % / Decline
# Independent ecosystem health studies have been carried out in these waterways.
* insufficient ecosystem health data, results based on water quality only.
% understood to had same score in 2000 has Northern Bay.
Table 2: Change between 2000 and 2001 report card results for rivers and catchments.
No change / 8 / 38%Decline / 8 / 38%
Improvement / 5 / 24%
Table 3: Change between 2000 and 2001 report card results for rivers only. (approx)
No change / 4 / 31%Decline / 5 / 38%
Improvement / 4 / 31%
Table 4: Change between 2000 and 2001 report card results for catchments only. (approx)
No change / 4 / 50%Decline / 3 / 37.5%
Improvement / 1 / 12.5%
Table 5: The status of those rivers/catchments showing no change from the 2000 score card results.
Pass / 3 / 37.5%Fail / 5 / 62.5%
Table 6. Source: Moreton Bay Community Seagrass Watch, 2002. See appendix D.
The secchi depth gives an indication of water clarity, which can be clouded by suspended sediment and phytoplankton in the water. There is no seagrass in Bramble Bay as not enough light (as indicated by the low secchi depths) reaches the seabed to support seagrass growth. Summer rains wash sediment and nutrients (food for phytoplankton) into the Bay, hence the downward trend evident in the summer data.
Table 7. The description of environmental features and values shown by the models. ( Dennison & Abal, 1999)
Area / DescriptionCaboolture River Estuary / Nutrient and sediment loads from forestry, agricultural and urban areas.
Algal blooms, high nutrients; poor riparian vegetation in lower catchments.
Some extent of nutrient processing in the river, no sewerage nitrogen impact on Deception Bay.
Low and surficial denitrification; possible nutrient fluxes from sediments.
Pine River Estuary / Urbanised and industrial catchment, highly degraded.
Water column nutrient concentrations high; highly turbid system.
Denitrification in sediments blocked; some surficial denitrification.
Ammonium possibly leaching to water column.
Low phytoplankton diversity; high productivity.
Logan River Estuary / Urban and agriculture dominate catchment inputs.
Prawn farm effluent and acid sulfate soil runoff at mouth.
Denitrification in the sediment blocked; surficial denitrification.
Medium diversity and productivity of phytoplankton.
Mangroves intact in regions of the river; sea grass recovery near the river mouth.
Brisbane River Estuary / High sediment and nutrient loads from sewerage and non point sources.
Extensive riparian vegetation clearance especially in the lower reaches.
Benthic microalgae growing on riverbanks; low phytoplankton abundance and species diversity.
Surficial denitrification fuelled by high nitrate fluxes from the water column into the sediments; overall denitrification rates low.
Large phosphorous fluxes from sediments to overlying water.
Bremer River Estuary / Extremely degraded system.
High inorganic and organic nutrient loadings.
High heterotrophic bacteria
Low Phytoplankton production dominated by flagellates.
Long water residence times.
Northern Deception Bay / Low nutrient concentrations; absence of sewerage nitrogen.
Good light penetration resulting in healthy seagrass beds.
Human health and ecological impacts from cyanobacteria blooms.
Intact sediment processes (high denitrification, low nutrient fluxes).
Large numbers of Catostylus affecting zooplankton abundance and diversity.
Southern Deception Bay / Inputs from stormwater and agriculture.
Low water column nutrient concentrations, but fairly turbid system.
Sediment nutrient processes relatively intact.
Low phytoplankton biomass, but high phytoplankton diversity.
Seagrass beds (1 500 ha) lost after May 1996 flood.
Bramble Bay / Most degraded embayment within Moreton Bay; high water column nutrients and turbidity.
Anecdotal loss of seagrass beds.
Denitrification blocked, nutrients leaching out of sediments.
Phytoplankton blooms, exhibiting bloom-crash cycles.
Waterloo Bay / Sewerage and stormwater inputs.
Oceanic water quality, in some areas due to oceanic exchange.
Muddy sediments are ‘poised’; increase in loading or decrease in oxygen could lead to nutrient fluxes.
