: 0 %€¦ · by Mission Beach Cassowaries in their March 2011 presentation to CCRC; improved refuelling facilities; a wider and safer jetty; and Inclusion of shade at the end of

Clump Point EMP Final V1.01 12 Feb 2013 21

ATTACHMENT 6

Hydrographic Survey


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY EXTRACT – EXISTING CLUMP POINT JETTY Level Datum: AHD (LAT = AHD - 1.73m)



ATTACHMENT 7

EPBC MNES Report

















ATTACHMENT 8

Community Consultation Report


Cassowary CoastRegional Council

Report for Reconstructing ClumpPoint and Dunk Island Jetties

Consultation Report

March 2012

42/16680/46931 Reconstructing Clump Point and Dunk Island JettiesConsultation Report

This Reconstructing Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetties Consultation Report (“Report”):

1. has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for the Queensland Department ofTransport and Main Roads;

2. may only be used and relied on by the Project Team comprising QueenslandDepartment of Transport and Main Roads, Cassowary Coast Regional Council andGHD (“Project Team”);

3. must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other than the Project Teamwithout the prior written consent of GHD;

4. may only be used for the purpose of an internal project reference document by theProject Team (and must not be used for any other purpose).

GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to anyperson other than Transport and Main Roads arising from or in connection with this Report.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to theservices provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated toapply in this Report.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report:

were limited to those specifically detailed in section 1.2 of this Report;

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptionsmade by GHD when undertaking services and preparing the Report (“Assumptions”), including(but not limited to):

information provided by stakeholders and members of the community duringconsultation has been recorded and no interpretation as to the meaning of anyinformation has been made.

GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising fromor in connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.

Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and anyrecommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewedat the time of preparation and may be relied on until 31 March 2012, after which time, GHDexpressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or inconnection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.


Contents

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Project scope 2

1.2 Scope of this report 2

2. Consultation undertaken 3

2.1 Activities 3

2.2 Key stakeholders workshop 3

2.3 Public information display 6

3. Consultation Outcomes 8

3.1 Stakeholder workshop 8

3.2 Follow up with stakeholders 11

3.3 Public information display 12

3.4 Correspondence and media 16

3.5 Correspondence and conversations 17

3.6 Summary of all issues raised 20

4. Conclusion 24

Figure IndexFigure 1: Dunk Island Jetty 1Figure 2: Clump Point Jetty 1Figure 3 Clump Point proposal by Dave Nissen 16

Table IndexTable 1 Consultation activities 3Table 2 Media articles 17Table 3 Correspondence and contact subsequent to the

Public Information Display 18Table 4 Summary of issues raised 20Table 5 Workshop invitees and attendees 27


AppendicesA Information sheetB Key stakeholders and workshop attendeesC Workshop notes – Clump PointD Workshop notes – Dunk IslandE Public display media advertisementF Public display postersG Media articlesH Correspondence received

i

Executive Summary

On 3 February 2011, Tropical Cyclone Yasi crossed the far north Queensland coast, devastatingcommunities in the Cassowary Coast Region. Cyclone Yasi and its storm surge eroded significant areasof the beach and foreshore reserves within the region, damaging jetties, footpaths, recreational facilitiesand the beach profile as well as undermining road infrastructure. The effects on the region wereextensive with the large scale destruction of resort accommodation, loss of tourism marine infrastructureand amenity, loss of backpacker trade due to the loss of banana industry jobs and the drop off in visitorsto the region. The jetties at Clump Point at Mission Beach and on Dunk Island sustained significantdamage and post cyclone assessments of infrastructure determined that the Clump Point Jetty was notviable long term and needed to be demolished and another facility constructed. The jetty at Dunk Island,while suffering significant damage to the decking and one section, was in better condition and could berestored.

On 15 April 2011 the Honourable Anna Bligh MP, Premier, announced a $15 million Special AssistanceFunding package for the Cardwell Esplanade, Clump Point Jetty and Dunk Island Jetty. Of the $15million special assistance package, $5.5 million was allocated to the Clump Point and Dunk Island jetties.The project will restore the Dunk Island jetty and reconstruct or replace the Clump Point jetty inaccordance with the requirements of the funder, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) to meetCassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) future planning requirements.

As part of option identification, assessment and selection, consultation was undertaken with stakeholdersand the community between October 2011 to January 2012. Ongoing consultation with somestakeholders is continued as the final options were determined. An initial stakeholder workshop was heldin Mission Beach to outline the scope of the project and to understand the needs and desires of thecommercial users. Following this, a public information display was held allowing members of the public,as well as stakeholders to view options for the reconstruction of the jetties and speak to members of theproject team. Both stakeholders and members of the public were able to continue to engage with theproject team through a 1800 phone number, a dedicated email address and Councils’ website. There hasbeen considerable interest from the local community, from commercial users, residents andenvironmental and conservation groups.

From the feedback received from stakeholders it is apparent that there is a division in the communitybetween the conservation and environmental interests and the commercial operators. It appears thatboth groups have in common a desire for a jetty with the following general features:

a “T” shape or “L” shape jetty with low level ‘landings’ and at least one floating pontoon (as proposedby Mission Beach Cassowaries in their March 2011 presentation to CCRC;

improved refuelling facilities;

a wider and ‘safer’ jetty; and

Inclusion of shade at the end of the jetty.

However, there appears to be some divergence within the community regarding wave attenuation and apotential marina. Commercial operators continue to lobby that some form of wave attenuation is required,whether that be a ‘floating’ breakwater, a fixed breakwater, wave screen, or another option. Othercommercial interests within the tourism sector are lobbying for a marina.

ii

While the funding constraints of this project do not provide for a pontoon or “L” or “T” shaped jetty head,the final design of the jetty will need to allow for further development should funding become available inthe future to provide these and any other desirable features.

There is considerably less interest in the jetty at Dunk Island with many people either not providing anycomment at all, or providing very limited comment. The main issues for consideration in thereconstruction of the jetty at Dunk Island is to ensure that it does not impede access to the beachthrough a gap in the rock shelf.

1

1. Introduction

The Cassowary Coast is a diverse region, covering an area of 4,701 square kilometres and is home toover 30,800 residents. It stretches from Garradunga in the north to Cardwell in the south with majorpopulation centres at Innisfail, Tully, Cardwell and Mission Beach. The region incorporates WorldHeritage rainforest areas, a number of islands, rugged ranges and fertile floodplains. The region’srainforests, tropical beaches and islands, and its close proximity to the Great Barrier Reef, make it apopular tourist destination. The coastal and marine environments are highly valued by residents of andvisitors to the Cassowary Coast Region, providing a focal point for recreational activities and tourism inthe region.

On 3 February 2011, Tropical Cyclone Yasi crossed the far north Queensland coast, devastatingcommunities in the Cassowary Coast Region. Cyclone Yasi and its storm surge eroded significant areasof the beach and foreshore reserves within the region, damaging jetties, footpaths, recreational facilitiesand the beach profile as well as undermining road infrastructure. The coastal and marine environmentsare highly valued by residents of and visitors to the Cassowary Coast Region, providing a focal point forrecreational activities and tourism in the region.

The effects on the region were extensive with the large scale destruction of resort accommodation, lossof tourism marine infrastructure and amenity, loss of backpacker trade due to the loss of banana industryjobs and the drop off in visitors to the region. Impacts from the cyclone and associated storm surgeswere particularly severe in the coastal areas of Cardwell and Mission Beach.

The jetties at Clump Point at Mission Beach and on Dunk Island sustained significant damage duringCyclone Yasi. Assessments of infrastructure undertaken after the cyclone determined that the ClumpPoint Jetty is not viable long term and needed to be demolished and another facility constructed. Thejetty at Dunk Island, while suffering significant damage to the decking and one section, was in bettercondition and could be restored.

Figure 1: Dunk Island Jetty Figure 2: Clump Point Jetty

In March 2011, Cassowary Coast Regional Council submitted “Marine Infrastructure, CardwellEsplanade & Water/Sewerage Assets” project to the NDRRA for special funding assistance.

2

On 15 April 2011 the Honourable Anna Bligh MP, Premier, announced a $15 million Special AssistanceFunding package for the Cardwell Esplanade, Clump Point Jetty and Dunk Island Jetty. The impetus forthis Support Package was to provide support to the Cardwell and Mission Beach communities to assistwith recovery and rebuilding efforts of vital infrastructure which would in turn boost tourism, recreationand provide benefits for the social and economic well-being of the community. Of the $15 million specialassistance package, $5.5 million is allocated to the Clump Point and Dunk Island jetties.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CCRC and Department of Transport and Main Roads(TMR) was developed for the provision of Project Management Services to deliver Council’s NDRRACategory D Special Funding Program (Cassowary Coast Support Package) and TMR’s NDRRACategory B Works Victoria Street (Bruce Highway) Cardwell. The overall project is referred to as theCEMIR project. As part of this MOU, TMR is working together with CCRC and the QRA to ensure acoordinated approach to the delivery of the Rebuilding Marine Infrastructure works, which involvesrebuilding Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetty.

The Clump Point and Dunk Island jetties support package is known by the community as “ReconstructingClump Point and Dunk Island Jetties”.

1.1 Project scopeThe objectives of the project are to:

Restore marine infrastructure to current engineering standards and where possible ensureinfrastructure is more resilient in future disasters;

Complete the reconstruction/replacement and restoration of the damaged marine infrastructureaccording to the schedule nominated by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and the State andFederal Governments as funding sources; and

Achieve demonstrated value for money.

The project will restore the Dunk Island jetty and reconstruct or replace the Clump Point jetty inaccordance with the requirements of the funder (QRA) and Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC)future planning requirements. Preliminary investigations have indicated that due to financial constraintsthe addition of pontoons, floating walkways, or other infrastructure to either the Clump Point or DunkIsland jetties does not fall within the scope of this project.

1.2 Scope of this reportThis report provides a record of consultation undertaken for the Reconstructing Clump Point and DunkIsland jetties project for the period October 2011 to 27 January 2012. It does not include consultationundertaken outside these periods.

The report is for the use of the Project Team only and is not to be distributed outside of the project team.

The Project Team comprises Transport and Main Roads, Cassowary Coast Regional Council and GHDPty Ltd.

3

2. Consultation undertaken

2.1 ActivitiesAn outline of activities undertaken is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Consultation activities

Activity and purpose Target Audience Timing

Media release and advertising Stakeholders and public November 2011

Stakeholder workshop Stakeholders 29 November 2011

Public information display Stakeholders and public 13 December 2011

CCRC website Stakeholders and public December – ongoing

Media release Stakeholders and public January 2011

Feedback from the consultation undertaken was collected through:

Recording feedback through the stakeholder workshop and public information display;

1800 number – 1800 993 234;

Project website – [email protected]; and

Postal address (CCRC postal address).

As part of the stakeholder workshop and public information display, an Information Sheet was developed.A copy of this is included in Appendix A.

An outline of the stakeholder workshop and public information display is provided in sections 2.2 and 2.3and the outcomes for all consultation are provided in section 3.

2.2 Key stakeholders workshopA workshop with key stakeholders identified by Council was held to kick-off the consultation phase of theproject. The objectives of the workshop were twofold:

To provide an understanding to key stakeholders of the scope of the project and the constraints,especially funding constraints that would restrict what could be provided; and

To understand from stakeholders what kinds of facilities and functionality was desired at eachlocation to consider during the project development.

A list of invited stakeholders along with those who attended is provided in Appendix B.

An outline of the workshop and material presented is provided below.

4

2.2.1 Welcome and Introduction

Mayor Bill Shannon welcomed everyone to the workshop before the program, aims and objectives wereoutlined.

2.2.2 Outline of Reconstructing Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetties

David Goodman provided an outline of the scope of the projects and the constraints of each. There wasalso discussion about the various options considered and why they were not pursued.

5

6

2.2.3 Group Sessions

Workshop participants were split up into 2 groups and were given 45 minutes to discuss the followingquestions regarding both jetties:

How was the jetty used before the cyclone?

What worked well?

What didn’t work that well?

Given the constraints of the project features should the jetty include?

Information was recorded on flip-charts. Photos of the flip-charts are included in Appendix C and D.

Outcomes from the workshop are provided in section 3.1. Those stakeholders that were unable to attendthe workshop were contacted afterwards and feedback sought via phone or emails. Feedback from thisis provided in section 3.2.

2.3 Public information displayA public information display was held at the Mission Beach Resort, Wongaling from 3.00pm – 7.00pmTuesday 13 December. At the meeting posters relating to each of the jetties were put on display andmembers of the project team were available to speak to the public about the project. A copy of the mediaadvertisement for the information display is included in Appendix E and the posters on display is includedin Appendix F.

A total of 36 members of the community, including many stakeholders attended. Many stayed for theentire duration of the display session. Outcomes from the workshop are provided in section 3.3.Attendees at the public information display included:

John Andy’s son from Girringun;

Liz Gallie from Mission Beach Cassowaries;

Mager Constructions;

Dave Nissen;

Nathan and Vanessa Mood from Mission Beach Dunk Island Water Taxis;

7

Alistair Pike;

Denis Daly;

Carla Grieve, The Tinnie Shack;

Wayne Kimberly (Mayoral Candidate); and

Maritime Safety Queensland Authority (MSQA) representative.

8

3. Consultation Outcomes

3.1 Stakeholder workshopA summary of the discussions held regarding the following questions is provided below:


What worked well?

What didn’t work that well?

Given the constraints of the project features should the jetty include?

Notes from the workshop are included in Appendix C and D.


Stakeholders identified the main uses and features of the jetties prior to the cycle.

Dunk Island JettyActivities/features of Dunk Island jetty included:

Private use was common due to the stairs down the side of the jetty;

Weddings on jetty;

Kids jumped off jetty;

Cod and groper fed from the jetty;

Fishing, bait could also be caught;

Dunk Island Resort hosted events on the jetty such a cabaret and comedy shows;

Recreational users used the jetty to load and unload items;

Used by both small and large commercial operators;

Was used by Captain Cook Cruises, Sea Swift;

Was used in the 1980’s by game fishing operators; and

Popular facility for boaties travelling up and down the coast.

Clump Point Jetty

Activities and features of the jetty on Clump Point:

It was used as a popular fishing spot by many users;

In the late 90’s it was used by a variety of large vessels for tourism operations to Dunk Island and thereef, this has dropped in recent years and just before the cyclone was only used by one largeoperator, the QuickCat;

Original jetty had a refuelling pipeline straight through, with a 20,000L tank across the road;

Jetty had tide gauge;

9

There was a barge using the ramp prior to it being done up; and

A lot of tourists used it as a viewing platform.

