8 BEERWAH TO CALOUNDRA - Home (Department of .../media/Projects/C/Caboolture to...Caboolture to...

Caboolture to Maroochydore Corridor StudyFinal Impact Assessment and Land Use Transport Strategy

G:\ENVIRON\PROJECTS\9727\STAGE3\FINALIAS\FEB2000\CHAPTER08 Part B 8-1February 2001

8 BEERWAH TO CALOUNDRA

8.1 Introduction

This Chapter considers the environmental and socialeffects of the proposed scheme between the NorthCoast Rail line north of Beerwah rail station toCaloundra Road east of Caloundra Aerodrome. Thissection of the route is approximately 19km in lengthand would traverse for the most part State and privatelyowned (pine forest) land. West of Pelican Waterswhere the alignment passes through regionallysignificant wetland areas it would be constructed (for2.2km) on viaduct. Two stations are proposed in thissection, one at Pelican Waters and the other east of theAerodrome south of Caloundra Road. The CaloundraRoad station is proposed to cater for commuters andwould incorporate adequate parking facilities.

Significance criteria have been applied to subject areaswithin these Chapters and used to describe theassessment of effects. For details relating to thederivation of these criteria the reader is referred to PartA, section 4.6.

8.2 Land Use Planning

From Beerwah east, the corridor is contained withinland zoned Special Uses for state forest purposes,which the forward planning for the area intends wouldremain. This provides a low intensity land use planningcontext on which the CAMCOS route would not havesubstantive impacts.

As the corridor departs from the existing north coastline immediately north of the station in Beerwah, itprovides significant opportunities to build transitsupportive development on the traditional railway townof Beerwah township. This would provide significantopportunities to intensify this township character inBeerwah.

From the Bruce Highway east to Bells Creek, thecorridor is within land contained in the Rural zone, andavoids the Environment Protection zoned landassociated with the south branch of Bells Creek.

The private forestry land in this location is in theownership of the Caloundra Downs Joint Venture(CDJV). This is a 3,200 hectare parcel of land fromwhich the pines will be harvested in 2003. CDJV iscurrently undertaking an “informal land useinvestigation” into this property for a “range of land usesmeeting a range of public and commercial objectives”.A more intensive use of this site would contraveneCaloundra City Council’s strategic planning intentionsfor the land (which are for rural and state forestpurposes), and have subregional and regionalimplications. For these reasons, this informal

investigation process is intended to consult with allrelevant parties to investigate potential land uses in thearea.

The future development prospects for this land areoutside the CAMCOS investigation process. However,should any further urban development occur within theCaloundra Downs landholding, there is a significantopportunity for the planning of this area to be based ontransit supportive development principles around anadditional potential station location within thatlandholding.

Further east, the corridor is contained within areasdesignated for open space in Council planning, and it isinevitable that route selection would impact on locationswith high environmental values in this area (seeremaining sections in this Chapter for more details).

The route is located west of current developments atPelican Waters and within their landholding. It followsthe alignment of the proposed Bells Creek Arterial,which is designated in the Development Control Planfor Pelican Waters. Further significant urban residentialdevelopment is planned at Pelican Waters. Thisprovides opportunities for the planning of that area tobe reoriented towards the future station location.

Near Caloundra Road the corridor is locatedimmediately to the east of the Caloundra Aerodromelandholding, crosses Rotary Park and is to the west of aformer Caloundra City landfill site.

The proposed station south of Caloundra Road is themost central to existing commercial, industrial andresidential development in the Caloundra area. Itrepresents a strategic node for which futuredevelopment opportunities exist, depending on thefuture of the aerodrome and the potential to upgradeexisting land zoned and utilised for the landfill andrecreational activities.

Overall, this section of the proposed corridor does notcause significant detrimental impacts on the currentland use and planning for the area. It does howeveroffer significant potential for future transit supportivedevelopment planning in key locations at Beerwah,Pelican Waters and Caloundra.

8.3 Local Transport Issues

8.3.1 Beerwah

Traffic patterns in and around Beerwah have variedsignificantly over the last couple of decades. Thisvariation has resulted initially from strong traffic growthalong Glass House Mountains Road, which until themid 1980’s, was a part of the Bruce Highway andNational Route 1. During the early 1980’s, travel alongthis section of the old Highway was characterised bylong delays and numerous accidents and breakdowns



on long weekends and during holiday periods. Thissection of road returned to a relatively lightly traffickedscenic alternative with the opening and then duplicationof the new Bruce Highway through the pine plantations,several kilometres to the east.

Even today, Beerwah is somewhat sheltered from themuch higher growth occurring along the coastal strip,but it has been identified by Caloundra City Council asthe key District Centre on the north coast line. Thisdesignation along with the development changes thatwill follow as a result of implementing the CAMCOScorridor, will increase traffic flows generally in andaround the town. In addition, its location as the junctionbetween the proposed CAMCOS corridor and the northcoast line will increasingly see more traffic focussed onthis location.

A commuter car park catering for park and ride usersfrom the surrounding areas already exists at Beerwah.However, it is expected that when the CAMCOScorridor is constructed, a large number of services willstop at Beerwah as it will then be at the confluence oftwo rail lines. Therefore, it is anticipated that the towncentre and the commuter car park will see far greaterusage, as users of the facility will be attracted from thesurrounding areas, including Landsborough andNambour.

Cyclist and pedestrian routes will be largely unaffectedby the proposed public transport alignment. Any futureupgrade works at Beerwah station should make greaterallowances for these travellers through the provision ofsafe storage facilities for bicycles. Walkways and asupportive network of bikeways should be encouragedaround the town centre to ensure that these modesprovide access to the facility for the greater community.

The transport network around Beerwah can beexpected to remain largely unaffected by the eventualconstruction works for the new corridor. This isbecause most of the new alignment traversesuninhabited areas. There will however, be some localdelays in the vicinity of the crossing of Glass HouseMountains Road for haulage and construction trafficand during the necessary diversion works for the newoverpass crossing. These delays are likely to belocalised and manageable if normal DMR constructionpractices are observed.

8.3.2 Pelican Waters

Pelican Waters and Golden Beach are prime residentialand tourist accommodation locations at the southernend of the Sunshine Coast. It is anticipated that thePelican Waters station (see Figure 8.3.2) will be usedby local residents and tourists travelling to otherattractions along the Sunshine Coast, and forcommuters travelling to Brisbane. Therefore, somelocal traffic around the station will be a result of localfeeder buses and taxis servicing the area, plus some

private vehicles using the kiss and ride facility. It isexpected that with proper planning, much of thedemand to/from the station will be serviced by walk-inand cycle-in users. Use of this station will also beinfluenced by the location of the proposed eco-tourismdevelopment to the west of the transport corridor. Sucha development could be well served by the publictransport station and a grade separated pedestrian andcyclist crossing associated with the station complex.

Local traffic in and around Pelican Waters is also set toexperience significant change in the coming years asthe major elements of the estate are completed. Thesewould include the golf course and resort facilities, theretail centre and the balance of the residential housing.The future of the proposed Bells Creek arterial is yet tobe finally resolved but recent planning by theconsultants, based upon alternative accessarrangements being put forward by Pelican Waters, hasresulted in alternatives that could negate the futureneed to construct this road through the wetlands.However, it is understood from DMR that the need forthis road will be determined by the Caloundra DownsInformal Land Use Investigation. Local traffic planningstill has some way to go in this area but there are anumber of opportunities to satisfactorily address boththe local and regional arterial needs.

8.3.3 Caloundra Station

This site on the old refuse dump is well located tocapitalise on the future relocation of the Aerodrome.Options for the Aerodrome site are broad ranging interms of type and scale and will need to be carefullyconsidered by Caloundra City Council and included inCouncil’s Planning Scheme. The site comprises some130 hectares of prime developable land and thereforehas the potential to impact on, and compete with, thetraditional town centre in and around Bulcock Street.

The Caloundra station (see Figure 8.3.2) is planned tobe one of the three major stations along the CAMCOScorridor that will have a park and ride facility.Caloundra is recognised as a major employmentattractor for the Sunshine Coast, as well as an originand destination for commuters using the CAMCOScorridor. The Australian Bureau of Statistics Journey toWork survey revealed that in 1991, 5% of SunshineCoast residents were destined for the BrisbaneStatistical Division (greater Brisbane includingCaboolture) for work purposes. Therefore, this stationis expected to attract a large number of long distancecommuters.

As Maroochydore is designated as the key regionalcentre, there will also be significant demand atCaloundra station for journeys to and fromMaroochydore. Demand forecasts undertaken with theCAMCOS transport model, estimates thatapproximately one third of the demand on the servicewill be long distance trips to and from Caboolture and



Brisbane, while two thirds will be internal suburbancommuter trips. Further, visitor travel within theSunshine Coast region is approximately 10-15% of totaltravel. Whilst some of this demand will be captive tovisitors travelling by car, there is still significantpotential to capture some of this travel market.

An assessment of the line demand at Caloundraindicates that approximately 21% of users are destinedfor Maroochydore, 13% for Kawana, 5% for Nambour,6% for Beerwah/ Landsborough, 7% for Parrearra and10% for southern destinations including Brisbane. Allother destinations make up the remainder.It is important that proper planning measures ensurethat appropriate transit oriented development, walklinks and cyclist / pedestrian facilities associated withthis station site are incorporated. Council’s bikewaystrategy should be modified and enhanced toimplement a network of bike paths that provide links tothe station. Appropriate walkways should also link thetown centre and surrounding residential areas with thestation to minimise car access to the station.

Included within this development should also be theprovision of a well planned bus interchange to cater forthe large number of local bus services that will berequired to bring passengers to and from the stationfrom the surrounding area. The layout sketchesincluded in the Transport/ Land Use Strategy illustratean indicative solution.

8.4 Residential, Business & CommunityIssues

8.4.1 Future Without Scheme

Beerwah will experience residential growth in the futureas outlined in the Caloundra City Strategic Plan. This

may in turn produce a need for additional communityfacilities to be located within the town.

The Pelican Waters development will continue to growas outlined in the Pelican Waters Master Plan and theDevelopment Control Plan for the area. This willinclude further residential development, a Golf Course,resort, a school and marina.

The proposed Bells Creek Arterial may be constructedto alleviate congestion on the existing north southroutes through Golden Beach, altering the accesspatterns not only in Golden Beach and Pelican Waters,but traffic from the entire Sunshine Coast. As PelicanWaters grows it is recognised that additional accessroutes would be required as vehicular traffic increases.It is also recognised that there would be an increase indemand for community resources with the increase inpopulation in this area.

The Caloundra City Council is currently undertaking afeasibility study for the use of surplus aerodrome land,and is currently allowing new leases to occur andrenewing current leases, but none of the leases are toextend beyond the year 2014.

8.4.2 Effects of the Scheme

This section focuses on the direct and indirect impactson property, community facilities, access etc. Theeffects on residential amenity (including noise andvisual implications) have been assessed elsewhere inthis chapter and are not repeated here.