Fairly healthy seagrass beds in the southern end under threat due to increasing turbidity.
Southern Moreton Bay / Broad diversity of ecosystems indicating east-west gradients in water quality.
Seagrass loss and recovery documented in the vicinity of Logan River mouth.
Healthy seagrass beds, phytoplankton communities and mangroves in Pelican Banks.
Relatively low water column nutrients and intact sediment processes.
Eastern Moreton Bay / Relatively pristine region supporting healthy seagrass beds and dugong populations.
High nitrogen fixation and denitrification efficiencies.
Low nitrogen fluxes.
Lower column nutrients resulting in low phytoplankton productivity.
Zooplankton grazing controls phytoplankton populations.
Northern Moreton Bay / Well flushed due to high oceanic exchange through North Passage.
Sand resuspension but low turbidity and low water column nutrient concentrations.
Sediment nutrient processes intact.
High benthic microalgal production, diverse phytoplankton community; but low productivity.
Supports dugong, turtle and occasional whale populations.
2.2.5Questionable facts delivered and advertised to the public
A QLD EPA document stated the following.
The 2001 South East Queensland Waterways Health Report Cards were launched by Lord Mayor Jim Soorley, at Norman Creek River clean event in August. This year’s results show that most of the waterways health is stabilising. Waterloo Bay increased its rating from poor to fair and Noosa retained it’s excellent A minus rating. Only two rivers, the Bremer and the Lockyer received a fail rating. Source: Healthy Waterways Happenings, Issue 11 September 2001, pg 7.
This is contrary to the evidence provided by researchers. Refer 2.2.4.
Such statements do not assist with community education as they lead the public to believe current practices are acceptable as no environmental harm is occurring.
2.2.6Population growth
Population is recognised as the driving force of many of our environmental and social problems. It is our population growth that is creating the significant stormwater problems we now face today; more people means more land clearing, more roads and infrastructure and more pollution. However, there is a lack of political will and financial resources to implement the stringent environmental controls necessary, to protect the environment from the ever increasing pressures generated by a growing population. Compounding the problem is our inability to successfully address the outcomes of past poor environmental management.
Population growth provides one of the major pressures in the region. An increasing population means more sewerage, more intensive land use and more demands on waterways for commercial and recreational use. Most of the population growth is in the coastal floodplain and along the river estuaries. An expanding population means that increased environmental controls must be instituted simply to maintain the status quo and that remediation of existing degraded areas will require considerable effort. (Dennison & Abal, 1999)
The population of South East Queensland is expected to reach 3.3 million people by 2021, accounting for three-quarters of the State’s growth over that period, with the Gold Coast increasing by nearly 13 000 people each year and Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast by 9 500 people each year (Cunningham, 2001). This growth is arguably ecologically unsustainable and there is no prospect, even in principle, of a sustainable pattern of development unless we find a socially acceptable way of stabilising human population (Lowe, 1997). Queenslander’s consumption patterns are also a problem. Queensland's ecological footprint, a concept used to quantify the area required to provide the resources used and dispose of the waste created by each person, is 5.98 ha/person (EPA, 1999). The global fair share is calculated at 1.3 ha/person (EPA, 1999).
This development pattern is resulting in significant land clearing in south-east Queensland and in 1994 it was estimated only 35.5% of the regions bushland remained (Catterall, 1995). During the period 1820 and 1987 64% of bushland in the SEQ 2001 region was cleared (EPA, 1999). Between 1991 – 1999, a total of 49 832 ha has been cleared in the Moreton Bay region, comprising of 12 420 ha Moreton Basin, 25 116 ha Coastal Lowlands, 9 122 ha D'Aguliar Block, 602 ha Lamingtonand 1 672 ha Brisbane - Barambah Volcanics (BREC, 2000). Such clearing is likely a contributing factor to thirty six percent (36%) of Queensland's threatened fauna species and twenty two percent (22%) of Queensland's rare or threatened plant taxa being found in south-east Queensland (EPA, 1999).