What worked well?

Dunk Island JettyStairs down the side;

Access to water and power on/near the jetty;

Area close to it was popular for campers and recreational users;

A mini bus or golf buggy could be driven down the jetty; and

Lights on the jetty.

Clump Point Jetty

Original concrete steps that are useful for small boat and yacht access;

Was good as a fishing platform;

Had power and lights;

Had freshwater and toilets nearby;

Little vandalism; and

A comment from one participant that nothing worked.

What didn’t work well?

Dunk Island Jetty

Not well positioned when there was a north-easterly wind;

Not connected to the mainland;

Wooden decking;

Fender piles easy to break;

Access changed with the tides; and

Needed a more protected location.

Clump Point JettyWooden decking;

Access plank not good in bad weather;

Couldn’t go on the jetty at king tide;

Jetty not high enough, solid deck needed;

10

Tie on boat – southern side (it is assumed this means that securing boats to the southern side of thejetty did not work well); and

Small boats can use because of the tide width (it is assumed this comment means that smaller boatshave a shallower draw than larger boats so can access the jetty for longer periods of time);

Can’t run a vehicle down;

Refuelling – fuel tank on a quad;

Old pipe system not up to current standard;

Too exposed for yachts;

Not ideal for larger boats; and

Fishers small boats from ramp.

Given the constraints of the project, what features should the jetties include?

Dunk Island Jetty

Access for canoes;

Pontoon or step down area for swimmers;

Access for barge to provide supplies from Clump Point;

Solid deck;

Lighting, water;

Rails for elderly and disabled access; and

Tide movement for smaller boats.

Clump Point Jetty

Needs to protected - floating breakwater or similar;

Needs to be designed for single level vessels, 8 x 30 foot vessels and a 60 foot vessel;

Live trout commercial fishers use the ramp – must include their needs;

Facilities for refuelling – 8,000 litre capacity max, 2,000 litre would be ideal;

A wider jetty is needed so vehicles and pedestrians can use it safely;

Wave barrier;

Better railing and provisions for child safety;

All weather access;

Car parking;

Interpretative signs – about turtles, dugongs;

Croc signage; and

Larger rubbish bins.

11

3.2 Follow up with stakeholdersFollowing the stakeholder workshop, those that were unable to attend were contacted to gain anyadditional feedback and to ensure that people were aware of the public information display on 13December 2011.

All those that were unable to attend were contacted and most indicated they would attend the informationdisplay.

Additional comments were recorded as follows:

Richard Blanchette, Tourism Industry Recovery OfficerThere is an urgency in getting the jetties repaired (didn't understand why this would take nearly twoyears);

Provision for refuelling needs to be include on the jetties;

Minimum jetty width of 3.5 metres to accommodate refuellling and pedestrian activity on the jetty (asdiscussed between himself and other operators); and

A shade structure is needed down the end of the jetties due to rain and heat.

James Neville-Smith, Castaways Resort

Mission Beach is the closest to the reef, closer than Cairns or Port Douglas. In the 1970’s PerryHarvey used to transport people to and from Dunk Island and the reef. Proximity to the reef was keyas vessels were slower;

The Clump Point jetty used to be a ‘legitimate’ piece of infrastructure and it was similar to otherinfrastructure in other areas;

As better boats with faster speeds were developed, proximity wasn’t such a consideration and theinfrastructure had a much larger role to play in people’s decision to go to the reef. Other areasimproved infrastructure – Cairns, Port Douglas, etc. Mission Beach didn’t so got left behind;

Mission Beach as lost its competitiveness as it is not attractive to operators;

Operators looking to invest are looking at the infrastructure that is available. They want to pull up to asafe area, refuel, re-stock food, clean vessels, etc and load and unload passengers with ease;

Clump Point jetty is now a piece of dated infrastructure that does not serve the purpose for which itwas originally intended. It is a ‘non-compliant’ piece of tourism infrastructure, ie it does not meet theneeds of the tourism industry; and

Mission Beach grew as a town when people were going to the reef and Dunk Island. It has been indecline for the past 2 decades and only investment in improved infrastructure and development willreverse that trend.

Glenn Murray, Commercial Fishers/QSIA

Main issue in the area is related to commercial fishers having to use the boat ramp to off-loadproduct; and

Commercial fishers can’t use the jetty.

12

Paul Fagg and Andrew Broadbent, DEEDIWork in the maritime development area;

Will not be able to attend any session, apologies;

Support new marine infrastructure; and

Please keep them informed about how the project is progressing.

3.3 Public information displayThe following is a consolidated record of the discussions members of the project team had withattendees at the public information display held on 13 December 2011.

3.3.1 Clump Point Jetty

Alistair Pike, Commercial Marine Operators Group, “Island Sports Fishing” Charter

No point building back skeletal jetty – will not be used by commercial users;

Preferred option is floating pontoon and jetty head (per CBOMB proposal);

Existing jetty designed for 10-year life until other solution was actioned (marina development?);

Will take protest action to stop the building like for like jetty (Alistair);

Variable height fixed platforms do not work (Alistair) – don’t want another Palm Cove ;

Not pushing for a marina (Alistair) but want safe place to operate; and

Noted that state funds were allocated earlier this year for preparation of a plan for the boat harbour,but nothing has been heard since.

Denis Daly, Chair of Commercial Boat Operators Group, “Fishin’ Mission” Fishing CharterOpposes the marina concept;

Only really interested in Clump Point Jetty;

Does not want a like for like replacement as far as a fixed structure is concerned;

Wants a floating wave barrier;

Does not want a like for like replacement as far as a fixed structure is concerned as this is not usablein anything other than calm conditions;

Currently available facilities mean that he currently refuels boat to boat. Not a good practice; and

Wants a floating wave barrier but conceded that this may not be robust after seeing the GHD options.

Mayoral Candidate Wayne Kimberly (also Hotelier from El Arish) and Carla Grieve, “TheTinnieshack” (Aluminium plate boat builders, Mission Beach)

Queried the need/cost to look at alternatives beyond the available funding;

Queried cost of works completed and whether it came from $5.5m;

Queried the funding for each jetty ($3.5m CP, $2m Dunk);

Queried who will make final decision on design (Council);

Queried showing options that could not be funded;

13

Preferred option was to include wide jetty head to protect vessels behind;

Understood that technical issues and cost were significant constraints;

Pleased that we would review CBOMB proposal; and

Would like work to proceed ASAP in the hope of stimulating business.

Nathan and Vanessa Moon, Mission Beach and Dunk Island Water Taxi

Can only use Clump point during calm weather;

In regards to Dunk island he is very keen on not spending any money on this and using all themoney;

Like Denis Daly’s idea for a floating pontoon at Clump Point, utilise the existing jetty piers for anchorpoints for the pontoon; and

Pontoon can be built at Mourilyan Harbour after components arrive from overseas – work for localeconomy.

Liz Gallie, Mission Beach Cassowary SocietyOpposes the rock wave barrier;

Very much liked the fixed wave barrier option;

Post cyclone there was a push from developers for a marina; and

Refer to Misson Beach Cassowary website for more informationhttp://www.missionbeachcassowaries.com/uploads/5/9/8/7/5987112/the_need_for_a_jetty_at_mission_beachweb.pdf.

Local CoupleUse the clump point jetty for fishing and this is their main source of food; and

Mentioned that they on many occasions have helped unload and onload passengers onto vessels invery dangerous conditions to help the operators.

Boating Safety CommitteeTold of bad stories relayed to them in relation to tourists getting on and off vessels;

Mainly interested with Clump point jetty; and

Understood that extra money was needed.

Maritime Safety Queensland Representative - Vinnie

Told how he is responsible for safety and that he is concerned about the current operations at ClumpPoint Jetty.

Mayor Shannon and Councillor Jennifer Downs

Thought the information provided helped clear some issues for the public; and

Mentioned there was a boycott from some members of the public (those that want a marina).

Dave Nissen, local long-time resident

Refer to sketched idea shown in Figure 3;

14

Has lived in Mission Beach his whole life, as do his kids and grandchildren; and

Cheap, easy solution is to build a structure off the end of the boatramp breakwater, allow for boats topull up on three sides, there will always be one side sheltered from the water and accessible.

General comments

Make the jetty more accessible for seniors and disabled – wheelchair ‘walks’, shore fishing, access tothe reef, jetty viewing. Lansdowne Lodge in Nova Scotia, Canada has total disabled access forfishing, etc;

The following can be seen from the jetties – manta ray, turtles, whales, dugongs, shovel nose shark,etc. Include signage so visitors (lots of backpackers from Tully) and kids can look and learn;

Concrete deck will allow for disabled and senior access for fishing off the jetty, also include shade;

Jetty is important from a social aspect, it is a meeting place, is great for building community relations;and

The jetty offers safe fishing (safe from crocs, there are crocs at the boatramp). People come fromCairns, Townsville, Babinda, etc for the safe fishing.

3.3.2 Dunk Island

Nathan and Vanessa Moon, Mission Beach and Dunk Island Water Taxi

Opening in rock shelf at Dunk Island will be partially blocked by angled extension;

Does not use the jetty at Dunk Island;

In regards to Dunk island he is very keen on not spending any money on this and using all the moneyon Clump point to get a sheltered berth. He didn't use the Dunk Is jetty anyway even when in use. Healso said that no-one uses the Dunk Is jetty currently as he transports all passenger's to the island.He thinks the new owner should pay for the Dunk Is Jetty if he wants to use it;

He uses the beach to onload and offload passengers. Depending on the wind direction he picks asheltered area to beach;

He beaches beside the jetty and any angled extension to the jetty will obstruct his landing area. If thisgoes ahead we may need to create a new channel through the rock outcrop;

He mentioned he is in the process of building a front loading vessel that only needs the beach. Hesaid that is all they do on Bedarra Is; and

Don’t have a jetty at Dunk Island since no one uses it, put all money into Clump.

Mayoral Candidate Wayne Kimberly (also Hotelier from El Arish) and Carla Grieve, “TheTinnieshack” (Aluminium plate boat builders, Mission Beach)

Queried the need/cost to look at alternatives beyond the available funding;

Queried cost of works completed and whether it came from $5.5m;

Queried the funding for each jetty ($3.5m CP, $2m Dunk);

Queried who will make final decision on design (Council);

Queried showing options that could not be funded;

15

Understood that technical issues and cost were significant constraints;

Pleased that we would review CBOMB proposal; and

Would like work to proceed ASAP in the hope of stimulating business.

Michael Johnson, Mager Constructions

Corprev did the protection and inspection of the Dunk Island Jetty in 2001; and

Mager Constructions did the refurbishment, including construction of the 3-span extension.

Dave Nissen, local long-time resident

Current beach landing vessels, esp the barge have created most of the sand movement at the spit.They remain running for the entire 2-hour period they are there and churn sand out behind themcreating a large hole. The sand migrates south around the spit; and

Need better landing facilities, management practices for the barge to prevent ongoing sand erosion.

General commentsBarge accesses the beach on the north-east side of the jetty, through a gap in the rock reefapproximately 5m from the jetty;

Move the whole jetty structure to the north-east to allow for the barge;

Option 1 is on a stable part of the split – it is solid rock. It would not need to extend so far into the spiteither; and

There can often be seen a resident Groper from the jetty.

16

Figure 3 Clump Point proposal by Dave Nissen

3.4 Correspondence and mediaDuring and after the formal stakeholder and public consultation events there have been a number ofmedia articles regarding the project, and correspondence received by post and email. Copies of mediaarticles are include in Appendix G and copies of correspondence received are included in Appendix H. Asummary of these is included below.

17

3.4.1 Media articles

Media articles have appeared in the Innisfail Advocate and the Cairns Post, in particular The WeekendPost. A summary of the articles is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Media articles

Date Media Summary

14 Dec 2011 Innisfail Advocate “Breakwall fight looms”

CBOMB promoting their option for a “floating breakwall” inassociation with a new Clump Point Jetty incorporating a large“T” section at the end. Bob Katter is also demanding morefunding to consider the breakwater option and not to waste the$5.5M funding “he” fought for. Response from Cr Downsrequesting Mr Katter find additional funds as the project isdelivering what we can with the funds available.

Dec 2011 Innisfail Advocate “Jetty funds fight”

CCRC calling on Bob Katter to work with the FederalGovernment to find additional funds to pursue furtherinvestigation of a breakwall as requested in the 14 Dec article.

21 Jan 2012 Cairns Weekend Post “Island is still ‘a war zone’”

Tourism operators took Opposition MP Bob Baldwin to MissionBeach and Dunk Island to show him the lack of progress incleaning up after Yasi. Plea for state and federal government to‘step’ up so tourism does not continue to decline in the area.

1 Feb 2012 Innisfail Advocate “Consensus on jetty need”

CBOMB, C4 and Indigenous representative agreement on anoption for rebuilding at Clump Point. Agreement comprises afixed ‘wharf’ either fixed or floating with a ‘T’ section at the endand tourist facilities on shore to replace those lost.

3.5 Correspondence and conversationsIn addition to the follow-up conversations and correspondence recorded in section 3.2, contact withstakeholders and other interested parties since the public information display is summarised in Table 3.Copies of correspondence are included in Appendix H.

18

Table 3 Correspondence and contact subsequent to the Public Information Display

Date Name and form ofcontact

Summary

15 Dec 2011 Liz Gallie

Mission BeachCassowary Society

1800 number phoneconversation

Interested in the Clump Point Jetty options from aconservation viewpoint. In the past there has been a pushfrom developers for a marina that she does not support.Requested a copy of the posters from the information displaythat are to be uploaded to Council’s website. Copies ofposters were emailed on 16 Dec 2011

20 Dec 2011 Boyd Scott, Scotty’sBeach House, MissionBeach

Email to TMR

Owner of Scotty’s Beach House accommodation in MissionBeach.

Acknowledgement of the constraints of funding. A plea tolobby/advise Council to seek addition funding to createimproved infrastructure to assist Mission Beach recover thetourism industry that used to thrive in the 80’s.

10 Jan 2011 Cynthia Francis

Email to CCRC

Internet article by the Mission Beach Cassowary Society“Marina by stealth”

Article prepared by Mission Beach Cassowaries regarding theoptions presented at the public information day, asserting thatenvironmental groups were not considered stakeholders byCouncil and not invited to the workshop.

Article incorrectly assumed options at the information daywere developed in response to consultation with stakeholders.Opposes all wave attenuation options and promotes a “T” or“L” shaped jetty with steps leading to a floating pontoon.

This article was widely distributed among the Mission Beachcommunity with a request to email CCRC to say that none ofthe proposals presented (including the option to replace thejetty) are acceptable.