This section should be read in conjunction with Table8.4.2, which provides details of all affected propertiesand the proportion of those properties likely to beaffected by the scheme. Figures 5.5.1a & b provide thereader with the location of those affected properties.

Table 8.4.2: Property Effects – Beerwah to Caloundra RoadNo. Type Category Description Total Area

(ha)% Affected Affected

by1 G Industry State Forest 914 4.2% Corridor2 G Reserve (conservation or open

space)Crown Land 20.7 2.2% Corridor

3 G Industry State Forest 508 1.3% Corridor4 G Industry State Forest 1356 1.7% Corridor5 C No existing buildings or structures,

land take onlyCaloundra Downs 1334 1.5% Corridor

6 C No existing buildings or structures,land take only

Caloundra Downs 962.4 0.3% Corridor


Pelican Waters 153.3 1.9% Corridor


Pelican Waters 77.2 9.1% Corridorand Station

9 G Reserve (Conservation or openspace)

Portion 480 227.6 1.1% Corridor

10 G Reserve (uncommitted, drainage orbuffer)

Former Land Fill Site 11 5.7% Corridor

11 G Reserve (uncommitted, drainage or Former Land Fill Site 8 54.3% Corridor



Table 8.4.2: Property Effects – Beerwah to Caloundra RoadNo. Type Category Description Total Area

(ha)% Affected Affected

bybuffer) and Station

12 G Reserve (conservation or openspace)

Rotary Park 4.7 9.3% Corridor

Total number of properties affected = 12 Total number of individual land owners affected = 5Key: G = Government C = Commercial P = Private

8.4.2.1 Community Facilities and Severance

With respect to community facilities, none would bedirectly affected by the route within the Beerwah area.

At the Caloundra Road end of this section, the westernportion of Rotary Park would be directly affected.

In terms of severance effects, the GlasshouseMountains Road would be temporarily affected duringconstruction, affecting access north to Landsborough,and access from Fraser Road south. Access toBeerwah High School from the recognised catchmentareas of Caloundra and Buderim may benefit from thescheme (once operational), with a more direct rail linkfrom these areas to Beerwah.

No severance issues have been identified in thePelican Waters/Golden Beach area, as the corridoralignment is located on the western side of existingdevelopment, and would be on the western edge of allfuture development.

8.4.2.2 Private Residential and Commercial Properties

No residential or rural residential properties would bedirectly affected by the scheme in this section of theroute.

Four commercially owned properties would be affectedincluding 2 lots belonging to Pelican Waters, uponwhich future developments are proposed, and 2 largelots owned by Caloundra Downs, which are currentlyused for private plantation forest (see section 8.13). Noexisting commercial buildings would be affected by thescheme in this section of the corridor.

8.4.2.3 Government Owned or Leased Properties

Nine government owned lots would be affected by thescheme through this section. This number includes 3properties within the State forest, 2 local governmentreserves (the former landfill site) and 2 parcels ofCrown land (including Portion 480, a proposed NationalPark). As stated in Chapter 7, Lot 480 is unallocatedland that may have Native Title implications.

8.4.3 Mitigation

8.4.3.1 Introduction

Many of the impacts associated with acquiring land forthe corridor would be deemed to have beensatisfactorily mitigated through the provision ofcompensation.

Requests to acquire designated land under hardshipcan be made under the Integrated Planning Act 1997once the Minister for Transport Designates the corridor.

8.4.3.2 Community Facilities and Severance

The mitigation of effects on Rotary Park would involvethe reinstatement of existing park facilities either at thesame location or another location agreed with Council.This would include reinstatement of recreationalfacilities, including playground equipment, amenities,bikeways, and educational facilities.

Glass House Mountains Road at Beerwah would needto be realigned and regraded over the railway duringconstruction. This would involve temporarysidetracking, maintaining traffic flow, but at a slowerspeed during the construction phase.

No severance issues require mitigation in the PelicanWaters / Golden Beach area. The newly constructedbike paths within Rotary Park would need to bereinstated after construction of the Station.

8.4.3.3 Privately Owned Residential and CommercialProperties

No privately owned residential properties are affected.

It is intended that the CAMCOS Scheme including thestation would be incorporated into the future subdivisionand development plans for Pelican Waters.

The future of the Caloundra Downs property is currentlyuncertain. It is assumed from preliminary discussionswith Caloundra Downs that any future developmentproposals in this site would incorporate the CAMCOSproposals. Compensation issues would be dealt withfollowing the outcome of the Informal Land Use Study.



8.4.3.4 Government Owned or Leased Properties

The mitigation of impacts on the State Forest iscovered in section 8.13.

The loss of small sections of portion 480 would bemitigated through the implementation of thecompensatory habitat policy, as discussed in section8.6.3 and through negotiations with QT and the EPA.

8.4.4 Assessment

In accordance with the definition of significance criteriaprovided in section 4.6 the effects on Rotary Park areconsidered to be minor adverse.The effect of severance at Beerwah would be atemporary one during construction and is considerednot significant.

Given that appropriate levels of compensation areprovided and the mitigation measures outlined insection 8.4.3 are implemented, the effect oncommercially owned properties in this section of theroute is considered to be minor adverse.

The significance of impacts on the State Forest havebeen dealt with in section 8.13 and the impacts onPortion 480 in section 8.6.

8.5 Groundwater

8.5.1 Introduction

The following section outlines the impacts of theproposed alignment in the Bells and Lamerough Creekwetland areas on groundwater.

8.5.2 Water Balance

The pre-development water balance surrounding thetransportation corridor has already been greatlyimpacted by the establishment of pine forest,excavation of drains and the canal and lakedevelopments of Golden Beach and Pelican Waters.However, within the undisturbed wetlands area, thewater balance has not significantly changed, beingsomewhat isolated from surrounding impacts. Theisolation is due to the flat nature of the topography,preventing significant runoff and the dominance ofrainfall and evapotranspiration over minor groundwaterflow.

The proposed rail alignment is likely to modify thegroundwater balance through the clearing of vegetationalong the route. This would have the effect ofdecreasing evapotranspiration tending to maintain agroundwater level close to, or above the surface.

8.5.3 Interruption to Flow

Horizontal groundwater flow is considered to be minordue to the flat topographic surface and consequentiallack of groundwater gradients. Therefore, theconstruction of a railway embankment is likely to have anegligible impact on groundwater flow, even thoughsome compaction of soft sub-surface layers may occur.

8.5.4 Surface Water Interaction

Groundwater levels in the vicinity of Portion 480 areclose to or at the surface. Any modifications to thelimited surface water drainage would have an impact onthe groundwater. Where significant ponding of wateroccurs, there is likely to be a higher groundwater levelthrough a longer period of the year. Conversely, wheredrainage works are constructed, groundwater levelsmay be lower than currently experienced.

8.5.5 Contamination

The most serious threat to groundwater quality isthrough the interaction of groundwater and surfacewater where potential acid sulphate conditions arepresent. It is unlikely that drainage works associatedwith a railway embankment would lead to acid watergeneration, as drainage will mainly affect surface waterflow. Of a much greater threat is the excavation ofcanals and lakes associated with adjacent residentialand other developments. Formation of acid conditionsin these bodies of water from groundwater releasedfrom acid sulphate soils may occur. This could theninteract with the groundwater along the margins ofPortion 480 through interchange of water.

A potential for groundwater contamination wouldalways be present from the rail operation. This wouldinclude spillage of lubricants from constructionequipment, trains and service equipment, as well asleakage from sewerage and waste water at the railwaystations. In the event of a railway accident, largerspillages of lubricants could occur. It is understood thatthe railway would only operate passenger trains andtherefore there would be no risk of more seriouscontamination from spillages from goods trains. Theuse of herbicides to control weeds along the railwayline could allow contaminants to enter the groundwatersystem.

8.5.6 Conclusion

The groundwater system in the Portion 480 area is notused for potable or irrigation use. No existinggroundwater users south of Bells Creek or in theGolden Beach and Pelican Waters residential areaswould be impacted by the railway corridor due to thehydraulic isolation of groundwater by Bells Creek,Lamerough Creek and proposed lakes at PelicanWaters.



Groundwater in the aquifer comprising shallow alluvial,estuarine and swamp deposits over weatheredsandstone basement is considered an essentialelement in maintaining the integrity of the wetlandenvironment as the water table is close to, or at thesurface for much of the year. There is little lateralgroundwater flow due to the flat nature of the landscapeand therefore the water balance is dominated byrainfall, surface flows and evapotranspiration.

Major modifications to the water balance have alreadyoccurred or are planned in the surrounds, with theconstruction of drainage in the pine forest andexcavation of canals and lakes at Golden Beach andPelican Waters.

Clearing of a strip of wetlands for a railway wouldreduce evapotranspiration and generate more runoff.This would tend to cause more surface waterloggingunless provision is made for drainage. However,excess drainage runs the risk of lowering thegroundwater table and causing generation of acidsulphate affected water. Sections 8.8 and 8.9 of thisChapter provide details of the hydraulics and wetlandhydrology of this area. The mitigation measures inrelation to drainage that are proposed to ameliorateconstruction of the rail alignment are also given in thesesections.

The proposed installation of piles for viaductconstruction through this area is not considered likely tointerconnect groundwater of varying quality orpressures.

8.6 Terrestrial Ecology

8.6.1 Future Without the Scheme

The following activities may occur in this section in thenext 10-15 years and may or may not have an effect onthe ecology of the area:

q In the Beerwah State Forest, forestry activities willcontinue, DPI would have no intention to vary theland use on any of the sites.

q The pine plantation on the Caloundra Downsproperty east of the Bruce Highway will be clearedin 2003 regardless of what happens with CAMCOS.The future use of the land after this activity is stillunknown and is dependent on the Informal LandUse Investigation currently being undertaken for thesite by Lensworth;

q It is anticipated that the proposed National Park(portion 480) would be designated by 2011;

q Pelican Waters development will be completed;q Bells Creek Arterial could potentially be constructed

to Pelican Waters if CAMCOS didn’t go ahead.The timing of this would be dependent on trafficvolumes on certain roads in the area exceeding settraffic volumes;

q Caloundra City Council will be reviewing options forCaloundra Aerodrome with current leases due toexpire in 2014.


8.6.2.1 National Parks

The railway alignment runs to the south of proposedNational Park (NP) Lot 480, and passes close to thesouth-eastern corner before curving up to the north.The line itself would not be within the NP at that point,but the 20m minimum clearing area along the linewould extend approximately 4m over that corner. Verylittle clearing would be likely to be required in that areaand direct impacts should be negligible.

Some 800m of line would pass through the north-eastern corner of Lot 480, leaving the Pelican Waterssite at the location of the proposed Bells Creek ArterialRoad, and veering to the north-east off Lot 480,towards the old Caloundra landfill site. The originalalignment of this northern section was further to thewest, nearer to Caloundra Aerodrome, but the preferredalignment results in slightly lesser impacts upon theecological values identified in this area, as more of itlies within the Caloundra landfill site and less in theheathland and eucalypt forest areas to the west.