3.0Historical overview
3.1Introduction
The historical information is gathered from 1995 to 2002 documentation. While some correspondence provides limited insight into the actual specific problem, the number of such matters indicates the degree of the problem. Historical information is presented in chronological order and supporting documents are found in the appendices.
3.2Historical information
Refer to appendix G for copies of correspondence.
1995, August 3rd. Clearing/Burning of Council property – Macleay Island.
1995, August 24th. Alleged illegal removal of trees. German Church Road.
1995, October 3rd. Dumping of soil at Fletcher Street, Ormiston.
A large number of issues relate to illegal dumping of soil, particularly onto flood plains and coastal estuarine habitat. The practice, while alleged in many cases to be illegal, in all instances never involved the implementation of silt management. There were many instances of silt washing into waterways during rainfall events.
1995, October 27th. Filling along Tingalpa Creek.
Redland Shire Council deposited fill onto estuarine habitat and were instructed by the Queensland Environment Department to remove it, to date there remains significant quantities of fill on the subject estuarine habitat.
Location: Intersection of Ferry Road and Esplanade, Thorneside.
1996, January 17th. Filling along Tingalpa Creek near Thorneside Railway Station.
1996, January 18th. Filling adjacent intersection of Ferry Road and Esplanade Thorneside.
1996, March 1. Filling of land at Duncan and Starkey Street, Wellington Point.
Location: Intersection of Starkey Street and Duncan Street, Wellington Point.
1996, March 19th. Breach of tree protection bylaw. Rocky Passage Road, Redland Bay.
1997, January 2nd. Discharge of Backwash from Cleveland Swimming Pool.
1997, May 9th. Filling of land at Station Street, Wellington Point.
1998, November 25th. Ney Road, Capalaba. Tree clearing and silt management.
1998, December 7th. Stormwater and other issues. Manly Road, Manly West.
1999, November 10th. Concerns regarding alleged illegal land filling. Rickertts Road, Ransome.
1999, November 11th. Possible illegal filling on land at Rickertts Road, Ransome.
1999, December 7th. Possible illegal filling on land at Rickertts Road, Ransome.
2000, November 29th. Possible illegal filling and tree clearing at 101 Rickertt Road, Ransome.
2001, Courier Mail, Toxic rivers poison bay.
2002, January 24th. Albino mangroves. See also appendix C.
2002, March. Stormwater management along major roads. See also appendix H.
4.0Current events
4.1Roads and stormwater
Concerns have been raised about the degree of treatment of stormwater originating from major roads in the Hemmant and Lytton area. See appendix H.
Current research indicates roads contribute to stormwater pollution. Refer to Queensland Transport Department research and research on genetic disorders in grey mangroves. (Godson, 2000). Refer 2.2.2 and appendix C.
With the exception of perhaps freeways and tollways, there appears little attention given to the management of stormwater originating from roads, as a result many waterways are readily contaminated with pollutants derived from roads.
4.2Poor town planning
4.2.1Destruction of natural waterways
Town planning is still permitting the destruction of natural waterways and replacing them with open concrete drainage systems. Valuable habitat, which is capable of removing pollutants and silt, has been removed, allowing such pollutants and silt to travel great distances and in many instances ultimately into Moreton Bay. Refer to case studies. 5.0
Location: Intersection of Waterloo Street and Cleveland High School, Cleveland.
Mond Street, Thorneside.
Cottonwood Court, Capalaba
Intersection of Starkey Street and Duncan Street, Wellington Point.
4.2.2Loss of wetlands
Almost all the Melaleuca wetlands on mainland south-east Queensland have been removed, those that exist are in reserve systems.Research shows that if deforestation patterns continue, all melaleuca forests on the coastal mainland and not in a reserve system, would be lost by the year 2004[3]. These wetlands assisted in the removal of much of the silt and toxins found in our waterways. With the removal of these wetlands there has been a significant increase in the amount of pollutants and silt entering Moreton Bay.