10 Jan 2012 Richard Blanchette,Tourism IndustryRecovery Officer,Tourism Tropical NorthQueensland

Email to CCRC,DEEDI and others

A summary of CBOMB concerns raised at a meeting betweenRichard and Dennis Daly, CBOMB Chairperson on 21 Dec2011.

Main point is that the replacement jetties, mainly Clump Point,can function for all commercial operators with additionalimprovements in safety and refuelling practices.

The current proposal to replace like for like does not allowmost commercial operators to access the jetty without lowplatforms, pontoons, etc.

11 Jan 2011 Dominic Mobbs

Email to CCRC Mayor

Mission Beach Cassowary Society internet article “Marina bystealth” emailed to the Mayor.

11 Jan 2011 R Rudd

Email to CCRC CEO

Restore the jetties without ‘destructive alterations’ to the worldheritage marine area.

12 Jan 2011 Robert Jones

Letter to CCRC Mayor

Disappointed no conservation groups consideredstakeholders in the consultation. Implied that they were not

19

Date Name and form ofcontact

Summary

invited to participate.

Preference for the least expensive jetty option at Clump Point.

13 Jan 2011 Richard Blanchette,Tourism IndustryRecovery Officer,Tourism Tropical NorthQueensland

Email to CCRC

Further comments about Council’s response to the previouscorrespondence

Emphasising CBOMB position of not supporting a marina butwanting a facility that they can use. Reiterating that a “like forlike” structure cannot be used by most commercial operators.

Appreciate funding constraints of the project.

Request to ensure that whatever is built is part of a longerterm vision to provide a facility that meets the needs of thecommercial operators – ie a breakwater type protection andaccess to the jetty for smaller commercial vessels.

Request to continue engagement with CBOMB as animportant stakeholder.

18 Jan 2011 Neil Gallie, resident

Email

Perception that the options presented are for marina’s and nota jetty.

Comment regarding the “Mission Beach Safe Boat Harbour”website (http://www.missionbeachsafeboatharbour.com.au/)which is promoting a “marina” type development.

Also in part a ‘pre-written’ letter provided to the communityexpressing:

Concern about consultation process resulting in marinadesigns being presented as options to repair the ClumpPoint Jetty. Apparent lack of consultation with conservationgroups.

Urge for Council to protect world heritage values, andinclude conservation groups in any future consultation

Also included a link to information prepared by the MissionBeach Cassowary Society dated March 2011 headed “Call forupgraded jetty to meet boating needs at Mission Beach”

19 Jan 2011 Ian McCallum

Email to CCRC CEO

Despite interest, the list of stakeholders provided by Councildid not include “the environmental group concerned”.

The “environmental group concerned” is not specificallyreferred to, however it is assumed that it is the Mission BeachCassowary Society.

20 Jan 2011 Wendy Tubman, NorthQueenslandConservation Council,Coordinator

Letter emailed toCCRC CEO

Concern about marina type designs presented. Notes that acomprehensive assessment of options would be required.

Urge to take into account the view of the conservation groupsin the area.

20 Jan 2012 Tania Devereaux,resident of Garners

A ‘pre-written’ letter provided to the community expressing:

20

Date Name and form of contact

Summary

Beach

Email of letter to CEO Concern about consultation process resulting in marina

designs being presented as options to repair the Clump Point Jetty. Apparent lack of consultation with conservation groups.

Urge for Council to protect world heritage values, and include conservation groups in any future consultation

Also included a link to information prepared by the Mission Beach Cassowary Society dated March 2011 headed “Call for upgraded jetty to meet boating needs at Mission Beach”

29 Jan 2012 Solway Nutting

Email to CEO

Does not support any breakwater or wave screen option

Rebuild the Clump Point jetty to provide a more resilient structure.

Retain the natural environmental values of the area

29 Jan 2012 John Rainbird

Email to CEO

Does not support expensive breakwater or wave screen options

Replace the current jetty providing for safe mooring of small vessels and enables locals to fish from it.

Do not build a structure that places an increased financial burden on ratepayers and public.

3.6 Summary of all issues raised Table 4 provides a summary of all the issues raised during consultation and how these have to date been considered by the project team.

Table 4 Summary of issues raised

Issue Project response

Dunk Island Jetty

Provide a pontoon or lower level access for smaller commercial vessels, including canoes.

Options to provide lower level fixed platforms and/or floating pontoons are unable to be provided within the financial constraints of the project.

Move the whole jetty to the north-east to allow more room for the barge that lands at the beach through the existing gap in the rock shelf.

Further investigation will be undertaken during detailed design of the selected option to ensure that any proposed design does not impede access to the beach through the existing opening in the rock shelf.

The option 1 shown is on a solid part of the spit, the jetty extension does not need to extend so far into the spit.

Further investigation will be undertaken during detailed design of the selected option to ensure that any proposed extension to the jetty onto land will only be as long as it needs to be in order to be secured in the required geotechnical conditions.

21


The existing opening in the submerged rock shelf that provides vessel access to the beach is likely to be blocked by the proposed angled jetty extension.

Further investigation will be undertaken during detailed design of the selected option to ensure that any proposed design does not impede access to the beach through the existing opening in the rock shelf.

Solid deck. A solid deck is proposed for the jetty.

Lighting. It is likely that existing lighting at the jetty be reinstated.

Rails for the elderly and easier disabled access. Railings that comply with current safety standards will be provided.

Don’t need a facility at Dunk Island, it doesn’t get used. Boats ‘beach’ adjacent to the jetty. Spend all the money at Clump Point.

Consultation to date indicates that while some people do not use the jetty at Clump Point, a number of people still support the jetty remaining to provide access to Dunk Island.

Clump Point Jetty

Protection from storms with a floating breakwater, wave screen or similar to allow safe all weather access for vessels.

It is acknowledged that some form of wave protection would allow greater use of the jetty at Clump Point, however the financial constraints for this project do not enable this to be provided as part of this project. The selected option will be designed and constructed in a manner that allows wave protection to be provided in the future should funding become available.

In rough weather it is very dangerous to load and unload passengers – often members of the public on the jetty need to help.

It is acknowledged that some form of wave protection would allow greater use of the jetty at Clump Point, however the financial constraints for this project do not enable this to be provided as part of this project. The selected option will be designed and constructed in a manner that allows wave protection to be provided in the future should funding become available.

Where possible within the constraints of the project, the provision of fixed lower platforms will be considered to provide easier access.

Concerns for the safety of existing operations at the jetty, especially refuelling.

Refuelling facilities that comply with current standards will be considered during the design of the selected option.

Jetty can only be used during calm weather. It is acknowledged that some form of wave protection would allow greater use of the jetty at Clump Point, however the financial constraints for this project do not enable this to be provided as part of this project. The selected option will be designed and constructed in a manner that allows wave protection to be provided in the future should funding become available.

22


Include pontoons, lower platforms, etc to cater for single level smaller commercial vessels – 30ft.


Meet the needs of the live trout boat that currently uses the recreational boating ramp (and any other commercial fishers).

Consultation will occur with the commercial fishers to identify their needs and incorporate these within the design where possible.

Facilities for refuelling – suggested 2,000lt capacity would be sufficient.

Refuelling facilities with an approximate 2,000lt capacity, that comply with current standards, will be considered during the design of the selected option.

A wider jetty so both pedestrians and the refuelling quad vehicle can use the jetty safely at the same time. Minimum width of 3.5m suggested.

The width of the jetty will be increased.

Cater for people fishing off the jetty, as some locals use it as a regular food gathering place. There needs to be somewhere safe to fish – away from croc risk, especially for children.

Fishing will be able to be undertaken from the reconstructed jetty.

Railings that meet child safety requirements. Railings that meet current safety standards will be installed along the jetty.

Make the jetty accessible to disabled and seniors. Provide facilities that allow easy access for disabled and seniors to get on and off vessels so they can also access the reef and islands.

The jetty will have a solid deck which will provide easier access for disabled and elderly people.


It is however acknowledged that some form of wave protection would allow greater use of the jetty at Clump Point providing protection from adverse weather conditions. However the financial constraints for this project do not enable this to be provided as part of this project. The selected option will be designed and constructed in a manner that allows wave protection to be provided in the future should funding become available.

Concrete deck to make it easier for disabled and seniors.

The reconstructed jetty will have a concrete deck.

Carparking. Land-based facilities such as carparking are not included within the scope of this project.

The jetty is an important social meeting place for the community.

The reconstructed jetty can continue to be an important community focal point.

Interpretive signage about marine fauna. The installation of interpretive signage about marine fauna is not within the scope of this project, however should the community secure funding from other sources, Council and the community can work together to install appropriate signage.

23


Croc signage. Safety signage, including warnings about crocodiles will be installed at appropriate locations.

Large rubbish bins. The provision of rubbish bins is not included in the scope of this project, however the request for large bins is being considered further by Council.

Shade structure down the end of the jetty. Should funds permit, a shade structure will be included at the end of the jetty.

Reconstruction of the jetty in a similar form as it is at present will not be utilised as it does not meet the needs of the commercial operators (too high and can only be used in calm conditions).

The jetty will have a similar form to what existed before the cyclone, it will however be stronger and more resilient to potential future adverse weather events.

Floating pontoon and ‘T’ shaped end to jetty is needed to meet the needs of all commercial operators. Use the existing jetty piers for anchor points for a pontoon.

The funding constraints of the project do not provide the opportunity to substantially change the form of the jetty to incorporate a “T” head and floating pontoons. The jetty will be constructed in a way that allows for future development should additional funding become available in the future.

Variable height fixed platforms don’t work – refer to Palm Cove jetty which is not utilised.

The inclusion of variable height fixed platforms will be investigated further and discussed with commercial user stakeholders prior to being included in the final design. Should they not be supported, they will not be provided.

Build a structure off the end of the existing recreational boat ramp breakwater.

Current access and parking constraints at the Clump Point boat ramp, and the location of existing recreational boating infrastructure are considerable impediments to developing any additional infrastructure in this location. The ability to gain heavy vehicle and/or bus and coach access to the location is limited and would require considerable land-based development that is not within the scope of this project.

Oppose a marina concept. A marina is not within the scope of this project.

Oppose the rock wave barrier. A rock wave barrier is not within the scope of this project.

General comments

There needs to be urgency in getting the jetties repaired. Works need to proceed without delays.

Work is proceeding on the jetties in accordance with a program developed to meet the requirements of the QRA for completion by 30/6/13.

Mission Beach needs infrastructure that encourages commercial operators to come back to the area and re-establish.

A long term view to the development of infrastructure will be taken to ensure that what is constructed will resilient and able to be enhanced by further development in the future should funds become available.

24

4. Conclusion

From the feedback received from stakeholders it is apparent that there is a division in the communitybetween the conservation and environmental interests and the commercial operators. It appears thatboth groups have in common a desire for a jetty with the following general features:

a “T” shape or “L” shape jetty with low level ‘landings’ and at least one floating pontoon (as proposedby Mission Beach Cassowaries in their March 2011 presentation to CCRC

improved refuelling facilities

a wider and ‘safer’ jetty

Inclusion of shade at the end of the jetty.

However, there appears to be some divergence within the community regarding wave attenuation and apotential marina. Commercial operators continue to lobby that some form of wave attenuation is required,whether that be a ‘floating’ breakwater, a fixed breakwater, wave screen, or another option. Othercommercial interests within the tourism sector are lobbying for a marina.

While the funding constraints of this project do not provide for a pontoon or “L” or “T” shaped jetty head,the final design of the jetty will need to allow for further development should funding become available inthe future to provide these and any other desirable features.

There is considerably less interest in the jetty at Dunk Island with many people either not providing anycomment at all, or providing very limited comment. The main issues for consideration in thereconstruction of the jetty at Dunk Island is to ensure that it does not impede access to the beachthrough a gap in the rock shelf.

25

Appendix A

Information sheet

26

Appendix B

Key stakeholders and workshop attendees

27

Table 5 29 November 2011 Workshop invitees and attendees

Interest Group Organisation/Position Name Attendees

Traditional Owners Djiru People John Andy

Environment C4 - Community forCassowary Conservation Maurice Franklin

Environment CCRC Local Marine AdvisoryCommittee

Atalanta Willy and DavidToffler 2

Commerce/BusinessMission Business & Tourism &Mission Beach Visual AmenityAdvisory Group

Will Neville1

Commerce/Business Dunk & Bedarra ResortOwners David Henry

Commerce/Business Commercial Fishers/QSIA Glenn Murray

Commercial Operator Calypso Dive Andy Wright 1

Commercial Operator Mission Beach Dunk IslandWater Taxi Nathan and Vanessa Mood 2

Commercial OperatorDunk Island SportsFishing/Commercial MarineOperators Group

Alistair Pikeapology

Commercial Operator Chair of Commercial BoatOperators Group Denis Daly 1

Community GroupsAdvocate

Mission Beach Visual AmenityAdvisory Group Will Neville 1

Community GroupsAdvocate

Mission Beach CommunityAssociation Warwick Jull 1

Community GroupsSpecial Interest Mission Beach Boat Harbour Tony Lee apology

Community GroupsSpecial Interest

Mission Beach Game FishingClub Annette and Peter Treseder 2

Community GroupsSpecial Interest Safe Boat Harbour/Castaways James Neville-Smith

Community GroupsSpecial Interest Mission Beach Outriggers Club Graham Maifredi 1

Community GroupsSpecial Interest

Tourism Industry Recoveryofficer Richard Blanchette

Government Agencies Queensland Parks & WildlifeService John DeCampo

Government Agencies Department of Environment &Resource Management Mark Cavicchiolo

28

Interest Group Organisation/Position Name Attendees

Government Agencies DEEDI - A/Director, IndustryDevelopment and Innovation Paul Fagg Apology

Government Agencies DEEDI - Manager, ProjectFacilitation Unit, Brisbane Andrew Broadbent Apology

Government Agencies GBRMPA To whom it may concern apology

Government Agencies Cairns RegionalHarbourmaster - MSQ Brett Huxham 1

Government Agencies Manager (Planning &Infrastructure) Northern Ken McAndrew apology

Cassowary CoastRegional Council Mayor Bill Shannon 1

Cassowary CoastRegional Council Manager Strategic Planning Aletta Nugent


Coordinator Tourism &Economic Development Sheila Lawler


Chair Built EnvironmentSubgroup Cr Ian Rule apology


Chair Community RecoveryAdvisory Group Cr Jennifer Downs 1

Cassowary CoastRegional Council David Trotter 1

Project Team Project Director - CEMIR Dave Hamilton 1

Project Team Project Manager RebuildingMarine Infrastructure Stephen Day 1

Project Team TMR Communications Advisor Luke Chippindale 1

Project Team CCRC Communications Officer- GHD Julie Boucher 1

Project Team GHD Designer Arthur Ahiladellis 1

Project Team CCRC Manager Works Dave Goodman 1

Project Team CCRC Recovery PlanningOfficer Mel Fazackerley 1

Project TeamCCRC Manager Parks &Natural Environment –Community Engagement

Paul Devineapology

22

29

Appendix C

Workshop notes – Clump Point

30

31

32

33

34

Appendix D

Workshop notes – Dunk Island

35

36

37

38

Appendix E

Public display media advertisement

Have your sayThe preferred concept designs for the jetties will be determined after taking your feedback and technical input into consideration.To provide your comments or request further information please contact us.Free call: 1800 993 234* (8.30am-5pm Monday to Friday) *Free call from anywhere in Australia, call charges apply for calls from mobile phones and payphones.Email: [email protected]: Reconstructing Jetties P O Box 887 Innisfail, QLD 4860Or visit: www.cassowarycoast.qld.gov.au

Reconstructing Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetties -

Seeking public commentCassowary Coast Regional Council is working to deliver

the reconstruction of the Clump Point and Dunk Island jetties as

part of Operation Queenslander.