The section of the preferred alignment through themelaleuca forest would be on viaduct so as to minimisethe construction footprint and clearing around the lineshould be limited to a 20m wide band. This clearingwould involve an area of some 0.8ha of the melaleucaforest. The alignment would not be of viaductconstruction through the eucalypt forest between themelaleuca forest and the former Caloundra City landfillsite, so the clearing would be extended to a 40m wideband, and would involve the disturbance of some 1.6haof the forest.

8.6.2.2 Rare & Threatened Species

Flora

At least seven species of rare, threatened or otherwisesignificant flora are known or likely to occur withinhabitat affected by this section of the alignment. Therequired clearing in SA24 would result in the removal ofan area of suitable habitat for E. conglomerata and P.spinulosa, while in the Bells/Lamerough Creeks area,clearing would include areas of habitat for B.grandiflora, A. attenuata, A. baueri, Phaius spp. and S.scabripes. It is unknown for certain whether specimensof each of these species would be directly affected bythe clearing for the rail alignment, but it is consideredlikely that some could be affected.



Fauna

Eleven species of rare, threatened or otherwisesignificant fauna are known or likely to occur withinhabitat affected by this section of the rail alignment.Clearing for track, access and safety requirementswould result in the removal of suitable habitat forWallum Rocketfrog (Limnodynastes freycineti), WallumSedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis), Wallum Froglet(Crinia tinnula), Eastern Tiger Snake (Notechisscutatus), Elf Skink (Erotoscincus graciloides), Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus), GreyGoshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae), Lewin’s Rail(Rallus pectoralis), Swamp Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurusglypticus), Sword-grass Brown (Tisiphone abeonarawnsleyi) and the Painted Skipper (Hesperilla picta).

Suitable habitat areas for Elf Skink, Eastern TigerSnake, Sword-grass Brown and the Painted Skipperare highly restricted in extent and distribution within thearea (west of the Bruce Highway). Removal of limitedhabitat associated with railway development maysignificantly increase their vulnerability to localextinction. Acid frogs, particularly the WallumSedgefrog, are sensitive to changes to habitat andwater quality.

The degree of impact to the remaining suitable wetlandhabitat between Bells (north branch) and LameroughCreeks would be largely dependent on minimising thepotential to alter local surface water hydrology andquality. A mounded construction through this area(Bells Creek north branch to the dam west of PelicanWaters Estate; wetlands south of Lamerough Creek toCaloundra landfill site) would have been likely to resultin a longer term adverse impact on the health andvigour of these wetland habitats and conditions for rareand threatened species than would viaducting thissection of the alignment. Construction of the railwayline on viaducts through this area is predicted (Lawson& Treloar, pers comm. 1999) to have no significanteffect on either the peak water levels or the averagewater levels in the wetlands associated with Bells andLamerough Creeks, and overall impacts to hydrology inthese areas are therefore expected to be minimal. Thisis the construction method, which would be used fromBells Creek to the Pelican Waters dam/borrow pit, andagain across Lamerough Creek and its associatedwetland areas.

Areas of wetland habitat would be separated from themain wetland area by the railway line in the Bells Creekarea (south of the line) and the Lamerough Creek area(east of the line). Viaduct construction through theseareas should also help to minimise disturbance to theconnectivity of habitat between the main wetland areaand those portions to the south and east.

Direct impacts to the habitat areas discussed abovewould be principally related to the clearing of some

4.9ha and 1.6ha (respectively) of vegetation from theBells and Lamerough Creek wetland areas.

8.6.2.3 Marine Plants

A small number of mangroves would need to beremoved/lopped on sections of Bells Creek, where theycurrently occur as a scattered fringe. As constructionwould be on viaducts across these waterways,specimens would be retained where possible duringconstruction, and it is expected that others would beable to grow under the railway line during the operationphase.

The impact on marine plants is therefore expected tobe minimal, but a permit would be required from theDPI for the removal/disturbance of any marine plant,prior to construction commencing.

8.6.2.4 Critical Nature Conservation Areas

The alignment passes through approximately 4.1km ofthe Bells Creek CNCA. As mentioned in section5.9.1.1, a large portion of this CNCA has been and isbeing cleared as part of the Pelican Waters sitedevelopment, but some of the central, northern andwestern portions of it remain largely undisturbed.

The western 1.5km (approximately - from the westernedge to the southern crossing of the Pelican Watersinternal waterway) of this would be through melaleucaforest wetland areas. This length would be constructedon viaduct to minimise the impacts (such as clearing)as well as to help maintain the existing hydrologicalregime across this wetland area. With this constructionmethod, a 20m wide band of vegetation would need tobe cleared, requiring the removal of approximately 3haof melaleuca forest within this section of the CNCA.

Between the southern and northern crossings of thePelican Waters internal waterway, the alignmentpasses through lands approved for intensivedevelopment on the Pelican Waters site. Much of thenative vegetation in this section has already beendisturbed by site activities, and it is expected that by thetime the rail line is constructed, the rest would havebeen removed, so the impacts of construction throughthis section (approximately 1.6km long) are likely to benegligible.

From the northern waterway crossing over LameroughCreek, some 500m of viaduct would need to beconstructed, to minimise the impacts to the crossingitself and the adjacent melaleuca forest wetland areasto the immediate north. This would require the removalof approximately 1.0ha of melaleuca forest vegetation.Beyond that wetland area, the alignment traverses aeucalypt forest area for the final 400m or so to theboundary of the CNCA, at the edge of the oldCaloundra landfill site. Approximately 1.6ha of eucalyptforest would need to be cleared to allow construction



and operation of the railway line in this section of theCNCA, as this section would be of embankmentconstruction.

Overall, construction along the rail alignment within theBells Creek CNCA would require the removal of some5.6ha of native vegetation - 4.0ha of melaleuca forestand 1.6ha of eucalypt forest.

8.6.2.5 State Forest Scientific Areas

The alignment passes through the north-western cornerof SA24 (a length of some 135m). This would requirethe clearing of an area of approximately 0.5ha alongthe alignment, and would excise an area ofapproximately 0.3ha, ie. the north-west corner of theSA separated from the main area by the railway line.

SA59 lies to the south of the preferred alignment, andwould not be directly impacted upon by the constructionof the railway line. Some indirect impacts would beexpected, however, from the disruption to the narrowlink between the SA and the lands associated with Alf’sHill to the north. Construction on viaduct pylons overthe vegetated link would help to minimise the disruptionand its associated impacts.

8.6.2.6 Endangered and Of Concern RegionalEcosystem Types

The original alignment passed through a patch of tallmelaleuca forest (RE 12.3.5) on the southern side ofClifts Break, lining Bellbird Creek. This would haveinvolved the removal of a substantial portion of thisforest patch, exposing much of the remainder to edgeeffects through increased light and weed invasion, andextending the existing disturbance present along CliftsBreak.

In order to minimise the disturbance to this RE, thepreferred alignment has been located to cross betweenthe two of concern RE remnants at the point of theexisting disturbance associated with Clifts Break. Whileat the same time this alignment minimises thedisturbance to SA 24 to the south, and maintains acurve radii through this section which achieves anacceptable (although less than desirable) train speed.An area in the order of 0.2ha of the southern patch oftall melaleuca forest would need to be cleared toconstruct the railway along the preferred alignment.Some edge effects to the adjacent parts would beexpected, but could be minimised by rehabilitationworks such as replanting of buffering species along themargin of the cleared area.

The alignment also crosses the eastern tributary ofMellum Creek, which is lined with a narrow band of E.racemosa open forest (equivalent to RE 12.5.3), apreviously wide-spread vegetation type, much of whichhas been replaced with pine plantations in this area.

The tributary crossing would require the removal of lessthan 0.3ha of this vegetation type.

8.6.2.7 Significant Wetland Areas

Three identified significant wetland areas would beaffected in this section, namely:

q Bells Creek Wetland (140);q Bells Creek North Wetland (139); andq Lamerough Creek Wetland (138).

The alignment would impact on each to varyingdegrees. For Bells Creek Wetland (140), there wouldbe a crossing approximately 65m long over a tributaryof the Bells Creek south branch, near the northernmostextremity of this wetland. It would require the removalof approximately 0.1ha of melaleuca forest in this area.

For Bells Creek North Wetland (139) also, thealignment would cross some 65m of wetland, this timeover the north branch of Bells Creek, requiring theremoval of an additional 0.1ha or so of melaleucaforest.

Lamerough Creek Wetland (138) would be moresubstantially affected by railway line construction, withthe alignment passing through some 2.5km of its area.This would require the removal of approximately 5.1haof melaleuca forest and 0.7ha of heathland.

8.6.2.8 Riparian Vegetation

The proposed railway alignment would affect riparianvegetation along each of the creeks and tributaries inthis section (Bluegum Creek, Bellbird Creek, anunnamed tributary of Bluegum Creek, Mellum Creek,an unnamed tributary of Mellum Creek and thebranches and tributaries of Bells Creek). Melaleucaforest was the dominant riparian vegetation type, withsome ecotonal forest to be affected along MellumCreek, and scattered mangroves in the lower estuarineareas along Bells Creek.

A band of vegetation 20m wide at the most would beaffected at each creek crossing, with only theconstruction areas themselves being cleared on thebanks, and a safety area cleared on either side toprevent trees falling on the overhead rail lines.

8.6.2.9 Significant Vegetation Types

The key areas of Priority 1 vegetation types in thissection are associated with:

q SA24;q The waterways (Bluegum Creek, etc); andq The wetlands (Bells Creek and Lamerough Creek).



Priority 1 Vegetation Area to beDisturbed

Heathland 2.8haMelaleuca 14.3haEucalyptus(E.racemosadominant)

0.4ha

Ecotonal 0.3ha

8.6.2.10 Areas of Regional and /or Local Fauna Value

The largest area of native fauna habitat occurs betweenBells Creek (north branch) and Caloundra Aerodrome(centred on Lot 480). Characteristics including its size,diversity of habitat types (eg. melaleuca and eucalyptforest, reed swamps & heath) and low level ofdisturbance provide important habitat for a highlydiverse fauna assemblage, including a number ofvulnerable, rare and regionally significant faunaspecies. Potential impacts to this area include loss ofhabitat, development of new edge environments,impediments to fauna movement, changes to surfacehydrology and water quality, and increased access forintroduced flora and fauna (including feral predators).

West of the Bruce Highway, a number of smallremnants support fauna habitat of highly restricteddistribution within the area (eg. dry heath andsclerophyll habitats within SA24, rainforest remnantsouth of Clifts Break and ecotonal habitat along MellumCreek). These patches of habitat are likely to support adiverse range of fauna including a number of locallyuncommon species and species groups (eg. TreeSkink, rainforest birds, butterflies).

The construction of the rail alignment would result inthe following impacts:

q Further fragmentation and size reduction, increasededge habitat and increased access for weeds andferal predators within already small remnants andwould increase pressure on their capacity tocontinue to support a diverse fauna and specieswith specialised habitat requirements. Remnants ofparticular concern are the SA24, the melaleuca andrainforest remnant adjacent to Clifts Break;

q Removal of locally uncommon habitat typesincluding dry heath south of Mt Alpha;

q Riparian/wetland habitats associated with Bellbird,Blue Gum and Mellum Creeks which are likely tosupport diverse reptile and frog fauna including rareregionally uncommon species such as the Lewin’sRail and Eastern Tiger Snake; and

q Severance of linear habitat features which are likelyto create potential barriers to fauna movementbetween suitable remnants of fauna habitats.