Operation Queenslander is the largest effort in Queensland’s

history, rebuilding communities, fixing infrastructure and

restoring regional economies after flooding and cyclone

events in 2010/2011.A public information display

will be held in Mission Beach, where the community is encouraged to drop in at

anytime to view plans and speak to members of the

project team.The information display will be held at:

Mission Beach Resort, Wongaling Beach Rd.Tuesday 13 December, 3pm-7pm

39

Appendix F

Public display posters

4500

5m

5m

40

Appendix G

Media articles

Innisfail Advocate, Wednesday 1 February 2012, Page 11

41

Appendix H

Correspondence received

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE - CBOMB position on Clump Point Jetty

Repository: 421668001 "Stage 1 Cardwell Foreshore Prof time"

From: Richard Blanchette [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 4:49 PMTo: Hitchings, OwenCc: Fazackerley, Melanie; Hamilton David ([email protected]); Paul Fagg; RobGiason; Jeff Gillies; Downs, Jennifer; Dennis Daly; Stephen Gregg; Chris NewsamSubject: Re: MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE - CBOMB position on Clump Point Jetty

Hi Owen,

Thanks for the follow up information and pleased to see David Hamilton in the loop on thissummary of CBOMB points.

My email was to share the position CBOMB have presented and explained to CCRC andconsultations.

It is important that this communication between CBOMB / CCRC / and consultants continuesand is transparent so that no mis-information or assumptions are made of their position.CBOMB have communicated their concerns and comments and these are documented soeveryone is aware of the minimum needs of any new facilities for local Marine businesses to beable to use them and for sustainable business practices. In addition, that there are alternativeoptions for breakwaters at far far less cost than that presented that should be explored now toensure necessary government approvals are gained now - with funding to be sourced at a laterstage for future construction.

From a recovery perspective I want to make it clear that that these operators are NOT sayingthey 'wont use' the Jetty, the are saying that they physically CAN NOT use the Jetty. That is90+% of the local Marine businesses that the current like for like direction wont assist and thatwill leave local businesses and jobs under duress. CBOMB have clearly stated to me that theyare NOT asking for a Marina - any opinions or assumptions to the contrary are not accurateand are playing games with these peoples livelihoods - again CBOMB are not asking for aMarina. They are expressing their base commercial needs for safe (safer for people and theenvironment) and useable facilities.

If the result for now is to be like for like, then lets ensure this is a sustainable investment andnot just a spend. This facility needs to have a future. To provide for a future, consider therebuild (as best as is possible under conditions of funding) but at the same time do someresponsible forward planning and finalise all and any necessary government approvals andrequirements for a breakwater /shelter for the Clump Point Jetty.

Owen, the consultations presented that it is understood and accepted that a breakwater typeprotection is necessary to make this facility safe and commercially viable. To re-build theClump Point Jetty without any secured forward planning to allow for such necessaryprotection in future would be ...............short sighted, possibly even irresponsible.

Of all Tourism Industry impacted by TC Yasi the Marine operators are amongst the mostgreatly affected (Mission Beach and Cardwell). These communications and efforts to worktowards their recovery are appreciated and critical. There is still assistance needed as otherthird party influences are a restraint for them also such as Island Park camping, walking trailaccess, future of Dunk Island resort, and rebuild of Port Hinchinbrook Marina.

Owen, again thank you to you, CCRC and consultants for continued communications withCBOMB. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

Regards,

Richard

( MEL, it would be a good idea if we can meet soon on this. Please give me a call to set up adate /time.)

Richard BlanchetteTourism Industry Recovery OfficerTTNQ

M: 0409 040 667E: [email protected]

On 12/01/2012, at 2:14 PM, Hitchings, Owen wrote:

Hi Richard

I am only sitting on the edge of this process. However, I believe that while things like wave barriersand breakwaters were considered there is only enough money for what is essentially a like-for-likerebuild. The Government has, I understand, made it clear that additional funding for improvementsis not available. As much as possible is being done with the money available. What little room thereis to move is being discussed with the Stakeholder Reference Group initially.

If you would like more info on the consultation process or on the limitations on design associated withfunding, let me know and I can put you in contact with others who can give you more detail.

Mel – would you be able to follow up with Richard on this?

regards

Owen HitchingsDeputy Coordinator - RecoveryCassowary Coast Regional Council

Postal: PO Box 887INNISFAIL Q 4860

In Person: 70 Rankin Street INNISFAIL Q 4860

M: 0459 836 415P: (07) 4043 8813E: [email protected]

From: Richard Blanchette [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012 1:56 PMTo: Rob Giason; Paul Fagg; Jeff Gillies; Hitchings, Owen; Downs, JenniferCc: Dennis DalySubject: Fwd: MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE - CBOMB position on Clump Point Jetty

Hi there,

Attached below is a summary of the Commercial Boat Operators Mission Beach(CBOMB) concerns.

Focussed mainly on Clump Point Jetty. Main thing is that the replacement Jetties canactually perform their intended task. It looks like the intention is to replace as waswhich means the vast majority of local commercial vessels CAN NOT physically usethe facility, & and fuelling systems and safety wont be improved.

Critically important that communication continues between CCRC, Consultants and CBOMB.Funding category for this funding package, which included Jetties & Cardwell Foreshore(which is obviously not a rebuild), needs to be qualified. (Paul or Owen can you advise here?)

Sorry for the delay in forwarding these but I have been careful to ensure CBOMB agree withmy notes to ensure the message is direct from the ground. I had that confirmed this morningwhen I saw the Chairperson, Dennis Daly.

If you have any queries at all let me know.

Regards,

Richard

Richard BlanchetteTourism Industry Recovery OfficerTTNQ

M: 0409 040 667E: [email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Blanchette <[email protected]>Date: 29 December 2011 12:24:07 PM AESTTo: Dennis Daly <[email protected]>Subject: CBOMB position on Clump Point Jetty

Hi Dennis,

As attached, just wanted you to read it and make sure your happy with my notes before I sendthem on.

Register your business for TNQ Smart Phone and Facebook Apps today! For moreinformation contact [email protected]<2011 DEC CBOMB meeting 21Dec11.docx><ATT00001..htm>

***********************************************************************WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legallyprivileged, confidential or private information and may be protected bycopyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it wasintended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No oneis allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, printor copy this email without appropriate authority.

If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies ofthis email and delete it and any copies of it from your computersystem. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, andany legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is notwaived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not containand is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference bythird parties or replication problems (including incompatibility withyour computer system).

Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect theopinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilisingthe same infrastructure.***********************************************************************

TourismIndustryRecoveryOfficer 21Dec2011

CBOMBMeeting–JettyrebuildsatClumpPointDate:21Dec2011Meeting;DennisDaly,ChairmanCBOMB&RichardBlanchette,TIROCCRChasheldtwoconsultationsontherebuildingoftheJettiesatClumpPoint&DunkIsland.Fundingforthiswasapproved15April2011.ThismeetingwithCBOMBwasfollowingtheconsultationssoCBOMBcouldexplaintheirpositionandanyconcernsandrecommendationsforconsideration.ThesenotesbelowareinrelationtoClumpPointJetty.(DunkIslandJettyisCBOMBkeypoints:

- MainpurposeofaJettystructureistogetpeopleonandoffvesselssafely.Soundsobvious,hencethequestionastowhyCCRCisdeterminedtorebuildthepreviousClumpPointJetty?Thiswillnotassistthestructuretoperformitspurposeofbeing(egthereisonly1localcommercialvesselthatcanphysicallyusethisJetty.)Lookingforward,ifcommercialoperatorscannotphysicallyorsafelyusethisstructureitwillbedifficultforCCRCtochargefeestoassistfuturemaintenance.

o Fundingbasisdoesnotrequiretherebuildtobe‘likeforlike’(aswasstatedinconsultationwithCCRC,CBOMB,DTMR.)

o Structuremustbeabletocaterforsmallercommercialvessels(astructure,orpartof,thatfloatsandissheltered)

o Structuremusthavefuellingfacilitiesforbenefitoftheenvironment,people,andcommercialoperations.

o Nodesignspecificsweresoughtfromcommercialoperatorspriortoconsultations??Asaresultthedesignspresentedwillnotcaterforlocalcommercialvessels(exceptforoneinfineweather,andfornoneinroughweatherorlightwindsfromtheNorthEast).Firststepistoknowwhatyouaredesigningfortoefficientlydesignasuitablestructure.Abit‘horsebeforethecart’butCBOMBdidprovidethefollowingspecificsattheconsultation;Minimumdesignspecificationstocaterfor:

1/Min9vesselsupto12metresinlength(includeCoastGuard)2/Minwidthof3.5metres(vehicleaccessforluggage,emergency&roomforpeople)3/Capacityfor8000litresoffuel

- Someurgencyneeded.ThetimelinepresentedbyCCRCstatestheTenderprocesswillnotstartuntilJune2012.Thisneedstobejustifiedasthereisnoclearexplanationforthedelaysbetween15April2011funding,29November2011consultation,andJune2012tendering.

TourismIndustryRecoveryOfficer 21Dec2011

- Breakwaterprotectionessential.Toallowthestructuretoserveitspurposeashelterisnecessaryforittobepossibletoboardanddisembarkpassengers,luggage,andemployeessafely.

o $20Mshelterdesignisnotfeasible(consultantwasnotgivenabudgettoworktowhendraftingthisconcept).CBOMBhavepreviouslypresentedalternativesunder$5Mforconsiderationhere.Consideralternativedesignswithinarealisticbudget.

o Shelterisanimportantelementforcommercialoperatorsandenvironment.Currentlymooredvesselsareexposedinadverseweather;thisincreasesriskofsafetyandvesselsbeingwashedashoreanddamagedordestroyed,riskoffueltanksrupturingandrelatedrisktoenvironment,increasedInsurancefees.

o DesignerConstructTender;suggestiontoputoutatenderforengineerstopresentdesign&constructionsolutionsforthisprojectwithabudget.Allowsforalternativedesignoptionstobeputforward–withinrealisticbudget.

o Ensureapprovalsaresecuredforabreakwater/safetyshelter.Signedoffbyallnecessarydepartmentsnow.Importantlegacyfromthisprocessisthattheapprovalsaresecuredtoallowfordesignandbudgetingpurposes,andfutureconstruction.Regardlessofwhenorhowitcanbeconstructed,thisfacilityisneededtoallowtheJettytoserveitspurpose-sogetthepaperworkdone.

Insummary;CBOMBwerepleasedthatthecommunicationhasopenedfortheirmemberswithCCRConthisproject.CBOMBrepresentsestablishedlocalMarinebusinessesinMissionBeach.Thesebusinessesuselocalsuppliers,servicesandemployeesandserviceMissionBeachandtheFamilyIsland’sandresorts.Inthisprojectthereisaverybigopportunitytosensibleaddressmanyofthehistoricissuestoallowasafeandsustainablefutureonalllevelswithbenefitsforthewidercommunity.

Lee, Mason

From: Cynthia Francis [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012 10:49 PMTo: Shared RecordsSubject: Clump Point Jetty Proposals

Page 1 of 1

11/01/2012

Dear Sir, I write to express my concern over the proposals for the clump point jetty http://www.missionbeachcassowaries.com/uploads/5/9/8/7/5987112/clump_point_jetty_options_ashlg which I strongly believe are 'marinas by stealth' . Therefore I will only support a proper jetty upgrade. yours in Mission Beach, Cynthia G. Francis Active Resident of Mission Beach -- LIVE without PRETENDING, LOVE without DEPENDING, LISTEN without DEFENDING, SPEAK without OFFENDING.

Clump Point Jetty January 2012

At the end of 2011 the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) engaged GHD Consultants to meet with Mission Beach stakeholders concerning the future of the Clump Point Jetty. The consultants were supplied with a list of stakeholders by the CCRC which included representatives from tourism, commercial boat operators, traditional owners and government departments. Representation from the conservation sector was not included in this initial consultation. Why was the conservation interests not included? Especially given the strong interest from the community regarding the environmental impact of any of the proposals to date for marine infrastructure at Clump Point. The community demonstrated its concern as recently as March 2011 with a comprehensive presentation to Council specifically about the Clump Point Jetty. GHD developed a list of scenarios reflecting the ‘wants’of the stakeholders consulted. These scenarios were then presented at a public information day on Tuesday 13th December last year at the Mission Beach Resort. The GHD options offered are either very costly or impracticable on this exposed, high-energy coast. Large posters on display showed the locations considered for each of four ‘options’. (Fig.1)

1Fig 1

2

These options have not been backed by engineering or feasibility studies. As presented, none of them are environmentally acceptable because they include rock walls and a large concrete embayment. For some time the Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, has been putting pressure on the Council to divert the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) funds away from the jetty and into what he calls a ‘safe boat haven’. It almost appears the drawings on display were drawn up to fit Mr Katter’s vision. Councilor Downs challenged Mr Katter in the media to come up with the money to which he replied this could be found by selling berths in the marina (shades of Port Hinchinbrook?). During this period the public were probably somewhat confused by Mission Beach Community Association distributing a wishful scenario put together by a group of commercial boat owners. The proposal which consisted of long floating unsecured pontoons forming an enclosed area - another marina by stealth (see link at bottom of this document). At the information presentation we were told the GHD information sheets could be viewed on the CCRC website from Friday 17 Dec and that community feedback was encouraged. The posters never made it onto the site and there has been no call for any further feedback. Why are Mission Beach locals being subjected to discussion of rock walls and marinas when there is no money for such facilities? It has been made quite clear by the QRA that the $5.5m allocated for the repair and reconstruction of the Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetties is to be used only to reinstate what was there prior to the cyclone. That is, a jetty. From an environmentally and socially appropriate point of view, the preferred facility would be an attractively designed T-ended jetty with steps and landings and two single removable pontoons secured to piles. This would best serve the present recreational and local tourism vessel operations. All the designs presented by GHD would have to go through the normal assessment processes at all levels of government. DERM have made it clear that a state assessment would take at least two years. Should any of these rock walled options be seriously considered, the Clump Point jetty would again be left in a decrepit state, local tourism opportunities would be lost, and the community would continue to have no serviceable jetty for recreational use. The Council will now have to deal with community division created by unrealistically raising some people's hopes for marina-type rock walls (for which there is neither money nor engineering studies nor approvals) while alienating others and blatantly excluding conservation interests from the initial stakeholder consultation.