8.6.2.11 Bushland/Wildlife Corridors

Whilst the development of the rail alignment mayimpact directly on fauna by reducing habitat, theresultant cleared and modified environment may also

present a potential barrier to fauna movement. Theinhibition or prevention of dispersal of fauna may leadto the isolation of populations and potential for localextinctions and a reduction in the value of conservationareas due to a restriction on gene flow between areas.The extent and nature of the so-called “barrier effect” ofrailway lines and their easements on movement ispoorly understood, though it is proposed that the size ofan organism and its level of mobility and behaviouralflexibility are likely to be the primary determinants ofhow a species perceives the scale of patchiness in itsenvironment. Thus for larger ground mammals,clearing for construction may represent less of animpediment than for a smaller species. The routewould also be fenced creating a barrier to manyspecies, particularly macropods which are appear to becommon throughout the local area.

Provision of suitable access across the route would beessential to allow for ground movements betweenhabitats for such species. Landscape features such asBellbird, Blue Gum, Mellum, Bells (south and northbranches) and Lamerough Creeks and associatednative riparian vegetation are likely to providesignificant opportunities, possibly the only opportunities,to allow for fauna movement between habitatsseparated by a cleared and fenced environment. Theextent to which ground movement is likely to beimpeded would be influenced significantly by theconditions associated with structures employed in thecrossing of these areas (eg. ambient light levels,vegetation cover, structure length, width and breadth).Small, dark environments within culvert structures areunlikely to provide favourable conditions for regularground fauna movements.

The construction of the railway would also result in theseverance of a narrow strip of heath which linkseucalypt forest at Mt Alpha and a melaleuca/heathmosaic in SA59 to the south. The latter forms part ofthe upper catchment of Bells Creek (south branch).The continuity of native vegetation cover to the south-east has previously been disturbed by the developmentof the Bruce Highway.

8.6.2.12 Broad Nature Conservation Areas

The majority of lands traversed by the railway withinthis area have been designated as part of a BroadNature Conservation Area (BNCA). These areintended to be multiple-use areas, which provide:buffers around Critical Nature Conservation Areas(CNCA); linkages between natural landscape features;and maintain biodiversity. Construction of the railalignment would, in broad terms, place an addedpressure on the capacity to achieve the intendedobjectives for the area by:

q Increasing the current levels of native habitatfragmentation, particularly within the area betweenBells Creek (north branch) and Caloundra Road;



q Increasing potential impediments to faunamovement and further disruption to natural linkageslimited to along Bellbird, Blue Gum, Mellum, Bellsand Lamerough Creeks; and

q Adding to the existing processes, which threatenthe values of buffers around the CNCA west ofPelican Waters Estate.

8.6.2.13 Local Council Protected Areas

The alignment would affect Environment Protectionlands on Lot 480, and Open Space lands on the oldCaloundra landfill site and Rotary Park site.

8.6.3 Response

8.6.3.1 Compensatory Habitat

It is difficult to mitigate the effects of loss of significantecological areas associated with the construction of therail alignment. However, a common practiceundertaken by transport authorities and othergovernment departments elsewhere in Australia andaround the world is to investigate the acquisition ofareas outside of the corridor that exhibit at least equalconservation value in compensation. To showcommitment to this best practice principle, acompensatory habitat policy of was investigated forsignificant ecological areas affected as a result of thisstudy. The wording of the policy (taken from the projectTerms of Reference in Appendix A) is given below:

“Investigate a no net loss policy for significantecological areas. This would involve:

q Investigating and identifying areas of at least equalconservation value which could be acquired byQueensland Transport to compensate for the lossand/or degradation (including edge effects) ofnative remnant vegetation within and adjacent tothe transport corridor;

q Demonstrating through the findings of existingstudies and/or best practice flora and fauna surveywork and ecological assessments, that the areaidentified for compensation is of at least equalconservation value than the area beingcleared/degraded;

q Investigating and identifying areas which could berehabilitated to an at least equal conservation valuethan the area to be cleared or degraded as a resultof the transport corridor; and

q Investigating options for varying the width of thecorridor reserve to protect areas of highconservation significance.”

In consultation with the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), the implications of this policy for theproject and Queensland Transport (QT) have beeninvestigated in detail.

QT received Crown Law advice on this matter inrelation to the Department's powers to acquire land fortransport purposes under the Transport Planning andCoordination Act 1994 (TPC). This act gives theDepartment the power to take land for purposes thatare collateral or subsidiary to that purpose. Forexample, land may be taken not only for the corridorbut also for stations, car and bus parks and roadcrossings that may be essential for the construction andoperation of a railway line. That is, they are incidentalto the primary purpose.

Section 25(3) of the TPC sets out some particularpurposes for which land may be acquired. Section23(3)(c) provides amelioration of negativeenvironmental effects associated with transportinfrastructure. Crown Law's advice is that the purposeof this section of the TPC is to enable the Departmentto acquire land to assist in reducing the directenvironmental impact of the corridor. This mightinvolve the construction of a noise barrier or provisionof a buffer between the corridor and surroundingresidences to reduce the adverse impacts of noise ordust emissions.

Crown Law's advice is that the acquisition areas ofcompensatory habitat or Critical Nature ConservationAreas (CNCA) is not for a purpose incidental to thecorridor as they are not needed for the primary purposeof a corridor and may not be contiguous to or evenproximate to the corridor.

In conclusion, based on Crown Law advice received byQT, their interpretation of the legislation is thatcompensatory habitat areas are not able to bepurchased under the Transport Planning and Co-ordination Act 1994. However, with the co-operation ofQT, the Environmental Protection Agency are pursuingthis matter further to achieve an outcome that involvesa whole of government approach to this issue. It isanticipated that the issue of purchase of land incompensation for loss of significant ecological areaswill be resolved prior to the commencement ofconstruction of the CAMCOS project.

8.6.3.2 Other Issues

Minimising clearing within the required “safety clearingzone” along the railway lines is recommended. Thiszone is the area either side of the railway lines whichwould be required to be maintained free of trees and/orother objects likely to be able to fall on or otherwisedamage the power lines associated with the train lines,or the train lines themselves. This is recommended tominimise the disturbance to the existing nativevegetation in this section and the subsequentdegradation to habitat and other ecological values ofthe area.



It is envisaged that measures, which would beundertaken to minimise clearing in these areas, wouldinclude:

q Lopping of trees within the clearing zone, inpreference to completely removing them;

q Retaining the low-growing vegetation layers (shrub-layer and ground-layers) except for areas wherefurther clearing is absolutely essential; and

q Where clearing must occur during the constructionphase, avoiding bulldozing (or otherwise clearingcompletely to ground level) - at most, slashing ofexisting vegetation layers should be undertaken, sothat the diversity of native plant species retained ismaximised, and that maintenance slashings be asinfrequent as possible, to maximise the habitatvalue of those areas.

In areas where the alignment passes through relativelyintact areas of disturbance-sensitive vegetation types,such as melaleuca forest and rainforest/ecotonal forestareas, buffer plantings along the exposed forest edgesis recommended, to minimise edge-effect impacts tothe remaining forest areas. Such plantings shouldinclude appropriate native understorey species such asthose present within the remaining forest area itself.They should be planted at the forest edges at a level ofdensity, which would provide adequate protection to theforest environment in terms of shading, weed inhibitionand microclimate control in general.

Fencing of the rail easement within wetland/ riparianareas should be avoided in order to reduce disruptionto fauna movement. If fencing is required within areasof remnant vegetation, mitigation strategies shouldinclude:

q Avoidance of fencing waterway/riparian areas. Iffencing is a requirement in these areas, it should beinstalled on the outer top-side of the bridgingstructure and not at ground level; and

q Provision of small breaks in the fence (eg. minimum600mm) at intervals of up to 200m may lessenimpact on larger mobile species such asmacropods.

At creek crossings the riparian zone, clearing would berestricted where possible to lopping of taller trees, withcomplete-to-ground clearing avoided. Separatecrossings for access tracks would not be constructed,as access would be able to be gained to the crossingarea from both sides of all creeks. Additional crossingsfor access tracks at each viaduct crossing site would beconsidered to be an unnecessary additionaldisturbance to the fragile riparian systems.

The design of the rail alignment to date has been suchthat it has incorporated specific design features to aid inthe mitigation of both direct and indirect effects onecological features. These features include provision ofthe following.

q A total of 2.2km of viaduct though the regionallysignificant wetlands associated with Bells andLamerough Creek; and

q Increased length of nearly all waterway crossingsin this section to allow for movement of fauna.

Waterway crossings and wetland areas would beviaducted to reduce impacts on wetland/riparianhabitats (eg. melaleuca remnant south of Clifts Break,Bellbird, Blue Gum, Mellum & Bells and LameroughCreeks) and be long enough to incorporate a dry landriparian component to allow movement of non-aquaticfauna. They would also be designed to minimise theconstruction footprint on habitat for significant species(eg. melaleuca remnant south of Clifts Break) andreduce disruption to habitat connectivity (eg.waterway/riparian habitats). These structures shouldsupport an ambient light environment underneath whichcan sustain a healthy ground cover of nativevegetation. Areas immediately adjacent to either sideof a bridge should be maintained so as to support bothnative ground and shrub cover.

The development of waterway crossings also creates ahigh potential for on-going impacts on downstreamaquatic/riparian fauna habitats resulting from theerosion of disturbed and unconsolidated soils, thesubsequent transportation downstream, andsedimentation of aquatic/riparian fauna habitats. Theperiod of greatest potential impact is likely to coincidewith heavy summer rainfall events (eg. November-January) which are typically the optimum breedingopportunities for the majority of frog fauna, including allrare or threatened species known or likely to occur inaffected aquatic/riparian/wetland habitats. In order tominimise potential impacts, implementation andmaintenance of rigorous soil and water managementstrategies must ensure that environmental flows,quantity and quality of water exiting the crossing site issufficient to protect downstream fauna habitat values.

Access of introduced fauna into larger remnant areassuch as Lot 480 may be facilitated by easementclearings. Minimising access of introduced fauna isproblematic. Maintenance of dense ground covervegetation, minimising vehicle access tracks andperiodic maintenance of these with a slashed groundcover rather than hard surfacing may assist. An on-going feral animal trapping program should beundertaken within the rail easement lands, which adjoinsensitive areas such as Lots 480. The dumping ofrubbish within natural areas is often associated withunrestricted vehicle access. In order to reduce theincidence and extent of rubbish disposal and theintroduction of weeds, access to vehicles should berestricted via locked gates.



8.6.4 Assessment of Effects

The following table describes the assessment of effectsof the scheme (with proposed mitigation) on terrestrialecology on this section of the route.

Table 8.6.4: Assessment of Ecological Effects - Beerwah to Caloundra Road Section

Significance of ImpactArea Severe Major Moderate Minor Not

SignificantSA 24 MajorBellbird Ck MajorBluegum Ck tributary. ModerateMellum Ck ModerateMellum Ck tributary. MajorDam Not

significantMt Alpha/Alf’s hill Not

significantSA59 Not

significantBells Ck Sth. Branch MajorBells Ck N Branch tributary MajorBells Ck wetlands SevereLamerough Ck wetlands SevereCaloundra Aerodrome MinorRotary Park - Caloundra landfillsite

Moderate

8.7 Aquatic Ecology


Potential impacts associated with this section of theproposed route with respect to aquatic fauna relate tothe crossings of Coochin, Mellum, Bells andLamerough Creek systems. As noted in the section5.9.2, these creeks are known, or likely, to contain all ofthe fish species listed as having conservation statusrecorded during the preparation of this report.

The proposed waterway crossing methodology wouldresult in the loss of some riparian vegetationassociated with the development of the railway (seesection 8.6). This loss has the potential to impactaquatic communities by altering the macro-environmentat the vicinity of the crossing (eg shading, alteration ofstream flow characteristics).

There is a significant potential for system wide impactsduring the construction of the railway infrastructure dueto the disturbance and subsequent transportation ofsediments in and about the route construction area.These sediments may enter the respective waterwaysin surface runoff, resulting in increased sedimentloadings to the waterways and subsequentdeterioration in water quality.

Many of the fish species recorded from the waterways,including those of conservation status are known to besusceptible to increased suspended sediment loadings(McDowall 1996). Impacts to the species can result asa direct effect (eg. reduction in gill efficiency) or as asecondary effect by altering habitat suitability (eg.smothering of food resources, removal of aquaticvegetation).

The impacts on water quality have the highest potentialto directly effect areas downstream of the crossinglocation. The records of species occurrence obtainedfor this study do not provide specific location details. Assuch, prior to construction phase, it may be prudent todetermine the location of the species of conservationsignificance, either based on field surveys or habitatpreferences. This information can then be used todetermine the relative sensitivity of areas with respectto stream flow direction and potential impacts, thusproviding a basis for the rigour of the EMP’s prepared(see Part C, Chapter 12)

During the construction of the railway, it would benecessary to construct bridge pylons and supportingfoundations. As such some works within the waterwaychannels will be required. This has the potential torestrict the movement of aquatic fauna by theplacement of construction materials across waterways.

As discussed in the section 5.9.2, utilisation of thewaterways within this section of the proposed route by



traditional and/or recreational fishers would be verylimited due to the size and access difficultiesassociated with the creeks. Additionally, commercialoperations are not permitted in these areas. It isunlikely that access would be improved by thedevelopment during the construction and/or operationalphases due to the restricted access to the corridor.Existing access will remain. As such the impact of theproposal to the fishing sectors is considered notsignificant.

8.7.2 Response

Environmental Management Plans (see Part C Chapter12) in design and construction phases have beendeveloped for the clearing of vegetation. The clearingof the corridor, and in-stream construction activitieswould be kept to a minimum in order to mitigatepotential ecological impacts.

Due to the relatively narrow waterway channels at theproposed crossing locations, it may be necessary toconstruct fishways around the construction site tomaintain both a waterway for the passage of aquaticfauna and flow to downstream areas. The adherence tothe measures contained in the associated EMP shouldensure that the impact of restriction to fauna movementis mitigated. Adherence to these EMP’s shouldminimise the potential for any significant near field (ie.crossing location) ecological impacts.

8.7.3 Assessment

Given the corridor width at the crossing locations(maximum 20m), and the recommendations containedin the terrestrial ecology assessment (see section 8.6),the impacts at these locations are likely to be restrictedto the immediate vicinity of the crossing location (ie20m maximum section). As such, the impact upon thecreek system is likely to be minimal.

The loss of sediments into waterways associated withthis section of the route is to be minimised and carefullymonitored, as outlined in the associated EMP. Theassessment of the water quality impacts has indicatedthat whilst potential does exist for the project to have animpact upon water quality, standard site practices areavailable to minimise these effects.

The assessment of water quality impacts indicates thatthe impact of the operation of the railway will be minoradverse. Additionally, the vegetation and hydrologicalassessments indicate that the alterations to the existingenvironment will be minor. As such, the impact of thedevelopment upon aquatic fauna within these highlysignificant waterways (due to the presence ofconservation status species and protected areas),which is primarily dependant upon these factors, islikely to be minor.

Overall, assuming the recommended mitigationmeasures are implemented and adequately maintained,the impact to the aquatic ecology during theconstruction phase would be minor adverse.

8.8 Hydraulics

8.8.1 Introduction

Mellum Creek, Bells Creek, and Lamerough Creek, andmany smaller creeks and gullies that are tributaries ofthese major creeks are crossed by the route betweenBeerwah and Caloundra. The locations at whichdrainage structures are required are shown in Figures4.7.6a-f and 100 year ARI flood levels and discharges,and structure sizes are given in Table 8.8.1.

8.8.2 Mellum Creek

The Mellum Creek crossing is identified as BC4 onFigure 4.7.6a along with four other creek crossings inthe vicinity; Bellbird Creek (BC2); Bluegum Creek(BC1); and a tributary (BC5) of Mellum Ck. BellbirdCreek is a tributary of Bluegum Creek which itself is atributary of Mellum Creek, but the confluences of thecreeks are downstream of the route.

There are no known flood studies in this area so it wasnecessary to establish a RORB hydrological model todetermine the 100 year ARI discharges at the route andat the Bruce Highway 4km downstream. It was notpossible to establish a hydraulic model along thissection because only 5m contours were available andhence approximate methods were used to determineflood heights.

There was no data available to allow calibration of theRORB model. Therefore, the following parametersrecommended in Australian Rainfall and Runoff(IEAust, 1987) were adopted:

q kc = 0.88 A0.53

q IL = 0 mmq CL = 2.5 mm/hrq m = 0.8

The 100 year ARI discharges are given in Table 8.8.1.

The following approximate methods were used toestimate the 100 year ARI flood levels.

q 100 year ARI flood levels were calculated along thenorth coast railway line using the ground surfaceelevation on railway plans and assuming ahydraulic gradient based on the 5m contours.These flood levels were then translated to the routeusing the same hydraulic gradient. The dischargesfrom the RORB model were used in this calculation.

q The recorded 1893 flood level on north coast railline was translated to the route using the samehydraulic gradient as above.



q The 100 year ARI flood level was calculated atBruce Highway using the hydraulic gradientadopted by Main Roads to calculate the 50 yearARI flood level. The flood level was translated 4kmupstream of the route using separately forcomparison, the Main Roads hydraulic gradient anda hydraulic gradient based on 5m contours. Thedischarges from the RORB model were used in thiscalculation.

These different methods gave a large variation in floodlevels at each of the creek crossings, although thelower values appeared to be too low compared with the5m contours. The highest flood level at each crossingwas adopted and rounded to the nearest metre.

Structure sizes were calculated assuming 150 mm ofafflux.

It is considered that the discharges calculated usingRORB are reasonable and hence the waterway areasare a reasonable estimate, but an uncertainty of no lessthan ±1.5 m can be assumed for the flood levels. Thewaterway areas in the existing north coast rail line areconsiderably less than calculated here possiblyindicating that the structures were sized using aconsiderably larger allowable afflux and/or for a lowerreturn period flood, or the RORB model isoverestimating discharges. The discharges calculatedusing RORB are consistent with discharges obtainedusing calibrated RORB models on similar sizecatchments in Queensland so it is considered that thedischarges and recommended waterway areas arereasonable. However it is recommend that this matterbe considered further when more detailed modelling isundertaken.

Consideration would be given at the detailed designstage as to the extent upstream of any increase in floodlevels and the likely impact. This comment is morepertinent to Bluegum Creek and less so to BellbirdCreek. Upstream of the route are residential andcommercial developments and the Glass HouseMountains Road and the North Coast Rail. It isconsidered that for a 100 year event any issues thatmay evolve could be overcome.

However, as stated in section 4.7.5 if the waterwayopenings are designed to pass the 100 year dischargewith an afflux of say 150mm, but the rail level is setabove the 100 year flood level, then floods of largermagnitude than the 100 year would cause increases inflood levels of greater than 150mm at the crossing andmay increase scour in the channel downstream.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of the Mellum Creek system ofwatercourses in floods up to the 100 year event.

8.8.3 Bells Creek

The route passes to the north of the Bells Creek southbranch but crosses the northern branch which onlybecomes a defined channel in the vicinity of the route.Upstream of the channel the creek system is a series ofdrains through State Forest and wetlands. The SouthBranch, like the North Branch, drains State Forest andsmall wetland areas. The South Branch itself does notcross the route, rather there are numerous smallcatchments which drain across the route (BC6 to BC10)into the wetlands and the channel itself.

Hydrologic and hydraulic information for the NorthBranch was obtained from the Pelican Waters EIS(Cardno & Davies, 1998). Cardno and Daviesmodelled a proposed arterial road (known as the BellsCreek Arterial) from Caloundra Road to approximatelyBells Creek on an alignment similar to the CAMCOSroute. A RORB model was used for the hydrologicmodelling and RUBICON for the hydraulic modelling.Cardno & Davies advised verbally that the RUBICONmodel has been converted to a MIKE11 model. Theflood levels at Bells Creek and Lamerough Creek at theroute are from the latest modelling and differ slightlyfrom those quoted in the Pelican Waters EIS.

A bridge length of 45m (76m2) and culvert area of8.3m2 are recommended in the Pelican Waters EIS forthe main channel (BC11) and overflow (BC12) of theNorth Branch respectively. It is stated in the report thatstructures were sized assuming 150mm afflux, but thevelocity through the bridge would be approximately3m/s which is high for 150mm afflux or alternatively asthe unrestricted stream velocity. Similarly the culvertarea appears to be too small to limit the afflux to150mm. Therefore the waterway areas recommendedin this report are larger than in the Pelican Waters EIS.

The Rational method was used to estimate the 100year peak discharges from the small catchments whichdrain across the route into the South Branch of BellsCreek. A runoff coefficient of 0.8 was adopted whichallows for future development of the catchment. Thetime of concentration (tc) was calculated using theequation recommended in Australian Rainfall andRunoff (ARR) for eastern New South Wales, thisequation was adopted for this study because it allowsfor a quick estimation of tc and of an accuracyacceptable for an IAS.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of the Bells Creek system ofwatercourses in floods up to the 100 year ARI event.

8.8.4 Bells Creek to Lamerough Creek (BC13)

In this region, there is a wetlands area on the upstreamside of the route. In the 100 year flood event, Cardnoand Davies found that there will be flow out of the



wetlands into the channel and lake system which is partof the Pelican Waters stormwater management system.