Of the options offered by GHD, only the jetty part of option 2 (Fig.4 ) is acceptable as a practical and stable landing for recreational and small tourism vessels. Options 1, 3 and 4 (fig 10 ) (and stage 3 of option 2 (fig 7 )) are completely unacceptable. Option 1 (fig. 2) is the same as Option 2 (fig 7) except that a rock breakwater is proposed instead of the high concrete wall. There were no drawings for options 3 or 4 but the summary boxes (fig 3) outline some of the drawbacks of the designs i e adverse environmental impact, difficult vehicle access, services, car parking not available

Fig. 2

Fig.3

3

GHD Option 2 - jetty with floating attachments and/or concrete embayment (fig 7) has been presented in three stages.

Stage 1) (fig 4) A basic straight jetty without side extensions is promoted by GHD as ‘Preferred option’.

Fig.4

Jetties can be built to appear low-key, visually attractive and culturally appropriate, suggestive of the romance of island and coastal life. Jetties can be visually appropriate as the gateway between two World Heritage Areas each listed for its natural values.

A better option than the drawings presented is a T-shaped or L-shaped jetty, accompanied by two sets of steps allowing access to the water at all stages of normal tides. A further short cross piece could be added part way along the jetty, complete with cyclone resistant shade, as a fishing alcove for locals and visitors. (fig 5)

4

Fig. 5a (Not to scale) Fig 5b

(This concept is favoured by conservation groups)

A holiday recreational atmosphere can be encouraged by suitable permanent (metal) "sail" coverings (as on The Strand Townsville, fig 5b).

At least one of the sets of steps should lead to a pontoon riding on its own piles and suitable for use by recreational and small commercial craft.

The piles need not be higher than a metre or so above Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) if the pontoons are sinkable readily detachable for safer stowage ashore (where?) should a cyclone threaten.

The structure must not encourage storage of vessels.

Stages 2 and 3 have a number of serious problems. Stage 2) (fig 6) A straight jetty flanked by two long parallel floating pontoon walkways. Each pontoon string has a sliding ramp for access at one end and at the other end a steel platform on a pontoon which accommodates the tides by moving up and down on piles.

Fig.6

5

6

The use of pontoons has some merit, but not as pictured (fig 6), on this exposed high-energy coast.

• Placement of pontoon strings in a wave break or wave build-up area. The consequences of strong wave action acting on a series of unsecured pontoons have not been taken into account.

• The long parallel pontoon walkways are free to move in any direction (including sideways). The ramps from the jetty to the pontoons must be 20 to 30 metres long if they are not to be too steep for safe access at the lowest tides. In the pictured arrangement in this exposed setting, bridging ramps will suffer extreme stress and wear and will break free in strong weather.

• Very high piles required. To accommodate the combination of HAT and wave action in normal strong weather (eg 20 - 25 knots), the pontoon piles will have to reach a good 6 metres above LAT. Depending on the height of the seabottom at this location, this would require very long piles structurally strong enough (diameter, wall thickness, solid or hollow etc) to stand the required height (say 10 metres) above the seabottom, plus a further length of some metres driven into the seabottom.

• Human safety has not been taken into account.

• There are always people who walk past barriers, enjoy the excitement and thrill of riding a bucking pontoon walkway in rough weather, or just want to defy authority. Is it wise to provide a way for people to access such long unsecured pontoons in this exposed and active area? The jetty, by comparison, provides stable footing.

• The pontoon walkways in Breakwater Marina Townsville are extremely well protected from wave action from the sea, nevertheless these became very active during Cyclone Yasi. Many pontoons (and at least one walkway) were seriously damaged and became unsafe. Some pontoons turned over, exposing steel tie rods and other broken structural parts; and one of the main walkways (C-finger) broke loose at the shore end. Despite warning signs and barriers, people continued to use C-finger, jumping over the broken connection. Within this well-enclosed basin setting broken/sunken pontoons had no serious consequences; the damaged sections were simply fenced off or towed away and "resident" boats were moved to safer berths.

• For the exposed Mission Beach coast, these lessons from Breakwater Marina Townsville (a well-protected boat basin) need to be well-heeded before installing pontoon-supported walkways: where would they be stowed when a cyclone is imminent? Who would carry out the task? Would it be considered safe to do so?

• The end steel floating platforms will be lethal in strong weather if not rendered sinkable. CCRC staff would need to be dedicated to carry out this task before it became unsafe to do so, and to keep people off the walkways, every time strong weather threatened.

Stage 3) A straight jetty with a large (100m long x 30m wide) embayment created by an additional jetty or wharf construction straddling the original jetty's outer end. (fig 7 & 9)

Attached to this jetty are proposed solid concrete walls rising 5.5 metres above Lowest Astronomical Tide, turning the whole into an ugly 100m long wharf (with 30 metre side arms) to create a crude marina.

Fig. 7

Information accompanying GHD Option 2 quotes a cost of $16m above the cost of the jetty repair.

\It makes no reference to any environmental impact and on the information day it was stated by the consultant representative that this option would be approved by DERM. An extra information box (below) makes the point “future proof to enable additional features to be installed in the future”

Fig. 8

This is the more obviously unacceptable of the drawings presented by GHD as additions to the existing or replacement jetty. (fig 7 & 9) • It is clearly a marina by stealth. The only reason to create a solid structure of this size and

shape is for storage of vessels.

7

• Although the concrete "screen" as proposed has no immediate contact with the sea bottom, it is in fact a solid wall suspended on many piles, creating a large embayment with all the hydrological, environmental and visual impacts of a rock wall, including light exclusion.

• The concrete wall does not cater for all states of tide (normal conditions). At Lowest

Astronomical Tide (LAT) very little of the wall is in the water, so some wave action will penetrate to the boat landing and storage area.

• Visually the concrete walls are extremely ugly - at low water this 160 metre-long, sheer

vertical concrete structure will tower 5.5 metres above the water (and will require many ladders/steps to access the water); and - what an invitation to graffiti!! 160 m x 5 m x 2 sides!! - as one sees on concrete walls in industrial ports. Because that is what it will look like.

Fig. 9 Artist impression - not to scale. Wave action would not be as appears

• The lower parts of the wall will become a substrate for marine growth unless they are painted with antifouling paint (toxic to all marine life).

• This structure is absolutely unacceptable as the gateway between two World Heritage areas

renowned for their unique scenic beauty. Imagine arriving by sea and watching this monstrosity looming against the Mission Beach rainforest.

• What would be required structurally for this long suspended wall to withstand cyclonic

wave action of Category 3 and greater? What will happen when it fails? How much damage will the wreckage do to the benthos and the Mission Beach shoreline?

• The GHD depiction of the concrete "wave screen" section is not to scale.

8

Options 1, 3 and 4 (fig 10) (completely unacceptable):

Fig.10

• hydrological impacts: rock wall and other "hard" construction and/or reclamation are recognised in State policy as being damaging to coastal processes. Queensland Govt policy is to maintain natural coastal processes and use hard structures only as last resort, to protect property.

• environmental impacts: apart from the loss of important benthic habitat including seagrass under the immediate "footprint" of the structure (benthic biodiversity being a basis of marine life), these proposals would result in substantial changes in the coastal hydrological regime with ongoing changes in coastal hydrology to north and south. Nearby benthic communities would also be affected.

• visual impacts: This exceptionally beautiful and dramatic coastline is famous for its "World Heritage meets World Heritage" natural scenic beauty. Human-made walls, whether rock or concrete, are a stark contrast to nature's infinitely varying rocky shorelines and the softer sections of sand and foliage. Rock walls shatter the appearance of an unspoilt coastline. These visual changes are not compatible with World Heritage protection and presentation. Nor are they compatible with the National Landscapes Program, which has identified (from commissioned economic studies) that the Australian Tourism Industry's best hope for weathering the future economic world is niche-marketing; that is, to promote what is unique to each regional and local area, focusing strongly on the natural environment and a unique local culture. Marinas and rock walls are commonplace across the world.

• approval difficulties: under the current statutory coastal plan these proposals would be unlikely to get approval ("no adverse impact" in a Area of State Significance (Natural Resources)); under the new (not yet implemented) Coastal Plan, they would require the declaration of a Maritime Development Area (MDA) and a full EIA process. Approvals would also be required from the GBRMPA and under Native Title legislation.

9

10

• quoted cost inadequate: without a full feasibility study and engineering plans, the proposals pictured cannot be properly costed; they are likely to cost substantially more than as suggested in the presentation.

• trojan horse: substantial permanent structures creating an embayment amount to a "marina by stealth".

For more information, Presentation to CCRC 11 Mar 2011

Flyer distributed March 2011

About Clump Point

Commercial Boat Owners proposal

Contact Liz Gallie, 0414 402315

Margaret Moorhouse, 0427 724 052

[email protected]

This document was compiled using information gained from the public information session with advice from Alliance to save Hinchinbrook (ASH).

Consistent with presentation by Mission Beach Naturally group to CCRC and flyer (above) which was supported by; Friends of Boat Bay (FOBB); Community for Coastal and Cassowary Conservation Inc (C4); Wildlife Preservation Society Qld (Tully Branch); Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook (ASH); Cairns and Far North Environment Centre (CAFNEC); Johnstone Ecological Society (JES); North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC); Queensland Conservation Council (QCC)

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: Clump point


From: "Boyd Scott" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 20/12/2011 11:08 AM

Subject: Clump point

G`day David, I was unable to attend the meeting at the Mission Beach Resort last week on Tuesday 13

th but

very much wish to make my view clear.

My family moved up from Victoria to Mission Beach and bought land and built a 100 bedbackpackers in 1987 entirely due to Mission Beach `s reputation as a departure-point to the Great BarrierReef and the offshore islands. At that time, the Lonely Planet ( a famous back-packer guide book, listed PerryHarvey`s “Friendship Cruises” as a must-do reef trip for anyone visiting the Far-North). On opening in 1988,Dunk Island was the most popular reason for our guests choosing to stop with us in Mission Beach (70%planned to visit Dunk Island) while visiting the reef was the second most popular tour (50% of guests wentout to the reef from Mission) whilst Tully rafting was the third most popular reason ( 30% went rafting).

The jetty at Clump Point was the departure point for several reef cruises and Dunk and FamilyIsland boat tours on a daily basis back then: it had a fuel bowser and lower level boarding platforms to dealwith boat embarkations in all tides. The structure was old but sound enough and suited the marine tourismrequirements of the time.

Skip forward to 2011 and the situation is very different. Obviously, you can clearly see theaffects the 2 large cyclones (Larry 2006, Yasi 2011) have had on those same facilities in the last 5 years butthat is practically irrelevant compared to the jetty`s major failings in the 21

st century: the lack of protection

from the wind when it comes from the North around to the East and the lack of refuelling and re-vittlingfacilities.

There have been myriad changes in rules & regulations governing the legal operation of acommercial boat since the Clump Point Jetty was originally built and THESE are what renders replacing theexisting structure with a newer version fatuous. Not only will the new jetty fail to allow economic refuellingand loading of modern reef and cruise boats, but Clump Point itself is now a non-insurable boat anchorage.Insurers will not countenance covering a commercial boat until Clump Point has a breakwater or some suchto offer shelter to local and future operator`s vessels at their moorings.

I understand that you are presently limited by only having 5 million dollars to complete bothClump & Dunk Island`s jetties but I implore you to lobby/advise the Council to seek further funding to build apractical and useable commercial structure or you will simply be supervising the building of a very expensivefishing platform and allowing my town and business to wither on the vine as the tourists seek otherdestinations for their holidays.

I cannot convey how important the rebuilding of Clump Point jetty is to the future of MissionBeach in any stronger terms than to openly state “ You have the future of Mission Beach in your hands withthis project”.

Sincerely,

Boyd Scott

Boyd ScottScotty's Beach HouseMission BeachQueenslandAustralia4852Ph: (07) 4068 8676 M: 0407594547 F: (07) 4068 8520www.scottysbeachhouse.com.au e-mail: [email protected]





_____________________This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.

Chief Executive Officer Cassowary Coast Regional Council P O Box 887 Innisfail QLD 4860 email [email protected] 20th January 2012 Re: Ratepayer dollars spent on marina concepts Dear Sir My family is very concerned about the process of consultation resulting in four marina designs being presented as options for the repair of Clump Point jetty at the recent public information session. The Cassowary Coast Regional Council has paid consultant GHD to present some sketchy proposals supposedly for re-creating the Cyclone Yasi damaged Clump Point jetty. GHD consulted “stakeholders” as directed by council, avoiding entirely the conservation sector and any input it might have had. Last year, in the post – CycloneYasi reconstruction context, representatives of local conservation groups, including commercial and recreational boat owners, made a comprehensive presentation to the CCRC showing how useful and attractive a jetty could be, and pointing out some of the environmental impacts and costs of dredging and large structures such as rock walls. (See link below) The council will now have to deal with community division created by unrealistically raising some peoples hopes for marina type rock walls (for which there is neither money nor engineering studies nor approvals) while alienating others and blatantly excluding conservation interests from the initial consultation. Anything affecting world heritage areas is much more than a local matter. The GBR and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas have been listed because they are of international significance. The Australian government has undertaken to preserve and present for future generations the area’s geological, ecological and aesthetic values. All levels of government, including the Cassowary Coast Regional Council are charged with this responsibility. I ask that the CCRC take the lead by ensuring priority consideration is given, in any decision making, to protection of the world heritage values that Mission Beach is

recognised and renowned for and that conservation interests be included as a stakeholder in any further consultations regarding Clump Point/Boat Bay. Yours sincerely Tania Devereux and family 153 Garners Beach Road Garners Beach QLD 4852 Presentation to Council March 2011

11 Mar 2011

Call for an upgraded jetty to meet boating needs at Mission

Beach

Mission Beach requires a safe landing for passengers embarking and disembarking en route to the Islands and offshore reefs. This need has been identified by the local community, com-mercial operators, Dunk and Bedarra Islands and others who use the current facilities.