The Pelican Waters EIS recommends the provision of65m2 of waterway area between Bells Creek andLamerough Creek to maintain the existing flow regimeacross the floodplain. The culverts should be spacedacross the floodplain to minimise the concentration offlows. The route would cross a channel created for thetreatment of stormwater runoff from Pelican Waters.Cardno & Davies’ preliminary estimate of the waterwayarea of this crossing is 18 m2. On the basis of thisinformation the recommended waterway area for BC13has been rounded to 85 m2.Based on the 100 year discharge provided by Cardnoand Davies, 65m2

would be adequate to ensure thatflows are not concentrated into the Bells Creek orLamerough Creek crossing of the route. It isrecommended that further modelling be undertaken atthe detailed design stage as the existing modelling wasdone using limited survey information. Careful attentionshould be paid to ensure that the location of culvertscorresponds to existing flow paths.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of the Bells Creek toLamerough Creek floodplain in the 100 year ARI flood.Additional comments on the impact of the route on lowflows through the wetlands are provided in section 8.9.

8.8.5 Lamerough Creek (BC14)

Like Bells Creek, Lamerough Creek drains a wetland tothe west of the route. In larger floods the Bells Creekand Lamerough Creek floodplains would interactupstream of the route with the modelling indicating aflow to the north from Bells Creek to Lamerough Creek.Flood levels and discharges for the Lamerough Creekcrossing were obtained from the Pelican Waters EIS. Awaterway area of 55m2 was recommended in the EISfor this crossing. However, this would result in avelocity of approximately 4.5 m/s which would causesevere scouring of the creek, and a significant increasein the upstream flood level. A larger waterway areacalculated using an allowable afflux of 150mm isrecommended in Table 8.8.1 for this crossing.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of the Lamerough Creeksystem of watercourses in the 100 year ARI flood.

8.8.6 Caloundra Airport Catchment (BC15)

The Caloundra Airport and the catchment to the north-west up to Caloundra Road drain across the routeapproximately at the location identified as BC15 inFigure 4.7.6a. The peak 100 year discharge wascalculated using the Rational Method. A runoffcoefficient of 0.95 was assumed on the basis that thecatchment will be fully developed. The time ofconcentration was estimated using a standard inlet timeand times for pipe and channel flow given in QUDM.This method was considered to be of sufficientaccuracy for the purposes of this study. The dischargeand culvert area are given in Table 8.8.1. The culvertarea was calculated assuming an allowable afflux of150mm. It was not possible to estimate a flood level inthis region because there is insufficient topographicalinformation.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of this catchment in events upto the 100 year.

8.8.7 Duck Holes Creek (BC16)

Duck Holes Creek would pass under the route to theSouth and downstream of Caloundra Road. It has asits catchment a mainly industrial area to the North ofCaloundra Road. There was no recent hydraulic orhydrologic information available for this catchment.Therefore the Rational Method was used to estimatethe peak 100 year discharge. A runoff coefficient of0.95 was assumed on the basis that the catchment willin time be fully developed. The time of concentrationwas estimated using a standard inlet time and times forpipe and channel flow given in QUDM. The methodwas considered to be of sufficient accuracy for thepurposes of this study. Because of the proximity ofCaloundra Road and the industrial sites upstream ofthe route, the waterway area was sized assuming anallowable afflux of 100mm. It was not possible toestimate a flood level in this region because there isinsufficient topographical information.

The CAMCOS route would not significantly alter thehydrology or hydraulics of the Duck Holes Creeksystem of watercourses in floods up to the 100 yearARI event.

Table 8.8.1: 100 Year ARI Flood Levels & Discharges, andStructure Sizes - Beerwah to Caloundra RoadWaterwayIdentification

100 Year ARIDischarge (m-3/s)

100 Year ARIUpstreamFlood Level(mAHD)

Structure Size

BC1 85 27.0 65m2

BC2 55 29.0 45m2

BC3 55 23.0 45m2

BC4 255 23.0 200m2



Table 8.8.1: 100 Year ARI Flood Levels & Discharges, andStructure Sizes - Beerwah to Caloundra RoadWaterwayIdentification

100 Year ARIDischarge (m-3/s)

100 Year ARIUpstreamFlood Level(mAHD)

Structure Size

BC5 55 23.0 45m2

BC6A 23 17.1 18m2

BC6B 4 11.5 3m2

BC7 31 7.2 24m2

BC8 13 5.2 10m2

BC9 22 4.2 17m2

BC10 39 3.1 30m2

BC11 225 3.11 45m (76m2)*BC12 15 2.75 11.5m2

BC13 - - 85m2

BC14 250 3.0 190m2

BC15 40 - 30m2

BC16 100 - 100 m2

*Refer comment in text relating to Bells Creek bridge.

8.9 Wetland Hydrology

8.9.1 Modelling Results

The fully developed case includes the proposedCAMCOS route as well as the fully developed PelicanWaters Development as shown in their developmentplan.

Two options were investigated:

Option 1 - included only the proposed waterway areafor the Bells Creek and Lamerough Creek crossingswhich were 11.5m2 and 190m2 respectively. Thesepreliminary waterway requirements arose out of initialflood conveyance sizings as given in section 8.8.

Option 2 - included approximately 1km of viaduct on theBells Creek portion of the outlet.

The following table details the average 90th percentile(ie 90% of water levels are equal to or below this value)and peak water levels within the wetland for thedevelopment scenarios.

Table 8.9.1: Developed Case Statistics – Water LevelsDry Year (m AHD) Average Year (m AHD) Wet Year (m AHD)Developed1

Developed2

Developed1

Developed2

Developed1

Developed2

Average 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.5490th Percentile 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.60Peak 0.72 0.72 1.03 0.93 1.48 1.22

From the above results it is clear that the Option 1waterway area for Bells Creek is not adequate for thelarger runoff events (i.e. a peak of 1.48m AHDcompared with 1.24m AHD for the existing case).However, the inclusion of the viaduct provides anadequate waterway area, with no significant change inwetland hydrology predicted.

Detailed results are provided in the Appendices.

An important finding by the study is that major wetlanddrainage occurs both in the north, via LameroughCreek, and in the south, via Bells Creek, but, forsignificant periods, the wetland is continuous andinterconnected between these two drainage paths.

An area of concern is the future stages proposed forPelican Waters, in relation to the impact on the criticaldrainage paths. Drainage has already beensignificantly modified by the Pelican Watersdevelopment, and future stages show further fillingaround drainage paths, particularly of those toLamerough Creek.

It is observed in these plots that there is a slightdecrease in the peaks for the developed case. Thiscan be attributed to a loss in catchment area by PelicanWaters in the southern portion of the catchment, thusresulting in less runoff from this area into the wetland.



8.9.2 Conclusions

Based on the detailed investigation described in thisreport, it is concluded that:

q The hydrologic performance and characteristics ofthe wetland is complex, and depends on long termseasonal rainfall and drainage via restrictedoutlets;

q The wetland has already been significantly alteredby the Pelican Waters development; and

q Waterways sized on peak flood conveyancerequirements alone have the potential tosignificantly alter the hydrologic performance of thewetland, hence, larger openings arerecommended.

Additional long term monitoring of wetland water levelsis required to better understand its complexcharacteristics.

8.10 Water Quality


As outlined in section 7.4, the potential impacts to waterquality from the route would be highest during theconstruction phase. Areas exposed from theearthworks phase could contribute a high sedimentload to receiving waters, unless mitigated. Increasedsediment loads to the receiving waters (ultimatelyPumicestone Passage for this section of the route),would be undesirable due to the numerous adverseecological impacts which could occur. This couldinclude decreasing light penetration (which hasimplications for photosynthetic and respirationprocesses), reducing the suitable habitat for someaquatic species which cannot tolerate such turbidconditions and reducing the aesthetic appeal ofwaterways. Siltation of the waterways may also occur,which can smother aquatic submerged macrophytes(which stabilise creek banks) and benthic fauna.

A smaller potential impact to water quality arises fromaccidental spillages of materials associated with railconstruction (eg. fuel, lubricants etc.) during theconstruction phase. These materials could cause waterquality degradation in downstream waterways, if notprevented from entering waterways.

During the operational phases, potential water qualityimpacts from the railway line are smaller than duringthe construction phase, with railways having only aminor potential for water quality impacts. Someincrease in pollutant loads from the railway track mayresult, including some oils and greases and possiblyherbicides (used to keep the tracks weed free). Thepotential for large hydrocarbon or pollutant spillagesduring the operational phase would also be small, asthe railway would be electric and no large quantities offuel or freight would be conveyed along the route.

During the operational phase of the railway, pollutantsmay accumulate on the carparking areas during dryperiods and be washed into downstream waterwaysduring subsequent runoff events. Depending on thepollutants accumulated, water quality degradation andadverse impacts to aquatic flora and fauna may result.section 7.4.2 details the runoff characteristicsanticipated from carparking areas, with increasedheavy metal and hydrocarbon loads likely, unlessmitigation measures are installed.Such impacts have the potential to affect the waterquality of the immediate receiving waters and ultimatelyPumicestone Passage. As detailed previously,Pumicestone Passage contains a Fish Habitat Areaand currently receives unsustainable pollutant loads(Willing and Partners et al., 1993).

8.10.2 Response

The potential water quality impacts from the railwayconstruction and operation would include the followingmeasures.

8.10.2.1 Best Practice Sediment and Erosion ControlMeasures

Providing best practice sediment and erosion controlmeasures are implemented and maintained during theentire construction phase, the potential impacts towater quality would be minimised. Such best practicesediment and erosion control measures would includethe provision of sedimentation basins, flocculation ofbasin discharges, minimising exposed soil areas anddiverting upstream runoff from exposed areas. Moredetail on the sediment and erosion control measuresrecommended for the construction phase of the railwaywould be determined at the design stage of the project.It has been recommended that sediment and erosioncontrol measures be designed to effectively treatevents up to a one in one year average recurrenceinterval, which is the largest event which can bepractically treated with best management measures.

8.10.2.2 Treatment of Track Runoff by Vegetated Swales

It has been recommended that runoff from the railwayand access tracks be directed into vegetated swales tofilter runoff prior to it flowing into vegetated areasand/or waterways. Natural topography and drainagefeatures would be utilised to direct runoff into thevegetated swales, and native vegetation would beretained for this purpose, where possible.

8.10.2.3 Minimise and Manage Herbicide Application

It is recommended that the application practices of anyherbicides are carefully controlled, with no excessherbicide applied. Herbicides which have beendesigned to minimise potential water quality and faunalimpacts, by degrading rapidly to harmless by-productsare recommended.



8.10.2.4 Treatment of Carpark Runoff

Best practice mitigation measures recommended toreduce the load of pollutants from carparking areasprior to entering receiving waters include:

q Inclusion of sediment removal structures, such asContinuous Deflective System or CDS units, atmajor stormwater outlet points. Sediment removalunits (such as CDS’s) are capable of removing 95%of all gross pollutants (ie litter and coarse sediment)from stormwater (Cargill R., July 1997). Theseunits are also effective for removing hydrocarbonsfrom stormwater runoff;

q Inclusion of vegetated swales, where possible, tofilter minor runoff flows prior to discharge fromcarparking areas;

q Regular sweeping and maintenance of carparkingareas to minimise the accumulation of pollutants incarparking areas; and

q Oil interceptors.