This could be provided by a modern T-shaped jetty at Mission Beach, with associated wharf area and pontoon landing, after considering appropriate engineering and design input.

Jetty designed to needs

Post Yasi

Local Councils have been remiss for leaving the jetty in a deteriorating state over a long period of time. The Council and the State government are being urged to address the long standing need for an upgrade.

Although an appropriate rebuild of the present badly maintained jetty is required, a marina as an alternative or appropriate solution to the need for safe passenger embarkation/disembarkation is not appropriate at Clump Point, for the following reasons:

• Services from Mission Beach to the islands and reefs do not run during cyclonic or storm weather. Passengers would not be travelling by sea during rough weather. Visitors to Mission Beach need a safe landing for embarkation and disembarkation, in relatively mild weat

Our jetty is in very poor condition

On June 6th 1994 a letter was written by the owners of Dunk Island and Barrier Reef Connection to the Office of the Co-ordinator General government of Queensland which stated … “The very fact that the Mission Beach jetty facility is in a degenerated state only serves to further the proponents aim”

Passengers will not be travelling during rough weather

The faith placed in the idea that every marina is a safe haven is unjustifiable. A marina built on a lee shore with only a rock wall separating vessels from ocean wave action could never be a safe harbour during cyclonic conditions.

The coast of Mission Beach, although technically a bay, is a wide-open lee shore. It has no protection at all from the very high winds and destructive ocean wave action of a cyclone.

No seaman worth his ticket would leave a vessel on this shore in a storm. Insurance com-panies would take a dim view of it, too. The use of the words "safe haven" in the name of the current marina proposal is misleading.

Marinas are not safe boat havens

Wide open lee shore

See Page 9 Mission Beach Bulletin 153 Jan 2010

Even the well-protected Breakwater Marina in Townsville began to break up, both berth and main walkway pontoons, even though the destructive wave action from the ocean could not reach the marina basin. The sea surge came within 370 mm of the tops of lower piles (the new B finger). The piles on the other fingers in Breakwater Marina are about 500 mm higher.

New information from BMT WBM Consultants’ wave data buoys in Cleveland Bay Townsville during cyclone Yasi indicates average wave heights of 5 metres - that is, maximums as much as 10 metres - for some hours' duration (Townsville Bulletin 21 March 2011). These data, collected at 120 - 160 km from the cyclone centre, cannot be ignored when consider-ing future cyclone impacts on maritime structures along the North Queensland coast.

New information from a study by former Swinburne University Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Young and Swinburne oceanographers Professor Alex Babanin and Dr Stefan Zieger has found that over the last 23 years an increase has been measured in the high end of ocean weather observations, such as 10% in highest wind speeds and 6-7% in highest wave heights (ABC Radio 25 March 2011). The design of any structures built or anchored on the open shores of Mission Beach will need to take into account these and future increases in wind and wave action.

To protect a marina and its contents from the sea surge and associated wave action of a Category 4 or 5 cyclone, the rock wall proposed as part of a marina would need to be a cliff rather than a wall. The height of the "wall" would need to be at least 7 metres, and possibly 10 metres, above Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT); or, if (say) a bit less than 7 metres above HAT, a hundred or more metres wide across the top. The base of such a wall would be enormous, leaving little natural sea bottom exposed. Imagine the impact on the aesthet-ics of Mission Beach and on the perception of visitors seeking presentation of World Heri-tage scenic values.

14 Species of Seagrass

Marinas are basically boat storage basins. With a cyclone approaching, given the usual uncertainty of path and intensity, many boat owners would inevitably leave their boats there through indecision, and risk losing them. In "Port Hinchinbrook" marina, near Cardwell, the piles were readily observed to have been too short for the pontoon girdles to remain in place during a cyclonic sea surge, yet many owners left their boats there despite the high risk of destruction.

At Mission Beach it would be the foreshore vegetation, the benthos and the road, which would bear the consequences of broken pontoons and broken boats, all the related pollu-tion, and the clean-up and repair costs.

There are major concerns about the real life impacts of marina construc-tion and ongoing operational disturbance on the natural values of Boat Bay, a habitat protection area. There would be immediate permanent hydrological changes and loss of seagrass, an essential food for dugongs.

Dugong depend almost entirely on seagrass as a food source, although algae will be taken if necessary. There are 14 species of seagrass found along the Wet Tropics coast-line, many of which are in our area. Sargassum algae (seaweed) beds form essential habitat for many small and juvenile animals - such crabs, prawns, fish and molluscs. Sargassum is highly seasonal.

Pipefishes and seahorses (family Syngnathi-dae) occur along our coastline and many are restricted to specific habitats, including estu-aries and mangroves. Syngnathids are pro-tected globally by CITES (Convention on In-ternational Trade in Endangered Species). Some animals, such as the beautifully cam-ouflaged Sargassumfish, are dependent upon the seaweed Sargassum.

Halophila seagrass, which grows sparsely like this, is preferred by dugong due to its high nutrient and nitrate content. Seagrass beds can be damaged by dredging, smothering by sediment or changes in turbidity. Seagrasses can form mixed groupings, and may be found from shallow estuarine waters down to over 50 metres depth.

This anglerfish (above right) has evolved into an excellent mimic of a section of Sargassum (all the better to swallow an unsus-pecting small fish).

This Halicampus pipefish (right)also mimics a piece of seaweed, but so that it is not eaten (it hunts tiny crustaceans among the seaweed).

39 Species of Mangroves

There are 39 species of mangroves along the Wet Tropics coast, with diversity increasing up rivers and in wide, soft-substrate estuaries. Fewer species exist along our exposed lee coastline. The unique Clump Point is very special as it is the only place in the Wet Tropics where a basalt headland exists, with mangroves and diverse rainforest growing on it. This juxtaposition is one of the most surprising features of the region and it must be protected.

Following is the relevant legislation, state and Commonwealth. The development of Boat Bay for a marina is inconsistent with all Queensland state and Commonwealth legislation. Marine Park and Coastal legislation is so strong that approval would be virtually impossible.

Much of the proposed site is Queensland State Marine Park.

In 1994 the incoming state Labour government declared the longest marine park in the world, including the whole length of the intertidal zone of the Queensland coast. To build a marina in Boat Bay would mean excising part of this state marine park.

Under the previous Coastal Plan most of the proposed site was declared an Area of State Significance (natural resources) (ASSNR) significant wetlands. Although the ASSNR designations do not appear in the new Coastal Plan, significant coastal wetlands will con-tinue to be protected. Although a potentially marina-enabling designation "Maritime Devel-opment Area" (MDA) was published in the original draft for Boat Bay, it was deleted from the final (now published) draft. The new Plan states that there will be a study into maritime facility use for the whole Cassowary Coast.

It is only a few years since the Mission Beach community went through a detailed consul-tation process to create the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031

(a statutory Plan, which ultimately binds local councils). The Mission Beach community has reflected in the contents of the Plan their concern about the protection of the natural habitat and village lifestyle of the area.

"The urban footprint at Mission Beach will be constrained to minimise future impacts on ecological values, coastal hazard risks and loss of the village character. Densities are to be kept low and building heights limited to avoid increasing traffic generation and urban impacts. Future development should occur around village nodes and avoid linear form, maintain and restore cassowary habitat, and ensure good corridor connectivity." (p26) "Mission Beach ... considered as priority areas for biodiversity conservation (DCILGPS, 2000)". (p41) "Land use policy 4.1.7 seeks to protect the values and character of village activity centres. Village activity centres such as Kuranda and Mission Beach have a strong village feel and linkages with regional landscape and rural production values ... Planning scheme proposals to increase density at specific localities must ensure that an appropriate balance of regional planning objectives can be achieved. This includes maintaining the valued FNQ lifestyle and character, tropical urban design and open space ..." (p75)

The local Djiru people are close to finalising a Native Title claim. Their cultural sites are another protected feature of Boat Bay.

All of Boat Bay is within a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) dark blue zone: habitat protection. In 2003 the nature of the GBRMP zones was changed, with the en-actment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003. The new mapping is statutory, that is, the provisions associated with each zone have the strength of law.

A marina proposal would also trig-ger referral to the Commonwealth under the Environment Protec-tion and Conservation of Bio-diversity (EPBC) Act. This refer-ral would relate to direct and flow-on impacts on listed species, such as migratory species (eg du-gongs, turtles) and endangered species (eg cassowaries).

The Commonwealth Government recognises the authority of properly made state legis-lation and will not approve development activities which are inconsistent with state leg-islation.

The Tropical North Queen-sland Tourism Opportuni-ties Plan (TOP), published in July 2010, selected Boat Bay as a site for a brand new large scale marina development. The TOP is not, however, a statutory plan. It has no legislative power. No matter how ex-citing it sounds to tourism proponents, it is little more than a wish list put together by a group of like-minded people.

It was extraordinarily un-fortunate that the writers of the TOP did not consult the Department of Envi-ronment and Resource Management (DERM) and their planners, legal advisers, or the local community. It was especially unfortunate that these offerings to business propo-nents were not assessed for their compliance with the relevant planning and environ-ment law.

Some businesses recently arrived in Mission Beach may have been misled by not being made aware of most of the relevant legislation.

Outstanding biodiversity supporting endangered species and ecosystems

The nature and beauty visitors travel to the area to enjoy can only be conserved to the extent that large maritime structures are not built within habitat protection zones.

Low impact tourism

The push for a marina would also see the Mission Beach community acrimoniously divided, as Cardwell was by the Oyster Point/"Port Hinchinbrook" debacle.

Community division would follow in the footsteps of the recent long-lasting example of Cardwell, where assault, death threats and other forms of intimidation were directed over many years against those who had opposed the environmentally damaging "Port Hinchin-brook" proposal.

This marina project was promoted on the grounds that the locals would get an "all-weather, all-tides boat ramp", in defiance of engineering advice that the site was subject to severe siltation. A good boat ramp was built, but it is far from "all-tide". Like the rest of "Port Hinchinbrook" marina and associated waterways, it cannot be kept open, due to se-vere siltation (as the 1977 Queensland Harbours and Marine Department Study forewarned) and lack of unlimited storage space for dredge spoil; seadumping of dredge spoil is not per-mitted.

The natural values of Bingil Bay, Boat Bay, Clump Point, Mission Beach and the Mission Beach hinterland, are well documented and have strong statutory protection.

Terrain/CCRC partnership produced brochure highlighting the importance of the natural values of Clump Point Read brochure

Support for a modern T-shaped jetty, with associated wharf area and pontoon landing would give Mission Beach the marine facilities it needs. It would be a major step toward securing a sustainable economic future for Mission Beach by offering a unique visitor ex-perience based on the community vision of a relaxed village atmosphere.

Sustainable Community, environment and economy

A good tourism strategy starts with growing the local commu-nity. To quote the Pacific Area Travel Association....

"The key phrase to planning should be residents first, tour-ists second. It sounds contradictory but it is the best kind of tour-ist development. It's the best, most se-cure, the longest last-ing, and the most profitable" "The best visitor experience is to share for a mo-ment a unique coun-tryside and an envi-able lifestyle"

An appropriate rebuild of the present badly maintained jetty should be a priority and would not sacrifice the natural, social and cultural values of Mission Beach.

For more information; http://www.missionbeachcassowaries.com/boat-bay.html

Please contact

[email protected]

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: Clump point Jetty


From: Dominic Mobbs [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2012 10:35 AMTo: 'Bill Shannon 'Cc: Shannon, BillSubject: FW: Clump point Jetty

In case you have not seen Bill.

From: liz gallie [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012 8:40 PMTo: [email protected]: Clump point Jetty

MARINA BY STEALTH!Important decisions about Clump Point Jetty

Option 2 of 4 designs by GHD Consultants

Environment groups not considered stakeholders!At the end of 2011 the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) engaged

consultants to meet with Mission Beach stakeholders concerning the future ofthe Clump Point Jetty. The consultants were supplied with a list of

stakeholders by the CCRC which included representatives from tourism,commercial boat operators, traditional owners and government departments.

Representation from the conservation sector was not included on the listdespite long term interest in the future of Clump Point including a

comprehensive presentation to Council early in 2011

Why was the conservation interests notincluded?

See the proposals here

Please email the Cassowary Coast Regional Counciland let them know none of the proposals are acceptable except the long

overdue upgrade to the jettyof a design that will compliment the village atmosphere and gateway between

two World Heritage areas

THANKYOU FOR TAKING ACTION AND PASSING THIS EMAIL ON TO HELPRETAIN THE SPECIAL VALUES OF MiSSION BEACH

Reply with the word unsubscribe if you wish to be removed from this email list.www.missionbeachcassowaries.com






18/01/12To CEOCassowary Coast Regional CouncilP O Box 887 InnisfailQld 4860email [email protected]

Re; Ratepayer dollars spent on marina concepts.

Dear Sir

Along with this pre written letter I would like to strongly point out that the council hasan obligation to inform and consult with all members of the community, not just thevested interests of the minority, a lot of people in Mission Beach just want a peacefullife and not be bothered by the politics, and don’t have the political interest to voicetheir opinion. However it is also difficult for the general public to make informedcomments if these choices are bias. I notice on the “Safe boat harbour charter”website, in order for one to make a comment one needs to support the proposal, this isvery bias, and one sided site deliberately designed to mislead the people, it hasnothing about the environment, social, or aesthetic difficulties that it presents, as wellas presenting personal opinions as facts. To call it a “Safe Boat Harbour” rather thanMarina (which it is), is a blatant attempt at hiding the true nature of the project. Whywould they do this? Because they know that if they said the word Marina, there wouldbe strong opposition to it, especially if the true facts on the impacts were revealed.The results of this kind of website cannot be used or presented as representative ofcommunity opinion.Any environmental study would very quickly come to the conclusion that the delicatemarine eco system would be adversely affected no matter how a Marina would bebuilt.I notice on the GHD options, there is not one design for a Jetty, all are for Marinas.Might I remind you, this money is for the repair of the existing Jetty. I would also askhow much of my tax paid money has been spent on these proposals and who’s pocketis it going to?Just remember “YOU” are the guardians of this area and you have a responsibility forthe preservation of this world renowned unique area for all generations that will behere long after you and I are gone.