8.10.3 Assessment

In the Beerwah to Caloundra Road section of therailway, all waterways crossed are tributaries ofPumicestone Passage, an important waterway whichcurrently receives unsustainable pollutant loads (Willingand Partners et al., 1993).

As the current pollutant load to Pumicestone Passageis unsustainable, further increases to the waterway(and its tributaries) should be prevented, whereverpossible. In the context of the proposed railway, bestmanagement practices would be adopted to minimisethe loss of sediment from construction areas. Suchbest practice sediment and erosion control measureswould include the provision of sedimentation basins,flocculation of basin discharges, minimising exposedsoil areas and diverting upstream runoff from exposedareas. More detail on the sediment and erosion controlmeasures recommended for the construction phase ofthe railway would be determined at the design stage ofthe project.

During the operational phase, runoff from carparkingareas at stations would be the largest potential waterquality impact, as the railway route itself has potentialfor only minor effects on water quality. Mitigationmeasures for the carparking areas (see also section7.4) would ensure pollutant loads from carparking areas

are minimised and only minor increases, if any, inpollutant concentrations would result in receivingwaters.

Overall, assuming the recommended mitigationmeasures are implemented and adequately maintained,the water quality impacts during the construction phasewould be moderate adverse (based on the waterquality assessment criteria outlined in section 4.6). Thepotential impacts to the highly significant waterways areable to be successfully mitigated. During theoperational phase, the impacts would be minoradverse, based on only a minimal potential forincreased pollutant loads to nationally significantwaterways.

8.11 Cultural Heritage

8.11.1 Future Situation Without the SchemeIt is a preference among Cultural Heritage consultantsand those working with archaeological sites, particularlyAboriginal sites, that such sites be left undisturbed. Anumber of reasons can be attributed towards thisincluding issues of protection and ownership byAboriginal groups.

Within the area of the proposed corridor a problem stillexists in terms of management of cultural heritage, ifthe scheme does not go ahead. The area is still zonedto be impacted upon by considerable development wellinto the next millennia.

As these sites have been identified through the IASprocess for CAMCOS, should the scheme not go aheadit is recommended that QT inform the relevant Shirecouncils as to cultural heritage matters, so thatmanagement of these sites can be absorbed back intothe responsibility of the Shire.


Sections of land where cultural heritage is not apparenton the ground surface have been included in thefollowing list of sites and impacts. These are areaswhere natural parameters such as high points, plus thelocal geomorphological conditions indicate theincreased probability of sites being present in the sub-surface. In addition, areas of high ethno-botanicalimportance have also been included.

SiteNumber

Site Type Impact Assessment

S1 Jinkers Tree No impact, outside of proposed corridor.

S2 Silcrete flake One artefact was located north of the proposed scheme, more material ispredicted to be associated with this find but it is not likely that the corridorwould impact on it as it is located some 200m to the south.

S3 Flaked piece A small single silcrete flake was located. It is possible more flakes could belocated although an extensive search was undertaken during field work. Noimpact predicted as the route is over 300m south of this find.



SiteNumber

Site Type Impact Assessment

S4 Quarry site Historic extractive site located in CSR land. Would not be directly impactedupon by construction activities.

S5 High Point Sandy bank along a tributary of Bells Creek would be impacted by the corridor.

S6 Possible scarredtree

No impact, outside of proposed corridor route

S7 Scarred tree No impact, outside of proposed corridor route




S11 Midden No impact, outside of proposed corridor route

S12 Fringe Camp,Duck Holes

Direct impact through western side of Rotary Park.

8.11.3 Response

SiteNumber

Site Type Response

S1 Jinkers Trees No response needed.S2 Silcrete flake Monitoring during construction activities.S3 Flaked piece Monitoring during construction activities.S4 Quarry site No response needed.S5 High Point Monitoring during construction activities.S6 Possible

scarred treeNo response needed.

S7 Scarred tree No response needed.S8 Scarred tree No response needed.S9 Scarred tree No response needed.S10 Scarred tree No response needed.S11 Midden No response needed.S12 Fringe Camp,

Duck HolesNegotiations with Richard Dalton line as to mitigation plans. Monitoring through thearea recommended. Plaque to be erected on site describing the Aboriginal historyof the area.


SiteNumber

Site Type Significance

S1 Jinkers Trees NoneS2 Silcrete flake NoneS3 Flaked piece NoneS4 Quarry site NoneS5 High Point Minor AdverseS6 Possible

scarred treeNone

S7 Scarred tree NoneS8 Scarred tree NoneS9 Scarred tree NoneS10 Scarred tree NoneS11 Midden NoneS12 Fringe

Camp, DuckHoles

Major Adverse



8.12 Noise and Vibration


8.12.1.1 Construction Noise and Vibration

The main construction activities on Beerwah toCaloundra Road section of the railway route would be:

q Construction of a viaduct over Glass HouseMountains Road, Forestry Road and BruceHighway;

q Clearance of a corridor through the Beerwah StateForest;

q Construction of a bridge over Mellum Creek;q Construction of a bridge over Bells Creek;q Construction of a railway embankment through

mainly flat terrain not subject to flooding orcontrolled by culverts;

q Construction of viaduct over an area near PelicanWaters Development due to potential flooding andareas of ecological significance; and

q Construction of a railway station at Pelican Watersand Caloundra Road.

The main sources of noise during the construction inthis section of the route would be the noise from thetree-felling activities (chainsaws, grinders andbulldozers) and earth moving activities (large trucksand embankment compaction equipment). Theconstruction of the viaducts and bridges would producenoise from the use of earth moving equipment,concrete trucks, cranes, compressors, generators, andpiling equipment.

Most of the Beerwah to Caloundra Road section of theproposed route is currently free of residentialdevelopment. The only residential developments in thissection of the proposed route are residences in thevicinity of the Beerwah Railway Station and residencesat the Golden Beach/Pelican Waters area of Caloundra.Existing noise levels in the Pelican Waters area (seeTable 5.13b, section 5.13) indicate a quiet residentialarea with background noise levels ranging from 34 to42 dB(A). Levels in Beerwah area were higher, rangingfrom 41 to 60 dB(A), due mainly to natural noise fromthe nearby forest, with some local traffic. Constructionnoise would cause temporary loss of amenity for noisesensitive places with noise levels varying, dependingon the type of activities being undertaken and theirproximity.

Vibration levels due to construction activities areexpected to be generally very low and would typicallynot be perceptible at the nearest residential locations.The activities which would tend to create the highestlevels of vibration would be piling, rock breaking (ifrequired), and vibrating compaction equipment. If thiswork is expected to occur within 25m of residencesthen vibration may become perceptible and monitoring

would be undertaken in accordance with the EMP toaddress any concerns residents may have regardingthe activities.

8.12.1.2 Operational Noise and Vibration

It has been assumed that the average train speed onthe railway section from Beerwah to Caloundra wouldbe 125km/h at the curve on the exit of Beerwah stationand 140km/h until just before the Pelican Watersstation.

In this section of the proposed railway line the EPP(Noise) planning criteria would be met at a distance of32m from the centre-line of the track along most of theroute where the railway line is likely to be built on acompacted soil embankment. In areas with concretebridges, the noise would be higher and the noisecriteria would be met at a distance of 42 metres fromthe centre-line of the track (see Figures 8.12.1a &b).

In the area just south of the Pelican Waters Station, thetrain speed would be reduced to an average of 100km/h. As a result, the predicted noise level would belower and the EPP (Noise) planning criteria would bemeet at a distance of 22m from the centre-line of thetrack on embankments and at a distance of 27 metreson concrete bridges and viaducts.

In this section of the proposed corridor there are noareas where the EPP (Noise) planning criteria would beexceeded. In spite of this, the operational noise levelswould be greater than the Noise Indicator Levels atnoise sensitive places in the densely developed areasnear Beerwah station (where the nearest propertyboundaries are 65m from the railway line centre-line).It is of note that the implications of elevatingGlasshouse Mountains Road over the CAMCOS routenorth of Beerwah has not been assessed in detail.

Considering likely future residential development in thissection of the route, it is likely that some of theproposed developments in Pelican Waters area may becloser than 200 metres from the centre-line of theproposed railway line. If the noise emissions from thetrains used at the time of the construction are the sameas the current noise emissions, it is likely that somenoise sensitive places in Pelican Waters couldexperience noise levels higher than the Noise IndicatorLevels.

Vibration levels due to electric passenger trains passingresidential areas are not expected to be perceptible tobuilding occupants.

In addition to the electric passenger trains,maintenance work forms part of the operational noiseassociated with the rail lines. Most maintenancevehicles are powered by diesel motors and are fittedwith exhaust silencers and in some cases acousticenclosures are installed around the engines to minimise



noise. While this will reduce the noise, the primaryoperations of tamping, grinding, ballast screening andplacement are often noisier and are more difficult totreat. These operations are performed onlyoccasionally and hence are not considered to representa significant noise impact.

Railway stations for this section of the route areproposed at Beerwah, Pelican Waters and CaloundraRoad. The two potential sources of noise from thestations are public address (PA) systems used forannouncing train information to passengers, andvehicle noise associated with passenger set-down andpick-up and carparks.

Beerwah Station and Caloundra Stations are intendedto ultimately have approximately 150-300 and 300-600car parking spaces respectively. Noise would begenerated by car movements in and out of the stationand around the car parking areas. Pelican Watersstation is only likely to have 20-30 car parking spacesand is not considered to be a significant source ofnoise.

8.12.2 Response

During construction noise mitigation measures wouldneed to be implemented (as specified in the EMPChapter 12). Provided such noise mitigation measuresare implemented the impacts from the constructionactivities would be able to be controlled to minimise thelevels at noise sensitive places.

Personal Address systems at stations would bedesigned to minimise noise to neighbours whilemaintaining speech intelligibility for passengers on thestation platform. Design considerations include the useof directional loudspeakers aimed along the platformand spaced close together (eg. 15m) to allow thesource level to be reduced. Modern systems alsoinclude the use of an automatic gain control circuit tocontrol the level of automatic train announcements.

Noise impacts at Beerwah and Caloundra Road stationcar parks would be minimised by arranging thecarparks to be accessed as directly as possible viabusier roads. Where carparks are directly adjacentnoise sensitive places, noise barrier fences may needto be erected to reduce intrusion from noise and carheadlights. This would be assessed at the detaileddesign phase.


During operation of the railway between Beerwah andCaloundra no noise sensitive properties would besubject to noise levels exceeding the EEP (Noise)planning criteria. This is considered to be a moderateadverse effect.

8.13 Forestry

8.13.1 Future Without the Scheme

With respect to the DPI Forestry land, if the CAMCOSproject did not go ahead, the plantation areas would beused for continuing crops in perpetuity for use inQueensland. DPI F would not vary the land use on anyof the sites as the State forest is critical to maintainingtimber resources in the region.

The Caloundra Downs Informal Land Use InvestigationAssessment Team is fully cognisant of the CAMCOSproject and the proposed route alignment. Any futureland use scenarios proposed for the area will thereforetake the route into consideration.