I am very concerned about the process of consultation resulting in four marina designsbeing presented as options for the repair of Clump Point jetty at the recent publicinformation session.

The Cassowary Coast Regional Council has paid consultant GHD to present somesketchy proposals supposedly for re-creating the Yasi damaged Clump Point jetty.GHD consulted “stakeholders” as directed by council, avoiding entirely theconservation sector and any input it might have had.

Last year, in the post – Yasi reconstruction context, representatives of localconservation groups, including commercial and recreational boat owners, made acomprehensive presentation to the CCRC showing how useful and attractive a jettycould be, and pointing out some of the environmental impacts and costs of dredgingand large structures such as rock walls. (See link below)

The council will now have to deal with community division created by unrealisticallyraising some peoples hopes for marina type rock walls (for which there is neithermoney nor engineering studies nor approvals) while alienating others and blatantlyexcluding conservation interests from the initial consultation.

Anything affecting world heritage areas is much more than a local matter. The GBRand Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas have been listed because they are ofinternational significance. The Australian government has undertaken to preserve andpresent for future generations the Area’s geological, ecological and aesthetic values.All levels of government, including the Cassowary Coast Regional Council arecharged with this responsibility.

I ask that the CCRC take the lead by ensuring priority consideration is given, in anydecision making, to protection of the world heritage values that Mission Beach isrecognised and renowned for and that conservation interests be included as astakeholder in any further consultations regarding Clump Point/Boat Bay.

Yours Sincerely

Neil GalliePO Box 154 Mission Beach

Presentation to Council March 2011

Clump Pt Jetty Submission - Richard Rudd.txtFrom: Brennan, Terry [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2012 4:55:12 PMTo: Shared RecordsSubject: FW: Mission Beach jetty

Please register in ECM under NDRRA and Mission Beach marine infrastructureupgrade.

Thanks

Terry BrennanChief Executive OfficerCassowary Coast Regional CouncilPhone: (07) 4030 2203Mobile: 0458 449 718Fax: (07) 4061 4258E-Mail: [email protected]

Office Address / Postal Address70 Rankin Street / PO Box 887Innisfail, Qld. 4860 AustraliaWeb: www.cassowarycoast.qld.gov.au

-----Original Message-----From: Richard RUDD [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2012 4:37 PMTo: Brennan, TerrySubject: Mission Beach jetty

Dear Sir/ Ms,This Council is obliged by World Heritage Listing commitments toprotect the values of the local environment.

The Clump Point jetty should be restored as before without destructivealterations nearby. The amenity and charm of Mission Beach area isthe 'atmosphere' and environment. Why destroy all that withinappropriate development so the region looks just like a slice of theGold Coast that fell off a truck.

What you already have is unique, and a strength... not a weakness.And stop wasting taxpayers money "pipe-dreaming" with expensive consultants.!

regards R Rudd

Page 1

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: Clump point jetty


From: ian mccallan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 5:32 PMTo: Brennan, TerrySubject: Clump point jetty

I understand that despite showing substantial interest in this subject the environmental groupconcerned has been excluded from the list of interested parties given to the consultants by council. Isthis an oversight or a deliberate move to exclude them please?Regards

Ian McCallan

Ian McCallanThis message is for the named recipient only and cannot be forwarded, sent or distributed to anyother person without the written permission of Ian McCallan






North Queensland Conservation Council Inc.

Townsville Environment Centre, 340 Flinders Mall P.O. Box 364 Townsville 4810

Phone (07) 4771 6226 Fax (07) 4721 1713 [email protected]

CEO Cassowary Coast Regional Council P O Box 887 Innisfail Qld 4860 email [email protected]

Clump Point Jetty Dear Sir North Queensland Conservation Council is extremely concerned about marina-type designs being presented as options for the repair of Clump Point jetty, and about the failure to include the conservation sector in discussion of the issue. Our concerns about a marina-style development, based on, inter alia, our experience with the Port Hinchinbrook development and the Nelly Bay Harbour development, relate to the potential impact on environmental, community and economic values. The responsibility of the Cassowary Coast Regional Council to protect the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area means that a robust and comprehensive assessment of the impact of any development on those values is an essential component of any development consideration. The experience of Councils in relation to marina development elsewhere on the Queensland coast – especially in cyclone-prone areas – must also be very seriously taken into consideration. These experiences would demonstrate the considerable and ongoing economic and social costs associated with marina developments. NQCC urges the CCRC to take into consideration the well-founded views of conservation groups in the area and take an empirical approach to development at Mission Beach based on the experiences of Regional Councils elsewhere in Queensland. Yours sincerely Wendy Tubman Coordinator 20 January 2012 This document has been prepared in Centruy Gothic – the font that researchers at the University of Wisconsin found uses 30% less ink than standard Arial. Even so – please don’t print it out unless essential!

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: Responding to correspondence


From: John Rainbird <[email protected]>Date: 29 January 2012 7:36:41 AM AEDTTo: "Brennan, Terry" <[email protected]>Subject: Boat Bay marine infrastructureGood morning,

I would like to comment on the proposed Boat Bay marine infrastructure proposalsdeveloped by GHD.

Whilst recognising the need for a safe mooring for small vessels, the current proposalsappear to be trying to make Boat Bay into more of a marina environment thanreplacing a local jetty with a safe and sensitive design.

I am concerned that the cost of the proposals put forward put an unnecessary burdenon tax payers to create a playground for wealthy boat owners rather than creating anappropriate jetty in keeping with the aesthetic and environmental values of this specialplace.

I believe a suitable jetty can be built to replace the current jetty that allows for the safemooring of small vessels, for locals to fish and enjoy the bay without the need for suchlarge and intrusive infrastructure as proposed by GHD. Construction of breakwaterswill change the dynamics of the bay and likely create adverse impacts on neighbouringsections of the coast through interference in the transfer of wave energy and the flowof offshore currents.

I urge CCRC to focus on a more affordable and more appropriate facility thatmaintains the specialness of this beautiful bay, rather than something that will surelyturn Boat Bay into one more special place that lost its character to poor developmentdecisions, and where rate payers and the public at large are expected to pick up thecost for facilities largely aimed to cater to the needs of a select few.

Yours sincerelyJohn Rainbird


If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies ofthis email and delete it and any copies of it from your computersystem. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and

To:Cc:Bcc:Subject: Fw: Responding to correspondence


From: Solway <[email protected]>Date: 29 January 2012 5:19:05 PM AEDTTo: "Brennan, Terry" <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed replacement of Clump Point JettyDear SirThe proposals before Council for rebuilding the jetty at Clump Pointgo far beyond mere rebuilding, and in my opinion none of them isacceptable.In such a scenic, geologically unique coast, rich in rare flora andvulnerable fauna, it would be a tragedy to create the invasivestructures depicted on the plans. Any one of them leaves open thepossibility of destructive traffic (both land and sea), and greatshifts in water-flow and mud and silt deposits. If/when that happens,the beauty of the area and hence its attractiveness to visitors whoappreciate natural environments will have been lost for all time.Please reject those proposals. Please refresh your acquaintance withthe uniqueness of the whole Mission Beach region (You can do it bylooking at the video clip provided by Friends of Boat Bay - justgoogle it - if you haven't time to leave your desk).Just consider rebuilding the jetty in a sustainable way, strongenough to resist the turbulence of storms and cyclones. By doing thatyou will better please the people who live in the villages nearby,the visitors who wish to experience Nature in a gentle way, and allthose who feel that resorts and marinas are a blot on the landscape,pandering only to those who have lost touch with the real values oflife on Planet Earth.Thank you for attending to my pleaYoursSolway Nutting

----- Forwarded by Stephen C Day/Northern/QMR/Au on 31/01/2012 04:20 PM -----


ATTACHMENT 9

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report


Clump Point Jetty

216/LGS/N002

Cultural Heritage Assessment

Report prepared for

The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Nicholas Bultreys

Bilyana Archaeological Consultancies

July 2012

Clump Point Jetty – Cultural Heritage Assessment – July 2012 2

Disclaimer

This document has been produced as a guide to assist in cultural and natural resource

management planning by Bilyana Archaeological Consultancies on behalf of the Department

of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (TMR).

This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study,

research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be

reproduced by any process without written permission from the author and TMR. © TMR

and Bilyana Archaeological Consultancies 2012.


Table of Contents

Page

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Introduction 5

2.1. Survey Aims 5

2.2. Study Area 6

3. Principles of Cultural Heritage Management and Legislation 6

4. Survey Background 7

4.1. Ethnography 7

4.2. History 8

4.3. Prior Archaeological Research 9

4.4. Landuse and Prior Disturbance 10

4.5. Heritage Database Searches 10

4.6. Fieldwork Constraints 11

5. Survey Methodology 11

6. Results 11

7. Recommendations 13

8. References 14


1. Executive Summary

This report discusses the cultural heritage assessment of 2.8ha of land and sea which is to contain a

new jetty near Clump Point in Mission Beach, North Queensland, within the traditional lands of the

Djiru People. This assessment was conducted by Nicholas Bultreys of Bilyana Archaeological

Consultancies and Leonard Andy and Collin Hart of the Djiru on the 13th July 2012.

Searches of DERM’s cultural heritage database, the Queensland Heritage Register, the Australian

Heritage Database and Girringun Aboriginal Corporation’s cultural heritage database did not return

any sites within 300m of the proposed development.

No sites were located during the fieldwork of this assessment.

This assessment recommends that:

i. No issues were identified with the development and that it should proceed as proposed;

ii. TMR retains a “cultural heritage duty of care” under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act

2003 and it is important that personnel working within the study area have an

understanding of the significance of cultural heritage; and

iii. If TMR personnel locate any items or sites which they suspect may be Aboriginal cultural

heritage they should contact Girringun Aboriginal Corporation immediately:

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation

Phone: (07) 40668300

235 Victoria Street

Cardwell, Qld, 4849


2. Introduction

This report discusses the cultural heritage assessment of the proposed location for the new Clump

Point jetty at Mission Beach in North Queensland within the traditional lands of the Djiru People

Native Title Claimant Group (QUD6003/03, QUD6006/03). This assessment was undertaken by the

project’s technical adviser, Nicholas Bultreys (B.A. Hons. Archaeology) of Bilyana Archaeological

Consultancies, and two members of the Djiru; Leonard Andy and Collin Hart.

2.1 Survey Aims

This cultural heritage assessment sought to locate and record any items, sites or places of cultural

heritage significance within the study area. It also sought to identify areas where significant cultural

heritage deposits might remain within the subsurface. This information was used to make

recommendations regarding the proposed development activities.

Figure 1: The proposed location for the new Clump Point jetty showing the 50m buffer of the study

area and 300m buffer for database searches. Basemap from Bing Imagery.


2.2 Study Area

The study area of this report consists of the proposed location for a new jetty at Clump Point in

Mission Beach including the surroundings out to a distance of 50m (Figure 1). This proposed

location is directly beside and just south of the older existing jetty and will likely occupy a similar

footprint of roughly 185m in length and between 3.5m and 7m in width stretching (approximately)

between 405230/8026138 and 405400/8026179 (GDA94 Z55). The study area of this assessment

consisted in total of approximately 2.8ha of land and sea.

3. Cultural Heritage Management Principles and Legislation

Historical heritage within Australia, with the exception of heritage exclusively associated with

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, is protected by the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, which

defines the cultural heritage significance of an object or a place as “its aesthetic, architectural,

historical, scientific, social or technological significance to the present generation or past or future

generations”. The principles which shape this assessment of significance within Queensland are

based upon those originally laid down by the Australian ICOMOS Charter (The Burra Charter), which

has become an international standard in the protection of cultural heritage. The Burra Charter

augments the definitions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 by stating that “cultural significance is

embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places

and related objects”.

The Queensland Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 defines significance as being shaped by two

factors, with either being sufficient to warrant conservation. The first is an object or place’s

“particular significance to Aboriginal people” due to tradition or history, more commonly known as

the “social significance” described in The Burra Charter. Both the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2003 and

The Burra Charter acknowledge that traditional owners are the only appropriate people to assess

the social significance of indigenous cultural sites, places and landscapes.

The second factor which can determine significance is “evidence, of archaeological or historic

significance, of Aboriginal occupation”. The Burra Charter calls this “scientific significance” and

states that “the scientific or research value of a place will depend upon the importance of the data

involved, on its rarity, quality or representativeness and upon the degree to which the place may

contribute further substantial information”. Sites that are unique or uncommon will therefore be


judged to be of higher significance, as will sites of great antiquity or excellent preservation.

Representativeness refers to the ability of a site or a sample of sites to accurately represent the

range of attributes and/or site types in an area. The exception to these definitions is human skeletal

or bodily material, which is always judged to have significance.

4. Survey Background

4.1 Ethnography

The Djiru people of the Mission Beach area were part of a wider group of indigenous coastal

rainforest people who were “physically and culturally distinct” (Harris 1978: 114) from the

inhabitants of Australia’s inland open-woodlands (Dixon 1976). These rainforest groups shared a

common lifestyle, spoke dialects of a common language with their ne ighbouring groups and utilised

a common specialised toolkit. Horsfall and Fuary (1988:14) have summarised the characteristics of

the rainforest people of the wet tropics as having:

i. A high population density with frequent gatherings of people, often for ce remonial

purposes;

ii. Heavy dependence on plant foods including several species of toxic plants;

iii. Establishment of seasonally-based, semi-permanent huts and camps;

iv. Unique weapons for settling disputes by dueling;

v. Widespread use of traps for game and fish;

vi. Some degree of food storage;

vii. Extended trading links and specialisation in trade.

Patterns of settlement reflected the selective exploitation of the rainforest ecosystem by following

an annual cycle of aggregation and disaggregation which matched the fruiting of those plants used

principally for sustenance. Mobility was an integral part of this strategy and was greatest during the

driest months and least during the wettest. However partial sedentism existed through ‘all -year-

round camps’ which were situated close to a range of easily obtainable food sources which less

mobile individuals could utilise throughout the year (Harris 1978: 131).

Ceremonies were held during the end of the dry season and the beginning of the wet, coinciding

with the greatest fruiting of rainforest species which allowed many people to live off the resources

of a single location for several days. These ceremonies allowed ritualised dueling to resolve

disputes, trading and dancing for entertainment and the transmission of custom and law.