For harvesting purposes, DPIF requires that trees arelogged 1.5 tree lengths from the energised rail line.This means that through the State forest the total areathat needs to be cleared is a corridor 100m wide. Thisclearing distance is also required to:

q Provide a firebreak, which will both reduce thechance of bushfire ignition from the rail line andassist in protecting the rail line from damage fromapproaching wildfire; and

q Diminish the chance of falling trees at final harvestblocking or damaging rail infrastructure andassociated power lines.

The route alignment would result in the isolation of anumber of plantation units within the Bluegum Loggingarea. The following tables describe the amount ofproductive and non-productive land within the StateForest boundary that would be affected either directlyor indirectly by the rail alignment. The information wassupplied by DPI F at Beerburrum.

Compartment Site Index Planted Area of 1st

Rotation (ha)Area 2nd

Rotation (ha)Other Area

Bluegum 202 27.1 03/86 2.5Bluegum 14a 25.9 06/75 12Bluegum 15 26.4 06/75 4.25Bluegum 16a 27.0 06/75 4.5Bluegum 208 29.2 09/89 3.75Bluegum 209 30.0 07/89 2Bluegum 210b 26.4 08/87 4.5



Compartment Site Index Planted Area of 1st

Rotation (ha)Area 2nd

Rotation (ha)Other Area

Bluegum 211 Not assessed 11/92 1.75Bluegum 40b 25.1 05/71 3.5Landsborough10

30.5 07/91 12

Landsborough11

29.0 06/92 11

Scientific Area24

0.5

Roads crossed 0.4NativeVegetation

5.75

SlithersForgone

Est 10

TOTALS 47.25 14.5 16.65TOTAL AFFECTED AREA (ha) 78.4

DPI F requires that internal roads are all “throughroads” for fire management purposes. With respect toaccess roads within the forestry compartments anumber of haul roads would be severed.

8.13.3 Response

Generally the rotation cycle for plantation crops withinthe State Forest is over a period of 30 years. It isanticipated that at four of the Bluegum loggingcompartments planted in the early and mid 1970’s (seetable above) would be able to be harvested before therail line was constructed.

In terms of compensation for the early harvesting ofparts of other compartments and also for the loss ofproductive land that can be harvested, DPIF would beseeking an equivalent area of land outside of the StateForest to be purchased. DPIF have already identifiedparcels of land that are currently on the market andthese negotiations would occur between QueenslandTransport and DPIF once the project has beenapproved by the Minister. This land would need tohave the same demonstrated productivity as the landlost to CAMCOS to be able to match growth capacities.

A number of haul roads would have to be relocated toallow forestry operations to continue. A road parallelingthe north and south side of the corridor is required toallow access to most compartments.


The loss of productive forestry land within the StateForest is not considered to adversely affect overallforestry operations given that the mitigation measuresgiven above are implemented.

8.14 Landscape

8.14.1 Introduction

The landscape analysis has focused on those areasthat have been identified by the Consultants andthrough the public consultation process as being ofconcern to local residents. Within this section of theroute the following locations are assessed.

q Beerwah where CAMCOS leaves the North CoastRail line and Glasshouse Mountains Road isrequired to bridge the rail line.

q Crossing the Bruce Highway.q Bells Creek/Pelican Waters.q Caloundra Road crossing where the rail line is

proposed to be taken over the road on a highviaduct structure.


8.14.2.1 Glass House Mountains Road Crossing

The crossing at the Glass House Mountains Roadwould be a grade separated elevated structure (see).The bridge would be viewed primarily from the Figure8.14.2a road by car occupants as they travel toward thestructure. Whilst crossing the bridge (which would beon a bend in the road, people travelling on the roadwould have an uninhibited view down the length of thecleared corridor through the forest area.

The bridge structure itself is a relatively elegant andslimline form which, despite the grade separation, ispositioned below the line of the adjacent tree canopyand therefore would not protrude into the skyline. Thealignment and design of the bridge promotes visualabsorption of the structure within the surroundingdensely vegetated landscape environment.

A visual impact would only be realised when crossingunderneath the bridge, when, at this point, the full



extent of the cleared 100m wide corridor through theState Forest would become apparent.

As the rail corridor passes through the areas of StateForest and private pine plantation it would not be visibleto the small number of residential areas in this section.

8.14.2.2 Bruce Highway Crossing

An elevated bridge structure is proposed to cross theBruce Highway, some 2km from the Bells Creek Roadturnoff (see Figure 8.14.2b). The structure is set belowthe canopy line of the heavily forested surroundinglandscape. The main view points for this structurewould be from the Bruce Highway.

The area through which the alignment traverses ischaracterised by a densely vegetated landscapeassociated with the Beerwah State Forest, whichframes the Highway. As a consequence, the slimlineform and scale of the elevated structure would bereadily absorbed into the surrounds.

8.14.2.3 Bells Creek/ Pelican Waters

Through the Bells and Lamerough Creek wetland areasto the east of the Bruce Highway the rail alignmentwould be on a viaduct structure. West of PelicanWaters as the alignment turns northwards it would beconstructed on an embankment. In this location itwould be located some 200m from the nearestresidential property and would either not be visible ornot be an intrusive feature in the landscape.The area surrounding Pelican Waters has already beensignificantly impacted as a consequence of thedevelopment of the residential estate.

8.14.2.4 Caloundra Road

At present the Caloundra Road skyline is dominated bya plethora of signs and overhead wires includinglighting poles and telephone wires. The CAMCOScorridor through this area is an elevated bridgestructure that would cross the road at a particularlyvisually cluttered point in the road (see Figure 8.14.2c).

Due to the visual clutter that dominates the urban roadenvironment, the elevated bridge structure would bereadily absorbed into the surrounds and barely visiblefrom a distance. The structure itself represents anopportunity to rationalise and tidy up the signage andvisual clutter within this precinct. Road signs may beattached to the parapet detail of the structure whilstcentral mounted signage systems at the ground levelmay provide greater visual organisation of signageinformation.

8.14.3 Mitigation

8.14.3.1 Glass House Mountains Road

Mitigation for the Glass House Mountains Roadcrossing would involve edge planting with lower shrubplanting within the corridor to soften the edges so that itblends more with the existing environment.

8.14.3.2 Pelican Waters

At Pelican Waters there would be ample opportunity tomitigate against any adverse views through the creationof a landscape buffer. In fact an area of open spacehas been designated east of the proposed alignmentwhich could be planted to screen any adverse filteredviews from the residential development.


8.14.4.1 Glass House Mountains Road

The slimline form of the Glass House Mountains Roadcrossing ensures that the road overpass would haveonly minor adverse effects and a localised visualimpact upon the surrounding landscape when viewedfrom the road corridor.

8.14.4.2 Bruce Highway Crossing

The structure crossing the Bruce Highway would utiliseunobtrusive materials and colours and may create avisual relief and reference point along the otherwiseuniform landscape along the Bruce Highway. Theimpact of the crossing is considered to be minoradverse.

8.14.4.3 Bells Creek/Pelican Waters

With the proposed mitigation the visual effect of thealignment at Pelican Waters would be considered to benot significant.

8.14.4.4 Caloundra Road

In visual terms the crossing of the Caloundra Road isnot considered to significantly impact on the localenvironment which is already heavily cluttered andurban in nature. The impact is considered to be minoradverse.

8.15 Overall Effects

The corridor passes on embankment through the StateForest and majority of the Caloundra Downs property.Extensive viaducts are proposed through the regionallysignificant wetlands of Bells and Lamerough Creeks inorder to minimise impacts on these areas.



The route would not cause significant detrimentalimpacts on current land use planning for the area and itprovides significant potential for future transit orienteddevelopment opportunities at Beerwah, Pelican Watersand in particular Caloundra Road stations. Only minoradverse effects would be experienced on Rotary Parkand commercially owned properties in this section.Much of this section is currently free of residentialdevelopment. Consequently no noise sensitiveproperties would be subject to noise levels exceedingthe EPP (Noise) planning criteria. Only moderateadverse effects would result from anticipated increasesin noise levels in this section.

Minimal traffic disruption can be expected duringconstruction through careful planning and staging ofworks at the crossings of Glass House Mountains Roadand the Bruce Highway.

Additional hydrological and groundwater assessmentwork was undertaken in the Bells and LameroughCreek wetland areas to aid in the evaluation of impactsof the rail alignment on the regionally significantwetlands in this area (including the area of theproposed National Park). The results of thegroundwater study concluded that the impacts ofconstruction of the rail alignment would be minimal.The hydrological study of the wetlands confirmed thatthe area had already experienced significant adverseeffects due to the development of Pelican Waters andthat the inclusion of viaduct structures through theseareas would provide an adequate waterway openingarea with no significant change in wetland hydrologypredicted.

The most significant residual environmental effectsassociated with the proposed scheme in this sectionresult from impacts on ecological features. Severeadverse effects that are not able to be completelymitigated would be experienced with the construction ofthe rail alignment through the regionally significant Bellsand Lamerough Creek wetland areas located west ofPelican Waters. In addition, construction impacts onScientific Area 24, Bellbird, Mellum and Bells Creek areconsidered to result in major adverse effects.

A range of mitigation and offset measures have beenincorporated with the scheme to ameliorate theseimpacts such as:

q Inclusion of a compensatory habitat policy to offsetlosses of areas of ecological significance thatcannot be mitigated. The intent is that areas of atleast equal conservation value would be soughtwhich could be acquired and/or rehabilitated tocompensate for the loss and/or degradation(including edge effects) of native flora and faunahabitat within the public transport corridor.

q Specific design features to mitigate direct andindirect effects on ecological features including:

- viaduct structures through wetlands andother areas to minimise direct clearancerequirements, allow fauna movement andmaintain the hydrological regime; and

- wider bridge structures than required forpurely hydraulic reasons at creekcrossings to allow for maintenance offauna movement.

q Buffer planting along exposed forest edges; andq Measures to minimise additional clearing outside of

that required for safety reasons.

During the operation of the railway minor adverseeffects would result based on only a minimal potentialfor increased pollutant loads into nationally significantwaterways such as the Pumicestone Passage. Theoperational effects on aquatic ecology in this sectionare considered to be moderate adverse.

Major adverse effects would be associated with theconstruction of the proposed alignment and part ofCaloundra Station on the Aboriginal Fringe camp atDuck Holes Creek. It is understood that these effectswould be satisfactorily mitigated through consultationand negotiation with the Undumbi people and thedocumentation and illustration of the history of this site.

In relation to effects on the existing landscape the keyimpacts in this section relate to newly proposed bridgecrossings north of Beerwah, across the Bruce Highwayand across Caloundra Road. In each case, given thelocal environment and the form of the structuresproposed only minor adverse effects are anticipated.

The Environmental Management Plan in Part C,Chapter 12 takes forward all of the mitigation measuresproposed in this Part of the IAS report. It provides adetailed description of how those measures are to beimplemented to help achieve and maintain acceptablelevels of environmental impact during the design,construction and operation of the scheme.

Date post:	03-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phunghanh
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

8 BEERWAH TO CALOUNDRA - Home (Department of .../media/Projects/C/Caboolture to...Caboolture to...

Documents