4.2 History

The earliest mention of the indigenous occupation of the Mission Beach area comes from the

maritime explorers with King (1827), Lee (1925), Stokes (1846) and Wharton (1893) describing the

smoke of camp fires lining the coast. McGillivray (1952) and Carron (1949) both described favorable

encounters with indigenous people at Kennedy Bay during the landing of the Kennedy expedition,

however after Cardwell was settled in 1864 relations become progressively strained as settlers,

cedar-getters and prospectors began to invade the region. The brig ‘Maria’ wrecked upon Bramble

Reef in 1872 resulting in three groups of survivors making emergency landings in the Mission Beach

area. Two of these groups were attacked by Aborigines and all members killed save for two men

who escaped to Cardwell. A rescue boat sent from Cardwell was also subsequently attacked and in

response a detachment of Native Police and men from the H.M.S. Basilisk was sent to punish the

offenders resulting in a massacre at Tam O’Shanter Point and probably the burning of several camps

at Wongaling and South Mission Beach.

Hostilities increased with the coming of the Cutten brothers and other permanent settlers to the

area (Craig 1896, Banfield 1908, Wildsoet in Woolston and Colliver 1975, Mackness 1983, Johnstone

1903, Heydon 1875). Meston (1896) estimated that for every settler in Queensland that was killed,

fifty Aboriginal people died. Starvation and disease took strong tolls and by the mid 1880’s the local

rainforest tribes had been reduced to 20% of their pre-contact numbers (Dixon 1972: 34). This

resulted in a large degree of social disintegration and by the turn of the century many Aborigines

had abandoned much of their traditional lifestyle and were living on the fringes of European

settlement. Open conflict had ended by 1900 and the passing of the 1897 Aboriginals Protection

and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act resulted in most Aboriginal people becoming wards of the

state without the freedom to move or even work without permission from the local police.

During the early part of the 20th century many people in the Mission Beach area were employed by

Chinese or European settlers and paid in either opium charcoal or rum. This situation was deemed

unacceptable by the Chief Protector of Aborigines resulting in the establishment of the Hull River

Aboriginal Settlement in 1914 which gradually swelled to a population of 1000 peopl e from across

North Queensland; approximately 200 of which died due to a ‘fever’ in 1917 (Jones 1961: 305). In

1918 the settlement was destroyed by a cyclone and abandoned - many of the inhabitants were

forcibly moved to a new settlement on Palm Island. Some escaped into the scrub and avoided

capture to mingle with survivors of other groups throughout the region. Presently the Djiru continue

to live on Palm Island or in towns close to their home-country such as Innisfail, Tully or Cardwell -

and today they regularly visit and enjoy the resources of their homeland.


4.3 Prior Archaeological Research

Archaeology within the wider local area has been driven largely by academic interests and has a

pronounced focus on excavation. The resultant framework of indigenous occupation yields dates of

570BP for shell middens on Hinchinbrook Island (Campbell 1982a, 1982b), 5700BP for Jiyer Cave

west of Innisfail (Horsfall 1987), 685BP for a rockshelter in the Kennedy Valley (Brayshaw 1990) and

1940BP for a mound on the Kennedy Valley floor (Crothers 1997).

Regional surveys through protected lands have recorded shell middens/scatters, rockshelters, art

sites, artefact scatters, quarries, campsites, initiation sites and ceremonial grounds (Border 1987,

1988, Bird 1992a, Pentecost 1994, Crothers 1997). Pedley (1994) recorded hundreds of oral history

sites in the Tully and Murray Valleys, and Girringun Aboriginal Corporation’s cultural heritage

database contains well over 700 oral history and archaeological sites on the coastal plain and

adjacent islands between Innisfail and Ingham.

The results of 25 years of research have shown that Aboriginal people have been utilising the

rainforest habitat of North Queensland for at least 5100 years (Horsfall 1987) with continual use and

occupation of the offshore islands for 1700 years and use of the upland rainforest for the last 700

years (Brayshaw 1990). The presence of post-contact materials within archaeological sites testifies

to indigenous people’s continued use of their traditional lands well after European contact while

incorporating new materials and techniques.

Within Mission Beach a number of regional surveys have been conducted within the coastal region.

Rowlands (1987) recorded two small shell middens with associated stone artefacts at South Mission

Beach and a low density shell and artefact scatter at Clump Point; this site had disappeared within

four years and Rowlands (1989) argued that the dearth of archaeological sites when compared with

the region’s high indigenous population density can be attributed to environmental factors.

Simmons (1993) recorded a ceremonial ground at Clump Point. Pentecost (1998) conducted coastal

surveys between Clump Point and Rollingstone and recorded nine shell and stone artefacts scatters

within the Mission Beach region, before later recording part of a large campsite at North Mission

Beach and a stone artefact scatter at Boat Bay (Pentecost and Pentecost 1995). Bird (1994, 1996)

recorded two stone alignments thought to be fish traps in Boat Bay south of Clump Point.


4.4 Landuse and Prior Disturbance

The presence of a major road (Alexander Drive) and significant infrastructure (the existing jetty and

terminal) within the study area guarantees a high level of prior disturbance. Any archaeological

material that originally existed upon the surface at the site has likely been moved, obscured or

destroyed by either construction activities or the high amount of tourist activity that the location

receives. It is also likely that environmental factors such as cyclones will have further obscured the

archaeological record at the exposed beach location, namely the recent Cyclone Yasi (2011) but also

other cyclones that have affected the region such as Cyclone Larry (2006) and the cyclone which

destroyed the Hull River Mission in 1918. The extent to which these recent cyclones have affected

the coastal archaeological record has been speculated on previously (Rowlands 1987, Bird 1992b)

and will be gauged in an upcoming report (Philip Pentecost, pers. comm.) .

4.5 Heritage Database Searches

Queensland’s Department of Environment and Resource Management maintains a Cultural Heritage

Register and Database of indigenous sites. A search of this database for the proposed development

area yielded no Aboriginal cultural heritage within 300m (DERM Search #1169242).

The Queensland Heritage Register contains only a single entry within Mission Beach; the Ninney Rise

and John Busst Memorial (Place ID 602499) however this is located approximately 2km to the north

and will not be affected by the proposed development.

The Australian Heritage Database does not list any specific locations within 300m of the proposed

development, however it did return search results for the larger regional features of the Great

Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics. The proposed development is not expected to adversely affect the

values of either of these environmental features.

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation in Cardwell maintains a cultural heritage database of sites for all

indigenous groups in the Girringun region which includes the Djiru People. A search of this database

yielded no sites within 300m of the proposed development.


4.6 Fieldwork Constraints

Only a single factor affected the outcome of this cultural heritage assessment; poor sub-surface

visibility within the sea due to weather conditions. It was hoped that a clear day would enable

reasonable viewing of the sea-bed however overcast conditions and muddy waters heavily obscured

the sea-bed on the day of the survey. While it is feasible that this prevented the discovery of

archaeological material it is thought to be unlikely due to prior visits to the area on days of better

climatic conditions (Leonard Andy pers. comm.).

5. Survey Methodology

The fieldwork for this cultural heritage assessment was conducted over a single day on the 13th July

2012. The traditional owner representatives who participated in the survey were Leonard Andy and

Collin Hart of the Djiru People and the project’s technical adviser was Nicholas Bultreys of Bilyana

Archaeological Consultancies.

The survey examined the proposed location of the development (see sub-section 2.2) as best as was

possible with the environmental conditions on the day of the survey (sub-section 4.6). The existing

jetty allowed inspection of the entire footprint of the proposed development without using a boat.

The survey was conducted at low tide and the shore-line examined for signs of fish traps. The beach

and ground immediately above was examined for archaeological material (primarily shell middens or

stone artefact scatters) and evidence of subsurface deposits out to a distance of 50m from the

proposed development.

Any points of interest were photographed and their locations recorded using a Garmin 60CSx GPS

receiver. Any geographic coordinates recorded are in the GDA94 datum (Zone 55).

6. Results

No items, sites or places of cultural heritage were identified during the fieldwork of this assessment

and no issues with the proposed development were identified by the traditional owners.


Figure 2: Looking from the beach along the proposed development area.

Figure 3: Looking from the existing jetty toward the foundations of the former jetty terminal.


7. Recommendations

1. Neither the technical officer nor the traditional owners see any issue with the development

proceeding within the study area of this report.

2. There always remains some possibility for items or sites of cultural heritage significance to

remain within the subsurface even though no trace remains upon the ground. When

conducting activities within the study area TMR will retain a “cultural heritage duty of care”

under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003. Duty of care relies heavily on the ability

and willingness of employees to recognise and report the discovery of cultural heritage and

it is important that personnel working within the study area have an understanding of the

significance of cultural heritage.

3. If TMR personnel locate any items or sites during development which they suspect may be

Aboriginal cultural heritage they should contact Girringun Aboriginal Corporation

immediately:

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation

Phone: (07) 40668300

235 Victoria Street

Cardwell, Qld, 4849


8. References

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003. Queensland Government.

Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999. Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites.

Bird, M. 1992a. A Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of the Wet Tropics World Heritage

Area, Ingham District. Unpublished report to the Wet Tropics Management Authority and

Hinchinbrook Aboriginal and Islander Community Co-operative Society, Ingham.

Bird, M. 1992b. The impact of tropical cyclones on the archaeological record: an Australian

example. Archaeology in Oceania 27:75-86.

Bird, M. 1994. Archaeological assessment of the proposed Mission Beach Harbour Pty Ltd

development site, Clump Point, Mission Beach. Unpublished report to Mission Beach Harbour Pty

Ltd, Mission Beach.

Bird, M. 1996. Report on the cultural heritage assessment of the site of a proposed sewerage plant,

South Mission Beach. Report to Central Queensland Aboriginal Land Council, Mackay. Northern

Archaeological Consultancies P/L.

Border, A. 1987. Cardwell Range Archaeological Survey carried out as part of the Australian and

New Zealand Scientific Exploration Society’s 1987-88 Cardwell Range Expedition. Unpublished report

to the Cultural Heritage Unit, Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane.

Border, A. 1988. Cardwell Range Archaeological survey Phase 2: carried out as part of the Australian

and New Zealand Scientific Exploration society’s 1987-88 Cardwell Range Expedition. Unpublished

report to the Cultural Heritage Unit, Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane.

Brayshaw, H.C. 1990. Well Beaten Paths; Aborigines of the Herbert Burdekin District, North

Queensland: An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study . Townsville, Department of History and

Politics, James Cook University.

Campbell, J.B. 1982a. New radiocarbon results for North Queensland prehistory. Australian

Archaeology 14:62-66.

Campbell, J.B. 1982b. Automatic seafood retrieval systems: the evidence from Hinchinbrook Island

and its implications. In Bowdler, S. (ed.), Coastal Archaeology in Eastern Australia. Canberra,

Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.


Carron, W. 1849. Narrative of an expedition undertaken under the direction of the late Mr. Assistant

Surveyor E.B. Kennedy, for the exploration of the country lying between Rockingham Bay and Cape

York. Kemp and Fairfax, Sydney.

Crothers, L.J. 1997. Towards an assessment of the effects of agriculture on archaeological sites that

are located on the floodplains of the Tully/Murray and Kennedy Valleys, North Queensland .

Unpublished report to the Cultural Heritage Branch, Queensland Department of Environment,

Brisbane.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1976. Tribes, languages and other boundaries in Australia. In Peterson, N. (ed.).

Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. pp. 207-238. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Harris, D. 1978. Adaptation to a rainforest environment. Aboriginal subsistence in northeastern

Queensland. In N. Burton-Jones and V. Reynolds (eds) Human Behaviour and Adaptation pp113-134.

Taylor and Francis, London.

Heritage Act 1992. Queensland Government.

Horsfall, N. 1987. Living in the Rainforest: the prehistoric occupation of North

Queensland’s humid tropics. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Behavioural Sciences, James Cook

University, Townsville.

Horsfall, N. and Fuary, M. 1988. The cultural heritage values of Aboriginal archaeological sites and

associated themes in and adjacent to the area nominated for World Heritage listing in the Wet Tropic

rainforest region of Northeast Queensland. Unpublished report to the State of Queensland. Cultural

Heritage Branch, Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane.

Jones, D. 1961. Cardwell Shire Story. Jacaranda Press, Brisbane.

King, P.P. 1827. Narrative of a survey of the inter-tropical and western coasts of Australia.

Performed between the years 1818 and 1822. John Murray, London.

Lee, I. 1925. Early Explorers in Australia: From the Log-books and Journals. Methuen and Co. Ltd,

London.

MacGillivray, J. 1852. Narrative of the voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake, commanded by the late

Captain Owen Stanley ... during the years 1846-1850, including discoveries and surveys in New

Guinea, the Louisade archipelago, etc. To which is added the account of Mr. E.B. Kennedy’s

expedition for the exploration of the Cape York Peninsula (by William Carron). London. (Australiana

Fascimile Editions. 118. Adelaide 1967).


Pedley, H. 1994. A Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Site Survey of the Wet Tropics World

Heritage Area, Murray Upper District. Unpublished report to Department of Environment and

Heritage, Brisbane.

Pentecost, P.M. 1994. Relocation of Aboriginal Walking Tracks and Cultural Sites on Girramay Tribal

Lands, North Queensland. Unpublished report to CAMU Community, Cardwell, and Jumbun

Community, Murray Upper and the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Cairns.

Pentecost, P.M. 1998. Report on a cultural heritage study of the coastal areas of Rockingham Bay

and Halifax Bay, North Queensland. Unpublished report to Girringun and Elders Reference Group

and Coastcare, Brisbane.

Pentecost, P.M. 2004. Report on a Cultural Heritage consultation and site inspection of a proposed

subdivision of Lots 97, 102, 103 and104 on SP110730, The Esplanade, Mission Beach for John

Holland Pty Ltd.

Pentecost, P.M. and Pentecost, L.J. 2005. Clump Point and Boat, Bay North Queensland, an

assessment of cultural and natural values. Unpublished report to NQ Clump Mountain Co-Op Ltd.

Clump Mountain, North Queensland.

Rowland, M.J. 1987. Report on Fieldwork, Dunk Island and Adjacent Mainland Coast, August 3-22

1985. Unpublished report to Archaeology Branch, Department of Community Services, Brisbane.

Rowland, M.J. 1989. Population increase, intensification or the result of preservation? Explaining

site distribution patterns on the coast of Queensland. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:32-42.

Simmons, A. 1993. A preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of the Wet Tropics World

Heritage Area, Innisfail District. Unpublished report to Wet Tropics Management Authority and

Chjowai Aboriginal Housing Co-operative Society, Innisfail.

Wharton, W.J.L. 1893. Captain Cook’s Journal during his first voyage round the world made in H.M.

Bark Endeavour 1768-71. Elliot Stock Publishers, London.

Documents

: 0 %€¦ · by Mission Beach Cassowaries in their March 2011 presentation to CCRC; improved refuelling facilities; a wider and safer jetty; and Inclusion of shade at the end of